Order Code RL32739
Tsunamis: Monitoring, Detection,
and Early Warning Systems
Updated December 12, 2006
Wayne A. Morrissey
Information Research Specialist (Science & Technology)
Knowledge Services Group
Tsunamis: Monitoring, Detection,
and Early Warning Systems
Summary
Congress is concerned about the possible vulnerability of U.S. coastal areas to
tsunamis and the adequacy of early warning for coastal areas. This stems from a
December 26, 2004 tsunami that devastated many coastal areas around the northern
Indian Ocean, where few tsunami early warning systems currently operate. Caused
by a strong underwater earthquake off the coast of Sumatra, Indonesia, the tsunami
claimed an estimated 220,000 lives. In December 2005, President Bush’s plan for
expanding U.S. tsunami detection and early warning coverage was released. Nations
affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami, assisted by other counties, are pursuing
multilateral efforts to develop a regional tsunami detection and warning network for
coastal populations around the Indian Ocean (IOTWS). The U.N. Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO is leading that international effort.
To leverage costs of the IOTWS, IOC members suggested “piggy backing” on
existing distributive ocean observation and monitoring networks, data collection
systems, marine buoys and tide gage networks, and global telecommunications
systems, which may pose technical challenges in standardizing communications
protocols and ensuring interoperability of systems. The Bush Administration and
congressional supporters consider a fully deployed U.S. network an important
component of a future global tsunami warning capability.
Expansion of the U.S. tsunami early warning network was expected to cost
millions of dollars to include building the infrastructure and maintaining operations
over the long-term. Some have argued that the benefits far outweigh the costs; others
question whether the risks of tsunamis outside the Pacific Basin justify the
investment. President Bush pledged nearly $40 million to expand the U.S. tsunami
early warning network from six deepwater tsunami detection (DART) buoys, to the
20 now operating, to a planned total of 39 sited in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans,
Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Emergency appropriations for FY2005 funded
initial procurement and deployment of a comprehensive detection and warning
network. The President has requested funding to complete the task. Also, the 109th
Congress has approved legislation to fund long-term needs of the U.S. network, such
as maintenance, and address social issues, such as education and risk adaptation.
Some developed countries bordering on the Indian Ocean currently operate
tsunami warnings systems, but guarding their Pacific shores. Disaster management
experts contend that a global tsunami early warning system capability is most useful
in countries that have expansive regionally/locally based emergency management
capabilities. Yet, in some areas of these and neighboring countries a communications
infrastructure to receive and disseminate tsunami warnings is wanting. Thus local
officials may be incapable of rapidly alerting populations to evacuate or to take
appropriate safety precautions. Emergency experts also assert that disaster planning
is not only about issuing tsunami warnings, but also educating indigenous people and
visitors about the potential dangers in the area; being able to clearly communicate
evacuation options; adapting to potential risks through construction of public
shelters; conducting periodic evacuation drills; and producing tsunami inundation
maps for guidance for future land-use planning. This report will not be updated.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A Global Tsunami Early Warning System? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
International Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Communication of Tsunami Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
U.S. DART Buoys for the Indian Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Tsunami Protection for the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bush Administration Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
President Bush’s Tsunami Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Funding for the U.S. Tsunami Warning Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
National Weather Service Tsunami Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Tsunami Warning Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Tsunami Detection Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Other Supporting Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Related and Contributing U.S. Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Cooperative Protection for the Pacific Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Tsunami-Related Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
S. 50 (Inouye) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
H.R. 1674 (Boehlert) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
List of Figures
Figure 1. Proposed U.S. Dart Buoy Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2. NOAA DART Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. NOAA Funding for U.S. Tsunami Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Tsunamis: Monitoring, Detection,
and Early Warning Systems
Introduction
On December 26, 2004, a tsunami disaster was triggered by an underwater
earthquake off the west coast of northern Sumatra in Indonesia. Based on physical
evidence of displacement of the sea floor, U.S. seismologists determined the
earthquake to have been a M 9.2.1 The ensuing tsunami devastated many coastal
w
areas around the northern Indian Ocean; the earthquake caused economic upheaval
in many areas. International disaster agencies estimated that more than 220,000
people may have lost their lives as a direct result of the tsunami.2 The disaster
prompted some Members of the 109th Congress to raise questions about (1) the
possibility of tsunamis occurring in U.S. coastal areas; (2) the extent to which these
areas are currently monitored; (3) how tsunamis can be detected; and (4) whether
there is a national capacity to issue evacuation warnings for tsunamis.3
On January 5, 2005, the House Science Committee House Coastal Caucus and
House Oceans Caucus co-sponsored a briefing organized by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior whose purpose was to consider
possible implications of the type of the tsunami disaster that occurred in the Indian
Ocean for the United States. Experts from USGS and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department of Commerce delivered
presentations at the briefing about the scientific circumstances surrounding the Indian
Ocean tsunami and discussed global capabilities for tsunami monitoring, detection,
and early warning.4
1 M , the moment of magnitude, is a way to measure the force of an earthquake’s total
w
seismic energy released as a function of rock rigidity in the fault, the total area of contact
where friction occurs, and the amount of slippage (or displacement). It is used for
earthquakes greater than M8.2 on the Richter scale.
2 U.N. World Health Organization, Department of Health Measurement and Information
Systems, “Asian Tsunami: Death-Toll Addiction and its Downside,” by Michel Thieren,
available at [http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/83/2/82.pdf], accessed Oct. 11, 2006.
3 A tsunami is a seismic sea wave (or a series of waves) usually generated by an underwater
earthquake or landslide, but occasionally is caused by volcanic eruption or major landslide
into the ocean. Tsunami is translated from Japanese as “harbor wave.”
4 Presenters at that briefing included, David Applegate, Science Advisor for Earthquake and
Geological Hazards at the USGS; General David Johnson, Assistant Director of NOAA’s
National Weather Service; Gregg Withee, Assistant Director for NOAA Satellite and
Information Services; and, Eddie Bernard, Associate Director of NOAA’s Pacific Marine
Environmental Laboratory (teleconferencing from Seattle, WA).
CRS-2
Scientists and emergency experts assessing the damage in the wake of the
tsunami disaster found that there were few, if any, systems for monitoring tsunamis
in the Indian Ocean on December 26, 2004, and little, if any, capability to warn
populations locally. Some nations affected by the tsunami that were also bounded
by the Pacific Ocean, including Australia and Indonesia, had tsunami early warning
systems monitoring their Pacific shores where they perceived the greatest threat
however.5 Due to geographic proximity of many human settlements to where the
tsunami was generated, and without ability to receive tsunami warnings rapidly, some
post-disaster assessments indicate that for Indonesia’s Indian Ocean coastal
populations, emergency communications would have been useless in many cases.
Other findings show that (1) many indigenous people and tourists were not educated
about the dangers of tsunamis; (2) they were not aware of the physical warning signs
of an onset of a tsunami; and (3) no procedures were included in local or regional
emergency plans for issuing evacuation alerts in the event important “lifelines” such
as electric utilities and telecommunications were disrupted.6
On January 29, 2005, the House Committee on Science, and on February 2,
2005, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held
hearings about the need for expanding tsunami early warning protection for the
United States and its possessions. Also discussed were long-term goals for guarding
non-U.S. coastal regions. Legislation introduced in the 109th Congress prior to these
hearings by Senator Lieberman of Connecticut (S. 34) and Senator Inouye of Hawaii
(S. 50), among others, called for a rapid U.S. response to upgrade existing U.S.
capacity for tsunami warning in the Pacific, and to expand operations to include the
Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. Senator Inouye’s bill
was closely aligned with President Bush’s initial proposal for U.S. tsunami protection
released on January 14, 2005.7 In contrast, S. 50 also addressed related social issues
such as tsunami disaster education, local emergency preparedness, adaptation, and
mitigation. (See “Tsunami-Related Legislation.”)
Although most deadly tsunamis have occurred historically in the western Pacific
Ocean, there are examples of recorded events in the eastern Pacific and North
Atlantic Oceans going back centuries. In 1692, a tsunami generated by massive
landslides in the Atlantic Puerto Rican Trench reached Jamaica’s coast, causing an
estimated 2,000 deaths. In 1775, a tsunami struck in the eastern Atlantic Ocean on
the coast of Portugal, killing an estimated 60,000 people. More recently, in 1929, a
5 General David L. Johnson, “NOAA Tsunami and Natural Disaster Information,” Jan. 5,
2005 House briefing.
6 Lifelines are emergency response services, hospitals, other care facilities, energy and water
delivery systems, telecommunications, and electronic commerce. See U.S. Congress,
Senate, Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation, Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act, report to accompany S. 910, 105th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 105-59
(Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 3.
7 U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, “U.S. Announces Plan for Improved
Tsunami Detection and Warning System,” press release, OSTP News, Jan. 14, 2005,
available at [http://www.ostp.gov/html/Tsunamiplanrelease.pdf], accessed Dec. 1, 2006.
See also Eli Kintisch, “South Asia Tsunami: U.S. Clamor Grows for Global Network of
Sensors,” Science, vol. 307, Jan. 14, 2005, p. 191.
CRS-3
tsunami generated in the Grand Banks region of Canada hit Newfoundland, killing
51 people. It was the third lethal tsunami for Canada’s Atlantic Coast within 150
years.8
A Global Tsunami Early Warning System?
Many international scientific agencies foresaw considerable challenges to be
overcome before an extensive tsunami early warning network for the Indian Ocean
and other earthquake-prone areas such as the Black Sea could be established. In
some ways, developed nations that had the resources and capability to establish their
own regional emergency management networks for disaster warning and who had
executed comprehensive disaster plans were able to avoid some of these challenges.
Challenges
Development of “truly global” tsunami early warning system with a capability
for issuing regional and local warnings has required involvement of many nations
with widely varying technological capabilities and financial resources. Reports
indicate that international political leaders expected that most of the responsibility
for paying for such a system would fall on the wealthiest nations. Procurement of
state-of-the-art monitoring and detection technology; operations and maintenance of
scientific instruments, platforms, and communications networks; and sustaining
international cost sharing appear to be the most critical challenges for long-term,
collaborative international effort for tsunami detection and early warning.
After the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster, international science agencies called
for an inventory of existing capacity for tsunami monitoring, detection, and warning
systems to be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. That inventory
would represent a baseline from which outstanding requirements for a global network
would be determined. Government policy analysts also raised technological and
national security issues as further challenges to building and sharing a truly “global”
tsunami early warning network. Technological issues included standardizing
international tsunami warning instrumentation, data collection, communications
protocols for systems relaying and receiving data and issuing warnings. National
security issues involved proposed open access and possible sabotage of international
telecommunication networks. U.S. intelligence experts were concerned that certain
data collected could be considered sensitive and revealing collection methodologies
could compromise nations’ intelligence-gathering operations.
At a January 2005 House briefing, Assistant Director of NOAA for Satellite and
Information Services, Gregg Withee, raised yet another challenge when he testified
that some nations, including India, maintained proprietary rights to all of their real-
time satellite data. Some of these data, he asserted, could be critical for detecting and
8 Statistics on deaths resulting from tsunamis were compiled by CRS from online sources,
including data from the Tsunami Laboratory of Novosibirsk, NOAA’s National Geophysical
Data Center, the University of Southern California, Tsunami Research Group, and others.
See [http://geology.about.com/library/bl/bltsunamideathtable.htm], visited Jan. 11, 2005.
CRS-4
tracking tsunamis in the Indian Ocean, and for assessing post-disaster damage,
leaving many tsunami monitoring institutions having to pay for them.9
International Proposals
On January 6, 2005, the United Nations proposed an international effort to
develop a tsunami early warning capacity for potentially vulnerable populations
located on Indian Ocean coasts. That endeavor is being spearheaded by the U.N.
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission (IOC) for which the United States is a member.
Australia, Japan, Thailand, and India also have individual initiatives that would
expand existing monitoring capacity for Indian Ocean coastlines.10 Thailand held a
ministerial meeting in Phuket, January 28-29, 2005, on tsunami early warning
protection for the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia. The United States was
represented by President Bush’s Science Advisor and Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, John Marburger III.11
On a related matter, on February 15, 2005, in Brussels, Belgium, IOC members
finalized plans for an international global ocean observing system (IGOOS). IGOOS,
they noted, might serve as the physical network for a regional tsunami early warning
system for the Indian Ocean (IOTWS). A month later, in March 2005, experts from
Indian Ocean countries affected by the December 26, 2004 tsunami along with other
countries convened a U.N. IOC summit in Paris, France. The Director of the UN
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) chaired the event.12 IOC
officials stated the purpose of the session was to firm up plans for an internationally
coordinated tsunami early warning system for the Indian Ocean and solicit members’
financial pledges.
Communication of Tsunami Warnings. The Director of NOAA’s
National Weather Service (NWS), Brig. Gen. David L. Johnson, USAF, (Ret.), who
9 Gregg Withee, January 5, 2005 House briefing. Stefan Maus of NOAA’s National
Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) of the NOAA Environmental Satellite program (NESDIS)
visited India Oct. 22, 2005 to Nov. 20, 2005 to enhance the exchange of geomagnetic data
for space weather, main field, and crustal field modeling. See [http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
products/news_archive_2005.html], accessed Feb. 15, 2006.
10 British Broadcasting Corporation, “Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System, BBC News,
Dec. 23, 2005, available at [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4524642.stm], visited
Dec. 1, 2006. “Thailand, India and Indonesia are forging ahead with their own systems and
Australia, Malaysia and Singapore are planning to develop warning capacities.”
11 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, “OSTP
Director John Marburger to Head U.S. Delegation at Thai-Sponsored Meeting to Develop
Tsunami Early Warning System for Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia,” press release, Jan.
27, 2005.
12 UN ISDR, “Meeting in Paris to Plan Tsunami Early-Warning System,” Press Release:
IHA/1019 (Geneva, Mar. 1, 2005). See also, ISDR, Proposed Strategy for Building
Resilience to Tsunamis in the Indian Ocean 2006-2008, Jan. 27, 2006, available at
[http://www.unisdr.org/asiapacific/ap-iotsunami/proposed-TEWS-strategy-2006-2008.pdf],
accessed Oct. 5, 2006.
CRS-5
also testified in January 2005 congressional hearings, emphasized that in addition to
operating a capacity to monitor and detect possible tsunamis, an emergency
communications infrastructure for further disseminating tsunami warnings regionally
or locally is critical for safeguarding Indian, western Atlantic, and far Pacific Oceans
coastal populations. He noted that NOAA’s responsibility for tsunami warnings
terminate after communications are relayed to international emergency management
officials.13 He added that in the United States forecasts and warnings of severe
weather issued by local or regional NWS weather forecast offices are picked up and
distributed by local emergency managers and the broadcast media. The NWS
directly broadcasts warnings to individuals and institutions possessing NOAA
Weather Radio receivers. He noted that in terms of global adequacy, observers of
international disasters have cited varying capabilities for relaying public emergency
warnings and that some regions are at risk for tsunamis, a local disaster management
capacity may be inadequate or non-existent.
NOAA’s Administrator, VADM Conrad C. Lautenbacher (Ret. Navy) who is
spokesperson for developing and implementing an international, collaborative Global
Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS), an initiative supported by President
Bush, also has addressed international tsunami detection and warning capabilities.
Billed as “an excellent example of science serving society,” and noted, the GEOSS
infrastructure will be built from extant data collection platforms, telecommunications
capabilities, and environmental observation systems and communication networks
operating around the world.14 One of the international networks proposed to be part
of GEOSS is an International Global Ocean Observing System (IGOOS). Another
is a network of thousands of ARGO floats that are monitoring global climate in the
equatorial Pacific, known collectively as the ARGO Array. (See “Tsunami Detection
Operations.”) Through the interoperability of GEOSS and IGOOS, the United States
would assist other IOC members in developing an Indian Ocean tsunami early
warning capacity and eventually a global network.15
On February 16, 2005, the United States Group on Earth Observation (US GEO)
along with international science ministers met in Brussels, Belgium, to adopt a 10-
13 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Science, Commerce and Transportation United
States, Tsunami Preparedness, hearing, Feb. 2, 2005. Oral testimony of Brig. Gen. Jack
Kelly, Jr., former NWS Director, and present Deputy Administrator for NOAA on behalf
of Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr. (U.S. Navy, Ret.) Undersecretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce.
14 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology,
“World Weather Program: The Global Observing System: Its Impacts and Future,” by
BGEN John J. Kelly Jr., (USAF, Ret.), The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and
Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 2006, Report FCM P1-2005, Appendix B: 237-243
(Washington, DC: October 2005). Other examples of international communications
networks are included.
15 Gen. David Johnson, Jan. 5, 2005 House briefing. For more information on ocean
observing systems, see U.S. Congress, House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Conservation, and Wildlife, Status of Ocean Observing Systems in the United States,
Oversight Hearing, serial no. 108-102, July 13, 2004 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2005).
CRS-6
year implementation plan for GEOSS. The European Union hosted the event that
was attended by representatives of 61 countries. Since then, U.S. funding
commitments and its role in global tsunami warning efforts is unfolding as GEOSS
is being implemented.16 Most international science agencies and non-governmental
organizations representing Indian Ocean nations generally support GEOSS as the
primary infrastructure for a global tsunami early warning network. Many also
praised President Bush’s January 2005 proposal and his July 2005 “action plan” for
the U.S. tsunami warning system as “a good start” for a global system.
During discussions on developing new generation state-of-the-art deep water
tsunami detection instruments and deploying other ocean and coastal observing
systems, Congress has urged that whatever technology is adopted to upgrade the U.S.
tsunami warning network, it serves multiple purposes so as to support other
environmental observations systems, such as the GEOSS and IGOOS.
U.S. DART Buoys for the Indian Ocean. At a May 2006 meeting in
Melbourne, Australia, the United States laid out plans for lending two of its state-of-
the-art DART II buoys for “operational detection of tsunami and verification of non-
events in the Indian Ocean.” This, and similar contributions from other developed
countries such as Germany, is helping to establish a prototypical IOTWS.”17 The
NWS selected two sites outside the limits of any single nation’s Exclusive Enterprise
Zone (EEZ): (1) near the Andaman Islands off Sumatra, Indonesia (0oN) and (2)
between Colombo, Sri Lanka and Phuket, Thailand (9oN). The first U.S. DART II
is to be deployed in December 2006. The second deployment is scheduled for May
2007. Although the United States (NOAA) would not service these buoys in the
Indian Ocean, NOAA officials say that they would provide technical assistance and
funding for O&M through whatever entity would manage the IOTWS-at-large. The
ICG/IOTWS is established as the governing body of the IOC for Indian Ocean states.
Strategies to fund a “tsunami watch capacity,” including long-term O&M of the
IOTWS, are being discussed. Members discussed the inherent interoperability of
technologies, such as DART buoys, ARGO floats, and tide gauges in environmental
observation. They noted that development and operation of the IOTWS provided
opportunities for hosting other environmental sensors. Moreover, they noted joint
use of international fleets would assist deployment and maintenance of the buoys.18
16 Written testimony of Hon. John Marburger III, Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Feb. 2, 2005.
17 ICG/IOTWS Working Group 2 on Sea Level Data Collection and Exchange, Including
Deep Ocean Tsunami Detection Instruments, Draft Minutes: Annex IV, Proposal by U.S.
for Contribution of two DART buoys to the IOTWS, in Inter-sessional Meeting, 1-2, May
2006, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 16-25, [41 p.], available at [http://ioc3.unesco.org/
indotsunami/documents/wgfiles/WG2%20Intersessional%20meeting%20report%20Melb
ourne.pdf], accessed Oct. 5, 2006.
18 IGO/PTWS Coordination Group, Article 4.9, p. 8.
CRS-7
Figure 1. Proposed U.S. Dart Buoy Network
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “NOAA Adds Four New DART Buoys to the U.S. Tsunami Warning
System,” NOAA News, August 21, 2006. Available at [http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2685.htm], accessed Oct. 5, 2006.
CRS-8
Tsunami Protection for the United States
Although some Members of Congress were on record as supporting an
international effort to build a regional tsunami detection and warning system for the
Indian Ocean after the December 2004 disaster, Representative Pallone of New
Jersey was the first to call for establishing a tsunami detection and warning network
for the U.S. Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea.19 However, other
lawmakers questioned whether the risk of a tsunami for the U.S. western Atlantic
coasts justified such expenditures. To assure that the risks were real, in January 2005
congressional briefings, NOAA scientists emphasized the potential dangers related
to the Puerto Rican Trench — the deepest point in the western Atlantic Ocean.20
They cited massive landslides and sloughing that are occurring historically along the
face of North American continental shelf and advised of strong underwater
earthquakes that have occurred off the coast of Puerto Rico, and in some cases have
generated tsunamis that caused major loss of life and property damage.21
One U.S. Atlantic coast state, New Hampshire, has a contingency plan for
tsunamis emergencies and it also manages a clearinghouse of information about
historical tsunami disasters that have affected the northeast United States.22 In 2005,
two U.S. communities in the western Atlantic basin received notoriety for having
become the first NWS TsunamiReady communities outside the Pacific Basin. One
of these was in Florida on the Gulf of Mexico and the other was Norfolk, VA, on the
mid-Atlantic Coast.23 Since then, five east coast states and Puerto Rico have been
declared TsunamiReady by NWS. In contrast, some potential areas for tsunamis in
the U.S. Pacific coast states, including Alaska and Hawaii have had tsunami
emergency evacuation plans in place for 40-60 years.
19 Statement of Representative Frank Pallone, Congressional Record, Jan. 4, 2005: H40.
“There has been a lot of discussion and I think there is a need to expand the tsunami early
warning system that exists in the Pacific not only to the Indian Ocean but also possibly to
the Atlantic Ocean and throughout the world.”
20 USGS, Woods Hole Science Center, “Caribbean Tsunami and Earthquake Hazards
Studies Program,” available at [http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/projects/project_get.php?proj
=29210EQ&style=html], accessed Feb. 15, 2006.
21 See “The Puerto Rico Trench: Implications for Plate Tectonics: Earthquake and Tsunami
Hazards” at [http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03trench/trench/trench.html] and
also, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, The Puerto Rico Warning and Mitigation
Program at [http://poseidon.uprm.edu], both accessed Oct. 11, 2006.
22 State of New Hampshire, “Disaster Plan 409,” Sect. II, Geological Hazards, Seismic
Hazards, at [http://www.nhoem.state.nh.us/mitigation/state_of_new_hampshire.asp],
accessed Jan. 11, 2005. See also NOAA, National Weather Service TsunamiReady
Program, “Is your Community Ready for the Next Tsunami?,” at [http://tsunami.gov],
accessed Jan. 11, 2005.
23 NOAA, National Weather Service, “TsunamiReady Communities,” available at
[http://www.tsunamiready.noaa.gov/ts-communities.htm],accessed Nov. 30, 2006.
CRS-9
Bush Administration Actions
On January 14, 2005, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) announced a proposal for an improved tsunami warning and detection system
for the United States.24 With input from NOAA, the President’s plan stated that 32
dedicated tsunami warning and detection “DART” buoys would be procured and
deployed by mid-2007. The President’s stated goal was to improve tsunami detection
for the far Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. (See
Figure 1, above.)
President Bush’s Tsunami Action Plan. In December of 2005, President
Bush released Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States: A Framework for
Action (dated July 2005).25 This plan of action outlined steps to be taken to reduce
tsunami risk on the U.S. mainland, Hawaii, and U.S. territories in the far Pacific
Ocean and Carribean Sea.26 To finish implementing the recommendations of his
plan, for FY2007, President Bush has proposed $20.4 million for the NWS. He also
requested $3.95 million for USGS’s Global Seismic Network (GSN) upgrades, about
$35,000 more than FY2006 enacted funding, that would go toward converting the
20% of 127 seismic sensing platforms around the globe that are not capable of real-
time telemetry.
To complement the President’s plan, concerned social scientists argued for
“institutionalizing” a public education component in whatever legislation might be
used to implement U.S. protection from tsunamis.27 The public education initiative
they envisioned has included training local authorities to be the resident developers
and deliverers of disaster education, as well as developers of local emergency
planning for tsunamis. They also encourage federal, state, and local interagency
resource sharing and establishing a visible federal agency-presence within the
community.28 Finally, they recommend adaptation as an alternative means of disaster
24 U.S. EOP, OSTP, Press release, Jan. 14, 2005.
25 Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Tsunami
Risk Reduction For the United States: A Framework for Action, A Joint Report of the
Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction and the United States Group on Earth Observations,
July 2005. (Released Dec. 2005.)
26 EOP, Tsunami Risk Reduction For the United States: A Framework for Action, Ch. 4,
“International Cooperation.”
27 Eileen Shea, Project Coordinator, East West Center, Honolulu, HI, “Testimony,” Senate
Commerce Tsunami Preparedness hearing, Feb. 2, 2005, available at [http://commerce.
senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1361&wit_id=3955], accessed Feb. 3, 2005.
28 See Government Accountability Office (GAO), “State and Local Tsunami Hazard
Mitigation Activities Are Under Way although Implementation Varies Considerably among
Locations,” in U.S. Tsunami Preparedness: Federal and State Partners Collaborate to Help
Communities Reduce Potential Impacts, but Significant Challenges Remain, GAO Report
GAO-06-519, June 2006, p. 29. Prepared for congressional committees and Senator Diane
Feinstein.
CRS-10
management, using low-tech, high-impact solutions for disseminating public
evacuation orders.29 (See “S. 50” in the “109th Congress” section.)
Funding for the U.S. Tsunami Warning Program. NOAA officials
released estimates for implementing the President’s January 2005 plan. Although
more modest originally calling for mounting tsunami detection instruments on
existing Atlantic Ocean platforms, such as weather buoys, it was decided that a
number of dedicated DART platforms would be deployed instead. NOAA had
indicated that the costs could vary depending upon the scale of the project — for
example, the number of DART buoys, and supporting instruments to be deployed and
costs of operation and maintenance (O&M) in the out-years.30 Other related federal
expenditures included funding scientific research on tsunamis, tsunami mitigation
programs, public outreach and education, and the TsunamiReady program. It was
later determined that telecommunication upgrades were needed for tsunami
detection-dependent USGS Global Seismic Network (GSN). (See “Related and
Contributing U.S. Programs.”)
Table 1 shows funding for U.S. tsunami-related programs since FY2001. Prior
to FY2004, all of tsunami-related activities were funded by NOAA’s Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) and obligated out of NOAA’s Operations,
Research, and Facilities (ORF) account. In FY2004, administration of these
activities became the responsibility of NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS),
at which funds were then obligated out of the NWS ORF and Procurement,
Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) accounts. Congress provides funding for U.S.
tsunami monitoring and detection operations, early warning, research, outreach and
education, and mitigation. These appropriations are found under Title II, Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather
Service, in the annual Science, Space, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations Act.
Thus far, President Bush has committed almost $40 million for FY2005-
FY2007 to implement his action plan. (See “President Bush’s Tsunami Action
Plan.”) The Director of OSTP, John Marburger, noted that the U.S. system would
“ultimately include the Indian Ocean,” in terms of tsunami warning benefits.31 The
United States is now contributing to international tsunami warning efforts, including
the IOTWS, through development of the Global Earth Observing System of Systems
29 See Eileen Shea, Project Coordinator, East West Center, Honolulu, HI, “Testimony,”
Senate Commerce Tsunami Preparedness hearing, Feb. 2, 2005, available at
[http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1361&wit_id=3955], accessed Feb.
3, 2005.
30 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, “Tsunamis: Is the U.S. Prepared?,” hearing,
Jan. 26, 2005,p.41, [Serial No. 109-1], prepared statement of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. See
[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy98395.000/hsy98395_0.htm], accessed
Feb. 15, 2006. “DART stations cost about $250,000 to purchase and around $125,000 per
year to maintain. Stations are now located off the coasts of Alaska, the Pacific Northwest,
and Chile, but we need to consider how this system can be expanded to other parts of the
world. Reliability of the DART system needs to be understood as we consider its
deployment worldwide.”
31 John H. Marburger, “Testimony,” Hearing, Feb. 2, 2005.
CRS-11
(GEOSS) managed by the “US GEO” team.32 Two second generation deep-water
tsunami detection buoys will be on loan for tsunami warning in the Indian Ocean.
Table 1. NOAA Funding for U.S. Tsunami Programs
($millions)
DART
Strengthen
U.S. Tsunami
Annual
Buoy
Tsunami
Warning Programa
NTHMPb
TWEAKc
Total
Acq.d
Warningse
Approp.f
—
—
—
—
—
FY2007
Req.
0.0
0.0
1.0
11.4
$12.4
Approp.
2.3
2.0
6.0
3.8
$14.1
FY2006
Req.
2.3
0.0
6.0
3.5
$11.8
FY2005 Suppl.g
7.1
0.0
10.2
—
$17.3
Approp.
4.2
2.0
0.0
—
$6.2
FY2005
Req.
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
$0.0
Approp.
4.3
2.0
0.6
—
$6.9
FY2004
Req. 0.0
0.0
0.0
—
$0.0
Approp.
4.3
—
—
—
$4.3
FY2003
Req.
0.0
—
—
—
$0.0
Approp.
3.3
—
—
—
$3.3
FY2002
Req.
2.3
—
—
—
$2.3
Approp.
3.3
—
—
—
$3.3
FY2001
Req.
0.0
—
—
—
$0.0
Source: Funding data compiled by CRS from annual Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related
Agency annual appropriations reports, and NOAA’s FY2007 Budget Summary, February 6, 2006.
Notes:
a. Funding for NOAA tsunami programs is not authorized by legislation. The last official NOAA
authorization to fund NWS/NOAA Research programs occurred on October 29, 1992 in the
102nd Congress (P.L. 102-567).
b. The Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program is operated out of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center,
HI, and has been funded since FY2004 by NWS. A major portion of the funding for the
NTHMP is divided among each of five Pacific states (AK, HI, WA, OR, and CA). The
NTHMP administers the NOAA’s Tsunami Ready program and provides assistance for
developing local warning capacity, emergency plans, and tsunami inundation maps.
32 The United States Group on Earth Observations (US GEO), Interagency Working Group
on Earth Observations is a standing subcommittee under the Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources, the United States Group on Earth Observations (US GEO).” See
[http://www.sdr.gov/Tsunami%20Risk%20Reduction%20for%20the%20US%20-%20A
%20Framework%20for%20Action%202005-12-22.pdf], accessed Feb. 15, 2006.
CRS-12
c. Prior to FY2004, the Tsunami Warning and Environmental (Observation Center) AK conducts
experimental tsunami warning system programs, but had no budget line. In FY2004, TWEAK
was transferred to NWS, along with all other U.S. tsunami-related programs. Although funding
has not been requested by the Administration since, Congress has appropriated $2.0 million
annually.
d. Includes funding proposed by the President and authorized by Congress in P.L. 109-13. Funding
allocated as FY2006 regular appropriations.
e. For NWS systems acquisition, funded by the PAC account to upgrade tsunami warning
communications network capabilities, and global telecommunications infrastructure. (A
separate request of $8.1 million in P.L. 109-13 for USGS’s Global Seismic Network (GSN) to
upgrade GSN telecommunications and an increase the number of seismic monitoring staff at the
USGS National Earthquake information Center.)
f. Although for FY2007 the House has indicated support for ongoing tsunami warning activities, no
specific appropriation amount is given (H.Rept. 109-520). The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $33 million for tsunami-related programs for FY2007, including $9.9
million for development of IOOS. No further appropriations action occurred in the 109th
Congress.
g. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 109-13). After the December 24, 2004
tsunami disaster in the Indian Ocean, Congress provided funding to the NWS Procurement,
Acquisition and Construction (PAC) account from FY2005 emergency supplemental
appropriations (P.L. 109-13). This funding was used to procure a greater number of DART
buoys (three out of six were operating at the time of the tsunami disaster) and to fund expansion
of the U.S. tsunami warning network in the far Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico,
and the Caribbean Sea.
P.L. 109-13, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2005.
The first round of funding for the President’s proposal to upgrade and expand U.S.
tsunami detection and warning capabilities was requested as part of emergency
supplemental appropriations for FY2005 (P.L. 109-13).33 The conference report on
H.R. 1268 (H.Rept. 109-72, Div. A ) — Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 — indicated
that NOAA’s National Tsunami Warning Program in NWS would receive $25.4
million. Conferees on H.R. 1268 had augmented the President’s request by $7.1
million to provide for coastal inundation mapping and outreach and preparedness
programs for U.S. communities-at-risk, all part of the TsunamiReady Program.
Congress directed that a portion of total NWS tsunami-related funding in P.L.
109-13 be provided to the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center
(WC/AKTWC) to upgrade services and establish an international regional warning
center for the Pacific, in Hawaii. The NWS was authorized to hire an additional 43
full-time equivalents at U.S. tsunami warning centers to monitor USGS seismic alerts
and tsunami detection instruments around the clock, for issuing real-time tsunami
warnings and reporting false alarms.
Conferees approved $10.2 million for NOAA’s PAC account to acquire new
generation, DART II buoys for deployment in the Far Pacific and Atlantic Oceans,
the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. They noted that several new data points
would be added for observations of ocean conditions at depth. (See “National
33 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, “Communication for the President
of the United States Transmitting a Request for Supplemental Appropriations ... Including
Tsunami Relief and Reconstruction,” H.Doc. 109-9, Feb. 15, 2005 (Washington, DC, GPO:
2005).
CRS-13
Weather Service Tsunami Programs.”) With respect to the U.S. GEOSS initiative,
conferees also encouraged NOAA “to develop buoys with capabilities beyond the
single purpose of tsunami reporting.”34
Finally, conferrees approved $8.1 million for the USGS National Earthquake
Information Center (NEIC) in Golden, CO, to upgrade the Global Seismic Network
(GSN) by increasing the number of GSN instruments capable of relaying real-time
seismic data, and to provide additional staff the NEIC to interpret those data around
the clock. At the time, only 80% of the 127 instruments in the network had real-time
telemetry capability. GSN seismic data are critical for NWS tsunami warning centers
to make a determination whether there is a potential for a tsunami to be generated
(tsunamigenesis) after an underwater earthquake or other geological disturbance.
The WC/AKTWS has responsibility for modeling the tracking and potential intensity
of tsunamis. In turn, both U.S. TWCs warn national and international emergency
management officials. P.L. 109-13 was signed into law on May 11, 2005.
National Weather Service Tsunami Programs
NOAA’s NWS manages the U.S. operational program for tsunami warnings in
U.S. Pacific coastal areas and has played a role in international tsunami protection.
The National Tsunami Warning Program (NTWP) consists of two U.S. tsunami
warning centers in the Pacific Ocean that monitor, detect, and warn for possible
tsunamis. An associated program under the NTWP concentrates on reducing rate of
false tsunami alarms issued for the Pacific Ocean. The National Tsunami Hazards
Mitigation Program (NTHMP) assists states in emergency planning and in
developing maps of potential coastal innundation for a tsunami of a given intensity.
The NTHMP operates tsunami disaster outreach and education programs through
NOAA’s TsunamiReady program.
Tsunami Warning Centers. NWS operates the Pacific Tsunami Warning
Center (PTWC) at Ewa Beach, HI, and the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning
Center (WC/AKTWC) at Palmer, AK. The PTWC monitors for tsunamis and issues
warnings for the Hawaiian Islands, the U.S. Pacific territories, and other U.S. and
international interests in the Pacific Basin. This center was established in 1949 after
a strong earthquake and massive landslides off the coast of southwest Alaska caused
a disastrous tsunami for the Hawaiian Islands hours later. The WC/AKTWC was
established in 1967, following a devastating earthquake of M 9.2 that struck
w
Anchorage in 1964, causing major localized tsunami damages.35 The WC/AKTWC
is responsible for issuing tsunami warnings to emergency management officials in
Alaska, British Columbia (Canada) Washington State, Oregon, and California. The
WC/AKTWC now also serves as the warning center for U.S. populations located in
the western Atlantic Ocean and is linked telemetrically with seven deep ocean DART
34 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Commerce and
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2006 ( S.Rept. 109-88 on H.R.
2682), p. 78, “Tsunami Preparedness, Warnings, and Forecasts,” June 23, 2005.
35 See NOAA, NWS, “How TsunamiReady Helps Communities and Counties at Risk
available at [http://www.stormready.noaa.gov/tsunamiready/], accessed Feb. 14, 2006.
CRS-14
buoys now deployed off the U.S. Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico shores.
(See Figure 1.)
National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. In 1992, NOAA
launched the NTHMP to address the credibility of Pacific tsunami warnings. At that
time, there had been a 75% false alarm rate for tsunamis. Local officials were
concerned about the significant social upheaval and economic disruption caused by
false alarms, and were concerned about whether the public would heed tsunami
warnings in the future. Through technological progress and iterative improvements,
the error rate has improved significantly since then. Another NTHMP research effort
studies the potential for a sizable earthquake in the Pacific Northwest Cascadia
Region, which USGS scientists believe would generate tsunamis that could severely
damage several U.S. Pacific coastal regions.36 In addition, the NTHMP has worked
with five Pacific states, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington and
now five Atlantic states and Puerto Rico in developing local tsunami emergency
preparedness plans for “communities-at-risk” as part of the TsunamiReady program.37
The NTHMP has also developed tsunami-related disaster models that can project the
trajectory and intensity of ensuing waves. The NTHMP also produces maps of
potential inundation for coastal communities at the behest of member states.
Tsunami Detection Operations. NOAA is currently operating an
expansive network of 20 dedicated tsunami detection and relay stations as part of the
NWS Deep-Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART) program.38 (See
Figure 1 for DART buoy locations, and Figure 2 for the technical components.)
Although they have the capacity for early warning of tsunamis, NOAA officials
caution these are only effective if there are emergency managers to receive their
communications and, in turn, they are able to alert the public to take the necessary
precautions or evacuate. In April 2006, seven DART buoys were deployed in the
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico.39 There will eventually be 32
DART buoys operating in the Pacific Ocean, including three previously deployed in
the Pacific Ocean, three off the Alaskan Peninsula, and one off the coast of Chile.
36 USGS, Local Tsunami Hazards in the Pacific Northwest from Cascadia Subduction Zone
Earthquakes by Eric L. Geist, at [http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1661b/pp1661-b.pdf], accessed
Feb. 14, 2006.
3 7 NOAA, National Weather Service, “TsunamiReady,” available at
[http://www.stormready.noaa.gov/ tsunamiready/ts-communities.htm], accessed Dec. 12,
2006.
38 Hugh B. Milburn et al., “Real-Time Tsunami Reporting from the Deep Ocean,” NOAA
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (1996), at [http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/Dart/
milburn_1996.shtml], visited Jan. 4, 2005. A seventh DART buoy owned and operated by
the Chilean government is deployed off Chile’s coast in South America.
39 NOAA FY07 Budget Briefing, National Press Club, Washington, DC, Feb. 9, 2006. See
also Figure 1.
CRS-15
Figure 2. NOAA DART Platform
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, from “U.S. Announces Plans
for an Improved Tsunami Warning and Detection System.” See [http://www.noaanews.
noaa.gov/stories2005/s2369.htm], accessed January 18, 2005.
Other Supporting Technologies. In addition to DART buoys, the NWS
has hundreds of marine weather buoys, and NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS)
operates tide-gages off all coasts of the United States and in the Great Lakes. These
supplemental instrumented platforms figured into the overall plans for an expanded
U.S. tsunami warning network. There are also analogs of NOS sea-level monitoring
operations in other countries around the globe. NWS weather buoys record
meteorological data, such as temperature, wind speed and direction, and atmospheric
pressure, while marine “drifting” data buoys also measure speed of ocean currents
and changes in salinity (or density) of the ocean. Sea surface height (or sea level) is
also measured by the satellite-based GPS (global positioning system) linked with
NOS tidal-monitoring networks and NOAA environmental satellites. The tide-gage
networks can detect surges or other disturbances which may be indicative of a
CRS-16
possible tsunami. Generally, such buoys are equipped to relay data and other
communications that support commercial and recreational navigation.40
In addition to weather and marine navigational buoys, there are about 1,000 (of
an planned array of 3,000) Argo floats that are used for short-term climate change
observations. These operate in the equatorial Pacific Ocean and are primarily
situated there to detect variable ocean conditions associated with El Niños and La
Niñas, which are periodic climate adjustments that affect global weather. NOAA
officials have advocated the use of Argo floats as alternative platforms for situating
tsunami detection instrumentation as well as other Earth observation systems.41 They
consider the ARGO Array the “the next step in global observations.” As early as the
108th Congress, legislation was introduced calling for several auxiliary technologies
to contribute to enhanced U.S. tsunami detection and warning network.42
For the eastern United States, other possible platforms for contributing to
tsunami monitoring and detection in the Atlantic Ocean have included coastal and
ocean observation networks that are either currently operating or being developed
along the eastern seaboard of Canada and the United States and in the Great Lakes.
On the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and Atlantic coasts of the Greater Antilles, there
is an operating tsunami warning system and communications network that was
developed by the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. Legislation, S. 361 and
H.R. 1584 in the 109th Congress, has called for similar synergistic approaches. (See
“Tsunami-Related Legislation.”)
Related and Contributing U.S. Programs
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is improving the earthquake monitoring
and warning capabilities of the Global Seismic Network (GSN) by upgrading stations
that have not had real-time data communication ability. USGS has also increased
coverage of seismic alerts at the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) in
Golden, CO. Other alternatives for broadcasting tsunami warnings may include
radios, cellular phone networks, and the Internet to reach local officials or rural
populations. International telecommunications networks, such as the GTS, with
40 Eddie Bernard, House briefing, Jan. 5, 2005.
41 NOAA/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Observing the Ocean in Real-Time: Argo,
a Global Array of Profiling Floats to Understand and Forecast Climate, ed. Stan Wilson
(1996). Funded in part by private academic institutions.
42 On Jan. 5, 2005, Representative Curt Weldon circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter
advocating the reintroduction of H.R. 5001 (108th Congress), the Ocean and Coastal
Observation System Act, in the 109th Congress. This legislation promoted development of
an “Integrated Ocean Observation System,” to protect U.S. citizens in coastal communities
from tsunamis. For further information on U.S. ocean observation systems, see U.S. House
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, and Oceans, Status of Ocean
Observing Systems in the United States, Oversight Hearing, serial no. 108-102, July 13,
2004 (Washington, DC: GPO 2005).
CRS-17
common data transmission protocols provide a capability for emergency
communications among worldwide government institutions (i.e, weather bureaus).43
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). USGS contributes directly to the
U.S. National Tsunami Warning Program. Its Global Seismic Network (GSN) has
been critical in identifying the potential for and issuing early warning of tsunamis.
The USGS operates a network of 127 global seismic monitoring stations, including
some in the Indian Ocean. The GSN is managed by the Incorporated Research
Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), a consortium of academic institutions that are
involved with earthquake monitoring, detection, and modeling.44 Although USGS
does not monitor directly for tsunamigenesis, the GSN measures land-based and
submarine earthquakes around the globe in real-time. Depending on where they
occur and their magnitude, the USGS makes determinations whether to alert NOAA
(NWS) of the possible onset of a tsunami.
At the time of the tsunami disaster in the Indian Ocean, USGS officials
indicated that only about 80% of GSN instruments had capability for real-time data
telemetry.45 P.L. 109-13 funded President Bush’s request to begin upgrading the
entire GSN network. The 109th Congress appropriated $8.1 million in emergency
supplemental appropriations for FY2005 for that purpose. Of the $8.1 million in
funding provided, some would be used to increase the number of seismic monitoring
stations around the globe.46 Also, some would be used to increase the staff at the
National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) in Golden, CO. Conferees on the
emergency funding bill noted that the resources recommended for communication
improvements might enable USGS and NWS to exchange data and information for
tsunami modeling exercises more rapidly.
USGS researchers at the NEIC collect and analyze data on crustal deformation
and ocean floor displacement from earthquakes and determine which events may be
precursors to the generation of tsunamis. USGS topographical mapping data has
been used in developing tsunami inundation maps that are spatially accurate for
communities-at-risk. These maps assist emergency managers in developing tsunami
evacuation plans and guiding local government planners and private developers over
the long-term. USGS primarily monitors for seismic activity on land, but its
geologists have asserted that land-based operations can be as important for tsunami
43 Kenneth B. Allen, Director of the Partnership for Public Warning, “Letter to President
Bush,” Jan. 3, 2005, at [http://www.partnershipforpublicwarning.org/ppw/], accessed Jan.
21, 2005. See also, Joab Jackson, “Cisco, IBM Propose Internet-Based Disaster Alert
System,” Government Computer News, Feb. 11, 2005, at [http://www.gcn.com], accessed
Feb. 15, 2005.
44 Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), “Global Seismic Network
(GSN) at [http://www.iris.edu/about/GSN/], accessed Feb. 15, 2006.
45 Dr. Charles Groat, Director of the USGS, presentation on the USGS FY2006 budget held
at the Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC, Feb. 7, 2005. Congress appropriated $8.1
million in emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2005 in P.L. 109-13.
46 Dr. Charles Groat, Director of the USGS, presentation on USGS FY2007 budget held at
the Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC, Feb. 6, 2006.
CRS-18
detection and warning as deep ocean buoys.47 In coastal areas of the United States,
and especially along the Pacific coast, earthquakes have historically generated
landslides. Some of these have resulted in mass wasting of land entering the ocean
abruptly and displacing large volumes of water locally. Large landslides also occur
beneath the ocean and off the continental shelf occasionally generating tsunamis.
USGS has also researched the potential for the Atlantic coast of the United States to
be subjected to a”super” tsunami caused by the collapse of a volcano in the Canary
Islands off the Coast of west Africa.48
World Weather Watch. NOAA and other international weather agencies
issue warnings of severe meteorological conditions that may affect commercial air
traffic and marine navigation. Past weather-related disasters have put human lives
in danger and have caused significant economic disruption over large geographic
regions. The U.N. World Weather Watch (WWW) is a cooperative program that is
organized and administered by the U.N. World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The mission of the WWW is to ensure that people no matter where they are around
the globe are adequately warned to the possibility of severe weather or dangerous
ocean-related conditions.49 NOAA’s National Weather Service disseminates
meteorological forecasts and warnings of sever weather globally on behalf of the
United States as part of the WWW mission.
NOAA also has a leadership role in the WWW with respect to weather data
collection, management, and archival. Also, the Department of State negotiates on
behalf of the United States to achieve and maintain international agreements that
sustain WWW operations globally. WWW members, including the United States
and its trust territories in the Far Pacific, communicate through established
international telecommunications protocol (GTS) receiving and disseminating
weather data, forecasts, and warnings.50 The NOAA Satellite and Environmental
47 These include the USGS Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), the Global Seismic
Network (GSN), National Strong-motion Program, and other U.S. regional networks and
cooperators. See [http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/index.php?areaID=12], accessed Feb.
15, 2006.
48 Rossella Lorenzi, “Top World Tsunami Hotspots Detailed,” Discovery News (online), Jan.
11, 2005, at [http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050110/tsunamidanger.html], accessed
Feb. 17, 2005. “According to Simon Day, Benfield Greig Hazard Research Center at
University College London, U.K., geological evidence suggests that during a future
eruption, Cumbre Vieja Volcano on the island of La Palma in the Canary Islands, off West
Africa, could experience a catastrophic failure of the western flank.”
49 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology,
“World Weather Program,” The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting
Research: Fiscal Year 2005, Report FCM P1-2004, Appendix B: 223-228 (Washington,
DC: Oct. 2004). Examples of international communications networks are included.
50 NOAA, National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS),
“About the World Data Center System.” NESDIS operates two U.S. WWP data centers and
performs analysis on and archives weather satellite data for international use. This resource
has since provided valuable information about the Indian Ocean tsunami. See the NESDIS
website at [http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdc/wdcmain.html] accessed Feb. 15, 2006. See also
(continued...)
CRS-19
Data and Information Service (NESDIS) houses two of three WMO World Weather
program (WWP) data centers, that archive weather data and analysis for global
access. The WWP centers are telecommunication enabled portals for exchanging
historical meteorological data and scientific research findings around the globe.51
NOAA officials regard the global reach of WWW networks and those of the data
centers as an important tool for communicating tsunami warnings among
international governments and scientific institutions.
National All Hazards Weather Radio (NAHWR). National emergency
management communications for the United States became the responsibility of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), when FEMA was transferred to the newly
created agency in March 2003. The National Weather Service (NWS) operates
NOAA Weather Radio (NWR), which is used to warn individuals in their homes and
at other public institutions such as schools and hospitals of the potential of severe
weather and issues warnings to take appropriate action. DHS initiated discussions
with NWS to collaborate in modifying NWR to enable public warnings for all
disasters, natural or otherwise. Out of this came the DHS National All Hazards
Weather Radio Network (NAHWR) that would broad information over the existing
NWR communications spectrum, and the Public Alert network.52
Over time, Congress has funded the expansion of NOAA NWR and its reach by
constructing more NWR transmission towers. Repeaters that can be mounted on
structures were also added in some localities to extend the range of NWR emergency
transmissions. The NOAA Weather Radio receiver, which is the critical component
for receiving emergency warnings, has been made available to the public at a modest
cost for individuals and at no cost to some schools applying for grant assistance. The
NWR program especially targets rural areas so as many U.S. citizens as possible have
an opportunity to receive severe weather-related warnings and other emergency
communications from their nearest NWS weather forecast office. As a result of
significant advances in weather forecast technologies, the lead time for emergency
warnings in most cases has increased. DHS envisions NAHWR, an network for
warnings in the event of earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, floods and other natural
disasters, and terrorist or industrial-related disasters.
50 (...continued)
“NOAA Scientists Able to Measure Tsunami Height from Space,” at
[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2365.htm], accessed Feb. 15, 2006.
51 NESDIS’s NGDC maintains the NOAA and International Oceanographic Committee
(IOC) long-term archive for global tsunami event, inundation, and damage data. NOAA
official stress that “The exchange and sharing of data on a worldwide basis is a critical part
of developing descriptions and the understanding of our global environment.” NOAA notes
that “The GEO Workplan for 2006 identifies the WDCs as one of the archives for data
collected over coastal regions subject to tsunami risk.” See [http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
products/news_archive_2005.html], accessed Feb. 15, 2006.
52 See NOAA All Hazards Weather Radio (NWR) at [http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/],
accessed Feb. 14, 2006.
CRS-20
The President’s budget request included around $10 million for the NAHWR
network in FY2006, and $5 million in FY2005.53 Some observers have noted that
about $150 million would be required to develop a broadband network capable of
integrating multiple federal agency emergency communications.
However, the NWR network still stands on its own, and access to NWR may
help to safeguard some people living in coastal areas of the United States by
providing early warning of an approaching tsunami, potential coastal flooding from
storm surges, or other hazardous marine conditions. Also, NWR can expediently
notify coastal populations of tsunami false alarms, which might alleviate some panic
and economic disruption caused by false warnings. It is likely that an expansive
NAHWR network would materialize in the future if federal resources were available.
However, standardization of telecommunications (communication protocol) and
warning system interoperability remain an issue for the various U.S. agencies
responsible for disasters.
Cooperative Protection for the Pacific Basin. NOAA’s Director of the
NWS also leads the UNESCO International Coordinating Group (ICG) for the
International Tsunami Warning System in the Pacific (ITSU). ITSU was created in
1968 and has operated out of the PTWC until recently when a separate international
warning center for the Pacific was dedicated. In October 2005, ICG/ITSU was
renamed ICG/Pacific Tsunami Warning and Mitigation System (ICG/PTWMS). This
change was made to align the new center with tsunami warning and mitigation
programs established by UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
(IOC), to distinguish it from the U.S. PTWC. The PTWMS currently serves 28
member nations vulnerable to tsunamis generated around the Pacific Basin. Three
member states — Australia, Thailand, and Indonesia (in part) — are unique in that
they are also threatened by tsunamis generated in the Indian Ocean.54 (For more
information on U.S. participation in international efforts to develop regional tsunami
protection, see “International Proposals.”)
53 Of note, the Senate approved $156 million for the “National Alert and Tsunami Warning
Program Act, 2005,” which is §3010 of S. 1932, the Senate amended version of the “Deficit
Reduction Act of FY2005.” (See H.Rept. 109-362, p. 204). That funding would “provide
for an all hazards alert system to [issue] alerts in response to natural disasters, man-made
accidents, and terror incidents.” Plans are to fund the program with the proceeds from a
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) spectrum auction. Proceedings of that sale is
authorized to be provided to the National Telecommunications and Information Agency
(NTIA). The amended measure containing the tsunami warning provisions passed Congress
on Feb. 6, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-366). S. 1393 was signed by the President on Feb. 8, 2006.
The budget resolution has no force in law however.
54 See “International Tsunami Information Center: ITSU Master Plan,” the International
Coordination Group for the Tsunami Warming System in the Pacific (IGC/ITSU),
UNESCO/IG, at [http://www.tsunamiwave.info/], visited Feb. 15, 2006.
CRS-21
Tsunami-Related Legislation
In the 108th Congress, before the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster, legislation had
been introduced to expand tsunami early warnings networks globally.55 No fewer
than 14 bills were introduced in the 109th Congress, beginning in January 2005. Most
of this legislation sought to expedite tsunami protection for the United States and its
trust territories. Some of those called for a more globally oriented approach for
tsunami protection for populations outside of the United States, however. Those bills
supporting U.S. involvement in international efforts encouraged U.S. representation
at any negotiations that might define national roles and responsibilities in operating
and maintaining a global tsunami early warning network. These also recommended
that negotiations be conducted through established international diplomatic channels,
citing the U.N. UNESCO IOC, ISDR, and WMO.
Many of the provisions of lawmakers’ U.S. and global tsunami protection
legislation were enacted indirectly being authorized in emergency appropriation bills,
and later in regular appropriation bills for NOAA and the National Weather Service,
instead of in stand alone bills. Further, some of these provisions required the United
States to incorporate tsunami preparedness and response, public education and
awareness, and risk adaptation in domestic disaster planning and in its advisory in
efforts abroad.
As with the Administration’s January 2005 proposal and its July 2005 Action
Plan, most congressional legislation had called for domestic needs to be met before
international commitments were made.
109th Congress
At the close of the 109th Congress, S. 50 and H.R. 1674 stood as the primary
legislative vehicles used to address social needs in post-tsunami disaster planning and
other actions needed safeguard communities-at-risk in U.S. waters and areas affected
by the Indian Ocean disaster. These bills guided domestic action to protect the
United States and its trust territories from future tsunami disasters. Congress has
authorized funding for U.S. tsunami protection for FY2005-FY2006 in P.L. 109-13
with a portion of that funding scored as regular NOAA appropriations for FY2006.
As of August 2006, 20 out of a total 39 DART-II buoys were deployed and
operate in U.S. waters. In December 2006, the United State deployed its first of two
U.S. DART buoys that will be on loan in international waters in the Indian Ocean to
protect indigenous populations.
In the first session of the 109th Congress, on April 18, 2005, Representative
Boehlert, chair of the House Science Committee introduced H.R. 1674, The U.S.
Tsunami Warning and Education Act of 2005, also known as the “Boehlert-Inslee
Bill.” Major provisions of the act included strengthening the National Weather
55 Eddie Bernard, House briefing, Jan. 5, 2005. Representative Curt Weldon sponsored an
original bill, H.R. 5001, in the 108th Congress. H.R. 1584 is a reintroduction of that
measure.
CRS-22
Services’s National Tsunami Hazards Mitigation Program by enhancing U.S. tsunami
detection and warning capabilities and incorporating tsunami awareness and
preparedness in disaster plans. Also, the act confers on Congress the responsibility
to oversee development and operations of the U.S. network. The National Academy
of Sciences is directed to report on U.S. capacity for tsunami protection and
recommend changes if needed. The Government Accountability Office is directed
to report on U.S. operations of the program by 2010. H.R. 1674 (amended) is
identical to S. 50 (Inouye) and authorizes funding of $40 million for FY2008-
FY2012. (For more information on this act, see below.) Nevertheless, congressional
authorization to fund long-term, sustained operations and maintenance of the U.S.
network; U.S. involvement in international efforts to establish the IOTWS; and
eventually build a “global” tsunami warning network may be issues that 110th
Congress consider in oversight hearings as is required by H.R. 1674.
Congressional sources have indicated that U.S. lawmakers would have provided
appropriations for FY2007 as requested by President Bush to procure and deploy the
remaining DART buoys needed to complete the U.S. tsunami network. However,
final funding decisions are now left up to the 110th Congress.
S. 50 (Inouye). The Tsunami Preparedness Act of 2005, was introduced on
January 24, 2005, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. As introduced, it directly supported the Bush Administration’s
strategy for an expanded U.S. tsunami early warning system. Similarly, it proposes
that the United States assist other nations in an international endeavor to build a
global detection and warning capacity. In Contrast to the President’s proposal, S. 50
would have required that the United States to disseminate U.S. tsunami-related
information and scientific research findings internationally, as well as facilitate
technology transfer to assist in global tsunami hazard mitigation efforts. To that end,
S. 50 would have established a U.S. multi-agency task force that included NOAA,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the USGS, and the National
Science Foundation (NSF). NOAA would lead U.S. global tsunami warning efforts
through deployment of an international earth observation system [GEOSS]. Section
8 of S. 50 would have authorize $35 million for “each of fiscal years 2006 through
2012, to carry out the Act.”
On February 2, 2005, the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Disaster
Preparedness held hearings on S. 50. At that hearing, Senator Inouye noted that “the
new subcommittee could be effective in educating populations at risk,” referring to
potential tsunami disasters. The Senator also stated that S.50 considers sociological
needs in addition to detection and warning, which would require NSF’s contribution.
He also noted that the legislation would authorize NOAA to receive reimbursement
of cash or services “in-kind” from international agencies that it assists in developing
a global tsunami early warning network.
On March 10, 2005, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
marked up S. 50. S.Amdt.1101 to S. 50, the Tsunami Preparedness Act, was
sponsored on July 1, 2005, by Senator Stevens. The amended bill would have
authorized specific funding for the Administrator of NOAA to strengthen its tsunami
detection, forecast, warning, and mitigation program. S. 50 (amended) also would
have authorized establishment of an International Tsunami Warning Center for the
CRS-23
Pacific for monitoring tsunamis and issuing warnings for U.S. trust territories in the
far Pacific, and establish a clearinghouse for tsunami-related information accessible
to ITSU members’ states. The committee amendment was adopted in the nature of
a substitute bill. During mark up of S. 50 (amended), Senator Stevens stated that
NOAA would have to notify Congress if a DART buoy were to stop functioning so
that arrangement for a replacement could be made and deployed expeditiously.
Further, the committee amendment would have authorized $5 million annually for
an “integrated coastal vulnerability and adaption program.” S. 50 ( amended) was
reported favorably to the full Senate on March 10, 2005. The written report of the
committee (S.Rept. 109-59) was issued on April 19, 2005. No further legislative
action occurred.
H.R. 1674 (Boehlert). H.R. 1674, the United States Tsunami Warning
Education Act of 2005, was closely related to S. 50. The House bill directed the
National Weather Service to strengthen tsunami detection, forecasts and warnings,
and increase support for related disaster mitigation activities. Its primary provision
was to upgrade and expand the U.S. warning network for the Pacific, to include U.S.
territories, the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea.
Introduced on April 18, 2004, H.R. 1674 was referred to the House Committee on
Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, which marked
up the bill on April, 20, 2005. A full Science Committee markup was held on May
4, 2005. The bill was reported by the House Science Committee on September 28,
2006 (H.Rept. 109-698). The bill passed the House (amended) on December 6, 2006,
by voice vote, and then the Senate on December 9, 2006, by unanimous consent. The
President is expected to sign the bill into law.
H.R. 1674 encourages cooperation between NOAA, the USGS, and the NSF,
in establishing an international (tsunami) research program. It sought to (1) improve
coordination for tsunami and other coastal hazards warnings at federal, state, and
international government levels; (2) educate for public preparedness; and (3) aid in
establishing a multinational regional tsunami warning network for countries bounded
on the Indian Ocean. Further, the bill would have encouraged the mutual sharing of
related data among countries that are members of a “Global Tsunami and Warning
Mitigation Network.” It also provided for developing educational and outreach
activities for U.S. populations-at-risk, and would have authorized $30 million for
each of FY2006-FY2008 to carry out the act. In addition, H.R. 1674 would have
allocated 70% of spending to upgrade operations and management of the U.S.
network; 20% for mitigation programs; and 10% for an international tsunami
research program. In the 110th Congress, lawmakers may initiate oversight hearings
to assess the National Weather Service progress in implementing various provisions
of the act.
Conclusion
Decisions about whether and how to proceed with establishing an international
tsunami early warning system for the Indian Ocean (and elsewhere) have been
considered complicated for number of reasons. One reason is the number of different
international users that would be collecting and analyzing data and receiving or
CRS-24
disseminating tsunami warnings. A second reason is the financial resources needed
to establish and maintain regional tsunami warning systems over the long-term. A
third reason is that some nations in the Indian Ocean charge for real-time access to
critical satellite data that could help to detect and track tsunamis or in executing post-
disaster assessments. Although some Members of Congress contend that the costs of
acquiring those data could be well worth it in terms of lives saved, others assert that
the licensing requirements and costs of acquiring real-time proprietary data could be
prohibitive. Still others are of the opinion that access to global environmental data
should be open and free of charge, especially when countries like the United States
have provided involved nations disaster relief, or are underwriting tsunami detection
and warning activities in the Indian Ocean.56
International science and engineering institutions, including NOAA and NASA,
have alluded to the challenges of standardizing tsunami detection instrumentation and
related technologies for remote sensing and data telemetry. Others have noted the
long-term operations and maintenance requirements of a global tsunami warning
network. Still others cite national security issues and compromise of intelligence-
gathering operations, especially if there is “open” multinational access to established
telecommunications networks.
Some U.S. lawmakers still question the risk of a tsunami hitting the U.S.
Atlantic coast.57 They have argued that because the probability is low, the risk factor
should guide the scale of development and investment in a cooperative early tsunami
warning system for the U.S. eastern seaboard. NOAA scientists argue that the risk
exists. There are historical records of tsunamis occurring on the Atlantic coast and
in the Caribbean Seas as well as empirical evidence.
Many international scientific and engineering experts have considered the Bush
Administration action plan for a U.S. tsunami early warning network as a viable
model for different regions of the globe. Countries who currently rely on the U.S.
program for their tsunami warnings unquestionably have supported plans to expand
and upgrade U.S. tsunami detection and warning capabilities. Many Members of
Congress who have backed the President’s plan had or have since introduced
legislation to implement actions necessary for protection of U.S. coastlines and those
of the trust territories.
Funding has been forthcoming. The President’s initial appeal for upgrading
U.S. tsunami early warning capabilities was nearly $30 million for FY2005-FY2006.
The 109th Congress initially approved $25.4 million, which was appropriated in H.R.
1268, the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-13). It
also adopted a Senate amendment to S. 50, which provided an additional $2.7 million
to fund international “in country” sociological needs, such as public education and
adaptation strategies to complement the technological ones. That funding was
obligated in lieu of appropriations for FY2006.
56 Gregg Withee, January 5, 2005 House briefing.
57 USGS, Earthquake Hazards Program, “Off W Coast of Northern Sumatra, Can It Happen
in the United States?” at [http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/usslav/canit.html],
visited Feb. 17, 2005.
CRS-25
For FY2007, the President requested $12.5 million to complete expansion and
upgrades of the U.S. network by mid-2007. If Congress approves that request, the
federal government will have committed almost $40 million to improve early
tsunami warnings for the U.S. mainland, Hawaii, and territorial waters.
Since February 2005, the United States has taken great strides to define its role
and responsibilities for tsunami protection in the global context. It has supported
international efforts through the U.S. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Committee
(IOC) with financial resources and technological advice, and has participated in
international planning and development for a global tsunami warning network.
Development of an international warning system for the Indian Ocean has proceeded
along similar time frames as the U.S. effort. Also, the United States is loaning two
second generation DART buoys to contribute to a growing IOTWS network in the
northeastern Indian Ocean, expanding involvement in tsunami protection for non-
U.S. nations outside the Pacific Basin.
IOC members are also anxious for launch of the Global Earth Observation
System of Systems (GEOSS), an initiative led by NOAA. Some countries propose
to “piggy back” on GEOSS in order to develop their own tsunami early warning
capabilities. Short of financial support, some countries may contribute in their own
capacity through exchange of data and information or with in kind services.
Suggestions have included requesting national fleet assets to deploy and
decommission tsunami monitoring and detection equipment. They also encourage
nations with fewer resources to contribute manpower to a “corps” responsible for
maintenance-related assistance necessary to sustain a long-term multinational effort
for tsunami protection. This model is not exclusive to global tsunami detection and
warning, but would also be beneficial for building, operating, and maintaining any
ocean observation network of global scope. NOAA officials and other international
scientific and engineering agencies are concerned that without deployment of
GEOSS, a “truly global” tsunami warning system may never be realized.
With the recent passage of H.R. 1674, the U.S. Tsunami Warning and Education
Act, Congress has authorized an average of $27 million per year over the next five
years. (See “109th Congress,” above.) If funded at those levels, NOAA officials
believe that there may be sufficient resources to (1) finish deployment of DART
buoys in U.S. waters; strengthen the National Tsunami Warning and the National
Tsunami Mitigation programs; and foster expanded partnerships between the
National Weather Service and U.S. states through the TsunamiReady program. Other
are more optimistic and believe the funding might go a long way in supporting long-
term maintenance of the U.S. tsunami early warning network; be sufficient to cover
U.S. costs and advice in building an international infrastructure for tsunami warnings
around the Indian Ocean. However, U.S. efforts alone cannot not ensure longevity
of global operations.