Master Programme

in Flood Risk Management

© NASA Landsat Program

Development of a Methodology for Producing

Probabilistic Flood Maps of River-Wetland Systems:
Case Study of Magdalena River, Colombia

Fabio Elías Amador Berrío

MSc Thesis WSE-FRM.13-04
September 2013
Development of a Methodology for Producing Probabilistic
Flood Maps of River-Wetland Systems: Case Study of
Magdalena River, Colombia

Master of Science Thesis

by
Fabio Elías Amador Berrío

Supervisor
Dr. Leonardo Alfonso (UNESCO-IHE)

Examination committee
Prof. Dr. Dimitri Solomatine (UNESCO-IHE), Chairman
Dr. Leonardo Alfonso (UNESCO-IHE)
Dr. Giuliano Di Baldassarre (UNESCO-IHE)

This research is done for the partial fulfilment of requirements for the Master of Science degree at the
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands

Delft
September 2013
The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this study do neither
necessarily reflect the views of the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, nor of
the individual members of the MSc committee, nor of their respective employers.
 Abstract
The lower part of the Magdalena River, which is the most important river in
Colombia, is characterised by lowlands and the presence of numerous
wetlands interconnected by canals. The ability of floodplain wetlands to
absorb and slow floodwaters is well known, however, numerous wetlands of
the lower Magdalena River area have suffered a significant anthropogenic
intervention, affecting their hydrodynamic and increasing the flood risk in
the towns of their vicinity.

The development of flood mitigation measures requires the use of

appropriate tools to identify the areas at risk. Flood maps are one of the
most important tools within any flood risk Management plan; however they
are affected by numerous uncertainties. Estimation and representation of
such uncertainties guarantee the communication of reliable information to
the users.

A reach of the lower Magdalena River and the wetlands of its floodplain
were modelled through a coupled 1D-Quasi 2D hydrodynamic model. Two
approaches were applied to analyse different sources of uncertainty that
affect the model. The GLUE (Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty
Estimation) methodology was applied to analyse the uncertainty in model
parameters, whereas a simplified methodology was applied to analyse the
uncertainty in the 1-in-100 year flood peak in the Magdalena River and the
uncertainty in the estimation of the synthetic hydrograph of the sub-
catchments that drain to the wetlands.

The results of the study indicate the appropriateness of the coupled 1D-
Quasi2D modelling approach to model the studied system. Applied
methodologies enabled to represent in probabilistic flood maps the different
analysed uncertainties.

Keywords: Uncertainty analysis, floodplain mapping, wetlands, probabilistic map,

flood inundation modelling.

i
 Acknowledgements

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Leonardo

Alfonso for his continuous support and encouragement. His guidance and patience were
fundamental throughout this research. Special thanks go to Professor Giuliano Di
Baldassarre for his valuable comments on the obtained results.

My sincere thanks also go to Erasmo Rodriguez and Julio Cuesta, from Universidad
Nacional de Colombia. Gustavo Hernández and Fernando Sierra, from Universidad del
Magdalena, for providing me with important data to conduct this thesis.

I also want to thank the COLCUENCAS project for funding the fieldwork in Colombia.

Last but not least, I would like to thank The European Commission for awarding me
with the Erasmus Mundus scholarship to pursue Master studies in Europe.

ii
 Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ v
List of symbols and abbreviations ............................................................................... vi

Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................... 7

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................... 7
1.2.1 Specific objectives ........................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2. Literature Review................................................................ 9

2.1 Flood mapping .................................................................................................. 9
2.1.1 Deterministic Vs Probabilistic flood maps (PFM) ..................................... 10
2.2 Flood inundation models ................................................................................ 10
2.2.1 Zero- Dimensional model ........................................................................... 11
2.2.2 One-dimensional models ............................................................................ 11
2.2.3 Two-dimensional models ........................................................................... 12
2.2.4 Three-dimensional models ......................................................................... 12
2.2.5 1D-2D, 1D-Quasi2D Coupled models ....................................................... 12
2.3 Modelling River-Wetlands systems ............................................................... 12
2.4 Uncertainty in water modelling ...................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Sources of uncertainty ................................................................................ 13
2.5 Methods to account for uncertainty in water modelling ................................. 15
2.5.1 Methods for forward uncertainty propagation ............................................ 15
2.5.2 Methods for model calibration and conditioning uncertainty on available
data 16

Chapter 3. Lower Magdalena River-Wetland System...................... 18

3.1 Description of the study area .......................................................................... 18
3.1.1 Hydrology and hydraulics .......................................................................... 19
3.1.2 Socio-economical aspects ........................................................................... 21
3.1.3 River Basin Plan ......................................................................................... 22
3.1.4 Fieldwork .................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 4. Methodology ...................................................................... 26

4.1 Construction of the flood inundation model ................................................... 27
4.1.1 Model choice .............................................................................................. 27
4.1.2 Model set up ............................................................................................... 27
4.2 Sensitivity analysis ......................................................................................... 31
4.2.1 Selection of 'behavioural' models ............................................................... 34
4.3 Flood frequency analysis ................................................................................ 35
4.4 Probabilistic flood maps ................................................................................. 37
4.4.1 Scenario 1 ................................................................................................... 37
4.4.2 Scenario 2 ................................................................................................... 38
4.4.3 Scenario 3 ................................................................................................... 41
4.4.4 Scenario 4 ................................................................................................... 43
4.5 Result analysis ................................................................................................ 44

iii
Chapter 5. Conclusions and recommendations ................................. 46
5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 46
5.1.1 Main findings .............................................................................................. 46
5.1.2 Limitations .................................................................................................. 46
5.1.3 Recommendations and future work ............................................................ 47

References .................................................................................................. 48

iv
 List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Rating curve components.............................................................................. 14
Figure 3-1 Study Area .................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-2 Left: Sub-catchment of the Magdalena River in the Atlántico department.
Top Right: San Martin Creek. Bottom Right: Canal between the Magdalena River and
Santo Tomas wetland ..................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3-3 Protection dikes............................................................................................. 20
Figure 3-4 Location of the flood defences and hydraulic structures .............................. 20
Figure 3-5 Control structures. Top left: Pumping station. Top right: Culvert. Bottom:
Sluice gates ..................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3-6 Economic activities in the wetlands. Left: Cattle Breeding. Right: Fishing 22
Figure 3-7 Flood event ................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3-8 Flood events Palmar de Varela ..................................................................... 25
Figure 4-1 SRTM and wetlands DEM ............................................................................ 28
Figure 4-2 Location of the gauging stations ................................................................... 29
Figure 4-3 Water level at PIMSA gauging station ......................................................... 30
Figure 4-4 Stage- discharge curve PIMSA gauging station ........................................... 30
Figure 4-5 Flood extent under different gate opening. Left: Fully closed. Right: Fully
open ................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 4-6 December 2010 Flood event ......................................................................... 32
Figure 4-7 Floating vegetation in the wetlands .............................................................. 33
Figure 4-8 December 2010 flood event. Observed and Modelled flood extent (best fit
for Manning coefficient) ................................................................................................. 34
Figure 4-9 Comparison of the statistical cumulative distribution (CDF) functions and
the empirical CDF .......................................................................................................... 35
Figure 4-10 Flood frequency analysis ............................................................................ 36
Figure 4-11 Flow duration curve .................................................................................... 37
Figure 4-12 Probabilistic flood map scenario 1.............................................................. 38
Figure 4-13 Probabilistic flood map scenario 2.............................................................. 40
Figure 4-14 Synthetic hydrograph 100-year flood San Martín creek ............................. 41
Figure 4-15 Synthetic hydrograph 100-year flood Cañafistula creek ............................ 42
Figure 4-16 Probabilistic flood map Scenario 3 ............................................................. 43
Figure 4-17 Probabilistic flood map Scenario 4 ............................................................. 44
Figure 4-19 Wetlands of Sabanagrande and Santo Tomás. Left: March 2000. Right:
March 2011. Source: NASA Landsat program .............................................................. 45

List of Tables
Table 2-1 Content, purpose and users of flood hazard and flood risk maps .................... 9
Table 4-1 Analysed scenarios ......................................................................................... 26
Table 4-2 Sources of uncertainty in flood-frequency estimation ................................... 38
Table 4-3 Guidelines for Length of Data Record vs. Expected Error rate ..................... 39

v
 List of symbols and abbreviations

CRA Corporación Autónoma Regional del Atlántico

CORMAGDALENA Corporación Autónoma Regional del Río Grande
de la Magdalena.
DEM Digital Elevation Model
GEV Generalised Extreme Value Distribution
GLUE Generalised Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation
IDEAM Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios
Ambientales.
IGAC Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NGA National Geospatial Intelligence Agency
SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey

vi
Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Background
The Magdalena River is the most important river in Colombia. With a length of 1536 km, its
catchment spans the 22.8% of the continental area of the country, and live 80% of its
population. For planning and operation purposes, the river is divided in three reaches, namely
upper, middle, and lower Magdalena according to topographic and hydrodynamic
characteristics. The lower Magdalena encompass the last ~ 400 km of the river to its mouth in
the Caribbean Sea. This area is characterized by lowlands; numerous wetlands interconnected
by canals and for suffering from regular floods, mainly during the months of October and
November.

Floodplain wetlands are characteristic from lower parts of broad and flat river valleys (Moore,
2006). Their ability to absorb and slow floodwaters when rivers overflow, it is well known
(USEPA, 2013). However, the wetlands of Sabanagrande, Santo Tomás and Palmar de Varela,
located in the lower part of Magdalena River, have historically suffered a high anthropogenic
intervention for multiple purposes. As a consequence of such interventions that include the
drain of vast areas of the wetlands for agricultural and housing developments, the
hydrodynamic of the wetlands have been severely affected and the flood risk in the towns of
their vicinity increased significantly.

During the 2010 and 2011, extreme flood events hit the lower Magdalena River catchment
with devastating effects. This triggered the urgency of adjusting the new river planning
framework for the country where the production and use of flood maps has been traditionally
overlooked. As a result of the increase of the flood risk awareness, several regulations and
policies are underway. In the context of rivers, the definition of riparian buffer zones using
hydrological, ecological, and geomorphologic criteria are a major concern for land use
planning, flood risk management, and development purposes.

Flood inundation models are one of the most widely used tools to produce flood maps;
however, their results are affected by multiple uncertainties. Appropriate estimation and
representation of such uncertainties guarantee the production of more accurate maps to be
used in flood risk management plans and to provide reliable information to the users about the
potential impact of floods.

1.2 Objectives
The main objective of this research is to develop a methodology to produce probabilistic flood
maps of river-wetland systems taking into account different sources of uncertainty.

1.2.1 Specific objectives

 To identify the main sources of uncertainty in the flood inundation models of River-
wetland systems.

7
 To assess the performance of the 1D-quasi2D flood inundation model for the
production of probabilistic flood maps of river-wetlands systems.

8
Chapter 2. Literature Review

2.1 Flood mapping

Flood maps are an essential instrument within any flood risk management plan as they enable
to identify in a direct way areas at risk of flooding. Information provided by flood maps
facilitates the development of strategies in order to reduce the flood risk depending on the
geographical distribution of the flood hazard.

Flood maps can be classified in different ways depending on the information that they present
or their uses and users. Most common flood maps are:
 Hazard maps which show the intensity of the flood expressed in terms of extent and
water depth for a given exceedance probability (expressed as a return period).
 Risk maps show the potential damages on the population, economic activities or the
environment.

Flood hazard and flood risk maps include different types of information depending on their
purpose and users. Such information is shown in the Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Content, purpose and users of flood hazard and flood risk maps
Flood hazard map Flood risk map
Content  Flood extent according to  Assets at risk
probability classes, according to  Flood vulnerability
past events  Potential damage
 Flood depth  Potential loss (per unit time)
 Flow velocity
 Flood propagation
 Degree of danger
Purpose and  Land-use planning and land  Basis for policy dialogue
use management  Priority setting for measures
 Watershed management  Flood Risk Management
 Water management planning strategy (prevention, mitigation)
 Hazard assessment on local level  Emergency management (e.g.
 Emergency planning and the determination of main
management assets)
 Planning of technical measures  Overall awareness building
 Overall awareness building
Target  National, regional or local land-use  Insurance
group/user planning  National, regional or local
 Flood managers emergency services
 Emergency services  National, regional or local water
 Forest services (watershed and land-use managers
management)
 Public at large
[Source: van Alphen et al., (2009)]

9
2.1.1 Deterministic Vs Probabilistic flood maps (PFM)
Paradigm shift from flood control to flood risk management requires the adoption of
appropriate strategies in order to reduce the flood risk to a reasonable practicable level. Maps
are valuable tools for representing the spatial distribution of flood hazard, vulnerability or risk
as they provide a more direct and stronger impression than any other form of presentation
(Merz et al., 2007). In this context, flood maps contain essential information in order to
design and plan such strategies.

According to Bates et al., (2004), traditionally, deterministic flood maps have been developed
based on a hydraulic model calibrated for a given flood event. Once calibrated, the model is
used to predict the flood extent of a design flood, which is usually the 1 in 100 year event.
The result is a single deterministic prediction of flood extent for the design event. However,
due to the lack of calibration and validation data of such design event, model predictions are
impossible to validate directly.

Accuracy of the maps result of this deterministic approach is questionable as uncertainties

regarding the natural phenomena, data used and the modelling processes are not taken into
account. Martini & Loat (2007) claim that "uncertainty dictates the accuracy of mapping
products, and needs to be understood in order to know how closely the mapping represents
what users would see as an accurate representation" (p. 42).

A more reasonable approach is the so-called probabilistic approach; in this methodology the
risk of flooding is conceived as a fuzzy map in which there will be significant spatial structure
(Bates et al., 2004). This methodology, although it is computationally demanding, enables the
definition and communication in a simple way of the areas at risk of flooding and their
inherent uncertainty (Pappenberger et al., 2005).

According to Di Baldassarre et al., (2010) the production of probabilistic flood maps normally
requires the construction of a flood inundation model, then complete a sensitivity analysis
using information from previous flood events, and finally to perform an ensemble simulation
by means of models with an acceptable performance conditioned to the analysed historical
flood events, and using a design event as hydrological input. Pappenberger et al., (2005) argue
that "maps obtained applying the probabilistic approach may thus be used to prioritise actions
to reduce flood risk in a way of which would be impossible with single deterministic
predictions"(p. 61).

2.2 Flood inundation models

Flood inundation models are crucial tools as they provide objective technical information
about the intensity of floods, allow analysing the impact of different protection/mitigation
measures and thus support the decision making process to develop optimal flood risk
reduction strategies.

Flood inundation models are one of the most accurate tools to produce flood maps. There are
several types of model with variable level of complexity. Model choice depends on factors as
computational resources available, data requirements and the characteristics of the problem
that needs to be solved through the modelling process. Depending on the maximum

10
dimensionality of the process represented, flood inundation models can be classified as
follows:

2.2.1 Zero- Dimensional model

This approach is based on a simple interpolation between two water levels along a reach. The
water levels can be both gauged water level or estimated based on a flood frequency analysis.
The flood extent is determined by intersecting the water surface level along the reach with the
Digital Elevation Model (DEM).

Asselman, et al., (2009) note that the main disadvantage of this approach is that due to the
lack of mass conservation, areas not hydraulically connected to the channel are predicted as
flooded.

Zero-Dimensional model is also known as planar model and the results obtained by this
approach are usually considered as the minimum acceptable performance for models of higher
complexity.

2.2.2 One-dimensional models

In the one-dimensional models floodplain flow is treated as one-dimensional and the river is
discretised as a series of cross sections. The hydraulic routing is described by the one-
dimensional St. Venant or shallow water equations.

Conservation of momentum:
Equation 2-1

where,
= Flow discahrge [L3T-1]
= Flow cross-section area [L2]
= Gravitational acceleration [LT-2]
= Friction slope [LL-1]
= Channel bed slope [LL-1]

Conservation of mass:
Equation 2-2

where,
= Lateral inflow or outflow per unit length [L2T-1]

Equation 2-1 and Equation 2-2 are solved using numerical methods with suitable boundary
conditions as they do not have exact analytical solution. Typical boundary conditions are a
discharge hydrograph upstream and stage hydrograph downstream. According to Asselman, et
al., (2009) the main advantage of the one-dimensional models is the short computation time,
whereas the main disadvantages are the inability to simulate lateral spreading of the flood
wave, the lack of continuous treatment for topography and the subjectivity of cross-section
location.

11
2.2.3 Two-dimensional models
The two-dimensional model includes full solutions of the two-dimensional St. Venant or
shallow water equations:

Continuity Equation
Equation 2-3

Momentum equation
Equation 2-4

Momentum equation
Equation 2-5

In the two-dimensional models there is a full representation of the actual terrain of the area to
be modelled, determined by certain spatial resolution. 2D models have the advantage of
representing 2D flow effects accurately. Another advantage of 2D models on 1D models is
that the flow path are determined in function of the topography indicated in the model grid
and the used boundary conditions and do not need to be defined a priori as in a 1D model.

2.2.4 Three-dimensional models

Three-dimensional models are mainly applied to process as sediment transport, flow-
vegetation interaction or hydraulic structures where a detailed representation of the process is
required. Application of such models for flood modelling in a scale of practical interest may
be excessively complex and unaffordable because of the high computational cost.

2.2.5 1D-2D, 1D-Quasi2D Coupled models

Coupled 1D-2D models aim to use the best advantages of each model. That means to take
advantage of the computational efficiency of 1D codes to model the main channel of the river
and use the more detailed ability of the 2D codes to model the flood plain. The philosophy
behind the 1D-Quasi2D models is the same, but in the latter storage elements are linked
through 1D elements. According to Asselman, et al., (2009) 1D-Quasi2D models can
successfully be applied to river systems where the flow directions are known in advance

2.3 Modelling River-Wetlands systems

In the technical literature on hydrodynamic modelling of river-wetland systems there is a
noticeable concern about the estimation of residence times, exchange and mixing patterns
within the wetlands with a clear ecological/environmental purpose. However, in general,
including the cases where the determination of flood patterns is the main purpose of the
modelling task, most of hydraulic models are based on the shallow water equations.

12
Models of different complexity have been used in the modelling of river-wetlands systems
with variable level of success. However, 1D-2D coupled models are the most widely used
approach to model such systems because of the good performance to represent the hydraulic
processes and the computational efficiency. A good example which illustrates this situation is
the work of Tuteja & Shaikh, (2009) who carried out the hydrodynamic modelling of the
Koondrook Perricoota Forest wetlands adjoining the River Murray in southeastern Australia
using three different modelling approaches, such as 1D, 2D and coupled 1D-2D. They found
that from low to medium discharges in the Murray River, all models produced good
agreement with the estimates obtained from the remote sensing analysis. For greater
discharges, the coupled 1D-2D model produced the best estimates of the inundated areas. The
1D model significantly underestimated the inundation due mainly to imposition of the 1D
solution on a 2D floodplain problem, whereas the 2D overestimated the inundation area
because of lack of representation of the conveyance of the runners (channeled flow paths) due
to the choice of a coarse DEM resolution (40 m grid size), chosen because of computational
constraints.

2.4 Uncertainty in water modelling

Pappenberger et al., (2006) define uncertainty as a general concept that reflects our lack of
sureness about someone or something, ranging from just short of complete sureness to an
almost complete lack of conviction about an outcome.

Nowadays flood inundation models are the most widely used tool for producing flood maps.
Normally, different screening methods are used to determine the sources of uncertainty that
have a major influence on the outputs of the model and therefore must be included in the
modelling process.

2.4.1 Sources of uncertainty

According to Apel et al., (2004) the sources of uncertainty in flood modelling can be
classified as aleatory uncertainty which is due to the natural and anthropogenic variability,
and epistemic uncertainty which is due to incomplete knowledge of the system. Apel et al.,
(2004) suggest that epistemic uncertainty can be decreased by an increase in knowledge,
whereas aleatory or natural uncertainty cannot be reduced by the gain of more information.
The main sources of uncertainties in flood inundation models are listed below:

2.4.1.1 Model structure

The structure of the model refers to the conceptualization and implementation of hypothesis
and equations that represent the process to be modelled. Depending on their complexity,
hydrological models may range from lumped to distributed physically based models; however,
higher complexity means an increase in number of parameters and data requirements that may
be also affected by uncertainty.

2.4.1.2 Numerical approximation

The equations that describe the process of interest are usually not straightforward to solve
analytically; approximations are made through numerical methods that may deviate to some

13
extent from the analytical solution. Numerical methods are sensitive to the used boundary
conditions and the scale and resolution of the model.

2.4.1.3 Definition of the flow domain

In flood inundation models the flow domain is defined by the topography. Various studies
have shown that small errors in flood plain topography can have significant effects on flood
inundation model results (Pappenberger et al., 2006a).

2.4.1.4 Boundary conditions

The most common boundary conditions used in flood inundation models are the stage-
discharge curves and the discharges estimated from such curves or other methods. Discharge
estimations based on stage-discharge curves have a significant uncertainty especially when
the curve is extrapolated beyond the range of observed water levels used for its development.
Kuczera, 1996 suggests that in a rating curve, within the interpolation zone (part of the curve
very well defined by stage-discharge measurements); the error would be small ranging from
1 % to 5%, whereas in the extension zone (part of the curve extended by methods such as
slope-conveyance or log-log extrapolation) may be as high as 30%.

Figure 2-1 Rating curve components

Source: (Kuczera, 1996)

Pappenberger et al., (2006b) note that the main sources of uncertainty in the rating curve are
the following:

 Sampling of the cross-sectional area during floods.

 Non-stationarity of the cross-section (changes in the cross section especially after
flood events).
 Assumption of the velocity distribution.
 Measurement instrument.
 Location of the measurement instrument.

14
  Structure of the model used to connect water level measurements to discharge.

Apel et al., (2004) suggest that the hysteresis during a flood wave, and the estimation of the
parameters are also important sources of uncertainty in the stage-discharge relation.

2.4.1.5 Parameter values

Parameter values are highly dependent on the scale and resolution of the model. Even though
there are some parameters that can be measured in the field; typically such discrete
measurements are used all over the flow domain or great sections of it depending on the
complexity of the model, this simplification brings an uncertainty of the parameter values in
the areas of the domain where they were extrapolated.

Recent advances in remote sensing techniques would enable to determine distributed

parameter values with a high accuracy; however, the dependency of the parameter values on
the scale and resolution of the model mean that some uncertainty would remains.

2.5 Methods to account for uncertainty in water modelling

Uncertainty analysis should be part of any modelling process. Pappenberger et al., (2006a)
note that ignoring uncertainties in any form of flood risk prediction carries an associated risk
for the analysis of being wrong, and does not allow the decision maker to take account of
different risks of potential outcomes.

In order to estimate the uncertainty, first of all it is necessary to identify the sources of
uncertainty to subsequently quantify them. Most common methods to quantify the uncertainty
in flood modelling are briefly described below.

2.5.1 Methods for forward uncertainty propagation

2.5.1.1 Error propagation

In this method, the uncertainty of the outputs of the model is estimated through the
propagation of the errors of the inputs, using the standard equations of error propagation. The
main advantage of this method is the low computational requirements. However, it has
several disadvantages as the assumption of Gaussian and independent errors, and the
assumption of a correct model structure, which is not always the case.

Prinos, et al., (2008) claim that application of error propagation does not seem to be
favourable to assess uncertainties in the run of flood hazard maps creation due to the
difficulty of applying this method to complex calculations.

2.5.1.2 Monte Carlo

This method is very useful when the problem does not have an analytical solution
(Pappenberger et al., 2006a). The method is based on the analysis of the model by observing
the variation of its outputs as a consequence of the different combinations of randomly
generated input parameters. The main advantages of this method are that it can include all

15
sources of uncertainty, it can deal with all forms of correlation and it can be applied to
complex models. The necessity of high computational resources is its main disadvantage.

2.5.1.3 Fuzzy and imprecise methods

The uncertainty can be expressed as a degree of membership to a fuzzy function unlike the
frequentist interpretation used in a probabilistic approach. This is very useful in situations
where the probabilities are not precisely known. The prior expert knowledge about the model
can reduce significantly the computational cost.

2.5.2 Methods for model calibration and conditioning uncertainty on

available data
2.5.2.1 Linear/ non linear regressions

The use of the Standard Least Squares technique in linear regressions for the estimation of
parameters of models intrinsically nonlinear, introduces a significant bias. In a nonlinear
regression, techniques as Bayesian inference and Maximum Likelihood estimator (MLE) are
used to introduce a likelihood function related to the output of the model and the observed
data. According to Pappenberger et al., (2006a) the advantages of this method are the
availability of numerous tools to perform the analysis, and the potential for the representation
of the uncertainties in a posterior distribution. Pappenberger et al., (2006a) also notes as the
main disadvantages the high computational cost when there are no strong assumptions of the
likelihood function, the inability to explicitly represent the sources of error and the difficulty
to justify the likelihood functions in terms of beliefs about the sources of error.

2.5.2.2 Bayesian Methods

Bayesian Methods, based on Bayes equation, use probability distribution to quantify the
uncertainty in model parameters. In this approach the posterior probability is proportional to
the product of a prior probability and the likelihood. As new data becomes available, the
distribution is updated using the Bayes theorem (Equation 2-6).

Equation 2-6

where,
is the likelihood of observing data given parameters and prior information .
is the posterior distribution for the parameters.

2.5.2.3 Generalised Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE)

GLUE (Beven & Binley, 1992) is a Bayesian Monte Carlo method which allows for different
parameter sets within a model structure to perform equally well in reproducing the limited
field observations in any practical application (Pappenberger et al., 2005).

In GLUE methodology, several random parameter sets are sampled using a uniform
distribution within a feasible range determined based on some prior information. Each set of

16
parameters is used as input for the model and the outputs are compared with the calibration
data. The performance of the model is determined based on the residuals of the comparison
between the outputs of the model and the observed values, then likelihood weights are
specified to each model. Using different criteria, models with a performance below certain
threshold are rejected from the subsequent analysis and are not used in prediction.

17
Chapter 3. Lower Magdalena River-Wetland
System

3.1 Description of the study area

The study area is on the lower part of the Magdalena River, and includes the wetlands of
Sabanagrande, Santo Tomás, and Palmar de Varela in the department of Atlántico - Colombia
(Figure 3-1). The wetlands are located along a reach of 15 kilometres on the west floodplain,
starting from the municipality of Sabanagrande, 43 kilometres upstream from the mouth of
the Magdalena River into the Caribbean Sea.

The wetlands of Sabanagrande, Santo Tomás and Palmar de Varela (henceforth the wetlands)
are part of the so called sub-catchment of wetlands of the Magdalena River in the Atlántico
department (henceforth WMR sub-catchment) and receive their names from the
municipalities where they are located. They have undergone a high anthropogenic pressure, so
that their ecological and hydrodynamic characteristics have been severely affected.

According to CRA et al., (2007) the study area is located in geomorphological units that
represent stripes of variable width where the river develops curves in the main channel due to
the high fluvial dynamics. As a consequence of such dynamic, the stream creates and destroys
islands, erode the riverbank; modify local flow directions and abandons sections that become
wetlands when they are wide enough.

Figure 3-1 Study Area

18
3.1.1 Hydrology and hydraulics
Climate in the study area is characterised by warm temperatures all year long, with an average
temperature of 27 °C and a high humidity, around 80 %. Regarding precipitation, the annual
average is 1060 mm, and three different seasons can be identified throughout the year. i) The
rainy season, from August to November, when approximately 53 % of the total annual
precipitation takes place. ii) The dry season, from December to March, when approximately
the 8 % of the total annual precipitation takes place, and iii) The transitional season, from
April to July (CRA et al., 2007).

The WRM sub-catchment is composed by multiple creeks that drain to the Magdalena River
by the west side along the last 115 km to its mouth in the Caribbean Sea. The system of
wetlands can be considered as a subsystem which interacts with the Magdalena River and the
runoff contribution from the afferent sub-catchments. The water level is mainly controlled by
the fluctuations of the river and by the seasonal runoff that drains the sub-catchments of the
system itself. Consequently, during the dry season, vast areas of the wetlands get dry. The
sub-catchments that drain to the wetlands of the study area are the ephemeral creeks of
Cañafístula and San Martín (Figure 3-2).

The wetlands are hydraulically connected with the Magdalena River through canals, culverts
that pass through the protection dikes, and directly when the river overflows its banks in low
areas without dikes. The average annual discharge of the Magdalena River in its mouth is
7100 m3/s and usually has peak discharges during the months of June and November, being
higher the one of November.

Figure 3-2 Left: Sub-catchment of the Magdalena River in the Atlántico department. Top Right: San
Martin Creek. Bottom Right: Canal between the Magdalena River and Santo Tomas wetland

19
3.1.1.1 Flood defence measures

Several measures have been executed in order to reduce the flood risk in the municipalities of
the study area. The main project took place in the year 2000 and comprised the construction
of protection dikes around the wetlands (Figure 3-3). However, due to the conflict of interests
existing in the area, which is detailed further, the project was not entirely built as designed.
To date, an important section of the dike in the municipality of Santo Tomás remains
uncompleted.

Figure 3-3 Protection dikes

3.1.1.2 Control structures

Multiple hydraulic structures such as culverts, and sluice gates were installed in the dikes
between the wetlands and the Magdalena River in order to keep them hydraulically connected,
minimising in this way the ecological impact on the ecosystems. Figure 3-4 shows the
location of the existing dikes and hydraulic structures.

Figure 3-4 Location of the flood defences and hydraulic structures

20
The flood protection measures and control structures affected considerably the hydrodynamic
of the wetlands and caused a problem associated to pluvial floods in the towns as the dikes
hinder the flow of the runoff to the wetlands. The structures located along the dike did not
have the capacity to conduct such discharges, and, as a consequence, pluvial floods became
regular during heavy rain events. This problem required the construction of several pumping
stations along the protection dike. Figure 3-5 shows some of the hydraulic structures found in
the wetlands.

Figure 3-5 Control structures. Top left: Pumping station. Top right: Culvert. Bottom: Sluice gates

3.1.2 Socio-economical aspects

In general, the level of income of the population from the municipalities is low as a
consequence of the limited offer of employment and the poor development of productive
sectors.

The main sources of employment in these municipalities are public positions in administrative
offices, schools and hospitals, and in minor scale some local trade and sale of services. A
great percentage of the population see themselves forced to move to other towns and cities of
higher industrial development in order to get a job position.

Activities as agriculture, fishing, and hand-crafted bricks production are carried out in the
wetlands as only way of survival for the poorest inhabitants of those towns. Apart from the
locals, landowners of vast areas of the wetlands develop extensive crops and cattle breeding
(Figure 3-6).

21
The variety of uses existent in the wetlands causes a complex conflict of interests. On the one
hand, farmers and cattle breeders close the sluice gates that connect the wetlands with the
river to keep their lands dry when the water level in the river is too high. On the other hand,
fishermen open the sluice gates to allow the fishes pass to the wetlands area. There is no
operational protocol for such structures and the authorities do not exert any control.

Figure 3-6 Economic activities in the wetlands. Left: Cattle Breeding. Right: Fishing

3.1.3 River Basin Plan

3.1.3.1 Objective

River basin management plans are planning tools that integrate a set of national policies
related to the land and environmental management; such plans must be elaborated and
enforced by the regional catchment authorities. The goal is planning the sustainable use and
management of the natural resources in order to keep a balance between their utilization and
conservation.

In particular for the WRM sub-catchment, the main objectives are:

 Sustainable use of the wetlands according to ecological, socio-economic and cultural
criteria.
 Sustainable use of the land, preserving the ecological and cultural heritage.
 Prevention of disasters in areas at risk.

To fulfil such objectives, the plan has to develop the following tasks:
 Diagnostic and baseline definition.
 Determine the conflicts of use and their actors.
 Definition of development goals.
 Definition of social, environmental, economic and land use policies and strategies to
guarantee the sustainable use of the natural resources and reduce risk.

3.1.3.2 Progress

To date the regional catchment authority (CRA) has developed a technical diagnostic of the
catchment that includes hydrological, hydraulic, socio-economic, and ecological aspects. An
identification of the conflicts of uses within the sub-catchment was also developed, with

22
especial focus on the wetland areas. A working group was also established with
representatives from the different actors in conflict.

Regarding flood risk management, the CRA has developed a 1D hydraulic model of the
Magdalena River and the wetlands area. The objectives are to set operation rules for the
hydraulic control structures and check the effectiveness of the flood protection measures.

3.1.4 Fieldwork
Thesis research incorporated an intense fieldwork in order to collect data and analyse the
hydrodynamics of the system. The most important outcomes are listed below:

3.1.4.1 Collected data

Production of probabilistic flood maps based on the results of a flood inundation model
requires data of diverse characteristics such as topographical data from the river and the
floodplain, historical hydrometric data from the river, remote sensing imagery of historical
flood events, etc. The inventory of collected data during the fieldwork includes:
 Cross sections of the Magdalena River in the study area, surveyed every 200 metres.
Date: January 2012.
 Bathymetry of the most frequently flooded area of the wetlands. Date: May 2012.
 Topography of the protection dikes in the wetlands area. Date: May 2012.
 Georeferenced inventory of hydraulic control structures existing in the wetlands area.
Date: May 2012.
 Monthly maximum discharge in the Magdalena River (m3/s). Calamar gauging station.
Period January 1969 - December 2011.
 Monthly maximum water levels in the Magdalena River (cm). Calamar gauging
station. Period January 1971 - December 2011.
 Daily mean discharge in the Magdalena River (m3/s). Calamar gauging station. Period
January 1940 - December 2011.
 Daily mean water levels in the Magdalena River (cm). Calamar gauging station.
Period January 1940 - December 2011.
 Monthly maximum discharge in the Canal del Dique stream (m3/s). INCORA K-7
gauging station. Period January 1972 - December 2011.
 Monthly maximum water levels in the Canal del Dique stream (cm). INCORA K-7
gauging station. Period January 1972 - December 2011.
 Daily mean discharge in the Canal del Dique stream (m3/s). INCORA K-7 gauging
station. Period January 1972 - December 2011.
 Daily mean water levels in the Canal del Dique stream (cm). INCORA-K7 gauging
station. Period January 1940 - December 2011.
 Chart of daily mean water level in the Magdalena River. PIMSA gauging station.
Period January 2010 - March 2012.
 Synthetic hydrograph of the sub-catchments of Cañafistula and San Martín for return
periods of 3, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 years.
 SRTM topography of the study area. Spatial resolution 90 m. Date. February 2000.
 Landsat image of December 2010 flood event. Pixel size 30 m.

23
Further information about the location of the gauging stations and characteristics of the
topographical information is provided in Chapter 4.

3.1.4.2 Interviews

During the fieldwork it was possible to interview some people from the community who live
in the vicinity of the wetlands, they confirmed the occurrence of both pluvial floods and
floods from the river-wetland system.

Figure 3-7 shows at the top, water from the Magdalena River flooding a house in the
municipality of Palmar de Varela during the flood event of December 2005. At the bottom,
Figure 3-7 shows the same house during the fieldwork in May 2013.

Figure 3-7 Flood event

Figure 3-8 shows at the left, an article for a local newspaper, reporting the flood event of
December 2005. At the top right, shows the dike breach that caused flooding in the
municipality of Palmar de Varela in 2005. At the bottom right shows a woman pointing out
the level reached by the water during the flood event of December 2010.

24
Figure 3-8 Flood events Palmar de Varela

25
Chapter 4. Methodology

Estimation and representation of the multiple uncertainties that affect the flood inundations
models used to produce flood maps are fundamental tasks in order to guarantee accurate and
reliable information to the users. Smemoe et al., (2007) argue that the existence of uncertainty
does not invalidate a model, but it should be acknowledged and appropriately considered.
Therefore, choice of suitable methods to determine the most important uncertainties must be
part of any process of modelling.

Uncertainties analysed in this research were: uncertainty in model parameters, uncertainty in

the estimation of the 1-in-100 year flood peak in the Magdalena River, and uncertainty in the
1-in-100 year synthetic hydrograph of the sub-catchments that drain to the wetlands. Four
different scenarios were analysed and uncertain maps were produced in each case. Table 4-1
lists the uncertainties considered in each scenario.

Table 4-1 Analysed scenarios

Scenario Uncertainty analysed
Scenario 1 Model parameters
Scenario 2 1-in-100 year flood peak in the Magdalena River
Scenario 3 1-in-100 year synthetic hydrograph of the sub-catchments
1-in-100 year flood peak in the Magdalena River and 1-in-100
Scenario 4
year synthetic hydrograph of the sub-catchments

The methodology applied to produce the probabilistic flood map of the scenario 1 is based on
the GLUE framework and includes the following stages:

 Construction of the flood inundation model.

 Sensitivity analysis, which encompasses, first, a uniform sampling of the model
parameters within a feasible range based on prior experience. Then, run model
simulations for each plausible scenario and comparison to the calibration data (flood
extent obtained from satellite imagery) determining in each case the model
performance based on a measurement of fit.
 Classification of the models in "behavioural" and "non-behavioural" based on the fit
obtained in the previous step by using an acceptance threshold.
 Calculate likelihood for the behavioural models based on their performance.
 Flood frequency analysis and determination of the uncertain 1-in-100 year flood peak.
 Ensemble simulations and weighted sum of the predictions from each model using the
uncertain 1-in-100 year flood peak to produce the probabilistic flood map.

Probabilistic flood maps of the scenarios 2, 3 and 4, were produced by applying a simplified
methodology, which is explained further in section 4.4.2.

26
4.1 Construction of the flood inundation model
4.1.1 Model choice
Usually model choice depends on factors as computational efficiency, data requirements, data
availability, price of the tool, and the requirements of the particular problem that needs to be
solved through the modelling process. Meire et al., (2010) suggest that "in the modelling of
storage areas part of river systems, when the propagation of the inundation flow in the storage
areas has to be known, a two-dimensional hydrodynamic model of the floodplain is essential"
(p.112). However, Meire et al., (2010) also notes that a one-dimensional model coupled with
a storage cell may be enough for the modelling task if only the exchange of water between the
floodplain and the river, the water volume in the storage area or the residence time of the
water storage area are required. In the context of probabilistic flood maps, Di Baldassarre et
al., (2010) argue that "the probabilistic approach, which is based on ensemble simulation,
does not necessarily require the use of a physically-based, fully 2-D hydraulic model, as this
approach is not based on the assumption that the model fully represents the physical
behaviour of the river and flood-plain" (p. 366).

For the particular case of the Magdalena River and the wetlands of the study area; considering
factors as computational efficiency, capacity of the tool to handle hydraulic structures, and
available data; the chosen modelling approach was 1D-Quasi2D. Subsequently, due to
software license availability, the tool SOBEK was chosen.

Set up a model with a 1D-Quasi 2D approach in SOBEK it requires the use of the 1DFLOW
module for modelling the main channel of the river and the Overland Flow (2D) module to
model the floodplain. The model of the main channel is set up using cross sections whereas
the overland flow is modelled by solving the 2D shallow water equations on a 2D raster grid.
In SOBEK De Saint-Venant equations are solved using the so called Delft-scheme by means
of a staggered grid. In this staggered grid the water levels are defined at the connection nodes
and calculation points, while the discharges are defined at the intermediate reaches or reach
segments (Deltares, SOBEK Version 2.12.002 User Manual).

4.1.2 Model set up

4.1.2.1 Topology

The study was carried out on a reach of 20 km of the Magdalena River. The main channel was
modelled in the 1DFLOW module of SOBEK using cross sections measured every 200
metres; such cross sections are the result of a bathymetry conducted by CORMAGDALENA
(river navigation authority) in January 2012.

For the 2D model of the floodplain that includes the wetlands area, the data from the Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) with a resolution of ~90 m was used. This data is the
outcome of a project carried out in February of the year 2000 by the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The SRTM topography was merged with ground surveys of the protections dikes and the most
often flooded areas of the wetlands, such surveys were dully referenced to geodetic
benchmarks of the National Geographic Institute (IGAC). Before merging the available

27
topographic data, the SRTM Digital Elevation model (DEM) was resampled to a grid size of
50 m in order to make the most of the resolution obtained from the bathymetry of the
wetlands.

As the canals that connect the wetlands among them and with the river are narrow (~ 15 m)
they are not detailed in the SRTM DEM. Cross sections of such canals were measured during
the fieldwork using measuring tape and were modelled as 1D elements. Existent hydraulic
structures were also modelled, so that their geometric properties were measured during the
fieldwork.

Figure 4-1 SRTM and wetlands DEM

4.1.2.2 Boundary conditions

The discharge in the reach was used as upstream boundary condition. The discharge was
calculated as the difference between the values measured in the gauging stations of Calamar
and INCORA K-7, which belong to the National Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and
Environmental Studies (IDEAM). The reason to do this was that the Calamar gauging station,
located 57 km upstream from the study area, is just right upstream of the Canal del Dique,
which is a derivation of the Magdalena River. The discharge of the Canal del Dique is
measured in the gauging station INCORA K-7. This assumption can be made as there are no

28
tributaries in the reach and the runoff is normally trapped by numerous wetlands existing in
the floodplain.

Figure 4-2 Location of the gauging stations

Water levels in the gauging station of PIMSA were used as downstream boundary condition.
PIMSA gauging station is located 38 km upstream from the mouth of the Magdalena River.
The quality of the available data from this gauging station was not the ideal because it was
obtained as a time series in graphic format (Figure 4-3) and the period of record is shorter
than three years. However, a stage-discharge curve (Figure 4-4) was developed due to the
need to evaluate multiple discharges in the reach. To do this, Figure 4-3 was digitalised using
AutoCAD and then the daily values of water levels during the years 2010 and 2011 were
related to the mean daily discharges in the reach. The curve (Equation 4-1) was obtained by
fitting the values to a power law regression.

Equation 4-1

where,
is the water level in metres above the mean sea level.
is the discharge in the Magdalena River (m3/s).

29
 RIO MAGDALENA
ESTACION PUERTO PIMSA(k38)
NIVELES 2010 - 2011 - 2012
4.5

3.5
Nivel de Agua (msnm)

2.5

1.5
2010

1 2011
2012

0.5

ENE FEB MAR ABR MAY JUN JUL AGO SEP OCT NOV DIC

Figure 4-3 Water level at PIMSA gauging station

Figure 4-4 Stage- discharge curve PIMSA gauging station

30
4.2 Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is a valuable tool to understand flood inundation models and ranking
uncertainties from different sources. Regarding model parameters, several authors have found
the relative little sensitivity of several models to the floodplain roughness when the flood
extent is considered (Horritt & Bates, 2002; Werner et al., 2005). Typically, the parameter
with the highest influence on the flood extent is the channel friction.

The study area has the particularity of the existence of multiple sluice gates that control the
flow among the wetlands and between the wetlands and the Magdalena River. Due to a
conflict of interests between the users of the wetlands and the lack of operational protocols,
the opening condition of such structures is uncertain. Figure 4-5 shows the flood extent under
two completely opposite opening conditions of the gates for a discharge of 16069 m3/s;
corresponding to the 1-in-100 year flood peak.

Figure 4-5 Flood extent under different gate opening. Left: Fully closed. Right: Fully open

31
Despite of the uncertainty in the opening condition of the sluice gates, to perform the
sensitivity analysis, it was assumed that during the studied flood event, the sluice gates that
control the flow between the wetlands of Santo Tomás and Palmar de Varela with the
Magdalena River were closed, and the sluice gates that control the flow among the wetlands
were fully open. Therefore, only channel friction was varied.

The model was run with a floodplain Manning coefficient of 0.05 m-1/3s and the Manning
coefficient in the channel was varied in the range 0.02 - 0.1 m-1/3s, by steps of 0.004 m-1/3s.
The flood event used to assess the performance of the model took place during December
2010, when the country experienced the worst rainy season on record as a consequence of the
La Niña Southern Oscillation phenomenon. The lower Magdalena was severely affected and
such floods were categorised as the worst natural disaster in the history of the country. An
image of the flood event was captured by a Landsat satellite (Figure 4-6, left). To obtain the
flood extent (Figure 4-6, right), the image was processed in ArcGIS performing an
unsupervised raster classification using the maximum likelihood tool. This image with a pixel
size of 30 m was freely downloaded from the website of the United States Geological Survey
(USGS).

Figure 4-6 December 2010 Flood event

Source: NASA Landsat program, 2010. Scene LE70090532010341EDC00

It is worth to note that the determination of the flood extent using remote sensing techniques
as satellite imagery or aerial photographs might be affected by the presence of floating

32
vegetation in the wetlands, mainly in shallow water zones. Figure 4-7 shows floating
vegetation covering vast areas of the wetlands.

Figure 4-7 Floating vegetation in the wetlands

The performance of the model was determined by comparing the flood extent in each case to
the flood extent determined from the satellite image using the Equation 4-2 (Di Baldassarre et
al., 2010).

Equation 4-2

where,
A is the size of the wet area correctly predicted by the model, B is the area predicted as wet
that is observed dry (over-prediction), and C is the wet area not predicted by the model
(under-prediction). The value of F ranges from -1 to 1.

The calculation of the performance encompassed only the wetlands area; therefore the area of
the main channel of the river was ignored. The best performance, characterised by an F of
0.22 corresponds to a Manning coefficient of 0.024 m-1/3s.

Figure 4-8 shows the comparison between the flood extent derived from the satellite image
and the modelled flood extent corresponding to the best fit. The model predicts accurately
flooded areas of the wetlands where the topography was obtained from ground surveys.
Systematically over-predicts areas where the SRTM topography has interpolated elevations
which correspond to the water surface rather than the actual ground elevation. The model

33
under-predicts several portions of the Palmar de Varela wetland. Such performance it may be
due to the marked difference in the boundary between the topography obtained by the ground
surveys and the SRTM topography. In general, the lack of knowledge about the status of the
hydraulic structures may have caused some discrepancies.

Figure 4-8 December 2010 flood event. Observed and Modelled flood extent (best fit for Manning
coefficient)

4.2.1 Selection of 'behavioural' models

The process of classification between 'behavioural' and 'non-behavioural' models and
subsequent rejection of the latter is one of the most criticised aspects of the GLUE
methodology. A widely used threshold of rejection in the context of flood modelling is the
performance obtained using the planar model. Other criteria include rejection of simulations
that are deemed 'unphysical' or below certain percentile (Horritt M. S., 2006).

In this case, the threshold was set arbitrarily in 0.15, therefore all the simulations
characterised by F values below that threshold were removed from the subsequent analysis.
After that, a likelihood weight was calculated to each of the behavioural models using the
Equation 4-3 (Di Baldassarre et al., 2010).

34
 Equation 4-3

where, and are the maximum and minimum measures of fit found
throughout the ensemble. According to this equation, the models with a better performance
obtain a higher likelihood within the ensemble.

4.3 Flood frequency analysis

Usually flood maps are developed for scenarios of low, medium and high probability of
occurrence. The scenario with a medium probability of occurrence corresponding to a return
period of 100 years is the most commonly used for planning purposes. Determination of such
scenario requires performing a flood frequency analysis using historical hydrometric data.

The flood frequency analysis in the study reach was carried out using data from Calamar and
INCORA K-7 gauging stations. Maximum annual discharge in the reach was obtained for a
period of record of 40 years. The data was fitted to five different statistical distributions using
Maximum Likelihood estimation. The goodness of fit was tested applying the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test with a level of significance of 5%. As a result of such test, the Rayleigh and the
Exponential distributions were rejected. Among the distributions that passed the test, the
Generalised Extreme Value Distribution (GEV) was chosen. Figure 4-9 shows the comparison
between the cumulative distribution function of the different tested distributions and the
measured values.

Figure 4-9 Comparison of the statistical cumulative distribution (CDF) functions and the empirical CDF

35
The probability density function of the Generalised Extreme Value distribution is defined by
Equation 4-4 and includes three parameters, location parameter , scale parameter , and shape
parameter

Equation 4-4

For
Equation 4-5

> 0 corresponds to the Type II case, while < 0 corresponds to the Type III case. For = 0,
corresponding to the Type case, the density is

Equation 4-6

Obtained values for the parameters of the GEV distribution were =10311.7, =2152.4, and
= -0.261683. Figure 4-10 shows the return period calculated according to the Generalised
Extreme Value Distribution and 90% confidence bounds. According to this distribution, the
peak discharge of the 1-in-100 year flood is 16069 m3/s. Figure 4-11 shows the flow duration
curve for the Magdalena River in the study reach.

Figure 4-10 Flood frequency analysis

36
 Figure 4-11 Flow duration curve

4.4 Probabilistic flood maps

4.4.1 Scenario 1
Behavioural models, found through the sensitivity analysis, were combined to produce the
probabilistic flood map of the uncertain 1-in-100 year flood peak that takes into account the
uncertainty in model parameters. The discharge corresponding to the 1-in-100 year flood peak,
determined in the flood frequency analysis, was used as upstream boundary condition.

The probabilistic flood map was produced using the behavioural models through a weighted
average of the simulation results for the jth cell of wij=1 for wet and wij=0 for dry, by
evaluating Equation 4-7 (Horritt M. S., 2006).

Equation 4-7

Where Cj indicates a weighted average flood state for the jth cell.
is the likelihood weight, assigned according to the fit to the calibration data (Equation 4-3).

The uncertain 1-in-100 year flood map showed in the Figure 4-12 takes into account only the
uncertainty in the Manning coefficient in the channel.

37
 Figure 4-12 Probabilistic flood map scenario 1

4.4.2 Scenario 2
According to Di Baldassarre et al., (2010) the estimation of the 1-in-100 year flood peak is
unavoidably affected by several sources of uncertainty. Table 4-2 lists the main sources of
uncertainty in flood-frequency estimation. Among such sources, Di Baldassarre et al., (2011)
highlight the error induced by extrapolation of the rating curve beyond the measurement
range as the main source of uncertainty in flood data, and Apel et al., (2004) notes that the
extreme value statistics is the major source of uncertainty in flood risk assessment.

Table 4-2 Sources of uncertainty in flood-frequency estimation

Source Examples
Measurement errors Water level measurement error, rating
curve errors
Plotting position formula Weibull, Hazen, Gringorten
Assumptions Randomness, stationarity, homogeneity,
independence

38
 Source Examples
Selection of sample Representative observation period, annual
flood series or partial duration series,
consideration of historical events
Distribution function Lognormal, Pearson type 3, Generalised
Extreme Value
Parameter estimation method Method of moments, method of L-
moments, method of Maximum likelihood
Sampling uncertainty Length of time series
[Source: (Merz & Thieken, 2005)]

In order to analyse and represent the uncertainty of the 1-in-100 year flood peak in the case of
the river-wetlands system of the study area, it was used a simplified approach based on the
methodology applied by Di Baldassarre et al., (2010) in the Dee River (UK). Which it
consists in the use of 100 random values equally distributed in the range [1-in-100 year
discharge] ± [Estimated Uncertainty] as boundary condition for the ensemble simulation. In
this research, an uncertainty of ± 20 % was assumed based on the findings of Bates et al.,
(2006) and Domeneghetti et al., (2012) that suggest that errors in measured flow, using rating
curves, might be up to 20 % of the observed value, in particular when flow is out of bank.
This assumption, which it takes into account only the measurement errors, could be
considered low, taking into consideration that Kuczera, (1996) argues that only the error due
to rating curve extrapolation may be as high as 30 %. Likewise, considering the USGS
guidelines (Table 4-3) of confidence in return period estimates based on length of the period
of record; in this particular case, an error level greater than 25% might be expected taking into
account that only 40 years of data were available to perform the flood frequency analysis.

Table 4-3 Guidelines for Length of Data Record vs. Expected Error rate
± 10% error level ± 25 % error level
Return interval
(years of record) (years of record)
10-year 90 18
25-year 105 31
50-year 110 39
100-year 115 48
[Source: (Bhattacharya, 2012)]

The model was run with a floodplain Manning's coefficient of 0.05 m-1/3s, and 0.03 m-1/3s for
the main channel. The sluice gates that control the flow between the wetlands of Santo Tomás
and Palmar de Varela and the Magdalena River were kept closed, whereas the gates that
control the flow among the wetlands were kept fully open. Runoff from the sub-catchments
was neglected. The value of the Manning coefficient in the channel was set in 0.03 m-1/3s
based on Chow, (1959) and the results obtained by Santos et al., (2008) in the calibration of a
reach of 14.5 km in the lower part of the Magdalena River, 60 km upstream from the study
area. Such value was used because at an early stage of this research, neither the satellite image
of the 2010 flood event nor data from any other historical event were available; therefore it
was not possible to assess the performance of the model.

The uncertain map was produced combining the outputs of the simulations by evaluating
Equation 4-8 (Kalyanapu et al., 2012).

39
 Equation 4-8

= 1 flooded cell.
= 0 for non-flooded cell.

where,
= is the calculated flood probability at each grid cell.
= is the assigned weight based on whether the cell is flooded or non-flooded.
= is the total number of flood simulations of the ensemble.

The uncertain map shown in Figure 4-13 takes into account only the uncertainty in the
estimation of the 1-in-100 year flood peak.

Figure 4-13 Probabilistic flood map scenario 2

40
4.4.3 Scenario 3
As the water levels in the wetlands also depend on the runoff in the sub-catchments and this
component is significant during the rainy season. Therefore, for planning purposes is
reasonable to include such runoff in the analysis. Regional catchment authority (CRA)
calculated the synthetic hydrograph for all creeks from the sub-catchment of the wetlands of
the Magdalena River in the Atlántico department (CRA, 2012). Figure 4-14 and Figure 4-15
show the synthetic hydrograph 100-year flood of the sub-catchments of Cañafístula and San
Martín that drain to the wetlands of the study area.

In the approach followed to develop the probabilistic flood map due to the uncertainty in the
synthetic hydrograph of the 1-in-100 year flood of the sub-catchments, an ensemble of
scenarios was generated multiplying the synthetic hydrographs by nine factors within the
range ± 20 % by steps of 5 %. In each scenario, it was assumed that both hydrographs were
multiplied by the same factor. When higher computational resources are available, a higher
number of scenarios must be performed, covering the range of uncertainty. The reason to
follow this approach was the lack of information about the model, parameters, and criteria
used by the regional catchment authority to estimate the synthetic hydrographs of the sub-
catchments. When such information is available, a better approach might be to generate the
ensemble based on the uncertainty of model parameters used to calculate the synthetic
hydrographs.

Figure 4-14 Synthetic hydrograph 100-year flood San Martín creek

41
 Figure 4-15 Synthetic hydrograph 100-year flood Cañafistula creek

The model was run with a Manning's coefficient in the floodplain of 0.05 m-1/3s. The sluice
gates that control the flow between the wetlands and the River were kept closed and the gates
that control the flow among the wetlands were kept fully open. The discharge from the
Magdalena River was set in such a way that no flow was coming from the river into the
wetlands. Runoff from the sub-catchments was considered by routing completely the
synthetic hydrographs through the main channel of the creeks. Pumping stations were not
modelled.

Finally, uncertain flood map was produced combining the outputs of the simulations by
evaluating Equation 4-8.

42
 Figure 4-16 Probabilistic flood map Scenario 3

4.4.4 Scenario 4
As the flood extent in the wetlands depends on both, the water level in the Magdalena River
and the runoff from the sub-catchments, it is necessary to consider them acting together.

To assess such combined effect, the model ensemble was generated by combining scenarios
within the range of uncertainty described in the previous sections. Due to computational
constraints, 33 scenarios were produced by combining 3 equally distributed synthetic
hydrographs of the sub-catchments to consider the runoff and 11 equally distributed uncertain
discharges in the Magdalena River.

To model the combined effect, the results from the runoff-only models were used as initial
conditions of the models where the flood is a consequence of the water level in the Magdalena
River. Like in the scenarios 2 and 3, the uncertain map was produced by evaluating Equation
4-8.

43
 Figure 4-17 Probabilistic flood map Scenario 4

4.5 Result analysis

The accuracy of the model results is highly dependent on the quality of the topographical data.
The study area is characterised by interventions that include construction of embankments and
hydraulic structures to drain areas of the wetlands. Figure 4-18 shows a comparison of the
extent of the wetlands of Sabanagrande and Santo Tomás during the years 2000 and 2011.
The red boxes point out probably the most severe modification suffered by the wetlands of the
study area; 100 hectares of the Sabanagrande wetland were drained for agricultural purposes.
In nearly all analysed scenarios such area was modelled as flooded, but since the year 2001
this area of the wetlands remains dry. This result may be due to lack of information about
topographical features as embankments which the SRTM topography does not accurately
represent because of its resolution.

44
Figure 4-18 Wetlands of Sabanagrande and Santo Tomás. Left: March 2000. Right: March 2011. Source:
NASA Landsat program

In all the probabilistic flood maps, the highest probability of flooding corresponds to the area
of the wetlands that is most often flooded during the year. In the cases where the effect of the
runoff from the sub-catchments is included, the flood pattern shows a subtle variation
flooding also the flow path of the creeks.

In the case where only the uncertainty of the model parameters is assessed, it can be observed
that the dikes effectively protect the towns from the floods for the discharge corresponding to
the return period of 100 years.

The uncertain map of the 1-in-100 year flood peak in the Magdalena River (scenario 2) shows
that, with a low probability, protection dikes are overtopped and the towns located next to the
wetlands could be flooded.

The greatest degree of fuzziness among the produced maps occurs in the uncertain map of the
1-in-100 year flood peak in the Magdalena River, indicating that it is the dominant source of
uncertainty in the determination of the flood extent.

Comparing the probabilistic maps where only the uncertainty in the 1-in-100 year flood peak
is considered (scenario 2) and the one where also the runoff is included (scenario 4), it can be
seen that in the latter there is an increase in the probability of flood all over the wetlands area,
the probability of the protection dikes of being overtopped is also higher.

45
Chapter 5. Conclusions and recommendations

5.1 Conclusions
5.1.1 Main findings
The system composed by a reach of the lower Magdalena River next to the municipalities of
Sabanagrande, Santo Tomás y Palmar de Varela (Colombia) and its associated wetlands, can
be modelled using a 1D-Quasi 2D approach with acceptable levels of accuracy and reliability.

SRTM topography from areas of wetlands, ponds or similar water bodies must be used with
caution in flood inundation models, as this data does not provide the actual elevation from the
ground, therefore can affects the performance of the model.

The GLUE framework is appropriate to assess and represent in probabilistic flood maps the
uncertainty of model parameters from river-wetland systems.

In this system, not only the Magdalena River but also the runoff contributions from the
afferent sub-catchments play an important role in the extent of the wetlands and their joint
effect must be considered in any flood modelling process of the area.

The dominant source of uncertainty in the determination of the flood extent for the wetlands
of the study area is the 1-in-100 year flood peak estimation.

Methodology applied here can be used for producing probabilistic flood maps in river-
wetland systems. In particular, the results of this research can be useful for:
 Definition of the hydrological component, to be used in the delimitation of the buffer
riparian zone of this reach of the Magdalena River, according to the existing
Colombian policy.
 Land-use planning and definition of flood risk management strategies within the river
basin plan.

5.1.2 Limitations
Diffuse nature of the runoff in the area and the existing pumping stations were not modelled,
therefore, the actual flood extent, result of that process, may be different from the one
obtained by modelling point sources.

Uncertainty in the downstream boundary condition was not assessed. A significant

uncertainty is expected in that boundary as was derived using discharges based on two
upstream rating curves and not from measurement conducted using other kind of instruments.

The flow domain of the model was obtained merging the SRTM topography of the zone with
ground surveys of the wetlands and the protection dikes. However, due to its characteristics,
vast portions of the study area are permanently flooded. In the SRTM topography such areas
do not represent accurately the ground elevation and the available topography of the wetlands

46
does not cover all those areas. Consequently, model results are affected by inaccuracies in
several of such regions.

Due to the existing conflict of interest in the study area, multiple embankments are
constructed illegally by landowners in order to drain specific areas of the wetlands. Such
embankments are built and destroyed depending on the season of the year. Topographical data
of such structures was not available and therefore they were not modelled.

5.1.3 Recommendations and future work

The available topographical data for some areas of the wetlands is of poor quality; it is
recommendable to analyse the possibility of perform corrections of the SRTM topography
based on the data from the ground surveys. Another possibility is to analyse the effect of the
topographical uncertainty, in that case the topographical data must be considered as a
stochastic variable.

Downstream boundary condition is affected by multiple uncertainties and because of its

location, 38 km from the coast, somehow may be also affected by the tide. It is
recommendable to include the uncertainty of this boundary in the process to produce
probabilistic flood maps of the study area.

It would be recommendable to analyse the variation of the flood extent due to the runoff,
taking into account aspects as the nature diffuse of the phenomenon in the area, existing
pumping stations, uncertainty in the parameters used to obtain the synthetic hydrographs (e.g.
precipitation, loss coefficient, basin area, time of concentration and lag time), and also
consider different return periods.

Uncertainty of the status of the control structures might be also analysed. Likewise, the
development of control strategies for such structures is a priority. The latter task would
require performing a dynamic modelling of a hydrological year and considering the seasonal
variation of the runoff.

The methodologies applied in this research include running numerous simulations in order to
fully explore the uncertainty space. As a consequence, model setup and GIS post-processing
of model outputs are time consuming tasks. The development of an application to automate
such processes could make easier the production of probabilistic flood maps and minimise the
possibility of make mistakes.

47
 References

Apel, H., Thieken, A. H., Merz, B., & Bloschl, G. (2004). Flood risk assessment and
associated uncertainty. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 4, 295-308.
Aronica, G., Hankin, B., & Beven, K. (1998). Uncertainty and equifinality in calibrating in
distributed roughness coefficients in a flood propagation model with limited data.
Hydrological Processes 22(4) , 349-365.
Asselman, N., Bates, P., Woodhead, S., Fewtrell, T., Soares-Frazao, S., Zech, Y., et al.
(2009). Flood inudnation modelling. Model choice and proper application. FLOODsite.
Bates, P., Horritt, M., Aronica, G., & Beven, K. (2004). Bayesian updating of flood
inundation likelihood conditioned on flood extent data. Hydrological Processes 18 ,
3347-3370.
Bates, P., Wilson, M., Horritt, M., Mason, D., Holden, N., & Curne, A. (2006). Reach scale
floodplain inundation dynamics observed using airborne synthetic aperture radar
imagery: data analysis and modelling. Journal of Hydrology 328 , 306-318.
Bhattacharya, B. (2012). Estimation of extremes. [class handout]. UNESCO-IHE. Delft, The
Netherlands.
Beven, K., & Binley, A. (1992). The future of distributed models: model calibration and
uncertainty prediction. Hydrological Processes , 279-298.
Chatterjee, C., Forster, S., & Bronstert, A. (2008). Comparison of hydrodynamic models of
different complexities to model floods with emergency storage areas. Hydrological
Processes , 4695-4709.
Chow, V.T. (1959) Open-Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Clarke, R. T. (1999). Uncertainty in the estimation of mean annual flood due to rating-curve
indefinition. Journal of Hydrology , 185–190.
Corporación Autónoma Regional del Atlántico. (2007). Documentación del estado de las
cuencas hidrográficas en el departamento del Atlántico. Barranquilla.
Corporación Autónoma Regional del Atlántico, CORMAGDALENA & Cooperación
Internacional Colombia. (2007). Plan de ordenamiento y manejo de la cuenca
hidrográfica del río Magdalena en el deaprtamento de Atlántico. Barranquilla.
Corporación Autónoma Regional del Atlántico, Universidad del Magdalena &
CORMAGDALENA. (2012). Ajuste del plan de ordenación y manejo del complejo de
humedales de la vertiente occidental del río Magdalena en el departamento del Atlántico
y determinación de la ronda hídrica de los humedales de Sabanagrande, Santo Tomás y
Palmar de Varela. Barranquilla.
Di Baldassarre, G., Castellarin, A., Montanari, A., & Brath, A. (2009). Probability weighted
hazard maps for comparing different flood risk Management strategies: a case study.
Natural Hazards , 479-496.
Di Baldassarre, G., Laio, F., & Montanari, A. (2011). Effect of observations errors on the
uncertainty of design floods. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 42-42 , 85-90.
Di Baldassarre, G., Schumann, G., Bates, P., Freer, J., & Beven, K. (2010). Flood-plain
mapping: a critical discussion of deterministic and probabilistic approaches.
Hydrological Sciences 55(3) , 364-376.
Domeneghetti, A., Castellarin, A., & Brath, A. (2012). Assessing rating-curve uncertainty
and its effects on hydraulic model calibration. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
16 , 1191-1202.
Horritt, M. S. (2006). A methodology for the validation of uncertain flood inundation
models. Journal of Hydrology , 153-165.
48
Horritt, M. S., Di Baldassarre, G., Bates, P. D., & Brath, A. (2007). Comparing the
performance of a 2-D finite element and a 2-D finite volume of floodplain inundation
using airborne SAR imagery. Hydrological Processes , 2745-2759.
Horritt, M., & Bates, P. (2002). Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting
river flood inundation. Journal of Hydrology , 87-89.
Kalyanapu, A. J., Judi, D. R., McPherson, T. N., & Burian, S. J. (2012). Monte Carlo-based
flood modelling framework for estimating probability weighted flood risk. Journal of
Flood Risk Management 5, 37-48.
Kuczera, G. (1996). Correlated rating curve error in flood frequency inference. Water
Resources Research 32 , 2119-2127.
Lai, X. J., Huang, Q., & Jiang, J. H. (2012). Wetland inundation modelling of Dongting
Lake using two-dimensional hydrodynamic model on unstructured. Procedia
Environmental Sciences 13 , 1091-1098.
Martini, F., & Loat, R. (2007). Handbook on good practices for flood mapping in Europe.
Paris.
Meire, D., De Doncker, L., Declercq, F., Buis, K., Troch, P., & Verhoeven, R. (2010).
Modelling river-floodplain interaction during flood propagation . Natural Hazards , 111-
121.
Merz, B., & Thieken, A. (2005). Separating natural and epistemic uncertainty in flood
frequency analysis. Journal of Hydrology , 114-132.
Merz, B., Thieken, A. H., & Gocth, M. (2007). Flood risk mapping at the local scale:
concepts and challenges. In S. Begum, M. Stive, & J. W. Hall, Flood Risk Management
in Europe: Innovation in Policy and Practive (pp. 231-251). Dordrecht: Springer.
Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sotenible & Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
(2012). Guía para el acotamiento de las rondas hídricas de los cuerpos de agua de
acuerdo a lo establecido en el artículo 206 de la Ley 1450 de 2011 - Plan Nacional de
Desarrollo. Bogotá.
Moore, P. D. (2006). Wetlands. Hong Kong: Chelsea House Publishers.
Pappenberger, F., Beven, K., Horritt, M., & Blazkova, S. (2005). Uncertainty in the
calibration of effective roughness parameters in HEC-RAS using inundation and
downstream level observations. Journal of Hydrology 302 , 46-69.
Pappenberger, F., Harvey, H., Beven, K., Hall, J., Romanowicz, R., & Smith, P. (2006a).
Implementation plan for library tools for uncertainty evaluation.
Pappenberger, F., Matgen, P., Beven, K., Henry, J., Pfister, L., & Fraipont de, P. (2006b).
Influence of uncertain boundary conditions and model structure on flood inundation
prodictions. Advances in Water Resources 29 , 1430-1449.
Prinos, P., Kortenhaus, A., Swerpel, B., Jiménez, J. A., & Samuels, P. (2008). Review of
flood hazard mapping. FLOODsite.
Rodríguez, E., Morries, C., & Belz, E. (2006). A Global Assessment of the SRTM
Performance. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing , 249-260.
Santos, A. C., Cubillos, C. E., & Vargas, A. (2008). Modelación Hidráulica de un sector de
río caudaloso con derivaciones usando HEC-RAS. Avances en recursos Hídráulicos 17 ,
45-54.
Smemoe, C. M., Nelson, E., Zundel, A., & Wooddruff, M. (2007). Demonstrating floodplain
uncertainty using flood probability maps. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 43 , 359-371.
Tuteja, N. K., & Shaikh, M. (2009). Hydraulic modelling of the spatio-temporal flood
inundation patterns of the Koondrook Perricoota Forest Wetlands-The Living Murray.
18th world IMACS/MODSIM Congress, (pp. 4248-4254). Cairns - Australia.

49
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Wetlands Overview. Retrieved
March 15, 2013, from
http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/upload/2005_01_12_wetlands_overview.pdf
van Alphen, J., Martini, F., Loat, R., Slomp, R., & Passchier, R. (2009). Flood risk mapping
in Europe, experiences and best practices. Journal of Flood Risk Management 2 , 285-
292.
Werner, M., Blazkova, S., & Petr, J. (2005). Spatially distributed observations in
constraining inundation modelling uncertainties. Hydrological Processes , 3081-3096.

50