Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />?- "..,..... "\ <br />UOr.;0 <br /> <br />where: <br />Streamflow loss = average. loss (+) or gain (-) <br />during the estimated period in a river reach, <br />in cubic feet per second; <br />RI = mainstem streamflow entering a river reach <br />at the upstream site, in cubic feet per second; <br />TI = tributary streamflow entering a river reach at <br />all gaged tributaries, in cubic feet per second; <br />DO = diversion withdrawn out of a river reach by <br />all irrigation canals, in cubic feet per second; <br />RO = mains tern streamflow leaving a river reach <br />at the downstream site, in cubic feet per <br />second; and <br />dS = change in storage within the river reach <br />during the estimated period, in cubic feet <br />per second. <br /> <br />Streamflow losses (positive values) can result <br />from evaporation from the river and saturated soil <br />surfaces, from transpiration by phreatophytes in <br />adjacent flood-plain areas, and by an outflow to <br />ground water. Streamflow gains (negative values) <br />can result from an inflow of ground water and from <br />ungaged streamflows contributed to the river. <br />Daily records of diversion outflow (DO), <br />mains tern reach inflow (RI), and mains tern reach <br />outflow (RO) were used for 1957-67 and 1984-92. <br />Daily tributary inflow (TI) records were used for <br />two tributaries [sites T1 and T2 (fig. 1)] in reach I <br />(1957-67) and for five tributaries [sites T3 to T7 <br />(fig. I)] in reach 2 (1984-92). No records of tributary <br />inflow were available for reach 3. <br />Change in storage (dS) within a river reach <br />during the specified period was assumed to be <br />negligible. To minimize the error introduced by <br />this assumption, the accounting period was adjusted <br />(upstream traveltime adjustment) so that the <br />same streamflow peaks were included in the average <br />streamflow into (RI) and out of (RO) the reach. <br />Streamflow loss was calculated for daily periods and <br />for streamflow-event periods. For daily streamflow- <br />loss estimates, the flow hydrograph from the upstream <br />site was visually compared to the flow hydrograph <br />from the downstream site to select an appropriate <br />traveltime by which to adjust each period for the <br />upstream site. The leading edge, streamflow peak, <br />and the trailing edge for each pair of distinguishable <br /> <br />streamflow events were compared (fig. SA). A single <br />constant traveltime adjustment (fig. 8B) was used to <br />estimate traveltime-adjusted streamflow into each <br />river reach for 1957-67 (reach I) and 1984-92 <br />(reach 2 and reach 3). <br />Streamflow loss also was calculated for selected <br />streamflow-event periods. Streamflow events having <br />similar characteristics (leading edge, streamflow peak, <br />and trailing edge) at upstream and downstream sites <br />(first and second periods in fig. 9) were selected. <br />Streamflow events lacking these similarities (third <br />period in fig. 9) were not. Streamflow loss or gain <br />was computed for each period using the cumulated <br />mainstem inflow (RI) at the upstream site (area under <br />the curve from VI to V2 in fig. 9), the cumulated <br />mainstem outflow (RO) at the downstream site (area <br />under the curve from 0 I to 02 in fig. 9), the total <br />inflow at gaged tributaries (TI), and the total irrigation <br />diversion outflow (DO). Thus, when total inflow <br />exceeded total outflow, water was lost in the river <br />reach and, when total outflow exceeded total inflow, <br />water was gained in the river reach. <br /> <br />Reach 1 <br /> <br />Tracking of specific streamflow peaks was <br />not possible through reach I; therefore, available <br />streamflow data in reach I were inadequate for <br />determining reasonable estimates of traveltime. <br />Visual inspection of many daily streamflow <br />hydrographs for sites QI, QIA, QIB, QIC, and <br />Q2 also indicated that large and almost continuous <br />inflows of ungaged water (either field tailwater, canal <br />wastewater, return flows, or ungaged tributary inflows) <br />entered into reach I on a regular basis throughout the <br />irrigation season. Lacking reasonable estimates of <br />traveltime and the ungaged side-channel inflows into <br />reach I prevented accurate determination of stream- <br />flow gains and losses. <br /> <br />Reach 2 <br /> <br />Analyses of daily mean streamflow gains and <br />losses for reach 2 were made for more than 2,900 days <br />between 1984 and 1992. A constant I-day advance <br />(traveltime adjustment) of the upstream flow, which <br /> <br />STREAMFLOW GAINS AND LOSSES 17 <br />