PCLM-D-23-00195

Historical archives reveal record rainfall and severe flooding in December 1867 resulting from an atmospheric river and snowmelt, Western Washington, USA

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Gavin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by . If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Kenawy, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

2. Please note that PLOS CLIMATE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We noticed that you used "not shown" in the manuscript. We do not allow these references, as the PLOS data access policy requires that all data be either published with the manuscript or made available in a publicly accessible database. Please amend the supplementary material to include the referenced data or remove the references.

4. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

Figs 1, 7, 8 and 9: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. 

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. 

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps: 

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov) 

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl) 

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

"

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 

GENERAL COMMENTS

This paper describes the available data from various sources on an extreme precipitation event that occurred in western Washington and Oregon in December 1867, and newspaper accounts of the flood effects in the study region. The historical precipitation records and modern rain gauges allow the three- and four-day precipitation totals to be classified as the largest on record. The synoptic pattern associated with the event shows its association with an atmospheric river as the cause of the event. The paper is well written and relevant in the context of extreme event science and climate change. It demonstrates the value of extending rainfall and flood records into the past, and improves our perspective on the potential impact of atmospheric rivers on extreme rainfall and flooding when rainfall is enhanced by snowmelt. The paper deserves publication and I have only a few minor comments for the author's consideration.

Detail comments:

Lines 134 to 144, page 7. I found this paragraph difficult to follow. Data from 5 stations were compared with the GHCN dataset. Two stations still had some missing data. Also, the GHCN stations were used to complete the precipitation at four stations and then I got lost.

I would suggest improving this paragraph with further explanation, so it can be follow the whole process of analysis

Line 150-151 “annual precipitation was included only for years with fewer than 25 missing days”. On these years with <25 missing days, How the missing daily rainfall were completed??

Lines165-166. Note that if the buildings have disappeared the error in matching the two maps can be very high. Ideally, it is better to use field data on historical flood landmarks.

Figure 6. Please, enter the units for the atmospheric pressure data in this figure.

Line 336-337. Please, indicate the discharge associated with the 1% probability flood.

Line 338. Do the same for Issaquah Creek if available

Lines 429-451. I agree that comparing flood elevations between the 1867 flood and the 1% probability flood or other recorded flood is not entirely appropriate. Changes in floodplain and floodway width may bias the results. I wonder if there is a known stable reach with recorded water levels to estimate discharges, however this exercise can be done in future analysis.

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript is an interesting case study that combines multiple climate sources (early instrumental data, documentary sources, and reanalysis) to analyse the historical flood of 1867 in western Washington. I consider that the article could be published in PLOS one but requires some modifications.

Line 89: Can you include some citations to support this statement?.

Line 92: The link mrcc.purdue.edu/data_serv/cdmp/cdmp does not work.

Line 98: Please describe how you conducted “the additional extreme-value checking”

Line 100: Can you provide a citation to support this decision.

Line 102: Please mention the quality control performed on GHCN data and whether there are significant differences compared to the quality control applied to the historical fort data, especially related to extreme values

Line 118: Why did you choose a threshold of 9 missing days per season? There may not be enough completed seasons to conduct the analysis. This threshold could potentially eliminate an extreme event similar to the one analyzed in the paper.

Line 151: I have a similar comment about the 25 missing days per year threshold. This threshold could represent an entire month with no data.

Line 330: Modify figure 8 to be cited in alphabetical order in the text.

Line 333: Could you briefly explain how the 1% probability flood is computed?

Line 452: Is the word "climatology" used correctly in this context?

Line 487-500: This section in poorly developed. Firstly, the section title is incorrect because it seems to analyze "modern floods." Secondly, the section only presents some data from the 1861 flood, but the comparison with the 1867 event is almost non-existent. One of the most interesting questions of this comparison is not addressed: Is the atmospheric situation during 1861 comparable to that of 1867?.

Line 502: millennial scale?

Figure 8. Label in the x axe is required in b, c, and d.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Gerardo Benito

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Historical archives reveal record rainfall and severe flooding in December 1867 resulting from an atmospheric river and snowmelt, Western Washington, USA

PCLM-D-23-00195R1

Dear Dr. Gavin,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Historical archives reveal record rainfall and severe flooding in December 1867 resulting from an atmospheric river and snowmelt, Western Washington, USA' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Ahmed Kenawy, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have satisfactorily addressed the comments included in the first revision, and in my opinion this improved version is ready for publication in the journal.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Gerardo Benito

Reviewer #2: No

**********