U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–401 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–388

WINTER STORMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND 

PREDICTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 1, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 1, 2006 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator DeMint ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator E. Benjamin Nelson ............................................................ 3

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 2

WITNESSES

Michels, Hon. Denise, Mayor, City of Nome/President, Alaska Conference 

of Mayors .............................................................................................................. 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

Uccellini, Dr. Louis W., Director, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) .............. 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12

(1)

WINTER STORMS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER, PREVENTION AND

PREDICTION, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m. in room 

SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim DeMint,

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DEMINT,

U.S. SENATOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator DEMINT. A particular thanks to our witnesses today. 

This afternoon, the Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction will be meeting to discuss severe winter weather and its impacts on communities and commerce. While winter storms are often 

not as sensational as hurricanes and tornadoes, these storms still 

have a devastating impact on businesses and their accurate prediction is essential to the efficient movement of commerce and the 

protection of public safety. 

Our Nation faces a variety of winter storms. Most people are familiar with the nor’easters that hit the eastern seaboard of the 

United States, frequently blanketing cities from Washington to 

Boston with a layer of snow. But people are likely not as aware of 

the devastating storms that buffet the coast of Alaska with high 

winds, intense cold, and devastating erosion. There’s also probably 

not as much understanding of the driving blizzards that produce 

blinding white-outs in the Midwest, crippling traffic and creating 

huge snowdrifts. And finally, there seems to be little recognition of 

the ice storms that hit the southern United States, often leaving 

thousands without power. 

In the middle of December, upstate South Carolina was hit with 

a devastating ice storm. As the ice accumulated on tree limbs and 

wires in communities across the upstate, houses went dark. All 

told, at the end of the storm, nearly 900,000 people were without 

power. Many had their homes damaged, including mine. The destruction was so widespread and devastating that the damage was 

significant; so significant that the region received a disaster declaration from FEMA, and this was a relatively small area of the 

state. While the storm’s onset was not a surprise, its magnitude 

caught some people off guard. 

To avoid some of the consequences of these storms, the Nation 

needs accurate and timely storm prediction. While there would still 

2

have been a high level of power outages during the storm in South 

Carolina, if we had had a clearer idea of what was to come, individuals would have had a better idea of what was in store and the 

power companies could have marshaled more support to get our 

power back on more quickly. Many were without power for a week. 

The news is not always bad. NOAA is improving the quality of 

its forecast. For example, the 72-hour forecasts are as accurate 

today as the 36-hour forecasts were 20 years ago. This is important 

progress because it provides an essential planning time that’s necessary for emergency planners as well as for citizens who may need 

to stock up on food and water and alternative sources of heat. 

I’m looking forward to the comments of our witnesses this morning to explain what they believe needs to be done to ensure that 

we improve the quality of our forecasts and better prepare our communities for these storms. I’ll now yield to Chairman Stevens for 

his opening comments and the introduction of our first witness. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. I do appreciate 

you holding this hearing. If the Senate wasn’t in session, I would 

have preferred to hold it in Mayor Michels’ hometown. Unfortunately, the Weather Bureau has just put out a warning, a blizzard 

warning, Mayor. I assume you know. It’s in effect until 6 a.m. tomorrow. It’s for Nome and the surrounding areas. Current weather 

there is a wind chill of minus 29 and the winds are 38 miles an 

hour from the east. 

That’s not good news, Senator, because it’s just 2 days away from 

one of my favorite activities in Nome we will start celebrating, and 

this is the—this is a tough time to have this kind of weather when 

the Iditarod is underway. It is the last great race. It’s a great 

sporting event. We’d love to have you come up and witness the—

the end of it is in Mayor Michels’ home, and it, of course, was the 

target for serum that was delivered by dog sled back in 1925. 

But I do thank you, Denise, for coming up—or coming down rather and being up here on the Hill to testify and I think this is the 

kind of hearing we should have more often. By the way, Mr. Chairman, there is the warning that came out of the Fairbanks Weather 

Service. Now you have to realize that Fairbanks is 900 miles away, 

at least. That’s where our weather station is that deals with storms 

off that part of the coast, if I’m correct, Mr. Uccellini. 

I brought with me some of the typical storms of the past. The 

Bering Sea storm of 2004, compared to Hurricane Andrew, you can 

see where it came off the Russian Peninsula, the Kamchatka area 

and it came across to Alaska. This is the latest storm, in September of this past year. It really is a very, very beautiful picture 

of what happens in the North Pacific when there is a monstrous 

storm of this type. And we also have some of the photographs of 

what happened to Nome in October of 2004. 

And this is one of the area maps that I like to show people. It 

shows how Alaska stretches across the whole of the United States, 

but when you look at it, we have three areas of—weather forecasting areas of responsibility and that shows you how far away 

they really are from—in the days gone by, we had these weather 

3

offices in almost every area of the state. This is the Ninilchik flood 

on the Kenai Peninsula. I was actually down there at that time in 

2002. It took out that bridge there over the Illiamna River. 

I’m telling you, these are—the comparisons to—this is a map prepared by NOAA showing the comparison of the number of storms 

that have hit the United States and the number that hit Alaska 

on an annual basis. This is the Barrow Storm of 2000. Again, one 

of the most difficult storms that they’ve had in the Arctic in history. I do think it’s an area that should be studied more and we 

should have more information about it because of its impact on the 

overall National Weather System. 

So I thank you very much, and as I said, thank you, also, Doctor, 

for coming to testify. I see behind you a familiar face. You have 

support. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Nelson, 

would you like to make an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, particularly for holding this hearing. Obviously, Nebraska sees our share 

of winter storms every year, so this is clearly a topic of great interest to me. 

Now winter storms, perhaps, have less direct impact on society 

than maybe other storms such as hurricanes or tornadoes, but they 

still can threaten lives, disrupt transportation systems, and have 

a significant impact on the national economy. Winter weather not 

only presents a substantial challenge for forecasters, but poses 

risks to public safety and can take a huge economic toll on agriculture, transportation, utilities, and other businesses long after 

the storm passes. 

In Nebraska, for example, the average yearly snowfall ranges 

from about 27 inches in the southeastern part of the state to 41 

inches in the panhandle. Now this year, it hasn’t reached anything 

like that, but along with the snowfall, each year we contend with 

ice and bitter cold temperatures. Even a small accumulation of ice 

can make driving treacherous and heavy accumulations can bring 

down trees and utility poles, affecting power and communications. 

Because Nebraska is a very windy state, it’s not uncommon for 

wind chills to be several degrees below zero, leading to the possibility of frostbite or hypothermia for anyone exposed to the cold for 

any length of time. 

As a former Governor and with the responsibility for making 

sure my state was prepared to respond to severe winter weather, 

I can state firsthand that timely and accurate forecasting of winter 

storms is crucial to being able to respond in an effective manner. 

And I’m sure that Mayor Michels will agree with me on that. Accurate, advance warning of approaching storms allows both state and 

local officials to give the public adequate notice of the storm and 

instructions on how to prepare. Clearly, safety is our first priority, 

but there’s also an economic factor to be considered as well. Large 

winter storms can impact the daily activities of potentially millions 

of people over the course of several days. But the economic costs 

of cleanup, underemployment, and lost business are not typically 

4

accounted for in damage estimates. The impacts of winter storms 

on shipping and airline industries likewise can be substantial. 

The Nation’s complex infrastructure of highways, city streets, 

and local roads present a challenge to the Department of Transportation, state agencies, and municipal governments who are charged 

with maintaining safe transit conditions for the public and the flow 

of commerce. More accurate winter storm forecasts can help people 

prepare for these events and reduce direct and indirect costs associated with them. 

I look forward to the testimony today and I appreciate very much 

this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Senator. We will start with the 

Mayor, but before we do, I think I need to introduce Dr. Uccellini, 

right? Do I have that right? Dr. Uccellini is currently the Director 

of National Weather Service’s National Center for Environmental 

Prediction, which we call NCEP. In his position, he’s responsible 

for directing and implementing the science, technology, and operations related to the seven national centers that forecast specific 

weather phenomena, including the Climate Prediction Center and 

the National Hurricane Center. 

In addition to his role as Director of NCEP, he is one of the Nation’s leading authorities on severe winter weather. Just a few 

years ago, Dr. Uccellini co-published, with Paul Kosin from The 

Weather Channel, a two-volume study on northeast snow storms, 

which is widely regarded as a definitive text. Throughout his career 

with NOAA, he’s published a number of other publications on severe weather and winter weather in particular. So we’re pleased to 

have you and we’ll hear from you in just a moment, but Mayor 

Michels, since you’ve come the longest way, we greatly appreciate 

you doing that, we’ll allow a short opening statement and then 

we’ll go to Dr. Uccellini. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DENISE MICHELS, MAYOR, CITY OF 

NOME/PRESIDENT, ALASKA CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 

Ms. MICHELS. Thank you for inviting me. The information I’m 

going to provide you today comes from the communities that are 

affected, the State of Alaska, and also the University of Alaska’s 

International Arctic Research Center. 

As you can see on there, Nome is located on the Seward Peninsula. We’re facing the Norton Sound. The Bering Strait’s region occupies 17 communities and every time we have a storm, every one 

of these communities is affected because we are located on the 

coast. Unlike most of America, we do not have a road system. All 

of our transportation coming into Nome and into the villages is by 

air and so when we do have a storm, all transportation is stopped. 

We are greatly affected by the high winds. Planes cannot fly and 

our roads get wiped out. 

Western Alaska has survived the Spanish flu, deadly diphtheria 

and, for the last few years, storms with erosion which is something 

new. We have listed, in the paperwork that I’ve provided you, 

storms documented since 1900 to 1946 and this caused Nome to request for a seawall that was built in 1949, 1950. This seawall has 

just saved Nome immensely. Without that, the damage and economics of it would be just devastating. 

5

During the 2003 storm, we were lucky that the Weather Service 

gave us an early warning, where the communities up in the north, 

like Shishmaref and Kivalina, had 1 day to prepare to put items 

to high land. That still caused damage and impacted their community because meat on racks were lost and so there was economic 

hardship that was faced that normal communities in the south 

don’t experience. 

In 2003, FEMA approved the city of Nome’s Hazardous Mitigation Plan. We were the first in the state and second in the Nation 

to get our plan approved. We identified community and business 

leaders, vulnerable locations, developed effective mitigation strategies. We learned about an incident command system, which is totally different. And the Weather Service in Nome is a very essential part of this team. 

During the 2004 storm, the Weather Service also gave us an 

early warning and this time we were able to take precautionary 

steps. Our emergency operation center, along with the Troopers 

and the National Guard, we were able to go downtown and ask the 

stores and the people that live there to board up their windows and 

prepare to go to higher ground. Now, in the villages, there is no 

Home Depot where you can run and grab plywood. You have to 

find what is available and so, giving this early warning really helps 

us try to find those resources in the rural areas. 

It is very evident that we are seeing these storms more often, 

mainly because freeze-up is coming later in the year and so far, the 

Western Alaska storms for the last 100 years, based on the information we have, is $48,000,000, without the 2005 numbers that we 

have not received yet. 

We are impacted because our per capita income is lower. Economic options are limited. For example, if you lose your boat, that’s 

your only source for getting subsistence. You can’t get a grant or 

you—you know, we don’t have the money to get a loan for a new 

boat. And then another one is the infrastructure, like if a road or 

an airport goes out, we have to wait for resources to come to us 

and that may take a couple days. 

In the City of Nome, we continue to hold our LEPC meetings. We 

conduct drills. We receive training. As you can see with our professional response, we are very dedicated to make sure that disaster 

preparation and recovery is the number one priority. 

Some of the items that the region is doing, for instance, our 

power plant is located in the flood zone. We are working on moving 

that onto higher ground. In Shishmaref, with the assistance of the 

State, they wrote an evacuation and flood plan. They’re also working to relocate with assistance from USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service. The Northwest Arctic Borough, where Kivalina 

is located, is working on finding resources to help them complete 

their Hazardous Mitigation Plan. No communities have completed 

their Hazardous Mitigation Plan, one of the reasons why is that 

they’re financially strapped in rural areas. We don’t have the economic base because we rely on subsistence. 

So I’m hoping to bring this message to you today to help our 

communities complete their Hazardous Mitigation Plans, that you 

would consider funding the State of Alaska to provide more funds 

so that they can complete these plans, or consider a pilot project 

6

in Northwest Alaska to have an agency come in and work with the 

communities to complete these Hazardous Mitigation Plans. The 

reason why is that once these plans are done, the economics and 

the damage will not be as expensive. And so there’s going to be a 

savings, both life, property, and resources. 

Also, to assist the Weather Service in predicting models, we recommend that possibly more buoys be in the Bering Strait region. 

There’s one buoy about 600 miles toward the Aleutians that they 

have to use to predict weather. The Corps of Engineers, when 

they’re designing ports and harbors and erosion facilities, basically 

use the information on the buoy. So, to provide them with more 

technical assistance, that would, I think, benefit everyone. Also, 

more observation points are needed. We do not have that many in 

the area and so if we were able to have more observations, be it 

automatic or in person, that would be able to help the Weather 

Service in doing predictions and providing that information out to 

us faster. 

We’re also working with the University of Alaska to see if a research center in Nome would be possible. It’s evident that the permafrost is melting. You can go down the Nome Teller Highway and 

you can see where the tundra sloughed off and the permafrost is 

exposed and everything is just melting and creating big divots and 

that will be expensive to our transportation infrastructure. 

We really thank NOAA for being a partner with the city of Nome 

on our economic—on our local emergency committee and I thank 

you for having me here. It’s a real honor and if you need any information, I have a whole stack of stuff here that I can provide to you. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Michels follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DENISE MICHELS, MAYOR, CITY OF NOME/PRESIDENT, 

ALASKA CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, I am Denise Michels, Mayor of the City of Nome 

and President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. I would like to provide you an 

overview of the winter storms western Alaska has been hit with for the last 100 

years and our ability to prepare for these storms and recommendations for your consideration. This information was provided by the communities affected by the 

storms, National Weather Service, State of Alaska’s Division of Community Advocacy, Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, and the University 

of Alaska’s International Arctic Research Center. 

The City of Nome is located in Northwest Alaska on the southern coast of the 

Seward Peninsula. Nome lies along the Bering Sea facing Norton Sound. The city 

is 539 air miles north of Anchorage and 161 miles east of Russia. 

Nome Census Area encloses a 23,013 square mile section of the Seward Peninsula 

and the Norton Sound coast. The Nome Census Area is commonly referred to as the 

Bering Strait region. Currently 17 communities occupy the Nome Census Area, of 

which Nome has the largest population and is the regional hub for medical and 

transportation facilities and other services. 

Unlike most areas in America, a road system does not exist throughout the Bering 

Strait region. Air transportation is the most common and reliable mode of transportation throughout the year. Many of the communities of Northwest Alaska have developed because of the convenience to traditional hunting or fishing grounds and 

community residents utilize the rivers and coastline as vital routes for transportation during the summer months using boats with outboard motors. When storms 

hit, all transportation ceases. We are not able to perform medical or emergency 

evacuations of remote isolate communities due to the high winds and dangerous 

freezing ice conditions. 

Gold was reported in the Nome area as far back as 1867 but it was not until the 

Gold Rush of 1899 that brought people in the area settling on the coast. Western 

7

Alaska has survived the Spanish influenza, the deadly diphtheria breakout in Nome 

and winter storms. 

The major risk for the City of Nome and other communities are from coastal 

storm surges which in the last few years have caused severe erosion. The fairly 

shallow water off shore normally keeps waves small. However during a surge, water 

depth increases, allowing larger, more powerful waves to impact the coast. This fact, 

combined with the flooding due to the surge itself can deal a devastating double 

blow to the area. The situation is made worse if the surge comes at high tide. Ice 

override may occur when the storm wind conditions are coupled with open water 

depending on the prevailing winds. These storm surges have wreaked havoc on the 

city many times in the past and will do so again. 

The City of Nome has been battered many times over the years by storm surges, 

which have caused significant loss of life and property since the early 1900s. The 

following is a chronology of information on the largest storms taken from newspaper 

articles, publications, the Nome Flood Insurance Study, and technical documents 

prepared by the United States Government. 

Great Storm of September 12, 1900. The first recorded storm in Nome occurred 

on September 12, 1900. It is estimated that the winds were 75 mph. The towering 

waves destroyed or washed away almost everything on the beach, and part of 

Nome’s business district. It was estimated that 1,000 people were homeless, numerous people died, many head of cattle and sheep were lost and 10,000 tons of coal 

were swept into the sea. The total damage was estimated at $750,000. 

Storm of October 1902. The storm of October 11, 1902 produced waves only 2′′ less than the storm in 1900 however the wind was not as fierce. The estimated damaged would not exceed $25,000 to $30,000. 

Storm of October 1913. The October 1913 is the worst storm to date. Waves 

broke over the top of the city breaking apart entire business blocks. Gale winds 

were clocked at 60 mph, which produced breaking waves of 40′ high and a storm 

surge of 20′. Most of the town was destroyed. The entire sand spit, which housed 

hundreds of homes, was completely swept away. Five hundred people were homeless, most of them destitute. The damage was estimated at $1,000,000. 

Storms of 1945 and 1946. The 1945 storm caused severe damage to waterfront 

structures, hurling blocks of ice into the town. In October 1946, a coastal storm created surge estimated at 9′ above normal. Many of the streets of Nome were inundated, flooding buildings and property. The storm leveled six buildings. Coastal erosion was so severe that several near shore buildings were undermined and collapsed. 

These storms led to the push for a seawall and were successful in getting Con- gress to appropriate $1 million (Rivers & Harbors Action, 6/16/1948—Pub. L. 80–

649) in 1949 to build the seawall. 

The Great Bering Sea Storm of 1974. Three separate storms simultaneously 

hit Northwestern Alaska’s coastline in November that produced a storm surge or 

rise in water level of up to 12′ MLLW. Extensive damage to streets and structures 

occurred with approximately 30 homes destroyed and many displaced as one of the 

power plant’s generators sat in pit and flooded with water and power lines were 

down. The city’s sewage treatment plant was out of order until it was by-passed so 

toilets could be used. Water was contaminated due to the sea water coming into the 

river so water trucks delivered 100 gallons of water to those on the truck route; others had to get water at the fire hall. An ice pileup reached 30–40′. The seawall protected the city; however, damage was still estimated to be over $30 million. 

Extensive damage to villages occurred, flooding homes damaging power lines, and 

roads. 

1980s. A pileup in the winter of 1980 reached a height of 20–25′. The seawall localizes the effects of ice override and prevents the transport of ice inland. 

Storm of 1992. A storm in October 1992 severely damaged the revetment on the 

eastern edge of the seawall. This storm led to the 1993 expansion of the large rock 

seawall to replace the revetment, which was at a lower elevation and a pavement 

structure of small stones. 

Sizable ice piles occur with considerable frequency in Nome. Ice override occurred 

a few years ago on the east side of town, but a bulldozer turned the ice sheet back. 

Storm of 2002. On October 8, 2002, a winter storm hit with winds at 45 mph 

and in Shishmaref and Kivalina seas were reported at 14′ at high tide. Severe erosion on the embankment of the beach in Shishmaref occurred losing 10′–20′. Homes 

were endangered along with a bulk fuel tank farm. Total damage was $382,032. 

Storm of 2003. On November 21–23, 2003, Shishmaref was hit by a storm with 

winds blowing 45 mph with gusts to 61 mph, seas were as high as 14′. Early warning by the National Weather Service (NWS) gave community members one day to 

move items to higher land. Severe erosion occurred again losing an additional 10′–

8

30′ of land causing power poles to fall over. Boats and drying racks with subsistence 

food were washed out to sea causing economic hardship to the community. Total 

damage was $695,000. 

In 2003, FEMA approved the City of Nome’s Hazard Mitigation Plan making us 

the first in the state and second in the Nation. We are eligible to apply for various 

hazard mitigation project grants. Because this was new to us a consultant was 

hired. We identified community and business leaders, identified vulnerable locations, developed effective mitigation strategies and practiced disaster response 

plans. We’ve learned about Incident Command and Unified Command Management 

and learned how to work and communicate effectively as a team and have established an Emergency Operations Center. The National Weather Service’s Nome staff 

is an essential part of this team. 

Storm of 2004. October 19, 2004 Bering Sea Storm caused significant damage 

and destruction to Western Alaska. Early warnings by the NWS predicted the 941 

mb pressure storm could rival that of November 1974, so precautionary steps were 

taken. The storm did not develop to the levels of the event. At the airport in Nome 

peak winds were 59 mph. NOAA maintains a weather station on the port causeway 

which recorded an hourly observation during the storm at 55 mph and a peak tide 

of +10.5′. The City of Nome activated the Emergency Operations Plan and implemented the 

Incident Command System. We involved approximately 100 personnel from the 

Alaska State Troopers, Alaska National Guard, Nome Volunteer Fire Department, 

Nome Ambulance Department, Nome Police Department; City/Utility/Public works 

employees and civilians in various capabilities. Pre-storm activities included boarding up doors and windows, relocating inventory to high ground, securing docks and 

closing roads. 

Many villages in low lying areas were flooded and major damage occurred to the 

infrastructure and roads. The community of Shishmaref lost more land due to erosion. Kotezbue’s Front Street was under water. Commercial propane bottles were 

thrown around causing an evacuation of Nome’s Front Street. We experienced power 

outages which can compound the destruction by freezing up water and sewer lines. 

The storm created a new channel and washout the Nome-Council Road at Safety 

Bridge. 

The City of Nome declared a disaster on 10/19 along with Northwest Arctic Borough. The Governor declared a disaster on 10/29 along with the Federal Government on 11/16/2004. The estimate cost of this disaster is $12,460,469. 

Storm of 2005. The 966 mb September 22nd storm hit Western Alaska and continued until the 23rd. Nome’s peak tide was +10.3′ with peak winds at 56 mph. The 

Early warnings by the NWS gave a day and a half for the city to establish an Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Front Street businesses prepared for the storm by 

boarding windows, doors, protecting inventory and ensuring operational pumps. The 

EOC kept in contact with our villages in preparation to assist and to communicate 

with our emergency services folks if anything developed. In Unalakleet this early 

warning allowed the community to haul rocks to protect their shorelines in hopes 

of slowing down erosion. 

Kivalina lost 25′–30′ of beach erosion along their shoreline and 20′ of beach erosion towards the airstrip. In Golovin, water covered roadways 3′ deep, fuel tanks 

were floating and the lower half of town was under water. In Teller, sea water flooded the main road splitting the town in two. The community of Shaktoolik located 

on a spit will become an island if they are hit with another big storm blocking evacuation access. 

In Nome power lines were down. Low lying homes were flooded. The new harbor 

entrance failed as sand eroded away and nearly exposed the utility sewer line. The 

new breakwater was damaged, 5–8 ton rocks were displaced and repairs had to be 

done. The Nome Council Road was washed away for several miles and the newly 

created channel broke thru again. Shelter was given to 17 evacuees; several families 

were dislocated as their homes were damaged. The City of Nome and surrounding 

areas, the State of Alaska and the FEMA declared disasters. State DHSEM is preparing an estimate cost and has identified $2 million in damage to communities and 

another $1.2 million to roads and infrastructure. 

It is evident that we are seeing severe winter storms more often then the prior 

years as documented, mainly freeze up comes later in the year. Total cost of Western Alaska storms for the last 100 years is estimated at $48,517,501. Alaska is severely impacted by storms as our per capita income is lower than the U.S. eastern 

seaboard, economic options are limited, and recovery may be slower due to the needed infrastructure. 

The City of Nome continues to hold monthly Local Emergency Planning Committee meetings, conduct drills and receive training in incident command and coVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:55 May 17, 2006 Jkt 027401 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27401.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
9

ordination of multiple agencies in Nome. Our professional response, before and after 

the storm demonstrated our commitment to disaster preparation and recovery. Another preventative measure is that the City of Nome is in process of moving the 

power plant to higher ground and we need an additional $4 million to complete construction. 

The City of Shishmaref with the assistance of the Alaska Division of Emergency 

Services completed an evacuation and flood action plan. The Shishmaref Erosion 

and Relocation Committee are actively pursuing to relocate to the mainland. The 

community is working with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service in assessing two different sites on the mainland. Also the Northwest Arctic Borough is 

an Emergency Management Grant program participant and they are researching 

several options to apply for funds to help Kivalina complete their Hazardous Mitigation Plan. 

No other communities have completed their hazardous mitigation plan. One reason is that a majority of our cities are hurting financially and are not fully staffed 

and secondly the State received minimal amount of funds for remaining cities to 

apply for a grant to complete the hazardous mitigation plan. To assist our communities we recommend the following for your consideration:

• That the Federal Government provide more funds to the State of Alaska for the 

cities to complete their plans.

• Consider funding a pilot project through the State to complete the plans with 

the communities in Western Alaska.

To assist the National Weather Service to predict models we recommend the following for your consideration:

• More buoys are need in the Bering Sea. Currently two buoys are located near 

the Aleutian chain; the closest buoy #46035 is several hundred miles south of 

Nome. This would also assist the U.S. Corps of Engineers with the design of 

causeway, flood protection and shore erosion facilities.

• More observation points are needed throughout the region to help NWS fill in 

the data holes.

The City of Nome is in process of working with the University of Alaska in Fairbanks to assess if a science research center is feasible for focus on science, education 

and history including research. We hope that NOAA will be a partner as Nome is 

in a unique location to study the environmental changes. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide 

this information to the Committee, it’s truly an honor to be here. If there is anything else I can provide please let me know.

Senator DEMINT. I’m sure we’ll have some questions in a moment, but Dr. Uccellini, if you will give us a short statement. 

STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS W. UCCELLINI, DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL CENTERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PREDICTION, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

(NOAA) 

Dr. UCCELLINI. OK. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Dr. Louis Uccellini, the Director of NCEP, or the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, which is the central 

component of the National Weather Service within NOAA within 

the Department of Commerce. You mentioned several of the centers. I also want to point out the Ocean Prediction Center and I 

do that because the director of the Ocean Prediction Center is sitting behind me, Dr. James Hoke and they have to deal with storms 

like that, too, in the Pacific, North Pacific, and North Atlantic 

Oceans. And it obviously provides tremendous challenges to the 

forecasters in these centers and in the local offices within Alaska 

in dealing with those storms. 

I’d like to thank the Mayor for making the comments she did 

about NOAA and the National Weather Service and the services 

10

that we’ve provided for several of the most critical storms which 

have occurred in Alaska over the past several years. 

I’d also like to thank Members of the Committee for their support of a much needed facility. The NOAA Center for Climate and 

Weather Prediction is a project we’ve been working on for many 

years now and we have our official ground breaking ceremony on 

March 13th and we’re due for occupancy within 2 years. So we 

want to thank you for your support. 

OK. So let’s get to the winter storms. A major winter storm can 

produce freezing rain, ice, sleet, heavy snowfall, coastal flooding, 

and erosion, and high winds that combine with cold temperatures 

to produce dangerous wind chills. The severity of the winter storms 

can range from a storm that produces snow or freezing rain over 

a few hours to blizzard conditions lasting several days. Winter 

storms can threaten lives, disrupt transportation systems, have a 

significant impact on the national economy, and affect all regions 

of the United States. A single winter storm can cause major damage and billions of dollars in economic losses. 

The science of winter storm prediction has improved steadily 

over the past two decades. As noted earlier, the 72-hour forecasts 

are as accurate as 36-hour forecasts. That’s actually 15 to 20 years 

ago. The average national lead time for warning for winter storms 

has been increasing and in Fiscal Year 2005, the lead time was 17 

hours, on average, across the country, which exceeded our GPRA 

goal of 15 hours. The improvement is due, in large part, to the continual enhancements in global observations and American weather 

prediction models, including advancements in the high performance 

computing systems. And an aspect of this global observing system 

is maintaining and enhancing our satellite observation network 

and improving dissemination methods of the data and of the forecasts and warnings once they’re made. 

Now, NOAA has a suite of winter weather products which spans 

from seasonal outlooks to two week outlooks down to the short 

term warnings issued hours in advance. A hazard assessment product shows where the potential for hazardous weather and extreme 

events are possible across the country out to 2 weeks in advance. 

Additional improvements in winter weather predictions and services 5 days in advance can be attributed to NOAA’s winter storm 

reconnaissance program, in part. The winter storm reconnaissance 

program is designed to improve forecasts of significant winter 

weather by targeting observations in data sparse areas in the 

North Pacific Ocean. These observations significantly improve numerical weather predictions 60 to 80 percent of the time. We do 

this program only during the winter. When we get the planes out 

there and when we get the drop zones to areas where we know we 

have observation issues, we can show that 60 to 80 percent of the 

time, we improve subsequent forecasts. By improving the model 

analysis over the North Pacific, we see improved forecasts for Alaska as well as the rest of the Nation. 

We are also addressing the winter storm watch and warning program, the short term aspect of our service program, by increasingly 

focusing staff on winter storm predictions. Initial results in the 

east and in central United States have been positive as our warning lead times have increased over the past 3 years, on average, 

11

from 13 hours to 19 hours, and increased our accuracy to 92 percent. We expect similar improvements as we continue to expand 

this program to other areas of the country. 

NOAA provides radar data, surface observation, sea surface temperatures, and satellite images as well as computer model simulations of the atmosphere that are used by the entire weather community. NOAA’s data, forecasts, and warnings are disseminated 

through the vast National Weather Service dissemination network, 

including the NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards, Emergency Managers Weather Information Network, NOAA Weather Wire Services, the Emergency Alert System, and, where applicable, the Internet. We work in close partnership with all the media and other private sector firms to ensure that dangerous and potentially life 

threatening weather situations such as winter storms are readily 

communicated to the public. 

Our ability to predict major snow and ice events with increased 

confidence allows officials to make decisions prior to these events 

concerning public safety, transportation, and commerce. Now, a 

most recent example, and one that affected this part of the country, 

is the recent February winter storm along the northeast urban corridor. State and local communities up and down the coast positioned road crews and prepared schedules to apply road chemicals 

well before the onset of the storm. Retail outlets had snow removal 

equipment and heavy clothing on the shelf with advertising of 

‘‘blizzard blowouts’’ days before this storm actually occurred. Affected areas were able to make a remarkable recovery after the 

storm due to the advance planning. NOAA’s medium range and 

short range forecasts were accurate and provided state and local 

governments with the information they needed to take action to 

mitigate the impact of the snow storm. And I’d like to add here 

that this is very similar to October 18–20, 2004, which was just alluded to, off of the coast of Alaska. Mitigating steps were taken before the storm’s arrival because of the forecast provided. 

Recently NOAA has implemented a new snowfall impact scale 

which my colleague, Paul Kosin of The Weather Channel, and I developed. The scale takes into account snowfall amounts and the 

population of affected areas and measures the impact the storm 

has, in this case, in the northeast sector of the country. With this 

scale, scientists can quickly assess a snow storm’s potential impact 

to heavily populated areas, compare it with past storms in an objective manner and assign it one of five categories ranging from notable to crippling to extreme. Work is currently underway to expand this concept and the baseline equation that we use to compute this index to other parts of the country. In fact, I had phone 

conversations over the past week with the Director of the National 

Climate Data Center to work this issue, not only for the CONUS, 

the Continental United States, but also for Alaska. 

NOAA continues to work with universities, the private sector, 

and other Federal agencies to improve our understanding of these 

storms. NOAA is also working to improve satellite observing capabilities over ocean, land, and ice, through the NPOESS and GOES 

programs with this new data expected to have major impacts on 

the numerical prediction systems used to predict winter storms. 

12

NOAA will continue these efforts to improve winter storm forecasting and all other weather predictions. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Uccellini follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS W. UCCELLINI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTERS

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PREDICTION, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Dr. Louis W. Uccellini, Director of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, in the National Weather 

Service (NWS), at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

in the Department of Commerce. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss 

the role of the National Weather Service in forecasting and warning for winter 

storms. 

A major winter storm can last for several days and be accompanied by freezing 

rain (ice) or sleet, heavy snowfall, and high winds that combine with cold temperatures to produce dangerous wind chills. The severity of a winter storm can range 

from a storm that produces snow or freezing rain over a few hours to blizzard conditions lasting several days. Extreme cold, accumulating or blowing snow, strong 

winds, and coastal flooding can cause long-term hazardous conditions. Winter 

storms can threaten lives, disrupt transportation systems and have a significant impact on the national economy. A single winter storm can cause major damage and 

billions of dollars in economic losses. 

The impacts of heavy snow and high winds in the Northeast United States have 

been documented by the earliest settlers dating to the 17th century. Legendary 

events, such as the ‘‘great snow’’ of 1717, the Washington-Jefferson Snowstorm of 

1772, the blizzards of 1888 and 1899, the 1922 Knickerbocker storm, and the great 

New England snowstorm of 1978 are recalled for generations by those who lived 

through these events or learned about them through local lore. Just last month an 

East Coast storm impacting regions from Alabama through Maine set an all time 

snowfall record in New York City. Over time, we may see this February storm included in this list of major U.S. winter storms. 

Winter storms also pose enormous challenges to the meteorological research and 

operational communities who have attempted to understand and predict them, often 

with mixed results. 

Heavy snow causes concerns larger in scope than mere discomfort and inconvenience of shoveling the driveway or walks. The impact to the airline and shipping 

industries can be devastating. The Nation’s complex infrastructure of highways, city 

streets, and local roads present a challenge to the Department of Transportation, 

state agencies, and municipal governments, when hazardous winter weather conditions threaten our ability to maintain safe transit conditions for the public and the 

flow of commerce. Most people are unaware of the significant efforts, in terms of 

both planning and expense, by local and state agencies to remove snow and ice from 

our roadways. 

While severe winter weather can be debilitating and pose a serious threat to safety anywhere in our Nation, winter storms can have a particularly devastating impact to the economy in heavily populated and highly industrialized areas. The 

Northeast region from Virginia to Maine is such an area, and includes the densely 

populated metropolitan centers of Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, 

and Boston. This region is home to nearly 50 million people. In the Northeast, heavy 

snowfall associated with intense coastal storms, often called nor’easters, may strand 

millions of people at home, at work or in transit; severely disrupt human services 

and commerce; and endanger the lives of those who venture outdoors. Snowstorms 

have their greatest impact on transportation, being especially disruptive to automotive travel, trucking, and aviation. 

The aviation industry can be significantly affected by snowstorms causing widespread delays, airport closings and occasionally contributing to serious airline accidents. For example, the snowstorm of January 7–8, 1996 crippled air transportation 

on the East Coast (New York, Washington, Boston, Philadelphia), causing an estimated $50–$100 million in losses to the airlines industry. During the February 12, 

2006 snowstorm, airlines cancelled 2,500 flights in the New York City area alone. 

East Coast snowstorms can also have a long-term impact on the Nation’s economy. Examples include the snowstorms of March 1993 and January 1996, which 

caused economic losses in the billions of dollars. In both of these instances, state 

and local resources were unable to keep pace with the enormous expenses incurred 

during each storm, and the President responded with numerous disaster declaraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:55 May 17, 2006 Jkt 027401 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27401.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
13

tions, allowing Federal funds to be used in disaster relief. The Department of Commerce measured a downturn in the economy following the March 1993 Super Storm. 

Studies based on economic indicators that are heavily weighted by employment statistics have also suggested that a major snowstorm in heavily populated areas, such 

as the Northeast, significantly influences the regional and the national economies, 

since a major storm temporarily puts millions of people out of work. Retail sales and 

housing activity are affected by heavy snows and severe cold. Reports have suggested that the Nation’s economic strength was significantly weakened following the 

major snowstorms in February 1978, March 1992, and January and February 1994. 

During the harsh winter of 1977–78, the economy slowed from a 9 percent growth 

rate at the beginning of the winter season to only 1 percent during the winter itself. 

Once severe weather conditions eased, the economy rebounded significantly. 

Winter storms in the Central states can be equally devastating to the local economy and threaten life and safety. Heavy snow, strong winds and cold temperatures 

have shut down our interstate highway system, at times stranding hundreds of travelers and having a detrimental impact on our trucking industry. 

Winter storms along the West Coast provide a mixed blessing. While snow, ice 

and subfreezing temperatures are not as common in the major West Coast cities as 

in East or Central U.S. cities, impacts from winter storms can be just as devastating 

as in the East. Strong storms bring very heavy rains to coastal areas causing major 

flooding, flash floods, and mud, or debris, slides. Pacific Northwest storms which undergo ‘‘explosive cyclogenesis,’’ or very rapid intensification, can strike quickly bringing hurricane-force winds into the region. These storms frequently knock down 

power lines causing widespread power outages. The NWS works closely with our 

partners in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and will issue a debris slide warning 

for vulnerable areas at the request of the USGS, when conditions warrant. 

While the impact from winter storms can be devastating, these storms also provide the lifeline for residents in the West. They bring heavy snow to the mountains 

to form the winter ‘‘snowpack,’’ which provides essential springtime and summer 

water as the snow melts in the mountains and feeds into the streams and rivers, 

providing water to farmers and the public. When too few winter storms occur in the 

West, the region can be faced with severe water resource challenges, particularly 

in the dry summer months. 

Some of the harshest winter weather conditions imaginable effect Alaska, including heavy snow, biting winds, and extreme cold. Eastern Pacific Ocean waters south 

of Alaska experience some of the most ferocious winter storms. Strong winds, waves 

of thirty feet or more, and subfreezing temperatures, combine to make this region 

very dangerous to shipping and fishing industries. Waves from intense storms crossing the Bering Sea produce coastal flooding and can drive large chunks of sea ice 

inland, destroying buildings near the shore. Blizzards occur across Alaska’s Arctic 

coast, some causing extreme wind chill temperatures reaching as low as ¥90 °F. 

Extreme cold and ice fog may last a week at a time. Heavy snow can impact the 

interior part of the state and is common along the southern coast. Improved forecasts will have a large impact across Alaska, given the state’s reliance on aviation 

for transportation, and on the marine fishing and shipping industries. 

During winter El Nin ̃ o episodes, a strong jet stream and storm track generally 

persists across the southern part of the United States, and milder-than-average conditions producing fewer storms prevail across the northern part of the country. In 

contrast, El Nin ̃ o conditions result in exceptionally stormy winters and increased 

precipitation across California and the southern United States. La Nin ̃ a episodes 

generally produce the opposite pattern—bringing colder and stormier-than-average 

conditions across the North, and warmer and less stormy conditions across the 

South. Also during La Nin ̃ a, there is generally considerable month-to-month variation in temperature, rainfall and storminess. We are currently experiencing weak 

La Nin ̃ a conditions across the country. 

The science of winter storm prediction has improved steadily over the past decades. Our 72-hour forecasts are as accurate today as our 36-hour forecasts were 20 

years ago. Tremendous advances have been made in the prediction and subsequent 

warnings of heavy snow events. In the 1970s we could provide less than 12 hours 

advanced notice for snow fall amounts greater than 4 inches. Today, we are predicting heavy snow events 3–5 days in advance and are differentiating between 4-

, 8-, 12-inch snow fall amounts out to 3 days in advance. The average lead time for 

winter storms has been increasing and in FY 2005 the lead time was 17 hours, surpassing the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goal of 15 hours. This 

improvement is due in large part to continual improvements in our ability to observe and describe the current state of the atmosphere and to model the future state 

of the atmosphere. 

14

Specifically, this forecast improvement is due to (1) increases in the number of 

observations available, particularly satellite information and increases in surface observations; (2) improvements in depicting and understanding the state of the atmosphere through NOAA aircraft reconnaissance flights, which increase the number of 

observations over an area of the globe where additional information is needed to improve the accuracy of the numerical model’s prediction of winter storms; (3) more 

sophisticated model data assimilation systems that are run on some of the most 

powerful high-performance computing systems in the world; and (4) improved global 

atmospheric modeling. 

Our improved ability to predict major snow events with increased confidence allows our diverse user community to make decisions prior to major snow events concerning public safety, transportation and commerce. For example, before the recent 

12 February 2006 winter storm along the Northeast corridor, state and local communities up and down the coast had:

Road crews positioned and schedules prepared to apply chemicals,

Retail outlets had snow removal and heavy clothing made available with advertising of ‘‘Blizzard Blowouts’’ days before this major snow event,

Remarkable recovery due to planning ahead.

Medium range and short range forecasts were accurate and provided the state 

and local governments with the information they needed to take action to mitigate 

the impact of this snowstorm. The public and private industry also had advance 

lead time to take necessary actions to prepare for this record-breaking winter storm. 

Using the new Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS), the February 12, 2006, 

storm was preliminarily classified as a ‘‘Major,’’ or a Category 3 storm. NESIS uses 

five categories (Notable, Significant, Major, Crippling, or Extreme) to communicate 

the severity of a storm based on snowfall amount and the population of the affected 

areas. NESIS will permit meteorologists to quickly communicate a snowstorm’s potential impact and compare it with a past storm. 

While NOAA’s storm prediction capabilities have improved over time, we continue 

to work to improve our forecasts. For the February 12, 2006 storm, we predicted 

a major snowstorm, but we did not predict the snowfall amounts would be as heavy 

as they were. In New York City, we predicted a blizzard well in advance, with snowfall amounts more than a foot in places, but we did not forecast the storm would 

dump 26.9 inches of snow in Central Park. We updated our forecasts based on the 

latest radar data and small scale reports we had, but we need to be able to predict 

these smaller scale situations within the overall larger storm. 

One of the biggest challenges in winter storm prediction is determining what type 

of precipitation will fall (rain, snow, sleet or freezing rain), how long it will last, and 

how much will fall. Meeting this challenge depends on our ability to accurately 

measure the current state of the atmosphere from the global scale to the local scale, 

to integrate this information into our forecast systems, and to predict the future 

state of the atmosphere. Specifically, understanding and depicting moisture 

throughout the atmosphere is a key area targeted for improvement as we strive to 

advance our models and predictions of the future state of the atmosphere. 

Another challenge we face is how to better communicate the uncertainty of our 

predictions. We asked the National Research Council to conduct a study to recommend how we might improve the methods we use to communicate forecast uncertainty and suggest ways to improve our products toward that end. We expect the 

report to be complete later this spring or early summer. 

NOAA produces a suite of winter weather products to assist state and local governments, private industry, and the media in communicating the effects and impacts of developing and ongoing weather systems to the general public and to help 

determine appropriate preparations in advance of a winter storm event. Winter 

Storm Outlooks are given when forecasters believe winter storm conditions are possible, and are usually issued 3 to 5 days in advance of a winter storm. Winter Storm 

Watches are issued 12 to 48 hours before the beginning of a Winter Storm and alert 

the public to the possibility of a heavy snow, heavy freezing rain, or heavy sleet. 

Winter Storm Warnings are issued when hazardous winter weather is imminent 

and are now being issued with lead times greater than 12 hours before the winter 

weather is expected to begin. 

NOAA’s data and information are critical to ensure government officials, the public and private industry are informed of impending winter storms. NOAA provides 

essential observations, including radar data, surface observations, sea surface temperatures, and satellite images, as well as computer model simulations of the atmosphere that are used by the entire weather community. NOAA’s data and information, including forecasts and warnings, are disseminated through the vast NWS disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:55 May 17, 2006 Jkt 027401 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27401.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
15

semination network including NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards, Emergency Managers Weather Information Network, NOAA Weather Wire Service, the Emergency 

Alert System where applicable, and the Internet. Most of the public receives the 

weather information through the media. We work in close partnership with the 

media to ensure dangerous and potentially life threatening weather situations, such 

as winter storms, are communicated to the public. 

The private meteorological community also plays a critical role to ensure the public, and industry, are informed. 

Research into winter storms by universities, the private sector, and the Federal 

Government has provided us insight to understand the inner workings of these 

weather situations, but we can do more. As we increase our understanding of these 

storms, and increase observations of the environment with increasing detail, our 

storm predictions become more accurate—defining when and where the storm will 

hit. People now expect more from the National Weather Service, and believe we 

should get it right every time. At NOAA we will continue our efforts to improve winter storm forecasting, and all other weather predictions, to meet this high expectation. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to 

provide information on NOAA’s winter storm forecasting capabilities. I am happy 

to respond to any questions the Committee may have.

Senator DEMINT. Doctor. Senator Stevens would you like to start 

our questioning? 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I do 

thank you again for holding this hearing. I have a conflict later 

about 3:45, so I appreciate your letting me go first. 

Well first, Mayor Michels, you have some better planning mechanisms now than you had before coming out of the 2004 storms. Do 

you think we need to do more to get you even better prepared? I 

noticed you mentioned one comment in your statement about some 

assistance you would like to have, could you elaborate on that? 

Ms. MICHELS. Yes, Senator. A lot of our villages do not have a 

hazardous mitigation plan, nor do they have the resources to do an 

incident command. This is something totally new to a city and to 

establish something of that magnitude requires someone walking 

you through, either a consultant, to establish this system and to be 

able to assist the cities. I think if we would be able to provide to 

be able to do that, that would greatly help them be able to prepare 

and recover faster. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’d like to see the villages in your area have 

the same kind of planning mechanisms that you’ve established for 

emergencies? 

Ms. MICHELS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Doctor, I’m a little interested in some 

of the statistics I have. I hope I don’t bore you with statistics, but 

I understand there are 122 NOAA weather offices in the United 

States. Is that right? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. That’s correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. And we have, in Alaska, three. We’re one-fifth 

the size of the United States and the Anchorage weather forecast 

office area of responsibility is 1,038,737 miles. The Fairbanks area 

of responsibility is 507,870 miles. And the Juneau AOR is 155,029 

miles. Now I know that we don’t deal with population per se in 

weather prediction. Why do we have so few offices in Alaska as 

compared to the other four-fifths? Four-fifths of the United States 

has 122. We have three. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Well, during the design of the weather service 

modernization in the 1980s and 1990s, I know there was a tremenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:55 May 17, 2006 Jkt 027401 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27401.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
16

dous amount of discussion, not only within the executive branch of 

the government, but between the executive and the legislative 

branches, in terms of the optimal number of offices that could be 

supported during the course of that modernization. With respect to 

Alaska, in deciding on the three that were named Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau, there was also a decision made to sustain the 

Weather Service offices so that there’d be a way of outreaching into 

the other communities. That configuration of offices does not exist 

in the rest of the country. In other words, we just have the weather 

forecast offices in the continental U.S. and, for the most part, and 

I don’t know if there are any what we call WSOs still open in the 

CONUS, Continental U.S. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many of those remain in Alaska now? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. There are—I think the number is seven or eight, 

but we’ll get the specific back to you. But, for example, the office 

in Nome is a Weather Service office that works in collaboration and 

in partnership with Fairbanks in terms of——

The CHAIRMAN. These predictions come from Fairbanks, right? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. That’s correct. And, actually, some aspects of the 

predictions, the basis of the forecast process actually starts with 

numerical models that are run in Gaithersburg, Maryland and 

backed up in Fairmont, West Virginia. We have centers that provide information to Alaska as guidance products from the National 

Centers for Environmental Prediction. 

The CHAIRMAN. Then why don’t you eliminate about 100 from the 

south 48? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Well, we have——

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you have 3 Weather Service offices in 

Alaska and 122 of them, in the lower 48 states? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Well, there—the challenges involved—I’ll try to 

address the Alaska situation first. The challenges involved in providing the level of services over such a large area, as you well 

know, and there are maps, which I have one in front of me, show 

how large an area it really is. And given the topographical influences that Alaska has which poses unique and important challenges to getting these services out, we felt, as we went through 

the modernization, that this was the best way of sustaining the 

level of services and then improving upon those services. Within 

the continental U.S., there are other weather challenges that were 

best served, like tornadic storms, which was one of the major reasons and was the major basis for the modernization, which was 

best served by those number of stations with their access to their 

radar data and which had a much shorter time element associated 

with it in getting the watches and warnings out. So, for example, 

these types of storms and the challenges that you’re facing in Alaska, for which the October storm is a classic example, involves a 

larger area and the forecast process is over days down to hours. 

For a tornadic type of storm, you’re dealing with hours to minutes 

and the station design and the network design in the United—the 

continental United States was really focused on that kind of weather phenomena. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I understand when you’re talking about the 

problems of rivers and flooding and things like that, but when I 

went up to the west coast of Alaska this last summer, I was told 

17

that Shishmaref, for instance, had no warning at all about the 

storm that hit them and it comes down to a question—in the old 

days, there would have been a weather office every place there was 

a flight service station. When I first went to Alaska, everywhere 

there was a flight service station, there was a weather office. And 

that weather office had contact with the basic centers of forecasting 

at the time. You don’t have that kind of a system now at all. You 

don’t have anyone along the west coast. The whole west coast of 

Alaska is entirely denuded of any kind of weather forecast. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. OK. Well, let me just say that I think any meteorologist, any forecaster in any part of the world will tell you that 

our forecasts are not perfect, and I would say that the chances are 

they’ll never be perfect. There are too many parameters in the atmosphere, the surface, ocean interaction, et cetera, which leads to 

potential for error. So there are cases in which forecasts are 

missed, warnings are missed. We have found that there are less of 

those now than there were 20 years ago by a large degree. With 

respect to the specific storm that you highlight, I don’t have any 

information on that and I can’t answer that directly here, but I will 

certainly go back and get the required information on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would ask you to restudy it. I also have 

here a map of river monitors in the south—what we call the south 

48, continental U.S. and in Alaska. If you want to look at it, along 

the east coast, for instance, the monitors are so many, they overlap. 

In the Kenai Peninsula, which is south of Anchorage, which is the 

size of New England, there’s one. One river monitor, although 

there’s a series of rivers. Now why does that exist, Doctor? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. We recognize that there are deficiencies in observing networks involving many parameters. We work to—we attempt, not only within NOAA, but in working with other agencies, 

in enhancing those observing parameters. And we have worked 

those up through the budget process and clearly, we never get everything we want in terms of the observational capability, but we 

make—we work with what we can get, and it’s not only observations that NOAA provides, but observations that other agencies 

provide. So the USGS, for example, we work in partnership with 

in terms of getting river observations. And there have been many 

examples where, through the budget cycles where we don’t—we 

can’t get what we need. They have gotten capabilities. We rely on 

their capabilities. So it’s not just what NOAA has in terms of an 

observing network, it’s what other agencies have as well. And one 

of the things that we’ve been doing over the last 5 to 10 years is 

working with a number of the land management agencies to get access to their data and get them to that—get that data to our forecast offices in real time to enhance our short term forecast capabilities. So what we have done is try to capitalize and leverage off of 

what’s going on in other agencies. But that’s an ongoing process. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s a nice explanation. Respectfully, I’ve got 

to tell you, you’re basing your weather observation on population. 

You look at the most populated states, you’ve got several monitors 

on one river. You have an area of a state like ours that has many, 

many, many rivers and has a small population, you have one. Now 

I don’t understand that at all and I urge you to go back and study 

it again. In this process now—we’re going through now, we can’t 

18

have earmarks. We can’t make changes to budgets. You people are 

making these decisions, but somehow or another, we have to find 

a way to catch up. Our people are being harmed very drastically, 

on an individual basis, small small areas. Whenever there’s something like Katrina, respectfully, the world turns out to help them. 

But this is the—this will now be the third summer since those 

storms hit the west coast of Alaska and I just spent time this 

morning with the Corps of Engineers, we still haven’t got the 

money to start repairing the damage that was done then. But 

that’s not your fault, the problem is, they didn’t have any warning. 

And I think we’re entitled to warning, whether it’s two or three 

people in the village or 2,000 people in the city or 20—2,000,000 

people in the city. Somehow or another, this has to be changed. I’m 

really upset with these—the statistics that’s come out of this hearing that we didn’t have a chance to have before. I never saw those 

maps before and I’m delighted you had the hearing, because you’ve 

given us the maps. You prepared those maps for us and they struck 

me like a brick bat. I don’t understand why—again, I’ll get back 

to you. I want you to tell me, who made the decision only one river 

monitor in the State of Alaska? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. I’d have to get back to you on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’d like to talk to them. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’d like to have them come up, just come up and 

visit the state. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. If I may just add one aspect to this, and it’s—

again, it’s always a balancing act within, you know, the budget 

that one is allotted——

The CHAIRMAN. Well, there we get back to population. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Well, we also——

The CHAIRMAN. It’s allocated on the basis of population size—a 

lot more area. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. We’re also making decisions with respect to remotely sensed data versus the in situ data that’s collected at these 

individual points, and that’s where the power of the satellite comes 

in. And for Alaska, actually you’re uniquely positioned because you 

get more overpasses from the lower earth orbiting satellites than—

and more frequently than——

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve taken more of my time than I should, Senator. I’m sorry. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. So that we can actually, you know, get a fair 

amount of observations now in areas that we haven’t before, and 

they’re all important to us. It’s not just in the populated areas. We 

need those observations everywhere to make these models work to 

give you the 72-hour and 96-hour forecasts. So we need these observations everywhere, not just in the populated areas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. But you’re right in pointing to specific gauges 

and those types of problems that do require in situ observations, 

we could always use more data. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And thank you again, Mayor, for 

coming down to testify. We appreciate it very much. 

Senator DEMINT. Senator Nelson? 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

19

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Uccellini, 

you’re clearly an expert in winter storms, particularly in the northeast and with the Alaska area as well, and I understand that the 

nor’easterner—nor’easter can be particularly devastating, and I’m 

very interested in that, but obviously, being a little bit closer to 

home in Nebraska, I’d like to learn more about what kind of weather needs and concerns you’re working on for the Midwest, in particular our location in Nebraska, Dakotas, Kansas, Iowa area. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. I’d be glad to. I would like to point out that I 

spent 11 years at the University of Wisconsin going through my 

various degrees and post-op work and all that, and I did a number 

of case studies on Midwestern storms, including those that affected 

Nebraska, both from a severe weather point of view and a blizzard 

point of view, and I recognize the challenge—I’ve actually done 

case studies on storms out there and recognize the challenges are 

immense. One of the complexities involved with the storms in the 

Midwest is how these systems come off the Rocky Mountains. And 

it’s only been in the last 10 years—time flies, the last 15 years, 

that we’ve actually been able to model the development of these 

storms that come off the Rockies and actually get an accurate track 

prediction that would affect areas like Nebraska and the rest of the 

Midwest. So, when you’re looking at the forecast problem from days 

in advance, it’s not just what’s going on in the Midwest, it’s what’s 

going on upstream a few, being able to get those observations, 

being able to do the numerical modeling that accounts for the true 

impact of the mountains. That allows us to predict the track of 

these storms and the type of weather that you will get. Now one 

of the aspects—so the track forecast, you might have heard this 

with the hurricane problem, you know, it comes down to track and 

intensity. And we’re making improvements on track forecasts on 

both measures, and the numerical models are an important part of 

that. The intensification of these storms, and the rapid intensifications are what can change what you might consider a—just a normal storm coming through into a full blown blizzard that provides 

incredible challenges, not only to the forecasters, but to the people 

who have to live through them. We are getting a lot better on those 

intensity changes as well. In fact, we’re making more rapid 

progress for these what we call extra tropical storms over the 

United States than we are for hurricanes. So, I believe we are making the progress, but refining those forecasts, giving you the exact 

area where you’ll have your transition from rain to snow, where, 

you know, the strongest winds will be as the snow is falling, those 

types of parameters still need improvement and we’re looking to 

the numerical modeling and the better observations upstream of 

your area to help us along. 

Senator NELSON. What about the observation platforms and radars that are located? Do you have a sufficient number of those? 

Are they strategically located, or is that any part of the challenge 

that you’re facing? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. That northern—the central part of the country is 

well observed from a radar perspective and I have to tell you that 

the radars, the Doppler radars, have probably been the single most 

effective observing tool that allows us to define what’s going on 

20

now and project what’s going to go on in the short term. In fact, 

when I see these radar images today, I don’t know how we did this 

before we got the Doppler radar system. We were dealing with 

these short term changes in the blind before we had this system. 

So I believe that the—especially the Midwest is well observed from 

a radar perspective. The other advantage that you actually have, 

immediately to the south of you is you have this—the profiler network which was implemented in the late 1980s and it really is focused on the central part of the country. And that real time continuous measure of winds throughout a deep layer of the atmosphere 

that we don’t really have anyplace else in the country, provides an 

enormous advantage to the forecasters that are dealing with the 

storms that affect Nebraska, both from severe spring/summer 

weather kind of storms and the winter weather as well. 

Senator NELSON. What impact does the—well, the presence of 

the satellites, for example, the National Polar Orbiting Operational 

Environmental Satellite System, NPOESS, I’m concerned because 

it’s my understanding that that may be delayed because it’s undergoing a cost review. What does that do to your capabilities to track 

the weather? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Yes. The—when you look at the numerical weather prediction system, we start with a global observing system, assimilate all that data into global models and run those models out 

16 days in advance four times a day. We use those models then to 

set boundary and initial conditions for higher resolution, more local 

models. So when you trace the forecast process back, you’re always 

starting with a global observing system. We recognize all forecasts 

are local, but you start with a global observing system. The key parameter for that global observing system is in polar satellites. So 

we have come to rely on those. If you track the improvements in 

numerical models in our model forecast, they’re related to the improvements in the global observing and to the improvements in the 

models in the computing capacity that allows us to run those models in real time. If we were to lose the polar orbiting system, if we 

had a delay where there was a gap, we would have significant impacts on our ability to do those two, three, four, five day forecasts 

for critical weather events. 

Senator NELSON. Well, if there’s a delay, isn’t that exactly what’s 

going to happen? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Well what we have done, we’ve been working 

with NASA and Department of Defense. We’ve actually created in 

2000 a Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation and we are now 

working more effectively with the research and operational community, which involves DOD and other international satellites. And 

we have a pathway now of working our way from what was the satellite observations in the 1990s with 16 channels and about three 

vertical layers, into this hyperspectral mode. We have a whole sequence of research satellites and satellites being launched by Europe which will allow us to fill that gap up until the time NPOESS, 

you know, is launched. We were asked that question about a potential 1-year or 2-year delay. We said as long as, you know, the CrIS, 

the IASI, the NPOESS preparatory missions, if all those stay on 

track, we’re OK. Now that’s a risk factor, you know, that people 

have to measure risk and how you’re going to deal with that. But 

21

as long as that sequence is there, we will not have the gap. Then 

NPOESS comes along and operationalizes the whole notion and 

we’ll be ready for that launch. 

Senator NELSON. What does—now does NPOESS help you with 

the jet stream or is that another monitoring procedure? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Yes. We rely—observing the winds aloft is probably one of the bigger challenges that we have. We can use the 

channels from the current satellites into NPOESS to help us derive 

the winds. We can use channels to actually measure vectors and 

measure the winds directly. In the polar regions, where we have 

a more frequent overpass and we use the GEO stationary satellite 

imagery then to also compute wind vectors. So that’s a whole sequence that we can use from satellites, plus we have the winds 

from commercial airlines now that we get every 5 minutes while 

these, you know, planes are in flight, we get the vertical profiles 

when they’re taking off and landing. All of this data is assimilated 

in real time. I would say that there’s no one silver bullet with respect to getting a wind feel which is essential for a forecast. We 

have to assimilate all of these different types of winds, bring them 

into the numerical models in such a way that the models will accept them and then we can run out in our forecast. 

Senator NELSON. If there was one thing that you could ask of us 

that would make it possible for you to do your job better or more 

thoroughly or improve your capabilities, what would it be, outside 

of money? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Yeah. I’ve got people behind me to make sure I 

don’t mention the word money. The—it’s really clear when you look 

at the way a forecast is made, you have observations, you have numerical models that run on powerful computing systems, and then 

you have forecasters who digest—you bring the information to 

these forecasters with work stations. They bring their expertise 

and they make judgments. They reach out to the state and local 

officials that have to make critical decisions. You know, it’s always 

tough to say where’s one thing, but I always point to the computing 

power. If we—you know, we have a system now where we lease 

computers. We upgrade every year and a half. It’s a pretty good 

system, but we’re still falling behind the curve. And there are still 

things that we can do in terms of improving numerical forecasts, 

improving the use of satellite data in which hundreds of millions 

of dollars are invested in every year. That if we had more and more 

powerful computers, there are more and more things we can do 

across the board for all of these weather systems. So, you know, I—

you got to have the forecasters and we’ve got to support our people, 

but if there is one thing that, you know, that makes this thing tick, 

it’s the computers and we have to be on the competitive edge on 

the—in the computer world to be able to advance. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, Dr. Uccellini. 

Senator DEMINT. Doctor, I think you may have just answered my 

question, but I am curious at recent ratings of the 500 top computers in the world rated the United States Weather Service 90th 

while the Chinese agency is 36th. My question was, is it a problem 

with our modeling, our people, or our computers, or why are we 

falling behind the rest of the world? 

22

Dr. UCCELLINI. Well, I mentioned that I feel good about the situation we’re in from the way we lease computers now, compared to 

where we were in the 1990s when we were in a buy mode. You 

could always get hung up in any aspect of the procurement process 

and actually literally get frozen, much less, you know, fall behind. 

You know, literally frozen, which is—was almost a death for us 

with respect to keeping up with the rest of the world. So, in one 

hand, I’m happy with what we’ve been able to do in terms of going 

into this lease arrangement, every year and a half upgrading our 

systems. But the fact is, given, you know—and we’re all living 

under budget constraints, and given the amount of money we’re actually able to move forward with, we get the best—you know, 

through our procurement process, get the best computing power 

that we can get for that. At the same time, there is an increasing 

mission on us in terms of computational needs. Five years ago, we 

didn’t have a climate forecast system that was run operationally. 

We do today. We made allotments for that in our computing resources, but the advances are going so much faster than we anticipated that there are things that can be done today for even the climate fore—we’re talking short range, like the seasonal into annual 

type forecast. We’ve got the ocean prediction systems. We weren’t 

making specific forecasts for ocean systems 5 years ago. We are 

today. So all of these added factors, and important factors, are 

being pushed onto the same computational system. So as we approach the next procurement cycle, which is about a year and a 

half or 2 years from now, you’re going to see requirements now 

driving this computer buy or lease in ways that the previous one 

didn’t. But we have to go through that cycle. Now these other 

groups, I think have a bit more flexibility than we have, some of 

these countries do and some of them have just got their computing 

systems. And I can almost guarantee you that a year from now 

you’ll see them drop down the list and others work their way up. 

We’re planned for an upgrade at the end of this calendar year. It’s 

two and a half times what we do today. So we’re 1.5 trillion computations per second. We’ll more than double that and we’ll still 

probably be about 40 or 50 for 6 or 7 months and then somebody 

will leapfrog us on that. But there’s clearly more that can be done 

in the computational area. 

Senator DEMINT. Does the leasing approach solve the government procurement problem, or do we still have a problem with the 

way the government purchases? What’s holding you back there? Or 

is the problem solved? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. The procurement issues have—you know, I 

wouldn’t say—I’m not a procurement expert, but I would say that 

we’re in a lot better shape now through leasing arrangements than 

we were in buying. OK. Because if you get hung up at any level 

as you go up to OMB, you know, again, tough decisions are made. 

If you get hung up in the interaction between the executive and 

legislative branch and you lose that opportunity to buy, then you 

start all over again. What we found in the leasing arrangement, we 

had more flexibility in the procurement cycle and were able to get 

things through because you don’t have a bigger cost up front. OK. 

And you work your way up in a steadier budget profile. So I think 

that’s a better way to go. It’s just that how much resources you can 

23

bring. Literally, we’re in an era now with parallel processing, it’s 

the more racks you buy, the more power you get, or the more racks 

you lease, the more power you get. So we get a budget, we design 

our computing capability within that budget and apply her to our 

requirements. And that’s basically where we’re at. 

Senator DEMINT. Ms. Michels, you mentioned that the Weather 

Service was working well with you in Nome, but that your problem 

was surrounding villages were not well prepared. Is the problem 

that they’re not getting the word of weather that’s heading that 

way or it’s just that they don’t have the means, the ability to be 

prepared and to take precautions? 

Ms. MICHELS. I think it’s both. The Weather Service, the Nome 

staff had provided me an Excel spreadsheet from 2002 when the 

time they were to do an advisory and a warning, and there were 

a couple of times in the Shishmaref, Kivalina area where they 

didn’t have enough data to be able to provide the information to 

do a warning until the storm was, you know, right at your doorstep. So there are data holes out there that really would be able 

to help the Weather Service predict more of these weather 

advisories. And then, second, it is also a resource issue in our villages. There’s just not a lot of training or the resources out there 

to be able to prepare. A lot of heavy equipment doesn’t work or 

there’s a lack of heavy equipment. So, it’s both. 

Senator DEMINT. One of the frustrations we have as we push 

this Committee forward is we know that even when people are 

warned, as we saw last year, that sometimes they don’t do anything or they don’t get prepared. So I guess our question is, how 

much do we spend to be able to give people notice if we’re not sure 

they’re going to respond. And I guess that gets back to local authorities and preparation, but what’s your comment to that? 

Ms. MICHELS. I can guarantee you, when we get those storm 

warnings, we are running around trying to get everything up to 

high ground, doing whatever we can to protect our food, our boats, 

you know, our cabins, everything. When we do get those warnings, 

we——

Senator DEMINT. You take them seriously. 

Ms. MICHELS.—take them very seriously. 

Senator DEMINT. OK. All right. Senator Nelson, any more questions? 

Senator NELSON. Yes. Doctor, one other question. In terms of 

reaching out to other sources for help, computer help or other just 

informational sources, do you interact with the Weather Service 

part of a strategic command located at Offutt in the Omaha area? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. The answer is yes. I’m actually—there’s a 

group—you know, I hate to throw acronyms around, but there’s a 

group that meet three times a year, including the AFWA commander, myself, FNOC out of Monterey, and AVO. We have shared 

resources. We have backup plans. We have come up with an operations concept which allows us now—we actually, for non-classified 

applications, we provide computing—computer model support for 

AFWA for the United States areas. Actually for the whole North 

America sector, and then we rely on their model runs for their windows. If we have to, for example, support USAID over Afghanistan, 

we don’t run our model over Afghanistan, we rely on the Air Force 

24

models that are run over Afghanistan. So we got this whole shared 

process. We are working toward backup plans, which are much 

more rigorous than we’ve had in the past, which involves double 

and triple ways of moving the data around because not only what 

we have in Gaithersburg but because of what—the backup system 

we have in Fairmont, West Virginia. And, last but not least, with 

the new building out in Omaha, we are working on plans which 

have not been finalized yet, but are pretty close, in terms of locating our operational computer, our next generation operational computer there since our security ranking is going up. That’s probably 

one of the most secure areas which has access to all the data that 

I was talking about before. So the working relationship is very 

close. We follow up three times a year and we’ve made tremendous 

progress over the last 20 years. 

Senator NELSON. Is any of the data that they can accumulate, is 

that—can you access that or is that in a format that you can use? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Yeah. We not only access the DMSPs, the Defense satellite systems, but they also have classified data which 

we’re allowed to access and use for our land models as long as—

you know, we don’t—we can’t re-release that data, but we can use 

it within our numerical models and then release the predictions. 

And that’s all done under a special arrangement now that’s been 

signed off at the highest level. So the data exchange has—it’s been 

a very good arrangement, especially—not only with the Air Force, 

but with the Navy as well. 

Senator NELSON. I think that concludes my questions. Thank 

you. 

Senator DEMINT. One last question, and I know we need to let 

you folks go, but Doctor, I’m just curious about the flexibility you 

have in your agency to, I guess, move dollars around. For instance, 

Nome. The Mayor has said perhaps a closer buoy, another observation point. Can you, the way we’re structured as—as NOAA’s structured as an agency, go back and say, hey, we’re going to close a 

couple of sites in these states and add a couple along the west coast 

of Alaska, or is that just a political bombshell? I mean, do you not 

adjust by priorities? I mean, is that something we would have to 

mandate for you to do, or can you do it? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Well, let me say this. We’ve had situations in the 

last 3 years in which buoys have been added, especially in the gulf. 

Even the—and we’ve had tsunami, the buoys, the special observation systems now that have been added in the Atlantic. Those were 

all done through supplementals. It’s very hard. We have our own 

set of buoys. There are other agencies that have had buoys out 

there that we’ve accessed that when they close down those buoys, 

we get blamed for closing down those buoys. OK. In other words, 

because we’ve used those buoys, made the data visible to the communities nearby or the data, as it’s being used in our models, people understand how important they are. I haven’t seen—I personally haven’t seen situations where one buoy is closed down and 

moved someplace else. It—you’re really adding to it. Now, there 

was an Academy of Sciences study done in the late 1990s and early 

2000 time period that pointed to an optimal array of buoys around 

the United States. We’re working toward that, but we haven’t attained it. 

25

Senator DEMINT. Yeah. As you can see, Senator Stevens is very 

interested in coverage in Alaska, so I would encourage that. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. By the way, I have some information with respect 

to questions he asked. Should I say that now, or should I just bring 

it over to the—like the number——

Senator DEMINT. I think if you can submit those in writing, it’d 

be most helpful. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. OK. 

Senator DEMINT. I thank you both very much, particularly, 

again, Mayor, for your long travels and this information will be included in the record and hopefully we can respond in a way that’ll 

be helpful. Thank you. 

Ms. MICHELS. Thank you. 

[Whereupon at 3:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned]

Æ