Geology topics

Nicholas J. Taylor

Publications and source records attributed to Nicholas J. Taylor.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Benchmark dataset of historical annual peak floods classified by causal mechanisms for select US river basins

Considering the causal mechanisms of floods can improve estimates of flood recurrence intervals given that certain flood types can be associated with higher magnitude and more damaging floods. However, few verified datasets of flood types are available to validate the semiautomated and automated classification algorithms needed to apply flood-typing across large hydrologically diverse regions. To address this gap, a benchmark dataset of manually classified flood types was compiled for 1,763 annual maximum flood peaks from 18 stream gauges in six different river basins across the conterminous United States from 1851 to 2022. Within each basin, three representative stream gauges were selected for manual flood typing. A flexible classification framework is introduced that facilitates flood typing across hydrologically diverse regions and accommodates unique combinations of weather and antecedent watershed conditions specific to each region. Floods were manually typed by domain experts using multiple lines of evidence to identify a primary surface water input of each flood (rainfall, snowmelt, or both) and, if relevant, associated storm type and secondary causal mechanisms characterizing antecedent watershed conditions. Across all the study basins, 49% of historical annual maximum flood peaks were attributable to rainfall, 28% to snowmelt, 22% to mixed precipitation, and 1% could not be assigned to a mechanism due to missing or incomplete data. The proposed flood-typing schema supports varying levels of flood typing specificity required for mixed population flood-frequency analysis, flood-type-specific design hydrographs, water quality response studies, and additional applications. This detailed, manually determined benchmark dataset serves as a resource that can be used developing and validating automated or machine learning-based algorithms capable of operationalizing expanded flood peak information.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2026

Methods for estimating selected streamflow statistics at ungaged sites in Wyoming based on data through water year 2021

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Wyoming Water Development Office, developed regional regression equations based on basin characteristics and streamflow statistics for streamgages through water year 2021 (October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021). The regression equations allow estimates of mean annual maximum, mean annual, mean seasonal, and mean monthly streamflows; frequency statistics for the 7-day mean low flows with 2-year and 10-year recurrence intervals, 14- and 30-day mean low flows with 5-year recurrence intervals, and 60- and 1-day mean high flow with 2-year and 5-year recurrence intervals, respectively; and the 0.1-, 0.2-, 0.5-, 1-, 2-, 4-, 5-, 10-, 20-, 25-, 30-, 50-, 60-, 70-, 75-, 80-, 90-, 95-, 98-, and 99-percent durations for annual streamflows and 0.1-, 0.5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, 30-, 40-, 50-, 60-, 70-, 75-, 80-, 85-, 90-, 95-, and 99-percent durations for monthly streamflows for most months for ungaged locations in Wyoming that are largely unaltered by diversions or upstream reservoirs. Regression equations were developed for 243 streamflow statistics. Best-subset selection was used to assess explanatory variables for respective streamflow statistics. Exploratory data analyses determined that, of the 81 basin characteristics evaluated as potential explanatory variables, characteristics such as drainage area and precipitation often produced models with the highest adjusted coefficient of determination and lowest mean squared error, as determined in the best-subset selection. To address heteroskedasticity of model residuals, model variables were regionalized using fixed-effects models; the percentages of the streamgage basins in selected ecoregions were defined as interaction terms, which represent the model slope for specific ecoregions. Most models were determined to be statistically significant for probability values less than or equal to 0.1 for one or more regional explanatory variables. The final regional regression equations defined in this report are available for use in the U.S. Geological Survey’s StreamStats web application at https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ .

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dako↗

USGS2021

Practical field survey operations for flood insurance rate maps

The U.S. Geological Survey assists the Federal Emergency Management Agency in its mission to identify flood hazards and zones for risk premiums for communities nationwide, by creating flood insurance rate maps through updating hydraulic models that use river geometry data. The data collected consist of elevations of river channels, banks, and structures, such as bridges, dams, and weirs that can affect flow. To account for the model complexity of river structure hydraulics and the fidelity between river channel and structure geometry, two distinct standards for collecting geometry data are presented, both using global navigation satellite system real-time network surveying. This method is adapted from U.S. Geological Survey manuals and is foundational in hydraulic surveying for flood insurance rate maps.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2020

Total water level data from the January and March 2018 nor’easters for coastal areas of New England

During winter 2017–18 coastal areas of New England were impacted by the January 4, and March 2–4, 2018, nor’easters. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), under an interagency agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), collected total water level data (the combination of tide, storm surge, wave runup and setup, and freshwater input) using the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) from high-water marks and continuous water-level sensors, to better understand the areal extent, timing, and impact of coastal flooding from strong storms. During the January 4, 2018, nor’easter the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Boston, Massachusetts, tide gage recorded the highest total water level on record of 9.66 ft. During the March 2–4, 2018, nor’easter, the Boston tide gage recorded its third highest total water level on record of 9.16 ft. After the January and March 2018 nor’easter storms, the USGS deployed field teams that identified and flagged high-water marks along the coastlines of eastern Massachusetts in January and from Portland, Maine, south to the Connecticut-New York State border in March. In preparation for the approach of the March 2018 nor’easter, the USGS deployed 35 temporary water-level sensors along the coastline of New England to collect total water level data during the storm. Total water level data were also collected at 28 tide gages and 14 coastal streamgages (affected tidally or by tidal backwater during coastal storms) in New England during both nor’easters. Total water level elevations at 71 high-water marks collected after the January 2018 nor’easter in coastal areas of eastern Massachusetts ranged from 5.8 to 15.1 feet (ft), with an average elevation of 9.4 ft and a median elevation of 9.6 ft. Total water level elevations at 10 tide gages and 7 coastal streamgages from Portland to Cape Cod Bay ranged from 4.8 to 11.2 ft, with an average of 9.1 ft and a median of 9.6 ft. Following the March 2018 nor’easter, 111 high-water marks were collected along the New England coastline. Of the 111 high-water marks, 100 were along the eastern coastline of New England from Portland to Cape Cod and had elevations that ranged from 5.3 to 15.1 ft, with an average of 8.9 ft and a median of 8.6 ft. The remaining 11 high-water marks along the southern coastline of New England in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts had elevations that ranged from 3.1 to 7.5 ft, with an average of 4.3 ft and a median of 4.9 ft. Total water level elevations for 19 USGS temporary water-level sensors from Portland to Cape Cod Bay ranged from 6.2 to 10.4 ft, with an average of 8.4 ft and a median of 8.7 ft. Total water level elevations at 10 tide gages and 6 coastal streamgages from Portland to Cape Cod Bay ranged from 7.8 to 10.8 ft, with an average of 9.1 ft and a median of 9.2 ft. There were 10 tide gages and 5 coastal streamgages with data from both nor’easters from Portland to Cape Cod Bay; for the January nor’easter, the average and median elevations were about 0.3 and 0.5 ft higher, respectively, than for the March nor’easter. At the 52 high-water mark locations with data for both nor’easters in Massachusetts, the average and median elevations were 0.1 and 0.4 ft higher, respectively, for the January nor’easter than for the March nor’easter. At 10 tide gages along the coastline from Portland to Cape Cod Bay, the observed peak total water level elevations for the January nor’easter ranged from 1.6 to 3.7 ft higher than the concurrent predicted elevations, with an average of 2.8 ft and a median of 3.0 ft higher. For the March nor’easter, the observed peak total water level elevations ranged from 1.8 to 4.0 ft higher than the concurrent predicted elevations, with an average of 2.7 ft and a median of 3.0 ft higher. This is approximately the amount of storm surge that was experienced during the highest tides of the two nor’easters along the coastline from Portland to Cape Cod Bay.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, ↗