The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Home , Meteorology, Weather radar, Weather reconnaissance

THE FEDERAL ROLE IN METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES AND SUPPORTING RESEARCH

A Half-Century of Multi-Agency Collaboration

FCM-I7-2013 November 2013

Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

8455 Colesville Road, Suite 1500 Silver Spring, MD 20910

THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES AND SUPPORTING RESEARCH (ICMSSR)

MR. SAMUEL P. WILLIAMSON, CHAIRMAN MR. PAUL FONTAINE Federal Coordinator Federal Aviation Administration Department of Transportation MR. MARK BRUSBERG Department of Agriculture DR. JONATHAN M. BERKSON United States Coast Guard DR. LOUIS UCCELLINI Department of Homeland Security Department of Commerce DR. DAVID R. REIDMILLER RADM JONATHAN WHITE Department of State United States Navy Department of Defense DR. ROHIT MATHUR Environmental Protection Agency COL. JOHN EGENTOWICH United States Air Force MR. EDWARD CONNOR Department of Defense Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security MR. RICK PETTY Department of Energy DR. RAMESH KAKAR National Aeronautics and Space MR. JOEL WALL Administration Science and Technology Directorate Department of Homeland Security DR. MICHAEL MORGAN National Science Foundation MR. JOHN VIMONT Department of the Interior MR. DONALD E. EICK National Transportation Safety Board MR. MARK KEHRLI Federal Highway Administration MR. SCOTT FLANDERS Department of Transportation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

MS. GRACE HU (Observer) Office of Management and Budget

MR. MICHAEL BONADONNA, Secretariat Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Cover image: The WSR-88D (NEXRAD) Doppler weather radar tower and radome framed by the American flag at the National Weather Service’s Weather Forecast Office in Sterling, VA, near Dulles International Airport (photo courtesy of Samuel P. Williamson). This image was chosen for the cover because the NEXRAD program so well epitomizes the benefit that coordination of Federal meteorological services and supporting research has brought to the Nation. NEXRAD was a tri-agency program and the cornerstone of National Weather Service modernization in the 1990s, providing significant improvements in severe weather warnings. A 2005 study (Simmons and Sutter) determined the NEXRAD system reduced expected fatalities by 45 percent and injuries by 40 percent—estimated at 79 lives saved and 1,050 fewer injuries per year.

The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

A Half-Century of Multi-Agency Collaboration

Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

8455 Colesville Road, Suite 1500 Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 427-2002 www.ofcm.gov

FCM-I7-2013 Author: Dr. Robert Katt Washington, D.C. 2nd Author: Michael Babcock November 2013

PREFACE

The aims and achievements of the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM) over the half-century of its existence are aptly captured in its mission statement:

To ensure the effective use of Federal meteorological resources by leading the systematic coordination of operational weather requirements, services, and supporting research, among the 15 stakeholder Federal agencies and offices.

From the time the OFCM was created in 1964 and Dr. Robert M. White was appointed the first Federal Coordinator, a coordinating infrastructure of interagency committees, program councils, and working groups has provided policy guidance, technical and project-level expertise, and project oversight for the activities undertaken, sponsored, or overseen by the OFCM. This infrastructure has evolved to meet the challenges of keeping this diverse set of programs and constituent interests working together as a reasonably coherent and cost-effective enterprise. Viewed as an enterprise— for purposes of this report, we call it the Federal meteorological enterprise—it has returned excellent value on the taxpayers’ investment. This retrospective recounts the panoply of meteorological services delivered to end users and the supporting research and partnerships that have made those services possible.

For example, we recount the history of OFCM involvement in the Nation’s weather radar capability, from the first Federal Coordinator’s support for research, development, and testing of emerging Doppler radar technology through the substantial role played by the OFCM infrastructure in initiating and implementing today’s NEXRAD network of weather radars. The program was the first successful acquisition program funded and co-managed by three Federal departments (Commerce, Defense, and Transportation). The OFCM role in improving weather radar continues today as we coordinate the multi-agency work on a new generation of radar—multifunction phased array radar, or MPAR—which can support national aircraft surveillance needs for civil aviation and homeland security, as well as concurrent multiple atmospheric observing functions.

Another success story that traces back to the OFCM’s first days is the improvement in hurricane warnings and forecasts through better observing instruments for Hurricane Hunter aircraft and through coordination of research on the computer-based models that use the data from those instruments and others to analyze and predict the evolution of tropical cyclones. From the beginning, the OFCM has also led efforts to improve both the warning system for and the post- storm response to other severe weather events such as tornadoes, winter storms, and floods.

Computer-based modeling is essential for predicting the weather and for warning both the general public and specialized communities of users (e.g., transportation, agriculture, and military) in time to make decisions that save lives and reduce the costs of adverse weather. The OFCM has aided the rapid advance of the large-scale numerical weather prediction (NWP) models and has played a vital role in assessing and improving the finer-scale models used to simulate the dispersion of airborne toxic materials, whether released accidentally or deliberately. The OFCM role with these atmospheric transport and diffusion (ATD) models began in the 1960s and 1970s, when the principal concern was air pollution, and continued through the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant incident in March 1979 and the events of September 11, 2001. As the uses for ATD modeling

The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research have evolved, the OFCM has formed multi-agency groups to assess the models and plan coordinated research and development programs to meet these evolving needs.

The principal sources of information for this retrospective are OFCM-published reports, plans, and handbooks, along with interagency correspondence and OFCM internal documents. Foremost among these are the annual Federal plans for meteorological services and supporting research, a statutory requirement compiled each year by the OFCM with input from the Federal departments, agencies, and offices that participate in the coordinating infrastructure. In addition, we have drawn on other government reports and documents, the technical literature, and sources available on the Internet. These source documents are cited where appropriate in the text and listed in the References section at the end of the report.

As the tenth individual to hold the title of Federal Coordinator, I am both pleased and proud to report that the Federal meteorological enterprise is poised to continue delivering ever greater value in meeting the Nation’s changing needs for meteorological and climatological services and products. For me, this retrospective is one way to express both the Nation’s gratitude and my personal thanks to all the individuals who, during the past half-century, have participated in the OFCM’s coordinating infrastructure. They have identified users’ needs, assessed existing services, and planned and implemented the improvements from which we all benefit.

As I look back over my 12 years with the NEXRAD program and 16 years as Federal Coordinator, I want to thank all those who prepared and supported me. Among them are Professor Allen H. Weber, my advisor in the meteorology program at North Carolina State University; Robert M. White, who gave both vision and leadership to the new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as its founding Administrator, while also creating and directing the coordinating infrastructure that makes OFCM unique; Richard Hallgren, Director of the National Weather Service whose foresight and vision guided the NEXRAD program and the modernization of the National Weather Service; Elbert W. “Joe” Friday, Director of the National Weather Service who made the Modernization and Restructuring a reality; D. James Baker, who, as NOAA Administrator and FCMSSR chair, supported the vision and ambitious plans of a new Federal Coordinator; VADM Conrad Lautenbacher, who, as NOAA Administrator, supported so many service improvements; Paul D. Try, professional colleague and friend since the early NEXRAD days; and Robert Dumont, who has been my strong right hand and served as OFCM’s first Chief Scientist. Two individuals who have passed on but for whose support I remain ever thankful are Col. William S. Barney, with whom I worked while he was Federal Coordinator, and Arthur L. Hansen, who, as the first director of the Joint System Program Office, brought me into the NEXRAD program as deputy director and guided it through its rocky first years. Lastly, I want to thank the men and women who served in the NEXRAD Joint System Program Office—we created a system that made a lifesaving difference for the American people.

Turning forward, I look ahead to the next half-century of challenges for OFCM. With the Nation’s continued support, we will strive to surpass the remarkable record set during our first half-century.

Samuel P. Williamson Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

ii The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

ROBERT M. WHITE THE FIRST FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR METEOROLOGY

Dr. Robert M. White became the first Federal Coordinator for Meteorology in January 1964, adding this newly created role to his existing duties as Chief of the U.S. Weather Bureau. He held the role of Federal Coordinator until 1972, when, as the founding Administrator of the newly formed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), he passed the Federal Coordinator job to Dr. Richard E. Hallgren, then the Associate Administrator for Environmental Monitoring and Prediction at NOAA.

As Federal Coordinator, Dr. White implemented an infrastructure of interdepartmental committees and task- oriented working groups to coordinate the meteorology-related services being provided by 15 different Federal departments and agencies and to foster collaboration on the research and development to improve and expand those services. Staff assigned to the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM) supported these interagency committees and groups in their coordinating activities and conducted special studies for the Federal Coordinator to assess the economic efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal meteorological enterprise.

Beginning in 1965, Dr. White oversaw the compilation by OFCM staff, with input from all of the agencies participating in the coordination infrastructure, of an annual report for Congress on the past year’s activities to provide meteorological services and products and the coming year’s plans. Ever since, the Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research has provided a comprehensive “horizontal look” across the categories of basic and specialized services coordinated by OFCM’s interagency committees, councils, and working groups.

Even after surrendering the role of Federal Coordinator, Dr. White continued in an OFCM leadership role while NOAA Administrator, chairing the Federal Committee for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (FCMSSR), the group of senior-level agency executives who provide policy guidance to the Federal Coordinator and agency-level commitment to implement the recommendations from the OFCM’s working bodies. Dr. White’s approach to Federal coordination through interagency committees and groups, working at multiple levels, continues to this day, having

iii The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research evolved to meet the changing needs and issues that emerged during a half century of astounding changes in how we observe, understand, and predict weather events and climate patterns. And Dr. White recognized the potential for and championed many of the scientific and technological innovations that led to this amazing progress.

Robert White began his Federal career as chief of the U.S. Weather Bureau in October 1963, one of the last appointments made by President John F. Kennedy. Looking back at those early years, Dr. White noted two great challenges that faced the Weather Bureau when he became chief: how to make more extensive use of numerical weather prediction (NWP) techniques, and improving the global weather observing system, particularly through the then-emerging technology of Earth- observing instruments carried on satellites.1 Those early Federal Plans record the progress on both challenges that occurred under his leadership, as the first and only Administrator of the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA), which he helped create in 1965, and then as the founding administrator of NOAA from 1970 to 1977. In June 1966, for example, ESSA introduced a “new and more complete numerical forecast model” into operations at the National Meteorological Center. That same year, two operational observing satellites, ESSA-1 and ESSA-2 were launched, and NASA launched a research satellite, the Applications Technology Satellite 1, into a geostationary orbit.

Dr. White brought to his role of Federal Coordinator a vision of meteorology as part of the larger task of observing, understanding, and interacting intelligently with the natural environment. Before he came to Washington, he was president of a small “but probably the first” private company providing environmental services. He saw ESSA as the first attempt by the Federal government to look in a comprehensive way at the physical environment.2 As a member of the Stratton Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering and Resources, Dr. White argued for the inclusion of the atmosphere and hydrology with concerns for the ocean environment. The Commission’s report, Our Nation and the Sea, provided the blueprint for government reorganization that Congress used to create NOAA in 1970.3 From its early years, the OFCM has reported on Federal activities in areas such as air pollution monitoring, airborne volcanic ash monitoring, and space weather, and climate issues including global climate change, as well as on interagency efforts to improve warnings of severe weather events, weather forecasts, and other traditionally meteorological services.

Dr. White began the OFCM’s role in coordinating U.S. international partnerships, including the World Weather Program of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). As U.S. Permanent Representative to the WMO from 1963 to 1977, he pressed for the Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP); in his role as Federal Coordinator, he used the OFCM infrastructure to coordinate participation of multiple U.S. entities in early GARP field experiments such as the Barbados Oceanographic and Meteorological Experiment (BOMEX) and the GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment (GATE). In 1978, Dr. White was asked by the WMO to chair the first World Climate Conference in Geneva. His contributions to global environmental science and the capability to observe and understand global climate change were among the achievements cited when he was awarded the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement in 1992.

1 R. M. White. The making of NOAA, 1963-2005. History of Meteorology, 3: 55-63. 2006. 2 Robert M. White, quoted in J. Amber, The birth of NOAA: A talk with the first Administrator. NOAA Report, May 1995, pp. 4-6. 3 White, “The making of NOAA,” ibid., pg. 59. See also A History of NOAA on the NOAA website.

iv The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

After his service as Federal Coordinator and NOAA Administrator, Dr. White went on to further achievements. From 1980 to 1983, he was president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. In 1983, the fellows of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), to which he had been elected in 1968 for development of methods of weather forecasting and leadership in the evolution of the World Weather Watch System, elected him President of the NAE. In that role, he also served as Vice Chair of the National Research Council. When he left the NAE presidency in 1995, Dr. White became the founding president of the Washington Advisory Group.

Dr. White’s many honors, in addition to the Tyler Prize and election to the NAE, include the Charles E. Lindbergh Award for technology and environment, the Rockefeller Public Service Award for Protection of Natural Resources, the Smithsonian Institution's Matthew Fontaine Maury Award for Contributions to Undersea Exploration, the International Conservation Award of the National Wildlife Federation, and the International Meteorological Organization Prize. He is a member of the French Legion of Honor and of the academies of engineering in Japan and Australia. Dr. White holds a B.A. degree in geology from Harvard University and M.S. and Sc.D. degrees in meteorology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. White, second from left, joins other surviving Federal Coordinators at OFCM in December 2009. Pictured from left to right, with dates of service as Federal Coordinator: Dr. Richard Hallgren, 1972-1973 and 1978-1979; Dr. White; Robert Carnahan, 1986-1992; Julian “Skip” Wright, 1993-1998; and Samuel P. Williamson, longest serving Federal Coordinator, 1998 to present.

v The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

vi The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

50 YEARS OF FEDERAL METEOROLOGICAL COORDINATION HISTORY IN BRIEF

• Bureau of the Budget (now OMB) Circular A-62 issued in response to Public Law 87-843 • Position of Federal Coordinator for Meteorology established and OFCM formed in 1964

• OFCM issues Federal Plan for Weather Radars and Remote Displays • OFCM issues Federal Plan for Clear Air Turbulence 1960s • OFCM coordinates US participation in World Weather Program and Global Atmospheric Research Program

• OFCM coordinates US participation in Barbados B-52 damaged by clear air turbulence led Oceanographic and Meteorological Experiment to call for Federal plan (BOMEX) • OFCM manages part of the International Field Year for

EVELOPMENT the Great Lakes (IFYGL)

D • OFCM coordinates US participation in GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment (GATE) • OFCM coordinates agency activities as satellite meteorology expands rapidly • OFCM establishes Working Group for Next Generation

ESEARCH AND Weather Radar in collaboration with interagency Joint R Doppler Operational Project (JDOP) • OFCM establishes NEXRAD Program Council (1979) Doppler weather radar developed 1970s • OMB asks OFCM to provide crosscut analysis for a joint NEXRAD development program • Arthur Hansen from OFCM named first NEXRAD Joint System Program Office director in 1979 • OFCM coordinates response to Three Mile Island nuclear power plant incident • GAO report helps revitalize OFCM Three Mile Island incident response • OFCM becomes independent function, full-time staff • 1985 Commerce Inspector General report strengthens OFCM role

• OFCM issues National Aircraft Icing Technology Plan • OFCM leads interagency coordination on automated weather observing systems; ASOS developed

NFUSION • Weather recon systems improved

I OFCM leads coordination of cooperative support and backup activities among the major operational processing centers of NOAA, Navy, and Air Force 1980s • Improved Weather Reconnaissance System (IWRS) fielding begins

ECHNOLOGY • OFCM forms National Aviation Weather Program T Council in 1989 • OFCM work in the mid-1980s leads to a national

lightning detection network to improve warnings and National Aviation Weather Program save lives Council established

vii

The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

• WC-130 fleet upgrade is completed in 1990, providing improved hurricane data and satellite communications • OFCM establishes the National Space Weather Program

Council (NSWPC) to coordinate expanding activities • NEXRAD deployment is completed; ASOS installed • OSTP begins participation in FCMSSR and NSWPC 1990s • OFCM leads development of Stepped Frequency Microwave Radiometer (SFMR) to measure surface winds and rain rates from weather reconnaissance NEXRAD increased warning lead times and aircraft saved lives • OFCM leads review of atmospheric transport and diffusion models; defines core capability for coordinated response to hazardous dispersion events • OFCM publishes the first-ever national needs assessment for Weather Information for Surface Transportation (WIST) • OFCM establishes Multifunction Phased Array Radar (MPAR) Executive Council • National Weather Radar Testbed at NSSL demonstrates phased array radar capability Phased array weather radar tested • SFMR flies on all hurricane reconnaissance aircraft, providing critical tropical storm and hurricane data • OFCM leads effort to produce first comprehensive

national set of wildland fire weather needs • National Aviation Weather Initiatives results assessment shows significant decrease in weather-related general SFMR installed on all weather aviation fatal accidents reconnaissance aircraft

2000s • 10-Year review of National Space Weather Program leads to establishment of Space Weather Prediction NHANCEMENTS

E Center in NWS • OFCM published tropical cyclone R&D plan that underpins NOAA’s hurricane forecast improvement project and supports Navy model development First comprehensive wildland fire weather • OFCM orchestrates detailed impact assessment and needs assessment developed mitigation option space weather studies for OSTP • OFCM partners with American Meteorological Society to coordinate a national network of weather and climate MPROVEMENTS AND I observing networks • GAO review of NASA programs assessed potential duplication of effort and acknowledged OFCM’s role

ERVICES ERVICES • OFCM begins annual Space Weather Enterprise Forum Space weather impact and mitigation S to bring together government, academia, and private options developed for OSTP sector • NASA Authorization Act of 2010 acknowledges NWSPC and directs the OSTP Director to oversee activities of the members • GAO review of GOES program identifies need for better federal agency coordination of requirements and status;

NOAA action plan highlights OFCM role • NSWPC issues new strategic plan

2010s • COASTAL Act of 2012 gives OFCM lead coordination

role in developing system for discerning wind versus COASTAL Act of 2012 gives OFCM lead storm surge damages in hurricanes coordination role to establish system to • NWS, Air Force, NASA, NSF, and USGS sign Unified discern wind from water damage National Space Weather Capability MOU to improve space weather science and services

viii The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

CONTENTS

Preface ...... i Robert M. White ...... iii History in Brief ...... vii Acronym List ...... xi Executive Summary ...... xv 1. Why Interagency Coordination? ...... 1 Weather Events Have Major Consequences Affecting Multiple Agency Missions ...... 1 Weather Radar ...... 6 Improving Hurricane Warnings through Tracking, Observation, Modeling, and Forecasting ...... 7 Aviation Weather ...... 9 Space Weather ...... 10 Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Modeling ...... 12 Behind the Weather News: Technology Infrastructure and Human Expertise ...... 14 The Continuing Challenge of Federal Meteorological Coordination ...... 21 2. The Birth of Formal Coordination of Meteorological Services and Research ...... 23 Congress and the Executive Branch Seek Increased Coordination of Federal Meteorological Services...... 23 The Department of Commerce Establishes the Office of the Federal Coordinator ...... 24 OFCM from 1964 to 1972—The First Federal Coordinator for Meteorology ...... 27 3. Reinvigorating OFCM and Modernizing the National Weather Service ...... 35 A Stronger and More Independent Federal Coordinator ...... 35 Coordinating the Federal Response to Three Mile Island ...... 39 The Next-Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) Program ...... 39 Modernization and Associated Restructuring of the National Weather Service ...... 41 Hurricane Reconnaissance and the Improved Weather Reconnaissance Program Council ...... 44 National Aircraft Icing Technology Program ...... 45 Early Years of the National Aviation Weather Program Council ...... 46 Lightning Detection Networks...... 48 The National Space Weather Program ...... 50 4. New Challenges for a New Century ...... 53 OFCM Looks to the Future ...... 53

ix The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

National Aviation Weather Program ...... 55 National Space Weather Program ...... 58 National Operational Processing Centers ...... 62 Multifunction Phased-Array Radar ...... 63 Committee for Environmental Services, Operations, and Research Needs ...... 65 Committee for Integrated Observing Systems...... 76 Climate Analysis, Monitoring, and Services ...... 77 Committee for Cooperative Research ...... 79 OFCM Strategies for Coordinating the Federal Meteorological Enterprise ...... 80 5. A Coordination Structure to Meet Tomorrow’s Challenges ...... 83 Coordinating Multiple Agency Missions and Programs into an Efficient and Flexible Federal Enterprise ...... 83 Weather and Climate Challenges Today and Tomorrow ...... 87 Envisioning the Future Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research ...... 92 References ...... 95

Appendices A. Selected Examples of Extreme Weather Events Costing at least $1 Billion, 1980–2012 B. Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses (COASTAL) Act of 2012 C. March 2009 Letter from Samuel L. Jones, Mayor of Mobile, Alabama, on OFCM Exploratory Review of Community Responses to Hurricanes D. Circular A-62, issued by the Bureau of the Budget, November 13, 1963 E. Periods of Service of Federal Coordinators for Meteorology and Deputy Federal Coordinators for Meteorology F. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, Section 809 G. July 2007 Letter from the Secretary of Transportation on OFCM WIST Coordination H. June 2011 Letter from the Western Governors’ Association on OFCM Response to WGA Policy Resolution 05-04 I. Air Domain Awareness Scope, October 2011

x The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

ACRONYM LIST

ACE Advanced Composition Explorer ADA Air Domain Awareness ADDS Aircraft Distributed Data System AFOS Automation of Field Operations and Services ASCADS Automated Sorting, Conversion, and Distribution System ASOS Automated Surface Observing System ATD atmospheric transport and diffusion ATS Applications Technology Satellite AVAPS Airborne Vertical Atmospheric Profiling System AWDS [Air Force] Automated Weather Distribution System AWIS Automated Weather Information Systems AWIPS Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System AWOS Automated Weather Observing System BLM Bureau of Land Management BOMEX Barbados Oceanographic and Meteorological Experiment CASR Committee for Aviation Services and Research CESORN Committee for Environmental Services, Operations, and Research Needs CIOS Committee for Integrated Observing Systems COASTAL Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses COES Committee for Operational Environmental Satellites COPC Committee for Operational Processing Centers COSMIC Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate CSESMO Committee for Space Environmental Sensor Mitigation Options CWP [FAA] Central Weather Processor DAPE Data Acquisition, Processing, and Exchange [MOA] DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security DISA Defense Information Systems Agency DOC U.S. Department of Commerce DOD U.S. Department of Defense DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DSCOVR Deep Space Climate Observatory DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency ESDA Environmental Satellite Data Annex ESSA Environmental Science Services Administration FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCM Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research FCMSSR Federal Committee for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FY fiscal year GAO Government Accountability Office; formerly General Accounting Office GARP Global Atmospheric Research Program GATE GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment

xi The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

GMU George Mason University GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite GOES-DCS Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Data Collection System GPS Global Positioning System ICMSSR Interdepartmental Committee for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research IHC Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference IMAAC Interagency Modeling and Atmospheric Assessment Center ITOS Improved TIROS Operational Satellite IWR Improved Weather Reconnaissance [Program Council] IWRS Improved Weather Reconnaissance System HFIP Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program JAG/ATDM(R&DP) Joint Action Group for Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Modeling (Research and Development Plan) JAG/AW Joint Action Group for Aviation Weather JAG/JUTB Joint Action Group for Joint Urban Test Beds JAG/SEATD Joint Action Group for the Selection and Evaluation of Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Models JAG/SES Joint Action Group for Space Environmental Sensors JAWOP Joint Automated Weather Observations Program JDOP Joint Doppler Operational Project JPDO Joint Planning and Development Office [for NextGen] JPSS Joint Polar-orbiting Satellite System JSPO [NEXRAD] Joint System Program Office MAR Modernization and Associated Restructuring [of the National Weather Service] MOA memorandum of agreement MOU memorandum of understanding MPAR multifunction phased-array radar NALDN North American Lightning Detection Network NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NAW/PC National Aviation Weather Program Council NCDC National Climate Data Center NCEP [NOAA/NWS] National Centers for Environmental Prediction NEDS Naval Environmental Display Station NESDIS National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service NEXRAD Next Generation Weather Radar NEXRAD PMC NEXRAD Program Management Committee NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System NLDN National Lightning Detection Network NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOPC National Operational Processing Centers NOWCON Network of Weather and Climate Observing Networks NPOESS National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System NSWP National Space Weather Program NSWPC National Space Weather Program Council NSSL National Severe Storms Laboratory NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

xii The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

NWP numerical weather prediction NWS [NOAA] National Weather Service OFCM Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research OMB Office of Management and Budget OPC operational processing center OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy R&D research and development RAWS Remote Automated Weather Station SFMR Stepped Frequency Microwave Radiometer SMS Synchronous Meteorological Satellite SUNYA State University of New York at Albany SWEF Space Weather Enterprise Forum TDWR Terminal Doppler Weather Radar TIROS Television and Infrared Observing Satellite UN United Nations UNSWC Unified National Space Weather Capability WCOSS Weather and Climate Operational Supercomputing System WG/DIAP Working Group for Disaster Impact Assessments: Weather and Water Data WG/ESHS Working Group for Environmental Support to Homeland Security WG/HWSOR Working Group for Hurricane and Winter Storm Operations and Research WG/NGWR Working Group on Next Generation Weather Radar WG/NSWP Working Group for the National Space Weather Program WG/PSDA Working Group for Post-Storm Data Assessment WIST weather information for surface transportation WMO World Meteorological Organization WSR-88D Weather Surveillance Radar 1988 Doppler WWW World Weather Watch

xiii The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

xiv The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fifty years ago, in November 1963, the Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) issued Circular A-62 in response to Public Law 87-843, Section 304, which set in motion the designation of a Federal Coordinator for Meteorology and the establishment of the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, better known as the OFCM. This report summarizes a half century of multi-agency coordination and collaboration.

In the early 1960s, there was growing concern in Congress over the rapid growth in meteorological programs and meteorology-related services across multiple Federal agencies. Meteorological conditions, ranging from shorter-duration weather events to seasonal and interannual climatic patterns and variability, have diverse affects, both negative and positive, on activities and interests that these agencies were mandated by law to monitor, support, or oversee. As these mission-focused meteorological services and related research programs grew, the potential for improved cost- effectiveness through coordination and collaboration also grew. The House Committee on Appropriations requested that the Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget, OMB) survey and report on these Federal meteorological activities. That survey, published in March 1962, identified 15 agencies engaged in meteorological programs deemed necessary to support their mandated missions. Particularly important for subsequent congressional and executive branch actions were three conclusions in the Bureau of the Budget’s report:

• A central meteorological service cannot feasibly perform all meteorological activities for all agencies. • With the exception of the U.S. Weather Bureau [which became the National Weather Service in 1970, with the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], the organization of meteorological services resulted from historical development based on ad hoc accommodation to needs of users and to scientific and technological advances. • Pressures being exerted by scientific and technical advances within and upon the field of meteorology and the accelerating growth of expenditures required strengthening of existing arrangements for planning and coordinating meteorological programs. (OFCM 1990, pp. 1-2)

Congress reacted to this report with Public Law 87-843 (Section 304), which mandated an annual report to Congress providing a horizontal budget depiction of all meteorology programs, specific program aspects and funding assigned to each agency, and estimated goals and financial requirements. In response to the new law, the Bureau of the Budget issued Circular A-62 on November 13, 1963, establishing policies and procedures for the coordination of Federal meteorological services. This document defined service categories and established authorities and responsibilities that continue to guide the Federal coordination enterprise 50 years later. It distinguished “basic meteorological services” from “specialized meteorological services,” with the latter being activities, derived from the output of the basic meteorological services, that produce products needed to serve the operational needs of particular user groups. While Circular A-62 explicitly excluded basic research in meteorology from the formal coordination requirements, it did include “supporting research”—defined as “those applied research and development activities

xv The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research whose immediate objective is the improvement of the basic and specialized meteorological services as defined [above].” The remainder of Circular A-62 set out the following coordination and planning guidelines:

• Reaffirmed the central role of the Department of Commerce (i.e., the Weather Bureau) in providing basic meteorological services. • Clarified the respective responsibilities of the Department of Commerce and the user agencies for basic and specialized meteorological services. • Established procedures to facilitate coordination and the timely resolution of outstanding issues. • Provided for evaluating user requirements within the context of a balanced and integrated Federal plan for the efficient utilization of meteorological services and supporting research. • Assigned responsibility for continuing and systematic review of meteorological services and supporting research. These coordination and planning requirements in Circular A-62 applied to any Federal agency “whose mission requires meteorological services either for its internal operations or as part of its direct services to a clientele group.”

On January 23, 1964, 10 weeks after the release of Circular A-62, the Department of Commerce released its plan for implementing the circular. To carry out interagency coordination activities, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology (OFCM) was established within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology of the Department of Commerce. Dr. Robert M. White, the Chief of the U.S. Weather Bureau, was designated to also serve as the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology (FCM). The OFCM included a full-time staff headed by a Deputy Federal Coordinator for Meteorology and comprising three staff elements: Operations Evaluation Group, Operating Program Division, and Supporting Research Division.

Departments Agriculture Commerce Defense Energy Homeland Security Interior State Transportation Agencies and Offices National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Science Foundation National Transportation Safety Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Agency Executive Office of the President Office of Science and Technology Policy Office of Management and Budget

xvi The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Although some of the names and organizations have changed, the OFCM coordinating infrastructure today depends on the 15 agencies and offices shown above that participate in the councils, committees, and working groups. Based on agency-by-agency reporting in the Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, the total budget for meteorological services and supporting research across the Federal government is $4.7 billion in FY 2013. With this growing Federal investment, the OFCM’s ability to leverage investments through coordinating programs across multiple agencies and facilitating collaborations is of increasing value to a budget-conscious Nation.

The societal impacts of weather are spread broadly, affecting many aspects of commerce, public safety, and national security. Data from the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) on the weather and climate disasters each year since 1980 that resulted in at least $1 billion in damages show an upward trend (despite year-to-year variability) in the number of these extreme, and extremely costly, events. For example, for the first six years, from 1980 through 1985, there were 14 such events, estimated by NCDC to cost more than $90.2 billion (costs adjusted to 2013 dollars). For the most recent six year period, from 2007 through 2012, there were 49 weather and climate events with at least $1 billion in damages, and NCDC estimates their total cost to be $272 billion in 2013 dollars (NCDC 2013).

Even non-extreme weather has substantial economic impacts on industry, commerce, and governmental services. In 2008, routine weather events such as rain and cooler-than-average days added up to an annual economic impact of as much as $485 billon (in 2008 dollars), or about 3.4 percent of the 2008 gross domestic product (NOAA 2011).

To summarize the most important and impactful achievements of the last half century, the report is organized along a number of thread which are followed through the 50-year history of Federal coordination of meteorological services and supporting research. The threads are (1) weather radar; (2) hurricane warnings; (3) aviation weather; (4) space weather; (5) atmospheric transport and diffusion modeling; and (6) a thread called “behind the weather news” about activities unseen and sometimes unappreciated by the public.

Weather Radar

One of the first interagency planning documents issued by the newly created OFCM was a Federal Plan for Weather Radars and Remote Displays. Released in May 1967, this plan established requirements for an improved national synoptic network of weather radars. Early research and development (R&D) work on Doppler radar for weather observations, particularly at the recently formed (1964) National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) in Norman, Oklahoma, was reported annually in OFCM’s Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research during the years leading up to the Joint Doppler Operational Project (JDOP). Conducted from 1977 through 1979, JDOP was a joint effort of the Department of Commerce (the departmental home of NOAA and its National Weather Service [NOAA/NWS]), the Department of Defense, and the Department of Transportation (departmental home of the FAA). The findings from JDOP, including new insights into designing a Doppler radar specifically for weather observations, prepared the way for the Next Generation Weather Radar program, which developed, acquired, and installed the current generation of long-range national weather radars, commonly known as NEXRAD radars and formally designated “Weather Surveillance Radar 1988 Doppler” (WSR-88D).

xvii The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

OFCM’s coordinating infrastructure supported and helped guide these successful joint efforts, including the NEXRAD Program Council which provided high-level policy guidance, funding decisions, and issue resolution for the NEXRAD Joint System Program Office from 1979 through 1997. The Tri-Agency Agreement through which NERAD was developed, implemented, and made operational was the first successful Federal tri-departmental joint program of this magnitude. The NEXRAD program, not only gave the Nation our current weather radar network, it also provided the programmatic and geographic backbone for the Modernization and Associated Restructuring (MAR) of the National Weather Service from 1988 to 2000. A 2005 article by Simmons and Sutter estimated the NEXRAD system saves 79 lives and prevents 1,050 injuries per year.

Improving Hurricane Warnings through Tracking, Observation, Modeling, and Forecasting

Improving the lead times and accuracy of hurricane warnings has been a constant OFCM priority. Dr. Robert M. White, the first FCM (while also serving as Administrator of ESSA and then NOAA), championed programs to learn more about the formation and development of hurricanes. As part of U.S. participation in the World Weather Program of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Federal Committee for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (FCMSSR) helped coordinate the activities of seven Federal departments and agencies that participated in the Barbados Oceanographic and Meteorological Experiment (BOMEX). The primary scientific objective of BOMEX was to gather detailed data on how the tropical ocean exchanges heat and moisture with the atmosphere—key physical parameters in the energy transfers that drive hurricanes.

In August 1969 Hurricane Camille struck the Gulf Coast, causing 256 deaths and $1.4 billion in damages, and in response, programs to upgrade the reconnaissance aircraft and instrumentation were accelerated. The instrumentation upgrades, known as the Advanced Weather Reconnaissance System, became a joint Air Force-NOAA program in 1975 leading to incremental upgrades, followed by the Improved Weather Reconnaissance System (IWRS) in the 1980s. The FCM established and chaired the IWRS Program Council, which had authority to commit departmental resources and resolve program technical issues. By 1990, the new systems had been installed on 12 aircraft, dramatically improving hurricane reconnaissance data used for operational forecasting and for research. The OFCM subsequently played several key roles in outfitting the hurricane hunter aircraft with an advanced remote-sensing system, the Stepped Frequency Microwave Radiometer (SFMR), installed on all NOAA and Air Force weather reconnaissance aircraft by 2007.

xviii The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Beginning during Dr. White’s tenure and continuing to the present, the During the 15 years from 1994 to 2009, the OFCM has been the sponsor and hurricane track forecast error (in nautical miles) for organizer for the annual 12-hour, 24-hour, and 72-hour forecasts from the Interdepartmental Hurricane National Hurricane Center decreased by about 50% Conference (IHC), attended by (Franklin 2010, pg. 10 and Figure 2). This program managers and technical improvement has been attributed to advances in experts from all of the Federal agencies computer models used to predict hurricane tracks with responsibilities for monitoring, (OFCM 2010e, pg. C-2). understanding, warning, and responding to these severe storm events. The IHC, which began even before the OFCM was created, has in recent years attracted increasing participation from State and local entities with hurricane responsibilities, the university research community, and the private sector. These annual events not only foster communication about new research results, ongoing R&D programs, and new operational capabilities, they also produce practical products such as the annual update by an OFCM-led working group of the National Hurricane Operations Plan: the interagency plan for coordinating Federal and intergovernmental operations during the upcoming hurricane/tropical cyclone season. Throughout the OFCM’s existence, a recurring topic of the IHCs has been reporting on—and providing participant feedback to—all the R&D planning and programming activities across the Federal government. Over the years, many of these activities have involved multi-agency groups within the OFCM coordinating infrastructure. In 2007, the OFCM issued a report prepared by a joint action group titled the Interagency Strategic Plan for Tropical Cyclones: The Way Ahead (OFCM 2007a). This plan served as the underpinning of NOAA’s Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project (HFIP) and supported NASA field programs and U.S. Navy numerical weather prediction advances.

Aviation Weather

Aviation weather—comprising all the activities of observing, reporting, warning, and making near- term predictions (nowcasts) and forecasts about the weather conditions affecting all aviation operations, civilian and military—is another multiagency responsibility that OFCM has coordinated since its creation. Soon after Robert White was appointed the first FCM, he formed a multi-agency National Committee on Clear Air Turbulence, at the request of the Defense Department, to study “this serious and little-understood problem” for aviation (OFCM 1967). This led to the OFCM publication of a 5-year Federal Plan on Clear Air Turbulence (OFCM 1969). Another early example of interagency cooperation was FAA-sponsored work in the 1960s at ESSA’s newly formed National Meteorological Center (the forerunner of NWS’s National Centers for Environmental Prediction, NCEP) on producing more accurate aviation forecasts of winds and temperatures aloft.

In 1984, responding to concerns of officials from the Defense Department, FAA, and NASA about aircraft icing problems, the FCM established a National Aircraft Icing Program Council to develop and maintain a National Aircraft Icing Technology Plan, first released in 1986. Like many OFCM-led plans before and after it, this plan sought to both improve technologies for safer operation of the current generation of aircraft and plan the R&D to promote advances in technology to aid future aviation.

By 1989, the FCMSSR was requesting that the OFCM prepare an integrated, multi-agency plan to cover all aviation weather services for the next decade. To guide the plan’s development, the FCM

xix The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

formed a National Aviation Weather Program Council (NAW/PC), which continues today as one of the high-level program councils in the coordinating infrastructure. The National Aviation Weather Program, overseen by this program council and supported by groups of technical experts assembled from multiple agencies, produced a series of high-level plans, detailed implementation plans, conference reports, Federal handbooks, and coordinated programs to develop, disseminate, and transfer to operations improved technologies for all aspects of aviation weather.

During the 10-year period from 1997 through 2006, the NAW/PC undertook the ambitious goal of reducing by 80% the annual rate of aviation accidents that the National Transportation Safety Board determined were weather- related accidents. While the 80% reduction goal was not reached, the reduction in weather-related accidents was greater than the reduction for accidents of all causes.

This tradition of interagency cooperative research and program coordination continues today in the multifaceted work of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Initiative. Led by the FAA in the Department of Transportation, with NASA and the Departments of Commerce (NOAA/NWS), Defense, and Homeland Security as Federal partners, NextGen has the ambitious goal of transforming the Nation’s air transportation system to meet the aviation needs of 2025 and the years beyond. While the Joint Planning and Development Office for NextGen is leading the initiative, the OFCM participates in NextGen activities and continues working with all the agencies participating in the NAW/PC to support the weather-related aspects of this multiyear, Government-wide effort.

Space Weather

The term “space weather” refers to the variable conditions on the Sun, throughout space, and in the Earth’s magnetic field and upper atmosphere that can influence the performance of space-based, airborne, and ground-based technological systems and endanger human life or health. Adverse conditions in the space environment can disrupt satellite operations, communications, navigation, and electric power distribution grids, leading to a variety of socioeconomic losses and impacts on our security. As our society becomes more technologically advanced, our vulnerability to space weather significantly increases (OFCM 2010).

During the 1960s and 1970s, NOAA was providing space weather forecasts for NASA and the U.S. space program and, by 1990, the OFCM coordinating infrastructure included an interagency Committee for Space Environment Forecasting. A series of workshops and meetings beginning in 1993 led to the creation of the National Space Weather Program (NSWP), whose overarching goal

xx The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research was to implement an active, synergistic, interagency system to provide timely, In 2011, the Office of Science and Technology accurate, and reliable space weather Policy again turned to the OFCM to support a observations, warnings, and forecasts study, mandated by the NASA Reauthorization (OFCM 1995a). Act of 2010, of deficiencies in advance Since its start in 1993, the NSWP has been warning of severe space weather events. The overseen and managed through a high-level OFCM’s Joint Action Group for Space National Space Weather Program Council, Environmental Gap Analysis identified current with a series of interagency groups and projected capability deficiencies and contributing technical expertise to plan and recommended options to mitigate them implement the program at each phase of its (OFCM 2013b). These projects include evolution. At the completion of the refurbishing and launching the Deep Space program’s first decade, the OFCM Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) spacecraft to appointed a committee of independent monitor the solar wind. experts from academia, government, the military, and industry to review the NSWP and make recommendations for the next decade. The 2006 report from this assessment committee (OFCM 2006a) reaffirmed the severity of the space weather threat, the value of the space weather predictions, and the value of the NSWP. In response to one committee recommendation to improve the translation of research results into operational space environmental monitoring and predictions, NOAA and D.L. Johnson, the NWS Director at the time, moved the Space Environment Center from NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to become an operational center, renamed the Space Weather Prediction Center, in NWS’ National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP).

Advance warning and monitoring of solar storms as they approach Earth depend on spacecraft stationed between the Sun and Earth and on observations from Earth-orbiting satellites. In June 2007, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) requested that the FCM form an expert committee to assess the impacts on the Nation’s space weather preparedness from two independent events: the restructuring of the polar-orbiting environmental satellite program and the impending loss of the only spacecraft able to provide timely advance warning of solar storms approaching Earth. OSTP used the reports produced by two OFCM-sponsored joint action groups to help shape policy and budget decisions, including refurbishing and preparing to launch the Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite to monitor the solar wind.

Beginning in 2011, the National Space Weather Program Council has been working to plan and implement the Unified National Space Weather Capability (UNSWC), an agreement among six Federal entities to coordinate and cooperate on improving space weather services and to provide a single, consistent point of contact for U.S. participation in international activities to improve space weather services globally.

Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Modeling

xxi The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research potential threats to the health and well-being of the population and to homeland security. Some significant events in the last 50 years include the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima Daiichi in 2011; the major air traffic disruption over Europe and the North Atlantic caused by ash from the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in 2010; and the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The latter example provided an impetus to accelerate the coupling of atmospheric and oceanic models to better predict the atmospheric and waterborne dispersion in these types of events. The challenges of ATD modeling are intertwined with boundary layer meteorology and urban meteorology and a thread comprised of these strands is woven through the report.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the OFCM was active in coordinating agency activities to develop remote sensing capability for monitor air pollution (OFCM 1968). Early work in ATD modeling centered on diagnosing and predicting the dispersion of pollutants and new urgency was brought to the work by the release into the atmosphere of radioactive particles from the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979. The OFCM coordinated the Federal meteorological response to the Three Mile Island nuclear incident including quickly moving DOD’s mobile weather observing assets to the area to provide data to support accurate predictions of the dispersion of radioactive particles. As development of ATD models continued to grow, the OFCM brought the agencies together to develop a directory of ATD models. The 1999 directory catalogued more than 140 models (OFCM 1999c) in use or development for various ATD applications.

After preparing the new directory in 1999, the FCM organized and hosted in June 2000 the Workshop on Multiscale Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling within the Federal Community. A little more than a year later, the events of September 11, 2001 precipitated an urgent need to evaluate the available ATD models, select appropriate models to establish a core capability, and establish a coordinated mechanism to respond to major accidental and intentional releases of toxic gases, particles, or biological agents. An FCM-organized joint action group evaluated available models and selected five to provide a core capability covering a range of scenarios, and the Interagency Modeling and Atmospheric Assessment Center (IMAAC) was established at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory with the goal to improve Federal modeling and assessment capabilities and enhance the national scientific capability through cooperation among the Federal agencies for incidents of national significance.

Another OFCM-sponsored joint action group developed a formal R&D plan to improve on existing ATD modeling capabilities. The resulting 2004 report, Federal Research and Development Needs and Priorities for Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Modeling (OFCM 2004b), established a framework and pathway for collaboration and cooperation on ATD modeling R&D by multiple agencies. Among the FCMSSR-approved recommendations in the 2004 report were specifications and objectives for meteorological test beds with measurement capabilities necessary to develop and validate the advanced ATD modeling capabilities also recommended in the report. The report advocated location of these ATD test beds in urban settings (OFCM 2004b) and the specified urban ATD test beds dovetailed with the increasing need for an infrastructure of urban meteorological test beds for other applications in urban meteorology, transportation, and mesoscale/microscale nowcasting.

xxii The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Behind the Weather News: Technology Infrastructure and Human Expertise

The American public has become familiar with hourly, and even more frequent, updates on weather events in their communities, across the Nation, and around the globe. Severe weather warnings are familiar and expected—and too often ignored or not taken seriously enough. Accurate forecasts of local weather conditions out to 5 days are taken for granted—and forecast inaccuracies are ridiculed—with little understanding of the systems that combine technological prowess with skilled human effort to deliver these products and services. Among the less familiar, but essential, behind- the-scenes components of meteorological services are observing systems and networks, modeling and data assimilation for numerical weather prediction, tailored products and services, and application of social science research to improve warnings and information dissemination.

Surface Weather Observing Systems and Networks

In 1983, as part of the NWS modernization, the NWS, Air Force, Navy, and FAA established a Joint Automated Weather Observations Program (JAWOP) to design and implement what would become the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS). The FCM established a multi-agency JAWOP Council to provide policy guidance and oversight for this joint program (OFCM 1990; 1996). Today, ASOS units installed at 884 sites, including NWS Weather Forecast Offices, airports, and military bases, serve as the Nation’s primary surface weather observing network.

Another nationwide network of automated sensing stations is the Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS), a cooperative, interagency network of 1,963 permanently installed and 404 portable in situ weather observing stations used primarily for wildland fire management applications.

In addition to these two nationwide networks, a large number of regional, statewide, and local networks of automated observing stations known as mesonets have been created for particular purposes such as monitoring road and highway weather conditions or monitoring an urban environment. Currently, however, disparities in standards, operations, data types and formats, and communications processes among these mesonets hinder integration into a nationwide network of networks that would provide mesoscale meteorological observations. In 2009, a study committee of the National Research Council recommended that the Federal government take the lead in developing a plan for achieving and sustaining a mesoscale observing system embracing many of these networks, as well as RAWS and ASOS, to meet multiple national needs (NRC 2009, pp. 3-14). The OFCM through its Committee for Integrated Observing Systems has been leading the Federal response to these recommendations. After two foundational meetings for stakeholders in May and July, 2009, the Federal agency community established an initiative for a Network of Weather and Climate Observing Networks (NOWCON). An early focus of NOWCON activities was to define metadata standards for networks included in the national network.

Closely related to NOWCON and the development of a nationwide mesonet is the work of the OFCM’s Joint Action Group for Joint Urban Test Beds (JAG/JUTB). Urban test beds are important for testing and validating technology and standards for integrating mesonets and using their datasets. The Joint Urban Test Beds coordination work also continues the work on improving Federal capability to predict the spread and movement of plumes of airborne toxic materials.

xxiii The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Modeling and Data Assimilation for Meteorological Analysis and Prediction

During the 1960s, numerical weather prediction (NWP) models, which required electronic digital computers to perform millions of arithmetic calculations during each model run, were first used operationally for analysis of meteorological conditions and prediction of future conditions. NWP model development and improvement has been a continuous effort since that time, and the OFCM soon became involved in interagency coordination among the operational processing centers (OPCs) as they improved their operational computing capability. The major national OPCs, which include centers under NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, and those under the Department of Defense (specifically, the OPCs run by the U.S. Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command and the Air Force Weather Agency), provide backup for each other while also meeting the diverse mission needs of a civilian weather service and America’s global naval and military presence.

Tailoring Products and Services to the Needs of Diverse User Communities

From the creation of the OFCM a half-century ago through the present, the Federal meteorological enterprise has included categories for specialized services to complement the category of Basic Services. Over the years, the categories for specialized services used by the OFCM’s annual Federal Plan have evolved as societal needs, scientific knowledge, and technology have evolved. Today, the OFCM reports on Federal meteorological operations and supporting R&D using 10 categories of specialized services: Agricultural and Land Management Services, Aviation Services, Climate Services, Emergency Response and Homeland Security Services, Hydrometeorology and Water Resources Services, Military Services (meteorological services specifically supporting naval and military operations), Space Weather Services, Surface Transportation Services, Wildland Fire Weather Services, and Other Specialized Services. In each specialized service category, Federal agencies with mission mandates in that area typically team with partners from State and local governments, the commercial sector, nonprofit entities, and academia to provide a rich and expanding panoply of products and services available to the end-user community. Thus, the OFCM’s coordination role typically requires ways to include representation from these non-Federal partners, as well as mechanisms for learning about and validating the needs of the end-user communities.

The success of the OFCM in coordinating pre-storm activity and post-storm damage assessment was a key factor in Congress’s deliberations on and formulation of the Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses (COASTAL) Act of 2012. The intent of COASTAL is to lower costs to the National Flood Insurance Program by providing an objective and rigorous system for discerning wind versus storm surge damages in cases where a home is destroyed down to a “clean slab” by a hurricane or tropical storm. In designating a lead coordination role for the OFCM,

xxiv The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

this recent legislation reaffirms the cross-agency coordination role defined a half-century earlier. Since the COASTAL Act was passed, OFCM coordination groups have been working closely with the cognizant agencies to prepare a series of reports, mandated by this law, on the technical means, including computer modeling of storm and post-storm data, to implement this new approach to storm damage assessment (OFCM 2012, pp. 2-6 to 2-7).

Using Social Science Research to Improve Warnings and Information Dissemination

Starting with Dr. White, the first FCM, improving the Nation’s warning system for severe weather events has been a continuing focus of OFCM coordination activity. The Federal Plan for 1972/1973 described how cooperation among Federal agencies had improved detection, prediction, and warning services for severe local thunderstorms and tornadoes, hurricanes, and coastal winter storms. While improvements to detection and prediction capabilities were part of the story, this early Federal Plan also noted Federal activities to speed up and extend communications for warning the public and to develop community preparedness for more effective use of these weather warnings. During the early 1970s, the NWS engaged social scientists to help with the wording of severe weather warnings, to ensure that the right messages were being communicated to emergency managers, first responders, and the media. The difficulty in getting the public to understand and respond appropriately to hurricane watches and warnings has been a recurring topic at the annual IHCs, which the OFCM sponsors, plans, and manages. Beginning around 2005, the OFCM has encouraged application of results from social science studies of response to weather warnings as a way to improve the effectiveness of the system. A formal objective of the 60th IHC, held in March 2006, was to evaluate changes in forecast and warning messages needed to improve public awareness, preparedness, and response. As a first step in an end-to-end reassessment of the national warning system for all natural and technological hazards, the OFCM recently conducted an exploratory review of community responses to hurricanes in two counties with histories of landfalling hurricanes—one including the city of Mobile, Alabama, the other including Charleston, South Carolina. In May 2010, the OFCM conducted an interagency workshop on ways the social sciences could contribute to more effective delivery of meteorological services (OFCM 2010d, pg. 41).

Envisioning the Future Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

An enduring principle and foundational idea for the OFCM is to coordinate and collaborate among the Federal agencies to reduce duplication and maximize return on the American taxpayer’s investment. Dating back to the original congressional concerns that led to creation of the OFCM in the early 1960s, budget constraints and the goal of increased cost-effectiveness have always been an issue for the Federal meteorological enterprise. Costs of the enterprise became a major issue again in the late 1970s and cost-consciousness has long been a key driver for coordinating and collaborating across established Federal agency boundaries to achieve more with less.

The Federal meteorological coordinating infrastructure has proven both durable and adaptable to the evolution of the Federal meteorological enterprise but now faces its biggest challenge: effectively hearing and responding to the voices of the expanding non-federal component of the entire meteorological enterprise. Increasingly, the expertise in areas of high interest lies outside of the Federal Government and it must be leveraged by the agencies to be effective in the future. The social sciences, the wide-ranging and diverse wildland fire weather community of interest, and the concept of a university-based ensemble of quasi-operational numerical weather prediction models

xxv The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research are just a few examples that challenge the notion that a handful of conferences, workshops, symposia, and forums can adequately convey emerging needs or transfer knowledge and technology to the Federal agencies, particularly when such activities are the first casualties of Federal budget cutting. At the same time, growing concern over cybersecurity mitigates against thought-provoking ideas such as the NOAA Science Advisory Board’s Environmental Information Systems Working Group proposal to create an “Open NWS” where private sector service providers are embedded in and have full access to all NWS data. Whether these challenges can be best addressed through a federal advisory committee or some other mechanism remains to be seen. The next half century promises to be as dynamic, unpredictable, and challenging as the last.

xxvi

1. WHY INTERAGENCY COORDINATION?

Weather Events Have Major Consequences Affecting Multiple Agency Missions

Figure 1. US billion-dollar weather and climate disaster time series from 1980 to 2011 indicates the number of annual events exceeding $1 billion in direct damages, at the time of the event and also adjusted to 2011 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

4 Appendix A highlights the diversity and severity of these billion-dollar weather and climate events, using the NCDC data (NCDC 2013).

1 2 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Spring 2011 was one of the deadliest and costliest tornado seasons on record. According to preliminary estimates from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), tornadic storm systems from early April through June 1, 2011, killed at least 585 people and resulted in 2 million insurance claims for damaged structures, at least $21 billion in economic damages, and at least $15 billion in insured losses (NOAA 2011). At left, Tuscaloosa-Birmingham, AL, tornado damage. (NWS photo)

From 1955 to 2008, floods in the United States caused more than $252 billion (in 2008 dollars) in damages (NOAA 2011).

At right, 2013 flood damage in Boulder, CO. (NOAA photo)

Coastal populations in the United States continue to grow, thereby increasing the amount of personal wealth that is vulnerable to hurricane damage. This migration to coastal areas has already led to a doubling of hurricane-related economic losses every 10 years. As an example, a storm like the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 could result in $500 billion (in 2005 dollars) in damages as soon as the 2020s (Pielke, Gratz, et al. 2008).

At left, NOAA image of Hurricane Katrina.

Because of these substantial and diverse weather impacts, meteorological services and the research and development necessary to sustain and improve those services are relevant to the missions of many Federal agencies, including NOAA in the Department of Commerce, the FAA and other agencies in the Department of Transportation, the Department of Defense, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other agencies in the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and others.5

5 A complete accounting of meteorological products and services provided by Federal departments, offices and agencies, along with the research and development activities to support and improve these products and services, is published annually in the Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, compiled by the OFCM with the aid of all the Federal entities involved.

1. Why Coordination? An Overview of 50 Years 3

In May 2008, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee estimated the total cost of air traffic delays for 2007 at $41 billion per year. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records indicate that, on average, weather is a factor in 70 percent of these delays, costing roughly $29 billion each year. The FAA estimates that two-thirds of these delays can be avoided with enhanced weather information fully integrated into its operational decision-making process, thus saving approximately $19 billion annually (OFCM 2011a, pg. 3). Photo credit: Michael R. Babcock

Each year trucking companies and other commercial vehicle operators lose an estimated 32.6 billion vehicle-hours due to weather-related congestion in 281 of the nation's metropolitan areas. The estimated cost of weather-related delay to trucking companies ranges from $2.2 billion to $3.5 billion annually (FHWA 2011).

In 2008 alone, roadway snow and ice removal cost state-level transportation agencies $1.67 billion (in 2010 dollars) and cost local governments $1.97 billion (in 2009 dollars) (NOAA 2011).

Historically, as these products and services multiplied and expanded, the potential has grown for both overlap among programs and for opportunities to improve cost-effectiveness through coordination of related activities and, where feasible, collaboration in research and development (R&D). In 1964, concern in Congress and the Executive Branch about ensuring the cost- effective use of public funds across these meteorological programs and services led to naming a Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (FCM).

Although administratively attached to the Department of Commerce, to which the U.S. Weather Bureau was moved A 2009 peer-reviewed research study of in 1940 from the Department of Agriculture, the Office societal perception, uses, and values of of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological weather forecasts found that 96% of Services and Supporting Research (OFCM) the U.S public receives 301 billion represents and coordinates the meteorological forecasts a year from both public and services and supporting research of the entire Federal private weather sources. The study’s meteorological enterprise, which currently includes authors estimated the benefits of these activities in 15 Federal departments and agencies. To forecasts to American households at provide high-level policy guidance to the FCM, the $31.5 billion. In that one year, the Federal Committee for Meteorological Services and estimated cost of generating the Supporting Research (FCMSSR) was created at the same forecasts (both public forecasts and time. Initially representing five cabinet-level departments private forecasts that rely on NWS and four independent agencies, the FCMSSR members data) was $5.1 billion (NOAA 2011). were at the assistant secretary level or equivalent. At the

4 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research same time, to support and oversee the OFCM’s multi-agency coordination activities and report to the FCM and FCMSSR, interdepartmental committees were created. Today, the Interdepartmental Committee for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (ICMSSR), chaired by the FCM, together with program councils specific to a service area, oversees cross-agency coordination with support from the FCM and his staff in the OFCM.

A half-century later, the apex of this formal coordination structure, the FCM, FCMSSR, and ICMSSR, continues to lead and guide the ongoing work of coordinating programs that deliver meteorological services and encouraging collaboration on research and development. But the number of agencies participating in OFCM Based on agency-by-agency reporting in the activities has increased, and the focus areas for Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and coordination and collaboration have expanded, Supporting Research, the total budget for as the Federal meteorological enterprise has meteorological services and supporting research grown to meet the Nation’s needs. In recent across the Federal government has grown from years, 15 Federal entities have been represented $2.3 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1996 to $4.8 billion on the FCMSSR and ICMSSR and are actively in FY 2010. With this growing Federal involved in the OFCM coordination structure. investment, the OFCM’s ability to leverage At the working level, the program councils, the investments through coordinating programs committees under the ICMSSR, working groups, across multiple agencies and facilitating and joint action groups target a specific service collaborations is of increasing value to a budget- category or technical area of meteorological and conscious Nation. climate-related services relevant to their members’ home agencies (Figure 2).

Complex though this infrastructure may seem, five decades of effort in coordinating Federal research efforts and facilitating collaborations across relevant agencies have reaped efficiencies in multiple categories of meteorological services and products. The following summaries highlight some of the many successful coordination activities and collaborations documented in chapters 2 through 4 of this retrospective in six service areas: weather radar, hurricane warnings and forecasts, aviation weather, space weather, atmospheric transport and diffusion modeling, and the behind-the-

1. Why Coordination? An Overview of 50 Years 5

Figure 2. Federal Meteorological Coordinating Infrastructure as of September 2013. scenes improvements that enable specialized products and services to be tailored to the needs of improvements that enable specialized products and services to be tailored to the needs of diverse user communities.

Follow these six threads through this 50-year retrospective: Weather Radar Hurricane Warnings Aviation Weather Space Weather Transport and Diffusion Models “Behind the Weather News”

6 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Weather Radar

One of the first interagency planning documents issued by the newly created OFCM was a Federal Plan for Weather Radars and Remote Displays. Released in May 1967, this plan established requirements for an improved national synoptic network of weather radars. Early research and development (R&D) work on Doppler radar for weather observations, particularly at the recently formed (1964) National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) in Norman, Oklahoma, was reported annually in OFCM’s Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research during the years leading up to the Joint Doppler Operational Project (JDOP). Conducted from 1977 through 1979, JDOP was a joint effort of the Department of Commerce (the departmental home of NOAA and its National Weather Service [NOAA/NWS]), the Department of Defense, and the Department of Transportation (departmental home of the FAA). Chapter 2 describes how the findings from JDOP, including new insights into designing a Doppler radar specifically for weather observations, prepared the way for the Next Generation Weather Radar program, which developed, acquired, and installed the current generation of long-range national weather radars, commonly known as NEXRAD radars and formally designated “Weather Surveillance Radar 1988 Doppler” (WSR-88D).

OFCM’s coordinating infrastructure supported and helped guide these successful joint efforts, beginning with an interagency Working Group on the Next Generation Weather Radar, which outlined the approach for the tri-agency program, and continuing with the NEXRAD Program Council, which provided high-level policy guidance, funding decisions, and issue resolution for the NEXRAD Joint System Program Office from 1979 through 1997.

Today’s NEXRAD system of 161 WSR-88D weather radar installations was, from start to finish, a multi-agency program, whose $3.1 billion cost for development, acquisition, and installation between 1979 and 1996 was divided between NOAA as the lead agency, the FAA, and the Department of Defense (DOD). The Tri-Agency Agreement through which NERAD was developed, implemented, and made operational was the first successful Federal tri-departmental joint program of this magnitude. In addition, the FAA funded and continues to operate an additional 48 Terminal Doppler Weather Radars (TDWR). The TDWR was an outgrowth of the NEXRAD program incorporating much of the WSR-88D technology. NOAA/NWS has real-time access to the data from all 209 Doppler weather radars for use in preparing its suite of products and services.

A statistical study found that, after WSR-88D installation, the percentage of tornadoes for which warnings were issued by the local Forecast Office increased to 60 percent from 35 percent before installation. The mean lead time of warnings increased to 9.4 minutes from 5.3 minutes. Expected fatalities and injuries were 45 percent and 40 percent lower, respectively, estimated at 79 lives saved and 1,050 fewer injuries per year after the radars were installed. Source: Simmons and Sutter 2005.

1. Why Coordination? An Overview of 50 Years 7

The NEXRAD program, as chapter 3 explains, not only gave the Nation our current weather radar network; it also provided the programmatic and geographic backbone for the Modernization and Associated Restructuring (MAR) of the National Weather Service from 1988 to 2000. Along with a long-range Doppler weather radar network spanning the nation, the MAR restructured the NWS field office system, acquired and installed new generations of automated surface observing stations, and ultimately implemented, fielded, and continues to improve the advanced weather information processing stations now in use at NWS Weather Forecast Offices, regional offices, and national headquarters. All of these technological foundations for weather products and services we now take for granted trace back to R&D and visionary leadership documented in the early years of the OFCM.

The story of weather radar continues; today the OFCM coordinating process supports and guides interagency work on a new generation of radar technology, aimed at service and product improvements that are as far beyond NEXRAD as the WSR-88D was beyond the 1957-era weather radar it replaced. A single multifunction phased array radar (MPAR) unit can shape and steer multiple radar beams simultaneously, each formed and controlled to optimize information for a particular function, such as aircraft surveillance and targeted observation of severe local storms or wildfire conditions, as well as the long-range, full-volume periodic scanning of weather conditions that NEXRAD radars do and that have become familiar to all of us from the maps of precipitation movement and intensity routinely shown on television and the Internet. Starting in 2002, the OFCM has continually had one or more coordinating activities in progress to define multi-agency needs and priorities for MPAR, develop a program of research to reduce technical and programmatic risks, and, more recently, explore the best options for combining MPAR technology with dual- polarization Doppler radar techniques. A 2006 OFCM report on MPAR technical capability described how MPAR could increase the warning time for tornadoes from NEXRAD’s 12-13 minutes to more than 20 minutes—and perhaps to as much as 45 minutes. The non-cooperative aircraft surveillance capability of an MPAR network would complement the cooperative surveillance strategy planned for the Next Generation Air Transportation System, while also addressing new aircraft tracking requirements of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security (OFCM 2006b).

Improving Hurricane Warnings through Tracking, Observation, Modeling, and Forecasting

Improving the lead times and accuracy of hurricane warnings has been a constant OFCM priority. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research for Fiscal Year 1968 described how Hurricane Beulah in September 1967 was tracked by weather reconnaissance aircraft of the Air Force, Navy and Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA, predecessor to NOAA); by weather-observing satellites; and, as it approached landfall on the Texas coast, by the long-range radar at Brownsville, Texas. In August 1969 Hurricane Camille struck the Gulf Coast, causing 256 deaths and $1.4 billion in damages, and in response, programs to upgrade the reconnaissance aircraft and instrumentation were accelerated. The instrumentation upgrades, known as the Advanced Weather Reconnaissance System, became a joint Air Force-NOAA program in 1975.

Development of the next generation of instrumentation for hurricane reconnaissance aircraft, the Improved Weather Reconnaissance System (IWRS) began in 1979. In 1983, the FCM was tasked to manage a joint NOAA/Air Force program to implement IWRS on the reconnaissance aircraft used

8 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Today, the Air Force provides weather reconnaissance using the WC-130J equipped with GPS-tracking dropwindsondes, the Stepped Frequency Microwave Radiometer, and satellite communications to rapidly transmit data to the National Hurricane Center.

(U.S. Air Force photo)

by the Air Force Reserve’s “hurricane hunters” to fly through and around tropical cyclone and storm systems well in advance of the time a hurricane or tropical storm might make landfall on the continental United States or U.S. interests in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. The FCM established and chaired the IWRS Program Council, which had authority to commit departmental resources and resolve program technical issues. By 1990, the new systems had been installed on 12 aircraft; they dramatically improved both hurricane and winter storm reconnaissance data used for operational forecasting and for research. The OFCM subsequently played several key roles in outfitting the hurricane hunter aircraft with an advanced remote-sensing system, the Stepped Frequency Microwave Radiometer (SFMR).

Dr. Robert M. White, the first FCM (while also serving as Administrator of ESSA and then NOAA), championed programs to learn more about the formation and development of hurricanes. As part of U.S. participation in the World Weather Program of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the FCMSSR helped coordinate the activities of seven Federal departments and agencies that participated in the Barbados Oceanographic and Meteorological Experiment (BOMEX). The primary scientific objective of BOMEX was to gather detailed data on how the tropical ocean exchanges heat and moisture with the atmosphere—key physical parameters in During the 15 years from 1994 to 2009, the the energy transfers that drive hurricane track forecast error (in nautical miles) for hurricanes. Airborne surveillance of 12-hour, 24-hour, and 72-hour forecasts from the individual hurricanes, using the several National Hurricane Center decreased by about 50% generations of improved (Franklin 2010, pg. 10 and Figure 2). This instrumentation described above, has also contributed to this fundamental improvement has been attributed to advances in understanding of how hurricanes computer models used to predict hurricane tracks acquire and expend their immense (OFCM 2010e, pg. C-2). stores of energy.

Beginning during Dr. White’s tenure and continuing to the present, the OFCM has been the sponsor and organizer for the annual Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference (IHC), attended by program managers and technical experts from all of the Federal agencies with responsibilities for monitoring, understanding, warning, and responding to these severe storm events. The IHC, which began even before the OFCM was created, has in recent years attracted increasing participation from

1. Why Coordination? An Overview of 50 Years 9

State and local entities with hurricane responsibilities, the university research community, and the private sector. These annual events not only foster communication about new research results, ongoing R&D programs, and new operational capabilities, they also produce practical products such as the annual update by an OFCM-led working group of the National Hurricane Operations Plan: the interagency plan for coordinating Federal and intergovernmental operations during the upcoming hurricane/tropical cyclone season. Throughout the OFCM’s existence, a recurring topic of the IHCs has been reporting on— and providing participant feedback to—all the R&D planning and programming activities across the Federal government. Over the years, many of these activities have involved multi-agency groups within the OFCM coordinating infrastructure. A good example, discussed in chapter 4, is the 2007 report by an OFCM joint action group, titled the Interagency Strategic Plan for Tropical Cyclones: The Way Ahead (OFCM 2007a).

Aviation Weather

U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber damaged by clear air turbulence. (U.S. Air Force photo)

10 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

current generation of aircraft and plan the R&D to During the 10-year period from 1997 promote advances in technology to aid future through 2006, the NAW/PC aviation. undertook the ambitious challenge goal of reducing by 80% the annual By 1989, the FCMSSR was requesting that the OFCM rate of aviation accidents that the prepare an integrated, multi-agency plan to cover all National Transportation Safety aviation weather services for the next decade. To Board determined were weather- guide the plan’s development, the FCM formed a related accidents. The goal was National Aviation Weather Program Council applied to both fatal and nonfatal (NAW/PC), which continues today as one of the high-level program councils in the coordinating weather-related accidents. While infrastructure. The National Aviation Weather the 80% reduction goal was not Program, overseen by this program council and reached, the reduction in weather- supported by groups of technical experts assembled related accidents was greater than from multiple agencies, produced a series of high- the reduction for all accidents. For level plans, detailed implementation plans, conference example, general aviation accidents reports, Federal handbooks, and coordinated from all factors decreased by 17%, programs to develop, disseminate, and transfer to whereas weather-related accidents operations improved technologies for all aspects of decreased by 33% (OFCM 2010a, aviation weather. pg. 7). This tradition of interagency cooperative research and program coordination continues today in the multifaceted work of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Initiative. Led by the FAA in the Department of Transportation, with NASA and the Departments of Commerce (NOAA/NWS), Defense, and Homeland Security as Federal partners, NextGen has the ambitious goal of transforming the Nation’s air transportation system to meet the aviation needs of 2025 and the years beyond. While the Joint Planning and Development Office for NextGen is leading the initiative, the OFCM participates in NextGen activities and continues working with all the agencies participating in the NAW/PC to support the weather-related aspects of this multiyear, Government-wide effort.

Space Weather

Adverse conditions in the space environment—for example, so-called “solar storms” of high energy particles emitted from the Sun—can disrupt satellite and spacecraft operations and harm astronauts on manned spaceflights. When these storms interact with the Earth’s magnetic field and upper atmosphere, they can disrupt communications and navigation systems and seriously damage electric power distribution grids. During the 1960s and 1970s, NOAA was providing space weather forecasts for NASA and the U.S. space program and, by 1990, the OFCM coordinating infrastructure included an interagency Committee for Space Environment Forecasting. Space weather observations and warnings were at that time provided by NOAA’s Space Environment Center and the U.S. Air Force’s 50th Weather Squadron, stationed at Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado. A series of workshops and meetings beginning in 1993 led to the creation of the National Space Weather Program (NSWP), whose overarching goal was to implement an active, synergistic, interagency system to provide timely, accurate, and reliable space weather observations, warnings, and forecasts (OFCM 1995a). The subsequent implementation plans to pursue this goal laid out

1. Why Coordination? An Overview of 50 Years 11

NSWP Strategic Plan, 2010 – Goals • Discover and understand the physical conditions and processes that produce space weather and its effects. • Develop and sustain necessary observational capabilities. • Provide tailored and accurate space weather information where and when it’s needed. • Raise national awareness of the impacts of space weather. • Foster communications among government, commercial, and academic organizations.

agency responsibilities for coordinated research that included solar event modeling and forecasting, as well as improvements to the national (and global) observation and warning capability.

Since its start in 1993, the NSWP has been overseen and managed through a high-level National Space Weather Program Council, with a series of interagency groups contributing technical expertise to plan and implement the program at each phase of its evolution. At the completion of the program’s first decade the OFCM, with FCMSSR approval, appointed a committee of independent experts from academia, government, the military, and industry to review the NSWP and make recommendations for the next decade. The 2006 report from this assessment committee (OFCM 2006a) reaffirmed the severity of the space weather threat, the value of the space weather predictions, and the value of the NSWP. In response to one committee recommendation to improve the translation of research results into operational space environmental monitoring and predictions, NOAA and D.L. Johnson, the NWS Director at the time, moved the Space Environment Center from NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to become an operational center, renamed the Space Weather Prediction Center, in NWS’ National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). Many of In 2011, OSTP again turned to the OFCM to the committee’s other recommendations were support a study, mandated by the NASA incorporated in the 2010 edition of the NSWP Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Appendix F), of Strategic Plan (OFCM 2010c), which will deficiencies in advance warning of severe guide the cooperative activities of the NSWP space weather events. The OFCM’s Joint partners during the next decade. Action Group for Space Environmental Gap Analysis identified current and projected Advance warning and monitoring of solar capability deficiencies and recommended storms as they approach Earth depend on spacecraft stationed between the Sun and options to mitigate them (OFCM 2013b). Earth and on observations from Earth- These projects include refurbishing and orbiting satellites. In June 2007, the Office of launching the Deep Space Climate Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Observatory (DSCOVR) spacecraft to monitor requested that the FCM form an expert the solar wind. committee to assess the impacts on the Nation’s space weather preparedness from

12 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

two independent events: the restructuring of the polar-orbiting environmental satellite program and the impending loss of the only spacecraft able to provide timely advance warning of solar storms approaching Earth. OSTP used the reports produced by two OFCM-sponsored joint action groups to help shape policy and budget decisions.

Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Modeling

Emergency response, national security, public health, and transportation safety decision makers rely on atmospheric transport and diffusion (ATD) modeling to respond to events with both natural and human causes. Events such as ash clouds from volcanic eruptions; chemical, biological and radiological releases; pollution, and smoke plumes from forest fires, to name just a few, can present potential threats to the health and well-being of the population and to homeland security. Some significant events in the last 50 years include the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima Daiichi in 2011; the chemical release in Bhopal, India, in 1984; the major air traffic disruption over Europe and the North Atlantic caused by ash from the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in 2010; and the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The latter example provided an impetus to accelerate the coupling of atmospheric and oceanic models to better predict the atmospheric and waterborne dispersion in these types of events.6 The challenges of ATD modeling are intertwined with boundary layer7 meteorology and urban meteorology and a thread comprised of these strands is woven through the remaining chapters of this report.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the OFCM was active in coordinating agency activities to develop remote sensing capability for vertical measurements of temperature and wind profiles and pollutant concentrations (OFCM 1968). Early work in ATD modeling centered on diagnosing and predicting the dispersion of pollutants and new urgency was brought to the work by the release into the atmosphere of radioactive particles from the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979. The OFCM coordinated the Federal meteorological response to the Three Mile Island nuclear incident including quickly moving DOD’s mobile weather observing assets to the area to provide data to support accurate predictions of the dispersion of radioactive particles.

As development of ATD models continued to grow, the OFCM brought the agencies together to develop a directory of ATD models in 1991, followed by updates in 1993 and again in 1999. The 1999 directory catalogued more than 140 models (OFCM 1999c) in use or development for various ATD applications.

After preparing the new directory in 1999, the FCM organized and hosted in June 2000 the Workshop on Multiscale Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling within the Federal Community. The workshop objectives were to review user requirements and agency capabilities, technical barriers,

6 OFCM internal summary report of the 2011 workshop special session. 7 The atmospheric boundary layer is that portion of the atmosphere where the Earth’s surface (land or water) has a direct influence.)

1. Why Coordination? An Overview of 50 Years 13

and model validation, verification and approval procedures. A little more than a year later, the events of September 11, 2001 precipitated an urgent need to evaluate the available ATD models, select appropriate models to establish a core capability, and establish a coordinated mechanism to respond to major accidental and intentional releases of toxic gases, particles, or biological agents. The FCM formed the Working Group for Environmental Support to Homeland Security (WG/ESHS) who recommended a thorough survey of existing and in-development Federal capability. An FCM- organized joint action group evaluated available models and selected five to provide a core capability (see chapter 3) covering a range of scenarios, and the Interagency Modeling and Atmospheric Assessment Center (IMAAC) was established at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory with the goal to improve Federal modeling and assessment capabilities and enhance the national scientific capability through cooperation among the Federal agencies for incidents of national significance.

Among the FCMSSR-approved recommendations in the 2004 report were specifications and objectives for meteorological test beds with measurement capabilities necessary to develop and validate the advanced ATD modeling capabilities also recommended in the report. The report advocated location of these ATD test beds in urban settings (OFCM 2004b, sections 5.6 and 6.3) and the specified urban ATD test beds dovetailed with the increasing need for an infrastructure of urban meteorological test beds for other applications in urban meteorology, transportation, and mesoscale/microscale nowcasting.

Urban Meteorology – Meeting Weather Needs in the Urban Community

Five primary focus areas:

Severe weather Homeland security Air quality Water quality Climate

In parallel and synergistically with the development of ATD R&D needs, the OFCM was organizing the growing interest in urban meteorology. Several months before the ATD R&D needs report was released, the FCM issued the report Urban Meteorology – Meeting Weather Needs in the Urban Community (OFCM 2004a) which included as ATD-related elements of urban meteorology the areas of

14 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

homeland security and air quality. Later the same year, the FCM hosted Challenges in Urban Meteorology: A Forum for Users and Providers with the following objectives:

• Identifying better ways to integrate, apply, and deliver weather and climate science and technology to urban decision makers and to reduce high impact weather and climate risk. • Focusing on the relationship of natural hazards to urban ecosystems and their management and facilitating the transfer of emerging science and technology. • Promoting close collaboration and integration of multidisciplinary research to address weather and climate impacts on urban communities and improving forecasting for coastal and complex terrain areas. • Elevating the level of concern on priorities needed for funding research and application of science and technology on urban weather and climate problems/issues.

As the ability to observe and predict atmospheric conditions in the urban environment has improved, its value to emergency managers, city planners, national security officials, and other users has increased even as many needs are not yet met. With input from and participation by the FCM, the National Research Council’s Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC) organized a special study session in 2011. In 2012, BASC’s committee on urban meteorology issued Urban Meteorology: Forecasting, Monitoring, and Meeting End Users’ Needs identifying four short term needs and three challenges beyond the short term (NRC 2012).

Behind the Weather News: Technology Infrastructure and Human Expertise

Figure 3 illustrates these systems schematically, showing how information flows from initial observations of physical phenomena to the final products and services delivered to multiple, diverse communities of end users. This diagram illustrates what is known to the Federal agencies and partners that constitute the Federal meteorological enterprise as the cycle for End-to-End Services. This end-to-end view highlights the vital fact that each component of the cycle and the linkages between them are necessary to provide users with products and services that support their decision- making. R&D in the broad areas represented by the orange shading in the diagram is essential to improving those products and services while meeting new user needs as they become important to the Nation.

Note that the cycle is closed by societal drivers for improved information. Often these drivers take the form of feedback from user communities on their information needs, which are based on users’ experience with current products and services they receive and users’ views on improvements that could make their activities safer, more productive, or less costly. OFCM-coordinated activities extend to every link in the End-to-End Services cycle. Some activities, such as the annual Interdepartmental Hurricane Conferences and the National Space Weather Program, routinely cover

1. Why Coordination? An Overview of 50 Years 15 the entire End-to-End cycle for their area of services. Broadly speaking, all of Chapters 2 through 5 explain how these activities contribute to one or more components of the cycle. Here we highlight the OFCM role in four of the less familiar, but essential, behind-the-scenes components of End-to- End Services: mesoscale observations, modeling and data assimilation for meteorological analysis and prediction, tailoring products and services to the decision-support needs of diverse user communities, and using social science research to improve warnings and information dissemination.

Figure 3. The cycle of End-to-End Services for delivering meteorological information to user communities.

Mesoscale Observations In meteorology, the mesoscale refers to atmospheric phenomena with horizontal spatial sizes ranging from a few to several hundred kilometers. Weather events at this scale include larger thunderstorms, squall lines, fronts, precipitation bands in tropical and extratropical cyclones, and topographically generated weather systems such as mountain waves or sea and land breezes (NRC 2009, pg. 2). Larger phenomena, such as the low and high pressure systems seen on weather maps, are at the synoptic scale. Smaller phenomena such as summertime “pop up” thunderstorms or surface wind effects of urban terrain are at the storm scale or microscale. Obtaining temporal series of same-time observations that are spaced closely enough to characterize the variations within a mesoscale event but extend widely enough to cover the whole event is important both for understanding how these phenomena evolve and for providing sufficient input data to model mesoscale events with useful accuracy.

The Doppler weather radars described previously, as well as airborne and even satellite-based sensing instruments, are useful sources of mesoscale observational data. However, point-specific, highly accurate mesoscale datasets typically need to be grounded in observations from a network of

16 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

observing “stations” or units that can record values for key ASOS meteorological parameters specific to an exact time and location.

Among the first automated in situ observing stations used operationally were three data buoys anchored by the U.S. Navy in the Gulf of Mexico (OFCM 1968). The OFCM reported in 1977 that automated weather observing stations were increasingly being used for essential observations. Furthermore, in the fall of 1976, the National Weather Service had successfully installed two automated observing stations, one in Alaska and one in Utah, with improved instruments to sense and send data on cloud cover and visibility (OFCM 1977).

In 1983, as part of the MAR, the NWS, Air Force, Navy, and FAA established a Joint Automated Weather Observations Program (JAWOP) to design and implement what would become the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS). The FCM established a multi-agency JAWOP Council to provide policy guidance and oversight for this joint program (OFCM 1990; 1996). Today, ASOS units installed at 884 sites, including NWS Weather Forecast Offices, airports, and military bases, serve as the Nation’s primary surface weather observing network. At airports without an ASOS, the FAA has installed a simpler version, called the Automated Weather Observing System, or AWOS (OFCM 2012a).

Another nationwide network of automated sensing stations is the Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS), a cooperative, interagency network of in situ weather observing stations used primarily for wildland fire management applications. The observations taken by RAWS units are collected to a central location, the National Interagency Fire Center, via the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Data Collection System (GOES-DCS). The data are then formatted, sorted, and distributed via the Automated Sorting, Conversion, and Distribution System (ASCADS). The 1,963 permanently installed (nonportable) RAWS units whose data go into ASCADS are maintained to Federal standards for wind speed and direction, air temperature, humidity, precipitation, and solar radiation. In addition to supporting fire danger assessments and index ratings, this RAWS network provides a stable, long term data history. Another 404 RAWS units that meet the same Federal standards are portable and can be used for incident management and to support fire behavior assessments (OFCM 2011C, pg. 2-2).

1. Why Coordination? An Overview of 50 Years 17

network of networks that would provide mesoscale meteorological observations. In 2009, a study committee of the National Research Council recommended that the Federal government take the lead in developing a plan for achieving and sustaining a mesoscale observing system embracing many of these networks, as well as RAWS and ASOS, to meet multiple national needs (NRC 2009, pp. 3-14). The OFCM through its Committee for Integrated Observing Systems has been leading the Federal response to these recommendations. After two foundational meetings for stakeholders in May and July, 2009, the Federal agency community established an initiative for a Network of Weather and Climate Observing Networks (NOWCON). An early focus of NOWCON activities was to define metadata standards for networks included in the nationwide mesonet. Activities have included coordinating with the mesonet-related activities of the American Meteorological Society and the National Earth Observation Task Force initiative of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (see chapter 5).

For purposes of observing, modeling, and forecasting mesoscale phenomena, airborne remote sensing systems complement the in situ surface observing networks, weather radar, and satellite- based observing platforms. Beginning with an exploratory workshop in February 2011, the OFCM’s Committee for Integrated Observing Systems has also been coordinating Federal agency programs to use unmanned aerial systems as platforms for atmospheric sensor systems.

Modeling and Data Assimilation for Meteorological Analysis and Prediction As Figure 3 illustrates, the data from integrated observing systems (such as the mesonet data discussed above, as well as weather radar and satellite data) must be assimilated into an integrated system of computer-based models to produce basic predictions of meteorological conditions, which in turn support application-specific products, which typically aid users in making decisions. The major national operational processing centers (OPCs), which include centers under NCEP and those under the Department of Defense (specifically, the OPCs run by the U.S. Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command and the Air Force Weather Agency), provide backup for each other while also meeting the diverse mission needs of a civilian weather service and America’s global naval and military presence.

8 The computing power used by each new generation of operational NWP models continues to grow at near-exponential rates. The two NCEP supercomputers, named Tide and Gyre, that are going operational in 2013 as part of the Weather and Climate Operational Supercomputing System (WCOSS) project are each rated at 208 TeraFLOP (208 trillion arithmetic calculations per second). Source: NCEP 2012.

18 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

The OFCM Committee for Operational Processing Centers (COPC) has long served as the interagency body for coordinating the operational and R&D activities of the OPCs in NWP modeling, data assimilation into NWP models, and the analysis and forecast products and services that depend on both atmospheric and coupled air-land-ocean modeling. Under the COPC, the Working Group for Cooperative Support and Backup has been active since before 1990 in updating arrangements for mutual support and backup as computer-based processing has grown increasingly sophisticated. Through the COPC, the OPCs also establish cooperative frameworks for sharing data from environmental satellites, weather radars, and other sources of observations. Since 1999, the COPC has also been the interagency lead for coordination programs in high performance computing and communications, operational community modeling, data assimilation, data handling and archiving, and coupled ocean-atmosphere modeling. With the integration of the Shared Processing Program (SPP) into the COPC, it became necessary for the OFCM to form the Program Council for National Operational Processing Centers (NOPC) to address the former SPP’s funding issues. To provide policy guidance and oversight to the COPC, the OFCM established the NOPC in 2006.

Tailoring Products and Services to the Needs of Diverse User Communities The last three boxes in the End-to-End system illustrated in Figure 3—application specific models, decision-support systems and information products, and user-oriented information—represent the technological infrastructure and human expertise that tailor model output from the OPCs, along with data from integrated observing systems, to meet the specific needs of diverse user communities. From the creation of the OFCM a half-century ago through the present, the Federal meteorological enterprise has included categories for specialized services to complement the category of Basic Services (basic services can be thought of, in terms of Figure 3, as the output from observing systems and the OPCs).

Over the years, the categories for specialized services used by the OFCM’s annual Federal Plan have evolved as societal needs, scientific knowledge, and technology have evolved. Today, the OFCM reports on Federal meteorological operations and supporting R&D using 10 categories of specialized services: Agricultural and Land Management Services, Aviation Services, Climate Services, Emergency Response and Homeland Security Services, Hydrometeorology and Water Resources Services, Military Services (meteorological services specifically supporting naval and military operations), Space Weather Services, Surface Transportation Services, Wildland Fire Weather Services, and Other Specialized Services. In each specialized service category, Federal agencies with mission mandates in that area typically team with partners from State and local governments, the commercial sector, nonprofit entities, and academia to provide a rich and expanding panoply of products and services available to the end-user community. Thus, the OFCM’s coordination role typically requires ways to include representation from these non-Federal partners, as well as mechanisms for learning about and validating the needs of the end-user communities.

A good example of how societal needs continue to drive changes in services and supporting research is the application area of post-storm data acquisition and damage assessment, which the OFCM covers as part of the service category for Emergency Response and Homeland Security Services. In the 1990s, the OFCM established a Working Group for Post-Storm Data Acquisition (WG/PSDA)

1. Why Coordination? An Overview of 50 Years 19 to draft an interagency plan for acquiring scientific and engineering data on storm damage and related effects, with an emphasis on gathering data that were highly perishable. The weather events of interest included costal storms, tornadoes, tsunamis, and lake storms (i.e., storms on and coming off the Great Lakes). By March 1995, the WG/PSDA had a draft plan that was distributed for review (OFCM 1997a, pg. 10). In 1997, the Civil Air Patrol and the U.S. Air Force signed a Memorandum of Understanding, fostered by the WG/PSDA, through which the Civil Air Patrol would, upon OFCM request, conduct aerial survey flights over storm-damaged areas. A succession

The Civil Air Patrol conducts aerial storm damage survey flights around the U.S. and monitors glacial lakes and ice jam flooding in Alaska.

(Civil Air Patrol photo)

of these arrangements has continued from 1998 through the present, with the WG/PSDA and its successor group under the OFCM coordinating post-storm data acquisition by ground teams of storm damage/effects specialists, as well as the Civil Air Patrol’s aerial surveys. Each year’s Federal Plan since 1998 has reported on these interagency activities, which are conducted under procedures specified in successive editions of the National Post-Storm Data Acquisition Plan.

In 2010, the FCM established a successor group, which became known as the Working Group for Disaster Impact Assessments: Weather and Water Data (WG/DIAP), to update and expand the then-current (2003) edition of the National Post-Storm Data Acquisition Plan. This revised plan, the National Plan for Disaster Impact Assessments: Weather and Water Data, addressed new technologies for: (1) pre-deploying, increasing the density of, and hardening systems for taking observations during and immediately after a major storm event; and (2) collecting and disseminating real-time data of value for forecasting these storm events and for managing Federal, State, and local response and recovery activities (OFCM 2010d, pp. 42-43).

The success of these expanded capabilities and storm assessment procedures was a key factor in Congress’s deliberations on and formulation of the Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses (COASTAL) Act of 2012 (Appendix B). The intent of COASTAL is to lower costs to the National Flood Insurance Program by providing an objective and rigorous system for discerning wind versus storm surge damages in cases where a home is destroyed down to a “clean slab” by a hurricane or tropical storm. In designating a lead coordination role for the OFCM, this recent legislation reaffirms the cross-agency coordination role defined a half-century earlier. Since the COASTAL Act was passed, the WG/DIAP and other OFCM coordination groups have been working closely with the cognizant agencies to prepare a series of reports, mandated by this law, on the technical means, including computer modeling of storm and post-storm data, to implement this new approach to storm damage assessment (OFCM 2012, pp. 2-6 to 2-7).

20 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Using Social Science Research to Improve Warnings and Information Dissemination In Figure 3, Education and Outreach is shown as an important “external input” to the last step in the End-to-End System: the delivery of user-oriented information. Meteorological services and products are only of value if the people for whom they are intended know how to use them and do in fact use them properly. Starting with Dr. White, the first FCM, improving the Nation’s warning system for severe weather events has been a continuing focus of OFCM coordination activity. The Federal Plan for 1972/1973 described how cooperation among Federal agencies had improved detection, prediction, and warning services for severe local thunderstorms and tornadoes, hurricanes, and coastal winter storms. While improvements to detection and prediction capabilities were part of the story, this early Federal Plan also noted Federal activities to speed up and extend communications for warning the public and to develop community preparedness for more effective use of these weather warnings.

During the early 1970s, the NWS engaged social scientists to help with the wording of severe weather warnings, to ensure that the right messages were being communicated to emergency managers, first responders, and the media. With the help of Dr. Benjamin McLuckie, a social scientist at the University of Delaware, a course titled Warning—A Call to Action was developed to help NWS forecasters and managers use the best words to motivate people to act appropriately when a warning was issued (OFCM 2010e, pg. C-3).

The difficulty in getting the public to understand and respond appropriately to hurricane watches and warnings has been a recurring topic at the annual IHCs, which the OFCM sponsors, plans, and manages. Beginning around 2005, the OFCM has encouraged application of results from social science studies of response to weather warnings as a way to improve the effectiveness of the system. A formal objective of the 60th IHC, held in March 2006, was to evaluate changes in forecast and warning messages needed to improve public awareness, preparedness, and response. At the 28th National Hurricane Conference, held in April 2006, the OFCM sponsored a training session that introduced a model for the divergent information needs and response patterns of various users to hurricane messages and warnings (OFCM 2006c, pp. 234-235). As a first step in an end-to-end reassessment of the national warning system for all natural and technological hazards, the OFCM recently conducted an exploratory review of community responses to hurricanes in two counties with histories of landfalling hurricanes—one including the city of Mobile, Alabama (Appendix C),

Social Sciences Exploratory Mini-Workshop, May 2010 Objectives:

1. Identify agency-specific and agency-overlapping social science- related actions and social science needs/priorities as related to meteorological operations/services. 2. Compile key recommendations for potential government action for implementation in meteorological forecasting and warning programs. 3. Develop an Action Agenda for the further inclusion of social science research results into meteorological operations/services.

1. Why Coordination? An Overview of 50 Years 21

the other including Charleston, South Carolina. In May 2010, the OFCM conducted an interagency workshop on ways the social sciences could contribute to more effective delivery of meteorological services (OFCM 2010d, pg. 41). The content of this workshop and the ongoing work of the OFCM’s Working Group for Social Sciences are discussed further in Chapter 5.

The Continuing Challenge of Federal Meteorological Coordination

The preceding sections have highlighted OFCM’s activities over the past half-century in basic meteorological services and in several of the specialized service categories such as aviation weather, hurricane tracking and warning, space weather and post-storm damage assessment. Other service categories included in the Federal meteorological enterprise coordinated by OFCM, such as meteorological services and products for agriculture and land management, climate services, surface transportation, wildland fire weather, and hydrology and water resources, are covered in chapters 2 through 5.

The OFCM was established to solve the problem of coordinating the multiple Federal government activities involved in providing weather- and climate-related services in their mission areas and supporting the R&D necessary to meet multiple constituencies’ diverse needs for such services. With the expansion of new and more capable applications for weather and climate information in providing services essential to public safety and economic activity, the need for coordination and collaboration continues to increase.

A half-century of history shows the value of a balanced program of basic and applied research, coordinated across Federal departments and agencies. A focus on meteorological research in the 1960s and 1970s provided the foundation for developing and implementing new systems and technologies during the 1980s and 1990s, such as the NOAA/NWS modernization (1988–2000) and improvements to the national aviation weather enterprise. As the above highlights illustrate, research and development targeted to gaps in capabilities and emerging user needs have provided the foundation for technology insertion to improve and expand products and services from the late 1990s to the present.

The same half-century of history includes an ongoing FCM role in developing and coordinating science and technology advice to the President and coordinating the US contributions to international meteorological activities. The FCM has coordinated with or been a member of subgroups of what is today the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), serving currently as a member of the Council’s Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability (CENRS). In the early years, the Deputy FCM was an observer on the Inderdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences that became the Subcommittee for Atmospheric Research, providing the principal mechanism for coordination of basic research in atmospheric sciences within the Federal government (OFCM 1990). As the Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST) evolved into the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) and eventually the National Science and Technology Council, the FCM has represented the Federal meteorological agencies within these science and technology advisory groups. The OFCM has conducted crosscut studies for OMB and, more recently, prepared an impact analysis and detailed mitigation options reports for the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). And from its earliest days, the OFCM has coordinated the US Federal interagency contribution to international collaboration, beginning with the World Weather Program and BOMEX, GATE, and the International Field Year for the Great Lakes (IFYGL) to today’s collaboration with the World

22 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Meteorological Organization’s space weather activities supported by the US Unified National Space Weather Capability.

Looking ahead, the Nation needs to prepare for and manage the safety and economic risks associated with both individual weather events and the broader patterns of climate conditions. Meteorological services will continue to evolve as basic and applied research informs and improves technological capabilities to monitor, predict, forewarn, and prepare for whatever the weather brings. Coordinating service-oriented programs and activities among the many Federal entities involved and fostering cost-effective collaboration on supporting research and technology development will continue to be essential to returning the best value for this National investment.

2. THE BIRTH OF FORMAL COORDINATION OF METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES AND RESEARCH

Congress and the Executive Branch Seek Increased Coordination of Federal Meteorological Services

Congress reacted to this report with Public Law 87-843 (Section 304), which mandated an annual report to Congress providing a horizontal budget depiction of all meteorology programs, specific program aspects and funding assigned to each agency, and estimated goals and financial requirements. In response to the new law, the Bureau of the Budget issued Circular A-62 on November 13, 1963, establishing policies and procedures for the coordination of Federal meteorological services (Appendix D). This document defined service categories and established authorities and responsibilities that continue to guide the Federal coordination enterprise 50 years later. It distinguished “basic meteorological services” from “specialized meteorological services,” with the latter being activities, derived from the output of the basic meteorological services, that produce products needed to serve the operational needs of particular user groups. While Circular A-62 explicitly excluded basic research in meteorology from the formal coordination requirements, it did include “supporting research”—defined as “those applied research and development activities

23 24 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

The Bureau of the Budget shall provide the Congress in connection with the budget presentation for fiscal year 1964 and each succeeding year thereafter, a horizontal budget showing (a) the totality of the programs for meteorology, (b) specific aspects of the program and funding assigned to each agency, and (c) the estimated goals and financial requirements.

Public Law 87-843, Sec 304

whose immediate objective is the improvement of the basic and specialized meteorological services as defined [above].” The remainder of Circular A-62 set out the following coordination and planning guidelines:

These coordination and planning requirements in Circular A-62 applied to any Federal agency “whose mission requires meteorological services either for its internal operations or as part of its direct services to a clientele group.”

The Department of Commerce Establishes the Office of the Federal Coordinator

2. The Birth of Formal Coordination 25

Dr. Robert M. White named first Federal Coordinator for Meteorology.

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research established in January 1964.

White, the Chief of the U.S. Weather Bureau, was designated to also serve as the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology. The OFCM included a full-time staff headed by a Deputy Federal Coordinator for Meteorology and comprising three staff elements: Operations Evaluation Group, Operating Program Division, and Supporting Research Division.

The Operations Evaluation Group was created to assist the Federal Coordinator in conducting special studies. Some of these studies would analyze Federal meteorological activities to assess the economic and fiscal consequences of proposed actions. Another area for special studies was independent analyses of specific areas of overlap or interface between the activities of the agencies involved in basic and specialized meteorological services, to provide quantitative information on the consequences of various decision alternatives.

The other two staff elements supported two interagency committees established to coordinate and review Federal meteorological requirements, services, and supporting research and to compile the annual Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, which Public Law 87-843 (Section 304) required. The Interdepartmental Committee for Meteorological Services was supported by the Operating Program Division, while the Interdepartmental Committee for Applied Meteorological Research was supported by the Supporting Research Division. The implementation plan envisioned subcommittees of these two interdepartmental committees being established, one for each meteorological service program. To provide the horizontal look across agencies that Congress had requested, the Federal Plan was to be organized according to these service programs (now called “service categories”). The original set of service programs or categories were basic services, civil aviation, military (with subcategories for Air Force, Navy and Army), agriculture, marine, air pollution, space operations, and research support.

To provide high-level policy guidance to the Federal Coordinator, a Federal Committee for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (FCMSSR) was established at the same time, with members from the senior leadership (Assistant Secretary level or equivalent) of each Federal agency with a need for meteorological services either for the agency’s internal operations or as part of its direct service to a clientele group. This committee would also review and validate proposed Federal meteorological plans and would resolve any differences that arose in preparing, monitoring, or coordinating the annual Federal Plan. The nine entities named in the implementation plan to be represented on the FCMSSR were the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Agriculture, Treasury, and Health, Education and Welfare; plus the Federal Aviation Agency, National Aeronautics and

26 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Space Administration, National Science Foundation, and Atomic Energy Commission. The Bureau of the Budget was invited to designate an observer to attend FCMSSR meetings.

As part of an Administration paperwork reduction initiative, Circular A-62 was rescinded in June 1994 without replacement, although formal requests to reinstate it were made to OMB by the FCM at that time (Julian Wright), by the FCMSSR, and by the first FCM, Dr. White, who was then President of the National Academy of Engineering.9 Although OMB has not issued analogous guidance on coordinating the Federal meteorological enterprise, the statutory requirement that Circular A-62 addresses remains in Title 68 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (NRC 1995, pp. 15-16). A half-century after Circular A-62 was first issued, key elements of that directive and of the original implementation plan to address it still characterize the organization and functions of the OFCM.

• Since 1965, the OFCM has led the effort to compile an annual “horizontal look” at the budgets and programs providing meteorological services across all Federal agencies, including the applied research and development to support and improve those services. This annual Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research remains a statutory mandate for the Department of Commerce. • Although its membership has expanded, the FCMSSR continues to serve as the high-level policy guidance committee advising the Federal Coordinator and reviewing and approving plans for coordinating operations, services, and supporting research among the entities it represents. Today’s FCMSSR has members representing 15 Federal entities: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, State, and Transportation, together with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OMB, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, National Transportation Safety Board, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. • The two Interdepartmental committees have been merged into the Interdepartmental Committee for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (ICMSSR), which develops and reviews new multi-agency initiatives and ongoing programs and activities, as well as overseeing the majority of OFCM-established working groups and joint action groups that constitute the technical, working level of coordination for the Federal meteorological enterprise. • OFCM activities continue to be focused on service categories. The number and scope of the service categories have evolved with the evolving applications of meteorology that have value for the safety of the American people, the defense of the Nation, and efficient and productive commerce. Starting with the Federal Plan for fiscal year (FY) 2011, in addition to the category of Basic Services, the OFCM now monitors and coordinates Federal activities in ten specialized meteorological service categories: Agriculture and Land Management, Aviation, Climate, Emergency Response and Homeland Security, Hydrometeorology and Water Resources, Military, Space Weather, Surface Transportation, Wildland Fire Weather, and Other Specialized Services.

9 Letter from Julian M. Wright, FCM, to Dr. Alice Rivlin, Director, OMB, dated September 29, 1994; letter signed by the members of the FCMSSR to Dr. Alice Rivlin, Director, OMB, dated February 27, 1995, letter from Robert M. White, President, National Academy of Engineering, to Dr. Alice Rivlin, Director, OMB, dated March 2, 1995.

2. The Birth of Formal Coordination 27

OFCM from 1964 to 1972—The First Federal Coordinator for Meteorology

Increasing Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness of Operations and Research The OFCM was established in early 1964 with Donald J. Moore as the full-time Deputy Federal Coordinator under Dr. Robert White, who still led the U.S. Weather Bureau while serving as the first Federal Coordinator. From the beginning, an important role for the OFCM has been to leverage investments and resources to get more benefit for Federal dollars spent on meteorological operations and supporting research.

In 1965, President Johnson formed the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) within the Department of Commerce (DOC) from three existing entities: the Weather Bureau, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory (from the National Bureau of Standards). Dr. White became the ESSA Administrator but continued to serve as Federal Coordinator. In 1970, a further reorganization by President Nixon combined ESSA with the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, National Data Buoy Project, and several other DOC entities into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with Dr. White as the first NOAA Administrator (OFCM 1990; Shea and Theberge 1999).

Evolution of the Federal Meteorological Enterprise, 1972-1979 Dr. White relinquished his role as Federal Coordinator in 1972 but continued to chair the FCMSSR as NOAA Administrator until 1977. The new Federal Coordinator, Richard E. Hallgren, was also the Associate Administrator for Environmental Monitoring and Prediction in NOAA (OFCM 1990). Between 1972 and 1981, there were seven changes in the Federal The Federal Coordinators, 1964-2013 Coordinator position (Appendix E). 1964-1972 Robert M. White (also Chief, U.S Weather During the latter half of this period, the Bureau [1963-1965]; Administrator, FCMSSR and the interdepartmental Environmental Science Services committees did not meet regularly; Administration [1965-1970], NOAA instead, meetings were called in response Administrator [1970-1977]) to an issue that needed to be addressed. 1972-1973 Richard E. Hallgren (also Associate Administrator for Environmental With the formation of NOAA, OFCM’s Monitoring and Prediction, NOAA) functions were increasingly subsumed 1973 C. Edward Roache under the Office of the Associate 1973-1975 Clayton E. Jensen Administrator for Environmental 1975-1978 Edward S. Epstein Monitoring. Sections within this NOAA 1978-1979 Richard E. Hallgren (also Acting Assistant office provided staff support to the Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Interdepartmental Committee for Services, NOAA) Meteorological Services and to the 1979-1981 Thomas B. Owen research subcommittees of the 1981-1986 William S. Barney Interdepartmental Committee for 1986-1992 Robert L. Carnahan Applied Meteorological Research 1993-1998 Julian M. Wright (OFCM 1990). Support for U.S. participation in the international 1998-present Samuel P. Williamson programs (WWW and GARP) also moved to NOAA. Appendix D lists the periods of service of the Deputy Federal Coordinators for Meteorology

28 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Research and Development to Improve Services and Products During Dr. White’s tenure, in addition to preparing a Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research each year, the OFCM focused on identifying and coordinating meteorological R&D necessary to improve services and products. In several areas, applied meteorological research coordinated through the FCMSSR and OFCM and conducted through multi-agency collaborations during the first 15 years of the OFCM’s existence provided the basis for the major improvements in weather prediction and warnings that were achieved in the years from 1980 to 2006. For example, Dr. White championed programs to learn more about progenitors of hurricanes and to improve airborne reconnaissance of tropical storm and cyclone systems before they made landfall on U.S. territory. One principal effort involved increased R&D coordination and collaboration between the United States and the World Weather Program. As discussed below, the BOMEX and GATE experiments increased understanding of the factors influencing the development of hurricanes and tropical cyclones from tropical depressions and the track and intensity changes on which accurate prediction and early warnings depend. Another major effort was improvement of airborne hurricane reconnaissance. Weather satellites became an operational part of meteorological observations during this period, and collaboration across agencies was critical to the rapid and sustained progress in this space-age field. Finally, R&D programs during this period laid the scientific and technological foundations for the introduction of Doppler weather radar. These early R&D activities are detailed in the remainder of this chapter.

OFCM and the World Weather Program During these initial years with Dr. White as the Federal Coordinator, the OFCM added coordination with international partners to its primary role of coordination across the U.S. Federal meteorological enterprise. The first step was to take on the coordination of Federal agency activities with the World Weather Program of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The WMO was established in 1951 as a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) and the successor to the International Meteorological Organization, which dated back to 1873 (WMO 2009). Its mission is to facilitate international cooperation in the fields of meteorology and hydrology. In 1961, President Kennedy proposed that the UN establish an international effort to improve weather prediction. The UN responded by asking the WMO and the International Council of Scientific Unions to develop measures to improve weather forecasting capabilities and to advance scientific understanding of the basic atmospheric dynamics responsible for the weather. In 1963, the WMO initiated two activities, under its World Weather Program, to meet this challenge. An operational system called the World Weather Watch (WWW) was established to coordinate the rapid collection and exchange of weather data among all WMO members and the dissemination of weather forecast products from centralized processing centers (OFCM 1999a, Appendix D). In parallel with the operational role of the WWW, a comprehensive program of research, the Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP), focused on acquiring a better understanding of the physical processes and the compositional variation of the atmosphere, to be incorporated into mathematical models, and on relating this understanding to the operational system (WWP 1972).

In 1968, following Senate Concurrent Resolution 67, President Johnson designated the Department of Commerce as the lead agency for coordinating U.S. participation in the World Weather Program. The FCMSSR expanded its coordination activities to include the World Weather Program and established an interdepartmental committee to coordinate the participation of Federal agencies in the WWW and GARP. During the six years from 1968 to 1974, the FCMSSR devoted a major

2. The Birth of Formal Coordination 29

portion of its meetings to discussing and planning for U.S. participation in the World Weather Program (OFCM 1990) and Dr. Richard E. Hallgren played a major role as both the director of ESSA’s Office of WWP and then as the Federal Coordinator. The OFCM reported annually on U.S. activities in the WWW, first as separate reports on the World Weather Program, and starting in 1983, as an appendix within the annual Federal Plan (WWP 1972; OFCM 1999a, Appendix D).

The first of the GARP experiments, conducted from May 1 to May 28, 1969, was the Barbados Oceanographic and Meteorological Experiment (BOMEX), a cooperative venture of the United States and the government of Barbados in which seven Federal departments and agencies participated. Its primary objective was to measure the rate of exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the tropical ocean and atmosphere over a substantial area (500 km2). Data were collected by ship, buoys, aircraft, radiosonde balloons, and satellite. (OFCM 1990; UCAR 2011).

The OFCM and FCMSSR used the expertise developed in BOMEX to prepare for one of the major experiments during GARP’s 15-year duration, the GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment (GATE). Twelve nations including the United States made significant contributions to GATE, whose purpose was to understand the tropical atmosphere and its role in the global atmospheric circulation. During the summer of 1974, 40 research ships, 12 research aircraft, and data buoys from 20 countries were involved in gathering observations in the experimental area, which covered the tropical Atlantic from Africa to South America. The six U.S. agencies that contributed personnel, funding, and equipment to GATE were the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Transportation, and State; the National Science Foundation; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (OFCM 1990; AMS 1998).

Improving Hurricane Reconnaissance Hurricane Camille struck the Gulf Coast in August 1969, causing 256 deaths and about $1.4 billion in damages. Subsequent investigations and reports led to a Presidential request to ensure that the best aircraft and equipment would be available for future hurricane reconnaissance missions. A month after Camille struck, Dr. White announced that programs to upgrade both the reconnaissance aircraft and the equipment they carried would be accelerated and given special emphasis. Equipment upgrades began in 1970 with the Air Force program for an Advanced Weather Reconnaissance System (AWRS). In 1975, AWRS became a joint Air Force-NOAA program.

Development of the next generation of hurricane reconnaissance equipment, the Improved Weather Reconnaissance System (IWRS) began in 1979, when the Department of Commerce contracted for two major instrumentation components: the Aircraft Distributed Data System (ADDS) and the Omega Dropsonde Windfinding System. Data from these systems were communicated back to data processing centers on the mainland via Air Force communications satellites. The continuation of work on IWRS is covered in chapter 3.

30 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Satellite-based Weather Observations Become Operational Satellites designed to monitor Earth’s environment have been in operational use for weather-related observations since ESSA launched the ESSA-1 and ESSA-2 sun-synchronous satellites in February 1966. These launches were heralded in the first Federal Plan published by OFCM (OFCM 1967). The following year, the Federal Plan for 1969 reported that operational weather satellites had Hurricane Beulah “under observation” from the time this major hurricane developed in the tropical Atlantic until it dissipated in the mountains of Mexico (OFCM 1968).The ESSA series evolved from the first Earth-observing satellites, the TIROS (Television and Infrared Observing Satellite) series, the first of which (TIROS-1) was launched by NASA on April 1, 1960 (NRC 1997, pg. 11). The ESSA series of satellites, which were launched from 1966 through February 1969, were followed by polar-orbiting satellites in the ITOS (Improved TIROS Operational Satellite) and NOAA series (based on the TIROS-N and Advanced TIROS-N designs). ITOS-1 was launched in January 1970; the last in the NOAA series, NOAA-19, was launched in February 2009 (NRC 1997, pp. 10-14; NESDIS 2013).

Early TIROS satellite

Hurricane Beulah from TIROS VII

The early Federal Plans produced by OFCM also recorded multi-agency work on geosynchronous weather satellites, starting with NASA’s launch of the first Applications Technology Satellite (ATS- 1) in December 1966 (OFCM 1967). The ATS series of research satellites provided the technological and operational experience for two Synchronous Meteorological Satellites (SMS-1 and SMS-2), launched in 1974 and 1975, which were the NASA-funded and -operated prototypes for NOAA’s initial series of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) (NRC, 1997, pp. 15-18).

Research on Doppler Weather Surveillance Radar and the Joint Doppler Operational Project A third major R&D area in which the OFCM and FCMSSR contributed during this early period was development and demonstration of Doppler radar for weather surveillance. When radar (radio detection and ranging) was first conceived and put to practical use during World War II, its initial application was to help ships avoid obstacles. Given the pressures of war, radar quickly matured into an operational technology to counter enemy military activity, particularly airborne forces, becoming a major contributor to Allied success in defeating the German Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain. The broader utility of radar was quickly recognized, and the technology was soon applied to meet

2. The Birth of Formal Coordination 31 civilian aviation’s growing requirements. Yet even as these early applications for radar matured, its utility for observing weather phenomena was recognized and exploited. In effect, the “clutter background” that atmospheric phenomena represent for aircraft surveillance radar applications became a “signal” to be interpreted for meteorological applications of radar (OFCM 2006, pg. 1). The Weather Bureau began testing Doppler radar systems for weather applications in the 1950s, and the U.S. Air Force also pursued testing and algorithm development to make use of the weather- related radar returns (Whiton et al. 1998).

In 1969, the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) in Norman, Oklahoma received a surplus 10 cm Doppler radar from the U.S. Air Force and began using it for research in 1971 (NSSL 2011). In the early 1970s, the NSSL and the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory collaborated on weather radar research, building on nearly a decade of partnership between NSSL10 and the Air Force lab. In 1973, Air Force researchers took their Coherent Memory Filter to NSSL and detected a mesocylone in conjunction with the severe tornado that hit Union City, Oklahoma on May 24. Observations by the Doppler radar, other radars, mobile teams, and surface instruments followed by extensive damage surveys made the Union City tornado the most documented tornado to that date (Metcalf and Glover 1989, pg. 25, 33). A second Doppler radar was installed at Cimarron Airport, Oklahoma, in May 1973, to enable the NSSL researchers to study two-radar observations of the morphology of convective storms. NSSL made the first observations of a tornadic storm with dual Doppler radars the following spring, on April 20, 1974. From these observations, the kinematic structure of a tornadic storm could be mapped at several altitudes. NSSL built the first real-time displays of Doppler velocity data, a capability that led to the discovery of tornado-related radar signatures (NSSL 2011; OFCM 2011b; Whiton et al. 1998).

In 1976, The Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Transportation formed the Joint Doppler Operational Project (JDOP) to investigate further the real-time use of Doppler radar data to identify tornadic storms. JDOP tests, which were conducted in the springs of 1977, 1978, and 1979, using the NSSL radars, showed that Doppler radar offered marked improvement over the existing weather surveillance radars for earlier and more accurate identification of thunderstorm hazards, especially tornadoes and squall lines (NSSL 2011; NEXRAD JSPO 1980; OFCM 2011b; Whiton et al. 1998). In particular, JDOP produced the following findings (NEXRAD JSPO 1989, pg. 1-2): Union City, OK, tornado

10 The Air Force collaboration began with the National Severe Storms Project which became the NSSL in 1964 with Dr. Edwin Kessler as its director. Dr. Kessler had been a member of the Air Force radar research group in the late 1950s.

32 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

• Warning verification results indicated that Doppler capability was superior to both the existing weather radars and human spotters. Doppler radar increased the lead time for tornado warnings, reduced the false alarm rates for tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, and increased the probability of detecting severe thunderstorms. • Narrow-beam-width Doppler radar could distinguish between severe and non-severe thunderstorms at distances up to 350 km and tornadic from non-tornadic thunderstorms at distances up to 230 km. • Because the Doppler radar provided more precise location of severe-storm and tornadic signatures, the size of warning areas (the number of counties for which warnings would be issued) could be markedly reduced and the detected phenomena could be more accurately identified. • Doppler radar would be of great value in improving both the safety and economy of airplane flights in thunderstorm areas.

These JDOP findings, along with a set of Doppler weather radar design characteristics derived from the JDOP tests, would play a vital role in formulating the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) program. As described in chapter 3, NEXRAD would drive the National Weather Service Modernization program during the next two decades (1980 to 2006). The NSSL was awarded the DOC Gold Medal for its role in developing Doppler weather radar and conducting the JDOP tests.

In parallel with the JDOP activity, the FCMSSR set up an interagency Working Group on Next Generation Weather Radar (WG/NGWR). The WG/NGWR provided a focus for interagency weather radar development and planning activities, including preparation of a NEXRAD Concept Paper presented to the FCMSSR in July 1979 that resulted in an action item to prepare the analysis described in the next paragraph. This Concept Paper outlined an approach for Department of Commerce (DOC), Department of Defense (DOD), and Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop, procure, and operate a joint national weather radar network. In this document, the WG/NGWR recommended prompt action to establish a joint program-management activity (which would become the Joint System Program Office, or NEXRAD JSPO), define agency responsibilities, establish detailed program plans, and initiate definition of requirements for the radar network and preparation of system specifications (NEXRAD JSPO 1980).

After the FCMSSR meeting in July 1979, OMB asked the OFCM to provide a crosscut analysis for a joint NEXRAD development program. The interagency group that prepared the analysis was chaired by Robert Beck, the Deputy Federal Coordinator, and included representatives from all three departments participating in JDOP. The analysis covered mission responsibilities of

2. The Birth of Formal Coordination 33

NEXRAD user agencies, inadequacies of the existing weather radar network, alternative methods of meeting user requirements, and funding and development requirements for a nationwide NEXRAD system. The analysis report concluded that replacing the aging weather radars then in use was a valid requirement. It confirmed the JDOP findings that a Doppler radar system would dramatically improve weather warnings and provide new information of significance for aircraft safety. Other conclusions from this OFCM-led interagency analysis included the following:

• The fundamental technology to support a NEXRAD system had been developed, but a substantial amount of work remained necessary to transfer Doppler radar technology to operational use in the field. • Consideration should be given to a mix of Doppler and non-Doppler radars for the new system, with the decision between a full-Doppler system or a mixed system to be based on a careful study comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two. • A JSPO should be established to carry out the necessary development and operational implementation work.

The crosscut analysis report recommended approval of the NEXRAD concept, including the FY 1981 budget requests of the three departments for funds to proceed with NEXRAD development (JSPO 1980; OFCM 1990, pg. 22).

In November 1979, DOC, DOD, and DOT, through the Tri- Agency Agreement, established and cofounded the JSPO as an office to plan, define, acquire, and deploy a NEXRAD network. Because DOC was assigned the lead role, the JSPO was located within NOAA’s NWS. Arthur L. Hansen from the OFCM was named the first JSPO Director in August 1979 in advance of the formation of the office (OFCM 1990).11 That same year, to monitor the progress of NEXRAD development, acquisition, and roll-out under the JSPO, the FCMSSR established an oversight committee, which became the NEXRAD Program Council, an OFCM-supported coordination activity chaired by the FCM with members from each of the partners in the Tri-Agency Agreement. With this innovative Tri-Agency structure and FCMSSR-chartered Program Council in place to coordinate and monitor NEXRAD development and system implementation, the foundation was set for the largest overhaul of the Nation’s Federal meteorological enterprise in the 130 years since nationwide meteorological services began. That story is told in chapter 3.

At NOAA’s request, the National Research Council appointed an ad hoc study committee to study the impact of scientific and technical developments on operations of the National Weather Service

11 Hansen was JSPO Director from August 1979 to July 1981. Anthony F. Durham was JSPO Director from April 1982 to 1987. Samuel P. Williamson, who was a JSPO Deputy Director under Hansen and Durham and Acting Director between them, became the third JSPO Director, serving from February 1988 to September 1991. Subsequently, Robert Brown, David Smiley, and David Caldwell served as program managers while deployment was completed. Williamson named the new Doppler radar the “Weather Surveillance Radar 1988 Doppler” (WSR-88D) in May 1988. In 1992, the JSPO was transitioned from the office of NWS director to the newly established NOAA Systems Acquisition Office.

34 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

(NWS). The committee’s report, published in 1980 as Technological and Scientific Opportunities for Improved Weather and Hydrological Services in the Coming Decade, supported the value of an operational Doppler weather radar network (NRC 2011, pg. 12).

JDOP as a Paradigm for Meteorological Test Beds and Prototypes Beyond its essential contributions to the NEXRAD Program and the NWS Modernization and Restructuring, JDOP provides a paradigm of the economic and programmatic benefits of carefully designed and executed experiments, test beds, and prototypes when translating proof of concept scientific results to implementation of a complex, large-scale system dependent on new technologies. Looking ahead through subsequent decades of OFCM activities to improve meteorological services through coordinating major new technology systems development and roll-out, JDOP can be seen as the forerunner of current multi-agency technology test beds such as the Joint Hurricane Test Bed and the Joint Urban Test Bed, both of which are described in chapter 4. The Doppler weather radar prototypes used by NSSL for initial experimentation and then for the JDOP tests have since been followed by current prototypes for multifunction phased array radar and dual-polarized weather surveillance radar. In all these post-JDOP activities, the OFCM has provided an infrastructure for multiple interested Federal parties to work together on coordinated development and testing aimed at finding an optimal solution to meet multiple user needs.

3. REINVIGORATING OFCM AND MODERNIZING THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE

A series of reviews and reports from the General Accounting Office (GAO; now the Government Accountability Office) and the Department of Commerce Inspector General reinvigorated the OFCM and led to the restoration of the office as an independent function within NOAA, again with a full-time staff. A new coordinating structure emerged from the reinvigorated OFCM, including program councils focused on specific service areas to guide the infusion of new technology that resulted from the R&D of the 1960s and 1970s described in the preceding chapter. The first portion of this chapter recounts the reinvigoration of the OFCM and the emergence of the new coordinating structure.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the Federal meteorological enterprise was focused on improving capabilities to provide products and services that better met end-users’ needs in the various client communities of the FCMSSR agencies. These capabilities included the NEXRAD weather radar and the NWS Modernization and Associated Restructuring (MAR), aviation weather, lightning detection networks, and space weather. The remaining sections of this chapter detail the OFCM’s substantial and active role in these areas through oversight by its program councils, and through the coordination and planning activities of its multi-agency standing committees and working groups.

The carefully planned, orderly multi-agency activities to meet users’ needs are occasionally punctuated with emergency situations calling for immediate, coordinated action. The nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island power plant in 1979 was one such example, and is described briefly in this chapter.

A Stronger and More Independent Federal Coordinator

The GAO and the Department of Commerce Inspector General Press for Better Coordination to Reduce Federal Meteorological Enterprise Costs During the late 1970’s, congressional concerns again heightened about the cost of the Federal meteorological enterprise—the sum total of all agency activities to provide meteorological services and products. In addition to congressional hearings and studies, OMB and the General Accounting Office (GAO; now the Government Accountability Office) produced reports. The 1979 GAO report “The Federal Weather Program Must Have Stronger Central Direction” concluded that meteorological activities were fragmented and too costly. To reduce costs and meet both civil and military requirements more effectively, the Federal meteorological enterprise needed strong central coordination and direction by a single official in the Department of Commerce (GAO 1979).

The DOC response to the GAO report, submitted over the signature of George S. Benton, the Associate The Federal weather program Administrator of NOAA, agreed that there was an must have stronger central important role for the Federal Coordinator and direction. OFCM and promised to review the level and potential sources of staff and other resources for that office. GAO, 1979 Consultations with other agencies for detailing

35 36 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

personnel to serve as OFCM staff were also promised. However, NOAA objected to having the Federal Coordinator overseeing the programs or services of other Federal agencies, to evaluate them and monitor implementation of the plans put forward in the annual Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Instead, NOAA suggested it would be appropriate for the Federal Coordinator to “request periodic reports from agencies on the status of implementation of Federal plans.” Detailed analyses for use by OMB and the agencies, as input to the budget review process, was suggested as an adequate approach to program review. While acknowledging “some cases of inadequate or poorly documented coordination,” the response characterized the GAO’s proposal for central direction and management of all Federal meteorological programs as “an overreaction,” which would amount to creating a “Federal weather service czar” with considerable authority over very senior officials in departments and agencies outside DOC (GAO 1979, pp. 58-64).

DOC did restore OFCM as a function independent of The OFCM was restored as an NOAA line operations in 1980, with its own full-time independent function with its own staff. The Air Force, Navy, FAA, and NWS also full-time staff in 1980. assigned senior-level representatives to serve on the OFCM staff in positions subsequently designated as Assistant Federal Coordinators for Meteorology for The Air Force, Navy, FAA, and NWS their respective agencies’ affairs (OFCM 1990, pg. 13). also detailed senior-level The senior Air Force officer assigned as Assistant representatives to the OFCM. Federal Coordinator also represented the US Army’s meteorological interests.

In 1985, in conjunction with the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, the Inspectors General of DOC, DOD, and DOT examined possible duplication and overlap in weather data collection, processing, and dissemination systems across the three departments. The DOC Inspector General released a report with the title, “The Federal Coordinator for Meteorology Needs to Strengthen Central Planning and Review of Automated Weather Systems.” The report concluded that OFCM had established the interagency participation and cooperation necessary for effective coordination, but was still falling short in (1) performing and documenting formal, systematic reviews of requirements for weather services and research and (2) developing a comprehensive plan for integrating major agency weather programs and system development efforts (OFCM 1990, pg. 14). Unless the Federal Coordinator simply assumed the role of being the Federal czar for weather services and research—a role that DOC and NOAA had argued against in responding to the 1979 GAO report—this level of formal requirements review and planning for cross-agency integration of programs could only happen if all the agencies involved empowered the Federal Coordinator (and thus the OFCM) through policy guidance from the FCMSSR. Thus, it was significant that the DOC Inspector General’s report also concluded that FCMSSR had not provided the requisite policy guidance to the Federal Coordinator (OFCM 1990, pg. 14). The Inspector General recommended that, to continue OFCM’s evolution toward more structured processes for achieving cost savings, the Federal Coordinator should establish a program council for coordinating automated weather information systems. This Automated Weather Information Systems (AWIS) Program Council, modeled along the lines of the NEXRAD Program Council established several years earlier, would have responsibility to develop a plan for integrating weather information system requirements across agencies.

3. Reinvigorating OFCM and Modernizing NWS 37

In light of additional recommendations in the 1985 report and in the DOC Inspector General’s final audit report in 1988, OFCM agreed to:

1. Initiate crosscut studies, at the request of OMB or other FCMSSR agencies, of agency weather programs and requirements and document these studies in reports made available to interested parties on request; 2. Review agency analyses of alternatives for satisfying new requirements, including existing or planned capabilities of other agencies; 3. Consult with and provide to OMB an annual crosscut budget analysis for the major weather programs, including automated weather information systems; and 4. Prepare quarterly reports on coordination activities for review by FCMSSR. (OFCM 1990, pp. 14-15)

Emergence of the Modern Coordination Structure in the OFCM To implement these recommendations in the context of the congressionally mandated coordination role across the diverse departments and agencies involved in the Federal meteorological enterprise and drawing on the NEXRAD Program Council as a model, FCMs William S. Barney and Robert L. Carnahan enhanced the formal coordination structure of the OFCM. By 1990, there were six Program Councils, which provided specific multi-agency guidance to the FCM, as well as review and approval of OFCM-led activities in that program council’s service area. As shown in Figure 4, the Program Councils reported directly to the FCMSSR and the FCM (as they still do). The members of each Program Council were decision-level representatives of each agency directly concerned with the program area assigned to that council by its charter. Each Program Council was chaired by the FCM.

The two original interagency working committees—an Interdepartmental Committee for Meteorological Services and an Interdepartmental Committee for Applied Meteorological Research—were replaced by a combination of standing committees and ad hoc working groups, all reporting to an Interdepartmental Committee for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (ICMSSR) (Figure 4). These standing committees and working groups, constituted of agency personnel assembled by the FCM (with FCMSSR approval) and with support from OFCM staff, were (and remain) the primary vehicles for conducting the crosscut studies and analyses to meet recommendations 1 and 2 in the above list.

While the members of the FCMSSR were (and continue to be) high-level departmental or agency officials with the authority to commit their organizations and represent them in policy discussions and in FCMSSR recommendations and guidance to the FCM, the ICMSSR members represent senior program managers with direct responsibility for each FCMSSR member-organization’s portfolio of meteorological services programs and supporting research projects. ICMSSR members may serve on standing committees and working groups, but they often designate a member of their agency with the specific expertise and responsibility most relevant to the terms of reference assigned to that committee or working group by the FCM. Quarterly reports on coordination and planning activities of the standing committees and working groups were reviewed by the ICMSSR before being presented to the FCMSSR, fulfilling the fourth item in the above list of recommended OFCM responsibilities. OFCM staff, working with points of contact in the agencies, continued to prepare the annual Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, fulfilling the third bullet in the list of recommended activities.

38 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Even before this new coordinating structure emerged, the need for urgent multi-agency action in response to the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster tested the OFCM coordination structure in 1979. The successful response is documented in the next section.

FEDERAL COMMITTEE FOR METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES AND SUPPORTING RESEARCH (FCMSSR)

FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES AND SUPPORTING RESEARCH

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR PROGRAM COUNCILS METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES AND SUPPORTING RESEARCH (ICMSSR)

Working Group for AUTOMATED WEATHER Meteorological INFORMATION SYSTEMS Information Management

STANDING COMMITTEES JOINT AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVATIONS

AUTOMATED WEATHER OPERATION AL NATIONAL AIRCRAFT ICING INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROCESSING CENTERS ● Working Group for • Working Group for Communications Interfaces Cooperative Support NATIONAL AVIAT ION and Data Exchange and Backup WEATHER ● Working Group for AWIS Meteorological OPERATONAL Applications ENVIRONMENTAL NEXT GENERATION ● Working Group for SATELLLITES WEATHER RADAR NOAAPort Liaison (NEXRAD)

IMPROVED WEATHER SPACE ENVIRONMENT AVIAT ION SERVICES RECONNAISSANCE FORECASTING

BASIC SERVICES Working Groups ● Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion ● Monitoring the Stratosphere ● Doppler Radar Meteorological Observations ● Profiler Systems ● Hurricane and Winter Storm Operations ● Radar Meteorological Observations ● Hydrometeorology ● Satellite Telemetry ● Lightning Detection Systems ● Severe Local Storms Operations ● Marine Environmental Services ● Upper Air Observations ● World Weather Program

Source: OFCM 1990, pg. 17

Figure 4. Federal Meteorological Coordinating Infrastructure as of 1990.

3. Reinvigorating OFCM and Modernizing NWS 39

Coordinating the Federal Response to Three Mile Island

America’s worst nuclear power plant accident occurred at the Three Mile Island plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979. A relief valve failure in response to a minor malfunction combined with human error by control room operators to cause a partial fuel bundle meltdown in Unit 2 of the two-unit plant. The relief valve failure occurred around 4 a.m.; by 7:00 a.m. a site emergency was declared, and at 7:24 a.m. a general emergency was declared (PennLive.com 2009).

The assets necessary to support a Federal response to the emergency were in different agencies, and no existing plan or program was adequate to the task. At the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Departments of Commerce and Energy, the NOAA Special Projects Office under William S. Barney provided logistical support to the Federal response to the accident and subsequent public emergency operations. The OFCM worked through its existing coordinating structure to get timely support from the Department of Defense to airlift critical equipment to the incident management site near the stricken power plant.

The Three Mile Island accident sparked increased interest in atmospheric transport and diffusion (ATD) modeling, further elevated by the chemical leak in Bhopal, India, in 1984 Credit: CDC and the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. More than 30 years after Three Mile Island, the Deepwater Horizon oil well blowout, fire, and spill in 2010 and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in 2011again raised concerns about atmospheric modeling and instigated further work on coupled ocean-atmosphere models. The ATD modeling story continues in chapter 4.

The Next-Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) Program

As noted in chapter 2, the OFCM was deeply involved in the interagency R&D on Doppler weather radar under JDOP. The JDOP tests during 1977-1979 demonstrated that Doppler radar offered marked improvement for early and accurate identification of thunderstorm hazards, including tornadoes and squall lines. The Doppler weather radar design characteristics from the JDOP tests formed the basis for the design of the WSR-88D (NEXRAD) radar. OFCM’s Working Group on Next Generation Weather Radar, which worked in parallel with the JDOP tests, was subsequently replaced by the NEXRAD Program Council, which continued to provide oversight and issue resolution while the NEXRAD system was being built, tested, and integrated with new, complementary systems for automated weather information processing, satellite-based weather observations, and others, as part of the NWS MAR. In addition to leveraging the investments of the partner agencies, each agency gained the benefit of the insight and leadership provided by the other agencies as well. The total program cost for NEXRAD system implementation was $3.1 billion.

40 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

From its start in 1979, the NEXRAD Program Council monitored NEXRAD progress and provided a high-level management group to resolve funding and other interagency issues that could not be resolved at the JSPO level. In January 1993, the NEXRAD Program Council chartered a NEXRAD Program Management Committee (NEXRAD PMC), with representatives from the NWS, the Navy and Air Force, and FAA, to provide operational management oversight of the NEXRAD system, which was nearing completion, as well as acquisition and implementation oversight for the remaining sites. The Program Council continued to monitor NEXRAD-related programs and activities, as well as resolving Tri-Agency issues referred to it from the JSPO or the NEXRAD PMC, until November 1997. At that time, the members voted to retire the Program Council and allow the PMC to address any further NEXRAD program issues (NEXRAD Program Council 1997; OFCM 1990, pp. 22-23; OFCM 1997a, pg. 2-5).

As the lead agency under the Tri-Agency Agreement, NOAA contributed 57.5 percent of the total cost for NEXRAD, with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) each contributing 21.25 percent. Each of the three agencies has been able to accrue the benefit of the full network in return for its investment of a portion of the total cost. NOAA/NWS manages or has access to all the data from all 164 NEXRAD installations, including those initially funded by FAA and DOD. NOAA/NWS also has access to data from 48 Terminal Doppler Weather Radars (TDWR) funded and operated by the FAA, as an outgrowth of the NEXRAD program, to detect hazards to aviation such as wind shear and microbursts on and near major airports.

The current NEXRAD system of 161 WSR-88D radar installations has been a huge success.12 It has saved countless lives through substantial increases in the warning time for extreme convective storm events. It brought detailed observation of current weather conditions and nowcasting to a regional level. And along with satellite-based observations, major advances in numerical weather prediction (NWP) modeling, and advanced information processing at local NWS Weather Forecast Offices, it has revolutionized the reliability and specificity of forecasts out to 5 days and longer.

In more than a figurative way, the NEXRAD program was the cornerstone of the NWS MAR, providing the impetus behind new facilities for weather forecast offices across the country and improved training facilities in Kansas City, Missouri. The following section describes the OFCM and coordinating structure role in supporting the MAR.

12 This number includes 160 WSR-88D units at operational sites (122 NWS, 12 FAA, and 26 DOD [NWS 2013]) and one NWS training unit at Norman, Oklahoma. According to Samuel P. Williamson, the JSPO Director during NEXRAD roll-out, the training unit was the fourth WSR-88D unit set up; the first three units were installed at Twin Lakes, OK; Melbourne, FL, and Sterling, VA. A maintenance training simulator was installed at NWS maintenance facilities in Kansas City, MO.

3. Reinvigorating OFCM and Modernizing NWS 41

Modernization and Associated Restructuring of the National Weather Service

Public Law 100-685, enacted in November 1988, instructed the Secretary of Commerce to prepare a strategic plan for a comprehensive modernization of the NWS, including basic service improvements in weather and flood forecasting and warning services, critical new technology that would be required, and associated changes in NWS staffing and operations. In March 1989, DOC responded with the Strategic Plan for the Modernization and Associated Restructuring of the National Weather Service (NWS, 1989), followed by an Implementation Plan in 1990 (NWS, 1990). The resulting Modernization and Associated Restructuring (MAR) extended from 1989 to 2000. An independent retrospective assessment of the MAR, published in 2011, summarizes the status of NWS services prior to the MAR, as well as detailing and evaluating each phase of this effort (NRC, 2011).

The pre-MAR developmental work on NEXRAD was seminal for defining MAR objectives, and the site planning for the nationwide network of WSR-88D radar installations played a key role in restructuring what had been a two-tiered system of local NWS Weather Service Offices and Weather Service Forecast Offices. In addition to implementing the NEXRAD network, the MAR included replacement of manual weather observations at NWS surface observing locations with the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS), new series of both geostationary and polar-orbiting meteorological satellites, and new computing power and improved numerical weather prediction (NWP) models at national centers. A new computer-based information processing and communications system, the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS), would eventually interconnect the local NWS offices with the centers that produce forecast analysis and guidance products and with the satellite data reception and processing facilities of the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS). The vision for the MAR can be credited to Dr. Richard E. Hallgren, Director of the NWS from 1979 to 1988, and its deployment to his successor as NWS Director, Dr. Elbert W. “Joe” Friday, Jr. OFCM program councils, committees, and working groups contributed to many of these facets of the MAR.

Improving, Automating, and Expanding Surface Observations Before the MAR, site-specific observations of standard meteorological parameters—air temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, precipitation amount and type, and humidity—were taken manually using methods and instruments that had changed little in a century. Historically, each agency independently developed an operational weather system capability in pursuit of its mission. Observations were collected at WSOs and WSFOs by NWS staff, at military installations by DOD personnel, and at the increasing number of civilian airfields by the FAA (NRC, 2011, pp. 11-12). In 1983, the Joint Automated Weather Observations Program (JAWOP) was established with membership from the NWS, Air Force, Navy, and FAA as a joint effort to design and implement the NWS ASOS as part of the MAR. Concurrently, the FCM established the Joint Automated Weather Observations Program Council (JAWOP Council) to provide policy guidance and oversight for this new, denser network of automated observing and data transmission stations. The role of the JAWOP Council was thus similar to that of the NEXRAD Program Council for the new Doppler radar network (OFCM 1990, pg. 37; OFCM 1996).

In 1986, the JAWOP Council agreed to use the NWS Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) at the FAA's towered airport locations. The Administrators of NOAA and FAA agreed that NOAA would procure, install, operate, and maintain the ASOS to meet FAA requirements for both the towered and most of the non-towered (smaller) airports. This action made ASOS the primary

42 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Federal surface observing system. Immediate needs of the FAA for limited weather observations at small non-towered airports was satisfied by 200 off-the-shelf automated weather observing systems (AWOS) as an interim capability system until the fielding of ASOS.

In February 1991, based on the recommendations of an independent interagency Test Review Board, the ASOS production and implementation contract was awarded to AAI Corporation for as many as 1700 units over the next 5 years. The early systems were fielded in the central United States during the summer of 1991. In March 1992, the review board concluded that the risks of proceeding with full system acceptance and commissioning during the summer of 1992 were small and manageable. Commissioning of NWS- sponsored ASOS units began in September 1992; FAA commissioning of units began in November 1993. Installations were completed in 2004.

Weather Data Processing and Information Display Col. William S. Barney, Federal Coordinator from 1981 to 1986, was an early advocate of interactive information processing systems for meteorology and related applications. During his prior Air Force Weather career, he led the effort to conceive, design, and implement the USAF Automated Weather Network, the first high-speed communication network linking centers for numerical weather data processing in Europe, Asia, and the United States. As Federal Coordinator, he was instrumental in organizing the first Federal Conference on Interactive Meteorological Processing, held at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center on November 1-3, 1983 (Doore 2000). This conference grew into what became the American Meteorological Society’s annual conferences on interactive information processing technologies (IIPS), now known as the Conference on Environmental Information Processing Technologies and one of the most heavily attended conferences each year.

As noted above, an AWIS Program Council, reporting to the FCMSSR, was established in 1986 in response to the DOC Inspector General’s 1985 recommendation for increased coordination of weather data processing systems across the FCMSSR agencies. The goals set for this program council were to (1) identify major items that needed coordination, (2) determine what commonalities existed across systems, and (3) produce a Federal plan for the coordination of AWIS programs. (OFCM 1996).

At that time, computer-based data processing systems were being used increasingly by multiple agencies to reduce the time and labor required to collect, process, and interpret weather data, reduce the time required to produce forecasts, warnings, and other products tailored to special audiences and constituencies, and distribute these products quickly to their respective user communities. In the late 1970s, NOAA/NWS began deploying the Automation of Field Operations and Services (AFOS) workstation as a computer-based tool for forecasters at the WSFOs. By the beginning of the MAR, AFOS was technologically obsolete and not worth upgrading (NRC, 2011, pg. 14).

3. Reinvigorating OFCM and Modernizing NWS 43

Typical AWIPS station in a NWS weather forecast office.

NOAA was working on the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System for the 1990s (AWIPS-90), but it was not yet operational. Meanwhile, the FAA had the Central Weather Processor

(CWP); the Air Force had the Automated Weather Distribution System (AWDS); and the Navy had the Naval Environmental Display Station (NEDS) (OFCM 1990, pp. 14-15, 25). Delays in the AWIPS program eventually led the other agencies to field their own systems to meet mission needs.

As the MAR began, the policy-level AWIS Program Council was joined by the Committee for AWIS, a standing committee of the ICMSSR that focused on resolving technical issues across the agencies. In 1990, it included a Working Group for Communications Interfaces and Data Exchange, a Working Group for AWIS Meteorological Applications, and a Working Group for NOAAPort Liaison (OFCM 1996).

The accelerating growth in the volume and complexity of meteorological information at this time was also stressing the existing information management systems for retrospective meteorological data. At the same time that Federal archive and data storage systems were being inundated with the output from higher-resolution atmospheric observing systems and improved graphic and alphanumeric communications, the demand was also growing for retrospective data to support operational and engineering studies, as well as research on global climate change and other topics. The resulting proliferation in Federal retrospective databases increased the potential for duplication and incompatibility among these data stores. To coordinate Federal data management activities across agencies, the ICMSSR established a Working Group for Meteorological Information Management. The plan prepared by this OFCM working group was released in July 1991 as the Federal Plan for Meteorological Information Management (OFCM 1991).

Upgrades to Meteorological Satellites Another ICMSSR standing committee, the Committee for Operational Environmental Satellites, provided an interagency forum for planning and discussing implementation progress of the MAR’s upgrades to the geostationary and polar-orbiting meteorological satellite systems (OFCM 1990, pp. 37-38). The geostationary satellites, which provided cloud and water vapor imagery starting in 1975, were upgraded to provide imagery and data at higher spatial and temporal resolution, which

44 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

improved shorter-range forecasts and warnings, including the ability to track tropical storm development far from the U.S. mainland. The new polar-orbiting satellites provided temperature and water vapor soundings with better vertical-profile resolution, as well as higher spatial resolution because of the satellites’ lower orbital altitude. They also provided observations of the polar regions not accessible to the instruments on the geostationary satellites. All these characteristics made the polar-orbiting system important for providing the data to improve longer-range forecasting with NWP models. (NRC, 2011, pp. 13-14).

NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES)

Hurricane Reconnaissance and the Improved Weather Reconnaissance Program Council

As described in chapter 2, joint NOAA-Air Force work on the Improved Weather Reconnaissance System (IWRS) began in 1979 with contracts for ADDS and a new dropsonde system. In 1983, a joint NOAA/Department of the Air Force program was established to improve the weather reconnaissance capability of the Air Force’s WC-130 aircraft.13 The OFCM was tasked to manage the project. The Improved Weather Reconnaissance (IWR) Program Council, chaired by the Federal Coordinator, was established with authority to (a) commit Departmental resources for the implementation of the IWRS; and (b) by unanimous agreement, resolve all issues that may arise in the design, construction, installation, calibration, and evaluation of the IWRS prototype and follow- on systems, with the provision that the OFCM would resolve conflicting opinions. The OFCM requested proposals for twelve operational IWR airborne systems and two ground stations. In 1990, the installation of the IWR equipment on 12 WC-130s was successfully completed, and the Air Force WC-130 fleet began providing substantially improved reconnaissance observations. NOAA was able to leverage an $8 million investment by the Air Force, which was managed by the OFCM, to obtain dramatically improved hurricane and winter storm reconnaissance data.

After the original IWRS installations were completed in 1990, the IWR Program Council continued to meet at least annually to evaluate the operational effectiveness of the installed systems and to

13 This collaboration was formalized in a Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Air Force and NOAA, dated January 18, 1983.

3. Reinvigorating OFCM and Modernizing NWS 45

By 1990, the Improved Weather Reconnaissance System (IWRS) program managed by OFCM had installed the upgraded system on 12 aircraft and dramatically improved both hurricane and winter storm reconnaissance data.

(U.S. Air Force photo)

evaluate and approve proposals for enhancements and upgrades. In the mid-1990s, two of the major upgrades for hurricane reconnaissance reviewed and approved by the IWR Program Council were a GPS-based Airborne Vertical Atmospheric Profiling System (AVAPS), which replaced the original dropwindsonde system, and the initial acquisition of a new version of the WC-130 aircraft used for hurricane reconnaissance. The IWR Program Council also approved and acquired funding for development, beginning in 1995, of a next-generation stepped frequency microwave radiometer (OFCM 1996). Acquisition and installation of the new AVAPS on the entire fleet of WC-130 aircraft was completed prior to the 1998 hurricane season. As part of the 1998-1999 restructuring of the OFCM coordinating infrastructure, the responsibilities of the IWR Program Council were assumed by the newly created Working Group for Hurricane and Winter Storm Operations and Research (OFCM 1999a).

National Aircraft Icing Technology Program

In 1984, at the suggestion of high-level DOD, FAA, and NASA officials, the OFCM established the National Aircraft Icing Program Council. This new program council was responsible for developing and maintaining a technology plan and for providing policy guidance for its execution. In 1986, the program council’s Working Group for Aircraft Icing published an initial plan, the National Aircraft Icing Technology Plan (OFCM 1986a), which pursued two objectives: (1) improving aircraft icing technologies for the current generation of aircraft and (2) promoting advances in aircraft icing technology that would be needed by 1995 to meet national aeronautical goals for new generations of aircraft. The plan also presented a comprehensive list of aircraft icing research needs and objectives, described efforts currently underway, and proposed areas of need.

One section of the technology plan, Detecting, Monitoring, and Forecasting, was addressed in detail in the National Plan to Improve Aircraft Icing Forecasts (OFCM 1986b), which was prepared by the OFCM- sponsored Ad Hoc Group for Aircraft Icing Forecasts. The objective of this preliminary effort was to identify the latest technology and equipment for reducing the research risks and program cost and to provide the Federal government the capability to make improved forecasts of aircraft icing by 1996. In 1989, the OFCM provided funding to the National Center for Atmospheric Research to develop a research strategy to implement the plan for icing forecasts. Subsequently, the FAA established a six-year funding schedule beginning in FY 1990 to achieve the goals set forth in the plan. By the end of the decade, inflight icing had become one of the eight service areas addressed by

46 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

the National Aviation Weather Program, with 15 defined initiatives for R&D and implementation (OFCM 1999a, chapter 7).

Early Years of the National Aviation Weather Program Council

In 1989, the FCMSSR requested that the OFCM prepare an integrated multi-agency plan to cover aviation weather services for the next decade. In response to this request, the Federal Coordinator formed the National Aviation Weather Program Council (NAW/PC) to guide the plan’s development. A joint action group was formed in 1990 to support the NAW/PC and develop the plan. This program council initially consisted of representatives from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and Transportation, plus members from NASA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). In 1992, the OFCM published the National Aviation Weather Program Plan (FCM-P27-1992), which developed lists of user needs for various categories of users. These needs were based on information drawn from regulations, workshops, reports and studies, and a survey of users conducted by the FAA (OFCM 1992: Foreword, Section 2, and Appendix D). Unmet user needs—those needs not being met by the current service or system capabilities—were identified and evaluated for seven categories (OFCM 1992, Sections 4 and 5): • Surface and terminal observations (8 unmet needs) • Surface and terminal forecasts (8 unmet needs) • Upper air and en route reports (7 unmet needs) • Upper air and en route forecasts (5 unmet needs) • Automation (1 unmet need) • Information access and dissemination (9 unmet needs) • User education (1 unmet need)

The Program Plan included recommendations and initial action plans for addressing the highest priority unmet needs. The participating Federal agencies were expected to prepare detailed action plans to “fund, develop, schedule, and field the changes needed” to address these needs (OFCM 1992: pg. 7-1). This was the first attempt to develop an integrated, interagency plan to ensure that the aviation weather system evolved to meet the operational needs of National Airspace System users and the future air traffic control system.

In 1994, the FAA asked the National Research Council to form a committee to examine institutional issues that affect the provision of national aviation weather services and related research and technology development efforts. The committee’s report, Aviation Weather Services—A Call for Federal Leadership and Action, concluded that:

… federal responsibilities for ensuring aviation safety and efficiency and for providing aviation weather services are properly defined in existing legislation. Furthermore, the primary impediment to improving aviation weather services is not a lack of understanding regarding the types of services that users need or the areas of research that are needed to provide these services. Rather, there is a lack of consensus and cooperation among the government agencies, private weather services, research organization, and user groups involved in aviation weather. Together, they have the

3. Reinvigorating OFCM and Modernizing NWS 47

resources to significantly improve aviation weather services, if only they act in a concerted effort so that their individual actions are mutually reinforcing. (NRC 1995, pg. 1)

This committee perceived a lack of coordination on provision of aviation weather services between the FAA and NOAA/NWS and noted that OMB had canceled Circular A-62 in June 1994, “apparently without notifying or receiving the concurrence of affected federal agencies and without issuing new guidance in its place.” It noted the OFCM’s mission to provide systematic coordination and promote cooperation among Federal agencies, but it also emphasized that the Federal Coordinator had to rely on voluntary cooperation among the agencies (NRC 1995, pg. 16). With respect to aviation weather R&D, the committee recommended that the FAA take the lead in implementing the recommendation in the National Aviation Program Plan to develop an interagency plan for R&D that would accomplish four goals: • Encourage greater interagency coordination of R&D • Accelerate the transfer of R&D technology to operational use • Define needs for aviation weather observations, forecasting, dissemination, and preparation of weather products • Define the responsibilities of individual agencies for conducting R&D projects that fulfill these needs (NRC, 1995, pg. 54)

At this time, the NAW/PC was chaired by the Federal Coordinator (Julian Wright), with members from the FAA, NOAA/NWS, DOD, Department of Agriculture, NASA, and NTSB. In response to the challenge set down by the 1995 NRC report and with the support of the FAA, the NAW/PC chartered a Joint Action Group for Aviation Weather, comprising 15 members drawn from these same six agencies/departments and the OFCM, to develop a National Aviation Weather Program Strategic Plan (OFCM 1997b). Three months before the Strategic Plan was published in April 1997, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security recommended a national goal for government and industry to reduce the rate of fatal aviation accidents from all causes, including weather-related accidents, by a factor of five (an 80 percent reduction) within 10 years. Although this 80 percent reduction goal was not specifically cited in the Strategic Plan, it did state that the aviation

National Aviation Weather Program Strategic Plan, April 1997

Four strategic elements: • Provide improved aviation weather information • Enhance the ability of decision makers to use the information • Facilitate improvements by forging the required institutional arrangements • Direct and utilize research related to aviation weather

48 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

weather program could achieve the goal of accident reduction by focusing on four broad tasks, called the strategic elements of the plan.

In February 1999, the NAW/PC approved and released National Aviation Weather Initiatives (OFCM 1999b), which cited the 80 percent fatal accident rate reduction challenge and acknowledged the responsibility of the aviation weather community to contribute toward achieving this national goal. The FAA and NASA also included the 80 percent reduction challenge in their strategic plans. To the four strategic elements defined in the Strategic Plan, a fifth was added: “Improve the capabilities of aircraft to fly safely and efficiently in all types of weather.” To make its discussion of initiatives to improve aviation weather services more concrete, eight specific service areas were defined, with a list of initiatives, including the agencies cooperating in each initiative, identified for each service area.

National Aviation Weather Initiatives, February 1999

86 initiatives organized in the following service areas: • Ceiling and visibility • Convective hazards • En route winds and temperatures • Ground deicing • In-flight icing • Terminal winds and temperatures • Turbulence • Volcanic ash and other airborne hazardous materials

These first three documents produced by the NAW/PC or its Joint Action Group for Aviation Weather were the initial steps in a process, coordinated by the OFCM, to lead an ongoing multiagency effort to improve aviation weather services for all sectors of the aviation community through both collaborative R&D and the implementation of those results in aviation operations. The story of the NAW/PC continues in chapter 4.

Lightning Detection Networks

A 2008 article on the history of the National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN), by one of the pioneers in lightning detection systems, traces the technological capability for lightning detection and location to the invention of the magnetic lightning-stroke direction finder by Krider and colleagues (1976). This article recounts the subsequent installation of networks of these direction finders in different portions of the United States. An early network established by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grew to cover much of the West and Alaska, as the value of lightning detection for wildfire applications was demonstrated. By 1979, the value of lightning ground strike data for tracking severe convective storms was established and the data were being combined with satellite (cloud cover) and radar data (Orville 2008).

In 1983, the DOC Office of the Inspector General issued a management audit report that highlighted the significant threat of lightning to life and property and the need to improve severe weather forecasting. The report stated that a number of agencies were active in programs directed toward lightning detection and encouraged the DOC to determine what action was needed to

3. Reinvigorating OFCM and Modernizing NWS 49

improve the Nation’s lightning detection program. Subsequently, the DOC member of ICMSSR requested that the OFCM undertake a study to document the Federal agencies’ interest in lightning detection, including existing and planned programs. This study, completed in 1985, revealed that a number of systems, owned and managed by different entities in different parts of the Nation, already existed for detecting and tracking cloud-to-ground lightning. These systems were organized in networks operated by various Federal agencies, universities, and private industry (OFCM 1990, pp. 24-25).

By late 1986, the technology pioneers and early adopters had established the feasibility of operating a large lightning detection network, with data from multiple direction finders integrated at a central operations center (Orville 2008). The OFCM gained support from DOC, DOD, and DOT for an experiment by the State University of New York at Albany (SUNYA) to demonstrate the usefulness of a national lightning detection network. The experiment took advantage of three existing lightning detection networks, which together cover most of the United States. These networks were operated by the Bureau of Land Management in the western United States, NSSL in the central United States, and SUNYA along the East Coast from Maine to Florida. The SUNYA detection systems were owned by the Electric Power Research Institute, and the interagency activity was coordinated through the OFCM-sponsored Working Group for Lightning Detection Systems (OFCM 1990. pg. 25). The OFCM approved the demonstration project in March 1987, and by July of that year the four networks had been joined into a single lightning detection and reporting network covering 75% of the continental United States. During this period, introduction of two-way satellite data links between the direction finder sites and the operations center provided critical affordability for a continuing nationwide system. In 1989, complete coverage of the continental United States was achieved, and the NLDN objective became a reality.

In 1990, the NLDN was transitioned from an academic R&D program to a In 1989, complete coverage of the commercial enterprise continental United States was owned and operated by achieved and the NLDN objective Vaisala, Inc. (Orville became a reality. 2008). The Working

Group for Lightning Detection Systems compiled agency requirements for lightning detection and developed a set of standards for lightning detection systems. These documents formed the foundation for NOAA/NWS to procure operational lightning data from Vaisala (OFCM 1996).

In 1993, the NLDN Network Control Center was moved to its current location in Tucson, Arizona. The contractor for the NLDN and the Electric Power Research Institute collaborated on a major system upgrade in 1995 that replaced the original direction finders, which required a small trailer and a sensor tower, with the compact IMPACT sensor, which combined time-of-arrival and magnetic direction finding (Orville 2008; Vaisala 2011). During the latter half of the 1990s, commercial uses of the NLDN data proliferated, as users in the electric power, insurance, meteorological, and other commercial sectors developed application-specific software to use the more-accurate location data. In 1998, the Canadian Lightning Detection Network, owned by Environment Canada, was completed. The NLDN Network Control Center was used to operate this system as well, and data

50 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

from the two networks became known as the North American Lightning Detection Network (NALDN) (Vaisala 2011).

The National Space Weather Program

On March 13, 1989, fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetosphere caused by the arrival of a “solar storm” of charged particles emitted from the Sun, induced large electrical power surges in the high voltage lines of the Hydro-Quebec power company, which provides the electrical power for the entire Canadian province of Quebec. In just 90 seconds, the power surges had shut down the entire Quebec grid—the most spectacular and costly event that, up to that time, had been unequivocally traced to a solar storm (OFCM 1995a, pg. 4). In January 1994, enhanced fluxes in the solar wind of energetic electrons caused loss of attitude control in three communications satellites in geosynchronous orbits (OFCM 1995a, pg. 6). These adverse space weather events and other observations of actual and potential effects of solar storms on man-made systems provided the impetus for initiating an OFCM-coordinated program to address the Nation’s vulnerabilities to space weather.14

As early as 1990, the ICMSSR had a standing Committee for Space Environment Forecasting (see Figure 4, above). Space environmental support services were at that time provided by NOAA’s Space Environment Center (now the Space Weather Prediction Center) and the 50th Weather Squadron at Falcon Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Beginning in 1993, a series of workshops and meetings on space weather hazards and how to avoid or at least mitigate the risks they posed, attended by representatives of the military, commercial, and research communities, culminated in the chartering of a formal working group of the Committee for Space Environment Forecasting, called the Working Group for the National Space Weather Program (WG/NSWP). Using input from the users of space weather observations and predictions, operational space weather forecasters, researchers and modelers, and experts in related technological fields such as instruments, communications, data processing, and analysis, the WG/NSWP drafted a Strategic Plan for a National Space Weather Program (NSWP), which had the overarching goal of achieving “an active, synergistic, interagency system to provide timely, accurate, and reliable space environmental observations, specifications [nowcasts], and forecasts within the next 10 years” (OFCM 1995a, pg. 4; OFCM 2000c).15 The vehicle to implement and manage the NSWP was a new program council reporting to the FCMSSR and the FCM, the National Space Weather Program Council (NSWPC).

14 For examples of damage caused by more recent space weather events and a detailed discussion of space weather impacts on society, see Appendix A in the 2010 edition of the National Space Weather Program Strategic Plan (OFCM, 2010). 15 The 1995 NSWP Strategic Plan defined a space weather specification or nowcast as “the fusion of all available observations into a coherent and realistic representation of the state of the space environment at the time of the observations” (OFCM 1995, pg. 10).

3. Reinvigorating OFCM and Modernizing NWS 51

The National Space Weather Program Strategic Plan, August 1995

Strategic elements:

• Improving forecasting and specification through better data collection, data processing, and information dissemination • Research on the Sun, the solar wind and interplanetary medium, the Earth’s magnetosphere, the ionosphere, and the upper atmosphere • Observations • Model development • Education

In April 1996, the National Science Foundation issued a Request for Proposals for research to support the NSWP. The announcement generated strong interest in the research community, and 23 proposals were funded, for a total of $1.3 million, with multiple agencies contributing (OFCM 1996).

The NSWPC approved an initial NSWP Implementation Plan in January 1997 and recommended consolidating the Committee for Space Environmental Forecasting and the WG/NSWP as a new Committee for Space Weather reporting to the NSWPC (OFCM 1998a, Appendix A, pg. A-3). In 1998, the new Committee for Space Weather began developing an updated and expanded implementation plan, which was released in 2000 (OFCM 2000c). The National Space Weather Program story continues in chapter 4.

52 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

4. NEW CHALLENGES FOR A NEW CENTURY

This chapter recounts the recent history of OFCM activities and accomplishments from 1998, when Samuel P. Williamson became Federal Coordinator, through the present. During this period, the NWS modernization and associated restructuring (MAR) was completed, and the service areas under which the OFCM’s activities are organized continued to expand. The focus of the Federal weather enterprise increasingly shifted toward identifying and assessing user needs for a broad range of user communities, and the OFCM has sought the most efficient and effective collaborative structure, including public-private partnerships, to meet those needs. During this period, meeting validated user needs and improving products and services delivered to diverse, specialized user communities, as well as the American public at large has built upon the results of the ground-breaking R&D in the 1960s and 1970s and the infusion of new technology into systems and infrastructure in the 1980s and 1990s.

OFCM Looks to the Future

Mr. Williamson became Federal Coordinator in March 1998, succeeding Julian M. Wright. In June, the OFCM was transferred administratively from reporting to the Director of the National Weather Service to reporting directly to Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the NOAA Administrator. The new FCM proposed to Dr. Baker, who was also chair of the FCMSSR, a plan for an all-agency review by OFCM, covering all the Federal agencies represented on the FCMSSR, to identify priority areas, issues, and problems within each agency and probe for suggestions on additional ways to improve the effectiveness of interagency coordination and cooperation. The responses would be consolidated into four crosscutting areas: environmental services; environmental monitoring and prediction; technology innovation; and computing, communications, and information (Williamson 1998). The action plan that resulted from this all- agency review, titled “OFCM’s Look to the Future,” was first briefed to Dr. Baker, who as FCMSSR chair requested its presentation to the ICMSSR in July 1998 and to the FCMSSR in September 1998.16

Mr. Williamson’s “Look to the Future” plan for the OFCM included the following focus areas for Federal agency involvement in environmental services: • Natural hazards (including hurricane tracking and forecasting, severe convective storms and tornadoes, and other extreme weather events) • Space weather (in particular, continuation of the National Space Weather Program (NSWP) and other activities of the National Space Weather Program Council (NSWPC) and its Committee for Space Weather. • Transportation weather (which subsequently became weather information for surface transportation, or WIST • Aviation weather (continuation of activities under the National Aviation Weather Program Council (NAWPC)

16 Dr. Baker also encouraged the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to join the FCMSSR, which it did in 1999.

53 54 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

• Urban meteorology and air quality (including atmospheric transport and diffusion modeling [ATD] modeling and prediction) • Water resources management • Agricultural weather • Fire weather (weather observations and predictions to assess the risk of wildland fires and support wildland fire suppression and management) • Marine weather (warnings and forecasts) • Climate, including climate modeling and services • Hydrology • Man-made hazards (such as the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 and toxic material spills)

For environmental monitoring and prediction, the action plan highlighted the following priorities: • Develop an integrated weather and climate observing system, to include satellite, upper air, and surface observing systems, as well as observing systems for hydrology and the marine environment (oceans and coastal environments). • Refine ocean observation needs for both the littoral and deep ocean. • Transition technology from R&D status to operational systems (e.g., wind profilers and new satellite-based observing technologies). • Observe and monitor global climate change and assess the impact on climate and climate services; develop long-term datasets for climate modeling and assessment.

Under the heading of “Technology Innovation,” the following focus areas were proposed: • Further evolve (i.e., introduce technology upgrades and “new generation” capabilities) the key NWS systems from the MAR; namely, NEXRAD, ASOS, and AWIPS. • Explore new technologies and strategies for meteorological services, such as adaptive observing strategies, an integrated mesoscale observing system (integrating existing and planned local/regional observing networks), future satellite-based sensors, and future marine/ocean sensors. The “Look to the Future” proposed the following OFCM topic areas in computing, communications, and information:

• Contribute to U.S. and international radio spectrum policies as they apply to frequency bands used for meteorological communications. • Capitalize on the Federal high performance computing and communications initiative to improve meteorological/climatological data assimilation, data handling and archiving, climate modeling and assessment, and coupled ocean-atmosphere models.

4. New Challenges for a New Century 55

• Ensure that the “Y2K” problem with legacy computer codes (mostly older COBOL programs that may not have been coded to distinguish four-digit years—for example, the year 1906 from 2006) did not affect essential meteorological services and products. • Explore both state-of-the-art and emerging future information dissemination technologies to improve delivery of Federal meteorological products and services to key decision-makers (particularly emergency managers at the Federal, State, and local levels) and to ensure the public is properly informed. Finally, Mr. Williamson reported that the all-agency review had both acknowledged the necessary role OFCM played in interagency coordination and cooperation and indicated a need to streamline the coordinating process. The guiding principle he derived from agency comments was that the FCM The first challenge of the new century – and the FCMSSR should aim to “address the most the Y2K computer problem… important crosscutting issues and support those The FCM formed an interagency Special initiatives where the end value has a clear societal Action Group to develop a test plan to benefit.” detect potential Y2K coding problems in operational software systems and to To address immediately the suggestions to conduct end-to-end testing of all key streamline the coordination process, the OFCM software systems that were handling coordination structure of policy-oriented program meteorological data. In addition to the councils reporting directly to the FCMSSR and Special Action Group members (NOAA, committees, working groups, and joint action groups Navy, Air Force, and FAA), Canada, various reporting through the ICMSSR on program national laboratories, and private sector implementation plans and actions was simplified, as entities participated in the testing. All shown in Figure 5. Both the ICMSSR and the tests were completed successfully, and the FCMSSR approved this structure, and the new FCM tested systems experienced no moved to implement it and move forward with the subsequent Y2K-related problems (OFCM focus areas of the “Look to the Future” plan as 1999a, pg. 130). approved by them (OFCM 1998b).

National Aviation Weather Program

As noted in chapter 3, the Federal Coordinator established the National Aviation Weather Program Council (NAW/PC) in 1989 in response to a FCMSSR request for an integrated multi-agency plan for aviation weather services for the next decade. In 1992, the National Aviation Weather Program Plan was published, listing user needs in seven categories (OFCM 1992). Two years later, the National Research Council (NRC) report Aviation Weather Services—A Call for Federal Leadership and Action lauded the goals set forth in this plan and its extensive effort to identify user needs, but the authoring committee criticized the “lack of consensus and cooperation among the government agencies, private weather services, research organizations, and user groups involved in aviation weather” (NRC 1995, p. 1). Spurred by this report, the NAW/PC chartered the Joint Action Group for Aviation Weather (JAG/AW) to produce a plan to implement the goals of the Program Plan and the recommendations of the NRC report. The JAG/AW first developed the National Aviation Weather Program Strategic Plan (OFCM 1997b), released in April 1997, followed in February 1999 by the National Aviation Weather Initiatives (OFCM 1999b). As explained in chapter 3, these two documents, particularly the Initiatives, also responded to a challenge from the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security to reduce the rate of fatal aviation accidents by 80 percent within a decade (i.e., by 2007).

56 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Figure 5. Federal Meteorological Coordinating Infrastructure in 1999, after the Look to the Future reorganization. Source: OFCM 1999a, inside back cover.

With the Strategic Plan as Tier 1 and the Initiatives as Tier 2 of a four-tier integrated multi-agency planning process for aviation weather services, the NAW/PC oversaw the agencies’ coordinated efforts on Tier 3, Service Design, and Tier 4, Budgets and Schedules. To aid in this stage of the process, the OFCM and FAA cosponsored a user forum in July 2000 to bring together key government agency representatives with a cross-section of aviation professionals engaged in commercial, business, and general aviation. The theme of the forum was “Aviation Weather: Opportunities for Implementation,” and a proceedings volume with abstracts from the presentations was published in September 2000 (OFCM 2000a). The forum provided opportunities for open dialogue among Federal program managers and both the users and providers of aviation weather information.

The July 2000 Aviation Weather Forum also played a significant role in completing the National Aviation Weather Initiatives Tier 3 (Service Design)/Tier 4 (Budgets and Schedules) Baseline Report, which was issued in April 2001. This report was the first detailed, cross-agency assessment of how the various agency programs aligned with the 86 aviation weather improvement initiatives identified in the

4. New Challenges for a New Century 57

Initiatives document. At that time, 53 of the initiatives were being addressed by programs and projects in multiple agencies, 23 initiatives had one agency with one or more programs or projects, and 10 initiatives were deemed to have no agency programs or projects aligned with them. In December 2003, the OFCM published its second compilation of aviation weather programs and projects as an update to the Tier 3/Tier 4 Baseline (OFCM 2003a). The OFCM staff identified 140 programs or projects relevant to the 86 aviation weather initiatives—nearly a 60 percent increase from the first baseline report. Only five initiatives had no programs or projects addressing them, and only one of the five was a higher-priority initiative.

Beginning with the 1992 National Aviation Weather Program Plan and continuing through the subsequent reports on the Tier 1 through Tier 4 planning process, training and education of aviation weather users on current and emerging technology and services was consistently identified as a high priority need. In April 2002, the OFCM released a report on the extent to which user training was being fully integrated into the programs and projects identified in the Tier 3/4 Final Baseline Report (OFCM 2002a). After gathering more detailed information on training associated with the Tier 3/4 programs and projects, the JAG/AW and supporting OFCM staff analyzed the degree to which these programs/projects considered training to be an integral part of development and implementation, and the types of training methods being employed. The report also re-evaluated the five training-related service initiatives and concluded that there was training available or being developed for each of those initiatives (OFCM 2002a, pg. viii).

As previously noted, the NAW/PC applied to weather-related aviation accidents a challenge put forward in 1997 by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security to reduce the rate of fatal aviation accidents by 80 percent within a decade. Once National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) data on aviation accidents were available for analysis for the first 5 years of this initiative (1997 through 2001), the OFCM released a Mid-Course Assessment of progress toward meeting the accident reduction goal for weather-related aviation accidents (OFCM 2003b). The assessment found that overall, weather-related fatal aviation accidents had decreased from an average of 112 per year during the base years of 1994-1996 to just 45 fatal accidents in 2001. The assessment also included analysis of trends in total (fatal and nonfatal) weather-related accidents in each of the three sector categories used by the NTSB accident database: major air carriers (regulated under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations), smaller aircraft in revenue service (Part 135), and general aviation (Part 91). The fatal accident and total accident data in each aviation sector were also analyzed by nine weather hazard categories, such as Restricted Visibility and Ceiling Hazards, Turbulence and Convection Hazards, and Icing Hazards. These sub-analyses identified problem weather hazard categories in each aviation sector where relatively more accidents were occurring and there was not yet a strong downward trend in accident rate. The Portfolio Analysis portion of the Mid-Course Assessment related these targeted areas for improvement to the cross-agency portfolio of aviation weather programs and projects that had been identified for the 2003 Tier 3/4 update (OFCM 2003a), highlighting programs and projects that were likely to help mitigate specific problem areas.

During the decade of the accident rate reduction initiative, more than one hundred programs or projects were in progress or undertaken by Federal agencies or other partners (industry, academia, etc.) to improve the effectiveness of weather support to aviation and pilot use of available information. The weather-related accident rates during the decade are documented in the National Aviation Weather Program 10-Year Accident Reduction Initiative, Final Report (OFCM 2010a). While the goal of reducing weather-related accidents (fatal or otherwise) by 80 percent was not reached,

58 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

weather-related accident trends pointed downward during the decade from 1997 to 2006 and the reduction in weather-related accidents for this period was greater than the reduction for accidents from all causes. Part 91(general aviation) accident rates decreased 33 percent; Part 121(larger commercial carriers) accident rates decreased 30 percent; and Part 135 (small airlines and charters, air taxi, etc.) accident rates decreased 23 percent (OFCM 2010a). See Figure 6.

Contributing to these trends in weather-related aviation accidents, there was substantial progress in coordination and collaboration activities fostered through the NAW/PC. Through a partnership led by NASA with FAA, DOD, and the aviation industry, NASA’s Aviation Safety Program and the FAA’s Aviation Weather Technology Transition program produced R&D results that were successfully transitioned into improved products and services from the NOAA/NWS Aviation Weather Center, particularly in the areas of icing and turbulence.

Accident Rate Reduction: 1997 - 2006

Figure 6. Weather-related accident rate reduction during the decade 1997 to 2006 by type of aviation operation: Part 91, general aviation; Part 135, smaller aircraft in revenue service; and Part 121, airlines. N/A indicates not applicable—there were no fatal Part 121 accidents during the period. National Space Weather Program

As discussed in chapter 3, the National Space Weather Program Council (NSWPC) was formed in 1994 to implement and manage the National Space Weather Program (NSWP), which had been recommended in the 1995 strategic plan (OFCM 1995a). The 1998 consolidation of the OFCM coordination structure carried out the 1997 recommendation by the NSPWC to consolidate the Committee for Space Environmental Forecasting and the Working Group for the NSWP into a single Committee for Space Weather working under the Program Council’s oversight, as shown in Figure 5, above (OFCM 1997, chapter 7).

4. New Challenges for a New Century 59

The National Space Weather Program Implementation Plan, Second Edition, integrated the results and recommendations of DOD’s Space Weather Architecture Transition Plan and provided detailed guidance and information on goals, timelines, research requirements, agency participation, and program management. The plan also specified goals for capabilities needed in 14 space weather domains and specific metrics for progress toward meeting those goals.

In July 2000, the NSWPC approved for release a second edition of the Implementation Plan, which the Committee for Space Weather had been developing concurrently with work by the National Security Space Architect on a Space Weather Architecture Study. This updated NSWP Implementation Plan integrated the results and recommendations of the Space Weather Architecture Transition Plan (DOD 2000) into the NSWP. It also reviewed progress made since the Strategic Plan and provided detailed guidance and information on goals, timelines, research requirements, agency participation, and program management (OFCM 2000c). An addition in this Implementation Plan was the specification of goals for capabilities needed in 14 space weather domains and specific metrics for progress toward meeting those goals (OFCM 2000c, chapter 2). Throughout the first half of the decade, the Committee for Space Weather worked to execute the implementation plan to achieve the program’s strategic goals.

During FY 2005, the FCMSSR concurred with an ICMSSR recommendation to have the OFCM undertake a comprehensive review of the NSWP in order to quantify progress toward meeting the program’s goals and moving in the directions defined by the previous plans, particularly the Implementation Plan, Second Edition. The review would also assess whether the NSWP goals needed adjustment in light of emerging and evolving requirements and user needs. To perform this review and assessment, the Federal Coordinator convened a committee of six individuals, led by Dr. Louis Lanzerotti of the New Jersey Institute of Technology, with expertise encompassing both the science and applications aspects of space weather. This Assessment Committee reported its findings and recommendations in June 2006 (OFCM 2006a). While lauding the NSWP participating agencies for “a number of noteworthy achievements,” the Assessment Committee made specific recommendations aimed to address shortfalls in the Nation’s space weather capability in four key Report of the Assessment Committee provided recommendations in four areas: • Centralizing program management, setting national funding priorities, and increasing the effectiveness of the NSWP • Ensuring the continuity of data sources critical to space weather forecasts and operations • Strengthening the science-to-user chain (transition of research results to operational products and services for end users) • Increasing awareness by the general public and by users of space weather products and services of the importance of space weather for critical national needs

60 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research areas: program management and funding; continuity of data; the science-to-user chain; and increased awareness.

The recommendation to strengthen the science-to-user chain led the committee to recommend transferring the Space Environment Center from NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to a more operations-oriented role in NCEP, where it was renamed the Space Weather Prediction Center and supported NWS director D.L. Johnson’s initiative to mainstream space weather activities.

In 2010, the Committee for Space Weather drew upon the Assessment Committee’s recommendations, the input from numerous Space Weather Enterprise Forums,17 and the legacy of 15 years of progress in the national space weather enterprise to publish an update to the NSWP Strategic Plan (OFCM 2010b) elucidating five goals for the coming decade.

Also in 2010, the CENR’s Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (SDR) issued the Space Weather Implementation Plan as part of the portfolio of hazard areas in Grand Challenges in Disaster Reduction. The SDR published the Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction in 2005 and updated it in 2008 after extensive work in collaboration with scientists and engineers worldwide. The 10-year strategy document presents six grand challenges and provides a framework for prioritizing the related Federal investments in science and technology across 15 different hazards, now including space weather.

In the three years since the new NWSP Strategic Plan was approved by the NSWPC and released by the OFCM, the Committee for Space Weather and the NSWPC have continued to work on meeting those goals, including continuing space weather research, implementing new space weather prediction models, hosting Space Weather Enterprise Forums, and enhancing international cooperation.

A Space Environmental Monitoring Crisis Averted From the early years of polar-orbiting satellites, their principal civilian meteorological role has been to provide global data for input to synoptic-scale numerical weather prediction models such as those run by NCEP. However, starting with NOAA-2 in October 1972, the NOAA series of satellites

17 Starting in 2009, the OFCM has sponsored an annual Space Weather Enterprise Forum (SWEF) to bring together space weather experts and users of products and services. For more information on SWEF, see http://www.ofcm.gov/swef/swef.htm. The 2007 and 2008 SWEFs were organized by the Space Weather Prediction Center as a Washington, DC, based extension of their annual Space Weather Workshop in Boulder, CO.

4. New Challenges for a New Century 61

included an instrument to monitor solar protons, as part of NOAA’s space weather observation and warning mission (NRC 1997, pp. 9-13).

In 1994, the National Performance Review under the Clinton Administration began an effort to combine the future operational polar-orbiting satellite systems of NOAA and the DOD with NASA’s research-oriented Earth Observing System into a single program, called the National Polar- orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, or NPOESS (Brinton 2010). The ambitious design for this new generation of polar orbiting satellites included an advanced space environmental sensor suite intended to substantially improve space weather prediction and warning capability, as well as contributing to research on how solar storms affect Earth systems (OFCM 2008). The first NPOESS satellite was originally expected to launch in 2008 (NRC 1997, p. 34), but the program was beset with problems that delayed schedules and led to cost overruns (Brinton 2010).

In 2005, the NPOESS cost overruns triggered an acquisition program review mandated under the Nunn-McCurdy Amendment to the Defense Authorization Act of 1982. In 2006, Congress forced restructuring of the NPOESS program to cut costs, and part of the restructuring included deletion of space weather monitoring capabilities planned for the new NPOESS satellites. At the same time, the space weather community was concerned about the lack of a replacement for NASA’s aging Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft, which is the only observation post for timely advance warning of solar wind disturbances approaching Earth. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) requested that the OFCM conduct an analysis of the impact the NPOESS restructuring would have on the Nation’s ability to warn of a major solar storm and the impacts if the ACE capabilities were no longer available. In response to this request, the FCM formed the interagency Joint Action Group for Space Environmental Sensors (JAG/SES), whose members came from the Federal space weather operations and research communities.

The JAG/SES report, Impacts of NPOESS Nunn-McCurdy Certification and Potential Loss of ACE Spacecraft Solar Wind Data Congress approved NOAA’s on National Space Environmental Monitoring Capabilities (OFCM first new space mission since 2008), completed phase one of the OSTP request. To the start of geostationary complete phase two, the OFCM formed the Committee for weather satellites in the 1970s. Space Environmental Sensor Mitigation Options (CSESMO) to assess alternatives to mitigate the impacts detailed in the JAG/SES report. The CSESMO was cochaired by Mary Kicza, NOAA Assistant Administrator and head of the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) and Col. Stephen Butler from Air Force Space Command. The CSESMO produced three reports, developed by three JAGs composed of 75 interagency Federal personnel from 19 organizations. The reports were approved by the National Space Weather Program Council and sent to OSTP who used the reports to help shape policy and budget decisions affecting the FY 2010, 2011, and 2012 President's Budgets. The CSESMO reports provide strong interagency support for an approach to ensure the continuity of solar wind measurements by immediately refurbishing and launching the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) spacecraft and pursuing a follow-on, long-term solution for the critical solar wind measurements.

With the reports providing the foundation of Administration policy, Congress eventually approved NOAA's first new space mission since the initiation of geostationary weather satellites in the 1970s. NOAA is providing funding to NASA to refurbish the DSCOVR spacecraft as a space weather

62 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

mission in time for a 2015 launch. The U.S. Air Force requested and received funding for the DSCOVR launch vehicle and launch costs.

In related work echoing the work of the pre-NPOESS OFCM Committee for Operational Environmental Satellites, Michael Bonadonna, an OFCM Senior Staff Meteorologist, led the interagency transition team that drafted NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Level 1 Requirements Document (L1RD). NOAA established the JPSS program to address civil needs after the NPOESS program cancellation and included ground system support for the Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS) in the program.18 The JPSS L1RD was signed on September 22, 2011.

National Operational Processing Centers

The purpose of the Program Council for National Operational Processing Centers (NOPC) is to satisfy national operational environmental analysis and prediction requirements efficiently through the Federal Government’s operational processing centers (OPCs). The OPCs are NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service Office of Satellite Data Processing and Distribution and the National Weather Service National Centers for Environmental Prediction; the Air Force Weather Agency; and the Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center and Naval Oceanographic Office. Aligned under the NOPC is the Committee for Operational Processing Centers (COPC) and, anticipated by the end of 2013, a reestablished Committee for Operational Environmental Satellites (COES). The need for a new committee has emerged from the expanding list of satellite-related issues the COPC has been addressing in recent years as the impending flood of additional data from the next generation of satellites nears. The next section details activities of the COPC.

Committee for Operational Processing Centers (COPC) The Committee for Operational Processing Centers (COPC), a committee reporting to the National Operational Processing Centers Program Council (NOPC), is co-chaired by the directors of the NOAA, Air Force, and Navy meteorology, oceanography, and satellite operational processing centers. COPC has developed and pursued a dynamic vision to facilitate cooperation among the centers regarding numerical weather prediction, data sharing, and mutual support and backup.

The COPC’s mutual support and backup arrangements for the operational processing centers are designed to prevent the loss or serious degradation of essential services from any one center due to a system outage or failure. In late 1999, for example, NOAA benefited from this robust program when the Navy and Air Force centers provided timely assistance during supercomputer outages at NCEP.19 Additionally, the Air Force Weather Agency has agreements and routinely exercises the capability to back up the Space Weather Prediction, Storm Prediction, and Aviation Weather Prediction Centers as well as the Washington Volcanic Ash Advisory Center during NOAA outages.

Through the COPC, the operational processing centers established a cooperative framework for data sharing through the Environmental Satellite Data Annex (ESDA) to the Data Acquisition, Processing, and Exchange (DAPE) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The ESDA is structured

18 The DOD subsequently canceled the DWSS program and was conducting an analysis of alternatives in 2012 and 2013. 19Letter from RADM Richard D. West, Oceanographer of the Navy, to Samuel P. Williamson, FCM, NOAA, March 27, 2000; Letter from Dr. Fred P. Lewis, Director of Weather U.S Air Force, to Samuel P. Williamson, FCM, NOAA, August 31, 2009).

4. New Challenges for a New Century 63

to identify and implement the most efficient and cost-effective means of sharing environmental satellite data and products. The DOD centers contribute annually to the costs for shared hardware, software, and human resources needed to maintain, document, and facilitate the exchange of scientific data, products, and related information.

To deal with increased information security issues and bandwidth needs regarding the exchange of information between the NOAA and DOD centers, the communications working group under the COPC pursued the development of a weather enterprise network. The Air Force provided funding for the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to design and establish a gateway between the DOD and NOAA centers and DISA’s investment in developing the NIPRNet Federated Gateway will be leveraged by the NOAA and DOD operating centers to exchange data in a more secure and efficient process.

Multifunction Phased-Array Radar

All current civilian radar systems for weather surveillance and aircraft surveillance use a rotating antenna. The transmitted beam is shaped and directed by the antenna’s reflective surface. The continuous physical rotation of the antenna around a vertical axis causes this beam to sweep a volume of space surrounding the radar unit. In a phased array radar, by contrast, the beam emanates from a stationary surface and is shaped and steered electronically; there is no rotating antenna. This capability to form and steer a radar beam permits multiple radar functions to be performed with the same radar unit: a multifunction phased array radar, or MPAR. Phased array radar technology has been used operationally by the U.S. military since the 1970s. For civilian aircraft and weather surveillance, MPAR can greatly improve capability while reducing life-cycle costs because multiple radar applications can be performed with the same radar unit (OFCM 2006b, pg. ix).

In 2000, the U.S. Navy agreed to loan a phased array radar system (called SPY-1) to NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) and in combination with NOAA and the FAA provided $10 million to help build the National Weather Radar Testbed (NWRT). The NWRT is focused on developing faster and more accurate warning, analysis, and forecast techniques for severe and hazardous weather using phased array radar and upgraded WSR-88D radar technology.

National Weather Radar Testbed at NSSL, Norman, Oklahoma

Focused on developing faster and more accurate warning, analysis, and forecast techniques for severe and hazardous weather using phased array radar and upgraded WSR-88D radar technology.

In 2002, the FCMSSR directed the Federal Coordinator to (a) determine the specific needs of Federal agencies that could be met by surveillance radar, (b) show the benefits of phased array radar capability in meeting these needs, and (c) explore opportunities for expanded participation in the Phased Array Weather Radar Project. Initial work on these tasks led to the formation in late 2004 of

64 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

the Joint Action Group for Phased Array Weather Radar Project. When this group established the feasibility of a single phased array radar unit to perform both aircraft surveillance and weather surveillance functions, it was renamed the Joint Action Group for Phased Array Radar Project (JAG/PARP) (OFCM 2006b, ix). In 2006, the JAG/PARP completed its report, Federal Research and Development Needs and Priorities for Phased Array Radar. This report stated the case for a multipurpose radar system that can meet the future needs of: (1) the FAA for backup surveillance and tracking of aircraft, as well as for special weather information around airports; (2) DHS and DOD surveillance and tracking of aircraft for homeland and national security; and (3) NOAA/NWS for improved detection and tracking of severe storm phenomena (tornadoes, convective supercells, hail, etc.) and other weather-related conditions (flash floods and hydrology, fire weather support, volcanic ash, etc.). The report also explored potential applications of MPAR of interest to the Federal Highway Administration, NASA, the Department of Agriculture (including the U.S. Forest Service), the Department of the Interior (National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Geological Survey), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (in DHS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (OFCM 2006b).

Federal Research and Development Needs and Priorities for Phased Array Radar, June 2006

A multipurpose radar system that can meet the future needs of:

• The FAA for backup surveillance and tracking of aircraft, as well as for special weather information around airports • DHS and DOD surveillance and tracking of aircraft for homeland and national security • NOAA/NWS for improved detection and tracking of severe storm phenomena (tornadoes, convective supercells, hail, etc.) and other conditions related to flash floods and hydrology, fire weather support, volcanic ash, and other phenomena.

With the work of the JAG/PARP completed, the FCMSSR approved the Federal Coordinator’s recommendation to establish an MPAR Working Group, reporting to the ICMSSR, to build interagency support for a joint MPAR risk reduction program. The MPAR Working Group, with MPAR Executive Council support for its proposals, has garnered multiagency funding. Through FY 2012, NOAA has contributed $35.7 million to the MPAR risk reduction program, the FAA has contributed $13.45 million, DOD has contributed $1.5 million, and DHS Office of Science and Technology has contributed $1.1 million.

The OFCM-sponsored Executive Council for MPAR is overseeing the risk reduction plan for a national MPAR system, as outlined in the Multifunction Phased Array Radar Unified Research and Development Plan, published by the OFCM in 2011 (OFCM 2011d). This Executive Council is critical for sustaining crosscutting support for MPAR and communicating NOAA expertise on MPAR development. The FAA’s timeline for decisions on replacement of current air surveillance radars is

4. New Challenges for a New Century 65

driving the schedule for decisions on MPAR development and, if approved and funded, implementation of a nationwide MPAR network.

Committee for Environmental Services, Operations, and Research Needs

The Committee for Environmental Services, Operations, and Research Needs (CESORN) was created in 1998 as the replacement for the Committee for Weather Operations. As Figure 5 shows, it initially oversaw four working groups: Environmental Services and Research, Natural Disaster Reduction/Post Storm Data Acquisition, Hurricane and Winter Storms Operations and Research, and Satellite Telemetry. The breadth of initial activities overseen by the CESORN also includes the areas covered by the six Joint Action Groups under the Working Group for Environmental Services and Requirements. The activities of these groups and the evolution of CESORN activities over the years to 2012 are discussed below by application areas.

Assessing ATD Modeling Capabilities and Applications The requirements for dispersion modeling within the Federal government derive from various Agency missions including emergency response, national security, public health, and transportation safety. These agencies use computer-based ATD models to respond to events with both natural and human causes. Events such as ash from volcanic eruptions (volcanic ash plumes), chemical, biological and nuclear releases; pollution, and smoke plumes from forest fires, to name just a few, can present potential threats to homeland security and the health and well-being of the population. Emergency managers and government officials at all levels—Federal, State, and local—rely on these Federal ATD modeling capabilities.

In 1998, the Joint Action Group for Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion, which reported to the CESORN through the Working Group for Environmental Services and Requirements, undertook the task of updating the OFCM-produced directory of ATD models in use by Federal agencies, which had not been updated since 1993. The new directory was published in March 1999 (OFCM 1999c). A year later, on June 6-8, 2000, the OFCM sponsored a Workshop on Multiscale Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling within the Federal Community. The goal of the workshop was to bring users and developers of dispersion models together to improve the coordination in the development and operational use of dispersion models. The objectives of the workshop were to state requirements and capabilities; describe methods for the validation, verification, and approval of models; address technical barriers to model development; begin a process to establish subsets of models for specific applications; and identify opportunities for leveraging model development through collaboration. More than 50 participants from nine Federal agencies involved in dispersion modeling attended the workshop. The OFCM produced a record of the The timing of the workshop workshops proceedings that included requirements and soon proved serendipitous capabilities for ATD modeling identified by the participants. when terrorists attacked the The proceedings volume also summarized sessions on World Trade Center and the technical barriers, model subsets, model verification, and the Pentagon in September 2001. next steps the participants saw as necessary to maintain momentum toward improving ATD modeling capability (OFCM 2000d).

The timing of this workshop soon proved serendipitous. The Al Qaida terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001 raised concerns about the potential for a

66 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

terrorist action that would involve atmospheric release of toxic materials. In October 2001, the FCMSSR requested that the Federal Coordinator establish an interagency activity to assess environmental monitoring and prediction support for homeland security, particularly with respect to monitoring and predicting the movement of a plume of airborne toxic materials from either a terrorist act or an accidental release into the atmosphere. The FCM established the interagency Working Group for Environmental Support to Homeland Security (WG/ESHS) to address the FCMSSR request and the WG/ESHS recommended a thorough survey of existing and in- development Federal capability to model plume movement through the processes of atmospheric transport and diffusion. To act on this recommendation and taking advantage of full support from Brig. Gen. John J. “Jack” Kelly, Director of the NWS at the time, the Federal Coordinator formed the Joint Action Group for the Selection and Evaluation of Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Models (JAG/SEATD). The report of the JAG/SEATD was published in August 2002 (OFCM 2002), and its recommendations were endorsed by the WG/ESHS, the ICMSSR, and the FCMSSR.

When the Department of Homeland ATD Models - Core Capability Security (DHS) established the Interagency HPAC – Hazard Prediction and Assessment Modeling and Atmospheric Assessment Capability (DTRA) Center (IMAAC) at Lawrence Livermore NARAC – National Atmospheric Release Advisory National Laboratory (LLNL), the Capability (LLNL) JAG/SEATD report served as an HYSPLIT – Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian important source document on Federal Integrated Trajectory (NOAA) ATD modeling capabilities. The goal of CAMEO-ALOHA - Computer-Aided Management of the IMAAC is to improve Federal Emergency Operations - Areal Locations of modeling and assessment capabilities and Hazardous Atmospheres (first responders) enhance the national scientific capability RASCAL - Radiological Assessment Systems for through cooperation among the Federal Consequence AnaLysis (NRC) agencies for incidents of national significance.

As an initial step in implementing the recommendations of the JAG/SEATD report, the OFCM partnered with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and George Mason University (GMU) in supporting the 7th Annual GMU Conference on Transport and Diffusion Models, held on June 17-19, 2003. The OFCM hosted an all-day special session at the conference, which focused on three specific objectives: • Identifying and refining the requirements for ATD modeling support/plume forecasts and developing a concept of operations to support those requirements • Refining, prioritizing (if possible), and documenting the community’s research and development needs • Developing a common model evaluation framework that supports the needs and requirements of Federal agency customers

4. New Challenges for a New Century 67

The workshop produced a summary list of Ongoing Actions and Recommendations and a Summary and Next Steps list. One of the next steps to be taken was to “develop a research and development plan and pursue interagency support” including the support of DHS.20

In response to this recommended next step, as well as the JAG/SEATD recommendations, the Federal Coordinator established the Joint Action Group for Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Modeling (Research and Development Plan), or JAG/ATDM(R&DP), to develop a formal R&D plan to improve on existing ATD modeling capabilities. The resulting 2004 report, Federal Research and Development Needs and Priorities for Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Modeling (OFCM 2004b), established a framework and pathway for collaboration and cooperation on ATD modeling R&D by multiple agencies. The FCMSSR endorsed the recommendations of this report and agreed on responsibilities of the agencies with programs in ATD modeling to use the recommendations as program guidance. The FCMSSR also assigned responsibility to pursue some of the recommendations to the WG/ESHS.

Federal Research and Development Needs and Priorities for Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Modeling, September 2004

• A discussion of user needs for consequence assessment systems. • Extraction of ATD modeling capabilities required to support users’ needs. • Analysis and prioritization of the gaps between the required capabilities and current Federal ATD modeling capabilities (requirements pull), plus opportunities for new and emerging science and technology to fulfill user needs better in the future (technology push). • A strategy to fill the gaps and provide improved capability through an interrelated set of coordinated R&D activities implemented by Federal agencies with ATD modeling programs or related research, development, or technology transition programs. • Recommendations for next steps in implementing the R&D strategy.

Since 2003, the OFCM has continued to host special sessions at the Annual GMU Conference on Transport and Diffusion Models. NOAA’s participation in these OFCM joint action groups and in the OFCM-sponsored special sessions of the annual George Mason University Conference on Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion (the 17th conference was held in June 2013) have been instrumental in improving the ATD models used by NOAA. For example, NOAA has improved the HYSPLIT model’s ability to predict the behavior of smoke, dust, and volcanic ash plumes. Improvements have also been made in the CAMEO-ALOHA models used to predict transport and diffusion of oil spill vapors and other contaminant releases. After the Deepwater Horizon oil well

20 Details on workshop objectives and outcomes are from the summary and point paper titled “7th Annual George Mason University Conference on Transport and Diffusion Modeling,” 2 pages, in the OFCM archive files.

68 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

fire and massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, collaboration expanded in the area of coupled ocean-atmosphere transport and diffusion modeling and the associated prediction capability.

Among the FCMSSR-approved recommendations in the 2004 report, Federal Research and Development Needs and Priorities for Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Modeling, were JAG/ATDM(R&DP) specifications and objectives for meteorological test beds with measurement capabilities necessary to develop and validate the advanced ATD modeling capabilities also recommended in the report. The report advocated location of these ATD test beds in urban settings (OFCM 2004b, sections 5.6 and 6.3). The specified urban ATD test beds dovetailed with the increasing need for an infrastructure of urban meteorological test beds for other applications in urban meteorology, WIST, and mesoscale/microscale nowcasting. To pursue a coordinated approach that would satisfy all these emerging R&D needs, the Federal Coordinator requested approval from the FCMSSR for a Joint Action Group for Joint Urban Test Beds (JAG/JUTB), under the Working Group for Urban Meteorology, to develop an operational concept document for multifunctional joint urban test beds to provide services and data to model developers, test and evaluation personnel, and users (OFCM 2008, pp. 202-203).

Interdepartmental Hurricane Conferences Since the establishment of the office,21 the OFCM has hosted the annual Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference (IHC) which brings the Federal agencies with mission responsibilities related to tropical storms and hurricanes together with representatives of the user communities such as State and local emergency managers, to conduct an internal review of the Nation's hurricane forecast and warning program and to make recommendations on how to improve the program. The IHC, which is held in the spring, helps this diverse but highly interconnected community prepare for the upcoming hurricane season and stay abreast of recently implemented or forthcoming improvements in forecast and warning capabilities.

An important deliverable from the IHC is the annual update of the National Hurricane Operations Plan, which details the interdepartmental cooperation required to achieve economy and efficiency in the provision of tropical cyclone forecasting and warning services to the Nation. Prior to 1998, the Working Group for Hurricane and Winter Storm Operations would meet in conjunction with the

The Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference (IHC) provides a unique venue for the following multi-agency activities: • Highlight the work of NOAA’s Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program (HFIP) and the Joint Hurricane Testbed • Present successful research results and identify candidates to transition from research to operations • Continue to refine the mapping of ongoing research programs with the research needs and operational priorities of the operational tropical cyclone forecast and warning centers • Sustain the Federal partners’ support for the Nation’s tropical cyclone forecast and warning program

21 The Interdepartmental Hurricane Conferences predate the establishment of the OFCM in 1963-1964.

4. New Challenges for a New Century 69

annual IHC and update the National Hurricane Operations Plan for the upcoming hurricane season. Beginning in 1999, this role was assumed by the Working Group for Hurricane and Winter Storm Operations and Research (WG/HWSOR), along with responsibilities of the former Improved Weather Reconnaissance Program Council and the Ad Hoc Group for Tropical Storm Research.

Following NSF’s participation in the 65th IHC in 2011, the OFCM obtained a renewed commitment from NSF to focus its basic research dollars, particularly in modeling and data assimilation, on national needs and priorities such as tropical cyclone research. The NSF’s Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES) hazards program and Creating a More Disaster Resilient America (CaMRA) programs can be used to address these needs and NSF has continued to support field programs and improvements in tropical cyclone forecasting models. The NSF’s EarthCube initiative to transform the conduct of research by supporting community-based cyberinfrastructure to integrate data and information for knowledge management has recently focused on ensemble prediction and data assimilation. NSF has also proposed a university-based national ensemble to advance the state of the art in numerical weather prediction and has entered into an agreement with NCEP to provide a visiting scientist.

A perennial focus of IHCs in the new century has been the social sciences and improving the ways in which information is provided to the public and decision makers and understanding why the intended message may not be received or acted upon. The social science story continues in chapter 5.

New Observing Capability for Hurricane Hunter Aircraft Following the disastrous 2004 hurricane season,22 Congress asked Max Mayfield, then the director of the National Hurricane Center, what could be done to have the most immediate impact on hurricane intensity forecasts. One of his recommendations was to outfit the full fleet of hurricane reconnaissance aircraft with the Stepped Frequency Microwave Radiometer (SFMR). The SFMR provides detailed, continuous measurement of inner-core hurricane surface wind speeds, which is needed for accurate assessment of intensity, wind radii, and storm surge. With $1 million of funding support from the OFCM, NOAA had previously developed and successfully demonstrated SFMR technology, which had been installed on NOAA’s WP-3D and Gulfstream IV research aircraft. Based on this demonstration, NOAA received a $10 million Congressional appropriation to install ten SFMR systems on the Air Force Reserve Command’s new WC-130J hurricane hunter aircraft. Installation was completed in 2007, providing, for the first time, routine SFMR measurements of inner-core surface wind speeds in tropical cyclone systems advancing toward the United States.

Winter Storm Operations Plans Every year, winter storms cause significant disruptions in travel and commerce and threaten life and property. Large forecast errors often occur when observations are sparse or inaccurate in upstream regions over the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the western Atlantic Ocean. The primary purpose of the winter storm reconnaissance prescribed in the National Winter Storm Operations Plan is to collect data in these upstream areas to effectively resolve the vertical structure of the atmosphere in areas where other observations are lacking and satellite-based vertical soundings are degraded by cloudiness. The results from seven research and operational field programs indicate that in roughly

22 According to the NHC’s summary of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, the United States suffered the loss of 60 lives and $45 billion in property damage in a season experiencing five hurricane landfalls and the passage of a sixth eye less than 10 miles from the coast of North Carolina.

70 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Air Force Reserve Command WC-130J and one of NOAA’s WP-3Ds (foreground) on the ramp at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi. (U.S. Air Force photo)

SFMR mounted on the wing of a WC-130J. The SFMR is also installed on NOAA’s WP-3D and Gulfstream IV-SP aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo)

NOAA and Air Force Reserve Command aircraft support both tropical cyclone and winter storm reconnaissance activities. NOAA’s Gulfstream IV-SP.

70 percent of the cases the adaptive observations improved the forecasts for the targeted weather events. On average, forecast error reductions of 10 to 20 percent were observed. Furthermore, a preliminary NASA analysis of the impact of 2011-2012 winter storm reconnaissance indicated that, in some cases, these adaptive observations led to substantial reduction in 24-hour, global forecast errors.

The interagency Plan delineates the responsibilities of NOAA, the U.S. Navy and Air Force, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard and describes mission tasking and coordination, data collection, and communication procedures for operations including airborne weather reconnaissance by NOAA and the Air Force and observations from all relevant sources ranging from ocean buoys to research and operational satellites. Prior to 1998, the Working Group on Hurricane and Winter Storm Operations was responsible for updating the National Winter Storm Operations Plan, as well as the National Hurricane Operations Plan. During the reorganization of the coordinating infrastructure in 1997-1998, the scope of this working group expanded to absorb responsibilities for coordinating hurricane and winter storm R&D in addition to operations, and it was renamed the Working Group on Hurricane and Winter Storm Operations and Research (WG/HWSOR), reporting to the new CESORN. The WG/HWSOR has continued to revise and update the National Winter Storm Operations Plan as needed. The latest update to this plan was released prior to the start of the 2012-2013 winter season.

4. New Challenges for a New Century 71

Natural Disaster Reduction and Post-Storm Data Acquisition The development of the first National Plan for Post-Storm Data Assessment by the Working Group for Post-Storm Data Assessment was described in chapter 1 to illustrate the evolution of application- specific products and services in a multi-agency context. Today, the successor to that group, the Working Group for Disaster Impact Assessments and Plans: Weather and Water Data (WG/DIAP), continues to coordinate timely post-storm data acquisition surveys in response to natural disasters including hurricanes and major tornado strikes. These coordinated activities can include aerial support from the Civil Air Patrol, which provides highly perishable post-storm data to NOAA, FEMA, and other agencies with disaster response roles, in a highly efficient and cost-effective process. The most recent plan, now called the National Plan for Disaster Impact Assessments: Weather and Water Data, was released in November 2010. Rather than prescribe actions, the plan describes collaborative mechanisms and procedures for coordinating pre- and post-event activities among participating Federal agencies and their affiliated partner organizations. When a significant event is expected, a coordination conference call is initiated to enable coordinated emplacement of additional instruments, such as water level gauges in advance of a hurricane landfall and associated storm surge. Coordination among Federal, academic, and other organizations deploying additional sensors helps avoid unnecessary overlap and gaps in instrument coverage. Following such events, the Working Group also facilitates discovery and sharing of the collected data.

Satellite Telemetry The OFCM role in coordinating interagency satellite telemetry protocols, standards, and infrastructure sharing agreements traces back to the first operational environmental satellites launched by ESSA, the predecessor of NOAA. In 1995, a Satellite Telemetry Interagency Working Group (STIWG) was co-chartered by the FCM and the Chief, Office of Water Data Coordination, in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Remote data collection platforms, including the Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) units used for weather data observations and the stream gauges maintained by the USGS and other agencies, transmitted their data to collection and analysis centers via radio signals sent to satellites in geostationary orbits. This radio link for transmitting data became today’s GOES Data Collection System (GOES-DCS). The STIWG advised the OFCM’s Committee for Basic Services on satellite telemetry user requirements and promoted information exchange among the Federal agencies on R&D results and other technical areas of satellite telemetry. This working group coordinated closely with another ICMSSR committee, the Committee for Operational Environmental Satellites, to facilitate integration of satellite telemetry capability into the design and operation of the GOES satellites and ground stations (OFCM 1995b). Each Federal agency using satellite telemetry was eligible for membership in the STIWG and could send one voting representative to its meetings. International users of GOES-DCS could also participate.

An early concern of the STIWG was dealing with capacity saturation issues and working with NESDIS on plans for increasing the data capacity (bandwidth) of the satellite uplinks and downlinks in GOES-DCS. During 1997, the STIWG prepared, and the OFCM published, a National GOES DCS Operations Plan (OFCM 1997a, pg. 2-9; OFCM 1998a, pg. A-5). As part of the reorganization of the coordinating infrastructure in 1997-1998, the STIWG was placed under CESORN. Today, the STIWG continues to represent GOES-DCS users in working with NESDIS on maintaining adequate infrastructure and data collection capability, but it now operates largely outside the OFCM coordinating infrastructure and without FCM oversight.

72 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Weather Information for Surface Transportation (WIST) In 1998, the Look to the Future survey of Federal agencies’ needs for improved meteorological services identified the weather information needs of surface transportation sectors (including ground and marine transportation systems) as a priority for coordinated action. With FCMSSR approval for a needs assessment initiative, the Federal Coordinator appointed a Joint Action Group for Weather Information for Surface Transportation (JAG/WIST) to coordinate the agencies’ responses and provide guidance on the successive steps in assessing needs. In December 1999, the OFCM sponsored the first WIST Symposium (WIST I), which had the goal of establishing national needs and requirements for weather information associated with decision-making actions involving any of the six surface transportation sectors identified by the JAG/WIST (OFCM 2000b). The more than 120 transportation and weather professionals who attended WIST I’s plenary sessions and workshops represented Federal entities, State and local governments, urban and rural transportation agencies, professional and trade organizations, and weather services providers from both the Federal government and the private sector. The participants overwhelmingly supported a proposal to establish a nationwide baseline of WIST user needs and endorsed the pursuit of solutions that would meet specific mission needs (OFCM 2002, pg. 2-2).

After WIST I, OFCM staff supporting Surface Transportation Sectors the JAG/WIST used questionnaires and staff interviews to continue the Roadways – state and federal highways, roads, and process of identifying interested streets individuals from across the six targeted Railways – rails providing intercity freight and transportation sectors and refining the passenger service and the associated yards, types of data to be collected on user stations, and depots needs. The latter effort led to Marine transportation system – coastal and inland compilation of a comprehensive set of waterways, ports and harbors, and the intermodal weather elements of interest to terminals serving them potential users across the Rural and Urban Transit – bus and van service, light rail, transportation sectors, together with and subway systems action thresholds for each weather Pipeline systems – above and below ground pipelines element, key mitigating actions by and storage, transfer, and pumping facilities sector relevant to each weather Airport Ground Operations – all ground movement of element, and the temporal and spatial vehicles, work crews, and passengers scale sensitivities for users’ decisions to take mitigating action. A second WIST Symposium (WIST II) in December 2000 elucidated a framework for improving the weather information available to operational decision makers for transportation systems in each of the six sectors (OFCM 2001).

The work of these two WIST symposia, completed through subsequent OFCM staff follow-up and refinement, culminated in the December 2002 publication of a comprehensive report on the national needs for timely and practical weather information of system managers and other end users in these six surface transportation sectors (OFCM 2002). This Weather Information for Surface Transportation National Needs Assessment Report presented the rationale for Federal involvement in WIST and reviewed the OFCM coordination activities and the WIST-related programs of all the participating agencies. It presented and analyzed the WIST user need data gathered and validated

4. New Challenges for a New Century 73

National Needs Assessment – Strategic Thrust Areas • Identifying and specifying the gaps in coverage of WIST user needs • Expanding coordination among WIST R&D programs and WIST providers • Clarifying and defining provider roles and responsibilities • Translating research results and new technologies into WIST applications • Providing the fundamental knowledge to support future technology development and application • Expanding outreach and education during the previous three years and spelled out the barriers, challenges, and recommended next steps for coordinated efforts to address the unmet user needs, organized under six strategic thrust areas.

After the 2002 WIST report, the Federal Coordinator, acting on guidance from the ICMSSR, set up the Working Group for Weather Information for Surface Transportation (WG/WIST), under the CESORN. This working group was tasked with developing a WIST R&D plan and a WIST implementation plan. The ICMSSR guidance to the WG/WIST was to ensure that all weather support needs across the six surface transportation sectors were considered during the development of the R&D and implementation plans. In September 2005, the OFCM released the first report from the WG/WIST, titled Weather Information for Surface Transportation (WIST) Initiative Document- First Steps to Improve the Nation’s WIST Capabilities and Services. In this report, the WG/WIST recommended key actions that should be taken by the appropriate FCMSSR agencies to collaborate and address national surface transportation safety, mobility, and productivity issues. The report identified three deficiencies in current capabilities and four coordination initiatives that would address them (OFCM 2005. In 2007, the WG/WIST was moved to the Committee for Cooperative Research to better align its activities within the coordinating structure.

In response to increasing interest in weather information for transportation on the Nation’s roadways, a combination of Federal, State, local and media partners initiated a number of activities to improve the communication of weather and other road condition information to both drivers and roadway managers. These activities included the establishment of the 511 telephone number for travel information, more widespread media reporting of traffic and weather information together, and the Federal Highway Administration’s Clarus initiative.

In July 2000, the Federal Communications Commission designated 511 as the single travel information telephone number to be made available to states and local jurisdictions across the country, but left implementation and schedules up to state and local agencies. Recognizing the opportunity and the challenge, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials joined with other organizations and, with support from the U.S. Department of Transportation, established the 511 Deployment Coalition. As of January 1, 2013, 36 states and 9 regional and local jurisdictions were actively providing 511 services, including weather and road conditions, through both telephone and web sites.

74 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

As of January 1, 2013, 36 states and 9 regional and local jurisdictions were actively providing 511 services, including weather and road conditions, through both telephone and web sites.

During the same period, local media reporting of weather and traffic information together expanded across the country, particularly in metropolitan areas, acknowledging the direct relationship of weather, road conditions, and traffic in congested areas.

And in 2004, the Federal Highway Administration Road Weather Management Program, in conjunction with the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, established the Clarus (latin for “clear”) initiative to reduce the impact of adverse weather conditions on roadway users. The goal of the initiative was to create a robust system for data assimilation, quality checking, and data dissemination that could provide near real-time atmospheric and pavement observations from the collective states’ investments in road weather information system, environmental sensor stations, and mobile observations from specially equipped trucks. The initiative achieved this goal and proof of concept testing showed that Clarus was able to aggregate, integrate, and exchange accurate data through an easy-to-use web site. State and local agency participants recognized the benefits and additional agencies expressed interest in connecting to Clarus.

In July 2007, the Secretary of Transportation lauded the efforts of the OFCM to foster and enhance the partnerships between NOAA and the entire weather community to support the long-term needs of the transportation sectors (Appendix G).

Adverse weather is associated with over 1.5 million crashes each year, resulting in more than 800,000 injuries and 7,400 fatalities. Injuries, loss of life, and property damage cost an average of $42 billion annually. Drivers endure over 500 million hours of delay due to fog, snow, and ice. (FHWA)

Photo by Blaine Tsugawa

4. New Challenges for a New Century 75

Wildland Fire Weather Any extended period of dry and hot weather in areas with continuous and abundant biomass raises the risk of uncontrolled fires for which that biomass serves as fuel. Whether called brush or forest fires, wildfire, or wildland fire, these conflagrations have substantial consequences for forests and grasslands, agricultural areas, and the populated areas that border on and are increasingly intermingled with wildland areas—known as the “wildland-urban interface.” Meteorological observations and predictions, including both daily “fire weather” and longer term (monthly and seasonal) climatic observations and forecasts, are essential for managing wildland fire risks through planning, preparation, and precautions. And when a wildland fire does break out, specialized meteorological support to the fire management team is essential for preventing the fire hazard from taking lives and needlessly escalating economic, societal, and environmental damages. As the role of fire in natural ecosystems has become better understood, Federal, State, and local managers of wildland and “green space” of all kinds are increasingly trying to incorporate carefully controlled “burns” (prescribed fires) in their management practice, rather than trying to prevent any environmental burning from happening at any time. For these prescribed fires, accurate and timely observation and nowcasting of atmospheric conditions can make the difference between successful, effective management and an unintended, catastrophic wildfire that has escaped from control.

Formal coordination among Federal agencies whose missions require managing large tracts of wildland and the NOAA National Weather service dates back at least to 1965—the same time that the OFCM was created—when the U.S. Forest Service (in the Department of Agriculture), the Bureau of Land Management (in the Department of the Interior) and the NWS established an Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, to reduce duplication of services, reduce costs, and coordinate their fire management planning and operations on a nationwide basis.23 Today, the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), still located in Boise, includes these three agencies plus the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service—all in the Department of the Interior—plus the U.S. Fire Administration (part of FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security), the National Association of State Foresters, and the Intertribal Timber Council.

In 2005, the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) asked NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher to task the OFCM to undertake an assessment of the needs of Federal, State, and local fire managers for weather information to support decision-making processes for both wildland fire and prescribed fire management. With FCMSSR approval, the Federal Coordinator appointed a Joint Action Group for the National Wildland Fire Weather Needs Assessment (JAG/NWFWNA). The JAG/NWFWNA solicited input on users’ needs for fire weather information from the broad

23 The mission and history of the National Interagency Fire Center can be found on the Center’s website: see www.nifc.gov/aboutNIFC/about_mission.html. Also important for wildland fire management is the National Wildfire Coordinating Group; see www.nwcg.gov.

76 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

community of fire weather users—including State and local government as well as all the agencies represented in the NIFC. In 2007, the OFCM released the JAG/NWFWNA’s report, National Wildland Fire Weather: A Summary of User Needs and Issues, which analyzed the users’ responses to identify and validate the pressing technology development needs and research questions required for the NIFC partners to improve or extend support to the Federal wildland management agencies and their State and local counterparts (OFCM 2007b).

A second report, released in May 2011, detailed existing and in-development capabilities that were relevant to meeting the user needs presented in the 2007 report. The report confirmed that multiple agencies and stakeholders were working on numerous capabilities against a common baseline of user needs. Its final chapter identified opportunities for further coordination and collaboration for three time frames: the near term (within 2 years), midterm (achievable in 2-5 years), and long term (requiring at least 5 years to achieve fully) (OFCM 2011c). The WGA extended its gratitude to the OFCM and the study participants in a June 2011 letter (Appendix H).

Wind Chill Temperature Index At the turn of the new century, Federal agencies expressed growing concern that the wind chill index overstated the effect of wind, made people think conditions were colder than they were, and led the public to believe they could withstand the colder temperatures. In response, the FCM established the Joint Action Group for Temperature Indices (JAG/TI) under the CESORN in the summer of 2000. The JAG/TI’s purpose was to evaluate the existing wind chill and extreme heat formulas in light of recent research and determine if changes were needed. Chaired by a representative from the NWS, the JAG/TI was composed of members from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Highway Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Other participants included Environment Canada, Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis (IUPUI), the Universities of Delaware and Missouri, and the International Society of Biometeorology because of their involvement in a review of wind chill models conducted via an Environment Canada and WMO-sponsored Internet workshop in April 2000 (OFCM 2003d). Through a series of workshops and meetings from October 2000 through November 2002, the JAG/TI reviewed research and public comments, initiated a replacement wind chill index project, and implemented the results beginning in the 2001- 2002 winter season.

Committee for Integrated Observing Systems

During the 1998 reorganization, the former Committee for Observing Systems under the ICMSSR was replaced by a new Committee for Integrated Observing Systems (CIOS), which has remained a standing committee reporting to the ICMSSR. The CIOS initial areas of responsibility included cooperative observer networks, observation mesonets, systems evaluation of NEXRAD and ASOS, the marine data buoy networks, and new opportunities resulting from research and technology development. Two working groups were originally placed under the CIOS: a Working Group for Atmospheric Observing Systems and a Working Group for Marine Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (OFCM 1998a, pg. A-7).

The CIOS areas of responsibility and the working groups and joint action groups reporting to it have continued to evolve as new issues and opportunities for meteorological and climate observing

4. New Challenges for a New Century 77

systems arose. For example, the CIOS was involved with plans and implementation for NOAA’s modernization of the Cooperative Observer Network (COOP) in the years around 2000. The OFCM was a cosponsor of the NOAA COOP Modernization Partners’ Forum held in September 2002 (OFCM 2002d). Recently, the CIOS has been active in planning for and implementing a nationwide network of mesonets (see chapter 5).

Climate Analysis, Monitoring, and Services

In the 1960s when the OFCM was established, the Federal role in climate monitoring and analysis in support of products and services was primarily for purposes such as interseasonal and interannual outlooks for agricultural weather (e.g., monthly to seasonal outlooks for precipitation and temperature, relative to long-term climatic norms) and sustaining the continuity of meteorological observations that enabled quantitative and objective computation of climate norms and monthly to seasonal and interannual variability. However, on the meteorological research side of the OFCM’s activities, the goals of international programs of the late 1960s and early 1970s, such as the World Weather Program and the GATE and BOMEX large-scale observing experiments under the Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP) already included understanding the physical basis of climate and climatic change. During the 1970s, continuing improvements in NWP modeling, in parallel with the rapidly increasing power and speed of the digital computers on which the models ran, enabled climate scientists and modeling experts to study the factors underlying atmospheric phenomena at the space and time scales characteristic of global climate patterns, including global climate change. NASA missions for earth-observing research satellites were collecting global-scale datasets of atmospheric conditions, which provided the input data to the global climate models.

This progress in understanding and predicting climate variability and long-term climate trends was challenging. In a general comment on the state of meteorology, the Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Resarch: Fiscal Year 1979 reported that:

The large-scale synoptic experiments such as GATE and GARP have given atmospheric scientists convincing evidence that the dynamics of weather and climate are fully as complicated as even the most pessimistic theorists had predicted. Rather than showing the way to prompt improvements in forecasting, the evidence gathered during these experiments indicates that improvement will be hard-won.

That same Federal Plan reported that the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology had published the United States Climate Program Plan in July 1977 to provide an official framework for Federal initiatives in climate research and services. Climate plans for fiscal 1979 of several agencies, including NASA, the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior, as well as the National Science Foundation, were also noted (OFCM 1978).

To deal with the rapid growth of Federal databases for retrospective meteorological information and to manage the demand for these datasets to support studies of global climate change and other research topics, the ICMSSR established a Working Group for Meteorological Information Management. In 1991, this working group published a Federal Plan for Meteorological Information Management, which identified and addressed cross-agency issues in data repository management, data format standards, and metadata standards (OFCM 1991).

78 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

The OFCM coordinating infrastructure began taking a more focused role in climate services in 1994, when the ICMSSR formed a Working Group for Climate Services (WG/CS) “to provide a focal point for Federal involvement in climate change, ozone depletion, seasonal to interannual forecasting, and climatological applications” (OFCM 1996). In the 1998-99 reorganization, the WG/CS activities were assumed by a new Committee for Climate Monitoring and Services, which was assigned to discuss interagency coordination on “climate modeling, assessment, analysis, and prediction; climate services; [climate-related] research; long-term environment change; long-term data sets; and As a member of the National relevant climate issues, such as global warming, seasonal Science and Technology Council’s variations, ozone depletion, and aerosols/atmospheric Committee on Environment and chemistry. Natural Resources, the FCM provided substantive comments The Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate on 16 of 18 CCSP Synthesis and (BASC) of the National Research Council conducted a Summer Study on climate services, with FCM Assessment Products, particularly participation, in August 2000. It subsequently published on abrupt climate change and A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Toward the Future impacts of climate variability and (NRC. 2001). The BASC definition of climate services change on transportation systems was adopted by the OFCM committee, now renamed the and infrastructure. Committee for Climate Analysis, Monitoring and Services (CCAMS), which undertook the responsibility of following up on the recommendations in the BASC report. On the climate research side, the OFCM participated in the December 2003 Planning Workshop for Scientists and Stakeholders of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (OFCM 2002d; 2003c).

The OFCM continued to support the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) through the early years of the new century. The program’s director, Dr. James Mahoney, briefed the FCMSSR in December 2004, becoming a part of the seminal meeting that set R&D direction for the remainder of the decade. An OFCM Senior Staff Meteorologist served as liaison to the CCSP, attending its meetings and supporting CCSP activities, and in 2005, the OFCM developed and coordinated a climate products and services survey of the CCAMS member agencies. The results of the survey were forwarded to the CCSP Director in September 2005. The FCM used the OFCM coordinating infrastructure to reach out to and invite Federal participants to a November 2005 CCSP workshop on Climate Science in Support of Decision Making and the OFCM provided financial support for the evening poster session at the workshop (OFCM 2005b). Through his position on National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, the FCM commented on the CCSP Unified Synthesis Product and provided substantive inputs to 16 of the 18 Synthesis and Assessment Products (OFCM 2006c), particularly the products on abrupt climate change and the impacts of climate variability and change on transportation systems and infrastructure. In addition, OFCM staff served on the CCSP Education Interagency Working Group, which produced a Climate Literacy Framework. In 2011 the CCSP was renamed the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

4. New Challenges for a New Century 79

Committee for Cooperative Research

Atmospheric Research Priorities and the Cooperative Research Roadmap. At the FCMSSR meeting in December 2004, the members were briefed on atmospheric research priorities for the next decade in key application areas including aviation weather, homeland security, urban meteorology, mesoscale/microscale processes, weather information for surface transportation, tropical cyclones, space weather, biometeorology, and climate change. The briefing highlighted common research needs for these applications in data management and assimilation, modeling, verification of forecasts and other products, information dissemination, education and training, socioeconomic aspects, and transition to operations. The FCMSSR member agencies were asked for input on their greatest challenges for the next decade and on the best areas to pursue multi-agency collaboration.

After discussing a number of challenges that members agreed would be important, the FCMSSR approved an action item to provide further comments and suggestions to the Federal Coordinator by January 2005 to assist the Committee for Cooperative Research in in planning and developing a vision and an implementation roadmap for supporting research needed by the Federal meteorological enterprise during the next decade. As a result, the December 2004 FCMSSR meeting laid the framework for R&D activities in many areas, including tropical cyclones, wind chill temperature and heat indices (see page 76), phased array radar (see pages 63-65), and atmospheric transport and diffusion modeling (see pages 65-68).

Tropical Cyclone R&D Strategic Plan and Implementation In February 2007, the Joint Action Group for Tropical Cyclone Research, published the Interagency Strategic Research Plan for Tropical Cyclones: The Way Ahead (OFCM 2007a).This research plan detailed and explained operational needs and research priorities from nine Federal entities and served as a foundational document for NOAA’s Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project (HFIP). In fact, the HFIP adopted the sets of operational needs and research priorities, which were developed by the National Hurricane Center, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center, and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center and documented in the OFCM report (Tables 4-1 and 5-1, respectively), to guide the 10-year goals of the project (NOAA, 2008, pg. 2). The plan also supported the Navy’s development of improved tropical cyclone modeling, NASA field experiments, and National Science Foundation grant activities.

Through the OFCM’s coordinating infrastructure, NOAA’s FY 2008 investment of $13.8 million in tropical cyclone research was leveraged with an additional $24 million investment in tropical cyclone research conducted by its Federal partners (NASA, Navy, and NSF). In FY 2010, NOAA’s investment increased to $24 million with the additional funding for HFIP, and NOAA’s Federal partners provided an additional $26 million to fund tropical cyclone research focused on addressing the Nation’s operational priorities. These developments in tropical cyclone research were presented and discussed at the 65th Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference (Marks and Ferek, 2011).

After the Joint Action Group completed its work, interagency coordination on implementing that strategic vision was carried forward by a new Working Group for Tropical Cyclone Research (WG/TCR) under the Committee for Cooperative Research. The ongoing work of the WG/TCR focuses on updating the operational priorities from the 2007 plan and evaluating how research is contributing to those priorities so that research managers in the agencies can make informed

80 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research decisions on future investments. The WG/TCR also identifies promising research results that are candidates for transitioning to operations. As of the writing of this report, the WG/TCR continues to assess the progress of the coordinated Federal tropical cyclone research program in meeting the Nation’s operational priorities for tropical cyclone observation, forecast, and warnings.

Interagency Strategic Research Plan for Tropical Cyclones – The Way Ahead, February 2007

This comprehensive plan: • Reviewed the tropical cyclone R&D community. • Examined the current capabilities and limitations of the Nation’s tropical cyclone forecast and warning system. • Summarized the operational needs of the tropical cyclone forecast and warning centers and the planned capabilities to meet the needs. • Identified tropical cyclone research priorities to aid in meeting the operational needs. • Presented a comprehensive roadmap of activities to further improve the effectiveness of the Nation’s tropical cyclone forecast and warning service during the next decade and beyond.

OFCM Strategies for Coordinating the Federal Meteorological Enterprise

During the time since the last major reorganization of the coordinating infrastructure, when Samuel P. Williamson became FCM, multi-agency collaborations and joint actions have been proactively pursued through use of the coordinating infrastructure. The OFCM coordination role expanded in both legacy service categories, such as aviation weather, weather disaster response, and hurricane reconnaissance and track/intensity forecasting, and in new areas such as wildland fire weather (weather observations and predictions), weather information for surface transportation, and urban meteorology. New working groups and joint action groups have been established, with ICMSSR approval, to deal with emerging issues and opportunities. As needed, high-level multi-agency program councils, reporting to the FCMSSR and advising the FCM, have been established or expanded in membership as the need for senior-level policy guidance and agency commitment has arisen in a changing Federal meteorological enterprise. The 2004 FCMSSR meeting proved seminal in setting direction for R&D and improving services through the remainder of the decade. In response to increased emphasis on R&D, the FCM initially designated Robert Dumont as a team leader within the OFCM and subsequently created the position of OFCM Chief Scientist in 2006, with Robert Dumont serving in that role from July 2006 to December 2007. Dumont was succeeded in the position by Mark Welshinger from January 2008 to December 2011.

Targeting Collaborative R&D through User Needs Analyses Assessing and validating the weather and climate information needs of particular user communities, such as the aviation community (civilian and military) or the emergency management community, as well as the general public, have been important OFCM roles since its inception. Since 1998, activities to assess user needs in an interagency context have become increasingly important in defining the

4. New Challenges for a New Century 81 direction and objectives for planning and implementing improved meteorological services and products. OFCM conferences, workshops, and user forums bring service providers from the public and private sectors together with representatives from communities of interest for those services. The documentation of societal need and potential benefits through these user needs analyses serves as a first step in identifying capability gaps and coordinating targeted R&D to fill those gaps. Examples of this process, discussed above, include the following:

• The National Aviation Weather Program employed user forums involving the broad aviation community to define objectives for aviation weather Service Areas.

• The annual Interdepartmental Hurricane Conferences and National Hurricane Conferences have served as user forums that informed, reviewed, and recommended action on tropical cyclone R&D programs of the responsible agencies.

• The OFCM has sponsored special sessions at the annual George Mason University Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion Conferences to identify and validate cross-agency, multi-threat needs for improved and standardized ATD modeling. • The OFCM conducted two national user conferences to identify and validate the needs of user communities in six transportation sectors, leading to creation of the ongoing Weather Information for Surface Transportation initiative. • For the National Wildland Fire Weather Needs Analysis, an OFCM joint action group developed and fielded a survey of fire weather users in State and local government entities, Tribal Nations, and the private sector, as well the Federal agency users of fire weather information.

Cross-Agency Cost-Benefit Analyses for Priority National Needs The OFCM role in conducting cost-benefit analyses for funding decisions that cut across multiple agencies traces back to the original responsibilities mandated by Circular A-62. A recent example of this role is the series of assessments of space weather sensor capabilities, conducted by OFCM joint action groups at the request of OSTP, in response to the restructuring of the NPOESS program.

82 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

5. A COORDINATION STRUCTURE TO MEET TOMORROW’S CHALLENGES

Coordinating Multiple Agency Missions and Programs into an Efficient and Flexible Federal Enterprise

Figure 6 illustrates the OFCM coordination infrastructure as of September 2013. Comparing this organizational chart with Figures 4 and 5 in chapters 3 and 4, respectively, one can see both enduring entities such as the FCMSSR and ICMSSR and the changing components among active program councils, committees reporting to the ICMSSR, and especially the working groups and joint action groups. The standing committees and councils, starting with the FCMSSR and ICMSSR, provide continuity and involvement of senior agency officials and program leads. Because actions can be supported only through the authorized and appropriated funding to the individual departments and agencies, approval at the appropriate policy level is essential to coordinate activities and achieve collaborative results.

Today and for at least the near future, the nexus of interagency coordination is the working groups and joint action groups that engage the subject matter experts and program managers in the relevant agencies and offices on a focused project delineated in each group’s Terms of Reference. Working groups are used where continued discussion, planning, and problem resolution is needed at a technical level on a topic of interest. They often either lead to formation of a joint action group with a specific analysis or report-development task that the working group has formulated or they provide the follow-through focus on implementation of recommendations that have been approved for action by the FCMSSR or a program council. The joint action groups are task-oriented and terminate when their assigned task(s) are completed. Joint action groups call upon project/program leads and subject matter experts within the member agencies and may work with subject matter experts from outside the Federal Government, within the constraints of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Thus, they can bring together multiple agency stakeholders and non- Federal experts with a clear imperative to accomplish a problem-solving task (the joint action), which typically results in a report with recommendations that will move up the coordination chain for review and approval.

Beginning with the Federal Coordinator, the OFCM staff guide, support, and ensure follow-through on the policy decisions and action items approved at the appropriate level of the coordinating infrastructure. The Federal Coordinator currently (FY 2013) is supported by the Deputy Federal Coordinator, an OFCM Chief Scientist, and nine additional full-time equivalent positions when fully staffed. In addition, two Assistant Federal Coordinator positions are authorized, one detailed from the Air Force, one from the FAA.

The work of the OFCM affects people and organizations beyond the borders of the Federal Government through the operations plans and Federal Meteorological Handbooks it issues and the conferences, workshops, forums and other activities it organizes. The following sections detail these impacts and highlight continuity of the central threads of the Federal coordination story, such as hurricane reconnaissance, atmospheric transport and diffusion, aviation and space weather, Doppler weather radar.

83 84 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Figure 6. The current Federal meteorological coordinating infrastructure.

OFCM role in Education, Dissemination, and Outreach In addition to coordination of multi-agency actions through reports and recommendations reviewed and approved by the higher-level bodies in this infrastructure, the OFCM also plays an important role in education, dissemination, and outreach through OFCM-sponsored and -produced publications, workshops, and conferences. First and foremost among these “informing and communicating” roles is the preparation of the Annual Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, (the “Federal Plan”) which traces back to Public Law 87-843 (Section 304) and

5. A Coordination Structure to Meet Tomorrow’s Challenges 85 the congressional request for an annual “horizontal budget” showing the totality of meteorology- related programs across the Federal government (which this report calls the “Federal meteorological enterprise”). Over the 50 years that the OFCM has produced annual Federal Plans, their format and content has varied. Beginning with the FY 2011 Federal Plan, the major section describing operational programs and supporting research programs (Section 2) was reorganized to provide a clearer “horizontal view” of all Federal activities related to each current service category: Basic Services, Agricultural and Land Management Services, Aviation Services, Climate Services, Emergency Response and Homeland Security Services, Hydrometeorology and Water Resources Services, Military Services, Space Weather Services, Surface Transportation Services, Wildland Fire Weather Services, and Other Specialized Services. These service categories correspond to the budget-by-service-category tables (Tables 1-4 and 1-5) in Section 1 of the Federal Plan. Section 1 reports on the agencies’ past-year and coming-year budgets for meteorological services and supporting research.

Other OFCM publications in this “informing and communicating” role include the following:

• Operations Plans. As discussed in Chapter 4, the OFCM produces annual (or periodically updated) operations plans for activities in which multiple Federal agencies participate and which serve as references for the private sector and academia.

. The annual National Hurricane Operations Plan provides the basis for implementing cross- agency agreements reached at the Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference (IHC), which is sponsored annually by the OFCM. This operations plan focuses on the tropical cyclone warning service, which is an interdepartmental effort to provide the United States and designated international recipients with forecasts, warnings, and assessments concerning tropical and subtropical weather systems (OFCM 2013a, Chapter 1). The annual plan is updated by the Working Group for Hurricane and Winter Storms Operations and Research, which reports to the Committee for Environmental Services, Operations, and Research Needs (CESORN), a standing committee under the ICMSSR. . The latest version of the National Severe Local Storms Operations Plan, released in 2010, is the 26th version of a plan that was first produced in 1967 in response to an interagency request. This operations plan outlines the responsibilities of the various Federal agencies that provide meteorological services in observing, forecasting, and warning of severe local storms. Because of their intensity, small spatial scale, and tendency for rapid development, severe local storms present a great challenge to both the science of meteorology and to the interagency cooperation required to disseminate warning information rapidly. The plan also defines meteorological terms used by the agencies preparing severe local storms forecasts and warnings; identifies operational warning criteria and procedures; and discusses communications, observations, and some public release aspects of warnings for severe local storms (OFCM 2010c). Updates to the plan are prepared by the Joint Action Group for Severe Local Storms Operations, which reports to the CESORN. . The National Winter Storms Operations Plan is also updated periodically. Its purpose is to coordinate the efforts of the Federal meteorological community to provide enhanced weather observations of upstream conditions and severe winter storms that impact the coastal regions of the United States. The plan focuses on the coordination of requirements for winter storm reconnaissance observations provided by the Air Force

86 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Reserve Command's 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron and NOAA's Aircraft Operations Center. The latest version (released October 2012) is the 31st edition of this operations plan (OFCM 2012b). Updates to this plan are also prepared by the Working Group for Hurricane and Winter Storms Operations and Research. . The National Volcanic Ash Operations Plan for Aviation is the newest of the operations plans produced by the OFCM and is still in its first edition, although regional plans (Alaska, Northern Mariana Islands, and Pacific Northwest) have been developed under it. The plan defines agency responsibilities, provides a comprehensive description of an interagency standard for volcanic ash products and their formats, describes the agency backup procedures for operational products, and outlines the actions to be taken by each agency following a volcanic eruption that subsequently affects aviation services (OFCM 2007c). The coordinating body that prepares this operations plan and the regional plans is the Working Group for Volcanic Ash, which reports to the National Aviation Weather Program Council and its Committee for Aviation Services and Research. • Federal Meteorological Handbooks. Beginning around 1969, the OFCM began developing a series of meteorological handbooks to serve as a single source of operational procedures for all Federal agencies and as a reference or guide for non-Federal users and academia. The objective of the Federal Meteorological Handbook (FMH) series, which was developed with the assistance and cooperation of the FCMSSR agencies, is to ensure standardization in weather observations, observational practices, and computer codes for the exchange of data (OFCM 1969). The handbooks describe the U.S. implementation of World Meteorological Organization coding and practices and provide references for system operation, such as the FMH-11 series on Doppler radar meteorological operations. Part A of FMH-11 is updated annually to reflect changes in the WSR-88D (NEXRAD) system, responsibilities, and procedures.

OFCM’s Convening Role—Conferences, Workshops, and Forums Federal meteorological services have long reached their ultimate users through partnering with State and local entities and with private, for-profit companies. The academic community and international entities have long been research and development partners with Federal programs to improve and extend meteorological services and products. The OFCM frequently plays a key role in sponsoring, planning, and conducting a broad range of conferences, workshops, forums, etc., where stakeholders within and outside the Federal government come together to develop a community-wide perspective of user needs and objectives for areas of interest.

• The Interdepartmental Hurricane Conferences predate the founding of the OFCM, but since at least 1970, the OFCM has planned and managed these important conferences. Beginning in 2013, the format of the Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference was modified to focus primarily on tropical cyclone research and progress toward achieving the priorities detailed in the 2007 OFCM report, Interagency Strategic Research Plan for Tropical Cyclones: The Way Ahead (OFCM 2007a), which was described in chapter 4. • Aviation Weather conferences. Beginning with the workshops held to identify and validate user needs in the aviation community for the 1992 National Aviation Weather Plan (OFCM 1992), conferences, workshops and forums have been an important component of the National Aviation Weather Program. The Aviation Weather Forum held in July 2000

5. A Coordination Structure to Meet Tomorrow’s Challenges 87

provided essential input to the work defining Tiers 3 and 4 of the OFCM-coordinated strategy to meet users’ needs. • The two WIST symposia (WIST I in December 1999 and WIST II in December 2000) provided critical input and validation for the conceptual framework presented in the first national needs assessment for multiple sectors of the Nation’s surface transportation systems (OFCM 2002). • As described in chapter 2, the OFCM under Dr. Robert White as the first Federal Coordinator took on coordination with international partners through the World Weather Program, rapid collection and sharing of weather data through the World Weather Watch, and participation in the Global Atmospheric Research Program. In recent years, international coordination has been a key part of the Space Weather Enterprise Forum (SWEF) and the two International Symposia on Volcanic Ash and Aviation Safety. The 2004 volcanic ash symposium brought together representatives from 21 countries, 15 airlines, 12 universities, 6 private corporations, and other participants (OFCM 2004c).

Weather and Climate Challenges Today and Tomorrow

Today as throughout the preceding half-century, the Federal meteorological enterprise continues to evolve as the Nation’s needs for weather and climate information change and as science and technology improve our understanding of weather and climate phenomena and transform the capabilities to observe, predict, and warn. The OFCM continues to be the focal point for coordinating this evolution of Federal capabilities to meet user communities’ needs. This section highlights some of the important challenges that have been identified by the Federal Coordinator and recognized through policy guidance from the FCMSSR and planning/implementation activities under the ICMSSR and the program councils.

Aviation Weather in the Next Generation Air Transportation System To address the growing demands on the National Airspace System (NAS) for the future, the 108th Congress passed the VISION 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176). The Vision 100 Act calls for an integrated, multi-agency plan to transform the nation’s air transportation system to meet the needs of the year 2025 and beyond, while providing substantial near-term benefits. The resulting Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Initiative addresses critical safety and economic needs in civil aviation, while fully integrating national defense and homeland security improvements into the future NAS.

The FAA, NASA, and the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, and Transportation, along with the private sector and academic community, are working together with the Office of Science and Technology Policy to design and build NextGen. To coordinate this work, VISION 100 created the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), which is overseen by the Senior Policy Committee comprised of the Secretary of Transportation and senior representatives from the five Federal agencies. Within the JPDO is the Weather Working Group, which facilitates the integration of weather capabilities into longer-term planning.

The OFCM continues to participate in the NextGen Weather Working Group and in the Friends/Partners in Aviation Weather (FPAW), an informal confederation of government, private sector, and academic individuals interested in improving aviation weather services. The OFCM also

88 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

The demand placed on America's air transportation system has grown significantly over the past 30 years. In 1980, the system carried 281 million passengers. In 2008, it handled nearly 650 million passengers, and the number of passengers and cargo carried annually is expected to grow over time.

In the future, all airports and aircraft in the US airspace will be connected to NextGen’s advanced infrastructure and will continually share information in real-time to improve air transportation’s safety, speed, efficiency, and environmental impacts, while absorbing increased demand levels. (JPDO 2013)

Photo credit: Michael R. Babcock

continues to implement the National Aviation Weather Program, and is working with the agencies to advance meteorological standards, improve products, enhance services, and participate in research that contributes to the overall goal of providing the best state-of-the-art information to aviation end users where and when they need it.

Environmental Data Integration in NextGen

NOAA’s commitment to the NextGen initiative includes environmental data integration to provide weather data to users and partners using vendor-neutral geospatially aware techniques and to foster collaboration among participating organizations both in government and in the private sector. The activity has the following objectives:

• Improvements to information technology infrastructure, web services, and security comparable to those already employed by other governmental agencies and by industry to provide greater and easier access to NOAA weather information for aviation decision- makers. Greater access to aviation-relevant weather information will facilitate better integration of this information into aviation users’ decision-making processes and systems. • More consistent aviation weather information, providing a complete picture of how weather will impact aviation across the NAS. • Improvements to the accuracy of weather information. More accurate aviation weather information, achieved through higher resolution weather models, will improve air traffic managers’ ability to fine-tune their assessment of the impact of the weather on airports and air routes to safely maximize available airspace. • Improvements to aviation forecast generation techniques. NWS meteorologists require advanced tools and techniques to enable faster, more accurate generation of aviation weather information.

5. A Coordination Structure to Meet Tomorrow’s Challenges 89

NOAA faces several challenges in implementing NextGen including creating the necessary digital services, prototyping capabilities and operationally implementing them as standards continue to emerge, and establishing collaborative boundaries in the weather enterprise. The NSSL, in collaboration with the University of Oklahoma, Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, Lincoln Laboratories, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, is developing and testing new tools and products to meet these needs including, for example, the Multiple- Radar/Multiple-Sensor system installed at the FAA’s technical center in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Based on an agreement between the JPDO, the FAA, NWS, and OFCM, the OFCM-sponsored Committee for Aviation Services and Research (CASR), which reports to the National Aviation Weather Program Council, was restructured in 2011 to focus on developing a NextGen Weather Research Roadmap and Plan. The initial focus of this effort is on meeting the environmental data integration requirements for the NextGen Mid-term Operational Capability, planned for 2018, and then for the Follow-on Capability. The CASR work follows previous OFCM work performed under the direction of the National Aviation Weather Program Council (see chapter 4) and leverages interagency work that was already underway when the CASR was restructured.

Air Domain Awareness

The Air Domain Awareness (ADA) program is an interagency homeland defense, security, and air transportation initiative that has grown out of the Federal interest in Multifunction Phased Array Radar, as discussed in chapter 4, and a capability to understand the state of the air domain. The air domain is defined as “the global airspace, including domestic, international, and foreign airspace, as well as all manned and unmanned aircraft operating, and people and cargo present, in that airspace, and all aviation-related infrastructure” (Appendix I). The scope of ADA consists of the knowledge of what is in or could enter the air domain, the condition of the air domain, and its status, and an effective understanding of the threats associated with what is in or could impact the air domain. The FCM, as the DOC/NOAA representative on the Air Domain Awareness Board, works to ensure that the impact of weather on the NAS and the air domain overall receives proper consideration and that frequency allocation issues are addressed, which are vital to NOAA’s interests in maintaining a frequency allocation for weather radar.

Space Weather Research, Observing, and Warning Capability In the spring of 2011, the United States, represented by Dr. John “Jack” Hayes, Director of the NWS, and representatives of the United Kingdom agreed to work together to improve environmental prediction, including space weather services. The NSWPC responded by initiating a high-level memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the Federal agencies engaged in space weather activities to establish a Unified National Space Weather Capability (UNSWC) to serve as the internationally recognized entry point to U.S. space weather support and services, encompassing the ongoing contributions of the NSWP member agencies (OFCM 2011a, pg. 36). Under the MOU, which took effect in February 2013, six Federal entities in the NSWPC that provide space weather services or conduct supporting research—NOAA, the U.S. Air Force, USGS, NASA, and NSF— have agreed to coordinate and cooperate in activities to improve space weather services and to leverage each other’s investments. Annexes to the MOU will specify the provisions of specific collaborative undertakings. The MOU also serves as the foundation and mechanism for global agencies to enlist the involvement of the UNSWC in addressing global space weather needs (UNSWC 2013). The UNSWC continues a long tradition of interagency cooperation in space

90 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

weather research, observing, and warning capability, now extended to the international arena, and lends emphasis to the statement of Dr. Fred P. Lewis, Air Force Director of Weather, that “space weather is a team sport.”

On April 26, 2013, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released its report, Space Weather Observing Systems: Current Capabilities and Requirements for the Next Decade (OSTP 2013). This report was developed by an OFCM joint action group under the National Space Weather Program Council (NSWPC). This joint action group comprised 25 space weather program managers and experts from 15 Federal entities. OSTP described the report as providing “a consensus view of the key capabilities that need to be maintained, replaced, or upgraded to ensure space weather observing systems can meet the requirements of the Nation’s critical space weather forecasting capabilities for the next 10 years.”24

The 2013 Space Weather Enterprise Forum (SWEF), held on June 4, reaffirmed the commitments of the National Space Weather Program Council and the Committee for Space Weather to pursue the 2010 National Space Weather Program Strategic Plan (OFCM 2010b) and the objectives of the Unified National Space Weather Capability initiative (UNSWC 2012). Input from the SWEF sessions will be incorporated into the next update of the National Space Weather Program Implementation Plan currently in development.

Space Weather Enterprise Forum, June 4, 2013 Sponsored by the National Space Weather Program

Distinguished Speakers: • Congressman Steven M. Palazzo, 4th District of Mississippi • Charles F. Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator • Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

Earth Observations – Satellites In September 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report calling for changes in NOAA’s program to develop and place in operations the new GOES-R series of geostationary weather satellites (GAO 2010). The GAO concluded that technical delays with some of the GOES-R instruments were jeopardizing NOAA’s plans for GOES data continuity and that some important communities of potential users of the GOES data had not been adequately consulted. In response to the GAO recommendations, the GOES-R program is providing the OFCM with annual updates on program status and changes, for purposes of interagency coordination. The OFCM distributes the reports to all agencies that will be users of GOES-R data and products. In addition, the OFCM will take the lead in ensuring that new Federal agency requirements for satellite data are documented for future integration into the GOES-R program.

As of September 2013, the FCM is planning to re-establish a Committee for Operational Environmental Satellites (COES), which will report to the National Operational Processing Centers

24 Email from Tamara L. Dickinson to Samuel Williamson et al., dated 26 April 2013. Subject: OSTP Releases. Space Weather Observing Systems: Current Capabilities and Requirements for the Next Decade.

5. A Coordination Structure to Meet Tomorrow’s Challenges 91

GOES-R Planned launch in 2015

Instruments • Advanced Baseline Imager • Geostationary Lightning Mapper • Extreme Ultraviolet/X-Ray Irradiance Sensors • Space Environment In-Situ Suite • Magnetometer

Unique Payload Services • GOES-R Rebroadcast • Data Collection System • Emergency Managers Weather Information Network • Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking System

Program Council. The council is reviewing the terms of reference for the proposed COES in comparison to the COPC terms to appropriately delineate responsibilities. This committee will conduct interagency coordination for DSCOVR, COSMIC-2, and the JPSS.

Earth Observations – The National Strategy and Earth Observation Assessments On April 19, 2013, OSTP released the National Strategy for Civil Earth Observations. This document provides guidance for two new multi-agency activities, the Civil Earth Observation Assessment and the Big Earth Data Initiative (NSTC 2013) in part as follow-on actions from the 2012 Earth Observation Assessment overseen by the National Earth Observation Task Force (NEOTF) under CENRS. As a member of the CENRS and the NEOTF, the FCM provided review and guidance while the OFCM staff and infrastructure groups participated in preparing the 2012 Earth observation assessment. Specific major contributions to the assessment came in the areas of space weather, transportation, and weather. Areas of special focus included WIST and urban meteorology.

Social Science and Meteorology The OFCM role in applying social science research on population response to extreme Need to integrate social sciences into weather events and official warnings prior to operations and services to: such events dates back to the 1970s. The FY • Improve delivery of information and 1972-1973 Federal Plan describes developing services community preparedness as one of three • Communicate more clearly with the public essential thrust areas for improving warning • Enhance critical partnerships with services for hurricanes, tornadoes, severe local emergency managers, the media, and the thunderstorms, and East Coast winter storms private sector (nor’easters). • Reach out to diverse, at-risk populations • Improve societal responsiveness to severe In May 2010, the OFCM hosted a mini- weather workshop to explore the integration of social • Save lives science research results into meteorological operations/services. The mini-workshop was

92 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

convened in response to an action item from the August 2009 ICMSSR meeting, which tasked the OFCM to organize an interagency exploratory meeting on the social science aspects of meteorological services and supporting research to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information. In addition, recommendations from the March 2010 64th Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference (IHC) echoed support for a social science workshop. Both the ICMSSR and attendees at the 64th IHC encouraged the weather community to further integrate social sciences into its operations and services to: (1) improve the delivery of information and services; (2) communicate more clearly with the public; (3) enhance critical partnerships with emergency managers, the media, and the private sector; (4) reach out to diverse, at-risk populations; (5) improve societal responsiveness to severe weather; and (6) save lives.

The theme of this mini-workshop was Framing the Questions—Addressing the Needs. Presenters and participants identified common questions and issues they hoped that social science research could help resolve (OFCM 2010e). Once these research needs are established and confirmed as important, specific projects can be advanced for expanding the integration of social science into meteorological operations and services. The workshop objectives were to: (1) identify agency-specific and agency- overlapping social science–related actions and social science needs/priorities as related to meteorological operations/services, (2) compile key recommendations for potential government action for implementation in meteorological Social sciences needs identified in the 2010 forecasting and warning programs, and (3) workshop – broad thematic areas: develop an action agenda for the further • Risk communication inclusion of social science research results • End-to-end analysis into meteorological operations/services • Decision support systems related to severe weather, tropical cyclones, • Knowledge transfer space weather, etc. • Vulnerability assessment/economic valuation Social science needs that emerged during the • Partnerships mini-workshop fell into the following broad thematic areas: (1) risk communication, (2) end-to-end analysis, (3) decision support systems, (4) knowledge transfer, (5) vulnerability assessment/economic valuation, and (6) partnerships. As a next step, the OFCM-sponsored Working Group for Social Sciences is tasked with developing an interagency plan to implement actions and recommendations from the mini- workshop summary report.

Envisioning the Future Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

An enduring principle and foundational idea for the OFCM is to coordinate and collaborate among the Federal agencies to reduce duplication and maximize return on the American taxpayer’s investment. Dating back to the original congressional concerns that led to creation of the OFCM in the early 1960s (see chapter 2), budget constraints and the goal of increased cost-effectiveness have always been an issue for the Federal meteorological enterprise. As noted in the beginning of chapter 3, costs of the enterprise became a major issue again in the late 1970s and cost-consciousness has long been a key driver for coordinating and collaborating across established Federal agency boundaries to achieve more with less.

5. A Coordination Structure to Meet Tomorrow’s Challenges 93

As this report has documented throughout, the demand for meteorological services has grown during the past half century including specific application areas such as aviation weather, wildland fire weather, WIST, and space weather, even as both the private and public sectors have raced to meet these demands with the latest improvements stemming from advances in scientific knowledge and technological innovation. These same advances in science and technology have been applied to enhance the longstanding, more traditional service areas as well, such as agriculture, defense, and hurricane and severe weather warnings. The migration of population to urban and coastal areas amplifies the need for improvements in hurricane forecasting, weather observations on finer scales, ATD modeling to guide response to accidental and deliberate releases of toxic materials, space weather warnings to protect concentrated and heavily loaded electrical power grids, and aviation weather information for heavily loaded hub airports where a single thunderstorm can cause disruption of a major portion of the National Airspace System. As this migration produces unique challenges, it may also produce unique opportunities for innovation in environmental observations, data collection, and information dissemination. Can every person and vehicle become a mobile weather observing capability? What is the role of social networking technology, smart phones, and intelligent vehicles? How does the urban population and the population in general receive and use weather information to best meet its needs?

The Federal meteorological coordinating infrastructure has proven both durable and adaptable to the evolution of the enterprise but now faces its biggest challenge: effectively hearing and responding to the voices of the expanding non-federal component of the entire meteorological enterprise. Increasingly, the expertise in areas of high interest lies outside of the Federal Government and it must be leveraged by the agencies to be effective in the future. The social sciences, the wide-ranging and diverse wildland fire weather community of interest, and the concept of a university-based ensemble of quasi-operational numerical weather prediction models are just a few examples that challenge the notion that a handful of conferences, workshops, symposia, and forums can adequately convey emerging needs or transfer knowledge and technology to the Federal agencies, particularly when such activities are the first casualties of Federal budget cutting. At the same time, growing concern over cybersecurity mitigates against thought-provoking ideas such as the NOAA Science Advisory Board’s Environmental Information Systems Working Group proposal to create an “Open NWS” where private sector service providers are embedded in and have full access to all NWS data. Whether these challenges can be best addressed through a federal advisory committee or some other mechanism remains to be seen. The next half century promises to be as dynamic, unpredictable, and challenging as the last.

94 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

REFERENCES

AMS (American Meteorological Society). 1998. History of the GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment. www.ametsoc.org/sloan/gate/index.html. Accessed March 2012. Brinton, T. 2010. White House dissolves NPOESS partnership in blow to Northrop. SpaceNews, Feb. 2, 2010. http://www.spacenews.com/article/white-house-dissolves-npoess- partnership-blow-northrop#.UfHKnd7D9D8. Accessed July 2013 DOD (U.S. Department of Defense). 2000. Space Weather Architecture Transition Plan. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence. 22 May 2000. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Defense. Available online at: http://www.ofcm.gov/Tplan/swatp.html. Doore, G.S. 2000. Obituary: Colonel William S. Barney. February 20, 2000. Silver Spring, Maryland. GAO (General Accounting Office). 1979. The Federal Weather Program Must Have Stronger Central Direction. LCD-0-10. October 16, 1979. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2011. How Do Weather Events Impact Roads? Road Weather Management Program, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Last modified July 28, 2011. www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather/q1_roadimpact.htm JPDO (Joint Planning and Development Office, NextGen). 2013. NextGen Overview. Accessed October 2013. Available online at: http://www.jpdo.gov/About_Us.asp Krider, E.P., R.C. Noggle, and M.A. Uman. 1976. A gated wide-band magnetic detection finder for lightning return strokes. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 15: 301-306. Metcalf, J., and K. Glover. 1989. The Fortieth Anniversary History of Weather Radar Research in the U.S. Air Force. AFGL-TR-89-0032. January 30, 1989. Marks, F., and R. Ferek. 2011. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 snapshots of tropical cyclone R&D. Presentation at the 65th Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference, Miami, Florida, February 28 to March 3, 2011. Available at http://www.ofcm.gov/ihc11/linking_file_ihc11.htm. NCDC (National Climate Data Center). 2013. Billion Dollar U.S. Weather/Climate Disasters, 1980- 2012. Asheville, NC: National Climate Data Center. Available online at: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.pdf. NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction). 2012. NCEP Quarterly Newsletter - October 2012. www.ncep.noaa.gov/newsletter/october2012/newsletter.pdf. Accessed August 2013. NESDIS (National Environmental Satellite, Data, an Information Service). 2013. POES Status. Office of Satellite Operations. www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus. Accessed July 2013. NEXRAD JSPO (Next Generation Weather Radar Joint System Program Office). 1980. Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) Joint Program Development Plan. September 1980. Washington, D.C.: NEXRAD JSPO. NEXRAD Program Council. 1997. NEXRAD Program Council (NPC) Draft Record of Actions 97-1 Meeting. November 17, 1997. Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, Silver Springs, Maryland.

95 96 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008. Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project Plan. July 18, 2008. Silver Springs, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA . 2011. Value of a Weather-Ready Nation. NOAA Office of Program Planning and Integration. Last revised 10/13/2011. http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/PPI-Weather- Econ-Stats-10-13-11.pdf. Accessed September 2013. NRC (National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council). 1994. Toward a New National Weather Service: Weather for Those Who Fly. National Weather Service Modernization Committee, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. NRC. 1995. Aviation Weather Services: A Call for Federal Leadership and Action. Committee on National Aviation Weather Services, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press. Available online at: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5037. NRC. 1997. Toward a New National Weather Service: Continuity of NOAA Satellites. National Weather Service Modernization Committee, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Available online at: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5588 NRC. 2001. A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Toward the Future. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Available online at: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10198. NRC. 2009. Observing Weather and Climate from the Ground Up: A Nationwide Network of Networks. Committee on Developing Mesoscale Meteorological Observartional Capabilities to Meet Multiple National Needs, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Available online at: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12540. NRC. 2011. The National Weather Service Modernization and Associated Restructuring: A Retrospective Assessment. Committee on the Assessment of the National Weather Service’s Modernization Program, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Available online at: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13216. NRC. 2012. Urban Meteorology: Forecasting, Monitoring, and Meeting End Users’ Needs. Committee on Urban Meteorology: Scoping the Problem, Defining the Needs, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Available online at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13328 NSSL (National Severe Storms Laboratory). 2011. NSSL’s Accomplishments. www.nssl.noaa.gov/aboutnssl/accomp.html. Accessed 11/25/2011. NSTC (National Science and Technology Council). 2013. National Strategy for Civil Earth Observations. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President. Available online at: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/nstc_2013_earthobsstrategy.pdf. NWS (National Weather Service). 1989. Strategic Plan for the Modernization and Associated Restructuring of the National Weather Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.

References 97

NWS. 1990. Implementation Plan for the Modernization and Associated Restructuring of the National Weather Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. NWS. 2013. NOAA’S National Weather Service. Radar Operations Center. NEXRAD WSR-88D. Network Sites. http://www.roc.noaa.gov/WSR88D/Program/NetworkSites.aspx. Accessed August 2013. OFCM (Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research). 1967. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 1968. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. OFCM. 1968. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 1969. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. OFCM. 1969. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 1970. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. OFCM. 1977. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 1978. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. OFCM. 1978. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 1979. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. OFCM. 1990. 25 Years of Coordination: Meteorology in the Federal Government. FCM-I4-1990. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/i-4/fcm-i4.htm. OFCM. 1991. Federal Plan for Meteorological Information Management. FCM-P24-1991. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. OFCM. 1992. National Aviation Weather Program Plan. FCM-P27-1992. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. OFCM. 1995a. The National Space Weather Program. Strategic Plan. FCM-P30-1995. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/nswp-sp/text/a-cover.htm. OFCM. 1995b. Terms of Reference for Satellite Telemetry Interagency Working Group. Internal document of the Committee for Basic Services and Hydrology Subcommittee, Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. OFCM. 1996. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 1997. Section 2: Federal Coordination and Planning. FCM-P1-1996. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/fedplan/fp-fy97/text/sec2.htm. OFCM. 1997a. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 1998. Section 2: Federal Coordination and Planning. FCM-P1-1997. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research.

98 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

OFCM. 1997b. National Aviation Weather Program Strategic Plan. FCM-P32-1997. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/nawp-sp/text/nawp_fr.htm. OFCM. 1997c. National Space Weather Program Implementation Plan. FCM-P31-1997. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: http://www.ofcm.gov/nswp-ip/text/cover.htm. OFCM. 1998a. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 1999. FCM- P1-1998. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. OFCM. 1998b. ICMSSR Memorandum 98-7. Draft Record of Actions for 98-2 Meeting. August 17, 1998. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. OFCM. 1999a. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 2000. FCM- P1-1999. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/fedplan/fp-fy00/pdf/. OFCM. 1999b. National Aviation Weather Initiatives. FCM-P34-1999. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/nawpc/nawi.htm. OFCM. 1999c. Directory of Atmospheric Transport and Diffuison Consequence Assessment Models. FCM-I3- 1999. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/homepage/text/pubs.htm. OFCM. 2000a. Proceedings of the Aviation Weather User Forum. Aviation Weather: Opportunities for Implementation. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/aviationforum/proceedings/axproceedings.htm. OFCM. 2000b. Proceedings for the Weather Information for Surface Transportation Symposium, “Delivering Improved Safety and Efficiency for Tomorrow.” Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. OFCM. 2000c. The National Space Weather Program. The Implementation Plan. 2nd Edition. FCM-P31- 2000. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: http://www.ofcm.gov/nswp- ip/tableofcontents.htm. OFCM. 2000d. Proceedings of the Workshop on Multiscale Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling within the Federal Community. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/homepage/text/pubs.htm. OFCM. 2001. Proceedings of the WIST Forum, “Preparing the Future: Improved Weather Information for Decision Makers.” December 4-6, 2000. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/wist2/proceedings2000/wist2startup.htm. OFCM. 2002a. Aviation Weather Training. A Report on Training for Emerging and Recently Implemented Aviation Weather Programs. FCM-R16-2002. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal

References 99

Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/aviation_training_report/index.html. OFCM. 2002b. Weather Information for Surface Transportation National Needs Assessment Report. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at www.ofcm.gov/wist_report/wist-report.htm. OFCM 2002c. Atmospheric Modeling of Releases from Weapons of Mass Destruction: Response by Federal Agencies in Support of Homeland Security. Report of the Joint Action Group for the Selection and Evaluation of Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Models. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. (Access restricted.) OFCM. 2002d. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 2003. FCM- P1-2002. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/fedplan/fp- fy03/fedplan.htm. OFCM. 2003a. Aviation Weather Programs/Projects (Tier 3/4 Baseline Update). FCM-R21-2003. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/nawpc/tier3and4update/tier3and4report.htm. OFCM 2003b. National Aviation Weather Program Mid-Course Assessment: Accident Reduction Trends Confirm Value of Coordinated R&D Programs. FCM-R20-2003. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/aviation_mid_course_review/mid_course_index.htm. OFCM. 2003c. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 2004. FCM- P1-2003. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/fedplan/fp- fy04/fedplan.htm. OFCM. 2003d. Report on Wind Chill Temperature and Extreme Heat Indices: Evaluation and Improvement Projects. FCM-R19-2003. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: http://www.ofcm.gov/jagti/r19-ti-plan/r19-ti-plan.htm OFCM. 2004a. Urban Meteorology – Meeting Weather Needs in the Urban Community. FCM-R22-2004. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: http://www.ofcm.gov/homepage/text/spc_proj/urban_met/Discussion-Framework.pdf OFCM. 2004b. Federal Research and Development Needs and Priorities for Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Modeling. FCM-R23-2004. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/r23/r23-2004/fcm-r23.htm OFCM. 2004c. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Volcanic Ash and Aviation Safety. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: http://www.ofcm.gov/ICVAAS/Proceedings2004/ICVAAS2004-Proceedings.htm

100 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

OFCM. 2005a. Weather Information for Surface Transportation (WIST) Initiative Document- First Steps to Improve the Nation’s WIST Capabilities and Services . Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/wist_initiatives/wist-initiatives.htm. OFCM. 2005b. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 2006. FCM- P1-2005. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/fedplan/fp- fy06/fedplan.htm. OFCM. 2006a. Report of the Assessment Committee for the National Space Weather Program. FCM-R24-2006. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: http://www.ofcm.gov/r24/fcm-r24.htm. OFCM. 2006b. Federal Research and Development Needs and Priorities for Phased Array Radar. FCM-R25- 2006. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/r25-mpar/fcm-r25.htm OFCM. 2006c. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 2007. FCM- P1-2006. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/fedplan/fp- fy07/fedplan.htm. OFCM. 2007a. Interagency Strategic Research Plan for Tropical Cyclones: The Way Ahead. FCM-P36-2007. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: http://www.ofcm.gov/p36-isrtc/fcm-p36.htm. OFCM. 2007b. National Wildland Fire Weather: A Summary of User Needs and Issues. FCM-R33-2007. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/r33-r34/fcm-r33&r34.htm. OFCM. 2007c. National Volcanic Ash Operations Plan for Aviation. FCM-P35-2007. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/p35-nvaopa/fcm-p35.htm. OFCM. 2008a. Impacts of NPOESS Nunn-McCurdy Certification and Potential Loss of ACE Spacecraft Solar Wind Data on National Space Environmental Monitoring Capabilities. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. OFCM. 2008b. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 2009. FCM- P1-2008. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: http://www.ofcm.gov/fedplan/fp- fy09/fedplan.htm. OFCM. 2010a. National Aviation Weather Program 10-Year Accident Reduction Initiative. Final Report. FCM-R31-2010. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/r31/fcm-r31.htm. OFCM. 2010b. The National Space Weather Program. Strategic Plan. FCM-P30-2010. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/nswp-sp/fcm-p30.htm.

References 101

OFCM. 2010c. The National Severe Local Storms Operations Plan. FCM-P11-2010. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/slso/2010/slso2010.htm. OFCM. 2010d. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 2011. FCM- P1-2010. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/fedplan/FY2011/fedplan.htm. OFCM. 2010e. Framing the Questions—Addressing the Needs: Moving to Incorporate Social Science Results into Meteorological Operations/Services. Exploratory Mini-Workshop Summary Report, FCM-R28- 2010. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/r28-ssr/fcm-r28.htm. OFCM. 2011a. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 2012. FCM- P1-2011. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/fedplan/FY2012/fedplan.htm. OFCM. 2011b. NEXRAD/WSR-88D History. OFCM white paper. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. OFCM. 2011c. Wildland Fire Weather: Multi-Agency Portfolio of Current and In-Development Capabilities to Support User Needs. FCM-R34-2011. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/r33-r34/fcm-r33&r34.htm. OFCM. 2011d. Multifunction Phased Array Radar Unified Research and Development Plan. FCM-P37-2011. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/p37-mpar-rd/fcm-p37.htm. OFCM. 2012a. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 2013. FCM- P1-2012. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/fedplan/FY2013/fedplan.htm. OFCM. 2012b. National Winter Storms Operations Plan. FCM-P13-2012. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at:www.ofcm.gov/nwsop/2012/nwsop.htm. OFCM. 2013a. National Hurricane Operations Plan. FCM-P12-2013. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/nhop/13/nhop13.htm. OFCM. 2013b. Report on Space Weather Observing Systems: Current Capabilities and Requirements for the Next Decade. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Distribution restricted. Orville, R.E. 2008. Development of the National Lightning Detection Network. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(2): 180-190. Available online at: http://staff.ycusd.k12.ca.us/kmiracle/files/2008/04/nldn_history_article.pdf OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy). 2013. Space Weather Observing Systems: Current Capabilities and Requirements for the Next Decade. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President.

102 The Federal Role in Meteorological Services and Supporting Research

Available online at: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/spaceweather_2013_report.pdf. PennLive.com. 2009. Timeline of the Accident at Three Mile Island. March 22, 2009. www.pennlive.com/specialprojects/index.ssf/2009/03/timeline_of_the_accident_at_th.html. Last accessed March 13, 2013. Pielke R.A., Gratz J., Landsea C.W., Collins D., Saunders M.A., and R. Musulin. 2008. Normalized hurricane damages in the United States: 1900-2005. Natural Hazards Review, 9(1). Available at: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf. Shea, E.L, and Theberge, S. 1999. A History of NOAA: Being a Compilation of Facts and Figures Regarding the Life and Times of the Original Whole Earth Agency. Available at http://www.history.noaa.gov/legacy/noaahistory_1.html. Accessed July 2013. Serafin, R.J. 1990. Meteorological radar. Chapter 23 in M. Skolnik, ed., Radar Handbook, second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Simmons, K.M., and Sutter, D. 2005. WSR-88D radar, tornado warnings, and tornado casualties. Weather and Forecasting, 20(3): 303-310. UCAR (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research). 2011. Barbados Oceanographic and Meteorological Experiment (BOMEX). NCAR Earth Observing Laboratory. www.eol.ucar.edu/projects/bomex/. Accessed 3/6/12. UNSWC (Unified National Space Weather Capability). 2013. Memorandum of Understanding between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Air Force of the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Geological Survey of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation to Coordinate and Cooperate in Activities Involving the Development and Execution of a Unified National Space Weather Capability (UNSWC). Available online at: www.ofcm.gov/UNSWC%20MOU/UNSWC%20MOU-Annex%20signed.pdf. Vaisala. 2011. Vaisala’s NLDN U.S. National Lightning Detection Network. Reference B210412EN-F. Available online at www.vaisala.com/Vaisala%20Documents/Brochures%20and%20Datasheets/NLDN- brochure-B210412EN-F-low.pdf. Whiton, RC, P.L. Smith, S.G. Bigler, K.E. Wilk, and A.C. Harbuck. 1998. History of operational use of weather radar by U.S. weather services. Part II: Development of operational Doppler weather radars. Weather and Forecasting, 13: 244-252. Available online at: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520- 0434%281998%29013%3C0244%3AHOOUOW%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Williamson. SP. 1998. OFCM’s Look to the Future. Briefing presented to Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. June 22, 1998. Silver Spring, Maryland: Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. WMO (World Meteorological Organization). 2009. The World Meteorological Organization at a Glance: Working Together for Monitoring, Understanding and Predicting Weather, Climate and Water. Available at: www.wmo.int/pages/about/documents/WMO990.pdf. WWP (World Weather Program). 1972. World Weather Program. Plan for 1972. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at: www.archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19720009910.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A SELECTED EXAMPLES OF EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS COSTING AT LEAST $1 BILLION, 1980–2012

Source: National Climate Data Center 2013. Cost estimates are given in both current-year dollars and, in parentheses, in constant 2013 dollars adjusted using the 2013 Consumer Price Index. This list is a selection from the complete list of billion-dollar events available on the National Climate Data Center’s website, www.ncdc.noaa.gov. • Drought/Heat Wave, June-September 1980. Central and eastern U.S. Estimated costs of $20.0 ($56.4) to agriculture and related industries; estimated deaths 10,000 (includes heat stress–related excess mortality) • Western Storms and Flooding, Late February 1983. Severe storms and flooding, especially in the states of WA, OR, CA, AZ, NV, ID, UT, and MT. Estimated costs of $1.1 ($2.6) billion; 50 deaths. • Hurricane Alicia, August 1983. Category 3 hurricane with landfall in Texas. Estimated costs of $3.0 ($7.0) billion; 21 deaths. • Drought/Heat Wave, Summer 1988. Drought in central and eastern U.S. with severe losses to agriculture and related industries. Estimated costs $40.0 ($78.8) billion; estimated deaths 7,500 (includes heat stress–related excess mortality). • Hurricane Hugo, September 1989. This category 4 hurricane devastated South and North Carolina with a storm surge of up to 20 feet and severe wind damage, after hitting Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Estimated costs of $9.0 ($16.9) billion; 86 deaths. • Oakland Firestorm, October 1991. Oakland, California firestorm due to low humidity and high winds. Estimated costs of $2.5 ($4.3) billion; 25 deaths. • Hurricane Andrew, August 1992. Category 4 hurricane hits Florida and Louisiana; high winds damage or destroy more than 125,000 homes. Estimated costs of $27.0 ($44.8) billion; 61 deaths. • Storm/Blizzard, March 1993. "Storm of the Century" hits entire eastern seaboard with tornadoes in Florida, high winds, and heavy snows (2-4 feet). Estimated costs of $5.5 ($8.9) billion; 270 deaths. • Midwest Flooding, Summer 1993. Severe, widespread flooding in central U.S. due to persistent heavy rains and thunderstorms. Estimated costs of $21.0 ($33.8) billion; 48 deaths. • Southeast Ice Storm, February 1994. Intense ice storm with extensive damage in portions of TX, OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, GA, SC, NC, and VA. Estimated costs of $3.0 ($4.7) billion; 9 deaths. • South Plains Rains and Flooding, May 1995. Torrential rains, hail, and tornadoes across Texas-Oklahoma and southeast Louisiana-southern Mississippi, with Dallas and New Orleans areas hardest hit (10 to 25 inches of rain in 5 days). Estimated costs of $5.5 ($8.4) billion; 32 deaths.

A-1 Appendix A. Selected Billion-Dollar Extreme Weather Events, 1980-2012

• Hurricane Opal, October 1995. Category 3 hurricane strikes Florida panhandle, Alabama, western Georgia, eastern Tennessee, and the western Carolinas, causing storm surge, wind, and flooding damage. Estimated costs of $3.0 ($4.6) billion; 27 deaths. • Blizzard Followed by Flooding, January 1996. Very heavy snowstorm (1-4 feet) over Appalachians, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast, followed by severe flooding in parts of same area due to rain and snowmelt. Estimated costs of $3.0 ($4.4) billion; 187 deaths. • Mississippi and Ohio River Valleys Flooding and Tornadoes, March 1997. Tornadoes and severe flooding hit the states of AR, MO, MS, TN, IL, IN, KY, OH, and WV; over 10 inches rain in 24 hours in Louisville. Estimated costs of $1.0 ($1.5) billion; 67 deaths. • Southern Drought/Heat Wave, Summer 1998. Severe drought and heat wave from Texas/Oklahoma eastward to the Carolinas; Estimated costs $7.5 ($10.7) billion; 200 deaths. • Arkansas-Tennessee Tornadoes, January 1999. Two outbreaks of tornadoes in 6-day period strike Arkansas and Tennessee. Estimated costs $1.3 ($1.8) billion; 17 deaths. • Oklahoma-Kansas Tornadoes, May 1999. Outbreak of F4-F5 tornadoes hits the states of Oklahoma and Kansas, along with Texas and Tennessee; Oklahoma City area hardest hit. Estimated costs $1.6 ($2.2) billion; 55 deaths. • Hurricane Floyd, September 1999. Large category 2 hurricane makes landfall in eastern NC, causing 10-20 inch rains in 2 days, with severe flooding in NC and some flooding in SC, VA, MD, PA, NY, NJ, DE, RI, CT, MA, NH, and VT. Estimated costs $6.0 ($8.4) billion; 77 deaths. • Tropical Storm Allison, June 2001. The persistent remnants of Tropical Storm Allison produce rainfall amounts of 30-40 inches in portions of coastal Texas and Louisiana, causing severe flooding especially in the Houston area, then move slowly northeastward; fatalities and significant damage reported in TX, LA, MS, FL, VA, and PA. Estimated costs $5.0 ($6.6) billion; 43 deaths. • Western Fire Season, 2002. Major fires over 11 western states from the Rockies to the West Coast, due to drought and periodic high winds, with over 7.1 million acres burned. Estimated costs $ 2.0 ($2.6) billion; 21 deaths. • Severe Storms and Tornadoes, May 2003. Numerous tornadoes over the Midwest, Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee River valleys, and portions of the Southeast produce a modern record one-week total of approximately 400 tornadoes reported. Estimated costs $3.4 ($4.3) billion; 51 deaths. • Hurricane Isabel, September 2003. Category 2 hurricane makes landfall in NC and causes storm surge damage along coasts of NC, VA, and MD; wind damage and inland flooding due to 4-12 inch rains in NC, VA, MD, DE, WV, NJ, NY, and PA. Estimated costs $5.0 ($6.3) billion; 55 deaths • Hurricane Charley, August 2004. Category 4 hurricane makes landfall in southwest FL, resulting in major wind and some storm surge damage in FL, along with some damage in SC and NC. Estimated costs of $15.0 ($18.5) billion; 35 deaths.

A-2 Appendix A. Selected Billion-Dollar Extreme Weather Events, 1980-2012

• Hurricane Ivan, September 2004. Category 3 hurricane makes landfall on Gulf coast at AL with significant wind, storm surge, and flooding damage in coastal AL and FL panhandle; wind and flood damage in GA, MS, LA, SC, NC, VA, WV, MD, TN, KY, OH, DE, NJ, PA, and NY. Estimated costs $14.0 ($17.2) billion; 57 deaths. • Hurricane Katrina, August 2005. Category 3 hurricane initially impacts the U.S. as a Category 1 near Miami, FL, then as a strong Category 3 along the eastern LA–western MS coastlines, resulting in severe storm surge damage (maximum surge probably exceeded 30 feet) along the LA-MS-AL coasts, wind damage, and the failure of parts of the levee system in New Orleans. Inland effects included high winds and some flooding in the states of AL, MS, FL, TN, KY, IN, OH, and GA. Estimated costs $125 ($148.8) billion, 1,833 deaths. • Midwest/Ohio Valley Tornadoes, April 2006. Significant outbreak of tornadoes and severe weather affecting the states of IL, IN, IA, AR, MO, KY, and TN on April 2nd with five "killer" tornadoes. Estimated costs $1.1 ($1.3) billion; 27 deaths. • Great Plains and Eastern Drought, Summer/Fall 2007. Severe drought with periods of extreme heat over most of the Southeast and portions of the Great Plains, Ohio Valley, and Great Lakes area, resulting in major reductions in crop yields, along with very low stream- flows and lake levels. Includes states of ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, MN, WI, IA, MO, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, NC, SC, FL, TN, VA, WV, KY, IN, IL, OH, MI, PA, NY. Estimated costs $5.0 ($5.6) billion; 15 deaths. • Midwest Flooding, Summer 2008. Heavy rain and flooding caused significant agricultural loss and property damage in IA, IL, IN, MO, MN, NE, and WI with IA being hardest hit with widespread rainfall totals ranging from 4 to over 16 inches. Estimated cost $15.0 ($16.2) billion; 24 deaths. • Hurricane Ike, September 2008. Category 2 hurricane makes landfall in Texas as largest (in size) Atlantic hurricane on record, causes considerable storm surge in coastal TX and significant wind and flooding damage in TX, LA, AR, TN, IL, IN, KY, MO, OH, MI and PA. Severe gasoline shortages occurred in the southeast US due to damaged oil platforms, storage tanks, pipelines and off-line refineries. Estimated cost $27.0 ($29.2) billion; 112 deaths; dozens of people missing • Southwest/Great Plains Drought, Entire year, 2009. Drought conditions occurred during much of the year across parts of the Southwest, Great Plains, and southern Texas, causing agricultural losses in numerous states (TX, OK, KS, CA, NM, AZ). The largest agriculture losses occurred in TX and CA. Estimated cost $5.0 (5.4) billion. • Western Wildfires, Summer-Fall 2009. Residual and sustained drought conditions across western and south-central states resulted in thousands of wildfires. The states most affected include CA, AZ, NM, TX, OK, and UT. Nationally burned acreage exceeded 5.9 million. Over 200 homes and structures destroyed in the California "Station" fire alone. Estimated costs $1.0 ($1.1) billion; 10 deaths.

A-3 Appendix A. Selected Billion-Dollar Extreme Weather Events, 1980-2012

• East/South Flooding and Severe Weather, May 2010. Flooding, hail, tornadoes, and severe thunderstorms occurred across many southern states (TN, AR, AL, KY, MS, GA) on April 30-May 2. Flooding in the Nashville, TN area alone contributed more than $1.0 billion in damages. Western and middle Tennessee were hardest hit, with local rainfall amounts of 18-20 inches to the south and west of Greater Nashville. Estimated costs $2.3 ($2.5) billion; 32 deaths. • Southeast/Ohio Valley/Midwest Tornadoes, April 25-28, 2011. Outbreak of tornadoes over central and southern states (AL, AR, LA, MS, GA, TN, VA, KY, IL, MO, OH, TX, OK) with an estimated 343 tornadoes and 321 deaths. Of those fatalities, 240 occurred in Alabama. The deadliest tornado of the outbreak, an EF-5, hit northern Alabama, killing 78 people. Several major metropolitan areas were directly impacted by strong tornadoes, including Tuscaloosa, Birmingham, and Huntsville in Alabama and Chattanooga, Tennessee, causing the estimated damage costs to soar. Estimated costs $10.2 ($10.5) billion; 321 deaths. • Midwest/Southeast Tornadoes, May 22-27, 2011. Outbreak of tornadoes over central and southern states (MO, TX, OK, KS, AR, GA, TN, VA, KY, IN, IL, OH, WI, MN, PA) with an estimated 180 tornadoes. An EF-5 tornado struck Joplin, MO, resulting in at least 160 deaths, making it the deadliest single tornado to strike the U.S. since modern tornado recordkeeping began in 1950. Estimated costs $9.1 billion; 177 deaths. • Southern Plains/Southwest Drought and Heat Wave, Spring-Summer 2011. Drought and heat wave conditions created major impacts across TX, OK, NM, AZ, southern KS, and western LA. In TX and OK, 82% and 70%, respectively, of range and pasture conditions were classified in 'very poor' condition for much of the 2011 crop growing season. Estimated costs $12.0 ($12.4) billion; 95 deaths • Texas, New Mexico, Arizona Wildfires, Summer 2011. Continued drought conditions and periods of extreme heat provided conditions favorable for a series of historic wildfires across TX, NM, and AZ. The Bastrop fire in TX, most destructive on record in the state, destroyed over 1,500 homes. Over 3 million acres burned across TX. Fires in AZ and NM were largest on record for those states. Estimated costs $1.0 billion; 5 deaths. • Mississippi River flooding, May 2011. Persistent rainfall (nearly 300 percent normal precipitation amounts in the Ohio Valley) combined with melting snowpack caused historical flooding along the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Estimated costs $3.0 ($3.1) billion; 7 deaths. • Hurricane Irene, August 2011. Category 1 hurricane made landfall over coastal NC and moved northward along the Mid-Atlantic Coast (NC, VA, MD, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT) causing torrential rainfall and flooding across the Northeast. Wind damage in coastal NC, VA, and MD was moderate with considerable damage resulting from falling trees and power lines, while flooding caused extensive flood damage across NJ, NY, and VT. Over seven million homes and businesses lost power during the storm. Numerous tornadoes were also reported in several states, adding to the damage. Estimated costs $9.8 ($10.1) billion; 45 deaths

A-4 Appendix A. Selected Billion-Dollar Extreme Weather Events, 1980-2012

• Southeast/Ohio Valley Tornadoes, March 2012. Outbreak of tornadoes and severe weather over the Southeast and the Ohio Valley (AL, GA, IN, OH, KY, TN) with 75 confirmed tornadoes. Estimated costs $3.1 billion; 42 deaths. • Tornadoes and Severe Weather, Texas, Midwest and Ohio Valley, Southern Plains, Northeast, April-May 2012. NCDC reports four outbreaks of severe weather with 185 confirmed tornadoes from April 2 through May 30. Estimated cost for all four outbreaks $7.9 billion; 8 deaths. • Sandy, October 2012. Extensive damage across MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI due to high wind and coastal storm surge, particularly in NY and NJ. Damage from wind, rain, and heav snow also extended to NC, VA, WV, OH, PA, NH, as Sandy merged with a developing nor’easter. Sandy caused widespread interruption to critical water and electrical services, as well as 72 direct and 87 indirect deaths. New York Stock Exchange closed for 2 days, which last happened in 1888. Estimated costs $65 billion ($65.7) billion; 159 deaths. • U.S. Drought/Heat Wave, 2012. Most extensive drought to affect the U.S. since the 1930s. Moderate to extreme drought conditions affected more than half the country for majority of 2012. Widespread harvest failure across the central agricultural states for corn, sorghum, soybean, and other crops. Associated summer heat wave caused 123 direct deaths, but estimate of the excess mortality due to heat stress is not yet available. Estimated costs $30.0 billion ($30.3); 123 direct deaths.

A-5

APPENDIX B CONSUMER OPTION FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM TO ALLOCATE LOSSES (COASTAL) ACT OF 2012

Subtitle B--Alternative Loss Allocation

SEC. 100251. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the `Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses Act of 2012' or the `COASTAL Act of 2012'.

SEC. 100252. ASSESSING AND MODELING NAMED STORMS OVER COASTAL STATES.

Subtitle C of title XII of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) (also known as the `Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009') is amended by adding at the end the following:

SEC. 12312. ASSESSING AND MODELING NAMED STORMS OVER COASTAL STATES.

(a) Definitions- In this section:

(1) COASTAL FORMULA- The term `COASTAL Formula' has the meaning given the term in section 1337(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.

(2) COASTAL STATE- The term `coastal State' has the meaning given the term `coastal state' in section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453).

(3) COASTAL WATERS- The term `coastal waters' has the meaning given the term in such section.

(4) COVERED DATA- The term `covered data' means, with respect to a named storm identified by the Administrator under subsection (b)(2)(A), empirical data that are—

(A) collected before, during, or after such storm; and

(B) necessary to determine magnitude and timing of wind speeds, rainfall, the barometric pressure, river flows, the extent, height, and timing of storm surge, topographic and bathymetric data, and other measures required to accurately model and assess damage from such storm.

(5) INDETERMINATE LOSS- The term `indeterminate loss' has the meaning given the term in section 1337(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.

B-1 (6) NAMED STORM- The term `named storm' means any organized weather system with a defined surface circulation and maximum winds of at least 39 miles per hour which the National Hurricane Center of the United States National Weather Service names as a tropical storm or a hurricane.

(7) NAMED STORM EVENT MODEL- The term `Named Storm Event Model' means the official meteorological and oceanographic computerized model, developed by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1)(A), which utilizes covered data to replicate the magnitude, timing, and spatial variations of winds, rainfall, and storm surges associated with named storms that threaten any portion of a coastal State.

(8) PARTICIPANT- The term `participant' means a Federal, State, or private entity that chooses to cooperate with the Administrator in carrying out the provisions of this section by collecting, contributing, and maintaining covered data.

(9) POST-STORM ASSESSMENT- The term `post-storm assessment' means a scientific assessment produced and certified by the Administrator to determine the magnitude, timing, and spatial variations of winds, rainfall, and storm surges associated with a specific named storm to be used in the COASTAL Formula.

(10) STATE- The term `State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

(b) Named Storm Event Model and Post-storm Assessment-

(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF NAMED STORM EVENT MODEL-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 540 days after the date of the enactment of the Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses Act of 2012, the Administrator shall develop by regulation the Named Storm Event Model.

(B) ACCURACY- The Named Storm Event Model shall be designed to generate post-storm assessments, as provided in paragraph (2), that have a degree of accuracy of not less than 90 percent for every indeterminate loss for which a post-storm assessment is utilized.

(2) POST-STORM ASSESSMENT-

(A) IDENTIFICATION OF NAMED STORMS THREATENING COASTAL STATES- After the establishment of the COASTAL Formula, the Administrator shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, identify named storms that may reasonably constitute a threat to any portion of a coastal State.

B-2

(B) POST-STORM ASSESSMENT REQUIRED- Upon identification of a named storm under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall develop a post-storm assessment for such named storm using the Named Storm Event Model and covered data collected for such named storm pursuant to the protocol established under subsection (c)(1).

(C) SUBMITTAL OF POST-STORM ASSESSMENT- Not later than 90 days after an identification of a named storm is made under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security the post-storm assessment developed for such storm under subparagraph (B).

(3) ACCURACY- The Administrator shall ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that each post-storm assessment developed under paragraph (2) has a degree of accuracy of not less than 90 percent.

(4) CERTIFICATION- For each post-storm assessment carried out under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall—

(A) certify the degree of accuracy for such assessment, including specific reference to any segments or geographic areas for which the assessment is less than 90 percent accurate; and

(B) report such certification to the Secretary of Homeland Security for the purposes of use with indeterminate loss claims under section 1337 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.

(5) FINALITY OF DETERMINATIONS- A certification of the degree of accuracy of a post-storm assessment under this subsection by the Administrator shall be final and shall not be subject to judicial review.

(6) AVAILABILITY- The Administrator shall make available to the public the Named Storm Event Model and any post-storm assessment developed under this subsection.

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 540 days after the date of the enactment of the Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses Act of 2012, the Administrator shall establish a protocol, based on the plan submitted under subsection (d)(3), to collect and assemble all covered data required by the Administrator to produce post-storm assessments required by subsection (b), including assembling data collected by participants and stored in the database established under subsection (f) and from such other sources as the Administrator considers appropriate.

(2) ACQUISITION OF SENSORS AND STRUCTURES- If the Administrator is unable to use a public or private asset to obtain covered data as part of

B-3 the protocol established under paragraph (1), the Administrator may acquire such sensors and structures for the placement of sensors as may be necessary to obtain such data.

(3) USE OF FEDERAL ASSETS- If the protocol requires placement of a sensor to develop assessments pursuant to subsection (b), the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, use Federal assets for the placement of such sensors.

(4) USE OF ACQUIRED STRUCTURES-

(A) IN GENERAL- If the Administrator acquires a structure for the placement of a sensor for purposes of such protocol, the Administrator shall to the extent practical permit other public and private entities to place sensors on such structure to collect-- (i) meteorological data; (ii) national security-related data; (iii) navigation-related data; (iv) hydrographic data; or (v) such other data as the Administrator considers appropriate.

(B) RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION- The Administrator may receive consideration for the placement of a sensor on a structure under subparagraph (A).

(D) USE OF CONSIDERATION- To the extent practicable, consideration received under subparagraph (B) shall be used for the maintenance of sensors used to collect covered data.

(5) COORDINATED DEPLOYMENTS AND DATA COLLECTION PRACTICES- The Administrator shall, in consultation with the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology, coordinate the deployment of sensors as part of the protocol established under paragraph (1) and related data collection carried out by Federal, State, academic, and private entities who choose to cooperate with the Administrator in carrying out this subsection.

(6) PRIORITY ACQUISITION AND DEPLOYMENT- The Administrator shall give priority in the acquisition for and deployment of sensors under the protocol required by paragraph (1) to areas of coastal States that have the highest risk of being harmed by named storms.

(d) Assessment of Systems and Efforts to Collect Covered Data-

(1) IDENTIFICATION OF SYSTEMS AND EFFORTS TO COLLECT COVERED DATA- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the

B-4 Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses Act of 2012, the Administrator shall, in consultation with the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology—

(A) carry out a survey to identify all Federal and State efforts and systems that are capable of collecting covered data; and

(B) consult with private and academic sector entities to identify domestic private and academic systems that are capable of collecting covered data.

(2) IDENTIFICATION OF GAPS- The Administrator shall, in consultation with the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology and individuals and entities consulted under subsection (e)(3), assess the systems identified under paragraph (1) and identify which systems meet the needs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the collection of covered data, including with respect to the accuracy requirement for post-storm assessment under subsection (b)(3).

(3) PLAN- Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of the Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses Act of 2012, the Administrator shall, in consultation with the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology, submit to Congress a plan for the collection of covered data necessary to develop the Named Storm Event Model and post-storm assessment required by subsection (b) that addresses any gaps identified in paragraph (2).

(e) Coordination of Covered Data Collection and Maintenance by Participants-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Administrator shall, in consultation with the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology, coordinate the collection and maintenance of covered data by participants under this section—

(A) to streamline the process of collecting covered data in accordance with the protocol established under subsection (c)(1); and

(B) to maintain transparency of such process and the database established under subsection (f).

(2) SHARING INFORMATION- The Administrator shall establish a process for sharing among participants information relevant to collecting and using covered data for—

(A) academic research;

(B) private sector use;

B-5 (D) such other purposes as the Administrator considers appropriate.

(3) CONSULTATION- In carrying out paragraphs (1) and (2), the Administrator shall consult with the following:

(A) The Commanding General of the Corps of Engineers.

(B) The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

(D) The Director of the United States Geological Survey.

(E) The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology.

(F) The Director of the National Science Foundation.

(G) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

(H) Such public, private, and academic sector entities as the Administrator considers appropriate for purposes of carrying out the provisions of this section.

(f) Establishment of Coastal Wind and Water Event Database-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses Act of 2012, the Administrator shall establish a database for the collection and compilation of covered data—

(A) to support the protocol established under subsection (c)(1); and

(B) for the purposes listed in subsection (e)(2).

(2) DESIGNATION- The database established under paragraph (1) shall be known as the `Coastal Wind and Water Event Database'.

(g) Comptroller General Study- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses Act of 2012, the Comptroller General of the United States shall—

(1) complete an audit of Federal efforts to collect covered data for purposes of the Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses Act of 2012, which audit shall—

(A) examine duplicated Federal efforts to collect covered data; and

B-6

(B) determine the cost effectiveness of such efforts; and

(2) submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit completed under paragraph (1).'.

SEC. 100253. ALTERNATIVE LOSS ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR INDETERMINATE CLAIMS.

Part A of chapter II of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4051 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

SEC. 1337. ALTERNATIVE LOSS ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR INDETERMINATE CLAIMS.

(a) Definitions- In this section:

(1) ADMINISTRATOR- The term `Administrator' means the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

(2) COASTAL FORMULA- The term `COASTAL Formula' means the formula established under subsection (b).

(3) COASTAL STATE- The term `coastal State' has the meaning given the term `coastal state' in section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453).

(4) INDETERMINATE LOSS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `indeterminate loss' means, as determined by an insurance claims adjuster certified under the national flood insurance program and in consultation with an engineer as appropriate, a loss resulting from physical damage to, or loss of, property located in any coastal State arising from the combined perils of flood and wind associated with a named storm.

(B) REQUIREMENTS- An insurance claims adjuster certified under the national flood insurance program shall only determine that a loss is an indeterminate loss if the claims adjuster determines that—

(i) no material remnant of physical buildings or man-made structures remain except building foundations for the specific property for which the claim is made; and

B-7 (ii) there is insufficient or no tangible evidence created, yielded, or otherwise left behind of the specific property for which the claim is made as a result of the named storm.

(5) NAMED STORM- The term `named storm' means any organized weather system with a defined surface circulation and maximum winds of not less than 39 miles per hour which the National Hurricane Center of the United States National Weather Service names as a tropical storm or a hurricane.

(6) POST-STORM ASSESSMENT- The term `post-storm assessment' means the post-storm assessment developed under section 12312(b) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

(7) STATE- The term `State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

(8) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(9) STANDARD INSURANCE POLICY- The term `standard insurance policy' means any insurance policy issued under the national flood insurance program that covers loss or damage to property resulting from water peril.

(10) PROPERTY- The term `property' means real or personal property that is insured under a standard insurance policy for loss or damage to structure or contents.

(11) UNDER SECRETARY- The term `Under Secretary' means the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, in the Under Secretary's capacity as Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

(b) Establishment of Flood Loss Allocation Formula for Indeterminate Claims-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date on which the protocol is established under section 12312(c)(1) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, the Secretary, acting through the Administrator and in consultation with the Under Secretary, shall establish by rule a standard formula to determine and allocate wind losses and flood losses for claims involving indeterminate losses.

(2) CONTENTS- The standard formula established under paragraph (1) shall—

(A) incorporate data available from the Coastal Wind and Water Event Database established under section 12312(f) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009;

B-8 (B) use relevant data provided on the National Flood Insurance Program Elevation Certificate for each indeterminate loss for which the formula is used;

(C) consider any sufficient and credible evidence, approved by the Administrator, of the pre-event condition of a specific property, including the findings of any policyholder or insurance claims adjuster in connection with the indeterminate loss to that specific property;

(D) include other measures, as the Administrator considers appropriate, required to determine and allocate by mathematical formula the property damage caused by flood or storm surge associated with a named storm; and

(E) subject to paragraph (3), for each indeterminate loss, use the post-storm assessment to allocate water damage (flood or storm surge) associated with a named storm.

(3) DEGREE OF ACCURACY REQUIRED- The standard formula established under paragraph (1) shall specify that the Administrator may only use the post-storm assessment for purposes of the formula if the Under Secretary certifies that the post-storm assessment has a degree of accuracy of not less than 90 percent in connection with the specific indeterminate loss for which the assessment and formula are used.

(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (3), the Administrator may use the post-storm assessment and the COASTAL Formula to—

(A) review flood loss payments for indeterminate losses, including as part of the quality assurance reinspection program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for claims under the national flood insurance program and any other process approved by the Administrator to review and validate payments under the national flood insurance program for indeterminate losses following a named storm; and

(B) assist the national flood insurance program to—

(i) properly cover qualified flood loss for claims for indeterminate losses; and

(ii) avoid paying for any loss or damage to property caused by any peril (including wind), other than flood or storm surge, that is not covered under a standard policy under the national flood insurance program.

B-9 (2) FEDERAL DISASTER DECLARATION- Subject to paragraph (3), in order to expedite claims and reduce costs to the national flood insurance program, following any major disaster declared by the President under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) relating to a named storm in a coastal State, the Administrator may use the COASTAL Formula to determine and pay for any flood loss covered under a standard insurance policy under the national flood insurance program, if the loss is an indeterminate loss.

(3) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES EVALUATION-

(A) EVALUATION REQUIRED-

(i) EVALUATION- Upon the issuance of the rule establishing the COASTAL Formula, and each time the Administrator modifies the COASTAL Formula, the National Academy of Sciences shall—

(I) evaluate the expected financial impact on the national flood insurance program of the use of the COASTAL Formula as so established or modified; and

(II) evaluate the validity of the scientific assumptions upon which the formula is based and determine whether the COASTAL formula can achieve a degree of accuracy of not less than 90 percent in allocating flood losses for indeterminate losses.

(ii) REPORT- The National Academy of Sciences shall submit a report containing the results of each evaluation under clause (i) to the Administrator, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives.

(B) EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY-

(i) EFFECTIVE DATE- Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall not take effect unless the report under subparagraph (A) relating to the establishment of the COASTAL Formula concludes that the use of the COASTAL Formula for purposes of paragraph (1) and (2) would not have an adverse financial impact on the national flood insurance program and that the COASTAL Formula is based on valid scientific assumptions that would allow a degree of accuracy of not less than 90 percent to be achieved in allocating flood losses for indeterminate losses.

B-10 (ii) EFFECT OF MODIFICATIONS- Unless the report under subparagraph (A) relating to a modification of the COASTAL Formula concludes that the use of the COASTAL Formula, as so modified, for purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2) would not have an adverse financial impact on the national flood insurance program and that the COASTAL Formula is based on valid scientific assumptions that would allow a degree of accuracy of not less than 90 percent to be achieved in allocating flood losses for indeterminate losses the Administrator may not use the COASTAL Formula, as so modified, for purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2).

(C) FUNDING- Notwithstanding section 1310 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017), there shall be available to the Administrator from the National Flood Insurance Fund, of amounts not otherwise obligated, not more than $750,000 to carry out this paragraph.

(d) Disclosure of COASTAL Formula- Not later than 30 days after the date on which a post-storm assessment is submitted to the Secretary under section 12312(b)(2)(C) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, for each indeterminate loss for which the COASTAL Formula is used pursuant to subsection (c)(2), the Administrator shall disclose to the policyholder that makes a claim relating to the indeterminate loss—

(1) that the Administrator used the COASTAL Formula with respect to the indeterminate loss; and

(2) a summary of the results of the use of the COASTAL Formula.

(e) Consultation- In carrying out subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary shall consult with—

(1) the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere;

(2) the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology;

(3) the Chief of Engineers of the Corps of Engineers;

(4) the Director of the United States Geological Survey;

(5) the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology;

(6) State insurance regulators of coastal States; and

(7) such public, private, and academic sector entities as the Secretary considers appropriate for purposes of carrying out such subsections.

(f) Recordkeeping- Each consideration and measure the Administrator determines necessary to carry out subsection (b) may be required, with

B-11 advanced approval of the Administrator, to be provided for on the National Flood Insurance Program Elevation Certificate, or maintained otherwise on record if approved by the Administrator, for any property that qualifies for the COASTAL Formula under subsection (c).

(g) Civil Penalty-

(1) IN GENERAL- If an insurance claims adjuster knowingly and willfully makes a false or inaccurate determination relating to an indeterminate loss, the Administrator may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, impose on the insurance claims adjuster a civil penalty of not more than $1,000.

(2) DEPOSIT- Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, or any other law relating to the crediting of money, the Administrator shall deposit in the National Flood Insurance Fund any amounts received under this subsection, which shall remain available until expended and be available to the Administrator for purposes authorized for the National Flood Insurance Fund without further appropriation.

(h) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Administrator to make any payment under the national flood insurance program, or an insurance company to make any payment, for an indeterminate loss based upon post-storm assessment or the COASTAL Formula.

(i) Applicability- Subsection (c) shall apply with respect to an indeterminate loss associated with a named storm that occurs after the date on which the Administrator issues the rule establishing the COASTAL Formula under subsection (b).

(j) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to negate, set aside, or void any policy limit, including any loss limitation, set forth in a standard insurance policy.

B-12

APPENDIX C MARCH 2009 LETTER FROM SAMUEL L. JONES, MAYOR OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, ON OFCM EXPLORATORY REVIEW OF COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO HURRICANES

C-1

APPENDIX D CIRCULAR A-62, ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, NOVEMBER 13, 1963

D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4

APPENDIX E PERIODS OF SERVICE OF FEDERAL COORDINATORS FOR METEOROLOGY AND DEPUTY FEDERAL COORDINATORS FOR METEOROLOGY

Periods of Service Federal Coordinators for Meteorology and Deputy Federal Coordinators for Meteorology

1964 Donald J. Moore, 1964-67 Robert M. White, 1964-1972

1970 C. Edward Roache, 1967-73 Richard E. Hallgren, 1972-73 C. Edward Roache, 1973 Clayton E. Jensen, 1973-75 Vacant, 1974-78 Edward S. Epstein, 1975-78 Richard E. Hallgren, 1978-79 Robert E. Beck, 1978-80 Thomas B. Owen, 1979-81 1980 William S. Barney, 1980

William S. Barney, 1981-86 Alonzo Smith, 1981-87

Robert L. Carnahan, 1986-92 1990 Dr. James A. Alamazan, 1987-93

Julian M. Wright, 1993-98

2000 James B. Harrison, 1993-2008

Samuel P. Williamson, 1998 to present

2010 Michael R. Babcock, 2008-11

Vacant, 2011-present

E-1

APPENDIX F NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010, SECTION 809

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010

SEC. 809. SPACE WEATHER.

(a) Findings- The Congress finds the following: (1) Space weather events pose a significant threat to modern technological systems. (2) The effects of severe space weather events on the electric power grid, telecommunications and entertainment satellites, airline communications during polar routes, and space-based position, navigation and timing systems could have significant societal, economic, national security, and health impacts. (3) Earth and Space Observing satellites, such as the Advanced Composition Explorer, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites, Polar Operational Environmental Satellites, and Defense Meteorological Satellites, provide crucial data necessary to predict space weather events. (b) Action Required- The Director of OSTP shall-- (1) improve the Nation's ability to prepare, avoid, mitigate, respond to, and recover from potentially devastating impacts of space weather events; (2) coordinate the operational activities of the National Space Weather Program Council members, including the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center and the U.S. Air Force Weather Agency; and (3) submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act that-- (A) details the current data sources, both space- and ground-based, that are necessary for space weather forecasting; and (B) details the space- and ground-based systems that will be required to gather data necessary for space weather forecasting for the next 10 years.

F-1

APPENDIX G JULY 2007 LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION ON OFCM WIST COORDINATION

G-1

APPENDIX H JUNE 2011 LETTER FROM THE WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION ON OFCM RESPONSE TO WGA POLICY RESOLUTION 05-04

H-1

APPENDIX I AIR DOMAIN AWARENESS SCOPE, OCTOBER 2011

I-1 I-2 I-3