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

42–964PS 2008

THE STATE OF HURRICANE RESEARCH

AND H.R. 2407, THE NATIONAL HURRICANE

RESEARCH INITIATIVE ACT OF 2007

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE

EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 26, 2008

Serial No. 110–112

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

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

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 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director

CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member

MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member

SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member

ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELIZABETH STACK Republican Professional Staff Member

TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member

STACEY STEEP Research Assistant

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana

BART GORDON, Tennessee

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director

DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member

MELE ́ WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member

BESS CAUGHRAN Research Assistant

(V)

C O N T E N T S

June 26, 2008

Page

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Subcommittee on

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

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 17

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 18

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18

Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 19

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

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 20

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 21

Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 21

Panel I:

Hon. Alcee L. Hastings, a Representative from the State of Florida, 23rd

District

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23

Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative from the State of Florida, 18th

District

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25

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

Panel II:

Dr. John L. ‘‘Jack’’ Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services;

Director, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32

Biography .......................................................................................................... 40

Page

VI

Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Professor of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma;

Member, National Science Board; Co-Chair, National Science Board Task

Force on Hurricane Science and Engineering

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 41

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 43

Biography .......................................................................................................... 44

Dr. Shuyi S. Chen, Professor of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography,

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 47

Biography .......................................................................................................... 51

Dr. David O. Prevatt, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Coastal

Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 52

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 53

Biography .......................................................................................................... 61

Dr. Stephen P. Leatherman, Chair Professor and Director, International Hurricane Research Center & Laboratory for Coastal Research, Florida International University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 62

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 64

Biography .......................................................................................................... 68

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 69

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. John L. ‘‘Jack’’ Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services;

Director, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce .................................................... 84

Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Professor of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma;

Member, National Science Board; Co-Chair, National Science Board Task

Force on Hurricane Science and Engineering .................................................... 87

Dr. Shuyi S. Chen, Professor of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography,

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of

Miami .................................................................................................................... 92

Dr. David O. Prevatt, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Coastal

Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville ................................................ 96

Dr. Stephen P. Leatherman, Chair Professor and Director, International Hurricane Research Center & Laboratory for Coastal Research, Florida International University .............................................................................................. 102

(1)

THE STATE OF HURRICANE RESEARCH AND

H.R. 2407, THE NATIONAL HURRICANE RESEARCH INITIATIVE ACT OF 2007

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room

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

[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

JOINTLY WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE

EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The State of Hurricane Research

and H.R. 2407, the National Hurricane

Research Initiative Act of 2007

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2008

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

I. Purpose

On Thursday, June 26, 2008 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment and

the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education of the Committee on Science

and Technology will hold a joint hearing to examine the Nation’s hurricane research

and development priorities, and to receive testimony on H.R. 2407, the National

Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007.

H.R. 2407, introduced by Representative Hastings (D–FL), establishes a National

Hurricane Research Initiative to improve hurricane preparedness. The hearing will

examine the proposed legislation that sets research objectives based on the National

Science Board’s 2007 Report, ‘‘Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National

Hurricane Research Initiative.’’ The hearing will also examine the status of hurricane research, ways in which current research efforts could be improved, and how

the proposed legislation would affect the overall state of our nation’s hurricane preparedness, including our ability to save lives and mitigate property loss.

II. Witnesses

• Dr. John L. ‘‘Jack’’ Hayes is the Assistant Administrator for Weather Services and the Director of the National Weather Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Dr. Hayes will discuss the current state

of federally funded hurricane research at NOAA, NOAA’s perceived role in a

National Hurricane Initiative, and the agency’s position on the proposed legislation.

• Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier is the former Co-Chair of the National Science

Board’s Task Force on Hurricane Science and Engineering. Dr. Droegemeier

will discuss the findings and recommendations of the Board’s report, ‘‘Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative.’’

• Dr. Shuyi Chen is an Associate Professor of Meteorology and Physical

Oceanography at the University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences. Dr. Chen will provide her perspective, as a hurricane researcher, as to the current gaps in hurricane related research, and the role

of a national research initiative.

• Dr. David O. Prevatt is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Civil

and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida. As an expert in hurricane

wind damage, Dr. Prevatt will provide input on the proposed legislation from

the perspective of the wind engineering community.

• Dr. Stephen P. Leatherman is the Director of the International Hurricane

Research Center at Florida International University. Dr. Leatherman will discuss the work being done at the Hurricane Research Center and comment on

the proposed research initiative in the legislation.

4

1http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/hurricane/financial.pdf

2 Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative, 2007.

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/hurricane/initiative.pdf, Appendix A. 3The National Science Board, comprised of twenty-four members appointed by the President,

is the governing body of the National Science Foundation, and serves as an independent body

of advisors to the President and Congress on national science and engineering research and education policy issues. 4 Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative, 2007.

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/hurricane/initiative.pdf 5 National Academy of Sciences, Meeting Research and Education Needs in Coastal Engineering, p. 11, National Academy Press (1999).

III. Background

An increase in hurricane activity in recent years has brought to the Nation’s attention our growing vulnerability to natural disasters. The devastation and farreaching impact of recent hurricanes have demonstrated the urgent need for an improved understanding of hurricanes and the ways in which we can better prepare

so as to minimize loss of life and destruction of property. The economic losses from

hurricanes are staggering. It is estimated that hurricane-related losses averaged

more that ten billion dollars annually from 1990 to 1995, and upwards of $35 billion

a year from 2000 to 2006.1 These numbers would most likely escalate in coming

years as our economy grows and more investments are expected to be made in coastal infrastructure. While billions of tax dollars are spent on rescue and relief efforts

after a hurricane strikes, the Federal Government invests relatively little in the

science and engineering research that could prevent much of the destruction and

greatly minimize losses. The National Science Board (NSB) estimates that federal

fiscal year budget investments for science and engineering research related to hurricanes totaled around $200 million dollars in fiscal year 2006.2 When attempting to

assess federal dollars going to hurricane research at the time, the NSB found the

exact numbers difficult to pinpoint, indicating a potential lack of focus and coordination among agencies. Even so, the most optimistic of estimates suggest that our current funding levels are inadequate to address our increasing vulnerability to hurricanes. In December of 2005, the National Science Board3 established the Task Force on

Hurricane Science and Engineering in an effort to assess and improve our nation’s

ability to predict, mitigate, and better respond to hurricanes. The task force set out

to evaluate and make recommendations for ways to improve the Nation’s hurricanerelated research activities. In January, 2007, the Task Force released the results of

its year long assessment, a report entitled, ‘‘Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need

for a National Hurricane Research Initiative.’’ The report concluded that ‘‘the U.S.

must engage in a nationally coordinated, multi-agency and multi-disciplinary research initiative to greatly expand our understanding of hurricanes and identify

more effective strategies for dealing with them.’’ 4 The report outlined the structure

and budget necessary to implement such an initiative.

The report concluded that the United States is becoming increasingly vulnerable

to hurricanes, while our coastal areas are becoming more and more heavily populated. A National Academies Study found that half of the U.S. populations live with

in 50 miles of coastline.5 Furthermore, taking into consideration the interconnectedness of our economy, hurricane devastation affects more than just the community

hit. The effects are felt throughout the Nation through increased fuel prices, displaced citizens, and much more.

National Hurricane Research Initiative, H.R. 2407

The National Hurricane Research Initiative (NHRI) takes the recommendations

from the National Science Board report to create a multi-agency effort focused on

improving our ability to predict hurricanes and their intensity, and on mitigating

the devastating affects on coastal populations. This NHRI would engage all relevant

federal agencies, industry, academia, and local government to strengthen hurricane

research through an integrated and highly focused framework, promoting multi-disciplinary, multi-agency involvement. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are designated as the

two leading agencies responsible for implementation and oversight of the Initiative.

The NSB report outlines four investment categories that are reflected in the bill

language of H.R. 2407:

1. Understanding and Prediction: Research will be directed to more quickly and

accurately predict hurricane intensification, size, and location of landfall.

Also, research is needed to understand and model storm surge, rainfall and

flooding from hurricanes. Research will be focused on improving hurricane

5

6 Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative, 2007.

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/hurricane/initiative.pdf 7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Hurricane Forecast Improvement Plan,

2008. http://www.nrc.noaa.gov/plans¥docs/HFIP¥Draft¥Plan-1.pdf

storm observation technology through GPS technology, unmanned aerial vehicles, mobile radars, etc.

2. Impacts: Research will focus on the interaction of hurricanes with engineered

structures, so coastal infrastructure can be better assessed for vulnerability

to hurricanes. Research will be directed at better understanding the economic and social impacts of hurricanes, so we can identify impediments to

implementing research outcomes. Also, fundamental research is needed to

understand the relationship between hurricanes and climate and natural

ecosystems.

3. Preparedness and response measures: Research will be directed towards implementing a national engineering assessment of coastal infrastructure to

identify the levees, bridges, and other infrastructure that may be particularly

vulnerable to hurricanes. Studies are needed to develop the most cost-effective improvements that can be made to already built infrastructure. Research will focus on improved technologies for disaster response and recovery

as well as the complex challenge of evacuation and risk planning.

4. Cross-cutting activities: Research is needed to learn how to better utilize the

next generation of petascale computers in hurricane research and modeling.

Research will also be directed towards incorporating hurricane impacts and

related engineering principles in to training and education programs.

H.R. 2407 also calls for the establishment of a National Infrastructure Data Base

(NIDB) and The National Hurricane Research Test Bed (NHRTB). The NIDB will

be a comprehensive database serving as a baseline to develop measurement standards that will aid the research community’s ability to measure hurricane impacts

and make effective recommendations for improved urban planning and building

codes. In addition, the bill calls for the establishment of the NHRTB, which will be

an interdisciplinary laboratory focused primarily on the transfer of research knowledge to operational applications. It will link models from a variety of related fields

and conduct experimental integrative research. The NHRI is a model for a coordinated system to encourage interaction and collaboration for the purposes of a comprehensive hurricane research effort.

Current Federal Hurricane Research

While private companies are also making important advances in hurricane research, NOAA and NSF are the leaders in the federal hurricane research efforts.

The National Science Foundation invested an estimated $13.5 million dollars in

fiscal year 2006 in a variety of hurricane-related research.6 NSF awards research

grants to carry out research in a variety of areas that seek to improve our fundamental understanding of hurricanes. NSF currently invests in research in each of

the ten research areas designated in the bill language: Predicting hurricane intensity change; understanding ocean-atmosphere interactions; predicting storm surge,

rainfall, inland flooding, and strong winds produced by hurricanes and tropical

storms during and after landfall; improved observations of hurricanes and tropical

storms; assessing vulnerable infrastructure; interaction of hurricanes with engineered structures; relationship between hurricanes, climate, and natural ecosystems; technologies for disaster response and recovery; evacuation planning; and

computational capability.

In response to the recommendations made by the NSB report as well as others,

NOAA established the Hurricane Forecasting Improvement Project (HFIP) in order

to accelerate improvements in forecasting the tracking of hurricanes, modeling capabilities, and intensity to increase confidence to enhance mitigation and preparedness

decisions. Within the HFIP, NOAA seeks to embrace strong collaboration with nonNOAA partners with the objective to transition research into operations.

The April 2008 draft plan, Proposed Framework for Addressing the National Hurricane Research and Forecast Improvement Initiatives: NOAA’s Hurricane Forecast

Improvement Project,7 provides the basis for NOAA and other agencies to work toward a national effort to coordinate national hurricane research and align not only

other agencies, but the scientific communities’ efforts in addressing the challenges

posed to improve hurricane forecasts. The main goals of the HFIP are to:

• Improve the accuracy and reliability of hurricane forecasts;

• Extend lead time for hurricane forecasts with increased certainty; and

6

• Increase confidence in hurricane forecasts.

These efforts will require major investments in enhanced observational strategies,

improved data assimilation, numerical modeling systems, and expanded forecast applications based on the high resolution and ensemble based numerical prediction

systems.

The plan mapped the needs into five research focus areas:

• Conduct basic research on the processes that contribute to rapid intensification and on the theoretical limits of predictability.

• Optimize exploitation of current and planned observing systems for both research and operations and identify observational gaps and develop initiatives

to address those with significant potential.

• Improve data assimilation to fully exploit all in situ and remotely sensed data

for both research and operational forecast.

• Improve numerical and other models for operational use to reduce error in

track and intensity guidance, quantify uncertainty in these forecasts, and extend the timeframe for useful predictions related to hurricane development,

evolution, and decay; build in the capacity to represent the physical processes

responsible for rapid intensity change.

• Expand and enhance forecast tools and applications to add value to the model

guidance and direct use of observations by the forecasters and diverse user

community.

7

H.R. 2407: The National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of

2007

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short Title and Table of Contents

Provides the short title of the legislation: The National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007.

Section 2. Definitions

Defines the terms Director as the National Science Foundation and Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce.

Section 3. National Hurricane Research Initiative

Requires the Under Secretary and the Director to establish a National Hurricane

Research Initiative and to cooperate with other specified federal agencies to focus

on the improvement of hurricane research, forecasting capabilities, and mitigation

impacts.

Also, requires such initiative to set ten research objectives (based on a National

Science Board report) and make grants available for carrying out hurricane research

in those ten specific areas.

Authorizes appropriations of $285,000,000 for each fiscal year 2008 through 2018.

Section 4. National Infrastructure Database

Requires the establishment of a National Infrastructure Database as a virtual,

cyber environment to catalogue traits necessary for providing a baseline; provides

information to Federal, State, and local governments for use in policy-making; and

provides data to researchers. Authorizes appropriations of $20,000,000 for each fiscal year 2008 through 2018.

Section 5. National Hurricane Research Test Bed

Requires the development of a National Hurricane Research Test Bed to conduct

integrative research and to facilitate the transfer of research knowledge to operational applications.

Authorizes appropriations of $130,000,000 for each fiscal year 2008 through 2018.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Chairman LAMPSON. Hearing will come to order, and I wish everyone a good morning and welcome you to today’s joint Subcommittee Hearing on The State of Hurricane Research and H.R.

2407, the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act.

We all know the devastation that a hurricane can cause and the

billions of taxpayers’ dollars needed to recover after one of these

natural disasters occurs. The effects of Hurricane Katrina are still

very visible in many of our districts, including mine. In my mind

I can think back to my first most severe storm back in 1963, where

I saw the largest number of houses in the middle of the streets,

and it was pretty—those are things that I don’t think ever go out

of your mind if you witness them or live them.

It goes without saying that there is a need for research to do better, to better understand hurricanes so that we can continue to improve our forecasting and warning capabilities to save lives and to

make our communities more resistant to hurricanes to reduce property damage.

And as we will hear from our witnesses today, both NOAA’s inhouse research and university research programs are making important advances in our knowledge of hurricanes and there is a

need for a national effort to address the challenges posed by hurricane forecasting.

H.R. 2407 was introduced by our colleague from Florida, Mr.

Hastings, who is here with us today, along with one of the original

co-sponsors, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We thank you both for your leadership on this important issue.

We also have a distinguished panel of experts here with us

today, and I look forward to your testimony and your recommendations of what the Federal Government can do to improve hurricane

preparedness and to improve forecasting of hurricane direction and

intensity.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK LAMPSON

Good morning and welcome to today’s joint subcommittee hearing on the State of

the Nation’s Hurricane Research and H.R. 2407, the National Hurricane Research

Initiative Act.

We all know the devastation that a hurricane can cause, and the billions of tax

payer’s dollars needed to recover after one of these natural disasters. The effects of

Hurricane Katrina are still very visible in many of our districts, including mine.

It goes without saying that there is a need for research to better understand hurricanes so that we can continue to improve our forecasting and warning capabilities

to save lives and to make our communities more resistant to hurricanes to reduce

property damage.

As we will hear from our witnesses today, both NOAA’s in-house research and

university research programs are making important advances in our knowledge of

hurricanes, and that there is a need for a national effort to address the challenges

posed by hurricane forecasting.

H.R. 2407, was introduced by our colleague from Florida, Mr. Hastings, who is

here with us today, along with one of the original co-sponsors, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

We thank you both for your leadership on this important issue.

We also have a distinguished panel of experts here with us today. I look forward

your testimony and your recommendations of what the Federal Government can do

to improve hurricane preparedness and to improve forecasting of hurricane direction

and intensity.

Chairman LAMPSON. At this time I want to yield to my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, our Ranking Member of the

Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Inglis, for an opening

18

statement, and afterwards we will have the opening statements of

Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Ehlers of the Research and

Science Education Subcommittee.

Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding

this hearing.

South Carolina, as you know, is no stranger to hurricanes. I remember September, 1989, when Hurricane Hugo hit the southeastern coastline, causing a total of $10 billion, billion with a B,

dollars in damage, taking 82 lives and leaving 56,000 people homeless. It was the most damaging hurricane ever recorded, and since

then it has only been surpassed by Hurricanes Andrew and

Katrina.

In the aftermath of Hugo, Andrew, and Katrina, news stories

and government officials emphasized that better preparations could

have helped save lives and minimize damage. A year and a half

later, a year and a half after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina,

the National Science Board issued their 2007 report, Hurricane

Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative, highlighting that while billions were being spent in rescue

and relief efforts, there was a serious lack of federal dollars being

invested in hurricane preparedness research.

Today we’ll discuss a bill that is based on that NSB report. H.R.

2407, the National Hurricane Research Initiative, directs the government to make much more significant investments in hurricanerelated research across several agencies, including NOAA and NSF.

This initiative outlines key investment categories including understanding and prediction, impacts, preparedness, and response.

H.R. 2407 authorizes a large sum of money for this research program, 4.17 billion over 10 years. We have an obligation to consider

how we can best prepare for hurricanes, but given our limited resources, we also need to carefully consider how best to allocate

those scarce resources. I will be looking forward to hearing from

our witnesses about what they foresee to be the monetary and nonmonetary return on this proposed federal investment.

And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would also like to recognize my

senior legislative assistant, Phillip Van Steenburgh, who will be

leaving me Monday, after two and one-half years to go to an internship at Capitol Hill Baptist Church and perhaps then to seminary.

So we wish him well, although we are going to miss him here at

the Science Committee and on my staff.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing, and

thank you for the opportunity to hear from our witnesses.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

South Carolina is no stranger to hurricanes. I still remember September 1989,

when Hurricane Hugo hit the southeastern coastline, causing a total of $10 billion

dollars in damage, taking 82 lives, and leaving 56,000 people homeless. It was the

most damaging hurricane ever recorded, and since then, it has only been surpassed

by Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina.

In the aftermath of Hugo, Andrew, and Katrina, news stories and government officials emphasized that better preparations could have helped save lives and minimize damages. A year and a half after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the

National Science Board issued their 2007 report, ‘‘Hurricane Warning: The Critical

19

Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative,’’ highlighting that while billions

were being spend in rescue and relief efforts, there was a serious lack of federal dollars being invested in hurricane-preparedness research.

Today we will discuss a bill that is based on that NSB report. H.R. 2407, the National Hurricane Research Initiative, directs the government to make much more

significant investments in hurricane-related research across several agencies, including NOAA and NSF. This initiative outlines key investment categories including

understanding and prediction, impacts, preparedness, and response.

H.R. 2407 authorizes a large sum of money for this research program ($4.17 B

over ten years). We have an obligation to consider how we can best prepare for hurricanes, but, given our limited resources, we also to need to carefully consider how

to best allocate those scarce resources. I’ll be looking forward to hearing from our

witnesses about what they foresee will be the monetary (and non-monetary) return

on this proposed federal investment.

Thank you again Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses

on their perspectives of this legislation and any suggestions they may have to improve it.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. We wish Mr. Van

Steenburgh well, as well.

Chairman Baird, you are now recognized for five minutes.

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join you in welcoming our colleagues, Mr. Hastings and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and

also our distinguished panel of witnesses.

Living in the pacific northwest we only get to look in horror at

what happens to our dear friends to the south, and we want to be,

this committee, very active in trying to support your initiatives to

prepare your area, region, and people for better understanding,

predicting, and dealing with the impacts of hurricanes.

Of particular interest to me in today’s testimony and in some of

the written comments from the NSB is the role of social scientists

and social behavioral changes. I was speaking with a hurricane

prediction expert awhile back, and he said, you know, Congressman, even if we could predict to the minute and the meter, the location of a hurricane impact, if 60 percent of the people don’t prepare, all our predictive capacity, all our super computing, all our

satellite observations won’t save a life. And that is the social and

behavioral problem. How do we get people to implement the engineering guidelines? How do we get them to understand what it

means that there is a difference between a category four or a category five storm? How do we get planners to prepare actual evacuation? That is what I will be, I think, most interested in as we listen to our outstanding panel of witnesses.

Thank you for hosting this. Thank you for our distinguished colleagues for introducing this important legislation. We welcome you

all here today.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses about the steps needed to

improve our ability to prepare for and respond to hurricanes. Hurricanes of recent

years have brought to our attention the significant and far-reaching effects of natural disasters, such as hurricanes, on local communities and the Nation. The devastating loss of life, dislocation of families, and damage to the economy resulting

from Hurricane Katrina and others sent a loud and clear message. It is imperative

that we improve our understanding of hurricanes and enhance our ability to predict,

prepare for, and respond to them.

Following a year long assessment of the state of hurricane research in our country, the National Science Board came forward with a set of recommendations to better align hurricane science and engineering research with our national needs. The

20

Board’s keystone recommendation was that the U.S. engage in a nationally coordinated, multi-agency and multi-disciplinary hurricane research initiative. Today we

will explore the Board’s recommendations as well as the proposed legislation, H.R.

2407.

H.R. 2407, the National Hurricane Research Initiative (NHRI), takes the general

recommendations of the NSB report and seeks to assemble a multi-agency effort focused on developing a better understanding of hurricane prediction; intensity; and

mitigation on coastal populations, infrastructure, and the natural environment.

I hope to hear from our witnesses whether this bill is a workable way to address

the gaps in our hurricane research efforts. I look forward to the assessment of current federal hurricane research activities and their thoughts on the proposed legislation. I also welcome their suggestions for ways we might improve the bill.

Finally, I am particularly interested in hearing how the social and behavioral

sciences can contribute to our understanding of the ways individuals and entire

communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. I would like to

hear what role social science research could play in addressing the need to transfer

research outcomes into operational practice.

I thank my colleagues Mr. Hastings and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for joining us today,

and for their effort in addressing this timely issue. Thanks to all of our witnesses

for being here, and I look forward to your testimony. I now recognize the Ranking

Member for any comments he may wish to make.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Baird, and Dr. Ehlers, you

are now recognized for five minutes.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Recent history has proven that the United States needs to be better prepared for hurricanes. There is no question about that. The

impacts of these storms may never be eliminated, but the most deleterious impacts can be mitigated by improved prediction, standards, infrastructure, and communication.

I understand that our federal research efforts in these areas are

insufficient and commend my colleague, Mr. Hastings of Florida,

for putting the recommendations of a recent National Science

Board report into the legislation before us today. I think it is also

important to emphasize the research needed on construction and

infrastructure standards. The Chair mentioned earlier the—I am

sorry, Mr. Inglis mentioned earlier the number of houses ruined

and damaged, and much of that can be mitigated by better construction methods and standards. And we have to do the research

needed to find out what is the best approach.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the proposed

legislation and appreciate the work of the National Science Board

in crafting what the initiative should look like.

And I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

Recent history has proven that the United States needs to be better prepared for

hurricanes. The impacts of these storms may never be eliminated, but the most deleterious impacts could be mitigated by improved prediction, standards, infrastructure and communication.

I understand that our federal research efforts in these areas are insufficient and

commend my colleague, Mr. Hastings of Florida, for putting the recommendations

of a recent National Science Board report into the legislation before us today. Particularly in the areas of construction and infrastructure standards, we need to

strengthen and implement the results of ongoing research.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the proposed legislation and

appreciate the work of the National Science Board in crafting what the Initiative

should look like.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.

21

All additional opening statements submitted by the Committee

Members will be included in the record at this point.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning. I want to thank the Chairmen of the Energy and Environment and

the Research and Science Education Subcommittees for holding this joint hearing

on federal priorities regarding hurricane research for our nation.

Members will also hear testimony regarding Congressman Hastings’ legislation,

H.R. 2407, the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007.

Hurricane research and preparedness are national security issues.

The frequency and intensity of such storms have caused great economic and personal damage to American citizens.

It is estimated that hurricane-related losses averaged more than ten billion dollars annually from 1990 to 1995, and upwards of $35 billion a year from 2000 to

2006.

Survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were left with toxic housing conditions

and a federal response rate that was unacceptably slow.

Many of these survivors migrated to Texas, causing a sudden increase in the utilization of public services, including hospitals and schools.

There are many trickle-down economic effects that coincide with disasters of this

nature.

I will be interested to hear how Mr. Hastings’ legislation seeks to coordinate our

federal hurricane research efforts.

Witnesses will report on the status of hurricane research, ways in which current

research efforts could be improved, and how the proposed legislation would affect

the overall state of our nation’s hurricane preparedness, including our ability to

save lives and mitigate property loss.

Again, I want to thank the leadership of the two Subcommittees for recognizing

this issue as one of importance. Our constituents at home need to see that their

Federal Government is studying these matters in a bipartisan effort to be proactive,

when it comes to storm preparedness.

I thank the Chairmen and yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and to the witnesses for taking

time to be here today.

In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina and Wilma, we can see how devastating

hurricanes can be to coastal regions. It is important to note that hurricanes represent 65 percent of insured losses by natural hazards in the U.S. And, with half

of the U.S. population living within 50 miles of coastline, it should be a high priority

to invest in hurricane research.

H.R. 2407, establishes the National Hurricane Research Initiative to set research

objectives to improve hurricane prediction and to better understand the anticipated

impacts hurricanes have on structures. The NHRI would also target research on improved technologies for disaster response and the coordination of evacuations.

I look forward to hearing the testimony from our distinguished witnesses about

H.R. 2407. Thank you for appearing before us today.

Panel I:

Chairman LAMPSON. At this time I would like to introduce our

first panel. We have with us today Mr. Hastings from Florida who

introduced H.R. 2407, and one of the original co-sponsors, Ms. RosLehtinen, also from Florida.

Congressman Hastings, you are recognized for five minutes to

make your statement.

22

STATEMENT OF HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 23RD

DISTRICT

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a distinct honor and privilege for me to be here before you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Baird and my colleagues, Dr. Ehlers. I came

to Congress in 1992, and I cut my eye-teeth in the Science Committee. Points how long I am here, other than Dr. Ehlers, none of

you were here. And, yeah, Roscoe was here, too, but it lets you

know we have been around awhile.

First I would like to thank the distinguished guests testifying

today, particularly those who hail from Florida universities, Dr.

Chen, Dr. Prevatt, and Dr. Leatherman.

And Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank your staff, the

Science Committee staff, and my staff and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen’s staff.

These young people do incredible work on our behalf and are rarely

other than among ourselves recognized. And I am really pleased at

how cooperative they have been with us.

Also, I am pleased that we are here to discuss the National Hurricane Research Initiative. I introduced this bill with my dear

friend and colleague, and we share the distinction of having collaborated on a lot of legislation throughout our careers, most of it

in the foreign affairs arena, but of course, we do a consider amount

of work on behalf of Florida and this nation as well.

I would also like to take cognizance of our Florida colleagues,

Senator Martinez and Senator Nelson, who introduced the companion legislation in the Senate.

The legislation that the Subcommittees are considering today is

based on the recommendations presented in a 2007 National

Science Foundation report on hurricane research. The report delivered a stern warning, Mr. Chairman and Members, and I want to

reiterate and quote that warning. ‘‘Relative to the tremendous

damage future hurricanes will inflict, the current federal investment in hurricane science and engineering is entirely insufficient.’’

Mr. Chairman, our government’s current investment in hurricane preparation is relegated to providing water bottles and setting

up storm shelters for at-risk populations. In my view such shortsighted preparation is wholly inadequate and unacceptable. We

need a long-term strategy on how to fill gaps in our hurricane

knowledge and reduce losses to the best of our ability.

And let me make it very clear that the residual from this kind

of approach will have an impact on disasters elsewhere. As we

speak, our friends and colleagues in the mid west are suffering,

and some of that could have been ameliorated had we had the appropriate attention advanced before the occurrence of the disaster.

The entire Nation would deeply benefit from enhanced, coordinated hurricane research as required in our bill. As co-Chair of

Florida’s Congressional Delegation, I have seen and experienced

firsthand the destruction that hurricanes have wreaked on our

communities. I have the misfortune that some of you have as well,

of traveling on Air Force One with President Clinton and President

Bush, and I say misfortune because in those instances they were

coming out to visit hurricane ravaged areas. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and

I were on both those particular sad situations.

23

But sadly people are still living in trailers in my Congressional

district. They lost their homes in the ’04 storms only to have the

trailer they were given blow over less than one year later during

a 2005 hurricane.

Now, I recognize that the cost for our bill is high, but investing

in research now is crucial. Moreover, it is much more efficient than

the losses that will ensue when the next hurricane inevitably

strikes.

Combined, we spent $77 billion for recovery efforts in the fiscal

years 2005 and 2006. Emergency supplement bills. Frankly, our inaction will cost our nation much more if we fail to invest in research now. Let me briefly mention a few of the advancements of

our great universities represented by the distinguished panel before us, and we also have other visitors from the fire department.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen will talk about them later I am sure.

Florida International University’s Wall of Wind, it is called

WOW, has helped us better predict storm survivability, physical

structures, and infrastructure. The University of Miami’s Center

for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing, CTARS’s research, has helped to improve our understanding of hurricane

structure, intensity, and movement. The University of Florida’s research is helping to create hurricane-proof homes and hurricane-resistant building construction. And my university, Florida A&M

University, Mr. Baird, has worked in that social science area in assisting in preparation and warning.

Each of these schools is uniquely positioned to conduct the vital

hurricane research we are discussing here today. There are many

others, including schools in Hawaii, Washington, Colorado, California, Maryland, let us not forget any of you, who will also help

lead us into the future of hurricane research.

Mr. Chairman, it is an imperative that we increase our federal

investment and coordinated hurricane research. Overarching all of

this legislation is the fact that disasters in this nation are going

to occur. That is regrettable, but it is a fact, and we need to be prepared.

I urge the Committee to hold the markup of the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007, and as fast as possible, hopefully following the July recess. I stand ready and able to assist in

any way possible. In my view there is no time for further delay.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ALCEE L. HASTINGS

Thank you, Chairman Baird and Chairman Lampson, for holding this extremely

important hearing today. I am honored to be here.

First, I would like to thank the distinguished guests testifying today, particularly

those who hail from Florida universities: Dr. Shuyi Chen, Dr. David O. Prevatt and

Dr. Stephen P. Leatherman.

I am very pleased that we are here to discuss the National Hurricane Research

Initiative Act. I introduced this bill with my good friend and colleague Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R–FL). Our Florida colleagues, Senators Mel Martinez

and Bill Nelson, introduced the companion legislation in the Senate.

The legislation that the Subcommittees are considering today is largely based on

the recommendations presented in a 2007 National Science Foundation (NSF) report, Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative.

The report delivered a stern warning that I want to reiterate now:

24

‘‘Relative to the tremendous damage future hurricanes will inflict, the current

federal investment in hurricane science and engineering is entirely insufficient.’’

Mr. Chairmen, our government’s current investment in hurricane preparation is

relegated to providing water bottles and setting up storm shelters for at-risk populations. In my view, such short-sighted preparation is wholly inadequate and unacceptable. We need a long-term strategy on how to fill gaps in our hurricane knowledge and reduce losses to the best of our ability.

The significant advancements that have been made since the last Category 5 hurricane, Hurricane Andrew, struck my home State of Florida in 1992 are commendable. Unfortunately, our nation’s vulnerability only continues to increase and we

still lack many of the answers. The state of science today is not advanced enough

to inform us reliably about when or where hurricanes are going to strike or what

their precise impact on our communities will be.

The 2007 NSF report and the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act call for

a multi-disciplinary collaboration of relevant Federal Government agencies, academia, industry, and other levels of government to harness their expertise to provide improved hurricane forecasts and response measures.

The entire Nation would deeply benefit from enhanced, coordinated hurricane research. Better intensity forecasting, long-range projections of hurricane activity,

emergency management, and hurricane mitigation would be advantageous to everyone—from improving the ability of local communities to respond to hurricanes to reducing the Federal Government’s share in recovery efforts by billions of dollars.

We are all too aware of the destruction and devastation that individual hurricanes

can cause. As Co-Chair of Florida’s Congressional Delegation, I have seen and experienced firsthand the destruction that hurricanes have wreaked on my communities,

particularly those that reside in coastal areas or surrounding the Herbert Hoover

Dike along Lake Okeechobee.

Since 2001, hurricane damage has cost our nation almost $36 billion in economic

losses per year. In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma accounted for over

$160 billion in total damages and the loss of almost 1,500 innocent lives. Further,

the impact from inland flooding and tornadoes, which can result from the onset of

hurricanes and tropical storms, can be felt throughout the entire United States.

Hurricane Andrew caused almost $35 billion in damages as measured by today’s

economic standards. Experts predict today that if a Category 5 hurricane hit Miami,

it could potentially create an over $100 billion disaster, comparable to the economic

damage New York suffered as a result of 9/11.

Sadly, from Miramar to Fort Pierce, people are still living in trailers in my district. They lost their homes in the 2004 storms only to have the trailer they were

given blow over less than one year later during a 2005 hurricane.

I recognize that the cost for our bill is high. But as I, Representative RosLehtinen, and the other distinguished panelists will relay today, investing in research now is crucial. Moreover, it is much more cost efficient than the losses that

will ensue when the next hurricane inevitably strikes.

The 2004 and 2005 hurricanes are a prime example of the cost to our Federal

Government. Combined, we spent $77 billion for recovery efforts in the Fiscal Year

2005 and Fiscal Year 2006 Emergency Supplemental bills. Frankly, our inaction will

cost our nation much more if we fail to invest in research now.

Consider, 50 percent of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of the coastline.

As populations and economies continue to expand in these high risk coastline areas,

the economic and societal costs will only increase when future hurricanes strike our

nation.

Universities throughout the State of Florida, represented by the distinguished

panel before us, have spearheaded innovative and important advancements in hurricane research. It is clear that by increasing our investment in their fields, we can

build on their academic successes and provide nationwide benefits.

Let me briefly mention a few of the advancements our great universities have

made in recent years.

Florida International University (FIU) leads the Florida System-wide Hurricane

Mitigation Alliance, comprised of nine of the eleven Florida public universities.

FIU’s International Hurricane Research Center conducts research focused on the

mitigation impacts of hurricane damage. The Center has produced a storm model

to predict highly accurate storm surge heights and flooding potential. FIU’s Wall of

Wind (WoW) simulates the devastating effects of hurricanes to better predict storm

survivability on physical structures, building materials, utilities, and infrastructure.

The Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of

Miami is working tirelessly to conduct research and develop technologies to improve

our hurricane forecast abilities. At the University’s Center for Southeastern Tropical

25

Advanced Remote Sensing (CSTARS), scientists have been conducting research

using remotely-sensed data from Earth-orbiting satellite systems to help improve

our understanding of the dynamics of hurricane structure, intensity, and movement.

The University of Florida’s research has improved our understanding of mitigation impacts on physical structures and our nation’s infrastructure. At the Broward

County Windstorm Damage Mitigation Training and Demonstration Center, the

University of Florida is helping to create hurricane-proof homes and hurricane-resistant building construction. The University’s hurricane simulator delivers winds

up to 130 miles per hour intended to mimic the effects of hurricanes to strengthen

building components and improve installation procedures to reduce hurricane damage.

Each of these schools is uniquely positioned to conduct the vital hurricane research we are discussing here today. There are many others, including schools in

Hawaii, Colorado and California, who will also help lead us into the future of hurricane research.

As growing research indicates, hurricane trends are linked to climate change. In

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) U.S. Climate

Change Science Program (CCSP) recent report, Weather and Climate Extremes in

a Changing Climate, scientific evidence details that future climate changes will be

accompanied by extreme events, including hurricanes. The report specifically states,

‘‘For North Atlantic and North Pacific hurricanes, it is likely that rainfall and wind

speeds will increase in response to human-caused warming. Analyses of model simulations suggest that for each 1°C (1.8°F) increase in tropical sea surface temperatures, core rainfall rates will increase by six percent to 18 percent and the surface

wind speeds of the strongest hurricanes will increase by about one percent to eight

percent.’’

NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center’s 2008 hurricane season outlook indicates that

there could be a more than 60 percent chance of up to 16 named storms, including

up to 14 hurricanes, five of which would be categorized as ‘‘major.’’ This prediction

serves as a stark reminder of the pressing need to conduct such research.

Mr. Chairmen, our government can ill afford to ignore the advice of its premier

scientists and put our populations and infrastructure at risk. It is imperative that

we take significant actions to increase federal investment in new research to better

prepare for, respond to, and mitigate the devastating impacts of hurricanes. Let us

resolve to act promptly to address ways to prevent and respond to future hurricanes

before the next hurricane strikes.

I urge the Committee to hold a markup of the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007 immediately following the July recess. I stand ready and able to

assist in any way possible. There is no time for further delay.

Thank you very much.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Hastings, very, very much.

And add Texas to that list.

Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, you are recognized for five minutes. You may begin.

STATEMENT OF HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 18TH

DISTRICT

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Well, thank you so much, Chairman

Lampson, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, Ranking Member Ehlers. Thank you for the opportunity. I am glad to see our

Florida colleague, Mario Diaz-Balart, no stranger to hurricanes,

here with us as well.

And I am so glad to have the opportunity to work again with my

wonderful friend and my dear colleague, Congressman Alcee

Hastings, on this important bill, and I would like to acknowledge

the panelists and the guests who are here from our home area of

South Florida. Dr. Stephen Leatherman, the Chair Professor and

Director of the International Hurricane Research Center and Laboratory for Coastal Research at my alma mater, Florida International University, Dr. Shuyi Chen, Professor at the University of

Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, and

26

let me say thank you to David Downy, the Division Chief with

Miami Dade’s Fire Rescue in Urban Search and Rescue, who is

here with us today, representing Miami Dade County and the Florida Keys, two regions which often bear the full brunt of hurricanes.

I have gained a great deal of personal experience about preparing for and recovering from hurricanes. Throughout my life in

South Florida I have experienced storms including Hurricane Isabel, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Charlie, Hurricane Wilma, Hurricane Katrina, just to name a few, and the sheer devastation left

in the aftermath of those natural disasters often can be financially

and personally crippling to individuals, families, and businesses.

With the help of early warning information and more in-depth research from scientists, we can help our constituents properly prepare for and evacuate before these hurricane and natural disasters

hit.

The National Hurricane Research Initiative Act, which Alcee and

I are working on, will fund and support organizations dedicated to

improving the forecasting of storms and researching the weather

patterns. It is vital for the advancement of early warning systems

and tracking mechanisms. It is our obligation to take advantage of

these opportunities. Right now the tracking of hurricanes remains—means that large areas fall under evacuation warnings.

What happens? Well, as with any repetitive activity, the frequency

of these hurricane-prone areas receiving these evacuation orders

means that it lessens their impact. More people in my home district will not evacuate until the last possible moment and oftentimes then that is too late.

Congressman Baird, who knows the Keys and understands, there

is one road in and one road out. Hurricane trackers deserve a great

deal of respect for the gains they have made in recent years on

path prediction, but their margin of error is still too great. The

cone is still too large. Giving these scientists the tools necessary

will make enormous positive differences for all of our constituents.

Hurricanes threaten more than just Florida, as the Chairman

pointed out. Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, California,

Georgia, the Carolinas, most coastal states. In fact, over 50 percent

of the United States’ population live within 50 miles off of our

coast.

A number of major category four and five hurricanes worldwide,

the number have nearly doubled over the past 35 years, and the

devastation left in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we all

know, and that was only a category four. It remains a tragic reminder of how ill-equipped our nation is to deal with widespread

disaster.

So it is, indeed, our obligation to ensure that each and every citizen who may reside in harm’s way has the information needed to

prepare and to evacuate if needed from these storms. As Bill Reed,

the Director of the NOAA Weather, National Weather Service, stated this month at a hurricane-preparedness summit that I had in

the Keys, storms can intensify at the last minute and cause substantial losses of life and property that could be avoided with better

methods of prediction.

In this summit we also learned from experts on the dangers imposed on residents not evacuating during hurricanes. All vital servVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:23 Dec 13, 2008 Jkt 042964 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\062608\42964 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
27

ices such as water, power, and even hospitals, remain closed for as

long as a few weeks after a significant storm. Persons who do not

evacuate pose a serious burden to already strained rescuers. Saving

lives, of course, remains our focus. This bill will also save U.S.

money. In ’92, Hurricane Andrew caused approximately $21 billion in

losses to South Florida alone. In 2007, the economic impact of one

storm evacuation was $6.5 million in the Keys alone. So with better

information provided by scientists, these losses could have been

much less. FEMA spent $35.8 billion per year during the last five

years on natural disasters, and that was $168 billion in losses of

home and property in the years 2004, and 2005, alone.

So the benefits, the financial benefits of preparedness are readily

apparent, and we can significantly cut the expenses of our government by knowing beforehand where these storms will make landfall. Our constituents demand that we refine our forecasting, and

the bill before you will do just that.

Thank you so much to the Chairmen, thank you to the Ranking

Members for the opportunity. I hope you move swiftly.

[The prepared statement Ms. Ros-Lehtinen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN

Thank you, Chairmen Baird and Lampson. Thank you, Ranking Members Ehlers

and Inglis. I am glad that you are holding this important joint-hearing and for the

opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 2407, a bill which I co-introduced with my

dear friend and Florida Delegation colleague Alcee Hastings. I would like to also acknowledge those panelists from my home district in South Florida: Dr. Stephen

Leatherman, Chair Professor and Director of the International Hurricane Research

Center & Laboratory for Coastal Research at my alma mater Florida International

University. Dr. Shuyi Chen, Professor at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School

of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences. Also let me say thank you to David Downey, Division Chief with Miami-Dade Fire Rescue’s Urban Search and Rescue, who is here

with us today. Representing Miami-Dade and the Florida Keys, two regions which

often bear the full impact of hurricanes, I have gained a great deal of personal experience about preparing for and recovering from storms.

Throughout my life in Miami, I have experienced storms including Hurricane

Isabell, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Charley, Hurricane Wilma, and Hurricane

Katrina just to name a few. The sheer devastation left in the aftermath of these

natural disasters often can be financially and personally crippling to individuals,

families, and businesses. With the help of early warning information and more in

depth research from scientists, we can help our constituents properly prepare for

and evacuate from these natural disasters. The National Hurricane Research Initiative Act will fund and support organizations dedicated to the forecasting of storms

and the researching of weather patterns. This is vital to the advancement of warning and tracking mechanisms. It is our obligation to take advantage of these opportunities.

Right now, the tracking of hurricanes means large areas fall under evacuation

warnings. As with any repetitive activity, the frequency of which hurricane prone

areas such as mine are subjected to these warnings lessens their impact. Many people in my home district will not evacuate until the last possible moment, and often

times by then it is too late. Hurricane trackers deserve a great deal of respect for

the gains they have made in recent years on path prediction, however, the margin

of error is still too great.

Giving these scientists the tools necessary will make an enormous positive difference in the lives all our constituents. Hurricanes threaten more than just Florida;

they affect Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, California, Georgia, and the

Carolina’s and most coastal states. To make the importance of this matter more apparent, over 50 percent of the United States population lives within 50 miles of the

coast. The number of major Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years.

The devastation left in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, only a Category 4,

remains a tragic reminder of how ill-equipped our nation is to deal with widespread

28

disaster. It is our obligation to ensure that each and every citizen that may reside

in harms way has the information needed to prepare and evacuate from these

storms.

As Bill Read, the Director of the NOAA National Weather Service, stated this

month at my Hurricane Preparedness Summit in the Florida Keys: Storms can intensify at the last minute and cause substantial losses of life and property that

could be avoided with better methods of prediction. During my hurricane summit

we also learned from experts on the dangers imposed on residents not evacuating

during hurricanes. All vital services such as water, power, and even hospitals remain closed for as long as a few weeks after a significant storm. Persons who do

not evacuate also pose a serious burden to already strained rescuers. Saving lives

must remain our focus. This bill will also save the U.S. money.

In 1992, Hurricane Andrew caused approximately $21 billion in losses to South

Florida. In 2007, the economic impact of storm evacuation was $6.5 million in the

Florida Keys. With better information provided by scientists, these losses could have

been much less. FEMA spent $35.8 billion per year during the last five years on

natural disasters. There was $168 billion in losses of home and property in 2004

and 2005 alone.

The financial benefits of preparedness are readily apparent. We can significantly

cut the government’s expenses by knowing beforehand where these storms will

make landfall. Our constituents demand that we refine our forecasting. Having to

evacuate disrupts lives and with the price of gas still climbing, is extraordinarily

financially burdensome. However, no monetary figure can be placed a human life

and protecting our constituents must remain the focus of this legislation. The

progress that will result from this bill will offer invaluable assistance to all of our

communities.

The current hurricane season began on June 1, 2008. Three weeks of this season

have already passed and it is imperative that this bill receive quick attention. I

hope that this committee will move swiftly on this legislation and I appreciate the

opportunity to voice my comments to you this morning.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank both of you for your testimony. You

pointed out the tragedy, and you pointed out the real savings that

are available in life, property, and resources. When we plan, we

can make a huge difference for the American people, and that is

exactly what you are trying to do. We appreciate you coming here

and you bringing the information and the stories that you have,

and we look forward to working with the legislation.

If there are no questions for this first panel, then we will take

a very short break, very short break, before hearing from our next

panel of witnesses.

Thank you both very, very much. And if the rest of you would

come up and take their places.

[Recess.]

Panel II:

Chairman LAMPSON. Before we begin, I would ask unanimous

consent that we welcome Congressman Hastings to join us here on

this.

Seeing no objection, it is so ordered. Welcome.

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you.

Chairman LAMPSON. And I want to welcome our second panel of

witnesses and thank each and every one of you for being here this

morning.

Dr. John L. ‘‘Jack’’ Hayes is the Assistant Administrator for

Weather Services and the Director of the National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA.

Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier is the former Co-Chair of the National

Science Board’s Task Force on Hurricane Science and Engineering.

29

Dr. Shuyi Chen is an Associate Professor of Meteorology and

Physical Oceanography at the University of Miami, Rosenstiel

School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. That is a lot of big

words there.

And Dr. David O. Prevatt is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering at the University of

Florida.

And I would now like to recognize our colleague, Mr. Diaz-Balart

from Florida, to recognize our final witness.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is

truly a privilege actually to see all of these fine men and women,

but it is my privilege today to welcome Dr. Stephen Leatherman

to this committee.

Since 1997, Dr. Leatherman has served as the Chairman and Director of the International Hurricane Research Center at Florida

International University, which is located in South Florida in

Miami. FIU serves thousands of students, Mr. Chairman, in the

South Florida area and the South Florida community. It is an exceptional university with exceptional faculty, exceptional talent,

and exceptional leadership.

The Center’s main objectives are to mitigate and prevent damage

from hurricanes and to assist communities in dealing with the

aftermath of those very destructive storms. Unfortunately, in Florida and South Florida we have way too much experience with those

storms. And, again, the Center was established by the private sector in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, which caused some

debts and also billions of dollars in economic loss in 1992.

The Board of Trustees of the Center include some of the most

well-respected and notable members of our community. Now, on a

lighter note, Mr. Chairman, my dear friend, Dr. Leatherman, is

also, well, he has obviously a lot of expertise in hurricanes, but he

also has expertise on storm impacts on coastal areas, but he is also

known as Dr. Beach around the world. I am sure all of you have

heard about Dr. Beach. As Dr. Beach he has selected the annual

top ten beaches, correct? Around since 1991. I am pleased that

Florida is home to three of the top ten beaches, including the number one beach, and I am sure all of us here on this committee

would agree that even though it is a very tough job, we are glad

that somebody is willing to do that, to go around and figure out

which are the best beaches in town.

But, anyways, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, sir, for

appearing. It is a privilege to introduce a dear friend, somebody

who I have not only known and respected but have admired for so

many years. Thank you, sir, and we look forward to your testimony, my friend.

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes, sir.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you for yielding. I just wanted to make sure

so I will know the credibility of the witnesses, I assume you have

also ranked the Lake Michigan Beaches.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I think we are out of time, Mr. Chairman. I

think my time is out now.

Chairman LAMPSON. I will stay out of that fray.

30

Well, you will each have five minutes for your spoken testimony.

Your written testimony will be included in the record for the hearing. When you are all complete with your testimony, then we will

begin with questions, and each Member will have five minutes to

question the panel.

With that, I would ask Dr. Hayes to begin.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN L. ‘‘JACK’’ HAYES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WEATHER SERVICES; DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Dr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to testify on the importance of increased

hurricane research and preparedness. I am Jack Hayes, the Assistant Administrator for Weather Services and the Director of the National Weather Service.

The National Weather Service is a line office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of

Commerce.

The proposed legislation, H.R. 2407, the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007, recognizes the challenge we face as

a nation with regard to hurricanes and tropical cyclones, and we

applaud the Committee for addressing this complex issue.

We agree with the overall goal of the bill to improve hurricane

forecasting and preparedness. We also agree with the most effective path forward is for NOAA and the National Science Foundation to co-chair a committee to oversee and coordinate federallyfunded research efforts and ensure successful research efforts that

can be incorporated into the operational forecast and warning environment to improve hurricane forecasts and services.

The key to success to improve hurricane prediction is leveraging

the capabilities of all partners; federal, State, local, academic, and

private sector. While the bill focuses on non-federal assets, we believe federal programs need to be fiscally supported as well as academic research and State and local government programs. We

agree with the need for broad areas of research to address the comprehensive impacts of hurricanes.

There are many components to the overall hurricane and tropical

cyclone issue as outlined in the bill. Over the past year NOAA developed the Hurricane Forecasting Improvement Project or HFIP

for short, described in my written testimony. HFIP focuses our efforts to improve forecasts of track, intensity, wind fields, and storm

surge, and identifies improvements in observations and computing

capabilities needed to support these forecast improvements.

We are trying to make progress on other activities described in

the bill as well, such as improved forecasts for inland flooding, and

those efforts will further benefit from improved hurricane track

and intensity predictions.

Many federal agencies, State and local governments, and the academic and research communities are focused on improving hurricane prediction. NOAA has expertise in many areas outlined in the

purposes section of the bill, including research to understand the

impact between hurricanes, climate, and natural ecosystems.

31

NOAA conducts its research on these topics through its laboratories and centers, including the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, the Earth System Research Laboratory, the

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and the National Centers

for Environmental Prediction. This expertise and experience will

help NOAA and the National Science Foundation under the auspices of this bill coordinate federally-funded efforts on hurricane research.

Other federal agencies identified in the bill are better suited to

lead the work and provide expertise for engineered structures, the

national infrastructure, disaster response and recovery technology,

and evacuation planning. For example, Department of Commerce’s

National Institute of Standards and Technology does extensive

work with the impact of wind on structures, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the Department of Homeland Security has expertise for evacuation planning and an extensive program addressing technologies for disaster response and recovery.

Section four of the bill proposes a national infrastructure database. We do not believe NOAA is properly positioned to lead the

effort for such information. We suggest other federal agencies may

offer a more suitable lead for this activity. We believe efforts focused on improved track and intensity forecasts will have the

greatest impact to the Nation, but efforts in other areas are needed

as well.

We see the federal role as critical to ensure federally-funded hurricane research focuses on the needs of society. That includes research on societal dimensions of the hurricane challenge, including

response, recovery, mitigation, and planning. We also believe it is

a function of the Federal Government to ensure the path is in place

for research to be integrated into operations. This step is often

under-funded, delaying and complicating the transition of successful research into operations. Our Hurricane Forecast Improvement

Plan has a focus on enabling the efficient and rapid transfer of effective research into operations.

In conclusion, let me restate, we applaud the Committee’s broad

perspective of hurricane impacts and the need for research in areas

including storm structure, rapid intensity change, ocean atmospheric interactions, storm surge, rainfall, and inland flooding forecasts. The key to success in improving hurricane prediction is

leveraging all available national assets and capabilities to address

this national need. NOAA’s Hurricane Forecast Improvement Plan

addresses a path forward for many of the items outlined in the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007.

We agree the most effective role for NOAA and NSF is to co-chair

a committee to oversee and coordinate federally-funded hurricane

research efforts to ensure successful work can be incorporated into

operational forecasts and warning environment, with the overall

goal of improved hurricane forecasts and services.

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak about this

challenge, and we look forward to working with the Committee as

the legislation moves forward.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hayes follows:]

32

1Defined by NOAA’s National Weather Service as the peak 1-minute sustained 10-m wind

anywhere in the storm (http://www.weather.gov/directives/sym/pd01006004curr.pdf)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN L. HAYES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to

testify on the importance of increased hurricane research and preparedness. I am

Jack Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services and the Director of the

National Weather Service (NWS). The National Weather Service is a line office of

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), within the Department of Commerce (DOC).

The proposed legislation, H.R. 2407, the National Hurricane Research Initiative

Act of 2007, recognizes the challenge we face as a nation, with regard to hurricane

and tropical cyclones, and we applaud the Committee for addressing this complex

issue.

Introduction

We agree with the overall goal of the bill to improve hurricane forecasting and

preparedness. We also agree the most effective path forward is for NOAA and the

National Science Foundation (NSF) to co-chair a committee, such as the National

Hurricane Research Alliance, to oversee and coordinate federally funded research efforts, and to ensure successful research efforts can be incorporated into the operational forecast and warning environment to improve hurricane forecasts and services. However, the proposed authorization levels in the bill are significantly higher

than current funding levels, and are therefore inconsistent with the Administration’s priorities.

NOAA is already addressing many components to the overall hurricane and tropical cyclone issue outlined in H.R. 2407. Over the past year NOAA developed the

Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project (HFIP—described in detail below), which

focuses our efforts on improved forecasts of track, intensity, wind fields, and storm

surge, which require improved observations, modeling, and computing capability.

We are making progress on other activities described in the bill as well, such as

improved forecasts for inland flooding, and these efforts will further benefit from improved hurricane track and intensity predictions.

Many federal agencies, State and local governments, and the academic and research community are focused on improving hurricane prediction. NOAA’s expertise

can be leveraged for most of the items outlined in the Purposes section of the bill,

including research to understand the impact between hurricanes, climate, and natural ecosystems. NOAA conducts much of this relevant research through its laboratories and centers including the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, the Earth System Research Laboratory, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction. Other federal agencies identified in the bill are better suited to lead the work and provide expertise

for engineered structures, the national infrastructure, disaster response/recovery

technology and evacuation planning. For example, DOC’s National Institute of

Standards and Technology does extensive work with the impact of wind on structures and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the Department of Homeland Security has expertise for evacuation planning and has an extensive program

addressing technologies for disaster response and recovery.

Section 4 of the bill proposes a National Infrastructure Database. We do not believe NOAA is properly positioned to lead the effort for such information. We suggest other federal agencies may offer a more suitable lead for this activity. We believe efforts focused on improved track and intensity forecasts will have the greatest

impact to the Nation, but efforts in all other areas are needed as well.

Since 1990, hurricane forecast track accuracy has increased by about 50 percent

through the use of enhanced observations, improved model guidance, and increased

forecaster expertise. This has led to increased lead time and somewhat smaller

warning areas allowing more time for emergency managers to coordinate their evacuation and preparedness activities. However, little progress has been made during

this period to increase the accuracy of intensity1 forecasts and to identify rapid intensity changes in hurricanes. Rapid intensity change presents a challenge to hurricane forecasters during the life of a storm and a serious problem for emergency

managers when it occurs just prior to landfall. Rapid intensity events constitute an

approximate two-category change within one day, and have a significant impact on

preparedness and evacuation actions for emergency managers. Recent cases of rapid

intensity changes at or near the U.S. coastline have occurred with little or no warning.

33

2Willoughby, H. et al., ‘‘Hurricane Forecasting: The State of the Art,’’ National Hazards Review  ASCE, August 2007, pp. 45–49. 3http://www.nibs.org/MMC/MitigationSavingsReport/Part1¥final.pdf 4 Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative, National

Science Board NSB–06–115, January 12, 2007. 5http://www.ofcm.noaa.gov/p36-isrtc/fcm-p36.htm

6Pielke, R.A., Jr., J. Gratz, C.W. Landsea, D. Collins, M. Saunders, and R. Musulin, 2007:

Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1900–2005. Accepted for publications in

the Bull. Amer. Met. Soc.

With recent catastrophic events in 2005 of Katrina and Wilma, back-to-back Category 5 storms in the Caribbean Sea in 2007 (Dean and Felix), and storms that rapidly intensified just prior to landfall like Charley in 2004 and Humberto in 2007,

the time is now for the Federal Government and our partners in State and local

governments, and the research and academic communities, to undertake an aggressive effort to improve our national hurricane forecasting capability.

This message and sense of urgency for improved hurricane forecasts is consistent

with the overarching recommendations in three recent reports: the 2006 NOAA

Science Advisory Board Hurricane Intensity Research Working Group report, the

2007 report of the National Science Foundation (NSF) National Science Board

(NSB): Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research

Initiative, and the 2007 report issued by the Office of the Federal Coordinator of

Meteorological Services (OFCM): Interagency Strategic Research Plan for Tropical

Cyclones—The Way Ahead. All three reports recommend a significant increase in

funding for hurricane and tropical cyclone research and development, and transition

of research to operations. In addition, many studies and reports have shown that

investments in forecasts and other warning information needed for community planners have a significant return for the Nation, including the 2007 report issued by

the National Hazards Review,2 Hurricane Forecasting: The State of the Art, and a

report from the Multi-hazard Mitigation Council (MMC) of the National Institute of

Building Sciences.3

Need for Improved Hurricane Forecasts

‘‘Billions of tax dollars have been provided for rescue, recovery, and rebuilding

after hurricanes strike . . . recent hurricanes have focused public attention on

the imperative to enhance our understanding of tropical weather systems and

their multi-faceted impacts, ranging from geophysical and engineering elements

to human economic dimensions . . . improving our nation’s ability to become

more resilient to hurricane impacts.’’ 4

More than 50 percent of the U.S. population is living within 50 miles of the

coast,5 and roughly 180 million people visit the coast annually. The coastal population explosion (Figure 1) over the last half-century translates to increased risks

for these coastal communities. As the U.S. coastline continues to develop, more people will be at risk and impacts are expected to further increase. Annual U.S. hurricane losses average about $10 billion and a recent historical analysis of hurricane

damages from 1900 to 2005 suggests a doubling of economic losses from land falling

hurricanes every ten years.6 The need for substantial improvements in hurricane

track and intensity forecast capabilities has never been greater. This is a sentiment

echoed by our partners in the emergency management communities at the national,

regional and local levels, who are issuing strong demands to extend hurricane forecast lead times. These extended lead times are necessary to evacuate some coastal

locations that now require evacuation ‘‘orders’’ be issued 48 to 72 hours in advance.

Highly accurate hurricane forecasts are needed to ensure the timely issuance of

reliable hurricane watches and warnings. These forecasts are an essential factor in

avoiding loss of life and injury and reduced property loss and economic disruption.

Without accurate hurricane forecasts, emergency managers are unable to take necessary decisive action to save lives and mitigate economic loses. The expected outcomes of the HFIP are to provide higher quality information with associated probabilities on high impact variables, such as wind speed, precipitation, and storm

surge; and to extend the lead time beyond five days, and reduce the length and duration of watches and warnings.

Operational Needs

Operational needs expressed by the tropical cyclone operations centers (National

Hurricane Center (NHC), Central Pacific Hurricane Center, and the Joint Typhoon

Warning Center) are detailed in the OFCM report, Interagency Strategic Research

Plan for Tropical Cyclones—The Way Ahead. These operational needs support the

34

7—Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology (OFCM) P–36, 2007; Interagency Strategic Research Plan for Tropical Cyclones—The Way Ahead.

—National Science Board, 2007; Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative.

—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Science Advisory Board, Hurricane Intensity Research Working Group Majority Report.

overarching goal to produce improved wind speed, precipitation, and storm surge

analysis and forecast information and to provide associated probabilities, as well as

the uncertainty in the forecasts, to emergency managers and other decision-makers.

To meet these operational needs, critical steps to ensure the future success of the

Nation’s hurricane forecast and warning program include: focused applied research

and transition efforts to improve computer models; advanced observations and observational strategies; improved processing capabilities to include those data into

the models; expanded forecaster tools; and properly applied human and infrastructure resources. Furthermore, extensive collaboration with social scientists is also

needed to help ensure the information presented to the public can be understood

in clear terms by non-meteorologists.

NOAA’s mission-oriented requirements for operational system development, implementation and sustained operations guide us toward attaining a specific set of

short-term forecast goals, related applied research focus areas, and infrastructure

investments. Within this mission-oriented context, the research and transition activities needed to improve operational forecasts are accomplished with the aid of

testbeds strategically aligned with the needs of the forecast centers. In general,

testbeds are a collaborative environment for conducting integrative research, testing

new ideas in an end-to-end fashion under the rigors of operational constraints (real

and simulated), and facilitating the deployment into operational practice of knowledge gained in research (NSB Report 2007).

Testbeds, such as the Joint Hurricane Testbed in Miami, the Developmental

Testbed Center in Boulder, and the Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation in

Maryland, are oriented toward improving operational hurricane forecasts and guidance. These testbeds provide evolutionary pathways to coordinate applied model and

technology advancements to specific forecast requirements and focus on identifying

and effecting the transition of research and technologies capable of providing immediate and justifiable improvements to operational hurricane forecasts.

Bridging across the OFCM and NSB reports, the NOAA HFIP plan involves evolutionary and transformational pathways that require coordination between key federal and academic leaders in order to properly support the required research and

development and to improve the operational hurricane track and intensity forecasts.

Building Off the Nation’s Interagency Strategic Research Plan

Within our HFIP, we are working to build upon recent planning efforts of the

NSF, NSB and OFCM7 to engage the broader research community in improving

hurricane forecasts. The HFIP’s goals include improving the accuracy, reliability,

and extending the lead time of hurricane forecasts and increasing confidence in

those forecasts by customers and decision-makers, especially those in the emergency

management community. These goals were also echoed by the NOAA Science Advisory Board’s Hurricane Intensity Research Working Group.

Within the framework of operational hurricane forecast improvements, NOAA

seeks a partnership among the federal and academic communities to align the

broader science and engineering community with the operational community to realize the greatest benefits for the country. This broader partnership is critical to effectively address HFIP goals and for NOAA to transition new research and technology

into operations.

NOAA Strategy to Align with the Larger Community

The key to success in improving hurricane prediction is leveraging the capabilities

of all partners: federal, State, local, academic, and private sector. Communication

between federal partners and the external community on operational needs and associated research focus areas is necessary to achieve both immediate successes and

scientific research advances that hold promise for the future. A highly visible and

independent oversight activity will be identified. An annual interagency program review with a significant external (to NOAA) role is being planned with the Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference, as a possible venue. This conference leads up

to an annual summit attended by agency, academia, and private sector research

leadership.

35

8 Rapid intensification is defined at a 30kt increase of sustained maximum winds in 24 hours

or less.

NOAA is working with the NSF to formally establish the National Hurricane Research Alliance to ensure coordination across the broad spectrum of activities from

observations to data assimilation to modeling to basic research. The Alliance will

include key federal agencies, including NSF, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), and the Navy (including the Office of Naval Research). This

Alliance will leverage existing federal hurricane coordination efforts, including those

from the OFCM Services and Supporting Research, to manage overall roles and responsibilities to improve overall accuracy and reliability of hurricane forecasts.

Through this Alliance, NOAA and NSF will work with other federal agencies to

maximize the use of the considerable non-federal assets in conducting much of the

hurricane research and development described in the National Hurricane Research

Initiative Act of 2007, and in developing and disseminating related products and

services.

Federal Investments

NOAA needs to ensure new breakthroughs in hurricane research and technology

can be accelerated into operational forecasting systems. The importance of addressing operational forecast requirements and related research focus areas requires sufficient investments that include:

• Easy access to current and planned observing systems;

• Increased high performance computing capacity and capability to allow for

higher resolution models;

• Institutionalized and transition research to operations to ensure an efficient

process to incorporate demonstrated research results in modeling and observing systems;

• A plan for sufficient operations and maintenance resources; and

• Enhanced interactions with the broader science and engineering community

to provide increased understanding of hurricanes while using all available resources.

Therefore, a sustained and broad hurricane research initiative would make the

best use of these capabilities and improve our understanding of and ability to predict hurricanes.

Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project (HFIP)

NOAA established the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project (HFIP) to develop

a unified 10-year plan to improve our one to five day tropical cyclone forecasts, with

an emphasis on rapid intensity change. The goal of HFIP is to improve the accuracy

and reliability of hurricane forecasts and warnings and to increase the confidence

in those forecasts to enhance mitigation and preparedness decisions by emergency

management officials at all levels of government and by individuals.

The scope of the HFIP plan (Figure 2) encompasses research and development:

• To improve understanding, with emphasis on the phenomena related to predictability of rapid intensity8 change and secondary eyewall phenomena;

• To improve observations and observational strategies for the hurricane and

its environment;

• To uncover novel methods for data assimilation, to utilize the diverse range

of existing and new observations;

• To advance high-resolution numerical prediction and ensemble predictions

systems for hurricane forecast guidance; and

• To accelerate the transfer of research results into operational forecasting.

While NOAA is developing its level of involvement in the broader spectrum of

issues identified in the NSB report, NOAA focused HFIP on the research and development issues identified by operational needs that will lead to improved hurricane

forecast guidance and tools. HFIP aims to reduce and quantify the uncertainty in

all forecast guidance, including high spatial/temporal resolution gridded wind speed,

precipitation, storm surge analysis and forecast information. Our efforts will focus

on improved track forecasts, improved intensity forecasts, improved rapid intensity

change forecasts, and improved lead time.

Below are four examples of our metrics:

36

1) Reduce average track error by 50 percent for Days 1 through 5 (Figure

3)

Based on input from emergency managers at all levels, the forecast of the location

or track of the tropical cyclone is most important. Over the past couple of decades

the hurricane community has put most of its effort and resources into reducing the

track error. While the limits of predictability for track error are not fully understood, NOAA will seek to reduce the track error by 50 percent over the next decade,

which is the same level of improvement as NOAA was able to achieve between 1990

and the present. More accurate information on the location of the storm will allow

emergency managers to focus on a more precise coastal area at landfall and avoid

unnecessary evacuations.

2) Extend the lead time for hurricane forecasts out to Day 7 (Figure 4)

In 2001 the NHC extended the lead time of its forecasts from three to five days.

However State and federal emergency managers have expressed that five days is

not enough time to prepare certain areas, due to population growth, infrastructure,

resources, etc. Extending the forecast out to seven days would help address their

concern and need for longer lead times to ensure those impacted (the public, businesses, etc.) have sufficient time to prepare for, and evacuate from, an approaching

hurricane.

3) Reduce average intensity error by 50 percent for Days 1 through 5 (Figure 5)

The current hurricane 48-hour official forecast intensity error is ∼14 knots or

roughly the wind speed range for one category on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane

Scale. Due to the uncertainty in today’s intensity (strength of storm) forecast, NHC

suggests that emergency managers prepare for one category above the NHC official

intensity forecast (e.g., if NHC forecasts a Category 3 hurricane at landfall, emergency managers should prepare for a Category 4). A 50 percent reduction in intensity error will allow emergency managers to better focus their preparedness efforts.

Reducing the uncertainty in the hurricane intensity forecasts will also support evacuation decisions by identifying the coastal and inland areas of greatest concern for

wind and associated storm surge.

When the impacts of the 50 percent improvement in track and intensity errors

are combined for the Gulf Coast, forecasts provided to the emergency managers will

be a more confined area of concern with a more precise wind estimate (Figure 5).

4) Increase the accuracy of rapid intensity change forecasts

Rapid intensity change presents a great challenge to hurricane forecasters during

the life of a storm and a serious problem for emergency managers when it occurs

just prior to landfall. Rapid intensity events constitute an approximate two-category

change within one day, and have a significant impact on preparedness and evacuation actions for emergency managers.

While improving the accuracy of rapid intensity change forecasts within one day

of landfall is a high priority, given the uncertainty in track forecasts of landfall and

the need by some to make decisions on protective actions more than one day before

landfall, these improvements are needed at all lead times over the entire life of the

storm. Increasing the forecast accuracy of rapid intensity change events can lead to

greater confidence in forecasts. Emergency managers and the public will be able to

make decisions and take appropriate action. Today, emergency planning is based on

a storm one category higher than what is predicted. More accurate rapid intensity

change predictions, will allow for more efficient evacuations and preparedness.

Key Strategies for HFIP

I will now briefly describe key strategies outlined in our Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project plan to implement the activities needed to improve hurricane

forecasts, with an emphasis on rapid intensity change. Full HFIP details are available at http://www.nrc.noaa.gov/plans¥docs/HFIP¥Draft¥Plan-1.pdf.

Engage the expertise of the operational tropical/hurricane numerical prediction and research community, including stakeholders

NOAA recognizes the broad scope of the scientific challenges associated with understanding and predicting hurricanes. Addressing these challenges and improving

forecasts of hurricane track and intensity will involve increased interaction with the

external research community to leverage and coordinate research activities. NOAA

plans to broaden the base of expertise in the tropical cyclone operational numerical

prediction and research communities and broaden our interaction with the research

37

9 Completing the Forecast: Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty for Better Decisions

Using Weather and Climate Forecasts, National Research Council of the National Academies,

ISBN 0–309–66261–3, 2006.

and development community by improving our efforts through workshops, symposia,

and conferences to:

• Improve computer modeling of hurricanes;

• Improve the use of data;

• Better coordinate with our federal, academic, and private sector partners of

needs and opportunities;

• Increase grants; and

• Support additional education and outreach activities.

Optimize observing systems for research and operations

The advancement of observational capabilities for tropical cyclone analysis, forecasting, and numerical weather prediction is a vital component of the HFIP. These

observational capabilities extend from exploratory scientific research conducted with

new types and new generations of advanced instruments and platforms, to proven

operational systems used for analysis and forecasting. Over the past four decades,

satellite and airborne observing systems developed and flown by NASA, NOAA,

NSF, and the Department of Defense have made major contributions to the operational tropical cyclone forecast systems. With several new observational platforms

and sensors meant to enhance observing capabilities for hurricane forecasters, and

hurricane numerical prediction systems potentially available in the next several

years, NOAA will evaluate the usefulness of these data to ensure investment decisions are made to select the optimal systems/platforms for improvements in hurricane forecasts.

Define and build the next generation hurricane forecast framework, including the Hurricane Forecast System/Global Forecast System

The next generation hurricane forecast framework is a multi-model suite containing both high resolution and ensemble forecasts produced by NOAA and other

numerical prediction entities on the national and international scales. Within this

framework, a next-generation Hurricane Forecast System/Global Forecast System

will also be defined and constructed to accurately represent the physical processes

responsible for rapid intensity change through research and development activities

within NOAA and the broader research community. This strategy builds upon

NOAA’s long-standing operational numerical prediction capabilities and related research efforts to improve understanding of the physical processes that lead to track,

intensity/structure, and precipitation changes in hurricanes. This plan focuses on

developing a capability to accelerate numerical modeling developments to drive improvements in the hurricane forecast guidance through enhanced research between

NOAA and the larger research community.

The need for an ensemble approach for all forecast applications, including hurricane forecasting, was highlighted by a 2006 National Research Council Report.9 The

report states, as one of their nine major recommendations, ‘‘NOAA should develop

and maintain the ability to produce objective uncertainty information from the global to the regional scale.’’

Institutionalize and transition research to operations

The transition of research to operations—referred to by the OFCM and defined

by the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Research Council as

‘‘bridging the valley of death’’—requires robust interaction between the research and

operational communities, as well as a strong interface with the user community.

Also required is a healthy infrastructure for the transition, including resources and

processes for evaluation and demonstration, operational implementation and operations and maintenance.

Increase High Performance Computing and Information Technology capacity and capability

High quality hurricane forecasting will require a 5000 fold increase in high performance computing and information technology capabilities. The framework of combining information from different forecast centers involves virtual grid computing as

the system leverages and relies on computing capability across the numerical prediction centers, but may also require significant enhancements in telecommunication. In addition, each center, including the NOAA computing centers, will

38

produce higher-resolution analyses and forecasts by running the numerical models

on massively parallel processors, including NOAA’s supercomputer. Therefore, increases in NOAA’s high performance computing capability and capacity are required

to enable and support advancements in the NOAA Hurricane Forecast System/Global Forecast System, including ensemble capabilities.

Conclusion

NOAA applauds the Committee’s broad perspective of hurricane impacts and the

need for research in areas including storm structure, rapid intensity change, oceanatmosphere interactions, storm surge, rainfall and inland flooding forecasts. However, the Administration is concerned that the bill’s funding levels are significantly

higher than current funding levels. NOAA’s HFIP already addresses a path forward

for many of the items outlined in the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of

2007. HFIP efforts are currently focused on improved track and intensity forecasts,

wind fields, and storm surge, as well as the accompanying need for improved observations and computing capability. We agree the most effective role is for NOAA and

NSF to co-chair a committee to oversee and coordinate federally funded hurricane

research efforts to ensure successful work can be incorporated into the operational

forecast and warning environment with the overall goal of improved hurricane forecasts and services. The key to success in improving hurricane prediction is

leveraging all available national assets and capabilities to address this national

need. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak about this challenge and

we look forward to working with the Committee as this legislation moves forward.

39

40

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN L. ‘‘JACK’’ HAYES

John L. ‘‘Jack’’ Hayes is the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Weather Services

and National Weather Service Director. In this role, he is responsible for the dayto-day civilian weather operations of 122 local Weather Forecast Offices, 13 River

Forecast Centers, nine National Centers for Environmental Prediction, and 21 Aviation Weather Service Units in the United States, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam.

41

The National Weather Service (NWS) provides daily weather forecasts and warnings to the American media, emergency managers, fire land managers, commercial

weather partners, and the general public for weather and natural hazards such as

hurricanes, tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, flash floods, winter storms, extreme

fire weather conditions, tsunamis, and solar flares.

Dr. Hayes rejoined the National Weather Service after serving as the Director of

the World Weather Watch Department at the World Meteorological Organization

(WMO), a specialized agency of the United Nations located in Geneva, Switzerland.

In that position, he was responsible for the global observing, global telecommunications, and global data processing and forecasting systems that provide the foundation for operational weather forecasting and warning services for 188 WMO member

countries worldwide. During this period, he led the development of the WMO Strategic Plan which was approved by WMO’s 15th Congress in May 2007.

Before joining the WMO, he served in several senior executive positions at NOAA.

As the Deputy Assistant Administrator for NOAA Research, he was responsible for

the management of research programs. As Deputy Assistant Administrator of the

National Ocean Service (NOS), he was the chief operating officer dealing with a

multitude of ocean and coastal challenges, including NOS’s response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in August 2005. As Director of Office of Science and Technology for the NWS, he was responsible for the infusion of new science and technology essential to weather service operations; he was recognized as one of the Federal Government’s Top 100 IT Executives for his leadership of programs to improve

information processing and dissemination supporting NWS’s weather forecast and

warning mission.

Dr. Hayes was also an executive in the private sector and the military. He was

general manager of the $500 million Automated Weather Interactive Processing

System program at Litton-PRC from 1998 through 2000. AWIPS is the interactive

computer system utilized by all weather service forecasters. From 1970 through

1998, he held a variety of meteorological positions with the United States Air Force,

beginning as a weather forecast officer in 1970 and culminating his career as Commander of the Air Force Weather Agency and Air Force Global Weather Center.

He received both his Ph.D. and Master of Science degrees in meteorology from the

Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is a graduate of Bowling

Green State University, with a Bachelor’s degree in mathematics. He is a Fellow

in the American Meteorological Society.

Chairman LAMPSON. Unfortunately, it seems to be no different

with medicine. We seem to be putting our resources after the fact,

trying to treat those effects rather than trying to prevent them.

Dr. HAYES. Yes, sir.

Chairman LAMPSON. Or that occurrence. Thank you very much,

Dr. Hayes.

Dr. Droegemeier, you are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF DR. KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER, PROFESSOR

OF METEOROLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA; MEMBER,

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD; CO-CHAIR, NATIONAL SCIENCE

BOARD TASK FORCE ON HURRICANE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

Dr. DROEGEMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to

everyone. I thank you very much, Chairman Lampson. Also Chairman Baird, Ranking Members Ehlers and Inglis and other Members of the two Subcommittees for the opportunity to speak with

you today. My name is Kelvin Droegemeier. I am a Professor of

Meteorology at the University of Oklahoma. I am also a member

of the National Science Board and am appearing before you today

in my role as Co-Chair of the National Science Board’s Task Force

on Hurricane Science and Engineering. The final report of that

task force, which was published in January 12 of 2007, served, as

you heard earlier, as a blueprint for H.R. 2407. Dr. Kenneth Ford,

who directs the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition in

42

Florida actually, is my fellow NSB member and also was the other

Co-Chair.

You have heard a lot of statistics this morning, but I would like

to highlight one area of vulnerability for our nation that is particularly relevant today, and that is the immense energy infrastructure

in the Gulf of Mexico. That infrastructure transports some 30 percent of our nation’s domestically-produced oil and gas from offshore

wells to onshore refineries, and more than 100 of the 4,000 offshore

platforms in the Gulf of Mexico were destroyed in Hurricanes

Katrina and Rita alone. And a full nine months later 150 million

barrels of oil and 730 billion cubic feet of gas remain unavailable

to our nation.

Motivated in part by the sorts of vulnerabilities I just mentioned,

the National Science Board undertook a very intensive effort to

frame the hurricane science and engineering research challenges

and recommend a national imperative to address them. The most

important aspect of this strategy is that it engages not only the atmospheric sciences but also disciplines such as engineering, social

and behavioral sciences, economics, computer science, ecology, and

hydrology in a truly integrated fashion.

We often tend to think of hurricanes as a weather problem, but

in reality they are a weather-driven, social science, human behavior, physical science and engineering problem as Dr. Baird correctly

mentioned a few moments ago. The recommendations of the Board

report strongly reflected H.R. 2407, and for that we owe all of you

a debt of gratitude.

You might ask where are we today. As the Nation’s principle

agency for funding basic science and engineering research and education, the National Science Foundation’s support for hurricane-related research in fiscal 2007, was $12.44 million across all the topic

areas outlined in H.R. 2407. NSF awarded 106 small grants for exploratory research related to Hurricane Katrina alone, and the

total budgets of those grants were about $7.5 million.

NSF has long been an active participant in the U.S. Weather Research Program, which focuses on the physics of hurricanes and

their prediction. NSF and NOAA, the two lead agencies in H.R.

2407, already collaborate in many ways, and a wonderful example

of that with regard to hurricanes is a new joint research solicitation on the topic of communicating hurricane information. It focuses on the important social science problem of how warning information is communicated, interpreted, and then acted upon.

H.R. 2407 provides an opportunity to coordinate and enhance

that type of research along with physical science and engineering

research in a truly integrative manner, which is truly the necessary path forward if we hope to improve our nation’s resilience

and resistance.

Additional opportunities in the National Science Board report

that are worth mentioning this morning include the use of National

Super Computing Centers funded by NSF for running operational

NOAA forecast models in time of national need; in fact other models as well—as well as exploring university curricula that look at

hurricanes not just from an atmospheric scientist’s point of view

but from a multi-disciplinary perspective to make sure that our

next generation of hurricane researchers is adequately educated.

43

In closing, I would like to note that the NSB report on which

H.R. 2407 is based, I have a copy here, the title says, Hurricane

Warning, and it truly is an urgent call to action on a very, very

important challenge for our nation. On behalf of the National

Science Board and our Chairman, Dr. Steven Beering, I want to

thank the Science Committee and the two Subcommittees who

sponsored this hearing for recognizing urgency of this important

topic. We at the National Science Board stand ready to assist you

in whatever ways might be most beneficial.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Droegemeier follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER

I thank Chairman Lampson, Chairman Baird, Ranking Members Ehlers and Inglis, and the other Members of the two Subcommittees for the opportunity to speak

with you today. My name is Kelvin Droegemeier and I am a Professor of Meteorology at the University of Oklahoma. I also am a member of the National Science

Board and am appearing before you today in my role as Co-Chair of the National

Science Board’s Task Force on Hurricane Science and Engineering. The final report

of this Task Force was published on January 12, 2007, and I understand that it

largely served as the blueprint for H.R. 2407 as introduced in the House of Representatives. Dr. Kenneth Ford, Director of the Institute for Human and Machine

Cognition and fellow NSB member, served as my Co-Chair.

I needn’t tell you that every year, hurricanes pose a threat to life, property, and

the very economic vitality of our nation. Yet impact of hurricanes extends well beyond a given storm, often for many years, as we’ve seen in recent storms such as

Katrina and Rita. Among all weather hazards in the U.S., hurricanes account for

over half the total damage inflicted, and annual economic losses average approximately $10 billion in constant 2006 dollars. Of course, the 2005 hurricane season

was notably destructive, with Katrina losses exceeding $130 billion. Remarkably, 50

percent of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a coastline and that some

80 percent of our population resides within 200 miles of a coast. The $3 trillion of

physical infrastructure in the Gulf and Atlantic coastal regions continues to grow

at a rapid pace, and thus we as a nation are increasingly vulnerable to hurricanes.

Of particular relevance today is the immense energy infrastructure located in ‘‘hurricane alley’’—33,000 miles of pipeline that transports some 30 percent of our nation’s domestically-produced oil and gas from offshore wells to onshore refineries.

According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, some 3,000 of the Gulf’s 4,000

platforms, and 22,000 of the 33,000 miles of the Gulf’s pipelines, were in the direct

paths of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A total of 115 offshore platforms were destroyed, 52 were damaged, and 535 pipeline segments were damaged. Considerable

destruction occurred to onshore facilities—for example, refineries and supporting infrastructures in and around Lake Charles, Louisiana. More than nine months later,

22 percent of federal oil production and 13 percent of natural gas production remained unavailable, resulting in the loss of 150 million barrels of oil and 730 billion

cubic feet of gas from domestic supplies.

Motivated in part by recent hurricanes, the National Science Board decided to undertake an intensive effort to frame the hurricane science and engineering research

challenges and recommend a national imperative to address them in a holistic manner. We did so by engaging the academic, government and private sector communities in a series of workshops; by evaluating previous studies of hurricanes and

other natural disasters; and by obtaining input from the public on a draft version

of the report.

As you well know, we spend billions of dollars on rescue and recovery after hurricanes occur. But can we better anticipate and react to hurricanes ahead of time to

avoid loss of life, property, vital infrastructures, and disruptions in our economy?

The answer from our study is yes. Are we using existing knowledge effectively? The

answer from our study is no. Is the research now being done adequate and properly

coordinated? The answer from our study is no. In fact, research in hurricanes appears to be a modest, loosely coordinated enterprise. Although of high quality, this

research is generally conducted within the boundaries of traditional disciplines—

stovepipes like meteorology, hydrology, engineering, computer science and ecology—

with insufficient integration. And the engagement of social, economic, behavioral

sciences is inadequate. In short, the hurricane is perhaps one of the best examples

44

of a problem—vital to society—which must be studied in a multi-disciplinary fashion

if we hope to lessen our vulnerability.

H.R. 2407 reflects very closely the recommendations made in our report. This

truly is a wonderful testimony of Congress responding quickly to recommendations

of the broad community and using existing frameworks (such as OSTP and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act) to deal with a profoundly important problem. Given that you are familiar with the bill, I wish to highlight just a few key

points.

First, strong collaboration between NSF and NOAA is vital to the success of this

effort, as is the involvement of other agencies, as articulated in the bill. Second, it

is important to note that the hurricane is not a weather problem alone but rather

a weather-driven problem that must be studied in a multi-disciplinary fashion. It

is for this reason that the components of the research agenda described in the bill—

including, for example, hurricane intensity change, assessment and response of

structures to wind and waves, ecosystem impacts, and economic and societal impacts—are important and must be performed in a coordinated manner. Third, the

national infrastructure data base is important for hurricanes but also for numerous

other uses, ranging from earthquakes to homeland security. Fourth, the National

Hurricane Research Model—which in our report was referred to as a testbed and

involves all relevant disciplines of the research program—is essential for bringing

together the research components and moving them to operational practice.

On behalf of the National Science Board and our Chairman, Dr. Steven Beering,

I want to thank the Subcommittees for the important work they do for U.S. scientific research, education, and training. We appreciate your attention to the recommendations of the Board and stand ready to assist in whatever ways might be

most beneficial.

BIOGRAPHY FOR KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER

Kelvin K. Droegemeier earned a B.S. with Special Distinction in Meteorology in

1980 from the University of Oklahoma, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in atmospheric

science in 1982 and 1985, respectively, from the University of Illinois at Urbana–

Champaign under the direction of R. Wilhelmson. He joined the University of Oklahoma in September, 1985 as an Assistant Professor of Meteorology, and was tenured

and promoted to Associate Professor in July, 1991, and promoted to Professor in

July, 1998. Dr. Droegemeier was co-founder in 1989 of the NSF Science and Technology Center (STC) for Analysis and Prediction of Storms (CAPS), and served for

five years as its Deputy Director. He then directed CAPS from 1994 until 2006, and

today CAPS is recognized around the world as the pioneer of storm-scale numerical

weather prediction. Dr. Droegemeier is now Director Emeritus of CAPS. In 1998,

Dr. Droegemeier was named a President’s Associates Presidential Professor at the

University of Oklahoma, and for two years, beginning in summer 1999, wrote a

daily weather science column for the Daily Oklahoman newspaper, which is Oklahoma’s largest. He was awarded a Regents’ Professorship at OU in fall, 2001, which

is a life-long title. In 2003, Dr. Droegemeier co-founded the NSF Engineering Research Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere (CASA) and

currently serves as its Deputy Director. He is the only person in the Nation to have

co-founded an NSF Science and Technology Center and an NSF Engineering Research Center. In 2004, he was awarded the Roger and Sherry Teigen Presidential

Professorship and became the first OU professor to receive two Presidential Professorships. In 2005, he was named the Weathernews Chair in Applied Meteorology

at the University of Oklahoma and also the Director of the Sasaki Institute, a nonprofit organization that fosters the development and application of knowledge, policy, and advanced technology in the government, academic and private sectors. In

2004, Dr. Droegemeier was appointed by President George W. Bush to a six-year

term on the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science

Foundation that also provides science policy guidance to the Congress and President. In 2005, Dr. Droegemeier was appointed Associate Vice President for Research

at the University of Oklahoma.

In 1987, Dr. Droegemeier was named a Presidential Young Investigator by the

National Science Foundation. As Director of the CAPS model development project

for five years, he managed the creation of a multi-scale numerical prediction system

that has helped pioneer the science of storm-scale numerical forecasting. This computer model was a finalist for the 1993 National Gordon Bell Prize in High Performance Computing. In 1997, Dr. Droegemeier received the Discover Magazine Award

for Technology Innovation (computer software category), and also in 1997 CAPS was

awarded the Computerworld Smithsonian Award (science category). Droegemeier

45

also is a recipient of the NSF Pioneer Award and the Federal Aviation Administration’s Excellence in Aviation Award.

Dr. Droegemeier has been a major force behind the development and application

of high performance computing systems both at OU and across the U.S. In 1989 and

1990, he chaired the OU Computing Advisory Committee and was the lead author

on a five-year strategic plan. He has served on numerous NSF High Performance

Computing and Communication panels and is a member of the NCSA User Advisory

Committee. In 1995 he created as principal investigator, and now directs, a $1.4

million NSF/OU project known as the Environmental Computing Applications System. He served on the National Science Foundation’s Blue Ribbon Panel on

Cyberinfrastructure, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the OU Supercomputer Center for Education and Research (OSCER), which he helped establish.

Dr. Droegemeier is now a member of the Advisory Committee for the National Center for Computational Sciences and the Computer Science and Math Division at Oak

Ridge National Laboratory.

Dr. Droegemeier is a national leader in the creation of partnerships among academia, government and industry. He initiated and led a three-year, $1M partnership with American Airlines to customize weather prediction technology for commercial aviation, and this resulted in him founding a private company, Weather Decision Technologies, Inc., located in Norman, that is commercializing advanced weather technology developed by the University of Oklahoma and other organizations. The

success with American Airlines also played a role in the establishment in Oklahoma

of the Aviation Services Division of Weathernews, the world’s largest private weather company. Dr. Droegemeier led a $10.6M research alliance with Williams Energy

Marketing and Trading Company in Tulsa, which is the largest such partnership

between a university and a private company in the field of meteorology. He initiated

and led the Collaborative Radar Acquisition Field Test (CRAFT), a national project

directed toward developing strategies for the real time delivery of NEXRAD radar

data via the Internet. CRAFT won two awards from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and its success led the National Weather Service to

adopt its Internet data delivery strategy. As a follow-on to CRAFT, Droegemeier established Integrated Radar Data Services (IRaDS) at OU, which is a National

Weather Service-designed top-tier provider of NEXRAD radar data to private industry.

Dr. Droegemeier’s research interests lie in thunderstorm dynamics and predictability, variational data assimilation, mesoscale dynamics, computational fluid dynamics, massively parallel computing, and aviation weather. He has served as an

associate editor for Monthly Weather Review for six years served on the UCAR University Relations Committee, the last two as Chair. Elected to the UCAR Board of

Trustees in 2002 and as its Vice Chairman in 2003, he became Chairman of the

Board in 2004. Dr. Droegemeier has served as a consultant to Honeywell Corporation, American Airlines, the National Transportation Safety Board, and Climatological Consulting Corp. Dr. Droegemeier has graduated 27 students and served on

the committees of numerous others. He has served on the Advisory Committee for

the Geosciences Directorate at the National Science Foundation and the NSF Advisory Committee for the Computer Information Science and Engineering Directorate.

In his 23 years at the University of Oklahoma, Dr. Droegemeier has generated

over $40 million in external research funding. For over a decade, he has been among

the top five faculty at the University of Oklahoma in external research grant funding, averaging over $2 million per year. Dr. Droegemeier has been an invited speaker at or organizer of several international conferences and symposia on meteorology,

high-performance computing, and computational fluid dynamics in the U.S., England, Japan, Australia, Korea, and France, notably the series of Joint US-Korea

Workshops on Storm and Mesoscale Weather Analysis and Prediction, which he initiated in the mid 1990s. He has authored and co-authored more than 60 refereed

journal articles and over 200 conference publications, and is a former Vice President

of the Central Oklahoma Chapters of the American Meteorological Society and National Weather Association. He is a former Member of the Board of Directors of the

Norman, OK Chamber of Commerce and chaired the Weather and Climate Team

for Governor Brad Henry’s EDGE (Economic Development Generating Excellence)

Program. He is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and served as a

Counselor from 2005–2008.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Droegemeier.

At this time we will recognize Dr. Chen for five minutes.

46

STATEMENT OF DR. SHUYI S. CHEN, PROFESSOR OF METEOROLOGY AND PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY, ROSENSTIEL

SCHOOL OF MARINE AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

Dr. CHEN. Chairman Baird, Chairman Lampson, and Members of

the two Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to speak

with you today on the need for advancing hurricane research. My

name is Shuyi Chen. I am a Professor at Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences of the University of Miami. It is an

honor for me to testify on the National Hurricane Research Initiative. I would also like to thank Congressman Hastings and Congresswomen Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership in introducing H.R.

2407.

The U.S. has become increasingly vulnerable to hurricanes, not

only because of the uncertainty of hurricane response to a warming

climate, but also rapid growth of coastal population. The average

annual cost for hurricane-related losses have increased to more

than ten billion, not to mention the loss of life and human suffering

as seen in the case of Katrina.

As a scientist it was particularly devastating and heartbreaking

for me to watch the disaster caused by Katrina, the 2004 hurricanes in Florida, and the recent hurricanes worldwide. The time for

us to have better integrated hurricane forecasting and a response

system is now, not some time in the future.

The research required to address these challenges require a

transformative agenda that stimulates new directions in research

including a collaborative and multi-disciplinary approach. The prediction of rapid intensity-changing hurricanes has been stagnant

over the last fifteen years. We need new, truly integrated hurricane

forecasting response system. This is outlined in the written testimony.

At the center of this integrated system are accurate forecasts of

extreme wind, rain, storm surge, severe weather, floods, at and

after landfall, and the seamless information flow from forecasts to

risk assessment, emergency response, and ultimately mitigation of

hurricane damage. Universities will play a critical role in building

the integrated system, not only providing the basic research in

science and technology but also training the next generation scientists, engineers, forecasters, and government managers with

fresh knowledge of innovative tools for hurricane prediction and

impact mitigation.

These young people will continue the effort to improve the system into the future. We are confident that with the requests and

support, the research community will meet the scientific and engineering challenges in collaboration with the government agency.

We will develop and implement such an integrated system of operations in the coming decade.

It is impossible to put a price tag on the value of such a challenging problem facing the Nation. The investment we needed to

make to build the integrated system is a cost-effective approach.

The request investment is dwarfed by the cost of a single disaster

like in Katrina, which was more than 130 billion and unnecessary

loss of life.

47

1 Houze, R.A., S.S. Chen, B. Smull, W.C. Lee, M. Bell, 2007: Hurricane intensity and eyewall

replacement. Science, 315, 1235–1239. 2 Chen, S.S., J.F. Price, W. Zhao, M.A. Donelan, and E.J. Walsh, 2007: The CBLAST–Hurricane Program and the next-generation fully coupled atmosphere-wave-ocean models for hurricane research and prediction. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 311–317.

H.R. 2407 represents a cost-effective investment that will help

prepare the Nation to deal with the future disaster like Katrina.

It is overall a preventative plan for saving lives and reducing economic losses that would occur in many hurricanes we can expect

in the coming decades.

In conclusion, improving hurricane forecasts and response to

save lives and reduce economic losses must be a national priority.

The investment in science and technology gives us an unprecedented capacity and opportunity to develop an integrated system

that will support risk assessment, emergency management by reducing warning areas and providing forecasts with longer lead

time. The legislation, H.R. 2407, if passed, will represent a real opportunity for the Nation to effectively meet the challenge before us.

I urge the Committee to give the highest priority to the passage

of the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act, as this presents

an excellent plan to improve hurricane forecasts that will ultimately reduce hurricane damage.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Chen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHUYI S. CHEN

Introduction

Chairman Baird, Chairman Lampson, and Members of the two Subcommittees,

thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on the need for advancing

hurricane research. My name is Shuyi Chen and I am a Professor at the Rosenstiel

School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami. It is an

honor for me to testify on the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007.

My research and professional service have centered on understanding and improving prediction of tropical weather systems, especially hurricanes. I served as an Editor for Weather and Forecasting of the American Meteorological Society from 2004–

2007. I currently serve on the American Geophysical Union Committee on Cloud

and Precipitation and the National Science Foundation Science Steering Committee

on Coastal Ocean Processes. I lead a research group at the University of Miami that

has developed a next-generation high-resolution coupled atmosphere-wave-ocean

model to better understand hurricane structure and intensity and to improve hurricane prediction. I am a principal investigator for two recent major hurricane research programs. One is the National Science Foundation supported Hurricane

Rainbands and Intensity Change Experiment (RAINEX), which used three Doppler

radar aircraft and collected unprecedented in-situ data in Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,

and Ophelia during the 2005 Hurricane Season. The other is the Coupled Boundary

Layer Air-Sea Transfer (CBLAST)–Hurricane sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, which aimed to better understand the role of air-sea interaction in hurricane

structure and intensity change. These research results have been published in

Science1 and BAMS.2 Currently I am a lead scientist for a large international program to study the tropical cyclones in the West Pacific.

The U.S. has become increasingly vulnerable to hurricanes, not only because of

the uncertainty of hurricane response to a warming climate, but also the rapid

growth of the coastal population. The averaged annual cost for hurricane-related

losses has increased to more than $10 billion in recent years, not to mention the

loss of life and human suffering as seen, for example, in the case of Hurricane

Katrina. The devastating landfall hurricane events in 2004–2005 have led to four

major national reports calling for action to substantially improve hurricane forecasts

48

3 American Geophysical Union, 2006: Hurricanes and the U.S. Gulf Coast: Science and Sustainable Rebuilding. www.agu.org/report/hurricanes/. 4 NOAA Science Advisory Board, 2006: Majority Report, Hurricane Intensity Research Working

Group, www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/HIRWG¥final73.pdf 5 National Science Board, 2007: Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative. National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, www.nsf.gov/nsb, 36

pp.6Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, 2007:

Interagency Strategic Research Plan for Tropical Cyclones: The Way Ahead, FCM–P36–2007. Silver Spring, Maryland, www.ofcm.gov/p36-isrtc/pdf/entire¥p36¥2007.pdf

(AGU,3 NSB,4 NSAB,5 and OFCM6 ), particularly the rapid intensity change of hurricanes threatening the U.S. Accurate and timely forecasts and warnings can help

to avoid unnecessary loss of life and reduce economic losses related to land-falling

hurricanes. Recent advance in science and technology gives us hope for optimism.

Meeting the challenges put forward by the NSB, AGU, NSAB and OFCM can only

be accomplished through fundamental research to increase our understanding of

hurricanes as an integrated science and engineering problem, and to use this understanding to improve our ability to predict hurricanes, mitigate their impacts, and

react to an impending landfall.

The key to success is development of an integrated hurricane forecasting system

that substantially improves upon the current 1–5 day forecasts of intensity and

track, and extends it to include detailed forecasts of extreme winds, rain, storm

surge, and severe weather such as tornadoes and inland flooding, which are critical

for emergency response to hurricane impacts. There is also a need to extend the

forecast horizon to a time scale of weeks, which requires making probabilistic forecasts of hurricane genesis, that would provide extremely valuable for emergency

planning and preparedness. The bill H.R. 2407, if passed, will represent a real opportunity for the Nation to effectively meet the challenge before us. I urge that the

Subcommittees give the highest priority to the passage of the H.R. 2407, as this presents an excellent plan for improving hurricane forecasting that will ultimately reduce the damage of these dangerous storms.

Deficiencies in the Current Forecast System

Hurricane track forecasts and warnings have improved over the past 20 years due

mostly to improved computer models, global observations from satellites, and methods of assimilating many observations into models. These improvements have undoubtedly saved countless lives and billions of dollars in property damage. However,

hurricane intensity forecasts have shown little improvement. The lack of skill in

present forecasts of hurricane structure and intensity, especially rapid intensity

change, are attributed in part to deficiencies in the current prediction models: insufficient grid resolution, inaccurate model physics, lack of full coupling to a dynamic

ocean, and inadequate observations and data assimilation of hurricane structures.

Current operational forecast models are not adequate for predicting hurricane

wind and rain structure and intensity change, as highlighted by the report of the

NOAA SAB Hurricane Intensity Research Working Group. Recent research results2

Chen et al. (2007) have demonstrated the impact of increasing model grid resolutions on forecasting of hurricane structure and intensity change (Fig. 1). Clearly the

lower resolution models are incapable of predicting critical details in the hurricane

core region controlling the rapid intensification of a hurricane. A research experiment carried out during RAINEX in Hurricane Katrina (Fig. 2) shows the potential

capability of high-resolution models in forecasting rapid intensification. The required computer power increases by 5–10 times for each halving of the grid spacing,

so this requires a substantial investment in high performance computing. Moving

to high resolution also requires an investment in research to further our understanding and our ability of reproducing in forecast models the manner by which airsea interactions and cloud development are incorporated. Improvement in computer

models, high performance computers, innovative observations and data assimilation

of the hurricane structure will have to be achieved in concert to guarantee substantive progress in predicting hurricane intensity change.

49

The Next-Generation Hurricane Forecast System

A key to improving forecast of hurricane intensity and landfall impact is to develop computer models that are capable of resolving the inner core structures (eye

and eyewall) and rainbands in a hurricane and realistically representing the physical processes governing rapid intensity change, such as the transfer of heat, moisture, and momentum at the air-sea interface and the phase changes of water vapor

in the atmosphere. The next-generation prediction models must be able to resolve

features on a horizontal scale of ∼1 km or less to capture the gradients across the

eyewall boundaries and the interactions between the inner core and rainbands. Furthermore, the intensification and decay of a hurricane largely depends upon two

competing processes at the air-sea interface: 1) the heat and moisture fluxes that

fuel the storm and 2) the dissipation of kinetic energy associated with wind stress

on the ocean surface. Figure 3 shows an example of the high-resolution coupled

models developed at the University of Miami in collaboration with NCAR capable

of capturing the detailed structure of rain, wind, ocean surface waves, sea surface

temperature and currents. These detailed forecast fields can bridge the gap between

the traditional forecast of track and intensity and realistic hurricane impacts at

landfall.

50

Furthermore, the success of forecasting hurricane intensity change will depend on

the ability of assimilating new observations and ensemble-based probabilistic forecasts using the high-resolution atmosphere-wave-ocean coupled models. A better understanding of the predictability of fine scale features in the extreme wind and rain

fields associated with hurricanes is also critical. The NSB report and the H.R. 2407

Section 3 have highlighted these urgent needs as high-priority for the research community to address.

A further issue in increasing the fidelity of hurricane intensity and track forecasts, especially for increasing the forecast horizon beyond five days, is improved

global weather predication models that provide the large-scale forcing for the high

resolution storm-scale forecasts. The resolution and number of ensemble members

of the NOAA NCEP Global Forecasting System are significantly lower than that of

the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF). The higher

resolution ECMWF model is being used as the basis for extended range hurricane

forecasting, and the synergy of the higher resolution global weather model having

a large number of ensemble members with the high-resolution coupled atmospherewave-ocean storm-scale model provides the foundation for a substantially improved

hurricane forecasting system with improved accuracy, more specific information regarding impacts, and an extended time horizon for the forecasts.

An Integrated Approach for Improving Hurricane Forecast and Emergency

Response

To improve preparedness in response to hurricane impacts, a new integrated approach in hurricane forecasting and warning is sorely needed. This system should

be capable of:

• Providing accurate forecast of high-resolution wind, storm surge, rain, and

flood on the short lead time of days to hours, and potential hurricane genesis

and track on extended lead time of weeks;

• Assessing potential hurricane impacts on human lives (fatalities and suffering) and broad-range economy loss (property and infrastructure damage,

power outage, insured losses) based on the forecast of wind, surge, rain, and

flood;

• Communicating with federal and local government to optimize the utility of

the forecast and assessment products in emergency response;

• Rapidly transferring research products to NOAA and other operations;

• Training the next-generation scientists and forecasters with innovative tools

for hurricane prediction and impact mitigation;

• Educating vulnerable residents on the application value of the new information coming out of the integrated forecast system on short and long lead

times.

The ultimate goal of this integrated system is to improve risk assessment and

mitigation over the U.S. coastal regions so lives will be saved and economic loss reduced.

51

Conclusion

The research required to address these challenges requires an ambitious, transformative and risky research agenda that stimulates new directions and styles of

inquiry in research including collaborative, cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary

approaches. New centers and partnerships between university researchers, government agencies and the private sector are needed to meet these challenges. The academic hurricane research community is ready to lead an ambitious and transformative interdisciplinary research agenda required to lay the foundations for development of an integrated hurricane forecast and response system that will help

mitigate hurricane damage. The envisioned research agenda will advance our ability

to collect accurate observations from the atmosphere, air-sea interface, and the

ocean and to assimilate such observations for hurricane forecasting, to improve prediction models, to use forecast products for better risk assessment, and ultimately

to mitigate hurricane damage. There is critical need for the involvement of the NSF

to support the ambitious and risky interdisciplinary research agenda, in ways that

go beyond what is feasible in individual mission oriented government agencies. The

development and operation of such an integrated hurricane forecast and response

system requires collaboration and coordination among many research disciplines

and among the research community and government and impacted sectors. Further,

successful implementation of such a system requires the education of a new generation of scientists, technicians, forecasters, government managers, and be guaranteed

with a smooth transition from research to NOAA operations.

In closing, it is of no doubt that improving the hurricane forecast and response

to save lives and reduce economic loss should be a national priority. The rapid advancement of science and technology presents us with an unprecedented capability

and opportunity to develop the integrated hurricane forecast and response system

that will support risk assessments and emergency management by reducing warning areas and providing forecasts with longer lead time. There is no reason for further delay of full-scale support for such development, which is long over due. We

are confident that with the requested fiscal support the hurricane research community will meet the scientific and engineering challenges and in collaboration with

the relevant government agencies will develop and implement such an integrated

hurricane forecast and response system for operations in the coming decade.

BIOGRAPHY FOR SHUYI S. CHEN

Shuyi S. Chen is a Professor of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the

Rosenthal School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (RSMAS) of the University of

Miami (UM). Professor Chen is a widely published author whose research interests

include tropical weather systems and hurricanes, air-sea interactions, high-resolution coupled atmosphere-wave-ocean modeling of tropical cyclones, and numerical

weather prediction. She served as an Editor for Weather and Forecasting of the

American Meteorological Society and currently serves on a number of science committees on atmospheric and ocean processes including the AGU and NSF. Professor

Chen leads a research group at RSMAS/UM that has developed a high-resolution,

fully coupled atmosphere-wave-ocean, vortex-following, nested-grids model for hurricane research and prediction. These efforts contribute directly to the development

of the next-generation hurricane forecasting modeling systems. Professor Chen is a

lead scientist and principle investigator for the Coupled Boundary Layer Air-Sea

Transfer (CBLAST)–Hurricane modeling team sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, which is one of the first comprehensive research programs to study the impacts of ocean surface waves, sea surface temperature and upper ocean circulation

on hurricane intensity changes. She is also a principal investigator for the National

Science Foundation supported Hurricane Rainbands and Intensity Change Experiment (RAINEX), which used three Doppler radar aircraft and collected unprecedented in-situ data in Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ophelia during the 2005 Hurricane Season. Currently she is a lead scientist of a large international program to

study the tropical cyclones in the West Pacific. Her research has received broad national and international recognition. She has given many invited lectures on hurricanes and was invited by the National Academy of Engineering as a Keynote Speaker at the Indo-U.S. Frontiers Symposium in 2006 and was a Keynote Speak at the

First U.S.–China Symposium on Meteorology in 2008. In 2006, Professor Chen was

awarded the NASA Group Achievement Award. Professor Chen served on a panel

of experts for the Congressional Staff Briefing on ‘‘A National Hurricane Research

Initiative: Meeting Society’s Needs’’ at the U.S. House and Senate in July 2007. Dr.

Chen received her Ph.D. in Meteorology from the Pennsylvania State University in

1990.

52

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Chen.

Dr. Prevatt, you are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID O. PREVATT, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND COASTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE

Dr. PREVATT. Chairman Baird, Chairman Lampson, and honorable Subcommittee Members, my name is David Prevatt, and I am

a Professional Engineer and Assistant Professor of Civil and Coastal Engineering at the University of Florida. I appreciate, really

truly appreciate the opportunity to speak to you on this bill.

Your own bipartisan support for this bill, the collective voice

from the State of Florida Representatives, underscores the importance that hurricane mitigation plays in our lives in that State. Increasing national support for hurricane research is of critical importance if we are to reduce the enormous economic losses from

hurricanes.

Funding for research to address damage to buildings and infrastructure, which by far dominates the economic impact of hurricanes, is under-represented in the current budget, as it has been

for decades. In my testimony I have suggested several categories in

this bill that probably should be considered for reprioritization.

Preparation for hurricanes. This begins long before landfall, long

before the 24-hour window. It begins when we first construct our

buildings. It begins when we first retrofit the existing infrastructure we have today. Nearly 40 years ago the National Bureau of

Standards reporting on Hurricane Camille damage noted that most

failures in rural homes were to roofs and that proper anchorage

was non-existent. That same concern was voiced by me and by others after Hurricanes Francis, Charlie, Ivan in 2004, Wilma in 2005,

and Katrina.

Sadly, ladies and gentlemen, the situation is not much different

now than it was in 1969, with regard to hurricane resistance of

buildings and our infrastructure. The fact is nearly 90 percent of

all homes, those built before 1994 building code changes, have inadequate connections, and they risk significant damage from hurricanes.

Therefore, there is an urgent need to harden those homes to reduce hurricane losses. And currently we must address how to ensure the adequate performance of future homes. These are the

issues which really reduce the economic loss and the disruption to

people. Consequently, the highest priority, I believe, should be

placed on reducing the damage and minimizing economic losses.

Some of the issues that should be at the forefront of the research

agenda to reduce wind damage to buildings and storm surge damage to buildings and infrastructure. One, a need to improve our

knowledge of the special variability of surface level winds that impact buildings, a need to understand how a hurricane is attenuated

as it makes landfall, a better understanding of how and at what

loads do our existing buildings fail, and how can we really apply

this knowledge to the new construction coming on-board.

We need an intense program to study the ways of identifying

weaknesses in this existing infrastructure and ways to provide

practical retrofit techniques to ameliorate these problems.

53

Further, we need to quantitatively understand the storm surge

and wave loading on coastal structures, on bridges, and how coastal structures also respond to these loads.

And finally, a need for robust support of academic infrastructure

that generates basic science and technology research and provides

increased availability of trained faculty and researchers and

trained engineers to implement these improved practices.

While the loss of life in hurricanes has dropped dramatically over

the past decades due to improved warning and forecasting, the

amount of damage, the amount of economic loss—it continues to

spiral upward at an exponential rate. This trend is projected to

continue as more properties, more wealth is concentrated in the

vulnerable coastal areas that we have heard about today.

It is only through mitigation that we have any hope of reducing

the increases, much less begin to reduce the losses when major

events occur.

Strong consideration should be given to increasing support for severely under-funded areas, i.e., the performance of buildings and

infrastructure under hurricane loads. In this way we will see the

most immediate, tangible benefits from our increased research and

infrastructure improvement.

I believe improved forecasting by itself will not have a significant

impact on loss reduction, however, we develop cost-effective ways

to harden the 80 to 90 percent of homes built before recent code

improvements, our widespread vulnerability will remain.

Investing in creation of new knowledge and in more-effective

ways of using the existing knowledge that we have is the only way

to change current trends. Improving the resilience of civil infrastructure and houses can significantly reduce economic losses of

hurricanes. I admit, many unanswered questions remain regarding

the construction of new facilities, and the problems of existing construction has hardly begun to be addressed. However, a sustainable, federally-supported long-term research program in this area

envisioned by this bill and others can, indeed, make a difference.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Prevatt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID O. PREVATT

1. INTRODUCTION

Chairman Baird and Chairman Lampson and Honorable Subcommittee Members,

my name is David Prevatt, and I am a professional engineer and Assistant Professor

of Civil and Coastal Engineering at the University of Florida. The faculty of the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering (CCE) is very active in multiple aspects

of hurricane hazards research and the design of hazard resistant infrastructure. Our

research focuses on understanding the hurricane effects (wind, rain, storm surge)

on buildings and infrastructure in hurricane-prone coastal regions in order to increase their resilience. Our combined expertise includes:

• Building and infrastructure design against surge and wind hazards

• In-field measurement and characterization of hurricane winds and wind loads

• Evaluation of structural capacity to resist wind loads and the efficacy of retrofits

• Prediction and modeling of storm surge, wave, and coastal flooding

• Remote sensing of high resolution ground elevation and bathymetry (ocean

depth contours)

• Lifeline protection and restoration

• Transportation issues for emergency evacuation

• High performance computing and data warehousing/mining.

54

It is clear that there are several common areas of interest for H.R. 2407 and the

wind and civil engineering research community. I applaud this increased emphasis

on understanding and predicting the nature and impact of hurricanes. However, the

proposed research efforts, while they address important goals, do not do much to

reduce the damage or economic losses from hurricanes. Funding for research to address damage to buildings and civil infrastructure, which by far dominates the economic impact of hurricanes, is under-represented in the current budget. We believe

emphasis of several categories in this bill and the National Science Board (NSB) report of 2007 should be re-prioritized.

1.1 Background

Nearly 40 years ago, the National Bureau of Standards reporting on Hurricane

Camille damage noted that the most common failure in homes was to roofs and that

proper anchorage was non-existent. These same concerns have repeatedly been

voiced by researchers over the ensuing years (Table 1), who also noted recurring

widespread structural damage due to loss of roof sheathing, failure of load transfer

at joints and connections. Sadly, the situation today is not much different, wherein

roof failures and improper anchorage still account for the majority of building damage from hurricanes.

It is estimated that 50 percent of the U.S. population now lives in hurricane prone

coastal areas (Alvarez 2000). Hundreds of miles of once empty coastlines are now

major population centers with trillions of dollars of buildings and infrastructure exposed to the risk of hurricane damage. The vast majority of residential structures

(over 80 percent) in these areas were constructed before recent improvements to

building codes that occurred after Hurricane Andrew. Therefore there is an urgent

need to harden those homes to reduce annual hurricane losses. It must be recognized that hurricanes are just one of the several sources of damage and loss due

to extreme winds and that tornadoes, down-bursts and frontal winds also contribute

to large annual losses that could be reduced through better connections and development of continuous load paths.

Civil engineers and particularly wind engineers are critically aware of factors contributing to high failure rates of buildings and infrastructure and we have been intimately involved in the effort to improve the knowledge base to reduce hurricane impacts. Indeed many of us have previously testified before Congressional Subcommittees (Bienkiewicz 2004; Levitan 2005; Prevatt 2005; Reinhold 2005) and our members have supported related legislation H.R. 3940, the National Windstorm Impact

Reduction Act of 2004.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, and associated phenomena cause an excessive level of property losses and human suffering in the United States. With the exception of Hurricane Katrina, loss of life has been significantly reduced through

warnings about hurricanes and the loss of life in tornadoes and other extreme wind

events typically average less than 100 per year. Consequently, the highest national

55

priority should be placed on reducing the damage and minimizing economic loss.

With the exception of strengthening building codes in some hurricane prone regions,

our success in reducing losses has been poor over the past 40 years. This is due in

large part to the limited research and technology transfer support that is focused

on strengthening the existing built infrastructure and in the development of cost effective retrofit and mitigation measures.

1.2 Effects of Recent Hurricanes on Buildings and Infrastructure

The 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons were a real-time laboratory for evaluating

the performance of our buildings. Several of our faculty were deployed during the

storms and collected perishable damage data immediately after the events. There

were several areas of concern regarding performance of buildings and infrastructure:

• Small breaches in the building envelope, especially in the roofing systems,

can provide paths for water leakage that result in extensive water damage

to the interior walls, ceilings, and to building contents. Minor roofing failures

(loss of asphalt shingle and underlayment) to one Pensacola house resulted

in water damage to about 80 percent of all interior finishes on the ceiling and

walls. The cost of drying out water-soaked buildings and removal of mold has

been a growth industry since these hurricanes. Less durable materials, insulation, gypsum sheathing and acoustic ceiling tiles cannot be dried out and

must be removed and replaced. The gutting of houses and businesses contributes tons of debris and toxic substances to our landfills.

• Numerous engineered buildings suffered little damage, and retrofitted nonengineered houses also performed satisfactorily. In Charley, a major success

story was the good to excellent performance of newer manufactured homes

that were built in accordance with 1994 HUD guidelines. Most of these survived with minimal damage, while adjacent older manufactured homes that

did not have wind-resistant construction were destroyed.

• Failure of building envelope systems caused significant disruption to hospitals

and critical facilities during these storms. From Mobile, AL to Ft. Myers, FL,

more than a dozen hospitals were damaged or were evacuated due to the 2004

hurricanes. Charlotte Regional Hospital in Port Charlotte and the Navy Hospital in Pensacola both sustained damage to their roofing systems, and windows. One hospital damaged in Hurricane Frances in 2004, suffered further

damage as Hurricane Jeanne passed through the area just three weeks later.

• Several fire stations and hurricane evacuation shelters were not able to maintain function throughout or after the storms. The Turner-Arcadia Civic Center in Central Florida suffered a masonry wall and roof collapse while sheltering 1,200 persons from Hurricane Charley.

These poor and variable performances are examples of a larger problem related

to buildings and infrastructure.

1.3 Research Priorities to Improve the Resilience of Structures

Specifically some of the factors that are important to reducing loss and wind damage to buildings and infrastructure are:

• A need to improve our knowledge of surface level winds and their spatial variability during extreme wind events.

• A need to better understand the potential loadings on structures through a

comprehensive program of boundary layer wind tunnel testing and validation

using field observations.

• A better understanding of how and at what level of loading existing structures fail and the application of this knowledge to new construction.

• An intense program to study various ways of identifying weaknesses in existing infrastructure and practical retrofit techniques to ameliorate these problems.

• Comprehensive testing of full scale structures to learn how to economically

improve wind and hazard resistant construction and associated water penetration and damage.

• A need to improve the techniques to assess the economic impacts of different

design decisions for both new and retrofit applications.

• A need to quantitatively understand the surge and wave loading on coastal

structures and how the coastal structures respond to loading.

56

• A need for a new robustness in the supporting academic infrastructure to generate improved basic supporting science and technology, to improve the availability of trained new university faculty/researchers, and trained engineers to

implement improved practices and planning.

In this era of limited funds, it is necessary to set realistic expectations and to give

priority to initiatives that have the greatest chance of reducing the hurricane impact. Consideration should also be given to increasing support for the most severely

under-funded areas, that of civil infrastructure. In their comment on the draft NSB

report, the Weather Coalition stated that ‘‘Hurricanes are complex and violent systems. Even the best research initiative will only improve forecasts, not perfect them.’’

However, the focus should be to improve performance of buildings and infrastructure, and we will see the most immediate and tangible benefits from increased research on infrastructure improvement. Improved forecasts will not have a significant impact on loss reduction.

2. COMMENTS ON NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 2007 REPORT

The University of Florida faculty experts in hurricane winds and storm surge recommend changes to the proposed budget distribution, as well as a re-prioritizing of

subjects within the three investment categories. Comments and suggestions are delineated below by the following subsections of the NSB document: investment category, recommendations, and appendix.

The purposes of the National Hurricane Research Initiative shall be to set research objectives based upon the findings of the January 12, 2007, National Science

Board report entitled Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for the National Hurricane Research Initiative, to make recommendations to the NSB and NOAA science

Advisory Board and to assemble expertise and pursue multi-entity research in three

areas:

1. improving hurricane and other severe tropical storm forecasting capabilities,

including formation, track, and intensity change

2. durable and resilient infrastructure; and

3. mitigating impacts on coastal populations, the coastal built environment, and

the natural coastal environment, including but not limited to, coral reefs,

wetlands, and other natural systems that mitigate hurricane wind and storm

surge impacts.

For the sake of clarity, the comments below follow the structure of the NSB report. General comments are provided on the overall document, followed by comments on specific sections in the report and delineated herein.

2.1 General Comments on the NSB Report

The NSB Report identifies for Investment categories (#1, Understanding and Prediction, #2, Impacts, #3 Preparedness and Response Measures, and #4 Cross-cutting

Activities), and it provides recommendations for action and budget of approximately

$300 million. H.R. 2407 proposes that $285 million be authorized for this effort for

each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

We recommend that a working group be assigned with direct links among the

four investment categories, so that R&D will not be performed independently,

but that resources be assigned to address those issues that can be shown to

have the most significant impact.

We recommend that the initiative be developed within a defined interagency

group, comprising of NSF, NOAA, FEMA and NIST.

Appendix C: Proposed Strategic Investment in the National Hurricane Research Initiative—pg. 29

Problem: Funding to address damage to civil infrastructure, which by far dominates the economic impact of hurricanes, is under-represented in the current budget. Given the weighting of expertise represented on the NSB panel (only 10 out 55

panel members were civil engineers), this priority received less attention than warranted. Consequently, the proposed NHRI budget is directed to already heavily

funded NSF programs, while research areas that represent the highest potential

gains in risk reduction are not well funded.

We recommend that funding support the core high-priority research areas

that are currently most severely under-funded.

57

We recommend against redistributing NHRI funding to already heavily fund- ed NSF programs, such as cyberinfrastructure ($492M in FY 2005), networking

and information technology R&D ($811M in FY 2005) and climate change

($197M in FY 2005). Rather, an increase in the current (and very modest) annual expenditures on engineering and the built environment would provide far

greater immediate benefit, given the dominance of infrastructure damage on

economic loss. The table below reflects our suggested reprioritizing of strategic

investments.

Investment Category #1: Understanding and Prediction, pages 13–15

HIGH PRIORITY: Predicting hurricane intensification and size, and reducing the

uncertainty associated with where and when hurricanes will make landfall—pg. 13

Problem: Existing hurricane models do not have adequate parameterization to represent the dissipation effects of land on hurricanes.

We recommend that an additional HIGH PRIORITY item be established to

focus research to understand the effect of land roughness on hurricane intensity

decay.

HIGH PRIORITY: predicting storm surge, rainfall and inland flooding from hurricanes and tropical storms—pg. 13

Problem: One key to limiting the loss of life in both coastal and inland flooding

is having high resolution topographic maps with sufficient spatial resolution to identify where constricted flow is likely to cause flash flooding. The U.S. is well behind

when it comes to producing high quality, one foot contour topographic maps. During

the past decade many European nations have used airborne laser swath mapping

(ALSM, also known as LiDAR) and ground based laser scanning to map their entire

nations. In the U.S. only a few states have launched programs to obtain high resolution digital terrain maps and contour maps suitable for comprehensive flood planning, using airborne and ground based laser scanning. The U.S. should have digital

elevation models adequate to support one foot contour maps across the Nation. The

highest priority should be given to areas at risk for flash floods. The combination

of airborne and ground based laser scanning is the method of choice for collecting

the necessary observations.

Suggestion #1: Emphasize the importance of high resolution topographic maps

to predict both coastal and inland flooding and limit loss of life and economic

loss.

Suggestion #2: Research is needed to fully understand and predict the effect

of waves on storm surge, coastal inundation, and loading on coastal infrastructures, including houses, bridges, levees, and power plants. Wave loading is

much more destructive for coastal infrastructures than storm surge alone.

Suggestion #3: For more accurate and cost effective mitigation and evacuation

planning, high resolution street-level forecasts are needed. Current hurricane

and storm surge forecasts by the U.S. Government have much lower spatial resolution (hundreds of meters) than the LiDAR data. Street-level forecasts are

needed to enable more accurate and cost-effective mitigation and evacuation

planning. To enable street-level forecasts, it is more prudent to adopt more efficient forecast models than to increase computational capability.

Suggestion #4: Research is needed to fully understand the flow-structure interaction during hurricanes. Storm surge and coastal flooding is strongly affected

by such manmade or natural structures as levees, wetlands, marshes, coral

reefs, and beach dunes.

HIGH PRIORITY: Improved in situ observations—pg. 13

58

Problem: Direct measurement of the hurricane is a necessary underpinning of virtually every other investment category enumerated in this document. Prevention of

infrastructure damage to winds must be based upon detailed knowledge of dynamic

wind loads, which can only be gathered via direct measurement. A historical dearth

of direct observation of ground level wind speeds during landfalling hurricanes is

among the biggest obstacles in the design against extreme wind loads. Additionally,

all remote sensing is ultimately dependent upon direct measurement for refinement,

validation and calibration.

Suggestion: Emphasize the importance of observations of data at surface level

winds and its interactions (pressure generation) on structures.

Investment Category #2: Impacts and Interactions, pages 15–16

HIGH PRIORITY: Interaction of hurricanes with engineered structures—pg. 15

Problem: Current codes (except for perhaps earthquake effects) do not adequately

incorporate dynamic loading (e.g., wind, vessel impact, surge, waves) for foundation/

soil interaction or foundation/water interaction for cyclic or surge loading. We have

the system characterization capabilities, and the mechanics/computational abilities

to account for dynamics, but we sorely lack experimental research to calibrate and

validate our analysis systems, particularly at full-scale. With the advent of Network

for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) at NSF, we now have the experimental equipment capable of full-scale experiments. We now need the funding to

pursue this research.

Suggestion #1: Add an additional HIGH PRIORITY item that addresses the

need for full-scale experimentation to capture the effects of dynamic wind/rain/

surge loads on the infrastructure, which as of today is poorly incorporated in

building codes. Current practice focuses on the performance of individual components in isolation, but the most often observed failures are a result of interaction among multiple components (system response). We sorely lack research

to evaluate system performance issues via full-scale experiment.

Suggestion #2: Add an additional HIGH PRIORITY item that addresses retrofitting of existing structures. Retrofitting of critical infrastructure in hurricane

prone regions is urgently needed to protect the public and life-line services.

Ninety percent of existing residential homes were built before building code improvement modifications that occurred after Hurricane Andrew. As with earthquake prone regions, retrofitting of existing structures will result in lower damage and fewer lives lost. This, combined with a tightening of the existing building codes, should be a substantial emphasis.

Problem: Recent hurricane seasons have clearly demonstrated that highway

bridges which are key components of infrastructure lifelines, at risk of failure due

to the combined effects of wind, storm surge, and vessel impact loading. During

Hurricanes Ivan (2004) and Katrina (2005), major interstate bridges along critical

lifelines were destroyed by storm surge loading. Additionally, Hurricane Katrina

demonstrated that barges, ships, and floating structures such as drill rigs, can

break loose during storms and collide with bridge structures and levee walls, thus

generating significant impact loads and damage.

Suggestion #3: As with earthquake prone regions, retrofitting of critical infrastructure in hurricane prone regions is urgently needed to protect the public

and lifeline services. This should be addressed in the draft.

Suggestion #4: Development of procedures for evaluating (both pre- and postevent), and improving, the resistance of infrastructure components under the

combined effects of wind, storm surge, and vessel impact needs to be a high priority item. The approach taken must account not only for structural aspects of

bridge performance under these conditions, but also the statistical probabilities

that such combined multi-hazard loading conditions occur simultaneously.

Investment Category #3: Preparedness and Response Measures, pages 16–

18

HIGH PRIORITY: assessing and improving the resilience of the built environment—

pg. 16

Problem: The massive economic impact of hurricanes is in many ways a direct result of engineering designs mandated by building codes. For a large majority of the

existing infrastructure, extreme events associated with hurricanes (e.g., wind &

wave loading, tidal surges, bridge scour, etc.) are simply a secondary consideration.

For example, current bridge design specifications only address wind induced forces,

59

with no recognition of wave loading, even when more than 15 bridges were lost from

waves/surge during Katrina. In addition, much of the existing infrastructure involving geotechnical related issues (i.e., levees, dams, bridge foundations, etc.), were designed using the ‘‘allowable stress’’ procedure that incorporates a global factor of

safety. However, no consideration for the degree of risk or probability of failure of

said systems has ever been undertaken. Moreover, even though some of the newer

codes are moving towards incorporating risk assessment, i.e., (Load and Resistance

Factor Design (LRFD), with associated load and resistance factors developed

through research, the majority of geotechnical infrastructure (dams, levees, building

foundations, etc.) load and resistance factors have never been established.

Suggestion: Emphasis needs to be placed on research toward the efficacy of the

current design practice in light of recent infrastructure failures. The NSB report

calls for the investigation of damage due to non-compliance, but the majority of

damage is clearly the result of adequate compliance with inadequate codes.

HIGH PRIORITY: Disaster response and recovery—pg. 17

Problem: Getting victims out of and relief services into an affected area is critically

dependent on the condition of the roadway network in the area. Aerial based technologies need to be developed and/or evaluated for their ability to provide a survey

of critical roadway infrastructure items (e.g., passable roads, navigational signage

condition, and status of traffic control devices). This information can be used with

Geographic Information Systems to develop usable transportation routes into and

out of the area.

Suggestion: A prioritization of critical links in the highway system should be

developed, based on anticipated origin-destinations in disaster response conditions (for example, to and from shelters, hospitals, etc.)

Investment Category #4: Cross-Cutting Activities

MEDIUM PRIORITY: Computational Capability—pg. 18

Problem: With the well-recognized scarcity of funding, it is not prudent to divert

funds to well-funded and generic research that will advance full-force with no funding from a hurricane mitigation-specific program. This is an important but not wellfunded item.

We recommend removal of this priority item: Computational capability is

an important, but is already well-funded through existing programs.

MEDIUM PRIORITY: Training and education programs related to hurricane impacts—pg. 18

Problem: Education and training already receives $844M annually from NSF. This

falls under the category of ‘‘important but heavily funded elsewhere.

Suggestion: Remove or de-emphasize the funding for this priority.

General Implementing Recommendations, pages 19–21

Leadership—pg. 20

Problem: Although considerable progress has been made on arriving at improved

loading standards and on some methods of improving constructed facilities many of

these improvements are based on an existing information base that is over 30 years

old. Unfortunately support for these efforts has not continued at a level that encourages basic research. What is needed now is new research capabilities to supplement

current efforts and generate fundamental knowledge from which next generation

buildings and retrofit techniques can emerge. The emphasis of these activities resides in understanding buildings and infrastructure.

Suggestion: Designate the National Science Foundation as the custodian for all

funding. This research belongs in the hands of the federal agency primarily

tasked to supported basic research conducted by our colleges and universities.

Operational agencies (meaning those organizations responsible for exploration,

prediction, monitoring, response, and recovery) should carry a supporting role,

but not share parallel responsibilities.

Maintaining dialogue with the broad community—pg. 20

Problem: Progress will be made by engaging all stakeholders responsible for construction and retrofit of buildings and infrastructure, including legislative bodies,

academic researchers, and building professionals.

60

Suggestion: Use conferences already in existence. Stage the meetings/presentations from the annual Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference held by the

Office of the Federal Coordinator of Meteorology. It is the most reputable and

well-attended by government stakeholders.

Suggestion: The panel is recommended to seek input from civil engineers

through the existing associations who work to protect buildings and infrastructure from hurricanes. We recommend that the American Association for Wind

Engineering and the American Society of Civil Engineers be consulted within

the process, since those organizations combined nearly a decade ago to initiate

the initial legislation that will expire in November 2008.

3. SUMMARY

The cost of hurricanes is something that we bear as a society. The losses and disruptions have profound and widespread impacts to the social structure of communities and to the ecological systems upon which we depend. While the loss of life

in hurricanes has dropped over the past decades due to improved warning and forecasting, the amount of damage and economic loss continues to spiral upward at an

exponential rate. This trend is projected to continue upward as more properties and

wealth are concentrated in vulnerable coastal areas. It is only through mitigation

that we have any hope of reducing the increases much less begin to reduce losses

when major events occur.

Investing in the creation of new knowledge and in more effective ways of using

existing knowledge is the only way to change the current trends. The research to

improve the resilience of civil infrastructure and houses can significantly reduce the

enormous economic costs of hurricanes. Many unanswered questions regarding the

design and construction of new facilities remain, and the problems of existing construction have hardly been addressed. However, a sustainable, federally-supported,

long-term research program can indeed make the difference.

4. REFERENCES

Adams, A.D. (1989). ‘‘Structural Framing Considerations for Wind Resistance of

Buildings.’’ Jamaican Institute of Engineers Seminar on Effects of ‘‘Hurricane

Gilbert’’ on Buildings and Engineering Facilities in Jamaica, Jamaican Institute

of Engineers, Jamaica.

Allen, D.E. (1989). ‘‘Hurricane Gilbert: Building Damage in Jamaica.’’ Jamaican Institute of Engineers Seminar on Effects of ‘‘Hurricane Gilbert’’ on Buildings and

Engineering Facilities in Jamaica, Jamaican Institute of Engineers, Jamaica.

Alvarez, R. ‘‘Proceedings of the National Hurricane Hazard Reduction Act Meeting.’’

Miami, FL.

Bienkiewicz, B. (2004). ‘‘Strengthening Windstorm Hazard Mitigation: An Examination of Public and Private Efforts.’’ Committee on Science, Lubbock, TX.

Dikkers, R.D., Marshall, R.D., and Thom, H.C.S. (1970). ‘‘Hurricane Camille—August 1969: A Survey of Structural Damage Along the Mississippi Gulf Coast.’’

National Bureau of Standards.

FEMA. (1992). ‘‘Building Performance: Hurricane Andrew in Florida—Observations,

Recommendations, and Technical Guidance.’’ Federal Emergency Management

Agency.

FEMA. (1993). ‘‘Building Performance: Hurricane Iniki in Hawaii—Observations,

Recommendations, and Technical Guidance.’’ Federal Emergency Management

Agency.

FEMA. (1999). ‘‘Building Performance Assessment Report: Hurricane Georges In

Puerto Rico—Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance.’’ Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA. (2005a). ‘‘Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Hurricane Charley in Florida—Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance.’’ Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA. (2005b). ‘‘Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Hurricane Ivan in Alabama

and Florida—Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance.’’ Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA. (2005c). ‘‘Summary Report on Building Performance: 2004 Hurricane Season.’’ Federal Emergency Management Agency.

61

FEMA. (2006). ‘‘Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast: Mitigation Assessment Team

Report—Building Performance Observations, Recommendations, and Technical

Guidance.’’ Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Kareem, A. (1985). ‘‘Structural Performance and Wind Speed-Damage Correlation in

Hurricane Alicia.’’ Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(12), 2596–2610.

Levitan, M.L. (2005). ‘‘Testimony on Behalf of the LSU Hurricane Center, American

Association for Wind Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Wind

Hazards Reduction Coalition.’’ Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Washington, DC.

National Science Board. (2007). ‘‘HURRICANE WARNING: The Critical Need for a

National Hurricane Research Initiative.’’ National Science Foundation, ed., 36

p.

Prevatt, D.O. (2005). ‘‘Wind Engineering Response to the Hurricane Risk to the

Grand Strand, SC.’’ Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction of the

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Myrtle Beach, SC.

Reinhold, T.A. (2005). ‘‘Severe Storms and Reducing Their Impact on Communities.’’

Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Washington, DC.

Sparks, P.R. (1990). ‘‘Performance of structures in Hurricane Hugo 1989. The Carolinas.’’ NIST Special Publication (796), 445–457.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DAVID O. PREVATT

Born in Nassau, Bahamas and growing up in Trinidad and Tobago, Dr. David O.

Prevatt has lived in hurricane-prone regions for most of his life. In 1985, Prevatt

graduated from the University of the West Indies (UWI), Trinidad with a BSc

(Honours) degree in Civil Engineering. He worked as a structural engineer in Trinidad until 1990 when he joined an IDRC-funded research project on Caribbean Cyclone-Resistant Housing at UWI’s Civil Engineering Department. Prevatt came to

the United States in 1993 to pursue his Ph.D. at Clemson University, working at

the Wind Load Test Facility. His research on evaluating the wind uplift capacity

of various mechanically attached commercial roofing systems sought to assess the

validity of industry-standard test methods and compare these with roof behavior

subject to true spatial and temporally varying wind loads. After earning his Ph.D.

in 1998, Dr. Prevatt worked as structural engineer with the Boston-based ENR500

consulting engineering firm, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., from 1998 through

2004, concentrating in the design, performance and investigation of building enclosure systems. His expertise is in structural engineering, wind engineering and the

performance of building envelope systems, and forensic engineering. Dr. Prevatt is

a professional engineer registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and in

Trinidad and Tobago with over 15 years consulting experience in structural engineering and building investigations.

In May 2007, Dr. Prevatt joined the faculty at the University of Florida as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering. Dr. Prevatt’s

research continues to focus on the mitigation of hurricane damage, particularly to

low-rise construction. His current research involves experimental investigation and

analytical modeling of the structural load paths in wood-framed structures, and the

wind uplift testing of building cladding components. Prior to this appointment, Dr.

Prevatt was on the faculty of Clemson University where he was an Assistant Professor and served as Director of the Wind Load Test Facility, conducting wind engineering research using a boundary layer wind tunnel to quantify wind loading on

residential structures, to compare and validate field wind pressures collected during

the 2004/2005 hurricanes. Dr. Prevatt is a member of the American Society of Civil

Engineers, the American Association for Wind Engineering, and the UK Wind Engineering Society.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Prevatt.

Dr. Leatherman, you are recognized for five minutes.

62

STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN P. LEATHERMAN, CHAIR PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL HURRICANE RESEARCH CENTER & LABORATORY FOR COASTAL RESEARCH,

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Dr. LEATHERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and all

the other distinguished Members of Congress and especially to

Congressman Diaz-Balart, who I had the pleasure of working with

over the years.

Today I would like to show you a few slides. We are very happy

to the have the National Hurricane Center located on the FIU campus, and we are pleased to have built a strong working relationship

with them over time to support our hurricane agenda. We are presently building a $15 million building, supported by the State of

Florida, that will be next to the National Hurricane Center. That

is under construction shortly.

In terms of H.R. 2407, the key elements in general terms that

need increased funding to make a real difference in saving lives

and property, and lowering property damage actually has been

stated before, very few people are actually killed directly by hurricanes. The big problem really is the incredible losses which are not

sustainable. If we get another Andrew-type hurricane that hits

Miami or the Tampa area, it would be between $100 and $150 billion in losses. This will really cause an insurance meltdown none

of us even want to think about. So that is one of the big things we

need to work on right now is lowering damage.

There are actually four different types of hazards from hurricanes. The International Hurricane Research Center is a multi-disciplinary center that addresses these different hazards. We have already heard earlier about social science research. Indeed, it is very

key. We looked at the evacuation problem. Hurricane Floyd in

1999, in North Carolina, the problems there, also South Carolina.

More recently Hurricane Rita in 2005, in Texas, the evacuation

was the disaster in this case. I am pleased to report that we are

now developing the first quantitative model, it is under development, that will help us, a quantitative evacuation model. And so

we haven’t seen this before, and we have been having it vetted by

the National Hurricane Center, and with more funding I think we

can bring this to help us solve this problem and better evacuate

our communities and districts.

We are also working on the insurance industry itself. In fact, we

developed the first public catastrophe model. You have heard about

these CAT models that are used to set insurance rates. Presently

there are five black box models. We developed an open model. That

means you can see our assumptions, our code, and it has been

adopted by the State of Florida and certified.

Now we would like to exercise this model to really show us how

to do mitigation right. What are the economic advantages of various things you do rather than just try to do something. We need

to know what to do to lower the damage. In fact, this model says

that we can expect to reduce our damages by as much as 50 percent. That is huge if you think about the damages we have had.

Our coastal laboratory, which I brought down from the University of Maryland, College Park, when I was there years ago, has

been working very much on storm-surge modeling. We have been

63

well served by NOAA’s storm-surge model for decades, however,

now new models are being developed. We developed a new model

at FIU which correctly predicted the 30-foot storm surge that

Katrina hoisted upon coastal Mississippi. A lot of the other models

came in only at 15 to 20 feet, and so we know we need to go to

these more high-resolution models, which have no algorithms and

new technologies to make them much more accurate.

Another area, wind-engineering research. Huge opportunities

here. For the first time ever we are doing full-scale testing. Keep

in mind in the past we have just been working with wind tunnels.

When houses are reduced down to the size of a bird house, you can

learn a lot, but you cannot really understand how things fail. We

are now doing that. Those are shingles. Actually, those are clay

tiles flying off a house under category three winds. I hate to see

this photograph myself, because I have this kind of house here in

Miami, so this hurts me dearly.

We really feel that with this kind of work we can; really, our goal

at the International Hurricane Research Center is to make it so we

can survive a category three hurricane with little to no damage.

Now, that would solve about 85 percent of the hurricane damage

problem if you can get through a category three hurricane. Keep

in mind, Hurricane Wilma in 2005, was barely a category two, and

produced $16 billion in damage, much of it roof damage. We’ve got

to do better, and we can do better, and in fact, we at FIU, we developed the first hurricane simulator. We call it the Wall of Wind.

It was actually a two-fan model. We now have this six-fan model.

It is sponsored and built by Renaissance Reinsurance Company for

us on the campus. You can see we are getting up to 135 mile an

hour. That is a category three. Actually, it is category four winds.

There is water and debris injection, as well as the wind field itself.

Recently, this is the first of its kind in the world, and now the University of Florida also, of course, has a hurricane simulator as well,

and we are working with them. We just won a $10 million Florida Center of Excellence Competition to really push this technology. We have 70 industry partners,

including 3M and DuPont. The DuPont people were just down from

Wilmington, Delaware, so things are happening, testing is under

way.

We are now building the ultimate hurricane simulator. We just

recently ordered 12, 500-horsepower electric fans. We are working

with Florida Power and Light, because if we turn it on, the lights

would dim in Miami if we turned this thing on. So FP&L has assured us that fortunately there is enough power coming out from

the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant and an open slot, so we can

work this simulator. This huge array of fans will allow us to generate category five wind, rain, and debris, and assault a full-size

house in this aircraft hangar building, which is now being completed, under controlled and repeatable testing conditions. The first

time ever we have been able to do that. We are literally bringing

the hurricane into the laboratory.

These are exciting times in hurricane research. We have great

capabilities now to make a difference. Real progress is being made

that has real world applications with practical applications that

will significantly reduce the damage in the near future.

64

Finally, I would like to say that FIU is very proud to be the leader of the Florida Hurricane Alliance, of the nine public universities

in the State of Florida, including UF, Florida State, USF, FAMU,

and others. This is funded by NOAA, and we are the lead institution on that.

Again, I thank you very much for your time and attention.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Leatherman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. LEATHERMAN

Florida International University (FIU) in Miami, Florida supports H.R. 2407, the

National Hurricane Research Initiative Act, introduced by Rep. Alcee L. Hastings

and co-sponsored by 18 other members of the Florida Delegation. Similar legislation,

S. 931, introduced by Florida Senators Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson, is pending before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

FIU appreciates the recognition by our Florida leaders for the need for additional

hurricane mitigation research and commends the Committee for holding this hearing. We strongly concur with the findings of the September 29, 2006, National

Science Board Report (NSB) entitled ‘‘Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for National Hurricane Initiative,’’ which outlines the urgent national need for strategic action with respect to hurricanes. FIU applauds our Florida leaders for taking the

lead on this national imperative and for introducing legislation which implements

the recommendations of the National Science Board. We are pleased that 40 Members of the House have co-sponsored H.R. 2407 and hope that FIU’s statement will

help convince the Committee and remaining Members of Congress of the need to

make passage of this legislation one of the Chamber’s highest priorities.

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 stateside Florida Bar Examination.

In the Fall of 2009 we will be welcoming our first medical school class.

FIU’s International Hurricane Research Center is the statewide center for hurricane mitigation research in Florida. We also lead the Florida System-wide Hurricane Mitigation Alliance, comprised of nine of the eleven Florida public universities.

Before commenting on the NSB report and H.R. 2407, I will briefly acquaint you

with the work that we do at the International Hurricane Research Center and explain why we believe it is in the national interest, and the interest of the Federal

Government, to support the development and implementation of a rational research

strategy focusing on the reduction of potential hurricane damage. I will conclude by

providing FIU’s thoughts as they pertain to the NSB report and then comment on

the provisions of H.R. 2407.

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 human, natural and

built environments in vulnerable communities throughout the United States and in

other countries. It was established by the private sector in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew.

As Florida’s center for hurricane research, education and outreach, the IHRC offers a solid record of interdisciplinary and collaborative research, both basic and applied, focusing on the full spectra of hurricane impacts and the methods and techniques for hurricane loss reduction. The work of the IHRC has largely involved Florida and the larger Caribbean and Gulf basin, where most of the North Atlantic hurricanes make landfall.

The knowledge and findings resulting from the work of the IHRC, and the complementary education and outreach methodologies benefit not only Florida and specific countries in the Caribbean and Latin America, but every hurricane vulnerable

community in the USA and abroad. These capabilities clearly allow the IHRC to

65

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, AIR

Worldwide.)

• Development of a public domain hurricane loss model to assess risk and estimate potential losses. This integrated 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,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.)

• Assessment of beach erosion, sea level rise impacts and coastal vulnerability.

Quantification and assessment of erosion resulting from hurricanes and longterm sea level rise through the use of airborne LIDAR technology. This

project uses high-resolution elevation data and local geomorphology features

to assess coastal vulnerability at specific locations. (Funded by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 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, 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 the Developing a Culture of Mitigation through Education project focusing on K–12 students, their parents and

teachers, and the community at large.

The Need for a National Hurricane Research Agenda

Hurricanes have shredded every ounce of public belief and trust in the safety and

resiliency of community life by not only destroying people’s homes, but everything

else they need in their daily lives—businesses, schools, hospitals, gas stations, and

places of worship.

It is hard to identify any other societal need or engineering problem as challenging, recurring, and multi-disciplinary as hurricanes. Among weather hazards,

hurricanes account for over half of the total damage inflicted.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Hurricane Center, located on FIU’s campus, predicts the six-month 2008 hurricane season which

began June 1st has a 65 percent probability of being above normal, with 12 to 16

named storms, including six to nine hurricanes and two to five major hurricanes

with winds in excess of 111 mph. William M. Gray, a noted hurricane expert from

Colorado State University, in April predicted a ‘‘well above-normal’’ season with 15

named storms, eight of them becoming hurricanes when they grow to 74 mph or

more, and four developing into major-hurricane intensity.

FIU believes the following provide compelling evidence of the critical need for

prompt congressional enactment of a national hurricane research initiative:

66

• Hurricanes represent 65 percent of insured losses by natural hazards in the

U.S., with the potential to affect every state from Maine to Texas.

• In 2004 the value of insured coastal properties in the 18 East Coast and Gulf

states exposed to hurricanes totaled $6.9 trillion, or 16 percent of insurers’

total exposure to loss in the U.S.

• In 2005 alone, hurricane losses surpassed $80 billion and caused more than

1,800 fatalities.

• Analyses of the top 40 most costly insurance losses worldwide for 1970–2005

indicate that $147 billion in worldwide insured losses were associated with

hurricanes compared to $25 billion for earthquakes. Over the last five years,

actual economic losses from U.S. hurricanes alone are estimated to be $179

billion (in constant 2006 dollars).

• If a hurricane of the same category as Hurricane Andrew which hit South

Florida in 1992 would hit Miami directly, it could be a $100+ billion disaster,

comparable to the physical damage New York suffered as a result of 9/11.

• Fifty percent of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of the coastline,

where the physical infrastructure in the late 1990s was valued at about $3

trillion in the Gulf and Atlantic regions alone.

• If a hurricane caused permanent closure of only one percent of businesses in

South Florida, 13,500 jobs would be lost in addition to $1.8 billion in sales

and $414 million in lost payroll. By comparison, Hurricane Andrew permanently closed 10 percent of the businesses in the area. We believe similar

losses would occur in other densely populated areas along the Gulf Coast and

Atlantic Ocean.

• In Florida, estimates show that only 35 percent of small and mid-sized businesses have a disaster recovery plan in place, and less than 10 percent have

contingency, business recovery and resumption plans, despite studies that

show that 40 percent of companies that were shut by a disaster for three days

failed within 36 months.

• FIU has a Wall of Wind test facility that enables development of innovative,

high performance building systems and structures capable of withstanding

hurricanes as intense as Category 5 and performance-based evaluation of twostory buildings, including residences, low-rise commercial buildings, schools,

power lines, traffic signals, gas stations, commodity stores, focusing on issues

of sustainable community and business continuity.

• In advance of Hurricane Katrina’s landfall a 29-foot storm surge in Mississippi was predicted by FIU researchers. The CEST storm surge model, currently under development, proved highly accurate and will continue to be a

major asset to vulnerable regions as emergency managers will have additional

tools to predict flooding potential. University of South Florida and University

of West Florida have recently joined the Hurricane Mitigation Alliance and

aid in this research effort.

• IHRC researchers developed the first dynamic model of hurricane evacuation

behavior. This multi-period model can address questions such as how levels

of evacuation might be affected by an improved three-day vs. two-day forecast, extended hurricane warning, reduced costs of evacuation, and reduced

benefits of evacuation.

• Real-time hurricane track forecasts were made available through the FIU-led

Hurricane Mitigation Alliance to the National Hurricane Center by Florida

State University using their super-ensemble model.

• The University of Florida and FIU team of wind engineers used meteorological towers to intercept landfalling hurricanes during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. This real-time, surface data characterizes the winds that actually cause damage. A highlight of the 2004 season was first-ever recording of

surface wind during passage of the hurricane eyewall, and forecasters at the

National Hurricane Center based advisories upon these data.

• FIU scientists, working with colleagues at NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division, formulated a new analytical model of hurricanes’ horizontal structure

based upon aircraft observations. This research will lead to more realistic assessment of windstorm underwriting risk and more accurate storm-surge forecasts.

• University of Central Florida has built building virtual models of the effects

of hurricane wind forces on residential houses as funded through FIU-led

Hurricane Mitigation Alliance. The models include visualization of different

67

types of damage to different types of structures (for example concrete block

vs. wood frame structures), which will be used in educational programs.

Adoption and adequate funding of the NSB plan can result in as much

as a 50 percent reduction in costs of hurricanes.

FIU’s Comments on the NSB Report, ‘‘Hurricane Warning: The Critical

Need for National Hurricane Initiative’’

FIU and its Alliance colleagues have been vocal critics of the woefully inadequate

attention that hurricane science, research and education have received at the federal level. The university wholeheartedly agrees with the NSB that ‘‘The present

federal investment in hurricane science and engineering research relative to the tremendous damage and suffering caused by hurricanes is insufficient, and time is not

on our side.’’ We concur with the NSB that hurricane-related research has been conducted, for the most part, as a relatively modest, loosely coordinated enterprise, but

we leave to others to determine the amount of annual funding necessary to implement a meaningful, successful program to reduce the enormous public outlays, loss

of life, and the associated societal disruption caused by hurricanes.

FIU also agrees with the NSB that any legislative National Hurricane Research

Initiative be a ‘‘focused activity, with well defined metrics for success, effective assessment mechanisms and a clearly articulated pathway from research to operations.’’ Finally, we share the NSB’s conclusion that time is not on our side with

respect to the federal investment in hurricane science and engineering, as hurricanes are an inevitable part of our future. Our nation simply cannot afford the status quo. Added to the huge financial cost is the intolerable and unnecessary loss

of life associated with hurricanes.

FIU has carefully reviewed the ‘‘Research Imperatives’’ identified as priorities in

the NSB report and have the following comments noted in black type with respect

to level of urgency given by the NSB. Also provided are areas not addressed in the

NSB report that we believe are essential and should be included in H.R. 2407, the

National Hurricane Research Initiative.

Investment Category #1: Understanding and Prediction

• High priority. Predicting hurricane intensification and size, and reducing the uncertainty associated with where and when hurricanes will make landfall. FIU’s

recommended level of priority: Highest

• High Priority. Understanding air-sea interactions. FIU’s recommended level of

priority: Medium

• High Priority. Predicting storm surge, rainfall and inland flooding from hurricane

and tropical storms. FIU’s recommended level of priority: Highest

• Medium Priority: Understanding the relationship between hurricanes and climate.

FIU’s recommended level of priority: Medium

• Medium Priority. Improved observations. FIU’s recommended level of priority:

Highest

• Medium Priority. fundamental hurricane predictability. FIU’s recommended

level of priority: Medium

• Medium Priority. Hurricane modification. FIU’s recommended level of priority: Low

Investment Category #2: Impacts and Interactions

• High Priority. Interaction of hurricanes with engineered structures. FIU’s recommended level of priority: Highest

• High Priority. Economic and social impact of hurricanes and mitigation measures.

FIU’s recommended level of priority: Highest

• High Priority. Technologies for disaster response and recovery. FIU’s recommended level of priority: Highest

• Medium Priority. Interaction of hurricanes with natural ecosystems. FIU’s recommended level of priority: Medium

Investment category #3: Preparedness and Building Resiliency

• High Priority. Assessing and improving the resilience of the built environment.

FIU’s recommended level of priority: Highest

68

• High Priority. Human behavior and risk planning. FIU’s recommended level of

priority: High

• High Priority. Evacuation planning. FIU’s recommended level of priority:

High

• Medium Priority. Computational capability. FIU’s recommended level of priority: Medium

• Medium Priority. Training and educational programs related to hurricane impact.

FIU’s recommended level of priority: Medium

FIU’s Specific Comments on H.R. 2407

FIU applauds this bill, which is comprehensive and addresses key research priorities. In addition, this legislation should include socioeconomic research and implementation, such as public and governmental adoption of mitigation measures and

linking disaster recovery to mitigation. Our specific comments are as follows wherein we give the highest priority ratings to those areas which have the greatest potential for breakthrough science and return on investment in terms of mitigating

losses:

• Predicting hurricane intensity change—Highest priority

• Understanding ocean-atmosphere interactions—Medium priority

• Predicting storm surges and inland flooding—Highest priority

• Improved hurricane observations—High priority

• Assessing vulnerable infrastructure—Medium priority

• Understanding hurricane and structural interaction—Highest priority

• Assessing hurricanes and climate change—Medium priority

• Improving response and recovery technologies—Medium priority

• Evacuation planning—Medium priority

• Computation capability—Low priority

Conclusions

FIU strongly believes in the need for coordinated programs at the federal level

to reduce the impacts of hurricanes and other windstorms. As such, FIU has been

a lead advocate of the 2004 National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act and strongly

urges Congress to reauthorize the Act this year, before its 2008 authorization expiration. We are heartened, thanks to the efforts of Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schulz

(FL) and Dennis Moore (KS) that the FY ’08 Commerce, Justice Science appropriation Conference Report includes $11.3 million to implement the bill. We are disappointed that neither the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Science Foundation has chosen to fund the Act, 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 implement of

the 2004 Act a high agency priority.

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, such as that embodied in H.R. 2047, could

lead to significant loss reductions—in lives saved and structural damage incurred.

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.

69

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.

DISCUSSION

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Leatherman. I am sure that

Mr. McNerney would be happy to work with you to see if you

couldn’t just generate some windmills that would capture some of

that excess wind that is blown over there and generate a little bit

more electricity to pay for that operation.

At this point we will open for our first round of questions, and

the Chairman will recognize himself for five minutes.

And I would like to start with Dr. Hayes. H.R. 2407 establishes

a National Hurricane Research Initiative to improve hurricane

forecasting and preparedness. Which areas of this research initiative in the bill is NOAA not addressing yet, and are there ways

that this bill can be improved?

Dr. HAYES. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think all the weather-related

or hurricane-related pieces we are attempting to address right now.

I think we are stronger in some areas than others. I think clearly

our expertise is operational weather prediction, and I would think

that those aspects associated with operational prediction we are addressing, and we are trying to address those in partnership. I think

where we recognize certainly a need for help, it is in the social

science area. NOAA has a Science Advisory Board, which has a Social Science Subcommittee. They did a study approximately three,

maybe four years ago, and they are updating that at the present

time. And I think the remarks I heard this morning indicate that

while we produce improved forecasts and warnings, if we can’t

translate that into something that the American public, that the

emergency managers can use to effectively accomplish actions, then

we have not taken the challenge far enough. So I guess if there is

an area where I think we would need help it is there.

On the research side we have our lapses, as I mentioned in my

testimony. I think that we are working with the National Science

Foundation, with NASA, with the Office of Naval Research, all federal agencies that have an interest in tropical cyclone research.

And where we could use help is making that alliance a reality, and

it is just a resource investment to all federal agencies involved in

that part of the problem.

Thank you.

Chairman LAMPSON. I understand that there is a need for better

research and understanding hurricane activity, so what are some

of the roadblocks that exist to better hurricane forecasting? And

would better national coordination between the federal agencies as

70

you were just talking about help to break down some of those roadblocks?

Dr. HAYES. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think certainly better observations. If one looks, our, my testimony talks about rapid intensity

change. One of the challenges scientifically that we face is that you

have processes going on in the center of a storm between the ocean

and the atmosphere, inside the eye wall of a hurricane, if you will,

that we are not even observing. So I think certainly observations.

NOAA flies aircraft in at safe altitudes, but getting an unmanned aerial system in may be at a level that we couldn’t safety

fly a human in, and I am talking here maybe 100, 200 feet off the

surface of the ocean, would see some of the dynamics going on in

the storm.

So observations is an area that I think we could work better and

the Committee could help us with funding to improve observations

of the storms.

I think also it is creating an infrastructure that allows rapid

transition of what the university community is doing. We have several in the United States that are involved in tropical cyclone research. We run our models at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, one of the constraints we have is that it doesn’t

exist in the research community, is a need to meet production

deadlines for emergency managers, for the American public. And

that requires a very operationally tuned environment, and there

are differences between what exists in our national centers and

what exists in the Nation’s research facilities.

And so helping us with planning and transitioning that research

to operations. I think funding is, should be targeted toward that

transition step.

Thank you.

Chairman LAMPSON. What areas of forecasting is NOAA best

equipped, most equipped to handle, and what areas are covered by

other federal agencies?

Dr. HAYES. Well, I, again, I think it is from an operational perspective it is observations, operational modeling, detecting the

presence of storms using our satellites, our radars, our aircraft,

translating those observations into meaningful operational forecasts the public can use, and then the warnings that emergency

managers and the public could use. So, I think those are our

strengths, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LAMPSON. I recognize Mr. Inglis, Ranking Member, for

five minutes.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Hayes, I suppose that the weather predictions have an impact on the social behaviors surely because, having grown up in a

hurricane area at the coast in South Carolina, you feel silly when

you pack up and leave and then you come home and there is nothing that happened, and so then people decide to stick out the next

one, until they get a big one and then they forever more leave even

if it is a small one coming.

And so that feedback loop, I guess, is, if you leave and nothing

happened, there is not nary a piece of moss in the yard when you

come home, you know, you decide not to leave the next time.

71

So, I guess it is essential to try to better the forecast, but there

will be some limits on that. Right? I mean, there, I suppose we will

get better and better, but there still is some limit on the ability to

accurately forecast and narrow the cone, as Ms. Ros-Lehtinen was

talking about.

Dr. HAYES. Mr. Inglis, I think if you look at our, what we have

done over the past say 15 to 20 years, we have improved the hurricane track forecasts, reduced error by a factor of two. I think with

finer-scale models, we run our models today at 10 kilometers, and

if we were able to get that modeled down to say a kilometer in resolution, I have great confidence that, using our global models and

our regional models, we could achieve that in the next 10 years,

and that is what our plan calls for.

What that is going to require is probably, well, not probably, approximately an increase of about 1,000 or more times the high-performance computing capacity that we have at the National Centers.

Earlier speakers talked about having a partnership with the research community to leverage high-performance computing in the

universities, and we are prepared to do that. The unfortunate challenge that we face in trying to do that is, as I mentioned earlier,

our operational modeling structure is designed to work in real

time, and we have optimized it, and we have developed I would say

probably over a billion dollar investment in our National Centers,

and it is a certain way. Our research institutions, by virtue of their

mission to do basic research, don’t operate under those constraints,

and so it is how would we transition our—what we have in operations to exploit that.

We are prepared to work with the university community to try

and do that. It is not going to be an easy task. We are also, we

have ongoing discussions with Department of Energy. They have in

Oak Ridge high-performance computing assets, which we think we

might be able to leverage in both, primarily a research capacity,

and other federal agencies.

So, I think, Mr. Inglis, that is our, one of our big challenges, and

then I have one final comment. From a fundamental science perspective, I don’t think we know what causes rapid intensity change,

and by rapid intensity change I mean a hurricane intensity jump

by Saffir-Simpson Scale of over one category in a 24-hour period.

Last September we had Hurricane Humberto, that was a tropical

depression in the early afternoon, and within 18 hours it became

a hurricane. Right off the coast of Louisiana and Texas. I heard

firsthand from the folks in Texas about how the energy community,

the oil community scrambled. And the thing that was luckiest for

us was that it only reached minimal hurricane strength, 65 knots,

before it moved to shore.

My fear is something like that happening a little bit further out

in the Gulf and then picking up some speed and come crashing

ashore and then have another Katrina where we have a category

or a two-category jump in 24 hours.

Fundamentally, research is required to understand what is causing these storms to increase in intensity so rapidly, and then on

the flip side it was mentioned that we, and you mentioned that we

lose credibility when we over-warn the public. I can remember in

the earlier part of this decade where we hit and nailed a tropical

72

storm coming into the coast of Louisiana. The unfortunate thing is

we said it is going to be a category three, and by the time it got

to Louisiana it was a category one. People then begin to say, they

are not right often enough, so I don’t need to take any action.

So, I think hurricane intensity and rapid intensity change is a

tough scientific problem where we need the research community.

Mr. INGLIS. And you, the funding here that I mentioned earlier, $4.17 billion over 10 years, that is a lot of money, and so I wonder

if you have any thoughts about how much assistance you get in

those goals you were just describing by the additional funding?

Dr. HAYES. Well, I think that my focus in the Weather Service

is to orient our architecture, our work processes. I think we truly

believe this is a national problem, and I think my commitment

isn’t, and I think NOAA’s commitment is not to necessarily say we

invented it. It is to say where it can help America, we are prepared

to use it operationally, and I think that is my commitment to this

committee and to the American public.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.

Dr. Baird, you are recognized.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the Chair.

I want to follow up on the theme raised by my friend, Mr. Inglis,

a second ago, and that is the funding aspect of this bill, the requested amount is pretty large. And I would ask each of you, if you

had to prioritize the most important areas, if you had some extra

funding, where do you think the most important areas are in order

to reduce and do it fairly quickly for us, and I will just go from Dr.

Hayes on down to each person. Very quickly. The most important

areas where we should allocate funding. In other words, without

duplicating what is already being done, et cetera.

Dr. HAYES. Mr. Baird, I think if we are looking for rapid impact,

I mentioned we run our models at ten kilometers, if I had significantly more operational high-performance computing, then it is a

matter of taking the models I have and then just changing the

code, which can be done fairly quickly to run, and right now that

is a constraint that I have. For every time you increase the resolution by a fact or two, you increase your high-performance computing requirements by a factor of about ten. So, that is where I

got the 1,000 times to get from ten to one kilometer.

Dr. DROEGEMEIER. I believe really the best investment would be

two-fold. One is in terms of applying the current engineering practices that we have and in studying new ones but also the communicating information to the public. The social science research

agenda is very, very important.

I agree completely with Dr. Hayes that we need to be doing more

in the area of meteorology, but I think that the forecasts are quite

good now, and I think we could get a quick benefit if we actually

understand how to better communicate the information, get people

to respond appropriately, and help them actually get out of harm’s

way. In fact, in Katrina and Rita a lot of the loss of life was people

simply were immobile for a variety of reasons. And so I think those

are very important, again, not to diminish any other elements of

the components of the effort. But as you say, the priorities, I think,

for a quick return would be those.

73

Mr. BAIRD. Thanks, Dr. Droegemeier. Dr. Chen.

Dr. CHEN. I would like to emphasize a point, we refer to the

rapid intensification forecast that has been stagnant over the last

15 years for the reason the complexity that you need basic research. The research community have developed the next generation forecast model and kilometer resolution already, and that technology can be explored and moving over to operations more effectively. And that also relates to the forecasts, not only the location

of where landfall occurs but a detailed forecast of extreme winds

and rain. That will help the mitigation and the many other areas,

risk assessment.

So this new generation model in research community really

needs to be, continue to be supported and then translation to operation. That is a very urgent area that we can help.

Mr. BAIRD. Dr. Prevatt.

Dr. PREVATT. I believe the two areas, social interactions and so

on, but most importantly it is improving our performance of our existing buildings and our existing structures. How do structures

interact with wind, how do structures interact with storm surges

and inland flooding? Preparation begins not when we have 24-

hours notice. Preparation begins what we put down in the ground

today, what we do about what is existing and improving those

things.

There is no reason why we should have a situation in which people have to be scared for their homes in a category one hurricane.

We know how to build it. It is a matter of actually doing that, getting the research that allows us to improve our civil infrastructure.

Mr. BAIRD. Dr. Leatherman.

Dr. LEATHERMAN. I think the full-scale testing as we just heard

in terms of making our houses stronger. We have got to do that.

We can do that right away, and it has got to be the first investment I think we have got to make, because after all, the wind is

doing so much damage. Every hurricane is a billion dollar event

plus. Most people are saying now they are five billion a piece or

more. The last, 2004, 2005, those hurricanes now are on the top ten

list most of them. So what are we saying? Just the damages are

going out of sight.

Secondly, I think that we can make big improvements to the

storm surge models and actually run in a suite of models, storm

surge models as the National Hurricane Center runs a suite, a

forecast model. They presently use 15 models, which they use to

look at and make their determination where the best track. Right

now we are relying upon one storm surge model that was developed

by Chester Jalanski, a great model, some 20, 30 years ago. And

that is really, we are way behind on that.

And finally, I think the social science, I mentioned one aspect of

that is a quantitative model that was recently being developed

where we could understand why people make decisions in a quantitative sense, and it is a numerical model, which I think it fits in

perfectly and meshes with the storm surge model, because after all,

as we say, you hide from the wind, and you run from the water.

And that is where people drown is in the water. That is where people are really killed, and that is what we need to know, and we

need to mesh that new high resolution storm surge models with

74

this quantitative evacuation model. And that is how we can save

lives, but most of the damage, sparing New Orleans, what happened with the break in the levees, was, in fact, and is wind damage to our houses and buildings, and that is just out of sight.

So we’ve got ways now to do the full-scale testing and know how

to build better, and not only that, retrofit the 99 percent of the existing houses that are out there in cost-effective ways such as the

new technologies that Dupont and 3M and other countries are developing, but it has to be tested and shown to work.

Thank you.

Mr. BAIRD. Very helpful. It seems that what we need is some

combination of factors where we improve our prediction and then

you can translate that to individual buildings and homeowners

with their location and say, this is what we predict is about to happen. This is the risk you face, this is the preparedness of your

building or structure that you are in, and then somehow communicate that in a meaningful way so that they can, the average individual can do something about that in a responsible way, both well

beforehand as Dr. Prevatt said, but then base their immediate realtime decisions on what they have done and what, the threats they

face.

Thanks for the succinct answers. I yield back. Thanks.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Baird.

Dr. Ehlers, Ranking Member Ehlers, you are recognized for five

minutes.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of my questions have been answered, but a few I would like to follow up on.

Years ago we sustained very substantial amounts of earthquake

damage in this country. We instituted earthquake modeling programs, lots of research. We strengthened the building codes. Today

we can take a very substantial earthquake with not a great deal

of damage.

Similar in the Midwest where I live, this same thing with snow

loads, straight wind problems, and so forth. We have changed all

the building codes, and we really have fairly minor damage unless

a tree falls on the house.

I have been surprised every time we read about the hurricanes,

people talk about, well, we need better building codes, and the insurance companies say, we are not going to give you insurance unless you have better building codes. And they don’t seem to happen.

Is my outsider’s perception wrong, or is there just too much delay

on strengthening the building codes, or do people simply not know

enough about what to do in the building code?

Dr. Prevatt, I think you are the engineer who has dealt with

this. What are your comments? And then anyone else can jump in,

too.

Dr. PREVATT. You hit the nail on the head there, because it is

the tremendous investment that we have placed in research and in

the earthquake engineering environment that has improved our

work and the success of large earthquakes. We learned a lot since

1989.

In our case wind engineers, civil engineers have been working

since Hurricane Camille in 1969, and we have been saying and saying over and over that we don’t understand the dynamics, how a

75

dynamic wind effect affects a structure. We do not understand the

basic engineering, even of a simple light-frame wood structure. And

these are the issues that we need to focus on to improve the building codes.

My testimony did indicate that there is a lot of work to be done

for us to really have a building code that is probabilistically based

on that which we can rely on. A lot of the construction that we use

today is based on traditional construction practice.

What I learned from my dad and what he learned from his dad.

And this has been, you know, in our codes today. What we do need,

in fact, is to get the engineering, the actual forces, we need structural testing that simulates not just an individual window component or a door component, but as Dr. Leatherman says, we need

to put all components together in a holistic, three-dimensional test

situation and see what happens at the interfaces of those.

Mr. EHLERS. Dr. Leatherman, do you want to add something?

Dr. LEATHERMAN. Yes. I totally agree with him. I mean, if you

look at buildings, they are very complicated, and how do things

fail? You can test an individual window or a door, but really the

structure fails in a holistic way, as a whole, and we never had that

capability before. So, if you talk about building codes, there is a

problem because what do you do now? What is, where is the emphasis going to go, and a lot of times we don’t know. Now we can

say, oh, everybody should live in a bunker or live in a cave, a fortified fortress, but, you know, people aren’t going to do that, it is

too expensive, and so there is that ultimate solution you might say,

and that, and there is also how we are living today.

And we have got to find something that makes sense economically for people to do, because after all, in terms of building stock,

it is 98, 99 percent out there and built. We got to find a way to

retrofit those existing buildings in a cost-effective way so we can

bring them up to withstand at least a category three hurricane.

And I think that is what we are trying to do.

And so, and of course, improve the new structures that are going

up.

Mr. EHLERS. Don’t you already know enough to at least get this

building code process started? I was struck, I think it was Hugo,

but I am not sure, when I saw the photograph of a number of

houses without roofs and right next to them or mixed in with them

a number of houses with roofs. And the ones that still had the roofs

had been built by Habitat for Humanity volunteers, and the others

had been built by builders who used the guns, when you can’t always tell whether you are actually getting it into the rafter or not.

I mean, that is a fairly simple thing to correct. Can’t you start

somewhere? Or do you really have to build a complete model first

before you can really change the buildings?

Dr. PREVATT. I think we have started. We definitely have started,

but in addition to the engineering part of it, there is the enforcement part of it. However, if we have a situation where your structure is dependent on a hit or miss situation of you getting these

things, perhaps we are dealing with the wrong type of structure for

a significant risk of damage. And those are the issues. The issues

that I face is trying to convince people when they are re-roofing

their homes to put in, you know, another set of nails. Increasing

76

the number of nails that you have in your roof from a twelve-inch

spacing to a six-inch spacing will significantly increase the sustainability of your home.

However, if you do that without looking at the entire load chain

where the roof fits on the wall, where the wall fits onto the foundation, you are still going to be in jeopardy, and my research has

been trying to retrofit existing homes in the Port Orange area, and

we have done some other homes in Bartow, Florida, and other

places. What you find is you cannot just do one part of the problem.

You have to address it all the way through. And without that you

risk keeping the roof on but then you lose the entire roof structure

itself.

Mr. EHLERS. Dr. Leatherman.

Dr. LEATHERMAN. If I may also add to that, we saw in the 2004

hurricanes that hit Florida, even when the roofs stayed on with

category two and three hurricanes, still significant damage to the

water coming in, going through the soffits, going through the water

barriers, so-called water barriers. Once that water gets in, the ceilings saturate, they collapse. The walls fill up, the drywall has to

come out, the furniture, the clothes are all destroyed. You have a

total loss. You have to gut that house, even if the roof stayed on.

So, this is a lot more complicated than people think, and most

of these soffits, as you know, are underneath the overhang, which

is really more of a cosmetic feature. We got to find a way to make

those things, at least in hurricane alley, so they don’t blow out or

at least they limit the water. We are working on that, but that is

not as simple as it seems, because we need the air to get in underneath there so the roof doesn’t get so hot. This is important in

terms of energy conservation and also the longevity of your roof.

So, there is a lot of, it is a real balancing act here. It all sounds

very simple in one sense, but then you get down to the details, the

devil is in the details you might say. And so these are the things

that we are working on, and we are now learning things through

the full-scale testing, but we are not there yet. But we can see we

can get there through adequate type of funding and attention.

Thank you.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.

Dr. Bartlett, you are recognized for five minutes. Less if possible.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

In a former life among other things I was a home builder, and

I think that we have some real opportunities for changing these

homes after a hurricane, and you have to take off the drywall and

so forth, because then you can do the kinds of things that are quite

impossible with an intact home. And you can’t go up and put hurricane ties between the rafters and the upper plate in an intact home

very well. But once you have torn off all the drywall, why, you can

do that.

Another thing that occurred to me is that for homes in hurricane-prone areas we maybe ought to be looking at different kinds

of materials. There is nothing worse than a wet vat of fiberglass

insulation. It just stays that way almost forever, and it may be that

we need to insulate those houses differently. There are insulations

77

which will not wet. A lot of cellular foams and so forth that it will

not wet so that they will dry out almost immediately.

So, there are a lot of things we can do, not just in the way we

build the houses, but in the materials we use for houses. It costs

very little more, for instance, to use treated materials in building

a house. The differential in costs on a grand scale is not all that

much. I know there is the potential for some out-gassing problems.

You better seal your home on the inside anyhow, because there is

a lot of out-gassing from OSB and things like that with the glues

that are used.

I have one technical question since Dr. Ehlers said most of the

questions I would have asked have already been asked. That is one

of the advantages of being late in the queue. I have a technical

question. For every reaction there is a reaction, and Dr. Hayes, you

mentioned the difficulty of predicting these very short surges going

from a category one to a two just very quickly.

Where does all this energy come from? To every action there is

a reaction, and could we do a little better in understanding how we

get this enormous increases in energy? And I hear that for every

few minutes in a hurricane the energy released is equivalent of a

hydrogen bomb going off. So, there are huge amounts of energy

there.

What is the reaction to this action of the hurricane?

Dr. HAYES. Well, Congressman, I think there are a complex set

of forcing functions that cause these rapid changes. I think we

know conceptually that the heat or the heat content in the lower

part or in the upper part of the ocean, because that is what really

drives hurricane intensity. It is the evaporation, when you evaporate, and you convert that into heat, that drives intensity change.

There are just complex dynamics and thermodynamics inside the

eye wall itself or the center of circulation if we are talking a tropical cyclone, and I think that scientifically we just don’t understand

those, and I think when you talk the amount of energy, I think certainly a nuclear weapon, but when you think the breadth of some

of these storms, we are talking hundreds of nautical miles, and I

would venture a guess that it is probably well in excess of a nuclear weapon. And what controls the rapid change? I don’t think

scientifically we know yet.

Mr. BARTLETT. Evaporation cools, of course.

Dr. HAYES. Yeah. The surface of the ocean. Yes. Yes. But when

you condense that evaporation inside, you have processes, thermodynamic processes which convert that energy into heat, which

drives the convection inside the store.

Mr. BARTLETT. Yeah, but you get it all back when it condenses,

of course.

Dr. HAYES. Yes.

Mr. EHLERS. Isn’t it a fact, I think water has an incredibly high

latent heat of fusion——

Dr. HAYES. Right.

Mr. EHLERS. And so it is an immense force.

Dr. HAYES. Yes.

Mr. EHLERS. Immense amount of energy.

Mr. BARTLETT. I fortunately live in an area that kind of benefits

from hurricanes. When it is dry, why we kind of look for the tail

78

end of a hurricane which will bring us some water. In Maryland

we don’t often get one that hits our shore, so we are kind of a beneficiary of hurricanes rather than a victim of hurricanes, because

many times our crops are saved by a late season hurricane that

brings a lot of rain and very little wind and so forth.

But I remember Agnes, which caused in excess of 100-year flooding in our area, and so we can be affected by hurricanes, but we

didn’t have the wind force. It was just rain, rain, rain that we got.

And is most of the damage in a hurricane done by the wind or

the water? From an insurance perspective.

Dr. HAYES. If you are addressing me, Congressman, I would say

it is the storm surge, and it is that wall of water that is going to

come crashing ashore.

Mr. BARTLETT. But if you are not on the shore, what is the

biggest——

Dr. HAYES. Inland it would be inland flooding.

Mr. BARTLETT. Is it water or wind?

Dr. HAYES. It is water. It is water, I think.

Mr. BARTLETT. It is still water.

Dr. HAYES. I think so.

Mr. BARTLETT. Even when you are inland, it is still water. Yeah.

The wind does the damage and then makes it possible for water

to get in, then water does the primary damage.

Dr. CHEN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to add a point

there. The damage caused by hurricanes not only onshore, also the

offshore for instance, the energy oil wrecks in the Gulf and many

of these been pushed down by Katrina and Rita. And a part of, because not only the highest wind and also gusts. The process we are

talking about here right now, it is not currently in the operational

model but it is coupled, modeled that in the research mode we are

looking at very detailed ocean impact and the winds.

And these are down to meter scales now that we are hoping to

transition to operations that can address exactly the problem we

are looking at, the intensification, the wind, and wind damage.

Dr. PREVATT. I don’t believe, I believe Hurricane Andrew, for instance, was the dramatic cost of that was wind damage, and Hurricanes Charlie, they damaged buildings as far inland as Orlando,

we do recall Civic Center, evacuation center, which actually had its

roof collapse due to the wind.

So, the wind damage itself cannot be underestimated.

Dr. LEATHERMAN. Yes. I would like to amplify that point. Hurricane Andrew was $30 billion in damage in 1992. It was 90 percent

wind damage. There was a surge, but it was limited in terms of the

damage it did, even though it was, it came up to about 17.5 feet

at Burger King’s International Headquarters.

But, still, it was 90 percent more was wind damage, and also the

hurricanes of 2004. The hurricanes that hit Florida, except for

Ivan, they were mostly all wind damage. There was beach erosion,

there was some local flooding, but, again, they were mostly all, I

think Katrina was probably the exception because the New Orleans

levies broke. That is when you got so much damage from the flood

waters and the fact of the 30-foot storm surge swept inland from

Mississippi for about 1,000 feet until it hit the railroad tracks and

stopped. And that is why you had so much damage there.

79

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LAMPSON. Yes. Mr. Diaz-Balart, you are recognized for

five minutes. We got eight minutes left.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be——

Chairman LAMPSON. Six minutes left.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART.—very brief because, again, most of the things

that I was thinking about also were answered, but I wanted to

thank all of you for being here.

Just briefly, when we talk about, you know, strengthening structures, what reasonably, if you have an idea, what is reasonable to

expect, that people could expect to be able to strengthen a building,

a home with reasonable cost? Are we looking at a home being able

to withstand a category three, category four? Is there any way to,

without building a bunker be able to withstand a category five? Or

is, you know, so what is reasonable to expect in some time in the

future?

Dr. PREVATT. I think reasonably we should expect whatever we

have in the code, which is 140 mile-per-hour wind in the Miami,

150 Miami, 130 further up. We should expect homes to withstand

that, and that is not just from the problems with the code that they

have been developed primarily from a life-safety standpoint. What

we are trying to address here now is building codes need to also

address economic losses, the losses that occur well below 100, 130,

140 miles per hour. We have to address how does the water damage affect things. By using a secondary water byway installed in

your home you can reduce significantly the amount of water damage that occurs.

By developing better test methods for looking at the interface between a window and the wall structure itself. We can also develop

better methods for developing those windows which have a water

penetration resistance, air resistance, as well as it stops the impact

of missiles, two by fours, and so on.

So, my sense is that currently we should be able to do the things

for the category three hurricane with no problem. The problems we

face, however, is like me, I have just moved to Florida. I have a

1973 home. I know I don’t have a hurricane-resistant home, but,

you know, when I ask my wife, well, should we buy a stove or

should we put in hurricane ties, you know who is going to win. And

so those are the issues. Ninety percent of our homes are built this

way. How do we address that, and that is where the research needs

to address.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And if I may, and Dr. Leatherman, I don’t

know, because, you know, I am thinking of, I am now thinking locally now. Homes that were built even after the strengthened code,

are they built to really withstand a hurricane, or is it just, you

know, fortifying some? You all were saying a little while ago that

you have to have, it has got to be a holistic approach. You can have

a strong roof but still lose the entire home.

Are they built, were they really strengthened to the point of

being really hurricane protected, or is it just that we can kind of

feel better that we are not going to lose a roof, but we are going

to get flooded? I mean, where are we with the current codes,

strengthened codes?

80

Dr. LEATHERMAN. Well, you are absolutely right. The codes have

been strengthened in South Florida and now moving throughout

the State of Florida, the building code and hopefully the Nation,

and they say South Florida has the best building code in the Nation, and yet we saw $16 billion in damage from barely category

two Wilma.

So, yes, we have built them stronger, but we still have a lot of

problems with the way we put roofs on. It turns out there was defect in the way those ridge tiles were put on the clay tiles, and I

can tell you, I had to put a new roof on my house about five years

ago and got supposedly the best roofer in South Florida because

that is, the lawyers told me that who sue roofers. But any rate, and

yet with these category, with Wilma, I lost some ridge tiles, and

I talked to my builder, and I said, what in the world is going on

here? I was up there every morning when he was working, and I

was there every afternoon when I got off from work, and I did my

own inspection. Okay. And I said, what is going on? He says, well,

the code didn’t ask for the ridge tiles to have mechanical fasteners.

I said, well, I would have paid you if you told me at the time that

is what we needed. He said, well, you know, it just wasn’t in the

code. I was like, wow, you know. It was a learning situation for me,

and this was before we started the Wall of Wind, the full-scale testing. If I had had all that going on, believe me, we would have put

up a two by four or some other thing so we could have, you know,

screwed down into that member on the ridge line, because once

those ridge lines go, it kind of opens up the structure.

So, yes, we have done better, but, gosh, there is some glaring

mistakes in omissions and the code is not what it should be, and

again, people thought, well, this is good enough.

Now, the other thing you mentioned is I said before, you can still

get water, even if the roof stays on. People are going to aluminum

roofs, which are actually better. These metal roofs are doing better.

But the water can still get underneath and get in your house, and

you got a total loss from your insurance point of view if everything

is saturated. You have to strip it out to studs. That is a total loss.

Even if your roof is perfectly in tact.

So we have got to address these issues, and I think we have the

capability now to do them.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. We have got a long way to go it seems.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LAMPSON. We do indeed. It is fascinating, and I have

got more questions. I know others have more questions as well, but

we also have votes that are pending, and we have got a minute and

a half to get to the Floor to cast those votes.

I at some point in time want to even know about whether or not

we have the capability of changing the temperature of water

enough that might impact a storm or the intensity of that storm.

We can talk about it.

Let me just thank you all for appearing here before the Subcommittees today. Under the rules of the Committee the record will

be held open for two weeks for Members to submit additional statements and any additional questions that they might have for the

witnesses.

This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.

81

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.]

(83)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

84

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by John L. ‘‘Jack’’ Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services;

Director, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. As you and many of the witnesses stated in their testimony, social science research plays a crucial role in better understanding and improving hurricane

preparedness and response. What areas of social and behavioral science research

do you consider to be the highest priority areas? How are the results of such research being translated into operational practice? Have you encountered, or are

you aware of any impediments to applying the findings from social and behavioral sciences to disaster planning, recovery and response activities? If so, do you

have any suggestions as to how these impediments could be addressed?

A1. NOAA has focused on improving communication of information to support hurricane preparedness and response as a priority area within social and behavioral

science. Through the American Meteorological Society, we are engaging the entire

weather and climate enterprise to determine the best way to communicate our information to ensure people understand the information and can make informed decisions, resulting in appropriate response to the hazard. We are engaging the social

science community as we develop the next level products and services to help

prioritize areas of research and ensure the public understands the information we

provide—especially our forecasts and warnings—and will be able to make appropriate life saving decisions.

NOAA is also collaborating with the National Science Foundation (Engineering

Directorate and Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate) on a joint solicitation on Communicating Hurricane Information. This joint solicitation is an outcome of a three-year development of a Hurricane Forecast and Warning Social

Science Research agenda involving the social science research community and the

hurricane research and operational communities. The research results from the solicitation will inform NOAA on improving the understanding by emergency managers and the public of its hurricane forecast and warning products.

Q2. In his testimony Dr. Prevatt stated that increased support for research on

strengthening the existing built infrastructure and developing cost effective retrofit and mitigation measures would be the most effective way to reduce damage

and economic losses from hurricanes. Would you comment on what priority you

would assign to such research and development efforts within the context of a

national hurricane research program?

A2. NOAA would continue to work with our partners in academia, the private sector, and other appropriate federal agencies to prioritize research and development

efforts in areas of strengthening existing infrastructures and retrofit and mitigation

measures. NOAA participates in the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWRIP), enacted in 2004 (42 USC 15703 et seq.), which seeks to improve meteorological understanding of windstorms, quantify windstorm impacts, and identify

and promote cost-effective measures to reduce windstorm impacts. NWRIP identifies

the National Institutes of Standards and Technology as the lead within the Department of Commerce.

Questions submitted by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart

Q1. There are a number of reports that speak to the urgency for improved hurricane

forecasts. Your own statement points out the needs for such research. But this

kind of research is quite costly. The NSB report lists appallingly low numbers

given the importance of the research. If the Administration is aware of the urgency for the research, why does it not request more funds from Congress?

a. What was the level of funding for hurricane research in the President’s FY09

budget request? What was it in FY08?

b. Do you believe that the budget requests reflect the sense of urgency that you

describe in your testimony?

c. The authorizations set forth in this bill are total amounts. So, how should the

money be divided between NSF and NOAA to carry out the initiative? Are

other ‘‘coordinating’’ federal agencies to receive part of the funding as well?

Should they?

85

A1. Improving hurricane forecasting is a top priority for the Administration and

NOAA is implementing this commitment with an emphasis in its hurricane prediction and research. NOAA spends over $300 million a year for hurricane warning

and forecast efforts. Reflecting a sense of urgency for improved information, the FY

2009 President’s Budget includes a new increase of $19.5 million for modeling improvements, research, and operations across NOAA. In the FY 2008 President’s

Budget, NOAA requested $10 million for hurricane research. To further expedite

these efforts, the Administration recently submitted to Congress a FY 2009 budget

amendment for $13 million to support the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project.

The National Science Foundation and NOAA are formulating a cooperative agreement to improve hurricane forecasting, and to ensure the expertise and facilities of

academic and research institutions, and other non-governmental organizations nationwide, are leveraged to address this national-scope challenge. Funding would be

allocated in alignment with these enterprise priorities.

Q2. You admit that the hurricane track forecast accuracy has increased by 50 percent since 1990, but that the accuracy of intensity forecasts has not kept pace.

a. Is there a particular reason why the community did not invest time and expertise in intensity tracking?

b. Was figuring out where the hurricane was going considered more important

back then compared with the ability to determine the intensity of the hurricane once it hit?

A2. It is critical to first know where the hurricane will go and then determine other

aspects of the storm. While complex in its own right, improving track forecasts was

an aggressive but attainable goal given the state of the science and computing capacity. We are just now beginning to understand some of the physical processes occurring within a hurricane as it changes in intensity. Complex atmospheric and sea

interactions occur on a much smaller scale than can currently be incorporated into

operational models. Our priority is to leverage development activities in the research community to understand and forecast hurricane intensity and incorporate

successful research into our operations. Additionally, the $13 million provided for

NOAA in the recently transmitted budget amendment will accelerate planned improvements in both hurricane track and hurricane intensity forecasts.

Q3. Many different offices within NOAA have experienced similar difficulties of

transitioning research to operations. Is that the intent of the Joint Hurricane

Testbeds? What do you think is necessary to facilitate cooperation between the

research communities and the operations communities in order to reap the benefits of the investment this bill proposed to spend on hurricane research?

A3. The intent behind the Joint Hurricane Testbeds is to facilitate the transfer of

research to operations. Testbeds provide a quasi-operational environment of tools,

techniques and models, along with the infrastructure to facilitate the transfer of research applications into the operational arena. To better reap the benefits of hurricane research, we believe it is critical to have a coordinated federal, academic, and

private sector effort, with the goal of incorporating demonstrated improvements into

operations. Testbeds are one component of this coordinated effort and the following

are relevant to improve hurricane forecasting:

• NOAA’s Joint Hurricane Testbed that is funded through the U.S. Weather

Research Program. The Joint Hurricane Testbed supports the testing and

transfer of research to operations by the Hurricane Research Division of

NOAA and the Tropical Prediction Center/National Hurricane Center in

Miami.

• The Developmental Testbed Center, also known as the Weather Research and

Forecasting Model testbed, supports the testing and transfer of research to

operations of numerical weather prediction of the Earth’s atmosphere, including tropical cyclones.

• The DOD–NASA–NOAA Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation supports

critical efforts to improve our models by improving our ability to provide large

amounts of high quality satellite observational data for them, resulting in the

best analysis of atmospheric conditions. Developing the best model analysis

of the initial state of the atmosphere, including cyclone structure, results in

the best model predictions of the atmosphere and better hurricane predictions.

Q4. Are there currently any interagency collaborative efforts between NSF, NOAA

and any other agencies on hurricane research? If so, please explain the nature

86

of these collaborations. How well do NSF and NOAA work together in this regard?

A4. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and NOAA are formulating a cooperative agreement to improve hurricane forecasting and to ensure the expertise and facilities of academic and research institutions and other non-governmental organizations nationwide are leveraged to address this national challenge. NSF is focused

on basic research. NOAA has an operational research focus with near-term payoff

for improved operational forecasts. In addition to specific coordination of NSF and

NOAA research programs, the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and

Supporting Research coordinates Federal Hurricane Operations and Research efforts

across responsible federal agencies. Other federal collaborative efforts supporting

the overall hurricane research effort include the National Ocean Partnership Program and the U.S. Weather Research Program.

Q5. You state in your testimony that in the past year, NOAA has developed the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project to focus your efforts on improved forecasts

of track, intensity, wind fields, and storm surges. Considering that many of

these improvements require significant research, not all of which will or should

be done in house at NOAA, did you collaborate with other agencies in the development of the project?

A5. The Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project incorporates the planning efforts

of: the NOAA Science Advisory Board Hurricane Intensity Research Working Group;

the 2006 report of the National Science Foundation (NSF) National Science Board—

Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative;

the 2007 report issued by the Office of the Federal Coordinator of Meteorological

Services and Supporting Research (OFCM)—Interagency Strategic Research Plan for

Tropical Cyclones—The Way Ahead. These three elements represented a cross-agency collaboration and incorporated academic vision as well.

NOAA is currently engaging with other key federal agencies, including NSF, the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy, and the

Navy (including the Office of Naval Research) to develop a National Hurricane Research Alliance. This alliance will leverage existing federal hurricane coordination

efforts, including those from the OFCM, to manage overall roles and responsibilities

(including those of the broader academic community funded by NSF, NOAA, and

others), and priorities of the broad set of activities necessary to improve overall accuracy and reliability of hurricane forecasts. Through this Alliance, NOAA will work

with the other agencies to maximize the effective use of these considerable non-federal assets in conducting the Initiative’s fundamental research, and in developing

and disseminating related products and services.

Q6. I notice that the NOAA testimony does not mention the collaboration between

NSF (Engineering Directorate and Social, Behavioral and Economic sciences directorate) and NOAA on the joint solicitation on Communicating Hurricane Information. Could you please speak to this new initiative?

A6. This joint solicitation is an outcome of a multi-year discussion between NOAA

and NSF. The solicitation is funding research that advances basic information about

how people and organizations understand and use warning messages. The testbed

for this research is hurricane warnings. The effort is jointly led by NOAA and NSF

and is largely funded by NSF. The first awards were made in early July. The joint

solicitation required there be at least one investigator from the physical, natural,

or engineering sciences and one from the social sciences to ensure cross disciplinary

collaboration.

87

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Professor of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma; Member, National Science Board; Co-Chair, National Science Board Task

Force on Hurricane Science and Engineering

Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Lampson

Q1. Does NOAA’s Hurricane Forecasting Improvement Plan address the concerns in

the National Science Board Report? If not, what else needs to be done to improve

NOAA’s Plan?

A1. The NOAA Plan focuses on one of a broad range of concerns—hurricane forecasting—articulated by the Board as needed in a comprehensive National Hurricane

Research Initiative. However, there are many areas outside of atmospheric and oceanic sciences that need to be addressed, particularly in the social, behavioral, and

economic sciences. Other areas of concern raised in the National Science Board’s report include: (1) Impacts—interaction of hurricanes with engineered structures, economic and social impacts of hurricanes and mitigation measures, and interactions

of hurricanes with natural ecosystems; (2) Preparedness and Response Measures—

assessing and improving the reliance on the built environment, disaster response

and recovery, human behavior and risk planning, and evacuation planning; (3)

Cross-cutting Activities—computational capability, and training and education programs related to hurricane impacts.

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. As you and many of the witnesses stated in their testimony, social science research plays a crucial role in better understanding and improving hurricane

preparedness and response.

Q1a. What areas of social and behavioral science research do you consider to be

highest priority areas?

A1a. High priority research areas of social and behavioral science identified by the

Board include: economic and social impact of hurricanes and mitigation measures,

disaster response and recovery, human behavior and risk planning, and evacuation

planning.

Q1b. How are the results of such research being translated into operational practice?

A1b. As a most telling example, following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, NSF supported more than 100 grants. Results from some of these studies have provided

emergency planners, responders, and others with key findings ranging from how

disasters inflict physical damage to the impact of social factors on evacuation and

long-term emotional effects.

Q1c. Have you encountered, or are you aware of any impediments to applying the

findings from social and behavioral sciences to disaster planning, recovery and

response activities? If so, do you have any suggestions as to how these impediments could be addressed?

A1c. The Hurricane Initiative itself, and, most importantly, the Hurricane Test Bed,

could provide a framework for collaboration among traditionally disparate disciplines. The Board notes that communities often are overwhelmed with sometimes

conflicting information regarding risk planning and procedures for action. Additionally, training and outreach activities, involving policy- and decision-makers, are

needed to ensure that research efforts are appropriately applied, thus meeting the

societal demand for protection of life and property and responsible management of

resources. Finally, the social impacts of human-induced changes to coastal and offshore vulnerability—ranging from land use development and practices that drastically modify the fate of precipitation runoff to social demographics of communities

and their mobility—must be better understood and effectively incorporated into societal decision-making.

Q2. In his testimony Dr. Prevatt stated that increased support for research on

strengthening the existing built infrastructure and developing cost effective retrofit and mitigation measures would be the most effective way to reduce damage

and economic losses from hurricanes. Would you comment on what priority you

would assign to such research and development efforts within the context of a

national hurricane research program?

88

A2. The Board, in its recent report, has assigned a high priority to research on improving the resilience of the built environment. Resiliency of physical and social infrastructure is enormously important for successful disaster response and recovery

operations. The establishment and sustainability of lifelines to victims remains one

of the greatest challenges following the failure of transportation, power, and communication infrastructures. Research is needed to provide such lifelines, as well as design infrastructures that gracefully degrade, rather than fail indiscriminately, during extreme conditions. A requirement exists for a national engineering assessment

of coastal infrastructure and efficacy of current design practice—including levees,

sea walls, drainage systems, bridges, water/sewage, power, and communications—

to ascertain the associated level of vulnerability to hurricanes. Studies are needed

to identify and prioritize the most cost-effective improvements and to develop a national loss reduction strategy that addresses inevitable degradation of built infrastructure. Careful attention also should be paid in infrastructure research to existing building codes and the extent to which recent damage has been a result of noncompliance. Research also is needed to understand coastal erosion and resilience,

particularly in relationship to the built environment.

Q3. You note in your testimony the importance of a multi-disciplinary approach to

hurricane research and point out that current research tends to be stovepiped.

Has the National Science Board taken any action since the release of its hurricane report to address this problem within NSF’s hurricane research activities?

Overall, what has been the response of NSF thus far to the recommendations

of the NSB report?

A3. In recent years NSF has placed a high priority on research related to hurricanes. In FY 2007, NSF awarded approximately $12,400,000 to projects dealing with

the geophysical, social, and engineering aspects of hurricane processes and the resultant impacts on society and the environment. This research has included the

study of the physical genesis and life cycles of hurricanes, the development of new

simulation and forecast models of hurricane processes, the effect of land-falling hurricanes on ecosystems and the natural environment, the impacts on social systems

in hurricane impacted areas, the engineering and structural aspects of damage resistant practices in areas prone to hurricane exposure, and damage assessment of

facilities and infrastructure in hurricane impacted areas.

Question submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. How could the hurricane initiative help encourage development and adoption of

necessary building codes?

A1. The Board notes in its report that engineered structures are vulnerable to damage from wind, precipitation, and storm surge, though the impacts are not well understood, particularly at the scale of individual structures. Research therefore is

needed to better understand fluid-structure interactions at fine spatial scales, with

the coupling of atmospheric and land-surface/built infrastructure models being essential for guiding the creation of improved building designs and construction codes

in particularly vulnerable locations. Developing a better understanding of how the

land-atmosphere interface impacts hurricane morphology is also needed. Operational risk prediction models, some of which are highly parameterized, should be

updated to accommodate the detailed characterization of four-dimensional atmospheric structures that are possible with today’s advanced forecast models.

Questions submitted by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart

Q1. Even with better interagency coordination, how do you avoid the stovepipe situation you discuss that is created by the boundaries of the traditional disciplines?

A1. The Hurricane Initiative provides a framework, and the potential outcomes provide an incentive, for collaboration among traditionally disparate disciplines. In FY

2008 NSF and NOAA issued a joint announcement calling for proposals to advance

fundamental understanding of the communication of hurricane outlooks, forecasts,

watches, and warnings both to decision-makers (i.e., emergency managers, elected

officials) and to the general public.

The Board encourages interdisciplinary research, and NSF is experienced at supporting research that crosses disciplinary boundaries. The Hurricane Research

Testbed itself is designed specifically to bring multiple disciplines together. The

Board’s Hurricane Task Force found in our roundtable discussions with the science

and engineering community that researchers from multiple disciplines are eager to

89

1 National Science Board, HURRICANE WARNING: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative, (NSB–06–115), Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2007.

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/index.jsp

work with one another. Workshops and symposia can help bring different groups together, and, accordingly, NSF regularly supports both.

Q2. How are we not using existing hurricane research knowledge effectively, as you

say the NSB study finds? You state that current research is of high quality, but

it is not adequate. Is this purely a funding issue or is there some major research

hurdle standing in the way?

A2. Despite advances made during the past decade in meteorological understanding

and prediction, we still know relatively little about the most important aspects of

hurricanes from an integrative perspective, including their internal dynamics and

interactions with the larger-scale atmosphere and ocean; methods for quantifying

and conveying uncertainty and mitigating hurricane impacts; associated short- and

long-term consequences on the natural and built environment; and the manner in

which society responds before, during and after landfall. Billions of tax dollars have

been provided for rescue, recovery, and rebuilding after hurricanes strike. Also important is investment in the creation of new knowledge, and more effective application of existing knowledge to reduce those enormous public outlays, loss of life, and

the associated societal disruption caused by hurricanes. Recognizing the many vital

challenges associated with hurricanes in the broader context of natural disasters,

the National Science Board has engaged the Nation’s experts in science and engineering from government, academia, and industry in an intensive study to identify

priorities in fundamental research and complementary applied or mission-driven research, which can improve our Nation’s ability to become more resilient to hurricane

impacts. The result is ‘‘an agenda for action—a National Hurricane Research Initiative—that will provide urgently needed hurricane science and engineering research

and education that engages relevant agencies across the Federal Government; involves industry, academia, and other levels of government; establishes highly focused priorities; strengthens disciplinary research; creates multi-disciplinary frameworks for studying the hurricane in an integrative fashion; and stimulates the efficient transfer of research outcomes to operational practice.’’ 1

Q3. Are there currently any interagency collaborative efforts between NSF, NOAA

and any other agencies on hurricane research? If so, please explain the nature

of these collaborations. How well do NSF and NOAA work together in this regard?

A3. Yes. The Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM) coordinates Federal Hurricane Operations and Research efforts

across the responsible federal agencies. Additionally, federal agencies, including

NOAA, NSF, NASA, and the Navy (including Office of Naval Research) are working

to develop a National Hurricane Research Alliance. This Alliance will leverage existing federal hurricane coordination efforts, including those from the Office of the Federal Coordinator Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, to manage overall roles and responsibilities (including those of the broader academic community

funded by NSF, NOAA, and others). Through this Alliance, NOAA and NSF will

work with the other entities to maximize the effective use of considerable non-federal assets in conducting hurricane research.

Many of the hurricane research efforts conducted to date have had narrow foci

and limited coordination across disciplines. This makes it difficult to engage the

more challenging questions, the answers to which are not obtainable with short-duration studies. The bottom line is that many of the disciplines for whom hurricanes

are an important research challenge (e.g., physical science, engineering, social

science, behavioral science, and economics) do not regularly interact, resulting in a

myopic view that limits the effectiveness by which problems are formulated and research outcomes can be translated into operational practice. NSF needs to continue

to support work and communication across disciplinary boundaries through workshops and by supporting interdisciplinary research approaches.

NSF currently supports merit-reviewed, highly interdisciplinary research and coordinates activities with other relevant agencies, including the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NSF is discussing with other agencies their interests and how

coordination can be improved, taking into account the priorities related to hurricanes under development by the Disaster Reduction Subcommittee of the National

Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Research.

90

NSF and NOAA, while having different agency missions, do serve to accomplish

a common goal related to physical hurricane research—increasing forecast accuracy

in order to protect life and property. To that end, NSF and NOAA have recently

collaborated to conduct a major field campaign studying internal hurricane dynamics. This project, called the Hurricane Rainband and Intensity Change Experiment

(RAINEX), took place in 2005. NSF and NOAA sponsored aircraft were able to sample hurricanes, including Katrina and Rita, in unprecedented detail by using coordinated flights. The results from this work will likely have an impact on understanding rapid intensification periods in hurricanes, which are one of the most crucial aspects of forecasting.

An interagency and international project that will be taking place in August and

September 2008 is the THORPEX (The Observing Research and Predictability Experiment) Pacific Asian Regional Campaign (T–PARC). This NSF/DOD/international

collaborative effort will follow tropical systems from their formation, through maturity, to their eventual recurvature and downstream effects.

Another main unresolved question about tropical systems is why only a small

number of tropical waves and disturbances actually organize and intensify into tropical storms and hurricanes. To further research this topic, NSF, NOAA, DOD, and

NASA are discussing a field experiment in the Atlantic Ocean that will study these

pre-storm disturbances. While any one of the agencies could approach this topic on

their own, the collaboration between them greatly increases the likelihood that the

data collected will be sufficient to make large steps forward in our understanding

of the topic.

In addition to these observational campaigns, NSF and NOAA researchers have

also collaborated on the next generation numerical weather forecasting models for

hurricane research. Called the HWRF, or Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting model, this new model includes significantly increased amounts of data and

is run at a much finer scale than previous operational models. Finally, NSF and

NOAA recently issued a joint announcement for funding proposals on Communicating Hurricane Information (CHI).

Q4. Assuming a budget that remains flat, where would you suggest the NSF and

NOAA cut funding in order to fund their share of the $285 million per year authorized in the H.R. 2407 for this research? And where would you suggest they

make cuts in order to fund the $20 million per year for the database requirements?

A4. The Board encourages NSF and NOAA to consider this recommendation in setting priorities for future budgets. NSF establishes its budget priorities through a

process that integrates broad-based input provided by the science and engineering

community with the overall strategic direction set by the Foundation’s leadership

through interactions with the Board, OMB, OSTP, Congress, and NOAA and other

R&D agencies and institutions.

Q5. The authorizations set forth in this bill are total amounts. So, how should the

money be divided between NSF and NOAA to carry out the initiative? Are other

‘‘coordinating’’ federal agencies to receive part of the funding as well? Should

they?

A5. In its study, the Board found investments in science and engineering research

related to hurricanes and earthquakes were funded by a range of federal agencies

(see attachment, Appendix A of the Board’s report). The Board proposed new investments in essential areas of science and engineering research for the National Hurricane Research Initiative without reference to federal department or agency funding

source.

91

92

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Shuyi S. Chen, Professor of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography,

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami

Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Lampson

Q1. There are four major reports on improving hurricane research and forecast mentioned in your testimony. Is there anything different in these other reports from

the National Science Board report? Are there things in these other reports that

need to be addressed in H.R. 2407?

A1. They all strike the same main point: hurricane research must be a national priority. The reports are similar, but have slightly different emphases given the primary missions of each agency and organization. They all agree that improvement

in forecasting requires better understanding and modeling of rapid intensity

changes and storm genesis (formation). Consistent with their mission, NOAA

HIRWG report placed the prediction of rapid intensity change as the highest priority, which is mostly based on the fact that NOAA’s primary responsibility is forecasting, whereas the National Science Board report put emphases on integrating

physical science and engineering as well as social science to study hurricane forecasting and response in its entirety. The AGU report focuses on science-based strategy in rebuilding the U.S. Gulf coast after the 2005 hurricane disasters. The OFCM

report is mainly concerned with the coordination of operational forecasting, warning,

and emergency response. H.R. 2407 covers the whole range of hurricane research.

Q2. What are the current major gaps in research to better forecast hurricanes? Does

the proposed legislation H.R. 2407 and NOAA’s Hurricane Forecasting Improvement Plan address these needs?

A2. The major gaps in research to better forecast hurricanes are: 1) The fundamental understanding of the predictability of hurricanes and factors limiting the

current prediction of hurricane genesis and rapid intensity change; and 2) The effective transfer of knowledge and technology from the research to operations. The NSFsupported basic research at academic institutions is best suited to fill the first gap.

The NOAA Hurricane Forecasting Improvement Plan mainly addresses the second.

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. As you and many of the witnesses stated in their testimony, social science research plays crucial role in better understanding and improving hurricane preparedness and response. What areas of social and behavioral science research

do you consider to be highest priority areas? How are the results of such research being translated into operational practice? Have you encountered, or are

you aware of any impediments to applying the findings from social and behavioral sciences to disaster planning, recovery and response activities? If so, do you

have any suggestions as to how these impediments could be addressed?

A1. Although I am not a social scientist, I came to recognize the importance of social science in hurricane research through close communication with my social scientist colleagues who are experts on human behavior and response to natural disasters and through my own experience in several recent land-falling hurricane events.

Better understanding of three areas in social science is particularly important and

of high priority: 1) how a diverse, complex user population gathers and interprets

information (through media, Internet, or word-of-mouth) when responding to an approaching hurricane threat, 2) how experiences in the past, including both real

events and false alarms, affect human reaction to forecasts of disastrous events, and

3) how to enhance the willingness of people to invest in protective measures that

would lower the costs of low-probability, high-consequence hazards like hurricane

hits.

The panic evacuation in Texas during Hurricane Rita in September 2005 and

water and gas shortage in South Florida after Hurricane Wilma in October 2005 are

vivid examples of failure to anticipate human behavioral responses to hurricane

forecasts under different situations, which led to over- and under-preparedness.

These were not only consequences of over-warning of Rita in Texas and many false

alarms prior to Wilma in South Florida but also a lack of understanding of the psychology of human reactions to disasters.

There has been little implementation of research to operational practice, because

social science to this point has only been able to offer broad principles and

hypotheses rather than concrete guidance. The combination of the lack of investVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:23 Dec 13, 2008 Jkt 042964 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\062608\42964 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
93

1Meyer, Robert, ‘‘Why we Under Prepare for Hazards,’’ in Ronald J. Daniels, Donald F. Kettl,

and Howard Kunreuther (eds.), On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina, University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 153–174.

ment in basic research in this area and the rarity of these high-impact events make

it a particularly difficult problem (Meyer 20061 ).

The impediments are both the lack of basic research on implementable solutions

and the lack of training of emergency managers and public officials on the complexity of hurricane impacts on human psychology and organizational behavior. As

I mentioned in my testimony, we need to have an integrated hurricane forecast and

response system that offers accurate hurricane forecast, a seamless information flow

from the forecast to risk assessment, emergency response and ultimately mitigation

of hurricane damage. Improved forecasts will reduce false alarms and uncertainty

in physical impacts of hurricanes and, therefore reduce over- or under-warnings.

Successful implementation of such a system requires education of a new generation

of physical and social scientists, technicians, forecasters, government managers, and

a guaranteed smooth transition from research to operations.

Q2. In his testimony Dr. Prevatt stated that increased support for research on

strengthening the existing built infrastructure and developing cost effective retrofit and mitigation measures would be the most effective way to reduce damage

and economic losses from hurricanes. Would you comment on what priority you

would assign to such research and development efforts within the context of a

national hurricane research program?

A2. Research on strengthening the existing built infrastructure is an important part

of the overall effort to reduce physical damages and economic losses from hurricanes. Meanwhile, we must realize that hurricane damage and economic losses are

not limited to built infrastructures, but extend to the entire social and economic infrastructure that include information flow, communications, energy and food supplies, and emergency management. The cost for unnecessary evacuation from overwarning, for example, accounts for a major part of economic losses. Citizens who are

better prepared by education and proper communication could reduce their losses.

It is a highly complex problem that is far beyond built infrastructures alone. We

need an integrated forecast, communication, and education system to improve response to hurricanes and mitigation to reduce hurricane damages and economic

losses.

Although retrofitting existing built structures could be effective in reducing damage, it is not clear if the current data used in establishing the standards for

‘‘strengthening’’ the existing built structures is adequate. I would give it a high priority second to the research on understanding the impact of landfalling hurricanes

in terms of extreme winds and flooding potential at a given area so we can determine the standards by which the existing built structures must be strengthened. A

third priority worth mentioning, and one that would advance understanding of both

mitigation and evacuation decisions, is the social science of how complex, multi-layered government and private organizations respond to hurricane risk.

Q3. How much of the potential improvement possible in the prediction of hurricane

intensity will come from the availability of increasingly more powerful computers, which in turn will permit increasingly smaller computational grid spacing in the simulations you do? Will advances in computer power, which have

been steady and continuous, solve the hurricane intensity prediction problem?

A3. Increased computer power is essential to improving hurricane intensity prediction, but must be accompanied by more advanced understanding and knowledge

of how to best formulate and design numerical prediction models representing the

physical reality of hurricanes. Reduced grid spacing allows us to resolve fine-scale

features in hurricanes, e.g., the eye and eyewall, which are critical for hurricane intensity. However, it also presents new challenges because our current knowledge of

how various physical processes work in extreme wind conditions, for example, the

energy transfer at the air-sea interface with breaking waves, is still very limited.

Furthermore, a lack of observations of the fine-scale structure in hurricanes, which

hinders our ability to initialize the high-resolution models and validate model predictions, is another major challenge. Improvement in numerical models, high performance computers, innovative observations and data assimilation of the hurricane

structure will have to be achieved in concert to guarantee substantive progress in

predicting hurricane intensity change. Basic research and human resources are

therefore more critical. We must educate and train the next generation of scientists,

engineers, and forecasters at both undergraduate and graduate levels to ensure inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:23 Dec 13, 2008 Jkt 042964 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\062608\42964 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
94

creased computer power will indeed yield societal benefit in prediction of hurricane

intensity.

Questions submitted by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart

Q1. How much of the University of Miami’s hurricane research is funded by NOAA?

NSF? Are any of the grants jointly funded or is there other joint collaboration

between the university and these federal agencies?

A1. The majority of the hurricane research funding at the University of Miami is

from the NSF, ONR, and NASA. NOAA funds some research-to-operation projects,

but relatively little basic research at universities in general. From my own experience of working on research related to better understanding and improving hurricane intensity forecasts at the University of Miami over the last 10 years, I have

never received a direct research grant from NOAA.

Q2. As a representative of the Rosenstiel School, how would you characterize the

level of cooperation between the different federal agencies currently engaged in

hurricane research?

A2. The cooperation among federal agencies has been good at the program level. For

example, NOAA has supported the hurricane research programs led by other agencies though its airborne observational capability, as in the Hurricane Rainband and

Intensity Change Experiment (RAINEX) funded by NSF, the Coupled Boundary

Layer Air-Sea Transfer (CBLAST)–Hurricane funded by ONR, and the Tropical

Cloud System Processes (TCSP) funded by NASA.

Q2a. Do the proposed interagency and multi-disciplinary approaches in H.R. 2407

address all of your concerns?

A2a. I believe that H.R. 2407 will make the cooperation stronger by providing a coherent and integrated approach to hurricane research from the start.

Q2b. Do you have specific suggestions sitting on your side of the table that would

improve your institution’s interaction with the ‘‘interagency research efforts’’ as

they currently exist?

A2b. Cooperation between agencies should not be limited to NSF and NOAA, but

also others like ONR and NASA that are supporting hurricane research, as well as

FEMA that can insure the improved hurricane forecast is effectively benefiting the

emergency response and recovery efforts.

Q3. You mention the capabilities of European forecast models. How much collaboration is there between your institution and other countries? How much international cooperation do you see happening on the federal level on this type of

research? Would you advocate for greater interactions with other country’s research programs?

A3. Data sharing has certainly benefited all countries. This is particularly evident

in both space- and Earth-based observing systems. I am absolutely supportive for

more of the interactions among scientists from all countries. The collaboration has

to be based on science. International scientific collaboration and coordination under

federal support should be initiated by scientists. One area of immediate reward is

the improvement in global model forecasts from other countries, e.g., the European

Center, can affect the ensemble hurricane track forecasts. The real time ensemble

forecasts from the European Center are not publicly available outside the European

Union; users in the U.S. need to purchase these forecasts. Hence there are very few

groups in the U.S. that are using the forecasts from the European Center model,

which is unfortunate since these are arguably some of the best forecasts in the

world.

Q4. The authorizations set forth in this bill are total amounts. So, how should the

money be divided between NSF and NOAA to carry out the initiative? Are other

‘‘coordinating’’ federal agencies to receive part of the funding as well? Should

they?

A4. NSF and NOAA should be co-lead agencies to address the hurricane problem

from both basic research and transfer of research outcomes to operational practice.

The funding should be divided 50/50 between the two agencies. The role of NSF

should be to support the fundamental research (where a greater investment is needed), and the role of NOAA should be to support the transfer of research to operations. Other agencies can also contribute and play important roles based on their

95

traditional research interests (e.g., NASA in advancement of new remote sensing

technology, ONR in air-sea coupling).

96

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by David O. Prevatt, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Coastal

Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. As you and many of the witnesses stated in their testimony, social science research plays a crucial role in better understanding and improving hurricane

preparedness and response. What areas of social and behavioral science research

do you consider to be highest priority areas?

A1. Social Science research plays a key role in getting homeowners to understand

the technological options available and the financial impact of improving the hurricane resistance of their new or existing homes. I would put the need to educate the

public on these options at the top of the list of needed research. We need to develop

a much better understanding of the incentive mechanisms that stir homeowners to

action. What is also needed is the social mechanisms to make homeowners aware

of the risks imposed by such high impact, low frequency events like hurricanes. The

risks must be conveyed not only from the individual homeowner’s perspective but

also as aggregated to the community risks—it is the price to pay for living in a region threatened by a known natural hazard.

The basis for this position is that despite dozens of new technologies that have

been tested and shown to significantly improve the hurricane resistance of homes,

these are not being readily implemented. Unfortunately, we are faced with educating the public about how homes are constructed and how/why buildings react the

way they do to the high wind loads associated with a hurricane event. This is not

necessarily an engineering lecture; rather, it is best presented as a logical or intuitive discussion of the performance of a building under high wind conditions.

The frequency of such discussion need to be addressed, and emphasis needs to be

placed on educating the next generation of homeowners—our children who are more

likely to embrace the technologies if they were exposed to knowledge of the risk

from their childhood. (e.g., seat belt wearing in vehicles is almost 100 percent now,

compared to the relatively small percentages of wearers when the legislation was

originally introduced). People seem to accept the need to carry fire insurance, and

some will even purchase fire extinguishers for their home. Few seem to understand

their probability of sustaining damage from a flood or windstorm is, in many cases,

greater than their risk of having a fire. Clearly, there’s been some success in communicating fire risk and spurring individuals’ actions that needs to be translated

to natural hazards, like hurricanes, floods, and other windstorms.

Social science research is also needed to develop the most effective communication

messages that persuade the majority of people to evacuate in advance of a hurricane. Conversely, social science research may be necessary to convince others not

to evacuate when they are in no danger but their presence on the highways may

add additional risks to themselves. The publicity encouraging evacuation should be

aimed at those least likely to evacuate and in most danger—minorities, lower income, people without cars, for example—and designed by advertisers who know how

to reach those groups. There is research underway about what to do about pets. It

should be continued.

More social science research is needed to reduce post-hurricane psychological impacts. The use of psychological debriefing has been called into question by research

findings showing that it may not change outcomes or may even worsen outcomes

for some. However, there is still a need for further research on what are the most

effective post-disaster interventions that would help mitigate the development of

later problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and other mental

health problems.

Q2. How are the results of such research being translated into operational practice?

A2. Several states have programs in existence. Efforts are underway to educate and

train design professionals architects and engineers and builders in hurricane-resistant construction. This key group works with homeowners during renovations and

repairs and they can communicate the options and benefits of hurricane-resistant

construction. FEMA identified and targeted this group for outreach and training

over the last 10 years, providing its ‘‘Coastal Construction Manual’’ (FEMA 55)

courses and other guidance materials.

However, very little training effort is aimed at new students who can be most influenced by this knowledge. The limited research support for faculty in our tertiary

academic institutions has stifled research and removed incentives for faculty to purVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:23 Dec 13, 2008 Jkt 042964 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\062608\42964 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
97

sue these areas and so the education is not supported. In Florida, some tools that

are available to assist in this process are:

• The computer-based Home Structure Rating System (HSRS) that was developed by the University of Florida for the Florida Department of Financial

Services can provide an evaluation of the likelihood of a home in a given location being in the path of a hurricane. The HSRS analyzes the structural characteristics of the existing building, compares the structure to the expected

wind loads, and provides the homeowner with a prioritized list of home improvements to be considered along with the cost range for the improvements

and the reduction in wind damage insurance premium that can be expected.

• Four regional Windstorm Damage Mitigation Training and Demonstration Centers (known as ‘‘Hurricane Houses’’) designed and constructed

by the University of Florida located in coastal areas across Florida. The Centers are located in Escambia, St. Johns, St. Lucie, and Broward Counties.

These Centers are staffed by Florida Cooperative Extension Service faculty

and form the statewide infrastructure that can reach the public with the necessary information and education programs. (Funding for the two remaining

Centers to be located on Florida’s Gulf Coast thus completing statewide coverage has not yet been provided.)

• The My Safe Florida Home Program operated by the Florida Department of Financial Services has provided free home inspections for thousands of homeowners in Florida—primarily in the coastal areas. These inspections are performed by certified inspectors that have been trained by the Florida Cooperative Extension Service faculty using the training-room facilities

available at the Hurricane Houses. The data captured by the inspections results in a list of wind-resistant home improvements that the owner should

consider, estimates of the cost of the improvements, and estimates of the reduction in wind insurance premium that may be expected.

Q3. Have you encountered, or are you aware of any impediments to applying the

findings from social and behavioral sciences to disaster planning, recovery and

response activities? If so, do you have any suggestions as to how these impediments could be addressed?

A3. Incentive Mechanisms

The Hurricane Houses in Florida are visited by thousands of people each year.

We know these people come to the Centers for a variety of reasons and carry away

with them added knowledge about the effect of wind on buildings and the alternatives available for retrofitting their homes to prevent or minimize wind damage.

However, due to lack of adequate resources, the Centers are unable to conduct follow-up surveys or face-to-face interviews with the visitors about what did or did not

motivate them to take action to harden their homes against wind damage. We know

by the interest in the Hurricane Houses that the public wants the information; we

do not currently know what has worked and what didn’t work to stimulate the visitors to invest in wind resistant technology for their home.

Limited Technology Transfer Support

• The fact that there are currently only four out of six planned Hurricane

Houses and that there is no central statewide outreach coordination function

are testimony to the low priority that Florida has assigned to the social

science research that will help us focus our message to the public about reducing potential property losses from Hurricane events.

• The situation in other states is in far worse shape than Florida. I am aware

of only one hurricane demonstration building in Charleston, SC, run by the

SC Sea Grant Consortium and which is no longer has a permanent staff. Another demonstration building in Baton Rouge Louisiana is also in operation

run by faculty of the Louisiana State University.

Q4. In your testimony, you raise the importance of applying existing knowledge we

have to design and retrofit structures to resist hurricane damage. What kind of

research is being done to determine the most cost effective ways to retrofit?

A4. The academic engineering community is undertaking research on how to understand the physical effects of hurricane winds, rain and storm surge and to design

structures and materials to be more wind and flood resistant. But there is little

funding to support efforts to translate these results into codes and the construction/

retrofit market. A key role for the Federal Government in this arena is to help betVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:23 Dec 13, 2008 Jkt 042964 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\062608\42964 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
98

ter identify and coordinate basic research, and provide mechanisms to get the results translated into action. The hurricane research initiative should focus primarily

on basic research, but perhaps translation of results should not be an emphasis.

That function could be performed by existing programs, such as the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP), which Congress established in 2004 for

the purpose of coordinating windstorm-related research and putting results into

practice. The agencies involved in NWIRP have not received direct funding for the

program, but with proper support, it could function well in coordinating research on

retrofit methods developed through the hurricane initiative and translating results

into the broader user community.

Although progress is being made on hurricane-resistant design, more support is

needed to fund research to improve not only building codes, but other mitigation

techniques and best practices. Building codes are a consensus document developed

through participation of all parties in the construction industry. However, the building code sets out minimum legal limits of construction. The first challenge we face

is that building codes today rely upon research that is over 30 to 40 years old, and

very little new funding has been provided to develop new knowledge or upgrade existing ones. Second, every significant hurricane shows us that codes are not the only

solution. Building a structure to meet code will help ensure the structure remains

standing in a design-level event; it does not, however, guarantee that no significant

damage will occur. Codes are primarily aimed minimizing loss of life; to minimize

property damage, mitigation techniques that go beyond codes must be used.

So, while there is a need for research to improve codes, there are also other areas

that must be researched and developed, including, risk-wise land use, comprehensive planning, code-plus techniques, inspector training and education, etc. These

tools are needed alongside better codes to substantially reduce losses.

Q5. Are you aware of any social and behavioral science research being done relative

to the issue of designing and retrofitting homes and other buildings?

A5. I am not familiar with this research but would recommend that resources of

the National Hazards Center in Boulder, CO be used (Kathleen Tierney) Also, Ms.

Leslie Chapman-Henderson of the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes—FLASH

would be a useful resource person as well.

Question submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. How could the hurricane initiative help encourage development and adoption of

necessary building codes?

A1. Building codes are a start, but there is more to this that should be addressed.

As was mentioned in response to Congressman Baird’s last question, building codes

are a consensus on minimum legal limits of construction. Building a structure to

meet code will help ensure the structure remains standing in a design-level event;

it does not, however, guarantee that no significant damage will occur. Codes are primarily aimed minimizing loss of life; to minimize property damage, mitigation techniques that go beyond codes must be used.

The hurricane research initiative can support both development of better codes

through enhanced funding for basic hurricane research, as well as aid research into

hazard mitigation techniques and mitigation planning. The latter could include support of social science researchers who examine community and individual decisionmaking with regard to hurricanes and related hazards. The science and engineering

communities can develop a superior code, but it will be ineffective if communities

fail to adopt it and invest their limited resources in implementing and enforcing it.

The proposed hurricane research initiative includes support in this area.

Some examples of other subject areas that the initiative could address are:

• Effective mitigation of homes—Destructive testing of existing homes to compare as-built resistance vs. mitigated.

• Aging effects—long-term durability and performance issues, performance degradation of older homes and components.

• Emerging vulnerability issues—economic losses to newer homes due to water

penetration.

• Full-scale testing of whole systems (both lab specimens and in-field real

homes) subjected to controlled hurricane environments.

• Simulating real wind turbulence and rain conditions as measured in the field.

99

To be successful, the above research must fully engage all stakeholder groups

(product manufacturers, home builders associations, certified test labs, codes and

standards officials).

Questions submitted by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart

Q1. You mention in your testimony that ‘‘limited research and technology transfer

support’’ focused on strengthening the existing built infrastructure are the reasons that mitigating damage and economic loss from hurricanes has been poor.

Please expand on what you mean by technology transfer support and why this

is a problem.

A1. Without technology transfer of methods to strengthen existing infrastructure we

continue to accept that the majority of our structures will suffer severely in hurricanes. This need not be so. We need to ensure that the public and decision-makers

understand that we do not have to suffer the current impacts from wind storms and

associated water penetration problems. This could be accomplished through a dedicated research, training and information providing program. For example, limited

work is currently going into wind uplift performance testing, which results in new

technologies that are incorporated into the International Code Council’s guidance for

manufacturers and others. Researchers need to conduct additional work on testing

methods to assist the industry in validating the concepts contained in the guidance.

With proper support from Congress and the Administration, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) could help improve government coordination of research (including the hurricane research initiative) and subsequent technology transfer. In other words, the hurricane research initiative could focus more

of its resources on fundamental research and research-to-operations (e.g., forecasts),

while the NWIRP could focus on technology transfer and application of results by

Federal, State, and local governments, code and standard development organizations, design professionals, and other stakeholders.

Q2. How much of the University of Florida’s hurricane research is funded by NOAA?

NSF? Are any of the grants jointly funded or is there other joint collaboration

between the university and these federal agencies?

A2.

Research support to University of Florida from NOAA and the NSF has totaled

approximately $2.6 million dollars over the 12-year period, 1996 through 2008. This

figure represents 27 percent of the total external research support that the University of Florida received for hurricane-related research over that period. The average

annual NSF support was $75,000 per year and support from the Department of

Commerce/NOAA was $128,000 per year. About 60 percent of UF’s external funds

to support hurricane research have come from State agencies, such as Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Department of Community Affairs, and the

Department of Insurance.

Such limited research support is alarming, given that as the flagship university

in the State of Florida, the University of Florida with its 50,000 student body arguably has been at the forefront of most significant hurricane related research for the

100

State of Florida. Despite this, only 35 researchers (Principal Investigator and CoPIs) have received external funding to pursue hurricane research in the past 12

years. Further, the research expenditure is minimal compared to the costs of hurricane damage wrought by most recent storms (Hurricane Andrew -$30 billion, Charlie, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma), it is not surprising

therefore that current trends show increasing annual economic losses from hurricanes,

Q3. Speaking as a representative of the University of Florida, how would you characterize the level of cooperation between the different federal agencies currently

engaged in hurricane research? Do the proposed interagency and multi-disciplinary approaches in H.R. 2407 address all of your concerns? So you have specific

suggestions sitting on your side of the table that would improve your institution’s interaction with the interagency research efforts as they currently exist?

A3. In some respects, federal agencies do cooperate well on hurricane-related activities, but research and loss reduction programs are areas where coordination could

be improved. Agencies have varied existing authorities concerning hurricanes, and

while some coordination occurs through the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, most agencies concentrate on activities

that fulfill their specific missions. This limits the resources that can go into fundamental research and comprehensive, interagency efforts to reduce hurricane-related

losses.

Programs dedicated solely to hazard loss reduction research and development

(R&D) receive the smallest share of R&D funds from the Federal Government. The

largest fraction goes to basic and applied research programs at the NSF, NOAA and

NASA. The second largest category is operational support R&D, focused almost exclusively on weather-related hazards.

The largest fraction of R&D spending supports work on weather hazards and

broadly related research on climatology, atmospheric science, and oceanography.

The hurricane initiative proposed in H.R.2407 proposes to continue this trend. The

second largest category of R&D funding—a distant second—is research on earthquakes. While losses from weather-related hazards are estimated to be approximately

twice as large as those from earthquakes, the allocation of R&D funds between these

categories differs by more than a factor of 10 in favor of earthquake research.

Closer examination of the funding for weather-related hazard R&D shows that

most of the effort is focused on short-term prediction efforts, which have limited loss

reduction potential within the full range of losses from natural hazards. Prediction

can generally move individuals out of harm’s way, but R&D focused on long-term

loss reduction strategies could improve the resilience of communities and infrastructure, protecting lives and property in a far more substantial way.

While H.R. 2407 begins to address the disparity in funding for hurricane research,

the legislation needs to better address coordination of efforts. For the hurricane research initiative to be successful in meeting its goals, there needs to be ongoing communication and coordination among the parties involved. There should be a mechanism for federal agencies to coordinate research and operational activities concerning hurricanes, track progress in meeting the initiative’s goals, and ensure research results are being disseminated and used to reduce hurricane-related damages. Academic researchers, State and local officials, code groups, and other stakeholders should also have a mechanism to review the initiative’s progress, identify

gaps in current research, and bring forward new issues that must be addressed. One

option Congress may consider is to give the hurricane research initiative a formal

structure to accomplish all of this. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Program is an excellent model for organizing research and applied efforts across federal agencies, the academic community, and other non-federal sectors. Alternatively,

there may be other existing programs, such as NWIRP, where these coordination

functions can be incorporated, preserving maximum funding for research and related activities.

Q4. This bill would require the development of a National Infrastructure Database.

Considering the national security implications of a single database that contains

the location of every vulnerable building, road, utility, etc., in the country and

the attendant requirements that would be established in order to access it, how

could such a database be developed that would not compromise the safety and

security of people living in these vulnerable structures?

A4. The Federal Government has several existing programs aimed at inventorying

and characterizing the built environment. For example, in developing its loss estimation software, HAZUS, FEMA compiled initial building inventory data for the

Nation, which is supplemented by more detailed data by State or local users. FEMA

101

recognized early on the great challenge in creating national data sets at the detail

necessary to estimate hazard-related losses and develop meaningful mitigation actions. More recently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been tasked with developing a national levee database, which will include not only federal levees but structures built by State and local governments and private interests. Not surprisingly,

it will take many years (and millions of dollars) for this database to be completed.

Given the challenges inherent to developing a ‘‘National Infrastructure Database,’’

it may be more advantageous to focus on developing a database or centralized clearinghouse of existing infrastructure information and ensure it is available to the researchers, agencies, and other groups engaged in the hurricane research initiative.

Q4a. The authorizations set forth in this bill are total amounts. So, how should the

money be divided between NSF and NOAA to carry out the initiative? Are other

‘‘coordinating’’ federal agencies part of the funding as well? Should they?

A4a. Most should go to NSF, but agencies participating in the initiative (e.g.,

NOAA) need some support to fund intramural research and related activities. Further details of my proposals on allocation are included in my written testimony.

102

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Stephen P. Leatherman, Chair Professor and Director, International

Hurricane Research Center & Laboratory for Coastal Research, Florida International University

Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Lampson

Q1. What are the current major gaps in research to better forecast hurricanes? Does

the proposed legislation H.R. 2407 and NOAA’s Hurricane Forecasting Improvement Plan address these needs?

A1. A major problem in better forecasting hurricane intensity is understanding the

vertical transport of energy through turbulence in the hurricane wind field. Turbulent eddies exist at a range of scales, which are smaller than a two kilometer grid—

such a fine grid would require considerable more computer power than presently

available and at phenomenal expense.

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. As you and many of the witnesses stated in their testimony, social science research plays a crucial role in better understanding and improving hurricane

preparedness and response. What areas of social and behavioral science research

do you consider to be highest priority areas? How are the results of such research being translated into operational practice? Have you encountered, or are

you aware of any impediments to applying the findings from social and behavioral sciences to disaster planning, recovery and response activities? If so, do you

have any suggestions as to how these impediments could be addressed?

A1. Two major areas to be addressed by social scientists are mitigation and evacuation. Recently an IHRC coastal resource economist developed the first quantitative

evacuation model, which when fully developed, will provide considerable guidance

regarding hurricane forecasts with respect to individual decision-making. The public

has little knowledge of building safety in windstorms and people largely select

houses based on the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, location and appearance. In

addition it has been problematic to get the public to mitigate the windstorm hazard,

largely because of the cost and lack of information of what can be done. The Wall

of Wind research can demonstrate the value of new products and technologies to

make your house hurricane resistant and those that are cost effective. The best way

to transfer this information to the public is through the mass media of TV as backed

up with detailed information on a web site, which is another goal of the IHRC.

Q2. In his testimony Dr. Prevatt stated that increased support for research on

strengthening the existing built infrastructure and developing cost effective retrofit and mitigation measures would be the most effective way to reduce damage

and economic losses from hurricanes. Would you comment on what priority you

would assign to such research and development efforts within the context of a

national hurricane research program?

A2. Approximately 99 percent of the problem is strengthening existing houses

through retrofitting as only one percent of the building stock is new homes. More

than 70 companies, including DuPont and 3M, have requested that we test their

new products and technologies that could be used to mitigate hurricane damage in

a cost effective manner.

Q3. How much of the potential improvement possible in the prediction of hurricane

intensity will come from the availability of increasingly more powerful computers, which in turn will permit increasingly smaller computational grid spacing in the numerical simulations you do? Will advances in computer power,

which have been steady and continuous, solve the hurricane intensity prediction

problem?

A3. More powerful computers are necessary, but not sufficient, for improvements in

the prediction of hurricane intensity; this is a much more difficult problem than the

landfall area forecast, which is reaching the limits of predictability.

Question submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. How could the hurricane initiative help encourage development and adoption of

necessary building codes?

103

A1. Better building codes will follow from research that focuses on how things

break—the purpose of the full-scale, destructive testing by the Wall of Wind hurricane simulator. At present, we have only anecdotal evidence from post-storm inspections and empiricism (equations, not real data) for the establishment of building

codes.

Questions submitted by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart

Q1. You discuss FIU’s work with NOAA, but how much work does FIU do with NSF

with regards to hurricane research? Do you see close collaboration between the

two agencies? If so, how is this working? If not, do you think there should be

collaboration?

A1. FIU has received some grants over the years from NSF; presently we have a

$200k grant for wind engineering research (e.g., Wall of Wind) and about the same

amount for atmospheric science research. In addition, we have recently been notified

of a new award of $390k for socioeconomic research. NSF does not have an integrated hurricane research program; these grants come from difference divisions of

NSF. Also, the level of funding from NSF is generally constrained.

Q2. Your testimony indicates that ‘‘understanding air-sea interactions’’ should be a

medium priority versus a high priority. Likewise, you place ‘‘improved observations’’ as a high priority, as opposed to the National Science Board’s recommendation that it be a medium priority. What is your rational for these differences in priority rankings?

A2. Air-sea interactions is very important with respect to hurricane intensification

(deserves a high priority), but air-sea interaction research can also involve many

other areas of far less importance. We gave a high priority rating to observations,

especially for field measurements of storm surges so that the models can be calibrated and verified, which has not been done in the past. Also, direct measurements

of storm surges are important in partitioning the damage from water vs. wind,

which continues to be a major issue in insurance claims as evidenced by Hurricane

Katrina.

Q3. Some of the research your institution conducts is Florida-oriented, but would

seem to have national implications—specifically the work you are doing in materials, methodologies and techniques related to housing in hurricane prone areas.

Considering that the work is partially funded by the private sector, how much

of the results of your research can you disseminate for public use?

A3. All of the research that is being conducted by FIU will benefit the public. We

are conducting some proprietary research of new hurricane mitigation products and

technologies for private companies where there are patents pending. However, this

research will benefit the public if these new products prove to be cost effective in

strengthening houses and businesses.

Q4. In your written testimony, you list some of the areas in which FIU is currently

conducting research. This includes an assessment of the social consequences and

the human impacts of hurricanes, specifically how they affect perceptions and

attitudes influencing critical issues such as evacuation.

a. Have you done any work on the complementary side, of government planning

for effectively responding to hurricane-caused disasters?

b. How receptive are emergency managers at the local, State and national levels

to suggestions, comments or criticisms? Do you see their perceptions and attitudes influencing not only their planning for emergency situations, but also

their actually responding to them?

A4a,b. Professor Dario Moreno at FIU and the Metropolitan Center have conducted

some research regarding government planning, especially involving evacuations.

One case study involved the evacuation that occurred and costs incurred based on

the forecast of Hurricane Charley in 2004 making landfall in the Tampa area.

Q5. The authorizations set forth in this bill are total amounts. So, how should the

money be divided between NSF and NOAA to carry out the initiative? Are other

‘‘coordinating’’ federal agencies to receive part of the funding as well? Should

they?

A5. FIU believes that NIST should be coordinating agency.