Accuracy of flood mapping

Abstract

Information taken directly from published and unpublished reports was used to appraise the accuracy and the limitations of the three general flood-mapping methods: detailed, historical, and physiographic. In the appraisal, the probable nationwide average standard error of estimate for water depth and elevation in percentage of depth and in meters was determined for 100-year flood boundaries. Bias errors, users' errors, and certain time-variant errors were not. considered. The probable standard error for the detailed method is 23 percent. Based on 3.9 m as the national average 100-yr depth, the probable standard error of estimate is 0.9 m. The detailed method is applicable to a wide range of hydraulic and topographic conditions; it is the only method tested that is directly applicable to floodways analysis. The method requires detailed data and time-consuming analyses, however, and it has only limited application for determining flood elevations for sheet flow and for flow in channels having readily movable boundaries. The probable standard error for the historical method is 23 percent. Based on the 3.9-m average 100-yr depth, the standard error is 0.9 m. The historical method is applicable to a wide range of hydraulic and topographic conditions if specific data are available. The method is not applicable to floodways analysis, and it has only limited application for flow in moveable-boundary channels. The standard error for the physiographic method is 27 percent. In meters, the error is 1.1. .The physiographic method is simpler to apply than the other methods; however, it can be used only in natural channels having rigid boundaries. It is not applicable to sheet flow and to floodways analysis.