USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

F.E. Arteaga

Publications and source records attributed to F.E. Arteaga.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS1990

Cost effectiveness of the stream-gaging program in Nevada

The stream-gaging network in Nevada was evaluated as part of a nationwide effort by the U.S. Geological Survey to define and document the most cost-effective means of furnishing streamflow information. Specifically, the study dealt with 79 streamflow gages and 2 canal-flow gages that were under the direct operation of Nevada personnel as of 1983. Cost-effective allocations of resources, including budget and operational criteria, were studied using statistical procedures known as Kalman-filtering techniques. The possibility of developing streamflow data at ungaged sites was evaluated using flow-routing and statistical regression analyses. Neither of these methods provided sufficiently accurate results to warrant their use in place of stream gaging. The 81 gaging stations were being operated in 1983 with a budget of $465,500. As a result of this study, all existing stations were determined to be necessary components of the program for the foreseeable future. At the 1983 funding level, the average standard error of streamflow records was nearly 28%. This same overall level of accuracy could have been maintained with a budget of approximately $445,000 if the funds were redistributed more equitably among the gages. The maximum budget analyzed, $1,164 ,000 would have resulted in an average standard error of 11%. The study indicates that a major source of error is lost data. If perfectly operating equipment were available, the standard error for the 1983 program and budget could have been reduced to 21%. (Thacker-USGS, WRD)

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS1975

Evaluation of reservoir sites in North Carolina: Regional relations for estimating the reservoir capacity needed for a dependable water supply

Draft-storage-frequency relations, which show the storage required for a reservoir to furnish a specified withdrawal or draft are regionalized for four zones in the State, using the mean annual flow of the streams as an index. The differences between the zones primarily reflect differences in the variability of stream flow. To assure the available draft will fall below 75 percent of the mean annual flow of a stream only once in 50 years on the average, a reservoir in the mountains would need a usable storage capacity of 45 percent of the mean annual runoff of the impounded stream. In comparison, reservoirs in parts of the Piedmont furnishing a draft of 75 percent of the mean annual flow must have usable storage equal to 60 percent of the mean annual runoff of the stream. In the inner Coastal Plain the storage required increases to 84 per-cent, and in the outer Coastal Plain to about 110 percent. These increases in storage necessary to furnish a certain draft are indicative of the general increase in streamflow variability, both seasonally and between years, that occurs from west to east in the State. Net evaporative draft, the evaporative loss from reservoirs when annual evaporation exceeds annual precipitation, also varies from west to east. For instance, a reservoir impounding a Piedmont stream, and designed with a 5 percent chance of deficiency, will have a net evaporative draft about twice as large as a similar sized reservoir in the Coastal Plain. In the mountains, annual precipitation always exceeds evaporation because of the cooler temperatures and higher rates of precipitation. Annual net evaporation is also proportionately smaller for large reser voirs than for small ones. On a Coastal Plain reservoir, with storage equivalent to the mean annual runoff of the stream and being drafted at 90 percent of the mean annual flow, the net evaporation for a stream with a mean annual runoff of only 500 acre-feet (0.62 cubic hectometres) is three times as great as for a stream with mean annual runoff of 100,000 acre-feet (123 cubic hectometres). Thus, one large reservoir has less evaporation loss than several small ones capable of furnishing, collectively, the same reliable draft. Under some circumstances, sedimentation can quickly reduce the available storage in a reservoir, thus decreasing the reliable draft. Estimated sedi-mentation rates in the Piedmont can range from 240 acre-feet per year (0.3 cubic hectometres per year) in a severely exposed drainage basin of 10 square miles (26 square kilometres) to 0.4 acre-feet per year (493 cubic metres per year) in a wooded basin of the same size. Seepage beneath and around a reservoir dam is normally not significant in the State. The usual engineering practices should be followed, however, to avoid locating the dam on an open or active fault, cavernous limestone, or continuous beds of sand or gravel.

North Carolina↗
USGS1973

Application of the source-area concept of storm runoff to a small Arizona watershed

An attempt to demonstrate the source-area concept of storm runoff by analysis of the rainfall-runoff relation for the watershed of Queen Creek tributary in south-central Arizona was moderately successful. The demonstration was somewhat marred by the necessity to make several simplifying assumptions to eliminate some of the many basin variables of unknown magnitude. The percentage of watershed contributing storm runoff was related to total rainfall received that is, antecedent and storm rainfall on the assumption that the availability of rainfall excess from any subarea was dependent on the saturation, or near saturation, of a permeable upper layer of soil. An average unit hydrograph was used for all computed sizes of the runoff-contributing area.

Arizona↗