Thursday night, the Kingwood Service Association (KSA) added its voice to the growing chorus concerned about a proposed high-rise development in the floodplain near River Grove Park. KSA is the largest private group in the Kingwood area. It represents more than 30 community associations, which comprise more than 70,000 residents. It also manages the five private parks in the Kingwood area including two adjacent to the proposed development along Woodland Hills Drive.
The letter addresses concerns that BOTH the TCEQ and Army Corps will consider during the permit evaluation process. TCEQ rules on water quality issues (Clean Water Act Section 401) for the Corps. The Corps rules on Section 404 concerns.
The applicant, Romerica Investments, LLC must respond to every concern submitted by residents. So email them now or forever hold your peace.
Here is the text of KSA’s letter, which is also linked on the High Rise Page in the right hand column. I inserted the pictures and captions into KSA’s letter; they are not part of the original. I put them there to help illustrate the concerns for people who may not be familiar with all of the issues surrounding this controversial development.
Text of KSA Letter
Evaluation Branch, North Unit Regulatory Division, CESWG-RD-E Galveston District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229
Enclosed are the comments of the Kingwood Service Association, regarding the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Galveston District, Section 10/404 proposed Permit Application No. SWG-2016-00384, Romerica Investments, LLC, located in waters of the United States (U.S.) and wetlands adjacent to the West Fork of the San Jacinto River, Kingwood, Harris County, Texas.
The Kingwood Service Association (KSA) is a Kingwood-wide homeowners association representing thirty-two (32) residential and commercial associations in the Kingwood area. The following comments are being made on behalf of Kingwood residents concerned about the impact of the proposed development on the Kingwood community.
KSA owns and operates two parks adjacent to the proposed permit area, River Grove Park and Deer Ridge Park. During Hurricane Harvey, both of these parks flooded with 10 to 20 feet of water. River Grove Park is located on the West Fork of the San Jacinto River between the river and the proposed commercial and residential areas. This park was covered by 20 feet of water. As the flood waters receded, it left 6 feet of sand covering half of the park area. River Grove Park has flooded at least 6 times in the past 12 months. This experience raises serious concerns about the environmental impact of a development that calls for adding fill material to approximately 330 acres located north and east of River Grove Park, and which would raise the grade level of the area 12 feet from 45 feet to 57 feet.
We are very concerned about the overall impact of this development on the community because it would be built where Hurricane Harvey created some of the worst flooding in 100-year or greater floodplains/floodways; will fill and displace about 200 acres of 100-year floodplain/floodway, which will raise water levels and increase the possibility of flooding for others; will fill in wetlands that are crucial for soaking up water and reduced flows, velocities, and increased sedimentation of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River in its 100-year floodplain/floodway; is subject to further flooding in the future; and destroys more of the natural beauty, water quality, and wildlife habitat of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.
In the review of this permit application, we ask the Corps to consider all relevant public interest review factors in 33 CFR 320-332 including conservation, economics, aesthetics, air quality, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, and the needs and general welfare of the people.
We think that, at a minimum, the following areas should be addressed by USACE and TCEQ during the permitting process.
1. This proposal will fill 42.35 acres of wetlands with 68,323 cubic yards of fill material on 331.45 acres and fill 771 linear feet of streams with 285 cubic yards of fill material. There are significant concerns about the environmental impact of the elimination of 42.35 acres of wetlands. These concerns fall into the following areas:
a. Elimination of a natural area inhabited by eagles, deer, and other animals native to the area without sufficient mitigation in the same watershed.
Nesting bald eagles, a protected species, on West Fork of San Jacinto. Photo courtesy of Emily Murphy. The Houston Police Deportment Lake Patrol has reportedly sighted seven other eagle’s nests in the area, according to Murphy who frequently kayaks the river.
b. Decrease in the quality of the water supply for the City of Houston, which is downstream of the development, as a result of the increase in erosion and increase in deposition of sediment caused by the elimination of wetlands and the increase in infrastructure.
One of the drainage ditches that the proposed high-rise development would use is so over-burdened, that incision already is threatening existing development. Any addition to flow would destroy properties.
c. Decrease in the quality of the water supply for the City of Houston caused by the contamination of water run-off by the addition of parking spaces for 8,000 plus vehicles that could increase contaminants, such as motor oil, being washed into the San Jacinto River.
d. Increase of erosion and acceleration of deposition of sediment due to an increase in the speed of water run-off caused by the additional infrastructure, elimination of wetlands, and increase in grade level of the area.
High-rises for the proposed development would fill in wetlands where eagles fish and nest. The high-rises would also be built in an old meander of the San Jacinto West Fork, which contains unstable soil that is prone to flooding.
e. Determine the impact of filling in 42.35 acres of wetlands on eagles nesting in that area. Eagle nests have been spotted in the vicinity by Kingwood residents.
Eagles nest on the 16th hole of Kingwood Country Club’s Island Course, immediately adjacent to the proposed high-rise development.
2. Impact on the ability for residents to use the recreational facilities as a result of the increase in flooding caused by the increase of grade level from 45 feet to 57 feet that would inhibit the flow of water during significant rain events and cause the acceleration of water run-off potentially increasing erosion and accelerating the deposition of sediment in the San Jacinto River.
3. Economic impact on the villages immediately surrounding the development area as a result of the potential increase in flooding caused by the development. This could cause a significant decrease in the value of the homes located in these villages.
4. Economic impact on the community that would be caused by adding 8,000 plus vehicles to the traffic patterns of the community without a plan to mitigate this impact. The increase of this much traffic in a single area would have a negative impact on the attractiveness of purchasing a home in Kingwood, which has a reputation for being the “Liveable Forest”.
5. Completion of an environmental impact study before further consideration of this permit application. This study should include a full hydrological study of the project’s impact, an environmental impact to the large wetlands habitat without mitigation in the same watershed, and socioeconomic impact of such a huge development on an existing master planned community.
6. Impact on boat navigation on the West Fork of the San Jacinto River caused by the potential addition of 640 boats. Navigation on the West Fork has been impaired for decades and getting worse due to the acceleration of sediment deposition caused, in part, by sand mines upstream of the project area. This development has the potential to add to that sediment deposition.
This sand bar is currently not being addressed by the Emergency West Fork Dredging Project. It backs water up throughout the Humble/Kingwood area where thousands of homes and businesses flooded during Harvey. Erosion caused by the new development would add more sediment, make the marina useless, and destroy FEMA’s investment in dredging to date.
7. Require the applicant to provide documentation about how it will provide for operation and maintenance dredging of the site so that Section 10 navigation will continue over the lifetime of the development and after floods.
We are requesting that the Corps schedule a public hearing on this application to allow residents to gather additional information on the proposed development and provide further comments. In addition, considering the potential significant negative impact of this development on the community, we request that the Corps and TCEQ seriously consider denying this permit application.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide public comment on this proposed permit application.
Sincerely, Dee M. Price, President Kingwood Service Association
Feel free to echo these concerns or add to them in your letters to the Army Corps and TCEQ.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/19/19
509 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2EaglesInNest.jpg?fit=1200%2C960&ssl=19601200adminadmin2019-01-18 22:53:212019-01-19 11:09:38KSA Adds to Growing Chorus of Concerns Over Proposed New High-Rise Development
After Harvey, it became clear that the simplest and most effective way to avoid sedimentation due to sand mining, was to prevent any new sand mining in the floodway. State Representative Dan Huberty introduced three new bills to toughen legislation on sand mines yesterday. But these bills never mention words like river, setback, buffer zone, erosion, sediment, or floodway.
What the Bills Do
HB 907 – Doubles the penalties for not registering a sand mining operation. New penalties can range from $10,000 to $20,000 per year with the total not to exceed $50,000.
HB 908 – Provides for penalties up to $50,000 for water code violations by sand miners and every-other-year inspections by the TCEQ.
HB909 – Calls for the TCEQ to adopt and publish best management practices for sand mines (aggregate production operations) that comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
Good…As Far as They Go
HB 907
…is actually an amendment to the portion of the water code that HB 571 established in 2011. HB 571 targeted unregistered and, therefore, unregulated sand mining operations. If you search back through historical satellite photos of the West Fork between I-45 and I-69 in Google Earth, you can see several such bandit mining operations. Miners would take a backhoe and a dump truck down to a point bar. Then they would start mining sand right out of the river banks. The scars can still be seen today in many places.
I haven’t seen many instances, though, of these kinds of operations in the satellite images since the passage of HB 571 in 2011. That’s good news. But it makes me wonder whether the emphasis on un-permitted operations is misplaced. Most problems come from permitted mines, not un-permitted. So this makes it appear as though we’re putting teeth into mining regulation without really solving the big problems, such as mining in the floodway, breached dikes that remain open for years, and abandoning mines without any reclamation.
HB 908
…specifies that all mines will be inspected at least once every two years to ensure that they comply with “all applicable environmental laws and regulations.” The problem: nowhere does the law (or the TCEQ) specify what those are. So a canoeist, for instance, who spots something suspicious, like a backhoe intentionally letting sediment-laden water out of a mine, has no way to tell if the activity is legal or illegal.
One can spend days searching the TCEQ website looking for the regulations they are supposed to enforce.
Sand mine dike just five weeks after a breach.
Also, every-other-year inspections give grass 730 days to grow and cover up the evidence of breaches in sand mine dikes.
Imagine telling your kid to clean up his or her room; you’ll be back to inspect it in two years.
HB-909
… is a good first step. It directs the TCEQ to establish a set of best practices for sand mining and to publish them. However, the bill does not stipulate the type of best practices to include. Nor does it stipulate any penalties for non-compliance.
It’s like the State telling Porsche owners that those 20 MPH speed limits in school zones are a “good idea.”
Bill McCabe, a member of the steering committee of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative, had this to say. “If they don’t list the BMP’s in the statute, nor authorize any penalties for violation of these BMP’s, what good does this do us? The TCEQ will merely adopt something similar to your BMP’s (the ones I proposed last year); TACA will agree; and everyone will go their merry way with no changes in sand-mining operations. If we later complain, TACA will assert that these are merely suggestions, and not intended to be law. And even if they are law, there are no penalties.
The Appearance of Meaningful
As these bills work their way through committees and the legislative process, residents will have opportunities to testify about their Harvey experiences, provide comments on the bills, and suggest amendments to strengthen them.
But at this point it looks like an uphill struggle. We’ll be lucky to see any truly meaningful legislation in 2019.
TACA Should Be Delighted
TACA, the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association, will be delighted by these bills. If these become law in their present form, they will create the appearance of protecting people. That could undermine momentum toward regulation that reduces sedimentation.
As always, these are my opinions on matters of public policy protected by the first Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great state of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/18/2019
508 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SJR_434_025-e1547864315353.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2019-01-18 20:45:092019-01-18 21:13:19Three Baby Steps on Sand Mining Legislation
A highly talented Kingwood photographer named Emily Murphy contacted me this week. The proposal to build high-rises near the river alarmed her. The impact on wildlife terrified her.
The Seldom-Seen World In Your Backyard
Emily often kayaks on the river with her camera. She has documented a world that few of us will ever see in person. But it’s there for everyone to see…with a little bit of effort. When she showed me her work, the beauty she revealed took my breath away.
It reminded me of a quote from Ansel Adams, America’s greatest landscape photographer. Adams, who died in 1984, was also one of the early leaders of the Sierra Club. He said…
“If you want to preserve something, inspire people with its beauty.”
– Ansel Adams
Below are some of the quiet, peaceful moments Emily Murphy experienced while paddling the San Jacinto River. All of these photos were taken within a few minutes of River Grove Park and the proposed site of the high-rise development.
Eagle photo Courtesy of Emily Murphy. Taken across the West Fork from where the proposed new high-rise development would go.
Taken from River Grove Park, looking east in morning mist toward the site of the proposed high-rise development. Photo Courtesy of Emily Murphy
American white pelicans and double-crested cormorants on the West Fork. Photo Courtesy of Emily Murphy
Quiet morning light in the backwaters of the West Fork. Photo Courtesy of Emily Murphy
Eagle flying near West Fork and Lake Houston, downstream from proposed high-rise development. Photo Courtesy of Emily Murphy.
Juvenile eagle easting fish east of River Grove Park. Photo Courtesy of Emily Murphy.
Roseate spoonbill on West Fork. Photo Courtesy of Emily Murphy
Feel Free to Use Images for Letters to Corps and TCEQ
Emily Murphy encourages people to submit her photos with their letters to the TCEQ and Army Corps of Engineers. They illustrate why these wetlands are unique and irreplaceable. (However, please do not use them for any other purposes; respect the photographer’s copyright.)
A mitigation-bank credit purchased by the developer in some far-off watershed cannot begin to compensate for the loss of a unique habitat like this…inside the limits of America’s fourth largest city.
A Community Living in Harmony with Nature
Murphy’s photography reminds me of two things. First, it reminds me of why I moved to Kingwood 35 years ago. The fact that Emily can still photograph moments like these is eloquent testimony to the founding vision for Kingwood – a community living in harmony with nature. The density of development was sufficiently low that wild animals such as these still live among us.
Second, it reminds me of a Navajo prayer that I first learned in Canyon De Chelley (pronounced ‘de SHAY’) in northeastern Arizona. The title of the prayer was inscribed on a plaque at Spider Rock, another of the world’s most beautiful places. The inscription simply said, “May you always walk in beauty.” No matter how beautiful architecture is, it can’t match the beauty of nature.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/18/2019
507 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Image-1-7.jpg?fit=1829%2C1569&ssl=115691829adminadmin2019-01-17 06:37:312019-01-17 13:32:14May You Always Walk in Beauty
Someone must have forgotten to tell the developers of the proposed high-rise development. Friendswood Development Company’s Commercial Development Guidelines prohibit buildings taller than 60 feet in Kingwood. Romerica Investments, LLC hopes to build multiple 250 to 500 foot buildings. They would exceed the maximum building-height requirements by 4X to 8X.
Section 2-13: Building Height
Section 2-13 of the guidelines, states, “Building height within master planned residential communities is limited by the use and location in each community as provided for in the deed. When the site is immediately adjacent to single family resident construction, the maximum building height is limited to thirty-five (35) feet at a point twenty-five (25) feet back from the property line. The building height may increase from that point at a 1:1 ratio to a maximum height of sixty (60) feet.”
The proposed development would surround the Barrington. It would also face Deer Cove, Trailwood and Kingwood Lakes.
Map of the proposed high-rise development in relation to surrounding residential subdivisions.
The development fronts another single family residential structure, too – on the east.
Eagle’s nest on 16th hole of Kingwood Country Club’s Island Course.
Benefits of Master Planned Community
Like many people, I moved to a master-planned residential community to avoid the specter of a high-rise building in my back yard. Friendswood Development Company actively sold their deed restrictions and development guidelines as a defense against that.
When I built my building opposite Kingwood Park High School in the late 1990’s, I had to abide by these restrictions like everyone else.
Friendswood Development’s Commercial Development Guidelines, Page II-13
Romerica Investments, LLC markets their proposal as the KINGWOOD Marina Resort. Have the rules suddenly changed?
To download the complete Friendswood Development Company Commercial Guidelines, click here.
As always, these are my opinions on matters of public interest and they are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/16/2019
505 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IMG_0105.jpg?fit=1500%2C1010&ssl=110101500adminadmin2019-01-16 01:26:152019-01-22 21:24:36Commercial Development Guidelines for Kingwood Limit Building Height to 60 Feet
A resident of The Commons on Lake Houston contacted me about some severe erosion in her community. I can only describe it as stunning. It destroyed trails owned by the Property Owners Association that people used for hiking, biking and horseback riding. The loss of these trails limits recreational opportunities and has physically divided large parts of the community.
Sadly, it didn’t have to be that way. Infrastructure and ditch maintenance did not keep pace with development.
As development crept closer to the East Fork of the San Jacinto over the years, the erosion worsened. In older neighborhoods on higher ground, a series of small check dams in a major drainage canal reduced erosion.
A check dam is a small dam constructed across a drainage ditch to counteract erosion by reducing water flow velocity.
Wide grassy, gentle slopes and check dams keep erosion at bay in areas first developed. The last check dam. Downstream, it’s different.
Below Check Dams, Uncontrolled Erosion
The dams stop short of the East Fork. A tiny swale that residents used to step over has expanded into a steep-sided gully approximately 20 feet deep and 50-75 feet wide. Not even concrete can stop the erosion now.
Concentrated runoff below the check dams has peeled away concrete used to reduce erosion around this pipe.
Trails used to run alongside and across this ditch. Now they’ve been swallowed. Residents have nicknamed the ditch “The Grand Canyon.” They fear walking near the edge because of potential for cave-ins.
Water exits the other side of the pipe with the force of a fire hose. It has eroded a huge bowl, now eating trails and trees.Further downstream, a shallow ditch has turned into what residents now call “The Grand Canyon.”Resident points to where part of a horseback riding trail caved in.Trees falling into the center force the water wider during floods, worsening erosion.This tree created an eddy that ate away a foot path. It went from lower left to upper right.
Causes of Erosion
Erosion can result from many things. Multiple factors played a role in the Commons.
As the developer built up land to elevate foundations, he increased the slope. That accelerated runoff.
Clearing land for a new subdivision along the ditch also accelerated erosion of soft, sandy soil.
Finally, concentration of runoff also played a major role. When runoff spreads out over over acres, it poses no threat. But concentrating it turns a thousand trickles into a firehose aimed at loose, sandy soil. The result: severe erosion every time it floods.
Residents of The Commons have already seen how that erosion can destroy recreational opportunities and infrastructure. They pray that their developer will fix the Grand Canyon before it starts eating homes.
Lessons for Kingwood
This Commons story contains timely lessons for the residents of Kingwood as we consider a potential high-rise development in the floodway and floodplain of the San Jacinto.
The Commons erosion reminded me of the Kingwood Rapids. Whitewater enthusiasts gave that name to the drainage ditch that runs between Kingwood and Forest Cove near Deer Ridge Park, just south of Walnut Lane (see below).
The drainage ditch between Walnut Lane and Deer Ridge Park has jokingly been dubbed the Kingwood Rapids by whitewater enthusiasts. Ditch erosion now threatens yards and fences. Image courtesy of Google Earth.
The proposed new high-rise development would use this ditch to drain hundreds of acres that they intend to pave with concrete.
“Kingwood Rapids” in 2009 shows same processes at work here that threaten the Commons.
High-Rise Concern: Erosion and Incision
As you can clearly see, the ditch can barely handle existing runoff during storms. It’s severely eroding.
Draining high-rise, high-density commercial space into these ditches will cause them to “incise.” Incise means “cut into.” Runoff will deepen and/or widen ditches. But ditch erosion already threatens nearby homes.
This same ditch runs through River Grove Park, which already cost Kingwood residents more than half a million dollars in repairs after major storms in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The soccer program at River Grove still has not fully recovered. The lacrosse league has abandoned its lease there. One shudders to think of the damage that the loss of River Grove to do to the entire community.
Impact on Water Quality
All this erosion also has a direct impact on water quality in several ways. First, the sediment flows into the lake. There, it reduces lake capacity. The sediment also increases turbidity, which increases water treatment costs and harms riparian vegetation. That vegetation helps stabilize banks, protect property and provide cover for fish which waterfowl and eagles feed on6
More food for thought as you compose your letters to the TCEQ and Army Corps.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/16/2019
506 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CommonsErosion07-copy.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-01-15 23:10:272019-01-16 18:34:20Dangers of Erosion when Developing Floodplains
The City of Houston ran out of chairs. At least 500 people tried to cram into a meeting room set to accommodate about 100. Before the meeting could start, partitions had to be opened and hundreds of chairs were added to the room.
An overflowing crowd attended the January 14 meeting at the Kingwood Community Center to learn more about the proposed new high-rise development.
Yes, we’ve had bigger meetings organized by officials that were planned for months, but none like this one. It largely happened over the weekend in response to concerns raised in FaceBook.
Meeting in Response to Imminent Deadline
Concerned citizens organized the meeting hastily in response to a rapidly narrowing window for public comments pertaining to a proposed high-rise development. By developers’ own estimates, the proposal would add more than 8,800 vehicles to already crowded Kingwood traffic. The proposal would also add 25-50 story high-rises within a hundred yards of eagle nests and rambling ranch homes. Thousands of yards of fill would be brought in to elevate the new buildings by 12 feet. Residents worry that the fill will alter drainage patterns and increase flood risk to their homes hand neighbors’.
At the Meeting
Barbara Hilburn discussed the impact on internal drainage.
Bob Rehak discussed how the Army Corps and TCEQ will evaluate permits and how to phrase comments for maximum impact.
Bill Fowler discussed the history of the Corps permitting process
Dave Martin discussed the history of the development
Dozens of residents expressed their concern
Kaaren Cambio represented Congressman Dan Crenshaw. Kim Brode (Ted Poe’s long-time assistant) is now representing Harris County District 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle. Kim also attended and sent these pictures of the crowd. Sadly, I didn’t realize Kim was in the crowd! She sent me this picture after the event and graciously allowed me to share them.
Download Key Information
I’ve summarized information about the development, how the Corps and TCEQ will evaluate applications, how to compose a response that’s on point, and where to submit your concerns. It’s all in an easy-to-download text-based PDFthat should give you 90% of what you need. You can find additional information and sample letters on this site’s new High-Rises page.
Remember, the deadline for comments is January 29.
Thank you for your overwhelming support. It was nice to learn that people are listening! In the coming days, I’ll be posting additional information about the project. Check back often.
Posted by Bob Rehak on January 14
504 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IMG_1649-e1547529190597.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-01-14 23:49:402019-01-15 00:09:55Concern over High-Rise Development Triggers Biggest Turnout for Impromptu Meeting since Annexation
Many residents concerned about the proposed new high-rise development in Kingwood both north and south of the Barrington have requested a meeting on the subject to voice their concerns. Monday night, starting at 6 p.m., they will get that chance at the Kingwood community center.
What the Meeting Will Cover
The meeting will begin with a brief overview of the proposed development and how it will affect the flood plain, floodway and wetlands.
After that, we’ll discuss where permitting stands for the development, and the kinds of things that the TCEQ and US Army Corps of Engineers will look at in the permitting process. They are seeking public comment. This represents your chance to learn about the types of things they look at and how they will make their decision.
Comments Pro or Con Invited From Public
Finally, we’ll open the floor to public comments so that people can share their feelings pro or con for this controversial proposal.
To help you prepare for the meeting and submission of comments to the Corps and TCEQ, I have added a new page to this site called High Rises. On that page, you will find links to conceptual sketches, details, and videos that the developer has prepared. You will also find links to posts about different aspects of the project. Finally, you will find sample protest letters prepared by experts, should you wish to prepare one of your own.
Meeting Details
The meeting is free and open to the public. Please come and bring your neighbors:
Kingwood Community Center 4102 Rustic Woods Dr. Kingwood, TX 77345 6-8 P.M.
Below is a map showing the extent of the high-rise development. It extends from Kingwood Lakes on the north to the San Jacinto River and would contain multiple buildings 25-50 stories tall.
The areas labelled Project Area are included in the developer’s permit application. The developer also owns the red area not labeled, i.e., the one west of KSA’s River Grove Park.
The developer plans to add 12 feet of fill to the flood plain, alter drainage, and fill wetlands. Because of surveys either not conducted by the developer or not supplied by the Corps for public evaluation, it’s not clear how this proposal would affect flooding in Kingwood and Forest Cove. Residents in subdivisions such as Trailwood, Kingwood Lakes, the Barrington, Deer Cove, Kings Forest, Kingwood Greens, and North Shore have expressed worries about backwater effects. A total of 650 homes flooded in those areas during Harvey, in part because of blockages in the river.
The developer’s application is based on old flood plain maps which are being revised as a result of Hurricane Harvey. They do not reflect the current conveyance of the river or an accurate extent of flood plains. The Corps has documented constrictions which the current dredging program will not address. During recent minor floods, gages documented a 10 foot difference upstream and downstream of major sediment dams. As a result the project area flooded three times between December 7 of last year and January 7th of this year. Normally, that area floods only once every other year. Still, the effect of persistent flooding on a high-end resort could be devastating. If the development fails, economic blows could ripple throughout the Lake Houston area.
A web site called VTRUSA.com shows the proposed Kingwood project and talks about it as if it exists already. Notice the redundant use of the word “is” in the copy describing the commercial project. Also notice that in one place, the site talks about the hotel, retail, offices and hotel spaces in the project all having 13,050 square feet. Immediately under that, the site claims the development has:
82,500 square meters of retail space (882,750 square feet)
179,780 square meters of offices (1,934,433 square feet)
20,400 square meters of hotel (219,300 square feet)
8,863 parking spaces (about one third of the number of spots at NRG Stadium, which has 26,000)
In total square footage, this is almost three times the size of Deebrook Mall (1.2 million square feet).
Please review the new High-Rise page and join us tomorrow at 6 p.m. Also, please share the high-rise link with any friends, neighbors or relatives who cannot attend. This is a vital issue of public policy that affects the entire future of Kingwood. We need to make sure we get this right. At least, that’s my opinion on a matter of public policy and it’s protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statutes of the Great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/13/2019
502 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Woodland-hills-map.png?fit=1061%2C1024&ssl=110241061adminadmin2019-01-13 21:04:242019-01-14 13:51:04Meeting 6 p.m. Monday at Community Center about High-Rise Development near River Grove
The proposed high-rise development would go just beyond the tree line in the background. After Harvey, this whole area flooded six times in one year and three times in the last month. In the 80 years before Harvey, it flooded on average once every other year.
A number of people have asked me post responses that people have already sent into the Corps. Feel free to cut and paste sections that capture concerns you have.
January 1, 2019
Evaluation Branch, North Unit Regulatory Division, CESWG-RD-E Galveston District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229
Enclosed are the comments of the Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club (Sierra Club) regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Galveston District, Section 10/404 proposed Permit Application No. SWG-2016-00384, Romerica Investments, LLC, located in waters of the United States (U.S.) and wetlands adjacent to the West Fork of the San Jacinto River, Kingwood, Harris County, Texas.
Point #1 – This proposal will…
Fill 42.35 acres of wetlands with 68,323 cubic yards of fill material on 331.45 acres.
Fill 771 linear feet of streams with 285 cubic yards of fill material.
Construct a marina/resort district of 107.41 acres and use 19,690.7 cubic yards of fill material to fill 12.21 acres of wetlands; expand an existing 15-acre lake associated with the West Fork of the San Jacinto River to an 80-acre marina with a capacity of 640 boats; construct a new navigation channel south of the proposed marina; expand the existing channel on the east to connect the marina and the West Fork of the San Jacinto River; develop 25 acres north of the marina into a resort district with commercial and residential development; construct five towers with a height of 90 feet for the western hotel area, 260 feet for the residential condominium towers, and 500 feet for the eastern hotel and condominiums; excavate fill material to raise the elevation of the entire resort district from 45 to 57 feet (13 feet total) above base flood elevation of the 100-year floodplain of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.
Construct a commercial district of 64.41 acres and use 959.6 cubic yards of fill material to fill 0.59 acre of wetlands and 110 linear feet of streams; construct on 47 acres retail, residential, and office developments; construct three towers that range from 230 to 400 feet tall for retail offices and residential condominium towers; construct a 70-foot tall mid-rise residential and retail development; construct parking garages with two below grade levels and concealed above grade levels; expand an existing 16.25-acre lake to a 19.25-acre lake (3 acre expansion) to create a marina for personal watercraft parking; create a 125-foot wide interconnecting channel between the 80-acre marina and 19.25-acre marina to provide access between the two marinas, marina/resort district, and the commercial district; excavate fill material to raise the elevation of the entire resort district from 45 to 57 feet (13 feet total) above base flood elevation of the 100-year floodplain of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.
Construct a residential district of 136.93 acres and use 46,213.9 cubic yards of fill material to fill 28.60 acres of wetlands and 404 linear feet of streams; construct on 64 acres 65-foot tall condominium structures which are on 58.5-feet tall pier/beam foundations with elevated first floor parking and with four stories that will be above the 100-year floodplain of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River; construct on 6-acres, 25-story condominiums with parking garages; place fill in the southern portion of the residential district to raise the structures and elevations to 57 feet above the 100-year floodplain of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River; construct four lakes for a total of 6.75 acres in the western portion of the residential district; construct 1.95 miles of 41-foot wide roadways within a 60-foot wide right of way in the residential district; construct 4-foot and 8-foot wide trails within a 20-foot wide easement around the perimeter of the residential district and use bridges to cross all streams and channels; relocate the existing utility easements that are in the proposed 20-foot pedestrian trail easement.
Construct a Woodland Hills Road expansion of 22.7 acres and use 1,743 .8 cubic yards of fill material to fill 0.96 acre of wetlands and 257 linear feet of streams; construct Woodland Hills Drive so it is expanded from two to four lanes, has turn lanes, and has a raised median for 1.45 miles, from 0.08 mile south of KIngwood Drive to Hamblen Road.
An unknown number of culverts and water quality ponds will be installed.
Conduct offsite permittee responsible wetland mitigation or purchase credits from an approved wetland mitigation bank.
Point #2:
Page 2, Project Description, Public Notice,now that Hurricane Harvey has revealed the full impacts of flooding in our area, before approving proposals like this one, which are in the 100-year floodplain/floodway, the Corps should require an analysis, using Harvey and other data, about the flood potential and safety of construction in the floodplain/floodway of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and its tributaries, including Bens Branch-Frontal Lake Houston Watershed, which flooded during Hurricane Harvey.
Although the full extent of the 100-year floodplain/floodway of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River in the 331.45 acres proposed for residential, commercial, resort, and marina developments is not stated in the Public Notice and Plans, most of the 300 plus acres appear to be within the 100-year floodplain/floodway. According to the Project Description,all of the Marina/Resort District of 107.41 acres, all of the Commercial District of 64.41 acres, the southern portion (we are not told how large this portion is) of the Residential District of 136.93 acres, and the Woodland Hills Road Expansion of 22.7 acres appear to be in the 100-year floodplain/floodway of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and will have to be filled a maximum of 13 feet to get above the 100-year floodplain/floodway.
Exhibits 2, Plan Overview and 9, Plan View D1, Plans,clearly show that a floodway goes right through the middle of the southern marina, commercial, hotel, and condominium resort district complex near the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and that there is a HCFCD Unit G103-00-00 drainageway that flows just southwest of the boundary of the proposed developments. In combination with dredged channels, these conduits for flood water will bring more flood water onto the site and help flood the site.
This development makes no sense because it exists right where Hurricane Harvey created some of the worst flooding in 100-year or greater floodplains/floodways; will fill and displace about 200 acres of 100-year floodplain/floodway which will raise water levels and increase the possibility of flooding for others, both up and downstream; will fill in wetlands that are crucial for soaking up water and reduced flows, velocities, and increased sedimentation of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River in its 100-year floodplain/floodway; is subject to further flooding in the future; and destroys more of the natural beauty, water quality, and wildlife habitat of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.
The Corps must require that the applicant conduct extensive and detailed hydrology and hydraulic studies of the undeveloped site, the proposed developed site, and their interaction with the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and its tributaries during floods. At least 35 stream segments and 5 lakes/ponds currently exist on the site which are all potential sources of flooding to the site. This should include an analysis of how the three channels that will be dredged will affect flooding by acting as conduits for floodwater to the rest of the site. There is no documentation provided from Harris County Flood Control District or City of Houston about how much detention and drainage mitigation are needed to keep these proposed developments from flooding themselves or others who live up or downstream. This information is needed so the public can review and comment on its adequacy.
The entire 335.45 acres is perforated with stream segments or lakes/ponds. According to the Waterbody Impact Table, Updated July 2018, there are at least 5 existing lakes that are on the property and there are at least 35 stream segments. These waterbodies will flood during the climate change induced intense rainfalls that have become common in the Kingwood area. The site is like swiss cheese and is pock-marked with lakes/ponds, stream segments, and 73 separate wetlands that exist on the 335.45 acres. The water-holding, slowing down, soaking in, and evaporation capacity of 49 of these wetlands will be directly impacted by either total or partial filling due to this proposal. Remnants of these wetlands will be less able to deal with floodwaters and will be impacted by operation and maintenance actions and activities that create erosion and sedimentation and reduce their flood mitigation capacity over time. These issues need to be addressed by the applicant, stated in the Public Notice, modeled by the applicant, and revealed to the public for review and comment.
Point #3
Page 2, Project Description, Public Notice, the applicant does not provide any documentation about how it will provide for operation and maintenance dredging of the site so that Section 10 navigation will continue over the lifetime of the developments and after floods. Periodic dredging will be required as flood waters fill the three channels and floodplains/floodways with sediment. Dredge disposal areas will be needed onsite to allow dredge material to be placed in areas where the 100-year floodplain/floodway is not affected. The Corps should require that the applicant prepare a dredge disposal management plan. The public should see this plan and review and comment on its adequacy.
A Section 10 navigation analysis should be conducted by the Corps and this analysis should be provided to the public for its review and comment. The applicant should be required to conduct modeling to determine how boat wakes and flooding will affect erosion and sedimentation of lakes, channels, streams, the West Fork of the San Jacinto River, and its 100-year floodplain/floodway.
Operation and maintenance erosion and sedimentation controls should be required in perpetuity. The applicant states that it will expand the “existing 15-acre lake associated with the West Fork San Jacinto River”. This indicates that this lake is natural and a part of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River. This means that at least 15 acres of waters of the U.S. will be altered by this proposal. Mitigation for this alteration should be required along with wetlands and streams mitigation.
Point #4
Pages 3 and 4, Avoidance and Minimization, Mitigation, and Notes, Public Notice,the Corps should require that the applicant now provide its permittee responsible mitigation plan for wetlands, streams, and waters of the U.S. and or purchase of wetland credits from wetland and stream mitigation bank(s), so the public can review and comment on its adequacy. Any wetlands or streams left after proposed developments are constructed will be impacted by developments’ actions and activities and the applicant’s operation and maintenance of developments (secondary impacts) like mowing, trampling by people, use of herbicides, use of pesticides, cutting of vegetation, fertilizer use, use of motorized machines (off-road vehicles), wildlife mortality due to cats and dogs, pet fecal material, roadkill, light pollution, noise pollution, oil and fuel spill pollution, littering, trash dumping, mosquito control, bird collisions with buildings, non-native invasive plant species spread, illegal fills or excavations, nonpoint source water pollution from impervious surface run-off, etc. There must be an analysis of developments’ actions and activities and operation and maintenance impacts and the applicant must prepare and present to the public for its review and comment developments’ actions and activities and operation and maintenance plan that will be implemented after construction.
The Sierra Club visited the site on December 31, 2018 and walked the west perimeter. The Sierra Club found in many places Dwarf Palmetto, Loblolly Pine, Yaupon Holly, Trumpet Vine, Water Oak, Sweetgum, American Elm, Laurel Oak/Willow Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak, Japanese Climbing Fern, Greenbriar vine species, Common Persimmon, American Sycamore, Cinnamon Fern, and Bald Cypress along streams and in flatwoods on the site. Much of the site is a Palmetto-Hardwood bottomland forest or a bottomland flatwoods forest.
In the more upland areas (which are needed as “buffer zones” to prevent water quality degradation over the short and long-term of conservation areas, streams, bald cypress sloughs, bottomland hardwood forested wetlands, bottomland flatwood forests, and riparian woodlands) the Sierra Club found Eastern Hophornbeam, Red Bay, Cherry Laurel, Farkleberry, American Beautyberry, Yaupon Holly, and Post Oak.
It is a concern that the Corps has not verified the Interim Hydrogeomorphic assessment and Level 1 Stream assessment. This is particularly important since a major river, the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and part of Lake Houston, will be impacted by these developments. The public should be provided this information so that it can review and comment on its adequacy. The Corps should either deny the permit application or return it to the applicant until the mitigation plan is prepared and made available for the public to review and comment.At the very least, the wetlands mitigation for such a proposal should be 10:1 which would mean an over 400 hundred acre permittee responsible wetlands mitigation project or credits from one or more wetland mitigation banks.
There is a total of 73 wetlands on site; 5 lakes/ponds (waterbodies and waters of the U.S.), and 35 stream segments. Of these wetlands, there are 41 palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM); 29 palustrine forested wetlands (PFO); and 3 palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands (PSS). This proposal will result in the degradation, partial destruction, or complete destruction of 7 stream segments whose total length is 771 linear feet and fill volume is 285 cubic yards.
Of the 41 PEM that exist on the site, 23 (56.10%) will be totally destroyed and 5 (12.20%) will be partially destroyed; of the 29 PFO that exist on the site, 8 (27.59%) will be totally destroyed and 12 (41.38%) will be partially destroyed; and of the 3 PSS that exist on the site, 2 (66.67%) will be totally destroyed. The number of wetlands that will be totally destroyed on the site is 33 (45.21% of all wetlands – all PEM + PFO + PSS) and the number of wetlands that will be partially destroyed on the site is 17 (23.29% of all wetlands – all PEM + PFO + PSS). The wetland flood detention and clean water filtration capacity of the site will be severely damaged by the proposal because 68.50% of all wetlands on the site will either be totally or partially destroyed.
When looked at from an acreage perspective, of the 87.177 total acres of wetlands on the site (Wetland Impact Table), 42.349 acres (48.58%) of all wetland acres on the site will be destroyed.
The fact that the applicant is unwilling to abide by an “existing 17.59-acre conservation easement” for another Corps permit means that the applicant cannot be trusted to ensure that any promised future mitigation for this proposal will be protected in perpetuity. The Sierra Club requests that the Corps deny this permit based upon the existence of this conservation easement in perpetuity and or require that the applicant protect the 17.59 acres and conservation easement from any impacts due to the proposed developments. This includes forgoing any commercial and residential development within or next to this conservation easement so that it is protected in perpetuity (a buffer is needed to protect the conservation easement). The applicant apparently has not placed an adequate number of acres into the conservation easement (12.19 acres of wetlands and 8.99 acres of upland buffer, or 21.18 acres) because the conservation easement is 3.59 acres short of what was required for the previous permit on the site.
This proposal violates Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which are mandatory for the Corps to follow as part of the implementation strategy that the Clean Water Act requires. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines require that non-water dependent actions (hotels, access roads, condominiums, residential areas or districts, commercial areas or districts, and resorts) must not be permitted to destroy wetlands which are “special aquatic sites”.
However, that is exactly what this proposal does since it would put all of these uses in jurisdictional palustrine forested wetlands (riparian woodlands and bottomland hardwood wetland forests), palustrine emergent wetlands, and palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands. Practicable alternatives exist including no development in most wetlands which would mean a smaller and less destructive proposal.
This practicable alternative is “available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.” As required by the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, “If it is otherwise a practicable alternative an area not presently owned by the applicant which could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered”.
There is no documentation in the permit application public notice that shows that the permittee has conducted a study to determine if other sites exist which could be used. As the Corps knows the presumption is that these practicable alternative sites exist in the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines “unless clearly demonstrated otherwise”. No such demonstration is evident in the information the Corps sent out with the public notice. The public must have this information, so it can review, comment.
Point #5
Page 4, Notes, Public Notice,the Corps states that project information has not been verified. The Sierra Club is concerned about Corps policy that allows the release of public notices with information furnished by the applicant that has not been verified. This puts the public in an untenable situation of not knowing if the information it reviews is valid, complete, and accurate.
The Sierra Club strongly believes that verified project information should be part of all public notices. Without verified public information the public does not know whether the information that it relies upon to make public comments is accurate and true. The Corps should change its policy and verify applicant information. After all, if the Corps, the regulatory agency that issues the permit, does not verify applicant information, then who will? The public must have this information so that it can review, comment on, and understand all the potential environmental impacts of the proposal.
Point #6
Page 4, Notes, Public Notice,the Sierra Club disagrees with the Corps that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not needed for this permit application. The Corps should require a study about the impacts this development will have, direct and indirect (secondary), and provide this information to the public for review and comment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
An EIS is required due to the permanent, loss of a large acreage of wetlands, the presence of special aquatic sites, possible aquatic resources of national importance (ARNI) that will be destroyed or degraded by the proposal, the construction of the proposal in the 100-year floodplain, and because the proposal enables or induces additional residential and commercial development directly and indirectly in the floodplain which puts people in “harm’s way”.
Some of the ways that this proposal puts people in harm’s way include the expansion of Woodland Hills will destroy existing entranceways to Barrington Kingwood Subdivision at Cotswald Blvd. and Deer Cove Trail Subdivision; destroy an existing sidewalk that goes from the FFA facility in Deer Ridge Park north on Woodland Hills Road; destroy part of River Grove Park and potentially Deer Ridge Park; destroy forests and wetlands on Hamblen Road; connect Hamblen Road to Woodland Hills Road in an area that flooded during Hurricane Harvey; increased traffic and speed of traffic will affect residents, students, and park users and could result in more injuries, deaths, damage to property, and roadkill.
Point #7
Page 5, National Register of Historic Places, Public Notice,the Corps should give a summary of what the “Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Kingwood Marina Residential District Project, Harris County, Texas”, dated March 2017 and “Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Kingwood Marina, Harris County, Texas” dated May 2016, found so the public knows about and can review and comment on the summary.
Point #8
Page 5, Threatened and Endangered Species, Public Notice,the Corps should require threatened and endangered species surveys for listed species. The results of these surveys should be reported to the public which should be given the opportunity to review and comment on the results.
Page 3, Current Site Conditions, Public Notice,it is of great concern that the applicant admits there are bald eagles in the project area, but “no nests were found.” It is not only nests that are a concern for bald eagles. The habitat of wintering and nesting bald eagles is also of concern. It is also a concern that disturbance will occur due to these developments in potential bald eagle habitat and may keep bald eagles from nesting in the project area or on the project site. There must be an adequate bald eagle survey, analysis, and plan conducted and prepared and is available to the public for review and comment.
Point #9
Page 4, Public Interest Review Factors,the Public Notice is inadequate as the basis for determining the environmental impacts of this proposal and the effect that it will have on the public interest review factors in 33 CFR 320-332, regulatory programs of the Corps, and other pertinent laws, regulations, and executive orders.
Some of the public interest review factors that must be considered and are relevant are conservation, economics, aesthetics, air quality, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, and the needs and general welfare of the people.
The public interest factors analysis is very important and is separate and larger than simply reviewing the proposed dredge/fill impacts and proposed mitigation. The Corps should prepare its analysis of public interest factors carefully when reviewing this proposal and then provide it for public review and comment.
Point #10
Page 6, Public Hearing, Public Notice, the Sierra Club requests a public hearing about this permit application and proposal. The Corps should contact all surrounding businesses, residential areas (like Trailwood Village Subdivision, Kingwood Lakes Village Subdivision, Clubs of Kingwood, Barrington Subdivision, and Kingwood Lakes South Community Association), churches (like Kingwood United Methodist Church), schools, parks (like Deer Ridge Park, River Grove Park, Boy Scout Reserve), and other entities that may be affected by the proposal, up or downstream, so that the local public can find out about, understand, and attend this public hearing and provide public comments.
Conclusion
Due to the concerns raised in this comment letter the Sierra Club requests that the Corps deny this permit application. The Sierra Club appreciates this opportunity to provide public comment on this proposed permit application. Thank you.
Sincerely, Brandt Mannchen Chair, Forestry Subcommittee Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club (Be sure to include your contact info; I have omitted it here to protect privacy.)
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/RiverGroveFlood_01-e1547394963389.jpg?fit=1000%2C667&ssl=16671000adminadmin2019-01-12 14:27:252019-01-13 12:30:03Sierra Club Response to High-Rise Development Proposal in Flood Plain
Jim Zura, owner of Zura Productions, flew his drones again on January 8 after the most recent flood went down. This time, he’s sharing two videos. The first, shot from River Grove Park, shows the area south of Barrington. The second, shot from Woodland Hills Drive at Deer Springs, shows the area north of the Barrington. Together, they show you the areas for most of the proposed new Romerica high-rise development and marina.
Drone pans approximately 120 degrees across the Romerica property from Barrington to the West Fork of the San Jacinto. End of shot zooms into the narrow area between Barrington and small lake where high rises would be built.
This video starts on Woodland Hills at Deer Springs. It pans up to reveal the northern part of the proposed high-rise development, then pans south toward Barrington.
Both videos offer panoramic views of the areas that Romerica proposes to raise by 12 feet. Raising these two areas would destroy trees and wetlands, increase the rate of runoff, and alter drainage patterns. It would also likely worsen flooding problems upstream and around the proposed development.
Not Only Human Residents Worry
Clark McCollough, a resident of Kingwood Lakes, reported that two bald eagles live near the property being permitted. He supplied this spectacular photo which I am reprinting with his permission. The developer wants to fill in wetlands near the nests and mitigate the loss of wetlands by purchasing credits somewhere else.
Eagle spotted near proposed high-rise development. Photo courtesy of Clark McCollough of Kingwood Lakes.
Register Comments on Permit Application with Army Corps
For complete details of the permit application, see this post. If no comments are received by January 31, the Corps will assume there are no objections. Do not assume that this permit will be denied just because FaceBook has a lot of negative buzz about it. The Corps does not read FaceBook. The best way to ensure this development does not happen is to write. We need every resident in Kingwood to respond. Important: In your letter, state that you want a public hearing.
Comments and requests for additional information should reference USACE file number, SWG-2016-00384, and should be submitted to:
Evaluation Branch, North Unit
Regulatory Division, CESWG-RD-E
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1229
Galveston, Texas 77553-1229
409-766-3869 Phone
409-766-6301 Fax
swg_public_notice@usace.army.mil
Posted by Bob Rehak on January 10, 2019
499 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SecondEagle.jpg?fit=855%2C1171&ssl=11171855adminadmin2019-01-10 22:14:512019-01-13 12:32:26New Drone Video Shows Areas for Proposed High-Rise Development
On January 8, 2019, IBM announced that it will soon introduce a new higher resolution weather-forecasting system. The IBM Global High-Resolution Atmospheric Forecasting System (GRAF) will offer 3 kilometer resolution compared to the current industry-average 13-kilometer resolution. That’s 1.25 miles instead of 8.
IBM GRAF system will offer weather forecasters a more than 200% increase in resolution. Image credit: IBM
The system will enable truly local forecasts as opposed to regional. And it will do so on a worldwide basis. Forecasters will soon see individual thunderstorms, not just fronts. And the system will update every hour as opposed to every six to twelve hours, which is the current industry standard. NOAA’s High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) model does run hourly at 3-kilometer resolution, but only covers the U.S. The new GRAF system will offer enhanced resolution throughout the world and predict weather as small as a thunderstorm anywhere on the planet. It should especially help regions without access to a system like HRRR.
Improvements Result from Wider Data Collection and Enhanced Processing Power.
IBM says it will crowdsource data. GRAF has the ability to collect pressure sensor readings sent from barometers found in billions of smartphones (if people opt in to share that information). GRAF will also collect data from tens of thousands of commercial aircraft constantly flying at high altitudes all around the world. IBM will process all that data on one of the three most powerful supercomputers in the world. The graphics processing unit in the computer can handle 3.5 petabytes of data. Each petabyte equals 1 million gigabytes or a billion megabytes.
Benefits of Higher Resolution
This much-improved weather system will help people and communities plan better for weather events. IBM expects it will help:
Utility companies to better position repair crews to get power back faster after a storm
Airlines to more effectively route around turbulence
Farmers to better anticipate and prepare for dramatic shifts in weather
Insurers to predict surges in weather-related claims
Better emergency response during extreme events, such as hurricanes, typhoons or tonoradoes.
The new IBM GRAF system should enable more accurate forecasts and better coordination throughout the world.
For more information, see posts about the new IBM GRAF system on Weather Underground and Weather Company sites. Also, the Washington Post had an interesting review that discusses the history of the system’s development.
My thanks to Mario Gomez, retired KHOU weather forecaster, for bringing this to my attention.
Posted by Bob Rehak on January 9, 201
498 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/13km-vs-3-km_0.jpg?fit=835%2C489&ssl=1489835adminadmin2019-01-09 09:09:462019-01-09 21:01:18New, Higher Resolution Global Weather Forecasting on the Horizon
