National Academies Press: OpenBook

Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling (2023)

Chapter: Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results

« Previous: Appendix A - Blank Survey Questionnaire
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27051.
×
Page 114

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

91   A P P E N D I X B Survey Questions and Results 2. What type of hydrological modeling techniques does your agency use for roadway projects? State D is tr ib ut ed ra in fa ll- ru no ff m od el s G ag e da ta a na ly si s to de te rm in e pe ak di sc ha rg es R eg re ss io n eq ua tio ns to de te rm in e de si gn di sc ha rg es R at io na l M et ho d fo r pe ak d is ch ar ge de te rm in at io n O th er Alabama x x Alaska x x x x Arizona x x x x Arkansas x x x x California x x x x Colorado x x x x Connecticut x x x x Delaware x x x Florida x x x Georgia x x x x Hawaii x x x x Idaho x x x Illinois x x x Indiana x x x Iowa x x Kansas x x x Kentucky x x x x Maine x x x x Maryland x x x Massachusetts x x x Michigan x x x Minnesota x x x x x Mississippi x x x Missouri x x x Montana x x Nebraska x x x x

92 Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling State D is tr ib ut ed ra in fa ll- ru no ff m od el s G ag e da ta a na ly si s to de te rm in e pe ak di sc ha rg es R eg re ss io n eq ua tio ns to de te rm in e de si gn di sc ha rg es R at io na l M et ho d fo r pe ak d is ch ar ge de te rm in at io n O th er North Dakota x x x Ohio x x x Oklahoma x x x x Oregon x x x x Pennsylvania x x x x Puerto Rico x Rhode Island x South Carolina x x x x South Dakota x x x Tennessee x x x Texas x x x x x Utah x Vermont x x Virginia x x x Washington x x x x West Virginia x x x x Wisconsin x x x x Total 16 43 43 41 16 Other reported types of hydrological modeling techniques were NRCS Unit Hydrograph, NRCS SCS Method, TR-55, MGSFlood, FEMA or State Flows, and the slope-area approach for discharge estimates. New Hampshire x x x x New Jersey x x x New Mexico x x x New York x x x x North Carolina x x x x

Survey Questions and Results 93 3. (A) What are factors/advantages that determine the use of regression equations and/or the Rational Method for hydrological estimates of peak flows by your agency? State Ea se o f u se (r eq ui re s le ss d at a) O rg an iz at io n fa m ili ar ity R eq ui re d by re gu la tio ns E co no m ic fe as ib ili ty O th er Alabama x x x Alaska x x x Connecticut x x Delaware x x Florida x x x x Georgia x x Hawaii x x Idaho x x x x Indiana x x Iowa x x Kansas x x Massachusetts x x Michigan x Mississippi x x Missouri x x x x Montana x x Nebraska x x x New Hampshire x x x New York x x x North Dakota x x Ohio x x Oklahoma x Oregon x x x Pennsylvania x x x Rhode Island x South Dakota x x Tennessee x x x Utah x Vermont x x Virginia x x x Washington x x x x Wisconsin x x x Total 26 26 8 9 9

94 Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling Other factors/advantages that determine the use of regression equations and/or the Rational Method for hydrological estimates of peak flows reported by DOTs were the recommendations from HEC documents; rainfall distribution data are limited in rural areas; rain-on-snow events are common and easily represented by gage data; regression analysis can be used in areas with no data; DA size is a factor used to determine whether to use regional regression equations or the Rational Method; supporting research, dam rules, and wetland permits for coastal area require added precipitation scenarios, the basin area, and applicability; and the state Hydraulics Manual describes the criteria in selecting a method. Also, one agency reported that in the past, using a rain-on-grid type approach tended to have higher discharge values when compared to regression equations, and because the regression equations were more the standard at the time, it was deemed more economical to stay with those. 3. (B) Which distributed rainfall-runoff models or model components has your agency used for roadway infrastructure projects? State A ge nc y de ve lo pe d ad ap te d sp re ad sh ee t r ai nf al l-r un off m od el H EC -H M S (U SA C E) SW M M /X P -S W M M H EC -R A S 2D (R ai n on G ri d, U SA C E) G SS H A (G ri dd ed S ur fa ce / Su bs ur fa ce H yd ro lo gi c A na ly si s) FL O -2 D (h ttp s: //fl o -2 d. co m /) TU FL O W (h ttp s: //w w w .tu flo w .c om /) M IK E SH E (A n in te gr at ed hy dr ol og ic al m od el in g sy st em , D H I D en m ar k) O th er Arizona x x Arkansas x x California x x Colorado x x x Illinois x x Kentucky x x Maine x Maryland x Minnesota x x New Jersey x x x New Mexico x x North Carolina x x x x x Puerto Rico x x x South Carolina x x x Texas x x x x West Virginia x Total 3 12 7 5 0 0 2 1 8

Survey Questions and Results 95 Other DRRMs used for roadway infrastructure projects reported by the state agencies were the WMS, WinTR-20 built into GISHydroWEB, HydroCAD, TR-55, NRCS Model, and a specific distributed rainfall distribution method based on quartiles (probability). 4. Who is currently doing distributed rainfall-runoff modeling for the roadway infrastructure projects funded by your agency? State In -h ou se e ng in ee rs A no th er s ta te a ge nc y Fe de ra l a ge nc y (e .g ., U SG S, U SB R , U SA C E) Pr iv at e co ns ul ta nt s U ni ve rs ity /a ca de m ic pa rt ne rs hi p So ft w ar e de ve lo pe rs O th er Arizona x x Arkansas x x California x Colorado x x Illinois x Kentucky x x x x Maine x x Maryland x x Minnesota x x New Jersey x x New Mexico x x North Carolina x x x Puerto Rico x South Carolina x x Texas x West Virginia x x Total 13 1 1 14 2 0 0

96 Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling 5. What guidance does your agency have for developing/utilizing distributed rainfall-runoff models? State St at e hy dr au lic /h yd ro lo gi c m an ua l St at e dr ai na ge m an ua l Fe de ra l d es ig n gu id an ce (F H W A , U SA C E, e tc .) So ft w ar e us er 's m an ua l So ft w ar e tr ai ni ng m at er ia ls M od el tr ai ni ng w or ks ho ps O th er Arizona x x x x x x Arkansas x x x California x x x x x Colorado x x Illinois x x x x Kentucky x x x x x Maine x x Maryland x x x x x x Minnesota x x New Jersey x x x x x x New Mexico x x x North Carolina x x x Puerto Rico x South Carolina x x x Texas x West Virginia x x x Total 5 8 11 11 9 8 3 Other guidance used for developing/utilizing distributed rainfall-runoff models reported by the DOTs were the models’ manuals and personnel training.

Survey Questions and Results 97 6. What are factors/advantages that determine the use of distributed rainfall-runoff models by your agency? State W at er sh ed b as in s iz e (d ra in ag e ar ea ) W at er sh ed c ha ra ct er is tic s (s oi l t yp e, sl op e, la nd u se , e tc .) A bi lit y to c on du ct s ce na ri o an al ys is (in cl ud in g cl im at e ch an ge s ce na ri os ) A bi lit y to p er fo rm e xt en de d- pe ri od hy dr ol og ic al a na ly si s Be tte r s pa tia l r ep re se nt at io n us in g gr id s, su b- ca tc hm en ts , o r h yd ro lo gi c re sp on se un its Be tte r r ep re se nt at io n/ es tim at es o f ra in fa ll lo ss , r un off tr an sf or m at io n, a nd ro ut in g Im pr ov ed d es cr ip tio n of w at er a nd en vi ro nm en ta l p ro ce ss es w ith in w at er sh ed s O th er Arizona x x Arkansas x California x x x x Colorado x x Illinois x Kentucky x x x x x x x Maine x x x Maryland x x x x x Minnesota x x x x New Jersey x x x x x x New Mexico x x x x North Carolina x x x Puerto Rico x x x South Carolina x x Texas x West Virginia x x Total 9 11 3 2 9 9 2 5 Other factors/advantages used to determine the use of distributed rainfall-runoff models reported by DOTs were the following: production of more effective flood risk vulnerability for the network of roads, availability of existing data, the complexity of questions being asked for which modeling is being used to support response, project-specific needs/requirements, and when it needed to account for hydrographs and storage.

98 Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling 7. For what type of applications did the distributed rainfall-runoff models bring improvements in hydrological predictions in your agency? In which areas/applications did your agency document improvements in hydrologic estimates using DRRM versus other methods? State H yd ro lo gi ca l s tu di es (e .g ., pe ak d is ch ar ge a nd hy dr og ra ph d et er m in at io n) H yd ra ul ic d es ig n of ro ad w ay in fr as tr uc tu re Pl an ni ng (s ho rt - o r l on g- te rm ) O pe ra tio n (e .g ., flo od w ar ni ng s ys te m ) V ul ne ra bi lit y as se ss m en t o f ec ol og ic al /e nv ir on m en ta l i m pa ct s Im pa ct s of fu tu re c lim at e sc en ar io s R oa dw ay re si lie nc y as se ss m en t O th er Arizona x x Arkansas California x x x Colorado x x Illinois x x Kentucky x x x x Maine x Maryland x x x x Minnesota x x New Jersey x New Mexico x x x North Carolina x x x x x x x Puerto Rico x x x x South Carolina x x Texas x x x West Virginia x Total 14 10 4 2 1 2 6 2 Other types of applications/areas reported that improvements by the use of distributed rainfall- runoff methods were the hydraulic design of highway bridges and culverts, flooding complaints, and forensic investigations.

Survey Questions and Results 99 8. How many years since your agency has adopted distributed rainfall-runoff modeling techniques? State W ith in th e pa st 2 y ea rs W ith in th e pa st 5 y ea rs W ith in th e pa st 1 0 ye ar s M or e th an 1 0 ye ar s ag o M or e th an 1 5 ye ar s ag o Arizona x Arkansas x California x Colorado x Illinois x Kentucky x Maine x Maryland x Minnesota x New Jersey x New Mexico x North Carolina x Puerto Rico x South Carolina x Texas x West Virginia x Total 1 1 2 2 10

100 Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling 9. Since the implementation of distributed rainfall-runoff models in your agency, how has the usage of these models changed over time? State M od el s co nt in ue to b e us ed fo r t he ap pl ic at io ns th at th ey w er e in iti al ly en vi si on ed M od el s ar e in cr ea si ng ly b ei ng u se d fo rn ew ap pl ic at io ns a nd /o r r es ea rc h on th e us e of th es e m od el s ha s be en c on du ct ed M od el s ar e ra re ly b ei ng u se d Arizona x Arkansas x California x Colorado x Illinois x Kentucky x Maine x Maryland x Minnesota x New Jersey x New Mexico x North Carolina x Puerto Rico x South Carolina x Texas x West Virginia x Total 8 4 4

Survey Questions and Results 101 10. What is the minimum drainage area for selecting/utilizing the distributed rainfall-runoff models? State 1 sq ua re m ile (6 40 a cr es ) 2 sq ua re m ile s 3 sq ua re m ile s O th er Arizona x Arkansas x California x Colorado x Illinois x Kentucky x Maine x Maryland x Minnesota New Jersey x New Mexico x North Carolina x Puerto Rico x South Carolina x Texas x West Virginia x Total 4 0 0 11 Other reported minimum DA requirements for using distributed rainfall-runoff models were 50, 100, 200, 250, and 320 acres. Also, one DOT stated that the minimum drainage for research is 1 square mile and for design is 26 square miles. Other DOTs reported the following: There are no minimum requirements to implement DRRMs, structures have to be analyzed based on the ultimate development land use, the DA is not a driver, and it is project/stream specific.

102 Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling 11. What is the maximum drainage area for selecting/utilizing the distributed rainfall-runoff models? State 10 s qu ar e m ile s 20 s qu ar e m ile s 50 s qu ar e m ile s O th er Arizona x Arkansas California x Colorado x Illinois x Kentucky x Maine x Maryland x Minnesota New Jersey x New Mexico x North Carolina x Puerto Rico x South Carolina x Texas x West Virginia x Total 5 0 0 9 Other maximum DAs for selecting/utilizing DRRMs were 1, 300, 500, and 600 square miles. Other DOTs reported that the maximum DA is not specified when implementing DRRMs.

Survey Questions and Results 103 12. What are the data requirements used to divide the study watershed into small elements by your agency for distributed rainfall-runoff models? State D ig ita l E le va tio n M od el (D EM ) St re am n et w or k So il pr op er tie s (e .g ., hy dr au lic c on du ct iv ity ) La nd u se /c ov er d at a O th er Arizona x x x x Arkansas x California x x x Colorado x x x Illinois x x x Kentucky x x x x Maine x x Maryland x x x x Minnesota x x New Jersey x x x x x New Mexico x x x x North Carolina x x Puerto Rico x South Carolina x x x x Texas x West Virginia x Total 13 15 6 9 1 Other data requirements used to divide the study watershed into small elements for DRRMs were the existing hydraulic controls, existing adopted data, and the existence of dams or obstructions.

104 Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling 13. What are the rainfall data typically used in distributed rainfall-runoff models by your agency? State M ea su re d ra in fa ll de pt hs a t d iff er en t s ta tio ns H is to ri c ra in fa ll tim e se ri es fo r r ai nf al l e ve nt s D es ig n ra in fa ll de pt hs fo r d iff er en t r et ur n pe ri od s D es ig n st or m ra in fa ll di st ri bu tio n ov er ti m e R ad ar ra in fa ll da ta Fu tu re g ri dd ed ra in fa ll pr ed ic tio n (e .g ., fr om G C M ) O th er Arizona x Arkansas x California x x x x x Colorado x x Illinois x Kentucky x x x x x Maine x Maryland x x Minnesota x x New Jersey x x New Mexico x x North Carolina x x x x x Puerto Rico x x x South Carolina x Texas x x x x x West Virginia x Total 5 6 14 8 4 1 1 One DOT reported that evaluating the ways to account for precipitation changes due to climate is to be considered as data to use in distributed rainfall-runoff modeling.

Survey Questions and Results 105 14. What are the sources of rainfall data used in distributed rainfall-runoff modeling by your agency? State A ge nc y ad ap te d de si gn ra in fa ll de pt h an d di st ri bu tio n Ti m e se ri es fo r h is to ri c ra in fa lls n ea r t he p ro je ct si te Sy nt he tic ra in fa ll fo r d iff er en t r et ur n pe ri od s (e .g ., TP 40 , A tla s 14 ) Fr eq ue nc y st or m b y co un ty /r eg io n D ow ns ca le d da ta fr om G lo ba l C ir cu la tio n M od el (G C M ) p ro je ct io ns O th er Arizona x Arkansas x California x x Colorado x Illinois x Kentucky x x x x Maine x Maryland x x Minnesota x x New Jersey x x x New Mexico x North Carolina x x x Puerto Rico x South Carolina x Texas x x x x West Virginia x Total 3 3 13 3 1 6 Other sources of rainfall data used in distributed rainfall-runoff modeling reported by the state agencies were NOAA, rainfall data from Pseudo Global Warming Model Simulations, Regulatory Rainfall Distribution, and further criteria used for the selection of appropriate storm duration.

106 Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling 15. Which infiltration or rainfall loss models/methods for distributed rainfall-runoff models are used by your agency for roadway infrastructure projects? State D ep re ss io n st or ag e (p er vi ou s an d im pe rv io us ) In iti al a nd c on st an t l os s SC S C ur ve N um be r ( C N ) H or to n eq ua tio n G re en a nd A m pt Ex po ne nt ia l ( H EC -1 ) SM A (s oi l m oi st ur e ac co un tin g) O th er Arizona x Arkansas x California x Colorado x x x Illinois x Kentucky x x x Maine x Maryland x Minnesota x New Jersey x x New Mexico x North Carolina x x x x x Puerto Rico x x x South Carolina x Texas x x West Virginia x x Total 4 2 15 1 4 1 1 1 One of the other answers reported by the DOTs was that modelers usually select the infiltration or rainfall loss model that is most appropriate for the project.

Survey Questions and Results 107 16. Which effective rainfall (a.k.a. rainfall excess) transformation or runoff models/methods for distributed rainfall-runoff models are used by your agency for roadway infrastructure projects? State A ge nc y ad op te d un it hy dr og ra ph s A ge nc y ad op te d S- hy dr og ra ph s K in em at ic w av e (u si ng o ve rl an d flo w p la ns ) SC S/ N R C S un it hy dr og ra ph s C la rk u ni t h yd ro gr ap h Sn yd er u ni t h yd ro gr ap h O ve rl an d flo w s im ul at io n O th er Arizona x Arkansas x California x x x x Colorado x x Illinois x x x Kentucky x x x x Maine x Maryland x Minnesota x New Jersey x x New Mexico x North Carolina x x x x Puerto Rico x South Carolina x Texas x x x West Virginia x x Total 1 0 5 14 5 4 1 2 Other effective rainfall transformations or runoff models/methods for DRRMs reported were the verification from modelers and S-Graphs adopted by local agencies.

108 Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling 17. Which stream/reservoir routing models/methods for distributed rainfall-runoff models are used by your agency for roadway infrastructure projects? State K in em at ic w av e La g m et ho d M od ifi ed P ul s M us ki ng um Sh al lo w -w at er o r S ai nt -V en an t e qu at io ns O th er Arizona x Arkansas California x x x x Colorado x x x Illinois x x x x Kentucky x x x x Maine x Maryland x x Minnesota x x x New Jersey x x x New Mexico x North Carolina x x x Puerto Rico x South Carolina x Texas x x x x x West Virginia x Total 9 5 6 8 4 5 Other streams/reservoir routing models/methods for DRRMs reported were the Muskingum Cunge and WinTR-20 Reservoir subroutine.

Survey Questions and Results 109 18. Which model parameters for distributed rainfall-runoff model sensitivity analysis are used by your agency for roadway infrastructure projects? State Ra in fa ll lo ss p ar am et er s U ni t h yd ro gr ap h pa ra m et er s R ou tin g pa ra m et er s O th er Arizona x x x Arkansas x California x Colorado x x Illinois x x x Kentucky x x x Maine x Maryland x x Minnesota x New Jersey x x x New Mexico x x North Carolina x x x x Puerto Rico x x South Carolina x x Texas x x x West Virginia x Total 9 15 7 3 Other model parameters for DRRM sensitivity analysis reported by the DOTs were the Muskingum Cunge and models that are quasi-calibrated until peak flows are within the positive range of the 67% confidence interval established via the modified Tasker approach.

110 Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling State A dd ed in te rn al c os ts fo r p er fo rm in g an d/ or tr ai ni ng on d is tr ib ut ed ra in fa ll- ru no ff m od el in g C os t o f e xt er na l c on su lti ng a ss oc ia te d w ith di st ri bu te d ra in fa ll- ru no ff m od el in g A dd ed re si lie nc y of ro ad w ay in fr as tr uc tu re a ga in st ex tr em e hy dr ol og ic al e ve nt s A cc ur at e de si gn to s iz e dr ai na ge s tr uc tu re s to re du ce pr oj ec t c os t Im po rt an ce /c ri tic al ity o f r oa dw ay p ro je ct re qu ir es m or e pr ec is e hy dr ol og ic al s im ul at io ns O th er Arizona x Arkansas x California x x x Colorado x x x Illinois x Kentucky x x x Maine x Maryland x Minnesota x x x x New Jersey x New Mexico x x x North Carolina x x x x Puerto Rico x x South Carolina x Texas x West Virginia x x Total 2 2 5 9 9 5 Other components/metrics reported by DOTs when assessing the cost and benefits of using distributed rainfall-runoff modeling techniques were the following: the use of an automated hydrology system called GISHydroNXT/WEB; DRRM in some situations is the only alternative to effectively answer flood vulnerabilities; the infrastructure investment value is a factor analysis to implement DRRMs, the level of hydraulic design needed, and the use of DRRM when full hydrographs and storage are needed. 19. What components/metrics does your agency include assessing costs and benefits regarding the use of distributed rainfall-runoff modeling techniques?

Survey Questions and Results 111 20. What are barriers for your agency to implement/use distributed rainfall-runoff models? State In su ffi ci en t i n -h ou se e xp er tis e fo r m od el cr ea tio n or re vi ew in g m od el in g re su lts La ck o f d at a fo r m od el s et up (r ai nf al l, la nd us e/ co ve r, so ils , t op og ra ph y, e tc .) La ck o f t ra in in g op po rt un iti es Tu rn ar ou nd o f w or kf or ce H ig h co st fr om c on su lta nt s do in g di st ri bu te d m od el in g U nc er ta in tie s of re su lts d ue to m ul tip le s te ps o f m od el c om po ne nt s el ec tio n U nc er ta in tie s of re su lts d ue to n ee ds o f v ar io us in pu t d at a O th er Arizona x x x Arkansas x x California x x Colorado x x x Illinois x x Kentucky x x x Maine x Maryland x Minnesota x x x x x x New Jersey x New Mexico x x x North Carolina x x x x Puerto Rico x x x South Carolina x x Texas x West Virginia x Total 6 4 7 5 2 3 3 8 Other barriers related to the implementation of distributed rainfall-runoff models reported by the state agencies were the time it takes to set up and run models, the unfamiliarity with the process, the need for efficient data preparation workflow, and the establishment of DEM and model mesh. Most projects do not require that level of complexity of analysis.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without de nitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ISBN 978-0-309-69861-0 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 6 9 8 6 1 0 9 0 0 0 0

Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling Get This Book
×
 Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The increased frequency of extreme rainfall events, inland and coastal flooding, and other water-related stressors poses challenges to roadway infrastructure.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Synthesis 602: Resilient Design with Distributed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling documents the practices of state departments of transportation on the use of DRRMs and identifies state DOTs that have adopted DRRMs and the context in which these models are applied.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!