1

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP)

National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction (NACWIR) 

Meeting Summary

September 18, 2017

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 

MEETING PARTICIPANTS

NACWIR Members:

Walker Ashley Northern Illinois University

John Boudreaux Assumption Parish Office of Homeland Security and 

Emergency Preparedness

Wanda Edwards RCI, Inc

Forrest Masters University of Florida

Kishor Mehta Texas Tech University

Walter Peacock Texas A&M University

Tim Reinhold, Chair Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety

Donald Resio University of North Florida 

Donald Scott PCS Structural Solutions

Kevin Simmons Austin College

Thomas Smith TLSmith Consulting, Inc.

Windstorm Working Group (WWG) 

DaNa Carliss National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

Marc Levitan National Institute of Standards and Technology

Chungu Lu National Science Foundation

Ted Mansell National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

Jack Meszaros Office of Science and Technology Policy

Shirley Murillo National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

Mike Uhart National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Jonathan Westcott Federal Emergency Management Agency 

NIST Staff 

Jason Averill, DFO Division Chief, Materials and Structural Systems Division

Carmen Martinez Engineering Laboratory Technical Support 

Steve Potts Program Analyst, NWIRP

Benjamin Davis Program Analyst, Disaster and Failure Studies Program 
2

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 

I. Opening Remarks

Jason Averill, Chief of the Materials and Structural Systems Division opened the meeting 

and identified himself as the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the meeting. He 

commented that last time we were together at the August NACWIR meeting, we were 

watching Hurricane Harvey develop. NIST sent an 8-person team to conduct a 

preliminary reconnaissance of that storm’s impacts, including five people to Houston to 

look at the effects of 52 inches of rain. He noted that while that happened, hurricanes 

Irma struck, Jose intensified and Maria developed from a tropical storm. Averill observed 

“There’s never been a more important time for the work of this committee.”

Averill turned the meeting over to Dr. Tim Reinhold, Chair of the Committee. Reinhold 

noted that he received comments and suggested editorial changes that the Committee will 

want to talk about. He added the Committee then needs to work through and strengthen 

the last few sections.

Reinhold turned the meeting over to Dr. Marc Levitan, Acting Director of the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) to discuss NIST’s coordination of poststorm activities related to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, and to present the FY17 NWIRP 

Coordinated Budget.

II. Hurricane Response and NWIRP Coordinated Budget

Levitan provided a briefing on NIST’s hurricane activities in support of its statutory 

responsibilities as lead agency for NWIRP, which include coordination of “all Federal 

post-windstorm investigations, to the extent practicable.” A report was prepared for the 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, a copy of which was

provided to the Committee, available at:

https://w3auth.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/09/18/nist_coordination_of_fe

deral_post-storm_investigations_as_of_sept_12_201.pdf

Levitan also reviewed the FY2017 NWIRP Coordinated Budget that was submitted to 

Congress in September (available at link below).

https://w3auth.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/09/18/nwirp_coordinated_bud

get_8-28-17.pdf

Levitan then turned the meeting back over to Reinhold. Reinhold stated that the 

hurricane windfield maps produced by Applied Research Associates (ARA) for NIST 

were very beneficial to field teams. That information, combined with NOAA imagery, 

helped enable study teams to get a fix on where to focus their efforts for a quick 

deployment. Reinhold added that mobile mesonets and observation platforms, like the 
3

Texas Tech University sticknet and the University of Florida’s 15m towers, played a 

critical role in providing data needed to support development of the post-event windfield 

analysis.

III. Committee Discussion on the Draft Assessments and Recommendations

Report

Reinhold led the Committee on a line-specific review of changes to the draft NACWIR 

report. The Committee discussion included questions, observations, and 

recommendations about: 

• Adding a strong recommendation for shelters and safe rooms. 

• The paragraph on Social Economics is focused on code adoption and

enforcement. A broader allusion to mitigation strategies, such as land use, was 

suggested.

• Since the post-Harvey and Irma wind speed maps were so useful to teams that 

deployed to study the hurricanes, the Committee should recommend that this 

practice – of developing wind speed maps immediately after an event – be 

institutionalized, at least for Category 3 storms and higher. 

• The Committee needs to specify this is for winds over land.

• A suggestion was made that NIST, as the lead agency on wind and wind risk 

reduction have a web site with wind-fields and hazard data linked together for 

easy access. Consolidating it would make things easier for researchers and the 

practitioner community. Converting wind speeds to meaningful numbers that 

folks working with building codes can use makes a lot of sense.

• Another suggestion was made to post the maps on the NHERI site. Levitan 

mentioned that they are currently available for download on the NHERI 

DesignSafe web site, under the Recon Portal.

• Levitan clarified that NIST has been exploring the concept of providing full wind

speed time-history models calibrated against observed data. NIST will explore 

working with NHERI to create such an interface for that type of data, that will 

enable more sophisticated analyses of wind-induced failures.

• The Committee discussed technology transfer and agreed to include a statement 

that the Committee supports broad-based research projects that combine physical 

and social sciences to ensure that what comes out is used in appropriate ways.

• The Committee discussed how useful the NOAA imagery has been for both the 

public, who are extremely concerned about their housing and business, as well as 

scientists and emergency managers. It was noted that LIDAR is very helpful for 

getting a “birds-eye” view of damages along coastal areas both before and after 

the event. Having geo-coded and hyper-spectral imagery (vs. snapshots) is very 

valuable in informing codes in coastal landforms. 

• The Committee discussed the FEMA section of the report. One member stated 

that it is impossible to work with FEMA to get data. They have struggled with it

in their work with NIST and with independent researchers. If practitioners are 
4

going to understand the full picture in terms of resilience and recovery, they need 

access to data. There are Institutional Review Boards (IRB’s) and other ways to 

keep the data confidential or from being abused, and not allowing it to get “out 

there” in the public domain. It’s such a goldmine of data, but FEMA won’t make 

that data available.

• The Committee discussed the importance of addressing manufactured housing.

• The Committee discussed the issue of existing buildings and the recommendation 

to add this Strategic Objective which is included in the Recommendations and 

Revisions section of the draft report. 

• Rainfall-induced flooding from hurricanes and its interaction with surge related 

flooding was also discussed, including its context in relation to Hurricanes Harvey 

and Irma. It was noted that any discussion of rainfall and recommending changes 

in the program should be specified as being “rainfall near the coast,” to clearly 

describe the intended scope. In relation to adding rainfall related risks to the 

program, a major concern is that NWIRP is a small program by any federal 

standard. Adding something else could dilute the Program. It was suggested to 

add language to this effect and recommend against adding this objective to the 

Program unless Congress adequately funds the Program and provides additional 

funding for this potential objective.

IV. Public Comment Period

Levitan noted that no members of the public registered to be part of the meeting today. 

Reinhold asked if there were any members of the public on the phone, but there were 

none. 

V. Final Comments from Committee Members

Reinhold asked the Committee members for any final thoughts they wanted to add before 

he pulls all the comments together into the final draft. Their responses were:

• Ashley said all of his comments had been addressed.

• Edwards thought the document was in good shape. 

• Masters thought the draft was comprehensive, and that the Strategic Plan is a

great start. He noted that as people look at the Strategic Plan and make decisions

it will take on a newer form.

• Mehta said Hurricane Irma has made it clear that electrical infrastructure is an 

important component that needs attention, and we should add that to the report. 

Power failures result in huge economic losses, as well as human health risks (e.g. 

failed water and waste-water treatment plants). Looking down the road 10-15 

years, he thinks there needs to be adjustments in the power system so there are 

smaller, decentralized systems to get power back quickly.
5

• Reinhold added that one of the trends that we didn’t highlight is the distribution of 

energy production as more people move to solar. On the other hand, if not done 

properly rooftop solar panels can become dangerous debris harming people.

• Resio said we need to address problems with communication. The total lack of 

communications after a storm in emergency situations, and the inability to 

perform any logistical operations adds to the problems. Problems with major 

critical infrastructure should be mentioned in our report.

• Scott concurred with previous comments that the document reads well, and todays 

additions are useful. He noted we can always add more, but need to give 

Reinhold time to get it done.

• Smith concurred the document reads well, and added that it needs a footnote 

defining “code plus” and that it needs to address the importance of doing field 

studies after certain events to see how things performed or didn’t perform. He 

suggested we might strengthen that in the document. He offered two additional 

questions that should be addressed:

o FEMA has a number of design guides - are they adequate? 

o Did mitigation projects funded by the government do well? 

• Finally, he added that the Committee should encourage deployment of teams to 

see what we can learn from major events.

VI. Adjournment.

Reinhold noted that the Committee has one more meeting next Monday (9/25/17). 

Reinhold committed to turn around a draft as soon as possible, and that the Committee 

should work to finalize it on the call next Monday. He added that it will include an 

executive summary. 

Reinhold adjourned the meeting at 11:40 a.m.