[Senate Hearing 109-370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-370
SEVERE STORMS AND REDUCING THEIR IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 29, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-822 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMint, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
David Russell, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION
JIM DeMint, South Carolina, E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska,
Chairman Ranking
TED STEVENS, Alaska MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BILL NELSON, Florida
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 29, 2005.................................... 1
Statement of Senator DeMint...................................... 1
Statement of Senator E. Benjamin Nelson.......................... 4
Statement of Senator Vitter...................................... 2
Witnesses
Ahlberg, Doug, Director, Lincoln-Lancaster County Emergency
Management..................................................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Levitan, Dr. Marc L., Director, Louisiana State University
Hurricane Center/Charles P. Siess, Jr. Associate Professor of
Civil and Environmental Engineering............................ 35
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Mayfield, Max, Director, Tropical Prediction Center/National
Hurricane Center, National Weather Service..................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
McCarthy, Dennis, Director, Office of Climate, Water and Weather
Services, National Weather Service............................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Reinhold, Timothy A., Ph.D., Vice President of Engineering,
Institute for Business & Home Safety........................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Sallenger, Jr., Asbury H., Oceanographer, U.S. Geological Survey
Center for Coastal and Watershed Studies....................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Walsh, Bill, Director of Meteorology/Chief Meteorologist, WCSC
Live 5 News.................................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Appendix
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim DeMint to:
Timothy A. Reinholdt......................................... 67
Max Mayfield................................................. 57
Response to Written Questions Submitted to Dennis McCarthy by:
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 61
Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson...................................... 62
Hon. Ted Stevens............................................. 59
SEVERE STORMS AND REDUCING THEIR IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim DeMint,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMint,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator DeMint. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to thank
all of you for joining us at this hearing to discuss and
examine the impact of severe weather on our communities, and
what the citizens and government can do to lessen its impact.
As we're all aware, hurricanes and tornadoes have a devastating
impact on our communities. South Carolina witnessed the impact
of Mother Nature most severely when Hurricane Hugo made a
direct hit on Charleston in 1989. The devastation to homes,
businesses, and families was widespread. Fortunately, we've
learned some important lessons from these storms, we're
starting to see our preparation for the storms improve, and
we're seeing the accuracy of the Weather Service's predictions
improve.
While we've come a long way from where we were in 1989,
there's still a lot that needs to be done. Too many homes and
businesses have not incorporated disaster-resistant
technologies into their buildings, numerous communities have
gutted out the building codes that encourage builders and
developers to adopt technologies that will protect life and
property when a storm rolls in. In the past few decades, the
Weather Service has dramatically improved its predictions of
both hurricanes and tornadoes. The hurricanes, we've seen the
accuracy of landfall predictions improve significantly. Now,
this is crucial for states like South Carolina where each mile
of coastline evacuated can cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
We've also seen tornado predictions increase by minutes,
and a few minutes can mean the difference between getting to a
tornado shelter and being stuck in your home. Each improvement
translates directly into saved lives. While the improvements
have been impressive, there are still places where we can do
better. We need a better idea of the impact on beaches and
rivers of hurricane landfall, NOAA needs to improve its
forecasting of hurricane intensity. When the Weather Service
estimates the intensity of the hurricane too high, they
unnecessarily trigger evacuations, and this costs residences,
businesses and governments money. When they forecast too low,
lives are placed in jeopardy.
I'm looking forward to hearing from Mr. Mayfield, Mr.
McCarthy, and Dr. Sallenger on how their agencies plan to
improve the products they provide to the taxpayer, in addition
to the predictions and forecasts generated by the USGS and the
Weather Service. The private sector, state, and local
governments play an equally important role in ensuring that our
communities are prepared, and able to respond to severe storms.
The engineering community and insurance industry have a crucial
role to play in encouraging the incorporation of disaster-
resistant technologies into homes and businesses that can
provide strong incentives to businesses and individuals to
become better prepared for disasters. We also need to recognize
the important role that broadcast meteorologists play in
communicating to our communities during disasters.
For Charleston, South Carolina, Bill Walsh is the man the
community turns to when they need to know how to prepare for
big storms, and after the storms when the power is down, Bill
Walsh and his colleagues along with the broadcast community are
often the only points of information for devastated
communities. I look forward to the comments of our witnesses
this afternoon. This hearing and the one earlier this month are
providing valuable insights that will help inform the Committee
as to how we begin to draft legislation to reauthorize the
Weather Service. While the Nation has the best weather
prediction in the world, we can and must do better. Our coasts
are seriously exposed to the impact of major storms, and we
need to improve the quality of both hurricane tracks and
intensity forecasts. I will be looking at what can be done
legislatively to help improve these conditions and
additionally, as we consider this reauthorization, I will work
proactively to assure that all the assets in America's weather
prediction community, business, government and academia work
together.
As the annual hurricane season shows us, weather has a
profound impact on the lives and the economy of our coastal
communities. I will be working to ensure that the Federal
Government delivers to the taxpayer the best weather services
possible.
Again, thank you for appearing before this Committee, and I
will turn to Senator Vitter for his opening comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Chairman DeMint, thank you for holding this
hearing today on the impact of severe storms on our
communities. I also appreciate the very hard work of Tom Jones
on your staff, as he has helped put this hearing together; and
Mr. Chairman, you may be interested to know that Tom wanted
such a realistic experience today, that he asked me to get
hurricanes up from Pat O'Brien's in the French Quarter in New
Orleans for refreshment.
[Laughter.]
Senator Vitter. For those of you who don't know, these are
the high octane rum drinks served in the French Quarter.
On a more serious note, I'm afraid, if you look at some of
our disaster policy in this country, it seems as if officials
who put it together were sipping a lot of hurricanes, because I
think it is fundamentally flawed, Mr. Chairman, in one basic
way--our general policy toward disasters is reactive, instead
of proactive. We spend billions of dollars after a disaster,
instead of spending millions of dollars to prevent many of the
harmful effects of a disaster from ever occurring.
We have some graphics here that will be put up behind me,
and this isn't a simulation of World War III, or The Day After
Tomorrow movie, or Atlantis--although one day it could be
Atlantis--this is a real, computer-generated model of the
impact of a hurricane hitting New Orleans. (The National
Weather Service models have determined the following Category
III storm, which as you know, is not the worst imaginable. It
would place over 20 feet of water in some inland areas of
Plaquemines Parish, populated areas, and 14 feet of water in
the City of New Orleans.)
A Category IV storm, one step up, would put over 24 feet of
water in some inland areas of Plaquemines Parish, and over 18
feet of water in New Orleans. A Category V storm, the worst
case scenario, would put over 28 feet of water in some inland
areas of Plaquemines Parish, and over 23 feet of water in New
Orleans. And it's really not a question of ``if '', it's a
question of ``when''.
The inundation of our homes and businesses would be a
historic national disaster, but the full tragedy would be the
loss of up to 100,000 lives, as predicted by the National
Weather Service. Let me make a point again--this is not some
wild speculation, this is a valid, scientific model from the
National Weather Service saying that up to 100,000 lives would
be lost as a result of this sort of hurricane hit on New
Orleans.
To make this point even more real, I would note that the
City of New Orleans had thousands of body bags ready for
Hurricane Ivan last year. As we will hear today from the
Director of the National Hurricane Center, Max Mayfield, and
Dr. Arnold, areas like New Orleans and Key West are nearly
impossible to evacuate with the advance warning technologies we
have now, and the inadequate infrastructure in place in those
areas today.
Director Mayfield and Mr. Sallenger correctly state in
their testimony that we experience an average of 20 deaths a
year and spend an average of $5.1 billion a year to respond to
storms, all after the fact. In Louisiana we have plans in place
to prevent much of that, to try to avoid much of that before
the fact. The Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Program, Lake
Pontchartrain, New Orleans to Venice, Alexandria to the Gulf,
West Bank, West Shore and Louisiana Coastal Area Programs, all
of these are established programs that are designed to prevent
hurricane and storm damage and the loss of life. Yet, every
year we fight for funds just to keep these efforts afloat and
moving on inch by inch. Instead of spending those millions now,
instead we're going to spend billions, literally, billions--
many, many billions--after the fact, and lose up to 100,000
lives in New Orleans. Again, this is a fundamentally flawed
approach to disasters, and I look forward to our witnesses
talking about that today.
Finally, a number of our panelists will discuss wind
damage, our lack of attention to this important issue and the
effect this has had on our recovery costs, and I'm also very
anxious to hear all of the witnesses thoughts and
recommendations about this. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for
your leadership.
Senator DeMint. Senator, excellent remarks. I would turn to
Senator Nelson for his opening remarks before I introduce the
panelists.
STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Ben Nelson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, thanks to our
panelists today, we appreciate very much your being here,
obviously coming from a state that is in the Northern end of
Tornado Alley. Severe weather forecasting is of great interest
to me, and of great importance to my constituents in the State
of Nebraska.
I would first like to recognize the efforts of NOAA and the
National Weather Service in improving our forecasting
abilities. It's amazing to me that only 20 years ago there was
absolutely no lead time for tornado warnings, and over the last
10 years the National Weather Service has increased the warning
lead time for tornadoes to an average of 13 minutes. That
increase in lead time leads to a decrease in deaths and
injuries from tornadoes. Earlier this year, I visited our local
National Weather Service station in Valley, Nebraska just west
of Omaha. I planned this trip near the 30th anniversary of a
devastating tornado that hit Omaha in 1975 and killed three
people. I wanted to see what advances had been made in
predicting and responding to tornadoes, and I must say that I
was very impressed. During my visit, I was informed that in
1975 it took 5 minutes just to process a warning before it
could be issued. Now it takes under a minute, again, saving
minutes means saving lives. I believe we need to continue our
commitment and investment in further improving our forecasting
capabilities. The exciting advances in technologies which will
allow us to better forecast tornadoes, to more accurately
pinpoint where a tornado is likely to touch down, and to allow
longer lead time for warnings is crucial to the safety of our
citizens. These advances in technologies also hold better
promise for tracking hurricanes and predicting their intensity
as well, again, information that is vital to protecting lives.
I applaud the collaboration between the National Weather
Service, the National Hurricane Center and the media for not
only warning people of impending severe weather, but also
providing the information they need as to how they should
respond in order to remain safe.
The education efforts you've all undertaken so that
individuals can take more personal responsibility at ensuring
their safety is key to reducing fatalities and injuries during
severe weather. Protecting lives will always be our number one
priority, and it requires keeping up with technology, which is
why I stress the need for continuing investment in our
forecasting capabilities. Imagine the loss of life that we
would have had in Omaha, a highly populated area, during that
devastating tornado back in 1975 if we had depended on the
prediction and warning technology that was available in 1913,
when a tornado ripped through Omaha and killed 168 people. It
is worth the investment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Senator.
Appearing before the Subcommittee this afternoon, Dr. Max
Mayfield. Mr. Mayfield is Director of the National Hurricane
Center, he will outline the Center's work to improve the
quality of the Nation's hurricane forecast. Joining him is Mr.
Dennis McCarthy, Director of Climate, Water and Weather
Services at the National Weather Service. Mr. McCarthy will be
discussing severe weather, and specifically the impact of
tornadoes.
Finally, on this panel is Dr. Abby Sallenger, Oceanographer
from the United States Geological Survey Center for Coastal and
Watershed Studies. Dr. Sallenger will discuss the inland impact
of hurricanes on beaches and rivers. With that, we'll start
with Mr. Mayfield. I think if we're running these lights, the
green will indicate you're in good shape, the yellow means you
probably need to start slowing down, and red means you're out
of time.
Thank you, sir, Mr. Mayfield.
STATEMENT OF MAX MAYFIELD, DIRECTOR, TROPICAL
PREDICTION CENTER/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER,
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
Mr. Mayfield. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
I'm Max Mayfield, Director of the Tropical Prediction Center
and National Hurricane Center. I'm pleased to be here today to
discuss NOAA's role in researching, forecasting and warning the
public about hurricanes. The National Hurricane Center has been
the centerpiece of our Nation's hurricane forecast and warning
program for 50 years. Our mission is to save lives, mitigate
property loss and improve economic efficiency by issuing the
best watches, warnings and forecasts of hazardous tropical
weather, and by increasing the public's understanding of these
hazards. Until 2004, we experienced relatively few hurricane
landfalls in this country, and in particular, very few major
hurricanes. Our good fortune ended last year when six
hurricanes hit the United States and three of those were major
hurricanes. We have already entered into a period of heightened
hurricane activity. This activity in the Atlantic is cyclical
with the multiple decades, and since the mid-1990s, this
activity has increased sharply, and this period of heightened
activity could last another 10 to 20 years.
Great progress has been made in forecasting the track of
tropical cyclones over the past half century, our track
forecast errors have been cut approximately in half in the last
15 to 20 years. Our 5 day forecast is as good as the 3 day
forecast was just 15 years ago. These advances are largely the
result of improvements made in operational, numerical weather
prediction, aided by investments and increasingly sophisticated
computers, and advances in satellite observations over
otherwise data-sparse oceanic regions where tropical cyclones
are spawned. An important part of the success story is also the
Gulf Stream IV aircraft following the highly successful NOAA
Hurricane Resource Division Program. Congress appropriated
funds to obtain this jet in the mid-1990s. Data collected now
by the Gulf Stream IV result in 36 to 48 hour forecast
improvements averaging near 20 percent, when tropical cyclones
threaten further gains in forecast skill through to
improvements in science and technology are essential, however,
enhanced hurricane information will not by itself be enough if
the information is not communicated to the at-risk public in a
manner that can effect the best preparedness actions, in
addition to reaching out to the general public through the
media, our website, and other routes. We've trained local,
state, national and international emergency managers on the
limitations of hurricane forecasting, and their proper use of
our products through workshops. In fact, we've trained over
1,000 emergency managers in the last 14 years. Storm surge has
caused most of this country's tropical cyclone-related
fatalities, and represents the greatest risk for large loss of
life in this country. The plans for hurricane evacuation along
the Atlantic and Gulf Coast are based on our storm surge
calculations, and our storm surge program and the resulting
evacuation plans are credited largely with the dramatic
decrease in the loss of life due to storm surge in the United
States.
Now, while we have made significant progress in hurricane
forecasting warnings, we have much more work to do from a
scientific standpoint. The gaps in our capabilities fall into
two broad categories. Number one is our ability to assess the
current state of the hurricane and its environment, that's the
analysis, and number two, our ability to predict the
hurricane's future state, the forecast. Analysis is the
starting point of the forecast process, to improve the analysis
in tropical cyclones, we need to enhance our observation
network. Many of the enhancements required to improve hurricane
analyses, particularly over the data-sparse ocean areas will be
addressed through such programs as the Global Earth Observation
Systems, or GEOSS, a 10-year international endeavor, of which
the United States is a member, and NOAA, a key participant.
Further additional observation improvements will be realized
with funding from the supplemental hurricane bill passed last
year, including seven data buoys recently deployed, and the
sensors to be installed on Air Force hurricane hover aircraft.
The accuracy of our tropical cyclone forecast is closely
tied to improvements in computer-based, numerical weather
prediction models. The United States Weather Research Program's
Joint Hurricane Test Bed was recently formulated and
established at the National Hurricane Center to facilitate the
transfer of new technology, research results and observation,
or advances for improved operational tropical cyclone analysis
and prediction.
Thus far we're very pleased with the results of the Test
Bed, the projects implemented have made quantifiable
enhancements in our operations. In addition, the National
Weather Service Environmental Modeling Center is leading
development of a sophisticated, high-resolution computer model,
intended to improve hurricane intensity and rainfall forecasts.
This new model is scheduled to become operational in the year
2007.
In conclusion, we have come a long way in hurricane
prediction to meet the challenge of reducing the risk to our
Nation from tropical cyclones, we must continue to improve our
forecast and warnings, and continue our public education
efforts. I thank you for your support, and I will be happy to
answer any questions, if I can.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mayfield follows:]
Prepared Statement of Max Mayfield, Director, Tropical Prediction
Center/National Hurricane Center, National Weather Service
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Max Mayfield,
Director of the Tropical Prediction Center/National Hurricane Center
(TPC/NHC). The National Hurricane Center is a part of the National
Weather Service (NWS), of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. I am pleased to be
here today to discuss NOAA's role in researching, forecasting, and
warning the public about hurricanes.
The National Hurricane Center (NHC) has been the centerpiece of our
Nation's hurricane forecast and warning program for 50 years. Our
mission is to save lives, mitigate property loss, and improve economic
efficiency by issuing the best watches, warnings, and forecasts of
hazardous tropical weather, and by increasing the public's
understanding of these hazards. Today, I would like to provide some
background on our hurricane program, discuss current activities, and
outline some of our goals for the future.
According to a 2003 report published by the American Geophysical
Union, the NHC, along with our public and private sector partners,
saves the lives of close to 200 people per year in the United States
alone from hurricanes, tropical storms and tropical depressions
collectively known as tropical cyclones. Since our efforts began in the
1950s, we have reduced tropical cyclone mortality in the United States
by about 90 percent. Saving lives is paramount, but it is also
important to recognize the enormous physical and economic damage caused
in our country by tropical cyclones. The impact of hurricanes in the
United States alone is an average of 20 deaths and $5.1 billion in
property damage each year.
Public confidence in the NHC is high. A 2003 customer satisfaction
survey conducted by Claes Fornell International indicated 87 percent of
the respondents approved of the quality and usefulness of our products
and services. Respondents also rated our improvements over the past
five years at 86 out of 100. These scores are among the highest
reported among Federal Government agencies on similar questions, and
reflect the significant gains we have made in analyzing and forecasting
tropical cyclones. For example, our track forecast errors have been cut
approximately in half in the past 15-20 years due to advances in
weather forecast models enabling us to meet our Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) performance measure every year.
We were honored last year to have President Bush visit our facility
to thank our staff for their work during the very active 2004 hurricane
season. I would like to express our appreciation to the Administration
and Congress for their continuing support, highlighted by the
Supplemental Hurricane Bill passed last year. The supplemental
appropriation provided funding for additional observing systems (data
buoys and observing sensors to be installed on U.S. Air Force hurricane
reconnaissance aircraft), computer model development and supporting
research, and is already beginning to pay dividends. The new weather
buoys we were able to deploy because of the supplemental funding helped
define the early characteristics of Tropical Storm Arlene.
The combination of improved forecasting, better communications,
advanced emergency management practices, and an aggressive education
program have contributed to a period of relatively few tropical cyclone
related deaths in this country. However, with more than half of the
U.S. population residing in coastal watershed counties, we are more
vulnerable to a hurricane catastrophe today than at any time in our
Nation's history. Despite our progress in tracking and forecasting
storms, we have much work still to do. To meet the challenge of
reducing the risk to our Nation from tropical cyclones, we must
continue to improve our forecasts and warnings, and continue our
outreach and public education efforts.
Our Challenge
Until 2004 we experienced relatively few hurricane landfalls in
this country in recent decades and, in particular, very few ``major''
hurricanes--those of Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson
hurricane scale (Category 1-5). Our good fortune ended last year when
six hurricanes hit the United States, and three of those were major
hurricanes.
We have entered a period of heightened hurricane activity. On
average, ten tropical storms form during the Atlantic hurricane season,
with 6 becoming hurricanes and 2-3 becoming major hurricanes. However,
tropical cyclone activity in the Atlantic is cyclical, with a time
period of multiple decades. During the 1940s through the 1960s, we
experienced an above average number of major hurricanes, and during the
period from the 1970s into the mid-1990s we experienced fewer
hurricanes than average. Since the mid-1990s, activity increased
sharply and this period of heightened activity could last another 10-20
years. In fact, there have been more hurricanes during the past ten
years than in any other ten-year period since records began in 1851.
Figure 1. Number of Atlantic basin major hurricanes for the
period 1944-2004.
This increased level of hurricane activity is occurring against a
backdrop of a large and rapidly growing coastal population in this
country as identified by the 2000 Census conducted by the DOC Census
Bureau. Coastal populations are directly threatened by tropical
cyclones, and are largely unfamiliar with the devastating impacts of
these storms. About 85 percent of coastal residents have never
experienced the core of a major hurricane. Population growth increases
the overall risk by stressing the already crowded, and in some places
overwhelmed, evacuation routes.
NHC Structure and Support
The NHC has a staff of 41, including six hurricane forecasters and
support staff. Our area of responsibility encompasses the Atlantic
Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, as well as the Eastern Pacific
Ocean east of 140+ W. The central Pacific from 140+ W to the
international dateline is monitored by the NWS Central Pacific
Hurricane Center located in Hawaii. The NHC staff is extremely
dedicated and, in 2004, worked tirelessly to provide the forecasts
necessary during the very active hurricane season. Some individuals
worked for many weeks without a day off to ensure forecasts and
warnings were issued and our mission was upheld.
The NHC depends on numerous critical research and operational
activities inside and outside NOAA, including NWS' Environmental
Modeling Center (EMC), the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)
and the Hurricane Research Division (HRD) in NOAA's Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research, as well as the NWS's Central Operations,
which is responsible for the computing infrastructure to run the
forecast models. We also rely on the Department of Defense--in
particular the U.S. Air Force Reserve Command's 53rd Weather
Reconnaissance Squadron ``Hurricane Hunters.'' These reconnaissance
flights make the storm penetration flights and provide essential data
about the structure of the storm. NOAA's Office of Marine and Aviation
Operations conducts further reconnaissance missions when hurricanes
approach land. The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations also pilots
the Gulf Stream IV, which provides data from the large area surrounding
a hurricane.
In the international arena, under the auspices of the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO), a United Nations' Specialized
Agency, the NHC is designated as a Regional Specialized Meteorological
Center (RSMC). As an RSMC, NHC's forecasts provide guidance to two
dozen countries in the Atlantic, Eastern Pacific and Caribbean. For
their part, these countries provide the United States valuable weather
observations that help in our forecasts for them and for us.
The NHC has strong ties to the meteorological research community as
well as others in academia, international meteorological services,
emergency management agencies, the media, amateur radio operators, the
American Red Cross, and the private meteorological sector. It takes a
true team effort to make the hurricane program work.
Our Products and Services
NHC tropical cyclone forecasts are issued every six hours and
include text messages as well as a suite of graphical products
depicting our forecasts and the accompanying probabilities and ``cone
of uncertainty,'' as it has become known. This information is available
through many sources, including the media and the Internet. The media
is an essential partner and helps us get the information to the public.
Without the media, it would be very difficult to get the information as
widely distributed. The Internet has also become an excellent vehicle
to provide our information to the public. NOAA websites recorded over 9
billion ``hits'' during the peak of the 2004 hurricane season.
Even with the majority of users saying they are ``very satisfied''
with our current products and services, we continue to develop new
experimental products for the 2005 hurricane season to meet user needs.
One of these products is a depiction of tropical cyclone surface wind
speed probabilities at specific locations, and is available in both
text and graphical formats. These new and expanded products help us
better convey forecast uncertainties and have the potential to provide
users with information that enhances their ability to make preparedness
decisions specific to their situations. In accordance with the NOAA
Partnership Policy, we consult with our users and partners to determine
the usefulness of our products to ensure the products further the
public-private enterprise as a whole and help us better meet our
mission.
The NHC coordinates with many other agencies, both domestic and
abroad, on tropical cyclone forecasts and watches/warnings. Forecast
coordination calls occur one hour before each advisory release
deadline. The calls include the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force Weather
Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and NWS
regional headquarters and local Weather Forecast Offices (WFO) of the
affected area. NHC then constructs and disseminates the final advisory
products within the hour after this coordination call is initiated.
Our Region Hurricane Operational Plan provides procedures for
coordinating watches and warnings with other countries. This
coordination, which is a challenging and important task for NHC, can
involve up to six or more weather services at one time. While NHC
provides forecast information and often initiates the coordination, it
is ultimately up to each country to issue watches and warnings for
their area(s) of responsibility.
The FEMA/NWS Hurricane Liaison Team (HLT), which I usually activate
at NHC a few days in advance of a potential U.S. landfall, coordinates
communications between NOAA and the emergency management community at
the Federal and State levels. After consulting with our local weather
offices and our center, emergency managers make evacuation and other
preparedness decisions. The HLT provides an excellent way to
communicate with the large number of emergency managers typically
impacted by a potential hurricane.
Our Performance
Great progress has been made in forecasting the track of tropical
cyclones over the past half-century. Our average 48-hour track error,
which was near 300 nautical miles in the early 1970s, is now near 100
nautical miles. Today's 5-day forecasts are as accurate as our 3-day
forecasts were 15 years ago. These advances are largely the result of
improvements made in operational numerical weather prediction, aided by
investments in increasingly sophisticated computers and advances in
satellite observations over the otherwise data-sparse oceanic regions
where tropical cyclones are spawned.
An important part of this success story is the NOAA Gulf Stream IV
jet aircraft. Following a highly successful HRD research program,
Congress appropriated funds to obtain this jet in the mid 1990s. Data
collected by the Gulf Stream IV now result in 36-48 hour forecast
improvements averaging near 20 percent when tropical cyclones threaten
land.
Our improvement in the accuracy of hurricane intensity forecasts
has been more modest, in comparison to the progress made in track
forecasts. The average 48-hour intensity forecast error has remained
near 15 knots for at least the last 15 years. Anticipating rapid
intensification, which occurred as Hurricane Charley made landfall last
year, remains most challenging. As a result of forecast uncertainties,
we advise emergency managers to prepare for a hurricane one category
stronger on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale than what is being
forecast. Improvements to the intensity forecast could substantially
reduce the indirect costs of tropical cyclones by reducing the scope of
evacuations and other preparations.
Outreach and Education
Further gains in forecast skill through improvements in science and
technology are essential. Enhanced hurricane information will not, by
itself, be enough if the information is not communicated to the at-risk
public in a manner that can effect the best preparedness actions. For
example, Dr. Jay Baker from Florida State University estimated that
only 25-50 percent of the people who should have evacuated from last
year's hurricanes did. Of those that did evacuate, a substantial number
would have been safer remaining at home because their residence was
well constructed and outside of a flood zone. Education and outreach
events developed by NOAA, the emergency management community, and the
media are essential to ensure the public has the information needed to
protect lives and property.
We try to bring a ``clear, calm and trusted voice'' into households
at risk. We conduct numerous media interviews each hurricane season.
Efforts during the 2004 season reflect the magnitude of our effort.
During this season NHC conducted more than 2,600 interviews with radio,
television and print outlets during hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan
and Jeanne. Bilingual meteorologists satisfy our responsibility to
inform the growing Spanish speaking population.
NHC trains local, State, Federal and international emergency
managers on the limitations in hurricane forecasting and proper use of
our products through workshops. More than 1,000 emergency managers have
been trained at the NHC in the past 14 years. These workshops extend to
the international community where tropical weather forecasters from
around the world come to be trained in hurricane forecasting.
The Hurricane Awareness Tours that take place along the U.S. east
and gulf coasts and in the Caribbean provide opportunities to advance
hurricane awareness for the public and media in vulnerable communities.
Doors to the ``Hurricane Hunter'' aircraft are open to thousands of
people each year, where they learn about aircraft missions and the team
effort between forecasters, emergency managers and the media. These
events encourage every individual, family, business, and community to
develop a hurricane plan, and to have that plan in place before the
hurricane season begins. Despite these efforts, a Mason-Dixon Research
Poll released in May 2005 revealed that 47 percent of people in coastal
states do not have a hurricane plan. Clearly, more needs to be done and
we will continue to address this with our partners through our
education and outreach efforts.
In recent years, rainfall-induced freshwater floods have taken more
lives in tropical cyclones than any other threat. We are taking steps
in our operational procedures, education and outreach activities, and
research and development to reduce the loss of life.
Storm Surge: A Success Story--so far
Storm surge has caused most of this country's tropical cyclone
fatalities, and represents our greatest risk for a large loss of life
in this country, particularly in hard to evacuate areas like the
Florida Keys and New Orleans. Following Hurricane Camille in 1969,
which resulted in at least 100 storm surge deaths, NOAA established a
group that developed and implemented a storm surge model called SLOSH
(Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes). The plans for
hurricane evacuation programs along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
coasts are based on SLOSH calculations. SLOSH and the resulting
evacuation plans are credited largely with a dramatic decrease in the
loss of life due to storm surge in the United States. Since Camille,
the total number of deaths due to storm surge in this country is less
than fifteen.
The SLOSH model calculates storm surge heights resulting either
from historical, hypothetical or actual hurricanes. SLOSH incorporates
bathymetry and topography, including bay and river configurations,
roads, levees, and other physical features that can modify the storm
surge flow pattern. Thirty-eight computational domains, or SLOSH
basins, cover the U.S. east and gulf coasts, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and the Hawaiian Islands of Oahu and Kauai. The SLOSH
basins must be revised periodically to take into account new cuts in
barrier islands, new levees or revision to older levees, waterway
dredging and other significant changes to flow. NOAA recently formed a
storm surge assessment team to examine our users' requirements for
real-time storm surge information and products, to direct storm surge
modeling within NOAA and to plan for future enhancement of, or the
replacement of, the SLOSH model.
Comprehensive evacuation studies conducted jointly by FEMA, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), NOAA, and state and local
emergency managers are based on the simulated surges computed by SLOSH.
Mapping of the resulting potential surge inundations is done by the
USACE as a step in determining hurricane evacuation zones.
The storm surge depends on the hurricane track and wind field. A
slight difference in either can mean a huge difference in the surge.
Last year's Hurricane Ivan is an example. The 12-hour forecast was off
by only 25 miles, which is a very small amount. However, the difference
in the predicted storm surge was large. The initial forecast called for
a 14-foot surge in Mobile Bay and 5 feet in Pensacola Bay. But with the
storm hitting 25 miles farther east, only a 4-foot surge occurred in
Mobile Bay, while Pensacola Bay had a 12-foot surge. This is precisely
why we use a mean envelope of high water for evacuation planning and
training. An equally large difference is seen with the radius of
maximum winds within a hurricane. When provided precise information,
the SLOSH model performs well. Despite the tremendous success of the
Nation's storm surge program, as our coastal regions become more
populated the potential for a surge catastrophe remains.
Future Activities for the U.S. Hurricane Program
While we have made significant progress in hurricane forecasting
and warnings, we have more work to do. For example, even in the areas
with rapid advancement, such as track forecasting, we still cannot
provide sufficient lead time to evacuate particularly vulnerable areas
like the Florida Keys or New Orleans. From a scientific standpoint, the
gaps in our capabilities fall into two broad categories: (1) our
ability to assess the current state of the hurricane and its
environment (analysis), and (2) our ability to predict the hurricane's
future state (the forecast). Finally, we would like to improve public
preparedness.
Improving Analyses
Analysis is the starting point of the forecast process. Inaccurate
assessments of a tropical cyclone's current position, intensity, and
size lead directly to forecast errors. To improve the analysis of
tropical cyclones, we need to enhance our observation network. Many of
the enhancements required to improve hurricane analyses, particularly
over the data-sparse ocean areas, will be addressed through such
programs as the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), a
10-year international endeavor of which the United States is a member
and NOAA a key participant. Further, additional observation
improvements will be realized with funding from the Supplemental
Hurricane Bill passed last year, including 7 data buoys recently
deployed and the sensors to be installed on Air Force ``Hurricane
Hunter'' aircraft. We are working with the research community to
develop some of the future observation technology. Advanced operational
data assimilation systems will very soon combine all of the available
observational data in very sophisticated Numerical Weather Prediction
(NWP) analyses.
Improving Forecasts
The accuracy of NHC tropical cyclone forecasts is closely tied to
improvements in computer-based numerical weather prediction models
(model guidance). Significant gains in intensity, precipitation and
wind distribution forecasting await the next generation operational
modeling system capable of incorporating high-resolution information
from the hurricane core. Improvements will be based on state-of-the-art
physics developed specifically to address these deficiencies.
We have increased our efforts to transfer research into operations.
The United States Weather Research Program (USWRP) Joint Hurricane
Testbed (JHT) was formed in late 2000. The mission of the JHT is to
facilitate the transfer of new technology, research results, and
observational advances of the USWRP, its sponsoring agencies, the
academic community, and the private sector for improved operational
tropical cyclone analysis and prediction. To accomplish this mission we
identify promising and mature research and technology, and provide the
infrastructure to test and evaluate the selected techniques in an
operational setting. Federal assistance is provided to both Federal and
non-federal researchers to allow them to tailor their techniques for
the operational environment and to collaborate in the testing and
evaluation of their techniques by operational center staff.
We are very pleased thus far with the results of the JHT. Projects
implemented thus far have made quantifiable enhancements to our
operations including a 35 percent improvement in the computer model 3-
day track forecast and significant improvements at other time scales.
These advances helped NHC to establish new records for track forecast
accuracy, both in 2003 and 2004.
Much of our improvement in tropical cyclone forecasting is
attributed to advances in Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP). In
collaboration with many scientists and developers in the domestic and
international operational NWP centers, the EMC develops state of the
art numerical modeling systems and is a recognized world leader. We are
now at the point in improving intensity forecasts that we were a decade
ago in improving track forecasts. Through our NWP advancements, our
2005 version of the GFDL high-resolution model improved some intensity
forecasts over the statistical models when run on several 2004 Atlantic
storms. To advance hurricane prediction, especially hurricane intensity
and size forecasts, EMC is leading the development of the Hurricane
Weather and Research Forecasting (HWRF) system. The HWRF system uses a
collaborative approach among the research community and will apply
advanced model physics as HWRF couples the atmosphere, land, and ocean
into an integrated model. EMC will also couple an advanced wave model
with a dynamic storm surge model to better predict coastal impacts of
waves and storm surge.
Research efforts are being coordinated across NOAA to develop new
technology and applications to improve NOAA's products, and provide
outreach to the public. These research efforts address issues that have
direct impact upon the ability of NOAA to provide tropical cyclone
weather forecasting and warning services to the public.
We are making excellent progress. NOAA has a comprehensive plan to
improve intensity forecasts along with our other difficult forecast
challenges. While there are no quick fixes, we are very optimistic that
we will continue to make advances in operational forecasts of tropical
cyclone intensity, wind structure, size, and rainfall in the near
future. We are leading the Nation in a large collaborative effort
through a long-term commitment to these problems.
Increase the Effectiveness of Public Preparedness
Our Nation's hurricane warning program requires more than
meteorology. Mitigation of storm impacts demands an interdisciplinary
approach to develop long-term policies and practices for better public
safety. Such an approach requires, at a minimum, contributions from the
public, private and academic sectors to address better land use,
building codes, sheltering plans, identification and communication of
risk, and public education. Mitigation of future storm impacts depends
upon a more informed public who knows what the hazards are, how those
hazards impact them, and what actions to take based on those hazards.
Without this approach, our Nation is vulnerable to greater devastation
from hurricanes in the coming decades regardless of forecast accuracy.
An example of how we can do more in outreach is through programs
like the National Hurricane Survival Initiative. This public-private
partnership includes the National Emergency Management Association,
Florida Division of Emergency Management, the Salvation Army, NHC and
corporate partners. Their collective aim is to educate and prepare
communities at risk from hurricanes. Another example is the Federal
Alliance for Safe Homes (FLASH'). FLASH' is a
non-profit, 501(c)3 organization dedicated to promoting disaster safety
and property loss mitigation. A current FLASH' partnership
with the NOAA/NWS, the Allstate Foundation, The Southwestern Insurance
Information Service and the Texas State Parks and Wildlife is bringing
greater visibility to a national Public Service Campaign named by the
NWS `` Turn Around Don't Drown.'' The campaign in Texas raises flood
safety awareness using billboards, bilingual handouts for state park
visitors and television public service announcements across major
cities. These examples demonstrate how Federal-State and public-private
partnerships are critical to pre-disaster planning, and targeted
dissemination of outreach, education and information about the risks of
severe weather.
Conclusion
We have come a long way in hurricane prediction. Our forecasts are
better than they have ever been. We have an excellent working
partnership with the emergency management community. Our partners in
the private weather sector and the media work with us to make sure our
information is disseminated and communicated as widely and
comprehensively as possible. Even with the substantive progress we have
made over the last fifty years, we remain vulnerable to a hurricane
catastrophe. To meet the challenge of reducing the risk to our Nation
from tropical cyclones, we must continue to improve our forecasts and
warnings, and continue our public education efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about our Nation's
hurricane forecast and warning program, and for your support as we
continue to provide our Nation with the highest-quality weather
services.
Senator DeMint. Mr. McCarthy?
STATEMENT OF DENNIS McCARTHY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CLIMATE,
WATER AND WEATHER SERVICES, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
I'm Dennis McCarthy, Director of the National Weather Service
Office of Climate, Water and Weather Services. Thank you for
the opportunity to discuss NOAA's weather programs,
specifically tornadoes.
In an average year in the United States, thunderstorms
generate 1,300 tornadoes resulting in 58 deaths, 1,500
injuries, and $1.1 billion in property damage. Thunderstorms
produce other hazards, such as lightning, hail damage and wind
and flash flooding. The challenge is to determine which
thunderstorms will bring which hazards. In the 1970s less than
1 of 3 tornadoes occurred in a tornado watch area, only 1 of 5
occurred in a tornado warning area. More than 80 percent of
tornado warnings were based on spotter reports, meaning there
was virtually no warning lead time for most tornadoes. By the
end of the decade, research focused on optimizing observational
data and new techniques for using weather satellite and
conventional radar data began paying off. Meanwhile, Congress
supported an expansion of the NOAA weather radio network, and a
computer-based communication system for National Weather
Service field offices, both improved warning dissemination.
During the 1980s--warnings preceded one in three tornadoes, and
lead time increased to more than 5 minutes. To take advantage
of Doppler radar technology, NOAA incorporated a program to
replace the 30 year-old weather radars with NEXRAD Doppler
radars into the National Weather Service modernization. These
new radars had an immediate impact on tornado warnings skill
with lead times approaching 10 minutes in the 1990s.
In recent years, we've made improvements in the NEXRAD
radars and the work stations used by forecasters, the Advanced
Weather Interactive Processing System, or AWIPS, which
integrate radar data with satellite, wind profiler and other
data. These improvements, combined with forecasters' training
and experience, have resulted in an increase in tornado warning
lead time to about 13 minutes. Almost three-fourths of all
tornadoes are now preceded by tornado warnings. Matching
improvements in tornado detection and warning are improvements
in education, preparedness and communication. With continued
support from Congress and partners in the private sector, and
all levels of government, the NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards
network has grown to more than 900 transmitters across the
United States. Warning dissemination, radar display and urgent
safety advice for commercial media, especially television, have
played a key role in reducing fatalities and injuries from
severe storms. Internet websites displaying radar data and
warning information are experiencing incredible growth and use.
NOAA's Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and National Weather
Service continue to work together to improve tornado and severe
storm watches and warnings.
In the short-term, the three agencies involved in NEXRAD--
NOAA, the FAA and U.S. Air Force--plan to add dual polarization
capability to the radar in Fiscal Year 2008 to 2012 timeframe.
Dual polarization will bring improvements not only to tornado
warnings, but also warnings for floods, hail and winter storms.
NOAA's Warning Decision Support System--WDSS II--uses
sophisticated, artificial intelligence-based science to analyze
storms for hail, wind and tornado potential. It will add
efficiency to the warning decision-making process. Test and
forecast offices indicated will increase warning lead times, by
two to three minutes, and reduce the false alarm rate.
With all of the improvements in tornado detection and lead
time, false alarms continue to be a challenge. Approximately
three-fourths of all tornado warnings are followed by hail,
high winds or heavy rain, but not a tornado. Advances such as
dual polarization, and WDSS II, along with integration of
Geography Information System, or GIS, technology for
dissemination will help improve the false alarm rate. In the
long term, we're exploring new technologies to upgrade or
replace our NEXRAD Doppler radar system, which is approaching
the mid-point of its life cycle. One likely candidate
technology is phased array radar--phased arrays work by forming
and steering radar beams electronically, they're very fast and
agile compared to the mechanical rotating dish antennas. Their
faster collection of the volumetric data, so important to
warning decisions, can add 4 minutes to tornado lead times.
These radars will also be less expensive to maintain since they
have no moving parts.
Further into the future, high resolution observational
data, including data from modern radars, can be used in
sophisticated numerical weather prediction models, which will
help make the leap from warning on observation to warning on
forecast. This is where we would like to be in the 2020
timeframe, allowing us to push tornado warning lead time beyond
30 minutes.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, NOAA has made tremendous gains
in providing warnings to help protect the lives of U.S.
citizens from being able to detect and warn for most tornadoes,
now with an average lead time of 13 minutes to getting the word
to people about what to do when they hear a tornado warning,
either from the media or directly from NOAA, by internet or
NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards. We can continue to improve by
taking advantage of emerging technologies in radar detection
and numerical prediction of storm-scale weather events. Thank
you for inviting me here today, and I'll be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis McCarthy, Director, Office of Climate,
Water, and Weather Services, National Weather Service, NOAA
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Dennis McCarthy,
Director of the National Weather Service Office of Climate, Water, and
Weather Services, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss NOAA's severe
weather programs, specifically tornadoes.
In an average year, there are 1,300 tornadoes resulting in 58
deaths, 1,500 injuries, and $1.1 billion in property damage. Floods
account for $5.2 billion in damage annually and average over 80 deaths
per year; lightning accounts for an additional 53 fatalities each year.
Thunderstorm complexes can generate tornadoes, lightning, flash floods,
extreme wind, and hail. The challenge to forecasting severe weather and
any associated warnings is to determine which thunderstorm complexes
will produce which combination of threats.
The highest frequency of tornado occurrence in the world is in the
Central Plains of the United States, east of the Rocky Mountains and
west of the Appalachian Mountains. While tornadoes typically occur
during the spring and summer in late afternoon and early evening, they
have been known to occur at any hour, on any day of the year, in every
state in the United States.
Brief History of Tornado Forecasting
The National Weather Service (NWS) Tornado and Severe Thunderstorm
Watch and Warning program can be traced back to two tornadoes that
struck Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, in March of 1948. The first
tornado (March 20) was not forecasted. At the strong urging of Major
General Fred Borum, who was in charge of the base, two Air Force
meteorologists, Major Ernest Fawbush and Captain Robert Miller, studied
weather charts from previous tornado outbreaks looking for similarities
that could indicate tornado potential. On the morning of March 25,
1948, the weather charts were very similar to those that occurred with
the first tornado. This similarity was reported back to Major General
Borum, and a tornado forecast was issued. That evening, the second
tornado within one week struck Tinker Air Force Base. After this
success, weather forecasters, both civilian and military, started to
seriously explore tornado forecasting. The first tornado forecast was
issued by the then Weather Bureau in 1952. During this same period,
other research scientists were actively exploring the use of radar to
identify on-going storms that could potentially produce tornadoes, and
pioneering work was being done by the Illinois Water Survey and Texas
A&M University.
In 1956, Congress appropriated funds to develop radar for
meteorological purposes. A network of radars was installed to provide
coverage for most of tornado alley and the hurricane prone Southeastern
United States in early 1959 and 1960. The National Severe Storms
Research Project, in Norman, Oklahoma, expanded its mission to include
radar techniques related to severe thunderstorm warnings. In 1964, a
merger of the radar and tornado research programs created the National
Severe Storms Laboratory.
Because of its dependence on rapid communication of weather data
from all over the country, the forecasting of tornado potential
remained with the National Severe Storms Forecast Center in Kansas
City. Similarly, because providing alerts for existing storms required
immediate access to radar data, local radar offices issued these
products.
The 1965 Palm Sunday Tornado Outbreak took 266 lives, even though
tornado forecasts and alerts had been issued. The National Weather
Service conducted an assessment of its products and services following
the outbreak and made several significant recommendations including:
The National Weather Service began to differentiate tornado
forecasts from typical weather forecasts by using the names
Tornado Watch and Tornado Warning.
The National Weather Service started to hold preparedness
meetings in collaboration with Federal, State, and local
government officials and news disseminators. Discussions at
these meetings included the development of simple tornado
safety rules.
The National Weather Service committed itself to completing
radar coverage east of the Rocky Mountains.
With these changes, the present watch and warning system was
completed. However, tornado and severe thunderstorm meteorology was
still in its infancy and we have made significant progress since then.
Key Research Leads to Significant Improvements in Operations
In a three-year period from 1976 to 1979, statistics indicated less
than one out of three tornadoes occurred in a tornado watch area, and
only one out of five tornadoes occurred in a tornado warning area. Also
during that time, over 80 percent of tornado warnings were based on
human spotter reports, meaning that there was virtually no lead time
between when the warning was issued and when the tornado struck.
In 1976, a small group at the National Severe Storms Forecast
Center (NSSFC) began developing new analyses and display techniques for
meteorological data. These researchers worked with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and NOAA's National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service to develop a
computer system that allowed forecasters to collect data directly from
the weather satellites to make short-range forecasts. In addition, the
NSSFC research forecasters collaborated with scientists at the National
Severe Storms Laboratory to develop new methods of interpreting
conventional radar data and use it to issue warnings ahead of storms.
These efforts led to immediate improvements in our ability to issue
accurate tornado watches and warnings. By the late 1980s, lead time for
tornado warnings had increased from zero to over 5 minutes. Tornado
warnings were issued for about one third of all tornadoes (compared to
only one fifth in the late 1970s), and tornado watches were issued
before about half of the tornadoes. Most importantly, the public was
becoming more aware of tornado warnings, and the sentiment ``the
tornado struck without warning'' was being uttered less and less.
While our scientific advances in the 1980s resulted in a marked
improvement in tornado forecasting, the American public deserved more.
In the late 1970s, a collaborative program had been established among
NOAA, the U.S. Air Force (USAF), and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to begin evaluating the value of Doppler radar for
tornado detection. Tests were conducted in the Oklahoma City Weather
Service Forecast Office. These tests proved Doppler radar could
significantly improve tornado lead times and the detection of other
measures essential for forecasting tornado warnings. A program to
replace the 30-year-old weather radars with NEXRAD Doppler weather
radars (the WSR-88D) was incorporated into NOAA's plan for National
Weather Service Modernization. These radars, coupled with specially
trained meteorologists in local National Weather Service Forecast
Offices, had an immediate, dramatic impact on tornado warning skill.
Following the nationwide installation of the NEXRAD network in the
1990s, tornado lead times almost doubled from 5.3 to 9.5 minutes. In
addition, the probability of detecting a tornado increased from 35 to
60 percent. By 2004, tornado lead times averaged just over 13 minutes,
and the probability of detection rose to 75 percent. More importantly,
expected tornado deaths and personal injuries were reduced by 45
percent and 40 percent, respectively.
Similar research advances have improved long-range forecasts of
tornadoes. In 1995, a National Science Foundation sponsored research
project involving NOAA and several universities explored the causes of
rotation in thunderstorms. This was a collaborative effort between
research and operations with tornado forecasters from the Storm
Prediction Center (formerly the National Severe Storms Forecast Center)
and local warning forecasters from several NWS Weather Forecast Offices
participating. This collaboration led to significant improvements in
forecasting strong and violent tornadoes. While only 15 percent of all
tornadoes are rated F2 or stronger on the six category Fujita Intensity
Scale, they produce more than 92 percent of U.S. tornado fatalities.
Underlying these improved performance measures is the added benefit
of increased data and expertise sharing by the National Weather Service
with its partners in the media and private sectors. The Doppler radar
data sets and improved computer and communication technologies have
allowed broadcast meteorologists and others to better understand and
communicate severe weather threats to citizens. In addition, the
expansion of NOAA Weather Radio/All-Hazards remains a vital component
of the National Weather Service's ability to communicate weather and
non-weather hazard information. There are currently over 900 radio
transmitters across the U.S., and weather radio is now a key vehicle
for Federal, State and local public safety agencies to disseminate
critical safety information on a variety of hazards, including man-made
and natural disasters.
The success of the close collaboration between operational
forecasters and research scientists, coupled with the advent of new
communication systems, led to a move of the Storm Prediction Center
from Kansas City to Norman, Oklahoma, in 1996 to collocate with the
National Severe Storms Laboratory. This move spurred NOAA to establish
the Hazardous Weather Testbed, in which NWS forecasters and NOAA
research scientists collaboratively test, develop, and operationally
implement new forecast and warning techniques and technology on a
regular basis.
Research conducted at the Hazardous Weather Testbed has led to
dramatic improvements in the quality of severe thunderstorm services
provided by the Storm Prediction Center. The length of severe
thunderstorm forecasts has been extended from 2-3 days, and forecasts
now provide specific probabilities for the occurrence of tornadoes,
large hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds. Experimental products
currently being tested at the Storm Prediction Center include severe
weather forecasts out to eight days, and additional forecast details in
tornado and severe storm watches such as probabilities for each type of
severe weather and the anticipated degree of severity. In addition,
trials are being conducted that break down the daily outlooks into
shorter time intervals that are of great interest to the aviation
community.
The 122 NWS Forecast Offices located throughout the U.S. are
experimenting with improvements to the tornado and severe thunderstorm
warning process. The county currently issues these warnings, however, a
real threat often exists for only a portion of a given county. A number
of NWS Forecast Offices are experimenting with a ``warning-by-polygon''
method. In this method, the polygons are derived by assessing the
threat from the latest radar observation and modeling a projected path
for the most threatening portion of the storm. The polygons can easily
be incorporated into geospatial display technology for satellite-based
or other systems. This method would allow local emergency managers to
sound sirens in the high threat areas of the county only.
Strategies for the Future
The NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research works in
partnership with the National Weather Service to substantially improve
the lead times and accuracy of tornado and severe storm watches and
warnings. These efforts can be classified as short (0 to 5 years) and
long term (5 plus years).
Short Term Efforts
The three agencies involved in NEXRAD--NOAA, the FAA, and the
USAF--plan to add dual polarization capability to the radar system in
the FY 2008 to FY 2012 timeframe. Dual polarization will provide
information on the size and shape of the precipitation particles in
clouds. Snow can be distinguished from rain, hail size can be
estimated, and most importantly, rainfall amounts can be accurately
obtained. This will lead to improvements in flash flood warnings and
forecasts, as well as enhanced warnings for hail. The dual polarization
radar data will be ``cleaner,'' which should better identify precursors
to tornadoes and the tornadoes themselves even before they descend to
the ground. Dual polarization data also will allow for unique detection
of debris lofted by tornadoes, giving additional valuable information
on likely tornado intensity. Other improvements to the current network
of weather radars include more rapid and enhanced sampling of the storm
environment, and inclusion of FAA weather radars. NOAA's Warning
Decision Support System--Integrated Information (WDSS-II) is the second
generation of a suite of algorithms and displays for severe weather
analysis, warnings and forecasting incorporating observational data
from multiple sources. WDSS-II uses sophisticated artificial
intelligence-based science to analyze storms for hail, wind, and
tornado potential. The idea behind WDSS-II is to provide the forecaster
with critical information that is easy to understand, resulting in a
timely decision in the tornado and severe storm warning process. Tests
in NWS Forecast Offices indicate WDSS-II will increase lead times for
tornadoes and severe thunderstorms by 2 to 3 minutes and reduce the
false alarm rate.
This past spring, NOAA's Storm Prediction Center and National
Severe Storms Laboratory worked closely with the Norman Forecast
Office, and partnered with three external organizations to generate a
unique collection of three daily experimental very high-resolution
numerical weather prediction models. The predictions are made from
several different versions of the Weather Research and Forecasting
(WRF) model, an advanced weather prediction system being designed for
use by research scientists and forecasters in the United States. One of
the purposes of this Hazardous Weather Testbed exercise is to extend
the lead time and accuracy of tornado and severe thunderstorm watches
issued by the Storm Prediction Center. Preliminary indications are that
these very high-resolution numerical weather prediction models are
quite useful in predicting rotating, severe thunderstorm complexes.
Long Term Efforts
NEXRAD Doppler radar is the key observation tool used by
forecasters to warn the public of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms.
The NEXRAD network is near the midpoint in its designed lifecycle and
NOAA is already exploring new technologies for a major upgrade or
eventual replacement. One likely candidate technology is phased array
radar (PAR) with its electronically scanning antenna. Phased arrays
work by forming and steering radar beams electronically, and they are
very fast and agile compared to the mechanical, rotating dish antenna
radars such as NEXRAD. The military has employed phased array radars
for over 30 years in tactical systems.
NOAA is partnering with the U.S. Navy, the FAA, the University of
Oklahoma, and several private companies to explore the capability of
PAR for weather surveillance. The Navy has loaned NOAA a battle spare
PAR antenna for testing at NSSL in Norman, Oklahoma. Properly
configured, a PAR system can complete a volume scan of the surrounding
atmosphere in less than one minute. It currently takes a NEXRAD 4.1 to
6 minutes to perform a similar scan. This faster scan rate can improve
average tornado lead times by approximately 4 minutes. Other features
of PAR could lead to improved detection of tornado and severe weather
precursors and provide high-quality data for assimilation into
numerical weather prediction models.
In the past, PAR systems have been deemed too costly for civilian
use. Advances in parallel technologies, such as cellular telephones and
wireless technologies, as well as breakthroughs in materials science,
may reduce the cost of a PAR system to levels comparable with
mechanical, rotating dish antenna radar. In addition, a PAR system can
be designed with four fixed antennae resulting in a radar with no
moving parts, which is therefore less expensive to operate. Such a PAR
system may be able to perform multiple functions, thus satisfying the
needs of several agencies. For example, a PAR could be designed to
track aircraft (FAA), perform weather surveillance (NOAA, FAA), and
scan for non-cooperative aircraft (Department of Homeland Security),
all at the same time. Several agencies (NOAA, FAA, DHS, NASA, and the
Department of Defense) are working together under the auspices of the
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology to assess PAR
capability, develop a multi-agency research and development plan, and
to examine costs.
The potential exists to make significant long-term improvements to
tornado and severe storm performance metrics. Presently, warnings are
based on detecting certain precursors to tornado formation. Tornado
watches and forecasts from several hours to several days are based, in
large part, on numerical weather prediction models run at NOAA's
National Centers for Environmental Prediction in Camp Springs,
Maryland. The current upper limit on tornado lead times (based solely
on detection) is about 20 minutes, perhaps 30 minutes for very strong
tornadoes. Crossing this threshold will require reliance on forecasts
from very high-resolution, detailed numerical weather prediction models
capable of predicting the level of cloud formation. The warning
paradigm must shift from ``warn on detection'' to include ``warn on
forecast.''
Very high resolution, cloud resolving numerical models exist in the
research community to better understand storm science and cloud
processes. Some limited experimentation with forecasting applications
has produced mixed results. One approach being explored is to run many
different models and combine them into an ``ensemble'' forecast that
yields probabilities of high consequence events occurring. Other
improvements will come from more detailed observations in space and
time (dual polarization, PAR, surface networks, and next generation
satellite data), new science, faster and higher capacity computing, and
improved numerical techniques. Improvements in forecast skill in the
0.5 to 12-hour range has the potential to improve tornado and severe
storm watches and warnings, improve forecasts of heavy precipitation,
contribute to better routing of aircraft enroute and at airports, and
to assist local emergency managers in protecting life and property in
their area of responsibility.
Over the past 50 years, NOAA has made tremendous gains in providing
warnings to help protect the lives of U.S. citizens--from being able to
detect and warn for most tornadoes, now with an average lead time of 13
minutes, to getting the word to people about what to do when they hear
a tornado warning, either from the media or directly from NOAA via
Internet or NOAA Weather Radio/All-Hazards. We can continue to improve
by taking advantage of improved scientific understanding and emerging
technologies to upgrade and refresh tornado and severe weather forecast
products and information. The trend is clearly toward providing more
detail in location and time coupled with probabilistic information
allowing customers to better assess their particular risk prior to
taking appropriate action. Ongoing NOAA-led efforts in radar
enhancement (dual polarization and phased array) and improvements in
the numerical prediction of storm scale weather events hold particular
promise.
We envision a future in which the National Weather Service issues
warnings at least 30 to 45 minutes before tornadic thunderstorms
develop. Storm Prediction Center Watches will run from about an hour in
the future out to 12 hours, and extended range forecasts are valid out
to several weeks. These forecasts will allow Emergency Managers and
Homeland Security to plan for severe thunderstorms and tornadoes far
enough in advance to pre-position resources before a storm. Even more
dramatic will be the economic impact of improved severe thunderstorm
forecasts. For example, energy companies can configure their grids to
ensure continuous power flow in regions impacted by storms, the
transportation sector can reroute trains, trucks and airplanes away
from areas that will experience significant thunderstorms, and local
emergency managers can better alert the public, saving lives and
mitigating property damage.
Senator DeMint. Thank you. Dr. Sallenger?
STATEMENT OF ASBURY H. SALLENGER, JR.,
OCEANOGRAPHER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CENTER FOR COASTAL AND
WATERSHED STUDIES
Dr. Sallenger. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on
behalf of the U.S. Geological Survey on coastal change impact
from extreme storms.
Each year, natural hazards in the United States, such as
earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, landslides and
volcanoes result in hundreds of lives lost and cost billions of
dollars in disaster aid, disrupted commerce and destroyed
public and private properties.
At USGS it is our goal to provide scientific research and
analysis to help citizens, emergency managers and policymakers
decide how to react to each hazard, and how to safeguard
society. In regard to hurricanes, we improve understanding of
coastal erosion and deposition that can destroy infrastructure
and permanently change the coastal landscape. There are two
major objectives.
The first is to improve predictive capabilities, so that as
a hurricane approaches, the United States assessment can be
made on how the threatened coast will change at landfall. The
second is to provide the knowledge to assess vulnerability of
our coastlines to extreme storms so that buildings and
infrastructure can be sited away from hazardous areas.
For landfalling hurricanes in 2004, we were able to make
significant advances toward reaching these objectives. In a
cooperative effort between USGS, NASA and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the impact zones of all four storms were surveyed
with the airborne lidar, a laser mapping system, both before
and after each landfall, to detect the patterns of erosion and
deposition that resulted from the storms. The most extensive
coastal change occurred during Hurricane Ivan on the Alabama
and Florida panhandle coast, where the shoreline retreated 40
feet during the storm. Storm surge completely inundated low-
lying barrier islands, its strong currents flowing across the
islands carved new inlets. Where sand dunes were well-
developed, they eroded landward, and in places underlying five
story buildings collapsed, some of the largest buildings to
fall during the hurricane in U.S. history. Forty-eight hours
prior to Ivan's landfall, the USGS posted on its extreme storm
website an experimental product that showed the vulnerability
of the threatened coast to change. These vulnerability
assessments were based on a ratio of worst-case storm surge, to
our high resolution coastal elevations, acquired with airborne
lidar, and were consistent with our subsequent measurements of
what actually happened.
As our research progresses, we hope to be able to improve
these assessments, for example, by identifying the specific
locations along the U.S. barrier island coast, subject to
breaching by waves and surge. Such breaching can sever
evacuation routes, as occurred on the North Carolina outer
banks in Hurricane Isabel in 2003. The unusual failures of the
large ocean-front buildings during Hurricane Ivan may be a
warning about the future. Ocean front communities in the
Southeast U.S. have not been severely tested by hurricanes
until very recently.
Between 1966 and 1990, when Southeast coastal developments
grew dense, only two major hurricanes made landfall along the
East Coast, or the peninsula of Florida. Most developments
survived this unscathed. However, recent climate research on
decadal scale changes in hurricane activity suggests that the
Atlantic Basin has re-entered an active hurricane period
similar to the 1941 to 1965, when there were 17 major
hurricanes that made landfall in the United States or along the
East Coast and the peninsula of Florida. This active period may
persist for decades, hence the loss of multi-story buildings
during Hurricane Ivan may occur more frequently in the future.
USGS research is focused on predicting coastal areas that are
vulnerable to severe erosion, so that new buildings like those
that fell during Ivan can be sited away from hazardous areas.
During the present hurricane season, we'll be extending our
results from the 2004 hurricanes by using improved models and
by testing them with coastal change data for any major
landfalling hurricane.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today, and I'm happy to answer any questions that
you and the Members of the Subcommittee may have. I might also
note that in your packets I understand you have some before-
and-after photographs of at least one of these buildings that
went down.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sallenger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Asbury H. Sallenger, Jr., Oceanographer, U.S.
Geological Survey Center for Coastal and Watershed Studies
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you on behalf of the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) on inland flooding and coastal-change impacts of extreme storms.
Each year, natural hazards in the United States such as earthquakes,
fires, floods, hurricanes, landslides, and volcanoes result in hundreds
of lives lost and cost billions of dollars in disaster aid, disrupted
commerce and destroyed public and private properties. At USGS, it is
our goal to provide scientific research and analysis to help citizens,
emergency managers, and policy makers decide how to react to each
hazard and how to safeguard society. By collecting long-term data and
information assessing past and present hazards events and by providing
continuous monitoring and data collection, we hope to arrive at the
place where we are able to predict these natural events and mitigate
their potential impacts, providing precious time to save lives and
property. By conducting research on coastal change that occurs during
extreme storms, and by improving understanding of erosion and
deposition that can destroy infrastructure and permanently change the
coastal landscape, USGS will assist in efforts to reduce the impact
these severe storms have on lives and communities.
There are two major objectives of this USGS research effort. The
first is to improve predictive capabilities so that, as a hurricane
approaches the United States, assessments can be made of impacts to the
threatened coastal setting prior to landfall. The second major
objective is to provide the information and knowledge required to
assess the changing vulnerability of our coastline to hurricanes for
longer-term hazard planning and mitigation so that new buildings and
infrastructure, particularly those being rebuilt following a storm
disaster, can be sited away from hazardous areas. The 2004 Atlantic
hurricane season was one of the busiest and most destructive in
history. For example, Hurricane Ivan caused severe beach and dune
erosion that undermined five-story oceanfront condominium towers, some
of the largest buildings to fail during a hurricane in United States
history. Today, after giving an overview of the USGS research program
on severe storms, I will focus on lessons learned from the coastal
change impacts observed last year.
Research Program on Extreme Storms
As part of USGS National Assessment of Coastal Change Hazards,
impacts of extreme storms have been intensively investigated since the
1997-98 El Nino when severe winter extratropical storms ravaged much of
the U.S. west coast, causing extensive erosion of beaches and sea
cliffs and resulting in loss of property. The USGS worked cooperatively
with National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to acquire airborne lidar
surveys of the coast both before and after the El Nino. These data were
used to test models of the interaction between storms and coasts. Since
the 1997-98 El Nino, USGS has continued to work with NASA, focusing
primarily on hurricane impacts in the southeast U.S., again using
airborne lidar to survey the coast before and after storm impact.
Airborne lidar survey systems utilize the Global Positioning System
(GPS) and a laser mounted in an aircraft to measure ground topography.
If the water is clear enough, some lidar systems can penetrate the
ocean and measure shallow seafloor bathymetry. The before- and after-
storm surveys gathered as part of USGS research are compared to detect
changes in the elevation and configuration of the ground, changes that
occur during a storm due to erosion and deposition.
These data are used to test and validate predictive models that can
forecast coastal change prior to hurricane landfall. The data are also
used to develop a quantitative means to assess the vulnerability of
U.S. coasts to future extreme storms. Currently, USGS is developing the
means to assess:
The location of potential breaches that sever barrier islands and
evacuation routes during hurricanes. Most of the East and Gulf of
Mexico mainland coasts of the United States are protected from the open
ocean by a nearly continuous string of barrier islands. These long,
thin strips of sand are, in places, low-lying (less than 9 feet in
elevation) and subject to being inundated and cut during extreme
storms. In fact, most of the present inlets through barrier islands in
the southeast United States, which allow boats and ships to transit
between ocean and mainland ports, were cut naturally during hurricanes.
Most recently, breaches severed barrier islands during Hurricane Isabel
on the North Carolina coast in 2003, on the southwest coast of Florida
during Hurricane Charley in 2004, and during Hurricane Ivan on the
Alabama and Florida panhandle coasts in 2004. Results of USGS research
indicate that these catastrophic island breaching events occur where
storm processes intersect with low-lying topography. USGS research also
suggests that the underlying geology may contribute to the
vulnerability of barrier islands to inlet formation.
Extreme beach and dune erosion that lowers the elevation of barrier
islands, making the islands, and the back bays they shelter, more
suceptible to inundation by storm surge. During extreme storms, wind
can push water against the coast, raising sea level in a storm surge.
This allows waves to attack beaches and dunes that are normally beyond
their reach. During Hurricane Ivan, Santa Rosa Island, offshore of
Pensacola, Florida, was reduced in elevation an average of
approximately 3 feet; however, in places, the reduction was as much as
eight feet where new breaches opened. This reduction in elevation
allows more water to be driven across the island during a severe storm,
raising the storm surge in the back bays higher than would have been
possible had the dunes remained intact. Thus, up-to-date and accurate
information of coastal elevation, and understanding of the coastal
response to storm processes, is critical to providing accurate
forecasts of hurricane impacts.
The 2004 Hurricanes: Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne. In a
cooperative effort between USGS, NASA, and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the impact zones of the four Atlantic hurricanes that made
landfall in the United States in 2004 were surveyed with airborne lidar
and photography both before and after landfall of each storm. Initial
results for each hurricane can be found on the USGS World Wide Web site
http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes. Pre-storm surveys were combined
with models of storm processes and coastal response to assess
vulnerability of the threatened coast prior to landfall. After
landfall, pre- and post-storm surveys were compared to quantify change
and showed that coastal response was unique for each storm, depending
on characteristics of both the storm and the shoreline setting
impacted.
For example, the swath of hurricane-force winds associated with
Hurricane Charley was narrow. Major coastal-change impacts were limited
to several tens of miles of shoreline near landfall, where a breach,
1,500 feet wide, opened through North Captiva Island, Florida. In
contrast, Hurricane Frances was a larger, weaker storm that caused
moderate coastal erosion extending for nearly 100 miles along the
Florida south-central east coast. However, Hurricane Frances' greatest
legacy may have been in making the coastline more vulnerable to erosion
from Hurricane Jeanne, which followed the same storm track several
weeks later. Surviving structures left exposed on the brink of eroded
dunes following Hurricane Frances in Vero Beach and Floraton, Florida,
were later destroyed during Hurricane Jeanne.
The most extensive coastal change observed during the 2004 Atlantic
hurricane season occurred during Hurricane Ivan on the Alabama and
Florida Panhandle coasts. On average, the shoreline retreated 40 feet
during the storm. In Gulf Shores, Alabama, where the storm's strongest
winds made landfall, the relatively low-lying barrier islands were
completely inundated by storm surge. The sea-level difference between
the Gulf of Mexico and back bays drove a strong landward current that
transported sand across the island and opened a new inlet. In contrast,
several miles to the east in Orange Beach, Alabama, where land
elevations were higher, the response was dune erosion. In places, the
vertical scour associated with dune retreat approached nine feet and
undermined structures including several five-story condominium towers
that had been built on top of the dunes. These are some of the largest
buildings to be destroyed by hurricane impact in United States history.
Assessments of Storm Impacts Prior to Hurricane Landfall
Forty-eight hours prior to Hurricane Ivan's landfall, the USGS
posted on its extreme-storm website an experimental product that showed
the vulnerability of the threatened coast to change. This assessment
was based on the difference between worst-case storm-surge elevations,
calculated by NOAA using computer models, and high-resolution coastal
elevations, measured with airborne laser mapping. For each location
along the coast, the posted maps showed where Ivan's worst-case storm
surge would exceed coastal elevations and submerge barrier islands as
if they were shoals. At these locations, water level differences would
drive strong currents across the islands, changing their form and
undermining buildings and infrastructure. The coastal change during
Hurricane Ivan measured with airborne lidar was later found to be
consistent with USGS assessments of coastal vulnerability made prior to
the storm's landfall.
The Future
The unusual failures of large, oceanfront buildings during
Hurricane Ivan may be because southeast U.S. coastal communities have
not been severely tested by hurricane-induced erosion until recently.
Between 1966 and 1990, when southeast coastal developments grew dense,
only two major hurricanes made landfall along the east coast or the
peninsula of Florida--most developments survived unscathed. However,
recent research on decadal scale changes in hurricane activity suggests
that the Atlantic Basin has re-entered an active hurricane period
similar to that of the period 1941-1965 when seventeen major hurricanes
made U.S. landfall. It is likely that this active period will persist
for decades. Hence, the loss of multi-story buildings during Hurricane
Ivan may be a warning of what is to come along our hurricane threatened
coasts.
The USGS, working with our partners, will continue to develop
extreme storm vulnerability assessment methodologies and provide these
assessments of coastal change to user agencies. Several weeks ago when
Tropical Storm Arlene threatened the Alabama and Florida panhandle
coasts--the same area where Hurricane Ivan made landfall nine months
before--USGS provided NOAA storm surge modelers with assessments of
dune erosion within the forecast impact zone. The modelers were
concerned that barrier island elevations had been lowered during
Hurricane Ivan, which would allow more water to be driven across the
islands, resulting in higher surge in estuaries than their models would
account for. The USGS provided dune erosion data and assessments that
were incorporated into NOAA storm-surge models and were used to help
forecast potential flooding from Tropical Storm Arlene.
Ongoing data collection efforts, combined with existing models,
provide the basis for a collaborative effort with other Federal
partners, such as National Weather Service (NWS), to assess the likely
impacts of coastal storms. Both pre-storm assessments of dune and beach
erosion and post-storm damage assessments, provided in a timely manner,
support the efforts of Federal and local emergency planners and
responders. These activities are also an integral part of persistent
research efforts to better understand and assess the vulnerability of
U.S. shorelines to coastal change impacts from extreme storms.
Integration of scientific information and coastal change models
developed by USGS with the meteorological models of impending storm
processes from NWS will support more timely and accurate forecasts of
the location and type of coastal response to severe storm events.
Inland Flooding From Excessive Rainfall
As population and development continue to increase in coastal
areas, more people and property are vulnerable to hurricane threat.
However, coastal residents and visitors are not the only ones
vulnerable to the ravages of hurricanes and extreme storms. Hurricane
winds and waves impacting the coastal zone are often accompanied by
extreme rainfall that can contribute to local and regional flooding of
coastal and inland areas. Flooding is the most frequent natural
disaster. During the 20th century, floods arising from extreme storms,
both tropical and extra-tropical, were the worst natural disaster in
the United States in terms of number of lives lost and property
damaged. Flooding from extreme storms can occur at any time of the
year, in any part of the country, and at any time of the day. Property
damage, including inundation by sediment-laden water, demolished
buildings, and erosion that undermines bridge foundations and footings
leading to the collapse of structures, results in approximately $5
billion in losses per year.
Hurricanes and tropical storms can be especially dangerous and
destructive as they move inland from coastal areas. For example, floods
from remnants of Hurricane Camille in 1969 killed hundreds of people
throughout Appalachia. In 1999, eastern North Carolina endured record
rainfall and two months of continuous flooding from Hurricanes Dennis,
Floyd, and Irene. Notable, the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season was the
most costly on record--$42 billion. Widespread rainfall amounts over 6
inches caused extensive flooding. In Florida, USGS field crews obtained
some of the highest flow measurements ever recorded. This flooding was
compounded by the remnants of Hurricane Ivan less than 2 weeks later.
The USGS, in cooperation with NWS River Forecast Centers and
others, is making significant progress in development of new tools and
techniques to address flood risk. The following are examples of USGS
research and modeling activities relative to inland flooding:
Prioritizing Streamgaging Network investments and Improved
Streamflow Information Delivery. The USGS managed streamgage
network includes 3,200 gages that support NWS streamflow
forecasts and flood predictions to calibrate their streamflow
forecast models and make flood predictions. The USGS is working
to improve delivery of streamgage information to meet this and
other national needs for streamflow information. As part of
that effort, USGS is installing new high data rate transmitters
to improve real-time data access, flood-hardening streamgages
critical to the National Weather Service for flood predictions,
and building a robust data storage and processing system to
ensure reliable and timely streamflow information delivery to
users of the information.
Development of a real-time flood inundation mapping
capability using forecasts from the NWS River Forecast Centers.
Emergency managers need to know what is (or shortly will be)
under water when a flood is occurring. Inundation maps help
emergency managers plan evacuation routes, deploy critical
resources, understand the magnitude of events, and, in general,
respond quickly to save lives and property. In creating real-
time inundation maps, forecast flood hydrographs are routed
through lidar-derived elevation models of reaches of a river
with multi-dimensional flow models that allow predictions of
the timing, depth, velocity, and impact of flood waters for any
location in the mapped floodplain. These inundation forecast
maps can be posted on the worldwide web hours to days prior to
the arrival of the flood. Near-real-time simulation and
internet-based delivery of forecast-flood inundation maps using
two-dimensional hydraulic modeling has been developed through a
pilot study of the Snoqualmie River, Washington (see USGS
Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4251, 36p.)
Development of a map-based Web application, ``StreamStats,''
to obtain streamflow and flood statistics. ``StreamStats''
provides streamflow information for all locations in the
Nation, and specifically for ungaged sites, by using
statistical models and established hydrological relationships.
This application results in major cost savings by reducing the
time needed to obtain streamflow estimates for a site from an
average of about a day to only a few minutes. ``StreamStats''
is currently available for 6 states. By the end of Fiscal Year
2005, information from 12 states will be included in
``StreamStats.''
Development of new technologies to measure flood water
levels that heretofore were too dangerous or practically
impossible to measure. Accurate determination of the magnitude
of floods is essential for establishment of flood-frequency
relationships, required for long-term hazard assessment and
design of critical infrastructure. These technologies include
hydroacoustic current profilers and totally non-contact methods
to measure river discharge from the ground or the air (see
http://or.water.usgs.gov/hydro21/index.shtml). These
technologies keep personnel out of high flowing streams and
increase the margin of safety when taking streamflow
measurements in hazardous conditions.
USGS will continue to work with partners at the Federal, State, and
local level to assist in efforts to reduce the impact that severe
storms have on lives and communities. Natural hazards, such as
hurricanes and inland flooding, will always be with us and may be
difficult to predict. With USGS science, however, we are striving to
prevent these natural hazards from becoming natural disasters. Our
efforts in hazards monitoring and long-term data and information
collection from past and present hazard events is not simply a
scientific research endeavor--it is a matter of public safety.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I am happy to answer any questions that you and Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, panel, I would just ask a couple
of quick questions and then turn to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Mayfield, on the Hurricane Center you've done some
amazing things, I know you're working hard to improve forecasts
and get more products out to the public. My concern is that
even if the Center could produce perfect forecasts 10 days out,
it still might not make a difference for some people. What I'm
saying is that at the end of the day, some of this comes down
to personal responsibility to make sure you have a disaster
plan, you don't make foolish decisions like trying to cross a
flooded bridge. You work on these issues day to day--can you
comment on what you believe families need to do to be
protected?
Mr. Mayfield. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and you really hit
the nail on the head here. I learned a long time ago that it
really doesn't matter if you even make a perfect forecast, if
you don't get people to respond, it's all for nothing. As you
have accurately stated here, it really comes down to that
individual taking that personal responsibility to develop their
own hurricane plan, and make no mistake about it--the battle
against the hurricane is won outside the hurricane season--you
can't afford to wait for a hurricane to be knocking at your
door before you develop that plan. People need to know in
advance, and I know very well now that the National Hurricane
Center can't do this alone.
I think one good example of how we are addressing this--
there is a public/private partnership called the National
Hurricane Survival Initiative. We have gotten together with the
National Emergency Management Association, the Florida Division
of Emergency Management, the Salvation Army and some private
sector folks, and you'll be seeing, this coming hurricane
season, several public service announcements on television
stations up and down the coastline--they also did a survey, a
Mason-Dixon poll that was released in May, and I guess the
really disturbing thing to me in spite of all of this outreach
and all of this education we've done for so long, this poll
from Texas to Maine told us that 47 percent of people did not
have a hurricane plan, and that is not acceptable.
Now, they just released a new poll in Florida alone, in
fact, I just got the results last Friday, and all but 18
percent of the people in Florida have a hurricane plan--that is
understandable after the season we had last year--but you don't
want to wait for a hurricane to come and cause all of this
damage before you get prepared. In fact, there's some very
simple things to do, in fact, we have some excellent ideas on
our website. The number one thing to do is when anybody
develops a hurricane plan, is to determine if you're in a
hurricane storm surge evacuation zone or not, if you are, you
need to know exactly where you're going to go to seek safe
shelter, even if you're out of that storm surge evacuation
zone, you still need to have the hurricane plan, the storm
shutters, the drinking water, the batteries, flashlights and
batteries, the most important thing is to have that plan done
now before the hurricane comes.
Senator DeMint. Is that information on your website? If I
lived in a particular area, I could go find out exactly where
the storm surge was, which bridge I should take on the way out?
Mr. Mayfield. That varies with the state. You can do that
in some states, you can in Florida, I'm not sure that everybody
does that yet.
Senator DeMint. Who's responsible for making sure that's on
the website?
Mr. Mayfield. Well, I would think that probably the local
community. Of all the studies I'm familiar with, they are very
consistent in saying that people, most people, respond really
to what local officials tell them to do. And so it is really
important that people listen and heed the advice of the local
officials. And so my vision would be for each local community
to have the storm surge zones depicted and most importantly,
the shelters depicted.
Senator DeMint. If someone went to your website, they
couldn't get information as to where to go to find out that
information?
Mr. Mayfield. Not on a community-by-community basis, there
are so many communities out there from Texas to Maine, plus the
Caribbean that that would be a little overwhelming for us to
do.
Senator DeMint. You can tell them they should have a
hurricane plan, but they can't get the specifics from you?
Mr. Mayfield. But we do work very, very closely with all of
the emergency management, we talked about training, and in
fact, Mr. Chairman, we actually made a very conscious decision
years ago--I really think that if I had time to sit down over a
cup of coffee with the 50 some-odd million people living in
coastal communities and talk to them about hurricanes and the
hazards of the hurricanes and the uncertainties in forecasting,
I'm sure I could convince people to develop their own hurricane
plan--I can't do that, so we made a conscious decision to work
with these emergency managers from the local communities.
Senator DeMint. Right now, as far as you know, NOAA doesn't
have a link with state departments of transportation about
evacuation routes so people have to figure out separately to go
to another site.
Mr. Mayfield. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, we don't do
that for the entire coastline, I would guess that most
communities do have something like that on a local website.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Mayfield, just a quick
question for Mr. McCarthy, and then I'll turn to my Ranking
Member here.
You mentioned that the phased array radar is the next
generation, it could add as much as 4 minutes to lead time--
could you give us some idea how much this costs as compared to
Doppler? And do you think there is a cost-benefit relationship?
Mr. McCarthy. Well, the big benefit would be in the ongoing
operation and maintenance, exactly what it costs to deploy. It
is a little down the road yet, and there is a group that is
actually exploring what the cost would be, because you know how
technology is, things generally, the price kind of comes down.
This is a system that we're actually integrating from the Navy,
it is a system that the Navy has been using for some time, and
so the first system that we have for testing and development
that is in Norman, Oklahoma, actually came from the Navy, so
now the National Severe Storms Lab in Norman, Oklahoma is using
that system to adapt it to weather applications, especially
storm detection, so as they figure out what it will take to
develop a network of those for weather applications, and as the
group who is looking into what it will take to actually do
that, they can develop the unit cost, which isn't quite there
yet, I'm fairly certain that later this year we can get that
information to you.
Senator DeMint. Very interesting, thank you.
Senator Nelson?
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCarthy, the testimony that was submitted to the
Committee suggests that the area of responsibility assigned to
any particular service office may be quite large, and
expectations may be greater than the reality of being able to
serve, and in your own written testimony, you suggested that
issuing tornado warnings by county itself may be too broad.
What effort is the Weather Service making to try and correct
these two areas that need to be dealt with?
Mr. McCarthy. Well, actually sir, our areas of
responsibility as we've referred to it, like the Valley office
that you visited, we did, when we did our modernization and
restructuring in the 1990s, we looked at the area of
responsibility and feel pretty comfortable that those areas
work out pretty well with the radar coverage that we have. A
lot of offices have their own radar, and then they have access
to their neighbor's radars now through the work stations that
we use. And it's a pretty good, pretty well-oiled operation.
What we're talking about with the counties, and this gets a
little bit into the false alarm rate issue, currently in some
areas, you know in Nebraska you have some--well, we all have
interestingly shaped counties that have to do with rivers and
things like that for boundaries--some of the counties
geographically are a little bit large, we have issued,
ordinarily we issue county-based warnings, and there's reasons
for that, partly because of the emergency management network
that is out there, and partly because when we issue a warning,
we use the codes that are assigned for each county for
automated distribution, it is called a FIPS code, which I think
is Federal Information Processing System, but what we're trying
to do now with GIS technology, is we're trying to narrow the
area that we warn for, we have a good idea from our radars,
obviously, where the storm is and where it's going. And
actually, when we outline the warned area, we actually do it on
our computer screen, and we outline this area and when we do
that, the computer can take over and assign latitude and
longitude points. Lots of people can use that polygon, as we
call it, to actually transmit that as the warned area.
We have private sector partners now that are actually using
that polygon area, so we can limit the geographic area that the
warning is issued for, and we have a really great experiment
going on out in parts of the Midwest, parts of Tornado Alley,
along those lines this severe weather season, and its been very
successful.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, certainly to the extent you can
get them more narrowly focused for warning, the better the
warning is going to be, and more people will be well-served by
fewer false alarms and more credibility.
Now I want to ask you a couple of issues on the budget--
there was a bunch of downsizing that occurred in the 1990s,
many of the Weather Service offices, and now the House recently
proposed a cut of 7.6 percent in your budget, which would come
on top of the $37 million cut that the MWS received between
Fiscal Year 2004 and 2005. If enacted, how would these cuts--if
you project them through your operation--how would they affect
your ability to continue to do what you're doing, as well as
what you would like to do?
Mr. McCarthy. Well, you know, sir----
Senator Ben Nelson. I'm sure the answer is, it's not going
to improve, but maybe you can give us some idea of what kind of
cutting or what kind of reductions you may be faced with.
Mr. McCarthy. Actually, when we did our modernization back
in the 1990s, the offices that we phased out, there was
actually a pretty strong scientific and technology reason. We
had as many field offices as we had in the past because we were
kind of tied to manual observations. Our systems that were used
for observing certainly weren't what they are today, so we are
able to do a better job with modern technology, such as the
NEXRAD radar, and as was mentioned in opening statements about
how long it took to generate a tornado warning back in those
days, in the teletype era, before we moved into computer
technology----
Senator Ben Nelson. Are you going to be able to tell me the
increasing technology in the next several weeks, or months or
years will help you overcome a 7.6 percent reduction, as well
as the other? If you're able to tell me that, I'm not looking
to put money where we don't need to.
Mr. McCarthy. Well, we certainly, basically, sir, we do the
best we can with the budget that we're given, and we feel we do
very well with that. Sometimes we have to defer some things,
and sometimes there are things we would like to do that we
maybe have to do next year or the year after, but what we do
focus on more than anything is tornado warnings, the impacts
from hazardous events, we will always do that, that is our
highest priority.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, living in Tornado Alley, I want
you to be as accurate as you can possibly be, with the greatest
technology that's available, and I want to make sure that those
cuts don't impair your ability to do that, because I spend a
fair amount of time out there, and if I didn't care about my
constituents, I certainly care about my family and myself, and
so I hope that you're able to continue the progress that you've
made in spite of cuts, and not be impaired because of it.
Mr. McCarthy. Well, I can tell you for certain that every
National Weather Service forecaster, as I told people in a
community where we did close an office during the
modernization, that I put the same effort into their community
that I put into the community where I live.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, that's fair enough. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. McCarthy.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Vitter?
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayfield, your written testimony refers to the
inability to provide enough time to evacuate New Orleans and
Key West, specifically, from a hurricane. Could you tell us
why. What is unique in those two cities, those two geographic
areas, such that there is that relatively unique inability to
fully evacuate?
Mr. Mayfield. Senator Vitter, those are two of the areas
that we have the most concern with anywhere in the Gulf of
Mexico, in fact, the number one area of greatest concern for
the Gulf is Southeast Louisiana, the Florida Keys is a very
close second there. They are so vulnerable, the areas, I think
that the greatest loss of life will occur in one of those areas
due to the storm surge flooding as you've described in your
graphics behind you here. It's really difficult to get people
to understand the power of the storm surge, and the cubic yard
of water weighs about 1,700 pounds, it's nearly incompressible,
on top of the storm surge, you have the very dangerous waves. I
like to tell people that it doesn't matter how well built your
house is, if you're in the low-lying area, I mean, to make it
real simple, if you're six feet tall and have ten or twenty
feet of storm surge, you have a problem. I like to say you need
to make friends in high places.
One of the problems is that in Southeast Louisiana and in
the Florida Keys, there are no high places. The city of New
Orleans is below sea level, for the most part. It's a real
concern to give people enough time to evacuate to higher
terrain, which is what they have to do, or they will drown from
the storm surge.
Senator Vitter. So, is the biggest factor the terrain? What
about infrastructure in terms of getting out?
Mr. Mayfield. It is not just about the forecasting, it's
about the land use, and the building codes and the education,
just having so many people that you have to evacuate out to
higher ground. I've flown all around the Louisiana Coast and
around Lake Pontchartrain with emergency managers as recently
as about a year and a half ago, and I've seen the
vulnerabilities, and they were pointing out to me islands that
they used to go and picnic on that are now under water, and you
have a very unique problem there in Southeastern Louisiana with
the subsidence, it needs some attention, and again, it is not
all about the meteorology there, we need to make sure people
have a plan and I know people are working very hard on that.
The emergency managers are doing the best they can, and it
still comes down to that individual taking that personal
responsibility, and making sure that they do the right thing,
and in addition, a unique problem there in Southeastern
Louisiana you have, I believe the last numbers I heard, 125,000
people without transportation in the New Orleans area. So, the
emergency manager would be the best to answer that question,
but I know they do have plans to bus them out and use other
means of transportation to get them out of harms' way.
Senator Vitter. In light of all of that, what should
planners and others in that area do, first and foremost to
improve the evacuation picture; and specifically, how
significant and useful a role do you think vertical evacuation
into taller buildings, which is the only high ground we have,
man-made high ground, how useful or significant could that be?
Mr. Mayfield. Everywhere I go I ask emergency managers what
they're going to do with these high-rises, and you can go
almost anywhere now, and see the development of the coastline,
and when I ask them are they going to evacuate people from the
many coastal areas, people living in these high rises, they
always tell me yes, because they know in a major hurricane,
they will know the power will be out, they will know the water
systems will be inoperable, they don't want--there is no way
they can take care of all these tens of thousands of people
stuck in these high rises. I think that it would be, well it
would be fairer to critique me here and say that this is not my
area of expertise, I should stick to meteorology, but the truth
is you have to care about these things, and in my opinion, and
this is my personal opinion, there are some areas, like the New
Orleans area, where the vertical--we like to call it vertical
refuge--if you can't get people evacuated out, I don't believe
you're going to have any other option other than to consider
vertical evacuation, vertical refuge of last resort.
Senator Vitter. Let me switch gears for just a minute, but
it is in terms of your work at NOAA.
One of your NOAA colleagues, Chris Lansy, had a difference
of opinion with participants on the inter-governmental panel on
climate change, which resulted in Chris Lansy resigning from
the panel. The dispute apparently involved allegations that
recent hurricanes were somehow attributable to climate change.
Can you speak to that point?
Mr. Mayfield. I will do my best on that, I can't speak for
Chris, but I know he is a first-class scientist, and my
understanding of the issue there--and I totally agree with
him--that the natural variability is far more important than
the climate change that may or may not be going on related to
hurricanes. The studies that I'm aware of on the climate change
and the hurricane correlations, we don't really think the areas
will change where the hurricanes form, we don't think that the
numbers will change. There is one study from the Geo-physical
Fluid Dynamics Lab in NOAA that says there could be an increase
in intensity and rainfall by about 5 percent in about 80 years.
The natural variability is so much larger than that in the
active periods that we're in now, we average three and a half
major hurricanes per year, those are the category three, four
and five hurricanes on our Saffir-Simpson Scale, and the
inactive periods, we only have one and a half major hurricanes,
so you can go back for decades and see this natural
variability.
I think that what we're doing now will serve us very well
in improving the intensity of forecasting through numerical
weather prediction, that will help us now and in the future.
What really counts is where the hurricanes hit and how strong
they are at landfall.
Senator Vitter. So, just to be clear on what happened, and
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but he resigned from
the project because there was a push to make more of a causal
connection than he was comfortable with.
Mr. Mayfield. Senator, that's my understanding. And it was
over the issue of the natural variability versus the climate
change. By the way, there is no increase to the number of
hurricanes on a global basis and I would think that no one
should take one year and try to link that to climate change
anyway.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DeMint. Well, I want to thank the panel, this has
been very helpful, I can assure you we're going to take all the
information and do everything we can to assist you in your
work. I will dismiss you and ask the second panel to take their
seats so we can move along before the next vote.
Good afternoon, I want to thank this panel for being
patient, I know you've had to wait a long time, and I think
we're getting ready to lose one of our Senators here, and I
wanted to make sure that Senator Vitter had an opportunity to
introduce Dr. Mark Levitan.
Senator if you would like to do that, then I will handle
some of the other introductions.
Senator Vitter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, Senator Nelson, I would like to introduce both of you
to Mark Levitan. Not only is Mark the Director of the top
hurricane center in the country, but he has an extensive
background on the effect of storm winds, hurricane shelters,
and evacuation and all of those issues. His work and that of
the Center have been a great resource for my office, and I'm
sure his testimony today will be very helpful to the
Subcommittee. He is Director of the Louisiana State University
Hurricane Center.
Mark, thank you for being here.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Senator. And I think Senator
Nelson also has a guest he would like to introduce.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
we're very happy to have Doug Ahlberg here today from Lincoln,
Nebraska. He is the Director of the Lincoln-Lancaster County
Department of Emergency Management, he was previously a captain
of the Lincoln Police Department, retiring after 36 years in
law enforcement, and became Director of the Lincoln-Lancaster
County Department of Emergency Management in 1999. He is here
today to share his expertise as someone who deals with severe
weather and its aftermath on the local level, which I still
believe will add a valuable perspective on this discussion on
severe weather forecasting.
He has had a fairly recent and very vivid experience with
severe weather that he will be able to share with us, having
witnessed the aftermath of that tornado myself, I can attest to
what a devastating tornado that was, it virtually destroyed an
entire small town in Nebraska last summer. He made this
disaster manageable because of his hard work, organization and
dedication to helping the affected communities recover as
quickly as possible. Everyone in Nebraska appreciates his
efforts to keep our citizens safe. I might add that we have on
more than one occasion hunted in Rushville County in Nebraska
on the Don Forney ranch, and if Don is watching today and
doesn't have anything else to do, we will both send him our
regards.
Good to have you here, I appreciate it.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Senator, we also have Dr. Tim
Reinhold. Dr. Reinhold is Vice-President for Engineering at the
Institute for Business and Home Safety, and is appearing on
behalf of the insurance industry. He is going to discuss the
role the industry plays in reducing businesses and homes
exposure to severe storms, and finally appearing before the
Committee is Mr. Bill Walsh.
Mr. Walsh's official title is Director of Meteorology and
Chief Meterologist for WCSC in Charleston. Really, he's known
as the go-to guy in the Low Country when there is a severe
storm. During his 19 years as a broadcast meteorologist in
Charleston, he has seen the worst that Mother Nature has to
offer, and the best that our neighbors have to give. When power
was out for weeks after Hugo, it was Bill Walsh who was getting
the word out to our communities on what they needed to do to
recover. I'm confident he is going to provide important,
helpful testimony, and with that, we will begin with you, Mr.
Walsh, and as we said before, these lights will give you an
indication of when you're running out of time, and I think it's
about 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BILL WALSH, DIRECTOR OF METEOROLOGY/CHIEF
METEOROLOGIST, WCSC LIVE 5 NEWS
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much and Members
of the Subcommittee for inviting us up to talk here today about
prevention and prediction, particularly when it comes to
hurricanes, and in my view, the media--I've been a broadcast
meteorologist in Charleston, South Carolina for 19 years this
summer, and have guided our residents through many hurricanes,
including one of the bellwethers, Hurricane Hugo in 1989, which
we talked about with the 22 feet of storm surge water, in
McClellanville, 135 mile per hour winds. Other noted storms
include Hurricane Floyd in 1999, where hundreds of thousands
were caught in a traffic jam that some called the 15 hour drive
to nowhere, or the ``Floyd Fiasco.'' And then there was last
year, four hurricanes, three majors struck Florida, billions of
dollars in damage and mass evacuations, South Carolina was also
affected by those storms, with tornado damage in one storm,
Charlie actually making a second landfall just up the road from
our television station. So the threat is there, and always will
be.
I want to talk today about three things--lessons learned
from past storms and disasters, getting the word out, and the
partnership between the media and the National Weather Service,
and recommendations on what strategies are working to protect
our citizens from Mother Nature's wrath.
First, lessons learned. We spent over 60 hours covering
Hurricane Hugo's approach to South Carolina, but had no idea
how long our coverage would have to last after the storm with
no power for up to 3 weeks in some places, television and radio
were the voices in the darkness. All of the stations in
Charleston, ours included, dedicated 2 weeks plus of continuous
coverage, commercial-free, for the aftermath of this giant,
giant storm. Our simulcast on radio was key to that information
flow. When people had no television, battery-powered radio was
how people got their news. Radio was and is our partner when it
comes to this kind of disaster, because the size of our news
department and the power of the radio station are able, and
were able at that time to bring people to the news they needed.
We learned that storm coverage is critical as a storm
approaches for saving lives, but it is just as vital after a
storm strikes, sometimes for weeks, to deliver needed
information to the public from local, state and national
officials. Hurricane Floyd also taught us a lesson, not only to
South Carolina, but everyone in the Southeast Coast of our
Nation. Evacuations are complex, and they take good planning
and logistics. That evacuation was a disaster in itself because
of a failed plan and poor execution, people in our state sat on
our highways for literally 10 to 15 hours with no place to
exit, no place to rest and were left with a bad taste in their
mouths for the failure. From that, though our state learned and
listened. Our new Governor, Mark Sanford, himself a coastal
resident, brought together a team of people, including local
officials, highway patrol officials, DOT officials, along with
members of the media, including myself, to create a plan that
would get people safely away from the coast, and invest in
preparation. This new plan includes partnerships with local
governments and the media, it includes video feeds of our
states' most primary and secondary roads, car counters that
measure traffic flow are also active and will be available on
the web for citizens to actually look at the busy spots. One of
the most important pieces of this new plan is the lane reversal
operation which was drilled and actually tested before
hurricane season, and actually put into effect last year for
Hurricane Charlie. Also, small things, sometimes it is the
small things, but small things like keeping the exits open for
people to take rests or an alternate course, and pre-deployed
road message signs for traffic updates, along with roadside
port-a-potties for emergencies.
Information flow to the people is key to making all of this
work and this partnership, which it is, with the state's media
outlets gives officials a vehicle to get the word out. Floyd
was a critical lesson learned, but from it, we now have new
leadership and a plan that has been proven to work, and it
worked last year. As a member of the Air Force Reserve, we
always talk about readiness, and this crosses over to storm
preparation and planning at all levels--national, state and
local. Another lesson was in the slow FEMA response to
Hurricane Hugo back in 1989. From that, though, FEMA has
undergone many changes, and now it is a fast responder to
people who may be left with nothing but their lives.
Second, getting the word out today, I'm very happy to
report to you that there's no better relationship, in my
opinion, between the media, and the fabulous people at the
National Weather Service. The partnership between our voices
carries to the citizen a word of warning when severe weather
and hurricanes are going to strike. There's no place on the
planet that has a better warning system for people to prepare
and get ready for a possible disaster from weather. The Weather
Service Forecast Offices, the National Hurricane Center and the
Storm Prediction Center are vital to our national effort to
defend against these killer storms. The media is also vital to
get that message out and does so 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. We in the media spend millions of dollars every year on
technology to protect our people and show them when danger is
there. That technology includes computer models, Doppler radar
systems, also owned by local media, instant crawl text systems,
and so on. There's been some talk lately about fines levied by
the FCC for stations that did not have closed captioning for
the hearing impaired during severe weather events. It must be
noted, however, that stations make a huge effort and investment
in equipment to inform the public, severe weather happens in an
instant and television response, along with the National
Weather Service with the warnings and graphics to show where
the danger is. We're responsible to all of our viewers,
including the hearing impaired, and it should be recognized
that while closed captioning is a wonderful tool we all use
every single day, the FCC should also note that the full screen
graphics and the maps, along with the crawling text at the
bottom of the screen, is clearly another source for those
viewers to read the information and see where the danger is,
when a closed caption may be unavailable for technical or other
logistical reasons.
Finally, strategies that work are rather simple--good
planning, good dedicated people at all levels of government and
media, as well as a citizen ready to act when the word is
given. We in the media are responsible for getting the word
out, our partnership with the Weather Service and state
officials is just that--a partnership. We together have seen
what works and what doesn't work. We in television forecast the
weather and we inform the people with the best technology to
back us up, and a strong partnership with the National Weather
Service, together people are well-informed, and lives are
saved.
Thank you so much, I'll take questions as needed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walsh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Walsh, Director of Meteorology/Chief
Meteorologist, WCSC Live 5 News
First, thank you very much for inviting me to come up and talk
about disaster prevention and prediction, in particular, when it comes
to hurricanes.
I've been a broadcast meteorologist in Charleston, South Carolina
for 19 years this summer and have guided our residents through many
hurricanes including one of the bellwethers, Hurricane Hugo in 1989
with 22 feet of storm surge water and 135 mph winds. Other noted storms
include Hurricane Floyd in 1999 where hundreds of thousands were caught
in a traffic jam that some call the ``Fifteen Hour Drive To Nowhere . .
. or The Floyd Fiasco.''
Then there was last year. Four MAJOR hurricanes strike Florida,
billions of dollars in damage and mass evacuations. South Carolina was
also affected by those storms with tornado damage and one, Charlie,
actually making a second landfall just up the road from our TV station.
So, the threat is there and will always be. I'm going to talk today
about three things. Lessons learned from past storms and disasters,
Getting the word out and the partnership between media and the national
Weather Service, and recommendations on what strategies are working to
protect our citizens from mother nature's wrath. Lessons Learned:
We spent over 60 hours covering Hurricane Hugo's approach to South
Carolina, but had no idea how long our coverage would have to last
after the storm. With no power for up to three weeks in some places,
television and radio were the voices in the darkness.
All the stations in Charleston, ours included, dedicated two weeks
of continuous coverage to the aftermath of this giant storm.
Our simulcast on radio was the key to that information flow. When
people had no television, battery powered radio was how people got
their news. Radio was and is our partner and with the size of our news
staff and power of the radio station, we were able to bring the people
the news they needed.
We learned that storm coverage is critical as a storm approaches
for saving lives and that it is just as vital after a storm, sometimes
for weeks, to deliver needed information for the public from local,
state and national officials.
Hurricane Floyd also taught a tough lesson to everyone along the
Southeast coast of our state and Nation. Evacuations are complex and
take good planning and good logistics.
That evacuation was a disaster in itself because of a failed plan
and poor execution. People in our state sat on highways for literally
10 to 15 hours with no way to exit, no place to rest and were left with
a bad taste in their mouths for this failure.
From that though, our state learned and listened. Our new Governor,
Mark Sanford, himself a coastal resident, brought together a team of
people including highway patrol officials, DOT officials, along with
members of the media including myself to create a plan that would get
people safely away from the coast and invest in preparation.
This new plan includes partnerships with local governments and the
media. It includes video feeds of our state's most primary and
secondary roads. Car counters that measure the traffic flows are also
active and will be available on the web for citizens to actually look
at the busy spots. One of the most important pieces to this new plan is
the lane reversal operation which was drilled and tested before
hurricane season and actually put into effect last year for Hurricane
Charlie. Also, small things like keeping exits open for people to take
rests or alter their course and predeployed road message signs for
traffic updates along with port-a-potties for emergencies.
Information flow to the people is key to making all this work and
the partnership with the state's media outlets gives officials a
vehicle to get the word out.
FLOYD was a critical lesson learned, but from it we now have new
leadership and a plan that has been proven to work.
As a member of the Air Force Reserve, we always talk about
readiness and this crosses over into storm preparation and planning at
all levels; national, state and local.
Another lesson was the slow FEMA response to Hurricane Hugo. From
that, FEMA has undergone many changes, but now is a fast responder to
people that may be left with nothing but their lives.
Getting the Word Out
Today I'm happy to report to you that there is no better
relationship, in my opinion, between the media and the fabulous people
at the National Weather Service.
The partnership between our voices carries to the citizen the word
of warning when severe weather and hurricanes are going to strike.
There is no place on the planet that has a better warning system
for people to prepare and get ready for a possible weather disaster.
The Weather Service forecast offices, National Hurricane Center and
the Storm Prediction Center are vital to our Nation's efforts to defend
against killer storms.
The media is vital to get that message out and does so, 24 hours a
day. We in the media spend millions of dollars every year on technology
to protect people and show them when danger is there. That technology
includes computer models, Doppler radar systems, and instant crawl text
systems and so on.
There has been some talk lately about fines levied by the FCC for
stations that did not have closed captioning for the hearing impaired
during severe weather events.
It must be noted, however, that stations make a huge effort and
investment in equipment to inform the public. Severe weather happens in
an instant and television responds along with the national Weather
Service with the warnings and the graphics to show where the danger is.
We are responsible to all our viewers, including the hearing
impaired. It should be recognized that while closed captioning is a
wonderful tool we all use, the FCC should also note that the full
screen graphics and maps along with the crawling text at the bottom of
the screen, is clearly another source for those viewers to read the
information and see where the danger is when a closed caption may be
unavailable because of technical or other reasons.
Finally, strategies that work are rather simple. Good planning,
good dedicated people at all levels of government and media as well as
a citizen ready to act when the word is given.
We in the media are responsible for getting the word out. Our
partnership with the Weather Service and state officials is just that .
. . a partnership. Together we have seen what works and what doesn't
work.
We in television weather focus on informing the public with the
best technology to back us up and a strong partnership with our friends
at the National Weather Service.
Together people are well informed and lives are saved.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Walsh, Dr. Levitan?
STATEMENT OF DR. MARC L. LEVITAN, DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA STATE
UNIVERSITY HURRICANE CENTER/CHARLES P. SIESS, JR. ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Dr. Levitan. Yes, good afternoon, and thank you for the
opportunity to address the Subcommittee. I'm appearing today on
behalf of Louisiana State University Hurricane Center, the
American Association for Wind Engineering, American Society of
Civil Engineers, and the Wind Hazard Reduction Coalition.
I was invited to provide testimony on three major areas.
The role of the engineering research community in influencing
building codes, the increasing exposure of coastal communities
to hurricanes, and the impact of a major hurricane on the
petrochemical facilities.
With regard to the role of engineering research, and
influencing building codes, first and foremost we know that
properly adopted and enforced building codes are very effective
tools to reducing the hurricane damage. Studies underway and
recently completed, even this past year from Florida, some
conducted by my colleague Dr. Reinhold show that those building
code changes are very effective. Also, there are some studies
conducted by the LSU Hurricane Center that showed that in
Florida, hurricane shelters that were built to the Florida
Hurricane Shelter Enhanced Hurricane Protection Area Standard
perform much better than other shelters that were not built to
those standards. So, as an example of how engineering research
gets into building codes and standards, let's consider the
problem of wind-borne debris, and why is this important?
Because wind-borne debris is one of the primary mechanisms by
which windows and doors are broken out, and not only is it
important to keep the windows and doors in place to keep the
wind and debris out of the building or out of the home, but
keeping the windows and doors in place also helps keep the roof
on the structure by avoiding what we call the internal
pressurization.
Several new research studies have been conducted in the
past 2 years on the aerodynamics and trajectories of wind-borne
debris, some of that work at LSU, sponsored by the Louisiana
Sea Grant College Program. This research included wind tunnel
studies, storm damage analysis after some of these storms and
computational studies, and all of these studies seem to show
results that the debris accelerates faster than had been
previously thought. So when the roof of the neighbor's house
starts coming apart, and the two by fours and the sheets of
plywood are starting to come off, that those accelerate and
they pick up speed much more rapidly than previously thought.
Now, why is that important? Because that goes to what are
the appropriate test standards that we use for debris impact--
windows, doors and shutter systems--so that information now is
being translated into the building codes and standards. The
first one at the moment, we're developing a national standard
for the design and construction of storm shelters, which
addresses tornado shelters, hurricane shelters, shelters that
you would put inside of a residence, as well as community
shelters, so improving, having the better knowledge of how fast
and far that debris will fly will help us improve the test
standards and help improve the safety and survivability of
those types of structures.
On a broader scale, the American Society of Civil Engineers
produces a national standard which is used for wind loads on
buildings called the ASCE-7. This standard is updated every few
years to reflect new research, as well as address lessons
learned from previous wind storms, but one of the major
problems with this is the lack of funding for the applied
research necessary to take some of the work done in the
laboratory and convert that into codes, standards and improved
design and construction practices. With regard to the question
of increasing the exposure of coastal communities to
hurricanes, as the coastal populations boom and development is
booming in the hurricane coast, particularly in the Southeast
United States where populations are growing much faster than
the evacuation capacity of the major transportation networks.
So what that means is people will be required to seek shelter
locally either in their own homes, the neighbors homes,
businesses or local shelters, and so how do those people know?
We have to be able to provide through building codes and other
methods, safe places for those people to stay during the storm.
Another important question for the emergency management
community to answer is how do those people know if the building
that they're in is any safer or not? During Hurricane Lilly, I
live in Ascension Parish southeast of Baton Rouge, and
Hurricane Lilly, the category four storm coming in, the message
that came over the emergency broadcast system was, ``If you
live in Ascension Parish and if you don't feel safe in your own
home, please go to the public shelter that we opened.'' Well,
how does the homeowner know if he should feel safe or not in
his own home? The engineering community needs to do a better
job and the Weather Service communities needs to refine some of
those messages, perhaps, to give the homeowners and residents
more information about where they may be safest to stay.
We also desperately need to work on plans of last resort
for when things go wrong. A couple of quick examples during
Hurricane Isadore in 2002, rainfall flooding as the storm was
still over Mexico, rainfall flooding choked off Interstate 10
westbound, the single most important evacuation route out of
New Orleans, that was 3 days before the storm made landfall.
From Hurricane Lilly, which was approaching Louisiana 1 week
later, the storm rapidly intensified to a Category IV storm and
potentially it looked like it was starting to move further
east, and at that time, during that night, we were trying to
work with the state to develop some last resort refuge plans of
what buildings could we use for a vertical refuge, and that's
obviously too late to be doing that. We desperately need to
work and there needs to become a standard part of the emergency
planning system is what to do when things go wrong, and have a
plan of last resort.
The last issue is addressing the impact of a major
hurricane on petrochemical facilities and I'm afraid that we
don't have much in the way of answers for that, mostly
questions. Partly the answer is, the effects on the
petrochemical industry are going to be very uncertain, but
generally much larger than is understood in the industry and
engineering communities. As we know from some recent
hurricanes, Hurricane Hugo, that devastated a major refinery in
St. Croix, and Hurricane Georges in 1998, that devastated one
in Mississippi, we know that hurricanes, major hurricanes do
have the potential to significantly impact petrochemical
facilities.
In summary, I think we need to do a better job,
particularly in the engineering community of working more
closely with emergency management and meteorological
communities in collaboration, particularly in the hurricane
preparedness and response, which oftentimes has primarily been
the role of the emergency management community, and second, we
need to do a better job of taking the research from the
laboratory and getting it out into practice, and the major
problem and the major problems there is the lack of funding for
the applied type research to be able to do that, and this is
one area where the National Windstorm Hazard Reduction Program
authorized last year would help provide some funding to be able
to give those answers. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Levitan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Marc L. Levitan, Director, Louisiana State
University Hurricane Center/Charles P. Siess, Jr. Associate Professor
of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Dr.
Marc Levitan, I am the Director of the Louisiana State University
Hurricane Center and the Charles P. Siess Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Louisiana State University. I am also the
elected President of the American Association for Wind Engineering and
a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
I am appearing today on behalf of the Louisiana State University
Hurricane Center, the American Association for Wind Engineering, the
American Society of Civil Engineers and the Wind Hazards Reduction
Coalition.
The Louisiana State University Hurricane Center. Louisiana State
University is the flagship institution of the state, classified by the
Carnegie Foundation as a Doctoral/Research-Extensive University. The
university has a long history of research in hurricanes, coastal
sciences and engineering. The LSU Hurricane Center was founded and
approved by the Louisiana Board of Regents in the year 2000 to provide
a focal point for this work, with a mission to advance the state-of-
knowledge of hurricanes and their impacts on the natural, built, and
human environments; to stimulate interdisciplinary and collaborative
research activities; to transfer new knowledge and technology to
students and professionals in concerned disciplines; and to assist the
state, the Nation, and the world in solving hurricane-related problems.
Research efforts that have been translated into practice in support of
emergency management agencies include: implementation of real-time
storm surge modeling; improvements in hurricane evacuation planning and
operations (particularly contraflow evacuations), and improvements in
hurricane shelter analysis and design methods.
The American Association for Wind Engineering (AAWE) was originally
established as the Wind Engineering Research Council in 1966 to promote
and disseminate technical information in the research community. In
1983 the name was changed to American Association for Wind Engineering
and incorporated as a nonprofit professional organization. The multi-
disciplinary field of wind engineering considers problems related to
wind and associated water loads and penetrations for buildings and
structures, societal impact of winds, hurricane and tornado risk
assessment, cost-benefit analysis, codes and standards, dispersion of
urban and industrial pollution, wind energy and urban aerodynamics.
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
represents more than 125,000 civil engineers worldwide and is the
Nation's oldest engineering society. ASCE members represent the
profession most responsible for the Nation's built environment. Our
members work in private practice, industry, government and academia.
ASCE is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-approved
standards developer and publisher of the Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and other Structures (ASCE-7), which is referenced in the
Nation's major model building codes. As part of the ASCE-7 document,
engineers are provided guidance in estimating the loads resulting from
wind effects on structures. Thus, ASCE is at the forefront in the
development of new information for engineers regarding wind and is in a
unique position to comment on the status quo and our needs for the
future.
The Wind Hazard Reduction Coalition currently represents 23
associations and companies which are committed to the creation of a
National Wind Hazard Reduction Program (NWHRP) that would focus on
significantly reducing loss of life and property damage in the years to
come. The Coalition includes professional societies, research
organizations, industry groups and individual companies with knowledge
and experience in dealing with the impact of high winds.
Problems and Solutions
All 50 states are vulnerable to the hazards of windstorms. Just
last year, four hurricanes made landfall in Florida and caused severe
damage. Losses from the 2004 hurricane season are estimated to exceed
$40 billion to date and are still being counted. These storms resulted
in 27 Federal disaster declarations covering 15 states, the Virgin
Islands and Puerto Rico. In 1998, hurricanes, tornadoes and other wind
related storms caused at least 186 fatalities and more than $5.5
billion in damage. During the week of May 4-10, 2003, a record 384
tornadoes occurred in 19 states, including Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma
and Tennessee resulting in 42 fatalities. On May 3, 1999, more than 70
violent tornadoes struck from north Texas to the Northern Plains.
Forty-one people died and more than 2,750 homes were damaged. In 1992,
Hurricane Andrew resulted in $26.5 billion in losses and 61 fatalities,
in 1989, Hurricane Hugo resulted in $7 billion in losses and 86
fatalities and in 1999, Hurricane Floyd resulted in more than $6
billion in losses and 56 deaths.
One major effort currently underway to reduce the loss of life and
injuries in hurricanes and tornadoes is the development of a national
standard for storm shelters. The International Code Council (ICC) and
National Storm Shelter Association (NSSA), with support from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), are currently developing
the ICC/NSSA Standard for the Design and Construction of Storm
Shelters. The purpose of the standard is ``to establish minimum
requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general
welfare relative to the design, construction, installation, repair,
operation and maintenance of storm shelters constructed for refuge from
high winds associated with tornadoes and hurricanes.'' Scheduled to be
completed next year, this consensus national standard has the potential
to significantly improve shelter safety.
In tornado-prone areas, the Storm Shelter Standard could be
particularly helpful with regard to assuring a minimum level of
performance for manufactured residential shelters, i.e., providing a
basic consumer protection. The biggest immediate impact of the standard
in hurricane-prone areas will likely be for community shelters. This is
because the majority of buildings currently used as public hurricane
shelters are inadequately constructed to resist an intense hurricane,
placing the occupants at risk. This fact was demonstrated during the
2004 hurricane season in Florida. Supported by the ICC and Louisiana
Sea Grant--LSU Hurricane Center researchers spent time in the field
after Hurricanes Charley and Ivan, investigating performance of
hurricane shelters. Of the two dozen shelters surveyed, those built to
Florida's Enhanced Hurricane Protection Area (EHPA) criteria
outperformed shelters not built to those criteria. Damage to EHPA
facilities was generally limited to minor water leakage. In other
facilities, roof damage and water penetration serious enough to cause
people to evacuate the shelter space was not uncommon.
Publication of the standard alone will not improve shelter safety
though; it is just the first step in the process. Unless it is adopted
and enforced by jurisdictions having authority over building
construction, or voluntary compliance with the standard is requested or
agreed to by the facility owners, the standard will have little impact.
Therefore, a significant awareness and education campaign will be
needed. It must be addressed to architects, engineers, building
officials, shelter owners (e.g., homeowners, school boards, city
governments) and shelter operators (e.g., American Red Cross, emergency
management agencies).
One of the biggest challenges facing design of public hurricane
shelters is that shelter operators are not the owners of the shelter
facilities and are rarely involved in the planning and design process.
When faced with tight budgets and many competing needs, spending
additional construction dollars to harden the facility for use as a
hurricane shelter is usually a low priority with the facility owner,
even though the owner is often a public entity and tax dollars are
funding the construction of the new school or municipal building.
Unless able to obtain a mitigation grant from FEMA or perhaps a state
agency, the local government or the school district generally has to
bear the increased construction costs associated with constructing the
facility for dual use as a shelter. This is an area where additional
engineering research and technology transfer is crucial--improving
cost-effectiveness of storm shelters.
Another hurricane sheltering issue relates to getting the message
out about who should be going to shelters and who should be advised to
shelter in place. Emergency managers generally only order mandatory
evacuations for areas subject to significant hurricane flooding. This
is done in order to make sure there is sufficient transportation system
capacity available for people in the most at-risk areas. As coastal
population growth continues to outpace construction of new highway
infrastructure--more and more people will not be able to evacuate and
need to seek shelter in their own residences or other local facilities.
The National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center and television
media do a comparatively good job of informing the public about the
hazards they can expect with the approaching storm, but what
information do people have about the relative safety of their home or
business or shelter, so that they can make an informed decision about
where is the safest place? If they are under a voluntary or
precautionary evacuation warning, should they leave or stay? This is an
area where better coordination and collaboration between the
engineering community, emergency management community, and meteorology
community is desperately needed.
Catastrophic hurricane planning is another area where much
additional work and collaboration between the different professional
communities is needed. Hurricane Georges in 1998 and Hurricane Ivan in
2004 both had the potential to drown the city of New Orleans and much
of the surrounding southeast Louisiana under 10-20 feet of water.
Estimates are that only 50-60 percent of the residents evacuated for
these storms, meaning over half a million people were at significant
risk. Warned or not, if people have not evacuated and the water comes,
there will be mass fatalities. Last year the Louisiana Office of
Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness and FEMA (and many other
Federal and State agencies) conducted a week-long joint planning
exercise on how to respond and recover from just such a scenario. This
event helped produce the first catastrophic hurricane response plan,
but it also raised more questions than it answered.
Hurricane Lili in 2002 raised similar fears. As the Category 4
hurricane approached the Louisiana coast on the evening of October 2,
it appeared to begin moving farther east than had been predicted, into
areas that had not been as well evacuated. Frantic preparations began
to start identifying buildings to serve as refuges of last resort.
Fortunately the storm returned to its more westerly track and rapidly
lost strength before making landfall, and Louisiana dodged another
bullet. This event highlighted the importance of plans of last resort--
for situations where a storm makes an unexpected turn close to shore or
rapidly intensifies, as Hurricane Opal did in 1995 when it accelerated
and explosively intensified overnight to unexpectedly threaten the
Florida panhandle.
Hurricanes also have impacts well beyond the regions where they
make landfall. Price and availability of construction materials across
the country are adversely affected by major storms such as Hurricane
Andrew and the Hurricanes of 2004. Hurricane Ivan significantly
disrupted offshore oil and gas production and transportation in the
Gulf of Mexico, impacting energy prices nationwide. Fortunately, none
of last years hurricanes impacted the onshore. This is another area of
significant concern.
A study of industry practices published in 1997 by ASCE found that
the wind resistant design of onshore refineries and petrochemical
plants varied tremendously due to the aerodynamic complexity of the
types of structures involved and the lack of coverage of these types of
structures in any building codes or standards. An unexplored aspect of
this report is that many industrial plants do not understand how
vulnerable their processing and storage facilities may be to extreme
winds. Many plants specify a wind speed to which their facilities
should be designed, but because of uncertainties in how the wind
interacts with the complex structures, the actual wind the structure
can resist might be much larger or smaller. In practical terms--the
actual design strength may be more than one Saffir-Simpson Hurricane
Category less than or greater than the intended design. In most cases
the owners/operators of the facilities are unaware of this discrepancy,
which is very important considering that decisions on whether to shut
down a plant are generally based on the expected Hurricane Category at
landfall. Additional study is needed to further define this problem,
and cooperation with this industry and the preparedness/response
community.
The problems and solutions described so far are just a few examples
of areas in which more work and closer coordination is needed between
industry, government, and the engineering community. The United States
currently sustains billions of dollars per year in property and
economic loss due to windstorms. The Federal Government's focus has
been one of response and recovery, not mitigation. While there will
always be a need, a sustained focus on hazard mitigation can lessen the
cost in life and property of these events.
With the average annual damage from windstorms at more than $6
billion, the current $5-10 million Federal investment in research to
mitigate these impacts is inadequate. In contrast, the Federal
Government invests over $100 million per year in reducing earthquake
losses through the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, a
program that has lead to a significant reduction in the effects of
earthquakes. A Federal investment in wind hazard reduction would pay
similar or greater dividends in saved lives and decreased property
damage.
Near-surface winds are the most variable of all meteorological
elements, making the prediction and control of their impacts all the
more challenging. In the United States the mean annual wind speed is 8
to 12 mph, but wind speeds of 50 mph occur frequently throughout the
country, and nearly every area occasionally experiences winds of 70 mph
or greater. In coastal areas of the East and Gulf coasts, tropical
storms may bring wind speeds of well over 100 mph. In the middle of the
country, wind speeds in tornadoes can be even higher.
Unfortunately, reducing vulnerability to wind hazards is not just a
question of developing the appropriate technical solution. Wind hazards
are created by a variety of events with large uncertainties in the
magnitudes and characteristics of the winds. The relevant government
agencies and programs, as well as the construction industry are
fragmented. Finally, implementation requires action by owners and the
public, who may not consider hazard reduction a high priority. Solving
wind vulnerability problems will require coordinated work in scientific
research, technology development, education, technology transfer and
public outreach.
In 1993, the National Research Council (NRC) published a report
entitled ``Wind and the Built Environment.'' The report included the
recommendations of the Panel on the Assessment of Wind Engineering
Issues in the United States. The panel recommended the establishment of
a national program to reduce wind vulnerability. Such a program would
include wind research that draws upon the expertise of both academia
and industry and addresses both structural and nonstructural mitigation
methods, an outreach program to educate state and local governments on
the nature of the wind risks they face, a conscious effort to improve
communication within the wind community and a commitment to
international cooperation in wind-engineering.
A 1999 NRC study concurred with that recommendation and
specifically urged Congress to designate ``funds for a coordinated
national wind-hazard reduction program that encourages partnerships
between Federal, State and local governments, private industry, the
research community, and other interested stakeholders.''
In 2003, the Rand Corporation released a report entitled,
``Assessing Federal Research and Development for Hazard Loss
Reduction.'' Specific recommendations for a research and implementation
program are contained in the report released by the American
Association for Wind Engineering and the American Society of Civil
Engineers entitled ``Wind Engineering Research and Outreach Plan to
Reduce Losses Due to Wind Hazards.'' Both reports support programs
which would encompass four focuses:
Understanding of Wind Hazards--developing a greater
understanding of severe winds, quantify wind loading on
buildings, structures and infrastructure and developing wind
hazards maps;
Assessing the Impact of Wind Hazards--assessing the
performance of buildings, structures and infrastructure under
severe winds, developing frameworks and tools for simulations
and computer modeling and developing tools for system level
modeling and loss assessment;
Reducing the Impact of Wind Hazards--developing retrofit
measures for existing buildings, structures and infrastructure,
developing innovative wind-resistant technologies for
buildings, structures and infrastructure and developing land
measures and cost effective construction practices consistent
with site-specific wind hazards; and
Enhancing Community Resilience, Education and Outreach--
enhancing community resilience to wind hazards, effective
transfer to professionals of research findings and technology
and development of educational programs and public outreach
activities.
From these reports and the efforts of a number of Senators and
Members of Congress, as well as the Wind Hazards Reduction Caucus, the
National Wind Storm Hazards Reduction Program was born. Created by
Public Law 108-360, the legislation represents five years of work in
which stake holders representing a broad cross-section of interests
such as the research, technology transfer, design and construction, and
financial communities; materials and systems suppliers; state, county,
and local governments; the insurance industry, have participated in
crafting this legislation. This bill represents a consensus of all
those with an interest in the issue and a desire to see the benefits
this legislation will generate.
Among the potential research areas this program can explore are the
numerous areas where we lack the knowledge to make informed judgments
with respect to building siting and design. With data learned from
research in the following areas, and others not yet foreseen, better
knowledge and data will lead to cost-effective design and construction
practices to mitigate the impacts of high winds.
Boundary Layer Meteorology for Landfalling Storms--We know very
little about the structure of the wind in a hurricane and how it
changes as it passes over land. Research is needed to better understand
the nature of boundary layer transitions, turbulence, rainfall, and
decay rates as storms move inland. The design wind speed and gust
factors used in all building codes and standards (including ASCE 7) are
based on a set of assumptions that hurricane winds have similar
properties to winds from other events, which we know to be untrue. This
research can lead to significant improvements in wind-loading related
portions of our building codes and standards.
Rapid Damage Assessment using Remote Sensing for Improved Response
and Recovery--The key to optimization of response and recovery
operations is timely access to detailed information on the extent and
intensity of damage throughout the effected areas. Very high resolution
data can be obtained from commercial satellite-based remote sensing
systems, which was previously unavailable except to intelligence and
defense communities. Resolutions have improved to the point where data
is available on individual buildings and vehicles. Development of
computerized analysis tools that automate and map damage assessment
estimates will significantly assist response and rescue and recovery
operations.
Improved Connections and Framing Systems for Light Frame
Construction--Much of the structural damage which occurs in severe
winds is to light frame one- and two-story construction. There has been
relatively little improvement in wood and other light framing
technology in the past 20 years. New cost-effective construction
techniques could significantly reduce structural damage to low-rise
buildings.
Roof System Testing Procedures and Devices for Wind Resistance--No
standardized testing procedures and devices exist to test roof cladding
materials for resistance to extreme winds and debris. Development of
these items is a necessary prerequisite for improved roofing
performance (see next item).
New Roofing Systems--Damage to roofing is perhaps the single most
common source of wind damage. Even small failures can allow the wind
and rain inside the building leading to significant interior and
contents damage and possible structural failure. Development of new
wind-resistant roofing materials and technologies could significantly
reduce wind-induced damage.
In-Residence Shelters for Hurricane Protection--In collaboration
with the university research community, FEMA has conducted research and
developed plans and guidelines for in-residence shelters for protection
from tornadic winds. These designs provide near complete protection for
occupants from even large tornadoes, but are too costly and overly
conservative for use on hurricane coast. New research is needed to find
more appropriate and cost effective solutions for construction on the
hurricane coast.
Dual-Use Public Hurricane and Tornado Shelters--Schools are the
most commonly used buildings for hurricane evacuation shelters, but
they are not structurally designed to provide a safe haven. Similarly,
children shelter in place while in school during tornado warnings, but
these buildings too are not designed with adequate protection. Research
and development of design guidelines and methodologies on how best to
construct schools and other public buildings for dual function as
shelters from hurricanes and tornadoes is desperately needed.
Retrofit Technologies for Wind Resistance--Although it is much
easier to build wind resistance into new construction, the country has
an enormous investment in existing building stock. Technologies for
cost-effective retrofits to improve wind resistance of these buildings
should be an important focus of any new research program.
Congress has taken action to establish a program to mitigate the
impact of severe windstorms. What is needed in the immediate future is
funding for the new program. I would urge Members of the Subcommittee
to work with your colleagues in the Appropriations Committee to ensure
that the Windstorm Hazards Reduction Program can begin the work it was
designed to do. For Fiscal Year 2006 the program is authorized for
$22.5 million dollars in spending, spread over four agencies.
Specifically, the law authorizes:
$8.7 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
$3 million for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology at the Department of Commerce;
$8.7 million for the National Science Foundation; and
$2.1 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the many organizations I am representing here today. I would be happy
to answer any questions that you might have.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Dr. Reinhold?
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY A. REINHOLD, Ph.D., VICE
PRESIDENT OF ENGINEERING, INSTITUTE FOR BUSINESS & HOME SAFETY
Dr. Reinhold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee and ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be here
and have an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that we
share in common, relative to trying to predict and to prevent
the disasters that we all face when some of the natural events
that will occur and can occur, do occur. And we're clearly not
doing a good enough job in terms of building our homes and our
businesses to provide the resiliency within our community so
that they can weather these storms without the kind of distress
we've seen most recently in Florida, but we have seen it in
most every other state when these major events occur.
What we're seeing in the most recent events is very clearly
that moving to a better building code is making a huge
difference in the way people can pick up the pieces and move on
after the storms. We've done a very good job in terms of
improving the structural resistance of our buildings, but we've
still got some serious problems in terms of water penetration
and the other issues that come in when water gets in the house.
When you have ceilings collapsing, people say it's great that
you've helped me keep my house together, it would be really
nice if I could live in it after the storm goes through, so
we've got some disconnects there, we're making progress, but
we've got some other issues that we really need to deal with.
The insurance industry has certainly been a partner in this in
trying to help move things forward, and there are several
initiatives that we're involved in that I think will help along
this. And it's based--the insurance industry provides a lot of
that spreading of the risk and providing the resources to help
communities and individuals rebuild after storms. In the
previous year we had 1.7 million claims in the State of
Florida, one in five homeowners had a claim in the State of
Florida, and a total of $20 billion worth of insured losses,
something that rivals Hurricane Andrew, and yet the insurance
industry came through it in better shape in terms of being able
to respond. We didn't have companies going bankrupt like we did
after Hurricane Andrew, we did not have people not being able
to respond in quite the same way, I think there was one company
that got into trouble or went bankrupt as a result of the
storms this last year, and most have been able to respond in a
fairly timely fashion in closing files and reacting with the
population. With that number of files, it certainly took a long
time, and people are still recovering and having a difficult
time finding contractors. There are people still in Port
Charlotte, Punta Gordo area that are facing a year wait to get
a contractor to be able to come in and rebuild their home. Next
to them would be other homes and businesses built to the latest
building codes that as soon as power was restored, they were up
and running, and life was almost back to normal. And so as you
walk through the areas, you were able to see that difference.
One of the things that we did do this last year, is we
hosted a group from Louisiana, including the Insurance
Commission and others to come into the State of Florida and
showed them firsthand the performance and the benefits of
having strong building codes. There are so many states right
now in so many communities that don't have any building code,
or have adopted a weakened version of our model building codes
that put the residents at risk when these kind of events occur,
and so consequently, one of our big initiatives and interests
is in trying to incentivize the state to go to statewide
building codes and to do adequate enforcement and adoption,
because it is much cheaper to make that change in the new
construction and to build it in to start with, rather than to
come back and do it as a retrofit afterwards. A lot of my
career at Clemson University over the last few years was spent
in trying to develop practical ways of retrofitting homes, and
I know how expensive and how difficult it can be to try to do
that. So there's a challenge in trying to come up with these
practical ways, there's research that is needed, there are ways
that we need to make progress in terms of helping people make
good decisions about, given the state of your house and the
status of that, what are the most economical and most
beneficial things you can do to improve your home and bring it
up closer to your neighbors that have a new home built to the
latest codes. I think one of the most interesting things for me
in going around after the storms last year, was actually seeing
how well some of the new manufactured housing units fared in
the storms. In 1994 after Hurricane Andrew when a number of us
who were involved in investigating the damage after Hurricane
Andrew said, if you keep building manufactured housing the way
you're building it today, in a storm like Andrew, you have got
to consider it expendable, it's going to be gone. And we saw
that widespread in Punta Gorda, Port Charlotte, where Hurricane
Charlie hit and where the winds were higher than any storm
since Andrew to hit the United States, we found manufactured
homes built to the latest standards that were adopted after
1994 that were basically unscathed, or structurally quite
sound. Some of them were beat up by the debris flying off of
other homes around them, but overall, it was very clear that
the codes were making a major, major difference there. And so
we're interested in the Federal Government helping to
incentivize the process of trying to get building codes adopted
broadly across the country, we think there are opportunities in
terms of providing incentives for people when they're buying a
home and taking out loans to do mitigation measures then when
there is possibly more dollars available than you can put on
the table by rolling things into your mortgage and so forth,
maybe Fannie Mae and others can help with some of that process.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Reinhold follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy A. Reinhold, Ph.D., Vice President of
Engineering, Institute for Business & Home Safety
Chairman DeMint and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Tim
Reinhold, and I am the Vice President of Engineering for the Institute
for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), which is a nonprofit initiative of
the U.S. property and casualty insurance industry with a mission to
reduce deaths, injuries, property damage, economic losses and human
suffering caused by natural disasters. We are an organization dedicated
to natural hazard loss reduction, and very much involved in windstorm
impact reduction in our related efforts in:
Research
Communications
Outreach
Building code development and adoption
Data collection and analysis
Promotion of incentives for mitigation and disaster
resistant construction
It is clear that this Committee and IBHS have significant areas of
common interest. Over the past decades, we have seen dramatic drops in
the loss of life in hurricanes due to better warning and evacuation.
However, we have also seen dramatic increases in property losses as our
Nation concentrates more and more of its population and wealth along
our vulnerable coastlines. With this rapid growth in population, we are
certainly not immune to a large loss of life in a future event. Many
experts are concerned that a fast developing and fast moving storm
could produce a large loss of life among people trapped in traffic jams
associated with attempts to evacuate too many people in too short a
time. To counter this risk and the dramatic increases in property
losses, we desperately need to build stronger and safer homes and
businesses so that coastal inhabitants who are not in vulnerable
structures or in inundation areas will not need to evacuate and so that
the resiliency of our communities is dramatically improved. Ultimately,
we are not likely to be able to provide enough evacuation capacity and
warning time to handle the demands, if population growth continues
unabated, and many would argue that we have already passed the point
where mass evacuation is viable in a large number of vulnerable areas.
The Committee has asked me to focus my testimony on the role of the
insurance industry in reducing the exposure of individuals and
businesses to the impact of windstorms, IBHS's work to promote disaster
resistant technologies, any barriers to the adoption of these
technologies, and a discussion and presentation of any cost-benefit
analysis of disaster resistant technologies.
The Role of the Insurance Industry
First and foremost, the insurance industry provides the primary
mechanism for sharing risk and accumulating resources needed to help
individuals and businesses recover from the impact of windstorms. It is
clear from the experience of the 2004 hurricane season that the
insurance industry has come a long way since the upheavals caused by
Hurricane Andrew in 1992. In the aftermath of Andrew, a number of
companies or at least their Florida subsidiaries were rendered
insolvent and several companies were bankrupt. In 2004, despite the
fact that one in five Floridians filed a claim (three times the number
of claims filed after Hurricane Andrew) and total claims exceeding $20
billion (about the same insured losses as Hurricane Andrew, in 2004
dollars), only one company went bankrupt. A significant reason for this
improved performance is related to the better understanding of all of
the issues surrounding responding to major and widespread windstorm
impacts, to better preparation of catastrophe teams, and to better
modeling of the risks.
The improved modeling offers exciting possibilities for support of
windstorm mitigation efforts. This modeling is occurring within the
Federal sector, through FEMA's HAZUS-MH, and within the private sector,
through efforts of various modeling companies that provide services to
the insurance and reinsurance companies. A major focus of the modeling
efforts in both the Federal and private sectors has been on predicting
damage and losses for large portfolios of property and infrastructure.
This helps emergency managers plan and organize response efforts,
secure needed supplies and stage resources. It helps insurers in
quantifying their risks to help them make better business decisions.
The loss estimates produced by these catastrophe models are also used
by insurers to help them set reserves, determine the need for
reinsurance and provide input for setting appropriate premiums. Real
time analyses also help insurers plan and stage their resources to
facilitate rapid response through adjusting and settling claims in the
days and weeks following a major windstorm disaster.
The laws of large numbers have made the applications listed above a
somewhat easier task than the prediction of the performance of an
individual structure and the associated benefits of a specific
mitigation measure. Nevertheless, the modelers are tackling the
individual property and mitigation issue and making progress in their
predictive capabilities for these cases. Insurers are using the results
of these models along with available post-storm evaluations to
negotiate rates and incentives for mitigation measures in Florida
policies.
In 2000, the Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association (now known
as Citizens Property Insurance) increased their rates dramatically
(200-300 percent) as they introduced a class plan whereby buildings
insured through the wind pool could be inspected for wind resistant
features and thereby qualify for mitigation related discounts. Under
this plan, homes can qualify for up to a 70 percent discount if they
contain all the mitigation features considered by the program. This
case clearly shows the kind of dynamics at work in this process. As
risks are better defined, more vulnerable properties receive less
favorable treatment and less vulnerable properties receive more
favorable treatment.
Insurance policies issued in Florida currently consider mitigation
features as a factor in the rating of a home for insurance. With the
implementation of the latest version of the Florida Building Code in
2002, all insurers in the state were required to recognize the
hurricane resistive features of the codes in future rate filings in the
state. The result is lower insurance premiums for homes that are built
in accordance with this stronger new building code as compared to older
more vulnerable homes. The wind resistive features that insurers are
required to give credit for include: opening protection (storm
shutters), roof to wall connections, roof deck connections and roof
covering type.
In addition to Florida, the Texas Department of Insurance mandates
insurance discounts for homeowners that have impact resistant roofing
products installed on their homes in this hail prone state. In the
Dallas, TX, area, consumers can see as much as a 25-30 percent decrease
in their premiums for using these products on their roofs.
Note that because of the regulated nature of rates in nearly all
states, this is a process that is negotiated between individual
companies and the regulators.
It must be emphasized that insurance related incentives are only
one of the ways to promote better construction and mitigation of
existing buildings. In general, it is hard to motivate homeowners to
spend thousands of dollars on upgrades or retrofits to save hundreds of
dollars a year on insurance. Where I used to live in Clemson, South
Carolina, a reduction of my entire insurance premium would not have
been enough financial incentive for me to retrofit my house. When I re-
roofed my house in Clemson, I did strengthen my roof, but I did it for
reasons other than a cold fiscally based benefit-cost calculation.
To be effective, incentives need to go beyond those offered by or
required of the insurance industry. Buildings that survive windstorms
unscathed are a benefit to their communities. People can stay in their
homes, businesses can remain open and people can continue to go about
their lives with minimal disruption. These people are also likely to
not be victims, and will not require any government assistance to
recover from a disaster since their impact would be minimized.
Because of the far reaching effects of mitigation, IBHS believes
that incentives for windstorm mitigation need to go beyond just
insurance and include things like tax breaks, mortgage rate or fee
incentives, and incentives from businesses within the community. We
need to adequately recognize the role that wind resistant construction
of homes and businesses play to keep the community alive and well
throughout these events. If homes are destroyed, then workers will not
be able to come to work and if businesses are destroyed, then workers
will not have employment to go to. The interconnections run deep and it
is critical that we address strengthening of all elements of the fabric
of our communities. Fully one quarter of small businesses that close
following a disaster do not reopen. Some communities such as Homestead,
Florida, are just now recovering from Hurricane Andrew.
IBHS Works to Promote Windstorm Disaster Resistance
The majority of IBHS activities relating to windstorm impact
reduction involve applying research and development that has been
conducted by universities, Federal agencies and construction industry
related trade associations. The goal of these activities is to
understand, communicate and implement the latest knowledge on windstorm
mitigation into the work of the organization. These activities include:
Maintaining a series of consumer focused guides and
brochures that relate to a wide range of natural disasters
including windstorms.
Maintaining a website with publicly available information on
natural disaster mitigation, including windstorm damage
mitigation.
Developing two interactive web-based programs to help home
and business owners develop customized pre-disaster mitigation
plans and post-disaster recovery plans, as well as identify
home structural improvements.
Serve as a technical resource for our member insurance
companies to help them better understand technical aspects of
windstorm mitigation.
Support the improvement of building codes with regard to
natural disaster damage mitigation on behalf of our member
insurance companies.
Support the adoption of the latest model building codes at
the state level and working to ensure that they are not
weakened by local amendments.
Participate in the development of the ASCE 7 wind provisions
that are the basis for wind loads in the current model building
codes.
Establish statewide coalitions for natural hazard loss
reduction that incorporates land use planning emphasis in
mitigation activities among multiple state and local government
agencies.
Over the past few years, IBHS has worked with a number of
universities including Clemson University, the University of Florida,
Florida International University, Texas Tech University, Louisiana
State University, and Colorado State University to stay abreast of
current research and information. Similarly, IBHS works with FEMA on
flood and wind related retrofit issues as well as the Department of
Energy through Oak Ridge National Labs as a part of the Roofing
Industry Committee on Weather Issues (RICOWI). IBHS also has working
relationships with several construction and testing related trade
associations including APA, the Engineered Wood Association, the
National Roofing Contractors Association, and Underwriters
Laboratories.
IBHS is a strong and consistent advocate of the adoption and
enforcement of national model building codes and standards. We work
with our member companies, emergency managers, building officials,
civic leaders and code officials to build coalitions that will endorse
and support the adoption of statewide building codes. We understand the
power and effectiveness of a strong well enforced building code to
protect homes and businesses. We seek to establish incentives for
states and communities to adopt the latest model building codes,
without local amendments that would weaken the disaster mitigation
measures. The Federal Government can help incentivize the statewide
building code adoption process by increasing pre- and post-disaster
mitigation funds for those states that do adopt up-to-date model
building codes and promote adequate enforcement of these codes.
However, we also understand that the building code is the minimum
capacity required (the poorest quality home you can legally build) and
we are actively promoting code + construction through our Fortified . .
. for safer living' new construction program. This program
is small but growing. We recently entered into agreements for a
development of 600 to 800 homes in the panhandle of Florida, and
another development of approximately 60 homes in the Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina area where every home will be a Fortified . . . for
safer living' home. One of our member companies is planning
to file a rate reduction for the Fortified homes in South Carolina.
During the 2004 hurricane season, IBHS provided technical support
to Clemson University, the University of Florida and Florida
International University in the deployment of instruments to measure
wind speeds and wind pressures on houses. This data has provided much
needed surface measurements of wind speeds in areas impacted by the
storms. We have actively sought to bring this information and the wind
field analyses of NOAA and HAZUS-MH related wind field modeling to the
attention of the public so that they better understand the magnitude of
the wind event they likely experienced. We continually encounter a
public that is convinced that they experienced the peak wind of the
storm at their business or home location, while data and modeling would
suggest substantially lower winds. This understanding of the event is a
critical factor that can help property owners make judicious decisions
about future mitigation activities.
In the aftermath of the hurricanes of 2004, IBHS participated in
FEMA Mitigation Assessment Teams and is helping to prepare reports on
Hurricanes Charley and Ivan. IBHS also worked with the University of
Florida on a Florida Department of Community Affairs (Florida DCA)
funded project to conduct a stratified statistical sample based study
of the relative performance of buildings built under the 2001 Florida
Building Code versus ones built under the Standard Building Code
between 1994 and the adoption of the 2001 Florida Building Code. IBHS
is analyzing building permits for reconstruction in Charlotte County,
Florida following Hurricane Charley to assess the relative performance
and reconstruction costs of buildings built in different eras and to
different standards. IBHS has also been awarded funding from the
Florida DCA to develop a web-based interactive retrofit guide for
homeowners. We are working with builders, state and national experts to
develop that tool.
In addition to the applied research related activities above, IBHS
does occasionally get involved in performing and funding of research.
One such case involved IBHS providing match funding to Clemson
University to conduct full scale, destructive testing of houses in
Horry County, SC. This project involved testing actual homes before and
after hurricane retrofits were applied to determine how much strength
was being added to the structure using various retrofit techniques. The
houses were made available because they were bought out by FEMA
following flooding during Hurricane Floyd. Primary funding was provided
by the South Carolina Department of Insurance. IBHS is currently
funding research being conducted jointly with a Florida home builder to
investigate ways to retrofit soffit materials that suffered widespread
failures during the hurricanes of 2004.
IBHS also works with other partners from time to time to fund
research studies that estimate the savings provided through the
implementation of new and stronger building codes in coastal
environments. Three such reports have been prepared over the past four
years by Applied Research Associates in Raleigh, NC, for analysis of
the impacts of new codes along the North Carolina, South Carolina and
Texas coastlines. These reports point to the dramatic savings over time
that can be achieved through the use of stronger building codes.
The results of this research are used to help validate and refine
the mitigation messages that we use at IBHS. We understand how
expensive it can be to properly retrofit an existing home, and seek to
create a demand for disaster resistance in new construction that will
exceed the desire for carpet and appliance upgrades.
IBHS works with Federal, State and local governments a couple of
different ways to support windstorm impact reduction. The first is
through the distribution of our consumer related materials through
state and local governments. Oftentimes, this is accomplished through
providing materials to local grassroots style organizations to help get
the work out locally. Two notable partners include South Carolina Sea
Grant and North Carolina Sea Grant. The second way is participating in
the building code adoption process on the state level. Over the past
few years, IBHS has taken an active role in wind prone states including
North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Florida, Louisiana and New York.
Following the hurricanes of 2004, FEMA and member companies distributed
large numbers of IBHS pamphlets that provided guidance on the claims
process. Members indicated that information calls to their catastrophe
call-in centers dropped after the guides were distributed.
Barriers to Adoption of Windstorm Resistance
The main obstacles to widespread implementation of windstorm
mitigation techniques in new and existing structures relate directly to
issues of complacency, education, research and cost. Throughout the
country, homeowners are, in general, complacent about their exposure to
extreme windstorms or believe that there is little that can be done to
provide protection from the most intense storms where people frequently
are killed or injured. People who live in central Florida have
typically said that the real risk is in South Florida, or the
Panhandle. Likewise, builders and legislators who live and work in the
Florida Panhandle think that they are protected by a shelf of cooler
water off their coast and that the real risk in the Keys or in the
Carolinas. A major problem is that the typical return periods between
major storms is such that people do not think it will happen to them.
Because of this low perception of threat from windstorms, consumers
are less likely to spend the money required to make their homes more
resistant to windstorms--especially when they can spend their money on
upgrades they can enjoy everyday like granite counter tops and hardwood
floors. The competition to spend extra money rarely ends with the
mitigation winning out.
The lack of data and research on the benefits of mitigation and
strong codes also poses a barrier to the implementation of mitigation
measures. The data that insurers collect as a part of the claims
process following a major wind event relates mainly to documenting the
damage that the policyholder needs compensation for and making sure the
insured is compensated according to the policy coverage in a timely
manner. The role of the insurance adjuster in such a scenario is to
document, estimate and pay or arrange for payment of covered expenses.
Typically there are extreme time constraints placed on the adjustors
and the companies they represent to review properties and act on claims
in a short time frame. Given these responsibilities, it becomes too
onerous (particularly in a catastrophe when large amounts of disaster
victims need to begin their recovery) to expect that the adjuster would
be able to determine and document the actual causes of loss and
identify mitigation measures that could have prevented or reduced the
damage. Because of this, insurance data alone provides little insight
into the impact that wind mitigation can have on total losses.
In order to produce meaningful data to assess the effect of
windstorm mitigation activities, several things need to be known.
First, the actual wind speed that the building was exposed to needs to
be known. Then, details as to what parts of the building failed due to
excessive wind force need to be documented and most probable causes of
initiation of failure need to be identified. By comparing the wind
speed with a careful study of the failures, researchers can begin to
make credible quantifications of the potential benefits of windstorm
mitigation.
Unfortunately, many of the NOAA Automatic Surface Observing Systems
(ASOS) lose power and stop recording or reporting wind speed data
during severe wind storms. There is a clear national need to harden
these systems and provide backup power so that NOAA and all those
affected by these storms have better data on surface winds in various
areas impacted by the storms. In the interim, to get better data on
surface winds, IBHS works closely with hurricane researchers from a
number of universities. As mentioned earlier, teams from Clemson
University, the University of Florida, Texas Tech University and
Florida International University have for several years now deployed
mobile wind data acquisition towers in front of land-falling hurricanes
to provide ``ground truth'' data on wind speeds so that these speeds
can be correlated with building damage. Hurricane Isabel in 2003 was
the first time that these mobile towers were equipped with cellular
modems that allowed for uploading of wind speed data in real time to
the Internet. This information was relayed to NOAA and provided them
with real time ground truth data. These systems were active in all of
the 2004 hurricanes. For 2005, NOAA is making access to the GOES
satellite available for these instruments so that data can be reported
in a more reliable manner and better integrated into NOAA's analyses.
Post storm analyses have also been alluded to earlier in this
testimony. IBHS is working with builders, state building officials,
building departments, university researchers, and property appraisers
to accumulate data from a wide variety of sources and to seek insights
into the merits of stronger building codes and mitigation efforts. This
work is ongoing.
A number of barriers to building stronger and safer also relate to
the adoption and enforcement of building codes and standards. First, a
large number of local communities throughout the Nation have not
adopted any building codes and standards for residential construction.
Second, a large majority of local communities have not adopted the
latest model building codes without any local amendments that weaken
the model provisions. Third, while there is more widespread adoption of
model building codes and standards for commercial properties, there are
again many local jurisdictions where code adoption is non-existent or
woefully out of date. Uniform and strong enforcement is another key
issue, even in local communities that have adopted the latest
standards. This lack of uniformity in the baseline for construction of
homes and businesses means that the performance of buildings is less
predictable and the levels of risk vary dramatically from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction. We find that responsible builders have difficulties
competing in areas where there are no building codes, which leads to
building to the lowest denominator. Furthermore, we see national
builders building differently in areas with identical design wind
speeds, simply because the local code adopted in a particular area does
not require the same level of construction as the national model code
being enforced in the other area. All too often, the local building
code is treated as the maximum rather than the minimum.
While issues of states' rights and local authority generally keep
Federal agencies from trying to mandate building codes except for
Federal buildings, there are opportunities for the Federal Government
to initiate a number of incentives that would encourage states to adopt
and enforce statewide building codes without local amendments that
weaken the minimum requirements. FEMA could use the adoption and
enforcement of statewide building codes as criteria for providing
additional pre- and post-disaster mitigation funds to states. Federal
mortgage agencies could provide lower interest rates or lower fees for
mortgages on properties built to the latest building codes and
standards.
Finally, many of the test and evaluation methods available for
assessing the windstorm performance and durability of materials,
components and systems fall short in reproducing the true nature of the
loads and effects of severe windstorms and/or the effects of
environmental factors on aging and associated degradation of windstorm
resistance. Federal agencies can play an important role in funding
research and developing facilities that will allow the more realistic
simulation of windstorm loads and effects and in the development of
tools and facilities for assessing the effects of aging. Some efforts
along these lines have been supported through the Partnership for
Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) through research and grants
initiated by the National Institute for Standards and Technology and
the National Science Foundation. Much more work is needed. One IBHS
member company recently donated $400,000 to Florida International
University to create a new windstorm simulation facility capable of
testing actual building components and systems in a realistic wind and
wind-driven rain environment. IBHS staff are assisting with the
development of this facility.
Benefit-Cost Analyses of Disaster Resistant Technologies
As indicated earlier in this testimony, IBHS with partners has
funded several benefit-cost studies for specific building code adoption
issues in Florida, North Carolina and Texas. These studies have clearly
demonstrated the positive benefit-cost ratios of the particular
provisions under consideration. We are aware of a study conducted by
Texas A&M that evaluated the benefit-cost ratios for specific
individual provisions, combinations of provisions and the entire code
that related to the proposed adoption of a Texas Department of
Insurance Wind Resistant Construction Code. The analysis showed that
the benefit-cost ratios for various individual provisions varied
significantly depending on home size and wind climate but that the
benefit-cost ratios tended to increase and stabilize as the suite of
provisions became more complete in addressing the most common sources
of losses. For individual provisions, the benefit-cost ratios ranged
from less than 1.0 to as high as 60 depending on the building size and
windstorm intensity. For adoption of the entire code, the benefit-cost
ratios were typically in the range of 4 to 7, meaning for every
additional dollar spent on increased construction costs, losses were
reduced by 4 to 7 dollars over the expected life of the property.
FEMA has funded an independent national benefit-cost study of its
mitigation expenditures. This study was contracted to the Multi-hazard
Mitigation Council (MMC) of the National Institute for Building
Sciences (NIBS). The MMC hired the Applied Technology Council (ATC) to
conduct the independent study and the ATC report is in the final review
stages within the MMC. I represent IBHS on the MMC and have been
involved in the review of the ATC report. While the report is still
going through the final review stages and I cannot be precise in the
numbers that will be finally reported, I can say that my assessment is
that with one exception, the study is conservative in its assumptions
and still shows a positive benefit-cost ratio for both the Nation as a
whole and for the Federal Treasury. The one potentially non-
conservative aspect is the assessment of the number of deaths avoided
by tornado shelters constructed with partial funding from mitigation
grants. However, even if the number of deaths avoided is reduced by an
order of magnitude, the benefit-cost ratio for the wind related
mitigation measures is still positive. With this reduction in deaths
avoided, we expect that the conservative benefit-cost ratio for all the
FEMA funded mitigation measures will be on the order of 3, both for the
Nation as a whole and directly for the Federal Treasury.
The types of modeling tools needed to conduct benefit-cost studies
in the area of windstorm mitigation have been improving in recent
years. With the data that is being gleaned from the hurricanes of 2004,
there should be significant new opportunities to calibrate and validate
these models. The time is ripe for a major effort to conduct benefit-
cost studies to assess the value of adopting and enforcing model
building codes and standards, and for building to code + levels of
protection from natural and man made hazards.
Summary
Windstorms and other natural disasters happen every year in the
United States, and impact thousands of homeowners and businesses. Yet
we do know how to build homes and commercial structures so that impacts
from natural disasters are significantly reduced. Ongoing research
teaches us more every year, and ongoing communication and education to
the public has the potential to reduce losses every year. All of the
stakeholders can contribute to the creation of a climate where hazard
resistant construction is valued and demanded and where a myriad of
incentives are offered that will encourage local communities and states
to build hazard resistant communities that become known for their
resiliency in the face of severe windstorms or other natural and
manmade hazards.
There are clear opportunities for the Federal Government to support
research and the removal of barriers to the development of hazard
resistant construction. We believe that a good way would be to create
incentives for states to adopt and enforce statewide model building
codes and standards. NOAA and other agency support for wind field
analyses that better communicate expected winds across regions impacted
by severe windstorms will help with public communication of risks and
experience. We are also interested in partnering with Federal agencies
to conduct benefit-cost studies for building codes and natural hazard
mitigation measures. Appropriation of new funds in FY06 and beyond to
support the National Windstorm Hazard Reduction Program, that was
authorized as part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program,
will further the IBHS goal of making communities safer from coast to
coast.
Senator DeMint. Your credibility just went up a good bit
when I found you'd been at Clemson.
[Laughter.]
Senator DeMint. Mr. Ahlberg?
STATEMENT OF DOUG AHLBERG, DIRECTOR, LINCOLN-LANCASTER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Ahlberg. Thanks very much. First of all, it's an honor
and a privilege to be invited to testify to you this afternoon.
I am a Director of Emergency Management for Lincoln-Lancaster
County in Nebraska. As you may or may not know, on the 22nd of
May of last year, southern Lancaster County as well as five
other counties in Southeastern Nebraska fell victim to a
tornado that was on the ground for 54 miles. At its widest
point it was two and a half miles wide, and on the Fujita Scale
it had an F rating of four. Because of the forecasting and this
information that was provided to us by the National Weather
Service out at Valley, we lost one person, and had 37 injuries
that basically did not require an overnight stay at the
hospital, so we were extremely fortunate. Without those
forecasts, I think that the numbers would have been
considerably higher as a direct result of the storm.
Now, Lincoln and Lancaster and a county called Saline and
Gage are the only three counties in the State of Nebraska that
have been certified by the National Weather Service as being
storm-ready. This is kind of an accreditation of our abilities
to report and to provide for advanced warning in the approach
of severe weather. Last spring, the National Weather Service
initiated out of Valley a conference call system where if they
are predicting severe weather for the Southeastern portion of
the State of Nebraska, all emergency managers and local
broadcasters are provided an opportunity to participate in that
conference call.
Now, just a couple of weeks ago we had a conference call
with the anticipation of severe weather, and that was during
the NCAA baseball regional that was held in Lincoln, so it was
with quite a bit of interest that I participated in that
particular telephone call. We had well over 6,500 people that
were in attendance at one ball field at that particular time.
Ten minutes after the first pitch of the evening game, the
National Weather Service put Lincoln and Lancaster County in a
tornado warning. With the advanced information that we had we
were able to have the necessary precautions in place to allow
for the events that did follow after that announcement was
made. But that brings me to one of the concerns that I have and
the consideration I would like for NOAA to look at, and that is
a warning was issued, we were begging and pleading with people
to leave their seats to take shelter because of the warning
that was issued, and the response that we got was, ``Well,
we've had five or six already, and nothing's occurred, so we'll
just stay here in our seats and see what happens.'' I really
would have liked to see, it isn't going to cost anybody a dime
to look at a third tier of warnings to be established,
especially when you talk about severe weather, it's kind of
like your timer, it's green, yellow, red, it doesn't go from
green to red, there's this little intermediate step that's in
the middle, and that would allow people an opportunity to know
that there is a tornado vortex that is present in Doppler
radar, and to add significance to the word ``warning,'' and
that would be that a storm has been confirmed in one form or
another. Right now, people listen to a warning and we issue
five or six and nothing occurs, they really don't pay any
attention to it. They should, and I think everybody knows that
we should, but I think we have a tendency to become rather
apathetic after awhile, especially when you're confronted with
it almost on a daily basis during the months of April, May and
June, especially in Nebraska.
Now, several years ago, and this is my second concern, the
National Weather Service combined in the Lincoln and Omaha
region, as far as providing weather service to a particular
part of our state. The National Weather Service out of Valley
covers 30 counties in Nebraska and 9 in Western Iowa, that runs
from the South Dakota/Nebraska border on the north, to the
Kansas border on the south, and I think that oftentimes bigger
is not better. As far as consolidation is concerned, the
technological advances that you have seen over the past few
years, the total number of improvements that you've seen in
forecasting still relies on those forecasters that are sitting
there making those predictions and providing us with those
forecasts. Now, Lancaster County alone is 864 square miles, and
we have a population of around 246,000. Omaha, the largest city
in the State of Nebraska, is also included in the service area
provided by Valley.
Now Lincoln and Lancaster County is 55 miles away from the
National Weather Service radar site in Valley. Again, bigger
isn't necessarily better, and I would hate to see additional
forms of consolidation of the radar services, and what National
Weather Radar Sites we presently have across the whole country.
Now, since September 11, 2001, Homeland Security has
invested millions of dollars to deter terrorism, and for that,
we in Nebraska are very thankful. However, does Mother Nature
fit the definition of a terrorist? I think so, and I think that
moneys can be wisely spend to improve NOAA's capabilities to
provide for the safety of those folks that live in those
coverage areas. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ahlberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Doug Ahlberg, Director, Lincoln/Lancaster County
Emergency Management
I have come here today to discuss two topics which are important to
those of us who live in the Midwest and both topics are related to
severe weather. The first topic I will discuss is our severe weather
warning system and the second topic concerns our weather forecasters.
On May 22, 2004, southern Lancaster County, along with 5 other
counties, fell victim to a tornado that was on the ground for 54 miles,
had a damage path at its widest point of 2\1/2\ miles, and an F4 rating
on the Fujita scale. One death was reported and a total of 37 injuries
were reported as this storm decimated the Village of Hallam.
The National Weather Service in Valley, Nebraska, along with local
broadcasters, provided the citizens of southern Lancaster County and
surrounding counties with a minute by minute forecast of the tornado's
path and projected future movements. Without these warnings, there is
no doubt in my mind that the number of deaths and/or injuries would
have been much greater.
Lancaster, Saline and Gage Counties were affected by this
particular storm and are the only 3 counties in the State of Nebraska,
on May 22, 2004, to have been certified by NOAA as ``Storm Ready''
counties. Since last spring the Weather Service in Valley has initiated
a conference call program for all Emergency Managers and media
representatives in their coverage area. The purpose of this conference
call is to provide information about the possibility of severe weather
on any given date. During a recent NCAA regional baseball tournament in
Lincoln (where over 4500 people were seated), this advance information
was extremely helpful in preparing for the possibility of tornadic
activity in the area of Lincoln. Within 10 minutes of the first pitch
of the evening game, Lincoln and Lancaster County were placed in a
tornado ``warning''. Advance precautionary information provided to us
allowed for a timely response to this ``warning''.
One suggestion I would like to make with regard to watches and
warnings is to provide for three (3) phases of weather warnings rather
than the two (2) which are currently being used. An example of a three-
tiered system would be a tornado ``watch'', tornado ``alert'', and a
tornado ``warning''. Currently, a ``watch'' and a ``warning'' are used.
The addition of the ``alert'' would indicate a radar image of a tornado
vortex signature. Then a tornado ``warning'' would be issued when a
tornado is confirmed. This would be very similar to a signal light with
the green, yellow and red. I feel that often when a ``warning'' is
issued and nothing happens, the general public begins to question the
validity of the ``warning''. Adding the additional ``alert'' advisory
would allow for the seriousness of the ``warning'' to have significant
impact.
Several years ago Lincoln and Omaha's weather services were
combined and placed in Valley, Nebraska. All Emergency Managers would
like to have a weather service in their own backyard and we all
understand that is not practical. However, the service area for each
weather service site has been increased dramatically. The service area
for the Valley Weather Service consists of 30 counties in eastern
Nebraska and 8 counties in western Iowa. This service area extends from
the Nebraska/South Dakota boundary on the north to the Nebraska/Kansas
boundary on the south. With the consolidation of facilities and the
increase of service area size, an additional burden has been placed on
those forecasters tasked with warning over half of the State of
Nebraska's total population.
Lancaster County alone consists of 864 square miles that had become
extremely urbanized, with a large portion of the population moving into
a rural-type setting. With a population of over 246,000, Lancaster
County is over 55 miles from our weather service provider in Valley,
Nebraska. Sometimes bigger is better, but not necessarily when dealing
with public safety issues. Consolidation of facilities, when dealing
with weather issues, is not the solution that provides the best service
for those living in areas affected by severe weather.
Since September 11, 2001, Homeland Security has invested millions
of dollars to prevent acts of terrorism. Does ``Mother Nature'' meet
the definition of a terrorist? I think so.
In conclusion, I have come here today to ask that you consider two
issues. The first one is that you consider adding a third tier to the
warning system used for severe weather. The second issue is that you
reconsider the size of the service areas that the National Weather
Service forecasters have to work with. Our lives depend on the accuracy
of the weather forecasts and our warning system.
Thank you.
Senator DeMint. I think calling Mother Nature a terrorist
will be right up there with some of the great comments in
history, so thank you for making that in our Committee today.
I'm going to yield to our Ranking Member, Senator Nelson,
to begin the questions.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank
you for that privilege, and Mr. Ahlberg, it's great to have you
here. I think one of the reasons you had trouble trying to get
the people to leave the stadium is Nebraska was leading the
Miami Hurricanes, they were a little bit worried about their
luck changing if they left the field.
Maybe you could give us an idea of some of the things that
you do to achieve that certification so that you can show how
you deal with the communities in the Lincoln and Lancaster
outreach in the communities that provided some benefit in this
particularly devastating tornado.
Mr. Ahlberg. The National Weather Service, by certifying
us, brings up a lot of protocols that we have to meet. My
grandfather told me a long time ago, if it's fact, it's not
brag. We are very fortunate in Lancaster County to have one of
the premiere spotters networks anywhere in the country. As a
matter of fact, 2 weeks ago, National Geographic sent a film
crew to my emergency operation center to basically document how
we function with that spotters network. That's only part of it.
Our ability to get warnings out, whether it's through NOAA's
weather radio, all hazard radios, whether it's through tone
alert receivers, whether it's through our ability to interrupt
cable vision, the use of the VAS systems, all of these things
are part of the certifications to ensure that we're getting
this information out. We have looked at alternatives of getting
those particular warnings out, one of which is a reverse 911
callback system on the telephone, but that's something that's
extremely expensive to accomplish. A lot of people have the
feeling, we'll rely on outside warning devices, the outside
warning sirens, that's all well and good if you have one in
your backyard at two o'clock in the morning, but it's not going
to wake you up, they are outside warning devices, and we have a
large number of those in our county, we looked at this
emergency callback system that would make 3,500 phone calls a
minute, I think in the last gubernatorial race that we had in
Nebraska, I was receiving some of those phone calls in the
evening with a political message, but it is something that is
relatively expensive, and when you get into the smaller
populated states, the smaller populated counties, that is an
additional cost that they cannot afford. This particular
system, you can GIS it, you can GPS it, you can have it call
back by prefix numbers, you can have it call back by zip
codes--all of these things that will wake a person up when
there's a life-threatening situation at two o'clock in the
morning, I think should be looked at, and that's technology
that we have available right now. The problem is, like
everything, it costs dollars to pay for it.
Senator Ben Nelson. Having toured the Hallam, Nebraska site
a day after the storm, seeing the devastation that was there,
it's remarkable that anyone survived, and I remember visiting
with a gentleman whose house was entirely gone, including the
bathtub, and he survived by wrapping himself around the commode
and held on and survived while everything else left him. The
power and sometimes the suddenness of a tornado, even with a
warning, does create a need for such devices as the reverse
911, and in your opinion, are you comfortable with any kind of
reduction of funding for the National Weather Service?
Mr. Ahlberg. No.
Senator Ben Nelson. I appreciate that answer. As you think
about it, are there other ways to supplement the work of the
National Weather Service at the local level with what you do?
Do you work back and forth and make their job more doable,
certainly their ability to reach out, better?
Mr. Ahlberg. I don't know if I make it--sometimes I think I
make it very uncomfortable for them with some of the requests
that I make, as do most of the emergency managers around the
country, it's a resource that I don't think we can do without,
first of all. I don't think with the technology that we have,
the ability to dovetail all of those technological advances
with the National Weather Service, with commercially produced
weather sentry systems through meteorologics, Accuweather, all
of those things dovetailed together to give us the best
possible solution, to provide adequate warning for severe
weather, especially in the Midwest. Like you said, Senator,
it's rather spontaneous, it develops rather quickly. No
offense, but hurricanes basically take a long time to evolve
and to have a landfall. For example the other night, Seward
County, which is west of Lancaster County, was placed in a
severe thunderstorm warning. That storm moved in and dissipated
as it moved into Lancaster County. As it approached the middle
portion of our county, it again increased in severity, and
again, Lancaster County was placed in the severe thunderstorm
warning, so these things developed rather quickly.
I'm not a meteorologist, I'm not a weather forecaster, but
we rely quite heavily on their expertise, and those
forecasters' information that they provide us, and that's why
when you talk about consolidating facilities, you're still
talking about the human element of looking at the radar and
making that forecast, and you could have four or five in one
particular geographic area, storms that develop that are taking
up every waning minute of those forecasters to ensure that they
have proper information provided to us as emergency managers
and to the general public.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, thank you very much for what you
do and for being here today, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Senator, I've got pages worth of
questions I wish I could ask all of you, but I've got to run to
the next meeting. This has been so helpful to us, I assure all
of your comments will be in the record, and we may be getting
back to all of you on things that we're following up on. Mr.
Walsh, it is good to hear that you have a good working
relationship between the media and the Weather Service, just
some good things to work with. We appreciate it, and you are
dismissed.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim DeMint to
Max Mayfield
Question 1. You testified that intensity prediction is one of the
greatest challenges facing hurricane prediction. Can you explain why
intensity is not one of NOAA's GPRA metrics and whether you plan to
include it in the future?
Answer. Given the large number and variety of basic science issues
associated with intensity prediction, including questions concerning
observation and modeling improvements required to improve hurricane
intensity forecasts, it has been difficult to determine an appropriate
goal under the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA). To formulate
an appropriate GPRA measure, first, an internal NOAA National Weather
Service intensity performance measure was created, which calls for a 30
percent reduction of the intensity error by 2015. Second, while we
review and monitor the internal measure we must simultaneously begin to
(1) address the many science issues and surrounding questions, and (2)
make progress on the intensity issue through a multi-pronged approach
involving: (a) improved observations; (b) improved models; and (c) an
independent science review team focused on the hurricane intensity
forecast issue. A GPRA appropriate measure will result from this
process.
NOAA has already committed to improving intensity forecasts by:
Developing the ability to collect high-resolution data and
observations through NOAA's Gulfsteam-IV (G-IV) jet. The
aircraft is being outfitted with Doppler tail radar to provide
unprecedented precipitation and wind field data to aid our
understanding of the circulation of a hurricane throughout the
depth of the troposphere.
Installing seven new marine buoys at high priority sites in
the Caribbean and Atlantic Ocean. Forecasters require highly
accurate real-time measurements of wave height, wind speeds,
and surface pressures to run hurricane models and ground-truth
satellite observations. These new buoys address gaps in the
current marine buoy network, providing forecasters with an
early warning system of marine observations in the open ocean.
Developing the next generation hurricane model, the
Hurricane Weather Research and Forecast model (HWRF). The HWRF
is a high-resolution coupled air-sea-land prediction system
that relies on advanced physics and will be operational by
2007. The HWRF will assimilate high-resolution G-IV data from
the inner core of the hurricane with other operational buoy,
aircraft and satellite observations surrounding the hurricane
system. NOAA also has committed to increasing the computational
speed required to run this improved model, and to make the
results available to the forecasters in the Tropical Prediction
Center/National Hurricane Center on a real-time basis.
Accelerating enhancements to the Global Forecast System
(GFS) and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) model,
which have shown promise in improving forecasts of intensity
(strength), and structure (size) of hurricanes so far this
season.
Establishing a Hurricane Intensity Research Working Group
(HIRWG) under the auspices of the NOAA Science Advisory Board
to review current plans and make recommendations to accelerate
improvements in intensity forecasts. The HIRWG can also assist
NOAA in establishing credible goals, leading to meaningful GPRA
goals, in intensity forecasts that can be addressed through
improvements in science, observations, and modeling.
Question 2. Does the National Hurricane Center plan to link State
Department of Transportation evacuation plans on its website?
Answer. The Tropical Prediction Center/National Hurricane Center
provides links to emergency management Internet sites for all
hurricane-vulnerable states. Some of these state websites include
information on evacuation zone and route maps. These are locally
tailored products, which the public can use in their personal disaster
planning. These maps incorporate the findings from the evacuation plans
into a format that is more easily used by the public.
In addition, the NOAA Coastal Services Center is working with
hurricane-vulnerable states to develop a single Internet site that
enables citizens to locate and map hurricane evacuation zones. Mapping
these zones helps citizens become more prepared to evacuate and avoid
the potentially life-threatening affects of a hurricane. This work-in-
progress can be visited at http://www.csc.noaa.gov/hez_tool/.
Question 3. NOAA's GPRA track error target for 2004 was 129-mile
error, and your actual performance was 94-mile error. The 2003 actual
track error was 107-mile and in 2002 it was 124-mile error. The Weather
Service has been exceeding its 2004 target since 2002. Additionally,
your FY 2010 target (124 miles) is the same as its 2002 actual
performance. Do you continue to believe this target is still of value
and if not will you be revising the metric? Are you considering longer
time frame GPRA targets? Is the recent performance anomalous and do you
expect performance to degrade?
Answer. Since 1995, we have seen a marked increase in the number of
hurricanes in the deep tropics. These systems typically take long,
primarily straight tracks through an uncomplicated environment and, as
a result, are associated with relatively low track forecast errors. For
seasons in which much of the hurricane activity occurs at higher
latitudes (such as in El Nino years), the Tropical Prediction Center/
National Hurricane Center usually registers higher average forecast
errors. GPRA targets are developed based on analysis of long term
performance thereby taking into account this year-to-year natural
variability. Therefore, it would be premature to extrapolate the recent
downward trend in forecast errors to derive a new GPRA target. Overall,
however, we would expect forecast errors to decrease as we continue to
make improvements to our observing systems and forecast models, and we
continue to review and analyze past performance to determine when
downward revision of the GPRA goal may be appropriate.
Question 4. Please detail, with cost estimates, what tools, both
computational and observational, are necessary to increase the
effectiveness of hurricane intensity predictions.
Answer. The computational tools and observational platforms
necessary to increase our effectiveness of hurricane intensity
forecasting are included in current efforts (FY 2005) and planned for
FY 2006. Again, these efforts are consistent with our three-pronged
approach to address the hurricane intensity forecast issue, by
addressing:
Observations:
Hurricane Buoys.
--The procurement and deployment of hurricane buoys provides
forecasters highly accurate real-time measurements and fills
data gaps in the current marine buoy network. The Military
Construction Appropriations and Emergency Hurricane
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub.L. 108-324) provided
$1.8M for the purchase and deployment of 7 Hurricane Data Buoys
for the South Atlantic and Caribbean.
Satellite observations.
--Significant efforts are ongoing in applying the latest technology
to future remote-sensing instrumentation.
Reconnaissance and Surveillance Aircraft.
--Aircraft upgrades, including G-IV Doppler radar, are underway
that will provide new data sources for assimilation into future
hurricane models. The Military Construction Appropriations and
Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005
(Pub.L. 108-324) provided $3.5M for G-IV Doppler radar.
Modeling:
Enhancements to the Global Forecast System (GFS) including
data assimilation activities that effectively use satellite and
high resolution ground-based radar data.
Implementation of the Hurricane Weather and Research
Forecasting (HWRF) system is scheduled for 2006 with full
implementation expected in 2007. The Military Construction
Appropriations and Emergency Hurricane Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub.L. 108-324) provided $1.0M to
accelerate HWRF.
Research:
The Joint Hurricane Testbed currently has 12 projects
active, focused on the mission to rapidly and smoothly transfer
new technology, research results, and observational advances of
the United States Weather Research Program into operational
forecast products. The Military Construction Appropriations and
Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005
(Pub.L. 108-324) provided $0.7M to improve Hurricane Intensity
Model development.
Short-term intensity forecasts can be improved indirectly through
model guidance provided to forecasters and directly through improving
the surface observing network available to the forecasters. Proposed
additional buoys and improvements to dropsondes will contribute to such
advances. Those platforms, however, provide limited spatial and
temporal resolution, e.g., relatively isolated point observations in
the case of buoys. A longer-term solution to specify at high resolution
the surface wind field over the areas covered by hurricanes requires
additional advances in satellite technology. At present, such systems
as Quikscat and SSM/I do not provide accurate surface wind information
in areas of precipitation. These precipitation areas are of great
importance in hurricanes.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Stevens to
Dennis McCarthy
Question 1. Dr. Syun Akasofu, the Director of the International
Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska has provided my
office with satellite photographs of a typhoon type storm in the Bering
Sea close to Barrow. Additionally, in October 2004 Alaska's West Coast
(Nome) experienced a ``Coastal Storm'' (the equivalent in millibars Low
Pressure) to a Category 4 Hurricane. What are the National Hurricane
Center and the National Weather Service working on to broaden
``warning'' and ``watch'' notifications and to increase their ability
for all parts of the country and specifically Alaska?
Answer. The October 2004 coastal storm proved to be one of the
strongest storms on record for the western Arctic coast of Alaska.
While loss of property was unavoidable in this instance, lives and
personal property were protected through nearly unprecedented lead
time, education, outreach, mitigation and preparedness activities
provided by NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS), working closely with
Alaska's Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management.
NOAA's numerical weather prediction and ocean wave models performed
unusually well, especially given that this storm had its origins as an
ex-typhoon originating in the western Pacific (where lives were lost in
Japan).
NWS forecasters provided 3 days of lead time to emergency managers
and the public, allowing physical mitigations to be erected and
evacuations to take place well in advance of the initial winds. The
NWS, working with emergency managers, has for several years used a
special ``Hurricane-Force Wind Warning'' for use in these
circumstances, to draw attention to non-tropical hurricane-force winds.
Forecasters and managers do plan for such cases using guidance
provided by models and forecasters at the NWS National Centers for
Environmental Prediction (NCEP), as well as guidance developed by the
NWS Meteorological Development Laboratory on storm surge in Alaska.
These guidance sources need improvements, especially over the North
Pacific, where upstream weather observation data (over Asia and the
Pacific Ocean) is particularly sparse. NOAA's efforts to deploy an
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), as part of the Global Earth
Observing System of Systems (GEOSS), will help fill the data void.
Question 2. The National Weather Service in Alaska has limited
ability to predict severe weather and storms. The lower 48 contiguous
states have overlapping weather radar, Alaska on the other hand has 7
radar sites, and only about a sixth of the state has weather radar
coverage. Alaska does have satellite coverage but satellites don't show
storm severity. For example, there is no radar coverage over Yakutat,
so Cape Fair-Weather, when there is heavy traffic of commercial
vessels, is literally without storm severity forecasts. What is and
could be done to improve weather prediction coverage in Alaska?
Answer. The NWS has an effective weather warning program in Alaska.
The NWS modernization resulted in significant improvements and advances
in weather technology and in forecast and warning services. Radar
siting throughout the United States was carefully considered. Nearly
\1/3\ of Alaska by area, and nearly \2/3\ by population, is covered by
NWS Doppler radar technology below 10,000 feet. Given the terrain and
climate, it is cost prohibitive to establish full radar coverage via
deployment of additional NEXRAD radars. We are exploring the use of
other radars, owned by other government agencies and private industry,
to supplement the existing radar coverage.
Significant improvements to Alaska's weather prediction
capabilities, and extension of lead times for gale and storm conditions
for commercial vessels, will come mainly from improved modeling. When
data is effectively assimilated, increases in satellite and in-situ
observations will have the greatest direct impact to model performance.
The National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
will greatly enhance our observational capabilities in this data sparse
region, and significant improvements in modeling and forecasts are
expected to result from NPOESS deployment.
Question 3. Alaska is not part of the National Lightning Detection
System, which is provided year round to the lower 48 states by the
National Weather Service. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) provides
lightning information for Alaska--but only from April thru October
(fire season) of each year, but it does not report data to the National
Weather Service East of Longitude 140 West (Yakutat). My staff has been
briefed that the data exists, but not supplied because it also shows
data belonging to Canada. This communications breakdown leaves citizens
in cities like Juneau (the State Capital of Alaska) with no advanced
storm warning. What is the Department of Commerce doing to obtain an
international agreement with Canada to allow lightning detection
reporting in South East Alaska? Additionally, why isn't Alaska part of
the National Weather Service's National Lightning Detection System?
Answer. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management
has a contract with a private vendor to supply lightning data. There is
only one vendor and consequently only one National Lightning Detection
System at this time. The NWS uses the BLM contract to obtain data. As
of now, there are no sensors in Alaska. Expansion of the National
Lightning Detection System into Alaska is under consideration as part
of the National contract. At the same time, the NWS is developing an
agreement to acquire Environment Canada's Canadian Lightning Data
(CLD). This will provide data East of Longitude 140 West. As a
demonstration, the NWS Alaska Region accessed the CLD data during the
current 2005 fire weather season. In addition, the NWS is also in the
process of negotiating with the Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) on expanding their sensor network. This
negotiation could potentially lead to the BLM acquiring two additional
sensors within the next two years. These efforts will strengthen the
CLD and the BLM Alaska lightning detection network. The NWS and the
Meteorological Services of Canada have been strong partners for many
decades.
Question 4. Nine of the twelve remote weather facilities in Alaska
are old and in poor repair. What is NOAA doing to upgrade these
facilities?
Answer. NOAA's National Weather Service has an Alaska Region
facilities upgrade program to address safety and building code
violations. The program successfully acquired new housing at our
facilities in Kotzebue and Annette in 2005. In addition, the Saint Paul
office is currently under renovation and a contract for new housing has
been awarded. Housing at Cold Bay has also been renovated as well as
the office in Kodiak. Additionally, the Weather Service Office in
Annette is in the design phase, which includes plans for construction
under the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and
Environment guidelines. Future plans will consider office projects in
Nome and Barrow and housing projects in McGrath, Barrow, Nome, Valdez,
and Yakutat. However, these are major long-term projects that require
significant planning.
Question 5. Climate impacts such as coastal erosion, melting
glaciers, drought and flooding are all occurrences happening in Alaska.
In discussions on Climate Change, scientists have been calling Alaska
the ``Canary in the Coal Mine'' implying it is the Climate Change
warning area for the rest of the world. We have data scarcity on Global
Climate change partially because current technology and equipment are
not being placed in Alaska. What is NOAA doing to correct this
oversight?
Answer. NOAA is supporting enhancement of the International Arctic
Buoy Program to provide ice thickness measurements in the Arctic Ocean
north of Alaska to track the changes in thickness of multi-year ice and
to learn how changes in the atmosphere and the ocean are affecting the
ice. An ice profiling sonar system is located in the Chukchi Sea north
of Alaska to determine changes in the seasonal ice zone that affects
the Alaska northern coast.
The expansion of the Climate Reference Network (CRN) is progressing
in Alaska, with two CRN sites installed in 2002 and three sites in
2005. These sites will provide a reliable record of climate variability
and change in this climate sensitive environment. NOAA is aggressively
partnering with other State, Federal, and non-governmental agencies
(such as the Alaska Ocean Observing System) to develop requirements,
plans, funding mechanisms, and priorities for installation of new
climate observing (and modeling) capabilities in Alaska.
In 2007, we will celebrate International Polar Year. NOAA supports
the concept of an International Polar Year. The International Polar
Year is an ideal opportunity to advance observations of the polar
region. NOAA uses polar observations in support each of its four
strategic goals, and has responsibility for archiving and long-term
stewardship of the data, and its application to societal needs.
The question suggests that drought is occurring in Alaska. Drought
is not currently a problem in Alaska. Visit http://www.drought.unl.edu/
dm/monitor.html to view an up to date U.S. drought monitor map.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Dennis McCarthy
Question 1. Does the National Weather Service (NWS) plan to include
three-dimensional ceilometry, a technology developed with NWS funds,
into the Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) upgrade plan?
Answer. The three-dimensional ceilometry technology has been
explored under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.
While the technology shows some promise, its development is not yet at
a stage where we have been able to incorporate it into the Automated
Surface Observation System (ASOS) upgrade plan. The Automated Surface
Observing System Product Improvement (ASOS PI) Program is currently
replacing the existing ceilometers, because (1) they are not
logistically supportable beyond 2007; (2) the height range is to be
increased from 12,000 feet to 25,000 feet [at most sites], and (3) the
height range is to be increased to 40,000 feet [at 240 sites] if it is
achievable and affordable.
Three-dimensional ceilometry could become part of the program in
the future. We estimate providing the three-dimensional, as compared to
the one-dimensional technologies now used, would raise the cost of the
ASOS PI effort by 50 percent to 60 percent, and would extend the
schedule beyond the limits of our ability to provide logistical support
to the current network. The current ASOS processing capability also
imposes limits on sensors within its suite. The schedule extension is
based upon the need to revise, test, and implement a new algorithm to
report three-dimensional cloud reports, and examine the feasibility of
incorporating into the current ASOS configuration.
Question 2. Does the NWS find utility in the Small Business
Innovation Research program?
Answer. Yes. The NWS has found utility in the Small Business
Innovation Research program. This program has provided the opportunity
for the NWS to perform research and development on technologies,
observing systems and sensors, and computational advancements that will
contribute to the NWS mission of providing the Nation's weather, water
and climate forecasts and warnings.
The NWS presently has a Phase 1 program for a ``Self Cleaning
Temperature and Conductivity Sensor.'' The NWS also has an ongoing
Phase 2 program for a ``Prototype Computer Grid Software Product for
NOAA.'' This year, the NWS is expected to have up to five Phase 1
contract awards for innovative research in the following topic areas:
1) NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) Broadcast Simulation
2) Measurement of Sea Surface Salinity
3) New Data Telemetry Protocols For Automated Flood Warning
System
4) Predictive Modeling For Solar Insolation
5) Space Weather Data
The development of these topics and technology areas has the
potential for providing future benefits and improvements to the NWS in
meeting its important mission.
Question 3. The Small Business Innovation Research Policy Directive
RIN 3245-AE72 for Phase 3 transition of NWS funded technology
development states that Phase 3 projects are not required to be
recompeted prior to the awarding of a contract. Does the NWS still
intend to abide by this directive? How many Phase 3's have you funded?
How many of these contracts were subject to further rounds of
competition beyond that associated with Phase 1 and 2?
Answer. The NWS will abide by this Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) Policy Directive where it is applicable and appropriate
under law. The funding and execution of a Phase 3 program would be most
likely applicable under the existence of the following conditions: (1)
the Phase 3 program provides the best value to the government and
fulfills the best interest of the government/agency in meeting its
requirements and goals; (2) funding is available and appropriated
(Phase 3 is not funded from SBIR funds); (3) the technology that was
developed from the Phase 1 and 2 programs meets the stated agency
program or procurement requirements. If these conditions exist and are
applicable under law, the NWS would appropriately abide by this SBIR
policy directive.
No Phase 3 programs have been funded by the NWS.
Under the above stated conditions no NWS Phase 1 or Phase 2
programs would have been or have been subject to further competition.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson to
Dennis McCarthy
Question 1. If the President's FY 2006 budget for the National
Weather Service (NWS) is enacted as it was submitted to Congress, will
it sustain NWS operations at last year's level? How much of a shortfall
will there be? Is $40 million a good rough estimate?
Answer. Yes, if the President's FY 2006 budget for the NWS is
enacted as submitted it will sustain NWS core operations at FY 2005
levels while providing targeted improvements. However, the President's
Budget assumes a 2.3 percent pay raise. If the enacted pay raise
differs from this assumption NWS will have to identify measures to
absorb the additional costs to maintain core operations in FY 2006. NWS
is particularly vulnerable to the cumulative effect of pay increases
above budgeted amounts with approximately 67 percent of the NWS
operational budget dedicated to labor costs associated with its
nationwide 24/7 weather forecast and warning mission.
Question 2. What National Weather Service programs and services,
including maintenance and hiring decisions, would have to be reduced,
deferred, or eliminated under the President's budget?
Answer. As stated above, the FY 2006 President's Budget will
sustain current operations at the FY 2005 level. As with FY 2005, our
FY 2006 strategy will continue to prioritize continuity of service
operations. If NWS labor cost reductions are considered, NWS will, to
the maximum extent possible, limit these labor cost reductions to avoid
degradation of current services.
Question 3. Would the National Weather Service be able to keep all
of its current positions filled under the President's budget?
Answer. The President's Request incorporates a ``labor lapse'' rate
assumption, which accounts for normal turnover and employee time to
recruit and fill vacancies as they occur. In addition, in order to
mitigate unfunded FY 2005 requirements, the NWS increased its labor
lapse rates for its Headquarters components (+3.4 percent) and for its
field components (+0.4 percent). The NWS plans to continue the
increased FY 2005 lapse rates into FY 2006 and, depending on the
viability of other options, may increase them. NWS is focused on
ensuring that critical forecast and warning vacancies are filled.
Question 4. You testified that there are several upgrades in the
NWS radar system planned for the next few years. Would the timeline for
these upgrades be affected by the President's budget?
Answer. The President's FY 2006 Budget Request does not impact the
timeline. Major upgrades to the radar system are funded through NEXRAD
Product Improvement (NPI), administered by NWS but funded by: the
National Weather Service (Department of Commerce), the U.S. Air Force
(Department of Defense), and the Federal Aviation Administration
(Department of Transportation).
Question 5. The Committee has been informed that training programs
at the National Weather Service Training Center (NWSTC) in Kansas City
were seriously curtailed this year due to budgetary shortfalls. How
much money is needed to restore the training program to its prior
status? Is the training program likely to be further curtailed under
the President's budget for FY 2006?
Answer. In FY 2005 the NWS National Training budget for the NWSTC
was reduced by $1.5M. At this time no additional FY 2006 reductions are
anticipated for the NWSTC. As with the FY 2005 reductions, NWSTC
training priorities will continue to focus on maintaining core
operational training (meteorological, hydrological and technical/
electronic training requirements). Also, as with our FY 2005 NWSTC
curriculum and to offset the $1.5M reduction, we are increasingly
focused on the use of remote/distance training, which is more
economical and can reach more of our workforce than traditional in-
residence training.
Question 6. How much of an increase in the FY 2006 budget would the
National Weather Service need in order to make up for shortfalls
incurred in FY 2005?
Answer. As stated earlier, the FY 2006 President's Budget will
sustain operations consistent with FY 2005 levels.
Question 7. The Committee has been informed that the National
Weather Service is considering plans to further consolidate its
Forecast Offices into a dozen or so larger offices with greater areas
of responsibility. Is this true?
Answer. There are no plans to consolidate forecast offices. As
technology continues to evolve and science advances, we are exploring
ways to take advantage of new science and technology to make the best
use of our workforce and to provide a higher level of service. All
options we are exploring are based on the existing complement of 122
weather forecast offices (WFOs), each maintaining responsibility and
accountability for their existing areas. The only consolidation being
considered is some routine production, which will allow forecasters in
all WFOs to work in an event-driven mode to focus on significant
impacts and provide more direct decision assistance to partner agencies
(i.e., the emergency management community).
Note: Although there are no plans to consolidate any of the 122
WFOs, there are three smaller weather service offices, which were
originally scheduled for closure as part of the NWS Modernization and
Restructuring effort of the 1990s. These three weather service offices
(Williston, ND; Erie, PA; and Evansville, IN) each have mitigation
efforts underway to improve radar coverage, and may be proposed for
closure depending on the results of these efforts.
Question 8. What process will be used to decide which offices are
eliminated or consolidated?
Answer. There are currently no plans for office elimination or
consolidation. Should future plans call for consideration of office
elimination or consolidation, NOAA will keep Congress informed of these
plans.
Question 9. How would such consolidation affect weather coverage
and forecasts in Nebraska?
Answer. There are no plans for office elimination or consolidation.
We expect to be able to continue improving services from our existing
122 weather forecast offices in the coming years, including Nebraska.
Question 10. Will the agency be able to certify that there will be
no degradation of service to the public?
Answer. Any upgrades to our forecast and warning service will be
coordinated closely with public officials. We monitor our forecast and
warning performance metrics very closely, even posting them for display
in our forecast offices. The ``non degradation of service'' standard
was adopted to direct the NWS Modernization and Restructuring effort of
the 1990s. As we look at upgrades to our services, we are certainly
committed to meet the ``non degradation of service'' standard, but our
focus is on improving services, not merely maintaining them.
Question 11. How many National Weather Service buoys experienced
failed or faulty sensors during FY 2005? How many buoys failed
completely?
Answer. The National Weather Service maintains 101 buoys. As of
August 1, 2005, 33 of these buoys failed meaning that data was not
being transmitted. Of the 33 buoys, 15 of the failures were caused by
severe weather, 7 by a collision and/or tampering, and the remaining 11
failures were caused by communications or power failures.
Status of buoys: 28 of the 33 have been repaired. Of the remaining
five, four are expected to be back in service by the end of September
(pending availability of a U.S. Coast Guard vessel for deployment), and
two will be repaired in FY 2006.
Question 12. Has the repair of these buoys been delayed as a result
of insufficient funding?
Answer. In order to best manage our funding, we sought to reduce
costs by allowing tolerable delays in servicing some buoys. Instead of
paying the cost of renting a ship to perform a repair, we waited for
opportunities to group multiple repairs into a single voyage,
preferably using a ship for which we did not have to pay rent, such as
a U.S. Coast Guard ship.
The most common cause of delay in repair of the buoys is the time
of year and scheduling of vessels to complete the repair. Buoys located
in the northern Pacific Ocean are difficult to service in the winter
months, causing delays until conditions are safe for a vessel to
service the buoy.
Question 13. Has the National Weather Service had to defer the
acquisition of spare NOAA weather radio transmitters due to budgetary
constraints? Has this had an impact on weather radio coverage?
Answer. In FY 2005 NOAA deferred the purchase of spares for NOAA
Weather Radio (NWR) transmitters. These spares would have served as on-
site spares, thus allowing a technician to repair a transmitter within
a shorter time frame and without the expense of making separate trips
to diagnose and then repair failures. These on-site spares are
redundant and without them the NWR stations remained in operation via
the backup transmitter until the primary transmitter was repaired.
With the funding requested in FY 2006 to complete and sustain NWR,
NOAA's National Weather Service will begin replacement of the 1970's
era transmitters, many of which are not redundant. By replacing old
transmitters with modern, redundant, solid-state transmitters, overall
reliability and availability of the NWR network will increase.
Question 14. What technology or analytical approach currently holds
the most immediate promise for reducing the number of false tornado
warnings?
Answer. In the short-term (a few years), NOAA NWS is planning
evolutionary changes and upgrades to the existing Doppler radar network
that are expected to reduce tornado false alarm rates (in approximate
chronological order):
1) NOAA will access data from the Federal Aviation
Administration Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR), as these
radars are better able to discern storm winds than NEXRAD
(under certain conditions at the same range). The combination
of NEXRAD and TDWR data across the United States will result in
finer sampling of winds and weather and will improve overall
coverage.
2) New radar software (i.e. Open Radar Data Acquisition) will
allow measuring the distribution of winds in small chunks of
atmosphere (i.e., resolution volumes). Particular wind
signatures that can be detected by radars with improved
resolution can discern tornadoes; this data can reduce tornado
false alarm rates.
3) Dual polarization radar and improved spectral analysis
promise improved detection of tornadoes indirectly by
identifying debris, key storm structures (e.g., mesocyclones,
precipitation types known to affect tornado formation), and
tornadic wind signatures. Recent research indicates there may
be predictive value in knowing whether rain or hail is falling
near the region of storm rotation at low levels, and dual
polarized radar provides this information.
A longer-term approach to reduce tornado false alarm rates is the
use of high-resolution numerical weather models capable of assimilating
radar and surface weather data to generate detailed near-real time
information on storm development and evolution. Forecasters will be
better able to estimate storm tornado potential and reduce false alarms
with supplemental information about the inside of the storm. These
models are undergoing research and development.
The ideal way to reduce tornadic false alarm rates is to have high-
resolution real-time measurements of winds within the storm cloud, as
this affords the best chance of directly detecting actual tornadic
conditions. These measurements could be achieved by systems such as
networks of phased array radars at extremely high frequency combined
with high-density surface observational networks. These technologies
are currently being investigated.
From the perspective of our partners in the emergency management
community, tornado false alarm rates are not considered a critical
metric, as compared to improved detection and longer warning lead
times. The feedback from emergency managers is that the cost of tornado
false alarm rates is rather low in terms of warning communities whereas
the cost of missing tornadoes is much higher and remains their key
concern. In general, the decreased rate of false alarms is a
consequence of improved detection and not a primary goal, as the
technologies that improve tornado detection generally reduce false
alarm rates as well (e.g., NEXRAD), as long as appropriate training is
provided.
We are testing a new approach toward increasing the precision of
our severe thunderstorm/tornado watches and warnings by redefining the
areal extent they cover. This approach is called the ``polygon
warning'' concept. This approach reduces the geographic area defined in
most warnings (allowing us to warn for areas smaller than a full
county), thereby reducing false alarms in terms of area and population
warned. Preliminary results are quite promising.
We will begin another upgrade on the WSR-88D (NEXRAD) radar network
late this summer: the Open Radar Data Acquisition unit. In addition to
improving maintainability of the network, this technology will pave the
way for future improvements in radar operations that will improve
detection and warning.
We conduct annual training for all of our forecasters who issue
warnings to make sure they are aware of the latest advances in the
science of severe storm forecasting to provide the most accurate
tornado warnings.
Question 15. What are the barriers to implementing this approach?
Answer. There are no real technical barriers to improving and
implementing the evolutionary changes and upgrades to the existing
weather radar network to achieve the short-term reductions in tornado
false alarms.
Continued support for the ``NEXRAD Product Improvement'' program,
along with substantial investment in research and development, will be
required to improve the radar data processing/analysis and storm-scale
model development.
Studies of the economic value of tornado false alarm rates and
probabilities of detection should continue. Unless there is a major
improvement in technology and science, a change in the false alarm
rates will be accompanied by a similarly signed change in the
Probability Of Detection. There is insufficient scientific knowledge
available to assess the relative value of a high false alarm rate
versus a low probability of detection.
Regarding reducing tornado false alarms in the long-term,
developing and deploying networks of phased array radars across the
United States, along with boundary-layer radars, are promising
technologies. NOAA has a research effort underway to assess the long-
term use of phased array radar.
Question 16. Are there gaps that the Committee should consider
addressing? What are they?
Answer. We appreciate the Committee's willingness to work closely
with NOAA on future gaps that impact NOAA's operations and research
activities. As technology and other advances move forward in the fields
of weather, climate, and environmental research, we will advise and
look forward to working with the Committee on our efforts to engage the
stakeholders, organizations and individuals impacted by NOAA's mission.
Question 17. I understand that the U.S. Weather Research Program
was intended to facilitate the transition of new forecasting
technologies and techniques from research to operations. What is the
status of the USWRP today?
Answer. Yes, the U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP) is focused
on facilitating and accelerating the transition of new forecasting
science and technology from research to operations. The Interagency
Working Group (IWG), which is the decision-making body for the USWRP,
is currently reviewing the program including its overall strategy and
priorities. Although the program's focus and resource allocations may
change as a result of the IWG's review, it is highly likely that the
USWRP will continue to focus on coordinating weather research and on
transitioning research to operations.
Specifically, the USWRP has prioritized research and development
aimed at improving hurricane prediction, precipitation prediction,
atmospheric observation strategies, and socio-economic impacts. The
USWRP-supported Joint Hurricane Testbed (JHT) enables the transfer and
operational implementation of new hurricane prediction techniques and
technologies from the research community to NOAA's Tropical Prediction
Center/National Hurricane Center. The USWRP also sponsors the
Developmental Test Center (DTC) in Boulder, CO, which enables the
transfer of new numerical modeling science to operations.
Question 18. Is the Hazardous Weather Testbed in Norman, OK the
NWS's only such center? This type of facility seems to hold promise for
moving new technologies from research to application. Are there plans
for establishing more such centers?
Answer. No, the Hazardous Weather Testbed is not the only center of
this type. Other test beds include the Joint Hurricane Testbed, the
Developmental Testbed Center, the Hydrometeorological Testbed, and the
Climate Testbed. All of these testbeds, including the Hazardous Weather
Testbed, are designed to accelerate the transition of new science and
techniques from research to operations.
The Hazardous Weather Testbed accelerates improved techniques for
forecasting the initiation of severe thunderstorms and early detection
of tornados into operational implementation. The Joint Hurricane
Testbed at NOAA's Tropical Prediction Center/National Hurricane Center
in Miami, FL, has been operating for five years and is accelerating
research results into hurricane forecast guidance products, including
hurricane model improvements. The Developmental Test Center (DTC) in
Boulder, CO, focuses on improvements to regional weather modeling using
the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) community model. The
Hydrometeorological Testbed (HMT) is being established to accelerate
improvements in heavy precipitation and flood forecasts.
The NOAA entities in Norman, OK, have an illustrious history of
cooperation and collaboration in the exploration of new science and
technology. The most outstanding example is the evolution, application,
and deployment of Doppler weather radar. The Hazardous Weather Testbed
is the latest iteration of this ongoing collaborative process, which we
hope to emulate in other parts of the country where these kinds of
partnerships and opportunities exist.
In addition to supporting the establishment of testbed facilities,
NOAA has also established a research to operations policy and a
committee to monitor, oversee, and improve the transition from research
to operations, not only for weather and water, but also for climate,
oceans and ecosystems.
Question 19. How should NOAA partner with academia and industry to
improve its forecasts of severe storms and their impacts?
Answer. NOAA collaborates with academia, industry, and other
governmental partners to develop goals, roles, and plans for improving
severe storm forecasts and warnings. The newly formed American
Meteorological Society's Weather and Climate Enterprise Commission, the
NOAA Science Advisory Board, and the U.S. Weather Research Program are
examples of venues that help facilitate this interaction. We also work
with individual researchers and professors to bring state-of-the-art
training to our forecasters through tele-training, workshops, and
seminars.
NOAA will enhance its collaborative peer-reviewed research
activities with academia and enhance data dissemination and warnings
through the private sector in coordination with other Federal agencies
with similar requirements. Any funded peer-reviewed projects should
include those proposed by both the academic and the private sectors.
Question 20. I understand that Phased Array Radar systems have
great potential for increasing the accuracy of tornado forecasting but
I also know that they carry a big price tag. How exactly would a new
PAR system improve the ability to predict tornados in Nebraska?
Answer. Changes in environmental conditions leading to tornado
formation and continuing through a tornado's evolution occur on very
small time scales. The new Phased Array Radar (PAR) system is capable
of providing rapid updates on changing environmental conditions, five
to six times faster then our current operational radars. Further, the
phased array allows adaptive pointing of the antenna beam in directions
where a tornado might be spawning, and allows in depth examination of
such ``hot'' spots. The increase in resolution (number of data samples
per time increment) is required to properly initialize high-resolution
storm scale models. This is a developing area of research, but we feel
there is a potential to blend real time observations with very short
term forecasts (from minutes to tens of minutes), leading to the idea
of ``warning on forecast'' rather than our current mode of ``warning on
observation.'' Warnings based on forecasts could increase the lead time
of tornado warnings out to 25-30 minutes.
Question 21. What is the relative cost of a PAR system as compared
to the current NEXRAD system?
Answer. The National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) in Norman, OK,
has been working closely with government, university and private sector
partners to answer this question. According to the latest information
from industry, by 2012 the cost of the phased array radar modules that
make up the antenna array (the most expensive part of the radar; each
antennae face has over 4,300 modules) is predicted to be reduced by a
factor of 50. This means that the modules currently in use today at
NSSL, which each cost $2,000 when they were produced in the late 1970s
will cost $40 per module in 2012. This will reduce the cost of a four-
faced antenna PAR system down to approximately $10-$15 Million per
radar.
It is inappropriate to compare the two systems, especially since
NEXRAD radars are no longer in production. Commercially developed
Doppler radars are available, but come with many challenges to
integrate the data into the NEXRAD network. The hardware for a
commercial radar costs approximately $4M.
Question 22. Is there a difference in the total area each system
can cover?
Answer. No.
Question 23. Is there a difference in the manpower required for
each system?
Answer. At this time, it is not likely there will be any difference
in manpower requirements between the two systems. More information on
manpower requirements will become available as the phased array radar
design progresses.
Question 24. What is the current status of the PAR system testing
in Norman, Oklahoma?
Answer. The PAR system testing in Norman is on schedule. The system
has been modified from a missile detection and tracking system used by
the U.S. Navy to a system capable of collecting weather data. In the
last 15 months, a limited amount of weather data on tornadic storms has
been collected. Data quality appears quite good and compares well to
the NWS WSR-88D. We are currently awaiting more weather events and are
actively improving the radar features to speed up the data acquisition.
At the same time, our partners at the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) have developed an aircraft tracking processor as part of the plan
to make the PAR a multi-function system. The FAA software will be
tested on the PAR in late August.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim DeMint to
Timothy A. Reinholdt
Question 1. In your testimony you discuss how risk modeling
coupled with variable insurance pricing is helping to encourage
homeowners to build storm resistant buildings. Do you know if this
practice is widespread outside of the Southeast?
Answer. The practice is not even widespread in the Southeast, much
less in the rest of the country. The two broad-based programs are in
Florida and Texas where discounts have been mandated as part of a move
towards more stringent codes and standards. Having said that, what is
widespread is the use of basic catastrophe modeling to assess loss
exposure and establish reserves and reinsurance needs. The move towards
using these models to assess the value of mitigation measures is still
somewhat in its infancy and has been driven largely by FEMA sponsored
research and the need to establish some sort of a basis for the
mandated discounts in Florida and Texas. While it is being used in
these instances out of necessity, there are typically wide ranges in
the overall loss estimates and even greater variability in the
estimated benefits of particular mitigation measures.
Question 2. How successful has this approach been in Florida in
terms of getting people covered by insurance? Has it made insurers more
willing to stay in the market?
Answer. I can't comment on the influence of mitigation activities
on availability or cost of insurance. However, where we are beginning
to see movement in getting people to take protective measures has been
when the amount of money on the table becomes large enough to make a
difference in the return on investment. That has been particularly
evident for properties in the Florida Wind Pool (Citizens) where large
increases in premiums coupled with larger percentage reductions in
premiums for mitigated properties have generated savings that can run
into thousands of dollars.
Question 3. Ultimately, what do you think needs to be done to have
more standardized building codes?
Answer. I do not believe that we are likely to see a federalization
of building codes and standards. However, we have seen a merger of the
National Model Building Codes (Standard Building Code, Uniform Building
Code and Building Officials and Code Administrators Code) into a single
International Code Council set of codes. These codes and standards are
debated and developed in a consensus process at the national level and
provide for local variations in hazards and risk. Unfortunately, in
most states, the adoption is left to individual jurisdictions
(counties, parishes, municipalities and cities) and these frequently
change the model code provisions to suit the desires of local special
interest groups. We believe that the states need to move towards
statewide adoption of the model codes without local amendments that
would weaken the provisions. We think that the Federal Government can
help with this process by helping to create incentives for the states
to adopt the model codes and ensure that they are well administered and
enforced.
Question 4. What needs to be done or can be done to make older
buildings safer?
Answer. Without a doubt, it is more effective and less costly to
build well the first time than to come back and apply remedial measures
after the fact. Having said that, I would offer the following
suggestions for reducing the vulnerability of homes to windstorm or
hurricane related damage. The first list is one that is best suited for
construction of new homes. Following that, I have prepared a shortened
list of the most practical items for retrofit.
The Key Structural Features for Hurricane Resistance of Homes Include:
Enough elevation to avoid storm surge or flooding.
If you are in a storm surge area, the pile foundation must
be deep enough to prevent damage or failure from scouring of
the beach.
The home needs to be well built with all parts tied together
with appropriately sized metal connectors and structural
sheathing (plywood or oriented strand board) for wood frame
construction or reinforcing if it is masonry construction.
The roof structure needs to be well anchored to the walls
using hurricane straps and the roof sheathing needs to be
fastened to the roof structure using the latest code
requirements for nails or preferably attached with ring-shank
nails.
If the home has one or more gable ends with a gable that is
more than about 3-feet tall, the gable should be braced to keep
it and the wall below from blowing in or being sucked out.
Porches and carports should be well anchored to their
foundations and support structure and pool enclosures should
have hefty anchors at the end columns and substantial diagonal
bracing (cables or metal tubes running along diagonals) to keep
them from blowing over.
If the home is located in an area where the building code
specifies gust design wind speeds of 120 mph or higher or if
the home is within 1-mile of the coast and the design wind
speed is greater than 110 mph, it should be outfitted with a
code approved protection for windows and doors and a wind
pressure and debris impact rated garage door.
Purchasers of newer homes should be aware that some codes
have allowed homebuilders to choose to strengthen the structure
and connections as an alternative to providing window and door
protection. If that is the case, you may well have a stronger
house structure but you may have wind and water blowing through
your house, ruining the contents and interior, if you get hit
by a strong storm.
For Older Homes:
The structural wish list for older homes is similar to the one
listed above for newer homes. However, if there are no hurricane straps
or the house is not particularly well tied together, it can be very
costly to fix the structural connections. If this is the case, then the
priority for installing window and door protection and ensuring that
the garage door is wind and impact rated or protected goes way up.
Keeping wind out of the home by protecting the openings can give the
home a fighting chance when a hurricane strikes, even if the structural
connections are not what we would want in a home built today. If your
home is not well connected, make your preparations early and evacuate
to a better built refuge.
The easiest thing to add that will have an impact on protecting the
structure is protection for windows and doors. If the house has a
shingle roof, when the house is re-roofed, the home owner can also have
the roof sheathing re-nailed and a self adhesive flashing tape
installed over the joints between the roof sheathing for a relatively
nominal cost. A high-wind rated roof covering should be selected and
installed according to the manufacturer's recommendations for high wind
areas. Anchorage of porches, carports and pool cages can be improved at
a reasonable cost. Gable end bracing can also be installed to reduce
the chances that the gable ends will give way. Most of these things can
be added later, but when someone is financing the home, they may want
to see if they can add some of these retrofits into the purchase price
or loan.
Take a good look at the area surrounding the home. If there are
significant sources of wind borne debris like flat roofs with gravel or
tile roofs, then protection of glass becomes even more important.
Evaluate trees in the area surrounding the home. Trees can be helpful
in reducing wind loads on the house up to the point where they blow
over onto the home. Tall pine trees are a particular concern because
they can crash through the roof and walls like a guillotine. Pruning of
trees to reduce their sail area can be an important mitigation measure
if there are lots of trees near the house.
There are real limits to what can be done for tile roofs short of
removing them and re-installing tile with mechanical or adhesive
products or a combination of the two. Tile roofs do seem to have a
higher failure wind speed threshold than older shingle roofs, but the
repair costs are much higher when they do fail. For shingle roofs,
homeowners can adhere the tabs to the shingles below using an asphalt
roofing cement as a stop-gap measure until the house is re-roofed.
Start with shingles around the edges of the roof and work towards the
interior if the shingle tabs are not well sealed.
There is at least one bracing system for garage doors that has
Florida Building Code approval. In other cases, garage doors are either
being shuttered or replaced with a wind pressure and debris impact
rated product. The effective bracing of existing garage doors requires
structural braces that keep the door from bowing and buckling as well
as bracing of or replacing the tracks that support the rollers.
A lot of soffits were blown out during the Florida hurricanes last
year and water got into the attics and walls. Vinyl and aluminum soffit
material that is not attached to a backup wood structure should be
strengthened. Sealing around windows and openings in walls can also
help keep water from getting into the walls of the home.