[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]