NOAA Efforts to Improve Precipitation and Flood ... · NOAA Efforts to Improve Precipitation and...
Transcript of NOAA Efforts to Improve Precipitation and Flood ... · NOAA Efforts to Improve Precipitation and...
NOAA Efforts to Improve Precipitation and Flood Forecasting by Studying American River
Robert K. Hartman, Hydrologist-in-Charge NOAA, National Weather Service California-Nevada River Forecast Center 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 227 Sacramento, CA 95821 Tel: 916-979-3056, x322 Fax: 916-979-3067 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/cnrfc
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Robert Hartman is the Hydrologist-in-Charge at the California-Nevada River Forecast Center. Mr. Hartman has 23 years of federal flood and water supply forecasting experience including 9 years in his current position. Mr. Hartman’s experience includes all aspects of RFC operations, development, and management obtained in positions at three National Weather Service River Forecast Centers, the USDA/Soil Conservation Service, and the NWS Office of Hydrology. Mr. Hartman has a B.S. degree in Forestry from Utah State University and an M.S. degree in Watershed Management from the University of Arizona.
ABSTRACT
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) plans to undertake two related research efforts to improve precipitation, flood, and water resources forecasting. The presentation will briefly describe the Hydrometeorological Testbed (HMT) and the Distributed Model Intercomparison Project: Phase 2 (DMIP 2) with emphasis on the research being proposed for the North Fork of the American River. The HMT program is being developed for the purpose of advancing water resources data assimilation. The general strategy of this effort is to conduct research and development to deploy advanced systems for observed information to support critical decision making for flood mitigation, hydropower energy generation, water resources control, and fisheries management. More specifically, high resolution atmospheric and hydrometeorologic observations (precipitation, soil moisture, snowpack, winds, temperature, and moisture) will be collected and analyzed for several key water resource applications such as distributed hydrologic model validation, quantitative precipitation forecast (QPF), and estimation (QPE) validation. DMIP 2 continues the work begun under DMIP 1 to conduct research into advanced hydrologic models for river and water resources forecasting. Twelve groups from the hydrologic research community participated in DMIP 1, resulting in a wealth of knowledge for the scientific community and valuable guidance for the National Weather Service (NWS) research program. DMIP 2 is designed around two themes: 1) continued investigation of science questions pertinent to the DMIP 1 test sites, and 2) distributed and lumped model tests in hydrologically complex basins in the mountainous Western US.
112
NO AA Efforts to Im prove Precip itation and F lood Forecasting
by S tudying Am erican R iver
Robert K . Hartm anNOAA/NW S/CNRFC
A Two Part Episode…
•• NO AA H ydrom eteorological NO AA H ydrom eteorological TestbedTestbed• David K ingsm ill
•• University of Colorado / C IR ES and NO AA Environm ental University of C olorado / C IR ES and NO AA Environm ental Technology Laboratory Technology Laboratory -- Boulder, COBoulder, C O
•• D istributed M odel D istributed M odel In tercom parisonIntercom parison Project 2Project 2• M ike Sm ith
•• NO AA NO AA –– NW S NW S –– Office of H ydrologic Developm ent Office of Hydrologic D evelopm ent –– Silver S ilver Spring, M DSpring, M D
113
W hy an HMT?•• Integrated P lanning Team for Hydrological Integrated Planning Team for Hydrological
Services Report (Septem ber 2002)Services Report (Septem ber 2002)• Key Inform ation Gaps
•• Quantitative Precipitation Inform ation (QPE & QPF)Quantitative Precipitation Inform ation (QPE & QPF)•• Unbiased Precipitation Estimates with Reliability Unbiased Precipitation Estimates with Reliability
InformationInformation•• Reliable 0Reliable 0 --6 Hour 6 Hour PrecipPrecip . . NowcastsNowcasts•• LongerLonger-- term, Unbiased Model term, Unbiased Model QPFsQPFs
•• Hydrologic ForecastingHydrologic Forecasting•• HighHigh --resolution Flash Flood Forecasts & W arningsresolution Flash Flood Forecasts & W arnings•• Probabilistic R iver Forecasts Using 0Probabilistic R iver Forecasts Using 0 --3 day QPF and 3 day QPF and
Seasonal Precipitation ForecastsSeasonal Precipitation Forecasts
• Outstanding R&D Needs•• Im plem ent Hydrom eteorological Im plem ent Hydrom eteorological TestbedsTestbeds to to
Dem onstrate & Evaluate NextDem onstrate & Evaluate Next--Generation Datasets, Generation Datasets, Forecast Techniques, & M odelsForecast Techniques, & M odels
•• System atically evaluate prom ising new m ethods that can System atically evaluate prom ising new m ethods that can influence both NW P and influence both NW P and nowcastingnowcasting using the m anusing the m an --m achine m ix forecasting parad igm .m achine m ix forecasting parad igm .
•• Assess their va lue in term s of im proved regional Assess their va lue in term s of im proved reg ional perform ance on F lood/F lash F lood W arning and Q PF perform ance on F lood/F lash F lood W arning and Q PF G PRA m easures. G PRA m easures.
•• Use these resu lts as an objective basis for decisions on Use these results as an objective basis for decisions on transitions to operations both in the test region and transitions to operations both in the test region and nationally. nationally.
HM T G oals
114
HM T Concept
M arty RalphNO AA/ETL-PACJET
Profiler/RASS/Met (ETL)Profiler/RASS (Other Agency)X-band/Met/Rain gaugeS-band/Met/DisdrometerWSR-88D (NEXRAD)
HMTMicrophysics Array
H M T - 2 0 0 4
BB Y = B odega B ay
BSC = B ig Sulfu r Creek
CVD = C loverdale
CZC = Cazadero
FRS = Fort Ross
G RK = G oat R ock
HM T-2004 Russian R iver
HBG = Healdsburg
HLD = H oplan d
LSN = Lake S on om a
RO D = R io D ell
SP T = S alt P oin t
-123.8 -123.6 -123.4 -123.2 -123.0 -122.8 -122.6
38.2
38.4
38.6
38.8
39.0
1002003004005006007008009001000110012001300
Elev. (m)
S O N O M A
M E N D O C I N O
M A R I N
L A K E
N A P A
Pt. Arena
PacificOcean
BBY
CZC
FRS
Pt.Reyes N.S.
50 km
HMT-2004 Microphysics Array
Sfc. met. + rain gaugeAdditional rain gaugesSoil-moisture probesGPS IPWX-band polarimetric scanning radarS-band precip profiler915-MHz wind profilerRaindrop disdrometerGPS rawinsondesRiver gaugeOcean buoy
SanPablo Bay
CVD
HLD
LSN
BSC
SPT
GRK
Gualala
HBG
ROD
115
III
B a nd I
B a nd II
O nset o f Ban d II
O nset o f B and I
ra in
sn ow
onset of band I
B a nd I
B a nd II
St at ion E leva tio n
III
O nset o f Ban d II
O nset o f B and I
sn ow level
Russian R iver HM TBodega Bay vs. G rass Valley
W inder Profiler Data
X-band
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Reflectivity (dBZ) at 0.5 deg e levation
W SR-88D radar at KM UX0102 UTC 14 Jan 03
KMU X
10
20
30
40
50
60 km
NO AA/ETL X-band radar at FRS0059 UTC 14 Jan 03
Reflectivity (dBZ) at 1.0 deg e levation
0 10 20 30 40 50
G ap-F illing X-band Radarvs. W SR-88D
• Nearest NEXR AD radar sees no significant echoes approaching flood-prone w atershed
• NO AA/ETL’s Coastal X-band radar fills NEXR AD gap
116
Am erican R iver Basin HM T2005-2008
•• Focus on Q PE (observations) and shortFocus on Q PE (observations) and short -- term term Q PF (forecasts). A lso freezing level and snow Q PF (forecasts). A lso freezing level and snow level inform ation.level inform ation.
•• Focus on North Fork Am ericanFocus on North Fork Am erican• Concentration of data collection effort to develop a
“truth set” upon which solid research, developm ent, and direction can be based.
HM T Participation
•• Project M anagem entProject M anagem ent• David K ingsm ill – NO AA/O AR/ETL
•• NO AA PartnersNO AA Partners• O AR(ETL,NSSL,FSL,CDC,AO M L)• NW S(O HD,HPC,NO HR SC,W R,ER,EM C)• NESDIS(O RA)
• O ther Partners
118
Distributed M odelIntercom parison Project G O ALS
Engage the hydro logic m odeling com m unity to:Engage the hydro logic m odeling com m unity to:
•• Im prove our understanding of the capabilities and Im prove our understanding of the capabilities and lim itations of distributed hydrologic m odels when lim itations of d istributed hydrologic m odels when forced by operational quality m eteorological dataforced by operational quality m eteorological data
•• G uide research and developm ent in support of the G uide research and developm ent in support of the NO AA’s NW S m ission to forecast river and stream NO AA’s NW S m ission to forecast river and stream conditions. conditions.
DM IP 1 Partic ipants
1)1) M assachusetts Institute of M assachusetts Institute of Technology (M IT )Technology (M IT)
2)2) Hydrologic Research C enter H ydrologic Research C enter (HRC)(HR C)
3)3) DH I W ater and Environm entD HI W ater and Environm ent4)4) Univ . of ArizonaU niv. of Arizona5)5) National C enters for N ational C enters for
Environm ental Prediction Environm ental Prediction (NCEP)(NC EP)
6)6) Univ . of O klahom aU niv. of O klahom a7)7) Univ . of W aterloo, O ntario, U niv . of W aterloo, O ntario,
CanadaC anada8)8) U tah State Univ . and National U tah State Univ . and National
Institute of W ater Research Institute of W ater Research (N IW R), New Zealand(N IW R), N ew Zealand
9)9) U .S. NO AA National W eather U .S. NO AA National W eather Serv ice O ffice of Hydrologic Serv ice O ffice of Hydrologic D evelopm ent (O HD)Developm ent (O HD)
10)10) U .S. Departm ent of Agriculture U .S. Departm ent of Agriculture (USDA) (U SDA) B lacklandBlackland Research Research C enterCenter
11)11) Univ . of California at BerkeleyUniv . of California at Berkeley12)12) The Hydraulic and E lectrica l The Hydraulic and E lectrica l
C ollege of College of W uH anW uHan U niv., C hinaUniv., China
119
DM IP 1 Basins and T im elinehttp://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hrl/dm ip/
1
ab
1. Blue R. at B lue, O K2. Ill. R. a t Tahlequah, OK3. Baron Fork at Eldon, OK4. Peacheater Cr. at Christie, OK5. Flint Cr. a t Kansas, O K6. Ill. R. a t Watts, OK7. Ill. R. a t S avoy, OK8. Elk R. a t Tif f City, MO.
Ungaged LocationsGaged Locations
a. B lup1b. B lup2c. E ldp1d. Wt tp1e. Tifp1
BlueRiver
2 3
56 7
4
8 e
d
c2 3
56 7
4
8 e
d
c23
56 7
4
8 e
d
c
Elk River
Illinois River
8 G auged Basins Ranging in S ize from 65 – 2500 km 2
Jan – Jun : DM IP plan developed
2000
Jan : Data availab le on web
M arch : Participants subm itted sim ulations
August: DM IP workshop at NO AA’s NW S/O HD
O ct: DM IP Special Issue,Journal of Hydrology, 298
2001Dec : DM IP officially begins,web set open
2002
2003
2004
Interior P oints
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
% Im
prov
emen
t
P arent B as ins
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
A RS HRC OHD UTS
UWO OU A RZ A v g
DHI WHU MIT
DM IP 1 ResultsPercent improvement in flood peak prediction from
calibrated distributed hydrologic models compared to the lumped model
C hristie Kansas Savoy Eldon Blue W atts T iff C ity Tahlequah
120
(See Journal of Hydrology, Volume 298, 2004, Specia l Issue for details)
DM IP 1 Conclusions
• Som e distributed hydro log ic m odels can produce sim ulations com parable to or better than lum ped m odels. M any cannot.
• D istributed m odel param eters derived from physica l data provide reasonable in itia l guesses but param eter calibration significantly im proves outlet s im ulations.
• The m ost significant ga ins from distributed m odels over lum ped m odels were seen for a long, narrow basin, the B lue R iver (1233 km 2), and a sm all interior gage, Peacheater Creek (65 km 2).
DM IP 1 Conclusions
• Distributed m odels produced reasonable results at interior points but not as good statistically as those from parent basins.
• M odels that com bined conceptual ra infall-runoff techniques with physica lly-based routing techniques showed the best perform ance (HL-R M S is an exam ple).
• The m ean of selected m odel ensem bles com pares favorably w ith that of the single best distributed m odel
(See Journal of Hydrology, Volume 298, 2004, Specia l Issue for details)
121
DM IP 2 Science G oals
•• Confirm basic DM IP 1 conclusions w ith a longer Confirm basic DM IP 1 conclusions w ith a longer validation period and m ore test basinsvalidation period and m ore test basins
•• Im prove our understanding of distributed m odel Im prove our understanding of d istributed m odel accuracy for sm all, interior point sim ulationsaccuracy for sm all, interior point sim ulations
•• Evaluate new reEvaluate new re --analysis forcing data setsanalysis forcing data sets•• Evaluate the perform ance of distributed m odels Evaluate the perform ance of d istributed m odels
in prediction m ode in prediction m ode •• Use available soil m oisture data to evaluate the Use available soil m oisture data to evaluate the
physics of d istributed m odels physics of distributed m odels
DM IP 2 Science G oals
•• Im prove our understanding of the w ay routing Im prove our understanding of the w ay routing schem es contribute to the success of d istributed schem es contribute to the success of d istributed m odels by designing an experim ent that uses a m odels by designing an experim ent that uses a com m on routing m odelcom m on routing m odel
•• Continue to gain insights into the interplay Continue to gain insights into the interplay am ong spatia l variability in ra infall, am ong spatia l variability in ra infall, physiographic features, and basin response, physiographic features, and basin response, specifically in m ountainous basins specifically in m ountainous basins
•• Im prove our understanding of scale issues in Im prove our understanding of scale issues in m ountainous area hydrologym ountainous area hydrology
•• Im prove our ability to characterize sim ulation Im prove our ability to characterize sim ulation and forecast uncerta inty in different hydrologic and forecast uncerta inty in different hydrologic regim esregim es
122
Nevada
Californ ia
Texas
Oklahom a
Arkansas
M issouriKansas Elk R iver
IllinoisR iver
B lue R iver
AmericanR iver Carson
R iver
Additional Tests in DM IP 1 Basins1. Routing2. Soil Moisture3. Lumped vs. D istributed4. Prediction mode
Tests w ith C om plex Hydrology1. Snow, Rain/snow events2. Soil Moisture3. Lumped vs. D istributed4. Mountain Terra in
H M T
DM IP 2 - Scope
A mericanRiver
FolsomDam
Ame rican RiverBa sin
North Fo rk A mericanRiver Basin
Nevad a
Ca lifornia
St ud ya re a s
Carso n Rive rDrainag e B asin
Nevada
California
E ast Fork CarsonRiver Ba sin
Sa cra me nt o
C a rsonC ity
R en o
L ak eTa h oe Ca rson
Rive r
S ierra Nevada
Mtns
50 m iles
50 kilo me te rs0
Scale
M id dle Fo rk
So uth Fork
DM IP 2 - S ierra Nevada Basins
-Reasonable existing data-P lanned instrumentation-W idely studied-CUAHSI in itia tive-HMT Linkage
123
Proposed DM IP 2 T im eline
•• M arch 2005 M arch 2005 ---- D istribute Science P lan for reviewD istribute Science P lan for review•• O ctober 2005 O ctober 2005 –– Project start, basic data available Project start, basic data available
on w eb (not ETL data)on w eb (not ETL data)•• O ctober 2006 O ctober 2006 –– O klahom a sim ulations dueO klahom a sim ulations due•• July 2007 July 2007 –– S ierra N evada basic sim ulations dueS ierra N evada basic sim ulations due•• O ctober 2007 O ctober 2007 ---- Sum m ary w orkshopSum m ary w orkshop
DM IP 2The follow ing have already shown interest in participating:
•• KonstantineKonstantine G eorgakakos, HRCG eorgakakos, HRC•• Kenneth M itchell, N O AA/NW S/NCEPKenneth M itchell, N O AA/NW S/NCEP•• M ario M ario D iLuzioD iLuzio , Texas A&M, Texas A&M•• W itoldW itold Krajewski, U . IowaKrajewski, U . Iowa•• Praveen Kum ar, U . IllinoisPraveen Kum ar, U . Illinois•• E ldhoE ldho IypeIype , Indian Tech. Institute, Bom bay, Indian Tech. Institute, Bom bay•• Sandra G arcia, U . Sandra G arcia, U . C artegenaC artegena , Spain, Spain
124