Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

G. W. Hess

Publications and source records attributed to G. W. Hess.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2004

Water Resources Data for Oregon, Water Year 2003

The annual Oregon hydrologic data report is one of a series of annual reports that document hydrologic data gathered from the U.S. Geological Survey's surface- and ground-water data-collection networks in each State, Puerto Rico, and the Trust Territories. These records of streamflow, ground-water levels, and quality of water provide the hydrologic information needed by State, local and Federal agencies, and the private sector for developing and managing our Nation's land and water resources. This report includes records on both surface and ground water in Oregon and contains discharge records for 199 stream-gaging stations, 25 partial-record or miscellaneous streamflow stations, and 8 crest-stage partial-record streamflow stations; stage-only records for 6 gaging stations; stage and content records for 26 lakes and reservoirs; and water-quality records collected at 127 streamflow-gaging stations, 2 atmospheric deposition stations, and 11 ground-water sites.

Water Data Report↗
USGS2003

Water Resources Data for Oregon, Water Year 2002

The annual Oregon hydrologic data report is one of a series of annual reports that document hydrologic data gathered from the U.S. Geological Survey's surface- and ground-water data-collection networks in each State, Puerto Rico, and the Trust Territories. These records of streamflow, ground-water levels, and quality of water provide the hydrologic information needed by State, local and Federal agencies, and the private sector for developing and managing our Nation's land and water resources. This report includes records on both surface and ground water in the State and contains discharge records for 181 stream-gaging stations, 47 partial-record or miscellaneous streamflow stations, and 8 crest-stage partial-record streamflow stations; stage-only records for 6 gaging stations; stage and content records for 26 lakes and reservoirs; and water-quality records for 127 streamflow-gaging stations, 2 atmospheric deposition stations, and 11 ground-water sites.

Water Data Report↗
USGS1996

Progress report on daily flow-routing simulation for the Carson River, California and Nevada

A physically based flow-routing model using Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF) was constructed for modeling streamflow in the Carson River at daily time intervals as part of the Truckee-Carson Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Daily streamflow data for water years 1978-92 for the mainstem river, tributaries, and irrigation ditches from the East Fork Carson River near Markleeville and West Fork Carson River at Woodfords down to the mainstem Carson River at Fort Churchill upstream from Lahontan Reservoir were obtained from several agencies and were compiled into a comprehensive data base. No previous physically based flow-routing model of the Carson River has incorporated multi-agency streamflow data into a single data base and simulated flow at a daily time interval. Where streamflow data were unavailable or incomplete, hydrologic techniques were used to estimate some flows. For modeling purposes, the Carson River was divided into six segments, which correspond to those used in the Alpine Decree that governs water rights along the river. Hydraulic characteristics were defined for 48 individual stream reaches based on cross-sectional survey data obtained from field surveys and previous studies. Simulation results from the model were compared with available observed and estimated streamflow data. Model testing demonstrated that hydraulic characteristics of the Carson River are adequately represented in the models for a range of flow regimes. Differences between simulated and observed streamflow result mostly from inadequate data characterizing inflow and outflow from the river. Because irrigation return flows are largely unknown, irrigation return flow percentages were used as a calibration parameter to minimize differences between observed and simulated streamflows. Observed and simulated streamflow were compared for daily periods for the full modeled length of the Carson River and for two major subreaches modeled with more detailed input data. Hydrographs and statistics presented in this report describe these differences. A sensitivity analysis of four estimated components of the hydrologic system evaluated which components were significant in the model. Estimated ungaged tributary streamflow is not a significant component of the model during low runoff, but is significant during high runoff. The sensitivity analysis indicates that changes in the estimated irrigation diversion and estimated return flow creates a noticeable change in the statistics. The modeling for this study is preliminary. Results of the model are constrained by current availability and accuracy of observed hydrologic data. Several inflows and outflows of the Carson River are not described by time-series data and therefore are not represented in the model.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1996

Techniques for estimating monthly mean streamflow at gaged sites and monthly streamflow duration characteristics at ungaged sites in central Nevada

Techniques for estimating monthly mean streamflow at gaged sites and monthly streamflow duration characteristics at ungaged sites in central Nevada were developed using streamflow records at six gaged sites and basin physical and climatic characteristics. Streamflow data at gaged sites were related by regression techniques to concurrent flows at nearby gaging stations so that monthly mean streamflows for periods of missing or no record can be estimated for gaged sites in central Nevada. The standard error of estimate for relations at these sites ranged from 12 to 196 percent. Also, monthly streamflow data for selected percent exceedence levels were used in regression analyses with basin and climatic variables to determine relations for ungaged basins for annual and monthly percent exceedence levels. Analyses indicate that the drainage area and percent of drainage area at altitudes greater than 10,000 feet are the most significant variables. For the annual percent exceedence, the standard error of estimate of the relations for ungaged sites ranged from 51 to 96 percent and standard error of prediction for ungaged sites ranged from 96 to 249 percent. For the monthly percent exceedence values, the standard error of estimate of the relations ranged from 31 to 168 percent, and the standard error of prediction ranged from 115 to 3,124 percent. Reliability and limitations of the estimating methods are described.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1994

Effects of urban flood-detention reservoirs on peak discharges in Gwinnett County, Georgia

The effects of flood-detention reservoirs on peak discharges along downstream reaches in six urban drainage basins in Gwinnett County, Georgia, were studied during 1986-93 using the U.S. Geological Survey's Distributed Routing Rainfall-Runoff Model (DR3M). Short-term rainfall-runoff data were collected at selected stations in six urban drainage basins in Gwinnett County. The basins range in size from 0.10 to 0.37 square miles and contain from 15- to 35- percent impervious areas. Each basin contains from two to six flood-detention reservoirs. The DR3M was calibrated using short-term rainfall-runoff data collected (1986-92) at each station. The model then was used to simulate long-term (1898-1980) peak discharges for these stations for conditions representing various amounts of detention ranging from the existing condition with all flood-detention reservoirs in place to the natural condition with no reservoirs. Flood-frequency relations were developed from the simulated annual peak discharges for each of these conditions by fitting the logarithms of the annual peak discharge data to a Pearson type III distribution curve. The effect of each flood-detention reservoir on peak discharges downstream was determined by comparison of peak discharges simulated with and without the flood-detention reservoirs. The cumulative effect of all flood-detention reservoirs in a basin on peak discharges downstream was determined by comparison of peak discharges for a flood with a given recurrence interval simulated with and without the reservoirs. Results of these comparisons indicate that removal of an individual flood-detention reservoir during simulations changes peak discharges from - 1 to 24 percent for the 2-year recurrence interval, from - 1 to 27 percent for the 10-year recurrence interval, and from -2 to 31 percent for the 100-year recurrence interval. The cumulative effect of removing all of the reservoirs from each of the six basins during simulation increases peak discharges from 1 to 38 percent for the 2-year recurrence interval, from 1 to 37 percent for the l O-year recurrence interval, and from 3 to 31 percent for the 100-year recurrence interval. In this study of six basins, several factors influenced the effect of flood-detention reservoirs on peak discharges downstream. The contributing drainage area, the maximum storage capacity, the outflow-structure capacity, and the elevation-to-storage relation of the flood-detention reservoir affected peak discharges in several basins. The location in the drainage basin and number of flood-detention reservoirs affected peak discharges in some basins.

Georgia↗
USGS1994

Effects of urban flood-detention reservoirs on peak discharges and flood frequencies, and simulation of flood-detention reservoir outflow hydrographs in two watersheds in Albany, Georgia

This report describes the effects of flood-detention reservoirs on downstream peak discharges of two urban tributaries to Kinchafoonee Creek (tributaries 1 and 2) in Albany, Georgia and presents simulated flood-detention reservoir outflow hydrographs. Rainfall-runoff data were collected for six years at two stations in these two urban watersheds. Tributary number 1 basin has a drainage area of 0.12 square miles, contains 23.8 percent impervious area, and contains two detention reservoirs. Tributary number 2 basin has a drainage area of 0.09 square miles, contains 12.9 percent impervious area, and has one detention reservoir. The Distributed Routing Rainfall-Runoff Model (DR3M) was calibrated using rainfall-runoff data collected during 1987- 92 at each station. DR3M was then used to simulate long-term (1906-33, 1941-73) peak discharges for these stations for conditions ranging from the existing condition with all detention reservoirs in place to the condition of no detention reservoirs. Flood-frequency relations based on the long-term peak discharges were developed for each simulation by fitting the logarithms of the annual peak discharge data to a Pearson type III distribution curve. The effect of detention reservoirs on peak discharge data to a Pearson type III distribution curve. The effect of detention reservoirs on peak discharges was determined by comparison of simulated flood-frequency peak discharges for conditions with and without the detention reservoirs. The comparisons indicated that the removal of flood-detention reservoirs from the tributary number 1 basin would increase the 10-, 50-, and 100-year peak discharges by 164 to 204 percent. Removal of the reservoir from tributary number 2 basin would increase these discharges by about 145 percent.

Georgia↗