Skip to main content
Dryad

Quantitative precipitation estimate (QPE) and forecast (QPF) exceedance comparison with flash flood reports

James, Eric1; Schumacher, Russ1

Published Nov 30, 2023 on Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.gxd2547rt

Data files

Nov 30, 2023 version files 35.72 GB

Abstract

Flash flooding remains a challenging prediction problem, which is exacerbated by the lack of a universally accepted definition of the phenomenon. In this article, we extend prior analysis to examine the correspondence of various combinations of quantitative precipitation estimates (QPE) and precipitation thresholds to observed occurrences of flash floods, additionally considering short-term quantitative precipitation forecasts from a convection-allowing model. Consistent with previous studies, there is large variability between QPE datasets in the frequency of “heavy” precipitation events. There is also large regional variability in the best thresholds for correspondence with reported flash floods. In general, Flash Flood Guidance (FFG) exceedances provide the best correspondence with observed flash floods, except in the interior western US where recurrence interval thresholds (for the southwestern US) and static thresholds (for the northern and central Rockies) provide better correspondence. Six-hour QPE provides better correspondence with observed flash floods than 1-h QPE in all regions except the west coast and southwestern US. Exceedances of precipitation thresholds in forecasts from the operational High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) generally do not correspond with observed flash flood events as well as QPE datasets, but they outperform QPE datasets in some regions of complex terrain and sparse observational coverage such as the southwestern US. These results can provide context for forecasters seeking to identify potential flash flood events based on QPE or forecast-based exceedances of precipitation thresholds.