USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

John E. Costa

Publications and source records attributed to John E. Costa.

17 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2011

U.S. stream flow measurement and data dissemination improve

Stream flow information is essential for many important uses across a broad range of scales, including global water balances, engineering design, flood forecasting, reservoir operations, navigation, water supply, recreation, and environmental management. Growing populations and competing priorities for water, including preservation and restoration of aquatic habitat, are spurring demand for more accurate, timely, and accessible water data.To be most useful, stream flow information must be collected in a standardized manner, with a known accuracy, and for a long and continuous time period.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2011

A history of paleoflood hydrology in the United States

The origins of paleoflood hydrology in the United States can be traced back to the beginning of the 19th century, when windgaps and watergaps in the Applachians were believed to have been eroded by extraordinary floods as large lakes that were ponded behind the ridges rapidly drained. Sediment evidence for extraordinary floods was evoked several decades later when glacial sediments in New England were interpreted as deposits from the great Biblical deluge, and estimates of the depth and velocity of the great flood were attempted. The popularization of the glacial origins of drift by Agassiz by 1840 resulted in strong beliefs in uniformitarianism and waning interests in paleoflood investigations. The documentation of the origins of the channeled scablands in eastern Washington by catastrophic glacial outbreak floods, begun by Bretz in the early 1920s, led to renewed interest in paleoflood hydrology. Subsequent efforts to reconstruct hydraulic variables of past floods used conventional open channel flow equations applied to other enormous Pleistocene floods. The elevation of sediments was used as a paleostage estimator in the 1880s, and botanical techniques for estimating paleoflood frequency and magnitude were well documented by the mid-1960s. Since 1970, an exponential expansion has occurred in the recognition and use of paleoflood hydrology in the United States.

Eos, Earth and Space Science News↗
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↗
USGS2004

Spatial distribution of the largest rainfall‐runoff floods from basins between 2.6 and 26,000 km2 in the United States and Puerto Rico

We assess the spatial distribution of the largest rainfall‐generated streamflows from a database of 35,663 flow records composed of the largest 10% of annual peak flows from each of 14,815 U.S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations in the United States and Puerto Rico. High unit discharges (peak discharge per unit contributing area) from basins with areas of 2.6 to 26,000 km 2 (1–10,000 mi 2 ) are widespread, but streams in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Texas together account for more than 50% of the highest unit discharges. The Appalachians and western flanks of Pacific coastal mountain systems are also regions of high unit discharges, as are several areas in the southern Midwest. By contrast, few exceptional discharges have been recorded in the interior West, northern Midwest, and Atlantic Coastal Plain. Most areas of high unit discharges result from the combination of (1) regional atmospheric conditions that produce large precipitation volumes and (2) steep topography, which enhances precipitation by convective and orographic processes and allows flow to be quickly concentrated into stream channels. Within the conterminous United States, the greatest concentration of exceptional unit discharges is at the Balcones Escarpment of central Texas, where maximum U.S. rainfall amounts apparently coincide with appropriate basin physiography to produce many of the largest measured U.S. floods. Flood‐related fatalities broadly correspond to the spatial distribution of high unit discharges, with Texas having nearly twice the average annual flood‐related fatalities of any other state.

Water Resources Research↗
USGS2004

The world's largest floods, past and present: Their causes and magnitudes

Floods are among the most powerful forces on earth. Human societies worldwide have lived and died with floods from the very beginning, spawning a prominent role for floods within legends, religions, and history. Inspired by such accounts, geologists, hydrologists, and historians have studied the role of floods on humanity and its supporting ecosystems, resulting in new appreciation for the many-faceted role of floods in shaping our world. Part of this appreciation stems from ongoing analysis of long-term streamflow measurements, such as those recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) streamflow gaging network. But the recognition of the important role of flooding in shaping our cultural and physical landscape also owes to increased understanding of the variety of mechanisms that cause floods and how the types and magnitudes of floods can vary with time and space. The USGS has contributed to this understanding through more than a century of diverse research activities on many aspects of floods, including their causes, effects, and hazards. This Circular summarizes a facet of this research by describing the causes and magnitudes of the world's largest floods, including those measured and described by modern methods in historic times, as well as floods of prehistoric times, for which the only records are those left by the floods themselves.

Circular↗
USGS2004

Evaluating a Radar-Based, Non Contact Streamflow Measurement System in the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, California

Accurate measurement of flow in the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, California, is vital to a wide range of Federal and State agencies, environmental interests, and water contractors. The U.S. Geological Survey uses a conventional stage-discharge rating technique to determine flows at Vernalis. Since the flood of January 1997, the channel has scoured and filled as much as 20 feet in some sections near the measurement site resulting in an unstable stage-discharge rating. In response to recent advances in measurement techniques and the need for more accurate measurement methods, the Geological Survey has undertaken a technology demonstration project to develop and deploy a radar-based streamflow measuring system on the bank of the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, California. The proposed flow-measurement system consists of a ground-penetrating radar system for mapping channel geometries, a microwave radar system for measuring surface velocities, and other necessary infrastructure. Cross-section information derived from ground penetrating radar provided depths similar to those measured by other instruments during the study. Likewise, surface-velocity patterns and magnitudes measured by the pulsed Doppler radar system are consistent with near surface current measurements derived from acoustic velocity instruments. Since the ratio of surface velocity to mean velocity falls to within a small range of theoretical value, using surface velocity as an index velocity to compute river discharge is feasable. Ultimately, the non-contact radar system may be used to make continuous, near-real-time flow measurements during high and medium flows. This report documents the data collected between April 14, 2002 and May 17, 2002 for the purposes of testing this radar based system. Further analyses of the data collected during this field effort will lead to further development and improvement of the system.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2003

Large floods in the United States: Where they happen and why

The spatial distribution of large gaged floods throughout the United States shows that the locations of most of the largest flows are related to specific combinations of regional climatology, topography, and basin size. Key factors include the general northward trend of decreasing atmospheric moisture, proximity to oceanic moisture sources such as the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, and orientation of topographic features relative to directions of moisture flow, with the largest flows being at locations where topographically high areas are oriented perpendicular to directions of moisture flow. Additionally, the largest flows in large river basins are primarily caused by persistent climatologic conditions such as seasonal snowfall. In contrast, the largest flows in smaller basins are most commonly the result of intense precipitation due to convective storms.

Circular↗
USGS1994

Water fact sheet; evolution of sediment yield from Mount St. Helens, Washington, 1980-1993

The most enduring geological consequence of the eruption of Mount St. Helens, Washington, on May 18, 1980, and the most costly single element in the recovery effort, has been the persistent downstream sedimentation caused by erosion of the approximately 3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) of sediment deposited on the landscape surrounding the volcano. Most of the sediment was associated with the emplacement of a 2.8 km 3 debris avalanche in the upper part of the watershed of the North Fork Toutle River, and debris flows in the channels of the South Fork Toutle River, Pine Creek, Swift Creek, and Muddy River. An additional 0.2-0.3 km 3 of volcanic material was emplaced by pyroclastic flows, blasts, and ash fall. Part of this vast quantity of volcaniclastic sediment has been subsequently eroded by runoff and streamflow. This brief report summarizes the changes in sediment yield at five locations around Mount St. Helens in the first 13 years following the May 18, 1980 eruption.

Washington↗
USGS1994

Multiple flow processes accompanying a dam-break flood in a small upland watershed, Centralia, Washington

On October 5, 1991, following 35 consecutive days of dry weather, a 105-meter long, 37-meter wide, 5.2-meter deep concrete-lined watersupply reservoir on a hillside in the eastern edge of Centralia, Washington, suddenly failed, sending 13,250 cubic meters of water rushing down a small, steep tributary channel into the city. Two houses were destroyed, several others damaged, mud and debris were deposited in streets, on lawns, and in basements over four city blocks, and 400 people were evacuated. The cause of failure is believed to have been a sliding failure along a weak seam or joint in the siltstone bedrock beneath the reservoir, possibly triggered by increased seepage into the rock foundation through continued deterioration of concrete panel seams, and a slight rise (0.6 meters) in the pool elevation. A second adjacent reservoir containing 18,900 cubic meters of water also drained, but far more slowly, when a 41-cm diameter connecting pipe was broken by the landslide. The maximum discharge resulting from the dam-failure was about 71 cubic meters per second. A reconstructed hydrograph based on the known reservoir volume and calculated peak discharge indicates the flood duration was about 6.2 minutes. Sedimentologic evidence, high-water mark distribution, and landforms preserved in the valley floor indicate that the dam failure flood consisted of two flow phases: an initial debris flow that deposited coarse bouldery sediment along the slope-area reach as it lost volume, followed soon after by a water-flood that achieved a stage about one-half meter higher than the debris flow. The Centralia dam failure is one of three constructed dams destroyed by rapid foundation failure that defines the upper limits of an envelope curve of peak flood discharge as a function of potential energy for failed constructed dams worldwide.

Washington↗
USGS1991

Documented historical landslide dams from around the world

This data compilation consists of dBase IV 1 data files of the location, date, triggering mechanism, kind, size, failure time and mechanism, breach dimensions, subsequent controls, materials, and references for 463 historical landslide dams and associated natural reservoirs that have been recorded throughout the World. The data base presented in this report is a compilation of information on the characteristics of 463 landslide dams from around the World. It forms a basis on which to assess potential threats from existing landslide dams, or newly-formed landslide dams. The data base includes only landslide dams that have formed in historical times - that is, those formed during times when humans were able to record their occurrence, and the information transferred through various means of written and/or oral documentation. There have been far more prehistoric landslide dams about which relatively little is known. None of these is included in this data base. The focus on historical landslide dams allows insights into this natural process that will aid in understanding their role as a significant geologic process in recent Earth history.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1988

The formation and failure of natural dams

Of the numerous kinds of dams that form by natural processes, dams formed from landslides, glacial ice, and late-neoglacial moraines present the greatest threat to people and property. Landslide dams form in a wide range of physiographic settings. The most common types of mass movements that form landslide dams are rock and debris avalanches; rock and soil slumps and slides; and mud, debris, and earth flows. The most common initiation mechanisms for dam-forming landslides are excessive rainfall and snowmelt and earthquakes. Landslide dams can be classified into six categories based on their relation with the valley floor. Type I dams (11% of 184 landslide dams from around the world that we were able to classify) do not reach from one valley side to the other. Type II dams (44%) span the entire valley floor, in some cases depositing material high on opposite valley sides. Type III dams (41%) move considerable distances both upstream and downstream from the landslide failure. Type IV dams (<1%) are rare and involve the contemporaneous failure of material from both sides of a valley. Type V dams (<1%) also are rare and are created when a single landslide sends multiple tongues of debris into a valley and forms two or more landslide dams in the same reach of river. Type VI dams (3%) involve one or more failure surfaces that extend under the stream or valley and emerge on the opposite valley side. Many landslide dams fail shortly after formation. In our sample of 73 documented landslide-dam failures, 27% of the landslide dams failed less than 1 day after formation, and about 50% failed within 10 days. Over-topping is by far the most common cause of failure. The timing of failure and the magnitude of the resulting floods are controlled by dam size and geometry; material characteristics of the blockage; rate of inflow to the impoundment; size and depth of the impoundment; bedrock control of flow; and engineering controls such as artificial spill-ways, diversions, tunnels, and planned breaching by blasting or conventional excavation. Glacial-ice dams can produce at least nine kinds of ice-dammed lakes. The most dangerous are lakes formed in main valleys dammed by tributary glaciers. Failure can occur by erosion of a drainage tunnel under or through the ice dam or by a channel over the ice dam. Cold polar-ice dams generally drain supraglacially or marginally by downmelting of an outlet channel. Warmer, temperate-ice dams tend to fail by sudden englacial or subglacial breaching and drainage. Late-neoglacial moraine-dammed lakes are located in steep mountain areas affected by the advances and retreats of valley glaciers in the last several centuries. These late-neoglacial dams pose hazards because (1) they are sufficiently young that vegetation has not stabilized their slopes, (2) many dam faces are steeper than the angle of repose, (3) these dams and lakes are immediately downslope from steep crevassed glaciers and near-vertical rock slopes, and (4) downstream from these dams are steep canyons with easily erodible materials that can be incorporated in the flow and increase flood peaks. The most common reported failure mechanism is overtopping and breaching by a wave or series of waves in the lake generated by icefalls, rockfalls, or snow or rock avalanches. Melting of ice cores or frozen ground and piping and seepage are other possible failure mechanisms. Natural dams may cause upstream flooding as the lake rises and downstream flooding as a result of failure of the dam. Although data are few, for the same potential energy at the dam site, ownstream flood peaks from the failure of glacier-ice dams are smaller than those from landslide, moraine, and structed earth-fill and rock-fill dam failures. Moraine-dam failures appear to produce some of the largest downstream flood peaks for potential energy at the dam site greater than 10 11 -10 12 joules. Differences in flood peaks natural-dam failures appear to be controlled by dam characteristics and failure mechanisms.

Geological Society of America Bulletin↗
USGS1986

PERSPECTIVE ON LANDSLIDE DAMS.

The most common types of mass movements that form landslide dams are rock and soil slumps and slides; mud, debris, and earth flows: and rock and debris avalanches. The most common initiation mechanisms for dam-forming landslides are excessive rainfall and snow melt, and earthquakes. Most landslide dams are remarkable short-lived. In a sample of 63 documented cases, 22 percent of the landslide dams failed in less than 1 day after formation, and half failed within 10 days. Overtopping was by far the most frequent cause of landslide-dam failure. Backwater flooding behind landslide dams can inundate communities and valuable agricultural land. Floods from the failure of landslide dams are smaller than floods from constructed dams impounding bodies of water with the same potential energy, but larger than floods from failure of ice dams. Secondary effects of landslide-dam failures include additional landslides as reservoir levels drop rapidly, aggradation of valleys upstream and downstream of the dams, and avulsive channel changes downstream.

Conference Paper↗