Floods of July 23-26, 2010, in the Little Maquoketa River and Maquoketa River Basins, Northeast Iowa

Eash, David A.

doi:10.3133/ofr20111301

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Volga River floods of March 19, 1979;June 15, 1991;May 17, 1999;and May 23, 2004. 19-20, 1944;June 16, 1972;May 18-22, 1974;and June 27-28, 1975.…”

Section: No Yes 42mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The historic AEP and RI estimates were interpolated from AEP estimates computed at streamgages using the flood-estimation methods that were deemed to be most appropriate at the time the reports were prepared. The 179 historic AEP and RI estimates of observed flood events at streamgages were interpolated from theoretical AEP estimates that were computed at the streamgages using one of the following four streamgage flood-estimation methods noted in table 7: (1) Bulletin 17B (B17B) annual streamgage-probability analyses computed from annual peakflow records collected at streamgages (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982;Flynn and others, 2006); (2) regional regression equations (RREs) developed from regional regression analyses of basin-characteristic measurements and streamgage AEP estimates (Schwob, 1963;Schwob, 1966a;Lara, 1973;Eash, 2001); (3) weighted independent estimates (WIE) analyses (Cohn and others, 2012), which compute weighted AEP estimates at streamgages from the variance and AEP estimates of B17B annual streamgage-probability analyses, and the variance and AEP estimates of RRE probability calculations at streamgages; or (4) other floodestimation methods computed by the USGS (Dalrymple, 1960;Myers, 1963;Schwob, 1970a;Heinitz, 1973a;Eash, 2001) or by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Hydraulics Branch, oral commun.,1994;2004;. The AEP estimates listed in table 7 for regulated streamgages located on the Mississippi River and on the Iowa and Des Moines Rivers downstream from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoirs were computed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for regulated periods of record.…”

Section: Estimates At Streamgagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Turkey River floods of March 19, 1979;June 15, 1991;and May 23, 2004. Volga River floods of March 19, 1979;June 15, 1991;May 17, 1999;and May 23, 2004.…”

Section: No Yes 42mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Summary of U.S. Geological Survey reports documenting flood profiles of streams in Iowa, 1963-2012

Eash¹

2014

Scientific Investigations Report

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Volga River floods of March 19, 1979;June 15, 1991;May 17, 1999;and May 23, 2004. 19-20, 1944;June 16, 1972;May 18-22, 1974;and June 27-28, 1975.…”

Section: No Yes 42mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Estimates At Streamgagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Summary of U.S. Geological Survey reports documenting flood profiles of streams in Iowa, 1963-2012

Eash¹

2014

Scientific Investigations Report

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Streamflow Predictions in a Small Urban–Rural Watershed: The Effects of Radar Rainfall Resolution and Urban Rainfall–Runoff Dynamics

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors predicted streamflow in an urban–rural watershed using a nested regional–local modeling approach for the community of Manchester, Iowa, which is downstream of a largely rural watershed. The nested model coupled the hillslope-link model (HLM), used to simulate the upstream rural basins, and XPSWMM, which was used to simulate the more complex rainfall–runoff dynamics and surface and subsurface drainage in the urban areas, making it capable of producing flood maps at the street level. By integrating these models built for different purposes, we enabled fast and accurate simulation of hydrological processes in the rural basins while also modeling the flows in an urban environment. Using the model, we investigated how the spatial and temporal resolution of radar rainfall inputs can affect the modeled streamflow. We used a combination of three radar rainfall products to capture the uncertainty of rainfall estimation in the model results. Our nested model was able to simulate the hydrographs and timing and duration above the threshold known to result in nuisance flooding in Manchester. The spatiotemporal resolution the radar rainfall input to the model impacted the streamflow outputs of the regional, local, and nested models differently depending on the storm event.

show abstract

Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models

Aureli

Maranzoni

Petaccia

2021

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dam break inundation mapping is essential for risk management and mitigation, emergency action planning, and potential consequences assessment. To quantify flood hazard associated with dam failures, flooding variables must be predicted by efficient and robust numerical models capable to effectively cope with the computational difficulties posed by complex flows on real topographies. Validation against real-field data of historical dam-breaks is extremely useful to verify models’ capabilities and accuracy. However, such catastrophic events are rather infrequent, and available data on the breaching mechanism and downstream flooding are usually inaccurate and incomplete. Nevertheless, in some cases, real-field data collected after the event (mainly breach size, maximum water depths and flood wave arrival times at selected locations, water marks, and extent of flooded areas) are adequate to set up valuable and significant test cases, provided that all other data required to perform numerical simulations are available (mainly topographic data of the floodable area and input parameters defining the dam-break scenario). This paper provides a review of the historical dam-break events for which real-field datasets useful for validation purposes can be retrieved in the literature. The resulting real-field test cases are divided into well-documented test cases, for which extensive and complete data are already available, and cases with partial or inaccurate datasets. Type and quality of the available data are specified for each case. Finally, validation data provided by dam-break studies on physical models reproducing real topographies are presented and discussed. This review aims at helping dam-break modelers: (a) to select the most suitable real-field test cases for validating their numerical models, (b) to facilitate data access by indicating relevant bibliographic references, and (c) to identify test cases of potential interest worthy of further research.

show abstract

Floods of July 23-26, 2010, in the Little Maquoketa River and Maquoketa River Basins, Northeast Iowa

Abstract: Schepen for collecting field data for the determination of water-surface and benchmark elevations listed in this report; and Kaylene Carney for obtaining newspaper articles for the compilation of flood description information.

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Summary of U.S. Geological Survey reports documenting flood profiles of streams in Iowa, 1963-2012

Summary of U.S. Geological Survey reports documenting flood profiles of streams in Iowa, 1963-2012

Streamflow Predictions in a Small Urban–Rural Watershed: The Effects of Radar Rainfall Resolution and Urban Rainfall–Runoff Dynamics

Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About