Toward a Methodology to Investigate the Downstream Flood Hazards on the American River due to Changes in Probable Maximum Flood due to Effects of Artificial Reservoir Size and Land-Use/Land-Cover Patterns

Alfred J. Kalyanapu Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee

Search for other papers by Alfred J. Kalyanapu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
A. K. M. Azad Hossain National Center for Computational Hydroscience and Engineering, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi

Search for other papers by A. K. M. Azad Hossain in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jinwoo Kim Division of Geodetic Science, School of Earth Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

Search for other papers by Jinwoo Kim in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Wondmagegn Yigzaw Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee

Search for other papers by Wondmagegn Yigzaw in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Faisal Hossain Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee

Search for other papers by Faisal Hossain in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
C. K. Shum Division of Geodetic Science, School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, and Institute of Geodesy and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China

Search for other papers by C. K. Shum in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Recent research in mesoscale hydrology suggests that the size of the reservoirs and the land-use/land-cover (LULC) patterns near them impact the extreme weather [e.g., probable maximum flood (PMF)]. A key question was addressed by W. Yigzaw et al.: How do reservoir size and/or LULC modify extreme flood patterns, specifically PMF via modification of probable maximum precipitation (PMP)? Using the American River watershed (ARW) as a representative example of an impounded watershed with Folsom Dam as the flood control structure, they applied the distributed Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model to simulate the PMF from the atmospheric feedbacks simulated for various LULC scenarios. The current study presents a methodology to extend the impacts of these modified extreme flood patterns on the downstream Sacramento County, California. The research question addressed is, what are the relative effects of downstream flood hazards to population on the American River system under various PMF scenarios for the Folsom Dam? To address this goal, a two-dimensional flood model, the Flood in Two Dimensions–Graphics Processing Unit (Flood2D-GPU), is calibrated using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and Landsat satellite observations and observed flood stage data. The calibration process emphasized challenges associated with using National Elevation Dataset (NED) digital elevation model (DEM) and topographic light detection and ranging (lidar)–derived DEMs to achieve realistic flood inundation. Following this calibration exercise, the flood model was used to simulate four land-use scenarios (control, predam, reservoir double, and nonirrigation). The flood hazards are quantified as downstream flood hazard zones by estimating flood depths and velocities and its impacts on risk to population using depth–velocity hazard relationships provided by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). From the preliminary application of methodology in this study, it is evident from comparing downstream flood hazard that similar trends in PMF comparisons reported by W. Yigzaw et al. were observed. Between the control and nonirrigation, the downstream flood hazard is pronounced by −3.90% for the judgment zone and −2.40% for high hazard zones. Comparing the control and predam scenarios, these differences are amplified, ranging between 0.17% and −1.34%. While there was no change detected in the peak PMF discharges between the control and reservoir-double scenarios, it still yielded an increase in high hazard areas for the latter. Based on this preliminary bottom-up vulnerability assessment study, it is evident that what was observed in PMF comparisons by W. Yigzaw et al. is confirmed in comparisons between control versus predam and control versus nonirrigation. While there was no change detected in the peak PMF discharges between the control and reservoir-double scenarios, it still yielded a noticeable change in the total areal extents: specifically, an increase in high hazard areas for the latter. Continued studies in bottom-up vulnerability assessment of flood hazards will aid in developing suitable mitigation and adaptation options for a much needed resilient urban infrastructure.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Alfred J. Kalyanapu, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tennessee Technological University, 1020 Stadium Drive, Box 5015, Cookeville, TN 38505-0001. E-mail address: akalyanapu@tntech.edu

Abstract

Recent research in mesoscale hydrology suggests that the size of the reservoirs and the land-use/land-cover (LULC) patterns near them impact the extreme weather [e.g., probable maximum flood (PMF)]. A key question was addressed by W. Yigzaw et al.: How do reservoir size and/or LULC modify extreme flood patterns, specifically PMF via modification of probable maximum precipitation (PMP)? Using the American River watershed (ARW) as a representative example of an impounded watershed with Folsom Dam as the flood control structure, they applied the distributed Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model to simulate the PMF from the atmospheric feedbacks simulated for various LULC scenarios. The current study presents a methodology to extend the impacts of these modified extreme flood patterns on the downstream Sacramento County, California. The research question addressed is, what are the relative effects of downstream flood hazards to population on the American River system under various PMF scenarios for the Folsom Dam? To address this goal, a two-dimensional flood model, the Flood in Two Dimensions–Graphics Processing Unit (Flood2D-GPU), is calibrated using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and Landsat satellite observations and observed flood stage data. The calibration process emphasized challenges associated with using National Elevation Dataset (NED) digital elevation model (DEM) and topographic light detection and ranging (lidar)–derived DEMs to achieve realistic flood inundation. Following this calibration exercise, the flood model was used to simulate four land-use scenarios (control, predam, reservoir double, and nonirrigation). The flood hazards are quantified as downstream flood hazard zones by estimating flood depths and velocities and its impacts on risk to population using depth–velocity hazard relationships provided by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). From the preliminary application of methodology in this study, it is evident from comparing downstream flood hazard that similar trends in PMF comparisons reported by W. Yigzaw et al. were observed. Between the control and nonirrigation, the downstream flood hazard is pronounced by −3.90% for the judgment zone and −2.40% for high hazard zones. Comparing the control and predam scenarios, these differences are amplified, ranging between 0.17% and −1.34%. While there was no change detected in the peak PMF discharges between the control and reservoir-double scenarios, it still yielded an increase in high hazard areas for the latter. Based on this preliminary bottom-up vulnerability assessment study, it is evident that what was observed in PMF comparisons by W. Yigzaw et al. is confirmed in comparisons between control versus predam and control versus nonirrigation. While there was no change detected in the peak PMF discharges between the control and reservoir-double scenarios, it still yielded a noticeable change in the total areal extents: specifically, an increase in high hazard areas for the latter. Continued studies in bottom-up vulnerability assessment of flood hazards will aid in developing suitable mitigation and adaptation options for a much needed resilient urban infrastructure.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Alfred J. Kalyanapu, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tennessee Technological University, 1020 Stadium Drive, Box 5015, Cookeville, TN 38505-0001. E-mail address: akalyanapu@tntech.edu
Save
  • ACER, 1988: Downstream hazard classification guidelines. Assistant Commissioner—Engineering and Research Tech. Memo. 11, 56 pp.

  • ASDSO, 2009: The cost of rehabilitating our nation’s dams—A methodology, estimate and proposed funding mechanisms. Association of Dam Safety Officials Task Committee Rep., 52 pp.

  • Burby, R. J., 2001: Flood insurance and floodplain management: The US experience. Environ. Hazards, 3, 111122.

  • Burian, S. J., T. Walsh, A. J. Kalyanapu, and S. G. Larsen, 2013: Climate Vulnerabilities and adaptation of urban water infrastructure systems. Climate Vulnerability: Understanding and Addressing Threats to Essential Resources, R. A. Pielke Sr., Ed., Elsevier, 87–107.

  • CA DWR, cited 2012: California Data Exchange Center. [Available online at http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/selectQuery?station_id=HST.]

  • Campbell, J. B., 2002: Introduction to Remote Sensing. 3rd ed. Taylor and Francis, 621 pp.

  • Cohen, E. J., 2003: Human population: The next half century. Science, 302, 1172–1175, doi:10.1126/science.1088665.

  • Degu, A. M., F. Hossain, D. Niyogi, R. A. Pielke Sr., J. M. Shepherd, N. Voisin, and T. Chronis, 2011: The influence of large dams on surrounding climate and precipitation patterns. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L04405, doi:10.1029/2010GL046482.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fabio, P., G. T. Aronica, and H. Apel, 2010: Towards automatic calibration of 20D flood propagation models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 911924.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ferziger, J. H., and M. Perić, 2002: Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. 3rd ed. Springer, 423 pp.

  • Graf, W. L., 1999: Dam nation: A geographic census of American dams and their large-scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resour. Res., 35, 13051311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hossain, A., Y. Jia, and X. Chao, 2009: Validation of CCHE2D model using digital image processing techniques and satellite imagery. Proc. 33rd IAHR Biennial Congress, Vancouver, BC, Canada, International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research, 3156–3163.

  • Hossain, F., A. M. Degu, W. Yigzaw, S. Burian, D. Niyogi, J. M. Shepherd, and R. Pielke Sr., 2012: Climate feedback–based considerations to dam design, operations and water management in the 21st century. ASCE J. Hydrol. Eng.,17, 837–850, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000541.

  • Hossain, F., A. T. Woldemichael, A. Degu, W. Yigzaw, C. Mitra, and J. M. Shepherd, 2013: Water resources vulnerability in the context of rapid urbanization of Dhaka City (a South Asian mega city). Climate Vulnerability: Understanding Threats to Water Resources, Elsevier, 393–404.

  • Hunter, N. M., P. D. Bates, M. S. Horritt, and M. D. Wilson, 2007: Simple spatially distributed models for predicting flood inundation: A review. Geomorphology, 90, 208225.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jensen, J. R., 2007. Remote Sensing of the Environment: An Earth Resource Perspective. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, 592 pp.

  • Kalyanapu, A. J., S. Shankar, E. R. Pardyjak, D. R. Judi, and S. J. Burian, 2011: Assessment of GPU computational enhancement to a 2D flood model. Environ. Modell. Softw., 26, 10091016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kalyanapu, A. J., D. R. Judi, T. N. McPherson, and S. J. Burian, 2012: Monte Carlo-based flood modelling framework for estimating probability weighted flood risk. J. Flood Risk Manage., 5, 3748.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson, Eds., 2009: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, 188 pp.

  • Liang, X., D. P. Lettenmaier, E. F. Wood, and S. J. Burges, 1994: A Simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for GSMs. J. Geophys. Res., 99 (D7), 14 41514 428.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lillesand, T. M., and R. W. Kiefer, 2000. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. 4th ed. John Wiley and Sons, 724 pp.

  • McCarthy, J. J., O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, and K. S. White, Eds., 2001: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, 976 pp.

  • McCuen, R. H., 1998: Hydrologic Analysis and Design. Prentice-Hall, 859 pp.

  • Montz, B. E., and E. Gruntfest, 2002: Flash flood mitigation: Recommendations for research and applications. Environ. Hazards, 4, 1522.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • NRC, 1999: Improving American River Flood Frequency Analyses. National Academies Press, 113 pp.

  • Ohara, N., M. L. Kavvas, S. Kure, Z. Q. Chen, S. Jang, and E. Tan, 2011: A physically based estimation of maximum precipitation over American River watershed, California. J. Hydrol. Eng., 16, 351361, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000324.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Patankar, S. V., 1980: Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. Taylor and Francis, 197 pp.

  • Quadros, N. D., P. A. Collier, and C. S. Fraser, 2008: Integration of bathymetric and topographic lidar: A preliminary investigation. Int. Arch. Photogramm.Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., 37, 12991304.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sanders, B., 2007: Evaluation of on-line DEMs for flood inundation modeling. Adv. Water Resour., 30, 18311843.

  • Small, C., and J. Cohen, 2004: Continental physiography, climate, and the global distribution of human population. Curr. Anthropol., 54, 269.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • USBR, 1987: Design of small dams. U.S. Bureau of Reclamations Water Resources Tech. Publ., 904 pp.

  • USBR, 1999: Hydraulic model study of Folsom Dam spillway performance and Stilling basin abrasion. U.S. Bureau of Reclamations Water Resources Research Laboratory Rep. R-99-08, 55 pp.

  • USEIA, cited 2012: Electricity explained—Electricity in the United States. [Available online at http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states.]

  • USGS Fair Oaks, cited2012: USGS 11446500 American R a Fair Oaks CA. [Available online at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/inventory/?site_no=11446500&agency_cd=USGS&amp.]

  • Werner, M. G. F., N. M. Hunter, and P. D. Bates, 2005: Identifiability of distributed floodplain roughness values in flood extent estimation. J. Hydrol., 314, 139157.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Willems, P., K. Arnbjerg-Nielsen, J. Olsson, and V. T. V. Nguyen, 2011: Climate change impact assessment on urban rainfall extremes and urban drainage: Methods and shortcomings. Atmos. Res., 103, 106118.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Woldemichael, A. T., F. Hossain, R. A. Pielke Sr., and A. Beltrán-Przekurat, 2012: Understanding the impact of dam-triggered land-use/land-cover change on the modification of extreme precipitation. Water Resour. Res., 48, W09547, doi:10.1029/2011WR011684.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wynn, L. S., cited 2012: How much text is in a kilobyte or megabyte? 22 February 2011, wiseGEEK. [Available online at http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-text-is-in-a-kilobyte-or-megabyte.htm.]

  • Yigzaw, W., F. Hossain, and A. Kalyanapu, 2012: Impact of artificial reservoir size and land use/land cover patterns on probable maximum precipitation and flood: The case of Folsom Dam on American River. J. Hydrol. Eng., 18, 11801190, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000722.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1374 395 75
PDF Downloads 388 121 12