{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Southeast Texas tropical mid-latitude rainfall and flood event, October 1994","Authors":"","Publication date":"1995","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-17-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000115156"},"Pages":["GB\n1399.4\n.T4\nS68\nNatural Disaster Survey Report\n1995\nSoutheast Texas Tropical Mid-Latitude\nRainfall and Flood Event\nOctober 1994\n05/18/89 20:32\nSTM PRECIP 80 STP\n124 NM 1.1 NM RES\n10/19/94 21:48\nRDA:KHGX 29/28/19N\n115 FT 95/04/44W\nMAX= 17.5 IN\nMODE A\n21\nCNTR\n0DEG\nONM\nBEG=10/15/94 00:11\n(END=10/19/94 21:50\nND\n0.0 IN\n0.1\n1.0\n2.0\n3.0\n4.0\n5.0\n6.0\n7.0\n8.0\n9.0\n10.0\n11.0\n13.0\n15.0\nMAG=1X FL= 1 COM=1\nAND\nU.S. Department of Commerce\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nNOAA\nNational Weather Service, Southern Region\nFort Worth, Texas\nOF\nJanuary 1995","EATHER\nOF\nCOMMUNITY\nAvenue\nSTATES\nOF\nNatural Disaster Survey Report\nSoutheast Texas Tropical Mid-Latitude\nRainfall and Flood Event\nOctober 1994\nGB\n1399.4\nJanuary 1995\n.T4\nS68\n1995\nLIBRARY\nMAR\n2000\nNational Weather Service\nNational Oceanic &\nDr. Elbert W. Friday, Jr., Assistant Administrator\nAtmospheric Administration\nU.S. Dept. of Commerce\nNational Weather Service, Southern Region\nHarry S. Hassel, Director","PREFACE\nPerhaps to the casual observer it would seem that \"unusual\" weather events are occurring\nroutinely, and if so, is there not an oxymoron somewhere in this? After all, was it not just\nrecently that we were all relieved to be free of \"The Flood of the Century\", that great Upper\nMississippi River flood of the summer of 1993? And then just last July 4 Tropical Storm\nAlberto brought more than twenty inches of rain to parts of southwest Georgia, southeastern\nAlabama, and the Florida panhandle, with resulting flooding beyond local residents'\nmemories. Now has come this extreme rain and flood event in southeast Texas, with\nrainfalls approaching thirty inches in two days, and flooding to match.\nOur immediate concern is not to place these events in their appropriate perspective\nconcerning climate and frequencies-that is important and soon needs to be done-but to\nquickly align our services to the present-day needs of the impacted public we are serving,\nand to function better within our organizational framework to meet those user needs. That\nis why the Survey Team was assembled and charged with submitting this report.\nI would like to thank the Survey Team for its rapid call-to-duty and energetic approach to\nthe job at hand. The report faithfully traces the spirit of professional objectivity established\nby the many such surveys conducted previously, and we plan to place into practice as many\nof the report's recommendations as possible.\nHarry S. Hassel\nNovember 1994\nii","FOREWORD\nThis report on the October 1994 heavy rain and severe flooding in southeast Texas is\npredicated largely upon a week of personal interviews with the officials at several NWS\noffices which dealt directly with the event as it unfolded, and the officials from several\nagencies outside the NWS which also dealt directly with the event while discharging their\nown particular agencies' missions.\nThe team is grateful to the following NWS officials, and their staffs, for the courtesies\nextended during the visitation and interview phase of the survey, and for their attentive\nassistance, when requested, during the logistical planning for the survey.\nWGRFC Fort Worth - HIC Dave Morris\nNWSFO Austin/San Antonio - MIC Al Dreumont\nNWSO Houston/Galveston - MIC Bill Read\nLikewise the following agencies were gracious in receiving the Survey Team and their\ncooperation is sincerely appreciated.\nLake Control Unit, Ft. Worth District, USCE, Ft. Worth, TX\nHarris County Flood Control District, Houston, TX\nSan Jacinto River Authority, Conroe, TX\nThe Team recognizes that not every NWS office which had concerns and involvement with\nthis event was visited, and that other external agencies could have also been included in the\nvisitation phase. Unfortunately, practical considerations of time made an exhaustive\nvisitation schedule impossible.\nWe hope the findings and recommendations of this survey will serve as a guide post to a\nbetter service. It is not unreasonable that during this time of such rapid and all-embracing\nchange within the NWS, we take occasional pause to check that we're still on the highway\nto positive change that we set out to travel!\nThe Survey Team\nDTS:jbm\niii","TABLE OF CONTENTS\nPage\nii\nPreface\niii\nForeword\nvi\nAcronyms\nviii\nThe Southern Region Survey Team\nix\nExecutive Summary\nSection 0\nPreliminary Meteorological Synopsis\n1\n2\nSection 1\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers\nFt. Worth District Lake Control Unit\nSection 2\nNWS West Gulf River Forecast Center\n4\nFt. Worth, Texas\nNWS Austin/San Antonio NEXRAD Weather Service\n8\nSection 3\nForecast Office New Braunfels, Texas\nNWS Houston/Galveston NEXRAD Weather Service Office\n11\nSection 4\nDickinson, Texas\n15\nSection 5\nHarris County Flood Control District\nHouston, Texas\n17\nSection 6\nSan Jacinto River Authority\nConroe, Texas\n19\nSection 7\nWSR-88D Performance\n22\nSection 8\nSurvey Team Wrap-up\n23\nReferences\nAppendix A\nNWS Office Staffings - October 1994\nA-1\nHours of Operation of WGRFC October 15-24, 1994\nB-1\nAppendix B\niv","Appendix C\nMaps of Areas of Responsibility\nC-1\nAppendix D\nTexas Counties Impacted\nD-1\nAppendix E\nFlood of October 1994 Deaths\nE-1\nAppendix F\nProvisional NWS Cooperative Observer Daily\nF-1\nRainfall, October 16-19, 1994\nAppendix G\nNWS Daily Rainfall Observations\nG-1\nAvailable to WGRFC\nAppendix H\nProvisional NWS Cooperative Observer Hourly\nH-1\nRainfall, October 16-18, 1994\nAppendix I\nProvisional USGS Discharges/Stages\nI-1\nOctober 1994\nAppendix J\nProvisional Record USGS Discharges/Stages\nJ-1\nOctober 1994\nAppendix K\nChronological Lists of Forecast Products\nK-1\nFrom WGRFC\nAppendix L\nExternal Points of Contact, WGRFC\nL-1\nAppendix M\nSan Jacinto River Forecasts from WGRFC\nM-1\nAppendix N\nFlood/Flash Flood/River Products from\nN-1\nNWSFO Austin/San Antonio\nAppendix O\nFlood/Flash Flood/River Products\nO-1\nfrom NWSO Houston/Galveston\nAppendix P\nSpecial Excessive Rainfall\nP-1\nPotential Outlooks from NMC\nAppendix Q\nSatellite Derived Precipitation Estimates\nQ-1\nAppendix R\nNWSO Houston/Galveston WSR-88D\nR-1\nStorm Precipitation Estimates\nOctober 15-19, 1994\nV","ACRONYMS\nABRFC\nArkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center\nAFOS\nAutomation of Field Operations and Services\nALERT\nAutomated Local Evaluation in Real Time\nAPI\nAntecedent Precipitation Index\nASOS\nAutomated Surface Observing System\nAWIPS\nAdvanced Weather Interactive Processing System\nCDT\nCentral Daylight Time\nCFS\nCubic Feet per Second\nCIAMS\nCooperative Institute for Applied Meteorological Studies\nCOMET\nCooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education, and Training\nCWA\nCounty Warning Area\nDOD\nDepartment Of Defense\nEOC\nEmergency Operations Center\nHAS\nHydrometeorological Analysis and Support\nHCFCD\nHarris County Flood Control District\nHIC\nHydrologist-in-Charge\nHSA\nHydrologic Service Area\nIFP\nInteractive Forecast Program\nLCRA\nLower Colorado River Authority\nLCU\nLake Control Unit\nLMRFC\nLower Mississippi River Forecast Center\nMAR\nModernization and Associated Restructuring\nMIC\nMeteorologist-in-Charge\nNAS\nNational Advanced System (brand name)\nNAWAS\nNAtional WArning System\nNCDC\nNational Climatic Data Center\nNEXRAD\nNEXt Generation RADar\nNGVD\nNational Geodetic Vertical Datum\nNIDS\nNEXRAD Information Dissemination Service\nNMC\nNational Meteorological Center\nNOAA\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nNWR\nNOAA Weather Radio\nNWS\nNational Weather Service\nNWSFO\nNEXRAD Weather Service Forecast Office\nNWSO\nNEXRAD Weather Service Office\nNWSRFS\nNational Weather Service River Forecast System\nNWWS\nNOAA Weather Wire Service\nOSF\nOperational Support Facility\nPUP\nPrincipal User Processor\nQPF\nQuantitative Precipitation Forecast\nRDA\nRadar Data Acquisition\nRFC\nRiver Forecast Center\nvi","RJE\nRemote Job Entry\nRPG\nRadar Product Generator\nSJRA\nSan Jacinto River Authority\nSRH\nSouthern Region Headquarters\nTLETS\nTexas Law Enforcement Telecommunications System\nUCP\nUnit Control Position\nUSCE\nUnited States (Army) Corps of Engineers\nUSGS\nUnited States Geological Survey\nVAD\nVelocity Azimuth Display\nVME\nVersa Module Eurocard\nWCM\nWarning and Coordination Meteorologist\nWFO\nWeather Forecast Office\nWGRFC\nWest Gulf River Forecast Office\nWSFO\nWeather Service Forecast Office\nWSO\nWeather Service Office\nWSR-88D\nWeather Surveillance Radar - 1988 Doppler\nvii","THE SOUTHERN REGION SURVEY TEAM\nFollowing a severe weather event, such as heavy rain and extreme flooding, a survey team\nmay be assembled by the NWS Regional Director to evaluate the effectiveness of the\nRegion's programs in dealing with the event and providing service consistent with the\nmission of the National Weather Service. Following is the team that was assembled for this\nOctober 1994 event in southeast Texas.\nTEAM MEMBERS\nLeader, David T. Smith, Regional Hydrologist, Southern Region Headquarters,\nFt. Worth, TX 817-334-2674 (W/SR2)\nStephen K. Rinard, NEXRAD Program Manager, Systems Operations Division,\nSouthern Region Headquarters, Ft. Worth, TX 817-334-2655 (W/SR42x1)\nRussell (Rusty) Pfost, Science and Operations Officer, NWSFO Jackson, MS\n601-965-4638\nJohn Pescatore, Service Hydrologist, NWSO Morristown, TN\n615-586-6429\n*Tim O'Bannon, Radar Meteorologist, Applications Branch, WSR-88D Operational\nSupport Facility, Norman, OK 405-366-6530, ext. 248\n*Visited NWSO Houston/Galveston Only\nviii","EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nAn October 1994 tropical mid-latitude rainfall event of unusual proportion occurred over\na 30 to 35 county area of southeast Texas resulting in catastrophic flooding. The intense\nrainfalls, which totaled over 25 inches in several closed isohyetal centers and more than eight\ninches over much of the affected area, caused terrific problems as drainage capabilities, both\nnatural and man-made, were overcome by the copious downpours. Resulting runoff quickly\ngathered into classic river floods, especially over the San Jacinto, Lower Trinity, and Lower\nBrazos Valleys, and to a somewhat lesser extent over another half-dozen Texas rivers.\nThe triggering rainfalls commenced during late afternoon on Sunday, October 16, and\ncontinued for about 60 hours all together, moving only slightly within this interval from an\ninitially affected area of about a dozen Texas counties to the final affected area of around\n35 counties. The death toll, which easily could have been greater, has been determined at\neighteen, half of which were vehicle-related.\nThe meteorological situation Sunday revealed a weak warm front lying indistinctly in\nsoutheast Texas, with considerably above normal low level moisture, and a deep trough to\nthe west furnishing significant energy impulses. A likely contributing factor to the eventual\nseverity of the flooding was Hurricane Rosa, an eastern Pacific storm which had moved\nquickly from the Mexican Pacific coast northeastward over southern Texas 36 to 48 hours\nprior, leaving one to four inches of antecedent rainfall over southeast Texas, and possibly\ntrailing wakes of mid and upper level moisture.\nThe Regional Director of Southern Region, NWS, requested the formation of a Regional\nSurvey Team at the conclusion of the episode. This included the explosive rains of the first\n48-60 hours and subsequent record-setting floods which persisted for about a week, until\nMonday, October 24. His charge to the team was to focus on examining the internal\ncoordination and cooperation among involved NWS offices and the level of service provided\nto the agency's external users.\nA four-person Southern Region Survey Team was identified by noon, October 21, and the\nteam assembled in Fort Worth at Southern Region Headquarters on Monday morning,\nOctober 24. The team spent the balance of the week interviewing officials at a number of\naffected NWS offices across the state, as well as officials of several agencies external to\nNWS who were involved in the event and depended upon NWS for services.\nThe Survey Team's findings indicated that NWS products and services to external users were\ngenerally considered at least adequate and often better; no outstanding complaints were\nvoiced, and examples of exemplary service were pointed out. The internal coordination and\ncooperation among the various NWS offices involved with this event was commendable\nconsidering the agency's transition process which is affecting its people, technology, and\norganizational structure.\nix","One theme found throughout the survey, however, was that an earlier recognition and\nexplicit identification of an impending significant hydrometeorological event, even by 6 to\n12 hours, would likely have resulted in more effective overall services, both internal and\nexternal to NWS.\nAs a final indication of the extreme nature of this rain and flood event, it is to be noted that\npreliminary estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey place the maximum flood discharge of\nthe San Jacinto River below Lake Houston at about 1.6 times the 100-year-frequency flood\nflow. That agency's direct measurement there, of 354,000 cubic feet per second, is believed\nto be the greatest single river flow ever directly measured in the state of Texas. (It is true\nthat greater discharges have occurred in the past; none of those were determined by direct\nmeasurement.)","SECTION 0\nPRELIMINARY METEOROLOGICAL SYNOPSIS\nA broad longwave trough was positioned over the Rocky Mountain states and the west, with\nsouth to southwest upper atmospheric flow across Texas. Hurricane Rosa, an eastern Pacific\nstorm, moved rapidly northward across Mexico and eastern Texas October 14-15, and was\nonly peripherally associated with the heavy rain synoptic situation. However, the remains\nof Rosa outlined a tropical plume of mid and high level moisture extending from the eastern\nPacific north to eastern Texas. The presence of such a tropical moisture plume has been\npreviously linked with flash flood producing rains by Scofield and others, and is discussed\nin the Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education, and Training\n(COMET) heavy rain module.\nA very weak front moved northward from the Gulf of Mexico on Saturday and became\nnearly stationary on Sunday, extending roughly from Austin to College Station and\nGalveston. As the powerful low in the Rockies ejected energy disturbances northeastward\nbehind the remains of Rosa, rain developed along this front. The lift associated with the\nfrontal boundary, combined with moisture provided by strong southeast surface flow from\nthe Gulf of Mexico, and the tropical plume from the south, produced a focusing mesoscale\nboundary for the subsequent torrential rainfall.\nMany of the meteorological characteristics long associated with disastrous flood events were\npresent: precipitable water was close to 200% of normal across east Texas, a strong moist\nand unstable low level inflow, a tropical moisture plume, strong upper level difluence, and\na mesoscale focusing mechanism (first, a weak warm front, then a mesoscale outflow\nboundary). The synoptic situation included a deep trough over the Rockies with weak,\nsubtle short waves rotating through the base of the trough. While the deep trough suggested\na Maddox defined synoptic type flood event, forecasters at NWSFO Austin/San Antonio and\nNWSO Houston/Galveston generally agreed that the resulting situation most closely\nresembled a Maddox mesohigh type event.\nNWSO Houston/Galveston's WSR-88D products vividly showed strong low level inflow (on\nthe VAD Wind Profile the 2,000 to 3,000 foot level winds were 50+ knots!) from the Gulf\nof Mexico to the southeast intersecting the mesoscale outflow boundary. The resultant\nconvection produced widespread 20 to 30 inch rains in two days across parts of southeast\nTexas, resulting in 18 deaths and disaster declarations for 35 Texas counties.\n1","SECTION 1\nU. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\nFORT WORTH DISTRICT - LAKE CONTROL UNIT (LCU)\nFORT WORTH, TEXAS\nDISCUSSION - Fort Worth District's Lake Control Unit (LCU) is located in the Federal\nBuilding on Taylor Street in downtown Fort Worth. For nearly twenty years the LCU and\nthe West Gulf River Forecast Center (WGRFC) were \"collocated\" in adjacent offices on the\nbuilding's tenth floor. A very close working relationship between the two offices was a\nconsequence of their proximity and shared mission-related interests. The primary\nresponsibilities of the LCU include monitoring ongoing weather conditions, routinely\ncollecting hydrometeorological data and reservoir conditions from the District's 27 reservoirs\nin Texas, and determining operations at those reservoirs in order that they furnish optimum\nflood control and protection for all interests affected by those reservoir operations.\nLCU personnel were interviewed by the Survey Team on Monday, October 24.\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nFinding 1.1 - The WGRFC, along with the NWSFO Dallas/Fort Worth, moved into new\nquarters in north Fort Worth, about 7 miles distant from the Federal Building in November\n1993. The former collocation of WGRFC and LCU made coordination and data sharing\neasy. Corps personnel would \"drop in\" to the WGRFC, and also to the WSFO, to look at\nmapped data or radar products. Discussions on different types of forecasts, both\nmeteorological and hydrological, were direct, person to person. Of particular interest to the\nLCU were WGRFC-developed rainfall maps, inflow forecasts to District reservoirs, and\ndownstream forecasts of river conditions which were affected by reservoir operations. In\naddition, staffs of both the NWS offices and the District knew each other personally. As\nchanges in NWS programs occurred, LCU staff members were notified directly. Physical\nseparation of the offices, brought about by the NWS offices' move, has resulted in a need\nto establish effective new coordination procedures.\nRecommendation 1.1 - Because coordination with the LCU is mutually beneficial to both\nagencies, an effort should be made to re-establish the once close working relationship\nbetween the LCU and WGRFC. An annual meeting, at least, in which personnel from both\noffices discuss mutual concerns should take place. Forecast products, data collections,\nmeans of inter-office communications, organizational changes, and operating rules should\nbe reviewed during these meetings. Renewal of personal contacts and amicable working\nrelationships should be an encouraged goal.\nFinding 1.2 - The District's project office at Sam Rayburn Reservoir, a reservoir in\nsoutheast Texas on the Neches River affected by these October rains, requested staffing by\nthe LCU at 1:00 AM Monday morning, October 17, and a LCU staff member went to the\nLCU office at that time. NWS was not made aware of this.\n2","Recommendation 1.2 - When hydrometeorological conditions at a District project mandate\nextra staffing of the LCU, WGRFC should be made aware of this in order to plan and\nrespond appropriately.\nFinding 1.3 - The District's LCU does not presently have access to NWS Doppler radar\n(WSR-88D) data.\nRecommendation 1.3 - WGRFC and LCU should develop a long-range plan for the\nprovision of eventual WGRFC-derived stage III-mosaicked WSR-88D data to the LCU. In\nthe meantime, the District should be encouraged to subscribe to the NEXRAD Information\nDissemination Service (NIDS).\nFinding 1.4 - The District's LCU, as well as its Public Affairs Office, received many phone\ninquiries regarding river forecasts during these October floods. Forecasting river stages is\na function of NWS, not the District, SO the District was not able to respond directly to these\ninquiries, but made many referrals to the NWS. Understandably, NWS lines were often\ntied-up during this stressful time.\nRecommendation 1.4 - NWS forecasts for flooding rivers should be made available to the\nDistrict as soon as possible so these forecasts, appropriately identified as NWS products,\nmay be used in answering phone inquiries.\nConcluding Discussion - NWS Modernization and Associated Restructuring (MAR) plans\ncalled without exception for a collocation of all NWS RFCs with their WFO counterparts.\nDefinite advantages will stem from this. It is also true that other traditional collocations in\ncertain instances have been sundered as the MAR plan has been carried out, and there are\nsome disadvantages to these. This WGRFC-LCU collocation sundering is such an example,\nand the agencies affected must in all cases attempt to take a pro-active role in minimizing\ndisadvantages accruing from these diminished working relationships.\n3","SECTION 2\nNWS WEST GULF RIVER FORECAST CENTER (WGRFC)\nFORT WORTH, TEXAS\nDISCUSSION - The West Gulf River Forecast Center (WGRFC) in Fort Worth, Texas is\nthe sole RFC responsible for forecasting rivers in the area affected by these October rains.\nThe RFC's total forecast area in Texas is shown in Appendix C. WGRFC also has forecast\narea in New Mexico and Colorado, and parts of the Rio Grande drainage lie in Mexico.\nIts forecast area is explicitly defined as comprising all drainage between and including the\nRio Grande eastward to and including the Sabine River. The WGRFC staff, recently\nincreased in preparation for modernized RFC operations, is listed in Appendix A. Its total\npresent staff of 14 is only one position shy of its fully-modernized complement of 15.\nThe State of Texas' Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) purchased four (Pre-AWIPS)\nworkstations for the WGRFC, which were delivered in December 1993. These workstations\nprovide capability for operating the NWSRFS's new Interactive Forecast Program (IFP) and\nwill later provide capability for mosaicking NWS and DOD WSR-88D rainfall estimations\nand providing these estimations into the WGRFC river forecasting process. However, the\nmosaicking process is not yet a developed WGRFC capability. The WGRFC does have IFP\noperational capability, but has not completed a full transition to the NWSRFS Sacramento\nmodel, hence several river basins contain non-calibrated, \"regional\" parameters.\nConsequently, the IFP, which is being set up to use the Sacramento model, will give\ndiffering results for river systems forecasted through the traditional API/NWSRFS \"batch\nmode\" processing on the remote job entry (RJE) NAS 9000 system (physically located in\nSuitland, MD). Nonetheless, while the NAS 9000 RJE batch-mode of preparing river\nforecasts was the primary method used by WGRFC on some rivers during these October\nfloods, the IFP, executed on the WGRFC in-house workstations, was available for at least\nlimited types of applications on all rivers, and would have afforded advantages in speed and\nflexibility of forecasting operations.\nThe WGRFC was visited by the Survey Team on Monday, October 24, and again on\nTuesday, October 25. RFC staff were interviewed by the team on Tuesday.\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nFinding 2.1 - Two HAS forecasters departed Fort Worth Monday morning, October 17, for\na familiarization trip through Louisiana and were not available through the week for the\nflood event. The Senior HAS forecaster worked normal duty hours during the week. The\nHAS function at WGRFC is not yet fully operational and is still considered to be in a\ndevelopmental mode.\nRecommendation 2.1 - Familiarization trips to other offices and the field are important and\nprovide opportunities to share information and methods, as well as helping to become\n4","acquainted with the RFC area. However, such trips should be secondary to operations\nduring a flood emergency such as this one. The WGRFC HAS functions should be\nincorporated more into the office operations, providing WSR-88D rainfall estimations to the\nextent possible, and coordination with WFO forecasters concerning amount and duration\nof additional rainfall. Close interaction between HAS forecasters and hydrologists at\nWGRFC should be encouraged.\nFinding 2.2 - The WGRFC, although working extended hours Monday and Tuesday,\nOctober 17-18, did not go to full 24-hour operation until Wednesday, October 19. See\nAppendix B. In addition, a total of 233 hours of (extra) overtime or compensatory time\nwere worked by the WGRFC staff during this flood event. However, hours of extra time\nby the individuals on the staff varied from 4 to 46, most occurring in the 7-day period\nOctober 17-23.\nRecommendation 2.2 - It must be recognized early that when a major flood situation exists\nor is developing, a decision for 24-hour staffing by the RFC must be made quickly. Once\nthe need for 24-hour staffing is evident, a schedule for working in that mode which more\nevenly distributes the at-work demand on staff members should be implemented. When\nindividuals work in excess of 12-hours per day (average) for nearly a week, fatigue impairs\nneeded critical judgement capability.\nFinding 2.3 - No quantitative precipitation forecast (QPF) support was sought, nor offered,\nfrom involved NWSFOs during this heavy rain event. Special Excessive Rainfall Potential\nOutlooks from NMC (see Appendix P) called for heavy rains to continue past Sunday\nevening. Several WGRFC stage forecasts, especially for the severely impacted San Jacinto\nRiver Basin, were deficient through the rainfall duration period. See Appendix M.\nRecommendation 2.3 - Limited use of QPF has been proven beneficial to river forecasts\nin numerous situations in the past. With the HAS forecasters as a vehicle, WFOs in critical\nflood situations should be encouraged to provide short time scale (less than 24 hours) QPF\nfor hydrologists to use in QPF-included contingency forecasts. Operational hydrologic\nforecasters should also consider such QPF when issuing flood forecasts that will be affected\nappreciably by continued heavy rain. The San Jacinto River forecasts in this instance\npresent just such a case. A qualifier statement should be included with such forecasts when\nrainfall is continuing, and prompt updates of such forecasts should be issued as data become\navailable.\nFinding 2.4 - The WGRFC was reluctant in some cases to use the IFP capability during this\nflooding event due to problems with transfer of observed data to the IFP and also because\nsome regional parameters used to initialize the IFP capability yet require basin-specific\ncalibrations for optimum forecasting capability. (To be fair, it is also true the IFP was used\nas the primary mode of developing river forecasts on some of the flooded rivers, especially\nthe Trinity and Neches Rivers.)\n5","Recommendation 2.4 - Continue calibration of basin parameters as quickly as possible, and\nensure to the extent practical that IFP-to-database linkages are operationally sound, so the\nIFP can be used to full forecast advantage as soon as possible. Adequate river forecasts,\nespecially for a river basin like the San Jacinto, will only be made by using IFP capability.\nTraditional batch-mode RJE operations will rarely provide adequate forecasts for the San\nJacinto River Basin, and other rapidly responding ones, during heavy rain episodes like this\nOctober event.\nFinding 2.5 - WGRFC did not notify the NMC Senior Duty Meteorologist nor the Office\nof Hydrology's Operations and Data Systems Group for the purpose of having a critical\nflood day declared for WGRFC RJE operations at the NAS 9000 Computer Operations\nFacility. (NMC's RJE service to WGRFC was acceptable throughout the forecast period.\nHowever, not declaring a critical flood day was taking an unnecessary risk.)\nRecommendation 2.5 - The HIC or his designate upon assessing that a potential critical\nflood situation either exists or is imminent, and that needed river forecasts are essential to\nsaving lives and property, should notify the NMC and Office of Hydrology as instructed in\nthe Office of Hydrology's manual Organized Operational Panic System, dated February 23,\n1994.\nFinding 2.6 - The list of river forecasts issued by WGRFC to its Hydrologic Service Areas\n(HSA), Appendix K, indicates that prior to Wednesday the composite forecast product,\nfurnishing all the river basin forecasts for a HSA, was sent, rather than sending individual\nriver basin forecasts. Even though Appendix K shows that frequently telephone calls were\nsoon placed to the HSA conveying the individual basin forecasts, hard copy individual basin\nforecasts should also be provided as quickly as possible. Holding river basin forecasts until\nthe composite product can be assembled frequently delays getting vital forecasts to the HSA.\nRecommendation 2.6 - During periods of severe flooding and especially when conditions\nare changing rapidly, the RFC should send individual river basin forecasts to the appropriate\nHSA as quickly as possible. Composite products are better suited to the routine, non-\nextreme, river situations.\nFinding 2.7 - Data from the San Bernard River is limited to manual, one reading a day\nstage. No rainfall in real time is available for the Lower Neches basin, including Sour Lake.\nThis limits the effectiveness and accuracy of WGRFC forecasts.\nRecommendation 2.7 - An effort should be made by the appropriate Service Hydrologist\nto improve data collection in these basins.\nFinding 2.8 - WGRFC frequently issues forecasts of the following sort: \"River to rise to\nflood stage tomorrow\", or \"River to rise to bankfull by Friday\", or \"River to rise to near 5\nfeet Wednesday\". None of these types of forecasts identify a crest nor do they, in some\ncases, provide information beyond 24 hours, or at best 2 or 3 days. These forecasts provide\ninsufficient information to the user.\n6","Recommendation 2.8 - It is understood that ongoing rains, or crests more than a few days\ninto the future introduce added forecast risk. Nonetheless, additional forecast information\nbeyond the next 24 hours, or even the next 2 days, is important. In addition, some\ninformation of expected rise is needed, even if the crest is still in the \"distant future\".\nWhere crests are expected to occur within the next 4 to 5 days, those crest forecasts should\nbe provided. Where the rivers are expected to continue rising through the next 4 to 5 days,\nforecasts for those rises should be provided. WGRFC should conform with this\nrecommendation now; and the recommendation is also intended to be consistent with\nmodernized RFC operations, when numeric time-series of stage forecasts will normally be\nissued.\nCONCLUDING DISCUSSION - The Survey Team's observation is that the WGRFC was\noperating largely in a reactive versus a true forecast mode, especially during the early half\nof this flooding episode. This is understandable, given the extreme rainfalls, the many\nproblems with reliable and sufficient data, a staff in modernization transition, and the\nnormal chaos always attending events of this sort. Nonetheless, the Survey Team also\nbelieves that having a third shift (24-hour staffing), a critical flood day declaration, QPF-\nbased contingency forecasts, HAS forecasters' evaluation of ongoing rainfall, near-term QPF,\nand a more operational IFP could have contributed to placing WGRFC in a considerably\nmore pro-active mode. A commendable dedication to duty was demonstrated by the\nWGRFC staff.\n7","SECTION 3\nNWS AUSTIN/SAN ANTONIO NEXRAD WEATHER FORECAST SERVICE OFFICE\nNEW BRAUNFELS, TEXAS\nDISCUSSION - This office, formerly WSFO San Antonio and located in San Antonio,\nmoved to its present location in New Braunfels, Texas during June 1994. The staff\nadequately reflects the traditional area management system. See Appendix A. NWSFO\nAustin/San Antonio still has formal watch and forecast responsibility for all of south Texas,\nincluding NWSO Houston/Galveston's County Warning Area (CWA), although the latter\noffice is assuming more and more duties as NWS modernization continues. Prior to January\n1993, WSFO San Antonio had Hydrologic Service Area (HSA) responsibility commensurate\nwith its entire forecast area, i.e. all of south Texas. The NWSFO's HSA was significantly\nreduced in size when NWSO Houston/Galveston took over full HSA responsibility for an\narea commensurate with its county warning area on January 5, 1993. With the redefined\nHSA, NWSFO Austin/San Antonio now issues river warnings, forecasts, and statements for\ndrainages only eastward to and including the Colorado River drainage, while NWSO\nHouston/Galveston's HSA includes all southeast Texas drainages east of the Colorado River.\nSee Appendix C. Only the easternmost part of the NWSFO Austin/San Antonio HSA was\naffected by the torrential rains and extreme flooding during this October episode.\nThe Survey Team made a visit to NWSFO Austin/San Antonio on Wednesday, October 26,\ninterviewing the MIC, Service Hydrologist, and a few other members of the staff.\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nFinding 3.1 - In general, forecasts issued by NWSFO Austin/San Antonio were good.\nHeavy rainfall was forecasted, but only maximum amounts in the four to six inch range were\ndiscussed, rather than the 20 to 30 inch maximums received. No Flash Flood Watch was\nissued until 4:10 AM CDT Monday, October 17, after the truly heavy precipitation event\nwas well underway. See Appendix H. However, forecasters at the NWSFO were concerned\nmidday Sunday that ingredients for a major rainstorm were coming into place. The inability\nto geographically pin-point the position of a weak warm front in southeastern Texas caused\nforecasts for that part of the state to be understated, i.e. the most at-risk counties could not\nbe clearly differentiated.\nRecommendation 3.1 - Relatively sparse realtime surface data reporting networks continue\nto make locating vital mesoscale meteorological features difficult. NWS should spearhead\na lobbying effort for a Texas data mesonet. Such a network would greatly augment ASOS\ndata. The additional data would not only greatly assist meteorological forecasters, but\nprovide much needed ground truth to support the application of WSR-88D data, especially\nprecipitation estimates, into NWS models.\n8","Finding 3.2 - NWSFO Austin/San Antonio forecasters pointed out that they had very little\nupper air data from Mexico available for their own analyses throughout this event. The lack\nof data was also felt as Hurricane Rosa moved across south Texas from Mexico two days\nprior to Sunday's onset of torrential rains. In fact, from October 14 through 17, only the\n14/0000Z upper air data from Mexico's west coast was available. In lieu of this data, the\nNWSFO forecasters had to rely extensively upon satellite information.\nRecommendation 3.2 - Delivery of Mexican upper air network data to NWS forecast offices\n(especially along the southern tier of states) is a requirement for their complete forecast\nanalyses. Whether failure of consistent delivery is due to incomplete data acquisition at the\nsource or due to late dissemination to and/or within NWS needs to be determined, and\nappropriate remedial actions initiated.\nFinding 3.31 - It is agreed that this October rain episode, with rainfalls approaching 30\ninches in some closed isohyetal centers, was extreme. On the other hand, rainfalls on the\norder of 15 inches are not terribly rare in south Texas for October. Forecasters were aware\nof impending conditions which could result in very heavy rainfalls. The earlier passage of\neastern Pacific Hurricane Rosa at mid and upper levels over south Texas, with the\nassociated rainfall, is a case in point. Also, temporary saturation of the surface soil mantle\nby rains Friday, probably Rosa induced, and the approaching low pressure system from the\nwest placed the area in greater jeopardy for a flood than may have been realized.\nFinding 3.32 - The National Meteorological Center's (NMC) Hydrometeorological\nPrediction Center issued an Excessive Rainfall Potential Outlook (see Appendix P) at 5 PM\n(CDT) Sunday, October 16, assessing the situation in southeast Texas and calling for the\ndistinct likelihood of rainfalls in excess of five inches within 12 hours.\nRecommendation 3.3 - Hydrometeorological conditions stated above should be sufficient\nto prompt discussions between WFO forecasters and RFC HAS forecasters in the\nmodernized NWS operations. Such discussions should become routine from now on\nbetween the WGRFC HAS forecasters and WFO Forecasters when such conditions exist.\nAgreement between the WFOs and HAS forecasters as to impending rainstorms of\nsignificance will enable RFCs to enter flooding episodes in a pro-active rather than a\nreactive mode.\nFinding 3.4 - WGRFC may not have the most recent rendering of all E-19s (NOAA/NWS\nReports on River-Gage Stations) in NWSFO Austin/San Antonio's HSA.\nRecommendation 3.4 - Copies of all updated E-19s should be sent to WGRFC, SRH, and\nthe Office of Hydrology, whether by hard copy or electronically. To enhance a spirit of\ncooperation and coordination, distribution of copies to appropriate USGS Districts, USCE\nDistricts, and State River Authorities should be considered.\n9","CONCLUDING DISCUSSION - NWSFO Austin/San Antonio's approach to this heavy\nrainfall episode was appropriate and consistent with traditional NWS procedure. The\naddition of new technologies into the WFOs and the presence of HAS forecasters in RFCs\nshould bring into sharper focus-between the two offices-the impending likelihood of\nsignificant rains. At the same time, objective studies and reviews of local climatologies\ncoupled with the improved technologies should in the future provide NWS forecasters with\na greater sense of confidence in calling for the imminent onset of unusually heavy rains and\nserious flooding.\n10","SECTION 4\nNWS HOUSTON/GALVESTON NEXRAD WEATHER SERVICE OFFICE\nDICKINSON, TEXAS\nDISCUSSION - This office was formerly located in Alvin, Texas but moved to its present\nlocation in autumn 1991. Houston WSO became one of the earliest NWSOs in the NWS\nwhen the WSR-88D was installed as one of the first deployed by NWS. Staffing of the\nNWSO during the October episode was as shown in Appendix A. As seen, the staff includes\na Service Hydrologist, and NWSO Houston/Galveston has had full HSA responsibility for\nits area since January 5, 1993. See Appendix C. The most intense, heaviest rains and the\nmost devastating flooding occurred within the NWSO's HSA during this event. The rains\ncommenced Sunday afternoon and by very late Sunday it was evident a major rainstorm was\nin progress. The MIC and WCM were both scheduled to travel Monday morning, but both\ncanceled their travel plans realizing the work load at the NWSO was going to be significant.\nThis certainly proved to be the case. Appendix O shows the flash flood and flood products\nput out by the office. Ninety-six such products were issued, including 48 flash flood\nwarnings and statements. Sixty-four of the 96 flash flood and flood products were issued\nduring the initial 48 hours of the episode. Due to recent staff turnover and vacancies, only\ntwo forecasters were fully trained on WSR-88D operations, in addition to the MIC, SOO,\nWCM, Service Hydrologist, and Marine Focal Point/Forecaster.\nThe Survey Team visited NWSO Houston/Galveston on Thursday and Friday, October 27-\n28, interviewing the MIC, WCM, and Service Hydrologist.\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nFinding 4.1 - There was some question about correlation between NWSO\nHouston/Galveston's CWA and HSA which was causing some confusion during river forecast\nissuances.\nRecommendation 4.1 - Any unresolved issues concerning HSAs among NWSFOs/NWSOs\nin WGRFC's forecast area need to be addressed by SRH.\nFinding 4.2 - A number of data problems surfaced during the flood event. Numerous\nautomated gages failed. In particular, the San Jacinto River Authority's ALERT system was\nnot reporting and the Harris County Flood Control District's 70-gage ALERT network\ncontained some bad data as well as numerous gages not reporting.\nRecommendation 4.2 - Despite the apparent abundance of automated gages throughout\nmuch of southeast Texas, and especially within the metropolitan Houston area, efforts\nshould be made to establish back-up observers for vital emergency observations, especially\nat critical river forecast gaging sites.\n11","Finding 4.3 - A disagreement between NWSO Houston/Galveston and WGRFC concerning\nflood stage exists on at least one river forecast point on the San Jacinto River (East Fork\nat Cleveland).\nRecommendation 4.3 - It is essential that all conflicts on flood stages between the WGRFC\nand the NWSFOs/NWSOs it serves be resolved as soon as possible.\nFinding 4.4 - A number of river forecast points in the NWSO's HSA do not have flood\nstages established. This makes it difficult to relate current and forecast river stages to\nnecessary preparedness action. Also, a number of E-19s for the NWSO Houston/Galveston\nHSA filed at WGRFC are more than ten years old.\nRecommendation 4.4 - The Service Hydrologist should make an effort to establish flood\nstages at forecast points through normal NWS procedures including coordination with other\nlocal, state, and federal agencies. A \"call-to-action\" statement should accompany forecasts\nissued to the public. Updates of E-19s older than 10 years from the present date should be\naccomplished and copies sent to the WGRFC, SRH, and Office of Hydrology, whether by\nhard copy or electronically. To enhance a spirit of cooperation and coordination,\ndistribution of copies to appropriate USGS, USCE, and river authorities is an encouraged\noption.\nFinding 4.5 - The Galveston District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evidently did\nnot receive all the products they needed despite being on NWWS. The District phoned in\nto NWSO Houston/Galveston and asked that products be read to them.\nRecommendation 4.5 - NWSO Houston/Galveston should provide a list of recommended\nproducts to Galveston District and encourage them to contact Contel and have them added\nto their NWWS collection. In addition the communication network between the USCE\ndistricts of Southwestern Division and WGRFC needs to be reviewed for reliability of NWS\nproduct delivery to all the districts, including Galveston.\nFinding 4.6 - NWSO Houston/Galveston is not in direct receipt of Cooperative Observer\nreports for rainfall and rivers, but depends on the routine AFOS transmission of those\ncollections from NWSFO Austin/San Antonio, which collects those observations via the\nAutomated Touch Tone Data Collection computer. This results in delayed receipt of this\nvital data to NWSO Houston/Galveston.\nRecommendation 4.6 - NWSO Houston/Galveston should be the collecting office for\nCooperative Observer data in their HSA via their own Automated Touch Tone Data\nCollection computer. SRH should provide this to them as soon as possible.\nFinding 4.7 - At the present time the NWSO can dial in to the Harris County Flood\nControl District's (HCFCD) ALERT data collection. Efforts to effect a base-station direct\nreceipt of the HCFCD's ALERT data have thus far been unsuccessful.\n12","Recommendation 4.7 - Establishing a true base-station direct receipt of the HCFCD's\nALERT data should be a priority project for NWSO Houston/Galveston. Any needed\nassistance should be funded by SRH. In addition, back-up dial in capability should be\nmaintained by WGRFC, including the collection of ALERT data from the San Jacinto River\nAuthority, via the HCFCD's data base.\nFinding 4.8 - A number of product and warning dissemination problems were evident, some\nof them beyond direct NWS control. Included were the following:\n(a)\nThe Texas Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (TLETS) is\noverloaded, and antiquated, prone to lengthy delays in delivering critical\nweather information to local emergency managers.\n(b)\nNot all local emergency managers subscribe to NIDS and/or NWWS. This is\nparticularly true of the less affluent counties.\n(c)\nNot all emergency managers are on or have 24-hour access to the National\nWarning System (NAWAS).\n(d)\nNOAA Weather Radio (NWR) has dead spots, even within the normally\neffective 40 mile radius.\n(e)\nRiver Authorities are often queried about the latest river forecasts during\nperiods when river conditions are critical and rapidly changing, but they do\nnot always have access to NWS river forecasts.\nRecommendation 4.8 - All options by which needful agencies may have access to NWS\nproducts and warnings should be reviewed with them, including a full disclosure of the\nvarious products available, and proper product identification. In addition, NWS should\ncontinue to be aggressive in encouraging and working with the State's Department of Public\nSafety to upgrade its current method, TLETS, and getting critical weather information to\nall local emergency management officials.\nFinding 4.9 - While the staff of NWSO Houston/Galveston functioned at an optimum level\nduring this heavy rain event, it seemed to be stretched by lack of fully trained WSR-88D\nforecasters on-station. During this episode, there were only two fully trained WSR-88D\nforecasters available on staff (fully trained is defined as OSF trained and all on-station\ntraining for UCP, PUP, etc. completed; partly trained is defined as OSF trained and not\nall\non-station training completed). Much of the WSR-88D workload fell upon the five fully\ntrained non-forecaster staff, the MIC, SOO, WCM, Service Hydrologist, and Marine Focal\nPoint. Over the extended period of time of this flood event, the available WSR-88D trained\nstaff\nwas pushed to the limit. (Presently, 11/94, NWSO Houston/Galveston has two\nforecasters attending the OSF training course.)\nRecommendation 4.9 - Maintaining a staff of fully trained forecasters at WSR-88D field\noffices should be of the highest priority. High staff turnover rates make this difficult.\n13","Sufficient slots at OSF WSR-88D training classes must be available to ensure that forecast\nstaffs at soon-to-be-commissioned and commissioned WSR-88D offices are fully trained in\na timely manner.\nCONCLUDING DISCUSSION - General response by emergency managers, media, other\nagencies, and the public to the warnings and forecasts issued by NWSO Houston/Galveston\nhas been positive. This is not trivial considering the stressful situations which the heavy\nrains and record flooding imposed on southeast Texas, including the major metropolitan\narea of Houston, the nation's fourth largest city. Especially noteworthy is the service\nprovided considering the relatively small experienced staff, and problems they were\nencountering with the WSR-88D. See Section 7. Upon realizing the Houston media was\nmaking extensive use of WSR-88D products, it is highly commendable that NWSO\nHouston/Galveston issued a statement advising the media of the underestimations of rainfall,\nurging them to use the WSR-88D precipitation products with caution.\nOverall,\na\ncommendable dedication to duty was clearly demonstrated by all the NWSO staff.\n14","SECTION 5\nHARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (HCFCD)\nHOUSTON, TEXAS\nDISCUSSION - The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) is responsible for the\nplanning, design, and construction of an infrastructure for flood management for the streams\nand bayous in Harris County, most of this in the highly urbanized Houston area. It is\nestimated the HCFCD spends $20 million per year maintaining 3000 miles of bayous, creeks,\nand ditches.\nHCFCD owns and operates about 70 automated stream and precipitation gages comprising\nan ALERT network intended to provide them with near real-time conditions over the\ndrainages for which they are responsible for providing \"management\", in order to minimize\nflood damage and maintain transportation, communications, etc. throughout the Houston\n(Harris County) metropolitan area. They rely heavily on historical data in conjunction with\nthe current conditions as described by their ALERT network data to internally predict water\nsurface rises on their various watercourses. However, HCFCD does not wish to make\nforecasts for the general public, despite a great interest by that public in \"what is going to\nhappen\" next.\nThe HCFCD Director expressed to the Survey Team his concerns about the media gathering\nat his office during major flood events. HCFCD is not equipped nor well prepared to\nrespond to weather-related media inquiries, and does not see this as a condition of its\ncharter. Unfortunately, from the HCFCD's standpoint, the centralized location of its\nheadquarters in metropolitan Houston is more convenient than NWSO Houston/Galveston\nfor the Houston media. Under the circumstances, the Director believes the Houston\nCity/Harris County EOC is the more appropriate gathering place for the media, and he\nbelieves NWS involvement in the media's interface there should be greater than it is. He\nalso mentioned the extreme importance of 12-24 hour watch/warning notifications for\nsignificant rainfall and flooding to the HCFCD for their use in planning and preparing their\nown operations, and he feels the watch/warning process is vital to the public's safety\npreparations and precautions as well.\nThe HCFCD headquarters, located at 9900 Northwest Freeway in metropolitan Houston,\nwere visited by the Survey Team on Friday, October 28 in the company of NWSO\nHouston/Galveston's MIC, WCM, and Service Hydrologist.\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nFinding 5.1 - Although rainfall was significant across Harris County, many of the drainages\nmanaged by HCFCD escaped the very heaviest rainfall and most severe flooding, which\noccurred in other drainages surrounding Harris County. A rainstorm of the magnitude\nexperienced north of Harris County, if it were to occur over Harris County, with its\ntremendous metropolitan development, would likely have been calamitous.\n15","Recommendation 5.1 - Flooding in Harris County will be a continuing threat, and this\nOctober event shows the potential for true calamity. Perhaps an annual flood workshop for\nthe Houston area similar to the Houston Hurricane Workshop should be conducted, or\nflood preparedness should become a major topic of the Hurricane Workshop. A greater\nnumber of damaging floods than hurricanes will adversely affect Harris County and\nsurroundings through the years, and it should be emphasized these are not always associated\nwith hurricanes or even tropical storms, and may occur at any time of the year.\nFinding 5.2 - HCFCD would like to develop flash flood tables for its various drainages for\nits own internal use, but feels it needs assistance to do so.\nRecommendation 5.2 - NWSO Houston/Galveston and WGRFC should approach HCFCD\nwith an offer to assist in the development of applicable tables. This may also be a viable\nCIAMS/Partners Project among the NWSO, WGRFC, HCFCD, and CIAMS. In this latter\ncase NWS involvement is still important since expertise in developing flash flood tables is\nalmost unique to the agency.\nFinding 5.3 - Data from the HCFCD ALERT Network is available to NWSO\nHouston/Galveston via dial-up. HCFCD also has the capability to receive SJRA ALERT\ndata, which should also then be available to NWS.\nRecommendation 5.3 - It is important that NWSO Houston/Galveston successfully bring up\nfull base-station capability at the office in order to have up-to-date receipt of all the ALERT\ndata available from HCFCD. In addition, back-up dial in from WGRFC should be\nestablished into HCFCD.\nFinding 5.4 - The HCFCD expressed a desire to see more timely forecasts and warnings\nfor the San Jacinto River basins. Difficulties in providing these were discussed.\nRecommendation 5.4 - The HAS functions at WGRFC, especially including QPF\nassimilation, should be implemented as soon as possible at WGRFC. Forecasts for the San\nJacinto River Basin should benefit appreciably from the inclusion of short term QPF.\nCLOSING DISCUSSION - The HCFCD had no specific complaints about NWS\nperformance during this flood event. They are well aware of agency constraints, and\nexpressed their own difficulties in maintaining their own significant data network.\nFlood warning is not the HCFCD's job, and they are sincerely interested in seeing the NWS\nassume greater responsibility in Harris County in this regard. They do provide information\non existing conditions of rivers, streams, and bayous, but will not develop any forecasts for\nexternal release.\n16","SECTION 6\nSAN JACINTO RIVER AUTHORITY (SJRA)\nCONROE, TEXAS\nDISCUSSION - The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) is one of about ten major river\nauthorities in Texas. The SJRA receives no appropriations and does not levy or collect\ntaxes. The SJRA's income is primarily derived from the sale and distribution of water and\nthe treatment of wastewater. The mission of the SJRA is to develop, conserve, and protect\nthe water resources of the San Jacinto River watershed. The SJRA's Headquarters and\nLake Conroe Division Office are located at the Lake Conroe damsite on the headwaters of\nthe West Fork of the San Jacinto River.\nThe San Jacinto River watershed covers approximately 4,000 square miles, of which about\n440 square miles are above Lake Conroe. At normal pool elevation, Lake Conroe has a\nsurface area of nearly 21,000 acres and a storage capacity of 430,300 acre-feet. The lake's\nlarge volume provides for attenuation of flood inflows. However, flood control benefits are\nincidental as dam operations strive to maintain a \"constant\" conservation pool elevation.\nDuring the height of the October flooding above Lake Conroe the pool reached an all-time\nrecord elevation of 205.58 feet NGVD. Conservation pool elevation is 201.00 feet NGVD.\nDuring the flood a maximum inflow to the lake has been estimated at greater than 150,000\ncfs, and SJRA operated the dam's gates to finally permit a record maximum release of about\n34,000 cfs.\nSJRA's second reservoir, Lake Houston, is located considerably downstream of Lake\nConroe, on the San Jacinto River mainstem. The drainage area above Lake Houston is\n2,828 square miles. This reservoir furnishes water for irrigation, municipal, and industrial\nuse in the Houston Metropolitan area. During flooding SJRA exercises no effective control\nof Lake Houston, where flows over a 2/3-mile-long spillway are free-flowing.\nThe SJRA has an automated network of precipitation and streamflow monitoring stations,\nand their base station for radio receipt of the gaged data is located at their headquarters\noffice at Lake Conroe. Included in the network are six tipping-bucket raingages positioned\nin the drainage area above Lake Conroe, and about five streamgages downstream of the\ndam on various branches or forks of the San Jacinto River. NWSO Houston/Galveston has\ndial-in capability to the SJRA ALERT data, and in addition SJRA enters daily data on Lake\nConroe's status to the Automated Touch Tone Data Collection computer at NWSFO\nAustin/San Antonio.\nThe Survey Team visited the SJRA headquarters office at the Lake Conroe damsite on\nFriday, October 28, in company with NWSO Houston/Galveston's MIC and Service\nHydrologist.\n17","FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nFinding 6.1 - The SJRA's Lake Conroe data telephoned in to NWSFO Austin/San Antonio\neach morning normally includes an average discharge over a 24-hour period, as well as a\npool elevation and precipitation.\nRecommendation 6.1 - For serious flooding situations, instantaneous discharges, as well as\nrainfall reports at synoptic times would be advantageous for timely, accurate forecasts for\nthe San Jacinto River drainages downstream of Lake Conroe. NWSO Houston/Galveston\nand WGRFC should work together with SJRA to implement an appropriate reporting\nstrategy.\nFinding 6.2 - SJRA personnel at Lake Conroe were not surprised when rain began at and\nabove Lake Conroe, but they in no way anticipated the 20-inch-plus deluge that occurred\nthere. In essence they worked the critical early-Monday morning (October 17) dam\noperations in a minimum staffing configuration. SJRA personnel routinely monitor, and\nappreciate, NOAA Weather Radio, but they are not on NWWS.\nRecommendation 6.2 - Lack of a Flash Flood Watch for an area including Montgomery\nCounty may have led SJRA to believe, until too late, that the early rains were routine.\nHopefully, NWS forecasters in the future can be more aggressive in determining defined\nareas at risk for heavy rainfall in southeast Texas.\nFinding 6.3 - SJRA utilizes a computer program which is designed to forecast inflows to\nLake Conroe based upon observed rainfalls above the dam.\nRecommendation 6.3 - WGRFC may wish to compare SJRA model performance with its\nown, with an eye towards optimizing each agency's prediction capability.\nCLOSING DISCUSSION - The SJRA was not critical of NWS services provided during this\nflood episode. They emphasized that even with adequate lead times of accurate weather\nforecasts they would not operate Lake Conroe in any appreciably different fashion than was\ndone. The major advantage to them of more timely watches and warnings would be in\nplanning operations staffing.\n18","SECTION 7\nWSR-88D PERFORMANCE\nDISCUSSION - The commissioned NWSO Houston/Galveston's WSR-88D functioned\nthroughout this heavy rain event and was able to archive a complete set of Level II data.\nThe tapes will be duplicated at NCDC with copies distributed to Operations Support Facility\n(OSF) and the Cooperative Institute for Applied Meteorological Studies (CIAMS) at Texas\nA&M University for further study. There were, however, some problems that arose with\nthe radar program which are mentioned below. It should be noted that the staff of NWSO\nHouston/Galveston worked their WSR-88D to its fullest capacity and that noted problems\nwith it were primarily the result of new technology being tested during an extreme event.\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nFinding 7.1 - Since undergoing their VME MicroFive Retrofit, NWSO Houston/Galveston\nhas experienced a Principal User Processor (PUP) hangup problem when dialing into\nadjacent radars. At times, the Radar Product Generator (RPG) is up and running, but the\nPUP no longer receives products. The OSF Hotline suggests \"FESTUS,CLEAR\" and\n\"PUPDOWN\" and \"PUPUP\" to fix or reboot the RPG. These somewhat cryptic and labor\nintensive procedures are operationally unacceptable. A similar problem has been noted at\nNWSFO Jackson. Such problems make it difficult to access adjacent WSR-88Ds and will\nresult in reduced accessibility by forecasters of adjacent WSR-88Ds. The OSF is aware of\nthe problem and is working on a fix.\nFinding 7.2 - Since their retrofit, another problem at NWSO Houston/Galveston is a less\nstable RPG which simply halts for unknown reasons. A few crashes resulted in a totally\ndown Unit Control Position (UCP) which required going to the Radar Data Acquisition\n(RDA) and flipping circuit breakers to restart. This is really disruptive during a severe\nweather event. Checking \"ST,S\" after recovery yields no clue as to the problem. OSF hotline\nstaff has been notified of this problem.\nFinding 7.3 - NWSO Houston/Galveston has found that Archive IV data may be easily lost\nsince the retrofit software was installed. There is no way that the PUP operator can actually\ndetermine if Archive IV is recording except by going back to the archive device and looking\nat it. The status message is not satisfactory. When the status message is displayed, it may\nshow \"AUTO ARCHIVE ACTIVE\" when in fact it is not.\nRecommendation 7.3 - A request-for-change needs to be submitted to modify the message\navailable to the PUP operator to verify the status of the Archive IV.\nFinding 7.4 - While radar estimates of areal coverage for rainfall were accurate during this\nevent, rainfall estimates by the NWSO Houston/Galveston WSR-88D rainfall algorithm were\ndeficient in some areas. This underestimation was noted early in the event by the NWSO\nforecasters who sent out a message to NWS and NIDS users to use rainfall estimates with\n19","caution. Gaged rainfalls indicated a fairly large area of 5-day totals of 20 inches or more,\nwith maximums approaching 30 inches. See Appendix F. NWSO Houston/Galveston WSR-\n88D estimates for the same period did not exceed 15 inches. See Appendix R. The\nApplications Branch of OSF is evaluating this rainfall event and will rerun the event from\nthe Archive Level II tapes to more clearly understand causes of this underestimation. While\nsome answers are not presently available, the following are problems with known causes:\nA.\nA discontinuity ring is easily seen on the rainfall products caused by a tilt test\nerror on the hydro scan - the cut off between the first and second scan was\n50 miles instead of 50 kilometers. This error affected the rainfall estimates\nin the 30 to 50 mile range. This error, first noted by\nNWSO\nHouston/Galveston forecasters during this event, was one introduced by\nUnisys affecting all retrofitted sites, and had previously gone undetected. A\ncorrection notification has been sent to all retrofitted sites as a result.\nB.\nThe standard Z-R relationship of the WSR-88D was not representative of the\nwarm subtropical air mass causing this heavy rain event. In fact, it is felt by\nthe NWSO staff that more than one Z-R relationship would have been\nneeded to adequately interpret different parts of this event. The Z-R\nrelationship is an adaptable parameter controlled by OSF. Forecasters need\nto understand this limitation of the radar program and use other available\ninformation such as raingage networks to make subjective adjustments to\nalgorithm rainfall estimates.\nC.\nThe WSR-88D rainfall algorithm has a 53 dBz adaptable parameter cutoff\nsuch that any reflectivities above that level are considered not to be rain but\nhail. In a warm air mass, higher reflectivities above 53 dBz might allow the\nrainfall estimates to increase. This value is controlled by OSF but can be\nadjusted upon request and justification.\nRecommendation 7.4C - Adjustments to the 53 dBz threshold certainly\nappear to be needed for various climatic regimes. Additionally, national\nguidelines based on studies soon need to be developed by OSF before\nadjustments to the 53 dBz threshold are implemented. This would ensure\nconsistency across the WSR-88D network.\nD.\nThe NWSO Houston/Galveston WSR-88D has a filter that was installed to\neliminate interference from a cable TV transmission.\nRecommendation 7.4D - An evaluation to determine if the filter was/is\nworking as designed and if it had any effect on WSR-88D algorithms,\nincluding rainfall estimations, needs to be accomplished.\nE.\nThere was some concern from field offices relating to consistency of adjacent\nWSR-88D radar outputs.\n20","Recommendation 7.4E - Standards for absolute calibration of WSR-88D\nradars need to be established. In other words, will adjacent radars see and\nrecord similar features while observing the same event? This applies to base\nreflectivity and values derived from algorithms.\nF.\nClutter filter procedures by local offices could affect rainfall estimates. All\nindications show that the NWSO Houston/Galveston staff correctly used\nclutter suppression and that such procedures were not a factor in affecting\nrainfall estimates.\nG.\nDuring this heavy rain event, it is felt that much of the rainfall originated at\nlow levels of the atmosphere below the 1.5 degree minimum tilt level of the\nalgorithm. Perhaps a 0.5 degree tilt out to a certain range would have picked\nup additional rainfall.\nFinding 7.5 - While such heavy rainfall events may seem rare, they indeed are not unusual.\nIf forecasters are to be prepared to forecast such events in the future, they must learn from\nthe past.\nRecommendation 7.5 - With Computer Based Learning technology and Archive Level II\ndata available, the development of a heavy rain case study module could form the basis of\nfuture forecasting of such events. Resources such as COMET and CIAMS should develop\na case study module for WFO/RFC forecasters using the abundant data available from this\nevent. In addition, the capability of all WSR-88Ds to record Level II data, and an archive\nof such data for research purposes at NCDC, should be ensured.\nCONCLUDING DISCUSSION\nAs previously mentioned, some of these early findings and observations do not have answers\nat this time but will or could be explored by OSF and research organizations such as\nCIAMS. Because Archive Level II data are available, such inquires have already begun.\n21","SECTION 8\nSURVEY TEAM WRAP-UP\nFinding 8.1 - The Survey Team has made a determined effort to submit this report quickly\nbefore the event recedes into the dim past. We believe we've succeeded. The finished draft\nwas handed to the Regional Director only six weeks following the event's occurrence. Many\nsurvey reports are submitted later, often excessively later, and become impotent instruments\nincapable of effecting change. This should not be this report's fate!\nThe Survey Team has been careful to mostly raise issues over which the field offices in\nconjunction with regional-level offices have jurisdiction. This means changes as prescribed\nin many cases can commence now. While the time required to bring to full fruition some\nof the recommendations may be lengthy, important needed changes can at least begin almost\nimmediately.\nRecommendation 8.1 - The report should reach the field no later than the beginning of\n1995. Coordination among the involved field offices of NWS, external agencies, and\nappropriate regional offices should result in status reports to the Regional Director, SRH,\non actions taken with a first report due April 1, 1995, and a second by July 1, 1995. These\nactions should either bring to closure the applicable recommendations or begin the office(s)\nand agencies on the road to desired and satisfactory closure.\nFinding 8.2 - This report presents a considerable amount of data, product lists, etc. These,\ncoupled with first-hand observations by the Survey Team, culminate in our view that NWSO\nHouston/Galveston functioned at an optimum level, considering the scope of the event, the\nstate of the staff, and the stress introduced by many problems including technical ones.\n22","REFERENCES\nMaddox, Chappell, and Hoxit, 1979, \"Synoptic and Meso-alpha Aspects of Flash Flood\nEvents\", AMA Bulletin, Vol. 60, No. 2, 115-123.\nNOAA, National Weather Service, \"Disastrous Floods on the Trinity, Red, and Arkansas\nRivers, May 1990\", Natural Disaster Survey Report, 1991, Silver Spring, Maryland.\nNOAA, National Weather Service, \"Disastrous Floods on the Trinity, Brazos, Colorado, and\nGuadalupe Rivers, December 1991 - January 1992\", Natural Disaster Survey Report, Silver\nSpring, Maryland, (release anticipated January 1995).\nNOAA, National Weather Service, \"The Great Flood of 1993\", Natural Disaster Survey\nReport, Silver Spring, Maryland, February 1994, 182 pp.\nNOAA, National Weather Service, \"Heavy Rains and Resulting Flooding from Tropical\nStorm Alberto, Natural Disaster Survey Report, Silver Spring, Maryland, (release anticipated\nJanuary 1995).\nNOAA, National Weather Service, Hydrologic Systems Manual, Organized Operational Panic\nSystem, Silver Spring, MD, February 23, 1994.\nNOAA Technical Report NESDIS 80, Catalogue of Heavy Rainfall Cases of Six Inches or\nMore over the Continental U.S. During 1993, Washington, D.C., August 1994, 154 pp.\nScofield, R. A. and Oliver, V. J., 1977, \"A Scheme for Estimating Convective Rainfall from\nSatellite Imagery\", NOAA Technical Memorandum NESS 86, U.S. Department of Commerce,\nWashington, DC.\n23","APPENDIX A\nNWS OFFICE STAFFINGS - OCTOBER 1994\nWGRFC FORT WORTH\n1\nHydrologist-in-Charge\n1\nDevelopment and Operations Hydrologist\n4\nSenior Hydrologists\n1\nSenior Hydrometeorologist (HAS)\n2\nHydrometeorlogists (HAS)\n3\nHydrologists\n1\nHydrologist Intern\n1\nHydrometeorological Technician\nNWSFO AUSTIN/SAN ANTONIO\n1\nMeteorologist-in-Charge\n1\nDeputy Meteorologist-in-Charge\n1\nWarning/Coordination Meteorologist\n1\nScience and Operations Officer\n5\nLead Forecasters\n6\nForecasters\n1\nData Acquisition Program Manager\n5\nHydrometeorological Technicians\n1\nElectronic System Analyst\n1\nSenior Electronic Technician\n2\nElectronic Technicians\n1\nArea Electronic Supervisor\n1\nSector Facilities Technician\n1\nCooperative Program Manager/Trainer\n1\nService Hydrologist\n1\nSecretary\nNWSO HOUSTON/GALVESTON\n1\nMeteorologist-in-Charge\n1\nWarning/Coordination Meteorologist\n1\nScience and Operations Officer\n4\nForecasters\n1\nMarine Focal Point/Forecaster\n1\nData Acquisition Program Manager\n4\nHydrometeorological Technicians\n1\nElectronic Systems Analysis\n1\nElectronic Technician (ASOS)\n1\nPort Meteorological Officer\n1\nService Hydrologist\n1\nSecretary\nA-1","APPENDIX B\nHOURS OF OPERATION OF WGRFC - OCTOBER 15-24, 1994\nDATE\nHOURS\nSat\n10/15\n0700 - 1500\nSun\n10/16\n0700 - 1500\nMon\n10/17\n0715 - 2200\nTue\n10/18\n0630 - 2200\nWed\n10/19\n0600 - MIDNIGHT\nThu\n10/20\nMIDNIGHT - MIDNIGHT\nFri\n10/21\nMIDNIGHT - MIDNIGHT\nSat\n10/22\nMIDNIGHT - MIDNIGHT\nSun\n10/23\nMIDNIGHT - MIDNIGHT\nMon 10/24\nMIDNIGHT - 2200\nB-1","APPENDIX C\nWGRFC FORECAST AREA IN TEXAS\n103°\n101°\ndian\nR\nABRFC\n35°\n99°\nRed\n97°\nRiver 95\nSulphuriR\nWGRFC\nBridgepert\nFort\nLMRFC\n33°\nGriffin\nClear\nDallas\nFort\nAlbany\nWorth\nHuhbard\n105°\nCr\nEl Paso\necos.A\nR\n(Temple\n31\nLittle\nRockland\nsab\nSan\nSan\nR\nR\nrabriel\nR\nCameron\n(lang\nSpicewood\nJunction\nSandy\nCDS\nThrall\nConroe\nHTS\nPedernales\nLiberty\nJohnson\nLla Kerrville\nAustin\nSanderson\nGuadalune\nCht\ndalune\nComfort\nNew Braunfels\nHouston\nLavaca,\nSan Antonio\nSeguin\nHallettsville\nColeta\nCr\nFalls City\n29\nSchneer\nMission H\nDivittria\nDerby\nAransas\nGoliad\nR\nTilden\nThree\n0\n100 MILES\nRivers\nSinton\n0\n100 KILOMETERS\n27\nRoma\nBrownsville\nC-1","HYDROLOGIC SERVICE AREAS (HSA)\n1. NWSFO AUSTIN/SAN ANTONIO HSA\nNWSO HOUSTON/GALVESTON HSA\n2.\nNWSFO DALLAS/FT. WORTH HSA\n3.\nAUG\nCROCKETT\nJack\nN\n3\nOBERTSON\nM\nCollege-Station\nACINTO\nMONTGOMERYI\nHARD\nWALLER\nHOUSTON\nCHAMBER.S\nPASADENA\n1\nC-2","TEXAS COUNTIES AFFECTED\n1143\nTYL\nCollege-Station\nHOUSTON\nSAN\nJACINTO\nMES\nWALLER\nHOUSTON\nC\nMB\nS\nPASADENA\nproduy\nW\nH\nA\nDIVER\nC-3","DRAINAGES OF SOUTHEAST TEXAS\n7. NECHES\n1. LAVACA NAVIDAD\n4. BRAZOS\n8. SABINE\n5. SAN JACINTO\n2. COLORADO\n9. COASTAL BAYOUS\n3. SAN BERNARD\n6. TRINITY\nMADISON\nHOUSTON\nSAN\nCIN:\n7\nR\nN\nMONTGOMERY\n5\nBEAUMONT\n6\nLLER\nH\nof\nHOUSTON\nCHAMBB\nR.S\nPASADENA\n9\nTON\n4\n3\n1\n2\nC-4","APPENDIX D\nTEXAS COUNTIES IMPACTED\nINDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE\nAccording to the Texas Department of Public Safety's Division of Emergency Management,\nthe following Texas Counties were approved Disaster Declarations for Individual Assistance.\nAngelina\nHardin\nOrange\nAustin\nHarris\nPolk\nBastrop\nHouston\nSan Augustine\nSan Jacinto\nBrazoria\nJackson\nBrazos\nJasper\nShelby\nBurleson\nJefferson\nTrinity\nChambers\nLavaca\nTyler\nColorado\nLee\nVictoria\nDeWitt\nLiberty\nWaller\nFayette\nMadison\nWalker\nFort Bend\nMatagorda\nWashington\nGalveston\nMontgomery\nWharton\nGrimes\nNacogdoches\nRed Cross damage summaries coupled with individual telephone registrations of damage\nindicate between 15,000 and 19,000 residences suffered damage during these October floods.\nPUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE\nIn addition, Approved Public Assistance Declarations for Public Facilities and\nInfrastructures applied to the following counties.\nSan Jacinto\nBurleson\nLavaca\nFayette\nLiberty\nTrinity\nGrimes\nMatagorda\nTyler\nHarris\nMontgomery\nWalker\nWaller\nJackson\nPolk\nJasper\nSan Augustine\nWharton\nD-1","DAMS\nAn accounting of dams by county, either damaged or failed, is provided below.\nCOUNTY\nDAMAGED\nFAILED\nBurleson\n1\nGrimes\n1\nHarris\n1\nLiberty/Polk\n1\nMontgomery\n7\nTyler\n3\nPolk\n1\nWashington\n1\nNo information specific to dam size, degree of damage, etc. is available.\nWATER/WASTEWATER FACILITIES\nDamage to water and wastewater facilities was reported in the following counties.\nBastrop\nJackson\nPolk\nBrazos\nJasper\nSan Jacinto\nChambers\nJefferson\nTrinity\nFayette\nLiberty\nTyler\nFort Bend\nMatagorda\nWalker\nHardin\nMontgomery\nWaller\nHarris\nOrange\nWashington\nD-2","APPENDIX E\nFLOOD OF OCTOBER 1994\nDEATHS\nCOUNTY\nTIME\nNAME\nAGE\n1. Grimes\n945 PM Sun\nChandrell Calhoun\n5\nAnthony McIntosh\n8\nCar in which they were riding was swept off the road on FM 1774 about 1 mile south of\nAnderson at Anderson Creek.\n2. Grimes\n930 PM Sun Harold Benkoski\n67\nCar he was driving was swept off the road on FM 1774 about 1 mile south of Anderson at\nAnderson Creek.\nSunday night Candelario Cantu\n43\n3. Montgomery\nAngelica Cantu\n36\nCar was swept into Weirs creek near Conroe. They escaped from their car but the swift current\ncarried them into the creek.\n4. Harris\n930 AM Mon Clarence Wright\n46\nStepped of bridge into rain swollen ditch in Baytown.\n78+\n5. Polk\nMon AM\nL.C. Walker\n0500\nPickup stalled out in high water near the town of Corrigan in northeast Polk County on FM 352.\nHe was found in pickup truck.\nRobert Street\n73\n6. San Jacinto\nMon AM\nRancher went out to try to rescue his COWS during the predawn hours drowned in process.\nGeorge Matlock\n42\n7. Montgomery\nMon\nVan got stranded in high water on Loop 336 near Stewart Creek in Conroe and man had heart\nattack and died.\nE-1","8. Harris\nMon PM\nJoe Lackey\n14\nYoung man was playing in drainage ditch in La Porte near the high school when he was sucked\nunder water.\n9. Polk\n430 PM Mon Wille Dean Jackson\n45\nWille was on a horse trying to rescue a lady from the flood when the horse tripped and he fell\ninto the flood waters and was swept away. This occurred near FM 2969 below Lake Livingston.\n10. Harris\nLate Mon\nJulie Ann Langton\n32\nApparently fell into Rummel Creek in west Houston near 10700 of the Katy Freeway while\nwalking her dog.\n11. Chambers\n645 AM Tue Peter James Langlinais\n2 months\nCar hit high water and overturned into Cedar Bayou. Father lost grip on baby and he was swept\naway (FM 565 and hwy 146)\n12. Montgomery\nWed\nJames Cruse\n68\nBody found under the River Bridge at the River Plantation subdivision. Exact time of death\nunknown.\n13. Montgomery\nWed\nWessie Ann Joe\n63\nShe refused to leave her home and her body was found wednesday night in the Lost Lakes\nsubdivision.\n14. Montgomery\n?\n?\n63\nBody found tuesday Oct.25 near Magnolia Bend.\n15. Fort Bend\nThursday\nGerald Baker\n5\nBoy was playing in a flooded creek and was taken under by strong currents near the town of\nFulshear.\nE-2","APPENDIX F\nPROVISIONAL NWS COOPERATIVE OBSERVER DAILY RAINFALL - INCHES\nOCTOBER 1994\nSUN\nMON\nTUE\nWED\n4-DAY\nOBSERVATION\nSTATION\nCOUNTY\n10/16\n10/17\n10/18\n10/19\nTOTAL\nINTERVAL\nAnahuac\nChambers\n0.11\n2.30\n4.83\n3.07\n10.31\n8A 8A\nAngleton\nBrazoria\n0.15\n0.84\n2.26\n2.10\n5.35\n8A 8A\nBay City Water Works\nMatagorda\n0.15\n1.63\n2.21\n0.02\n4.01\n8A 8A\nBaytown Lab\nHarris\n4.23\n3.64\n15.74\n2.01\n25.62\n8A 8A\nBrenham\nWashington\n0.10\n10.38\n3.64\n0.89\n15.01\n7A 7A\nBryan\nMadison\n0.38\n6.52\n1.18\n0.45\n8.53\n7A 7A\nCaldwell\nBurleson\n0\n9.03\n0.35\n0.50\n9.88\n8A 8A\nCleveland\nLiberty\n1.45\n13.17\n7.03\n1.35\n23.00\n7:30A - 7:30A\nClodine\nFort Bend\n8A 8A\n1.05\n5.33\n1.89\n0\n8.27\nCold Spring 5SSW\nSan Jacinto\n0.88\n9.13\n2.55\n1.17\n13.73\n7A 7A\nColumbus\nColorado\n0.05\n3.10\n2.40\n0.55\n6.10\n7:30A - 7:30A\nConroe\nMontgomery\n1.30\n14.35\n7.32\n0.45\n23.42\n8A 8A\nCorrigan\nPolk\n1.67\n14.69\n8.27\n1.12\n25.75\n6A 6A\nCrockett\nHouston\n0.16\n2.90\n2.53\n0.27\n5.86\n7A 7A\nCrockett 12W\nLeon\n0.65\n1.55\n1.12\n0.02\n3.34\n7A 7A\nCypress\nHarris\n0.55\n0.96\n4.80\n1.77\n8.08\n8A 8A\n8A 8A\nDacus\nMontgomery\n0.44\n13.60\n2.86\n1.16\n18.06\nDanevang\nWharton\n0.45\n0.16\n3.38\n6.05\n10.04\n7A 7A\nEl Campo (KULP)\nWharton\n0.22\n0.12\n13.29\n0.08\n13.71\n5A 5A\n6A 6A\nFreeport 2NW\nBrazoria\n0.10\n0.40\n0.30\n0.10\n0.90\nGroveton\nTrinity\n1.90\n12.10\n2.0\n0.83\n16.83\n7A 7A\nHouston-Barker\nHarris\n0.73\n0.38\n4.58\n2.28\n7.97\n7A 7A\n10.33\n8A 8A\nHouston-Heights\nHarris\n2.80\n0.56\n5.65\n1.32\nHouston-Independence Hts\nHarris\n2.87\n1.0\n3.10\n1.21\n8.18\n8A 8A\nHouston-Spring Branch\nHarris\n1.06\n4.58\n1.82\nT\n7.46\n7A 7A\nHouston-Westbury\nHarris\n0\n5.28\n8.43\n1.83\n15.54\n7A 7A\nHuntsville\nWalker\n0.32\n10.21\n1.64\n1.23\n13.40\n9A 9A\nLiberty\nLiberty\n3.70\n5.50\n18.50\n2.80\n30.50\n6A 6A\n0.81\n14.82\n6A 6A\nLivingston\nPolk\n1.52\n10.47\n2.02\nMadisonville\nMadison\n0.97\n5.26\n0.90\n0.73\n7.86\n8A 8A\nMatagorda 2\nMatagorda\n0.12\n0.07\n0.19\n0\n0.38\n5P 5P\nMidway\nMadison\n0.46\n3.51\n1.49\n0\n5.46\n7A 7A\nMontgomery\nMontgomery\n0.34\n17.50\n1.70\n1.05\n20.59\n7A 7A\nNew Caney 2E\nMontgomery\n2.23\n6.65\n9.28\n0\n18.16\n6A 6A\nNew Gulf\nWharton\n3.46\n2.25\n3.46\n4.13\n13.30\n8A 8A\nPierce 1E\nWharton\n0.50\n0.28\n6.00\n7.95\n14.73\n8A 8A\nPort of Houston\nHarris\n1.98\n1.12\n15.70\n1.93\n20.73\n6A 6A\nRichards\nGrimes\n0.30\n11.98\n2.15\n2.25\n16.68\n7A 7A\nSan Jacinto\nHarris\n3.40\n3.50\n14.00\n0.78\n21.68\n7A - 7A\nSealy\nAustin\n3.00\n5.50\n2.15\n0\n10.65\nSugar Land\nFort Bend\n2.12\n0.32\n7.10\n2.32\n11.86\n8A 8A\nTomball\nHarris\n0.78\n6.00\n6.38\n1.35\n14.51\nWashington\nWashington\n0.10\n15.46\n3.25\n1.20\n20.01\n8A 8A\nWest Columbia\nBrazoria\n1.48\n0.22\n0.85\n0.02\n2.57\n8A 8A\nWharton\nWharton\n0.22\n0.29\n11.58\n0.50\n12.59\n8A 8A\nF-1","PROVISIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL DAILY RAINFALL - INCHES\nOCTOBER 1994\nSAT\nSUN\nMON\nTUE\nWED\n5-DAY\nSTATION\nCOUNTY\n10/15\n10/16\n10/17\n10/18\n10/19\nTOTAL\nAddicks\nHarris\n1.64\n0.64\n3.49\n5.10\n10.69\nAlameda Mall\nHarris\n18.90\nAlief\nHarris\n2.25\n0.33\n6.65\n0.25\n9.48\nAlto\nCherokee\n3.60\n3.80\n0.80\n8.20\nAnderson\nGrimes\n21.00\nApple Springs\nTrinity\n17.75\nAstrodome (NR)\nHarris\n7.25\n6.55\n13.80\nBatson\nHardin\n23.65\nBellville\nAustin\n6.95\n3.08\n10.03\nBeaumont\nJefferson\n4.60\n3.40\n2.20\n10.20\nBrenham 8NW\nWashington\n0.25\n4.56\n8.06\n1.17\n14.04\nBuna\nJasper\n19.35\nBuna 2.5E\nJasper\n1.00\n1.20\n10.00\n3.20\n15.40\nBurkeville\nNewton\n11.80\nBurton\nWashington\n9.43\n1.78\n0.58\n11.79\nCamilla\nSan Jacinto\n20.00\nCat Spring\nAustin\n13.00\nChappel Hill\nWashington\n0.06\n9.06\n8.73\n0.83\n18.68\nClear Lake\nHarris\n2.70\n0\n2.30\n7.20\n0.30\n12.50\nCollege Station 7N\nBrazos\n0.18\n0.16\n5.15\n1.05\n0.55\n7.09\nConroe 13SSE\nMontgomery\n14.62\nCorrigan 2NE\nPolk\n25.99\nCottonwood (NR)\nBrazos\n7.20\n7.20\nCrockett 22SSW\nHouston\n13.50\n13.50\nCrockett 15S\nHouston\n1.50\n6.50\n5.50\n13.50\nCrockett 13N\nHouston\n3.50\n1.00\n2.00\n6.50\nDamon\nBrazoria\n1.61\n0.38\n2.37\n4.00\n0.08\n8.29\nDeer Park\nHarris\n9.00\n5.00\n4.00\n4.00\n1.00\n23.00\nDickinson is\nGalveston\n4.43\nDime Box 1S\nLee\n7.80\nDow Chemical\nBrazoria\n0.40\n0.10\n0.40\n0.30\n0.10\n0.90\nEasterly\nRobertson\n2.35\n0.47\n0.26\n3.08\nEast Ganado\nJackson\n12.20\nEl Campo\nWharton\n0.53\n0.22\n0.12\n13.29\n0.08\n14.24\nFlamingo Lake\nMontgomery\n15.91\nFriday\nHouston\n0.25\n6.50\n5.25\n0.30\n12.30\nGalilee (Hwy 30)\nWalker\n9.96\nGiddings\nLee\n9.32\nGrangerland\nMontgomery\n0.87\n13.23\n4.42\n0.23\n18.75\nGroves\nJefferson\n4.20\n7.17\n1.48\n12.85\nHammerly (Westbelt)\nHarris\n0.30\n1.92\n1.70\n8.20\n1.50\n13.62\nHobby Airport\nHarris\n2.47\n0.47\n7.86\n7.23\n18.03\nHobby Airport 4.5NE\nHarris\n3.96\n0.69\n11.97\n2.43\n19.29\nF-2","SAT\nSUN\nMON\nTUE\nWED\n5-DAY\nTOTAL\nCOUNTY\n10/16\n10/17\n10/18\n10/19\nSTATION\n10/15\n0.52\n11.17\nHooks Airport\nHarris\n0.72\n1.22\n5.36\n3.35\n27.80\nHull\nLiberty\n0.30\n11.10\n1.20\n1.00\n13.60\nHuntsville NE\nWalker\n15.55\nI-45 at San Jacinto River\nMontgomery\n3.15\n17.96\nJacinto City\nHarris\n3.75\n0.28\n10.78\n19.25\nJasper\nJasper\n10.50\nKennard\nHouston\n8.00\n5.90\n0.70\n14.60\nKennard 5SE\nHouston\n19.25\nKirbyville\nJasper\n21.35\nHardin\nKountze\n21.76\nLake Conroe\nMontgomery\n6.77\nLake Texana (Spillway)\nJackson\n9.69\nLake Texana (blo splwy)\nJackson\n10.89\n3.39\n15.86\nLa Port\nHarris\n0.03\n0.05\n1.50\n8.90\nLeague City\nGalveston\n9.37\nLoma at Hwy 30\nWalker\n11.55\nLufkin\nAngelina\n11.25\nMemorial at Hwy 6\nHarris\n0.01\n15.58\nMeyerland\nHarris\n3.41\n0.51\n9.41\n2.24\n4.66\nMilano\nMilam\n3.76\n0.23\n0.67\n17.60\nMorales\nJackson\n5.00\nNeches\nAnderson\n15.50\nNew Waverly\nWalker\n19.60\nNorth Ganado\nJackson\n16.00\n2.35\n2.00\n22.55\nOnalaska\nPolk\n2.20\n22.00\nPasadena\nHarris\n18.62\nPeach Ck at Hwy 105\nMontgomery\n17.17\nBrazoria\nPearland\n15.20\nPearland East\nBrazoria\n15.75\nPearland Hwy 518\nBrazoria\n11.60\n11.10\n22.70\nPearland Country Club Dr\nBrazoria\n10.90\n10.50\n21.40\nPearland EOC\nBrazoria\n11.00\n10.20\n21.20\nPearland Veterans Dr\nBrazoria\n27.90\n13.30\n14.90\nPearland Hwy 288\nBrazoria\n6.00\n14.73\n0.50\n0.28\n7.29\nPierce Rch\nWharton\n19.25\nGrimes\nPlantersville\nPleasure Island\nJefferson\n1.75\n0.54\n4.21\n1.05\n0.15\n7.70\n27.00\nPoint Blank\nSan Jacinto\n10.43\nPort Arthur\nJefferson\n13.98\nPossum Walk Jct\nWalker\n9.00\nPort Arthur 8NE\nJefferson\n3.50\n5.50\n11.90\nProvident City\nLavaca\n9.00\nRatcliff\nHouston\n18.00\nRoans Prairie\nGrimes\n7.09\nRock Island\nLavaca\n8.61\nSan Augustine\n7.20\n1.15\n0.25\n0.01\nSan Augustine\n5.40\nGalveston\nSan Leon\n10.10\nSchulenberg\nFayette\n13.91\nSharpstown\nHarris\nF-3","SAT\nSUN\nMON\nTUE\nWED\n5-DAY\nSTATION\nCOUNTY\n10/15\n10/16\n10/17\n10/18\n10/19\nTOTAL\nSilsbee\nHardin\n16.75\nStoneham\nGrimes\n21.00\nSublime\nLavaca\n6.69\nSW Sugarland\nFort Bend\n1.85\n0.40\n0.40\n3.90\n11.65\nTennington\nHouston\n14.20\nTex A&M Cluster Gages\nCentral\nHarris\n0.14\n14.53\n3.51\n0.98\n19.16\nSE76\nHarris\n0.47\n9.94\n5.68\n0.45\n16.54\n19.83\nSE61\nWaller\n0.23\n14.30\n4.28\n1.02\nSE64\nWaller\n0.25\n14.70\n3.69\n0.57\n19.21\nSE62W103\nWaller\n0.27\n14.94\n3.96\n1.33\n20.50\nSE62W303\nWaller\n0.24\n13.21\n3.79\n1.26\n18.50\nThompsons\nFort Bend\n1.80\n0.20\n0.65\n6.60\n9.25\nVillage Cr St Pk\nHardin\n1.15\n3.94\n11.00\n1.75\n17.84\nWashington St Pk\nWashington\n0.10\n9.30\n6.30\n15.70\nWest Beaumont\nJefferson\n10.00\n2.50\n12.50\nWeldon\nHouston\n5.90\n0.80\n0.70\n7.40\nWest Groves\nJefferson\n5.90\n6.25\n1.90\n14.05\nWest Houston\nHarris\n10.89\nWinnie 8E\nChambers\n0.50\n2.25\n0.50\n3.25\nWolf Crk Pk\nSan Jacinto\n1.60\n11.50\n2.59\n0.90\n16.59\nWoodville\nTyler\n5.00\n2.36\n6.33\n2.77\n16.46\nZavalla\nAngelina\n3.00\n6.50\n1.10\n0.10\n10.70\nF-4","10\n15\n15\n5\nBPS\nBP 10\nJSPR\n50\n25\n.\nH.I\n035\n20\nLFK\nLVGSH\nLIB\nGLS\n25\n20\n25\nFRPT\nCRKT\n20\nRO\n2\n25\nCON\nAUHT\nRICH\n20\n0\n25\nBYC'\n110\nWHAR\nBLUL\nBRAHM\nCUL\nCLMBS\n20\n15\n10\nACT\n10\n10\nKGRK\n5\nAUS","APPENDIX G\nNWS DAILY RAINFALL OBSERVATIONS AVAILABLE\nTO WGRFC FOR DATES SHOWN - (LIST ONLY INCLUDES 4-DAY\nTOTALS GREATER THAN 4.00 INCHES)\nID\nCity\n10/16\n10/17\n10/18\n10/19\nTotal\nALVT2\nAlvin\n4.85\n4.85 p\nATOT2\nAlto 8SW\n0.21\n5.46\n1.42\n0.23\n7.32\nBATT2\nBaytown\n14.32\n2.01\n16.33 p\nBDDT2\nBroaddus\n1.58\n5.48\n1.70\n0.18\n8.94\nBEAT2\nBeaumont City\n3.00\n4.75\n7.75 p\nBNNT2\nBronson 2N\n0.83\n4.92\n2.05\n0.16\n7.96\nBPT\nPort Arthur WSO\n2.23\n0.96\n4.46\n0.48\n8.13\nBRTT2\nBastrop\n0.07\n4.88\n0.29\n0.89\n6.13\nBRYT2\nBryan 17NE\n0.38\n6.52\n1.18\n0.45\n8.53\nBSSL1 Bossier City, LA 9SE\n5.20\n0.02\n0.01\n5.23\nBSUT2 Breslau\n4.90\n4.90 p\nBTTL1 Belmont, LA\n0.15\n5.51\n0.87\n6.53 p\nBUNT2\nBuna 7S\n17.35\n17.35 p\nBVKT2\nBevil Oaks\n0.83\n5.60\n9.49\n3.35\n19.27\nBWRT2 Bon Weir 2ENE\n1.52\n1.93\n4.45\n1.14\n9.04\nCDST2 Coldspring 5SSW\n0.88\n9.13\n2.55\n1.17\n13.73\nCENT2\nCenter\n1.65\n8.10\n0.15\n0.05\n9.95\nCHNT2\nChina\n1.03\n7.15\n8.25\n16.43\np\nCHRT2\nChireno\n1.65\n9.42\n0.09\n11.16\np\nCLL\nCollege Station\n0.18\n13.89\n0.55\n1.01\n15.63\nCNET2\nCenter 7SSE\n1.65\n6.19\n0.24\n0.12\n8.20\nCODT2\nCordele 4E\n0.43\n0.63\n9.49\n10.55\np\nCOGT2\nCorrigan 2ENE\n14.69\n8.27\n1.12\n24.08\np\nCSET2\nCollege Station 1SE\n11.11\n1.54\n12.65\np\nCTGT2\nCarthage\n0.51\n5.63\n0.08\n6.22\np\nCYPT2\nCypress\n0.55\n0.96\n4.80\n1.77\n8.08\nDOWT2 Freeport Dow Chem\n4.00\n1.00\n4.00\n3.00\n12.00\nDVGT2\nDanevang 2SE\n0.45\n0.16\n6.05\n6.66 p\nDWYT2 Deweyville #2\n1.99\n0.06\n4.08\n2.55\n8.68\nEDNT2\nEdna\n0.47\n0.24\n7.10\n10.48\n18.29\nEFD\nEllingston AFB\n1.74\n1.21\n7.28\n3.56\n13.79\nEMPT2\nEl Campo 22NW\n0.20\n1.02\n7.20\n8.42 p\nERCT2 Eagle Lake 3NW\n3.54\n2.2\n4.01\n9.75\np\nFROT2 Sabinal 16SSE\n5\n5.00\np\nGART2\nGarrison\n0.95\n10.61\n11.56 p\nGBLT2 Hou-Green Bayou\n3.27\n1.50\n8.86\n0.91\n14.54\nGIDT2\nGiddings 3ESE\n9.32\n9.32\np\nGLIT2\nGoliad 1SE\n2.10\n6.93\n9.03\np\nGNDT2\nGanado 4NE\n0.35\n1.30\n4.53\n6.18\np\nHBAT2 Houston Barker\n0.73\n0.38\n4.58\n2.28\n7.97\nHDGL1 Hodges Garden, LA\n1.51\n4.00\n5.51 p\nHHET2\nHouston Heights\n2.80\n0.56\n5.65\n1.32\n10.33\nHPHT2\nHemphill\n1.25\n6.00\n1.24\n8.49 p\nHSBT2 Houston Sp Branch\n1.93\n1.06\n4.58\n1.82\n9.39\nHSIT2 Houston Simms Bayou\n4.02\n0.59\n10.00\n2.76\n17.37\nHSJT2\nLake Houston\n3.40\n3.50\n14.00\n0.74\n21.64\nHTHT2 Halletsville 2N\n5.75\n0.75\n6.50 p\nHUNT2\nHuntsville\n0.90\n10.80\n0.90\n12.60\np\nHWET2 Houston Westbury\n5.28\n5.28\np\nHXTT2\nHuxley\n1.38\n5.71\n0.47\n0.04\n7.60\nIAH\nHouston Intentl Apt\n2.01\n1.41\n4.78\n1.17\n9.37\nJAST2\nJasper 3SW\n5.24\n2.76\n8.00 p\nJSPT2 Sam Rayburn Res\n1.71\n4.83\n2.78\n0.42\n9.74\nKHEL1 Keatchie, LA 3WSW\n1.06\n4.33\n5.39 p\nG-1","2.35\n9.48\n0.90\n5.26\n0.97\nKTZT2 Kountze 3SE\n0.06\n5.62\n0.10\n4.26\n1.20\nKVLL1 Keithville, LA\n10.13\np\n10.13\nLEXT2 Lexington\n0.26\n12.32\n1.03\n9.69\n1.34\nLFK\nLufkin FSS\n2.45\n0.50\n12.08\n9.11\n0.02\nLGRT2\nLagrange\n5.7\n5.70\np\nLPWT2 La Pryor 17WSW\n8.00\np\n4.40\n3.60\nLRYT2\nLiberty\n2.59\n0.40\n7.72\np\n4.73\nLSVL1 Leesville, LA 5ENE\n15.64 p\n11.00\n4.64\nLUMT2\nLumberton\n2.93\n1.03\n14.26\n8.51\nLVDT2 Lake Livingston Dam\n1.79\n14.01\n2.02\np\n10.47\n1.52\nLVST2 Livingston 2NNE\n7.57\n0.20\np\n5.35\n2.02\nMANL1 Mansfield, LA 3WSW\n5.13\np\n5.13\nMuldoon\nMLDT2\n4.00\np\n4.00\nMLTT2\nMoulton\n7.46\n1.36\np\n6.10\nMNWL1 Many, LA 9SW\n5.61\n1.31\np\n4.30\nMNYL1\nMany, LA\n9.13 p\n8.50\n0.63\nMRAT2\nMorales\n0.16\n8.15\n2.01\n4.13\n1.85\nMYYL1 Many, LA 15SW\n6.65 p\n6.65\nNCAT2 New Caney 2E\n6.94\np\n6.94\nNCNT2\nNew Caney\n4.13\n4.13\np\nNGUT2\nNewgulf\n16.00\np\n16.00\nONAT2\nOnalaska\n10.41\n5.50\n1.70\n0.10\n3.11\nORET2\nOrange 9N\n4.16 p\n4.16\nPDYT2\nPriddy 3N\n0.55\n0.04\n7.48\n5.43\nPPHL1 Pleasant Hill, LA 6NW\n1.46\n4.75\n1.87\n15.29\n4.07\n4.60\nPort Arthur City\nPTHT2\n4.00\n0.11\n4.11\np\nRising Star\nRIST2\n4.37\n3.58\n9.67\np\n1.72\nRMOT2\nRichmond\n5.71\n5.03\n0.19\n0.39\n0.10\nRNGT2\nRunge\n8.50 p\n6.81\n1.65\n0.04\nSBGT2 Schulenburg 2WNW\n10.40 p\n1.78\n2.10\n6.52\nSchulenburg\nSCHT2\n5.31\n1.18\n9.79\n1.57\n1.73\nSHLT2\nSheldon\n6.65\n5.55\np\n1.10\nProvident City\nSKDT2\n0.08\n6.06 p\n4.72\n1.26\nSan Augustine 11 ENE\nSNET2\n20.76\n4.87\n0.61\n15.25\n0.03\nSomerville Dam\nSOMT2\n5.26 p\n0.02\n5.04\n0.20\nThrockmorton\nTCKT2\n7.98\n7.98\np\nTMAT2\nThomaston 2SW\n10.20 p\n8.73\n1.47\nTMST2\nThomaston\n0.88\n0.07\n5.30 p\n4.35\nTOHL1\nNatchitoches, LA\n1.35\n14.51\n6.00\n6.38\n0.78\nTomball\nTOMT2\n12.75 p\n12.75\nTrinity\nTRTT2\n3.69\n4.46\n8.63\n0.34\nVictoria WSO\n0.14\nVCT\n20.00 p\n6.00\n14.00\nWaller 3 SSW\nWALT2\n15.46 p\n15.46\nWashington St Park\nWAST2\n9.88\n2.13\n5.47\n1.10\nWestfield Cypress CK\n1.18\nWFDT2\n12.50\n5.45\n6.66\n0.11\n0.28\nWHAT2\nWharton\n4.71\n6.45\n11.16\np\nWHOT2\nWharton 2S\n5.58\n5.58\np\nWWAT2\nWoodway\n3.88\n1.86\n14.69\n6.35\n2.60\nWildwood\nWWDT2\n6.98 p\n4.87\n2.11\nYKMT2\nYoakum\n10.74\n3.46\n0.35\n5.12\nYPDT2 Pineland 8ESE\n1.81\n6.30 p\n1.10\n5.20\nZWOL1 Zwolle, LA\np = partial 4-day total\nG-2","ACCUM\nEAGLE LAKE RES\nPCP\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.3\n0.5\n1.3\n3.4\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.8\n4.2\n4.5\n4.5\n4.5\n4.5\n4.5\n4.7\n4.7\n0\n0\nTX\n1-HR\nPCP\n0.2\n0.1\n0.2\n0.8\n2.1\n0.3\n0.1\n0.4\n0.3\n0.2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nACCUM\nWASHINGTON ST. PARK\nPCP\n10.4\n12.6\n13.9\n14.4\n14.5\n14.6\n15.1\n15.3\n15.4\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n0.2\n0.9\n1.3\n1.7\n1.9\n1.9\n2.4\n5.3\n8.5\n9.0\n9.2\n0\no\nTX\n1-HR\nPCP\n0.2\n0.7\n0.4\n0.4\n0.2\n0.5\n2.9\n3.2\n0.5\n0.2\n1.2\n2.2\n1.3\n0.5\n0.1\n0.1\n0.5\n0.2\n0.1\n0.1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nACCUM\nPCP\n0.1\n0.7\n0.7\n0.8\n1.0\n1.1\n1.2\n1.6\n1.6\n1.7\n1.9\n5.0\n6.2\n9.8\n11.4\n13.1\n13.8\n14.2\nOVERFLOWED\n0\nCONROE\nTX\n1-HR\nPCP\n0.6\n1.6\n0.1\n0.1\n0.2\n0.1\n0.1\n0.4\n0.1\n0.2\n3.1\n1.2\n3.6\n1.7\n0.7\n0.4\n0\n0\n0\nACCUM\nPCP\n0.10\n0.60\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.20\n0.20\n0.20\n0.40\n0.40\n0.40\n0.75\n0.45\n0.50\n0.50\n0.60\n0.75\n0.75\n0.75\n0.75\nTHOMPSONS 3W3W\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTX\n1-HR\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.20\n0.05\n0.05\n0.10\n0.15\nPCP\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nACCUM\nPCP\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\n0.30\n0.35\n1.05\n1.20\n1.25\n2.10\n2.30\n2.35\n2.40\n2.50\n2.95\n3.00\n3.75\n1.6\n3.0\n3.2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nADDICKS\nTX\n1-HR\nPCP\n0.25\n0.05\n0.05\n0.70\n0.15\n0.05\n0.35\n0.50\n0.20\n0.05\n0.05\n0.10\n0.45\n0.05\n0.20\n055\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nNOON\nNOON\nMIDN\nMIDN\n10AM\n11AM\n10PM\n11PM\n1AM\n2AM\n3AM\n4AM\n5AM\n6AM\n7AM\n8AM\n9AM\n10PM\n11PM\n1PM\n2PM\n1PM\n2PM\n3PM\n4PM\n5PM\n6PM\n7PM\n8PM\n9PM\n3PM\n4PM\n5PM\n6PM\n7PM\n8PM\n9PM\nOCT 16\nOCT 17","ACCUM\nEAGLE LAKE RES\nPCP\n10.0\n4.8\n4.9\n4.9\n4.9\n5.0\n5.3\n5.6\n5.8\n6.6\n8.8\n10.1\n10.2\n10.2\n10.2\n10.2\n10.2\n9.2\n9.4\n9.5\n9.6\n9.7\n9.7\n9.8\nTX\n1-HR\nPCP\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.3\n0.3\n0.2\n0.8\n2.2\n0.4\n0.2\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.2\n0.1\n0.1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nACCUM\nWASHINGTON ST. PARK\nPCP\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\nTX\n1-HR\nPCP\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nACCUM\nPCP\nCONROE\nTX\n1-HR\nPCP\nACCUM\nPCP\n0.75\n0.75\n2.00\n3.30\n3.40\n3.50\n3.55\n3.65\n3.70\n4.30\n4.90\n6.30\n6.95\n7.35\n7.60\n7.65\n7.70\n7.80\n8.00\n8.10\n8.15\n8.15\n8.15\n8.15\nTHOMPSONS 3W3W\nTX\n1-HR\n1.25\n1.30\n0.10\n0.10\n0.05\n0.10\n0.05\n0.60\n0.60\n1.40\n0.65\n0.40\n0.25\n0.05\n0.05\n0.10\n0.20\n0.10\n0.05\nPCP\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nACCUM\nPCP\n3.75\n3.90\n5.10\n5.95\n6.05\n6.25\n6.25\n6.25\n6.25\n6.55\n6.75\n7.15\n7.25\n7.40\n7.60\n7.70\n7.80\n7.90\n8.15\n8.25\n8.40\n8.40\n8.40\n8.40\nADDICKS\nTX\n1-HR\nPCP\n0.15\n1.20\n0.85\n0.10\n0.20\n0.30\n0.20\n0.40\n0.10\n0.15\n0.20\n0.10\n0.10\n0.10\n0.25\n0.10\n0.15\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nNOON\nMIDN\n10AM\n11AM\n1AM\n2AM\n3AM\n4AM\n5AM\n6AM\n7AM\n8AM\n9AM\n10PM\n11PM\n1PM\n2PM\n3PM\n4PM\n5PM\n6PM\n7PM\n8PM\n9PM\nOCT 18","16\"\nOVERFLOW\n14.2\n14\nHOURLY AND CUMULATIVE RAINFALL\nCONROE, TEXAS\nRecording Raingage Overflowed\n12\"\nConroe Observer Reported\nOctober 16-19\nSun\nOctober 16\n8A-8A\n1.30\"\n10\"\nMon\nOctober 17\n8A-8A\n14.35\"\nTue\nOctober 18\n8A-8A\n7.32\"\nWed\nOctober 19\n8A-8A\n0.45\"\nTotal\n23.42\"\n8\"\n6\"\n4\"\n2\"\n0\n8A\nIP\n5P\nIOP\nSA\nOCT 16\nOCT 17\nH-3","APPENDIX I\n*PROVISIONAL U.S.G.S. DISCHARGE/STAGES - OCTOBER 1994\nNECHES RIVER BASIN\nDATE\nSTAGE-FT\nDISCHARGE-CFS\nAttoyac Bayou - Chireno\n10/18\n23.4\n21,500\nAyish Bayou - San Augustine\n10/18\n15.0\n7,220\nNeches R - Rockland\n10/20\n33.3\n42,500\nNeches R - Diboll\n10/18\n17.8\n38,500\nVillage Cr - Kountze\n10/18\n25.5\n43,000\nPine Island Bayou - Sour Lake\n10/20\n37.5\n48,800\nTRINITY RIVER BASIN\nKickapoo Cr - Onalaska\n10/17\n41.9\n84,600\nLong King Cr - Livingston\n10/17\n30.5\n45,000\nTrinity R - Goodrich\n10/18\n48.9\n124,000\nMenard Cr - Rye\n10/18\n30.5\n12,000\nTrinity R - Romayor\n10/19\n42.7\n122,000\nTrinity R - Liberty\n10/21\n31.0\n135,000\nSAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN\nCedar Bayou - Crosby\n10/19\n28.3\n7,800\nW Fk San Jacinto - Conroe\n10/18\n32.3\n115,000\nSpring Cr - Spring\n10/18\n44.1\n78,800\nE Fk San Jacinto - Cleveland\n10/18\n24.6\n63,000\nCaney Cr - Splendora\n10/17\n26.4\n36,000\nE Fk San Jacinto - New Caney\n10/18\n33.0\n74,100\nLake Houston\n10/19\n52.8\nSan Jacinto R - Sheldon\n10/19\n27.1\n360,000\nSims Bayou - Houston\n10/18\n29.9\n7,750\nGreens Bayou - Ley Rd\n10/18\n36.1\n21,800\nBRAZOS RIVER BASIN\nBrazos R - Hempstead\n10/17\n51.6\n109,000\nBrazos R - Richmond\n10/21\n50.7\n86,800\nBrazos R - Rosharon\n10/22\n51.8\n82,500\nI-1","COLORADO RIVER BASIN\nDATE\nSTAGE-FT\nDISCHARGE-CFS\nColorado R - Columbus\n10/18\n37.5\n56,100\nColorado R - Wharton\n10/20\n40.9\n50,000\nColorado R - Bay City\n10/20\n39.3\n74,500\nLAVACA - NAVIDAD RIVER BASIN\nLavaca R - Edna\n10/19\n35.5\n135,000\n30,000\nW. Mustang Cr - Ganado\n10/19\n28.4\nSandy Cr - Louise\n10/19\n28.5\n23,000\n*NOTE - This provisional data (11/94) is subject to revision by the U.S.G.S. Official data\npublications by the U.S.G.S. which will be forthcoming should be consulted for\nverification before using any of the data included here.\nI-2","APPENDIX J\n*PROVISIONAL USGS RECORD DISCHARGES AND/OR STAGES FOR OCTOBER 1994\nRIVER\nOCTOBER 1994\nPREVIOUS RECORD\nR\n1994 to\nFT\nCFS\nFT\nCFS\nDATE\n100 yr\nSAN JACINTO RIVER\nWF nr Conroe\n32.3\n115,000\n30.9\n110,000\n11/1940\n1.3\nEF nr Cleveland\n24.6\n63,000\n24.1 59,000 11/1940\n1.0\nEF nr New Caney\n33.0\n74,100\n29.6 --\n1.0\nLake Houston\n52.8\n49.6 --\n5/1989\n--\n--\nSheldon\n27.1\n360,000\n20.1 --\n6/1973\n1.6\nSpring Cr at Spring\n44.1\n78,800\n33.6\n42,700\n11/1940\n1.7\nTRINITY RIVER\nRomayor\n42.7\n122,000\n45.8\n111,000\n5/1942\n1.0\nLiberty\n31.0\n135,000\n30.0 106,000 5/1990\n1.1\nLA VACA RIVER\nEdna\n35.5\n135,000\n33.8\n83,400\n5/1936\n2.1\nNECHES RIVER\nPine Island Bayou\n37.5\n48,800\n34.3\n25,000\n4/1979\n2.0\nnr Sour Lake\n*This provisional data (11/94) is subject to revision before final publications are released.\nR = Ratio of 10/1994 Streamflow to 100-year Flood\nJ-1","APPENDIX K\nCHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF PRODUCTS FROM WGRFC\nTIME\nDATE\nDISSEMINATION\n1145\nCDT\nMon 10/17\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1200\nCDT\nMon 10/17\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1230\nCDT\nMon 10/17\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1430\nCDT\nMon 10/17\nTel - NWSO HOU\n1530\nCDT\nMon 10/17\nTel - Lower Neches Valley Auth\n1600\nCDT\nMon 10/17\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1630\nCDT\nMon 10/17\nTel - NWSO HOU\n2030\nCDT\nMon 10/17\nTel - NWSO HOU\n2105\nCDT\nMon 10/17\nTel - NWSO HOU\n0700\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nTel - NWSO HOU\n0845\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nTel - Sabine Riv. Auth\n0930\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nTel - NWSO HOU, Trinity Riv. Auth\n1014\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF LSA (NWSO HOU)\n1045\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF LBR (NWSO HOU)\n1115\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1205\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1230\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1845\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nTel - WSFO SAT\n1915\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nTel - WSFO SAT\nK-1","TIME\nDATE\nDISSEMINATION\n1930\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nTel - NWSO HOU\n2000\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nTel - WSFO SAT, Lower Colorado Riv. Auth\n2010\nCDT\nTue 10/18\nTel - WSFO SAT, Lower Colorado Riv. Auth\n0800\nCDT\nWed 10/19\nTel - Lower Colorado Riv. Auth\n1030\nCDT\nWed 10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF LNE (NWSO HOU)\n1100\nCDT\nWed 10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF LTR (NWSO HOU)\n1100\nCDT\nWed 10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF LCO (WSFO SAT)\n1100\nCDT\nWed 10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF LSA (NWSO HOU)\n1120\nCDT\nWed 10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF LBR (NWSO HOU)\n1145\nCDT\nWed 10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1200\nCDT\nWED 10/19\nAFO - FTW RVF LCO (WSFO SAT)\n1530\nCDT\nWED 10/19\nTel - NWSO HOU\n0900\nCDT\nTHU 10/20\nTel - NWSO HOU\n0920\nCDT\nTHU 10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF LTR (NWSO HOU)\n0945\nCDT\nTHU 10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF LSA (NWSO HOU)\n1030\nCDT\nTHU 10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF LNE (NWSO HOU)\n1030\nCDT\nTHU 10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1130\nCDT\nTHU 10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF SAT (NWSO HOU)\n1150\nCDT\nTHU 10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF LBR (NWSO HOU)\n0230\nCDT\nFRI 10/21\nTel - TX EOC\n0630\nCDT\nFRI 10/21\nTel - NWSO HOU, TX EOC\nK-2","TIME\nDATE\nDISSEMINATION\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\nFRI 10/21\n1015\nCDT\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\nFRI 10/21\n1150\nCDT\nTel - Orange Co. EMC\n1155\nCDT\nFRI 10/21\nFRI 10/21\nTel - NWSO HOU\n1500\nCDT\nTel - NWSO HOU\n1600\nCDT\nFRI 10/21\nTel - WSO BPT\n1010\nCDT\nSAT 10/22\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1059\nCDT\nSAT 10/22\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1120\nCDT\nSAT 10/22\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n0930\nCDT\nSUN 10/23\nAFOS - FTW RVF LBR (NWSO HOU)\n1055\nCDT\nSUN 10/23\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1120\nCDT\nSUN 10/23\nAFOS - FTW RVF LBR (NWSO HOU)\nMON 10/24\n1100\nCDT\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1115\nCDT\nMON 10/24\nK-3","FORECASTS BY RIVERS, FROM WGRFC\nSAN JACINTO RIVER FORECASTS FROM WGRFC\nTime\nDate\nDissemination\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1230\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\n1430\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nTel - NWSO HOU\n2030\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nTel - NWSO HOU\n0700\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nTel - NWSO HOU\n1205\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1930\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nTel -NWSO - HOU\nAFOS - FTW RVF SAJ (NWSO HOU)\n1115\nCDT\nWed\n10/19\n1130\nCDT\nThu\n10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF SAJ (NWSO HOU)\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1150\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\n1120\nCDT\nSat\n10/22\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1120\nCDT\nSun\n10/23\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1115\nCDT\nMon\n10/24\nK-4","TRINITY RIVER FORECASTS FROM WGRFC\nTime\nDate\nDissemination\n1145\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n0930\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nTel - NWSO HOU\n1230\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1100\nCDT\nWed\n10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF LTR (NWSO HOU)\n0900\nCDT\nThu\n10/20\nTel - NWSO HOU\n0920\nCDT\nThu\n10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF LTR (NWSO HOU)\n0230\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\nTel - TX EOC\n0630\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\nTel - NWSO HOU, TX EOC\n1150\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1120\nCDT\nSat\n10/22\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1120\nCDT\nSun\n10/23\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1115\nCDT\nMon\n10/24\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\nK-5","BRAZOS RIVER FORECASTS FROM WGRFC\nTime\nDate\nDissemination\n1145\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1630\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nTel - NWSO HOU\n2105\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nTel - NWSO HOU\n1045\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF LBR (NWSO HOU)\n1230\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1120\nCDT\nWed\n10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF LBR (NWSO HOU)\n1150\nCDT\nThu\n10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF LBR (NWSO HOU)\n1150\nCDT\nFri\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n10/21\n1120\nCDT\nSat\n10/22\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1055 CDT\nSun\n10/23\nAFO - FTW RVF LBR (NWSO HOU)\n1100\nCDT\nMon\n10/24\nAFOS - FTW RVF LBR (NWSO HOU)\nK-6","NECHES RIVER FORECASTS FROM WGRFC\nTime\nDate\nDissemination\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1230\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\n1530\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nTel - Lower Neches Valley Auth.\nTel - NWSO HOU\n2030\nCDT\nMon 10/17\n1230\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\nAFOS - FTW RVF LNE (NWSO HOU)\n1030\nCDT\nWed\n10/19\n1530\nCDT\nWed\n10/19\nTel - NWSO HOU\n1030\nCDT\nThu\n10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF LNE (NWSO HOU)\nFri\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1150\nCDT\n10/21\n1155\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\nTel - Orange Co. EMC\n1600\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\nTel - NWSO HOU\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1120\nCDT\nSat\n10/22\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1120\nCDT\nSun\n10/23\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1115\nCDT\nMon\n10/24\nK-7","SAN BERNARD RIVER FORECASTS FROM WGRFC\nTime\nDate\nDissemination\n1030\nCDT\nAFOS - FTW RVF LNE (NWSO HOU)\nThu\n10/20\n1150\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1500\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\nTel - NWSO HOU\n1120\nCDT\nSat\n10/22\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1120\nCDT\nSun\n10/23\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1115\nCDT\nMon\n10/24\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\nK-8","SABINE RIVER FORECASTS FROM WGRFC\nTime\nDate\nDissemination\n1230\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n0845\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nTel - Sabine Riv. Auth.\n1014\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF LSA (NWSO HOU)\n1230\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1100\nCDT\nWed\n10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF LSA (NWSO HOU)\n0945\nCDT\nAFOS - FTW RVF LSA (NWSO HOU)\nThu\n10/20\n1150\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1010\nCDT\nSat\n10/22\nTel - WSO BPT\n1120\nCDT\nSat\n10/22\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1120\nCDT\nSun\n10/23\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\n1115\nCDT\nMon\n10/24\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX4 (NWSO HOU)\nK-9","COLORADO RIVER FORECASTS FROM WGRFC\nTime\nDate\nDissemination\n1200\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1600\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1115\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n2000\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nTel - WSFO SAT, Lower Colorado Riv. Auth.\n2010\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nTel - WSFO SAT, Lower Colorado Riv. Auth.\n0800\nCDT\nWed\n10/19\nTel - WSFO SAT, Lower Colorado Riv. Auth.\n1100\nCDT\nWed\n10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF LCO (WSFO SAT)\n1030\nCDT\nThu\n10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1015\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1059\nCDT\nSat\n10/22\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n0930\nCDT\nSun\n10/23\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\nK-10","GUADALUPE RIVER FORECASTS FROM WGRFC\nDissemination\nTime\nDate\n1115\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n10/18\nTel - WSFO SAT\n1845\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nTel - WSFO SAT\n1915\nCDT\nTue\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1145\nCDT\nWed\n10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1030\nCDT\nThu\n10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1015\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n10/22\n1059\nCDT\nSat\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n0930\nCDT\nSun\n10/23\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1115\nCDT\nMon\n10/24\nK-11","LAVACA-NAVIDAD RIVER FORECASTS FROM WGRFC\nTime\nDate\nDissemination\n1200\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1600\nCDT\nMon\n10/17\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1115\nCDT\nTue\n10/18\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1200\nCDT\nWed\n10/19\nAFOS - FTW RVF LCO (WSFO SAT)\n1030\nCDT\nThu\n10/20\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1015\nCDT\nFri\n10/21\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\n1059\nCDT\nSat\n10/22\nAFOS - FTW RVF TX2 (WSFO SAT)\nK-12","APPENDIX L\nEXTERNAL POINTS OF CONTACT - WGRFC\nTexas State Emergency Operations Center, Austin, TX\nDon Couch, others\n512-465-2208\nSabine River Authority\nJim Washburn, others\n409-565-2273\nU.S. Coast Guard, Freeport, TX\nChief Marcotte, OIC\n409-233-7551\nRamsey State Correctional Facility, Unit #1\nJoe Klinkowsky, Doug Cadenhead\n713-595-3491 ext. 1318\nDow Chemical, Brazos River and Oyster Creek operations\nDanny Smith\n409-849-5101\nBrazos River Authority\nE.G. Whiteswift, PIO\n817-776-1443\nHardin County, TX\nBob Burgers\n409-385-5501\nLower Neches Valley Authority\nTom Hebert\n409-892-4011\nU.S. Coast Guard, Beaumont, TX\nLt J.G. Pat Clark\nno phone number available\nNorth Star Steel, Beaumont, TX\nEcky Hall\n409-769-1001\nOrange County Emergency Management\nChuck Frazier\n409-882-7895\nBeaumont, TX Department of Public Safety\nGary LaCox\n409-898-0770 ext. 54\nJasper Newton Electric Company\nDanny Wade\n409-423-2241\nHazmat, Houston\nJim Ally\n713-422-0172\nConoco Rig, Near Silsbee\nBob Strickler\n409-899-5136\nLower Colorado River Authority, Austin, TX\nRandy Rieman\n512-473-4053\nL-1","OBS.CREST/DAY\n25.9 M\n52.8 W\n27.1 W\n26.9 W\n26.4 M\n35.1 M\n32.3 T\n40.1 T\n35.9 R\n33.0 T\n40.7 T\nWED - 19TH\n32 W\n30 W\n24 W\n1115\nCrd\nCrg\nCrg\nCrg\nCrd\nCrg\nCrg\n1930\n52.5 W\n22 W\nSAN JACINTO RIVER FORECASTS FROM WGRFC\nTUE 18TH\n20-21 W\n33-34 T\n1230\n49.5 W\n32 W\n34 W\n27 W\n32 W\n24 W\n30 W\nCrg\nCrd\nCrd\n0700\n49.5 T\n19.5 T\nCrg\n30 W\n30.5 T\nR = Thursday\n2030\n30 W\nNote: All observed crest stages as shown are provisional as of 11/94.\n30 T\nMON 17TH\n27.5 M\n1430\nW= Wednesday\n25-26 W\n21-22 W\n25-26 W\n22-23 M\n18-19 M\n30-31 T\n26 M\n48 W\n16-17 R\n25-26 T\n31-32 T\n26-27 T\n1230\nAll crest forecasts and observations in feet\nDATE Forecasts Made\nTIME CDT Forecasts Made\nCrd = Crested\nT Tuesday\nCypress Creek nr Westfield\nCaney Creek nr Splendora\nPeach Creek nr Splendora\nLuce Bayou nr Huffman\nSpring Creek nr Spring\nEF nr New Caney\nEF nr Cleveland\nWF nr Humble\nWF nr Conroe\nWF nr Porter\nM = Monday\nCrg=Cresting\nLk Houston\nSheldon","APPENDIX N\nFLOOD/FLASH FLOOD/RIVER PRODUCTS FROM NWSFO AUSTIN/SAN ANTONIO\nSUN 10/16 - FRI 10/21\nTIME\nDATE\nPRODUCT\n152\nPM\nCDT\nSUN\n10/16\nFFS\n412\nAM\nCDT\nMON\n10/17\nFFA\n646\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\n804\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFLW\n955\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\n1210\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFLW\n1235\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\n217\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\n335\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFA\n514\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFLW\n630\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\n1110\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\n1223\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFW\n140\nAM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFFS\n250\nAM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFFS\n435\nAM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFFA\n635\nAM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFLW\n635\nAM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFFS\n755\nAM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFFS\n815\nAM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFLW\n910\nAM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFLW\n934\nAM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFFS\n1015\nAM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFLW\n1155\nAM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFLW\n120\nPM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFLW\n150\nPM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFFS\n326\nPM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFFW\n330\nPM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFFA\n340\nPM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFLW\n555\nPM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFFS\n655\nPM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFLW\n830\nPM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFLW\n945\nPM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFLW\n1159\nPM\nCDT\nTUE 10/18\nFLW\nN-1","TIME\nDATE\nPRODUCT\n228\nAM\nCDT\nWED 10/19\nFFW\n310\nAM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFS\n330\nAM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFA\n455\nAM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFS\n645\nAM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFS\n713\nAM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFW\n715\nAM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFLW\n858\nAM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFW\n1220\nPM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nRVS\n1240\nPM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFLW\n345\nPM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFA\n828\nPM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFS\n1100\nAM\nCDT\nFRI\n10/21\nRVS\nFFA\nFLASH FLOOD WATCH\nFFS\nFLASH FLOOD STATEMENT\nFFW\nFLASH FLOOD WARNING\nFLW\nFLOOD WARNING\nRVS\nRIVER STATEMENT\nN-2","APPENDIX o\nFLOOD/FLASH FLOOD/RIVER PRODUCTS FROM NWSO HOUSTON/GALVESTON\nSUN 10/16 - SUN 10/23\nTIME\nDATE\nPRODUCT\nSUN\n10/16\nFFW\n728\nPM\nCDT\n756\nPM\nCDT\nSUN\n10/16\nFFW\nFFW\n803\nPM\nCDT\nSUN\n10/16\n946\nPM\n10/16\nFFW\nCDT\nSUN\n1001\n10/16\nFFW\nPM\nCDT\nSUN\n10/16\nSPS\n1022\nPM\nCDT\nSUN\n10/16\nSPS\n1118\nPM\nCDT\nSUN\nFLW\n1135\nPM\nCDT\nSUN\n10/16\nFFW\n101\nAM\nCDT\nMON\n10/17\n125\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFLW\n145\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFW\n220\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nRVS\n412\nMON 10/17\nFFW\nAM\nCDT\nFFS\n449\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\n516\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\nMON 10/17\nFFS\n625\nAM\nCDT\n755\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\nMON 10/17\nRVS\n830\nAM\nCDT\nFFS\n855\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\n941\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\nMON 10/17\nFLW\n945\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFLW\n1040\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFW\n1104\nAM\nCDT\nFLW\n1115\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\n1120\nAM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\nMON 10/17\nRVS\n1230\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\n1240\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFLW\n1245\nPM\nCDT\nFLW\n145\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nMON 10/17\nFFS\n202\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\n310\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFW\n348\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFLW\n505\nPM\nCDT\nFFS\n603\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nMON 10/17\nFFW\n623\nPM\nCDT\nFFS\n803\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFLW\n830\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nO-1","TIME\nDATE\nPRODUCT\n910\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFLS\n918\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFLS\n1003\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFS\n1117\nPM\nCDT\nMON 10/17\nFFW\n1203\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFS\n315\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFS\n446\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFW\n528\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFW\n550\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFS\n640\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFS\n640\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFLS\n730\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFLS\n810\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFS\n900\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFLS\n952\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFW\n1030\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFLS\n1046\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFS\n1145\nAM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFS\n1213\nPM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFW\n1240\nPM\nCDT\nTUR\n10/18\nFLS\n112\nPM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFW\n120\nPM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFW\n150\nPM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFLS\n539\nPM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFS\n640\nPM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFW\n655\nPM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFW\n655\nPM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFLS\n935\nPM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFLS\n945\nPM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFS\n1105\nPM\nCDT\nTUE\n10/18\nFFS\n440\nAM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFS\n600\nAM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFS\n1000\nAM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFS\n1145\nAM\nCDT\nWED 10/19\nRVS\n1200\nPM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFLS\n100\nPM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFLS\n220\nPM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFLW\n345\nPM\nCDT\nWED 10/19\nFLS\nO-2","TIME\nDATE\nPRODUCT\n410\nPM\nCDT\nWED 10/19\nFLS\n544\nPM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFS\n913\nPM\nCDT\nWED\n10/19\nFFS\n834\nAM\nCDT\nTHU\n10/20\nFLS\n943\nAM\nCDT\nTHU 10/20\nFLS\n1115\nAM\nCDT\nTHU 10/20\nFLS\nFLS\n1245\nPM\nCDT\nTHU 10/20\n135\nPM\nCDT\nTHU 10/20\nFLS\n205\nPM\nCDT\nTHU\n10/20\nRVS\n1115\nAM\nCDT\nFRI\n10/21\nFLS\n1215\nPM\nCDT\nFRI\n10/21\nFLS\n1245\nPM\nCDT\nFRI\n10/21\nFLS\n110\nPM\nCDT\nFRI\n10/21\nFLS\n135\nPM\nCDT\nFRI\n10/21\nRVS\n325\nPM\nCDT\nFRI\n10/21\nFLS\n905\nPM\nCDT\nFRI\n10/21\nFLS\n1135\nAM\nCDT\nSAT\n10/22\nFLS\n1145\nAM\nCDT\nSAT\n10/22\nFLS\n1200\nPM\nCDT\nSAT\n10/22\nFLS\n1230\nPM\nCDT\nSAT\n10/22\nRVS\n1045\nAM\nCDT\nSUN\n10/23\nFLS\nFLS\n1050\nAM\nCDT\nSUN\n10/23\n1133\nAM\nCDT\nSUN\n10/23\nFLS\n1200\nPM\nCDT\nSUN\n10/23\nRVS\nFLASH FLOOD STATEMENT\nFFS\nFLASH FLOOD WARNING\nFFW\nFLS\nFLOOD STATEMENT\nFLW\nFLOOD WARNING\nRVS RIVER STATEMENT\nSPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT\nSPS\nO-3","Sum\n20\n28\n10\n31\n0\n7\n96\nNWSO HOUSTON/GALVESTON\nSu\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n1\nSa\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n1\nFr\n7\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n1\nOFFICE\nTh\n0\n0\n0\n0\n5\n1\n6\nNWSFO AUSTIN/SAN ANTONIO AND NWSO HOUSTON/GALVESTON\nSUMMARY OF FLASH FLOOD AND FLOOD PRODUCTS FROM\nWe\n11\n0\n0\n5\n1\n4\n1\n10\n0\n8\n0\nTu\n0\n8\n26\nMo\n13\n32\n0\n7\n8\n2\n2\nSu\n0\n5\n0\n1\n0\n0\n6\nSum\nSU 10/16 - SU 10/23 -\n6\n5\n16\n0\n.1\n47\n18\nNWSFO AUSTIN/SAN ANTONIO\n0\n0\n0\nSu\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nSa\nFr\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\nOFFICE\nTh\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\nWe\n12\n2\n3\n4\n0\n0\nFlash Flood Statement\n2\nFlash Flood Warning\nFlash Flood Watch\nTu\n11\n2\n2\n7\n0\n0\n22\nFlood Statement\nRiver Statement\nFlood Warning\nMo\n11\n2\n0\n6\n3\n0\n0\nSu\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n1\nPRODUCT\nTOTALS\nFFW\nFLW\nFFA\nRVS\nFFS\nFLS\nFFW\nFLW\nFFA\nRVS\nFFS\nFLS","APPENDIX P\nZCZC NFDQPFERD ALL\nTTAA00 KNFD DDHHMM\nSPECIAL EXCESSIVE RAINFALL POTENTIAL OUTLOOK\nHYDRO-METEOROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER, NCEP, NWS, WASHINGTON, DC\n600 PM EDT SUN OCT 16 1994\nVALID OCT 16/2200 UTC THRU OCT 17/1200 UTC\nREF AFOS GRAPHIC 94E\nRNFL LIKELY TO EXCEED FFG VALUES TO THE RT OF A LN CRP NIR 20ESAT\nAUS TYR TXK ELD MLU AEX LCH 30SWLCH.\nSERIOUS HVY RNFL SITUATION DVLPG OVR ERN TX AND PSBLY PTNS OF WRN\nLA AND SRN AR. INCREDIBLE MSTR IS IN PLACE OVR ERN TX WITH SFC\nDWPTS IN THE UPR 70S..H85 DWPTS ABV 15C AND PWS ABV 2\" THIS\nMSTR MORE LIKE WE'D SEE IN MID SUMMER THAN MID OCT! AND LOOKS AS\nIF A STG MSTR CONNECTION WL RMN IN PLACE FOR SOME TIME WITH\nGRIDDED DATA FM THE MDLS SHOWING 30KTS OF SO OF LOW LVL INFLO\nCONTG INTO TX WELL INTO MON AND SATL WTR VAPOR PIX SHOWING A\nCONTD MSTR CONNECTION WAY DOWN INTO THE TROPICS. THIS WTR VAPOR\nPIX DOESN'T SHOW ANY WELL DEFINED S/WVS LIFTING TWDS TX WHICH\nMAKES A FCST OF CONTG CNVCTN A LTL IFFY. BUT. AT THE SAME\nTIME IF THERE WAS A WELL DEFINED S/WV. WE'D PROBABLY AT LEAST\nTEMPORARILY BREAK THE TROPICAL CONNECTION AND TEMPORARILY END THE\nCNVCTN. SO. BIGGEST QUESTION AT THIS TIME IS HOW LONG CNVCTN CAN\nBE SUSTAINED WITHOUT SEEING ANYTHING WELL DEFINED IN SATL\nIMAGERY. SINCE MSTR INFLO RMNS (WHICH SHLD CONT TO DESTABILIZE\nAMS) AND LOW LVL BNDRYS/MSTR CNVNGC ARE PRESENT (IF ONLY FM\nEXISTING CNVCTN) HAVE TO BELIEVE MORE CNVCTN WL DVLP AND CONT\nWELL INTO LT SUN NGT. AT LEAST. GIVEN THE MSTR AVBLTY. IT'S\nALMOST A GIVEN THAT SOME LOCATIONS WL RECEIVE IN EXCESS OF 5\" OF\nRAIN\nBY\nMON\nMRNG\nESP OVR ERN TX. SRN AR AND WRN LA NOT AS\nTHREATENED BUT LIKELIHOOD OF SOME 3-5\" RAINS THERE BY MON MRNG\nWL PROBABLY CAUSE SOME FLOODING PROBS THERE ALSO.\nTERRY/FORECAST OPERATIONS BRANCH\nNNNN\nP-1","ZCZC NFDQPFERD ALL\nTTAA00 KNFD DDHHMM\nEXCESSIVE RAINFALL POTENTIAL OUTLOOK\nHYDRO-METEOROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER, NCEP, NWS, WASHINGTON, DC\n230 AM EDT MON OCT 17 1994\nVALID OCT 17/1200 UTC THRU OCT 18/1200 UTC\nREF AFOS GRAPHIC 94E\nRAINFALL IS EXPECTED TO EXCEED FLASHFLOOD GUIDANCE VALUES TO THE\nRIGHT OF A LINE FROM CRP VCT CLL TXK ELD MLU AEX LCH.\nHEAVY RAINFALL CONTINUES OVER EASTERN TEXAS AND PORTIONS OF\nWESTERN LOUISIANA AND SOUTHERN ARKANSAS. STRONG MOISTURE FETCH\nHAS CARRIED INCREASED MOISTURE FAR NORTH WITH PWS IN THE 2-2.5\"\nRANGE ALONG THE TEXAS/LOUISIANA COAST. THESE VALUES ARE OVER 200\nPERCENT OF NORMAL. NIGHTTIME SURFACE DEWPOINTS STILL REACH THE\nLOWER 70S AS FAR NORTH AS OKLAHOMA 850H DEWPOINTS IN OKLAHOMA\nARE\nIN\nTHE MID-TEENS INCREASING TOWARD THE GULF. MODEL\nPREDICTIONS AND SATELLITE IMAGERY INDICATE THIS MOISTURE CONDUIT\nWILL CONTINUE THRU MONDAY. SATELLITE IMAGERY SHOWS CONVECTION\nCONTINUING TO DEVELOP ON THE SOUTHWEST AND WEST SIDES OF THE\nCURRENT PRIMARY CONVECTIVE AREA, AIDED BY INSTABILITY AND THE\nDYNAMICS AND MOISTURE OF THE SUBTROPICAL JET. THESE CONDITIONS\nARE EXPECTED TO PERSIST. ISOLATED 3 HOUR RAINFALL AMOUNTS OF TWO\nTO FOUR INCHES CAN BE EXPECTED IN THREAT AREA. ISOLATED TOTAL 24\nHOUR AMOUNTS OF NEAR 5\" WILL BE POSSIBLE.\nDYE/FORECAST OPERATIONS BRANCH\nNNNN\nP-2","a,","SATELLITE DERIVED PRECIPITATION ESTIMATES\nOCTOBER 17-18, 1994\nN\nN\nN\nNN\nN\nQ-2","SATELLITE DERIVED PRECIPITATION ESTIMATES\nOCTOBER 18-19, 1994\n+\n523228\n?\nQ-3","+\n6\nTO 1019 600 MAX=249\nSATELLITE DERIVED PRECIP.ESTIMATES\n122\na\n12\n15\n6\nLBL\n18\nF\nE\na\n18\n12\n1\n6\na\n12\n12\na\n999\n1016 1200\n9\n15\n29\n15\n12\na\nD\nis\nLa\na\nC\n9\n21\nB\n15\n19\nB\n12\n14\n12\nST MAXATENTHS)\n18\nis\n12\n99\n99\n12\n9\nA\nTX 142\n177\n12\na\n99\nTX\nTX\n9\n9\n6\na\nI\n3\na\na\n6\nMONTGOMERY\n6\n6\n?\nLIBERTY\nLAYACA\nGRIMES\nGRIMES\nHARDIN\nTYLER\nCOUNTY\nA.\nD.\n114","ACCIDENT\n455-650\nOCTOBER\n1994\nSTM PRECIP 80 STP\n124 NM 1.1 NM RES\nRDA : KHGX 29/28/19N\n115 FT 95/04/44W\n0NM\nEND=10/19/94 21:50\nBEG=10/15/94 00:11\nMAG=1X FL= 1 COM=1\nMAPS U/A PA CN CI\nR\nREQUESTED DSCNCT\nHARDCOPY REQUEST\nALERTS : 1) GL UP\n05/18/89 20:32\n10/19/94 21:48\nPROD RCVD: STP\n18/2032 LINE 3\n21\nMAX= 17. 5 IN\n0.0 IN\nQ15 STI 2008\n0DEG\nKHGX 2148\n1.0\n2.0\n3.0\n4.0\n5.0\n0.1\n6.0\n7.0\n8.0\n9.0\n10.0\n11.0\n13.0\n15.0\nMODE A /\nHARDCOPY\nACCEPTED\nND\nCNTR"]}