Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Robert R. Mason,

Publications and source records attributed to Robert R. Mason,.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2024

Report of the River Master of the Delaware River for the period December 1, 2016–November 30, 2017

Executive Summary A Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered June 7, 1954 ( New Jersey v. New York , 347 U.S. 995), established the position of Delaware River Master within the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition, the Decree authorizes the diversion of water from the Delaware River Basin and requires compensating releases from certain reservoirs owned by New York City be made under the supervision and direction of the River Master. The Decree stipulates that the River Master provide reports to the Court, not less frequently than annually. This report is the 64th annual report of the River Master of the Delaware River. The report covers the 2017 River Master report year, from December 1, 2016, to November 30, 2017. During the report year, precipitation in the upper Delaware River Basin was 47.85 inches or 108 percent of the long-term average. On December 1, 2016, combined useable storage in the New York City reservoirs in the upper Delaware River Basin was 110.115 billion gallons or 40.7 percent of combined storage capacity, the lowest combined storage of the 2017 report year. The reservoirs were at about 100 percent of useable capacity on May 31, 2017. Combined storage remained above 80 percent of combined capacity until September 2017. A lower basin drought watch issued by the Delaware River Basin Commission in 2016 extended from the beginning of this report year to January 18, 2017. The drought watch was ended on January 18, 2017, due to increased precipitation in December 2016. River Master operations during the year were conducted as stipulated by the Decree and the Flexible Flow Management Programs. Diversions from the Delaware River Basin by New York City and New Jersey fully complied with the Decree. Reservoir releases were made as directed by the River Master at rates designed to meet the flow objective for the Delaware River at Montague, New Jersey (N.J.), on 52 days during the report year. Interim Excess Release Quantity and conservation releases, designed to relieve thermal stress and protect the fishery and aquatic habitat in the tailwaters of the reservoirs, were made during the report year. Excess Release Quantity and Interim Excess Release Quantity Bank releases were also made during the report year. The water quality in the Delaware River estuary between the streamgages at Trenton, N.J., and Reedy Island Jetty, Delaware, was monitored at various locations. The data on water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH were collected continuously by electronic instruments at four sites.

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania↗
USGS2024

Report of the River Master of the Delaware River for the period December 1, 2014–November 30, 2015

Executive Summary A Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered June 7, 1954 ( New Jersey v. New York , 347 U.S. 995), established the position of Delaware River Master within the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition, the Decree authorizes the diversion of water from the Delaware River Basin and requires compensating releases from specific reservoirs owned by New York City be made under the supervision and direction of the River Master. The Decree stipulates that the River Master provide reports to the Court, not less frequently than annually. This report is the 62nd annual report of the River Master of the Delaware River. This report covers the 2015 River Master report year, which is the period from December 1, 2014, to November 30, 2015. During the report year, precipitation in the upper Delaware River Basin was 42.22 inches or 95 percent of the long-term average. The combined storage remained above 80 percent of the combined capacity until August 2015. The lowest combined storage of the report year was 57 percent of the total combined capacity on December 1, 2014. Delaware River Master operations during the year were conducted as stipulated by the Decree and the Flexible Flow Management Program. Diversions from the Delaware River Basin by New York City and New Jersey fully complied with the Decree. The reservoir releases were made as directed by the River Master at rates designed to meet the flow objective for the Delaware River at Montague, New Jersey, on 72 days during the report year. Interim Excess Release Quantity and conservation releases, designed to relieve thermal stress and protect the fishery and aquatic habitat in the tailwaters of the reservoirs, were also made during the report year. Water quality in the Delaware River estuary between the streamgages at Trenton, New Jersey, and Reedy Island Jetty, Delaware, was monitored at several locations. Data on water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH were collected continuously by electronic instruments at four sites.

Delaware, New Jersey New York, Pennsylvania↗
USGS2020

Report of the River Master of the Delaware River for the period December 1, 2010–November 30, 2011

A Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered June 7, 1954, established the position of Delaware River Master within the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition, the Decree authorizes diversion of water from the Delaware River Basin and requires compensating releases from certain reservoirs, owned by New York City, to be made under the supervision and direction of the River Master. The Decree stipulates that the River Master will furnish reports to the Court, not less frequently than annually. This report is the 58th Annual Report of the River Master of the Delaware River. It covers the 2011 River Master report year, the period from December 1, 2010, to November 30, 2011. During the report year, precipitation in the upper Delaware River Basin was 71.43 inches or 162 percent of the long-term average. On December 1, 2010, combined usable storage in the New York City reservoirs in the upper Delaware River Basin was 230.430 billion gallons or 85.1 percent of combined storage capacity. The reservoirs were at about 100 percent of usable capacity on May 31, 2011. Combined storage remained high (above 80 percent combined capacity) through November 2011. River Master operations during the year were conducted as stipulated by the Decree and the Flexible Flow Management Program. Diversions from the Delaware River Basin by New York City and New Jersey were in full compliance with the Decree. Reservoir releases were made as directed by the River Master at rates designed to meet the flow objective for the Delaware River at Montague, New Jersey, on 5 days during the report year (July 24–28, 2011). Conservation releases, designed to relieve thermal stress and protect the fishery and aquatic habitat in the tailwaters of the reservoirs, were also made during the report year. The quality of water in the Delaware Estuary between Trenton, New Jersey, and Reedy Island Jetty, Delaware, was monitored at various locations. Data on water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH were collected continuously by electronic instruments at four sites.

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania↗
USGS2019

Report of the River Master of the Delaware River for the period December 1, 2009–November 30, 2010

A Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered June 7, 1954, established the position of Delaware River Master within the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition, the Decree authorizes diversion of water from the Delaware River Basin and requires compensating releases from certain reservoirs, owned by New York City, to be made under the supervision and direction of the River Master. The Decree stipulates that the River Master will furnish reports to the Court, not less frequently than annually. This report is the 57th Annual Report of the River Master of the Delaware River. It covers the 2010 River Master report year, the period from December 1, 2009, to November 30, 2010. During the report year, precipitation in the upper Delaware River Basin was 49.38 inches or 112 percent of the long-term average. Combined storage in Pepacton, Cannonsville, and Neversink Reservoirs remained high much of the year and did not decline below 80 percent of combined capacity until September 2010. A lower basin drought warning was issued by the Delaware River Basin Commission on September 24, 2010. It automatically ended on October 31, 2010, when the reservoir contents rose above drought levels, due in large part to heavy rainfall during the last week of September. River Master operations during the year were conducted as stipulated by the Decree and the Flexible Flow Management Program. Diversions from the Delaware River Basin by New York City and New Jersey were in full compliance with the Decree. Reservoir releases were made as directed by the River Master at rates designed to meet the flow objective for the Delaware River at Montague, New Jersey, on 81 days during the report year. Interim Excess Release Quantity and conservation releases, designed to relieve thermal stress and protect the fishery and aquatic habitat in the tailwaters of the reservoirs, were made during the report year. The quality of water in the Delaware Estuary between Trenton, New Jersey, and Reedy Island Jetty, Delaware, was monitored at various locations. Data on water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH were collected continuously by electronic instruments at four sites.

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylv↗
USGS2019

Evaluation of recommended revisions to Bulletin 17B

For the past 36 years, Bulletin 17B, published by the Interagency Committee on Water Data in 1982, has guided flood-frequency analyses in the United States. During this period, much has been learned about both hydrology and statistical methods. In keeping with the tradition of periodically updating the Bulletin 17B guidelines in light of advances in our understanding and methods, the Hydrologic Frequency Analysis Work Group (HFAWG) was charged by the Subcommittee on Hydrology (SOH) of the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) to consider possible updates to Bulletin 17B. The purpose of this report is to consider the statistical performance of possible revisions to Bulletin 17B procedures. Of particular interest are procedures designed to accommodate more general forms of flood information. The concern is how the proposed procedures would affect the precision, accuracy and robustness of flood-frequency estimates. The investigations reported here focus on techniques for the following: incorporating information related to historical flooding that occurred outside the period of systematic streamgaging; and identification of potentially influential low floods (PILFs). The proposed changes, which mostly involve generalizing Bulletin 17B’s method-of-moments procedures by using the Expected Moments Algorithm (EMA), are relatively modest, at least in the sense that they would not affect the main features of Bulletin 17B. The proposed methods include the following: continued use of the log-Pearson Type 3 (LP3) distribution; continued use of the Method-of-Moments fitting method applied to the logarithms of annual-peak-flow data; and a generalization of the Grubbs-Beck test used in Bulletin 17B to identify low outliers. The new multiple Grubbs-Beck test is sensitive to multiple PILFs. The hydrological literature already provides extensive support for the theory behind the proposed changes. The remaining question is practical: How well do the proposed methods perform under typical and realistic conditions and, specifically, with difficult records occasionally encountered in practice? In order to answer these questions, the HFAWG commissioned the work reported here. The following four major sets of results are provided: Monte Carlo simulations of fitting procedures employing data drawn from simulated LP3 populations; Monte Carlo simulations of fitting procedures employing data drawn from non-LP3 populations that were selected to reflect likely deviations of flood series from LP3 distributions, based on the experience of HFAWG members; a direct comparison of the fitted LP3 distributions for 82 real “test sites” identified by an independent data group as both “typical” and “challenging” for flood-frequency estimation; and simulations of fitting procedures using records obtained by resampling with replacement from the longest of the 82 test-site records. Collectively, these studies provide a reasonably comprehensive, valid, and robust assessment of the properties of the Bulletin 17B methods and proposed alternatives. The experiments and analysis indicate that the flood quantile estimators, proposed as a revision of Bulletin 17B, do the following: perform generally as well as, and in some cases much better than, Bulletin 17B estimators in terms of the mean square error of flood quantiles estimates; allow for incorporation and efficient statistical treatment of broader classes of flood-frequency data and information, including historical information, binomial data and interval data; and generally confirm studies and the theoretical findings reported in the hydrological literature that would support use of updated estimation procedures that have been developed since Bulletin 17B was published.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

A comparison of methods for streamflow uncertainty estimation

Streamflow time series are commonly derived from stage‐discharge rating curves, but the uncertainty of the rating curve and resulting streamflow series are poorly understood. While different methods to quantify uncertainty in the stage‐discharge relationship exist, there is limited understanding of how uncertainty estimates differ between methods due to different assumptions and methodological choices. We compared uncertainty estimates and stage‐discharge rating curves from seven methods at three river locations of varying hydraulic complexity. Comparison of the estimated uncertainties revealed a wide range of estimates, particularly for high and low flows. At the simplest site on the Isère River (France), full width 95% uncertainties for the different methods ranged from 3 to 17% for median flows. In contrast, uncertainties were much higher and ranged from 41 to 200% for high flows in an extrapolated section of the rating curve at the Mahurangi River (New Zealand) and 28 to 101% for low flows at the Taf River (United Kingdom), where the hydraulic control is unstable at low flows. Differences between methods result from differences in the sources of uncertainty considered, differences in the handling of the time‐varying nature of rating curves, differences in the extent of hydraulic knowledge assumed, and differences in assumptions when extrapolating rating curves above or below the observed gaugings. Ultimately, the selection of an uncertainty method requires a match between user requirements and the assumptions made by the uncertainty method. Given the significant differences in uncertainty estimates between methods, we suggest that a clear statement of uncertainty assumptions be presented alongside streamflow uncertainty estimates.

Water Resources Research↗
USGS2018

Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency — Bulletin 17C

Accurate estimates of flood frequency and magnitude are a key component of any effective nationwide flood risk management and flood damage abatement program. In addition to accuracy, methods for estimating flood risk must be uniformly and consistently applied because management of the Nation’s water and related land resources is a collaborative effort involving multiple actors including most levels of government and the private sector. Flood frequency guidelines have been published in the United States since 1967, and have undergone periodic revisions. In 1967, the U.S. Water Resources Council presented a coherent approach to flood frequency with Bulletin 15, “A Uniform Technique for Determining Flood Flow Frequencies.” The method it recommended involved fitting the log-Pearson Type III distribution to annual peak flow data by the method of moments. The first extension and update of Bulletin 15 was published in 1976 as Bulletin 17, “Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency” (Guidelines). It extended the Bulletin 15 procedures by introducing methods for dealing with outliers, historical flood information, and regional skew. Bulletin 17A was published the following year to clarify the computation of weighted skew. The next revision of the Bulletin, the Bulletin 17B, provided a host of improvements and new techniques designed to address situations that often arise in practice, including better methods for estimating and using regional skew, weighting station and regional skew, detection of outliers, and use of the conditional probability adjustment. The current version of these Guidelines are presented in this document, denoted Bulletin 17C. It incorporates changes motivated by four of the items listed as “Future Work” in Bulletin 17B and 30 years of post-17B research on flood processes and statistical methods. The updates include: adoption of a generalized representation of flood data that allows for interval and censored data types; a new method, called the Expected Moments Algorithm, which extends the method of moments so that it can accommodate interval data; a generalized approach to identification of low outliers in flood data; and an improved method for computing confidence intervals. Federal agencies are requested to use these Guidelines in all planning activities involving water and related land resources. State, local, and private organizations are encouraged to use these Guidelines to assure uniformity in the flood frequency estimates that all agencies concerned with flood risk should use for Federal planning decisions. This revision is adopted with the knowledge and understanding that review of these procedures will be ongoing. Updated methods will be adopted when warranted by experience and by examination and testing of new techniques.

Georgia↗
USGS2017

The U.S. Geological Survey Peak-Flow File Data Verification Project, 2008–16

Annual peak streamflow (peak flow) at a streamgage is defined as the maximum instantaneous flow in a water year. A water year begins on October 1 and continues through September 30 of the following year; for example, water year 2015 extends from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. The accuracy, characterization, and completeness of the peak streamflow data are critical in determining flood-frequency estimates that are used daily to design water and transportation infrastructure, delineate flood-plain boundaries, and regulate development and utilization of lands throughout the United States and are essential to understanding the implications of climate and land-use change on flooding and high-flow conditions. As of November 14, 2016, peak-flow data existed for 27,240 unique streamgages in the United States and its territories. The data, collectively referred to as the “peak-flow file,” are available as part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) public web interface, the National Water Information System, at https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/peak . Although the data have been routinely subjected to periodic review by the USGS Office of Surface Water and screening at the USGS Water Science Center level, these data were not reviewed in a national, systematic manner until 2008 when automated scripts were developed and applied to detect potential errors in peak-flow values and their associated dates, gage heights, and peak-flow qualification codes, as well as qualification codes associated with the gage heights. USGS scientists and hydrographers studied the resulting output, accessed basic records and field notes, and corrected observed errors or, more commonly, confirmed existing data as correct. This report summarizes the changes in peak-flow file data at a national level, illustrates their nature and causation, and identifies the streamgages affected by these changes. Specifically, the peak-flow data were compared for streamgages with peak flow measured as of November 19, 2008 (before the automated scripts were widely applied) and on November 14, 2016 (after several rounds of corrections). There were 659,332 peak-flow values in the 2008 dataset and 731,965 peak-flow values in the 2016 dataset. When compared to the 2016 dataset, 5,179 (0.79 percent) peak-flow values had changed; 36,506 (5.54 percent) of the peak-flow qualification codes had changed; 1,938 (0.29 percent) peak-flow dates had changed; 18,599 (2.82 percent) of the peak-flow gage heights had changed; and 20,683 (3.14 percent) of the gage-height qualification codes had changed—most as a direct result of the peak-flow file data verification effort led by USGS personnel. The various types of changes are summarized and mapped in this report. In addition to this report, a corresponding USGS data release is provided to identify changes in peak flows at individual streamgages. The data release and the procedures to access the data release are described in this report.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2017

How uncertainty analysis of streamflow data can reduce costs and promote robust decisions in water management applications

Streamflow data are used for important environmental and economic decisions, such as specifying and regulating minimum flows, managing water supplies, and planning for flood hazards. Despite significant uncertainty in most flow data, the flow series for these applications are often communicated and used without uncertainty information. In this commentary, we argue that proper analysis of uncertainty in river flow data can reduce costs and promote robust conclusions in water management applications. We substantiate our argument by providing case studies from Norway and New Zealand where streamflow uncertainty analysis has uncovered economic costs in the hydropower industry, improved public acceptance of a controversial water management policy, and tested the accuracy of water quality trends. We discuss the need for practical uncertainty assessment tools that generate multiple flow series realizations rather than simple error bounds. Although examples of such tools are in development, considerable barriers for uncertainty analysis and communication still exist for practitioners, and future research must aim to provide easier access and usability of uncertainty estimates. We conclude that flow uncertainty analysis is critical for good water management decisions.

Water Resources Research↗