Prepared in cooperation with the Earth Observations Task Group of the Subcommittee for 

Disaster Reduction 

Reducing Loss of Life and Property from Disasters: A 

Societal Benefit Area of the Strategic Plan for U.S. 

Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) 

By Rosalind L. Helz and John E. Gaynor 

Open-File Report 2007–1147 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Department of the Interior 
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2007 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Helz, R. L. and Gaynor, J. E., 2007, Reducing Loss of Life and Property from Disasters: A Societal Benefit 

Area of the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) :Reston VA, US 

Geological Survey, OFR 2007-1147, 67 pp. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

ii
Contents 

Foreword ..............................................................................................................................................................................5

Members of the Earth Observations Task Group and other contributors............................................................6

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................7

Southern California Wildfires of 2003: A Complex Natural Disaster .................................................................9

Denali Earthquake in Alaska: Successful Mitigation of a Major Event ............................................................9

Users and User Requirements .........................................................................................................................................9

End users......................................................................................................................................................................9

Scientists in monitoring and advisory agencies .................................................................................................10

Research scientists ..................................................................................................................................................10

Existing Capabilities and Commonalities......................................................................................................................13

Commonalities across the Hazards...........................................................................................................................16

Major Gaps and Challenges ...........................................................................................................................................19

Future Earth Observation Systems that May Fill Gaps ..............................................................................................24

Interagency and International Partnerships ...............................................................................................................25

U.S. Capacity-Building Needs........................................................................................................................................26

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................27 

References.......................................................................................................................................................................278 

APPENDIX 1. USER REQUIREMENTS for INFORMATION on INDIVIDUAL HAZARDS ......................................32

APPENDIX 2. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for INDIVIDUAL HAZARDS ...............................................................44

APPENDIX 3. GLOSSARY of ACRONYMS and NAMES..............................................................................................64

Tables 

Table 1. RECENT MAJOR U.S. EVENTS FOR EACH TYPE OF HAZARD ...................................................................8

Table 2. PRODUCTS REQUIRED BY END USERS .......................................................................................................10

Table 3. CROSSWALK FOR REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS .........................................................................................17

Table 4. CROSSWALK FOR GAPS IN OBSERVATIONS.............................................................................................21

Conversion Factors 

SI to Inch/Pound 

Multiply By To obtain 

Length 

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area 

square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre 

iii
Inch/Pound to SI 

Multiply By To obtain 

Length 

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) 

yard (yd) 0.9144 meter (m) 

Area 

acre 4,047 square meter (m2) 

iv
Foreword 

On July 31, 2003, representatives of more than thirty nations met in Washington, D.C. at the 

first Earth Observation Summit, to begin work on a proposal for improving global Earth 

observations. This effort culminated in 2005 with the adoption and publication of two reports (GEO, 

2005a; 2005b). The U.S. component of this global effort, the Interagency Working Group on Earth 

Observations (IWGEO), now the U. S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO) was established in 

August 2003 under the Committee for Environmental and Natural Resources (CENR) of the White 

House National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The NSTC Subcommittee for Disaster 

Reduction (SDR) subsequently set up a task group to assist the IWGEO by identifying U.S. 

capabilities and needs in the area of observing and predicting hazards and disasters. 

This report documents the work of the Earth Observation Task Group (EOTG) of the SDR. 

This report and the tables that accompany it have served as the basis for those sections in both the 

U.S. national plan (CENR/IWGEO, 2005) and the international GEO plan (GEO, 2005b) that cover 

the area of hazards and disasters. 

The EOTG began its work in the fall of 2003, first by establishing which hazards to cover and 

then by providing detailed lists of the critical observations known at present to be needed to deal 

effectively with the selected hazards. The group also identified the most critical users and their 

needs, to ensure effective disaster reduction, identified the users and their needs. All of these data 

were summarized in tabular form and are presented here in Appendices 1 and 2. 

By early 2004, the U.S. Global Earth Observations team had formulated an outline for the 

U.S. national plan, which presented the need for improved observations in terms of nine “Societal 

Benefit” areas. The first draft of the present report was written in spring of 2004, following the 

outline specified for all nine Societal Benefit areas. The draft Societal Benefit documents were 

presented and discussed at a public workshop sponsored by the IWGEO, which was held in June 

2004 at the U.S. Geological Survey, in Reston, VA. In July 2004, a second draft was prepared, 

incorporating suggestions received at the June workshop, and the revised document was submitted on 

behalf of the SDR to the IWGEO. That second draft, along with the Technical Reference 

Documents for other Societal Benefit areas, was cleared by CENR and posted on the Federal Register 

from Nov 8-30, 2004, again for public comment. 

The U.S. strategic plan for integrated earth observations was published in April 2005 

(CENR/IWGEO, 2005); the Disasters component of that document is based on this Technical 

Reference Document. After release of the strategic plan, the IWGEO held another public workshop 

(May 9-10, 2005, at the Reagan Building in Washington, D.C.) to obtain comments on that 

document, on the various Technical Reference Documents, and to seek general input on how 

implementation of the IEOS might proceed. The current version of the Technical Reference 

Document uses the second draft (posted on the Federal Register Web site) as a point of departure. It 

incorporates as many of the comments received at the May 2005 workshop as possible, and includes 

references to the various GEO documents that had been published by the May 2005 workshop, or 

have come out of that workshop, specifically the recently released near-term opportunity plan for 

disaster reduction (CENR/USGEO, 2006). Most importantly, and in response to consistent requests 

from technical experts at both the June 2004 and May 2005 workshops, this version includes all of 

the source tables assembled by the EOTG, and thus gives a full accounting of the EOTG’s work. 
The text below provides an overview of agencies responsible for the various hazards, and the 

Observational Requirements tables give fairly complete consensus summaries of what the 

participating experts regard as essential observations for the eleven hazards covered. However, 

neither provides an inventory of current existing observing systems. Such an inventory is urgently 

needed, particularly for the many surface-based networks that form the backbone of our national 

observing capacity. The need for that inventory, and the need for a plan to improve those systems, is 

identified in the IEOS plan (CENR/IWGEO, 2005, p. 90) and in the report below as a particularly 

urgent next step as we move toward implementation of the IEOS. 

Members of the Earth Observations Task Group and other contributors 

Members of the Earth Observation Task Group and other contributors to this report are listed 

below. They are identified by the agency they represent, and by specific area of expertise. 

Mike Blanpied (USGS) – Earthquakes 

Andy Bruzewicz (USACE) 

Susan Conard (USFS) -- Wildfires 

Margaret Davidson (NOAA) – Coastal Hazards 

Craig Dobson (NASA) – SAR applications 

Rainer Dombrowsky (NOAA) -- Floods 

Gary Ellrod (NOAA) – Volcanic Ash 

John Ewert (USGS) -- Volcanoes 

John Filson (USGS) -- Earthquakes 

John Gaynor (NOAA) – Extreme Weather, Tropical Cyclones 

Tom Graziano (NOAA) -- Floods 

David Green (NOAA) 

Paul Greenfield (USFS) -- Wildfires 

Ingrid Guch (NOAA) – Space Weather 

Rosalind Helz (USGS) – Volcanoes 

Mark Koehn (NOAA) -- Tsunami 

John LaBrecque (NASA) -- SAR applications 

Bill Leith (USGS) -- Earthquakes 

Levin Lauritsen (NOAA) – Sea Ice 

John Lyon (EPA) – Pollution Events 

Nathalie Valette-Silver (NOAA) 

Rodney Viereck (NOAA) – Space Weather 

Kirk Waters (NOAA) – Coastal Hazards 

Pai-Yei Whung (NOAA) -- Extreme Weather, Tropical Cyclones 

Gerald Wieczorek (USGS) -- Landslides 

David Williams (EPA) – Pollution Events 

6 
Reducing Loss of Life and Property from Disasters: 

A Societal Benefit Area of the Strategic Plan for U.S. 

Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) 

By Rosalind L. Helz and John Gaynor 

Introduction 

Natural and technological disasters, such as hurricanes and other extreme weather events, 

earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides and debris flows, wildland and urban-interface fires, 

floods, oil spills, and space-weather storms, impose a significant burden on society. Throughout the 

United States, disasters inflict many injuries and deaths, and cost the nation $20 billion each year 

(SDR, 2003). Disasters in other countries can affect U.S. assets and interests overseas (e.g. the 

eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines, which effectively destroyed Clark Air Force Base). Also, 

because they have a disproportionate impact on developing countries, disasters are major barriers to 

sustainable development. Improving our ability to assess, predict, monitor, and respond to hazardous 

events is a key factor in reducing the occurrence and severity of disasters, and relies heavily on the 

use of information from well-designed and integrated Earth observation systems. To fully realize the 

benefits gained from the observation systems, the information derived must be disseminated through 

effective warning systems and networks, with products tailored to the needs of the end users and the 

general public. 

The pattern of disaster impact within the United States is illustrated in Table 1, which gives a 

single, substantial example for each class of hazard reviewed in this report. Loss of life is generally 

low, even for very large events, a testimony to the effectiveness of disaster management systems 

already in place in this country, but the economic costs are staggering. One recent exception was 

Hurricane Katrina, where over 1300 people lost their lives in New Orleans alone. Some hazards (e. 

g., large earthquakes, volcanic eruptions) are not annual events, but are devastating when they do 

occur. For other, more frequently occurring hazards, even when individual events are small, their 

total costs per year are high. Examples include floods (averaging 80 deaths per year, with costs of 

$5.2 billion, NOAA, 2004) and landslides (deaths 25-50 annually, with costs of $2 billion, USGS, 

2003a). 

The total impact on the United States from all hazards is difficult to determine, because no 

centralized or consistent means of accounting for costs exists. This problem is compounded by the 

fact that for certain hazards, such as landslides and coastal hazards, the costs are usually merged into 

the total cost compiled for some other event (such as a hurricane or earthquake). In addition, one 

disaster may breed another (e.g., when disease outbreaks follow floods) and the costs of the aftermath 

events may either not be tallied, or not attributed to the primary event. The costs of loss of life and 

property, of response and recovery, and of social or commercial disruption are conservatively 

estimated to average $20 billion a year (SDR, 2003). In addition to improved monitoring and 

7 
forecasting, the United States needs to develop and implement more effective mitigation practices, to 

reduce our vulnerability to these events (BOND, 1999). 

One specific societal benefit area of vigilant monitoring and good forecasting is the ability to 

ensure safe transport, of all sorts and at all scales, including private and commercial automotive 

traffic, railroads, passenger and freight air traffic, recreational boating and ships at sea (DOT, 2003). 

Most of the hazards considered below (extreme weather and hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic ash, 

landslides, wildland fires, floods, coastal hazards and sea ice) endanger safe transport. Another 

economic and social benefit is the ability to ensure continuity and safe operation of critical 

infrastructure, which include not just transportation facilities, such as roads, rail lines, tunnels, port 

facilities and airport runways, but also pipelines, electric grids, dams and reservoirs, and underground 

mines. Relevant hazards in these cases include: earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, severe 

weather and hurricanes, sea ice, and space weather. Successful monitoring, timely warnings and 

effective mitigation practices cannot prevent hazards but can often prevent a hazardous event from 

becoming a major disaster. 

Table 1. RECENT MAJOR U.S. EVENTS FOR EACH TYPE OF HAZARD 

HAZARD TYPE EVENT IMPACT (Reference) 

Wildland fires Southern California fires, October 

2003 

24 deaths, 750,000 acres burned, cost over $2 

billion (CDFFP, 2004) 

Earthquake Northridge quake, 1994 67 deaths, $44 billion (BOND, 1999) 

Volcanic eruption Mt. St. Helens eruption, 1980 57 deaths, $1 billion (1980 dollars, Blong, 1984) 

Landslides/debris flows Thistle landslide, 1983 No deaths but buried a town, $400 million 

(USGS, 2003a) 

Floods Mid-continent (Mississippi, 

Missouri River) floods, 1993 

44 deaths, $24 billion (Lott, 2000) 

Extreme weather Oklahoma City tornadoes, 1999 40 deaths, $1.6 billion (NOAA/NWS, 2004a) 

Tropical cyclones Hurricane Katrina, 2005 1,353 lives, $40.6 billion insured losses in 

Mississippi and Louisiana (NOAA/NWS, 2005) 

Sea and lake ice Magdalena Oldendorf trapped in 

Antarctic sea ice, 2002 

No deaths, but costs of rescue, support for 

wintering over, spring egress were several 

million dollars 

Coastal hazards (incl. 

tsunami) 

Beach replenishment following 

storms 

No deaths, $3 billion to replenish 33 miles of 

New Jersey coastline (Heinz, 2000) 

Pollution events Exxon Valdez oil spill, 1989 No human deaths, cost for ship repairs, loss of 

cargo $28 million; clean-up costs, 

reimbursements to Federal, State and local 

governments $11.2 billion so far; recreational 

fishing losses $580 million; environmental 

impact is ongoing 

Space weather January 6, 1997 storm Destroyed AT&T Telstar satellite (cost $200 

million) 

In reviewing how best to enhance the nation’s use of earth observations, this report identifies 

critical users of hazards information, reviews the observations needed, identifies how those needs are 

met now, identifies gaps in the presently deployed systems, and makes suggestions on how to fill 

8 
those gaps over the next 10 years. But first we examine two events: one that illustrates the 

difficulties involved, and the other, a success story. 

Southern California Wildfires of 2003: A Complex Natural Disaster 

The intense and widespread wildfires that raged near Los Angeles and San Diego were widely 

foreseen but virtually unpreventable. Previous wet seasons had created tremendous fuel loads. The 

fall of 2003 was very hot, with strong Santa Ana winds, which made some level of wildfire activity 

inevitable. Individual fires, started by lightning, human error, or arson, spread into towns and 

subdivisions and whipped through chaparral, forest and grasslands. Damage estimates and 

firefighting costs came to at least $2 billion, and 24 people lost their lives (CDFFP, 2004). The 

resulting smoke was unusually hazardous because of anthropogenic components (3710 houses, plus 

additional structures, garages, and vehicles) consumed by the fires. The fires burned 750,000 acres of 

forest and scrub, much of it on very steep terrain, leaving the area vulnerable to severe erosion, with 

authorities warning that there was a high probability for debris flow generation. Torrential rainstorms 

on Christmas Day produced the anticipated debris flows, which killed 16 people, as reported in the 

San Bernardino County Sun-News. This series of events illustrates vividly how one disaster can 

breed another, and how “natural” disasters may have significant anthropogenic components, either as 

causes or as effects. 

Denali Earthquake in Alaska: Successful Mitigation of a Major Event

The Denali Earthquake of November 3, 2002, in central Alaska, caused surface ruptures for a 

distance of 209 miles along the Denali Fault, which passes beneath the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. 

The pipeline carries 17 percent of the nation’s domestic oil supply, with a daily value of over $25 

million; thus continuity of its operation is vital to the economy of Alaska and significant for the 

country as a whole. This event, the largest onshore quake in the historical record for the United 

States, did not break the pipeline, thanks to elaborate engineering requirements based on geologic 

studies of the fault. The pipeline was designed to accommodate a magnitude 8.0 quake with 20 feet of 

horizontal and 5 feet of vertical displacement. The actual event was a magnitude 7.9 quake, with 14 

feet of horizontal and 2.5 feet of vertical displacement where the pipeline crossed the fault. These 

successful mitigation measures forestalled a major economic and ecological disaster on the scale of 

the Exxon Valdez disaster (USGS, 2003b). 

Users and User Requirements 

Society as a whole will benefit from improved hazard monitoring and disaster management. 

To assess the efficacy of existing systems and identify gaps and future needs, however, we first must 

understand who the critical users are, and identify their needs. In the context of disaster management, 

these groups are: 

End users 

These users are the authorities with responsibility for disaster management and/or mitigation. 

This category includes elected officials, Federal, State and local emergency managers, first 

responders (such as police, firefighters, other emergency response personnel), public health officials, 

land-use planners, insurance companies, engineers, building-code developers, and managers of 

critical private-sector facilities. End users usually need derived information, including decision 

support systems, rather than actual Earth observation (EO) data, with typical products summarized in 

9 
Table 2 below, and in Appendix 1. A partial exception here is the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA, 1999), which, because of its mitigation responsibilities, needs baseline and 

monitoring data as input for flood hazard maps and the various modules of the risk assessment 

program Hazards-U.S. (HAZUS). 

Scientists in monitoring and advisory agencies 

These users are scientists, typically those on the staff of geological surveys, plus weather, 

ocean and space agencies. They collect earth observation data, design and maintain the observing 

systems, and interpret the results. These users analyze and interpret continuous data streams, 

delivering information, evaluations, forecasts and results of decision support systems to the end users, 

often in near real time, in support of their decisions. The information needs of this class of users are 

listed in the tables in Appendix 1. The observational requirements summarized in Appendix 2, 

whether for baseline information or monitoring data, are based primarily on the needs of this group, 

to support their communications with the end users and with the public. 

Research scientists 

These users are scientists whose research is directed toward improving our understanding of 

the physical or chemical hazards considered here, toward mitigating their effects, or toward 

improving our capacity to forecast events. Researchers do not normally operate under the time 

constraints of the first group of scientists, nor do they have responsibility for communicating with 

public officials and emergency managers. However their role is critical and their requirements will 

often shape the development of future Earth observation systems, and so are reflected in the tables in 

Appendices 1 and 2. 

Table 2 summarizes the major information requirements of the first of these classes of users. 

Satisfying their needs is the key to effective disaster response and mitigation. 

Table 2. PRODUCTS REQUIRED BY END USERS 

Hazard 

Information/ products needed for crisis response 

(during and after) 

Information/ products needed for hazard 

mitigation (between) 

Wildland and 

urban- interface 

fires 

For initial attack/extended attack: rapid access to 

geospatial data, including active fire front position, 

fire origin, fire fuels, spot fires, fire weather, 

emergency access routes, terrain, structures and 

other improvements in the area of the incident. 

Relative geolocational accuracy can be favored over 

absolute accuracy. 

For larger incidents (100+ acres): rapid access to the 

above plus smoke monitoring. Full suite of 

products need to be available at major shift change 

times (generally 0600 and 1800 hours local time). 

For post-fire burn recovery: geospatial data includes 

extent and characterization of vegetation burn 

severity, soils observations, and all structures and 

other improvements in the affected area. 

Timely alerts and updates to government officials, 

affected population, and media on fire location and 

status, effects on roads, possible evacuation routes 

Information on vegetation health, vegetation 

fire fuels, fuel moisture, fire history, 

structures and other infrastructure adjacent 

to wildland areas, atmospheric transport of 

smoke, and access routes. 

Needed for planning prescribed burns, 

anticipating future fire activity, land use 

policy and planning in or near wildland 

areas. Often there is a need for greater 

information in wildland -- urban interface 

areas. 

10 
Hazard 

Information/ products needed for crisis response 

(during and after) 

Information/ products needed for hazard 

mitigation (between) 

Earthquakes Clear, authoritative information on the location and 

magnitude of the shock and the time frame (in days) 

of aftershocks. 

Timely updates and precise geolocation data are 

critical for activating shutdown of critical facilities 

(power plants, trains, etc.) 

Post-event maps (shake maps, damaged/affected 

areas, identification of safe areas) also needed. 

Hazard zonation maps: paper maps or GIS 

data bases showing areas of lower vs. higher 

intensity of ground motions. Maps for 

various secondary effects of seismic hazards 

(landslides, liquefaction, etc.) are also 

needed. . Data support land use planning, 

building standards regulations. 

Decision support tools for seismic risk 

assessment (e.g. FEMA’s HAZUS) 

Volcanoes, 

volcanic ash and 

aerosols

Clear, authoritative information on most likely 

course of the unrest/eruption, whether ash 

explosions may occur. 

Includes best estimates on when and what type of 

eruption, possible size, which areas or air routes 

will be affected and which will be safe. 

Timely updates and adequate geolocation data are 

critical. 

Need hazard zonation maps: paper maps or 

GIS data bases showing areas of lower vs. 

higher risk, for future eruptions. The maps 

for various major hazards (lava flows, 

lahars, ash fall, etc.) will be different. 

Data provide input for land use planning, 

ash response plans and community volcanic 

eruption response plans. 

Landslides Local, rapid mapping of affected areas, magnitude 

of instability, updated scenarios during ongoing 

instability, including known and expected locations 

of ground failure and runout, and impact analysis. 

Early warning of heightened risk, if rainfall 

intensity or duration exceed thresholds, for areas of 

known high hazard of landslides and debris flows, 

including burned areas 

Regularly updated susceptibility and hazard 

zonation maps for landslides, debris flows, 

rock falls, subsidence (at appropriate 

scales). 

Data support decisions on land use, siting of 

critical facilities. 

Floods Timely and accurate short through extended range 

forecasts and warnings which quantify certainty and 

convey risk (time, discharge, stage, area inundated) 

for both river and flash flood events. Includes 

accurate locations of areas, infrastructure (roads, 

bridges, etc.) affected. 

Ground surveys, aerial photos and interviews for 

damage assessments. 

Flood hazard zonation maps, accurate 

topographic base maps; updated maps of 

land use, showing land use changes; flood 

history of the area 

Decision support tools for flood risk 

assessment models such as the flood module 

in FEMA’s HAZUS program 

Extreme weather Timely and accurate forecasts (time, location, 

intensity and nature of severe weather). Accurate 

and comprehensive real-time data during the event 

(e.g. location of strong winds, heavy precipitation, 

hail and direction of propagation). 

Mapping, ground surveys, interviews, aerial photos 

for damage assessments. 

Historical data for the area (e.g. frequency 

of tornadoes, strong winds, heavy snows, 

hail) 

Needed for input to land use planning, 

building codes and standards, such as wind 

resistance, roof loading, materials resistant 

to hail, and tornado safe rooms. 

11 
Hazard 

Information/ products needed for crisis response 

(during and after) 

Information/ products needed for hazard 

mitigation (between) 

Tropical cyclones Timely and accurate landfall analyses in real time 

and forecasts (timing, location, intensity, outer wind 

radii, storm surge, sea state, rain quantity) 

Mapping, aerial photos for damage assessments. 

Models that show and permit analysis of behavior 

and impact of storms. 

Historical track and intensity information to 

generate hazard zonation maps. 

Data serve as the basis for appropriate land 

use policy in coastal areas, especially lowlying areas. 

Sea and lake ice Timely and accurate real time ice analyses and 

forecasts – short (days), medium (weeks), utilizing 

high-resolution imagery. Accurate geolocation of 

icebergs in shipping lanes. 

Charts showing ice extent in GIS and graphic 

format 

Seasonal ice analysis and forecasts (months, 

years) 

Charts showing ice extent, seasonal 

patterns. 

Coastal hazards, 

tsunami

Accurate information regarding potential storm 

surge or tsunami: includes time of arrival, duration 

of event (all clear signal); boundaries of inundation 

area; evacuation routes. 

Mapping, aerial photos for response, damage 

assessments 

Inundation hazard maps for emergency 

response and land use planning on highresolution DEM base maps, and showing 

critical infrastructure at risk. 

Regularly updated high-resolution shoreline 

maps and dune erosion rate maps needed for 

mitigation such as establishing setback lines 

Pollution events Clear, authoritative information on the location, 

compound(s) or chemical(s) released, magnitude of 

the technological release and the media in which the 

release occurred (air, land and/or water). 

Geolocation and other information to support public 

notifications. 

Timely updates are critical for activating shutdown 

of potentially affected facilities (water treatment 

plants, transportation networks, etc.) 

Post-event maps (release maps showing 

damaged/affected areas, identification of safe areas) 

Accurate topographic and geologic maps, 

especially maps of surficial geology; GIS 

mapping of land use and land use changes, 

Data serve as basis for land use policy, 

decisions on siting critical facilities or 

potentially hazardous but essential facilities 

Space weather Clear, authoritiative information on the timing and 

magnitude of solar X-ray flares, solar energetic 

particle events, and geomagnetic storms 

Timely updates are critical for commercial airlines 

flying polar routes, all satellite operators (civil, 

military, or commercial) and electrical power 

companies 

Post-event summaries to allow affected 

technologies and services to return to normal 

operating modes 

Real-time maps showing areas of the Earth 

affected by particles, X-ray photos and 

electrojet currents, for use in configuring 

systems and operations vulnerable to space 

weather. These include satellite, electronic 

navigation systems, and electric power 

grids. 

Complete records of past events so that 

planners and system designers know what 

they must design to in order to mitigate or 

minimize future storm impacts. 

Products needed by the end users fall into two broad categories, reflecting the two distinct 

time scales involved in dealing with hazards and disasters. First, they need rapid generation of 

12 
forecasts, assessments and other information products in response to events, whether before, during 

or in the aftermath. Table 2 articulates these needs for the 11 hazards reviewed here. In addition to 

the information products listed, there is a need for systematic accounting for casualties and costs. In 

the United States, this responsibility is dispersed: state and local governments usually provide data on 

deaths and injuries. Damage estimates may come from state and local governments, FEMA, or the 

private sector (insurance companies, utilities, etc.). 

Over the long term, however, mitigation measures provide the best means of reducing loss of 

life and property from disasters. Such efforts depend on the second category of products described in 

Table 2: namely hazard zonation maps, probabilistic hazard zonation maps, and GIS-based risk 

assessments such as FEMA’s HAZUS program. Producing such maps requires documentation of the 

historical and geologically recognizable record of hazard events, characterization of those events, and 

their integration with other data (topography, bathymetry, present status of the area, including 

vegetation cover, known long-term deformation, etc.). The products are a series of maps, or GIS 

layers, that display the past and potential hazard together with the human population and material 

infrastructure at risk. These studies usually require a broader range of research and modeling tools 

than are needed for rapid response to hazards. 

Effective disaster response and mitigation also require the production of a wide range of 

products (Web sites, pamphlets, fact sheets, videos) for public education and outreach. These 

products support longer-term planning and mitigation and help people to respond appropriately in 

emergencies. They may be distributed by federal agencies, state governments or other organizations 

such as the Red Cross, or in the case of web-based products, be accessed directly by the general 

public. 

Overarching requirements for all categories of users, across all hazards, are for (1) continuity 

of operations, (2) continuous, real-time data streams, (3) rapid tasking of other data sources, (4) 

global coordination of resources, (5) rapid generation of accurate information and forecasts, and (6) 

efficient sharing of information products, in formats that are adapted to users’ needs. 

Existing Capabilities and Commonalities 

The current required observations and generic descriptions of the means by which those 

observations are obtained are summarized in eleven tables in Appendix 2. Hazards covered include 

wildland fires, earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides, floods, extreme weather, tropical cyclones, 

sea and lake ice, coastal hazards, pollution events and space weather. These tables, which were put 

together by members of the Earth Observation Task Group, draw on user requirements for satellite 

data documented in the CEOS Disaster Management Support Group report (CEOS, 2002) for most of 

the hazards considered. Other sources include the Geohazards Integrated Global Observing Strategy 

(IGOS) report (ESA, 2004), and the many agency specific plans from NOAA, NASA, USGS, and 

others listed in the references. In the tables in Appendix 2, the left-hand column describes the 

required data or observations, and the next three columns identify how the requirement is met by (1) 

surface-based, or (2) airborne, or (3) satellite-based observing systems. The "Gaps" column allows 

present or anticipated deficiencies to be specified. The final "Comments” column adds information 

on why the information is needed, or how it is processed or disseminated, or how it relates to other 

required observations. 

It should be noted that some additional types of hazard are covered under other societal 

benefit areas in the Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) strategic plan (CENR/IWGEO, 

2005) and supporting documents. For example, drought and its effects are considered separately in 

13 
the technical report on sustainable agriculture, and most health-related issues are covered in the report 

on environmental factors affecting human health. 

Agency responsibility for the operation of the currently deployed observing systems is 

summarized below, beginning with the most mature efforts: 

Extreme Weather, Tropical Cyclones. The weather monitoring system is described in 

general in the Societal Benefit Reference Document on Weather and is the most mature hazard 

monitoring system in the United States. It includes large arrays of ground-based monitoring 

instruments, satellite systems specifically designed to support e.g. hurricane tracking, dedicated 

facilities (the National Hurricane Center, Storm Prediction Center) and dedicated communications 

networks, including NOAA weather radio and agreements with media outlets for weather warning 

dissemination. A unique feature of this area is that the economic and social benefits are strong 

enough to support systematic plans for future satellites (NPOESS, GOES-R). Satellite systems, 

ground-based remote sensors and most in situ systems operated by the U. S. National Weather 

Service (NWS) function in the same fashion, whether providing observations for benign or extreme 

weather. However, there are special observing strategies for some operational observing platforms 

when severe weather is imminent. For example, for hurricanes, and more recently for significant 

winter storms, NOAA and Air Force aircraft are deployed to collect data for real-time analysis, as 

input into operational hurricane or winter storm forecast models. For severe or potentially severe 

thunderstorms, capable of generating tornadoes, flash floods, hail or many lighting strikes, special 

Doppler radar modes are activated. In some cases, satellite tasking may be modified to provide higher 

temporal and spatial resolution, in support of better forecasts. (Multiple NOAA documents are listed 

in the references.) 

Flood hazards. Severe flooding occurs each year, and the patterns of many kinds of flooding 

events are fairly predictable. Hence the monitoring, evaluation, and forecasting of floods, such as 

those that occur near large rivers, whether caused by large storms or spring snow melt, are relatively 

mature, and depend on a combination of ground-based and remotely sensed data streams. Problem 

areas include inundation forecasting, especially in heavily developed areas, sufficiently rapid 

modeling and warnings for flash flooding, especially in small watersheds, and effective snow melt 

forecasting. (References include FEMA, 2003; NOAA, 2003; NOAA/NWS, 2002 and 2004a; USGS, 

1999b.) 

The solid earth hazards include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides and other types 

of ground instability. Critical monitoring of these hazards is mostly ground-based, but with 

increasing utilization of selected satellite capabilities, especially GPS, LiDAR, and interferometric 

SAR (InSAR) for deformation monitoring. U.S. Federal activities related to earthquakes are 

coordinated through the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), which is headed 

by NIST, working in partnership with the USGS, FEMA and NSF (WSSPC, 2003). The reporting of 

earthquakes is centralized at the USGS National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), which 

coordinates both national and regional networks. Archiving of seismic records (by the USGS and the 

Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology, or IRIS) is systematic and more mature than for 

most other kinds of solid earth hazard data. Monitoring volcanic activity, including volcanic ash and 

aerosols, requires a wide range of airborne or satellite support, as documented in many reports 

(CEOS, 2002; ESA, 2004). Monitoring of volcanic hazards is done at dedicated facilities, such as the 

five volcano observatories maintained by the USGS or the two Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (the 

Washington and Anchorage VAACs) maintained by NOAA. The monitoring needs of these hazards 

and the earth processes (e.g. plate tectonics) that control them are reviewed in many reports, 

including the report of NASA’s Solid Earth Sciences Working Group (SESWG) (NASA, 2002), the 

14 
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Report to Congress (USGS, 1999a), the National 

Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) report (USGS, 2005), national landslide strategy 

documents (USGS, 2003b; NRC, 2004), and EarthScope documents (EWG, 2001; NRC, 2001]. 

Wildland and urban-interface fires are extremely complex events, requiring weather 

information support (at various time scales and spatial resolutions), plus specialized infrared imagery, 

and very rapid response time for all aspects of fire response. Because of the range of latitudes and 

climates within the United States, there are few months of the year when the country is free of 

wildfires. Responsibility for responding to wildfires at the Federal level is borne jointly by the U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) and the land management agencies in the Department of the Interior (DOI). 

Fire response activities are coordinated through the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in 

Boise, Idaho. Fire research is conducted by the USFS, in cooperation with the USGS (especially the 

EROS Data Center and various projects within the Biological Resources Discipline). High- resolution 

satellite and airborne imagery support is barely adequate for wildfire response during a severe fire 

season, leaving little support for needed pre-fire studies to characterize the health and types of 

vegetation, and fuel loading. Such studies are essential to assess areas at highest risk of fire in the 

immediate future, to enable land management agencies and communities to determine where best to 

invest mitigation resources and to monitor reduction in fire hazard. (References include CEOS, 2002; 

USFS, 2002; WFLC, 2002; USGS, 1997) 

Coastal hazards, tsunami, and sea ice hazards. This varied set of hazards, with its 

meteorological, hydrological, geological and human-induced components, impacts our heavily 

developed and populated coast lines, and poses major threats to port facilities and to navigation. 

Because coastal areas fall in the transition zone between terrestrial and ocean processes, this class of 

hazards often falls in the cracks between existing programs and systems, and the costs associated 

with these hazards are not broken out cleanly (Heinz, 2000). Accurate forecasting of storm surge and 

coastal flooding depends on coordination between NOAA-NWS (e.g. hurricane landfall forecasts), 

the USGS (for stream flow information), and NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS), for tidal and 

wave height information. Tsunami forecasting involves coordination between the USGS (for seismic 

or other geological information) and NOAA, with the forecasts being issued by NOAA’s Tsunami 

Warning Centers. Cleanup after a storm involves FEMA, which includes flood insurance for flooding 

from coastal storms in its National Flood Insurance Program, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), which maintains and restores navigation channels. The National Ice Center (NIC), a joint 

activity of the U.S. Navy, NOAA, and the U.S. Coast Guard, provides operational ice analyses for sea 

and lake ice for the Great Lakes and U.S. coastlines. 

Pollution hazards. These include a very complex set of hazards, which may be triggered by 

other hazards events (such as an earthquake or flood), or be induced by human activity. Releases of 

chemicals, including crude petroleum, on land, into fresh-water systems, or into the atmosphere are 

dealt with by EPA [e. g., EPA, 2003]. Radiation hazards are the responsibility of DoE and EPA. 

Spills in the coastal zone or at sea are the responsibility of NOAA-NOS and the EPA. Monitoring 

often depends initially on direct reports of eyewitnesses, with a wide range of sensors and techniques 

coming into play, once an event is recognized. Oil spills can be tracked with satellite imagery, in 

particular with synthetic aperture radar imagery (Cunningham and others, 2003; Helz and others, 

2003). 

Space Weather Monitoring and other critical satellite support activities. Capabilities in this 

area include space-based and ground-based sensors that monitor solar and geomagnetic storms. These 

storms, of limited consequence to human society a century ago, can now cause major disruptions in 

satellite navigation, radio communication, satellites’ operations, and electric power grids. The 

15 
economic impact of a major geomagnetic storm on the electric utility industries can be equivalent to 

that of a major hurricane. 

Another vital set of networks are the global geodetic reference networks, supported by 

NASA. These ground-based networks monitor the Earth’s reference frame and track the orbits of 

satellites within that frame. These reference networks, by defining the precise orbits of the GPS 

satellite constellation, permit the use of GPS for precise geolocation for all applications, which range 

from precise determination of topography (whether for ice, land or ocean surfaces), to monitoring of 

plate motions and deformation associated with the geohazards, to facilitating search and rescue 

operations. Needs for rapid and accurate geolocation, whether for tracking the hazard or for 

humanitarian response, are identified where appropriate in Table 2 and in Appendix 1. 

There are many other hazards, not formally documented here, such as avalanches and fog, 

which are not well- monitored or consistently reported, but which may nevertheless cause significant 

casualties and expense (Mileti, 1999). In addition, there are other ramifications of these hazards, such 

as disease outbreaks following floods, or the ecological impacts of wildfires, that are covered in other 

societal benefit sections of the IEOS strategic plan and supporting documents. 

Commonalities across the Hazards 

Many of the data and observational needs described in the individual hazards tables are 

common to more than one hazard, as summarized in Table 3. A blank in Table 3 means that there is 

no requirement for the individual observation for that hazard. In constructing this crosswalk table, 

the list of individual observational requirements has been condensed from 107 to 37. Some lumping 

of observational requirements was inevitable, but the data or requirement descriptions in the left-hand 

column have been expanded to clarify what is covered for each. In addition, the first eight data 

requirements in Table 3 spell out what baseline data are needed for disaster management, in more 

detail than in most of the individual hazards tables. 

Inspection of Table 3 shows the expected extensive overlap among the weather or weatherdriven hazards. There is a similar level of overlap among the solid earth hazards, and in certain areas, 

among floods, sea ice and coastal hazards. However there are other significant commonalities that 

may be less widely appreciated: wildland fires, volcanoes and some pollution events have overlaps 

for thermal signals, gas emissions, smoke and aerosols, and sediment and other discharges into water. 

Seven of the individual hazards listed require information on soil moisture. 

Finally, Table 3 shows extensive commonality between the observational needs for pollution 

events, such as oil spills, and those for the natural hazards. These commonalities, combined with 

experience showing that many large natural disasters (especially wildland fires, earthquakes and 

floods) result in significant pollution as part of the event, illustrate the validity and importance of 

treating pollution events as part of the continuum of physical and chemical disasters. 

16 
Table 3. CROSSWALK FOR REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS 

(X = requirement for the particular hazard; blank =no requirement) 

Hazard 

Wildland Fire 

Earthquakes 

Volcanoes 

Volcanic ash 

and aerosols 

Landslides 

Floods 

Extreme weather 

Tropical cyclones 

Sea and Lake Ice 

Coastal hazards, 

tsunami 

Pollution events (oil 

spills, etc.) 

Digital topography – 

broad, regional 

X X X X X X X X X 

Digital topography– 

detailed or highresolution 

X X X X X X X X X X 

Maps (terrain, water 

features, geographic 

names) 

X X X X X X X X X X 

Location of 

infrastructure, 

transportation routes 

X X X X X X X X X X 

Exposure: structure 

inventory, engineering 

properties, response to 

hazards 

X X X X X X X X X X 

Detailed bedrock 

geologic mapping, age 

dating 

X X X 

Detailed mapping, 

dating of surficial 

deposits, including fill, 

dumps, paleohydrology 

X X X X X X X 

Document/ assess 

effects and area 

affected during and 

after event 

X X X X X X X X X X 

Seismicity, seismic 

monitoring 

X X X X 

Strong ground shaking, 

ground failure, 

liquefaction effects 

X X X 

Deformation 

monitoring, 3-D, over 

broad areas 

X X X X 

Strain and creep 

monitoring, specific 

features or structures 

X X X 

17 
Hazard 

Wildland Fire 

Earthquakes 

Volcanoes 

Volcanic ash 

and aerosols 

Landslides 

Floods 

Extreme weather 

Tropical cyclones 

Sea and Lake Ice 

Coastal hazards, 

tsunami 

Pollution events (oil 

spills, etc.) 

High-resolution 

measurements of 

gravity, magnetic and 

electrical fields 

X X 

Physical properties of 

earth materials 

(surface and 

subsurface) 

X X X X 

Characterize regional 

thermal emissions, flux 

– all time scales 

X X X 

Detect and characterize 

local thermal features 

at varying time scales 

X X X 

Characterize gas 

emissions by species 

and flux 

X X X 

Detect and monitor 

smoke or ash clouds, 

acid and other aerosols 

X X X 

Water chemistry, 

natural and 

contaminated 

X X X X X 

Detect and monitor 

sediment, discharges 

(oil, etc.) into water 

X X X X X X 

Water levels 

(groundwater) and pore 

pressure 

X X X 

Stream flow: stage, 

discharge and volume 

X X X X X X X 

Inundation area (floods, 

storm surge, tsunami) 

X X X X X X 

Soil moisture X X X X X X X 

Precipitation X X X X X X X X 

Characterize snow 

cover or ice cover: 

area, concentration, 

thickness, water 

content 

X X X X 

Observe snow melt, ice 

break up, ice jams 

X X X X 

18 
Hazard 

Wildland Fire 

Earthquakes 

Volcanoes 

Volcanic ash 

and aerosols 

Landslides 

Floods 

Extreme weather 

Tropical cyclones 

Sea and Lake Ice 

Coastal hazards, 

tsunami 

Pollution events (oil 

spills, etc.) 

Navigational hazards or 

obstructions, including 

ice 

X X 

Waves, heights and 

patterns (ocean, large 

lakes), currents 

X X X X X 

Tides/ coastal water 

levels 

X X X X X X 

Wind velocity and 

direction, wind profile 

X X X X X X X 

Atmospheric 

temperature, profile 

X X X X 

Surface and nearsurface temperature 

(ground, ice and ocean) 

X X X X X X X 

Airmass differences 

and boundaries 

X X 

Moisture content of 

atmosphere 

X X X X 

Vegetation -- highresolution X X X 

Fuel characteristics: 

structure, load, 

moisture content 

X 

Table 3 does not include the required observations for Space Weather, because they do not 

crosswalk with other categories of data, as can be seen by comparing the Space Weather table with 

others in Appendix 2. However, as societies around the world become more dependent on continuity 

of operation of satellites and large electric grids, and thus more vulnerable to space weather storms, it 

is imperative that these monitoring capabilities be maintained and improved (NOAA/OAR, 2003; 

NSWP, 2000). 

Major Gaps and Challenges 

There are still many significant gaps, in instrumentation, temporal and spatial coverage, 

baseline data and models, communications networks, and decision support tools. These have been 

identified in many reports (SDR, 2003, all reports previously cited). In addition, some existing 

capabilities are degrading, or will be lost within 10 years. The gaps identified in the individual 

hazards tables in Appendix 2, which mostly identify gaps in instrumentation, are summarized in 

Table 4 with the individual gaps identified. For the most part, the authors of the individual hazards 

tables specified gaps only where the gap is important for that hazard. Sometimes a requirement exists 

19 
for a particular type of observation, but no gap was identified in the corresponding table in Appendix 

2. This situation, indicated by a dash in Table 4, should not be interpreted to mean that our ability to 

observe that variable for the particular hazard is adequate. 

Examination of Table 4 shows that high-resolution digital topography emerges as a key unmet 

need for seven of the 10 hazards considered, with detailed mapping of surficial deposits (including 

landfill and dumps) also widely lacking. In some cases the need for better topography may be met 

with satellite data, but in areas of low relief, extensive LIDAR or airborne SAR support is needed. 

In general, big ground-based networks have consistently been identified as either not 

extensive enough, or too sparse, or in danger of serious deterioration over the next 10 years. This is 

true for seismic and deformation (GPS) networks as well as weather monitoring systems, stream 

gages, and coastal and ocean buoy systems. Undersea seismometers and tsunami detecting buoys in 

particular are lacking, both for the United States and globally (SDR, 2005b, c), although the recent 

(December 2005) tsunami in Indonesia has stimulated progress in this area. 

Airborne infrared capability, for wildland fires, volcano monitoring, or some technological 

disaster, is cited as inadequate, as is moderate-resolution satellite infrared imagery. The inadequacy 

of Landsat 7 data, in its current impaired state, and the present lack of sponsorship for a follow-on 

ASTER sensor are of concern as well. 

The most widely cited inadequacy in satellite data is for increased access to synthetic aperture 

radar (SAR) data. Table 4 shows SAR or interferometric SAR (InSAR) as sparse or lacking for all the 

geohazards, floods, wind hazards, sea ice, coastal hazards and pollution events. Because of its allweather, day-night imaging capability, SAR offers support to a very wide range of disasters, 

including near-real time inundation patterns during floods, or assessing coastal wind patterns 

(Cunningham and others, 2003; Helz and others, 2003). A related gap in satellite capability is the 

absence of a passive microwave sensor for determining soil moisture. Lastly, the detection of 

anthropogenic contaminants in the atmosphere or in plumes will require expanded hyperspectral 

capability, either airborne or possibly satellite-based. 

Although not separately represented in Table 4, both the global geodetic networks and the 

satellite and ground-based systems that monitor solar and geomagnetic storms provide essential 

support to the world’s constellation of satellites as a whole, whether those satellites are owned by the 

government or the private sector. These are essential activities that must be continued, if the United 

States is to continue or expand its dependence on satellite-based information. 

Beyond the gaps in instrumentation emphasized in Table 4, the reduction of loss of life and 

property to extreme weather events requires timely (three to six hour forecasts, if there is skill in 

predicting the event), reliable and specific information. In many cases, the time resolution of 

observations is inadequate to support such forecast requirements. In addition, better forecasts require 

regional solutions, which may be difficult to achieve with models that can deal with the global scale. 

Finally, there are different observing requirements in different regions, due to terrain differences or 

whether a location is coastal or inland. 

20 
Table 4. CROSSWALK FOR GAPS IN OBSERVATIONS 

(Dash = requirement, no gap identified; G= gap in ground-based systems, 

A= gap in airborne coverage, S= gap in satellite systems, L = gap in lab data) 

Hazard 

Wildland Fire 

Earthquakes 

Volcanoes 

Volcanic ash 

and aerosols 

Landslides 

Floods 

Extreme weather 

Tropical cyclones 

Sea and Lake Ice 

Coastal hazards, 

tsunami 

Pollution events (oil 

spills, etc.) 

Digital topography 

(broad, regional) 

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

Digital topography– 

detailed or high-resolution 

gap in S, 

processing

gap in S, 

processing

gap in S, 

processing

gaps in 

G, S, 

processing

gaps in 

A, S, 

need 

updates

-- -- gaps in 

A, S-- 

annual 

updates

gap in A, S, 

processing, 

G for 

bathymetry

--

Maps (terrain, water 

features, geographic 

names) 

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

Location of infrastructure, 

transportation routes 

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

Exposure: structure 

inventory, engineering 

properties, response to 

hazards 

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

Detailed bedrock geologic 

mapping, age dating 

gap in G gaps in 

G, S

--

Detailed mapping, dating 

of surficial deposits, 

including fill, dumps, 

paleohydrology 

gap in G gaps in 

G, S

gap in G -- gaps in 

A, S -- 

annual 

updates

-- gap in G

Document/ assess effects 

and area affected during 

and after event 

gaps in A, 

S (Landsat)

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

Seismicity, seismic 

monitoring 

gap in G gap in G -- --

Strong ground shaking, 

ground failure, 

liquefaction effects 

gap in G -- --

Deformation monitoring 

(3-D) over broad areas 

gaps in G, S 

= InSAR

gaps in G, 

S = 

InSAR

-- gap in S = 

InSAR

Strain and creep 

monitoring, specific 

features, structures 

gap in G, S 

= InSAR

-- gaps in G, 

S = 

InSAR

High-resolution 

measurements of gravity, 

magnetic and electrical 

fields 

-- --

Physical properties of 

earth materials (surface 

and subsurface) 

gaps in G, 

L

-- gaps in G, 

L 

--

21 
Hazard 

Wildland Fire 

Earthquakes 

Volcanoes 

Volcanic ash 

and aerosols 

Landslides 

Floods 

Extreme weather 

Tropical cyclones 

Sea and Lake Ice 

Coastal hazards, 

tsunami 

Pollution events (oil 

spills, etc.) 

Characterize regional 

thermal emissions, flux at 

all time scales 

gap in S= 

3.96 micron 

band

-- --

Detect and characterize 

local thermal features at 

varying time scales 

gaps in A, 

S=3.96 

micron 

band

gaps in A, 

S = 

ASTER

gap in 

S=3.96 

micron 

band

Characterize gas emissions 

by species and flux 

-- gaps in G, 

S, CO2, 

SO2 

monitors

gap in S 

little 

hyperspectral

Detect and monitor smoke 

or ash clouds, acid and 

other aerosols 

gap in S gap in S 

if split 

window in 

thermal IR 

absent

--

Water chemistry, natural 

and contaminated 

-- -- -- -- --

Detect and monitor 

sediment, discharges (oil, 

etc.) into water 

-- -- -- -- gap in S, 

esp . 

SAR

Water levels 

(groundwater) and pore 

pressure 

-- -- --

Stream flow: stage, 

discharge and volume 

-- -- gap in G gap in G gap in 

G

-- --

Inundation area (floods, 

storm surge, tsunami) 

-- gap in S 

SAR and 

InSAR

-- -- gap in S 

SAR and 

InSAR

gap in S 

SAR and 

InSAR

Soil moisture -- -- gap in A 

,S 

passive 

microwave

gap in G, 

S 

passive 

microwave

gap in G, S 

passive 

microwave 

gap in 

G, S 

passive 

microwave 

--

Precipitation -- -- gaps in G, 

S

gaps in 

G, S

gap in G gap in 

G

-- --

Characterize snow cover 

or ice cover: area, 

concentration, thickness, 

water content 

-- gap in G gap (?) gaps in 

A,S, esp. 

SAR

Observe snow melt, ice 

break up, ice jams 

gap in G -- gaps in 

A, S, 

esp. 

SAR

--

Navigational hazards or 

obstructions, including ice 

gaps in 

G, S, 

esp. 

SAR

--

Waves, heights and 

patterns (ocean, large 

lakes), currents 

-- gap in 

G 

(buoys)

gap in G 

(buoys)

gap in G 

(buoys)

--

22 
Hazard 

Wildland Fire 

Earthquakes 

Volcanoes 

Volcanic ash 

and aerosols 

Landslides 

Floods 

Extreme weather 

Tropical cyclones 

Sea and Lake Ice 

Coastal hazards, 

tsunami 

Pollution events (oil 

spills, etc.) 

Tides/ coastal water levels -- -- -- -- -- --

Wind velocity and 

direction, wind profile 

-- -- gap in G gap s in 

A, S, 

esp. 

SAR

gaps in 

G 

(buoys) 

S (SAR)

gaps in 

G (buoys) 

S (SAR)

--

Atmospheric temperature, 

profile 

-- gaps in G, S 

(microwave 

profilers)

gaps in 

A, S

--

Surface and near-surface 

temperature (ground, ice, 

ocean) 

-- -- -- gap in G -- -- gap in G 

(buoys)

Airmass differences and 

boundaries 

-- gap in G= 

Doppler 

radar

Moisture content of 

atmosphere 

-- -- gap in G gaps in 

G, A, S

Vegetation -- highresolution gap in S = 

Landsat

-- gap in S 

= 

Landsat

Fuel characteristics: 

structure, load, moisture 

content 

gap in S = 

Landsat, 

InSAR

Our ability to issue forecasts for wildland fire or for the solid earth hazards lags behind our 

success in forecasting the weather. It is possible to identify areas of high hazard, and sometimes (for 

fires, volcanic activity, landslides, or tsunami) to issue statements of higher probability of an 

impending event. But hazard forecasting (which implies the ability to give reasonably accurate 

information on the time, place and size of such events) remains a major challenge for most of these 

hazards. 

Modeling is another area that poses significant challenges. In the domain of predictive hazard 

models, for hazardous weather or any other hazard, it is imperative, as we seek to optimize 

operational models, that the research community work with the same model used in operations. The 

same is true of risk assessment models that seek to predict the impact of hazards on the built 

environment. A common modeling architecture, sometimes referred to as a community model, 

enhances the transition of new capabilities into the operational model. For regional weather, such a 

capability is emerging in the United States, through the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) 

model, but coordination between researchers and operations must be greatly enhanced. Predictive 

hazard models are in turn an essential component of predictive risk assessment models, such as 

FEMA’s GIS-based HAZUS loss estimation model. 

23 
Future Earth Observation Systems that May Fill Gaps 

Robust, modern national networks are essential for in situ monitoring, for example: seismic 

monitoring and notification (USGS, 1999a), deformation monitoring (EWG, 2001; ESA, 2004), 

volcano monitoring (USGS, 2005), stream gages (USGS, 1999b), and ocean buoys ( NOAA,NWS, 

2004b). In the wake of the Indian Ocean disaster, the U.S. government has focused on better tsunami 

detection systems for U.S. coastal areas as a priority (SDR, 2005c). Globally, existing monitoring 

networks (such as the global geodetic networks, Global Seismographic Network and International 

Monitoring System) provide both the communications infrastructure and distributed coverage needed 

to support enhanced Earth observation, improved disaster response and better international 

collaboration for multiple sensors. 

Two new satellite systems – the NPOESS (NOAA/NESDIS, 2003 and 2004a) and GOES-R 

(NOAA/NESDIS, 2004b) – will replace NOAA’s current polar and geostationary satellites in 2009 

and 2012, respectively. Both will provide improved technologies to support the detection and 

monitoring of severe weather, tropical cyclones, volcanic eruptions and ash clouds, and will provide 

data essential to support research on these events. Onboard instruments will have improved spatial 

and temporal resolution, and will include a wider range of spectral bands than current POES systems, 

although some bands currently available and used for fire detection will either be absent or too 

sensitive on the NPOESS equivalent for fire detection in daytime. In addition the GEO Lightning 

Mapper will monitor lightning in support of better extreme-weather assessment. 

Future weather-related solutions also include expansion of the commercial-aircraft 

Meteorological Data Collecting and Reporting System (MDCRS) globally, and more use of local 

carriers. Expanded deployment of surface-based radar wind profilers to observe the atmospheric 

boundary layer is also envisioned. The development and deployment of strategically located phasedarray radars will significantly increase the quantity, quality and timeliness of weather information in 

extreme weather, as will the operational deployment of high-altitude unmanned aerial systems 

(UAS). The need to integrate these observations into an optimal observing system is vital to realize 

the benefits of these investments in improved observations. 

Easier access to SAR data would address a need identified for most of the hazards reviewed 

[CEOS, 2002; ESA, 2004; Cunningham and others, 2003; Helz and others, 2003; the SESWG report 

(NASA, 2002)]. The need for SAR is also mentioned in Earthscope documents (EWG, 2001; NRC, 

2001). Currently the only course is to seek easier access to Canadian and European C-band SAR 

satellite imagery. In addition, Japan launched its new L-band SAR (the PALSAR sensor on the 

ALOS satellite) in January 2006. That is a welcome development, but PALSAR and other SAR 

sensors are designed as research instruments, and share power and downlink capabilities with other 

sensors on the same satellites. Consequently the amount of SAR data available is severely limited 

now and will be for the next six to eight years. Specifically, it is inadequate for both routine ice 

monitoring (the principal use of the Canadian Radarsat) and for monitoring solid-earth deformation 

on a continental or global scale. A C-band (or X-band) and L-band SAR capability, to generate allweather imagery for a wide range of hazards, could address this gap. 

Improved access to moderate to high-resolution near IR and short-wave IR imagery is needed, 

especially for fire response (CEOS, 2002; USFS, 2002), but also for volcano monitoring (CEOS, 

2002; ESA, 2004). High-resolution imagery needs for volcanoes, plus rapid, tactical IR imagery 

support for wildfire response, would be better met through the use of airborne IR cameras, as there 

will be less interference from clouds. 

24 
NASA Earth Science Enterprise (NASA, 2000) covers a wide range of applications, including 

sensors that would be useful for hazards applications, to the extent that they can be run as operational 

systems. There will be a need, however, for new and additional satellites to monitor the interplanetary 

solar wind. 

6. Interagency and International Partnerships 

The SDR report cited earlier (SDR, 2003) identifies the many existing interagency 

partnerships that deal with particular hazards. Flood monitoring and response involves coordination 

among the NWS, USGS, FEMA and USACE. Activities related to earthquakes are coordinated 

through NEHRP (WSSPC, 2003). Dealing with the hazards posed by volcanic ash clouds to air traffic 

involves coordination among NOAA (both the NWS and NESDIS), the USGS, the USAF, and the 

FAA. Wildfire response (WFLC, 2002) is coordinated through NIFC (the National Interagency Fire 

Center, which consists of the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other land management bureaus). U.S. agency 

activities that support development of improved hazard and risk models are also listed in the SDR 

report, as are the existing national-level response plans. In addition, the NOAA/NWS/Space 

Environment Center is an integral part of the DOD space weather operation (NSSA, 1999) and works 

with other federal agencies, such as the FAA, NASA and USGS through the National Space Weather 

Program. 

In addition to the partnerships between agencies with operational roles, there are some major 

interagency collaborations that focus on research in the area of Earth observations. One prominent 

example is the NSF Earthscope initiative (EWG, 2001; NRC, 2001), which includes active seismic 

experiments, deep drilling of the San Andreas fault zone, and geodetic studies of motion at plate 

boundaries and other deformation. This effort primarily involves the academic community, in 

collaboration with NASA and the USGS. Other areas of collaboration between Federal agencies and 

academia are represented by IRIS (seismic data archiving) and UNAVCO (GPS studies, equipment 

and data archiving). The U.S. Weather Research Program is an interagency activity focusing on 

accelerating improvement in forecasts of high- impact weather. Its member agencies include NOAA, 

NSF, NASA, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force. The National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation 

Program involves collaboration among NOAA, FEMA, the USGS and the coastal states. 

Key international partnerships and coordinating bodies include the World Meteorological 

Organization (WMO) and the associated Meteorological Watch Offices (MWOs), the nine Volcanic 

Ash Advisory Centers (VAACs), the International Charter for Space and Major Disasters (ESA, 

CNES, CSA, NOAA, ISRO, etc.), the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test 

Ban Organization (CTBTO), which has a number of monitoring systems, and the International Space 

Environment Service (ISES), among many others. Tsunami information is coordinated internationally 

through the UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Within the WMO there is a 

key international activity called THORPEX, a Global Atmospheric Research Program designed to 

accelerate the improvement of global weather forecasting out to 14 days. WMO also houses the 

International Ice Chart Working Group, under the WMO/IOC, which provides operational 

cooperation amongst national ice services, with regional (North American) collaboration handled by 

the U.S. -- Canadian Joint Ice Working Group. Many of these organizations, in particular those 

under the WMO, will feed into the Global Earth Observation (GEO) System of Systems (GEO, 

2005a, b), which is the international equivalent of the U.S. national IEOS (CENR/IWGEO, 2005) 

Another category of international partnerships that are focused more on capacity-building 

than on information gathering includes programs such as the USGS Volcano Disaster Assistance 

25 
Program (cosponsored by the USGS and USAID/OFDA) and the Civil Military Emergency 

Preparedness program of the USACE. 

U.S. Capacity-Building Needs 

Recent experience (notably the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) underlines the need to 

increase capacity to withstand and recover from natural and anthropogenic disasters with minimum 

loss of life, injuries, damage to homes and other structures, and impact on the economy. This can be 

accomplished by educating the public through distribution of information on potential disasters and 

their impacts, by preparing our society through effective mitigation strategies, by improving and 

encouraging the use of predictive risk assessment tools such as HAZUS, and by disseminating of 

accurate and timely alerts and warnings. Some of these issues, which go beyond the scope of this 

report, are the main focus of many other institutions, such as the National Hazards Research and 

Information Center (NHRAIC) at the University of Colorado (Boulder). These aspects of disaster 

response are also explored in the recent Grand Challenges report of the SDR (SDR, 2005a). 

There is also a clear need to maintain existing monitoring capacity. Many of our major 

surface-based monitoring networks are incomplete or aging: these include the national seismic 

monitoring system, the global geodetic networks, regional GPS networks, the more local networks 

that monitor seismicity and deformation at active volcanoes, various meteorological and streamgaging networks, and various ocean buoy systems. 

Both nationally and globally, there is an overall need to expand and improve coordination of 

IT infrastructure to support research, expanded hazards monitoring, risk assessment, and 

communication activities. Existing and developing global networks could support dramatically 

expanded Earth observations on a common communications backbone. 

There is a need to integrate regional observations beginning with one or two regions and 

expanding to regions covering the entire nation and eventually the world. Experience in one region, 

or with one system, such as NOAA’s Meteorological Assimilation Data Ingest System (MADIS), can 

be applied to the development and expansion of observation capabilities in another region. Also, of 

course, an instrument developed for one region can be used with no additional development in 

another region. 

Other needs include the expansion of emergency airborne capabilities including UASs for 

severe weather, fire/fuels mapping, volcano observation, characterization of airborne contaminant 

plumes, and expansion of capabilities for airborne LiDAR and SAR (to support detailed observation 

of topography and topographic changes). We should also support research into new instrumentation 

(cheap, portable, sensitive, accurate, and quickly deployable) to identify and monitor a wide range of 

trace gases, toxic chemicals, or explosives in soil, water, and the atmosphere. Remotely controllable 

sensors that can function in extreme or unusual environments (near erupting volcanoes, in wildfires, 

or in malfunctioning nuclear reactors) will be needed. 

In the area of public hazard communication, the United States needs to improve its ability to 

issue targeted warnings for local hazards such as tornadoes, fog on highways, and flash floods [SDR, 

2000; Mileti, 1999]. Two means for improved hazard communication in general are the use of CAP 

(Common Alerting Protocol) procedures, and expanded use of electronic clearinghouses, such as the 

Disaster Management e-Government initiative (OMB, 2004). Because large events are relatively 

uncommon, U.S. scientists can learn a good deal through the study of major natural disasters in 

foreign countries; the impacts of such events on other societies can carry lessons either for scientific 

understanding of the hazard or for more effective mitigation practices, which may be applied in the 

26 
United States. A recent report Science and Technology Lessons Learned from the December 26, 

2004 Indian Ocean Disaster (SDR, 2005b) is a case in point. 

Conclusions 

In reviewing the status of (1) monitoring of natural and certain manmade hazards, (2) existing 

deficiencies and gaps, and (3) new systems on the verge of deployment, the disasters team recognizes 

two overarching areas of immediate concern for future discussions on Earth observation systems. 

These are: 

(1) The development of a process whereby the unmet needs for expansion and modernization 

of the vast array of surface-based monitoring systems can be dealt with in the 10-year time span of 

the IEOS plan. This work is essential to maintain the benefits of the status quo, to define the needed 

communications infrastructure, and to prepare for the future expansion of population and 

infrastructure into areas of high risk. This deployment can be incremental, but it should be 

systematic, for all critical systems. This array of surface-based monitoring systems will provide the 

landscape-scale observations needed for research to understand natural hazards and their root 

processes, and to improve modeling and forecasting of hazard events. 

(2) The clarification of responsibility for designing, building, launching and operating 

satellites that are intended to observe the solid surface of the Earth at moderate spatial resolution, 

with temporal resolution and spectral capabilities adequate for the range of natural hazards discussed 

here. NOAA/NESDIS covers weather and other atmospheric observational requirements, and many 

ocean requirements, but operational satellites for solid-Earth surface observations currently have no 

home. This class of satellite observations is essential for both operational purposes and for basic 

research on natural hazards and other processes. 

More specific needs or areas of observational deficiencies that have been identified in this 

report are: 

(3) More systematic acquisition of high-resolution digital topography (which has been 

identified as a kind of information needed to support response for almost all hazards and is probably 

essential to many other societal benefit areas of the IEOS as well). 

(4) Continued access to visible/IR imagery at moderate resolution (10-100 m pixels, like 

Landsat or SPOT or ASTER), but with better temporal resolution than Landsat, etc. This would 

support a wide range of land-observation needs in other focus areas. 

(5) SAR satellite capability, both C-band (or X-) and L-band, for monitoring deformation, for 

topography, for inundation and sea ice monitoring, for vegetation/canopy characterization, and for oil 

slick detection, among many other applications. 

(6) Community predictive hazard-assessment and risk-assessment models, that is, model 

architecture shared between the research community and the operations community, to facilitate 

model improvements through research. Hazard models involved include weather hazards, chemical or 

radiological spills, wild fire and smoke spread, among others. Interoperability of models, to ensure 

that hazard prediction outputs can be transferred rapidly to risk assessment models, is essential to 

providing information to decision makers in a timely manner. 

(7) Evaluating the potential for expanding global ground-based observations by expanding the 

suite of sensors deployed in the global monitoring networks, (e.g. adding meteorological (barometric) 

and geomagnetic sensors at Global Seismographic Network station sites), to take advantage of the 

existing communications infrastructure. 

27 
References 

Blong, R. J., 1984. Volcanic Hazards: A Sourcebook on the Effects of Eruptions. Academic Press, 

424 pages. 

Board on Natural Disasters (BOND), 1999. Mitigation Emerges as Major Strategy for Reducing 

Losses Caused by Natural Disasters. (Report of the National Academy Board on Natural Disasters) 

Science, vol. 284, pp 1943-1947. 

California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CDFFP), 2004, California Fire Siege 2003 – 

The Story. Web document at http://www.fire.ca.gov/index.php

CENR/IWGEO, 2005, Strategic Plan for the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS), 

NSTC CENR Report, 149 pp. 

CENR/USGEO, 2006, Improved Observations for Disaster Reduction: Near-Term Opportunity Plan, 

NSTC CENR Report, 20 pp. At http://usgeo.gov/docs/nto/Disaster_Observations_NTO_2006-

0925.pdf

Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS), 2002. The Use of Earth Observing Satellites for 

Hazard Support: Assessments and Scenarios, Final Report of the CEOS Disaster Management 

Support Group, 218 pp. 

Cunningham, J.D., Chambers, D. Davis, C.O., Gerber, A., Helz, R., McGuire, J. P., 2003, Ocean 

Observer Study: A proposed National Asset to Augment the Future U.S. Operational Satellite 

System. Marine Technology Science vol. 37, pp. 142-157. 

Earthscope Working Group (EWG), 2001, Earthscope: A New View into Earth. Project Plan. 36 

pages. 

European Space Agency (ESA), 2004. IGOS Geohazards Theme Report. Available for download at 

http://www.igosgeohazards.org

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1999. Remote Sensing in Federal Disaster 

Operations: Standard Operating Procedures. 9321.1-PR, June 1999. 45 pp. 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/remotes.pdf

Group on Earth Observations (GEO), 2005a. Global Earth Observations System of Systems 

(GEOSS) 10-Year Implementation Plan. ESA Publications, 27 pp. 

GEO, 2005b. Global Earth Observations System of Systems (GEOSS) 10-year Implementation Plan 

Reference Document. ESA Publication, 209 pp. 

Heinz Center, 2000, The Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards: Implications for Risk Assessment and 

Mitigation, The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, Island 

Press, Washington D. C., 220 pp. 

Helz, R.T., LaBrecque, J. and Pichel, W.G., 2003, SAR: A Versatile New Tool for Earth Science. 

Geotimes vol. 48, pp. 14-17. 

Lott, N. and Ross, T., 2000, A Climatology of Recent Extreme Weather and Climate Events, NCDC 

Technical Report 2000-02, Asheville, N.C., NOAA National Climatic Data Center. 

28 
Mileti, D. S., 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, 

Joseph Henry Press, Washington D.C., 351 pages. 

NASA Earth Science Enterprise, 2000. Understanding Earth System Change: NASA's Earth Science 

Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010. 

http://www.earth.nasa.gov/visions/researchstrat/Research_Strategy.htm

NASA Solid Earth Science Working Group, 2002. Living on a Restless Planet: Solid Earth Science 

Working Group Report 2002. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. JPL 

400-1040. November 2002. 68 pp. http://solidearth.jpl.nasa.gov/PDF/SESWG_final_combined.pdf 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), 2003, Expanding and Using Knowledge 

to Reduce Earthquake Losses: the NEHRP Strategic Plan, 2001-2005. 

http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/strategic_plan_2003.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2003. New Priorities for the 21st 

Century: NOAA’s Strategic Plan for FY 2003 - 2008 and Beyond. March 31, 2003. 23 pp. 

http://www.spo.noaa.gov/pdfs/FinalMarch31st.pdf . 

NOAA, 2004. Economic Statistics for NOAA, April 2004 – Third Edition, 51 pp. 

NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NOAA/NESDIS), 2003. 

Priorities for the 21st Century: A Strategic Plan for NOAA’s Satellite and Information Service For 

FY 2003-2008 and Beyond. October 2003. 17 pp. 

NOAA/ NESDIS, 2004a. National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 

(NPOESS). http://www.ipo.noaa.gov/

NOAA/ NESDIS, 2004b. Selected Activities Related to the GOES R Series 

http://www.osd.noaa.gov/goes_R/index.htm

NOAA National Weather Service (NWS), 2002. Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services: Concept 

of Services and Operations. Hydrologic Services Division, Office of Climate, Water, and Weather 

Services, April 2002. 14 pp. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/ahps/

NOAA/NWS, 2003a. NOAA’s National Weather Service Science and Technology Infusion Plan. 

Final Draft. October 17, 2003. http://review.oar.noaa.gov/Docs/Meetings/Oct_22-

23/STIP_Glossy_finaldraft_031017.pdf 

 NOAA/ NWS, 2003b. Working Together to Save Lives: National Weather Service Strategic Plan for 

FY 2003 - FY 2008. October 20, 2003. 36 pp. http://www.spo.noaa.gov/pdfs/LO Strat Plans 2003 

Final/newnwssp 10-01-03 final.pdf 

NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (NOAA/OAR), 2003. NOAA Research 

Strategic Plan for FY 2003 - FY 2008 and Beyond: Understanding the Environment from the 

Bottom of the Ocean to the Surface of the Sun. June 27, 2003. 20 pp. 

http://www.spo.noaa.gov/pdfs/LO%20Strat%20Plans%202003%20Final/OAR%20SP%20final03.p

df 

NOAA/ NWS, 2004a. Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service. 

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/ahps/ahps.htm . 

NOAA /NWS, 2004b. National Data Buoy Center. http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/

NOAA/NWS, 2005. Katrina Service Assessment. 

http://www.weather.gov/os/assesssments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf

29 
National Research Council (NRC), 2001. Review of EarthScope Integrated Science. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press. 61 pp. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309076447/html/

NRC, 2004, Partnerships for Reducing Landslide Risk: Assessment of the National Landslide 

Hazards Mitigation Strategy, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Security Space Architect (NSSA), 1999, Space Weather Architecture Study Final Report, 27 

pages. <http://schnarff.com/SpaceWeather/PDF/Reports/P-IIB/01.pdf> 

National Space Weather Program Council (NSWP), 2000. The National Space Weather Program: 

The Implementation Plan, 2nd Edition, 196 pages. http://www.ofcm.gov/nswp-ip/pdf/nswpip.pdf 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2004. Disaster Management e-Government Initiative. 

https://disasterhelp.gov/suite/jhtml/aboutus.jhtml

Subcommittee for Disaster Reduction (SDR), 2000. Effective Disaster Warnings. Report by the 

Working Group on Natural Disaster Information Systems (NDIS), NSTC CENR Report, 56 pp, 

http://www.sdr.gov/NDIS_rev_Oct27.pdf 

SDR, 2003. Reducing Disaster Vulnerability Through Science and Technology, NSTC CENR 

Report, 36 pp, http://www.sdr.gov/SDR_Report_ReducingDisasterVulnerability2003.pdf 

SDR, 2005a. Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction. NSTC CENR Report, 21 pp. 

SDR, 2005b. Science and Technology Lessons Learned from the December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean 

Disaster. NSTC CENR report, 7 pp. 

SDR, 2005c. Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States: A Framework for Action, NSTC 

CENR Report, 30 pp. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), 2002. WFAS - Wildland Fire Assessment 

System. August 9, 2002. http://www.wfas.net/ 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 2003. Department of Transportation Strategic Plan, 2003 - 

2008: Safer, Simpler, Smarter Transportation Solutions. September 

2003.http://www.dot.gov/stratplan2008/strategic_plan.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003. 2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan: Direction for 

the Future. September 30, 2003. 239 pp. http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1997. USGS Wildland Fire Workshop, EROS Data Center, Sioux 

Falls SD, July 9-10, 1997, US Geological Survey Report, 28 pp. 

USGS, 1999a. Requirement for an Advanced National Seismic System: An Assessment of Seismic 

Monitoring in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1188, 55 pp. 

USGS, 1999b. Strategic Directions for the Water Resources Division, 1998-2008. U. S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 99-249, 27 pages. 

USGS, 2003b. Rupture in South-Central Alaska–The Denali Fault 

Earthquake of 2002. USGS Fact Sheet fs014-13. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2003/fs014-03

USGS, 2003a, National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy—A Framework for Loss Reduction. 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1244, 56 pp. 

30 
31 

USGS, 2005, An Assessment of Volcanic Threat and Monitoring Capabilities in the United States: 

Framework for a National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS): U. S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2005-1164, 62 pp. 

Wildland Fire Leadership Council, 2002. National Fire Plan. http://www.fireplan.gov/
APPENDIX 1. USER REQUIREMENTS for INFORMATION on INDIVIDUAL HAZARDS 

Wildland Fires .................page 33 Tropical Cyclones ....................page 39 Earthquakes ...................page 34 Sea and Lake Ice ....................page 40 Volcanoes and Volcanic Ash ...page 35 Coastal Hazards including Tsunami .......page 4Landslides ........................page 36 Pollution Events .................... page 42 Floods .............................page 37 Space Weather .......................page 43 Extreme Weather ................page 38 
Table 1a. USER NEEDS for WILDLAND FIRE INFORMATION 

Type of user Needs for response to an event Needs for hazard assessment and 

Responsible authorities (“end users”) 

For initial attack/extended attack: rapid access to geospatial data, including active fire front position, fire origin, fire fuels, 

spot fires, fire weather, emergency access routes, terrain, 

structures and other improvements in the area of the incident. Relative geolocational accuracy can be favored over absolute accuracy. For larger incidents (100+ acres): rapid access to the above plus smoke monitoring. Full suite of products need to be available at major shift change times (generally 0600 and 1800 hours local time). For post-fire burn recovery: geospatial data includes extent and characterization of vegetation burn severity, soils observations, and all structures and other improvements in the affected area. Timely alerts and updates to government officials, the affected population, and the media on fire location and status, effects 

on public health, roads, and possible evacuation routes 

Information on vegetation health, vegetatiomoisture, fire history, structures and other adjacent to wildland areas, atmospheric traand access routes. Needed for planning prescribed burns, antifire activity, land use policy and planning iwildland areas. Often there is a need for ginformation in wildland -- urban interface 

Scientific and technical staff in monitoring and advisory agencies 

All environmental data related to fire starts (fuels, weather), location, and anticipated fire duration, plus accurate geolocation data. 

Detailed in-situ, airborne, and satellite baseof fire fuels and climate change to anticipaconditions. 

Research scientists All available data relevant to their research, collected in real 

time, but accessed when needed. Feedback on the performance of models and scenarios 

Same as for scientists above. Feedback on the performance of models an

33
Table 1b. USER NEEDS for EARTHQUAKE HAZARD INFORMATION 

Type of user Needs for response to an event Needs for hazard assessment and 

Responsible authorities (“end users”) 

Clear, authoritative information on the location and magnitude of the shock and the timeframe (in days) of aftershocks. Rapid maps of effects for situational awareness (shake maps, damaged/affected areas, identification of safe areas) Timely updates and precise geolocation data are critical for activating shutdown of critical facilities (power plants, trains, etc.) 

Hazard zonation maps: paper maps or GIS showing areas of lower vs. higher intensity ground motions. Maps for various secondaseismic hazards (landslides, li

quefaction, e

Data support land use planning, building stregulations. Decision support tools for seismic risk asseFEMA’s HAZUS) 

Scientific and technical staff in monitoring and advisory agencies 

All available data, in as near to real-time as possible, in particular the following: Seismicity, intensity of ground shaking, strain, precise location data, digital elevation models (DEMs), soil type, moisture conditions, infrastructure and population. 

Seismic history, archives of data on seismimonitoring of seismicity, deformation, and and geochemical parameters, to recognize Base maps (geological, soil, active faults, hDEMs), and conceptual models. Data for iassessment models such as the earthquake HAZUS program. 

Research scientists All available data relevant to their research, collected in real 

time, but accessed when needed. Feedback on the performance of models and scenarios 

Same as above. Continuity of observations of all relevant ggeochemical data. Feedback on the performance of models an

34
Table 1c. USER NEEDS for VOLCANO HAZARD INFORMATION 

Type of user Needs for response to an event Needs for hazard assessment and 

Responsible authorities (“end users”) 

Clear, authoritative information on most likely course of the unrest/eruption, whether ash explosions may occur Includes best estimates on when and what type of eruption, possible size, which areas or air routes will be affected and 

which will be safe. Timely updates and adequate geolocation data are critical 

Need hazard zonation maps: paper maps oshowing areas of lower vs. higher risk, for 

The maps for various major hazards (lava ffall, etc.) will be different. Data provide input for land use planning, aplans, and community volcanic eruption re

Scientific and technical staff in monitoring and advisory agencies 

All available data relevant to the hazard (seismic, deformation, gas, and thermal, both ground-based and EO), plus location of activity or ash clouds, wind speed and weather conditions, collected in real time or near real-time, 

and accessed as needed. Digital elevation models (DEMs) to help predict distribution of pyroclastic or lava flows, or lahars, to identify both areas of high risk and safe areas Wind direction, models for dispersal of ash clouds 

Base maps and DEMs. Maps showing distyoung volcanic deposits, with dates, to detand recurrence intervals of eruptions over (10,000 years or more). 3D models of volcContinuous monitoring of seismicity, defoother geophysical and geochemical parame

Research scientists All available data relevant to their research 

Feedback on the performance of models and scenarios 

Same as above Feedback on the performance of models an

35
Table 1d. USER NEEDS for LANDSLIDE HAZARD INFORMATION 

Type of user Needs for response to an event Needs for hazard mitigatio

Responsible authorities (“end users”) 

Local, rapid mapping of affected areas, magnitude of instability, updated scenarios during ongoing instability, including known and expected locations of ground failure and runout, and impact analysis. Early warning of heightened risk, if rainfall intensity or duration exceed thresholds, for areas of known high hazard of landslides and debris flows, including burned areas 

Regularly updated susceptibility and hazarfor landslides, debris flows, rock falls, subappropriate scales). Data support decisions on land use, siting ofacilities 

Scientific and technical staff in monitoring and advisory organizations and agencies 

Near real-time observational tools Needs as for mitigation, plus seismic data or weather forecasts, depending on the nature of the triggering event. 

Data on: landslide inventory, DEMs, ongodeformation, hydrology, geology, soils, pluclimatic and seismic zonation maps, and dahistorical land use, at appropriate scales. Methods and models for susceptibility and evaluation. Data from well-observed past events 

Research scientists All available data relevant to their research 

Feedback on the performance of models and scenarios 

Continuity of observations, appropriate datunderstanding process, and for developmenobservational tools. Data from well-observed past events 

36
Table 1e. USER NEEDS for FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION 

Type of user Needs for response to an event Needs for hazard assessment and 

Responsible authorities (“end users”) 

Timely and accurate short through extended range forecasts and warnings that quantify certainty and convey risk (time, discharge, stage, area inundated) for both river and flash flood events. Includes accurate locations of areas, infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) affected (contained in FEMA’s HAZUS data base). Ground surveys, aerial photos and interviews for damage assessments. 

Flood hazard zonation maps, accurate topomaps; updated maps of land use, showing changes; flood history of the area Decision support tools for flood risk assesssuch as the flood module in FEMA’s HAZ

Scientific and technical staff in monitoring and advisory organizations and agencies 

Real-time in-situ and remotely-sensed environmental data (including rainfall, upstream discharges, snowmelt rates, inundation areas). Event/storm direction, type, intensity, and speed. Needed to produce analyses and forecast model products. 

Accurate topographic data (DEMs). Longprecipitation and stream gage records. Hisrelated to flood inundation areas and dischinformation on alterations to watersheds (detc.); information on land-use changes. Data for input to risk assessment models sumodule in FEMA’s HAZUS program. Increlated to hydraulic structures (dams, leveemodels to route flood flows. 

Research scientists Capture & archive all data in high temporal and spatial 

resolution (4 dimensions) 

Same as above. 

37
Table 1f. USER NEEDS for EXTREME WEATHER INFORMATION 

Type of user Needs for response to an event Needs for hazard assessment and 

Responsible authorities (“end users”) 

Timely and accurate forecasts (time, location, intensity and nature of severe weather). Accurate and comprehensive real-time data during the event (e.g. location of strong winds, heavy precipitation, hail and direction of propagation). Mapping, ground surveys, intervies, aerial photos for damage assessments. 

Historical data for the area (e.g. frequency strong winds, heavy shows, hail). Needed for input to land use planning, builstandards, such as wind resistance, roof loaresistant to hail, and tornado safe rooms. 

Scientific and technical staff in monitoring and advisory organizations and agencies 

Real-time environmental data (e.g., winds, moisture, temperature, cloud fields, and synoptic/sub-synoptic flow fields). Needed for analyses and forecast model products. Radar and research aircraft in special cases during which field studies are occurring. GIS mapping, ground surveys, interviews, aerial photos for damage assessments. 

Historical data for the area, as above. Needed for input to land use planning, builincluding roof loading, materials resistant ttornado safe rooms. Input to wind module HAZUS program. 

Research scientists Capture all data in great temporal and spatial detail (4 

dimensions), including special data sets, such as the full complement of satellite data at highest spatial and temporal resolution. 

Historical data as above. Needed to impromodels. 

38
Table 1g. USER NEEDS for TROPICAL CYCLONE INFORMATION 

Type of user Needs for response to an event Needs for hazard assessment and 

Responsible authorities (“end users”) 

Timely and accurate landfall analyses and forecasts (time, location, intensity, outer wind radii, storm surge, sea state, amount of rainfall) Mapping, aerial photos for damage assessments, models that show and permit analysis of behavior, impact of storm 

Historical track and intensity information; maps for storm surge, wind, flooding. Data serve as the basis for appropriate land coastal areas, especially low-lying areas. 

Scientific and technical staff in monitoring and advisory organizations and agencies 

Real-time environmental data (moisture, winds, temperature, precipitation rates, clouds), mostly from satellite. Storm direction and speed. Radar wind from Doppler . Needed to produce analyses and forecast products, including sea state and storm surge forecasts. Analyses of all surface and remote-sensed wind, surge, wave, and precipitation data at and after landfall. 

Historical track and intensity information, hazard zonation maps, including maps for flooding. Input to building codes and standards for winput to the wind module in FEMA’s HAZfor resistance to storm surge. 

Research scientists All data in great temporal and spatial detail, including 

research data. Aircraft, in situ (buoys and land surface data), full complement of satellite data at highest spatial and temporal resolution. 

Detailed analyzed track information. Analstreams. Needed to improve forecasting m

39
Table 1h. USER NEEDS for SEA and LAKE ICE HAZARD INFORMATION 

Type of user Needs for response to an event Needs for hazard assessment and 

Responsible authorities (“end users”) 

Timely and accurate real time ice analyses and forecasts – short (days), medium (weeks) – using high resolution imagery. Accurate geolocation of icebergs in shipping lanes. Charts showing ice extent in GIS and graphic format 

Seasonal ice analyses and forecasts (monthCharts showing ice extent, seasonal pattern

Scientific and technical staff in monitoring and advisory organizations 

Information on ice cover, thickness, etc. using highresolution imagery, Meteorological information and model output (cloud cover, precipitation, snow cover, winds, temperature) 

Seasonal, historical information on ice exteetc. Ice climatology, (ice extents, probability opresence of old ice, ice of land origin). 

Research scientists All data in great temporal and spatial detail, including 

research data. 

As above, plus climate models 

40
Table 1i. USER NEEDS for INFORMATION on COASTAL HAZARDS, INCLUDING TSUNAMI 

Type of user Needs for response to an event Needs for hazard assessment and 

Responsible authorities (“end users”) 

Accurate information regarding potential storm surge or tsunami: includes time of arrival, duration of event (all clear signal); boundaries of inundation area; evacuation routes. Mapping, aerial photos for response, damage assessments 

Inundation hazard maps for emergency resuse planning, on high-resolution DEM basshowing critical infrastructure at risk Regularly updated high-resolution shorelinerosion rate maps needed for mitigation poestablishing setback lines 

Scientific and technical staff in monitoring and advisory organizations 

All necessary data streams (meteorological, water levels, seismic data, DART buoy data, satellite imagery) in real time, to produce analyses and forecast products, including storm surge or tsunami run-up forecasts. 

Post-event surveys to measure extent and height of inundation to validate/improve forecast models and 

inundation maps. 

Inundation hazard maps require 100% covsurveys from ships and/or LIDAR (from shcontinental shelf break); accurate topograp

in the potential run-up area (heights to 25 mlevel) Archives of previous coastal topography, spositions, major inundation events includininput for hazard zonation maps. 

Research scientists All data in great temporal and spatial detail, including 

research data. Aircraft, in situ (buoys and land surface data), full complement of satellite data at highest spatial and temporal resolution. 

Data as above, in support of development oinundation, plus coastal retreat, erosion and 

41
Table 1j. USER NEEDS for INFORMATION on POLLUTION EVENTS 

Type of user Needs for response to an event Needs for hazard assessment and 

Responsible authorities (“end users” ) 

Clear, authoritative information on the location, compound(s) or chemical(s) released, magnitude of the technological release and the media in which the release occurred (air, land and/or water). Geolocation and other information to support public notifications. Timely updates are critical for activating shutdown of potentially affected facilities (water treatment plants, transportation networks, etc.) Post-event maps (release maps, damaged/affected areas, identification of safe areas) 

Accurate topographic and geologic maps, eof surficial geology; GIS mapping of land changes. Data serve as basis for land use policy, deccritical facilities or potentially hazardous bfacilities. 

Scientific and technical staff in monitoring and advisory organizations 

Real-time in-situ and remotely-sensed environmental data (surface water, ground water, wind, etc.) needed to produce analyses and forecast model products. GIS mapping, ground surveys, interviews, aerial photos for damage assessments. 

Updated geologic and topographic maps, ininformation on recent geologic events and changes, e.g., location of new chemical plareservoirs, population centers. Need hydroinformation (surface water and groundwatNeeded for input to land use policy and sit

Research scientists Capture & archive all data in high temporal and spatial 

resolution (4 dimensions) 

Same as above, plus data on well-observed Feedback on performance of dispersion moresponse scenarios. 

42
Table 1k. USER NEEDS for INFORMATION on SPACE WEATHER 

Type of user Needs for response to an event Needs for hazard assessment and 

Responsible authorities (“end users” , including engineers and designers of systems affected by severe space weather) 

Clear, authoritative information the timing and magnitude of solar X-ray flares, solar energetic particle events, and geomagnetic storms Timely updates are critical for commercial airlines flying polar routes, all satellite operators (civil, military or commercial) and electric power companies. Post-event summaries to allow affected technologies and 

services to return to normal operating modes 

Real-time maps showing areas of the Earth particles, X-ray photos and electrojet curreconfiguring systems and operations vulnerweather. These include satellite, electronic systems, and electric power grids. Complete records of past events so that pladesigners know what they must design to imitigate or minimize future storm impacts 

Scientific and technical staff in monitoring and advisory organizations (e.g., forecasters) 

Real time access to data including solar x-ray flare information, solar energetic particle events, geomagnetic fields, solar x-ray, white-light, and coronal imagery, solar magnetograms, interplanetary particles and fields, energetic particles at GEO and LEO, magnetic field at GEO, Solar radio data, ground based geomagnetic field data, neutron monitors. 

Same as above Historical data for all of the records describPredictive space weather models 

Research scientists Capture & archive all data in high temporal and spatial 

resolution. 

Same as above including complete metadaArchives of real-time data for model testindevelopment 

43
APPENDIX 2. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for INDIVIDUAL HAZARDS 

 Wildland Fires ....................page 45 Tropical Cyclones ....................page 57 Earthquakes .......................page 47 Sea and Lake Ice ......................page 59 Volcanoes and Volcanic Ash ...page 49 Coastal Hazards including Tsunami ........page 6Landslides .........................page 51 Pollution Events ...................... page 62 Floods .............................page 53 Space Weather ........................page 63 Extreme Weather ................page 55 

44
Table 2a. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for WILDLAND FIRE 

Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps  Terrain features—topography, rivers, lakes, etc. 

High-resolution DEMs mostly 

lacking 

 Infrastructure (roads, homes, etc.)—protection, access, evaluation of social/economic values at risk. 

Map products; census data bases 

Valuable where other data are not available 

DMSP—city lights; high resolution imagery such as IKONOS 

Vegetation at scales of 30-m or better 

Intensive ground-based (plot) sampling to characterize vegetation and link with remote sensing data 

Landsat, ASTER or higher -resolution panchromatic or multispectral imagery 

Landsat availability impaired Hyperspectral scarce 

Fuel structural characteristics at scales of 30-m or better 

Intensive ground-based (plot) sampling to characterize fuels and link with remote sensing data 

Waveform or multi-return LIDAR to help characterize vertical and horizontal structure of fuel layers 

Landsat, ASTER or higher -resolution panchromatic or multispectral imagery to develop regional to national-scale products

Landsat availability impaired Vegetation-penetrating SAR (L-band) not available 

Fuel condition (seasonal and year to year changes in fuel moisture, fuel loads, etc.) –30-m to 250-m resolution 

Intensive ground-based (plot) sampling to link with remote sensing data and biophysical models 

Some potential for radar? Landsat, ASTER, MODIS, or 

higher-resolution panchromatic or multispectral imagery 

Landsat availability impaired 

Active fire detectionWithin 15 minutes of ignition for populated areas to within several to 24 hours in remote areas 

Field validation of methods is critical to improve algorithms, maximize detections, and minimize false alarms. Almost all of current detection is ground-based. 

Fire detection flights - spotters and thermal sensors, commercial and general aviation reports 

Geostationary satellites for short time frames; AVHRR, MODIS, ASTER, others for regional views at longer time frames. 

Satellite systems lack spatial and temporal resolutions necessary for rapid detection. Means of rapid transmission of reports also lacking. Fire channel (3.96 microns) lacking on NPOESS 

Active fire monitoring and mapping—several meter to 1-km resolution. Multiple times per day; rapid data analysis and transmission to the field are critical 

Field validation requires a combination of ground based sampling during and after fires. Once validated, aircraft data can be used to validate satellite data and algorithms. 

Variety of aircraft based thermal sensors are available. Systems that produce highresolution unsaturated images with large area coverage and MWIR and LWIR bands are desirable. Must be georectified to meet operational needs 

AVHRR, MODIS, useful for strategic information on multiple fires, but lack detail required for tactical firefighting on individual incidents. 

Not enough appropriate aircraft sensors available, adequate validation lacking Need faster communication, data analysis and transmission. Need detectors that will not saturate, including in daytime 

Fire scar mapping—100-m to 1-km resolution 

Ground-based sampling for field validation 

Landsat, SPOT or higher resolution commercial satellites for small fires and for validation of observations from MODIS etc. for larger fires 

Landsat impaired or lacking from 2004-2010, if only Landsat follow-on is part of NPOESS 

45
Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Fire Severity mapping—critical for post fire response and for estimating emissions and ecosystem impacts. 

Ground-based sampling of fuel consumption, soils, and fire effects for determination of burn severity. Also, field validation of methods in a range of fuel types 

Various airborne color infrared digital sensors are available for use. Spatial resolution tends to be more resolute than required for the airborne reflectance product. 

Same as above. VIS/NIR essential. SWIR band beneficial for smoke penetration and rock/bare soil identification. 

Satellite revisit times (14 days for Landsat) are too long. Additional bands needed. 

Smoke from wildland fire Ground-based sampling of 

smoke chemistry and aerosols; observations of regional haze 

Aircraft-based sampling of smoke plumes and regional haze; smoke and aerosol chemistry in plumes; optical measurements of haze, particulate (aerosol) densities, distributions. 

Observations of smoke plumes and inversion layers from AVHRR, MODIS, etc. Atmospheric soundings 

Moderate to high-resolution satellite revisit times too long to be of use 

High-resolution weather data (0.1-1 km) for fire behavior, smoke predictions: wind fields; vertical soundings 

Current Remote Area Weather Systems (RAWS) deployed to measure fire weather. Individual reports made at each incident. 

Moderate resolution weather data (20-100’s km)—temperatures, dew point/humidity, precipitation, winds 

Ground-based weather networks; data need to be accessible, compiled into regional/national/global data bases 

AVHRR, TOVS?? Linked to MM-5 and other weather models 

Medium to long-term regional weather forecasts—eg based on sea surface temperature models 1-7 (14) day regional and local forecasts Streamflow and water quality 

Surface monitoring networks—stream and precipitation gages, weather radar 

Weather observations and 

predictions 

46
Table 2b. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS 

Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Monitor seismicity nationwide to magnitude 3.0, to magnitude 2.0 in seismically active areas 

National and regional scale seismic networks 

Needs upgrading and 

expansion under Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Plan (10% complete) 

Monitor strong ground shaking in all urban areas subject to moderate to high earthquake risk 

Dense seismic networks (with high dynamic range seismometers, also known as “strong-motion detectors”) 

Needs upgrading and 

expansion under Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Plan (10% complete) 

Monitor response of critical facilities, and of typical buildings of different classes of construction in urban areas subject to moderate to high earthquake risk 

Seismic instruments in critical facilities and in typical buildings 

Needs upgrading and 

expansion under Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Plan (10% complete) 

High-resolution topographic mapping in seismically active areas 

Comprehensive 

LIDAR surveys or stereo aerial photography 

Availability of highresolution DEMs is limited 

Detailed geologic mapping in seismically active areas for slip and recurrence rate 

Comprehensive groundbased mapping at scales of 1:5000 to 1:12,000 

Low-level aerial photography 

Moderate to high resolution panchromatic or multispectral imagery 

. 

Detailed mapping of surficial deposits in urban areas subject to moderate to high earthquake risk 

Comprehensive groundbased mapping at scales of 1:5000 to 1:12,000 

Low-level aerial photography 

Moderate to high resolution panchromatic or multispectral imagery 

High-resolution deformation monitoring in seismically active areas 

Comprehensive GPS networks and surveys 

GPS satellites 

SAR imagery for InSAR 

SAR data stream limited 

47
Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Strain and slow movement (creep) measurements along active faults and near fault zones 

Arrays of creep meters, dilatometers and tensor strain meters 

SAR imagery for InSAR 

SAR data stream limited 

Ground water levels and water chemistry measurements along active faults and near fault zones 

Extensive instrumentation of fault zones, including water well monitors 

High-resolution measurements of the Earth’s gravity, magnetic and electric fields along active faults and near fault zones 

Campaign surveys of established networks, using gravimeters, etc. 

Airborne surveys at various scales 

GRACE (regional scale gravity anomalies) 

Determine soil or rock strength parameters and physical properties of near-surface materials in and near fault zones 

Field reconnaissance and sampling; laboratory testing of materials 

Deep (2-10 km) physical measurements of the material and physical properties of fault zones 

Drilling, direct sampling and down-hole measurements 

48
Table 2c. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for VOLCANO HAZARDS 

Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Characterize seismicity of volcano(es) or group of volcanoes [magnitude, 3-D location, type of earthquake(s)] 

Individual volcanoes require 3-6 seismometers, to detect and locate quakes of M<0.5; data relayed and processed in real time 

Many high-threat 

volcanoes unmonitoreunder-monitored 

Monitor deformation of volcanic edifice (horizontal, vertical and tilt) 

GPS networks and/or EDM, leveling and tilt monitoring networks Borehole strainmeters (continuous recording) 

SAR interferometry 

(frequency determined by level of volcano’s activity) 

Most high-threat volcanoes are not activmonitored for deformaC-band SAR data streainadequate to monitor volcanoes of interest; Lband SAR completely lacking 

Monitor changes in local gravity 

Gravimeter surveys (every 1-5 years, more frequently if volcano actively deforming) 

Characterize gas emissions of volcano(es) by species (SO2 and CO2) and flux (tons per day) 

COSPEC, LICOR surveys at regular intervals (days, weeks, months) – fixed stations or vehicle mounted FTIR measurements, direct sampling of gases 

COSPEC, LICOR surveys at regular intervals – helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft 

Regular checks of satellite imagery with appropriate IR bands (7.3, 8.3 microns) at moderate resolution 

Few active volcanoes routinely monitored Appropriate imagery (ASTER) scarce, no successor mission kno

Characterize local thermal features of volcanoes (nature, number, location, temperature) 

Field observations, plus use of thermocouples, visible and IR pyrometers (fixed stations or portable), with measurements taken at hot springs, fumaroles, crater lakes, fissure systems 

High-resolution imagery obtainable with digital IR cameras – helicopter or fixed-wing Moderate resolution airborne IR imagery (TIMS) 

Moderate-resolution (Landsat, ASTER) imagery may allow recognition of larger features 

Landsat 7 impaired; no successor to ASTER identifiable 

Monitor volcanoes for hot spots (eruptions) or changes in regional heat flux 

IR imagery from meteorological satellites (GOES, MODIS) 

NPOESS lacks the 3.9micron channel, will saturate in daylight, preventing hotspot detection 

49
Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Monitor, characterize and document eruptions in real time. Detect and monitor explosions, eruption columns. Determine speed, direction, thickness of flows, lahars or other deposits, areas covered and threatened. 

Documentation includes video, visible/ IR photography; sampling in real time. Doppler radar,to assess eruption column height and density; cloud-to-cloud lightning detectors useful Acoustic flow monitors (lahar detection) 

Document eruptions, including eruption columns and plumes, plus all surficial deposits using overflights to get visible and IR photography, video, etc.) 

Documentation may use moderateresolution multispectral satellite imagery as available 

Deployment of specialized systems (Doppler radar, acoustflow monitors) very limited 

Detect and monitor highaltitude volcanic ash clouds and aerosol plumes 

Meteorological satellites (geostationary, polarorbiting) plus TOMS, MODIS 

Split-window (separat10.5 and 12 micron balacking on some satell

Monitor precipitation Rain gages, Doppler radar Meteorological 

satellites 

Monitor wind at range of altitudes 

Radiosondes, profilers Meteorological 

satellites 

Monitor atmospheric moisture content 

Ground based radar/LIDAR Radiosondes Meteorological 

satellites, microwave sensor (AMSU) 

Acquire baseline topography of volcano(es) 

Aerial photography 

(stereo), LiDAR 

DEMs from SRTM or ASTER imagery 

Data still not processereleased for many activolcanoes 

Make geologic and structural maps of volcano(es), in order to characterize eruptive style and eruptive history of volcano(es). Update as necessary 

Characterize, map and date all young (especially <10,000 years BP) eruptive deposits 

Aerial photography, AVIRIS surveys 

Moderate-resolution multispectral imagery 

Landsat 7 impaired; no successor to ASTER identifiable 

50
Table 2d. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for LANDSLIDE HAZARDS 

Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Detect and monitor slope movement rate and depth with high accuracy and frequency (horizontal and vertical) 

Extensometers, inclinometers, or GPS networks 

Temporally document slope movement with helicopter or fixed-wing overflights to get low level, large scale stereo aerial photography 

SAR interferometry at various wavelengths, at appropriate time intervals 

SAR data stream limited, specific tausually required 

Prepare high-resolution topographic mapping of slopes in areas of high landslide susceptibility including elevation, slope angle, curvature 

Detailed GPS field surveys High quality DEMs from 

LiDAR surveys or stereo aerial photography 

High resolution satellite imagery, updated as necessary 

Availability of DElimited 

Determine soil or rock strength parameters and physical properties in areas of instability (including fracture and rock-joint orientation and spacing) 

Field reconnaissance and sampling, including drilling for subsurface samples; laboratory testing 

Monitor weather data, including amount, intensity, and duration of precipitation and temperature 

Regional rain gage networks to confirm remote sensing data; Doppler radar for very localized, short interval rainfall data 

Meteorological 

satellites (GOES) 

Spatial and temporesolution of rainfdata not always adequate for landsforecasting 

Monitor seismicity in areas of high landslide susceptibility 

Dense seismic networks (with high dynamic range seismometers) 

Monitor groundwater level and pore pressure 

Piezometers, tensiometers, well monitors 

Monitor stream flow Stream gages 

51
Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Monitor soil moisture Piezometers and 

tensiometers 

Infrared imagery to detect variation in temporal and spatial ground surface moisture 

No passive microwavailable 

Document the distribution, kinds, and magnitudes of landslides that result from a major storm, earthquake or other landslide-triggering event 

Field reconnaissance including subsurface drilling to determine depth of sliding and variation in materials 

Low-altitude, large scale (1:5000-1:12,000) aerial photography as soon as possible after the landslides occur 

High resolution satellite imagery 

52
Table 2e. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for FLOOD HAZARDS 

Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gap 

Stage, Discharge and Volume 

Stream gages and direct flow measurements with hydroacoustics 

Retrievals (GOES 

DCP) Radar altimetry 

Shortage of stream gages. The total numhas been reduced significantly over the past decade 

Inundation area Ground surveys, GPS Aerial 

photography 

SAR imagery, visible and IR imagery if area is cloud-free 

SAR data stream inadequate; multidimensional modeling capability inadequate 

Topography Surveys, GPS Aerial 

photography, LiDAR surveys 

SRTM, ASTER for DEMs 

Surveys not done ofteenough to document changes in topographespecially in urban ar

Soil moisture Ground stations Passive microwave Shortage of soil 

moisture monitoring sites. No passive microwave sensors available 

Precipitation Buoys, ground stations, 

Doppler radar (polarized), profilers, sub-millimeter radars, mesonets 

IR, radar, SFMR rain, in situ, microwave radiometers 

Microwave, radar (TRMM/PR) Retrievals (GOES DCP 

Spatial distribution is not sufficient to adequately support aloperational activities the hydrologic community 

Snowmelt monitoring: includes snow cover, depth, and liquid water equivalent, air temperature and humidity, wind speed snowpack, and solar influx 

Surface measurements Aerial snow 

surveys 

Retrievals (GOES DCP) Visible, IR Imagery Imager/Radiometer 

Not enough reporting sites. 

53
Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gap 

Observe snow properties: cover extent, depth, wetness, temperature 

Surface based measurements aerial snow 

surveys 

Visible IR Imagery Imager/Radiometer 

Not enough reporting sites. 

Observe frozen –soil Properties: soil moisture prior to Winter freezing, freezing depth, soil temperature 

Surface based measurements Visible IR Imagery 

Imager/Radiometer 

Not enough reporting sites. 

Observe river ice and lake ice properties: location, thickness 

aerial snow 

surveys 

Visible IR Imagery Imager/Radiometer 

Not enough reporting sites. 

Observe ice-breakup in rivers and lakes, and ice jams in rivers 

Stream gages Aerial snow 

surveys 

Visible IR Imagery Imager/Radiometer 

Not enough reporting sites. Stream gages destroyed in major icjam events. 

54
Table 2f. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for EXTREME WEATHER HAZARDS 

Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite Gaps 

Moisture Surface stations 

Radiosondes GPS systems Lidar Microwave and interferometer systems 

ACARS (AMDAR, MDCRS & TAMDAR) Flight level hygrometer Radar Dropsondes DIAL 

Microwave sounder DPI Retrievals 

Surface mesonet with horizontal grid spacing of 25 km and 10 km in many regions. Four dimensional moisture fields in the vertical (includes fluxes). Critical in the boundary layer (variable thickness of 3-5 km). Horizontal spacing 25 km for vertical measurements 

Wind Surface stations 

Radiosondes Buoys Doppler radar Wind profilers Doppler lidar 

ACARS (AMDAR, MDCRS & TAMDAR) Doppler radar Flight level pressure/wind UAVs Driftsondes Dropwindsondes 

Cloud and vapor tracking winds QuikSCAT Lidar winds 

Surface mesonet with 25 km horizontal grid nationally, and 10 km in many regions. Wind in boundary layer for both moisture flux and wind shear. Horizontal grid spacing of 3-5 km in boundary layer. 

Atmospheric Temperature 

Surface stations Radiosondes Surface IR 

ACARS (AMDAR, MDCRS & TAMDAR) Flight level temperature Dropsondes 

IR sounder Surface mesonet. 25 km 

grid nationally, and 10 km in many regions. Microwave sounders on satellites to penetrate clouds. 

Ground surface: Heat & Moisture Content 

Ground surface measurements Below ground profiles 

Passive microwave IR 

Passive microwave IR 

Long term measurements of sub-surface temperature and moisture. 

Airmass differences /Boundaries (e.g. Cloud Fields) 

Surface stations Doppler radar 

Doppler radar GOES Imagery Doppler radar to view more 

of the boundary layer (i.e. lower antenna elevation angles and gap fillers) 

55
Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite Gaps 

Synoptic/Sub-synoptic flow fields (e.g., extratropical cyclones, shortwave troughs, etc) 

Radiosondes Surface stations Doppler radar 

ACARS (AMDAR, MDCRS & TAMDAR) Doppler radar Dropwindsondes 

GOES Imagery Doppler radar coverage for 

events such as bow echo, gust fronts, and demarcation of precipitation types (liquid, freezing, frozen). 

Precipitation Doppler radar 

Surface stations Lightning network Surface mesonets including the cooperative network 

Radar Cloud physical properties and liquid water determinations SFMR rain (over water) 

Infrared (e.g. wet vs. dry ground) 

Surface mesonet with horizontal grid spacing of 25 km nationally and 10 km in many regions. Measurements of snow and water equivalent. Indications of type of precipitation. Ice accumulation. 

Stream Flow Stream gauges Recording and transmitting 

gages on secondary watersheds. 

Snow (aerial coverage, depth and water equivalent) 

Surface Stations Snow survey aircraft GOES Imagery Snow depth and water 

equivalent 

56
Table 2g. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for TROPICAL CYCLONE HAZARDS 

Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite Gaps 

Tropical Cyclone Enviromment 

Moisture Rawinsondes 

Surface stations GPS-met 

ACARS Flight level hygrometer Radar Dropsondes 

Microwave radiometers (AMSU, AMSR) Interferometers 

Four dimensional moisture fields at all levels from the surface to the tropopause in vertical increments of 100 meters and areal grids of 100 km. 

Wind Radiosondes 

Buoys Surface stations (ASOS, C-MAN) Doppler radar (WSR88D) 

Doppler radar, LiDAR Dropwindsonde Flight level pressure/wind Scatterometers Stepped frequency radiometer (SFMR) 

Cloud and vapor Microwave radiometers Scatterometers Lidar winds 

Four dimensional wind fields, including wind shear and for determining moisture flux. Vertical increments of 100 meters and horizontal grids of 100 km. 

Atmospheric Temperature 

Rawindsondes Buoys Surface stations 

ACARS Flight level temperature Dropsondes 

IR and microwave radiometers Interferometers 

Vertical increments of 100 meters and horizontal grids of 100 km. 

Ocean Temperature and Heat Content 

XBTs/drifters Buoys 

AXBT AXCP, AXCTD Drifters, Microwave radiometers 

IR radiomenters Altimetry Microwave radiometers 

Microwave for sea surface temperatures and altimetry for heat content. 

Sea State Buoys 

Tide gages 

Visual Scanning radar altimeter (SRA) SFMR 

SAR Microwave radiometers 

Buoy network along Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. Sea state in tropical cyclone environment. 

Tropical Cyclone Core 

57
Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite Gaps 

Moisture Rawinsondes 

GPS-met ACARS Surface stations Buoys 

Dropsondes ACARS Microwave radiometry Flight level hygrometer Interferometry DIAL 

Microwave radiometry Interferometry 

Moisture measurements in the core: 100 meter height and 10-20 km horizontal resolution. 

Wind Doppler radar 

Buoys Surface stations Rawsinsondes 

Doppler radar, LiDAR Flight level pressure/wind Dropwindsondes Scatterometer SFMR 

Scatterometer SAR, Cloud drift Microwave radiometers 

SAR data stream inadequate 3 dimensional wind structure (0.5-1km horizontal resolution and 100 meter height resolution) is not available. 

Atmospheric Temperature 

Rawinsondes ACARS Surface stations Buoys 

Dropsondes ACARS IR Interferometry Flight level temperature Microwave radiometry 

IR Microwave radiometry Interferometry 

Need 100 meter height and 10-20 km horizontal resolution. Especially important for verification. 

Ocean Temperature and Heat Content 

Drifters XBTs Buoys 

AXBT AXCP, AXCTD Drifters Microwave radiometers 

Altimetry IR Microwave radiometers 

Sea spray and sea state measurements. 20 m resolution in the ocean mixed layer. Ocean waves and currents with at least a radial structure of 20-50 km. 

Precipitation Ground stations (gages) 

Radar (polarized) Buoys Profilers Sub-millimeter radars 

Cloud physical properties and liquid water determinations Radar, IR SFMR rain Microwave radiometers 

Microwave radiometers Radar (TRMM/PR) IR 

Precipitation rate and amount in the core. 

58
Table 2h. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for ICE HAZARDS 

Required Observations Ground/water based 

systems 

Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Observe edge (extent of the ice coverage) of pack ice or fast ice in lakes, ports and other coastal areas and over the polar and sub-polar seas. 

Land and marine observations, visual hull mounted radar systems 

Side looking airborne radar (SLAR) or Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). Visual reconnaissance 

Visible (optical), Infrared, SAR, Scatterometer and Passive Microwave 

High-resolution SAimagery with globacoverage able to imfeatures at the 30-1scale or commerciaimagery 

Observe concentration (fraction of area covered) of ice pack or fast ice in lakes, ports and other coastal areas and over the polar and subpolar seas. 

Land and marine observations, visual or hull mounted radar systems 

SLAR or SAR. Visual airborne reconnaissance 

Visible (optical), Infrared, SAR, Scatterometer and Passive Microwave 

As above 

Observe thickness of the ice pack or fast ice in areas as above. Stage of development or age of the ice is often a proxy for ice thickness. 

Land and marine observations, plus taking physical measurements of the ice thickness (ice cores) 

Radar altimeter or laser profiler. Visual airborne reconnaissance 

Radar altimeter, laser profiler, plus visible, IR, SAR, Scatterometer and passive microwave 

Radar altimeter and resolution SAR imawith global coveragto image ice feature30-100 meter scale commercial imager

Observe the optimal conditions for the breakup of landfast and river ice 

Land and marine observations, visual or hull mounted radar 

SLAR or SAR . Visual airborne reconnaissance 

Visible , IR, SAR, Scatterometer and Passive Microwave 

High-resolution SAimagery with globacoverage able to imfeatures at the 30-1scale or commerciaimagery 

Characterize form and topography of the ice. Includes shear zones, ridges, hummocks, the occurrence and orientations of leads, large fractures or polynyas 

Land and marine observations, visual or hull mounted radar 

SLAR or SAR. Visual airborne reconnaissance 

Visible , IR, SAR, Scatterometer and Passive Microwave 

As above 

Observe the stage of decay during the summer melt season 

Land and marine observations, visual or hull mounted radar 

Visual airborne reconnaissance 

Visible, IR, SAR As above 

59
Required Observations Ground/water based 

systems 

Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Observe the presence of icebergs, bergy bits and growlers (ice of land origin) 

Ship observations Visual reconnaissance, 

forward looking radar, SLAR, Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR/IRDS) 

SAR, visible and IR imagery 

As above 

Observe the motion of the sea ice and ice of land origin 

Buoys dropped onto the ice or moored in the ice capable of real-time satellite communications 

Passive microwave (Ex. SSM/I 85 Ghz) or SAR imagery 

Global coverage of high-resolution imalacking; insufficiencoverage in Arctic aAntarctic waters 

Observe surface temperature of sea ice 

Buoys dropped onto the ice or moored in the ice capable of real-time satellite communications 

Infrared and passive microwave imagery 

Insufficient buoy coin Arctic and Antarwaters 

Observe sea surface temperature 

Drifting buoy and ship observations 

Infrared imagery In-sufficient buoy c

in Arctic and Antarwaters 

Observe air temperature above the ice 

Drifting buoys Insufficient buoy co

in Arctic and Antarwaters 

Waves, heights and patterns Buoys, CODAR SAR and scatterometer 

imagery 

Buoys give insufficspatial resolution neshore. Insufficient bcoverage in Arctic aAntarctic waters 

Currents Buoys (e.g. with ADCP), 

CODAR 

Altimeter Buoys give insuffic

spatial resolution ne

Winds Land and marine 

anemometers (e.g. buoys, CMAN stations, coastal wind profiler) 

Scatterometer (QuickScat) + SAR imagery 

Buoys give insufficspatial resolution neshore. Insufficient bcoverage over the pseas 

60
Table 2i. OBSERVATIONAL REQUIREMENTS for COASTAL HAZARDS, INCLUDING TSUNAMI 

Required Observations Ground/water based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Coastal high-resolution topography with 5-10 year revisit 

Topographic LIDAR, 

InSAR 

SRTM 30-m data High-resolution topog

does not exist for moscoastal areas. 

Shallow water bathymetry with 5-10 year revisit; navigational obstructions 

Ship surveys (e.g. multibeam) 

Bathymetric LIDAR Many areas not survey

over 50 years. Ability determine bathymetry turbid water is lacking 

Waves, heights and patterns, wave spectra 

Buoys, coastal radar SAR imagery Buoys give insufficien

spatial resolution near 

Tides/water levels, inundation patterns during storm surge, floods, tsunami 

Tide gauges, river gauges SAR imagery Water level measurem

methods outmoded; ganetwork inadequate; Sdata stream inadequate 

Currents Buoys (e.g. with ADCP), 

coastal radar 

Radar altimeter Buoys give insufficien

spatial resolution near 

Surface winds Land and marine 

anemometers (e.g. buoys, CMAN stations, coastal wind profiler) 

Scatterometer 

(QuickScat) + offshore SAR imagery 

Buoys give insufficienspatial resolution near SAR data stream inade

Earthquake information to evaluate location and likelihood of tsunami generation 

Seismic networks, notification systems 

Deformation/subsidence of coastal areas 

SAR/InSAR Need GPS networks in 

coastal areas, more SAincluding L-band SAR 

Deep-Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami to detect tsunami 

DART buoy system DART data 

transmitted via GOES satellites 

Post-event damage assessment 

Visits, interviews, photographic documentation 

Aerial photography High-resolution 

satellite imagery 

61
Table 2j. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for POLLUTION EVENTS 

Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Characterize chemical(s) or compounds released into the water (ie oil spills, chemicals) 

TOC analyzers, electomagnetic absorption monitors, electrical conductivity and pH, direct sampling of liquids by AA, MS, Ion chromotography 

SAR, hyperspectral sensors, UV sensors, aerial photography in fixed wing, helicopter platforms or UAV 

SAR, hyperspectral sensors, high spatial resolution systems 

satellite revisit toften preclude fobservations, spresolution of spaceborne SAR 

Characterize chemical(s) or compound(s) released into the air 

Open-path FTIR measurements, direct sampling of gases by OVA, GC/MS, remote passive monitors (selective filters), LiDAR 

thermal or LWIR hyperspectral sensors, airborne FTIR, direct gas sampling via UAVs, LiDAR 

hyperspectral and LWIR multispectral sensors (ie MODIS, DOE MTI) 

no space-based hyperspectral se

Characterize chemical(s) or compound(s) released on the land 

direct soil sampling with GC/MS, 

thermal or LWIR hyperspectral sensors, airborne FTIR, 

hyperspectral and LWIR multispectral sensors (ie MODIS, DOE MTI), high spatial resolution sensors 

Characterize affected area to determine populations at risk to exposure 

GIS base data of population centers, infrastructure, 

aerial photography, archived and current (to determine changes), multispectral and hyperspectral sensors. Sensor platforms on fixed wing, helicopter or UAV 

SAR, hyperspectral and LWIR multispectral sensors (ie MODIS, DOE MTI), high spatial resolution sensors 

Monitor affected area active and passive monitors long-dwell or loitering 

sensor plaforms (blimps, UAVs) 

high temporal resolution imagery, continiously tasked collections for high spatial resolution systems 

62
Required Observations Ground based systems Airborne Satellite sensors Gaps 

Solar X-ray imagery and fluxes 

GOES solar X-ray imager GOES X-ray sensor 

Solar coronal observations SOHO LASCO Presently relying on 

NASA spacecraft focoronal imagery. A coronagraph is criticyet no follow-on has approved. 

Solar white-light images Solar radio emissions 

SOON sites 

Solar Magnetograms 

Major solar telescopes SOHO MDI Neither ground-base

space-based data souare operational. 

Solar Wind: Electrons and protons, magnetic fields 

High latitude riometers NASA Advanced 

Composition Explorer (ACE) 

Presently relying on NASA spacecraft fosolar wind data. No follow-on solar wind monitor mission has approved. 

GEO energetic particles and magnetic fields 

GOES space environment monitor (SEM) 

LEO energetic particles POES SEM Global geomagnetic field 

Several magnetometer networks 

Most magnetometernon-operational (nosupported 24/7). Mmagnetometer data not provided in real-

Ground base neutron flux Neutron monitors 

63

Table 2k. REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS for SPACE WEATHER 
APPENDIX 3. GLOSSARY of ACRONYMS and NAMES 

ACARS – AIRINC Communications Addressing and Reporting System (commercial aircraft data 

system) 

ADCP – acoustic doppler current profiler 

AMDAR – Aircraft Meteorological Data Relay 

AMSR – Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (satellite) 

AMSU – Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (satellite) 

ANSS – Advanced National Seismic System 

ASOS – Automated Surface Observing System 

ASTER – Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer 

AVHRR – Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer 

AVIRIS – Airborne Visible-Infrared Imaging Spectrometer 

AXBT – Airborne Expendable Temperature (ocean) 

AXCP – Airborne Expendable Current Probe 

AXCTD – Airborne Expendable Conductivity Temperature Depth 

CENR -- Committee for Environmental and Natural Resources 

CEOS – Committee on Earth Observation Satellites 

C-MAN – Coastal-Marine Automated Network 

COSPEC – Correlation Spectrometer (to detect SO2) 

DEM – Digital Elevation Model 

DIAL– Differential Absorption Lidar 

DMSP – Defense Meterological Satellite Program 

DPI – Derived Product Imagery 

EDM – Electronic Distance Measurement 

ESA – European Space Agency 

FTIR – Fourier Tranform InfraRed 

GEO – Group on Earth Observations (producer of GEOSS reports) 

GEOSS – Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

GOES – Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 

GPS -- Global Positioning System 

IEOS – Integrated Earth Observation System (the U.S. component of GEO and GEOSS) 

IGOS – Integrated Global Observing Strategy 

IHO– International Hydrographic Office 

Ikonos – high-resolution commercial satellite (not an acronym) 

InSAR – Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar 
IR -- Infra Red (spectrum); also Infrared Radiometer 

LASCO – Large Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph 

LEO — Low Earth Orbit 

LICOR – small infrared analyser for CO2 (brand name) 

LIDAR – LIght Detection And Ranging 

LWIR – Long Wave Infra Red 

MDCRS – Meteorological Data Collecting and Reporting System (commercial aircraft) 

MDI – Michelson Doppler Imager 

MODIS – Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer 

MWIR – Mid Wave Infra Red 

NESDIS – National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service 

NIR– Near Infra Red 

PBO – Plate Boundary Observatory, a component of Earthscope 

PUFF – high-resolution volcanic ash tracking model (not an acronym) 

QuikSCAT-- Quick Scatterometer 

RASS – Radio Acoustic Sounding System 

RMSE -- root mean square error 

SAFOD – San Andreas Fault Oblique Drillhole 

SAR– Synthetic Aperture Radar. 

SFMR – Stepped Frequency Microwave Radiometer 

SLAR– side looking airborne radar 

SOHO – Solar and Heliospheric Observatory 

SOON -- Solar Observing Optical Network 

SRA – Scanning Radar Altimeter 

SWIR – Short Wave Infra Red 

TAMDAR -- Tropospheric Airborne Meteorological Data Reports (commercial aircraft) 

TIMS – Thermal Infrared Multispectral Scanner 

TIR – Thermal Infra Red 

TOMS -- Total Ozone Monitoring Spectrometer 

TRMM/PR -- Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission/Precipitation Radar 

UAS -- Unmanned Aerial System 

VAFTAD – Volcanic Ash Forecast Transport and Dispersion model 

XBT – Expendable Bathythermograph 

65