i

 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS WR-279 

Effects of Wildfire in the Mountainous Terrain of Southeast Arizona: An Empirical Formula to 

Estimate 5-Year Peak Discharge from Small Post-Burn Watersheds 

William B. Reed1 and Mike Schaffner2 

June 2007 

1

NOAA National Weather Service, Colorado Basin River Forecast Center, Salt Lake City, UT 2

NOAA National Weather Service, Weather Forecast Office, Tucson, AZ

United States National Oceanic and National Weather Service 

Department of Commerce Atmospheric Administration MaryGlackin, Acting Assistant Administrator 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary VADM C. Lautenbacher for Weather Services 

 Under Secretary 
 ii

And is approved for publication by 

Scientific Services Division 

Western Region 

Andy. Edman, Chief 

Scientific Services Division 

Salt Lake City, UT
 1

Coauthor Mike Schaffner viewing a boulder deposit in Marijilda Canyon (photo courtesy of 

USGS). 
 2

Effects of Wildfire in the Mountainous Terrain of Southeast Arizona: An 

Empirical Formula to Estimate 5-Year Peak Discharge from Small Post-Burn 

Watersheds 

William B. Reed1 and Mike Schaffner2

1

NOAA National Weather Service, Colorado Basin River Forecast Center, Salt Lake City, UT 2

NOAA National Weather Service, Weather Forecast Office, Tucson, AZ 

Abstract. This paper presents the new fundamental concept of the hyper-effective drainage 

area, the area of the high severity burn plus the area of the moderate severity burn, and provides 

an empirical formula to estimate the 5-year peak discharge from small post-burn watersheds to 

demonstrate the use of the concept. The equation uses the documented hydrologic response 

within the first two years after the occurrence of wildfire of ten watersheds in Southeast Arizona. 

These watersheds are within the forested steep terrain of the Santa Catalina, Santa Rita, and 

Pinaleno Mountains. After the burns, frequent flash floods and occasional debris flows have 

occurred. A few of the flash floods were particularly severe resulting in one fatality, several 

evacuations of flood prone areas, and the destruction of four stream gaging sites. To predict the 

“likely” peak flow that can be expected before a given burned watershed is back to conditions 

that resemble pre-burn hydrology, an empirical equation was devised to estimate the post-burn 5-

year peak flow. The developed equation works reasonably well (cross validation adjusted 

coefficient of determination of 0.90) for the documented watersheds. Its ability to deal with 

topographic and geomorphologic diversity lies in the use of a multivariate runoff index that 

utilizes the hyper-effective drainage area (determined from burn severity), average basin 

elevation, and an objective modified channel relief ratio. 

Additional keywords: Arizona; Post-Burn Hydrology; Forest Hydrology; Peak Flows; Flash 

Floods; Modified Channel Relief Ratio; Hyper-Effective Drainage Area. 

Introduction 

Southeast Arizona has recently been impacted by several wildfires. These include the 

Oracle Hill Fire (2002), Bullock Fire (2002), and Aspen Fire (2003) in the Santa Catalina 

Mountains; the Nuttall Fire (2004) in the Pinaleno Mountains; and the Florida Fire (2005) in the 

Santa Rita Mountains (Figure 1). After these wildfires, significantly increased runoff from the 

burn areas has occurred. Rainfall amounts and intensities, which normally would have caused 

little if any, flooding, have produced dangerous flash floods during watershed recovery. 

 Often the National Weather Service is faced with predicting post-burn peak flows shortly 

after a fire, and sometimes, while the fire is still burning. This urgency for forecasts does not 

allow for the use of the tools currently available to Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation 

(BAER) teams for post-burn hydrologic analysis because these methods are either too data 

intensive, or too time consumptive, for use in a real-time operational setting. Although burn 

severity information is usually not available in near real time, for operational purposes, a worstcase scenario could be assumed until the data became available. The outlet of the basin would 

be selected based upon potential damage to life or property, e.g., a bridge crossing or nearby 

housing. 
 3

This study presents the new fundamental concept of hyper-effective drainage area, the 

area of the high severity burn plus the area of the moderate severity burn, and provides an 

empirical formula to estimate the 5-year peak discharge (Q ) 5 from small watersheds, watersheds 

less than 15 square miles (38.8 square kilometers), during post-burn recovery to demonstrate the 

use of the concept. Determining the 5-year return interval has proven an effective approach for 

similar burn studies (Reed 2002). This is perhaps because research conducted on burned 

watersheds throughout the Rocky Mountains indicates hydrologic recovery to near pre-burn 

conditions within 3 to 5 years (Morris and Moses 1987, Martin and Moody 2001). 

A series of equations for different return intervals (e.g., 2-year and 10-year) also could be 

developed but was beyond the scope of this paper. The 5-year peak discharge equation was 

developed by evaluating the hydrologic response within the first two years after the occurrence 

of wildfire of ten watersheds in Southeast Arizona: Frye Canyon, Deadman Canyon, Marijilda 

Canyon, Noon Creek, Wet Canyon, Upper Campo Bonito, Sabino Creek near Mount Lemmon, 

Alder Canyon at Ventana Windmill, (these first eight documented in Schaffner and Reed 2005a), 

Madera Canyon (described below), and Romero Canyon (also described below). Additionally 

the information for Upper Campo Bonito was updated in Schaffner and Reed (2005b). The 

methodology used to determine the 5-year post-burn flow for all ten basins was similar. 

Pertinent data are presented in Figures 2, 3, and 4. 

Cañada del Oro near Coronado Camp documented in Schaffner and Reed (2005a) was 

not used because it was a second year event likely preceded by undocumented first year events of 

larger magnitude. Additionally, this basin at 21.6 square miles (55.9 square kilometers) is 

perhaps too large for the methodology used. A cursory examination of the data for the 

downstream gage, Cañada del Oro at Rancho Solano, suggests that post-burn runoff from basins 

of this size (21.6 square miles) and larger may be better modeled using a technique that considers 

maximum rainfall rates rather than basin averages. Another approach that may be worth 

evaluating is to use only the basin average for the hyper-effective drainage area. 

Eight of the ten basins are smaller than 10 square miles (25.9 square kilometers). When 

considering only the hyper-effective drainage area, eight of the ten basins are smaller than 2.5 

square miles (6.5 kilometers). Therefore, the spatial distributions of the entire storms were not 

generally considered important to this analysis. However, what may have been important was 

for the storm core to have moved over at least a portion of the hyper-effective drainage area. 

This was common to all ten events. Additionally, the importance of storm motion is evaluated. 

Burn areas yield an increase in debris and sediment as compared to pre-burn conditions 

(Robichuad 2000). This study and its associated discharge measurements do not take into 

account added bulking of the flow due to debris or changes in sediment transport. 

Role of Mountainous Terrain 

Factors in peak discharge generation from burn areas, such as burn severity, basin size, 

terrain, rainfall amount, and storm intensity, can all play a key role. In this study, an objective 

Southeast Arizona specific modified channel relief ratio1

 was selected as an important indicator 

 

1

 The modified channel relief ratio was defined by the authors so as not to include the relief from the upper most 

area of the mountainous terrain of Southeast Arizona, which often is void of well defined channels. The modified 

channel relief ratio is an objective measurement unlike the traditional channel relief ratio. Additionally, the authors 

defined the modified channel relief ratio so as to include the channel relief in the vicinity of the basin outlet where 

flooding occurred. 
 4

of topographic diversity in the mountainous terrains evaluated. The modified channel relief 

ratio is the average slope of the basin along the first order channel measured from 1,250 feet 

(381 meters) below the ridge to the basin outlet. For small impervious areas, peak discharge 

will tend to increase as channel slope increases. An increase in channel slope can result in 

decreased time of concentration and less infiltration. This may be especially true for areas 

recently denuded or with new hydrophobic soils. Post-burn flows originating from the Pinaleno 

Mountains had greater increases in runoff than those observed in the Santa Catalina Mountains. 

This was initially believed by the authors to be due to significant differences in the channel 

relief. However, the Santa Rita Mountains with modified channel relief ratio similar to the 

Pinaleno Mountains had an increase in runoff similar to the Santa Catalina Mountains. But the 

actual channel slope through the slope conveyance cross-section measured for the Santa Rita 

flood is similar to the modified channel relief of the Santa Catalina Mountains. Therefore future 

studies may want to evaluate using channel slope through flooded reach rather than the modified 

channel relief ratio. Modified channel relief ratio and other basin values are presented in Figure 

3. Average basin elevation was also selected as an important variable for mountainous terrain. 

The average basin elevation is the average altitude above mean sea level using the elevation of 

the highest point of the basin and the elevation of the basin outlet. In addition to being an 

indicator of rainfall variability and local climate, average basin elevation in mountainous terrain 

is indirectly an indication of vegetation coverage and type (Brown 1982); and perhaps to a lesser 

degree, indirectly an indicator of soil depth and predominant soil characteristics (Hendricks 

1985). Initially, the authors thought the usefulness of the average basin elevation could also be 

because the higher organic matter in the higher elevation soils (in contrast to lower elevation 

soils with less organic matter) played a key role in the likelihood of the higher elevation soils 

developing hydrophobic conditions. Yet for very high elevations there may be: 1) more exposed 

bedrock, 2) no channel development, 3) less natural vegetation, and 4) where soils occur they 

may tend to be shallow; such conditions would likely result in an inverse relationship between 

elevation and increased post-burn runoff. Simply put if you burn rock it is still rock, resulting in 

very little—if any—change in hydrologic response. Other indicators evaluated by the authors 

but not selected included the traditional channel relief ratio, main channel slope index, basin 

relief ratio, average channel elevation, mean main channel elevation, and traditional drainage 

area. 

Methodology 

The methodology used to determine the 5-year post-burn flow for all ten basins was 

similar. The details for Frye Creek, Deadman Canyon, Marijilda Canyon, Noon Creek, Wet 

Canyon, Upper Campo Bonito, Sabino Creek near Mount Lemmon, and Alder Canyon at 

Ventana Windmill are documented in Schaffner and Reed (2005a). The information for Upper 

Campo Bonito was updated in Schaffner and Reed (2005b). The details for Madera Canyon and 

Romero Canyon are provided below. 

To create the empirical formula the first step was to determine the 5-year post-burn flow 

for the basins. The steps required were 1) calculate the basin average precipitation for events 

known to have caused floods from the burned basins (an attempt was made to use the first major 

flush after a burn) and document storm duration, 2) determine the return period of these rain 

events, 3) determine the peak flow of the flood event, 4) calculate the pre-burn peak flow for the 

corresponding return period of the precipitation event, 5) calculate the pre-burn 5-year peak 
 5

flow, 6) calculate the ratio of pre-burn peak flow to post-burn peak flow2

, and 7) multiply the 

pre-burn 5-year peak flow for a basin (determined in step 5) by the corresponding ratio 

(determined in step 6). For the two cases, Marijilda and Alder, where the return period of the 

precipitation event was a 5-year event, steps 4 through 7 were not necessary but were done for 

consistency and display purposes. Results of steps 1 through 4 are presented in Figure 2. 

Results of step 5 are presented in Figure 4. Results of Steps 6 and 7 are presented in Figure 3. 

The t-year rainfall is commonly used in applied hydrology to calculate a t-year flood, for 

example this is a major input of the rational method, as well as the model TR55 (Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 1986) commonly used by the Forest Service to estimate postburn runoff response. For the rational method a rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the time 

of concentration is used. For TR55 a rainfall with a duration of 24-hours is used with a rainfall 

time distribution designed to contain the intensity of any duration of rainfall for the frequency of 

the event chosen. Or as stated by Natural Resources Conservation Service (1986): “That is, if 

the 10-year frequency, 24-hour rainfall is used, the most intense hour will approximate the 10-

year, 1-hour rainfall volume.” 

For this paper, it was assumed that a short-term thunderstorm with a duration 

approximately equal to or greater than the time of concentration for the burned basin, of a 

particular frequency, produces a peak flood discharge of the same frequency. Whereas this may 

be an oversimplification, it will always be a conservative one that overestimates the t-year flow 

for relatively impervious burned basins in the mountainous terrain of Southeast Arizona. In the 

United States, it is a common assumption made by land management agencies when trying to 

calculate t-year flows for ungaged basins in arid and semi-arid regions. 

Time of concentration for the ten studied basins range from 0.3 to 1.2 hours (Figure 2). 

Duration of the event storms ranged from 0.5 to 1 hours (Figure 2). For all but one case, the 

duration of the flood-causing storm was approximately (within 0.2 hours) equal to or greater than 

the time of concentration. The exception was Romero Canyon. For Romero Canyon, the 

duration of the storm was approximately 0.5 hours while time of concentration is 1.1 hours. 

Therefore, the post-burn 5-year peak flow may have been slightly underestimated for this basin. 

However, it has also been observed that time to peak can be shorter for burned basins (Neary and 

others, 2003), if so, even Romero Canyon’s case study storm duration could have been 

approximately equal to the time of concentration for the then existing post-burn watershed 

conditions. 

Another possible oversimplification of this paper was the use of the same ratio of preburn to post-burn flow for return intervals different than the 5-year storm (e.g. 2-year) to 

calculate post-burn 5-year flow from the corresponding pre-burn 5-year flow. The authors felt 

that this assumption was acceptable because half of the events were close to a five-year event, 

i.e., five of the ten events were 2-year, 3-year or 5-year events. Additionally, of the remaining 

five events, three had return intervals less than the 2-year event (they were approximately 1-year 

events) and two had return intervals greater than the 5-year event (both were 10-year events). 

Whereas the ratios likely are different for smaller events than larger events, it was felt that this 

clustered “balanced” distribution would reasonably offset the tendency for an unacceptable overor-under estimation. 

Another way to look at the relationship of pre-burn to post-burn flows (resulting in the 

same values as above) is to assume that the ratio of the magnitude of the pre-burn t-year event to 

the magnitude of pre-burn 5-year event would remain essentially the same for post-burn events 

 

2

 This ratio is calculated by dividing the result of step 3 by the result of step 4. 
 6

of the same respective return intervals. Once again, this seems a reasonable approach when 

return intervals equal to or less than the 10-year return interval are used. 

Madera Canyon 

Madera Canyon is a 4.00 square mile (10.35 square kilometers) watershed. On August 

8, 2005, 0.70 inches (17.78 millimeters) fell in about 45 minutes. The basin average 

precipitation frequency for Madera Canyon event was less than a 1-year event using NOAA 

Atlas 14 Volume 1 (Bonnin and others, 2004). On January 23, 2006, the authors conducted a 

field survey of the high water mark and associated channel geometry for Madera Creek near the 

U.S. Forest Service amphitheater. The high water mark was 7 feet (2.13 meters) above the 

channel thalweg. The cross section perpendicular to the direction of the flood flow was 

trapezoidal with a top width of 38.2 feet (11.64 meters) and a base of 15 feet (4.57 meters) 

resulting in a cross sectional area of 186.2 square feet (17.3 square meters). Channel slope 

through this cross section was 0.094 feet/feet (0.094 meters/meters). Manning’s “n” was 

estimated at 0.15. The velocity of the peak flow was calculated to be 8.20 feet/sec (2.50 

meters/sec). The peak flow was calculated as 1526 cfs (43.22 cubic meters per second) +/- 10 

percent. Such a flow would be in the range of a 20-year pre-burn flow (Figure 5). This is a 

post-burn peak discharge increase of at least 6.8 times greater than pre-burn peak discharge. 

The 5-year post-burn flood is therefore estimated using this ratio to be greater than 4,476 cfs 

(126.76 cubic meters per second). 

Romero Canyon 

Romero Canyon is a 7.25 square mile (18.78 square kilometers) basin located on the 

southwest side of the Santa Catalina Mountains. At 6:00 PM MST of July 24, 2003, a northsouth line of thunderstorms developed in the San Pedro River Valley to the east and pushed 

westward over the Santa Catalina Mountains at 15 mph (24.14 kilometers per hour). Rain fell 

on the Romero Canyon basin from about 6:30 to 7:30 PM. Tucson’s KEMX WSR-88D radar as 

well as five Pima County Flood Control rain gages sampled the thunderstorms. Storm motion 

during the event was generally up to down-stream over Romero Canyon. This likely added to 

the magnitude of the peak; perhaps resulting in a peak flow up to 3.0 times greater than other 

storm motions. 

A basin average rainfall value was obtained for the Romero Canyon event by averaging 

radar bins that fell within the basin from the one-hour precipitation product. A basin average 1-

hour rainfall value of 2.35 inches (59.69 millimeters) was obtained. Since radar rainfall can be 

overestimated in the desert southwest due to hail contamination and dry air at the low levels, it is 

desirable to adjust the radar values if there is significant variation from rain gage totals. While 

no rain gages are located within the Romero Canyon basin, two are located within 2 miles (3.22 

kilometers) of the basin boundary. These two gages show that only 63 percent of the radar 

indicated rainfall reached the ground. 

Satellite imagery, radar, and lightning data remained consistent as the storm progressed 

from east to west across the Santa Catalina Mountains. As a result, there is confidence to use a 

regional approach to determine the best possible radar correction factor to compute an adjusted 

basin average rainfall. Using the above-mentioned rain gages, a radar correction factor of 0.85 
 7

was obtained. As a result, 2.00 inches (50.8 millimeters) was the adjusted basin average 1-hour 

rainfall. 

Because the majority of rainfall from summer convective storms tends to fall in a 

timeframe less than an hour, it is advantageous to examine precipitation frequency with respect 

to peak rainfall. The five rain gages showed 80 percent of the rain fell within 30 minutes. 

Values ranged from 78 – 83 percent of rain fell within 30 minutes. Due to the narrow range of 

values between individual gages, the regional approach is once again valid. Thus 80 percent of 

the adjusted basin average 1-hour rainfall yields a 1.60 inches (40.64 millimeters) adjusted basin 

average 30-minute rainfall. According to NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 1, this amounts to a 10-year 

30-minute basin average precipitation frequency. 

Ann Youberg of the Arizona Geological Survey estimated the resultant flash flood at 

9,500 cfs (269.04 cubic meters per second) +/- 15 percent. This estimate was derived by Ann 

Youberg using the HEC-RAS step backwater model with 5 cross sections. Such a flow would 

be greater than a 500-year pre-burn flow (Figure 6). This is a post-burn peak discharge increase 

of 6.7 times greater than pre-burn peak discharge. The 5-year post-burn flood is therefore 

estimated using this ratio to be 6,035 cfs (170.90 cubic meters per second). 

Frye Creek Multiple Events Considered 

The multiple events for Frye Creek documented in Schaffner and Reed (2005a) and 

presented in Figure 7 can be used to demonstrate the importance of using the first major 

hydrologic flush from the basin after the burn for calculating the maximum likely post-burn 5-

year response. If the post-burn response calculated for each subsequent event were used, the 

calculated post-burn 5-year peak flow would be approximately half of the post-burn 5-year peak 

flow calculated using the preceding event (see Figure 8). Therefore an attempt was made to use 

only the first hydrologic flush from the ten basins after the burns to determine the maximum 

likely 5-year post-burn peak flow. Therefore, for Frye Creek, July 27, 2004 is used.

General Basin Response 

The basin response differences between individual basins and between mountain ranges 

are illustrated in Figure 4. The Santa Catalina Mountains have an average post-burn basin 

response 3.8 times greater than pre-burn conditions. The Santa Rita Mountains have a post-burn 

basin response 6.8 times greater than pre-burn condition. The Pinaleno Mountains have an 

average post-burn basin response 106.6 times greater than pre-burn conditions. The Santa 

Catalina and Santa Rita Mountains have values similar to those reported by Reed (2002), NOAA 

National Weather Service for the White Mountains in Arizona and the Pinaleno Mountains have 

values similar to those reported by Veenhuis (2002), U.S. Geological Survey for the Jemez 

Mountains in New Mexico. 

An Empirical Formula to Estimate 5-Year Peak Discharge from Small Post-Burn 

Watersheds 

Because it takes 3-5 years or in some cases longer (Livingston, R. K. and others, 2005) 

for a watershed to recover from high and moderate severity burns, an empirical equation for 

predicting post-burn runoff for the 5-year return interval is presented here (Figure 9). The 
 8

presented equations (envelope curve and best-fit) are representative of the conditions prevalent 

during the first two years of recovery; and therefore, are expected to be useful for initial burn 

recovery planning as well as operational forecasting. These equations use a multivariate runoff 

index defined as 

x = 0.54 2 1.28 1000( ) − αψ β φ (1) 

where 

 x = multivariate runoff index 

α = high severity burn + moderate severity burn as a fraction of total watershed 

(square miles/square miles); 

ψ = total drainage area (square miles); 

β = modified channel relief ratio (feet/feet); and 

φ = average basin elevation above mean sea level (thousands of feet). 

The envelope curve equation is 

Q5

0.65 = 4114(x) (2) 

and the best-fit equation is

Q 1993x 5 = (3) 

where 

 Q = post-burn runoff for the 5-ye 5 ar return interval (cfs). 

The adjusted R-square value for the best-fit curve is 0.96. The envelope curve was 

developed by adding 25% (the largest reported flow measurement error) to the values for 

Deadman, Romero, and Marijilda Canyons; and then fitting a power curve to these data points. 

A power function was used to insure the curve went through the origin, (0,0).

These equations are for small watersheds less than 15 square miles (38.8 square 

kilometers); and include sites with average basin elevations from 5500 to 8100 feet (1676.4 to 

2469 meters) above msl. After several tries to fit the data, the authors found that weighing the 

burned area heavily, in this case using the high and moderate burn area as the only contributing 

area3

, using modified channel relief ratio as an indicator of basin steepness, and using average 

basin elevation as an indicator of predominant vegetation and soil characteristics, provided a 

reasonable fit. The best-fit equation neither significantly overestimates nor significantly 

underestimates the post-burn runoff for any watershed. 

Storm Motion Considered 

To evaluate the possible influence of storm motion, Romero Canyon, the only storm that 

moved from upstream to downstream (see Figure 2), was temporarily removed. The new 

envelope curve equation for the remaining 9 data points is 

Q5

0.56 = 5293(x) (4) 

and the corresponding best-fit equation is

Q 1949x 5 = (5) 

where 

Q = post-burn runoff for the 5-ye 5 ar return interval (cfs). 

 

3

 The hyper-effective drainage area, α times ψ in the first equation or the area of the high severity burn (square 

miles) plus the area of the moderate severity burn (square miles).
 9

The adjusted R-square value for the new best-fit curve is 0.97. The new envelope curve 

was developed by adding 25% (the largest reported flow measurement error) to the values for 

Noon and Deadman Canyons; and then fitting a power curve to these data points. As can be 

seen, equations 3 and 5 are essentially the same. The relationship between envelope equations is 

 y = 

1.1605 0.1963(x) (6) 

where 

 y = equation 2; and 

 x = equation 4. 

Equations 4 and 5 are presented here for comparison with equations 2 and 3 only. To 

allow direct comparison the definition of the multivariate runoff index has been held constant. 

Since the best-fit equations are essentially the same, and the difference between envelope curves 

is within the reported error of observations, the continued use of equations 2 and 3 are 

recommended. 

Validation of Equation 

The leave-one-out cross validation technique was used to test the regression equation 

ability to predict Q5. This technique allows each data point to be treated, one at a time, as 

independent data (Wilks 2006, see page 215 for a more detailed description of this method). 

Using this process a cross validation adjusted R-square value of 0.81 was obtained with a 

corresponding cross validation standard error of 1757 cfs (49.8 cubic meters per second). This 

yields a cross validation adjusted coefficient of determination (adjusted correlation coefficient) 

of 0.90. This is considered by the authors to represent an acceptable forecast precision, and 

therefore, the authors feel confident in the use of the equations operationally to predict the 

“likely” peak flow that can be expected before a given burned watershed is back to conditions 

that resemble pre-burn hydrology. However, as more data becomes available, these equations 

should be updated and their usefulness further tested. 

 

Discussion 

The USGS equations for estimating flood-frequency relations in USGS Water-Supply 

Paper 2433 (Thomas 1997) specifically the relationships for the 5-year event in Southeast 

Arizona do not use an elevation measurement for Region 13 (this region includes the Santa 

Catalina and Santa Rita Mountains); and uses an inverse relationship for elevation for Region 14 

(this region includes the Pinaleno Mountains). In order to have a reasonable data set for post 

burn events, we had to evaluate these regions lumped together. An analysis of the data separated 

into these regions hints that an inverse relationship for average basin elevation would be 

significant for the post-burn Region 13 basins but perhaps not for the post-burn Region 14 

basins. This is likely because all the basins had a relatively high average basin elevation 

regardless of what region they were in, and perhaps because neither region had enough data for a 

more rigorous analysis. An equation using just the hyper-effective drainage area and the 

modified channel relief ratio, i.e., an equation that does not use an elevation measurement, was 

found to have an adjusted R-square value of 0.93. Therefore, a bivariate equation could be 

developed with essentially the same success as the multivariate approach. However, average 

basin elevation was considered useful to help discern between different mountain ranges and was 

retained. As more data becomes available it may become possible to develop separate equations 
 10

for these regions. At that time it may be that a multivariate approach will work best for postburn Region 13 and a bivariate approach will work best for post-burn Region 14. 

It is interesting to note that the USGS equations do not use a relief ratio or other 

measurement of slope for these regions. Also as would be expected for pre-burn equations, the 

USGS equations use the entire drainage basin (not a portion of the basin, i.e., hyper-effective 

drainage area). Perhaps these differences between the pre-burn equations and those presented 

here underscores that post-burn hydrology can be significantly different from normal conditions. 

The direct relationship between 5-year peak flow and basin size does not necessarily 

pertain to burned watersheds (Figure 10). Noon Creek, with the largest value for the Post-Burn 

runoff, has neither the steepest modified channel relief ratio nor the highest average basin 

elevation; neither the largest burned area nor the largest basin size. Yet Noon Creek does have 

the highest multivariate runoff index. As can be seen in Figure 10, the best-fit equation value 

(light blue/fourth bar) underestimates (although not significantly) the target post-burn value4

(blue/third bar) for Wet, Frye, Romero, and Alder Canyons. However, as intentionally 

developed, the envelope curve values (burgundy/fifth bar) are greater than target post-burn 

values for all ten sites. Additionally, the envelope curve begins to “flatten” faster than the bestfit curve (Figure 9), and thus displays the curve shape expected for larger basins (generally larger 

index values). Therefore, for conservatively estimating 5-year post-burn runoff in Southeast 

Arizona watersheds, the envelope curve (equation 2) should be used. For situations where postburn hydrology is not significantly different than normal conditions (when the hyper-effective 

drainage area is a small portion of the total drainage area) the results of the post-burn envelope 

curve and a pre-burn 5-year equation should be compared and the higher result used. 

Conclusions 

Common rainfall events can cause large peak flows in basins recently burned. Peak 

flows from post-burn mountainous terrain may be several orders of magnitude greater than what 

they would have been for pre-burn conditions. This was observed for various watersheds in the 

Santa Catalina, Santa Rita, and Pinaleno Mountains. Since 3 to 5 years is a reasonable rule of 

thumb for recovery of burned watersheds, a 5-year rainfall event should be expected during the 

recovery period. The probability of occurrence of one or more events equal to or greater than 

the 5-year event in 5 years is 67%. In order to evaluate the minimum peak flow that can be 

expected before a given burned watershed is back to conditions that resemble pre-burn 

hydrology, an empirical equation was devised to predict the 5-year peak flow. This equation 

works reasonably well for the recently burned watersheds of the Santa Catalina, Santa Rita, and 

Pinaleno Mountains. Its ability to deal with such topographic and geomorphologic diversity lies 

in the use of a multivariate runoff index that utilizes the hyper-effective drainage area 

(determined from burn severity), average basin elevation, and an objective (Southeast Arizona 

specific) modified channel relief ratio. The hyper-effective drainage area approach may be 

representative of two contrasting runoff conditions: 1) significant runoff from burn areas with 

hydrophobic soils, under such circumstances all rainfall can essentially be considered in excess 

of soil moisture needs; and 2) little runoff from dry non-burned areas where there may have been 

little if any excess. 

 

4 The target values are those values determined by Schaffner and Reed (2005a) and were updated as shown in 

furthest right column of Figure 3.
 11

In light of the difficulty in estimating increased peak flow from burned areas, empirical 

equations represent a significant tool for estimating peak flow. Several flow events from various 

watersheds are required for the geographic area in question. If a different probability of 

occurrence is desired, a curve could be developed for a different return interval using the 

methods described above. However, for return intervals greater than the 10-year return interval, 

the method to calculate post-burn peak flow would have to be modified to take into account that 

the ratio of pre-burn to post-burn would not be the same for large magnitude events. 

Acknowledgements 

The authors thank Chris Smith, Dan Evans, and Saeid Tadayon of the U.S. Geological 

Survey for conducting a slope-area measurement of Marijilda Canyon, their sound advice, and 

field assistance; thank Barry Scott of Arizona Division of Emergency Management for the GIS 

analysis of the various watersheds in the Pinaleno Mountains and Santa Catalina Mountains; 

thank Robert Lefevre of U.S. Forest Service for providing burn severity shapefiles for the Nuttall 

Fire and burn severity estimates for the Sabino Creek near Mount Lemmon watershed; and thank 

Ann Youberg of the Arizona Geological Survey for providing a HEC-RAS step backwater model 

analysis for Romero Canyon. The authors also thank Kevin Werner and Erik Pytlak of NOAA 

National Weather Service for their helpful reviews of the early drafts of this paper. 

A Few Words Regarding the Cover Photograph 

This boulder levee is an interesting feature of our studies. Such levees are characteristic 

of debris flows. From USGS Open File Report 97-136 by Susan H. Cannon: "Debris-flow 

deposits are characterized by significant relief and sharp, well-defined flow boundaries. Levees 

lining the flow path, or a veneer of mud coating the channel sidewalls, as well as steep, lobate 

deposits of matrix-supported material at the path terminus are characteristic of this flow 

process." We tend to believe that the levee was the result of a debris flow prior to a water flow 

and that the peak flow was a water flow that did over topped the levee as evidenced by the 

"debris" against the tree and the lack of mud stained walls. So a possible order of the events is 1) 

debris flow, 2) levee deposited, 3) frontal lobe of debris / hyperconcentrated flow, 4) overtopping 

of levee by water flow with floating debris, 5) wrapping of floating debris against tree, 6) peak 

flow, 7) retreat of water flow to channel during falling limb of hydrograph. Note: steps 1-5 

would occur during rising limb of hydrograph. Perhaps steps 1 and 2 would be considered a 

separate geo-hazard event, followed by a second hydrological event consisting of steps 3 through 

7. Of course this is all conjecture. Finally it seems to us that the levee was washed clean of any 

mud coating due to the overtopping by water or perhaps subsequent rain. 

References 

Bonnin, G. M., D. Todd, B. Lin, T. Parzybok, M. Yekta, and D. Riley, 2004. NOAA Atlas 14 

Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Volume 1: Semiarid Southwest (Arizona, 

Southeast California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah). Available online: 

http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_docs.html#volume1. 
 12

Brown, D. E., editor, 1982. Biotic Communities of the American Southwest--United States and 

Mexico. Desert Plants 4, 1-4. 

Crippen, J. and C. Bue. 1977. Maximum Flood flows in the Conterminous United States. USGS 

Water Supply Paper 1887. 

Hendricks, D. M., 1985. Arizona Soils. Available online: 

http://southwest.library.arizona.edu/azso/index.html. 

Livingston, R. K., T. A. Earles, and K. R. Wright, 2005. Los Alamos Post-Fire Watershed 

Recovery: A Curve-Number-Based Evaluation, ASCE Conf. Proc. 178, 41. 

Martin, D. A., and J. A. Moody, 2001. Comparison of soil infiltration rates in burned and 

unburned mountainous watersheds. Hydrological Processes 15:2893-2903. 

Morris, S. E., and T. A. Moses, 1987. Forest fire and the natural soil erosion regime in the 

Colorado Front Range. Association of American Geographers 77: 245– 254. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, 

Technical Release 55. Available online: 

ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/downloads/hydrology_hydraulics/tr55/tr55.pdf

Neary, D. G., K. C. Ryan, and L. F. DeBano, eds., 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of 

fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Available online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_4.pdf. 

Reed, W., 2002. Rodeo-Chediski Fire: December 16, 2002 Hydrology Meeting. Available 

online: http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/report/wbr_hydrofinal.pdf. 

Ries, K.G., III, and M. Y. Crouse, 2002. The National Flood Frequency Program, Version 3: A 

Computer Program for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods for Ungaged Sites, 

2002: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4168, 42 p. 

Available online: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024168/. 

Robichuad, P. R., 2000. Forest fire effects on hillslope erosion: what we know. Watershed 

Management Council Networker 9(1): Winter 2000. Available online: 

http://watershed.org/news/win_00/2_hillslope_fire.htm. 

Schaffner, M. and W. Reed, 2005a. Effects of Wildfire in the Mountainous Terrain of Southeast 

Arizona: Post-Burn Hydrologic Response of Nine Watersheds. NOAA National Weather 

Service Western Region Technical Attachment 05-01. Available online: 

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/wrh/05TAs/ta0501.pdf. 

Schaffner, M. and W. Reed, 2005b. Evaluation of Post-Burn Hydrologic Recovery of a Small 

Mountainous Watershed: Upper Campo Bonito Wash in Southern Arizona. NOAA National 

Weather Service Western Region Technical Attachment 05-06. Available online: 

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/wrh/05TAs/ta0506.pdf. 

Tadayon, S., 2004. Peak Flow Estimate at Marijilda Wash near Safford (09458050), AZ, by the 

Slope-Area Method using SAX Program: Flood of August 17, 2004. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Arizona Water Resources Division, Unpublished Slope-Area Report. 

Thomas, B., et. al., 1997. Methods for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the 

Southwestern United States. USGS Water-Supply Paper 2433. Available online: 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/wsp/wsp2433#viewdoc. 

Veenhuis, J., 2002. Effects Of Wildfire On The Hydrology Of Capulin and Rito de los Frijoles 

Canyons, Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico. USGS Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 02-4152.2. Available online: 

http://nm.water.usgs.gov/publications/abstracts/wrir02-4152.pdf. 
 13

Figure 1: Map displaying locations of Santa Catalina, Santa Rita, and Pinaleno Mountains in 

southeast Arizona. 
 14

Figure 2: Southeast Arizona post-burn flood database for ten basins. 

 

~

 July 27, 2004. 

♦ Value updated based upon October 6, 2004 written communication from USGS (Tadayon, 2004) providing a new 

peak flow estimate for the flood of August 17, 2004. #

 Value updated based upon January 24, 2006 survey of high water marks by authors and subsequent slope 

conveyance. 

SOUTHEAST ARIZONA POST-BURN FLOOD DATABASE FOR TEN BASINS 

Watershed Basin 

Average 

Precipitation 

(inches) 

Storm 

Duration 

(hours) 

General 

Storm 

Motion 

Time of 

Concentration 

(hours) 

Rainfall 

Return 

Interval 

(t-years) 

Peak Flow 

of Flood 

(cfs) 

Pre-Burn 

Peak Flow 

of Rainfall 

Return 

Interval 

(cfs) 

Frye Creek 0.40 0.5 across 0.6 < 1-year 1400~

 18.5 

Deadman 

Canyon 1.00 0.5 across 0.5 3-year 5500 67.2 

Marijilda 

Canyon 1.25 0.7 across 0.8 5-year 8470♦ 313 

Noon 

Creek 0.94 0.4 across 0.4 2-year 2684#

 19 

Wet 

Canyon 0.8 0.7 across 0.3 1-year 1490 7.2 

Upper 

Campo 

Bonito 

1.51 0.5 stationary 0.3 10-year 1900 586 

Sabino 

Creek near 

Mount 

Lemmon 

1.25 1 stationary 0.6 2-year 350 119 

Alder 

Canyon at 

Ventana 

Windmill 

1.60 1 down to up 1.2 5-year 3103 1260 

Madera 

Canyon 0.70 0.75 stationary 0.4 < 1-year 1526 224 

Romero 

Canyon 1.60 0.5 up to down 1.1 10-year 9500 1420 
 15

Figure 3: Additional selected basin values for study watersheds in the Pinaleno, Santa Catalina, 

and Santa Rita Mountains. Note: Madera and Romero Canyons recently added and documented 

in this paper. 

 

♦ Value updated based upon October 6, 2004 written communication from USGS (Tadayon, 2004) providing a new 

peak flow estimate for the flood of August 17, 2004. #

 Value updated based upon January 24, 2006 survey of high water marks by authors and subsequent slope 

conveyance. 

* This value corrected to reflect that event storm was actually a 1-year event. 

** This value corrected to reflect Region 13. 

*** This value corrected to reflect that event storm was actually a 5-year event. 

ADDITIONAL SELECTED BASIN VALUES 

Watershed Location Modified 

channel 

relief ratio 

(ft/ft) 

High 

severity burn 

+ Moderate 

severity burn 

(%) 

Average 

basin 

elevation 

above mean 

sea level 

(ft/1000) 

Drainage 

area 

(sq mi) 

Pre-burn 

5-year 

peak 

discharge 

(cfs) 

Post-burn 

5-year 

discharge 

(cfs) 

Frye Creek Pinaleno 

Mountains 0.19 61 8.1 4.02 116 8778 

Deadman 

Canyon 

Pinaleno 

Mountains 0.22 51 7.7 4.78 137 11213 

Marijilda 

Canyon 

Pinaleno 

Mountains 0.15 59 7.1 11 313 8470♦

Noon 

Creek 

Pinaleno 

Mountains 0.24 77 7.7 2.99 86 12149#

Wet 

Canyon 

Pinaleno 

Mountains 0.26 44 8.1 1.58 45.5 9416* 

Upper 

Campo 

Bonito 

Santa 

Catalina 

Mountains 

0.07 80 5.5 1.5 376 1219** 

Sabino 

Creek near 

Mount 

Lemmon 

Santa 

Catalina 

Mountains 0.07 55 8.2 3.4 278 818 

Alder 

Canyon at 

Ventana 

Windmill 

Santa 

Catalina 

Mountains 0.08 35 6.1 14 1260 3103*** 

Madera 

Canyon 

Santa Rita 

Mountains 0.22 15 7.2 4 657 4476 

Romero 

Canyon 

Santa 

Catalina 

Mountains 

0.12 34 5.7 7.25 902 6035 
 16

 Figure 4: Basin Response under burn conditions for various watersheds in the Santa Catalina, 

Campo Bonito, Sabino, Alder, and Romero), Santa Rita (Madera), and Pinaleno Mountains 

(Marijilda, Frye, Noon, Deadman, and Wet). 

Basin Response

Ratio for 5-Year Events (Post-Burn vs Pre-Burn Flow)

2.5 2.9 3.2 6.7 6.8

27.1

75.7

81.8

141.3

206.9

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

220.0

Alder Sabino Campo Bonito Romero Madera Marijilda Frye Deadman Noon Wet

Santa Catalina and Santa Rita Mountains Pinaleno Mountains
 17

Madera Creek 

Return Period Pre-Burn Flow Post-Burn Flow 

2-year 271 cfs (7.67 m3

/sec) 1846 cfs (52.25 m3/sec) 

5-year 657 cfs (18.61 m3

/sec) 4476 cfs (126.67 m3/sec) 

10-year 1030 cfs (29.17 m3

/sec) 7017 cfs ( 198.59 m3/sec) 

25-year 1660 cfs (47.01 m3

/sec) 11310 cfs (320.06 m3/sec) 

50-year 2220 cfs (62.87 m3

/sec) 15125 cfs (428.03 m3/sec) 

100-year 2960 cfs (83.83 m3

/sec) 20166 cfs (570.71 m3/sec) 

500-year 5040 cfs (142.73 m3

/sec) 34338 cfs (971.75 m3/sec) 

Figure 5: Peak flows for Madera Creek. The pre-burn flows were calculated using the National 

Flood Frequency (NFF) method for Southern Arizona Region 13 (Ries and Crouse, 2002). The 

maximum flow calculated from Crippen and Bue (1977) method is 30,300 cfs (858.10 m3

/sec). 

Note: The Post-Burn Flow values for events greater than the 10-year event are not considered as 

reliable as those for the return intervals equal to or less than the 10-year event. These less 

reliable values were not used in the development of the empirical equation. 
 18

Figure 6: Peak flows for Romero Canyon. The pre-burn flows were calculated using the 

National Flood Frequency (NFF) method for Southern Arizona Region 13 (Ries and Crouse, 

2002). The maximum flow calculated from Crippen and Bue (1977) method is 49,200 cfs 

(1393.34 m3

/sec). Note: The Post-Burn Flow values for events greater than the 10-year event 

are not considered as reliable as those for the return intervals equal to or less than the 10-year 

event. These less reliable values were not used in the development of the empirical equation. 

 Romero Canyon 

Return Period Pre-Burn Flow Post-Burn Flow 

2-year 372 cfs (10.54 m3

/sec) 2490 cfs (70.52 m3/sec) 

5-year 902 cfs (25.54 m3

/sec) 6035 cfs (170.90 m3/sec) 

10-year 1420 cfs (40.21 m3

/sec) 9515 cfs (269.46 m3/sec) 

25-year 2290 cfs (64.85 m3

/sec) 15340 cfs (434.43 m3/sec) 

50-year 3070 cfs (86.94 m3

/sec) 20600 cfs (583.39 m3/sec) 

100-year 4090 cfs (115.83 m3

/sec) 27400 cfs (775.97 m3/sec) 

500-year 7020 cfs (198.81 m3

/sec) 47000 cfs (1331.04 m3/sec) 
 19

Figure 7: Multiple Events For Frye Creek. 

FRYE CREEK MULTIPLE EVENTS 

Date 

2004 

Basin 

Average 

Precipitation 

Step 1 

(inches) 

Storm 

Duration 

Step 1 

(hours) 

Rainfall 

Return 

Interval 

Step 2 

(t-years) 

Peak 

Flow 

of 

Flood 

Step 3 

(cfs) 

Pre-Burn 

Peak Flow 

of Rainfall 

Return 

Interval 

Step 4 

(cfs) 

Ratio 

Step 5 

(cfs/cfs) 

Pre-burn 5-

year peak 

discharge 

Step 6 

(cfs) 

Post-burn 

5-year 

discharge 

Step 7 

(cfs) 

July 

27 0.40 0.5 < 1-year 1400 18.5 75.7 116 8778 

August 

4 1.00 1.0 2-year 1040 26 40 116 4640 

August 

17 1.30 0.5 5-year 2260 116 19.5 116 2260 
 20

Figure 8: Calculated 5-Year Peak Flows For Sequential Events on Frye Creek. 

Multiple Frye Creek Events

8778

4640

2260

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

22-Jul-04 27-Jul-04 1-Aug-04 6-Aug-04 11-Aug-04 16-Aug-04 21-Aug-04

Note: demonstrates it is important to use first hydrologic flush.

5-Year Post Burn Peak Flow (cfs)
 21

 Figure 9: An empirical equation to estimate post-burn runoff during recovery (Southeast 

Arizona Watersheds). 2nd year = those events that occurred during the second year after the 

burn; the other 9 events occurred during the first year after the burn. These equations are for 

small watersheds less than 15 square miles (38.8 square kilometers); and include sites with 

average basin elevations from 5500 to 8100 feet (1676.4 to 2469 meters) above msl. 

Multivariate runoff index = 0.54 2 1.28 1000( ) − αψ β φ ; where α = high severity burn + moderate 

severity burn as a fraction of total watershed (square miles/square miles); ψ = total drainage area 

(square miles); β = modified channel relief ratio (feet/feet); and φ = average basin elevation 

above mean sea level (thousands of feet). Note: α times ψ in above equation = hyper-effective 

drainage area. 

y = 4113.6x0.653

y = 1993.4x1.0035

R2 = 0.9747

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5

Multivariate Runoff Index

Envelope Curve

Peak Flow (cfs)

2nd year

Best Fit Equation

R2

adj = 0.96

Cross Validation Standard Error = 1757 cfs

Cross Validation Adjusted Correlation Coefficient = 0.90

Cross Validation R2

adj = 0.81

predictive equation: peak flow = 1993 times multivariate runoff index

An Empirical 5-Year Post-Burn Runoff Equation for Southeast Arizona Watersheds
 22

Figure 10: As basin size increases from left to right, the peak flow generally increases using preburn equations (yellow/first bar & red/second bar). The Post-Burn equations results are very 

different (light blue/fourth bar & burgundy/fifth bar). The target post-burn value is shown in 

blue/third bar. Peak flows are shown in cubic feet per second (cfs).

5-Year Peak Flow 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Region 14

Region 13

Post Burn

Best Fit

Envelope

Region 14 231 182 262 270 319 296 335 515 549 695

Region 13 376 388 559 601 657 659 723 902 1116 1259

Post Burn 1219 9416 12149 818 4476 8778 11213 6035 8470 3103

Best Fit 1344 7550 13233 825 5567 7669 11459 4912 9900 2923

Envelope 3185 9778 14082 2320 8021 9878 12824 7394 11662 5277

Campo 

Bonito Wet Noon Sabino Madera Frye Deadman Romero Marijilda Alder

Peak Flow (cfs)
 a

NOAA TECHNICAL MEMORANDA 

 National Weather Service, Western Region Subseries

The National Weather Service (NWS) Western Region (WR) Subseries 

provides an informal medium for the documentation and quick dissemination 

of results not appropriate, or not yet ready, for formal publication. The series 

is used to report on work in progress, to describe technical procedures and 

practices, or to relate progress to a limited audience. These Technical 

Memoranda will report on investigations devoted primarily to regional and local 

problems of interest mainly to personnel, and hence will not be widely 

distributed. 

Papers 1 to 25 are in the former series, ESSA Technical Memoranda, Western Region Technical 

Memoranda (WRTM); papers 24 to 59 are in the former series, ESSA Technical Memoranda, Weather 

Bureau Technical Memoranda (WBTM). Beginning with 60, the papers are part of the series, NOAA 

Technical Memoranda NWS. Out-of-print memoranda are not listed. 

Papers 2 to 22, except for 5 (revised edition), are available from the National Weather Service Western 

Region, Scientific Services Division, 125 South State Street - Rm 1311, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-

1102. Paper 5 (revised edition), and all others beginning with 25 are available from the National 

Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Sills Building, 5285 Port Royal Road, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161. Prices vary for all paper copies; microfiche are $3.50. Order by accession 

number shown in parentheses at end of each entry. 

 ESSA Technical Memoranda (WRTM)

 2 Climatological Precipitation Probabilities. Compiled by Lucianne Miller, December 1965. 

 3 Western Region Pre- and Post-FP-3 Program, December 1, 1965, to February 20, 1966. Edward 

D. Diemer, March 1966. 

 5 Station Descriptions of Local Effects on Synoptic Weather Patterns. Philip Williams, Jr., April 1966 

(Revised November 1967, October 1969). (PB-17800) 

 8 Interpreting the RAREP. Herbert P. Benner, May 1966 (Revised January 1967). 

11 Some Electrical Processes in the Atmosphere. J. Latham, June 1966. 

17 A Digitalized Summary of Radar Echoes within 100 Miles of Sacramento, California. J. A. 

Youngberg and L. B. Overaas, December 1966. 

21 An Objective Aid for Forecasting the End of East Winds in the Columbia Gorge, July through 

October. D. John Coparanis, April 1967. 

22 Derivation of Radar Horizons in Mountainous Terrain. Roger G. Pappas, April 1967. 

 ESSA Technical Memoranda, Weather Bureau Technical Memoranda (WBTM) 

25 Verification of Operation Probability of Precipitation Forecasts, April 1966-March 1967. W. W. 

Dickey, October 1967. (PB-176240) 

26 A Study of Winds in the Lake Mead Recreation Area. R. P. Augulis, January 1968. (PB-177830) 

28 Weather Extremes. R. J. Schmidli, April 1968 (Revised March 1986). (PB86 177672/AS). 

(Revised October 1991 - PB92-115062/AS) 

29 Small-Scale Analysis and Prediction. Philip Williams, Jr., May 1968. (PB178425) 

30 Numerical Weather Prediction and Synoptic Meteorology. CPT Thomas D. Murphy, USAF, May 

1968. (AD 673365) 

31 Precipitation Detection Probabilities by Salt Lake ARTC Radars. Robert K. Belesky, July 1968. 

(PB 179084) 

32 Probability Forecasting--A Problem Analysis with Reference to the Portland Fire Weather District. 

Harold S. Ayer, July 1968. (PB 179289) 

36 Temperature Trends in Sacramento--Another Heat Island. Anthony D. Lentini, February 1969. (PB 

183055) 

37 Disposal of Logging Residues Without Damage to Air Quality. Owen P. Cramer, March 1969. (PB 

183057) 

39 Upper-Air Lows Over Northwestern United States. A.L. Jacobson, April 1969. PB 184296) 

40 The Man-Machine Mix in Applied Weather Forecasting in the 1970s. L.W. Snellman, August 1969. 

(PB 185068) 

43 Forecasting Maximum Temperatures at Helena, Montana. David E. Olsen, October 1969. (PB 

185762) 

44 Estimated Return Periods for Short-Duration Precipitation in Arizona. Paul C. Kangieser, October 

1969. (PB 187763) 

46 Applications of the Net Radiometer to Short-Range Fog and Stratus Forecasting at Eugene, 

Oregon. L. Yee and E. Bates, December 1969. (PB 190476) 

47 Statistical Analysis as a Flood Routing Tool. Robert J.C. Burnash, December 1969. (PB 188744) 

48 Tsunami. Richard P. Augulis, February 1970. (PB 190157) 

49 Predicting Precipitation Type. Robert J.C. Burnash and Floyd E. Hug, March 1970. (PB 190962) 

50 Statistical Report on Aeroallergens (Pollens and Molds) Fort Huachuca, Arizona, 1969. Wayne S. 

Johnson, April 1970. (PB 191743) 

51 Western Region Sea State and Surf Forecaster's Manual. Gordon C. Shields and Gerald B. 

Burdwell, July 1970. (PB 193102) 

52 Sacramento Weather Radar Climatology. R.G. Pappas and C. M. Veliquette, July 1970. (PB 

193347) 

54 A Refinement of the Vorticity Field to Delineate Areas of Significant Precipitation. Barry B. 

Aronovitch, August 1970. 

55 Application of the SSARR Model to a Basin without Discharge Record. Vail Schermerhorn and 

Donal W. Kuehl, August 1970. (PB 194394) 

56 Areal Coverage of Precipitation in Northwestern Utah. Philip Williams, Jr., and Werner J. Heck, 

September 1970. (PB 194389) 

57 Preliminary Report on Agricultural Field Burning vs. Atmospheric Visibility in the Willamette Valley 

of Oregon. Earl M. Bates and David O. Chilcote, September 1970. (PB 194710) 

58 Air Pollution by Jet Aircraft at Seattle-Tacoma Airport. Wallace R. Donaldson, October 1970. 

(COM 71 00017) 

59 Application of PE Model Forecast Parameters to Local-Area Forecasting. Leonard W. Snellman, 

October 1970. (COM 71 00016) 

60 An Aid for Forecasting the Minimum Temperature at Medford, Oregon, Arthur W. Fritz, October 

1970. (COM 71 00120) 

63 700-mb Warm Air Advection as a Forecasting Tool for Montana and Northern Idaho. Norris E. 

Woerner, February 1971. (COM 71 00349) 

64 Wind and Weather Regimes at Great Falls, Montana. Warren B. Price, March 1971. 

65 Climate of Sacramento, California. Laura Masters-Bevan. NWSO Sacramento, November 1998 (6th

Revision. (PB99-118424) 

66 A Preliminary Report on Correlation of ARTCC Radar Echoes and Precipitation. Wilbur K. Hall, 

June 1971. (COM 71 00829) 

69 National Weather Service Support to Soaring Activities. Ellis Burton, August 1971. (COM 71 

00956) 

71 Western Region Synoptic Analysis-Problems and Methods. Philip Williams, Jr., February 1972. 

(COM 72 10433) 

74 Thunderstorms and Hail Days Probabilities in Nevada. Clarence M. Sakamoto, April 1972. (COM 

72 10554) 

75 A Study of the Low Level Jet Stream of the San Joaquin Valley. Ronald A. Willis and Philip 

Williams, Jr., May 1972. (COM 72 10707) 

76 Monthly Climatological Charts of the Behavior of Fog and Low Stratus at Los Angeles International 

Airport. Donald M. Gales, July 1972. (COM 72 11140) 

77 A Study of Radar Echo Distribution in Arizona During July and August. John E. Hales, Jr., July 

1972. (COM 72 11136) 

78 Forecasting Precipitation at Bakersfield, California, Using Pressure Gradient Vectors. Earl T. 

Riddiough, July 1972. (COM 72 11146) 

79 Climate of Stockton, California. Robert C. Nelson, July 1972. (COM 72 10920) 

80 Estimation of Number of Days Above or Below Selected Temperatures. Clarence M. Sakamoto, 

October 1972. (COM 72 10021) 

81 An Aid for Forecasting Summer Maximum Temperatures at Seattle, Washington. Edgar G. 

Johnson, November 1972. (COM 73 10150) 

82 Flash Flood Forecasting and Warning Program in the Western Region. Philip Williams, Jr., Chester 

L. Glenn, and Roland L. Raetz, December 1972, (Revised March 1978). (COM 73 10251) 

83 A comparison of Manual and Semiautomatic Methods of Digitizing Analog Wind Records. Glenn E. 

Rasch, March 1973. (COM 73 10669) 

86 Conditional Probabilities for Sequences of Wet Days at Phoenix, Arizona. Paul C. Kangieser, June 

1973. (COM 73 11264) 

87 A Refinement of the Use of K-Values in Forecasting Thunderstorms in Washington and Oregon. 

Robert Y.G. Lee, June 1973. (COM 73 11276) 

89 Objective Forecast Precipitation Over the Western Region of the United States. Julia N. Paegle 

and Larry P. Kierulff, September 1973. (COM 73 11946/3AS) 

91 Arizona "Eddy" Tornadoes. Robert S. Ingram, October 1973. (COM 73 10465) 

92 Smoke Management in the Willamette Valley. Earl M. Bates, May 1974. (COM 74 11277/AS) 

93 An Operational Evaluation of 500-mb Type Regression Equations. Alexander E. MacDonald, June 

1974. (COM 74 11407/AS) 

94 Conditional Probability of Visibility Less than One-Half Mile in Radiation Fog at Fresno, California. 

John D. Thomas, August 1974. (COM 74 11555/AS) 

95 Climate of Flagstaff, Arizona. Paul W. Sorenson, and updated by Reginald W. Preston, January 

1987. (PB87 143160/AS) (Revised August 2002 3rd Revision) 

96 Map type Precipitation Probabilities for the Western Region. Glenn E. Rasch and Alexander E. 

MacDonald, February 1975. (COM 75 10428/AS) 

97 Eastern Pacific Cut-Off Low of April 21-28, 1974. William J. Alder and George R. Miller, January 

1976. (PB 250 711/AS) 

98 Study on a Significant Precipitation Episode in Western United States. Ira S. Brenner, April 1976. 

(COM 75 10719/AS) 

99 A Study of Flash Flood Susceptibility-A Basin in Southern Arizona. Gerald Williams, August 1975. 

(COM 75 11360/AS) 

102 A Set of Rules for Forecasting Temperatures in Napa and Sonoma Counties. Wesley L. Tuft, 

October 1975. (PB 246 902/AS) 

103 Application of the National Weather Service Flash-Flood Program in the Western Region. Gerald 

Williams, January 1976. (PB 253 053/AS) 

104 Objective Aids for Forecasting Minimum Temperatures at Reno, Nevada, During the Summer 

Months. Christopher D. Hill, January 1976. (PB 252 866/AS) 

105 Forecasting the Mono Wind. Charles P. Ruscha, Jr., February 1976. (PB 254 650) 

106 Use of MOS Forecast Parameters in Temperature Forecasting. John C. Plankinton, Jr., March 

1976. (PB 254 649) 

107 Map Types as Aids in Using MOS PoPs in Western United States. Ira S. Brenner, August 1976. 

(PB 259 594) 

108 Other Kinds of Wind Shear. Christopher D. Hill, August 1976. (PB 260 437/AS) 

109 Forecasting North Winds in the Upper Sacramento Valley and Adjoining Forests. Christopher E. 

Fontana, September 1976. (PB 273 677/AS) 

110 Cool Inflow as a Weakening Influence on Eastern Pacific Tropical Cyclones. William J. Denney, 

November 1976. (PB 264 655/AS) 

112 The MAN/MOS Program. Alexander E. MacDonald, February 1977. (PB 265 941/AS) 

113 Winter Season Minimum Temperature Formula for Bakersfield, California, Using Multiple 

Regression. Michael J. Oard, February 1977. (PB 273 694/AS) 

114 Tropical Cyclone Kathleen. James R. Fors, February 1977. (PB 273 676/AS) 

116 A Study of Wind Gusts on Lake Mead. Bradley Colman, April 1977. (PB 268 847) 

117 The Relative Frequency of Cumulonimbus Clouds at the Nevada Test Site as a Function of KValue. R.F. Quiring, April 1977. (PB 272 831) 

118 Moisture Distribution Modification by Upward Vertical Motion. Ira S. Brenner, April 1977. (PB 268 

740) 

119 Relative Frequency of Occurrence of Warm Season Echo Activity as a Function of Stability Indices 

Computed from the Yucca Flat, Nevada, Rawinsonde. Darryl Randerson, June 1977. (PB 271 

290/AS) 

121 Climatological Prediction of Cumulonimbus Clouds in the Vicinity of the Yucca Flat Weather Station. 

R.F. Quiring, June 1977. (PB 271 704/AS) 

122 A Method for Transforming Temperature Distribution to Normality. Morris S. Webb, Jr., June 1977. 

(PB 271 742/AS) 

124 Statistical Guidance for Prediction of Eastern North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Motion - Part I. 

Charles J. Neumann and Preston W. Leftwich, August 1977. (PB 272 661) 

125 Statistical Guidance on the Prediction of Eastern North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Motion - Part II. 

Preston W. Leftwich and Charles J. Neumann, August 1977. (PB 273 155/AS) 

126 Climate of San Francisco. E. Jan Null, February 1978. (Revised by George T. Pericht, April 1988 

and January 1995). (PB88 208624/AS) 

127 Development of a Probability Equation for Winter-Type Precipitation Patterns in Great Falls, 

Montana. Kenneth B. Mielke, February 1978. (PB 281 387/AS) 

128 Hand Calculator Program to Compute Parcel Thermal Dynamics. Dan Gudgel, April 1978. (PB 

283 080/AS) 

129 Fire whirls. David W. Goens, May 1978. (PB 283 866/AS) 

130 Flash-Flood Procedure. Ralph C. Hatch and Gerald Williams, May 1978. (PB 286 014/AS) 

131 Automated Fire-Weather Forecasts. Mark A. Mollner and David E. Olsen, September 1978. (PB 

289 916/AS) 

132 Estimates of the Effects of Terrain Blocking on the Los Angeles WSR-74C Weather Radar. R.G. 

Pappas, R.Y. Lee, B.W. Finke, October 1978. (PB 289767/AS) 

133 Spectral Techniques in Ocean Wave Forecasting. John A. Jannuzzi, October 1978. 

(PB291317/AS) 

134 Solar Radiation. John A. Jannuzzi, November 1978. (PB291195/AS) 

135 Application of a Spectrum Analyzer in Forecasting Ocean Swell in Southern California Coastal 

Waters. Lawrence P. Kierulff, January 1979. (PB292716/AS) 

136 Basic Hydrologic Principles. Thomas L. Dietrich, January 1979. (PB292247/AS) 

137 LFM 24-Hour Prediction of Eastern Pacific Cyclones Refined by Satellite Images. John R. 

Zimmerman and Charles P. Ruscha, Jr., January 1979. (PB294324/AS) 

138 A Simple Analysis/Diagnosis System for Real Time Evaluation of Vertical Motion. Scott Heflick and 

James R. Fors, February 1979. (PB294216/AS) 

139 Aids for Forecasting Minimum Temperature in the Wenatchee Frost District. Robert S. Robinson, 

April 1979. (PB298339/AS) 
 b

140 Influence of Cloudiness on Summertime Temperatures in the Eastern Washington Fire Weather 

district. James Holcomb, April 1979. (PB298674/AS) 

141 Comparison of LFM and MFM Precipitation Guidance for Nevada During Doreen. Christopher Hill, 

April 1979. (PB298613/AS) 

142 The Usefulness of Data from Mountaintop Fire Lookout Stations in Determining Atmospheric 

Stability. Jonathan W. Corey, April 1979. (PB298899/AS) 

143 The Depth of the Marine Layer at San Diego as Related to Subsequent Cool Season Precipitation 

Episodes in Arizona. Ira S. Brenner, May 1979. (PB298817/AS) 

144 Arizona Cool Season Climatological Surface Wind and Pressure Gradient Study. Ira S. Brenner, 

May 1979. (PB298900/AS) 

146 The BART Experiment. Morris S. Webb, October 1979. (PB80 155112) 

147 Occurrence and Distribution of Flash Floods in the Western Region. Thomas L. Dietrich, December 

1979. (PB80 160344) 

149 Misinterpretations of Precipitation Probability Forecasts. Allan H. Murphy, Sarah Lichtenstein, 

Baruch Fischhoff, and Robert L. Winkler, February 1980. (PB80 174576) 

150 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation - Eastern and Central North Pacific Tropical Storms and 

Hurricanes 1979. Emil B. Gunther and Staff, EPHC, April 1980. (PB80 220486) 

151 NMC Model Performance in the Northeast Pacific. James E. Overland, PMEL-ERL, April 1980. 

(PB80 196033) 

152 Climate of Salt Lake City, Utah. William J. Alder, Sean T. Buchanan, William Cope (Retired), 

James A. Cisco, Craig C. Schmidt, Alexander R. Smith (Retired), Wilbur E. Figgins (Retired), 

February 1998 - Seventh Revision (PB98-130727) 

153 An Automatic Lightning Detection System in Northern California. James E. Rea and Chris E. 

Fontana, June 1980. (PB80 225592) 

154 Regression Equation for the Peak Wind Gust 6 to 12 Hours in Advance at Great Falls During 

Strong Downslope Wind Storms. Michael J. Oard, July 1980. (PB91 108367) 

155 A Raininess Index for the Arizona Monsoon. John H. Ten Harkel, July 1980. (PB81 106494) 

156 The Effects of Terrain Distribution on Summer Thunderstorm Activity at Reno, Nevada. 

Christopher Dean Hill, July 1980. (PB81 102501) 

157 An Operational Evaluation of the Scofield/Oliver Technique for Estimating Precipitation Rates from 

Satellite Imagery. Richard Ochoa, August 1980. (PB81 108227) 

158 Hydrology Practicum. Thomas Dietrich, September 1980. (PB81 134033) 

159 Tropical Cyclone Effects on California. Arnold Court, October 1980. (PB81 133779) 

160 Eastern North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Occurrences During Intraseasonal Periods. Preston W. 

Leftwich and Gail M. Brown, February 1981. (PB81 205494) 

161 Solar Radiation as a Sole Source of Energy for Photovoltaics in Las Vegas, Nevada, for July and 

December. Darryl Randerson, April 1981. (PB81 224503) 

162 A Systems Approach to Real-Time Runoff Analysis with a Deterministic Rainfall-Runoff Model. 

Robert J.C. Burnash and R. Larry Ferral, April 1981. (PB81 224495) 

163 A Comparison of Two Methods for Forecasting Thunderstorms at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. 

LTC Keith R. Cooley, April 1981. (PB81 225393) 

164 An Objective Aid for Forecasting Afternoon Relative Humidity Along the Washington Cascade 

East Slopes. Robert S. Robinson, April 1981. (PB81 23078) 

165 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation, Eastern North Pacific Tropical Storms and Hurricanes 

1980. Emil B. Gunther and Staff, May 1981. (PB82 230336) 

166 Preliminary Estimates of Wind Power Potential at the Nevada Test Site. Howard G. Booth, June 

1981. (PB82 127036) 

167 ARAP User's Guide. Mark Mathewson, July 1981, Revised September 1981. (PB82 196783) 

168 Forecasting the Onset of Coastal Gales Off Washington-Oregon. John R. Zimmerman and 

William D. Burton, August 1981. (PB82 127051) 

169 A Statistical-Dynamical Model for Prediction of Tropical Cyclone Motion in the Eastern North 

Pacific Ocean. Preston W. Leftwich, Jr., October 1981. (PB82195298) 

170 An Enhanced Plotter for Surface Airways Observations. Andrew J. Spry and Jeffrey L. Anderson, 

October 1981. (PB82 153883) 

171 Verification of 72-Hour 500-MB Map-Type Predictions. R.F. Quiring, November 1981. 

(PB82-158098) 

172 Forecasting Heavy Snow at Wenatchee, Washington. James W. Holcomb, December 1981. 

(PB82-177783) 

173 Central San Joaquin Valley Type Maps. Thomas R. Crossan, December 1981. (PB82 196064) 

174 ARAP Test Results. Mark A. Mathewson, December 1981. (PB82 198103) 

176 Approximations to the Peak Surface Wind Gusts from Desert Thunderstorms. Darryl Randerson, 

June 1982. (PB82 253089) 

177 Climate of Phoenix, Arizona. Robert J. Schmidli and Austin Jamison, April 1969 (Revised July 

1996). (PB96-191614) 

178 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation, Eastern North Pacific Tropical Storms and Hurricanes 

1982. E.B. Gunther, June 1983. (PB85 106078) 

179 Stratified Maximum Temperature Relationships Between Sixteen Zone Stations in Arizona and 

Respective Key Stations. Ira S. Brenner, June 1983. (PB83 249904) 

180 Standard Hydrologic Exchange Format (SHEF) Version I. Phillip A. Pasteris, Vernon C. Bissel, 

David G. Bennett, August 1983. (PB85 106052) 

181 Quantitative and Spacial Distribution of Winter Precipitation along Utah's Wasatch Front. 

Lawrence B. Dunn, August 1983. (PB85 106912) 

182 500 Millibar Sign Frequency Teleconnection Charts - Winter. Lawrence B. Dunn, December 1983. 

(PB85 106276) 

183 500 Millibar Sign Frequency Teleconnection Charts - Spring. Lawrence B. Dunn, January 1984. 

(PB85 111367) 

184 Collection and Use of Lightning Strike Data in the Western U.S. During Summer 1983. Glenn 

Rasch and Mark Mathewson, February 1984. (PB85 110534) 

185 500 Millibar Sign Frequency Teleconnection Charts - Summer. Lawrence B. Dunn, March 1984. 

(PB85 111359) 

186 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation eastern North Pacific Tropical Storms and Hurricanes 

1983. E.B. Gunther, March 1984. (PB85 109635) 

187 500 Millibar Sign Frequency Teleconnection Charts - Fall. Lawrence B. Dunn, May 1984. 

(PB85-110930) 

188 The Use and Interpretation of Isentropic Analyses. Jeffrey L. Anderson, October 1984. 

(PB85-132694) 

189 Annual Data & Verification Tabulation Eastern North Pacific Tropical Storms and Hurricanes 1984. 

E.B. Gunther and R.L. Cross, April 1985. (PB85 1878887AS) 

190 Great Salt Lake Effect Snowfall: Some Notes and An Example. David M. Carpenter, October 

1985. (PB86 119153/AS) 

191 Large Scale Patterns Associated with Major Freeze Episodes in the Agricultural Southwest. 

Ronald S. Hamilton and Glenn R. Lussky, December 1985. (PB86 144474AS) 

192 NWR Voice Synthesis Project: Phase I. Glen W. Sampson, January 1986. (PB86 145604/AS) 

193 The MCC - An Overview and Case Study on Its Impact in the Western United States. Glenn R. 

Lussky, March 1986. (PB86 170651/AS) 

194 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation Eastern North Pacific Tropical Storms and Hurricanes 

1985. E.B. Gunther and R.L. Cross, March 1986. (PB86 170941/AS) 

195 Radid Interpretation Guidelines. Roger G. Pappas, March 1986. (PB86 177680/AS) 

196 A Mesoscale Convective Complex Type Storm over the Desert Southwest. Darryl Randerson, 

April 1986. (PB86 190998/AS) 

197 The Effects of Eastern North Pacific Tropical Cyclones on the Southwestern United States. 

Walter Smith, August 1986. (PB87 106258AS) 

198 Preliminary Lightning Climatology Studies for Idaho. Christopher D. Hill, Carl J. Gorski, and 

Michael C. Conger, April 1987. (PB87 180196/AS) 

199 Heavy Rains and Flooding in Montana: A Case for Slantwise Convection. Glenn R. Lussky, April 

1987. (PB87 185229/AS) 

200 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation Eastern North Pacific Tropical Storms and Hurricanes 

1986. Roger L. Cross and Kenneth B. Mielke, September 1987. (PB88 110895/AS) 

201 An Inexpensive Solution for the Mass Distribution of Satellite Images. Glen W. Sampson and 

George Clark, September 1987. (PB88 114038/AS) 

202 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation Eastern North Pacific Tropical Storms and Hurricanes 

1987. Roger L. Cross and Kenneth B. Mielke, September 1988. (PB88-101935/AS) 

203 An Investigation of the 24 September 1986 "Cold Sector" Tornado Outbreak in Northern 

California. John P. Monteverdi and Scott A. Braun, October 1988. (PB89 121297/AS) 

204 Preliminary Analysis of Cloud-To-Ground Lightning in the Vicinity of the Nevada Test Site. Carven 

Scott, November 1988. (PB89 128649/AS) 

205 Forecast Guidelines For Fire Weather and Forecasters -- How Nighttime Humidity Affects 

Wildland Fuels. David W. Goens, February 1989. (PB89 162549/AS) 

206 A Collection of Papers Related to Heavy Precipitation Forecasting. Western Region 

Headquarters, Scientific Services Division, August 1989. (PB89 230833/AS) 

207 The Las Vegas McCarran International Airport Microburst of August 8, 1989. Carven A. Scott, 

June 1990. (PB90-240268) 

208 Meteorological Factors Contributing to the Canyon Creek Fire Blowup, September 6 and 7, 1988. 

David W. Goens, June 1990. (PB90-245085) 

209 Stratus Surge Prediction Along the Central California Coast. Peter Felsch and Woodrow 

Whitlatch, December 1990. (PB91-129239) 

210 Hydrotools. Tom Egger. January 1991. (PB91-151787/AS) 

211 A Northern Utah Soaker. Mark E. Struthwolf, February 1991. (PB91-168716) 

212 Preliminary Analysis of the San Francisco Rainfall Record: 1849-1990. Jan Null, May 1991. 

(PB91-208439) 

213 Idaho Zone Preformat, Temperature Guidance, and Verification. Mark A. Mollner, July 1991. 

(PB91-227405/AS) 

214 Emergency Operational Meteorological Considerations During an Accidental Release of 

Hazardous Chemicals. Peter Mueller and Jerry Galt, August 1991. (PB91-235424) 

215 WeatherTools. Tom Egger, October 1991. (PB93-184950) 

216 Creating MOS Equations for RAWS Stations Using Digital Model Data. Dennis D. Gettman, 

December 1991. (PB92-131473/AS) 

217 Forecasting Heavy Snow Events in Missoula, Montana. Mike Richmond, May 1992. 

(PB92-196104) 

218 NWS Winter Weather Workshop in Portland, Oregon. Various Authors, December 1992. 

(PB93-146785) 

219 A Case Study of the Operational Usefulness of the Sharp Workstation in Forecasting a 

Mesocyclone-Induced Cold Sector Tornado Event in California. John P. Monteverdi, March 

1993. (PB93-178697) 

220 Climate of Pendleton, Oregon. Claudia Bell, August 1993. (PB93-227536) 

221 Utilization of the Bulk Richardson Number, Helicity and Sounding Modification in the Assessment 

of the Severe Convective Storms of 3 August 1992. Eric C. Evenson, September 1993. 

(PB94-131943) 

222 Convective and Rotational Parameters Associated with Three Tornado Episodes in Northern and 

Central California. John P. Monteverdi and John Quadros, September 1993. (PB94-131943) 

223 Climate of San Luis Obispo, California. Gary Ryan, February 1994. (PB94-162062) 

224 Climate of Wenatchee, Washington. Michael W. McFarland, Roger G. Buckman, and Gregory E. 

Matzen, March 1994. (PB94-164308) 

225 Climate of Santa Barbara, California. Gary Ryan, December 1994. (PB95-173720) 

226 Climate of Yakima, Washington. Greg DeVoir, David Hogan, and Jay Neher, December 1994. 

(PB95-173688) 

227 Climate of Kalispell, Montana. Chris Maier, December 1994. (PB95-169488) 

228 Forecasting Minimum Temperatures in the Santa Maria Agricultural District. Wilfred Pi and Peter 

Felsch, December 1994. (PB95-171088) 

229 The 10 February 1994 Oroville Tornado--A Case Study. Mike Staudenmaier, Jr., April 1995. 

(PB95-241873) 

230 Santa Ana Winds and the Fire Outbreak of Fall 1993. Ivory Small, June 1995. (PB95-241865) 

231 Washington State Tornadoes. Tresté Huse, July 1995. (PB96-107024) 

232 Fog Climatology at Spokane, Washington. Paul Frisbie, July 1995. (PB96-106604) 

233 Storm Relative Isentropic Motion Associated with Cold Fronts in Northern Utah. Kevin B. Baker, 

Kathleen A. Hadley, and Lawrence B. Dunn, July 1995. (PB96-106596) 

234 Some Climatological and Synoptic Aspects of Severe Weather Development in the Northwestern 

United States. Eric C. Evenson and Robert H. Johns, October 1995. (PB96-112958) 

235 Climate of Las Vegas, Nevada. Paul H. Skrbac and Scott Cordero, December 1995. 

(PB96-135553) 

236 Climate of Astoria, Oregon. Mark A. McInerney, January 1996. 

237 The 6 July 1995 Severe Weather Events in the Northwestern United States: Recent Examples of 

SSWEs. Eric C. Evenson, April 1996. 

238 Significant Weather Patterns Affecting West Central Montana. Joe Lester, May 1996. 

(PB96-178751) 

239 Climate of Portland, Oregon. Clinton C. D. Rockey, May 1996. (PB96-17603) - First Revision, 

October 1999 

240 Downslop Winds of Santa Barbara, CA. Gary Ryan, July 1996. (PB96-191697) 

241 Operational Applications of the Real-time National Lightning Detection Network Data at the NWSO 

Tucson, AZ. Darren McCollum, David Bright, Jim Meyer, and John Glueck, September 1996. 

(PB97-108450) 

242 Climate of Pocatello, Idaho. Joe Heim, October 1996. (PB97-114540) 

243 Climate of Great Falls. Montana. Matt Jackson and D. C. Williamson, December 1996. (PB97-

126684) 

244 WSR-88D VAD Wind Profile Data Influenced by Bird Migration over the Southwest United States. 

Jesus A. Haro, January 1997. (PB97-135263) 

245 Climatology of Cape for Eastern Montana and Northern Wyoming. Heath Hockenberry and Keith 

Meier, January 1997. (PB97-133425) 

246 A Western Region Guide to the Eta-29 Model. Mike Staudenmaier, Jr., March 1997. (PB97-

144075) 

247 The Northeast Nevada Climate Book. Edwin C. Clark, March 1997. (First Revision - January 

1998 - Andrew S. Gorelow and Edwin C. Clark - PB98-123250) 

248 Climate of Eugene, Oregon. Clinton C. D. Rockey, April 1997. (PB97-155303) 

249 Climate of Tucson, Arizona. John R. Glueck, October 1997 

250 Northwest Oregon Daily Extremes and Normans. Clinton C. D. Rockey, October 1997 

251 A Composite Study Examining Five Heavy Snowfall Patterns for South-Central Montana. 

Jonathan D. Van Ausdall and Thomas W. Humphrey. February 1998. (PB98-125255) 

252 Climate of Eureka, California. Alan H. Puffer. February 1998. (PB98-130735) 

253 Inferenced Oceanic Kelvin/Rossby Wave Influence on North American West Coast Precipitation. 

Martin E. Lee and Dudley Chelton. April 1998. (PB98-139744) 
 c

254 Conditional Symmetric InstabilityCMethods of Operational Diagnosis and Case Study of 23-24 

February 1994 Eastern Washington/Oregon Snowstorm. Gregory A. DeVoir. May 1998. (PB98-

144660) 

255 Creation and Maintenance of a Comprehensive Climate Data Base. Eugene Petrescu. August 

1998. (PB98-173529) 

256 Climate of San Diego, California. Thomas E. Evans, III and Donald A. Halvorson. October 1998. 

(PB99-109381) 

257 Climate of Seattle, Washington. Dana Felton. November 1998. (PB99-113482) 

258 1985-1998 North Pacific Tropical Cyclones Impacting the Southwestern United States and 

Northern Mexico: An Updated Climatology. Armando L. Garza. January 1999. (PB99-130502) 

259 Climate of San Jose, California. Miguel Miller. April 1999. (PB99-145633) 

260 Climate of Las Vegas, Nevada. Paul H. Skrbac. December 1999 

261 Climate of Los Angeles, California. David Bruno, Gary Ryan, with assistance from Curt Kaplan 

and Jonathan Slemmer. January 2000 

262 Climate of Miles City, Montana. David A. Spector and Mark H. Strobin. April 2000 

263 Analysis of Radiosonde Data for Spokane, Washington. Rocco D. Pelatti. November 2000 

264 Climate of Billings, Montana. Jeffrey J. Zeltwanger and Mark H. Strobin. November 2000 

265 Climate of Sheridan, Wyoming. Jeffrey J. Zeltwanger, Sally Springer, Mark H. Strobin. March 

2001 

266 Climate of Sacramento, California. Laura Masters-Bevan. December 2000 (7th Revision) 

267 Sulphur Mountain Doppler Radar: A Performance Study. Los Angeles/Oxnard WFO. August 

2001 

268 Prediction of Heavy Snow Events in the Snake River Plain Using Pattern Recognition and 

Regression Techniques. Thomas Andretta and William Wojcik. October 2003 

269 The Lewis and Clark Expedition 18-03-1806, Weather, Water and Climate, Vernon Preston, 

Pocatello Idaho, December 2004. 

270 Climate of San Diego, California, Emmanuel M. Isla, September 2004 (2nd Edition) 

271 Climate of Las Vegas, Nevada, Andrew S. Gorelow, January 2005, (2nd Edition) 

272 Climate of Sacramento, California, Revised by: Laura A. Bevan and George Cline, June 2005 

273 Climate of Flagstaff, AZ 4th Revision. Mike Staudenmaier, Jr, Reginald Preston(R) 

 Paul Sorenson (R) , August 2005 

274 Climate of Prescott, AZ, Bob Fogarty, Mike Staudenmaier Jr., Flagstaff WFO, AZ, August 2005. 

275 Climate of San Diego, CA, 3rd Revision. Noel M. Isla, Jennifer Lee, March 2006 

276 Climate of Reno, NV, Brian Ohara, Reno, NV October 2006 

277 Forecaster's Handbook for Extreme Southwestern California Based On Short Term Climatalogical 

Approximations: Part I - The Marine Layer and Its Effect On Precipitation and Heating Ivory J. 

Small, October 2006 

278 Forecaster's Handbook for Extreme Southwestern California Based On Short Term Climatalogical 

Approximations: Part II – Wind Effects on Terrestrial and Marine Environments 

Ivory J. Small, December 2006 

279 Effects of Wildfire in the Mountainous Terrain of Southeast Arizona: An Empirical Formula to 

Estimate 5-Year Peak Discharge from Small Post-Burn Watersheds, William B. Reed and Mike 

Schaffner , June 2007 
 d

NOAA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was established as part of the Department of 

Commerce on October 3, 1970. The mission responsibilities of NOAA are to assess the socioeconomic 

impact of natural and technological changes in the environment and to monitor and predict the state of 

the solid Earth, the oceans and their living resources, the atmosphere, and the space environment of the 

Earth. 

The major components of NOAA regularly produce various types of scientific and technical information 

in the following kinds of publications. 

PROFESSIONAL PAPERS -- Important 

definitive research results, major 

techniques, and special investigations. 

CONTRACT AND GRANT REPORTS -

- Reports prepared by contractors or 

grantees under NOAA sponsorship. 

ATLAS -- Presentation of analyzed data 

generally in the form of maps showing 

distribution of rainfall, chemical and 

physical conditions of oceans and 

atmosphere, distribution of fishes and 

marine mammals, ionospheric conditions, 

etc.

TECHNICAL SERVICE PUBLICATIONS -- Reports containing data, 

observations, instructions, etc. A partial 

listing includes data serials; prediction 

and outlook periodicals; technical 

manuals, training papers, planning 

reports, and information serials; and 

miscellaneous technical publications. 

TECHNICAL REPORTS -- Journal 

quality with extensive details, 

mathematical developments, or data 

listings. 

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS -- 

Reports of preliminary, partial, or 

negative research or technology results, 

interim instructions, and the like.

Information on availability of NOAA publications can be obtained from: 

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

5285 PORT ROYAL ROAD 

SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161