Background:
This Drought Workshop was held April 25-27, 2002 at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, U.S.A. The workshop had two goals:
- conduct the Drought Monitor Forum, which is the annual review of the weekly interagency U.S. Drought Monitor product, and
- discuss the development of a continental-scale drought report for North America.
Drought Monitor Forum
- The Drought Monitor Forum discussed issues related to the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor product. The Drought Monitor consists of a map depicting areas of drought and an associated narrative. The latest edition can be viewed at the following web site:
-
National Drought Mitigation Center/USDM
North America Drought Monitoring
The North America drought discussion was a follow-up to a November 14-16, 2001 "Troika" meeting of representatives from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The November Troika meeting discussed the need to establish a near-real time climate extremes monitoring system and assessment of trends as a partnership between the three countries. The results of that meeting included:
- Agreement in principle to begin the establishment of a partnership between all three countries.
- The first task: develop North American Drought Monitoring capabilities to produce monthly reports on the state of drought across the continent.
- Eventually produce a comprehensive Assessment of long-term variability and trends in North American climate extremes by 2005.
The international participants included:
To accomplish these goals, the April workshop agenda was divided into three parts:
- Thursday, April 25, was devoted to Drought Monitor user discussions and input.
- Friday, April 26, addressed the creation of a North America Drought Status Report and Climate Extremes Monitoring System.
- Saturday, April 27, focused on U.S. Drought Monitor technical issues.
Some of the speakers provided digital files of their presentations. These files can be accessed on the agenda page.
The workshop presentations, decisions, and recommendations are summarized below. They are also available as a WordPerfect document. A follow-up conference call was made on May 23 to work out additional details. Highlights of the conference call are available as a text file.
Workshop Summary and Recommendations:
Drought Workshop Summary Paper
Including Recommended Actions
2nd Annual Drought Monitor Forum and
North America Drought Workshop
held in Asheville, NC
at the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
April 25-27, 2002
NCDC hosted the 2nd annual Drought Monitor Forum which featured
an excellent agenda and which was well attended as more than 48
people from Mexico, Canada and the United States attended the 3
day conference. A summary of the discussions held, and the
recommendations made, are detailed below.
In addition, Friday was set aside for Troika meetings
involving scientists from Canada, Mexico and the U.S. to discuss
drought issues and investigate the logistics and feasability of
producing a monitoring team that would put together a monthly
Drought Monitor product for North America.
General Summary
Most of the first day was spent listening to perspectives from
users (from the region and abroad) of the product. They conveyed
to the group what they perceived to be the strengths and
weaknesses of the Drought Monitor (DM). A compilation,
consolidation, generalization and summary follows below:
- There was no clear consensus from the speakers and
participants on the current system vs. the need for two
separate maps and a composite map in order to help integrate
and depict agricultural vs. hydrological drought. The
thinking is that the two individual maps for short- and
long-term drought would help make reading the composite map
easier. This should help clarify the meaning of the A, W and
F impact indicators. We hope the new short- and long-term
Objective Blend of Drought Indicators (to be posted on the
web site in the near future at: http://drought.unl.edu/dm)
products will help clarify this issue and be a first step in
this direction.
- There is an essential need for near real-time access to
daily data from long-term reliable sites. Access to NOAA's
COOP data, along with incorporation of other agencies'
automated networks (SNOTEL, RAWS, others) data in the higher
elevations are all essential.
- Find a way to identify/incorporate more hydrological
information into the composite product as well as into a
separate long-term hydro drought product (stand alone).
- Issues were again raised about the whether or not to include
the fire (F) label on the Drought Monitor. All agreed that
we need to better incorporate information from the NIFC and
other fire products when assessing and placing the lines on
the map. Since the public is used to the F label, we agreed
to keep it due to the visibility of the product.
- Discussions about moving to a GIS environment were met
favorably over the current system involving CorelDraw.
Multi-layer analysis, interpolation, buffers between drought
categories, areal statistics, etc. are all potential
derivative products. Most seemed to agree upon ArcView /
ArcInfo as the logical choice. Distribution of GIS software
and subsequent training will be required among the
participants. This will be very important when teaming with
the drought monitoring teams in Canada and Mexico.
- The issue of getting off of climate division boundaries and
looking at ecological or hydrological units was brought up
many times and could be made easier if/when the transition
to a GIS system is made.
- While there are still consistency issues and other problems
to overcome, the support for the DM was made obvious by
those attending and they felt that the consensus approach
has been well received. Another mini-forum to be held in
Portland in May in conjunction with the AMS Applied Climate
meetings will address the unique nature of drought in the
West and the next DM Forum should be held late the calendar
year, or early next, in the Southwest.
- For consistency's sake, there is a fundamental need to
incorporate one SPI computation methodology and get it down
to a weekly or daily temporal scale. This needs to be given
a higher priority and some resources need to be provided in
order for it to happen.
- Need for incorporating more Mesonet data (especially
observed soil moisture data) into our models, derived
products, and the making of the DM.
Thursday, April 25th: U.S. Drought Monitor User Input
Highlights of Thursday's speaker presentations, as recorded by
the note-takers:
David Miskus
Covered the general "making of the DM" logistics/timeline that
the DM authors undertake each week. Emphasized that the effort
would not be doable were it not for the cooperation between the
agencies and the NDMC along with the essential input that comes
from the local experts in the field.
Solomon Summer
-
1994-formal regional drought policy efforts began.
-standardized procedures
-provided information to users
"Triggers" for issuing Drought Statements: Annual precipitation
deficiency of 15% or more OR 6-months at 15% or more OR D1 or
greater on the Drought Monitor for areas in their region.
* RFC's issue bi-weekly drought/water resource guidance
* AHPS probabilistic streamflow forecasts
* drought declaration status map
* provide local value-added information
ACTION: Would like to see NWS hydrological information center on
Drought Monitor web site along w/ any relevant local products
Hope Mizzell
-
Went over layout of South Carolina's Drought Response Act (1985)
Logistics of how they monitor and coordinate response to drought
in the state.
Amended the Drought Act in 2000
-criteria set to river basin and NOT climate division
-use of MULTIPLE indicators of which the Drought Monitor is
one (others: PDSI, SPI, streamflow, aquifer levels, etc.)
Drought response levels: Incipient/ Moderate/ Severe/
Extreme....these are "general" statewide level designations (ex.
so an extreme hydro/incipient agricultural drought would average
out to a moderate designation for the state).
-this causes problems
-use DM A, W, F to differentiate
-calculate their own bi-weekly SPI on the 15th and 30th of
each month
**PROS and CONS from survey of people working with the S.C.
drought coordinator:
-
Pros: impact types and blend of indicators used
- Cons: subjectivity (at the local level)
- **The DM should LEAD, NOT FOLLOW the political process!
Derek Arndt
Potential impacts this year in Oklahoma: winter wheat...major.
Streamflow, water management and fire are right there as well.
A strong Mesonet system allows for quality real-time monitoring
and generation of derived products to aid them in monitoring
drought.
Contrary to popular belief, a lot of the Mesonet data/products
are free!
They are working on providing a rolling 30, 60, 90, 180 day SPI
product as well (w/ NDMC contributions).
**DM is a good product....keep open the communication lines with
the local experts!
Dev Niyogi
As the DM has become increasingly popular and accepted....the
expectations have risen for the product!
Talked about the work of the N.C. state climate office and
Mesonet/soil moisture network and soil moisture estimates
(critical for better forecasting!).
Emphasized the idea of re-scaling the DM and enhancing it at
regional, state, or local levels. What scale does the DM
represent? Who is the audience? Is it applicable for our town? Is
it static?
* An expectation may be that the DM should tell us what to expect
next.
* Media and the public take the DM as the "final word"
* Should we have 1 or 2 products for short and long-term drought?
* Do we need a similar (more detailed) state level product?
* How can the DM be used efficiently for local decision making?
* Can we project future conditions/forecasts onto the DM?
* Could the DM methodology be used to create a higher resolution
DM (supplement w/ Mesonet data)?
* Need to develop local scale soil moisture information (and
national!)
***The DM community needs to develop some recommendations that
will address soil moisture monitoring standards and efforts at
all levels! (probes, depths, etc.)
DM could serve as a model for an Expert System (decision support
system)
Wayne Hamberger and Jerry McDuffie
-
* July of 1998 seems to be the origin of the current drought
* Data are collected from the TVA, National Parks and Forests.
UT Dept. Ag (experimental farms), TEMA, and Tennessee
Department of Agriculture.
* They then put their "spin" on all that comes in before sending
it on to the DM author that week
* Primary focus is on "Hydro" droughts
* TVA Drought Definition: Combination of streamflows, reservoir
levels, etc. are insufficient to meet demands.
* Regional overview of the Tennessee Reservoir/River System and
impacts of the 1998-2002 drought was given
* DM can help TVA w/ drought education and awareness, especially
on the issue of "hydro" vs. "ag"
* objective water table and soil moisture conditions are needed
* would TVA stream/rain data help the DM?
Mike Palecki
Impact disconnects w/ drought in the Midwest 1999-2000
The issue is not just "short" vs. "long" term, but more so the
TYPES and TIMING of drought.
Don Jensen
Fundamental issue of defining drought
Problems w/ PDSI.....especially in the West
Need to better utilize daily near- or real-time data for the U.S.
and the globe!
Utah really can't use the DM as it is now
Need to get off of the climate division analysis
Move to pixels/grids and interpolate using real-time station data
Robert Blevins
Why does the CIA monitor? ..... Food security issues lead to
unstable nations being toppled
Terry Brown
Many issues: Flood control/hydropower/recreation/fish+wildlife
(environmental)/water supply
Need to be careful about artificial drawdowns!
Drought management plan is ESSENTIAL for each reservoir.
How COE Monitors:
Drought Monitor/PDSI/Rainfall/Normalized Stream Flow/Soil
Moisture/Guide Curves
**Can an index be developed (that all stakeholders can
understand) to assist in the decision making process?
**Drought Awareness and Response:
---- weekly conference calls
---- monthly face to face
---- coordinated press releases (all need to be on the same page
w/ 1 voice)
Woody Yonts
Ben Weiger
-
Implemented 2 pilot projects in the southern region (NWS)
First Prototype: Drought Information Statements (DIS) (TX and FL)
w/ plans to implement region-wide this year (2002)
PDSI "moderate" is the trigger to prepare the DISs
Report on any hydro, fire or ag impacts taking place. There is a
synopsis, response/actions, water use restrictions and a
hydro/met outlook.
Second Prototype: New graphical product depicting % of normal
rainfall. Several RFC's using PRISM data sets to generate %
normal rainfall info for various time durations using Multi-Sensor precipitation estimates.
AHPS---- Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services
- new hydro info/products through new science/tools
- inclusion of probability info on future stage/flows
Rich Tinker
-
The new Objective Blend of Drought Indicators (OBDI) methodology
was discussed. The OBDI is an attempt at quantifying and in
aiding the subjective DM judgements.
2 blends (short- and long-term) and a Unified.
-- first investigated all available indicators on a WEEKLY
basis
-- what goes in and what weight to give them was done by
trial and error and feedback from the authors of the
DM
* Expressed as a percentile specific to location and time of year
* Weekly
* MUST have history (accurate percentile assessment)
* Have come up w/ a temporary fix/procedure to account for the
Climate Division precipitation data problems in parts of the west
* Are using weekly values from daily precip. from gridded
analysis (including SNOTEL)
**Depict final result of each of the 3 blends as a percentile
based on that blend's history for ALL months in the history
Richard Heim
-
** Need for a national groundwater/data assessment product
** Well levels are NOT currently incorporated into the OBDI or DM
(directly)
** Correlations (levels to months) varied by time of year and
from station to station
** Strongest relationship was found between 5 and 10 months
(precip vs. well levels)
** Sample size as small as 17 was used for some well-precip
correlations
** Hopeful that a precipitation proxy for groundwater can be
determined
Pat Michaels
-
Would like to see an objective high-resolution monitoring of
drought take place using radar
-- a more objective assessment
-- Get the DM to a HIGHER RESOLUTION
David Legates
-
DEOS (Delaware Environmental Observation System)
Development of a high-resolution weather data system (decision
support system-DSS)
- real-time operational weather info-system
- 4x4 km grid w/ a full suite of variables
- also used as an analysis tool (for historical context)
- observed/derived suite of products
- water balance (budget) model incorporated
WSR-88D
- use digital precip array
- remove bias between reflectivity to rate (adjustment
algorithms)
Doug Lecomte
Friday Morning, April 26th: Troika meetings for North America - Speaker Input
Tom Karl
-
Discussed background and goals, 2001 Troika (U.S., Canada, Mexico) meeting.
Objectives: Assessment/monitoring of "extremes/trends",
monitoring drought across the North American continent is the
first step.
Can a DM concept be applied to N. America?
Can we monitor it near real-time on a consistent basis and are
the data available for this?
Lay framework for action steps to get North America Drought
Monitor going.
Issues: data/tools/common periods of record/QC/near real-time
production/logistics
Ted O'Brien & Brian Abrahamson
-
Went over Canada's National Agroclimate Information Services
* Seeing many of the same climate trends that we are seeing in
the U.S. and Mexico
* Seeing less variability in wheat yields
Early Warning:
Feed supplies/Fire/Desertification (Environmental
Degradation)/Water Supply
* 180 stations providing data on a near real-time network
(Canada's Met. Service- MSC)
* 1 km grid interpolation from the 180 sites using ArcView and
ARC IMS software
Drought:
60-80% of norm ppt = moderate drought OR equal or less
than the 10th percentile
< 60% = severe drought
* in 2001, 45% of prairie livestock farms faced drought
* water shortages in surface water supply (dugouts) for farmers
widespread
* seasonal climate predictions are very important for management
decisions
* soil moisture (% capacity) 76% of crop land is at 50% of
capacity this spring
* seeing some growth in Mesonets
* no soil moisture/temp networks in place though. They are
starting a 15 site prototype in Alberta this year
* weekly NDVI
Planning options:
* climate profiles/drought definitions by ecoregions (terrestrial
ecozones, ecodistricts)/modified PDSI/SPI?
* establish a Canada Drought Centre in Regina, SK -- could partner with U.S. and Mexico (Drought Research Center, Chihuahua,
Mexico) in a North America Drought Network.
Drought Watch at PFRA
Miguel Cortes
-
No current operational drought monitoring activities at SMN. They
prepare special reports when needed.
* Until now, not utilizing indices but are looking into PDSI and
SPI
* Subjective criteria varies for drought
* Suite of precipitation anomaly maps
National Commission for Disaster Prevention:
- More than one standard deviation from monthly rainfall avg.
(only applied May-November)
- Transboundary water issue is important (Rio Grande).
Illustrates need for common climate products and seamless
integration across borders. Analysis needed by cooperating into
the 21st century.
FUTURE:
-- incorporate indices into analysis year round
-- identify climate stations w/ suitable data for near real-time
data
-- develop strategy plan to monitor regionally and nationally.
There are 13 regions in the National Water Commission (NWC)
administration.
Jay Lawrimore
-
NCDC Drought Monitoring Activities
- Part of NCDC's State of the Climate reporting
- Monthly and seasonal textual/graphical web-based reports
- Comprehensive review of previous month's drought conditions
throughout the US
- A National summary and more detailed regional reviews
- Also includes separate pages containing pertinent drought
indices
- Drought monitoring assessments are also included in the broader
annual climate assessments.. BAMS and the WMO Annual Statement on
the Climate
Mark Svoboda
-
A Global Drought Preparedness Network
-- a virtual network of networks by forming regional drought
preparedness networks
-- share information and lessons learned in order to help
reduce the impacts of drought
-- INFO: policy/planning methodologies/stakeholder
involvement/climate and drought indices/EWS/triggers/impact
and vulnerability assessment methodologies/water supply
issues/agronomic practices/mitigation and response actions
-- organize and conduct regional workshops and longer-term
training on these issues
-- North America, South America, Sub-Sahara Africa,
Mediterranean, West Asia, Australia and Pacific, Eastern and
Central Europe
-- Specifically for North America:
* identify the principal regional/national institutions
and stakeholders
* who can organize a launching workshop for this
regional network?
* what is the scope, objectives and activities of the
N.Am. network?
* what are the potential sources of financial support?
* who can work w/ the NDMC/IDIC in the development of a
regional network/web site?
Walter Skinner
-
* Approximately 150 sites w/ precip/temp through 1998, back to
the 1920's, some as early as 1895; most Canadian stations are
along the U.S. border
* PDSI analysis in Canada and North America (continental patterns
of PDSI )
* Basically, trend has been statistically significant to a wetter
regime
* Year to year spatial PDSI match well at the U.S./Canada border
Phil Englehart
-
Warm season droughts in the Central U.S. (April-September)
- CCA for 4 regions on the Plains
- ENSO/drought connections
- PDO/drought connections
- add to inter- and intra-seasonal rainfall variation
Indicators:
PDSI/Precip frequency (# of days with precip greater than or equal to 2.5mm)/ Dry days (D = number of days where region's 21-day average precip significantly below the climatological
normal)/ dry day runs
PCA based (principle components)
** 20 out of 94 years saw drought in MULTIPLE regions
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)....in the cold (negative) phase
now
Warm season droughts split 50-50% between PDO phases. The
character of the droughts do differ depending on the phase
though.
Mark Eakin
-
Paleo climate: Interannual to Centennial scale variability
Value of Paleo: Placing current conditions in historical context
(NOT assessing current status)
Paleo = pre-instrumental proxy data (tree rings, pollen, ice and
sediment cores, historical documents, fauna, coral, insects,
boreholes)
Now part of NCDC but still located at Boulder, CO. They are the
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
** Customers: climate research community/educators/media/public
** A lot of work in paleoclimate reconstructions and modeled
results
Paleo PDSI grids to expand for all of North America for drought
reconstructions is planned
**Reconstructing streamflow (Connie Woodhouse)
- duration and severity of low flow events
**Snow water equivalents reconstructed to help in determining
flows
PRODUCTS ON THE WEB: slide sets/climate time line information
tool
Friday Afternoon, April 26th: Troika meetings for North America - Discussion Session
-
Tom Karl: sees monitoring as a way to get to the point of
making trend analysis.
Look at this effort from the perspective of the users (what tools
will be useful). Users may include:
- government
- agribusiness
- water resources
- utilities
- others
Want a central collection point for all of the data. NCDC could
play this role (NCDC's infrastructure is set up to handle this.
Val Swail - Canada not easily set up for this now. Miguel Cortez
- agrees that NCDC be the collection point.). Maybe we could
distribute the computation of the various parameters.
Will want to distribute to all of the Troika members/participants
all of the data that are collected and all of the parameters that
are computed.
Make this data and output visible for all users to see (e.g., web
page).
Issues:
- most limiting factor is data (esp. in near real-time)
- Need both daily data (for extremes) and monthly data
(longer-term perspective).
- Operational data obtained near-real time.
- Can compute annual values from monthly.
- What data are needed? Operationally real-time and in
delayed mode: daily maximum temperature, minimum
temperature, precipitation from all available stations.
- How much QC real time? MICIS - Mike Palecki:
operational QC of near-real time COOP SHEF station
data, use HCN stations that are transmitted
operationally. Wintertime precip QC - adjustments for
snow water equivalent.
- Need to keep close tabs on metadata.
- drought indicator tools to create
- SPI (use same statistical distribution)
- Palmer Indices - connects to paleo record; use same
Palmer model/product for all locations (same
calibration period).
- Number of days parameters, runs of dry days.
- weekly/bi-weekly/monthly updates
- 2002 Drought Assessment Report for North America (Drought
Monitor?)
- A monthly product
- Start with monthly frequency of issuance (maybe
eventually work to bi-weekly, then weekly).
- Aiming for first report in November 2002!
Created 3 teams: Data, Products and Display, Authors and
Communications
- Have the sub-groups/teams determine the details of the
decisions made here today (e.g., what data are needed,
who computes what products, etc.).
- Have authors from Mexico and Canada added to the U.S.
authors (the U.S. Drought Monitor authors). May want
to have more than one lead author each month (maybe 2
or 3 authors, one from each country).
Data Team:
Responsibilities include:
- establish data requirements
- collect long-term monthly and daily temperature and
precipitation data for all three countries
- updates in near-real time
- central collection point at NCDC for consistent processing
then re-distribution back to each country.
Team members were discussed both at the April workshop and subsequently. Team leader is Richard
Heim of NCDC.
Products and Display Team:
Responsibilities include:
- identify parameters to be computed, common calibration
periods, etc.
- determine products including drought indices, display such as
maps, connections with Paleoclimatic data for longer-term
perspective.
Team members were discussed both at the April workshop and subsequently. Team leader is Jay Lawrimore of NCDC.
Authors and Communication Team:
Responsibilities include:
- set up mechanics of how the North America Drought Monitor
product will be produced and who the authors will be, etc.
- responsible for development and release of each report
- communication mainly by Internet with annual workshops.
Team members were discussed both at the April workshop and subsequently. Team co-leaders are Brad Rippey and David Miskus of the NOAA-USDA Joint Agricultural Weather Facility (JAWF).
The composition of all 3 teams will undergo further definition as
additional team members are identified later.
NOTE: NCDC will set up 3 TEAM and one general North American DM
list server groups.
Will want English, French, & Spanish versions of the North
America DM. English is the common language. Canada will
translate to French, Mexico will translate to Spanish.
The local/state/provincial drought products would continue to be
made. This North America Drought Monitor product would not
replace these local/state/provincial products.
The Drought Monitor will describe current conditions and put it
into a historical perspective, but may also want to include a
subsidiary drought product something along the line of a
projection (what the drought is expected to do in the near
future).
September-October 2002 is the time frame for the author group to
get together.
Val Swail - in Canada, Agrifood Canada will lead and MSC will
work with Agrifood
Get the 2001 North American Drought Assessment done for the WMO &
National Assessments, and use that to get us started doing a
monthly North American Drought Monitor.
Outreach - joint international press release on the 2001 drought
assessment & launching of the North America Drought Monitor,
coordinated press release in all 3 countries (i.e., via the
public affairs agencies in each country).
Saturday, April 27th: Drought Monitor Technical Issues
Agenda Item:
Administrative Issues, Technical Issues, & Discussion Items:
8:40-9:00 a.m. * Resolve difference between weekly and monthly
Palmer Index
Decision:
NCDC run the monthly Palmer program several times each month
(i.e., each week), using current month values (revised
weekly) computed from
[last month (thru day X+1)] to [this month (thru day X)]
as the current monthly value.
R.Tinker & D.Lecomte will initiate contact with
T.Heddinghaus re this with contact to be passed on to NCDC
later. Run this in parallel test mode for a while with
current weekly Palmer indices continued to be computed.
Agenda Item:
* Resolve issue of consistency/agreement in calculation of the
SPI (Pearson III vs Gamma)
Decision:
Agreed to convert to Pearson III for monthly for all groups
(NCDC, WRCC, NDMC, etc.). K.Redmond needs to make it a
higher priority.
Agenda Item:
9:00-9:20 a.m. * Clarify the protocol for responding to
inquiries to the Drought Monitor authors. Who will answer these
inquiries? Should this be the job of the back-up author each
week? Should all authors see the questions, or just the author
and back-up?
Decision:
Should all authors see the questions - yes.
Forward special questions to appropriate group. Tell
emailer that their email will be answered after the Drought
Monitor is completed for that week (put this on the DMon web
page).
Agenda Item:
* Clarify the timing of the final draft, the "near final", and
the "final, final" DM maps. Make sure that all authors are on the
same page as to when Kim and Deb need these maps and when they
will be posted. For example, if a map is changed early Thursday
morning, it may have to be re-posted to the web site if Kim and
Deb have already done the preparation and posting for that week.
Decision:
The last/final draft of the map on COB Wednesday will be the
final final draft ... no changes to map after that (any last
minute map changes can be made on next week's map). But we
can change the text on Thursday morning before the final
release date if necessary (for things like outlook or other
changes).
Agenda Item:
* Clarify the listserve web site and emphasize that the authors
themselves can point new members to the listserve to join.
Decision:
See M.Svoboda.
Agenda Item:
* Creation of a vision-impaired friendly version of the DM
website.
Decision:
Being done.
Agenda Item:
* Creation of a vision-impaired friendly version of the DM map.
Decision:
Already done.
Agenda Item:
* How to successfully deal with the voluminous weekly email.
Decision:
Creating a separate listserver for drought research topics
would probably not work. Instead, send an email to the
current Drought Monitor general listserver saying something
like, "To help the Drought Monitor authors more efficiently
sort this list's email, please add the following tag to
email discussing subjects other than providing input to the
current weekly Drought Monitor: DM*COMMENT." Or, authors
will just have to be more selective in reading the list
email. We really did not resolve this issue.
Agenda Item:
9:20-9:40 a.m. * Identify issues relevant to drought monitoring
in the western U.S. (e.g., the use of reservoir data & SWSI) to
bring up for discussion at the Portland, OR May drought gathering
Decision:
Wish List for SWSI:
Computed for all western states
Computed by 2nd or 3rd (or 6th or 7th) of the month (i.e., as soon as possible)
Computed for all 12 months (year-round)
SWSI's for all states be available from one web source; or, if each state's SWSI is available on that state's agency web page, then have one web page (owned by WRCC or NRCS or somebody else) with links to all of the state web pages.
All western SWSI's plotted on one national map.
Wish List for Reservoir Data:
Assess what reservoir data are available
Determine which reservoirs can be used for operational
drought monitoring (if any).
Convert the raw reservoir data into a form that allows
comparison between reservoirs and through time. (Terry Brown
of COE Wilmington Office discussed creating a reservoir
drought index using each reservoir's guide curve.)
Data available near-real time year round.
Plot the reservoir indices (see # 3 above) on a national
map.
Agenda Item:
* Identify issues relevant to drought monitoring in the
southwestern U.S. (e.g., when does a desert have drought?) to
bring up for discussion at a future drought gathering in the
Southwest
Decision:
It is possible to have a meteorological drought in a desert,
but a hydro drought is another matter if the reservoirs are
full. Need to define what a drought is; define the
difference between drought and aridity; look at hydrology of
the area (e.g. snow in the mountains) in determining the
definition. Build consensus with the users in these areas,
including politicians. Need to get SWSI computed for the
southwestern states. Let each state's experts determine
their definition of drought using tools such as SWSI.
Agenda Item:
9:40-10:00 a.m. * "Do we lead in the political decision process
or follow?"
Decision:
Lead intelligently as defined by science. Work with the
politicians in the gray areas of science.
Agenda Item:
* Computation of the percent area in the Drought Monitor
categories and other GIS matters
Decision:
Two parts:
There was controversy over the percent area computed
using divisions.
There was general consensus to move the Drought Monitor
into the GIS arena. Moving the Drought Monitor to a GIS
environment from CorelDraw would have advantages: be helpful
to authors in drawing the Drought Monitor maps; can answer
such things as % of population affected by drought
(overlaying census data), % ag productivity affected by
drought, geological GIS info. Should have the option of
creating GIS shape file output.
Ultimate goal is to take the DM to a higher resolution....
to the point where one would have the national map in its
current form and then they could click to go down to more
regional-scaled drought maps and finally down to state-level
detailed maps or state Drought Monitors. This cooperative
effort would be coordinated between the current Drought
Monitor partners as well as the regional climate centers and
the state climate offices.
Agenda Item:
* Terminology (should D1 be called "First Level Drought" or just
plain "Drought" instead of "Moderate Drought"?)
Decision:
No need to change terminology.
Agenda Item:
10:30-11:00 a.m. * Labeling, Interpretation, & Consistency.
Examples:
Can there be a D0 (W), (A), or (F)?
D3(W) - does it imply no D1 or D2 Ag or Fire?
If an area is D3(F), is it automatically D2(A,W) unless stated
otherwise?
If an area is D3(W), but also D0(A,F), should it be labeled D3(W)
or an average D2(W)? (In other words: If an area has different
severities of short- & long-term drought, do we show the most
severe of these on the map or an "average"?)
Decision:
Should we label multiple impacts with different D levels in
a given area? No. But add a note to the map key for the
user to read the text for different level multiple impacts.
Should we eliminate the Fire impact? No consensus, so keep
it in. A lot of discussion of the fire labeling issue in
general.
Agenda Item:
* When is a drought really over? When the blended indicators say
so? When some of the indicators say so? When all of the
indicators say so?
11:00-11:30 * Do we need two separate Drought Monitor maps (a
weekly map for short-term drought & a monthly map for long-term
drought)? More than two maps?
Decision:
The general feeling was we do need two maps, at least two,
one for short-term drought and one for long-term drought.
Frank Richards (NWS Office of Climate, Water & Weather
Resources) offered to attempt to create a long-term (hydro)
drought monitoring map (he is willing to go to the RFC's to
try to make this happen). It would be called a "Water
Resource Assessment", not a drought assessment. It would be
created on a monthly basis by NWS hydro personnel in
Washington DC from input from the 13 RFCs, COE, BLM,
USDA/NRCS, etc., so there would be, in effect, a
new/auxiliary set of (monthly) authors added to our nation's
drought monitoring effort. This Water Resource Assessment
would have a 5-scale category depiction similar to the
Drought Monitor categories, be created in a GIS environment,
be released on the Thursday that follows the 10th business
day of each month. The input indicators would vary with RFC
region, but would generally include: streamflow, well data,
reservoir obs, SWSI, and multi-month precipitation. The
dialog for the Water Resource Assessment product would occur
on the same listserver as the Drought Monitor discussions.
The Drought Monitor authors responded very favorably to
this.
Agenda Item:
* If depicting short- & long-term drought on one map: Again, do
we average the two blends of indicators, or show the worst of the
two on the one map?
Decision:
On the current 4-panel experimental blends map product,
change the bottom right panel map from the CPC modeled soil
moisture depiction to a new map: a map that shows the worst
Dx of the short and long-term blends.
Continue to depict the short and long-term blend maps as the
top two panel maps. Change the weights on the long-term
blend to:
10% PHDI
20% 12-month precip
10% 6-month precip
10% PMDI
20% 24-month precip
20% 60-month precip
10% CPC soil
The unified blend map (bottom left panel map) shall be
generated as before except it can't get worse than the worst
Dx of the short or long-term blend.
The published manually-created Drought Monitor map is a
blend in our head (where each author emphasizes what he/she
thinks is the most significant that week?).
|