[Senate Hearing 109-388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-388
WINTER STORMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 1, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-401 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
0SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMint, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION
JIM DeMint, South Carolina, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska,
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon Ranking
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
BILL NELSON, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 1, 2006.................................... 1
Statement of Senator DeMint...................................... 1
Statement of Senator E. Benjamin Nelson.......................... 3
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 2
Witnesses
Michels, Hon. Denise, Mayor, City of Nome/President, Alaska
Conference of Mayors........................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Uccellini, Dr. Louis W., Director, National Centers for
Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).......................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
WINTER STORMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Disaster, Prevention and
Prediction,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m. in room
SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim DeMint,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMint,
U.S. SENATOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator DeMint. A particular thanks to our witnesses today.
This afternoon, the Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and
Prediction will be meeting to discuss severe winter weather and
its impacts on communities and commerce. While winter storms
are often not as sensational as hurricanes and tornadoes, these
storms still have a devastating impact on businesses and their
accurate prediction is essential to the efficient movement of
commerce and the protection of public safety.
Our Nation faces a variety of winter storms. Most people
are familiar with the nor'easters that hit the eastern seaboard
of the United States, frequently blanketing cities from
Washington to Boston with a layer of snow. But people are
likely not as aware of the devastating storms that buffet the
coast of Alaska with high winds, intense cold, and devastating
erosion. There's also probably not as much understanding of the
driving blizzards that produce blinding white-outs in the
Midwest, crippling traffic and creating huge snowdrifts. And
finally, there seems to be little recognition of the ice storms
that hit the southern United States, often leaving thousands
without power.
In the middle of December, upstate South Carolina was hit
with a devastating ice storm. As the ice accumulated on tree
limbs and wires in communities across the upstate, houses went
dark. All told, at the end of the storm, nearly 900,000 people
were without power. Many had their homes damaged, including
mine. The destruction was so widespread and devastating that
the damage was significant; so significant that the region
received a disaster declaration from FEMA, and this was a
relatively small area of the state. While the storm's onset was
not a surprise, its magnitude caught some people off guard.
To avoid some of the consequences of these storms, the
Nation needs accurate and timely storm prediction. While there
would still have been a high level of power outages during the
storm in South Carolina, if we had had a clearer idea of what
was to come, individuals would have had a better idea of what
was in store and the power companies could have marshaled more
support to get our power back on more quickly. Many were
without power for a week.
The news is not always bad. NOAA is improving the quality
of its forecast. For example, the 72-hour forecasts are as
accurate today as the 36-hour forecasts were 20 years ago. This
is important progress because it provides an essential planning
time that's necessary for emergency planners as well as for
citizens who may need to stock up on food and water and
alternative sources of heat.
I'm looking forward to the comments of our witnesses this
morning to explain what they believe needs to be done to ensure
that we improve the quality of our forecasts and better prepare
our communities for these storms. I'll now yield to Chairman
Stevens for his opening comments and the introduction of our
first witness.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator. I do appreciate
you holding this hearing. If the Senate wasn't in session, I
would have preferred to hold it in Mayor Michels' hometown.
Unfortunately, the Weather Bureau has just put out a warning, a
blizzard warning, Mayor. I assume you know. It's in effect
until 6 a.m. tomorrow. It's for Nome and the surrounding areas.
Current weather there is a wind chill of minus 29 and the winds
are 38 miles an hour from the east.
That's not good news, Senator, because it's just 2 days
away from one of my favorite activities in Nome we will start
celebrating, and this is the--this is a tough time to have this
kind of weather when the Iditarod is underway. It is the last
great race. It's a great sporting event. We'd love to have you
come up and witness the--the end of it is in Mayor Michels'
home, and it, of course, was the target for serum that was
delivered by dog sled back in 1925.
But I do thank you, Denise, for coming up--or coming down
rather and being up here on the Hill to testify and I think
this is the kind of hearing we should have more often. By the
way, Mr. Chairman, there is the warning that came out of the
Fairbanks Weather Service. Now you have to realize that
Fairbanks is 900 miles away, at least. That's where our weather
station is that deals with storms off that part of the coast,
if I'm correct, Mr. Uccellini.
I brought with me some of the typical storms of the past.
The Bering Sea storm of 2004, compared to Hurricane Andrew, you
can see where it came off the Russian Peninsula, the Kamchatka
area and it came across to Alaska. This is the latest storm, in
September of this past year. It really is a very, very
beautiful picture of what happens in the North Pacific when
there is a monstrous storm of this type. And we also have some
of the photographs of what happened to Nome in October of 2004.
And this is one of the area maps that I like to show
people. It shows how Alaska stretches across the whole of the
United States, but when you look at it, we have three areas
of--weather forecasting areas of responsibility and that shows
you how far away they really are from--in the days gone by, we
had these weather offices in almost every area of the state.
This is the Ninilchik flood on the Kenai Peninsula. I was
actually down there at that time in 2002. It took out that
bridge there over the Illiamna River.
I'm telling you, these are--the comparisons to--this is a
map prepared by NOAA showing the comparison of the number of
storms that have hit the United States and the number that hit
Alaska on an annual basis. This is the Barrow Storm of 2000.
Again, one of the most difficult storms that they've had in the
Arctic in history. I do think it's an area that should be
studied more and we should have more information about it
because of its impact on the overall National Weather System.
So I thank you very much, and as I said, thank you, also,
Doctor, for coming to testify. I see behind you a familiar
face. You have support.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Nelson,
would you like to make an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Nelson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
particularly for holding this hearing. Obviously, Nebraska sees
our share of winter storms every year, so this is clearly a
topic of great interest to me.
Now winter storms, perhaps, have less direct impact on
society than maybe other storms such as hurricanes or
tornadoes, but they still can threaten lives, disrupt
transportation systems, and have a significant impact on the
national economy. Winter weather not only presents a
substantial challenge for forecasters, but poses risks to
public safety and can take a huge economic toll on agriculture,
transportation, utilities, and other businesses long after the
storm passes.
In Nebraska, for example, the average yearly snowfall
ranges from about 27 inches in the southeastern part of the
state to 41 inches in the panhandle. Now this year, it hasn't
reached anything like that, but along with the snowfall, each
year we contend with ice and bitter cold temperatures. Even a
small accumulation of ice can make driving treacherous and
heavy accumulations can bring down trees and utility poles,
affecting power and communications. Because Nebraska is a very
windy state, it's not uncommon for wind chills to be several
degrees below zero, leading to the possibility of frostbite or
hypothermia for anyone exposed to the cold for any length of
time.
As a former Governor and with the responsibility for making
sure my state was prepared to respond to severe winter weather,
I can state firsthand that timely and accurate forecasting of
winter storms is crucial to being able to respond in an
effective manner. And I'm sure that Mayor Michels will agree
with me on that. Accurate, advance warning of approaching
storms allows both state and local officials to give the public
adequate notice of the storm and instructions on how to
prepare. Clearly, safety is our first priority, but there's
also an economic factor to be considered as well. Large winter
storms can impact the daily activities of potentially millions
of people over the course of several days. But the economic
costs of cleanup, underemployment, and lost business are not
typically accounted for in damage estimates. The impacts of
winter storms on shipping and airline industries likewise can
be substantial.
The Nation's complex infrastructure of highways, city
streets, and local roads present a challenge to the Department
of Transportation, state agencies, and municipal governments
who are charged with maintaining safe transit conditions for
the public and the flow of commerce. More accurate winter storm
forecasts can help people prepare for these events and reduce
direct and indirect costs associated with them.
I look forward to the testimony today and I appreciate very
much this opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Senator. We will start with the
Mayor, but before we do, I think I need to introduce Dr.
Uccellini, right? Do I have that right? Dr. Uccellini is
currently the Director of National Weather Service's National
Center for Environmental Prediction, which we call NCEP. In his
position, he's responsible for directing and implementing the
science, technology, and operations related to the seven
national centers that forecast specific weather phenomena,
including the Climate Prediction Center and the National
Hurricane Center.
In addition to his role as Director of NCEP, he is one of
the Nation's leading authorities on severe winter weather. Just
a few years ago, Dr. Uccellini co-published, with Paul Kosin
from The Weather Channel, a two-volume study on northeast snow
storms, which is widely regarded as a definitive text.
Throughout his career with NOAA, he's published a number of
other publications on severe weather and winter weather in
particular. So we're pleased to have you and we'll hear from
you in just a moment, but Mayor Michels, since you've come the
longest way, we greatly appreciate you doing that, we'll allow
a short opening statement and then we'll go to Dr. Uccellini.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENISE MICHELS, MAYOR, CITY OF NOME/
PRESIDENT, ALASKA CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
Ms. Michels. Thank you for inviting me. The information I'm
going to provide you today comes from the communities that are
affected, the State of Alaska, and also the University of
Alaska's International Arctic Research Center.
As you can see on there, Nome is located on the Seward
Peninsula. We're facing the Norton Sound. The Bering Strait's
region occupies 17 communities and every time we have a storm,
every one of these communities is affected because we are
located on the coast. Unlike most of America, we do not have a
road system. All of our transportation coming into Nome and
into the villages is by air and so when we do have a storm, all
transportation is stopped. We are greatly affected by the high
winds. Planes cannot fly and our roads get wiped out.
Western Alaska has survived the Spanish flu, deadly
diphtheria and, for the last few years, storms with erosion
which is something new. We have listed, in the paperwork that
I've provided you, storms documented since 1900 to 1946 and
this caused Nome to request for a seawall that was built in
1949, 1950. This seawall has just saved Nome immensely. Without
that, the damage and economics of it would be just devastating.
During the 2003 storm, we were lucky that the Weather
Service gave us an early warning, where the communities up in
the north, like Shishmaref and Kivalina, had 1 day to prepare
to put items to high land. That still caused damage and
impacted their community because meat on racks were lost and so
there was economic hardship that was faced that normal
communities in the south don't experience.
In 2003, FEMA approved the city of Nome's Hazardous
Mitigation Plan. We were the first in the state and second in
the Nation to get our plan approved. We identified community
and business leaders, vulnerable locations, developed effective
mitigation strategies. We learned about an incident command
system, which is totally different. And the Weather Service in
Nome is a very essential part of this team.
During the 2004 storm, the Weather Service also gave us an
early warning and this time we were able to take precautionary
steps. Our emergency operation center, along with the Troopers
and the National Guard, we were able to go downtown and ask the
stores and the people that live there to board up their windows
and prepare to go to higher ground. Now, in the villages, there
is no Home Depot where you can run and grab plywood. You have
to find what is available and so, giving this early warning
really helps us try to find those resources in the rural areas.
It is very evident that we are seeing these storms more
often, mainly because freeze-up is coming later in the year and
so far, the Western Alaska storms for the last 100 years, based
on the information we have, is $48,000,000, without the 2005
numbers that we have not received yet.
We are impacted because our per capita income is lower.
Economic options are limited. For example, if you lose your
boat, that's your only source for getting subsistence. You
can't get a grant or you--you know, we don't have the money to
get a loan for a new boat. And then another one is the
infrastructure, like if a road or an airport goes out, we have
to wait for resources to come to us and that may take a couple
days.
In the City of Nome, we continue to hold our LEPC meetings.
We conduct drills. We receive training. As you can see with our
professional response, we are very dedicated to make sure that
disaster preparation and recovery is the number one priority.
Some of the items that the region is doing, for instance,
our power plant is located in the flood zone. We are working on
moving that onto higher ground. In Shishmaref, with the
assistance of the State, they wrote an evacuation and flood
plan. They're also working to relocate with assistance from
USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service. The Northwest
Arctic Borough, where Kivalina is located, is working on
finding resources to help them complete their Hazardous
Mitigation Plan. No communities have completed their Hazardous
Mitigation Plan, one of the reasons why is that they're
financially strapped in rural areas. We don't have the economic
base because we rely on subsistence.
So I'm hoping to bring this message to you today to help
our communities complete their Hazardous Mitigation Plans, that
you would consider funding the State of Alaska to provide more
funds so that they can complete these plans, or consider a
pilot project in Northwest Alaska to have an agency come in and
work with the communities to complete these Hazardous
Mitigation Plans. The reason why is that once these plans are
done, the economics and the damage will not be as expensive.
And so there's going to be a savings, both life, property, and
resources.
Also, to assist the Weather Service in predicting models,
we recommend that possibly more buoys be in the Bering Strait
region. There's one buoy about 600 miles toward the Aleutians
that they have to use to predict weather. The Corps of
Engineers, when they're designing ports and harbors and erosion
facilities, basically use the information on the buoy. So, to
provide them with more technical assistance, that would, I
think, benefit everyone. Also, more observation points are
needed. We do not have that many in the area and so if we were
able to have more observations, be it automatic or in person,
that would be able to help the Weather Service in doing
predictions and providing that information out to us faster.
We're also working with the University of Alaska to see if
a research center in Nome would be possible. It's evident that
the permafrost is melting. You can go down the Nome Teller
Highway and you can see where the tundra sloughed off and the
permafrost is exposed and everything is just melting and
creating big divots and that will be expensive to our
transportation infrastructure.
We really thank NOAA for being a partner with the city of
Nome on our economic--on our local emergency committee and I
thank you for having me here. It's a real honor and if you need
any information, I have a whole stack of stuff here that I can
provide to you. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Michels follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Denise Michels, Mayor, City of Nome/
President, Alaska Conference of Mayors
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, I am Denise Michels, Mayor of the City
of Nome and President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. I would like
to provide you an overview of the winter storms western Alaska has been
hit with for the last 100 years and our ability to prepare for these
storms and recommendations for your consideration. This information was
provided by the communities affected by the storms, National Weather
Service, State of Alaska's Division of Community Advocacy, Division of
Homeland Security & Emergency Management, and the University of
Alaska's International Arctic Research Center.
The City of Nome is located in Northwest Alaska on the southern
coast of the Seward Peninsula. Nome lies along the Bering Sea facing
Norton Sound. The city is 539 air miles north of Anchorage and 161
miles east of Russia.
Nome Census Area encloses a 23,013 square mile section of the
Seward Peninsula and the Norton Sound coast. The Nome Census Area is
commonly referred to as the Bering Strait region. Currently 17
communities occupy the Nome Census Area, of which Nome has the largest
population and is the regional hub for medical and transportation
facilities and other services.
Unlike most areas in America, a road system does not exist
throughout the Bering Strait region. Air transportation is the most
common and reliable mode of transportation throughout the year. Many of
the communities of Northwest Alaska have developed because of the
convenience to traditional hunting or fishing grounds and community
residents utilize the rivers and coastline as vital routes for
transportation during the summer months using boats with outboard
motors. When storms hit, all transportation ceases. We are not able to
perform medical or emergency evacuations of remote isolate communities
due to the high winds and dangerous freezing ice conditions.
Gold was reported in the Nome area as far back as 1867 but it was
not until the Gold Rush of 1899 that brought people in the area
settling on the coast. Western Alaska has survived the Spanish
influenza, the deadly diphtheria breakout in Nome and winter storms.
The major risk for the City of Nome and other communities are from
coastal storm surges which in the last few years have caused severe
erosion. The fairly shallow water off shore normally keeps waves small.
However during a surge, water depth increases, allowing larger, more
powerful waves to impact the coast. This fact, combined with the
flooding due to the surge itself can deal a devastating double blow to
the area. The situation is made worse if the surge comes at high tide.
Ice override may occur when the storm wind conditions are coupled with
open water depending on the prevailing winds. These storm surges have
wreaked havoc on the city many times in the past and will do so again.
The City of Nome has been battered many times over the years by
storm surges, which have caused significant loss of life and property
since the early 1900s. The following is a chronology of information on
the largest storms taken from newspaper articles, publications, the
Nome Flood Insurance Study, and technical documents prepared by the
United States Government.
Great Storm of September 12, 1900. The first recorded storm in Nome
occurred on September 12, 1900. It is estimated that the winds were 75
mph. The towering waves destroyed or washed away almost everything on
the beach, and part of Nome's business district. It was estimated that
1,000 people were homeless, numerous people died, many head of cattle
and sheep were lost and 10,000 tons of coal were swept into the sea.
The total damage was estimated at $750,000.
Storm of October 1902. The storm of October 11, 1902 produced waves
only 2,, less than the storm in 1900 however the wind was not as
fierce. The estimated damaged would not exceed $25,000 to $30,000.
Storm of October 1913. The October 1913 is the worst storm to date.
Waves broke over the top of the city breaking apart entire business
blocks. Gale winds were clocked at 60 mph, which produced breaking
waves of 40, high and a storm surge of 20,. Most of the town was
destroyed. The entire sand spit, which housed hundreds of homes, was
completely swept away. Five hundred people were homeless, most of them
destitute. The damage was estimated at $1,000,000.
Storms of 1945 and 1946. The 1945 storm caused severe damage to
waterfront structures, hurling blocks of ice into the town. In October
1946, a coastal storm created surge estimated at 9, above normal. Many
of the streets of Nome were inundated, flooding buildings and property.
The storm leveled six buildings. Coastal erosion was so severe that
several near shore buildings were undermined and collapsed.
These storms led to the push for a seawall and were successful in
getting Congress to appropriate $1 million (Rivers & Harbors Action, 6/
16/1948--Pub. L. 80-649) in 1949 to build the seawall.
The Great Bering Sea Storm of 1974. Three separate storms
simultaneously hit Northwestern Alaska's coastline in November that
produced a storm surge or rise in water level of up to 12, MLLW.
Extensive damage to streets and structures occurred with approximately
30 homes destroyed and many displaced as one of the power plant's
generators sat in pit and flooded with water and power lines were down.
The city's sewage treatment plant was out of order until it was by-
passed so toilets could be used. Water was contaminated due to the sea
water coming into the river so water trucks delivered 100 gallons of
water to those on the truck route; others had to get water at the fire
hall. An ice pileup reached 30-40,. The seawall protected the city;
however, damage was still estimated to be over $30 million.
Extensive damage to villages occurred, flooding homes damaging
power lines, and roads.
1980s. A pileup in the winter of 1980 reached a height of 20-25,.
The seawall localizes the effects of ice override and prevents the
transport of ice inland.
Storm of 1992. A storm in October 1992 severely damaged the
revetment on the eastern edge of the seawall. This storm led to the
1993 expansion of the large rock seawall to replace the revetment,
which was at a lower elevation and a pavement structure of small
stones.
Sizable ice piles occur with considerable frequency in Nome. Ice
override occurred a few years ago on the east side of town, but a
bulldozer turned the ice sheet back.
Storm of 2002. On October 8, 2002, a winter storm hit with winds at
45 mph and in Shishmaref and Kivalina seas were reported at 14, at high
tide. Severe erosion on the embankment of the beach in Shishmaref
occurred losing 10,-20,. Homes were endangered along with a bulk fuel
tank farm. Total damage was $382,032.
Storm of 2003. On November 21-23, 2003, Shishmaref was hit by a
storm with winds blowing 45 mph with gusts to 61 mph, seas were as high
as 14,. Early warning by the National Weather Service (NWS) gave
community members one day to move items to higher land. Severe erosion
occurred again losing an additional 10,-30, of land causing power poles
to fall over. Boats and drying racks with subsistence food were washed
out to sea causing economic hardship to the community. Total damage was
$695,000.
In 2003, FEMA approved the City of Nome's Hazard Mitigation Plan
making us the first in the state and second in the Nation. We are
eligible to apply for various hazard mitigation project grants. Because
this was new to us a consultant was hired. We identified community and
business leaders, identified vulnerable locations, developed effective
mitigation strategies and practiced disaster response plans. We've
learned about Incident Command and Unified Command Management and
learned how to work and communicate effectively as a team and have
established an Emergency Operations Center. The National Weather
Service's Nome staff is an essential part of this team.
Storm of 2004. October 19, 2004 Bering Sea Storm caused significant
damage and destruction to Western Alaska. Early warnings by the NWS
predicted the 941 mb pressure storm could rival that of November 1974,
so precautionary steps were taken. The storm did not develop to the
levels of the event. At the airport in Nome peak winds were 59 mph.
NOAA maintains a weather station on the port causeway which recorded an
hourly observation during the storm at 55 mph and a peak tide of
+10.5,.
The City of Nome activated the Emergency Operations Plan and
implemented the Incident Command System. We involved approximately 100
personnel from the Alaska State Troopers, Alaska National Guard, Nome
Volunteer Fire Department, Nome Ambulance Department, Nome Police
Department; City/Utility/Public works employees and civilians in
various capabilities. Pre-storm activities included boarding up doors
and windows, relocating inventory to high ground, securing docks and
closing roads.
Many villages in low lying areas were flooded and major damage
occurred to the infrastructure and roads. The community of Shishmaref
lost more land due to erosion. Kotezbue's Front Street was under water.
Commercial propane bottles were thrown around causing an evacuation of
Nome's Front Street. We experienced power outages which can compound
the destruction by freezing up water and sewer lines. The storm created
a new channel and washout the Nome-Council Road at Safety Bridge.
The City of Nome declared a disaster on 10/19 along with Northwest
Arctic Borough. The Governor declared a disaster on 10/29 along with
the Federal Government on 11/16/2004. The estimate cost of this
disaster is $12,460,469.
Storm of 2005. The 966 mb September 22nd storm hit Western Alaska
and continued until the 23rd. Nome's peak tide was +10.3, with peak
winds at 56 mph. The Early warnings by the NWS gave a day and a half
for the city to establish an Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Front
Street businesses prepared for the storm by boarding windows, doors,
protecting inventory and ensuring operational pumps. The EOC kept in
contact with our villages in preparation to assist and to communicate
with our emergency services folks if anything developed. In Unalakleet
this early warning allowed the community to haul rocks to protect their
shorelines in hopes of slowing down erosion.
Kivalina lost 25,-30, of beach erosion along their shoreline and
20, of beach erosion towards the airstrip. In Golovin, water covered
roadways 3, deep, fuel tanks were floating and the lower half of town
was under water. In Teller, sea water flooded the main road splitting
the town in two. The community of Shaktoolik located on a spit will
become an island if they are hit with another big storm blocking
evacuation access.
In Nome power lines were down. Low lying homes were flooded. The
new harbor entrance failed as sand eroded away and nearly exposed the
utility sewer line. The new breakwater was damaged, 5-8 ton rocks were
displaced and repairs had to be done. The Nome Council Road was washed
away for several miles and the newly created channel broke thru again.
Shelter was given to 17 evacuees; several families were dislocated as
their homes were damaged. The City of Nome and surrounding areas, the
State of Alaska and the FEMA declared disasters. State DHSEM is
preparing an estimate cost and has identified $2 million in damage to
communities and another $1.2 million to roads and infrastructure.
It is evident that we are seeing severe winter storms more often
then the prior years as documented, mainly freeze up comes later in the
year. Total cost of Western Alaska storms for the last 100 years is
estimated at $48,517,501. Alaska is severely impacted by storms as our
per capita income is lower than the U.S. eastern seaboard, economic
options are limited, and recovery may be slower due to the needed
infrastructure.
The City of Nome continues to hold monthly Local Emergency Planning
Committee meetings, conduct drills and receive training in incident
command and coordination of multiple agencies in Nome. Our professional
response, before and after the storm demonstrated our commitment to
disaster preparation and recovery. Another preventative measure is that
the City of Nome is in process of moving the power plant to higher
ground and we need an additional $4 million to complete construction.
The City of Shishmaref with the assistance of the Alaska Division
of Emergency Services completed an evacuation and flood action plan.
The Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Committee are actively pursuing
to relocate to the mainland. The community is working with USDA's
Natural Resources Conservation Service in assessing two different sites
on the mainland. Also the Northwest Arctic Borough is an Emergency
Management Grant program participant and they are researching several
options to apply for funds to help Kivalina complete their Hazardous
Mitigation Plan.
No other communities have completed their hazardous mitigation
plan. One reason is that a majority of our cities are hurting
financially and are not fully staffed and secondly the State received
minimal amount of funds for remaining cities to apply for a grant to
complete the hazardous mitigation plan. To assist our communities we
recommend the following for your consideration:
That the Federal Government provide more funds to the State
of Alaska for the cities to complete their plans.
Consider funding a pilot project through the State to
complete the plans with the communities in Western Alaska.
To assist the National Weather Service to predict models we
recommend the following for your consideration:
More buoys are need in the Bering Sea. Currently two buoys
are located near the Aleutian chain; the closest buoy #46035 is
several hundred miles south of Nome. This would also assist the
U.S. Corps of Engineers with the design of causeway, flood
protection and shore erosion facilities.
More observation points are needed throughout the region to
help NWS fill in the data holes.
The City of Nome is in process of working with the University of
Alaska in Fairbanks to assess if a science research center is feasible
for focus on science, education and history including research. We hope
that NOAA will be a partner as Nome is in a unique location to study
the environmental changes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for giving me the
opportunity to provide this information to the Committee, it's truly an
honor to be here. If there is anything else I can provide please let me
know.
Senator DeMint. I'm sure we'll have some questions in a
moment, but Dr. Uccellini, if you will give us a short
statement.
STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS W. UCCELLINI, DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL CENTERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PREDICTION, NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
Dr. Uccellini. OK. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, I am Dr. Louis Uccellini, the Director of NCEP, or
the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, which is the
central component of the National Weather Service within NOAA
within the Department of Commerce. You mentioned several of the
centers. I also want to point out the Ocean Prediction Center
and I do that because the director of the Ocean Prediction
Center is sitting behind me, Dr. James Hoke and they have to
deal with storms like that, too, in the Pacific, North Pacific,
and North Atlantic Oceans. And it obviously provides tremendous
challenges to the forecasters in these centers and in the local
offices within Alaska in dealing with those storms.
I'd like to thank the Mayor for making the comments she did
about NOAA and the National Weather Service and the services
that we've provided for several of the most critical storms
which have occurred in Alaska over the past several years.
I'd also like to thank Members of the Committee for their
support of a much needed facility. The NOAA Center for Climate
and Weather Prediction is a project we've been working on for
many years now and we have our official ground breaking
ceremony on March 13th and we're due for occupancy within 2
years. So we want to thank you for your support.
OK. So let's get to the winter storms. A major winter storm
can produce freezing rain, ice, sleet, heavy snowfall, coastal
flooding, and erosion, and high winds that combine with cold
temperatures to produce dangerous wind chills. The severity of
the winter storms can range from a storm that produces snow or
freezing rain over a few hours to blizzard conditions lasting
several days. Winter storms can threaten lives, disrupt
transportation systems, have a significant impact on the
national economy, and affect all regions of the United States.
A single winter storm can cause major damage and billions of
dollars in economic losses.
The science of winter storm prediction has improved
steadily over the past two decades. As noted earlier, the 72-
hour forecasts are as accurate as 36-hour forecasts. That's
actually 15 to 20 years ago. The average national lead time for
warning for winter storms has been increasing and in Fiscal
Year 2005, the lead time was 17 hours, on average, across the
country, which exceeded our GPRA goal of 15 hours. The
improvement is due, in large part, to the continual
enhancements in global observations and American weather
prediction models, including advancements in the high
performance computing systems. And an aspect of this global
observing system is maintaining and enhancing our satellite
observation network and improving dissemination methods of the
data and of the forecasts and warnings once they're made.
Now, NOAA has a suite of winter weather products which
spans from seasonal outlooks to two week outlooks down to the
short term warnings issued hours in advance. A hazard
assessment product shows where the potential for hazardous
weather and extreme events are possible across the country out
to 2 weeks in advance. Additional improvements in winter
weather predictions and services 5 days in advance can be
attributed to NOAA's winter storm reconnaissance program, in
part. The winter storm reconnaissance program is designed to
improve forecasts of significant winter weather by targeting
observations in data sparse areas in the North Pacific Ocean.
These observations significantly improve numerical weather
predictions 60 to 80 percent of the time. We do this program
only during the winter. When we get the planes out there and
when we get the drop zones to areas where we know we have
observation issues, we can show that 60 to 80 percent of the
time, we improve subsequent forecasts. By improving the model
analysis over the North Pacific, we see improved forecasts for
Alaska as well as the rest of the Nation.
We are also addressing the winter storm watch and warning
program, the short term aspect of our service program, by
increasingly focusing staff on winter storm predictions.
Initial results in the east and in central United States have
been positive as our warning lead times have increased over the
past 3 years, on average, from 13 hours to 19 hours, and
increased our accuracy to 92 percent. We expect similar
improvements as we continue to expand this program to other
areas of the country.
NOAA provides radar data, surface observation, sea surface
temperatures, and satellite images as well as computer model
simulations of the atmosphere that are used by the entire
weather community. NOAA's data, forecasts, and warnings are
disseminated through the vast National Weather Service
dissemination network, including the NOAA Weather Radio All
Hazards, Emergency Managers Weather Information Network, NOAA
Weather Wire Services, the Emergency Alert System, and, where
applicable, the Internet. We work in close partnership with all
the media and other private sector firms to ensure that
dangerous and potentially life threatening weather situations
such as winter storms are readily communicated to the public.
Our ability to predict major snow and ice events with
increased confidence allows officials to make decisions prior
to these events concerning public safety, transportation, and
commerce. Now, a most recent example, and one that affected
this part of the country, is the recent February winter storm
along the northeast urban corridor. State and local communities
up and down the coast positioned road crews and prepared
schedules to apply road chemicals well before the onset of the
storm. Retail outlets had snow removal equipment and heavy
clothing on the shelf with advertising of ``blizzard blowouts''
days before this storm actually occurred. Affected areas were
able to make a remarkable recovery after the storm due to the
advance planning. NOAA's medium range and short range forecasts
were accurate and provided state and local governments with the
information they needed to take action to mitigate the impact
of the snow storm. And I'd like to add here that this is very
similar to October 18-20, 2004, which was just alluded to, off
of the coast of Alaska. Mitigating steps were taken before the
storm's arrival because of the forecast provided.
Recently NOAA has implemented a new snowfall impact scale
which my colleague, Paul Kosin of The Weather Channel, and I
developed. The scale takes into account snowfall amounts and
the population of affected areas and measures the impact the
storm has, in this case, in the northeast sector of the
country. With this scale, scientists can quickly assess a snow
storm's potential impact to heavily populated areas, compare it
with past storms in an objective manner and assign it one of
five categories ranging from notable to crippling to extreme.
Work is currently underway to expand this concept and the
baseline equation that we use to compute this index to other
parts of the country. In fact, I had phone conversations over
the past week with the Director of the National Climate Data
Center to work this issue, not only for the CONUS, the
Continental United States, but also for Alaska.
NOAA continues to work with universities, the private
sector, and other Federal agencies to improve our understanding
of these storms. NOAA is also working to improve satellite
observing capabilities over ocean, land, and ice, through the
NPOESS and GOES programs with this new data expected to have
major impacts on the numerical prediction systems used to
predict winter storms. NOAA will continue these efforts to
improve winter storm forecasting and all other weather
predictions.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Uccellini follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Louis W. Uccellini, Director, National
Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Dr. Louis W.
Uccellini, Director of the National Centers for Environmental
Prediction, in the National Weather Service (NWS), at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in the Department of
Commerce. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the role of
the National Weather Service in forecasting and warning for winter
storms.
A major winter storm can last for several days and be accompanied
by freezing rain (ice) or sleet, heavy snowfall, and high winds that
combine with cold temperatures to produce dangerous wind chills. The
severity of a winter storm can range from a storm that produces snow or
freezing rain over a few hours to blizzard conditions lasting several
days. Extreme cold, accumulating or blowing snow, strong winds, and
coastal flooding can cause long-term hazardous conditions. Winter
storms can threaten lives, disrupt transportation systems and have a
significant impact on the national economy. A single winter storm can
cause major damage and billions of dollars in economic losses.
The impacts of heavy snow and high winds in the Northeast United
States have been documented by the earliest settlers dating to the 17th
century. Legendary events, such as the ``great snow'' of 1717, the
Washington-Jefferson Snowstorm of 1772, the blizzards of 1888 and 1899,
the 1922 Knickerbocker storm, and the great New England snowstorm of
1978 are recalled for generations by those who lived through these
events or learned about them through local lore. Just last month an
East Coast storm impacting regions from Alabama through Maine set an
all time snowfall record in New York City. Over time, we may see this
February storm included in this list of major U.S. winter storms.
Winter storms also pose enormous challenges to the meteorological
research and operational communities who have attempted to understand
and predict them, often with mixed results.
Heavy snow causes concerns larger in scope than mere discomfort and
inconvenience of shoveling the driveway or walks. The impact to the
airline and shipping industries can be devastating. The Nation's
complex infrastructure of highways, city streets, and local roads
present a challenge to the Department of Transportation, state
agencies, and municipal governments, when hazardous winter weather
conditions threaten our ability to maintain safe transit conditions for
the public and the flow of commerce. Most people are unaware of the
significant efforts, in terms of both planning and expense, by local
and state agencies to remove snow and ice from our roadways.
While severe winter weather can be debilitating and pose a serious
threat to safety anywhere in our Nation, winter storms can have a
particularly devastating impact to the economy in heavily populated and
highly industrialized areas. The Northeast region from Virginia to
Maine is such an area, and includes the densely populated metropolitan
centers of Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.
This region is home to nearly 50 million people. In the Northeast,
heavy snowfall associated with intense coastal storms, often called
nor'easters, may strand millions of people at home, at work or in
transit; severely disrupt human services and commerce; and endanger the
lives of those who venture outdoors. Snowstorms have their greatest
impact on transportation, being especially disruptive to automotive
travel, trucking, and aviation.
The aviation industry can be significantly affected by snowstorms
causing widespread delays, airport closings and occasionally
contributing to serious airline accidents. For example, the snowstorm
of January 7-8, 1996 crippled air transportation on the East Coast (New
York, Washington, Boston, Philadelphia), causing an estimated $50-$100
million in losses to the airlines industry. During the February 12,
2006 snowstorm, airlines cancelled 2,500 flights in the New York City
area alone.
East Coast snowstorms can also have a long-term impact on the
Nation's economy. Examples include the snowstorms of March 1993 and
January 1996, which caused economic losses in the billions of dollars.
In both of these instances, state and local resources were unable to
keep pace with the enormous expenses incurred during each storm, and
the President responded with numerous disaster declarations, allowing
Federal funds to be used in disaster relief. The Department of Commerce
measured a downturn in the economy following the March 1993 Super
Storm. Studies based on economic indicators that are heavily weighted
by employment statistics have also suggested that a major snowstorm in
heavily populated areas, such as the Northeast, significantly
influences the regional and the national economies, since a major storm
temporarily puts millions of people out of work. Retail sales and
housing activity are affected by heavy snows and severe cold. Reports
have suggested that the Nation's economic strength was significantly
weakened following the major snowstorms in February 1978, March 1992,
and January and February 1994. During the harsh winter of 1977-78, the
economy slowed from a 9 percent growth rate at the beginning of the
winter season to only 1 percent during the winter itself. Once severe
weather conditions eased, the economy rebounded significantly.
Winter storms in the Central states can be equally devastating to
the local economy and threaten life and safety. Heavy snow, strong
winds and cold temperatures have shut down our interstate highway
system, at times stranding hundreds of travelers and having a
detrimental impact on our trucking industry.
Winter storms along the West Coast provide a mixed blessing. While
snow, ice and subfreezing temperatures are not as common in the major
West Coast cities as in East or Central U.S. cities, impacts from
winter storms can be just as devastating as in the East. Strong storms
bring very heavy rains to coastal areas causing major flooding, flash
floods, and mud, or debris, slides. Pacific Northwest storms which
undergo ``explosive cyclogenesis,'' or very rapid intensification, can
strike quickly bringing hurricane-force winds into the region. These
storms frequently knock down power lines causing widespread power
outages. The NWS works closely with our partners in the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and will issue a debris slide warning for vulnerable
areas at the request of the USGS, when conditions warrant.
While the impact from winter storms can be devastating, these
storms also provide the lifeline for residents in the West. They bring
heavy snow to the mountains to form the winter ``snowpack,'' which
provides essential springtime and summer water as the snow melts in the
mountains and feeds into the streams and rivers, providing water to
farmers and the public. When too few winter storms occur in the West,
the region can be faced with severe water resource challenges,
particularly in the dry summer months.
Some of the harshest winter weather conditions imaginable effect
Alaska, including heavy snow, biting winds, and extreme cold. Eastern
Pacific Ocean waters south of Alaska experience some of the most
ferocious winter storms. Strong winds, waves of thirty feet or more,
and subfreezing temperatures, combine to make this region very
dangerous to shipping and fishing industries. Waves from intense storms
crossing the Bering Sea produce coastal flooding and can drive large
chunks of sea ice inland, destroying buildings near the shore.
Blizzards occur across Alaska's Arctic coast, some causing extreme wind
chill temperatures reaching as low as -90 +F. Extreme cold and ice fog
may last a week at a time. Heavy snow can impact the interior part of
the state and is common along the southern coast. Improved forecasts
will have a large impact across Alaska, given the state's reliance on
aviation for transportation, and on the marine fishing and shipping
industries.
During winter El Nino episodes, a strong jet stream and storm track
generally persists across the southern part of the United States, and
milder-than-average conditions producing fewer storms prevail across
the northern part of the country. In contrast, El Nino conditions
result in exceptionally stormy winters and increased precipitation
across California and the southern United States. La Nina episodes
generally produce the opposite pattern--bringing colder and stormier-
than-average conditions across the North, and warmer and less stormy
conditions across the South. Also during La Nina, there is generally
considerable month-to-month variation in temperature, rainfall and
storminess. We are currently experiencing weak La Nina conditions
across the country.
The science of winter storm prediction has improved steadily over
the past decades. Our 72-hour forecasts are as accurate today as our
36-hour forecasts were 20 years ago. Tremendous advances have been made
in the prediction and subsequent warnings of heavy snow events. In the
1970s we could provide less than 12 hours advanced notice for snow fall
amounts greater than 4 inches. Today, we are predicting heavy snow
events 3-5 days in advance and are differentiating between 4-, 8-, 12-
inch snow fall amounts out to 3 days in advance. The average lead time
for winter storms has been increasing and in FY 2005 the lead time was
17 hours, surpassing the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
goal of 15 hours. This improvement is due in large part to continual
improvements in our ability to observe and describe the current state
of the atmosphere and to model the future state of the atmosphere.
Specifically, this forecast improvement is due to (1) increases in
the number of observations available, particularly satellite
information and increases in surface observations; (2) improvements in
depicting and understanding the state of the atmosphere through NOAA
aircraft reconnaissance flights, which increase the number of
observations over an area of the globe where additional information is
needed to improve the accuracy of the numerical model's prediction of
winter storms; (3) more sophisticated model data assimilation systems
that are run on some of the most powerful high-performance computing
systems in the world; and (4) improved global atmospheric modeling.
Our improved ability to predict major snow events with increased
confidence allows our diverse user community to make decisions prior to
major snow events concerning public safety, transportation and
commerce. For example, before the recent 12 February 2006 winter storm
along the Northeast corridor, state and local communities up and down
the coast had:
Road crews positioned and schedules prepared to apply
chemicals,
Retail outlets had snow removal and heavy clothing made
available with advertising of ``Blizzard Blowouts'' days before
this major snow event,
Remarkable recovery due to planning ahead.
Medium range and short range forecasts were accurate and provided
the state and local governments with the information they needed to
take action to mitigate the impact of this snowstorm. The public and
private industry also had advance lead time to take necessary actions
to prepare for this record-breaking winter storm.
Using the new Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS), the February
12, 2006, storm was preliminarily classified as a ``Major,'' or a
Category 3 storm. NESIS uses five categories (Notable, Significant,
Major, Crippling, or Extreme) to communicate the severity of a storm
based on snowfall amount and the population of the affected areas.
NESIS will permit meteorologists to quickly communicate a snowstorm's
potential impact and compare it with a past storm.
While NOAA's storm prediction capabilities have improved over time,
we continue to work to improve our forecasts. For the February 12, 2006
storm, we predicted a major snowstorm, but we did not predict the
snowfall amounts would be as heavy as they were. In New York City, we
predicted a blizzard well in advance, with snowfall amounts more than a
foot in places, but we did not forecast the storm would dump 26.9
inches of snow in Central Park. We updated our forecasts based on the
latest radar data and small scale reports we had, but we need to be
able to predict these smaller scale situations within the overall
larger storm.
One of the biggest challenges in winter storm prediction is
determining what type of precipitation will fall (rain, snow, sleet or
freezing rain), how long it will last, and how much will fall. Meeting
this challenge depends on our ability to accurately measure the current
state of the atmosphere from the global scale to the local scale, to
integrate this information into our forecast systems, and to predict
the future state of the atmosphere. Specifically, understanding and
depicting moisture throughout the atmosphere is a key area targeted for
improvement as we strive to advance our models and predictions of the
future state of the atmosphere.
Another challenge we face is how to better communicate the
uncertainty of our predictions. We asked the National Research Council
to conduct a study to recommend how we might improve the methods we use
to communicate forecast uncertainty and suggest ways to improve our
products toward that end. We expect the report to be complete later
this spring or early summer.
NOAA produces a suite of winter weather products to assist state
and local governments, private industry, and the media in communicating
the effects and impacts of developing and ongoing weather systems to
the general public and to help determine appropriate preparations in
advance of a winter storm event. Winter Storm Outlooks are given when
forecasters believe winter storm conditions are possible, and are
usually issued 3 to 5 days in advance of a winter storm. Winter Storm
Watches are issued 12 to 48 hours before the beginning of a Winter
Storm and alert the public to the possibility of a heavy snow, heavy
freezing rain, or heavy sleet. Winter Storm Warnings are issued when
hazardous winter weather is imminent and are now being issued with lead
times greater than 12 hours before the winter weather is expected to
begin.
NOAA's data and information are critical to ensure government
officials, the public and private industry are informed of impending
winter storms. NOAA provides essential observations, including radar
data, surface observations, sea surface temperatures, and satellite
images, as well as computer model simulations of the atmosphere that
are used by the entire weather community. NOAA's data and information,
including forecasts and warnings, are disseminated through the vast NWS
dissemination network including NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards,
Emergency Managers Weather Information Network, NOAA Weather Wire
Service, the Emergency Alert System where applicable, and the Internet.
Most of the public receives the weather information through the media.
We work in close partnership with the media to ensure dangerous and
potentially life threatening weather situations, such as winter storms,
are communicated to the public.
The private meteorological community also plays a critical role to
ensure the public, and industry, are informed.
Research into winter storms by universities, the private sector,
and the Federal Government has provided us insight to understand the
inner workings of these weather situations, but we can do more. As we
increase our understanding of these storms, and increase observations
of the environment with increasing detail, our storm predictions become
more accurate--defining when and where the storm will hit. People now
expect more from the National Weather Service, and believe we should
get it right every time. At NOAA we will continue our efforts to
improve winter storm forecasting, and all other weather predictions, to
meet this high expectation.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide information on NOAA's winter storm forecasting
capabilities. I am happy to respond to any questions the Committee may
have.
Senator DeMint. Doctor. Senator Stevens would you like to
start our questioning?
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I do
thank you again for holding this hearing. I have a conflict
later about 3:45, so I appreciate your letting me go first.
Well first, Mayor Michels, you have some better planning
mechanisms now than you had before coming out of the 2004
storms. Do you think we need to do more to get you even better
prepared? I noticed you mentioned one comment in your statement
about some assistance you would like to have, could you
elaborate on that?
Ms. Michels. Yes, Senator. A lot of our villages do not
have a hazardous mitigation plan, nor do they have the
resources to do an incident command. This is something totally
new to a city and to establish something of that magnitude
requires someone walking you through, either a consultant, to
establish this system and to be able to assist the cities. I
think if we would be able to provide to be able to do that,
that would greatly help them be able to prepare and recover
faster.
The Chairman. You'd like to see the villages in your area
have the same kind of planning mechanisms that you've
established for emergencies?
Ms. Michels. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you. Doctor, I'm a little interested in
some of the statistics I have. I hope I don't bore you with
statistics, but I understand there are 122 NOAA weather offices
in the United States. Is that right?
Dr. Uccellini. That's correct.
The Chairman. And we have, in Alaska, three. We're one-
fifth the size of the United States and the Anchorage weather
forecast office area of responsibility is 1,038,737 miles. The
Fairbanks area of responsibility is 507,870 miles. And the
Juneau AOR is 155,029 miles. Now I know that we don't deal with
population per se in weather prediction. Why do we have so few
offices in Alaska as compared to the other four-fifths? Four-
fifths of the United States has 122. We have three.
Dr. Uccellini. Well, during the design of the weather
service modernization in the 1980s and 1990s, I know there was
a tremendous amount of discussion, not only within the
executive branch of the government, but between the executive
and the legislative branches, in terms of the optimal number of
offices that could be supported during the course of that
modernization. With respect to Alaska, in deciding on the three
that were named Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau, there was
also a decision made to sustain the Weather Service offices so
that there'd be a way of outreaching into the other
communities. That configuration of offices does not exist in
the rest of the country. In other words, we just have the
weather forecast offices in the continental U.S. and, for the
most part, and I don't know if there are any what we call WSOs
still open in the CONUS, Continental U.S.
The Chairman. How many of those remain in Alaska now?
Dr. Uccellini. There are--I think the number is seven or
eight, but we'll get the specific back to you. But, for
example, the office in Nome is a Weather Service office that
works in collaboration and in partnership with Fairbanks in
terms of----
The Chairman. These predictions come from Fairbanks, right?
Dr. Uccellini. That's correct. And, actually, some aspects
of the predictions, the basis of the forecast process actually
starts with numerical models that are run in Gaithersburg,
Maryland and backed up in Fairmont, West Virginia. We have
centers that provide information to Alaska as guidance products
from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction.
The Chairman. Then why don't you eliminate about 100 from
the south 48?
Dr. Uccellini. Well, we have----
The Chairman. Why do you have 3 Weather Service offices in
Alaska and 122 of them, in the lower 48 states?
Dr. Uccellini. Well, there--the challenges involved--I'll
try to address the Alaska situation first. The challenges
involved in providing the level of services over such a large
area, as you well know, and there are maps, which I have one in
front of me, show how large an area it really is. And given the
topographical influences that Alaska has which poses unique and
important challenges to getting these services out, we felt, as
we went through the modernization, that this was the best way
of sustaining the level of services and then improving upon
those services. Within the continental U.S., there are other
weather challenges that were best served, like tornadic storms,
which was one of the major reasons and was the major basis for
the modernization, which was best served by those number of
stations with their access to their radar data and which had a
much shorter time element associated with it in getting the
watches and warnings out. So, for example, these types of
storms and the challenges that you're facing in Alaska, for
which the October storm is a classic example, involves a larger
area and the forecast process is over days down to hours. For a
tornadic type of storm, you're dealing with hours to minutes
and the station design and the network design in the United--
the continental United States was really focused on that kind
of weather phenomena.
The Chairman. Well, I understand when you're talking about
the problems of rivers and flooding and things like that, but
when I went up to the west coast of Alaska this last summer, I
was told that Shishmaref, for instance, had no warning at all
about the storm that hit them and it comes down to a question--
in the old days, there would have been a weather office every
place there was a flight service station. When I first went to
Alaska, everywhere there was a flight service station, there
was a weather office. And that weather office had contact with
the basic centers of forecasting at the time. You don't have
that kind of a system now at all. You don't have anyone along
the west coast. The whole west coast of Alaska is entirely
denuded of any kind of weather forecast.
Dr. Uccellini. OK. Well, let me just say that I think any
meteorologist, any forecaster in any part of the world will
tell you that our forecasts are not perfect, and I would say
that the chances are they'll never be perfect. There are too
many parameters in the atmosphere, the surface, ocean
interaction, et cetera, which leads to potential for error. So
there are cases in which forecasts are missed, warnings are
missed. We have found that there are less of those now than
there were 20 years ago by a large degree. With respect to the
specific storm that you highlight, I don't have any information
on that and I can't answer that directly here, but I will
certainly go back and get the required information on that.
The Chairman. Well, I would ask you to restudy it. I also
have here a map of river monitors in the south--what we call
the south 48, continental U.S. and in Alaska. If you want to
look at it, along the east coast, for instance, the monitors
are so many, they overlap. In the Kenai Peninsula, which is
south of Anchorage, which is the size of New England, there's
one. One river monitor, although there's a series of rivers.
Now why does that exist, Doctor?
Dr. Uccellini. We recognize that there are deficiencies in
observing networks involving many parameters. We work to--we
attempt, not only within NOAA, but in working with other
agencies, in enhancing those observing parameters. And we have
worked those up through the budget process and clearly, we
never get everything we want in terms of the observational
capability, but we make--we work with what we can get, and it's
not only observations that NOAA provides, but observations that
other agencies provide. So the USGS, for example, we work in
partnership with in terms of getting river observations. And
there have been many examples where, through the budget cycles
where we don't--we can't get what we need. They have gotten
capabilities. We rely on their capabilities. So it's not just
what NOAA has in terms of an observing network, it's what other
agencies have as well. And one of the things that we've been
doing over the last 5 to 10 years is working with a number of
the land management agencies to get access to their data and
get them to that--get that data to our forecast offices in real
time to enhance our short term forecast capabilities. So what
we have done is try to capitalize and leverage off of what's
going on in other agencies. But that's an ongoing process.
The Chairman. That's a nice explanation. Respectfully, I've
got to tell you, you're basing your weather observation on
population. You look at the most populated states, you've got
several monitors on one river. You have an area of a state like
ours that has many, many, many rivers and has a small
population, you have one. Now I don't understand that at all
and I urge you to go back and study it again. In this process
now--we're going through now, we can't have earmarks. We can't
make changes to budgets. You people are making these decisions,
but somehow or another, we have to find a way to catch up. Our
people are being harmed very drastically, on an individual
basis, small small areas. Whenever there's something like
Katrina, respectfully, the world turns out to help them. But
this is the--this will now be the third summer since those
storms hit the west coast of Alaska and I just spent time this
morning with the Corps of Engineers, we still haven't got the
money to start repairing the damage that was done then. But
that's not your fault, the problem is, they didn't have any
warning. And I think we're entitled to warning, whether it's
two or three people in the village or 2,000 people in the city
or 20--2,000,000 people in the city. Somehow or another, this
has to be changed. I'm really upset with these--the statistics
that's come out of this hearing that we didn't have a chance to
have before. I never saw those maps before and I'm delighted
you had the hearing, because you've given us the maps. You
prepared those maps for us and they struck me like a brick bat.
I don't understand why--again, I'll get back to you. I want you
to tell me, who made the decision only one river monitor in the
State of Alaska?
Dr. Uccellini. I'd have to get back to you on that.
The Chairman. I'd like to talk to them.
Dr. Uccellini. OK.
The Chairman. I'd like to have them come up, just come up
and visit the state.
Dr. Uccellini. If I may just add one aspect to this, and
it's--again, it's always a balancing act within, you know, the
budget that one is allotted----
The Chairman. Well, there we get back to population.
Dr. Uccellini. Well, we also----
The Chairman. It's allocated on the basis of population
size--a lot more area.
Dr. Uccellini. We're also making decisions with respect to
remotely sensed data versus the in situ data that's collected
at these individual points, and that's where the power of the
satellite comes in. And for Alaska, actually you're uniquely
positioned because you get more overpasses from the lower earth
orbiting satellites than--and more frequently than----
The Chairman. I've taken more of my time than I should,
Senator. I'm sorry.
Dr. Uccellini. So that we can actually, you know, get a
fair amount of observations now in areas that we haven't
before, and they're all important to us. It's not just in the
populated areas. We need those observations everywhere to make
these models work to give you the 72-hour and 96-hour
forecasts. So we need these observations everywhere, not just
in the populated areas.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Uccellini. But you're right in pointing to specific
gauges and those types of problems that do require in situ
observations, we could always use more data.
The Chairman. Thank you. And thank you again, Mayor, for
coming down to testify. We appreciate it very much.
Senator DeMint. Senator Nelson?
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Nelson. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr.
Uccellini, you're clearly an expert in winter storms,
particularly in the northeast and with the Alaska area as well,
and I understand that the nor'easterner--nor'easter can be
particularly devastating, and I'm very interested in that, but
obviously, being a little bit closer to home in Nebraska, I'd
like to learn more about what kind of weather needs and
concerns you're working on for the Midwest, in particular our
location in Nebraska, Dakotas, Kansas, Iowa area.
Dr. Uccellini. I'd be glad to. I would like to point out
that I spent 11 years at the University of Wisconsin going
through my various degrees and post-op work and all that, and I
did a number of case studies on Midwestern storms, including
those that affected Nebraska, both from a severe weather point
of view and a blizzard point of view, and I recognize the
challenge--I've actually done case studies on storms out there
and recognize the challenges are immense. One of the
complexities involved with the storms in the Midwest is how
these systems come off the Rocky Mountains. And it's only been
in the last 10 years--time flies, the last 15 years, that we've
actually been able to model the development of these storms
that come off the Rockies and actually get an accurate track
prediction that would affect areas like Nebraska and the rest
of the Midwest. So, when you're looking at the forecast problem
from days in advance, it's not just what's going on in the
Midwest, it's what's going on upstream a few, being able to get
those observations, being able to do the numerical modeling
that accounts for the true impact of the mountains. That allows
us to predict the track of these storms and the type of weather
that you will get. Now one of the aspects--so the track
forecast, you might have heard this with the hurricane problem,
you know, it comes down to track and intensity. And we're
making improvements on track forecasts on both measures, and
the numerical models are an important part of that. The
intensification of these storms, and the rapid intensifications
are what can change what you might consider a--just a normal
storm coming through into a full blown blizzard that provides
incredible challenges, not only to the forecasters, but to the
people who have to live through them. We are getting a lot
better on those intensity changes as well. In fact, we're
making more rapid progress for these what we call extra
tropical storms over the United States than we are for
hurricanes. So, I believe we are making the progress, but
refining those forecasts, giving you the exact area where
you'll have your transition from rain to snow, where, you know,
the strongest winds will be as the snow is falling, those types
of parameters still need improvement and we're looking to the
numerical modeling and the better observations upstream of your
area to help us along.
Senator Nelson. What about the observation platforms and
radars that are located? Do you have a sufficient number of
those? Are they strategically located, or is that any part of
the challenge that you're facing?
Dr. Uccellini. That northern--the central part of the
country is well observed from a radar perspective and I have to
tell you that the radars, the Doppler radars, have probably
been the single most effective observing tool that allows us to
define what's going on now and project what's going to go on in
the short term. In fact, when I see these radar images today, I
don't know how we did this before we got the Doppler radar
system. We were dealing with these short term changes in the
blind before we had this system. So I believe that the--
especially the Midwest is well observed from a radar
perspective. The other advantage that you actually have,
immediately to the south of you is you have this--the profiler
network which was implemented in the late 1980s and it really
is focused on the central part of the country. And that real
time continuous measure of winds throughout a deep layer of the
atmosphere that we don't really have anyplace else in the
country, provides an enormous advantage to the forecasters that
are dealing with the storms that affect Nebraska, both from
severe spring/summer weather kind of storms and the winter
weather as well.
Senator Nelson. What impact does the--well, the presence of
the satellites, for example, the National Polar Orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System, NPOESS, I'm
concerned because it's my understanding that that may be
delayed because it's undergoing a cost review. What does that
do to your capabilities to track the weather?
Dr. Uccellini. Yes. The--when you look at the numerical
weather prediction system, we start with a global observing
system, assimilate all that data into global models and run
those models out 16 days in advance four times a day. We use
those models then to set boundary and initial conditions for
higher resolution, more local models. So when you trace the
forecast process back, you're always starting with a global
observing system. We recognize all forecasts are local, but you
start with a global observing system. The key parameter for
that global observing system is in polar satellites. So we have
come to rely on those. If you track the improvements in
numerical models in our model forecast, they're related to the
improvements in the global observing and to the improvements in
the models in the computing capacity that allows us to run
those models in real time. If we were to lose the polar
orbiting system, if we had a delay where there was a gap, we
would have significant impacts on our ability to do those two,
three, four, five day forecasts for critical weather events.
Senator Nelson. Well, if there's a delay, isn't that
exactly what's going to happen?
Dr. Uccellini. Well what we have done, we've been working
with NASA and Department of Defense. We've actually created in
2000 a Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation and we are
now working more effectively with the research and operational
community, which involves DOD and other international
satellites. And we have a pathway now of working our way from
what was the satellite observations in the 1990s with 16
channels and about three vertical layers, into this
hyperspectral mode. We have a whole sequence of research
satellites and satellites being launched by Europe which will
allow us to fill that gap up until the time NPOESS, you know,
is launched. We were asked that question about a potential 1-
year or 2-year delay. We said as long as, you know, the CrIS,
the IASI, the NPOESS preparatory missions, if all those stay on
track, we're OK. Now that's a risk factor, you know, that
people have to measure risk and how you're going to deal with
that. But as long as that sequence is there, we will not have
the gap. Then NPOESS comes along and operationalizes the whole
notion and we'll be ready for that launch.
Senator Nelson. What does--now does NPOESS help you with
the jet stream or is that another monitoring procedure?
Dr. Uccellini. Yes. We rely--observing the winds aloft is
probably one of the bigger challenges that we have. We can use
the channels from the current satellites into NPOESS to help us
derive the winds. We can use channels to actually measure
vectors and measure the winds directly. In the polar regions,
where we have a more frequent overpass and we use the GEO
stationary satellite imagery then to also compute wind vectors.
So that's a whole sequence that we can use from satellites,
plus we have the winds from commercial airlines now that we get
every 5 minutes while these, you know, planes are in flight, we
get the vertical profiles when they're taking off and landing.
All of this data is assimilated in real time. I would say that
there's no one silver bullet with respect to getting a wind
feel which is essential for a forecast. We have to assimilate
all of these different types of winds, bring them into the
numerical models in such a way that the models will accept them
and then we can run out in our forecast.
Senator Nelson. If there was one thing that you could ask
of us that would make it possible for you to do your job better
or more thoroughly or improve your capabilities, what would it
be, outside of money?
Dr. Uccellini. Yeah. I've got people behind me to make sure
I don't mention the word money. The--it's really clear when you
look at the way a forecast is made, you have observations, you
have numerical models that run on powerful computing systems,
and then you have forecasters who digest--you bring the
information to these forecasters with work stations. They bring
their expertise and they make judgments. They reach out to the
state and local officials that have to make critical decisions.
You know, it's always tough to say where's one thing, but I
always point to the computing power. If we--you know, we have a
system now where we lease computers. We upgrade every year and
a half. It's a pretty good system, but we're still falling
behind the curve. And there are still things that we can do in
terms of improving numerical forecasts, improving the use of
satellite data in which hundreds of millions of dollars are
invested in every year. That if we had more and more powerful
computers, there are more and more things we can do across the
board for all of these weather systems. So, you know, I--you
got to have the forecasters and we've got to support our
people, but if there is one thing that, you know, that makes
this thing tick, it's the computers and we have to be on the
competitive edge on the--in the computer world to be able to
advance.
Senator Nelson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Dr. Uccellini.
Senator DeMint. Doctor, I think you may have just answered
my question, but I am curious at recent ratings of the 500 top
computers in the world rated the United States Weather Service
90th while the Chinese agency is 36th. My question was, is it a
problem with our modeling, our people, or our computers, or why
are we falling behind the rest of the world?
Dr. Uccellini. Well, I mentioned that I feel good about the
situation we're in from the way we lease computers now,
compared to where we were in the 1990s when we were in a buy
mode. You could always get hung up in any aspect of the
procurement process and actually literally get frozen, much
less, you know, fall behind. You know, literally frozen, which
is--was almost a death for us with respect to keeping up with
the rest of the world. So, in one hand, I'm happy with what
we've been able to do in terms of going into this lease
arrangement, every year and a half upgrading our systems. But
the fact is, given, you know--and we're all living under budget
constraints, and given the amount of money we're actually able
to move forward with, we get the best--you know, through our
procurement process, get the best computing power that we can
get for that. At the same time, there is an increasing mission
on us in terms of computational needs. Five years ago, we
didn't have a climate forecast system that was run
operationally. We do today. We made allotments for that in our
computing resources, but the advances are going so much faster
than we anticipated that there are things that can be done
today for even the climate fore--we're talking short range,
like the seasonal into annual type forecast. We've got the
ocean prediction systems. We weren't making specific forecasts
for ocean systems 5 years ago. We are today. So all of these
added factors, and important factors, are being pushed onto the
same computational system. So as we approach the next
procurement cycle, which is about a year and a half or 2 years
from now, you're going to see requirements now driving this
computer buy or lease in ways that the previous one didn't. But
we have to go through that cycle. Now these other groups, I
think have a bit more flexibility than we have, some of these
countries do and some of them have just got their computing
systems. And I can almost guarantee you that a year from now
you'll see them drop down the list and others work their way
up. We're planned for an upgrade at the end of this calendar
year. It's two and a half times what we do today. So we're 1.5
trillion computations per second. We'll more than double that
and we'll still probably be about 40 or 50 for 6 or 7 months
and then somebody will leapfrog us on that. But there's clearly
more that can be done in the computational area.
Senator DeMint. Does the leasing approach solve the
government procurement problem, or do we still have a problem
with the way the government purchases? What's holding you back
there? Or is the problem solved?
Dr. Uccellini. The procurement issues have--you know, I
wouldn't say--I'm not a procurement expert, but I would say
that we're in a lot better shape now through leasing
arrangements than we were in buying. OK. Because if you get
hung up at any level as you go up to OMB, you know, again,
tough decisions are made. If you get hung up in the interaction
between the executive and legislative branch and you lose that
opportunity to buy, then you start all over again. What we
found in the leasing arrangement, we had more flexibility in
the procurement cycle and were able to get things through
because you don't have a bigger cost up front. OK. And you work
your way up in a steadier budget profile. So I think that's a
better way to go. It's just that how much resources you can
bring. Literally, we're in an era now with parallel processing,
it's the more racks you buy, the more power you get, or the
more racks you lease, the more power you get. So we get a
budget, we design our computing capability within that budget
and apply her to our requirements. And that's basically where
we're at.
Senator DeMint. Ms. Michels, you mentioned that the Weather
Service was working well with you in Nome, but that your
problem was surrounding villages were not well prepared. Is the
problem that they're not getting the word of weather that's
heading that way or it's just that they don't have the means,
the ability to be prepared and to take precautions?
Ms. Michels. I think it's both. The Weather Service, the
Nome staff had provided me an Excel spreadsheet from 2002 when
the time they were to do an advisory and a warning, and there
were a couple of times in the Shishmaref, Kivalina area where
they didn't have enough data to be able to provide the
information to do a warning until the storm was, you know,
right at your doorstep. So there are data holes out there that
really would be able to help the Weather Service predict more
of these weather advisories. And then, second, it is also a
resource issue in our villages. There's just not a lot of
training or the resources out there to be able to prepare. A
lot of heavy equipment doesn't work or there's a lack of heavy
equipment. So, it's both.
Senator DeMint. One of the frustrations we have as we push
this Committee forward is we know that even when people are
warned, as we saw last year, that sometimes they don't do
anything or they don't get prepared. So I guess our question
is, how much do we spend to be able to give people notice if
we're not sure they're going to respond. And I guess that gets
back to local authorities and preparation, but what's your
comment to that?
Ms. Michels. I can guarantee you, when we get those storm
warnings, we are running around trying to get everything up to
high ground, doing whatever we can to protect our food, our
boats, you know, our cabins, everything. When we do get those
warnings, we----
Senator DeMint. You take them seriously.
Ms. Michels.--take them very seriously.
Senator DeMint. OK. All right. Senator Nelson, any more
questions?
Senator Nelson. Yes. Doctor, one other question. In terms
of reaching out to other sources for help, computer help or
other just informational sources, do you interact with the
Weather Service part of a strategic command located at Offutt
in the Omaha area?
Dr. Uccellini. The answer is yes. I'm actually--there's a
group--you know, I hate to throw acronyms around, but there's a
group that meet three times a year, including the AFWA
commander, myself, FNOC out of Monterey, and AVO. We have
shared resources. We have backup plans. We have come up with an
operations concept which allows us now--we actually, for non-
classified applications, we provide computing--computer model
support for AFWA for the United States areas. Actually for the
whole North America sector, and then we rely on their model
runs for their windows. If we have to, for example, support
USAID over Afghanistan, we don't run our model over
Afghanistan, we rely on the Air Force models that are run over
Afghanistan. So we got this whole shared process. We are
working toward backup plans, which are much more rigorous than
we've had in the past, which involves double and triple ways of
moving the data around because not only what we have in
Gaithersburg but because of what--the backup system we have in
Fairmont, West Virginia. And, last but not least, with the new
building out in Omaha, we are working on plans which have not
been finalized yet, but are pretty close, in terms of locating
our operational computer, our next generation operational
computer there since our security ranking is going up. That's
probably one of the most secure areas which has access to all
the data that I was talking about before. So the working
relationship is very close. We follow up three times a year and
we've made tremendous progress over the last 20 years.
Senator Nelson. Is any of the data that they can
accumulate, is that--can you access that or is that in a format
that you can use?
Dr. Uccellini. Yeah. We not only access the DMSPs, the
Defense satellite systems, but they also have classified data
which we're allowed to access and use for our land models as
long as--you know, we don't--we can't re-release that data, but
we can use it within our numerical models and then release the
predictions. And that's all done under a special arrangement
now that's been signed off at the highest level. So the data
exchange has--it's been a very good arrangement, especially--
not only with the Air Force, but with the Navy as well.
Senator Nelson. I think that concludes my questions. Thank
you.
Senator DeMint. One last question, and I know we need to
let you folks go, but Doctor, I'm just curious about the
flexibility you have in your agency to, I guess, move dollars
around. For instance, Nome. The Mayor has said perhaps a closer
buoy, another observation point. Can you, the way we're
structured as--as NOAA's structured as an agency, go back and
say, hey, we're going to close a couple of sites in these
states and add a couple along the west coast of Alaska, or is
that just a political bombshell? I mean, do you not adjust by
priorities? I mean, is that something we would have to mandate
for you to do, or can you do it?
Dr. Uccellini. Well, let me say this. We've had situations
in the last 3 years in which buoys have been added, especially
in the gulf. Even the--and we've had tsunami, the buoys, the
special observation systems now that have been added in the
Atlantic. Those were all done through supplementals. It's very
hard. We have our own set of buoys. There are other agencies
that have had buoys out there that we've accessed that when
they close down those buoys, we get blamed for closing down
those buoys. OK. In other words, because we've used those
buoys, made the data visible to the communities nearby or the
data, as it's being used in our models, people understand how
important they are. I haven't seen--I personally haven't seen
situations where one buoy is closed down and moved someplace
else. It--you're really adding to it. Now, there was an Academy
of Sciences study done in the late 1990s and early 2000 time
period that pointed to an optimal array of buoys around the
United States. We're working toward that, but we haven't
attained it.
Senator DeMint. Yeah. As you can see, Senator Stevens is
very interested in coverage in Alaska, so I would encourage
that.
Dr. Uccellini. By the way, I have some information with
respect to questions he asked. Should I say that now, or should
I just bring it over to the--like the number----
Senator DeMint. I think if you can submit those in writing,
it'd be most helpful.
Dr. Uccellini. OK.
Senator DeMint. I thank you both very much, particularly,
again, Mayor, for your long travels and this information will
be included in the record and hopefully we can respond in a way
that'll be helpful. Thank you.
Ms. Michels. Thank you.
[Whereupon at 3:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned]