The Continuous Slope-Area Method

The Continuous Slope-Area Method for Computing Event
Hydrographs
Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5241
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover. Babocomari River in southern Arizona, looking downstream during a summer flow event
(photograph by J.T. Cordova).
The Continuous Slope-Area Method for
Computing Event Hydrographs
By Christopher F. Smith, Jeffrey T. Cordova, and Stephen M. Wiele
Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5241

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

Marcia K. McNutt, Director
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010
This report and any updates to it are available online at:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5241/
For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,
its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:
World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/
Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS
Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes
only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Although this report is in the public domain, it may contain copyrighted materials that
are noted in the text. Permission to reproduce those items must be secured from
the individual copyright owners.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Suggested citation:
Smith, C.F., Cordova, J.T., and Wiele, S.M., 2010, The continuous slope-area method for computing event hydrographs:
U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5241, 37 p.
iii
Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Scope........................................................................................................................................1
Discharge Measurements Using the Slope-Area Method......................................................................2
The Slope-Area Computation Program..............................................................................................2
Sensitivity of Indirect Discharge Computations to Slope...............................................................2
The Continuous Slope-Area Method...........................................................................................................3
Site Selection.........................................................................................................................................3
Evaluation of Pressure-Transducer Data and Calculated Hydrographs......................................4
Comparison of Pressure-Transducer Peaks to Crest-Stage Gage Peaks...........................4
Stage-Discharge Relations.........................................................................................................4
Hysteresis in the Stage-Discharge Relations..........................................................................4
Evaluation of Channel Geometry................................................................................................5
The Effect of Unsteadiness on Discharge Computation Accuracy......................................5
Study Site on the Babocomari River............................................................................................................5
Description of Channel Conditions along the Slope-Area Reach and Roughness
Coefficient Selection...............................................................................................................9
Application of the Continuous Slope-Area Method on the Babocomari River..................................11
Installation of Pressure Transducers...............................................................................................11
Collection and Reduction of Pressure-Transducer Data..............................................................12
Calculation of Hydrographs Using the Continuous Slope-Area Method....................................13
Batch-Processing Discharge Computations...................................................................................13
Development of Stage-Discharge Relations...................................................................................14
Major Flows on the Babocomari River 2002–2006.........................................................................14
Flow of October 9, 2003..............................................................................................................14
Channel Geometry.............................................................................................................14
Evaluation of the High-Water Marks..............................................................................16
Conventional Slope-Area Computation and Analysis..................................................17
Evaluation of the Pressure-Transducer Data................................................................18
Continuous Slope-Area Discharge Computations and Analysis...............................18
Rating Development..........................................................................................................18
Summary of the October 2003 Event...............................................................................19
The Flow Event of July 27, 2006................................................................................................19
Changes in Channel Shape..............................................................................................19
Evaluation of the High-Water Marks..............................................................................20
Slope-Area Computation and Analysis of High-Water Marks...................................20
Slope-Area Computation of Peak Discharge using PT Data and Analysis
of PT Data............................................................................................................................22
Evaluation of the Pressure-Transducer Data................................................................23
Development of Stage-Discharge Relation...................................................................24
Transfer of the CSA Stage-Discharge Relation to the Babocomari River near Tombstone
Streamflow-Gaging Station..................................................................................................24
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................26
References Cited..........................................................................................................................................30
iv
Figures
1. Error in discharge calculated with equation 2, caused by errors in measured
reach drop. The sample calculation shown is for a true drop in the reach
of 0.5 ft............................................................................................................................................3
2. Percent error in the St. Venant momentum equation as a result of neglecting the
unsteady term as a function of change in velocity for three reach slopes........................6
3. Velocity and du/dQ as function of discharge for a trapezoidal channel with a bed
width of 50 ft, slope of 0.001, and a Manning’s n of 0.035. The bank width
was specified as two times the depth......................................................................................6
4. Hydrograph computed with the Continuous Slope-Area method and the normalized
unsteady term from the momentum equation (du/dt)/(gS) during the July 27,
2006, event on the Babocomari River........................................................................................7
5. Histogram of the absolute value of the normalized unsteady term in equation 4 for
the Babocomari River hydrograph shown in figure 4............................................................7
6. Map showing the study area on the Babocomari River.........................................................8
7. View looking downstream from cross section 1. Note the dense grass where trees
are sparse......................................................................................................................................9
8. View looking upstream from cross section 4. Ash trees grow along the low-flow
channel...........................................................................................................................................9
9. Views from cross section 1 looking upstream (left), downstream (center), and
downstream (right).....................................................................................................................10
10 Views from cross section 2 looking upstream (left), downstream (center),
and downstream (right)...............................................................................................................10
11. Views from cross section 3 looking upstream (left), downstream (center),
12. Views from cross section 4 looking upstream (left), downstream (center),
13. Installation of the crest-stage gage (left). The pressure transducer is clamped to
the bottom of the crest-stage gage board (center and right).............................................11
14. Plan view of the cross sections and eight pressure transducers in the Babocomari
River continuous-slope-area reach........................................................................................12
15. Pressure-transducer-pin elevations (dry with no flow).......................................................13
16. Peak streamflows recorded on the Babocomari River during the study period,
2002–2006.....................................................................................................................................14
17. Stage hydrographs from the October 9, 2003, flow event on the Babocomari River......15
18. Channel surveys in cross section 1 before and after the October 9, 2003, event.
The blue dashed line shows the water-surface elevation at the peak
discharge.....................................................................................................................................16
discharge.....................................................................................................................................16
discharge.....................................................................................................................................17
discharge.....................................................................................................................................17
22. Average left- and right-bank pressure-transducer-stage hydrographs during
the October 9, 2003, event.........................................................................................................18
v
23. Discharge values computed with the average pressure-transducer and crest-
stage gage data for the October 9, 2003, event.....................................................................19
24. Stage-discharge relation determined with discharges computed from the
averaged pressure-transducer data and crest-stage gage data for the
October 9, 2003, event................................................................................................................20
25. July 27, 2006, stage hydrographs for six pressure transducers. Right-bank
pressure transducers are indicated by R in the legend label; left-bank
pressure transducers are indicated by L in the legend label; the number
in the legend label corresponds to the cross-section number...........................................21
26. Right-bank pressure transducer in cross section 1 (PTR1) after the July 27, 2006,
flow event.....................................................................................................................................22
27. View looking upstream from cross section 3 on the right bank after the July 27,
2006, event. The floodway is mostly clear of obstacles......................................................22
28. Channel surveys in cross section 1 before and after the July 27, 2006, event.
The blue line shows the water-surface elevation at the peak discharge. At the
peak discharge, the difference in cross-section areas is 2 percent.................................22
The blue line shows the water-surface elevation at the peak discharge. At the
The blue line shows the water-surface elevation at the peak discharge.
At the peak discharge, the difference in cross-section areas is 0.5 percent..................23
31. Channel surveys in cross section 4 before and after the July 27, 2006, event. The
blue line shows the water-surface elevation at the peak discharge. At the
32. Debris pile near left bank in cross section 3 after the July 27, 2006, event......................26
33. Stage hydrographs of the four pressure transducers that were used to compute
discharge for the July 27, 2006, event.....................................................................................27
34. Stage values from the left-bank pressure transducer in cross section 1 and the
corresponding discharge computed with stage data in X1-X4 during the
July 27, 2006, event are shown as dots. All stage and discharges shown
occurred prior to the rotation of the pressure transducers. The solid line
is a cubic polynomial fitted to the stage-discharge relation...............................................28
35. Reach below the Babocamari River near the Tombstone stream gage was heavily
vegetated prior to the July 27, 2006, event (left). Much of that vegetation was gone
after the event (right). The rock in the right foreground of the left
photograph is the same as the rock occupying the right lower quadrant
of the right photograph..............................................................................................................29
36. Stage hydrographs from the Babocomari River near Tombstone gage and the left
bank pressure transducer in cross section 1 (PTL1) during the July 27, 2006, event
Stages from the two sites were adjusted to coincide on the rising limb..........................29
37. Stage-discharge relations before and after the July 27, 2006, event. The blue line
represents conditions prior to the peak and included the effects of the dense
vegetation. The red curve represents the condition after vegetation was
scoured.........................................................................................................................................30
vi
Tables
1. Elevation difference between crest-stage and pressure-transducer datums (dry)......13
2. Peak stages recorded by the crest-stage gages and by the pressure transducers
during the October 9, 2003, event............................................................................................15
3. Peak discharge for cross sections 1–4, based on average of left- and right- stage
data from the pressure transducers and crest-stage gage from October 9, 2003,
event.............................................................................................................................................18
4. Water-surface elevations from surveyed high-water marks and pressure
transducers from the July 27, 2006, event.............................................................................25
5. Peak discharge computed using surveyed left-bank high-water marks for the
July 27, 2006, event....................................................................................................................25
6. Peak discharges computed using surveyed right-bank high-water marks for the
July 27, 2006, event....................................................................................................................25
7. Peak discharge computed with the left-bank pressure transducers for the
July 27, 2006, event....................................................................................................................25
8. Peak discharge computed with the right-bank pressure transducers for the
July 27, 2006, event....................................................................................................................26
Appendices
1. Stage data and computed discharge for five runoff events in the Babocomari
River.............................................................................................................................................31
2. Input files to the SAC program used in the continuous slope-area calculations of
discharge for five events on the Babocomari River.............................................................35
vii
Conversion Factors
Inch/Pound
Multiply By To obtain
Length
foot 0.3048 meter (m)

(ft)
Flow rate
foot per second 0.3048 meter (m)
(fts/s)
Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:
°F=(1.8×°C)+32
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 insert datum name (and abbreviation) here
for instance,
“North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).”
Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the insert datum name (and abbreviation)
here for instance,
“North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).”
Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
This page intentionally left blank
The Continuous Slope-Area Method for Computing Event
Hydrographs
By Christopher F. Smith, Jeffrey T. Cordova, Stephen M. Wiele
Abstract debris lines. The Manning equation, in which the slope is the
energy slope, is used to calculate discharge.
The use of a water-surface slope derived from field
The continuous slope-area (CSA) method expands evidence to calculate the discharge in slope-area measure-
the slope-area method of computing peak discharge to ments has two potential drawbacks. First, the high-water
a complete flow event. Continuously recording pressure marks used to infer the water-surface slope may not be well
transducers installed at three or more cross sections provide defined and may not accurately represent the water-surface
water-surface slopes and stage during an event that can be slope in the main part of the flow. Debris lines are subject to
used with cross-section surveys and estimates of channel wave action, downslope creep, and diffusion by rainfall and
roughness to compute a continuous discharge hydrograph. gravity that produce inaccuracies or an apparent irregularity
The CSA method has been made feasible by the availability in the water-surface slope. Smaller peaks following a large
of low-cost recording pressure transducers that provide a event can add to the difficulty in identifying the relevant
continuous record of stage. The CSA method was imple- high-water marks. Bank roughness can generate real vari-
mented on the Babocomari River in Arizona in 2002 to ability in the water-surface slope that poorly represents the
monitor streamflow in the channel reach by installing eight slope near the center of the channel. The resulting scatter in
pressure transducers in four cross sections within the reach. the water surface that is used in the slope-area calculations
Continuous discharge hydrographs were constructed from can be a source of error. Second, the use of high-water marks
five streamflow events during 2002–2006. Results from this allows only for the calculation of the peak discharge. The
study indicate that the CSA method can be used to obtain event hydrograph cannot be estimated from peak discharge
continuous hydrographs and rating curves can be generated calculations.
from streamflow events. This report presents an extension of the slope-area
method for obtaining peak discharges to a method for record-
ing continuous time series stage at multiple cross sections,
development of stage discharge relationships, and computa-
Introduction tion of discharge hydrographs for the slope-area reach. The
method requires some foresight—slope-area reaches must
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates about be identified and instrumented prior to events—and, because
7,500 stream gages throughout the Nation. The rating the method depends on estimates of channel roughness and
curves that relate stage to discharge at these gaging stations reaches with desirable properties for slope-area measure-
are formulated from periodic measurements of discharge ments may not be available, it cannot consistently achieve
at known stages. Stages are recorded at regular intervals, the level of accuracy characteristic of standard USGS stream
typically 15 min, and the discharge is computed from stage gages with rating curves that are well defined by many direct
using the stage-discharge rating curve. A well-defined rating discharge measurements. The method can produce more
curve typically requires many discharge measurements at a complete discharge records than would otherwise be pos-
range of discharges. Obtaining discharge measurements over sible, where the resources are not available to install and
a wide range of stage is not always possible as a result of maintain stream gages or the required measurements are not
remoteness of the streamflow-gaging stations, inaccessibility possible due to logistical obstacles.
due to flooding, flashy events, or limited resources.
If a direct measurement of discharge is not obtained at
a high flow, the USGS routinely uses slope-area method to Purpose and Scope
estimate discharge (Dalrymple and Benson, 1967). A slope-
area measurement is a discharge calculated using measured The CSA method for computing hydrographs has been
cross sections, estimations of channel roughness, and a under development by the USGS Arizona Water Science
water-surface slope derived from field evidence, such as Center Data Program since the summer of 2002. This report
2 The Continuous Slope-Area Method for Computing Event Hydrographs
describes the installation of crest-stage gages (CSG) with con- parameters that affect or help evaluate the accuracy of the
tinuously recording pressure transducers (PT), data acquisi- result.
tion and analysis, and computed results from the Babocomari
River continuous slope-area reach that was operated over a
5-yr period from 2002 to 2006, as well as the basics of the Sensitivity of Indirect Discharge Computations
method and its implementation. Additional sections cover to Slope
implementation of the method in the Babocomari River. Five
significant flows occurred during the study period and the CSA The calculation of accurate discharges using the slope-
method was used to determine a hydrograph for each of them; area method depends on the accuracy of the water-surface
the application of the CSA method to two of these events is elevations, and thus the reach slope, supplied in the input to
described in this report, and the stage data, computed dis- SAC. Unlike step-backwater calculations, in which the water-
charges, and channel shape and roughness for all five events surface elevation is specified as a boundary condition at the
are available in appendices 1 and 2. Although the study lasted downstream end (for subcritical flow) and the upstream water
5 years, the southeastern Arizona climate combined with surface profile is calculated, the slope-area method for com-
drought conditions during the study period limited the total puting discharge imposes a water-surface slope (modified by
time of recorded flow to only about 9 hours. Thus, this report streamwise changes in velocity head) on the calculation that
should be considered an initial application of the method and is used to directly calculate discharge. The sensitivity of the
not a comprehensive techniques and methods manual. Other calculated discharge to errors in the reach water-surface drop
applications are ongoing (for example, Stewart and others, can be determined by finding the ratio of discharges calculated
2008) and will aid in refining field methods and the analysis of using the true water-surface slope and the water-surface slope
stage records. estimated from surveys of reach length and apparent drop in
the water surface. The Manning equation is used to compute
discharge,
Discharge Measurements Using the Q

1
AR 2 / 3 S 1 / 2 , (1)
n
Slope-Area Method
where Q is the discharge, n is the Manning roughness coef-
A slope-area discharge measurement uses channel ficient, A is the cross-section area, R is the hydraulic radius,
surveys, estimates of water-surface slopes, and estimates and S is the water-surface slope. Equation 1 is used with
of channel roughness to calculate peak discharge. Benson metric units; with Imperial units, the 1/n is replaced by 1.49/n.
and Dalrymple (1967) and Dalrymple and Benson (1967) Representing the surveyed water-surface drop in the reach
explain the practical and theoretical components of slope-area used to calculate the discharge as the true drop plus an error,
discharge measurements. Channel geometry of the reach is the ratio of the true and calculated discharges can be repre-
important in producing accurate slope-area computations of sented by,
discharge. Large changes in the shape of the channel along a 1/ 2
reach, for example, should be avoided due to uncertainties in Qc  ec 
energy losses. Ideally, cross sections selected in the slope-area  1   , (2)
Qt  dt 
reach will be uniform and have nearly the same shape and area
for a given discharge. In addition, the reach should be long
enough and the fall large enough that errors associated with where Qc is the discharge calculated with the measured water
interpretations in the high-water profile are small. In reality, surface drop, Qt is the true discharge, ec is the error in the
some compromises between logistical considerations and measured drop in the reach used to calculate Qc , and dt is the
desirable channel properties are typically required. The length true drop in the reach. Note that reach length is not represented
of the indirect reach is often limited by the geometry of the in equation 2. Small differences in the cross-sectional area
channel and the practical difficulties of surveying long reaches and hydraulic radius related to differences in water-surface
of a river channel, and a uniform channel may be difficult or drops are neglected in equation 2. An example application of
impossible to find. equation 2 over a range of errors in reach drop (fig. 1) shows
that an error in reach drop of a few tenths of a foot can lead to
a calculated discharge that is off by about 25 percent. Equa-
The Slope-Area Computation Program tion 1 shows that the discharge is linearly related to cross-
sectional area and roughness but is related to the square root of
The Slope-Area Computation (SAC) Program (Fulford, the slope, thus indicating greater sensitivity to channel shape
1994) has greatly improved the ease of the computation. and roughness than slope. Channel shape is well defined by
Input files to SAC supply all required information and the surveys if the channel does not change significantly during a
program automates the indirect peak discharge calculation. flow event, however, and roughness is generally well defined
SAC output includes discharges computed for all cross-section by published methods for estimating roughness or verified
combinations and warnings for reach length, drop, and other roughness in similar channels.
The Continuous Slope-Area Method 3
The Continuous Slope-Area Method Site Selection

The CSA method expands the slope-area method of Information about the channel required for the slope-area
computing peak discharge to a complete flow event. Con- method is also required for application of the CSA method. A
tinuously recording pressure transducers (PTs) installed at minimum of variability between cross sections and a sufficient
three or more cross sections provide water-surface slopes drop in the channel are desirable properties. Channel rough-
and stage during an event that can be used along with ness may be estimated using published methods or derived
cross-section surveys and estimates of channel roughness to from direct measurements of discharge and water-surface
compute a continuous-discharge hydrograph. The method, slope. A detailed guide to the slope-area method of discharge
as demonstrated by the applications described in this report, is presented by Dalrymple and Benson (1967).
can also reveal complexities during significant flows that are Dalrymple and Benson (1967) indicate that the selection
not evident from peak-flow estimates derived from post-flow of cross-section locations should be determined by breaks in
evidence. slope of the water surface profile determined from surveys of
The CSA method has been made feasible by the avail- debris lines. This method of determining cross-section loca-
ability of low-cost recording PTs that provide a continuous tions can be difficult to apply where debris lines are poorly
record of stage at each cross section. In addition to the appli- defined and is not possible prior to a flow, as would typically
cations described in this report, such devices have been used be the case for an initial CSA application. Consequently, cross
at crest-stage gages to record continuous stage in ephemeral sections for a CSA reach can be located initially, depending on
streams (Waltemeyer, 2005). Crest-stage gages were used in resources available, based on a visual assessment or survey of
this experiment to incorporate standard USGS equipment and the reach to identify changes in bed slope or channel width. If
methods. sufficient resources are available, a step-backwater model of
0.3
0.2
RATIO OF CALCULATED Q TO TRUE Q-1
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
ERROR IN REACH DROP, IN FEET

Figure 1. Error in discharge calculated with equation 2, caused by errors in measured reach
drop. The sample calculation shown is for a true drop in the reach of 0.5 ft.
the reach would provide an estimated water surface profile that cross-section locations is not as comprehensive as a continu-
could be used in accordance with the criteria of Dalrymple and ous water surface derived from surveyed debris lines, as is
Benson (1967) for cross-section location. After a significant typically used in a conventional slope-area measurement, but
flow has occurred in the reach, cross-section location could be CSGs, which are constructed and widely used by the USGS
adjusted according to the methods of Dalrymple and Benson to obtain accurate records of peak stage, may provide more
(1967) if debris lines are adequate. accurate water-surface elevations at cross sections than those
inferred from debris lines. The computation can be used to
help identify the most favorable cross-section combination for
Evaluation of Pressure-Transducer Data and the CSA calculations, and the event peak computed with CSG
Calculated Hydrographs data can also be compared with the peak discharge calculated
with the CSA method to test the accuracy of the CSA method.
The calculation of discharge using the slope-area method, Because the 5-min recording interval used in the stage record-
on which the CSA method is based, could be accomplished ers may miss the instantaneous peak stage during a flashy
with only two PTs at two cross sections, but at least three cross event, the CSA peak stage could be less than the event peak.
sections are considered minimum for obtaining reasonably The CSA peak stage can equal the CSG peak stage, but the
accurate results. The redundancy of multiple cross sections, CSA peak stage should never exceed the CSG peak, unless the
and possibly more than one PT per cross section, can be an CSG is overtopped.
important aid in interpreting stage data and choosing the best
sequence of cross sections and stage hydrographs for the dis-
Stage-Discharge Relations
charge calculation and can be critical if instruments malfunc-
tion. Including more cross sections in the discharge calculation Stage-discharge plots derived from the CSA hydrograph
also increases confidence in the computed discharges. are an effective tool for examining PT performance. The com-
Irregularities in the calculated-discharge hydrographs puted discharge is sensitive to the measured fall in the reach.
can be a result of errors in the PT data, changes in the channel If one or more PTs do not function properly, the computed dis-
during the flow event, or accurate PT readings that are affected charge as a function of stage will be erratic, and a tight relation
by local conditions such as debris piles, wave action, or isola- will not be possible. A tight fit does not assure the accuracy of
tion from the main flow. The errors in the stage data can come the stage-discharge relation, but it is an important indicator of
from PT errors, such as time drift and loss of calibration, or the quality of the stage data. If the channel was stable and the
CSG errors that can occur from burial or plugging by sediment instruments performed normally during an event, plots of the
or from accumulation of local debris. Loss of calibration can calculated discharges against the corresponding stages from
be detected by comparing the PT readings with high-water each of the pressure transducers should form a tight, consistent
marks on the bank, if clear marks are available, or peak stage plot. If the plot is widely scattered, it likely indicates faulty
was recorded by the CSG. A PT water-surface elevation higher data or channel instability. A tight plot for medium and high
than the high-water marks may indicate a problem with the PT. discharge may be accompanied by considerable scatter at low
Changes in the channel during runoff events can include scour, discharges, especially in sand-bedded channels. In this case,
fill, and changes in vegetation along the slope-area reach. the lower discharges may be affected by small-scale channel
Scour may occur at one cross section while fill conditions features that are not significant at higher discharges.
may affect another cross section during the same flow event.
Channel roughness can be modified during floods, if vegeta- Hysteresis in the Stage-Discharge Relations
tion is bent over or scoured out or if debris collects on trees.
All of these conditions need to be identified during the channel The CSA method can be used to make indirect measure-
survey after the runoff event and considered when evaluating ments during the rise and fall of the event hydrograph. The
the accuracy of the computed discharge. data may be used to evaluate differences in hydraulic condi-
tions on the rising and falling limbs of a hydrograph which
can cause a loop in the stage-discharge rating curve commonly
Comparison of Pressure-Transducer Peaks to Crest-Stage
referred to as hysteresis. Hysteresis in rating curves can be
Gage Peaks caused by an increase or decrease in the steady-discharge
If reliable CSG peak stages or other indicators of maxi- water-surface slope related to the passing of a discharge
mum stage are available, as in the Babocomari River study wave. On the rising limb, the water-surface slope is increased
reach, they can be compared to the peak stages indicated and lowers the stage at a given discharge with respect to the
by the PTs. Differences between the two do not necessarily steady-discharge water-surface slope. The opposite occurs on
indicate error in the PT stage, however. The PTs, for example, the falling limb of the hydrograph. The magnitude of the hys-
may miss the peak stage even if they are recording at 5-min teresis can be estimated by scaling the terms in the momentum
intervals. equation using reasonable values for wave speed (which can
If the CSG peak stages are recorded in enough cross sec- be estimated from dQ/dA), the rate at which the stage rises or
tions, a slope-area calculation can be made to determine the falls, and the steady-discharge water-surface slope (for exam-
event-peak discharge. Water-surface elevations from CSGs at ple, Wiele and Smith, 1996). Changes in roughness or shape
Study Site on the Babocomari River 5
during an event can also cause a loop in the rating curve. In steady-flow equations to model unsteady flow in the CSA
ephemeral channels or channels with low base flow, such as method, is a function of the change of velocity over time and
the Babocomari River, vegetation commonly grows within the reach slope. Reaches with steeper slopes are less sensi-
the channel between significant flow events. Channel rough- tive to changes in velocity over time than reaches with lower
ness can be reduced significantly during a large discharge, if slopes (fig. 2). In the flows on the Babocomari River discussed
vegetation is uprooted and washed downstream or if flexible below, the discharge, and consequently velocity, changes
vegetation, such as grass, is bent over. Conversely, uprooted rapidly, but the slope of the reach was about 0.01, which tends
vegetation can form dams that cause significant backwater to reduce the significance of the unsteadiness on discharge
effects. Scour or deposition can also contribute to changes in calculations.
the stage-discharge relation during an event. Sample calculations with a hypothetical trapezoidal chan-
Apparent hysteresis can potentially be caused by instru- nel (slope = 0.001, bed width = 50 ft, Manning’s n = 0.035,
ment error or weaknesses in its installation. If the PT position bank width = two times the depth) illustrate that the velocity
is not firmly fixed, the reference elevation used in the conver- and du/dQ tend to change most rapidly with respect to discharge
sion of pressure to stage can change, introducing error into the at lower discharges (fig. 3). At the medium and high discharges
stage. at which the CSA method is most effective, the relatively muted
response of velocity to changes in discharge tends to favor the
Evaluation of Channel Geometry use of steady-flow equations, but this can be offset by a rapid
rise in discharge. During the largest flow on the Babocomari
Changes in channel shape can be determined by compar-
River on July 27, 2006, the normalized unsteady term in equa-
ing cross sections that were surveyed before and after the flow
tion 4 was not significant (figs. 4, 5), indicating that the accu-
event. After each event, the cross sections should be evalu-
racy of the computed hydrograph was not significantly affected
ated to determine if they should be resurveyed. Many small
by the use of steady-flow equations.
and medium events produce little or no change to the channel
and will not require the channel to be resurveyed. High flows,
however, can significantly modify the channel, making new
surveys necessary. Accuracy of computed peak or continu- Study Site on the Babocomari River
ous discharges can be degraded if significant channel change
occurred. A reach of the Babocomari River was chosen for the
initial application and testing of the CSA method (fig. 6). The
The Effect of Unsteadiness on Discharge Computation Babocomari River is a tributary to the San Pedro River in
southeastern Arizona, and the study reach and access to it are
Accuracy
on Bureau of Land Management land. The elevation of the
The slope-area computation used for indirect discharge study reach is 3,980 ft and the drainage area is about 307 mi2.
measurements and the CSA method is based on an assumption The stream is typically perennial with a base flow during the
of steady flow. For indirect measurements, this is not an issue winter of about 1 ft3/s. Peak flows usually occur during the
because the change in velocity over time is zero at the peak summer months as a result of local convective storms. The
discharge. For computing continuous hydrographs, as in the CSA streamflow record of the Babocomari River has been used for
method, the change in velocity over time is nonzero except at the groundwater studies of the San Pedro basin and the effects of
peak. The significance of neglecting the unsteadiness of the flow groundwater development on the San Pedro River, a free flow-
can be estimated by considering the relative magnitudes of the ing river that provides vital habitat in an area undergoing rapid
terms in the one-dimensional St. Venant equation for momentum, population increases and urban development.
There are two permanent streamflow-gaging stations
∂u ∂u  ∂e  u2 along the Babocomari River. The USGS stream gage Upper
 u  g  − S   *  0, (3) Babocomari River near Huachuca City, AZ (identification
∂t ∂x  ∂x  Rh number 09471380) measures the runoff from the Huachuca
and Mustang Mountains (fig. 6). The USGS stream gage Bab-
where x is the streamwise dimension, g is gravity, de/dx is the ocomari River near Tombstone, AZ (09471400) was installed
additional water-surface slope due to a varying flow field, S is the for the primary purpose of measuring base flow from a peren-
steady-flow water-surface slope, u* is the shear velocity, and Rh is nial section of the river where groundwater is discharged to
the hydraulic radius. Dividing equation 3 by the driving term, gS, the surface (Pool and Coes, 1999). This section of the river is
normalizes the equation and reduces the driving term to unity, not accessible for medium to high flow measurements.
Starting in the summer of 2002, a CSA reach was
1 ∂u u ∂
u ∂e / ∂x u2 (4) selected and monitored on the Babocomari River. The slope-
  −1+  0,
gs ∂x gs ∂x s gRh s area reach is approximately 0.25 mi downstream from the
Babocomari River stream gage (09471400) near Tombstone,
Taking gravity as a constant, the first term in equation 4 AZ. The study site conforms more closely to the criteria estab-
indicates that the significance of the error, induced by using lished by Dalrymple and Benson (1967) than other reaches in
10
9
8
7
PERCENT ERROR
6
5
0.01
4
0.001
3
2 0.0001
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
CHANGE IN VELOCITY OVER AN HOUR, IN METERS PER SECOND
Figure 2. Percent error in the St. Venant momentum equation as a result of neglecting the unsteady term as a function
of change in velocity for three reach slopes.
3.5 0.045
0.04
CHANGE IN VELOCITY WITH RESPECT TO
3
VELOCITY, IN FEET PER SECOND
SECOND)/(CUBIC FEET PER SECOND)
0.035
2.5
DISCHARGE, IN (FEET PER
0.03
2 0.025
1.5 0.02
velocity
0.015
1 du/dQ
0.01
0.5
0.005
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
Figure 3. Velocity and du/dQ as function of discharge for a trapezoidal channel with a bed width of 50 ft,
slope of 0.001, and a Manning’s n of 0.035. The bank width was specified as two times the depth.
10,000 0.05
9,000 0.04
8,000 0.03
7,000 0.02
(du/dt)/(gS)
6,000 0.01
5,000 0
4,000 0.01
3,000 - 0.02
-
2,000 0.03
-
1,000 - 0.04
0 - 0.05
0 5 10 15
TIME, IN HOURS
Discharge (du/dt)/gS
Figure 4. Hydrograph computed with the Continuous Slope-Area method and the normalized unsteady term from the momentum
equation (du/dt)/(gS) during the July 27, 2006, event on the Babocomari River.
90
80
70
NUMBER OF OCCURENCES
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 More
(du/dt)/(gS)
Figure 5. Histogram of the absolute value of the normalized unsteady term in
equation 4 for the Babocomari River hydrograph shown in figure 4.
110°15' 110°
DR
AG
OO
N
M
OU
NT
AI
NS
90
80
INS
NTA
MOU
ONE
TST
San P
WHE
(09471550) #
31°45'
e
82
dro
Tombstone
(
MUSTANG MOUNTAINS
(09471400) #
#
82
iver
ari R
ocom
Bab
(09471380)
#
80
90
(
Sierra Vista
HU
River
AC 90
HU
CA
M 92 M
OU UL
NT E
AI M
31°30' NS OU
NT
AI
NS
110°30'0"W 110°15'0"W 110°0'0"W
0 5 10 Miles ARIZONA
10 Kilometers
Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital elevation model data,
1:250,000, 1982
Universal Transverse Mercator
Projection, Zone 12,
Datum: NAD 27
# STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION—
# CONTINUOUS SLOPE-AREA GAGE—
River
Gila
Tucson
UNI
TED
ME STAT
XIC ES
O
Figure 6. Map showing the study area on the Babocomari River.

the area. At this downstream location, the flow is confined to channel and form a ribbon of trees that create barriers on the
one main channel. A tributary that flows intermittently enters left bank of the channel and often collect debris (fig. 8).
the river between the gage and the CSA reach. The willows are not as numerous as the ash trees but
tend to be 14 to 20 inches in diameter. There were a few small
willows in the low-flow portion of the channel. The mesquite
Description of Channel Conditions along the form dense mesquite bosques in the overbank flow areas. A
Slope-Area Reach and Roughness Coefficient few walnut trees, 10 to 14 inches in diameter, grew on the left
Selection bank between cross sections 1 and 2.
A small tributary with a drainage area of less than 0.5 mi2
The slope-area reach was selected because it was straight flows into the channel between the gage and the slope-area
and uniform. The reach is about 300 ft long with about a 2.7-ft reach. A PT gage was installed to determine whether inflow
fall in water-surface elevation over the range of observed flows. from the tributary occurred during main-stem events. The flow
The reach is straight and uniform for about 50 ft above the from this tributary was not significant during the five events
upstream cross section and 50 ft below the downstream cross that occurred during the study period and was neglected in the
section. The total length of the reach was limited by a tributary discharge calculations.
confluence just upstream of the reach and by an expanding The flow through all four cross sections during the study
channel downstream of the reach. The cross sections were period was contained by steep and well-defined embank-
spaced approximately 100 ft apart. ments. The vegetation in cross section 1 (X1), the most
The grass upstream and downstream of cross section upstream cross section, consists mostly of grass and small
1 (the upstream extent of the study reach) was dense and trees (fig. 9). At low flow, the water is contained in a narrow
consistently about 2 ft tall (fig. 7). The grass throughout the 3-ft-wide channel. The majority of the section is covered with
rest of the reach during the study period was sparse on the left thick grass.
bank and dense on the right bank. The density of grass in the Cross section 2 (X2) is 110 ft downstream of X1 and has
reach is related to the density of trees growing in the reach; a more incised section of flow where the water is ponded at
areas of dense grass are areas of sparse trees. The exposure, low flow. The vegetation at X2 consists of grass and sapling
absence, or burial of grass in the reach was used to determine trees with some mesquite trees higher on the banks (fig. 10).
if scour or fill occurred during a high-flow event. Cross section 3 (X3), 79 ft downstream from X2, also
The trees in the slope-area reach consist of ash, willow, has an incised section of channel and has vegetation types
mesquite, and walnut. The ash and willow are the predomi- similar to X2 (fig. 11). A row of ash trees, located on the low-
nant types of trees growing in the slope-area reach. The flow section of the left bank starting in X3, extends down-
younger ash trees (6–14 inches in diameter) line the low-flow stream through cross section 4 (X4).
Figure 7. View looking downstream from cross section 1. Note the Figure 8. View looking upstream from cross section 4. Ash trees
dense grass where trees are sparse. grow along the low-flow channel.
Cross section 4 (X4), 111 ft downstream of X3, does not flows. For these conditions, a Manning’s roughness coeffi-
have an incised channel but has a wider and shallower section cient of 0.035 was selected for all four cross sections, based
of flow. The main section of flow consists of small cobbles on values from reference tables and previous publications
and gravels (fig. 12). At low flow, riffles form at this cross (Aldridge and Garrett, 1973; Thomsen and Hjalmarson, 1991;
section. Phillips and Tadayon, 2006). For high flows, the trees along
A Manning’s roughness coefficient was selected based the bank increase the Manning’s roughness coefficient to
on the type and density of the vegetation in the slope-area 0.040, which is also based on reference tables and previous
reach. Grass is the predominant natural condition that affects publications (Aldridge and Garrett, 1973; Thomsen and Hjal-
the Manning’s roughness coefficient for medium and low marson, 1991; Phillips and Tadayon, 2006).
Figure 9. Views from cross section 1 looking upstream (left), downstream (center), and downstream (right).
Application of the Continuous Slope-Area Method on the Babocomari River 11
Application of the Continuous Slope- between the permanent USGS gage and the CSA reach. Each
PT installed in the reach is identified by its location in the
Area Method on the Babocomari River reach. For example, PTL2 (pressure transducer 2, left bank)
is installed on the left bank and along cross section 2, while
PTR2 (pressure transducer 2, right bank) is installed on the
Installation of Pressure Transducers right bank. Figure 15 shows the elevations of the CSG pins
(used as an elevation reference) on the left and right banks.
The initial installation of PTs for the continuous slope- The streamwise elevation differences between CSG pins on
area application consisted of a modification of the existing either bank are shown in table 1. On each bank the elevation
crest-stage gage (CSG) design. The CSGs were made of a difference between the farthest upstream and downstream
4-ft length of 2-in galvanized pipe with a perforated cap on CSG pins is greater than 2 ft. The minimum elevation differ-
the bottom (fig. 13). The galvanized pipe contains a narrow ence between each CSG pin on the left bank was 0.47 ft, and
wooden stick and granulated cork on the bottom cap. Dur- the minimum on the right bank was 0.07 ft. The CSG pins
ing a streamflow event, the cork rises to the peak elevation of on the left bank were installed along the overbank area of the
streamflow and remains on the wooden stick after the stage channel and are at a higher elevation than the CSG pins on
recedes, leaving a mark where the crest occurred. PTs were the right bank. The CSG pins on the right bank were installed
secured to the bottom of the crest-stage gage sticks with hose closer to the active channel. The fall in the reach and between
clamps. the CSG pins should be uniform, for example the CSG pin in
Eight PTs were installed at four cross sections in the PTR3 should have been installed at an elevation 0.5 ft lower
overbank area on both sides of the channel (fig. 14). One addi- than the pin in PTR2.
tional PT gage was installed in a tributary located about 100 ft The miniTROLL PTs with a sensor range of 0–30 PSI
upstream from the first cross section to document any inflows manufactured by In-Situ Inc. were used for this study. The PTs
Figure 13. Installation of the crest-stage gage (left). The pressure transducer is clamped to the bottom of the crest-stage gage board
(center and right).
were programmed to record at 5-min intervals regardless of The bottom CSG cap was also removed and inspected to
whether the channel was flowing. In the absence of equipment ensure the PT was in connection with the river and not clogged
malfunction, the PT’s internal data recorders were capable with sediment and debris. After each site visit, fresh cork
of measuring and recording pressure at this rate for approxi- was added to the CSGs. If high-water marks were present,
mately 6 months. The PTs used for this application measured they were measured and documented. In addition, any other
absolute pressure because they are not vented to the atmo- indications of streamflow were noted, such as debris on the
sphere. Consequently, in addition to measuring the depth of base of the CSG and the condition of the vegetation. The PTs
water above the PT, atmospheric pressure was also measured. were synchronized with atomic clocks to prevent time drift. If
To remove the effects of atmospheric pressure, a PT measuring time drift was detected, it was documented and the transducer
the barometric pressure was placed in the gage house, which is data were corrected. It is imperative that clocks in the PTs
located about 0.25 mile upstream from the slope-area reach. are synchronized so that they record water-surface elevations
simultaneously during an event.
Collection and Reduction of Pressure- Each downloaded data set from the PTs was corrected for
barometric effects, PT elevation, and CSG pin elevation. The
Transducer Data CSG peak was corrected to gage datum by adding the high-
The stage data were downloaded from the PTs after water marks from the crest-stage gage to the CSG pin eleva-
significant flows. In addition, the cross sections and CSG pin tion to determine the final peak elevation. After these correc-
elevations were resurveyed to document any scour or fill in the tions were applied, both peaks (PT and CSG) were compared
channel and to ensure the CSG pins had not moved. During for quality control because the PT-recorded peak should not be
each site visit, the CSGs were inspected for high-water marks. higher than the CSG high-water mark.
3507480
k
Left Ban X4
X3
X2
3507460 X1 PTL4
PTL3
NORTHING, IN METERS
ver
comari Ri
Babo PTR4
PTL2
PTL1 PTR3
3507440
PTR2
PTR1
3507420
nk
Right Ba
3507400
573450 573480 573510 573540 573570 573600
EASTING, IN METERS
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER LOCATION
0 40 FEET
0 25 METERS
Figure 14. Plan view of the cross sections and eight pressure transducers in the Babocomari River continuous-slope-area reach.
Table 1. Elevation difference between crest-stage and pressure-transducer datums (dry)
Reach Right-bank elevation Left-bank elevation

difference (ft) difference (ft)
X1-X2 0.52 0.92

X2-X3 0.07 0.69
X3-X4 1.59 0.47
X1-X3 0.59 1.61
X2-X4 1.66 1.16
X1-X4 2.18 2.08
Calculation of Hydrographs Using the is followed with conventional indirect methods, where high-
water marks and cross sections can be removed from the final
Continuous Slope-Area Method calculation to improve the quality of discharge computations.
After the necessary corrections were applied to the PT data Following the initial evaluation of the stage data, discharges are
sets, stage hydrographs were produced from the left- and right- computed with the SAC program.
bank pressure-transducer data. The water-surface profiles can
be evaluated for comparison with the guidelines recommended
Batch-Processing Discharge Computations
by Dalrymple and Benson (1967). The water-surface profiles
can show insufficient fall between cross sections, which reduces The calculation of the continuous discharge is accom-
the accuracy and consistency of the results. A similar practice plished by applying the SAC program to each step in the
48.00
ELEVATION ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM, IN FEET
47.50 PTL1
47.00
Cross Section 1 Cross Section 2 Cross Section 3 Cross Section 4
46.50 PTL2
PTR1
46.00
PTL3
45.50 PTR2
PTR3
PTL4
45.00
44.50
44.00 Right bank CSA pin elevation PTR4

Left bank CSA pin elevation
43.50
43.00
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00
STATION, IN FEET DOWNSTREAM OF CROSS SECTION 1
Figure 15. Pressure-transducer-pin elevations (dry with no flow).
stage-time series. This procedure was automated with a utility sufficiently large for the application of the CSA method (table
program (CSA2SAC) developed for this project that reads in 2; fig. 16). The events between 2002 and 2005 were moder-
the channel parameters used in the SAC program and the stage ate flows of similar magnitude. The width of flow for these
data, generates the SAC input files for each time step, runs the events was about 80 ft. During flow in 2006, which was the
SAC program for each time step, reads the SAC output files, largest during the study, the width of flow exceeded 150 ft
and finally generates a separate file containing the computed and depths were over 12 ft. The following sections describe
hydrograph. one of the four moderate events (October, 2003) and the high
flow in 2006 to illustrate the CSA application under field con-
ditions. Stage data, computed discharges, and channel shape
Development of Stage-Discharge Relations
and roughness for all five events are recorded in appendices 1
A stage-discharge relation can be created from the and 2.
stage data collected by any of the PTs and the discharge data
computed by the SAC program. The development of stage-
discharge relations is generally best achieved by using the Flow of October 9, 2003
discharges computed using more than two cross sections. The A moderate event occurred on October 9, 2003, that was
multi-section reach computation averages reach conditions, caused by a late-season monsoon. The streamflow event lasted
producing a more consistent discharge. about 1 hr, and the water-surface elevations were high enough
to submerge all eight PTs for 20 min. The recorded stage
Major Flows on the Babocomari River 2002–2006 hydrographs from each of the PTs are shown in figure 17.
During the five-year study period, Arizona experienced
one of the driest periods ever recorded, so medium- and Channel Geometry
high-flow events were less frequent than normal (Phillips and The channel geometry surveyed before and after the
Thomas, 2005). Five events that inundated the CSG and PT October 9, 2003, flow event indicates little channel change
gages occurred during the study period and, as a result, were during the event (figs. 18–21).
ANNUAL PEAK STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
10,000 9,600 cfs

July 27, 2006
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000 900 cfs

750 cfs 600 cfs August 14, 2005
August 3, 2002 500 cfs October 9, 2003
1,000 July 25, 2003
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
CALENDAR YEAR
Figure 16. Peak streamflows recorded on the Babocomari River during the study period, 2002–2006.
Table 2. Peak stages recorded by the crest-stage gages and by the pressure transducers
during the October 9, 2003, event.
Pressure transducer (PT) Crest-stage gage height Peak (ft) and time
(R, right; L, left) (feet) recorded by the PT
PTR1 47.33 47.30 at 19:55
PTL1 47.54 47.49 at 19:55
PTR2 47.17 47.00 at 19:55
PTL2 47.22 47.10 at 19:50
PTR3 46.53 46.38 at 19:50
PTL3 46.71 46.63 at 19:55
PTR4 46.33 46.34 at 19:55
48.00
47.50
47.00
46.50
46.00
45.50
45.00
PTR1 PTR2 PTR3 PTR4
44.50 PTL1 PTL2 PTL3 PTL4
44.00
19:30 19:45 20:00 20:15
OCTOBER 9, 2003
Figure 17. Stage hydrographs from the October 9, 2003, flow event on the Babocomari River.
ELEVATION ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM, IN FEET Cross section 1

50
49
48
47
46
45
44 Before Event
43 After Event
42 Event Peak
41
40
20 40 60 80 100 120
DISTANCE, IN FEET
Figure 18. Channel surveys in cross section 1 before and after the October 9, 2003, event. The blue dashed line
shows the water-surface elevation at the peak discharge.
Evaluation of the High-Water Marks PT-recorded peak values and times associated are shown in
table 2. On the left bank, the crest-stage gage heights were
Crest-stage gage heights representing the crest of the higher than the recorded PT peak values; on the right bank,
peak were present on all eight of the crest-stage gages fol- the recorded PT peak values were within 0.01 ft or less than
lowing the flow event. The crest-stage gage heights and the the crest-stage gage heights, with the exception of PTR4 that
Cross section 2
50
49
48
47
46
45 Before Event
44
After Event
43
Event Peak
42
41
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DISTANCE, IN FEET
Cross section 3
ELEVATION ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM, IN FEET 50
49
48
47
46 Before Peak
45 After Peak
44 Event Peak
43
42
41
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DISTANCE, IN FEET
recorded the same water-surface elevation as PTR3. Six of Conventional Slope-Area Computation and Analysis
the eight PTs recorded the peak water surface at 19:55, while
two PTs recorded the peak at 19:50. The difference between A slope-area calculation using the corrected CSG eleva-
these peak times could be attributed to splashing or wave tions at four cross sections was performed. A Manning’s n
action. value of 0.035 was judged appropriate for each of these four
Cross section 4
50
49
48
47
46
45 Before Event
44 After Event
43 Event Peak
42
41
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
DISTANCE, IN FEET
Table 3. Peak discharge for cross sections 1–4, based on average of left and right stage data from
the pressure transducers and crest-stage gage from the October 9, 2003, event.
Peak discharge computed from the crest- Peak discharge computed from the PT
stage gage heights (ft3/s) recorded elevations (ft3/s)
626 591
cross sections based on channels with similar conditions in Continuous Slope-Area Discharge Computations and
southeastern Arizona (Aldridge and Garrett, 1973; Phillips Analysis
and Tadayon, 2006). The computed discharge, using the
average of the left and right crest-stage gage heights, was The discharge values computed from the average peak
626 ft3/s (table 3). left and right CSG heights and the recorded PT-gage heights
are shown in table 3. The CSA-computed discharge values
ranged from 340 to 591 ft3/s during the streamflow event. The
Evaluation of the Pressure-Transducer Data computed peak discharge using the CSG heights (626 ft3/s)
was 35 ft3/s greater than the computed peak discharge from the
The left and right averaged PT-stage values used for the
PTs (fig. 23).
CSA computation are shown in figure 22. The average of the
left- and right-bank water surfaces results in a hydrograph
that represents the water surfaces during the flow event. The
Rating Development
four hydrographs contain water-surface elevations recorded A stage-discharge relation was developed showing
nine times during the 40-minute event. the relation between the discharge computed with the CSA
48.00
47.50
47.00
46.50
46.00
45.50
45.00 X1
X2
44.50 X3
X4
44.00
19:30 19:45 20:00 20:15
OCTOBER 9, 2003
Figure 22. Average left- and right-bank pressure-transducer-stage hydrographs during the
October 9, 2003, event.
method and stage from PTR1 (fig. 24). Stage values from collected data for this event (fig. 25); two PTs (PTR2, PTL4)
PTR1 were selected over the stage values from the other PTs, did not work due to lost battery power. All four cross sections
because PTR1 stage values produced the closest fit in the were used in the analysis.
stage-discharge relation. The single discharge value calculated Five of the six PTs that worked for this flow event were
from the CSG heights was also included in the plot and is rotated about their base shortly after the peak. The pipes sup-
consistent with the CSA results. porting PTR1, PTL2, PTR3, PTL3, and PTR4 were all rotated
about 45º (fig. 26) in the downstream direction; only PTL1
Summary of the October 2003 Event remained upright. The five PTs continued to record through-
out the event, but only data obtained prior to their displace-
The third flow event of the study period occurred on October ment were used in the analysis. A sudden shift of about 0.3 ft
9, 2003, and all eight of the PTs were submerged and recorded in stage at each PT indicated the time at which the PTs were
stage during part of the 1-hr event. Crest-stage gage heights were displaced.
also obtained from eight of the CSGs. Slope-area calculations
were performed to determine the peak streamflow using both data Changes in Channel Shape
from the PTs and the CSG heights. The computed peak discharge The only measureable change to the reach during the study
value from the CSG heights was about 6 percent higher than the period was caused by the July 27, 2006, flood. Two trees were
peak discharge value calculated from the peak PT values. uprooted and deposited near the PTs in X1 and X2 but ap-
peared to have minimal effect on the cross-sectional areas of
The Flow Event of July 27, 2006 X1 and X2. Vegetation debris accumulated near X3, and sand
and gravel were deposited near X4. The changes are generally
The July 27, 2006, event produced the peak of record, minor, and their effects on channel hydraulics over the course
9,600 ft3/s, which had an annual exceedance probability of of the event were neglected in the discharge calculations (fig.
4 percent. This peak was nearly 10 times greater than any of 27). The channel changes, however small, introduce additional
the previous peaks during the study. Six out of the eight PTs uncertainty in the computed hydrograph and illustrate another
700
600
500
400
300
200
X1-X4 PTR1
100 Slope Area Calculation

from CSG
0
19:30 19:45 20:00 20:15
OCTOBER 9, 2003
Figure 23. Discharge values computed with the average pressure-transducer and crest-stage gage data
for the October 9, 2003, event.
source of potential error that is present in any kind of hydraulic extended continuously downstream through X2. The surveyed
reconstruction of a significant flow, whether it is step-backwater high-water marks combined with the peak stage values from
modeling, multi-dimensional hydraulic modeling, peak-flow the PTs are shown in table 4. The peak recorded from PTL3
indirect measurements, standard stream gaging, or CSA ap- of 56.95 ft was greater than the high-water mark of 55.79 ft
plications. The precise timing of the changes to channel shape surveyed in X3 on the left bank. This may have been caused
is unknown but likely occurred near the peak discharge. Gravel by debris that accumulated in the center of the channel, which
deposited near the right bank in X1 caused a 2 percent decrease caused an elevated water surface next to PTL3, but did not
in the peak-flow cross-sectional area (fig. 28). Scour in the thal- extend far enough along the bank to elevate the left-bank high-
weg and the left side of the channel caused an 8 percent increase water mark or to affect PTL2.
in cross-sectional area in X2 (fig. 29). In X3, a 0.5 percent in-
crease occurred as a result of scour in the center of the channel Slope-Area Computation and Analysis of High-Water
(fig. 30). There was a 4 percent decrease in cross-sectional area Marks
in X4, caused by deposition of sand and gravel in the center of
the channel (fig. 31). A slope-area calculation of the peak discharge using the
surveyed high-water marks at the four cross sections was per-
Evaluation of the High-Water Marks formed. A Manning’s n of 0.040 was selected, which is greater
than the value of 0.035 used in previous flow events. The n
High-water marks from the CSGs were not pres- value was increased to account for debris that was collected
ent, because the CSGs were overtopped. Instead, surveyed on trees and bushes in the slope-area reach, and the fallen trees
high-water marks were used in the slope-area computation, that collected deposits of sand and gravel.
although high-water marks were not preserved on the large The fall between cross sections X3-X4 on the left bank
rocks that dominate the left bank at X1 and X2. The large was 0.60 ft, and a discharge of 12,044 ft3/s was computed (table
rocks were present on the left bank 50 ft upstream of X1 and 5). On the right bank, the subreach X1-X2 had an inverse slope
48.00
47.75
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION AT PTR1
47.50
47.25
47.00
46.75
X1-X4 PTR1
46.50
Slope Area
46.25 Calculation from
CSG
46.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Figure 24. Stage-discharge relation determined with discharges computed from the averaged pressure-
transducer data and crest-stage gage data for the October 9, 2003, event.
58
56
54 PTR1
PTL1
PTL2
ELEVATION, IN FEET
PTR3
PTL3
52 PTR4
50
48
46
0:00:00 4:48:00 9:36:00 14:24:00 19:12:00
TIME, IN HOURS:MINUTES
Figure 25. July 27, 2006, stage hydrographs for six pressure transducers. Right-bank pressure transducers are
indicated by R in the legend label; left-bank pressure transducers are indicated by L in the legend label; the
number in the legend label corresponds to the cross-section number.
Figure 26. Right-bank pressure transducer in cross section 1 Figure 27. View looking upstream from cross section 3 on the right
(PTR1) after the July 27, 2006, flow event. bank after the July 27, 2006, event. The floodway is mostly clear of
obstacles.
and, therefore, that combination of cross sections could not be computation of discharge showed that only one subreach,
used to compute discharge. The discharges computed with right- X1-X2, could be used in the analysis as a result of the debris
bank elevations ranged from 7,818 ft3/s to 12,409 ft3/s (table pile downstream. The fall between X1-X2 was 0.33 ft and
6). The most consistent results came from the multiple cross- the computed discharge was 8,466 ft3/s.
section reaches X1-X3, X2-X4, and X1-X4. The peak stage values from the right bank produced a
small range in computed discharge of 9,138 ft3/s to 10,589 ft3/s
Slope-Area Computation of Peak Discharge using PT Data (table 8). The discharge computed using stage values from
and Analysis of PT Data the right bank (X1-X4) of 9,621 ft3/s was considered the
discharge most likely to be accurate from the slope-area
The peak discharge was computed using the slope-area computations, because it uses the longest reach and incor-
method and peak PT elevations from the left (table 7) and porates more channel data than the other cross-section
right (table 8) banks. The results of the left-bank slope-area combinations.
60
58
56
ELEVATION, IN FEET
54
52
50
48 Before
46 After
44 Event
peak
42
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
DISTANCE, IN FEET
Figure 28. Channel surveys in cross section 1 before and after the July 27, 2006, event. The blue line shows the water-surface elevation
at the peak discharge. At the peak discharge, the difference in cross-section areas is 2 percent.
60
58
56
ELEVATION, IN FEET
54
52
50
Before
48
After
46
Event peak
44
42
40
38
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
DISTANCE, IN FEET
Figure 29. Channel surveys in cross section 2 before and after the July 27, 2006, event. The
blue line shows the water-surface elevation at the peak discharge. At the peak discharge, the
difference in cross-section areas is 8 percent.
Evaluation of the Pressure-Transducer Data marks and pressure-transducer peaks produced a narrower
range of discharges in computing the slope-area discharges,
Data from the six working PTs were evaluated to deter- the right bank PTs were used along with PTL2, which was the
mine the optimum combination for discharge computations. only sensor available for X2, for the final discharge computa-
PTL3 was not used because of the elevated stage effects from tion. PTL1 was not used in the computation of discharge, but,
the accumulated debris (fig. 32). The remaining five PTs were because it was the only PT not displaced during the event, it
PTR1, PTR3, and PTR4 from the right bank and PTL1 and was used for the stage record in developing the event-rating
PTL2 from the left bank. Because the right bank high-water curve and the event-discharge hydrograph.
58
56
54
ELEVATION, IN FEET
52
50 Before
48 After
46 Event peak
44
42
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
DISTANCE, IN FEET
Figure 30. Channel surveys in cross section 3 before and after the July 27, 2006, event. The blue line
shows the water-surface elevation at the peak discharge. At the peak discharge, the difference in
cross-section areas is 0.5 percent.
Stage hydrographs from PTR1, PTL2, PTR3, and PTR4 streamflow-gaging station, about 0.25 mi above the CSA site
(fig. 33) were selected to compute discharge. The CSGs (fig. 8). The large trees in the channel bottom were the con-
attached to these PTs were rotated to about a 45º angle from trols for the medium to high flows near the gage (fig. 35).
vertical just after the flow peak and, consequently, discharge This is a common condition at many USGS streamgages
values were not computed after the peak. The event-rating in Arizona. Periods of low or no flow allow dense vegeta-
curve was developed from discharge values computed tion growth in the channel that can significantly modify the
using stage values that were recorded prior to the PTs being channel hydraulic properties.
displaced. During the July flood, nearly all of the vegetation in the
channel near the gage was removed near the flood peak and
Development of Stage-Discharge Relation during the recession. In contrast, the same flood only caused
minor changes in the downstream CSA reach. The stage-
The stage-discharge relation was developed from stage discharge relation for the Babocomari River near Tombstone
values from PTL1 and discharge values computed with stage gage depends on the condition of vegetation in the channel
values recorded before the PTs were knocked over (fig. 34). and was altered by the removal of vegetation during the
A log function fit to the stage-discharge points has a R2 of July 27, 2006, flood. Consequently, a new stage-discharge
0.9957, indicating that the stage-discharge relation fits the relation was developed for the gage. The stage-discharge
data closely with little scatter. relation will return to its pre-flood form as the vegetations
grow back in the channel.
The stage hydrograph from the Babocamari River near
Transfer of the CSA Stage-Discharge Relation Tombstone gage was compared with the stage hydrograph
to the Babocomari River near Tombstone from PTL1 (fig. 36). The two hydrographs matched until
Streamflow-Gaging Station just after the peak, when the gage hydrograph diverges from
the PTL1 hydrograph, most likely as a result of the scour-
The July 27, 2006, flood removed most of the ing of vegetation from the gage reach. On the recession, the
large trees that were growing in the channel reach gage hydrograph drops more than the PTL1 hydrograph by
above and below the Babocomari River near Tombstone as much as 3 ft.
56
54
52
ELEVATION, IN FEET
50
Before
48
After
46 Event peak
44
42
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
DISTANCE, IN FEET
Figure 31. Channel surveys in cross section 4 before and after the July 27, 2006, event. The blue line shows the
water-surface elevation at the peak discharge. At the peak discharge, the difference in cross-section areas is 4
percent.
Table 4. Water-surface elevations from surveyed high-water marks and pressure

transducers from the July 27, 2006, event.
Pressure transducer High-water mark found Peak recorded by the

near PT (ft) PT (ft)
PTR1 56.57 56.06
PTL1 N/A 55.60
PTR2 56.71 N/A
PTL2 N/A 55.27
PTR3 55.30 55.08
PTL3 55.79 56.95
PTR4 55.06 54.47
PTL4 55.19 N/A
Table 5. Peak discharge computed using surveyed left-bank high-water marks for the July
27, 2006, event.
Reach Fall (ft) Discharge (ft3/s)
X3-X4 0.60 12,044
Table 6. Peak discharges computed using surveyed right-bank high-water marks for the July
27, 2006, event.
X1-X2 -0.14 NA
X2-X3 1.41 12,409
X3-X4 0.24 7,818
X1-X3 1.27 10,791
X2-X4 1.65 11,230
X1-X4 1.51 10,089
Table 7. Peak discharge computed with the left-bank pressure transducers for the July 27,
2006, event.
X1-X2 0.33 8,466

Table 8. Peak discharge computed with the right-bank pressure transducers for the July 27,
2006, event.
Reach Fall (ft) Discharge (ft 3/s)

9,138
X1-X3 0.98
10,589
X3-X4 0.61
9,621
X1-X4 1.59
Stage-discharge relations were developed for the gag- 2002. The pressure transducers provide records of stage that
ing station for conditions before and following the vegetation are input to the slope-area SAC program (Fulford, 1994) with
scour using the stage values from the gaging station with cross-section and roughness information to compute discharge
corresponding discharge values that were computed using the hydrographs. The CSA method can produce the event-peak
CSA method (fig. 37). Travel time between the two locations stage and discharge, continuous-discharge hydrographs for
was small and neglected in developing the rating curves. an event, and a stage-discharge relation for the site. The SAC
program provides considerable flexibility in computing dis-
charge, including the specification of a stage-dependent n.
Conclusions Discharges calculated with the CSA method are subject
to the same error sources as indirect measurements. Survey-
The CSA method uses continuously recording pres- ing errors are typically small, and significant survey errors
sure transducers to extend slope-area methods for computing are usually evident if standard surveying practice is followed.
peak discharge to entire event hydrographs. The method was Accuracy of the roughness parameter depends on available
initially implemented on the Babocomari River in Arizona in information and the judgment of the user, as with any indirect
Figure 32. Debris pile near left bank in cross section 3 after the July 27, 2006, event.
Conclusions 27
58
57
56
55
54
Stage hydrograph PTR1
Stage hydrograph PTL2
STAGE, IN FEET

53
52
51
50
49
48
47
0:00:00 4:48:00 9:36:00 14:24:00 19:12:00
Figure 33. Stage hydrographs of the four pressure transducers that were used to compute discharge for the July 27,
2006, event.
measurement. The CSA method adds more information occasion, PTs or high-water marks were affected by local
regarding a flow event but requires a corresponding amount conditions, such as debris piles, that degrade the accuracy
of data evaluation, especially if the flow was sufficient to of computed discharges. The data were not used where this
rearrange the channel or damage instruments. The continuous occurred.
record of stage at multiple locations offers the opportunity to Ongoing experiments in CSA applications are refining
decipher the short history of a flow event in a way that is not optimum installation designs of the pressure transducers. The
possible with a slope-area method but at the cost of sorting main consideration when installing a PT is stability of the
through a larger volume of information. base. The CSG design by Rantz (1982) is excellent at collect-
In the study on the Babocomari River, comparisons to ing the crest elevations. These types of gages are installed in
slope-area computations were made by using the high-water areas out of the main area of flow that have slower veloci-
marks recorded by the CSGs or high-water marks surveyed ties. To collect streamflow data at lower discharges, the PTs
in the CSA cross sections. The computed discharge was then need to be installed nearer the deeper parts of the channel in
compared to a discharge computed using the peak values the main areas of flow. The design of the PT installation in
recorded by the CSA PTs. Only two events are discussed the Babocomari River performed well for the medium-flow
in detail in this report, but similar applications were com- ranges, as in the first four flow events. At discharges closer to
pleted for all the flow events that produced good results. On the peak discharge of 9,600 ft3/s, the bases of the CSG gages
56
R² = 0.9957
55
54
53
STAGE, IN FEET
52
51
50
49
48
47
100 1,000 10,000
Figure 34. Stage values from the left-bank pressure transducer in cross section 1 and
the corresponding discharge computed with stage data in X1-X4 during the July 27,
2006, event are shown as dots. All stage and discharges shown occurred prior to the
rotation of the pressure transducers. The solid line is a cubic polynomial fitted to the
stage-discharge relation.
Conclusions 29
Figure 35. Reach below the Babocomari River near the Tombstone stream gage was heavily vegetated prior to the July 27, 2006, event
(left). Much of that vegetation was gone after the event (right). The rock in the right foreground of the left photograph is the same as the
rock occupying the right lower quadrant of the right photograph.
16
14
12
10
STAGE, IN FEET
8
PTL1
Gage
6
0
0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12
Figure 36. Stage hydrographs from the Babocomari River near Tombstone gage and the left-bank pressure
transducer in cross section 1 (PTL1) during the July 27, 2006, event. Stages from the two sites were adjusted to
coincide on the rising limb.
STAGE
STAGE, FEET
IN(FT)
1 10 100 1,000 10,000

Figure 37. Stage-discharge relations before and after the July 27, 2006, event. The blue line
represents conditions prior to the peak and included the effects of the dense vegetation.
The red curve represents the condition after vegetation was scoured.
were scoured out, causing the CSA gage to rotate. Future Phillips, J.V., and Tadayon, S., 2006, Selection of Manning’s
installations of CSA gages should utilize shorter pipes that will roughness coefficient for natural and constructed vegetated
collect less debris, and pipes should be angled at 45º to allow and non-vegetated channels, and vegetation maintenance
them to better shed debris. This design will survive large flows plan guidelines for vegetated channels in central Arizona:
but will lose the ability to record the crest elevation of a flood U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
on the CSGs. 2006-5108, 41 p.
Pool, D.R., and Coes, A.L.,1999, Hydrogeologic investiga-
tions of the Sierra Vista subwatershed of the upper San Pedro
References Cited Basin, Cochise County, southeast Arizona: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4197, 41 p.
Aldridge, B.N., and Garrett, J.M., 1973, Roughness coef- Rantz, S.E., 1982, Measurement and computation of
ficients for stream channels in Arizona: U.S. Geological streamflow,Volume 1— Measurement of stage and discharge:
Survey Open-File Report 73-3, 87 p. U.S. Geological Water-Supply Paper 2175, 284 p.
Benson, M.A., and Dalrymple, T., 1967, General field and Stewart, A. M., Callegary, J.B., Smith, C.F., Wiele, S.M., Cor-
office procedures for indirect discharge measurements: U.S. dova, J.T., Fritzinger, R.A., and Gupta, H.V., 2008, Use of the
Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Inves- Continuous Slope-Area Method to Estimate Runoff Through
tigations, book 3, chap. A1, 12 p. (http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ Ephemeral Stream Channels in SE Arizona, Eos Trans. AGU
usgspubs/twri/twri03A1). 89(53), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract H11E-0823.
Dalrymple, T., and Benson, M.A., 1967, Measurement of Thomsen, B.W., and Hjalmarson, H.W., 1991, Estimated Man-
peak discharge by the slope-area method: U.S. Geological ning’s roughness coefficient for stream channels and flood
Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book plains in Maricopa County, Arizona: Phoenix, Flood Control
3, chap. A2, 12 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri3-a2/pdf/ District of Maricopa County report, 126 p.
twri_3-A2_a.pdf). Waltemeyer, S.D., 2005, Automated crest-stage gage applica-
Fulford, J. M., 1994, User’s guide to SAC, a computer pro- tion in ephemeral streams in New Mexico: U.S. Geological
gram for computing discharge by slope-area method: U.S. Survey Fact Sheet 2005-3136, 4 p.
Geological Survey Open File Report 94-360, 31 p. Wiele, S.M. and Smith, J.D., 1996, A reach-averaged model of
Phillips, J.V., and Thomas, B.E., 2005, Hydrologic conditions diurnal discharge wave propagation down the Colorado River
in Arizona during 1999–2004— A historical perspective: through the Grand Canyon: Water Resources Research, v. 32,
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005-3081, 4 p. no. 5, p. 1375–1386.
Appendix 1 31
Appendix 1. Stage data and computed discharge for five runoff events in the
Babocomari River.
August 3, 2002 runoff event on the Babocomari River

Right Bank Left Bank
Date and Date
Stage, in feet Stage, in feet
time and time
PTR1 PTR2 PTR3 PTR4 PTL1 PTL2 PTL3 PTL4
8/3/02 12:50 46.37 46.19 45.63 45.43 8/3/02 12:50 NA 46.46 45.77 45.31
8/3/02 12:55 46.41 46.20 45.73 45.56 8/3/02 12:55 NA 46.46 45.79 45.41
8/3/02 13:00 46.47 46.35 45.84 45.64 8/3/02 13:00 NA 46.46 45.94 45.52
8/3/02 13:05 46.72 46.61 46.10 45.90 8/3/02 13:05 NA 46.70 46.16 45.78
8/3/02 13:10 46.78 46.72 46.18 45.98 8/3/02 13:10 NA 46.81 46.24 45.86
8/3/02 13:15 46.86 46.88 46.29 46.10 8/3/02 13:15 NA 46.98 46.38 45.97
8/3/02 13:20 47.09 47.00 46.47 46.28 8/3/02 13:20 NA 47.16 46.55 46.15
8/3/02 13:25 47.14 47.16 46.51 46.30 8/3/02 13:25 NA 47.21 46.63 46.19
8/3/02 13:30 47.16 47.11 46.53 46.21 8/3/02 13:30 NA 47.28 46.71 46.21
8/3/02 13:35 47.07 47.04 46.49 46.23 8/3/02 13:35 NA 47.16 46.64 46.17
8/3/02 13:40 46.87 46.79 46.29 46.02 8/3/02 13:40 NA 46.93 46.44 45.97
8/3/02 13:45 46.74 46.63 45.98 45.78 8/3/02 13:45 NA 46.70 46.22 45.66
8/3/02 13:50 46.62 46.39 45.77 45.56 8/3/02 13:50 NA 46.47 45.97 45.45
8/3/02 13:55 46.53 46.29 45.65 45.39 8/3/02 13:55 NA 46.41 45.84 45.33
Note: PTL1 was not inundated
Date and Average stage, in feet

Computed discharge, ft3/s
time X1 X2 X3 X4
8/3/02 12:50 46.32 45.70 45.37 431
8/3/02 12:55 46.33 45.76 45.48 428
8/3/02 13:00 46.41 45.89 45.58 458
8/3/02 13:05 46.65 46.13 45.84 528
8/3/02 13:10 46.77 46.21 45.92 566
8/3/02 13:15 46.93 46.33 46.04 620
8/3/02 13:20 47.08 46.51 46.22 675
8/3/02 13:25 47.19 46.57 46.24 724
8/3/02 13:30 47.20 46.62 46.21 750
8/3/02 13:35 47.10 46.56 46.20 702
8/3/02 13:40 46.86 46.37 45.99 620
8/3/02 13:45 46.67 46.10 45.72 551
8/3/02 13:50 46.43 45.87 45.51 471
8/3/02 13:55 46.35 45.74 45.36 447
July 25, 2003 runoff event on the Babocomari River
Right bank Left bank

Date Date
and Stage, in feet and Stage, in feet
time PTR1 PTR3 PTR5 PTR7 time PTL 2 PTL 4 PTL 6 PTL 8
7/25/03 19:10 46.25 45.73 45.57 44.17 7/25/03 19:10 47.346 46.412 45.74 45.255
7/25/03 19:15 46.92 46.76 46.09 45.80 7/25/03 19:15 47.345 46.766 46.107 45.646
7/25/03 19:20 47.03 46.78 46.06 46.12 7/25/03 19:20 47.343 46.822 46.333 46.017
7/25/03 19:25 46.867 46.67 46.001 45.97 7/25/03 19:25 47.347 46.713 46.219 45.872
7/25/03 19:30 46.674 46.432 45.887 45.683 7/25/03 19:30 47.349 46.522 46.027 45.619
7/25/03 19:35 46.425 46.119 45.573 45.239 7/25/03 19:35 47.352 46.415 45.746 45.289
Date and Average stage, in feet

time Computed discharge, ft3/s
X1 X2 X3 X4
7/25/03 19:10 46.80 46.07 45.65 44.71 430
7/25/03 19:15 47.13 46.76 46.10 45.73 527
7/25/03 19:20 47.19 46.80 46.20 46.07 508
7/25/03 19:25 47.11 46.69 46.11 45.92 491
7/25/03 19:30 47.01 46.48 45.96 45.65 468
7/25/03 19:35 46.89 46.27 45.66 45.26 429
October 9, 2003 runoff event on the Babocomari River

Right bank Left bank
Date Date
and Stage, in feet and Stage, in feet
time PTR1 PTR2 PTR3 PTR4 time PTL 2 PTL 4 PTL 6 CSA8
10/9/03 19:35 46.231 45.657 45.578 44.244 10/9/03 19:35 47.339 46.405 45.727 45.271
10/9/03 19:40 46.817 46.506 46.136 45.599 10/9/03 19:40 47.337 46.549 46.073 45.544
10/9/03 19:45 47.03 46.781 46.349 46.118 10/9/03 19:45 47.339 46.883 46.424 46.062
10/9/03 19:50 47.254 46.907 46.386 46.3 10/9/03 19:50 47.452 47.145 46.636 46.227
10/9/03 19:55 47.297 46.995 46.384 46.338 10/9/03 19:55 47.493 47.103 46.627 46.239
10/9/03 20:00 47.2 46.975 46.296 46.172 10/9/03 20:00 47.369 47.039 46.539 46.122
10/9/03 20:05 47.019 46.693 45.995 45.885 10/9/03 20:05 47.34 46.788 46.333 45.804
10/9/03 20:10 46.766 46.475 45.893 45.481 10/9/03 20:10 47.34 46.442 46.072 45.398
10/9/03 20:15 46.471 46.172 45.655 45.08 10/9/03 20:15 47.34 46.405 45.822 45.284
Average stage, in feet

Date and Computed discharge, ft3/s
time X1 X2 X3 X4
10/9/03 19:35 46.231 46.031 45.6525 44.7575 340
10/9/03 19:40 46.817 46.5275 46.1045 45.5715 459
10/9/03 19:45 47.1845 46.832 46.3865 46.09 529
10/9/03 19:50 47.353 47.026 46.511 46.2635 580
10/9/03 19:55 47.395 47.049 46.5055 46.2885 591
10/9/03 20:00 47.2845 47.007 46.4175 46.147 567
10/9/03 20:05 47.1795 46.7405 46.164 45.8445 530
10/9/03 20:10 46.766 46.4585 45.9825 45.4395 444
10/9/03 20:15 46.471 46.2885 45.7385 45.182 374
Appendix 1 33
August 15, 2005 runoff event on the Babocomari River
Left bank
Stage, recorded in feet

Minutes Computed discharge, ft3/s
PTL1 PTR2 PTL3
0 47.375 47.035 46.332 607
5 47.55 47.159 46.486 664
10 47.499 47.138 46.431 650
15 47.441 47.075 46.381 627
20 47.365 47.013 46.321 602
25 47.569 47.271 46.548 678
30 47.723 47.343 46.685 728
35 47.785 47.465 46.861 746
40 47.818 47.524 46.945 748
45 47.834 47.51 46.891 764
50 47.839 47.471 46.912 759
55 47.824 47.474 46.878 756
60 47.812 47.411 46.85 749
65 47.765 47.409 46.835 737
70 47.728 47.372 46.8 720
75 47.66 47.341 46.752 695
80 47.609 47.228 46.689 668
85 47.567 47.15 46.623 653
90 47.492 47.046 46.52 623
95 47.45 46.916 46.46 600
100 47.406 46.826 46.422 580
105 47.39 46.739 46.351 572
110 47.56 47.242 46.611 662
115 47.856 47.684 46.877 801
120 48.06 47.912 47.064 897
125 48.137 47.988 47.205 918
130 48.133 48.008 47.237 909
135 48.134 48.014 47.278 900
140 48.093 47.969 47.25 879
145 48.025 47.955 47.187 857
150 47.958 47.808 47.105 823
155 47.856 47.661 47.021 770
160 47.846 47.534 46.895 772
165 47.747 47.549 46.823 749
170 47.697 47.415 46.736 723
175 47.629 47.303 46.671 690
180 47.575 47.226 46.608 667
185 47.516 47.174 46.526 648
190 47.459 47.045 46.512 613
195 47.406 46.899 46.488 578
July 27, 2006 runoff event on the Babocomari River
Stage, recorded in feet Discharge, in cfs

Time
PTR1 PTL2 PTR3 PTR4 CSA Discharge
2:15:00 46.726 46.479 45.633 44.333 383
2:20:00 47.664 47.486 46.888 46.356 645
2:25:00 48.164 48.12 47.122 47.202 706
2:30:00 48.398 48.252 47.298 47.334 807
2:35:00 48.399 48.346 47.138 47.258 806
2:40:00 48.459 48.373 47.264 47.379 821
2:45:00 48.675 48.497 47.575 47.381 981
2:50:00 49.023 48.806 47.623 47.478 1,139
2:55:00 49.352 49.146 47.954 47.824 1,311
3:00:00 49.507 49.307 48.203 47.969 1,427
3:05:00 49.663 49.393 48.181 48.132 1,455
3:10:00 49.619 49.305 48.208 48.157 1,423
3:15:00 49.465 49.165 48.287 48.162 1,352
3:20:00 49.301 49.021 48.134 48.128 1,216
3:25:00 49.208 48.927 48.249 47.867 1,281
3:30:00 49.109 48.853 48.002 47.887 1,155
3:35:00 49.078 48.775 48.033 47.8 1,171
3:40:00 48.976 48.724 48.013 47.819 1,103
3:45:00 48.944 48.647 47.958 47.652 1,121
3:50:00 48.963 48.535 47.899 47.664 1,103
3:55:00 48.77 48.404 47.912 47.787 949
4:00:00 48.59 48.21 47.953 47.641 891
4:05:00 48.516 48.056 47.767 47.559 839
4:10:00 48.308 47.881 47.478 47.314 768
4:15:00 48.141 47.75 47.372 47.204 700
4:20:00 48.161 47.711 47.273 47.027 739
4:25:00 48.163 47.746 47.21 47.114 712
4:30:00 48.235 47.847 47.343 47.181 753
4:35:00 48.386 47.997 47.355 47.274 806
4:40:00 48.584 48.166 47.536 47.296 925
4:45:00 48.899 48.392 47.73 47.431 1,088
4:50:00 49.156 48.626 47.767 47.558 1,196
4:55:00 49.363 48.778 47.803 47.89 1,218
5:00:00 49.56 48.966 48.123 47.816 1,435
5:05:00 49.692 49.073 48.169 48.088 1,445
5:10:00 49.749 49.142 48.215 48.257 1,443
5:15:00 49.715 49.212 48.464 48.121 1,558
5:20:00 49.749 49.233 48.375 47.991 1,585
5:25:00 49.771 49.222 48.376 47.787 1,641
5:30:00 49.64 49.21 48.308 48.249 1,423
5:35:00 49.785 49.225 48.293 48.06 1,557
5:40:00 50.072 49.403 48.409 48.058 1,743
5:45:00 50.611 49.775 49.138 48.498 2,224
5:50:00 51.245 50.732 49.866 48.834 2,988
5:55:00 51.755 51.082 50.172 49.742 3,302
6:00:00 52.724 52.546 51.135 49.933 4,749
6:05:00 53.509 53.121 51.53 50.889 5,546
6:10:00 53.678 53.581 52.752 52.018 6,020
6:15:00 54.986 53.877 53.522 52.261 8,481
6:25:00 56.055 55.055 54.226 53.507 10,097
Appendix 2 35
Appendix 2. Input files to the SAC program used in the continuous slope-area
calculations of discharge for five events on the Babocomari river. These files are
templates. The stages are replaced when computing the hydrograph with stages
from the CSA pressure transducers. Documentation of the SAC program can be found
in Fulford (1994).
T1 Babocomari River CSA reach
T2 08/03/2002 event
XS X4 0.0
GR 0.0,48.1 11.8,47.1 18.8,46.0 23.3,45.2 30.3,43.9 37.6,41.6
GR 38.0,41.4 40.8,41.4 43.8,41.1 45.4,41.0 47.0,41.0 47.8,41.7
GR 48.9,42.2 55.3,42.6 58.6,43.0 64.0,44.2 71.8,46.3 78.8,47.2
GR 84.2,47.8 92.5,48.7
N 0.035
HP X4 46.12
XS X3 111
GR 0.0,48.1 3.8,47.4 12.4,46.5 18.8,45.7 30.9,43.7 35.5,43.2
GR 37.5,42.2 37.9,41.5 43.8,41.3 44.5,42.6 48.7,43.7 53.9,44.6
GR 59.6,45.3 62.1,45.4 67.4,47.2 75.5,48.4 79.7,49.9
N 0.035
HP X3 46.06
XS X2 190
GR 0.0,49.4 6.6,48.1 10.4,47.5 15.1,47.1 21.1,46.1 30.1,45.5
GR 33.9,44.8 36.2,43.6 37.2,41.4 47.5,41.8 48.2,42.7 51.5,44.1
GR 55.2,44.7 59.7,45.5 66.9,46.5 70.7,47.2 74.9,48.1 86.2,51.6
GR 92.1,52.5
N 0.035
HP X2 46.78
XS X1 300
GR 0,56.6 6.3,52 8.1,49.6 15.8,48.4 22.1,48 23.5,47.4 30.7,46.6
GR 35.9,45.6 39.7,45.3 43.1,44.8 49.2,44.2 54.4,44 55.8,42.6 58.1,42.8
GR 58.8,44 61.6,44.4 64.5,45.3 67.2,45.6 70.5,45.8 75,46.8 81.2,47.9
GR 84,48.4 96.9,52.8 100.5,54.4
N 0.035
HP X1 47.03
T1 Babocamari River CSA reach

T2 07/25/2003 event
XS X4 0.0
GR 0.0,48.1 11.8,47.1 18.8,46.0 23.3,45.2 30.3,43.9 37.6,41.6
GR 38.0,41.4 40.8,41.4 43.8,41.1 45.4,41.0 47.0,41.0 47.8,41.7
GR 48.9,42.2 55.3,42.6 58.6,43.0 64.0,44.2 71.8,46.3 78.8,47.2
GR 84.2,47.8 92.5,48.7
N 0.035
HP X4 46.12
XS X3 111
GR 0.0,48.1 3.8,47.4 12.4,46.5 18.8,45.7 30.9,43.7 35.5,43.2
GR 37.5,42.2 37.9,41.5 43.8,41.3 44.5,42.6 48.7,43.7 53.9,44.6
GR 59.6,45.3 62.1,45.4 67.4,47.2 75.5,48.4 79.7,49.9
N 0.035
HP X3 46.06
XS X2 190
GR 0.0,49.4 6.6,48.1 10.4,47.5 15.1,47.1 21.1,46.1 30.1,45.5
GR 33.9,44.8 36.2,43.6 37.2,41.4 47.5,41.8 48.2,42.7 51.5,44.1
GR 55.2,44.7 59.7,45.5 66.9,46.5 70.7,47.2 74.9,48.1 86.2,51.6
GR 92.1,52.5
N 0.035
HP X2 46.78
XS X1 300
GR 0,56.6 6.3,52 8.1,49.6 15.8,48.4 22.1,48 23.5,47.4 30.7,46.6
GR 35.9,45.6 39.7,45.3 43.1,44.8 49.2,44.2 54.4,44 55.8,42.6 58.1,42.8
GR 58.8,44 61.6,44.4 64.5,45.3 67.2,45.6 70.5,45.8 75,46.8 81.2,47.9
GR 84,48.4 96.9,52.8 100.5,54.4
N 0.035
HP X1 47.03

T2 10/09/2003 event
XS X4 0.0
GR 0.0,48.1 11.8,47.1 18.8,46.0 23.3,45.2 30.3,43.9 37.6,41.6
GR 38.0,41.4 40.8,41.4 43.8,41.1 45.4,41.0 47.0,41.0 47.8,41.7
GR 48.9,42.2 55.3,42.6 58.6,43.0 64.0,44.2 71.8,46.3 78.8,47.2
GR 84.2,47.8 92.5,48.7
N 0.035
HP X4 46.09
XS X3 111
GR 0.0,48.1 3.8,47.4 12.4,46.5 18.8,45.7 30.9,43.7 35.5,43.2
GR 37.5,42.2 37.9,41.5 43.8,41.3 44.5,42.6 48.7,43.7 53.9,44.6
GR 59.6,45.3 62.1,45.4 67.4,47.2 75.5,48.4 79.7,49.9
N 0.035
HP X3 46.39
XS X2 190
GR 0.0,49.4 6.6,48.1 10.4,47.5 15.1,47.1 21.1,46.1 30.1,45.5
GR 33.9,44.8 36.2,43.6 37.2,41.4 47.5,41.8 48.2,42.7 51.5,44.1
GR 55.2,44.7 59.7,45.5 66.9,46.5 70.7,47.2 74.9,48.1 86.2,51.6
GR 92.1,52.5
N 0.035
HP X2 46.83
XS X1 300
GR 0,56.6 6.3,52 8.1,49.6 15.8,48.4 22.1,48 23.5,47.4 30.7,46.6
GR 35.9,45.6 39.7,45.3 43.1,44.8 49.2,44.2 54.4,44 55.8,42.6 58.1,42.8
GR 58.8,44 61.6,44.4 64.5,45.3 67.2,45.6 70.5,45.8 75,46.8 81.2,47.9
GR 84,48.4 96.9,52.8 100.5,54.4
N 0.035
HP X1 47.18

T2 8/15/2005 event
XS X4 0.0
GR 006.00,055.19 014.00,049.78 041.80,047.10 048.80,046.00
GR 053.30,045.20 060.30,043.90 067.60,041.60 068.00,041.40
GR 070.80,041.40 073.80,041.10 075.40,041.00 077.00,041.00
GR 077.80,041.70 078.90,042.20 085.30,042.60 088.60,043.00
GR 094.00,044.20 101.80,046.30 108.80,047.20 114.20,047.80
GR 122.50,048.70 124.00,048.99 130.00,050.33 136.00,055.06
N 0.035
HP X4 44.333
XS X3 115
GR 003.00,055.79 019.80,048.30 031.50,046.60 035.70,046.30
GR 038.70,045.80 042.20,045.20 047.20,044.50 050.50,043.90
GR 053.30,043.50 055.30,043.70 056.20,043.10 059.50,041.00
GR 061.10,040.90 063.10,041.00 064.50,041.70 065.40,043.00
GR 066.80,043.60 070.90,043.90 074.50,044.60 075.80,044.50
GR 077.10,044.70 078.40,045.00 081.90,045.40 083.10,046.10
GR 086.60,046.80 091.00,047.60 101.00,050.28 106.10,050.80
GR 120.00,052.69 138.00,055.30
N 0.035
HP X3 45.633
XS X2 188
GR 001.70,055.50 003.00,054.83 006.00,053.06 012.60,050.62
GR 017.20,049.42 022.00,048.97 028.50,048.16 043.50,045.77
GR 044.00,046.35 052.00,045.57 056.50,043.97 056.50,041.47
GR 066.00,041.77 070.00,042.07 070.50,043.07 077.00,045.17
GR 077.50,045.58 085.00,046.27 095.00,048.09 098.00,048.82
GR 098.00,048.82 101.00,049.75 107.70,052.00 115.80,053.37
GR 126.40,054.23 136.20,055.41 139.00,056.71
N 0.035
HP X2 46.479
XS X1 301
GR 004.00,058.65 019.00,050.48 027.60,049.00 031.10,048.00
GR 034.30,047.70 036.00,047.90 037.50,047.50 038.90,047.30
GR 041.40,046.80 042.20,046.80 044.80,046.50 049.90,045.70
GR 055.00,045.27 057.30,044.80 061.90,044.60 067.90,044.10
GR 068.40,042.80 069.60,042.70 070.10,043.10 070.70,042.80
GR 071.00,042.60 071.40,042.70 071.80,043.80 074.80,044.50
GR 078.20,045.40 079.50,045.50 082.00,045.60 082.90,045.50
GR 084.30,045.80 088.00,046.70 091.70,047.20 098.70,048.60
GR 099.00,048.80 107.00,052.16 116.00,054.82 128.00,056.57
N 0.035
HP X1 46.726
Appendix 2 37
T1 Babocomari River CSA reach

T2 7/27/2006 event
XS X4 0.0
GR 006.00,055.19 014.00,049.78 041.80,047.10 048.80,046.00
GR 053.30,045.20 060.30,043.90 067.60,041.60 068.00,041.40
GR 070.80,041.40 073.80,041.10 075.40,041.00 077.00,041.00
GR 077.80,041.70 078.90,042.20 085.30,042.60 088.60,043.00
GR 094.00,044.20 101.80,046.30 108.80,047.20 114.20,047.80
GR 122.50,048.70 124.00,048.99 130.00,050.33 136.00,055.06
N 0.040
HP X4 44.333
XS X3 115
GR 003.00,055.79 019.80,048.30 031.50,046.60 035.70,046.30
GR 038.70,045.80 042.20,045.20 047.20,044.50 050.50,043.90
GR 053.30,043.50 055.30,043.70 056.20,043.10 059.50,041.00
GR 061.10,040.90 063.10,041.00 064.50,041.70 065.40,043.00
GR 066.80,043.60 070.90,043.90 074.50,044.60 075.80,044.50
GR 077.10,044.70 078.40,045.00 081.90,045.40 083.10,046.10
GR 086.60,046.80 091.00,047.60 101.00,050.28 106.10,050.80
GR 120.00,052.69 138.00,055.30
N 0.040
HP X3 45.633
XS X2 188
GR 001.70,055.50 003.00,054.83 006.00,053.06 012.60,050.62
GR 017.20,049.42 022.00,048.97 028.50,048.16 043.50,045.77
GR 044.00,046.35 052.00,045.57 056.50,043.97 056.50,041.47
GR 066.00,041.77 070.00,042.07 070.50,043.07 077.00,045.17
GR 077.50,045.58 085.00,046.27 095.00,048.09 098.00,048.82
GR 098.00,048.82 101.00,049.75 107.70,052.00 115.80,053.37
GR 126.40,054.23 136.20,055.41 139.00,056.71
N 0.040
HP X2 46.479
XS X1 301
GR 004.00,058.65 019.00,050.48 027.60,049.00 031.10,048.00
GR 034.30,047.70 036.00,047.90 037.50,047.50 038.90,047.30
GR 041.40,046.80 042.20,046.80 044.80,046.50 049.90,045.70
GR 055.00,045.27 057.30,044.80 061.90,044.60 067.90,044.10
GR 068.40,042.80 069.60,042.70 070.10,043.10 070.70,042.80
GR 071.00,042.60 071.40,042.70 071.80,043.80 074.80,044.50
GR 078.20,045.40 079.50,045.50 082.00,045.60 082.90,045.50
GR 084.30,045.80 088.00,046.70 091.70,047.20 098.70,048.60
GR 099.00,048.80 107.00,052.16 116.00,054.82 128.00,056.57
N 0.040
HP X1 46.726
This page intentionally left blank

Produced in the Western Region, Menlo Park, California
Manuscript approved for publication, August 9, 2010
Layout and design by Stephen L. Scott
Smith, others—The Continuous Slope-Area Method for Computing Event Hydrographs—Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5241

The Continuous Slope-Area Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Continuous Slope-Area Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Continuous Slope-Area Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Continuous Slope-Area Method for Computing Event

Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5241

U.S. Department of the Interior

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5241

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010

This report and any updates to it are available online at:

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

foot 0.3048 meter (m)

Discharge Measurements Using the Q

The Continuous Slope-Area Method Site Selection

ERROR IN REACH DROP, IN FEET

SECOND)/(CUBIC FEET PER SECOND)

110°30'0"W 110°15'0"W 110°0'0"W

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

Figure 6. Map showing the study area on the Babocomari River.

Table 1. Elevation difference between crest-stage and pressure-transducer datums (dry)

Reach Right-bank elevation Left-bank elevation

X1-X2 0.52 0.92

44.00 Right bank CSA pin elevation PTR4

10,000 9,600 cfs

2,000 900 cfs

PTR1 47.33 47.30 at 19:55

PTL1 47.54 47.49 at 19:55

PTR2 47.17 47.00 at 19:55

PTL2 47.22 47.10 at 19:50

PTR3 46.53 46.38 at 19:50

PTL3 46.71 46.63 at 19:55

PTR4 46.33 46.34 at 19:55

44.50 PTL1 PTL2 PTL3 PTL4

ELEVATION ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM, IN FEET Cross section 1

100 Slope Area Calculation

Table 4. Water-surface elevations from surveyed high-water marks and pressure

Pressure transducer High-water mark found Peak recorded by the

PTR1 56.57 56.06

PTL1 N/A 55.60

PTR2 56.71 N/A

PTL2 N/A 55.27

PTR3 55.30 55.08

PTL3 55.79 56.95

PTR4 55.06 54.47

PTL4 55.19 N/A

Reach Fall (ft) Discharge (ft3/s)

X3-X4 0.60 12,044

Reach Fall (ft) Discharge (ft3/s)

X2-X3 1.41 12,409

X3-X4 0.24 7,818

X1-X3 1.27 10,791

X2-X4 1.65 11,230

X1-X4 1.51 10,089

Reach Fall (ft) Discharge (ft3/s)

X1-X2 0.33 8,466

Reach Fall (ft) Discharge (ft 3/s)

Stage hydrograph PTR3

1 10 100 1,000 10,000

August 3, 2002 runoff event on the Babocomari River

Date and Average stage, in feet

July 25, 2003 runoff event on the Babocomari River

Right bank Left bank