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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–529PS 2008

THE NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT

REDUCTION PROGRAM: STRENGTHENING

WINDSTORM HAZARD MITIGATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 24, 2008

Serial No. 110–117

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

HON. DAVID WU, Oregon, Chairman

JIM MATHESON, Utah

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLIE A. WILSON, Ohio

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

MIKE ROSS, Arizona

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

MIKE QUEAR Subcommittee Staff Director

MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Democratic Professional Staff Member

TIND SHEPPER RYEN Republican Professional Staff Member

PIPER LARGENT Republican Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

July 24, 2008

Page

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative David Wu, Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative Phil Gingrey, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 9

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

Prepared Statement by Representative Laura Richardson, Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 11

Witnesses:

Dr. Sharon L. Hays, Associate Director and Deputy Director for Science,

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14

Biography .......................................................................................................... 121

Dr. Marc L. Levitan, Director, Louisiana State University Hurricane Center;

Charles P. Siess, Jr. Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 121

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 123

Biography .......................................................................................................... 132

Ms. Leslie Chapman–Henderson, President and CEO, Federal Alliance for

Safe Home, Inc.—FLASH

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 132

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 134

Biography .......................................................................................................... 139

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 140

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Timothy A. Reinhold, Senior Vice President of Research and Chief Engineer, Institute for Business and Home Safety, Tampa, Florida ...................... 158

Dr. Marc L. Levitan, Director, Louisiana State University Hurricane Center;

Charles P. Siess, Jr. Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University .............................................. 160

Ms. Leslie Chapman–Henderson, President and CEO, Federal Alliance for

Safe Home, Inc.—FLASH ................................................................................. 162

Page

IV

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Statement of Timothy A. Reinhold, Senior Vice President of Research and

Chief Engineer, Institute for Business and Home Safety, Tampa, Florida .... 168

Letter to Chairman David Wu and Ranking Minority Member Phil Gingrey

from John T. Snow, Dean, College of Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences,

University of Oklahoma, Norman, dated July 29, 2008 ................................... 174

Wind Storms and Tornadoes: Early Detection and Warning made possible

using CASA and MPAR Weather Radar ............................................................ 176

Map of Tornado Reports, January 01, 2008–July 15, 2008 .................................. 190

Impact of Tornadoes ................................................................................................ 191

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

Florida International University ........................................................................ 192

(1)

THE NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION PROGRAM: STRENGTHENING WINDSTORM HAZARD MITIGATION

THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Wu [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

1This figure does not include expenditures by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Spending levels from NSF on NWIRP related activities are unavailable.

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The National Windstorm Impact

Reduction Program: Strengthening

Windstorm Hazard Mitigation

THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

The purpose of this hearing is to review the activities of the National Windstorm

Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) and to examine the role of R&D in saving lives

and reducing property losses from windstorms. The witnesses will also discuss advancements in wind hazard mitigation and methods of transferring the results of

research into practice for code developers, builders, and property owners. Lastly, the

witnesses will provide testimony on the priorities for a reauthorization of NWIRP,

which expires in fiscal year 2008, and any changes needed to increase the effectiveness of the program.

2. Witnesses

• Dr. Sharon Hays is the Associate Director of the White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP);

• Dr. Marc Levitan is the Director of the Hurricane Center at Louisiana State

University (LSU) and an Associate Professor in the LSU Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering;

• Ms. Leslie Chapman-Henderson is the President and CEO of the Federal

Alliance for Safe Home, Inc. (FLASH)

• Dr. Timothy Reinhold is the Senior Vice President for Research and Chief

Engineer at the Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS).

3. Brief Overview

• Hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, and other severe wind-related weather

can claim lives, cause injuries, and cause billions of dollars in damages. In

2007, according to the National Weather Service, 111 Americans died in tornadoes and thunderstorm winds, and this year, tornadoes have already killed

119 people. The economic impact of the 2004 and 2005 hurricane season alone

totaled over $160 billion. As more people move to vulnerable coastal areas,

these losses are expected to increase.

• The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) is a federal

program which includes the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Federal Emergency Management

Association (FEMA). The objective of NWIRP is to decrease the loss of life and

property from windstorms through research and development on weather phenomena and mitigation techniques. Created in 2004, the program has received little attention from the Administration. Expenditures for R&D related

to NWIRP, as reported by the Administration were approximately $7.5 million in total since FY 2004.1 This amount is well below authorized levels. The

4

2 Average calculated from National Weather Service fatality data for 1996 through 2006, exclusive of 2005 hurricane season deaths. 3 2003 RAND Report: Assessing Federal Research and Development for Hazard Loss Reduction,

Charles Meade, Megan Abbott.

participating agencies have also failed to coordinate the ongoing wind hazard

related R&D through other mechanisms.

• Reports from the National Research Council (1999) and RAND (2003) argue

that a well funded, coordinated R&D framework could reduce wind losses.

The RAND report, commissioned by OSTP, analyzed federal disaster-related

R&D funding and found that the majority of this money supported short-term

weather prediction. The report recommended that the balance in funding shift

toward R&D for long-term mitigation measures. Despite this recommendation, the federal R&D portfolio has not been rebalanced to adequately fund

research on windstorm impacts and mitigation measures.

• Mitigation efforts can reduce losses to wind-related disasters significantly, but

these measures are not widely adopted in hazard prone areas. Barriers to

adoption include high capital cost, the lack of financial incentives, and a lack

of knowledge by property owners.

4. Background

High winds in hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, and other weather phenomena cause significant damage to buildings and infrastructure. Annually, such

weather is also responsible for an average of 124 American fatalities2 and over 1,600

injuries. Though better building practices have resulted in fewer fatalities in recent

decades (Table 1) total direct property losses in the U.S. from 1996 to 2006 are over

$160 billion (in 2006 dollars). Moreover, costs associated with wind-related natural

disasters have doubled or tripled each decade over the past 35 years. Much of the

precipitous increase in property losses is due to the rise of population in vulnerable

coastal areas. Between 1980 and 2003, the number of Americans living in coastal

counties increased by 28 percent. More than 50 percent of Americans now live on

the coast and this upward trend is projected to continue.3 Those dwelling in manufactured housing (i.e., mobile homes) are at an increased risk of death, injury, and

property loss from high-wind storms.

In 2004, Congress passed the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act (P.L.

108–360) which established NWIRP. The objective of the program, as stated in the

enacting legislation, is ‘‘the achievement of major measurable reductions in losses

of life and property from windstorms’’ through a coordinated Federal effort. The Act

directs NOAA, NIST, NSF, and FEMA to support activities to improve the understanding of windstorms and their impacts, and to develop and encourage the implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. The statute

charges an interagency working group (IWG)—chaired on a rotating basis by FEMA,

NSF, NOAA, or NIST—to coordinate the R&D priorities, portfolio, and budget. The

program is authorized through FY 2008 (Table 2).

5

As required by legislation, OSTP submitted an NWIRP implementation plan to

Congress in April 2006. The plan assessed programs relevant to the goals of NWIRP

across eight federal agencies and identified important areas of research that were

not covered by current activities. The knowledge gaps covered the three broad categories of research authorized in the Act: understanding windstorms; assessing the

impacts of windstorms; and mitigating the effects of windstorms. To further the understanding of windstorms, the plan identifies the need for research on the structure of windstorms and wind behavior, instrumentation for the study of windstorms,

and the development of standards for deploying instruments, assessing measurements, and storing and sharing data. Research into assessing the impacts of windstorm would include the response of structures to windstorms and their resilience

over time, and social science research on the impact of windstorm damage on communities, particularly vulnerable populations. For mitigation, research is needed to

improve building codes and standards, and to develop better decision-making tools

for all level of government.

The implementation plan also recommends that an IWG within the National

Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC) Committee on Environment, Natural Resources Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction oversee the research portfolio outlined

above, with representatives from NSF, NIST, NOAA, and FEMA, as well as NASA,

the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), and the Army Corps of Engineers.

These agencies support mission-related R&D on windstorms and windstorm impacts. The IWG would be responsible for facilitating communication between the

agencies on the best means of allocating agency resources to meet NWIRP goals and

for coordinating this federal research portfolio.

As of the FY 2009 budget request, the Administration has never requested funding for NWIRP. Although the implementation plan recommended an IWG coordinate

a research portfolio targeted to the identified research needs, there has been little

effort to do this. Currently the IWG is not chaired by any agency, as required by

statute, nor has OSTP convened an external advisory committee to provide guidance

and feedback for the program.

Program activities related specifically to wind-hazard reduction are not explicitly

stated in agency budgets, however, the Administration reports that agencies have

funded approximately $7.5 million (not including NSF) in related activities since FY

2004. These efforts are summarized below:

• NSF’s role in NWIRP is to support basic research on engineering and the atmospheric sciences to improve the understanding of windstorms and their impacts on the built environment and lifelines. To that end, NSF has funded

research in the atmospheric dynamics that form storms and hazardous winds;

post-Hurricane Katrina grants to document and preserve data on the built environment, perform social science research, and to fund engineering studies;

and research to gain a better understanding of evacuations and community

rebuilding. Estimates from NSF on the total spending related to NWIRP are

unavailable, but the agency estimates they will spend $6.8 million on research related to NWIRP in FY 2008.

• NOAA’s role in NWIRP is to support atmospheric sciences research to improve the understanding of windstorms and their impact on the built environment and lifelines. Aligned with NWIRP’s goals, NOAA performs education

and outreach related to hazards through Sea Grant institutions and other

means; supports research and operations at the National Weather Center for

improved prediction and monitoring of severe storms and hazardous winds;

gathers field data on hurricane dynamics; develops probes and other monitoring equipment for data collection in extreme weather; develops decision

6

4 1999 National Research Council Report: Review of the Need for a Large-Scale Test Facility

for Research on the Effects of Extreme Wind on Structures. 5 2003 RAND Report: Assessing Federal Research and Development for Hazard Loss Reduction,

Charles Meade, Megan Abbott.

support tools that map wind-speeds; provides information and planning assistance to increase community storm resiliency; and participates on the

U.S.–Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects. NOAA reports spending of $3.5 million on NWIRP related activities for the period of FY 2004 to

FY 2008. The NOAA FY 2009 budget request includes $1 million for these

activities.

• NIST’s role in NWIRP is to support R&D to improve building codes, standards, and practices for design and construction of the built environment and

lifelines. Activities that NIST has engaged in related to NWIRP include the

development of software and procedures to facilitate the use of automated

wind impact sensors on buildings; computational tools for determining realistic wind loads on the built environment; methodologies for predicting ultimate structural capacities; post-Hurricane Katrina evaluations of the built

environment; providing technical information to improve codes and standards;

and participating on the U.S.–Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects.

NIST reports spending of $2.45 million on NWIRP related activities

for the period of FY 2004 to FY 2008. The NIST FY 2009 budget request includes $1.4 million for these activities.

• FEMA’s role in NWIRP is to support the development of risk assessment

tools and the effective mitigation techniques, windstorm related data collection and analysis, and conduct public outreach and information dissemination

to promote mitigation measures. Activities identified by FEMA that meet

these goals include: update and development of HAZUS, a modeling tool for

communities to estimate damage, economic loss, and social impacts of storms;

Mitigation Assessment Teams (MAT) studies of building performance after

major storms; construction guidance for building in vulnerable coastal areas

and storm shelters; and cooperation with NOAA to improve evacuation planning for hurricanes. FEMA reports spending of $1.5 million on NWIRP

related activities for the period of FY 2004 to FY 2008. FEMA estimates

spending on these activities for FY 2009 to between $200,000 and $250,000.

In 2003, the RAND Corporation released a report commissioned by OSTP to assess federal spending on disaster-related R&D. The study found that the majority

of such funding goes to fundamental research into atmospheric and meteorological

aspects of windstorms and other weather. A significantly smaller portion went toward structural engineering R&D on buildings and other infrastructure to increase

their resilience during and after windstorms. The RAND report recommended that

the R&D focus shift toward long-term mitigation efforts. The report stated, ‘‘This

is especially relevant for weather related hazards, for which R&D is primarily limited to procurements for short-term forecasting efforts,’’ noting that short-term prediction efforts can have a life-safety impact but generally do not reduce property or

economic losses. A 1999 National Research Council report4 recommended that: ‘‘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.’’ Experts in mitigation argue that support for windstorm hazard mitigation could result in similar benefits to those generated by the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP). This program, created by Congress in 1978, is a coordinated interagency effort to reduce the

impact of earthquakes on the built environment and communities. Researchers in

both fields (wind and earthquake engineering) often point to the minor damage from

the 2001 6.8 Seattle earthquake as evidence that thirty years of funding earthquake

engineering R&D have had measurable results.5

Measures to mitigate damage from windstorms are currently available, but they

are not universally adopted. A study published in 2008 by the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Process Center at the Wharton School of Business quantified

the impact of mitigation, showing that mitigation efforts could reduce hurricane-related losses by 40 to 60 percent. Similarly, post-storm FEMA MAT reports consistently show that houses built to modern codes generally remain standing through a

storm, compared to those not built to code. A natural tendency to ignore or downplay the risk of catastrophe could explain the lack of adoption of mitigation measures however, other barriers, such as the high cost of implementation and limited

7

financial incentive (through reduction in insurance premium, tax incentives, etc.),

and a lack of understanding of risk and available mitigation technologies also prevent more wide spread use of mitigation measures.

5. Issues and Concerns

• The costs associated with windstorms are rising, but little funding has gone

toward understanding windstorms and their impacts and developing mitigation measures. Reports from the National Academies, RAND, and OSTP’s

NWIRP Implementation Plan strongly recommend a coordinated effort for

R&D to reduce hazards from windstorms. The limited research that NSF,

NIST, NOAA, and FEMA have supported is not well coordinated. For example, although NIST, FEMA, NSF, and several other federal agencies dispatched resources to examine the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,

there is little evidence that these activities were coordinated.

• As stated in the 2003 RAND report, to achieve a reduction in the massive

economic losses from windstorms, the federal R&D portfolio should support

long-term research on hazard reduction methods. Based on the funding levels

for NWIRP reported by the Administration, this type of research is not adequately supported at the federal level. Researchers in the wind engineering

community point to a consistent lack of funding as a cause of the decline in

the number of graduate students and professors in the wind engineering profession and as a hindrance to advancing knowledge that would have useful

applications in reducing losses from windstorms.

• Mitigation techniques do exist to save lives and reduce damages but they are

not universally adopted. Decreasing the cost of mitigation measures and increasing the education and outreach to property owners could increase the

adoption of mitigation techniques.

• The authorization for NWRIP expires this fiscal year (FY 2008). To date, the

program has not been well implemented. Changes to the legislation and the

program should be considered if the reauthorized NWIRP is to be an effective

program.

8

Chairman WU. Good morning, and welcome to this morning’s

hearing on The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program:

Strengthening Windstorm Hazard Mitigation. This is a very, very

important topic. The Nation has learned that, and I have learned

that in my own Congressional district.

Every single year, severe winds from hurricanes, tornadoes, and

thunderstorms damage or destroy thousands of homes and businesses. They damage vital infrastructure, and most importantly,

they threaten human life. On average, 60 Americans die in tornadoes each year, but this year is already proving to be one of the

deadliest years on record for wind-related fatalities, with over 100

Americans killed in tornadoes this spring alone. And we cannot forget the more than 1,000 people who lost their lives in Hurricane

Katrina and the follow-on consequences.

Dollar amounts vary widely on the extent of property damage

and economic losses from windstorms, but since 2004, windstorms

have cost this country well over $160 billion.

We in the Pacific Northwest were reminded last December that

no part of the country is safe from severe windstorms. On December 1, 2007, a Pacific storm brought hurricane force winds and

heavy rain to Oregon and Washington, and tragically, five people

died in that storm. Thousands were left with damaged homes and

flattened communications systems and electrical grids. Insurance

claims for Oregon alone, for non-flood-related damage in that windstorm, were over $70 million, and local and State officials have

sought $53 million in federal money to help repair damaged infrastructure. Knowing that these types of storms will strike again, we

must do more to prevent the loss of life and property.

Today, we will discuss the National Windstorm Impact Reduction

Program, or NWIRP. It was created by Congress in 2004 to help

reduce devastating losses from windstorms. NWIRP directs four

federal agencies, FEMA, NOAA, the National Science Foundation,

and NIST, to conduct coordinated R&D on the nature of windstorms, their effects, and on ways to mitigate impact. The program

also calls on these agencies to facilitate technology transfer, to

make sure that beneficial research is put into practice.

Since passage of the enacting legislation, the program has done,

quite frankly, little to address this very substantial problem. Unfortunately, NWIRP has received little attention from the Administration, in terms of either funding or coordination. NWIRP expires

this fiscal year, and if we are to reauthorize it, we will need to discuss how it can be changed to ensure that it meets its goals of improving the safety of Americans and increasing protection from

wind hazards. Damage from storms is projected to increase as a

greater number of Americans move to coastal areas, and especially

those areas which are subject to violent windstorms.

We are not completely powerless to reduce losses from windstorms. Known mitigation techniques can greatly decrease the

amount of wind damage, in some cases, by as much as 50 or 60

percent.

I look forward to our witnesses’ comments on improving the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and I also hope they

can suggest how we can improve the utilization of existing windstorm mitigation technologies and practices.

9

And at this point, I would like to recognize the Subcommittee’s

Ranking Member, Dr. Gingrey, for his opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Wu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID WU

Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing on The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program: Strengthening Windstorm Hazard Mitigation. This is an

incredibly important topic. Every year, severe winds from hurricanes, tornadoes,

and thunderstorms damage or destroy thousands of homes and businesses, harm

vital infrastructure, and, most importantly, threaten human life. An average of 60

Americans have died in tornadoes each year since 1996, but 2008 is already proving

to be one of the deadliest years on record for wind-related fatalities, with over 100

Americans killed in tornadoes this spring alone. And we cannot forget the more

than 1,000 people who lost their lives in Hurricane Katrina. Dollar amounts vary

widely on the extent of property damage and economic losses from windstorms, but

since 2004, economic windstorms have cost the country well over $160 billion.

We in the Northwest were reminded last December that no part of the country

is safe from windstorms. On December 1st a Pacific storm brought hurricane-force

winds and heavy rain to the Oregon and Washington coasts. Tragically, five people

died in that storm. Thousands of people were left with damaged homes and vital

infrastructure, including communications and electrical systems, were badly damaged. Insurance claims for Oregon for non-flood related damage were over $70 million and local and State officials have sought $53 million in federal money to help

repair damaged infrastructure. Knowing that these types of storms will certainly

strike again, we must do more to prevent the loss of life and property.

Today we will discuss the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, or

NWIRP. Created by Congress in 2004 to help reduce devastating losses from windstorms, NWIRP directs four federal agencies—FEMA, NOAA, NSF, and NIST—to

conduct coordinated R&D on the nature of windstorms and their effects and on ways

to mitigate their impact. The program also calls on these agencies to facilitate technology transfer to make sure that beneficial research is put into practice. Since passage of the enacting legislation, the program has done little to address this very sizable problem. Unfortunately, NWIRP has received little attention from the administration in terms of both funding and coordination. NWIRP expires this fiscal year,

and if we are to reauthorize it, we will need to discuss how it can be changed to

ensure it meets its goals of improving the safety of Americans by increasing the protection from wind hazards.

Damage from storms is projected to increase as a greater number of Americans

move to coastal areas. However, we are not completely powerless to reduce the

losses from windstorms. Known mitigation techniques can greatly decrease the

amount of wind damage—in some cases by as much as 50 to 60 percent.

I look forward to our witness’ comments on improving the National Windstorm

Impact Reduction program. I also hope they can suggest how we can improve the

utilization of existing windstorm mitigation technologies and practices.

I now recognize the Subcommittee Ranking Member, Dr. Gingrey, for his opening

statement.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and before I start my

opening statement, I want to ask that Dr. Tim Reinhold’s testimony be added, his written testimony, to the record. He was delayed, detained, snowed in, I don’t know what the situation is in

Chicago, rainstorms more likely, but was not able to get here. So,

with unanimous consent, we can add his testimony to the record.

(See Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record.)

Chairman WU. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

I want to thank you, of course, for calling this hearing on an

issue that unfortunately touches the lives of the American people

on an annual basis, damage and economic loss from windstorms.

Each year, lives are lost, and billions and billions of dollars are

spent recovering from the destruction caused by tornadoes and hurricanes.

10

When the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act was passed

four years ago, the Federal Government recognized the need to

proactively conduct research and development programs to save

lives and reduce property damage caused by these horrific storms.

I am looking forward to hearing from today’s panel about both the

success of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program over

the past years, as well as improvements, as the Chairman said, to

the program that can be made as we move forward.

Mr. Chairman, my home State of Georgia has had a long and notorious history with tornadoes and windstorms, with several incidents in the past year. In fact, in March of 2007, tornadoes stuck

the towns of Potterville, North Newton, and Americus, Georgia,

leaving nine people dead and tremendous damage in their wakes.

In December, in Ashburn, a truck driver was killed when a tornado

blew his vehicle off the road. This past March, and you may have

read about this on the sports pages, downtown Atlanta witnessed

incredible damage to infrastructure when tornadoes ripped holes in

the roof of the Georgia Dome during the 2008 Men’s, SEC Men’s

Basketball Tournament. It is amazing, amazing that we didn’t

have a tremendous loss of life, because all of those people were

slow to evacuate, and to stop the game they were all interested in

watching.

At the same time, in my Northwest Georgia district, the 11th of

Georgia, a tornado struck Polk and Floyd Counties, causing significant economic loss, and regrettably, taking the lives of two of my

constituents, one in Floyd County, one in Polk County, Bonnie

Turner, Jerry Albers, salt of the Earth people from farming communities. Their homes were destroyed, but sadly, they lost their

lives as well.

In addition to the lives lost, the United States sustains billions

of dollars in economic damages each year due to tornadoes and

hurricanes, and vulnerability is only increasing, it would seem. According to the Georgia Insurance Commission, insured losses across

our state, in just the first five months of this year, have surpassed

$400 million.

Mr. Chairman, improved windstorm impact reduction measures

have the potential to save lives and reduce losses associated with

these storms. For instance, the Federal Government continues to

invest in R&D activities that can increase warning time for tornadoes and any other extreme weather events. While little can be

done, as you have said, to protect structures from large tornadoes,

researchers have made significant progress in designing buildings

and retrofits to withstand high wind events. Finding practical and

effective applications for this research remains the biggest challenge at the National Windstorm Impact Program today.

This obstacle is unfortunately complicated by the number of

stakeholders. The Chairman mentioned the four agencies, federal

agencies, State and local communities, private organizations, all

have a role in better preparing the Nation against windstorms. The

R&D efforts in this program create ways for these stakeholders to

collaborate in a productive and an effective manner.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank these three witnesses, and the

fourth that was not able to be here, through no fault of his own,

for coming to relate their expertise on the challenges and hopefully,

11

the successes of reducing windstorm impacts. This is a complex

challenge with clear benefits that will require a great deal of cooperation, patience, and resolve to overcome. And I certainly look

forward to supporting these efforts, and I yield back to you.

[The statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

Good morning Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for calling this hearing on an

issue that unfortunately touches the lives of the American people on an annual

basis: damage and economic loss from windstorms. Each year, lives are lost and billions upon billions of dollars are spent recovering from the destruction caused by

tornadoes and hurricanes.

When the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act was passed four years ago,

the Federal Government recognized the need to proactively conduct research and development programs to save lives and reduce property damage caused by these horrific storms. I am looking forward to hearing from today’s panel about both the successes of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program over the past four

years, as well as improvements to the program that can be made moving forward.

Mr. Chairman, my home State of Georgia has a long and notorious history with

tornadoes and windstorms, with several incidents in the past year and a half alone.

In March of 2007, tornadoes struck the towns of Potterville, North Newton, and

Americus, leaving nine people dead and tremendous damage in their wakes. In December in Ashburn, a truck driver was killed when a tornado blew his vehicle off

the road.

This past March, Downtown Atlanta witnessed incredible damage to infrastructure when tornadoes ripped holes in the roof of the famed Georgia Dome during the

2008 SEC Men’s Basketball Tournament. At the same time in my Northwest Georgia district, tornadoes struck Polk and Floyd Counties—causing significant economic

loss and regrettably taking the lives of three of my constituents.

In addition to the lives lost, the United States sustains billions of dollars in economic damages each year due to tornadoes and hurricanes, and our vulnerability

is only increasing. According to the Georgia Insurance Commissioner, insured losses

across the State of Georgia in just the first five months of this year have surpassed

$400 million.

Mr. Chairman, improved windstorm impact reduction measures have the potential

to save lives and reduce losses associated with these storms. For instance, the Federal Government continues to invest in R&D activities that can increase warning

time for tornadoes and other extreme weather events. While little can be done to

protect structures from large tornadoes, researchers have made significant progress

in designing buildings and retrofits to withstand high wind events.

Finding practical and effective applications for this research remains the biggest

challenge that the National Windstorm Impact Program has today. This obstacle is

unfortunately complicated by the number of stakeholders—federal agencies, State

and local communities, and private organizations—that have a role in better preparing the Nation against windstorms. The R&D efforts in this program create ways

for these stakeholders to collaborate in a productive and effective manner.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the witnesses for coming to relate their expertise on the challenges, and hopefully the successes, of reducing windstorm impacts. This is a complex challenge with clear benefits that will require a great deal

of cooperation, patience, and resolve to overcome, and I look forward to supporting

these efforts.

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman. If there are Members who

wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will

be added to the record at this point.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE LAURA RICHARDSON

Thank you Chairman Wu for holding this very important hearing today, and our

witnesses for their appearance. The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the activities of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and the role that

R&D plays in reducing property loss and saving lives from windstorms.

Depending on the time of year, every region of the Nation has to confront a natural disaster. In California we have earthquakes and wildfires, so windstorm damage is an issue that those of us on the west coast are fortunate enough to avoid.

12

However, natural disasters of any kind can cause significant loss in life and property, thereby necessitating the need to prepare adequately.

In California we implemented strict building standards after the Northridge

earthquake to combat the potential damage that natural disasters create, and this

approach can serve as a model to states in the heartland and the South that have

to deal with tornadoes and hurricanes respectively.

Now it should be noted that the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program

has not been funded at the authorized levels for several years now. This must

change considering the fact that in 2007, 111 Americans died in tornadoes and

thunderstorm winds, and tornadoes have already killed 119 people this year.

Likewise as more people move to coastal areas the threat of hurricanes obviously

increases. Therefore as a matter of fiscal responsibility we owe it to the American

people to increase R&D efforts that will mitigate the impact of windstorm damage.

In 2004 and 2005 the economic impact of hurricane season totaled more than $160

billion dollars.

My personal work philosophy has always been to put the majority of my effort

in on the front end in order to avoid subsequent damages on the back-end. This approach ought to be applied to matters pertaining to windstorm damage as well.

I look forward to a productive discussion, Mr. Chairman I yield back my time.

Chairman WU. I would now like to introduce our witnesses, and

thank them for appearing before the Subcommittee this morning.

Dr. Sharon Hayes, who is the Associate Director of the Office of

Science and Technology Policy; Dr. Marc Levitan, who is the Director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center, where he

is also a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Ms.

Leslie Chapman-Henderson, who is the President of the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes, or FLASH, a not for profit organization devoted to mitigating the impact of storms on homes.

Dr. Timothy Reinhold, we understand, is delayed by the vagaries

of either weather or the airlines, which are, well, no further comment on either one. And his statement, as earlier referred to, will

be included in our record.

For our witnesses, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes

each, after which the Members of the Committee will have five

minutes to ask questions. Your written statements will be taken

into the record in their entirety.

And Dr. Hays, we will begin with you. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. SHARON L. HAYS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE, WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Dr. HAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Gingrey, and Members of the

Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you in this hearing on the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.

Every year in the U.S., windstorms are responsible for tremendous damage to property, and often, loss of life. Hurricane Katrina

demonstrated how a severe hurricane can affect not just those in

its path, but the entire country and its economy. Tornadoes and severe storms are also capable of tremendous destruction. As the

Chairman mentioned, in 2008, the United States has been ravaged

by a near record number of tornadoes that has pushed the death

toll to a 10 year high. Thus, the topic of this hearing is both important and timely.

You asked me to address four questions. My written testimony

provides more detail regarding several of your questions, including

a summary of the activities of the National Windstorm Impact ReVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:47 Nov 02, 2008 Jkt 043529 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\T&I08\072408\43529 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
13

duction Program, which was the subject of your first question, so

I will not repeat that summary here.

You also asked how the agencies involved in the Windstorm Impact Reduction Program receive input from the external community. This happens in a number of ways. The primary mechanism

is through the National Research Council’s Disasters Roundtable,

which holds workshops on particular disaster-related topics that

bring together experts from agencies, industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. Several agency personnel sit on the

Roundtable Steering Committee. Many others participate in the

Roundtables themselves. A list of recent Roundtable topics can be

found in Attachment 3 to my written testimony.

Another extremely important mechanism for getting non-government input on disaster related R&D occurs through agency-specific

mechanisms. Here are several examples. One, NSF incorporates

private sector researchers, particularly those in academia, on its

peer review panels charged with helping make award selection decisions.

Two, through active participation and leadership in many standards development organizations, staff from NIST’s Building and

Fire Research Laboratory, which is the locus of NIST’s windstormrelated research, contribute significant time and technical expertise

to the process of developing national and international standards,

and this brings them into direct contact with their peers in the private sector, and also helps translate the results of NIST research

into practical applications.

Three, because some important disaster-related research can be

done only in the aftermath of an event, FEMA assembles mitigation assessment teams, made up of government and private sector

experts, to perform post-disaster assessments. These teams work

closely together to understand the impacts of a disaster event on

buildings—the results are of tremendous importance in defining

new areas of research, as well as future building codes and standards. These examples reflect the different missions and operations

of the agencies that perform disaster R&D. They provide multiple

and complementary avenues for public/private communication.

You also asked for an update on efforts being taken to address

current gaps in R&D identified in the Administration’s Windstorm

Impact Reduction Implementation Plan. Descriptions of specific

agency activities and programs are included in my written testimony. And the Windstorm Working Group will also be providing

Congress with an updated biannual report by later this year or

early next year. That report will have more information on the

working group’s most recent activities.

Finally, you asked about a 2003 RAND report on Windstorms.

The RAND Report represents a very thoughtful assessment of the

role of R&D in helping make our nation more resilient to disasters.

In fact, it was one of the guiding references used by the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, which is the interagency group

that is charged with coordinating the Administration’s disaster-related R&D. When developing their report on grand challenges for

disaster—many of the issues raised in the RAND report are specifically identified in the grand challenges, which is an emphasis on

mitigation strategies and technologies.

14

1The term ‘‘technological disasters’’ refers to accidental releases of hazardous substances, such

as an oil or toxic chemical spill.

One of the RAND Report’s implicit conclusions is the importance

of considering disaster reduction R&D in an all hazards context,

thus taking into account windstorm R&D alongside other disasters,

such as floods, earthquakes, and wildfires. That all hazards context

is a fundamental tenet of the Federal Government’s current approach to coordination of disaster.

In closing, I would like to point out that in many instances, reducing the impacts of disasters ultimately requires actions beyond

the purview of the Federal Government. The adoption of zoning

laws, building codes, and other actions that can build resilience

within communities are rightly vested in State and local authorities. Given this, I believe the most important roles of the Federal

Government are in R&D that underpin technological innovations,

such as improved prediction capabilities and better strengthen

buildings and infrastructure, and in communicating the benefits of

their adoption.

The Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction is an important mechanism for the Federal Government to perform these essential elements of developing a more disaster-resilient America.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer any questions that you or

other Members of the Subcommittee have at the appropriate time,

and as I mentioned earlier, my written testimony contains much

more detail, so I ask that it and its attachments be made part of

the record.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hays follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHARON L. HAYS

I. Introduction

Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Gingrey, and Members of the Subcommittee, I

am pleased to appear before you today to describe interagency activities related to

the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP). Wind hazards (hurricanes, tornadoes, severe windstorms) are among the most destructive and economically damaging hazards in the U.S. While other hazards strike irregularly, wind

storms produce enormous damage in the U.S. year after year.

Reducing the likelihood and impact of natural and technological1 disasters requires an understanding of science and technology, the transformation of research

into disaster reduction programs and applications, and access to information from

both public and private entities. In order to meet these challenges, the interagency

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

Council (NSTC) was chartered in 1988. The SDR provides a unique federal forum

for information sharing, development of collaborative opportunities, formulation of

science- and technology-based guidance for policy-makers, and dialogue with the

U.S. policy community to advance informed strategies for managing disaster risks.

In many instances, reducing the impacts of disasters ultimately requires actions

beyond the purview of the Federal Government. The adoption of zoning laws, building codes, and other actions that can build resilience within communities are rightly

vested in State and local authorities. In these instances, the most important roles

of the Federal Government are in research and development (R&D) that underpin

technological innovations and in communicating the benefit of such actions. The

SDR, and its working groups, are important mechanisms for the Federal Government to perform these essential elements of developing a more disaster-resilient

America.

The overarching philosophy of the SDR is to examine R&D needs for specific types

of disasters within an all-hazards view. Accordingly, basic research on the resilience

of structures to wind are coordinated with similar studies related to flooding and

storm surge because all three phenomena commonly occur together in hurricanes or

severe storms. Likewise, the end-to-end aspects of hazards and disasters are considVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:47 Nov 02, 2008 Jkt 043529 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\T&I08\072408\43529 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
15

ered as a whole; basic research on natural processes that cause disasters is linked

to risk assessment, preparedness, and the economic and social impact of disasters.

The primary goal of hazard research is to reduce loss of life and property and therefore hazards must be viewed holistically.

Specifically, the SDR facilitates U.S. Government and private/academic activities

to reduce vulnerability to natural and technological hazards through:

• Coordinating national research goals and activities for federal research related to natural and technological hazards and disasters;

• Identifying and coordinating opportunities for the U.S. Government to coordinate and collaborate with State, local, and foreign governments, international

organizations and private/academic/industry groups;

• Facilitating the identification and assessment of risks;

• Providing information to the President and Congress to summarize relevant

resources and work within SDR agencies;

• Providing information to the Administration and Congress in response to current disaster situations;

• Working with public and private sector policy development bodies;

• Promoting disaster reduction practices;

• Facilitating the exploitation of dual-use systems and fusion of classified and

unclassified data streams and research for disaster reduction applications.

The membership and reach of the SDR across the Federal Government is expansive and includes 25 government organizations:

• Department of Defense

Æ Networks and Information Integration (NII)

Æ United States Army Corps of Engineers

• Department of Energy

• Department of Health and Human Services

Æ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Æ National Institutes of Health

Æ United States Public Health Services Commissioned Corps

• Department of Homeland Security

Æ Federal Emergency Management Agency

Æ United States Coast Guard

• Department of Housing and Urban Development

• Department of State

Æ United States Agency for International Development

• Department of the Interior

Æ United States Geological Survey

Æ The Bureau of Land Management

• Department of Transportation

• Environmental Protection Agency

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

• National Guard Bureau

• Department of Commerce

Æ National Institute of Standards and Technology

Æ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• National Reconnaissance Office

• National Science Foundation

• United States Department of Agriculture

Æ United States Forest Service

16

With such a long list of participating agencies, and an active membership base,

the SDR has been a model for interagency coordination. Thus, the SDR was a logical

choice to act as the NSTC oversight body for interagency activities on Windstorm

Impact Reduction.

II. Actions to date

In October 2004, Congress passed the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act,

which originated in the House Science Committee. The bill called for the establishment of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP), with the objective of achieving ‘‘major measurable reductions in losses of life and property from

windstorms.’’ The legislation tasked OSTP with creating a NSTC Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Windstorm Impact Reduction. In January 2005 the NWIRP

IWG was convened by the NSTC SDR. The legislation mandated participation by

NOAA, NSF, NIST, and FEMA. While those agencies have taken the most active

role in the IWG, other federal entities, such as the Federal Highway Administration,

Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have also participated in the

program.

The legislation required that an implementation plan for achieving the objectives

of the Program be submitted to Congress. The Windstorm Impact Reduction Implementation Plan was submitted to Congress on April 5, 2006 (Attachment 1). The

plan outlines how NSTC, in accordance with its responsibility to coordinate science

and technology across federal agencies, can establish a framework to address multiagency science and technology issues related to windstorm mitigation. Specifically,

the plan focuses on identifying research needs that will be an important component

of long-term efforts to reduce the impacts of wind hazards. The plan continues to

serve as a guide for the IWG as it works to improve coordination of existing windrelated research, and seeks to fill research gaps in understanding, predicting, and

forecasting windstorm hazards.

During the formulation of the plan, the IWG reached well beyond the participating federal agencies to State, county, and city governments, universities, and

non-government organizations such as the American Association of Wind Engineers

(AAWE), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and the Institute for

Building and Home Safety (IBHS) for input. The IWG met several times during the

creation of the implementation plan and several drafts were circulated throughout

the participating agencies. The end product is a useful and comprehensive document.

The legislation also required the development of biennial updates to the implementation plan. The first of these updates was transmitted to Congress on November 20, 2007 (Attachment 2). The biennial update covers Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006

and provides a summary of wind hazard research activities, and progress toward

agency goals in each of the NWIRP agencies aimed at understanding, predicting and

forecasting wind hazards, assessing and reducing impacts of wind hazards, and promoting preparedness and enhancing community resilience. It also identifies areas

of research, compiled by the IWG, that address important national wind hazard

problems in the future. The biennial update serves as an excellent resource for understanding each NWIRP agency’s contribution to the program. As stated in a June

23, 2008 letter from Dr. John Marburger III to Chairman Gordon, the next biennial

report will be submitted to Congress in fall 2008 or spring 2009 (Attachment 3).

III. Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction

As noted above, the IWG on Windstorm Impact Reduction operates under the auspices of the SDR. Given its close link to the SDR, the NWIRP follows the same philosophical underpinnings established in the SDR’s February 2008 report Grand

Challenges for Disaster Reduction (Attachment 4). These challenges are as follows:

Grand Challenge #1—Provide hazard and disaster information where and when

it is needed

Grand Challenge #2—Understand the natural processes that produce hazards

Grand Challenge #3—Develop hazard mitigation strategies and technologies

Grand Challenge #4—Recognize and reduce vulnerability of interdependent critical infrastructure

Grand Challenge #5—Assess disaster resilience using standard methods

Grand Challenge #6—Promote risk-wise behavior

The Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction report was released on February 1,

2008 and is a ten-year strategy that is focused on the application of science and

17

2http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0727871

3http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0800023

technology to enhance community resilience to disasters and create a more disasterresilient nation.

To implement this ten-year strategy, the 25 federal departments and agencies of

the SDR worked together to identify specific actions that they, in collaboration with

State and local governments, as well as individuals and institutions in the private

sector, must take in order to meet the Grand Challenges. The resulting framework

of prioritized federal science and technology actions, which is compiled in 14 hazardspecific implementation plans, can help increase the Nation’s disaster resilience by

guiding future investments.

Of the 14 hazard-specific implementation plans, three are directly linked to the

IWG on Windstorm Impact Reduction; Tornadoes (Attachment 5), Hurricanes (Attachment 6) and Winter Storms (Attachment 7). The IWG helped guide the creation

of these plans.

IV. Overview of agency work in the area of wind hazards

The Windstorm Impact Reduction Implementation Plan described four major

themes for wind hazard research:

• Understanding, Predicting, and Forecasting

• Assessing Impacts

• Reducing Impacts

• Preparedness and Enhancing Community Resilience

Agency activities in these four areas are performed in the context of each agency’s

mission and consistent with their research practices. These activities are focused in

several areas: continued improvement in windstorm prediction; local, State, regional

and federal coordinated research response capabilities following wind hazard events,

including field validation and data collection capabilities for buildings, critical infrastructure and essential facilities; windstorm damage and loss estimation modeling

tools; and standards and technologies that will enable cost-effective, state-of-the-art

windstorm-resistant provisions to be adopted as part of State and local building

codes. The following discussion outlines ongoing efforts to address the need for improvement in these areas, organized by agency.

National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports unsolicited research proposals

related to NWIRP topics ranging from atmospheric sciences research that is concerned with the physics of hurricane, tornado, and thunderstorm formation, to engineering programs focused on improving the performance of structures against wind

loads, to social science programs devoted to societal preparedness and response to

natural disasters. Although these proposals are selected through the peer review

process under programs intended to advance research in myriad areas and not just

hurricanes and winds, the NSF portfolio of projects have collectively made important progress in each of four focus areas defined above.

For example, significant progress in documenting and analyzing the damage

caused to civil infrastructure by wind and hurricane driven storm surge was made

by NSF-supported investigators as a result of awards made immediately after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Social science topics under continued investigation include

evaluating preferences for rebuilding plans post-Katrina, assessing public health impacts of disasters, decision-making in displaced populations, and examining factors

associated with compliance to Katrina mandatory hurricane evacuation orders in

seven coastal Louisiana parishes.

NSF funds research that often directly leads to changes in building code revisions

through development of new materials and/or design methodologies. New awards directly related to design of wind-resistant structures include five that have been

made through the Hazard Mitigation and Structural Engineering Program in the

Engineering Directorate during the past 12 months. One of these, ‘‘Hurricane Wind

Simulation and Testing to Develop Damage Mitigation Techniques,’’ 2 will develop

a cost-effective, light, strong, ductile, and non-intrusive roof-to-wall connection system using high performance fiber composite materials to improve hurricane resiliency of residential buildings. A second one, ‘‘Performance Based Wind Engineering:

Interaction of Hurricanes with Residential Structures,’’ 3 is expected to improve design methods for wood frame buildings through the use of the performance-based

18

4http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0514199

5http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0527934

6http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0532107

design approach. Research results will be disseminated through the ASCE/SEI committees in which the Principal Investigator is involved.

Understanding, Predicting and Forecasting

Over the past two years, research in atmospheric sciences has yielded a better understanding of atmospheric dynamics of straight-line winds and improved knowledge of the fundamental physics that control hurricane intensity, wave dynamics

during hurricanes, and the impact of externally and internally modulated convection

on tropical cyclone evolution.4 Understanding the hazard risk associated with extreme hurricane events is also being studied. Detecting synoptic-scale precursors of

tornado outbreaks5 is the objective of one investigation. Another project is studying

tornadic storms with Doppler Polarimetric Radar.6

Assessing the impacts of wind hazards

Shortly after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf States, 29 small grants were

awarded for reconnaissance studies aimed at documenting their effects and preserving highly perishable data. Two of these studies, on the performance of the levee

system, were expanded in scope to include engineering analyses of failed sections

of the levees and proposed repair and replacement strategies. Development of instrumentation for the observational studies of the effects of atmospheric winds on

structures near the ground was also undertaken. Another of these projects investigated large coastal bridge performance in a hurricane environment. Collection of

perishable data on wood-frame residential structures in the wake of Hurricane

Katrina was also undertaken. Studies were conducted to better understand the response of typical bridges to hurricanes and to assessing risk for long-span bridges.

The determination of storm surge effects on levees and the simulation of non-linear

water waves during hurricanes were the subjects of other investigations. In order

to better understand the impacts of hurricane disasters, construction material requirements for rebuilding New Orleans are being investigated and documented. Improving glass performance during wind storms and the modeling response of tall

buildings to straight line winds are important for understanding the impacts to

wind hazards.

Social science topics under investigation include evaluating preferences for rebuilding plans post-Katrina, assessing public health impacts of disasters, and decision-making in displaced populations. In particular, one project is examining factors

associated with compliance to Katrina mandatory hurricane evacuation orders in

seven coastal Louisiana parishes.

Reducing Impacts of Wind Hazards

Resistance of existing wood roof structures and retrofit schemes is currently being

studied to better understand how best to construct more resistant structures in the

future. This type of damage accounts for a significant portion of the damage caused

by hurricanes and straight line winds each year. In addition, a better understanding

of the impact of hazard events on soils, infrastructure, and the submerged environment is required. A project entitled ‘‘The Effect of Katrina on Submerged

Geotechnical Systems—Underwater Evaluation of Sediment-Structure-Storm Interaction’’ will provide important data on these important parts of the urban infrastructure. Another project that is vital to the energy supply is focusing on assessment of damage to underground tanks in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Electric Utility Damage from Hurricane Katrina is also under investigation.

Preparedness and Enhancing Community Resilience

Instructional materials for K–12 students are being developed to enhance preparedness among children. Also, information technologies are being developed to assist individuals in adapting to evacuation. Social networks are being studied to understand the role they might play in early warning strategies and subsequent compliance. Improving hurricane intensity forecasting is important to increase societal

compliance and evacuation plans and orders, but the public must also be educated

to understand risk and appropriate behavior to ensure their safety. Two studies are

underway to better understand and improve evacuation procedures. Two projects

have been funded for analyzing multi-organizational networks and their roles in

hazard mitigation. Ten projects are underway that are investigating various tools

19

7http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0554987

8http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0555113

9http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0638561

that might be useful for building community resilience to wind hazards. One of

these projects is examining how preferences for rebuilding plans are being made

after Hurricane Katrina.7 Another one is studying ‘‘The Parallel Strengths and

Weaknesses of the Civil Society and the State: The Example of Katrina Survivors.’’ 8

‘‘Cyberinfrastructure Preparedness for Emergency Response and Relief: Learning

the lessons from Hurricane Katrina’’ is the focus of another investigation.9

The majority of NSF support for wind hazard R&D activities is in response to unsolicited proposals, although some support is provided through the National Center

for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the Engineering Research Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere (CASA). NSF is also sponsoring a joint

solicitation with NOAA on Communicating Hurricane Information. NSF estimates

that $6.7 million will be spent on wind hazard R&D in FY 2008.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA activities and progress during the past two years can be divided into six

categories: 1) development of plans; 2) provision of data of use for wind hazard reduction; 3) development of decision support tools and analyses of relevance to wind

hazards; 4) understanding and predicting weather conditions producing wind damage; 5) creation of new facilities for improving our knowledge and prediction of wind

hazards; and 6) education and outreach.

Development of plans

NIST and NOAA jointly developed a cooperative plan on Hazard-Resilient Communities, and are moving forward with the storm surge component of that plan.

NOAA is represented on the U.S.–Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects. This

panel encourages exchange of information between the two countries and is completing a joint project on bridge stay flutter. It is also proposing a workshop to exchange information between wind structural engineers and meteorologists who work

on wind issues to determine the needs of and opportunities presented by the two

communities working closely together. The workshop is anticipated to occur within

the next year.

Providing data of use for wind hazard reduction

During FY 2004, several extreme turbulence (ET) probes were developed and successfully tested in actual hurricanes. These probes hold promise for very high spatial and temporal resolution measurements of winds on the immediate exterior of

structures. In cooperation with NOAA, the Florida and South Carolina Sea Grant

deployed portable towers measuring winds during Hurricanes Charley, Frances,

Ivan, Katrina, and Rita. These data are useful for ‘‘nowcasts’’ of the winds and to

duplicate wind tunnel measurements. The Shared Mobile Atmospheric Research and

Teaching Radars (SMART–R), the result of a cooperative effort between the University of Oklahoma and NOAA, have been used in hurricane landfall deployments,

and have been upgraded to deliver their data directly to forecast offices in real time.

The stepped frequency microwave radiometer is now deployed on both research and

operation aircraft for much improved surface wind and vertical wind profiles over

water within hurricanes and they are now used in NOAA’s operational hurricane

model and for real-time hurricane intensity analysis.

Decision support tools and analysis for wind hazards

NOAA has been working with the State of Florida on a Public Hurricane Loss

Projection Model to develop wind-dependent vulnerability functions for building retrofit guidance. The NOAA hurricane wind (H*WIND) analysis was used to validate

this model. A stochastic model is being used to simulate 55,000 years of hurricane

tracks for a wind demonstration project, conducted with NIST, to test wind and

storm surge risk maps in a few selected coastal areas. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NOAA completed a post-Hurricane Katrina, Charley, Frances, Ivan, and

Jeanne 1-km resolution wind field analysis using the H*WIND product and data

that were not available in real time. NOAA’s National Hurricane Center introduced

its new experimental wind-speed probability forecast in time for the 2006 hurricane

season to map out several predicted wind-speed thresholds.

20

Understanding and predicting weather conditions producing wind damage

NOAA continues to gather field data on hurricane inner core dynamics to better

understand intensity changes. During the past two hurricane seasons, NOAA, with

the Office of Naval Research, has been measuring the heat and momentum exchange between the atmosphere and ocean within hurricanes to better parameterize

this exchange in hurricane prediction models. Preliminary testing of these new

parameterizations in NOAA’s operational hurricane model has improved hurricane

intensity predictions. NOAA tested a new hurricane model during the 2006 hurricane season for operational application next season. It is coupled with an ocean

model and has a nested and movable grid.

The President’s 2009 Budget includes nearly $20 million for hurricane-related increases across NOAA, including modeling improvements on forecasts and storm

surge and research into ocean vector winds and coastal inundation. The 2009 Budget also includes an increase of $242 million for the GOES–R satellite system, which

is a critical component of NOAA’s hurricane monitoring.

Creating new facilities for improving our knowledge and prediction of wind hazards

The new National Weather Center in Norman, Oklahoma opened its doors during

the summer of 2006. It consists of the South Research Campus of the University

of Oklahoma, the NOAA Norman forecast office, the Storm Prediction Center, and

the National Severe Storms Laboratory. This facility also features the Hazardous

Weather Testbed, which performs research and development to improve prediction

of hazardous winds.

Education and outreach

• NOAA’s Louisiana Sea Grant program has developed fact sheets that include

information on building codes, where and how to rebuild, and how to determine if a contractor is following State and federal regulations. It has been distributed to parishes and is available on the Internet. The program has also

sponsored seminars on storm preparedness and has provided information on

building codes and zoning practices.

• NOAA’s Texas Sea Grant Program (Texas A&M) has been evaluating the

Texas Mitigation Plan, which includes construction codes.

• The North Carolina Sea Grant (North Carolina State in collaboration with

Oregon State) developed a break-away wall design for 125-mph winds and

1.5-ft waves, which has been adopted by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

• The South Carolina Sea Grant (Clemson) has developed low-cost methods for

reducing storm damage, including strengthening roofs and shutters which

have been adopted by a Sun City developer.

• There is now a ‘‘hazards house’’ in Charleston, SC, that helps educate the

public on hazard-resilient building and retrofitting techniques, including

those that mitigate wind effects.

• NOAA has prepared material for a documentary on how to stay safe in high

winds, including how to improve housing construction to resist damage and

the appropriate design for safe rooms. The documentary will be featured on

the Discovery Channel.

• NOAA held its first Weather Partners open house in Norman, OK, for approximately 1000 visitors. Wind risk to structures was a prominent theme for

discussion.

• NOAA organized a training session at the National Hurricane Conference on

hurricanes and public health. During the session, a representative from the

Institute of Building and Home Safety delivered a presentation on the resilience of public health facilities against structural hazards. Key structural

components included window strength, exterior cladding, roof edging, and vulnerability of roof type and roof mountings. The participants then critically

evaluated a simulated hurricane scenario.

National Institute for Standards and Technology

NIST research over the past two years has focused on gaining an understanding

of wind hazards to the built environment and developing predictive technologies and

mitigation strategies to enhance disaster resilience to wind hazards.

21

Extreme Wind Databases

To facilitate use of Automated Surface Observing Station (ASOS) wind data for

structural engineering purposes, NIST developed procedures and software for (a) extraction of peak gust wind data from archived ASOS weather reports, (b) extraction

of thunderstorm observations from archived weather reports, (c) classification of

wind data as thunderstorm or non-thunderstorm to enable separate statistical analyses of these distinct types of winds, and (d) construction of data sets separated by

specified minimum time intervals to ensure statistical independence. Estimates

showed that, at these stations, thunderstorm wind speeds dominate the extreme

wind climate to the extent that non-thunderstorm wind speeds can be disregarded

in the analysis. Using such records it is possible to obtain realistic probabilistic descriptions of the wind climate at stations where both types of wind occur. The software, data, and literature are available at www.nist.gov/wind.

Advanced Computational Tools for Determining Realistic Wind Loads in the Built

Environment

NIST has developed software for analyzing wind effects on rigid, gable-roofed

buildings, and flexible high-rise buildings using the database-assisted design methodology. Database-Assisted Design (DAD) is a unified framework for analysis and

design of buildings for wind loads that makes direct use of pressure-time histories

measured at a large number of pressure taps on wind tunnel models. Local climatological information can be used in conjunction with the measured pressures to obtain estimates of peak wind effects with specified return periods for use in structural design. DAD offers more accurate estimation of peak wind effects than simplified procedures that are now used, which paves the way for more risk-consistent

designs. The software, data, and literature are available at www.nist.gov/wind.

Methodologies for Predicting Ultimate Structural Capacities and Estimating Safety

Margins

The design of many low-rise metal buildings in the U.S. is based on the ASCE

7–93 Standard and the use of Allowable Stress Design (ASD). NIST used the nonlinear database-assisted design technique to assess the degree of safety of a typical

low-rise portal frame industrial structure designed in accordance with ASCE 7–93

and ASD as compared to the provisions of the ASCE 7–02 Standard. NIST has

found that the frame being considered satisfies all ASCE 7–02 requirements with

respect to wind loading but that its safety level is relatively low and could be improved substantially at very low cost.

Assessing the Performance of Structures in Wind Disasters

NOAA’s National Weather Service implemented the enhanced Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale on an operational basis in February 2007. The enhanced Fujita scale

is based upon observations by a NIST researcher as part of a reconnaissance team

deployed following the 1997 Jarrell, TX tornado and subsequent technical work performed by Texas Tech University with funding and technical oversight by NIST. The

more realistic wind speeds associated with the enhanced scale will allow the use of

routine standard provisions for the safe design of buildings under most tornadoes

occurring in the U.S.

After Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, NIST assembled a team of experts

to conduct a reconnaissance of the status of buildings, physical infrastructure, and

residential structures in the New Orleans area, coastal Mississippi, and Southeast

Texas. NIST documented its findings on the environmental conditions (e.g., wind

speeds, storm surge elevations, and flooding) and on the performance of structures

in the study areas in its final report issued in June 2006. The report includes 23

recommendations in three groups: 1) immediate impact on practice for rebuilding,

2) standards, codes, and practices, and 3) further study of specific structures or research and development.

Technical Basis for Improved Codes and Standards

Estimates of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers’ response to wind by two

North American wind engineering laboratories differed from each other by almost

50 percent. A NIST investigation indicated that those differences reflected discrepancies between the respective estimates of the wind speeds and the respective modeling of directional interaction between wind speeds and aerodynamic/dynamic response of the building. NIST analyzed the role of risk-consistent probabilistic definitions of peak wind effects in developing safety margins for inclusion in codes and

standards.

22

U.S.–Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects

NIST chairs the U.S.–Japan Joint Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects and NIST

staff actively participates in the Panel and its wind engineering task committee. The

Panel provides an effective mechanism for the exchange of technical data and information, the exchange of researchers, and the coordination of joint research on topics

of mutual interest to the U.S. and Japan.

Wind-related Storm Surge

Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that (1) hurricane storm surge can substantially

exceed heights defined by existing flood hazard maps, and (2) there is a lack of a

methodology for assessing the risk associated with different joint hurricane wind

speed/surge height events that can be used for establishing risk-consistent design

criteria for structures in coastal regions exposed to the combined effects of hurricane

wind and storm surge. Such methodology must take into consideration the effects

of local topography and bathymetry, on which storm surge at any specific location

is highly dependent, as well as hurricane parameters such as track, forward speed,

wind speed, and central pressure. NIST/BFRL is working in collaboration with

NOAA’s National Weather Service, Office of Atmospheric Research and National

Hurricane Center, and the University of Florida, to develop this methodology. NIST

and NOAA have developed the basic methodology using the Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model and demonstrated the methodology for a small number of stations

in the Tampa Bay area. The objective of this work is to develop this methodology

such that it can be used to estimate the joint probability for wind and storm surge

events (including wave action) along the U.S. coastline and provide the technical

basis for improving the hazard criteria used for application of flood resistant design

provisions.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FEMA supports a variety of NWIRP-related activities including risk assessment,

windstorm-related data collection and analysis, mitigation promotion and public outreach, and hurricane program coordination.

Risk Assessment

FEMA developed HAZUS–MH, a risk assessment program that analyzes potential

losses from floods, hurricane winds and earthquakes. HAZUS–MH combines current

scientific and engineering knowledge with the latest GIS technology to produce hazard-related damage estimates before or after a hazard event. The current version

of the software program—HAZUS–MH MR2—allows communities to access a risk

assessment tool that can serve as a basis for mitigation planning and policy development, emergency preparedness, and emergency response and recovery exercises.

Data Collection and Analysis

After major natural hazard events, a Mitigation Assessment Team—or MAT—

study may be conducted to perform engineering analyses, assesses damage, determine the causes of structural failures and successes, and prepare recommendations

regarding construction codes and best practices. Communities and construction professionals, in turn, use MAT information and recommendations to plan for, and reduce damages from, future events. A telling MAT conclusion following Hurricane

Katrina: buildings that experienced substantial structural damage from Katrina typically were built before building design and construction professionals adequately considered wind effects.

Promoting Mitigation—Education and Public Outreach

To educate communities about mitigation and the steps they can take to reduce

their vulnerabilities to natural hazard events, FEMA and the MAT continue to develop first-of-its-kind construction advice guidance. Widely disseminated, FEMA’s

mitigation guidance provides Gulf coast residents with engineering recommendations and foundation solutions for rebuilding; many of which are being incorporated

into local reconstruction efforts. Additionally, the MAT publication FEMA 550 Residential Construction for the Gulf Coast: Building on Strong and Safe Foundations

provides homeowners, builders, and design professionals with prescriptive, pre-engineered foundation solutions, cost information, and guidance on choosing and building disaster-resistant foundations.

23

Hurricane Program Coordination

FEMA and NOAA work together to improve the Nation’s hurricane evacuation

planning. NOAA research produces improved hurricane intensity predictions which,

in turn, help FEMA and emergency managers across all governmental levels with

critical planning, evacuation, response, and recovery decisions. Since 2004, despite

resource and funding limitations, the NWIRP partnership has collaborated to: enhance knowledge and information on severe winds; investigate the wind resistance

of buildings and structures; develop improved tools for assessing wind hazard losses;

improve public awareness of wind hazards and related mitigation; and enhance

wind hazard-related evacuation planning and guidance.

While not specifically identified as NWIRP funding, FEMA’s FY 2004–2008 budgets have funding in the Mitigation Directorate, Risk Reduction Division that has

been characterized as meeting the basic goals of the NWIRP. The funding level for

FY 2004–FY 2008 was between $200–$350K per year for a total of approximately

$1.5 million. In FY 2009 FEMA anticipates $200–$250K of funding. Specific areas

of activity include:

• FEMA support for wind-resistant national Model Building Codes and Consensus Standards;

• FEMA support for the development of national Wind Shelter guidance and

standards; and ongoing support for hurricane evacuation studies

Federal Highway Administration

Understanding, Predicting and Forecasting Wind Hazards

The FHWA Office of Infrastructure R&D continuously monitors winds at the sites

of three major long-span, cable-supported bridges to establish and characterize sitespecific wind conditions and the responses of the bridges. All sites are relatively

near the coastline with one in Louisiana, another in Delaware, and the third in

Maine. A new site will be added monitoring the Bill Emerson Bridge at Cape

Girardeau, Missouri. The engineering data collected at these sites provides valuable

input into design of new structures.

Assessing the Impact of Wind Hazards

The FHWA Office of Infrastructure R&D has continuously monitored the wind environment and detailed response of three major long-span, cable-supported bridge

structures to evaluate their wind performance and wind resistance with one more

site being added in 2008. The Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model UABRIM

is being enhanced by implementation of unstructured and adaptive grids for use in

simulating the interaction between wind and structures such as large bridges. Tests

have been completed in the FHWA’s small wind tunnel at the Turner Fairbank

Highway Research Center using evolving Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) technology to study wind flow fields around and compute wind forces on several representative bridge deck sections. This small wind tunnel has been automated for

more efficient operation.

The FHWA Office of Operations continued activities under the Road Weather

Management Program, which seeks to develop and promote effective tools for observing and predicting the impacts of weather on the roads, and to alleviate these

weather impacts. As part of the program, the Clarus Initiative has continued to conduct activities to develop and demonstrate an integrated surface transportation

weather observing, forecasting and data management system, and to establish a

partnership to create a Nationwide Surface Transportation Weather Observing and

Forecasting System. The Initiative Coordinating Committee (ICC) held its annual

meeting in August 2008. Phase 3 of the Clarus Regional Demonstration will be initiated shortly show-casing how road and weather observations from the Clarus System can be used to develop and deploy more advanced road weather management

solutions for transportation operations.

Reducing the Impact of Wind Hazards

The FHWA Office of Infrastructure R&D continues to conduct research to prepare

a synthesis report on Wind Load Criteria for Cable Supported Structures. Complementary research has also been initiated to prepare a synthesis report on User

Comfort and Serviceability Criteria for Wind Loading. Research has continued on

the study of wind- and wind/rain-induced vibration of bridge stay cables a major

issue for bridge owners. A second version of the guidelines document has been developed for the aerodynamic design of bridge stay cables.

24

Preparedness and Enhancing Community Resilience

The FHWA Office of Infrastructure R&D, together with the Missouri Department

of Transportation, organized and held the 2nd National Workshop on Wind-Induced

Vibration of Cable-Stayed Bridges in April 2006. This workshop served to disseminate the latest information on the mitigation of wind-induced vibrations to State

bridge engineers and design consultants. FHWA has been participating in international conferences such as the 7th International Symposium on Cable Dynamics

in Vienna Austria in 2007, and the 7th Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamic and

Application in 2008 in Milan, Italy to transfer to research knowledge. Further,

FHWA continues to assist State DOTs to solve wind and wind induced issues as

they arise.

V. Conclusion

Measurably reducing losses of life and property from windstorms, including hurricanes, tornadoes, and seasonal storms, remains a high priority. As pointed out by

the variety of reports available on the subject, such reduction will be predicated on

improving the ability to predict the occurrence, location, and magnitude of windstorms with sufficient accuracy to allow the public and emergency managers to take

appropriate measures and to increase the resiliency of our communities by constructing wind resistant buildings, highways, and other key portions of infrastructure. The federal agencies support robust research programs in these areas, and

have made significant progress in making the results of this research more widely

available. The benefits of this improved understanding will not be fully realized,

however, until it is incorporated more completely into actions at the State and local

level, both through building codes, design standards, and construction practices.

The importance of developing resilient communities will likely be further underscored as the Earth’s changing climate will likely make historic trends in storm frequency and intensity a less reliable predictor of future conditions. Adaptation to a

warming climate and accompanying changes in the nature of wind-related hazards

will create a greater impetus for federal efforts to understand and predict wind hazards on a time scale longer than the typical weather forecasts available today, so

that knowledge can inform the construction of buildings, bridges, and other components of the physical infrastructure intended to function safely for the next 30 to

50 years.

The NWIRP partnership must keep working with other federal agencies, State

and local governments, academia, and the private sector to help our nation’s communities understand and plan for their risks and take steps to reduce them and

must find ways to address critical NWIRP issues in an environment of limited resources.

25

Attachment 1

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Attachment 2

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

Attachment 3

79

80

81

Attachment 4

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

Attachment 5

109

110

111

112

113

Attachment 6

114

115

116

117

Attachment 7

118

119

120

121

BIOGRAPHY FOR SHARON L. HAYS

Dr. Sharon L. Hays was confirmed by the Senate as Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President in late September, 2006. In this role, she serves as the OSTP Director’s Deputy

for Science. Dr. Hays has been at OSTP since mid-2002, serving first in OSTP’s

Technology Division, and later as the Chief of Staff.

Before coming to OSTP, Dr. Hays was the Staff Director of the Subcommittee on

Research of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Science from the beginning of the 107th Congress until August 2002. Prior to her promotion to Staff

Director, Dr. Hays worked as a professional staff member, first for the Basic Research Subcommittee and subsequently for the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. She first joined the Science Committee’s staff in mid-1999.

Dr. Hays served as an American Association for the Advancement of Science Congressional Science Fellow in the office of Representative Vernon Ehlers between

1997 and 1999. She worked on a Science Committee project assigned to Dr. Ehlers

by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Science Committee Chairman F. James

Sensenbrenner: to outline an updated science policy for the Nation. That effort culminated in a comprehensive Science Committee report entitled Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy.

Before coming to Capitol Hill, Dr. Hays worked as a research assistant at the

University of Southern California and then attended graduate school in biochemistry at Stanford University, where she studied in the laboratory of Nobel Laureate Paul Berg and received her Ph.D. in 1997. Dr. Hays also holds a B.A. in Molecular Biology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Hays lives with her husband in Virginia, where she volunteers as a dog handler for wilderness search and rescue efforts.

Chairman WU. Thank you, Dr. Hays. Dr. Levitan, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARC L. LEVITAN, DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA

STATE UNIVERSITY HURRICANE CENTER; CHARLES P. SIESS,

JR. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. LEVITAN. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you

today the impacts of windstorms.

I was asked to provide some input on several questions addressing the vulnerability of the built environment, and how that is

changing research needs and windstorm hazard mitigation, recommended changes in the wind program, and technology transfer

challenges.

And as mentioned in the opening statements, this year has already proven to be one of the deadliest tornado seasons in recent

years. Certainly, our hurricane experience, as we have seen in just

the past few years, seven of the 13 costliest hurricanes in U.S. history have occurred in just the past few years, and that trend is continuing as the population continues to move to coastal areas, as increasing urbanization occurs, and so, those trends, at the moment,

while there is some positive development going on, those trends for

increased damage are, unfortunately, continuing.

In terms of research needs, I point out, I think what are several

key opportunities for making step change improvements, in terms

of some of the longer-term activities. Understanding the wind environment of land-falling hurricanes, as we have Hurricane Dolly

today making landfall in Texas. Some of my colleagues from Texas

Tech University are out with instruments, similar to those pictured

on the slide, making measurements of windstorms. We really don’t

understand what happens in the wind environment down near the

122

ground level when the storms make landfall, and that is obviously

where it affects buildings and bridges and people and things. So,

that is where we need to understand that.

Computational wind engineering is an area that needs study that

provides the idea that you ultimately could get a wind tunnel on

your desktop, a virtual wind tunnel, where you can use new technology to study the effects of the wind for, in the design sense, on

the building, without having to do the complexities of wind tunnel

testing, or the simplifications required by codes.

Windstorm damage using remote sensing. In the last few years,

as remote sensing capabilities have been improved, or commercially

available, where you can very clearly see individual buildings, and

the roof, et cetera. That provides enough level information where

we could potentially get very rapid and automated damage assessments over large scales when we have these major disasters.

Performance-based design for windstorms—that is a technology

in its infancy where building owners and architects and engineers

would sit down at the beginning of a project, and say what is the

specific performance objectives for a building, and how would I

reach that. So, if I wanted a building that had no damage at all

in a Category 3 hurricane, and on a Category 4 or 5, you could sustain some damage, but still be operable or reparable, the idea is

you would set the design criteria so you would have a specific performance in mind for various objectives, and that technology is just

in its infancy.

And finally, retrofit technologies for the existing building, since

that, we have—old building code changes, and advances in the

technology for new construction are wonderful, but we have so

much investment in our existing infrastructure, so significant

changes are needed there.

In terms of the research priorities, there is a large existing body

of knowledge, and it has yet to, much of it has not been incorporated into building codes and standards, and so the initial

prioritization, I believe, should be to focus in the first few years

more on applied research and tech transfer for the work that is already out there, and then transitioning into more, funding later on

into more of the basic research ideas that I just mentioned.

In terms of the changes to the wind program, I think it would

be appropriate for NIST to become the lead agency. They have parallels to the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program,

which they are leading, and significant expertise and experience in

windstorm mitigation. And certainly, to finally form the interagency working group, and in terms of funding authorizations levels, to at least keep those consistent with the authorization levels

in the existing program.

In terms of the technology transfer challenges, several of these

are to use the existing research to develop new methods for assessment and design of buildings. The next two highlighted in red

there, incorporating research into building codes and standards,

and developing design guides and software tools. Those, I think,

are the real opportunities for very rapid improvements right now,

with a small investment in technology transfer, to use the existing

research to improve the building codes very quickly.

123

Developing textbooks and curricular material for instructors, incorporating wind mitigation into curricula. So, some of these challenges on this slide indicate some that are not particularly, only dependent on funding, but they have several other criteria, in terms

of education and training of construction and tradespeople, adoption and enforcement of codes is a critical challenge. It is only,

again, partly dependent on funding. And then, education and training in a broader sense are critical for the public.

So, with the closing remarks, I would just say that the windstorm impacts on the U.S. are continuing to increase, and the Wind

Program is really the best opportunity to provide a change in that

trend, and really has the opportunity to provide a step change increase in the hazard mitigation opportunities, and really, the coordination activities between the various efforts that are even underway, are really a way to multiply the effectiveness of the existing and new activities. So, reauthorization, I think, is a critical

step forward.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Levitan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARC L. LEVITAN

1. Introduction

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Marc Levitan and

I appreciate the opportunity to address you this morning. I am Director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center and the Charles P. Siess, Jr. Associate

Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Louisiana State University. I

am also the immediate past-President of the American Association for Wind Engineering (AAWE), and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

I am appearing today on behalf of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center,

AAWE, and ASCE.

Louisiana State University is the flagship institution of the state, classified by the

Carnegie Foundation as a Doctoral/Research-Extensive University. The university

has a long history of research in hurricanes, coastal sciences and engineering. The

LSU Hurricane Center was founded and approved by the Louisiana Board of Regents in the year 2000 to provide a focal point for this work, with a mission to advance the state-of-knowledge of hurricanes and their impacts on the natural, built

and human environments, to stimulate interdisciplinary and collaborative research

activities, to transfer new knowledge and technology to students and professionals

in concerned disciplines, and to assist the state, the Nation, and world in solving

hurricane-related problems. The study of wind effects on the built infrastructure

and wind damage mitigation is one of the main focus areas of the LSU Hurricane

Center, including: wind tunnel studies for wind effects on buildings, industrial

structures and bridges; techniques for hurricane and tornado shelter assessment;

evacuation and sheltering decision support tools; wind damage investigations; and

participation in development of national wind loading codes and standards.

The American Association for Wind Engineering (AAWE) was originally established as the Wind Engineering Research Council in 1966 to promote and disseminate technical information in the research community. In 1983 the name was

changed to American Association for Wind Engineering and incorporated as a nonprofit professional organization. The multi-disciplinary field of wind engineering

considers problems related to wind and associated water loads and penetrations for

buildings and structures, societal impact of winds, hurricane and tornado risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, codes and standards, dispersion of urban and industrial pollution, wind energy and urban aerodynamics.

The American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE, founded in 1852, is the country’s

oldest national civil engineering organization representing more than 140,000 civil

engineers in private practice, government, industry and academia dedicated to the

advancement of the science and profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a 501(c) (3)

non-profit educational and professional society. ASCE is an American National

Standards Institute (ANSI)-approved standards developer and publisher of the Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures (ASCE–7), which is referenced in the Nation’s major model building codes. As part of the ASCE–7 docuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:47 Nov 02, 2008 Jkt 043529 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\T&I08\072408\43529 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
124

ment, engineers are provided guidance in estimating the loads resulting from wind

effects on structures. Thus, ASCE is at the forefront in the development of new information for engineers regarding wind and is in a unique position to comment on

the status quo and our needs for the future.

2. Vulnerability of U.S. Built Environment—and its Occupants—to Windstorm Hazards

As well documented in recent years, the damage and destruction caused by windstorms in the U.S. has continued to rise dramatically. According to the National

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008 could be a record setting year

for tornado deaths.

This year may set records for tornadoes and tornado-related deaths. . .. ‘‘It is

only the third time since the 1974 super tornado outbreak that there have been

more than 100 tornado-related deaths during a single tornado season in the

U.S.,’’ added Harold Brooks, a research meteorologist at NOAA’s National Severe

Storms Laboratory also in Norman. ‘‘In 1998 and 1984 there were 132 and 122

tornado-related deaths, respectively—2008 will likely equal or exceed that

record.’’ (NOAA, 2008).

In just the past few years, the country has experienced an unprecedented level

of damage due to landfalling hurricanes.

It is of note that the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons produced seven out of the

nine costliest systems ever to affect the United States. (Blake et al., 2007).

The combined cost of those seven storms was approximately $160 Billion dollars.

Even after adjusting for inflation, the 2004–2005 hurricane seasons account for four

of the top five costliest hurricanes in history.

The trends for rising damage are due in part to increasing population, urbanization, movement of population to areas more prone to severe windstorms, and cyclical

trends in storm activity levels. While recent investigations have shown that buildings designed and constructed in accordance with the latest building codes and

standards perform much better than earlier buildings in extreme winds (e.g., Gurley

et al., 2006; Building Code Compliance Office, 2006), they still experienced significant damage from wind and wind-driven rain. Furthermore, since adoption of new

building codes only impacts future new construction and major renovations—it will

take decades before the majority of buildings in the U.S. would even get this benefit,

and that assumes much more widespread education of design professionals in windstorm hazard mitigation and more widespread adoption and enforcement of the

lastest codes and standards. Without significant improvements in technologies and

products for retrofitting existing buildings, the windstorm vulnerability of the majority of the current building inventory will remain static.

3. Research Needed to Facilitate Wind Damage Mitigation

Basic and Applied Research Needed to Facilitate Mitigation for New and Existing

Buildings

A number of recent publications have discussed big picture research needs related

to windstorm hazard mitigation. Rather than revisiting those topics, this section will

focus on discussion of several of the most important specific research questions and

opportunities, those that have the potential to ultimately provide a significantly advance in windstorm hazard mitigation.

Wind Environment of Landfalling Hurricanes: Comparatively little is known

about wind transitions from water to land and the mechanisms which cause localized higher intensity winds. Developing a greater understanding of these

phenomena will lead to better estimates of maximum hurricane wind speeds,

velocity profiles, and turbulence characteristics needed for building design.

Computational Wind Engineering: This technology offers the promise of a ‘wind

tunnel on a computer,’ where details of a building and surrounding structures

and terrain could all be modeled in a computational environment to provide information on wind loads and, when coupled with structural analysis programs,

the response of the structure to different wind conditions.

Windstorm Damage Assessment Using Remote Sensing: This technology could

potentially provide rapid and consistent damage estimates over entire windstorm impacted areas, with applications to rapid response and recovery operations, building performance observations, and validation data for damage models.

125

Performance-Based Design for Windstorm Hazards: Current wind load design

procedures are somewhat prescriptive in that the building performance objectives are not clearly defined. The next generation of procedures is for a facility

owner to identify what performance level (e.g., no damage and building is fully

operational, significant damage requiring evacuation of the building but repairable) is desired for different probability windstorm events and designing the facility accordingly.

Retrofit Technologies for Wind Resistance: Although it is much easier to build

wind resistance into new construction, the country has an enormous investment

in existing building stock. Technologies for cost-effective retrofits to improve

windstorm resistance of these buildings should be an important focus of any

new research program.

Balance Between Long-Term and Short-Term Priorities

The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–360)

identifies three primary program components:

1. Understanding of Windstorms

2. Windstorm Impact Assessment

3. Windstorm Impact Reduction

In principle, the short-term priorities should be those activities that have the

quickest payoff and are the most cost effective. There is a large body of research

findings available right now that has not yet been translated into practical applications. The very applied research and technology transfer activities that primarily

support the third program component of Windstorm Impact Reduction should therefore be given the highest initial priority. Section 5 of this Statement summarizes

the main tasks required for technology transfer. Tasks 2 and 3 in that section

(translation of research into improved codes and standards and design tools) will

provide the most immediate returns and should have the highest initial priority.

The more basic research activities, such as those discussed in the previous section,

will really advance the state of knowledge and should be the focus of longer-term

priorities. They should not be ignored from the start, but rather begun at a comparatively lower level and then ramped up over time.

Private Industry Research

The fragmented nature of the entire built infrastructure design and construction

industry effectively precludes any industry-funded basic research, as opposed to industries like electronics, aircraft or automobile manufacturing that are dominated

by a small number of global-scale corporations that must make significant basic and

applied research investments to remain competitive. The modest amount of industry

funding applied to wind hazard mitigation has been very applied in nature. It has

created important new products and services and helped transform a few industries,

but these changes generally occurred only when driven by advances in building

codes and standards.

Private industry research in wind hazard mitigation has primarily taken place in

the arena of product-oriented research and development, particularly in the area of

products to protect building openings from windborne debris. Building code changes

in Florida after Hurricane Andrew created a new market, initiating development of

products to meet the impact testing requirements of that code. The most notable effect was the introduction of many new types of impact resistant windows, shutters,

and screens. Significant product-oriented research and development has also taken

place for wind and debris impact resistant doors, garage doors, wall systems, roof

systems, and wall and roof anchoring and bracing systems. The market for all of

these products has continued to expand in recent years, as more coastal areas in

other states have begun to adopt and (to a lesser extent) enforce building codes that

require higher wind loads and in some cases, debris impact protection.

Following several devastating tornadoes in the Midwest U.S. in the late 1990’s

and the well-publicized devastation caused by the Oklahoma City Tornado in May

1999, the Federal Emergency Management Agency published two milestone reports

that provided guidance for design and construction of residential and community

storm shelters (FEMA, 1999; FEMA, 2000). These documents, along with the National Storm Shelter Association’s publication of an industry standard (NSSA, 2001),

helped spur a significant product-oriented research and development for tornado

shelters and helped create a market for products designed and tested to meet these

technical criteria, which provided a major step forward for the fledgling storm shelter industry.

126

Private industry has also made significant advances in a few other areas as well,

including: wind hazard, vulnerability, and risk assessment; wind loss estimation

techniques, and wind tunnel testing.

4. National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program Implementation

Implementation and Funding of NWIRP

The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) was created

through the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–

360). The objective of the NWIRP is to achieve measurable reductions in losses of

life and property due to windstorms. The objective is to be reached through a coordinated, federally-led effort to first, assess and prioritize research, technology transfer,

and education needs, and second, to conduct wind hazard mitigation activities in

context of the overall objectives of the Program.

Unfortunately, funding for the NWIRP was never appropriated, so little has been

achieved towards meeting the program objectives. The federal agencies involved in

the program (NSF, FEMA, NIST, and NOAA) report that they have undertaken a

modest level of activities in areas related to or consistent with the aims of the

NWIRP. However, given funding constraints, the overarching planning and coordination activities are still missing and the agencies have not been able to significantly increase their level of wind hazard mitigation activities as authorized by the

NWIRP.

Recommended Changes to NWIRP Legislation

As coordination of NWIRP activities is critical to maximizing the effectiveness of

the existing and proposed wind hazard mitigation efforts, the National Institute

of Standards and Technology (NIST) should be designated as the lead agency. The NWIRP has strong parallels to the successful National Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Program (NEHRP), for which NIST is the lead agency. Additionally, the

topic area and the required mix of basic and applied research and technology transfer activities makes NIST the logical choice. They have significant expertise and experience in wind engineering research and technology transfer and research program management.

The continued escalation of loss of life and property due to windstorms, with several records being set in just the 2004–2008 time period, highlights that NWIRP is

needed now more than ever. Authorized funding levels for the first year of the

Program should therefore be at least consistent with the currently authorized amounts. Funding should ramp up significantly in the following years,

as initial planning and prioritization activities are completed and funding of wind

hazard mitigation project activities can most effectively expand.

5. Challenges of Transferring Research Results from the Laboratory into

Practice

The challenges of transferring windstorm damage mitigation findings are numerous, but many can be addressed comparatively easily if adequate funding is provided. Others include tough hurdles unrelated to financial resources. The main technology transfer tasks are summarized in the following list.

1. Using basic research findings to create new assessment, analysis, and design procedures for building components, systems, and entire structures

2. Incorporating wind engineering research findings into building codes and

standards

3. Developing wind design guides, software tools, and other products for practicing professionals

4. Developing textbooks and other materials for use in undergraduate and

graduate education in the fields of engineering, architecture, construction,

and building science

5. Incorporating windstorm hazard mitigation into engineering, architecture,

construction, and building science curricula

6. Education and training of building construction tradespeople and laborers

7. Adoption of strong and current building codes by municipalities and states

8. Enforcement of building codes

9. Education and training of persons working in the fields of insurance, real

estate, mortgage lending, emergency management, and elected and appointed officials

10. Consumer education

127

Tasks 1–4 are reasonably straightforward and progress is primarily dependent on

availability of funding. Incorporation of windstorm hazard mitigation into the formal

educational programs of design professionals (Task 5) will be made easier by the results of tasks 2–4, but still faces two hurdles. Most of the professors are not knowledgeable in this field, and the current trend at universities is for cutting the number

of credit hours required for degrees, making it more difficult to add new material.

These challenges must however be met if we are to begin graduating design professionals who understand the theory and practice of windstorm hazard mitigation.

Education and training of tradespeople and laborers (Task 6) on how to install critical components such as wind bracing or roofing shingles or hurricane shutters is

obviously important but difficult in an industry where there is a transient workforce

that often has language barriers.

Adoption of building codes is often a political hot potato. In recent years some

states and municipalities have adopted strong model building codes but stripped out

the windborne debris protection requirements in coastal areas, gutting one of the

most critical components of the code. There are still many areas of the country that

have not adopted building codes or their codes are very outdated. Enforcement is

even more problematical, particularly for rural and poorer municipalities where

funding and training of building department staff is often inadequate.

Tasks 9 and 10 are critical in order to develop public understanding of the need

for and benefits of windstorm hazard mitigation through building codes and code

plus alternatives. The areas that have experienced repeated devastating windstorms, such as South Florida and Oklahoma City, seem to have built a higher level

of public awareness of these issues and understand that building code adoption and

enforcement have direct implications for life safety, property damage, cost of construction, cost and availability of insurance, and resale value. Windstorm related research, building code changes, and insurance are front page news in those communities. It’s much more difficult to raise significant awareness of these issues in communities that have not had a wind-related disaster in recent years.

6. Closing Remarks

The unparalleled devastation in the U.S. caused by windstorms in just the last

four years, with damage costs approaching $200 billion, makes it clear that something must be done. The funding levels authorized in the existing NWIRP ($25 million per year) are trivial with respect to the average damage costs per year. If the

program were to produce even the smallest of improvements in wind hazard mitigation, the NWIRP would pay for itself many times over. A fully-funded NWIRP would

in actuality provide a step change improvement in wind damage reduction, which

would over time significantly reduce the U.S. vulnerability to severe windstorms.

Reauthorization of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program is a critical step in the process, but ultimately of little value unless funds are appropriated

to make the Program a reality. As annualized windstorm costs continue to skyrocket, this country can no longer afford to ignore the problem. An investment must

be made in windstorm hazard mitigation and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program is the way to get it done.

7. References

Blake, E. Rappaport, E., and Landsea, C. (2007). The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most

Intense United States Tropical Cyclones from 1851 to 2006 (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts), NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC–

5, National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL.

Building Code Compliance Office (2006). Post Hurricane Wilma Progress Assessment,

Miami-Dade County Building Code Compliance Office, April 2006.

FEMA (1999). Taking Shelter From the Storm: Building a Safe Room Inside Your

House, FEMA 320, Second Edition, Federal Emergency Management Agency,

Washington, DC.

FEMA (2000). Design and Construction Guidance for Community Shelters, FEMA

361, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.

Gurley, K., Davis, R., Ferrera, S–P., Burton, J., Masters, F., Reinhold, T. and

Abdullah, M. (2006). Post 2004 Hurricane Field Survey—an Evaluation of the

Relative Performance of the Standard Building Code and the Florida Building

Code, 2006 ASCE Structures Congress, St. Louis.

NOAA (2008). Early and Intense Tornado Season Could Be Record, http://

www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080604¥tornado.html, posted June 13,

2008.

128

NSSA (2001). National Storm Shelter Association Standard for the Design, Construction, and Performance of Storm Shelters, National Storm Shelter Association,

Lubbock, TX, April 12, 2001.

129

130

131

132

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARC L. LEVITAN

Dr. Marc Levitan has been actively engaged in wind and hurricane engineering

research, practice, and education for 20 years. His areas of research include assessment, analysis and design of structures for hurricane resistance, including wind and

hurricane effects on critical and essential facilities, storm shelters, and industrial

and petrochemical structures. He is the founding Director of the LSU Hurricane

Center and co-founder of the LSU Wind Tunnel Laboratory. He chairs the ICC committee developing a national standard for the design and construction of storm shelters, and also chairs the ASCE committee developing wind loading guidelines for the

petrochemical industry. Other national service includes the ASCE 7 Main Committee and Wind Load Subcommittee, the ASCE Aerodynamics Committee, and the

ASCE Wind Effects Committee. Dr. Levitan also chairs the ASCE National Infrastructure and Research Policy Committee. He is Past-President of the American Association for Wind Engineering and chaired the 10th Americas Conference on Wind

Engineering in Baton Rouge in 2005. The academic pursuits of Dr. Levitan are

structural engineering, wind engineering, and hurricane engineering. Prior to joining LSU, he spent five years as the first Managing Director of the Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory at Texas Tech University.

Chairman WU. Thank you, Dr. Levitan. Ms. Chapman-Henderson, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF MS. LESLIE CHAPMAN–HENDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FEDERAL ALLIANCE FOR SAFE HOME, INC.—

FLASH

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members.

My name is Leslie Chapman-Henderson, and I am here today

representing the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes. We are a partnership of more than 100 public, private, and nonprofit organizations and leaders who have dedicated the past 10 years to making

America a more disaster-resistant nation. Our mission is to

133

‘‘strengthen homes and safeguard families’’ from disasters of all

kinds, including earthquakes, floods, hail, hurricanes, lightning,

tornadoes, and wildfire.

We view our work as part of a larger social movement to establish disaster safety as a public value in this country. Our goal is

to create widespread homeowner demand for safer, better built

homes, much like the highway safety movement, which succeeded

in creating American demand for safe, well-built vehicles. Just as

the highway safety movement has saved lives on our roads, the disaster safety movement can and does save lives, homes, and buildings in catastrophic events. We believe that the United States built

environment is highly vulnerable to windstorm hazards, and that

is increasing.

We perceive that the greatest challenge in strengthening new or

existing buildings is a lack of information, and a lack of knowledge

transfer between the many stakeholders that need to understand

windstorm prevention options. After hurricanes and tornadoes, we

frequently meet homeowners who are very frustrated to learn that

a mere handful of additional nails may have made a difference in

keeping their roof in place.

We believe that one of the best means of solving this problem is

to put in place a system of state-of-the-art, consistently enforced,

model building codes that incorporate all research findings on a

timely basis, but these have to be put in place before windstorms

strike. This would overcome the often lost opportunity to rebuild

damaged communities in a stronger way, because improving codes

after the storm can happen too late to affect the quality of the new

built environment.

If we rebuild without the advantage of new techniques and mitigation, we perpetuate a cycle of build, destroy, rebuild, that our organization and movement is working to break. We have found that

effective mechanisms for convincing stakeholders to adopt wind

mitigation measures include a combination of public awareness,

market demand, innovative mitigation programs, model codes, professional education and, of course, research.

A few innovative model programs are the My Safe Florida Home

and South Carolina Safe Home Initiatives. These programs provide

wind mitigation home inspections and matching grants for home

hardening and retrofitting. These efforts help homeowners understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of their homes by assigning a ranking on a one to 100 scale. They then provide matching funds to help offset the costs of retrofitting or hardening.

Understanding and communicating the linkage between strong

buildings and sound economics is a powerful public motivator as

well. Let us take Texas, for example, in light of what has happened

there in the last 48 hours. Catastrophe models tell us that the average annual expected insured losses from hurricanes for single

family homes in Texas are approximately $932 million per year, or

nearly $1 billion. If we could retrofit the entire stock of homes

there, using modern building codes, that loss expectation would

drop by 40 percent, to $562 million. Moreover, if we rebuilt the entire housing stock to a slightly code plus standard, that annual expected loss would drop 78 percent to $206 million per year.

134

Another key area of improvement in building practices that we

support, of course, is to increase funding for research and innovation. We need to better understand how and why buildings survive

or fail in windstorms, and our academic partners still do not have

all the answers. We believe that FEMA and the National Weather

Service do an excellent job of communicating the importance of

mitigation as a priority. However, by its nature, the information

has to be delivered at the State, and especially at the local level.

We strongly urge you—we strongly support the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and strongly encourage the reauthorization, with investment of additional resources. We believe the

three most important areas to emphasize include activities to enhance the understanding of windstorm research, development of

improved outreach and implementation mechanisms, and outreach

and information dissemination related to cost-effective and affordable construction techniques to all audiences. With regard to implementation, we believe that the program should establish a singular

guiding principle to ensure that program outcomes and discoveries

are widely shared with the general public.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to join you today, for all

you are doing to help protect Americans from the devastating effects of windstorms, and for helping homeowners in this country

understand that luck should not be their first line of defense when

they confront natural disaster threats.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chapman-Henderson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LESLIE CHAPMAN-HENDERSON

Introduction

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Committee Members.

My name is Leslie Chapman-Henderson and I am here today representing the

Federal Alliance for Safe Homes. We are a partnership of more than 100 public, private and nonprofit organizations and leaders who have dedicated the past ten years

to making America a more disaster-resistant nation. Our mission is to ‘‘strengthen

homes and safeguard families’’ from disasters of all kinds, including earthquakes,

floods, hail, hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes and wildfires.

The Federal Alliance for Safe Homes helps reduce impacts from catastrophic

losses like windstorms by providing the public with accurate and timely information

on how to make homes more disaster-resistant—either at the time of construction

or with post-construction hardening or retrofitting techniques. We want consumers

to understand that they can protect their property, and ‘‘luck’’ is not their best tool

when they confront natural disaster threats.

We view our work as part of a larger social movement to establish disaster safety

as a public value in this country. This is a movement that supports a built environment strong enough to reasonably resist and survive natural disaster threats. We

specifically focus on mitigation and the collective work undertaken beforehand to

prevent or lessen impacts of hurricanes and other threats.

Our goal is to create widespread homeowner demand for safer, better-built homes.

We modeled this approach after the highway safety movement, which succeeded in

creating American demand for safe, well-built vehicles with seat belts and air bags.

Just as the highway safety movement has saved lives on our roads, the disaster

safety movement will reduce losses from catastrophic events. We recognize the following elements as essential to the establishment of the disaster safety movement:

• Building codes that are enacted and enforced

Æ Applied to new construction, rehabilitated construction and restored construction

• Financial incentives

Æ Including banking, insurance, real estate, tax

• Mitigation public policy

135

1Source: Population Estimates http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php 2Source: http://www.census.gov/Press-release/www/releases/archives/population/

011671.html

Æ Inspection and matching grant programs

• Public awareness

• Professional education

Æ Architecture, construction, engineering

• Research and innovation

Our typical activities include public awareness campaigns featuring free resource

and referral services through a toll-free telephone hotline and the www.flash.org

website, integrated multi-media campaigns, professional education programs and extensive public outreach. Below is a sampling of our initiatives:

• Blueprint for Safety—An award-winning curriculum for contractors, design

professionals and home inspectors featuring training on disaster-resistant

construction techniques. Blueprint recommendations are referenced as the

basis for mitigation policies and programs enacted in several states, including

Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.

• The Tale of Two Houses—A motivational video story of two neighboring families and homes affected by 2004’s Hurricane Charley that demonstrates dramatically different building performance and outcomes based on the different

building practices used. The Tale of Two Houses program inspired a season

of nationally syndicated television shows and joint work with home improvement guru Bob Vila.

• Turn Around—Don’t Drown—A jointly owned public awareness life safety

campaign with the National Weather Service that helps raise awareness of

the risks associated with walking or driving into moving water. The slogan

is in widespread use by broadcast meteorologists, forecasters and others. Outdoor advertising campaigns are focused at the State level and are in place in

Florida, Nevada, Texas and other states.

• StormStruck: A Tale of Two HomesΤΜ ... presented by the Federal Alliance

for Safe Homes—StormStruck is an interactive ‘‘edu-tainment’’ experience

that will open in late summer of 2008 at Epcot at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida. The high tech simulated storm experience will combine fun

with game-based learning to provide more than four million annual guests to

Epcot with information on how to protect their homes and families from severe weather.

While our organizational focus is solely on residential structures, my comments

today will be relevant for some aspects of commercial structures as well.

Commentary/Response to Committee Questions

Question #1—How vulnerable is the U.S. built environment—and its occupants—to windstorm hazards? Has this vulnerability increased or decreased in recent years?

We believe that the U.S. built environment is highly vulnerable to windstorm hazards, and the vulnerability is increasing. There are various ways to characterize the

level and demonstrate the increase, including:

A) Coastal Population Growth. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of July

1, 2007, 35.3 million people lived in areas of the United States most threatened by hurricanes.1 These areas are defined as the coastal portions of

Texas through North Carolina and represent approximately 12 percent of

the U.S. population. This figure represents an increase from the 1950 level

of 10.2 million, which represented seven percent of the U.S. population.

Florida alone represents six percent of the current coastal population.

Three of the 20 most populous metro areas from 2006 to 2007 were within

Atlantic or Gulf coastal areas from North Carolina to Texas.2 These areas

are:

• Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, Texas (sixth)

• Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, Fla. (seventh)

• Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Fla. (19th)

136

3Source <http://www.census.gov/geo/landview/lv6help/coastal¥cty.pdf> 4Source: Insurance Information Institute—Presentation to the National Hurricane Conference—http://server.iii.org/yy¥obj¥data/binary/784319¥1¥0/nhc2008.pdf 5Source: Insurance Information Institute from ‘‘A Texas-Sized Hunger for Gulf Coast Homes,’’

New York Times, March 18, 2007 and www.1900storm.com and www.twia.org accessed July 9,

2007.

Note: Coastal counties include those with at least 15 percent of their

total land area within the Nation’s coastal watershed.3

B) Historic Losses4 (United States). Disaster losses tell a compelling picture of

our economic and societal vulnerability to windstorms. From 1987 to 2006

the inflation-adjusted, insured losses break down as follows:

• $297.3 billion—total disaster losses

• $137.7 billion, or 46.3 percent—tropical cyclone losses

• $77.3 billion, or 26 percent—tornado losses

• $19.1 billion, or 6.4 percent—earthquake losses

Seven of the 10 most expensive hurricanes in U.S. history occurred between

August 2004 and October 2005.

C) Today’s Insured Values (Sample: Florida).

• 4.5 million single family homes

• $1.8 trillion in residential property

• $1.0 trillion in commercial property

D) Coastal Construction (Sample: Galveston, Texas).

• More than $2.3 billion in residential, commercial and public construction

was underway in 20075

• More than 6,500 residential units under construction

• Mostly condos, including towers up to 27 stories high

• One Centex Homes development—2,300 condos and houses on 1,000 acres

• Galveston is the site of the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history

• At least 8,000 people were killed in a 1900 hurricane

• 3,600 homes were destroyed

The current seawall in Galveston is only 15.6 ft. high; Katrina’s storm surge

was nearly 30 feet. Insured losses today from a repeat of the 1900 storm

would exceed $21 billion, and it would become the 3rd most expensive hurricane in U.S. history (after Katrina and Andrew).

E) Attributes of the Built Environment. Vulnerability will continue to increase

due to a variety of economic and other factors, including the aging of our

built environment, the percentage of the built environment constructed

without use of model building codes, and the increased cost of new construction.

Question #2a—What are the challenges in implementing improvements to

new or existing buildings?

The greatest challenge in implementing improvements to new or existing buildings is a continuous breakdown in communication and knowledge transfer between

homeowners, home builders and policy-makers. During years of post-storm interviews and damage investigations, we meet homeowners who are frustrated to learn

that a mere handful of additional nails may have made a difference in keeping their

roofs on during a hurricane, especially since loss of roof covering and roof sheathing

failure during windstorms is typically where a total loss of structure and contents

begins.

In-place and intact enactment of model building codes with requisite code enforcement infrastructure before hurricanes strike is the best means of overcoming this

lost opportunity to rebuild damaged communities in a stronger way. While new

codes can only impact approximately two percent of the built environment in any

non-disaster year, that percentage can increase dramatically in a post-storm rebuilding period.

Unfortunately, many of the rebuilding efforts during the post-2004 and 2005 hurricanes failed to include new, uniform roofing standards requiring enhanced nailing

and installation of secondary water barriers. This represents a tremendous lost opVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:47 Nov 02, 2008 Jkt 043529 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\T&I08\072408\43529 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
137

portunity and perpetuates the cycle of ‘‘build-destroy-rebuild’’ that our organization

and movement is working to break.

Furthermore, while outstanding progress is under way by the International Code

Council and others in increasing model code adoption at the State levels, the model

code can still be undermined, weakened or adversely amended upon adoption at the

local level. We are concerned that many coastal, windstorm-exposed communities

have adopted the 2006 International Residential Code, but also inserted provisions

that remove requirements for protecting windows with code-approved shutters or

other opening protection.

We believe it is well-established that protecting openings like windows is a key

windstorm damage prevention practice.

Question #2b—What has FLASH found to be effective mechanisms for convincing property owners and builders to adopt wind hazard mitigation

measures?

Like the highway safety movement, success relies on a combination of regulation,

enforcement and education.

Intact enactment of model building codes is a vital first step, and we

should reward local communities that adopt model codes by linking enhanced federal, pre-disaster mitigation dollars to the strength and enforcement record of the State and local building codes.

Communication and education are also essential. FLASH has found that the most

effective ways to deliver relevant information to the public, policy-makers and affected trades and professions are:

1. through news media outreach that focuses on specific storm experiences of

real families,

2. by creating simple, clear and actionable ‘‘how to’’ information to empower

consumers to ask for specific, prescriptive constructive practices at the time

of building or rebuilding, and

3. by participating and serving on relevant public policy forums that create and

recommend model programs.

Two such model programs at the State level are the My Safe Florida and South

Carolina Safe Home initiatives for residential structures. These programs provide

wind mitigation home inspections and matching grants for home hardening and retrofitting activities. These efforts help homeowners understand the relative strengths

and weakness of their homes, and then provide matching funds to help offset the

cost of retrofitting or hardening those homes.

Conservatively derived measurements of the value of mitigation are also essential

tools for delivering compelling mitigation improvements to the public and policy

leaders. Consider these findings from an independent study by the National Institute of Building Sciences:

Mitigation provided a return on investment of up to four-to-one. A 10-year snapshot of FEMA mitigation grants and projects found:

Reduced human losses (death, injuries and homelessness)

• Reduced direct property damage

• Reduced direct business interruption loss

• Reduced indirect business losses

• Reduced non-market damage

• Reduced cost of emergency response

(Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future

Savings from Mitigation Activities, National Institute of Building Sciences, December 2005, accessed at http://www.nibs.org/MMC/mmcactiv5.html)

Modeling the strength of existing building stock based on the historic building

code practices can also provide a compelling case for implementing windstorm mitigation. The tables below illustrate some relevant examples:

138

Question #3a—Where do improvements need to be made in building practices and our ability to mitigate wind damage to structures and communities?

• Increase funding for research and innovation in building structure performance

When examining building performance post-storm, we need to understand how

and why buildings survived or failed. Our academic partners still do not have all

the answers to understanding wind and wind-driven rain effects on buildings, and

the financial resources for this research seem inconsistently distributed and difficult

to sustain on an ongoing basis. The resources dedicated to research on storm effects

are greatly out-paced by research spending on earthquake hazards.

• Accelerate adoption of new construction technology findings into model building

codes

The code development process is understandably deliberate, however, it often

takes years to incorporate to new findings into model codes. As a result, homes and

buildings continue to be built without the benefit of expensive and deadly lessons

learned post-disaster.

Question #3b—How well do agencies at all levels of government advocate

and educate on the importance of wind hazard mitigation measures?

We believe that federal agencies like FEMA and the National Weather Service do

an excellent job of communicating the importance of mitigation as a thematic priority. However, by its nature the specific mitigation information and professional

training is delivered at the State and local levels. It is our observation that Florida,

Louisiana and South Carolina are the most active states in terms of mitigation outreach, education and training.

139

A novel concept that is in use in Florida as part of the My Safe Florida Home

program is the Hurricane Resistance Rating Scale that ranks homes on a zero to

100 scale on the basis of its wind-resistant features, including roof shape, presence

of opening protection, construction method, etc. This concept could be adapted to a

national model scale and be incorporated into the home construction industry in all

windstorm exposed states, including the so-called ‘‘Tornado Alley.’’ The scale could

help revolutionize consumers’ understanding of the wind hazard, much like Energy

Star revolutionized society’s perception and value for energy savings.

Question #4—Please comment on the implementation of NWIRP and the

level of federal funding for wind hazard mitigation R&D. Looking toward

the reauthorization of the program, what do you feel are the three most important priorities and what changes would you suggest for the legislation?

We strongly support all aspects of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program and strongly encourage the reauthorization with additional investment of resources. We offer the following priorities based on our belief that the private sector

can augment the program’s efforts with significant resources.

• Improved understanding of windstorms

Æ Activities to enhance the understanding of windstorms shall include research to improve knowledge of and data collection on the impact of severe wind on buildings, structures, and infrastructure. Highest Priority

• Windstorm impact assessment

Æ Research, development, and technology transfer to improve loss estimation and risk assessment systems; Low Priority

Æ Research, development, and technology transfer to improve simulation

and computational modeling of windstorm impacts. Medium Prioriyy

• Windstorm impact reduction

Æ Development of improved outreach and implementation mechanisms to

translate existing information and research findings into cost-effective

and affordable practices for design and construction professionals, and

State and local officials; Highest Priority

Æ Development of cost-effective and affordable windstorm-resistant systems, structures, and materials for use in new construction and retrofit

of existing construction; High Priority

Æ Outreach and information dissemination related to cost-effective and affordable construction techniques, loss estimation and risk assessment

methodologies, and other pertinent information regarding windstorm

phenomena to federal, State, and local officials, the construction industry,

and the general public. Highest Priority

Our one implementation recommendation is that the program establish a singular

guiding principle for all program outcomes as follows: ‘‘Any and all program findings, materials and information shall be communicated, shared, widely promoted

and accessible to the general public with a special emphasis on reaching and targeting home buyers, homeowners, home builders and public policy-makers.’’

It is our firm belief that, like highway safety, the knowledgeable, empowered consumer has the most capacity to move disaster safety and windstorm mitigation forward. The essential tool they require to do is knowledge of the definition of a strong,

wind-resistant home backed by a system of building codes that ensure optimal, future construction practices. We can and should continue to improve on all areas of

focus identified in the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program; however, the

stronger we make our built environment, the more opportunities our citizens will

have to safely shelter-in-place outside of flood-prone areas.

BIOGRAPHY FOR LESLIE CHAPMAN-HENDERSON

Leslie Chapman-Henderson is President/CEO of the Federal Alliance for Safe

Homes, Inc.—FLASH, a national, non-profit corporation founded in 1998 by a collaborative of non-profit, private and public organizations dedicated to strengthening

homes and safeguarding families from disaster. Today, FLASH is the fastest growing disaster safety education organization in the United States with more than 90

partners, including FEMA, Georgia Pacific, Institute for Business & Home Safety,

International Code Council, Mercedes Homes, NeighborWorks, NOAA, South Carolina Insurance Department, State Farm Insurance Companies, Texas Department of

140

Insurance, Texas Tech Wind Science & Engineering, The Home Depot and Home

Depot Foundation, University of Florida, and USAA.

Ms. Chapman-Henderson and FLASH have championed the cause of code-plus

construction methods through the creation of Blueprint for Safety (Blueprint), an

educational program for home builders, homeowners and design professionals on

disaster-resistant construction techniques.

Among Ms. Chapman-Henderson’s civic, community and professional awards are

the 2008 National Hurricane Conference Outstanding Achievement in Mitigation

Award, 2008 Governor’s Hurricane Conference Corporate Award, 2006 Texas Silver

Spur Award for Public Education Excellence, 2006 Governor’s Hurricane Conference

Public Information/Education Award, 2005 National Hurricane Conference Outstanding Achievement in Public Awareness Award, 2005 National Weather Association Walter J. Bennett Public Service Award, 2005 NOAA Environmental Hero

Award, 2002 National Hurricane Conference Outstanding Achievement in Mitigation Award, 2002 FEMA Special Recognition Award, 2002 Florida Fire Chiefs Association Excellence in Community and Public Education Award, 2002 Florida Emergency Preparedness Association Corporate Award, and 2001 Governors Hurricane

Conference Public Education Award.

Additional award-winning FLASH outreach projects include two seasons of episodes with the nationally-syndicated programs Bob Vila and Home Again with Bob

Vila; a one-hour, nationally televised multi-hazard PBS Special entitled, Blueprint

for Safety . . . Disaster-resistant Homes; and ‘‘A Tale of Two Houses,’’ a multi-media

awareness campaign, show-casing code and code-plus construction success stories.

Ms. Chapman-Henderson currently serves as co-chair of the legislatively-created

My Safe Florida Home Advisory Council. Her past service includes consumer representative and chair for the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund Advisory Council

under Governor Charlie Crist and former Governor Jeb Bush, guest lecturer at the

University of Florida—School of Construction and one of the Florida representatives

to the Federal Communications Commission WARN Committee. She was recently

elected as a board trustee of the Florida International University—International

Hurricane Research Center.

Other past service includes trustee for the Florida Fire and Emergency Services

Foundation; consumer representative to the Louisiana Uniform Building Code Task

Force; consumer representative and Vice Chair on the 2005 Florida Legislative Task

Force on Long-Term Solutions for Florida’s Hurricane Insurance Market; and insurance consumer representative to the 2006 Property and Casualty Insurance Reform

Committee chaired by former Lt. Governor Toni Jennings.

She has a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Florida, resides in Tallahassee

and is married to Robert Henderson.

DISCUSSION

Chairman WU. Thank you very much, Ms. Chapman-Henderson.

We have come to the questions and answers portion of this hearing,

and at this point, we open for our first round of questions, and I

recognize myself for an opening five minutes.

I would like to ask Dr. Levitan and Ms. Chapman-Henderson to

help characterize the OSTP and the general federal implementation of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. How

have, how is the OSTP, and how have the agencies done thus far,

and what needs to be worked on to improve this program going forward?

Dr. LEVITAN. Mr. Chairman, I think, and as you pointed out in

your opening statement, there has been, progress has been limited,

and much of that has to do with the funding issue. And the agencies each have their own tasks, and have reported that they are

working on wind hazard, various wind hazard mitigation programs,

but at least from my perspective, and where I can see that, again,

the coordination activities, so far, have been somewhat limited, and

perhaps, the nature of the problem is the funding restrictions.

Chairman WU. When you say somewhat limited, are you being

polite about that?

141

Dr. LEVITAN. Yes. Also, again, my nature, and from where I sit,

and I am somewhat on the outside of those activities, and I, the

information that I get, oftentimes, is you know, from reports. I am

not here in Washington to attend all the meetings.

Chairman WU. Ms. Chapman-Henderson.

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think

one of the most valuable activities we have participated in, probably the main activity, is participating in the post-disaster investigations, and the willingness of FEMA to coordinate those, and

bring us in, so that we can speed that information to the consumers, has been incredible. In 2004, we participated, and 2005, in

fact, we are looking at possibly joining a Midwest flooding investigation team that is going to go out.

Because so often, I think our greatest challenge is the time it

takes to take in the information, putting it into the building code

cycle, which is more than three years, you know, frequently. The

storms aren’t going to wait, and that is one of the greatest challenges here, is we have to possibly speed up the sharing of information, and get it to, you know, into either the codes or, on a market

basis, to homeowners, so they can make those choices ahead of

time.

Chairman WU. Ms. Chapman-Henderson, during your testimony,

you mentioned that it is important to get out ahead of the cycle,

so that the FEMA advice doesn’t come so late that the building

codes are changed, and we get into a cycle of build——

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. Destroy.

Chairman WU.—destroy, rebuild, destroy. Have we been shortening that cycle, or is that still a problem?

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. It is still a problem. And one of the

biggest challenges is, while the model codes are being developed,

incorporating new learning and science and innovation, it is still a

very slow and arduous process, but those model codes are adopted

at the State level. They still have to carry through and be adopted

at the local level, and we have issues across the country where, at

the local level, when the model codes are adopted, adverse measures, chapters, amendments, and essentially, sometimes removing

the engineering behind the wind science, are put in place, and the

net effect is a weakening of the code that is put there, so it not only

takes a long time to get the new codes, but it is important to preserve the quality of the model code when it gets all the way down

to the homeowner. That doesn’t happen today.

Chairman WU. Let me circle back in a different period of questions, about the federal role in helping disseminate that information, and getting it all the way to the ground level. Dr. Hays, I

want to give you an opportunity to respond to the concerns that I

expressed, and I think some of the witnesses expressed, about the

level of activity that OSTP and the other agencies have engaged in,

the level of coordination. It is my understanding that the Administration has simply not asked for any adequate level of funding for

this particular program.

Dr. HAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Addressing a couple of questions, I think, that you have on coordination funding, et cetera. With respect to funding, obviously,

funding decisions are made within the different agencies that parVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:47 Nov 02, 2008 Jkt 043529 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\T&I08\072408\43529 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
142

ticipate in the program. As you know, as this committee well

knows, those agencies face significant challenges in prioritizing different areas of research, so not just windstorm research, related to

other kinds of hazards research, but all hazards research related

to everything else within their domain. So, I think the agencies

have developed budgets that——

Chairman WU. Since my time is running out, what I hear you

going toward is that this set of efforts simply has not come to the

top of the priority list, or close enough to the top of the priority list

thus far.

Dr. HAYS. I think agencies have placed a high priority on this research. I think it is important to, when we are talking about measuring coordination, which is a very abstract thing to measure, I

tend to think in terms of measuring results, and keeping in mind

that this program, while it has only been authorized for several

years, that these programs within the agencies have existed for

many years. I think there are a number of demonstrable results

that have been achieved in terms of windstorm R&D.

Track forecast accuracy has been improved by 50 percent. That

has led to what used to be only three day forecasts, we now have

five day out forecasts that are as accurate as the three day out

forecasts. The hurricane warning areas have shrunk. Those have

profound implications, not just for loss of life, but also for economic

implications associated with evacuations and so forth.

Similar increases in tornado warning research has led to increased warning times for tornadoes, from six minutes to 11 minutes, just between 1994 and 2002. So, I think there are a lot of

things that we can point to that have been very positive, and that

the agencies involved in this program are largely responsible for

their research.

Chairman WU. Well, thank you, Dr. Hays. My time has expired,

but I just want to point out that some of this National Weather

Service, some of these meteorological capabilities are outside of this

particular program, I am concerned about some of the building code

issues, and some of the existing technology transfer issues that apparently have not been performed, and it has been raised by some

of the written and oral testimony of the other witnesses.

But we will circle back on that, and at this point, I would like

to recognize Dr. Gingrey for five minutes.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I am sure some of

our questions will overlap to some extent, but I did want to ask all

the witnesses, let us end with Dr. Hays, and start with Ms. Chapman-Henderson, how would you characterize the level of cooperation between the different federal agencies that are currently engaged in windstorm research?

I want to know if you have any specific suggestions that would

improve your institution’s interaction with the interagency research efforts as they currently exist. I know there are funding

problems. Dr. Levitan and others have mentioned that, and that is

a problem, of course, but do you think the R&D focus of each agency is appropriate, and are they trying to cooperate and make this

program better?

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. Well, I don’t want to opine on things

I don’t have specific knowledge of, and we work mostly with the

143

National Weather Service on public education efforts, and of

course, FEMA on mitigation, so I haven’t had a lot of experience

with the other agencies that have the role in coordination here. But

I think the measure of all of this is what, which, or if any of the

outcomes make it into use, either through the building codes, or

through market-based knowledge that can be incorporated, and I

think that there has been some tremendous progress, as was mentioned. Forecasting at the Weather Service, evacuation times, you

know, have been—and that is critical. But I think because there is

progress there, maybe it is time to start looking, and maybe create

more consistency when we are talking about the fundamental failure or survival of the structures.

Mr. GINGREY. Right.

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. And I don’t think we have drilled

into it that much yet.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you. And I think I will go directly to Dr.

Hays now, and then, let Dr. Levitan give a follow-up comment.

Dr. HAYS. Thank you. The issue of coordination is one that I

have thought a lot about, with respect to this working group, because frankly, this working group has faced some challenges, I

think, in generating the same level of interest and engagement

that we see with some of the other interagency working groups

that OSTP helps coordinate.

And I think an obvious comparison to make is between the Wind

Interagency Working Group and the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, which I mentioned in my opening statement, and is the all

hazards approach to interagency coordination. One of the things

that strikes me as a key difference between those two groups is the

all hazards approach, and so, the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, in taking that approach, I think that provides tremendous impetus for agencies to come to the table, to make sure that the different types of hazards-related research are represented there, and

so forth.

The very narrow, really slice of the overall R&D picture that is

represented by windstorm-related research presents a challenge

there, I think. It has been mentioned by one of the other witnesses

that the agencies in, with respect to windstorm research, have very

defined activities, and I think that is appropriate. They are complementary, and each agency undertakes those activities very much

in keeping with their other types of activities.

So, the National Science Foundation has a very different approach to funding windstorm-related research than, say, FEMA.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think that that is something, and Mr. Gingrey,

I hope that this committee will consider whether or not it makes

sense to treat individual types of hazards in this way that we have

been, versus the all hazards approach, which I think is supported

not only by our success with the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, but on things like the RAND Report, and other approaches.

Mr. GINGREY. Dr. Levitan.

Dr. LEVITAN. Excuse me. I think that the individual agencies

have done what they can within their resources, and are making

significant progress, but the program is, really provides them the

opportunity, and hopefully, in the future, to do a better job and enhance their coordination, and I think that is why we really need

144

to move forward with this, and expand, and the interagency working group, and to provide for better coordination.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, as my time in this first round is

winding down, I want to ask unanimous consent, if any of the

Members want to submit questions for the record for Dr. Reinhold,

if that would be allowed.

Chairman WU. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you.

Chairman WU. Dr. Ehlers for five minutes.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I have

three hearings going on simultaneously, so I missed the testimony

and early questioning. If I ask a question that has already been

asked, just let me know, and I will withdraw it.

But just following up on a comment I made at a hearing a week

or two ago, it is a real puzzle to me, as someone who lives in the

frozen North, and has also lived in earthquake-prone California.

We have adopted building codes in those areas which work extremely well. I have never heard of any time recently that a house

has collapsed because of heavy snow on the roof in our area, and

the earthquake damage has really been minimized in earthquakes

by the strong building codes out West.

It has always puzzled me why we haven’t taken the same care

and rigor in the hurricane-prone areas while we know that we can

mitigate a lot of the damage, and prevent a lot of the damage, by

appropriate building codes, and it just doesn’t seem to happen. And

I am curious, if you can give me any insight as to why this slow

rate of adoption of improved building codes, in areas that are prone

to windstorms.

Anyone have any wisdom to offer on that issue?

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. I will certainly try. I think there are

those in the construction profession that are fearful of the costs,

and some of those fears are accurate. I mean, the costs of constructing a home is an essential component of whether or not people can have a home. So, I think this is where information and

knowledge transfer comes in. If we can complete the research and

identify, perfect those affordable techniques, and then communicate, you know, we are talking about incremental increases in

costs that make a difference between surviving a windstorm or not,

I think we go a long way.

There is, perhaps, a fear of the unknown tied up in the conclusion ahead of time that it is going to make homes too expensive for

our part. We have always felt that the home that was built in a

way that allowed it to fail was the ultimate expensive home, so it

just didn’t make any sense to us, and I think that is pretty much

the core of what we do.

But there is some opposition in the field. There has been talk,

also of, again, looking back at highway safety, of finding a way to

reward those states and municipalities that do embrace, intact, the

national model codes, and possibly providing a carrot of sorts, so

that there is enhanced mitigation money, pre-disaster, or other initiatives, that could help motivate the communities to recognize that

they have to do their part, too.

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah, but you know, I have served in local government, too, and every change you make, there are people comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:47 Nov 02, 2008 Jkt 043529 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\T&I08\072408\43529 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
145

plaining about the expense, sometimes legitimately, but we still increased the building code, or changed the building code to accommodate that. And California has probably had the greatest expense. The occurrence of earthquakes is very unlikely, and yet, we

have very good building codes which minimize the damage, and if

you add up the cost of all those changes in the building code, it is

hard to justify on the basis of any individual residents, but in

terms of the overall picture, and lives saved, it is a good investment.

Why have the protesters against wind damage building codes

been so, either so strident or so successful, whereas it has not been

an issue in other areas? Every time you change the building code,

you get screams of anguish, but you still do it, because if it is the

right thing to do.

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. Well, two points. One is, I couldn’t

agree with you more. It is the right thing to do, and that is, again,

the core of what we do. I think one of the challenges is it can be

very technical.

I will give you an example. There is a provision that is often used

at the local level, when the residential code is adopted, relating to

windstorm. And by its insertion, it makes a requirement for having

shutters or opening protection unnecessary. And the insertion allows people to have an option. Instead of shuttering a home at the

time of construction, you can do something called design it to be

partially enclosed, or design it for internal pressurization, which

sounds really good. And it does, in fact, make the structure stronger.

But the interesting thing to us is that the designing for internal

pressurization option, my understanding is was originally put in

place for barns, because barns don’t really need shutters. If a storm

is coming, the concept is you probably get your horses or other animals out of the way, so it caused an undue expense to the farmer.

But putting something in place that allows homes to be designed

and built that way, essentially leaves those homeowners without

the ability to shelter in place, because they won’t have opening protection, and it is critical, as roof performances in high wind, covering your windows is a pretty well established factor, as well. But

it is so technical, and it is hard to understand, and it is engineering, I think sometimes, we don’t understand what is being done.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, I have to admit, I am dismayed and also

amused every time there is a hurricane pending, TV shows, all the

people running down to Home Depot or Lowe’s or whatever, buying

particle board, hammering it over their windows, which of course,

creates damage to the woodwork and so forth. And it is really quite

an expensive option. I can’t believe that doing that on a regular

basis is any cheaper than building it right in the first place—or is,

I am sorry, is any more expensive than building it right in the first

place.

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. I couldn’t agree more, when you add

the social costs, as well.

Mr. EHLERS. Any other comments, Dr. Levitan?

Dr. LEVITAN. Yes, I will address more, maybe more the technical

side of your question. I think the adoption of the codes that has

been addressed. One, actually, there have been, particularly in

146

New England in the last several years, there was some significant

roof collapses from snow load, but the nature of snow load is a

gravity load, acting down. The structures typically are designed

fairly well for that, and where earthquake and wind loads have lateral loads and uplift loads, which is more unusual, and takes more

care to be able to design for.

The better performance of structures in earthquakes, I think has,

in large part, has been due to the success of the NEHRP, the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, which has, for

many years, gone out after the earthquakes, and found out exactly

what worked and what didn’t, and then had the significant funding

to make major advances in the codes. There has been dramatic

changes in our design practices and technologies and techniques

and products that we use for earthquakes. And to get that into the

code, and to move that forward, whereas, we have not had that

same opportunity in wind hazard mitigation.

And certainly, even the codes that we have now, they do a good

job of reducing, when they are adopted and enforced, but we still

have a long ways to go, in terms of moving our codes, our building

codes for wind to the next generation.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, are you suggesting that we need more research?

Dr. LEVITAN. Yes, very clearly. The research and the technology

transfer, to take the research findings. And we have sort of a backlog that we have built up of research findings, and within the research community, and even internationally, we have a lot of research which has not been able to have been translated into codes

and standards, because the funding for that is very difficult to get.

That is generally too applied for the National Science Foundation,

and there isn’t other, there typically isn’t industry funding or other

funding opportunities available to do that tech transfer.

And so, the national program here would be the place to be able

to provide that, and get a lot of bang for the buck right now.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest you take care of that

problem. Thank you.

Chairman WU. The gentleman’s comments are always trenchant

and on point, as are his questions. And next, the gentleman from

Nebraska, Mr. Smith, recognized for five minutes.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and witnesses.

Coming from hail-prone, tornado-prone areas, situations in rural

Nebraska, it has been interesting, as disasters have stricken the

country in various places. My constituents watching tax dollars go

to certain areas of the country is one thing, but when availability

of homeowner’s insurance becomes scarce, is quite another. And so,

the attention it has had around the country, and this is an interesting discussion here.

And you know, the mitigating efforts on the part of auto dealers,

for example, building canopies so they can buy more affordable hail

insurance, it has been interesting. It has been expensive up front,

obviously, when an automobile dealership builds canopies for their

entire inventory, but it is a cost savings in the long run, and certainly, it is a good business decision.

147

But as we are discussing, perhaps Ms. Chapman-Henderson, on

the training, how many people have been trained through the Blueprint for Safety curriculum?

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. Last year, approximately 2,500. We

are currently focusing, our work is very state-specific, because the

training is usually part of an overall initiative embrace by a state,

so we are right now training inspectors in South Carolina. I don’t

know the specific number of how many. When Florida put their

mitigation program in place, there was a huge training piece to

that, and we provided it.

Mr. SMITH. What would you say are the skills that would be

taught through a course?

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. Well, first, the first chapter is on just

fundamentals of wind design, and understanding some of the basics, just on roof shape, and this whole concept of pressurization of

the structure. You know, one of the things we used to believe, and

I think a lot of consumers still believe, is that we should crack windows open when tornadoes are coming, and we have learned

through the work of Dr. Levitan and others that wind effects on

structures are such that we don’t want any wind in the house.

So, we start with those fundamentals, and we teach prescriptive

methods for roof attachment with enhanced nailing, secondary

water barrier, identifying code plus or impact resistant or wind resistant shingles.

Mr. SMITH. Have you seen the students for, say, of the training,

able to enhance their employment position through the course

work?

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. Yes, in fact, it is ironic, because we

used to worry about being able to get contractors to participate in

our program, because there was so much work going on with the

housing boom, but there has been an unintended but positive consequence of this specialty that has been created across the country

called wind mitigation. Much like the medical profession, if you are

an orthopedic surgeon, you don’t necessarily practice cardiology. So,

a lot of contractors, even some appraisers and others, have been

able to cross-train into performing wind mitigation retrofits.

As you know, the new construction, the building code is essential

for all the new construction, and of course, post-disaster, to bring

that housing stock into current times. But our great challenge is

the existing stock, and retrofitting it. So, it is becoming a specialty

area in the trade. And in the profession, it is not vast yet, but it

is growing, and it is becoming something that I think we will see

over time will take hold, because there are so many things you can

do. If you can get in your attic, for example, you can put additional

metal connectors to enhance the connection between the roof and

the wall, and that can make all the difference in a high wind event.

You know, there is also the notion of existing activities for people

like roofers. If roofers are trained and cross-trained into wind mitigation, they recognize that the ideal time to enhance the strength

of a roof deck is when you have taken the covering off, and that

is where that handful of additional nails, maybe of a specific type,

maybe, you know, ring shank nails, that can make the difference

in keeping that deck on.

148

There is a pretty famous story that we always talk about, about

Hurricane Andrew, where the Miami Herald had a headline. It

looked like a football score, and it said Habitat 24, Andrew 0. And

what it was talking about is that 24 homes built by Habitat volunteers survived Hurricane Andrew nearly intact. In fact, we raced

to the scene, only to find out they were fine. The unfortunate part

is that surrounding those homes, there were commercially developed homes that were decimated. So, the engineers came in, they

looked at, you know, the damage investigation revealed that volunteers nailing a roof deck on typically say to themselves, you know,

I guess if one nail is good, two is even better, and unwittingly, enhanced the nailing pattern, and thereby, the strength of the deck.

So, those houses were just fine, and it is those types of things that

I think, you know, we need more research so we know specifically

what is working, and learning things like that, just a handful of

nails, what an essential element, and when you think about the economics, pretty powerful.

But we aren’t yet in a place where everybody knows that, and

that homeowners know that, and roofers all know that. And I think

we have an opportunity to change things by making that happen.

Mr. SMITH. Well, I better, Ms. Chapman-Henderson or Dr.

Levitan, are we seeing positive patterns of consumer behavior poststorm event? Are we learning from our mistakes?

Dr. LEVITAN. Well, I guess I can speak to maybe recent activity

in Louisiana.

It is very slow. It is, especially after such a large scale event, like

a Katrina or Rita, as important as it would seem, there is so many

other activities, like where am I going to stay, and my house and

my job, and all of those things, that it is kind of hard for it to get

traction. I think it seems that, for example, the state did a good

job, and within a few months after Katrina, we passed statewide

mandatory building codes, and that is being phased in, and of

course, training and education of even the building inspectors and

the design profession is a challenge that is going to take many

years.

And we are, I think the education of the consumer, and getting

to the point where the consumer is starting to ask for the, it is

really just in its infancy, and so, we are three years out from

Katrina now, and it is, I would say it is very slow. At least it is

on the right trajectory. People are starting to look at it. You occasionally see, and I know in Florida, it is much more common. You

occasionally see a commercial on the television for hurricane shutters now. We would have never seen that before. And there are a

few developments that are starting, and people are starting to ask

about you know, what is this, a fortified home program. My colleague, Dr. Reinhold, couldn’t be here today, but the IBHS has

their program, and they are making some inroads in Louisiana,

and I have heard that some builders are starting to use that one.

So, it is a slow process, but it is, we are making some progress,

I think. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WU. Thank you. It is the Chair’s intention to give the

gentlelady from California a moment to get settled, and so the

Chair will recognize himself first for five minutes.

149

Dr. Levitan, you cited the importance of future research, but that

there is a lot of existing technology or research that has already

been performed, where there has not been adequate transfer of

that knowledge to application, and Ms. Chapman-Henderson, you

cited some specific examples, perhaps, of you know, very straightforward steps that could be taken, that are also, in essence, tech

transfer types of issues.

Dr. Levitan, can you tell us about some of the other already done

research, the existing technologies, which have not been adequately

transferred, and your ideas about how that transfer might occur

better?

Dr. LEVITAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As an example, I am a member

of the ASCE–7 Wind Load Subcommittee. That is the committee

that writes the National Wind Loading Standard, which gets adopted into the model building codes. And we are going through a cycle

right now. The document is revised every few years, and we are examining the methods that we use to determine what the provisions

that go in the codes for how do you figure what the wind loads are

on a building.

And the discussion at the last meeting was, are the two methods

that we have in the building code right, or in the ASCE standard

right now are based on 30- or 40-year-old data. And in those days,

when you did wind tunnel, that was from, it came from wind tunnel tests, and there might be four or five or ten pressure taps on

a building, where you measure the pressures at just a very few

number of locations on the building. The technology, the wind tunnel testing technology today is so far advanced, where you routinely would measure pressure simultaneously over a 1,000 points

all over the whole building, so you really understand that the wind

loading is happening on the whole building all at once, and yet the

methods that we use in the code are based on much, much older

technology.

So, we have a lot of data that is available out there, and NIST

is working on a program right now for what they call a databaseassisted design, where they are slowly taking some of that wind

tunnel data, and trying to develop a method where we can make

some use of that, but there are real opportunities there, where

there is so much tremendous amount of data, the wind tunnel technology has advanced so far, but most of the benefits of that have

not found their way into the building code yet, and that would need

some additional testing with the technology that we already have

to do what we call parametric studies, the building code only has

rectangular boxes. The only kind of building, if you look in the

code, and see how do I figure the wind load on a building, it will

have a picture of a rectangular box of a building with maybe two

or three different roof shapes, a pitched roof, or a gable roof, or a

hip roof.

But what if you have buildings in plan, that are L-shaped, or Tshaped, or have balconies, or have all these other things? There is

nothing in the code for that, and we have the technology to be able

to do that with our advanced wind tunnel testing. It hasn’t been

done.

Chairman WU. Dr. Levitan, I am sure you have many other examples, but let me jump to Dr. Hays for a second, and Dr. Hays,

150

there appears to be a tech transfer problem of existing knowledge

to designers, builders, drafters of building codes. What, in your

view, can the Federal Government do to promote this technology

transfer? Which federal agencies do you see as playing a role in

that?

Dr. HAYS. I think there are a couple of different answers. First

of all, Dr. Ehlers, I think, hit on the fundamental issue here, which

is, and other witnesses have elaborated on it, which is that we

have a lot of this data. It is not necessarily getting translated to

those who write local building codes, zoning laws, et cetera.

I think that is where the primary breakdown in communication

is, and I would argue that, and Dr. Ehlers made this point, I think,

very nicely, that there does seem to be somewhat of a difference

when you look at windstorms, versus other kinds of hazards, such

as earthquakes. I don’t know why those differences exist, but it

sounds to me like an area of social science research that is ripe for

exploration, and I know NSF funds exactly those kinds of research

questions.

In terms of what federal agencies are involved in the technology

transfer right now, clearly, NIST has a central role. And as I mentioned before, because many NIST scientists both do their government-related research, and then also sit on the standards development committees, like the ones that ASCE and others run, they

have a direct flow of information, from what they know from their

government research, going directly into those standards-building,

standards-generating committees. That is clearly a very important

mechanism. Again——

Chairman WU. Dr. Hays.

Dr. HAYS. Yes.

Chairman WU. I am going to interrupt you, because my time is

expiring. You mentioned NIST, and Dr. Levitan, I believe, in your

testimony, you recommended that NIST take a leading role in this

program. And I want to give you a chance to expand on that, and

explain why you think NIST is an appropriate agency.

Dr. LEVITAN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, because

they have the expertise and experience, directly in wind hazards.

They have folks working in the wind hazard mitigation area. This

program has significant parallels to the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, which they are the lead agency for now.

And so, it seems to be the right fit of an agency that does research

and does tech transfer, as opposed to say National Science Foundation, which would only focus on the research aspects. And so, from

the agencies involved, NIST really seems to be the best fit.

Chairman WU. Thank you, Dr. Levitan, and at this point, I

would like to turn to Dr. Gingrey, five minutes.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I want to address this question to Ms. Chapman-Henderson. You

know, we, the Federal Government we, a lot of times, put unfunded

mandates on a lot of industry, I am thinking particularly in the

electric generation industry, particularly coal-fired power plants,

and some of these very old, existing for 20, 30, 40 years, and all

of a sudden, a decision is made by the Federal Government because

of the Clean Air Act, that you have got to retrofit to an extent that

you would almost have to tear the place down, or convert over to

151

natural gas, which is much more expensive, and of course, used in

a lot of other industries, and we have a limited supply.

I am thinking, of course, in cities like my city of Atlanta, the

metropolitan statistical area, which is non-attainment, and people

have to have their vehicles inspected every year, every year, and

a lot of times, you know, you got senior citizens driving an eight

year old car that can’t really meet the standards, and it is an unusual burden on them.

So, my question is that the, leading into the question you, I know

you are involved in a lot of state-of-the-art retrofit technologies for

older construction, in regard to natural disaster mitigation, in particular wind, and certainly, I think that is great, what your organization is doing in educating the public, but it is important to know,

I think, for the Committee, to understand the cost involved in retrofitting, and are you more focused on new construction, and as

these houses are replaced, old housing stock, of course, and modernization of same, but I don’t think it would be very cost-effective

to require people to, you know to, by ordinance of the local government, building codes all of a sudden have to go back in and change

something that wasn’t the law when they moved into their abode.

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. And the ideal times to change or retrofit existing property are when you are rebuilding from an ordinary incident, possibly a house fire, or post-disaster, after a windstorm event, you really have an opportunity to get in there and do

some things differently.

As far as, and let me just say this, our major focus is helping

consumers make informed choices at the market level. What the

developers and the builders that we work with every day tell us is,

if it is a level playing field, and it is either in the building code or

everybody wants it, and the customer wants it, it will happen. And

what we have seen in places where the model codes have been enacted is that the costs of doing the wind mitigation techniques at

the point of new construction go down, because the marketplace for

shutter options or impact windows, or all the different things, it is,

the scale introduces a lot of savings, and over time, it becomes less

expensive, say, to buy shutters in Miami, where they are required,

than it is possibly up on the coast of, you know Saint Simons. So,

there is, because there is more options in the marketplace, and

what the builders always tell us is, if everybody has to do it, it is

not going to adversely impact me, and that is where, you know,

having it in the code, over time, is helpful.

But on retrofitting, I think one example to look at, because of the

number of homes that have been done, there are approximately

20,000 homes that have been completed due to the My Safe Florida

Home Program, and their average expenditure, by the homeowner,

and it is matched by a matching grant, is around $3,100. So, if the

homeowner goes in, and says I want to shutter, replace my garage

door with an impact resistant door, and if I can, through attic access, install some retrofit hurricane straps, to keep the roof and the

wall connected, that is around $3,100 expenditure on their part,

and it is matched by another $3,100. So, it is about $6,200 if they

want to make the investment.

Now, to the point on insurance, in those same markets, they

have some of the highest insurance rates in the country. So, on the

152

wind portion of the insurance, in those markets, especially in

Southeast Florida, they can save up to 52 percent on the wind premium, so there are substantial every year savings on the insurance

that follow the investment in mitigation, and in pretty short time,

it pays for itself.

When we look at all of it, though, what we find is the financial

incentives are essential as a support, but I think what really helps

people, you know, decide to either buy or retrofit or build differently, is when they think about the safety aspect. Just kind of

putting themselves in the place of the people who went through

Katrina, or any of the, you know, tornado outcomes, you know,

they envision what they could do differently ahead of time. That is

the most powerful motivator of all.

You know, one of the, you know, especially relevant to the experience that both of you have had in your districts, you know, with

tornadoes, the thing that is sad, I think, in this country, is that

most homeowners and many builders don’t even know that there

is a tornado safe room that you can affordably construct, either retrofit or new construction, in homes. And that is a life safety bunker. That is not really about the house. That is about the survival

of the family, and the cost of constructing those has come way

down over time, as well. That is what we would like to do. As long

as people know ahead of time, and can make that decision, to us,

that is the key.

Chairman WU. The gentleman’s time has expired, and next, the

gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all, let

me applaud your leadership in having this hearing today. Given

what has just happened in the last couple days, it is quite timely.

My first question is for Dr. Levitan. Could you please discuss

with us how the lack of federal funding for wind engineering research effects—excuse me, I am sorry—could you discuss for us the

lack of federal funding for wind engineering research, and how it

affects the pipeline of students interested in pursuing wind engineering or disaster-related engineering as a career?

And a follow-up to that is, what impact do you see of the lack

of students participating, will that have on our future, in terms of

building safety?

Dr. LEVITAN. Thank you. That is an excellent question. That is

a key part of the problem is——

Ms. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON. Well, we have great staff.

Dr. LEVITAN. Yeah. We, the professor in me comes out sometimes. There are really comparatively few faculty that work in the

area of wind hazard research, and that is 100 percent correlated

to funding. Faculty have to get promoted and tenured, and how do

they do that? They get funded to do—they have research fundings.

They have to support their students, et cetera, and so, at the beginning of the chain is, sort of, if there is no university research being

done, then there are very few faculty that work, and have any expertise in the area, and certainly, experimental work is expensive.

And it is difficult to do a lot of kinds of things without experimental facilities.

And so, that leads into a chain of very few graduate students and

undergraduates working in the laboratories, et cetera, moving

153

along. And so, that filters out that you have few people with any

expertise that can get out of school. Actually, we have, the problem

is there is not much in the way of curricular materials for—compared to earthquake, which has had the funding in recent years.

There are textbooks, there are books out there, in California, most

of the schools, undergraduate programs, you have specific courses

in earthquake engineering, or they incorporate a major component

of that into their, sort of their senior design courses. And we don’t

do that for winds and hurricanes. There is very little information

out there, because the chain never really gets started, because that

is where it starts is at the top, as you pointed out, with the university research.

And then, it gets filtered down into practice. And when you don’t

have that, and you don’t have the core of faculty and graduate students working on that it, you just don’t have the trained workforce,

then.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Might I suggest that maybe you put together

some recommendations for this committee, as well as the Administration, of what we should be thinking about in the upcoming

years, of how we can ensure that we are developing a pool of folks,

so whatever it might be, and whatever level that you recommend,

that we begin to address, and that that way, we can appropriately

ensure that we do have people who can make these Twenty First

Century recommendations to improve our safety.

Dr. LEVITAN. Yes, I would be very glad to. There are a few programs out there. At my alma mater, my colleagues from Texas

Tech have a wind science and engineering Ph.D. program, and they

were funded by the National Science Foundation through their

IGERT, their Integrative Graduate Education Research and Training Program, to build that—a very unique and innovative. We received a grant from the National Science Foundation to build some

curriculum materials for hurricane engineering. The first, really,

the first program of its kind in the country.

And so, there are some fledgling programs, but for those to be

expanded, I would be glad to provide those recommendations.

Thank you.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. And then, my next question is for

Dr. Hays. This weekend, I had the opportunity to travel on a Congressional delegation to New Orleans and Mississippi and Baton

Rouge, and we saw some of the results still, now three years, it is

going to be the anniversary of those very devastating hurricanes,

of both Katrina and Rita.

Can you tell me, in your mind, do you feel that, based upon the

work that your organization has done, have insurance companies

appropriately taken into effect what your recommendations are,

and do you find that the policies are now reflective to, in fact, protect our consumers?

Dr. HAYS. I am not sure that I am the best person to speak to

insurance policies. That really takes us outside of the S&T domain

that I am most familiar with, and that our office is most——

Ms. RICHARDSON. So, let me clarify my question, and I have got

about 30 seconds, so I am going to be as brief as I can. It is my

understanding that folks were sent the FEMA, NIST, and NSF,

down to you know, assist and coordinate with the efforts. Some of

154

the problems that have been said about Hurricane Katrina and

Rita, was that the policies that people had were not consistent with

understanding potentially what damage could have occurred. And

so, my question is, from what you have learned, and what these

various organizations have observed, have those indicators been

passed on to the appropriate folks, who can then assist our consumers to ensure that they, in fact, have the right protections?

Dr. HAYS. Okay. So, I think the answer is that that is happening.

It is a process that is still ongoing. There is a saying in this field

that we are always prepared for the last storm. And that is, in

part, because we learn so much from each event, as it happens. So,

as you mentioned, all these different teams, combined government

and private sector researchers down there, are learning from Hurricane Katrina. A number of different agencies have participated in

that. Some of those results are starting to come online, so to speak,

but I think that is very much an evolving process. And so, we need

to look to the future to see the sort of uptake of what we learned

from that event.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much, and you were very kind,

Mr. Chairman, to allow me that additional 30 seconds.

Chairman WU. I thank the gentlelady, and the gentleman from

Michigan is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I—first of all, I was

amused by your comment about the Habitat for Humanity homes.

I was not at all surprised when I saw that scorecard years ago, because I have worked on Habitat for Humanity homes, and I am

from the old school, if one nail is good, two is better, but I remember particularly working on one house where I was joining the roof

to the wall, and I am sure if that roof is ever blown off, the wall

will go with it. Now, maybe that is not an efficient way to do

things, but it certainly saves a lot of trouble later.

Dr. Hays, you said in your testimony that ‘‘the benefits of this

improved understanding will not be fully realized, however, until

it is incorporated more completely into actions at the State and

local level, both through building codes, design standards, and construction practices.’’ With which I fully agree. But what plans does

the interagency working group have to do that, and I have a followup question relating to NIST and NSF, if you would answer the

first one.

Dr. HAYS. So, the issue of uptake at the local level is one that

goes beyond just the science and technology. I mean, certainly

there are market mechanisms that can be brought to bear to encourage uptake, incentive programs and so forth, that I think sort

of go well outside the S&T arena that we are mostly talking about

here.

In terms of what the agencies can do, though, I think there is

sort of a two step process. Once the research is done, we understand what the science and engineering results are telling us. That

first step, and I know you are very familiar with this, is the translation of that into standards and so forth, and so, these consensusbased standards organizations that NIST is very much engaged in,

for example, are a place where the Federal Government, I think,

does a good job of helping to transfer knowledge.

155

Where I think there remains to be a lot of work to be done is

that second step, which is the transfer of those standards that are

developed by the engineers, by the scientists, at the local level. And

that is something that I think the federal agencies in this program

tend not to be as engaged in, because their emphasis is on the

science and technology. But certainly one that I would be interested in learning more about, as you have highlighted a very important problem in the overall process.

Mr. EHLERS. Another aspect of this. I was struck, in listening to

the comments back and forth, that this is a building practices type

of thing, and I would not expect NSF to be active in it, and I was

surprised by the number of times people related work done by the

National Science Foundation. I don’t think any of my colleagues

are aware of that, and the importance of that work. Similarly, the

comments about NIST, a number of things over.

And we fail, in the Congress, to adequately fund these research

organizations. Many Members, I think, believe it is pie in the sky

pure science, but it has direct applications. And I would hope that

you would continue to work with those of us in the Congress, particularly this committee. I know Mr. Wu and Dr. Gingrey feel very

strongly about this, just as I do, that we are not adequately funding our research institutions. I would hope that your agency would

join with us in that effort, to persuade the rest of our colleagues

to do it right.

And since the President will be leaving office shortly, you can

throw discretion to the winds, and request mammoth amounts of

money for these agencies in next year’s budget, even though it may

not last, but it still would be a good show for the next Administration to deal with.

Dr. HAYS. Well, Mr. Ehlers, you have mentioned two agencies

that, of course, are within the American Competitiveness Initiative,

so——

Mr. EHLERS. Right.

Dr. HAYS. I feel very comfortable in saying that we agree with

you that those are two agencies that do need additional funding,

and we are hoping that the appropriations process will yield that

this time.

Mr. EHLERS. Right, and I thank you for all your work that you

and Dr. Marburger did on the COMPETES Act, and especially,

that the President endorses so strongly.

Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman. And I just want to make

a comment before closing.

And it is, in part, Dr. Hays, a response to what I am reading between the lines in some of the testimony that you gave, and also,

the answers that you gave to some of the questions, and some of

the colloquy with Dr. Ehlers. And that is that you seem to be advocating for an all hazards approach, rather than this wind hazard

program, which has not received, it seems to me, either adequate

attention or adequate funding.

And I want to point out that it has been cited several times, both

by the witnesses, and by Dr. Ehlers, that the National Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Program at NIST is a success by many metrics,

that earthquake codes have responded, or have been changed all

156

around the country. And I will take into consideration what you

have had to say about taking an all hazards approach, but I do

want to point out that this authorizing legislation passed in 2004,

was bipartisan in its original sponsorship, was passed in a bipartisan manner through both chambers of this Congress, and was

signed by President Bush, and it is the law of the land. And if this

Congress passes the legislation again, I believe that what the witnesses have brought to light today, and the concerns of the Members of this subcommittee, are that whatever reauthorizing legislation we pass be implemented with heart and with resources, and

with thoughtfulness.

I know that we all work hard to serve this nation well, and as

we move forward in any reauthorization, we do want the future to

be an improvement on what has happened between 2004 and now,

with respect to this program.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for coming the distance and

testifying today. I appreciate that very, very much, and I understand that you know, one of our witnesses was unavoidably detained, as I have been numerous times in Chicago. And it is the

Bermuda Triangle of commercial flight, but I am sure that that is

a problem that we will work on and solve, eventually, also.

The record will remain open for additional statements from

Members, and for answers to any follow-up questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses. And with that, I again thank all

of the witnesses. I thank the Members for their participation, and

the witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(157)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

158

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Timothy A. Reinhold, Senior Vice President of Research and Chief Engineer, Institute for Business and Home Safety, Tampa, Florida

Questions submitted by Representative Phil Gingrey

Q1. In your testimonies, you and Dr. Levitan propose that Congress assign NIST as

the lead agency for NWIRP. How would designation of a lead agency improve

the performance of the program? What activities could NIST take as a lead

agency that cannot currently be done under the National Science and Technology Council coordination?

A1. Designation of a lead agency provides a permanent home for the program with

staffing, a web site, regular communication and a focused committed group who own

the program. That sort of leadership is easily lost with a coordination council. NIST

is, in our opinion, the correct agency to task with leadership of this program because

the heart of the program, if it is to be successful, is pre-event mitigation including:

retrofitting existing buildings and structures or improving the hazard resistance of

new buildings and structures through stronger building codes and standards, adequate enforcement, training and education; improved methods for evaluating the

hazard resistance of materials, components and systems; and finally improved methods for assessing the costs and benefits of all these activities.

While the activities and funding proposed for FEMA, NSF and NOAA, among others, all contribute to the bigger picture of adequately understanding the problems

and issues associated with windstorm damage and will help lead to successful solutions that reduce damage, injury and losses, the physical changes to our infrastructure are key to beginning to see actual reductions in losses. NIST is the appropriate

agency to conduct and fund the kind of applied research needed and to lead the necessary technology transfer. NSF does not typically fund applied research and will

not fund testing programs designed to develop databases needed to improve building

code provisions. FEMA typically has very little pre-event discretionary funding and

it does not have a strong research mission. NOAA is generally concerned about predicting and characterizing weather events; the kind of fluid structure interaction

that characterizes windstorm effects on buildings is outside its mission.

Despite inadequate funding, NIST has done a good job with management of the

National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program since it was assigned this responsibility. There would be some synergies and critical mass benefits to having both

programs managed by the same agency. We still see a role for the National Science

and Technology Council in coordinating and monitoring the activities of the various

agencies. However, we believe that having a single agency leading the effort to more

clearly focus the contributions of the various agency activities on the mitigation mission would be quite beneficial.

Q2. What are the linkages between wildfire damage and wind research and development? Can information gleaned from studying severe weather also improve our

ability to forecast wildfire movements?

A2. Not surprisingly, wind significantly changes the dynamics of wildfire spread

and creates conditions where firefighters have little control over the spread. Research being conducted by NIST and others suggests that the wind-structure interaction, which has long been recognized as important to wind loads, is also critically

important to the assessment of ignition risks and predicting wildfire spread. Close

to the Earth’s surface, the wind characteristics tend to be dominated by the interaction of the wind with topography, vegetation, buildings and structures. While

there may be some differences in flow characteristics because of the thermal effects

of the wildfire, as wind speeds increase, these differences are likely to be reduced.

Thus, we believe that analytical tools to understand the effects of turbulence on

wind-structure interaction will be useful for improving our ability to predict

vulnerabilities from multiple hazards that have a wind component.

Q3. Do any members of the IBHS provide a discount to homeowners, builders, or

businesses that adopt and use the latest building codes? With what professional

organizations do you coordinate during the development of your building codes?

What impact do your suggested codes have on the construction industry?

A3. All insurance companies writing wind-related property coverage in Florida provide some sort of discount for structures built using the most up-to-date building

codes. The amount of the discounts and the ways they are administered is left to

the discretion of the individual insurers. IBHS does not get involved in any underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:47 Nov 02, 2008 Jkt 043529 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\T&I08\072408\43529 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
159

writing discussions. We also have a number of State wind pools, as well as some

private insurers that have begun offering discounts for homes built using IBHS’ Fortified . . . for safer livingΤΜ criteria, which is actually ‘‘code plus.’’

We work with the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection

Agency on the development of their national consensus model building codes where

all stakeholders participate in the code development process. IBHS does not have

or maintain its own building code. We do have a voluntary ‘‘code plus’’ designation

where we have worked to establish a series of requirements that our analysis indicates will produce a superior building that will likely perform substantially better

than surrounding buildings when a major event occurs. A key element of that designation program is a design review and a series of inspections, which assures that

the key hazard resistant elements are actually built into the building as designed

and as required for the designation.

Frequently, stronger building codes and our ‘‘code plus’’ designation add to the

first costs of the building. However, we believe that those higher initial costs need

to be assessed in terms of the overall life cycle costs of ownership of the building

and the peace of mind and reduced chances of disruption to lives and the community

that are associated with the improved hazard resistance. Risk modeling companies

and various benefit-cost analyses for proposed strengthening of building code provisions have generally shown significant positive benefit-cost ratios for seismic and

windstorm upgrades.

The amounts of the benefits certainly vary depending on the building size, probabilities of occurrence of events of certain magnitudes and type of construction. We

believe that improving our ability to carry out robust benefit-cost studies should be

a key goal of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. Clear demonstrations and justification of the benefits will go a long way toward convincing a wide

variety of public and private entities that they should be valuing hazard resistant

construction and providing incentives to encourage construction of these types of

buildings.

160

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Marc L. Levitan, Director, Louisiana State University Hurricane Center; Charles P. Siess, Jr. Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University

Questions submitted by Representative Phil Gingrey

Q1. In your testimonies, you and Dr. Reinhold propose that Congress assign NIST

as the lead agency for NWIRP. How would designation of a lead agency improve

the performance of the program? What activities could NIST take as lead agency

that cannot currently be done under the National Science and Technology Council coordination?

A1. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the best choice

as a lead agency for NWIRP to improve performance of the program. NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory has a long history of research and technology

transfer in the study of wind hazards and wind hazard mitigation (the statements

of Drs. Hays and Reinhold for this hearing provide details on some of NIST’s recent

activities in support of the wind engineering).

Of the federal agencies involved in the NWIRP, NIST has the most standing within the engineering research and technology transfer community in the area of wind

hazard mitigation, making their leadership more effective than that of other agencies. NIST has the most interaction with industry and building codes and standards

activities, which are critical components to effective wind hazard mitigation.

The NWIRP is very similar in nature to the successful National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) for which NIST already serves as the lead agency. NEHRP program activities span the range of basic research, applied research,

and technology transfer and education, working with other government agencies,

universities, industry, and nonprofit research and technology transfer organizations.

The NWIRP program has a similar range of activities and partner agencies and organizations, so NIST can leverage its success leading the NEHRP into ramping up

activities of the NWIRP.

Since NIST has expertise and experience with basic research and applied research

and technology transfer in the area of building technologies, both in-house and

through management of externally funded projects, they are in a position do a better

job coordinating the overall NWIRP efforts than the current arrangements.

Question submitted by Representative Laura Richardson

Q1. Can you please provide recommendations on how the pipeline of engineers and

other professionals with wind hazard mitigation expertise can best be developed?

A1. Very simply, developing a pipeline of engineers and other design professionals

with wind hazard mitigation expertise is primarily dependent on availability of

funding for wind hazard mitigation research.

Students graduating with Bachelors or advanced degrees in civil engineering, architecture, and construction management today have little or no formal education

in wind hazards and mitigation. Much of the reason behind this phenomenon stems

from the current paucity of funding for wind-related research. The expertise to teach

the kind of classes and to develop the textbooks and curricular materials needed

generally resides in university faculty. There are only a small handful of faculty at

U.S. universities that currently work in the area of wind hazard mitigation, which

is directly correlated to research funding levels. If university faculty members cannot obtain funding in a certain area, they will not get promoted and tenured, so they

choose other areas for their research careers. With little research support available,

there are very few graduate students working in this area, so we are not effectively

training a new generation of faculty and research leaders.

Comparing this situation with earthquake hazard mitigation is very instructive.

The NEHRP has provided a significant level of research funding for years now, having a hugely effective impact on seismic hazard reduction. There are very active programs in earthquake research, education, training, and engineering practice, particularly in high seismic areas. There are many faculty active in earthquake engineering research and education, therefore reference books, textbooks, and training

materials for continuing professional education are widely available. Most civil engineering curricula on the west coast have required components and sometimes entire

courses in seismic design at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. One of the

end results of the NEHRP has been creation of a current generation of design professionals equipped with the fundamentals earthquake hazard reduction. Seismic

161

safety has become a critical component of every building and infrastructure project

that is conducted in the areas of high seismic risk in this country, one that is considered from the very start of the project. Contrast this with wind hazard mitigation, which in most cases is not considered as a design priority and the building

science professionals are not generally knowledgeable about it.

Ramping up funding levels for wind hazard mitigation research over the next several years and then maintaining it is the single most important step in building and

filling a ‘pipeline’ of new design professionals that can solve the Nation’s wind hazard problems. It will attract new faculty and graduate students to study in that

area, leading to publications and textbooks and new courses that work their way

into undergraduate curricula and continuing professional development for practicing

engineers and architects.

162

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Leslie Chapman–Henderson, President and CEO, Federal Alliance for

Safe Home, Inc.—FLASH

The information provided is based on our experience with input from many of the

partners in the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes, including, but not limited to, our

committee of technical construction experts and engineers from Georgia-Pacific,

Home Depot, SkyeTec, the National Storm Shelter Association, State Farm Insurance Companies, Louisiana State University, Simpson Strong-Tie, Institute for Business and Home Safety, and WHYork Consulting. The retrofitting solutions that are

referenced below have been tested through research at institutions including the

University of Florida, Florida International University, and Texas Tech.

Questions submitted by Representative Phil Gingrey

Q1. What is the state-of-the-art for retrofit technologies of older construction?

A1. State-of-the-art Retrofit Technologies—Seven key methods of retrofitting

older homes and protecting vulnerable areas have been researched and tested for

their effectiveness. Today, these methods represent the best practices for state-ofthe-art windstorm mitigation in the built environment. They include the following:

1) Roof Deck and Attachment: Install a roof deck of solid plywood five-eighths

inches to maximize wind and wind-borne debris resistance with 10 penny

common or eight penny ring shank nails spaced at six inches along the panel

edges and every six inches in the field of the plywood panel. The nails must

penetrate the decking directly into the roof framing, and a visual inspection

from the attic should confirm that the roof decking is properly nailed to the

roof framing.

2) Secondary Water Barrier: Create a secondary water barrier by installing selfadhering flashing tape or modified polymer bitumen strips on top of the

joints in the roof deck. This measure keeps out the rain in the event the roof

covering is damaged or destroyed by severe weather. Install a layer of 30#

underlayment, or felt paper, over the decking and secondary water barrier.

The felt helps with drainage in the event water gets under the roof covering.

3) Roof Covering: Install a roof covering that has been tested to the latest

standards for wind and impact resistance. These standards are ASTM D

3161 (modified to 110MPH) or UL 2390 for wind resistance and UL 2218 for

impact resistance. Adhesives can significantly increase the roofs resistance

to uplift from the wind by applying a bead of premium construction adhesive

inside the attic using a caulking gun along both sides of the intersection of

the roof decking and the rafters or trusses. We recommend an adhesive that

successfully meets APA AFG–01 or ASTM D 3498.

4) Roof Shape and Bracing Gables Ends: A hip roof typically performs better

in windstorms than a gabled roof because of its aerodynamic properties and

typical construction techniques. For gable end wall construction, there are

two construction techniques that should be followed—Continuous Wall Construction, or Balloon Framing, and Platform Framing. Continuous Wall Construction uses full-height studs, concrete or solid masonry walls from the

floor all the way up to the roof. Platform Framing is another option. Platform framing braces the intersection of the gable and the end wall as this

intersection is a particularly weak point and those that are not properly

braced can collapse. If the wall collapses, wind and wind-driven rain can

enter the home causing major damage. In older homes with attics, an attic

floor or ceiling diaphragm can be braced and retrofitted in some cases to provide the lateral support of the gable end wall if the end wall is not framed

full height.

5) Roof-to-Wall Connections: To make sure the roof stays in place in high wind,

securely anchor the roof to wall by installing hurricane straps or clips at

every wall-to-rafter (or truss) connection to reinforce the roof. These connections are critical in holding the roof together and will dramatically increase

the home’s overall resistance to wind. The connectors should be installed

under the manufacturer’s specifications.

6) Opening Protection: Protecting home’s openings such as windows and doors

from penetration from wind-borne debris can be done by installing code-approved impact-resistant windows and doors or installing impact-resistant

coverings, such as shutters over windows and doors. Impact-resistant glass

163

and shutters are specifically designed to meet a combination of impact from

wind-borne debris and continuous pressure from the wind.

Impact resistant windows usually consist of a clear plastic-like film sandwiched between two specially-treated pieces of glass, giving the window

greater strength than glass alone. Equally important as the strength of the

glass is the strength of the window’s frame. An impact resistant window is

tested as a unit that includes the glass, the frame, as well as the attachment hardware and the installation method. A variety of products have been

brought to market that have been tested to research-based standards and

have been designated as such through a recognized product approval system

or evaluation report. Recognized ratings include are SBCCI SSTD 12; ASTM

E 1886 and ASTM E 1996; and Miami-Dade Protocols PA 201, PA 202, and

PA 203.

7) Doors: Exterior doors should be wind and impact resistant or protected with

an impact resistant covering. Garage doors are particularly vulnerable to

high winds because of the long span of opening they cover and the relatively

light weight material they are made of. Two options are available for the

strengthening garage doors. One option is to replace the door track with a

system that is designed to withstand high winds and wind-borne debris. The

other is to protect the garage door with a tested and approved impact resistant covering.

Q2. What are the costs of those changes for an average house built in 1970?

A2. Average Costs for Retrofit Technologies—The information below shows estimated costs for improvements on homes built in 1970 or before using the retrofitting technologies for older homes. This data was collected through the My Safe

Florida Home program, administered by the Florida Department of Financial Services, with actual retrofit numbers and pricing. In the course of conducting free wind

inspections, My Safe Florida Home estimated that it examined 4,315 homes that

were built in 1970 or before. The average age of all the homes inspected under the

program in 2007 was 26 years, with an average insured value of $238,000.

Interior roof deck attachment (installed on the underside of the roof via the attic)—

$3,754

Exterior roof deck attachment (installed when home is being re-roofed)—$201

Interior secondary water barrier (installed on the underside of the roof via the

attic)—$4,527

Exterior secondary water barrier (installed between the roof deck and roof cover)—

$784

Upgrading roof covering—$2,177

Bracing gable-end walls—$576

Reinforcing roof-to-wall connections—$1,823

Standard protection for entry door—$764

Standard protection for gable end vent—$84

Standard protection for garage door—$1,263

Standard protection for skylight—$739

Standard protection for sliding glass door—$1,611

Standard protection for window—$279

Permanently attached protection for entry door—$764

Permanently attached protection for gable end vent—$84

Permanently attached protection for garage door—$1,263

Permanently attached protection for skylight—$739

Permanently attached protection for sliding glass door—$1,611

Permanently attached protection for window—$723

Permanently deployed protection for entry door—$696

Permanently deployed protection for garage door—$1,263

Permanently deployed protection for skylight—$739

Permanently deployed protection for sliding glass door—$4,692

Permanently deployed protection for window—$1,771

Source: My Safe Florida Home Program

164

Original program cost estimates were established via a survey and analysis that

looked statewide at pricing estimates for each retrofit option covered by the My Safe

Florida Home Program. The pricing information was obtained from sources including:

• Garage door manufacturers and suppliers

• Impact-rated window manufacturers

• International Hurricane Protection Association data

• Data from Manufacturers of both standard and non-standard shutter products

• Local building contractors regarding specific retrofits such as soffit replacement, roof-to-wall connections, and gable end bracing

• Roofing Contractors and the Florida Roofing, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Association (FRSA) for roof covering prices for cost per

square foot of openings for protection, roofing, and specified retrofits of wall

or gable ends

• Department of Financial Services Statewide Construction Pricing List

As stated above, the My Safe Florida Home now uses actual grant costs on home

improvements to maintain current cost estimates and uses data collected from approximately 400,000 completed home inspections performed from 2006 to 2008.

Q3. Can we confidently calculate the cost and benefits of retrofit technologies currently?

A3. Cost Benefits Ratios for Retrofit Technologies—We believe that we can

confidentially calculate the costs and benefits of retrofit technologies currently available. One measure of financial cost benefit ratios may be established by calculating

the savings to homeowners that may be achieved through the lower insurance premiums offered when a home’s storm-resistance rating is improved. By law, all licensed insurance companies in Florida must offer discounts on premiums for hurricane-strengthening features. In a report released in February 2008, My Safe Florida

Home reported that retrofitting an average home with $3,748 in improvements

yielded an average discount on wind premiums of 24 percent. Of 393,446 homes inspected to date, 226,368—57 percent—were eligible for an average savings of $218

dollars off their wind insurance premium annually. Of all homes that were awarded

grant funds to protect all openings, the average increase in strength to the home

as measured by the hurricane resistance rating scale was 36 percent, or 16 points.

Another method of calculating costs and benefits is to conduct a statistical analysis of the economic and social losses that may be avoided through mitigation. These

losses may include direct property damage, business interruption, human losses,

and the cost of emergency response.

The Multi-hazard Mitigation Council (MMC) of the National Institute of Building

Sciences released an independent study in 2005 that quantified the future savings

from hazard mitigation, looking at hazard mitigation activities related to earthquake, wind and flood funded through three mitigation grant programs—the Hazard

Mitigation Grant Program, Project Impact, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. The study was in response to a mandate by the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee for the Veterans Administration, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, and Independent Agencies of the 106th Congress (Senate Report 106–161).

The final MMC report, ‘‘Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study

to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities,’’ looked separately at earthquake, wind and flood mitigation, providing a cost-benefit analysis for each threat.

The study considered both ‘‘project’’ mitigation—physical measures to reduce damage—and ‘‘process’’ mitigations—which include activities such as assessment, education and efforts to foster stronger building codes.

With regard to wind mitigation activities, the MMC findings were that property

loss benefits can be significant, with reductions measuring up to four times the cost

of the retrofit. The total benefit-cost ratio of wind hazard mitigation was 3.9—much

higher than the 1.5 benefit-cost ratio of earthquake mitigation. The MMC study

looked at community-wide benefits, taking into account impacts including human

losses, economic loss, direct property damage, business interruption, and government costs including emergency response.

While existing data clearly points to a favorable benefit-cost ratio for wind hazard

mitigation, there are areas that may be further explored in future efforts. Areas for

further study may include a benefit-cost analysis specific to residential structures,

estimating cost-benefit ratios for specific retrofitting measures or techniques. Relatively inexpensive measures to protect the integrity of structures may have enorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:47 Nov 02, 2008 Jkt 043529 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\T&I08\072408\43529 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
165

mous incremental benefits—for example, the loss of a roof in a windstorm can easily

lead to a total loss of the structure, which may be prevented by a few relatively inexpensive retrofitting techniques.

Q4. If not, what needs to be done to improve our understanding?

A4. Expanding Cost Benefit Information—We believe that the current financial

cost-benefit information, while reliable, can and should be expanded through ongoing efforts in all the states facing wind hazards as different local market conditions,

construction costs and insurance regulatory laws can affect the cost and feasibility

of wind retrofitting activities. This could be accomplished through expanded market

level research leveraging the readily available data on actual improvement costs

along with data collected on the age and resistance of the current housing inventories. These efforts could be expedited in hurricane-affected markets like Alabama,

Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. This additional market research would likely

yield an enhanced picture of the current built environment and its vulnerability to

the wind hazards including hurricanes and tornadoes.

Further, we urge the Committee to consider an investment in expanded applied

research to support further refinement of retrofitting techniques. This investment

in research and testing of construction techniques could introduce enhanced efficiency and cost savings that will positively impact cost benefit calculations.

Finally, we urge that cost benefit always be viewed, first and foremost, in the context of life safety and injury prevention while recognizing financial benefits as an

essential but secondary benefit. The recent losses of thousands of lives as both direct

and indirect outcomes of hurricanes and tornadoes are stark reminders of the essential nature of reducing windstorm threats at any cost.

We applaud the Committee for this critical examination. We thank you for your

commitment to solving the critical issue of wind hazard reduction, and we are

standing by if we may be of any additional service.

(167)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

168

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY A. REINHOLD

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND CHIEF ENGINEER

INSTITUTE FOR BUSINESS & HOME SAFETY

TAMPA, FLORIDA

Chairman Wu and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dr. Tim Reinhold.

I am the Senior Vice President of Research and Chief Engineer for the Institute for

Business & Home Safety (IBHS), which is a nonprofit initiative of the U.S. propertycasualty insurance industry dedicated to reducing property losses of all types. Our

members write 87 percent of the property-casualty business in the country. Our research and mitigation messages are focused on earthquakes, wildfire, high-winds,

hurricanes, freezing weather, and flooding. We are specifically involved in windstorm impact reduction through:

• research and testing;

• communications;

• outreach and education;

• building code development and adoption;

• data collection and analysis; and

• promotion of incentives for mitigation and disaster resistant construction.

Our members have clearly recognized the need for, and potential benefits of, significant new investments that target hazard-related research and focus on physical

mitigation of buildings and structures. In response to that need, the IBHS Board

of Directors this spring authorized construction of a major new independent research laboratory for which we are currently involved in a $40 million capital fundraising campaign. A central element of the laboratory will be a windstorm simulation facility capable of reproducing a variety of conditions ranging from hurricane

winds and wind-driven rain, wind-blown hail, and wind-driven wildfire effects.

In addition, our members have voted to significantly increase our operating budget over the next few years. Beyond this direct investment in our own efforts, IBHS

members clearly recognize the need for additional federal investments in basic and

particularly applied research related to natural hazards and mitigation efforts. Specifically, IBHS as well as a number of our member companies have supported the

‘‘National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program’’ and IBHS provided testimony

during the hearings that led to its initial authorization. It is unfortunate that no

funds were ever appropriated for that program.

Risks and Vulnerability

Over the past decades, with the exception of Hurricane Katrina, we have seen

dramatic drops in the loss of life during hurricanes due to better warning and evacuation systems. Warning times for tornadoes have improved in many parts of the

country through the extended use of Doppler radar, and we are seeing increasing

numbers of people being evacuated in areas threatened by wildfire. In contrast to

the reductions in loss of life, we have seen dramatic increases in property losses as

our nation concentrates more and more of its population and wealth along our vulnerable coastlines and in areas with greater risks for wildfires. It has been estimated that some 60 percent of the new homes built in the 1990s (about 8.4 million

houses) were located in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), and are at increased

risk of damage from wildfires. Furthermore, fully 50 percent of the U.S. population

now lives within 50 miles of the coast, and one-third of housing units within the

contiguous U.S. are currently located within the WUI.

As a result of this increased population density in vulnerable areas, we are certainly not immune to a large loss of life in a future hurricane event. Many experts

are concerned that a fast developing and fast moving hurricane could produce a

large loss of life among people trapped in traffic jams associated with attempts to

evacuate too many people in too short a time. Ultimately, we are not likely to be

able to provide enough evacuation capacity and warning time to handle the demands if population growth continues unabated. Many emergency managers would

argue that we have already passed the point where mass evacuation is viable in

many of the more vulnerable areas. We are also seeing large numbers of people

being evacuated in front of fast-moving wildfires and have already reached the point

where more people die on the roads trying to evacuate before wildfires strike than

die in buildings that burn during the wildfires.

To counter the evacuation risks and the dramatic increases in property losses

from hurricanes, we desperately need to build stronger and safer homes and businesses resistant to windstorm effects, including water intrusion. Stronger, storm-reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:47 Nov 02, 2008 Jkt 043529 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\T&I08\072408\43529 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
169

sistant buildings will mean that coastal inhabitants, who are not in vulnerable

structures or in inundation areas where evacuation is mandatory, will not need to

evacuate. In addition, property losses will be reduced and the resiliency of our communities will dramatically improve. Post-storm analysis of building performance following the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons has clearly demonstrated that modern

engineering-based design of buildings is reducing structural damage and economic

losses.

However, water intrusion and interior damage is still causing many people to be

displaced from their structurally sound buildings. Unfortunately, the large inventory

of properties built without any building code requirements, or using earlier inadequate codes, continues to dominate the losses whenever a storm strikes. Improved

analytical tools and test methods are needed that will allow more cost-effective design for new buildings and that address water intrusion issues. Significant research

is needed to address risks for existing buildings, which should include development

of analytical tools and test methods to support both development and evaluation

cost-effective mitigation measures.

Similarly, we need a better understanding of wildfire risks and better methods

for predicting wildfire spread and community performance. There are clear indications from community assessments following recent wildfires that it is possible to

design and maintain fire resistant communities. However, the assessment of risk

factors still needs significant improvement. Current modeling efforts within NOAA,

NIST, the U.S. Fire Service and academia need additional support. Again, the research should target the assessment of risks to existing buildings and the development of analytical tools and test methods that will support both the development

and evaluation of cost-effective mitigation measures for individual properties and for

community approaches to reducing risks.

Other types of windstorms, including strong thunderstorms and tornadoes, routinely represent a large portion of annual losses across our nation. While there are

no clear indications that the total number of tornadoes or the strength of tornadoes

is increasing, the expansion of urban and suburban areas means that the chances

of a major storm affecting homes and businesses continues to increase. Building

codes have tended to stay away from prescribing strengthening of buildings to resist

tornadoes because the chance that a particular building will be struck are below the

risk threshold usually used by building codes to prescribe minimum design requirements. Key goals for personal protection can be expressed as creating a safe place

and providing time to get there before a tornado strikes. Nevertheless, some highvalue properties are being specifically designed with these events in mind, and the

International Code Council recently developed a shelter design standard that addresses design of both tornado and hurricane resistant shelters. The potential for

large tornadoes to affect large portions of communities or a whole community have

been driven home in recent years by the Oklahoma City tornado and the Greenburg,

Kansas, tornado.

When it comes to the general population of buildings, there are clear indications

that modest strengthening of connections could reduce structural damage in the

more frequent weaker tornadoes. About 87 percent of the land area affected by tornadoes or other thunderstorm-related wind events experience nominal wind speeds

below those associated with a moderate hurricane. Even the most intense EF–4 or

EF–5 tornadoes produce large variations in wind speeds, with significant areas

around the periphery of the storm being affected by lower wind speeds. There are

clearly differences in the wind structure of these storms. NOAA and NOAA/NSF

funded academic research to investigate the structure of these storms is needed.

NIST and NSF funded research is also needed to investigate the corresponding

wind-structure interaction. This research is needed to assess the implications for design of building components, connections and systems when additional protection is

desired.

Experience over the past several decades and projections for the future all indicate that damage and losses from hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires are all expected to increase. Most of that growth is related to increased concentration of population and property values in risky areas. Improvements in the design and construction of new homes and communities, and the implementation of mitigation measures

for existing buildings and communities, are the most effective means for actually decreasing the losses and impacts on communities. Improved predictive tools for communicating risk and for providing advance warning so that last-minute preparations

can be taken and safe evacuation accomplished also play an important role.

Mitigation Research

As indicated above, a major emphasis of future research should be on developing

improved predictive tools and test methods that address the specific characteristics

170

and risks of each of the hazards. Progress has clearly been made in defining general

problems and vulnerabilities; but, as we move to the level of a specific community

and then to a specific structure, predictive tools lose their ability to address specific

vulnerabilities, to assign loss estimates to those vulnerabilities and to establish

clear cost-benefit estimates for mitigation measures.

In order to better assess various mitigation measures and to establish priorities,

significant research is needed that will enhance existing or develop new test methods, analytical tools and system approaches to integrating the vulnerability assessments. Given the state-of-the-art, I would suggest an almost equal investment of resources in short-term and long-term efforts. There will have to be a coupling between knowledge gained from research into the nature of the risks with analytical

tools and test methods to assure that the salient physical factors are adequately included.

Parallel efforts can be effective. We need to revisit and carefully review current

test methods and analytical tools in light of recent observations from post-event assessments. This will assure that any limitations and possible relationships between

laboratory or computer simulations and field experience are clearly defined. At the

same time, additional research is clearly needed on the nature of the threats posed

by the different hazards and of the physical characteristics that are potentially important to performance of buildings when they are exposed to the hazards.

A major emphasis of the research should be directed towards system effects and

system performance so that the roles of various vulnerabilities can be properly assessed within an overall performance-based analysis. The research should focus on

more complete definition of the phenomenon involved in the basic hazards and on

the interaction of those hazards with the built environment. Initial high-level assessment and tools can help in the short-term, but ultimately, the assessments and

tools must be built upon a very granular foundation that properly accounts for individual elements within the context of the system performance.

Case studies and demonstration projects, similar to those employed in building

energy research, should be a part of the program. Durability and performance in

extreme events after years of exposure to the elements must be factored into assessment of products and systems. We must move beyond assessments that are limited

to new unused products and account for the effects of aging.

Much of the private industry research and development as it applies to wind hazards has focused on meeting existing test standards so that products can obtain

product approvals necessary to allow their use in building construction. There are

some ongoing efforts to look at new test methods and performance issues within

government laboratories and academic institutions and to some extent by industry

associations.

Implementation of the National Wind Impact Reduction Program

In a real sense, the National Wind Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) has never

been implemented in any meaningful way because no funds were ever appropriated

for the program. Nevertheless, there has been some progress in windstorm-related

research through activities of individual agencies using existing authority and budgets and through several earmarks that have directed budgeted resources to academic organizations at the expense of agency activities and priorities. Significant

advances include the measurement of meteorological parameters in hurricanes,

around the periphery of tornadoes, and in wildfire regions and in improving the understanding of wind loads and wind effects. However, these efforts have been fragmented and of limited scale due to lack of resources. Consequently, they have generally not provided the level of detailed information needed to significantly improve

our understanding of all of the important parameters or significantly improve assessment tools or modeling of the events.

Some specific examples are described below. FEMA has produced a series of best

practice documents following some of the major hurricanes and other windstorm

events and has developed a powerful general risk assessment tool through HAZUS–

MH. However, significant work is still needed before it will be particularly useful

for evaluating individual properties. NIST has been working on a database assisted

tool for improving the assessment of wind loads on structures that should be an important resource for improving load definitions in future editions of the model building codes. NIST also has been working on a detailed model of wildfires that includes

the kind of detailed granular structure needed to create a useful predictive tool.

Again, this tool may have its greatest use in improving future wildfire related building code requirements and in the assessment of mitigation measures.

NIST-related earmarks have funded research initiatives at Texas Tech University

and for one year at a consortium of universities that included Clemson University,

the University of Florida and Virginia Tech. The research conducted through these

171

earmarks have contributed to improved understanding of wind loads and wind characteristics that are beginning to find their way into proposed building code changes.

The NSF has funded a number of research initiatives, including one through PATH

funding that has targeted water intrusion research. NOAA has been continuing its

work on forecast enhancements and through earmarks has funded some of the landbased deployments of instruments to measure wind conditions in hurricanes. The

National Sea Grant Program of NOAA also has funded a number of research efforts

aimed at improving the resilience of coastal properties and the evaluation of mitigation options for existing buildings.

There has been some level of coordination of these various research activities between individual agencies and in particular between researchers at the various

agencies. For example, NSF has funded the water intrusion research through funding associated with HUD’s PATH program using jointly established priorities. NIST

is working with NOAA and with the U.S. Fire Service on its modeling of wildfire

risks. However, there has not been the level of coordination originally envisioned by

a fully developed and fully funded NWIRP.

As Congress looks towards reauthorization of the NWIRP, we would suggest that

it concentrate the efforts in three areas.

• The first is development of enhanced understanding of the events, including

better definition of parameters that are important to the design and performance of the built environment. For hurricanes, this can include ability to forecast tracks and intensities of events, but it should go beyond that to include

characterization of storm characteristics such as wind turbulence, gust structure, and wind-driven rain characteristics and quantity. For wildfires, it

would include the influence of topography and terrain roughness on the local

wind climate, turbulence associated with the flow, and influence of burning

vegetation and houses on winds in a community. For tornadoes, it could include better definition of the wind field near the ground surface.

• The second area is research directed at better understanding and modeling

of the interaction of the events with the built environment. For hurricanes,

this would include the influence of wind characteristics and water droplet size

distributions on wind loads and water intrusion, respectively. For wildfire, it

would include the influence of wind on ignition points, fire intensity and heat

transfer, as well as the ability of firefighters to influence the risks. For tornadoes, it would include the influence of the wind field characteristics on wind

loads and a better understanding of the required strength of components and

connections to resist these loads and effects.

• The third area is the research aimed at improving building codes, developing

effective mitigation measures and analysis tools to improve design efficiency

as well as assess the benefits of mitigation measures or design requirements

on both component and system performance. This research also should target

the resilience of transportation and lifelines systems as they are essential to

the quick recovery of individuals and communities.

We would suggest that the legislation designate a lead agency and provide more

balance in the suggested funding that will emphasize the mitigation-related research efforts. Ultimately, we need to reduce the losses and disruptions that accompany these events in order to protect our citizens and stabilize our communities and

economy. The NWIRP should have as its core focus activities which support that

mission. Consequently, from our perspective, NIST should be the lead agency but

funding and coordination should extend at least to NOAA, NSF, FEMA, HUD and

the FHWA.

Technology Transfer

The main obstacles to widespread implementation of windstorm mitigation techniques in new and existing structures relate directly to issues of complacency, education, research and demonstration of cost effectiveness of the measures. Throughout the country, homeowners are, in general, complacent about their exposure to extreme windstorms or they believe there is little that can be done to provide protection from the most intense storms where people frequently are killed or injured.

People who live in central Florida have typically said that the real risk is in South

Florida, or the Panhandle. Likewise, builders and legislators who live and work in

the Florida Panhandle think that they are protected by a shelf of cooler water off

their coast and that the real risk in the Keys or in the Carolinas. A major problem

is that the typical return periods between major storms is such that people do not

think it will happen to them.

172

Because of this low perception of threat from windstorms, consumers are less likely to spend the money required to make their homes more resistant to windstorms—

especially when they can spend their money on upgrades they can enjoy everyday

like granite counter tops and hardwood floors. The competition to spend extra

money on home improvements rarely results in mitigation efforts winning out.

There is a fundamental need to create reliable tools that will provide accurate estimates of the benefits of mitigation measures as well as the costs. There is also a

critical need for social science research to help guide the mitigation programs so

that solutions are also implemented.

Lack of data and research on the benefits of mitigation and strong building codes

also poses a barrier to the implementation of mitigation measures. The data that

insurers collect as a part of the claims process following a major wind event relates

mainly to documenting the damage that the policyholder needs compensation for

and making sure the insured is compensated according to the policy coverage in a

timely manner. The role of the insurance adjustor in such a scenario is to document,

estimate and pay or arrange for payment of covered expenses. Typically there are

extreme time constraints placed on the adjustors and the companies they represent

to review properties and act on claims in a short timeframe. Given these responsibilities, it becomes too onerous (particularly in a catastrophe when large amounts of

disaster victims need to begin their recovery) to expect that the adjustor would be

able to determine and document the actual causes of loss and identify mitigation

measures that could have prevented or reduced the damage. Because of this, insurance data alone provides little insight into the impact that wind mitigation can have

on total losses.

In order to produce meaningful data to assess the effect of windstorm mitigation

activities, several things need to be known. First, the actual wind speed and the

characteristics of the wind that the building was exposed to needs to be known.

Then, details as to what parts of the building failed due to excessive wind force need

to be documented and most probable causes of initiation of failure need to be identified. By comparing the wind speed with a careful study of the failures, researchers

can begin to make credible quantifications of the potential benefits of windstorm

mitigation.

Unfortunately, many of the NOAA Automatic Surface Observing Systems (ASOS)

lose power and stop recording or reporting wind speed data during severe wind

storms. There is a clear national need to harden these systems and provide backup

power so that NOAA and all those affected by these storms have better data on surface winds in various areas impacted by the storms.

A number of barriers to constructing stronger and safer structures also relate to

the adoption and enforcement of building codes and standards.

• First, a large number of local communities throughout the Nation have not

adopted any building codes and standards for residential construction.

• Second, a large majority of local communities have not adopted the latest

model building codes without any local amendments that weaken the model

provisions.

• Third, while there is more widespread adoption of model building codes and

standards for commercial properties, there are again many local jurisdictions

where code adoption is non-existent or woefully out-of-date.

Uniform and strong enforcement is another key issue, even in local communities

that have adopted the latest standards. This lack of uniformity in the baseline for

construction of homes and businesses means that the performance of buildings is

less predictable and the levels of risk vary dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We find that responsible builders have difficulties competing in areas where

there are no building codes, which leads to building to the lowest denominator. Furthermore, we see national builders building differently in areas with identical design wind speeds, simply because the local building code adopted in a particular

area does not require the same level of construction as the national model building

code being enforced in the other area. All too often, the local building code is treated

as the maximum rather than the minimum.

While issues of States’ rights and local authority generally keep federal agencies

from trying to mandate building codes, except for federal buildings, there are opportunities for the Federal Government to initiate a number of incentives that would

encourage states to adopt and enforce statewide building codes without local amendments that weaken the minimum requirements. For example, FEMA could use the

adoption and enforcement of statewide building codes as criteria for providing additional pre- and post-disaster mitigation funds to states. Federal mortgage agencies

173

could provide lower interest rates or lower fees for mortgages on properties built to

the latest building codes and standards.

Finally, many of the test and evaluation methods available for assessing the windstorm performance and durability of materials, components and systems fall short

in reproducing the true nature of the loads and effects of severe windstorms and/

or the effects of environmental factors on aging and associated degradation of windstorm resistance. Federal agencies can play an important role in funding research

and developing facilities that will allow the more realistic simulation of windstorm

loads and effects, and in the development of tools and facilities for assessing the effects of aging. Some efforts along these lines have been supported through the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) through research and grants

initiated by the National Institute for Standards and Technology and the National

Science Foundation. Much more work is needed.

Conclusion

Windstorms and other natural disasters happen every year in the United States,

and impact thousands of homeowners and businesses. Yet we do know how to build

homes and commercial structures so that the losses and damage caused by natural

disasters are significantly reduced. Ongoing research teaches us more every year,

and ongoing communication and public education has the potential to reduce losses

every year. All of the stakeholders can contribute to the creation of a climate where

hazard resistant construction is valued and demanded and where a myriad of incentives are offered that will encourage local communities and states to build hazard

resistant communities that become known for their resiliency in the face of severe

windstorms or other natural and manmade hazards.

There are clear opportunities for the Federal Government to support research and

the removal of barriers to the development of hazard resistant construction. We believe that the best road forward is through a coordinated multi-agency research initiative with significant new funds under the umbrella of the NWIRP.

Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR TIMOTHY A. REINHOLD

Tim Reinhold joined the Institute for Business & Home Safety in 2004, as Director of Engineering and Vice President. He was promoted to Senior Vice President

of Research and Chief Engineer in 2008. Prior to joining IBHS, Dr. Reinhold was

a professor of Civil Engineering at Clemson University for 12 years.

His professional career includes ten years as a consulting engineer with firms in

the U.S., Canada and Denmark, and five years at the National Institute for Standards and Technology. He earned BS, MS and Ph.D. degrees in Engineering Mechanics from Virginia Tech in 1973, 1975 and 1978, respectively.

Dr. Reinhold has conduced research on wind effects and structural resistance for

most of his professional career. In addition to directing numerous studies to determine wind loads for tall buildings and specialty structures, he has been heavily involved in research relating to the performance of housing and low buildings in hurricanes and other severe wind events.

His research includes post event assessments, model and full-scale laboratory

studies, and in situ field structural testing. Dr. Reinhold serves on the American

Society of Civil Engineers ASCE 7 Committee, the ASCE 7 Wind Loads Subcommittee and the ASCE 7 General Requirements Subcommittee.

He also served for about eight years on the Southern Building Code Congress

International (SBCCI) Wind Load Subcommittee and is currently a member of the

Board of Directors for the American Association for Wind Engineering. He has authored or co-authored numerous journal papers, chapters of books and conference

publications.

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

STATEMENT OF DR. 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, urges Congress to

promptly pass legislation to reauthorize 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 holding a hearing on this nationally important topic. FIU strongly urges Congress to take prompt action so that

reauthorization of this Act can occur during the 110th Congress before its 2008 authorization expiration.

We are heartened, thanks to the efforts of Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)

and Dennis Moore (KS) that the FY ’08 Commerce, Justice Science Appropriation

Conference Report includes $11.3 million to implement the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act. We are disappointed that neither the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor

the National Science Foundation have chosen to fund the Act as directed by the

Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee, presumably due to budget shortfalls and different priorities. FIU strongly urges the Committee to advise

these agencies of the importance of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act

and to make implementation of the 2004 law a high agency priority. Likewise, FIU

strongly believes in the need for coordinated programs at the federal level to reduce

the impacts of hurricanes and other windstorms.

If a hurricane of the same category as Hurricane Andrew (which hit South Florida in 1992) would hit Miami directly, it would be a $100+ billion disaster, comparable

to the physical damage New York suffered as a result of 9/11. While the size of the

national hurricane mitigation research program that the National Science Board

outlined is significant, it only represents one percent of the present value of the

damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. Our research shows that funding for a strong,

coherent and united research agenda could lead to significant loss reductions in

structural damage as well as lives saved.

Florida International University—Miami’s public research university—established

in 1972, has more than 38,000 students, almost 1,100 full-time faculty and more

than 124,000 graduates, making it the largest university in South Florida and placing it among the Nation’s 25 largest colleges and universities. FIU offers more than

200 baccalaureate, Master’s and doctoral degree programs in 21 colleges and

schools. Research is emphasized as a major component of its mission. The University is ranked as a Research University in the High Research Activity category of

the Carnegie Foundation’s prestigious classification system. FIU’s College of Law received full accreditation in 2006, and it led all universities in the state with the

highest pass rate of 94.4 percent on the 2007 statewide Florida Bar Examination.

In the Fall of 2009 we will be welcoming our first medical school class.

FIU is an active member of the national 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, largely as it relates to hurricanes. Before commenting on the need to

reauthorize the 2004 National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, I wish to acquaint you with the work underway at the International Hurricane Research Center

and to explain why it is in the national interest, and indeed the interest of the Federal Government, to support the development and implementation of a rational research strategy, focusing on the reduction of future hurricane and other windstorm

damage.

INTERNATIONAL HURRICANE RESEARCH CENTER

The International Hurricane Research Center (IHRC) at Florida International

University (FIU) conducts basic and applied multi-disciplinary scientific research to

reduce the potential for damage from hurricane impacts to the 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, 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 FlorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:47 Nov 02, 2008 Jkt 043529 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\T&I08\072408\43529 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
193

ida 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 programs, benefit not only Florida and specific

countries in the Caribbean and Latin America, but every hurricane vulnerable community in the USA and abroad. These 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 buildings under hurricane conditions. IHRC researchers have developed an innovative full-scale

structural testing facility—the Wall of Wind—to determine inherent weaknesses of structures when subjected to hurricane-force winds and rain. This

research facility, the first-of-its-kind, will revolutionize our building construction and retrofitting practices. (Funded by Florida Department of Community

Affairs, Florida Division of Emergency Management, National Science Foundation, Florida Sea Grant, Renaissance Reinsurance Holdings, Ltd, and AIR

Worldwide.)

• Development of a public domain hurricane loss model to assess risk and estimate potential losses. This integrated catastrophe (Cat) model is particularly

useful to insurers, re-insurers, regulators as well as the financial and housing

industries. The model includes newly-developed knowledge databases and an

updated wind field model. (Funded by Florida Office of Insurance Regulation.)

• Implementation of a windstorm simulation and modeling. This project focuses

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

and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.)

• Assessment of beach erosion, sea level rise impacts and coastal vulnerability.

This project uses high-resolution elevation data and modeling to assess coastal vulnerability at specific locations. (Funded by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.)

• Assessment of social consequences and the human impact of hurricanes. Evaluation of how various social factors such as demographics, socioeconomic 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, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Florida Division of 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 Developing a Culture of Mitigation

through education projects and television programs.

WINDSTORM VS. EARTHQUAKE RESEARCH

The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program of 2004 is similar in many

respects to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which is regularly

reauthorized by this committee and funded by Congress. However, hurricanes and

other windstorms 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 other windstorms and the damage

they cause underscore our vulnerability to this awesome force of nature. Hurricanes

alone cause tens of billions of dollars in damage annually, which represent 65 percent of insured losses from natural hazards in the U.S. over the past half century.

Inexplicably, the Federal Government has focused on earthquake research and mitigation with comparable little funding for hurricanes. FIU urges Congress to recognize the significant damage caused by hurricanes and other windstorms each year

and to similarly make research and mitigation for these natural disasters a high

priority.

Extreme hurricane events in recent years (i.e., Andrew, 1992; Opal, 1995;

Floyd, 1999; Ivan, 2004; and Katrina, 2005) have, with an increasing sense

194

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 highlight the dynamic nature of our

vulnerability to hurricanes and the urgency of the problem. 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 and other windstorms. 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 construction practices can

only be achieved through increased research, vulnerability assessments,

education and outreach. Hurricane and other windstorm 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, 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 future hurricane and other

windstorm damage. Building upon current programs and other initiatives with

shared objectives, this strategy will be based on leading academic research centers

with the single focused goal of reducing the cost of hurricane impacts 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 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, multi-disciplinary cooperative research effort—the Florida Hurricane Alliance. This coordinated effort was launched in 2004 with funding from NOAA.

RATIONALE FOR REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 2004 IMPACT REDUCTION PROGRAM

Florida International University believes that reauthorization of the National

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program of 2004 is essential as 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.

Hurricanes alone have resulted in tens of billions of dollars in damages annually

on average over the last decade, and currently there is insufficient funding to reduce

these levels of impacts, which will likely increase. FIU is concerned that because

no new 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 now just 13 years in a 20- to 30-year

cycle of increased Atlantic hurricane activity, FIU is concerned that funding for national windstorm and hurricane research and mitigation will become even more insufficient at a time when the losses from hurricanes and other windstorms will be

increasing in the future years. FIU strongly encourages the Committee to authorize

new funding for the wind hazard program. We believe that federal investment in

this program will pay large dividends in the near-term. For example, the cost of

Hurricane Andrew, which hit South Florida over 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 will lead to a significant reduction of this figure. We view

reauthorization of this Act 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, and linking disaster recovery to mitigation. Lessons learned from the

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program have proved the importance of research

into socioeconomic issues as essential to a successful hazard reduction program.

We support the Act’s provision to establish a national advisory committee and are

anxious to participate with the other key sectors to develop a comprehensive naVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:47 Nov 02, 2008 Jkt 043529 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\T&I08\072408\43529 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
195

tional 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 reminds

the committee of 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.

While the Windstorm Impact Reduction Act was initially enacted in 2004, agencies

did not pay attention to it. Attempts to obtain funding have worsened as time has

passed. FIU feels that this reauthorization is of particular importance this year of

predicted high-level hurricane activity as evidenced by four named storms so early

in the season. The 2008 hurricane season is expected to have six to nine hurricanes,

two of which being major hurricanes. FIU not only supports the reauthorization of

this critical Act but urges the agencies to fund it.

BIOGRAPHY FOR STEPHEN P. LEATHERMAN

Education

Ph.D., Environmental (Coastal) Sciences, University of Virginia, 1976

B.S., Geosciences, North Carolina State University, 1970

Publications

16 books and National Academy reports, including Hurricanes; Sea Level Rise:

History and Consequences; and Barrier Island Handbook.

Over 200 journal articles and technical reports authored, including articles in both

Science and Nature.

Expert testimony for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives ten

times.

On-screen host and co-producer, ‘‘Vanishing Lands’’ film, 1992, winner of three

international film awards, including the Golden Eagle.

Professional Presentations

Over 200 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.

Æ