**[Group 1]{.underline}**

**[I would like to see:]{.underline}**

-WarnGen, + GIS tools, + FFMP + FSI, all incorporated and integrated
together.

-A new WarnGen... one that would not have text wrap problems, one that
would produce GIS shape files, one that would perhaps produce the
probabilistic warnings (experimental warnings).

-8 bit radar data from surrounding sites

-Sampling in FSI is critical.

-Probabalistic/experimental warnings on the WES. We need to train,
experiment, demonstrate, and show our customers and users where we're
headed with warnings. Local ITOs, or whoever, could develop web code to
display the probabilistic information, but they would need to be able to
play with the software.

-CASA Radars. Especially to fill in some gaps.

-Google Earth in all WFOs.

-A new software policy. NOAA should enable WFOs to use any useful
software.

-Lots of training for dual-pol, as well as for CASA.

-Lots of integration of NSE data and radar data (FSI)

-3-D data of all sorts. Radar and model data, in AWIPS. Earth-centered
coordinate system, with "flier" navigation.

**[HWT Usage:]{.underline}**

-HWT should not be spring-centric, and should be utilized during peak
severe weather hours.

-Would be interesting to set up the HWT as a "futuristic WFO".

-HWT should be used to develop effective communication/collaborative
information tools between the WFO and the users/customers/partners.

-There has been a lack of funding to bring in forecasters. Funding
constraints need to be addressed. CSTAR may be the best avenue. Consider
proposals with Universities for funded projects. But, it's critical that
lots of WFO forecasters spend a lot of time in the HWT, and do a LOT of
testing.

**[Experimental Warnings:]{.underline}**

-Concept appears good. Concern for getting NOAA to accept and implement.

-Huge training component and perhaps a steep learning curve for the NWS
meteorologists. Furthermore, a huge training component for the end
users. Also, should we bring in ***users*** into the HWT ? Could see
where a WFO meteorologists participates in the HWT, and brings along one
of the local EMs, or one of the local TV Mets. We must be able to
communicate information to users and customers and partners.

-Research may need to be done on thresholds for taking cover. A stadium
full of people may have a very low threshold, yet others may have a
higher threshold. EMs may have better input on this, and it could be
very beneficial for EMs to participate in the HWT (using Homeland
Security funds).

-This group thinks we should go forward with the experimental,
probabilistic warnings, and still produce the old-style warnings, to
provide products for all users. It could be automated that the polygon
is the same as the 70% area.

-Polygon (storm based) warnings... concern for decreased POD with
smallish polygons and reports coming in outside of polygon. GPRA goals
may need to be redefined.

-Seems to be a need for testing new concepts end to end... with impact
of our customers and end users.

-Question of do we want to use EWs for Vortex2 to practice and
experiment with?

-Some offices are mapping higher impact areas, then displaying them in
AWIPS.

-Sophisticated users who need longer lead times, such as hospitals,
large schools,

*EMs Want:*

-GIS tools (more).

-Meso tracks (radial shear). Perhaps the best method to distribute the
tracks would be for the WFO to get the maps, then analyze them and
identify what we think are the true tracks, then distribute that
information to the EMs.

**[Higher Resolution Radar Data (CASA, Super Res, PAR):]{.underline}**

-How to process all of the data and understand better the features that
are being resolved... especially if some of the features produce a small
amount of damage? How are we going to learn what these features are?

-Again, users/customers/partners must know how to use the data.