COST-EFFECTIVENESS of the U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY's STREAM-GAGING PROGRAMS in MASSACHUSETTS and RHODE ISLAND by R. A. Gadoury, J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY'S STREAM-GAGING PROGRAMS IN MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND By R. A. Gadoury, J. A. Smath, and R. A. Fontaine U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4097 Boston, Massachusetts 1985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Services Section Water Resources Division Western Distribution Branch 150 Causeway Street, Suite 1001 U.S. Geological Survey Boston, MA 02114-1384 Box 25425, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Telephone: (303) 236-7476 CONTENTS Page Abstract --------------- - ------ ______ ____ __ _ _ ____ i Introduction ----------------- --- ---- ______ ________ i Purpose and scope--- --- - ------ -- ________________ 2 The stream-gaging programs in Massachusetts and Rhode Island -------- 3 Uses, funding, and availability of continuous streamflow data ----- ----- --- 11 Data-use categories --------- -- __________________ __ _____ n Regional hydrology ----- ------ __ __________ _ n Hydrologic systems----- -- ---- -- -- --- 11 Legal obligations---- - ____ ____ ______ __ n Planning and design - -- ---------- ______ ___ 12 Project operation --- ___ _________ __ 12 Hydrologic forecasts ---- -- -- - _- --- 12 Water-quality sites --- - - -- ________________ 12 Research ---- __ -- __ ______ ________ 12 Other 12 Funding------ - __ __ __ __ ___________________ ^3 Frequency of data availability --------------- -- -___---_ __ 13 Data-use presentation --- ~ ----- ------ _-_- -- - 13 Data-use conclusions --------- __ __ ______ __ ^3 Alternative methods of developing streamflow information ------ -- ------- ^7 Flow-routing model ------------ - ---- _--_-_ __ __ ig Regression analysis--------- -------- ______ ______ ____ 19 Stream gages used to evaluate alternative methods -- -- ---- --- 20 Leominster flow-routing analysis -------- -- ------ ______ ____ 20 Belchertown flow-routing analysis -------------------- ________ 25 Williamstown flow-routing analysis ---- ________ __ __ _ 29 Westerly flow-routing analysis -- __-- ____________ 33 Regression analysis results --------- -___ _ ______________ 37 Alternative methods conclusions -------------- ---- -- - -- 39 Cost-effective resource allocation ----- - ------ _________ 39 Introduction to K-CERA 39 Description of Traveling Hydrographer ---- -- ---------- -------- __ 39 Description of uncertainty functions ------ -------- __ __ ___ 43 The application of K-CERA in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ---- - 46 Definition of missing record probabilities--------- -- ----- __ 45 Definition of cross-correlation coefficient and coefficient of variation------- --- --- --- --- 48 Kalman-filter definition of variance -- ---- ------- 53 Costs and routes ------- ----------- ______ __ ____ go K-CERA results 65 K-CERA conclusions 76 Summary - - -- -- - -- -------- ---- -- ---- -------- ____ 77 References cited -- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- -- ________ 77 111 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Graph showing history of continuous stream gaging Page in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ---- -- --- ---- - 4 2. Map showing location of continuous-record gaging stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ----- ---- -- - 10 3. Location of the North Nashua River study area- ------ __ _ 21 4. Daily hydrograph at Leominster, spring 1980 -- -- 24 5. Location of the Cadwell Creek study area --- ------- 26 6. Daily hydrograph at Belchertown, early fall 1979 --- 28 7. Location of the Hoosic River study area- -- -- -- - 30 8. Daily hydrograph at Williamstown, late summer 1979 ---- 32 9. Location of the Pawcatuck River study area ------- 34 10. Daily hydrograph at Westerly, spring 1980 ------ ---- -- 36 11. Mathematical programming form of the optimization of the routing of hydrographers - 41 12. Tabular form of the optimization of the routing of hydrographers ~~ ~ ------ -- ----- -- 42 13. Graph showing autocovariance function for Town Brook (1055.85) 54 14. Graph showing autocovariance function for Hunt River (1170) 55 15. Graph showing typical uncertainty function for instantaneous discharge"" ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ --- 59 16. Graph showing average standard error for Massachusetts stations for various budgets ----- -- --- --- 66 17. Graph showing average standard error for Rhode Island stations for various budgets ------------- --- 67 TABLES Table 1. Selected hydrologic data for stations in the Massachusetts Page and Rhode Island surface-water programs -- 5 2. Uses, sources of funding, and availability of data at continuous-record gaging stations--- - --- -- 14 3. Gaging stations used in the Leominster flow-routing study ---- -- 22 4. Selected reach characteristics used in the Leominster flow-routing study- -- ----- - 22 5. Verification results of routing model for Leominster --- - ---- 23 6. Gaging stations used in the Belchertown flow-routing study - 25 7. Selected reach characteristics used in the Belchertown flow-routing study------ --- --- 25 8. Verification results of routing model for Belchertown -- ----- 27 9. Gaging stations used in the Williamstown flow-routing study ---- 29 10. Selected reach characteristics used in the Williamstown flow-routing study ---- -------- -- 29 11. Verification results of routing model for Williamstown 31 12. Gaging stations used in the Westerly flow-routing study -- ---- 33 13. Selected reach characteristics used in the Westerly flow-routing study------ - --- 33 14. Verification results of routing model for Westerly -- ---- - 35 IV TABLES (Continued) Table 15. Summary of calibration for regression modeling of mean daily streamflow at selected gage sites Page in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ------- 37 16. Summary of probabilities used in computing uncertainty functions in the Massachusetts study 47 17. Summary of probabilities used in computing uncertainty functions in the Rhode Island study 47 18. Statistics of record reconstruction --------- - 49 19. Summary of the autocovariance analysis ----- 56 20. Summary of ice-backwater variance analysis-- -- 58 21. Stations on the routes that may be used to visit gaging stations -- 61 22. Selected results of K-CERA analysis 68 CONVERSION FACTORS The following factors may be used to convert inch-pound units to the International System of Units (SI). Multiply inch-pound units By To obtain SI Units Length foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) Area square mile (mi 2) 2.59 square kilometer (km 2) Volume cubic foot (ft 3) 0.2832 cubic decimeter (dm 3) Flow cubic foot per second (ft 3 /s) 0.2832 cubic decimeter per second (dm 3/s) COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY'S STREAM-GAGING PROGRAMS IN MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND By R. A. Gadoury, J. A. Smath, and R. A. Fontaine ABSTRACT This report documents the results of a study of the cost-effectiveness of the U.S. Geological Surveys continuous-record stream-gaging programs in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Data uses and funding sources were identified for 91 gaging stations being operated in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Cost-effectiveness analyses were per formed on 63 continuous-record gaging stations in Massachusetts and 15 stations in Rhode Island, at budgets of $353,000 and $60,500, respectively. Current operations policies result in average standard errors per station of 12.3 percent in Massachusetts and 9.7 percent in Rhode Island. Minimum possible budgets to maintain the present numbers of gaging stations in the two States are estimated to be $340,000 and $59,000, with average standard errors per station of 12.8 percent and 10.0 percent, respectively. If the present budget levels were doubled, average standard errors per station would decrease to 8.1 percent and 4.2 percent, respectively. Further budget increases would not improve the standard errors significantly. Three gaging stations in Massachusetts are being operated to provide data for two special purpose hydrologic studies, and they are planned to be discontinued at the conclusion of the studies. Nine gaging stations were identified for discontinuance because of reduced cooperator funding. INTRODUCTION The U.S. Geological Survey is the principal Federal agency collecting surface- water data in the Nation. The collection of these data is a major activity of the Water Resources Division of the Survey. The data are collected in cooperation with State and local governments and other Federal agencies. The Survey is presently (1983) operating approximately 8,000 continuous-record gaging stations throughout the Nation. Some of these records extend back to the turn of the century. Any activity of long standing, such as the collection of surface-water data, should be re-examined at intervals, if not continuously, because of changes in objectives, technology, or external constraints. The last systematic nationwide evaluation of the streamflow information program was completed in 1970 and is documented by Benson and Carter (1973). The Survey is presently (1983) undertaking another nationwide analysis of the stream-gaging program that will be completed over a 5-year period, with 20 percent of the program being analyzed each year. The objective of this analysis is to define and document the most cost-effective means of furnishing continuous-record streamflow information. Two kinds of streamflow stations are operated partial record or continuous record. Included in partial-record stations are: (1) Peak-flow data (records of highest stream level or discharge); (2) base-flow data