Premium
Using Steady‐State Backwater Analysis to Predict Inundated Area from National Water Model Streamflow Simulations
Author(s) -
Shastry Apoorva,
Egbert Ryan,
Aristizabal Fernando,
Luo Cehong,
Yu ChengWei,
Praskievicz Sarah
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
jawra journal of the american water resources association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.957
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1752-1688
pISSN - 1093-474X
DOI - 10.1111/1752-1688.12785
Subject(s) - streamflow , flood myth , hydrology (agriculture) , stage (stratigraphy) , environmental science , flooding (psychology) , meteorology , geology , drainage basin , cartography , geography , geotechnical engineering , paleontology , psychology , archaeology , psychotherapist
National Water Model (NWM) simulates the hydrologic cycle and produces streamflow forecasts for 2.7 million reaches in the National Hydrography Dataset for continental United States (U.S.). NWM uses Muskingum–Cunge channel routing, which is based on the continuity equation. However, the momentum equation also needs to be considered to obtain more accurate estimates of streamflow and stage in rivers, especially for applications such as flood‐inundation mapping. Here, we used a steady‐state backwater version of Simulation Program for River NeTworks (SPRNT) model. We evaluated SPRNT’s and NWM’s abilities to predict inundated area for the record flood of Hurricane Matthew in October 2016. The Neuse River experienced record‐breaking floods and was well‐documented by U.S. Geological Survey. Streamflow simulations from NWM retrospective analysis were used as input for the SPRNT simulation. Retrospective NWM discharge predictions were converted to stage. The stages (from both SPRNT and NWM) were utilized to produce flood‐inundation maps using the Height Above Nearest Drainage method which uses the local relative heights to find out the local draining potentials and provide spatial representation of inundated area. The inundated‐area accuracies for NWM and SPRNT (based on comparison to a remotely sensed dataset) were 65.1% and 67.6%, respectively. These results show using steady‐state SPRNT results in a modest improvement of inundation‐forecast accuracy compared to NWM.