Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Fitch, W. N.

Publications and source records attributed to Fitch, W. N..

Test of Landsat-based urban hydrologic modeling

A description is presented of the Fourmile Run Study which has been conducted to evaluate Landsat remote sensing as a method of defining input parameters required by urban hydrologic planning models. The evaluation was a part of water resource planning investigations concerning the Fourmile Run Watershed. The investigations involved an examination of the relationship between urban development and flooding for the Fourmile Run Basin. The study indicates that Landsat data provide a suitable source of land cover data for investigations conducted at the planning level. An estimation of the percentage of impervious area on the basis of Landsat data is less expensive than a use of aerial photos in planning studies. Only limited success could be achieved when Landsat data were used for smaller areal units.

Jackson, T. J.↗

A comparison between conventional and LANDSAT based hydrologic modeling: The Four Mile Run case study

Models designed to support the hydrologic studies associated with urban water resources planning require input parameters that are defined in terms of land cover. Estimating the land cover is a difficult and expensive task when drainage areas larger than a few sq. km are involved. Conventional and LANDSAT based methods for estimating the land cover based input parameters required by hydrologic planning models were compared in a case study of the 50.5 sq. km (19.5 sq. mi) Four Mile Run Watershed in Virginia. Results of the study indicate that the LANDSAT based approach is highly cost effective for planning model studies. The conventional approach to define inputs was based on 1:3600 aerial photos, required 110 man-days and a total cost of $14,000. The LANDSAT based approach required 6.9 man-days and cost $2,350. The conventional and LANDSAT based models gave similar results relative to discharges and estimated annual damages expected from no flood control, channelization, and detention storage alternatives.

Ragan, R. M.↗