AMS Commission on the Weather and Climate Enterprise

1. AMS Commission on the Weather and Climate Enterprise Board on Enterprise Planning (BEP) Dr. Timothy Spangler, Chair AMS Summer Community Meeting 11-13 August 2008 Boulder, CO

2. Talk Overview • BEP Charter • BEP Membership • Annual Partnership Topic (APT) • BEP Status Update • Mesoscale Observing Networks APT • Building America’s Resilience to Hurricane Disasters APT • New APT for 2008

3. BEP Charter • Review issues identified by the Steering Committee that are of long-term strategic nature with importance to the enterprise as a whole • Focus on a selected topic annually • Annual Partnership Topic • Working Group for a specific topic • Annual Report to Steering Committee

4. BEP Membership • Chair • 13 members at large • 3 Working Groups [WGs], one for each APT • WG membership: Private, academic, and public sectors; user community

5. The current Board membership as of the end of 2007 is listed below:

6. Annual Partnership Topic Purpose • Give all interested parties an opportunity to express their views on the selected topic • Summarize those views in a concise report • Identify consensus views when such consensus exists • Clarify differences of opinion when consensus does not exist • Offer recommendations to AMS itself and the enterprise as a whole based on the understanding of views gained during the study

7. Annual Partnership Topic Selection • Annual Partnership Topic will be selected based on nominations received by AMS during an open nomination period • Selection based on published selection criteria • Selection made by Commission Steering Committee • Any party may submit a nomination • All nominations will be available for comment

8. Annual Partnership Topic Nominal Calendar of Events • Year One: • Annual AMS Meeting – Issue call for nominations • Spring – Open comment period • Summer – Select topic, charge WG • Remainder of Year – Organize activities for Year Two • Year Two: • Annual AMS Meeting – Frame topic • Remainder of Year – Conduct activities appropriate to topic • Year Three: • Annual AMS Meeting – Conduct summary session on topic • Summer – WG presents final report for review/approval • Fall – Publish final report

9. Annual Partnership Topic Topic Selection Criteria • Timeliness [30%] • Results of partnership topic activities must be relevant to the weather and climate enterprise in relation to a 2-3 year timeline • Topics which require results more rapidly will be rejected • Topics which have longer time frames will be considered • Breadth [25%] • Partnership topic will have broad impact and interest • Breadth judged on two factors: • Sectoral breadth [60%] [private, academic, government] • Disciplinary breadth [40%] [scientific, policy, etc]

10. Annual Partnership Topic Topic Selection Criteria • Impact [20%] • Impact it is expected to have on the weather and climate enterprise and on society as a whole • May be evaluated in • Tangible terms [e.g., fraction of the U.S. economy affected] • Intangible terms [e.g., potential legal effects] • Interest [15%] • Estimate of the likelihood of: • Success in forming topic Working Group • Gaining multiple contributors to the topic • Linkage [10%] • Potential linkage to other planned activities [e.g., topic related to a planned activity by an organization other than AMS]

11. Annual Partnership Topic BEP Functions • Organize the APT nomination process • Issue call, make public, collect comments • Evaluate nominations • “Score” each nomination • Draft charge for Topic Committee • Fill the Topic Committee • Review Report • Submit report to Steering Committee

12. Annual Partnership Topic Steering Committee Functions • Select Annual Partnership Topic • Finalize Charge to Topic Committee • Approve Final Report

13. APT 1--Mesoscale Observing Networks Topic Committee Charge: • Criteria for Evaluating Potential Testbeds. Identify potential technical criteria for evaluating mesoscale observing network testbeds. Propose ways the criteria can be applied to rank order potential testbeds • Business Models for Partnerships in Mesoscale Network Testbeds. Identify potential business models. Propose ways the business criteria can be applied in conjunction with the technical criteria to rank order potential testbeds • Potential Mesoscale Network Testbeds. Identify potential mesoscale network testbeds that meet at least some of the technical criteria • Recommended Mesoscale Network Testbeds. Recommend at least three mesoscale network testbeds

14. APT 1--Mesoscale Observing Networks WG: Fred Carr (OU) [Chair], Tim Spangler, Don Winter, Bruce Telfeyan Topic Committee: • .edu: Rebecca Morss (NCAR), Ken Crawford (OU), John Horel (Utah) • .com: Maria Pirone (AER), Mike Kalb (GST), John Lasley (SAIC), Peter Neilley (WSI), Brent Shaw (Weathernews) • .gov: Greg Mandt (NOAA), Marty Ralph (NOAA), Ralph Patterson (Utah DOT), Paul Pisano or Andy Stearns (FHWA)

15. APT 1--Mesoscale Observing Networks 2008Plan • On pause while NRC report is completed

16. APT 2—Hurricane Disasters Status Topic Committee Charge: • [Private Sector Engagement] How can the private sector engage more fully in hurricane disaster prevention, preparedness and recovery actions nationwide? • [High Risk Populations] How can we do more to protect the poor and most vulnerable in hurricane disasters? • [Educating the Enterprise] What can be done to better educate the Enterprise on responses to forecasts and warnings for hurricanes?

17. APT 2—Hurricane Disasters Status WG: Jim Harrison (.gov), Kristina Peterson (.edu), Bill Massey (.com) Topic Committee: • .edu: Joe Friday (OU), John Harrald (GWU), Susan Cutter (U. South Carolina), Shirley Laska (U. New Orleans), Jeff Lazo (UCAR) • .com: Paul Try (STC), Jingli Yang (ERT), George Haddow (Bullock & Haddow), Betty Hearn Morrow (SocResearch Miami) • .gov: Margaret Davidson (NOAA), James Kunde (Coalition to Improve Management in State and Local Government)

18. Topic Committee Membership

19. Topic Committee Membership (con’t)

20. APT Schedule

21. Original Charge #1 • How can the private sector engage more fully in hurricane disaster prevention, preparedness, and recovery actions nationwide? • Enhance incentives for the private sector • Meet individual and community unmet needs in the recovery phase of a hurricane disaster • Engage businesses to prepare for Hurricanes (release employees earlier, for example) • Better utilize business to improve communication from getting the message out to putting up temporary cell phone towers • Better partnership between business and NGOs

22. Original Charge #2 How can we do more to protect the poor and most vulnerable hurricane disasters? • Have an evacuation plan AND a motivation plan for at risk populations to get 100% evacuated • Communication must address both practical issues (where to go) and emotional issues (what will happen to my pets?) • Enhance plans for temporary housing • Expand & enhance NOAA’s Storm Ready Program • Include requirement for registry of “at risk” population.

23. Hurricane Disasters APT • What can be done to better educate the enterprise on responses to forecasts and warnings for hurricanes? [Educating the Enterprise] • Achieve improvements in areas related to NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards • Achieve improvements in education and training on hurricanes and preparedness

24. Status of New AP Topics • Call for Topics issued by AMS via email listservs • No nominations received • BEP will explore ways to stimulate new nominations • BEP may suggest topics as well