Search USGSSearch

USGS · ofr5627

Relationship of sediment discharge to streamflow

Abstract

The relationship between rate of sediment discharge and rate of water discharge at a cross section of a stream is frequently expressed by an average curve. This curve is the sediment rating curve. It has been widely used in the computation of average sediment discharge from water discharge for periods when sediment samples were not collected. This report discusses primarily the applications of sediment rating curves for periods during which at least occasional sediment samples were collected. Because sediment rating curves are of many kinds, the selection of the correct kind for each use is important. Each curve should be carefully prepared. In particular, the correct dependent variable must be used or the slope of the sediment rating curve may be incorrect for computing sediment discharges. Sediment rating curves and their applications were studied for the following gaging stations: 1. Niobrara River near Cody, Nebr. 2. Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Ariz. 3. Rio Grande at San Martial, N. Mex. 4. Rio Puerto near Bernardo, N. Mex. 5. White River near Kadoka, S. Dak. 6. Sandusky River near Fremont, Ohio Except for the Sandusky River and the Rio Puerco, which transport mostly fine sediment, one instantaneous sediment rating curve was prepared for the discharge of suspended sands, at each station, and another for the discharge of sediment finer than 0.082 millimeter. Each curve was studied separately, and by trial-end-error multiple correlation some of the factors that cause scatter from the sediment rating curves were determined. Average velocity at the cross section, Water temperature, and erratic fluctuations in concentration seemed to be the three major factors that caused departures from the sediment rating curves for suspended sands. The concentration of suspended sands varied with about the 2.8 power of the mean velocity for the four sediment, rating curves for suspended sands. The effect of water temperature was not so consistent as that of velocity and theoretically should vary considerably with differences in the size composition of the suspended sands. Scatter from the sediment rating curves for sediments finer than 0.082 millimeter seemed to be caused by changes in supply of these sediments. Some of the scatter could be explained by seasonal variations, by a pattern of change in concentration of fine sediment following a rise, or by source of the runoff as indicated by the measured relative flows of certain tributaries. Daily or instantaneous sediment rating curves adjusted for factors that account for some of the scatter from an average curve often can be used to compute approximate daily, monthly, and annual sediment discharges. Accuracy of the computed sediment discharges should be better than average for streams that transport mostly sands rather than fine sediments and for some ephemeral or intermittent streams, such as Rio Puerco, in semiarid regions. Accuracy of computed sediment discharges can be much improved for many streams by shifting the sediment rating curve on the basis of 2 or 4 measurements of sediment discharge per month. Of 26 annual sediment discharges that were computed by shifting sediment rating curves to either 2 or 4 measured sediment discharges per month, 18 were within I0 percent of the annual-sediment discharges that were computed on the basis of a daily sampling program. Monthly and daily sediment discharges computed from daily or instantaneous sediment rating curves, either shifted or unshifted, were less accurate than similarly computed annual sediment discharges. Even so, the difference in cost between occasional sediment samples and daily samples is so great that the added accuracy from daily sampling may not Justify the added cost. Monthly and annual sediment-rating curves can be applied simply, with adjustments if required, to compute monthly and annual sediment discharges with reasonably good accuracy for gaging stations like the Rio Puerco near Bernardo,

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B. R. Colby. 1956. Relationship of sediment discharge to streamflow. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr5627

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona