Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Robert D. Jarrett

Publications and source records attributed to Robert D. Jarrett.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2013

Web-based flood database for Colorado, water years 1867 through 2011

In order to provide a centralized repository of flood information for the State of Colorado, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation, created a Web-based geodatabase for flood information from water years 1867 through 2011 and data for paleofloods occurring in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. The geodatabase was created using the Environmental Systems Research Institute ArcGIS JavaScript Application Programing Interface 3.2. The database can be accessed at http://cwscpublic2.cr.usgs.gov/projects/coflood/COFloodMap.html. Data on 6,767 flood events at 1,597 individual sites throughout Colorado were compiled to generate the flood database. The data sources of flood information are indirect discharge measurements that were stored in U.S. Geological Survey offices (water years 1867–2011), flood data from indirect discharge measurements referenced in U.S. Geological Survey reports (water years 1884–2011), paleoflood studies from six peer-reviewed journal articles (data on events occurring in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years), and the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System peak-discharge database (water years 1883–2010). A number of tests were performed on the flood database to ensure the quality of the data. The Web interface was programmed using the Environmental Systems Research Institute ArcGIS JavaScript Application Programing Interface 3.2, which allows for display, query, georeference, and export of the data in the flood database. The data fields in the flood database used to search and filter the database include hydrologic unit code, U.S. Geological Survey station number, site name, county, drainage area, elevation, data source, date of flood, peak discharge, and field method used to determine discharge. Additional data fields can be viewed and exported, but the data fields described above are the only ones that can be used for queries.

Colorado↗
USGS2008

An evaluation of selected extraordinary floods in the United States reported by the U.S. Geological Survey and implications for future advancement of flood science

Thirty flood peak discharges determine the envelope curve of maximum floods documented in the United States by the U.S. Geological Survey. These floods occurred from 1927 to 1978 and are extraordinary not just in their magnitude, but in their hydraulic and geomorphic characteristics. The reliability of the computed discharge of these extraordinary floods was reviewed and evaluated using current (2007) best practices. Of the 30 flood peak discharges investigated, only 7 were measured at daily streamflow-gaging stations that existed when the flood occurred, and 23 were measured at miscellaneous (ungaged) sites. Methods used to measure these 30 extraordinary flood peak discharges consisted of 21 slope-area measurements, 2 direct current-meter measurements, 1 culvert measurement, 1 rating-curve extension, and 1 interpolation and rating-curve extension. The remaining four peak discharges were measured using combinations of culvert, slope-area, flow-over-road, and contracted-opening measurements. The method of peak discharge determination for one flood is unknown. Changes to peak discharge or rating are recommended for 20 of the 30 flood peak discharges that were evaluated. Nine floods retained published peak discharges, but their ratings were downgraded. For two floods, both peak discharge and rating were corrected and revised. Peak discharges for five floods that are subject to significant uncertainty due to complex field and hydraulic conditions, were re-rated as estimates. This study resulted in 5 of the 30 peak discharges having revised values greater than about 10 percent different from the original published values. Peak discharges were smaller for three floods (North Fork Hubbard Creek, Texas; El Rancho Arroyo, New Mexico; South Fork Wailua River, Hawaii), and two peak discharges were revised upward (Lahontan Reservoir tributary, Nevada; Bronco Creek, Arizona). Two peak discharges were indeterminate because they were concluded to have been debris flows with peak discharges that were estimated by an inappropriate method (slope-area) (Big Creek near Waynesville, North Carolina; Day Creek near Etiwanda, California). Original field notes and records could not be found for three of the floods, however, some data (copies of original materials, records of reviews) were available for two of these floods. A rating was assigned to each of seven peak discharges that had no rating. Errors identified in the reviews include misidentified flow processes, incorrect drainage areas for very small basins, incorrect latitude and longitude, improper field methods, arithmetic mistakes in hand calculations, omission of measured high flows when developing rating curves, and typographical errors. Common problems include use of two-section slope-area measurements, poor site selection, uncertainties in Manning’s n -values, inadequate review, lost data files, and insufficient and inadequately described high-water marks. These floods also highlight the extreme difficulty in making indirect discharge measurements following extraordinary floods. Significantly, none of the indirect measurements are rated better than fair, which indicates the need to improve methodology to estimate peak discharge. Highly unsteady flow and resulting transient hydraulic phenomena, two-dimensional flow patterns, debris flows at streamflow-gaging stations, and the possibility of disconnected flow surfaces are examples of unresolved problems not well handled by current indirect discharge methodology. On the basis of a comprehensive review of 50,000 annual peak discharges and miscellaneous floods in California, problems with individual flood peak discharges would be expected to require a revision of discharge or rating curves at a rate no greater than about 0.10 percent of all floods. Many extraordinary floods create complex flow patterns and processes that cannot be adequately documented with quasi-steady, uniform one-dimensional analyses. These floods are most accurately described by multidimensional flow analysis. Within the U.S. Geological Survey, new approaches are needed to collect more accurate data for floods, particularly extraordinary floods. In recent years, significant progress has been made in instrumentation for making direct discharge measurements. During this same period, very little has been accomplished in advancing methods to improve indirect discharge measurements. Greater use of paleoflood hydrology could fill many shortcomings of U.S. Geological Survey flood science today, such as enhanced knowledge of flood frequency. Additional links among flood runoff, storm structure, and storm motion would provide more insight to flood hazards. Significant improvement in understanding flood processes and characteristics could be gained from linking radar rainfall estimation and hydrologic modeling. Additionally, more could be done to provide real-time flood-hazard warnings with linked rainfall/runoff and flow models. Several important recommendations are made to improve the flood-documentation capability of the U.S. Geological Survey. When very large discharges are measured by current meter or hydroacoustics, water-surface slope should be measured as well. This measurement would allow validation of roughness values that can significantly extend the discharge range of verified Manning’s n for 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional flow analyses. At least two of the floods investigated may have had flow so unstable that large waves affected the interpretation of high-water marks. Instability criteria should be considered for hydraulic analysis of large flows in high-gradient, smooth channels. The U.S. Geological Survey needs to modernize its toolbox of field and office practices for making future indirect discharge measurements. These practices could include, first and foremost, a new peak-flow file database that allows greater description and interpretation of flow events, such as stability criteria in high-gradient, smooth channels, debris flow documentation, and details of flood genesis (hurricane, snowmelt, rain-on-snow, dam failure, and the like). Other modernized practices could include (a) establishment of calibrated stream reaches in chronic flash flood basins to expedite indirect computation of flow; (b) development of process-based theoretical rating curves for streamflow-gaging stations; (c) adoption of step-backwater models as the standard surface-water modeling tool for U.S. Geological Survey field offices; (d) development and support for multidimensional flow models capable of describing flood characteristics in complex terrain and high-gradient channels; (e) greater use of the critical-depth method in appropriate locations; (f) deployment of non-contact instruments to directly measure large floods, rather than attempting to reconstruct them; (g) increased use of paleoflood hydrology; and (h) assurance that future collection of hydro-climatic data meets the needs of more robust watershed models.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2006

1976 Big Thompson flood, Colorado — Thirty years later

In the early evening of Saturday, July 31, 1976, a large stationary thunderstorm released as much as 7.5 inches of rainfall in about an hour (about 12 inches in a few hours) in the middle reaches of the Big Thompson River Basin and to a lesser extent in parts of the Cache la Poudre River Basin. In steep mountain terrain with thin or no soil, this large amount of rainfall in such a short period of time produced a flash flood that caught residents and tourists by surprise. The sudden flood that churned down the narrow Big Thompson Canyon scoured the river channel that night, caused over $35 million in damages (1977 dollars) to 418 homes and businesses, many mobile homes, 438 automobiles, numerous bridges, paved and unpaved roads, power and telephone lines, and many other structures. The tragedy claimed the lives of 144 people, including two law enforcement officers trying to evacuate people in danger, and there were 250 reported injuries. Scores of other people narrowly escaped with their lives. More than 800 people were evacuated by helicopter the following morning. This fact sheet presents a summary of the hydrologic conditions of the 1976 flood, describes some of the advances in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flood science as a consequence of this disaster, and provides a reminder that extreme floods like the 1976 Big Thompson flood have occurred in other locations in Colorado in the past and will occur again.

Colorado↗
USGS2003

Comparisons of two moments‐based estimators that utilize historical and paleoflood data for the log Pearson type III distribution

The expected moments algorithm (EMA) [ Cohn et al. , 1997 ] and the Bulletin 17B [ Interagency Committee on Water Data , 1982 ] historical weighting procedure (B17H) for the log Pearson type III distribution are compared by Monte Carlo computer simulation for cases in which historical and/or paleoflood data are available. The relative performance of the estimators was explored for three cases: fixed‐threshold exceedances, a fixed number of large floods, and floods generated from a different parent distribution. EMA can effectively incorporate four types of historical and paleoflood data: floods where the discharge is explicitly known, unknown discharges below a single threshold, floods with unknown discharge that exceed some level, and floods with discharges described in a range. The B17H estimator can utilize only the first two types of historical information. Including historical/paleoflood data in the simulation experiments significantly improved the quantile estimates in terms of mean square error and bias relative to using gage data alone. EMA performed significantly better than B17H in nearly all cases considered. B17H performed as well as EMA for estimating X 100 in some limited fixed‐threshold exceedance cases. EMA performed comparatively much better in other fixed‐threshold situations, for the single large flood case, and in cases when estimating extreme floods equal to or greater than X 500 . B17H did not fully utilize historical information when the historical period exceeded 200 years. Robustness studies using GEV‐simulated data confirmed that EMA performed better than B17H. Overall, EMA is preferred to B17H when historical and paleoflood data are available for flood frequency analysis.

Water Resources Research↗
USGS2000

Determination of hydrologic pathways during snowmelt for alpine/subalpine basins, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

Alpine/subalpine ecosystems in Rocky Mountain National Park may be sensitive to atmospherically derived acidic deposition. Two‐ and three‐component hydrograph separation analyses and correlation analyses were performed for six basins to provide insight into streamflow generation during snowmelt and to assess basin sensitivity to acidic deposition. Three‐component hydrograph separation results for five basins showed that streamflow contained from 42 to 57% direct snowmelt runoff, 37 to 54% subsurface water, and 4 to 13% direct rain runoff for the May through October 1994 study period. Subsurface contributions were 89% of total flow for the sixth basin. The reliability of hydrograph separation model assumptions was explored. Subsurface flow was positively correlated with the amount of surficial material in a basin and was negatively correlated with basin slope. Basins with extensive surficial material and shallow slopes are less susceptible to ecosystem changes due to acidic deposition than basins with less surficial material and steeper slopes. This study was initiated to expand the intensive hydrologic research that has been conducted in Loch Vale basin to a more regional scale.

Water Resources Research↗
USGS2000

Regional interdisciplinary paleoflood approach to assess extreme flood potential

In the past decade, there has been a growing interest of dam safety officials to incorporate a risk‐based analysis for design‐flood hydrology. Extreme or rare floods, with probabilities in the range of about 10 −3 to 10 −7 chance of occurrence per year, are of continuing interest to the hydrologic and engineering communities for purposes of planning and design of structures such as dams [ National Research Council , 1988]. The National Research Council stresses that as much information as possible about floods needs to be used for evaluation of the risk and consequences of any decision. A regional interdisciplinary paleoflood approach was developed to assist dam safety officials and floodplain managers in their assessments of the risk of large floods. The interdisciplinary components included documenting maximum paleofloods and a regional analyses of contemporary extreme rainfall and flood data to complement a site‐specific probable maximum precipitation study [ Tomlinson and Solak , 1997]. The cost‐effective approach, which can be used in many other hydrometeorologic settings, was applied to Elkhead Reservoir in Elkhead Creek (531 km 2 ) in northwestern Colorado; the regional study area was 10,900 km 2 . Paleoflood data using bouldery flood deposits and noninundation surfaces for 88 streams were used to document maximum flood discharges that have occurred during the Holocene. Several relative dating methods were used to determine the age of paleoflood deposits and noninundation surfaces. No evidence of substantial flooding was found in the study area. The maximum paleoflood of 135 m 3 s −1 for Elkhead Creek is about 13% of the site‐specific probable maximum flood of 1020 m 3 s −1 . Flood‐frequency relations using the expected moments algorithm, which better incorporates paleoflood data, were developed to assess the risk of extreme floods. Envelope curves encompassing maximum rainfall (181 sites) and floods (218 sites) were developed for northwestern Colorado to help define maximum contemporary and Holocene flooding in Elkhead Creek and in a regional frequency context. Study results for Elkhead Reservoir were accepted by the Colorado State Engineer for dam safety certification.

Water Resources Research↗
USGS1998

Methodology and implications of maximum paleodischarge estimates for mountain channels, upper Animas River basin, Colorado, U.S.A.

Historical and geologic records may be used to enhance magnitude estimates for extreme floods along mountain channels, as demonstrated in this study from the San Juan Mountains of Colorado. Historical photographs and local newspaper accounts from the October 1911 flood indicate the likely extent of flooding and damage. A checklist designed to organize and numerically score evidence of flooding was used in 15 field reconnaissance surveys in the upper Animas River valley of southwestern Colorado. Step-backwater flow modeling estimated the discharges necessary to create longitudinal flood bars observed at 6 additional field sites. According to these analyses, maximum unit discharge peaks at approximately 1.3 m3 s-1 km-2 around 2200 m elevation, with decreased unit discharges at both higher and lower elevations. These results (1) are consistent with Jarrett's (1987, 1990, 1993) maximum 2300-m elevation limit for flash-flooding in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, and (2) suggest that current Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) estimates based on a 24-h rainfall of 30 cm at elevations above 2700 m are unrealistically large. The methodology used for this study should be readily applicable to other mountain regions where systematic streamflow records are of short duration or nonexistent.

Colorado↗
USGS1994

Historic-flood evaluation and research needs in mountainous areas

An evaluation of historic flood estimates in mountainous areas in Colorado was made to assess their accuracy. The purpose of this evaluation is to enhance awareness of the need to assess the accuracy of historic flood peaks, particularly floods of record, because they are such a critical factor in flood-plain management, design of hydraulic structures in flood plains, and related environmental studies. Research needs based on a proposed river-system-process approach are suggested. A critical need exists for interdisciplinary documentation of extreme-flood processes, particularly to improve methods to directly measure extreme floods and quantify total energy losses. Such research will benefit the public through improved engineering designs and environmental investigations.

Conference Paper↗
USGS1993

Differentiation of debris-flow and flash-flood deposits: implications for paleoflood investigations

Debris flows and flash floods are common geomorphic processes in the Colorado Rocky Mountain Front Range and foothills. Usually, debris flows and flash floods are associated with excess summer rainfall or snowmelt, in areas were unconsolidated surficial deposits are relatively thick and slopes are steep. In the Front Range and foothills, flash flooding is limited to areas below about 2300m whereas, debris flow activity is common throughout the foothill and alpine zones and is not necessarily elevation limited. Because flash floods and debris flows transport large quantities of bouldery sediment, the resulting deposits appear somewhat similar even though such deposits were produced by different processes. Discharge estimates based on debris-flow deposits interpreted as flash-flood deposits have large errors because techniques for discharge retrodiction were developed for water floods with negligible sediment concentrations. Criteria for differentiating between debris-flow and flash-flood deposits are most useful for deposits that are fresh and well-exposed. However, with the passage of time, both debris-flow and flash-flood deposits become modified by the combined effects of weathering, colluviation, changes in surface morphology, and in some instances removal of interstitial sediment. As a result, some of the physical characteristics of the deposits become more alike. Criteria especially applicable to older deposits are needed. We differentiate flash-flood from debris-flow and other deposits using clast fabric measurements and other morphologic and sedimentologic techniques (e.g., deposit morphology, clast lithology, particle size and shape, geomorphic setting).

Conference Paper↗