Estimating flood magnitude and frequency at gaged and ungaged sites on streams in Alaska and conterminous basins in Canada, based on data through water year 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First posted March 16, 2016 For additional information, contact: Director, Alaska Science CenterU.S. Geological Survey4210 University DriveAnchorage, Alaska 99508-4560http://alaska.usgs.gov Estimates of the magnitude and frequency of floods are needed across Alaska for engineering design of transportation and water-conveyance structures, flood-insurance studies, flood-plain management, and other water-resource purposes. This report updates methods for estimating flood magnitude and frequency in Alaska and conterminous basins in Canada. Annual peak-flow data through water year 2012 were compiled from 387 streamgages on unregulated streams with at least 10 years of record. Flood-frequency estimates were computed for each streamgage using the Expected Moments Algorithm to fit a Pearson Type III distribution to the logarithms of annual peak flows. A multiple Grubbs-Beck test was used to identify potentially influential low floods in the time series of peak flows for censoring in the flood frequency analysis.For two new regional skew areas, flood-frequency estimates using station skew were computed for stations with at least 25 years of record for use in a Bayesian least-squares regression analysis to determine a regional skew value. The consideration of basin characteristics as explanatory variables for regional skew resulted in improvements in precision too small to warrant the additional model complexity, and a constant model was adopted. Regional Skew Area 1 in eastern-central Alaska had a regional skew of 0.54 and an average variance of prediction of 0.45, corresponding to an effective record length of 22 years. Regional Skew Area 2, encompassing coastal areas bordering the Gulf of Alaska, had a regional skew of 0.18 and an average variance of prediction of 0.12, corresponding to an effective record length of 59 years. Station flood-frequency estimates for study sites in regional skew areas were then recomputed using a weighted skew incorporating the station skew and regional skew. In a new regional skew exclusion area outside the regional skew areas, the density of long-record streamgages was too sparse for regional analysis and station skew was used for all estimates. Final station flood frequency estimates for all study streamgages are presented for the 50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probabilities.Regional multiple-regression analysis was used to produce equations for estimating flood frequency statistics from explanatory basin characteristics. Basin characteristics, including physical and climatic variables, were updated for all study streamgages using a geographical information system and geospatial source data. Screening for similar-sized nested basins eliminated hydrologically redundant sites, and screening for eligibility for analysis of explanatory variables eliminated regulated peaks, outburst peaks, and sites with indeterminate basin characteristics. An ordinary least‑squares regression used flood-frequency statistics and basin characteristics for 341 streamgages (284 in Alaska and 57 in Canada) to determine the most suitable combination of basin characteristics for a flood-frequency regression model and to explore regional grouping of streamgages for explaining variability in flood-frequency statistics across the study area. The most suitable model for explaining flood frequency used drainage area and mean annual precipitation as explanatory variables for the entire study area as a region. Final regression equations for estimating the 50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probability discharge in Alaska and conterminous basins in Canada were developed using a generalized least-squares regression. The average standard error of prediction for the regression equations for the various annual exceedance probabilities ranged from 69 to 82 percent, and the pseudo-coefficient of determination (pseudo-R2) ranged from 85 to 91 percent.The regional regression equations from this study were incorporated into the U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats program for a limited area of the State—the Cook Inlet Basin. StreamStats is a national web-based geographic information system application that facilitates retrieval of streamflow statistics and associated information. StreamStats retrieves published data for gaged sites and, for user-selected ungaged sites, delineates drainage areas from topographic and hydrographic data, computes basin characteristics, and computes flood frequency estimates using the regional regression equations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".