Hydrology of Mountainous Areas(Proceedings of the Strbské Pleso Workshop, Czechoslovakia, June 1988).

IAHS Publ. no. 190, 1990.

Hydrologie and hydraulic research in mountain rivers

R.D. JARRETT
U. S. Geological Survey-
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A

ABSTRACT Although our current (1988) knowledge of

hydrologie and hydraulic processes is based on many
years of study, there are river environmets where these
processes are complex and poorly understood. One of
these environments is in mountainous areas, which cover
about 25 percent of the United States. Use of conven-
tional hydrologie and hydraulic techniques in mountain
river environments produce erroneous results and inter-
pretations in a wide spectrum of water-resources investi-
gations. An ongoing U.S.Geological Survey research
project is being conducted to improve the understanding
of hydrologie and hydraulic processes of mountainous
areas and to improve the results of subsequent hydrolo-
gie investigations. Future hydrologie and hydraulic
research needs in mountainous areas are identified.

INTRODUCTION

Although our current knowledge of hydrologie and hydrau-

lic processes is based on many years of study, there are
river environments where these processes are complex
and poorly understood. Most hydrologie and hydraulics
techniques have been developed in lower gradient rivers
(slopes less than 0.002 meter per meter) and nonerodible
channels and are unverified (Jarrett, 1984). Because of
rapidly increasing suburban development in mountainous
areas during the past 10 to 20 years, hydrologie, hydrau-
lic and related studies in mountain areas have increased.
These studies include determining the quality (low-,mean-and
flood flows) and quality of streamflow, determining
routing of flow, measuring sediment transport, determi-
ning the effects of acid precipitation, modeling preci-
pitation-runoff, studying geochemical processes, and
assessing the effects of climate change. Hydrologie and
hydraulic techniques used in these studies generally
are unverified and, in some instances, these techniques
are inadequate for studying rivers in mountainous areas
because they were developed for lower gradient rivers.
This paper describes a U.S. Geological Survey research
investigation that is underway to improve the understan-
ding of hydrologie and hydraulic processes in mountainous
areas. Mountainous areas cover about 25 percent of the
United States. To improve the results of subsequent hydro-
logic investigations, basic research is needed to under-
107
R. D. Jarrett 108

stand the physical hydrologie and hydraulic processes.

Much of the initial research has been completed in Colo-
rado, which is one of the most mountainous areas of the
United States. In Colorado, fifty-three peaks are greater
than 4,260 meters above sea level and an additional 1,000
peaks are higher than 3,050 meters. Much of this research
is applicable to other mountainous areas. Interrelated
process research are discussed in this paper for hydrolo-
gie and hydraulic investigations, and sources of data
errors are identified.

HYDROLOGIC RESEARCH
A multidisciplinary approach based on analyses of stream-
flow and precipitation data and the use of paleohydrolo-
gic techniques was used to improve the understanding of
flood hydrology in Colorado (Jarrett and Costa, 1983;
Jarrett, 1987a). The study area included the foothills
and high mountains:.'- of Colorado. Flooding on rivers
in these areas results from rapid snowmelt, excessive
rainfall, or a combination of both; hence, flood peaks
exhibit a mixed-population process. The need for this
study was emphasized by the 1976 Big Thompson River
flash flood in the foothills of eastern Colorado. This
flood, the largest natural disaster in Colorado history,
killed 144 people and resulted in over $35 million in
property damages. The subsequent difficulties in interpre-
tation of this and other catastrophic floods, using con-
ventional techniques, indicate that new methods, or
modifications to existing procedures, are needed.
Separation and mixed-population analyses of annual
peaks into rainfall-runoff and snowmelt-runoff flows
were made for 6 9 streamflow-gaging stations in the foot-
hills and mountains of Colorado. Four flood-frequency
curves were developed and are shown in Fig. 1 for analy-
ses of: annual peak flows; annual snowmelt peak flows;
annual rainfall peak flows, and; a composite curve of the
snowmelt and rainfall curves. When snowmelt- and rain-
generated annual peak flows are examined separately,
flood-frequency analyses (using guidelines of Interagency
Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1981) indicate distinc-
tive trends based on elevation. Above about 2,300 meters,
low-magnitude snowmelt flows predominate; rain generally
does not contribute to the flood potential as shown for
a higher elevation site in Figure la. Maximum snowmelt
flows at elevations above 2,300 meters have unit dischar-
ges of less than 2.2 cubic meters per second per square
kilometer. Below about 2,300 meters, large magnitude
rainfall-produced floods predominate, as shown for a
lower elevation site in Figure lb. Maximum rainfall
floods below 2,300 meters have unit discharges greater
than 22 cubic meters per second per square kilometer.
 109 Hydrologie and hydraulic research in mountain rivers

Fig. la Flood-frequency curves for Clear Creek near

Lawson, Colorado (modified from Jarrett, 1987a).
Gage elevation is 2,463 meters and drainage area
is 4.16 square kilometers

EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY

Fig. lb Flood-frequency curves for Clear Creek near

Golden, Colorado (modified from Jarrett, 1987a).
Gage elevation is 1,748 meters and drainage
area is 11.3 square kilometers
R. D. Jarrett 110

Separation of peak flows by météorologie cause provi-

des an improved understanding of flood hydrology. The
composite flood-frequency curves result in improved
streamflow-gaging station flood-frequency estimates.
This occurs primarily because the data are separated
into homogenous populations. Large floods, previously
identified as high outliers, generally are no longer
classified as high outliers after are separated and ana-
lyzed as snowmelt or rainfall arrays. The upper eleva-
tion limit for significant rainfall flooding is latitude
dependent (and probably worldwide); as the latitude
increase, the elevation boundary between snowmelt- and
rainfall-produced flood decreases.
Because of the relatively limited number of streamflow-
gaging stations in the foothills and mountains of Colo-
rado, paleohydrologic techniques were developed and in-
corporated into the hydrologie analyses. Paleoflood
hydrology is the study of the movement of water and
sediment in channels before the time of systematic stream-
flow-data collection (Costa, 1986). Historic and prehisto-
ric floods in rivers are recorded in distinctive deposits
and landforms in and along channels. Interpretation of
these deposits and landforms and radiocarbon dating of
paleoflood deposits provide supplemental information
about the spatial occurrence, magnitude, and age of
floods (Costa, 1978a, 1978b; Jarrett, 1987a). Extensive
paleoflood investigations of channel features add suppor-
ting documentation to the theory that there is a total
lack of large rainfall floods above about 2,300 meters.
However, below 2,300 meters, evidence of multiple large
rainfall floods is abundant in every channel.
To understand runoff from mountainous areas, the
causative hydrologie processes, particularly precipita-
tion, need to be understood. Intense rainfall data for
Colorado, for gaged and bucket-survey rainfall sites
obtained since before 1900, were summarized. These
rainfall data indicate that below 2,300 meters point
rainfall commonly exceeds 25 centimeters in 6 hours, and
for several storms has exceeded 50 centimeters in 6 hours.
However, above 2,450 meters there has been no documented
rainfall greater than about 5 centimeters in 6 hours.
Flood-frequency relations at streamflow-gaging stations
are well documented but also are needed at ungaged sites.
Mixed-population analyses and paleoflood investigations
helped define regionally homogenous flood regions of
snowmelt and rainfall. Flood characteristics for ungaged
sites were obtained by regionalizing streamflow data for
sites in.each region on the basis of physical and climatic
basin characteristics. The resulting regression equations
dramatically improved the accuracy (standard error of
estimate improved from 142 to 44 percent) when mixed-
population processes are accounted for. By use of a
multidisciplinary approach, this study led to improved
 Ill Hydrologie and hydraulic research in mountain rivers

flood estimates beyond 100-year recurrence intervals.

Regional analyses, supported by radiocarbon dating of
flood deposits (Costa, 1987b), indicate that the 1976 Big
Thompson River flood had a recurrence interval of about
10,000 years (Jarrett, 1987a)
The results of this mixed-population hydrologie and
paleohydrologic research have improved the understanding
and techniques for assessing precipitation and streamflow
characteristics in the Rocky Mountains. The research has
indicated that there are many different types of mixed-
population processes in all parts of the United States.
Additional research is needed to 1) determine the bound-
aries that separate between mixed-population regimes
in other mountainous regions, 2) understand the different
types of mixed-population hydrologie processes and to
improve the methods of analyses, and 3) improve paleo-
hydrologic techniques to extend hydrologie data spatially
and temporally.
HYDRAULIC RESEARCH
Hydraulic investigations have been made for 32 higher gra-
dient rivers (slopes greater than 0.002 meter per meter)
in Colorado to improve the understanding of hydraulic pro-
cesses in mountain rives (Jarrett, 1984, 1985; Marchand
and others, 1984). Mountian rivers are characterized by
very turbulent flow and relatively coarse bed material.
Investigations have been made to quantify flow resistance,
evaluate velocity profiles for determining mean streamflow
velocity and the shape of the velocity profile, and to
evaluate the accuracy of current meters. This research
has indicated that hydraulic processes in mountain rivers
are poorly understood.
Guidelines (Chow, 1959; Barnas, 1967) are available
to aid in the selection of roughness coefficients of
rivers. In the United States, Manning's coefficient n is
most commonly used to quantify flow resistance. However,
most flow resistance coefficients verified are for sites
on relatively lower gradient streams. Data collected by
Jarrett (1984) indicate that n values are much larger on
higher-gradient, cobble- and boulder-bed rivers than on
lower gradient streams that have similar relative rough-
ness values. Flow regime, previously thought to be super-
critical, has been determined to be subcritical (Jarrett,
1984). Because higher gradient stream data indicate that
flow resistance varies considerably with depth of flow,
equations were developed to assist in the assessment of
flow resistance in mountain rivers.
Onsite surveys and 75 current-meter measurements of
discharge, were made on 21 mountain rivers in Colorado.
Multiple regression analyses of Manning's n were related
to measured hydraulic and sediment-size data. The analy-
ses indicated that n varies directly with slope and
inversely with depth of flow. The equation developed for
R. D. Jarrett 112

p r e d i c t i n g Manning's n i n n a t u r a l mountain channels w i t h

cobble or b o u l d e r s bed m a t e r i a l i s :
n = 0.32 S 0 - 3 0 R - 0 . 1 6 (1)

where
S in meter per meter, is the slope of the energy gradient
(or friction slope)
R in meters, the hydraulic radius, is a measure of the
boundary area that causes friction per unit of flow.
If the channel is relatively uniform, water surface or
bed slope can be used in Equation (1). Regime flow
equations for predicting velocity and discharge in moun-
tain rivers also were developed (Jarrett, 1984).
The standard error of estimate of equation 1 was 28
percent for the Colorado data. The equation had the same
accuracy when other data for higher gradient rivers of
the world (slopes as high as 0,052 meter per meter) were
used. Paul and Dhillon (1987) verified the accuracy of
Equation 1 with other higher gradient, mountain river
data of the world. Equation (1) is applicable for rela-
tively clear water flow instable channels with minimal
bank vegetation, regular banks, and few obstructions.
Equation (1) is defined for slopes from 0.002 to 0.052
meter per meter and for hydraulic radii from 0.15 to 2.2
meters.
Existing methods for determining the mean flow velo-
city in the vertical do not address the conditions
present in high gradient, shallow-depth rivers that are
common to mountainous areas. The Price AA current meter
registers vertical-velocity components under turbulent
conditions (Townsend and Blust, 1960); hence, recorded
velocity is greater than the actual longitudinal velo-
city. However, the vertical-velocity component has been
considered minimal for most measured rivers. Vertical-
velocity profile, water-surface slope, and bed-material
size were collected for 11 streamflow-gaging stations in
Colorado using a standard Price AA current meter and a
prototype Price PAA current meter (Marchand and others,
1984). The Price PAA current meter incorporates a Lexan
polycarbonate polymer, solid-cup bucket wheel in place
of the open-cup metal bucket wheel common to the Price
type AA meter. The prototype current meter virtually
eliminates the registration of vertical-velocity compo-
nents in turbulent rivers. Vertical-velocity profiles
(with 8 to 10 point velocities) were measured with the
Price AA and Price PAA current meters at 3 to 4 locations
at each river cross section for a total of 94 velocity
profiles. The investigation included wading, cable, and
bridge measurements.
For vertical, velocity profiles were made using data
from each type of meter. A typical profile, with a loga-
rithmic velocity profile superimposed,- is shown in Fig. 2.
 113 Hydrologie and hydraulic research in mountain rivers

0.0
\ Logarithmic curve
Water surface
1 /

0.2
o
h-

0- >
LU - .
Q 3r Price A A Current M e t e r ,
Z Π0.4 (V = 0.82 meters per second)
O UJ
v
Price PAA Current Meter
< y/Y=0.5,
> ( V = 0.74 meters per second)
DC
CO

S 0.6 -
1Vv\/Y=0.6
o i
o
h-
<
0.8

Y = 0.67 meter
_L _L j_
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

RATIO OF POINT VELOCITY TO MEAN VELOCITY IN THE VERTICAL (v/V)

Fig.2 Velocity profiles, Lake Creek above Twin Lakes

Reservoir, Colorado, at station 7 meters, August
16, 1983 (modified from Marchand and others, 1984)
Intermediate bed-material diameter is 247 mili-
meters and the water-surface slope is 0.029 meter
per meter
Mountain river velocity profiles are S-shaped and nonloga-
rithmic; velocities are lower near the streambed and
greater near the water surface than for a logarithmically
distributed profile. A logarithmic velocity profile does
not develop because of the extreme drag from the cobble
and boulder bed material and the high velocity flow near
the water surface. The estimated mean velocity in the
vertical, taken as the velocity measured at 0.6 depth
(the conventional practice), consistently is smaller than
the true mean velocity in the vertical. For Lake Creek,
shown in Figure 2, the mean velocity needs to be obtained
at about 0.5 depth of flow. Hence, the mean velocity
determined by the 0.6 depth of flow will consistently
underestimate the mean velocity in the vertical.
The velocity profiles for all Colorado river data
were averaged to provide a mean velocity profile for all
sites for each current meter. The mean velocity profile
for each meter, with a logarithmic velocity profile
superimposed, is shown in Figure 3. The mean velocity
profile also is S-shaped and nonlogarithmic. One method
of measuring mean velocity in the vertical is to measure
a near water surface velocity and divide by a coefficient
R. D. Jarrett 114

of about 1.18 from the logarithmic velocity profile

(Fig.2). For mountain rivers, the near surface coeffi-
cient is about 1.5 (Fig.3): The commonly used coefficient
of 1.18 will consistently result in overestimated mean
velocity in the vertical in mountain rivers.

0.2

X
-Price Meter

<<
£5

Solid-cup price meter.

0.8

1.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.6
RATIO OF POINT VELOCITY TO MEAN
VELOCITY IN THE VERTICAL Iv/V)

Fig.3 Mean vertical-velocity profile for mountain

rivers that have slopes ranging from 0.002 to
0.029 meter per meter
The comparison of the mean velocity in the vertical
data for each type of meter indicates the Price AA cur-
rent meter consistently overregisters point velocity
and mean velocity (Fig.2). For all Colorado data, the
Price AA current meter overregistered mean vertical
velocity by an average of about 5 percent. However, the
data indicate that as stream slope increases, the percent
overregistration increases to as much as 25 percent.
Additional hydraulic research includes a) improving
the understanding of hydraulic processes in other turbu-
lent rivers (such as in alluvial rivers), and b) impro-
ving methods of measuring and estimating velocity and
discharge in mountain rivers. Research of hydraulic pro-
cesses of mountain rivers encompases an analysis of
existing U.S.Geological Survey data collected as part
 115 Hydrologie and hydraulic research in mountain rivers

of the Colorado study, compilation of other available

data, and use of data collected in the tilting flume
at the U.S.Geological Survey Gulf Coast Hydroscience
Center in Mississipi. Presently (1988) velocity profile
measurements, comparative point-velocity data with dif-
ferent current meters, flow resistance measurements, and
alternative methods for indirectly measuring peak dis-
charge for ranges of slope, discharge, and bed-material
configurations have been collected in the flume, but
have not yet been analyzed. Additional configurations
need to be run. Additional instream data for different
conditions (for example, to identify where turbulence can
affect the performance of the Price AA current meter)
need to be collected and analyzed to assess the magnitude
and range of stream conditions where velocity is not
measured correctly. The data base for Colorado is prima-
rily for shallow-depth, higher gradient rivers; hence,
additional hydraulic data need to be collected (and ana-
lyzed) in mountain rivers having greater depths.

HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC DATA ERRORS

One of the basic premises of hydrologie and hydraulic
investigations is that the data are accurate and represen-
tative. In studies of mountainous areas, precipitation
and streamflow data may contain significant errors.
Jarrett (in press) identified errors in precipitation
and streamflow data in mountainous areas. Extremes of
hydroclimatic data are of special concern because they
commonly contain large and sometimes biased errors.
Before a hydrologic/hydraulic investigation is started,
it is essential to ascertain that data or the methods
(and equations) to be used are valid and applicable to
the study area. An understanding of the source, type,
and magnitude of data errors is needed to mitigate their
effect in hydrologic/hydraulic studies. It is important
to identify data that have significant errors because
use of these data may produce invalid conclusions in sub-
sequent investigations.
For example, an evaluation of 7 0 slope-area measure-
ments (the most common indirect method of estimating
flood discharge) was made for higher gradient rivers
throughout the United States (Jarrett, 1987b). The analy-
ses included an evaluation of flood measurements from
other countries. Errors in flood measurements in higher
gradient rivers are common. These errors were associated
with underestimated in values, incorrect evaluation of
scour, expansion and contraction losses, viscosity,
unsteady flow, number of cross sections, state of flow,
and large stream slope. Measurement errors typically were
as large as 75 to 100 percent or more (Jarrett, 1987b).
These common problems consistently resulted in overestima-
ted (or biased) peak discharge in mountain rivers. Also,
R. D. Jarrett 116

debris flows commonly have been misinterpreted as water

floods, resulting in excessively overestimated discharges
in mountain streams (Costa and Jarrett, 1981; Jarrett,
1987a). Knowledge of data errors, problems with applica-
tion of measurement techniques, and overestimated peak
discharge is essential because the values of the largest
floods (in terms of unit discharge) commonly are the most
erroneous. The most accurate flood measurements (based
on hydraulic and hydrologie criteria) on higher gradient
rivers probably will result from critical-depth measu-
rements (Jarrett, 1984, 1987b; Jarrett and i^alde, 1987;
Trieste and Jarrett, 1987).

CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this U.S.Geological Survey research is to
improve the understanding of hydrologie and hydraulic
processes in mountain rivers. Continued hydrologie,
hydraulic, and paleohydrologic research on mountainous
areas is needed and will benefit a broad range of hydro-
logic research projects and investigations. An improved
understanding of basic hydrologie and hydraulic processes
will improve methods of assessing the quantity and quali-
ty of surface water. These related studies rely on accu-
rate data and hydrologie methods. Improved hydraulic
methods can be incorporated into numerical simulation
models of surface-water systems to be used to improve
the analyses of hydrologie processes. The results of
this research are applicable to other mountain rivers.

REFERENCES
Barnes, H.H.,Jr. (1967) Roughness characteristics of
natural channels: U.S.Geological Survey Water-supply
Paper 1849, 213 p.
Chow, V.T. (1959) Open-channel hydraulics: New York,
McGraw Hill, 68 0 p
Costa, J.E. (1978a) Holocene stratigraphy in flood-fre-
quency analyses: Water Resources ^search v.14, no.4,
p.626-632
Jarrett, R.D. (1978b) Colorado Big Thompson Flood, Geolo-
gic evidence of a rare hydrologie event: Geology v.6,
p. 617-632
Jarrett, R.D. (1986) A history of paleoflood hydrology
in the United States, 1800-1970: America! Geophysical
Union, v.67, no.17, p. 428-430
Costa, J.E. and Jarrett, R.D. (1981) Debris flows in
small mountain stream channels of Colorado and their
hydrologie implications: Bulletin of the Association
of Engineering Geologists v.18, no.3, p. 309-322
Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data (1981)
 117 Hydrologie and hydraulic research in mountain rivers

Guidelines for determining flood-flow frequency (2d éd.,

revised): Reston, Va., U.S. Geological Survey Office of
Water Data Coordination, Hydrology Subcommittee Bul-
letin 17B
Jarrett, R.D. (1984) Hydraulics of high gradient streams:
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, American Society of
Civil Engineers, v.110, no.11, p. 1519-1539
Jarrett, R.D. (1985) Analyses of vertical-velocity pro-
files in higher-gradient streams in Colorado: EOS,
American Geophysical union, v.66, no.46, p.912
Jarrett, R.D. (1987a) Flood hydrology of foothill and
mountain streams in Colorado: Fort Collins, Colorado
State University, Department of Civil Engineering,
Ph.D. dissertation, 239 p.
Jarrett, R.D. (1987b) Errors in the slope-area method of
computing peak discharge in mountain rivers: Journal
of Hydrology, v.96, p. 53-67
Jarrett, R.D. (in press) Hydroclimatic data errors and
their effects on the perception of climate change,
In: Workshop on Monitoring Climate for the Effects of
Increasing Greenhouse Gas Concentrations, Pingree Park,
Colorado, 1987, Proceedings: Fort Collins, Colorado
State Univesity, Cooperative Institute for Research in
the Atmosphere
Jarrett, R.D. and Costa, J.E. (1983) Multidisciplinary
approach to the flood hydrology of foothill streams
in Colorado, In Johnson, A.I., and Clark, R.A. (eds.)
International Syposium on Hydrometeorology, Denver,
Colo., 1982, Proceedings: Bethesda, Maryland, American
Water Resources Association, p. 565-569
Jarrett, R.D. and Malde, H.E. (1987) Paleodischarge of
the late Pleistocene Bonneville Flood, Snake River,
Idaho, computed from new evidence: Geological Society
of America Bulletin, v.99, no.l, p. 127-134
Marchand, J.P., Jarrett, R.D. and Jones, L.L. (1984)
Velocity profile, water-surface slope, and bed-material
size for selected streams in Colorado: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 84-733, 82 p.