Possible hydrologic forecasting improvements resulting from advancements in precipitation estimation and forecasting for a real-time flood forecast system in the Ohio River Valley, USA

Errors in hydrometeorological forcings for hydrologic modeling lead to considerable prediction uncertainty of hydrologic variables. Analyses of Quantitative Precipitation Estimate (QPE) and Quantitative Precipitation Forecast (QPF) errors over the Ohio River Valley were made to quantify QPE and QPF errors and identify hydrologic impacts of forcing errors and possible improvements resulting from advancements in precipitation estimation and forecasting. Monthly, seasonal, and annual bias analyses of Ohio River Forecast Center (OHRFC) NEXt-generation RADar (NEXRAD) based Stage III and Multisensor Precipitation Estimator (MPE) precipitation estimates, for the period 1997-2016, were made with respect to Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) precipitation estimates. Verification of QPF from NWS River Forecast Centers from the NOAA/NWS National Precipitation Verification Unit (NPVU) was compared to QPF verification measures from several numerical weather prediction models and the NOAA/NWS Weather Prediction Center (WPC). Improvements in NEXRAD based QPE over the OHRFC area have been dramatic from 1997 to present. However, from the perspective of meeting hydrologic forecasting needs, QPF shows marginal improvement. A hydrologic simulation experiment illustrates the sensitivity of hydrologic forecasts to QPF errors indicated by QPF Threat Score (TS) values. A monte carlo experiment shows there can be considerable hydrologic forecast error associated with QPF at expected WPC TS levels and, importantly, that higher TS values do not necessarily translate into improved hydrologic forecasts. These results have significant implications for real-time hydrologic forecasting. First, experimental results demonstrate the value gained in terms of improvements in hydrologic modeling accuracy from long-term radar-based precipitation bias reductions. Second, experimental results show that improvements made in terms of QPF have marginal effect on hydrologic prediction and that, even with significant improvement in QPF accuracy, we should expect large hydrologic prediction uncertainty. These issues are discussed more fully as they relate to the future of operational hydrology and ensemble hydrologic forecasting.