1

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP)

National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction (NACWIR) 

Meeting Summary

June 27-28, 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

Parthiv Dangodara AIG Property Casualty

Wanda Edwards RCI, Inc

Katherine Grieg New York City Office of Recovery and Resiliency

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) 

Ed Bensman National Science Foundation

DaNa Carlis National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Sharon Jasim-Hanif* Department of Energy

Ed Laatsch Federal Emergency Management Agency

Marc Levitan National Institute of Standards and Technology

Ted Mansell National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Shirley Murillo* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Mike Uhart National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Jonathan Westcott Federal Emergency Management Agency 

*participated via teleconference
2

NIST Staff 

Jason Averill Division Chief, Materials and Structural Systems Division

Joannie Chin, DFO Deputy Director, Engineering Laboratory

Tina Faecke Program Analyst, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program 

Judy Mitrani-Reiser Director, Disaster and Failure Studies Program

Steve Potts Program Analyst, NWIRP 

Members of the Public

Joanna Blaney FM Global 

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS – DAY 1 (JUNE 27, 2017)

I. Opening Remarks

Dr. Joannie Chin, Deputy Director of the NIST Engineering Laboratory (EL), and Designated 

Federal Officer (DFO) called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Dr. Chin described the role of 

NIST and of the EL. She welcomed the members of the NACWIR, the WWG, and the public, 

provided a safety briefing, and then turned the meeting over to Dr. Tim Reinhold, Chair of the 

NACWIR. 

Reinhold indicated that the goal of the two-day meeting was to develop a review of the priorities 

of the NWIRP Strategic Plan, and of the trends and developments in the natural, engineering, and 

social sciences and practices of windstorm impact mitigation. Those are the first two charges to 

NACWIR from Public Law 114-52, the statute which authorizes the NWIRP

(https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ52/PLAW-114publ52.pdf ).

Reinhold stated the preliminary feedback on the NWIRP Strategic Plan is that it is well written, 

and there will be some areas that people want to emphasize and comment on. He clarified that he 

wanted to develop draft bullets for a consensus statement on the Strategic Plan, and draft 

paragraphs for the report before everyone leaves. Reinhold plans to have a draft of the report for 

the NACWIR prior to the next meeting. He will give the NACWIR about one week to review, 

then come back and deal with the remaining issues. 

II. Summaries of Presentations and Discussions on Trends and Developments in 

Windstorm Impact Mitigation

The purpose of this portion of the meeting was for the Advisory Committee members to 

share their expertise related to the charge of the Committee, and set the context for the 

discussion on the NWIRP Strategic Plan.
3

A. Presentations

Presentation by Parthiv Dangodara - Resilient Commercial Construction

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/06/28/1-

resilient_commercial_construction.pdf

• Wind damage problems are mainly workmanship – not design

Presentation by John Boudreaux - Challenges for Rural Communities

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/06/28/4-notes_and_comments.pdf

• It can be difficult to get local adoption of the latest codes and standards and other 

hazard mitigation programs, especially by rural communities.

Presentation by Katherine Greig - NYC Wind Study Overview

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/06/28/6-

nyc_wind_study_overview.pdf

• While there are similarities between rural and urban aerodynamics, we need to 

develop a better understanding of loads in complex environments. 

• The Japanese are making great progress with computational fluid dynamics, so it may 

be possible for us to incorporate these tools as well.

• Different environments lead to different levels of code complexity.

• Code adoption is a socio-political process. Need research in terms of broad based 

community planning, and emergency management. 

• Need good solid hazard maps that can be utilized in the process and utilized by the 

American Society of Civil Engineers 7-10 (ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for 

Buildings and Other Structures). 

Presentation by Wanda Edwards – Industry Trends

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/06/28/5-nwirp_comments.pdf

• Enforcement is key, but it’s always the last thing that gets funded.

• Need inspection, auditing as well as training. 

• Need to create a culture of compliance.
4

Presentation by Tom Smith –Trends: Building Wind Performance Post- Hurricanes Hugo and 

Andrew

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/06/28/2-

building_performance_post_hurricane.pdf

• Wind performance has improved significantly since Hurricane Andrew

• Codes now do a better job addressing building envelope

Presentation by Tom Smith – Trends: Response to Building Damage Caused by Tornadoes

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/06/28/3-

building_damage_caused_by_tornadoes.pdf

• Occupant protection has been main focus within engineering community since 1970

• More recently, guidance has been developed for reduction of tornado damage

B. Summary of Comments Based on All Morning Presentations: 

• It’s important to track what is being adopted into codes and standards across the 

United States.

• How do we help federal programs get people to understand the benefits of adopting 

new developments into code, rather than seeing it as a mandate?

• The insurance industry can play a role – premiums are based on risk. When those 

risks are higher, there’s incentive to do more.

• Generally, insurance is a highly-regulated industry, a 1-year contract. They replace 

what was there. Some organizations are looking at a 5-year policy, thinking they will 

retrofit the house and will recover that money over the 4 to 5-year period, because 

they’ve entered into a 5-year agreement with the homeowner.

• Sometimes local officials instruct homeowners to just re-shingle, because the 

insurance company may not enforce replacement that meets code.

• In the next 20 years, new technologies such as 3-D printing, artificial intelligence 

(AI) and robotics will bring changes in workmanship. We need to think about how 

these emerging technologies should be incorporated into research.

• Biggest risk is to existing building stock – incremental retrofits are painful, but more 

necessary than new builds.

• Tools for evaluating capacities of existing buildings are needed as well as research to 

understand how to retrofit in the most cost-effective manner.

• Important to continue to do interviews with storm survivors, such as those in the 

Joplin Tornado investigation.

• In the next 50 years, building codes will be designed for machines doing the 

design/construction/inspections that people do today. This Committee could help lay 

the groundwork for this process to allow different stakeholders to be engaged so all 
5

the people working on it now can be part of it. Otherwise it will be disruptive to the 

workforce. 

• For coastal communities - infrastructure damage needs to be factored in as part of the 

total resilience equation.

• Comprehensive planning is increasing in coastal communities. Need good quality 

hazard maps and vulnerability mapping tools. They help identify common ground 

among planning/zoning/regulatory groups.

• People want to know about schools and safety but don’t think in terms of flood/wind 

risk. Need good information.

• Manufactured housing is increasing in vulnerable places of the country - up to 8-9% 

of housing stock. 

• Some local jurisdictions prohibit enforcing any additional standard in installation of 

any manufactured homes. 

• The interior of the country hasn’t had any change in the wind codes for manufactured 

housing since the 1970’s. The coastal areas have had a little more. Anchoring systems 

are left up to each state – so it varies across the country. 

• Zoning maps haven’t been updated for a long time. The difference in cost for a single 

wide zone 3 vs. zone 2 home was $2,000. The segment of the population that buys 

those homes is very cost sensitive. 

• Timing of code cycles and code installation has many complexities, which the 

Committee needs to consider.

• It’s going to take a portfolio approach, which needs to include retrofit issues, code 

improvement issues, incentive programs, special tax assessments, impact 

assessments, education programs. Code is important, but there are many other things 

we can deal with:

o Information dissemination programs.

o Federal programs – grants and guidance. 

o Financial tools - local/state/federal. 

o We’ve got to be doing research on these issues as well. 

• A recent economic study used paid claim data to compare the effect of windstorm 

losses in Florida after Andrew (built prior to FL building code) to those losses in 

homes built after the building code was implemented. The reduction in losses

compared to the cost of building to the code came to about a 5-to-1 benefit/cost (B/C)

payoff. In Moore Oklahoma, a similar approach found that the reduction in losses 

that can be expected from the enhanced standards should give about a 3-to-1 B/C

ratio when built to Moore standards.

• There are things out there that can be enhanced with the right incentives. People want 

to live in safe housing. If we can incentivize it, we can improve safety. 

• Retrofitting is more expensive. Improving hazard resistance in new construction is 

cheaper. Ripping out elements to retrofit drives up cost – the B/C payoff is not as 

high. Retrofitting is not as well researched, though.

• There is lots of research that’s not getting into codes. 
6

• Need to educate code officials, as good science doesn’t always suffice.

• Need to educate home owners too, even beginning with children. The fire 

community has been very effective in talking with kids in schools. The Federal 

Alliance for Safe Homes, Inc (FLASH) is starting to do that in hurricane-prone 

regions on the east coast. 

C. Summary of External Trends

The Committee identified an initial list of external trends to be considered for incorporation 

into the final recommendations:

• Technology

o Computational

o Material Science

o Construction

o Sensors

o Evacuation, Response, and Recovery

• Workmanship

• Workforce Developmental Education (K-12, College, Researchers)

• Educating General Public

o Need to evacuate

o Built-To-Code may not provide desired safety

• Education (Researchers)

o Building Science

o Building Systems

• Social Economics

o Change = disruption

o Increasing diversity

o Increasing inequality

• Knowledge Base

o Know a lot more than 20 years ago

o Still need to improve

o Improved tools

• Community-based Planning

• Access to Data

o Big data

o Details

• Service Life Assessment

o Predictive Performance

• Frequency and Intensity of Events

• DIY - Do It Yourself

• Sea Level Rise – relative sea level rise

o Subsidence
7

• Footprint of Development (in hazard areas)

o Concentration of Properties

o Where we build

o Value of contents

• Pressure for Interagency Cooperation

o Shared Responsibility

• Existing Building Modifications

o Playing the system

• Convergence Research

o Basic Science research still needed

o Interdisciplinary

o Multio Trans-

• Social Communications

• Incentives and Disincentives

o Competing priorities

III. Summary of Presentations and Discussions on NWIRP Strategic Plan

The purpose of this portion of the meeting was to set the context for the assessment and 

recommendations the Committee will make regarding the NWIRP Strategic Plan 

A. Presentations

Presentation by Tom Smith 

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/06/28/7-

nacwir.strengthen_plan_tlsmith_june_24_2017.pdf

• Better tools needed for in-situ vulnerability assessment of new and existing buildings

• There is a need for more construction workforce development

B. Topics for Consideration

The Committee identified the following topics that need to be considered for incorporation 

into the final recommendations on the Strategic Plan:

• Mitigation standards for existing buildings

• Intro – more information on injuries and fatalities

• Education/workforce development = K-12

• Computational Wind Engineering/Computational Fluid Dynamics = Cyber/physical

• Simplification/Workmanship

• Probability of detection vs. false alarms

• Phased array radar
8

o Remote sensing

o Data fusion

• Survivorship

• Manufactured housing

• Bringing people/humanity into equation

• Technology: design/construction/operation

o Internet of things

• Windstorms and other wind related effects

• Sequencing of operations/timing 

o Optimizing operational requirements

• More granular mapping

• Incentivizing/de-incentivizing

• Culture of compliance

IV. Discussion with the Windstorm Working Group (WWG)

Reinhold provided members of the WWG an opportunity to comment on the discussions. Topics 

included:

• A question was raised on how strong is the relationship between workmanship and 

building inspection? The relationship between workmanship and building inspection is 

variable. If the inspectors are not there when the work is being done, it’s difficult to know 

if the work meets the code but is not within the tolerance. 

• We don’t have enough research data to change public opinion and create motivation. 

Data availability over the past 30 years has been disappointing. When people buy houses, 

they have no idea what’s in building codes. Aesthetics always win. Need to reach out to 

other groups who have data, and find ways of making it valuable for them to share.

A question was asked about where the NACWIR report goes once it is completed.

• Levitan explained that the Committee’s report will be submitted to the NIST Director, 

who will pass it on to the NWIRP Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC), which is 

composed of the directors (or designees) of NIST, NOAA, NSF, FEMA, OMB, and 

OSTP. At the next ICC meeting, the Directors of those Agencies will review the 

Committees assessments and recommendations, and then take actions as appropriate to 

respond to these recommendations.

V. Adjournment for the Day

Reinhold thanked the Committee for their hard work. The meeting adjourned for the day at 4:55 

p.m. on June 27, 2017.
9

Summary of Discussions – Day 2 (June 28, 2017)

Dr. Joannie Chin, the Designated Federal Officer, called the meeting to order at 9:00 am. She 

turned the meeting over to Committee Chair Tim Reinhold.

I. Trends

Reinhold provided a summary of the previous day’s discussion on Trends. 

A. Characterization of Trends

• Reinhold characterized the Trends in terms of:

o Existing societal and technical trends that are likely to affect windstorm injuries, 

damage, and losses.

o Trends relating to what we want to accomplish (needed trends):

 Workmanship

 Education

o External Trends:

 Growth of windstorm research facilities in the last 10 years that are 

increasing our capabilities.

 Code adoption and development of safe room requirements in the national 

level codes that we should pay attention to. 

B. Trends in Big Data

• Reinhold reported that there is currently poor data on building characteristics.

o Some groups, however, are capturing big data on bldg. properties, e.g.:

 Core-logic.

 BuildFax.

 Tax assessor databases.

 Safe Homes programs in FL, AL, SC are going out inspecting homes. FM 

Global and others doing their own inspections. Not out in the public 

domain.

 NYC effort to capture data on vulnerability of buildings.

• Need to encourage the National Science Foundation (NSF) to consider how they could 

contribute to meeting wind resilience data needs:

o NSF is trying to create big data hubs. The wind hazards community doesn’t seem 

to be linked to them. They have a call for proposals out right now.

o Encourage NSF to fund proposals that gather boundary layer data from field 

studies, in addition to their work in computer simulations. Investments in cyberinfrastructure, and computer networks have potential to create a secure 

environment in which data can be gathered and worked on by teams, in the 

context of proprietary data, and data that needs to be protected, so we can amass 

large network data sets.
10

C. Trends in Vulnerability Assessments to Buildings

• There needs to be a framework in terms of guiding research. We have a good sense of 

where our vulnerability is, but will have blind spots as we can’t test everywhere and 

every permutation.

• We can look at the model from the seismic community in terms of taking care of some of 

the problems with retrofitting. The cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco looked at 

buildings to see the bigger problems, and created a hierarchy of the most critical retrofit 

issues.

• Once vulnerabilities are identified, need to decide: who’s responsible for making 

modifications; who funds them, and who is liable if something falls off a building and

injures someone?

o California issued a mandate around the year 2000 that all hospitals be updated to 

meet current seismic codes, with the time-line depending on the level of the 

building. The mandate was not funded, but updates had to be made to receive an 

occupancy permit by the health department. Most critical facilities were required 

to update by 2015, but many are continuing to update.

o In San Francisco, if the updates are not done by a certain time, the city can issue 

fines. 

o Los Angeles and Seattle are beginning to look at wind-related standards, similar 

to ASCE’s standards for seismic.

• Water related losses are a little different – they are generally not to the structure, but to 

functionality and property.

o Different materials can be used to make homes more resilient to flooding, but are 

generally not available for residential space because the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is toggling between different issues of life safety, 

and reducing damage.

o Opportunities for commercial grade materials could be made more widely 

available to residential owners. If water comes in, rather than soaking you carpet, 

just have a tile surface and mop it out. Rather than raze the whole structure, just 

get the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and electrical systems 

fixed. 

• Buildings have different vulnerabilities to wind events than seismic events. 

o Seismic codes are strictly for preventing collapse during an event. Codes for 

wind events are mostly for protection of the building and what it will look like 

after the event – not collapse prevention.

 The exception is in surge areas, where the whole building can be wiped

out.

 Timing is different too – there is a warning for most floods and some wind

events.

D. Trends in Property Taxes

• A question was asked whether property taxes are reduced as a form of incentives, e.g. for 

buildings designated as soft-story structures, or if it is typically assumed that the owner 
11

needs to make investments to improve the structure? Different incentive options were 

described, including:

o Incentives through property taxes for buildings designated as soft story structures. 

o Incentives through fines by designating some as a dangerous building. 

o https://www.floodhelpny.org/ is a portal where qualified homeowners can get a 

resiliency audit for your home. Might serve as a model for wind, to help people 

increase their knowledge and make better decisions. The most opportune time to 

educate people is immediately after a crisis, so need to have something like this 

ready to respond.

o Encourage authorities not to send mixed messages through buyouts for some 

buildings, and elevating others on the same block where there’s going to be a 

berm.

o In rural areas, buyouts are promoted heavily through FEMA, but local 

governments don’t like them because then a parcel of land in a subdivision is no 

longer taxed. 

II. Strategic Plan

Summary of Comments on Measuring Progress in the Strategic Plan

• The Strategic Plan does not incorporate an adaptive management process – to measure 

progress. A recommendation was made to have something like an annual meeting where 

people ask “What have I done that’s advanced what I said would get done?” 

• Adaptive management is not always seen as realistic.

• A better methodology would be to actuarily correct with statistics, and not depend on 

safety factors, and conservative assumptions. 

• Need something that closes the economic gap between societal benefits and costs with 

true rates. Evacuation plans, for example, are set at reasonable levels for surges. 

• How does NIST expect to be able to mark changes over time? Difficult without using a

model to estimate what you would have lost, to justify benefits.

o Levitan responded: NIST’s strategic priority number 1 addresses baseline studies. 

We discussed increases in population, and increases in hazard prone areas of coast 

– if we could level off the accelerating trend, that would be a win. 

o Levitan explained further that within the context of year to year variability, the 

baseline study is intended to help determine what’s causing the losses in terms of 

fatalities, and property damage, which will help with identification of best 

opportunity to make reductions, and prioritize research and actions.

o NOAA has great overall statistics on impacts, but need to dig down deeper to

prioritize actions, and determine where we can have the most effect. How and 

where are people dying? Then we’ll improve data collection techniques to find 

out causation from impacts from the storm. It will take time, for example, the 

process from research to a code change can be 15-20 years. Need to identify what 
12

other things in our strategic priorities we can do much quicker, and get out to 

communities now.

• Have to make best estimates of how many buildings there are, what their vulnerabilities 

are, and include an uncertainty factor. Once you do that – you have a marker, then when 

you make changes you have the same marker to show progress. We need something like 

that here to show measurable progress all the way through to the end goal. 

o Levitan explained: One of the things called out in the legislation authorizing 

NWIRP is to improve our loss estimation methodologies and tools – how would 

you know from just loss statistics if you had really made an improvement? Maybe 

it was just a quiet year for storms? We have HAZUS or FL Public Hurricane Loss 

Models. Committee member Simmons is working with NOAA on predictive 

tools, other things to look at on tornado impacts. Those tools will help us to 

predict changes in the future if we can make a code change or incentivize 

different kinds of construction - code+ construction. 

o We’d like to predict it, and go back in hind-cast, and evaluate the change in our 

building stock – for example noting this did happen, ask what would have 

happened? 

• Important to quantify so people can see you met the goal.

• Like to see the ability to use technology for search and rescue included. For example, 

technologies exist which allow you to find a cell phone, so someone who is trapped can 

be located. The only drawback is that people must subscribe. In general, technologies 

are available, the task is to get those technologies to the local levels. 

• Tool development to conduct field vulnerability assessments to evaluate the resistance of 

both existing and new construction should be included.

III. Breakout Group Discussions on the NWIRP Strategic Plan

A. Topics:

Breakout groups formed and worked on different topics, looking at why it is a trend, and what 

the implications are. They worked on paragraphs for each topic, which will then be sent to 

Committee Chair Reinhold to compile. Topics included:

• Bringing people-humanity into the equation.

• Emphasizing the role of computational wind engineering.

• Mitigation standards for existing buildings.

• More granular mapping of infrastructure.

• Fostering a culture of compliance.

• Building codes.

• Technology trends.

• Big data trends.

• Trends in diversity in equality and planning.

• Trends in exposure, including the footprint of increasing population.
13

• Manufactured housing.

• Sequencing of operations.

B. Question on Frequency and Intensity of Storms

Reinhold raised, and the Committee discussed a question regarding the frequency and intensity 

of storms that came up over the course of the meeting, and was of interest to several of the 

breakout groups:

• The concern was changing risk of hazards, for which flooding has gotten thrown in. 

There is little evidence that frequency or magnitude of tornadoes has changed, or severe 

windstorm events. There is evidence to suggest increasing variability of, and high end 

magnitude precipitation events (includes both flooding and drought). Hurricanes can go 

in both directions – in the Atlantic there may be fewer hurricanes, but of higher 

magnitude. These are the front lines of the research now. 

o There has been a trend northward and eastward of tornado reports, but teasing it 

out is very messy.

o The write-up in the Strategic Plan was OK, as written. We just need to address 

these issues moving forward. 

o Research suggests there will be increases in the number of environments 

supportive of tornadoes as we move into the latter part of the century, but we’re 

not there yet – too early to develop any conclusions.

o Several papers suggest that clustering, or distribution has changed, but still not 

enough to be conclusive.

IV. Review of Goals and Strategic Priorities in the NWIRP Strategic Plan.

Levitan reviewed and gave further explanation regarding the thinking and intent of the Goals and 

Strategic Priorities. He described the intent of the Strategic Priorities (SP’s) in relation to the 

Objectives of the Strategic Plan, referring to the strategic plan overview slides used at the last 

meeting (https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/17/nacwir_meeting_1_-

_nwirp_strategic_plan_overview.pdf):

A. Goals

• Goals A-C represent the broad range of research and development and implementation

needs to be accomplished to reduce windstorm fatalities and property losses, without 

prioritization.

B. Strategic Priorities

• Chapter 3 identifies several strategic priority areas, some spanning across multiple 

objectives, which build upon, support and tie into all the objectives. Some lay the 

foundations for future research, others are things we can do right now for more 

immediate impact reduction, and others deal with human resource development. 
14

• Strategic Priorities: 

o SP-1: Baseline estimates – how do we measure current losses of life and 

property, and in the future, to identify best opportunities for reduction, and to 

assess progress.

o SP-2: Measurements of surface winds and storm surge current and waves in 

severe storms – we need measurements of extreme wind and storm surge and 

waves where buildings are located, not just up higher in the atmosphere or in 

stream channels or coastal waters.

o SP-3: Databases of windstorm hazards and impacts – ideally want both in the 

same databases. Work with NHERI and NSF may help in this regard.

o SP-4: Performance based design – is called out in the Legislation. 

o SP-5: Outreach – a lot of outreach going on by Federal agencies, for example 

Weather Ready Nation. Other outreach being done with private sector, e.g. 

FLASH, IIBHS – how do we build on this good work and improve?

o SP-6: Sheltering strategies – how do we get information out there to 

communities? FEMA and Texas Tech for example are great work on design of 

storm shelters and safe rooms and providing that information to the public, but we 

also need guidance for communities, for overall sheltering strategies. 

o SP-7: Human Resources – making sure the next generation of windstorm impact 

reduction professionals is well trained, and also broadening public education. 

Good comments at this meeting to make sure that construction trades are also 

included.

• A question was asked about where improvements to predictive modeling would be 

incorporated into the Strategic Priorities?

o Levitan indicated there are several objectives that include modeling. Strategic 

Priority 1 will use and enhance predictive modeling tools to understand losses of 

life and property.

C. Funding

• This plan covers a lot of ground. Ultimately, it will have to be decided where we put 

those resources. 

o Levitan responded that if you looked at trying to fund the entire Strategic Plan as 

written, that would be multi-hundreds of millions of dollars across the 

government. He suggested at this point that the Committee not worry about 

funding when considering comments on the Goals and Objectives. Rather if there 

is something the Committee thinks should be in Chapter 2 of the plan, they should 

comment on it. 

o Levitan clarified that Chapter 3 covers priorities. Comments by the Committee 

related to priorities of the Strategic Plan would be addressed in Chapter 3.

• Will it be part of this plan to address priorities or allocations of resources that come 

outside of this plan?
15

o Levitan pointed out that FEMA spends huge amounts of money on different 

things like flood mapping, which in some ways help support the goals of NWIRP, 

but are not reflected in the NWIRP Coordinated Budget.

o FEMA representative Jonathan Westcott pointed out that FEMA doesn’t get a line 

item budget from Congress for NWIRP.

V. Planning the Next Meeting

A. Speakers from Other Agencies?

• Levitan asked if there were other speakers from any of the participating agencies that the 

Committee would like, beyond the four main NWIRP partners at the next meeting in 

August?

o A request was made that as part of FEMA’s presentation, they address their 

emergency communications system – the Integrated Public Alert Warning System 

(IPAWS), and how they work with the FCC, particularly related to the potential 

for pinging cell phones to locate disaster survivors.

o A request was also made for a presentation from the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) on manufactured housing, noting that a 

disproportionately large percentage of windstorm fatalities come from residents of 

manufactured homes.

• Levitan stated that NIST will make requests to those agencies for speakers.

B. Follow-up

• Reinhold asked the Committee to get the breakout group paragraphs to him as soon as 

possible, so he can compile them into a report. He will create a checklist so members can 

indicate what they would like to list as a recommendation and what should be listed as a 

suggestion. 

C. Meeting Dates:

• The Committee agreed to move the August meeting from August 22-23, to August 23-24.

• Two web-based meetings were added to the schedule, to facilitate completion of work the 

Committee needs to get done to meet the statutory deadline of September 31, 2017. The 

two meetings are scheduled for: 

o July 31, 1-4 p.m. EDT

o September 18, 9-12 p.m. EDT

VI. Adjournment

Dr. Chin thanked the Committee for their hard work. The meeting adjourned at 4:22 p.m. on 

June 28, 2017.