Large-scale hydrologic forecasts should account for attenuation through lakes and reservoirs when flow regulation is present. Globally generalized methods for approximating outflow are required but must contend with operational complexity and a dearth of information on dam characteristics at global spatial scales. There is currently no consensus on the best approach for approximating reservoir release rates in large spatial scale hydrologic forecasting, particularly at diurnal time steps. This research compares two parsimonious reservoir routing methods at daily steps: Döll et al. (2003) and Hanasaki et al. (2006). These reservoir routing methods have been previously implemented in large-scale hydrologic modeling applications and have been typically evaluated seasonally. These routing methods are compared across 60 reservoirs operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The authors vary empirical coefficients for both reservoir routing methods as part of a sensitivity analysis. The method proposed by Döll et al. (2003) outperformed that presented by Hanasaki et al. (2006) at a daily time step and improved model skill over most run-of-the-river conditions. The temporal resolution of the model influences model performances. The optimal model coefficients varied across the reservoirs in this study and model performance fluctuates between wet years and dry years, and for different configurations such as dams in series. Overall, the method proposed by Döll et al. (2003) could enhance large-scale hydrologic forecasting, but can be subject to instability under certain conditions.

Despite the recent developments in continental‐scale streamflow and flood inundation modeling frameworks, effects of time‐specific and spatially explicit storage‐release dynamics of numerous dams and reservoirs remain underexplored. This paper fills this knowledge gap by directly inserting operational daily flow release data at 175 dam locations into a streamflow simulation of ∼1.2 million river reaches in the Mississippi River Basin (MRB), and therefore quantifying the effect of these regulations on streamflow and flood inundation extents. Using a streamflow routing model called the Routing Application for Parallel computatIon of Discharge (RAPID) and flood inundation mapping model called AutoRoute, two simulation scenarios were constructed respectively including and excluding the daily flow releases from those dams and reservoirs for a 10‐year period (2005–2014). Flood inundation maps were simulated for peak flow conditions at a ∼10‐m hyper spatial resolution. Kling‐Gupta efficiency (KGE) values show that streamflow model performance considerably improved when reservoirs were included in the modeled system, varying from 2% in the eastern region to 380% in the drier western region. Despite small variation of streamflow model improvement with reservoir release inclusion in the eastern region of the basin, the flow model was able to better capture observed peak flows. For a 1% change in streamflow, we observe a 0.8% change in estimated flood inundation. Comparisons to three observed flood events in the MRB demonstrate that the flood inundation estimates improve when percent change in streamflow is relatively high. Overall, inclusion of reservoir release resulted in substantial improvement in continental‐scale streamflow and flood inundation mapping.

The flooding brought about by compound coastal flooding events can be devastating. Before, during, and immediately following these events, flood inundation maps (FIMs) can provide essential information to emergency management. However, there are a number of frameworks capable of estimating FIMs during flood events. In this article, we evaluate FIMs derived from three such frameworks in the context of Hurricane Harvey. Our analysis reveals that each of the three FIM frameworks provides different FIMs that differ in their level of accuracy. Each of the three FIMs also produces different exposure and consequence estimates because of their spatial differences. This investigation highlights the need for a centralized means of vetting and adjudicating multiple FIMs during compound flood events empowered by the ability to distribute FIMs as geographic information system (GIS) services and coalesce FIMs into a common operating picture. Furthermore, we provide evidence that the ability to produce multi-model estimates of FIMs to create probabilistic FIMs may provide a better product than the use of a lone FIM.