Drought Workshop
Asheville, NC

April 25-27, 2002

Hosted by the National Climatic Data Center
This page last updated 1 August 2002

Background:

1. conduct the Drought Monitor Forum, which is the annual review of the weekly interagency U.S. Drought Monitor product, and
2. 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:

• Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration
• Meteorological Service of Canada, Climate Research Branch
• National Meteorological Service of Mexico (SMN - Servicio Meteorologico Nacional)

To accomplish these goals, the April workshop agenda was divided into three parts:

1. Thursday, April 25, was devoted to Drought Monitor user discussions and input.
2. Friday, April 26, addressed the creation of a North America Drought Status Report and Climate Extremes Monitoring System.
3. 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:

• General Summary
  
• Thursday-U.S. Drought Monitor User Input
  
• Friday Morning-North America Drought Monitoring Speakers
  
• Friday Afternoon-North America Drought Monitoring Discussions
  
• Saturday-U.S. Drought Monitor Technical Issues

NCDC hosted the 2^nd 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.

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 25^th: 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 15^th and 30^th 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

• North Carolina went through a revision of its Drought Assessment and Response Plan (May 2001). It is a DUAL SYSTEM in that is addresses both assessment and response. Would like to implement a DM like system for the state, including the use of a higher resolution state DM map.

  Highly endorsed the DM

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

• Seasonal Drought Outlook overview and methodology discussed

  FUTURE: verify/archive/legend/show forecast tools used/PMD-technical discussion/research/multi-regression drought forecast models

Friday Morning, April 26^th: 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 10^th 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 21^st 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 26^th: 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)
  1. Need both daily data (for extremes) and monthly data (longer-term perspective).
  2. Operational data obtained near-real time.
  3. Can compute annual values from monthly.
  4. What data are needed? Operationally real-time and in delayed mode: daily maximum temperature, minimum temperature, precipitation from all available stations.
  5. 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.
  6. Need to keep close tabs on metadata.

• drought indicator tools to create
1. SPI (use same statistical distribution)
2. Palmer Indices - connects to paleo record; use same Palmer model/product for all locations (same calibration period).
3. 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
1. Start with monthly frequency of issuance (maybe eventually work to bi-weekly, then weekly).
2. Aiming for first report in November 2002!

Created 3 teams: Data, Products and Display, Authors and Communications

1. 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.).
2. 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:

1. establish data requirements
2. collect long-term monthly and daily temperature and precipitation data for all three countries
3. updates in near-real time
4. 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:

1. identify parameters to be computed, common calibration periods, etc.
2. 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:

1. set up mechanics of how the North America Drought Monitor product will be produced and who the authors will be, etc.
2. responsible for development and release of each report
3. 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 27^th: Drought Monitor Technical Issues

• (Decisions/Recommendations/Summary are indicated in bold red italics after each agenda item)

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: