1. Options for Future Event-Based Hydrologic Products Tim Helble Hydrologic Services Division Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services

2. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 Topics  Current suite of event-based hydrologic products  Three of many possible options for the future

3. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 Current Product Configuration  FFW for Flash Flood Warnings, FFS for follow-ups (flash flood statement) FF.W indicates flash flood warning for an area No VTEC phenomena/significance code for flash flood warning for a point  FFA for Flood/Flash Flood Watches FF.A indicates flash flood watch for an area FA.A indicates flood watch for an area FL.A indicates flood watch for a point

4. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 Current Product Configuration  FLW for Flood Warnings, FLS for follow-ups (flood statement) FL.W indicates point-based warning FA.W indicates areal warning  FLS for Flood Advisories – both initial and follow-ups FL.Y indicates point-based advisory FA.Y indicates areal advisory

5. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 Current Product Configuration  Each product has a unique MND Product Type Line – e.g.: FLASH FLOOD WARNING FLOOD WARNING FLOOD WATCH

6. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 An Opportunity…  Next Generation Warning Tool (NGWT) provides an opportunity to: Eliminate current difficulties in hydro products arising from use of three different applications Start from scratch and build a product suite that meets the needs of partners and other users. Implement better product quality control  Timeframe: 3+ years

7. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 Future Option #1  Keep current configuration of product identifiers.  Keep unique MND Product Type Lines – e.g., FLASH FLOOD WARNING, FLOOD WATCH.  Partially rely on VTEC to parse products Action codes – e.g., NEW, CON Phenomena codes – e.g., FL, FA Significance codes – e.g., W, A, Y

8. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 Future Option #1  Pros: Already understood by partners and other users.  Cons: Too many product identifiers -- can be confusing. Doesn’t allow for an upgrade/downgrade capability (e.g., watch to warning). Doesn’t allow for a transition capability (e.g., flash flood warning to flood warning). Very limited ability to issue products combining different types of segments (all segments must be under the same identifier).

9. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 Future Option #2  One product identifier for all hydrologic watches, one for all flood warnings, and one for all advisories  Keep unique MND Product Type Lines – e.g., FLASH FLOOD WARNING, FLOOD WATCH  Partially rely on VTEC to parse products

10. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 Future Option #2  Pros: More logical structure – one unique identifier for each major type of product. Allows for a transition capability (e.g., flash flood warning to flood warning). Some ability to issue products combining different types of segments (so long as they use the same product identifier).  Cons: Doesn’t allow for an upgrade/downgrade capability (e.g., watch to warning). Only eliminates two identifiers. Somewhat limited ability to issue products combining different types of segments (all segments must be under the same identifier).

11. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 Future Option #3  One product identifier for all event-based products (watch/warning/advisories) – FLW  Keep unique MND Product Type Lines – e.g., FLASH FLOOD WARNING, FLOOD WATCH  Entirely rely on VTEC to parse products. Users can also parse on the MND Product Type Lines if necessary

12. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 Future Option #3  Pros: Very simple – one identifier covers all (like WSW). Allows for both a transition capability (e.g., flash flood warning to flood warning) and an upgrade capability (e.g., flood watch to flood warning). Provides maximum ability to issue products combining different types of segments – e.g., a single product containing two points in flood, two at flood advisory level, two under a flood watch, and the entire upper portion of the basin covered by an areal flood warning. Places emphasis on versatile VTEC information rather than product identifiers.  Cons: Would likely require users who automatically parse NWS products to make changes to their software.

13. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008 Feedback  Option preference, other ideas? Please contact: Tim Helble timothy.helble@noaa.gov (301) 713-0006 x152