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

92–614PS 2004

H.R. 3980, NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT

REDUCTION ACT OF 2004

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,

AND STANDARDS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 24, 2004

Serial No. 108–51

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

VACANCY

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

VACANCY

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

ZOE LOFGREN, California

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

JIM MATHESON, Utah

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

DAN BYERS Subcommittee Staff Director

JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member

DAVID FINGER Professional Staff Member/Chairman’s Designee

ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members

JAMES HAGUE Staff Assistant

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman

NICK SMITH, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

VACANCY

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

MARK UDALL, Colorado

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BART GORDON, Tennessee

ERIC WEBSTER Subcommittee Staff Director

MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member

JEAN FRUCI Democratic Professional Staff Member

OLWEN HUXLEY Professional Staff Member

MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member

SUSANNAH FOSTER Professional Staff Member

AMY CARROLL Professional Staff Member/Chairman’s Designee

ADAM SHAMPAINE Majority Staff Assistant

MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant

(IV)

(V)

C O N T E N T S

March 24, 2004

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................ 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 11

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12

Statement by Representative Randy Neugebauer, Member, Subcommittee on

Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ................... 13

Statement by Representative Dennis Moore, Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................ 14

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15

Statement by Representative Frank D. Lucas, Member, Subcommittee on

Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ................... 16

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 26

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27

Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 15

Witnesses:

Dr. John A. Brighton, Assistant Director for Engineering, National Science

Foundation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19

Biography .......................................................................................................... 26

Mr. Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator, Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (EPR), Department of Homeland Security

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29

Biography .......................................................................................................... 31

Dr. Steven L. McCabe, Professor, Department of Civil, Environmental, and

Architectural Engineering, University of Kansas

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 33

Biography .......................................................................................................... 36

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 37

Mr. Jeffrey C. Sciaudone, Director, Engineering and Technical Services, Institute for Business and Home Safety

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39

Page

VI

Mr. Jeffrey C. Sciaudone, Director, Engineering and Technical Services, Institute for Business and Home Safety—Continued

Biography .......................................................................................................... 43

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 45

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 46

Appendix: Additional Material for the Record

H.R. 3980, National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 ........................... 58

Statement of Randall G. Pence, President, Capitol Hill Advocates, Inc. on

behalf of the National Concrete Masonry Association ...................................... 70

Statement of Stephen P. Leatherman, Chair, Professor and Director, International Hurricane Research Center & Laboratory for Coastal Research,

Florida International University ........................................................................ 72

(1)

H.R. 3980, NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT

REDUCTION ACT OF 2004

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STANDARDS,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:07 p.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Smith

[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research] presiding.

2

3

JOINT HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STANDARDS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

H.R. 3980, National Windstorm Impact

Reduction Act of 2004

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2004

2:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 2:00 p.m., the Subcommittee on Research and

the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards of the Committee on

Science of the U.S. House of Representatives will hold a joint hearing to receive testimony on H.R. 3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004, and

to consider the role of federal research and development in windstorm hazard reduction. The hearing will build upon discussions from a February 9, 2004, Science Committee field hearing in Lubbock, Texas, on windstorm hazards.

2. Witnesses

Dr. John Brighton is the Assistant Director for Engineering at the National

Science Foundation (NSF). He previously served as Provost of National-Louis University, and before that was Executive Vice President and Provost at Pennsylvania

State University.

Mr. Anthony Lowe is the Administrator of the Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration (FIMA), a division of the Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR,

formerly FEMA) Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security. He will be

accompanied by Mr. Edward Laatsch, Chief of the EPR/FEMA Building Science and

Technology Branch.

Dr. Steven L. McCabe is a professor in the Department of Civil, Environmental

and Architectural Engineering at the University of Kansas. Dr. McCabe will be testifying on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), of which he

is a member. He currently holds a temporary position at NSF as Program Director

for the Structural Systems and Engineering Programs within the Division of Civil

and Mechanical Systems.

Mr. Jeffrey Sciaudone is the Director of Engineering and Technical Services for

the Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). Mr. Sciaudone represents IBHS

on various technical industry committees concerning natural disaster mitigation and

oversees the development of products dealing with the public understanding of natural hazard mitigation. He also serves on the International Code Council’s Industry

Advisory Committee.

3. Overarching Questions

The hearing will address the following overarching questions:

1. How vulnerable is the built environment in the United States to windstorm

hazards? What are some of the top opportunities for, and primary barriers

to, reducing these vulnerabilities?

2. What are the size, structure, and focus of ongoing efforts to reduce the impact of windstorms in the United States, particularly with regard to research

and development? How can non-federal entities such as the insurance industry and state and local governments contribute to, and benefit from, improved wind hazard mitigation?

4

3. What gaps in data exist with regard to our knowledge and understanding of

windstorm hazards, and how could the overall wind hazard mitigation portfolio be refocused or otherwise strengthened to improve mitigation in the

United States?

4. Will the program established by H.R. 3980 result in greater R&D breakthroughs and increased adoption of windstorm impact mitigation measures?

How could H.R. 3980 be improved?

4. Brief Overview

• The United States currently sustains several billion dollars each year in property and economic losses due to windstorms. While estimates of annualized

windstorm damages are highly variable and limited in scope, the National

Weather Service estimates that between 1995 and 2002, hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorm winds caused on average $4.5 billion in damage per

year. The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated windstorm damages to be in excess of $5 billion per year.

• The most powerful hurricane in the last century to hit the United States was

Hurricane Andrew, in August of 1992. It caused 58 deaths and approximately

$27 billion in damages. In addition, more than one million people were evacuated from Southern Florida because of the storm.

• A variety of cost-effective windstorm hazard mitigation measures exist, and

many more are undergoing research and development. It is unclear to what

extent these mitigation technologies have been adopted, but it is generally

agreed that they have been under-utilized, and that significant improvements

in the wind resistance of buildings and other structures will not be achieved

without improved incentives at the local and individual level. This fact, combined with growing populations in coastal areas particularly susceptible to

major windstorms, has led to substantial increases in the overall windstorm

vulnerabilities.

• Federal windstorm hazard mitigation efforts span several agencies, including

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), and National Science Foundation (NSF). Evaluations

of the size, scope, and effectiveness of these mitigation efforts have found significant room for improvement. For example, a 1999 report by the National

Academy of Sciences found that: ‘‘. . .there is still a lack of leadership, focus,

and coordination of wind-hazard mitigation activities across all agencies, and

funding for research and development specifically targeting wind-hazard reduction issues is insufficient.’’

• On March 16, 2004, Representatives Neugebauer and Moore introduced H.R.

3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. The bill authorizes a national wind hazard impact reduction program and a multi-agency

working group to carry out activities that will improve understanding of

windstorm impacts on structures and help develop and encourage implementation of mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.

5. Background

Hurricanes and Tornadoes

High winds can easily destroy poorly constructed buildings and mobile homes.

Hurricanes can reach constant wind speeds greater than 155 mph and extend outward as far as 400 miles. While the National Weather Service is able to detect hurricanes days before they make landfall, predicting when, where, and with what force

a hurricane will hit remains an inexact science.

Tornadoes generally occur near the trailing edge of a thunderstorm, though they

are also often produced by hurricanes. Tornado winds can reach up to 300 mph and

can be powerful enough to lift homes off foundations. Tornadoes are much more difficult to detect than hurricanes with an average lead-time for warnings of only 12

minutes. This makes evacuation nearly impossible, a factor that led to the development and implementation of in-residence tornado shelters.

Since 1950, tornadoes have claimed over 4,400 lives. On average, nearly 800 tornadoes occur each year in the United States—primarily in the South and Midwest,

though they have been documented in all 50 states. During a 16-hour period that

began on April 3, 1974, 148 tornadoes occurred in states from Michigan to Mississippi, killing 315 people and resulting in 6,142 injuries. This event is generally

considered to be one of the most prolific tornado outbreaks of the 20th century.

5

While the Federal Government does not maintain a comprehensive windstorm

loss database, the National Weather Service does compile damage estimates that

demonstrate the tremendous costs of windstorms (Table 1). Also, the insurance industry maintains separate loss databases that measure damage to insured property.

However, according to ‘‘Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in

the United States,’’ a 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences, insurance

industry data may represent only a small percentage of total losses because many

property owners do not buy coverage against hurricanes and other natural hazards.

With more people than ever before living near coastlines, vulnerability to wind

hazards in the U.S. is steadily increasing. Already, more than one in six Americans

live in a county that lies on the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico coast. In addition, the

coastal population is growing rapidly, particularly from Texas through the Carolinas. In popular resort areas that are common along the coastline, numbers often

swell even further when holiday, weekend, and vacation visitors arrive. These large

and growing populations have resulted in substantial increases in buildings and infrastructure in high-risk coastal areas that are also vulnerable to windstorms.

Federal Windstorm Hazard Mitigation Efforts

The bulk of current windstorm hazard funding is directed toward fundamental research and development into the atmospheric and meteorological aspects of windstorms, contributing to a greater understanding of weather-related phenomena, but

generally without specific mitigation applications in mind. A smaller portion of the

windstorm hazard research and development effort is directed toward structural and

engineering aspects of buildings and infrastructure impacted by windstorms. In a

2003 report, the RAND Corporation, in a study conducted for the Office of Science

and Technology Policy, recommended that R&D distribution be reoriented toward

longer-term loss reduction efforts: ‘‘This is especially relevant for weather-related

hazards, for which R&D is primarily limited to procurements for short-term forecasting efforts.. . .the present emphasis on short time scales is clearly circumventing more-lasting solutions. In practice, much of climate change R&D is focused

on short-term forecasts, which do not result in significant loss reduction. A shift to

longer-term and less prediction-oriented efforts, with a focus on investigations and

technologies to make the built environment and infrastructures more resilient, holds

great promise. Such R&D promises to save lives, protect property, and dramatically

reduce the costs of rebuilding after a disaster.’’

The size and scope of federal investments in R&D focused on reducing structural

vulnerability to windstorm impacts is generally agreed to be in the range of a few

million dollars, though specific numbers are not readily available, in part because

of the fragmented and uncoordinated nature of these efforts. In a 1999 report, the

National Academy of Sciences recommended, ‘‘The Federal Government should coordinate existing federal activities and develop, in conjunction with State and local

governments, private industry, the research community, and other interested stakeholder groups, a national wind-hazard reduction program. Congress should consider

designating sufficient funds to establish and support a national program of this nature.’’

Non-R&D Related Barriers to Greater Implementation of Mitigation Techniques

Unfortunately, simply developing technical solutions will not reduce vulnerability

to wind hazards. FEMA and the insurance industry have both determined that improving the wind resistance of buildings will only be achieved when there is a demand for wind-resistant construction by homeowners. Solving the windstorm vulnerability problem will not only require coordinated work in scientific research and

6

technology development, but education, public policy, the behavioral sciences, and

technology transfer as well.

The immense amount of damage that windstorms cause each year and the existence of proven building and construction techniques for limiting that damage, have

led only to very limited implementation of mitigation measures. Perhaps the best

explanation for this is psychological—most people just assume that they won’t be

affected by natural hazards and aren’t willing to invest even minimal time and resources into reducing the vulnerability of their own homes. Among the barriers to

effective mitigation are:

• Lack of useful loss data: Windstorm loss data collection is not sufficiently

detailed or comprehensive. The Federal Government has no uniform procedure for compiling loss data, including data on the economic effects of windstorms. The insurance industry does have mechanisms in place for more detailed data collection but the value of this data is unclear, largely because it

is proprietary. In addition, the data only covers insured losses, a small portion of overall windstorm losses. Without access to accurate, meaningful data,

it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of mitigation techniques or establish

public policy priorities.

• Lack of understanding: Many homeowners are simply unaware of the dangers presented by windstorms, and even more are unaware that techniques

exist for reducing structural vulnerability to these dangers. This is also a

problem in the building and construction industry and among policy makers,

although to a lesser degree.

• High cost of implementation: Existing mitigation techniques are effective,

but often expensive. For example, a City of Lubbock housing program builds

houses for low-income residents that are designed to withstand winds up to

150 miles per hour and have a safe room to provide additional protection. Of

the $78,000 that it costs to build one of these houses, $8,500 goes towards

windstorm mitigation. The City of Lubbock no longer offers residents the option of choosing conventionally built homes, but in the private sector where

market forces dictate choices, most are still unwilling to pay.

• Limited financial incentives: Exacerbating the problem of high cost is the

lack of financial incentives for homeowners who are willing to make the extra

investment. In general, neither the insurance industry nor local, State, or

Federal Governments have been willing to provide financial inducements in

the form of rate or tax breaks for homeowners who take steps to reduce vulnerability.

• Building codes: For the most part, building codes and local enforcement

practices do not address the problem of windstorm vulnerability. Local and

state officials are generally either unaware of the dangers and potential mitigation solutions, or are unwilling to enact and enforce strict codes that might

be expensive for their constituents.

6. H.R. 3980 Summary

H.R. 3980 establishes the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and directs the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish an

Interagency Working Group of NSF, NOAA, NIST, and FEMA. The working group

will be responsible for planning, management, and coordination of the program. This

structure is similar to the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program

(NEHRP). NEHRP, a long-term, comprehensive, multi-agency earthquake hazards

reduction program, was established by Congress in 1977 to minimize the loss of life

and property from earthquakes.

Drawing from recommendations provided by the American Association of Wind

Engineers at the February 9th Science Committee hearing in Lubbock, Texas, H.R.

3980 focuses on improving understanding of windstorm impacts, and developing and

encouraging implementation of mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. The

legislation has been endorsed by the Wind Hazard Reduction Coalition, which includes the American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE), National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA), American Association for Wind Engineering (AAWE), International Code Council (ICC), and Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI). A sectionby-section overview of H.R. 3980 is provided in Appendix I.

7. Questions for Witnesses

The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in their testimony:

7

Dr. Brighton

• Please describe NSF’s current support for windstorm impact reduction-related

research, including estimated funding in both engineering and the atmospheric sciences?

• What is the status of understanding and knowledge of windstorms and their

impacts on buildings and infrastructure? What areas of research have the

most potential for contributing to developments that will reduce windstorm

impacts? How does NSF work to determine funding priorities in these areas.

• To what extent does NSF currently work with other federal agencies in addressing the impacts of windstorms?

Mr. Lowe

• Please describe FEMA’s current activities in windstorm impact reduction, including collaborative efforts with public and private entities. How much support does FEMA provide for activities such as data collection and analysis,

outreach, and information dissemination? What are some of the top opportunities for, and barriers to, addressing windstorm vulnerabilities, and how is

this information used in determining priorities in various mitigation areas.

• What is the status of HAZUS–MH and how will it assist communities, states,

and regions in reducing vulnerability to hurricanes once it is fully operational? What plans does FEMA have for developing a HAZUS version that

will allow for modeling tornadoes and other types of windstorms?

• To what extent does FEMA currently work with other federal agencies, universities, and the insurance industry in addressing the impacts of windstorms?

Dr. McCabe

• How would you characterize the size and focus of ongoing wind hazard mitigation research and development being performed by the insurance industry?

To what extent do insurance industry research efforts build on research done

by universities or the government, and vice-versa? How does the insurance

industry work with Federal, State, and local governments to share data that

may help contribute to windstorm hazards reductions?

• Approximately how much damage do wind hazards cause in the United States

on an annual basis, and are these damages broken down by variables such

as building types, structural characteristics, and geography? What types of

damage are taken into account in compiling these damage estimates, and

what types are not included? What data gaps exist with regard to our knowledge and understanding windstorm hazards?

• What role does the insurance industry play in encouraging implementation of

existing mitigation techniques in retrofitting and new home construction? To

what extent do insurance policies consider and incorporate incentives for implementation of these mitigation techniques?

Mr. Sciaudone

• Please Describe IBHS’ current activities in addressing windstorm impacts, including R&D. How much emphasis is placed on basic research versus applied

R&D? To what extent do IBHS R&D efforts build upon research supported

by universities and federal agencies? To what extent does IBHS collaborate

with universities and federal agencies in its R&D efforts? How does IBHS

work with federal, state, and local governments to share data that may help

contribute to windstorm impact reductions?

• Please describe the insurance industry’s windstorm impact data collection and

analysis activities. How is this information used to help insurance companies

estimate vulnerability? How could the Federal Government gain access to insurance industry data without damaging the proprietary value of that information?

• What are the greatest obstacles to increased implementation of windstorm

mitigation techniques in new and existing structures? To what extent do insurance policies consider and incorporate incentives for implementation of

these mitigation techniques?

8

Appendix I

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 3980,

NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION PROGRAM (NWIRP) ACT OF 2004

Sec. 1. Short Title.

‘‘National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004’’

Sec. 2. Findings.

The Congress finds that:

(1) All states and regions are vulnerable to windstorms.

(2) The United States sustains several billion dollars in economic damages each

year due to windstorms, and these vulnerabilities are increasing.

(3) Improved windstorm impact reduction measures have the potential to reduce these losses.

(4) There is an appropriate role for the Federal Government in mitigating windstorm impacts, and significant coordination and cooperation is required for

any program to be effective.

Sec. 3. Definitions.

Defines terms used in the text.

Sec. 4. National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.

(a) Establishment—Establishes the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.

(b) Objective—Achievement of major measurable reductions in losses of life and

property from windstorms through a coordinated federal effort, in cooperation with

other public and private entities, to improve understanding of windstorm impacts

and develop and encourage implementation of mitigation measures to reduce those

impacts.

(c) Interagency Working Group—Directs the Director of the Office of Science and

Technology Policy to establish an Interagency Working Group on Windstorm Impact

Reduction, consisting of representatives from NSF, NOAA, NIST, FEMA, and other

federal agencies as appropriate. Also Directs the Director to designate an agency to

chair the Working Group and to be responsible for managing the program. Specific

agency roles and responsibilities shall be defined in the implementation plan in subsection (e). General responsibilities—

(1) NIST—support R&D to improve building codes, standards and practices for

buildings, structures, and lifelines;

(2) NSF—support research in engineering and the atmospheric sciences to improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact on

buildings, structures, and lifelines;

(3) NOAA—support atmospheric sciences research to improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines;

(4) FEMA—support windstorm-related data collection and analysis, public outreach, and information dissemination.

(d) Program Components—

(1) Establishes three primary components for the Program: improved understanding of windstorms, windstorm impact assessment, and windstorm impact reduction. Requires the components to include activities such as data

collection and analysis, outreach, tech transfer, and R&D. Requires that, to

the extent practicable, research shall be peer-reviewed and the components

shall be designed avoid duplication of other hazard reduction efforts.

(2) Understanding of windstorms—research to improve understanding of and

data collection on the impact of severe winds on buildings, structures, and

infrastructure.

(3) Windstorm impact assessment—(A) development of mechanisms for collecting and inventorying information on structural performance in windstorms and collection of information from sources including the design and

construction industry, insurance companies, and building officials; (B) R&D

to improve loss estimation and risk assessment systems; and (C) R&D to be

improve simulation and computational modeling of windstorm impacts.

9

(4) Windstorm impact reduction—(A) development of cost-effective windstormresistant systems, structures, and materials for use in new construction and

retrofitting; (B) development of improved outreach and implementation

mechanisms to translate existing information and research findings into

cost-effective practices for design and construction professionals, and state

and local officials; (C) outreach to increase public awareness about windstorm hazard vulnerability.

(e) Implementation Plan—Requires the Interagency Working Group to develop a

plan for achieving the objectives of the Program not later than 12 months after the

date of enactment. The Implementation Plan shall include—

(1) an assessment of past and current public and private efforts to reduce windstorm impacts;

(2) a statement of strategic goals for each component area;

(3) a description of how the program will achieve its goals, including detailed

responsibilities for each agency; and

(4) a description of plans for public and private cooperation and coordination.

(f) Biennial Report—The Interagency Working Group shall submit a biennial report

to Congress providing an assessment of the status of the Program, including recommendations for changes.

Sec. 5. National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction.

(a) Establishment—Establishes a National Advisory Committee to review progress

made under the Program, advise on improvements, and report to Congress on actions taken to limit vulnerability to windstorms. Requires that the Advisory Committee include between 11 and 15 members to be appointed by the Director, one of

whom shall be designated as chair. Requires that members include representatives

of a broad cross-section of interests. Federal agencies may not be members of the

Advisory Committee.

(b) Assessment—Requires the Advisory Committee to assess the effectiveness of the

Program.

(c) Biennial Report—Requires the Advisory Committee to provide, on a biennial

basis, a summary report of the assessment to Congress and the Interagency Working Group.

(d) Sunset Exemption—Exempts the Advisory Committee from Section 14 of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (sunset requirement).

Sec. 6. Savings Clause.

States that nothing in the Act supersedes any provision of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974.

Sec. 7. Authorization of Appropriations.

H.R. 3980 Authorized Funding Levels by Agency ($ in millions)

10

Chairman SMITH. The Committee will come to order. Good afternoon and welcome. This is a joint hearing between the Research

and the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittees

to receive testimony on H.R. 3980, the National Windstorm Impact

Reduction Act of 2004, which was introduced last week by Mr.

Neugebauer and Mr. Moore. And while some areas of the country

are affected more than others by windstorms, every state in the

Union is vulnerable. In my district last August, 70 mile-per-hour

straight-line winds knocked down trees that looked like they were

extremely healthy, but it is amazing what a 70-mile-an-hour wind

can even do to strong trees. It destroyed many barns in our area

and left 10,000 people without power.

In addition to the evident physical damage that was caused,

many businesses and schools in the area were closed temporarily

until power could be restored. The utility companies are looking at

ways that they might best protect against windstorms, with more

clearing of trees and limbs in the vicinity of those power lines. I

was on an airplane a couple of months ago with one of the architectural engineers for home construction, and he had to pay for—collect money and pay for a wind tunnel to try to experiment with

some of the ideas that his association had on how to reinforce home

structures. And it turned out that they simply—looking at the

damage from winds where they had double two by fours on top of

those studs and one at the bottom, a windstorm tended to knock

out the bottom but keep the top intact.

So in his architectural firm, and I would be curious about our

witnesses’ comments, they started putting a double studding on the

bottom under those studs also. It seems to me we need to reduce

vulnerability, and that might be really twofold. The immediate and

most obvious problem is that annual damage from windstorms is

estimated to be multiple billions of dollars. Most efforts to reduce

windstorms’ impacts today focus on weather prediction and evacuation. This strategy has been successful at reducing windstorm

deaths, but does not address the problem of damage to the built environment. A greater focus on making buildings and structures

more wind-resistant certainly would be very useful to reducing the

costs of windstorms, as well as better predictions.

Perhaps even more concerning is that with rapid population

growth in high-risk areas, our vulnerability is increasing every

year. As population in an area grows, new structures and infrastructure are built to accommodate the new residence. If new construction in these high-risk areas does not incorporate adequate

mitigation techniques for damage sustained from windstorms, then

what we are looking at is higher insurance rates and the damage

that, to both property and human life, that it is going to escalate.

H.R. 3980, introduced by the gentleman from Texas, Mr.

Neugebauer, and Mr. Moore, who has been working hard on this

issue since coming to Congress last year, would create a federal

interagency program to reduce windstorm impacts. The legislation

focuses on three component areas: developing a better understanding of how high winds impact building structures, enhanced

windstorm data damage collection and analysis, and developing

and implementing mitigation strategies. And I would like to call on

11

Mr. Neugebauer without objection for a comment as soon as Ms.

Johnson makes her comment.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK SMITH

Good afternoon, and welcome to this joint hearing between the Research and the

Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittees to receive testimony about

H.R. 3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004, which was introduced by Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Moore.

We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us today, starting with Dr. John

Brighton, Assistant Director for Engineering at the National Science Foundation.

Before coming to NSF, Dr. Brighton served as Provost of National-Louis University,

and prior to that was the Executive Vice President and Provost at Pennsylvania

State University.

Our second witness is Anthony Lowe, Administrator of the Federal Insurance

Mitigation Administration, a division of the Emergency Preparedness and Response

(EPR) Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Lowe testified before the Research Subcommittee last year regarding the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Act of 2003, and I look forward to hearing his comments

today. Accompanying Mr. Lowe is Edward Laatsch, Chief of the EPR Building

Science and Technology Branch.

I will yield at this time to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moore, to introduce

our next witness.

Our last witness to testify today will be Jeffrey Sciaudone, Director of Engineering

and Technical Services for the Institute for Business and Home Safety. Mr.

Sciaudone represents IBHS on various technical industry committees concerning

natural disaster mitigation and oversees the development of products dealing with

the public understanding of natural hazard mitigation. He also serves on the International Code Council’s Industry Advisory Committee.

While some areas of the country are affected more than others by windstorms,

every state in the union is vulnerable. In my district last August, 70-mile per hour

straight-line winds knocked down trees, destroyed barns, and left 10,000 people

without power. In addition to the evident physical damage that was caused, many

businesses and schools in the area were closed temporarily until power could be restored.

The need to reduce vulnerability is really two-fold. The immediate and most obvious problem is that annual damage from windstorms is estimated to be multiple billions of dollars. Most efforts to reduce windstorm impacts today focus on weather

prediction and evacuation. This strategy has been successful at reducing windstorm

deaths, but does not address the problem of damage to the built environment. A

greater focus on making buildings and structures more wind resistant would be useful in reducing the cost of windstorms.

Perhaps an even scarier issue is that with rapid population growth in high-risk

areas, our vulnerability is increasing every year. As population in an area grows,

new structures and infrastructure are built to accommodate the new residents. If

new construction in these high-risk areas does not incorporate adequate mitigation

techniques, damage sustained from windstorms will escalate.

H.R. 3980 would create a federal interagency program to reduce windstorm impacts. The legislation focuses on three component areas: developing a better understanding of how high winds impact buildings and structures, enhanced windstorm

damage data collection and analysis, and developing and implementing mitigation

strategies.

I look forward to hearing comments on H.R. 3980 from our witnesses and expect

that they will lead to a productive discussion.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am

pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today for this initial

hearing on the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004.

This hearing will build upon the field hearing regarding windstorms and their resulting casualties held on February the 9th in

Lubbock, Texas. On April the 19th, 1995 at 8:02 p.m. Central

Standard Time, a tornado hit my district in Dallas, Texas. The

path of destruction there had a width of 100 yards and a length

of 6 miles. After initially touching down just south of Irving, the

12

tornado then moved east of northeast before lifting just southwest

of downtown Dallas. Major damage to apartment complexes was reported and a large number of trees uprooted. Two homes were destroyed and a business was heavily damaged. While most physical

injuries are—were minor, this tornado caused over $6 million in

property damages.

Each year, severe windstorms, including hurricanes and tornadoes, cause dozens of deaths and billions of dollars in property

damage. Research has shown that wind events are responsible for

about d of the insured losses, and this figure seems to be applicable

to the United States, as well as other parts of the world. Is there

something that can be done to save these lives and avoid all of

these monetary losses? We are finding, however, that with prewarning, we are saving lives, just not saving property.

We must work toward finding ways to mitigate these losses

through a combination of efforts in the fields of forecasting, as well

as materials technology and engineering. Currently, we are lacking

a comprehensive federal program aimed at mitigating these losses

before they occur. In response to these damages caused by windstorms in the past, there has been a great outpouring of federal as

well as insurance industry funds for disaster response and relief.

What if we had created a wind hazard research and mitigation program when we created the earthquake program? How many times

over would we have paid for that research and mitigation in reduced losses of property and lives?

Not only should funds be made available for recovery, but there

should also be funds for education of young wind engineers. These

professionals could thereby carry on research that could better position us to significantly improve construction designs and materials, while also enabling property owners to add retrofit technology

to better protect existing structures. If we concentrate on coordinating and harnessing our existing resources, we will be able to

conduct this research more efficiently and with much more effective

results.

Finally, the United States cannot afford to become dependent on

professionals who receive their education in other countries. It is

essential that the research being applied here be matched both

with our own weather trends, as well as our own patterns for

urban and residential development. Our degree of preparedness for

these kinds of inevitable natural disasters impacts the security of

our individual homes and families, as well as our homeland. For

these reasons, we must invest more and do more to motivate young

Americans to pursue this particular field of research. Congress has

a responsibility to pass legislation that will employ the fruits of

much needed research and development to reverse the trend of

ever increasing losses from windstorms.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and

thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today,

and I look forward to our discussion. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bernice Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today for this

initial hearing on the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. This hearVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:20 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 092614 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES04\032404\92614.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
13

ing will build upon the field hearing regarding windstorms and their resulting casualties, held on February 9th, in Lubbock, Texas.

On April 19, 1995, at 8:02 p.m. Central Standard Time, a tornado hit my district

in Dallas, TX. The path of destruction there had a width of 100 yards and a length

of six miles. After initially touching down just south of Irving, the tornado then

moved east-northeast before lifting just southwest of downtown Dallas.

Major damage to apartment complexes was reported, and a large number of trees

were uprooted. Two homes were destroyed and a business was heavily damaged.

While most physical injuries were minor, this tornado caused over $6 million dollars

in property damages.

Each year, severe windstorms, including hurricanes and tornadoes, cause dozens

of deaths and billions of dollars in property damage. Research has shown that wind

events are responsible for about d of insured losses and this figure seems to be applicable to the U.S. as well as other parts of the world. Is there something that can

be done to save these lives and avoid all these monetary losses?

We must work towards finding ways to mitigate these losses through a combination of efforts in the fields of forecasting, as well as materials technology, and engineering. Currently, we are lacking for a comprehensive federal program aimed at

mitigating these losses before they occur.

In response to these damages caused by windstorms in the past there has been

a great outpouring of federal as well as insurance industry funds for disaster response and relief. What if we had created a wind hazard research and mitigation

program when we created the earthquake program? How many times over would

we have paid for that research and mitigation in reduced losses of property and

lives?

Not only should funds be made available for recovery, but there should also be

funds for education of young wind engineers. These professionals could thereby

carry on research that would better position us to significantly improve construction

designs and materials, while also enabling property owners to add retrofit technology to better protect existing structures. If we concentrate on coordinating and

harnessing our existing resources we will be able to conduct this research more efficiently and with much more effective results.

Finally, the United States cannot afford to become dependent on professionals

who receive their education in other countries. It is essential that the research being

applied here be matched both with our own weather trends as well as our own patterns for urban and residential development. Our degree of preparedness for these

kinds of inevitable natural disasters impacts the security of our individual homes

and families as well as our homeland. For these reasons we must invest more and

do more to motivate young Americans to pursue this particular field of research.

Congress has a responsibility to pass legislation that will employ the fruits of much

needed research and development to reverse the trend of ever increasing losses from

windstorms.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. I look forward to our discussion.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Neugebauer.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Damaging winds

cause several billion dollars worth of damage in property and economic losses each year. In recent decades, with rapid population

growth and development in high-risk coastal areas, we have accelerated our vulnerabilities. To date, the federal inference to address

windstorm impacts have been relatively limited. For example, the

National Academy of Sciences’ review of federal programs to mitigate windstorms found that there is still a lack of leadership, focus

and coordination of wind hazard mitigation activities across all

agencies, and funding for the research and development specifically

targeting wind hazard reduction issues is insufficient.

Unfortunately, the level of losses increases nationally each year,

and will continue to escalate unless technology generation, education and public policies are improved. Like the gentlewoman from

Texas, 30 years ago in Lubbock, Texas, a tornado came through the

center of town in 1970, killed 26 people and injured 500 and destroyed my apartment complex. Fortunately, I was not in that

14

apartment complex at the time, but I saw firsthand what kind of

damage can occur in some of these high-wind events. Last year,

Hurricane Isabel wreaked havoc over the eastern half of the United

States. These destructive storms are reminders of how vulnerable

we are and how serious we should be about severe weather safety

and preparedness.

This is why Congressman Moore and I have introduced H.R.

3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. This

legislation creates a multi-agency, National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, which will coordinate input from individuals, academia, and the private sector, and other interested non-federal entities aimed at reducing the loss of life and property from windstorms. Today, we are here to discuss the role of federal research

and development in windstorm hazard reduction.

I would like to thank my staff, the staff of the Science Committee, and the Wind Hazard Reduction Coalition for all their hard

work in helping us put this bill together. Also, I would like to

thank Dr. Brighton, Mr. Lowe, Dr. McCabe and Mr. Laatsch and

Mr. Sciaudone for coming today, and look forward to hearing your

testimony.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank—and he

is not here right now, but the Chairman of our committee, Chairman Boehlert, for following through on a promise he made to hold

a hearing on this important issue in the 108th Congress, and I also

want to thank Congressman Neugebauer for his work on this. He

has really hit the ground running on this, and I really, really appreciate what he has done in his efforts here. Over the course of

the past five years, we have done a lot of work on this. I want to

thank Jim Turner of the House Science Committee staff and Brian

Pallasch of the American Society of Civil Engineers for working on

this issue with us.

Five months after I took office in 1999, my hometown of Wichita,

Kansas was hit by a F4 tornado, which plowed through the suburb

of Haysville, killing six, injuring 150 and causing over $140 million

in property damage. The devastation of this attack motivated me

to try to do something. I put together a bill modeled after NEHRP

[National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program], the successful

earthquake research program, which was begun over 30 years ago,

and the goal of this legislation was to mitigate loss of life and property due to wind and related hazards.

I reviewed comments from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Association of Home Builders, the insurance

industry, meteorologists, emergency managers, academia, industry,

and the Manufactured Housing Association to try to fine-tune this

legislation, this bill. On May 4, just last year, almost four years to

the day after the deadly 1999 Kansas and Oklahoma tornadoes,

tornadoes again struck in metropolitan Kansas City and the surrounding suburbs, as well as in many of my Science colleagues’ districts, destroying property, killing persons and injuring our constituents.

These tornadoes don’t check to find out whether they are Republicans or Democrats they are hitting. This really is not, cannot be,

a partisan issue. It is an issue about human tragedy. These windVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:20 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 092614 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES04\032404\92614.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
15

storms destroy lives. I know many of us have seen it in our own

districts and know many of my colleagues have seen it in theirs.

I want to again thank Representative Neugebauer for working

diligently on this important issue, for introducing this important

legislation and for Chairman Boehlert for having the hearing, and

you, Mr. Chairman, for sitting in this hearing. I would like to

thank all of the witnesses who are here today, and particularly Dr.

McCabe, who is from the University of Kansas and a great basketball team, but we are here today to talk about weather. And

thanks, all of you. I am interested to hear your comments. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS MOORE

I would like to thank Chairman Sherry Boehlert for following through on his

promise to hold a hearing on this important issue in the 108th Congress, I would

also like to thank Representative Randy Neugebauer for working with me on this

important legislation. Over the course of the past five years I would also like to

thank Jim Turner of the House Science Committee staff and Brian Pallasch of the

American Society of Civil Engineers for working on this issue tirelessly.

Five months after I took office in 1999, my hometown of Wichita, Kansas, was

attacked by a F4 tornado which plowed through the suburb of Haysville killing six,

injuring 150, and causing over 140 million dollars in damage. The devastation of

this attack motivated me to do something ‘‘about the weather’’ to paraphrase the

old Mark Twain adage.

I put together a piece of legislation modeled after NEHRP the successful earthquake research program begun over 30 years ago. My legislation’s goal is to mitigate

loss of life and property due to wind and related hazards.

I utilized comments from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American

Association of Home Builders, the insurance industry, meteorologists, emergency

managers, academia, industry, and the manufactured housing associations to finetune the legislation.

On May 4, 2003, almost four years to the day after the deadly 1999 Kansas and

Oklahoma tornadoes, tornadoes touched down in metro Kansas City and the surrounding suburbs as well as in many of my Science Committee colleagues’ districts,

destroying property, killing and injuring our constituents.

These tornadoes did not check with Congress to see if they were hitting Republican or Democratic districts, just hit both. This is not a Republican or a Democratic

issue it is a human issue, it is a human tragedy. These windstorms destroy lives;

I have seen it in my own district and know many of my colleagues have seen it in

theirs.

Thank you again Rep. Neugebauer for introducing this important legislation and

Chairman Boehlert for having the hearing and I would also like to thank Dr. Steve

McCabe of the University of Kansas for testifying. Dr. McCabe, I am very proud to

have you here today. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for calling this important hearing that could mean so much to the

American people, especially to my constituents in Texas where hurricanes and tropical storms are such a constant threat. Houston is still recovering from Tropical

Storm Allison that hit on June 5, 2001. All told, Allison cost Harris County 22 lives,

95,000 cars and trucks, 73,000 homes, and $5 billion in property damage. That is

an almost devastating blow to any community.

It is truly a testament to the awesome power of nature. Of course, we cannot fully

harness that power. However, if we can use good science and planning to reduce

the impact of such storms by even ten percent, it would be a tremendous service.

Much of the damage of Allison and other hurricanes comes from windstorm damage,

tearing off roofs, blowing out windows, and causing debris-related injuries and destruction. Across the Midwest, similar windstorm damage wreaks havoc during tornadoes.

16

It is in the excellent tradition of this committee that we are here today to discuss

how we can use good scientific research, and to coordinate the various resources

available in the Federal Government to have a meaningful impact on the lives and

well-being of the American people.

I welcome this distinguished panel today, and look forward to hearing their comments. I hope to learn more about how advances in technology and design might

be used to make our buildings and homes safer. Also, I think all of us have experienced the feeling in big cities like Houston, where the wind seems to be channeled

and amplified between buildings. Therefore, I would like to know if long-term, there

are ways to use smarter urban planning to make our cities less vulnerable to storm

and wind-related damage.

And as we move to discussion of the bill we have before us, I would like to know

if it rises to the magnitude of this problem, and how we might make the bill better.

Thank you.

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Lucas from Oklahoma.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just ever so briefly, I

want to thank my colleagues from Kansas and Texas for working

on this piece of legislation. There are very few things that all of

us who live in the southern plains have as much focus on as the

weather, Mother Nature’s great intensity. And while we have made

huge progress in the last 50 years, there are communities all over

our region littered with tragedies from days before that—the great

losses of life in places like Leady, Oklahoma and Woodward, Oklahoma in the 1940’s. While we have made great progress, clearly

Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Moore are on track for ways to make even

greater progress in protecting our citizens, our lives, and making

it just a little bit simpler to exist in the southern plains.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too look forward to this testimony.

Chairman SMITH. Anyone that hasn’t sort of seen the damage of

what wind can do I think is amazed what a tornado can do. In our

area of southern Michigan, the 1965 tornado in our barns—I am

a farmer—in our barns, it blew pieces of straw through the boards

of the barn, and so it is an area where investigation and research

I suspect can be very helpful.

We have an excellent panel of witnesses today, starting with Dr.

John Brighton, Assistant Director of Engineering at the National

Science Foundation. Before coming to NSF, Dr. Brighton served as

Provost of the National-Louis University, and prior to that was Executive Vice President and Provost at Pennsylvania State University.

Our second witness is Anthony Lowe, Administrator of the Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration, a division of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the Department of

Homeland Security. Mr. Lowe testified before the Research Subcommittee last year regarding the National Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Program Act, and I look forward to hearing his comments today.

Accompanying Mr. Lowe is Edward Laatsch, Chief of the EPR

Building Science and Technology Branch.

Mr. Moore, I will yield to you for introducing the next witness

from Kansas. Something about the yellow brick road or something

out there in Kansas.

Mr. MOORE. We are going to stay away from Toto and Dorothy

today, but I do again want to welcome Dr. McCabe for being here.

17

He—and I am embarrassed to say, I have lost my notes. They are

right here. Thank you very much. Staff is absolutely wonderful.

Dr. Steven McCabe is a Professor in the Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University of

Kansas. Dr. McCabe will be testifying on behalf of the American

Society of Civil Engineers, of which he is a member. He currently

holds a temporary position at NSF as Program Director for the

structural systems and engineering programs within the division of

Civil and Mechanical Systems, and I am very, very proud to introduce Dr. McCabe.

Chairman SMITH. Our last witness to testify today will be Jeffrey

Sciaudone, Director of Engineering and Technical Services for the

Institute for Business and Home Safety. Mr. Sciaudone represents

the IBHS on various technical industry committees concerning natural disaster mitigation and oversees the development of products

dealing with the public understanding of natural hazard mitigation. He also serves on the International Code Councils’ Industry

Advisory Committee.

Gentlemen, again, thank you for giving your time to the Committee, and Dr. Brighton, start with you, and without objection, the

total text of your testimony will be included in the record. And so

plus or minus a little, if you can hold it down to five minutes, we

will proceed with questions.

STATEMENT DR. JOHN A. BRIGHTON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

FOR ENGINEERING, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. BRIGHTON. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and distinguished

Members of the Subcommittees. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Science Foundation concerning H.R.

3980.

Windstorm and hazards related research and educational activities are supported by all directorates at NSF, but the main contributions are from three directorates: the Social, Behavioral, and

Economic Sciences, the Geosciences and Engineering Directorates.

Engineering programs support basic research into structures and

their performance under multi-hazard loadings that include wind,

hurricanes and tornadoes. Examples include investigations of the

behavior of tall and low-rise buildings under hurricane wind, of tornado-induced wind loads on structures, and the performance of

large coastal bridges under hurricanes. With new sensors and with

wireless and distributed sensor networks, we anticipate a dramatic

improvement in our ability to make spatial measurements of wind

forces and directions, resulting in significant improvements in performance.

NSF’s Atmospheric Sciences Programs support fundamental research on the structure and life cycle of tornadoes, hurricanes and

windstorms. Significant progress has been made in our understanding of the structure of tornadoes and their parent thunderstorms. While the prediction of hurricane tracks has improved over

the last decade, errors in prediction of landfall and hurricane intensity are still large. Field studies using deployed sensor networks

will help us to know where the most critical winds will occur, so

that early and accurate warnings are possible.

18

Windstorm-related social science research is supported through

the Social and Behavioral Sciences Directorate and the Engineering Directorate. Projects include mitigation of losses through sustainable land management and improved warning systems and

evacuation strategies. NSF also supports research on urban search

and rescue and field activities studying community response and

recovery from hurricane and tornado events. NSF supports windstorm-related research through other directorates, including poststorm ecological recovery, modeling of coastal processes, and K–12

and informal science projects.

NSF’s Centers programs have been very important in windstorm

research, as well. In 1989, the NSF began 11 years of support for

the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms at the University

of Oklahoma, in collaboration with NOAA. Last year, NSF started

the new Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The Center

will develop low-cost dense networks of radars that will enable development of a new generation of meteorological software and

emergency managers’ needs for critical decisions.

NSF engages with other federal agencies in many activities. For

example, NSF works with NIST to support the United States/

Japan Joint Wind and Seismic Task Group. In reconnaissance efforts, NSF works with FEMA to ensure complementary and coordinated activities. NSF also coordinates its investments through the

U.S. Weather Research Program, which is focused on the study of

high-impact weather.

In closing, let me make a few observations concerning the proposed legislation. The bill would establish an interagency working

group with a charge to plan and coordinate. A mechanism for such

activities already exists through the National Science and Technology Council, NSTC, and this mechanism is working well. The

legislation also directs the establishment of a National Advisory

Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction. In fact, federal agencies involved with windstorm impact mitigation regularly receive

guidance from academic, government and industry sectors through

professional societies, meetings and workshops. Such input is very

valuable to establish important research directions, and an additional advisory organization would replicate these activities.

Finally, the proposed legislation defines a specific program on

windstorms and mandates activities for research, impact assessment and impact mitigation. The National Science Foundation supports basic research, not research to address specific goals or priorities, as might be appropriate for a sector-specific or mission agency. The hallmark of NSF’s success is its openness to receive unsolicited proposals to highly competitive programs with merit review

by experts, which we feel gives us high-quality, high-impact results. Although we welcome Congressional attention and oversight

in this area, we are always concerned about the unintended consequences of codifying research programs into law. And while we

look forward to working with the Committee to implement the

goals of this legislation, the administration believes that this legislation is unnecessary at this time.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. NSF is very excited about the research and investments in

19

this activity and what they have accomplished to date, and about

what will be possible to achieve in the future. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Brighton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN A. BRIGHTON

Introduction

Chairman Ehlers, Chairman Smith and distinguished Members of the Subcommittees:

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Science Foundation (NSF) concerning H.R. 3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of

2004, and NSF’s robust research in this area. In order to provide context for the

NSF involvement in windstorm research, let me first discuss the broader NSF mission in order to place in context my extended discussion of the role of NSF.

The NSF Mission

Recent years have seen an acceleration in rates of change in society and in the

world at large. In this era of dynamic change, in which science and technology play

an increasingly central role, NSF has remained steadfast in pursuit of its mission:

to support science and engineering research and education for the advancement of

the Nation’s well being. Knowledge is our strongest insurance for preparedness. The

Foundation is the main source of funding for the growth in fundamental scientific

and engineering knowledge and, at the colleges and universities funded by NSF, scientists and engineers are working to provide ever more effective approaches for prediction and for prevention and mitigation of impacts of natural hazards including

windstorms.

The investments made by NSF are critical to creating a complete picture of the

Nation’s vulnerability to windstorms—an understanding that leads to effective mitigation and hazard reduction. Collectively, the directorates of NSF cover the spectrum from natural and social sciences to engineering, from discovery to implementation, from prediction to response to mitigation. With the vulnerability of the Nation

to natural hazards growing and becoming increasingly complex, it is important to

have an integrated, multi-agency perspective to make significant progress. Fortunately, such agency partnerships are already in existence.

NSF and Current Support for Windstorm Impact Reduction Research

Windstorm and hazards-related research and educational activities are supported

by many programs at NSF, including particular contributions from the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE), the Geosciences (GEO) and the Engineering

(ENG) Directorates. Estimated program investments in windstorm-related research

at NSF are summarized in the table below for the past two fiscal years. Please note

that these investment totals do not include a large body of research on, for example,

heavy rains in hurricanes and thunderstorms, or portions of related infrastructure

support (e.g., base support for national facilities such as radars, aircraft, computing

centers).

Fundamental windstorm research is funded in GEO, while ENG supports fundamental research into multi-hazard engineering that includes engineering design for

wind impacts. Social science research related to hazard mitigation and preparedness

20

is supported through the SBE and ENG Directorates. Significant progress continues

to be made in these programs in understanding windstorm processes, impacts, and

the social and economic aspects of hazard reduction. NSF investments result not

only in new knowledge and facilities, but also in the supply of trained researchers

and professionals that the Nation needs.

NSF investments have supported growth of vibrant and integrated hazards-related research communities in engineering, geosciences, and in the social sciences.

Leadership from the engineering, social science and geoscience research communities has been important to transfer of research outcomes into application, engineering practice and into improvements in codes and standards. Related NSF activities include programs involving wind research facilities, post-windstorm investigations, international cooperation, and information dissemination. Throughout the remainder of this testimony, recent highlights of such NSF activities will be presented.

Engineering programs support basic research into structures and their performance under loading from hazards that include earthquake, wind, hurricanes and tornadoes, fire, blast and other forms of non-static loading. Over the past three years,

the number of proposals that were submitted in these research areas has doubled.

The research is basic in nature, and projects are selected based on merit determined

through rigorous peer review by experts.

Awards for wind-related research have included CAREER awards to young faculty, and other projects in which faculty study wind issues including wind forces,

structural response and projectile damage. In addition, ENG supports reconnaissance studies of tornado and hurricane damage, equipment and facility development, and workshops or meetings to bring the research community together to discuss research issues. Examples of current work include the first full-scale study of

the behavior of tall buildings under wind, underway at Notre Dame; a study of

wind-structure interaction for low-rise buildings, underway at Florida Atlantic University; study of tornado-induced wind loads on structures, underway at Iowa State;

and study of the performance of large coastal bridges under hurricanes, being conducted at LSU. In addition several studies aimed at developing new ways of monitoring structural performance are active, as are studies developing new damping or

other technologies designed to reduce the effects of windstorms on structures.

Since FY 2000, basic research with a special focus on buildings has been supported through the joint NSF/HUD PATH (Partnership for Advanced Technologies

in Housing) program. The main research areas explored in this program have been:

• New window materials that will reduce damage structural and collateral

damage due to flying debris,

• Lightweight wall systems that have improved wind and projectile resistance,

• New technologies for retrofitting incorporating new materials such as Fiber

Reinforced Polymers, and

• Robust structural and roofing systems.

The PATH program has also given particular attention to the protection of critical

buildings such as school buildings.

Research in atmospheric sciences is strongly supported at NSF, including fundamental research on the structure and life cycle of tornadoes, hurricanes and windstorms. An example of NSF’s investments is the FY 2003 sponsorship of the field

phase of the Bow Echo and Mesoscale Convective Vortices Experiment (BAMEX).

A focus of the BAMEX is the study of long-lived severe storms that produce damaging straight-line surface winds. The BAMEX project conducted detailed aerial and

ground surveys of wind damage following bow echo events and will use this information to relate the severity and scale of damage to radar-observed convective system

location and structural characteristics as well as perform analyses and mesoscale

model simulations of bow echo events. BAMEX was conducted over a large experimental domain centered on St. Louis, Missouri, and involved unprecedented data

collection via specialized airborne and ground-based observing platforms. The results of this research will significantly clarify the understanding of damaging wind

production in bow echoes and will illuminate where the most damaging winds are

most likely to occur, with what radar-observable attributes, and under what

mesoscale environmental conditions. Ultimately, results may be applied by operational forecasters to issue more timely and accurate forecasts and warnings of

damaging non-tornadic surface winds.

In addition to engineering and atmospheric sciences, NSF supports social, economic, and behavioral science research on windstorm and related hazards through

both the Engineering and the SBE Directorates. The research currently focuses

upon such critical issues as the mitigation of hurricane losses through effective

21

coastal and land use management; improvement in warning systems for short-fuse

weather phenomena, such as tornadoes; more effective hurricane evacuation planning; improved urban search and rescue operations for collapsed structures resulting from hurricanes and tornadoes; and greater resilience and recovery of communities in the post hurricane and post-tornado environment. Research and practice

indicate that adoption of effective, non-structural coastal hazard mitigation programs with their accompanying land-use controls over the coming decades will significantly lower property losses. The control of coastal development, developing effective warning and evacuation systems, and improving emergency planning and response in coastal and wind-prone areas cannot be ignored if loss reduction is to be

achieved.

NSF also supports windstorm-related research through other directorates including BIO, CISE, EHR and MPS. Research foci include post-storm ecological damage

and recovery, mathematical modeling of weather and coastal processes, and K–12

and informal science projects. Such investments in recent years have totaled on the

order of $4 to $8 million per year.

Research at NSF Centers

NSF’s centers programs provide very useful institutional arrangements for conducting complex holistic research. In 1989, the NSF Science and Technology Centers

program began support for the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms (CAPS)

at the University of Oklahoma (OU) in collaboration with the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Since its establishment, CAPS has developed

techniques for the numerical prediction of small-scale weather, especially aimed at

substantially increasing the accuracy and reliability of warnings of hazardous

weather associated with thunderstorms. NSF core support for CAPS ended in 2000,

and the Center has continued to be a dynamic center conducting innovative research

and expanding partnerships to include many federal and state agencies and public

and private organizations. It also acts directly in service to the public—for example,

in an effort to learn as much as possible about every aspect of the May 3, 1999

Great Plains Tornado Outbreak, CAPS organized a National Symposium that was

convened with NSF funding. This conference brought together more than 400 meteorologists, social scientists, construction engineers, emergency managers, policy

makers, and disaster relief workers from around the world in the first multi-disciplinary examination of a major tornado disaster. More than 1000 private citizens attended a half-day exhibition of safe room and advanced weather technology prior to

the symposium.

Current weather forecasting and warning technology uses data from high power,

long-range radars that have helped meteorologists improve forecasts significantly in

the past 10 years. However, long-radars have limited ability to observe the lower

part of the atmosphere because of the Earth’s curvature. Today’s radars cannot detect the full vertical rotation of most tornadoes, and they cannot observe tornado

behavior at or near ground level. In addition, one in five tornadoes is undetected

by current technology, and 80% of all tornado warnings turn out to be false alarms.

Last year, NSF began funding a new Engineering Research Center (ERC)—the

Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere, or CASA. The CASA

ERC is a partnership between the University of Massachusetts (lead institution),

University of Oklahoma (including CAPS researchers), Colorado State University,

University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, and a consortium of industrial partners and

NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory. CASA is researching a new weather

hazard forecasting and warning technology based on low-cost, dense networks of radars that operate at short range, communicate with one another and adjust their

sensing strategies in direct response to the evolving weather and changing end-user

needs. In contrast to today’s physically large radars that have 30 foot diameter antennas, the antennas in the CASA networks are expected to be three-feet in diameter with electronics that are about the size of a personal computer. This small size

allows these radars to be placed on existing cellular towers and rooftops, enabling

them to comprehensively map damaging winds and heavy rainfall in the critical region beneath the coverage of current technology.

In addition to providing low-level coverage, this approach is expected to achieve

breakthrough improvements in sensitivity and resolution leading to significant reductions in tornado false-alarms; fine-scale wind field imaging and thermodynamic

state estimation for use in short-term numerical forecasting and other applications

such as flood prediction and airborne hazard dispersion prediction. A new generation of meteorological software will be developed to use this radar data to support

emergency managers and government and private industry organizations that need

weather data for making critical decisions.

22

The team is configured to lay the fundamental and technological foundations for

dense, adaptive radar networks and conduct proof-of-concept demonstrations using

field-scale test beds deployed in hazard-prone areas. Research projects include the

design and fabrication of low-power solid state radars, new hazard detection algorithms that make use of the data, and the design of the system architecture for organizing hardware and software components and interfacing to end-users. The first

test-bed, comprising a network of nine small radars, will be installed beginning September 2005 on towers across central and western Oklahoma in a region frequented

by tornadoes and severe thunderstorms. An end-user group comprised of emergency

managers and public and private sector weather forecasters is included in the CASA

team and will participate in the testing of the system.

Information Technology for Windstorm Research

Each year across the United States, floods, tornadoes, hail, strong winds, lightning, and winter storms cause hundreds of deaths and result in annual economic

losses of more than $13B. Their mitigation is stifled by rigid information technology

frameworks that cannot accommodate the unique real time, on-demand, and dynamically-adaptive needs of weather research.

Linked Environments for Atmospheric Discovery (LEAD), is an ITR (Information

Technology Research) project started last year. The aim of LEAD is to create a series of interconnected virtual ‘‘Grid environments,’’ that allows scientists and students to access, prepare, predict, manage, analyze, and visualize a broad array of

meteorological information independent of format and physical location. A transforming element of LEAD is the ability for analytical tools, forecast models, and

data repositories to function as dynamically adaptive, on-demand systems that can

change configuration rapidly and automatically in response to the evolving weather;

respond immediately to user decisions based upon the weather problem at hand;

and steer remote observing systems to optimize data collection and forecast/warning

quality.

LEAD will allow researchers, educators, and students to run atmospheric models

and other tools in much more realistic, real time settings than is now possible, hasten the transition of research results to operations, and bring the pedagogical benefits of sophisticated atmospheric science tools into high school classrooms for the

first time. Its capabilities will be integrated into dozens of universities and operational research centers that collectively reach 21,000 university students, 1800 faculty, and hundreds of operational practitioners.

Status of Understanding About Windstorms and Impacts, and Future Research Directions

Engineering knowledge about windstorms and their effects on manmade structures is still developing. Engineering practice relies on basic understanding of winds

and simplified models to represent loadings on structures. However, the state of

practice is such that most large buildings and many large bridges are wind tunnel

tested at reduced scale to determine wind loads and performance. Wind tunnel test

results permit improved design solutions for wind over those possible with analytical models. NSF has funded projects to improve testing facilities at a number of

institutions, including a recent award to design and build a wind tunnel at Iowa

State. For this and other facilities, NSF advocates shared use of data and facilities

by the community to permit collaborative research and an integrated approach to

wind research.

Experimental data from wind tunnel testing has been an important ingredient in

the development of improved design procedures, and such approaches will no doubt

be an element of future research. This empirical approach works, but the solutions

are largely case-specific and difficult to transfer to other designs or to generalize.

With the development of and easy access to sophisticated simulation models and

high-end computational resources, NSF expects there to be rapid innovations in the

analysis of complex structures or facilities located in complex environments.

Knowledge of basic questions such as wind speeds in hurricanes and tornadoes

is still being developed. During Hurricane Isabel, one NSF-supported team from the

American Association of Wind Engineering (AAWE) observed that in the Williamsburg area of Virginia, large trees were uprooted and blown down in some areas but

not in other adjacent areas. Empirical data strongly suggests that the wind speeds

at the hurricane front are not uniform, but have significant spatial variation. This

observation is important because it suggests that the ‘‘conventional’’ engineering

wisdom for wind distribution is too simplistic. Because current field wind-measurement instruments are limited in capability and not widely distributed, it has been

difficult to gather meaningful data concerning spatial variability of wind forces and

directions. With rapid development in sensors and wireless and deployable sensor

23

networks, we can anticipate a near-term improvement in our ability to make distributed measurements. Such work will lead to significant advancements in engineered

design for windstorm impacts.

Open questions in Wind Engineering include:

• magnitude and distribution of wind forces on structures in actual severe

windstorms

• effects of severe non-uniform transient winds on structures

• effects of scale in the predicted effects of steady and transient windstorms on

structures

• development of computational models to predict structural loading from extreme wind events based on next generation experimental work

• development of improved reliability models based on transient wind studies

• effects of the loss of building envelop integrity on windstorm damage.

Regarding the atmospheric sciences, significant progress has been made over the

last decade in fundamental understanding of the basic characteristics of the structure of tornadoes and their parent thunderstorms. Progress also has been made on

the detection of thunderstorms that have the potential to be tornadic and, to a lesser extent, their prediction. Knowledge of the triggering mechanisms for the tornadic

vortex itself is still lacking. Primary research thrusts today are in the triggering

mechanism of the tornadic vortex and better short-range prediction (zero to six

hours) of tornadic thunderstorms with an emphasis on thunderstorm initiation.

While the prediction of hurricane tracks has improved over the last decade due

to better understanding of the controlling physical factors, errors in track location

are still large. Research in this area continues. Little progress has been made on

understanding and forecasting hurricane intensity changes. Current research

thrusts focus on the impact of internal storm dynamics and air/sea/land interactions

on wind intensity changes. As explained in the context of the BAMEX project, the

study of the physical forcing mechanisms of straight-line winds from severe storms

has been a major research thrust area. Knowledge of the physical factors that control severe straight-line wind episodes is rudimentary at this time.

Prior and ongoing research sponsored by NSF has been quite successful at determining the fundamental physics of microburst wind events, which have been shown

to be responsible for many aircraft accidents. While research on microbursts continues, much knowledge has been transferred to the operational communities (FAA

and NOAA) and much ongoing research is supported by the FAA. Overall, NSF supported research on this topic is decreasing.

Research into coastal zone management, which has the goal of removing property

from the direct impacts of hurricanes, and research on warning and evacuation,

which has the goal of removing people from vulnerable areas, are extremely costeffective, non-structural activities that significantly reduce the losses from windstorm impacts. With the future development of sensor networks, distributed information technology and cyber resources, NSF anticipates that these areas of research

will develop rapidly.

Most NSF awards are made for support of unsolicited research proposals submitted to disciplinary or cross-disciplinary research programs. These proposals are

peer-reviewed by experts who are well-appraised of priorities identified by the research communities, and submissions are evaluated by established merit criteria.

NSF also works directly with research communities through support of workshops

and conferences to identify research priorities and opportunities. A few examples of

such activities follow.

For example, NSF supported a Workshop in February 2004, conducted at the University of Central Florida for identifying the critical needs in the housing industry.

In addition to the academe-based researchers involved in NSF/HUD (PATH) research initiative, expert attendees including architects and industrial representatives were invited to identify research areas that will improve safety, identify innovative construction techniques and develop products that will compete in international market. One of the focus areas was safety and security against natural and

man-made disasters. Fire, wind and earthquake were identified as the critical safety

areas for natural disasters. For wind, prioritized research foci included innovations

to improve the performance of roof and frame connections and the shatter resistance

of glass, and the use of sensors for warning and self-activation of safety measures.

Interagency Activities of NSF in Disaster Reduction

NSF functions by the peer review process and works under the direct input of researchers from the community. As such the mission of NSF is complementary to,

but apart from, the more mission oriented efforts of other federal agencies. NSF is

24

very eager to support the research community in doing high quality basic research

and works with other federal agencies within this context.

NSF is engaged with other federal agencies in several activities. With NIST, NSF

co-supports the Joint Wind and Seismic Task Group to the U.S./Japan Natural Resources Development Program (UJNR). In reconnaissance efforts, NSF has direct

contact with FEMA to ensure that NSF-supported efforts complement FEMA efforts

and do not cause problems with emergency response and recovery. NSF also works

to involve other federal agencies in research workshops as participants or as cosponsors.

This bill designates that an Interagency Working group be formed to include NSF,

NOAA, NIST, FEMA and other agencies. In fact, these agencies are represented on

the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (SDR) of the NSTC (National Science and

Technology Council). NSF is a strong supporter of strategic planning efforts by SDR

agencies in order to further interagency coordination and integration, and NSF has

taken a leadership role in preparing a forthcoming SDR report documenting ‘‘Grand

Challenges’’ for hazards reduction research.

NSF works closely with other weather agencies in the conduct of many research

efforts. A primary coordinating mechanism is the interagency U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP), which is focused on the study of ‘‘high impact’’ weather

(life threatening and/or economically significant weather events). Much of NSFsponsored hurricane research and the BAMEX were conducted under the USWRP

umbrella.

The results of NSF research are carried forward into implementation through the

involvement of the researchers themselves in professional organizations, and

through activities managed by our sister agencies. In this respect, NSF funding enables a knowledgeable research community to be prepared to answer questions

posed by windstorm events themselves, and by observations of the performance of

the built environment and socio-political systems during and after storms events.

NSF-funded research enables changes warranted in engineering practice, and enhances understanding and assessment of risks and uncertainties in natural, physical, and social environments.

Since 1976 the NSF has supported the work of the Natural Hazards Research and

Applications Information Center (NHRAIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The NHRAIC serves as a national and international clearinghouse for research

on all types of hazards, including hurricanes, tornadoes, and other wind-related phenomenon. The NHRAIC convenes an annual meeting that includes workshop activities, and serves as a bridge between researchers who produce hazard-related knowledge, and the users of that knowledge. It links those engaged in the study of windrelated hazards and disasters with government officials, policy-makers, emergency

managers, and the public. The annual budget for the NHRAIC is about $850,000.

Of that total, NSF contributes $300,000. The remainder of the funds are supplied

by other federal agencies, such as FEMA, NOAA (including the weather service),

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), DOT, NASA, EPA, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Two other issues are of interest to NSF regarding windstorm impact reduction:

Workforce and international activities. I will briefly describe some of NSF’s activities in these areas.

Workforce Issues in Windstorm Impact Reduction

The initiation and eventual institutionalization of fields of inquiry is heavily dependent upon generational cohorts of scholars who not only produce new knowledge

but also produce new generations of scholars who will continue to develop the field.

NSF makes specific investments to support workforce development in all areas—including atmospheric sciences, engineering and hazards reduction. The following

cases serve as examples of such investments.

The Directorate for Engineering has made an award entitled ‘‘Enabling the Next

Generation of Hazard Researchers: An Education and Training Proposal’’ to the

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The project responds to a serious issue

in the field of research on societal aspects of extreme events: the lack of an adequate

cohort of junior faculty to sustain scholarship into future generations. This education and training initiative addresses this issue by developing a comprehensive,

creative program of mentoring for recently appointed junior faculty at research universities.

NSF has also funded an Integrative Graduate Education and Research

Traineeship (IGERT) award to Texas Tech that is aimed at producing a cadre of professionals prepared with multidisciplinary backgrounds and the technical and professional needed for the career demands in wind science and engineering, and associated economics/risk management. The program provides an integrated program

25

that crosses the disciplines of atmospheric science, engineering, and economics leading to an interdisciplinary doctoral degree. Some of the research areas are wind

characteristics in tornadoes and landfalling hurricanes, post-disaster investigation

of building damage and economic losses, deign criteria for shelters, full-scale building response in the field, wind tunnel studies, simulation of damage, forecast for

wind power, and hurricane evacuation.

At NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) at the University of Colorado, Boulder, the Directorate for Geosciences supports a program entitled ‘‘Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science’’ or SOARS. This program

offers summer research internships to undergraduates exploring a career in an atmospheric science or related field such as biology, chemistry, computer science,

earth science, engineering, environmental science, mathematics, meteorology, oceanography, physics, or social science.

At the Oklahoma Weather Center (OWC), NSF supports a long-standing summer

Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program. This program addresses

the general lack of opportunities for undergraduates to gain research experience to

complement their academic careers, and also the lack of participation by women and

members of ethnic minorities in research in atmospheric science. The OWC in Norman boasts a unique environment that encompasses all aspects of meteorological research and can provide students with the opportunity to enhance their undergraduate careers.

International Collaborative Research

The National Science Foundation aims at nothing less than U.S. world leadership

in science, engineering, and technology. Hurricanes, tornadoes and other windstorms are global hazards. Many countries find collaborative research and the sharing of information essential in meeting this challenge and the U.S. is no exception.

NSF has a long history of cooperating with other countries. For example, NSF supports and participates in the NIST-managed U.S./Japan Joint Panel on Wind and

Seismic Effects that convenes annual meetings for information exchange, and NSF

has supported U.S. academic participation in a sequence of U.S.–Japan Workshops

on Design for Wind and Wind Hazard Mitigation. An outcome of these workshops

is an increased level of cooperative activity between the U.S. and Japanese wind

communities. Many international research thrusts on weather topics are coordinated

through the World Weather Research Program of the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization.

In closing, let me make a few observations concerning the proposed legislation.

The bill would establish an Interagency Working Group to include NSF, NOAA,

NIST, FEMA and other agencies as appropriate. The purpose of this Working Group

would largely be planning and coordination, but a mechanism for such activities already exists through the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (SDR) of the National

Science and Technology Council (NSTC), and this mechanism is working well.

The proposed legislation also directs the establishment of a National Advisory

Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction. In fact, federal agencies involved with

windstorm impact mitigation regularly receive guidance from academic, government

and industry sectors through professional societies, meetings, and workshops. These

same agencies also support the Disasters Roundtable activity of the National Academies. Such input is very valuable to establish important research directions, and

an additional advisory organization would replicate these activities.

Finally, the proposed legislation defines a specific program for windstorms and

mandates activities for research, impact assessment, and impact mitigation. It requires the development of an implementation plan and biennial reporting. NSF supports basic research, not research to address specific goals or priorities as might be

appropriate for a sector-specific or mission agency. The hallmark of NSF’s success

is its openness to unsolicited proposals to highly competitive programs. These proposals undergo a thorough merit review by experts according to defined criteria, and

the most meritorious research is funded.

Although we welcome Congressional attention and oversight in this area, we are

always concerned about the unintended consequences of codifying research programs into law. While we look forward to working the Committee to implementing

the goals of this legislation, the Administration believes that it is unnecessary to

enact this legislation at this time.

Mr. Chairmen, thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony.

NSF is very excited about what NSF research investments have accomplished to

date, and about what will be possible to achieve in the future.

Web References:

American Association of Wind Engineering (AAWE): http://www.aawe.org

26

Bow Echo and Mesoscale Convective Vortices Experiment (BAMEX): http://

box.mmm.ucar.edu/bamex/science—frameset.html

Center for the Analysis and Prediction of Storms (CAPS): http://www.caps.ou.edu/

CAPS National Symposium on the May 3, 1999 Great Plains Tornado Outbreak,

(http://caps.ou.edu/may3.htm)

Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere, University of Massachusetts Amherst: www.casa.umass.edu

Disasters Roundtable of the National Academies: http://dels.nas.edu/dr/

Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science (SOARS): http://

www.ucar.edu/soars/

Linked Environments for Atmospheric Discovery (LEAD): http://lead.ou.edu/

U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP): http://uswrp.org/

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN A. BRIGHTON

John A. Brighton began his tenure as Assistant Director for Engineering at the

National Science Foundation on April 30, 2003. Immediately prior to this appointment he served as Provost of National-Louis University. He previously served as

Chair of the Teaching and Learning Consortium at The Pennsylvania State University from July 1999–June 2002. Brighton also served Penn State as Executive Vice

President and Provost from July 1991–June 1999 and Dean of the College of Engineering from 1988–1991.

He was Director of the School of Mechanical Engineering at the Georgia Institute

of Technology from 1982–1988, and was Chairman of the Department of Mechanical

Engineering at Michigan State University from 1977–1982. Prior to taking a position at Penn State in 1965, Brighton served as assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering at Carnegie-Mellon University.

Brighton was also instrumental in helping Penn State University deal with

change through the principles of continuous improvement. The University Council

on Continuous Quality Improvement was appointed in 1991 and the University CQI

Center was established in 1992.

In 1994, Brighton established the Women in Sciences and Engineering Institute

to enhance recruitment and retention of women students and faculty in these disciplines. At Penn State, he received awards from the University Commission for

Women and The University Committee on Diversity. He is a Fellow of the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers, and of the American Society for Engineering Education. He served on the Advisory Committee for NSF’s Engineering Directorate,

and also as Chairman, Council of Deans of the ASEE.

Born in Gosport, Indiana, Brighton received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue University. His research was focused on the structure

of turbulent fluid motion, biofluid mechanics and research related to the development of the artificial heart and heart assist devices.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Brighton. Mr. Lowe, we are

going to take a sort of an interim here. This is a Joint Committee

Hearing with the Environment, Technology, and Standards Committee, which Mr. Vernon Ehlers chairs, as well as the Research

Committee, which I chair. Congressman Ehlers is—arrived on the

scene, and Mr. Ehlers, would you like to make a short statement

before we proceed?

Chairman EHLERS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity. I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings and

in the interest of time, I will not read my statement. I will just

make a comment and ask that my entire statement be entered into

the record. Thank you.

I am very pleased to see this subject under study. I do apologize

to you and to the witnesses, as I am in the markup of a major

Transportation Bill at the moment, so I am shuttling back and

forth between the two, and I apologize if—for my frequent absences, but that is the way it is around here on days like this. But

thank you very much for being here. I appreciate you coming and

27

appreciate your testimony on what I believe is a very important

issue. We generate a good deal of wind on Capitol Hill, but we

don’t do any building damage with it. I—fortunately, we don’t

reach that velocity, but we appreciate the work you do in protecting

buildings and their occupants from higher-level winds.

With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON J. EHLERS

Along with Mr. Smith, I also am from the great state of Michigan. While most

folks don’t think of Michigan when they think of hurricanes or tornadoes, I can tell

you from personal experience that we receive our fair share of windstorms, mostly

in the form of tornadoes. Michigan experiences an average of 18 tornadoes annually,

and Kent County in my district ranks third in the state for total number of tornadoes over the past 50 years.

I remember one night when my wife and I, along with our two young children,

and our three month-old infant were huddled closely in our basement as a tornado

passed nearby. We were all quite scared, except for the three month-old who slept

through the whole thing. We had been house hunting that week and it just so happened that our first choice was destroyed by the tornado. Luckily our second choice

had only minor roof damage so we bought that house.

I am pleased that we are here today to discuss the important legislation recently

introduced by Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Moore to reduce the damage to life and

property by powerful windstorms. While we have learned much about how to build

better buildings to withstand these storms in recent years, we have not been successful in translating that knowledge into practice.

It is not clear if the problem is a lack of understanding by the builders or consumers, the general higher cost to use new techniques or materials, or the difficulties in changing local building codes. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses

today to help us better understand the problems and find the solutions that will

lead to reducing the impact of these storms on property and, more importantly, saving lives.

Chairman SMITH. Now we understand the wind is at your back

in proceeding with that Transportation Bill.

Chairman EHLERS. Actually, it is becoming a miniature tornado,

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Lowe, please.

STATEMENT OF MR. ANTHONY S. LOWE, ADMINISTRATOR,

FEDERAL INSURANCE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION,

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE DIRECTORATE (EPR), DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ACCOMPANIED BY MR. EDWARD LAATSCH, CHIEF, EPR BUILDING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BRANCH

Mr. LOWE. And good afternoon, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson of the Subcommittee on Research, as well as Chairman Ehlers of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and

Standards, as well as the other Subcommittee Members.

My name is Anthony Lowe, Director of the Mitigation Division

of FEMA, Department of Homeland Security. On behalf of the department, we welcome and appreciate the invitation to appear

today before the Subcommittee on Research, on—and on Environment, Technology and Standards. Today I would like to discuss

with you FEMA’s efforts in the area of wind hazard mitigation. As

you know, FEMA currently administers a number of programs intended to reduce the effects of hazards. These include the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, the National Dam Safety

Program, the National Flood Insurance Program and the National

28

Hurricane Program. To date, we have leveraged each of these programs to carry out all-hazards mitigation.

While some funds for wind hazard mitigation have come from the

National Hurricane Program, most of the funds from this program

are directed toward conducting and updating hurricane evacuation

studies. These studies are essential to state and local emergency

management to effectively respond to hurricanes at landfall. Over

the last 30 years, FEMA has conducted a post-disaster field investigation through its disaster assistance program to determine how

buildings and other structures performed and issued guidance on

how to build more disaster-resistant construction. We also assist

communities following a major disaster to support their efforts to

build back properly so we can break the cycle of damage and repair. You all may also be aware that last month, we completed and

released the first multi-hazard version of HAZUS, our tool for

multi-hazard evaluation for hurricanes, earthquakes and floods.

This module is the first of its type for hurricanes.

One of FEMA’s greatest successes has been in the area of wind

hazard shelters for tornadoes and hurricanes. FEMA has developed

a number of technical guidance documents and helped establish national standards for both in-home and community shelters. These

standards are in the—in use throughout the United States and currently being incorporated into the Nation’s model building codes. In

addition, FEMA’s post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,

HMGP, has been used by a number of states to fund wind hazard

shelters. Some states have elected to fund in-home shelters, while

other states have chosen to fund community shelters at schools and

other publicly-owned facilities. Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Arkansas,

Mississippi and Alabama have all funded shelters through various

programs over the last four years. As a result of these initiatives,

high quality and affordable wind hazard shelters have and continue to be constructed throughout the United States in areas that

are threatened by tornadoes and hurricanes.

Following the 1999 tornadoes that tore through Oklahoma and

Kansas, Oklahoma used its HMGP funds to establish a homeowner

reimbursement program for in-home safe-rooms. Since homes damaged by tornadoes have given—were given priority by the state,

many of the safe-rooms were built in Oklahoma City and in the

surrounding areas. In May 2003, the Oklahoma City area was

again struck by a major tornado and several safe-rooms that were

built under the HMGP program provided safe shelter to many families. Following these storms, Albert Ashwood, the Director of

Emergency Management for the State of Oklahoma publicly stated

that the safe-rooms, built with FEMA’s HMGP program funds, had

saved many lives that day. Under Secretary Brown and I toured

several of these damaged homes and ourselves saw both their tremendous damage and excellent performance of these safe-rooms.

This is the kind of work that FEMA is the most proud of; saving

lives and property and getting people to take action before disasters strike. FEMA has and will continue to carry out wind hazard

mitigation activities in close consultation with our mitigation partners, both inside and outside of government. Outside of government, we maintain strong relationships with the professional organizations, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers, the

29

American Association of Wind Engineers, code development organizations including ICC [International Code Council], the National

Fire Protection Association. Our private sector partners include

such groups as the National Association of Home Builders, Manufactured Housing Institute, the Portland Cement Association, and

last but certainly not least, Texas Tech University.

In closing, it is fair to say that FEMA has considerable experience in administering hazard reduction programs. However, there

is currently no federal wind hazard reduction program, and other

than FEMA’s National Hurricane Program, which focuses primarily

on evacuations planning, there is little coordinated effort among

federal agencies addressing mitigation, the effects of high—mitigating the effects of high winds on buildings, other structures and

critical infrastructures. From this perspective, throughout this testimony, I would like to offer some thoughts on elements that a federal wind hazard reduction program might include.

We appreciate the opportunity to represent the Department of

Homeland Security before the Subcommittees and we appreciate

the time to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowe follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY S. LOWE

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, of the Subcommittee on Research

and Chairman Ehlers, Ranking Member Udall, of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, and Members of both Subcommittees, I am Anthony S. Lowe, Director of the Mitigation Division of FEMA of the Department of

Homeland Security. On behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, we welcome

and appreciate the invitation to appear today before the Subcommittees on Research

and on Environment, Technology, and Standards.

Today, I would like to discuss with you FEMA’s efforts in the area of wind hazard

mitigation.

As you know, FEMA currently administers a number of programs intended to reduce the effects of hazards. These include the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, the National Dam Safety Program, National Flood Insurance Program, and the National Hurricane Program. To date, we have leveraged each of

these programs to carry out all-hazards mitigation.

While some funds for wind hazard mitigation have come from the National Hurricane Program, most of the funds from this program are directed towards conducting

and updating hurricane evacuation studies. These studies are essential to state and

local emergency management to effectively respond to a hurricane landfall. A small

portion of the National Hurricane Program funds has been used to support wind

hazard mitigation initiatives, such as FEMA’s much-used Coastal Construction

Manual. ‘‘FEMA 55,’’ as it’s referred to, is considered a reference for coastal construction and this critical guidance is offered for the benefit of architects, engineers,

and building code officials.

Over the last 30 years, FEMA has conducted post-disaster field investigations

through its disaster assistance programs to determine how buildings and other

structures performed and issued guidance on how to build more disaster-resistant

construction. We also assist communities following major disasters to support their

efforts to build back properly so we can break the cycle of damage and repair.

With the advent of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in the early 1990s,

FEMA saw the value that this technology could bring to emergency planning and

mitigation and undertook the development of a risk assessment tool, initially for

earthquakes, called HAZUS, or Hazards-U.S. Last month, we completed and released the first multi-hazard version of our HAZUS tool called HAZUS–MH, or

HAZUS Multi-hazard for hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods. The hurricane module

of that tool is the first hurricane wind risk assessment tool available to state and

local emergency managers and community planners. As we were completing the

testing of this latest release of HAZUS, Hurricane Isabel was approaching the Atlantic coast and we used HAZUS to provide damages and economic loss projections

to key decision-makers within DHS. Final HAZUS loss estimates as the hurricane

30

made landfall correlated well with the loss estimates provided by the property casualty insurance industry.

One of FEMA’s greatest successes has been in the area of wind hazard shelters

for tornadoes and hurricanes. FEMA has developed a number of technical guidance

documents and helped establish national standards for both in-home and community shelters. These standards are in use throughout the U.S. and are currently

being incorporated into the Nation’s model building codes. In addition, FEMA’s postdisaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) has been used by a number of

states to fund wind hazard shelters. Some states have elected to fund in-home shelters while other states have chosen to fund community shelters at schools and other

publicly owned facilities. Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama have all funded shelters, through various programs, over the last four years.

As a result of these initiatives, high quality and affordable wind hazard shelters

have and continue to be constructed throughout areas of the U.S. threatened by

both tornadoes and hurricanes.

Following the 1999 tornadoes that tore through Oklahoma and Kansas, Oklahoma

used its HMGP funds to establish a homeowner reimbursement program for inhome saferooms. Since homes damaged by the tornadoes were given priority by the

State, many of the saferooms were built in the Oklahoma City area. In May 2003,

the Oklahoma City area was again struck by a major tornado and several saferooms

that were built under the HMGP program provided safe shelter to many families.

Following these storms, Albert Ashwood, the Director for Emergency Management

for the State of Oklahoma publicly stated that the saferooms, built with FEMA’s

HMGP program funds, had saved many lives that day. Under Secretary Brown and

I toured several of these damaged homes ourselves and saw both the tremendous

damage and excellent performance of these saferooms. This is the kind of work that

FEMA is most proud of: saving lives and property, and getting people to take action

before disaster strikes.

In all of these initiatives mentioned, FEMA has also focused on developing training to support technology transfer. FEMA, through its Emergency Management Institute, offers training in coastal construction for design professionals. Through our

Multi-hazard Building Design Summer Institute, FEMA offers state-of-the-art training in wind resistant construction to university architectural and engineering faculty. This training is delivered by some of the Nation’s leading wind engineers from

Texas Tech University.

FEMA has and will continue to carry out wind hazard mitigation activities in

close consultation with our mitigation partners both inside and outside of government. Outside of government we maintain a strong working relationship with professional organizations such as the American Society of Civil Engineers, American

Association of Wind Engineers; code development organizations, including the International Code Council, and the National Fire Protection Association; our private sector partners that include the National Association of Home Builders, Manufactured

Housing Institute, and the Portland Cement Association; and last but not least, our

friends in the university wind engineering research community including, of course,

Texas Tech University. It is worth noting that Texas Tech played a key role in the

development of saferoom technology and continues to play a central role in our wind

hazard mitigation initiatives.

Lessons Learned from Other Hazards Programs

It is fair to say that FEMA has had considerable experience in administering hazard reduction programs. However, there currently is no federal wind hazard reduction program. And other than FEMA’s National Hurricane Program, which focuses

primarily on evacuation planning, there is little coordinated effort among federal

agencies to address mitigating the effects of high winds on buildings, other structures, and critical infrastructure. From this perspective I offer some thoughts on elements that a federal wind hazards reduction program should include.

It is vital that post-storm data be collected in an efficient and orderly manner and

made readily available so researchers and others can learn from both poor and successful building performance. There is no better laboratory to learn from than the

data-rich post disaster field environment.

It is essential to identify ‘‘cost effective and affordable’’ wind hazard mitigation

approaches. There would be little value in coming up with great approaches only

to find that no one will implement them because they are too difficult or too expensive. Solutions have to work in the ‘‘real world’’ to be effective.

A lead agency should be designated for any interagency working group formed to

establish a wind hazard mitigation plan.

31

Closing

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to represent the Department of Homeland Security before the Subcommittees on this important and timely issue. We

would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ANTHONY S. LOWE

Anthony S. Lowe was appointed Director of the Mitigation Division of the Emergency Preparedness & Response Directorate/FEMA, in the newly created Department of Homeland Security, in March 2003. He continues to serve as the Federal

Insurance Administrator, a role to which he was nominated by President Bush in

March 2002. Mr. Lowe is responsible for providing leadership for some of the Nation’s leading multi-hazard risk reduction programs, which seek to secure the homeland from hazards both natural or manmade. His areas of oversight include the National Flood Insurance Program, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, the National Dam Safety Program and the National Hurricane Program. In

his position, Mr. Lowe works closely with public and private risk managers, as well

as leaders in government, industry, research and academia.

Before assuming this post, Mr. Lowe was the senior legislative counsel for the

U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition and Business Rights

and on the staff of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information. Previously, he was the deputy prosecutor with the King Country Prosecutor’s Office. He also was a commissioner on the city of Redmond’s planning commission.

Earlier in his career, Mr. Lowe was Associate Director at the International Center

for Economic Growth and International Center for Self-Governance programs of the

Institute of Contemporary Studies, in Washington, D.C. Mr. Lowe also served as

legal counsel to the Washington State Senate majority office and as legislative assistant to U.S. Senator Slade Gorton of Washington.

A native of King County, Wash., Mr. Lowe holds a Bachelor of Science degree in

international political science from University of Washington, a law degree from the

University of Santa Clara and a Master of Divinity degree from Virginia Union University.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Lowe. We understand, Mr.

Laatsch, you are not going to give a separate introductory statement, but as Chief of the EPR Building Science and Technology

Branch, you are available to answer those questions.

Dr. McCabe.

STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN L. MCCABE, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

Dr. MCCABE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. My

name is Steven McCabe. I am testifying today on behalf of the

Wind Hazards Reduction Coalition and the American Society of

Civil Engineers, of which I am a member. The Wind Hazard Reduction Coalition was formed due to the recognized need for better research and action and mitigation into predicting and mitigating

damage from major wind events. The Coalition would like to thank

Chairman Smith and Chairman Ehlers, as well as Full Committee

Chairman Boehlert for their leadership in holding this hearing and

their commitment to moving ahead on this issue. The Coalition also

wishes to express its thanks to Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Moore for

their hard work and sponsorship of H.R. 3980.

The Wind Hazards Reduction Coalition would like to formally endorse H.R. 3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of

2004. This bill represents five years of work in which stakeholders

representing a broad cross-section of interests, such as the research, technology transfer, design and construction, and financial

communities were involved. In addition, materials and system supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:20 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 092614 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES04\032404\92614.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
32

pliers, state, county and local governments, the insurance industry

all have participated in crafting this legislation. This bill represents a consensus of all those with an interest in this issue and

a desire to see the benefits this legislation will generate. The Coalition would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the contribution of

the Committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their work on this

important issue.

With the average annual damage from windstorms at more than

$6 billion per year, the current $5 to $10 million federal investment

in wind engineering research to mitigate these impacts is not adequate. In contrast, the Federal Government invests nearly $100

million per year in reducing earthquake losses through the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, a program that

has lead to significant reduction in the effects of earthquakes. A

federal investment in wind hazard reduction would pay similar or

greater dividends and save lives and decrease property damage.

In 1993, the National Research Council published a report entitled ‘‘Wind and the Built Environment.’’ The report recommends

the establishment of a national program to reduce wind vulnerability. A 1989 NRC study concurred with that recommendation

and specifically urged Congress to designate ‘‘funds for a coordinated national wind-hazard reduction program that encourages

partnerships between federal, state and local governments, private

industry, the research community and other interested stakeholders.’’

In 2003, the RAND Corporation released a report, which was

consistent with the NRC report, and it—and which, in many ways,

formed the blueprint for H.R. 3980. In 2004, specific recommendations for a research and implementation program were laid out in

a report released by the American Association for Wind Engineering and the American Society of Civil Engineers. All four reports

highlighted the need to develop a greater understanding of severe

winds and their impacts on building structures and infrastructure,

assess—secondly, assess the performance of building structures

and infrastructure under severe winds. Thirdly, develop cost effective construction practices consistent with research results for both

new construction and retrofits. Lastly, effective transfer to design

and construction industries of the research results and public outreach.

The Wind Hazard Coalition does have concerns with two aspects

of this legislation. First, there is no new federal money authorized

in the legislation to address the problem of wind hazards. The legislation merely asks for a shifting of resources within federal agencies. In support of new funding, it is clear that the average of $22

million annually in authorized funds in H.R. 3980 is a small sum

compared to the $4 billion in average annual loss from windstorms.

Secondly, the Coalition strongly supports a creation of a National

Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction. A group of

outside experts will be instrumental in guiding the new program

and ensuring its success. The Coalition believes that this Advisory

Committee can be accomplished in a cost-effective fashion if partnerships are formed with interested parties. In this way, resources

can be leveraged for the benefit of the program.

33

In addition, we would like to note an opportunity that is presented through the work of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for

Earthquake Engineering Simulation, which is nearing full-scale operation. This national laboratory enables researchers from all parts

of the country to collaborate in studying the effects of earthquake

motions on structures and in studying ways to improve their performance. Taking advantage of the information technology infrastructure of NEES, the wind community can develop a wind analog

to the NEES system, enabling wind researchers to collaborate in a

similar manner to their earthquake engineering colleagues. Moreover, several of the NEES equipment sites could be utilized in the

study of structural response to windstorms, thus leveraging the investment made by Congress in funding NEES.

A unified national plan of wind hazard reduction, such as contained in H.R. 3980, has the potential of reducing losses significantly in the next decade. Currently, a limited number of independent activities are underway to reduce the disastrous effects of

windstorms. These activities will have a limited impact on reversing the trend of increasing costs unless action is taken to improve

the resistance of the physical infrastructure that is now susceptible

to damage by wind.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be

pleased to answer any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. McCabe follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN L. MCCABE

Good afternoon, I am Dr. Steven L. McCabe, a Professor in the Department of

Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University of Kansas. I

am currently on leave and working as Program Director, Structural Systems and

Hazards Mitigation in the Directorate for Engineering, Civil and Mechanical Systems Division for the National Science Foundation.

I am testifying today on behalf of the Wind Hazards Reduction Coalition and the

American Society of Civil Engineers of which I am a member. The Wind Hazard Reduction Coalition was formed due to the recognized need for better research and action (or mitigation) into predicting and mitigating the damage from major wind

events.

The Coalition would like to thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Ehlers as well

as full Committee Chair Boehlert for their leadership in holding this hearing and

their commitment to moving ahead on this issue. The Coalition also wishes to express its thanks to Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Moore for their hard work and sponsorship of H.R. 3980.

The Wind Hazards Reduction Coalition would like to formally endorse H.R. 3980,

the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. This bill represents five

years of work in which stake holders representing a broad cross-section of interests

such as the research, technology transfer, design and construction, and financial

communities; materials and systems suppliers; state, county, and local governments;

the insurance industry, have participated in crafting this legislation. This bill represents a consensus of all those with an interest in the issue and a desire to see

the benefits this legislation will generate. The Coalition would be remiss if we did

not acknowledge the contribution of Committee staff on both sides of the aisle for

their work on this important issue.

A. The Wind Hazard Problem

All 50 states are vulnerable to the hazards of windstorms. In 1998, hurricanes,

tornadoes and other wind related storms caused at least 186 fatalities and more

than $5.5 billion in damage. During the week of May 4–10, 2003, a record 384 tornadoes occurred in 19 states, including Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee

resulting in 42 fatalities. On May 3, 1999, more than 70 violent tornadoes struck

from north Texas to the Northern Plains. Forty-one people died and more than

2,750 homes were damaged. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew resulted in $26.5 billion in

losses and 61 fatalities, in 1989, Hurricane Hugo resulted in $7 billion in losses and

34

1 National Research Council, Wind and the Built Environment (1993).

2 National Research Council, Review of the Need for a Large-scale Test Facility for Research

on the Effects of Extreme Wind on Structures (1999).

86 fatalities and in 1999, Hurricane Floyd resulted in more than $6 billion in losses

and 56 deaths.

The United States currently sustains billions of dollars per year in property and

economic loss due to windstorms. The Federal Government’s response to such events

is to initiate search and rescue operations, help clear the debris and provide financial assistance for rebuilding. The Coalition is calling upon the Federal Government

to provide increased research funding to mobilize the technical expertise already

available to help reduce the significant annual toll in casualties and property damage from windstorms.

The Wind Hazard Reduction Coalition currently represents 23 associations and

companies which are committed to the creation of a National Wind Hazard Reduction Program (NWHRP) that would focus on significantly reducing loss of life and

property damage in the years to come. The Coalition includes professional societies,

research organizations, industry groups and individual companies with knowledge

and experience in dealing with the impact of high winds.

Near-surface winds are the most variable of all meteorological elements, making

the prediction and control of their impacts all the more challenging. In the United

States the mean annual wind speed is 8 to 12 mph, but wind speeds of 50 mph

occur frequently throughout the country, and nearly every area occasionally experiences winds of 70 mph or greater. In coastal areas of the East and Gulf coasts, tropical storms may bring wind speeds of well over 100 mph. In the middle of the country, wind speeds in tornadoes can be even higher.

With the average annual damage from windstorms at more than $6 billion, the

current $5–10 million federal investment in research to mitigate these impacts is

inadequate. In contrast, the Federal Government invests nearly $100 million per

year in reducing earthquake losses through the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, a program that has lead to a significant reduction in the effects

of earthquakes. A federal investment in wind hazard reduction would pay similar

or greater dividends in saved lives and decreased property damage.

Unfortunately, reducing vulnerability to wind hazards is not just a question of developing the appropriate technical solution. Wind hazards are created by a variety

of events with large uncertainties in the magnitudes and characteristics of the

winds. The relevant government agencies and programs, as well as the construction

industry, are fragmented. Finally, implementation requires action by owners and

the public, who may not consider hazard reduction a high priority. Solving wind vulnerability problems will require coordinated work in scientific research, technology

development, education, technology transfer and public outreach.

In 1993, the National Research Council (NRC) published a report entitled ‘‘Wind

and the Built Environment.’’ 1 The report included the recommendations of the

Panel on the Assessment of Wind Engineering Issues in the United States. The

panel recommended the establishment of a national program to reduce wind vulnerability. Such a program would include wind research that draws upon the expertise

of both academia and industry and addresses both structural and nonstructural

mitigation methods, an outreach program to educate State and local governments

on the nature of the wind risks they face, a conscious effort to improve communication within the wind community and a commitment to international cooperation in

wind-engineering.

A 1999 NRC study concurred with that recommendation and specifically urged

Congress to designate ‘‘funds for a coordinated national wind-hazard reduction program that encourages partnerships between Federal, State and local governments,

private industry, the research community, and other interested stakeholders.’’ 2

B. Federal Government & Congressional Action

As far as preventing or minimizing the impact of major wind events, the Federal

Government has mainly limited itself to improvements in weather prediction and

public warnings. In light of the damages and loss of life that windstorms cause

every year, the Coalition strongly feels that the Federal Government can and should

do more.

To that end, the Wind Hazard Reduction Coalition has worked with Congressmen

Dennis Moore of Kansas, Walter Jones of North Carolina, and others, first to help

form the Congressional Wind Hazard Reduction Caucus and then to develop legislation. The Caucus was created in October of 1999 and is chaired by Mr. Moore and

Mr. Mario Diaz Balart. It has as its goal to increase Congress’ awareness of the pubVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:20 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 092614 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES04\032404\92614.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
35

3 Congressional Testimony, Charles Meade, ‘‘Strengthening Research and Development for

Wind Hazard Mitigation, February 9, 2004, House Science Committee.

lic safety and economic loss associated with major wind events and to establish and

fund programs to mitigate those impacts.

On October 19, 2000, Congressmen Moore and Jones and others introduced H.R.

5499, the Windstorm Hazard Reduction Research and Technology Transfer Act. The

Coalition supported the development of this legislation by providing technical advice.

That legislation has evolved and been reintroduced in both the 106th and 107th

Congresses. The current bill, H.R. 3980, represents the final evolution of the legislation.

C. The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 (H.R. 3980)

The Wind Hazards Reduction Coalition would like to formally endorse H.R. 3980,

the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. This bill represents five

years of work in which stake holders representing a broad cross-section of interests

such as the research, technology transfer, design and construction, and financial

communities; materials and systems suppliers; State, county, and local governments; the insurance industry, have participated in crafting this legislation. This

bill represents a consensus of all those with an interest in the issue and a desire

to see the benefits this legislation will generate. Additionally, much of what is contained in the bill was highlighted in two recent reports.

In 2003, the Rand Corporation released a report entitled, ‘‘Assessing Federal Research and Development for Hazard Loss Reduction.’’ This report is one of the focuses for this hearing. The findings of the report are consistent with and support

the goals of the coalition. Specific recommendations for a research and implementation program are contained in the report released by the American Association for

Wind Engineering and the American Society of Civil Engineers entitled ‘‘Wind Engineering Research and Outreach Plan to Reduce Losses Due to Wind Hazards.’’ Both

reports support programs which would encompass four focuses:

• Understanding of Wind Hazards—developing a greater understanding of severe winds, quantify wind loading on buildings, structures and infrastructure

and developing wind hazards maps;

• Assessing the Impact of Wind Hazards—assessing the performance of buildings, structures and infrastructure under severe winds, developing frameworks and tools for simulations and computer modeling and developing tools

for system level modeling and loss assessment;

• Reducing the Impact of Wind Hazards—developing retrofit measures for existing buildings, structures and infrastructure, developing innovative wind-resistant technologies for buildings, structures and infrastructure and developing land measures and cost effective construction practices consistent with

site-specific wind hazards; and

• Enhancing Community Resilience, Education and Outreach—enhancing community resilience to wind hazards, effective transfer to professionals of research findings and technology and development of educational programs and

public outreach activities.

D. Coalition Comments Regarding H.R. 3980

The Wind Hazard Reduction Coalition has concerns with two aspects of the legislation.

First, there is no new federal money authorized in the legislation to address the

problem of wind hazards, the legislation merely asks for the shifting of resources

within federal agencies. The Coalition is concerned that federal agencies will resist

implementing this new program without any new funding. In support of new funding it is clear that the average of $22 million in authorized funds in H.R. 3980 is

small sum compared to the $4 billion in average annual loss from windstorms.3 We

strongly believe that the small federal investment in the wind hazard program will

pay large dividends in the near term in decreased loss of both life and property, in

essence paying for itself.

Second, the Coalition strongly supports the creation of the National Advisory

Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction. The group of outside experts will be

instrumental in guiding the new program and ensuring its success. The Coalition

believes that this Advisory Committee can be done in a cost-effective fashion if partnerships are formed with interested parties such as the International Code Council,

American Society of Civil Engineers, American Association of Wind Engineers, NaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:20 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 092614 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES04\032404\92614.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
36

tional Fire Protection Association and others who hold meetings of relevant experts.

In this way resources can be leveraged for the benefit of the program.

In addition, we would like to note an opportunity being presented by the work

at the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation which

is nearing operation. This national laboratory enables researchers from all parts of

the country to collaborate in studying the effects of earthquake motions on structures and to improve their performance. Taking advantage of the Information Technology infrastructure of NEES, the wind community can develop a wind analog to

the NEES system enabling wind researchers to collaborate in a similar manner to

their earthquake engineering colleagues. Moreover, several of the NEES equipment

sites could be utilized in the study of structural response to windstorms, thus

leveraging the investment made by Congress in funding NEES.

The Coalition also observes that the lessons learned from the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) has shown that research into such social science

issues as emergency preparedness and response, search and rescue, the delivery of

emergency medical care, public and governmental adoption of mitigation measures,

neighborhood and business citizen volunteer programs, and linking disaster recovery

to mitigation were essential. Appropriate attention to social science research and

implementation issues also should be a part of this effort to reduce the effects of

severe windstorms.

E. Conclusion

Windstorm-related costs have averaged several billion dollars per year during the

last decade with a high in 1992 exceeding $25 billion, primarily as a result of Hurricane Andrew. If a severe hurricane makes landfall in Miami, New Orleans, or New

York City, the damage could exceed $50 billion with significant impact on the national economy in addition. Hurricanes, tornadoes, and other windstorms cause

death and injury, business interruption, and unacceptably high levels of property

damage in all 50 States and all U.S. territories. People continue to move to coastal

areas adding to the trend toward larger disasters. Damage costs will continue to increase unless an effective wind hazard reduction plan is implemented.

A unified national plan of wind hazard reduction, such as contained in H.R. 3980,

has the potential of reducing losses significantly in the next decade. Currently, a

limited number of independent activities are underway to reduce the disastrous effects of windstorms. Unfortunately, these activities will have a limited impact on reversing the trend of increasing costs unless action is taken to improve the resistance

of the physical infrastructure that is now susceptible to damage by windstorms.

Finally, the Coalition would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the contribution

of Committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their work on this important issue.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to answer

any questions you might have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR STEVEN L. MCCABE

Dr. Steven L. McCabe is presently the Program Director for Structural Systems

and Hazard Mitigation of Structures Program for the Civil and Mechanical Systems

Division, Engineering Directorate of the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C. His responsibility is managing the funding of research into structural

performance under extreme loading, both natural and manmade. McCabe is on leave

from his position as a Professor in the Department of Civil, Environmental & Architectural Engineering at the University of Kansas where he teaches a variety of

courses in Structural Engineering including advanced analysis courses and reinforced concrete design. McCabe served as department chair from June 1998 until

October 2002, when he left to assume his position at NSF. He received his Ph.D.

from the University of Illinois at Urbana with an emphasis in earthquake engineering and structural dynamics and has been on the KU faculty since 1985. McCabe

was a Fulbright Scholar during 1995–1996 and served as a visiting professor at the

Norwegian Institute of Technology in Trondheim where he taught and conducted research.

His research interests include earthquake engineering and structural dynamics as

well as the application of the Finite Element Method and other computer-based

analysis techniques to static and dynamic analysis problems. A particular area of

interest is damage mechanics, the identification of damage levels and reserve capacity as well as the bond and development of reinforcement. He has been active in

recent years in mechanical splice performance issues and the development of specifications and design rules for headed reinforcing bars and other new reinforcing systems. He actively publishes technical papers on subjects related to these areas.

37

McCabe is an active member of many national and international professional societies including fib, CRSI, ASCE, ASTM, and ACI among others. A fellow of ACI,

McCabe is the former chair of ACI Committee 439, Steel Reinforcement, and presently serves on the ACI 318 Building Code Committee and is chair of the ACI 318–

B Subcommittee on Development and Reinforcement. He is a member of the fib

Bond Models task force and is one of the U.S. delegates to the U.S.–Japan Seismic

Reduction program as well as a member of the Wind Hazards Task Group and the

U.S.–China Hazards Reduction Program. McCabe is a past Associate Editor for the

ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering and is Chair of the ASCE SEI Committee

on Concrete and Masonry Structures. McCabe is a registered professional engineer

and serves as a consultant to engineering firms on advanced analysis projects and

new reinforcing systems and specifications.

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Sciaudone.

38

STATEMENT OF MR. JEFFREY C. SCIAUDONE, P.E., DIRECTOR,

ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES, INSTITUTE FOR

BUSINESS AND HOME SAFETY

Mr. SCIAUDONE. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Chairman Ehlers,

Members of the Subcommittees, my name is Jeffrey Sciaudone and

I am the Director of Engineering for the Institute for Business and

Home Safety. IBHS is a nonprofit initiative of the insurance and

reinsurance industries in this country with a mission to reduce

deaths, injuries, property damage, economic losses and human suffering caused by natural disasters. At IBHS, we believe that windstorm impact reduction helps promote—excuse me, helps protect

homes and families, keeps businesses open, and preserves jobs. We

know a lot now, but we need to know more. Basic research like

that as proposed in this legislation is critical to reduce future losses

of lives and property.

The majority of IBHS’ windstorm impact reduction activities involves applying the results of research and development as information for consumers and insurers. To that end, we produce a

number of consumer and insurer focus publications and interactive

internet tools to explain the hows and whys of windstorm mitigation. We also get involved with model building code development

and state building code adoption to encourage the inclusion of

state-of-the-art mitigation research in building regulations. We also

have created and are implementing a Fortified for Safer Living

Program to encourage disaster-resistance code plus residential construction throughout the country.

Most of our applied research efforts are based on research conducted elsewhere, including academia, private industry, federal

agencies and other partner organizations. This includes numerous

universities that are involved in windstorm mitigation research

and through participation in committees, like the ASCE 7 taskforce

on wind loads. Occasionally, we also get involved in basic research,

usually as a match funding partner. For example, we provided

match funding for a South Carolina Department of Insurance

project involving the destructive testing of several repetitive flood

loss homes in coastal South Carolina that were bought out by

FEMA following Hurricane Floyd. This project helped validate and

refine the mitigation methods that we encourage the public to undertake.

Of course, our success in our work is largely dependent on our

ability to get the word out to consumers and insurers. In addition,

due to the efforts of our in-house communication staff, we also distribute our consumer education materials through our member insurance companies, as well as through public and private local,

state and national third-party organizations. Following windstorm

events, the insurance industry collects a lot of data as a result of

the claims adjusting process. The majority of this data relates to

the adjuster’s function, which is to make the policyholder whole by

paying for the damage that was caused by the storm.

For many other insured perils, like fire and theft, such data is

used for actuarial analyses to further assess the vulnerability of an

insurer’s book of business. Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple for windstorm losses. This is due to the fact that extreme windstorms do not occur every day, and when they do occur, they alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:20 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 092614 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES04\032404\92614.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
39

ways seem to be different. Also, the data that is collected by insurance adjusters does not necessarily contain details that would be

collected by wind researchers.

To get around this dilemma, insurers generally use catastrophemodeling software that incorporates things like probability analysis, state-of-the-art wind engineering research and the latest in

computer technology to estimate the vulnerability of properties

they ensure. These models work in a similar manner to HAZUS,

which has been developed through FEMA to assist the emergency

management community. This lack of comprehensive data is also

a reason why insurers choose to be a member of IBHS, because we

are actively involved in developing means to measure the effectiveness of our mitigation recommendations.

As a part of this effort, I personally was involved with researchers from Clemson University and the University of Florida last

September to develop data from Hurricane Isabel. The goal of our

efforts was to determine relationships between measured wind

speeds, building and environment characteristics and observed

damage. This type of data is not available in other places, including

within the insurance data. We are now involved with a similar effort to collect tornado damage information with Texas Tech University this spring. Based on IBHS’ experience, we have found that

the number one obstacle to convincing building owners to mitigate

against windstorms is cost. Money that can be spent on mitigation

competes with other items within homes that people will enjoy

every day; things like granite countertops and hardwood floors.

Also, cost is by far the most used argument against implementing wind mitigation measures as a part of building codes. Further research will help build the data necessary to justify changes

in building regulations and to help change people’s minds about

these risks.

In conclusion, IBHS believes that buildings that survive windstorms unscathed are a benefit to the communities in which they

stand. People stay in their homes, businesses remain open, and

people continue to go about their lives, with minimal disruption.

Disaster-resistant communities are also not likely to be victims and

will require little if any government assistance to recover from future windstorms.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before this Committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sciaudone follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY C. SCIAUDONE

Chairman Smith, Chairman Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittees, my

name is Jeffrey Sciaudone, and I am the Director of Engineering for the Institute

for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), which is a non-profit initiative of the U.S.

property and casualty insurance and re-insurance industries with a mission to reduce deaths, injuries, property damage, economic losses and human suffering caused

by natural disasters. In short, our mission mirrors the ‘‘Findings’’ section of the proposed House bill on Windstorm Impact Reduction. We are an organization dedicated

to natural hazard loss reduction, and very much involved in windstorm impact reduction in our related efforts in research, communications, outreach, building code

development and adoption and data collection and analysis.

Windstorm impact reduction helps protect homes and families, keep businesses

open and preserve jobs. We know a lot now, but we need to know more. Basic research like that proposed by this legislation is critical to reduce loss of lives and

property.

40

Background on IBHS

Six months ago, I met near the Carolina coast with hurricane researchers from

Clemson University and the University of Florida (UF) as Hurricane Isabel bore

down on North Carolina. Our purpose of gathering near the landfall of this powerful

hurricane was to deploy mobile wind data acquisition towers in front of the landfalling hurricane in order to develop ‘‘ground truth’’ wind speeds in areas immediately adjacent to buildings in harms way. For centuries, hurricanes have assailed

our coasts and destroyed homes, businesses and communities. But this past September, as with some previous land-falling hurricanes, these researchers were applying a pioneering technique to help determine a new and more direct correlation

to a hurricane’s wind speed and the resultant structural damage. Our goal is to document, with more precision than ever before, what works and what doesn’t work

at the point of impact. Research like this is very similar to the program components

as outlined in the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program Act of 2004,

which calls for research to improve knowledge and data collection on the impact of

severe winds on structures, as well as collecting and inventorying information on

structural performance in windstorms. What this bill aspires to do in the future is

essentially what our partners in hurricane research have been doing in the recent

past. Activities like this form the basis for the development of mitigation action

plans at IBHS.

In fact, the majority of IBHS activities relating to windstorm impact reduction involve applying research and development that has been conducted by universities,

federal agencies and construction industry related trade associations. The goal of

these activities is to understand, communicate and implement the latest knowledge

on windstorm mitigation into the work of the organization. These activities include:

• Maintaining a series of consumer focused guides and brochures that relate to

a wide range of natural disasters, including windstorms.

• Maintaining a website with information on natural disaster mitigation, including windstorm damage mitigation. You can learn more by visiting

www.ibhs.org.

• Developing two interactive web-based programs to help home and business

owners develop customized pre-disaster mitigation plans and post-disaster recovery plans, as well as identify home structural improvements.

• Implementing the ‘‘Fortified. . .for safer living’’ program to encourage natural

disaster resistant new residential construction throughout the country.

• Serve as a technical resource for our member insurance companies to help

them better understand technical aspects of windstorm mitigation.

• Support building codes that address natural disaster damage mitigation.

• Support the adoption of the latest model building codes as written on the

state level.

• Participate in the development of the ASCE 7 wind provisions that are the

basis for wind loads in the current model building codes.

• Establish statewide coalitions for natural hazard loss reduction that incorporate land use planning emphasis in mitigation activities among multiple

State and local government agencies, as well as private concerns.

Over the past few years, IBHS has worked closely with several universities including Clemson University, the University of Florida, Florida International University and Oregon State University, to stay abreast of current research and information. Similarly, IBHS works with FEMA on flood and wind related retrofit issues

as well as the Department of Energy through Oak Ridge National Labs as a part

of the Roofing Industry Committee on Weather Issues (RICOWI). IBHS also has

working relationships with several construction and testing related trade associations, including APA—the Engineered Wood Association, and the National Roofing

Contractors Association. In addition, we also work regularly with code and standard

development organizations like the International Code Council (ICC), the National

Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and Underwriters Laboratories (UL).

In addition to the applied research related activities above, IBHS does occasionally get involved in performing and funding basic research. One such case involved

IBHS providing match funding to Clemson University to conduct full scale, destructive testing of houses in Horry County, SC. This project involved testing actual

homes before and after hurricane retrofits were applied to determine how much

strength was being added to the structure using various retrofit techniques. The

houses were made available because they were bought out by FEMA following their

extreme flooding during Hurricane Floyd. Primary funding was provided by the

South Carolina Department of Insurance.

41

The results of this research were used to help validate and refine the mitigation

messages that we use at IBHS. For example, the conclusions from this research included:

• Straps used to retrofit roof-to-wall connections in older homes need to extend

up, and preferably over, the rafter to prevent splitting under extreme wind

pressures.

• Simple retrofits like gluing the roof sheathing to the rafters can increase the

wind resistance of the roof deck by up to a factor of three.

• Lightweight, fabric based shutters installed from inside a home can be effective to stop wind borne debris and prevent internal pressurization of buildings and widespread water damage.

Perhaps more importantly, this research verified the fact that our recommendations will, in fact, make a difference in how individual homes will perform in the

face of extreme windstorms. It is important that we continue to measure the effects

of such mitigation actions and that research continues to find creative new ways to

build new and retrofit existing structures to survive hurricanes and other windstorms.

IBHS also works with other partners from time to time to fund research studies

that estimate the savings provided through the implementation of new and stronger

building codes in coastal environments. Three such reports have been prepared over

the past two years by Applied Research Associates in Raleigh, NC, for analysis of

the impacts of new codes along the North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas coastlines. The reports prepared for the Carolinas show that there is a positive net

present value for adding window protection to homes along the North and South

Carolina coast when the cost of the protection today and the expected loss saving

in hurricanes over the life of the mortgage on the home (30 years) are considered.

The Texas study took a slightly different approach and concluded that recommended changes to the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association Building Code

for coastal Texas will reduce expected losses from a design level hurricane (130

mph) occurring in 2013 by $155 million. Likewise, these improvements would result

in a savings of $377 million for the same storm occurring in 2023.

Studies like these would not have been possible 15 years ago. They are only possible today because of a combination of advanced wind engineering research and improved computer technology. This critical advanced wind engineering research was

only possible through programs funded by federal and state governments. Continued

and increased funding will provide even broader opportunities for the application of

the research to reduce the windstorm impact.

Beyond research activities, IBHS works with organizations on the federal, state

and local levels in a couple of different ways to support windstorm impact reduction.

The first is through the distribution of our materials through third parties. Oftentimes, this is accomplished through providing materials to local grassroots organizations to help get the word out locally. Notable partners include South Carolina Sea

Grant and North Carolina Sea Grant and several state departments of Emergency

Management. The second way is participating in the building code adoption process

on the state level. Over the past few years, IBHS has taken an active role in wind

prone states, including North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Florida and New

York.

Windstorm Data Collection and Analysis Activities

Typically, insurers use catastrophe modeling companies like Applied Insurance

Research (AIR), Risk Management Solutions (RMS) and Applied Research Associates (ARA) to analyze their overall exposure to severe windstorms like hurricanes,

tornadoes and even hail storms. These analyses are generally based on the underwriting data they collect and assumptions made by the modeling companies based

on their research into construction practices on a regional level. The loss estimates

produced by these catastrophe models are used by insurers to help them set reserves, determine the need for re-insurance and provide input for setting appropriate premiums. As discussed in the previous section, these models incorporate the

latest wind engineering research and information and computer technology.

The main reason that insurers use these models to estimate their risk is because

they can not adequately assess their risks using historical data alone since there

have not been enough extreme wind events to produce enough data to perform traditional actuarial analyses.

When it comes to producing meaningful data to assess the effect of windstorm

mitigation activities, several things need to be determined. First, the actual wind

speed that the building was exposed to needs to be known. Then, details as to what

parts of the building fail as a direct result of wind pressures need to be documented.

42

By comparing the wind speed with the pieces that are failing, researchers can begin

to make credible quantifications of the effects of windstorm mitigation. This connection forms the basis for many of the available catastrophe models.

The data that insurers collect as a part of the claims process following major wind

events, on the other hand, relate mainly to documenting the damage for which the

policyholder needs compensation and making sure the insured is made whole in a

timely manner. The role of the insurance adjuster in such a scenario is to document,

estimate and pay (or arrange for payment to) the insured. This is why IBHS is interested in the topic of engineering data collection following extreme wind events.

The data developed and collected from an engineering standpoint is absolutely critical to measure the effectiveness of mitigation efforts and to identify new areas for

research.

This brings us back to IBHS’ work with hurricane researchers from Clemson University and the University of Florida (UF). As mentioned earlier, teams from

Clemson and UF have for several years now deployed mobile wind data acquisition

towers in front of land-falling hurricanes to match the data of ‘‘ground truth’’ wind

speeds with building damage. Hurricane Isabel in 2003 was the first time that these

mobile towers were equipped with cellular modems that allowed for uploading of

wind speed data in real time to the Internet. This information ensured that the systems were working throughout the storm as well as serving as input for NOAA’s

track prediction models.

The development of the wind speed data was accomplished mainly through the

Florida Coastal Monitoring Program (FCMP). Additional information on the Hurricane Isabel deployment and other components of the program—including pressure

instrumentation of individual homes—is available on the FCMP website located at

www.ce.ufl.edu/∼fcmp.

Also as a part of the Isabel data collection effort, IBHS staff developed a

handheld, palm-pilot based damage data collection system in conjunction with

Clemson and UF so that damage data could be collected quickly and efficiently following the event. The plan for damage data collection was to survey direct wind

damage in the vicinity of the mobile towers where wind speeds were known. Fortunately for the residents of eastern North Carolina, very little direct wind damage

was observed near the tower locations and in areas that were accessible to the

teams.

While no significant direct wind damage data was collected from this event, IBHS

and the university researchers are ready to develop this data from future storms.

However, in order to continue and expand these programs, additional future funding

will be required. The majority of the infrastructure developed by Clemson and UF

on this project was funded through the Florida Department of Community Affairs.

Sea Grant provided most of the funding for deployment of the university research

teams in the Carolinas. In order to continue these efforts, new sources of funding

for infrastructure investment, including new mobile wind towers and vehicles to deploy them, need to be established.

In March of 2004, IBHS participated in a forum organized by Texas Tech University (TTU) to standardize the data collected by wind researchers following all extreme wind events. The intent of this effort is to develop wind damage databases

that are built on a common understanding of damage classification so that data collected from a variety of researchers can be combined and used together to create

a more robust data set. IBHS is currently working with TTU to adapt the handheld,

palm-pilot based forms for use in collecting tornado damage data later this year.

Availability of Insurance Data

Insurance data on losses from windstorms are currently available in a couple different places. First, the Property Claims Service (PCS), which is a part of the Insurance Services Organization (ISO), publishes insurance industry catastrophic property loss estimates following a wide range of natural and man-made disasters. Additionally, insurers are required to report loss data on a yearly basis to the respective

state departments of insurance as a part of the regulation of the industry. The Federal Government may be able to get at some of the desired data through these channels.

However, based on the content of the draft legislation, it appears that the most

desired data would be that which could quantify the reduction of windstorm impact

over time and to determine target areas for future research. The insurance data discussed above will probably not serve this purpose well because it does not account

for the specific actions that would ultimately be undertaken for individual buildings

exposed to windstorms. The details important for quantifying the effects of mitigation actions are the details being gathered by wind researchers from institutions

like Clemson, UF and TTU. In fact, IBHS is involved with these groups so that we

43

can provide this useful data back to our members in the insurance industry and appropriately focus our ongoing activities.

Obstacles to Implementation

The main obstacles to widespread implementation of windstorm mitigation techniques in new and existing structures relate directly to issues of complacency and

cost. Our experience in implementing our ‘‘Fortified. . .for safer living’’ program

tells us that homeowners are, in general, complacent about their exposure to extreme windstorms. For example, people who live in central Florida might say that

the real risk is in South Florida, or the Panhandle. Likewise people who live in the

Florida Panhandle may say the real risk in the Keys or in the Carolinas. The problem is that no one thinks they are the most exposed and they assume that the

chances of a major windstorm are slight and not worth worrying about.

Because of the low perceived risk from windstorms, consumers are less likely to

spend the money to make their homes more resistant to windstorms—especially

when they can spend their money on upgrades they can enjoy everyday like granite

counter tops and hardwood floors. The competition to spend extra money rarely ends

with the mitigation actions winning out.

Concluding Remarks

Buildings that survive windstorms unscathed are a benefit to the communities in

which they stand. People stay in their homes, businesses remain open and people

continue to go about their lives with minimal disruption. Disaster resistant communities are also likely to not be victims, and will require little, if any, government

assistance to recover from a disaster.

Windstorms and other natural disasters happen every year in the United States,

and affect thousands of homeowners and businesses. Much is currently known about

how to mitigate these losses and, fortunately, we are learning more every day.

While there will always be an element of chance in where and how badly a windstorm strikes, we in this country increasingly have the choice to be better prepared

against these events. I look forward to learning more from the continuation of the

programs I discussed here today along with the creation of new research efforts that

will help IBHS fulfill our mission to reduce the impact of natural disasters like

windstorms.

Research into all aspects of windstorm effects, from public attitudes to meteorology and wind engineering, produced as a result of the National Windstorm Impact

Reduction Act of 2004 will help form a foundation for protecting our citizens, property and economy from windstorms. The millions of dollars spent over the next few

years could save billions of dollars in windstorm losses in the future.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittees today.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JEFFREY C. SCIAUDONE

Education and Registration

Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, Clemson University, 1994

Master of Science, Civil/Structural Engineering, Clemson University, 1996

Thesis topic: Analysis of Wind Borne Debris Impact Loads

Professional Engineer, Civil/Structural, Massachusetts #41577

Summary of Experience

Experience

Institute for Business & Home Safety, March 1999–present

Director, Engineering, 2002–present

Associate Director, Engineering, 2000–2002

Project Engineer, 1999–2000

Impact Forecasting, L.L.C., Engineer/Project Leader, August 1996–February 1999

Clemson University Wind Load Test Facility, Research Asst., January 1995–August

1996

Research and Development

• Responsible for development and implementation of an inspection based, codeplus, residential construction program.

• Inspected damage following hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes.

44

• Developed computer models to predict wind damage to low-rise structures.

• Developed and implemented procedures for using proprietary risk analysis

software.

• Established data conversion procedures for portfolio analyses.

• Designed and constructed apparatus to measure impact response and wrote

software for data collection.

Leadership

• Provided technical continuity for all Engineering functions of IBHS throughout corporate relocation to Tampa, FL, from Boston, MA.

• Provided technical direction and support to strategic, operating and marketing plans.

• Developed proposals for new projects and programs to sharpen corporate

focus.

• Participated in planning and execution of company-wide reorganization.

Communications

• Developed technical discussion documents for communicating natural disaster

mitigation information.

• Provided technical expertise for print and video news releases, articles and

specials on various natural disaster mitigation topics.

• Regularly presented projects and initiatives to various technical conferences,

clients, member companies, partner organizations and corporate Board of Directors.

• Represented organization in print, audio and television media.

• Continually presented technical disaster mitigation information to a non-technical audience.

• Utilized GIS software to display risk analysis results.

• Authored occasional subject articles for construction and insurance related

periodicals.

Building Codes and Standards Development

• Represented IBHS on several code development committees including ASCE

7 Main and Wind Load Committees, NFPA 5000 Structural Committee and

SBCCI Hurricane Resistant Residential Construction Committee.

• Participated in numerous materials and construction standards committees

for the ASTM and ANSI processes for roofing materials, edge flashing, doors,

windows and shutters.

• Represented IBHS to Building Code Councils in North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida and Missouri.

• Provided staff support for committees of insurance professionals on issues regarding roofing performance, natural disaster related research and catastrophe data reporting.

Committee Service and Professional Affiliations

• Member of the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) Board of Direction

(2000–present).

• Secretary of the Roofing Industry Committee on Weather Issues (RICOWI)

Board of Directors (1999–present).

• Liaison to the Applied Technology Council (ATC) Board of Directors (2001–

present).

• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Member (1992–present).

45

46

DISCUSSION

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. We will now proceed with five minutes for the Members of this committee to ask questions, and we

hope that you will be available for questions, so we might not ask—

that staff still thought we should have asked, to send those questions to you.

Let me start out with insurance. Are there any insurance companies now that will reduce their charges, Mr. Sciaudone, Mr. Lowe,

if you comply with extraordinary building to help protect against

windstorms? Is there—do insurance companies charge less if you

do that? Start with Mr. Lowe and then Mr. Sciaudone, maybe.

Mr. LOWE. Actually, I would be interested in what he says on

this, because I am not aware of any that do——

Chairman SMITH. I don’t think they do——

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. And——

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. And our testimony before—for

earthquakes, I don’t think there was that kind of what seems reasonable to encourage people to make some of those structural costs

to the building. Mr. Sciaudone.

Mr. SCIAUDONE. I need to preface my statement with the fact

that we are with some information that IBHS—we stay away from

talking about the cost or the availability of insurance. That being

said, there are some publicly—there is some public information out

there about programs in the State of Florida, both voluntary and

required through the Department of Insurance. Recently, in 2001,

with the adoption of the new Florida building code, insurers are required to provide a recognition of the windstorm impact reduction

features of the Florida Building Code.

Chairman SMITH. Well, what is the—what is—what does that

mean——

Mr. SCIAUDONE. Well——

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. Recognition?

Mr. SCIAUDONE [continuing]. They have——

Chairman SMITH. You mean a lower premium?

Mr. SCIAUDONE. Yes. They had to recognize the building code as

part of their rate filings, which is a lower premium. They won’t—

the Department won’t accept something if it is a higher premium.

Chairman SMITH. Now I assume——

Mr. SCIAUDONE. The Building——

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. That there—I mean, we know

there are areas that are more vulnerable to winds, tornadoes, hurricanes. Mr. Lowe and Mr. Laatsch, do we—there is no existing requirement like if you live in a potential flood plain, before you get

government housing from HUD or some other government agencies, you are required to buy certain flood insurance. Do I understand that doesn’t exist if you are in a vulnerable area getting a

HUD or other federal loan for your home, in terms of the requirement to buy insurance for wind insurance?

Mr. LOWE. Right. Let me answer that question first, and then I

want to go back to the last question because I think I understood

that, as well. There is no similar requirement. Correct. Overall, I

know I think there again, there are some in Florida, but other than

that, there are no overall requirements for wind protection that are

47

universal, to the extent that it is the same way in the National

Flood Insurance Program, particularly because there is that incentive, of course, for if you have a federal loan that you have to have

insurance. We also have the Community Rating System that goes

along with that, which provides up to a 45 percent decrease in insurance premiums to participating communities who take certain

mitigating measures, which as I——

Chairman SMITH. 40—you are saying the private insurance

sector——

Mr. LOWE. This is public. This is the——

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. In——

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. Flood program——

Chairman SMITH. Okay.

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. I am talking about.

Chairman SMITH. Yes. Right.

Mr. LOWE. And so I——

Chairman SMITH. Okay.

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. Am saying it exists there. There is nothing similar to that that I am aware of in the private sector, to the

extent that that was just discussed. Now, you know, we are still

talking, you know, one to ten percent reduction in premiums, so it

is fairly nominal in terms of what they are doing in Florida. I don’t

think that is the sort of incentive you had in mind to——

Chairman SMITH. Let me move on——

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. Answer that question.

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. To the next question on wind tunnels. Do we—are wind tunnels that we have available for this kind

of research now, and are they—is this part of the kind of research

that helps us discover what kind of structures can reduce damage,

Dr. McCabe and——

Mr. LAATSCH. Chairman—Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes. I

mean, there are a number of wind tunnels located at academic institutions around the country. There also is the fact that most new

large scale structures, buildings and bridges, undergo wind tunnel

testing in order to come up with more accurate depictions of the

loads from wind. So it is a—relatively speaking, a widely used research and experimental tool. The issue though with this is access.

They are not available to everyone in the community. The other

thing is an issue of scale, because the facilities require some fairly

clever——

Chairman SMITH. Like earthquakes. We have a computer program that can simulate the shaking. Is there such a program that

is in existence for wind?

Mr. LAATSCH. Certainly, but as with any model, there are always

constraints and limitations as to the accuracy. As we develop more

information and more knowledge, the models become progressively

more comprehensive and progressively more accurate. We also have

had limitations in the past with installed computational facilities.

The computational fluid mechanics is an amazingly complicated

area of engineering, and so as we get and develop more sophisticated computers, that along with the information technology facilities, we develop more capability to do more interesting and more

accurate problems.

48

Chairman SMITH. My five minutes is up. Okay. I am going to

check on my International Relations Committee, and Mr.

Neugebauer, if you would—or Mr. Ehlers, would you like to take

the chair? Okay. Mr. Neugebauer, if you would take the chair while

I check in, in another committee.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER [presiding]. This is a question—and we can

kind of go around the table here. But I think what—one of the

questions that I have is kind of what mechanisms are in place

today for transfer of knowledge in windstorm mitigation? How are

you all talking to each other, and are you talking to each other?

Dr. BRIGHTON. I can——

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Dr. Brighton.

Dr. BRIGHTON [continuing]. Answer that briefly. I—one of the

ways we talk to each other is through professional societies, and

that is probably the best way because this brings together the experts in the field to talk to each other and exchange information

to some extent, and then publish papers as well as meeting at conferences and workshops to address particular issues around this

area. And that is probably one of the best ways. There are data

that are collected and exchanged among those people who do talk

to each other and interact and collaborate.

The other way is through the educational process within the universities in which graduate students are working alongside the faculty to look at new ways of doing things and getting new data.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Lowe.

Mr. LOWE. Yeah. As you may be aware, FEMA chairs the Interagency Coordinating Committee on hurricanes, which is an ad hoc

committee of federal agencies that have programmatic responsibilities that address tropic cyclones and other severe weather hazards. Also under the authority of the Stafford Act, we also lead the

National Hurricane Mitigation Preparedness Program, which was

formerly called the National Hurricane Program, and so we work

federal, State and local on those sorts of efforts, as well as of course

with federal partners, such as the Army Corps of Engineers,

NOAA, DOT, NEMA, currently NSF, as well.

We also have the Hurricane Liaison Teams and the evacuation

teams that we work with, and of course, we work very, very closely

with the academic community, as well, on a number of existing

projects, as well as a number of past projects that you may be

aware of as well. So there is a lot of transferring, coordination that

does occur.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Dr. McCabe.

Dr. MCCABE. I think the previous two speakers have outlined important areas. I think in particular, Dr. Brighton’s comments regarding the technical community workshops, papers, they are very

strong, robust lines of communication. I guess I would like to add

that ultimately what really the average person sees from all of this

are improved building code provisions and the enforcement of those

on large structures and—as well as homes. And to that end, there

are documents, such as ASCE–7, which is the—basically the loads

document, as well as model building codes, such as the International Building Code. Those all ultimately reflect the information

that is developed from the research community, as well as from

49

other sources. So the final analyses are the co-provisions and their

enforcement.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Sciaudone.

Mr. SCIAUDONE. Just to build on what my colleagues were saying, it is very much through committee participation in all types

of arenas, be it the codes or standards arena or academic arenas.

Just recently, we were lucky enough to participate in a workshop

conducted by Texas Tech to start working toward standard damage

collection forms from wind events, and that is why—that is where

we are applying some of the information we have on hurricane

damage assessment to tornado damage assessment this year so

that we can have a common pool and work toward things like the

NEES program that Dr. McCabe mentioned in his testimony.

Thank you.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Also I always appreciate the alma mater,

Texas Tech, to this effort. I think the final question I have, and it

is kind of a question—or statement. One of the things I think is

the proof in the pudding of how successful this program will be is

taking it from publishing to application and the commercialization

of it, and we talk about codes, and I am always reluctant to talk

about codes until we have some validation that what we are doing

has commercial economic viability. I think it is easy to go say well,

we are going to build all these buildings to this code, and then the

probability of an event versus the cost of that event actually—or

the cost of the ramifications of that event are sometimes different.

The other day, I visited a site where, you know, there is an

above-ground tornado shelter where Texas Tech has been doing

some important research, and I know other universities have been

doing that, but this is also a concrete block, exterior-wall home.

And to me, how we can measure the success of what we are going

to do in this initiative is how we can take from the academic world

and put it to—and I refer to with fond affection as Bubba and

Bubbette in west Texas is how does—how is that good for me? Because I think we can study and I think we have done a great job

of studying the impacts and we can—we have got wind modeling

and all of those kinds of things.

But the people that are ultimately out there that are going to—

they are making the decision of whether to take advantage of this

technology has to, you know—what is in it for them? And so one

of the things I want to encourage this group to do as we move forward is that we are forming this multi-disciplined group with the

purpose ultimately of producing something tangible for the American people that they can say yes, I want to choose these options

instead of the Formica, that kind of Formica. I want to choose this

because, you know, my safety and the—you know, the safety of my

property and the economic incentive through the insurance that is

going to amortize that.

In the housing programs that we developed with energy-efficient

homes in the 1970’s and the 1980’s, we were able to give people—

let them take a higher-ratio mortgage because we knew that their

costs for utilities were going to be lower than the competing

houses. We have got to build into that same kind of formula, some

incentive for the American people to choose to do that, and I think

the insurance industry is going to have to be a major player in

50

that, and they are going to have to be shown that there is economic

benefit to do that also. So that is not a question. It is more of a

statement. But that is kind of my charge to you all, as we move

forward with this process. Mr. Moore.

Mr. MOORE. Dr. Brighton, what is NEHRP? What does it do?

Dr. BRIGHTON. NEHRP is an earthquake engineering program

that is put together by—for several agencies that have worked together to look at ways to deal with, understand, learn about and

reduce the adverse effects of earthquakes.

Mr. MOORE. Okay. You heard Dr. McCabe’s testimony that the dollars allocated to earthquake research was about $100 million

per year, while the money for windstorm research is about $5 to

$10 million. Would you agree with those numbers?

Dr. BRIGHTON. Not entirely. In the written materials that we sent to you, we noted that NSF as one agency in 2003 had a $31

million—roughly $31 million dollars of funding in this area.

Mr. MOORE. All right. With regard to the parts that impact on

buildings, would those numbers be essentially correct, or do you

know?

Dr. BRIGHTON. Apart from impact on buildings?

Mr. MOORE. Well, I am talking about the funding for research on

impact on buildings. Would those numbers be essentially correct?

Dr. BRIGHTON. For—are you talking about an earthquake, or——

Mr. MOORE. Wind and earthquake.

Dr. BRIGHTON. Wind and earthquake.

Mr. MOORE. The $5 to $10 million for wind and $100 million per

year for earthquake. Is that——

Dr. BRIGHTON. No, I don’t think so. I still think that what we are

talking about is—what I am talking about here is wind—the effects

of what we are talking about today, that NSF does fund about $31

million for support for this kind of research.

Mr. MOORE. That has relevance to impacts on buildings specifically?

Dr. BRIGHTON. In addition to other impacts, yes.

Mr. MOORE. Okay. But I am talking specifically about impacts on

buildings.

Dr. BRIGHTON. I don’t have that exactly——

Mr. MOORE. Right.

Dr. BRIGHTON [continuing]. Broken out for just——

Mr. MOORE. Okay.

Dr. BRIGHTON [continuing]. Buildings, but we can get that for

you.

Mr. MOORE. Very good, and we will try to get some information

for you, as well.

Dr. BRIGHTON. Thank you.

Mr. MOORE. I want to ask Dr. McCabe a couple of questions here,

I think. What would you recommend, Dr. McCabe, with regard to

a suggested funding level for research on wind impact of this country? Do you have any thoughts in mind there? Understand that we

have constraints on our budget right now.

Dr. MCCABE. Well, I think the numbers that are proposed in this

bill—I mean obviously, in any kind of hazards research or mitigation, development of new standards, you really don’t want to be put

in the position where you are choosing between alternatives. And

51

that having been said, in the area of wind, this is a money maker

because——

Mr. MOORE. Money maker in what sense?

Dr. MCCABE. Well, you—by mitigating the effects, you basically

save not only property damage and not only injuries, medical costs,

things of that nature, but the significant amount of economic impact that significant amounts of damage have to a location. The

numbers that have been put forward here today, I would say in

large part are strictly property damage numbers. And that—the

earthquake community has recognized that that is becoming a

smaller and smaller part of the overall damage picture.

And so I think if you look at the funding levels proposed within

this bill, with a caveat that ASCE’s position is that this needs to

represent new resources, that this can be used to make an impact.

And if you continue to support research, mitigation, code efforts at

this level, over time, you are going to see a significant reduction

in the effects of severe winds, and not just tornadoes, but severe

windstorms, hurricanes; the whole suite of wind hazards.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Dr. McCabe. Mr. Lowe, in your testimony, you said, I believe, and this is from your written testimony,

a quote, ‘‘There currently is no federal wind hazard reduction program.’’ Is that correct, sir?

Mr. LOWE. That is correct.

Mr. MOORE. What would you like to see?

Mr. LOWE. Well, I am talking about certainly the coordinated

sort of effort that I think that the Committee has focused on in

terms of a problem.

Mr. MOORE. You think that effort exists right now?

Mr. LOWE. Well, I am agreeing with you that it doesn’t exist, certainly not in the sense that you all referenced it, in term—in the

context of a NEHRP sort of coordinated effort. Certainly the

NEHRP effort is a much bigger effort than what seems to be raised

here. Clearly, of course, the Administration has no formal position,

but in the context of NEHRP, I would note for the advisory structure that is laid out, we have had some experience with that on,

you know, kind of billion dollar programs, having such a construct

on a million dollar—well, a $20 million program is a little different,

and so we certainly have some information that I think would be

helpful perhaps for the Committee, as we move forward to look at

what sort of advisory structure—because what we found on our

MAT/MOT coalition was that it was helpful to have an advisory

group. We had many different interests that would actually respond directly to the agencies that were involved to help them develop what the structure, what the strategy, what the format

should take.

And so you have got a number of different interests at play.

Those need to be brought to bear in a formal way to assist the

agency that they are trying to coordinate, not necessarily simply to

report to——

Mr. MOORE. Sure.

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. Congress.

Mr. MOORE. I would just like to close, Mr. Chairman, by—Mr.

Neugebauer for—by thanking FEMA for their efforts last year in

this tornado that hit the Kansas City metropolitan area. They were

52

there helping people put their lives together, and I really appreciate that. Thank you, all.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank the gentleman from Kansas. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am—I want to

direct this question to Mr. Lowe, and in fact, Mr. Lowe, you may

have been—got into that answer with Congressman Moore. You

noted in your testimony though that it is vital that post-storm data

be collected in an efficient and an orderly manner, and that there

is no better laboratory to learn from than the data-rich post-disaster field environment. However, you did not elaborate at all on

what FEMA is actually doing in this area, and if you will, could

you tell us exactly how FEMA and/or any other agency and the private sector actually collect windstorm loss data immediately after

an event?

Mr. LOWE. FEMA has had over 30 years of experience conducting

post-disaster field investigations to determine how buildings and

other structures performed, as well as issue guidance on how to

build more disaster-resistant construction. We have also assisted

many communities, following major disasters, to support their efforts to build back properly so we can break the cycle of damage

and repair. However, the work we have done has been targeted and

limited in nature, and it is focused on those disasters that had a

strong potential to generate new knowledge or provide new insight

to design construction and buildings and infrastructure.

The results of these reports have been used to guide future research. In fact, it is intended to identify solutions and identify deficiencies. This helps focus research, we believe, to avoid research,

if you will, just for the sake of research, but for research that can

be readily applied to save lives and property. FEMA routinely uses

this information to validate the effectiveness of our own programs.

We have also used this data to answer the question are mitigation

programs working? We have coordinated with NIST and NCST.

This is the sort of data, however, that is—this Committee has

just noted that would provide sufficient quantitative data for us to

actually begin to push the idea of economic incentives. And so to

the extent that this field data collection is expanding and begins

to quantify in the real world what the potential damages are, then

others will know that they can rely upon the sort of model provisions and other sort of building provisions that are out there to actually be able to rate and provide discounts based on those rates.

Mr. MOORE. And just—and actually the follow-up to that, and it

seems—since it seems this is so critical measuring the effectiveness

of various mitigation measures and identifying areas of research,

how do you work to disseminate the information to individuals representing organizations such as the—those affiliated and others on

this panel?

Mr. LOWE. I am going to turn over to Ed Laatsch because he has

had some direct experience. I want him to share that with you.

Mr. LAATSCH. Thank you. Most other things, in terms of our implementation efforts, we develop and have used the information,

both that we have gathered in the field and through some of our

studies, to develop guidance for whether it be design professionals

or the public, consumer groups, various—even building regulators

53

and things of that sort that takes the information that others have

developed through research and that we have developed through

field study and applied it.

We have also, in terms of guidance, tried to meet what we identified as public needs. There was a document called FEMA 320, Taking Shelter from the Storm, which has been fairly successful at

helping communicate the benefits of storm shelters to the public

and providing them actual small-sized versions of construction

drawings that they can actually use to build a storm shelter. There

are a number of other examples similar to that that we have tried

to build on, where we take information others have, and our own,

and we turn it into outreach activities and communications. CDs

for the public, things of that sort.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

I will yield back.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank the gentleman. In your opening comments, Dr. Brighton, you alluded to, I think a little bit if I understood you correctly, that you felt like that this legislation was not

necessary. Could you elaborate on that a little bit?

Dr. BRIGHTON. What I would say is that it—this is probably not

the best way for the National Science Foundation—and I will

elaborate on that. The National Science Foundation really focuses

a lot on more basic research, although it is research relevant and

it can be extended to the application. And in that process, what we

find is that we ask for and receive proposals across the board in

any field of research in engineering and science, and what we have

found in doing that is that we get excellent proposals that we review on a comparative basis or on a merit basis to make the award.

So our focus is on trying the best way we can to get the best possible work, and so we feel that by leaving it broadly, leaving it

more open, that we have been successful and we would continue to

be successful in funding this kind of research, which we believe in

very much. It is not that we are opposed to the work. Obviously,

we are very keen on making sure that we do the best we can to

do the research that is necessary to deal with these kind of problems.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But one of the things that I don’t—I understand if you are soliciting research, but in—the purpose of this bill

is beyond just research. It is research and——

Dr. BRIGHTON. Right.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER [continuing]. Coordination.

Dr. BRIGHTON. Right.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. We are trying to get this from the test tube

to the neighborhood as quickly as we possibly can, and I think that

is the reason that many of us felt like that this legislation brought

some coordination to that process so that we can bring groups like

the National Home Builders Association into this and have them

help us start building some model homes with this technology as

we are developing it, rather than coming out in the three or four

years into——

Dr. BRIGHTON. Yeah.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER [continuing]. That community and saying, you

know, here it is. Go implement it, and here is the new code. I don’t

think that is the way we want to approach that. I think we want

54

to literally have a living laboratory with this as we go, and I think

we can get it in an application mode a lot quicker, if we do that.

Dr. BRIGHTON. Um-hum.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Sciaudone, what do you think the—as you

have looked at this legislation, what do you think some of the challenges are going to be as we—once we get this legislation passed

of getting it up and going? We already have some of the organizational aspects of it in groups that have been working together. Are

some—are there some things that we have not included in the bill

that we should have, or do you have some thoughts or direction on

that?

Mr. SCIAUDONE. The one area that I did see where perhaps there

could have been a little more influence, and you just alluded to it

in your statement, was talking about bringing the homebuilders to

the table. In a lot cases, believe it or not, the insurance industry

and the Homebuilders Association don’t always get along, and so

we are coming at it from opposite sides and they are the ones that

are saying it is too expensive to do these things, and we are the

ones saying it is too expensive not to.

In that case, I think that they need to be around the table or

they need to be included, and some of the things that, you know,

as I was looking at the bill and looking over the legislation is somehow if we could evaluate—or maybe if there were activities in there

to evaluate current construction practices. To say okay, how are

things being constructed today? We have building codes, but that—

the building code isn’t the bottom line as to how things are being

built, especially residential building codes are a combination of engineered construction, as well as conventional construction. As—we

see that more and more and sometimes there are gaps as we heard

a lot of testimony this morning about—or this afternoon, excuse

me, regarding tornado damage in the Midwest of this—the Midwestern portion of this country. You drive through the Midwest

and you watch the construction going up, no one is using full

sheathing on the outside of houses.

Very few builders are actually doing that. That is a practice that

would save enormous amounts of property. Not—maybe not for the

homes that are in the direct path of an F4, F5 tornado——

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No.

Mr. SCIAUDONE [continuing]. But certainly the ones that are on

the outskirts, and certainly for the ones for the F0s and F1s. So

I think the builder—the building industry needs to be around the

table——

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yeah.

Mr. SCIAUDONE [continuing]. And included.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And I actually agree with you and I want to

encourage, as this process moves forward and as we put together

the advisory group, that we have all of the players at the table. It

will not be a complete advisory group if we don’t have everyone.

You know, I will tell you—and the reason that is important, I will

tell you that if you want to know a lot about how effective the

building code is—for example, I was in the home building business

for a number of years, is you ask a framer because they have come

back after a windstorm the day after where they have seen what

has happened to the framing work that they have done the day beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:20 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 092614 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES04\032404\92614.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
55

fore. They can tell you where the failures occur, and so it is important from the early point, and I know that in a lot of—some of the

windstorm research that has been done—the National Homebuilders have actually been at the table and actually raised money

to help participate financially in some of that, and I will encourage

them to be at this table.

If there are not any other questions of the panel, we want to

thank the panel for being here today. We consider this a work in

process, and we want to stay in touch with you as we move this

legislation forward and get it passed. Then we want to work with

you and make sure that it is successful. I think it will be. I think

we have focused on something that is very important in our country, and I am delighted to—with Mr. Moore, to have been a part

of sponsoring this legislation. I will say that I guess every Member

can—you are back. I would give the gentleman the last word here

before we close the hearing.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank the

witnesses for coming today, and this is an important piece of legislation. There may be some minor differences on some of it, and I

heard one of the witnesses state some differences, but I think it is

important that we in this country start focusing on our ability to

mitigate the losses to human life and to property damage as a result of wind events in this country. And I don’t think we have done

nearly the job that we could do and I think the goal of us all should

be to work together, not to replicate anything that already exists,

but to find better ways to mitigate losses due to windstorms in this

country and wind events in this country, and I hope all of us can

agree on that.

Thank you all very much.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thanks to the gentleman. I just remind Members that they have five legislative days to revise and extend their

remarks. If there is no other business, we are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.]

(57)

Appendix:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDALL G. PENCE

PRESIDENT, CAPITOL HILL ADVOCATES, INC.

ON BEHALF OF

THE NATIONAL CONCRETE MASONRY ASSOCIATION

Chairman Smith and Chairman Ehlers, on behalf of the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA), I would like to thank you for holding this hearing regarding H.R. 3980 and a more coordinated and expanded program to reduce property damage, injuries and loss of life due to major windstorms.

NCMA is a national trade association representing hundreds of manufacturers of

concrete masonry—Concrete Masonry Units (henceforth CMU) including concrete

block of various shapes and sizes, concrete brick, concrete segmental retaining wall

units, concrete pavers and more. Manufacturing processes include handling, storage

and distribution of both raw materials and finished product. Many of the construction benefits that accrue from the use of CMU are based on the fact that CMU are

generally high-density, high-mass items, characteristics that provide important advantages for any policy-maker to consider with respect to wind-resistant construction.

NCMA supports H.R. 3980, but recommends that certain changes and considerations be made part of the bill. Inasmuch as NCMA’s experience and expertise focuses on construction materials, we will confine our remarks to aspects of the bill

affecting materials, building types and designs.

Despite the laudable goals of H.R. 3980 and the new research it would support,

we need to point out that the U.S. economy already has the materials and much

of the technical know-how required to build homes and other structures that can

withstand major windstorms.

The key ingredients lacking in making broad improvements today are perhaps

focus and political will to institute large-scale technical transfer, public information,

and policy inducements to encourage greater use of the materials and technology at

hand.

These Subcommittees are familiar with the devastation caused by Hurricane Andrew. We would urge a review of the aerial photographs of entire neighborhoods destroyed at huge cost to all concerned. In those photos you will notice entire rows

of houses utterly destroyed—with the occasional building that was left standing, relatively intact. Many of these surviving buildings were constructed using high-mass,

cement-based materials that perform very well in high-wind conditions. The surviving buildings provide stark and striking examples of what can be done presently

to resist catastrophic building failures, using off-the-shelf materials, existing technology, ubiquitous materials that are virtual commodities and available anywhere

in the United States at competitive costs.

Of course, NCMA would highlight the performance of concrete masonry, NCMA’s

area of expertise, but other competing cement and/or masonry-based materials can

perform extremely well also.

The point NCMA makes here impacts the time frame, mindset and flow of appropriations for the elements of H.R. 3980 to begin having an impact after passage of

the legislation. Not all construction materials, designs and technologies are at the

same stage of maturity and development in terms of resistance to windstorms; H.R.

3980, and its charges to the agencies and to the National Advisory Committee,

should reflect this fact. Some are ready for immediate or nearly immediate broad

implementation if the political will to aggressively advocate such a time line, under

government imprimatur, can be generated.

NCMA urges that the Subcommittees consider specifying a stratified, longitudinal

approach in the bill, one that recognizes that much of the research called for will

require a number of years to conduct, but yet that much can be done near-term to

enhance the wind-resistance of the thousands and tens of thousands of homes that

will be built in the next few years.

In other words, rather than merely enumerate the tasks of the Interagency Working Group and the National Advisory Committee and allow

them to address all missions equally and at once, the more effective approach would be to specifically charge both entities to prioritize their efforts to provide the most immediate impacts on wind-resistant construction

as soon as possible—to ‘‘front-load’’ those missions, actions and funds that

will have the most immediate impact on building safety and robustness.

The initial focus, the top priority, of H.R. 3980, in terms of time, money

and effort, should be to spur existing successful wind-resistant materials,

technologies and designs into the mainstream of construction planning and

71

use in those areas at substantial risk for major windstorms. The prime goal

should be to impact construction and construction policy and practices as

soon as possible.

This prioritization should be clearly set forth in the bill.

Clearly, materials manufacturers have a very important role to play in advancing

the wind resistance of the Nation’s building stock. However, NCMA notes that H.R.

3980 reduces the number of participants in the National Advisory Committee relative to H.R. 2020. We understand the desire to keep the Committee manageable

in size and cost, but it will not make the Committee more effective if organizations

with valuable insights are excluded from the process. NCMA has its own research

laboratory and has conducted research in this area already—certainly NCMA and

organizations with similar expertise and capability should be invited to participate

and not have information diluted through the use of surrogates. NCMA strongly recommends that the Advisory Committee be large enough to accommodate the key

players in construction materials, especially elements of the construction industry

that we know will play a major role in wind-resistant construction policies such as

the concrete and masonry industry.

Though America needn’t wait for the results of much of the basic research called

for in the bill to begin making earnest and measurable improvements to the U.S.

building stock to survive catastrophic wind events, basic research is indeed important. NCMA supports the basic research aspects of the bill, and would like to identify specific issues and policy considerations that should be addressed:

• Safe Rooms—More research is needed regarding the addition of hardened

structures designed to resist tornado-strength wind and associated flying debris, not only in new homes but also existing homes.

• Strengthened Community Structures—Every community should have structures where people can go for not only shelter, but also protection. These

structures are particularly needed in manufactured housing communities.

• Hardened Exteriors—more research is needed to evaluate and communicate

the specific benefits of hardened exterior wall surfaces in resisting the impact

of flying debris.

• Insurance companies are a driving force in the choice of building materials

and methods. H.R. 3980 should involve and consult with insurers at every

level, and develop statistical information useful to insurers.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to offer NCMA’s views on H.R. 3980.

72

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. LEATHERMAN

Chair Professor and Director, International Hurricane Research Center & Laboratory

for Coastal Research, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.

Florida International University (FIU) in Miami, Florida, supports, with reservations, H.R. 3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. The Committee is commended for recognizing the need to establish a national windstorm impact reduction program and for conducting a hearing on this nationally important

topic. We encourage the Committee to take prompt action so that enactment of this

legislation can occur during the 108th Congress.

Florida International University—Miami’s public research university—established

in 1972, has 35,000 students, 1,100 full-time faculty, and close to 100,000 alumni,

making it the largest university in South Florida and placing it among the Nation’s

30 largest colleges and universities. FIU offers more than 190 baccalaureate, masters and doctoral degree programs in 19 colleges and schools. FIU is the top producer of Hispanic graduates in the U.S. and the third largest producer of minority

graduates (52 percent Hispanic, 12 percent African-American, and four percent

Asian).

FIU is an active member of The Wind Hazard Reduction Coalition, but as Director

of FIU’s International Hurricane Research Center, the state-wide center for hurricane research in Florida, my statement will reflect our unique university perspective. Before commenting on H.R. 3980, I wish to acquaint you with the work that

we do at the International Hurricane Research Center and to explain why it is in

the national interest, and the interest of the Federal Government, to support the

development and implementation of a rational research strategy, focusing on the reduction of potential hurricane and other windstorm damage. The primary focus of

my statement is on hurricanes, my area of my expertise.

International Hurricane Research Center

The International Hurricane Research Center (IHRC) at Florida International

University (FIU) conducts basic and applied multidisciplinary scientific research to

reduce the potential for damage from hurricane impacts to the human, natural and

built environments in vulnerable communities throughout the United States and in

other countries. It was established by the private sector in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew.

As Florida’s center for hurricane research, education and outreach in Florida, the

IHRC offers a solid record of interdisciplinary and collaborative research, both basic

and applied, focusing on the full spectra of hurricane impacts and the methods and

techniques for hurricane loss reduction. The work of the IHRC has largely involved

Florida and the larger Caribbean and Gulf basin, where most of the North Atlantic

hurricanes make landfall.

The knowledge and findings resulting from the work of the IHRC, and the complementary education and outreach methodologies benefit not only Florida and specific countries in the Caribbean and Latin America, but every hurricane vulnerable

community in the USA and abroad. These records and capabilities clearly allow the

IHRC to support federal strategic objectives and priorities, providing increased assistance to international partners while concentrating on the domestic front.

In fulfillment of its mission the IHRC has engaged in a wide-ranging research

agenda that includes the following areas:

Research and development of effective and credible hurricane loss reduction

methods and techniques for housing in Florida. This involves the testing of various building components and assemblies, development of improved building design criteria, and the analysis of various architectural and structural elements

and their role in modifying the performance of the building under hurricane

conditions. (Funded by Florida Department of Community Affairs—Emergency

Management)

Development of a public domain hurricane loss model to assess risk and estimate

potential losses. This integrated model will be particularly useful to insurers, reinsurers, regulators as well as the financial and housing industries. The model

will include newly-developed knowledge databases and an updated wind field

model. (Funded by Florida Department of Insurance)

Implementation of a windstorm simulation and modeling project focusing on the

use of high-resolution data acquisition with airborne LIDAR technology and

IHRC-developed algorithms, enhanced storm surge modeling, computer simulation and visualization complemented by public education and outreach programs. (Funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency)

73

Beach erosion and coastal vulnerability. Quantification and assessment of beach

erosion resulting from hurricane impacts through the use of airborne LIDAR

technology. This project uses high-resolution elevation data and local

geomorphology features to assess coastal vulnerability at specific locations.

(Funded by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation)

Assessment of social consequences and the human impact of hurricanes. Evaluation of how various social factors such as demographics, socio-economic strata

or education may affect perceptions and attitudes influencing critical issues

such as hurricane evacuation and the use of mitigation measures. (Funded by

the National Science Foundation and Florida Department of Community Affairs—Emergency Management)

To complement its research program, the IHRC also engages in efforts of education and outreach to transfer critical knowledge, and findings to potential users

and policy-makers in various fields. This includes the Developing a Culture of Mitigation through Education project focusing on K–12 students, their parents and

teachers, and the community at large.

Hurricane vs. Earthquake Research

Hurricanes are the most devastating and damaging natural hazards impacting

the United States and its territories in the Caribbean and Pacific basins. The unavoidable seasonality of hurricanes and the damage they cause underscore our vulnerability to this awesome force of nature. Hurricanes now cause an average of 14

deaths and $5 billion in property damage per year in the United States. Industry

data show that 65 percent of insured losses from natural hazards in the U.S. over

the past half-century are due to the impact of hurricanes (Table 1). Inexplicably, the

Federal Government has focused on earthquake research and mitigation with comparable little funding for hurricanes (Table 2).

Extreme hurricane events in recent years (i.e., Hugo, 1988; Andrew, 1992;

Iniki, 1992; Opal, 1995; Georges, 1998; Mitch, 1998; and Floyd, 1999) have,

with an increasing sense of urgency, reinforced the proposition that the

Nation must continue to work on, but also move beyond weather prediction

and evacuation to achieve significant damage reduction. Against this background, increasing population and urban development in coastal areas highlights

the dynamic nature of our vulnerability to hurricanes and the urgency of the probVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:20 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 092614 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES04\032404\92614.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
74

lem. According to the 2000 census, population has increased by 20 percent (11.7 million people) in the most vulnerable states over the last ten years. This trend is predicted to continue.

Mitigation offers the best alternative for reducing potential damages

from hurricanes. Merely being prepared to respond to the inevitable damage that will occur from storms does nothing to reduce the ultimate cost

of these dangerous events. Effective mitigation to build a solid foundation

for policy-making and building practices can only be achieved through increased research, vulnerability assessments, education and outreach. Hurricane mitigation must continue to evolve by including not only a wide

range of damage reduction tools such as improved building design and

structural engineering methods, new construction technologies and materials, land use strategies, and building codes, but also new methods of data

collection, continued social and behavioral research as well as improved

communication technology, computer modeling, simulation and visualization.

It is in the national interest, indeed the interest of the Federal Government, to support the development and implementation of a rational research strategy, focusing on the reduction of potential hurricane damage.

Building upon current programs and other initiatives with shared objectives, this

strategy will be based on leading academic researchers nationally with the single

focused goal of reducing the cost of hurricanes to the Federal, State, and local governments, as well as to businesses and households.

To contribute to the development and implementation of a strong, coherent and

united research agenda focusing on hurricane loss reduction, the International Hurricane Research Center (IHRC) at Florida International University (FIU) has

brought together the wealth of existing capabilities and evolving expertise of the

public universities in Florida into an integrated multi-year, multidisciplinary cooperative research effort—the Florida Hurricane Alliance. This coordinated effort is

being launched in 2004 with funding from NOAA.

Hurricane Research Priority Recommendations

The following list of research initiatives have been identified as priorities. In order

to effectively mitigate hurricane losses, all require considerably more funding:

1. METEOROLOGY—Hurricane-force winds during Andrew resulted in $30 billion

in damages in south Florida

• Develop more-skillful forecasting techniques for hurricane intensification

• Continue the momentum for improved hurricane motion forecasts

• Develop neighborhood-level forecasts of wind, rain, and flooding

• Improve the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model and associated

data assimilation routines as the next-generation forecasting system

2. INLAND FLOODING—Presently the leading cause of tropical-cyclone mortality

• Better specification of topography through airborne LIDAR mapping

• Improved precipitation measurement and forecasting techniques

• Education and outreach, including development of a flood scale

3. STORM SURGES—Historically the greatest threat to life

• Airborne LIDAR-based, high-resolution bathymetry and topography

• Next-generation, real-time inundation models

• More realistic atmospheric forcing

• Simulation and 3–D animation to warn the affected populace

4. COASTAL EROSION

• Beach and dune modeling utilizing up-dated airborne LIDAR data

• Event-specific and long-term modeling

5. BUILT ENVIRONMENT

• Laboratory and wind tunnel testing of structures and components

• Cost-effective, geographically-appropriate building standards and practices

6. COST OF WARNINGS

• Evaluation and preparation

75

• Lost productivity and business opportunities

• Impacts on minority and economically disadvantaged populations

7. ROLE OF PRE-LANDFALL PLANNING AND POLICY

8. THE ECONOMIC AND HUMAN FACTORS IN POST-DISASTER RECOVERY

Comments on H.R. 3980

Florida International University supports, with the following reservations, H.R.

3980, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004.

FIU believes that there is an important need for a coordinated program to reduce

the impacts of hurricanes and other windstorms that account for the bulk of the economic damages from all natural hazards in the United States. FIU supports H.R.

3980’s provisions in this regard.

Hurricanes alone result in $5 billion in damages annually, and currently there is

insufficient funding to reduce these levels of impacts, which will likely increase. FIU

is concerned that because no new federal money is authorized by this legislation,

federal agencies will continue to be reluctant to fund hurricane and other windstorm-related research and will resist implementing this new program.

Much of the development along the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts was constructed

during a lull in hurricane activity. As we are just entering a 20 to 30 year cycle

of increased Atlantic hurricane activity, FIU is concerned that funding for hurricane

research and mitigation will become even more insufficient at a time when the

losses from hurricanes will be increasing in the future years. FIU strongly encourages the Committee to authorize new funding for the wind hazard program. We believe that a federal investment in this program will pay large dividends in the near

term.

The cost of Hurricane Andrew, which hit South Florida a decade ago, was $30 billion dollars. That figure would be approximately $80 billion in today’s dollars. Our

research shows that funding for a strong, coherent and united research agenda focusing on hurricane loss reduction could lead to the reduction of this figure.

FIU strongly encourages the Committee to carefully review Tables 1 and 2 of this

statement which provide statistics comparing earthquake and hurricane damage,

deaths and research funding, as well as statistics on U.S. insured catastrophe

losses. These numbers show the importance of establishing and funding a federal

windstorm impact reduction program. We view H.R. 3980 as a good first step, and

offer our expertise and services to the Committee in this regard.

FIU strongly believes that any windstorm reduction program should include appropriate attention to social science research and implementation, such as emergency preparedness and response, public and governmental adoption of mitigation

measures, delivery of emergency medical care, and linking disaster recovery to mitigation. Lessons learned from the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program have

proved the importance of research into the social sciences issues as essential to a

successful hazard reduction program.

We commend the legislation for establishing a national advisory committee and

look forward to participating with the other key sectors to develop a comprehensive

national windstorm mitigation program board based on the latest research and

sound public policy strategies.

Finally, we believe that effective mitigation can only be achieved through increased research, vulnerability assessments, education and outreach. FIU encourages the Committee to explicitly recognize in H.R. 3980 the unique contribution that

the higher education community can play in helping to build a solid foundation for

policy-making and for reducing potential impacts and damages from hurricanes and

other windstorms.

BIOGRAPHY FOR STEPHEN P. LEATHERMAN

Education

Ph.D., Environmental (Coastal) Sciences, University of Virginia, 1976

B.S., Geosciences, North Carolina State University, 1970

Publications

18 books authored or edited including Dr. Beach’s Survival Guide: What you Need

to Know about Sharks, Rip Currents, & More Before Going in the Water; America’s

Best Beaches; Sea Level Rise: Causes and Consequences; Barrier Island Handbook;

Cape Cod: From Glaciers to Beaches.

76

Over 200 journal articles and technical reports authored, including articles in both

Science and Nature.

Expert testimony for the U.S. Senate (1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994) and

U.S. House of Representatives (1989, 1990, 1991, 1993).

On-screen host and co-producer, ‘‘Vanishing Lands’’ film, 1992, winner of three

international film awards, including the Golden Eagle.

Professional Presentations

Over 100 speeches at national and international scientific conferences including

Antigua, Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Egypt, England,

France, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Micronesia, Netherlands,

Norway, Puerto Rico, Thailand, Venezuela and Wales.

Over 200 public presentations including talks at Meadow Club, Southampton, NY;

Chappaquiddick Beach Club, Martha’s Vineyard, MA; Ocean Beach Erosion Workshop, San Francisco, CA; Shores and Beaches Workshop, Palm Beach, FL; American

Bar Association National Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.