    [Senate Hearing 115-500]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-500

     THE ROLE OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE IN
     PREPARING FOR AND RESPONDING TO NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS, AS WELL AS THE
                CURRENT STATUS OF MAPPING AND MONITORING SYSTEMS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 30, 2018

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

                                 ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     28-697                   WASHINGTON : 2020

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TINA SMITH, Minnesota

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
                    Annie Hoefler, Professional Staff Member
                 Mary Louise Wagner, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
              Camille Touton, Democratic Professional Staff Member
                  Rebecca Bonner, Democratic Legislative Aide

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      Washington.....................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Applegate, Dr. David, Associate Director for Natural Hazards,
      U.S. Geological Survey.........................................     5
    Casamassa, Glenn, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
      U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............    11
    Branson, Hon. Pat, Mayor, City of Kodiak, Alaska.................    23
    Norman, David K., State Geologist, Washington Geological Survey,
      Department of Natural Resources................................    39
    West, Dr. Michael, Alaska State Seismologist, Alaska Earthquake
      Center, and Research Associate Professor, Geophysical
      Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks......................    44
    Berry, Karen, State Geologist and Director, Colorado Geological
      Survey at the Colorado School of Mines, and President-Elect,
      Association of American State Geologists.......................    55

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Applegate, Dr. David:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        Written Testimony............................................     7
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    82
    Berry, Karen:
        Opening Statement............................................    55
        Written Testimony............................................    57
    Branson, Hon. Pat:
        Opening Statement............................................    23
        Written Testimony............................................    25
        Map entitled ``Maximum Estimated Tsunami Inundation, Kodiak
          Area, Alaska''.............................................    38
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
    Casamassa, Glenn:
        Opening Statement............................................    11
        Written Testimony............................................    13
        Slides.......................................................    18
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    89
    CoreLogic:
        Letter for the Record........................................    94
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Norman, David K.:
        Opening Statement............................................    39
        Written Testimony............................................    41
    West, Dr. Michael:
        Opening Statement............................................    44
        Written Testimony............................................    46

     THE ROLE OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE IN
     PREPARING FOR AND RESPONDING TO NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS, AS WELL AS THE
                CURRENT STATUS OF MAPPING AND MONITORING SYSTEMS

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning. The Committee will come to
    order.
        We are here for two purposes this morning. Our first task
    is a business meeting to report four nominations and ratify
    Subcommittee assignments for our new members, Senator Capito
    and Senator Smith. We are awaiting a quorum. We need two more
    or, maybe, three more now. So what I intend to do is go ahead
    and begin our full Committee hearing on natural hazards and
    then if we are able to find a quorum this morning we will take
    a quick break, conduct that business and then get back to you.
        Our focus this morning is on volcanoes, earthquakes,
    landslides, tsunamis, and avalanches--natural hazards that many
    Americans experience on a somewhat regular basis and the
    measures being taken to minimize risks from those hazards.
        We had an opportunity just yesterday, in speaking with the
    Mayor of Kodiak who is here as one of our witnesses today, but
    we had a very timely event just last week. We had a magnitude
    7.9 earthquake that struck off the coast of Alaska, about 175
    miles southeast of Kodiak, in the Gulf of Alaska. And it was
    just a little bit after midnight that the earthquake struck,
    about 12:30. A lot of folks were already in bed. That was the
    Monday of the government shutdown, Monday evening.
        But thanks to the good work from the Alaska and National
    Earthquake Centers and the National Tsunami Warning Center, a
    tsunami alert was issued and communities from Chignik to
    Cordova to Kodiak evacuated to higher ground. It is reassuring
    to know that the Earthquake and Tsunami Centers, who provide
    critical information for life-saving purposes, were not
    impacted by the shutdown.
        We worked real quickly to make sure--is everybody up? Is
    everybody doing what they were supposed to be doing, even in
    the midst of a shutdown? So thank you for that.
        We do understand that the earthquake caused some damage,
    including in Kodiak, but the tsunami associated with it was
    quite small and that means that, basically, we just got lucky
    and the people of, not only Kodiak, but many of our coastal
    communities just felt like they just got lucky.
        And as many Alaskans know, that is not always the case. In
    2015, we had 53 landslides that came down in Sitka, Alaska,
    including one that tragically claimed three lives. Earlier this
    winter, Alaska lost a member of the skiing community to an
    avalanche in Hatcher's Pass, right in Anchorage's backyard.
        I am frequently reminded of the magnitude 9.2 earthquake
    that struck Alaska on Good Friday back in 1964. It is the
    largest earthquake to ever hit North America and coupled with
    tsunamis, it claimed 131 lives and caused significant,
    widespread damage. We had an opportunity to look at some of
    those pictures from that massive earthquake and tsunami.
        Of course, Alaska is not the only state to face these
    hazards. Last month, mudslides in southern California claimed
    the lives of 21 people and caused millions of dollars of
    damage. I know that Senator Cantwell will speak on the
    landslide that occurred in Oso a few years ago. We have had
    discussions about that horrible tragedy and the fact that it
    took 43 lives. But also an imminent disaster, if you will, one
    that is about to give way at Rattlesnake Ridge in Washington
    State that everyone is watching very, very closely.
        The good news is that our federal, state, and local
    partners are developing the tools and maps needed to better
    understand these natural hazards, in an effort to give more
    advanced warning to communities in danger. Those include
    seismic monitors for earthquakes, elevation mapping to mark out
    slopes vulnerable to landslides, cameras on volcanoes, sensors
    along rivers and coasts, and tidal monitors to help detect
    tsunamis.
        Some operations are, of course, more advanced than others.
    The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) National Earthquake
    Information Center is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It
    maintains hundreds of seismic monitors across the country.
        But out at the Bogoslof Volcano on the Aleutian Chain,
    which erupted for about eight months last year--so eight months
    it just kept going and spewing--we watched the activity, but we
    effectively had to rely on satellite data to alert pilots of
    the ash clouds because there is no monitor on that particular
    volcano.
        I am one of several members who have introduced legislation
    to address those gaps. We have two bills, the National Volcano
    Early Warning and Monitoring System Act and the National
    Landslide Preparedness Act. These are already included in our
    Energy and Natural Resources Act, which is awaiting
    consideration on the Senate floor.
        This morning, we will learn about the need for better
    monitoring and mapping to provide as much of a warning of
    natural hazards events as possible and to reduce impacts to
    life and property.
        Now, before I turn to Senator Cantwell for her opening
    remarks, I would like to acknowledge the President's intent to
    nominate James Reilly, a geologist and an astronaut, to be the
    Director of the USGS. I look forward to receiving his paperwork
    and considering him before the Committee.
        Finally, I would like to acknowledge Chairman Thune of the
    Commerce Committee. He worked with us to ensure that tsunamis
    could be included as part of our hearing. NOAA, which falls
    under Commerce's jurisdiction, is the lead federal agency on
    tsunamis, but we are glad to be discussing that issue this
    morning, particularly given the issue in Alaska last week.
        With that, I will turn to you, Senator Cantwell, for your
    comments.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
    holding this hearing of great importance to both of our states
    and to the nation. Earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides,
    avalanches, and tsunamis are a potential impact to millions of
    Americans each year.
        I would also like to thank one of our witnesses for being
    here, Mr. Dave Norman, from the State of Washington. He is our
    state geologist, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
        Washington, like Alaska, has its share of natural hazards.
    Washington has five high- to very-high-threat volcanoes, that
    includes Mount Rainier which is considered the nation's most
    dangerous. USGS estimates that within a person's lifetime there
    is a one in seven chance that Mount Rainier will erupt.
        Volcano monitoring at these sites is almost non-existent.
    That is why at Glacier Peak and Mount Baker, which only has one
    seismometer, we need to have at least five, to ensure the
    proper early warning systems in case of eruption.
        The Cascadia Subduction Zone also poses a serious
    earthquake and tsunami risk to Washington State. I know many
    people around the country were shocked to read the New Yorker
    article on ``The Big One'' and see the level of devastation
    that it might cause. I guarantee you, the State of Washington
    is working very hard on a preparation plan, but we need help
    and support at all levels.
        I have worked very closely with the Chairwoman here, and my
    colleagues also on Commerce, to secure the best technology to
    help identify the risk associated with the Cascadia fault. We
    still have a long way to go with our communities to prepare for
    these very unique hazards.
        In addition, the Chair mentioned Rattlesnake Ridge, a
    landslide outside Yakima, Washington, that is moving 2.5 inches
    every day. It is not a question of whether there will be a
    major landslide there, but a question of when.
        The Chair also mentioned Oso, the devastating mudslide that
    happened in Washington State, killing many Washingtonians. Just
    today, the National Weather Service announced that recent rains
    have increased the chance of landslides in Western Washington.
        So these changes in weather events, where we have more
    intense rain, where you can have double of what people have
    seen in the past on any given day, means that we have to think
    differently about our warning system as it relates to
    landslides.
        Natural hazards are unpreventable, but the more we know
    about the science and the causes of hazards, the better we can
    prepare for these events and build more resilient and safer
    communities. Our states play a leadership role in this, but the
    USGS is absolutely a critical partner in monitoring and
    responding to these hazards.
        Last week, with Alaska's experience of an 8.0 magnitude
    earthquake followed by a tsunami warning/watch that extended
    all across the Pacific, NOAA and USGS transmitted alerts after
    the earthquake, but there is more that we can do to ensure
    timely and effective warning communication so that it reaches
    all people within the tsunami zones, especially those in rural
    areas.
        I am proud of the work we were able to do on the Tsunami
    Warning Education and Research Act, S. 533, last Congress in
    addition to ensuring investments in DART buoy systems and
    network science. It also increases preparedness funding to
    states and calls for more coordination between USGS, NOAA and
    their tsunami programs.
        This DART system is what gives us the information after an
    earthquake about what the wave size might actually be and that
    way we can translate that information into our citizens on what
    they need to do to prepare. Obviously, we have had a couple
    incidents that show us that we need to continue to build out on
    that.
        Looking to the array of natural disasters facing Washington
    and Alaska and the U.S., I am working to secure passage of the
    National Landslide Preparedness Act. I am also pleased to be a
    co-sponsor of Senator Murkowski's National Volcano and Early
    Warning Monitoring System and a co-sponsor of Senator
    Feinstein's National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
    Reauthorization Act.
        So, as the Chair said, there are many issues. We all look
    forward to hearing your testimony but also just helping our
    communities better prepare for these natural disasters in the
    future.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        We will now go to our witnesses. Again, if we do have
    additional members come that establishes a quorum, I hope you
    will not take offense that you might be interrupted, but I
    appreciate your flexibility here.
        The Committee is joined this morning by a very
    distinguished panel.
        We have Dr. David Applegate, who is the Associate Director
    for Natural Hazards at the U.S. Geological Survey. We welcome
    you to the Committee.
        Mr. Glenn Casamassa has been before us in prior hearings.
    He is the Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest System
    at the U.S. Forest Service with the Department of Agriculture.
        I mentioned in my opening statement that we are joined
    today by the Mayor of Kodiak, the City of Kodiak, the Honorable
    Pat Branson. Thank you for traveling the distance that you have
    and for joining us to share the comments from a community that
    was just recently impacted.
        Mr. Dave Norman was introduced by Senator Cantwell. He is
    the State Geologist at the Department of Natural Resources in
    the Washington Geological Survey. Welcome to the Committee.
        Dr. Mike West is the State Seismologist at the Alaska
    Earthquake Center. We anticipate that you do not have very good
    sleep many nights.
        [Laughter.]
        But we appreciate the good job that you do.
        And Ms. Karen Berry, who is the State Geologist and
    Director at the Colorado Geological Survey at the Colorado
    School of Mines. She is also the President-Elect for the
    Association of American State Geologists. We appreciate your
    leadership in these areas.
        With that, Mr. Applegate, if you would like to begin. We
    ask you to keep your comments to about five minutes. Your full
    statements will be incorporated as part of the record.
        Welcome.

       STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID APPLEGATE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
                NATURAL HAZARDS, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        Dr. Applegate. Great, thank you.
        Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and
    the members of the Committee for holding this hearing.
        My name is Dave Applegate, and I'm the Associate Director
    for Natural Hazards at the U.S. Geological Survey.
        Every day, people and communities across the nation face
    risks associated with natural hazards that threaten lives,
    livelihoods and the infrastructure that underpins our economy
    and our way of life.
        The strength of the USGS is in the range of scientific
    capabilities and partnerships that we bring to bear to deliver
    information to first responders, decision-makers, and the
    public across a wide range of natural hazards.
        USGS and our partner-run monitoring networks enable rapid
    situational awareness tools for effective response, while our
    hazard and risk assessments and scenarios help communities
    understand and mitigate their exposure before the disaster
    happens. These products are underpinned by targeted research to
    improve our understanding and to maintain world-class
    expertise.
        A variety of USGS capabilities that serve multiple missions
    also contribute. For example, improved elevation data through
    3DEP and geologic mapping enable new discoveries of faults,
    landslides, and deposits from volcanic eruptions.
        For our science to make a difference to society, it is
    essential that we engage directly with users to shape how we
    collect and deliver information so that people, businesses, and
    all levels of government are more effectively able to assess
    their risks and build more resilient communities. And we can't
    do that without our state and university partners, several of
    whom are here today.
        For earthquakes, we're testing the bounds of how fast we
    can deliver actionable information. We're working with states,
    university partners and private foundations to develop an
    earthquake early warning system, called ShakeAlert, for the
    West Coast and we're working with private firms and public
    agencies to integrate those warnings into automated systems and
    emergency announcements. Through new funding directed by
    Congress in recent years, the system is now about half
    completed and we expect to begin limited public alerting by the
    end of the year. When completed, this technology is expandable
    to other regional networks of the USGS Advanced National
    Seismic System, such as Alaska, Nevada, and Utah.
        Last week's Alaska earthquake was a reminder of the threat
    posed by subduction zones, those areas where two tectonic
    plates collide and one is driven beneath the other generating
    the largest earthquakes and many of the world's volcanoes.
        The Pacific Ocean's Ring of Fire includes zones off Alaska
    and the Pacific Northwest's Cascadia. Also, Puerto Rico and the
    U.S. Virgin Islands are atop a subduction zone in the
    Caribbean.
        This past June, the USGS released a science plan that lays
    out an achievable vision for addressing the hazards associated
    with subduction zones. The plan defines science priorities and
    identifies potential partnerships to advance observations and
    modeling, quantify hazards and risks and provide forecasts.
        From Northern California to the Aleutians, volcanic hazards
    pose immediate threats to nearby communities and also produce
    ash clouds that disrupt international air traffic. Fast-moving
    debris flows of volcanic material, known as lahars, threaten
    communities downslope.
        In Washington State, the USGS and Pierce County are working
    together to establish a lahar detection and warning system for
    all major drainages of Mt. Rainier. When completed, it will
    serve as a model for protecting populations at risk of lahars
    from other volcanoes. The USGS is currently finalizing a
    Congressionally-mandated report that specifies the
    implementation plan for a National Volcano Early Warning System
    that will ensure that all volcanoes in the U.S. are monitored
    at levels commensurate with their threat.
        In Alaska, USGS science and hazard monitoring operations
    focus on threats from a wide range of hazards. Congress
    directed the USGS to provide an implementation plan including
    cost estimates for the adoption of future seismic stations--the
    relevant ones being those of the National Science Foundation's
    transportable array currently deployed across Alaska for a
    period of two years. The USGS plan provides a detailed strategy
    and costs, prioritizing the retention of the TA equipment,
    upgrades at permanent stations of the Alaska Seismic Network
    and Alaska Volcano Observatory Network, plus other high-value
    stations for monitoring the most threatening volcanoes in the
    state.
        USGS is also prioritizing the update of the Alaska Seismic
    Hazard Model, which is the basis for earthquake-safe
    construction statewide, and its results will be applicable to
    other subduction zone environments including Cascadia and
    Puerto Rico.
        With that, I thank you for the opportunity to share some of
    current USGS activities that are helping make communities and
    the nation safer and more resilient. Happy to answer questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Applegate follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Applegate.
        Mr. Casamassa, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF GLENN CASAMASSA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
        FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                              AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Casamassa. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Cantwell,
    members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    regarding natural hazards on National Forest System lands,
    specifically around our efforts to monitor, mitigate, and
    forecast avalanches along with our use of mapping and
    monitoring systems.
        I'm not going to spend much time on issues that relate to
    areas that USGS has covered, but I will say that the Forest
    Service actively manages public and employee vulnerabilities
    associated with these natural hazards.
        The Forest Service relies on geospatial technology and
    geographic information systems, remote sensing and real-time
    sensors such as stream gauges, weather stations, lightning
    detection, infrared heat detection systems, aerial images and,
    of course, our experienced cadre of field technicians,
    professionals and partners.
        Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey routinely share
    base data to reduce duplication and generate values under the
    collect once, use many, principles. Our Geospatial Technology
    and Application Center in Salt Lake City is also collaborating
    with the U.S. Geological Survey and others in the Interior
    Department to build a more efficient and effective hazard
    vulnerability assessment tool.
        With respect to the Forest Service Avalanche Safety
    Program, we are deeply committed to this program which was
    founded approximately 80 years ago. Unfortunately, avalanches
    kill more people on National Forests than any other natural
    hazard. Each winter, on the average of 25 to 30 people are
    killed by avalanches in the United States. This is why the
    Forest Service has traditionally been and continues to be the
    lead agency for avalanche safety.
        Work and sport in avalanche country revolves around a tight
    knit community of which the Forest Service is proud to support
    and be a part of. Each avalanche death is felt profoundly. This
    year's victims so far include a well-known and respected skier
    in Alaska, prominent young skiers in Montana and Colorado, and
    experienced snowmobile and motorized snow bikers in Wyoming,
    Idaho, and Montana.
        The Forest Service avalanche program consists of two
    primary parts. First, we operate a Military Artillery for
    Avalanche Control Program in close coordination with several of
    the ski areas on National Forest System lands. Second, we
    maintain a network of 13 backcountry avalanche forecasting
    operations. I'll discuss each a little bit separately.
        The Military Artillery for Avalanche Control Program
    protects the skiing public by utilizing U.S. Army surplus
    howitzers to trigger avalanches. Nationally, this program
    involves close coordination between the Department of the Army,
    the Forest Service, several departments of transportation
    including Alaska, Washington and Colorado, and Forest Service
    permitted ski areas in a wide variety of Western states.
        A 2017 Interagency Agreement between the Department of the
    Army and the Forest Service guides the program's operation. The
    program is highly valued by the participating ski areas. As
    such, these ski areas cover its entire operating cost which is
    approximately $750,000 per year.
        The second Forest Service avalanche safety program includes
    avalanche information and education to the public. This is one
    of the most visible public safety programs run by our agency
    and is an excellent example of a robust and successful public-
    private partnership. The program is comprised of 13 Forest
    Service Avalanche Centers as well as our partners at the
    Colorado Avalanche Information Center, the American Avalanche
    Association, and several non-profit avalanche centers. Each
    operation is managed locally and partially supported
    financially by affiliated, non-profit friends' groups.
        In order to better communicate all the avalanche
    information to the public, the Forest Service has partnered
    with the American Avalanche Association to develop and maintain
    avalanche.org. Avalanche.org connects the public to backcountry
    avalanche information and education in the United States and
    represents a series of collaboration and partnerships that span
    more than 25 independent operations in 12 states. This
    initiative also provides a home for the development of
    technologies which improve our ability to forecast and
    communicate avalanche hazards.
        The Forest Service recently published a peer-reviewed
    article in a journal, Wilderness and Environmental Medicine,
    that rigorously analyzed avalanche fatality over the past 20
    years. This statistical analysis demonstrated that while the
    number of backcountry users has increased by at least a factor
    of eight, the number of avalanche fatalities during that time
    has remained unchanged with about 25 to 30 fatalities per year.
        While we are not satisfied until we can further reduce the
    avalanche fatality rate, this represents success both for our
    avalanche program and also for the safety gear manufacturers
    and educators. The USDA Forest Service is committed to public
    safety and partnering to ensure resources and evolving
    technologies are available and used to enhance planning,
    forecasting and protecting lives.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Casamassa follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Casamassa.
        Mayor Branson, welcome to the Committee.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. PAT BRANSON, MAYOR,
                         CITY OF KODIAK, ALASKA

        Ms. Branson. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Cantwell. It's an honor to be invited here today to testify on
    these important issues.
        With your permission, I would like to submit written
    testimony for the record and provide a brief summary in my
    remarks.
        Kodiak people have a long history with preparedness and
    resiliency in the face of natural disasters and geographic
    challenges. In fact, the City of Kodiak was founded in the wake
    of a natural disaster. In 1788, Russian colonists were forced
    to abandon their original settlement on Southern Kodiak Island
    and move their capital to the location of our present-day city
    when a massive earthquake and series of tsunamis destroyed
    their homes and infrastructure in Three Saints Bay.
        We have learned through many brushes with disasters that
    readiness is a community responsibility. We all have crucial
    roles to play. We, on the Kodiak archipelago, including our six
    remote villages, believe that if you are prepared an emergency
    event need not become a crisis.
        At 12:32 a.m., one week ago, Kodiak received a wake-up
    call. We were jolted awake by a magnitude 7.9 earthquake only
    175 miles away and within moments our community sprang into
    action. Our tsunami alert sirens were activated, the Incident
    Management Team was assembled and rapidly opened the
    Interagency Emergency Operation Center and our first responders
    went to work protecting community assets and shepherding our
    citizens to safety.
        This event was truly an eye-opening incident for us
    because, though we were hit by a series of minor tsunamis
    generated by this quake, there was no loss of life. And
    importantly, it gave an opportunity to evaluate our response
    and realize that we have critical infrastructure and emergency
    preparedness needs we must address before the next incident
    occurs.
        One essential need and safety priority is our fire station.
    Along with protecting the City of Kodiak, the Kodiak Fire
    Department provides all emergency medical services and
    transports on the Kodiak road system and mutual aid outside the
    city, including to our local United States Coast Guard base,
    the largest in the country. However, the fire station is a 60-
    years-plus-old structure and the 1964 tsunami came within 10
    feet of inundating this facility. Fortunately, this time, we
    were not hit by a sizable tsunami, but once the all clear was
    given and the firefighters returned to the station, we
    discovered that it had sustained significant structural damage
    from the quake itself with the full extent of this damage yet
    to be realized until the building finishes settling after most
    recent tremors. What we do know, however, is that a new fire
    hall is needed immediately.
        Another area of concern is our emergency communications
    abilities. Patrol officers of the Kodiak Police Department were
    forced to repeatedly traverse inundation zones to use the PA
    systems in their squad cars advising people to get out and get
    to higher ground because Kodiak does not have an integrated
    tsunami PA system.
        Due to funding shortfalls at the state level, our Alaska
    State Trooper post has been greatly reduced, and we needed to
    deploy our city police force outside their jurisdiction to
    assist in evacuations of citizens living in this area which
    further reduced the number of officers available within the
    city. While Kodiak has been diligent in utilizing its limited
    resources and personnel to maintain our emergency response
    capability, we have some glaring shortfalls in communications
    equipment and public safety infrastructure. The cost of
    eliminating these shortfalls is now in excess of $15 million.
        The Trump Administration has recently circulated an outline
    for a future infrastructure initiative. Under this proposal, 25
    percent of the total package would be dedicated to rural
    infrastructure programs and it contemplates a broad range of
    eligible activities.
        We believe that any proposal crafted by Congress should
    also include emergency response equipment and public safety
    buildings. In earthquake and tsunami zones, such as Kodiak,
    being prepared is a necessary and vital component of
    maintaining the safety of our residents and local economies.
    From our own personal experience, both historically and just
    from one week ago, we cannot emphasize enough the critical
    importance of adding emergency preparedness infrastructure to
    the scope of any infrastructure package.
        Thank you for this opportunity to speak about our
    community.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Branson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mayor, we appreciate it so much.
        Mr. Norman, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF DAVID K. NORMAN, STATE GEOLOGIST, WASHINGTON
           GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Norman. Thank you.
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the
    Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am
    Dave Norman, the Washington State Geologist representing the
    Washington Geological Survey, a division of the Department of
    Natural Resources. I'm also the Chair of the Geological Hazards
    Committee for the Association of American State Geologists. I'm
    excited for this opportunity to share some of my views and tell
    you about some of the geological hazards in Washington State.
    On a personal note, I'm also keenly interested in Alaska
    geological hazards, as I have a daughter, a son-in-law and a
    grandson living in Kenai and they certainly were awakened the
    other night.
        Washington is one of the most at-risk states for a variety
    of geological hazards including earthquakes, tsunamis,
    volcanoes and landslides. Recent events in Washington and other
    parts of the world have highlighted the important role and need
    for better and more compelling information that can help
    prevent or minimize the loss of life, reduction of property
    value and serious disruptions to Washington's and the nation's
    economy.
        Washington is the second most at-risk state for
    earthquakes, and the active subduction zone off the Washington
    coast can cause a magnitude 9 earthquake and deliver a tsunami
    to coastal areas in fewer than 30 minutes. In addition to the
    Cascadia subduction zone, Washington has many more active
    faults capable of widespread damage, including the Seattle
    Fault zone.
        We frequently collaborate with the USGS and FEMA to learn
    more about earthquake hazards, and the data we generate informs
    building code updates that result in reduced damage and lives
    saved during the next earthquake.
        We encourage reauthorization of The National Earthquake
    Hazard Reduction Program as it is important to Washington and
    the nation to help provide funding, maintain expertise, reduce
    damage and save lives.
        Tsunamis pose a great hazard because they arrive quickly
    and because they can be large, with tsunami waves being as high
    as 70 feet in some areas of Washington. We need look no further
    for an example of the damage a large subduction zone earthquake
    and tsunami can do than the 2011 Tohoku tsunami in Japan that
    caused over $300 billion in damage and had over 15,000
    fatalities.
        Reauthorization of the Tsunami Warning Education and
    Research Act is a critical part of continuing to provide safety
    for Washington's and the nation's citizens. We thank you for
    reauthorization of this important Act.
        With regards to volcano hazards, Washington is home to 4 of
    the 18 ``Very High Threat'' volcanoes in the United States.
    This number includes Mount Rainier, which is considered the
    most dangerous volcano due to the size of the at-risk
    population in the Puget Sound, and Mount St. Helens, as well as
    Mount Baker and Glacier Peak. All could erupt again in our
    lifetimes, and the consequences would likely be high.
        With the exception of Mount St. Helens, these Very High
    Threat volcanoes are moderately to significantly under-
    monitored relative to their risk. Passage of the National
    Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Act is important to
    Washington and the nation as it will help fund additional
    monitoring and collaboration with the USGS and communities
    along these populated corridors on the flanks of these
    volcanoes.
        With regards to landslides, Washington is one of the most
    landslide-prone states and has hundreds of thousands of known
    and unknown landslides. Some of these landslides have been
    record setting in terms of size, damage and lives lost, such as
    the Oso landslide in 2014 that caused 43 fatalities. More
    recently, the ongoing Rattlesnake Hills landslide has caused
    evacuation of 60 people from their homes and threatens I-82
    with closure. The landslide is moving at about three inches per
    day currently, but it is no longer accelerating. It is
    currently being monitored using a variety of methods.
        We encourage passage of the Landslide Preparedness Act as
    it is important because landslides are among the most
    frequently-occurring natural hazards in the nation and this
    will provide funding for improved landslide inventories, hazard
    maps, research and monitoring equipment that allows us to learn
    more about these landslides and save lives and money. Having
    USGS as a partner and available for collaboration is critical
    during these events.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Norman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Norman.
        Dr. West, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL WEST, ALASKA STATE SEISMOLOGIST,
      ALASKA EARTHQUAKE CENTER, AND RESEARCH ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
         GEOPHYSICAL INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS

        Dr. West. Thank you, Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Cantwell, members of the Committee. I'm Michael West, State
    Seismologist with the Alaska Earthquake Center and current
    Chair of the Alaska Seismic Hazard Safety Commission.
        I'm privileged to work closely with the U.S. Geological
    Survey, NOAA, and others under collaborations made possible by
    the legislation that this Committee leads.
        As you've heard from others, last Monday night my state was
    rocked by a massive earthquake. The offshore location and lack
    of major tsunamis spared us catastrophic impacts, but it is a
    sobering example of why the nation's earthquake and hazard
    programs really matter. These programs save lives. They protect
    infrastructure. They protect our economy.
        My written testimony lays out examples that address
    earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, and volcanoes. Here this
    morning I'd like to focus on the monitoring activities that
    underpin all of these.
        I want to first thank many of you for your efforts to
    reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
    (NEHRP). It was unprecedented when introduced in 1977, and it
    remains a role model program four decades later. Because of
    NEHRP, as we call it, we have open, public seismic monitoring
    networks that during last week's earthquake allowed any agency
    or even individual with an internet connection to see and
    evaluate the situation in real time.
        Under the auspices of NEHRP, in 2000, Congress authorized
    the Advanced National Seismic System, a visionary program
    founded explicitly on collaboration between the states and the
    Federal Government and the USGS to establish robust monitoring
    systems across the U.S. The program was charged with operating
    at high performance standards to create ``information products
    and services to meet the nation's needs.''
        Eighteen years later, however, we have yet to achieve many
    of those basic performance standards and nowhere is that more
    true than in Alaska. When last week's earthquake hit, much of
    Alaska's seismic monitoring network was temporarily offline as
    a result of an unrelated, modest, regional power failure. Much
    of the Alaska data and products served to the Tsunami Warning
    Centers, the National Earthquake Information Center and to
    private stakeholders, including the Alyeska Pipeline Service
    Corporation, were simply not available for an hour or more.
        We're fortunate to have some redundant capabilities between
    our respective organizations, but this was an abject failure
    and it was due to well-known vulnerabilities and outdated
    systems.
        The programs that you're considering would strengthen the
    nation's monitoring infrastructure. It's the FCC-compliant
    radio systems that would be replaced under the National Volcano
    Early Warning System. It's the backup power and communications
    that might finally be afforded under the Advanced National
    Seismic System. It's the geodetic instrumentation needed for
    more accurate tsunami assessments and earthquake early warning.
        Your efforts on NEHRP and other bills have the potential to
    reinvigorate these hazard programs and retool them for a new
    era, but only if you take the time to ensure that the new
    language and, to be frank, the funding levels, address each
    state's specific needs. So stay involved.
        So how do we move forward in the current climate? One way
    is through collaboration. Many agencies operate monitoring
    equipment. The states and USGS, of course, but also NOAA, the
    National Science Foundation (NSF), even the Air Force. We need
    collaborative projects.
        One such example, again just a sample drawn from my state,
    is the opportunity to adopt the National Science Foundation's
    USArray facility. NSF's $40-million investment in state-of-the-
    art seismic and meteorological stations is slated to be
    decommissioned in 2019. Surely we can come together, between
    agencies, state and federal, to sustain portions of this
    facility that served the needs of earthquake monitoring,
    tsunami warning, volcano hazards, weather forecasting, forest
    fire staging, aviation, and national defense. It seems like a
    no-brainer.
        To wrap up, I encourage you to always show restraint when
    authorizing new legislation, but the combined cost of these
    collaborative programs, something like $1.00 per American per
    year, is absolutely trivial compared to the impact of one major
    disaster. And without strong Congressional language, these
    collaborations stop.
        Without Congressional authority, federal agencies are
    gripped by uncertainty, uncertainty that ripples out of
    Washington into the states to people like me and ultimately it
    impacts our municipal stakeholders who are just trying to build
    safe, resilient communities. These are not partisan or even
    controversial topics. These are goals that we can all support.
        I welcome whatever questions you have today or in the
    future.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. West follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. West, we appreciate that.
        Ms. Berry, welcome to the Committee.

        STATEMENT OF KAREN BERRY, STATE GEOLOGIST AND DIRECTOR,
    COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AT THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES, AND
       PRESIDENT-ELECT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN STATE GEOLOGISTS

        Ms. Berry. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, I
    want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss mapping,
    monitoring, and mitigating geologic hazards.
        Colorado is a diverse state with the nation's highest
    elevation, wide river valleys and rugged canyons. It has
    hundreds of mountains that reach elevations of 11,000 to 14,000
    feet. Geologic hazards, such as landslides, rockfall, debris
    flows, sinkholes, expansive soil and collapsible soil are
    present in every part of the state from the plains to the
    highest peaks. My written testimony contains some examples of
    this.
        In the next three decades, Colorado's population is
    expected to increase by 40 percent. As the population increases
    in hazard-prone areas, community resilience, or the ability of
    a community to withstand the effects of a disaster, is greatly
    dependent on knowing vulnerabilities to hazards and planning
    for those hazards.
        Many communities in Colorado and throughout the nation, do
    not have the basic tools needed to build community resilience,
    a map of potential hazards and land-use plans that address
    those risks. In Colorado, only 38 percent of the state has been
    mapped at the scale needed to build community resilience.
        We have seen the lack of basic tools impact military
    families. When military personnel are transferred, they get ten
    days to find a good house in a good school district, close to a
    base, at a price they can afford, make an offer and evaluate
    the condition of the house. That's barely enough time to find a
    good real estate agent, let alone investigate potential
    geologic hazards. Military and veteran families have
    unknowingly purchased homes that were later destroyed by
    wildfire, debris flows or landslides.
        When a geologic-related disaster destroys or damages a
    community's business hub or closes a major transportation
    route, there are losses due to lost economic opportunities.
        Tourism is the largest industry in Colorado. It is
    estimated that businesses, in the mountain resort area along
    our Interstate 70 corridor, conduct $6.4 million in tourism-
    related transactions each day. It doesn't take long for a road
    closure due to an avalanche or a landslide to impact
    communities and businesses. Many cities and towns are almost
    totally dependent on revenue from tourism to fund the critical
    services they provide to their citizens.
        What is Colorado's vulnerability to geologic hazards? Since
    most of the state is not mapped, we really don't know. However,
    of the areas that are mapped, it is estimated that $2.9 billion
    in state-owned assets are vulnerable to landslides, rockfall,
    debris flow, and potentially unstable soil.
        Colorado is now analyzing vulnerability of private assets
    to known geologic hazards. Residential and commercial
    properties in Colorado are valued at $76 billion. Though our
    assessment isn't complete, we know many areas with significant
    private and public investments have significant geologic
    hazards.
        The seismic hazard in Colorado is rated low to moderate.
    However, we really don't know our risks. We have limited
    knowledge of potentially active faults, and we have a sparse
    seismic network to monitor earthquakes. The largest known
    earthquake in Colorado occurred in 1882 and had an estimated
    magnitude of 6.6. If that event were to occur today, modeling
    suggests the economic losses would exceed $22 billion, up to
    1,000 lives would be lost and 14,000 injured.
        How do we reduce risks and protect public safety? An
    insurance industry study looked at the relationship between
    state requirements for local government comprehensive plans and
    claims paid by insurance companies for losses between 1994 and
    2000. During the period studied, insurance companies paid out
    more than $26 billion for disaster-related claims to
    residential property. The study indicates that insured losses
    would have been reduced by $257 million, or one percent, excuse
    me, if all states had required consideration of natural hazards
    in local land use plans. Again, to address geologic hazards in
    a plan requires knowing where the hazards are located and what
    are the risks. Basic information many communities lack.
        We need the Committee's assistance to fill those gaps.
    Reauthorization for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping
    Program will allow state surveys and USGS to map the nation at
    the scale needed for land-use planning. Reauthorization for The
    National Earthquake Reduction Program will provide critical
    funding for research, monitoring, and mitigation, in order to
    reduce fatalities, injuries and economic losses caused by
    earthquakes. It also has an important land-use planning
    component. Without the LiDAR provided by the 3DEP program,
    state geological surveys would not be able to effectively map
    and monitor all types of geologic hazards. This program is an
    essential building block to increasing community resilience.
        Passage of and adequate funding for the National Landslide
    Preparedness Act; the proposed programs of research, mapping,
    and monitoring; combined with public education and land-use
    planning are important steps to enhance community resilience.
    The planning tools that are outlined in the Act can be used for
    other types of geologic hazards.
        In summary, the Association of American State Geologists
    encourages reauthorization of NCGMP and NEHRP and passage of
    3DEP and the National Landslide Preparedness Act into law.
        I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important
    programs with the Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Berry follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Berry.
        I appreciate the input from each of you here this morning.
    Good information and lots to talk about.
        We did have a good number of members that were here and, of
    course, my hope was that they were all captivated----
        [Laughter.]
        ----about these natural disasters that our states face, but
    it is clear that Alaska, Washington State, probably the Pacific
    Northwest, are perhaps a little more vulnerable. So don't take
    it as a lack of interest from the others.
        Some years ago, when I had just introduced the Volcano
    Monitoring System bill, Alaska was experiencing a string of
    eruptions, some that had shut down air traffic over Anchorage
    International Airport, really locked the state down. Most of us
    can remember days off work because you were not cleared to use
    your computers because the air filtration system was going to
    gum everything up and it was a real mess. I was actually mocked
    for introducing that legislation. I was ridiculed that who
    needs to watch a volcano? Who needs to monitor a volcano? This
    was a big, fat Alaskan earmark, they said. And then, the
    eruption in Iceland that shut down all of the European air
    traffic occurred and all of a sudden there was a wow, how do we
    keep on top of all this? How about that cool Volcano Monitoring
    System?
        I look back on that and think that we have come a long way
    when it comes to how we are monitoring these natural hazards,
    whether they be volcanoes or earthquakes and early warning
    systems. The issue of landslides which is more and more
    troubling, certainly tsunamis. So we have come a long way, but
    I agree there is so much more that we need to do.
        Dr. West, you speak to the issue of collaboration here
    because we have so many, we have a host of different agencies
    that are involved. We see that just represented here on the
    panel from USGS to Forest Service, to our states, to our
    universities, to our local communities. Making sure that we are
    doing right by all of this is so important.
        Let me start with you, Dr. Applegate, and this relates to
    the seismic monitors. I was pleased when I first learned the
    effort that the National Science Foundation had made in placing
    these in Alaska, and then I was deeply troubled when I learned
    that they were going to pull them all out at considerable
    expense to NSF. So you go to the effort, the financial effort,
    to install them, to gain all this important data, and then we
    are just going to pick up and leave.
        Dr. West, you have mentioned this as well. Now you have
    indicated that there is a strategy for retention of these
    stations. I have been pushing on this now for a couple years,
    but can you give me assurance that these monitors are not going
    to have to be removed at the end of the year, that the
    negotiations or the discussions with USGS and NSF and NOAA for
    the adoption of these, that we are in a good place now?
        Dr. Applegate. Chairman, this is a good government
    opportunity, as you point out. This is a significant investment
    that's been made.
        We appreciate the opportunity to have, you know, worked
    with the state, worked with private sector and others to look
    at this opportunity, understand it, prioritize it.
        So, I'll say, we've got, discussions are underway with NSF.
    The report that will be arriving as this prioritization we
    will, you know, I would say we're making a good faith effort to
    try to be able to capture as many of these as we can and----
        The Chairman. Is that based--when you say capture as many
    as we can, is that going to be determined by budget or----
        Dr. Applegate. Right.
        The Chairman. ----what exactly do you mean by that?
        Dr. Applegate. So, obviously, a key determinant of it is
    funding sources. As you indicated, it's not just about the
    USGS, it's about other agencies as well but, you know, I think
    we've laid the groundwork to know which are the ones that as we
    do have resources available, through whatever means, that we're
    capturing the ones that are most important for our earthquake
    monitoring, for tsunami monitoring, for volcano monitoring and,
    you know, for the state.
        The Chairman. Dr. West, what happens if we do not preserve
    these monitoring stations that we have? What happens to us, as
    a state? We are one-fifth of the size of the country. We have
    got a lot of area to cover and we know that we are in one of
    the most seismically active areas in the country. What happens
    if we do not make the smart funding decision here and are not
    able to protect what we put in place with this monitoring
    infrastructure?
        Dr. West. Well, we revert to where we were prior to this
    once-in-a-lifetime, sort of, opportunity which is more than
    half the state doesn't really have modern seismic
    instrumentation of any sort.
        We have, I mentioned in my testimony, consistently fallen
    short of basic performance standards that we try to achieve.
    Nationally, Alaska has areas where that has simply never been
    achieved. So we go back to there. I----
        The Chairman. And when you go back to there you put
    people's lives at risk.
        Dr. West. Well, that's right. I remain optimistic though. I
    actually think we are moving in a good direction. I'm pleased
    with the diligence that the USGS has brought to the federal
    earthquake piece of this effort. I've seen tremendous
    enthusiasm from NOAA for the tsunami and the meteorological
    components of this.
        The State of Alaska, frankly, has struggled to be a strong
    partner in this, as it could be, because of its fiscal
    situation. But that said, I firmly believe the state wants and
    needs to be engaged in this. We've had some troubles, some
    challenges, in finding a really strong, collaborative model for
    legitimate reasons, actually, but rules about, you know, fed-
    only discussions and sensitivities and what not have made it
    difficult for everyone to sit in one room and, kind of, hash
    this out. I think we still have work to do to bring NOAA into
    the fold and make sure their needs are fully addressed.
        And again, the state, I think, has potential that we've not
    yet been--we've not yet achieved. But I do think there's a path
    here.
        The Chairman. Let me ask, and I guess this is back to you
    again, Dr. Applegate, and this relates to our volcano monitors.
        They are currently operating on an analog system, and in
    2020 the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration will eliminate the frequency that is used to
    transmit that data. What progress are we making with regards to
    conversion of those to digital monitors? Can you give me a
    progress report here on how many more monitors need to be
    converted?
        Dr. Applegate. Absolutely. About 117 stations remain to be
    transferred from the older analog technology to the digital
    technology. And I'll say that there is advantage here, not only
    the issue of the spectrum availability and that driver for
    this, but this is also an upgrade in capability that will allow
    us to bring in additional data streams. So, this is, I think,
    part of that, sort of, long-term National Volcano Early Warning
    System (NVEWS) goal is to have this modernization.
        The Chairman. Are you satisfied with the progress then? Are
    we going to make that 2020 date?
        Dr. Applegate. The progress, at this point, we have been
    able to accelerate with the additional support, we've been able
    to go from, opportunistically, maybe 6 to 7 a year, up to on
    the order of 12 to 15, but there is still----
        The Chairman. That is not going to get you there.
        Dr. Applegate. Yeah, it's not going to get us there. So we
    certainly are looking at the waiver issue in terms of that
    deadline, but yeah, the progress is there but it's not,
    certainly not, going to get us to the deadline.
        The Chairman. I would like to have further conversation
    with you insofar as what you anticipate it would take, from a
    budget perspective, to accelerate this conversion. So we will
    talk further on that.
        Dr. Applegate. Yes, we can provide that.
        The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. I want to continue with you, Dr.
    Applegate.
        Can you talk about some of the things that the system
    actually does for people?
        Dr. Applegate. For the volcano system?
        Senator Cantwell. Yes.
        Dr. Applegate. Yeah.
        Well, so, I think the really key thing about volcanoes is
    that and the importance of having ground-based monitoring is to
    have that earliest detection. The way we put it is, you don't
    want to be playing catch-up with an active volcano. You want to
    be able to see that earliest unrest, earliest indications, and
    that's why it's critical to have ground-based monitoring.
        And so we have this, the NVEWS report is identifying, you
    know, with each of the volcanoes, what is the highest threat,
    which are the very highest threat volcanoes, both for local
    populations as well as for distant ones. I mean, I think the
    other key here is, as we saw with the Iceland situation,
    there's no such thing as a remote volcano because of the air
    traffic considerations.
        So we are bringing a range of different monitoring
    capabilities to bear as we can but, you know, the ground-based
    monitoring is a key piece of that. Again, to be able to provide
    as much lead time as possible as we see these potentially
    active volcanoes waking up and then, of course, to be able to
    give as good information as we can, as actionable information
    as we can, to those communities at risk.
        Senator Cantwell. I think, as you just said, that waking up
    is the issue. I'm not a scientist, but I am assuming the reason
    why we are monitoring this is to monitor the behavior of the
    volcanoes.
        I think Mount St. Helens has shown some activity of late,
    and that information allows us to look from a perspective to do
    planning and warning to the communities in case that activity
    does increase. So it is just as it says, an early warning.
        So you have told us about the importance of that. Yet, in
    the last year's budget the Administration proposed cutting that
    early warning system, including cutting funding for the
    development of a LiDAR detection at Mount Rainier. How are we
    supposed to interpret last year's request to eliminate funding
    for this system?
        Dr. Applegate. The FY18 request involved a lot of hard
    choices and essentially focused on our core monitoring
    capabilities, sort of our existing monitoring capabilities, as
    opposed to expansion of those capabilities.
        Senator Cantwell. So where is the Administration now?
        Dr. Applegate. We don't yet know what the outcome is going
    to be, certainly for '18. And you know, should Congress support
    these activities, we'd certainly follow the will of Congress,
    and the '19 budget isn't out yet.
        Senator Cantwell. I appreciate that, but I hope someone in
    the Administration watches this hearing and sees that there are
    communities here who are asking for help and resources, that
    these are serious issues and that monitoring science is a good
    thing and that it gives us a chance to be prepared.
        What I have found very much lacking in the State of
    Washington is if you don't have the information then you can't
    do any of the preparation. We already have a gap, as Mr. West
    is saying, for very logical reasons. It is very easy for a NOAA
    scientist to say to the people on Long Beach, Washington, this
    is the impact of a tsunami if it happens at this degree. But if
    you are talking about a very rural community, as Mayor Branson
    just said, who then is left to do the preparation? How are they
    supposed to do the preparation without the help? As Dr. West
    has said, there is a gap here.
        But guess what? We need good science to begin with and then
    we need to figure out how to bridge this gap.
        So, Mayor Branson, what about--we're now talking about a
    different program, but on the tsunami side. Is there not enough
    money from the Federal Government to the states? Because I
    think these are grants to the states.
        Ms. Branson. Senator Cantwell, there's never enough money--
    --
        [Laughter.]
        ----on any level. I'm not being funny here, but that's the
    truth and as most residents and, certainly, Senator Murkowski
    is very much aware, our state is having a fiscal crisis at this
    point.
        So we will be talking to the Governor. And the Governor
    graciously did call Kodiak and talk to me after the earthquake
    happened to see what we could do and what the state could do.
    So we will be revisiting with the Governor about that. And
    certainly, more help is needed financially, as well as
    education, as you just mentioned, and information to residents.
        In our debriefing with our community, we're going to go
    back and make sure that people know where to go, our residents
    know where to go, not on Pillar Mountain, but a higher ground.
    And so, this is an opportunity for not only talking to our
    community, but also talking to the federal and the state
    government about what our needs are and what our gaps are.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I certainly believe as we have
    approached the same issues in our state--and I am not sure
    which of the witnesses mentioned the Japan tsunami and the
    devastating impacts of that--but this is what we need to do.
        I certainly believe the Federal Government should step in
    and do its share. That is how we got the early warning systems
    that we have now on Long Beach and a very susceptible area of
    our state because of elevation and on the coast.
        I definitely believe that we should have an adequate
    assessment of what an early warning detection system for
    tsunami looks like. The fact that we have been able to get
    these buoys is great because it gives us time, but now we have
    to say what is the system that helps warn our citizens in a
    timely fashion and, in this case, in the middle of the night
    was a very critical issue.
        Dr. Norman, isn't part of the landslide issue getting good
    mapping and information and wouldn't this help in many parts of
    the country as we see changes in weather and more rain events
    that are causing dramatic impacts?
        Mr. Norman. Yeah, there's no question.
        The key to good--understanding landslides is, first of all,
    we found that having high resolution LiDAR, quality level one
    LiDAR is important, and then going through and doing mapping of
    the, or the inventorying of, the known landslides. Landslides
    tend to occur where landslides have been before.
        So it's one of those, but then there's also looking at the
    other terrain and steep terrain. It would benefit the entire
    country, there's no question about that. There's ground
    failures everywhere in the United States of one form or another
    and it certainly is, a key part of it is the landslide mapping
    and the geological mapping that goes along with that.
        Senator Cantwell. I think that what we are seeing is,
    again, I am pretty sure in the Oso event there was a very
    dramatic rain event, larger than what they had seen in that
    window and time period. And I see that happening in other parts
    of the United States, not just in Washington, but throughout
    the United States. So we are having a change in weather events
    that makes it very necessary to have this kind of information.
        Mr. Norman. That's true.
        The precipitation is a key factor in many landslides. The
    Oso landslide certainly had, it was a wet winter leading up to
    that. There are other landslides in our state and across the
    country that are driven by precipitation and that includes,
    certainly, when you have fires and then debris flows
    afterwards. Those are key factors in very rapid landslides that
    can occur as well.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        I am just reminded of our recent visit to Puerto Rico after
    the hurricane there took down so many of those trees. Then the
    wet season comes upon Puerto Rico and the number of landslides.
    I understand USGS has been onto the island, but yes, these
    heavy rain events that you are talking about, combined with the
    other natural disasters, is a double disaster.
        Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I think this is an important hearing, and Senator Cantwell
    has already picked up on a couple of our key issues in the
    Pacific Northwest.
        I want to start with you, if I could, Dr. Applegate. I am
    going to be on the Oregon Coast for town hall meetings this
    weekend. They will be asking me about tsunamis and my hometown,
    of course, is Portland. We have 12 major bridges spanning the
    Willamette River. We have real concerns about the capacity to
    make sure those bridges can withstand a large earthquake.
        So let me, if I might, with you Dr. Applegate, start with a
    question about the earthquake early warning systems. And
    obviously, we have these proposals to cut the budget. Could you
    tell us, if these cuts go through, what capabilities would
    suffer under the earthquake early warning system specifically?
        Dr. Applegate. So we are currently about half way toward
    the implementation for the earthquake early warning system with
    the Congressional funding support.
        What the President's, the 2018, budget would do would
    basically focus on our existing capabilities for earthquake
    monitoring. So it would not focus on the early warning system,
    it would focus on our current capabilities, what we can deliver
    now in terms of situational awareness.
        Senator Wyden. But no capabilities would suffer, in your
    view, with respect to the earthquake early warning system?
        Dr. Applegate. It's a system that is in development. It's a
    future----
        Senator Wyden. That is a yes or no question. Would any
    capabilities suffer?
        Dr. Applegate. Not current capabilities.
        Senator Wyden. Okay.
        I am going to ask you a question that I would like a
    response on in writing within a week because this is so
    important to me. Your written testimony says the early warning
    system will provide, ``an additional layer of safety and a
    significant boost in capabilities.'' Yet you seem to be
    suggesting that, well, this cut is not going to be that big a
    deal and maybe it is redundant. So I want to have you square
    your written testimony with my question. Can I have that answer
    within a week? It would go to the Chair and the Ranking
    Minority Member.
        Dr. Applegate. Absolutely.
        Senator Wyden. Great.
        Dr. Applegate. Absolutely.
        Senator Wyden. One last question, if I might then, for
    you--where is our wonderful person from the Forest Service?
    There you are, Mr. Casamassa. Thank you.
        Mr. Casamassa, as you know, we have been working hard on
    this Committee. It has been the longest running battle since
    the Trojan War to end fire borrowing and this horrible practice
    that really discourages the prevention that we need. If
    Congress fixes the Forest Service's persistent budgeting issue
    that results in fire borrowing, my view is that would allow the
    agency to have more resources available to tackle the very
    emergencies that we are talking about today. Is that a view you
    share?
        Mr. Casamassa. Well, certainly, if we did have additional
    appropriated dollars that we could allocate toward other
    programs, we could then, actually, deploy resources to look at
    and monitor and evaluate other catastrophic events.
        Senator Wyden. So fixing fire borrowing, specifically. I do
    not want to just go off into the la-la world of more resources.
    Wouldn't ending fire borrowing help you have more resources to
    address emergencies?
        Mr. Casamassa. It would make more resources available, yes.
        Senator Wyden. Right, thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, and thank
    you for holding this important hearing.
        I want to thank the witnesses today for providing important
    information on what our scientists and the government are doing
    to prepare for and mitigate natural hazards and disasters.
        I am very fortunate. I come from the beautiful and great
    State of Montana. I will say, I didn't get to pick my Montana
    ancestors, but I am sure glad they came to Montana.
        With the beauty that we have in our state, the mountains,
    rivers, the plains and, of course, our national parks, there
    are serious geological and natural hazards, such as landslides,
    avalanches, earthquakes, et cetera. I spend a lot of time
    outside when I am not in Washington, DC. I can tell you, I do
    not have a coat and tie on when I am back home. But because of
    this, it is important that the public, local businesses, ski
    resorts, local governments have the information they need to
    keep Montanans and visitors safe.
        It is also important we have the tools necessary to get
    communities back up on their feet after these hazards occur,
    specifically making sure that electricity and
    telecommunications return quickly.
        I want to thank you, Dr. Applegate and the USGS, for all
    the recent work you have done in monitoring the Yellowstone
    Caldera. I hope that our predictions are true and that the
    eruption is still hundreds of thousands of years away. However,
    your continuous monitoring and updates help put people at ease
    and will provide lifesaving information, if ever needed.
        The question I have for both Mr. Applegate and Mr.
    Casamassa--both of you spoke about the partnerships that your
    agencies engage in to provide information to the public. I know
    that Avalanche.org is an important tool for those that ski at
    our world-class resorts and world-class backcountry. Can you
    tell me some of the other partnerships you have in Montana that
    can provide information to our hikers, our hunters, our
    snowmobilers, skiers, and communities that will keep them safe?
        Let's start with you, Mr. Applegate. I should say, Dr.
    Applegate.
        Dr. Applegate. No, no, sure. No, thank you so much.
        And I'll say I got to do geologic field work in the
    Bitterroot Mountains and spectacular part of your state.
        I'm glad you mentioned Yellowstone. The Yellowstone Volcano
    Observatory is a great example of partnership involving the
    USGS, universities, but also then the state geological surveys,
    including the state survey in Montana. And that is really
    critical because, this was mentioned earlier, you know, we can
    generate scientific information, but the point is, it has to
    get to the people who need that, who have those questions. And
    so, our partnerships with the states are absolutely critical
    for that.
        Likewise with earthquake monitoring, of course, Montana has
    had, you know, back in the '50s, the Hebgen Lake earthquake.
    We're talking magnitude 7 event, so a significant earthquake
    hazard. And there again, the partnership with the Montana state
    survey has been a really important one for us.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Doctor.
        Mr. Casamassa?
        Mr. Casamassa. Senator, we have three avalanche forecast
    centers--one in Bozeman, one in Missoula and another in
    Kalispell--that provide a wide variety of information
    associated with avalanches for a whole host of uses up to and
    including hunters and fishermen who are going into those kinds
    of avalanche-prone zones.
        We do work with, you know, the Montana Fish and Game. We
    work with the Park's Snowmobile Safety Program as well as the
    State Recreation Trails Program providing that information and
    educating as many people as we can. And then in the Flathead
    area we have the Flathead Avalanche Center out of Kalispell,
    working in conjunction with the Park Service to provide that
    information up there as well.
        Senator Daines. Well the good news is we are having a very
    good snow year, snow well above average which is wonderful for
    snowpack and so forth, but we are also seeing more and more
    Montanans and others access the backcountry. The avalanche risk
    has been great this season, and we have already had some
    fatalities in Montana.
        I am grateful for those who are studying the science of
    avalanches and understanding better what really goes on, an
    incredible field of sometimes still learning about what happens
    with snow.
        What are some of the biggest hurdles the communities face
    after a disaster and how can Congress help to make sure that
    they are back up and running as soon as possible?
        Who would like to take that question? It is, kind of, open
    here to the panel.
        Ms. Branson. Thank you, Senator. I'm Pat Branson, the Mayor
    of the City of Kodiak. We just experienced an almost disaster
    last week----
        Senator Daines. Yes.
        Ms. Branson. ----12:32 in the morning on Tuesday.
        So our needs are great. I was speaking earlier about, we
    have a tsunami siren go off every Wednesday afternoon at two
    o'clock. No one pays much attention to it. I think they will
    now.
        But it's a matter of housekeeping, if you will, is that
    what we need are infrastructure support, siren support, PA
    system support and, certainly, staffing support because our
    command center, we only have people there for 24 hours. So we
    would have to call the state to make sure that they could
    provide assistance to us as well.
        So it's not just equipment. It's infrastructure as well. We
    have a 60-year-old, more than 60-year-old fire station that's
    cracking. That's why I brought the duct tape here showing that
    we can't repair things as we normally do in Alaska.
        Senator Daines. We call that cowboy chrome back in Montana.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Branson. It's Kodiak emergency preparedness.
        [Laughter.]
        Not working this time.
        So those are the kinds of things that we would need.
        We were very lucky that we had electricity. We had a phone
    system working which is how we received the tsunami warning.
        And so every community is different with their needs, but
    that's what we are looking at right now. And it's being, having
    that information, from the scientific background and from the
    different agencies and relaying that to our citizens as well
    and on a continuing basis, not just Wednesdays at two o'clock,
    but very frequently as things change.
        So those are the kinds of needs that we have and we just
    experienced, and we'll do a debriefing from our experience from
    last week.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mayor.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        I am often reminded this time of year of, again, the value
    of things like the Avalanche Monitoring, whether it is in
    Montana, Colorado, or Alaska, we have, a lot of us are skiers.
    I am not the backcountry skier that my sons are, but making
    sure that there is an understanding of avalanche extreme
    conditions and just how safe you are in the outdoors is
    something that we can never overtrain or over prepare for. So I
    appreciate your bringing that up.
        I want to ask a few questions. I love the fact that I get
    the gavel.
        [Laughter.]
        Which some would say that means you have to stay for the
    whole hearing, and that means I get to stay for the whole
    hearing.
        I have a whole series of questions that I would like to
    engage you all in, if we may. This relates to the warnings, the
    early warnings that we are talking about that can help people
    get to higher ground if there is a tsunami coming or, again,
    how we alert people.
        There have been a whole series of articles that have come
    out, post the earthquake last week. There was the discussion
    about the buoy that showed a big wave--why, in Alaska, a buoy
    showed a big wave that wasn't there--the case of the phantom
    tsunami. You have the buoy monitoring systems out there that
    register one thing, how the communication is shared.
        I was woken up on Tuesday morning to a phone that was just
    wild with communication from friends all over Alaska. But I
    got, not only the tsunami warning that came from, I guess it
    was the AlaskaLandMine.com, I don't know where that one comes
    from, but from the Tsunami Warning Center. I have one here from
    my QuakeFeed that gives me the magnitude of the different
    quakes afterwards and the timing, the emergency alert that I
    received. And then the chatter that goes on, invariably, that
    goes on because we all have access to these. And the last one
    was, this was not an official one, this was friend alert,
    ``Just heard Kodiak channel is empty.''
        So the swirl of news and, kind of, the not-so-news that is
    shared that causes anxiety, panic at times and real fear, is
    something that, I think, from an emergency management
    perspective we all want to make sure that the information that
    we are communicating is accurate and almost as instantaneous as
    we can make it.
        In one of the articles that I was reading about, and this
    goes to your comments, Dr. West, about collaboration between
    the agencies, there was a discussion about parts of the
    emergency alert system that failed.
        You have the National Tsunami Warning Center there in
    Palmer. You have the intersect with the National Weather
    Service. You have some with the EMnet, the Emergency Management
    Network, the state contracts for that service. IPAWS, or the
    Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, is run by the
    Federal Government. So you have lots of things going on at the
    same time. It is my understanding we will learn more, certainly
    about the Emergency Alert System and where we saw failures
    there.
        Mayor Branson, you mention that we got lucky here with
    this, that we did not have a tsunami. But it certainly woke the
    people of Kodiak up and I talked with the Mayor of the
    Aleutians East Borough. I know down in Sand Point, in King
    Cove, folks heard the sirens, went through the drill, went to
    higher ground. You could say it was a really good trial run in
    which we learned a lot and nobody was hurt.
        But I would like to hear, and I will open this up to all of
    you here, in terms of how we can do a better job with the
    communication that goes on.
        I understand, Dr. West, that some of Alaska's earthquake
    monitors were actually offline at the time of the quake last
    week. So I am curious to know about how that impacted anything;
    but also, the steps that we go through to notify emergency
    managers and the partnerships with NOAA when we have a tsunami
    warning, an earthquake warning. How are we doing and what do we
    need to be doing better? Because I think about your statement,
    Mayor Branson, that Tuesday, or excuse me, Wednesday at two
    o'clock everybody just hears the sirens and they think--oh,
    it's two o'clock. They don't think about tsunami. They think it
    is two o'clock. We do not want people to get numb to the
    drills, but we also do not want to overly concern people. It is
    a fine line there.
        So if we can just begin the discussion there, and I will
    let anyone jump in. Dr. Applegate, do you want to start?
        Dr. Applegate. Yeah, absolutely.
        You know, this is, it's about getting the right information
    to the right people at the right time. And that is made more
    complex by the fact that communication is no longer just a one
    way from the emergency manager, you know, to the folks.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Dr. Applegate. There's all of that interaction, person to
    person. And one of the things that we found is the criticality
    of delivering our information in multiple streams.
        So, for example, we actually will use the Twitter feeds. We
    both collect information as people, you know, they will
    themselves be feeling the shaking. You can actually watch the
    seismic waves going out as people pick that up. But we can also
    then inject our authoritative information into that
    bloodstream, as it will, of communication because people want
    the authoritative information. And it's figuring out how do we
    make sure that we get it there. And part of that is getting it
    in the form, not just the alerts that go to, you know,
    emergency management, but also getting that information out
    there, whether it's through tweets or other means.
        The Chairman. So what about the concern that comes when you
    spread it too far? The example I will use is that folks in
    Anchorage where my husband was that night, our home there, they
    get the tsunami alert. They do not need the tsunami alert in
    Anchorage, but I understand that it is an issue where you
    have--the way it was described is an issue dealing with the
    intersection of weather service forecast areas and census
    areas. And so, you want to err on the side of alerting more
    people than not. In other words, we do not want to fail to
    alert some. And so, in an overabundance, possibly, of caution,
    more people get the alert. But then, when you get multiple
    alerts and it is ``always a false alarm,'' you have people,
    kind of, tuning that out. How do we bridge that? Anybody have
    any ideas? Dr. West?
        Dr. West. Yeah, let me address that and maybe in a somewhat
    positive note.
        No, but you've captured well that that requires the
    intersection of everyone from the scientific community through
    to the municipal level on an emergency management need. Those
    connections are what's required.
        And on the tsunami side, Mayor Branson had an image of a
    graphic here showing projected inundation zones in and around
    Kodiak. That's actually a brand new publication that came out
    in September of this year, updated to specifically incorporate
    the lessons learned during the Japan earthquake which Mr.
    Norman referenced.
        That's actually a really dynamic, vibrant, new study, if
    you will, made possible by a program that was slated, year
    after year, for being cut until the Tsunami Warning Education
    Reauthorization Act was passed again last year.
        That group of emergency managers, scientists, and community
    folks is meeting right now in Seattle. Almost all the tsunami
    scientists in this country are in Seattle right now. I wish
    Senator Cantwell were here to hear that. But they're gathering,
    our once annual meeting, to specifically address those kinds of
    issues.
        So while it is not solved at all and there are, I think,
    the Anchorage alert issue highlights some of the challenges and
    the hyper-connectedness of all these different communication
    channels that you see on your phone and certainly folks like
    the USGS grapple with them at an operational level. While we
    certainly don't have those all figured out, it's the existence
    of programs like that, the continued existence, year in and
    year out, that builds those relationships that are needed.
        It was fascinating to sit--Mayor Branson and I met
    yesterday, and it was fascinating to debrief her views of this
    event last week. She has a particular sphere of knowledge and
    influence which is very different than mine. And finding those
    points of intersection, but that takes, kind of, that takes
    forced collaboration.
        The Chairman. It is an issue that, again, I think we learn
    from these events. We have learned, not only from this event,
    earthquake, potential tsunami in Alaska, but when we think
    about the alert that the people of Hawaii faced about a month,
    well, a little less than a month ago now. A different kind of
    alert, not a natural hazard, but a very threatening alert to
    the public. And when we think about these emergency systems
    that broadcast to communities, trying to do early warning.
    Again, making sure that there is an accuracy, but also a
    timeliness is something that I think we recognize is absolutely
    critical.
        I wanted to ask you, Dr. Applegate, and this is kind of a
    follow-up on Senator Wyden's question because I believe that he
    was trying to get to the adequacy of a funding issue for
    earthquakes and warning systems.
        But it is my understanding that what we are doing with
    earthquake early warning is a system that is not yet up and
    operational all throughout. It has been tested in Washington,
    Oregon, and California. I understand that it is being used in
    Japan. But it is not a system that is fully implemented and in
    place. I don't think it is being used in Alaska, is it, Dr.
    West?
        Dr. West. No.
        The Chairman. So, is that--what is the status of the
    earthquake early warning and how is that different than what we
    are monitoring currently when it comes to our earthquakes?
        Dr. West. Sure.
        So, a key for about earthquake early warning, it is built
    on our existing monitoring capabilities----
        The Chairman. Good.
        Dr. West. ----and essentially is, can we get a dense enough
    network and fast enough computing and algorithm and telemetry,
    and all of those pieces, to be able to beat the strong shaking?
        So, a key point is that it is an extension, it's a new
    tool, it's a new capability that is built and requires that
    existing investment on our current monitoring capabilities.
        There are a number of countries that have deployed
    earthquake early warning systems. Japan is the most advanced
    and has had it in place for a number of years. But there are
    several other countries as well.
        We have a prototype system for the West Coast for
    California through Washington that is currently in a, sort of,
    a beta test phase. There's some use by test users; for example,
    the Bay Area Rapid Transit System users for whom, at this
    point, like a false alarm isn't a big problem. They slow the
    trains down for lots of reasons, right? So there's one. There's
    a use that can have a fairly high tolerance for a missed alert.
    On the other hand, there are lots of other uses that you need
    to have that fully developed system.
        So we're very much in a prototype phase. And so, it is not
    something that is broadly, publicly available yet. It is a
    system being built. But the key is it's being built on top of
    that existing monitoring, and it's the strengthening of it.
        The Chairman. Does it work well in Japan where it is fully
    implemented?
        Dr. Applegate. Absolutely.
        In Japan, I think a good example would be--so the magnitude
    9 earthquake that we had discussed, one of the capabilities
    with the earthquake early warning system is to slow down the
    bullet trains. They had, I believe, 26 bullet trains operating,
    you know, several hundred miles an hour. They're able to slow
    those trains down before the strong shaking arrives. They had
    no derailments from that event. Think of the number of folks
    who were on that.
        There was a successful earthquake early warning. There are
    relatively few fatalities from the earthquake itself, but
    that's, of course, both a testament to the quality of their
    building codes, again, all of those things you do before the
    event, the quality of building codes, but also the early
    warning for the earthquake.
        The Chairman. You are saying that in order for us to move
    forward with a more robust early warning system, whether on the
    Pacific Northwest, Alaska or wherever, the monitoring stations
    that we have in place, are, kind of, the base for that.
        Dr. Applegate. Exactly.
        And it's a densification of those stations and ensuring
    that they have the fastest telemetry, all of that. So, it's an,
    really it's an end state outcome of this Advanced National
    Seismic System that we're building, you know, in partnership
    with the regional seismic networks.
        And it would be an additional capability that a, you know,
    a robust monitoring network can deliver on top of this, sort
    of, real-time, after the event. So again, it's--we're trying to
    deliver the fastest possible information, the best information
    that we can.
        The Chairman. Sure.
        Senator Cortez Masto, I have been having a wonderful time
    with this panel.
        [Laughter.]
        But you are more than welcome to jump in and have a
    conversation.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        And let me just say thank you for the hearing today and all
    of you coming here. I apologize, I had two other Committee
    hearings. I am trying to cover everything, but thank you for
    your testimony, your written testimony. So helpful.
        And let me start with Dr. Applegate, because you mentioned
    Nevada--I am from Nevada--in your speaking points as well.
        I don't know if you are specifically aware of the work that
    is being done and the collaboration. If you are, I would love
    you to elaborate, but let me just highlight because I know this
    is something important for us.
        There is a partnership between the University of Nevada,
    Reno, with the Department of Energy's Berkeley National Lab, to
    develop an advanced computer-based tool to predict the
    earthquake response of critical nuclear facilities during an
    earthquake. It will also provide important information on
    solving earthquake soil-structure interactions for many
    applications, to also include benefits for transportation
    systems, pipelines, hospitals, schools and other public
    infrastructure.
        I am aware that this important earthquake engineering
    research that takes place there is something that is,
    obviously, important for USGS and the work that you do as well.
        I am wondering if you can elaborate, not only on that, but
    the importance of your interaction with and partnerships and
    collaborations that you have going, ongoing, across the
    country.
        Dr. Applegate. Absolutely.
        And I'll say the University of Nevada, Reno, is one of our
    key partners. They maintain regional seismic monitoring and
    that's been a long-time collaboration.
        I think what the partnership that you're describing is a
    very key part of this, what we call this broader National
    Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. It is about taking that,
    you know, whether it's, you know, foundational research,
    whether it's in the geosciences or in engineering and then
    translating that into applications. And as you described, one
    of the most important applications is critical infrastructure.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Right.
        Dr. Applegate. There was a question earlier about, you
    know, what are some of the most important aspects of recovery
    from an event? And it is the dependence on your critical
    infrastructure. How fast you come back up is going to depend on
    the lifelines and certainly the power grid and so forth. So I
    think the partnership you're describing is getting at one of
    the most critical aspects of earthquake preparedness.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you for saying that.
        Do you mind? Here is the other issue that is concerning:
    These are long-term projects and they require long-term
    funding, and quite often we here in Congress don't think of
    funding in a long-term perspective and we are doing it on an
    annual basis. So when you are in the middle of doing important
    research like that and then all of a sudden, the money is cut
    off for that research, the implications not only to the project
    that is going and the work that is being done are dramatic, but
    then to long-term impacts to all of our communities.
        Can you talk a little bit about just the funding piece and
    how important it is long-term, and for that commitment long-
    term to address the needs that you see?
        Dr. Applegate. I think for earthquakes, in general, and
    some of these other geologic hazards that we're talking about,
    one of the big challenges is that these are very high-
    consequence events, but events that for any given location,
    they're not part of your everyday existence. And so, it is a
    classic area where government investment, it may be looking at,
    sort of, very long-term payoffs.
        It's also an area where the criticality is in long-term
    monitoring, to be able to build these datasets, both for the
    real-time applications but also to improve our understanding of
    what it is, what is that hazard that we're dealing with?
        So, I'll say certainly, the annual appropriations cycle is
    not necessarily conducive to that, but things like this long-
    standing National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
    partnership that was authorized by Congress, having those, sort
    of, longer-term, you know, essentially, it's a statement of the
    importance of this investment over the long haul that is very
    important.
        Senator Cortez Masto. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        I notice my time is just about up.
        I thank you all for coming and it is good to see some of
    you again. I appreciate the comments today and the written
    comments that you have provided.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Just a couple more questions here.
        Dr. West, I asked the question, you affirmed it, but I
    would like to ask why several of the Alaska earthquake monitors
    were offline?
        Dr. West. Sure.
        The Chairman. Is it funding? What is our situation with our
    monitors?
        Dr. West. Do I have to answer that?
        Twenty minutes or so before the earthquake occurred,
    unrelated, Golden Valley Electric Association had a modest
    regional power outage. The UAF Geophysical Institute, where my
    organization is located, weathered that relatively well;
    however, there was networking equipment that was offline at
    that time. So, essentially, the Alaska Earthquake Center, all
    of its data and products were dark for about an hour or so.
    Yeah, not a proud moment, really. We've been clear with our
    stakeholders.
        The Chairman. So totally coincidental to the fact you were
    about to have----
        Dr. West. Correct, not caused in any way.
        The Chairman. Wow.
        Dr. West. I know, we make up these scenarios to plan for
    and test internally, say, oh, that won't happen, you know, well
    they do.
        But we've been clear with stakeholders for several years
    now that we do not have backup systems in place.
        The Chairman. You have no backup systems?
        Dr. West. We do not have modern continuity of operations. I
    mean, the reason is fairly simple. Over the last half dozen
    years every one of our federal and state funding lines have
    been cut back. A few years ago, I reduced my staff by nearly a
    third. I laid off career--painfully laid off career
    individuals.
        Last year we received a $1 million short-term infusion,
    through you, frankly, which was, I cannot tell you in the last
    few months how much of a difference that has made. But I've
    described this to many people as more like a stay of execution.
        Yeah, I don't know where to go from there. I mean, in order
    to maintain meaningful monitoring in Alaska and, frankly, many
    of the states on this Committee--Utah, Nevada, Oregon,
    Washington--they're having the same issues, same issues. I'd be
    happy to put anyone in touch with my peers there to explain.
    But in order to maintain, you know, a meaningful monitoring, we
    need the new collaborations, the base funding, the
    Congressional support that we're here talking about today. So
    it's not fun to talk about, but this is what a declining
    funding environment in the natural hazards looks like.
        The Chairman. Well, this is important information. The
    funding is certainly one part of it. But it is a reminder to us
    that you want to have a backup to your emergency network
    systems, your monitoring systems.
        We talk about the need for redundancy and I want to turn to
    you, Mayor Branson, because your community, you are on an
    island. You are a pretty significant island, but you are an
    island, nonetheless. And when an emergency happens, you are on
    your own.
        Ms. Branson. We are.
        The Chairman. Fortunately, you have the largest Coast Guard
    station there on Kodiak. But as soon as that warning hits that
    a tsunami is coming, the Coast Guard needs to get their assets
    out of there because they are right in the path of a tsunami
    coming their way.
        So you think about what happens in a natural disaster and
    when you are a remote state, like Alaska or Hawaii or Puerto
    Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. When disaster happens you are
    your buddy system there with everybody who happens to either be
    on that island or in that remote area. And I think, when we go
    through drills, when we think about how we better prepare,
    whether it is earthquakes, tsunami, flood, there is a
    realization and a recognition that in certain parts of the
    country emergency preparedness takes on even more criticality
    because you do not have neighboring states that can send their
    assets. We have a significant earthquake that takes out,
    whether it is ports, harbors, airports, we are significantly at
    a disadvantage.
        So I asked yesterday, when we were visiting, Mayor, about
    whether or not our mayors, our leaders at the local levels,
    talk about how you need to prepare as isolated communities for
    these natural disasters that really leave you in, perhaps, a
    more vulnerable position than others. You know, your food
    sources are cut off, and access to medical care to a certain
    extent.
        This is a hearing about natural disasters and natural
    hazards, I understand that, but I think we are also talking
    about the public awareness as to how one responds. If you would
    share just a little bit here.
        Ms. Branson. Well, I think there are a couple of things to
    point out and I think Dr. West has pointed some of this out, as
    you have, Senator Murkowski.
        And that redundancy and having a backup plan and, most
    importantly, being proactive as much as possible because we
    find ourselves in these, kind of, disasters reactive, not
    knowing what kind of resources that might be available, as
    you've just described. And we are very vulnerable, certainly
    not just Kodiak, but Alaska and other remote communities as
    well. So how we buddy up, if you will, with other communities
    and share information, I think that's most important. Dr. West
    mentioned that as well.
        So I think it's being proactive, collaboration and sharing
    that information, as we talked about yesterday with the coastal
    mayors of Alaska, maybe even a broader sense with the Pacific
    Northwest coastal mayors as well, and communities and to learn
    from one another how information is shared and being more
    proactive in a way that's best to protect our communities and
    our residents.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Again, it is a warning for us all.
        We have not touched much on landslides and that is
    something that, unfortunately, I think we are seeing more of
    these events in different parts of the country.
        Mr. Casamassa, after the 2015 landslide in Sitka, local
    managers there partnered with Forest Service, USGS, and others
    to conduct this risk mapping. I was actually just reading in
    the news clips yesterday about what the community is doing now
    that they have that mapping, some of the decisions that they
    need to make. You have a community that is looking for areas
    that they can build out, but you now have, perhaps, a better
    indication in terms of the vulnerability. I want to ask you,
    kind of, where we go next now that we have that mapping?
        But to the others on the panel, Dr. Applegate, Ms. Berry,
    we seem to be doing a relatively good job in terms of the
    monitoring, when we have been talking about earthquakes and
    volcanoes and tsunamis, avalanches, but it does not seem that
    we are doing as much as we need to be doing when it comes to
    landslides themselves and ensuring that we are mapping these
    high-risk areas and then notifying the public when their lives
    and property are in danger.
        Again, sitting next to Senator Cantwell and just reliving
    the horror of the Oso incident, but now to know that you have
    Washington residents that are watching daily this Rattlesnake
    Ridge, kind of, creeping along. And okay, maybe it is
    stabilized now, but can you speak a little bit to where we are
    with doing a better job when it comes to landslides?
        And also, if you could help me identify what federal agency
    should be coordinating these efforts. Who should be the lead
    agency when it comes to landslides?
        Mr. Casamassa, you can begin.
        Mr. Casamassa. Yeah, thank you, Senator.
        You know, one of the things that I think is really, would
    be very advantageous is after we have mapped out the hazards,
    after we have looked at specifically where the infrastructure
    or community assets are at risk, we do a bit of planning around
    risk management and for the Forest Service----
        The Chairman. Who is ``we,'' Mr. Casamassa?
        Mr. Casamassa. We, the collective, the community.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Mr. Casamassa. Any entity that has a stake in it.
        The Chairman. So not just the federal agencies?
        Mr. Casamassa. Absolutely.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Casamassa. It would be, certainly, locally based.
        But for the Forest Service piece of it, I think, it would
    be advantageous to know with the community where we could take
    actions that would potentially, would be something that we can
    pre-position on the National Forest, certain aspects of ingress
    and egress, we need to get to this spot in order to do these
    kinds of things the community says. And then, instead of trying
    to figure that out and be reactive, as Mayor Branson said, we
    should be looking at--okay, we would need to pre-position
    assets here. We need to build catchment basins here. You know,
    just being a bit more thinking through what are the risks,
    where are the assets, how could we take actions that could
    mitigate the damage that could occur. And we could be a part of
    that on the National Forest.
        The Chairman. And I know, Mayor Branson, in Kodiak, you
    have real concern of potential for landslide right there off of
    Pillar Mountain.
        Ms. Branson. We do and it's right above Pier Three where
    all of our goods come in on ships, barges, twice a week and
    that would also cut us off from the Coast Guard base and
    there's also a potential hazard out by the Coast Guard base
    itself. So we know the Coast Guard is there to assist us in
    such a disaster. So landslides, mudslides, we've had mudslides
    from Pillar Mountain that have wiped away homes. So it's
    certainly an ongoing hazard for Kodiak residents as well.
        The Chairman. What about who should be the lead agency? Any
    comment on that?
        Mr. Norman?
        Mr. Norman. Yes, I don't think there's any doubt that the
    USGS should be the lead agency for the federal agencies. They
    have established expertise on landslides. They have integral
    working relationships with the State Geological Surveys, and
    they have a proven track record of managing other natural
    hazards programs. So I think it's the USGS for the federal
    agencies.
        The Chairman. Do you agree, Dr. Applegate?
        Dr. Applegate. This is a very important part of our hazards
    mission and what I think is so good about the Landslide
    Authorization bill that's being considered is the recognition
    that while there is a key federal role, and absolutely, we see
    this as an important part of our task. This is such a
    distributed hazard and it's one that plays out on, you know, on
    local scales all over. It's the partnerships with the states
    that is absolutely essential.
        We have expertise that we can bring to bear to help
    support, you know, Dave Norman and Karen Berry and their
    colleagues. But they have the folks, you know, on the ground
    who are doing much of the work in this. We're seeing this play
    out right now in California with the debris flows there. We
    work very closely with the Forest Service and other land
    management agencies after wildfires, for example, to support
    the burned area emergency response teams. We'll do these hazard
    assessments. When it comes to the, really, the boots on the
    ground doing assessments like what's happening in the Thomas
    fire, it's the California Geological Survey that's there
    supporting CalFire. And as Dave mentioned, I mean, this is an
    area where the criticality, you know, we do not have a national
    landslide hazard assessment the way we do an earthquake
    assessment.
        The Chairman. Do we need one?
        Dr. Applegate. I think it would be, yeah, I think it would
    be very beneficial. It certainly is a long-term goal that we've
    set. The National Academy has looked at the USGS landslide
    program and really, when it talks about it, the Academy before
    talked about a national program. And again, emphasizing it's
    not a federal program, it's one that does have to involve many
    agencies at both the federal and state level.
        But additional geologic mapping, high resolution LiDAR, all
    of these are key, enabling technologies, enabling capabilities
    that could then form the building blocks to eventually get to
    that point of a national landslide hazard assessment.
        The Chairman. I was struck by Ms. Berry's comments though
    that in Colorado you are so far behind when it comes to
    mapping.
        In Alaska, I was at a ceremony where we celebrated 52
    percent of Alaska being mapped. Only in Alaska would you
    celebrate 52 percent.
        [Laughter.]
        But it seems like we are actually doing much better when it
    comes to the LiDAR. We are at 92 percent coverage on that, I
    understand.
        But it is hard then to be able to talk about this
    collaboration that you are discussing, Dr. Applegate, if the
    states don't have that map, that base mapping to begin with. So
    it seems to me that there is an inequity, if you will, around
    the states before we can get to any kind of a national
    understanding of what the hazards really are.
        Senator Cortez Masto, did you have further questions?
        Senator Cortez Masto. Just one follow-up--and I may have
    missed this conversation.
        Obviously I am from the West and fire management is key.
    And it is not just management to prevent fires, forest fires,
    right? We know that after a fire has come through and
    devastated the land, there is the concern of rain and flooding
    and landslides. And so, there has to be remediation that occurs
    as well.
        I am curious. This discussion on state, local and federal
    coming together and the protocols and policy of who takes the
    lead in how you manage that. Is that something that every state
    is working with the federal agencies on, that there is a policy
    or protocol to address those needs because they are going to be
    different in each state? That is my first question.
        And the second is, at the federal level I know you do not
    have enough resources. So how do you triage? Where to put the
    resources at the time?
        Mr. Casamassa, I would start with you.
        Mr. Casamassa. Yeah, thank you, Senator.
        And for the most part, I think it varies from state to
    state in who would take the lead and how best that coordination
    occurs. At least that's been my experience and I know that
    plays out in that way.
        You know, one of the things that we do, and Dr. Applegate
    alluded to it, is that in the burned area emergency rehab work
    that we do and our response is centered around determining
    which areas are the most impact, where is there medium impacts
    as well as low. And then we really focus in on that triaging
    around the more severely burned areas to do the kind of work
    that we need to for remediation.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Well, I thank all of you. We have hit the noon hour and I
    think that this has been good, important discussion.
        Hopefully, we learn, again, from these natural hazards that
    do not bring about disaster so that in the event that we do
    have that next big earthquake, that next big tsunami, the next
    big volcanic eruption, that there is a level of awareness and
    preparedness.
        I often share with folks a situation some years back when
    my boys were--it was spring break and they were home skiing for
    spring break, as good Alaskan boys would. They had taken a
    buddy of theirs from Maryland, and the mother was concerned
    because he was going to the wilds of Alaska. I said, don't
    worry, this is going to be a very safe spring break. The day
    that they were due to fly back, the volcano blows. And so, air
    traffic is grounded. I have to call the mom in Maryland and
    say, they will be here tomorrow.
        [Laughter.]
        Only the next day the airplanes also were not flying and I
    had to call her again and say, well, it is fine in Alaska, but
    the planes are grounded because we are dealing with a little
    bit of fallout.
        [Laughter.]
        This is getting to be a really good spring break for the
    boys. The third day comes and, of course, now all the flights
    are backed up and so I can't get them out for the following
    day. The next morning that they go to the airport there is an
    avalanche that has come across the road and they can't get to
    the airport. They missed their flight. It was the best spring
    break that those boys ever had.
        [Laughter.]
        But it was for this mom, who says to me, what happens in
    Alaska that you have all of these natural disasters, natural
    hazards?
        Fortunately, no one was hurt. It was a wonderful spring
    break for them. But there was a lot of inconvenience. And I
    think we recognize that the more prepared we can be, the better
    off we will all be.
        I thank you for the expertise that you have shared with the
    Committee today. We have a lot of work to do. It comes with
    resourcing. It comes with monitoring. It comes with
    preparedness, and we appreciate all your efforts.
        With that, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]