Arkansas Red Basin River Forecast Center An Operational Forecast Office Perspective of the National Weather Service Hydrologic Distributed Modeling System.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Climate Prediction Applications Science Workshop

Advertisements

Modelling the rainfall-runoff process

CBRFC Peak Flow Forecast Webinar April 9th, 2014 Greg Smith & Ashley Nielson These slides: Presentation are available.

Brian McInerney Hydrologist National Weather Service Hydrologic Outlook April 2006.

NWS Calibration Workshop, LMRFC March, 2009 Slide 1 Sacramento Model Derivation of Initial Parameters.

Hydrological Modeling for Upper Chao Phraya Basin Using HEC-HMS UNDP/ADAPT Asia-Pacific First Regional Training Workshop Assessing Costs and Benefits of.

Lucinda Mileham, Dr Richard Taylor, Dr Martin Todd

Kinematic Routing Model and its Parameters Definition.

Applications of Scaling to Regional Flood Analysis Brent M. Troutman U.S. Geological Survey.

Continuous Hydrologic Simulation of Johnson Creek Basin and Assuming Watershed Stationarity Rick Shimota, P.E. Hans Hadley, P.E., P.G. The Oregon Water.

Upper Brushy Creek Flood Study – Flood mapping and management Rainfall depths were derived using USGS SIR , Atlas of Depth Duration Frequency.

Distributed Hydrologic Model-Threshold Frequency (DHM-TF) Reggina Cabrera NOAA/National Weather Service Eastern Region

Synthetic Unit Hydrographs

Hydrological Modeling FISH 513 April 10, Overview: What is wrong with simple statistical regressions of hydrologic response on impervious area?

NWS ~ NorthWest River Forecast Center Seasonal Volume Forecasts Using Ensemble Streamflow Prediction for the 2006 Water Year Kevin Berghoff, Hydrologist.

A Distributed Flash Flood Forecasting Rainfall- Runoff Model Applied to Watersheds in the Northeast United States Michael Schaffner NOAA National Weather.

Evaluating river cross section for SPRINT: Guadalupe and San Antonio River Basins Alfredo Hijar Flood Forecasting.

Colorado Basin River Forecast Center Water Supply Forecasting Method Michelle Stokes Hydrologist in Charge Colorado Basin River Forecast Center April 28,

Water Supply Forecast using the Ensemble Streamflow Prediction Model Kevin Berghoff, Senior Hydrologist Northwest River Forecast Center Portland, OR.

Hydrologic Statistics

CBRFC April 2014 CUWCD Briefing/Meeting 1:30pm April 8, 2014 Ashley Nielson.

6/3/2010 ER FFG Conference An Overview of Gridded Flash Flood Guidance; A Spatially Distributed Runoff and Threshold-Runoff Based Approach Erick Boehmler.

KINEROS (KINematic runoff and EROSion model) Michael Schaffner Senior Service Hydrologist NOAA National Weather Service WFO Binghamton, NY Eastern Region.

ABSTRACT One of the large challenges in data assimilation (DA) into distributed hydrologic models is how to reduce the degrees of freedom in the inverse.

1/59 HL Distributed Hydrologic Modeling Mike Smith Victor Koren, Seann Reed, Ziya Zhang, Fekadu Moreda, Fan Lei, Zhengtao Cui, Dongjun Seo, Shuzheng Cong,

A Statistical-Distributed Hydrologic Model for Flash Flood Forecasting International Workshop on Flash Flood Forecasting March 13, 2006 Seann Reed 1, John.

National Weather Service River Forecast System Model Calibration Fritz Fiedler Hydromet 00-3 Tuesday, 23 May East Prospect Road, Suite 1 Fort.

El Vado Dam Hydrologic Evaluation Joseph Wright, P.E. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center Flood Hydrology and Meteorology Group.

WinTR-20 SensitivityMarch WinTR-20 Sensitivity to Input Parameters.

ELDAS Case Study 5100: UK Flooding

FLASH FLOOD PREDICTION James McDonald 4/29/08. Introduction - Relevance  90% of all national disasters are weather and flood related  Central Texas.

Streamflow Predictability Tom Hopson. Conduct Idealized Predictability Experiments Document relative importance of uncertainties in basin initial conditions.

By studying the layers of snowpack we can improve our predictions of when and where avalanches are likely to occur. Note that precipitation amounts seem.

Forecasting Streamflow with the UW Hydrometeorological Forecast System Ed Maurer Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington Pacific Northwest.

Center for Hydrometeorology and Remote Sensing, University of California, Irvine Basin Scale Precipitation Data Merging Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo.

Preliminary Applications of the HL-RDHM within the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center Ed Clark, Hydrologist Presented July 26 th, 2007 as part of the.

Land Cover Change and Climate Change Effects on Streamflow in Puget Sound Basin, Washington Lan Cuo 1, Dennis Lettenmaier 1, Marina Alberti 2, Jeffrey.

National Weather Service - Southeast River Forecast Center Southeast River Forecast Center North Florida Visit July 17-20, 2006 Southeast River Forecast.

Applications of the NWS Research Distributed Hydrologic Model in Operational Hydrology The Colorado Basin River Forecast Center (CBRFC), an office of NOAA’s.

Patapsco/Back River SWMM Model Part I - Hydrology Maryland Department of the Environment.

National Weather Service Application of CFS Forecasts in NWS Hydrologic Ensemble Prediction John Schaake Office of Hydrologic Development NOAA National.

Gridded Rainfall Estimation for Distributed Modeling in Western Mountainous Areas 1. Introduction Estimation of precipitation in mountainous areas continues.

Overview of the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center Lisa Holts.

Variational Assimilation (VAR) Presented by: Jerry Nunn Hydrologist In Charge West Gulf River Forecast Center October 28, 2003.

Eric Jones Senior Hydrologist Lower Mississippi River Forecast Center 89 th AMS Meeting.

Objective Data  The outlined square marks the area of the study arranged in most cases in a coarse 24X24 grid.  Data from the NASA Langley Research Center.

National Weather Service Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center Drought Briefing 10/24/2014 Jeff McMurphy Senior Hydrologist – ABRFC James Paul Service.

Flash Flood A rapid and extreme flow of high water into a normally dry area, or a rapid water level rise in a stream or creek above a predetermined flood.

INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS for a safer, better world Capability of passive microwave and SNODAS SWE estimates for hydrologic predictions in selected U.S. watersheds.

Fine-Resolution, Regional-Scale Terrestrial Hydrologic Fluxes Simulated with the Integrated Landscape Hydrology Model (ILHM) David W Hyndman Anthony D.

Preliminary Applications of the HL-RDHM within the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center Ed Clark, Hydrologist Presented July 26 th, 2007 as part of the.

1 Probabilistic Forecast Verification Allen Bradley IIHR Hydroscience & Engineering The University of Iowa RFC Verification Workshop 16 August 2007 Salt.

Surface Water Surface runoff - Precipitation or snowmelt which moves across the land surface ultimately channelizing into streams or rivers or discharging.

LMRFC March, 2009 Calibration at Finer Time and Space Scales.

Hydrology of Inland Flooding  Stream Gauges  Hydrologic Forecast Process  Forecast Considerations  Forecast Hydrographs 3-1.

Alan F. Hamlet Andy Wood Dennis P. Lettenmaier JISAO Center for Science in the Earth System Climate Impacts Group and the Department.

Nathalie Voisin 1, Florian Pappenberger 2, Dennis Lettenmaier 1, Roberto Buizza 2, and John Schaake 3 1 University of Washington 2 ECMWF 3 National Weather.

P B Hunukumbura1 S B Weerakoon1

VERIFICATION OF A DOWNSCALING SEQUENCE APPLIED TO MEDIUM RANGE METEOROLOGICAL PREDICTIONS FOR GLOBAL FLOOD PREDICTION Nathalie Voisin, Andy W. Wood and.

EVALUATION OF A GLOBAL PREDICTION SYSTEM: THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN AS A TEST CASE Nathalie Voisin, Andy W. Wood and Dennis P. Lettenmaier Civil and.

NOAA, National Weather Service Middle Atlantic River Forecast Center Briefing 1:00PM February 13, 2016 Peter Ahnert

TRANSITION FROM LUMPED TO DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS Victor Koren, Michael Smith, Seann Reed, Ziya Zhang NOAA/NWS/OHD/HL, Silver Spring, MD.

Comparisons of Simulation Results Using the NWS Hydrology Laboratory's Research Modeling System (HL-RMS) Hydrology Laboratory Office of Hydrologic Development.

NOAA, National Weather Service Middle Atlantic River Forecast Center Briefing Noon February 16, 2016 Peter Ahnert

Predicting the hydrologic implications of land use change in forested catchments Dennis P. Lettenmaier Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Estimating Changes in Flood Risk due to 20th Century Warming and Climate Variability in the Western U.S. Alan F. Hamlet Dennis P. Lettenmaier.

EF5: A hydrologic model for prediction, reanalysis and capacity building Zachary Flamig Postdoctoral Scholar.

Digital model for estimation of flash floods using GIS

in the Neversink River Basin, New York

Rainfall-Runoff Modeling

Presentation transcript:

Arkansas Red Basin River Forecast Center An Operational Forecast Office Perspective of the National Weather Service Hydrologic Distributed Modeling System (HDMS) Presented by: Diane Cooper Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center Hydrologist

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Objectives  Overview of HDMS  Preliminary Statistical Analysis

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, HDMS, What is it? A Hydrologic Model that takes into account:  Spatial distribution of hydrologic characteristics across a drainage basin including soils, vegetation, land use, slope  Temporal and spatial distribution of rainfall…4X4 km HRAP grids Many 4x4 km grid cells embedded in the main basin. Maintains spatial Precipitation footprint which impacts hydrologic response.

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Features Of HDMS  Performs routing simulations using the kinematic wave technique – flow velocity in each element is dependent on flow level  Separates the runoff components – Surface flow: includes impervious, surface and direct runoff – Subsurface flow: includes interflow and baseflow

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Advantages of HDMS  Potential for improved simulations for: – Basins with non-uniform rainfall. – Basins with relatively impervious areas (surface runoff occurs quickly…i.e. highly populated regions).  Prediction of hydrologic variables at interior points.  Output of Gridded soil moisture states.  Potential to improve flash flood forecasting.  Can account for Land-use change (i.e. burn areas).

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Statistical Analysis Comparisons of HDMS and NWSRFS SQIN to the observed flow data was performed for 14 of the 21 test basins from Early 2002 through August For a more “consistent” comparison, the Lumped Model SQIN crest time and peak discharge were compared to the hourly observed time series. This is referred to as the Adj. NWSRFS SQIN. Note: Seven Basins were not included in the analysis due to: 4 HDMS test basins are not identified in the NWSRFS Lumped model 2 basins had a very short NWSRFS SQIN timeseries. 1 Basin the SQIN has not yet been generated. How well is HDMS performing compared to the NWSRFS lumped model?

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Statistical Analysis  For 7 of the 14 test basins, the overall flow percent bias is lower with the HDMS simulations  For 8 of the 14 basins, the overall Correlation Coefficient ”R” is closer to 1 with most of them at 0.85 and higher. Note: Due to limitations with the statistical analysis software, the Overall simulations do not use the same observed timeseries dataset. HDMS is compared to the 1-hour observed discharge while NWSRFS is compared to a 6-hour timeseries. Hence, flow is “lost” in the 6- hour timeseries. Multi-Year Overall Flow

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Statistical Analysis  For only 3 of the 14 test basins, the HDMS model performed better than the Adj. NWSRFS on the Timing of the Crest. However when taking the standard deviation into account, HDMS had a lower deviation on half of the basins. Time to Peak Error

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Statistical Analysis  For 8 of the 14 basins, the normalized Mean Peak Discharge Error is better with HDMS.  When evaluating the Standard Deviation and the normalized Peak Discharge “Adj” error, 9 of the 14 basins performed better with HDMS. Peak Discharge Plots of normalized HDMS peak discharge errors for Events identified between 4/02 through 8/05.

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, A Closer Look at a Calibrated Basin  Minor improvement from 0.84 (Lumped) to 0.86 (HDMS) in the correlation coefficient “R”.  Improved simulation of the higher flow events, typically these are under simulated.  Time to crest error showed a decrease with a smaller variability: – HDMS error was 1.9 hrs - most crests late – NWSRFS error was 3.3 hrs – most crests early Statistical analysis for Corbin, KS (CBNK1) – period 1/2002 though 8/2005.

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Focusing on the Events Plot of the Crest Time Error for the 26 events identified at CBNK1. HDMS tended to be late in its timing of the crest while NWSRFS tended to be early. Plot of the Peak Discharge Error for the 26 events identified at CBNK1. The Normalizing Factor is the 2-year flood frequency which is 8990 cfs. Both models give a mix of over and under simulations for events that are 6000 cfs and less. However for the larger events, both models dramatically undersimulate the crest.

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Summary  HDMS appears to perform as well or better than lumped model for most of test basins…especially in the simulation of peak discharge.  HDMS shows promise as a more advanced Hydrologic Model for NWS operations.

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Contacts  OHD – Lee – Seann  ABRFC – Diane  WGRFC – Paul

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Appendix A HDMS Statistical Analysis Data Basin2 year Flood Frequency (Normalizing Factor) Correlation Coefficient "R" Overall Percent Bias Mean Time to Peak Error (hr) Mean Time to peak ST Dev Mean Normalized Peak Discharge Error Mean Normalized Peak St Dev CVSA ELMA MLBA SLSA SPRA SVYA TIFM CBNK BLKO BLUO ELDO KNSO TALO WSCO WTTO ELTT ELTT2a BSGM INCM

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Appendix B NWSRFS Statistical Analysis Data Basin Correlation Coefficient “R” Overall Percent Bias Mean Time to Peak Error (hr) Mean Time to peak ST Dev Mean Normalized Peak Discharge Error Mean Normalized Peak St Dev CVSA4N/A ELMA MLBA SLSA40.82*-32.99*-2.6* 4.5*–0.14*0.23 SPRA4N/A SVYA TIFM CBNK BLKO BLUO ELDO KNSO TALO20.95*-27.96*-2.0* 14.1* – 0.12* 0.12* WSCO20.52*-41.34*-5.2* 5.0* – 0.14* 0.18* WTTO20.96*-22.49*-1.4* 7.8* – 0.08* 0.10* ELTT ELTT2a BSGM70.65†-70.42†-6† 0.7†0.15†0.05† INCM70.70†-68.97†0† –0.29†0.24†

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Appendix C Adj. NWSRFS Statistical Analysis Data BasinAdj Mean Time to Peak Error (hr) Adj. Mean Time to peak ST Dev Adj. Mean Normalized Peak Discharge Error Adj. Mean Normalized Peak St Dev CVSA4N/A ELMA MLBA SLSA4-3.9*7.3* – 0.16* 0.24* SPRA4N/A SVYA TIFM CBNK BLKO BLUO ELDO KNSO TALO2-1.9*15.0* –0.12* 0.12* WSCO2-3.1*5.6* – 0.27* 0.30* WTTO2-1.4*8.0* –.12* 0.11* ELTT ELTT2a BSGM7-5.5†0.7† –0.16†0.06† INCM71.5†3.5† –0.33†0.28†

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Reference Information for Appendices A, B and C. Appendix A, B and C are summaries of selected statistical parameters. The Correlation Coefficient “R” and Percent Bias were derived from the multi- year time series analysis. The HDMS simulation was compared to the one hour observed and the NWSRFS simulation was compared to the six hour observed discharge. The NWSRFS “Adj.” information is a comparison of the six hour NWSRFS simulations to the one-hour instantaneous discharge time series. The ELTT2a Peak Error averages, excludes 2 events which both models performed very poorly. Note: “†” indicates the NWSRFS multi-year analysis began in March 2005, and “*” indicated the analysis began in the summer of 2003.) Elsewhere, the multi-year period was from April 2002 through August The basins shaded in Pink, the Annual Peak Discharge’s period of record is less than 10 years. So the accuracy of the 2-year frequency peak discharge normalization factor is suspect.

Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center October 18, Appendix D Table of the HDMS Test Basins NWS Handbook 5 IDUSGS Site NumberGauge LocationBasin Size mi 2 (km 2 ) CVSA Osage Creek at Cave Springs, AR 35 (90) DMLA Barron Fork Creek at Dutch Mills, AR 40 (105) ELMA Osage Creek at Elm Springs, AR 130 (337) MLBA Mulberry River near Mulberry. AR 373 (966) SLSA Illinois River at Siloam Springs, AR 575 (1489) SVYA Illinois River at Savoy, AR 167 (433) SPRA Flint Creek at Springtown, AR 14 (37) CBNK Chikaskia River at Corbin, KS 794 (2056) BSGM Big Sugar Creek at Pineville, MO 141 (365) INCM Indian Creek at Anderson, MO 239 (619) TIFM Elk River at Tiff City, MO 872 (2258) BLKO Chikaskia River at Blackwell, OK 1859 (4815) BLUO Blue River near Blue, OK 476 (1233) CPCO Peacheater Creek at Christie, OK 25 (65) ELDO Barron Fork River at Eldon, OK 307 (795) KNSO Flint Creek at Kansas, OK 110 (285) TALO Illinois River at Tahlequah, OK 959 (2484) WSCO Sager Creek at West Siloam Springs, OK 19 (49) WTTO Illinois River at Watts, OK 635 (1645) AMAT Canadian River at Amarillo, TX (50363) ELTT Beaver Creek near Electra, TX (26672)