U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2020–1090

Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages at Selected 

Streamgages in Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma from 

the May to June 2019 Flood Event—With an Emphasis on 

Flood Peaks Downstream from Dams and on Tributaries to 

the Arkansas River
Cover. Photograph showing USGS employees on State Highway 104 near the Arkansas River near 

Haskell, Oklahoma, streamgage (07165570). Photograph by Kevin Smith, U.S. Geological Survey.
Characterization of Peak Streamflow 

and Stages at Selected Streamgages in 

Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma from 

the May to June 2019 Flood Event—With 

an Emphasis on Flood Peaks Downstream 

from Dams and on Tributaries to the 

Arkansas River

By Jason M. Lewis, David J. Williams, Sarah J. Harris, and Adam R. Trevisan

Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Open-File Report 2020–1090

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior 

DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey James 

F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit 

https://store.usgs.gov/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. 

Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Lewis, J.M., Williams, D.J., Harris, S.J., and Trevisan, A.R., 2020, Characterization of peak streamflow and stages at 

selected streamgages in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma from the May to June 2019 flood event—With an 

emphasis on flood peaks downstream from dams and on tributaries to the Arkansas River: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2020–1090, 18 p., https://doi.org/ 10.3133/ ofr20201090.

Associated data for this publication: 

Williams, D.J., and Lewis, J.M., 2020, RiverWare model outputs for flood calculations along the Arkansas River for a 

flood event in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma during May–June 2019: U.S. Geological Survey data release, 

https://doi.org/10.5066/P9T3Q6MB.

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................4

Study Area..............................................................................................................................................4

General Weather Conditions and Rainfall During May 2019 ..................................................................5

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................5

Peak Streamflows and Stages ....................................................................................................................8

Flood Exceedance Probabilities of Peak Streamflows ..........................................................................10

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................16

Figures

1. Map showing the location of selected U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers streamgages in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma and 

the total rainfall accumulation that occurred during May 2019 ............................................2

2. Photograph looking downstream from U.S. Highway 62 bridge at the 

widespread flooding and backwater conditions on the Arkansas River near 

Muskogee, Oklahoma, May 31, 2019 .........................................................................................3

3. Map showing the Arkansas River Basin, which includes the McClellan-Kerr 

Arkansas River Navigation System ...........................................................................................4

4. Rating curve for the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 07165570, Arkansas 

River near Haskell, Oklahoma .....................................................................................................6

5. Photograph showing a direct streamflow measurement from the State 

Highway 20 bridge, looking downstream on the Verdigris River near Claremore, 

Oklahoma, near U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 07176000 ............................................6

6. Flood-frequency curve for the annual peak streamflows during the regulated 

period of record at U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 07153000, Black Bear 

Creek at Pawnee, Oklahoma .....................................................................................................16

Tables

1. Site information for selected streamgages in eastern and northeastern 

Oklahoma and peak streamflow values for the May to June 2019 flood event ..................9

2. Selected recurrence intervals and the associated annual exceedance 

probabilities .................................................................................................................................10

3. Peak-streamflow frequency estimates for selected streamgages in eastern and 

northeastern Oklahoma for the May to June 2019 flood event ...........................................12
iv

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate

foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Datum

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Abbreviations

AEP annual exceedance probability

CADSWES Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental 

Systems (USACE)

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

HEC Hydrologic Engineering Center (USACE)

HEC-SSP Hydrologic Engineering Center statistical software package (USACE)

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RMC-RFA Risk Management Center-Reservoir Frequency Analysis Software (USACE)

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages at 

Selected Streamgages in Eastern and Northeastern 

Oklahoma from the May to June 2019 Flood Event—With 

an Emphasis on Flood Peaks Downstream from Dams and 

on Tributaries to the Arkansas River

By Jason M. Lewis,1 David J. Williams,2 Sarah J. Harris,2 and Adam R. Trevisan1

Abstract

As much as 22 inches of rain fell in Oklahoma in May 

2019, resulting in historic flooding along the Arkansas River 

and its tributaries in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma. 

The flooding along the Arkansas River and its tributaries that 

began in May continued into June 2019. Peaks of record were 

measured at nine U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) streamgages on various 

streams in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma. This report 

documents the peak streamflows and stages for 38 selected 

streamgages in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma and is a 

followup to a previous report by the USGS that documented 

flood peaks associated with the May 2019 flood event. Most 

of the flood peaks occurred from May 26 to June 4, 2019. 

This report includes data from streamgages on tributaries to 

the Arkansas River and uses modeling methods to extend the 

period of record for Arkansas River streamgages. The historic 

flooding caused homes to fall into the river as a result of bank 

erosion, forced some towns to be evacuated, and resulted 

in the highest flood depths in Tulsa, Oklahoma, since 1986. 

Several USGS and USACE streamgages along the Arkansas 

River and its tributaries recorded new peaks of record.

Introduction3

Heavy rainfall resulted in major flooding across parts 

of eastern and northeastern Oklahoma during May 2019, 

with some areas receiving more than 22 inches of rainfall 

for the month (Mesonet, 2019). Most of the rain fell in a 

36-hour period during May 19–May 21 in a large swath 

1U.S. Geological Survey.

2U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

3This section is modified from Lewis and Trevisan (2019).

across northeastern Oklahoma and southeastern Kansas 

(fig. 1). Most of the flood peaks occurred from May 26 to 

June 4, 2019. Thirteen flood-control reservoirs operated by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in Kansas and 

Oklahoma reached new pools of record (USACE, 2019a). 

Maps of floods and high-flow conditions can be accessed 

at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) WaterWatch website (https://waterwatch.usgs.gov/; USGS, 2019a) and the 

USACE website (https://www.swt-wc.usace.army.mil/; 

USACE, 2020a).

The Arkansas River Basin has flooded, sometimes catastrophically, in the past. Examples include the 1986 flood on 

the Arkansas River, which killed 1 person and caused 1,800 

homes and businesses to be inundated (Jackson and Pittman, 

2019). Flooding in the reach of the Arkansas River near the 

city of Tulsa, Oklahoma, is usually caused by large amounts 

of rain and large releases from the upstream reservoirs. South 

of Tulsa, the Arkansas River reaches flatter topography, where 

the “backwater” effect of numerous tributaries dumping water 

into the lower gradient Arkansas River results in the slower 

movement of floodwaters and increased flood heights (fig. 2). 

Backwater conditions form when the water-level elevation 

in the main channel becomes higher than the water-level 

elevations in tributaries. In the absence of backwater conditions, water-level elevations in the main channel are usually 

lower than those in the tributaries, and in turn, the water-level 

elevations in the tributaries are usually lower than those in the 

floodplain. 

The historic flooding in 2019 caused homes to fall into 

the river as a result of bank erosion, forced some towns to be 

evacuated, and resulted in the highest flood peaks in Tulsa 

since 1986 (PBS News Hour, 2019; Stanglin and Hughes, 

2019). Several USGS and USACE streamgages along the 

Arkansas River and its tributaries recorded new peaks of 

record. As a result of the magnitude of the flooding in eastern 

and northeastern Oklahoma, the USGS, in cooperation with 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and 

the USACE, assessed the meteorological and hydrological 
2 Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages, Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma, May to June 2019 Flood Event

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

ARKANSAS

M

KANSAS

ISSOURI

OKLAHOMA

Ralston

T

Claremore

Skiatook

Avant

Commerce

ulsa Stillwater

H

Jenks

Broken Arrow

Webbers Falls

Moffet Van Buren

Bixby

Sperry

Sand

Springs

askell

Muskogee

Cimarron River

Caney

River

Poteau River

Bird

Creek

Big

Cabin Creek

Black Bear Creek

Little Caney River

Verdigris River

Deep Fork

Canadian River

Illinois River

Hominy Creek

Arkansas River

Birch Creek

Tar Creek

Neosho River

1

2

3

4

5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

97° 96° 95° 94°

37°

36°

35°

ARKANSAS

KANSAS MISSOURI

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES OKLAHOMA

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Jenks Levee

#

OOLOGAH DAM

Base map from PRISM Climate Group, 2019, 1:2,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

North American Datum of 1983

EXPLANATION

Precipitation accumulation, May 2019, in inches

(PRISM Climate Group, 2019)

Less than 8.0

8.1 to 12.0

12.1 to 16.0

16.1 to 18.0

18.1 to 22.0

22.1 to 27.0

37 USGS or USACE streamgage and 

map identifier (table 1)

Arkansas River Basin boundary

KEYSTONE

DAM

FORT

GIBSON

DAM

Tulsa/West

Tulsa Levees

Area enlarged

Salt Fork of the Arkansas River

KAW DAM

Figure 1. Location of selected U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) streamgages in eastern 

and northeastern Oklahoma and the total rainfall accumulation that occurred during May 2019.
Introduction 3

conditions prior to and during the flood and determined flood 

peak streamflows and flood exceedance probabilities at USGS 

and USACE streamgages.

On May 27, 2019, a release of 275,000 cubic feet per 

second (ft3/s) from Keystone Dam (fig. 1) into the Arkansas 

River was the second largest release from this dam since 1986 

(USACE, 2019a). During the same time as the large release 

from Keystone Dam, large releases from the Kaw Dam on 

the Arkansas River and the Oologah Dam on a tributary to 

the Arkansas River were also necessitated by the flood event 

(fig. 1). Although flooding from the Arkansas River within 

Tulsa, Oklahoma, and its suburbs was largely confined to open 

public spaces (with the notable exception of the River Spirit 

Casino, which was closed for several weeks), people living 

in the neighborhoods in unincorporated Tulsa County to the 

west of Sand Springs experienced extensive flooding of their 

homes. The unregulated streamflow of the Arkansas River 

through Tulsa County, with neither Keystone Dam nor Kaw 

Dam in place, would have been 375,000 ft3/s, which would 

have been catastrophic in parts of Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks, 

Bixby, and Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (USACE, 2019a). An 

estimated $6.8 billion of flood damages were prevented by 

USACE Tulsa District projects for water year4 2019, including Keystone Dam and the Tulsa/West Tulsa and Jenks Levees 

(USACE, 2020b). Oologah Dam reached a peak release of 

4The water year is the annual period from October 1 through September 30 

and is designated by the year in which the period ends. For example, the 2019 

water year is from October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019.

64,500 ft3/s on May 25, 2019 (USACE, 2019a). The unregulated streamflow downstream from the Oologah Dam would 

have been 225,000 ft3/s if the dam had not been in place 

(USACE, 2019a). Severe flooding occurred downstream along 

the Verdigris River near Claremore, Okla. Bird Creek was also 

subjected to major flooding, particularly in and around the 

towns of Avant, Skiatook, and Sperry, Okla. On May 22, 2019, 

the peak stage at Sperry of 31.29 feet (ft) was the fourth highest in the period of record (USGS, 2019a). The Neosho River 

system was similarly subjected to major flooding. A stage of 

25.51 ft measured at Commerce on May 24, 2019, was the 

fifth highest on record at that location, and downstream, a 

peak release of 228,300 ft3/s was made from Fort Gibson Dam 

on May 25 (USACE, 2019a). The unregulated streamflow 

along the Neosho River downstream from Fort Gibson Dam 

would have been an estimated 275,000 ft3/s without the dam 

(USACE, 2019a).

The lower reach of the Arkansas River was most affected 

by the flood, which was catastrophic in many locations. A peak 

stage of 46.39 ft, the second highest on record, was observed 

at Muskogee, Okla., on May 26, 2019 (USGS, 2019a, b). 

The streamflow along the Arkansas River at Muskogee was 

an estimated 600,000 ft3/s. Extensive flooding occurred in 

and around the Port of Muskogee. Farther downstream, the 

towns of Webbers Falls and Moffett, Okla., were completely 

inundated. A flood of record occurred at Van Buren, Arkansas, 

with a streamflow of 570,000 ft3/s and a peak stage of 40.79 ft 

observed on June 1, 2019 (USGS, 2019a, b). This peak stage, 

Figure 2. Looking downstream from U.S. Highway 62 bridge at the widespread flooding and 

backwater conditions on the Arkansas River near Muskogee, Oklahoma, May 31, 2019.
4 Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages, Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma, May to June 2019 Flood Event

which resulted in flooding and levee breaches in Arkansas, 

exceeded the previous record by nearly 3 ft, and reached 

the Mississippi River by the second week of June. Without 

upstream flood-control reservoirs, the unregulated streamflows 

would have been an estimated 830,000 ft3/s at Muskogee and 

an estimated 930,000 ft3/s at Van Buren (USACE, 2019a).

Previously, FEMA Region VI developed a mission 

assignment in conjunction with the USACE Little Rock 

District and the USGS to document the peak streamflows and 

stages for seven streamgages along the Arkansas River in 

Oklahoma and Arkansas. This previous study was completed 

by Lewis and Trevisan (2019). For the current study by the 

USGS in cooperation with FEMA and USACE Tulsa District, 

a comprehensive characterization of streamflow frequencies 

along the Arkansas River and its tributaries in eastern and 

northeastern Oklahoma was completed. 

Purpose and Scope

This report documents peak streamflows and flood 

frequencies for selected USGS and USACE streamgages 

in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma that recorded the 

May–June 2019 flood event. This report includes data from 

streamgages on the Arkansas River and tributaries to the 

Arkansas River. Modeling methods were used to extend the 

regulated period of record for some of streamgages. Whereas 

Lewis and Trevisan (2019) documented the peak streamflows 

and stages for selected streamgages along the Arkansas River 

in Oklahoma and Arkansas, the primary purpose of this 

report is to document streamflow and flood frequencies for 

the Arkansas River downstream from selected dams and for 

tributaries to the Arkansas River in eastern and northeastern 

Oklahoma.

Study Area5

The streamflow data (peak streamflow) documented 

in this report were obtained from USGS and USACE 

streamgages in the Arkansas River Basin, which drains large 

parts of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2019a, b; USACE, 2020a). The Arkansas 

River Basin has headwater streams along the eastern slope of 

the Rocky Mountains in Colorado; the Arkansas River crosses 

eastern Colorado and a large part of Kansas before continuing 

in an easterly to southeasterly direction through Oklahoma and 

Arkansas (fig. 3).

Land-use types in the study area include forest and woodlands, grass and rangelands, and urban (National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, 2016). Some parts of the Arkansas River 

in the study area are dredged for sand and gravel (USACE, 

2010). The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation 

System is an important infrastructure feature in the study area 

5This section is modified from Lewis and Trevisan (2019).

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:8,000,000

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

North American Datum of 1983

"

"

"

Port 

of 

Catoosa

Port of 

Muskogee

Little Rock

108° 106° 104° 102° 100° 98° 96° 94° 92° 90°

38°

36°

34°

ROCKY

MOUNTAINS 

Arkansas

River

Canadian River

Cimarron River

North Canadian River

Verdigris

River

Neosho

River

Mississippi River

TEXAS

KANSAS

NEW MEXICO

MISSOURI

OKLAHOMA

COLORADO

ARKANSAS

ILLINOIS

MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA

TENNESSEE

EXPLANATION

McClellan–Kerr Arkansas 

 River Navigation System

Arkansas River Basin

200 MILES

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

0 100

Figure 3. The Arkansas River Basin, which includes the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
Methods 5

that facilitates interstate barge traffic; it starts at the Port of 

Catoosa in Catoosa, Okla. The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 

Navigation System follows the Verdigris River downstream 

from Catoosa to the confluence of the Verdigris and Arkansas 

Rivers near Muskogee, Okla., then follows the Arkansas 

River downstream through eastern Oklahoma and Arkansas, 

terminating at the confluence of the Arkansas and Mississippi 

Rivers (fig. 3).

General Weather Conditions and 

Rainfall During May 2019

Widespread rainfall that saturated much of Oklahoma and 

Kansas in the early part of May 2019 was followed by changes 

in the jet stream in late May that spawned massive storms. Just 

before May 21, 2019, changes in the jet stream caused wind 

patterns to shift, drawing warm, moist air masses northward 

from the Gulf of Mexico. These warm, moist air masses 

combined with cooler-than-average air masses throughout 

Oklahoma and Kansas, generating repeated episodes of heavy 

rain that set numerous rainfall records for the month (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2019a). 

This pattern of repeated heavy rain culminated in an extreme 

rainfall event over a 24-hour period on May 21, 2019, when 

more than 6 inches of rain fell in parts of Tulsa and Stillwater, 

Okla. (NOAA, 2019b). After rains had saturated much of 

Oklahoma and Kansas in the early part of the month, the 

additional heavy rainfall on May 21 spurred flooding along 

much of the Arkansas River. Smaller rainfall events following 

May 21 kept streams in flood stage through the end of May 

and early June (NOAA, 2019c). By the end of May 2019, 

parts of Oklahoma had received more than 25 inches of rain 

for the month (PRISM Climate Group, 2019). May rainfall 

totals were the highest on record for Kansas and Missouri, 

the second highest for Oklahoma, and the ninth highest for 

Arkansas, producing large rainfall anomalies compared to the 

normal monthly averages of 6.66 inches of rainfall for Kansas, 

5.65 inches for Missouri, 6.78 inches for Oklahoma, and 

4.11 inches for Arkansas (NOAA, 2019c).

Methods

USGS and USACE streamgages operate autonomously 

by collecting streamflow data at set frequencies (typically 

either 15 or 30 minutes) dependent on basin size and concomitant “flashiness” of the stream (how rapidly streamflow 

increases and decreases in response to a storm event). The typical streamgage automatically records stage data (Turnipseed 

and Sauer, 2010). Stage data are collected by using a variety 

of methods (float, submersible pressure transducer, nonsubmersible pressure transducer, or noncontact radar). For 

USGS streamgages, stage was recorded every 15–30 minutes 

and transmitted hourly by the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite transmitter to the USGS National 

Water Information System database (USGS, 2019a, b). For the 

USACE streamgages discussed in this report, stage was also 

recorded every 15–30 minutes, and the data were transmitted 

by satellite to the USACE Tulsa District Water Control Data 

System (USACE, 2020a). Although stage data are important, 

streamflow data are often more important for such purposes as 

streamflow forecasting, water-quality loading, flood-frequency 

analysis, and flood-mitigation planning. Derivation of streamflow from stage data at a streamgage requires periodic measurements of streamflow for the construction of a relation that 

will convert the stage data to streamflow data. In most cases, 

the relation is a simple stage-streamflow rating curve (rating 

curve) (fig. 4). USGS personnel make onsite direct measurements of stream velocity, stream width, and stream depth 

(fig. 5) that are used to create the rating curve (Turnipseed and 

Sauer, 2010). After construction of the rating curve, continued 

periodic measurements of streamflow are required at various 

gage heights to calibrate the rating curve (Rantz and others, 

1982; Turnipseed and Sauer, 2010). The rating curve for the 

USGS streamgage 07165570, Arkansas River near Haskell, 

Okla., was updated and extended based on data from the 

historic May 2019 streamflow (fig. 4). The rating curve allows 

for the determination of streamflow from the stage data when 

USGS personnel are not physically present at the streamgage 

to make a streamflow measurement.

The Arkansas River and many of its tributaries are heavily regulated by USACE flood-control dams in Kansas and 

Oklahoma. In many cases, the effects of regulation are substantial enough that the distribution of observed annual maximum streamflows no longer maintain a curve shape similar to 

that of unregulated or “natural” conditions. Analytical methods 

used for calculating annual exceedance probabilities (AEPs) 

for unregulated streams are therefore not usually appropriate for highly regulated streams. The Interagency Advisory 

Committee on Water Data (1982), Bulletin 17B, explicitly 

excluded watersheds that were “...appreciably altered by reservoir regulation.” Bulletin 17C, which is a major revision to 

Bulletin 17B, states that other methods such as “...simulated 

floods, graphical frequency analyses, and total probability 

concepts must be used for regulated streams” (Kubik, 1990; 

Sanders and others, 1990; USACE, 1997; as cited in England 

and others, 2019). All three of these methods were used in 

calculating AEPs for regulated stations.

Calculating AEPs for streamgages on regulated streams 

was based on simulated period-of-record streamflow from 

a comprehensive RiverWare model that was developed 

and maintained by the USACE Tulsa District (Center for 

Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental 

Systems [CADSWES], 2020). RiverWare is a robust stream 

and reservoir period-of-record modeling tool developed by 

the CADSWES at the University of Colorado in collaboration 

with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Bureau of Reclamation, 

and USACE. RiverWare provides a stream basin modeling 

environment for operations and planning that allows a high 
6 Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages, Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma, May to June 2019 Flood Event

10

1

10

20

30

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Stage, in feet above arbitrary datum

Rating curve 10.0 in effect prior to May flood

EXPLANATION

May 2019 peak stage

May 2019 streamflow measurements

Rating 11.0 updated and extended based on 

 May 2019 streamflow

Figure 4. Rating curve for the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 07165570, Arkansas River near Haskell, Oklahoma.

Figure 5. A direct streamflow measurement from the State Highway 20 bridge, looking 

downstream on the Verdigris River near Claremore, Oklahoma, near U.S. Geological Survey 

streamgage 07176000.
Methods 7

degree of flexibility for users to model any stream basin, manage data input and output efficiently enough for near real-time 

operations, and provide a selection of solution algorithms 

(CADSWES, 2020). The RiverWare model can be used to 

simulate regulated and unregulated conditions. The regulated 

simulation assumes that all reservoirs are in place for the 

entire specified period of record, with current operational 

criteria used for the entire period. Period-of-record headwater 

streamflows and intervening area streamflows are developed 

based on historical data, through preprocessing techniques, 

before any rule-based simulation is done. Preprocessing to 

generate intervening area streamflows includes running a local 

RiverWare model that uses observed headwater streamflows 

and observed releases from reservoirs, which are then routed 

downstream and subtracted from observed streamflow data at 

downstream streamgages. The local streamflows are incorporated into the rules-based simulation model. The unregulated 

simulation assumes that no reservoirs are in place for the 

specified period of record.

In the RiverWare model, each reach of a given stream 

is simulated individually. The model for the Arkansas River 

consists of reservoirs, control points, confluence objects, routing reaches, and data objects, and it extends from the headwater reservoirs on the Arkansas River and its tributaries in 

Kansas and Oklahoma downstream to Little Rock, Arkansas. 

The Arkansas River model includes reservoirs along the 

Arkansas River and major tributaries, including the Salt Fork 

of the Arkansas River and Caney, Verdigris, Neosho, Illinois, 

Canadian, and Poteau Rivers. The Arkansas River model is 

a daily time-step model with a period of record beginning in 

1940 that has been updated through 2019.

The Arkansas River model contains physical and operational input data, including spillway and outlet works rating 

curves, established pool limits, and regulation criteria, to 

model system operational constraints; hydropower, watersupply, and water-quality criteria are also incorporated as 

applicable. When the model is run, preprocessed hydrologic 

data are routed through the river system beginning at the 

headwater reservoirs, based on the input data and operational 

rules. Subsequent releases are determined based on real-time 

and future forecast downstream conditions. Simulated releases 

are routed downstream and combined with intervening area 

streamflows until all hydrologic streamflows for the period 

of record are routed through the model extent. Mandatory 

releases, which initially use rule functions, are required to 

maintain structural integrity at each reservoir. These releases 

are made from each reservoir and routed to downstream control points. By rule directives, each downstream control point 

is evaluated for regulation criteria or limitations; the control 

points are used to determine how much channel space is projected to be filled based on incoming intervening area streamflow as well as known upstream mandatory releases. This sets 

the reach storage parameters for actual simulated releases for 

flood control and conservation purposes. Initial flood-control 

releases from the reservoirs are then simulated. The goal 

of the rules-based simulation is to maximize use of system 

channel storage space and minimize flooding so that floodcontrol releases are given priority. The simulated flood-control 

releases are then routed downstream. Next, conservation pool 

releases (such as low-flow or environmental releases) and 

diversions for water supply are simulated for each reservoir. 

Finally, for hydropower projects, daily load requirements are 

analyzed, and any additional releases required to meet the 

load are made. The required mandatory releases (flood control 

and low flow) are made through hydropower when possible. 

Water-supply diversions are taken directly from the reservoirs and typically not returned to the model. Depending on 

hydropower requirements, system excess or dump energy as 

well as thermal purchase energy required to meet system loads 

are simulated. In addition to the previously described requirements, through several iterations of the rule-based simulation, 

the Arkansas River model attempts to achieve a target uniform 

balance between competing reservoirs during the evacuation 

of system flood storage (USACE, 2020c).

The streamgages on regulated streams that were included 

in this study were also analyzed in conjunction with their 

corresponding unregulated period-of-record annual maximum 

streamflow datasets. This part of the analysis used an analytical curve that was developed in accordance with the methodology described in Bulletin 17C (England and others, 2019). 

A benefit of evaluating unregulated streamflow probabilities 

is the ability to show the effects that flood-control dams have 

on downstream reaches, which are most evident immediately 

downstream from a dam.

Stochastic methods were used to define the upper ends of 

the probabilistic curves at most locations. This was achieved 

by incorporating the relation between the stage of a reservoir 

and its corresponding outflow. In the case of dams with uncontrolled spillways, a straightforward approach was used where 

the outflow was computed for any given stage in conjunction 

with the geometry of the spillway itself by using the following 

weir equation:

Q = C×L×H3/2 (1)

where

Q is the outflow from the dam, in cubic feet 

per second;

C is a coefficient based on the geometric 

characteristics of the spillway crest;

L is the length of the spillway crest, in feet; and

H is the depth of streamflow above the elevation 

of the spillway crest, in feet.

Dams with controlled spillways, which are most typically 

Tainter gates at USACE Tulsa District flood-control projects, 

have more complex operational rules (USACE, 2020c). For 

controlled spillways, a relation between inflow, outflow, and 

reservoir stage is defined based on the authorized operation of 

the flood-control project. If the probability of a reservoir stage 

is known and the inflow into the reservoir has the same probability, then the corresponding probabilistic outflow from the 

reservoir can be estimated.
8 Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages, Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma, May to June 2019 Flood Event

For this study, probabilistic reservoir stages were 

estimated by using the USACE Risk Management CenterReservoir Frequency Analysis Software (RMC-RFA) 

(USACE, 2018a, 2019d). RMC-RFA software was designed 

to facilitate hydrologic hazard assessments within the USACE 

Dam Safety Program; RMC-RFA can be used to produce a 

reservoir stage-frequency curve with uncertainty bounds by 

utilizing a deterministic flood routing model while treating 

the inflow volume, the inflow flood hydrograph shape, the 

seasonal occurrence of the flood event, and the antecedent 

reservoir stage as uncertain variables rather than fixed values 

(Smith and others, 2018). In order to quantify both the natural 

variability and knowledge uncertainty in reservoir stagefrequency estimates, RMC-RFA employs a two-looped, nested 

Monte Carlo methodology (USACE, 2018a). The natural 

variability of the reservoir stage is simulated in the inner loop, 

which is defined as a realization and which comprises thousands of simulated flood events. Knowledge uncertainty in the 

inflow volume frequency distribution is simulated in the outer 

loop, which comprises many realizations (USACE, 2018a).

Once the probabilities of reservoir stages had been estimated, those corresponding to the 1-percent, 0.5-percent, and 

0.2-percent AEPs were then identified on the spillway rating 

curve for each respective project. The spillway rating curve 

is referred to in the model as the “spillway gate regulation 

schedule inflow parameter” curve for controlled spillways. 

For uncontrolled spillways, the intersection of the probabilistic stage and the spillway rating curve corresponded to the 

outflow with the same AEP based on the weir equation. This 

method also required knowledge of the probabilistic inflow 

if a controlled spillway was being analyzed, in which case, 

the probabilistic inflow and the reservoir stage with the same 

probability were identified on the spillway gate regulation 

schedule inflow parameter curve. The corresponding outflow 

with the same AEP was then estimated. The spillway rating 

curve was obtained from the water control manual for each 

respective reservoir project (USACE, 2020c).

Digital data for the model and output files for the 

RiverWare model used to simulate regulated and unregulated 

conditions and the physical and operational input data, including spillway and outlet works, rating curves, established pool 

limits, and regulation criteria for modeling system operational 

constraints, are available for download in a companion data 

release (Williams and Lewis, 2020).

Peak Streamflows and Stages

Peaks of record were measured at nine USGS and 

USACE streamgages on various streams in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma (USGS, 2019a, b). Peak streamflows during 

the May to June 2019 floods for 38 streamgages are provided 

(table 1; fig. 1). The streamgages listed in table 1 were chosen 

for this study because they recorded flooding during the May–

June 2019 flood event. The data in table 1 are from both the 

USGS and USACE.

The peak stage and streamflow are not always coincident 

in time for the streams described in this report, particularly for 

the numerous sinuous streams (fig. 1) characterized by complicated hydraulics that only form in low-gradient environments 

(Holmes and others, 2013).

Most of the flood peaks were recorded near the end of 

May 2019, with flood peaks occurring later with increasing distance downstream. One exception was the USGS 

streamgage 07194500, Arkansas River near Muskogee, Okla. 

(number 28, fig. 1) where the flood peaked earlier than at the 

Haskell streamgage (number 7, fig. 1) because of inflow from 

the Neosho and Verdigris Rivers.
Peak Streamflows and Stages 9

Table 1. Site information for selected streamgages in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma and peak streamflow values for the May to 

June 2019 flood event.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; --, not applicable; Okla., Oklahoma; >, greater than; <, 

less than]

Map

identifier

(fig. 1)

USGS

station

number

USACE

station

identifier

Station name

Latitude,

in decimal

degrees

Longitude,

in decimal

degrees

Peak

streamflow,

in ft3/s

Recurrence

interval,

in years

1 -- KAWL Arkansas River below Kaw Dam, Okla.1 36.699444 96.921667 105,000 <100

2 07152500 RALS Arkansas River near Ralston, Okla.2 36.504217 96.728367 185,000 >100

3 -- KEYS Arkansas River below Keystone Dam, 

Okla.1

36.151389 96.251389 274,600 >100

4 07153000 PAWN Black Bear Creek at Pawnee, Okla.2 36.343665 96.799479 19,500 >50

5 07160000 GUTH Cimarron River near Guthrie, Okla.2 35.920602 97.425875 62,300 <10

6 07161450 RIPL Cimarron River near Ripley, Okla.2 35.985893 96.912250 99,400 >10

7 07165570 HASK Arkansas River near Haskell, Okla.2 35.822778 95.637778 286,000 >100

8 07171000 LENA Verdigris River near Lenapah, Okla.2 36.851196 95.586088 83,300 >25

9 -- OOLO Verdigris River below Oologah Dam, 

Okla.1

36.421667 95.678333 64,200 >50

10 -- HULA Caney River below Hulah Dam, Okla.1 36.928889 96.088333 12,400 <10

11 -- COPA Little Caney River below Copan Dam, 

Okla.1

36.885278 95.971389 7,300 <25

12 07174400 BART Caney River at Bartlesville, Okla.2 36.755644 95.972206 19,300 <10

13 07175500 RAMO Caney River near Ramona, Okla.2 36.508982 95.841931 42,600 >10

14 07176000 CLAR Verdigris River near Claremore, Okla.2 36.307500 95.699722 92,500 >25

15 -- BIRC Birch Creek below Birch Dam, Okla.1 36.534444 96.162222 1,400 >2

16 07176500 AVAN Bird Creek near Avant, Okla.2 36.485088 96.060274 36,400 <100

17 07176950 HOMI Hominy Creek near Hominy, Okla.2 36.473679 96.378906 27,200 <25

18 -- SKIA Hominy Creek below Skiatook Dam, 

Okla.1

36.350556 96.086667 5,900 >100

19 07177500 SPER Bird Creek near Sperry, Okla.2 36.278425 95.954162 42,100 <50

20 -- INOL Verdigris River near Inola, Okla.1 36.057778 95.534722 101,000 >25

21 07185000 COMM Neosho River near Commerce, Okla.2 36.928681 94.957457 91,400 <25

22 07185090 -- Tar Creek near Commerce, Okla.2 36.943680 94.853286 6,660 >10

23 07185095 MIAT Tar Creek at 22nd Street Bridge at 

Miami, Okla.2

36.900070 94.868288 6,410 <10

24 -- PENS Grand River below Pensacola Dam, 

Okla.1

36.471111 95.038333 189,500 <50

25 -- HUDS Grand River below Markham Ferry 

Dam, Okla.1

36.231667 95.193056 226,700 >50

26 -- FGIB Grand River below Fort Gibson Dam, 

Okla.1

35.871111 95.228333 228,300 >50

27 07191000 BCAB Big Cabin Creek near Big Cabin, Okla.2 36.568418 95.152189 42,500 >10

28 07194500 MUSK Arkansas River at Muskogee, Okla.2 35.769543 95.297187 600,000 <100

29 -- WEBB Arkansas River below Webbers Falls 

Lock and Dam, Okla.1

35.586389 95.168333 611,000 <100

30 07195500 WATT Illinois River near Watts, Okla.2 36.130082 94.572165 24,600 >2

31 07196500 TAHL Illinois River near Tahlequah, Okla.2 35.922869 94.923566 26,500 >2

32 -- TENK Illinois River below Tenkiller Dam, 

Okla.1

35.596389 95.048889 11,000 <2
10 Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages, Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma, May to June 2019 Flood Event

Flood Exceedance Probabilities of 

Peak Streamflows

After a flood event, personnel from different agencies and 

groups commonly need to know the expected frequency and 

magnitude of peak streamflows observed. Peak-streamflow 

frequency data are determined from a series of the highest 

instantaneous annual peak streamflows for the period of record 

at a streamgage. The probability that a peak will occur at a 

given location in a given year is determined from the annual 

peak streamflow data and is known as the AEP (Holmes and 

others, 2013).

Each peak streamflow value listed in table 1 is an instantaneous peak streamflow that can be expected to be equaled 

or exceeded on average once every “y” years, where “y” is 

the recurrence interval. Similarly, each instantaneous peak 

streamflow has an “x”-percent probability of exceedance in 

any given year, where “x” is the exceedance probability, in 

percent. For example, the instantaneous peak streamflow corresponding to the 100-year recurrence interval can be expected 

to be equaled or exceeded on average once every 100 years; 

similarly, an instantaneous peak streamflow corresponding to 

a 1-percent AEP will have a 1-percent chance of being equaled 

or exceeded in any given year (table 2). Changes in land use, 

construction of new dams, and changes in long-term precipitation patterns can cause the designated AEPs and recurrence 

intervals for floods of a given magnitude to change over time 

(USGS, 2019c).

The flood-frequency estimates calculated by the USGS 

for the unregulated streams in this report were made by 

using the expected moments algorithm (Cohn and others, 

1997, 2001) in the USGS software package PeakFQ, version 7.2 (Flynn and others, 2006; Veilleux and others, 2014) 

(table 3). The methods used for computing peak-streamflow 

frequency are from a published report referred to as Bulletin 

17C (England and others, 2019). Bulletin 17C is an update 

to Bulletin 17B (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water 

Table 1. Site information for selected streamgages in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma and peak streamflow values for the May to 

June 2019 flood event.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; --, not applicable; Okla., Oklahoma; >, greater than; <, 

less than]

Map

identifier

(fig. 1)

USGS

station

number

USACE

station

identifier

Station name

Latitude,

in decimal

degrees

Longitude,

in decimal

degrees

Peak

streamflow,

in ft3/s

Recurrence

interval,

in years

33 07243500 BEGG Deep Fork near Beggs, Okla.2 35.673988 96.068608 20,000 >5

34 -- EUFA Canadian River below Eufaula Dam, 

Okla.1

35.306944 95.362222 36,500 <2

35 -- ROBE Arkansas River below Robert S. Kerr 

Lock and Dam, Okla.1

35.349167 94.778333 546,000 <50

36 -- WIST Poteau River below Wister Dam, Okla.1 34.935833 94.719444 5,100 <2

37 -- POTE Poteau River near Poteau, Okla.1 35.066667 94.599722 6,500 <2

38 07249413 PANA Poteau River near Panama, Okla.2 35.165653 94.653002 21,500 >2

1Station operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

2Station operated by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Table 2. Selected recurrence intervals and the associated annual 

exceedance probabilities.

Recurrence interval (years) Annual exceedance probability (percent)

2 50

5 20

10 10

25 4

50 2

100 1

200 0.5

500 0.2
Flood Exceedance Probabilities of Peak Streamflows 11

Data, 1982). Flood computation equations and algorithms 

in Bulletin 17C have been implemented into PeakFQ, version 7.2. The May and June 2019 peak streamflows were 

included in the PeakFQ analyses per guidance provided in 

USGS Office of Surface Water Technical Memorandum 

2013.01 (USGS, 2012). Although Bulletin 17C states that 

guidelines do not apply to streamgages affected by reservoir regulation, with proper dataset handling, Bulletin 17C 

guidelines can be applied to produce reliable results at these 

streamgages (Advisory Committee on Water Information, 

2002; USGS, 2012).

All the streamgages operated by the USGS discussed in 

this report monitored unregulated streamflows with two exceptions: more than 80 percent of the drainage areas upstream 

from USGS streamgages 07153000, Black Bear Creek at 

Pawnee, Okla., and 07243500, Deep Fork near Beggs, Okla., 

were affected by reservoir regulation. Therefore, the “atsite” skew function in PeakFQ was used to determine peakstreamflow frequencies for these streamgages.

The flood-frequency estimates calculated by the USACE 

for the regulated streams in this report were made by using the 

USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center’s (HEC) statistical 

software package (HEC-SSP) (USACE, 2019b). This is a statistical software tool developed by the USACE HEC that can 

perform flood analyses in accordance with Bulletin 17C procedures and graphical techniques (USACE, 2019b). Unregulated 

period-of-record annual maximum streamflow was analyzed 

by using Bulletin 17C methodology. Because most of the regulated period-of-record annual maximum streamflow datasets 

were so heavily affected by upstream dams that the application of Bulletin 17C was inappropriate, graphical frequency 

analysis was used. The estimation of confidence intervals 

has historically been problematic for nonanalytical curves 

(Goldman, 2001). Fortunately, HEC-SSP incorporates order 

statistics, which allows for an estimation of the 5-percent and 

95-percent confidence intervals. The order statistic approach 

was limited to calculating uncertainty in the estimated frequency curve for the range of observed data (which was a 

79-year equivalent length of record for the RiverWare simulated datasets) (USACE, 1997). Asymptotic approximation 

was used to extrapolate the estimates beyond the equivalent 

length of record. The order statistic and asymptotic estimates 

were matched at the limits of the simulated data.

A peak transform method described by Ergish (2010)

was evaluated for possible widespread use in this study. The 

premise behind the peak transform method is that unregulated 

streamflows can be converted to regulated streamflows while 

maintaining the probabilistic distribution of the unregulated 

dataset by using linear regression (Ergish, 2010). A previous 

study by the USACE Tulsa District used the peak transform 

method in an assessment of streamflow frequency of the Red 

River at Shreveport, Louisiana, and found that the method 

worked well (USACE, 2018b). In the Red River at Shreveport 

study, the magnitude of the 1-percent AEP streamflow that was 

calculated by using the peak transform method differed from 

a graphical frequency analysis by less than 5 percent. In this 

study, however, the peak transform method generally performed poorly. This was attributed to the substantial amount 

of downstream regulation along many of the streams that were 

analyzed. Therefore, the peak transform method was only used 

for streamgages on Bird Creek, where the effects of regulation 

were not as pronounced.

Because the RiverWare model uses a daily time step, the 

same duration was also used for this analysis. Comparisons 

between average daily streamflows and instantaneous peak 

streamflows were made at a few downstream streamgages on 

the Arkansas River and its tributaries. Given the duration of 

releases from flood-control dams during major floods, very 

little difference (typically less than 5 percent) was observed 

between the two. Therefore, no peaking factor was applied. 

For streams that were either completely or largely unregulated, the application of a peaking factor became an important 

consideration. Bird Creek Basin was most affected by instantaneous streamflows in this study. Because USGS instantaneous 

peak and daily streamflow averages span the entire 80-year 

history of the RiverWare simulated period-of-record dataset, 

a ratio of observed streamflows showed that the instantaneous 

peaks were typically 20 percent higher than daily averages. 

Therefore, a peaking factor was applied to the instantaneous 

peak streamflows measured at USGS streamgages 07177500, 

Bird Creek near Sperry, Okla., and 07176500, Bird Creek near 

Avant, Okla. Otherwise, no adjustment was made for instantaneous peak streamflows.

Of the 38 streamgages in this study, 9 recorded new peak 

streamflows in 2019 (table 3). Ranks for peak streamflows are 

determined by water year. The AEPs ranged from less than 

1 percent to 50 percent for peak streamflows analyzed in this 

study. At USGS streamgage 07153000, Black Bear Creek at 

Pawnee, Okla., a peak streamflow of record of 19,500 ft3/s was 

measured on May 21, 2019 (table 3; fig. 6). Peak streamflows 

of record were also measured at the following streamgages 

in Oklahoma: Arkansas River below Kaw Dam; 07165570, 

Arkansas River near Haskell; Verdigris River below Oologah 

Dam; 07176500, Bird Creek near Avant; 07176950, Hominy 

Creek near Hominy; Hominy Creek below Skiatook Dam, 

Okla.; Verdigris River near Inola; and 07185090, Tar Creek 

near Commerce.
12 Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages, Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma, May to June 2019 Flood Event

Table 3. Peak-streamflow frequency estimates for selected streamgages in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma for the May to 

June 2019 flood event.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; ft, feet; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; --, not applicable; %, percent; Y, yes; N, no]

Map 

identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

station 

number

USACE 

station 

identifier

Station name

Analysis information Flood data

Water years 

for peak 

streamflows 

(systematic 

and historical)

Regulated

Date of 

peak 

streamflow

Peak 

stage 

(ft)

Peak 

streamflow, in 

ft3/s

Rank 

of peak 

streamflow in 

record

 1 --KAWLArkansas River be

Kaw Dam, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/25/2019 -- 105,000 1

 2 07152500RALSArkansas River n

Ralston, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/23/2019 22.14 185,000 2

 3 -- KEYSArkansas River belo

Keystone Dam, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/29/2019 -- 275,000 2

 4 07153000PAWNBlack Bear Creek

Pawnee, Okla.3

 1968–2019 Y 5/21/2019 26.18 19,500 1

 5 07160000 GUTHCimarron River nea

Guthrie, Okla.2

 1938–2019  5/21/201  21.7  62,30 

 6 07161450RIPLCimarron River n

Ripley, Okla.2

 1988–2019  5/26/201  26.3  99,40 

 7 07165570 HASKArkansas River nea

Haskell, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/29/2019 24.24 286,000 1

 8 07171000LENAVerdigris River n

Lenapah, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/28/2019 37.50 83,300 6

 9 --OOLOVerdigris River be

Oologah Dam, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/25/2019 -- 64,500 1

 10 --HULACaney River be

Hulah Dam, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/26/2019 -- 12,400 3

 11 -- COPALittle Caney Rive

below Copan Dam, 

Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/26/2019 -- 7,320 5

 12 07174400BARTCaney River

Bartlesville, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/21/2019 18.21 19,300 4

 13 07175500RAMOCaney River n

Ramona, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/23/2019 29.59 42,600 3

 14 07176000CLARVerdigris River n

Claremore, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/27/2019 45.75 92,500 3

 15 --BIRCBirch Creek be

Birch Dam, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/26/2019 -- 1,420 30

 16 07176500AVANBird Creek near Ava

Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/21/2019 36.31 36,400 1

 17 07176950 HOMI Hominy Creek near 

Hominy, Okla.2

 2004–2019  5/21/201  43.0  27,20 

 18 -- SKIA Hominy Creek below 

Skiatook Dam, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/21/2019 -- 5,900 1

 19 07177500SPERBird Creek near Sper

Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/22/2019 31.55 42,100 5

 20 --INOLVerdigris River n

Inola, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/26/2019 -- 177,000 1

 21 07185000 COMMNeosho River nea

Commerce, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/24/2019 25.53 91,400 7
Flood Exceedance Probabilities of Peak Streamflows 13

Map 

identifier 

(fig. 1)

Peak-streamflow frequency estimates

Peak streamflow (ft3/s) for indicated annual exceedance probability (%)

50% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% 0.5% 0.2%

 1 26,000 37,000 40,000 45,000 70,000 130,000 167,000 185,000

 2 47,200 82,500 107,000 130,000 159,000 180,000 200,000 225,000

 3 60,000 90,000 110,000 140,000 210,000 270,000 310,000 350,000

 4 5,620 9,700 12,600 16,300 19,000 21,700 24,400 27,900

 5 28,300 51,200 70,500 99,600 125,000 154,000 186,000 235,000

 6 32,800 65,800 95,100 142,000 183,000 232,000 288,000 374,000

 7 52,000 70,000 110,000 140,000 210,000 270,000 310,000 350,000

 8 30,000 42,000 55,000 80,000 110,000 145,000 175,000 210,000

 9 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,500 52,000 80,000 115,000 135,000

 10 5,000 6,700 19,000 35,000 50,000 57,000 65,000 75,000

 11 2,000 3,500 3,500 9,100 17,000 25,000 35,000 44,000

 12 6,700 10,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 75,000 90,000 105,000

 13 12,000 20,000 30,000 60,000 85,000 95,000 105,000 115,000

 14 34,100 39,700 45,000 80,000 110,000 130,000 150,000 170,000

 15 1,200 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

 16 10,000 16,900 21,800 26,800 33,300 38,400 43,500 50,400

 17 8,700 15,100 20,100 27,300 33,200 39,500 46,400 56,300

 18 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,900 6,000

 19 11,200 20,500 27,200 34,000 43,100 49,900 56,900 66,100

 20 44,000 60,200 80,000 100,000 140,000 180,000 210,000 240,000

 21 33,500 58,400 74,700 102,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 190,000
14 Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages, Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma, May to June 2019 Flood Event

Table 3. Peak-streamflow frequency estimates for selected streamgages in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma for the May to 

June 2019 flood event.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; ft, feet; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; --, not applicable; %, percent; Y, yes; N, no]

Map 

identifier 

(fig. 1)

USGS 

station 

number

USACE 

station 

identifier

Station name

Analysis information Flood data

Water years 

for peak 

streamflows 

(systematic 

and historical)

Regulated

Date of 

peak 

streamflow

Peak 

stage 

(ft)

Peak 

streamflow, in 

ft3/s

Rank 

of peak 

streamflow in 

record

 22 07185090 -- Tar Creek near 

Commerce, Okla.2

 2005–2019  5/21/201  18.4  6,66 

 23 07185095 MIAT Tar Creek at 22nd 

Street Bridge at 

Miami, Okla.2

 1984–2019  5/21/201  14.7  6,41 

 24 --PENSGrand River be

Pensacola Dam, 

Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/23/2019 -- 190,000 2

 25 -- HUDSGrand River belo

Markham Ferry Dam, 

Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/24/2019 -- 227,000 2

 26 --FGIBGrand River be

Fort Gibson Dam, 

Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/25/2019 -- 228,000 2

 27 07191000BCABBig Cabin Creek n

Big Cabin, Okla.2

 1941–2019  5/21/201  47.4  42,50 

 28 07194500 MUSKArkansas River a

Muskogee, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/26/2019 46.39 600,000 2

 29 --WEBBArkansas River be

Webbers Falls Lock 

and Dam, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/27/2019 -- 611,000 2

 30 07195500WATTIllinois River n

Watts, Okla.2

 1956–2019  6/24/201  19.9  24,60  

 31 07196500TAHLIllinois River n

Tahlequah, Okla.2

 1937–2019  6/25/201  16.7  26,50  

 32 --TENKIllinois River be

Tenkiller Dam, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 7/1/2019 -- 12,900 5

 33 07243500BEGGDeep Fork near Beg

Okla.3

 1968–2019 Y 5/26/2019 26.01 20,000 19

 34 -- EUFACanadian River belo

Eufaula Dam, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 6/2/2019 -- 36,600 9

 35 --ROBEArkansas River be

Robert S. Kerr Lock 

and Dam, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/28/2019 -- 613,000 2

 36 --WISTPoteau River be

Wister Dam, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/5/2019 -- 5,080 7

 37 -- POTEPoteau River nea

Poteau, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 5/8/2019 -- 6,470 8

 38 07249413PANAPoteau River n

Panama, Okla.1

 1940–2019 Y 6/25/2019 36.74 21,500 14

1Peak-streamflow frequency estimates were calculated by using the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center’s (HEC) statistical software package (HEC-SSP) 

(USACE, 2019b).

2Peak-streamflow frequency estimates were calculated by using PeakFQ (Veilleux and others, 2014).

3Peak-streamflow frequency estimates were calculated by using PeakFQ; the estimated peak flows were not weighted (England and others, 2019) but represent 

the at-site flood-frequency analysis.
Flood Exceedance Probabilities of Peak Streamflows 15

Map 

identifier 

(fig. 1)

Peak-streamflow frequency estimates

Peak streamflow (ft3/s) for indicated annual exceedance probability (%)

50% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% 0.5% 0.2%

 22 2,560 4,460 5,980 8,180 10,000 12,000 14,300 17,500

 23 3,060 5,150 6,780 9,100 11,000 13,100 15,400 18,700

 24 65,000 90,200 102,000 117,900 195,000 280,000 330,000 360,000

 25 70,000 100,000 108,000 130,000 225,000 330,000 375,000 415,000

 26 68,000 95,000 100,000 100,100 195,000 295,000 340,000 380,000

 27 16,600 28,600 38,000 51,200 62,000 73,500 85,800 103,000

 28 120,000 145,000 205,000 320,000 495,000 625,000 705,000 745,000

 29 120,000 145,000 205,000 320,000 495,000 625,000 705,000 745,000

 30 19,700 37,900 53,400 76,800 97,200 120,000 146,000 184,000

 31 20,900 41,900 59,600 86,200 109,000 134,000 162,000 202,000

 32 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,400 35,000 80,000 110,000 140,000

 33 9,890 18,500 24,900 33,500 40,000 46,700 53,500 62,500

 34 40,000 40,000 43,000 55,000 145,000 270,000 320,000 370,000

 35 138,000 171,000 311,000 379,000 585,000 775,000 835,000 845,000

 36 7,800 7,800 7,800 14,500 21,000 30,000 44,000 60,000

 37 8,000 11,400 16,700 21,600 30,000 42,000 56,000 72,000

 38 19,000 30,000 48,000 60,000 73,000 85,000 95,000 105,000
16 Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages, Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma, May to June 2019 Flood Event

References Cited

Advisory Committee on Water Information, 2002, Bulletin 

17B, guidelines for determining flood frequency—

Frequently asked questions, accessed April 30, 2007, at 

https://acwi.gov/hydrology/Frequency/B17bFAQ.html.

Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water and 

Environmental Systems [CADSWES], 2020, RiverWare 

River and Reservoir Modeling Tool, version 8.0.3., accessed 

March 6, 2020, at https://www.riverware.org.

Cohn, T.A., Lane, W.L., and Baier, W.G., 1997, An algorithm 

for computing moments-based flood quantile estimates 

when historical flood information is available: Water 

Resources Research, v. 33, no. 9, p. 2089–2096. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1029/97WR01640.]

Cohn, T.A., Lane, W.L., and Stedinger, J.R., 2001, Confidence 

intervals for expected moments algorithm flood quantile estimates: Water Resources Research, v. 37, no. 6, 

p. 1695–1706. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1029/

2001WR900016.]

England, J.F., Jr., Cohn, T.A., Faber, B.A., Stedinger, J.R., 

Thomas, W.O., Jr., Veilleux, A.G., Kiang, J.E., and Mason, 

R.R., Jr., 2019, Guidelines for determining flood flow 

frequency—Bulletin 17C (ver. 1.1, May 2019): U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 4, chap. 

B5, 148 p., accessed March 3, 2020, at https://doi.org/

10.3133/tm4B5.

Ergish, N.J., 2010, Flood frequency analysis for regulated watersheds: Master’s Thesis, University of 

California – Davis, 40 p., accessed March 6, 2020, 

at https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/shed/lund/students/

ErgishThesis.pdf.

Flynn, K.M., Kirby, W.H., and Hummel, P.R., 2006, User’s 

manual for program PeakFQ, annual flood-frequency analysis using Bulletin 17B guidelines: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques and Methods, book 4, chap. B4, 42 p. [Also 

available at https://doi.org/10.3133/tm4B4.]

Goldman, D.M., 2001, Quantifying uncertainty in estimates 

of regulated flood frequency curves: American Society of 

Civil Engineers, World Water Congress, 13 p., accessed 

March 6, 2020, at https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/

40569(2001)273.

Fitted frequency curve

Confidence limits: 5 percent lower,

95 percent upper

Gaged peak streamflow

EXPLANATION

99.5 98 95 90 75 60 40 20 10 5 1 0.2

Annual exceedance probability, in percent

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Annual peak streamflow, in cubic feet per second

May 21, 2019

peak of record

Figure 6. Flood-frequency curve for the annual peak streamflows during the regulated period of record 

at U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 07153000, Black Bear Creek at Pawnee, Oklahoma.
References Cited 17

Holmes, R.R., Jr., Wiche, G.J., Koenig, T.A., and Sando, 

S.K., 2013, Peak streamflows and runoff volumes for the 

Central United States, February through September, 2011: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1798–C, 60 p., 

accessed March 3, 2020, at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1798c.

Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982, 

Guidelines for determining flood-flow frequency: Bulletin 

17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee, Office of Water Data 

Coordination, U.S. Geological Survey, 183 p. [Also available at https://water.usgs.gov/osw/bulletin17b/bulletin_

17B.html.]

Jackson, D., and Pittman, H., 2019, Throwback Tulsa—

Arkansas River unleashed fury in ’86 flood: Tulsa 

[Oklahoma] World, May 23, 2019, accessed March 3, 2020, 

at https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/throwback-tulsaarkansas-river-unleashed-fury-in-flood/article_fec26e4ec9be-5eaa-ac00-65c4d8e83056.html.

Kubik, H.E., 1990, Computation of regulated frequency curves 

by application of the total probability theorem: U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 17 p.

Lewis, J.M., and Trevisan, A.R., 2019, Peak streamflow 

and stages at selected streamgages on the Arkansas 

River in Oklahoma and Arkansas, May to June 2019: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2019–1129, 

10 p., accessed March 6, 2020, at https://doi.org/10.3133/

ofr20191129.

Mesonet, 2019, Oklahoma Climatological Survey weather 

data, accessed July 15, 2019, at http://www.mesonet.org/.

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2016, CropScape, 

cropland day layers, 2010–15, accessed September 18, 

2019, at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/.

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

[NOAA], 2019a, National Centers for Environmental 

Information, State of the climate—National climate 

report for May 2019, accessed September 4, 2019, at 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201905.

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

[NOAA], 2019b, National Centers for Environmental 

Information, Climate data online—Daily summaries, 

accessed August 29, 2019, at https://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/

maps/ncei/summaries/daily.

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA], 2019c, National Centers for 

Environmental Information, Climate at a glance—

Regional time series, accessed August 29, 2019, at 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/.

PBS News Hour, 2019, News wrap—Oklahoma flooding 

threatens to wash away homes, May 22, 2019, accessed 

October 15, 2019, at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/

show/news-wrap-oklahoma-flooding-threatens-to-washaway-homes.

PRISM Climate Group, 2019, PRISM climate data: 

Oregon State University, accessed September 3, 2019, at 

http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow—Volume 2. Computation of discharge: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, p. 285–631, 

accessed April 17, 2020, at https://doi.org/10.3133/

wsp2175.

Sanders, C.L., Jr., Kubik, H.E., Hoke, J.T., Jr., and Kirby, 

W.H., 1990, Flood frequency of the Savannah River at 

Augusta, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 90–4024, 87 p., accessed March 6, 

2020, at https://doi.org/10.3133/wri904024.

Smith, H., Bartles, M., and Fleming, M., 2018, An 

inflow volume-based approach to estimating stagefrequency for dams: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

RMC-TR-2018-03, 132 p., accessed March 6, 

2020, at https://www.iwrlibrary.us/#/document/

87363a2a-8dd9-4596-991e-2f9863815c7e.

Stanglin, D., and Hughes, T., 2019, Arkansas River bursts 

through levee north of Little Rock, triggering evacuations: USA Today, May 31, 2019, accessed June 17, 

2019, at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/

nation/2019/05/31/arkansas-flood-levee-breach-promptsevacuations-north-little-rock/1297285001/.

Turnipseed, D.P., and Sauer, V.B., 2010, Discharge measurements at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques and Methods book 3, chap. A8, 87 p., accessed 

September 19, 2019, at https://doi.org/10.3133/tm3A8.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 1997, 

Uncertainty estimates for nonanalytic frequency curves, 

ETL 1110-2-537: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Technical Letter.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2010, Sand 

and gravel mining in Oklahoma waterways, guidelines for operators, accessed October 21, 2019, at 

https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/portals/41/docs/missions/

regulatory/gravel1.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2018a, RMC-RFA 

Reservoir Frequency Analysis, version 1.1.0., accessed 

April 17, 2020, at https://www.iwrlibrary.us/#/document/

df7038b8-ff9f-4a72-ce0f-6110847fd42d.
18 Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages, Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma, May to June 2019 Flood Event

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2018b, Flow frequency analysis for the Red River at Shreveport: Louisiana, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 16 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2019a, Flood Spring 

2019: After Action Report, Tulsa District, 57 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2019b, HECSSP Statistical Software Package, version 2.2., accessed 

February 19, 2020, at https://docplayer.net/143346445-Hecssp-statistical-software-package-release-notes-version-2-2-

june-us-army-corps-of-engineers-hydrologic-engineeringcenter.html.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2019c, McClellanKerr Arkansas River Navigation System, accessed 

October 21, 2019, at https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/

Missions/Navigation/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2020a, Tulsa 

District Water Control Data System (WCDS), accessed 

March 25, 2020, at https://www.swt-wc.usace.army.mil/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2020b, Tulsa 

District Water Control Activities: 2019 Annual Report, 

Southwestern Division, 28 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2020c, 

Comprehensive Regulated Flow and Stage Frequency 

Analysis and Flood Inundation Modeling Study for the 

Arkansas River and its Tributaries in Oklahoma: FEMA 

Region VI Mission Assignment, Tulsa District, 32 p.

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2012, Computation of 

annual exceedance probability (AEP) for characterization 

of observed flood peaks: U.S. Geological Survey Office of 

Surface Water Technical Memorandum 2013.01, accessed 

August 16, 2019, at https://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/

SW/sw13.01.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2019a, WaterWatch—

Current water resources conditions, map of real-time 

streamflow compared to historical streamflow for the day of 

the year (United States): U.S. Geological Survey, accessed 

October 21, 2019, at https://waterwatch.usgs.gov.

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2019b, USGS water data 

for the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Information System database, accessed April 15, 2020, at 

https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN.

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2019c, Floods and 

recurrence intervals, accessed October 15, 2019, at 

https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/

science/floods-and-recurrence-intervals?qt-science_center_

objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.

Veilleux, A.G., Cohn, T.A., Flynn, K.M., Mason, R.R., Jr., and 

Hummel, P.R., 2014, Estimating magnitude and frequency 

of floods using the PeakFQ 7.0 program: U.S. Geological 

Survey Fact Sheet 2013–3108, 2 p., accessed October 10, 

2019, at https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20133108.

Williams, D.J., and Lewis, J.M., 2020, RiverWare model 

outputs for flood calculations along the Arkansas River 

for a flood event in eastern and northeastern Oklahoma 

during May–June 2019: U.S. Geological Survey data 

release, https://doi.org/ 10.5066/ P9T3Q6MB.
For more information about this publication, contact 

Director, Oklahoma-Texas Water Science Center 

U.S. Geological Survey 

1505 Ferguson Lane 

Austin, Texas 78754-4501 

(512) 927-3500 

For additional information visit 

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ok-water/

Publishing support provided by 

Lafayette Publishing Service Center
Lewis and others—Characterization of Peak Streamflow and Stages, Eastern and Northeastern Oklahoma, May to June 2019 Flood Event—OFR 2020–1090

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201090