Final Report Project Number 111430014 September 3, 2014

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Performance Measures Development Project

Calgary, AB, Canada

Canmore, AB, Canada

Calgary, AB, Canada

River Forecast Performance Measures Development Project

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD)

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd.

111430014

September 3, 2014

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 200-325 25th Street SE, Calgary AB T2A 7H8

September 3, 2014 File: 111430019

Attention: Ms. Colleen Walford, P.Eng. River Flow Forecaster Operations Infrastructure Branch Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) Government of Alberta 11th Floor, Oxbridge Place 9820-106th Street NW Edmonton, AB T5K 2J6

Dear Ms. Walford,

Reference: Performance Measures Development Project

Stantec is pleased to submit the final report for the Performance Measures Development Project to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD).

This report and the accompanying Comparative Tables and Technical Memorandum, present the background, approach, methods and summary of the performance measures of several flood- forecast centres in North America, Europe and South Pacific. The outcome of the study includes important observations that will help assess the ongoing program, and the suitability and effectiveness of hydrological forecasting models for Alberta watershed conditions. The observations are primarily intended to provide ESRD with an opportunity to consider integration of desirable best practices implemented in other Flood Forecast Centres from jurisdictions throughout the world.

The report also includes the complete responses to the questionnaire by 13 flood-forecast centres around the world and can be used for additional detailed analysis of similar studies in the future.

The final report addresses comments received from the ESRD during the review of the draft final report.

We extend our sincere appreciation to the following flood-forecast centres that took the time and committed resources to complete the questionnaire:

 National Weather Service - Colorado Basin River Forecast Centre

 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver, CO)

 Flood Control District of Maricopa Country (Arizona)

September 3, 2014 Ms. Colleen Walford, P.Eng. Page 2 of 2

Reference: Performance Measures Development Project

 Arizona State-wide Flood Warning Network

 Switzerland Federal Office for the Environment

 Scotland Environmental Protection Agency – River Forecast Centre

 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (Ontario)

 Grand River Conservation Authority (Ontario)

 British Columbia River Forecast Centre

 Bavaria River Forecast Centre (Germany)

 Manitoba Flood Forecasting Centre

 Australia River Forecasting and Warning Branch

 Flanders Hydrologic Information Centre (Belgium)

If you have any questions or comments concerning the project, or require further information, please contact me.

Regards,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Rick Carnduff, M. Eng., P. Eng. Principal, Engineering Phone: (403) 716-8213 Fax: (403) 716-8109 [email protected]

Sign-off Sheet

This document entitled River Forecast Performance Measures Development Project was prepared by Stantec for the account of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

Issued on September 3, 2014

Survey carried out by:

Phillip Mutulu (Ph.D.)

Seifu Guangul (Ph.D., P.Eng.)

Scott Robertson (P.Eng.)

George Sabol (Ph.D., PE)

Bryan Close (PE, CFM)

Prepared by: George Rempel (P.Eng.)

Seifu Guangul (Ph.D., P.Eng.)

Phillip Mutulu (Ph.D.)

Coordinated by:

Seifu Guangul (Ph.D., P.Eng.)

Senior Reviewed by:

David Morgan (Ph.D., P.Eng.)

Steve Brown (MBA, P.Eng.)

Managed by:

Rick Carnduff (M. Eng., P.Eng.)

RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I

1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ...... 1.1 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT ...... 1.1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ...... 1.1 1.3 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF FLOOD FORECASTING ...... 1.2 1.3.1 The Hydrologic Cycle ...... 1.2 1.3.2 Basic Components of a Flood Warning System ...... 1.4

2.0 FLOOD FORECAST CENTRES SURVEYED ...... 2.1 2.1 INTERVIEWS/RESEARCH ...... 2.1

3.0 GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE FORECAST CENTRES ...... 3.1 3.1 BACKGROUND/HISTORY ...... 3.1 3.2 SIZE/POPULATION OF FORECAST AREA ...... 3.1 3.3 FORECAST STAFFING ...... 3.2

4.0 FORECAST CENTRE OBJECTIVES/OPERATION ...... 4.1 4.1 MANDATES ...... 4.1 4.2 COMMUNIQUES ...... 4.2 4.3 MAJOR CAUSES OF FLOODING ...... 4.4 4.4 EMERGENCY SERVICES DURING MAJOR FLOODS ...... 4.5

5.0 GENERAL DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS ...... 5.1

6.0 FORECAST MODEL DESCRIPTIONS ...... 6.1 6.1 FORECAST MODELS ...... 6.1 6.2 FORECASTING MODE ...... 6.3 6.3 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 6.4

7.0 PHYSICAL PROCESSES ...... 7.1

8.0 DATA ACQUISITION/MANAGEMENT ...... 8.1

9.0 FORECAST PRODUCTS DISSEMINATION AND PROTOCOLS ...... 9.1

10.0 PERFORMANCE MEASURE REVIEWS ...... 10.1

11.0 OBSERVATIONS ...... 11.1

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx i RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Flood Forecasting Centres and Acronyms ...... 2.1 Table 3-1: Flood Forecasting Centre Staffing ...... 3.2 Table 4-1: Flood Forecasting Centre Mandates ...... 4.1 Table 4-2: Flood Forecasting Centre Communiques ...... 4.2 Table 4-3: Flood Forecasting Centre Products ...... 4.3 Table 4-4: Flood Forecasting Centre and Flooding Event Triggers ...... 4.4 Table 6-1: Model Definitions ...... 6.1 Table 6-2: Summary for Delft-FEWS Forecasting Tool ...... 6.2 Table 6-3: Flood Forecasting Centre Forecasting Mode ...... 6.4 Table 6-4: Flood Forecasting Centre Summary of Responses ...... 6.5 Table 9-1: Flood Forecasting Centre Communication ...... 9.2 Table 9-2: Flood Forecasting Centre Uncertainty/Public Interpretation...... 9.3 Table 9-3: Forecast Products Dissemination and Protocols-Public Feedback ...... 9.4 Table 10-1: Performance Review-Public Feedback ...... 10.1 Table 10-2: Example of Forecast Verification by Flood Control District of Maricopa County ...... 10.3 Table 10-3: Contingency Table I ...... 10.4 Table 10-4: Contingency Table II ...... 10.4

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Hydrologic Cycle ...... 1.4 Figure 1-2: Forecasting, Warning and Emergency Response Structure...... 1.5 Figure 10-1: Example of Seasonal Verification in use at CRBFC ...... 10.2

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 1

APPENDIX B: COMPARATIVE TABLES OF RESPONSES ...... 1

APPENDIX C: DETAILED RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 11.1

LIST OF ACRONYMS ESRD ...... Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development RFC ...... River Forecast Centre FFC ...... Flood Forecast Centre AOF ...... Accuracy of Forecast POD ...... Probability of Detection FAR ...... False Alarm

ii lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Executive Summary

The Province of Alberta, through ESRD, retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. to conduct a performance review study of eight to ten operational flood forecasting centres (FFCs) across North America, Europe and the South Pacific. The study involved the examination and documentation of a wide variety of topics related to flood forecasting including: the FFC establishment history, the level of staffing, area covered, type of models or forecasting techniques, model inputs and outputs, spatial data coverage, database systems, watershed characteristics, their sizes, hydro-meteorological and physiographic characteristics, communication protocols, uncertainty considerations and techniques used to assess performance measures.

The approach entailed the preparation of questionnaire forms and the analysis of information received from the respondents. These questionnaires were sent out to several FFCs including a request to participate in the study. Forecast centres considered to have potentially useful information relevant to Alberta Flood Forecasting Centre were identified by ESRD and confirmed by the study team. As a result, a total of 13 FFCs across, Europe, Australia and North America responded to the survey effort.

Based on information obtained from the respondents, the key findings of the study are summarized below:

The earliest established FCC’s were based in North America. Of all the considered FFC the US National Weather Service Colorado River Forecast Centre established in 1947 was the earliest; and the Scotland Environmental Protection Agency-River Forecast Centre established in 2011 is the latest FFC. In Canada, the oldest centre was established in Manitoba in 1954. Most other FFCs were established in response to an extreme flood event. In general, the responsibility for the river-flow forecasting was most commonly added to existing departments of the state or province involved. Two FFCs in Ontario were identified to have their flood-forecasting responsibilities as part of watershed-based conservation districts (conservation authorities).

The size of the service area varied from the scale of a single river basin to an entire country. For the countrywide service area, forecasting is not actually done for all areas of the country, as some areas have low populations. The sizes of forecast coverage area range from 4,000 km2 to 950,000 km2 while the population size in the service area ranges from about 485,000 to 23,000,000. The staff numbers allocated to flood forecasting range from 4 to 10 persons. For overall staff allotments, the general FFC staff rosters range from 6 to 200 persons.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx i RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

FFCs involved in providing forecasts are also involved in providing flood related data to other government departments. A number of the centres also have responsibility for operation of reservoirs or dams.

Flood warnings and other related information are issued to emergency agencies, public or stakeholders by means of web-publishing, newspapers, radio, television, faxing, telephone and more recently, social media like Twitter and Facebook. These modes of communication also provide channels for public feedback which can be used as a basis for improving flood warning and forecast systems.

The major cause of floods identified for most centres, is a combination of rainfall and snowmelt. Other causes are heavy rainfall on saturated soils, rainfall leading to flash floods in desert areas, thunderstorms which cause localized flash flooding or exacerbate previous flood conditions. Some centres reported a trend to more diversity in the factors involved in triggering major flood events, and also a trend towards higher frequency of multiple flood events in a given year. Most FFC subdivide their forecast service areas into river basins and these are often subdivided based on topography and similar hydrologic characteristics. The climate for the forecast centres varied widely including cold continental, temperate, maritime and desert climates. Some larger service areas had watershed areas with very different climates within their overall service region. Rivers and lakes within most service area are regulated. The flood risks identified from the survey responses related to all types of anticipated land use, including land uses involving: agricultural production, transportation infrastructure, urban/rural property and parklands. Flash floods are also identified by some of the FFCs as major risk to human life.

In regard to forecast tools, the survey revealed that some centres use widely applied hydrological models such as HyMO and HEC models. Most centres have also built or adapted hydrologic models to suit their specific needs. Half of the centres interviewed use continuous simulation models and the rest use event-based models, with all the centres incorporating some level of deterministic and stochastic components. Forecast lead times range from several hours to several weeks. One of the general trends observed in this study is the use of modeling platforms or decision support systems like the Flood Early Warning System (FEWS) framework. In regard to database systems, most centres use a variety of tools often developed in-house using common systems such as Excel and Access. Several of the FFCs use the FEWS foundation or WISKI database systems.

Uncertainty in the forecasts is communicated implicitly through use of bands of forecasts (high, medium and low) and developing a narrative in terms of qualitative language. In some instances interviews to discuss terminologies are conducted through public outreach. Communications to the public are typically conducted in plain language. Some FFCs have developed terminology to minimize miscommunication and to convey levels of forecast uncertainty to the public.

ii lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

One of the major challenges to forecast verification was noted as being the difficulty in distinguishing between weather forecasts, and hydrological forecasts and their associated errors. In some cases, forecasts also rely on upstream forecasts from other jurisdictions due to basin interconnectivity. In consideration of the lack of complete control of all the variables involved in accurate forecasting and verification, the challenge for all FFCs is that performance measurement is not an exact science. The impact of these realities is that assessing performance of forecasts against the real-time dynamic conditions of an external uncontrolled physical environment (in contrast to a controlled-lab environment) remains a challenge. Most FFCs review the accuracy of their forecasts by comparison of the forecasted flow, water levels and timing of peaks to observed values, based on visual inspections and statistical approaches specific to each FFC. Performance review measures are mostly executed internally and informally by each FFC. The centres are continually working on both establishing improved performance measures and developing more reliable and timely flood forecasting methods.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx iii

RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

1.0 General Introduction

ESRD-RFC was interested in adopting a more formal process to assist with the peer and internal review of its program and runoff models. To help frame this formal review process, ESRD-RFC needed to identify potential performance measures that could be used by the centre. An investigation into current performance measures used by existing operational flood forecasting groups throughout the world was required as well as the documentation of current programs and models in place and the reasons why they have been selected.

The primary objective of this project is to identify and propose potential performance measures for the ESRD-RFC that can be used to assess ongoing program and suitability and effectiveness of hydrological forecasting models for Alberta watershed conditions.

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT

River Forecasting is complex and involves multiple processes including:

• A strong understanding of the basins and rivers in the forecast service area.

• Timely collection of information (hydrologic data, meteorological data, weather forecasts).

• Real-time integration of data.

• Use of hydrologic forecasting tools.

• Dissemination of warnings.

The approach used to develop and implement these procedures can vary between jurisdictions due to differences in climate, topography, land use, population density as wells as other factors. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) wishes to gain an understanding of the river forecasting procedures around the world and how these centres review, measure and improve the performance of various steps in their forecasting process.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The Province, through ESRD, retained Stantec Consulting to perform the following services for this study:

1. Document the existing performance measures used by a minimum of eight to ten operational flood forecasting groups across North America, Europe and the South Pacific. 2. Compile the results of any performance measure reviews completed by these groups. 3. Document any changes made to their program or models based on the results of these reviews.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx1.1 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

4. Identify when the last major change to their process/models occurred and what drove the change, if it was not directly related to an identified performance measure. 5. Develop a questionnaire to assist in the documentation of each group’s basic information pertaining to the types of models used, how their forecasts are communicated, and the form they take. 6. Document each group’s basic information pertaining to their models and programs. Information should include but is not limited to:

• Name of model platform used – year implemented (in-house or contract)and duration of implementation. • Model run duration as well as lead time model (as required). • Use of data assimilation and/or automatic calibration.

• Type of snowmelt computation process. • Type of runoff model process. • Type of routing process.

• Real-time data input requirements. • Method used to generate forecast precipitation data inputs (ensemble weather forecasts – ensemble river forecasts).

• Agency methods to deal with precipitation forecast uncertainties in the runoff model. • Data required for model development (Soil moisture, land use, slope, vegetative cover, use of estimated or measured values).

• Monitoring-network density. • What forecast information is provided to clients (single-peak values, hydrographs, ensemble set of hydrographs), and how it is communicated.

• To evaluate how the runoff model uncertainties are communicated to the public/stakeholders. 7. Based on the performance measures used in other jurisdictions, and any changes that they have currently made to their process or models, discuss which of these measures could be implemented by ESRD–RFC.

8. Compile all of this information in a final report.

1.3 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF FLOOD FORECASTING

1.3.1 The Hydrologic Cycle

At the heart of every forecast system is the proper understanding of the different components of the hydrologic cycle. The monitoring of the hydro-meteorological processes through data

1.2 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

acquisition, the development of forecasting tools, and the applications of these tools must adequately account for the spatial and temporal characteristics of the hydrologic cycle. Flood forecast performance measures should consider how well different components of the hydrologic cycle are accounted for.

The hydrologic cycle (Figure 1-1) describes the continuous movement of water in its different phases (vapor, liquid or solid) on, above and below the surface of the Earth. The net mass of water on earth remains fairly constant over time but the partitioning of the water into the major reservoirs of ice, fresh water, saline water and atmospheric water is variable, depending on a wide range of climatic variables.

This cycle is a global sun-driven process whereby water is transported from the oceans to the atmosphere to the land and back to the sea (Viessman and Lewis, 2003). There is no “real” beginning or ending to the cycle. The main components of the hydrologic cycle are: precipitation, evaporation, transpiration, interception, infiltration, surface runoff, percolation and groundwater flow. Precipitation constitutes the main water input to the hydrologic cycle. Precipitation can occur as liquid rain, solid form (hail), gaseous form (water vapor) or in the form of snow depending on the climatic and physiographic setting of the area. The precipitation as it falls to the ground is first intercepted before reaching the ground surface mainly by vegetation cover. Precipitation that does not come in contact with vegetation and water that was initially intercepted by vegetation and drop off from the leaves ultimately reaches the ground surface. This part of precipitation together with the snowmelt water constitutes the major water input source for the generation of overland flow and infiltration.

The major portion of intercepted water eventually moves back to the atmosphere as evaporation. In addition, the movement of water in gaseous form from open water bodies is referred to as evaporation while the removal of water through the stomata of plant leaves is called transpiration. As it is normally difficult to separate these two processes in the real world, they are often referred together as evapotranspiration. The water input on the ground can move into the soil profile as infiltration depending on the antecedent soil moisture content, the land use and land cover, the soil type and slope of the area. The infiltrated water can move quickly laterally to join the river or open water body as interflow, remain in the soil layer as soil moisture or undergo deep percolation to become groundwater recharge. The groundwater moves slowly and joins the river as base flow, and sustains the river during non-rainy periods. Part of the surface water input that fails to infiltrate into the soil, accumulates in small depressions, to form depression storage. Once the depression storage requirement of the area is satisfied, water runs on towards the stream as overland flow.

An understanding of the processes within the hydrologic cycle is crucial to the development of river flow forecasting and warning systems. The hydrologic cycle is influenced by many physical processes including: meteorological conditions, topography, basin characteristics and other factors. This implies some areas would be prone to flooding more than others, depending upon how these physical processes interact with the characteristics of a given region. In river

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx1.3 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

forecasting, it is crucial to identify areas that are prone to flooding as part of strategic flood warning and mitigation programs.

Figure 1-1: Hydrologic Cycle

1.3.2 Basic Components of a Flood Warning System The functional purposes of a flood forecasting system are to monitor, analyze and forecast flood events and to provide timely and reliable warning to authorities, various stakeholders, and the public. To achieve these objectives, a flood forecasting program should include the following basic components:

• Data collection, monitoring program as well as transmission of captured data for environmental variables that may lead to flooding. In the case of river flow, for example, parameters such as rainfall, tides, surge and waves, snowmelt, and ice-jams coupled with detection of threshold levels and high-values for monitored variables.

• Analysis, modelling and forecasting of possible flood incidents when one or more threshold levels are exceeded for monitored environmental variables.

• Provision of flood warnings to assist in decision making on impending flood incidents when flood risks are imminent.

1.4 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

• Communication protocols to coordinate issuance and dissemination of warning messages to the public, to professional partners and to emergency services.

• Flood response mechanism.

• Performance evaluation.

Depending on the jurisdiction involved, the particular flood forecasting system components may vary from those listed above. In addition, the responsibility for these components may belong to different federal or provincial departments. A linkage of these various components may be integrated to build a flood warning decision support system, such as depicted in Figure 1-2. It should be noted that the performance component is an important feedback to a decision support system. The performance evaluation component could be viewed as a systematic process that could provide ample opportunities to study, evaluate and improve the efficiency of a flood forecasting system.

Figure 1-2: Forecasting, Warning and Emergency Response Structure

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx1.5

RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

2.0 Flood Forecast Centres Surveyed

2.1 INTERVIEWS/RESEARCH

A list of forecast centres considered to have potentially useful information relevant to Alberta’s River Forecasting Centre were identified by ESRD and confirmed by the study team. The study team considered specific factors useful in evaluating each Flood Forecast Centre (FFC), such as hydro-meteorological, physiographic and operational characteristics. The team then developed a survey instrument (questionnaire), and the candidate forecast centres were then contacted by a team of experienced engineers and hydrologists requesting their cooperation in responding to the questionnaire. A commitment to share the study report with the participating FFCs was made in appreciation of their effort in completing the questionnaire. The completed questionnaires in their entirety are attached in Appendix A as technical memoranda. Originally, it was anticipated that eight or ten responses may be provided in response to the request to participate in our survey. However, actual participation was significant, with a total of 13 FFCs responding to our survey effort. The list of responding FFCs is provided in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Flood Forecasting Centres and Acronyms

Flood Forecasting Centre (FFC) Acronym

National Weather Service - Colorado Basin River Forecast Centre CBRFC

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver, CO) UD&FCD

Flood Control District of Maricopa Country (Arizona) FCDMC

Arizona State-wide Flood Warning Network ASWFN

Switzerland Federal Office for the Environment FOEN

Scotland Environmental Protection Agency – River Forecast Centre SEPA-RFC

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (Ontario) UTRCA

Grand River Conservation Authority (Ontario) GRCA

British Columbia River Forecast Centre BCRFC

Bavaria River Forecast Centre BRFC

Manitoba Flood Forecasting Centre HFC

Australia River Forecasting and Warning Branch ARFCWB

Flanders Hydrologic Information Centre (Belgium) HIC

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx2.1 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

The responses from the 13 FCCs were analyzed and summarized into nine tables (Appendix B). The complete individual FFC responses are provided in Appendix C.

The remainder of this report will discuss the key results of the responses with a final section providing some general observations for consideration by ESRD’s River Forecast Centre.

2.2 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

3.0 General Background of the Forecast Centres

Table 1 of Appendix B summarizes and compares the background and history of the surveyed FFCs and their staffing.

3.1 BACKGROUND/HISTORY

Each FFC was surveyed regarding their operational history and where available, details on event(s) that were influential in identifying a need for establishment of a FFC operation.

The timing of FFC establishment varied among our participating survey respondents. A few FFCs had a long history of flood forecasting for the purposes of water-supply management or flood events. The earliest established FFCs were based in North America, specifically the CBRFC (1947), established in the U.S. and the HFC (1954), established in Canada. The most recently established FFC among respondents was in Scotland, at the SEPA-RFC (2011). While the first FFC among the surveyed respondents was established as part of a National Weather Service Program, most other FFCs were established to provide systematic flood forecasting capabilities in response to an extreme flood event.

For interviewed FFCs, it was apparent that the responsibility for the river-flow forecasting was most commonly added to existing departments of the state or province involved. There were a few instances where river-flow forecasting was designated as part of federal responsibilities; examples of this arrangement include the CBRFC, FOEN, SEPA-RFC, and BUFC. Two FFCs in Ontario, Canada namely UTRCA and GRCA were identified to have their flood-forecasting responsibilities as part of watershed-based conservation districts (conservation authorities).

3.2 SIZE/POPULATION OF FORECAST AREA

An important characteristic for a FFC is the relative geographic size and population of its service area. In this regard, questions were posed to each FFC to understand the centre’s service region.

The size of the service area varied from the scale of a single river basin (e.g., UTRCA and GRCA) to an entire country (e.g., FOEN, ARFWB and SEPA-RFC). For the countrywide service area, forecasting is not actually done for all areas of the country as some areas have low populations and/or limited data, e.g., ARFWB.

The sizes of forecast coverage area range from 4,145 km2 for UD&FCD to 950,000 km2 for BCRFC. The population size in the service area ranges from about 485,000 for UTRCA to about 12,000,000 for CRBFC and BRFC, and 23,000,000 for ARFWB, which offers forecasts on a national basis but only for regions with a service agreement with ARFWB.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx3.1 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

3.3 FORECAST STAFFING

Each of the 13 FFCs was asked to provide details on their staffing levels and general composition of their rosters. The number of staff dedicated to flood forecasting was not always clear in the survey responses, as some agencies had much broader responsibilities. For example, in addition to flow forecasting, some agencies own and operate reservoirs.

Where information was provided by respondents, the staff numbers allocated to flow forecasting were found to range from 4 to 10 persons. For overall staff allotments, the general FFC staff rosters range from 6 to 200 persons.

Table 3-1 summarizes the staffing numbers and comparative staff per service area and forecast populations served.

Table 3-1: Flood Forecasting Centre Staffing

Staff per Staff per Forecast Area Forecast FFC No., of Staff service area population (km2) Population ratio ratio

CBRFC 14 785,932 km2 ~ 1:56,000 12.7 M ~ 1:1,000,000

UD&FC 23 7,770 km2** ~ 1:340 2.3 M ~ 1:100,000

FCDMC *** 13,985km2 3.9 M

ASWFN 295,280km2 6.5M

FOEN 9 41,285km2 ~ 1:4,600 8.0 M ~ 1:1,000,000

SEPA-RFC 10 78,397km2 ~ 1:7,800 5.3 M ~ 1:500,000

UTRCA 6 3,400 km2 ~ 1:600 0.5 M ~ 1:80,000

GRCA 41 7,000km2 ~1:170 985,000 ~1:24,000

BCRFC 4.5 950,000 km2 ~ 1:200,000 4.5 M ~ 1:900,000

BRFC 12 71,000 km2 ~ 1:6,000 12.0 M ~ 1:1,000,000

HFC 12 650,000 km2 ~ 1:50,000 1.3 M ~1:1,000,000

ARFCWB* 50 Not available 22.7M

HIC* 25 Not available 6M

*Note: FCDMC, ASFWN, GRCA, ARFWB, HIC not included as info on staff involved in forecasting not provided or the area/population serviced is not clear in the response. **Drainage area covered by UD&FC is about 7,770km2 and flood forecast area is 4,150km2. ***200 employees provide flood-control services but it is not clear exactly how many staff are dedicated flood forecasters.

3.2 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

4.0 Forecast Centre Objectives/Operation

Table 2 of Appendix B summarizes and compares objectives and operation of the surveyed FFCs.

4.1 MANDATES

FFCs were interviewed to establish specifics regarding each FFC’s operational objectives. Interview results indicated that the mandates of the FFCs varied widely among respondents. All have a mandate to develop flow forecasts, except for ASWFN (ASWFN acts as a central hub for meteorological data for the state of Arizona). FFCs involved in providing forecasts were also involved in providing data packages to other government departments. A number of the centres also had responsibility for operation of reservoirs or dams, e.g., GRCA, while others, such as the HFC, also served the role of providing guidance for optimum operation of water-control works and assisting in land-use policies for its stakeholders. The summary of each FCCs mandate is provided in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Flood Forecasting Centre Mandates

FFC Mandate

CBRFC NWS provides weather, hydrologic and climate forecasts for the USA; the CBRFC was established as a water-supply forecast unit. Flood forecasting was added in 1969 to cover the Colorado River Basin.

UD&FCD Assist local governments in Denver metropolitan area with inter-jurisdiction drainage and flood-control problem.

FCDMC Oversees development and implementation of comprehensive flood-hazard-control measures; flood control services.

ASWFN Provides state-wide data (weather, stream-flow data).

FOEN Provides national flood-forecasting service.

SEPA-RFC Scotland-wide flood guidance; flood-risk assessments.

UTRCA Maintain flood-response center, issue flood bulletins.

GRCA Flood forecasting, monitoring, issue flood messages, operates seven water-control dams.

BCRFC Lead government agency for flood warnings/advisories/bulletins, snowpack analyses.

BRFC Provides water/level/flow forecasts to state warning centers.

HFC Promoting public safety re: flood-related hazards, flood forecasting, assist in water- control works and operation.

ARFWB Provide flood warning information to emergency services and community at large.

HIC Alerting water managers, primarily related to navigation.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx4.1 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

4.2 COMMUNIQUES

A series of questions were posed within the survey tool in order to understand each centre’s goals and related products. Four of the 13 FFCs reported that they issued long-term flood outlook products, 12 of the 13 surveyed FFCs issue Flood Warnings to media, websites and other emergency alert systems. 11 of the 13 FFCs reported they issued Flash-Flood Warnings for stakeholders in their forecast coverage region. Surveyed FFCs were also involved in issuing other types of reports, ranging from annual reports on flood activity to daily and or weekly flood guidance statements. Some FFCs (GRCA) also issue termination messages when the flood risk is deemed to have passed, while others (ARFWB, HFC) are involved in preparing briefings to media, emergency agencies and related government departments.

Results from these questions are summarized in Table 4-2 and additional details are provided within Table 2 of Appendix B.

Table 4-2: Flood Forecasting Centre Communiques

Flood Warning/ Provide Long- FFC Advisories/ Flash Other Reports/ Emergency Services term Outlook Flood

CBRFC   Extend hours of operation during flood

UD&FC Through  Daily Sirens, training, flood exercise CBRFC

FCDMC Through  Monitoring of reservoirs/flows CBRFC

ASWFN X X X

FOEN X  (2x/day) Extended hours, telecons 2x/day

SEPA RFC X 

UTRCA  -- Bulletins

GRCA   Communication with police/flood coordinators

BC RFC   Conference calls with Emergency Measures Department

BRFC X  X

HFC   Wind setup warnings for large lakes, assistance in flood-control operation

ARFWB X  X

HIC X  X

4.2 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

The communiques provided by the centres in response to their objectives are shown in Table 4-2, with more detail provided in Table 2 of Appendix B.

The communiques typically involved warnings and/or advisories relating to peak flows and water levels by location. Some centres, for example the FCDMC and UD&FCD, provide real-time rainfall forecasts due to flash-flood risks. A number of centres also develop and issue long-term flow outlooks.

A summary of the flood products developed at each of the 13 surveyed FFCs, as well as their methods of communicating these flood products, is summarized in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Flood Forecasting Centre Products

FFC Products Methods

CBRFC Annual/seasonal water supply forecasts, Website, emails, monthly webinars, Facebook ensemble flow predictions, probabilistic forecasts, peak discharges, timing

UD&FCD Potential and imminent flood threats, Direct to 22 local counties including flash floods, real-time rainfall and stream levels

FCDMC Flood watches, warnings, rainfall depth, Direct to 200 local government contacts, website, timing Facebook

ASWFN Done through CBRFC Not applicable

FOEN Daily meteorological forecasts, hydrology Published on information platform, warnings via forecasts published twice weekly, more secure email to local officials, radio/TV during frequent during flood events severe events

SEPA-RFC Flood guidance documents which show 5- Email to flood responders, website, phone calls, day flood risks by 19 areas; flood risk by Twitter, media (TV/ radio) interviews timing, location and likely impacts

UTRCA Peak flows, timing, water levels, long-term Website, releases to radio, print, TV media, Twitter, outlooks Facebook, flood bulletins

GRCA Flood warnings re: peak flows and related Website, email by subscription, mainstream advice (recreation, roads, structures), long- media, twitter, dialogue with Flood Coordinators term outlooks

BCRFC Daily average flow forecasts Website, conference calls with Emergency Measures Coordinators

BRFC Warnings/advisories, hourly hydrographs Internet, TV, telephone automated messages

HFC Warnings/watches/advisories/wind setup Website, mainstream media, social media; for large lakes briefings to all levels of provincial government, public, private organizations

ARFWB Hourly/daily warnings when flooding is Website, faxes to emergency agencies, briefings imminent, severe thunderstorm warnings to media

HIC Alerts to water managers re: navigation Website, emails, direct phone calls, meetings

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx4.3 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Most centres rely on public websites for direct communication with users, such as flood coordinators. Various forms of media are also used, such as radio/TV and a number of centres are now also embracing the use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter for issuing news on flood-related information products. Additional information on communication techniques is described in Section 11.

4.3 MAJOR CAUSES OF FLOODING

Surveyed FFCs were asked questions to identify major causes of flooding in their service region. For most centres, the major cause of extreme flooding events is a combination of rainfall and snowmelt. Heavy rainfall on saturated soils is also identified as common factors that lead to problematic flooding. For CBRFC, snowmelt drives major floods and rainfall drives flash floods in desert areas. Many centres reported that major floods were associated with spring conditions but thunderstorms often cause localized flash flooding or exacerbate previous flood conditions. In Switzerland, long duration rainfall events are key factor on lakes and rivers flooding. Manitoba reports ice jam-related events and wind setups on large lakes as issues that can create rapidly developing flooding conditions. Table 4-4 summarizes a listing of causes of major flooding among surveyed respondents. More description is provided in Table 2 of Appendix B. For SEPA- RFC, there is an added risk of coastal flooding. Some centres reported a trend to more diversity in the factors involved in triggering major flood events, and also a trend towards higher frequency of multiple flood events in a given year.

Table 4-4: Flood Forecasting Centre and Flooding Event Triggers

FFC Rainfall Snowmelt/Rainfall Coastal Flooding

CBRFC X  X

UD&FC  X X

FCDMC  X X

ASWFN  X X

FOEN X  X

SEPA RFC  X 

UTRCA X  X

GRCA X  X

BC RFC X  X

BRFC   X

HFC X  X

ARFWB  X X

HIC  X X

4.4 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

4.4 EMERGENCY SERVICES DURING MAJOR FLOODS

FFCs were asked about any emergency services provided by their office during major flood events. Respondents indicated that many centres provide extended hours of operation and more frequent forecast updates during major events. Many provide technical support to water management stakeholders and act as a general resource to flood coordinators and emergency services agencies.

Products provided by the FFCs as part of their emergency services during major flood events include bulletins and forecasts to municipal flood coordinators, flood warning notices issued to municipalities and police services, participation in emergency services conference calls as part of a coordinated response function, wind setup warnings and ice damming advisories for lake and river systems, and provision of technical support services as required by other government departments activated by flood response efforts.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx4.5

RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

5.0 General Drainage Basin Characteristics

Surveyed FFCs were asked to provide details on how they characterize the drainage basins that they serve. Survey respondents shared details pertaining to each FFCs watersheds, basin drainage types (i.e., flat, mountainous), land use and other factors. The comparative general drainage basin characteristics are summarized in Table 3 in Appendix B.

Most centres subdivide their forecast service areas into river basins. The exception is the GRCA, which deals with only the Grand River basin. Basins are often subdivided based on topography and similar hydrologic characteristics; for example, mountainous terrain with “flashy” runoff characteristics. The size of the watershed areas vary typically from 50 km2 to as large as 80,000 km2. BCRFC and ARFWB serve some extremely large catchment areas, 270,000 km2 and 1,000,000 km2, respectively.

Basin types vary in topography from desert (CBRFC), flat (UTRCA, HFC), to mountainous (FOEN, SEPA-RFC). Overall, most centres had some mountainous regions.

Land use designations within the service areas ranged from high forest, mountainous, agricultural, urban, industrial, and desert areas. Some service areas also have lake areas and recreational use.

The climate for the forecast centres varied widely, covering zones described as having cold continental, temperate, maritime and desert climates. Some larger service areas had watershed areas with very different climates within their overall service region. Some watershed areas experienced precipitation mostly in the form of rainfall; while other locations received precipitation mainly in the form of snowfall.

Most centres report that rivers and lakes within their service area are regulated, with the exception of BCRFC. The BCRFC has a lesser degree of regulation, with the majority of the Fraser River Basin and its coastal basins mostly unregulated, and only some interior basins covered by regulation.

The flood risks identified from the survey responses related to all types of anticipated land use, including: agricultural production, transportation infrastructure, urban/rural property and parklands. Flash floods are also identified by some of the FCCs as a major risk to human life. The coastal basins (SEPA-RFC) can have risks to critical infrastructure like power stations. Two Canadian centres (BCFRC, HFC) identified First Nation communities as affected populations in their coverage area exposed to flood risks.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx5.1

RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

6.0 Forecast Model Descriptions

6.1 FORECAST MODELS

Each FFC was surveyed to gain understanding of the model types and methods used for flood forecasting. From these surveys, results indicate that most flood forecast centres have an evolving approach to models and methods. Many centres began operations with simple regression and runoff-routing models. Some centres still effectively use widely applied models, e.g., UTRCA uses HyMO and HEC models. Most centres have built or adapted hydrologic models to suit their specific needs, usually in combination with other in-house and external, proprietary models.

Table 6-1: Model Definitions

• A hydrologic model is defined as a set of physical, chemical and/or biological processes acting upon one or more input variables and converts them into one or more output variables. • Deterministic hydrologic models treat the processes in a physically sound way, as if they formed a part of a determinate system. These models provide a fixed relation between the model inputs and the model outputs (for identical initial and boundary conditions). No attempt is hereby made to represent the random processes which may be present in the system. • Stochastic hydrologic models account for the variability of the response of the system: the same input does not necessarily generate the same output. These models treat the interrelationships between processes as governed by the theory of statistics. Minimal consideration is given to the physical processes that govern the global process. • Lumped hydrologic models treat the hydrologic system as spatially averaged and homogenous in space. Generally, these types of models use a single average parameter to predict the hydrologic processes of the basin. • Distributed hydrologic models take into account spatial variations of basin parameters such as soil and land use-types and hydrological processes. These types of models have the advantage that they can be applied to both gauged and non-gauged basins.

Five of the 13 centres are using a Flood Early Warning System (FEWS) framework. FEWS is a hydrologic forecast and warning platform developed by the Deltares Co. in Delft, The Netherlands. The system contains no inherent hydrological modeling capabilities within its own code, relying instead on the integration of third-party modeling components to conduct simulations. Under this arrangement, the FEWS framework can then be customized for the specific forecast centre under consideration. FEWS is a data-centric framework. For integration of the hydrologic model components (including rainfall/runoff, snowmelt and routing) these model components are run sequentially and independently, with data being passed to and from the FEWS database. FEWS offers significant flexibility, as it can generate a range of different products, including web reports, graphs, tables, etc., as well as probabilistic forecasts. Due to our survey responses indicating an apparent trend in using FEWS by some FFCs, a short summary description of FEWS is given by Table 6-2.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx6.1 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Table 6-2: Summary for Delft-FEWS Forecasting Tool

Delft-FEWS is a state-of-the-art hydrological forecast and warning system, which is based on a collection of modules customized to the specific requirements of an individual organization. The system contains no inherent hydrological modeling capabilities within its code base. Instead, it relies entirely on the integration of third-party modeling components. The design philosophy is to provide a shell through which an operational forecasting application can be developed specific to the requirements of an operational forecasting centre. Rather than being as model centric tool, Delft-FEWS’s foundation is data-centric, with a common data-model through which all components interact. For non-commercial users, the license agreement to use the system doesn’t carry a cost. However, forecasting agencies that use the system in their operational forecast process are normally expected to enter into a support and maintenance agreement with the software developer or other licensed suppliers. Delft-FEWS provides a data import module that has been designed to handle a wide range of data formats. The current version of FEWS has dedicated Java class for each (new) data format. The import module of Delft-FEWS already includes class that can deal with most current and emerging data standards. Delft-FEWS has an extensive library of data-processing functions such as generic data processing, transforming stage data to discharge, applying temperature lapse rates and bias correction. The data-processing feature also includes quality control of rain-gauge data imported from a real-time database, aggregation of rainfall data, interpolation of point-rainfall data into Thiessen polygon, sampling of the rainfall field with watershed delineation for hydrological model, bias correction of simulated hydrograph at the watershed outlet, scaling of the hydrograph to account for small tributaries not covered by the model, and constraining boundary flows to defined minimum values. Delft-FEWS uses a simple yet effective approach to integrate the model to be run as part of the forecast process. Hydrological model components such the snowmelt model, precipitation-runoff model and routing model are run sequentially and independently, with data being passed to and from the database at each step in the model cascade. In Delft-FEWS, models are not integrated at the algorithm level; rather they are run as an external process. Given the fact that several models have already been integrated with Delft-FEWS, the model-wrap approach of integration becomes increasingly complex. To overcome this challenge, Delft-FEWS applies a well-defined interface layer through which all communication with models passed. The interface is defined using eXtensible Markup Language (XML) that provides an advantage to be independently verified using industry standards. Delft-FEWS can generate different products as part of forecast dissemination and warning. These include products generated by Delft-FEWS and exported or it can generate web reports with graphs, tables as well as summary reports. The product may contain deterministic forecasts, as well as probabilistic forecasts. Delft-FEWS follows a relatively passive approach to forecasting in the operational setting. That means the model structure and parameters are established when setting up the forecasting system. In real-time operation the models are then run with little or no interaction with the forecaster.

6.2 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Most FFCs use a Windows operating system for their computing and modeling platform, but there are other FFCs using other platforms. For example, CBRFC uses Linux and HFC uses Windows and Linux operating systems.

Most forecast models require a relatively high level of expertise in the areas of hydrology, meteorology, as well as significant knowledge of the forecast service area. Of the 13 FFCs surveyed, 8 of them indicated a need for significant, specialized expertise to run their models. Of the FFCs that indicated a lower level of expertise requirement, this was indicated for scenarios where a FFCs models could be run by near automation, with the exception of a requirement for higher, specialized expertise to handle calibration and setting operational parameters of their models. Some of the surveyed FCCs can call on technical support as necessary but most FFCs indicated that their internal technical expertise is sufficient to conduct their forecast modeling efforts.

Several models are fully automated (FOEN and ARFWB), but most allow for human interaction and some FFCs apply models that require the latter (DBRFC, UTRCA, GRCA).

6.2 FORECASTING MODE

In terms of modes of forecasting, about half of the FFC survey responses reported that they use a continuous modeling mode with the other half reporting the use of event-based models. All FFCs reported using deterministic models and several also use stochastic models based on ensembles of weather forecasts as an input to the hydrologic model. HFC also uses probabilistic inputs of precipitation and soil moisture. Table 6-1 provides a summary of each FFCs specific forecast mode.

Greater detail on modes of forecasting among the survey participants is provided in Table 4 in Appendix B.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx6.3 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Table 6-3: Flood Forecasting Centre Forecasting Mode

FFC Continuous Event Based Deterministic Stochastic Both

CBRFC  X   

UD&FCD

FCDMC

ASWFN

FOEN  X  (weather  X forecast) (probabalistic weather forecast)

SEPA-RFC  Done as  In part, In part required ensemble rainfall

UTRCA X   X X

GRCA Can run   X X multiple events

BCRFC X   X X

BRFC    X X

HFC X   Can run probabilistic weather conditions

ARFWB    X Plan to do so

HIC  X  X X

6.3 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL CONSIDERATIONS

The temporal scale required by each FFC ranged from 15 minutes (ARFWB) to 24 hours (BCRFC). The typical model run time reported by FFC respondents are relatively short, ranging in duration from less than a few seconds (ARFWB) to up to 4 hours. The forecast lead times reported by FFCs ranged from hours to several weeks. The spatial scales involved in flood forecasting model applications were reported by respondents to be a mix of lumped and semi-distributed, and fully distributed model techniques.

6.4 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Table 6-2 provides a summary of the FFC responses to spatial and temporal considerations, while Table 5 in Appendix B offers a listing of more detailed responses.

Table 6-4: Flood Forecasting Centre Summary of Responses

FFC Forecast Model Run Times Forecast Lead Time Spatial Scale

CBRFC 6 hours most sub-areas; Hours to two weeks for Lumped parameter forecasts issued by 10 deterministic runs model; each of 486 a.m. daily segments involves 2-3 sub- areas of similar elevation, soil, snow conditions

UD&FCD Not available Not available Not available

FCDMC Not available Not available Not available

ASWFN Not available Not available Not available

FOEN 1 hour; results published 35 hours, 3, 5 and 10 days Lumped by 9 a.m. daily

SEPA-RFC 20 mins, ensemble runs 6 hours; for deterministic Varies, distributed take 2 hours; results G2G model, it is 5 days available at 1 a.m. daily

UTRCA Hourly 3 days Lumped

GRCA Hourly 72 hours Distributed

BCRFC 2-4 hours 5 days Distributed

BRFC 1-4 hours 4 days; interval 24 hours Distributed for publication

HFC 8 hours Several weeks Semi-distributed

ARFWB 1 hour 2-2.5 days Semi-distributed

HIC 4x/day 2 days-rivers Lumped 10 days-tides

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx6.5

RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

7.0 Physical Processes

Effective flood forecasting requires successful simulation of several physical processes. The FFCs responding to the survey provided specifics on which different physical processes were considered in their flood forecast efforts, but details were also obtained regarding how those physical processes are calculated or estimated in the application of FFC modeling.

The surveyed FFCs were asked about their forecast models’ simulation of physical processes such as: interception, excess precipitation, snowmelt, soil moisture, infiltration, interflow, baseflow, and evapotranspiration. Almost all of these physical processes are considered by the forecast centres; however, many consider the processes indirectly. A full listing of the FFC responses to questions about integration of physical processes is provided in Table 6 of Appendix B.

With the exception of FOEN all of the respondent FFCs address interception losses indirectly and together with initial abstraction and continuing losses. Snowmelt and rainfall are differentiated, with snowmelt typically addressed with temperature index techniques. Many FFCs consider soil moisture conditions, each with varying degrees of sophistication. The Unit Hydrograph method for overland flow routing is used by many FFCs. Evapotranspiration is explicitly considered by only a few forecasting centres. Channel and reservoir routing is considered by most FFCs through use of commonly accepted methods, such as the Muskingum channel routing or the Kinematic wave model.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx7.1

RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

8.0 Data Acquisition/Management

Each FFC surveyed was asked about data acquisition, data management system features, and details regarding model calibration and validation procedures. The FFC responses to these data and calibration management considerations are summarized in Table 7 of Appendix B.

Responding FFCs indicated that most centres use a variety of data management tools often developed in-house using common systems such as Excel and Access. Most of the FFCs use the FEWS foundation or WISKI database systems.

The climate data utilized typically includes precipitation, temperature, soil moisture, and snowpack (depth, water content). Some, (e.g., FOEN), use more extensive parameters such as relative humidity, dew point, wind speed, global radiation and sunshine duration. Coastal models, such as those used by SEPA-RFC, also require wind speed, wave and surge forecast data. HFC uses wind data to predict lake levels.

Basin-related data requirements include land use, soil types, elevation data, catchment structures, channel/reservoir parameters, gauge locations, etc.

When considering the sufficiency of available data, the climate and hydrometric data is considered adequate for most FFCs, but data gaps also exist for many centres. In some cases, those gaps can be in-filled with radar or interpolation functions. Several centres reported a need for a denser hydrometric network to address this challenge (HFC, ARFWB).

Data assimilation is conducted mostly manually, but CBRFC uses a sophisticated automatic updating scheme. HIC also uses an automatic data-acquisition method.

Model calibration and validation are typically done manually and periodically through comparison of observed flows, peaks, water levels with some FFCs using statistical techniques (GRCA). Hydrologic model calibration and validation are conducted automatically for some models applied at ARFWB.

Uncertainty in forecasting is usually addressed through use of sensitivity analyses. Some FFCs are using ensemble-based weather forecasts, while others are using low, median and high probability levels of forecasting to establish a forecast envelope. Statistical uncertainty is not typically employed. Many FFCs reported difficulty in differentiating between weather and hydrological uncertainty. Attention to careful standardized terminology in the warnings issued to end-users of FFC products is noted as important to communicate forecast uncertainty.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx8.1

RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

9.0 Forecast Products Dissemination and Protocols

FFCs were asked to provide details regarding how they disseminate their forecast products, protocols for packaging and distribution of these products, and other considerations such as communicating forecast uncertainties to the public and providing mechanisms for public feedback.

A summary of responses is provided in Table 8 in Appendix B. In summary, most forecast centres focus on flood forecasts (peak discharges, water levels, timing), but the CBRFC and BRFC also provide annual and seasonal water supply forecasts. Some FFCs, notably in the CBRFC (UD&FC, FCDMC, ASWFN), have serious issues with flash floods and accordingly focus on these events.

The information provided to the public, media, decision makers and other stakeholders varies. Examples of released information products include:

• Peak discharges and timing, water levels (some probabilistic)

• Hydrograph at various locations (some with uncertainty bands)

• Daily average (five-day flow forecasts)

• Real-time rainfall (depth/timing) for flash-flood-prone areas

• Flood risk guidance by location

• Hydrological bulletins

A summary listing of the various communications methods used by the surveyed FFCs is shown in Table 9-1 (Full details obtained from the survey are provided in Table 8 of Appendix B).

The methods used by surveyed FFCs to communicate with their end-users vary across the centres, but all FFCs include a combination of website postings, email notifications, and direct contact with local government officials/flood coordinators and emergency services. The centres often provide media releases and interviews to local media outlets. The use of mainstream media outlets is being supplemented by an increasing trend in adopting the use of social media tools, such as Facebook and Twitter. Where necessary, based on event urgency, FFC follow-up and detailed briefing is done in many areas. This is often the case when there is a change in forecasted flood levels due to significant changes in prevailing and forecasted weather conditions.

The frequency of issuing flood forecasts and related information products varies with the imminence of a particular flood and the flood risk. Most forecasts are updated at least daily and sometimes several times per day during the flood event.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx9.1 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Table 9-1: Flood Forecasting Centre Communication

Webinars/ Direct Notices FFC Website Conference Public/Media Social Media to Officials Calls

CBRFC     

UD&FC X X  X X

FCDMC   Facebook

ASWFN X X  X X

FOEN  

SEPA RFC  X  X X

UTRCA    

GRCA  X   

BC RFC    

BRFC  X  X X

HFC    

ARFWB  X  X X

HIC  X X X X

Uncertainty in the forecasts is reflected implicitly in the information provided to the public through the use of forecast bands (high, medium and low) and developing a narrative in terms of qualitative language. A summary of forecast uncertainty and public interpretation is given by Table 9-2. Communications to the public are typically conducted in plain language, with minimal use of undefined jargon or other technical terminology. The ARFWB and UTRCA have developed guidance documents to assist in the use of standardized, consistent terminology to minimize risks of miscommunication and also to convey levels of forecast uncertainty to the public. The subject of forecast uncertainty is also discussed in interviews with media, conference calls with stakeholders, and other related public outreach efforts.

9.2 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Table 9-2: Flood Forecasting Centre Uncertainty/Public Interpretation

FFC Uncertainty Public Interpretation

CBRFC Probabilistic estimates Interaction with users, stakeholder forums, webinars, phone calls, visits

UD&FCD Not Applicable Annual flood exercises/training

FCDMC Probability provided in watches, warnings Annual questionnaires

ASWFN Not Applicable Not Applicable

FOEN Not Applicable Not Applicable

SEPA-RFC Likelihood described in Flood Guidance Training sessions with responders Statements

UTRCA Uncertainty included in messages, usually Standardized flood-warning bulletin relates to weather uncertainties

GRCA Included in flood warnings Area-specific messages, use of maps

BCRFC Qualitative uncertainty discussed in Discussion in conference calls and with conference calls media

BRFC Hourly hydrographs have uncertainty Public forecasts done only for stations band with reliable forecasts; other forecasts only provided to trained staff in state offices

HFC Upper, median and lower decile weather Discussions with local officials conditions are included

ARFWB Have developed best practice Not Applicable guidelines with emergency managers to communicate uncertainty

HIC Not Applicable Not Applicable

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx9.3 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Some FFCs indicated that they run training sessions with responders to provide updates in the science of forecasting and new modeling and scenario tools. The mechanism for feedback from the public and stakeholders varies from a survey instrument (allowing statistical analysis) to informal feedback. Feedback is often solicited through questionnaires and stakeholder forums. A summary of FFC public feedback mechanisms is provided in Table 9-3. Some FFCs do not receive feedback directly from the public but through local government officials. Open communication is available to the wider general public through websites and social media.

Table 9-3: Forecast Products Dissemination and Protocols-Public Feedback

FFC Mechanism for Feedback

CBRFC Annual stakeholder forums

UD&FCD Annual interviews (contracted service)

FCDMC Annual verification report on meteorological forecasts, annual questionnaire

ASWFN Not applicable

FOEN Questionnaire done three years ago; feedback requested at meetings

SEPA-RFC Training sessions and feedback from flood advisors

UTRCA Not applicable

GRCA Board has representatives from member municipalities, also debriefs from municipal flood coordinators

BCRFC No public mechanism but feedback obtained from municipal stakeholders

BRFC No public mechanism but state offices have contact with local public administrators

HFC Feedback invited, including use of Facebook and Twitter

ARFWB From emergency services and from community meetings

HIC Questionnaire on website

9.4 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

10.0 Performance Measure Reviews

Most FFCs review the accuracy of their forecasts by comparison of the forecasted flow, water levels and timing of peaks to observed values. Responses from FFCs on the nature of their performance review measures are summarized in Table 10-1, with additional details provided in Table 9 of Appendix B. Performance review measures are mostly executed internally and informally by each FFC.

Table 10-1: Performance Review-Public Feedback

FFC Mechanism for Feedback

CBRFC Forecast verifications are posted regularly on website including plots of observed and forecasted hydrographs at each forecast site. Statistical analysis is done for major events. Water-supply forecasts and observed data are compared on a monthly basis.

UD&FC Annual user interviews and annual report.

FCDMC Annual interviews; annual verification reports relates mainly to rainfall warnings.

ASFWN No response

FOEN No response

SEPA-EPA Internal reviews after event; some reviews posted on website.

UTRCA Informal debrief after event with users.

GRCA Informal, internal.

BCRFC Informal, internal.

BRFC Informal, internal.

HFC Formal reviews after every major event. Latest was external independent review after extreme 2011 flood event. Internal model reviews and development undertaken annually.

ARFWB Internal reviews after each major flood event using standardized format.

HIC Forecast results are assessed every three months.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx10.1 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

For example, the CBRFC provides forecast graphical verification plots of hydrographs at all forecast points. Figure 10-1 provides examples of a seasonal forecast verification plot with statistics as well as a recent streamflow verification plot.

Figure 10-1: Example of Seasonal Verification in use at CRBFC

10.2 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Some FFCs adopted key forecast verification metrics and operational based criteria. An example of a verification table used by FCDMC is provided in Table 10-2. The values of the metrics in this table are calculated by using contingency tables such as provided by Table 10-3 and Table 10-4. This metric is important for forecasters because it distinguished how well forecasters detected operationally significant events. Also, it helps keep track of how often forecasters predicted an operationally significant flooding day that did not occur. Too many false alarms can degrade user confidence in the forecasts.

Table 10-2: Example of Forecast Verification by Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Accurate Sig. Events Forecast Zone AOF (%) POD (%) False Alarms FAR (%) Forecasts Detected

Gila Bend 84/108 77.8% 11/13 84.6% 5 4.6% Palo Verde 90/108 83.3% 9/12 75.0% 4 3.7%

Rainbow Valley 92/108 85.2% 4/8 50.0% 5 4.6% West Valley 88/108 81.5% 7/9 77.8% 3 2.8%

Northwest Valley 91/108 84.2% 9/11 81.8% 3 2.8% Upper Centennial 90/108 83.3% 17/24 70.8% 5 4.6%

Wickenburg 86/108 79.6% 17/21 81.0% 8 7.4% New River/Cave Creek 87/108 80.6% 15/17 88.2% 9 8.3%

Sycamore Creek 83/108 76.9% 13/15 86.7% 10 9.3% Phoenix North 86/108 79.6% 5/7 71.4% 8 7.4%

Phoenix South 88/108 81.5% 7/9 77.8% 2 1.9% Scottsdale North 86/108 77.8% 7/9 77.8% 9 8.3%

Scottsdale South 86/108 79.6% 5/6 83.3% 3 2.8% Southeast Valley 88/108 81.5% 8/10 80.0% 7 6.5%

Lower Salt River Lakes 75/108 69.4% 5/6 83.3% 15 13.9% Superstition 79/108 73.2% 5/6 83.3% 11 10.2%

All Zones 1379/1728 79.8% 144/183 78.7% 107 6.2%

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx10.3 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Table 10-3: Contingency Table I

Observation

Yes No Total Forecast Yes a b forecast yes No c d forecast no Total observed yes observed no Total Where:

• “a” is hit which is considered as a correct forecast.

• “b” is false alarm occurs when operationally significant event is forecasted for a location but does not occur.

• “c” is miss which is considered as an incorrect forecast.

• “d” occurs when no flood event is forecasted and no such flood event occurs.

Table 10-4: Contingency Table II

Condition Description Definition Minimum Standard

1 Forecast Accuracy To be determined

2 Probability of Detection c To be determined

3 False Alarm Rate To be determined

4 Hit Rate To be determined

5 Critical Success Index To be determined

One of the major challenges to forecast verification was noted as being the difficulty in differentiating between weather forecasts, and hydrological forecasts and their associated errors. In some cases, forecasts also rely on upstream forecasts from other jurisdictions. In consideration of the lack of complete control of all the variables involved in accurate forecasting and verification, the challenge for all FFCs is that performance measurement is not an exact science. The impact of these realities is that assessing performance of forecasts against

10.4 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

the real-time dynamic conditions of an external uncontrolled physical environment (in contrast to a controlled-lab environment) remains a challenge.

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx10.5

RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

11.0 Observations

The field of flood forecasting by definition is a science based upon the application of constantly improving modeling tools, data algorithms and communications technologies. Flood forecasting and associated flood warning systems are consequently continuously evolving and improving. The forecast centres in this study have responded to several needs such as changing community, communication, data, and forecast verification.

Most forecast centres were established in response to major flood events and the resulting recognition of the need to have better advanced knowledge of the magnitude, locations and likelihood of flood conditions. In order to mitigate flood impacts, most centres have sought to develop robust data collection programs on the river-basin characteristics and meteorological data (precipitation, temperatures, etc.). Despite this emphasis on data collection, substantial data gaps exist, due in part to the low density of meteorological stations for a number of FFCs.

In spite of the fact that large data gaps still exist, challenges are present in utilizing and communicating the large quantities of meteorological and hydrologic data that is available. Many forecast centres find it difficult to provide actionable, timely, and cautionary information to flood coordinators, emergency services and the general public without inducing undue alarm. Many agencies have developed systematic communication tools to provide clear and timely flood advisory information via a broadening range of methods. Communication of forecast information to both the end-users and the general public has progressed from phone calls and issuing notices to incorporating real-time and wide-broadcast communication methods offered by internet technologies such as social media (Facebook, Twitter, and Websites).

Performance measures to check the accuracy of forecasts are also a challenge due to the consideration of highly complex physical phenomena in the presence of differing degrees of available monitored input data. In addition, due to the inherent uncertainty of weather and hydrologic forecast data that ultimately feeds into flood forecast models, the field of flood forecasting cannot be considered an exact science. As such, effective flood forecasting requires ongoing modeling, calibration and verification to improve accuracy of results. It is difficult to manage the uncertainties within flood forecasting programs. Nonetheless, most centres are working on measuring their performance, typically internally and informally, but recognizing the need to address and use this information to improve the reliability of their forecasts.

This examination of the state of current flood forecasting centres is intended to inform ESRD's River Forecast Centre in the evaluation of specific characteristics of its own flood forecasting program. In addition, this study is intended to provide ESRD with an opportunity to consider integration of desirable best practices implemented in other FFCs from jurisdictions throughout the world. The consideration is mainly based on other FFC practices in terms of their

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx11.1 RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

establishment, mission and objectives, service area characteristics, data management and flood modeling methodologies.

11.2 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Appendix A: Questionnaire

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx

ESRD – River Forecast Centre Performance Measures Development Project

Questionnaire

1. Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre a. What year was the flood-forecast centre established?

b. Why was the flood-forecast centre established? Was there a specific event that resulted in this decision? Please explain.

c. How was the flood-forecast centre established? (For example, was the flood forecasting responsibility added to an existing government division/department?)

d. Is the flood forecasting centre within Federal or provincial/state jurisdiction?

e. What is the service area of your forecast centre (i.e., what is the jurisdictional area the you are responsible for forecasting floods/river flows within)

f. What is the current population within the service area of the forecasting centre?

g. How many staff members are currently employed at the forecasting centre?

h. Please briefly describe major cause of flood events (such as snowmelt driven or rainfall) and note if there is a change in primary cause of floods in the last decade.

2. Objectives and Operation of the Centre

a. What are the mandates of the forecasting centre?

b. When and how are the following communiques issued to the public, media or government officials?

i. Long-term flood outlook (e.g., spring flood outlook)

ii. Flood Warnings

iii. Flood Advisories

iv. Flash-flood warnings

v. Other type of flood reports not covered in items (i) to (iv) above

c. Please briefly describe the emergency services structure during major floods.

3. General Drainage Basin Characteristics within the Forecast Centre Jurisdiction

a. Can the various forecast basins in the centres jurisdiction be grouped into areas with similar runoff characteristics and flood concerns (e.g., mountainous with flash flood potential, flat with widespread flooding potential)? What are the different drainage basin types managed by the forecast centre? b. For each of the above drainage basin types please describe the following:

i. Range of watershed size of the forecast areas

ii. Topography/relief

iii. The dominant land-use types (urban, forest, agriculture…)

iv. General climate description including temperature, precipitation averages and extremes

v. Regulated/non-regulated river flows

vi. Typical hydro-meteorological conditions and timing that result in major flood events. Is it possible for multiple of these conditions to occur simultaneously (such as rain on snowmelt, rain while flooding is ongoing) thereby increasing flood risk?

vii. Flood risks (for example, infrastructure such as dams, highways and bridges, urban settlement (population), agricultural land, etc.)

4. General Forecasting Model Description

a. Describe, in chronological order, the forecasting methods that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes and what prompted any major changes/upgrades.

5. Forecasting Model Structure

a. Name of the forecasting model platform

b. Year implemented

c. In-house development (proprietary?) or ‘off-the shelf”?

d. If off-the-shelf, is the model annually contracted or purchased?

e. Is the forecasting mode:

i. continuous

ii. event-based

iii. deterministic

iv. stochastic

v. deterministic and stochastic combination?

f. What is the time required to setup the forecasting model?

g. What level of expertise is required to run the forecasting model?

h. During operational mode, is the forecasting model fully automated or does it allow for some human interactions?

i. Is there any technical support available for the forecast model from the model developers? j. What type of operating system (Windows, Unix, Linux…) is used to run the forecasting model?

k. What are the general advantages and disadvantages of the forecasting model?

6. Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model

a. What is the temporal scale required to run the model (hourly/daily…)?

b. What are the typical run times to ensure timely dissemination of forecasts?

c. What is the forecast lead-time (one day, 5 days, one week, etc.)?

d. What is the spatial scale of the model (lumped/distributed/watershed)?

7. Describe the Different Physical Processes Considered by the Flood Forecasting Model

a. Interception

b. Excess precipitation (rain/snow)

c. Snowmelt

d. Runoff-generation mechanism

e. Overland flow routing

f. Soil Moisture

g. Infiltration

h. Interflow

i. Baseflow

j. Evapotranspiration

k. Channel routing

l. Reservoir routing

m. Additional processes

8. Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibration

a. What data-management tools are currently in use by the forecast centre for gathering, storing, analyzing, quality checking, retrieving and integrating data?

b. Describe, in chronological order, the database-management systems/programs that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes.

c. Describe the climate data required by the current model(s) used (precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind-speed, etc.) d. What is the adequacy of climate and hydrometric data network? If there are not adequate data, how does the centre address data gaps?

e. What is the method used to quantify the uncertainties related to climate data used as input to the forecasting model? Does the centre conduct sensitivity/uncertainty analyses?

f. Describe basin related data required by the model (Digital Elevation Model, land-use, soils).

g. What type of, if any, hydrological model calibration is currently used by the forecasting centre?

h. Describe data used to calibrate forecast model (observed streamflow, soil moisture…).

i. Does the forecast model have a data-assimilation (automatic updating) scheme? How and what information is used in the data-assimilation process?

j. Is ensemble weather forecast used to drive flow forecasting?

k. Is flow forecasting done as an ensemble?

l. What are the approaches and methods used to quantify forecast uncertainty?

9. Forecast Products Dissemination Protocols

a. What information is provided to public/media/decision makers: single peak-value flow, water levels, ensemble of probabilistic forecasts, etc.?

b. How is forecast information disseminated to the public (radio, television, internet, email)? What is the frequency of this dissemination?

c. How are forecast uncertainties communicated to the public/media/decision makers?

d. What measures have the forecast centre put in place to ensure that forecast information is correctly interpreted and used by the general public?

e. Are there any mechanisms in place to get feedback from the public about forecasts that would help in assessing performance measures of the forecast centre?

10. Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews

a. Has the forecasting centre conducted any formal or informal performance review? (If there is a report of such review, can a copy be made available to us?)

b. Were there challenges of performance measurement?

(For example would the weather forecast performance impact the hydrologic forecast performance and emergency response performance?)

c. What performance indices, parameters and measurements are assessed? This might include accuracy of forecasts for:

i. Rainfall (peak intensity, snow amount, duration of peak rain…)

ii. River flow (peak flow, time of the peak flow, hydrograph of the peak flow) iii. River level (peak level near the time of the event, time of peak level, …) d. What are the current deficiencies in performance measures? e. What types of performance measures are used? This might include quantitative measures such as:

i. Maximum error of forecast

ii. Mean error

iii. Bias

iv. Standard deviation

v. Lead-time error

RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Appendix B: Comparative Tables of Responses

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx

Table B1: Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre

(f) (h) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Size of (g) Forecast Centre Major Causes of Year Established Reason for Establishment How Established Administrative Jurisdiction Size of the Area Served Population Number of Staff Floods Served US NWS, Colorado Basin 1947 for water Part of National Weather Service Part of National Weather Service Federal, administered by Colorado Basin and Eastern 12.7 million 14 (2 vacant at Snow melt drives River Forecast Centre supply, flood Program, not a special event Centres created by drainage National Oceanic and Grand Basin, including all or part (2010) present) major floods; (CBRFC) forecasting areas Atmospheric Administration of seven states (Utah, Nevada, rainfall drives flash function added (NOAA) under Department of Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, floods in desert in 1969 Commerce Arizona, New Mexico) drainage areas area of 785,932 km2 Urban Drainage & Flood 1979, flood The 1976 Big Thompson Canyon The Agency established by Independent agency; reports to Drainage area is about 3,000 mi2 About 2.3 23 full-time Rainfall Control, Denver, CO (UD forecasting is Flood (143 loss of lives), a flash Colorado legislature in 1969; a Board of Directors (21 local (22 counties); flood forecast million people employees and 8 & FCD) only one part of flood flood forecasting element elected officials; 2 appointed area is 7,770 km2 part-time college agency’s added to UD & FCD in 1979; professional engineers) students, also use mandate works cooperatively with consultants ($22 National Weather Service million annual program); agency also deals with land-use planning and floodplain regulation; has capital improvement program Flood Control District of Agency Initially agency focused on Per state regulation by Arizona County Public Works Forecast area is 13,986 km2 3.9 million 200 employees Intense rainfall Maricopa County, established in building water-control dams; Department provide flood- events Arizona (FCDMC) 1959; flood- focus changed due to control services; forecasting significant flooding events has facilitated program added design and in 1978 construction of over 100 flood- control structures, including 26 dams Arizona State-wide Flood 1994 Extreme flooding in three rivers in Task force lead to state State State-wide 295,277 km2 6,482,505 N/A Mountain Warning Network 1993 legislation; Arizona Department (2011) snowpack melt (ASFWN) of Water Resources (ADWR) is lead agency Switzerland Federal Flood forecasting Initially, forecasts were done for Responsibility added to existing Federal (Federal Office of the County of Switzerland 41,285 km2 About Nine people Rainfall, snowmelt Office for the done since 1985; navigation purposes; a flood in division Environment) 8,000,000 responsible for and combination Environment (FOEN) in 2011, a 1999 and in 2005 broadened the forecasting of both forecast section user network was established Scotland Environmental 2011 Floods in 2007 in England and Added to Scottish Environmental Federal Scotland area is 78,397 km2 5,295,000 10 in flood Rainfall and Protection Agency – Wales lead to their establishing a Protection Agency and National (2011) forecasting coastal flooding; River Forecast Centre Flood Forecast Centre; Scotland Severe Weather Warning coastal flooding (SEPA-RFC) then did review and established Services seems to be on the Scottish Flood Forecasting increase Service

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 1 Table B1: Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre

(f) (h) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Size of (g) Forecast Centre Major Causes of Year Established Reason for Establishment How Established Administrative Jurisdiction Size of the Area Served Population Number of Staff Floods Served Upper Thames River 1979 In response to serious The Conservation Authority The Conservation Authority was Upper Thames River Basin About Six staff, including Snowmelt with rain; Conservation Authority, deforestation problem and (established in 1947) always had created by Ontario legislation (3,400 km2) 485,000 two mechanics the “Regulatory Ontario (UTRCA) related soil loss and flooding a forecasting element in its Flood” (1:250-year) mandate but the forecasting event was caused centre was formalized in 1979 by heavy rain on saturated ground Grand River 1975 GRCA watershed had huge Delegated by Province of Overall flood forecasting is a GRCA watershed About 41 (5 senior Primarily spring Conservation Authority, flooding event in May 1974; very Ontario to the Conservation provincial responsibility but 985,000 operators, 8 duty snowmelt mixed Ontario (GRCA) high property damage lead to a Authority delegated to Conservation officers, 12 river with rain, Royal Commission Report Authorities, where they exist; water zones with 2 occasional rain collaboration occurs with staff at each [staff only; less common Province also act as reservoir are remnants of operators], 4 hurricanes, ice technicians) jams, Lake Erie surge; seasonal pattern has broadened, used to be spring (March/April), now more diversity and multiple events in a given year British Columbia River 1973 A heavy snowpack flooding Added to existing provincial Provincial Full province (950,000 km2) but 4,500,000 4.5 (2 hydrologists, In general, Forecast Centre (BCRFC) event in 1972 on the Fraser River division hydrologic models extend to (entire 1 lead forecaster/ snowmelt driven; lead to establishing the Flood about one third of province province) section head, half- on the coast, Forecasting Centre (about 300,000 km2) time manager); events are rain or one person with rain on snow driven another department conducts hydraulic modeling Bavaria River Forecast Successive Increasing floods, particularly Added to the Bavarian Federal Federal state of Bavaria in About 12 (hydrologists All types (summer Centre (BRFC) establishment in the Whitsantide Flood in 1999 Environmental Agency (BVA) (5 Germany (70,548 km2) 12,000,000 and engineers) rain, winter and 2000 and 2005 forecast centres for different spring snowmelt catchment basins, 3 within the and rain, flash BVA, 2 at different state offices floods in mountains for water management)

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 2 Table B1: Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre

(f) (h) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Size of (g) Forecast Centre Major Causes of Year Established Reason for Establishment How Established Administrative Jurisdiction Size of the Area Served Population Number of Staff Floods Served Manitoba Flood 1954, now known A disastrous flood occurred on HFC was added to Manitoba Provincial Entire province 646,000 km2; About 12, including Typically a Forecasting Centre as “Hydrologic the Red River in 1950 which led Natural Resource Department Manitoba Hydro works closely 1,300,000 Director, 3 combination of (HFC) Forecast Centre” to a major review and led to the and has remained a part of with HFC and monitors and hydrologic high antecedent (HFC) HFC being established with a various government provides forecasts for the forecasters, 1 soil-moisture focus on the Red River Basin. departments. Now HFC is in the Winnipeg River Basin, Lake hydraulic engineer, conditions in fall, Hydrologic Forecasting and Winnipeg, and the Hayes River 2 hydrometric rapid snowmelt, Water Management Division of and Nelson River Basins. assistants, 2 rain, rain with snow, the Manitoba Infrastructure and engineers in river ice jams and Transportation Department. training hydrologic wind setups in large forecasters, 1 lakes. A recent hydrologic forecast major flood (2011) technician (data/ was exacerbated GIS support), 1 by heavy spring/ forecast systems summer rain. engineer and 1 data management technologist Australia River 1955 Response to very significant Added to Australian Bureau of Federal jurisdictions Responsible for entire country, Australian About 50 full time Heavy rainfall Forecasting and Warning flood in Hunter Valley; involved Meteorology but forecasts only for regions population is (tropical cyclones, Branch (ARFWB) fatalities. with a service agreement; 22,700,000 low pressure regions with no agreement weather systems); include places with no data or Australia has very few people. limited snowmelt and snowmelt is not a flood concern. Flanders Hydrologic 1998 Major floods in 1998 Added to a research centre Federal Navigable waters in Belgium, 6,000,000 25 Heavy rainfall on Information Centre (HIC) regions of Flanders, Walloon, saturated soils Brussels

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 3 Table B2: Objectives and Operation of the Flood Forecasting Centre

When and How the Following Communique Issued (b) (f) (g) Forecast Centre (a) (c) (d) (e) Long-term Flood Outlook Other Types of Flood Emergency Service During Major Floods Mandate of the Centre Flood Warning Flood Advisories Flash-flood Warning (e.g., spring flood outlook) Reports US NWS, Colorado Basin NWS mandate is to provide Long-term water supply Flood warnings issued by As per warnings. As per warnings. Annual Water Supply Hours of operation are extended during River Forecast Centre weather, hydrologic and climate and spring flood outlooks NWS Weather Forecast Outlook potential flood situations and 24-hour (CBRFC) forecasts and warnings to the provided in monthly offices and disseminated operation during floods, with updated USA for the protection of life and webinars, conference calls through media, websites forecasts which are used to issue flood property and enhancement of during spring. Also provided and emergency-alert watches/warnings disseminated from national economy. NWS data continuously on CBRFC systems. Weather Forecast offices. and products form national website. database and infrastructure for use by other government agencies, the public and global community. The CBRFC provides forecasting for Colorado River Basin. Urban Drainage & Flood Purpose is to assist local Provides NWS outlooks. Daily forecasts of flood As per warnings. Has Flash Flood Prediction Annual report on its flood Deployment of sirens, other public warnings, Control, Denver, CO (UD & governments in the Denver potential are provided to Program which gives early warning program; annual training and annual flood exercises. FCD) metropolitan area with inter- local jurisdictions; alarm notification of flash flood report of feedback on jurisdictional drainage and flood- messages are sent to officials potential to local performance. control problems. when threatening rainfall or emergency managers; rising stream levels are operates April 15 to detected. September 16. Flood Control District of Responsible for overseeing the Utilizes NWS outlooks. River forecasts are provided Watershed-based flood Watershed-based flood A meteorological report is Reservoir stages and outflows are Maricopa County, Arizona development and by CBRFC and watches and warnings watches and warnings done annually, addressing monitored. (FCDMC) implementation of supplemented by forecasts based on meteorological based on meteorological forecast and outlook comprehensive flood-hazard- from FCDMC; information (rainfall depth, information (rainfall depth, verification. Storm reports control measures in Maricopa meteorological information timing and probability of timing and probability of describing severe events County. is provided to over 200 local occurrence) are provided occurrence) are provided and forecast agencies; forecasts are to 12 zones. to 12 zones. performance, flood provided on a website and drainage, data summaries Facebook. are prepared. A questionnaire is sent out to users requesting comments on performance and recommendations. Arizona State-wide Flood Provide state-wide data network; ADWR does not provide See (b) See (b) See (b) See (b) ADWR is not the designated flood- Warning Network (ASFWN) provide central hub for flood forecasting or emergency-management agency. precipitation and stream-flow warnings; provides data data through the Arizona dissemination to numerous Department of Water Resources agencies. (ADWR). Switzerland Federal Office Responsible for operation of Publishes hydrological Provides twice-daily warning Publishes flood-alert See (d) N/A During major floods, the flood-forecast for the Environment national flood-forecasting bulletin every Monday and to national alarm centre bulletin (info on current centre is staffed 24 hr/d (3 forecasters and 1 (FOEN) service; coordinates with other Thursday with a three-day which distributes to local meteorological and decision maker during the day and 1-2 agencies, participates in critical- outlook. agencies. hydrological situation and forecasters at night). New model runs every situation control centre during forecasts) twice daily. 2 hours, telephone conference calls twice flood events. daily, with concerned institutions, including German and French forecast centres. Scotland Environmental Issuing flood guidance None This is the responsibility of Similar to (a) None at this time; are Flood Guidance None Protection Agency – River statements (flood-risk Scotland Environmental examining new tools for Statements, a daily Forecast Centre (SEPA- assessments) and Scotland-wide Protection Agency (SEPA). this purpose. assessment of flood risk. RFC) flood alerts; develop science capabilities.

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 4 Table B2: Objectives and Operation of the Flood Forecasting Centre

When and How the Following Communique Issued (b) (f) (g) Forecast Centre (a) (c) (d) (e) Long-term Flood Outlook Other Types of Flood Emergency Service During Major Floods Mandate of the Centre Flood Warning Flood Advisories Flash-flood Warning (e.g., spring flood outlook) Reports Upper Thames River Maintain Flood Response Centre, Publish Watershed Issue flood warnings by Not used Not used Flood watch issued when Bulletins and forecasts provided to Conservation Authority, Flood Contingency Plan and Conditions Statements/ watershed and specific flooding is imminent in municipal flood coordinators. Ontario (UTRCA) flood-monitoring system. Flood Outlook. municipalities. specific areas. Special Encourage contingency bulletins for specific planning in flood-prone conditions, e.g., boating communities. Maintain 24-hr bans during high water watch of larger floods, liaise with levels (bans are flood coordinators and issue disseminated to media by flood bulletins to watershed Police Department). coordinators and media. Grand River Conservation Responsible for flood forecasting Issues Watershed Condition Flood Watch Messages alerts Flood Warning (Action) N/A Termination Message GRCA issues warnings; municipalities are Authority, Ontario (GRCA) and to assist in reducing flood Statements, which address that potential for flooding Messages issued when issued when flood is responsible for response. Police services damages; monitors weather and flood outlook and water exists, sent to municipal flood is in progress; deemed to have ended. used to contact flood coordinators. river flows, issue flood message to safety; directs email to officials. Messages use email describes flood height and Messages are also provided to Police and municipalities and public; municipal flood and social media; are estimated time of arrival; GRCA flood operations staff. operates seven water-control coordinators. considering local “streamer” requires action from dams, owns and maintains dykes, messages on TV screen. municipal officials such as and controls development of applying Emergency flood-prone areas. Response Plans. Combined Watch and Warning (Action) messages may be issued for parts of the Watershed. British Columbia River Lead provincial agency for flood Released monthly January- Three levels of advisories Same as (b) Same as (b) for extreme During spring snowmelt During emergency response, participates in Forecast Centre (BCRFC) warnings and advisories; snow April, twice a month during used: rainfall events in flashy season, weekly medium coordination of conference calls hosted by survey, stream-flow and water- melt season (May to June). 1. High-stream advisory: watersheds. term (2- to10-day) outlooks Emergency Response Department, provides supply bulletins; and snow-pack Emailed to provincial river levels are rising but are provided. technical support through interpretation of analysis and reporting. partner agencies; no major flooding river forecasts for affected areas. information posted to expected. BCRFC website and various 2. Flood watch: river levels media communications are rising and will used. BC Emergency approach or exceed Management distributes bankfull capacity. information, including to local governments. 3. Flood warning: river levels have (or will) exceed bankfull capacity imminently; flooding adjacent to rivers expected. Advisories and warnings are sent by email to large government distribution list, posted on BCRFC website. BC Emergency Measures Department distributes to local government and emergency-response groups.

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 5 Table B2: Objectives and Operation of the Flood Forecasting Centre

When and How the Following Communique Issued (b) (f) (g) Forecast Centre (a) (c) (d) (e) Long-term Flood Outlook Other Types of Flood Emergency Service During Major Floods Mandate of the Centre Flood Warning Flood Advisories Flash-flood Warning (e.g., spring flood outlook) Reports Bavaria River Forecast The BRFC provides water level None Early warnings (1-2 days Flood bulletins issued up to No special flash-flood None Provided by local government in response Centre (BRFC) and discharge forecasts to the before event) are issued to 3 times/day. warnings. to warnings from state offices. warning centres at the state official recipients by internet, offices for water management. phone and fax. Warnings are issued similarly for minor flooding or flooding of farmland or built-up areas. Manitoba Flood Promoting public safety re: flood- Typically, two outlooks are Warnings are issued when Flood watches issued Flood advisories are done Issued when impending Wind setup warnings for major lakes; lake Forecasting Centre (HFC) related hazards, coordinating issued publicly. The first in tributaries/ main stems when river or lake levels as in (d). rainstorms are likely to shoreline ice pileup; weekly/daily river flow related emergency response; February and the second in overflow or are at imminent approach or likely to cause significant overland graphs; Red River Floodway operations; coordinating and providing late March prior to spring overflow within 24 hours, exceed flood stage within flooding; warnings issued Portage Diversion flows/ forecasts; lake and guidance for optimum runoff (gives indication of provided to all levels of 24 hours, provided to all as in (d). reservoir conditions/ forecasts. operations of water-control peak flows/ levels under provincial government, parties as in (c). Multi-government department service, works; assisting in land-use range of future weather media, private organizations including HFC, Infrastructure Department policies; and carrying out conditions. Additional and public. Communicated and Emergency Measures Organization. hydrologic, hydraulic and GIS outlooks in April if runoff is through web, radio, TV, analyses for flood forecasting. late and/or flood potential faxing, local emergency changes. representatives. Australia River Forecasting Provide flood warning None Flood warnings issued when An early warning called The Meteorological Bureau Briefings to media, Jurisdictions are responsible for flood and Warning Branch information to emergency flooding is imminent or “Flood Watch” is issued issues Severe Weather and emergency agencies and emergency management. They establish (ARFWB) services and community at large. occurring at intervals from two to three days in Thunderstorm Warnings for the government. Also incident management and control centres. hourly to daily; warnings advance of expected heavy rainfall that could participation in incident The Bureau and ARFCWB support these with placed on website, faxed to flooding (based on lead to flash flooding. Flash management forums. weather and flood information. emergency agencies and forecast rainfall). Placed flood warnings are the available in text-to-speech on website and faxed to responsibility of local and translation by telephone. emergency agencies. emergency agencies. Flanders Hydrologic Alerting water managers No Website, email, direct phone Website, meetings Website, emails Storm reports, tidal surges Communication/alerts Information Centre (HIC) calls by email/telephone

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 6 Table B3: General Drainage Basin Characteristics for the Flood Forecasting Centre Jurisdiction

For each of the Drainage Basins Managed by the Forecast Centre, Describe: (b) (a) (h) Types of Drainage (c) (d) (g) Hydro- Forecast Centre Grouping of Watershed Areas (e) (f) (i) Basins Managed by Range of Range of Regulated/Non- meteorological of Similar Characteristics Types of Land Use Climate Flood Risk the Forecast Centre Watershed Area Topography regulated Flow Condition and Timing of Flood US NWS, Colorado Basin Model does not group areas Basin types include: Varies between Relief ranges Dominant land use Annual precipitation ranges The Colorado River Typical flooding Floods pose risk to 2 River Forecast Centre with similar runoff • Mountainous 200-400 mi . from below is high forest, from less than 5 in/yr to over is heavily regulated. occurs from spring agriculture, roads, (CBRFC) characteristics for the various 8,000 ft, 8,000- mountainous and 80 in/yr. Drier areas (Arizona snowmelt (most towns, cities, • Urban valley basins. Basins are split up into 9,500 ft, 9,500- some forest. Also deserts) experience mostly rain, severe when residential property, subareas based on • Agricultural 11,000 ft and agricultural, urban while wetter areas (Colorado, combined with rain etc. topography (usually three valley above 11,000 ft and desert areas. Utah, Wyoming mountains) or snowfall event). subareas per basin). • Desert asl. receive vast majority of snow. Occasionally, Average temps range from 20- heavy winter rainfall 60°F. Summer maximums over events in the desert 110°F and minimum winter lead to mainstem temps below -10°F in flooding. Flash mountains. floods occur every year due to summer thunderstorm events. Urban Drainage & Flood N/A (see CBRFC) N/A N/A N/A N/A Denver receives between 8- High rainfall events Urban Control, Denver, CO (UD 15 in of annual precipitation and rapid infrastructure, & FCD) (most in spring/summer); winter snowmelt. property damage, temps are about 45°F on loss of life. average. Flood Control District of See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC Desert climate; average Regulated Rainfall and Infrastructure, Maricopa County, summer temp is over 100°F; mountain agricultural, Arizona (FCDMC) winter temps in the 60-80°F snowmelt. residential property, range; precipitation is 8 in loss of life. average/year, most in December to March period. Arizona State-wide Flood See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC Warning Network (ASFWN) Switzerland Federal Five main river basins – sizes See (a) See (a) • Midland lakes • Midland lakes • Midland lakes have mean Almost all lakes are Major floods on Office for the range from 1,900 km2 to are midland and national temps between 8-12°C, regulated, as are midland lakes and Environment (FOEN) 35,900 km2. These have the and rivers have annual precipitation the rivers. rivers are a result of following groups of mountainous. mixed land use between 900-1,400 mm long rain events or characteristics: • National lakes (mountain (peaks in summer). rain on snowmelt • Midland lakes with overflow are midland vegetation, • National midland rivers and events. On potential (about 2,000 km2). and forest, small/ medium rivers have mountainous rivers, agriculture, major floods occur • Rivers of national interest mountainous. temps between -4 and 35°C; urban. because of rain or with overflow potential • Small/midland precipitation about snowmelt or storm (about 300-36,000 km2). rivers are • Small/medium 1,000 mm/yr on average. rivers also mixed events. • Small and medium midland midland. (forest, rivers with overflow potential agriculture, (about 300-2,000 km2). urban).

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 7 Table B3: General Drainage Basin Characteristics for the Flood Forecasting Centre Jurisdiction

For each of the Drainage Basins Managed by the Forecast Centre, Describe: (b) (a) (h) Types of Drainage (c) (d) (g) Hydro- Forecast Centre Grouping of Watershed Areas (e) (f) (i) Basins Managed by Range of Range of Regulated/Non- meteorological of Similar Characteristics Types of Land Use Climate Flood Risk the Forecast Centre Watershed Area Topography regulated Flow Condition and Timing of Flood Switzerland Federal • Mountainous rivers with • Mountainous • Mountainous Office for the flash-flood potential (about rivers are rivers mountain Environment (FOEN) 300-2,000 km2). mountainous vegetation and (cont’d) (elevation forest. between 700- 4,000 in.) Scotland Environmental Four broad-scale regions used See (a) Catchments sizes Generally Mostly Temperate climate, with Many watercourses Heavy rainfall on Agricultural land Protection Agency – at a high level as similar vary across mountainous, mountainous, dominant frontal weather are regulated saturated ground is and infrastructure River Forecast Centre responses to rainfall events are regions; the largest particularly in agriculture in systems coming in from west; (hydroelectric most common are risks, with urban (SEPA-RFC) expected: is about 5,000 km2; north and west, valleys but not average temp maximums development). cause of flooding; flooding the highest • Northwest region is largely flood warnings with flatter areas intensive; urban range from 5°C in winter to 20- can be risk. Many mountainous with high also provided for around the east land cover is small 25°C in summer. Rainfall varies exacerbated by communities are average annual rainfall, but smaller coast and percentage of widely; western highlands have spring snowmelt. located in “flashy” low population density and catchments, e.g., through central Scotland. average annual amount of Snowmelt alone not catchments. 2 low flood impacts. about 50 km . belt. about 4,600 mm, the east coast usually a flood Property, roads, is much drier (some parts issue; coastal railways are at risk. • The south and east regions receive about 550 mm of rain). flooding can occur Greatest risk to are highly urbanized and at same time as urban areas and flood impacts occur at river flooding due infrastructure lower rainfall thresholds. to the driving (including power • Within these regions, there weather conditions. stations) is from are individual catchments coastal flooding, with “flashy” responses especially on the and/or impacts at low east coast. rainfall thresholds. Upper Thames River Upper Thames River Basin See (a) 3,400 km2 Mostly flat; some Agriculture 75% Mild climate, proximity to Great Regulated, three Rain on snowmelt is Mostly to parks, low Conservation Authority, relief in upper Natural veg 14% Lakes moderates climate major flood-control most common recreational areas, Ontario (UTRCA) headwaters; relative to neighbouring dams. flood risk. The 1:250- parking lots, rural Urban/built up 10% elevations go location at some altitudes; year event was roadways. Flood- from 200 to 400 Aggregate 1% average annual temp is about caused by heavy control dams m.a.s.l. Water 1% 8°C, with winter averages in -5 rain on saturated protect vulnerable to +3°C. Lakes cause “lake ground in 1937. urban area (City of effect” precipitation, i.e., winds London) and dykes blowing over Great Lakes pick protect low-lying up moisture and drop it on urban centres. land. Weather is dominated by dry winds from the west and humid air streams from middle and southern states in USA. Average annual precipitation is about 1,000 mm, with 20% typically as snowfall.

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 8 Table B3: General Drainage Basin Characteristics for the Flood Forecasting Centre Jurisdiction

For each of the Drainage Basins Managed by the Forecast Centre, Describe: (b) (a) (h) Types of Drainage (c) (d) (g) Hydro- Forecast Centre Grouping of Watershed Areas (e) (f) (i) Basins Managed by Range of Range of Regulated/Non- meteorological of Similar Characteristics Types of Land Use Climate Flood Risk the Forecast Centre Watershed Area Topography regulated Flow Condition and Timing of Flood Grand River Grand River Watershed: four See (c) Total drainage Highest point is Agriculture and Generally moderate climate; Largely regulated, Mix of snowmelt Infrastructure, rural Conservation Authority, main river systems (Grand, area is 6,965 km2 527 m (1722 ft) rural land use river crosses four climate zones seven dams and and rain; multiple land use and urban Ontario (GRCA) Speed, Conestoga and North above sea level; dominates, five and two forest zones as it flows reservoirs. All conditions including centres. rivers). flows about urban centres in north to south. A large marsh in structures are Lake Erie surge are 300 km to Lake central portion. upper headwaters hosts sub- owned and possible (see also 1 Erie (elevation boreal species native to operated by the (h). about 174 m Canadian North, while lower GRCA. Dams were (571 ft). reaches feature examples of built for flood the Canadian forest commonly control and flow found in southern USA. Average augmentation. precipitation is about 900- 1,000 m, with 10-20% as snowfall. Winter average temps are in -7 to +3°C range. British Columbia River Basins can be characterized as See (a) Coastal Coastal Primarily forest with Coastal basins have maritime Coastal basins For coastal basins, For coastal basins, Forecast Centre (BCRFC) “coastal” or “interior” watersheds are watersheds are some urban climate, moist, temperate. mostly unregulated; extreme rainfall flood risk relates to watersheds. Coastal basins are small to medium mountainous, interfaces and Annual precipitation is 1,200- interior basins have events (September- dams, highways, mountainous and “flashy,” with size (100- relief in 1,000- agriculture on 5,000 mm/yr; extreme rainfall some regulated March), sometimes bridges (sometimes flooding typically occurring 3,000 km2). Interior 3,000 masl floodplains, can be 120 mm+/24-hr. coastal systems, e.g., combined with combined with during extreme rainfall events watersheds are range. Interior increasing micro- basins have continental Williston/Peace, snowmelt at mid- landslides); forestry, in fall/winter. Interior larger (1,000- watersheds also hydro climate, cold to cool winters, Columbia. Majority elevations. For transportation; watersheds experience 220,000 km2). have some development. hot summers through south of Fraser River is interior basins, urban centres, rural flooding during snowmelt areas with similar interior. Annual precipitation is unregulated. rainfall combined and remote (May-June), but rainfall events relief but also 300-1,000 mm/yr; extreme with snowmelt communities, can be a factor. Some coastal interior plateaus rainfall events typically are (May-June). including First watersheds can experience (relief 300- 60 mm/24-hr. Nation settlements. flooding from spring snowmelt 1,000 masl). For interior basins, and heavy fall rains. risks are similar but also risk to larger urban centres (Greater Vancouver area). Bavaria River Forecast Two major basins: Main, See (a) 100 km2 to Varied Land use is mostly Temperate climate, mean Regulated, 25 Floods can occur in Wide range of flood Centre (BRFC) tributary to Rhine River – 78,000 km2 topography, all agricultural and seasonal temps are about 8°C major water spring, summer, risks, shown in Flood 24,000 km2; types, except forested areas. in spring, 16°C in summer, about reservoirs. winter – multiple Risk Maps. Danube – 78,000 km2 coastal (alpine, 8°C in fall and 0.5°C in winter. factors (see 1 (h). low mountain ranges and plains).

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 9 Table B3: General Drainage Basin Characteristics for the Flood Forecasting Centre Jurisdiction

For each of the Drainage Basins Managed by the Forecast Centre, Describe: (b) (a) (h) Types of Drainage (c) (d) (g) Hydro- Forecast Centre Grouping of Watershed Areas (e) (f) (i) Basins Managed by Range of Range of Regulated/Non- meteorological of Similar Characteristics Types of Land Use Climate Flood Risk the Forecast Centre Watershed Area Topography regulated Flow Condition and Timing of Flood Manitoba Flood No formal grouping; based on Mostly flat Watershed areas Mostly flat; the Land use is mixed: Extreme continental climate, River flows are High soil moisture Farmland, urban Forecasting Centre major basins: Red River, topography/ some range from 75 to three dominant agriculture, forest, including cold arctic high- regulated in all of prior to freeze-up; areas, FN (HFC) Assiniboine River, Souris River, mountain ranges 200+ km2 mountain ranges parklands, rural, pressure air masses in winter; the major river rapid snowmelt and communities, Roseau River, Saskatchewan are modest (600- urban. summer air masses from the basins; some works heavy spring/ cottage owners. River, Lake Winnipegosis, Lake 800 masl) but are USA, drawing warm humid air (the Winnipeg summer rainfall or Manitoba important due to with occasional heavy rains/ Floodway/ Portage combination their potential to and intense thunderstorms. Diversion) are thereof. Some ice- influence local acitivated only jam-related events. precipitation during flood-control Large lakes can and runoff. conditions. have flooding during extreme wind setups and high lake levels. Australia River The Great Dividing Range See (a) Typical basin size is Relief varies from About two-thirds of Climate varies widely; the Forecast areas High-intensity or Moderate flooding Forecasting and running near parallel and close about 1,000 km2. a small inland Australia has been largest part is desert or semi- mostly regulated. long-duration poses risk to low- Warning Branch (ARFWB) to the east coast has fast Some as small as area of “below modified for arid. The southeast and The non-regulated rainfall. In the lying areas and responding coastal 100 km2; largest is sea level” to human uses, mostly southwest corners have catchments are interior, it can take may require catchments. The west-flowing 1,000,000 km2. over 600 masl. grazing on natural temperate climate. The typically small. weeks/months for removal of rivers are slow moving. Australia Most of country vegetation. Some northern part has a tropical flows to travel livestock, and has high variability in flows and is 0-300 masl. dry land agriculture climate. Rainfall is variable; 80% downstream but evacuation of climates. and plantations, of land has rainfall less than less than a week in some residences. irrigated, 600 mm (24 in) per year and the populated Major flooding will agriculture. Less 50% has less than 300 mm areas. result in large areas, than 1% is intensive (12 in). Thunderstorms are isolating land use (mining common; temperatures near towns/cities, major and urban the coast are generally mild. disruption to road development). Desert areas have hot and rail, temperatures. evacuation of many houses. Severe major flooding is associated with a 2% annual probability. Flanders Hydrologic Basins are quite similar, See (a) 50 to 3,000 km2 0 to 100 masl Urbanized area Temperate climate; 800- Highly regulated High rainfall, Urban areas and Information Centre (HIC) relatively flat, limited natural combined with 1,000 mm annual rainfall; four saturated soil, storm industry flooding areas agriculture/industry seasons; mild summers, winter tide, snowmelt brings fog and snowfall

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 10 Table B4: Forecast Model Description and Structure

Is the Forecasting Mode: (m) (n) (e) (l) Is Model (o) (b) (c) Technical (p) (a) (d) Is Model (j) (k) Required Automated Operating Forecasting Year Support, Model Forecast Centre Forecasting Methods in In-house Annually (g) Deterministic Model Expertise or Allows System to Model Imple- (f) (h) (i) Availability for Advantages/ Chronological Order Development Contracted/ Event and Setup Time Level to Run Human Run the Platform mented Continuous Deterministic Stochastic Model Disadvantages Purchased? Based Stochastic Model Interactions Model Developers Combination ? US NWS, Colorado The hydrologic model See (a) CHPS was Combination Purchase of Continuous Not event Deterministic Probabilistic See (f) and Model is High level of Model Technical Linux Model is very Basin River used by NWS has been imple- of off-the-shelf Delft/FEWS based forecasts forecasts are (g) run daily; expertise with allows and support group flexible but Forecast Centre in use since 1970; it mented at (FEWS) and in- from Deltares provided daily provided forecasts deep needs at national complicated to (CBRFC) combines the start of house is done on using five days using 30 for all 450 understanding human headquarters is maintain. Sacramento Soil 2012 water development. national of quantitative years of segments of hydrology interaction. available to Moisture Accounting year. FEWS is basis. precipitation mean areal can be and assist the System (SAC-SMA) for proprietary forecasts (QPF) precipitation done in 3 meteorology CRBFC but the runoff part of the but not the and 10 days of (MAP) and hours. of the area, most of the model and the SNOW- portion used quantitative mean areal and time, support is 17 temp index snow by NWS. temp forecasts temp (MAT) mechanics of provided by model. Two years ago, (QTF). from the model, expert staff of they converted to the calibration including how CBRFC. Community Hydrologic data for to make Prediction System both adjustments. (CHPS), a more open regulated infrastructure, which and uses the same basic unregulated modeling components stream flow but within the Flood situations. Early Warning System This model (FEWS) from the also uses Deltares Company in QPF and Delft (NL). This will help QTF. NWS to more easily test and implement model enhancements. Urban Drainage & River forecasts are See (a) 1979 Combination Monitoring of Continuous No See CBRFC in See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC in See CBRFC See CBRFC in See CBRFC See CBRFC in Flood Control, provided by NWS. The radar forecasts Table 3 in Table 3 in Table 3 in Table 3 Table 3 in Table 3 Table 3 in Table 3 Table 3 Denver, CO (UD & UD&FCD supplements receivers are FCD) this info using a large and flash- provided in network (ALERT) of flood coopera- automated rain and prediction tion with stream flow gauges, model is NWS also colour radar contracted systems. Flash flood out. prediction model is a contracted service. Flood Control River forecasts See CBRFC in See CBRFC See CBRFC in See CBRFC in See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC in See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC See CBRFC in See CBRFC See CBRFC in See CBRFC See CBRFC in District of provided by NWS, Table 3 in Table 3 Table 3 Table 3 in Table 3 in Table 3 Table 3 in Table 3 in Table 3 in Table 3 Table 3 in Table 3 Table 3 in Table 3 Table 3 Maricopa County, which are Arizona (FCDMC) supplemented with local meteorological forecasting. Arizona State-wide ASFWN does not Flood Warning provide flood Network (ASFWN) forecasting or warning; does provide central hub for precipitation and stream-flow data distributed throughout the state.

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 11 Table B4: Forecast Model Description and Structure

Is the Forecasting Mode: (m) (n) (e) (l) Is Model (o) (b) (c) Technical (p) (a) (d) Is Model (j) (k) Required Automated Operating Forecasting Year Support, Model Forecast Centre Forecasting Methods in In-house Annually (g) Deterministic Model Expertise or Allows System to Model Imple- (f) (h) (i) Availability for Advantages/ Chronological Order Development Contracted/ Event and Setup Time Level to Run Human Run the Platform mented Continuous Deterministic Stochastic Model Disadvantages Purchased? Based Stochastic Model Interactions Model Developers Combination ? Switzerland Since 2007, the Flood Early Imple- Proprietary, Deltares Continuous Not event Model is Use of Not Forecast Hydrological, Model is Can call model Windows No response Federal Office for conceptual model Warning mented in FEWS is owned developed based deterministic probabilistic combined runs have geographical fully developers for (64-bit) the Environment HBV-96 model is used System (FEWS) 2007. by Deltares FEWS for and uses weather preconfig- knowledge. automated; support but (FOEN) for flood forecasting in Co. in Delft FOEN; work deterministic forecasts ured model can substantial the Rhine basin. In 2010, (NL) has been weather setups be started support some parts of this basin done by forecasts within manually or available were simulated in a annual FEWS; automated. internally. more sophisticated contracts; setups are Model is way by adding two are not started catchment models considering changed manually (WaSIM AND PREVAH). a longer- during once daily In 2011, the grid-based term forecast to control catchment model contract (5- runs; about model input WaSIM was applied in 10 years). 1 hr is data and to the Rhine basin runoff. needed to publish run all validated forecast- results. It is ing models also in with the automated complete mode set of several weather times a day. conditions. Scotland Development of Run on FEWS FEWS A mix of FEWS Annual Continuous “What if” Deterministic Not really G2G does Time Review of See (g) Technical Windows No response Environmental forecasting capability is Scotland Scotland and G2G contract scenarios stochastic run both varies, model runs support Protection Agency usually driven by a platform; in 2007 were existing may be run but G2G deterministic some requires a available from – River Forecast mixture of regional models manually does and analyses moderate FEWS and G2G Centre (SEPA-RFC) improvements in catchment adapted for as required consider an probabilistic take six level of developers as capabilities models run on Scottish use. ensemble of runs. months. expertise, as part of annual (computational, data variety of rainfall runs are contract. availability, knowledge) models. feeds. automatic. and high-profile events. National Managing the The progression of forecast system and forecasting capabilities model is data feeds is documented in based on CEH requires a various journal / Grid-to-Grid high level of conference papers. (G2G) model. expertise and Recent developments detailed in various areas knowledge of include: 2012/13 – new the system. coastal forecasting model; 2013 – heavy rainfall alert tools; 2013 – fluvial flood warning system.

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 12 Table B4: Forecast Model Description and Structure

Is the Forecasting Mode: (m) (n) (e) (l) Is Model (o) (b) (c) Technical (p) (a) (d) Is Model (j) (k) Required Automated Operating Forecasting Year Support, Model Forecast Centre Forecasting Methods in In-house Annually (g) Deterministic Model Expertise or Allows System to Model Imple- (f) (h) (i) Availability for Advantages/ Chronological Order Development Contracted/ Event and Setup Time Level to Run Human Run the Platform mented Continuous Deterministic Stochastic Model Disadvantages Purchased? Based Stochastic Model Interactions Model Developers Combination ? Upper Thames HYMO is used for flood HEC-HMS 2004 and USACE N/A Not Event Yes Not Not ½ day Considerable Manual N/A Windows No response River Conservation flows in late 1970s, spread-sheet ongoing package built continuous based stochastic combined and Authority, Ontario followed by various models and in-house continuous (UTRCA) updates of HYMO reservoir experience (OTTHYMO and Visual routing required. OTTHYMO). models also BRFU (proprietary used and model) was set up in WISKI used to late 90s, not used due manage to calibration difficulty. data. HEC-HMS used currently and effectively. GAWSER Snowmelt spreadsheet. Grand River Initially, simple routing GRIFFS 1988 Semi- N/A Model is See (f) Deterministic No No Snowmelt Requires Human Model has Windows/ Advantages: Conservation models, using stream- proprietary, event event can water interaction been in use for DOS shell Customized, Authority, Ontario flow gauge info was customized based but take 1-2 resources is important; some time and physically based (GRCA) used to forecast peaks. model event can hours; engineer/ ongoing primary parameters, In late 1980s, the Grand developed be defined rainfall hydrologist calibration expertise quick River Flood Forecasting specifically for as a long event with 3-5 years’ is routinely resides turnaround, uses System (GRIFFS) was Grand River period of takes less direct done. internally. readily available developed by GRCA Watershed. time with than ½ experience info, human (with financial support multiple hour. with the interaction from province and events GRCA during event. Canada). GRIFFS is a within the Watershed. real-time flood- period. Disadvantages: forecasting system Requires based on Guelph All- significant Weather Sequential understanding of Event Runoff Model physical (GAWSER). Model is characteristics of capable of forecasting watershed. stream flows from Model rainfall, snowmelt and investment to rainfall on snowmelt. adapt to The system links a advanced deterministic platforms/ hydrological model to programming real-time input to language. produce downstream Inclusion of flow and level forecasts database- in real time. management tools would enhance data management and reporting.

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 13 Table B4: Forecast Model Description and Structure

Is the Forecasting Mode: (m) (n) (e) (l) Is Model (o) (b) (c) Technical (p) (a) (d) Is Model (j) (k) Required Automated Operating Forecasting Year Support, Model Forecast Centre Forecasting Methods in In-house Annually (g) Deterministic Model Expertise or Allows System to Model Imple- (f) (h) (i) Availability for Advantages/ Chronological Order Development Contracted/ Event and Setup Time Level to Run Human Run the Platform mented Continuous Deterministic Stochastic Model Disadvantages Purchased? Based Stochastic Model Interactions Model Developers Combination ? British Columbia A lumped-sum Water and 1974 In-house See (d) No See (h) Deterministic See (h) See (h) Several Fairly high Human No Windows Advantage is River Forecast deterministic model Routing weeks level of interaction the long period Centre (BCRFC) (1974) used for Fraser Numeric required at expertise allowed of experience River. Has had recent System start of with the model upgrades in coding to (WRNS) snowmelt with satisfactory allow running on GUI season for results. platform, which calibra- Disadvantage is improved functionality. tion. Daily that it is not Some ensemble operations process-based, forecasting and require a lack of scenario running is few hours integration with possible as well as to prepare data acquisition some seasonal data, run and only covers forecasting using model and part of forecast multiple regression and interpret region. Principal Component results. Analysis (2011). Still using considerable interpretive forecasting. Bavaria River Event-based distributed LARS/M 2000 and Proprietary, N/A Continuous Event Deterministic Not Not About six Model can Can run Yes Windows No response Forecast Centre precipitation models ongoing developed based stochastic combined months run automat- (BRFC) (LARS/M) used since enhance- together based on automatically; ically but 2000; very effective ments GIS data event based there is relative to former model needs daily lumped and regression hydrologic operator methods. Since 2007, experience interaction continuous water- with the balance models used catchment. for most sub-basins, but Skilled experts improvements not yet required for proven. Hydrodynamic calibration, models used for setting and regulated rivers since updating 2010 and provide operational improved flood-routing parameters of results. model. Manitoba Flood Forecasting on the Red As in (a), main See (a) In-house N/A No Yes Yes No, but See (i) 8 hours Fairly high Semi- Internal support Windows at Advantage is Forecasting Centre River began with peak- platform is model probabal- level of automatic, present but high degree of (HFC) stage relationships MANAPI, istic levels of expertise, data and may add flexibility, ease of and/or hydraulic which precipitation experience in calibration Linux as calibration, routing. In the 1970s, contains and soil meterorol- is entered decision- good graphic modeling involved antecedent moisture ogy, statistics, manually support displays and development of the soil-moisture (upper, computer system is minimal inputs. Manitoba Antecedent index, unit medium, science enhanced Disadvantages Precipitation Index hydrograph lower are inability to (MANAPI, a semi- for surface deciles) can account distributed, event- runoff and be used. explicitly for based model) which Muskingum for physical runoff was applied to channel processes and additional river basins. routing. Other inability for MANAPI was tested methods such automatic against other models in as linear assimilation of the 1980s (HSPF, SLURP, reservoir inputs like SSAR) and confirmed storage precipitation.

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 14 Table B4: Forecast Model Description and Structure

Is the Forecasting Mode: (m) (n) (e) (l) Is Model (o) (b) (c) Technical (p) (a) (d) Is Model (j) (k) Required Automated Operating Forecasting Year Support, Model Forecast Centre Forecasting Methods in In-house Annually (g) Deterministic Model Expertise or Allows System to Model Imple- (f) (h) (i) Availability for Advantages/ Chronological Order Development Contracted/ Event and Setup Time Level to Run Human Run the Platform mented Continuous Deterministic Stochastic Model Disadvantages Purchased? Based Stochastic Model Interactions Model Developers Combination ? as best suited to routing, Manitoba until more regression- data becames based available. In 2008, analyses, etc. MANAPI was converted The HFC from FORTRAN DOS to recently EXCELL Macro-based implemented platform. Other models the Aquarius being assessed are database HEC-HMS, MIKE-SHE, management WATFLOOD. and may link to platforms like FEWS. Australia River Methods include: Currently URBS and HyMODEL Bureau has See (g) URBS is Deterministic There are See (h) and -- Hydrologic All data HyMODEL is in- Event model URBS is very Forecasting and Simple rainfall initial loss using HyMODEL developed in- negotiated event plans to use (i) knowledge preparation house; Bureau is run on stable, simple, Warning Branch using API concept for HyMODEL; has were house; URBS is direct source based; ensemble required to and has source Linux with a transparent and automated operation off-the-shelf. access to SWIFT can rainfall interpret acquisition code for URBS web browser flexible. The (ARFWB) whole community. real-time data al in 2000. URBS (no be both forecast model results; is fully and SWIFT, and interface. continuous Regression technique acquisition. In annual event understanding automated; good The FEWS models are more between upstream to the process of contract). based and of behavior of data quality relationships implement- objective and downstream peak implementing continuous past events is control is with model ation will run better represent water levels. SWIFT (short- important. manual; will developers. on a the processes. Semi-distributed term Water be semi- Has contracted combination rainfall/ runoff model. Information automated with Deltares of Linux and Some spreadsheet Forecasting with HyFS. for Windows. techniques. Tools) for 1- to The event implementatio 7-day model runs n of HyFS and The Bureau will shortly continuous are fully FEWS. implement a new forecasting, interactive. forecasting system which will also called HyFS (Hydrologic run in the Forecasting System), FEWS which uses an off-the- framework, as shelf FEWS framework will the URBS (similar to US NWS and (Unified River UK Environment Basin Agency). HyFS is FEWS Simulator). wrapped around SWIFT and URBS. Flanders Forecasting rainfall (RR Floodwatch 2002 Off-the-shelf Mostly in- Continuous No Deterministic No No Not Limited Model is No Windows for Some models Hydrologic Model – NAM; DHI) and (DHI) and and house answered expertise fully Floodwatch, not supported Information HD Model (routing); Nauthboom customized develop- automated, Unix for anymore; plan Centre (HIC) plan to implement (Dutch tidal ment human Nauthboom to implement FEWS framework model); plan interaction FEWS platform to use FEWS is allowed framework but rarely done

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 15 Table B5: Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model

(a) (b) (c) (d) Forecast Centre Temporal Scale Required Typical Run Times Forecast Lead Time Spatial Scale of the Model US NWS, Colorado Basin 6 hours, except for Arizona Forecasts are usually issued Daily forecasts for hours to Model is lumped parameter River Forecast Centre and southwest Utah, where by 10 a.m. every single day of two weeks for short-term model providing output for (CBRFC) hourly time steps are used. the year, with more updates if deterministic forecasts, and specific forecast locations. needed. up to a full year for The basin is broken into 486 probabilistic seasonal segments (size ranges from volumetric forecasts. 1,400 to 6,000,000 acres, average of 340,000 acres. Each segment is up to 2 to 3 subareas by elevation and with similar soil, land cover and snow accumulation/ melt conditions. Urban Drainage & Flood Info not available Control, Denver, CO (UD & FCD) Flood Control District of Info not available Maricopa County, Arizona (FCDMC) Arizona State-wide Flood Info not available Warning Network (ASFWN) Switzerland Federal Model needs 1 hour to See (a) Depends on meteorological HBV is lumped, semi- Office for the produce results on all inputs, range from 35 hours, 3 distributed for Rhine Environment (FOEN) meteorological inputs. FEWS days, 5 days and 10 days. Watershed, which is divided runs calculated 4 times/ day. into 60 sub-basins (about Results published at 9 a.m. 500 km2). WAS/M is at 500 m daily, more often during flood grid. events. Scotland Environmental N/A The deterministic runs take For catchment models, lead G2G is on 1-km grid, varies Protection Agency – about 20 minutes. The time is 6 hours; for G2G with catchment models. River Forecast Centre ensemble G2G run takes probabilistic model, it is (SEPA-RFC) about 2 hours, which is 36 hours; for deterministic completed by 1 a.m. daily, so G2G model, it is 5 days. results are available to forecasters first thing in the morning. Upper Thames River Hourly Forecasts not generally Up to 3 days. Lumped Conservation Authority, based on model outputs. Ontario (UTRCA) Model is used as a tool combined with historical knowledge, experience and other modeling. Grand River Hourly, with some daily inputs A few minutes Based on weather forecasts, Watershed scale, distributed Conservation Authority, for manual climate usually 72 hours on in that a catchment is divided Ontario (GRCA) observations. Seasonal inputs temperature. into four response units (clays, already set up, e.g., frozen sands, gravel, fill). Uses zones conditions, etc. of uniform climate (Zones of Uniform Meteorology [ZUM]) to allow spatial representation of rainfall/ snow over different parts of watershed (31 SUMs for the

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 16 Table B5: Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model

(a) (b) (c) (d) Forecast Centre Temporal Scale Required Typical Run Times Forecast Lead Time Spatial Scale of the Model 127 catchments). British Columbia River Daily Typically, 2-4 hours from data 5 days Lumped-sum model, with Forecast Centre (BCRFC) acquisition/ preparation, modeling completed in model run, calibration, several sub-basins. interpretation and dissemination. Model run itself takes seconds. Bavaria River Forecast Hourly Every 1-4 hours before and Four days for internal use, Distributed model with 1-km Centre (BRFC) during an event. Some 24 hours for publication. grid or 1 to 5 km2 sub-basins. imported rain gauge info run hourly. During non-events, models are run daily. Manitoba Flood Daily time step, except for Once model is calibrated, Forecasts for several weeks, Semi-distributed, the five Forecasting Centre (HFC) lake levels, where 6 or 12- runs take about 1 hour to up to one month. major watersheds are divided hour time steps used. provide discharge and water into sub-watersheds from 75 level forecasts . to 200 km2. Australia River Longest time step is 1 hour; Event model only takes Typical forecasts lead time is Semi-distributed; typical to Forecasting and Warning shortest is 15 minutes. seconds. 24-36 hours but for the slow- have 5-25 homogenous Branch (ARFWB) moving floods, lead time can model units above a be weeks. The new SWIFT forecasting station. continuous model will provide up to 7-day forecasts. Flanders Hydrologic Done 4x/day 1-2 hours 2 days for rainfall and water Lumped conceptual Information Centre (HIC) levels; 10 days for tides

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 17 Table B6: Description of the Different Physical Processes Considered by the Flood Forecasting Model

(d) (b) (e) (j) (m) (a) (c) Runoff- (f) (g) (h) (i) (k) (l) Forecast Centre Excess Overland Flow Evapo- Additional Interception Snowmelt Generation Soil Moisture Infiltration Interflow Baseflow Channel Routing Reservoir Routing Precipitation Routing transpiration Processes Mechanism US NWS, Colorado See (d) No Snowmelt using Direct runoff is No The SAC-SMA Infiltration is Based on Baseflow is drawn Evapotranspira- No Forecasts can be No response Basin River Forecast Snow generated based model accounts modeled based interflow from the lower tion is a time- provided for both Centre (CBRFC) Accumulation on precipitation for soil moisture in on drainage rates drainage rate zone-free water series output into regulated and and Ablution and upper-zone five different soil- and tank sizes of parameter. storage. model. unregulated Model (SNOW- tension water- moisture tanks. the moisture- situations. 17), a drainage rate. accounting temperature Surface runoff is routine. index model. generated from excess upper- zone tension water and free water-storage drainage rate. Urban Drainage & Info not available Flood Control, Denver, CO (UD & FCD) Flood Control District Info not available of Maricopa County, Arizona (FCDMC) Arizona State-wide Info not available Flood Warning Network (ASFWN) Switzerland Federal Bucket approach Yes, rain and Temperature Physically based Single linear Vertical water Integrated part of Integrated part of Calculated as Use the Penman- Kinematic-wave Considers internal Glacier melt and Office for the considers leaf snow index, soil model reservoir series movement in the soil model soil model infiltration from Monteith approach and external runoff, slope Environment (FOEN) area index, differentiated by temperature- (Richards and kinematic- unsaturated soil groundwater into approach. inflows and shadowing and vegetation temperature. wind index and approach) wave approach zone based on the surface river withdrawals, and aspect coverage and combination the Richards system. reservoir rates. corrections. water depth. approaches are Equation. used. Scotland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Environmental Protection Agency – River Forecast Centre (SEPA-RFC) Upper Thames River Initial abstraction Initial and GAWSER Initial and No Initial and Initial and No No No Modified pulse Index routing N/A Conservation estimates constant loss spreadsheet constant loss constant loss constant loss Authority, Ontario routine (UTRCA) Grand River The GAWSER/GRIFFS models all the physical processes listed Conservation Authority, Ontario (GRCA) British Columbia River Not specifically Calculated from Snowmelt runoff is Precipitation and Not done Soil moisture is Not calculated Not calculated Baseflow is initial Not modeled Routing is done Some routing N/A Forecast Centre modeled weather calculated snowmelt are in specifically initial condition in specifically specifically condition in the specifically between forecast through sub- (BCRFC) forecasts/ based on runoff calculation model model nodes basins observations temperature index method. Snow packs are entered manually as initial condition (including coverage by elevation band

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 18 Table B6: Description of the Different Physical Processes Considered by the Flood Forecasting Model

(d) (b) (e) (j) (m) (a) (c) Runoff- (f) (g) (h) (i) (k) (l) Forecast Centre Excess Overland Flow Evapo- Additional Interception Snowmelt Generation Soil Moisture Infiltration Interflow Baseflow Channel Routing Reservoir Routing Precipitation Routing transpiration Processes Mechanism and density). Bavaria River Forecast All of the physical processes listed are included in the LARS/M model Centre (BRFC) Manitoba Flood No Indirectly Indirectly as in (b) Different API Yes, through use Calculated as a Indirectly through As in (g) Base flow is Considered Muskingum Input-output N/A Forecasting Centre accounted for in curves prior to of unit function of API curves based on minimal and not method technique with (HFC) Antecedent freeze-up are hydrographs weighted historical calculated numerical Precipitation used in precipitation discharge data schemes (up to Index Method combination with (May to October) and is added to 5th order Range (API) winter preceding the simulated runoff Kutta) precipitation and spring melt additional spring period rains to simulate runoff Australia River Covered in initial URBS has None See (a) and (b) URBS uses URBS has a See (f) Not specifically URBS does Indirectly Muskingum URBS models URBS can Forecasting and and continuing infiltration routine “catchment parameter for modeled consider base covered by losses routing used for reservoirs by abstract water Warning Branch loss parameters. but this is rarely routing”; GR4H initial loss flow URBS and GR4H stage-storage- from the channel, used; SWIFT used uses unit discharge e.g., diversions (ARFWB) French hydrograph for relationship; SWIFT rainfall/runoff routing. The also models model (GR4H), process is: 1) reservoirs which has a top precipitation and bottom tank. partitioned into losses and runoff; 2) runoff conveyed to channel by catchment routing, stream flow conveyed downstream by channel routing. Flanders Hydrologic -- Yes, not snow Snowmelt not Yes Yes Conceptual Yes Yes Yes Linear routing Yes -- Information Centre modeled (HIC)

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 19 Table B7: Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibrations

(d) (b) (c) (e) (g) (h) (j) (k) (l) (a) Adequacy of (f) (i) Database- Climate Data Method to Quantify Hydrological Data Used to Is Ensemble Is Flow Forecasting Methods to Forecast Centre Data-management Climate and Basin-related Data Data Assimilation management Required by Climate Data Model Calibration Calibrate Forecast Weather Forecast Done as an Quantify Forecast Tools in Use Hydrometric Data Required by Model Scheme Systems/ Programs Current Model(s) Uncertainties in Use Model Used? Ensemble? Uncertainty Network US NWS, Colorado Currently using the Using a local Precipitation, Relies heavily on Some uncertainty Hydrologic model is Model parameters See (f) and (g) Data assimilation is Ensemble weather Yes, the Ensemble Forecast Basin River Forecast Community information temperature and temperature, snow analysis done but calibrated based are calibrated mostly manual forecasts are used Streamflow uncertainty is built Centre (CBRFC) Hydrologic database soil-moisture and precipitation needs more on elevation zones, every five years. A to generate Prediction (ESP) in directly to the Prediction System condition estimates data collected at attention. similar land use 30-year or greater deterministic daily provides short-term probabilistic (CHPS). Are testing the Natural and soil types. observed stream- forecasts which deterministic forecasts. use of Hydrologic Resources Snow data in flow dataset is used include five days of forecasts and long- Ensemble Forecast Conservation respective to develop quantitative term water supply System (HEFS) for Service’s SNOTEL elevation zones is parameters. Some precipitation and as well as providing short- to and SCAN sites also used. consideration is temperature probabilistic long-term and also other being given to forecasts. streamflow probabilistic sources of using soil-moisture forecasts. forecasts by precipitation data probes (40” depth) incorporating networks. for future added climate and Precipitation data calibration but weather forecast sites are checked data is limited at information. annually for present. latitude, longitude and elevation for radar bias adjustments. Radar is used to infill data gaps where precipitation data is not good but radar can often not be used in wintertime. Urban Drainage & UD&FCD operates in close cooperation with NWS (see CBRFC) and uses the District ALERT system, a large network of automatic rain and stream gauges Flood Control, Denver, CO (UD & FCD) Flood Control District FCDMC operates in close cooperation with NWS (see CBRFC) of Maricopa County, Arizona (FCDMC) Arizona State-wide ASFWN uses extensive ALERT state-wide rain and stream gauge system Flood Warning Network (ASFWN) Switzerland Federal Uses FEWS system No response 130 federal Gaps and No response Digital Elevation See (h) Mostly observed The complete HBV Yes, COSMOS-LEPS Yes No response Office for the meteorological unreliable values Model used with discharges, but simulation is split is used Environment (FOEN) stations with can be filled by derived also variables such into an update run precipitation, using the kriging parameters of as snow-water and a forecast run. temperature, dew- interpolation slope, exposition, equivalents. The update run point temp, relative functions in the catchment uses as much humidity, wind FEWS FOEN system. structures, river observed speed, global networks, channel meteorological radiation and parameters, etc. and hydrological sunshine duration Land use, soil maps time-series data as data. and hydrogeology available. About 200 local parameters are stations with derived. precipitation and sometimes temp and dew-point temp data. About 150 snow

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 20 Table B7: Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibrations

(d) (b) (c) (e) (g) (h) (j) (k) (l) (a) Adequacy of (f) (i) Database- Climate Data Method to Quantify Hydrological Data Used to Is Ensemble Is Flow Forecasting Methods to Forecast Centre Data-management Climate and Basin-related Data Data Assimilation management Required by Climate Data Model Calibration Calibrate Forecast Weather Forecast Done as an Quantify Forecast Tools in Use Hydrometric Data Required by Model Scheme Systems/ Programs Current Model(s) Uncertainties in Use Model Used? Ensemble? Uncertainty Network stations, some precipitation, temp, snow depth, vapour pressure, relative humidity, wind speed and global radiation. About 50 private stations with precipitation, temp, relative humidity and wind speed. Scotland Ad hoc review of No response Rainfall data is Radar data is the Not done formally The G2G model Observed stream The MET office The MET office Yes, in the G2G Spaghetti and Environmental significant events used for all models; mountainous north was calibrated at flow and data applies data MOGREPS model plume plots from Protection Agency – including review of the G2G model and west is poor. outset of use; qualitative review assimilation. ensemble is used the ensemble River Forecast Centre meteorological/ also uses temp for This is considered in periodic of components forecasts are (SEPA-RFC) hydrological snowmelt. Coastal the forecasting. recalibration is such as snowmelt. displayed to show forecast data. models use wind Currently done against uncertainty. The speed, waves and considering which gauged data. MET office surge forecasts. areas have meteorologists also Observed data unsuitable data. provide some from rain and assessment of stream-flow weather gauges. uncertainty. Meteorological data is provided on short-term and medium-term basis by SEPA MET Office Best Data. Upper Thames River Water Information In-house DATS Precipitation, Data is adequate Not answered Not answered Not answered Observed stream Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Conservation System Kisters system: 1984-97 snowmelt and flow Authority, Ontario (WISKI) and HEC- Proprietary Basin temperature (UTRCA) DSS Runoff Forecast Unit (BRFU): 1997- 2003 In-house URTCA- DMS, using HEC- DMS: 2003-2010 Kisters WISKI: 2010- present Grand River WISKI Kisters Initially used text Precipitation, Data is considered Sensitivity analysis is Soils, land use, Comparison with Observed stream Not automatic, No, but do No, but can easily Mainly visual and Conservation telemetry product file, then in 2002, temperature, adequate (19 rain done for weather catchments, cross- observed/ flow, also can update sensitivity analysis; run various comparisons using Authority, Ontario is used; WISKI is a developed a snowfall, bimonthly gauges, 20 hourly forecasts, e.g., sections for routing simulated data, hydrograph shape, stream-flow see (e) scenarios Nash-Sutcliffe (GRCA) hydrological sequel server snow course temp sensors, 50 applying variances using Nash-Sutcliffe timing and volume. information during statistical database with all storage database measurement stream gauges) to predicted statistical event. summaries. data available at and upgraded to (water content, precipitation data. summaries. an easy-to-use WISKI database, depth) desktop. which is very effective.

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 21 Table B7: Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibrations

(d) (b) (c) (e) (g) (h) (j) (k) (l) (a) Adequacy of (f) (i) Database- Climate Data Method to Quantify Hydrological Data Used to Is Ensemble Is Flow Forecasting Methods to Forecast Centre Data-management Climate and Basin-related Data Data Assimilation management Required by Climate Data Model Calibration Calibrate Forecast Weather Forecast Done as an Quantify Forecast Tools in Use Hydrometric Data Required by Model Scheme Systems/ Programs Current Model(s) Uncertainties in Use Model Used? Ensemble? Uncertainty Network British Columbia River Various methods Snow data Max/min daily Use existing climate Uncertainty is not Model uses coarse Operational Observed No No Not typically, but Observed versus Forecast Centre used. Primary data upgraded to a temperature, networks; use local quantified hydrometric curves calibration is done snowpack, stream do “what if” modeled flow (BCRFC) (snow pillow, WIDM system in precipitation and precipitation for to delineate while running the flow, temperature scenarios comparisons. weather, some early 2000s. Data snowpack data “flashy” elevation bands model through the and precipitation hydrometric data) acquired from watersheds, within watersheds. season. data. received via GOES GOES network address data gaps Coarse calibration satellite, decoded using a DCS toolkit by interpretation. coefficients are and placed on and LRGS hard-coded into RFC servers database. Still model. (primary and lacking a primary backup servers). data-management Some hydrometric system. data is emailed to RFC, some manually downloaded. Data manipulation, processing and analysis is done and stored on local computers. Bavaria River Forecast Use many in-house No response LARS/M event Network is Not quantified; Digital Elevation LARS/M model has See (c) Use sophisticated Yes, but used only Yes, see (j) Currently, conduct Centre (BRFC) developed tools based: adequate analysis of the Model, digital net calibration guide automatic in advance of statistical analysis with a JAVA-based precipitation, air sensitivity input of watercourses, updating scheme, anticipated events. of forecasts; in interface. temp, wind speed, data is done but land-use map, soil which can be future, plan to use discharge, snow not by the centre. map, inflows/ configured to ensemble forecast depth and water outflows, reservoirs, consider reliability to differentiate content. representative of the gauging between LARS/M water cross-sections and station. uncertainty in balance: roughness meteorological precipitation, coefficients. forecast and temp, humidity, hydrology. global radiation, air pressure, wind speed, dew-point, discharge, snow depth and water content. Manitoba Flood MSOffice database AQUARIUS is first Main input for Need denser No established DEMs land use and Hydrologic models Observed Not automatic, No No, but upper, Comparison of Forecasting Centre management comprehensive MANAPI model is hydrometric methods to soils data has been are calibrated precipitation and manual checks median and lower observed and (HFC) (EXCELL, ACCESS); database precipitation, soil network and more quantify used since 2011 to manually; expert flows; models also done frequently deciles for weather forecast have recently management moisture and climate stations. derive runoff automatic allow for forecasts used to hydrographs, with implemented system used; historical flow time Are installing calibration will be adjustment of provide range of particular attention AQUARIUS system applied in 2011. series. Wind data additional gauges possible when Muskingum routing forecasts. to peaks and their for enhanced used recently for and stations; have models like HEC- parameters (travel timing database lake wind setup initiated a HMS become time and weighting management. warnings. Community operational for channel Collaborative Rain storage) and Snow network.

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 22 Table B7: Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibrations

(d) (b) (c) (e) (g) (h) (j) (k) (l) (a) Adequacy of (f) (i) Database- Climate Data Method to Quantify Hydrological Data Used to Is Ensemble Is Flow Forecasting Methods to Forecast Centre Data-management Climate and Basin-related Data Data Assimilation management Required by Climate Data Model Calibration Calibrate Forecast Weather Forecast Done as an Quantify Forecast Tools in Use Hydrometric Data Required by Model Scheme Systems/ Programs Current Model(s) Uncertainties in Use Model Used? Ensemble? Uncertainty Network Australia River System has Current system is Precipitation; the Climate and During manual Elevation, river Manual calibration Observed stream Manual data Currently not used No, not at present; Use caution in Forecasting and automated data part of Australian continuous model hydrometric calibration of an network, location of URBS, some flows and water acquisition through in URBS and SWIFT. see (j) wording of Warning Branch acquisition system; Integrated uses network density event, the of gauges testing of levels “flow insertion,” With transition to warnings; have a uses many data- Forecasting System evapotranspiration varies widely; the forecaster will use automatic where observed FEWS, a collection manual on (ARFWB) management (AIFS); has been in (calculated outside Northern Territory judgment to calibration. SWIFT upstream flow of deterministic “choosing your systems. Will be use since the 1990s. the model) averages 1 gauge/ determine if a does automatic replaces the rainfall forecasts words”; use terms using the data- 13,360 km2; gauge is good or calibration. simulated flow can be used. SWIFT like “expected to management tools whereas Tasmania bad. If a gauge is value and the has post-processor exceed.” Seasonal in FEWS when it is has bad, it can be result is routed that can convert a forecasts have operational. 1 gauge/640 km2. turned off for the downstream. deterministic heavy emphasis on Where data is entirety of the Forecasters rainfall forecast uncertainty and insufficient, no event. The spatial manually time into an ensemble. are probabilistic. forecast is interpretation of model parameters Are researching provided. rainfall will then in real time; SWIFT procedures to ignore this location. has error-correction generate rainfall techniques. ensembles; expert to apply this in 2015. Flanders Hydrologic Two databases See (a) Precipitation Adequate Non-parametric DEM Calibration is Observed flows Yes, automatic; DHI No No See (e) Information Centre (HYDRA and WISKI) (measured and data approach based on data acquisition (HIC) forecasted); (NPDA), observed/ forecast average uncertainty based values evaporation on past model errors

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 23 Table B8: Forecast Products Dissemination and Protocols

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Forecast Centre Information Provided to Methods/Frequency of Forecast Forecast Uncertainty Communication to Measures to Ensure Correct Mechanisms for Public Feedback Public/Media/Decision Makers Dissemination to Public Public Interpretation/Use by Public US NWS, Colorado Basin River Annual and seasonal water-supply Primarily through monthly webinars, Uncertainty is only provided for the Some online documentation, Feedback about stakeholder needs and Forecast Centre (CBRFC) forecasts, daily Ensemble Stream Flow website and email. longer-term volumetric water-supply considerable interaction with users issues is obtained from annual Predictions (ESPs), probabilistic forecasts, forecasts, although ensembles (10, 50, 90 (stakeholder forums, webinars, phone stakeholder forums. Also used to provide peak discharge estimates and timing. percentile exceedances are provided as calls, visits). information on ongoing research, These products are provided in well as verification statistics of historical development and future forecasting graphical format. forecast are provided for all locations. products. Urban Drainage & Flood Notification re: potential and imminent Information provided directly to local Not answered Annual flood exercises, training of Performance is evaluated annually Control, Denver, CO (UD & flood threats including flash floods. Real- government in 22 counties. decision makers. through interviews of recipients FCD) time rainfall and stream-level (contracted service). information. Flood Control District of Flood watches and warnings including The MSP info is provided to more than Probability is provided in watches/ See (e) An MSP Verification Report is prepared Maricopa County, Arizona rainfall depth, time estimates and 200 local government contacts, posted warnings. annually which recaps forecast season, (FCDMC) probability of occurrence using NWS on website and Facebook. Direct phone verification metrics, outlook and forecasts supplemented by local calls used if client desires. message verifications. Annual meteorological forecasting by FCDMC questionnaire requesting comments on (Meteorological Services Program performance and recommendations for [MSP]). improvement is issued but response is less than 50%. Arizona State-wide Flood The lead agency for Arizona state Data is disseminated through website. N/A N/A N/A Warning Network (ASFWN) forecasters is Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), which provides central hub for precipitation and stream-flow data. ADWR does not provide flood forecasts or warnings. Switzerland Federal Office for Daily forecasts based on meteorological Model results described in (a) are Not answered The bulletin is written in simple language. A questionnaire on the hydrologic the Environment (FOEN) models to authorities and public. On published on a common information bulletin was done three years ago. Mondays and Thursdays, a hydrological platform; warnings are sent by secure Feedback is requested regularly at bulletin is published to authorities and electronic mail channel to local meetings. public. In a flood event, model results authorities. During severe warnings, radio are published 4 times/day and a flood and TV are used. warning and alert is issued at 1100 and 1700 to authorities and 1200 and 1800 for public. Scotland Environmental Flood Guidance Statements are Flood Guidance Statements provided to Uncertainty not explicitly described but Documents are produced to aid in the The training sessions and the Flood Protection Agency – River provided to responders via email which responders (see [a]). Flood alerts and the Flood Guidance Statement including use of the Flood Guidance Statements. Advisors are useful for collecting Forecast Centre (SEPA-RFC) show flood risks for each of 19 flood-alert warnings are published on SEPA website. a matrix which describes a likelihood Also run training sessions with responders, feedback. areas for the next five days. They also Public and responders will receive a assessment. working closely with the MET office. SEPA include written assessment of flood risk phone call or text, as requested, also has Flood Advisors and MET office with respect to timing, location, likely informing them that an alert has been Advisors available to assist responders in impacts, etc. Responders can request issued. Parallel messages are done understanding the Guidance access to website that displays outputs through Twitter (are exploring other Statements. Feedback on this advisory from FEWS. A public website shows social media streams). Media (TV, radio) service is very positive. observed water levels. The MET office interviews are provided. website shows forecast information.

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 24 Table B8: Forecast Products Dissemination and Protocols

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Forecast Centre Information Provided to Methods/Frequency of Forecast Forecast Uncertainty Communication to Measures to Ensure Correct Mechanisms for Public Feedback Public/Media/Decision Makers Dissemination to Public Public Interpretation/Use by Public Upper Thames River Peak-flow values and timing, water Media releases to radio, print, TV, Twitter Uncertainty is included in the message Provincially standardized flood- Not answered Conservation Authority, levels. and Facebook. UTRCA website. As soon and usually relates to uncertainty of water/flood-warning bulletins; use of Ontario (UTRCA) as a flood is likely, a flood outlook is weather forecast. similar terminology to Environment released. Further bulletins are released Canada. when event begins with daily (or more frequent) updates. Grand River Conservation Flood warning for peak flows at specific Email (by subscription), internet (GRCA Qualifications are provided with flood Placing message such that it GRCA has Board that represents Authority, Ontario (GRCA) location related to areas requiring website), Twitter and mainstream media. warnings regarding confidence in communicates which areas are likely to member municipalities, who provide evacuation, advice to municipalities The GRCA website is proving to be very predictions, e.g., ice-related floods. be affected; use of maps help. feedback, also debrief with municipal which roads/structures are expected to important; a recent big event registered Flood Coordinators after event. have problems. Starting to use map 16,000 views in one day. products for distribution to Municipal Flood Coordinators. British Columbia River Daily average 5-day flow forecast for all Primarily though website; during flood Uncertainty (weather, model, etc.) is Disclaimers are used on forecast No public feedback mechanism, but Forecast Centre (BCRFC) forecast points is disseminated in the events, staff will interpret results for discussed during the conference calls products. Verbal interpretation and feedback obtained from municipal BCRFC website to public, users, decision stakeholders, usually by conference calls (qualitatively). discussion of forecasts is done on stakeholders. makers; info is updated daily. Generic with affected communities. Typically, conference calls and with media. info on model performance and calls happen daily but with various uncertainty is provided. groups/ regions, staff is available for media. Bavaria River Forecast Centre Hourly hydrographs with tabular values Forecasts disseminated by internet, but See (a) Care is taken to publish forecast only for No direct mechanism for public. (BRFC) and an uncertainty band. warnings are also provided on TV and by stations for which the forecasts are Forecast enters do get feedback from telephone automated messages. considered reliable. All other forecasts state offices who are in contact with are only provided to state offices for local administrators. water management, who are trained in interpretation of forecast in annual sessions. Manitoba Flood Forecasting River/lake water levels and discharge Radio, TV, internet, email, website and Uncertainties accounted for in the Technical terms are explained and Open communication invited through Centre (HFC) hydrographs, peak values and time of faxing. Done daily during operational different weather conditions (see [a]) communicated, as in (b). Dialogue also telephone, Facebook and Twitter. occurrence. Forecasts provided in upper forecasting; more frequently if provided to public and pertinent occurs with different communities in the decile, median and lower decile warranted. federal, provincial and local various watersheds. weather conditions. government officials, including Indian bands. Australia River Forecasting A potential for flooding via flood watch When flooding is occurring, the warning Use words like “may” or “could.” Are Have worked with emergency managers Work with emergency services for and Warning Branch (ARFWB) warning. products can be updated daily, 12 hours developing templates for warnings to to develop best practices guidelines for feedback; significant flood events often A predicted water level (peak value). or as needed. Warnings are issued on standardize language and content. language in warning messages. have community meetings, when ARFWB the internet but also directly to decision participates; also have internal debriefs. A range between critical thresholds makers. (minor, moderate or major flooding). Detailed briefing on expected flood behavior to decision makers. Warnings/river levels are posted on website. Flanders Hydrologic Forecasted flow and water levels Internet 4x/day See (b) None Yes, questionnaire on website Information Centre (HIC)

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 25 Table B9: Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews

(b) Performance Indices, Parameters and Measurements Assessed (f) Types of Performance Measures Used (a) Challenges of Deficiencies in (g) Forecast Centre Formal or Informal (c) (d) (e) (h) (i) (j) (k) Performance Performance Maximum Error of Performance Review Rainfall River Flow River Level Mean Error Bias Standard Deviation Lead-time Error Measurement Measures Forecast US NWS, Colorado Forecast verification Weather forecast Accuracy of rainfall Graphic verification Time to peak and Difficulty in Yes Yes Recent work has Yes Not done for CBRFC Basin River Forecast is regularly posted on performance and forecasts available plots of peaks are analyzed differentiating focused on using Centre (CBRFC) website, including: hydrological forecast through other parts of hydrographs are after a flood event between forecast model bias Plots of seasonal performance are NWS. used (see a). but not regularly (see errors from adjustment to observed and difficult to a). hydrological increase reliability. forecasted differentiate. conditions or hydrographs for precipitation and each forecast site. temperature forecasts (and location). Forecast water supply is compared with observed data on monthly volume basis. Both of above have statistical analysis for major flood events; the hydrologic situation and forecast performance (peak level, timing, etc.) is also analyzed. Urban Drainage & Annual interviews Not answered Flood Control, Denver, with users; results CO (UD & FCD) published in annual report. Flood Control District Performance Not answered directly of Maricopa County, measured by annual Arizona (FCDMC) interviews; results published in annual verification report; relates mainly to rainfall warnings. Arizona State-wide N/A Flood Warning Network (ASFWN) Switzerland Federal No Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Office for the Environment (FOEN) Scotland Forecast Use impact-based FEWS has a real-time Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Environmental performance usually forecasting and it is performance measure Protection Agency – reviewed internally difficult to report on in place. River Forecast Centre on an event basis. impacts during an (SEPA-RFC) Some reviews of event. Also, rainfall individual events records may not be have been posted to available in vicinity of website. observed impacts. Meteorological forecasts are reviewed formally by MET office.

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 26 Table B9: Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews

(b) Performance Indices, Parameters and Measurements Assessed (f) Types of Performance Measures Used (a) Challenges of Deficiencies in (g) Forecast Centre Formal or Informal (c) (d) (e) (h) (i) (j) (k) Performance Performance Maximum Error of Performance Review Rainfall River Flow River Level Mean Error Bias Standard Deviation Lead-time Error Measurement Measures Forecast Upper Thames River Informal and debrief Flood forecasting Yes Yes Yes Flood forecasting N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Conservation after event, follow-up based mostly on system is adequate. Authority, Ontario with municipalities/ measured river (UTRCA) flood coordinators to gauge data, not confirm effective weather. communication. Flood-response teams confirm estimated water levels and property loss/ damage. Grand River Informal, ongoing Weather forecasts See (d) This is key driver Flow drives levels Need better estimates Estimating maximum See (g) See (g) See (g) See (g) Conservation reviews are key; rely on radar of distribution of error is difficult; Authority, Ontario for rainfall data; are precipitation (weather depends on nature (GRCA) working to better radar, GIS). of event; large quantify snowmelt flood precipitation. estimates are about ±20%. British Columbia River Internal review of Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Not answered Forecast Centre BCRFC done in 2010; (BCRFC) no systematic review of forecasting performance. Bavaria River Forecast Some review done Weather forecasts Centre (BRFC) but no report are key factor Manitoba Flood Formal reviews done Challenges include: -- Flow/discharge See (d) See (b) No Comparison of No No Yes, see (h) Forecasting Centre by province after Uncertainties in magnitudes, timing, forecast and (HFC) floods, e.g., 1950, weather forecasts. hydrographic observed water 1997 and 2011. The levels and peak latest “Manitoba Reliance on magnitudes (mean 2011 Flood Review upstream forecasts error), as well as Task Force Report” by other jurisdictions. peak timing was completed in Inability of existing April 2013 is available models to accurately on the internet. simulate rain- generated flood events. Managing massive real-time data from multiple sources. Australia River Carry out internal Lack of archival of Assurances vary See (c) See (c) See (c) See (c) See (c) See (c) See (c) See (c) Forecasting and reviews after each past forecasts; further widely by location, Warning Branch significant flood work is needed to be season and lead time. event, using an able to extract More details could be (ARFWB) agreed-on format; quantitative provided. format not provided. statements. Flanders Hydrologic Yes, every three Yes, uncertainties Yes Model errors are See (d) Lack of ensemble Yes Yes Yes -- Yes Information Centre months forecast exist at every step, reviewed for forecasting for rainfall (HIC) results are assessed. including rainfall. medium and percentile differences from observed

V:\1114\Active\111430014_ESRD_Performance_Measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_appendixB_comparative_tables_20140828.docx 27

RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Appendix C: Detailed Responses to Questionnaire

lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx

Notes from Interview with Kevin Stewart,

14 March 2014

Flood Forecasting by the

Urban Drainage & Flood Control (UD&FCD), Denver, Colorado

1. The flood forecasting program serves a 1,600 square mile area. The contributing watershed area is more than 3,000 square miles. The program, which serves the seven-county Denver/Boulder metropolitan area, operates in close cooperation with the National Weather Service (NWS) and has been in existence since 1979. The program provides daily forecasts of flood potential and directly contacts local jurisdictions when flood threats develop. Vital to this flood warning program is the District’s ALERT System— a large network of automated rain and stream gages that provides continuous monitoring of flood conditions and sends alarm messages to officials when threatening rainfall or rising stream levels are detected.

2. The program was a result of the 1976 Big Thompson Canyon flood which resulted in 143 loss of lives.

3. The program consists of one of the first available color radar systems acquired and installed at the NWS Forecast Office in Denver by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UD&FCD); a private meteorological service is employed by UD&FCD to monitor a second color radar receiver and provide local officials in the Denver/Boulder metro area with early notifications concerning potential and imminent flood threats; an automated early flood detection network of rain and stream gages was deployed for the Boulder Creek watershed in Boulder County and later expanded to include many other locations; drainage basin-specific flood warning plans were developed; standard operational procedures were revised to better address flood threats; annual flood exercises are conducted; technological enhancements are constantly introduced; public warning systems are improved; coordination and cooperation among agencies increased; and communications remains a priority.

4. Flood forecasting information is provided directly to local government in 22 counties. There are no public notices and no use of social media.

5. Forecasts are provided in cooperation with NWS.

6. Products provided are customized NWS information plus meteorologic forecasts through locally contracted services.

7. Performance is evaluated each year through UD&FCD contract to interview all recipients of service. Feed-back is obtained at the local government level. Results are published in annual reports.

8. Since inception of the program, there have been few loss of life from flood incidents.

9. In September 2013, an extremely rare rainfall of estimated 1,000 year return period occurred. The fatalities (nine total statewide including four in Boulder County, and two within the District) were tragic but the number was low by comparison to pre-1979 floods.

1

Many factors contributed to this outcome including: 30+ years of preparing for the “next Big Thompson Canyon flash flood”; advances in communication technologies; early advisories given to local authorities concerning developing threats; early flood warnings; real-time rainfall and stream level information; radar and other storm tracking technologies; wildfires that lead to increased flood awareness and community preparedness; deployment of sirens and other means of public warning; training of first-responders and decision-makers; coordination of information during the event; cooperation among the agencies involved; and an appropriate response to warnings by those at highest risk.

10. The contracted Flash Flood Prediction Program provides several products. See UDFCD flood_prediction_program.pdf for a description of flood forecast and notification products, and examples of Qualitative Precipitation Forecast (QPF) releases.

11. UD&FCD reports on its flood warning program in its annual publication titled Flood Hazard News. The December 2013 issue is provided in UDFCD_flood_hazard_news.pdf. That publication has a description of the September 2013 floods and assessment of the ensuing flood warning program.

2

Notes from interview with Steve Waters

14 March 2014

Flood Forecasting by the

Flood Control District of Maricopa County, (FCDMC) Arizona

1. The flood forecast program was initiated after floods of 1978 and 1979 on the Salt River and regional flooding in Feb 1980.

2. The county is 9,224 square miles and forecast area is 5,400 square miles.

3. River forecasts are provided by the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center (CBRFC) of the National Weather Service (NWS).

4. The NWS forecasts are supplemented with local meteorological forecasting by FCDMC.

5. The Meteorological Services Program (MSP) information is provided to more than 200 contacts, such as:

EMS Law enforcement Public health Public works Department of transportation Fire County parks and recreation

6. Forecasts are posted on a website and Facebook. Also by direct phone calls for rapid response per client desires.

7. The program provides watershed based flood watches and warnings based on MSP forecasts. Where NWS has 4 zones, FCDMC operates with 12 zones. MSP provides forecast of rainfall depth, time estimate, and probability of occurrence.

8. FCDMC also monitors 26 dams that it owns. Data includes reservoir stage and outflow.

9. Performance is measured each year by use of a questionnaire digitally submitted to all users at the end of each forecast season. Requests for comments on performance and recommendations for improvements is made with the questionnaire. Response by users is less than 50 percent.

10. A MSP Verification Report is prepared annually. Contents include: • Product description • Forecast season recap • Verification metrics and criteria • Outlook verification • Message verification

3

• Summary

Examples for 2012 and 2013 are provided in MSP_Verification_Report_2012.pdf and MSP_Verification_Report_2013.pdf.

11. FCDMC issues Storm Reports describing severe events and forecast performance. Reports typically include: • Description of meteorology • Summary of precipitation data and statistics • Summary of runoff and streamflow data • Summary of flood forecasts including comparison of flood forecasts and measured streamflow • Summary of flood damages • Data sources • ALERT system data

Example of Storm Reports are provided for the January 2010 winter storm and the July 2012 summer local storm are provided in StormRpt_Jan2010_Rev_110510.pdf and StormRpt_Jul2012_R1.pdf.

12. Project requirements include preparing a new flood response plan each year and maintaining operational equipment at more than 99% functional.

13. There are few fatalities due to flooding. Fatalities are typically due to motorists attempting to cross flooded roadways.

14. Extensive data and reports are available at fcd.gov/Rainfall/Publications.

4

Notes from Interview with Brian Cosson

21 March 2014

Arizona State-Wide Flood Warning Network

1. The Arizona state-wide (114,007 square miles) program is a result of the extreme flooding in the Gila, Salt, and Verde Rivers of Arizona in 1993. That flooding was produced by winter snowpack in the northern and eastern mountains of Arizona during December 1992 followed by rainfall and melting snow in early January 1993.

2. As a result of that flood, the Governor of Arizona called for a Task Force to investigate and establish a state-wide flood warning network. Legislation was enacted in 1994 establishing a fund for equipment, operation and maintenance of the system.

3. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided a funding grant with the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) as the lead agency.

4. In 1995, a plan for a state-wide data collection and flood warning program was developed.

5. The system consists of precipitation and streamgages distributed throughout the state. Data sites are generally ALERT gages established by the 15 county flood control districts in Arizona plus the gages operated by the U.S. Geological Survey. Data is sent by telemetry to the central hub in Phoenix. Data base stations are located at the ADWR office in Phoenix, the state Emergency Manager, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District office, and some county flood control districts.

6. The data collection system, established during 1999-2001, piggybacked on the two existing data collection systems in Maricopa and Pima counties.

7. The system consists of hundreds of precipitation and streamgages and 60 repeaters of which only five are operated by ADWR.

8. ADWR does not provide flood forecasting or warning, and is not the designated emergency management agency for floods.

9. Data is disseminated through its website. There are no direct advisories issued by ADWR.

10. Radar data is provided by contract and is part of the website database.

5

Summary

1. Three agencies in the western United States with enhanced flood warning were interviewed. The hydro-meteorologic and watershed conditions in those share many of the same characteristics as found in Alberta.

2. Those agencies, the area of each and the area of flood warning are:

• State of Arizona – 114,007 square miles of flood warning services.

• Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Arizona – 9,224 square miles of which flood forecast is provided for 5,400 square miles.

• Urban Drainage & Flood Control District, Colorado – 3,000 square miles of watershed area, and 1,600 square miles of flood forecast area.

3. All three flood programs were established as the result of a severe flood event.

4. The Arizona state program is essentially the central hub for precipitation and streamflow data from a combination of independent county gage networks and federal gages, and radar data.

5. The Arizona state program disseminates its data through its website. There are no designated users per se.

6. Both of the programs by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) and the Urban Drainage & Flood Control District (UD&FCD) provide enhanced flood forecast beyond that which is provided by the National Weather Service (NWS).

• Both programs utilize meteorological services. FCDMC provides that service through in-house staff. UD&FCD contracts those services to consultants.

• FCDMC disseminates its forecasts directly to multiply users. • UD&FCD only disseminates its forecast to counties within its service area. Each county then distributes the data according to its own list of users. • Both programs produce end of year reporting of results. • Both programs utilize end of year survey of results by users.

6

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS

The following are provided as digital files:

Urban Drainage & Flood Control District

• UDFCD flood_prediction_program.pdf • UDFCD_flood_hazard_news.pdf • Activity Summary_2009.pdf

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

• StormRpt_Jan2010_Rev_110510.pdf • StormRpt_Jul2012_R1.pdf • MSP_Verification_Report_2012.pdf • MSP_Verification_Report_2013.pdf

7

ESRD – River Forecast Centre Performance Measures Development Project Questionnaire: Australia River Forecasting and Warning Branch

1. Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre a. What year was the flood-forecast centre established?

The first flood forecasts were made in 1955. b. Why was the flood-forecast centre established? Was there a specific event that resulted in this decision? Please explain.

In response to a very significant flood in the Hunter Valley that led to number of deaths. c. How was the flood-forecast centre established? (For example, was the flood forecasting responsibility added to an existing government division/department?)

The centre was established within the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. d. Is the flood forecasting centre within Federal or provincial/state jurisdiction?

The Bureau of Meteorology is a federal entity ("Commonwealth agency"). There is a head office in Melbourne and regional offices in each state. e. What is the service area of your forecast centre ( i.e. what is the jurisdictional area the you are responsible for forecasting floods/river flows within)

Nominally, the Bureau is responsible for the entire country. However, we have service agreements to provide flood forecasts for particular locations. If there isn't an agreement, then flood warnings are not made. This may include places where there is no data or where there are few people. f. What is the current population within the service area of the forecasting centre?

The 2012 population of Australia was 22.68 million. g. How many staff members are currently employed at the forecasting centre?

Approximately 50 full time staff. h. Please briefly describe major cause of flood events (such as snowmelt driven or rainfall) and note if there is a change in primary cause of floods in the last decade.

Australia has very limited snowmelt limited mainly to Victoria and Tasmania. Snowmelt is not a flood concern.

Floods are caused mainly by: • Heavy rainfall from Tropical cyclones, which hit the tropical upper parts of the country • Heavy rainfall from synoptic scale low pressure weather systems • Heavy rainfall from what is termed “cut-off lows”

2. Objectives and Operation of the Center a. What are the mandates of the forecasting centre?

The Center operates mainly to provide flood warning information to emergency services and the community at large so that preventative measures are able to be taken. b. When and how are the following communiques issued to the public, media or government officials? i. Long-term flood outlook (e.g., spring flood outlook)

There is a seasonal forecasting service but it is not flood oriented. 3 month ahead forecasts are issued once per month. When the climate drivers indicate the possibility of extreme conditions they may be special written and oral briefings to government. ii. Flood Warnings

Flood warnings are issued when flooding is imminent or occurring at intervals varying from hourly to daily depending on the flood behaviour. Warnings are available on the web, faxed to emergency agencies, and also available in a text to speech translated form via telephone. iii. Flood Advisories

An early warning product called Flood Watch is issued 2 to 3 days in advance of expected flooding based on forecast rainfall. It is issued as needed and updated daily. These products are available on the web and faxed to emergency agencies, iv. Flash-flood warnings

The Bureau provides Severe Weather and Thunderstorm Warnings for heavy rainfall that could lead to Flash Flooding. Flash flood warnings are the responsibility of local agencies and emergency agencies using weather and flood information provided by the Bureau. The Bureau also provides technical knowhow and support for flash flood monitoring data collection system for local councils. v. Other type of flood reports not covered in items (i) to (iv) above

Briefings to media, emergency services and the government and participation in incident management conferences and centres. c. Please briefly describe the emergency services structure during major floods. Jurisdictions (State and Territories) are responsible for flood emergency management. They establish incident management and control centres at various levels as required. The Bureau’s role is to provide key weather and flood information to support this.

3. General drainage basin characteristics within the forecast center jurisdiction a. Can the various forecast basins in the centers jurisdiction be grouped into areas with similar runoff characteristics and flood concerns (eg mountainous with flash flood potential, flat with widespread flooding potential)? What are the different drainage basin types managed by the forecast centre?

On the Eastern side, the Great Dividing Range running near parallel to the east coast and close to the coast has established coastal catchments that are fast responding and west flowing inland rivers that are slow moving. Australia has a very high variability in flows with widely varying climate. b. For each of the above drainage basin types please describe the following: i. Range of watershed size of the forecast areas

Australia's largest basins are 1,000,000 square km. A more typical forecast point drains about 1000 square km. There are some gages that drain 100 square km. ii. Topography/relief

iii. The dominant land-use types (urban, forest, agriculture…)

iv. General climate description including temperature, precipitation averages and extremes

See above v. Regulated/non-regulated river flows

We forecast observed flow (with regulation). There are some simple reservoir models and sometimes we get timeseries of anticipated releases from reservoir operators. There are pristine catchments but they are typically small. vi. Typical hydro-meteorological conditions and timing that result in major flood events. Is it possible for multiple of these conditions to occur simultaneously (such as rain on snowmelt, rain while flooding is ongoing) thereby increasing flood risk?

Flooding is nearly all rain driven, either high intensity or long duration. In the interior of the country it can take weeks/months for the flows to travel downstream, but where most people live the timescales are less than a week. vii. Flood risks (for example, infrastructure such as dams, highways and bridges, urban settlement (population), agricultural land, etc.) http://www.ga.gov.au/corporate_data/65444/65444.pdf

From the national directive: Minor flooding causes inconvenience, such as closing of minor roads and the submergence of low level bridges, and necessitates the removal of pumps located adjacent to the river. The lower limit of this class of flooding is the initial level at which landholders or townspeople start to be affected within the reach represented by the reference gauge used. The upper limit is the moderate flood level. Moderate flooding causes the inundation of low lying areas requiring removal of stock and/or evacuation of some houses. Main traffic bridges may be closed by floodwaters. The lower threshold for this class of flooding is the upper limit of minor flooding. Major flooding causes inundation of large areas, isolating towns and cities. Major disruptions occur to road and rail links. Evacuation of many houses and business premises may be required. In rural areas widespread flooding of farmland is likely. The lower threshold for this class of flooding is the upper limit of moderate flooding. Severe Major Severe Major flooding is a term that can be used for very extreme flooding (defined very broadly as flooding that has an Annual Exceedance Probability of 2% or less) or where the impacts are known to be extreme (e.g. a major flood in a heavily populated urban area). This term has been agreed among stakeholders and by the flood forecasters in New South Wales but is not formally used in other regions.

4. General Forecasting Model Description a. Describe, in chronological order, the forecasting methods that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes and what prompted any major changes/upgrades.

The development of forecasting methods has been mainly to take into account developments in computing. From paper based techniques this has progressed to automated data ingestion, integrated systems, web based interaction, remote interaction, ability push out model results to selected agencies for discussion, etc.

The forecasting methods include: • a simple rainfall, initial loss relationship using the concept of Antecedent Precipitation Index that is run for the whole country • regression techniques between peak heights on the same river (i.e. statistical relationships between upstream and downstream river heights. • a semi distributed, conceptual rainfall runoff model • spreadsheet based techniques for some special cases

The Bureau in months away from full implementation of a new forecasting system called HyFS, which is using an off-the-shelf DELFT_FEWS framework. The same framework is being used in the US National Weather Service and the UK Environment Agency.

5. Forecasting model structure a. Name of the forecasting model platform

The current platform is called HYMODEL – it runs on LINUX high end system, with full system redundancy and automated real time data ingestion.

Flood Modelling Engine: URBS - Unified River Basin Simulator

User interface and data processing (e.g. spatial interpolation of rainfall): HyModel

In the process of being implemented: SWIFT (Short Term Water Information Forecasting Tools) for 1-7 day continuous forecasting.

Adopting modelling framework: HyFS (Hydrologic Forecasting System) which is FEWS wrapped around SWIFT and URBS.

Seasonal forecasting has its own system b. Year implemented

URBS/Hymodel early development in late 1990s, operational in around 2000 c. In-house development (proprietary?) or ‘off-the shelf”?

Hymodel developed fully in-house. The rainfall runoff modelling software called URBS is off the shelf. d. If off-the-shelf, is the model annually contracted or purchased?

The Bureau has negotiated direct source access to URBS with no annual contract. URBS is used by many users in Australia and some overseas (e.g. the Mekong River Commission flood forecasters). e. Is the forecasting mode: i. continuous ii. event-based

URBS is event based… There has been some variants designed to change URBS to be continuous but the use is not widespread. SWIFT can be both event and continuous. iii. deterministic

Currently the forecast rainfall used is deterministic. There are plans to use ensemble forecast rainfall input from recent investment in research and development. iv. stochastic v. deterministic and stochastic combination? Deterministic forecasts will continue to play a big role even after implementing a capability to produce stochastic forecasts. f. What is the time required to setup the forecasting model?

Do you mean the time to set up the entire system? Add a new catchment to an existing system? Update an existing model? For updating the existing model we have a project to update all the models in a 240,000 sq km state in 6 months-- This includes 115 catchments with about 2-3 forecast gages each. g. What level of expertise is required to run the forecasting model?

The event model had parameters that are tuned in realtime but we attempt to minimize subjectivity. I suppose event modelling is like chess, an hour to learn, a lifetime to master. More expertise is required in interpreting the model results, i.e. in the context of local hydrologic knowledge and understanding the behaviour of past events. h. During operational mode, is the forecasting model fully automated or does it allow for some human interactions?

All the data ingestion and preparation is fully automated. The data quality control is currently manual (will be semi-automated in HyFS). The running of the event model is fully interactive.

The experimental continuous forecasting service (coming from SWIFT) is currently fully automated but the results need improvement and so we are drafting procedures for manual interactions with this product. I i. Is there any technical support available for the forecast model from the model developers?

The Hymodel system was developed in-house. The Bureau of Meteorology has the source code for URBS and SWIFT. There is a good working relationship with the developers. We have a contract with Deltares for the implementation of FEWS/HyFS. j. What type of operating system (Windows, Unix, Linux…) is used to run the forecasting model?

The event model is run on linux with a web browser interface (so that can be run by the forecasters from any system). The FEWS implementation will run on a combination of Windows and Linux. k. What are the general advantages and disadvantages of the forecasting model?

Do you mean the core model? Or the user interface? URBS is simple, transparent, flexible. URBS in particular is very stable in the sense that you can give input files with bad values and the model will still run (which can be good and bad). The continuous models are more objective and include better process representation than the event models. The disadvantages of the models are that they require calibration, their process representation is simplified (the statistical models have no process representation at all). The use of a web interface for HyModel means that the forecaster can run the model from anywhere.

6. Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model a. What is the temporal scale required to run the model (hourly/daily…)?

The longest timestep is 1 hour. The shortest timestep I know of is 15 minutes. b. What are the typical run times to ensure timely dissemination of forecasts?

The event model takes seconds to run. Computing time is a very small part of the operational process. c. What is the forecast lead-time (one day, 5 days, one week, etc.)?

This depends on the catchment size. Typically the forecasts cover the exceedance of a critical threshold or peak and the lead time may be up to 24 to 36 hours.

For the slow moving floods along the Murray-Darling Basin, weeks lead time is possible.

The continuous model for the new proposed short term flow forecasting service will be up to 7 days at hourly resolution. d. What is the spatial scale of the model (lumped/distributed/watershed)?

The models are semi-distributed. It would be typical to have 5-25 homogeneous model units above a forecasting gage.

7. Describe the different physical processes considered by the Flood Forecasting Model a. Interception

This is covered by initial and continuing loss parameters b. Excess precipitation (rain/snow)

Do you mean infiltration excess? Or just runoff? URBS can in theory do infiltration excess but it is rarely used. Within SWIFT, we use the French rainfall runoff model GR4H. GR4H includes a top and bottom tank but the creators purposefully don't assign physical processes to what is going on in each tank. c. Snowmelt

None d. Runoff-generation mechanism

URBS is event-based. There's an initial loss and a continuing loss. See above about GR4H. e. Overland flow routing

URBS uses "catchment routing" which is a right hand time-area diagram (proportional to subarea size) followed by a nonlinear storage with a single calibrated parameter. GR4H uses a unit hydrograph for routing. The process is 1. Precipitation partitioned into runoff and losses 2. Runoff conveyed to channel by catchment routing 3. Streamflow conveyed down channel by channel routing. f. Soil Moisture

URBS has a parameter for initial loss and so it is not simulated by the model but rather supplied/tuned by the user. Some people use an API index to estimate initial loss. See above about GR4H. g. Infiltration

See above h. Interflow

Not specifically i. Baseflow

URBS can model baseflow in that the observed flow at the start of the model run can be persisted into the future and the output of the runoff generation is in excess of baseflow. j. Evapotranspiration

This is indirectly modelled in URBS through its losses. k. Channel routing

Muskingum routing is used for both GR4H and URBS. l. Reservoir routing

URBS can model reservoirs by a stage-storage-discharge table or a formula. SWIFT has 4 ways reservoirs can be managed. m. Additional processes

URBS has the ability to remove water from the channel at a given point and (if desired) return it downstream. This may be used to model anabranches or diversions. URBS also has general loss statements at a point (e.g. remove 50% of the flow at this point). URBS can also take a water level and a dam outflow time series to calculate an inferred dam inflow time series.

8. Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibration a. What data-management tools are currently in use by the forecast center for gathering, storing, analyzing, quality checking, retrieving and integrating data?

The system has automated data ingestion and manipulation system.

This is a very big question and the Bureau has many data systems (some might argue too many). If you want to know more, we can follow up. We will also be using the data management tools in FEWS when that's operational. b. Describe, in chronological order, the database-management systems/programs that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes.

The current system is part of the Australian Integrated Forecasting System (AIFS) and has been in use since the 1990s. c. Describe the climate data required by the current model(s) used (precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind-speed, etc.)

Precipitation. The continuous model uses potential evapotranspiration but that is calculated by others within the Bureau. d. What is the adequacy of climate and hydrometric data network? If there are not adequate data, how does the center address data gaps?

The climate and hydrometric network has been developed mainly to meet other purposes and not necessarily to reflect the data density required for flood forecasting models. There is extreme variability in gauge density. The Northern Territory as a whole averages 1 gage per 13,360 km2. Tasmania average 1 gauge per 630 km2.

Where the data is insufficient we do not provide a service or we use other tools to make the forecasts (e.g. statistical relationships between upstream and downstream flow). e. What is the method used to quantify the uncertainties related to climate data used as input to the forecasting model? Does the centre conduct sensitivity/uncertainty analyses?

During manual model calibration of URBS, the forecaster uses judgment to tell if a gage is good or bad. If the gage is bad it can be turned off for the entirety of the event. The spatial interpolation of rainfall then ignores this bad location. In HyFS, certain time steps can be voided (rather than the entire event). f. Describe basin related data required by the model (Digital Elevation Model, land-use, soils).

Elevation, river network, location of gauges. g. What type of, if any, hydrological model calibration is currently used by the forecasting center?

Manual calibration of URBS with some recent experimentation with automatic calibration. SWIFT uses Shuffled Complex Evolution for automatic calibration. h. Describe data used to calibrate forecast model (observed streamflow, soil moisture…).

Observed streamflow and river levels.

i. Does the forecast model have a data-assimilation (automatic updating) scheme? How and what information is used in the data-assimilation process?

Manual data assimilation through what we call "matching" and others have called "flow insertion"- observed upstream flow replaces the simulated flow in the past and the result is routed downstream. Also, the forecasters manually tune the model parameters in realtime.

The SWIFT has error correction techniques (i.e. Autoregressive). j. Is ensemble weather forecast used to drive flow forecasting?

In URBS and SWIFT currently no, but when we transition to FEWS then we can use a collection of deterministic rainfall forecasts. We also have a post-processor for SWIFT that converts a deterministic rainfall forecast into an ensemble.

We also have an internal research program to generate rainfall ensembles using the STEPS procedure. This could be operational in 2015 k. Is flow forecasting done as an ensemble?

No except for a limited subset of SWIFT models that are currently preoperational. l. What are the approaches and methods used to quantify forecast uncertainty?

The warnings, when quoting forecasts, use language such as “expected to exceed”, to convey the uncertainty.

The seasonal streamflow forecasts have an extremely heavy emphasis on uncertainty, using Bayesian techniques to sample parameter uncertainty and the final products are fully probabilistic.

9. Forecast Products Dissemination Protocols a. What information is provided to public/media/decision makers: single peak-value flow, water levels, ensemble of probabilistic forecasts, etc.

• A potential for flooding in an early warning products called flood watch

• A predicted water level, which can be a peak value;

• A range between critical thresholds (minor, moderate, or major)

• Detailed briefing on expected flood behaviour to decision makers.

Attached is a very typical example of the type of product we distribute to the public:

IDQ20765 Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Queensland

MODERATE FLOOD WARNING FOR THE CONNORS AND ISAAC RIVERS Issued at 9:10 am EST on Wednesday 16 April 2014 by the Bureau of Meteorology, Brisbane.

Issue Number: 5

Moderate flood levels continue to slowly rise on the Isaac River at Yatton, as floodwaters approach a peak during Wednesday.

CONNORS AND ISAAC RIVERS: Moderate flood levels on the Connors River at Pink Lagoon remain high at a peak around 10 metres during Wednesday morning. River levels are expected to commence to ease more rapidly and fall below moderate overnight Wednesday.

Moderate flood levels continue to slowly rise downstream on the Isaac River at Yatton.

MACKENZIE RIVER: Small river rises are occurring along the Mackenzie River between Tartrus and Coolmaringa as floodwaters from the Isaac catchment arrive. However river levels will remain well below the minor flood level.

FITZROY RIVER: Small river rises are expected along the Fitzroy River during the weekend and into next week as upstream floodwaters arrive. However river levels will remain well below the minor flood level. Predicted River Heights/Flows: ISAAC RIVER at: YATTON: Moderate flood levels expected to peak around 11 metres Wednesday afternoon or evening.

Remember: If it's flooded, forget it. For flood emergency assistance contact the SES on 132 500. For life threatening emergencies, call Triple Zero (000) immediately. Current emergency information is available at www.disaster.qld.gov.au .

Weather Forecast: For the latest weather forecasts see: www.bom.gov.au/qld/forecasts .

Next Issue: The next warning will be issued by 4pm Wednesday.

Latest River Heights: Connors R at Pink Lagoon * 10.12m falling 08:00 AM WED 16/04/14 Isaac R at Yatton * 9.88m rising 06:00 AM WED 16/04/14 Mackenzie R at Tartrus * 6.8m rising 07:45 AM WED 16/04/14 Fitzroy R at Riverslea * 1.74m steady 08:00 AM WED 16/04/14 Fitzroy R at Rockhampton NA * auto station

Warnings and River Height Bulletins are available at www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood. Flood Warnings are also available on telephone 1300 659 219 at a low call cost of 27.5 cents, more from mobile, public and satellite phones. b. How is forecast information disseminated to the public (radio, television, internet, email)? What is the frequency of this dissemination?

Flood warning issued products as needed (i.e. there is no product if there is no flood). When flooding is on, products can be updated daily, 12-hourly or more frequently as needed. The warnings are issued on the internet but are also pushed directly to critical decision-makers (e.g. emergency services). c. How are forecast uncertainties communicated to the public/media/decision makers?

We use words like "may" and "could" in the warnings. Also, flood watches imply less certainty than flood warnings. We are developing templates for our warnings so as to standardize the language and content. d. What measures have the forecast center put in place to ensure that forecast information is correctly interpreted and used by the general public?

Australian social scientists have worked with emergency managers to study the interpretation and use of forecasts and have written best-practices guidelines that we use. For example http://www.em.gov.au/Emergency- Warnings/Documents/EmergencyWarningsChoosingYourWordsEdition2.pdf e. Are there any mechanisms in place to get feedback from the public about forecasts that would help in assessing performance measures of the forecast centre?

We work with emergency services to get feedback.

Many significant flood events lead to community meetings to review the event, in which we participate. We also hold internal debriefs.

10. Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews a. Has the forecasting centre conducted any formal or informal performance review? (If there is a report of such review, can a copy be made available to us?)

We have developed measures to assess performance. We carry out internal reviews after each significant flood event following an agreed format. b. Were there challenges of performance measurement?

Historically there has been a lack of archival of forecasts or it has been difficult to retrieve forecasts from an archive. As the forecasts are freeform text, further work is needed to extract quantitative statements from warnings.

c. What performance indices, parameters and measurements are assessed? This might include accuracy of forecasts for:

We can provide more details as required, possibly through our reports. Skill varies widely by location, season and leadtime. i. Rainfall (peak intensity, snow amount, duration of peak rain…) ii. River flow (peak flow, time of the peak flow, hydrograph of the peak flow) iii. River level (peak level near the time of the event, time of peak level, …) d. What are the current deficiencies in performance measures? e. What types of performance measures are used? This might include quantitative measures such as: i. Maximum error of forecast ii. Mean error iii. Bias iv. Standard deviation v. Lead-time error

ESRD – River Forecast Centre Performance Measures Development Project Questionnaire-Bavaria River Forecast Center

1. Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre a. What year was the flood-forecast centre established? Successive establishment of the forecast-centers in the year 2000 to 2005 b. Why was the flood-forecast centre established? Was there a specific event that resulted in this decision? Please explain. Until 2000, the flood information service in Bavaria primarily served as a reporting service that collected water gauge records and forwarded these – supplied with a trend comment – to those concerned. The amount of quantitative flood forecasts was limited. Simple methods were used, e.g. regression functions for gauges. Because of the increasing damage and the increasing number of floods - in particularly the Whitsuntide Flood in 1999 - the Bavarian State government established an Action Program for sustainable flood protection led by a long term flood prevention and protection strategy until 2020. Part of this program was the development of flood forecast models as well as the implementation of an automatic online rain gauge network and an optimization of the existing river gauge network. The dissemination of flood information based on means of modern communication and its reliability was improved. c. How was the flood-forecast centre established? (For example, was the flood forecasting responsibility added to an existing government division/department?) Flood forecasting responsibility was added to the Bavarian Environmental Agency. The organization of flood forecasts includes 5 forecast-centers covering different catchment basins. Three of the centers are located at the Bavarian Environmental Agency. Two of them are located at two different regional state offices for water management. d. Is the flood forecasting centre within Federal or provincial/state jurisdiction? Federal jurisdiction. e. What is the service area of your forecast centre (i.e. what is the jurisdictional area the you are responsible for forecasting floods/river flows within) Federal state of Bavaria in Germany f. What is the current population within the service area of the forecasting centre? About 12 millions. g. How many staff members are currently employed at the forecasting centre? About 12 hydrologists and engineers. h. Please briefly describe major cause of flood events (such as snowmelt driven or rainfall) and note if there is a change in primary cause of floods in the last decade. All types of floods (summer floods by rain, winter and spring flood by snowmelt and rain, flash floods in the alps) 2. Objectives and Operation of the Center a. What are the mandates of the forecasting centre? The forecast centers create and disseminate waterlevel and discharge forecasts for the warning-centers at the state offices for water management. They issue only early warnings based of their forecast to the state offices for water management. Warning is the mandate of the state offices. State offices for water management cover a region of 3-4 counties. b. When and how are the following communiques issued to the public, media or government officials?

All communiques are issued immediately in the internet and by phone/fax to official recipients. i. Long-term flood outlook (e.g., spring flood outlook) There is no long-term outlook ii. Flood Warnings Early warning 1-2 days before the event Warning of minor flooding or flooding of farmland (alert levels 1 or 2) Warning of flooding of built-up areas (alert level 3 and 4) iii. Flood Advisories Flood bulletin during flood up to 3-times a day iv. Flash-flood warnings There are no special flash-flood warnings but the weather warnings of the German Meterological Service (DWD) v. Other type of flood reports not covered in items (i) to (iv) above None c. Please briefly describe the emergency services structure during major floods. The link between flood warning and emergency measures is located at the county district offices and the emergency service at major cities. They get the warnings from the state offices of water management and act according to emergency plans.

3. General drainage basin characteristics within the forecast center jurisdiction a. Can the various forecast basins in the centers jurisdiction be grouped into areas with similar runoff characteristics and flood concerns (eg mountainous with flash flood potential, flat with widespread flooding potential)? What are the different drainage basin types managed by the forecast centre? Two major basins: Main 24.000 km², tributary to the Rhine-River, major floods in winter and spring caused by heavy rains often in combination with snowmelt Danube 78.000 km² major floods of northern tributaries in winter and spring and southern tributaries with alpine regime where major floods are in summer. For a detailed description of a typical summer flood see [4]. More detailed subdivision according to the forecast models of catchment basins in fig. 4 in [2]. The table 2 contains details. The grid-size “gr” is 1 km². b. For each of the above drainage basin types please describe the following: i. Range of watershed size of the forecast areas Forecast areas related to forecasted gauges covers areas of about 100 km² up to 78.000 km² at the Danube. ii. Topography/relief All kinds except coastal plains iii. The dominant land-use types (urban, forest, agriculture…) Mostly agricultural and forested areas iv. General climate description including temperature, precipitation averages and extremes Alpine Region, low mountain range and plains of the middle latitudes in temperate climates, hydrologic regimes: alpine (summer floods), mixed (winter & summer floods), winter (spring) floods

Mean annual temperature of the year are 7.8 °C Mean seasonal temperature spring (03-05) 7.6 °C, summer (06-08) 16.2 °C, autumn (09-11) 7.8 °C and winter (12-02) -0.5 °C Mean annual precipitation in Bavaria about 900 mm, ranging from 500 in dryer parts of the north to 2000 mm in the south (alpine area). v. Regulated/non-regulated river flows Danube, Lech, Isar and Inn (alpine tributaries) are regulated and used for hydropower. There are 25 major water reservoirs in Bavaria. vi. Typical hydro-meteorological conditions and timing that result in major flood events. Is it possible for multiple of these conditions to occur simultaneously (such as rain on snowmelt, rain while flooding is ongoing) thereby increasing flood risk? Numerous types of floods as mentioned in iv. vii. Flood risks (for example, infrastructure such as dams, highways and bridges, urban settlement (population), agricultural land, etc.) Numerous Flood risks listed in Flood risk maps. Cannot be mentioned in detail here.

4. General Forecasting Model Description a. Describe, in chronological order, the forecasting methods that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes and what prompted any major changes/upgrades. Event-based distributed precipitation runoff models (LARSIM) since 2000, still in use, very effective compared to formerly used lumped and regression methods. Continuous water-balance model (LARSIM) since 2007 successive for most subbasins until now. At extreme events the better quality of forecast results than the event based version is not proved yet. Hydrodynamic models for regulated rivers are used since 2010 to include the operation of river barrages and give better results than the hydrologic flood routing in LARSIM model. 5. Forecasting model structure a. Name of the forecasting model platform LARSIM (see more detailed description of the water-balance model in [5] or larsim.sourgforce.net) b. Year implemented The model is used since 2002 and is developed to improved versions until now. c. In-house development (proprietary?) or ‘off-the shelf”? Development together with authorities in other federal countries in Germany. The model is proprietary. d. If off-the-shelf, is the model annually contracted or purchased? e. e. Is the forecasting mode: i. continuous yes ii. event-based yes iii. deterministic yes iv. stochastic no

v. deterministic and stochastic combination? no f. What is the time required to setup the forecasting model? More or less 6 months based on GIS-data. g. What level of expertise is required to run the forecasting model? The model itself can be run automatically, the event-based model needs hydrologic experience in setting a factor to the moisture-status of the catchment. But you need skilled experts for handling calibration and for setting and updating operational parameters of the model h. During operational mode, is the forecasting model fully automated or does it allow for some human interactions? It can be run fully automated, but in practice there is at least daily interaction with operators. i. Is there any technical support available for the forecast model from the model developers? Yes, but most of it in German language. j. What type of operating system (Windows, Unix, Linux…) is used to run the forecasting model? Windows k. What are the general advantages and disadvantages of the forecasting model?

6. Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model a. What is the temporal scale required to run the model (hourly/daily…)? Hourly b. What are the typical run times to ensure timely dissemination of forecasts? Before and during an event the forecasts are run every 1 to 4 hour. Some import gauging station are run hourly 24x7. In case of no event the models are run at least once a day. c. What is the forecast lead-time (one day, 5 days, one week, etc.)? Four days for internal use, up to 24 hours in publication (internet). d. What is the spatial scale of the model (lumped/distributed/watershed)? Distributed models with 1 x 1 km grid or 1 to 5 km² subbasins

7. Describe the different physical processes considered by the Flood Forecasting Model All of the following processes are included in the LARSIM-model (see [5]) a. Interception b. Excess precipitation (rain/snow) c. Snowmelt d. Runoff-generation mechanism e. Overland flow routing f. Soil Moisture g. Infiltration h. Interflow i. Baseflow

j. Evapotranspiration k. Channel routing l. Reservoir routing m. Additional processes

8. Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibration a. What data-management tools are currently in use by the forecast center for gathering, storing, analyzing, quality checking, retrieving and integrating data? There are many tools and a Java-based user interface for operating the model runs and data flow. All of the tools are in house developments. b. Describe, in chronological order, the database-management systems/programs that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes c. Describe the climate data required by the current model(s) used (precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind-speed, etc.) LARSIM event based: precipitation, air temperature, wind velocity, discharge, measurement of Snow depth and water content (if available) LARSIM water balance: Precipitation, Air temperature, humidity, global radiation, air pressure, Wind velocity, dew point temperatur, Discharge, measurement of snow depth and snow water equivalent (if avalaible) Hydrodynamic models: Inflow (from upstream end and from other knots, calculated by the precipitation-runoff models, Headwater-level optional for assimilation (only FLUX- FLORIS)

d. What is the adequacy of climate and hydrometric data network? If there are not adequate data, how does the center address data gaps? The station network is adequate. Missing data can be tolerated up to a certain amount. The model itself runs even without measurement data based only the meteorological forecasts. But in this case there is no assimilation to the data and the results are not useful. e. What is the method used to quantify the uncertainties related to climate data used as input to the forecasting model? Does the centre conduct sensitivity/uncertainty analyses? There are analyses of the sensitivity of the model parameters and input data in general, but the center doesn’t conduct these analyses. f. Describe basin related data required by the model (Digital Elevation Model, land-use, soils). As you mentioned in the brackets: Digital Elevation Model, digital net of water courses, land use map, soil map, data of in and outflows, data of reservoirs, estimation of mean cross-sections of river reaches, estimation of roughness coefficients. g. What type of, if any, hydrological model calibration is currently used by the forecasting center? There is a special guide for calibration of the LARSIM model. h. Describe data used to calibrate forecast model (observed streamflow, soil moisture…). Same as 8 c.

i. Does the forecast model have a data-assimilation (automatic updating) scheme? How and what information is used in the data-assimilation process? There is a sophisticated automatic updating scheme, which can be configured depending of flow situation (low-, mean-, high) and reliability of the gauging station. It’s possible to update precipitation input and/or soil moisture content. j. Is ensemble weather forecast used to drive flow forecasting? Yes, but until now not in the routine operation, only in advance of coming events. k. Is flow forecasting done as an ensemble? Yes, as j. l. What are the approaches and methods used to quantify forecast uncertainty? Until now we do statistical analysis of the errors in the past forecasts to get the total error. In future we use the ensemble forecast to separate between uncertainty resulting from the meteorological forecast and the uncertainty of the hydrological model.

9. Forecast Products Dissemination Protocols a. What information is provided to public/media/decision makers: single peak-value flow, water levels, ensemble of probabilistic forecasts, etc.? Hourly hydrograph and table values with an uncertainty band, see http://www.hnd.bayern.de/pegel/wasserstand/pegel_wasserstand.php?pgnr=18009000 &standalone= b. How is forecast information disseminated to the public (radio, television, internet, email)? What is the frequency of this dissemination? Until now forecast are disseminated only by internet, but warnings and the actual data are also in television and can be called by phone (automatic speech generation) c. How are forecast uncertainties communicated to the public/media/decision makers? see the example in 9 a. d. What measures have the forecast center put in place to ensure that forecast information is correctly interpreted and used by the general public? We try to publish only forecasts of gauging stations from which we know that they are quite reliable. All other forecasts are disseminated only to the state offices for water management. They are trained in interpretation of the forecasts in yearly meetings with the forecast centers and use the forecast in their flood warnings. e. Are there any mechanisms in place to get feedback from the public about forecasts that would help in assessing performance measures of the forecast centre? No, there is not a real mechanism, but the forecast centers get the feedback from the state offices and they keep contact to the county emergency administration. 10. Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews a. Has the forecasting centre conducted any formal or informal performance review? (If there is a report of such review, can a copy be made available to us?) We did some, but there is no report about it. b. Were there challenges of performance measurement? (For example would the weather forecast performance impact the hydrologic forecast performance and emergency response performance?) The NWP is the limiting factor of reliability of forecasts for lead times beyond the time of concentration in the catchment. The uncertainty in the NWP is explicitly higher as the uncertainty of the forecasts based on the measurements.

c. What performance indices, parameters and measurements are assessed? This might include accuracy of forecasts for: i. Rainfall (peak intensity, snow amount, duration of peak rain…) ii. River flow (peak flow, time of the peak flow, hydrograph of the peak flow) iii. River level (peak level near the time of the event, time of peak level, …) d. What are the current deficiencies in performance measures? e. What types of performance measures are used? This might include quantitative measures such as: i. Maximum error of forecast ii. Mean error iii. Bias iv. Standard deviation v. Lead-time error The difference of measured and forecasted values for different hydrological situations such as low- and mean-flows, immediately before the event, during the event and at decreasing flows (see 8 l)) and fore more detail [3] are used to get a measure of the uncertainty for different lead-times. Performance indices are used in the calibration and verification of the models; at most Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient. Literature:

[1] VOGELBACHER, A. (2011): Flood Warning in Bavaria. IN: Gupta, Anil K. and Nair, Sreeja S. (2011): Abstract Volume of International Conference Environmental Knowledge for Disaster Risk Management, 10-11 May 2011, New Delhi P 64, Conference Organised by NIDM & GIZ-ASEM.

[2] HANGEN-BRODERSEN, C. / VOGELBACHER, A. / HOLLE, F.-K. (2008): Operational Flood Forecast in Bavaria. 24th Conference of the Danubian Countries. 2.-4. June 2008. Bled, Slovenia.

[3] LAURENT, S. / EHRET, U. / MEYER, I. / MORITZ, K. / VOGELBACHER, A. (2008): Dealing with Uncertainty of Hydrological Forecasts in the Bavarian Danube Catchment. 24th Conference of the Danubian Countries. 2.-4. June 2008. Bled, Slovenia.

[4] VOGELBACHER, A. / DAAMEN, K. / HOLLE, F.-K. / MEYER, I. / ROSER, S. (2006): Hydrological aspects of the flood in August 2005 in the Bavarian Danube Catchment. 23nd Conference of the Danube Countries on the Hydrological Forecasting and Hydrological Bases of Water Management. 28 – 30. August 2006. Belgrade, Republic of Serbia.

[5] BREMICKER, M. / LUDWIG, K. (2006): The Water Balance Model LARSIM – Design, Content and Applications. Freiburger Schriften zur Hydrologie, Band 22.

Copies of these papers are attached in the E-Mail.

Dr. Alfons Vogelbacher Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt Bürgermeister-Ulrich-Straße 160 86179 Augsburg Tel. +49 821/9071-5960

ESRD – River Forecast Centre Performance Measures Development Project Questionnaire-British Columbia River Forecast Center 1. Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre a. What year was the flood-forecast centre established?

1973

b. Why was the flood-forecast centre established? Was there a specific event that resulted in this decision? Please explain.

An initial program of snow surveying and monitoring was established in the province in 1949 in response to heavy flooding on the Fraser River in 1948. Following a heavy snow pack year and subsequent flooding in 1972, the “Flood Forecast Centre” was established

c. How was the flood-forecast centre established? (For example, was the flood forecasting responsibility added to an existing government division/department?)

Not entirely clear of the process, but was added to existing government division with linkages to the snow survey program

d. Is the flood forecasting centre within Federal or provincial/state jurisdiction?

Provincial

e. What is the service area of your forecast centre ( i.e. what is the jurisdictional area the you are responsible for forecasting floods/river flows within)

In theory there is full provincial coverage (British Columbia) for forecasting, approximately 950,000km2. Our hydrologic model forecasts currently extend for approximately 1/3 of the province (300,000km2).

f. What is the current population within the service area of the forecasting centre?

Approximately 4.5 million people (entire population of province)

g. How many staff members are currently employed at the forecasting centre?

4.5 (One technician, 2 forecast hydrologist, 1 lead forecaster/section head, 0.5 FTE Manager). Note there is another 1 FTE in another related department that is responsible for hydraulic modelling

h. Please briefly describe major cause of flood events (such as snowmelt driven or rainfall) and note if there is a change in primary cause of floods in the last decade.

In general floods in the Interior of the province are snow-melt driven, and those on the Coast are rain or rain-on-snow driven

2. Objectives and Operation of the Center a. What are the mandates of the forecasting centre? Staff of the River Forecast Centre (RFC) collect and interpret snow, meteorological and streamflow data to provide warnings and forecasts of stream and lake runoff conditions around the province. Most of the meteorological and streamflow data are collected by other agencies, but the RFC is the lead agency in British Columbia for: flood warnings and advisories; snow survey, streamflow (incl low flow) and water supply bulletins; provincial snow pack analysis and reporting

b. When and how are the following communiques issued to the public, media or government officials?

i. Long-term flood outlook (e.g., spring flood outlook)

Released monthly Jan-April, twice a month during melt season (May and June). Emailed to partner agencies (eg emergency response, internal government stakeholders, federal government counterparts, energy agencies, crown corps). Emergency Management BC distributes the information widely (including dissemination to local governments). Information is also posted to RFC website. The RFC also does various media communications following the release of each bulletin

ii. Flood Warnings

The RFC has 3 levels of advisory. A High Streamflow Advisory means that river levels are rising or expected to rise rapidly, but that no major flooding is expected. Minor flooding in low-lying areas is possible. A Flood Watch means that river levels are rising and will approach or may exceed bankfull. Flooding of areas adjacent to affected rivers may occur. A Flood Warning means that river levels have exceeded bankfull or will exceed bankfull imminently, and that flooding of areas adjacent to the rivers affected will result.

Advisories and Warnings are sent by email to our distribution lists (including internal government stakeholders, emergency management etc, as with the snow bulletin). Emergency Management distributes information via their communication channels to local governments and emergency response groups. Warnings and advisories are also posted to the RFC website.

During emergency response, Emergency Management BC(EMBC) hosts co-ordination phone calls with affected communities and organizations to assist with emergency response. The RFC participates on these calls to provide technical support to the flood response through by providing and interpreting river forecasts for affected areas.

There are no official standards around when advisories/warning are issued. Typically warnings will be issued in ascending order (high streamflow advisory, flood watch, flood warning), unless there are indications that a higher level is warranted. Typically advisories/warnings are issued as once forecasts indicate the potential for flood conditions. Operationally warnings are issued up to a few days ahead of time, up to hours before. Once an advisory/warning is issued, it will typically be updated 1-3 times a day as further information is available. When there are indications that there may be flood conditions 3+ days in the future, sometimes early communication with stakeholders will occur through conference calls with EMBC(ie “head’s up”)

iii. Flood Advisories

Same as above

iv. Flash-flood warnings

Depends what is considered to be a “flash-flood”. We use the same procedures as above for extreme rainfall events in flashy watersheds (ie where the response time from rainfall to flooding can be on the order of hours)

v. Other type of flood reports not covered in items (i) to (iv) above

During spring snowmelt season we also produce weekly medium term (ie 2-10 day outlook) commentaries for on-going seasonal risk

c. Please briefly describe the emergency services structure during major floods.

Emergency response and services are provided at a local government/regional district level. The provincial government (through EMBC) provides support to local authorities to assist with emergency response, and also co-ordinate response with other agencies (eg utilities, health authorities, etc). The province also assists with technical support (such as flood assessment and flood forecasting)

3. General drainage basin characteristics within the forecast center jurisdiction a. Can the various forecast basins in the centers jurisdiction be grouped into areas with similar runoff characteristics and flood concerns (eg mountainous with flash flood potential, flat with widespread flooding potential)? What are the different drainage basin types managed by the forecast centre?

Broadly speaking drainage basins can be characterized as “coastal” or “interior” watersheds. Coastal watersheds are mountainous, and quite flashy. Flooding typically occurs during extreme rainfall events in the fall-winter period (ie atmospheric river events). Interior watersheds typically flood during the snow melt period (May-June). Rainfall events can still be important for snowmelt basins. There are some coastal watersheds that are considered “hybrid” systems that can experience flooding from snowmelt in the spring or extreme rain in the fall-winter.

There are some areas of the province that experience ice-jam flooding, though there is typically less work done by the RFC to forecast these events.

b. For each of the above drainage basin types please describe the following:

A. Coastal watersheds

i. Range of watershed size of the forecast areas

Typically small to medium size watersheds (100-3000 km2)

ii. Topography/relief

Mountainous, steep watersheds. Relief typically 1000-3000m iii. The dominant land-use types (urban, forest, agriculture…)

Varied. Primarily forestry in basins, some urban interface on floodplains, some agriculture on floodplains. Increasing micro-hydro development

iv. General climate description including temperature, precipitation averages and extremes

Maritime climate, moist, temperate. Annual precipitation 1200- 5000+mm/year. Extreme rainfall events typically 120+ mm/24 hour.

v. Regulated/non-regulated river flows

Mostly unregulated. Do not specifically model regulated systems

vi. Typical hydro-meteorological conditions and timing that result in major flood events. Is it possible for multiple of these conditions to occur simultaneously (such as rain on snowmelt, rain while flooding is ongoing) thereby increasing flood risk?

Extreme events typically associated with atmospheric river events originating in the tropical/sub-tropical Pacific, from September to March. Warm moist air during extreme events can lead to added snowmelt at mid-elevations during extreme rain events which often occurs during flooding.

vii. Flood risks (for example, infrastructure such as dams, highways and bridges, urban settlement (population), agricultural land, etc.)

Dams, highways and bridges, usually landslides occur at the same time and can impact, forestry transportation infrastructure, urban settlements, rural and remote communities particularly vulnerable, including First Nations

For each of the above drainage basin types please describe the following:

B. Interior watersheds

viii. Range of watershed size of the forecast areas

Typically medium to large size watersheds (1000-220,000 km2)

ix. Topography/relief

Varies around the province. Includes mountainous headwater areas (Columbia Mountains, Rocky Mountains, Coast Mountains), but also Interior Plateau areas. Mountainous areas include relief (1000-3000m). Plateau areas more subdued (300-1000m)

x. The dominant land-use types (urban, forest, agriculture…)

Varied. Primarily forestry in basins, some urban interface on floodplains, some agriculture on floodplains. xi. General climate description including temperature, precipitation averages and extremes

Continental climate. Cool to Cold winters (cooler in the North-East with Arctic influce) hotter in spring summer (hot through south Interior). Annual precipitation 300-1000+mm/year. Extreme rainfall events typically 60+ mm/24 hour.

xii. Regulated/non-regulated river flows

Some major regulated systems (Nechako, Williston/Peace, Columbia). Do not specifically model regulated systems. Majority of the Fraser River system is unregulated.

xiii. Typical hydro-meteorological conditions and timing that result in major flood events. Is it possible for multiple of these conditions to occur simultaneously (such as rain on snowmelt, rain while flooding is ongoing) thereby increasing flood risk?

Extreme events typically associated with high snow packs and either hot or wet weather during the spring and early summer (typically May through late-June). High snow packs are typically not sufficient alone to cause flood-require extreme weather as driver. The rainy season in the Interior co-incides with the snow melt period (May and June are the wettest months in the Interior) so rain-driver flooding during the snow melt season (when rivers are already flowing high) is common.

xiv. Flood risks (for example, infrastructure such as dams, highways and bridges, urban settlement (population), agricultural land, etc.)

Larger urban areas at risk, particularly the in the Greater Vancouver area (Lower Fraser River floodplain). Dams, highways and bridges, usually landslides occur at the same time and can impact, forestry transportation infrastructure, urban settlements, rural and remote communities vulnerable

4. General Forecasting Model Description a. Describe, in chronological order, the forecasting methods that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes and what prompted any major changes/upgrades.

Lumped sum deterministic modelling (for Fraser River). Fairly old model (1974). Has had recent upgrades in coding to be able to run on a GUI platform, with increased functionality. Modest ensemble forecasting and scenario running is possible. Seasonal forecasting using multiple linear regression, and more recently (2011) Principle Component Analysis. A lot of interpretive forecasting (what we call “grey modelling”)

5. Forecasting model structure a. Name of the forecasting model platform WARNS (Water and Routing Numeric System) b. Year implemented

1974 c. In-house development (proprietary?) or ‘off-the shelf”?

In-house d. If off-the-shelf, is the model annually contracted or purchased? e. Is the forecasting mode:

i. continuous

ii. event-based

iii. deterministic

iv. stochastic

v. deterministic and stochastic combination? f. What is the time required to setup the forecasting model?

There is seasonal calibration required at the start of the snow melt season (few weeks of calibration). Daily operations require a few hours to prepare data, run model and interpret results. g. What level of expertise is required to run the forecasting model?

Fairly high level of expertise h. During operational mode, is the forecasting model fully automated or does it allow for some human interactions?

Human interaction i. Is there any technical support available for the forecast model from the model developers?

No j. What type of operating system (Windows, Unix, Linux…) is used to run the forecasting model?

Windows. We run the model off of an Aquarius platform (written in Matlab?) k. What are the general advantages and disadvantages of the forecasting model?

Advantages – has been used a long time and performs fairly well Disadvantages – not process-based, lack of integration with data acquisition streams, only covers part of the forecast region

6. Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model a. What is the temporal scale required to run the model (hourly/daily…)?

daily

b. What are the typical run times to ensure timely dissemination of forecasts?

Typically 2-4 hours from data acquisition and preparation, model run and calibration and interpretation/dissemination. Model itself takes just a few seconds to run

c. What is the forecast lead-time (one day, 5 days, one week, etc.)?

5 days

d. What is the spatial scale of the model (lumped/distributed/watershed)?

Lumped sum model, with modelling completed in several sub-basins.

7. Describe the different physical processes considered by the Flood Forecasting Model

a. Interception

Not specifically modelled

b. Excess precipitation (rain/snow)

Calculated from weather observations/forecasts

c. Snowmelt

Snowmelt runoff is calculated based on a temperature-index method. Snow packs are manually entered as an initial condition (including coverage by elevation band and snow density)

d. Runoff-generation mechanism

Flows not fractionated. Precip and snow melt calculated into runoff

e. Overland flow routing

Not specifically accounted for

f. Soil Moisture

Soil moisture is an calibrated as an initial condition in the model

g. Infiltration

Not specifically calculated h. Interflow

Not specifically modelled

i. Baseflow

Baseflow is calibrated as an initial condition in the model

j. Evapotranspiration

Not specifically modelled

k. Channel routing

Modelled routing between forecast nodes

l. Reservoir routing

Some routing through sub-basins

m. Additional processes

8. Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibration a. What data-management tools are currently in use by the forecast center for gathering, storing, analyzing, quality checking, retrieving and integrating data?

Data is acquired through various methods. Some primary data is received via GOES satellite (snow pillow data, weather data, some hydrometric data) and decoded and ingested onto RFC servers. Other data is acquired though ftp and scheduled retrieval tasks. Some data is emailed directly to the RFC (some hydrometric data products). Some data is manually downloaded. Data is stored on a primary and back-up server. Data manipulation, processing and analysis for modelling and forecasting is done on and stored on local computers. With the transfer from the DOMSAT to LRIT satellite systems, we may be moving away from having our own satellite dish used for data acquisition, and moving towards internet only data feeds, with server back-up and network redundancy built into the system.

b. Describe, in chronological order, the database-management systems/programs that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes.

I am not fully familiar with the progression of data management systems in the RFC. Previously there was some management of snow data using a VAX system. The snow data was upgraded to a system called WIDM in the early 2000’s? Currently we pull data off the GOES network using the DCS Toolkit and LRGS database. The snow data is still managed within WIDM, but that is currently being transferred over to an Aquarius database. The RFC still lacks a primary data management system that is used for data acquisition and data management of its forecast data.

c. Describe the climate data required by the current model(s) used (precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind-speed, etc.) The WARNS model itself runs off max-min daily temperature, daily precipitation and snow pack data d. What is the adequacy of climate and hydrometric data network? If there are not adequate data, how does the center address data gaps?

Model has been calibrated/designed around exisiting climate networks. For grey modelling in smaller, flashy watersheds, local precipitation is very important and we have gaps in coverage. We address gaps in data by interpretation (done on the fly) e. What is the method used to quantify the uncertainties related to climate data used as input to the forecasting model? Does the centre conduct sensitivity/uncertainty analyses?

Don’t quantify uncertainty in climate data or complete sensitivity analsyis on climate data f. Describe basin related data required by the model (Digital Elevation Model, land-use, soils).

Model uses rough hypsometric curves to delineate elevation bands within the watershed. There are calibration coefficients hard coded into the model that account for watershed parameters at a coarse level g. What type of, if any, hydrological model calibration is currently used by the forecasting center?

We do daily operational calibration while running the model. This includes adjusting model initial conditions (eg snowpack) to improve model fit. Current model performance is calculated and tracked through the season. Offset are applied to model if it is under or over estimating. h. Describe data used to calibrate forecast model (observed streamflow, soil moisture…).

Observed snow pack data, observed streamflow, observed temperatures and precipitation i. Does the forecast model have a data-assimilation (automatic updating) scheme? How and what information is used in the data-assimilation process?

no j. Is ensemble weather forecast used to drive flow forecasting?

no k. Is flow forecasting done as an ensemble?

Not typically, though we can do some ensemble forecasting using historic weather data from previous years. We view this more as scenarios rather than ensembles, as we do not have a good handle on the frequency distribution/representativeness of the historic data used to drive the ensembles. We also do “what-if” scenarios. l. What are the approaches and methods used to quantify forecast uncertainty?

Fairly simple observed vs. modelled flow comparison

9. Forecast Products Dissemination Protocols

a. What information is provided to public/media/decision makers: single peak-value flow, water levels, ensemble of probabilistic forecasts, etc.?

The daily average flow 5-day forecast for all forecast points is disseminated via the RFC website to the public, users, decision makers. The values are single values. Manual adjustments of the forecasts may be made by the forecasters if they feel it is warranted. Generic information on model performance and uncertainty is provided on the website.

b. How is forecast information disseminated to the public (radio, television, internet, email)? What is the frequency of this dissemination?

Primarily through the website. During periods of flooding, staff from the RFC will interpret model results for stakeholders, usually on conference calls with affected communities (co-ordinated by EMBC). RFC will be available for media if required. Forecast information is updated daily, and typically calls will happen once a day (but with many regions and other provincial scope vs. regional scope groups there can be many calls a day that the RFC participates on)

c. How are forecast uncertainties communicated to the public/media/decision makers?

Uncertainty is communicated by staff when interpreting the forecasts with various audiences. The sources of uncertainty (weather, model, etc) are discussed, though generally qualitatively. Model performance in sometimes discussed ie how well does the model typically forecast (based on our tracking od model performance through the season)

d. What measures have the forecast center put in place to ensure that forecast information is correctly interpreted and used by the general public?

Disclaimers on our forecast products. Verbal interpretation and discussion of the forecasts on conference and media calls.

e. Are there any mechanisms in place to get feedback from the public about forecasts that would help in assessing performance measures of the forecast centre?

Not from the public. We get feedback from stakeholders, typically through EMBC, or through preparedness planning with local communities

10. Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews a. Has the forecasting centre conducted any formal or informal performance review? (If there is a report of such review, can a copy be made available to us?)

There was an internal review of the RFC completed in 2010. I will follow up to see whether that can be shared. It was more related to an operation review rather than specific performance measures. As far as I am aware there have been no systematic review of the forecasting performance. b. Were there challenges of performance measurement?

(For example would the weather forecast performance impact the hydrologic forecast performance and emergency response performance?) c. What performance indices, parameters and measurements are assessed? This might include accuracy of forecasts for:

i. Rainfall (peak intensity, snow amount, duration of peak rain…)

ii. River flow (peak flow, time of the peak flow, hydrograph of the peak flow)

iii. River level (peak level near the time of the event, time of peak level, …) d. What are the current deficiencies in performance measures?

We don’t use e. What types of performance measures are used? This might include quantitative measures such as:

i. Maximum error of forecast

ii. Mean error

iii. Bias

iv. Standard deviation

v. Lead-time error

ESRD – River Forecast Centre Performance Measures Development Project

Questionnaire – National Weather Service - Colorado Basin River Forecast Center

1. Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre a. What year was the flood-forecast centre established? The Colorado Basin River Forecast Center (CBRFC), originally known as the Salt Lake City RFC was established in 1947, primarily to provide water supply forecasts. The flood forecast function was added to the center in 1969.

b. Why was the flood-forecast centre established? Was there a specific event that resulted in this decision? Please explain. The center was established as a Water Supply Forecast Unit and its original purpose was to provide water supply forecasts in support of dam and irrigation canal operations. The creation of the RFC was part of a program led by the National Weather Service, not a specific event.

c. How was the flood-forecast centre established? (For example, was the flood forecasting responsibility added to an existing government division/department?) In 1946, the National Weather Service decided to centralize its hydrologic expertise by drainage areas and began creating the River Forecast Centers.

Source: History of the NWS River Forecast Centers, http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/rfc/ d. Is the flood forecasting centre within Federal or provincial/state jurisdiction? The CBRFC is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under the Department of Commerce, this is federal jurisdiction.

e. What is the service area of your forecast centre ( i.e. what is the jurisdictional area the you are responsible for forecasting floods/river flows within)? The CBRFC is responsible for forecasting within the Colorado Basin and the Eastern Great Basin, it includes all or part of seven states including Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico with a total drainage area of 303,450 square miles. See the figure below for a map of the forecast area and river forecast points.

Source: CBRFC River Conditions Map, http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov

f. What is the current population within the service area of the forecasting centre? The Colorado River basin had a population of approximately 12.7 million as of 2010.

g. How many staff members are currently employed at the forecasting centre? 14 people when fully staffed. There are currently 2 vacancies.

h. Please briefly describe major cause of flood events (such as snowmelt driven or rainfall) and note if there is a change in primary cause of floods in the last decade. Major flooding events in the Colorado drainage basin are primarily driven by snowmelt. However minor flooding events and flash floods are common in the desert regions of the Colorado Basin in the southwest.

2. Objectives and Operation of the Center a. What are the mandates of the forecasting centre? The National Weather Service’s mandate is: "[To] provide weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas, for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. NWS data and products form a national information database and infrastructure which can be used by other governmental agencies, the private sector, the public, and the global community."

b. When and how are the following communiques issued to the public, media or government officials? i. Long-term outlook (e.g., spring flood outlook) Long-term water supply and spring flood outlooks are provided in monthly webinars and conference calls during the spring runoff season. This information is also provided on a more continuous basis on the CBRFC website http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/ and through emails.

ii. Flood Warnings Flood warnings are issued by the National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices, and disseminated through the media, NOAA Weather Radio, websites, emergency alert systems.

iii. Flood Advisories Same as above

iv. Flash-flood warnings Same as above

v. Other type of flood reports not covered in items (i) to (iv) above Annual water supply outlook.

c. Please briefly describe the emergency services structure during major floods. At the River Forecast Center, we change our hours of operations to extend hours during potential flood situations, and go to 24 hour operations during floods. Forecasts are updated as often as needed to stay on top of changing hydrologic and meteorological conditions. These forecasts are then used by the Weather Forecast Offices to issue flood watches and warning which are disseminated from the Weather Forecast Offices through the Emergency Alert System (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/dissemination/NWS_EAS.shtml), through NOAA Weather Radio and other means.

3. General drainage basin characteristics within the forecast center jurisdiction a. Can the various forecast basins in the centers jurisdiction be grouped into areas with similar runoff characteristics and flood concerns (e.g. mountainous with flash flood potential, flat with widespread flooding potential)? What are the different drainage basin types managed by the forecast centre? The model is not formally broken up into areas with similar runoff characteristics, but the different drainages within the basin could be described as: mountainous, urban valley, agricultural valley, and desert. Basins are however split up into subareas based on topography, usually 3 subareas are defined.

b. For each of the above drainage basin types please describe the following: i. Range of watershed size of the forecast areas Varies generally between 200 and 400 square miles.

ii. Topography/relief Usually above 11,000 feet, 9,500 to 11,000 ft, 8,000 to 9,500 ft, and below 8,000 ft.

iii. The dominant land-use types (urban, forest, agriculture…) High desert, mountainous, some forest.

iv. General climate description including temperature, precipitation averages and extremes Annual precipitation ranges from less than 5 inches/year to over 80 inches/year. Drier areas experience mostly rain throughout the year (Arizona deserts), while wetter areas receive the fast majority of the precipitation as snow (Colorado, Utah and Wyoming mountains). Average temperature varies from 60 to 20 degrees F. With summer maximums over 110 degrees, to minimum temperatures below -10 degrees in the higher mountains in the winter.

v. Regulated/non-regulated river flows The Colorado River is heavily regulated.

vi. Typical hydro-meteorological conditions and timing that result in major flood events. Is it possible for multiple of these conditions to occur simultaneously (such as rain on snowmelt, rain while flooding is ongoing) thereby increasing flood risk? Most typical flooding occurs from snowmelt in the spring, usually the most severe when combined with a rain on snow event. Occasionally, winter heavy rainfall events in the desert southwest lead to main stem flooding. Yearly, flash floods occur due to thunderstorm activity in the summer.

vii. Flood risks (for example, infrastructure such as dams, highways and bridges, urban settlement (population), agricultural land, etc.) Floods affect agriculture, roads, towns, bridges, highways, residences, etc…

4. General Forecasting Model Description a. Describe, in chronological order, the forecasting methods that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes and what prompted any major changes/upgrades. The hydrologic model used by the NWS has been in use since the 1970s, combining the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting System (SAC-SMA) for the runoff part of the model and the SNOW-17 temperature index snow model. 2 years ago, we converted from NWSRFS (National Weather Service River Forecast System) to a more open infrastructure, the Community Hydrologic Prediction System (CHPS), using the same basic modeling components but within the FEWS system from Delft. This will allow the NWS to more easily test and implement enhancements to its model.

5. Forecasting model structure a. Name of the forecasting model platform The forecasting models have recently been moved within the Community Hydrologic Prediction System (CHPS). The hydrologic models used are SNOW17 for snowmelt and the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model (SAC-SMA).

b. Year implemented The CHPS system was implemented at the start of Water Year 2012

c. In-house development (proprietary?) or ‘off-the shelf”? Combination of off the shelf (FEWS) and in-house development. FEWS is proprietary, but not the NWS portion.

d. If off-the-shelf, is the model annually contracted or purchased? The purchasing of the Delft-FEWS from Deltares is handled on the national level, so the CBRFC does not directly deal with this.

e. Is the forecasting mode: i. continuous The model is continuous.

ii. event-based No.

iii. deterministic Daily deterministic forecasts are provided by the model using five days of quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPF) and ten days of quantitative temperature forecasts (QTF).

iv. stochastic Probabilistic forecasts are also provided using 30 years of mean areal precipitation (MAP) and mean areal temperature (MAT) from calibration data for both regulated and unregulated stream flow situations. This model also uses QPF and QTF.

v. deterministic and stochastic combination?

f. What is the time required to setup the forecasting model? Run daily. On a quiet day, forecasts for all 450 segments are done in 3 hours.

g. What level of expertise is required to run the forecasting model? High level of expertise is required. Deep understanding of hydrology and meteorology of the area, mechanics of the model, including how to make adjustments.

h. During operational mode, is the forecasting model fully automated or does it allow for some human interactions? Allows and needs human interactions.

i. Is there any technical support available for the forecast model from the model developers? There is a technical support group at national headquarters to help the River Forecast Center when needed. Most of the time, support is provided by expert staff members at the river forecast center.

j. What type of operating system (Windows, Unix, Linux…) is used to run the forecasting model? Linus

k. What are the general advantages and disadvantages of the forecasting model? Very flexible. But complicated to maintain.

6. Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model a. What is the temporal scale required to run the model (hourly/daily…)? Six hourly, except in Arizona and southwest Utah where the model runs on an hourly time step. b. What are the typical run times to ensure timely dissemination of forecasts? Forecasts are usually issued by 10am every single day of the year, with more updates as needed. c. What is the forecast lead-time (one day, 5 days, one week, etc.)? Forecast issued daily for hours to 2 weeks for short term deterministic forecasts, and out to a full year for probabilistic seasonal volumetric forecasts. d. What is the spatial scale of the model (lumped/distributed/watershed)? The model is a lumped parameter model and therefore provides output at specific river forecast locations. The model has the basin broken up into a total of 486 segments, and each segment is broken up into 2-3 subareas by elevation. Subareas have similar soil, land cover, and snow accumulations/melt conditions. The model drainage basins (segments) range in size from 1,400 acres to over 6,000,000 acres with an average size of 340,000 acres.

7. Describe the different physical processes considered by the Flood Forecasting Model a. Interception - b. Excess precipitation (rain/snow) - c. Snowmelt Snowmelt is modeled using the Snow Accumulation and Ablation Model, SNOW-17, this is a temperature index model. There are 5 major snow parameters: Snow Correction Factor, Max and Min Melt Factors, Wind Function, Snow Cover Index, and Areal Depletion Curve. The 5 minor parameters are: Temperature Indices, and minor melt parameters. See the figure below for a schematic of the SNOW-17 model.

Source: Hydrologic Model Review, CBRFC Fourth Annual Stakeholder Forum, Feb. 25-26, 2014

d. Runoff-generation mechanism Direct runoff is generated based on precipitation and the upper zone tension water drainage rate. Surface runoff is generated from excess upper zone tension water and the upper zone free water storage drainage rate.

e. Overland flow routing -

f. Soil Moisture The SAC-SMA model accounts for soil moisture in 5 different soil moisture tanks: Upper zone tension water storage, Upper zone free water storage, Lower Zone Tension Storage, Lower Zone Supplementary Free Water Storage, and Lower Zone Primary Free Water Storage. See the figure below for a schematic of the SAC-SMA model.

Source: Hydrologic Model Review, CBRFC Fourth Annual Stakeholder Forum, Feb. 25-26, 2014

g. Infiltration Infiltration is modeled based on the drainage rates and tanks sizes of the soil moisture accounting routine. h. Interflow Interflow is modeled based on the interflow drainage rate parameter. i. Baseflow There is also a baseflow drainage rate parameter. Baseflow is drawn from the lower zone free water storage. j. Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration is a timeseries input into the model. k. Channel routing - l. Reservoir routing During calibration unregulated flow is used, forecasts can be provided for both regulated and unregulated flow situations. m. Additional processes

8. Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibration a. What data-management tools are currently in use by the forecast center for gathering, storing, analyzing, quality checking, retrieving and integrating data? The center is now looking at using the Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast System (HEFS) to provide short to long term probabilistic forecasts by incorporating climate and weather forecast information, this is currently in testing. Currently the CBRFC uses the CHPS system, which is described above, to manage data.

b. Describe, in chronological order, the database-management systems/programs that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes. The CBRFC has been using a local Informix database.

c. Describe the climate data required by the current model(s) used (precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind-speed, etc.) Precipitation, temperature, and good soil moisture condition estimates.

d. What is the adequacy of climate and hydrometric data network? If there are not adequate data, how does the center address data gaps? The center relies heavily on temperature observations, snow pillow and precipitation data collected at the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) SNOTEL and SCAN sites. The center does however rely on other sources of precipitation data networks including: COOP, RAWS, ALERT, USRCRN, USCRN, ASOS, AWOS, UCN, and COCRAHS. See the figure below for a map of the NRCS SNOTEL sites and current snow conditions map used by the CBRFC.

Source: CBRFC Snow Conditions Map, http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/gmap/gmapbeta.php?interface=snow

Precipitation data site latitude, longitude and elevation are checked on a yearly basis. This is important for radar bias adjustment, because radar coverage depends on freezing level. Radar is used to fill in data gaps where possible but there are some areas of the Colorado basin that do not have good precipitation data coverage. This is especially a problem in the winter time when radar can often not be used. e. What is the method used to quantify the uncertainties related to climate data used as input to the forecasting model? Does the centre conduct sensitivity/uncertainty analyses? We have done some uncertainty analysis, but need to do more. f. Describe basin related data required by the model (Digital Elevation Model, land-use, soils). The hydrologic model is calibrated based on elevation zones, similar land-uses, and soil types. Snow data in the respective elevation zones is used to inform parameter calibration. Land-use and soils can also be used to inform calibration. g. What type of, if any, hydrological model calibration is currently used by the forecasting center? Model parameters are currently calibrated every five-years. During model calibration, a 30-year (or greater) observed streamflow dataset is used to develop parameters. There is some thought that NRCS soil moisture probes buried at a depth of 40” could be used for future model calibration, but these data are very limited at this point. h. Describe data used to calibrate forecast model (observed streamflow, soil moisture…). See above, calibration data is generally completed using observed unregulated streamflow. Soil moisture data might be a possibility in the future. Snow water equivalent data gathered from NRCS SNOTEL sites is used for calibrating snow parameters. i. Does the forecast model have a data-assimilation (automatic updating) scheme? How and what information is used in the data-assimilation process? Nothing sophisticated. Data assimilation is done mostly manually by the hydrologists. j. Is ensemble weather forecast used to drive flow forecasting? Yes. Ensemble weather forecasts are used to generate deterministic forecasts that are updated at least once daily. These forecasts include 5 days of QPF and 10 days of QTF. k. Is flow forecasting done as an ensemble? Yes. The Ensemble Streamflow Prediction (ESP) forecasts provide a short term deterministic forecast as well as a long term water supply and probabilistic streamflow forecasts using long term MAP and MAT datasets. l. What are the approaches and methods used to quantify forecast uncertainty? Forecast uncertainty is built directly into the probabilistic forecasts.

9. Forecast Products Dissemination Protocols a. What information is provided to public/media/decision makers: single peak-value flow, water levels, ensemble of probabilistic forecasts, etc.? Annual water supply forecasts, daily ESP traces, probabilistic forecasts, and estimates on peak discharges and timing. See the figures below for an example of a daily forecast hydrograph as well as a peak flow forecast plot and a seasonal probabilistic water supply forecast. The official probabilistic forecast plot is informed by input from the water supply predictions of both the ESP model and the Statistical Water Supply (SWS) model output.

Source: CBRFC River Conditions Map, http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/gmap/gmapbeta.php?interface=river

An example of a peak discharge forecast is shown below, the plot shows observed discharge to date, historical peaks, historical timing, and forecast range for mean daily peak discharge.

Source: CBRFC Peak Flow Forecast Map, http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/gmap/gmapbeta.php?interface=peak

An example of the ESP daily output (blue bars) and official water supply forecast (red bars) are shown below. The plot shows forecast April through July runoff volumes. Note that the volumes are plotted at the forecast time, so the user can see how the forecast and uncertainty has changed over the course of the season.

Source: CBRFC River Conditions Map, http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/gmap/gmapbeta.php?interface=river

b. How is forecast information disseminated to the public (radio, television, internet, email)? What is the frequency of this dissemination? Primarily through monthly webinars, website, and e-mail. c. How are forecast uncertainties communicated to the public/media/decision makers? Forecast uncertainty is only provided for the longer term water supply forecasts (volumetric), though ensembles. 10, 90 and 50 percent exceedance probabilities are provided. We also provide verification statistic of historical forecasts for all locations. d. What measures have the forecast center put in place to ensure that forecast information is correctly interpreted and used by the general public? Some online documentation, and a lot of interactions with users (stakeholder forum, webinars, phone calls, visits, etc..) e. Are there any mechanisms in place to get feedback from the public about forecasts that would help in assessing performance measures of the forecast centre? The CBRFC conducts annual stakeholder forums where they gather freeback about stakeholder needs and issues. They also use this as a opportunity to disseminate information about existing research, development, and future forecasting products.

10. Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews a. Has the forecasting centre conducted any formal or informal performance review? (If there is a report of such review, can a copy be made available to us?) Yes forecast verification has been conducted and is regularly posted on the website. Plots of seasonal and recent observed and forecasted hydrographs are provided for each forecast point. Verification of the water supply forecasts focus on reforecasting of a thirty-year dataset and comparing forecast versus observed monthly runoff volumes. Both seasonal hydrographs and water supply forecast verification provide statistical output, which is all published on the website.

If there are major flooding events, the CBRFC will go back and analyze the hydrologic situation and performance of the forecasting model in relation to peak level, timing of the event, forecasting inputs, etc... An example of one such analysis can be found in “Challenges in Forecasting the 2011 Runoff Season in the Colorado Basin” (Werner and Yeager, 2012)

b. Were there challenges of performance measurement? Weather forecast performance does impact the hydrologic forecast performance, and we still have a hard time separating and describing how each impacts the overall forecast.

(For example would the weather forecast performance impact the hydrologic forecast performance and emergency response performance?) c. What performance indices, parameters and measurements are assessed? This might include accuracy of forecasts for: i. Rainfall (peak intensity, snow amount, duration of peak rain…) Accuracy of rainfall forecasts is available through other parts of the NWS.

ii. River flow (peak flow, time of peak flow, hydrograph of the peak flow) Yes, the CBRFC provides forecast graphical verification plots of hydrographs at all forecast points. See the figures below for a seasonal forecast verification plot with statistics as well as an example of a recent streamflow verification plot.

Source: CBRFC Peak Flow Forecast Map Verification, http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/gmap/gmapbeta.php?interface=river

Source: CBRFC Peak Flow Forecast Map Verification, http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/gmap/gmapbeta.php?interface=river

Forecast verification statictics are published for official historical water supply forecasts as seen below.

Source: CBRFC Peak Flow Forecast Map Verification, http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/gmap/gmapbeta.php?interface=wsup

Recent verification efforts have focused on comparing the reliability and skill of both the ESP model, the Statistical Water Supply (SWS) model, and the ESP model with bias adjustment. The results of some of these analyses are shown below. These statistics are based in general on 30 years of model reforecasts.

Source: CBRFC Peak Flow Forecast Map Verification, http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/gmap/gmapbeta.php?interface=wsup

iii. River level (peak level near the time of the event, time of peak level, …) Time to peak and peaks are analyzed after a flood event, but not on a regular basis d. What are the current deficiencies in performance measures? The CBRFC is currently challenging itself to find ways to present forecast performance statistics in such a way that they can be used to make informed decisions. Also, it is difficult to quantify if forecast errors originate from the hydrologic modeling or in forecasts of precipitation and temperature. The NWS does do forecast verification on QPF and QTF, but the QPF forecast verification focuses on actual rainfall totals and timing. The verification does not provide much information on precipitation location, which is very important for hydrologic modeling. e. What types of performance measures are used? This might include quantitative measures such as:

i. Maximum error of forecast Yes.

ii. Mean error Yes.

iii. Bias Recent work has focused on using a model bias adjustment to increase model reliability.

iv. Standard deviation Yes.

v. Lead-time error Not done at the river forecast center, but done at the WFOs based on warning lead time.

ESRD – River Forecast Centre Performance Measures Development Project Questionnaire: Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), Ontario 1. Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre

a. What year was the flood-forecast centre established?

• 1975 – Forecasting approach originally included development of a “simple” routing model, reliant primarily upon stream gauge information, and assumed upstream gauges had peaked and was merely a measure of forecasting when peaks could be expected to arrive downstream; was not reliant upon meteorology, models, etc.

b. Why was the flood-forecast centre established? Was there a specific event that resulted in this decision? Please explain.

• The GRCA watershed suffered one of its most historic flooding events in May 1974 and, though no lives were lost, damages to property were of a magnitude that a Royal Commission Inquiry (the Leach Report) was completed to assess the flood’s causes, nature and extent of flooding, resulting damages, the during-event actions of the GRCA, participating municipalities, and Provincial agencies, the flood warning and communication systems, and to make recommendations.

• Prior to comprehensive delegation of flood forecasting responsibilities to the Conservation Authorities in the early 1980’s, most flood forecasting was coordinated by the Province. Though most significantly impacting the Grand River watershed, the 1974 flood and the post- event inquiry was where the Province realized that flood forecasting was likely better accomplished at watershed-level; forecasters live in and have a more detailed knowledge and familiarity with the watershed, they can look out the window and see what’s happening. There are a lot of intangible benefits that come from residing and being immersed in the watershed.

c. How was the flood-forecast centre established? (For example, was the flood forecasting responsibility added to an existing government division/department?)

• Downloaded from Province (1975), as described above

d. Is the flood forecasting centre within Federal or provincial/state jurisdiction?

• Flood forecasting and warning is a Provincial responsibility, but in areas where CAs exist, it has been delegated to the CA – CAs remain a functioning part of the Provincial flood forecasting and warning system, but have local authority and responsibility. Experts / representatives from Province / CAs get together on an annual flood forecasting meeting to discuss. Federal gov’t gets tied into things through the federal/provincial cost-sharing agreement for stream gauging. CAs rely on these gauges as part of their flood forecasting system; GRCA operates approximately ½ the gauges in their watershed with WSC responsible for the other ½.

e. What is the service area of your forecast centre (i.e., what is the jurisdictional area the you are responsible for forecasting floods/river flows within)

• GRCA watershed f. What is the current population within the service area of the forecasting centre?

• 985,000 g. How many staff members are currently employed at the forecasting centre?

• 5 senior operators, rotation of 8 duty officers, 12 river watch zones with 2 staff at each many of whom serve double duty as reservoir operators, , 3 maintenance technicians (gauge maintenance), 1 stream flow technician (data management, rating curve management)

• The positions aren’t specifically, solely dedicated to flood forecasting – i.e., all have multiple responsibilities through day-to-day operations h. Please briefly describe major cause of flood events (such as snowmelt driven or rainfall) and note if there is a change in primary cause of floods in the last decade.

• Primarily floods occur in March/April, mix of melt plus rainfall, or occasionally rainfall only, particularly when occurring on frozen or saturated ground; see historic distribution of floods at one of the GRCA’s predominant damage centres charted below • Occasionally hurricane (less common) – remnants of tropical hurricanes • Ice jams • Great Lake (Lake Erie) surge – affects municipalities near River outlet and the Lake shoreline • As shown on figure below, seasonal potential has broadened in recent years – at one time it was generally consistent that their floods occurred in March/April, now seeing more diversity – earlier melts, mid-winter melts, flash freezes, can have multiple events in a given year

2. Objectives and Operation of the Center

a. What are the mandates of the forecasting centre?

The GRCA has the responsibility to forecast flooding and to help reduce flood damages. It does this by:

• monitoring weather conditions and river flows • issuing flood messages (advisories and warnings) to municipal flood coordinators and to the public through the media and the GRCA website • operating a network of seven reservoirs to hold back water and reduce flood peaks • owning and maintaining dykes to protect low-lying urban areas • controlling development in flood-prone areas to reduce potential property damages

b. When and how are the following communiques issued to the public, media or government officials?

i. Long-term flood outlook (e.g., spring flood outlook) ii. Flood Warnings iii. Flood Advisories iv. Flash-flood warnings v. Other type of flood reports not covered in items (i) to (iv) above

• GRCA uses 6 types of flood warning messages, as follows: 1. Watershed Conditions Statements, which are e-mailed/faxed directly to municipal flood coordinators, and speak to (a) water safety and (b) flood outlook 2. Flood Watch Message – issued to indicate that a possibility of flooding exists, provides early notification to the municipal official involved who may choose to remain on stand-by alert 3. Flood Warning (Action) Message – issued when a flood event is in progress, specifies the details such as the flood height and ETA at key downstream locations, requires actions from municipal officials in areas where it applies including the activation of the appropriate Emergency Flood Response Plans 4. Combined Message – combines both a “watch” and “warning (action)” messages. Varying upon which part of the watershed is under each condition 5. Termination Message – issued when the event is deemed to have ended, river levels are returning to normal 6. Test Message • Biggest change in recent history has been the reduction in 24/7 news media access / coverage (e.g. radio stations) - messages now disseminated via a number of “tools” including e-mail, automated voice call (http://aizan.biz), social media (e.g., Twitter)

• There are four important components of the email protocol used: 1. Email Sender Address - Use of a consistent sender address allows message receiver to set up routing or alerting rules 2. Email Subject Content – takes format of “Grand River Flood Warning Message #” - Consistent subject allows message receiver to set up routing or alerting rules. - Message number is included in the subject area to allow receive to filter/identify duplicate messages (i.e. receiving message #1 from different senders). 3. Email Body - Including email in the body of the message allows receiver to read message without having to open additional applications. 4. Email attachment - A PDF copy of the flood message is attached. • Recently, attempts have been made to integrate with the Weather Network to publicize flood condition alerts in a manner similar to the Environment Canada weather alerts; trying to get consistent terminology for distribution across Province – e.g., local “streamer” messages scrolling across bottom of screen

c. Please briefly describe the emergency services structure during major floods.

• CA is responsible for issuing warnings, Municipalities are responsible for response – CA provides responders with technical information to allow them to respond appropriately • Critical role carried out by police, who are expected to contact one of the primary or alternate flood coordinators listed in the food warning guide. Police CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) system is used to convey message during a disaster • Currently a message is faxed to Waterloo Regional Police Services (WRPS) and then distributed through the CPIC system. • The message is also emailed to WRPS and to all flood coordinators, provincial contacts and GRCA flood operations staff. • Flood coordinators at Municipal level are contacted by the police and/or by GRCA directly; the police act as a redundant back-up to ensure communications to flood coordinators continue even if the “normal” communication system cease to function • Messages disseminated to Municipalities who are then charged with response

3. Drainage basins within the forecast center jurisdiction

a. What are the different drainage basins managed by the forecast centre?

• GRCA watershed in its entirety. The four main river systems in the watershed include the Grand River, Speed River, Conestogo River, and the Nith River, with many smaller tributaries across the watershed.

b. For each of the above drainage basins please describe the following:

i. Watershed size ii. Topography/relief iii. The dominant land-use types (urban, forest, agriculture…) iv. General climate description including temperature, precipitation averages and extremes v. Regulated/non-regulated river flows vi. Typical hydro-meteorological conditions and timing that result in major flood events. Is it possible for multiple of these conditions to occur simultaneously (such as rain on snowmelt, rain while flooding is ongoing) thereby increasing flood risk? vii. Flood risks (for example, infrastructure such as dams, highways and bridges, urban settlement (population), agricultural land, etc.) i. The Grand River forms one of the largest drainage basins in the southwestern portion of the Province of Ontario. The total drainage area is 6,965 square kilometers. ii. The main stream rises approximately 525 meters above sea level and runs a course of 300 kilometers to Lake Erie. iii. Agricultural and rural land uses predominate with urban land uses concentrated in the central portion. Most of the basins’ residents reside in the 5 urban centres of Kitchener- Waterloo, Cambridge, Guelph, and Brantford. iv. Being located in southern Ontario, the Grand's climate is generally moderate compared to other parts of Canada. However the watershed is quite large, and since the river flows in a north to south direction, it crosses no less than four climate zones and two forest zones.

From north to south, the four climate zones are the Dundalk Upland, Huron Slopes, South Slopes and Lake Erie Counties. The forest zones are the Alleghenian in the north and the Carolinian in the south.

Luther Marsh, a major headwater area in the north, hosts sub-boreal species of plants native to Canada's Far North. In contrast, the lower reaches of the watershed feature Canada's best examples of Carolinian forest, being the most northerly range of Kentucky coffee, sassafras, American chestnut and numerous other tree species most commonly found in the southern United States.

Average annual precipitation depths are in the order of 900 – 1000 mm, with 10-20% occurring as snowfall (lower values in southern part of watershed, increasing to the north). Inter-event precipitation periods are on the order of 2-3 days with approximately 166 days with precipitation ≥ 0.2mm depth. The table on the following page provides additional monthly and annual data v. The Grand River is a largely Regulated system, with seven dams and reservoirs playing a vital role in protecting the health and safety of residents of the watershed. The reservoirs were built between 1942 and 1976 to address major, long-standing problems including frequent and severe floods, dried-up rivers in the summer, and poor water quality throughout the year. The largest non-Regulated tributary is the Nith River.

From a flood management perspective, a key and somewhat unique characteristic of the Grand River system is that all flood control structures are owned and operated by the Authority, as opposed to external, third-party governmental agencies or private industry. Dams in the watershed are purpose built for flood control and flow augmentation – results in very good alignment between operation and management of the dams in providing flood reduction vi. See answers to 1(h) above

Waterloo-Wellington Meteorological Station - 1981 to 2010 Canadian Climate Normals

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Temperature

Daily Average (°C) -6.5 -5.5 -1 6.2 12.5 17.6 20 18.9 14.5 8.2 2.5 -3.3 7

Standard Deviation 2.9 2.5 2 1.4 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 2.9 0.9

Daily Maximum (°C) -2.6 -1.2 3.6 11.5 18.5 23.6 26 24.8 20.4 13.5 6.3 0.2 12

Daily Minimum (°C) -10.3 -9.7 -5.6 0.8 6.4 11.5 14 12.9 8.6 2.9 -1.4 -6.8 2

Extreme Maximum (°C) 14.2 13.7 24.4 29.2 32 36.1 36 36.5 33.3 29.4 21.7 18.7

Extreme Minimum (°C) -31.9 -29.2 -25.4 -16.1 -3.9 -0.6 5 1.1 -3.7 -8.3 -15.4 -27.2

Precipitation

Rainfall (mm) 28.7 29.7 36.8 68 81.8 82.4 98.6 83.9 87.8 66.1 75 38 776.8

Snowfall (cm) 43.7 30.3 26.5 7.3 0.4 0 0 0 0 1.4 13 37.2 159.7

Precipitation (mm) 65.2 54.9 61 74.5 82.3 82.4 98.6 83.9 87.8 67.4 87.1 71.2 916.5

Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm) 43 47 36.8 53.4 51.8 54.2 89.8 73.7 74.4 39.2 56 36.8

Extreme Daily Snowfall (cm) 16.8 17.8 21.2 22.9 6 0 0 0 0 6 16.6 22.4

Extreme Daily Precipitation (mm) 43 47 53.8 53.4 51.8 54.2 89.8 73.7 74.4 39.2 56 36.8

Extreme Snow Depth (cm) 58 74 77 18 0 0 0 0 0 2 19 50 vii. Generally, all of the above are susceptible to some level of flood risk

In terms of risk to urban settlement areas, and with reference to the adjacent map, there are 27 Flood Damage Centres, including: • 14 high risk • 10 medium risk • 3 low risk 16 of these 27 are located downstream of major reservoirs. In addition to the above, there are 20 trailer parks in the floodplain which are seasonally active. A summary table of the number of structures in the floodplain, sorted by “upper tier” municipalities is provided on the following page

# of Structures in the Floodplain by Upper Tier Municipality

Upper Tier Municipality No. of Structures No. of Buildings CITY OF BRANTFORD 2548 194 CITY OF HAMILTON 30 6 COUNTY OF BRANT 396 79 COUNTY OF OXFORD 197 23 COUNTY OF PERTH 18 7 DUFFERIN COUNTY 176 11 FIRST NATIONS 1 0 GREY COUNTY 13 0 HALDIMAND COUNTY 845 158 NORFOLK COUNTY 2 1 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON 9 0 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF W ATERLOO 2068 617 W ELLINGTON COUNTY 1289 194 Grand Total 7592 1290

4. General Forecasting Model Description

a. Describe, in chronological order, the forecasting methods that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes and what prompted any major changes/upgrades.

• Forecasting approach originally included development of a “simple” routing model, reliant primarily upon stream gauge information, and assumed upstream gauges had peaked and was merely a measure of forecasting when peaks could be expected to arrive downstream; was not reliant upon meteorology, models, etc. • As of the late 1980’s, the “GRIFFS” deterministic model (described further in (b)) has become the primary forecast modeling tool Also still use, to a lesser extent: • Stage-relative curves, relating flood levels and lag time from one location to another, downstream location – in some basins this works well, e.g., linear watershed without much lateral inflow • “By Hand” routing – can utilize this approach because they have a dense enough stream gauging, can still revert back to the earlier approaches

b. Describe the current flood-forecasting model(s) and any other in-house tools used by the centre.

• In 1988 the GRCA with financial assistance from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Canada developed the Grand River Integrated Flood Forecasting System (GRIFFS). The GRIFFS system is a real-time flood forecasting system based on the Guelph All Weather Sequential Event Runoff Model (GAWSER). This model is capable of forecasting stream flows resulting from snowmelt events, rainfall events and rainfall on snowmelt events. The system has evolved over the years based on input from its user group. Conceptually the system links a deterministic hydrologic model to real-time input to produce downstream flow and level forecasts in real-time.

c. What are the essential elements of the current forecasting model(s) (including inputs and outputs)?

Inputs • Rainfall (real time) • Air temp (real time) • Snow surveys (used to set initial snow pack conditions) • Stream flow data (real time) • Snowmelt (key aspect fo the GRCA watershed)

Key Model Components

• Infiltration algorithm (Green-Ampt) ( key as it allows watershed to “recover” between events) • River routing (Muskingum Cunge) • Reservoir routing (important in a flow-regulated watershed) • Uses readily available information

Outputs

• Forecast flow • Forecast stage • Forecast reservoir levels

d. When and what field programs are used for data collection, both automated and manual?

• Rain gauges • Manual snow surveys • Flow gauges • Reservoir monitoring of levels and gate settings / daily manual climate measurement at the reservoirs – important to confirm/checking rain gauge inputs to counter frozen precipitation impacts

5. Forecasting model structure

a. Name of the forecasting model platform

• Grand River Integrated Flood Forecasting System (GRIFFS) (see attached poster presentation summary of GRIFFS)

b. Year implemented

• 1988

c. In-house development (proprietary?) or ‘off-the shelf”?

• Semi-proprietary, customized model developed specifically for the Grand River watershed / GRCA • GAWSER is underlying model; forecasting model underlying it basically links real-time information to allow real-time forecasting, so can be adapted • Other CAs have used it; it is adaptable and has been / is still being used

d. If off-the-shelf, is the model annually contracted or purchased?

• n/a

e. Is the forecasting mode: i. continuous ii. event-based iii. deterministic iv. stochastic v. deterministic and stochastic combination?

• Event-based, deterministic • Can recover between events, so continuous in this regard, soil conditions, etc. are maintained, i.e., the “event” can be defined as a long period of time with multiple discrete events within it f. What is the time required to setup the forecasting model?

• For a snow melt event, from scratch, approximately 1-2 hours • For a straight rainfall event, less than ½ hour • Seasonal parameters can be used as a starting point – model can pull these as a starting point and can be adjusted by operator to reflect/improve modelled versus observed correlation g. What level of expertise is required to run the forecasting model?

• Typically water resources engineer / hydrologist, with generally 3-5 years’ direct experience within the GRCA watershed – this is key to any watershed model, though – local, direct experience and conceptual understanding of the watershed being modeled h. During operational mode, is the forecasting model fully automated or does it allow for some human interactions?

• Allows for human interaction, has a forecast editor, important to have this human interaction in the event that data systems are down or hindered in some way (e.g., very localized event that misses gauges), maintains the ability to interact with the data used by the model and to check it. • Calibrating during event is possible and routinely undertaken i. Is there any technical support available for the forecast model from the model developers?

• Yes, but not necessarily timely (i.e., on-call during flood events). Model has been utilized for so long that primary expertise no longer resides with model authors, but now with model operators within GRCA. Try to internalize expertise to avoid need for external consultation during an event. j. What type of operating system (Windows, Unix, Linux…) is used to run the forecasting model?

• Windows / DOS shell – now set up spreadsheet front-end to run model and analyze results

k. What are the general advantages and disadvantages of the forecasting model?

Advantages: • Customized / optimized to the watershed(s) of interest / reservoir system • Can turn around a forecast very quickly – e.g., 24 day run in hourly mode is less than a couple minutes • Based on physically-based parameters - can relate observed conditions to the model • Uses readily available information • Represents the watershed on a catchment basis (few km2 - tens of km2) • Transferable between watersheds but will require customization/calibration • Human interaction capability during an event • Still uses text files – some may see this as a disadvantage, but ability to look at / review is a benefit; use of simple approaches is not necessarily a bad thing

Disadvantages: • Requires significant familiarity with physical attributes of watershed • The ability to maintain it with ever-changing computer operating systems in future – FORTRAN – based – will require re-investment to allow it to continue to operate on advancing platforms, perhaps transfer to a different programming language • Future inclusion of database management tools might provide better for managing data / reporting results

6. Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model

a. What is the temporal scale required to run the model (hourly/daily…)?

• Temporally - Hourly, with some daily inputs for manual climate observations (e.g., snow) • Seasonal parameters already set-up; model will adjust to reflect different conditions – e.g., frozen conditions in winter, completely different soil / infiltration characteristics in summer

b. What are the typical run times to ensure timely dissemination of forecasts?

• Couple minutes

c. What is the forecast lead-time (one day, 5 days, one week, etc.)?

• Regulated character of much of the upper watershed is more critical to accuracy as forecast lead time extends • Falls back to weather forecast; can look out 72 hours based on forecast temperatures – reliability of weather forecast is the big uncertainty • Watershed is so big and response times are sufficiently long that can wait until rainfall actually hits the ground and still provide sufficient lead time to flood responders

d. What is the spatial scale of the model (lumped/distributed/watershed)?

• Watershed scale • Distributed - doesn’t use CN, will represent the infiltration capacity of a catchment with four response units (e.g., clays, sands, gravels, tills); not a gridded base model, but a catchment- based model – it is distributed • Utilizes defined zones of uniform climate input (known as Zones of Uniform Meteorology, or ZUMs) to optimize management of climate inputs; allows spatial representation of rainfall / snow, etc. over different parts of the watershed, reduces from 127 catchments in the model to 31 ZUMs for ease of management

7. Describe the different physical processes considered by the Flood Forecasting Model

a. Interception b. Excess precipitation (rain/snow) c. Snowmelt d. Runoff-generation mechanism e. Overland flow routing f. Soil Moisture g. Infiltration h. Interflow i. Baseflow j. Evapotranspiration k. Channel routing l. Reservoir routing m. Additional processes

• GAWSER / GRIFFS uses all of the above • See ”GAWSER: A Versatile Tool For Water Management Planning” paper (Schroeter, Boyd, Whiteley) appended with this questionnaire response

8. Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibration

a. What data-management tools are currently in use by the forecast center for gathering, storing, analyzing, quality checking, retrieving and integrating data?

• KISTERS WISKI-SODA product also used by MNR – GRCA’s opinion – “likely not to find a more complete database management”

WISKI stands for Water Information System KISTERS. WISKI's primary purpose is as a hydrological database solution that can manage all of your hydrological data in a single location. Many organizations often have distributed "silos" of critical project and operational data that needs to be monitored and updated. These same organizations often routinely use cumbersome desktop spreadsheet applications, or custom built databases to manage this data with wildly varying degrees of success. WISKI provides access to an enterprise level system through an easy-to-use desktop GUI that offers numerous benefits such as eliminate the chances of deleting critical data, tracking editing history with a complete audit trail.

• More info can be found here: http://www.kisters.net/wiski.html and on the appended marketing material on the SODA telemetry

b. Describe, in chronological order, the database-management systems/programs that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes.

• Initially used VAX-VMS system of text files • In about 2002, created a sequel server database to store information • Upgraded/migrated to WISKI-SODA database starting in 2012 – very happy with current set-up (see above)

c. Describe the climate data required by the current model(s) used (precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind-speed, etc.)

• Tipping bucket precipitation (rainfall) • Air temperature • Daily snow/rain • Snow course measurement (water content/depth) – bimonthly or as-needed d. What is the adequacy of climate and hydrometric data network? If there are not adequate data, how does the center address data gaps?

• Very adequate, but could always use more! • 19 rain gauges, 20 hourly air temperature sensors, 50 stream gauges (split with WSC) e. What is the method used to quantify the uncertainties related to climate data used as input to the forecasting model? Does the centre conduct sensitivity/uncertainty analyses?

• Typically relying on observed tipping bucket precipitation data, as an example • Also have manual rainfall measurements – used to confirm automated data is within acceptable range • Sensitivity analysis is done for weather forecasts – e.g., applying variances to predicted precipitation data (e.g., EC predicts 30 mm, model to assess what happens if actually receive 50 mm, etc.) f. Describe basin related data required by the model (Digital Elevation Model, land-use, soils).

Most is already hard-coded into the model, including: • Soils • Land use • Catchments • Cross-sections for routing • Could also use Ontario Flow Assessment Techniques tool (OFAT) – MNR has just released version 3; it’s a web-base, and can likely extract most input you need directly from this tool (originally developed by Chiadih Chang, MNR, now AB ESRD?) g. What type of, if any, hydrological model calibration is currently used by the forecasting center?

• Comparison with observed/simulated - Nash-Sutcliffe statistical summary as well as visual interpretation using Excel charts h. Describe data used to calibrate forecast model (observed stream flow, soil moisture…).

• Observed stream flow is primary; hydrograph shape/timing/volume i. Does the forecast model have a data-assimilation (automatic updating) scheme? How and what information is used in the data-assimilation process?

• No automatic updating • Can update stream flow information during an event and model will calculate correction factor and apply it to future simulation with a decay factor j. Is ensemble weather forecast used to drive flow forecasting?

• No. Can/do interpret ensemble forecasts and use it as a sensitivity guide to determine range of forecast intensities. (e.g., see (e) above) k. Is flow forecasting done as an ensemble?

• No. Can run various scenarios with relative ease.

l. What are the approaches and methods used to quantify forecast uncertainty?

• Mainly visual / interpretive • Nash-Sutcliffe is used as a quick summary / general comparative – if you’re off on timing or magnitude, N-S will highlight it; considered to be doing okay if N-S coming in above 0.7 or 0.8

9. Forecast Products Dissemination Protocols

a. What information is provided to public/media/decision makers: single peak-value flow, water levels, ensemble of probabilistic forecasts, etc.?

• Flood warning for peak flows at given locations related to areas requiring evacuation; advise Municipalities which roads, structures, etc. are expected to have problems – 5 for a given flood damage centre; • Starting to put it into mapping products for distribution to Municipal Flood Coordinators (see attached examples for New Hamburg)- allows simple, visual link a certain “level” of flooding to infrastructure and/or specific residences likely to be impacted - levels are in the process of being consistently defined across the Province • Completion / use of mapping also provides ability to “capture knowledge” as part of succession planning for Municipal Flood Coordinator turnover • Don’t send forecast hydrograph to the public – used for internal purposes

b. How is forecast information disseminated to the public (radio, television, internet, email)? What is the frequency of this dissemination?

• E-mail (sign-up by subscription) • Internet (GRCA website) – very important; recent, big event registered 16,000 views in a day – no way this kind of volume could be handled reasonably via phone the way it used to be • Twitter • Mainstream media

c. How are forecast uncertainties communicated to the public/media/decision makers?

• Qualifications within flood warnings regarding confidence in forecast predictions; e.g., if there’s other hazards, such possibility of ice-related floods, this type of information will be qualified as containing higher uncertainty such that the public is aware

d. What measures have the forecast center put in place to ensure that forecast information is correctly interpreted and used by the general public?

• Key thing is we’re not putting raw forecast, rather communicating via a message that identifies areas “on the ground” that are expected to be affected; use of flood warning maps, as described above (a) and appended, allows for use of a range and err on the side of conservative warning – don’t want to get too precise

e. Are there any mechanisms in place to get feedback from the public about forecasts that would help in assessing performance measures of the forecast centre?

• All CAs have Boards that represent member municipalities – public unhappiness is relayed back through direct communication via those politicians • Also get feedback / debrief with municipal flood coordinators after an event • New volunteer climate monitoring program that’s about to be announced by the Province; upon release, GRCA will be encouraging watershed residents volunteer climate observers within the watershed to help monitor meteorology / events – will enhance a new product that EC is producing called CaPA, which will be a gridded, quantitative precipitation estimate product, some info can be found here: http://loki.qc.ec.gc.ca/DAI/capa-e.html

10. Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews

a. Has the forecasting centre conducted any formal or informal performance review? (If there is a report of such review, can a copy be made available to us?)

• Generally informal reviews, on-going • Have just gone through an update to the Water Management Plan, within which is an update to flood management plan (April 2014 Draft of entire Plan appended – flood management section starts on p.85)

b. Were there challenges of performance measurement?

(For example would the weather forecast performance impact the hydrologic forecast performance and emergency response performance?)

• Weather forecast are key – e.g., very severe, localized rainfall event in June 2004 (see graphic), resulted in implementation of weather radar to help improve spatial extent of precipitation events • Looking forward to CaPA as next generation of spatial information from EC meteorology, to better quantify precipitation • Currently relying on US radar (NOAA), would prefer to use Canadian products in combination with the US data such that events can be viewed from different perspectives • After 1996 ice jam – implemented voice alert system, recognizes atypical changes in river levels, rainfall depths, reservoir levels, flows and issues alerts to designated duty officer roster 24/7, 365 days/year • A good example of the voice-alert success came in May 2000 – early warning from rain gauge network provided flood management team 5-6 hours advance warning to manage event rather than having the event dictate the actions (i.e., permitted pro-active management rather than reactive)

c. What performance indices, parameters and measurements are assessed? This might include accuracy of forecasts for:

i. Rainfall (peak intensity, snow amount, duration of peak rain…) ii. River flow (peak flow, time of the peak flow, hydrograph of the peak flow) iii. River level (peak level near the time of the event, time of peak level, …)

• Primarily look at flow as a key driver, which also drives levels d. What are the current deficiencies in performance measures?

• Key thing trying to do is to obtain better estimates of distributed precipitation via tools such as weather radar and CaPA and use GIS to provide better inputs to the precipitation model e. What types of performance measures are used? This might include quantitative measures such as:

i. Maximum error of forecast ii. Mean error iii. Bias iv. Standard deviation v. Lead-time error

• Comparison of peak flow, timing of peak flow, and hydrograph shape (simulated vs. observed) at multiple gauges – assessment of maximum error is difficult, will be very much driven by how good inputs are for a given event and whether it’s a pure rainfall event or a rainfall/snowmelt or pure snowmelt event, with the latter being harder to model accurately • Suggest caution using such a quantified approach as those listed above as a tool for assessing model performance / improvements over time as so much is dependent on the type of event and the inputs available – i.e., difficult to compare model performance between events • Large snowmelt floods are able to be modeled fairly well, estimate ±20%, which is not bad when considering that stream gauge data / rating curves may only be ±15% at the elevated flow regimes • Multiple diurnal melts with freeze/thaw cycles are much more difficult to model but also don’t tend to result in big floods • One advantage of the GRIFFS model and stream gauge network density is that they can simulate updating gauge data at a given stream gauge to assess model performance and use it to troubleshoot locations of rating curve problems at specific gauges – means of managing stream gauge data and updating information, looking at calibrated hydraulic models as a means of estimating the very extreme events – such would be complementary to the manual flow measurements that may be unsafe or difficult to obtain • Also use back-routing to calculate inflows at reservoirs to confirm/check inflow hydrographs from stream gauges upstream – uses well-defined stage-storage relationships for the reservoirs – particularly useful when stream gauges are under ice conditions, a challenge in Ontario. A similar source of stream gauge unreliability in Alberta is likely the mobile bed and the associated instability impacts on rating curves ESRD – River Forecast Centre Performance Measures Development Project Questionnaire: Manitoba Flood Forecasting Center

1. Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre

a. What year was the flood-forecast centre established?

The Manitoba River Forecasting centre now referred to as the “Hydrologic Forecast Centre (HFC), was formally initiated in Manitoba in 1954.

b. Why was the flood-forecast centre established? Was there a specific event that resulted in this decision? Please explain.

The Hydrologic Forecast Centre was initially established with a mandate to reduce the flood hazard of the Red River with respect to flooding to the city of Winnipeg. Formal flood forecasting started following the completion of a major flood review and report after the disastrous 1950 flood on the Red River.

c. How was the flood-forecast centre established? (For example, was the flood forecasting responsibility added to an existing government division/department?).

The HFC was established as a component of the then Manitoba Natural Resources Department and has remained a part of various government departments. Currently, the HFC operates as a Branch within the Hydrologic Forecasting and Water Management Division, which belongs to the Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Department.

d. Is the flood forecasting centre within Federal or provincial/state jurisdiction?

The HFC operates under the Provincial Government.

e. What is the service area of your forecast centre (i.e. what is the jurisdictional area the you are responsible for forecasting floods/river flows within)

The HFC is responsible for monitoring hydrologic conditions and for providing forecasts for the major basins within the province of, i.e. the Assiniboine, the Red River, the Souris, Pembina River, the Roseau, the Saskatchewan, Lake Winnipegosis and Lake Manitoba. In addition, the Manitoba Hydro, which works closely with the HFC is responsible for monitoring hydrologic conditions and provides forecasts for the Winnipeg River Basin, Lake Winnipeg, the Hates River Basin and the Nelson River Basin.

f. What is the current population within the service area of the forecasting centre?

Approximately 1.3 million (Government of Manitoba Population Statistics)

g. How many staff members are currently employed at the forecasting centre?

12 staff members including the Director, 3 hydrologic forecasters, 1 hydraulic engineer, 2 hydrometric assistants (field and desktop), 2 EIT hydrologic Forecasters,1 hydrologic forecast technician (data analyst and GIS support). 1 Forecast Systems Engineer and 1 Data management technologist . h. Please briefly describe major cause of flood events (such as snowmelt driven or rainfall) and note if there is a change in primary cause of floods in the last decade.

Floods in Manitoba typically result from a combination of several factors including high antecedent soil moisture conditions prior to the time of freeze-up, rapid snow-melt, rain, rain mixed with snow, ice-jams, wind-set ups in the lakes. In 2011, in addition to high antecedent soil moisture conditions and high snowpack, the flood was exacerbated by additional heavy spring and summer rain. The previous floods seen in 1950, 1997 and 2009 were largely generated by snowmelt. However, this does not necessarily indicate that there is a shift in flood generating factors.

2. Objectives and Operation of the Center

What are the mandates of the forecasting centre?

• Promoting public safety in flood related hazards;

• Coordinating flood-related emergency response and participating in coordinating inter- jurisdictional flood related activities

• Ensuring optimum operation of water control works such as dams, diversions, and floodways aimed at flood damage reduction

• Providing guidance and directing dam operations for flood control and to ensure a sufficient supply of water in reservoirs and rivers and suitable lake levels for recreation and fisheries;

• Promoting long-term flood damage reduction by ensuring that land developments, subdivisions, permits and crown land sales adhere to provincial land use policies regarding the risk of flooding and erosion;

• Carrying out hydrologic, hydraulic and GIS analysis and flood risk mapping using state-of- the-art models for flood forecasting and flood damage reduction studies and to assess impacts of infrastructure changes such as water control structures, road and bridge changes and constructions;

• Operating provincial hydro-metric network of water level and streamflow gauges and providing data in near real time for multiple use; and (8) contributing hydrological and climatic information for the design of flood control structures.

a. When and how are the following communiques issued to the public, media or government officials?

i. Long-term flood outlook (e.g., spring flood outlook)

Typically two outlooks are issued; the first in late February and the second in late March prior to spring runoff to give an indication of peak flows and water levels to be expected under various probabilities of future weather conditions. If conditions warrant, especially indicating potential for major flood like in 2011, earlier outlook could be provided. Additional outlooks are prepared in April if runoff is late to start and the flood potential changes significantly.

During operational forecasting, different categories of daily reports may be issued depending on the hydrologic and future weather conditions. These are listed below. ii. Flood Warnings

Warnings are issued when tributaries and main stem rivers overflow their banks or dike elevation (or flood stage). Warnings are issued when either the flooding is already happening or imminent in the next 24 hours.

-Provided to all levels of provincial government, media organizations, interested private organizations and the public.

iii. Flood Watches

A flood watch is issued when river or lake levels are approaching and likely to reach flood stage, but likely not within the next 24 hours.

--Provided to all levels of provincial government, media organizations, interested private organizations and the public.

iv. Flood Advisories

Issued when water levels in tributaries and main stream stem rise, approaching their bankful or flood stages. A high water advisory can be an early indicator for conditions that may develop into a flood watch or flood warning.

--Provided to all levels of provincial government, media organizations, interested private organizations and the public.

v. Flash-flood warnings

Issued when impending rain storms are likely to cause significant overland flows.

-Provided to all levels of provincial government, media organizations, interested private organizations and the public.

vi. Other type of flood reports not covered in items (i) to (iv) above

• Wind-set up warnings issued for the major lakes; L Manitoba, Lake Winnipegosis, and Lake Winnipeg.

• Lake shoreline ice pile up

• Weekly/ daily river flow graphs,

• The Red River Flood Way operations,

• Lakes and reservoirs conditions and forecasts, including Shellmouth Reservoir level forecasts and operation plans and annual reports.

• Portage Diversion flow forecasts and operation plans. b. Please briefly describe the emergency services structure during major floods.

The main players are the Hydrologic Forecast Centre which currently operates under the Hydrologic Forecast and Water Management Division in the Department of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation and the Emergency Measure Organization. However, many other organizations play key roles in providing data and dissemination of forecasts, setting up mitigation programs.

3. General drainage basin characteristics within the forecast center jurisdiction

a. Can the various forecast basins in the centers jurisdiction be grouped into areas with similar runoff characteristics and flood concerns (e.g .mountainous with flash flood potential, flat with widespread flooding potential)? What are the different drainage basin types managed by the forecast centre?

No formal attempt has been carried out to classify the basins based on physical, hydrological or climatic characteristics for the purposes of flood forecasting. Classification is fundamentally based on watershed boundaries. The major watersheds for which forecasts are provided (Refer to Figure xxx) include the Assiniboine, the Red River, the Souris, Pembina River, the Roseau, the Saskatchewan River, Lake Winnipegosis, Lake Manitoba.

b. For each of the above drainage basin types please describe the following:

i. Range of watershed size of the forecast areas

Watershed areas range from 75 km2 to more than 200 km2. For the purposes of modelling and forecasting, large basins are typically subdivided into smaller sub-watersheds in order to account for spatially variability.

ii. Topography/relief.

Most of the watersheds have fairly gentle slopes to almost flat topography. Mountainous areas are fairly few and localized. The three dominant mountain ranges in Manitoba consist of Duck Mountains, the Pembina Mountains, and the Porcupine Mountains. These mountains are important in flood forecasting due to their capacity to locally influence and enhance orographic precipitation. The Duck mountain range is located in western Manitoba and stretches along the north-south Saskatchewan border. The Pembina Mountains are located in southern Manitoba and extends over to Assiniboine River and the North Dakota border. Its highest point is 600m amsl. The Porcupine Mountains range is located in west-central Manitoba and extending along the Saskatchewan border. The highest point, which is Hart Mountain near Swan River, rises to 800 m amsl.

b. The dominant land-use types (urban, forest, agriculture…)

See attached table below.

c. General climate description including temperature, precipitation averages and extremes.

• Due to its location in the centre of the North American continent, the climate of Manitoba is marked with extreme continental type of climate. Generally, temperatures and precipitation decrease from south to north, while precipitation (total snow water equivalent plus rainfall) decreases from east to west. As noted before, the influence of mountain and large bodies of water are localized and do not occur on large scales of most of the watersheds. Furthermore, the generally flat landscape in many areas exposes the province to numerous weather systems throughout the year, including cold Arctic high-pressure air masses that settle in from the northwest, including the Alberta Clipper, usually during the months of January and February. In the summer, the air masses often come out of the southern United States, as the stronger Azores High ridges into the North American continent; the warmer, humid air is drawn northward from the Gulf of Mexico, generally during the months of July or August occasionally bringing heavy rains and thunderstorms.

Table xxx: Typical Climate Normals for Selected Stations Climate Watershed Daily Daily Annual Annual Annual Station Average Average Rain Snow Precipit- January July (mm) (cm) ation Tempera- Tempera- (mm) ture ture OC OC Winnipeg Red River -16.4 19.7 419 114 521 Brandon Assiniboine -16.6 15.9 375 118 474 Souris Souris -16 18.6 377 129 509 Arborg Interlake -18.3 18.6 404 96 499

The Pas Saskatchewan -19.1 18.1 337 146 450

d. Regulated/non-regulated river flows.

River flows are regulated in all the major basins. The main water control structures for the Assiniboine River are the Shellmouth Dam and the Portage Diversion. The Shellmouth Dam is regulated throughout the year following laid down operating rules, while the Portage Diversion is operated during flood periods only when necessary. The main flood control structure in the Red River is the flood way which is used for flood control during flood events that are likely to impact the City of Winnipeg. The flood forecast models routinely take into account the present and anticipated river flow regulations. e. Typical hydro-meteorological conditions and timing that result in major flood events. Is it possible for multiple of these conditions to occur simultaneously (such as rain on snowmelt, rain while flooding is ongoing) thereby increasing flood risk?

Flood risks (for example, infrastructure such as dams, highways and bridges, urban settlement (population), agricultural land, etc.) (Refer to attached table below).

Figurexxxx : Major Basins in Manitoba

Most major floods have been caused by a combination of two or more of these factors • high soil moisture prior to freeze-up time, • rapid snow melt or a combination, • heavy spring/ summer rains or a combination of these factors. • Ice-jam related flooding has also been experienced. In the large lakes, i.e. Lake Winnipegosis, Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg have experience flooding during period of extreme wind-setup and high lake levels.

Table XXXX Characteristics of the Major Basins Watershed Size (km2) Topography Land Use Climate Flow Regulation Flood Risk Assiniboine 160, 000 Very gentle Mixed; Agriculture, Continental Regulated Farmland and at slopes to parklands, forest, climate. urban areas Headingley almost flat urban including the terrain City of Brandon Souris 59,400 Very gentle Mixed; Agriculture, Continental Regulated Farmland, FN (Sub-basin of at Souris slopes to forest, urban areas climate. communities the Assiniboine) almost flat and urban areas terrain including the Towns of Melita and Souris Red River 285,000 Very gentle Mixed; Agriculture, Continental Regulated Farmland and at James slopes to parklands, forest and climate. urban areas Avenue almost flat urban areas including the terrain City of Winnipeg Saskatchewan 347,000 Very gentle Mixed; Agriculture, Continental Regulated Farmland, FN River at The Pas slopes to parklands, forest and climate. communities almost flat urban areas. and urban areas terrain including the town of The Pas Pembina River 7,500 Very gentle Mixed; Agriculture, Continental Regulated Farmland, FN (Sub-Basin of Near slopes to parklands, forest and climate. Local communities the Red River) Windygates almost flat urban areas. influence by and urban areas terrain Pembina including the Mountains, and town of the Porcupine Windygates Mountains

Roseau 5,670 Very gentle Mixed; Agriculture, Continental Regulated Farmland, FN (Sub-Basin of at slopes to forest and urban climate. communities the Red River) Dominion almost flat areas. and urban areas City terrain including the Dominion City Lake Manitoba 54, 600 Very gentle Mixed; Agriculture, Continental Regulated Farmland and slopes to parklands, forest and climate. Local urban areas, FN almost flat urban areas. influence by Communities terrain Duck Mountains and cottage in the North owners. West and lake effect 4. General Forecasting Model Description

a. Describe, in chronological order, the forecasting methods that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes and what prompted any major changes/upgrades.

• Subsequent to the report mentioned in Section 1 of this questionnaire, procedures were developed that provided a forecast for the Red River at Winnipeg using either a peak-stage relationship between Emerson and Winnipeg or using routing procedures to simulate the conveyance of recorded or projected flows at Emerson and on local tributaries of the Red River between Emerson and Winnipeg. These procedures were in place from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s and remained relatively limited to regression and analog based approaches.

• During the 1970s, critical modelling started with the development of the Manitoba Antecedent Precipitation Index (MANAPI) method. At that time, the forecasting capability was greatly expanded and improved. MANAPI was calibrated and formally used for providing flood forecasts for the major basins, the Assiniboine, the Souris and the Red River Basins. The MANAPI model is a semi-distributed, event-based model that subdivides each of the Souris, Assiniboine and Red river watersheds into smaller sub-watersheds. The model computes a single runoff value for each sub- watershed resulting from antecedentl moisture input (typically soil moisture conditions prior to freeze-up time), and a snowmelt event, a rain on snowmelt event or a simple rainfall event over one day or several days. It then routes the total event surface runoff, based on a unit hydrograph, into a series of daily flows for each sub-watershed under consideration.

• Due to concern about the reliability of flood forecasts, a seven-year streamflow simulation study was undertaken in 1980s in conjunction with the Canada-Manitoba Flood Damage Reduction Agreement on Flood Forecasting. This included testing several models of varying complexity for data requirements; calibration effort required accuracy and cost effectiveness. MANAPI’s performance was evaluated against industry standard models, the “Single Linear Unit Reservoir Parametric”, SLURP, “Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran”, (HSPF) and “Streamflow Simulation and Reservoir Synthesis” SSARR. Formal reports on the study were prepared and distributed. The studies recommended that MANAPI should continue to be used until such a time better models and sufficient data would be available.

• With additional forecasting staff hired in 2008, the HFC began converting the MANAPI model and routing procedures from the FORTRAN DOS platform to an EXCEL Macro Based platform. This provided added flexibility and convenience in terms of data transfer, data storage and the creation of graphics. The conversion of the MANAPI models from Fortran DOS continues to this day (November 2012) along with the assessment of alternative hydrologic models, including;

o HEC-HMS (in-house),

o MIKE-SHE (consultant),

o WATFLOOD (Manitoba Hydro), and

o Improved MANAPI parameterization.

5. Forecasting model structure

a. Name of the forecasting model platform

As noted earlier, the main forecast model used is the Manitoba Antecedent Precipitation Index method (MANAPI), a combination of antecedent soil moisture index, the unit hydrograph for routing surface runoff and Muskingum for channel routing. Other methods used by the HFC are:

• Unit Graph plus linear reservoir storage routing based on various numerical schemes, including Runge Kutta 5th order scheme

• Natural Resources Soil Conservation Runoff Curve Number (NRSCN) for excess rain computation adopted during 2011 flood

• Analog approaches

• Regression based methodologies and

• 2-D flood modelling for complex studies; flood compensation etc.

The Centre is in the process of putting in place a forecasting platform. As a part of that initiative, the HFC has recently implemented the AQUARIUS data base management and plans are underway to make this a part of flood warning decision support systems linked to platforms like FEWS.

b. Year implemented

The application of MANAPI was developed in 1970’s and has been in use ever since with modifications from time to time. c. In-house development (proprietary?) or ‘off-the shelf”?

In house model d. If off-the-shelf, is the model annually contracted or purchased?

N/A. Ongoing efforts include testing industry standards including the HEC-HMS, WATFLOOD and MIKE-SHE models. e. Is the forecasting mode:

i. continuous

ii. event-based

iii. deterministic

iv. stochastic

v. deterministic and stochastic combination?

The model is essentially semi-distributed and event-based but can be used to account for stochastic inputs components based on different probabilistic levels of precipitation and soil moisture (e.g. upper decile, median and lower decile stastics). f. What is the time required to setup the forecasting model?

The set-up which basically consists of model calibration and validation takes typically upto 8 hours (1 day). g. What level of expertise is required to run the forecasting model?

Forecasting models are essentially developed and operated by staff with background and experience in meteorology, statistics, computer science, GIS and hydrologic modelling and the capacity to handle large data sets. h. During operational mode, is the forecasting model fully automated or does it allow for some human interactions?

The forecasting models are essentially excel and Macro based and are considered semi- automatic. The models are flexible in the sense that while data is entered manually, the models generate forecasted outputs, e.g. flood hydrographs automatically. The calibration is also fully manual. i. Is there any technical support available for the forecast model from the model developers?

No. The HFC staff addresses all model problems j. What type of operating system (Windows, Unix, Linux…) is used to run the forecasting model? The current operating system is Windows. However a shift to using both Linux and Windows may be necessary in future with potential implementation of a flood warning decision support system.

k. What are the general advantages and disadvantages of the forecasting model?

The main advantages of the models:

• High degree of flexibility, easy to use and provide convenient data manipulation. Model parameters can easily be adjusted during calibration at any time if significant hydrologic changes occur.

• The model input and output are easily displayed in graphics display through powerful excel capabilities.

• The models use only minimal main inputs, viz., precipitation, historical flows, baseflow and antecedent soil moisture conditions.

The main disadvantages of the models:

• Inability to account explicitly for physical characteristics of the precipitation-runoff transformation process.

• Inability to allow for automatic ingestion of inputs like precipitation.

6. Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model

a. What is the temporal scale required to run the model (hourly/daily…)?

The model runs on daily time-step. However, for the lake levels some routing models are run on six or 12 hourly time-step.

b. What are the typical run times to ensure timely dissemination of forecasts?

For a given watershed, once the model is calibrated it can take upto one hour if input data are readily available. It only takes a few seconds to generate outputs once input data has been entered.

c. What is the forecast lead-time (one day, 5 days, one week, etc.)?

The model can provide forecasts for several weeks, up to a month. However, as the forecast lead time increases, the forecasts become less reliable.

d. What is the spatial scale of the model (lumped/distributed/watershed)?

For purposes of flood forecasting, the major watershed, the Red River Basin, The Assiniboine River Basin, The Souris River Basin, Lake Manitoba, and Lake Winnipegosis have been divided into smaller sub-watersheds ranging between 75 and 200 km2 to account for spatial variability.

7. Describe the different physical processes considered by the Flood Forecasting Model

a. Interception Not explicitly accounted for. b. Excess precipitation (rain/snow).

Excess precipitation is computed based on the Antecedent Precipitation Index (API) method that accounts for antecedent soil moisture conditions. c. Snowmelt

Snowmelt is indirectly accounted for in the API curves that are used to simulate runoff from winter precipitation and additional spring rains. d. Runoff-generation mechanism

The different API curves that represent different levels of antecedent soil moisture conditions prior to the onset of freeze up time, typically mid –November, are used in combination with winter precipitation plus additional rains during the spring time to simulate runoff. e. Overland flow routing.

Overland flow routing is accomplished through the use of the Unit Hydrograph which transforms excess precipitation into runoff hydrograph for every sub-watershed. f. Soil Moisture

Soil moisture is represented by an index which is calculated as a function of weighted precipitation from May to October of the year proceeding the spring-melt period. This index is also assessed against field and air based measurements to ensure accurate moisture estimation. g. Infiltration

Accounted for indirectly by the API curves h. Interflow

Accounted for indirectly by the API curves i. Baseflow

Baseflow is based on historical discharge data and is normally added to the runoff already simulated from the unit hydrograph from each sub-watershed prior to channel routing. j. Evapotranspiration

Evaporation is normally considered minimal and not calculated during the occurrence of the flooding. k. Channel routing

The Muskingum method is used for channel routing. Parameters x and K are subject to calibration. l. Reservoir routing

The reservoir input-output technique is used with numerical schemes upto 5th order Runge Kutta m. Additional processes

N/A

8. Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibration

a. What data-management tools are currently in use by the forecast center for gathering, storing, analyzing, quality checking, retrieving and integrating data?

The HFC uses MSOFFICE database management systems like EXCEL, ACESS to manipulate, process, analyse hydro-meteorological data. The HFC has also recently implemented the AQUARIUS system that is expected to improve data base management and forecasting efforts.

b. Describe, in chronological order, the database-management systems/programs that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes.

AQUARIUS is the first comprehensive database management system to be used in the Forecasting Centre. The system was initially implemented during the 2011 floods.

c. Describe the climate data required by the current model(s) used (precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind-speed, etc.).

The main input for the MANAPI model is precipitation, soil moisture and historical flow time-series. After the flood of 2011, wind speeds/ direction have become a part of inputs into techniques developed to estimate wind-setups and required in lake level warnings.

d. What is the adequacy of climate and hydrometric data network? If there are not adequate data, how does the center address data gaps?

The HFC recognizes the need for densification of hydrometric network, given that there is a significant number of ungauged sub-watersheds that are part of the flood forecasting models. The province has been active in installing new river gauges in the last few years. As well, plans are also under way to install additional climate stations. In addition, the Province initiated the Community Collaborative Rain and Snow (CoCoRaHS) network after the 2011 flood to address data gaps in precipitation measurements, especially snow data.

e. What is the method used to quantify the uncertainties related to climate data used as input to the forecasting model? Does the centre conduct sensitivity/uncertainty analyses?

There are no established methods to quantify uncertainties. However, the HFC continuously evaluates the forecasts against the observed data qualitatively and quantitatively by estimating the departures of forecasts from their values. This evaluation assists in improving model calibration with a view to providing more accurate forecasts in the future.

f. Describe basin related data required by the model (Digital Elevation Model, land-use, soils).

Current model development efforts and practices are increasingly using DEMs to help delineate and describe basin characteristics required in hydrologic modelling. Land use and soils data has been used since the 2011 data to derive runoff based on Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) curve number method to model of run-off.

g. What type of, if any, hydrological model calibration is currently used by the forecasting center? Hydrologic model calibration is performed adjusting model parameters manually. It is hoped automatic model calibration will be possible in future when models like HEC-HMS become operational.

h. Describe data used to calibrate forecast model (observed streamflow, soil moisture…).

The data used for calibration is observed precipitation and observed discharge. The models also allow for adjustment of the Muskingum routing parameters, K (travel time) and X (weighting factor for channel storage).

i. Does the forecast model have a data-assimilation (automatic updating) scheme? How and what information is used in the data-assimilation process?

No. However manual checks are performed frequently during the flood period as new information becomes available to ensure that the models capture the varying hydrologic conditions.

j. Is ensemble weather forecast used to drive flow forecasting?

No. However the forecast evaluates these ensemble weather forecasts together with historical statistical data to determine reasonable values of input data into the forecasting models.

k. Is flow forecasting done as an ensemble?

No. But the forecasts are based on statistically determined upper decile (unfavourable), median (average) and lower decile (favourable) weather conditions to provide a range of forecasts.

l. What are the approaches and methods used to quantify forecast uncertainty?

Methods consist of qualitative and quantitative comparisons between the observed hydrograph and forecasted hydrographs. Particular attention is paid to the flood hydrograph peak magnitude and their timing.

9. Forecast Products Dissemination Protocols

a. What information is provided to public/media/decision makers: single peak-value flow, water levels, ensemble of probabilistic forecasts, etc.?

The information provided is river/ lake and water levels and discharge hydrographs. The peak values and time of occurrence are provided by the forecasts. Probabilistic forecasts are provided in terms of upper decile, median and lower decile (representing wet, average, dry weather conditions). In most cases, the information is conveniently summarized in flood sheets.

b. How is forecast information disseminated to the public (radio, television, internet, email)? What is the frequency of this dissemination?

The common media for communicating forecasts are through radio broadcasts, television, internet, email, web-publishing and faxing. The major components of the flood warning systems are summarized in the attached chart below. Typically, forecasts are issued on a daily basis during operational forecasting. If conditions warrant, e.g. sudden changes in weather, warning may be issued more than once in 24 hours.

c. How are forecast uncertainties communicated to the public/media/decision makers? Uncertainties in forecasts are accounted for by providing forecasts based on the upper decile (unfavourable), median and lower decile (favourable) weather conditions. Forecasts are provided to the news media through Government Information Services. They are distributed to:

• Manitoba Emergency Measures Organization;

• Public Safety Canada;

• cities, towns, villages;

• rural municipalities and local government districts;

• Indian bands;

• pertinent federal and provincial government officials; and

• other interested parties including private organizations and individuals.

d. What measures have the forecast center put in place to ensure that forecast information is correctly interpreted and used by the general public?

The HFC provides descriptions of technical terms used in the forecasts and communicates this to the public through the web, flood reports and meetings with communities. In collaboration with organizations like the Emergency Measures Organizations (EMO), the Centre engages different communities in the various watersheds and to discuss and explain and or clarify information contained in the flood forecasts

e. Are there any mechanisms in place to get feedback from the public about forecasts that would help in assessing performance measures of the forecast centre?

The Hydrologic Forecast Centre and the Department of Infrastructure has provided open communication procedures to obtain public feedback including telephone lines, facebook, twitter etc.

10. Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews

a. Has the forecasting centre conducted any formal or informal performance review? (If there is a report of such review, can a copy be made available to us?)

Performance reviews are a continuous process at the HFC. Frequent reviews by the HFC involve post flood evaluation of forecasts against observed water levels and or flows. Formal performance reviews are also conducted by the province after major floods e.g. after the 1950, 1997, and the 2011. These reviews conduct studies, evaluate existing techniques and past forecasts and subsequently make recommendations in regard to ways of improving flood forecast. Some of the recent improvements of the Forecast Centre can be attributed to these reviews, including the establishment of the HFC, recruiting additional staff and improving forecasting techniques.

After 2011 flood, a Flood Task Force was constituted by Ministerial order to look at different aspects of the flood including the evaluation the performance of the Flood Forecast centre, to evaluate the accuracy and timeliness of the Province’s flood forecasting efforts, giving particular attention to the current state of flood forecasting practices, capabilities and technologies, and co- ordination with other jurisdictions and to examine Adequacy of communications to the public about information such as flood forecasts, emergency response, disaster recovery and flood mitigation programs. A comprehensive report “MANITOBA 2011 FLOOD REVIEW TASK FORCE REPORT” was completed in April 2013 and widely distributed. The report is available in the Internet and will be attached to the final report for this project

b. Were there challenges of performance measurement?

(For example would the weather forecast performance impact the hydrologic forecast performance and emergency response performance?)

Challenges of performance measurements include those posed by:-

• Uncertainties in weather forecasts, thus impacting the accuracy of flood forecasts,

• Relying on upstream forecasts provided by other jurisdictions in the upstream of cross-boundary river systems, e.g., Saskatchewan River, Souris River and the Assiniboine River Basin.

• Inability of the existing models to accurately simulate rain generates flood events • Handling massive realtime data from multiple sources with potential cause of delays in updating forecasts. This challenge will be addressed by the establishment a flood warning decision support system.

c. What performance indices, parameters and measurements are assessed? This might include accuracy of forecasts for:

i. Rainfall (peak intensity, snow amount, duration of peak rain…)

ii. River flow (peak flow, time of the peak flow, hydrograph of the peak flow)

iii. River level (peak level near the time of the event, time of peak level, …)

Performance measures focus on river discharge and water levels; hydrographs profile, peak magnitudes and peak timings.

d. What are the current deficiencies in performance measures?

Deficiencies in performance measures can be attributed to the fact that standard have not yet been established. However, with the long history and experience flooding, there is room for the Province to design and put in place objective and standardized approaches.

e. What types of performance measures are used? This might include quantitative measures such as:

i. Maximum error of forecast

ii. Mean error

iii. Bias

iv. Standard deviation

v. Lead-time error

Performance measures by the HFC typically involve comparison of forecast peak water levels and discharge magnitudes with observed data (mean error) as well as peak timing (lead time error). The objective of these comparisons is to improve model calibrations.

ESRD – River Forecast Centre Performance Measures Development Project Questionnaire: Scotland Environmental Protection Agency-River Forecast Center

1. Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre a. What year was the flood-forecast centre established?

2011 b. Why was the flood-forecast centre established? Was there a specific event that resulted in this decision? Please explain.

2007 floods in England resulted in the Sir Michael Pitt review which gave a number of recommendations. Following this the Flood Forecasting Centre was established for England and Wales (no formal remit for Scotland). We conducted a review and the Scottish Flood Forecasting Service was developed c. How was the flood-forecast centre established? (For example, was the flood forecasting responsibility added to an existing government division/department?)

Added to current flood warning activities of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and National Severe Weather Warning Services of the Met Office d. Is the flood forecasting centre within Federal or provincial/state jurisdiction?

Devolved to Scottish Government e. What is the service area of your forecast centre ( i.e. what is the jurisdictional area the you are responsible for forecasting floods/river flows within)

River, coastal and surface water flood forecasting f. What is the current population within the service area of the forecasting centre?

5 Million g. How many staff members are currently employed at the forecasting centre?

10 within the Flood Forecasting and Warning Unit (SEPA) and 8 meteorologists (Met Office) h. Please briefly describe major cause of flood events (such as snowmelt driven or rainfall) and note if there is a change in primary cause of floods in the last decade.

Rainfall and coastal are the two main drivers. Coastal flooding seems to be on the increase

2. Objectives and Operation of the Center a. What are the mandates of the forecasting centre?

• Issue a daily Flood Guidance Statement to responders

• Issue Scotland-wide Flood Alerts • Develop science capabilities b. When and how are the following communiques issued to the public, media or government officials? i. Long-term flood outlook (e.g., spring flood outlook)

None ii. Flood Warnings

None – this is SEPA iii. Flood Advisories

Similar to Flood Alerts (?), then when required and up to 24 hours in advance iv. Flash-flood warnings

None – although we are piloting a new surface water forecasting alerting tool this summer v. Other type of flood reports not covered in items (i) to (iv) above Flood Guidance Statement – a daily assessment of the risk of flooding based on likelihood and impact c. Please briefly describe the emergency services structure during major floods.

Emergency services respond with their own duties but also co-ordinate under a Local Resilience Partnership

3. General drainage basin characteristics within the forecast center jurisdiction a. Can the various forecast basins in the centers jurisdiction be grouped into areas with similar runoff characteristics and flood concerns (eg mountainous with flash flood potential, flat with widespread flooding potential)? What are the different drainage basin types managed by the forecast centre?

Four broad scale regions (as shown in the map below) are used at a high level. Within each of these areas we expect to get similar impacts from similar rainfall events for example the North West (green) is largely mountainous and the average annual rainfall is high. The population density in this region is low therefore flooding impacts are not expected except for very heavy and persistent rainfall events. In contrast the South and East (yellow) contains some of the most urbanised areas of Scotland and flood impacts may be seen at lower rainfall threshold. However within these general areas there are individual catchments that are of greater concern due to their flashy response and / or known impacts at low rainfall thresholds. The general areas are therefore used as a guide only and not all catchments within the broad areas would be treated the same by the SFFS.

b. For each of the above drainage basin types please describe the following: i. Range of watershed size of the forecast areas

Catchment sizes vary across all areas mentioned above. The largest catchment in Scotland is the Tay ~5000km2 whilst we also provide flood warnings for much smaller catchments for example the River Carron at Stonehaven in <50km2. ii. Topography/relief

Generally mountainous, particular in the north and west with flatter areas around the east coast and through the central belt (see map)

iii. The dominant land-use types (urban, forest, agriculture…)

Much of Scotland is mountainous. In the valleys there is agriculture but in most areas this is not intensive. Urban land cover makes up a very small percentage of Scotland. iv. General climate description including temperature, precipitation averages and extremes

Sctland has a temperate climate with dominat frontal weather systems coming from the west. Summary statistics are available from the Met Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/regmapavge.html#nscotland v. Regulated/non-regulated river flows Hydropower is a significant feature on Scottish watercourses and water held or released from reservoirs can have a significant effect on flows. In most cases during a flood event the reservoirs will be on spill anyway however river levels can remain high for some time after a rainfall event due to the continued release from reservoirs. Our regional duty flood warning officers maintain contact with the reservoir operators and are kept informed of spills and releases.

There are also many large natural loch (lake) systems across Scotland which attenuate flows. vi. Typical hydro-meteorological conditions and timing that result in major flood events. Is it possible for multiple of these conditions to occur simultaneously (such as rain on snowmelt, rain while flooding is ongoing) thereby increasing flood risk?

Heavy rainfall on saturated ground is the most common cause of flooding in Scotland through the autumn and winter. This can be exacerbated by snowmelt in the spring. It is unlikely that a purely snowmelt event would cause significant impacts as usually rainfall is required to accelerate the snowmelt process. It is also common for coastal flooding to occur at a similar time to river flooding due to the forcing weather conditions. Flooding generally lasts between hours and days. vii. Flood risks (for example, infrastructure such as dams, highways and bridges, urban settlement (population), agricultural land, etc.)

Flooding of agricultural land is common during the winter and can last for several weeks at a time. Flooding of urban areas is a bigger risk. Many communities in Scotland are located in flashy catchments and hence flooding can occur quickly. The transport network can be vulnerable to flooding and often involves long diversions if a road is flooded. Flood defences in major cities such as Perth protect against some fluvial and coastal floods.

Surface water flooding, particularly in the developed central belt is a concern for property, roads and railways. Surface water flooding impacts have occurred in the main Scottish cities over recent summers.

The greatest risk to urban areas and infrastructure (including power stations and other assets) is from coastal flooding, particularly on the east coast and in the River Clyde estuary.

4. General Forecasting Model Description a. Describe, in chronological order, the forecasting methods that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes and what prompted any major changes/upgrades.

Development in forecasting capability is usually driven by a mixture of improvements in capabilities (computational, data availability, knowledge) and high profiles events. The development of forecasting capabilities in Scotland is documents in various journal and conference papers. For details see:

• Werner et al (2009) Recent developments in operational flood forecasting in England, Wales and Scotland, Meteorological Applications 16 (1) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/met.124/abstract

• Cranston and Tavendale (2012) Advances in operational flood forecasting in Scotland, proceedings of the ICE - Water management 165 (2) http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/wama.2012.165.2.79

• Maxey et al (2012) The use of deterministic and probabilistic forecasting in countrywide flood guidance in Scotland, BHS conference Dundee http://www.hydrology.org.uk/assets/2012%20papers/Maxey_33.pdf

Recent developments include: Nov 2012 – New coastal forecasting model for Firth of Forth and Tay May 2013 - Introduction of heavy rainfall alert tool to improve surface water forecasting Autumn 2013 – New coastal forecasting model for Loch Linnhe Nov 2013 - Improvement in ensemble forecasting through the use of MOGREPS-UK Sep 2013 – New fluvial flood warning scheme for Stonehaven Ongoing - development of a pilot surface water alerting model for Glasgow

5. Forecasting model structure a. Name of the forecasting model platform

Runs on a FEWS Scotland platform.

Regional catchment models running a variety of ISIS models and PDMs.

National forecasting model based on the CEH Grid-to-Grid (G2G) model.

Note: refer to the slides presented in Calgary for further details b. Year implemented

FEWS Scotland in 2007 c. In-house development (proprietary?) or ‘off-the shelf”?

A mixture. FEWS and G2G were existing models / platforms adapted for Scottish use. d. If off-the-shelf, is the model annually contracted or purchased?

Annually contracted e. Is the forecasting mode: i. continuous

Yes ii. event-based

‘What if’ scenarios may be run manually for particular events if required iii. deterministic

Yes. The catchment models are only deterministic – although we merge ‘time-lagged’ deterministic forecasts on an ad hoc basis to give an idea of model spread iv. stochastic

Not stochastic in the truest sense but G2G takes an ensemble rainfall feed of 24 members to do a national probabilistic forecast. v. deterministic and stochastic combination?

G2G runs both a deterministic and probabilistic run f. What is the time required to setup the forecasting model? Varies based on complexity – some typical projects take 6 months from end to end g. What level of expertise is required to run the forecasting model?

The models runs are automatic so forecasters can view the output in FEWS with a moderate level of expertise. Managing the forecasting systems and forecasting data feeds requires a high level of expertise and a detailed understanding of the system. FEWS is run with technical support from Deltares. h. During operational mode, is the forecasting model fully automated or does it allow for some human interactions?

As above, the forecaster can run manual what if scenarios if required i. Is there any technical support available for the forecast model from the model developers?

Yes as part of the annual contract for G2G and FEWS. For catchment and coastal models this is often available on a ‘good will’ basis. j. What type of operating system (Windows, Unix, Linux…) is used to run the forecasting model?

FEWS on a windows server k. What are the general advantages and disadvantages of the forecasting model?

6. Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model a. What is the temporal scale required to run the model (hourly/daily…)? b. What are the typical run times to ensure timely dissemination of forecasts?

This can be an issue. The ensemble run of G2G takes ~2 hours, the deterministic run ~20 mins. The ensemble run is produced daily at ~1am to ensure results are available for the flood forecaster fist thing in the morning. c. What is the forecast lead-time (one day, 5 days, one week, etc.)?

Catchment models largely 6 hours

G2G deterministic model 5 days

G2G probabilistic model 36 hours d. What is the spatial scale of the model (lumped/distributed/watershed)?

G2G on a 1km grid. Catchment models vary.

7. Describe the different physical processes considered by the Flood Forecasting Model

See the summary graphics from CEH describing the G2G model below. The model also includes a snowmelt component.

a. Interception b. Excess precipitation (rain/snow) c. Snowmelt d. Runoff-generation mechanism e. Overland flow routing f. Soil Moisture g. Infiltration h. Interflow i. Baseflow j. Evapotranspiration k. Channel routing l. Reservoir routing m. Additional processes

8. Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibration a. What data-management tools are currently in use by the forecast center for gathering, storing, analyzing, quality checking, retrieving and integrating data?

Ad-hoc review of significant events after they occur including reviewing meteorological and hydrological forecast data, decision making and impact reports. b. Describe, in chronological order, the database-management systems/programs that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes. c. Describe the climate data required by the current model(s) used (precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind- speed, etc.)

Rainfall forecast data is required for all models. The G2G model also uses temperature for the snowmelt. Coastal models use wind speed, waves and surge forecasts. Observed data from raingauges and streamflow gauges. The meteorological data is Met Office BestData. This is composite of different models from the Met Office unified model dependent on the forecast horizon.

Source: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/services/accuracy

The following extract is from the Met Office “SEPA Best Data” guide describing the data feeds.

Short-range UKV data Sent every six hours Data times of 0300, 0900, 1500, and 2100 GMT Forecasts delivered approximately 2.5 hours later Forecasts for the next 36 hours from data time Consists of: o Rain-accumulation in 15 minute time intervals o Screen temperature (temperature 1.5 m above the surface) in hourly time intervals.

Medium-range Combination of UKV and Euro4 data UKV data is used as much as possible (hours 03-39 of the forecast), then Euro4 for the rest of forecast Sent once a day Data time of 0000 GMT Forecasts delivered approximately 7.5 hours later Forecasts for the next 120 hours from data time Consists of: o Rain-accumulation in hourly time intervals o Screen temperature (temperature 1.5 m above the surface) in hourly time intervals.

d. What is the adequacy of climate and hydrometric data network? If there are not adequate data, how does the center address data gaps?

It is known that parts of Scotland do not have adequate data. Due to the mountainous landscape the radar coverage for the north and west is particularly poor. The SFFS are aware of this and take it into account when forecasting. Currently undertaking a project to identify where the gauge / radar network is not suitable for flood warning purposes. e. What is the method used to quantify the uncertainties related to climate data used as input to the forecasting model? Does the centre conduct sensitivity/uncertainty analyses?

Not formally f. Describe basin related data required by the model (Digital Elevation Model, land-use, soils).

See image above g. What type of, if any, hydrological model calibration is currently used by the forecasting center?

The G2G model was calibrated by the developers (CEH) prior to use. Periodic re-calibration against gauged data is undertaken. h. Describe data used to calibrate forecast model (observed streamflow, soil moisture…).

Observed streamflow. Some other qualitative review of individual components (e.g. snowmelt) i. Does the forecast model have a data-assimilation (automatic updating) scheme? How and what information is used in the data-assimilation process?

The meteorological forecast data from the met office uses data-assimilation. This is external to the SFFS.

The G2G model is run from a states files of observations from available streamflow and rain gauges at t0. j. Is ensemble weather forecast used to drive flow forecasting?

Yes – the Met Office MOGREPS ensemble is used. MOGREPS-UK is a 2.2km 24 member time lagged ensemble. This is available for the first 32 hours. After this MOGREPS-G is used which has a 33km resolution. The SFFS currently use a blended version of these two forecast products at an 18km resolution (see image below taken from http://floodforecastingservice.net/2013/10/11/forecasting-with-higher-resolution-rainfall-forecasts-this- winters-first-test/)

k. Is flow forecasting done as an ensemble?

Yes in the G2G model l. What are the approaches and methods used to quantify forecast uncertainty?

Display spaghetti and plume plots from the ensemble forecast. This enables the flood forecaster to visually assess the uncertainty. The Met Office meteorologist also provides some assessment of forecast uncertainty e.g. from run to run changes in the models.

9. Forecast Products Dissemination Protocols a. What information is provided to public/media/decision makers: single peak-value flow, water levels, ensemble of probabilistic forecasts, etc.?

The main output provided to responders from the SFFS is the flood guidance statement (details of the guidance statement can be found here http://sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_forecasting_service.aspx). The Flood Guidance statement shows the risk for each of the 19 flood alert area (see Q3 for the areas) for five days. There is then a written assessment of the flood risk containing our assessment of timings, location, likely impacts etc. During events we also include an area of concern map (example below).

(source: http://floodforecastingservice.net/2013/10/31/tracking-medium-range-flow-forecasts-from-day-to-day/)

Responders can request access to a website that displays the outputs from FEWS for catchment models and observed flows. There is a publically accessible website for observed water levels but this is not designed for flood warning http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_levels.aspx). G2G model output (including ensemble forecasts) are not available outside SEPA.

Responders can also use the Met Office hazard manager website to access forecast information. The Flood guidance statement is also published on this website. b. How is forecast information disseminated to the public (radio, television, internet, email)? What is the frequency of this dissemination?

The flood guidance statement is disseminated through the HTK system to responders via a daily email (updated in the afternoon if required).

Flood alerts (and warnings) are published on the SEPA website. The public and responders will receive a phone call or text (depending on the format requested) informing them that a flood alert has been issued. These are updated every 24 hours or more frequently if the situation changes.

Parallel messages are communicated by our media team through Twitter (other social media streams are in development)

Media (TV, radio etc) interviews are often requested during events. This is the responsibility of the Hydrology Duty Manager who oversees operational flood forecasting and warning. c. How are forecast uncertainties communicated to the public/media/decision makers?

Forecast uncertainties are not explicitly communicated to the public / media but are present in the tone and language choice of the messages communicated.

Uncertainty in the flood guidance statement is also communicated through language choice but primarily through the risk matrix (below) which includes a likelihood assessment. The forecaster will assess the likelihood of impacts occurring based on the ensemble forecasts, run to run persistence and expert opinion. The text of the Flood Guidance Statement would include a sentence like “there is a medium likelihood or minor impacts” and a tick in the appropriate box would be shown on the area of concern map.

d. What measures have the forecast center put in place to ensure that forecast information is correctly interpreted and used by the general public?

The SFFS has produced guidance documents to aid use of the Flood Guidance Statement (see http://sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_forecasting_service.aspx) We also attend/run training sessions with responders, providing an update on new science and models and illustrating example scenarios. We work closely with the Met Office in this respect and often run joint sessions.

SEPA also has duty Flood Advisors available who help responders understand what the flood guidance statement means for their area. There are also Met Office advisors who perform a similar role. Feedback from responders indicates that this advisory service is invaluable during events. e. Are there any mechanisms in place to get feedback from the public about forecasts that would help in assessing performance measures of the forecast centre?

One of the roles of the flood advisors is to collect feedback from events. The training sessions mentioned above are also a useful way of collecting this information.

10. Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews a. Has the forecasting centre conducted any formal or informal performance review? (If there is a report of such review, can a copy be made available to us?)

Forecast performance is usually re-viewed on an event basis. This is usually internal but some external information is available for example a review of an event in Comrie (a high profile flashy response catchment) is discussed here http://icfr2013.ex.ac.uk/papers/D2_Geldart.pdf in terms of the modelling capability and available forecast data.

We’ve also done some ad hoc statistical analysis during calibration of models and post event analysis i.e. POD and FAR assessment. Nothing can be readily provided at the moment but we can share some examples if required. Another assessment was done on the performance of the nowcast precipitation forecast: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/met.125/abstract

Following the introduction of a new heavy rainfall alert tool we reviewed the number of days over summer 2013 where surface water flood guidance had been provided compared to days when impacts were observed.

The meteorological forecasts are reviewed formally by the Met Office. b. Were there challenges of performance measurement? (For example would the weather forecast performance impact the hydrologic forecast performance and emergency response performance?)

We use impact based forecasting however it can be difficult to get reports of impacts during an event. Particular for surface water flooding events, this makes it difficult to assess forecast performance. Another challenge for surface water forecasting is having observed rainfall records in the vicinity of the observed impacts. c. What performance indices, parameters and measurements are assessed? This might include accuracy of forecasts for:

As stated above this is done more in the model calibration phase than in real time. FEWS Scotland does have a real time performance measure in place and some of the earlier models that we used had POD and FAR analysis reported in near real time, however these were not used by flood forecasters. i. Rainfall (peak intensity, snow amount, duration of peak rain…) ii. River flow (peak flow, time of the peak flow, hydrograph of the peak flow) iii. River level (peak level near the time of the event, time of peak level, …) d. What are the current deficiencies in performance measures? e. What types of performance measures are used? This might include quantitative measures such as: i. Maximum error of forecast ii. Mean error iii. Bias iv. Standard deviation v. Lead-time error

ESRD – River Forecast Centre Performance Measures Development Project

Questionnaire: Federal Office for the Environment FOEN Switzerland

1. Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre a. What year was the flood-forecast centre established?

We are doing flood forecasts since 1985. Till 2011 we delivered floods subscriptions to some clients.

In 2011, the hydrological Forecast section was grounded and is responsible for the discharge warnings (Alarmierungsverordung). b. Why was the flood-forecast centre established? Was there a specific event that resulted in this deci- sion? Please explain.

The first client who was needed discharge forecasts was the Navigation in Basel for the transport of ware by boat over the Rhine.

The flood of 1999 make the number of clients growing and the flood in 2005 lead to the floods warning. c. How was the flood-forecast centre established? (For example, was the flood forecasting responsibility added to an existing government division/department?)

At the beginning it was only 2 or 3 collaborators within the division Hydrology who makes the forecasts support beside other activities in hydrology as for example analyses of the water quality and quantity. d. Is the flood forecasting centre within Federal or provincial/state jurisdiction?

Yes within the Federal Office for the Environment in the division Hydrology. e. What is the service area of your forecast centre (i.e. what is the jurisdictional area the you are respon- sible for forecasting floods/river flows within)

The forecast center is responsible for discharge previsions and warnings for the surface waters of Swiss national interest (look at the picture).

For more jurisdictional information please look at the following link: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/hydrologie/01447/index.html?lang=en f. What is the current population within the service area of the forecasting centre?

Population of Switzerland ~ 8 Mio. g. How many staff members are currently employed at the forecasting centre?

1 head, 1 system support, 7 forecasters =>700 percent by position h. Please briefly describe major cause of flood events (such as snowmelt driven or rainfall) and note if there is a change in primary cause of floods in the last decade.

Rainfall: Influence regional and national rivers all the year. Thunderstorm: Influence small and medium rivers from spring to autumn. Snowmelt: Influence mountain rivers, national rivers and lakes. Rain on snow: Influence mountain rivers, national rivers and lakes.

2. Objectives and Operation of the Center a. What are the mandates of the forecasting centre?

• Responsible for the floods warnings for the surface waters of Swiss national interest. • runs an operational forecasting service that prepares daily reports on water conditions and dis- charge forecasts for the entire nation; • provides continuous expert evaluations of current and forecasted situations of waterways of na- tional interest; • coordinates with other federal, cantonal and international forecasting services; • is responsible for the technical operation of the FEWS system and all data flows; • develops operational forecasting at FOEN and integrates new forecasting systems in its opera- tional processes; • participates in FOEN's critical situation control centre in the event of flooding and develops fun- damental analyses for assessing situations; • conducts studies to analyze flooding events; • initiates, assists and conducts national and international hydrological forecasting research pro- grams. b. When and how are the following communiques issued to the public, media or government officials? i. Long-term flood outlook (e.g., spring flood outlook)

Publication of the hydrological bulletin every Monday and Thursday. It is a description of the hydrologi- cal situation in Switzerland with a 3-days outlook. http://www.hydrodaten.admin.ch/warnungen-vorhersagen/de/#hydrologisches_bulletin ii. Flood Warnings

Transmission of a small text with a table (Rivers/flow peak/time of peak) at the national alarm center who distribute the warning to the cantons with a protected mail system (VULPUS).

If possible the warning are sent at 11am and 17pm at cantonal authorities. iii. Flood Advisories

Publication on different platforms (Common Information Platform for Natural Hazards GIN, dangers- naturels.ch, www.hydrodaten.admin.ch) of the flood alert bulletin that contains information about cur- rent meteo/hydro/(snow) situation and meteo/hydro/(snow) forecasts.

The publication happened if possible at 12 am or 18pm. iv. Flash-flood warnings

Publication on different platforms (Common Information Platform for Natural Hazards GIN, dangers- naturels.ch, www.hydrodaten.admin.ch) of the flood alert bulletin that contains information about cur- rent meteo/hydro/(snow) situation and meteo/hydro/(snow) forecasts.

The publication happened if possible at 12 am or 18pm. v. Other type of flood reports not covered in items (i) to (iv) above c. Please briefly describe the emergency services structure during major floods. • During major floods the flood forecast center is occupied 24h per day: 3 forecasters and 1 deci- sion maker during daytime and 1-2 forecaster during nighttime. • A new model run is calculated every 2 hours. • Telephone conferences takes place 2 times a day with all concerned institutions: MeteoSwiss / the avalanche center (SLF) / cantonal authorities / Floods forecasting center of Germany / Floods forecasting center of France… • Warning and flood alert bulletin are sent.

3. General drainage basin characteristics within the forecast center jurisdiction a. Can the various forecast basins in the centers jurisdiction be grouped into areas with similar runoff characteristics and flood concerns (eg mountainous with flash flood potential, flat with widespread flooding potential)? What are the different drainage basin types managed by the forecast centre?

In Switzerland there are 5 main river basins (Rhein, Rhone, Ticino, Inn, Doubs).

We can distinguish different kind of surface water: • Midland lakes with overflow potential • Rivers of Swiss national interest: with overflow potential • Small and medium midland rivers: with overflow potential (Warnings in small and medium rivers are a plus but not a must) • Mountainous rivers with flash flood potential (Warnings in that conditions are a plus but not a ju- ristic obligation)

b. For each of the above drainage basin types please describe the following: i. Range of watershed size of the forecast areas

• Midland Lakes: about 2000 km2 and more • Rivers of Swiss national interest: about 300 – 36000 km2 • Small and medium midland rivers: about 300 – 2000 km2 • Mountainous rivers : about 300 – 2000 km2

ii. Topography/relief

• Midland Lakes: midland / mountainous • Midland rivers of Swiss national interest: midland / mountainous • Small and medium midland rivers: midland • Mountainous rivers : Mountainous (altitude between 700 – 4000 m)

iii. The dominant land-use types (urban, forest, agriculture…)

• Midland Lakes: mixed: mountain vegetation, forest, agriculture, urban • Midland rivers of Swiss national interest: mixed: mountain vegetation, forest, agriculture, urban • Small and medium midland rivers: mixed: forest, agriculture, urban • Mountainous rivers : mixed: mountain vegetation, forest

iv. General climate description including temperature, precipitation averages and extremes

• Midland Lakes: yearly mean temperature about 8-12 °C, yearly precipitation sum about 900 – 1400 mm (values from 1981-2010); precipitation peaks during summer time • Midland rivers of Swiss national interest: Temperature between -4 and 35°C / precipitation aver- age about 1000 mm /year • Small and medium midland rivers: Temperature between -4 and 35°C / precipitation average about 1000 mm /year

v. Regulated/non-regulated river flows

• Midland Lakes: all lakes are regulate instead lake Constance • Midland rivers of Swiss national interest: numerous water power stations in the Alps and some in the Midland. • Small and medium midland rivers: some rivers are regulate • Mountainous rivers: numerous regulated rivers in the Alps. vi. Typical hydro-meteorological conditions and timing that result in major flood events. Is it possible for multiple of these conditions to occur simultaneously (such as rain on snowmelt, rain while flooding is ongoing) thereby increasing flood risk?

Many different discharge regimes:

• Midland Lakes: major floods occur because of long rain events or rain on snowmelt events. • Midland rivers of Swiss national interest: major floods occur because of long rain events or rain on snowmelt events.

• Small and medium midland rivers: major floods occur because of long rain events or rain on snowmelt events or storms. • Mountainous rivers: major floods occur because of rain on snowmelt events or storms. vii. Flood risks (for example, infrastructure such as dams, highways and bridges, urban settlement (popu- lation), agricultural land, etc.) At Hazard level 5, rivers may burst their banks and flooding may occur in many places. Infrastructure of national importance such as railways, villages and towns and industrial plants may be significantly af- fected by floods. Significant transport disruption can be expected. Widespread major damage must be expected.

4. General Forecasting Model Description a. Describe, in chronological order, the forecasting methods that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes and what prompted any major changes/upgrades.

• Since 2007 the conceptual HBV-96 model is used for forecasting the Swiss Rhine basin. • In 2010 some parts of the HBV-96 model area, namely the catchments Emme, Sihl and Linth, were simulated in more detail by using two additional catchment models (WaSiM and PREVAH). Compared with HBV-96 these two models allow to simulate the hydrological processes in a more sophisticated way. • In 2011 the grid-based catchment model WaSiM was additionally setup to simulate and fore- cast the runoff within the Rhone basin.

5. Forecasting model structure a. Name of the forecasting model platform

FEWS (Flood early warning system) b. Year implemented

FEWS has been set operationally in 2007. c. In-house development (proprietary?) or ‘off-the shelf”?

FEWS has been developed by the Deltares Company in Delft (NL); Deltares is the owner of the FEWS software. d. If off-the-shelf, is the model annually contracted or purchased?

In 2000 Deltares started the development and integration of FEWS in the Swiss flood forecasting centre at FOEN. So far the work with Deltares (FEWS) has been realized by means of annually contracts. From now on, a more comprehensive contract could be concluded with our partner Deltares (for the next 5- 10 years). e. Is the forecasting mode: i. continuous yes ii. event-based no iii. deterministic use of different deterministic weather forecasts iv. stochastic use of probabilistic weather forecasts (ensemble predictions) v. deterministic and stochastic combination? Separate use of deterministic and probabilistic forecasts; no coupled forecasts f. What is the time required to setup the forecasting model?

All hydrological forecast runs have pre-configured setups within our forecasting system (FEWS). There is no need for changing these setups during the forecast run. It needs appr. 60 minutes to run all hydrolog- ical forecasting models with the complete set of weather predictions (deterministic and ensemble fore- cast sets with lead times between 2 and 10 days). g. What level of expertise is required to run the forecasting model? hydrological / geographical or environmental knowledge h. During operational mode, is the forecasting model fully automated or does it allow for some human interactions?

The model works fully automated without interaction from forecaster. There are two modes how the model can be started: manually or automated.

At least once a day the forecaster starts the models manually in order to control the model input data and to publish validated results. But several time per day the models are also started in an automated mode (pre-configured with the FEWS forecasting system). i. Is there any technical support available for the forecast model from the model developers? There is no high-level support but if questions arise or technical support is needed we can call the model developers for support. Note that there is also a well-developed model knowledge base at our office. j. What type of operating system (Windows, Unix, Linux…) is used to run the forecasting model?

Windows (64-bit) k. What are the general advantages and disadvantages of the forecasting model?

6. Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model a. What is the temporal scale required to run the model (hourly/daily…)?

The model needs about 1h to deliver a result based on all meteo models. FEWS live system calculated a prevision 4 times a day. Every working days the controlled results are published at 9:00. In case of flood events it is possible to have a controlled result every 2 hours. b. What are the typical run times to ensure timely dissemination of forecasts?

Previsions are normally published at 9:00 after 2h work. c. What is the forecast lead-time (one day, 5 days, one week, etc.)?

Depends on the type of meteo model input mainly

COSMO-2 => 36h, COSMO-7=> 3 days, COSMO-leps => 5 days, EZMWF => 10 days d. What is the spatial scale of the model (lumped/distributed/watershed)? HBV: lumped, semi-distributed for the Rhein watershed. It is divided in 60 sub-basins (~500km2). WASIM: gridded 500 m.

7. Describe the different physical processes considered by the Flood Forecasting Model

See http://www.wasim.ch/downloads/doku/wasim/wasim_2013_en.pdf a. Interception

Bucket approach considering a capacity depending on the leaf area index (LAI), the vegetation cov- erage degree (VCG), and the maximum height of water at the leafs b. Excess precipitation (rain/snow)

The differentiation between rain and snow is done using a threshold temperature. Rain and snowfall are corrected separately using wind speed as parameter. c. Snowmelt

There are available several approaches for calculating snowmelt:

- Temperature-index-approach

- Temperature-wind-index-approach

- Combination approach after Anderson (1973) d. Runoff-generation mechanism

Physically-based soil model (Richards approach) e. Overland flow routing

Runoff concentration by (1) single linear reservoir series considering translation times (translation- retention approach), and (2) kinematic wave approach for routing surface runoff from cell to cell f. Soil Moisture

Calculation of vertical water movement in the unsaturated soil zone based on the Richards-Equation (with parameterization after van Genuchten [1980]) g. Infiltration

Integrated part of the soil model h. Interflow

Integrated part of the soil model

I. Base flow

Calculated as infiltration from the groundwater into the surface river system j. Evapotranspiration

Using the Penman-Monteith approach k. Channel routing

Using the kinematic wave approach l. Reservoir routing

Consideration of internal and external inflows and abstractions, and bypasses as well; it is possible to define complex abstraction or reservoir rules m. Additional processes

- glacier melt and glacier runoff generation - shadowing, slope and aspect dependent correction for direct radiation and temperature

8. Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibration a. What data-management tools are currently in use by the forecast center for gathering, storing, ana- lyzing, quality checking, retrieving and integrating data?

FEWS (Flood early warning system) b. Describe, in chronological order, the database-management systems/programs that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes.

c. Describe the climate data required by the current model(s) used (precipitation, temperature, humidi- ty, wind-speed, etc.)

130 federal meteo stations with precipitation, temperature, dew point temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, Global radiation, sunshine duration data.

About 200 cantonal stations with precipitation data and sometimes also temperature, dew point tem- perature data. About 150 snow stations with precipitation, precipitation intensity, temperature, snow depth, vapor pres- sure, saturated vapor pressure, relative humidity, wind speed, Global radiation, data (only a few stations are fully equipped).

About 50 private stations with precipitation, temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, Global radia- tion data.

Neighbors lands stations d. What is the adequacy of climate and hydrometric data network? If there are not adequate data, how does the center address data gaps?

Hydrometric data belong to the Federal Office for the Environment. Meteo data belong to MeteoSwiss.

The gaps and unreliable values of meteorological time series can be filled by spatial Interpolation using the Kriging or inverse distance interpolation functions. The Kriging Interpolation function is used in the FEWS FOEN to spatially interpolate the meteorological Time series to the HBV catchments. For filling the gaps in observed meteorological data one Module Instance file “SpatialInterpolation_ObservedMeteo” has been configured. e. What is the method used to quantify the uncertainties related to climate data used as input to the forecasting model? Does the centre conduct sensitivity/uncertainty analyses? f. Describe basin related data required by the model (Digital Elevation Model, land-use, soils).

- DEM => derived parameters: slope, exposition, catchment structures, river network, channel parame- ters, etc.

- Land-use => derived parameters: LAI, VCF, root depths, etc.

- Soil maps => derived parameters: hydraulic conductivity, porosity, macro pores, etc.

- Hydrogeology => derived parameters: hydraulic conductivity, storage parameters, etc. g. What type of, if any, hydrological model calibration is currently used by the forecasting center? h. Describe data used to calibrate forecast model (observed streamflow, soil moisture…).

Mainly locally observed discharges, but increasingly also variables like snow water equivalent (SWE) grids i. Does the forecast model have a data-assimilation (automatic updating) scheme? How and what information is used in the data-assimilation process?

The complete HBV simulation is split in an update run and a forecast run. In this workflow the HBV up- date simulation run is executed using as many observed meteorological and hydrological time series as possible. Under normal circumstances this HBV run is running for a period starting from an existing warm model state upto T0. At T0 the HBV model states will be stored in the FEWS local data store. Within the HBV Update workflow the following tasks are carried out after the data processing tasks: • Export the HBV settings for the Update run • Apply option to disable ARMA updating if selected • Run the HBV models for each sub-group and apply ARMA error correction in update • Mode. • Convert the water level time series to discharges with Q-H relations. j. Is ensemble weather forecast used to drive flow forecasting?

Yes COSMO-LEPS k. Is flow forecasting done as an ensemble?

Each meteo model gives a hydrological answer. l. What are the approaches and methods used to quantify forecast uncertainty?

9. Forecast Products Dissemination Protocols a. What information is provided to public/media/decision makers: single peak-value flow, water levels, ensemble of probabilistic forecasts, etc.? ¨

We deliver daily (at 9:00) model results based on the meteo model COSMO-2, COSMO-7, COSMO-LEPS and ECMWF on the 2 platform GIN (authorities) and OFEN (public).

On Mondays and Thursdays we published the hydrological bulletin on the 2 platform GIN and OFEN.

In case of flood the model results are published till 4 times a days and a warning is send at 11:00 / 17:00 for authorities and 12:00 / 18:00 for the public. A flood alert bulletin is also published at the same time then the warning. b. How is forecast information disseminated to the public (radio, television, internet, email)? What is the frequency of this dissemination?

Model results (deterministic and probabilistic), hydrological bulletin, flood warning bulletin are published on the platform GIN (Common Information Platform for Natural Hazards) and on the OFEN platform (but here only for the most important stations).

The flood warnings are sent with a protected mail channel (VULPUS) to the cantonal authorities.

If the flood reaches the warning level 4, we have the possibility to use radio and TV channel to inform the population. c. How are forecast uncertainties communicated to the public/media/decision makers? d. What measures have the forecast center put in place to ensure that forecast information is correctly interpreted and used by the general public?

The bulletin is written with sentences and should be understand by everyone. e. Are there any mechanisms in place to get feedback from the public about forecasts that would help in assessing performance measures of the forecast centre?

We made a questioner about the hydrological bulletin 3 years ago. We regularly asked the user for a feedback during meetings.

10. Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews a. Has the forecasting centre conducted any formal or informal performance review? (If there is a re- port of such review, can a copy be made available to us?)

No b. Were there challenges of performance measurement?

(For example would the weather forecast performance impact the hydrologic forecast performance and emergency response performance?)

c. What performance indices, parameters and measurements are assessed? This might include accura- cy of forecasts for: i. Rainfall (peak intensity, snow amount, duration of peak rain…) ii. River flow (peak flow, time of the peak flow, hydrograph of the peak flow)

The warning contain a table with a rang for the estimated peak flow and the estimated time of the peak flow.

iii. River level (peak level near the time of the event, time of peak level …) We only published the forecast for river flow and not for river level (only measured data). d. What are the current deficiencies in performance measures?

e. What types of performance measures are used? This might include quantitative measures such as: i. Maximum error of forecast ii. Mean error iii. Bias iv. Standard deviation v. Lead-time error

ESRD – River Forecast Centre Performance Measures Development Project Questionnaire: Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA), ON 1. Background and History of the Flood Forecasting Centre

a. What year was the flood-forecast centre established?

• The UTRCA was the 6th Authority formed in Ontario created September 1947 • Formalization of the Flood Forecasting Centre occurred in 1979

b. Why was the flood-forecast centre established? Was there a specific event that resulted in this decision? Please explain.

• In the early 1900s rural Ontario was facing a serious deforestation problem. The combination of drought and deforestation was causing extensive soil loss and flooding across the Province. The Conservation Authorities Act was passed by the Ontario Government in 1946 in an initiative to deal with conservation, flood control, and reforestation. • The objectives of Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities (CAs) are: o To ensure that Ontario’s rivers, lakes and streams are properly safeguarded managed and restored; o To protect, manage and restore Ontario’s woodlands, wetlands and natural habitat; o To develop and maintain programs that will protect life and property from natural hazards such as flooding and erosion o To provide opportunities for the public to enjoy, learn from and respect Ontario’s natural environment • The UTRCA flood-forecasting centre was established in 1979 with the first hiring of a Professional Engineer dedicated to flood forecasting and warning. Prior to 1979, the General Manager of the CA was responsible for flood forecasting and warning duties

c. How was the flood-forecast centre established? (For example, was the flood forecasting responsibility added to an existing government division/department?)

• The CA always had an element of flood forecasting and warning in its mandate, since creation in 1947, however the centre was formalized in 1979

d. Is the flood forecasting centre within Federal or provincial/state jurisdiction?

• Flood forecasting and warning responsibilities were delegated to the CAs in 1976 with the passing of the Ontario Conservation Authorities Act. • Funding is provided through provincial and municipal dollars

e. What is the service area of your forecast centre ( i.e. what is the jurisdictional area the you are responsible for forecasting floods/river flows within)

• The service area includes the Upper Thames River Basin (3,400 km²) including the upper headwaters and tributaries of the Thames River downstream to Delaware where the Thames River enters the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority’s jurisdiction

f. What is the current population within the service area of the forecasting centre?

• Approximately 485,000

g. How many staff members are currently employed at the forecasting centre?

• Three (3) forecasters • One (1) technician • Two (2) mechanics

h. Please briefly describe major cause of flood events (such as snowmelt driven or rainfall) and note if there is a change in primary cause of floods in the last decade.

• Snowmelt with rain is most common • The Regulatory Flood (1:250 year), still used as the defining event for floodplain management policy, was caused by heavy rain on saturated ground in April 1937

2. Objectives and Operation of the Center

a. What are the mandates of the forecasting centre?

• Maintain Flood Response Centre, Flood Contingency Plan and system of flood monitoring • Encourage contingency planning in flood prone communities and provide technical advice • Maintain 24 hour watch of potentially damaging floods • Issue flood bulletins and relating information to watershed flood coordinators and media • Liaise with Flood Coordinators and others during flood

b. When and how are the following communiques issued to the public, media or government officials?

i. Long-term flood outlook (e.g., spring flood outlook) • Use of a published Watershed Conditions Statement / Flood Outlook ii. Flood Warnings • Highest level of warning issued when flood is imminent or occurring within specific watercourses and municipalities • When action is required iii. Flood Advisories • Not used iv. Flash-flood warnings

• Not used

v. Other type of flood reports not covered in items (i) to (iv) above

• Flood Watch - Issued when flooding is imminent or occurring within specific watercourses and municipalities. Some nuisance flooding may be occurring, and low-lying areas such as parks etc. will be affected • Watershed Conditions Statement – Water Safety: Issued during periods of minor flooding to report on general watershed conditions to flood coordinators and to remind the general public of general river safety issues • Special Bulletin – Describes a bulletin for a specific situation e.g. Boating Ban issued for the Thames River within the City of London when water levels pass the maximum boating level. The ban is issued to the London Police and London Fire Department. The London Police then contact the media to publicize the Boating Ban c. Please briefly describe the emergency services structure during major floods.

• Bulletins and forecasts provided by UTRCA to municipal flood coordinators (one for each member municipality within the watershed, generally) They are then responsible for notifying individuals at risk, usually via police and fire

3. Drainage basins within the forecast center jurisdiction

a. What are the different drainage basins managed by the forecast centre?

• Upper Thames River Basin

b. For each of the above drainage basins please describe the following:

i. Watershed size – 3400 km² ii. Topography/relief – Mostly flat, some relief in upper headwaters. Highest elevation ~400 masl to lowest elevation ~ 200 masl iii. The dominant land-use types (urban, forest, agriculture…) • Agriculture ~ 75% • Natural Vegetation ~ 14% • Urban or Built-up ~ 10% • Aggregates ~ 1% • Water ~ 1% iv. General climate description including temperature, precipitation averages and extremes • The mild climate of southwestern Ontario can be attributed to its location in the Great Lakes Basin. These Great Lakes have a moderating effect on the harsh climate of central North America producing longer and warmer summers and shorter and milder winters than places to the east and west at the same latitude. This favourable climate and abundant precipitation has allowed the deciduous forests to expand from the Carolinas through part of the eastern United States northwards into southern Ontario.

Two conditions dominate the region’s weather: dry winds from the west and humid air streams from the middle and southern states. Storms are triggered when these different air masses mix, producing substantial precipitation. Precipitation is increased by the “lake effect”, a situation where winds blow over the Great Lakes, pick up moisture and drop it on the land.

Average annual precipitation depths are in the order of 1000 mm, with 20% typically occurring as snowfall. Inter-event precipitation periods are on the order of 2-3 days with approximately 168 days with precipitation ≥ 0.2mm depth. The table below provides additional monthly and annual data

London Int'l Airport Meteorological Station - 1981 to 2010 Canadian Climate Normals

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Temperature

Daily Average (°C) -5.6 -4.5 -0.1 6.8 13.1 18.3 20.8 19.7 15.5 9.2 3.4 -2.6 7.9

Standard Deviation 2.8 2.5 2 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.7 3 1

Daily Maximum (°C) -1.9 -0.5 4.4 12.1 19 24 26.4 25.3 21.1 14.2 7.2 0.9 12.7

Daily Minimum (°C) -9.2 -8.6 -4.5 1.5 7.2 12.6 15.1 14 9.9 4.3 -0.4 -6.1 3

Extreme Maximum (°C) 16.7 17.8 24.8 29.4 32.4 38.2 36.7 37 34.4 30 24.4 18.5

Extreme Minimum (°C) -31.7 -29.5 -24.8 -12.2 -5 -0.6 5 1.5 -3.3 -11.1 -18.3 -26.9

Precipitation

Rainfall (mm) 33.4 33.6 46.3 74.7 89.4 91.7 82.7 82.9 103 78.1 83.2 46.9 845.9

Snowfall (cm) 49.3 38.4 29.4 9.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 3.2 16.6 47.6 194.3

Precipitation (mm) 74.2 65.5 71.5 83.4 89.8 91.7 82.7 82.9 103 81.3 98 87.5 1011.5

Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm) 45 58.8 43.2 66.4 58.2 82.8 63 69.9 89.1 56.9 56.5 45.6

Extreme Daily Snowfall (cm) 32.5 30 27.4 21.8 5.8 0 0 0 0 15.7 40.6 57

Extreme Daily Precipitation (mm) 46 58.8 44.2 66.4 58.2 82.8 63 69.9 89.1 56.9 56.5 45.6

Extreme Snow Depth (cm) 69 47 43 20 0 0 0 0 0 13 51 70 v. Regulated/non-regulated river flows • The UTRCA, in conjunction with its municipal partners owns, operates and maintains a system of structures that reduce the damages caused by flooding on the Upper Thames River system including three major flood control dams as well as major dyke systems in London and St. Marys, and a channel in Ingersoll. vi. Typical hydro-meteorological conditions and timing that result in major flood events. Is it possible for multiple of these conditions to occur simultaneously (such as rain on snowmelt, rain while flooding is ongoing) thereby increasing flood risk? • Rain on snowmelt presents most common flood risk • The Regulatory Flood (1:250 year), still used as the defining event for floodplain management policy, was caused by heavy rain on saturated ground in April 1937 vii. Flood risks (for example, infrastructure such as dams, highways and bridges, urban settlement (population), agricultural land, etc.) • Mostly parks, low lying recreational areas and parking lots • Rural areas include some roadway overtopping • Three flood control structures are used to protect most vulnerable urban area (City of London) • Dyke systems along urban low-lying areas protect vulnerable centres

4. General Forecasting Model Description

a. Describe, in chronological order, the forecasting methods that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes and what prompted any major changes/upgrades.

• UTRCA Flood Forecasting Centre was established in 1979 • HYMO: Used to establish flood flows for dam management in late 70’s • OTTHYMO: Updated version of above model • VisualOTTHYMO: Updated version of above model • BRFU (proprietary model): Model set up in late 90’s, never really used. Difficult to calibrate • HEC-HMS: Used currently, and effectively

b. Describe the current flood-forecasting model(s) and any other in-house tools used by the centre.

• HEC-HMS • Regression using past events/historical events • GAWSER Snow Melt Spreadsheet

c. What are the essential elements of the current forecasting model(s) (including inputs and outputs)?

• Input o Accurate snow and precipitation data o Accurate forecast weather o Geo-referenced radar data (developing this, not yet using) o Observed hydrographs for calibration and verification o Current reservoir/river levels

• Output o Estimated peak flows and volumes and times at observed sites and at key flood damage centres. Estimated inflows to flood control structures

d. When and what field programs are used for data collection, both automated and manual?

• Manual o Snow surveys done at or as near as possible to the 1st and 15th of each month, and just prior to major runoff event, if appropriate o Some volunteer daily rain totals used in post event analysis o Some manual high water marks taken during major events via GPS survey equipment o Photography during major events

• Automated o Tipping bucket rain gauges (not accurate during sub-zero temperatures) o Weighing rain gauge o Stream gauge and reservoir level network o Hourly air temperature gauges

5. Forecasting model structure

a. Name of the forecasting model platform • HEC-HMS • Historical knowledge • Experience - stream gauging upstream of flood control structures and experiential knowledge give sufficient lead time ( > 12 hours) to estimate inflows and required release rates • Spreadsheet models • Reservoir routing model • WISKI to manage data

b. Year implemented • 2004 – present (ongoing)

c. In-house development (proprietary?) or ‘off-the shelf”? • USACE package built and calibrated in-house

d. If off-the-shelf, is the model annually contracted or purchased? • n/a

e. Is the forecasting mode: i. continuous ii. event-based iii. deterministic iv. stochastic v. deterministic and stochastic combination?

• Event Based

f. What is the time required to setup the forecasting model? • ½ Day

g. What level of expertise is required to run the forecasting model? • Would need to use the various components regularly to be able to use

h. During operational mode, is the forecasting model fully automated or does it allow for some human interactions? • Manual

i. Is there any technical support available for the forecast model from the model developers? • n/a

j. What type of operating system (Windows, Unix, Linux…) is used to run the forecasting model? • Windows

k. What are the general advantages and disadvantages of the forecasting model? • (Not answered)

6. Temporal and Spatial Consideration of the Flood Forecast Model

a. What is the temporal scale required to run the model (hourly/daily…)?

• Hourly

b. What are the typical run times to ensure timely dissemination of forecasts?

• Forecasts are not generally based on model output. The model is used as a tool combined with historical knowledge, experience and other modeling.

c. What is the forecast lead-time (one day, 5 days, one week, etc.)?

• Up to 3 days

d. What is the spatial scale of the model (lumped/distributed/watershed)?

• Lumped

7. Describe the different physical processes considered by the Flood Forecasting Model

a. Interception o Initial abstraction estimates b. Excess precipitation (rain/snow) o Initial and constant loss c. Snowmelt o GAWSER spreadsheet routine d. Runoff-generation mechanism o Initial and constant loss e. Overland flow routing o None f. Soil Moisture o Initial and constant loss g. Infiltration o Initial and constant loss h. Interflow i. Baseflow j. Evapotranspiration k. Channel routing o Modified Pulse l. Reservoir routing o Index m. Additional processes

8. Data Requirements and Management, Treatment and Model Calibration

a. What data-management tools are currently in use by the forecast center for gathering, storing, analyzing, quality checking, retrieving and integrating data? • WISKI • HEC-DSS

b. Describe, in chronological order, the database-management systems/programs that have been used in the forecasting centre including any major changes/upgrades. Please comment on the relative effectiveness of these changes. • In-house DATS system 1984-1997 • Proprietary BRFU system (Basin Runoff Forecast Unit) – 1997-2003 • In-house UTRCA-DMS (using HEC-DSS to manage data) – 2003-2010 • Kisters WISKI – 2010 - present

c. Describe the climate data required by the current model(s) used (precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind-speed, etc.) • Precipitation • Snowmelt • Temperature

d. What is the adequacy of climate and hydrometric data network? If there are not adequate data, how does the center address data gaps? • Adequate

e. What is the method used to quantify the uncertainties related to climate data used as input to the forecasting model? Does the centre conduct sensitivity/uncertainty analyses? • (Not answered)

f. Describe basin related data required by the model (Digital Elevation Model, land-use, soils). • (Not answered)

g. What type of, if any, hydrological model calibration is currently used by the forecasting center? • (Not answered)

h. Describe data used to calibrate forecast model (observed stream flow, soil moisture…). • Observed stream flow

i. Does the forecast model have a data-assimilation (automatic updating) scheme? How and what information is used in the data-assimilation process? • (Not answered)

j. Is ensemble weather forecast used to drive flow forecasting? • (Not answered)

k. Is flow forecasting done as an ensemble? • (Not answered)

l. What are the approaches and methods used to quantify forecast uncertainty? • (Not answered) 9. Forecast Products Dissemination Protocols

a. What information is provided to public/media/decision makers: single peak-value flow, water levels, ensemble of probabilistic forecasts, etc.?

• Peak flow values and timing • Water levels

b. How is forecast information disseminated to the public (radio, television, internet, email)? What is the frequency of this dissemination?

• Media releases to radio, print and television • Twitter and Facebook • UTRCA Website • As soon as weather forecasts are certain a flood outlook will be released and further bulletins will not be released until event begins. Then updates as needed. • Daily or more frequently as needed

c. How are forecast uncertainties communicated to the public/media/decision makers?

• Included in message and usually connected to the uncertainty of weather forecasts

d. What measures have the forecast center put in place to ensure that forecast information is correctly interpreted and used by the general public?

• Provincially standardized flood watch/warning bulletins • Uses warning and watch terminology similar to Environment Canada • Watch – indicates potential for flooding • Warning – indicates flooding imminent

e. Are there any mechanisms in place to get feedback from the public about forecasts that would help in assessing performance measures of the forecast centre?

• (Not answered)

10. Compilation of Results of any Performance-Measure Reviews

a. Has the forecasting centre conducted any formal or informal performance review? (If there is a report of such review, can a copy be made available to us?)

• Informal review includes debrief after flood event • Follow up with municipalities and flood coordinators to confirm reception of notification and adequacy of timing • Assessment of accuracy of predicted flows and potential inundated areas includes dispatching flood response teams to confirm estimated water levels and inundated areas at field level (e.g., recording high-water level indicators on vegetation) • Model informally calibrated and tested with input data (rainfall, temperatures, snow depths) and observed data (flow gauging, high water level surveys, manual measurements) • Re-connect with flood coordinators and flood response teams to report on property loss/damage • Review of climate data and observed field data to document hydrologic response to given rainfall event - used for historical reference during future storm events (i.e., builds experience base) b. Were there challenges of performance measurement?

(For example would the weather forecast performance impact the hydrologic forecast performance and emergency response performance?)

• Due to the nature of the watershed and sufficient lead time flood forecasting is based of mostly measured data • Weather forecasts may trigger a flood watch, however flood warnings are broadcasted at a point which flooding is a certainty c. What performance indices, parameters and measurements are assessed? This might include accuracy of forecasts for:

i. Rainfall (peak intensity, snow amount, duration of peak rain…) ii. River flow (peak flow, time of the peak flow, hydrograph of the peak flow) iii. River level (peak level near the time of the event, time of peak level, …)

• All of the above d. What are the current deficiencies in performance measures?

• Flood forecasting system is adequate for the current needs • Nature of the watershed and storage capacities of flood control reservoirs provide sufficient lead time to make adjustments and give adequate warning to flood coordinators and members of the public e. What types of performance measures are used? This might include quantitative measures such as:

i. Maximum error of forecast ii. Mean error iii. Bias iv. Standard deviation v. Lead-time error

• n/a