U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2012–1026

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Hydrologic and Landscape Database for the Cache and 

White River National Wildlife Refuges and Contributing 

Watersheds in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma
Cover photographs, taken March 25, 2009.

Upper left—Navigation locks on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas Post Canal, connecting the lower Arkansas and lower White Rivers.

Upper right—Eroding bank margin, lower White River. 

Lower left—Bald cypress, White River National Wildlife Refuge.

Lower right—Overbank sand deposits from seasonal flooding, lower White River, White River National Wildlife Refuge.
Hydrologic and Landscape Database for the Cache and 

White River National Wildlife Refuges and Contributing 

Watersheds in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma

By Gary R. Buell, Loren L. Wehmeyer, and Daniel L. Calhoun

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Open-File Report 2012–1026

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Buell, G.R., Wehmeyer, L.L., and Calhoun, D.L., 2012, Hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges and contributing watersheds in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2012–1026, 79 p., available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1026/.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Physiographic Setting...................................................................................................................................5

Refuge Setting..............................................................................................................................................11

Cache River National Wildlife Refuge.............................................................................................11

White River National Wildlife Refuge..............................................................................................11

Environmental Issues.........................................................................................................................11

Methods Used for Database Construction..............................................................................................12

Database Geographic Extent............................................................................................................13

Hydrologic Data Sources and Data-Retrieval Procedures..........................................................13

Landscape Data Sources ..................................................................................................................14

Database Design and Directory Structure .....................................................................................14

Hydrologic and Landscape Data Reduction...................................................................................16

Descriptive Statistics, Percentiles, and Hydroecological Metrics ...................................16

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration ........................................................................................17

Landscape Data .........................................................................................................................18

Database Summary Data............................................................................................................................18

Hydrologic Statistical Summary.......................................................................................................18

Hydrologic Graphical Summary .......................................................................................................19

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration Interstation Comparison .....................................................19

Landscape GIS Data Layers..............................................................................................................19

Summary........................................................................................................................................................23

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................24

Appendix 1. USGS Annual-Data-Report Manuscripts for Gaging Stations ......................................76

Appendix 2. Hydrograph and Statistical-Summary Plots of Gage Height and Discharge..............76

Appendix 3. Hydroecological and Environmental Flow Characterization.........................................77

Background and Development of Ecological Flow Methodologies ...........................................77

Assessment Techniques....................................................................................................................78

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology .............................................................................78

Physical Habitat Simulation (Model) ......................................................................................78

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration ........................................................................................79

Hydroecological Integrity (Assessment) Process................................................................79
iv

Figures

1. Maps showing location of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges 

and vicinity with major contributing watersheds, waterways, gaging stations, the 

Cache and Grand Prairie Critical Groundwater Areas, Crowleys Ridge (Bluff Hills 

Level IV ecoregion), and Grand Prairie Level IV ecoregion ..................................................4

2. Map showing location of Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges, 

Lower Mississippi–St. Francis (0802), Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas 

(1111) hydrologic subregions and cataloguing units, lines of equal mean-annual 

runoff for the period 1951–1980, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Level III ecoregions......................................................................................................................6

3A–3D. Maps showing percentages of U.S. Department of Agriculture hydrologic 

soil group (HSG) shown by hydrologic cataloging unit in the Lower Mississippi–

St. Francis (0802), Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) hydrologic 

subregions—

3A. HSG A; soils in HSG A have low runoff potential: water is freely 

transmitted through the soil...............................................................................................7

3B. HSG B; soils in HSG B have moderately-low runoff potential: water 

transmission through the soil is unimpeded ...................................................................8

3C. HSG C; soils in HSG C have moderately-high runoff potential: water 

transmission through the soil is somewhat restricted..................................................9

3D. HSG D; soils in HSG D have high runoff potential: water transmission 

through the soil is restricted or very restricted............................................................10

4. Graph showing periods of record for mean-daily gage-height data used in 

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration analyses for gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds and vicinity of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges, 

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.........................................................................................15

5. Graph showing periods of record for mean-daily discharge data used in 

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration analyses for gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds and vicinity of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges, 

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.........................................................................................16

6. Map showing land cover for 1992 for the Lower Mississippi–St. Francis (0802), 

Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) hydrologic subregions and 

cataloging units...........................................................................................................................20

7. Map showing land cover for 2001 for the Lower Mississippi–St. Francis (0802), 

Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) hydrologic subregions and 

cataloging units...........................................................................................................................21

8. Map showing land-cover-change for the period from 1992 to 2001 for the Lower 

Mississippi–St. Francis (0802), Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) 

hydrologic subregions and cataloging units..........................................................................22
v

Tables

1. Management priorities and environmental issues for the Cache and 

White River National Wildlife Refuges, Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802) 

subregion, Arkansas ....................................................................................................................2

2A. Station characteristics for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of 

the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) and vicinity, 

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.........................................................................................30

2B. Hydrologic data periods of record for gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, 

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.........................................................................................31

3. Annotated list of GIS feature classes, tables, and raster datasets in the geodatabase 

catalogue for the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and contributing 

watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma ............................................32

4A. Database files, tables/worksheets, and table/worksheet descriptions for the 

hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White River National Wildlife 

Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma....... 36

4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and 

landscape database for the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma......................40

5. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) hydrologic-parameter groups, 

environmental-flow-component groups, and parameter and component definitions 

used in the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuge IHA analysis .....................51

6A. Summary descriptive statistics and percentiles for gage height by water year for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River 

National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma....................54

6B. Summary descriptive statistics and percentiles for gage height by calendar year 

for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River 

National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma....................55

7A. Summary descriptive statistics and percentiles for discharge by water year for 

gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River

 National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma...................56

7B. Summary descriptive statistics and percentiles for discharge by calendar year 

for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River 

National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma....................58

8A. Selected hydrologic metrics for gage height by water year for gaging stations 

in the contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife 

Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma...................................................60

8B. Selected hydrologic metrics for gage height by calendar year for gaging stations 

in the contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife 

Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma...................................................61

9A. Selected hydrologic metrics for discharge by water year for gaging stations 

in the contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife 

Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma...................................................62

9B. Selected hydrologic metrics for discharge by calendar year for gaging stations 

in the contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife 

Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma...................................................64
vi

10. Graphical summary files for plots of gage height and discharge data collected at 

gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River 

National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma....................66

11. Land-cover percentages for the Cache and White River National Wildlife 

Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, 

based on the 1992 National Land Cover Database ...............................................................68

12. Land-cover percentages for the Cache and White River National Wildlife 

Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, 

based on the 2001 National Land Cover Database ...............................................................70

13. Land-cover-change percentages for the Cache and White River National Wildlife

Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, 

from 1992 to 2001, based on the 1992–2001 National Land Cover Database-Land 

Cover Change Retrofit product.................................................................................................72

Conversion Factors and Datums

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre (ac) 0.4047 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83), 

except where indicated. 
vii

Abbreviations 

ADR annual data report

ANRC Arkansas Natural Resources Commission

ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange

CGWA Critical Ground Water Area

EFC Environmental Flow Component

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards

FAER Fisheries: Aquatic and Endangered Resources (Program)

GIS geographic information system

HAT Hydrologic Assessment Tool

HIP Hydroecological Integrity (Assessment) Process

HIT Hydrologic Index Tool 

HSG hydrologic soil group

HUC hydrologic unit code

HUC4 4-digit hydrologic-unit code

HUC12 12-digit hydrologic-unit code

IFIM Instream Flow Incremental Methodology

IHA Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration

LCCR Land Cover Change Retrofit (product)

LCV5 log base-ten percentiles, coefficient of variation of the set of 

 every 5th percentile (n=19)

MAF master address file

MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium

NATHAT National Hydrologic Assessment Tool

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NJHAT New Jersey Hydrologic Assessment Tool

NJSCT New Jersey Stream Classification Tool

NLCD National Land Cover Database

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NWIS National Water Information System

NWISWeb National Water Information System Web (Interface)

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

PDF Portable Document Format

PHABSIM Physical Habitat Simulation (Model)
viii

RBFI Richards-Baker Flashiness Index

RDB relational database (system)

S&T Status and Trends (Program)

SAS Statistical Analysis System

SCT Stream Classification Tool

STATSGO State Soil Geographic (Database)

TIGER Topologically Intergrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (database)

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WBD Watershed Boundary Dataset

WUA Weighted Usable Area
Hydrologic and Landscape Database for the Cache and 

White River National Wildlife Refuges and Contributing 

Watersheds in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma

By Gary R. Buell, Loren L. Wehmeyer, and Daniel L. Calhoun

Abstract

A hydrologic and landscape database was developed by the 

U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, for the Cache River and White River National 

Wildlife Refuges and their contributing watersheds in Arkansas, 

Missouri, and Oklahoma. The database is composed of a set of 

ASCII files, Microsoft Access® files, Microsoft Excel® files, 

an Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS® 

geodatabase, ESRI ArcGRID® raster datasets, and an ESRI 

ArcReader® published map. The database was developed as 

an assessment and evaluation tool to use in examining refugespecific hydrologic patterns and trends as related to water 

availability for refuge ecosystems, habitats, and target species; 

and includes hydrologic time-series data, statistics, and hydroecological metrics that can be used to assess refuge hydrologic 

conditions and the availability of aquatic and riparian habitat. 

Landscape data that describe the refuge physiographic setting 

and the locations of hydrologic-data collection stations are also 

included in the database. Categories of landscape data include 

land cover, soil hydrologic characteristics, physiographic 

features, geographic and hydrographic boundaries, hydrographic features, regional runoff estimates, and gaging-station 

locations. The database geographic extent covers three hydrologic subregions—the Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802), the 

Upper White (1101), and the Lower Arkansas (1111)—within 

which human activities, climatic variation, and hydrologic 

processes can potentially affect the hydrologic regime of the 

refuges and adjacent areas. Database construction has been 

automated to facilitate periodic updates with new data. 

The database report (1) serves as a user guide for the database, 

(2) describes the data-collection, data-reduction, and data-analysis

methods used to construct the database, (3) provides a statistical

and graphical description of the database, and (4) provides 

detailed information on the development of analytical techniques 

designed to assess water availability for ecological needs.

Introduction

Historically, little emphasis has been placed on the 

characterization of southeastern National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) hydrologic environments because of a plentiful 

water supply and lack of perceived stress on refuge aquatic 

resources. Recently severe droughts and floods, and the 

increased competition for a limited water supply have changed 

this picture. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

has prioritized southeastern NWRs based on the need for 

hydrologic characterization (quantity, timing, duration, and 

diversion of flows) as a management tool for NWR ecological 

assessment and resource management. Baseline hydrologic 

characterization and the relation of the present hydrologic 

regime to reference conditions are requirements for identifying 

refuge hydrologic stressors and providing the framework for 

modeling the potential effects of changes in the hydrologic 

regime on aquatic biota (Buell and others, 2009). Hydrologic 

data, statistical reductions of these data, and hydrologic 

metrics that provide information on the magnitude, frequency, 

duration, timing, and rate of change of hydrologic events can 

provide useful management tools for meeting refuge objectives. These data are essential for monitoring changes in the 

hydrologic regime that could place refuge resources at risk. 

To this end, the Cache and White River NWRs hydrologic and 

landscape database was developed to provide a framework for 

hydrologic and landscape characterization and assessment. 

Refuge-management objectives for the Cache River 

NWR (table 1; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a) include 

protection, preservation, and restoration of wetland habitat 

and migratory waterfowl; relinkage of fragmented bottomland 

hardwood and swamp forest habitat; protection of threatened 

and endangered species; wildlife management for ecosystem 

integrity; and recreation. Agricultural water use and flow 

alteration related to upstream channelization are the primary 

hydrologic stresses for this refuge.
2 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 1. Management priorities and environmental issues for the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges, Lower 

Mississippi–St Francis (0802) subregion, Arkansas.

[NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic subregion (and subregion code) shown in figure 1]

National 

Wildlife

Refuge

Year

established

Refuge area,a

in acres Refuge management prioritiesb Environmental issuesc

Cache River 1986 174,800

(67,500)

Protection, preservation, and restoration 

of wetland habitat

Migratory waterfowl protection

Relinkage of fragmented bottomland 

hardwood and swamp forest habitat 

through reforestation/afforestation

Protection of endangered species, wildlife management, and recreation

Agricultural effects on the 

hydrologic regimed

Extensive channelization and 

ditching upstream of the refuge 

(1920s and 1930s)

White River 1935 175,200

(160,000)

Migratory waterfowl protection

Preservation of one of the largest 

remaining bottomland hardwoodforest ecosystems in the Lower 

Mississippi Valley

Forest thinning

Water-level management for protection, 

preservation, and restoration of 

wetland habitat

Managed wildlife harvesting

Cooperation with other public and 

private resource-management 

agencies in supporting White River 

basin management

Preservation of selected refuge areas and 

environments for scientific study

Agricultural effects on the 

hydrologic regimed

Reservoir operation

Diversion of White River discharge to 

agricultural aqueducts upstream of 

Cache and White River NWRs for 

recharge of the Mississippi River 

Valley alluvial aquifere

Dredging and channel maintenance 

for navigationf

Plans to prevent the Arkansas and 

White Rivers from merging 

downstream of White River NWR 

(levee construction)f

Backwater from flooding in the lower 

section of White River NWR

aThe first number given is acreage within the acquisition boundary. Acreage numbers in parentheses are for land presently acquired (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2011a,b). Refuge-aquisition boundaries shown in figure 1.

bU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a,b.

cSteven Earsom, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, written commun., August 17, 2007, and William Starkel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, written commun., 

August 17, 2007; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a,b.

dArkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission, 2000; Reed, 2003; Schrader, 2009, 2010; Czarnecki, 2010; Arkansas Natural Resources 

Commission, 2011.

eU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, 2011b; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011c.

f

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003, 2009, 2011c.
Introduction 3

Refuge-management objectives for the White River 

NWR (table 1; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011b) also 

include the objectives listed for the Cache River NWR and, 

additionally, meeting the Mississippi Flyway objectives 

(Flyways.us, 2011), maintaining the natural diversity of the 

White River bottomland hardwood ecosystem, cooperating 

with other public and private resource-management agencies 

in supporting the holistic management of the White River 

Basin, and preserving selected refuge areas and environments 

for scientific study and public enjoyment. Agricultural water 

use, flow alteration and channel modification related to 

upstream reservoir operation, and channel modification related 

to dredging are the primary hydrologic stresses for the White 

River NWR.

To address NWR water-availability issues, the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the USFWS, 

developed hydrologic and landscape databases for selected 

southeastern refuges to be used for hydrologic characterization 

and ecological assessment. Eight NWRs in the USFWS 

Region 4 area of the southeastern United States were selected 

for detailed hydrologic characterization as a pilot study and 

possible prototype for national-scale assessment of water 

availability for NWRs: (1) Cache River and (2) White 

River NWRs, Arkansas; (3) Cahaba River NWR, Alabama; 

(4) Lower Suwannee, (5) Caloosahatchee, and (6) J.N. “Ding” 

Darling NWRs, Florida; (7) Okefenokee NWR, Florida and 

Georgia; and (8) Clarks River NWR, Kentucky. This report 

describes and documents the development, use, and context of 

these hydrologic and landscape databases, and describes the 

database for the first two refuges, the Cache River and White 

River NWRs. This database was developed as an assessment 

and evaluation tool to use in examining refuge-specific 

hydrologic patterns and trends as related to water availability 

for refuge ecosystems, habitats, and target species.

In 2010, the USFWS began a comprehensive national 

inventory of refuge water resources for all 553 refuges in the 

NWR System with the goal of providing a database of water 

quantity and quality, legal water rights, infrastructure, and 

water-related needs information. The water-resource inventory 

is expected to take a minimum of 5 years and should provide 

resource managers a baseline from which to assess the effects 

of population growth and climate change on the availability 

of water resources needed to meet refuge management and 

preservation goals (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011c). 

Although the USFWS NWR hydrologic and landscape 

database products are not included in the USFWS waterresource inventory program, the database design, content, and 

intent for use are consistent with and support the goals of the 

inventory program, and could provide useful contributions to 

the program.

The hydrologic and landscape database products for 

NWRs support the goals of two program areas of the USGS 

ecosystems science strategy: (1) Fisheries: Aquatic and 

Endangered Resources (FAER) Program and (2) Status and 

Trends (S&T) Program (U.S. Geological Survey 2007a,b). 

Hydrologic characterization and assessment of NWR aquatic 

environments provides a baseline for the FAER program goals 

of understanding the habitat requirements of aquatic biota and 

developing a framework for the management, conservation, and 

restoration of aquatic resources. The NWR hydrologic baseline 

is also a critical component of the S&T goal of long-term 

ecosystem monitoring, in this case, the status of the forestedwetland ecosystems in the Cache and White River NWRs.

Purpose and Scope

This report describes and documents the development, 

use, and context of a hydrologic and landscape database for 

the Cache River and White River NWRs and contributing 

watersheds in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma (fig. 1). 

The database was developed as an assessment and evaluation 

tool for the refuge managers and USFWS scientific and 

technical staff to use in examining refuge-specific hydrologic 

patterns and trends as related to water availability for refuge 

ecosystems, habitats, and target species. The report (1) serves 

as a user guide for the database, (2) describes the datacollection, data-reduction, and data-analysis methods used to 

construct the database, (3) provides a statistical and graphical 

description of the database, and (4) provides detailed information on the development of analytical techniques designed 

to assess water availability for ecological needs.

The database includes hydrologic time-series data, statistics, and hydroecological metrics that can be used to assess 

refuge hydrologic conditions and the availability of aquatic 

and riparian habitat. Landscape spatial data that describe the 

refuge environmental setting and the locations of hydrologicdata collection stations are also included in the database.
4 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 1. Location of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) and vicinity with major contributing watersheds, 

waterways, gaging stations, the Cache and Grand Prairie Critical Groundwater Areas (CGWAs), Crowleys Ridge (Bluff Hills Level IV 

ecoregion), and Grand Prairie Level IV ecoregion. Map inset, lower left, shows the hydrologic subregions (4-digit hydrologic units) that 

define the contributing watershed area for the Cache and White River NWRs: 0802, Lower Mississippi–St Francis; 1101, Upper White; and 

1111, Lower Arkansas; and locations of major rivers and reservoirs. Individual wetland areas less than 20 square kilometers not shown.

Palarm Cr

Little

Rock

Jonesboro

Memphis

Pine

Bluff

North

 Little

 Rock

Newport

Stuttgart

Turrell

Lonoke

Helena–

West Helena

Manila

Bald

Knob Augusta

Clarendon

Patterson

De Valls

Bluff

Cotton

Plant

 St

Charles

Egypt

Arkansas City

Georgetown

Greers Ferry Lake

Lake

Maumelle

 Lake

Conway

David D 

Terry Lake

White

Arkansas River

Mississippi

River

Big Creek

Cache River

La Grue Bayou

DeView Bayou

Black River

Bayou Meto

River

Little Red River

07264000

07078300

07077820

07074500

07265450

07263500

07263450

07078000 07077952

07077950

07077800

07077000

07077700

07077555

07077500

07077380

07076750

07047970

LEE

WHITE

DREW

DESHA BOLIVAR

LONOKE

PULASKI

GRANT ARKANSAS

CROSS

PRAIRIE

STONE

PHILLIPS

JEFFERSON

POINSETT

SALINE

DALLAS

MONROE

JACKSON

LINCOLN

TUNICA

FAULKNER

VAN BUREN

CRAIGHEAD

COAHOMA

CLEBURNE

CALHOUN

ST FRANCIS

WOODRUFF

SEARCY

CLEVELAND

CONWAY

INDEPENDENCE

CRITTENDEN

LEFLORE

SUNFLOWER

QUITMAN

BRADLEY

MISSISSIPPI

IZARD

PERRY

LAWRENCE

TALLAHATCHIE

SHARP

CHICOT

OUACHITA

TATE

WASHINGTON

DE SOTO

GREENE

SHELBY

HOT SPRING

PANOLA

92° 91°

36°

35°

34°

EXPLANATION

National Wildlife Refuge

Bald Knob

Big Lake

Cache River

Wapanocca

White River

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

Hydrologic subregion

USGS gaging station

 

and identifier

07265450

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales. 

See table 3 for details

Crowleys Ridge

Grand Prairie Level IV 

 ecoregion

Cache CGWA

Grand Prairie CGWA

Wetland

McClellan-Kerr 

Arkansas

Post Canal

Upper White

(1101)

Lower

Arkansas

(1111)

Lower

Mississippi–

St Francis

(0802)

ARKANSAS

MISSOURI

OKLAHOMA

MISSISSIPPI

KANSAS

TEXAS

TENNESSEE

ILLINOIS KENTUCKY

Lake Dardanelle

Beaver Lake

Table Rock

Lake

Robert S 

Kerr

Reservoir

Norfork Lake

Ozark

Lake

 Tenkiller

Lake

Webbers Falls

Reservoir

Lake

 Wappapello 

Clearwater

Lake Bull

Shoals

Lake

Map area
Physiographic Setting 5

Physiographic Setting

The contributing watersheds of the Cache and White 

River NWRs, as defined in this report, include three hydrologic subregions with the following 4-digit hydrologic-unit 

codes (and extents) (HUC4s; Seaber and others, 1994; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 2011a):0802, Lower Mississippi–

St Francis, drainage area, 16,840 square miles (mi2); 1101, 

Upper White, drainage area, 22,350 mi2; and 1111, Lower 

Arkansas, drainage area, 15,830 mi2 (fig. 1). These subregions 

include the refuge-acquisition areas and hydrologic features 

that have direct and measurable influence on refuge hydrology 

as well as features that have little or no hydrologic connection. The contributing area, operationally defined for this and 

subsequent databases, is the smallest set of contiguous HUCs, 

at the relevant HUC scale—in this case, HUC4s (hydrologic 

subregions)—that include the refuge-acquisition area(s) and 

relevant hydrologic and landscape features. Contributing HUCs 

are not split below the relevant scale, so there may be sections 

of one or more contributing HUCs that are not hydrologically 

connected to the refuges. The Lower Arkansas hydrologic 

subregion, for example, has little direct hydrologic connection 

to the refuges; however, it was included in this report because 

hydrologic conditions in this subregion can affect hydrologic 

conditions within lower White River NWR (for example, 

through backwater flooding). Although the refuge-proximal 

areas within each subregion likely are more hydrologically 

connected than peripheral subregion areas, activities 

throughout these subregions, particularly reservoir operations, 

discharges, withdrawals, diversions, and dredging, all have the 

potential to either directly or indirectly affect the refuges.

The refuges are located within the lower part of the 

Lower Mississippi–St Francis subregion, most of which 

is in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Level III ecoregion 

(figs. 1 and 2; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). 

The Mississippi Valley Loess Plain occupies much of the 

divide, known as Crowleys Ridge, between the lower part 

of the St. Francis River and the Cache River (fig. 1). Small 

upland sections of the Lower Mississippi–St Francis subregion 

are located in the Ozark Highlands to the north and in the 

Arkansas Valley and Ouachita Mountains to the south. Most 

of the Upper White subregion is in the Ozark Highlands 

with small sections along the southern and eastern divides 

located in the Boston Mountains, the Arkansas Valley, and the 

Mississippi Alluvial Plain. The Lower Arkansas subregion is 

split between the Arkansas Valley in the center, the Boston 

Mountains to the north, and the Ouachita Mountains to the 

south (fig. 2). Mean-annual precipitation for the contributingwatershed area ranges from 39 to 47 inches per year (in/yr) 

in the Missouri and Oklahoma parts of the contributing 

watersheds to 47 to 53 in/yr in the Arkansas part, based on 

1961–90 climate normals (Gibson and others, 2002; Daly, 

2002). Mean-annual runoff for the period 1951–80 (Gebert 

and others, 1987) ranges from a low of 5 to 10 in/yr in the 

western part of the Lower Arkansas subregion to a high 

of 18 to 22 in/yr in the eastern part of this subregion, with 

intermediate ranges for the Lower Mississippi–St Francis and 

Upper White subregions. Mean-annual runoff ranges between 

12 to 20 in/yr in the Upper White subregion and between 

16 to 20 in/yr in the Lower Mississippi–St Francis subregion.

Figures 3A–D show the distribution of the hydrologic soil 

groups (HSGs) A through D for the 38 hydrologic cataloging 

units in the contributing-watershed area as areal percentages 

of each HUC. The HSGs used in this analysis are State Soil 

Geographic (STATSGO) Database attributes (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994; Soil Survey Staff, 2011) that have 

been aggregated to the soil map unit and provided in raster 

format at 100-meter (m) resolution. The 100-m dataset is a 

finer-resolution version of the 1-kilometer STATSGO grid 

developed by Wolock (1997). The HSG data are only included 

in the 100-m dataset. Hydrologic soil groups typically are 

used together with land use, land-management practices, and 

hydrologic conditions to calculate runoff-curve numbers that 

can be used to model rainfall-runoff relations (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b). Hydrologic soil groups 

A through D follow a progression from low to high runoff 

potential or, conversely, high to low infiltration capacity. 
6 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Black River Ditch

Cache River Ditch

Maumelle River

Arkansas Post Canal

Montgomery Cutoff

White River Bypass

Mississippi River

Big Creek

Arkansas River

White River

Mississippi River

Saint Francis River

Big Creek

Bayou Meto

Cache River

Illinois River

La Grue Bayou

DeView Bayou

North Fork River

Little Red River

Black River

Palarm Creek

16

14

14

15

15

18

12

6

20

8 9

5

7

10

22

20

18

14

15

18

14

12

16

18

Upper White

(1101)

Lower

Arkansas

(1111)

Lower Mississippi–

St Francis (0802)

08020203

11010008

11010003

08020204

11010001

11110105

11110202

11010007

11010006

11110104

11010014

11110103

11010004

11010002

11110101 11010005

11110201

08020202

11010011

11010010

11110203

11110207

11110206

11110204 08020301

08020304

11110205

11010012

08020302

08020303

08020402

08020205

11110102

11010009

11010013

08020201

08020401

08020100

ARKANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

KANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

TENNESSEE

ILLINOIS

TEXAS

KENTUCKY

89° 90° 91° 92° 93° 94° 95° 96° 97°

37°36°35°34°

29 Cross Timbers35 South Central Plains36 Ouachita Mountains37 Arkansas Valley38 Boston Mountains39 Ozark Highlands40 Central Irregular Plains72 Interior River Valleys and Hills73 Mississippi Alluvial Plain74 Mississippi Valley Loess Plains

0 50 75 100 MILES 250

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales. See table 3 for details

50 100 KILOMETERS 25 75

EXPLANATION

National Wildlife Refuge

Cache RiverWhite River

USEPA Level III ecoregion

Line of equal runoff—Interval,  in inches, is variable

14

Hydrologic subregionHydrologic cataloging unit and number 11110105

08020100 Lower Mississippi–Helena 11010001 Beaver Reservoir 11110101 Polecat–Snake08020201 New Madrid–St. Johns 11010002 James 11110102 Dirty–Greenleaf08020202 Upper St. Francis 11010003 Bull Shoals Lake 11110103 Illinois08020203 Lower St. Francis 11010004 Middle White 11110104 Robert S. Kerr Reservoir08020204 Little River Ditches 11010005 Buffalo 11110105 Poteau08020205 L’Anguille 11010006 North Fork White 11110201 Frog–Mulberry08020301 Lower White-Bayou Des Arc 11010007 Upper Black 11110202 Dardanelle Reservoir

08020302 Cache 11010008 Current 11110203 Lake Conway–Point Remove

08020303 Lower White 11010009 Lower Black 11110204 Petit Jean08020304 Big 11010010 Spring 11110205 Cadron08020401 Lower Arkansas 11010011 Eleven Point 11110206 Fourche La Fave08020402 Bayou Meto 11010012 Strawberry 11110207 Lower Arkansas–Maumelle

11010013 Upper White–Village11010014 Little Red

Lower Mississippi–St. Francis Upper White Lower Arkansas

Figure 2. Location of Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges, Lower Mississippi–St. Francis (0802), Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) hydrologic subregions and cataloguing units, lines of equal mean-annual runoff for the period 1951–1980 (Gebert and others, 1987), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level III ecoregions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011; see tables 4

A and 4

B for details).
Physiographic Setting 7 Figure 3

A. Percentages of U.S. Department of Agriculture hydrologic soil group (HSG) A shown by hydrologic cataloging unit in the Lower Mississippi–St. Francis 

(0802), Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) hydrologic subregions. Soils in HSG A have low runoff potential: water is freely transmitted through the soil (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b). See tables 4

A and 4

B for details.

Black River Ditch

Cache River Ditch

Maumelle River

Arkansas Post Canal

Montgomery Cutoff

White River Bypass

Mississippi River

Big Creek

Arkansas River

White River

Mississippi River

Saint Francis River

Big Creek

Bayou Meto

Cache River

Illinois River

La Grue Bayou

DeView Bayou

North Fork River

Little Red River

Black River

Palarm Creek

Upper White

(1101)

Lower Mississippi–

St Francis (0802)

08020203

11010008

11010003

08020204

11010001

11110105

11110202

11010007

11010006

11110104

11010014

11110103

11010004

11010002

11110101 11010005

11110201

08020202

11010011

11010010

Lower

Arkansas

(1111)

11110203

11110207

11110206

11110204 08020301

08020304

11110205

11010012

08020302

08020303

08020402

08020205

11010009

11010013

08020201

08020401

08020100

11110102

ARKANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

KANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

TENNESSEE

ILLINOIS

TEXAS

KENTUCKY

89° 90° 91° 92° 93° 94° 95° 96° 97°

37°36°35°34°

0 to 5>5 to 10>10 to 20>20 to 25

0 50 75 100 MILES 250

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales. See table 3 for details

50 100 KILOMETERS 25 75

EXPLANATION

National Wildlife Refuge

Cache RiverWhite River

Percentage of cataloging unit consisting of hydrologic  soil group A

Hydrologic subregion

08020100 Lower Mississippi–Helena 11010001 Beaver Reservoir 11110101 Polecat–Snake08020201 New Madrid–St. Johns 11010002 James 11110102 Dirty–Greenleaf08020202 Upper St. Francis 11010003 Bull Shoals Lake 11110103 Illinois08020203 Lower St. Francis 11010004 Middle White 11110104 Robert S. Kerr Reservoir08020204 Little River Ditches 11010005 Buffalo 11110105 Poteau08020205 L’Anguille 11010006 North Fork White 11110201 Frog–Mulberry08020301 Lower White-Bayou Des Arc 11010007 Upper Black 11110202 Dardanelle Reservoir

08020302 Cache 11010008 Current 11110203 Lake Conway–Point Remove

08020303 Lower White 11010009 Lower Black 11110204 Petit Jean08020304 Big 11010010 Spring 11110205 Cadron08020401 Lower Arkansas 11010011 Eleven Point 11110206 Fourche La Fave08020402 Bayou Meto 11010012 Strawberry 11110207 Lower Arkansas–Maumelle

11010013 Upper White–Village11010014 Little Red

Lower Mississippi–St. Francis Upper White Lower Arkansas
8 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Black River Ditch

Cache River Ditch

Maumelle River

Arkansas Post Canal

Montgomery Cutoff

White River Bypass

Mississippi River

Big Creek

Arkansas River

White River

Mississippi River

Saint Francis River

Big Creek

Bayou Meto

Cache River

Illinois River

La Grue Bayou

DeView Bayou

North Fork River

Little Red River

Black River

Palarm Creek

Upper White

(1101)

Lower Mississippi–

St Francis (0802)

08020203

11010008

11010003

08020204

11010001

11110105

11110202

11010007

11010006

11110104

11010014

11110103

11010004

11010002

11110101 11010005

11110201

08020202

11010011

11010010

11110203

11110207

11110206

11110204 08020301

08020304

11110205

11010012

08020302

08020303

08020402

08020205

11010009

11010013

08020201

08020401

08020100

11110102

ARKANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

KANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

TENNESSEE

ILLINOIS

TEXAS

KENTUCKY

89° 90° 91° 92° 93° 94° 95° 96° 97°

37°36°35°34°

Lower

Arkansas

(1111)

0 to 20>20 to 40>40 to 60>60 to 80

08020100 Lower Mississippi–Helena 11010001 Beaver Reservoir 11110101 Polecat–Snake08020201 New Madrid–St. Johns 11010002 James 11110102 Dirty–Greenleaf08020202 Upper St. Francis 11010003 Bull Shoals Lake 11110103 Illinois08020203 Lower St. Francis 11010004 Middle White 11110104 Robert S. Kerr Reservoir08020204 Little River Ditches 11010005 Buffalo 11110105 Poteau08020205 L’Anguille 11010006 North Fork White 11110201 Frog–Mulberry08020301 Lower White-Bayou Des Arc 11010007 Upper Black 11110202 Dardanelle Reservoir

08020302 Cache 11010008 Current 11110203 Lake Conway–Point Remove

08020303 Lower White 11010009 Lower Black 11110204 Petit Jean08020304 Big 11010010 Spring 11110205 Cadron08020401 Lower Arkansas 11010011 Eleven Point 11110206 Fourche La Fave08020402 Bayou Meto 11010012 Strawberry 11110207 Lower Arkansas–Maumelle

11010013 Upper White–Village11010014 Little Red

Lower Mississippi–St. Francis Upper White Lower Arkansas

0 50 75 100 MILES 250

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales. See table 3 for details

50 100 KILOMETERS 25 75

EXPLANATION

National Wildlife Refuge

Cache RiverWhite River

Percentage of cataloging unit consisting of hydrologic  soil group B

Hydrologic subregion

Figure 3

B. Percentages of U.S. Department of Agriculture hydrologic soil group (HSG) B shown by hydrologic cataloging unit in the Lower Mississippi–St. Francis 

(0802), Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) hydrologic subregions. Soils in HSG B have moderately-low runoff potential: water transmission through the soil is unimpeded (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b). See tables 4

A and 4

B for details.
Physiographic Setting 9

Black River Ditch

Cache River Ditch

Maumelle River

Arkansas Post Canal

Montgomery Cutoff

White River Bypass

Mississippi River

Big Creek

Arkansas River

White River

Mississippi River

Saint Francis River

Big Creek

Bayou Meto

Cache River

Illinois River

La Grue Bayou

DeView Bayou

North Fork River

Little Red River

Black River

Palarm Creek

Upper White

(1101)

Lower Mississippi–

St Francis (0802)

08020203

11010008

11010003

08020204

11010001

11110105

11110202

11010007

11010006

11110104

11010014

11110103

11010004

11010002

11110101 11010005

11110201

08020202

11010011

11010010

11110203

11110207

11110206

11110204 08020301

08020304

11110205

11010012

08020302

08020303

08020402

08020205

11010009

11010013

08020201

08020401

08020100

11110102

ARKANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

KANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

TENNESSEE

ILLINOIS

TEXAS

KENTUCKY

89° 90° 91° 92° 93° 94° 95° 96° 97°

37°36°35°34°

Lower

Arkansas

(1111)

0 to 20>20 to 40>40 to 60

0 50 75 100 MILES 250

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales. See table 3 for details

50 100 KILOMETERS 25 75

EXPLANATION

National Wildlife Refuge

Cache RiverWhite River

Percentage of cataloging unit consisting of hydrologic  soil group C

Hydrologic subregion

08020100 Lower Mississippi–Helena 11010001 Beaver Reservoir 11110101 Polecat–Snake08020201 New Madrid–St. Johns 11010002 James 11110102 Dirty–Greenleaf08020202 Upper St. Francis 11010003 Bull Shoals Lake 11110103 Illinois08020203 Lower St. Francis 11010004 Middle White 11110104 Robert S. Kerr Reservoir08020204 Little River Ditches 11010005 Buffalo 11110105 Poteau08020205 L’Anguille 11010006 North Fork White 11110201 Frog–Mulberry08020301 Lower White-Bayou Des Arc 11010007 Upper Black 11110202 Dardanelle Reservoir

08020302 Cache 11010008 Current 11110203 Lake Conway–Point Remove

08020303 Lower White 11010009 Lower Black 11110204 Petit Jean08020304 Big 11010010 Spring 11110205 Cadron08020401 Lower Arkansas 11010011 Eleven Point 11110206 Fourche La Fave08020402 Bayou Meto 11010012 Strawberry 11110207 Lower Arkansas–Maumelle

11010013 Upper White–Village11010014 Little Red

Lower Mississippi–St. Francis Upper White Lower Arkansas

Figure 3

C. Percentages of U.S. Department of Agriculture hydrologic soil group (HSG) C shown by hydrologic cataloging unit in the Lower Mississippi–St. Francis 

(0802), Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) hydrologic subregions. Soils in HSG C have moderately-high runoff potential: water transmission through the soil is somewhat restricted (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b). See tables 4

A and 4

B for details.
10 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Black River Ditch

Cache River Ditch

Maumelle River

Arkansas Post Canal

Montgomery Cutoff

White River Bypass

Mississippi River

Big Creek

Arkansas River

White River

Mississippi River

Saint Francis River

Big Creek

Bayou Meto

Cache River

Illinois River

La Grue Bayou

DeView Bayou

North Fork River

Little Red River

Black River

Palarm Creek

Upper White

(1101)

Lower Mississippi–

St Francis (0802)

08020203

11010008

11010003

08020204

11010001

11110105

11110202

11010007

11010006

11110104

11010014

11110103

11010004

11010002

11110101 11010005

11110201

08020202

11010011

11010010

11110203

11110207

11110206

11110204 08020301

08020304

11110205

11010012

08020302

08020303

08020402

08020205

11010009

11010013

08020201

08020401

08020100

11110102

ARKANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

KANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

TENNESSEE

ILLINOIS

TEXAS

KENTUCKY

89° 90° 91° 92° 93° 94° 95° 96° 97°

37°36°35°34°

Lower

Arkansas

(1111)

0 to 20>20 to 40>40 to 60>60 to 80

0 50 75 100 MILES 250

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales. See table 3 for details

50 100 KILOMETERS 25 75

EXPLANATION

National Wildlife Refuge

Cache RiverWhite River

Percentage of cataloging unit consisting of hydrologic  soil group D

Hydrologic subregion

08020100 Lower Mississippi–Helena 11010001 Beaver Reservoir 11110101 Polecat–Snake08020201 New Madrid–St. Johns 11010002 James 11110102 Dirty–Greenleaf08020202 Upper St. Francis 11010003 Bull Shoals Lake 11110103 Illinois08020203 Lower St. Francis 11010004 Middle White 11110104 Robert S. Kerr Reservoir08020204 Little River Ditches 11010005 Buffalo 11110105 Poteau08020205 L’Anguille 11010006 North Fork White 11110201 Frog–Mulberry08020301 Lower White-Bayou Des Arc 11010007 Upper Black 11110202 Dardanelle Reservoir

08020302 Cache 11010008 Current 11110203 Lake Conway–Point Remove

08020303 Lower White 11010009 Lower Black 11110204 Petit Jean08020304 Big 11010010 Spring 11110205 Cadron08020401 Lower Arkansas 11010011 Eleven Point 11110206 Fourche La Fave08020402 Bayou Meto 11010012 Strawberry 11110207 Lower Arkansas–Maumelle

11010013 Upper White–Village11010014 Little Red

Lower Mississippi–St. Francis Upper White Lower Arkansas

Figure 3

D. Percentages of U.S. Department of Agriculture hydrologic soil group (HSG) D shown by hydrologic cataloging unit in the Lower Mississippi–St. Francis 

(0802), Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) hydrologic subregions. Soils in HSG D have high runoff potential: water transmission through the soil is restricted or very restricted (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b). See tables 4

A and 4

B for details.
Refuge Setting 11

Refuge Setting

The NWR System was established in 1903 when then 

President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in 

Florida as the Nation’s first wildlife refuge. The NWR System 

presently has 553 NWRs, 38 wetland-management districts, 

and other designated units, covering more than 150 million 

acres. The primary goal of the NWR System is the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and habitats; additional goals include support for 

wildlife-management-related research and recreational uses 

that include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2011d). This section of the report discusses the 

establishment of the Cache and White River NWRs, summarizes the refuge-management objectives, and discusses activities 

and hydrologic processes within the contributing watersheds 

that potentially could affect the NWR hydrologic environments.

Cache River National Wildlife Refuge

The Cache River NWR was established in 1986 primarily 

to provide habitat for migratory birds, as well as native fish 

and other wildlife species, and to conserve and restore native 

bottomland hardwood forest in the lower Mississippi Valley 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a). Other management 

objectives include relinkage of fragmented bottomland 

hardwood and swamp forest habitat; protection of threatened 

and endangered species; wildlife management for ecosystem 

integrity; and recreation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2011a). The refuge presently includes 67,500 acres in the 

floodplains of the Cache and White Rivers and Bayou DeView 

in parts of Jackson, Monroe, Prairie, and Woodruff Counties 

in east-central Arkansas (approximately the lower half of the 

Cache River, fig. 1). The Cache River NWR is managed as part 

of the Central Arkansas Refuges Complex, which also includes 

Bald Knob NWR, Bald Knob, Ark.; Big Lake NWR, Manila, 

Ark.; and Wapanocca NWR, Turrell, Ark. The approved refugeacquisition boundary area is approximately 175,000 acres. 

Much of the refuge habitat is forested wetland that is protected 

as a Ramsar “Wetland of International Importance” (Ramsar, 

2011). The Cache River refuge wetlands are a primary wintering 

area for mallard ducks in the continental United States.

White River National Wildlife Refuge

The White River NWR was established in 1935, 

primarily for the protection of migratory birds, but also for 

the protection of one of the largest remaining bottomland 

hardwood forests in the lower Mississippi Valley (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2011b). The refuge presently includes 

160,000 acres of floodplain located along a 90-mi reach 

of the lower White River and along a 3-mi section of the 

McClellan-Kerr Arkansas Post Canal (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2011a) in parts of Arkansas, Desha, Monroe, and 

Phillips Counties in east-central Arkansas (fig. 1). The refuge 

habitat resources are managed in a manner consistent with 

the objectives of the Mississippi Flyway Council to provide 

optimal migratory-bird habitat (Flyways.us, 2011). Combined, 

the Cache and White River NWRs have the largest concentration of wintering mallard ducks in the Mississippi Flyway 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011b).

Environmental Issues

Potential hydrologic stresses on the Cache and White 

River NWRs include the effects of hydropower regulation; 

channelization and ditching; agricultural, municipal, and 

industrial water use, both surface-water and groundwater 

withdrawal (Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission, 2000; Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, 2007, 

2009, 2011; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, 2011b); 

dredging for navigation-channel maintenance (table 1; URS, 

2004; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003, 2009, 2011a,c); 

changes in land cover and land use; water-quality effects 

of various land uses; and climate variability. Water-quality 

issues typically relate to land application of fertilizers and 

pesticides, erosion and deposition of sediment, and municipal 

and industrial wastewater discharge. Although some of these 

topics are addressed in this section, a thorough presentation 

and discussion is beyond the scope of this report.

Three major reservoirs are located on the upper White 

River (Beaver Lake, dam closure, 1966; Table Rock, 1959; 

and Bull Shoals, 1951) and three are located on major 

tributaries of the upper White River—one each on the North 

Fork River (Norfolk Lake, 1944), the Black River (Clearwater 

Lake, 1948), and the Little Red River (Greers Ferry Lake, 

1964) (shown on location inset, fig. 1). These reservoirs 

were constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

primarily for flood control and hydropower generation, but 

also for public water supply, recreation, and the ecological 

needs of fish and wildlife, under the authorization of various 

flood-control acts (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011d) and 

partly in response to the catastrophic floods of 1915, 1927, 

and 1937 (Arkansas Studies Institute, 2011). The combined 

storage capacity of these reservoirs reserved for flood control 

is approximately 29 percent of the mean-annual discharge for 

one year at the White River Clarendon streamgage (USGS 

07077800, fig. 1), based on 53 water years from 1929 to 1993; 

and approximately 33 percent at the White River DeValls 

Bluff streamgage (USGS 07077000, fig. 1), based on 41 water 

years from 1950 to 2009. The combined storage capacity 

reserved for hydropower generation is 25 and 27 percent 

respectively, based on the same criteria. Thus, there is a large 

potential range in alteration of downstream flow regimes, 

depending on reservoir operations and release patterns. The 

Cache River contains no reservoirs, but much of the upper 

half of the Cache River was extensively channelized during 

the 1920s and 1930s. However, the reach within the Cache 

River NWR land-acquisition area has not been channelized 

(Arkansas Studies Institute, 2011).
12 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Most of the water use in the lower White River Basin is 

agricultural, primarily in the form of irrigation withdrawals 

from either the Grand Prairie or Cache sections of the 

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer (hereafter referred 

to as the alluvial aquifer) for rice, soybeans, cotton, and, 

recently, aquaculture (Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation 

Commission, 2000; Reed, 2003; Czarnecki, 2010; Schrader, 

2010). The Grand Prairie section of the alluvial aquifer is 

situated between the lower Arkansas and the lower White 

Rivers (fig. 1). This section of the alluvial aquifer is largely 

coincident with the Grand Prairie Level IV ecoregion. The 

Grand Prairie Area Demonstration Project, currently under 

construction, will divert water from the lower White River at 

DeValls Bluff, Arkansas to alleviate aquifer depletion (U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, 2011b; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2011c). The Cache section of the alluvial aquifer 

is situated between Crowleys Ridge to the east and the Cache 

River and DeView Bayou to the west. There is also substantial 

pumpage from the Sparta-Memphis aquifer in the Mississippi 

Embayment aquifer system for agricultural, municipal, and 

industrial water use (Schrader, 2009).

The increased demand for water from all sectors 

(municipal, industrial, and agricultural) is underscored 

by population trends in the decadal census data for the 

107 counties that are wholly or partly within the contributing 

watershed area for the Cache and White River NWRs (fig. 1). 

The population of this 107-county area increased from 

2.89 million in 1930 to 3.19 million in 1970, an 11-percent 

increase, and then to 5.12 million in 2010, a 61-percent 

increase from 1970 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a). 

In 1998, Arkansas, Jefferson, Prairie, most of Lonoke, 

and the southeastern sections of Pulaski and White Counties, 

Ark., were designated as the Grand Prairie Critical Ground 

Water Area (CGWA, fig. 1) by the Arkansas Natural 

Resources Commission (ANRC) because of substantial and 

continuing declines in groundwater levels in the alluvial 

and Sparta-Memphis aquifers (Arkansas Natural Resources 

Commission, 2011). In 2009, the parts of Clay, Craighead, 

Cross, Greene, Lee, Poinsett, and St. Francis Counties, Ark., 

on the western side of Crowleys Ridge were designated as 

the Cache CWGA by the ANRC because groundwater levels 

had dropped below half the saturated thickness of the alluvial 

aquifer (Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, 2011; 

Czarnecki, 2010; Schrader, 2010). Regional-scale hydrologic 

connections between the major rivers and tributaries and the 

alluvial aquifer in the Lower Arkansas River and Lower White 

River Basins allow water transfer between the streams and the 

alluvial aquifer (Reed, 2003). Prior to substantial groundwater 

withdrawal, the alluvial aquifer typically sustained dry-season 

base-flows. Hydraulic gradients have been reversed, however, 

by extensive agricultural groundwater withdrawals in much of 

the lower White River Basin. This is particularly the case in 

the ANRC CGWAs and the rivers now typically recharge the 

alluvial aquifer (Reed, 2003). 

A 244-mi long navigable channel is maintained in the 

lower White River from Newport, Ark., (river mile 254) to the 

McClellan-Kerr Arkansas Post Canal (subsequently referred to 

as the Arkansas Post Canal, river mile 10) at a dredged depth 

of 4.5 feet (ft) from Newport to Augusta and 8 ft from Augusta 

to the canal. The current authorization is for a channel 4.5 ft 

deep and 100 ft wide for the Newport-to-Augusta reach at 

river stages equivalent to or exceeding 12 ft at the Clarendon 

streamgage (USGS 07077800), and 8 ft deep and 125 ft wide 

for the Augusta-to-Arkansas Post Canal reach (U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 2003, 2009, 2011c; fig. 1). Engineering 

studies recommended that the Newport-to-Arkansas Post 

Canal reach be dredged to a depth of 9 feet and a width of 

125 ft. This recommendation is the focus of a project review 

plan of the White River Navigation Improvement Project, 

originally authorized in 1986, de-authorized in 1988, and 

re-authorized in 1996 under the Water Resources Development 

Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009, 2011c).

Methods Used for Database Construction

The hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache 

and White River NWRs and contributing watersheds was 

constructed from multiple Federal and State data sources. The 

hydrologic data—gage height and discharge—primarily are 

from the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) 

database (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011a), but also from U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) digital files (U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 2011e). Sources of the tabular and spatial 

geographic information system (GIS) landscape data are listed 

in table 3. Categories of landscape data include land cover, 

soil hydrologic characteristics, physiography, geographic and 

hydrographic boundaries, hydrographic features, regional 

runoff, and gaging-station locations. The database also includes 

statistics and metrics of the hydrologic data, copies of the USGS 

annual-data-report (ADR) manuscripts for the active gaging 

stations, and plots of the hydrologic data and selected derivative 

statistics and metrics. All data retrievals were Web based. 

Hydrologic-data processing, statistical reduction of 

hydrologic data, most table generation, and plot generation 

were done with custom Statistical Analysis System (SAS) 

computer programs (SAS Institute Inc., 2011). Spatial GISdata processing, statistical reduction and spatial analysis of GIS 

data, and most figure generation were done with ESRI ArcGIS® 

software (ESRI, 2008, 2011a,c). Database tabular data are 

provided in ASCII, Microsoft Access®, and Microsoft Excel® 

formats. Database spatial data are provided in ESRI ArcGIS®

file-geodatabase (ESRI, 2008) and ArcGRID® raster (ESRI, 

2011a) formats. Data accessibility requires Microsoft Office® 

software for full use of the Microsoft Access® and Excel® 

files, and ESRI ArcGIS® software for full use of the ESRI filegeodatabase and raster files. Read access to the Microsoft Excel® 

files is provided by the free Microsoft Excel Viewer software 

(Microsoft, 2011). Read access to the ESRI file-geodatabase and 

raster files in published-map format (ESRI, 2008) is provided by 

the free ESRI ArcReader® software (ESRI, 2011b). The database 

is available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1026/.
Methods Used for Database Construction 13

Database Geographic Extent

The database geographic extent is based on the concept 

of contributing watersheds, defined by the 12-digit USGS 

hydrologic units (HUC12s) as the spatial framework (Seaber 

and others, 1994; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011a). The 

scale-appropriate contributing-watershed area for this database 

is the contiguous set of hydrologic subregions (4-digit 

hydrologic units, HUC4s) in which the Cache and White River 

NWRs and hydrologically-relevant features and sreamgaging 

stations are located. This areal extent includes three 

subregions, the Upper White (1101), the Lower Mississippi–

St. Francis (0802), and the Lower Arkansas (1111) (fig. 1). 

Although subareas of the Lower Mississippi–St. Francis and 

Lower Arkansas subregions are not hydrologically connected 

to the Cache and White River NWRs, contributing HUCs are 

not subdivided when defining the geographic extent.

Hydrologic Data Sources and

Data-Retrieval Procedures

Gaging stations were selected within the geographic 

extent and limited to those stations that were close enough 

to the refuges, either upstream, downstream, within the 

refuge boundary, or along nearby streams and rivers that are 

hydrologically connected, to provide hydrologically relevant 

data. Hydrologic data, namely, gage height and discharge, 

collected at 18 gaging stations met these criteria and are 

included in the database (fig. 1, tables 2A–B; tables 2–13 

are shown at the back of the report).

Continuous-record water-level data are being collected 

at a number of wells in the Mississippi River Valley alluvial 

aquifer in the vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs; 

however, these data are not included in this report, nor in the 

database. The inclusion of continuous-record water-level data 

and summary descriptive statistics and hydrologic metrics 

derived from these data will be considered as a possible 

addition if database revisions are released.

No continuous-record water-quality data have been 

collected at the gage locations listed in table 2A (for example, 

daily values for water temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific 

conductance, pH, and turbidity frequently are collected at 

many USGS gaging stations). Although considerable periodic 

water-quality data have been collected as part of routine monitoring operations and topical investigations, these data are not 

included in this report, nor in the database. Continuous-record 

water-quality data are within the scope of the report and 

database and would have been included if these data had been 

collected. The inclusion of periodic water-quality data or an 

inventory and summary of these data will be considered as a 

possible addition if database revisions are released.

Mean-daily values for gage height (ft above or below 

NGVD 29) and discharge (cubic feet per second, ft3/s) were 

retrieved from digital files of the USGS NWIS database 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2011a) through the public Web interface (NWISWeb: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/nwis; 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, 2011b,c). Additional data for 

four gaging stations were obtained either by written request 

and (or) from digital files of the USACE (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2011e). Data were retrieved in tab-delimited ASCII 

files formatted as relational database (RDB) tables, an ASCII 

relational-database structure used by the USGS as a standard 

data-export format from the NWIS and NWISWeb databases 

(Hobbs, 2011).

Station characteristics are presented in table 2A and 

station periods of record for gage height and discharge are 

presented in table 2B. Twelve of the 18 stations have daily 

record for gage height, 16 stations have daily record for 

discharge, and 10 stations have daily record for both gage 

height and discharge; gaging-station locations are shown in 

figure 1. In table 2B, the period of record, number of complete 

years, number of partial years, and record-completeness 

fraction are given for both water-year and calendar-year 

periods. The fraction-of-total-record-length calculation is 

based on complete beginning and ending water or calendar 

years as well as complete intervening years. Therefore, the 

fraction-of-total-record-length numbers may be different for 

water years when compared to calendar years. The period 

of record may, in some cases, be longer than the number of 

complete plus incomplete years, indicating that there are 

intervening years with no record.

The USGS has published the basic-data records for gaging 

stations in a series of annual or multiple-year water-data reports 

since 1888, when a systematic study of the surface waters of 

the United States was started by the then hydrographic branch 

(presently the Water Mission Area) of the USGS (Hoyt and 

Wood, 1905). These data were published through the 1961 

water year, primarily in water-supply and irrigation papers 

(“water-supply papers” in later years), but also in annual 

reports to the Director of the USGS, bulletins, and circulars. 

Commencing with the 1962 water year, the water-data report 

series was established as the publication format for basicdata dissemination (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011d). These 

reports were State-based through the 2005 water year and 

beginning with the 2006 water year, a national-report series 

was established (Annual Data Reports [ADRs]) that is digital 

and available online (http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/). Most of the 

continuous-record (daily values) and periodic data collected 

at USGS gaging stations are published in these reports and are 

available online through NWISWeb (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2011b). Each ADR manuscript contains a description of the 

gaging-station installation and location, a station history, and 

periods of record for all data collected at the station. The 

station history includes information on the conditions that 

define the flow regime at that location, and, therefore, is a 

useful reference in hydrologic analysis. The ADR manuscripts 

for active gaging stations listed in table 2A are included in 

appendix 1 as Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files

(adr_pdf directory).
14 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Landscape Data Sources

Landscape spatial data that describe the refuge environmental setting and the locations of hydrologic-data collection 

stations are also included in the database. Categories of 

landscape data include GIS layers for land cover and land use, 

county-level population data, soil hydrologic characteristics, 

physiography, geographic and hydrographic boundaries, 

hydrographic features, regional runoff estimates, and gaging 

station locations (tables 3, 4A–B).

Land-cover data were retrieved from the National Land 

Cover Database (NLCD) and include the 1992 and 2001 

NLCDs (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008a; Multi-Resolution 

Land Characteristics Consortium [MRLC], 2011a) and the 

NLCD 1992–2001 Land Cover Change Retrofit product 

(1992–2001 NLCD-LCCR; Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium [MRLC], 2011b; Fry and others, 2008).

Soil characteristics included in the database are 

STATSGO-derived taxonomic soil order, hydric classification, 

and hydrologic soil groups (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

1994, 2009, 2011b; Soil Survey Staff, 2011; Wolock, 1997). 

The STATSGO database is an archived digital version of 

the U.S. General Soil Map published in 1994 by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. STATSGO spatial and tabular data 

were revised and updated in 2006 and published online as 

STATSGO2 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011d).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level III and 

Level IV ecoregions provide the physiographic framework for 

the database (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). 

Level III and Level IV ecoregions are hierarchical subdivisions of the Level I and Level II ecoregions of the United 

States derived from Omernik (1987) and subsequent revisions 

of Omernik’s ecoregions to provide a spatial framework for 

ecosystem research and monitoring.

Refuge boundaries are the land-acquisition boundaries 

approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when each 

refuge was established (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2011e). County boundaries are a feature set in the highresolution 2010 Topologically Integrated Geographic 

Encoding and Referencing (TIGER)/Line Shapefiles in the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s master address file (MAF)/TIGER 

database (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). State boundaries are 

dissolved from the county boundaries, and both datasets are 

clipped to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) medium-resolution shoreline (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011). The 

digital-vector shoreline was digitized from NOAA National 

Ocean Survey navigation charts for the conterminous United 

States coastline. These charts range in scale from 1:10,000 

to 1:600,000, and the finished product/dataset was produced 

at a scale of 1:80,000. This dataset was used to clip the 

county/state boundaries because the original datasets have 

the administrative boundaries which, for coastal counties/

states, include open ocean and obscure the actual coastline. 

The basin-boundary datasets include the HUC12 boundaries 

in the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD; U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, 2011a) and the 4-, 8-, and 10-digit derivatives 

of the HUC12s—USGS subregions, cataloging units, and 

10-digit HUCs (Seaber and others, 1994).

Hydrography layers include the flowline and waterbody 

features of the the high-resolution National Hydrography 

Dataset (NHD; U.S. Geological Survey, 2011e). The highresolution NHD features are those streams and water bodies 

digitized from the delineated features on the USGS 1:24,000-

scale topographic quadrangles. The NHD is a digital vector 

dataset with an embedded flow network designed to be used in 

mapping applications and analysis of surface-water systems.

Regional runoff numbers are derived from a digitized 

version of the average annual runoff map for the United States 

for 1951–80 (Gebert and others, 1987). Runoff was determined from streamflow data collected at 5,951 USGS gaging 

stations during 1951–80. Gaging stations were selected to 

represent the geographical distribution of runoff from tributary 

streams rather than major rivers in order to more accurately 

represent runoff conditions at local-to-regional scales (Gebert 

and others, 1987).

Gaging-station locations and station-description data 

for the 18 USGS gaging stations included in this report/

database were retrieved from the USGS NWISWeb database 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, 2011b,c). Detailed station 

descriptions are also included in the USGS ADR manuscripts 

available online (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011d; appendix 1).

Database Design and Directory Structure

The hydrologic and landscape database includes all 

tabular data in a set of Microsoft Access® 2007 files and(or) 

Microsoft Excel® 2007 files (tables 4A–B, and 5). All data 

contained in the Microsoft Access® files are also contained 

in the Microsoft Excel® files. Spatial vector data are included 

as an ESRI ArcGIS® file geodatabase (ESRI, 2008), and 

spatial raster data are included as ESRI ArcGRID® raster 

datasets (ESRI, 2011a; table 3). All spatial vector and raster 

data are also packaged in an ESRI ArcReader® published 

map project (ESRI, 2011b). The raw tabular hydrologic data 

are also provided as ASCII RDB tables (Hobbs, 2011) in the 

original file format as retrieved from the USGS NWISWeb 

database (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b). Users without 

access to Microsoft Office® 2007+ can download and install 

the Microsoft Excel Viewer® that allows the user to read, 

view, print, and export Microsoft Excel® 97+ workbooks 

(Microsoft, 2011). Microsoft does not provide a reader for 

Microsoft Access®. However, the free office-productivity 

suite OpenOffice.orgTM provides read and write access to 

Microsoft Access® and Microsoft Excel® files (OpenOffice.

orgTM, 2011). Users without access to ESRI ArcGIS® Desktop 

10+ can download and install the free ESRI ArcReader® 10 

software that allows read, view, print, and identify access to 
Methods Used for Database Construction 15

ArcGIS® feature and raster datasets that have been packaged in an ESRI ArcReader® published map project (ESRI, 

2011b). The identity function allows the user to interrogate 

the attribute table of a feature or raster dataset, one record at 

a time. However, to use the spatial data in GIS applications 

requires either ESRI ArcGIS® software or an equivalent 

software product that can import ESRI ArcGIS® files.

 The tabular hydrologic data include the raw daily-values 

data for gage height and discharge, statistical-summary data, 

selected hydrologic metrics, and the Indicators of Hydrologic 

Alteration (IHA) parameters and Environmental Flow Components (EFCs; The Nature Conservancy, 2007, 2009). The 

tabular GIS landscape data include zonal summaries of land 

cover, soil-hydrologic characteristics, and physiography. The 

raw hydrologic data are aggregated by calendar year (Jan. 1 

through Dec. 31) and water year (Oct. 1 through Sept. 30) for 

annual summaries, and also by calendar decade, by calendar 

year and month, by calendar month over the period of record, 

and by Julian day over the period of record for both calendar 

and water years. The long-term (period of record) monthly and

daily summary data are for complete years only. The longterm monthly summary data are based on both mean-daily 

values and monthly mean values. There are three Microsoft 

Access® files, the first of which is for raw hydrologic data 

(cwt_tabular_hydrostats_raw.accdb), the second for the 

hydrologic statistical-summary data (cwt_tabular_hydrostats.

accdb), and the third for the hydrologic metrics (cwt_tabular_

hydmetrics.accdb). All Microsoft Access® tables, the IHA 

output, and the tabular GIS landscape data are available as 

Microsoft Excel® worksheets. The hydrologic raw-data and 

hydrologic statistical-summary-data worksheets are bundled 

into separate workbooks, one for each parameter (gage height, 

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_gmn.xlsx; discharge, cwt_tabular_

hydrostats_qmn.xlsx). The hydrologic-metrics and IHA-output

worksheets are bundled into separate workbooks, one for 

the hydrologic metrics (cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.xlsx) and 

one for each station and parameter combination for the IHA 

output (gage height, sSSSSSSSS_iha_gmn.xlsx; discharge, 

sSSSSSSSS_iha_qmn.xlsx; where SSSSSSSS is the USGS 

station identification number). An IHA summary workbook is 

also included that contains the data for six stations that have at 

least 20 years of discharge record (regional_iha_cwt.xlsx). The

IHA output and tabular GIS landscape data are not provided 

in Microsoft Access® because the structure of the output is 

report-formatted and therefore not compatible with the strict 

column-and-row format of Microsoft Access® tables. A list 

of the database files, tables and worksheets, and table and 

worksheet descriptions is included in table 4A. Database field 

names, field types, and field definitions are listed in table 4B. 

In tables 4A–B, table references are specific to Microsoft 

Access® and worksheet references are specific to Microsoft 

Excel®. Field names and field definitions for the IHA analyses

are listed in table 5, and periods of record for the IHA analyses

are shown in figures 4 and 5.

The report and database are available online at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1026/ and is organized in the 

following directories and subdirectories:

adr_pdf USGS annual data-report manuscripts for 

active gaging stations, Adobe PDF files 

(referenced as appendix 1 in this report)

data all tabular data except IHA output

access Microsoft Access® data base files

ascii raw NWISWeb data files

excel Microsoft Excel® workbook files

geodatabase all spatial data, feature (vector) and 

raster datasets

cache_white_nwrs.gdb ESRI ArcGIS® file geodatabase

map_package ESRI ArcReader® published map

raster ESRI ArcGRID® raster datasets

iha IHA analysis, Microsoft Excel® 

workbook files

plot_pdf hydrologic data plots, ADOBE PDF files 

(referenced as appendix 2 in this report)

4

Site reference number

3

2

1

1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

Water year

EXPLANATION

Period of record—Gaging station number and name. 

 Number in parentheses is site reference number

07077555 Cache River near Cotton Plant, Ar (4)

07077800 White River at Clarendon, Ar (3)

07077820 White River at St Charles, Ar (2)

07078300 White River at Benzal, Ar (1)

Figure 4. Periods of record for mean-daily gage-height 

data used in Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration analyses 

for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds and 

vicinity of the Cache and White River National Wildlife 

Refuges, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Locations 

of gaging stations shown in figure 1.
16 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges Site reference number

EXPLANATION

Period of record—Gaging station number and name. 

 Number in parentheses is site reference number

Water year

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1

2

07047970 Mississippi River at Helena, Ar (14)

07074500 White River at Newport, Ar (13)

07076750 White River at Georgetown, Ar (12)

07077000 White River at Devalls Bluff, Ar (11) 

07077380 Cache River at Egypt, Ar (10)

07077500 Cache River at Patterson, Ar (9)

07077555 Cache River near Cotton Plant, Ar (8)

07077700 Bayou Deview near Morton, Ar (7)

07077800 White River at Clarendon, Ar (6)

07077950 Big Creek at Poplar Grove, Ar (5)

07078000 Lagrue Bayou near Stuttgart, Ar (4)

07263500 Arkansas River at Little Rock, Ar (3)

07264000 Bayou Meto near Lonoke, Ar (2)

07265450 Mississippi River near Arkansas City, Ar (1)

Hydrologic and Landscape Data Reduction

Hydrologic- and landscape-data reduction were done with 

a suite of SAS programs (SAS Institute, Inc., 2011), IHA software (The Nature Conservancy, 2009), Microsoft Access®, 

Microsoft Excel®, and ESRI ArcGIS® (ESRI, 2008). The 

hydrologic-data derivatives include statistical-summary data 

and hydrologic metrics, both based on the mean-daily values 

of gage height and discharge, and the IHA parameters and 

EFCs (Richter and others, 1996; The Nature Conservancy, 

2007). The landscape-data derivatives include zonal 

summaries of USEPA Level III and IV ecoregions (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2011), STATSGO HSGs 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994, 2009, 2011d), and 

NLCD land-cover (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008f; MultiResolution Land Characteristics Consortium [MRLC], 2011a) 

and land-cover-change data (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium [MRLC], 2011b). Zonal summation was 

done by hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, and 

NWR land-acquisition area.

Descriptive Statistics, Percentiles, and 

Hydroecological Metrics

The statistical-summary tables include the basic 

univariate descriptive statistics, percentiles, spread and ratio 

measures based on the 10th, 20th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 80th, 

and 90th percentiles (Richards, 1989), and the coefficient 

of variation of the set of every 5th log base-ten percentile 

(5th, 10th, 15th, ... , 85th, 90th, 95th percentiles [n=19]; 

Richards, 1989). This statistic is, along with the mean, 

standard deviation, and coefficient of skew of these same 

percentiles, also part of the statistical characterization of the 

standard duration curve for gage height or discharge (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2011f, p. 240). Each table also includes 

the fraction of the summary time interval represented by 

daily-values data; for example, in the annual-summary tables, 

a value of 0.85 means that 85 percent of that year has daily 

values. The data-completeness measures are used to determine 

how much data are used in some of the statistical analyses and 

summary plots. The hydrologic-metrics tables include raw 

and normalized percentiles (normalized by the median value), 

measures of low-flow and high-flow duration and frequency, 

measures of hydrologic-event magnitude, frequency, and rateof-change, and a hydrograph flashiness index (Richards-Baker 

flashiness index [RBFI], field rb_flash, table 4B; McMahon 

and others, 2003; Baker and others, 2004). The RBFI is the 

absolute-value sum of the y-component of the hydrograph 

(absolute-value total change in gage height or discharge) 

normalized to the area under the hydrograph (sum gage height 

or discharge) and is dimensionless. The “flashier” or more 

responsive the hydrograph on a short time scale, the larger 

the numerator, and therefore, the RBFI value. The descriptive 

Figure 5. Periods of record for mean-daily discharge 

data used in Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration analyses 

for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds and 

vicinity of the Cache and White River National Wildlife 

Refuges, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Locations 

of gaging stations shown in figure 1.
Methods Used for Database Construction 17

statistics, percentiles, and hydrologic metrics included in the 

database are listed and defined in table 4B.

There are six summary modes for the hydrologic metrics: 

period-of record, annual, and index period, and each of these 

by water year and calendar year. The period-of-record summaries are for complete years only, with the departure measures 

indexed to the complete-year period. The annual summaries 

include all years, both complete and partial record, with the 

departure measures indexed to each year’s record. The indexperiod summaries are annual summaries with the departure 

measures indexed to the complete-year period. The raw-data 

processing, statistical reduction, calculation of hydrologic 

metrics, and graphical presentation were done with a suite of 

SAS programs (SAS Institute, Inc., 2011). The source code for 

these programs will be included in an appendix as a revision. 

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration

The IHA software package was developed by Richter and 

others (1996) and The Nature Conservancy (2007, 2009) to 

provide a tool for calculating the characteristics of natural and 

altered hydrologic regimes. Any type of daily hydrologic data 

can be used as input data for the software, typically stream 

discharge and gage height, but also groundwater levels, water 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, or 

turbidity. The application of the IHA software is explained 

in detail in this section of this report, as IHA was used to 

compute many of the statistics in the Cache and White River 

NWRs database. The hydroecological-flow characterization 

process, background and development of ecological-flow 

methodologies, and commonly used assessment techniques, 

including IHA, are discussed in detail in appendix 3.

The IHA workbooks each include six worksheets:

1. ann—median values by water year for IHA variables in 

IHA parameter groups 1 through 5 and EFC groups 1 

through 5 (table 5);

2. sco—IHA scorecard: median values and the coefficient of 

dispersion (interquartile spread) for IHA parameter groups 

1 through 5 and the EFC groups 1 through 5 (table 5);

3. lsq—linear regression models for each IHA parameter 

and EFC with water year;

4. pct—percentiles and the interquartile spread for IHA 

parameter groups 1 through 5 and EFC groups 1 through 5;

5. daily efcs—mean-daily values for the analysis period 

categorized by EFC group; and

6. msg—informational and(or) error messages about the IHA 

run. The worksheets and their contents are documented in 

the IHA user’s manual (The Nature Conservancy, 2009).

The IHA analysis generates two groups of variables, the 

IHA parameter groups 1 through 5, and the EFC groups 1 

through 5 (Richter and others, 1996; The Nature Conservancy, 

2009; table 5). The IHA parameter groups are organized 

by types of statistics that provide data on the magnitude, 

frequency, duration, and timing of hydrologic events and data 

on the rate and frequency of change in hydrologic conditions. 

Each parameter group focuses on specific ecosystem influences that affect the availability and quality of riparian 

and aquatic habitat (Richter and others, 1996; The Nature 

Conservancy, 2009). The IHA parameter groups include 

the following categories: (1) magnitude of monthly water 

conditions, (2) magnitude and duration of annual extreme 

water conditions, (3) timing of annual extreme water conditions, (4) frequency and duration of high and low pulses, and 

(5) rate and frequency of water condition changes. There 

are also five EFC groups that relate hydrologic patterns to 

ecological function: low flows, extreme low flows, high-flow 

pulses, small floods, and large floods.

The IHA analysis for this database was done on complete 

standard water years grouped into one time period. The water 

year can be defined as any contiguous 12-month period but 

was left as the default, October 1 through September 30, for 

this analysis. An alternative scenario is to use two time periods 

if there was an abrupt alteration in the hydrologic regime such 

as an upstream dam closure, change in reservoir operation, or 

major diversion. The two periods could then be statistically 

compared. Either parametric (mean and standard deviation) or 

non-parametric (percentiles) statistics can be used to calculate 

the IHA parameters. The analysis for this report and database 

was done using non-parametric statistics.

Flow separation by EFC group can be done by either the 

one-parameter method or the four-parameter method. The oneparameter method classifies mean-daily values as high values 

if they are greater than the low-flow threshold (default value, 

50th percentile) and as low values otherwise. In this analysis, 

the four-parameter method was used. The four-parameter 

method uses three passes through the data to classify meandaily values based on four thresholds: (1) high-flow threshold, 

default value, 75th percentile; (2) low-flow threshold, default 

value, 50th percentile; (3) high-flow start-rate threshold, 

default value, increase greater than 25 percent of the 

preceeding value when values are between the high-flow and 

low-flow thresholds; and (4) high-flow end-rate threshold, 

decrease greater than 10 percent of the preceeding value when 

values are between the high-flow and low-flow thresholds. 

High values are then further classified into from one-to-three 

high-flow classes based on two parameters, the 2-year and 

10-year recurrence intervals: (1) small-flood, peak flow values 

greater than the 2-year recurrence interval (default value) are 

assigned to the small-flood class; (2) large-flood, peak flow 

values greater than the 10-year recurrence interval (default 
18 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

value) are assigned to the large-flood class; and (3) high-flow 

values that are not assigned to either of the first two classes are 

classified as high-flow pulses. Low-flow values less than the 

extreme-low-flow threshold, default value, 10th percentile of 

the low flows, are classified as extreme low flows. All defaultthreshold values were used for this analysis.

Although the terminology used here and elsewhere in the 

literature typically refers to “flow” values, the IHA analysis 

was done for both mean-daily gage height and mean-daily 

discharge record. The IHA concept could logically be extended 

to include the analysis of any mean-daily time series, for 

example, water temperature, specific conductance, or dissolved 

oxygen. However, the specifics of the ecological effects of the 

IHA parameter groups and EFC groups would change.

Landscape Data

The land-cover raster data are 30-m resolution, ESRI 

ArcGRID® format raster datasets (ESRI, 2011a) in the 

NLCD. Each of the three datasets, NLCD 1992, NLCD 

2001, and 1992–2001 NLCD-LCCR, was clipped to the 

defined geographic extent (figs. 6–8). Zonal summations by 

NLCD land-cover category (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008a; 

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium [MRLC], 

2011a) and land-cover-change category (Fry and others, 2008) 

were done using the tabulate-area tool in ESRI’s ArcGIS® 

Spatial Analyst extension (ESRI, 2011c) with hydrologic 

subregions (HUC4s; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011a), 

hydrologic cataloging units (8-digit HUCs; U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, 2011a), and refuge-acquisition boundaries 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011e) as the zone features. 

Landcover-category zonal-area tabulations are provided as 

ESRI geodatabase tables (ESRI, 2008; table 3) and landcovercategory percentages are provided as Microsoft Excel® files 

(file and field descriptions in tables 4A–B).

Hydrologic soil groups A–D percentages were calculated 

for the hydrologic subregions and cataloging units by zonal 

summation of the 100-m resolution STATSGO raster dataset 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994, 2009, 2011b; Wolock, 

1997) and reported as areal percentages of each HUC. The 

zonal-area tabulations are provided in ESRI geodatabase 

tables (table 3) and zonal percentages are provided in Microsoft Excel® files (tables 4A–B) and shown in figures 3A–D.

Percentages of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Level III and Level IV ecoregions (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2011) were calculated for the hydrologic 

subregions and cataloging units by intersecting the ecoregion 

feature dataset with the 4-digit and 8-digit HUC boundaries. 

The ecoregion data summarized by subregion and cataloging 

unit are provided in Microsoft Excel® files (tables 4A–B).

Database Summary Data

This report includes statistical and graphical summaries 

of the hydrologic data, IHA summary data for gaging stations 

with at least 20 years of record, and zonal summaries of the 

NLCD land-cover and land-cover-change data. The databasesummary data serve as metadata for the database, provide a 

context for hydrologic analysis, and can help database users 

determine which data are suitable for answering specific NWR 

hydrologic questions.

Hydrologic Statistical Summary

A station-level summary of the hydrologic data by 

both water year and calendar year is presented in tables 6–9. 

The primary purpose of these summary tables is to provide 

database users with information on the quantity and quality 

of available data, facilitate comparisons between stations, 

and provide a benchmark for evaluating current hydrologic 

conditions within the context of the long-term record. 

Tables 6A (water-year) and 6B (calendar-year) summarize 

the mean-annual and mean-daily gage-height values for each 

gaging station. The mean, minimum, and maximum values, 

and the 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th percentiles 

are given for mean-annual gage height; and the minimum and 

maximum and the same percentiles are also given for meandaily gage height. The water or calendar year is indicated 

for the minimum and maximum values for mean-annual and 

mean-daily discharge—the driest and wettest years on record 

for each station. Percentiles are not given if there are insufficient data. Data requirements for percentiles are as follows: 

50th, >1 observation; 25th, 75th, >4 observations; 10th, 90th, 

>10 observations; and 5th, 95th, >20 observations; in this 

case, observations represent the number of complete years of 

record. Tables 7A (water-year) and 7B (calendar-year) present 

the same data for discharge, with the addition of long-term 

yield. Tables 8A (water-year) and 8B (calendar-year) summarize selected hydrologic metrics for mean-daily gage-height 

values for each gaging station. Period-of-record median and 

mean values are given for (1) the coefficient of variation of the 

set of every 5th log base-ten percentile of discharge (LCV5), 

(2) the 75th–25th (7525), 80th–20th (8020), and 90th–10th 

(9010) spread and ratio measures (Richards, 1989; table 4), 

(3) five flow-magnitude/flow-duration metrics: cum_50, 

rise_50, risedur_50, fall_50, and falldur_50—(tables 4A–B; 

McMahon and others, 2003), and (4) the Richards-Baker 

flashiness index (RBFI) (tables 4A–B; Baker and others, 

2004). Tables 9A (water-year) and 9B (calendar-year) present 

the same data for discharge.
Database Summary Data 19

When comparing data across stations, either for a regional 

analysis or for the purpose of characterizing downstream 

changes in hydrologic patterns, attention must be given to 

ensuring that there are sufficient coincident data to validate 

the analysis. It is suggested that interpretation be restricted to 

stations and time periods that include at least 90 percent coincident data. However, it is recognized that the completeness 

criteria used in hydrologic analysis are operationally defined, 

and therefore both the level of potential error in analysis and 

interpretation of results are affected by the overall quantity 

and spatiotemporal distribution of missing data.

Hydrologic Graphical Summary

Table 10 lists the plots available for each gaging station 

with links to downloadable Adobe PDF files in appendix 2 

(the plot_pdf directory of the database) available online at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1026. For the links in table 10 

to be active, the plot_pdf zip archive needs to be downloaded 

and expanded to the same folder or directory with the report 

PDF. Up to eight possible plots for each station-parameter 

combi nation (gage height or discharge) are shown, depending 

on how much data are available, with plots A1–A4 on page 

one and plots A5–A8 on page two of each plot file. Meandaily values for gage height and discharge are plotted in both 

arithmetic and log-10 space if all the values are positive. If a 

station record has zero and(or) negative values, only arithmetic plots are presented. Arithmetic plots and log-10 plots 

are provided in separate files. Plot A1 is the mean-daily-values 

hydrograph for the period-of record. Plot A2 is a boxplot 

interpolation (box-and-whisker plot) of the mean-daily values 

on a calendar-year annual timestep for greater-than-90-percent 

complete years. The data-completeness requirement can 

be adjusted downward, however, depending on the acceptable level of error and the degree to which the partial year 

represents a complete year. This adjustment potentially would 

generate more plots and provide a more complete temporal 

record. Plot A3 is a boxplot interpolation on a calendar-year 

decadal timestep for greater-than-90-percent complete 

decades. Plot A4 is a boxplot interpolation on a period-ofrecord monthly timestep for complete years and, therefore, 

is a summary of the long-term monthly seasonality. Plot A5 

shows the 75-25, 80-20, and 90-10 spread measures, plot A6 

shows the 75/25, 80/20, and 90/10 ratio measures, and plot A7 

shows the LCV5 and RBFI values. Plots A5–A7 each use a 

calendar-year annual timestep for complete years. Plot A8 is a 

line plot of the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles on 

a period-of-record daily timestep for complete calendar years 

and, therefore, is a summary of the long-term daily seasonality. Plot A8 is generated for stations that have at least two 

complete years of record with percentiles plotted based on the 

number of complete years of record: 50th percentile, >1 year; 

25th and 75th percentiles, >4 years; and 10th and 90th percentiles, >10 complete years of record. For cross-reference with 

the data, each plot lists the database table(s) that contain(s) 

the data being displayed and database field(s) being plotted. 

An explanation file that documents the terminology, symbols, 

and abbreviations used in the plots is available as a downloadable Adobe PDF file (the plot_pdf directory of the database) 

available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1026. 

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration 

Interstation Comparison

The IHA summary data for six stations in close proximity 

to both refuges and with at least 20 years of discharge record 

are included in a separate Microsoft Excel® workbook as a 

regional analysis where the data are presented in downstream 

order (tables 4A and 5; file, regional_iha_cwt.xlsx). These 

stations are 07077000 (White R at Devalls Bluff, AR), 

07077380 (Cache River at Egypt, AR), 07077500 (Cache 

River at Patterson, AR), 07077555 (Cache River near Cotton 

Plant, AR), 07077700 (Bayou DeView near Morton, AR), 

and 07077800 (White River at Clarendon, AR) (fig. 1, table 

2A). The IHA output has been reorganized in this workbook 

to facilitate interstation comparisons. The regional IHA 

workbook contains the following worksheets: 5 each for the 

1-, 3-, 7-, 30-, and 90-day-mean minimum and maximum 

values, 1 with the baseflow-index values, 1 with a plot of the 

75th–25th percentile spread measure, a summary worksheet, 

and 1 for each station with the complete IHA analysis for that 

station included (tables 4A and 5).

Landscape GIS Data Layers

Figures 6–8 and tables 11–13 present the land-cover 

and land-use data for the geographic extent based on the 

1992 NLCD, 2001 NLCD, and 1992–2001 NLCD-LCCR 

datasets (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008a; Multi-Resolution 

Land Characteristics Consortium [MRLC], 2011a, b). These 

datasets are 30-m resolution raster data. The classification 

models used for the 1992 and 2001 datasets changed for some 

of the categories, so direct comparisons of the datasets cannot 

be made without incurring some level of error at large map 

scales. For this reason, the 1992–2001 NLCD-LCCR dataset 

was developed to facilitate more accurate comparison at a 

modified Anderson-level-1 classification developed for the 

2001 NLCD (Anderson and others, 1976; Multi-Resolution 

Land Characteristics Consortium [MRLC], 2011a): 1, water; 

2, urban; 3, barren; 4, forest; 5, grassland; 6, agriculture; and 

7, wetland. The 1992–2001 NLCD-LCCR has 48 change 

categories, 7 with stable land cover (no change), and 

42 potential categories indicating land-cover change from 

each category to one of the other 6 categories (Fry and others, 

2008). Errors generated by direct comparison are reduced at 

smaller map scales (broader areas). Land-cover and land-use 

percentages derived from the 1992 NLCD and 2001 NLCD 

data are summarized by hydrologic subregion and hydrologic 

cataloging unit in tables 11 and 12. The land-cover change 

percentages derived from 1992–2001 NLCD-LCCR are 

presented in table 13.
20 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Black River Ditch

Cache River Ditch

Maumelle River

Arkansas Post Canal

Montgomery Cutoff

White River Bypass

Mississippi River

Big Creek

Arkansas River

White River

Mississippi River

Saint Francis River

Big Creek

Bayou Meto

Cache River

Illinois River

La Grue Bayou

DeView Bayou

North Fork River

Little Red River

Black River

Palarm Creek

Upper White

(1101)

Lower Mississippi–

St Francis (0802)

Lower

Arkansas

(1111)

08020203

11010008

11010003

08020204

11010001

11110105

11110202

11010007

11010006

11110104

11010014

11110103

11010004

11010002

11110101 11010005

11110201

08020202

11010011

11010010

11110203

11110207

11110206

11110204 08020301

08020304

11110205

11010012

08020302

08020303

08020402

08020205

11010009

11010013

08020201

08020401

08020100

11110102

ARKANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

KANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

TENNESSEE

ILLINOIS

TEXAS

KENTUCKY

89° 90° 91° 92° 93° 94° 95° 96° 97°

37°36°35°34°

08020100 Lower Mississippi–Helena 11010001 Beaver Reservoir 11110101 Polecat–Snake08020201 New Madrid–St. Johns 11010002 James 11110102 Dirty–Greenleaf08020202 Upper St. Francis 11010003 Bull Shoals Lake 11110103 Illinois08020203 Lower St. Francis 11010004 Middle White 11110104 Robert S. Kerr Reservoir08020204 Little River Ditches 11010005 Buffalo 11110105 Poteau08020205 L’Anguille 11010006 North Fork White 11110201 Frog–Mulberry08020301 Lower White-Bayou Des Arc 11010007 Upper Black 11110202 Dardanelle Reservoir

08020302 Cache 11010008 Current 11110203 Lake Conway–Point Remove

08020303 Lower White 11010009 Lower Black 11110204 Petit Jean08020304 Big 11010010 Spring 11110205 Cadron08020401 Lower Arkansas 11010011 Eleven Point 11110206 Fourche La Fave08020402 Bayou Meto 11010012 Strawberry 11110207 Lower Arkansas–Maumelle

11010013 Upper White–Village11010014 Little Red

Lower Mississippi–St. Francis Upper White Lower Arkansas

0 50 75 100 MILES 250

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales. See table 3 for details

50 100 KILOMETERS 25 75

EXPLANATION

1992 NLCD category

WaterLow intensity residentialHigh intensity residentialCommercial, industrial,  transportationBare rock, sand, clay, quarries, strip  mines, gravel pitsDeciduous forestEvergreen forestMixed forestShrublandOrchards, vineyards, otherGrasslands, herbaceousPasture, hayRow cropsSmall grainsUrban, recreational grassesWoody wetlandsEmergent herbaceous wetlands

National Wildlife Refuge

Cache RiverWhite River

Hydrologic subregion

Figure 6. Land cover for 1992 for the Lower Mississippi–St. Francis (0802), Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) hydrologic subregions and cataloging units (land-cover data source: 1992 National Land Cover Database [U.S. Geological Survey, 2008f]). See tables 4

A, 4

B, and 11 for details.
Database Summary Data 21

Black River Ditch

Cache River Ditch

Maumelle River

Arkansas Post Canal

Montgomery Cutoff

White River Bypass

Mississippi River

Big Creek

Arkansas River

White River

Mississippi River

Saint Francis River

Big Creek

Bayou Meto

Cache River

Illinois River

La Grue Bayou

DeView Bayou

North Fork River

Little Red River

Black River

Palarm Creek

Upper White

(1101)

Lower Mississippi–

St Francis (0802)

Lower

Arkansas

(1111)

08020203

11010008

11010003

08020204

11010001

11110105

11110202

11010007

11010006

11110104

11010014

11110103

11010004

11010002

11110101 11010005

11110201

08020202

11010011

11010010

11110203

11110207

11110206

11110204 08020301

08020304

11110205

11010012

08020302

08020303

08020402

08020205

11010009

11010013

08020201

08020401

08020100

11110102

ARKANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

KANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

TENNESSEE

ILLINOIS

TEXAS

KENTUCKY

89° 90° 91° 92° 93° 94° 95° 96° 97°

37°36°35°34°

08020100 Lower Mississippi–Helena 11010001 Beaver Reservoir 11110101 Polecat–Snake08020201 New Madrid–St. Johns 11010002 James 11110102 Dirty–Greenleaf08020202 Upper St. Francis 11010003 Bull Shoals Lake 11110103 Illinois08020203 Lower St. Francis 11010004 Middle White 11110104 Robert S. Kerr Reservoir08020204 Little River Ditches 11010005 Buffalo 11110105 Poteau08020205 L’Anguille 11010006 North Fork White 11110201 Frog–Mulberry08020301 Lower White-Bayou Des Arc 11010007 Upper Black 11110202 Dardanelle Reservoir

08020302 Cache 11010008 Current 11110203 Lake Conway–Point Remove

08020303 Lower White 11010009 Lower Black 11110204 Petit Jean08020304 Big 11010010 Spring 11110205 Cadron08020401 Lower Arkansas 11010011 Eleven Point 11110206 Fourche La Fave08020402 Bayou Meto 11010012 Strawberry 11110207 Lower Arkansas–Maumelle

11010013 Upper White–Village11010014 Little Red

Lower Mississippi–St. Francis Upper White Lower Arkansas

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales. See table 3 for details

EXPLANATION

2001 NLCD category

Open waterDeveloped, open spaceDeveloped, low intensityDeveloped, medium  intensityDeveloped, high intensityBarren landDeciduous forestEvergreen forestMixed forestShrub/scrubHerbaceousHay/pastureCultivated cropsWoody wetlandsEmergent herbaceous wetlands

0 50 75 100 MILES 250 50 100 KILOMETERS 25 75

National Wildlife Refuge

Cache RiverWhite River

Hydrologic subregion

Figure 7. Land cover for 2001 for the Lower Mississippi–St. Francis (0802), Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) hydrologic subregions and cataloging units (land-cover data source: 2001 National Land Cover Database [Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2011a]). See tables 4

A, 4

B, and 12 for details.
22 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Black River Ditch

Cache River Ditch

Maumelle River

Arkansas Post Canal

Montgomery Cutoff

White River Bypass

Big Creek

Arkansas River

White River

Mississippi River

Saint Francis River

Big Creek

Bayou Meto

Cache River

Illinois River

La Grue Bayou

DeView Bayou

North Fork River

Little Red River

Black River

Palarm Creek

Upper White

(1101)

Lower Mississippi–

St Francis (0802)

Lower

Arkansas

(1111)

08020203

11010008

11010003

08020204

11010001

11110105

11110202

11010007

11010006

11110104

11010014

11110103

11010004

11010002

11110101 11010005

11110201

08020202

11010011

11010010

11110203

11110207

11110206

11110204 08020301

08020304

11110205

11010012

08020302

08020303

08020402

08020205

11010009

11010013

08020201

08020401

08020100

11110102

ARKANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

KANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

TENNESSEE

ILLINOIS

KENTUCKY

89° 90° 91° 92° 93° 94° 95° 96° 97°

37°36°35°34°

08020100 Lower Mississippi–Helena 11010001 Beaver Reservoir 11110101 Polecat–Snake08020201 New Madrid–St. Johns 11010002 James 11110102 Dirty–Greenleaf08020202 Upper St. Francis 11010003 Bull Shoals Lake 11110103 Illinois08020203 Lower St. Francis 11010004 Middle White 11110104 Robert S. Kerr Reservoir08020204 Little River Ditches 11010005 Buffalo 11110105 Poteau08020205 L’Anguille 11010006 North Fork White 11110201 Frog–Mulberry08020301 Lower White-Bayou Des Arc 11010007 Upper Black 11110202 Dardanelle Reservoir

08020302 Cache 11010008 Current 11110203 Lake Conway–Point Remove

08020303 Lower White 11010009 Lower Black 11110204 Petit Jean08020304 Big 11010010 Spring 11110205 Cadron08020401 Lower Arkansas 11010011 Eleven Point 11110206 Fourche La Fave08020402 Bayou Meto 11010012 Strawberry 11110207 Lower Arkansas–Maumelle

11010013 Upper White–Village11010014 Little Red

Lower Mississippi–St. Francis Upper White Lower Arkansas

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales. See table 3 for details

EXPLANATION

WaterUrbanBarrenForestGrasslandAgricultureWetlandFrom waterFrom urbanFrom barrenFrom forestFrom grasslandFrom agricultureFrom wetland

1992–2001 NLCD-LCCR category

0 50 75 100 MILES 250 50 100 KILOMETERS 25 75

National Wildlife Refuge

Cache RiverWhite River

Hydrologic subregion

Figure 8. Land-cover-change for the period from 1992 to 2001 for the Lower Mississippi–St. Francis (0802), Upper White (1101), and Lower Arkansas (1111) hydrologic subregions and cataloging units (land-cover data source: National Land Cover Database 1992–2001 Land Cover Change Retrofit [NLCD-LCCR 1992–2001] product MultiResolution Land Characteristics Consortium [MRLC], 2011b; Fry and others, 2008). See tables 4

A, 4

B, and 13 for details.
Summary 23

Summary

This open-file report documents the development, use, 

and context of a hydrologic and landscape database for the 

Cache River and White River National Wildlife Refuges 

(NWRs) and their contributing watersheds in Arkansas, 

Missouri, and Oklahoma. The contributing watersheds of 

the Cache and White River NWRs, as defined in this report, 

include three hydrologic subregions: Lower Mississippi–

St Francis (16,840 square miles [mi2]), Upper White 

(22,350 mi2), and Lower Arkansas (15,830 mi2). Activities 

throughout these subregions, particularly reservoir operations, 

discharges, withdrawals, diversions, and dredging, all have the 

potential to either directly or indirectly impact the refuges. The 

refuges are located in the lower part of the Lower Mississippi–

St Francis subregion, most of which is in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Plain Level III ecoregion.

The hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and 

White River NWRs was developed by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) to provide an assessment and evaluation 

tool for the refuge manager and USFWS scientific and 

technical staff to use in examining refuge-specific hydrologic 

patterns and trends as related to water availability for refuge 

ecosystems, habitats, and target species. For example, the 

database and this report should provide an important source of 

information to support water resources inventories currently 

underway (for White River NWR) or planned (for Cache 

River NWR) as part of a comprehensive national inventory 

and assessment of water resources at all 550-plus refuges in 

the NWR system initiated by USFWS in 2010. The database 

includes hydrologic time-series data, statistics, and hydroecological metrics that can be used to assess refuge hydrologic 

conditions and the availability of aquatic and riparian habitat, 

as well as landscape spatial data that describe the refuge 

environmental setting and the locations of hydrologic-datacollection stations. The procedures used to retrieve, manage, 

and analyze the hydrologic data, and construct and package 

the hydrologic and landscape database, have been automated 

to facilitate periodic database updates.

The hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache 

and White River NWRs was developed from hydrologic data 

retrieved from the USGS NWISWeb database and U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) digital files and landscape 

geographic information system (GIS) data from multiple 

sources. Gaging stations were selected within the geographic 

extent and limited to those stations that were close enough to 

the refuges, either upstream, downstream, or within the refuge 

boundary, or on nearby streams and rivers that are hydrologically connected, to provide hydrologically relevant data. 

Hydrologic data collected at 18 gaging stations are included 

in the database. Data management and data reduction were 

done with a suite of Statistical Analysis System programs, 

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) software, Microsoft 

Access®, Microsoft Excel®, and Environmental Systems 

Research Institute ArcGIS®. The tabular data include the raw 

daily-values data for gage height and discharge, statisticalsummary data, selected hydrologic metrics, and the IHA 

parameters and Environmental Flow Components (EFCs). 

Landscape data include GIS layers for land cover, soil hydrologic characteristics, physipographic features, geographic and 

hydrographic boundaries, hydrographic features, regional 

runoff estimates, and gaging-station locations.

A station-level summary of the hydrologic data by both 

water year and calendar year is included with the database 

to provide database users with information on the quantity 

and quality of available data, facilitate comparisons between 

stations, and provide a benchmark for evaluating current hydrologic conditions within the context of the long-term record.

The primary purpose of this report and database is 

for hydrologic characterization and analysis to support 

refuge management of riparian and instream resources. 

Additionally, the data can also be used as input to any of 

the numerous software packages available for hydrologic 

characterization, instream-flow assessment, and the development of environmental-flow criteria. Example applications 

include: (1) IHA analyses could be run with different criteria 

than those used for the IHA parameters and EFCs included 

in this database; (2) the mean-daily values—gage height 

and(or) discharge—could be used as input to the hydrologic 

characterization for an Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) study (phases II and III, study planning, study 

implementation); and (3) the mean-daily discharge values and 

peak-flow values could be used as input to the development of 

a Hydroecological Integrity (Assessment) Process model.
24 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

References Cited

Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T., and Witmer, R.E., 

1976, A land use and land cover classification system for 

use with remote sensor data: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 964, 28 p.

Annear, T.C. and Dey, P.D., 2006, Water management 5-year 

plan—2006 to 2010: Fish Division Administrative Report 

AW-SW-EP1-540, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

accessed November 17, 2008, at http://gf.state.wy.us/

downloads/pdf/Fish/5yearplan2006.pdf.

Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, 2011, 

Arkansas cities: Accessed April 19, 2011, at http://www.

geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/Home.html?id=1e4ac0a30bf74bbf

c90af81180b36265.

Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, 2007, White River 

allocation plan, Technical analysis, Supplemental report 

(draft), 13 p.

Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, 2009, White 

River minimum streamflow, Supplemental report and 

staff recommendations, 7 p.

Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, 2011, Arkansas 

ground-water protection and management report for 2010: 

Accessed March 23, 2011, at http://www.anrc.arkansas.

gov/groundwater/2010_gw_report.pdf.

Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission, 2000, 

White River allocation, Bull Shoals Dam to the Mississippi 

River, Technical analysis (draft), 109 p.

Arkansas Studies Institute, 2011, The encyclopedia of 

Arkansas history and culture: Accessed June 22, 2011, 

at http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/.

Armstrong, D.S., Parker, G.W., and Richards, T.A., 2008, 

Characteristics and classification of least altered streamflows in Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007–5291, 113 p., plus CD–ROM.

Baker, D.B., Richards, Peter, Loftus, T.T., and Kramer, J.W., 

2004, A new flashiness index: characteristics and applications to midwestern rivers and streams: Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association , v. 40, p. 503–522.

Bovee, K.D, 1982, A guide to stream habitat analysis using 

the instream flow incremental methodology: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Instream Flow Information Paper No. 12., 

FWS/OBS-82/26, Washington, D.C.

Bovee, K.D., Lamb, B.L., Bartholow, J.M., Stalnaker, C.B., 

Taylor, Jonathan, and Henriksen, Jim, 1998, Stream habitat 

analysis using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology: 

U.S. Geological Survey Information and Technology Report 

1998–2004, 139 p., accessed March 24, 2011, at http://www.

fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/3910/3910.pdf.

Buell, G.R., Calhoun, D.L., and Wehmeyer, L.L., 2009, 

Hydrologic and land-use/land-cover metrics used in 

ecological assessments of six U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service National Wildlife Refuges in the southeastern USA, 

in Proceedings of the 2009 Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 27–29, 2009, Athens, Georgia, 8 p., accessed 

April 4, 2011, at http://www.gwri.gatech.edu/conferences/

previous-gwrc-conferences/gwrc-2009.html.

Czarnecki, J.B., 2010, Groundwater-flow assessment of the 

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer of northeastern 

Arkansas: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2010–5210, 33 p.

Daly, C., 2002, Climate division normals derived from topographicallysensitive climate grids, in Proceedings of the 

13th AMS Conference on Applied Climatology, American 

Meteorological Society, Portland, OR, May 13–16, 2002, 

p. 177–180.

Dey, P.D. and Annear, T.C., 2006, Rock Creek, tributary to 

Medicine Bow River, instream flow studies: Fish Division 

Administrative Report AW-LE-5UM-511, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department, accessed November 17, 2008, at 

http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/Fish/RockCk2.pdf.

ESRI, 2008, ArcGIS 9—What is ArcGIS 9.3?: ArcGIS 

Resource Center, ESRI Software 9.3 Library—

What is ArcGIS?, 131 p., accessed March 2, 2011, 

at http://resources.arcgis.com/content/productdocumentation?fa=viewDoc&PID=43&MetaID=1405.

ESRI, 2011a, ESRI Grid format: ArcGIS Resource Center, 

Desktop 10: Accessed March 2, 2011, at http://help.arcgis.

com/en/arcgisdesktop/10.0/help/index.html#/ESRI_Grid_

format/009t0000000w000000/.

ESRI, 2011b, Documentation for ArcReader: Accessed 

July 5, 2011, at http://support.esri.com/en/knowledgebase/

product-documentation/list/productid/18.

ESRI, 2011c, Documentation for ArcGIS spatial analyst: 

Accessed February 16, 2011 at http://resources.arcgis.com/

content/product-documentation?fa=listDocs&PID=47.

Falcone, J.A., Carlisle, D.M., Wolock, D.M., and Meador, M.R., 

2010, GAGES—A stream gage database for evaluating 

natural and altered flow conditions in the conterminous 

United States: Ecology v. 91, p. 621; Data Paper in 

Ecological Archives E091-045-D1; available online at 

http://esapubs.org/Archive/ecol/E091/045/default.htm.

Flyways.us, 2011, The Mississippi flyway council: A collaborative effort of waterfowl managers across the continent, 

accessed February 7, 2011, at http://mississippi.flyways.us/.

Fry, J.A., Coan, M.J., Homer, C.G., Meyer, D.K., and 

Wickham, J.D., 2008, Completion of the National Land 

Cover Database (NLCD) 1992–2001 land cover change 

retrofit product: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2008–1379, 24 p., available online at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2008/1379/.
References Cited 25

Gebert, W.A., Graczyk, D.J., and Krug, W.R., 1987, Average 

annual runoff in the United States, 1951–80: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA–710, scale 

1:7,500,000, accessed March 21, 2011, at http://water.usgs.

gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/runoff.xml#stdorder.

Gibson, W.P., Daly, C., Kittel, T., Nychka, D., Johns, C., 

Rosenbloom, N., McNab, A., and Taylor, G., 2002, Development of a 103-year high-resolution climate data set for 

the conterminous United States, in Proceedings of the 

13th AMS Conference on Applied Climatology, American 

Meteorological Society, Portland, OR, May 13–16, 2002, 

p. 181–183, accessed March 21, 2011, at http://www1.ncdc.

noaa.gov/pub/data/prism100/.

Gillilan, D. and Brown, T., 1997, Instream flow protection—

Seeking a balance in western water use: Washington, D.C., 

Island Press, 427 p.

Henriksen, J.A, Heasley, J., Kennen, J.G., and Nieswand, S., 

2006, Users’ manual for the hydroecological integrity 

assessment process software (including the New Jersey 

assessment tools): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2006–1093, 71 p., accessed November 18, 2008, 

at http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/pub_

abstract.asp?PubID=21598.

Hobbs, Walter V., 2011, RDB—A relational database management system: Accessed April 5, 2011, at http://compbio.soe.

ucsc.edu/rdb/.

Hoyt, J.C. and Wood, B.D., 1905, Index to the hydrographic 

progress reports of the United States Geological Survey, 

1888 to 1903: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply and 

Irrigation Paper No. 119, Washington, D.C., 111 p.

Kennen, J.G., Henriksen, J.A., and Nieswand, S.P., 2007, 

Development of the hydroecological integrity assessment 

process for determining environmental flows for New 

Jersey streams: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5206, 55 p., accessed March 25, 2011, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5206/.

Kiesling, Richard L., 2003, Applying indicators of hydrologic 

alteration to Texas streams—Overview of methods with 

examples from the Trinity River Basin: U.S. Geological 

Survey Fact Sheet 128–03, accessed March 11, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs12803/.

McMahon, G., Bales, J.D., Coles, J.F., Giddings, E.M.P. 

and Zappia, H., 2003, Use of stage data to characterize 

hydrologic conditions in an urbanizing environment: 

Journal of the American Water Resource Association, 

v. 39, p. 1529–1546.

Microsoft, 2011, Microsoft Download Center: Excel Viewer: 

Accessed July 5, 2011, at http://www.microsoft.com/

download/en/details.aspx?id=10.

Milhous, R.T., Updike, M.A., and Schneider, D.M., 1989, 

Physical habitat simulation reference manual—Version II: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 89(16) 

(Instream Flow Information Paper No. 26), Washington D.C., 

403 p., accessed March 25, 2011, at http://www.fort.usgs.

gov/Products/Publications/3912/3912.pdf.

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), 

2011a, National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD 2001): 

Accessed February 14, 2011, at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php.

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), 

2011b, National Land Cover Database 1992–2001 Land 

Cover Change Retrofit (NLCD-LCCR 1992–2001) product: Accessed February 14, 2011, at http://www.mrlc.gov/

changeproduct.php.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011, 

NOAA’s coastal geospatial data project: GIS files—

Download: Accessed February 14, 2011, at http://coastal

geospatial.noaa.gov/data_gis.html.

Olden, J.D. and Poff, N.L., 2003, Redundancy and the choice 

of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes: 

River Research and Applications, v. 19, p. 101–121.

Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United 

States—Map, scale 1:7,500,000: Annals of the Association 

of American Geographers, v. 77, p. 118–125.

OpenOffice.orgTM, 2011, OpenOffice.orgTM—The free 

and open productivity suite: Accessed July 5, 2011, at 

http://www.openoffice.org/.

Poff, N.L., 1996, A hydrogeography of unregulated streams 

in the United States and an examination of scaledependence in some hydrological descriptors: 

Freshwater Biology, v. 36, p. 71–91.

Ramsar, 2011, The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: 

Convention on wetlands of international importance 

especially as waterfowl habitat, accessed February 4, 2011, 

at http://www.ramsar.org/.

Reed, T.B., 2003, Recalibration of a ground-water flow model 

of the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer of northeastern Arkansas, 1918–1998, with simulations of water 

levels caused by projected ground-water withdrawals 

through 2049: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 03–4109, 63 p.

Richards, R.P., 1989, Measures of flow variability for Great 

Lakes tributaries: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, v. 12, p. 361–377.

Richter, B.D., Baumgartner, J.V., Powell, J., and Braun, D.P., 

1996, A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within 

ecosystems: Conservation Biology, v. 10, p. 1163–1174.
26 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

SAS Institute Inc., 2011, SAS product documentation, Cary, 

NC: SAS Institute Inc., accessed February 15, 2011, at 

http://support.sas.com/documentation/index.html.

Schrader, T.P., 2009, Water levels and selected water-quality 

conditions in the Spart-Memphis aquifer (Middle Claiborne 

aquifer) in Arkansas, spring-summer 2007: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5207, 50 p., 

available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5207/.

Schrader, T.P., 2010, Water levels and selected water-quality 

conditions in the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer in 

eastern Arkansas, 2008: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010–5140, 71 p., 2 plates, available 

online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5140/.

Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1994, 

Hydrologic unit maps: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2294, 66 p.

Smith, P., 1998, Setting instream flows in Washington State: 

Publication #98–1813–WR, Washington State Department 

of Ecology, accessed November 17, 2008, at http://www.ecy.

wa.gov/biblio/981813wr.html.

Soil Survey Staff, 2011, U.S. general soil map (STATSGO2): 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, accessed March 1, 2011, at http://soils.usda.

gov/survey/geography/statsgo/.

Tennessee Spatial Data Server, 2011, Frequently-accessed data 

layers—City limits: Accessed April 19, 2011, at http://www.

tngis.org/frequently_accessed_data.html.

The Nature Conservancy, 2007, Indicators of hydrologic 

alteration—IHA software: Accessed February 11, 2011, 

at http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/iha/.

The Nature Conservancy, 2009, Indicators of hydrologic 

alteration, Version 7.1, User’s manual: The Nature 

Conservancy with rPurview LLC–Ted Rybicki, Totten 

Software Design, Smythe Scientific Software, 81 p., 

accessed March 10, 2011, at http://conserveonline.org/

workspaces/iha/documents/download/view.html.

URS, 2004, Phase 1 repor—White River navigation improvement project: Recreation benefits study: Prepared for U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District: Gaithersburg, 

Maryland and Metarie, Louisiana, URS Group, Inc., 

Contract Number DACW66-01-D-0005, 103 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, Eastern Arkansas region 

comprehensive study; Grand Prairie region and Bayou Meto 

Basin; Grand Prairie area demonstration project; general 

re-evaluation report: Volume 1—Main report and final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS): U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Memphis District, Mississippi River 

Commission, 427 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003, Summary report of 

the preliminary draft White River navigation general reevaluation report: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis 

District, 79 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009, Project review plan—

White River navigation improvement project from the 

Arkansas Post Canal to Newport, Arkansas section 363, 

general re-evaluation: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Memphis District, 16 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011a, McClellan-Kerr 

Arkansas River Navigation System (MKARNS): Accessed 

February 7, 2011, at http://www.swl.usace.army.mil/

navigation/mckarns.html.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011b, Grand Prairie Area 

Demonstration Project: Accessed February 8, 2011, at 

http://www.mvm.usace.army.mil/grandprairie/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011c, White River fact sheet: 

Accessed February 10, 2011, at http://www.mvm.usace.

army.mil/whiteriver/FactSheet/WRNavApr01%20.htm.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011d, Corps Lakes Gateway: 

Accessed June 22, 2011, at http://corpslakes.usace.army.

mil/visitors/visitors.cfm.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011e, Rivergages.com—

Water levels of rivers and lakes, accessed February 14, 2011, 

at http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/WaterControl/new/

layout.cfm.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a, USA CountiesTM: Accessed 

June 24, 2011, at http://censtats.census.gov/usa/usa.shtml.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011b, 2010 Census TIGER/Line Shapefiles: Accessed February 14, 2011, at http://www.census.

gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2010/tgrshp2010.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994, State soil geographic 

(STATSGO) data base—Data use information: Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey 

Center, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1492, 113 p., 

accessed March 1, 2011, at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

technical/techtools/statsgo_db.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, Hydrologic soil groups, 

Chapter 7 in National Engineering Handbook, Part 630, 

Hydrology: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

210-VI-NEH, 13 p., accessed February 28, 2011, at 

http://policy.nrcs.usda.gov/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011a, Watershed boundary 

dataset (WBD): Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

accessed February 11, 2011, at http://www.nrcs.usda.

gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/water/watersheds/.
References Cited 27

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011b, eDirectives—Electronic 

directives system: Natural Resources Conservation Service,

accessed February 28, 2011, at KWWSSROLF\QUFVXVGDJRY.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011c, Grand Prairie Irrigation Project: Accessed April 21, 2011, at http://www.ar.nrcs.

usda.gov/programs/grand_prairie.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011d, U.S. General Soil 

Map (STATSGO2): Accessed July 19, 2011, at http://soils.

usda.gov/survey/geography/statsgo/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, Level III and 

Level IV ecoregions of the continental United States: 

Western Ecology Division, accessed March 1, 2011, at 

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii_iv. 

htm#LevelIV.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a, Cache River 

National Wildlife Refuge: Accessed February 4, 2011, 

at http://www.fws.gov/cacheriver/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011b, White River 

National Wildlife Refuge: Accessed February 4, 2011, 

at http://www.fws.gov/whiteriver/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011c, Water resources survey 

gets underway: Refuge Update, January/February 2011, 

v. 8, no. 1, 24 p., accessed March 24, 2011, at http://www.fws.

gov/refuges/RefugeUpdate/pdfs/refUp_JanFeb_2011.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011d, National Wildlife 

Refuge system: Accessed September 30, 2011, at 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011e, USFWS national 

cadastral data—National Wildlife Refuge and Hatchery 

boundaries: Geospatial Services, Information Resources and 

Technology Management, Cadastral Data Working Group, 

accessed March 1, 2011, at http://www.fws.gov/GIS/data/

CadastralDB/index.htm.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, NWISWeb—New site for the 

Nation’s water data: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 

FS-128–02, 2 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007a, Facing tomorrow’s challenges—

U.S. Geological Survey science in the decade 2007–2017: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1309, 81 p., accessed 

September 27, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2007/1309/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007b, Facing tomorrow’s challenges—

U.S. Geological Survey science in the decade 2007–2017: 

Understanding ecosystems and predicting ecosystem 

change: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2007–3107, 

2 p., accessed September 27, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

fs/2007/3107/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008a, National Land Cover Database 1992 (NLCD 1992): Accessed November 19, 2008, at 

http://landcover.usgs.gov/natllandcover.php.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008b, Historical backdrop to IFIM: 

Accessed November 17, 2008, at http://www.fort.usgs.gov/

Products/Software/ifim/history.asp.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c, The five phases of IFIM: 

Accessed November 17, 2008, at http://www.fort.usgs.gov/

Products/Software/ifim/5phases.asp.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008d, Physical habitat simulation 

(PHABSIM) software: Accessed November 17, 2008 at 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Software/PHABSIM.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008e, National hydrologic assessment tool (NATHAT): Accessed November 18, 2008, at 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Software/NATHAT/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008f, “HIP” new software—The 

hydroloecological integrity assessment process: Accessed 

November 18, 2008, at http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Resources/

research_briefs/HIP.asp.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011a, National Water Information 

System (NWIS): Accessed February 11, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/FS-027-98/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b, USGS water data for the 

Nation—National Water Information System: Web 

interface (NWISWeb), accessed February 11, 2011, 

at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/nwis.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011c, NWISWeb—New site for 

the Nation’s water data: Accessed February 11, 2011, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-128-02/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011d, Water-data reports: 

Accessed July 7, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011e, National hydrography dataset: 

Accessed February 14, 2011, at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011f, User’s manual for the National 

Water Information System of the United States Geological 

Survey: Automated data processing system (ADAPS), 

version 4.10, p. 487, accessed September 12, 2011, at 

http://nwis.usgs.gov/nwisdocs4_10/adaps/adaps.book.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011g, New Jersey hydrologic tools 

(NJHAT and NJSCT): Accessed March 30, 2011, at http://

www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Software/NJHAT/Default.asp.

Waddle, T.J. ed., 2001, PHABSIM for Windows—Users’ 

manual and exercises: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 2001–340, 288 p., accessed November 18, 2008, 

at http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/pub_

abstract.asp?PubId=15000. 

Wolock, D.M., 1997, STATSGO soil characteristics for the 

conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 97–656, accessed March 1, 2011, at http://water.

usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/muid.xml.

Tables 2–13
30 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 2A. Station characteristics for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife 

Refuges (NWRs) and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; dms, latitude and longitude coordinates in 

degrees, minutes, and seconds; mi2, square mile; gage location in relation to the refuge property: us, upstream; usds, upstream and downstream (on refuge 

property); ds, downstream; adj, on an adjacent hydrologically connected river or stream; gage location referenced to: c, Cache River NWR; w, White River 

NWR; cw, Cache and White River NWRs]

USGS

station

number

Station name

County

and

State

Latitude and

longitudea

(dms)

Hydrologic

unitb

Drainage

areac

(mi2

)

Datum

of gaged

(ft)

Gage

location

Upper White (1101)

07074500 White River at Newport, AR Jackson, AR 353618N, 0911719W 11010013 19,900 194.09 us-cw

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

07047970e Mississippi River at Helena, AR Phillips, AR 343126N, 0903502W 08020100 937,700 141.70 adj-cw

07076750 White River at Georgetown, AR White, AR 350745N, 0912700W 08020301 22,400 170.08 us-cw

07077000 White River at DeValls Bluff, AR Prairie, AR 344725N, 0912645W 08020301 23,400 152.93 usds-c

us-w

07077380 Cache River at Egypt, AR Craighead, AR 355128N, 0905600W 08020302 701 222.99 us-cw

07077500 Cache River at Patterson, AR Woodruff, AR 351611N, 0911411W 08020302 1,040 182.96 usds-c

us-w

07077555 Cache River near Cotton Plant, AR Woodruff, AR 350208N, 0911921W 08020302 1,170 164.17 usds-c

us-w

07077700 Bayou DeView near Morton, AR Woodruff, AR 351507N, 0910643W 08020302 421 187.71 usds-c

us-w

07077800 White River at Clarendon, AR Monroe, AR 344108N, 0911855W 08020303 25,555 139.91 ds-c

us-w

07077820e White River at St Charles, AR Arkansas, AR 342242N, 0910736W 08020303 25,732 129.95 ds-c

usds-w

07077950e Big Creek at Poplar Grove, AR Phillips, AR 343320N, 0905044W 08020304 448 143.00 adj-c

us-w

07077952e Big Creek near Poplar Grove, AR Phillips, AR 343017N, 0905059W 08020304 459 143.00 adj-c

us-w

07078000e LaGrue Bayou near Stuttgart, AR Arkansas, AR 343155N, 0912120W 08020402 175 175.14 adj-c

us-w

07078300e White River at Benzal, AR Arkansas, AR 335958N, 0910910W 08020303 27,743 119.21 ds-cw

07264000 Bayou Meto near Lonoke, AR Lonoke, AR 344413N, 0915458W 08020402 207 199.11 adj-cw

Lower Arkansas (1111)

07263450 Arkansas River at Murray Dam 

near Little Rock, AR

Pulaski, AR 344727N, 0922132W 11110207 158,030 223.61 adj-c

us-w

07263500 Arkansas River at Little Rock, 

AR

Pulaski, AR 344500N, 0921625W 11110207 158,090

(135,849)

223.61 adj-c

us-w

Lower Mississippi–Yazoo (0803)

07265450 Mississippi River near Arkansas 

City, AR

Desha, AR 333327N, 0911415W 08030100 1,130,600 96.66 adj-cw

aLatitude and longitude coordinates in normal font are referenced to the NAD 27, those in italicized font are referenced to NAD 83.

bThe 8-digit hydrologic units were developed by the USGS as a standardized set of hydrologic boundaries and numerical codes for the river-basin units of 

the United States (Seaber and others, 1994). The 8-digit hydrologic unit code encompasses four levels of subdivision: region (2-digit), subregion (4-digit), 

accounting unit (6-digit), and cataloging unit (8-digit).

cDrainage area in parentheses is shown when the contributing drainage area is less than the actual drainage area. Drainage areas in italicized font 

are from records of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

dDatum-of-gage values in normal font are from records of the USGS, those in italicized font are from records of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

All datum-of-gage values are referenced to NGVD 29.

e Inactive station.
Tables 2–13 31

Table 2B. Hydrologic data periods of record for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River 

National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions (and 

subregion codes) listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar 

year; calendar year, January 1 through December 31]

USGS

station

number

Station name Parametera

Water-year record Calendar-year record

Period of

recordb

Record

completenessb

Period of

recordb

Record

completenessb

Upper White (1101)

07074500 White River at Newport, AR Gage height 1978–2009 7, 25–0.94 1978–2009 7, 25–0.94

Discharged 1928–2009 75, 1–0.92 1927–2009 74, 4–0.91

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

07047970c Mississippi River at Helena, AR Discharged 1928–1977 49, 1–0.99 1928–1977 49, 1–0.99

07076750 White River at Georgetown, AR Discharged 1928–2009 8, 24–0.23 1927–2009 6, 32–0.25

07077000 White River at DeValls Bluff, AR Gage height 1989–2009 4, 17–0.94 1988–2009 7, 15–0.90

Discharged 1950–2009 41, 1–0.70 1949–2009 40, 4–0.69

07077380 Cache River at Egypt, AR Gage height 1974–2009 14, 22–0.93 1973–2009 15, 22–0.90

Discharged 1965–2009 44, 1–0.99 1964–2009 44, 2–0.97

07077500 Cache River at Patterson, AR Gage height 1987–2009 13, 10–0.95 1986–2009 13, 11–0.92

Discharged 1928–2009 60, 8–0.80 1927–2009 59, 12–0.79

07077555 Cache River near Cotton Plant, AR Gage heightd 1987–2009 12, 11–0.96 1987–2009 10, 13–0.96

Discharged 1987–2009 21, 2–0.97 1987–2009 21, 2–0.97

07077700 Bayou DeView near Morton, AR Gage height 1987–2009 5, 12–0.54 1987–2009 4, 14–0.54

Discharged 1939–2009 48, 3–0.71 1939–2009 47, 5–0.71

07077800 White River at Clarendon, AR Gage heightd 1886–2009 80, 36–0.83 1886–2009 94, 21–0.83

Discharged 1929–1993 53, 1–0.83 1928–1993 52, 3–0.81

07077820 White River at St Charles, AR Gage heightd 1932–2009 44, 34–0.88 1932–2009 52, 26–0.88

07077950c Big Creek at Poplar Grove, AR Discharged 1971–1994 23, 1–0.96 1970–1993 22, 2–0.96

07077952c Big Creek near Poplar Grove, AR Discharge 1971–1972 2, 0–1.00 1970–1972 1, 2–0.67

07078000c LaGrue Bayou near Stuttgart, AR Discharged 1936–1954 19, 0–1.00 1935–1954 18, 2–0.95

07078300c White River at Benzal, AR Gage heightd 1938–1971 32, 0–0.94 1937–1971 29, 6–0.91

07264000 Bayou Meto near Lonoke, AR Discharged 1955–2009 54, 1–1.00 1954–2009 54, 2–0.98

Lower Arkansas (1111)

07263450 Arkansas River at Murray Dam 

near Little Rock, AR

Gage height 1989–2009 1, 20–0.92 1988–2009 1, 21–0.88

Discharge 1928–2009 79, 1–0.96 1927–2008 77, 4–0.96

07263500 Arkansas River at Little Rock, AR Gage height 1987–2009 6, 17–0.88 1987–2009 4, 17–0.88

Discharged 1928–1970 43, 0–1.00 1927–1970 42, 2–0.98

Lower Mississippi–Yazoo (0803)

07265450 Mississippi River near Arkansas 

City, AR

Gage height 1929–2009 70, 11–0.99 1929–2009 73, 8–0.99

Discharged 1928–1980 52, 1–1.00 1928–1980 52, 1–1.00

aParameter designations in normal font indicate data from records of the USGS, designations in italicized font indicate data from records of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers.

bPeriod shown is for indicated type of year and includes gaps if data collection was discontinuous. Record completeness: number of complete water or 

calendar years, number of partial-record water or calendar years–fraction of total record length with mean-daily values. The fraction-of-total-record-length 

calculation is based on complete beginning and ending water or calendar years as well as complete intervening years. Therefore, the fraction-of-total-recordlength numbers may be different for water years when compared to calendar years.

c Inactive station.

d Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) analysis was performed for these parameters. Periods of record for IHA analyses shown in figure 4 

(gage height) and figure 5 (discharge).
32 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 3. Annotated list of GIS feature classes, tables, and raster datasets in the geodatabase catalogue for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges and contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[TIGER, Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing; NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; NOAA, National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NHD, National Hydrography Dataset; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 

USACOE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; STATSGO, State Soil Geographic [Database]; na, not applicable]

Feature class/tablea Feature-class/table description Scale Reference(s)

Boundaries—feature dataset bnd_a83

cache_white_nwrs_bnd_a83 Refuge land-acquisition boundaries 1:12,000;

1:24,000;

1:63,360

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2011d

counties100_a83 High-resolution 2010 TIGER/Line county boundaries 1:100,000 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011b

cwt_cities_gageref_a83 City-limit boundaries for the states of Arkansas and 

Tennessee subset to the Cache and White River NWRs 

contributing watersheds and vicinity. Arkansas boundaries 

delineated by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Tennessee boundaries extracted from 

high-resolution 2010 TIGER/Line city boundaries

1:100,000 Arkansas State Highway and 

Transportation Department, 

2011; Tennessee Spatial 

Data Server, 2011

cwt_h04d_a83 4-digit hydrologic-unit boundaries, hydrologic 

subregions, dissolved from 12-digit Watershed 

Boundary Dataset, Cache and White River NWRs 

contributing watersheds and vicinity

1:24,000 Seaber and others, 1994; 

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2011a

cwt_h04d_a83b10000 4-digit hydrologic-unit boundaries, hydrologic subregions,

dissolved from 12-digit Watershed Boundary Dataset, 

Cache and White River NWRs contributing watersheds 

and vicinity, 10-kilometer buffer

1:24,000 Seaber and others, 1994; 

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2011a

cwt_h08d_a83 8-digit hydrologic-unit boundaries, hydrologic 

cataloging units, dissolved from 12-digit Watershed 

Boundary Dataset, Cache and White River NWRs 

contributing watersheds

1:24,000 Seaber and others, 1994; 

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2011a

cwt_h10d_a83 10-digit hydrologic-unit boundaries, dissolved from 

12-digit Watershed Boundary Dataset, Cache and White 

River NWRs contributing watersheds and vicinity

1:24,000 Seaber and others, 1994; 

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2011a

cwt_h12bnd_a83 12-digit hydrologic-unit boundaries, Watershed 

Boundary Dataset, Cache and White River NWRs 

contributing watersheds and vicinity

1:24,000 Seaber and others, 1994; 

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2011a

states100_a83 High-resolution state boundaries, dissolved from 2010 

TIGER/Line county boundaries, clipped to NOAA’s 

medium-resolution coastline

1:100,000 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011b; 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011
Tables 2–13 33

Table 3. Annotated list of GIS feature classes, tables, and raster datasets in the geodatabase catalogue for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges and contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[TIGER, Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing; NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; NOAA, National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NHD, National Hydrography Dataset; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 

USACOE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; STATSGO, State Soil Geographic [Database]; na, not applicable]

Feature class/tablea Feature-class/table description Scale Reference(s)

Environmental setting—feature dataset env_a83

eco4_cwt_a83 USEPA’s level III and level IV ecoregion boundaries 1:250,000 U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2011

Hydrography—feature dataset hydro_a83

cwt_nhdhr_fl_a83 High-resolution NHD flowlines, Cache and White River 

contributing watersheds and vicinity, subset to 

major features

1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey, 2011f

cwt_nhdhr_wb_a83 High-resolution NHD water bodies, Cache and White 

River contributing watersheds and vicinity, subset to 

major features

1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey, 2011f

cwt_runoff5180_h04_a83 Lines of equal mean-annual runoff, in inches, for 

1951–80, Cache and White River contributing 

watersheds and vicinity

1:7,500,000 Gebert and others, 1987

Hydrography—feature dataset hydro_a83—Continued

nhd0802hr_fl_a83 High-resolution NHD flowlines, Lower Mississippi–

St Francis hydrologic subregion (0802), all features

1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey, 2011f

nhd0802hr_wb_a83 High-resolution NHD water bodies, Lower Mississippi–

St Francis hydrologic subregion (0802), all features

1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey, 2011f

nhd1101hr_fl_a83 High-resolution NHD flowlines, Upper White hydrologic 

subregion (1101), all features

1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey, 2011f

nhd1101hr_wb_a83 High-resolution NHD water bodies, Upper White 

hydrologic subregion (1101), all features

1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey, 2011f

nhd1111hr_fl_a83 High-resolution NHD flowlines, Lower Arkansas 

hydrologic subregion (1111), all features

1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey, 2011f

nhd1111hr_wb_a83 High-resolution NHD water bodies, Lower Arkansas 

hydrologic subregion (1111), all features

1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey, 2011f

Site locations—feature dataset siteloc_a83

nwis_cwt_q USGS and USACOE gaging locations on rivers and 

streams within the contributing watersheds and vicinity 

of the Cache and White River NWRs

na U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, 

2011a–c, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, 2011e
34 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 3. Annotated list of GIS feature classes, tables, and raster datasets in the geodatabase catalogue for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges and contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[TIGER, Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing; NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; NOAA, National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NHD, National Hydrography Dataset; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 

USACOE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; STATSGO, State Soil Geographic [Database]; na, not applicable]

Feature class/tablea Feature-class/table description Scale Reference(s)

Geodatabase tables

cwt_lcc9201_h08ta Area tabulation for hydrologic cataloging units (8-digit 

hydrologic units) in the contributing watersheds and 

vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs based on 

the 1992–2001 NLCD Retrofit Landcover Change Product

na Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium 

(MRLC), 2011b

cwt_lcc9201_rfgta Area tabulation for the Cache and White River NWR 

acquisition areas based on the 1992–2001 NLCD 

Retrofit Landcover Change Product

na Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium 

(MRLC), 2011b

cwt_nlcd01_h08ta Area tabulation for hydrologic cataloging units 

(8-digit hydrologic units) in the contributing watersheds and vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs 

based on the 2001 NLCD

na Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium 

(MRLC), 2011a

cwt_nlcd01_rfgta Area tabulation for the Cache and White River NWR 

acquisition areas based on the 2001 NLCD

na Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium 

(MRLC), 2011a

cwt_nlcd92_h08ta Area tabulation for hydrologic cataloging units 

(8-digit hydrologic units) in the contributing watersheds and vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs 

based on the 1992 NLCD

na U.S. Geological Survey, 2008f

cwt_nlcd92_rfgta Area tabulation for the Cache and White River NWR 

acquisition areas based on the 1992 NLCD

na U.S. Geological Survey, 2008f

cwt_sgo_h08_hga_ta Area tabulation for hydrologic cataloging units 

(8-digit hydrologic units) in the contributing watersheds and vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs 

based on STATSGO soil-hydrologic group A

na U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994; Soil Survey Staff, 

2011; Wolock, 1997

cwt_sgo_rfg_hga_ta Area tabulation for the Cache and White River NWR 

acquisition areas based on STATSGO soil-hydrologic 

group A

na U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994; Soil Survey Staff, 

2011; Wolock, 1997

cwt_sgo_h08_hgb_ta Area tabulation for hydrologic cataloging units 

(8-digit hydrologic units) in the contributing watersheds and vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs 

based on STATSGO soil-hydrologic group B

na U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994; Soil Survey Staff, 

2011; Wolock, 1997

cwt_sgo_rfg_hgb_ta Area tabulation for the Cache and White River NWR 

acquisition areas based on STATSGO soil-hydrologic 

group B

na U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994; Soil Survey Staff, 

2011; Wolock, 1997
Tables 2–13 35

Table 3. Annotated list of GIS feature classes, tables, and raster datasets in the geodatabase catalogue for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges and contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[TIGER, Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing; NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; NOAA, National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NHD, National Hydrography Dataset; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 

USACOE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; STATSGO, State Soil Geographic [Database]; na, not applicable]

Feature class/tablea Feature-class/table description Scale Reference(s)

Geodatabase tables—Continued

cwt_sgo_h08_hgc_ta Area tabulation for hydrologic cataloging units 

(8-digit hydrologic units) in the contributing watersheds and vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs 

based on STATSGO soil-hydrologic group C

na U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994; Soil Survey Staff, 

2011; Wolock, 1997

cwt_sgo_rfg_hgc_ta Area tabulation for the Cache and White River NWR 

acquisition areas based on STATSGO soil-hydrologic 

group C

na U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994; Soil Survey Staff, 

2011; Wolock, 1997

cwt_sgo_h08_hgd_ta Area tabulation for hydrologic cataloging units 

(8-digit hydrologic units) in the contributing watersheds and vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs 

based on STATSGO soil-hydrologic group D

na U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994; Soil Survey Staff, 

2011; Wolock, 1997

cwt_sgo_rfg_hgd_ta Area tabulation for the Cache and White River NWR 

acquisition areas based on STATSGO soil-hydrologic 

group D

na U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994; Soil Survey Staff, 

2011; Wolock, 1997

muid100_hydgrp STATSGO soil-hydrologic groupings by soil map unit 

for the conterminous United States

na U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b

Raster datasets

lcc9201cwt 1992-2001 NLCD Retrofit Landcover Change Product, 

rectangular extent—contributing watersheds and 

vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs, 

50-kilometer buffer

1:100,000;

30-meter

Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium 

(MRLC), 2011b

nlcd01cwt 2001 NLCD, rectangular extent—contributing watersheds 

and vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs, 

50-kilometer buffer

1:100,000;

30-meter

Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium 

(MRLC), 2011a

nlcd92cwt 1992 NLCD, rectangular extent—contributing watersheds 

and vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs, 

50-kilometer buffer

1:100,000;

30-meter

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008f

sgo_cwt_a83 STATSGO soil orders, hydric soils, and soil-hydrologic 

groups, rectangular extent—contributing watersheds 

and vicinity of the Cache and White River NWRs, 

50-kilometer buffer

1:250,000;

100-meter

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994; Soil Survey Staff, 

2011; Wolock, 1997

a

All feature classes and raster datasets projected to USA contiguous Albers equal-area conic projection, central meridian—96 degrees west, linear unit—meter, 

horizontal datum—D_North_American_1983; vector data are stored in ESRI ArcGIS® file geodatabase feature datasets and feature classes (ESRI, 2008); raster 

data are stored in ESRI ArcINFO® GRID format (ESRI, 2011b); tabular data are stored in ESRI ArcGIS® geodatabase tables (ESRI, 2008).
36 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 4A. Database files, tables/worksheets, and table/worksheet descriptions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the 

Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in feet; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in cubic feet per second; calendar year, January 1 

through December 31; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; IHA, Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration; EFC, environmental-flow 

component; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; NLCD-LCCR, 

National Land Cover Database-Land Cover Change Retrofit product; STATSGO, State Soil Geographic [Database]; HSG, hydrologic soil group]

File namea Table/worksheet namea Table/worksheet descriptiona

Raw datab

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_raw.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_raw.xlsx

cwt001 Raw data—mean-daily values for gage height and discharge; 

sum-daily values for precipitation, for gaging stations in the 

contributing watersheds of the Cache and White River NWRs

Descriptive statistics, spread measures, and ratio measuresb

cwt_tabular_hydrostats.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_gmn.xlsx;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_qmn.xlsx

cwt[gmn,qmn]01 Mean-daily gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), daily values

cwt_tabular_hydrostats.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_gmn.xlsx;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_qmn.xlsx

cwt[gmn,qmn]cy02 Calendar-year statistics for gage height (gmn) and 

discharge (qmn)

cwt_tabular_hydrostats.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_gmn.xlsx;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_qmn.xlsx

cwt[gmn,qmn]cd02 Calendar-decade statistics for gage height (gmn) and 

discharge (qmn)

cwt_tabular_hydrostats.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_gmn.xlsx;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_qmn.xlsx

cwt[gmn,qmn]cym02 Calendar-year-month statistics for gage height (gmn) 

and discharge (qmn)

cwt_tabular_hydrostats.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_gmn.xlsx;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_qmn.xlsx

cwt[gmn,qmn]wy02 Water-year statistics for gage height (gmn) and 

discharge (qmn)

cwt_tabular_hydrostats.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_gmn.xlsx;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_qmn.xlsx

cwt[gmn,qmn]mo02 Period-of-record monthly statistics metrics, based on meandaily values, for gage height (gmn) and discharge (qmn), 

complete calendar years

cwt_tabular_hydrostats.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_gmn.xlsx;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_qmn.xlsx

cwt[gmn,qmn]mom02 Period-of-record monthly statistics metrics, based on annual 

monthly means of mean-daily values, for gage height (gmn) 

and discharge (qmn), complete calendar years

cwt_tabular_hydrostats.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_gmn.xlsx;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_qmn.xlsx

cwt[gmn,qmn]jc02 Period-of-record calendar-year-julian-day statistics, based on 

mean-daily values, for gage height (gmn) and discharge 

(qmn), complete calendar years

cwt_tabular_hydrostats.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_gmn.xlsx;

cwt_tabular_hydrostats_qmn.xlsx

cwt[gmn,qmn]jw02 Period-of-record water-year-julian-day statistics, based on 

mean-daily values, for gage height (gmn) and discharge 

(qmn), complete calendar years

Hydrologic metricsb

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.xlsx

hydmetrics_cwt_cyear_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Period-of-record hydrologic metrics, based on mean-daily 

values, for gage height (gmn) and discharge (qmn), 

complete calendar years; departure metrics indexed to 

the period of record for complete calendar years

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.xlsx

hydmetrics_cwt_wyear_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Period-of-record hydrologic metrics, based on mean-daily 

values, for gage height (gmn) and discharge (qmn), 

complete water years; departure metrics indexed to the 

period of record for complete water years

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.xlsx

hydmetrics_cwt_cyear_

[gmn,qmn]_ap

Calendar-year hydrologic metrics, based on mean-daily 

values, for gage height (gmn) and discharge (qmn), 

complete and partial calendar years; departure metrics 

indexed to each calendar year
Tables 2–13 37

Table 4A. Database files, tables/worksheets, and table/worksheet descriptions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the 

Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in feet; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in cubic feet per second; calendar year, January 1 

through December 31; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; IHA, Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration; EFC, environmental-flow 

component; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; NLCD-LCCR, 

National Land Cover Database-Land Cover Change Retrofit product; STATSGO, State Soil Geographic [Database]; HSG, hydrologic soil group]

File namea Table/worksheet namea Table/worksheet descriptiona

Hydrologic metricsb—Continued

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.xlsx

hydmetrics_cwt_wyear_

[gmn,qmn]_ap

Water-year hydrologic metrics, based on mean-daily values, 

for gage height (gmn) and discharge (qmn), complete and 

partial water years; departure metrics indexed to each 

water year

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.xlsx

hydmetrics_cwt_cyear_

[gmn,qmn]_ip

Calendar-year hydrologic metrics, based on mean-daily 

values, for gage height (gmn) and discharge (qmn), 

complete and partial calendar years; departure metrics 

indexed to the period of record for complete calendar years

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.accdb;

cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.xlsx

hydmetrics_cwt_wyear_

[gmn,qmn]_ip

Water-year hydrologic metrics, based on mean-daily values, 

for gage height (gmn) and discharge (qmn), complete and 

partial water years; departure metrics indexed to the period 

of record for complete water years

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration metricsc

iha_por_cwt.xlsx wy_por Water-year period of record used for IHA analysis, columnar 

listing of water years by gaging station, years next to data 

gaps in red bolded font

iha_por_cwt.xlsx timeline Transpose of worksheet “wy_por” used to generate timeline 

plots (figures 4 and 5)

iha_por_cwt.xlsx por_gage_height_plot Timeline plot for gage height record used in IHA analysis

iha_por_cwt.xlsx por_discharge_plot Timeline plot for discharge record used in IHA analysis

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 1_day_min 1-day mean minimum discharge values

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 3_day_min 3-day mean minimum discharge values

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 7_day_min 7-day mean minimum discharge values

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 30_day_min 30-day mean minimum discharge values

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 90_day_min 90-day mean minimum discharge values

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 1_day_max 1-day mean maximum discharge values

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 3_day_max 3-day mean maximum discharge values

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 7_day_max 7-day mean maximum discharge values

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 30_day_max 30-day mean maximum discharge values

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 90_day_max 90-day mean maximum discharge values

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd baseflow Baseflow index: 7-day mean minimum discharge/

mean-annual discharge

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd qmn7525s 75th–25th percentile spread measure for mean-daily discharge

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd summary IHA period-of-record summary data for IHA parameter groups 

and environmental-flow components: summary data include 

the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles and the 

75th-25th percentile spread measure

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 07077000 Complete IHA analysis for USGS station 07077000, 

White River at DeValls Bluff, AR

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 07077380 Complete IHA analysis for USGS station 07077380, 

Cache River at Egypt, AR
38 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 4A. Database files, tables/worksheets, and table/worksheet descriptions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the 

Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in feet; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in cubic feet per second; calendar year, January 1 

through December 31; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; IHA, Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration; EFC, environmental-flow 

component; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; NLCD-LCCR, 

National Land Cover Database-Land Cover Change Retrofit product; STATSGO, State Soil Geographic [Database]; HSG, hydrologic soil group]

File namea Table/worksheet namea Table/worksheet descriptiona

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration metricsc—Continued

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 07077500 Complete IHA analysis for USGS station 07077500, 

Cache River at Patterson, AR

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 07077555 Complete IHA analysis for USGS station 07077555, 

Cache River near Cotton Plant, AR

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 07077700 Complete IHA analysis for USGS station 07077700, 

Bayou DeView near Morton, AR

regional_iha_cwt.xlsxd 07077800 Complete IHA analysis for USGS station 07077800, 

White River at Clarendon, AR

sSSSSSSSS_iha_[gmn,qmn].xlsx ann Water-year annual values for all IHA parameter groups and 

EFC groups, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), gaging 

station SSSSSSSSe

 (parameter definitions given in table 5)

sSSSSSSSS_iha_[gmn,qmn].xlsx sco IHA scorecard: period-of-record summary data, median values 

and coefficients of dispersion for IHA parameter groups and 

EFC groups, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), gaging 

station SSSSSSSSe

sSSSSSSSS_iha_[gmn,qmn].xlsx lsq Linear-regression models for IHA parameter groups and EFC 

groups with water year, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), 

gaging station SSSSSSSSe

sSSSSSSSS_iha_[gmn,qmn].xlsx pct IHA period-of-record summary data for IHA parameter groups 

and EFC groups: summary data include the 10th, 25th, 

50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles and the 75th–25th percentile spread measure, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), 

gaging station SSSSSSSSe

sSSSSSSSS_iha_[gmn,qmn].xlsx daily_efcs Mean-daily values coded with IHA EFC groups, period of 

record, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), gaging station 

SSSSSSSSe

sSSSSSSSS_iha_[gmn,qmn].xlsx msg IHA conditional information messages concerning data quality 

as related to the IHA analysis, gaging station SSSSSSSSe

Geospatial data summaries

cwt_nlcd.xlsx cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct Land-cover percentages for hydrologic subregions and 

cataloging units (contributing-watershed area and vicinity 

for the Cache and White River NWRs) and refuge 

acquisition areas based on 1992 NLCD level 2 categories 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2008f)

cwt_nlcd.xlsx cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct Land-cover percentages for hydrologic subregions and 

cataloging units (contributing-watershed area and vicinity 

for the Cache and White River NWRs) and refuge 

acquisition areas based on 2001 NLCD level 2 categories 

(Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 

[MRLC], 2011a)
Tables 2–13 39

Table 4A. Database files, tables/worksheets, and table/worksheet descriptions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the 

Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in feet; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in cubic feet per second; calendar year, January 1 

through December 31; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; IHA, Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration; EFC, environmental-flow 

component; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; NLCD-LCCR, 

National Land Cover Database-Land Cover Change Retrofit product; STATSGO, State Soil Geographic [Database]; HSG, hydrologic soil group]

File namea Table/worksheet namea Table/worksheet descriptiona

Geospatial data summaries—Continued

cwt_nlcd.xlsx cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Land-cover-change percentages for hydrologic subregions 

and cataloging units (contributing-watershed area and 

vicinity for the Cache and White River NWRs) and refuge 

acquisition areas based on 1992–2001 NLCD-LCCR 

Anderson Level 1 categories (Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), 2011b; Fry and 

others, 2008; Anderson and others, 1976)

cwt_sgo_hsg.xlsx cwt_sgo_hsg_pct STATSGO database HSGs A through D percentages for 

hydrologic subregions and cataloging units (contributingwatershed area and vicinity for the Cache and White River 

NWRs) and refuge acquisition areas (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1994, 2009, 2011b; Wolock, 1997)

cwt_eco34.xlsx cwt_eco4huc_8_pct USEPA Level IV ecoregion percentages for hydrologic 

subregions (contributing-watershed area and vicinity for 

the Cache and White River NWRs) (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2011)

cwt_eco34.xlsx cwt_eco3huc_8_pct USEPA Level III ecoregion percentages for hydrologic 

subregions (contributing-watershed area and vicinity for 

the Cache and White River NWRs) (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2011)

cwt_eco34.xlsx cwt_eco4huc_4_pct USEPA Level IV ecoregion percentages for hydrologic 

cataloging units (contributing-watershed area and vicinity 

for the Cache and White River NWRs) (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2011)

cwt_eco34.xlsx cwt_eco3huc_4_pct USEPA Level III ecoregion percentages for hydrologic 

cataloging units (contributing-watershed area and vicinity 

for the Cache and White River NWRs) (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2011)

cwt_pop_census.xlsx tblCwtPop01 U.S. Census Bureau county-level population data, 

1930–2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a)

cwt_pop_census.xlsx pop_pct_chg Descriptive statistics for percent population change, 

1930–1970, and 1970–2010

aTables refer to Microsoft Access® files, worksheets refer to Microsoft Excel® files.

bField names, field types, and field definitions listed in table 4B; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in feet; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in cubic feet per second.

c IHA parameter-groups, EFC groups, EFCs, and parameter definitions listed in table 5 (Richter and others, 1996; The Nature Conservancy, 2007, 2009).

d IHA regional analysis restricted to USGS gaging stations 07077000, 07077380, 07077500, 07077555, 07077700, and 07077800. Gaging-station 

information presented in tables 2A and 2B.

e IHA analysis of mean-daily gage-height record for USGS gaging stations 07077555, 07077800, 07077820, 07078300; IHA analysis of mean-daily 

discharge record for USGS gaging stations 07047970, 07074500, 07076750, 07077000, 07077380, 07077500, 07077555, 07077700, 07077800, 07077950, 

07078000, 07263500, 07264000, and 07265450. Gaging-station characteristics, parameters, and periods of record listed in tables 2A and 2B.
40 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; FIPS, Federal Information 

Processing Standards; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; HSG, hydrologic soil group (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b); calendar year, 

January 1 through December 31; water year,October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; ft

3

s–1, cubic foot per second; ft3s–1mi–2, cubic foot per second per square mile; 

ft, foot; in, inch; mi2, square mile; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in ft; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1; p90, 90th percentile; p75, 75th percentile; p50, 

50th percentile (median); p25, 25th percentile; p10, 10th percentile; specified period of analysis: por, period of record; cy, calendar year; wy, water year]

Field name Table(s)/worksheet(s)a Field type Field definition

Raw datab

agency_cd cwt001 Text, length 5 USGS collecting-agency code

datetime cwt001 Date/time Calendar date of daily value

Disch_min cwt001 Double precision Minimum-daily discharge, in ft3

s–1

Disch_min_cd cwt001 Text, length 8 Minimum-daily discharge, data-value qualification codec

Disch_mn cwt001 Double precision Mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1

Disch_mn_cd cwt001 Text, length 8 Mean-daily discharge, data-value qualification codec

Disch_mx cwt001 Double precision Maximum-daily discharge, in ft3s–1

Disch_mx_cd cwt001 Text, length 8 Maximum-daily discharge, data-value qualification codec

GHt_min cwt001 Double precision Minimum-daily gage height, in ft

GHt_min_cd cwt001 Text, length 8 Minimum-daily gage height, data-value qualification codec

GHt_mn cwt001 Double precision Mean-daily gage height, in ft

GHt_mn_cd cwt001 Text, length 8 Mean-daily gage height, data-value qualification codec

GHt_mx cwt001 Double precision Maximum-daily gage height, in ft

GHt_mx_cd cwt001 Text, length 8 Maximum-daily gage height, data-value qualification codec

pcp_min cwt001 Double precision Minimum-daily precipitation, in inches

pcp_min_cd cwt001 Text, length 8 Minimum-daily precipitation, data-value qualification codec

pcp_mx cwt001 Double precision Maximum-daily precipitation, in inches

pcp_mx_cd cwt001 Text, length 8 Maximum-daily precipitation, data-value qualification codec

pcp_sm cwt001 Double precision Sum-daily precipitation, in inches

pcp_sm_cd cwt001 Text, length 8 Sum-daily precipitation, data-value qualification codec

site_no cwt001 Text, length 15 USGS station identification number

Descriptive statistics, spread measures, ratio measuresd

[gmn,qmn] cwt[gmn,qmn]01 Double precision Mean-daily gage height above datum (gmn), in ft;

mean-daily discharge (qmn), in ft3

s–1

[gmn,qmn]_10 all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 10th percentile of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_20 all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 20th percentile of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_25 all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 25th percentile of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_50 all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 50th percentile (median) of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_75 all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 75th percentile of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_80 all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 80th percentile of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_90 all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 90th percentile of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_cdf cwt[gmn,qmn]cd02 Double precision Calendar-decade fraction represented by mean-daily values, 

gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)
Tables 2–13 41

Table 4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; FIPS, Federal Information 

Processing Standards; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; HSG, hydrologic soil group (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b); calendar year, 

January 1 through December 31; water year,October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; ft

3

s–1, cubic foot per second; ft3s–1mi–2, cubic foot per second per square mile; 

ft, foot; in, inch; mi2, square mile; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in ft; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1; p90, 90th percentile; p75, 75th percentile; p50, 

50th percentile (median); p25, 25th percentile; p10, 10th percentile; specified period of analysis: por, period of record; cy, calendar year; wy, water year]

Field name Table(s)/worksheet(s)a Field type Field definition

Descriptive statistics, spread measures, ratio measuresd

—Continued

[gmn,qmn]_cmf cwt[gmn,qmn]cym02 Double precision Calendar-month fraction represented by mean-daily values, gage 

height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_cv all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision Coefficient of variation of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_cy_n cwt[gmn,qmn]mo02 Double precision Number of complete calendar years in the long-term monthly record 

for gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_cyf cwt[gmn,qmn]cy02;

cwt[gmn,qmn]cym02

Double precision Calendar-year fraction represented by mean-daily values, gage 

height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_mi all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision Minimum of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_mn all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision Mean of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_mx all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision Maximum of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_n all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Long integer Number of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_nm all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Long integer Number of missing values of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_ny cwt[gmn,qmn]cd02 Double precision Number of calendar years in each calendar decade, including fractional years, represented by mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_sd all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision Standard deviation of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_va all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision Variance of mean-daily values, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]_wyf cwt[gmn,qmn]wy02 Double precision Water-year fraction represented by mean-daily values, 

gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

[gmn,qmn]7525r all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 75th–25th percentile ratio measure of mean-daily values, 

gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn): p75/p25

[gmn,qmn]7525s all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 75th–25th percentile spread measure of mean-daily values, 

gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn): (p75–p25) / p50

[gmn,qmn]8020r all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 80th–20th percentile ratio measure of mean-daily values, 

gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn): p80/p20

[gmn,qmn]8020s all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 80th–20th percentile spread measure of mean-daily values, 

gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn): (p80–p20) / p50

[gmn,qmn]9010r all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 90th–10th percentile ratio measure of mean-daily values, 

gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn): p90/p10

[gmn,qmn]9010s all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision 90th–10th percentile spread measure of mean-daily values, 

gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn): (p90–p10) / p50

cnty cwt[gmn,qmn]01 Not applicable FIPS county code

da all tables Double precision Drainage area of gaged watershed, in mi2

date cwt[gmn,qmn]01 Date/time Date, mm/dd/yyyy format

day cwt[gmn,qmn]01 Long integer Calendar day

decade cwt[gmn,qmn]01;

cwt[gmn,qmn]cd02

Long integer Calendar decade

jday_c cwt[gmn,qmn]01;

cwt[gmn,qmn]jc02

Long integer Calendar-year Julian day
42 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; FIPS, Federal Information 

Processing Standards; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; HSG, hydrologic soil group (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b); calendar year, 

January 1 through December 31; water year,October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; ft

3

s–1, cubic foot per second; ft3s–1mi–2, cubic foot per second per square mile; 

ft, foot; in, inch; mi2, square mile; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in ft; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1; p90, 90th percentile; p75, 75th percentile; p50, 

50th percentile (median); p25, 25th percentile; p10, 10th percentile; specified period of analysis: por, period of record; cy, calendar year; wy, water year]

Field name Table(s)/worksheet(s)a Field type Field definition

Descriptive statistics, spread measures, ratio measuresd

—Continued

jday_w cwt[gmn,qmn]01;

cwt[gmn,qmn]jw02

Long integer Water-year Julian day

l[gmn,qmn] cwt[gmn,qmn]01 Double precision Log-10 mean-daily gage height above datum (gmn), in ft;

log-10 mean-daily discharge (qmn), in ft3

s–1

l[gmn,qmn]_cv all tables(-cwt[gmn,qmn]01) Double precision Coefficient of variation of the set of 19 values that represent every

5th percentile (5th, 10th, 15th,..., 85th, 90th, 95th percentiles)

of log-base 10 gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

latdec cwt[gmn,qmn]01 Double precision Decimal latitude of gaging station, NAD 83

londec cwt[gmn,qmn]01 Double precision Decimal longitude of gaging station, NAD 83

lsalt cwt[gmn,qmn]01 Double precision Land-surface altitude of gage, NGVD 29, in ft

month cwt[gmn,qmn]01;

cwt[gmn,qmn]cym02;

cwt[gmn,qmn]mo02;

cwt[gmn,qmn]mom02

Long integer Calendar month

qmn_y50 all qmn tables(-cwtqmn01) Double precision Median discharge yield, in ft3

s–1mi–2

qmn_ymn all qmn tables(-cwtqmn01) Double precision Mean discharge yield, in ft3

s–1mi–2

sname cwt[gmn,qmn]01 Text, length 50 USGS station name

staid all tables Text, length 15 USGS station identification number

wyear cwt[gmn,qmn]01;

cwt[gmn,qmn]wy02

Long integer Water year

year cwt[gmn,qmn]01;

cwt[gmn,qmn]cy02;

cwt[gmn,qmn]cym02

Long integer Calendar year

Hydrologic metricse

[gmn,qmn]_cv all tables Double precision Coefficient of varaiation of mean-daily gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn), specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

[gmn,qmn]_mn all tables Double precision Mean of mean-daily gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), 

specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

[gmn,qmn]_sk all tables Double precision Skewness of mean-daily gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), 

specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

coef_disp all tables Double precision 75th–25th-percentile spread measure for gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn): (p75–p25)/p50, specified period of 

analysis (por, cy, wy)

cum_50 all tables Double precision Sum incremental change in gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), 

absolute value, specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy), 

normalized to the median incremental change

cum_change all tables Double precision Sum incremental change in gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), 

absolute value, specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

cum_day all tables Double precision Mean-daily incremental change in gage height (gmn), discharge 

(qmn), absolute value, specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

cy_mi hydmetrics_cwt_cyear_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Long integer Calendar-year begin-year of record, complete calendar years only, 

gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)
Tables 2–13 43

Table 4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; FIPS, Federal Information 

Processing Standards; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; HSG, hydrologic soil group (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b); calendar year, 

January 1 through December 31; water year,October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; ft

3

s–1, cubic foot per second; ft3s–1mi–2, cubic foot per second per square mile; 

ft, foot; in, inch; mi2, square mile; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in ft; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1; p90, 90th percentile; p75, 75th percentile; p50, 

50th percentile (median); p25, 25th percentile; p10, 10th percentile; specified period of analysis: por, period of record; cy, calendar year; wy, water year]

Field name Table(s)/worksheet(s)a Field type Field definition

Hydrologic metricse

—Continued

cy_mx hydmetrics_cwt_cyear_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Long integer Calendar-year end-year of record, complete calendar years only, 

gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

day_pctchange all tables Double precision Sum percent incremental change in gage height (gmn), discharge 

(qmn), absolute value, specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

fall_50 all tables Double precision Median fall value, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), specified 

period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

fall_n all tables Long integer Number of falling events, specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

falldur_50 all tables Long integer Median fall duration, in consecutive days, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn), specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

falldur_mx all tables Long integer Maximum fall duration, in consecutive days, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn), specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

l_[gmn,qmn]_cv all tables Double precision Coefficient of variation of log 10 mean-daily gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn), specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

mdh_PP all tables Double precision Median duration of high-value pulses above indicated percentile, in 

consecutive days, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), specified 

period of analysis (por, cy, wy), where PP = percentile

mdl_PP all tables Double precision Median duration of low-value pulses below indicated percentile, in 

consecutive days, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), specified 

period of analysis (por, cy, wy), where PP = percentile

mxh_PP all tables Long integer Maximum duration of high-value pulses above indicated percentile, 

in consecutive days, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), 

specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy), where PP = percentile

mxl_PP all tables Long integer Maximum duration of low-value pulses below indicated percentile, 

in consecutive days, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), 

specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy), where PP = percentile

pct_PPa all tables Long integer Percentiles of gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), specified period 

of analysis (por, cy, wy), where PP = percentile

pct_PPn all tables Double precision Percentiles of gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), normalized to

the median, specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy), where 

PP = percentile

periodfN all tables Long integer Frequency of events below indicatedfall threshold, where 

N = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 times the median fall, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn), specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

periodfN_f all tables Double precision Frequency of events below indicatedfall threshold, where 

N = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 times the median fall, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn), specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy), 

expressed as a fraction of the total number of falling events

periodrN all tables Long integer Frequency of events above indicated rise threshold, where 

N = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 times the median rise, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn), specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

periodrN_f all tables Double precision Frequency of events above indicated rise threshold, where 

N = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 times the median rise, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn), specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy), 

expressed as a fraction of the total number of rising events
44 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; FIPS, Federal Information 

Processing Standards; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; HSG, hydrologic soil group (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b); calendar year, 

January 1 through December 31; water year,October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; ft

3

s–1, cubic foot per second; ft3s–1mi–2, cubic foot per second per square mile; 

ft, foot; in, inch; mi2, square mile; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in ft; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1; p90, 90th percentile; p75, 75th percentile; p50, 

50th percentile (median); p25, 25th percentile; p10, 10th percentile; specified period of analysis: por, period of record; cy, calendar year; wy, water year]

Field name Table(s)/worksheet(s)a Field type Field definition

Hydrologic metricse

—Continued

rb_flash all tables Double precision Richards-Baker flashiness index, where rb_flash = 

SUM(|[gmn,qmn]_sub_[i] - [gmn,qmn]_sub_[i-1]|) / 

SUM([gmn,qmn]_sub_[i]), gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), 

specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy) (Baker and others, 2004)

rise_50 all tables Double precision Median rise value, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), specified 

period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

rise_n all tables Long integer Number of rising events, specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

risedur_50 all tables Long integer Median rise duration, in consecutive days, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn), specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

risedur_mx all tables Long integer Maximum rise duration, in consecutive days, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn), specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy)

station all tables Text, length 15 USGS station identification number

sum_day all tables Long integer Number of mean-daily values in analysis

sum_PP all tables Long integer Sum duration of low-value pulses below or high-value pulses above 

indicated percentile, in days, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), 

specified period of analysis (por, cy, wy), where PP = percentile

sum_PPf hydmetrics_cwt_

[cyear,wyear]_

[gmn,qmn]_ip

Double precision Sum duration of low-value pulses below or high-value pulses above 

indicated percentile, in days, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn), 

expressed as a fraction of the specified period of analysis (por, cy, 

wy), where PP = percentile

timestep all tables Text, length 8 Continuous-record timestep

varname all tables Text, length 8 Mean-daily values variable name, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

wy_mi hydmetrics_cwt_wyear_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Long integer Water-year begin-year of record, complete water years only, gage 

height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

wy_mx hydmetrics_cwt_wyear_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Long integer Water-year end-year of record, complete water years only, gage 

height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

wyear hydmetrics_cwt_cyear_

[gmn,qmn]_[ap,ip]

Long integer Water year of analysis

year hydmetrics_cwt_cyear_

[gmn,qmn]_[ap,ip]

Long integer Calendar year of analysis

year_cmp hydmetrics_cwt_

[cyear,wyear]_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Long integer Number of complete years of record, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

year_cpm_f hydmetrics_cwt_

[cyear,wyear]_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Double precision Fraction of complete period of record represented by mean-daily 

values, complete years only, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

yr_all hydmetrics_cwt_

[cyear,wyear]_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Double precision Number of years of record, excluding gaps, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

yr_all_f hydmetrics_cwt_

[cyear,wyear]_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Double precision Fraction of complete period of record represented by mean-daily 

values, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)
Tables 2–13 45

Table 4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; FIPS, Federal Information 

Processing Standards; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; HSG, hydrologic soil group (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b); calendar year, 

January 1 through December 31; water year,October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; ft

3

s–1, cubic foot per second; ft3s–1mi–2, cubic foot per second per square mile; 

ft, foot; in, inch; mi2, square mile; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in ft; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1; p90, 90th percentile; p75, 75th percentile; p50, 

50th percentile (median); p25, 25th percentile; p10, 10th percentile; specified period of analysis: por, period of record; cy, calendar year; wy, water year]

Field name Table(s)/worksheet(s)a Field type Field definition

Hydrologic metricse

—Continued

yr_mi hydmetrics_cwt_

[cyear,wyear]_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Long integer First calendar year of record, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

yr_mx hydmetrics_cwt_

[cyear,wyear]_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Long integer Last calendar year of record, gage height (gmn), discharge (qmn)

yr_por hydmetrics_cwt_

[cyear,wyear]_

[gmn,qmn]_por

Double precision Number of years of record, including gaps, gage height (gmn), 

discharge (qmn)

Geospatial data summariesf

AREA tblCwtPop01 Double precision County area, in m2

CNTYNAME tblCwtPop01 Text, length 32 County name

cwt_statecty tblCwtPop01 Long integer Numeric FIPS code

hga_pct cwt_sgo_hsg_pct Double precision Percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, 

or refuge-acquisition area with soils classified in HSG Ag

hgb_pct cwt_sgo_hsg_pct Double precision Percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, 

or refuge-acquisition area with soils classified in HSG Bg

hgc_pct cwt_sgo_hsg_pct Double precision Percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, 

or refuge-acquisition area with soils classified in HSG Cg

hgd_pct cwt_sgo_hsg_pct Double precision Percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, 

or refuge-acquisition area with soils classified in HSG Dg

huc_chg_pct cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Areal percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging 

unit, or refuge-acquisition area that changed land-cover classification between 1992 and 2001, based on the 1992 and 2001 NLCDs

huc04 all tables(-tblCwtPop01, 

pop_pct_chg)

Text, length 4 Hydrologic subregion codeh

huc04_l3_pct cwt_eco3huc_4_pct Double precision Percentage of indicated U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Level III ecoregion in each hydrologic subregion

huc04_l4_pct cwt_eco4huc_4_pct Double precision Percentage of indicated U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Level IV ecoregion in each hydrologic subregion

huc04_name cwt_eco4huc_8_pct, cwt_

eco3huc_8_pct, cwt_eco4huc_4_pct, cwt_eco3huc_4_pct

Text, length 60 Hydrologic subregion nameh

huc08 all tables(-tblCwtPop01, 

pop_pct_chg)

Text, length 8 Hydrologic cataloging unit codeh

huc08_l3_pct cwt_eco3huc_8_pct Double precision Percentage of indicated U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Level III ecoregion in each hydrologic cataloging unit

huc08_l4_pct cwt_eco4huc_8_pct Double precision Percentage of indicated U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Level IV ecoregion in each hydrologic cataloging unit

huc08_name cwt_eco4huc_8_pct, cwt_

eco3huc_8_pct

Text, length 60 Hydrologic cataloging unit nameh
46 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; FIPS, Federal Information 

Processing Standards; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; HSG, hydrologic soil group (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b); calendar year, 

January 1 through December 31; water year,October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; ft

3

s–1, cubic foot per second; ft3s–1mi–2, cubic foot per second per square mile; 

ft, foot; in, inch; mi2, square mile; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in ft; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1; p90, 90th percentile; p75, 75th percentile; p50, 

50th percentile (median); p25, 25th percentile; p10, 10th percentile; specified period of analysis: por, period of record; cy, calendar year; wy, water year]

Field name Table(s)/worksheet(s)a Field type Field definition

Geospatial data summariesf

—Continued

mass_bal cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Sum-check for land-cover change net gain/loss percentages

net_1 cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Net percentage gain or loss of water within the area of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, or refugeacquisition area that changed land-cover classification between 

1992 and 2001, based on the 1992 and 2001 NLCDs

net_2 cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Net percentage gain or loss of urban land within the area of the 

hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, or refugeacquisition area that changed land-cover classification between 

1992 and 2001, based on the 1992 and 2001 NLCDs

net_3 cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Net percentage gain or loss of barren land within the area of the 

hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, or refuge-a

cquisition area that changed land-cover classification between 

1992 and 2001, based on the 1992 and 2001 NLCDs

net_4 cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Net percentage gain or loss of forest within the area of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, or refugeacquisition area that changed land-cover classification between 

1992 and 2001, based on the 1992 and 2001 NLCDs

net_5 cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Net percentage gain or loss of grassland within the area of the 

hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, or refugeacquisition area that changed land-cover classification between 

1992 and 2001, based on the 1992 and 2001 NLCDs

net_6 cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Net percentage gain or loss of agricultural land within the area of 

the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, or refugeacquisition area that changed land-cover classification between 

1992 and 2001, based on the 1992 and 2001 NLCDs

net_7 cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Net percentage gain or loss of wetland within the area of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, or refuge-acquisition 

area that changed land-cover classification between 1992 and 

2001, based on the 1992 and 2001 NLCDs

nwr cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_

pct, cwt_sgo_hsg_pct

Text, length 60 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge name

pct_11 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct

Double precision Percent open water—all areas of open water, generally with less 

than 25 percent cover of vegetation or soil (1992, 2001)i,j

pct_21 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct

Double precision Percent developed—low-intensity residential (1992)i; developed, 

open space—includes areas with a mixture of some constructed 

materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20 percent of total cover. These 

areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, 

parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for 

recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes (2001)j
Tables 2–13 47

Table 4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; FIPS, Federal Information 

Processing Standards; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; HSG, hydrologic soil group (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b); calendar year, 

January 1 through December 31; water year,October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; ft

3

s–1, cubic foot per second; ft3s–1mi–2, cubic foot per second per square mile; 

ft, foot; in, inch; mi2, square mile; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in ft; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1; p90, 90th percentile; p75, 75th percentile; p50, 

50th percentile (median); p25, 25th percentile; p10, 10th percentile; specified period of analysis: por, period of record; cy, calendar year; wy, water year]

Field name Table(s)/worksheet(s)a Field type Field definition

Geospatial data summariesf

—Continued

pct_22 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct

Double precision Percent developed—high-intensity residential (1992)i

; developed, 

low intensity—includes areas with a mixture of constructed 

materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 

20–49 percent of total cover. These areas most commonly 

include single-family housing units (2001)j

pct_23 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct

Double precision Percent developed—commercial/industrial/transportation (1992)i; 

developed, medium intensity—includes areas with a mixture of 

constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account 

for 50–79 percent of the total cover. These areas most commonly 

include single-family housing units (2001)j

pct_24 cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Developed, high intensity—includes highly developed areas 

where people reside or work in high numbers. Examples include 

apartment complexes, row houses and commercial/industrial. 

Impervious surfaces account for 80 to 100 percent of the 

total cover (2001)j

pct_31 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct

Double precision Barren—bare rock/sand/clay (1992)i; barren land (rock/sand/clay)— 

barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, 

volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel 

pits and other accumulations of earthen material. Generally, 

vegetation accounts for less than 15 percent of total cover (2001)j

.

pct_32 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Barren—quarries/strip mines/gravel pits (1992)i

; unconsolidated 

shorek—unconsolidated material such as silt, sand, or gravel that 

is subject to inundation and redistribution due to the action of 

water. Characterized by substrates lacking vegetation except for 

pioneering plants that become established during brief periods 

when growing conditions are favorable. Erosion and deposition 

by waves and currents produce a number of landforms representing this class (2001)j

pct_33 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Barren—transitional (1992)i

pct_41 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct

Double precision Vegetated, natural forested upland—deciduous forest (1992)i; 

deciduous forest—areas dominated by trees generally greater 

than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species shed foliage 

simultaneously in response to seasonal change (2001)j

pct_42 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct

Double precision Vegetated, natural forested upland—evergreen forest (1992)i; 

evergreen forest—areas dominated by trees generally greater than 

5 meters tall, and greater than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. 

More than 75 percent of the tree species maintain their leaves all 

year. Canopy is never without green foliage (2001)j

pct_43 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct

Double precision Vegetated, natural forested upland—mixed forest (1992)i; mixed 

forest—areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters 

tall, and greater than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. Neither 

deciduous nor evergreen species are greater than 75 percent of 

total tree cover (2001)j

pct_51 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Shrubland (1992)i
48 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; FIPS, Federal Information 

Processing Standards; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; HSG, hydrologic soil group (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b); calendar year, 

January 1 through December 31; water year,October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; ft

3

s–1, cubic foot per second; ft3s–1mi–2, cubic foot per second per square mile; 

ft, foot; in, inch; mi2, square mile; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in ft; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1; p90, 90th percentile; p75, 75th percentile; p50, 

50th percentile (median); p25, 25th percentile; p10, 10th percentile; specified period of analysis: por, period of record; cy, calendar year; wy, water year]

Field name Table(s)/worksheet(s)a Field type Field definition

Geospatial data summariesf

—Continued

pct_52 cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Shrub/scrub—areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with 

shrub canopy typically greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. 

This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions (2001)j

pct_71 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct

Double precision Herbaceous upland—grasslands/herbaceous (1992)i; grassland/

herbaceous—areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous 

vegetation, generally greater than 80 percent of total vegetation. 

These areas are not subject to intensive management such as 

tilling, but can be utilized for grazing (2001)j

pct_81 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct

Double precision Herbaceous planted/cultivated—pasture/hay (1992)i; pasture/hay— 

areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for 

livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically 

on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater 

than 20 percent of total vegetation (2001)j

pct_82 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct

Double precision Herbaceous planted/cultivated—row crops (1992)i; cultivated

crops—areas used for the production of annual crops, such as 

corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also 

perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop 

vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. 

This class also includes all land being actively tilled (2001)j

pct_83 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Herbaceous planted/cultivated—small grains (1992)i

pct_85 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Herbaceous planted/cultivated—urban/recreational grasses (1992)i

pct_90 cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Woody wetlands—areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts 

for greater than 20 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water (2001)j

pct_91 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Wetland—woody wetlands (1992)i

pct_92 cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Wetlands—emergent herbaceous wetlands (1992)i

pct_95 cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Emergent herbaceous wetlands—areas where perennial herbaceous 

vegetation accounts for greater than 80 percent of vegetative 

cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or 

covered with water (2001)j

pct_tot cwt_nlcd92_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_nlcd01_h0408rfg_pct, 

cwt_sgo_hsg_pct

Double precision Sum-check for land-cover percentages and percentages 

of hydrologic soil groupsh,l

POP010130D tblCwtPop01 Double precision Resident population (April 1, complete count) 1930

POP010140D tblCwtPop01 Double precision Resident population (April 1, complete count) 1940

POP010150D tblCwtPop01 Double precision Resident population (April 1, complete count) 1950

POP010160D tblCwtPop01 Double precision Resident population (April 1, complete count) 1960

POP010170D tblCwtPop01 Double precision Resident population (April 1, complete count) 1970

POP010180D tblCwtPop01 Double precision Resident population (April 1, complete count) 1980

POP010190D tblCwtPop01 Double precision Resident population (April 1, complete count) 1990

POP010200D tblCwtPop01 Double precision Resident population (April 1, complete count) 2000

POP010210D tblCwtPop01 Double precision Resident population (April 1, complete count) 2010
Tables 2–13 49

Table 4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; FIPS, Federal Information 

Processing Standards; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; HSG, hydrologic soil group (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b); calendar year, 

January 1 through December 31; water year,October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; ft

3

s–1, cubic foot per second; ft3s–1mi–2, cubic foot per second per square mile; 

ft, foot; in, inch; mi2, square mile; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in ft; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1; p90, 90th percentile; p75, 75th percentile; p50, 

50th percentile (median); p25, 25th percentile; p10, 10th percentile; specified period of analysis: por, period of record; cy, calendar year; wy, water year]

Field name Table(s)/worksheet(s)a Field type Field definition

Geospatial data summariesf

—Continued

POP020170D tblCwtPop01 Double precision Resident population (April 1, revised) 1970

pop3070_neg pop_pct_chg Double precision Descriptive statistics for population decrease, 1930–1970

pop3070_pct tblCwtPop01 Double precision Percent change in population, 1930–1970

pop3070_pos pop_pct_chg Double precision Descriptive statistics for population increase, 1930–1970

pop7010_neg pop_pct_chg Double precision Descriptive statistics for population decrease, 1970–2010

pop7010_pct tblCwtPop01 Double precision Percent change in population, 1970–2010

pop7010_pos pop_pct_chg Double precision Descriptive statistics for population increase, 1970–2010

ST tblCwtPop01 Text, length 2 Two-letter U.S. Postal Service State code

to_1_pct cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, 

or refuge-acquisition area reclassified in the 2001 NLCD that was 

converted to waterm

to_2_pct cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, 

or refuge-acquisition area reclassified in the 2001 NLCD that was 

converted to urbanm

to_3_pct cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, 

or refuge-acquisition area reclassified in the 2001 NLCD that was 

converted to barrenm

to_4_pct cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, 

or refuge-acquisition area reclassified in the 2001 NLCD that was 

converted to forestm

to_5_pct cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, 

or refuge-acquisition area reclassified in the 2001 NLCD that was 

converted to grasslandm

to_6_pct cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, 

or refuge-acquisition area reclassified in the 2001 NLCD that was 

converted to agriculturem

to_7_pct cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Percentage of the hydrologic subregion, hydrologic cataloging unit, 

or refuge-acquisition area reclassified in the 2001 NLCD that was 

converted to wetlandm

to_tot_pct cwt_lcc9201_h0408rfg_pct Double precision Sum-check for land-cover change percentages

us_l3code cwt_eco3huc_8_pct, cwt_

eco3huc_4_pct

Double precision U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level III ecoregion coden

us_l3name cwt_eco3huc_8_pct, cwt_

eco3huc_4_pct

Double precision U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level III ecoregion namen

us_l4code cwt_eco4huc_8_pct, cwt_

eco3huc_8_pct, cwt_eco4huc_4_pct, cwt_eco3huc_4_pct

Double precision U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level IV ecoregion coden

us_l4name cwt_eco4huc_8_pct, cwt_

eco3huc_8_pct, cwt_eco4huc_4_pct, cwt_eco3huc_4_pct

Double precision U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level IV ecoregion namen
50 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 4B. Database field names, field types, and field definitions for the hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White 

River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; FIPS, Federal Information 

Processing Standards; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; HSG, hydrologic soil group (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b); calendar year, 

January 1 through December 31; water year,October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year; calendar decade, 10-year period 

beginning on January 1 of year zero and ending on December 31 of year nine; ft

3

s–1, cubic foot per second; ft3s–1mi–2, cubic foot per second per square mile; 

ft, foot; in, inch; mi2, square mile; gmn, mean-daily gage height, in ft; qmn, mean-daily discharge, in ft3s–1; p90, 90th percentile; p75, 75th percentile; p50, 

50th percentile (median); p25, 25th percentile; p10, 10th percentile; specified period of analysis: por, period of record; cy, calendar year; wy, water year]

Field name Table(s)/worksheet(s)a Field type Field definition

a

Arguments enclosed in square brackets in table/worksheet names represent separate tables/worksheets. For example, cwt[gmn,qmn]01 refers to 

2 tables/worksheets: cwtgmn01 and cwtqmn01. “All tables” with one or more table/worksheet names in parentheses indicates that the table/worksheet 

reference(s) in parentheses is(are) excluded for the listed field. Tables refer to Microsoft Access® files, worksheets refer to Microsoft Excel® files.

bRaw-data files: cwt_tabular_hydrostats_raw.accdb (Microsoft Access®), cwt_tabular_hydrostats_raw.xlsx (Microsoft Excel®).

cData-value qualification codes, USGS NWISWeb database (U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, 2011b,c): Eqp—equipment malfunction, A—approved 

for publication-processing and review completed, P—provisional data subject to revision, 1—daily value is write-protected without any remark code to be 

printed, e–value has been estimated.

dDescriptive-statistics, spread-measures, and ratio-measures files: cwt_tabular_hydrostats.accdb (Microsoft Access®); cwt_tabular_hydrostats_[gmn,qmn].

xlsx (Microsoft Excel®).

eHydrologic-metrics files: cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.accdb (Microsoft Access®), cwt_tabular_hydmetrics.xlsx (Microsoft Excel®).

f

Geospatial data summaries files: cwt_nlcd.xlsx, cwt_sgo_hsg.xlsx, cwt_eco34.xlsx, cwt_pop_census.xlsx (Microsoft Excel®).

gU.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b.

hSeaber and others, 1994.

i

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008f.

j

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), 2011a.

kCoastal NLCD class only.

l

Percentages of hydrologic soil groups A through D in hydrologic subregions and cataloging units do not necessarily add up to 100 percent because, in 

some cases, there are STATSGO soil map-unit classifications that include multiple hydrologic soil groups (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2011b). 

Data for multiple-group map units are not included in the analysis.

m Fry and others, 2008; Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), 2011b.

nU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.
Tables 2–13 51

Table 5. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) hydrologic-parameter groups, environmental-flow-component groups, and 

parameter and component definitions used in the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuge IHA analysis (modified from 

Richter and others, 1996; The Nature Conservancy, 2007, 2009).—Continued

[IHA parameter-group definitions, environmental-flow-component group definitions, and parameter and component definitions listed in Richter and others 

(1996) and The Nature Conservancy (2009); parameter group 1, magnitude of monthly water conditions; parameter group 2, magnitude and duration of 

annual extreme water conditions; parameter group 3, timing of annual extreme water conditions; parameter group 4, frequency and duration of high and low 

pulses; parameter group 5, rate and frequency of water-condition changes; environmental-flow component (EFC) group 1, monthly low flows; EFC group 2, 

extreme low flows; EFC group 3, high-flow pulses; EFC group 4, small floods; EFC group 5, large floods; all analyses are done on a water-year basis 

(October 1, previous calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year)]

Parameter group/

EFC group Parameter/component name Parameter/component definition

Hydrologic Parameter groups

Parameter group 1 October Water-year annual monthly-median value for October

Parameter group 1 November Water-year annual monthly-median value for November

Parameter group 1 December Water-year annual monthly-median value for December

Parameter group 1 January Water-year annual monthly-median value for January

Parameter group 1 February Water-year annual monthly-median value for February

Parameter group 1 March Water-year annual monthly-median value for March

Parameter group 1 April Water-year annual monthly-median value for April

Parameter group 1 May Water-year annual monthly-median value for May

Parameter group 1 June Water-year annual monthly-median value for June

Parameter group 1 July Water-year annual monthly-median value for July

Parameter group 1 August Water-year annual monthly-median value for August

Parameter group 1 September Water-year annual monthly-median value for September

Parameter group 2 1-day minimum Water-year annual minimum 1-day mean value

Parameter group 2 3-day minimum Water-year annual minimum 3-day mean value

Parameter group 2 7-day minimum Water-year annual minimum 7-day mean value

Parameter group 2 30-day minimum Water-year annual minimum 30-day mean value

Parameter group 2 90-day minimum Water-year annual minimum 90-day mean value

Parameter group 2 1-day maximum Water-year annual maximum 1-day mean value

Parameter group 2 3-day maximum Water-year annual maximum 3-day mean value

Parameter group 2 7-day maximum Water-year annual maximum 7-day mean value

Parameter group 2 30-day maximum Water-year annual maximum 30-day mean value

Parameter group 2 90-day maximum Water-year annual maximum 90-day mean value

Parameter group 2 Number of zero days Water-year annual number of zero-flow days

Parameter group 2 Base-flow index Water-year annual minimum 7-day mean value/water-year annual mean value

Parameter group 3 Date of minimum Julian date of water-year annual minimum 1-day mean value

Parameter group 3 Date of maximum Julian date of water-year annual maximum 1-day mean value

Parameter group 4a Low-pulse count Water-year annual number of low pulses

Parameter group 4a Low-pulse duration Water-year annual median duration of low pulses

Parameter group 4a High-pulse count Water-year annual number of high pulses

Parameter group 4a High-pulse duration Water-year annual median duration of high pulses

Parameter group 5 Rise rate Water-year annual median positive difference in mean-daily values

Parameter group 5 Fall rate Water-year annual median negative difference in mean-daily values

Parameter group 5 Number of reversals Water-year annual number of hydrologic reversals (hydrograph sign changes)
52 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 5. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) hydrologic-parameter groups, environmental-flow-component groups, and 

parameter and component definitions used in the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuge IHA analysis (modified from 

Richter and others, 1996; The Nature Conservancy, 2007, 2009).—Continued

[IHA parameter-group definitions, environmental-flow-component group definitions, and parameter and component definitions listed in Richter and others 

(1996) and The Nature Conservancy (2009); parameter group 1, magnitude of monthly water conditions; parameter group 2, magnitude and duration of 

annual extreme water conditions; parameter group 3, timing of annual extreme water conditions; parameter group 4, frequency and duration of high and low 

pulses; parameter group 5, rate and frequency of water-condition changes; environmental-flow component (EFC) group 1, monthly low flows; EFC group 2, 

extreme low flows; EFC group 3, high-flow pulses; EFC group 4, small floods; EFC group 5, large floods; all analyses are done on a water-year basis 

(October 1, previous calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year)]

Parameter group/

EFC group Parameter/component name Parameter/component definition

Environmental-flow component groups

EFC group 1b October low flow Water-year annual median value of October low flows

EFC group 1b November low flow Water-year annual median value of November low flows

EFC group 1b December low flow Water-year annual median value of December low flows

EFC group 1b January low flow Water-year annual median value of January low flows

EFC group 1b February low flow Water-year annual median value of February low flows

EFC group 1b March low flow Water-year annual median value of March low flows

EFC group 1b April low flow Water-year annual median value of April low flows

EFC group 1b May low flow Water-year annual median value of May low flows

EFC group 1b June low flow Water-year annual median value of June low flows

EFC group 1b July low flow Water-year annual median value of July low flows

EFC group 1b August low Flow Water-year annual median value of August low flows

EFC group 1b September low flow Water-year annual median value of September low flows

EFC group 2c Extreme low-flow duration Water-year annual median duration of an extreme low-flow event

EFC group 2c Extreme low-flow peak Water-year annual median minimum value during an extreme low-flow event

EFC group 2c Extreme low-flow timing Water-year annual median Julian date of minimum value during an extreme 

low-flow event

EFC group 2c Extreme low-flow frequency Water-year annual number of extreme low-flow events

EFC group 3d High-flow pulse duration Water-year annual median duration of a high-flow pulse event

EFC group 3d High-flow pulse peak Water-year annual median minimum value during a high-flow pulse event

EFC group 3d High-flow pulse timing Water-year annual median Julian date of minimum value during a high-flow 

pulse event

EFC group 3d High-flow pulse frequency Water-year annual number of high-flow pulse events

EFC group 3d high-flow pulse rise rate Water-year annual median rise rate of high-flow pulse events—median value 

of the median positive difference in mean-daily values for each high-flow 

pulse event

EFC group 3d High-flow pulse fall rate Water-year annual median fall rate of high-flow pulse events—median value 

of the median negative difference in mean-daily values for each high-flow 

pulse event

EFC group 4e Small-flood duration Water-year annual median duration of a small-flood event

EFC group 4e Small-flood peak Water-year annual median minimum value during a small-flood event

EFC group 4e Small-flood timing Water-year annual median Julian date of minimum value during a 

small-flood event

EFC group 4e Small-flood frequency Water-year annual number of small-flood events

EFC group 4e Small-flood rise rate Water-year annual median rise rate of small-flood events—median value of the 

median positive difference in mean-daily values for each small-flood event

EFC group 4e Small-flood fall rate Water-year annual median fall rate of small-flood events—median value of the 

median negative difference in mean-daily values for each small-flood event
Tables 2–13 53

Table 5. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) hydrologic-parameter groups, environmental-flow-component groups, and 

parameter and component definitions used in the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuge IHA analysis (modified from 

Richter and others, 1996; The Nature Conservancy, 2007, 2009).—Continued

[IHA parameter-group definitions, environmental-flow-component group definitions, and parameter and component definitions listed in Richter and others 

(1996) and The Nature Conservancy (2009); parameter group 1, magnitude of monthly water conditions; parameter group 2, magnitude and duration of 

annual extreme water conditions; parameter group 3, timing of annual extreme water conditions; parameter group 4, frequency and duration of high and low 

pulses; parameter group 5, rate and frequency of water-condition changes; environmental-flow component (EFC) group 1, monthly low flows; EFC group 2, 

extreme low flows; EFC group 3, high-flow pulses; EFC group 4, small floods; EFC group 5, large floods; all analyses are done on a water-year basis 

(October 1, previous calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year)]

Parameter group/

EFC group Parameter/component name Parameter/component definition

Environmental-flow component groups—Continued

EFC group 5f Large-flood duration Water-year annual median duration of a large-flood event

EFC group 5f Large-flood peak Water-year annual median minimum value during a large-flood event

EFC group 5f Large-flood timing Water-year annual median Julian date of minimum value during a

large-flood event

EFC group 5f Large-flood frequency Water-year annual number of large-flood events

EFC group 5f Large-flood rise rate Water-year annual median rise rate of large-flood events—median value of the 

median positive difference in mean-daily values for each large-flood event

EFC group 5f Large-flood fall rate Water-year annual median fall rate of large-flood events—median value of the 

median negative difference in mean-daily values for each large-flood event

aThe low-pulse threshold is the 50th percentile of the mean-daily flows minus 25 percent. If the low-pulse threshold is zero, for any given day, the value 

for that day is reset to the 25th percentile of the mean-daily flows. The high-pulse threshold is the 50th percentile of the mean-daily flows plus 25 percent.

bThe low-flow threshold is the median value (50th percentile) of the mean-daily flows. All values less than this threshold are classified as low flows. 

Additionally, mean-daily values between the 50th and 75th percentiles—low-flow and high-flow thresholds—are also classified as low flows if a daily value 

within this range does not meet the filtering criteria for a high-flow value (reference footnote d).

cThe extreme low-flow threshold is the 10th percentile of the mean-daily low flows. All values less than this threshold are classified as extreme low flows.

dHigh-flow pulses are mean-daily values that have been classified as high flows but not classified as either small floods or large floods. The initial high-flow 

classification is based on the high-flow threshold of the 75th percentile of the mean-daily flows. All values greater than this threshold value are classified as 

high flows. Additionally, mean-daily values between the 50th and 75th percentiles—low-flow and high-flow thresholds—are also classified as high flows 

if a daily value exceeds the high-flow start-rate threshold (more than 25 percent greater than the value for the preceding day), is on the ascending limb of a 

high-flow event (either greater than or equal to the high-flow value for the preceding day or above the high-flow end-rate threshold—less than 10 percent less 

than the value for the preceding day), or is on the descending limb of a high-flow event and has not exceeded the high-flow end-rate threshold (more than 10 

percent less than the value for the preceding day).

eSmall floods are high-flow values that have a period-of-record recurrence interval greater than 2 years and less than or equal to 10 years.

f

Large floods are high-flow values that have a period-of-record recurrence interval greater than 10 years.
54 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 6A. Summary descriptive statistics and percentiles for gage height by water year for gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; Min, minimum value; Max, maximum value; —, too few values to compute the 

indicated percentile; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year]

USGS

station

number

River

name

Period 

of

recorda

Mean-annual

gage height,

in feetb

Mean–daily

gage height,

in feetb

Percentiles of mean-annual gage height and

(mean-daily gage height),

in feet c

Mean Min Max Min Max 5 10 25 50 75 90 95

Upper White (1101)

07074500 White 

River

1978–

2009

(7)

9.71 3.68

(2000)

17.19

(1985)

–1.79

(1988)

33.31

(1983)

—

(0.00)

—

(0.84)

4.98

(2.92)

9.26

(8.28)

12.43

(15.18)

—

(25.12)

—

(24.12)

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

07077000 White 

River

1989–

2009

(4)

12.72 5.90

(2001)

15.70

(1997)

–0.72

(2001)

25.35

(1997)

—

(1.86)

—

(2.59)

—

(5.75)

14.65

(13.07)

—

(20.32)

—

(22.31)

—

(23.27)

07077380 Cache 

River

1974–

2009

(14)

8.32 5.50

(1981)

10.90

(1985)

2.42

(1981)

21.18

(1979)

—

(3.36)

5.77

(3.85)

6.60

(5.06)

8.77

(6.80)

9.72

(10.56)

10.59

(16.11)

—

(17.80)

07077500 Cache 

River

1987–

2009

(13)

7.41 6.47

(2000)

8.36

(1997)

2.35

(1988)

12.50

(1991)

—

(3.23)

6.62

(4.00)

6.94

(5.92)

7.31

(7.72)

8.00

(9.17)

8.30

(9.99)

—

(10.44)

07077555 Cache 

River

1987–

2009

(12)

10.41 8.50

(2001)

13.01

(1989)

3.07

(2001)

20.18

(1988)

—

(4.20)

9.26

(4.79)

9.81

(6.24)

10.13

(9.49)

11.07

(14.34)

11.81

(17.48)

13.01

(18.57)

07077700 Bayou 

DeView

1987–

2009

(5)

14.60 13.84

(2000)

15.38

(2002)

9.51

(1998)

18.78

(2002)

—

(12.22)

—

(12.68)

14.50

(13.38)

14.59

(14.23)

14.71

(15.86)

—

(17.24)

—

(17.65)

07077800 White 

River

1886–

2009

(80)

17.77 11.21

(1902)

25.42

(1927)

1.00

(1998)

43.30

(1927)

12.55

(7.10)

13.34

(8.20)

15.33

(11.20)

17.80

(17.40)

20.20

(24.50)

22.02

(27.50)

23.29

(28.70)

07077820 White 

River

1932–

2009

(44)

17.41 11.03

(2000)

24.46

(1973)

1.00

(1995)

40.10

(1937)

11.63

(7.50)

12.92

(8.50)

14.77

(11.00)

17.88

(17.10)

19.81

(23.80)

21.40

(26.00)

21.90

(28.00)

07078300d White 

River

1938–

1971

(32)

63.08 52.02

(1954)

70.55

(1950)

38.10

(1953)

97.80

(1954)

55.57

(48.00)

56.95

(50.30)

59.19

(54.30)

64.17

(60.80)

67.16

(71.10)

68.35

(78.88)

69.29

(82.80)

Lower Arkansas (1111)

07263450 Akansas

River

1989–

2009

(1)

— — — 230.85

(2004)

245.33

(2004)

—

(231.09)

—

(231.16)

—

(231.35)

—

(232.01)

—

(232.73)

—

(235.71)

—

(237.36)

07263500 Akansas

River

1987–

2009

(6)

8.40 7.30

(2006)

9.57

(1999)

6.74

(1999)

18.52

(1998)

—

(7.12)

—

(7.25)

7.92

(7.45)

8.43

(7.62)

8.76

(8.20)

—

(11.54)

—

(12.81)

Lower Mississippi–Yazoo (0803)

07265450 Mississippi 

River

1929–

2009

(70)

16.64 6.33

(1954)

27.00

(1935)

–5.10

(1936)

53.90

(1937)

7.83

(1.10)

9.72

(3.20)

13.12

(7.40)

16.65

(15.10)

20.03

(24.60)

23.31

(32.50)

25.23

(36.50)

a

Period shown is for water years and includes gaps if data collection was discontinuous. Number of complete water years shown in parentheses.

bStatistics listed for mean-annual and mean-daily gage height are based on complete water years. Year of minimum and maximum values for meanannual and mean-daily gage-height numbers shown in parentheses.

c

Percentiles listed for mean-annual and mean-daily gage height are based on complete water years.

dInactive station.
Tables 2–13 55

Table 6B. Summary descriptive statistics and percentiles for gage height by calendar year for gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; Min, minimum value; Max, maximum value; —, too few values to compute the 

indicated percentile; calendar year, January 1 through December 31]

USGS

station

number

River

name

Period 

of

recorda

Mean-annual

gage height,

in feetb

Mean–daily

gage height,

in feet b

Percentiles of mean-annual gage height and

(mean-daily gage height),

in feet c

Mean Min Max Min Max 5 10 25 50 75 90 95

Upper White (1101)

07074500 White 

River

1978–

2009

(7)

9.35 3.45

(2000)

16.06

(1985)

–1.83

(2000)

33.31

(1982)

—

(0.00)

—

(0.98)

5.50

(2.96)

9.00

(7.07)

12.27

(14.82)

—

(21.28)

—

(23.95)

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

07077000 White 

River

1988–

2009

(7)

12.65 6.81

(2001)

16.91

(1993)

0.19

(2001)

27.24

(1989)

—

(2.39)

—

(3.67)

11.32

(6.53)

12.62

(12.66)

15.87

(19.25)

—

(22.02)

—

(23.12)

07077380 Cache 

River

1973–

2009

(15)

8.42 5.49

(1981)

10.31

(1984)

2.42

(1980)

21.21

(2001)

—

(3.53)

5.54

(3.92)

7.56

(5.13)

8.72

(6.92)

9.75

(10.63)

—

(16.23)

—

(17.87)

07077500 Cache 

River

1986–

2009

(13)

7.37 6.25

(1987)

8.05

(1991)

2.35

(1987)

12.50

(1991)

—

(3.22)

6.85

(3.91)

7.15

(5.82)

7.46

(7.68)

7.69

(9.16)

7.84

(10.00)

—

(10.44)

07077555 Cache 

River

1987–

2009

(10)

10.78 9.29

(1995)

12.22

(1991)

3.54

(2007)

20.05

(1991)

—

(4.39)

—

(5.01)

9.66

(6.48)

10.97

(9.81)

11.43

(14.88)

—

(17.96)

—

(18.79)

07077700 Bayou 

DeView

1987–

2009

(4)

14.47 14.19

(2000)

14.84

(2001)

9.51

(1998)

18.78

(2008)

—

12.01)

—

(12.61)

14.23

(13.27)

14.43

(14.10)

14.71

(15.72)

—

(17.05)

—

(17.69)

07077800 White 

River

1886–

2009

(94)

17.51 11.3

(1954)

25.26

(1927)

1.00

(1997)

43.30

(1927)

12.15

(6.90)

13.47

(8.00)

14.94

(11.00)

17.30

(17.00)

19.56

(24.10)

21.66

(27.40)

23.34

(28.60)

07077820 White 

River

1932–

2009

(52)

17.24 10.70

(1954)

24.18

(1973)

1.00

(1994)

40.10

(1937)

12.05

(7.50)

13.03

(8.60)

15.49

(11.00)

16.95

(16.60)

19.52

(23.60)

21.54

(25.9)

22.73

(27.60)

07078300d White 

River

1937–

1971

(29)

63.39 52.41

(1954)

72.50

(1970)

38.10

(1952)

97.80

(1954)

56.29

(47.80)

56.51

(50.00)

58.89

(54.20)

63.78

(61.30)

66.96

(71.90)

70.68

(79.40)

71.14

(83.30)

Lower Arkansas (1111)

07263450 Arkansas 

River

1988–

2009

(1)

— — — 230.63

(2000)

242.61

(2000)

—

(230.99)

—

(231.05)

—

(231.19)

—

(231.55)

—

(232.24)

—

(234.12)

—

(237.14)

07263500 Arkansas 

River

1987–

2009

(4)

8.39 7.41

(2006)

9.15

(1999)

6.74

(1999)

18.52

(1998)

—

(7.13)

—

(7.27)

7.65

(7.45)

8.50

(7.62)

9.13

(8.29)

—

(11.42)

—

(12.81)

Lower Mississippi–Yazoo (0803)

07265450 Mississippi 

River

1929–

2009

(73)

16.76 7.13

(1963)

32.16

(1929)

–5.10

(1936)

58.80

(1929)

8.06

(1.11)

10.88

(3.20)

12.95

(7.40)

17.30

(15.20)

19.41

(24.70)

23.95

(32.50)

26.20

(36.60)

aPeriod shown is for calendar years and includes gaps if data collection was discontinuous. Number of complete calendar years shown in parentheses.

bStatistics listed for mean-annual and mean-daily gage height are based on complete calendar years. Year of minimum and maximum values for meanannual and mean-daily gage-height numbers shown in parentheses.

cPercentiles listed for mean-annual and mean-daily gage height are based on complete calendar years.

d Inactive station.
56 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 7A. Summary descriptive statistics and percentiles for discharge by water year for gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; mi2, square mile; ft3s –1, cubic feet per second; Min, minimum value; Max, maximum 

value; —, too few values to compute the indicated percentile; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year]

USGS

station

number

River

name

Period 

of

recorda

Mean-annual

discharge,b

in ft3

s –1

Mean-daily

discharge,b

in ft3

s –1

Percentiles of mean-annual discharge and

(mean-daily discharge),e

in ft3

s –1 

Mean

(yieldc

) Min Max Mind Max 5 10 25 50 75 90 95

Upper White (1101)

07074500 White 

River

1928–

2009

(75)

22,600

(1.14)

8,070

(1981)

46,300

(1945)

2,870

(1954)

340,000

(1945)

10,600

(5,200)

11,400

(6,280)

14,500

(9,000)

21,600

(15,300)

28,400

(29,000)

34,200

(48,200)

41,300

(59,200)

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

07047970 Mississippi

River

1928–

1977

(49)

481,000

(0.51)

241,000

(1931)

814,000

(1973)

48,000

(1972)

1,960,000

(1937)

258,000

(139,000)

286,000

(168,000)

397,000

(234,000)

469,000

(376,000)

549,000

(653,000)

672,000

(952,000)

711,000

(1,120,000)

07076750 White 

River

1928–

2009

(8)

28,300

(1.26)

17,900

(2003)

37,700

(2008)

5,540

(2008)

174,000

(2008)

—

(8,650)

—

(10,200)

22,900

(14,200)

28,600

(23,500)

34,000

(36,300)

—

(55,100)

—

(63,200)

07077000 White 

River

1950–

2009

(41)

26,300

(1.12)

11,900

(2006)

51,300

(1950)

2,830

(2006)

187,000

(2008)

12,200

(6,750)

13,700

(7,920)

19,100

(11,000)

25,700

(19,200)

33,000

(36,600)

37,600

(53,500)

39,500

(64,900)

07077380 Cache 

River

1965–

2009

(44)

857

(1.22)

300

(1972)

1,760

(1973)

0

(1983)

7,940

(1973)

354

(18)

400

(35)

631

(94)

823

(290)

1,090

(1,130)

1,350

(2,790)

1,600

(3,500)

07077500 Cache 

River

1928–

2009

(60)

1,230

(1.18)

308

(1931)

2,980

(1950)

0

(1957)

12,100

(1928)

400

(46)

462

(66)

720

(156)

1,170

(450)

1,550

(1,730)

2,080

(3,590)

2,510

(4,680)

07077555 Cache 

River

1987–

2009

(21)

1,350

(1.15)

422

(2006)

2,360

(1989)

7.8

(2001)

9,770

(1988)

560

(54)

699

(114)

998

(295)

1,330

(771)

1,740

(1,880)

1,950

(3,380)

2,120

(4,590)

07077700 Bayou 

DeView

1939–

2009

(48)

494

(1.17)

132

(2006)

1,310

(1950)

0

(1943)

6,640

(1958)

166

(0)

205

(0)

335

(21)

448

(111)

659

(585)

807

(1,690)

925

(2,280)

07077800f White 

River

1929–

1993

(53)

29,500

(1.15)

10,300

(1936)

58,900

(1973)

2,900

(1936)

299,000

(1945)

13,000

(5,640)

14,300

(6,970)

19,500

(10,400)

26,600

(18,500)

36,300

(39,000)

45,800

(64,200)

55,800

(86,400)

07077950f Big Creek 1971–

1994

(23)

633

(1.41)

157

(1972)

1,150

(1973)

0

(1972)

5,690

(1973)

239

(5.6)

277

(16)

360

(63)

698

(281)

854

(870)

981

(1,820)

1,080

(2,490)

07077952f Big Creek 1971–

1972

(2)

259

(0.56)

157

(1972)

360

(1971)

0

(1972)

1,130

(1971)

—

(2.1)

—

(8.2)

—

(52)

259

(141)

—

(381)

—

(701)

—

(866)

07078000f LaGrue 

Bayou

1936–

1954

(19)

226

(1.29)

54

(1936)

489

(1950)

0

(1936)

6,440

(1937)

—

(0.2)

86

(1.1)

107

(7.2)

204

(37)

306

(228)

455

(627)

—

(1,070)

07264000 Bayou 

Meto

1955–

2009

(54)

287

(1.39)

95

(1963)

550

(1973)

0

(1955)

5,570

(1988)

118

(2.0)

155

(5.6)

211

(18)

266

(85)

363

(352)

451

(865)

485

(1,230)
Tables 2–13 57

Table 7A. Summary descriptive statistics and percentiles for discharge by water year for gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; mi2, square mile; ft3s –1, cubic feet per second; Min, minimum value; Max, maximum 

value; —, too few values to compute the indicated percentile; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current calendar year]

USGS

station

number

River

name

Period 

of

recorda

Mean-annual

discharge,b

in ft3

s –1

Mean-daily

discharge,b

in ft3

s –1

Percentiles of mean-annual discharge and

(mean-daily discharge),e

in ft3

s –1 

Mean

(yieldc

) Min Max Mind Max 5 10 25 50 75 90 95

Lower Arkansas (1111)

07263450 Arkansas 

River

1928–

2009

(79)

44,200

(0.33)

10,800

(1940)

96,800

(1993)

14

(1979)

536,000

(1943)

12,900

(2,670)

17,200

(4,580)

25,200

(9,880)

44,500

(24,400)

58,300

(57,700)

76,900

(115,000)

84,800

(158,000)

07263500f Arkansas 

River

1928–

1970

(43)

39,800

(0.29)

10,800

(1940)

84,800

(1945)

850

(1934)

536,000

(1943)

12,500

(3,110)

14,000

(4,820)

20,600

(9,060)

38,700

(20,800)

53,900

(48,000)

62,500

(97,000)

71,100

(145,000)

Lower Mississippi–Yazoo (0803)

07265450f Mississippi 

River

1928–

1980

(52)

554,000

(0.49)

263,000

(1931)

933,000

(1973)

88,000

(1940)

2,150,000

(1937)

299,000

(155,000)

365,000

(189,000)

444,000

(269,000)

553,000

(445,000)

648,000

(765,000)

752,000

(1,090,000)

809,000

(1,260,000)

aPeriod shown is for water years and includes gaps if data collection was discontinuous. Number of complete water years shown in parentheses.

bStatistics listed for mean-annual and mean-daily discharge are based on complete water years. Year of minimum and maximum values for mean-annual 

and mean-daily discharge numbers shown in parentheses.

cYield units are cubic feet per second per square mile. Yields are based on contributing drainage areas where given.

dMean daily discharge of zero first occurred during the water year indicated but may subsequently have occurred in one or more years.

ePercentiles listed for mean-annual and mean-daily discharge are based on complete water years.

f

Inactive station.
58 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 7B. Summary descriptive statistics and percentiles for discharge by calendar year for gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; mi2, square mile; ft3s –1, cubic feet per second; Min, minimum value; Max, maximum 

value; —, too few values to compute the indicated percentile; calendar year, January 1 through December 31]

USGS

station

number

River

name

Period 

of

recorda

Mean-annual

discharge,b

in ft3

s –1

Mean-daily

discharge,b

in ft3

s –1

Percentiles of mean-annual discharge and

(mean-daily discharge),e

in ft3

s –1

Mean

(yieldc

) Min Max Mind Max 5 10 25 50 75 90 95

Upper White (1101)

07074500 White 

River

1927–

2009

(74)

22,700

(1.14)

7,860

(1981)

48,400

(1945)

2,870

(1954)

340,000

(1945)

10,300

(5,190)

12,300

(6,300)

16,000

(9,080)

21,700

(15,400)

28,900

(29,000)

34,000

(48,100)

38,200

(59,200)

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

07047970 Mississippi 

River

1928–

1977

(49)

486,000

(0.52)

268,000

(1934)

780,000

(1973)

48,000

(1971)

1,960,000

(1937)

297,000

(139,000)

307,000

(168,000)

395,000

(236,000)

486,000

(384,000)

541,000

(661,000)

677,000

(957,000)

704,000

1,120,000

07076750 White 

River

1927–

2009

(6)

27,700

(1.24)

18,400

(2003)

35,900

(1993)

5,540

(2007)

87,000

(2007)

—

(8,050)

—

(9,070)

21,100

(13,900)

28,400

(23,800)

34,000

(38,100)

—

(54,800)

—

(61,300)

07077000 White 

River

1949–

2009

(40)

26,400

(1.13)

11,200

(1954)

48,900

(1950)

2,830

(2005)

187,000

(2008)

12,500

(6,730)

15,800

(7,910)

19,400

(11,000)

25,000

(19,200)

32,900

(36,800)

36,800

(53,700)

46,200

(65,100)

07077380 Cache 

River

1964–

2009

(44)

854

(1.22)

326

(1980)

1,690

(1973)

0

(1982)

7,940

(1973)

361

(18)

545

(34)

685

(93)

811

(287)

1,060

(1,120)

1,140

(2,790)

1,360

(3,500)

07077500 Cache 

River

1927–

2009

(59)

1,240

(1.19)

376

(1941)

2,780

(1950)

0

(1956)

12,100

(1928)

529

(42)

656

(63)

828

(156)

1,180

(458)

1,410

(1,740)

2,250

(3,590)

2,400

(4,760)

07077555 Cache 

River

1987–

2009

(21)

1,340

(1.15)

807

(2000)

2,040

(1991)

7.8

(2000)

9,230

(1997)

876

(53)

889

(113)

988

(291)

1,430

(760)

1,530

(1,870)

1,700

(3,370)

1,730

(4,560)

07077700 Bayou 

DeView

1939–

2009

(47)

502

(1.19)

159

(1941)

1,200

(1950)

0

(1943)

6,640

(1957)

208

(0)

228

(0)

353

(21)

483

(115)

597

(602)

750

(1,720)

1,000

(2,300)

07077800f White 

River

1928–

1993

(52)

29,700

(1.16)

11,600

(1936)

62,000

(1945)

2,900

(1936)

299,000

(1945)

12,300

(5,640)

17,100

(6,920)

20,400

(10,400)

27,400

(18,900)

37,600

(39,600)

45,100

(64,800)

53,200

(87,400)

07077950f Big Creek 1970–

1993

(22)

645

(1.44)

312

(1976)

1,130

(1979)

0

(1972)

5,690

(1973)

316

(5.7)

330

(16)

391

(63)

603

(284)

855

(887)

1,010

(1,870)

1,030

(2,540)

07077952f Big Creek 1970–

1972

(1)

330

(0.72)

330

(1971)

330

(1971)

1.3

(1971)

1,130

(1971)

—

(2.0)

—

(3.5)

—

(52)

—

(188)

—

(598)

—

(813)

—

(928)

07078000f LaGrue 

Bayou

1935–

1954

(18)

232

(1.33)

63

(1936)

456

(1945)

0

(1936)

6,440

(1937)

—

(0.3)

74

(1.5)

123

(8.0)

244

(40)

311

(240)

414

(635)

456

(1,070)

07264000 Bayou 

Meto

1954–

2009

(54)

288

(1.39)

96

(1963)

633

(1957)

0

(1955)

5,570

(1987)

155

(2.3)

173

(5.9)

206

(18)

273

(87)

343

(352)

433

(865)

458

(1,230)
Tables 2–13 59

Table 7B. Summary descriptive statistics and percentiles for discharge by calendar year for gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; mi2, square mile; ft3s –1, cubic feet per second; Min, minimum value; Max, maximum 

value; —, too few values to compute the indicated percentile; calendar year, January 1 through December 31]

USGS

station

number

River

name

Period 

of

recorda

Mean-annual

discharge,b

in ft3

s –1

Mean-daily

discharge,b

in ft3

s –1

Percentiles of mean-annual discharge and

(mean-daily discharge),e

in ft3

s –1

Mean

(yieldc

) Min Max Mind Max 5 10 25 50 75 90 95

Lower Arkansas (1111)

07263450 Arkansas

 River

1927–

2008

(77)

43,600

(0.32)

8,580

(1956)

104,000

(1973)

14

(1978)

536,000

(1943)

13,900

(2,630)

18,800

(4,500)

27,800

(9,660)

44,500

(24,000)

57,200

(57,000)

70,400

(113,000)

79,800

(156,000)

07263500f Arkansas 

River

1927–

1970

(42)

39,700

(0.29)

8,580

(1956)

88,900

(1945)

850

(1934)

536,000

(1943)

12,200

(3,040)

14,500

(4,780)

23,300

(8,980)

41,200

(20,600)

51,000

(48,000)

64,700

(96,800)

67,100

(146,000)

Lower Mississippi–Yazoo (0803)

07265450f Mississippi

River

1928–

1980

(52)

557,000

(0.49)

303,000

(1934)

917,000

(1973)

88,000

(1939)

2,150,000

(1937)

324,000

(155,000)

393,000

(189,000)

443,000

(270,000)

558,000

(449,000)

633,000

(770,000)

777,000

(1,090,000)

813,000

(1,270,000)

aPeriod shown is for calendar years and includes gaps if data collection was discontinuous. Number of complete calendar years shown in parentheses.

bStatistics listed for mean-annual and mean-daily discharge are based on complete calendar years. Year of minimum and maximum values for mean-annual 

and mean-daily discharge numbers shown in parentheses.

cYield units are cfsm, cubic feet per second per square mile. Yields are based on contributing drainage areas where given.

dMean daily discharge of zero first occurred during the calendar year indicated but may subsequently have occurred in one or more years.

ePercentiles listed for mean-annual and mean-daily discharge are based on complete calendar years.

f

Inactive station.
60 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 8A. Selected hydrologic metrics for gage height by water year for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the Cache 

and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current 

calendar year; all values unitless unless stated otherwise; LCV5, coefficient of variation of the set of every 5th percentile of log10 discharge; RBFI, RichardsBaker flashiness index (Baker and others, 2004); median and mean values of hydrologic metrics by water year are given for each metric (mean values in 

parentheses); —, too few annual values to compute the indicated metric]

USGS

station

number

River

name

Period 

of

recorda

LCV5

Percentile

spread measuresb

Percentile

ratio measuresc

Magnitude 

metricsd

Duration metrics, 

in daysd

RBFI

7525 8020 9010 7525 8020 9010 Cum

_50

Rise

_50

Fall

_50

Risedur

_50

Falldur

_50

Upper White (1101)

07074500 White 

River

1978–

2009

(7)

43.8

(46.8)

1.31

(1.28)

1.59

(1.59)

2.08

(2.31)

3.76

(3.69)

5.62

(5.29)

29.2

(128)

34.1

(47.0)

1.22

(1.23)

1.30

(1.29)

2.00

(2.14)

3.00

(2.57)

0.08

(0.10)

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

07077000 White 

River

1989–

2009

(4)

26.1

(29.5)

0.87

(0.89)

0.96

(1.04)

1.12

(1.67)

2.61

(2.82)

3.17

(3.44)

6.27

(7.48)

7.49

(14.1)

0.70

(0.70)

1.02

(1.00)

3.00

(3.00)

4.00

(4.00)

0.02

(0.03)

07077380 Cache 

River

1974–

2009

(14)

21.8

(22.0)

0.76

(0.76)

0.97

(0.99)

1.49

(1.53)

2.04

(2.03)

2.37

(2.39)

3.20

(3.49)

35.4

(36.1)

1.62

(1.60)

1.56

(1.51)

2.00

(2.29)

4.00

(4.25)

0.08

(0.08)

07077500 Cache 

River

1987–

2009

(13)

14.9

(16.1)

0.38

(0.43)

0.52

(0.54)

0.74

(0.75)

1.51

(1.60)

1.73

(1.84)

2.30

(2.43)

11.8

(11.8)

0.82

(0.91)

0.76

(0.92)

4.00

(4.00)

5.00

(5.23)

0.03

(0.03)

07077555 Cache 

River

1987–

2009

(12)

19.3

(20.2)

0.78

(0.83)

0.90

(0.97)

1.22

(1.28)

2.10

(2.27)

2.43

(2.60)

3.37

(3.44)

12.9

(12.3)

1.41

(1.82)

1.10

(1.40)

5.75

(6.08)

6.50

(6.54)

0.03

(0.03)

07077700 Bayou 

DeView

1987–

2009

(5)

3.70

(3.90)

0.16

(0.17)

0.20

(0.20)

0.29

(0.29)

1.17

(1.18)

1.21

(1.22)

1.32

(1.34)

6.43

(6.32)

0.77

(0.85)

0.96

(0.97)

3.00

(3.20)

5.50

(5.50)

0.02

(0.02)

07077800 White 

River

1886–

2009

(80)

13.9

(14.2)

0.65

(0.67)

0.74

(0.79)

0.98

(1.06)

1.91

(2.03)

2.17

(2.33)

3.02

(3.02)

6.82

(7.19)

0.73

(0.96)

0.60

(0.71)

3.00

(3.31)

3.00

(3.32)

0.02

(0.02)

07077820 White 

River

1932–

2009

(44)

12.1

(13.3)

0.56

(0.62)

0.66

(0.73)

0.93

(1.00)

1.77

(1.90)

1.97

(2.14)

2.53

(2.81)

6.07

(6.60)

0.58

(0.79)

0.45

(0.68)

3.00

(3.10)

3.00

(3.00)

0.02

(0.02)

07078300e White 

River

1938–

1971

(32)

3.47

(3.54)

0.24

(0.25)

0.29

(0.31)

0.41

(0.43)

1.27

(1.28)

1.34

(1.35)

1.49

(1.51)

2.93

(2.93)

1.04

(1.15)

1.00

(1.13)

3.00

(3.47)

4.00

(3.98)

0.01

(0.01)

Lower Arkansas (1111)

07263450 Arkansas 

River

1989–

2009

(1)

— — — — — — — — — — — — —

07263500 Arkansas 

River

1987–

2009

(6)

7.20

(6.49)

0.10

(0.15)

0.18

(0.24)

0.45

(0.40)

1.10

(1.16)

1.18

(1.25)

1.46

(1.43)

12.5

(12.4)

0.22

(0.22)

0.23

(0.25)

1.00

(1.25)

1.00

(1.25)

0.03

(0.03)

Lower Mississippi–Yazoo (0803)

07265450 Mississippi 

River

1929–

2009

(70)

25.8

(29.2)

1.03

(1.18)

1.21

(1.43)

1.72

(2.03)

2.90

(4.93)

3.42

(6.61)

6.50

(14.7)

12.8

(14.9)

1.13

(1.32)

1.30

(1.49)

3.50

(3.89)

4.00

(4.21)

0.03

(0.04)

aPeriod shown is for water years and includes gaps if data collection was discontinuous. Number of complete water years shown in parentheses.

bPercentile spread measures are calculated as the difference between the indicated percentiles divided by the median where 7525 = (p75–p25) / p50, 

8020 = (p80–p20) / p50, and 9010 = (p90–p10) / p50.

cPercentile ratio measures are calculated as the ratios of the indicated percentiles where 7525 = p75 / p25, 8020 = p80 / p20, and 9010 = p90 / p10.

dMagnitude and duration metrics (McMahon and others, 2003): Cum_50, sum incremental change, absolute value gage height, normalized to the median 

incremental change, absolute value gage height; Rise_50, median rise in gage height, in feet; Fall_50, median fall in gage height, in feet; Risedur_50, median 

rise duration, in days; Falldur_50, median fall duration, in days.

e Inactive station.
Tables 2–13 61

Table 8B. Selected hydrologic metrics for gage height by calendar year for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the 

Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current 

calendar year; all values unitless unless stated otherwise; LCV5, coefficient of variation of the set of every 5th percentile of log10 discharge; RBFI, RichardsBaker flashiness index (Baker and others, 2004); median and mean values of hydrologic metrics by water year are given for each metric (mean values in 

parentheses); —, too few annual values to compute the indicated metric]

USGS

station

number

River

name

Period

of

recorda

LCV5

Percentile

spread measuresb

Percentile

ratio measuresc

Magnitude 

metricsd

Duration metrics,

in daysd

RBFI

7525 8020 9010 7525 8020 9010 Cum

_50

Rise

_50

Fall

_50

Risedur

_50

Falldur

_50

Upper White (1101)

07074500 White 

River

1978–

2009

(7)

46.4

(48.2)

1.43

(1.44)

1.67

(1.77)

2.20

(2.58)

4.36

(4.50)

6.35

(8.03)

12.0

(16.6)

38.2

(48.0)

1.33

(1.24)

1.37

(1.40)

2.00

(2.00)

3.00

(2.57)

0.09

(0.10)

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

07077000 White 

River

1988–

2009

(7)

20.6

(26.7)

1.01

(0.91)

1.12

(1.10)

1.50

(1.72)

2.40

(2.60)

2.64

(3.16)

3.66

(5.53)

11.0

(13.8)

0.77

(0.86)

1.08

(1.11)

3.00

(3.14)

4.00

(4.14)

0.03

(0.03)

07077380 Cache 

River

1973–

2009

(15)

21.9

(22.1)

0.82

(0.77)

1.02

(1.02)

1.54

(1.62)

2.06

(2.03)

2.51

(2.43)

3.28

(3.62)

35.6

(36.1)

1.87

(1.84)

1.80

(1.54)

2.00

(2.27)

4.50

(4.30)

0.08

(0.08)

07077500 Cache 

River

1987–

2009

(13)

16.0

(16.7)

0.41

(0.44)

0.53

(0.56)

0.73

(0.77)

1.54

(1.60)

1.75

(1.87)

2.43

(2.52)

11.7

(12.0)

0.83

(0.94)

0.79

(0.92)

4.00

(4.04)

5.00

(5.31)

0.03

(0.03)

07077555 Cache 

River

1987–

2009

(10)

19.1

(19.8)

0.77

(0.83)

0.89

(0.96)

1.16

(1.21)

2.27

(2.29)

2.66

(2.64)

3.31

(3.38)

12.0

(12.8)

1.57

(1.83)

1.57

(1.98)

6.50

(6.45)

7.75

(7.55)

0.03

(0.03)

07077700 Bayou 

DeView

1987–

2009

(4)

4.23

(4.04)

0.17

(0.17)

0.22

(0.21)

0.32

(0.31)

1.18

(1.18)

1.24

(1.23)

1.37

(1.36)

6.15

(6.29)

0.80

(0.80)

0.90

(0.88)

3.50

(3.50)

5.00

(4.88)

0.02

(0.02)

07077800 White 

River

1886–

2009

(94)

14.5

(14.5)

0.68

(0.72)

0.81

(0.84)

1.00

(1.09)

2.02

(2.11)

2.28

(2.38)

2.94

(3.02)

7.08

(7.27)

0.75

(0.94)

0.60

(0.69)

3.00

(3.16)

3.00

(3.24)

0.02

(0.02)

07077820 White 

River

1932–

2009

(52)

13.4

(13.5)

0.65

(0.67)

0.80

(0.78)

1.01

(1.03)

1.89

(1.95)

2.16

(2.19)

2.66

(2.75)

6.79

(6.68)

0.50

(0.71)

0.50

(0.64)

3.00

(2.99)

3.00

(3.04)

0.02

(0.02)

07078300e White 

River

1937–

1971

(29)

3.5

(3.6)

0.25

(0.27)

0.31

(0.32)

0.43

(0.44)

1.28

(1.30)

1.37

(1.36)

1.50

(1.52)

2.93

(2.90)

1.10

(1.14)

1.00

(1.16)

3.50

(3.57)

4.00

(4.00)

0.01

(0.01)

Lower Arkansas (1111)

07263450 Arkansas 

River

1988–

2009

(1)

— — — — — — — — — — — — —

07263500 Arkansas 

River

1987–

2009

(4)

6.41

(6.06)

0.19

(0.22)

0.25

(0.28)

0.40

(0.40)

1.20

(1.23)

1.26

(1.29)

1.41

(1.41)

12.8

(12.4)

0.22

(0.21)

0.22

(0.23)

1.00

(1.13)

1.25

(1.38)

0.03

(0.03)

Lower Mississippi–Yazoo (0803)

07265450 Mississippi 

River

1929–

2009

(73)

27.4

(29.2)

1.06

(1.19)

1.29

(1.42)

1.73

(1.96)

2.97

(4.36)

3.92

(9.15)

6.87

(10.1)

11.8

(14.3)

1.20

(1.32)

1.35

(1.56)

3.50

(3.77)

4.00

(4.20)

0.03

(0.04)

aPeriod shown is for calendar years and includes gaps if data collection was discontinuous. Number of complete calendar years shown in parentheses.

bPercentile spread measures are calculated as the difference between the indicated percentiles divided by the median where 7525=(p75 – p25)/p50, 

8020=(p80 – p20)/p50, and 9010=(p90 – p10)/p50.

cPercentile ratio measures are calculated as the ratios of the indicated percentiles where 7525=p75/p25, 8020=p80/p20, and 9010=p90/p10.

dMagnitude and duration metrics (McMahon and others, 2003): Cum_50, sum incremental change, absolute value gage height, normalized to the median 

incremental change, absolute value gage height; Rise_50, median rise in gage height, in feet; Fall_50, median fall in gage height, in feet; Risedur_50, median 

rise duration, in days; Falldur_50, median fall duration, in days.

e Inactive station.
62 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 9A. Selected hydrologic metrics for discharge by water year for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the Cache 

and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current 

calendar year; all values unitless unless stated otherwise; LCV5, coefficient of variation of the set of every 5th percentile of log10 discharge; RBFI, RichardsBaker flashiness index (Baker and others, 2004); median and mean values of hydrologic metrics by water year are given for each metric (mean values in 

parentheses); —, too few annual values to compute the indicated metric]

USGS

station

number

River

name

Period

of

recorda

LCV5

Percentile

spread measuresb

Percentile

ratio measuresc

Magnitude

metricsd

Duration metrics,

in daysd

RBFI

7525 8020 9010 7525 8020 9010 Cum

_50

Rise

_50

Fall

_50

Risedur

_50

Falldur

_50

Upper White (1101)

07074500 White 

River

1928–

2009

(75)

6.14

(6.26)

0.98

(1.15)

1.17

(1.45)

1.84

(2.25)

2.71

(2.97)

3.44

(3.73)

5.44

(6.18)

37.2

(42.2)

2,000

(2,190)

2,400

(2,420)

2.00

(2.00)

2.00

(2.50)

0.082

(0.083)

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

07047970 Mississippi 

River

1928–

1977

(49)

4.28

(4.34)

0.95

(1.03)

1.17

(1.29)

1.74

(1.92)

2.51

(2.64)

3.09

(3.24)

4.60

(5.00)

15.0

(15.1)

30,000

(40,600)

33,500

(42,700)

4.00

(4.46)

5.00

(5.07)

0.034

(0.034)

07076750 White 

River

1928–

2009

(8)

5.25

(5.41)

0.81

(0.80)

1.06

(1.06)

1.54

(1.68)

2.15

(2.42)

2.75

(3.10)

4.39

(5.12)

18.1

(17.4)

1,460

(1,500)

2,200

(2,070)

3.00

(3.00)

3.00

(3.38)

0.044

(0.041)

07077000 White 

River

1950–

2009

(41)

5.75

(5.99)

0.93

(1.00)

1.20

(1.26)

1.78

(1.92)

2.35

(2.84)

3.10

(3.53)

4.64

(5.69)

17.8

(18.2)

1,500

(1,700)

1,860

(2,000)

3.00

(3.24)

4.00

(3.85)

0.041

(0.040)

07077380 Cache 

River

1965–

2009

(44)

24.6

(25.3)

3.11

(3.37)

4.22

(4.78)

7.83

(8.63)

11.6

(13.6)

20.3

(21.0)

54.8

(134)

234

(234)

298

(336)

215

(274)

2.00

(2.24)

4.00

(4.08)

0.231

(0.227)

07077500 Cache 

River

1928–

2009

(60)

20.4

(21.0)

2.50

(2.99)

3.37

(4.09)

5.78

(7.52)

8.12

(9.93)

12.9

(15.5)

33.7

(46.2)

92.1

(104)

221

(241)

217

(236)

3.00

(3.20)

4.00

(4.19)

0.108

(0.112)

07077555 Cache 

River

1987–

2009

(21)

16.4

(17.6)

1.84

(2.05)

2.26

(2.51)

3.71

(3.88)

5.74

(6.78)

7.93

(10.3)

21.8

(29.3)

41.7

(41.9)

275

(306)

170

(287)

5.50

(5.71)

6.00

(6.33)

0.069

(0.072)

07077700 Bayou 

DeView

1939–

2009

(48)

31.6

(32.5)

4.46

(4.91)

6.19

(6.78)

11.7

(15.7)

21.0

(33.4)

39.4

(83.8)

166

(356)

242

(315)

156

(167)

128

(138)

3.00

(2.91)

5.00

(4.38)

0.169

(0.179)

07077800e White 

River

1929–

1993

(53)

6.73

(6.96)

1.19

(1.36)

1.40

(1.72)

2.32

(2.66)

2.87

(3.63)

3.50

(4.62)

6.21

(7.98)

19.3

(21.8)

1,500

(2,030)

1,450

(2,020)

3.50

(3.60)

4.00

(4.32)

0.041

(0.041)

07077950e Big Creek 1971–

1994

(23)

29.8

(30.1)

2.33

(2.62)

2.64

(3.34)

4.10

(5.70)

12.4

(15.9)

22.2

(26.6)

78.7

(166)

71.1

(82.3)

104

(126)

95.0

(99.1)

2.50

(2.50)

4.00

(4.07)

0.106

(0.110)

07077952e Big Creek 1971–

1972

(2)

30.2

(30.2)

— — — — — — — — — — — —

07078000e LaGrue 

Bayou

1936–

1954

(19)

50.6

(54.7)

4.02

(5.27)

6.17

(8.39)

13.8

(19.3)

21.7

(34.8)

43.1

(90.1)

171

(1,030)

390

(525)

42.0

(63.7)

22.5

(47.8)

3.00

(2.63)

3.00

(2.69)

0.222

(0.223)

07264000 Bayou 

Meto

1955–

2009

(54)

38.3

(41.2)

3.40

(4.43)

4.98

(6.12)

9.54

(11.5)

17.7

(25.2)

31.6

(68.2)

113

(221)

166

(217)

16.3

(32.7)

14.3

(23.8)

2.00

(2.31)

3.00

(3.22)

0.155

(0.157)
Tables 2–13 63

Table 9A. Selected hydrologic metrics for discharge by water year for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the Cache 

and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current 

calendar year; all values unitless unless stated otherwise; LCV5, coefficient of variation of the set of every 5th percentile of log10 discharge; RBFI, RichardsBaker flashiness index (Baker and others, 2004); median and mean values of hydrologic metrics by water year are given for each metric (mean values in 

parentheses); —, too few annual values to compute the indicated metric]

USGS

station

number

River

name

Period

of

recorda

LCV5

Percentile

spread measuresb

Percentile

ratio measuresc

Magnitude

metricsd

Duration metrics,

in daysd

RBFI

7525 8020 9010 7525 8020 9010 Cum

_50

Rise

_50

Fall

_50

Risedur

_50

Falldur

_50

Lower Arkansas (1111)

07263450 Arkansas 

River

1928–

2009

(79)

9.92

(9.91)

1.59

(1.74)

2.06

(2.24)

3.33

(3.73)

4.46

(5.49)

6.11

(8.27)

15.6

(22.3)

84.8

(90.5)

7,300

(7,540)

8,200

(7,890)

2.00

(2.16)

2.00

(2.69)

0.143

(0.153)

07263500e Arkansas 

River

1928–

1970

(43)

9.92

(9.39)

1.64

(1.73)

2.05

(2.27)

3.63

(4.11)

4.10

(5.03)

5.52

(7.39)

14.2

(18.4)

83.4

(88.4)

5,500

(6,720)

5,100

(5,750)

2.00

(2.38)

3.00

(3.27)

0.132

(0.136)

Lower Mississippi–Yazoo (0803)

07265450 Mississippi 

River

1928–

1980

(52)

4.15

(4.27)

0.94

(1.01)

1.17

(1.26)

1.76

(1.87)

2.46

(2.64)

2.93

(3.26)

4.71

(5.01)

12.8

(13.0)

42,000

(46,900)

42,800

(50,300)

5.00

(4.86)

5.75

(5.63)

0.030

(0.029)

aPeriod shown is for water years and includes gaps if data collection was discontinuous. Number of complete water years shown in parentheses.

bPercentile spread measures are calculated as the difference between the indicated percentiles divided by the median where 7525=(p75 – p25)/p50,

8020=(p80 – p20)/p50, and 9010=(p90 – p10)/p50.

cPercentile ratio measures are calculated as the ratios of the indicated percentiles where 7525=p75/p25, 8020=p80/p20, and 9010=p90/p10.

dMagnitude and duration metrics (McMahon and others, 2003): Cum_50, sum incremental change, absolute value discharge, normalized to the median 

incremental change, absolute value discharge; Rise_50, median rise in discharge, in cubic feet per second; Fall_50, median fall in discharge, in cubic feet per 

second; Risedur_50, median rise duration, in days; Falldur_50, median fall duration, in days.

e Inactive station.
64 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 9B. Selected hydrologic metrics for discharge by calendar year for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the 

Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current 

calendar year; all values unitless unless stated otherwise; LCV5, coefficient of variation of the set of every 5th percentile of log10 discharge; RBFI, RichardsBaker flashiness index (Baker and others, 2004); median and mean values of hydrologic metrics by water year are given for each metric (mean values in 

parentheses); —, too few annual values to compute the indicated metric]

USGS

station

number

River 

name

Period

of

recorda

LCV5

Percentile

spread measuresb

Percentile

ratio measuresc

Magnitude 

metricsd

Duration metrics, 

in daysd

RBFI

7525 8020 9010 7525 8020 9010 Cum

_50

Rise

_50

Fall

_50

Risedur

_50

Falldur

_50

Upper White (1101)

07074500 White 

River

1927–

2009

(74)

6.15

(6.38)

1.06

(1.20)

1.31

(1.52)

2.07

(2.41)

2.66

(2.96)

3.39

(3.72)

5.52

(6.23)

38.3

(42.9)

1,910

(2,140)

2,250

(2,360)

2.00

(2.03)

2.50

(2.53)

0.08

(0.08)

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

07047970 Mississippi 

River

1928–

1977

(49)

4.21

(4.41)

0.96

(1.07)

1.19

(1.32)

1.96

(1.93)

2.56

(2.80)

3.05

(3.41)

4.80

(5.15)

14.1

(14.9)

35,000

(40,200)

39,500

(40,900)

4.50

(4.46)

5.00

(5.04)

0.03

(0.03)

07076750 White 

River

1927–

2009

(6)

4.94

(5.33)

0.74

(0.86)

0.99

(1.06)

1.36

(1.63)

2.10

(2.45)

2.74

(3.03)

4.45

(5.02)

15.2

(15.3)

1,650

(1,590)

2,030

(2,060)

3.00

(2.83)

3.00

(3.08)

0.04

(0.04)

07077000 White 

River

1949–

2009

(40)

5.80

(6.08)

1.01

(1.15)

1.25

(1.42)

1.83

(2.20)

2.51

(2.85)

3.13

(3.51)

5.21

(5.66)

19.2

(18.9)

1,500

(1,720)

1,810

(1,900)

3.00

(3.18)

4.00

(3.80)

0.04

(0.04)

07077380 Cache 

River

1964–

2009

(44)

26.2

(25.9)

3.27

(3.48)

5.08

(4.98)

9.74

(9.34)

12.1

(12.5)

20.0

(26.2)

70.0

(151)

225

(228)

278

(312)

232

(278)

2.00

(2.24)

4.00

(4.03)

0.21

(0.22)

07077500 Cache 

River

1927–

2009

(59)

21.8

(22.0)

2.81

(3.42)

3.93

(4.68)

6.30

(8.55)

8.85

(10.4)

14.9

(17.3)

43.4

(53.0)

99.0

(108)

212

(240)

186

(223)

3.00

(3.19)

4.00

(4.19)

0.11

(0.11)

07077555 Cache 

River

1987–

2009

(21)

18.0

(18.4)

1.84

(2.10)

2.42

(2.62)

3.53

(4.39)

6.22

(7.03)

8.81

(11.6)

25.5

(35.3)

40.7

(42.4)

210

(290)

204

(272)

5.50

(5.62)

6.00

(6.31)

0.07

(0.07)

07077700 Bayou 

DeView

1939–

2009

(47)

31.9

(32.4)

4.09

(5.20)

5.59

(7.63)

11.5

(14.9)

18.8

(33.1)

35.9

(109)

184

(778)

235

(287)

162

(174)

130

(137)

3.00

(2.85)

4.50

(4.32)

0.16

(0.17)

07077800e White 

River

1929–

1993

(52)

7.00

(7.14)

1.22

(1.48)

1.61

(1.88)

2.48

(2.85)

3.19

(3.70)

4.19

(4.77)

6.36

(7.91)

19.9

(22.1)

1,680

(2,130)

1,530

(2,030)

4.00

(3.78)

4.00

(4.40)

0.04

(0.04)

07077950e Big Creek 1970–

1993

(22)

29.0

(30.4)

2.50

(2.92)

3.26

(3.74)

5.39

(6.64)

11.3

(16.0)

18.1

(26.6)

103

(149)

78.3

(89.3)

102

(128)

93.0

(107)

2.25

(2.48)

4.00

(4.07)

0.11

(0.11)

07077952e Big Creek 1970–

1972

(1)

— — — — — — — — — — — — —

07078000e LaGrue 

Bayou

1935–

1954

(18)

50.3

(53.4)

4.14

(5.30)

6.32

(8.51)

11.5

(17.3)

19.4

(37.6)

41.4

(103)

159

(536)

320

(483)

43.2

(56.3)

22.8

(40.1)

3.00

(2.58)

3.25

(3.69)

0.22

(0.22)

07264000 Bayou 

Meto

1954–

2009

(54)

37.7

(40.08)

3.31

(4.29)

4.96

(5.97)

10.02

(11.30)

16.5

(27.2)

31.5

(54.7)

114

(205)

174

(212)

16.3

(32.7)

14.0

(26.5)

2.00

(2.34)

3.00

(3.31)

0.16

(0.16)
Tables 2–13 65

Table 9B. Selected hydrologic metrics for discharge by calendar year for gaging stations in the contributing watersheds of the 

Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; USGS hydrologic subregions, and subregion 

hydrologic-unit codes, listed as subheadings and also shown in figure 1; water year, October 1, preceding calendar year, through September 30, current 

calendar year; all values unitless unless stated otherwise; LCV5, coefficient of variation of the set of every 5th percentile of log10 discharge; RBFI, RichardsBaker flashiness index (Baker and others, 2004); median and mean values of hydrologic metrics by water year are given for each metric (mean values in 

parentheses); —, too few annual values to compute the indicated metric]

USGS

station

number

River 

name

Period

of

recorda

LCV5

Percentile

spread measuresb

Percentile

ratio measuresc

Magnitude 

metricsd

Duration metrics, 

in daysd

RBFI

7525 8020 9010 7525 8020 9010 Cum

_50

Rise

_50

Fall

_50

Risedur

_50

Falldur

_50

Lower Arkansas (1111)

07263450 Arkansas 

River

1927–

2008

(77)

10.0

(10.1)

1.55

(1.74)

2.04

(2.27)

3.57

(3.86)

4.40

(5.49)

6.30

(8.25)

17.0

(22.0)

86.9

(88.9)

7,250

(7,250)

7,500

(7,560)

2.00

(2.16)

2.00

(2.71)

0.14

(0.15)

07263500e Arkansas 

River

1927–

1970

(42)

9.03

(9.40)

1.55

(1.69)

2.06

(2.22)

3.74

(4.15)

4.27

(4.79)

5.93

(6.71)

14.3

(16.0)

82.9

(86.9)

5,050

(6,430)

4,970

(5,590)

2.00

(2.33)

3.00

(3.29)

0.13

(0.14)

Lower Mississippi–Yazoo (0803)

07265450 Mississippi 

River

1928–

1980

(52)

4.15

(4.35)

0.96

(1.06)

1.18

(1.32)

1.79

(1.90)

2.51

(2.81)

3.07

(3.45)

4.84

(5.13)

12.3

(12.8)

36,800

(43,100)

39,800

(50,800)

5.00

(4.86)

5.00

(5.62)

0.03

(0.03)

aPeriod shown is for calendar years and includes gaps if data collection was discontinuous. Number of complete calendar years shown in parentheses.

bPercentile spread measures are calculated as the difference between the indicated percentiles divided by the median where 7525=(p75 – p25)/p50, 

8020=(p80 – p20)/p50, and 9010=(p90 – p10)/p50.

cPercentile ratio measures are calculated as the ratios of the indicated percentiles where 7525=p75/p25, 8020=p80/p20, and 9010=p90/p10.

dMagnitude and duration metrics (McMahon and others, 2003): Cum_50, sum incremental change, absolute value discharge, normalized to the median 

incremental change, absolute value discharge; Rise_50, median rise in discharge, in cubic feet per second; Fall_50, median fall in discharge, in cubic feet 

per second; Risedur_50, median rise duration, in days; Falldur_50, median fall duration, in days.

e Inactive station.
66 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 10. Graphical summary files for plots of gage height and discharge data collected at gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; calendar year, January 1 through 

December 31; files listed in table 10 are linked in this table and also included in appendix 2 as a zip archive (the plot_pdf directory of the database)

available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1026]

USGS 

station 

number

Station name

Appendix 2 

figure 

number

Parameter Plot framesa–e File namef

Upper White (1101)

07074500 White River at Newport, AR B–1A

B–1B

B–1B

Gage height

Discharge

Discharge

A1, A2, A4

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1–A4, A5–A8

s07074500gmn.p01ar.pdf

s07074500qmn.p12ar.pdf

s07074500qmn.p12lg.pdf

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

07047970g

07076750

07077000

07077380

07077500

07077555

07077700

07077800

07077820

07077950g

07077952g

07078000g

07078300g

07264000

Mississippi River at Helena, AR

White River at Georgetown, AR

White River at DeValls Bluff, AR

Cache River at Egypt, AR

Cache River at Patterson, AR

Cache River near Cotton Plant, AR

Bayou DeView near Morton, AR

White River at Clarendon, AR

White River at St Charles, AR

Big Creek at Poplar Grove, AR

Big Creek nr Poplar Grove, AR

LaGrue Bayou near Stuttgart, AR

White River at Benzal, AR

Bayou Meto near Lonoke, AR

B–2A

B–2A

B–3A

B–4A

B–4B

B–4B

B–5A

B–5A

B–5B

B–6A

B–6A

B–6B

B–7A

B–7A

B–7B

B–7B

B–8A

B–8A

B–8B

B–9A

B–9B

B–9B

B–10A

B–11A

B–12A

B–13A

B–14A

B–14A

B–15A

Discharge

Discharge

Discharge

Gage height

Discharge

Discharge

Gage height

Gage height

Discharge

Gage height

Gage height

Discharge

Gage height

Gage height

Discharge

Discharge

Gage height

Gage height

Discharge

Gage height

Discharge

Discharge

Gage height

Discharge

Discharge

Discharge

Gage height

Gage height

Discharge

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1, A2, A4

A1, A2, A4

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1, A2, A4, A5–A7

A1, A2, A4, A5–A7

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1–A4, A5–A7

A1–A4, A5–A7

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1, A2, A4, A5–A7

A1, A2, A4, A5–A7

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1, A2, A4

A1, A2, A4

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1, A2, A4, A5–A8

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1, A2, A4, A5–A8

A1–A4, A5–A8

A1, A2, A4

A1–A4, A5–A7

A1, A2, A4, A5–A8

A1, A2, A4, A5–A8

A1–A4, A5–A8

s07047970qmn.p12ar.pdf

s07047970qmn.p12lg.pdf

s07076750qmn.p01ar.pdf

s07077000gmn.p01ar.pdf

s07077000qmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077000qmn.p12lg.pdf

s07077380gmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077380gmn.p12lg.pdf

s07077380qmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077500gmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077500gmn.p12lg.pdf

s07077500qmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077555gmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077555gmn.p12lg.pdf

s07077555qmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077555qmn.p12lg.pdf

s07077700gmn.p01ar.pdf

s07077700gmn.p01lg.pdf

s07077700qmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077800gmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077800qmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077800qmn.p12lg.pdf

s07077820gmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077950qmn.p12ar.pdf

s07077952qmn.p01ar.pdf

s07078000qmn.p12ar.pdf

s07078300gmn.p12ar.pdf

s07078300gmn.p12lg.pdf

s07264000qmn.p12ar.pdf
Tables 2–13 67

Table 10. Graphical summary files for plots of gage height and discharge data collected at gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds of the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.—Continued

[Major drainage boundaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations shown in figure 1; calendar year, January 1 through 

December 31; files listed in table 10 are linked in this table and also included in appendix 2 as a zip archive (the plot_pdf directory of the database)

available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1026]

USGS

station

number

Station name

Appendix 2

figure

number

Parameter Plot framesa–e File namef

Lower Arkansas (1111)

07263450 Arkansas River (Murray Dam) 

near Little Rock, AR

B–16A Gage height A1, A2, A4 s07263450gmn.p01ar.pdf

B–16B Discharge A1–A4, A5–A8 s07263450qmn.p12ar.pdf

B–16B Discharge A1–A4, A5–A8 s07263450qmn.p12lg.pdf

07263500 Arkansas River at Little Rock, AR B–17A Gage height A1, A2, A4 s07263500gmn.p01ar.pdf

B–17A Gage height A1, A2, A4 s07263500gmn.p01lg.pdf

B–17B Discharge A1–A4, A5–A8 s07263500qmn.p12ar.pdf

B–17B Discharge A1–A4, A5–A8 s07263500qmn.p12lg.pdf

Lower Mississippi–Yazoo (0803)

07265450 Mississippi River near Arkansas 

City, AR

B–18A Gage height A1–A4, A5–A8 s07265450gmn.p12ar.pdf

B–18B Discharge A1–A4, A5–A8 s07265450qmn.p12ar.pdf

B–18B Discharge A1–A4, A5–A8 s07265450qmn.p12lg.pdf

a

A1, mean-daily values; A2, A3, A4, boxplot interpolation of mean-daily values, annual timestep (A2), decadal timestep (A3), monthly timestep, 

period-of-record (A4); A5, annual-distribution spread measures; A6, annual-distribution ratio measures; A7, annual distribution, log-coefficient of variation, 

set of every 5th percentile of mean-daily values for each complete calendar year, Richards-Baker flashiness index; A8, boxplot interpolation of mean-daily 

values, daily timestep, period-of-record.

bPercentile spread measures are calculated as the difference between the indicated percentiles divided by the median where 7525=(p75 –p25)/p50,

8020=(p80–p20)/p50, and 9010=(p90–p10)/p50.

cPercentile ratio measures are calculated as the ratios of the indicated percentiles where 7525=p75/p25, 8020=p80/p20, and 9010=p90/p10.

dRichards-Baker flashiness index (Baker and others, 2004).

ePlots A2, A5–A7 complete calendar years only; plot A3, complete calendar decades only; plot A4, period-of-record monthly distributions for all complete 

calendar years; plot A8, period-of-record daily distributions for 20 or more complete calendar years.

f

File-naming conventions: sSSSSSSSSvar.p[01,12]ps.pdf; SSSSSSSS, USGS station identification number; var: gmn, mean-daily gage height, in feet; 

qmn, mean-daily discharge, in cubic feet per second; p[01,12], p01, plots A1–A4, p12, plots A1–A4, page 1, plots A5–A8, page 2; ps, plot scale: 

ar, plots A1–A5, vertical axis arithmetic, plots A6–A8, vertical axis base-10 logarithmic; lg, plots A1–A8, base-10 logarithmic.

g Inactive station.
68 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 11. Land-cover percentages for the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, 

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, based on the 1992 National Land Cover Database.—Continued

[NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; 1992 NLCD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008f); see figure 6 for map of 1992 land 

cover, hydrologic-cataloguing-unit names, and hydrologic-subregion names]

Hydrologic

cataloging

unit or

subregion

or NWR

Percentage of 1992 NLCD land-cover classa

11 21 22 23 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 71 81 82 83 85 91 92

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

08020100 21.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 0.3 1.9 <0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 21.4 2.0 0.6 49.3 0.1

08020201 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.5 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 1.7 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.2 7.0 78.8 5.8 0.2 3.4 0.2

08020202 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.1 0.1 65.8 0.8 11.1 <0.1 2.4 13.5 2.8 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.1

08020203 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.0 <0.1 0.1 7.7 0.3 2.2 0.0 0.1 6.2 67.9 6.5 0.2 5.4 0.3

08020204 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.1 5.7 78.3 7.0 0.3 2.1 0.1

08020205 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 <0.1 0.1 6.4 0.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 70.1 6.0 <0.1 8.6 <0.1

08020301 2.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 17.0 2.9 8.7 0.0 0.0 19.6 37.7 0.7 0.1 9.7 <0.1

08020302 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 6.8 0.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 71.7 3.7 <0.1 9.8 0.2

08020303 3.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.9 0.3 2.8 0.0 0.0 4.2 49.0 6.4 0.1 29.7 0.3

08020304 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.8 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 4.2 71.9 7.0 <0.1 12.2 <0.1

08020401 6.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.6 55.9 4.1 0.2 25.8 0.1

08020402 4.6 2.3 0.6 0.9 0.0 <0.1 0.1 10.1 0.4 3.8 0.0 0.0 6.9 50.5 5.5 0.3 13.6 0.6

Upper White (1101)

11010001 4.9 0.5 0.2 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 46.9 7.2 8.2 0.5 0.1 28.8 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1

11010002 1.6 2.4 1.1 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 28.6 3.7 3.0 0.2 1.7 54.0 1.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.1

11010003 3.8 0.5 0.2 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 39.5 15.9 9.6 0.5 0.2 28.4 0.6 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1

11010004 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.3 52.4 6.9 17.4 <0.1 0.0 16.7 4.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

11010005 0.8 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 55.7 9.8 18.0 0.5 <0.1 14.3 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1

11010006 2.4 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 51.9 7.7 8.6 0.2 0.4 27.7 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1

11010007 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 55.0 3.9 7.9 <0.1 0.5 6.8 18.6 0.6 0.1 4.8 0.2

11010008 0.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 63.3 5.0 9.4 <0.1 0.3 14.4 5.3 0.2 <0.1 1.3 <0.1

11010009 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 32.9 1.1 5.8 0.0 <0.1 20.7 29.0 2.1 <0.1 6.3 <0.1

11010010 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 <0.1 0.5 68.7 0.3 3.4 <0.1 <0.1 24.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

11010011 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 59.4 3.2 7.1 0.1 0.2 28.5 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1

11010012 0.4 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 59.7 1.4 7.8 0.0 0.0 24.1 4.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.0

11010013 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.6 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 13.4 0.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 6.8 61.7 2.9 0.4 8.8 0.1

11010014 3.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 48.9 7.0 18.0 0.1 <0.1 17.4 3.5 <0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1

Lower Arkansas (1111)

11110101 2.2 5.6 1.6 1.9 0.5 <0.1 1.1 30.9 0.7 2.1 0.6 18.3 29.4 2.6 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.2

11110102 4.0 1.4 0.7 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 25.8 0.9 3.9 2.6 4.7 48.3 3.0 0.6 0.6 1.7 0.5

11110103 2.0 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.1 <0.1 0.1 33.6 2.0 7.0 0.8 <0.1 46.5 1.6 2.1 0.5 0.3 0.1

11110104 5.1 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 44.6 2.2 8.4 0.5 0.2 31.5 3.5 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.3
Tables 2–13 69

Table 11. Land-cover percentages for the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, 

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, based on the 1992 National Land Cover Database.—Continued

[NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; 1992 NLCD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008f); see figure 6 for map of 1992 land 

cover, hydrologic-cataloguing-unit names, and hydrologic-subregion names]

Hydrologic

cataloging

unit or

subregion

or NWR

Percentage of 1992 NLCD land-cover classa

11 21 22 23 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 71 81 82 83 85 91 92

Lower Arkansas (1111)—Continued

11110105 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.4 <0.1 0.2 0.6 49.0 4.7 13.5 <0.1 0.0 28.1 0.6 <0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1

11110201 2.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 39.2 10.5 13.7 0.3 <0.1 26.6 4.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.5

11110202 3.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 31.1 17.4 18.5 0.2 <0.1 25.4 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5

11110203 3.4 0.8 0.2 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 30.3 12.9 12.6 <0.1 0.0 28.3 8.0 <0.1 0.1 1.9 0.5

11110204 0.7 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.1 42.1 9.4 20.1 0.0 0.0 23.5 1.7 0.0 <0.1 2.0 0.1

11110205 0.6 0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 38.1 5.0 13.4 <0.1 0.0 38.3 2.0 <0.1 0.1 1.7 0.1

11110206 0.9 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 41.6 18.7 25.6 0.0 0.0 9.9 1.2 0.0 <0.1 0.8 0.2

11110207 5.5 6.2 1.3 2.0 <0.1 0.4 0.2 19.1 13.8 13.9 0.0 0.0 6.7 21.8 1.7 0.7 6.3 0.3

Hydrologic subregion

0802 2.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 11.3 0.5 3.2 0.0 0.2 7.2 62.8 5.3 0.2 11.3 0.2

1101 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 51.4 6.6 9.9 0.2 0.3 23.6 6.8 0.3 0.1 1.4 0.1

1111 2.6 1.4 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 34.8 7.8 12.2 0.4 1.7 27.3 3.8 0.5 0.2 1.3 0.3

National Wildlife Refuge

Cache 

River 2.7 <0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 43.6 1.2 <0.1 49.8 0.3

White 

River 7.6 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.0 0.2 0.1 87.0 0.5

a

1992 NLCD class definitions:

 11, open water

21, low-intensity residential

22, high-intensity residential

 23, commercial/industrial.transportation

 31, bare rock/sand/clay

 32, quarries/strip mines/gravel pits

 33, transitional

 41, deciduous forest

 42, evergreen forest

43, mixed forest

 51, shrubland

 71, grasslands/herbaceous

 81, pasture/hay

 82, row crops

 83, small grains

 85, urban/recreational grasses

 91, woody wetlands

 92, emergent herbaceous wetlands
70 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 12. Land-cover percentages for the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, 

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, based on the 2001 National Land Cover Database.—Continued

[NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; 2001 NLCD (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), 2011a); 

see figure 7 for map of 2001 land cover, hydrologic-cataloguing-uinit names, and hydrologic subregion names]

Hydrologic

cataloging

unit or

subregion

or NWR

Percentage of 2001 NLCD land cover classa

11 21 22 23 24 31 41 42 43 52 71 81 82 90 95

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

08020100 20.4 2.6 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.1 2.4 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 0.4 0.3 24.8 46.0 0.1

08020201 0.5 4.1 1.8 0.4 0.1 <0.1 1.5 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.0 86.2 3.6 0.4

08020202 1.4 3.3 0.8 0.1 <0.1 0.2 69.2 2.4 4.4 0.1 1.5 14.8 0.6 0.8 0.2

08020203 1.7 5.3 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 7.3 0.1 0.7 <0.1 0.1 4.2 71.5 7.3 0.4

08020204 0.8 5.2 0.9 0.3 0.1 <0.1 2.4 <0.1 0.3 0.0 <0.1 3.5 83.4 3.0 0.1

08020205 2.0 4.6 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 5.8 0.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 1.9 72.6 10.3 0.0

08020301 2.8 4.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 17.7 5.2 2.1 0.1 0.6 21.9 31.4 12.8 0.3

08020302 1.6 4.4 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.0 0.4 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 2.9 71.0 11.5 0.1

08020303 3.4 4.0 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 2.5 0.6 3.6 <0.1 0.1 0.3 55.2 29.8 0.1

08020304 1.0 4.8 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.0 <0.1 0.2 79.0 12.3 0.1

08020401 7.4 2.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 58.8 28.4 0.2

08020402 5.4 5.5 2.1 0.6 0.4 <0.1 9.3 0.8 1.3 <0.1 0.4 6.9 50.8 16.1 0.2

Upper White (1101)

11010001 3.8 4.0 1.0 0.2 <0.1 0.1 54.7 4.8 1.4 0.1 1.7 27.8 0.0 0.3 <0.1

11010002 1.0 5.1 3.7 1.5 0.5 0.1 36.4 2.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 46.5 0.4 0.4 <0.1

11010003 2.8 3.7 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 51.3 7.8 3.7 0.5 1.5 26.6 0.1 0.2 <0.1

11010004 0.9 3.5 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 47.3 8.4 14.5 0.2 2.1 18.6 2.4 0.5 <0.1

11010005 0.2 3.0 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 74.0 4.2 2.0 0.1 1.8 14.3 0.0 0.1 0.0

11010006 1.8 3.6 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 58.9 3.4 3.3 0.1 1.6 26.4 0.2 0.2 0.0

11010007 0.7 3.7 0.5 0.1 <0.1 0.3 54.4 3.2 5.7 0.6 1.0 5.9 18.8 5.0 0.1

11010008 0.3 3.4 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 64.1 4.7 6.4 0.2 1.3 13.1 4.9 1.4 <0.1

11010009 1.2 3.6 0.6 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 29.1 1.8 7.2 0.0 1.9 19.1 28.5 6.8 0.1

11010010 0.4 4.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 59.4 0.6 2.6 0.1 2.1 29.2 0.2 0.2 0.0

11010011 0.2 3.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.4 3.3 4.4 <0.1 1.6 27.9 0.1 0.3 <0.1

11010012 0.3 4.4 0.6 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 43.7 3.6 13.7 0.0 2.4 29.4 1.4 0.4 <0.1

11010013 1.8 5.1 0.8 0.3 0.1 <0.1 9.7 1.4 3.3 <0.1 0.5 5.4 60.2 11.1 0.2

11010014 3.0 3.3 1.0 0.2 0.1 <0.1 45.9 11.2 11.2 0.5 1.8 17.7 2.6 1.4 0.1

Lower Arkansas (1111)

11110101 2.4 9.3 4.4 1.8 1.1 0.1 31.4 <0.1 0.0 0.0 20.6 25.0 3.9 <0.1 <0.1

11110102 3.0 6.0 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 31.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 13.1 40.1 2.0 0.7 0.1

11110103 1.5 5.6 2.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 41.3 1.2 0.5 0.5 3.4 42.1 0.2 0.6 <0.1

11110104 4.5 3.7 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 42.1 2.9 2.1 1.0 5.7 33.3 1.3 1.4 0.1
Tables 2–13 71

Table 12. Land-cover percentages for the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and vicinity, 

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, based on the 2001 National Land Cover Database.—Continued

[NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; NLCD, National Land Cover Database; 2001 NLCD (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), 2011a); 

see figure 7 for map of 2001 land cover, hydrologic-cataloguing-uinit names, and hydrologic subregion names]

Hydrologic

cataloging

unit or

subregion

or NWR

Percentage of 2001 NLCD land cover classa

11 21 22 23 24 31 41 42 43 52 71 81 82 90 95

Lower Arkansas (1111)—Continued

11110105 1.1 3.7 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 30.7 22.0 8.9 0.9 5.5 24.4 0.3 1.0 <0.1

11110201 1.6 3.5 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 46.4 10.4 3.9 1.2 4.5 23.4 1.9 0.7 0.2

11110202 3.0 3.4 1.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 38.6 20.6 5.1 1.1 2.1 22.7 1.0 0.7 0.2

11110203 3.2 4.2 2.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 23.9 19.4 4.9 0.8 1.5 29.1 5.4 4.0 0.5

11110204 0.7 2.9 0.9 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 25.9 26.7 13.5 1.2 3.9 20.6 1.0 2.6 0.1

11110205 0.5 3.6 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 30.5 11.2 4.5 0.3 1.3 42.7 2.7 1.4 0.1

11110206 1.0 3.4 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 33.0 34.2 14.9 0.8 1.3 9.1 0.7 1.3 <0.1

11110207 5.8 5.4 6.8 2.1 1.1 0.2 21.5 15.6 2.4 3.8 1.5 3.0 22.4 8.3 0.2

Hydrologic subregion

0802 2.8 4.5 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.2 10.6 0.8 1.3 <0.1 0.2 5.0 61.5 11.8 0.2

1101 1.5 3.8 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 52.1 4.8 5.4 0.3 1.6 22.0 5.7 1.5 <0.1

1111 2.4 4.5 2.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 34.1 13.7 5.0 1.0 5.3 26.2 3.1 1.7 0.1

National Wildlife Refuge

Cache 

River

2.3 2.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 0.3 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 41.8 51.1 0.2

White 

River

5.8 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.0 <0.1 0.1 0.1 1.6 88.5 0.1

a

2001 NLCD class definitions:

 11, open water

 21, developed, open space

 22, developed, low intensity

 23, developed, medium intensity

 24, developed, high intensity

 31, bare land (rock/sand/clay)

 41, deciduous forest

 42, evergreen forest

43, mixed forest

 52, shrub/scrub

 71, grasslands/herbaceous

 81, pasture/hay

 82, cultivated crops

 90, woody wetlands

 95, emergent herbaceous wetlands
72 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Table 13. Land-cover-change percentages for the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and 

vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, from 1992 to 2001, based on the 1992–2001 National Land Cover Database-Land Cover 

Change Retrofit product.—Continued

[NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; HUC, hydrologic-unit code; NLCD-LCCR, National Land Cover Database-Land Cover Change Retrofit product; 

1992–2001 NLCD-LCCR (Fry and others, 2008; Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium [MRLC], 2011b); positive percent-net-change values 

indicate a net gain, negative percent-net-change values indicate a net loss; see figure 8 for map of 1992–2001 land-cover change, hydrologic-accounting-unit 

names, and hydrologic subregion names]

Hydrologic

cataloging

unit or

subregion

or NWR

Percent of

HUC/NWR 

with

classification

changea

Percent of total HUC area changed in

modified Anderson level 1 classifications, 2001b,c

Percent net change from 1992 to 2001 in 

modified Anderson level 1 classificationsb,d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802)

08020100 5.0 57.1 2.2 5.9 2.0 0.9 13.2 18.7 47.5 2.2 –15.3 2.0 0.9 –33.1 –4.1

08020201 0.8 32.0 2.5 0.0 22.3 0.3 33.0 10.0 29.5 2.2 0 –5.0 0.3 –26.0 –0.9

08020202 1.9 1.6 6.6 1.2 4.9 7.0 77.4 1.4 0.5 6.6 1.2 –87.8 7.0 71.2 1.3

08020203 1.2 27.6 10.7 1.6 9.6 0.9 37.8 11.8 19.2 10.7 1.5 4.9 0.9 –3.0 –34.2

08020204 0.4 34.9 9.4 0.6 7.9 0.1 35.1 11.9 23.1 9.3 0.6 –2.3 0.1 1.5 –32.3

08020205 1.4 30.4 5.8 1.6 18.8 0.1 30.5 12.8 25.0 5.8 1.6 18.7 0.1 –20.5 –30.6

08020301 3.5 12.6 3.2 2.5 34.5 0.8 37.2 9.2 –11.0 3.2 2.5 13.4 0.8 –10.0 1.0

08020302 1.3 25.9 8.4 1.1 16.1 <0.1 30.3 18.1 15.0 8.3 1.1 15.9 <0.1 –21.5 –18.8

08020303 2.2 23.1 4.3 2.7 29.6 0.4 22.4 17.6 11.9 4.3 2.4 29.6 0.4 –33.0 –15.6

08020304 1.4 20.4 5.0 0.4 15.1 0.0 31.0 28.2 11.9 5.0 –0.1 15.1 0 –26.9 –5.1

08020401 2.9 38.4 2.3 13.5 4.0 0.2 18.5 23.2 15.6 2.3 13.5 3.9 0.2 –23.3 –12.2

08020402 2.5 38.3 9.3 0.4 7.8 0.4 35.1 8.8 16.0 9.3 0.4 –4.5 0.4 –4.5 –17.1

Upper White (1101)

11010001 2.8 0.6 5.8 1.7 32.8 7.4 51.1 0.7 0.6 5.8 1.7 –29.2 7.4 13.1 0.7

11010002 4.0 0.4 30.3 0.7 40.8 2.4 24.5 0.8 0.4 30.3 0.7 6.0 2.4 –40.7 0.8

11010003 3.4 0.9 7.4 1.6 31.0 6.1 52.2 0.8 0.8 7.4 1.6 –33.3 6.1 16.6 0.8

11010004 2.5 1.0 7.1 0.7 2.8 16.0 71.7 0.6 0.4 7.1 0.7 –91.0 16.0 66.5 0.3

11010005 2.6 1.1 3.6 0.2 9.2 10.7 75.0 0.3 1.0 3.6 0.2 –80.1 10.7 64.4 0.3

11010006 4.1 0.3 5.3 0.8 13.2 6.1 73.8 0.6 –3.1 5.3 0.8 –69.6 6.1 59.9 0.6

11010007 0.9 6.2 11.9 5.3 13.0 8.4 44.2 10.9 –14.2 11.9 5.3 –42.2 8.4 28.8 2.1

11010008 1.3 2.0 5.0 0.7 9.1 9.5 71.9 1.7 1.1 5.0 0.7 –76.7 9.5 60.5 >–0.1

11010009 2.7 1.9 2.8 0.6 6.6 5.7 78.5 4.0 –22.3 2.8 0.6 –57.8 5.7 68.9 2.1

11010010 3.5 0.4 4.6 0.5 1.7 6.2 86.5 0.1 0.1 4.6 0.5 –96.1 6.2 84.5 0.1

11010011 3.2 0.2 5.8 0.3 3.1 5.2 85.2 0.1 0 5.8 0.3 –92.4 5.2 80.9 0.1

11010012 3.0 0.7 3.3 0.5 2.6 6.7 85.8 0.4 0.5 3.3 0.5 –93.6 6.7 82.1 0.4

11010013 2.2 3.7 7.3 0.8 13.4 3.4 56.2 15.3 –35.8 7.2 0.8 –14.6 3.4 33.7 5.4

11010014 3.0 1.0 4.1 0.4 15.8 17.9 59.8 1.0 >–0.1 4.1 0.4 –65.9 17.9 42.7 0.9

Lower Arkansas (1111)

11110101 3.2 18.8 38.7 0.8 3.6 26.3 11.6 0.3 18.0 38.7 0.2 –52.8 12.0 –16.4 0.3

11110102 0.9 8.8 11.8 1.4 7.4 27.4 35.6 7.5 6.0 11.8 –10.5 –53.4 27.1 11.5 7.5

11110103 2.3 1.3 25.3 2.5 2.1 16.7 51.3 0.7 1.1 25.3 1.9 –72.1 16.7 26.3 0.7

11110104 2.0 4.6 8.9 3.6 6.0 31.9 42.7 2.3 4.2 8.9 1.2 –72.9 29.2 27.1 2.3
Tables 2–13 73

Table 13. Land-cover-change percentages for the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges contributing watersheds and 

vicinity, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, from 1992 to 2001, based on the 1992–2001 National Land Cover Database-Land Cover 

Change Retrofit product.—Continued

[NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; HUC, hydrologic-unit code; NLCD-LCCR, National Land Cover Database-Land Cover Change Retrofit product; 

1992–2001 NLCD-LCCR (Fry and others, 2008; Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium [MRLC], 2011b); positive percent-net-change values 

indicate a net gain, negative percent-net-change values indicate a net loss; see figure 8 for map of 1992–2001 land-cover change, hydrologic-accounting-unit 

names, and hydrologic subregion names]

Hydrologic

cataloging

unit or

subregion

or NWR

Percent of

HUC/NWR 

with

classification

changea

Percent of total HUC area changed in

modified Anderson level 1 classifications, 2001b,c

Percent net change from 1992 to 2001 in 

modified Anderson level 1 classificationsb,d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Lower Arkansas (1111)—Continued

11110105 2.5 7.4 6.6 2.6 12.9 32.6 36.6 1.2 6.9 5.6 –0.2 –59.0 22.3 23.1 1.2

11110201 2.3 3.0 8.2 1.5 12.4 17.9 53.9 3.1 2.6 8.2 1.5 –67.6 17.9 34.4 3.1

11110202 3.2 2.1 5.5 0.7 8.8 20.3 59.7 2.8 1.1 5.5 0.7 –78.9 20.3 48.5 2.8

11110203 4.6 1.3 7.3 1.4 14.5 9.6 57.7 8.2 –6.1 7.3 1.4 –59.0 9.6 38.6 8.2

11110204 1.9 1.6 2.9 0.7 12.8 39.7 40.2 2.1 1.0 2.9 0.7 –72.1 39.6 25.9 2.1

11110205 3.2 1.1 4.0 0.7 22.5 5.6 64.6 1.6 –3.4 4.0 0.7 –48.2 5.6 39.7 1.6

11110206 1.6 1.2 2.5 0.1 14.8 33.7 46.0 1.8 0.5 2.5 0.1 –68.5 33.5 30.2 1.8

11110207 1.9 7.3 25.7 2.5 7.8 34.4 15.4 7.0 –5.2 25.7 2.5 –59.7 34.4 3.6 –1.3

Hydrologic subregion

0802 1.7 27.6 6.1 2.8 15.0 1.0 33.7 13.8 14.9 6.1 0.5 1.2 1.0 –9.5 –14.2

1101 2.7 1.0 8.0 1.0 17.8 7.9 62.9 1.5 –2.1 8.0 1.0 –55.9 7.9 40.4 0.8

1111 2.5 4.9 12.7 1.6 10.1 23.1 44.7 3.0 2.5 12.6 0.7 –64.9 20.0 26.5 2.5

National Wildlife Refuge

Cache 

River

2.5 19.2 8.7 0.9 16.4 0.0 7.1 47.7 6.7 8.7 0.9 16.4 0 –63.9 31.2

White 

River

1.6 32.0 4.2 12.5 13.0 1.2 1.4 35.6 8.4 4.2 12.5 13.0 1.2 –49.1 9.8

a

Areal percentage of 30-meter cells that were reclassified between 1992 and 2001 using methods described in Fry and others (2008). The reclassified 

area is used as the base for comparison in presenting the modified Anderson Level 1 classification and net-change percentages for 2001.

bClassifications modified from Anderson level 1 land-cover classifications (Anderson and others, 1976):

 1, water

 2, urban

 3, barren

 4, forest

 5, grassland

 6, agriculture

 7, wetland

cPercentages given are of the portion of the HUC/NWR that changed classification between 1992 and 2001. 

dThe interpretation would be a conversion from the classification(s) with negative values to the classification(s) with positive values. For example, in 

the 5 percent of HUC 08020100 that changed classification between 1992 and 2001, primarily barren land and agricultural land were converted to open water. 

Note that the net gains in modified Anderson level 1 classification balance the net losses; however, the net gains/losses do not necessarily add to 100 percent.

Appendixes 1–3
76 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

Appendix 1. USGS Annual-Data-Report Manuscripts for 

Gaging Stations

USGS annual-data-report manuscripts for selected gaging stations in the contributing 

watersheds of the Cache and White River NWRs are included in this appendix as 

downloadable Adobe PDF files (the adr_pdf directory of the database) available online at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1026. These reports became available in digital form in 2006 

and contain the data tables and summary plots for all continuous-record data collected in a 

water year at a USGS gaging station (for example, daily-values for gage height, discharge, 

and, at some stations, water-quality parameters such as water temperature, dissolved oxygen, 

specific conductance, pH, and turbidity). The reports also contain tables of any periodic data 

collected at the gaging station, including field measurements and water-quality, sediment, 

radiological, and biological analyses.

Appendix 2. Hydrograph and Statistical-Summary Plots of 

Gage Height and Discharge

Plots of gage height and discharge data collected at the gaging stations listed in tables 

2A–B are included in this appendix as downloadable Adobe PDF files (the plot_pdf directory 

of the database) available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1026. Plot files are listed 

and referenced in table 10. An explanation file that documents the terminology, symbols, and 

abbreviations used in the plots is also included in the plots_pdf directory.
Appendix 3. Hydroecological and Environmental Flow Characterization 77

Appendix 3. Hydroecological and Environmental 

Flow Characterization

Hydroecological and environmental flow characterization is conceptually different from 

the application of historically common water-use criteria to pollution abatement and human 

water needs. Water-discharge and water-withdrawal permits primarily are based on minimumflow requirements developed to provide sufficient dilution of pollutants and(or) sufficient water 

for downstream water uses (engineering perspective). Hydroecological and environmentalflow criteria are, however, developed to describe the flow regime that would be required to 

maintain the aquatic and riparian ecosystem of a river reach (ecological perspective). Although 

the engineering and ecological approaches to water-use regulation typically are applied 

independently of each other, it is possible to (1) apply each approach within the context of the 

other or (2) develop a hybrid approach that could accommodate both sets of needs.

Background and Development of Ecological Flow Methodologies

The development and implementation of instream-flow methodologies for assessing the 

ecological requirements of riverine aquatic biota began during the late 1960s and early 1970s 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2008b). An initial emphasis was placed on determining minimumflow requirements for specific stream reaches and target biota. However, this worst-case 

scenario specified a minimum flow reserved for instream biological communities, but did not 

accommodate the full range of ecological-flow needs. Since then, a more comprehensive set 

of requirements has been developed to include temporal and seasonal flow components that 

accommodate species-specific ecological niches defined by the intersection of physical habitat 

requirements, water-quality constraints, and transport of sediment, nutrients, and organic matter (Gillilan and Brown, 1997; Smith, 1998; Waddle, 2001; U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c,d; 

Annear and Dey, 2006; Dey and Annear, 2006). The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology 

(IFIM) was developed during the late 1970s and early 1980s as an iterative decision-making 

process designed to help resource managers evaluate the potential effects of a range of hydrologic scenarios on the availability and quality of aquatic and riparian habitat (Bovee, 1982; 

Bovee and others, 1998; U.S. Geological Survey, 2008b,c). The IFIM emphasizes development of discharge-habitat response functions that quantify the effects of incremental changes 

in discharge on habitat availability. The Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) model was 

developed in concert with and as a major component of the IFIM to predict useable habitat 

area as a function of discharge (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c,d; Milhous and others, 1989; 

Waddle, T.J., ed., 2001). The IFIM-PHABSIM approach focuses on reach-scale stream segments to answer specific questions about water availability for target biota within a sharedresource multiple-use framework.

Within the larger watershed context, a number of statistical approaches have been developed to place the requisite aquatic and riparian habitats within a hydrologic framework using 

a wide variety of hydrologic metrics deemed ecologically relevant (Richter and others, 1996; 

Olden and Poff, 2003; Henriksen and others, 2006; U.S. Geological Survey, 2008e,f). Characterization of baseline hydrologic conditions (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008b) and hydrologic 

reference conditions for different ecogeographic settings (Poff, 1996) are essential prerequisites 

for instream-flow assessments in order for selected hydrologic metrics to be related to ecological function and critical habitat. Richter and others (1996) proposed a method for assessing the 

degree of hydrologic alteration related to ecosystem-level human influence—the Indicators of 

Hydrologic Alteration (IHA). The IHA initially involved 32 hydrologic parameters organized 

into five ecologically-relevant groups to statistically characterize hydrologic variation. The IHA 

method presently includes 67 parameters—33 IHA parameters and 34 Environmental Flow 

Component (EFC) parameters (The Nature Conservancy, 2007, 2009). The IHA parameters and 

the EFC parameters are each organized into five groups that define the magnitude, frequency, 
78 Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges

duration, timing, and rate-of-change of ecologically relevant hydrologic events. Olden and 

Poff (2003) examined 171 hydrologic metrics for redundancy and derived a subset of these 

measures that retains sufficient explanatory power and relates to ecologically-relevant flow 

characteristics. This suite of 171 metrics was incorporated in the Hydroecological Integrity 

Assessment Process (HIP) developed by Henriksen and others (2006) based on research that 

explored linkages between hydrologic variability and aquatic ecosystem integrity. The HIP was 

used by Kennen and others (2007) to develop a classification system for New Jersey streams, a 

set of non-redundant hydrologic indices, and baseline environmental-flow standards. Armstrong 

and others (2008) used IHA and HIP metrics in a principal-components and hierarchical-cluster 

analysis to develop a hydrologic classification of 61 New England streams as a baseline for 

the establishment of environmental-flow criteria for the State of Massachussetts. Falcone and 

others (2010) constructed a streamgage database designed to aid in the evaluation of natural 

and altered flow conditions in the conterminous United States. These examples are just a few of 

many applications of the growing set of instream-flow and statistical-characterization tools and 

datasets presently available.

Assessment Techniques

Building on the research discussed in the previous section, three commonly-used standard 

software packages have been developed: IFIM-PHABSIM (Bovee and others, 1998; Milhous 

and others, 1989; Waddle, T.J., ed., 2001), IHA (Richter and others, 1996; The Nature Conservancy, 2009), and HIP (Henriksen and others, 2006). Application of these software tools 

enables the consistent development of instream-flow criteria for specific aquatic environments (IFIM-PHABSIM) and(or) a more general watershed-scale statistical characterization 

of environmental-flow criteria and the establishment of a hydrologic baseline reference (IHA, 

HIP). The IHA software was used to generate a subset of the statistics and hydrologic metrics 

included in the Cache and White River NWRs database.

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology

The IFIM is a five-phase decision-support system for water-resource managers to use in 

optimizing water allocation for ecological needs when multiple parties are involved (Bovee 

and others, 1998; U.S. Geological Survey, 2008b,c). These five phases consist of the following: 

I, problem identification; II, study planning; III, study implementation; IV, alternatives analysis; 

and V, problem resolution (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c). The IFIM allows for spatiotemporal analysis of habitat variability at multiple scales to establish discharge-habitat linkages 

at each scale. The IFIM can be implemented at three habitat scales: 1, the macrohabitat scale; 

2, the mesohabitat scale; and 3, the microhabitat scale. The macrohabitat scale is stratified at 

three levels, namely (from largest to smallest), the drainage basin, the drainage network, and 

the network segment. The network segment is the fundamental habitat-accounting unit in the 

IFIM (Bovee and others, 1998). Mesohabitats are subsections of macrohabitats that have have 

common slope, channel shape, and structure; for example, pools, runs, or riffles. Microhabitats 

are local areas within mesohabitats that have similar depth, velocity, substrate, and cover. Twoway scalability is embedded within the IFIM process; that is, habitat variables can be analyzed 

at the full range of habitat scales depending on the IFIM study design and questions posed. 

Habitat can be aggregated from the microhabitat scale to the macrohabitat scale, and conversely, disaggregated from macrohabitats and mesohabitats to individual microhabitats.

Physical Habitat Simulation (Model)

The connection between discharge and physical habitat for specific life stages of target 

species is established by using the PHABSIM model (Milhous and others, 1989; Waddle, 

T.J., ed., 2001; U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c,d) during phase III of the IFIM process. The 

PHABSIM model simulates hydraulics and microhabitat at the reach scale to establish a 
Appendix 3. Hydroecological and Environmental Flow Characterization 79

Weighted Usable Area (WUA) as a function of discharge by integrating velocity, depth, and a 

channel index (for example, cover and substrate) within the reach. The WUA is expressed as 

areal units per length of stream and can, therefore, be longitudinally integrated to provide total 

habitat area at mesohabitat and macrohabitat scales. Monthly and daily habitat-availability time 

series can be generated by PHABSIM and used as input to IFIM phases IV and V, the analysisof-alternatives and problem-resolution phases. Ideally, instream-flow guidelines can be established that accommodate the ecological needs of the target specie(s) within the constraints of 

multiple-use demands. This scenario is the intended outcome of an IFIM-PHABSIM study.

Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration

The IHA software package was developed by Richter and others (1996) and The Nature 

Conservancy (2007, 2009) to provide a tool for calculating the characteristics of natural and 

altered hydrologic regimes. Any type of daily hydrologic data can be used as input data for the 

software, typically stream discharge and gage height, but also groundwater levels, water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, or turbidity. Kiesling (2003) used IHA to 

do a pilot evaluation of risk for biological impairment at five stream sites in the Trinity River 

Basin, Texas, with inference for application statewide. The application of the IHA software is 

explained in detail in the methods section of this report, as IHA was used to compute many of 

the statistics in the Cache and White River NWRs database.

Hydroecological Integrity (Assessment) Process

The HIP is a four-step process for developing a set of hydrologic indices that are streamclass specific and relate to the five major components of the flow regime—magnitude, 

frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change (Henriksen and others, 2006; Kennen and 

others, 2007). The HIP involves: (1) hydrologic classification of streams using the 171 hydrologic indices developed by Olden and Poff (2003), (2) statistical reduction of the full suite of 

hydrologic indices to a set of non-redundant indices for each stream class that relate to the five 

major flow components, (3) development of an area-specific Stream-Classification Tool (SCT), 

and (4) development of an area-specific Hydrologic Assessment Tool (HAT). The SCT is used 

to place streams that have not been classified within the established classification framework. 

The HAT is used to establish a hydrologic baseline, environmental-flow standards, and an 

evaluation of the effects of hydrologic modifications.

The HIP contains four software systems that have been developed to facilitate the assessment process: (1) The Hydrologic Index Tool (HIT) calculates the 171 hydrologic indices 

(Olden and Poff, 2003) using mean-daily and peak-flow discharge records. The program is 

designed to import these data from the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS; 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011a) and NWISWeb (NWISWeb, U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b,c) 

databases. (2) The National Hydrologic Assessment Tool (NATHAT; U.S. Geological Survey, 

2008e) is based on a national hydrologic classification by Poff (1996) using 420 unregulated 

streams to define six stream classes. (3) The New Jersey Stream Classification Tool (NJSCT; 

Kennen and others, 2007; U.S. Geological Survey, 2011g) classifies New Jersey streams into 

one of four classes based on the skewness of the mean-daily flows and frequency of low-flow 

events measured at 88 streams: A, semi-flashy with moderately-low base flow; B, stable with 

high base flow; C, moderately stable with moderately-high base flow; and D, flashy with 

low base flow (Kennen and others, 2007). (4) The New Jersey Hydrologic Assessment Tool 

(NJHAT; Kennen and others, 2007; U.S. Geological Survey, 2011g) is similar in application 

to NATHAT but with the modification that the hydrologic-index values are calculated with a 

user-defined range based on either temporal or spatial data. Index ranges based on temporal 

data are computed for each station using multi-year record with percentiles derived from individual years. Index ranges based on spatial data are computed for all stations within a streamclassification type with percentiles derived from individual station records. Both the NATHAT 

and NJHAT are used to establish a hydrologic baseline, environmental-flow standards, and an 

evaluation of hydrologic modifications, both historic and proposed.
Manuscript approved on December 14, 2011

Edited by Michael Deacon

Layout by Caryl J. Wipperfurth

Science Publishing Network, Raleigh PSC

For more information about this publication, contact:

Gary R. Buell 

USGS Georgia Water Science Center

3039 Amwiler Road

Atlanta, GA 30360

telephone: 770-903-9160

e-mail: grbuell@usgs.gov

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/
Buell and others—Hydrologic and Landscape Database for Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges—Open-File Report 2012–1026