Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Base Flow in Selected Reaches of the South Platte River, Colorado
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Prepared in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Base Flow in Selected Reaches of the South Platte River, Colorado Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5034 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Base Flow in Selected Reaches of the South Platte River, Colorado By Joseph P. Capesius and L. Rick Arnold Prepared in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5034 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: Capesius, J.P., and Arnold, L.R., 2012, Comparison of two methods for estimating base flow in selected reaches of the South Platte River, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5034, 20 p. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2 Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................2 Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................5 Methods...........................................................................................................................................................5 Data Compilation ...................................................................................................................................5 Base-Flow Estimation...........................................................................................................................6 Mass Balance Method ...............................................................................................................6 Pilot Point Method .......................................................................................................................6 Pilot Point Method Mass-Balance Constraints .............................................................7 Streamflow Gain Constraint .....................................................................................7 Streamflow Loss Constraint .....................................................................................8 Data Smoothing ...................................................................................................................8 Comparison of Base-Flow Estimates ..........................................................................................................9 Comparison of Mass Balance and Pilot Point Methods .......................................................................17 Summary........................................................................................................................................................18 Selected References ...................................................................................................................................19 Figures 1. Map showing locations of study area and South Platte River streamgages utilized in the study .......................................................................................................................3 2—13. Graphs showing: 2. Comparison of streamflow gain and loss estimates based on daily mean and monthly mean Mass Balance method results, South Platte River, Henderson to Fort Lupton study reach, Colorado .................................................................................7 3. Comparison of annual mean streamflow gain and loss estimates for the South Platte River, Denver to Henderson study reach, Colorado ...............................10 4. Comparison of monthly mean streamflow gain and loss estimates for the South Platte River, Denver to Henderson study reach, Colorado ...............................10 5. Comparison of mean monthly streamflow gain and loss estimates for the South Platte River, Denver to Henderson study reach, Colorado ...............................11 6. Comparison of annual mean streamflow gain and loss estimates for the South Platte River, Henderson to Fort Lupton study reach, Colorado ........................11 7. Comparison of monthly mean streamflow gain and loss estimates for the South Platte River, Henderson to Fort Lupton study reach, Colorado ........................12 8. Comparison of mean monthly streamflow gain and loss estimates for the South Platte River, Henderson to Fort Lupton study reach, Colorado ........................12 9. Comparison of annual mean streamflow gain and loss estimates for the South Platte River, Fort Lupton to Kersey study reach, Colorado ...............................13 iv 2—13. Graphs showing:—Continued 10. Comparison of monthly mean streamflow gain and loss estimates for the South Platte River, Fort Lupton to Kersey study reach, Colorado ...............................13 11. Comparison of mean monthly streamflow gain and loss estimates for the South Platte River, Fort Lupton to Kersey study reach, Colorado ...............................14 12. Comparison of streamflow gain and loss estimates from Mass Balance and Pilot Point methods with McMahon and others (1995), South Platte River, Denver to Henderson study reach, Colorado .................................................................16 13. Comparison of streamflow gain and loss estimates from Mass Balance and Pilot Point methods with McMahon and others (1995), South Platte River, Henderson to Fort Lupton study reach, Colorado ..........................................................16 14. Boxplots comparing Mass Balance and Pilot Point estimates of annual mean streamflow gains and losses for South Platte River study reaches, Colorado ................17 15. Boxplots comparing Mass Balance and Pilot Point estimates of monthly mean streamflow gains and losses for South Platte River study reaches, Colorado ................18 Tables 1. Data stations used in the Mass Balance and Pilot Point method mass- balance computations .................................................................................................................4 2. Input values and final results for Pilot Point method maximum streamflow gain constraint ..............................................................................................................................8 3. Input values and final results for Pilot Point method maximum streamflow loss constraint ...............................................................................................................................9 4. Statistical summary of annual mean base-flow estimates using the Mass Balance and Pilot Point methods, South Platte River, Colorado, 1950–2003 ....................14 5. Statistical summary of monthly mean base-flow estimates using the Mass Balance and Pilot Point methods, South Platte River, Colorado, 1950–2003 ....................15 Conversion Factors and Datum Inch/Pound to SI Multiply By To obtain Length inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm) foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) Area square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) Volume acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3) Flow rate cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s) cubic foot per second per square mile 0.01093 cubic meter per second per square kilometer [(ft3/s)/mi2] [(m3/s)/km2] Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: °C=(°F–32)/1.8 Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum. Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Base Flow in Selected Reaches of the South Platte River, Colorado By Joseph P. Capesius and L. Rick Arnold stream gains and losses estimated using the Mass Balance Abstract method were consistently more variable and of greater magnitude than those estimated using the Pilot Point method. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the In the Denver to Henderson reach, the median estimated Colorado Water Conservation Board, compared two methods annual mean base flow was 34.0 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) for estimating base flow in three reaches of the South Platte using the Mass Balance method and was 39.1 ft3/s using the River between