Case Study

Comparison of Two Watershed Models for Addressing

Stakeholder Flood Mitigation Strategies: Case Study of
Hurricane Alex in Monterrey, México
Jorge E. Cázares-Rodríguez 1; Enrique R. Vivoni, Ph.D., M.ASCE 2; and Giuseppe Mascaro, Ph.D. 3

Abstract: Extreme flooding in the metropolitan area of Monterrey, México has led to an interest from local stakeholders in potential mit-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

igation strategies in the Santa Catarina watershed. The authors analyze a set of hydraulic infrastructure options using two hydrologic models
of varying complexity in the context of a major flood caused by the landfall of Hurricane Alex in 2010. A consistent approach was used
to provide terrain, soil, vegetation, and meteorological data to each model—hydrological modeling system (HEC-HMS), and triangulated
irregular network (TIN)–based real-time integrated basin simulator (tRIBS)—and to test the models with streamflow and water level ob-
servations. Simulation analyses focus on the differential ability of the two models in capturing precipitation and watershed properties and its
effects on the hydrologic response in the presence of hydraulic infrastructure options. A scenario with a single, large dam reduced the flood
peak more favorably than three smaller structures. The model comparison is effective in addressing stakeholder-driven mitigation strategies
and revealing the added value of spatially-distributed approaches. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001560. This work is made avail-
able under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Author keywords: Extreme event; Flood mitigation; Hydraulic infrastructure; Model complexity; Distributed hydrologic modeling;
Remote sensing; Linear reservoir; Stakeholder engagement.

Introduction 2015). Furthermore, Farfán et al. (2015) indicate that impacts of

Inland flooding during hurricane landfalls produces considerable
economic impacts and loss of life (e.g., Kunkel et al. 1999; Ashley
and Ashley 2008). In México, an important fraction of the annual
precipitation is received from hurricane landfalls, in particular
along the Pacific Coast and Gulf of México (Breña-Naranjo et al.
2015; Farfán et al. 2015). Flood hazards can be severe when hur-
ricanes interact with abrupt changes in topography near population
centers (e.g., Farfán et al. 2012). Underestimation of the potential
threats from hurricane-induced flooding in México has led to large
urban areas developing near floodplains (Ferriño-Fierro et al.
2010). As a case in point, the metropolitan area of Monterrey,
Nuevo León, has developed along the Santa Catarina River and
downstream of a mountainous basin subject to tropical storms
stemming from the Gulf of México (Sisto and Ramírez 2015).
Extreme recent flooding from Hurricanes Gilbert (1988), Emily
(2005), and Alex (2010) caused severe impacts in Monterrey, with
an estimated loss of US$2 billion and 22 fatalities during Hurricane
Alex in northeastern México (Sánchez-Rodríguez and Cavazos
1
Graduate Research Assistant, School of Sustainable Engineering and
the Built Environment, Arizona State Univ., 781 E. Terrace Mall, ISTB4,
Room 768, Tempe, AZ 85287.
2 (Sisto and Ramírez 2015). Analyzing these options required the
Professor, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environ-
ment and School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State Univ.,
781 E. Terrace Mall, ISTB4, Room 769, Tempe, AZ 85287 (corresponding
author). E-mail: vivoni@asu.edu
3
Assistant Professor, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built
Environment, Arizona State Univ., 781 E. Terrace Mall, ISTB4, Room
395C, Tempe, AZ 85287.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 15, 2016; approved on
April 5, 2017; published online on July 8, 2017. Discussion period open
until December 8, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering,
© ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699.
climate change on landfalling hurricanes in México have yet to
be identified because of the large number of dynamical factors in-
volved. However, recent hurricane damages have been partially re-
duced by the completion in 2004 of a large flood control structure
in the mountainous basin upstream of Monterrey, as depicted in
Fig. 1 near the peak flood stage of Hurricane Alex in July 2010.
Massive losses from Hurricane Alex generated significant me-
dia coverage, disaster, and relief responses and reconstruction and
planning activities across all government levels (e.g., CERNL
2010; Ramírez 2010, 2011). In the aftermath of the flood event,
a series of workshops was convened by Tec de Monterrey and
Arizona State University (ASU) to bring together university re-
search units, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations
from Monterrey to identify potential flood mitigation strategies
for the metropolitan area and the downstream regions. Given the
current protection from a flood control dam (Fig. 1), stakeholder
suggestions included the implementation of additional hydraulic
infrastructure in the Santa Catarina River, an ephemeral system with
large river flows during the rainy season (Escalante-Sandoval and
García-Espinoza 2014). The primary role of these options would
be to reduce the peak discharge and delay the flood wave generated
in the mountainous basin, thus reducing the need for reconstruction
efforts in transportation, water, and sewage systems after each flood
implementation of a modeling framework able to account for the
meteorological characteristics of Hurricane Alex, the hydrologic
response within the mountainous basin and metropolitan area of
Monterrey and the effects of existing and proposed hydraulic infra-
structure on the flood event propagation. While the focus was on
the Santa Catarina River, additional flood damages and impacts
on reservoir operations occurred downstream of Monterrey in the
San Juan River, which drains into the Rio Grande.
Since the stakeholder engagement activities were facilitated
(White et al. 2010), iterative exchanges on the modeling framework

© ASCE 05017018-1 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018

 In this study, the authors evaluate the watershed flood response to
Hurricane Alex using two hydrologic models of varying complexity
applied using a similar set of landscape properties and meteorologi-
cal conditions. Extensive efforts to conduct commensurate simula-
tions were intended to reveal the underlying differences between
semidistributed and fully-distributed approaches for the analysis
of extreme hydrologic events and the effects of hydraulic infrastruc-
ture options. In particular, the role of spatial aggregation within indi-
vidual subbasins on modifying the flood response was assessed to
determine the value added by fully-distributed hydrologic modeling
despite the higher computational demand. Comparisons to the semi-
distributed model were also important to increase stakeholder con-
fidence in the fully-distributed approach, given that local watershed
planning, design, and management decisions in México have relied
Fig. 1. (Color) Photograph of Rompepicos Dam near the time of on simpler alternatives (e.g., Bojórquez-Tapia et al. 2009; Ramírez
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the flood peak during Hurricane Alex (reprinted from Maiz 2010, with
permission)
occurred between local stakeholders and researchers. In this pro-
cess, the authors implemented a model comparison approach
for addressing the dual need for a detailed investigation of hydro-
logic processes and the planning of mitigation strategies in a
watershed management context. The modeling framework con-
sisted of the application of a semidistributed model (Hydrological
Modeling System, HEC-HMS, HEC 2015) and a fully-distributed
model (triangulated irregular network–based real-time integrated
basin simulator, tRIBS, Ivanov et al. 2004a) in a commensurate
fashion and taking advantage of the merits of each method (see
Singh and Woolhiser 2002 for description of various modeling ap-
proaches). While hydrologic models have been compared previ-
ously in México (e.g., Cisneros-Iturbe et al. 2007; Velázquez et al.
2015), this is the first attempt to analyze the comparative utility of
semidistributed and fully-distributed models in the design and
evaluation of flood mitigation strategies in a Mexican watershed.
As noted by Fatichi et al. (2016), computational advances, data
availability, and improved process coupling have increased the use
of fully-distributed models in a wider set of engineering problems,
including for watershed management and infrastructure design.
2010; Hernández et al. 2014). This topic is of broad importance to
the hydrologic modeling community given the wide number of op-
tions for conducting watershed simulations (Singh and Woolhiser
2002; Kampf and Burges 2007). In addition, demonstrating the
utility of fully-distributed models as tools for evaluating flood mit-
igation strategies to hurricane landfalls and other extreme events
opens up their broader adoption in other regions (e.g., Gutiérrez-
López and Ramírez 2005; Slutzman and Smith 2006; Fang et al.
2011; Karamouz et al. 2015).
Methods
Study Watershed and Its Hydraulic Infrastructure
The study region is the Santa Catarina watershed (SCW)
(1,831 km2 ) in northeastern México, which encompasses Monter-
rey, capital of Nuevo León [Fig. 2(a)]. A subtropical, semiarid cli-
mate characterizes the watershed (Návar and Synnott 2000), which
is a subbasin of the San Juan River (33,538 km2 ) that provides
water to Monterrey through reservoir operations at El Cuchillo
Dam (Scott et al. 2007). The metropolitan area occupies the lower
areas of the SCW and has a population of nearly 4 million, with
an annual growth rate of 1.3% from 1990 to 2010 (INEGI 2011).
As an important city in México (INEGI 2009), Monterrey has a

Fig. 2. (Color) (a) City of Monterrey in Nuevo León, México; (b) Santa Catarina watershed based on a 30 m digital elevation model and the locations
of rain gauges, current hydraulic infrastructure (Rompepicos Dam located at 25.556°N and 100.397°W), and the stream gauge at the basin outlet
(Cadereyta Station); (c) land cover classes and the definition of basin units used in the flood event diagnosis; geographical data is in a projected
coordinated system of UTM Zone 14N and a datum of WGS 1984

© ASCE 05017018-2 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018

 Table 1. Watershed Areal Coverage for Soil and Land Cover Station and the visual inspection of the maximum level in the
Classifications reservoir rather than a measured water depth. All other streamflow
Type Coverage (%) observations were compromised during the flood.
a
Soil class
Castañozem 0.44 Rainfall and Meteorological Characteristics of
Phaeozem 0.48 Hurricane Alex
Fluvisol 0.06
Lithosol 94.23 Hurricane Alex was the first tropical cyclone of 2010, having ini-
Luvisol 0.02 tiated in the Caribbean Sea and intensified in the Gulf of México to
Regosol 1.07 a Category 2 Hurricane before landfall in Tamaulipas, México (see
Rendzina 0.76 Pasch 2010; Vitale et al. 2015 for event descriptions). Interactions
Vertisol 0.31 of the tropical moisture with the orographic barriers in the Sierra
Xerosol 0.51 Madre Oriental led to widespread rainfall in Nuevo León from June
Land cover classb 28 to July 2 (Hernández and Bravo 2010). Large rainfall accumu-
Agriculture 3.88 lations were observed in the sparse network of rain gauge sites
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Grasslands 2.07
Human settlements 6.57
Mixed woodlands 20.83
Secondary shrublands 23.09
Shrublands 32.92
Unvegetated 0.16
Urban areas 10.48
Note: 2.12% of the watershed area has soils classified as not available.
a
Data from ISRIC (2013).
b
Data from INEGI (1993).
diversified economy that supports a sprawling amount of urban
land cover on relatively mild slopes. In contrast, the upper reaches
of the SCW are predominantly rural areas because of the highly-
sloped mountain ranges [Fig. 2(b)] that form part of the 1,000 km
long Sierra Madre Oriental in northeastern México (e.g., Maqueda
et al. 2008; Ferriño-Fierro et al. 2010). Table 1 lists the areal cover-
age of soil classes from the Food and Agricultural Organization
(FAO) and land cover classes in the SCW, with the majority of the
urban area and human settlements occurring in the lower reaches of
the basin [Fig. 2(c)]. While only a small fraction of the SCW is used
for agriculture, downstream areas in the San Juan River support
important activities in this sector that are also subject to flood haz-
ards (Scott et al. 2007). The primary land covers in the upper
reaches of the SCW are submountainous shrublands and secondary
shrublands at low to midelevations, and mixed woodlands on the
higher mountain slopes. The sequence of folded ridges in the SCW
leads to a trellis-like stream network consisting of ephemeral chan-
nels that increases flood hazards upstream of the city during storm
events (Ramírez 2010).
Recurring floods from hurricane landfalls prompted the con-
struction of a flood control structure at Corral de Palmas, known
more commonly as Rompepicos Dam [Fig. 2(b)]. The dam has a
gravity curtain composed of roller-compacted concrete, an elevation
of 70 m and a length of 240 m (Ramírez 2011). The structure has
two outlet structures: a secondary rectangular opening of 6 × 6 m
at the base of the dam with a maximum capacity of 838 m3 =s and
a main Creager spillway with a crest length of 60 m and a capacity
of 3,376 m3 =s at maximum water level (Ramírez 2011). Completed
in 2004, Rompepicos Dam controls flooding generated in the
uppermost reaches of the SCW and has served its design purposes
during Hurricane Emily in 2005 and Hurricane Alex in 2010. For
Hurricane Alex, only two hydrologic observations were available:
a visually-estimated maximum water level behind Rompepicos
Dam (2.5 m below the spillway or 650 m3 =s) and the continuous
discharge record at the basin outlet (Cadereyta Station) by the
Comisión Nacional de Agua (CONAGUA). However, both of
these observations are considered to be uncertain given the flood
damages occurring along the measured river reach at the Cadereyta
near Monterrey [Fig. 2(b)], with 72-h totals ranging from 250 to
800 mm, and in some locations exceeding the mean annual precipi-
tation in the semiarid region (SMN 2010). Ramírez (2010) esti-
mated daily return periods between 20 and >100 years at daily
CONAGUA sites, though these tended to underestimate rainfall
as compared to several automated stations. Furthermore, Hurricane
Alex made landfall prior to the primary rainy season occurring in
August and September in northeastern México (Shreve 1944). The
low number of rain gauges (11 from daily CONAGUA sites, and 8
from automated stations) in the SCW limited the ability to charac-
terize the spatiotemporal distribution of meteorological conditions
during Hurricane Alex. For this purpose, the authors obtained
meteorological fields from the North American land data assimila-
tion system (NLDAS, Mitchell et al. 2004), a reanalysis product at
12 km, hourly resolution consisting of rainfall, air temperature,
wind speed, solar radiation, pressure, and relative humidity. Fol-
lowing Robles-Morua et al. (2012, 2015), the authors applied a
daily, mean-field bias correction to the NLDAS rainfall field over
the period June 1 to July 31, 2010 for forcing both models in a
similar fashion. Fig. 3(a) compares the daily total precipitation
averaged over the SCW from rain gauges and NLDAS, indicating
a general underestimation in the NLDAS fields. A mean-field, daily
bias correction (Cázares-Rodríguez 2016) avoided the sharp dis-
continuities in the rain gauge patterns [Fig. 3(b)] and resulted
in a large improvement in precipitation magnitude in NLDAS
[Fig. 3(c)]. Nevertheless, inconsistencies in the subdaily timing of
precipitation and other meteorological variables remain within the
NLDAS fields used as forcing to the two hydrologic models.
Simulation Approaches
Model Descriptions
HEC-HMS is a semidistributed hydrologic model that is widely
used in watershed management and planning because of its ease
of implementation, flexible number of hydrologic representations,
and low computational demand (HEC 2015). Prior applications in-
clude assessments of proposed reservoirs in decision-making con-
texts (e.g., Emerson et al. 2003; Ganoulis et al. 2008; Tingsanchali
and Tanmanee 2012; Robles-Morua et al. 2015). Among the various
options, the authors selected the soil moisture accounting scheme
for infiltration to carry out continuous simulations in response to
Hurricane Alex that also required representations of canopy inter-
ception and evapotranspiration. Table 2 describes the hydrologic
processes selected in HEC-HMS that were guided by prior applica-
tions (Fleming and Neary 2004; Robles-Morua et al. 2015) with the
aim to be as consistent as possible with the second modeling ap-
proach. The tRIBS model is a fully-distributed hydrologic model
that uses a triangulated irregular network (TIN) to represent a water-
shed at multiple resolutions (Vivoni et al. 2004), as opposed to the

© ASCE 05017018-3 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. (Color) (a) Time series of the basin-averaged daily precipitation (mm=day) from the rain gauge network and the original NLDAS product
(12 km, 1 h resolution); spatial distribution of total precipitation (mm) for June and July 2010 obtained from (b) rain gauges using a Thiessen polygon
interpolation; (c) bias-corrected NLDAS product

subbasin areas used in HEC-HMS. Fully-distributed models capture
spatial variations of landscape and meteorological conditions more
faithfully, but at the cost of a larger computational demand, and
thus with more limitations in decision-making contexts. Several
prior applications of tRIBS have focused on flood event simula-
tions (e.g., Vivoni et al. 2006; Nikolopoulus et al. 2011; Moreno
et al. 2013; Hawkins et al. 2015) and have demonstrated skill in
representing the spatially-distributed basin response. Table 2 de-
scribes the physical processes represented in tRIBS, including
the level-pool reservoir routing (Mays 2010) developed by the au-
thors to match the formulation in HEC-HMS. Overall, the selection
of physical processes in each model captured the continuous soil
moisture dynamics influenced by precipitation events and the ef-
fects of vegetation on interception and evapotranspiration as well as
kinematic wave routing through the stream network and the effects
of reservoirs on the flood wave using level-pool routing.
Model Domain, Parameterization, and Calibration
A common set of topographic, soil, and vegetation products
were used for setting up and parameterizing the two hydrologic
models in the SCW. The watershed domain was delineated from
a 30 m digital elevation model (DEM) obtained from the advance
spaceborne thermal emission and reflection radiometer (ASTER)
[Fig. 2(b)] for both modeling approaches. The authors applied ter-
rain analysis procedures from the HEC-GeoHMS (HEC 2013)
package to derive the basin boundary upstream of the Cadereyta
Station and the stream networks for use in both models. A stream
cell threshold of 10 km2 was used to maintain a low number of

© ASCE 05017018-4 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018

 Table 2. Hydrological Processes and Components for the tRIBS and HEC-HMS Models
Model process Description
tRIBS
Rainfall interception Rutter canopy water balance model
Surface energy balance Penman-Monteith equation, force-restore equation
Surface radiation model Shortwave and longwave components accounting for terrain variability
Evapotranspiration Bare soil evaporation, transpiration and evaporation from wet canopy
Infiltration Kinematic approximation with capillary effects; single infiltration wave with top and wetting fronts
Lateral moisture flow Topography-driven lateral unsaturated and saturated zone flow
Runoff production Infiltration-excess, saturation-excess, perched subsurface stormflow, groundwater exfiltration
Groundwater flow Two-dimensional flow in multiple directions, dynamic water table
Overland routing Nonlinear hydrologic method
Channel routing Kinematic wave method
Reservoir Level-pool routing method
HEC-HMS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Rainfall interception Simple canopy storage method

Surface detention Depression storage method
Evapotranspiration Priestley-Taylor method
Infiltration Soil moisture accounting scheme
Subbasin routing Kinematic wave method
Channel routing Kinematic wave method
Reservoir Level-pool routing method

subbasins in HEC-HMS (a total of 61), as depicted in Fig. 4(a), an
enhancement with respect to prior modeling efforts in the SCW
where 19 subbasins had been specified (Ramírez 2010). The hydro-
graphic procedure of Vivoni et al. (2004) was applied to derive the
multiple-resolution TIN domain, resulting in 580,434 Voronoi
polygons used in tRIBS as computational elements and an equiv-
alent cell size of 56 m (Ivanov et al. 2004a; Vivoni et al. 2005).
Fig. 4 shows differences in the domain representation in the two
models through the spatial distribution of the terrain slope. The
complex terrain of the SCW yields variations in slope that are

Fig. 4. (Color) (a) HEC-HMS subbasin definition with the mean aggregated slope for each subbasin and schematic network representation; (b) tRIBS
Voronoi polygon network with the slope field and the stream network captured in the model; hydraulic infrastructure used in the simulations
(Rompepicos Dam, Entry to the City Dam, Detention Dams) and the stream gauge at the basin outlet (Cadereyta Station) are displayed in each
model representation

© ASCE 05017018-5 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018

 captured well in tRIBS, whereas only the mean slope in each sub- Table 3. Model Parameter Definitions, Final Value Ranges, and Source for
basin is retained in HEC-HMS, leading to large slope overestimates the tRIBS and HEC-HMS Models
in the upper reaches. While the computational effort for HEC-HMS Parameter
was possible on a single processor within a desktop computer (unit) Description Range Source
(Dell Precision T7500, 2.8 GHz Intel processor with 6 GB of Vegetation parameters—tRIBS
RAM), the tRIBS simulations were performed using 16 processors p Free throughfall coefficient 0.3–0.65 L
in the ASU Ocotillo computing cluster (2.9 GHz Intel processors S (mm) Canopy capacity 0.01–2.5 RS
with 4 GB of RAM per core) and the application of the parallel K (mm=h) Canopy drainage rate coefficient 0.1–0.2 L
processing capabilities described by Vivoni et al. (2011). g (mm−1 ) Canopy drainage exponent 3.7–4 L
Identical geospatial datasets were used to describe the spatial a Surface albedo 0.105–0.3 RS
variations of soil (ISRIC 2013) and vegetation (INEGI 1993) prop- H v (m) Vegetation height 0.1–20 L
erties in each model (Table 1) (see Cázares-Rodríguez 2016 for spa- Kt Optical transmission coefficient 0.45–0.95 L
rs (s=m) Average canopy stomatal resistance 20–135 L
tial maps). Given the low spatial variations in soil types, the authors
vf Vegetation fraction 0.103–0.7 RS
used the land cover polygons [Fig. 2(c)] as an aggregation scale for LAI Canopy leaf area index 0.01–6 RS
specifying landscape properties to both models, following Ivanov
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

et al. (2004b). As a result, gridded soil parameters from ISRIC Vegetation Parameters—HEC-HMS
(2013) were averaged within land cover polygons, as were vegeta- C (mm) Maximum canopy storage 0.01–2.5 RS
tion parameters derived from the moderate resolution imaging D (mm) Maximum depression storage 0.176–2.36 L
spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor. Cázares-Rodríguez (2016) fur- Soil Parameters—tRIBS
ther describes the use of pedotransfer functions (Van Genuchten K s (mm=h) Saturated hydraulic conductivity 0.01–34.74 L
1980) and vegetation relations (Méndez-Barroso et al. 2014) within θs Saturated soil moisture content 0.4–0.44 L
the model parameterizations. While this procedure reduced the na- θr Residual soil moisture content 0.06–0.07 L
tive resolution of the original soil and vegetation products (avail- λ0 Pore distribution index 0.165–0.277 L
able at ≥1 km), it provided a consistent means to input landscape Ψb (m) Air entry bubbling pressure 1.5 to 0.12 L
f (mm−1 ) Conductivity decay parameter 0.0008–0.011 C
properties to both models. Additional aggregation at the level of
ar Anisotropy ratio 25–90 C
subbasins was performed in HEC-HMS, as shown for terrain slope n Total porosity 0.44–0.49 L
in Fig. 4(a). Table 3 lists the vegetation, soil, and routing param- ks (J=msK) Volumetric heat conductivity 1.33 C
eters, their range of values, and sources used in the HEC-HMS and Cs (J=m3 K) Soil heat capacity 2,400,000 C
tRIBS simulations for the SCW. The range of values represents the
Soil parameters—HEC-HMS
variations across the land cover polygons within the watershed. The
K (mm=h) Maximum infiltration rate 0.01–13.57 C
spatial resolution and classification fidelity represented in the mod- Ss (mm) Soil storage 50–150 C
els exceed those in previous regional studies (e.g., Maqueda et al. T s (mm) Tension storage 25–50 C
2008; Ramírez 2010; Návar 2012). GW s (mm) Groundwater storage 50–150 C
Model calibration of soil and vegetation parameters (Table 3) Sp (mm=h) Soil percolation rate 1.27–5.4 L
followed previous HEC-HMS and tRIBS model applications where GW p (mm=h) Groundwater percolation rate 1–5.4 C
values were obtained from literature (L) or remote sensing (RS) GW c (h) Groundwater coefficient 100 C
products for similar site conditions (e.g., Van Genuchten 1980; Routing parameters—tRIBS
Schaap et al. 1999; Mitchell et al. 2004; Ivanov et al. 2004a, b; n Manning’s channel roughness 0.35 L
Mays 2010; Robles-Morua et al. 2012, 2015; Singh and Jain 2015) aB Channel width-area coefficient 2 C
assumed to be spatially uniform within each land cover polygon and bB Channel width-area exponent 0.5 C
considered to be a reliable means for reducing the overall parameter cv Hillslope velocity coefficient 2.45 C
space to be sampled in the model calibration exercise. As r Hillslope velocity exponent 0.4 C
shown in Table 3, the number of soil and vegetation parameter val- Routing parameters—HEC-HMS
ues is large for each model given the spatial variations represented n Manning’s channel roughness 0.35 L
across the land cover polygons, whereas the routing parameter val- nf Flow plane roughness 0.1–0.32 L
ues are spatially uniform within the stream networks depicted in cl (%) Channel losses 0.02–0.1 C
each model. Model initialization was aided by the dry conditions Note: For sources, C = model calibration; L = literature review; and RS =
prior to the arrival of Hurricane Alex. As discussed by Vivoni et al. remote sensing. Additional details on sources provided in Cázares-
(2010), semiarid regions in northern México are characterized by Rodríguez (2016).
ephemeral rivers within alluvial basins with deep groundwater
tables. High evaporative demands and low rainfall during the early
summer effectively reset the conditions of hydrologic systems to dry stakeholder engagement process. The authors also inspected the
states prior to the rainy period occurring later in the summer season. streamflow volume of the simulations for the Cadereyta Station
This is in contrast to more humid settings with smaller degrees of during the manual calibration exercise. Simulations were tested in
seasonality (e.g., Nikolopoulos et al. 2011; Nied et al. 2013; Massari a validation activity against the maximum water levels recorded at
et al. 2014) where time-variable initial conditions need to be ac- the Rompepicos Dam included as a hydraulic infrastructure during
counted for accurately. As such, a dry state was assumed in each the exercise (see Fig. 4 for its location). As such, the model cali-
model following prior flood forecasting efforts (e.g., Chu and bration and validation approaches are based on streamflow data
Steinman 2009; Hawkins et al. 2015). at the basin outlet and the maximum reservoir level at an internal
A manual calibration exercise was conducted with respect to location, respectively, exceeding prior efforts in model testing for
the streamflow record at Cadereyta Station where observations the extreme event under analysis (Ramírez 2010), but still focus-
were available at 1–6 h intervals by using the peak error as an ing attention on the primary concern for stakeholders—the peak
objective function given the uncertainties present in other aspects discharge—with less emphasis resulting in the other characteristics
of the streamflow observation and the emphasis of this metric in the of the calibrated hydrographs. Model calibration involved varying a

© ASCE 05017018-6 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018

 limited set of soil and vegetation parameters (labeled C in Table 3)
to which the simulated streamflow at the basin outlet was found to
be most sensitive through a one-at-a-time analysis using parameter
value ranges representing different percentage changes (e.g.,
þ200% to −200%) from nominal values (e.g., Forman et al.
2008; Nikolopoulos et al. 2011) as reported in Cázares-Rodríguez
(2016). Using a similar approach, the authors identified the model
parameters that most affected the simulated discharge for this ex-
treme event as K, Ss , and T s for HEC-HMS and f, ar , and cv for
tRIBS (see Table 3 for definitions). In the case of HEC-HMS, cali-
brated parameters controlled the runoff volume via modification
of soil infiltration and storage properties, while for tRIBS the
calibrated parameters served a similar purpose (Ivanov et al. 2004b)
and also yielded modifications to the timing of lateral flows.
Parameter values that were established well through observations,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pedotransfer functions, or remote sensing were not varied during
calibration, whereas the sensitive parameters identified earlier could
not be derived easily through these methods. This is consistent with
the goal of reducing the over-parameterization of semidistributed
and fully-distributed hydrologic models which are often criticized
for having an excessive number of variable parameters during a cal-
ibration process (see discussion in Fatichi et al. 2016).
Hydraulic Infrastructure Scenarios
Using the calibrated models, the authors evaluated the sensitivity of
the flood response in the SCW during Hurricane Alex to the pres-
ence of hydraulic infrastructure. Based on stakeholder suggestions
during two workshops, four scenarios were considered in a consis-
tent fashion for each model: (1) removal of current hydraulic infra-
structure (Rompepicos Dam); (2) evaluation of current conditions
(i.e., calibration case); (3) inclusion of an additional large dam at
the Entry to the City location; and (4) inclusion of three small de-
tention dams at locations with no current hydraulic infrastructure
(i.e., uncontrolled flow). Fig. 4 presents the locations of the pro-
posed hydraulic infrastructure, with the same level-pool routing
methodology applied in both models for the scenarios. To include
the large dam at the Entry to the City site considered by CERNL
(2010), the authors created a conceptual engineering design for the
new dam based on adjusting the elevation-discharge-storage rela-
tions of Rompepicos Dam (Ramírez 2011) using the topographic
conditions of the new location and retaining the overall dimensions
of Rompepicos Dam. This site is attractive because of its location
upstream of Monterrey and its ability to contain both uncontrolled
flows and the discharge from Rompepicos Dam. As a lower cost
alternative, the three small detention dams were located in key sites
where important contributions were simulated to the overall flood
response during Hurricane Alex. The authors conceptualized the
design of smaller, concrete detention structures with a spillway
to apply the level-pool routing at the three sites using local infor-
mation on topography, channel dimensions, and upstream contrib-
uting areas. These sites are intended to collectively reduce and
delay the flood contributions from uncontrolled subbasins upstream
of Monterrey. Comparisons of the scenarios were carried out for
different units in the SCW exhibiting varying terrain properties
(labeled Sites I, II, and III) and along various main channel loca-
tions (labeled Sites A, B, C, and D) to determine the flood sensi-
tivity in both models.
Results and Discussion
Hydrologic Model Performances
Numerical experiments using the two hydrologic models were con-
ducted over the period of June 28 to July 7, 2010. Rainfall in the
© ASCE 05017018-7
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018
SCW began on June 28, with the primary storm accumulations
from June 30 to July 2. The flood peak at the basin outlet (Cader-
eyta Station) was estimated at nearly 4,300 m3 =s on July 2, with an
estimated return period of 200–500 years based on historical
analyses (Ramírez 2010). Fig. 5 compares the simulated stream-
flow at the hourly resolution used in both models at the basin outlet
and Rompepicos Dam to the available observations. Because of
uncertainty in the subdaily precipitation timing, cumulative dis-
charge (106 m3 ) at the Cadereyta Station is shown in all cases
[Fig. 5(a)] [see Cázares-Rodríguez (2016) for actual discharge].
Note the close match to the observed streamflow volume (i.e., cu-
mulative discharge of ∼700 × 106 m3 ) by tRIBS and the underes-
timation by HEC-HMS, as quantified by the bias (B) in Table 4.
While both models have earlier flood peaks than the observations,
the simulations exhibit high correlation coefficients (CC) of 0.70
(HEC-HMS) and 0.84 (tRIBS) with the streamflow record and rel-
atively small peak errors (Table 4) amounting to 0.83% (HEC-
HMS) and 5.84% (tRIBS) of the peak discharge. In addition, the
Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE) of 0.66 (tRIBS) and 0.38
(HEC-HMS) indicate a better model performance for the fully-
distributed approach. Overall, the authors consider that the calibra-
tion exercise applied to each model yielded a good agreement to the
CONAGUA records at the basin outlet when considering: (1) losses
of streamflow data and their uncertain values during a destructive
flood event, (2) differences in precipitation timing among rain
gauges and NLDAS, and (3) similarities achieved in both model
responses given their underlying differences. Having built confi-
dence in the calibration at the basin outlet, testing at Rompepicos
Dam shows that the models matched well the estimated peak out-
flow of 650 m3 =s (dashed horizontal line) and have a similar peak
inflow to the reservoir of 1,500 m3 =s, thus achieving a peak reduc-
tion of 43% by the dam in both models. Unfortunately, there were
no streamflow observation into the Rompepicos Dam for model
evaluation purposes. Note that semidistributed and fully-distributed
hydrologic model evaluations are not commonly conducted at in-
ternal locations in a basin (see Ivanov et al. 2004b). In addition, the
close correspondence in the reservoir inflow and outflow behavior
in the two models indicates the adequacy of the level-pool routing
method developed for this study. Nevertheless, a few differences
are noted between the models, namely an earlier rising limb and
quicker recession limb in HEC-HMS, as explored subsequently.
Comparisons of Internal Hydrologic Variability
The internal variability of the flood response in the two hydrologic
models was compared by delineating three units (labeled Units 1,
2, and 3) and selecting a representative channel site (labeled Site I,
II, and III) in each area. Fig. 6 presents the spatial location of the
units and sites, while Table 5 summarizes the topographic, land
cover, and infrastructure properties for each unit (also see the unit
boundaries in Figs. 2 and 3). This delineation afforded the ability to
separate regions in the SCW according to their contributions to the
Hurricane Alex flood event: (1) Unit 1 is upstream of Rompepicos
Dam and consists of high forest cover and complex terrain, (2) Unit
2 is a region with uncontrolled flow between Rompepicos Dam
and the Entry to the City and is characterized by intermediate forest
cover and terrain ruggedness, and (3) Unit 3 contains flatter areas
with high amounts of impervious areas located downstream of the
Entry to the City. The landscape differences between the three units
help to explain the variations in the flood response between the
hydrologic models at the three sites as quantified in Table 6. Note
that Site I (Unit 1) exhibits the same pattern identified at the in-
flow of Rompepicos Dam, where HEC-HMS has a quicker re-
sponse characterized by a lower time lag (10.9 h) as compared to
J. Hydrol. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. (a) Cumulative discharge at the basin outlet (Cadereyta Station, in 106 m3 ) from observations and model simulations along with the basin-
averaged precipitation from rain gauges and the bias-corrected NLDAS fields; (b) simulated inflow and outflow discharges (m3 =s) at the Rompepicos
Dam from both models with the reported peak outflow labeled as “Observed”

Table 4. Model Performance Metrics for Simulations as Compared to the Larger differences between HEC-HMS and tRIBS in areas of
Observed Discharge at the Cadereyta Station complex terrain (Unit 1) as compared to flatter regions (Unit 3)
Metric tRIBS HEC-HMS were consistently found at other internal sites. To evaluate if other
factors, such as impervious urban cover, might cause differences
Peak Error (m3 =s) 251.72 35.94
Peak Error (%) 5.84 0.83 between the models, the authors evaluated the flood response along
Mean Error (m3 =s) 103.15 260.73 a set of main channel sites. Fig. 7 shows the locations and simulated
Mean Error (%) 10.34 26.15 flood events at four sites (Sites A, B, C, and D), while Table 6 pro-
NSE 0.66 0.38 vides a set of flood metrics for each model at these sites and the
CC 0.84 0.70 basin outlet. The HEC-HMS and tRIBS models show consistent
B 0.99 0.80 differences along the main channel, with a noticeable decrease
RMSE (m3 =s) 747.51 1,011.06 in the differences in peak timing among sites and an increase in
Note: Metrics are defined following Vivoni et al. (2006). Peak error (m3 =s) the difference in peak discharge as the contributing area grows
is the error between observed and simulated peak discharges, whereas mean (i.e., from Sites A to D). An important change in the flood response
error (m3 =s) is the error between observed and simulated mean discharge occurs between Sites C and D located upstream and downstream of
over the entire period. Peak and mean error (%) are normalized with respect the main metropolitan area of Monterrey. The substantial growth in
to the observed values. B = bias between the simulated and observed total
streamflow volume is attributed to runoff produced in the imper-
runoff volume for the entire simulation; CC = correlation coefficient; NSE =
Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency; and RMSE = root mean squared error. vious regions in each model. Despite this contribution, the overall
differences in flood peak amount and timing between the two mod-
els only varies moderately (Table 6). This suggests that the amount
tRIBS (17.4 h). In addition, Site I shows a large difference in the of urban cover does not explain the flood response differences be-
peak discharge between the two models (729 m3 =s in HEC-HMS tween the semidistributed and fully-distributed models such that
and 533 m3 =s in tRIBS). At Sites II and III, differences between there is more sensitivity to the aggregation of terrain properties
HEC-HMS and tRIBS are progressively reduced, with nearly indis- (slope) as compared to land cover conditions (impervious cover).
tinguishable flood metrics for Site III (Table 6). This is explained Fig. 7 also demonstrates a few important features of the flood re-
by the different representations of slope (Fig. 4) in the two models, sponse represented in both models, namely (1) the contribution of
with the milder slopes in Unit 3 leading to smaller differences than Unit 1 (Site A) to the basin outlet is muted by Rompepicos Dam;
the more variable slope conditions in Unit 1. As a result, the simu- (2) Unit 2 (Site B) has an important amount of uncontrolled flows
lated flood response is more sensitive to the selection of a semi- (49 and 78% of the reservoir outflow volume in HEC-HMS and
distributed or fully-distributed approach in areas where a greater tRIBS); and (3) the urban area (between Site C and D) has a smaller
aggregation of terrain properties is performed. contribution to the flood volume downstream of the city (Site D) as

© ASCE 05017018-8 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Comparison of the hydrologic responses from HEC-HMS and tRIBS at (a) the three internal sites, along with hourly precipitation upstream of
each location; (b) Site I in Unit 1; (c) Site II in Unit 2; (d) Site III in Unit 3

Table 5. Terrain Properties and Land Cover Characteristics for Three Units Table 6. Simulated Flood Metrics at Interior Sites, Along the Main
(Units 1, 2, and 3) Channel, and the Basin Outlet
Parameter Statistic Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Peak discharge Time lag Volume
2 Location Model (m3 =s) (h) (106 m3 )
Area (km ) — 732 397 702
Elevation (m) Mean 2,108 1,617 720 Interior sites
Standard deviation 492 521 345 Site I tRIBS 533 17.42 75.49
Slope (degrees) Mean 26.94 26.51 11.42 HEC-HMS 728.9 10.92 77.16
Standard deviation 12.59 13.82 12.73 Site II tRIBS 247 17.30 34.54
Impervious area (%) — 0 0 44.6 HEC-HMS 307.4 11.92 27.41
Forested area (%) — 32.2 15.5 11.2 Site III tRIBS 335.4 11.49 39.61
Hydraulic infrastructure — 1 0 0 HEC-HMS 330.6 12.92 32.16
Main channel
Site A tRIBS 1,449 18.86 202.87
compared to the mountainous basin (only 42% of the total flood HEC-HMS 1,473 11.92 154.89
volume at the Cadereyta Station is produced in the urban area in Site B tRIBS 1,415 19.11 360.51
both models). This latter finding is significant because stakeholder HEC-HMS 1,401 12.92 231.16
perceptions varied widely as to the relative importance of the Site C tRIBS 2,104 16.86 457.29
mountainous basin and metropolitan area in generating the flood. HEC-HMS 2,174 13.92 308.03
In addition, both models consistently indicated the importance of Site D tRIBS 3,803 18.11 685.16
uncontrolled flows from natural and urban tributaries downstream HEC-HMS 3,927 15.92 530.94
Outlet tRIBS 4,059 18.92 714.60
of Rompepicos Dam to the overall flood magnitude at the basin
HEC-HMS 4,274 16.92 575.06
outlet.
Note: Peak discharge (m3 =s) is the maximum streamflow value. Time lag
(h) is the time difference between the flood peak and the centroid of the
Spatial Patterns of Hydrologic Model Response basin-averaged rainfall. Volume (106 m3 ) is the total amount of streamflow
Next, the authors compared the spatial variability of the hydro- over the entire flood period.
logic response in each model to identify the areas in the SCW with
the highest contributions to the flood event. It is well known
that interactions between terrain, soil, and vegetation patterns with 2010) for the HEC-HMS and tRIBS models. Because the variables
meteorological forcing create preferential areas of soil moisture ac- of interest are different for each formulation (i.e., saturation fraction
cumulation and runoff production (e.g., Smith and Hebbert 1979; in HEC-HMS, and root-zone relative moisture in tRIBS) the values
Sivapalan and Wood 1986; Ivanov et al. 2004b; Mascaro et al. 2015). shown in the colorbars do not match. Despite this, qualitative
Fig. 8 presents a comparison of the time-averaged soil moisture comparisons can be made among the semidistributed and fully-
conditions during the entire simulation period (June 28 to July 7, distributed models and the spatial patterns within each model can

© ASCE 05017018-9 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. (Color) Comparison of the hydrologic responses from HEC-HMS and tRIBS at the four locations along the main channel as shown in the inset
along with hourly basin-averaged precipitation; Site A is the outflow from Rompepicos Dam, Site B is at the Entry to the City, Site C is upstream of
the urban area, and Site D is downstream of the urban area

Fig. 8. (Color) Comparison of the spatial distribution of time-averaged soil moisture as (a) saturation fraction distribution from HEC-HMS; (b) root
zone amount in the top 1 m from tRIBS

be assessed relative to the landscape properties and meteorological
data. The primary trends captured in both models are (1) relatively
drier soils in areas upstream of Rompepicos Dam (Unit 1) due to
lower rainfall accumulations [Fig. 3(c)]; (2) a large contrast between
impervious urban areas and surrounding rural lands exhibiting
higher wetness [Fig. 2(c)]; and (3) relatively wetter soils in valley
bottoms consisting of shrublands and secondary shrublands.
Notably, the representation of soil moisture is more highly resolved
in tRIBS, where spatial differences between drier mountain ridges
and wetter valley bottoms are depicted well.
Fig. 9 presents a comparison of the total runoff (mm) produced
during the simulation by each model and the runoff associated with

© ASCE 05017018-10 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. (Color) Spatial distribution of the total runoff (mm) generated during the simulation period from (a) HEC-HMS; (b) tRIBS; spatial distribution
of the runoff (mm) generated from (c) infiltration-excess and (d) saturation-excess mechanisms simulated in tRIBS
two of the primary mechanisms in tRIBS (infiltration-excess and
saturation-excess runoff) (Ivanov et al. 2004a; Vivoni et al.
2007). Overall, a similar runoff pattern was produced in the semi-
distributed and fully-distributed approaches, driven in large part by
the rainfall accumulation [Fig. 3(c)]. Note that the NLDAS 12 km
pixels are visible in the runoff distribution from tRIBS as the com-
putational elements are much smaller than the meteorological forc-
ing, as opposed to the rainfall aggregation occurring in HEC-HMS.
Nevertheless, the close correspondence between the approaches
builds confidence in the runoff capabilities of the fully-distributed
model with respect to the modeling tool commonly accepted by
local stakeholders (Ramírez 2010). In addition, tRIBS adds a con-
siderable amount of spatial detail that captures the high-resolution
interaction of rainfall characteristics with soil and terrain properties
in the SCW, which ultimately leads to runoff production in a land-
scape and discharge in the stream network. Aggregation of the
watershed soil and terrain information in HEC-HMS results in a
substantial loss of information. Furthermore, the fully-distributed
model is able to simulate spatial patterns of different runoff mech-
anisms indicating that (1) the metropolitan area of Monterrey pro-
duces runoff via the infiltration-excess mechanism due to the large
amounts of impervious surfaces, (2) drier areas in the upper basin
[Fig. 8(b)] have moderate amounts of infiltration-excess runoff due
to the formation of shallow layer of surface saturation in regions of
moderate to high slope (also see Ivanov et al. 2004a), and (3) wetter
areas in valley bottoms and mountain ridges [Fig. 8(b)] that reach
saturation of the entire soil profile primarily produce saturation-
excess runoff. The ability to distinguish between these runoff
mechanisms can help select among different flood mitigation strat-
egies and identify key locations for the placement of hydraulic in-
frastructure options.
Impacts of Flood Mitigation Strategies
The authors assessed the impact of the current hydraulic infrastruc-
ture in the SCW and the potential for flood mitigation afforded by
© ASCE 05017018-11
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018
the proposed scenarios. While similar efforts have been conducted
with HEC-HMS (e.g., Emerson et al. 2003; Robles-Morua et al.
2015), this study reports the first use of reservoir routing and infra-
structure scenarios with tRIBS. Fig. 10 shows the locations and
upstream contributing areas (CA) of the hydraulic infrastructure
scenarios, with additional details on the site locations presented in
Cázares-Rodríguez (2016). The large dam at the Entry to the City
has a high upstream CA (1,129 km2 or 62% of the SCW area) and
serves as a clear demarcation between the upper rural area (Unit 1
upstream of Rompepicos Dam and Unit 2) and the lower urban
(Unit 3) area of the watershed. The location of the large dam (also
labeled as Site B in Fig. 7 and Table 6) coincides with a switch
between wet valley areas producing saturation-excess runoff and
downstream urban areas where infiltration-excess runoff is the
dominant mechanism. In contrast, the three small detention dams
have much lower CA ranging from 106 to 170 km2 , placed at stra-
tegic locations in terms of uncontrolled runoff production during
Hurricane Alex as simulated by the two hydrologic models. Two
of the three detention dams correspond to analysis locations (Site II
and III) in Fig. 6 and Table 6. Both stakeholder strategies (large
dam at the Entry to the City dam and three small detention dams)
retained the existing Rompepicos Dam within the two models.
Fig. 11 summarizes the effects of the hydraulic infrastructure
scenarios from both models at three watershed locations of increas-
ing CA that are relevant to the Monterrey metropolitan area: (1) En-
try to the City, (2) Site C, a confluence upstream of the main urban
areas (Fig. 7), and (3) Cadereyta Station at the basin outlet. The
scenario labeled Current Conditions refers to the calibrated flood
responses from the semidistributed and fully-distributed approaches
that contain the flood mitigation achieved by the Rompepicos Dam.
The favorable effects of the existing infrastructure are captured
in the scenario labeled No Dams, where Rompepicos Dam results
in a reduction of the peak discharge of approximately 39% at
the Entry to the City and 14% at Cadereyta Station, an indication
that the Hurricane Alex flood event would have been more severe
J. Hydrol. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. (Color) Location of Rompepicos Dam and the hydraulic infrastructure scenarios with a large dam at the Entry to the City and three small
detention dams; for each site, the contributing area is shown within the context of the HEC-HMS subbasins and tRIBS stream network
(i.e., exceeding 5,000 m3 =s at the basin outlet) without the existing
hydraulic infrastructure. The two stakeholder-driven mitigation
strategies varied in their effectiveness upstream of the Monterrey
metropolitan area (Entry to the City and Site C), whereas differences
were reduced at the Cadereyta Station because of the contributions
from impervious urban areas downstream of the hydraulic infra-
structure. The inclusion of a large dam at the Entry to the City had
the effect of decreasing and delaying the flood peak at all down-
stream locations in both models because of its capacity to separate
in time the contributions from upper areas (Units 1 and 2) and lower
areas (Unit 3) to the overall flood wave. At the Cadereyta Station, a
reduction of the peak discharge of 17% (tRIBS) and 23% (HEC-
HMS) was obtained due to the proposed dam at the Entry to the
City. Note that Hurricane Alex would have led to a water level ex-
ceeding the main Creager spillway at the Entry to the City site (see
sharp discharge rise in Large Dam scenario on July 2) if similar
characteristics to the Rompepicos Dam were used in the design. As
a comparison, inclusion of the small detention dams had a smaller
mitigation effect at the three downstream locations, with a lower
peak reduction at the Cadereyta Station (12% in tRIBS and 10%
in HEC-HMS) and a lower overall effect on the flood peak timing.
At Site C where the effects of all three structures can be deter-
mined, the flood peak discharge was reduced by 17% (tRIBS) and
20% (HEC-HMS) relative to the current conditions. Thus, the stra-
tegic placement of smaller hydraulic structures in regions with un-
controlled flows, as illustrated through the example of the three
small detention dams (see additional details in Cázares-Rodríguez
2016), holds promise in collectively achieving an important degree
of flood mitigation upstream of Monterrey as shown through this
model comparison.
Summary and Conclusions
The authors analyzed a major flood event caused by Hurricane
Alex in 2010 in Monterrey, México and quantified different flood
© ASCE 05017018-12
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018
mitigation strategies using two hydrologic models of varying
complexity but setup in a commensurate fashion using similar
underlying datasets. The modeling activities were the outcome of
a stakeholder engagement process revealing that credibility in the
fully-distributed model could be established via comparisons to
the semidistributed model that already had attained a level of
familiarity and trust by the participants. The model comparison also
served the dual purposes of providing a detailed investigation of the
spatiotemporal flood response and the evaluation of mitigation
strategies in a watershed management context. The application
of the semidistributed and fully-distributed models was challenging
because of the sparse ground observations and the limited number
of hydrologic modeling studies in México. In addition, the limited
number of hydrologic observations (e.g., streamflow, soil moisture,
groundwater depth) during Hurricane Alex prevented a more de-
tailed set of model evaluation exercises, as performed when more
extensive data is available (c.f., Xiang et al. 2014; Robles-Morua
et al. 2015; Mascaro et al. 2015). Nevertheless, the authors applied
a commensurate set of spatiotemporal datasets, hydrologic process
representations, and calibration efforts in HEC-HMS and tRIBS to
enable a fair comparison of the two approaches and closely match
the limited set of hydrologic observations during Hurricane Alex
(see additional details in Cázares-Rodríguez 2016). For instance,
both models utilized the same topographic and land cover datasets,
employed a continuous representation of soil moisture dynamics,
and included a level-pool routing scheme to depict the effects of
hydraulic infrastructure on the flood wave propagation. By ap-
plying HEC-HMS with improved processes and datasets com-
mensurate with tRIBS, significant enhancements were made to the
application of the model for Hurricane Alex as compared to prior
efforts (Ramírez 2010, 2011). In addition, the overall good agree-
ment between the two models, in particular with respect to the spa-
tial distribution of total runoff, the reservoir inflow and outflow
dynamics, and the cumulative discharge at the basin outlet, yielded
a level of confidence in the ability of both models to be relevant for
J. Hydrol. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Comparison of flood responses from (a, c, and e) HEC-HMS and (b, d, and f) tRIBS for different hydraulic infrastructure scenarios at
(a and b) Entry to the City; (c and d) Site C, a confluence upstream of the urban area; (e and f) Basin Outlet at Cadereyta Station; the scenarios are
labeled No Dam (removal of Rompepicos Dam), Current Conditions (with Rompepicos Dam), and Detention Dams and Large Dam, both in addition
to Rompepicos Dam; the hourly basin-averaged precipitation from the bias-corrected NLDAS product is shown in all cases

watershed planning and management. Furthermore, the model
comparison showed that fully-distributed approaches add signifi-
cant value to the representation of the basin hydrology and its prac-
tical use for infrastructure planning as summarized in the following:
• Aggregation of landscape properties and meteorological for-
cing in semidistributed hydrologic models yields more signifi-
cant discrepancies in regions of complex terrain as compared to
fully-distributed approaches. Specifically, HEC-HMS simula-
tions exhibited an earlier rising limb and a quicker recession limb
in areas where the subbasin slope overestimated the actual slope
distribution represented in tRIBS. Furthermore, the hydrologic
response in semidistributed models is less sensitive to the effects
of aggregation of impervious urban cover;
• The semidistributed and fully-distributed models allowed for a
spatiotemporal evaluation of the Hurricane Alex flood event,
resulting in new insights on the runoff generation sites and the
flood wave propagation. For instance, urban areas in Monterrey
had a smaller flood contribution (42%) than the mountainous
basin (58%) to the flood volume at the basin outlet, resolving
an important source of conflict among stakeholders participat-
ing in the workshops. Similarly, the flood control derived from
the Rompepicos Dam (39% at the Entry to the City and 14% at
Cadereyta Station for Hurricane Alex) is critical for mitigating
hurricane-induced flooding in the region; and
• Two stakeholder-driven flood mitigation strategies varied in ef-
fectiveness upstream of Monterrey. A single, large dam at the
Entry to the City reduced and delayed the flood peak more fa-
vorably than three smaller detention dams placed in regions with
uncontrolled flow. The overall reduction of the flood peak at the
basin outlet across all scenarios ranged from 10 to 23%, indi-
cating the extreme events generated during hurricane landfall
are difficult to fully contain. Nevertheless, the strategic use of
small detention dams in concert with the existing infrastructure
holds promise as a collective measure to minimize flood recon-
struction efforts in Monterrey.
These results suggest that fully-distributed hydrologic models
are amenable tools for watershed planning and management
purposes, including the evaluation of proposed hydraulic infra-
structure, that have distinct advantages over more commonly ap-
plied semidistributed modeling packages such as HEC-HMS.
These advantages included: (1) an increased model resolution cap-
turing spatial details of soil moisture and runoff generation in
regions of complex terrain, (2) a higher fidelity of hydrologic proc-
esses allowing for the spatial characterization of runoff generation

© ASCE 05017018-13 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018

 mechanisms, and (3) an improved ability to identify and evaluate
potential sites for hydraulic infrastructure given the additional
spatial detail. While hydrologic measurements (e.g., streamflow,
soil moisture, groundwater depth) at internal locations were not
available for model evaluation, the physically-consistent model re-
sponse from the fully-distributed approach indicate a superior abil-
ity to depict spatial patterns of soil saturation and surface runoff
production as well as the flood propagation through the stream net-
work. In addition, the commensurate application of HEC-HMS and
tRIBS in the Santa Catarina watershed during a destructive flood
event shows that the limitations of data availability, often cited as
drawbacks in fully-distributed approaches (Singh and Woolhiser
2002; Fatichi et al. 2016), are present for both approaches and
can be overcome to some extent using remote sensing and reanal-
ysis products. In this sense, the application of the fully-distributed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
model in this setting yielded innovations in (1) the implementation
of level-pool routing scheme to depict the effects of hydraulic infra-
structure on flood wave propagation, (2) the use of remotely-sensed
land cover data from MODIS and soil property data from ISRIC for
yielding static parameters in a data sparse region, and (3) the bias-
correction of NLDAS meteorological forcing with ground-based
data for a hurricane event.
Model comparisons also show promise as frameworks for stake-
holder engagement activities that build confidence in hydrologic
models of varying complexity as complementary tools for evaluat-
ing scenarios, resolving conflicts, and enhancing decision making
(e.g., Starkl et al. 2013; Robles-Morua et al. 2014). For instance,
the evaluation of Hurricane Alex conducted by the authors in this
study could serve for subsequent stakeholder workshops in Mon-
terrey designed to explore other flood mitigation alternatives, such
as different hydraulic infrastructure configurations or the impact of
green infrastructure projects in urban and rural areas (e.g., Porse
2014; Galicia et al. 2015), including the trade-offs between costs
and benefits of different options. As such, a formal set of recom-
mendations for flood adaptation or mitigation strategies could be
derived as future steps. Furthermore, the authors are interested in
evaluating how the model comparison can serve as a platform
for assessing how uncertainties in commensurate model forcing,
parameters, and initial conditions are propagated to the simulated
flood response and the effectiveness of varying flood mitigation
strategies by taking advantage of the different model structures.
For these analyses, a wider number and magnitude of meteorologi-
cal events should be considered in order to quantify the benefits
of the flood mitigation efforts under smaller floods occurring dur-
ing the rainy season and higher magnitude events derived from the
probable maximum precipitation (PMP). For instance, analyses of
historical hurricane-induced flood events in the region (Hurricanes
Gilbert, Emily, and Alex) could yield an estimate of an appropriate
PMP or design storm (see Ramírez 2010) that could be formally
used for engineering design. Processing and bias-correcting
meteorological fields from NLDAS for prior hurricane events
can also extend the calibration and validation efforts carried out
with the two models. Furthermore, the model comparison could
be extended to include simplified and complex hydraulic schemes
(e.g., Kim et al. 2013; Che and Mays 2015) that represent flood
interactions with transportation infrastructure in the urban reaches
of the Santa Catarina River and the built environment in the Mon-
terrey metropolitan area.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank funding from the National Science
Foundation (SES-0951366, DMUU: Decision Center for a Desert
© ASCE 05017018-14
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018
City II: Urban Climate Adaptation) as well as the Inter-American
Development Bank and The Nature Conservancy for supplemen-
tary funds. The authors appreciate the contributions of the follow-
ing individuals during various stages of the efforts leading to this
work: Alexander Baish, Dave D. White, Robert Pahle, George
Basile, Elizabeth Tellman, Aldo I. Ramírez, Daniel Che, and Jurgen
Mahlknecht. Enrique Vivoni would like to thank the U.S. Fulbright-
Garcia Robles and Mexican CONACYT fellowships for support.
The authors acknowledge computing resources from the ASU Ad-
vanced Computing Center (A2C2). The authors also thank several
reviewers and the editorial team who provided useful comments that
substantially improved earlier versions of the manuscript.
References
Ashley, S. T., and Ashley, W. S. (2008). “Flood fatalities in the United
States.” J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 47(3), 805–818.
Bojórquez-Tapia, L. A., Cruz-Bello, G. M., Luna-González, L., Juárez, L.,
and Ortíz-Pérez, M. A. (2009). “V-DRASTIC: Using visualization
to engage policymakers in groundwater vulnerability assessment.”
J. Hydrol., 373(1–2), 242–255.
Breña-Naranjo, J. A., Pedrozo-Acuña, A., Pozos-Estrada, O., Jiménez-
López, S. A., and López-López, M. (2015). “The contribution of
tropical cyclones to rainfall in Mexico.” Phys. Chem. Earth, 83–84,
111–122.
Cázares-Rodríguez, J. E. (2016). “Evaluation of flood mitigation strategies
for the Santa Catarina watershed using a multi-model approach.” M.S.
thesis, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment,
Arizona State Univ., Tempe, AZ.
CERNL (Consejo Estatal para la Reconstrucción de Nuevo León).
(2010). “Plan maestro: Corredor integral de movilidad sustentable
(Constitución-Morones Prieto) + uso recreativo y deportivo público
en el lecho del Río Santa Catarina [Master plan: Sustainable integral
mobility pathway (Constitucion-Morones Prieto) + public sports and
recreational use of the Santa Catarina River].” Nuevo León, México.
Che, D., and Mays, L. W. (2015). “Development of an optimization/
simulation model for real-time flood-control operation of river-
reservoirs systems.” Water Resour. Manage., 29(11), 3987–4005.
Chu, X., and Steinman, A. (2009). “Event and continuous hydrologic
modeling with HEC-HMS.” J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9437(2009)135:1(119), 119–124.
Cisneros-Iturbe, H. L., Pelczer, I. J., and Stevenin, H. (2007). “Performance
comparison of three models of runoff in a rural a basin.” Ingeniería
Hidraúlica en México, 22(1), 31–45.
Emerson, C. H., Welty, C., and Traver, R. G. (2003). “Application of HEC-
HMS to model the additive effects of multiple detention basins over
a range of measured storm volumes.” World Water and Environmental
Resources Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–8.
Escalante-Sandova, C., and García-Espinoza, E. (2014). “Analysis of an-
nual flood peak records in Mexico.” WIT Trans. Inf. Commun. Technol.,
47, 49–60.
Fang, Z., Bedient, P. B., and Buzcu-Guven, B. (2011). “Long-term perfor-
mance of a flood alert system and upgrade to FAS3: A Houston, Texas,
case study.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000374,
818–828.
Farfán, L. M., Prieto, R., Martínez-Sánchez, J., and Padilla, R. (2015).
“Ciclones tropicales y su influencia en México. [Tropical cyclones
and their influence in Mexico.].” Conviviendo con la Naturaleza,
T. Cavazos, ed., ILCSA, Tijuana, México, 50–79.
Farfán, L. M., Romeno-Centeno, R., and Raga, G. B. (2012). “Observations
and forecasts from the landfall of tropical cyclones John, Lane, and
Paul (2006) over northwestern Mexico.” Weather Forecast., 27(6),
1373–1393.
Fatichi, S., et al. (2016). “An overview of current applications, challenges
and future trends of distributed process-based models in hydrology.”
J. Hydrol., 537, 45–60.
Ferriño-Fierro, A., Guerra-Cobián, V., Bruster-Flores, J., De Lira-Reyes,
G., and Cavazos-Gonzalez, R. (2010). “Control de inundaciones en
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 zonas urbanas, caso de estudio: Presa Rompe Picos Corral de Palmas
ubicada en Santa Catarina, Nuevo León, México. [Flood control in
urban areas, case study: Corral de Palmas Rompe Picos Dam located
in Santa Catarina, Nuevo León, México.].” Ciencia FIC, 1, 5–9.
Fleming, M., and Neary, V. (2004). “Continuous hydrologic modeling
study with the hydrologic modeling system.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)1084-0699(2004)9:3(175), 175–183.
Forman, B. A., Vivoni, E. R., and Margulis, S. A. (2008). “Evaluation of
ensemble-based distributed hydrologic model response with disaggre-
gated precipitation products.” Water Resour. Res., 44(12), W12410.
Galicia, L., Gómez-Mendoza, L., and Magaña, V. (2015). “Climate
change impacts and adaptation strategies in temperate forests in central
Mexico: A participatory approach.” Mitigation Adapt. Strategies Global
Change, 20(1), 21–42.
Ganoulis, J., Skoulikaris, H., and Monget, J. M. (2008). “Involving stake-
holders in transboundary water resources management: The Mesta/
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Nestos Help Basin.” Water SA, 34(4), 461–467.
Gutiérrez-López, A., and Ramírez, A. I. (2005). “Hydrological prediction
in two towns using the index-flood method.” Ingeniería Hidraúlica en
México, 20(2), 37–47.
Hawkins, G. A., Vivoni, E. R., Robles-Morua, A., Mascaro, G., Rivera, E.,
and Dominguez, F. (2015). “A climate change projection for summer
hydrologic conditions in a semiarid watershed of central Arizona.”
J. Arid Environ., 118, 9–20.
HEC (Hydrologic Engineering Center). (2013). HEC-GeoHMS geospatial
hydrologic modeling extension user’s manual, version 10.1, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA.
HEC (Hydrologic Engineering Center). (2015). Hydrologic Modeling Sys-
tem HEC-HMS Applications Guide, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Davis, CA.
Hernández, A., and Bravo, G. C. (2010). “Reseña del Huracán Alex del
Océano Atlántico [Review of Hurricane Alex on the Atlantic Ocean].”
〈http://smn.cna.gob.mx/ciclones/tempo2010/atlantico/Alex2010a.pdf〉
(Jul. 1, 2016).
Hernández, M. A., Amador, A., Sánchez, S. T., and Solera, A. (2014).
“Integrated water management in the Tambula-Picachos sub-basin,
Guanajuato, México.” Tecnología y Ciencias del Agua, 5(6), 159–165.
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia). (1993). “Conjunto
de datos vectorial uso de suelo y vegetación escala 1:250, 000 Serie II
(continuo nacional). [Vectorial data set on land use and vegetation
1:250, 000 scale series II (national map).].” Aguascalientes, México.
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia). (2009). “SCNM:
Sistema de cuentas nacionales de México: Producto interno bruto
por entidad federativa 2005–2009. [SCNM: National account system
in México: Gross domestic product by federal entity 2005-2009.].”
Aguascalientes, México.
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia). (2011). “Population
by county in Nuevo León state.” Aguascalientes, México.
ISRIC–World Soil Information (2013). “SoilGrids: An automated system
for global soil mapping.” 〈http://soilgrids1km.isric.org〉 (Jan. 15, 2014).
Ivanov, V. Y., Vivoni, E. R., Bras, R. L., and Entekhabi, D. (2004a). “Catch-
ment hydrologic response with a fully distributed triangulated irregular
network model.” Water Resour. Res., 40(11), W11102.
Ivanov, V. Y., Vivoni, E. R., Bras, R. L., and Entekhabi, D. (2004b). “Pre-
serving high resolution surface and rainfall data in operational-scale
basin hydrology: A fully-distributed physically-based approach.”
J. Hydrol., 298(1), 80–111.
Kampf, S. K., and Burges, S. J. (2007). “A framework for classifying and
comparing distributed hillslope and catchment hydrologic models.”
Water Resour. Res., 43(5), W05423.
Karamouz, M., Zahmatkesh, Z., Goharian, E., and Nazif, S. (2015). “Com-
bined impact of inland and coastal floods: Mapping knowledge base for
development of planning strategies.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000497, 04014098.
Kim, J., Ivanov, V. Y., and Katopodes, N. D. (2013). “Modeling erosion and
sedimentation coupled with hydrological and overland flow processes
at the watershed scale.” Water Resour. Res., 49(9), 5134–5154.
Kunkel, K. E., Pielke, R. A., and Changnon, S. A. (1999). “Temporal fluc-
tuations in weather and climate extremes that cause economic and
© ASCE 05017018-15
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018
human health impacts: A review.” Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80(6),
1077–1098.
Maiz, A. (2010). “Cortina rompepicos y el trayecto del Rio Santa Catarina.”
Movimet News Agency 〈http://www.movimet.com/2013/07/cortina
-rompepicos-y-el-trayecto-del-rio-santa-catarina/〉 (Jan. 15, 2014).
Maqueda, A., Ren, J., and Lozano, F. (2008). “Assessment of land cover
change effect on the hydrology of the San Juan River watershed, Nuevo
León, México.” J. Environ. Hydrol., 16, 1–15.
Mascaro, G., Vivoni, E. R., and Mendez-Barroso, L. A. (2015). “Hyper-
resolution hydrologic modeling in a regional watershed and its interpre-
tation using empirical orthogonal functions.” Adv. Water Resour., 83,
190–206.
Massari, C., Brocca, L., Barbetta, S., Papathanasiou, C., Mimikou, M., and
Moramarco, T. (2014). “Using globally available soil moisture indica-
tors for flood modelling in Mediterranean catchments.” Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci., 18(2), 839–853.
Mays, L. W. (2010). Water resources engineering, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Méndez-Barroso, L. A., et al. (2014). “A modeling approach reveals differ-
ences in evapotranspiration and its partitioning in two semiarid ecosys-
tems in northwest México.” Water Resour. Res., 50(4), 3229–3252.
Mitchell, K. E., et al. (2004). “The multi-institution North American land
data assimilation system (NLDAS): Utilizing multiple GCIP products
and partners in a continental distributed hydrological modeling system.”
J. Geophys. Res., 109(D7), D07S90.
Moreno, H. A., Vivoni, E. R., and Gochis, D. J. (2013). “Limits to flood
forecasting in the Colorado front range for two summer convection
periods using radar nowcasting and a distributed hydrologic model.”
J. Hydrometeorol., 14(4), 1075–1097.
Návar, J. (2012). “Modeling annual discharge of six México’s northern
rivers.” Revista Ambiente Agua, 7(1), 36–50.
Návar, J., and Synnott, T. J. (2000). “Soil infiltration and land use in
Linares, N.L., México.” Terra Latinoamericana, 18(3), 255–262.
Nied, M., Hundecha, Y., and Merz, B. (2013). “Flood-initiating catch-
ment conditions: A spatio-temporal analysis of large-scale soil mois-
ture patterns in the Elbe River basin.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17(4),
1401–1414.
Nikolopoulos, E. I., Anagnostou, E. N., Borga, M., Vivoni, E. R., and
Papadopoulos, A. (2011). “Sensitivity of a mountain basin flash flood
to initial wetness condition and rainfall variability.” J. Hydrol., 402(3),
165–178.
Pasch, R. J. (2010). “Tropical cyclone report Hurricane Alex (AL012010)
25 June–2 July 2010.” 〈http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL012010
_Alex.pdf〉 (Jul. 1, 2016).
Porse, E. (2014). “Risk-based zoning for urbanizing floodplains.” Water
Sci. Technol., 70(11), 1755–1763.
Ramírez, A. (2010). “Estudio hidrológico de la cuenca del Río Santa
Catarina, N.L. [Hydrologic study of the Santa Catarina River in the state
of Nuevo León].” Technical Rep. Commissioned to Integrate the
Reconstruction of the Santa Catarina River after Hurricane Alex,
Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), Monterrey, México.
Ramírez, A. (2011). “Evaluacion del funcionamiento de la Presa Rompe-
picos [Evaluation of the Rompe Picos Dam performance].” Technical
Rep. Commissioned to Integrate the Reconstruction of the Santa
Catarina River after Hurricane Alex, Comisión Nacional del Agua
(CONAGUA), Monterrey, México.
Robles-Morua, A., Che, D., Mayer, A. S., and Vivoni, E. R. (2015).
“Hydrological assessment of proposed reservoirs in the Sonora river
basin, México, under historical and future climate scenarios.” Hydrol.
Sci. J., 60(1), 50–66.
Robles-Morua, A., Halvorsen, K., Mayer, A. S., and Vivoni, E. R. (2014).
“Exploring the application of participatory modeling approaches in the
Sonora river basin, Mexico.” Environ. Model. Software, 52, 273–282.
Robles-Morua, A., Vivoni, E. R., and Mayer, A. S. (2012). “Distributed
hydrologic modeling in northwest México reveals the links between
runoff mechanisms and evapotranspiration.” J. Hydrometeorol., 13(3),
785–807.
Sánchez-Rodríguez, R., and Cavazos, T. (2015). “Amenazas naturales,
sociedad y desastres. [Natural threats, society and disasters.].” Conviv-
iendo con la Naturaleza, T. Cavazos, ed., ILCSA, Tijuana, México,
4–49.
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Schaap, M. G., Leij, F. J., and Van Genuchten, M. T. (1999). “A
bootstrap-neural network approach to predict soil hydraulic parame-
ters.” Characterization and measurements of the hydraulic properties
of unsaturated porous media, M. T. Van Genuchten, F. J. Leij, and
L. Wu, eds., Univ. of California Press, Riverside, CA, 1237–1250.
Scott, C. A., Flores-López, F., and Gastélum, J. R. (2007). “Appropriation of
Río San Juan water by Monterrey City, Mexico: Implications for agri-
culture and basin water sharing.” Paddy Water Environ., 5(4), 253–262.
Shreve, F. (1944). “Rainfall of northern Mexico.” Ecology, 25(1), 105–111.
Singh, S. R., and Jain, M. K. (2015). “Continuous hydrological modeling
using soil moisture accounting algorithm in Vamsadhara river basin,
India.” J. Water Resour. Hydraul. Eng., 4(4), 398–408.
Singh, V. P., and Woolhiser, D. A. (2002). “Mathematical modeling of
watershed hydrology.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699
(2002)7:4(270), 270–292.
Sisto, N. P., and Ramírez, A. I. (2015). “Flash floods in the Monterrey
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 196.229.50.252 on 11/01/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
metropolitan area, México: Lessons from Hurricane Alex.” Water
and cities in Latin America: Challenges for sustainable development,
I. Aguilar-Barajas, J. Mahlknecht, J. Kaledin, M. Kjellén, and A. Mejía-
Betancourt, eds., Routledge, New York, 145–169.
Sivapalan, M., and Wood, E. F. (1986). “Spatial heterogeneity and scale in
the infiltration response of catchments.” Scale problems in hydrology,
V. K. Gupta, I. Rodríguez-Iturbe, and E. F. Wood, eds., Springer,
Netherlands, 81–106.
Slutzman, J. E., and Smith, J. A. (2006). “Effects of flood control structures
on flood response for Hurricane Floyd in the Brandywine Creek water-
shed, Pennsylvania.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699
(2006)11:5(432), 432–441.
Smith, R. E., and Hebbert, R. H. B. (1979). “A Monte Carlo analysis of the
hydrologic effects of spatial variability of infiltration.” Water Resour.
Res., 15(2), 419–429.
SMN (Servicio Meteorológico Nacional). (2010). “Normales clima-
tológicas por estado [Climatological compilations by state].” 〈http://
smn.cna.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=184&
tmpl=component〉 (Jan. 15, 2014).
Starkl, M., Brunner, N., López, E., and Martínez-Ruíz, J. L. (2013). “A
planning-oriented sustainability assessment framework for pen-urban
water management in developing countries.” Water Res., 47(20),
7175–7183.
© ASCE 05017018-16
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2017, 22(9): 05017018
Tingsanchali, T., and Tanmanee, S. (2012). “Assessment of hydro-
logical safety of Mae Sruai Dam, Thailand.” Procedia Eng., 32,
1198–1204.
Van Genuchten, M. T. (1980). “A closed-form equation for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44(5),
892–898.
Velázquez, J. A., Troin, M., and Caya, D. (2015). “Hydrological modeling
of the Tampaon River in the context of climate change.” Water Technol.
Sci., 6(5), 17–30.
Vitale, J. D., Lipe, J., and Lindley, T. T. (2015). “Independence day holiday
weekend 2010 flood on the southern plains of west Texas.” J. Oper.
Meteorol., 3(7), 70–81.
Vivoni, E. R., et al. (2006). “Extending the predictability of hydrometeoro-
logical flood events using radar rainfall nowcasting.” J. Hydrome-
teorol., 7(4), 660–677.
Vivoni, E. R., et al. (2011). “Real-world hydrologic assessment of a fully-
distributed hydrological model in a parallel computing environment.”
J. Hydrol., 409(1), 483–496.
Vivoni, E. R., Entekhabi, D., Bras, R. L., and Ivanov, V. Y. (2007). “Con-
trols on runoff generation and scale-dependence in a distributed hydro-
logic model.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11(5), 1683–1701.
Vivoni, E. R., Ivanov, V. Y., Bras, R. L., and Entekhabi, D. (2004).
“Generation of triangulated irregular networks based on hydrological
similarity.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2004)9:4(288),
288–302.
Vivoni, E. R., Ivanov, V. Y., Bras, R. L., and Entekhabi, D. (2005). “On the
effects of triangulated terrain resolution on distributed hydrologic
model response.” Hydrol. Processes, 19(11), 2101–2122.
Vivoni, E. R., Rodriguez, J. C., and Watts, C. J. (2010). “On the spatio-
temporal variability of soil moisture and evapotranspiration in a moun-
tainous basin within the North American monsoon region.” Water
Resour. Res., 46(2), W02509.
White, D. D., Wutich, A., Larson, K. L., Gober, P., Lant, T., and Senneville,
C. (2010). “Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects:
Water managers’ assessment of a simulation model in an immersive
decision theater.” Sci. Public Policy, 37(3), 219–232.
Xiang, T. T., Vivoni, E. R., and Gochis, D. J. (2014). “Seasonal evolution
of ecohydrological controls on land surface temperature over complex
terrain.” Water Resour. Res., 50(5), 3852–3874.
J. Hydrol. Eng.