Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 67, Issue 2, pp 459–482 | Cite as

Evaluation of real-time flash flood forecasts for Haiti during the passage of Hurricane Tomas, November 4–6, 2010

  • E. Shamir
  • K. P. Georgakakos
  • C. Spencer
  • T. M. Modrick
  • M. J. MurphyJr.
  • R. Jubach
Original Paper

Abstract

The January 2010 earthquake that devastated Haiti left its population ever more vulnerable to rainfall-induced flash floods. A flash flood guidance system has been implemented to provide real-time information on the potential of small (~70 km2) basins for flash flooding throughout Haiti. This system has components for satellite rainfall ingest and adjustment on the basis of rain gauge information, dynamic soil water deficit estimation, ingest of operational mesoscale model quantitative precipitation forecasts, and estimation of the times of channel flow at bankfull. The result of the system integration is the estimation of the flash flood guidance (FFG) for a given basin and for a given duration. FFG is the amount of rain of a given duration over a small basin that causes minor flooding in the outlet of the basin. Amounts predicted or nowcasted that are higher than the FFG indicate basins with potential for flash flooding. In preparation for Hurricane Tomas’ landfall in early November 2010, the FFG system was used to generate 36-h forecasts of flash flood occurrence based on rainfall forecasts of the nested high-resolution North American Model of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction. Assessment of the forecast flood maps and forecast precipitation indicates the utility and value of the forecasts in understanding the spatial distribution of the expected flooding for mitigation and disaster management. It also highlights the need for explicit uncertainty characterization of forecast risk products due to large uncertainties in quantitative precipitation forecasts on hydrologic basin scales.

Keywords

Haiti Flash flood guidance Flash flood forecast Disaster management Hurricane Tomas 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The HDRFFG system was implemented by the Hydrologic Research Center in collaboration with the US National Weather Service. Funding for this project was provided by the US Agency for International Development/Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA). Various agencies made available valuable data sets for this study: Hydro-Estimator precipitation data from National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, precipitation forecast from National Centers of Environmental Prediction, real-time forecast and tracking information about Hurricane Tomas from the US National Weather Service/National Hurricane Center, and gauge data from the National Climatic Data Center. Other static datasets are from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Climate Research Unit – University of East Anglia, Satellite images were made available from GeoEye Foundation and Google Earth. Special thanks extended to the US Southern Command, which assisted in the validation task. The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editor of the journal for helping improve the readability of the original manuscript.

References

  1. Allen RG, Walter IA, Elliott R, Howell T, Itenfisu D, Jensen M (Eds.) (2005) The ASCE standardized reference evapotranspiration equation. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 59 pp+6 AppendicesGoogle Scholar
  2. Batjes NH, Van Engleen VWP (2000) Guidelines for the compilation of a 1:2500000 SOTER database (SOVEUR project). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Report 97/06Google Scholar
  3. Burnash RJC, Ferral RL, McGuire RA (1973) A generalized streamflow simulation system: conceptual modeling for digital computers. US National Weather Service and California Department of Water Resources Rep., Joint Federal State River Forecast Center, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter TM, Sperfslage JA, Georgakakos KP, Sweeney T, Freed DL (1999) National threshold runoff estimation utilizing GIS in support of operational flash flood warning systems. J Hydrol 224:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chow VT (1959) Open channel hydraulics. McGrew-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Cosby BJ, Hornberger GM, Clapp RB, Ginn TR (1984) A statistical exploration of the relationships of soil moisture characteristics to the physical properties of soils. Water Resour Res 20(6):682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elsberry RL (2002) Predicting hurricane landfall precipitation: optimistic and pessimistic views from the symposium on precipitation extremes. Bull Am Meteor Soc 83:1333–1339Google Scholar
  8. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (2000) Land and water digital media series (10) soil and terrain database, land degradation status and soil vulnerability assessment for Eastern Europe, Version 1Google Scholar
  9. Georgakakos KP (1986a) On the design of national, real-time warning systems with capability for site-specific flash-flood forecasts. Bull Am Meteor Soc 67(10):1233–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Georgakakos KP (1986b) A generalized stochastic hydrometeorological model for flood and flash flood forecasting, 1: formulation. Water Resour Res 2213:2083–2095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Georgakakos KP (2006) Analytical results for operational flash flood guidance. J Hydrol 317:81–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huffman GJ, Adler RF, Bolvin DT, Gu G, Nelkin EJ, Bowman KP, Hong Y, Stocker EF, Wolff DB (2007) The TRMM multisatellite precipitation analysis (TMPA): quasi-global, multiyear, combined-sensor precipitation estimates at fine scales. J Hydrometeor 8:38–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jensen ME, Haise HR (1963) Estimating evapotranspiration from solar radiation. J Irrigat Drainage Div Proc Am Soc Civil Eng 89:15–41Google Scholar
  14. Koren V, Smith M, Wang D, Zhang Z (2000) Use of soil properties data in the derivation of conceptual rainfall-runoff model parameters. In: American meteorological society 15th conference on hydrology, Long Beach, pp 103–106Google Scholar
  15. Leopold LB (1994) A view of the river. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. National Research Council (2006) Completing the forecast: characterizing and communicating uncertainty for better decisions using weather and climate forecasts. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. National Weather Service River Forecast System (NWSRFS) (1999) User Manual. National Weather Service Office of Hydrologic Development, Hydrology Laboratory, Silver Springs, MD http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hrl/nwsrfs/users_manual/htm/xrfsdocpdf.php
  18. Negri AJ, Burkardt N, Golden JH, Halverson JB, Huffman GJ, Larsen MC, McGinley JA, Updike RG, Verdin JP, Wieczorek GF (2005) The hurricane–flood–landslide continuum. Bull Am Meteor Soc 86:1241–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. New M, Lister D, Hulme M, Makin I (2002) A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Clim Res 21:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nourozi N, Mahani S, Khanbilvardi R (2006) Validation of satellite-based rainfall estimates for severe storms (hurricanes). Geophys Res Abs 8:08471Google Scholar
  21. Oudin L, Hervieu F, Michel C, Perrin C, Andréassian V, Anctil F, Loumagne C (2005) Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped rainfall-runoff model? Part 2—towards a simple and efficient potential evapotranspiration model for rainfall-runoff modeling. J Hydrol 303(1–4):290–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pasch JR, Kimberlain TB (2011) Tropical cyclone report, hurricane Tomas (AL212010) 29 October–7 November 2010, National Hurricane CenterGoogle Scholar
  23. Pike AS (2008) Longitudinal patterns in stream channel geomorphology and aquatic habitat in the Luquillo mountains of Puerto Rico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  24. Rabus B, Eineder M, Roth A, Bamler A (2003) The shuttle radar topography mission- a new class of digital elevation models acquired by spaceborne radar. Photogramm Remote Sens 57:241–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramirez-Beltran ND, Kuligowski RJ, Harmsen E, Castro JM, Cruz-Pol S, Cardona-Soto M (2008) Rainfall estimation from convective storms using the hydro-estimator and NEXRAD. WSEAS Trans Syst 10(7):1016–1027Google Scholar
  26. Reed S, Koren V, Smith M, Zhang Z, Moreda F, Seo D-J, DMIP participants (2004) Overall distributed model intercomparison project results. J Hydrol 298:27–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Valdes JB (1979) The geomorphologic structure of hydrologic response. Water Resour Res 15(6):1409–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Gonzlez-Sanabria M, Bras RL (1982) A geomorphologic theory of the instantaneous unit hydrograph. Water Resour Res 18(4):886–887Google Scholar
  29. Rojas-Gonzales AM, Harmsen EW, Pol SC (2009) Performance evaluation of MPE rainfall product as hourly and daily temporal resolution within a hydro-estimator pixel. WSEAS Trans Environ Dev 7(5):478–487Google Scholar
  30. Scofield RA (1987) The NESDIS operational convective precipitation estimation technique. Mon Weather Rev 115:1773–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scofield RA, Kuligowski RJ (2003) Status and outlook of operational satellite precipitation algorithms for extreme-precipitation events. Mon Weather Rev 18:1037–1051Google Scholar
  32. Shamir E, Imam B, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (2005) Application of temporal streamflow descriptors in hydrologic model parameter estimation. Water Resour Res 41(6):W06021. doi: 10.1029/2004WR003409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shamir E, Carpenter TM, Fickenscher P, Georgakakos KP (2006) Evaluation of the National Weather Service operational hydrologic model and forecasts for the American River Basin. J Hydrol Eng 11(5):392–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shamir E, Ben-Moshe L, Ronen A, Grodek T, Enzel Y, Georgakakos K, Morin E (2012) Geomorphology-based index for detecting minimal flood stages in arid alluvial streams. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 9:12357–12394. doi: 10.5194/hessd-9-12357-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith MB et al (2004) The distributed model intercomparison project DMIP: motivation and experiment design. J Hydrol 2981:4–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vicente GA, Scofield RA, Menzel WP (1998) The operational GOES infrared rainfall estimation technique. Bull Am Meteor Soc 79:1883–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yucel IR, Kuligowski J, Gochis DJ (2011) Evaluating the hydro-estimator satellite rainfall algorithm over a mountainous region. Int J Remote Sens 2011:1–28Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Shamir
    • 1
  • K. P. Georgakakos
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Spencer
    • 1
  • T. M. Modrick
    • 1
  • M. J. MurphyJr.
    • 1
    • 3
  • R. Jubach
    • 1
  1. 1.Hydrologic Research CenterSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Scripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of California San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  3. 3.School of Mathematical SciencesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations