NWS Hazards Terminology Survey

Proposed Survey on Simplifying and Clarifying Expression of NWS Hazards Products

Background:

NWS wishes to ask the public and key partners for comments on a proposal to simplify the current hazards messaging terminology used to advise of expected severe weather and water events. Currently, NWS uses such terms as “Watch” “Warning” and “Advisory” to express these threats. It is proposed that these terms be simplified for improved understanding of these messages. Improved understanding would, in turn, enhancing desired response in order to maximize protection of life and property,

A recorded presentation, equipped with the opportunity to provide responses throughout the presentation, will be utilized to ask questions and collect comments. Specifically, the viewer of the presentation will be asked for their comments on a proposed, simplified methodology for NWS expressing severe weather and water hazards, and they will also be solicited to provide their ideas for other alternatives geared towards simplifying NWS hazards messages.

OMB Control No. 0648-0342

Expires: 12/31/2011

Hazards Message Terminology Questions

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other suggestions for reducing this burden to Elliott Jacks, National Weather Service, 1325 East West Highway, Room 13228 Silver Spring, MD.

Survey responses will be anonymous. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subjected to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. 

1a) On a scale of 1-10, where 10 is “extremely supportive” and 1 is “not supportive at all”, please indicate your level of support for using a single “Special Message” term instead of “Watch” and “Advisory”.

1b) If you support the idea of replacing the terms “Watch” and “Advisory” with other term(s) - but have ideas for doing so other than as presented here - please provide your ideas in the comment box below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2a) On a scale of 1-10, where 10 is “extremely supportive” and 1 is “not supportive at all”, please indicate your level of support for using the “Special Message” term to update our information, rather than canceling an existing hazard product and issuing a new one as we do now.

2b) If you support the idea of using an approach other than canceling one hazard product and issuing another to express changing conditions - but have ideas for doing so other than as presented here - please provide your ideas in the comment box below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3a) On a scale of 1-10, where 10 is “extremely supportive” and 1 is “not supportive at all”, please indicate your level of support for using “Special Message” rather than “Watch” to convey the possibility of a storm 2-4 days in the future. Also, using this same 1-10 scale, please indicate your level of support of expressing our confidence using a dedicated line within the message.

3b) If you support the idea of using a term other than “Watch” to convey the possibility of a storm 2-4 days in the future, and/or if you have other ideas for expressing our forecast confidence - but have ideas for doing so other than as presented here - please provide your ideas in the comment box below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4a) On a scale of 1-10, where 10 is “extremely supportive” and 1 is “not supportive at all”, please indicate your level of support for using a single “Warning” statement to convey our expectation of dangerous weather or water conditions, rather than utilizing the current variety of individual warning products.

4b) If you support the idea of a simplified approach for conveying our expectations of dangerous weather or water conditions - but have ideas for doing so other than as presented here - please provide your ideas in the comment box below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5a) On a scale of 1-10, where 10 is “extremely supportive” and 1 is “not supportive at all”, please indicate your level of support for conveying our assessment of increased threat by smoothly transitioning from "Special Message" to "Warning” and changing only the impact and confidence information within our hazard messages.

5b) If you support the idea of simplifying the transition from expressing the “potential” for hazardous conditions to an “expectation” of dangerous conditions - but have ideas for doing so other than as presented here - please provide your ideas in the comment box below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6a) On a scale of 1-10, where 10 is “extremely supportive” and 1 is “not supportive at all”, please indicate your level of support for using a single warning message for flooding instead of multiple warning products.

6b) If you support the idea of decreasing the number of flooding products - but have ideas for doing so other than as presented here - please provide your ideas in the comment box below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7a) On a scale of 1-10, where 10 is “extremely supportive” and 1 is “not supportive at all”, please indicate your level of support for using “ the Special Message approach” for flood messages in place of the current “Watch” and “Advisory” approach.

7b) If you support the idea of using different terminology than “Watch” and “Advisory” to describe flooding threats - but have ideas for doing so other than as presented here - please provide your ideas in the comment box below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8a) On a scale of 1-10, where 10 is “extremely supportive” and 1 is “not supportive at all”, please provide a summary assessment of your level of support for changing the way we express our weather and water hazards away from the “Watch”, “Warning” and “Advisory” system and towards a different approach.

8b) To support us with our understanding of our users’ needs, please select your affiliation using the drop down box below (choices include general public, broadcast meteorologist, emergency manager, municipal official, social scientist, NOAA employee, aviation interest, marine interest)

8c) If you have any summary comments, including your assessment as to how many of our service areas should consider for a simplified messaeging approach, please provide your ideas in the comment box below. (Example service areas include winter weather flooding, excessive heat and cold, strong winds, severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.