CBRFC WFO CallJune16

Outline

• Survey Results (Kevin – 5 min)• CBRFC Summer Development Plan (Michelle –

10 min)• CHPS update (Andy, John – 10 min)• ET project update (Mike – 10 min?)• June 5-10 event post-mortem (Various – 30

min)• Other topics?

SH/MIC Survey Results• N=6 (offices participating: Las Vegas, Flagstaff, Tucson, Grand

Junction, and Boulder)• Rating of CBRFC products and services:

– All offices value flood forecasts, flash flood support, and daily forecasts

– Northern offices valued water supply, peak flow forecasts– Drought information and recreation forecasts less valuable

• Key comments:– Request QPF on par with CNRFC’s QPF (Las Vegas)– Improved FFG (Grand Junction, Boulder)– Ability to specify duration for precipitation analysis (Grand Junction)– Mixed comments on quality of streamflow forecasts; positive

feedback on flooding event support and forecast quality (Flagstaff). Room for improvement on forecasts during spring melt (Grand Junction) and data sparse basins (Meadow Valley Wash and Muddy River in Vegas HSA)

CBRFC Development Plan

• Improve daily operations: – plot previous forecasts– revisit shifts to allow for forecasts to be issued quicker– Post-mortem study on June 2010 event

• Water Supply: – peak flow re-analysis– Improvements to weekly ESP web display– Study to relate snow and runoff for small basins– Revamp pub– Documentation (stick diagrams, IFPcompanion basin information)

• Distributed Model: – Work with WFO TWC over summer to evaluate FSR (FFG)

CBRFC Development plan - cont

• Dam failure program: – integrate EAPs into dam failure web site– training.

• Outreach: – Open house (Aug 18)– Utah User Engagement workshop (Aug 2)– visit WFO Riverton (July)– Arizona Hydrologic Symposium booth (September)

CBRFC Development plan - cont

• Improve web services– Web speed– QC web page– Web services USU and CLDSS– Precipitation display (more flexibility to choose dates to accumulate over, etc.)

• Improve products and services for USBR• CHPS

– HEFS evaluation– Revisit CPC consolidation forecast– Begin systematic daily runs of CHPS over sub-area

• Calibrations

CHPS (John L, Andy W)

• CHPS – Community Hydrologic Prediction System– The whole system, ie data collection, quality

control, future forcing creation– Includes FEWS

• FEWS – Flood Early Warning System– The hydrologic modelling software– Within CHPS– Replaces NWSRFS

Current IFP interface with NWSRFS

New IFD interface for FEWS

Highlights of new features• More logging of system• Easier navigation of model plots• Better integration of segment information• Ability to view all data in system

Gridded data into FEWS QPF example

Gridded Temperatures and Freezing Levels will be imported too

• Ability to provide Stand Alone systems.• Ability to add new models to the system.• Facilitate collaborations with academia, and

research-to-operations implementations.• International hydrologic community.

Other things to come with CHPS

Forecasting ETrc across NWS Western Region

(Mike Hobbins)

ET-related work in NWS:WFOs, RFCs, WR-SSD, ABRFC…

Calls for standardized ET, Ep, or ETrc output on www from forecasters, RFCs, extension agents, and within WR:

Colorado Basin RFC:• goal to improve RFC simulations and forecasts.

WFOs’ goals are often to provide ET grids to satisfy AG users:• Great Falls WFO (MT) experimenting with Penman Ep.• Pendleton WFO (ne OR) publishing Kimberly Penman ETrc,• Hanford WFO (SJ valley, CA) publishing Penman-Monteith ETrc.• Sacramento WFO (int. n CA) publishing Penman-Monteith ETrc,

working with UC Davis and California DWR.• Arizona WFOs All AZ MICs agreed to host ET forecasts on their www

Western Region:• regionwide team from various WFOs to create standardized ET webpage, primarily for ag users,• wants ET knowledge-base in-house,• MSD wants standardized procedure by spring 2010,• WR wants to coordinate their efforts with CBRFC ET work and goals.

Arkansas Basin RFC:• calculates observed Ep at selected METAR sites using MAPE preprocessor and associated SYNTRAN program. Each basin's calculation is related to one of these sites, then modified by Ep adjustment curve.

ET = evapotranspirationEp = potential evaporation

ETrc = reference crop evapotranspiration

ETrc across Western Region:RTMA-driven Penman-Monteith ETrc

asatnrc eeUTU

QU

ET

222

9.0

34.0134.01

• in Penman-Monteith, ETrc is a specific case of ET calculated for specific biological and physical conditions (reference crop):

• hypothetical, well-watered crop of height h = 0.12 m, rs = 70 sec/m, a = 0.23,

• Uz, T, and ea data from 2-m height,

• ra implicitly specified as 208/U2 sec/m.

• international standard (FAO-56).

• very commonly used in agricultural community.

24hrs from 12Z 5/3/2010

RTMA = Real-Time Mesoscale Analysis

asatnrc eeUbaQET

24.86

43.6KPKP

•adjusts Penman Ep to model seasonality in vapor transfer process through aKP and bKP:

•seasonal functions of day of year,

•calibrated in Kimberly, ID.

ETrc across Western Region:RTMA-driven Kimberly Penman ETrc

24hrs from 12Z 5/3/2010

ETrc across Western Region:RTMA-driven ETrc difference: Kimberly Penman – Penman-Monteith

24hrs from 12Z 5/3/2010

dudd ABGHETLWLWSWt

W

1

LWd LWu

GGround heat flux

Shortwave radiation balance, SWn

Wt

Longwave radiation balance, Ln

SWdSWd ET H

Net availableenergy, Qn

B

Ad

Radiative parameterization

HETQGLWSW nnn

Western Region ETrc forecast goals:

Forecastoperations

• real-time• daily/weekly

Climatology• Jan 1980 – Dec 2009• high resolution• unbiased wrt forecasts

ETrc(climo)

ETrc(forecast)

statistical analysis

ETrc(t)

Value-added ETrc(forecast)

experimental www publication

www publication

feedback from users

verificationProject goals:

•provide end-users with web-disseminated, fine-resolution, accurate, daily-to-weekly forecasts of ETrc across the NWS Western Region domain,

•add value to the ETrc forecasts by generating and comparing to a 30-year climatology.

Data sets:Climatology and forecasts

climatology

forecast

+ 1

day

+ 7

days

climatology

Jan

‘79

Aug

‘06

Pres

ent

Dec

‘09

NLDAS• T• Tdew• Wind• SWd• LWd

• Hourly• 12 km• also 4 km (HRAP)

NDFD• T• Tdew• Wind• AEC

• 3-, 6-, hourly• 2.5 → 5 km

RTMA• T• Tdew• Wind• AEC

• Hourly• HRAP grid

NLDAS = North American Land Data Assimilation SchemeNARR = North American Regional Reanalysis

NDFD = National Digital Forecast DatabaseRTMA = Real-Time Mesoscale Analysis

AEC = Areal Extent of Cloud

serially inconsistent

biased wrt NDFD?

verifies NDFD

Potentiallyunavailable

Unresolved issues

• What products do the users want and/or expect?• forecast periods,

• spatial resolution,

• how often updated?

• What do we tell the users we can offer?

• Climatology• accessing RTMA history – SKY

• generating unbiased RTMA/NLDAS climatology

• low-res NLDAS climo in experimental period, replacing with high-res

RTMA/NLDAS unbiased climo later?

• time-step for climatology statistics: daily? multi-day? weekly?

• if weekly: moving average (365 surfaces)? static weeks (52)?

• Verification:• ETrc vs. Epan to check radiative parameterization?

• anomaly behavior,

• synthetic or observed Epan?

• how do we check our forecast skill?

Post-Mortem for June 6-10 flooding

• Forecasts generally poor and under simulated for peak flows that occurred June 6-10, 2010 in northern Utah and western Colorado

• General conditions leading into event:– Very cool May– Warm, moist air mass beginning June 5– Temperature forecasts generally good– SNOTEL sites in flooding catchments near average for this time of year – Streamflow forecasts were almost uniformly too low

• Ongoing study to understand why• Preliminary results focus on Little Cottonwood Creek

– What happened in the real world? – What happened in the model world?

Recent local Temperatures

• May was generally cool, delayed melt

• First week in June was warm

From NOAA CPC

A cool May

A warm week

Little Cottonwood at Crestwood Parkflow forecasts under-simulated

forecasts

observed

simulated

bankfull

flood

weekend

WFO Watches and warnings for Little Cottonwood (Cottonwood, Crestwood Park hydrograph shown)

Flood Warning543 PM MDT SUN JUN 6

Hydrologic Outlook (ESF)330 PM MST SAT JUN 5“FLOODING IS NOT ANTICIPATED”

Flood Watch1132 AM MDT SUN JUN 6

weekend

Little Cottonwood snow year

• Snowmelt rate extraordinarily large? (no)

• Snowmelt extraordinarily late? (no)

2010avg

Little Cottonwood at Crestwood Park: Temp. forecasts

forecasts

observed

Averaged over all elevation zones: not bad!

weekend

Snotels in Cottonwoods• Mill-D North

(8960’, southwest face)

– “middle”

• Brighton (8750’, southeast face)

– “middle”

• Snowbird (9640’, northeast face)

– “high” Snowbird

Mill-D North

Brighton

SWE in Cottonwoods

2010 compared to 2006

Nearly identical melt!

2006

2010

SWE melt comparisonCompared to 2005 and 2006: 2010 had less SWE, but melt was more synchronized

2010

20052006

Lower vs

upper meltout

20 days

30 days

5 days

SWE/Snotel Comparison• June Snowmelt at Snowbird in 2006 & 2010 were similar, but in 2006, snow at lower

elevations was gone – in 2010 there was synchronized, rapid melt at both elevations. • What about May 2006, when both zones were also melting? Melt rates were lower,

particularly in upper zone (and flow response was smaller).

2010

~1.8 in/day

~2 in/day

~1.5 in/day

2.5 to 3 in/day

2006

Snow Distribution – corroborates presence

of lower elevation snow in 2010 at start

of event

2006 Snowbird SNOTEL trace almost identical to 2010 trace from June 1-10

However, NOHRSC indicates south facing slopes had already melted out in 2006

2010 June 1

2006 June 1, for comparison

Streamflow Year Comparisons• Both 2005 and 2006

had bigger snowpacks

• Flow peaks in prior years occurred after lower snow was gone

• In 2005 and 2006, imagine combining the two melt pulses into one – you’d get a flood!

2010

2005

2006

Rainfall

What did the model think? • Model SWE at time of runoff was sufficient, and melt rates were close to observed rates• Overall shape of seasonal snowpack was good (compare to ~38’ peak at Snowbird)

2.8 in/day

2.6 in/day

Jun 3-8

What did the model think? • Model soil was on pretty dry in upper and middle levels entering event, and stored water

Deficits in model soil filling

Jun 3-8

3-4 days meltsoaked up

upper

lower

middle

Was the model right about soil moisture?

• Partly right – 2010 was relatively dry• Partly wrong – throughout winter, SM steadily moved upward toward normal

levels• In model, this recovery started late and didn’t get as far• 3-4 days of melt went by before model really started generating runoff

Preliminary Conclusions The snowmelt that drove the flooding was …

More rapid than normal (by about an inch per day) From more area than normal (both middle and high elevations)

The cool May 2010 … Delayed the melt of snow into June, holding lower elevation snow Atmospheric moisture effects contributed little during the event, but prior month of cool, relatively moist

conditions may have helped it ripen

CBRFC models under-simulated the streamflow response The snow model performed well, simulating proper amounts and melt rates (with adjustment by forecasters) SNOTEL soil moisture confirms that 2010 SM was relatively dry, but: The Sacramento hydrologic model soils may have been too dry, storing enough snowmelt during the event to

buffer the flow response

SWE related mods? LCTU1 (Cottonwood @ SLC)only melt factor was used

MFC 0.69

CF

S MFC 1.70

MFC 1.80 – deleted 6/7

MFC 2.35 – deleted 6/8, 6/10

MFC 1.47 – deleted 6/9

Note, appears we did only one soil water mod during May-June