**Acting Director P. Patrick Leahy Remarks at the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., August 23, 2005.
"Natural Hazards Science -- Reducing the World's Risk "In-Situ Observing
Systems within GEOSS" Workshop on the Utilization of Seismic Networks
within the Global Earth Observation System of Systems\"**

# Slide 1 Title

Natural Hazards Science -- Reducing the World's Risk "In-Situ Observing
Systems within GEOSS" Workshop on the Utilization of Seismic Networks
within the Global Earth Observation System of Systems\"

## Slide 2 

## The Need for Natural Hazard Preparedness

Natural disasters afflict all regions of the world, and improved global
disaster reduction and warning is a shared, global need. Over the decade
1990-1999, disasters killed 500,000 people and caused \$750 billion of
damage, according to data presented in the "Living with Risk" report of
the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. And losses are
increasing, as this graph shows for the U.S., in proportion to
population growth.

# 

# Slide 3

## Increasing Losses From Natural Disasters

Graph showing 50 years of disaster losses

## Slide 4

## USGS Earthquake Monitoring and Assessment Programs

Global Seismographic Network (GSN) in partnership with National Science
Foundation and the IRIS Consortium

Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS)

• National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC)

• Backbone

• Regional networks in partnership with universities and state
geological surveys

## Slide 5

## USGS Earthquake Monitoring and Assessment Programs

The December 26 earthquake and tsunami was devastating and it brought to
light how the world needs to be prepared for natural hazards. As a
result, the President and Congress enacted a law to address these
issues.

# Slide 6

## USGS Role in President's Tsunami Warning Initiative

• Operate NEIC 24-hours-a-day seven days a week

• Enhance NEIC hardware and software

• Make all 130 GSN stations real-time

• Place GSN stations in the Caribbean

• Map coasts for tsunami hazard assessment

• Implement PAGER

• Enhance distribution of NOAA tsunami warnings

**Slide 7**

### In-Situ Monitoring Systems: Early Warning/Faster Emergency Response

In-situ hazard monitoring systems have received more than their share of
attention in the past year -- not only because of the tsunami of last
December 26, but also due to four hurricanes in the U.S., the
reawakening of Mount St. Helens in the eve of her 25th Anniversary,
wildfires and landslides in southern California. These events have
brought the relevance of the GEOSS Societal Benefit area "Reduce Loss of
Life and Property" to the forefront. The risk indicates what GEOSS could
enable and the desired outcome, which is Science and Technology working
together for a desired societal outcome -- early warning and faster
emergency response.

**Slide 8**

**Connecting Terrestrial Observation Systems to GEOSS**

The premise behind the Global Earth Observation System of Systems is
simple -- although not-necessarily easy-to-implement. There are
currently many thousands, if not millions, of in-situ observation points
collecting data worldwide. Unfortunately, they operate, for the most
part, independently of one another.

USGS monitors earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, the geomagnetic field,
deformation of all kinds, rivers and stream flow, water quality,
contaminants, biologic diversity, invasive species, and many other
phenomena.

**Slide 9**

## Observations to Societal Impact 

As I expect will become evident during this workshop, global seismology
provides an example of an end-to-end system of the kind envisioned by
GEOSS.

This figure, built originally by the NOAA Climate Group and generalized
for the IEOS Strategic Plan, defines a generic "end-to-end" *system*
--that is, from the collection of data at a sensor, through data
management, to products and delivery and decision support systems, to
Societal Benefits.

For earthquakes, we have an example of an [existing system]{.underline}
that encompasses every element of this hierarchy: The [sensor
systems]{.underline} are the many global networks; [data
management]{.underline} is provided by entities like the IRIS Data
Management Center; [Data Analysis]{.underline} is done by the NEIC and
other National Centers; [Information Products]{.underline} are
distributed to emergency managers, government officials, relief and
response organizations and security officials; [user
communities]{.underline} are involved in defining the capabilities of
the system and the content of products, and [decision support
systems]{.underline} are now being developed to assist users (such as
CalTrans) in earthquake response. And [societal impacts]{.underline} are
now quantified, as I will explain in a moment.

**Slide 10**

**GEOSS Critical Needs: Research and Data Exchange**

Let me focus on two critical needs: the "pillars" if you will, upon
which GEOSS is built.

The first of these is [research]{.underline}: While I anticipate that
Dr. Leinen will speak to this need, let me say that research is the
[engine]{.underline} that powers the [outcome of reduced
losses]{.underline}. Research results in mitigation strategies. It
results in engineering solutions. It results in safer structures, safer
infrastructure, and safer communities.

**Slide 11**

**Open Data Exchange**

The second pillar is open data exchange, which is a key element of
GEOSS. Under the Declaration that was agreed upon in July 2003, GEOSS
participants agree to exchange data in a full and open manner with
minimum time delay and minimum cost, recognizing relevant international
instruments and national policies and legislation. If successful, by
fully networking these systems, we will advance our understanding of the
Earth's environment and improve decision-makers' abilities to address
pressing policy issues.

## Slide 12

**Economic Benefits of Seismic Monitoring**

Finally, we should ask the question, "Is this all cost effective?"

For earthquakes, we could until recently just speculate:

\--looking at the tremendous losses from December 26

\--looking at estimates of \$5-6 billion annual losses, just for
earthquakes in the U.S.

\--looking at scenario losses for, for example, a repeat of the Great
Kanto, Tokyo earthquake, with losses estimated at \$1 trillion.

But now the National Academy has come out with a comprehensive and
rigorous study on the economic benefit of seismic monitoring. This study
shows that estimated benefits from seismic monitoring may be ten times
costs. It concludes that in just one benefit area, performance-based
engineering, dollar estimates for benefits are estimated at \$142
million annually --about three times the cost of operating the full
ANSS. It concludes that improved seismic monitoring can significantly
increase the accuracy of tsunami warnings and reduce the risk of missed
warnings or costly false alarms. And it asserts that the U.S. should
rank seismic risk reduction as highly as other critical national
programs, should track the growth of risk nationally, and should make
the necessary long-term investments to reduce it.

This analysis is highly supportive of global observations in the
Societal Benefit area of Loss Reduction, as it implies that national
investments in monitoring and reporting systems are cost effective, and
demonstrates it for seismic systems.

**Slide 13**

**Natural Hazards Science -- A Matter of Worldwide Public Safety**

The organizers have offered seismic networks as an example ---a "test
case" if you will--- of a system that meets GEOSS criteria, that
provides an example of an end-to-end implementation supporting loss
reduction, and that has been put forward (in the case of the GSN) by the
U.S. for inclusion in GEOSS.

For all in-situ observation systems supported by USGS, the monitoring
system is supported by research. The data are open and available without
restriction.

On behalf of USGS, I thank you for coming to the workshop, and I thank
our co-sponsors for supporting the workshop. It is a very impressive
group assembled here, and an exciting agenda ahead. Thank you for your
attention.