**Comments and Responses on Peer Review Draft of CCSP/SAP 5.1 Water
Resources (August 2007)**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 22%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 24%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="6"><strong>COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC REVIEWERS</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"><strong>AUTHOR'S RESPONSE</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Comment</strong></p>
<p><strong>Number</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Reviewer</strong></p>
<p><strong>ID</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>Chapter</strong></td>
<td><strong>Page</strong></td>
<td><strong>Line</strong></td>
<td><strong>Comment Text</strong></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Acknowledged,</strong></p>
<p><strong>but no further</strong></p>
<p><strong>response or revisions</strong></p>
<p><strong>are required</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Revisions have</strong></p>
<p><strong>been incorporated</strong></p>
<p><strong>as suggested in the</strong></p>
<p><strong>comment</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Agree, but see</strong></p>
<p><strong>"Notes on</strong></p>
<p><strong>Response"</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Agree, but</strong></p>
<p><strong>elaboration is</strong></p>
<p><strong>precluded by length</strong></p>
<p><strong>limitations</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Disagree; see</strong></p>
<p><strong>"Notes on</strong></p>
<p><strong>Response"</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Beyond scope of</strong></p>
<p><strong>report/chapter</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>Notes on Response</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-1and G-6</td>
<td>01</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>All</td>
<td>All</td>
<td><p>The sections on "uncertainty" for each case study are vague and
don't convey a sense of improvement other than through a positive
language in the report -but this can be read as significant
hand-waving.</p>
<p>Review and update as needed.</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Comment too vague to formulate response. Section substantially
revised; uncertainty discussion extended.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-2</td>
<td>01</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>2197</td>
<td>Simply mentioning some satellites is not enough to show how
space-based Earth Observation data is useful.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Section rewritten. Information flow schematic added. References
added.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-3</td>
<td>01</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>80-107</td>
<td></td>
<td>minimize the use of the words "as such" to preface an example.</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Comment too vague to formulate response</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-4</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Water resource management is an obvious and critical area for the
application of climate change products.</p>
<p>Chapter 1 of the Prospectus states that the goal is to provide useful
information on climate change and research products¿¿</p>
<p>In some ways RiverWare may have been the best choice among recent
developments to demonstrate this opportunity;</p>
<p>however, the presentation of RiverWare focuses too much on the
modeling system as a tool rather than demonstrating its linkages with
climate information.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>RiverWare description substantially revised. Greater explicit
linkage to climate information.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-5</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>In my view the author has chosen to use an approach that says the
glass is half empty to an approach that say the glass is half full.</p>
<p>The analysis does not show all of the applications on RiverWare using
climate data and Earth Observations so it is perhaps easier to reach
that conclusion.</p>
<p>For example, this reviewer was disappointed to see that one of the
clearest applications of climatological and hydrological input to
RiverWare was not referenced in the chapter.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Chapter substantially revised. Negative tone removed
throughout.</p>
<p>Additional examples presented or cited. Specific mention of ET
Toolbox.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-6</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>For a number of years, the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and
the Center for Research on Environment and Water together with
colleagues at the Bureau of Reclamation, have been providing input to
the Bureau¿s ET Toolbox that uses RiverWare to provide a service for
those within the Bureau who make operational decisions.</p>
<p>Details are available at</p>
<p>http://wmp.gsfc.nasa.gov.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Specific mention of ET Toolbox.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-7</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>My major concern is that I think RiverWare has been sold a bit short
in this chapter because it has been used more extensively as a means of
communicating climate forecasts and information to the water sector than
is suggested by this chapter.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially revised. Negative tone removed
throughout.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-8</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>As noted above the chapter focuses on RiverWare rather than its
climate applications. For that reason, one spends little time thinking
about climate-related applications until after the author has dealt with
the costs of the system, etc.</p>
<p>It is not clear why costs of the software are introduced here, as it
detracts from the focus of the report, which is climate
information.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Chapter substantially revised. Less information about RiverWare,
more focus on applications.</p>
<p>Detailed cost information removed.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-9</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>It is assumed that the authors were given a very strict format
for writing each section of their chapters.</p>
<p>This structure may have helped to ensure completeness but in the case
of this section it has lead to repetitiveness and a bit of ¿choppiness¿
in the presentation of information. It would be this reviewer¿s advice
that the text be rewritten in a smooth, flowing way without the
inclusion of questions, which gives the impression that he/she is
reading a questionnaire that has been completed by the author. A
reorganization and different emphasis also would allow the author to
present the information in a more logical way.</p>
<p>For example, the first time this reviewer really got the message that
RiverWare used streamflow inputs from independent sources was in the
discussion of mid-range applications on page 97. Later on page 98 (lines
2219¿2224), the author states that all applications use streamflow
inputs. It would be desirable to reverse the order and let the reader
know that RiverWare uses the streamflow generated by an application
model as its inputs for most applications.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially revised. Question/answer format removed.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-10</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>In retrospect, the chapter would have been stronger and have better
met the goals of this Prospectus if it had presented climate information
and Earth Observations as input to a hydrologic model to produce outputs
that then were input to RiverWare. This discussion would also be aided
by the addition of an information flow figure for a climate application
similar to those used in other chapters of the report.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>More discussion on linkage among observations, hydrologic models,
RiverWare.</p>
<p>Information flow schematic included.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-11</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>My concern about the chapter has been the omission of some important
applications of RiverWare within the ET toolbox (Applications that have
been reported in the water section of some of the CCSP annual reports).
The absence of these applications makes the report more negative in
terms of climate applications than is merited.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-12</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>2017-2020</td>
<td>In terms of building reservoirs, canals, etc, it would be
appropriate to also mention the role of the US Army Corp of
Engineers.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Reference added</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-13</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>2036–2038</td>
<td>It would be useful to also list the fact that the high visibility of
a bad decision’s outcome tends to encourage reservoir operators and
other water managers to be very conservative in their decision
making.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Added to list.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-14</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Some parts of the description of RiverWare sound a bit like a
summary from a sales document or something written by the provider.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>RiverWare description substantially revised.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-15</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>2082</td>
<td>Section 2b: The text should be moved to a point later in the
Prospectus because it takes away from the focus on global change
data.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially reorganized.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-16</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>2116</td>
<td>Section 2d: The text should be moved to a point later in the
Prospectus because it takes away from the focus on global change
data.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially reorganized.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-17</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>94</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>For the purposes of this discussion it would be helpful to have
some discussion about what role CCSP sees for the private sector,
intellectual property rights, open source code, etc.</p>
<p>The issue of putting in costs of licensing in Section 2d (p. 94) does
not seem appropriate for this Prospectus. An internet address that links
interested readers with the supplier would be more appropriate.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><p>Discussion of private sector, etc. outside scope of report.</p>
<p>Licensing cost details removed. Some revised discussion remains
concerning implications of general costs for potential users of
DSTs.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-18</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>94</td>
<td></td>
<td>Also, the description of who is likely to have the capability of
using RiverWare could be placed near the end of the discussion after the
description of the combined use of climate data and the software.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially reorganized.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-19</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>93-94</td>
<td>2091-2214</td>
<td><p>The last two paragraphs of 2c also deal with the specific details
and simulation capabilities of RiverWare.</p>
<p>It would be helpful for the description to highlight the use of
climate data and Earth Observation inputs which are clear when one looks
at RiverWare in the context of the ET Toolbox.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>RiverWare description substantially rewritten to remove
implementation details and to focus more on use of climate
information.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-20</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>2155-2160</td>
<td><p>The scenario description is very helpful in terms of an
application.</p>
<p>What climate data were used in developing this scenario?</p>
<p>This would be a good example to elaborate and build on as a case
study related to the application of climate data and the use of
RiverWare.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Added some additional language and reference to USDOI EIS. There are
too many details of the study to fully elaborate. Focusing on one tiem
horizon and application in detail would force neglect of focus on
flexibility of RiverWare and diversity of possible applications.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-21</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>2174,2175</td>
<td><p>These lines do not give credit to the extensive use that has been
made of ET Toolbox which uses the Land Data Assimilation System outputs
derived from observations and hydrological models to process conditions
in the western US for the Bureau of Reclamation.</p>
<p>The work of Houser et al. and others should be referenced
here.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>RiverWare description substantially rewritten. More extensive
description of linkage to observations, models, and other DSTs,
including ET Toolbox.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-22</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>2183 – 2186</td>
<td>it would be good to clarify very early in this chapter that
independent hydrologic models are needed to provide RiverWare with
streamflow at all time scales not just at mid-range.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Introduction substantially rewritten as suggested.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-23</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td>2190-2192</td>
<td>it would be good to clarify very early in this chapter that
independent hydrologic models are needed to provide RiverWare with
streamflow at all time scales not just at mid-range.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-24</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>2196 to 2198</td>
<td><p>It is a little confusing to have AMSR, ICESAT etc listed if none
of them are used in conjunction with RiverWare.</p>
<p>Perhaps when the discussion of the ET toolbox is included there can
be more clarification of what remote sensing data is actually used in
the model so the write-up can be clearer.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td>As a separate DST, ET Toolbox is outside the scope of the chapter.
ET Toolbox is included as a potential input to RiverWare.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-25</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>2203</td>
<td><p>I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.</p>
<p>Given that natural flows are so difficult to calculate and do not
represent what is happening in the river or what is measured at
hydrologic gauges, the reader will be left wondering why they are used
at all.</p>
<p>Could the rationale for the use of these hypothetical variables in
these days of sophisticated hydrologic models be given in more
detail.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Language added at beginning of paragraph.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-26</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>2212 to 2218</td>
<td><p>This example holds the seed of a helpful approach example for
this chapter.</p>
<p>Could the author take an example of an event and track it through the
hydrologic modeling and RiverWare system.</p>
<p>Can an example be given where an event from a longer term record
event (say one in 50 years or one in a 100 years event) was passed
through the system?</p>
<p>Could this be presented in a way that would exemplify the types of
uncertainties that may be introduced or amplified by RiverWare.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>One of the key advantages of RiverWare, as a DST, is its
flexibility in linkage with observations, and other models and DSTs, as
well as covering different applications (operations, planning,
design).</p>
<p>Tracking one kind of event through RiverWare would preclude
mentioning the many possible implementations, using different
observations, modeling inputs, etc. or addressing short-, mid-, and
long-range applications.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-27</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>2227 to 2231</td>
<td>It would be good to provide references to several reports that
discuss how the uncertainties in the streamflow estimates derived from
precipitation inputs are amplified by hydrologic models.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Added reference</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-28</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>2235</td>
<td>“poor radar coverage” might be more precisely described as “beam
blockage by mountains”</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-29</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>2245</td>
<td>replace “smaller extent” by “smaller domains”</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-30</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>2253 to 2256</td>
<td><p>These descriptions of non-stationarity</p>
<p>are very important – can they be expanded by including a description
of the “percentage of non-stationarity per decade” or some such
measure?.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-31</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Also, could a description be provided of the consequences of
different types of non-stationarity. (e.g., non-stationarity in means
versus non-stationarity in variances).</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-32</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>A description of ways in which RiverWare could be used to elaborate
the impacts of these changes would also be helpful.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-33</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>2260 to 2262</td>
<td>The description of naturalized flows seems repetitive with what was
given earlier. (There is a general need to reorganize this chapter to
deal with issues only once).</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially reorganized.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-34</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>98- 100</td>
<td>2226-2267</td>
<td><p>Section 3c: These discussions could deal with both uncertainties
in the magnitudes and timings of flows and their consequences.</p>
<p>Uncertainties in timing are not emphasized here although they are
likely to be the major impact arising from a warming climate.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Timing addressed in Uncertainty and Global Change sections.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-35</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>101</td>
<td></td>
<td>first paragraph: It would be important to mention the uncertainties
due to vegetation cover when using satellites to estimate snow water
equivalent. The Walker and Goodison reference is quite old, are there no
references to their more up to date work? (I think the more common term
than “snow water volume” is “snow water equivalent”).</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Walker and Goodison citation removed.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-36</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>101</td>
<td></td>
<td>Paragraph 3: This would be a good place to introduce the concept of
ensemble forecasts and the HEPEX project (Reference John Schaake and
colleagues).</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-37</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>102</td>
<td>2324</td>
<td>What is meant by “proper identification of a predictive model” (What
is “proper”?)</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Language changed to focus on parameterization.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-38</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>102</td>
<td>2329</td>
<td>refer to precipitation rather than rainfall (snow should be
included)</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-39</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>102</td>
<td>2332-2333</td>
<td>These comments are very useful and could be used to highlight the
potential applications of RiverWare.</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>I chose to focus on the diversity of RiverWare applications and use
of climate information, rather than follow one example with unique
data.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-40</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>102</td>
<td>2342</td>
<td>I think this statement sells RiverWare and the community that has
been working with RiverWare and climate information short. There is a
lot more that has been done than this statement suggests. Could the
author change this statement from a negative one to a positive one in
order to better achieve the purposes of this report. (Conclusions about
this chapter reported in other parts of the Prospectus should also be
modified based on these revisions).</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Statements removed.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-41</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>103</td>
<td></td>
<td>last line: “Hydrologic risk” should be defined.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Defined in introduction.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-42</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>104</td>
<td>2380 to 2382</td>
<td><p>Given all these successful studies that have provided information
when should RiverWare be used?</p>
<p>If the purpose of this Prospectus is to show successful examples
should the chapter be rewritten with some other system that has been
used more successfully with climate data?</p>
<p>(I think the answer to my question is “no” but then more should be
added on RiverWare as part of the ET Toolbox).</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially revised. Now focuses on presenting a wide
range of situations in which RiverWare can be used, including
operations, strategic planning, and long-term planning and design.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-43</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>105</td>
<td>2418 to 2419</td>
<td><p>Do we really think that every time there is an application of the
system that a full scientific explanation should be given?</p>
<p>If predictions are made with a well known system on a routine basis
this approach seems like “overkill.”</p>
<p>A caveat should be given for the application of this
principal.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Language changed.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-44</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>105</td>
<td>2418 to 2419</td>
<td>How good do forecasts have to be before they are useful for water
resource management?</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Introduce notion that use affects required forecast skill.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-45</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>105</td>
<td>2418 to 2419</td>
<td>How can forecast utility be defined (with and without
RiverWare)?</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td>Would require too much focus on characteristics of users and their
cost-loss functions.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-46</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td>105</td>
<td>2403-2411</td>
<td>This looks like an interesting and appropriate example. Can more
information be provided on the uncertainties of the interactions between
the components of the system and how these affected the final
outcome?</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>The USDOI is an interesting example. The topic of uncertainties in
the interactions of system components requires more space than allowed
because it would require explaining a lot about the Colorado River
system and management rules in place.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-47</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>General: Some discussion should be added about the robustness of
forecasts, trends and scenarios to reflect the fact that the level of
confidence in some products and variables (e.g., temperature) is higher
than others (e.g., precipitation).</p>
<p>This affects the uncertainties and utility for forecasts and systems
that rely extensively on precipitation inputs.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Robustness of forecasts references a long list of
hydroclimatological verification literature.</p>
<p>Global change section mentions temperature is more certain, but
there’s no room for larger discussion of forecast performance.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-48</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>I am especially concerned, though, that the water chapter is
something of a fish out of water (no pun intended).</p>
<p>The RiverWare DST simply is not appropriate in a climate change
context.</p>
<p>As stated in Section 5, “RiverWare itself does not relay on global
change information”.</p>
<p>That statement is true, and is an indication of why the RiverWare DST
(alone) is inappropriate.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Section 5 statement removed.</p>
<p>Greater emphasis given to describing use of RiverWare in global
change context.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-49</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>The problem is, to address global change issues with respect to
water, you have to represent the land surface hydrologic process, as
well as the effects of water management.</p>
<p>There has been good work done on this – see in particular papers by
Aris and Kosta Georgakakos written for the 2000 U.S. National
Assessment.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially revised. Greater emphasis given to linkage
among observations, hydrologic models, and RiverWare.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-50</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>By failing to represent the hydrology, you’ve essentially removed
the climate “pressure point”, and the ability of the DST to address
climate issues is minimal. So I think that this section needs to be
completely rewritten, or perhaps removed.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially revised. Greater emphasis given to linkage
among observations, hydrologic models, and RiverWare.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-51</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>I also think that the entire tone of this chapter is misleading.
Saying that water managers have been dealing with these problems for a
long time is simply incorrect.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially revised. Tone changed. Added discussion of
global change to introduction.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-52</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>What water managers have been dealing with since at least the
19th century (when the major cities of the eastern U.S. began to tap
remote sources of water to mitigate disease problems) is hydrologic
uncertainty.</p>
<p>There are lots of tools that have been developed in the computer era
(e.g., stochastic hydrology, optimization) for addressing hydrologic
uncertainty in a stationary climate.</p>
<p>It is now quite clear, however, that this fundamental assumption is
untenable (Chris Milly and others are writing a paper on precisely this
topic).</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially revised. Global change and non-stationarity
added to introduction.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-53</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>There is now lots of evidence, for instance, establishing that
western U.S. snowpacks have been declining, and as a result seasonal
runoff characteristics have changed.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>References added.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5-54</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Furthermore, these changes are not limited to the west; most of the
country has been getting wetter for instance. The hydrology chapter of
SAP 3.4 addresses many of these changes specifically.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>References added</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5-55</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>Water</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>So I think that this chapter in SAP 5.1 needs to go back to the
drawing board – it is far too limited, and misleading.</p>
<p>Aside from the problems with Chapter 5 and other issues raised above,
most of the report reads reasonably well.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Chapter substantially revised.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>