PNWCG/NWS BI-ANNUAL WEATHER MEETING
NORTHWEST COORDINATION CENTER
DECEMBER 17, 2001
ATTENDING:
Mike Ziolko
Paul Werth
Scott Weishaar
Chris Hill
Terry Marsha
John Livingston
Steve Todd
Chuck Redman
Larry Van Bussum
John Werth
Frederic Bunnag
Scott Birch
John Saltenberger
Roddy Baumann
Roger Williams
Bruce Bauck
Bob Tobin
Mike Fitzpatrick
ODF
FWS
NWS PDX
NWS SEW
GACC BIA
WS GEG
NWS PDX
Boise
NIFC
Seattle
Medford
SLC
PQR
USFWS
MFR
PDT
PDT
NPS
503-945-7452
503-808-2737
503-326-2420
206-526-6095 ext 222
503-808-2756
509-244-0110 ext 222
Mike provided a brief overview of meeting topics. Mike asked for additional agenda items; none
were added. Paul continued with an introduction to NWCC and the facilities.
AGENDA ITEM 1: FIRE WEATHER ZONE CHANGE AND PROGRAM TRANSFER
PROPOSAL
The NWS is proposing fire weather zone changes and forecast office responsibility changes for
certain zones. Scott B. distributed map showing proposed future fire weather forecast ones
(attachment 5). Each office discussed proposed zone changes affecting its operations.
PDT: Bob reviewed Pendleton zone changes (attachment 6): PDT would take over SE
Washington, give up 636 to Boise. Zone 636 southern boundary would be dropped south to
HWY 20. Some question as to Burns BLM feeling/reaction. Consensus was that the change is
good, even though it requires two forecasts. PDT picks up 681 zone (alpine area.) 675 is one
larger zone now. Benton/Franklin counties in Washington are in 631 – making the zone go from
Hood River to Lewiston. Question about Zone 632. Should it be divided? Bob felt that
climatologically it should stay as one zone. Agreement reached that 632 would not be divided.
ACTION ITEM: BOI/PDT will contact Burns BLM by January 4, 2002 to receive
input on the changes.
GEG: John L. reviewed Spokane zone changes (attachment 7). Yakama Reservation and Fire
center go to Pendleton. Other change divides lowlands and highlands into 2 separate zones.
Seattle is taking Cascade National Park.
1
SEW: John W. reviewed Seattle zone changes. Three changes are proposed: (1) Give up
Pacific Co. to Portland. Small part of Lewis Co. would also go into 601. Cowlitz Co. would go to
zone 602. (2) In Olympic Peninsula, the zone is divided to an east (dry) side and a west (wet)
side. (3) Pick up N. portion of Cascade Pass from Spokane.
ACTION ITEM: Spokane will contact SE WA DNR for concurrence. Seattle will
contact N. Cascade/NPS and DNR/Olympia by January 4, 2002.
PQR: John S. reviewed the proposed Portland zone changes. East slopes of the Cascades
broken into three zones (formerly 609 and 610) and would be numbered 609, 610 and 611 (north
to south.) Zone 601 would now break at Tillamook Co. Zone 612 will be a new south zone and
601 remains in the north. Why split the existing 601? Goal to give better resolution to the winds.
Southern boundary of the new 612 was discussed too, but no changes are proposed. ODF
hasn’t been contacted on these changes, yet. John said the changes are small for ODF, and
shouldn’t be a problem. Mike asked that ODF offices be contacted for concurrence. Discussion
ensued about re-numbering the whole region. Resolution was that re-numbering should wait until
we’ve stabilized the zones.
ACTION ITEM: Scott W. or John S. will contact ODF- coast and east side to learn
their opinion/concerns. They will also contact Walker Range by January 4, 2002
for concurrence.
MFR: Fredrick reviewed Medford zone changes. Rogue River and Siskiyou zones should follow
natural boundaries of the forests. This causes zones 620 and 621 to extend into California. For
clarification, the proposed map has an error. Zone 622’s southern border (zone 621’s northern
border) is missing on the map and should be drawn in.
ACTION ITEM: NWS could change zone numbers and boundaries as discussed
above if there are no objections from field users. Scott B. will have all map
changes to the WWT by January 4, 2002. Goal is to have new maps published by
April 1, 2002. NEW ZONES WILL BE EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2002. (Ops Plan Switch
Occurs April 1)
General discussion about the need to change weather station catalogs for stations that will be in
the new zones. We need to let the field know that work needs to be done.
ACTION ITEM: (WHO????) will contact field offices regarding catalog changes for
fire weather stations by January 4, 2002.
AGENDA ITEM 2:
RED FLAG
PRELIMINARY 2001 RED FLAG WARNING VERIFICATION
RED FLAG WARNING CRITERIA
Scott B. began the discussion with a review of 2001 watches and warnings. The number of Fire
Weather Watches did not exceed the Red Flags issued. 44 FWWs and 59 red flag warnings
were issued. Seattle Issued None. Pendleton had lead-time of just above 7 hours and Boise's
was 4.5 hours. Average is 9 hours. For dry thunderstorms, 2 hours is goal; for wind events 7
hours. Both were discussed further. Graphs of preliminary numbers were provided. (Attachment
1,2,3). Jan 31st is date for final numbers.
Terry felt we need to get criteria in line with our observations. He believed the number issued
were fine. He believes we should spend a day or two going over zones/criteria with any office
interested. He expressed the need for tools for forecasting and the need for meeting criteria.
2
Paul discussed his verification handout (attachment 4), which included the August 12 dry lightning
storms. He believes that conference calls were useful. POD was not as useful of a statistic this
year; some stations have wind every day. FAR and the number of warnings improved from 2000,
especially at Pendleton.
Roddy offered that the improvement rate helps us verify that its o.k. to spend 60 thousand dollars
to pre-position, because the event is inevitable.
Paul suggested that questions remain about how dry lightning is defined. He suggested
developing an algorithm based on MM5.
Fredrick questioned how much weight can we place on the statement from the field re the
occurrence of dry lightning? Group response: Not much. We want to avoid subjective type data,
if possible. Subjective data should not be used for verification purposes.
Scott asked what the criteria is/should be and how do we verify the occurrence. One suggestion
from Bob was to use RH and lightning. A dew point of <40 is used in Zone 636. What about the
nocturnal cases? Perhaps the same criteria will work, because humidity recovery in these cases
are terrible too. Paul suggested that we need to evaluate the condition of the fuels too. Use
climatology and fire history to determine the criteria.
Discussion followed on how to approach the criteria setting. Terry suggests that this should be
fixed one office at a time. Too many people hinder the process. You’ll never get all to agree.
John W. asked if we are we limited to just the RAWS stations? There was no clear direction from
the group.
Other miscellaneous comments: Definitions were questioned. Terry suggested that it is up to us
to define “Dry Lightning.” Research programs should meld in to what we design, not the
reverse.
Mike F. offered that the definition and use of the term is not an isolated problem. Somewhere
down the road the dry lightning prediction is going to need to be integrated with the resource
availability, aiding the predictions of project-size fires. Roddy offered that we must consider scale
on a situational basis, the criteria though need to be established firmly. Resources are lined-up
when dry lightning is forecast. That’s why the verification numbers are important. Proof of
taxpayers dollars put to good use. The movement of air tankers and use of other resources is
also dependent upon good forecasts, thus requiring a good understanding and use of criteria,
definitions, and verification. Terry questioned if it really matters if we call it "dry lightning" or just
"lightning?" Answer by Roddy is an emphatic yes, especially once verification is in place.
ACTION ITEMS: 1) Scott B. will provide final verification numbers by January 31,
2002.
2) WFOs should work with Terry, using his data, to develop verification statistics.
3) Reconvene the WWT Task Group (created earlier this year) resume work on the
issue. Task smaller sub-groups to work with the WWT and WFOs on criteria for
each forecast area. Then, reconvene the entire Task Group to develop the
standard and seemless red flag critieria. Dry lightning criteria would be the
primary focus. Then, check with the field routinely to see if the criteria are
working. Suggested that the Task Group group get together in January, 2002.
AGENDA ITEM 3: DAILY FIRE WEATHER COORDINATION CALL
3
Chris related that the calls started out a little rocky but got better as the season went on.
Challenges are to limit how much time is spent on the call, and to spell out what should be talked
about. There is also an issue of whether CPC will participate in future. Paul W. stated that CPC
learned how much the extended forecast was really being used. CPC was included daily during
this (2001) severe fire season, but perhaps they should not be included each year. This may be
a waste of their time during a normal fire season. Terry suggested alerting them that we’ll be
calling them from time to time, during critical times of the season. Non-scheduled contact could
take place, but they need to be asked first, and they should be given some notice. When
involving them, we are more concerned with their expertise- their “gut instincts” about situations.
Good idea to write to them asking/telling them what we are looking for. We do need more value
added input from CPC when they participate.
Paul W suggested that it would be beneficial to use a form for note taking; some means of
documenting the significant reports from each area. Bob offered that Seattle may not be the best
to start briefings since their weather didn’t apply to the pressing issues like dry lightning storms
occurring down south. Instead we should start with the offices that have weather conditions.
This would shorten things up. John W stressed the importance of “passing” if there isn’t anything
significant happening in a forecast area.
Paul W offered that the start up date should be flexible. Rather start later rather than sooner.
Importance of a daily routine is still there, but this would save time. Also, fuels information is
important topic to be discussed on the call.
All: The challenge is to remember that this is a coordination call, not a daily briefing.
ACTION ITEM: 1) Adjustments will be made as to the order of speaking and the
daily summary, based on each day’s unique weather. NWCC will coordinate this
based on where the weather and action is expected.
2) Add fuel information to the content of the calls. It is very important, acreage
burned isn’t as important.
3) Calls will continue. Start and end dates for the calls will be flexible.
4) CPC will be used on an as needed basis. Paul will draft expectations for CPC
before fire season begins and send to them. Advance notice will be given to CPC
for days when their participation is desired.
5) Individual offices will be responsible for any note taking they need or require..
AGENDA ITEM 4: IMET CONFERENCE CALLS
Paul asked that the GACC be included in IMET conference calls for coordination purposes. Scott
B. reviewed the history behind the calls. In the past, 3 IMETs in one WFO area qualify the need
for a call per NWS policy. The purpose is to coordinate with the WFO. WRH participates mainly
for equipment related issues. After a Montana service assessment, the call was deemed very
important. In his opinion, coordination with the GACC occurs during daily calls but if the GACC
wants to participate in IMET call too, that would be fine. New questions arise as to who else
would like to participate. Also, we need to remember that the primary function is to check if
equipment is functioning properly.
4
Terry offered that the GACC should probably know what the IMET’s are saying, including
information from 209 reports. Bob felt that either IMET needs to be on GACC call or GACC
needs to be on IMET, but not. Need to streamline cooridnation and fewer calls are better.
John S asked if the GACC doesn’t participate passively anyway? If they don’t mind taking the
time, then its probably o.k. The “how confident are you” component is introduced in a live call, an
element that is missing in a written forecast.
ACTION ITEM: GACC can participate in the IMET conference calls. They are to
passively participate, unless a clarification is needed. IMET participates in the
GACC conference call at their discretion. Scott B. will initiate the IMET calls.
AGENDA ITEM 5:
AGENDA ITEM 6:
NWS POLICY OF UPDATING SPOT WEATHER FORECASTS
THE INTERNET SPOT FORECAST REQUEST FORM
(TOPICS DISCUSSED TOGETHER)
Roddy described a crtical burn situation that occurred this year. Facts: Prescribed burn on Hart
Mtn. Refuge east of Lakeview. Humidity didn’t recover. Prescribed burn was lost over night.
Took off for a few thousand acres. Now the USFW is investigating. One issue arose: spot
forecast came out at 11 am, and talked about eye-level winds only, not 20 ft. winds. Why does
the web form have an eye-level wind item, but not a 20-ft. request? What is the policy for
updating the spot forecast as it applies to a prescribed burn? How do you get the information to
the field in regions of poor communication?
Scott B. asked how difficult is it to put both eye-level and 20 ft parameters on the web? Bruce
related that 20-ft. wind at 10-min intervals was decided upon last year. Eye-level winds are good
for direction only. Pendleton forecasts for 20-ft winds. Bob said he is teaching his customers to
use 20-ft winds and calculating from this.
Roddy asked if there is a process and policy for follow-up on the spot forecasts? Scott B. read
from NWS documents. There is not a real clear rule. He’ll clean up the wording on the rules to
ensure that the forecast is updated as needed. Suggestions were offered to clarify the process
and requirements. John S. suggested adding a disclaimer on the form, for the “duration of this
forecast.” Another suggestion was that the form should have a spot that requires the field to call
in previous to the burn to be sure the forecast still holds true. Roddy suggested that 3-hour
increments be used and Medford uses 1-hour increments. The AOP doesn’t say anything about
updating forecasts.
Mike Z. asked that revisions to the form be completed by Mid-March so that the revised form can
go into the mobilization plan.
ACTION ITEM: 1) NWS (Tim) will add 20-ft winds as an option on the forms.
Further discussion will ensue regarding putting this on the national forms.
2) Group agreed that the following wording will become a part forecast
requirements of the Annual Operating Plan: Include 20-foot winds, clarify when
forecasts would be updated and the time increment before they become invalid.
3) All edits should be done and the (internet) spot request form available by
March 15th
AGENDA ITEM 7: 2002 AOP
5
The group discussed the development of the 2002 AOP. Need to resolve who is going to compile
this year, and who is responsible for printing? The system didn't work as well as intended in
2001. Information submitted to the GACC was inconsistent in format; incomplete; not timely.
There was confusions on individual offices sending material.
The group discussed possible solutions on to what system would work best. Paul looked into the
ROMLs, Appendix C as a reference. He said looked like an appendix was added. Bruce
suggested identifying one WFO to compile the information and send it on to the GACC. General
consensus was that all want to see it before it goes on to the GACC for final printing.
WFO's agreed upon a schedule for offices that would assume NWS responsibility for compiling
NWS information and assembling the document. The following schedule will be used for the next
five years.
SEW 2001
PDT
2002
GEG 2003
PQR 2004
BOI
2005
MFR 2006
Mike Z. suggested that we don't publish the document, but make it available on the Web.
General consensus was that the document would be converted to PDF format and we'd only print
copies as necessary. The PDF document would be hosted on the GACC web site. The printing
would be done at WRH only if necessary, with coordination provided by PQR. Steve asked what
the process is for sending this plan on to Mike Z (for the WWT)? If GAAC will send it to Steve, he
will review it and send it on to Mike. If he needs to make changes he will contact the appropriate
office or individual.
Timeline for completion was discussed and the following was agreed to by the group:
WFOs have info To PQR - Mid February
PQR have it To WWT - March 1st
Conversion complete and publish - March 15th
ACTION ITEM: Portland will do the compiling. It was moved to have this also
discussed at the February meeting to see if there are any problems and to check
on the status/progress. GACC will host the AOP on its web site.
AGENDA ITEM #8 INTERACTIVE FORECAST PREPARATION SYSTEM
Steve presented a Power Point presentation of IFPS. Main points in the presenation:






Future of Forecast Ops. Will be evaluated through October 2003. Public, marine and fire
weather will be implemented first. Aviation forecasts will be later because of vertical
resolution issues.
In the next two years the NWS will go through major changes, right now its all in text. We are
heading for a 3-tier system, text (low end users), text and graphic, and grids (high end users).
Forecaster interface with the grids will be the big difference in what we have now. Local facts
and forecasters knowledge will be input to come up with the best possible forecast.
In 1970’s 4pm forecast most likely always driven by what data was available at that time in
that particular location. This is why all the inconsistencies existed in all areas.
1980 – 2001 Forecast Sources consisted of NWS Forecaster, and Digital Model.
For the Digital Forecast Process there are several different components to this system. Start
with Numerical Modeling- Model Interpret-Forecast Editing-Grid Editing-Matrix EditingProduct Generation to Forecast Products. All these tools are being worked with to come up
with the most precise forecast available to the forecaster for 2002. The way to do this is to
6




use the Grid Editing and Matrix Editing procedure. The Western division is not using this
Matrix Editing because it is limited.
Experience shows text says the same thing, big not always the way a forecaster wants to say
things. Forecaster can go in and modify text if they want.
Products produced
Traces of temperature, revised digital forecast (rdf), ex: Look at the Tucson sight.
Benefits will help us generate our spot forecast real quick.
A question/answer period occurred:
Mike Z : When you do adjustments, do physics and dynamics of the models stay consistent?
Steve: Yes, that is why we use Smart Tools, it enables us to do that. You are not rerunning a
numerical model, just adjusting the grids.
Terry: In terms of fire weather, how would you envision a fire forecast changing in the next year
or two?
Steve: It won’t change, the way we find or predict the forecast will change. It will be more
precise.
Steve explain further how the forecast will be produced. When using a grid set and modifying it
you will take the same forecasters and make them responsible for segments of the 7-day
forecasts. This time period that each forecaster is assigned can change from day to day.
Paul: What model are you running this on?
Steve: Forecasters get to pick the one they want to use.
Paul: So you can switch models?
Steve: Yes, but grid points are only as good as the resolution of the model. Forecast will be
totally based on GRID points. A forecaster will have to adjust manually for elevation and fire
behavior if needed.
Paul: Isn’t this a big workload for the forecaster as each element has to be edited, such as
elevation, winds, humidity, etc.?
Steve: I am being told yes and no, depending on location as in Florida they don’t need to edit all
the grids all the time. They use a process called “ nudging”. You go in and make minor changes
to get what you want. The forecaster can edit this forever.
Paul: Isn’t there a danger of having automated forecasts?
Steve: Yes that's why this system is good because one can still go in and make changes if
necessary. This system is planned on being implemented in October 2003. As to what parts of it
will be implemented at that time we still aren’t sure; this is still subject to change. We do know
that some part of it will be implemented by then.
At this point the group engaged in a lengthy discussion as to the pros and con’s for implementing
this system. It was pointed out that yes it could and would increase the workload for the
forecaster. Paul W made the point we would have to look for validation as to the benefits of using
this system. The process is a dramatic change and many persons in the group are reluctant to
switch over completely until they can actually see all the benefits talked about.
Roger: It was agreed it is a dramatic change. Unfortunately we still don’t have all the answers
and Medford has the same concerns about the system as do the rest of you. Will it be accurate
enough to use as a Fire Weather forecast? What will the workload be like?
Steve: As I see it the biggest challenge at this point is consistency.
Paul: From the user standpoint consistency is fine, but accuracy should be number one.
Paul: I think you need to keep the GACC informed of all the changes and what is going on.
Fredrick: I think you folks at the GACC need to take the time to understand this and work with it
so you will be comfortable using it.
Terry: Once we start using this, will we know that is the system you are using?
Steve: Yes, you will know it’s a different system. Tucson is using this system and it works very
well for them. We are hoping it will work as well for the Western region.
7
Paul: We would like to be involved in some sort of an evaluation of this system. It would be good
to have some forecasters do it the old way and some the new way and see how they compare.
Terry: Are you going to use a fire weather forecaster? Is the fire weather forecaster going to
generate his personal database to do this?
Steve: No, and yes I will have a fire weather forecaster working for me. However I am speaking
only for my office. I don’t know what the rest will be doing. Depending on the situation, the fire
weather forecaster should be free to devote his total attention to the forecast and not be worrying
about typing up all the verbage for these spot forecasts.
Terry: Isn’t this going to change all the other items in the office? How can this work more
efficiently?
Steve: It will change all the other items but for the best. Everything should be more accurate. It
does require a transition and eventually it will be more effective.
Mike Z: What happens between now and 2003?
Steve: We are trying to find out which offices will be using and implementing this system.
NWS Summary:
 Transition will be difficult for some
 Important for all forecasters to take the responsibility of learning this new system so they can
use it comfortably.
 May increase workload at beginning but once in use should decrease it in other areas of
forecasting.
 Accuracy for fire weather forecast should be increased providing an excellent tool for
firefighters.
AGENDA ITEM 9:
FIRE SEASON 2001 FIRE WEATHER SERVICES REPORT
LESSONS LEARNED
Agencies were given the opportunity to discuss lessons/issued of 2001 fire season.
Mike Z.: ODF doesn't have any outstanding issues. They thought that IMETS worked well on
ODF managed fires.
Paul : I received many ideas on forecasts. I talked to people from Pendleton and they were
confused about the length of forecast and the trends confused them. I think this is new to some
people and they don’t quite understand what's going on. Most of the feedback was good and
again I think it just depended on the personality you were working with at the district level. As for
Medford some said no problem and others mentioned they felt spot forecasts were not as good
as they used to be. Mostly this had to do with the spot forecasts for smoke management and
prescribed burning issues. I think the confusion was coming from individuals not being able to
read the forecasts or knowing where to look for the information they needed to find. There was
some concern about spot forecasts only having information at ignition time and then skipping to
the evening. They did say if they had questions, they would call and everyone was quite helpful
in explaining the answers to their questions.
Chris: If you have a problem with a spot forecast please don’t wait until January to give us
feedback on it. Provide feedback ASAP for any issue.
Scott B.: Some IMETS were having trouble getting coordination centers to make travel
arrangements for them. This seemed to be a problem with local coordination centers.
Bob: PDT had a problem with ODF not ordering an IMET for their team to work on the Monument
Fire. Phone briefings at odd times put a workload on their office. Please let ODF know that they
need to always order one. They also had a situation with a Situation Leader not working well with
an IMET.
8
John L: We had a request for an IMET for a bug project but felt the field office should have come
to us in a better way. The timeframe for ordering the IMET was not done in an appropriate
manner. We did not have a problem supporting the project but had a problem responding to it as
if it was a wildfire. They wanted the person to respond the next day and that is not an appropriate
timeframe for this kind of request, when it was known for a long time that the project was being
planned..
ACTION ITEM: 1) NWS should let Paul or Terry know if they are having problems
with IMET travel arrangements and they will coordinate to expedite the process.
2) Mike Z will check into the issue of ODF ordering IMETs and NWS workload
issues to team IC’s.
AGENDA ITEMS 10: GACC BRIEFING ON PREDICTIVE SERVICES, CURRENT
PROJECTS AND RESEARCH
Paul used a Powerpoint presentation to describe GACC activities.
Program objectives
Components
Develop new products
Daily summary fcst, submitted to NIC. 10-day, 30-day and seasonal
assessments (core GACC function)
Evaluation/monitoring
NWS fire weather service, fcsts, briefings, warnings, RAWS
Applied research
Critical fire wx patterns, RAWS climate summaries, RAWS MOS using MM5, red
flag criteria that is fuel model dependent
Briefing and consultation
NWCC, MAC groups, PNWCG
RERAP, FARSITE, Accidents
Liaison
Climatology
Fire risk assessments
RAWS
Fire wx patterns
Tech transfer
Coordination with research and other state and federal agencies
Effective use of most up to date met and climate info
Conduct training
AGENDA ITEM 12:
NFDRS 2001 VERIFICATION AND WEATHER STATION DATA
ANALYSIS
Paul reviewed verification study and procedures the GACC used. (See attachment _)
Issues identified include late obs entry into database creates problems for producing forecasts
(i.e. no data available). Also suggested developing consistent RAWS MOS guidance for all
offices. Good quality data is needed. Big change events were not captured well at offices that
didn't have guidance. QC of data is a big problem. Terry will be working on QC.
General comments:
Chris suggested add MAE to the analysis.
9
Terry reiterated that RAWS data needs to be improved drastically and everyone needs to work on
this. The data we have to work with isn’t sufficient to produce a good report. We do the best with
the timeframe we have available. If anyone has any input on quality control at the offices for
obtaining the data, please let us know your ideas. This is also a part of the problem. The field
offices do not have meteorologists and it’s a lot to expect from them to QC data. This is why it's
hard to accept all the data gathered. It just isn’t always good.
Paul said that Tom E. is working on developing a better National Plan. There is no daily quality
control on any of this data at present. This is the problem. When this report is finalized, all
attendees will be sent a copy of it.
ACTION ITEM: 1) All get QC ideas to Terry.
2) Paul W distribute verification report when it is final.
AGENDA ITEM 11:
WWT BRIEFING ON GACC, DNR, AND ODF METEROLOGIST
DAILY WEATHER ACTIVITIES
Agencies briefed NWS on activities of fire agency meteorologist activities.
Paul previously briefed on GACC activities in Agenda item 10.
No report from DNR since they weren't here. John W. reported that DNR was sending out some
type of forecasts by e-mail and fax.
Mike Z.: ODF is involved with open burning in the Willamette Valley and seasonal advisory
system for other parts of the states, most of this is a wood stove burning advisory. During fire
season ODF forecasters in Salem will issue heads up advisory, red flag warnings, etc., usually a
one or two liner. Smoke is a big issue for ODF and we are looking at expanding our forecasting
program. We have been looking to get counties involved in this but there is a little bit of a control
issue with them. ODF is looking to coordinate and be involved in range and agricultural burning
advisories. Not involved in agricultural burning in Willamette Valley and don’t expect to get
involved. The Department of Agriculture administers that program. Agriculture is a real complex
activity to deal with. They want to do their own thing. ODF is working with USFS & BLM to look
for additional funding for some new projects we are looking to initiate. If that happens we may
add new staff. We are heavily involved in issuing debris flow advisories (subset of landslides).
Our department had the lead responsibilities to determine these advisories.. It affects WO,
Columbia Gorge, West Lane, and Roseburg primarily. Portland is our primary WFO contact on
for relaying warnings through the NWS. Brookings area is not subject to debris flows so we don't
forecast for that area.
We work closely with ODF geo-techs to determine areas of concern.
AGENDA ITEM 13: IMET DISPATCH STATS
Scott W. briefed the group on IMET dispatches. (See attachment __) IMETs are dispatched
within 12 hours per MOU. One exception was when a forecaster was requested at 11pm. He
needed sleep before leaving because he was on a mid-shift. Travel times are shown in the
handout for reference. It seemed to take a long time to actually get the dispatch order to the
person who was being sent out.
AGENDA ITEM 14: REPORT TO PNWCG/NWS WR
We will use this meeting as the basis for the report to PNWCG and NWS WR Director per MOU.
Elements to include are Paul's report on red flag warnings (don't need POD right now). And
Paul's statistics for verification of the program. There are still items Paul needs to complete but
we can add them.
10
Paul will work with Rusty B. and Rick O. to finish the national verification program.
For NFDRS standards, use MAE and persistence.
ACTION ITEM: 1) Mike and Scott B. collaborate on report writing with review by
the group. Targer date for completion being January 22,2002
Recommendations to include:
 Verification stats
 Lessons learned
2) Paul work with NWS BOI on national verification program.
AGENDA ITEM 15: FEBRUARY MEETING
DATE OF FEBRUARY MEETING: February 21 & 22, 2002 at NWCC, 8am
II. Agenda items for next meeting may include:
Discussing operating plan
Finalize zones
Strategy to get changes to field
Discuss Verification plan further/Status
Discuss D-6 New chapter (Weather service policy)
Review Red flag criteria if done
John show IMET programs he has developed and uses.
John S has been working on fire danger indices on website
11