U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–639 PDF 2016

PACIFIC NORTHWEST SEISMIC HAZARDS: 

PLANNING AND PREPARING FOR THE 

NEXT DISASTER 

(114–18) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 19, 2015 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

VACANCY 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Robert J. Fenton, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Response and 

Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................................... 4 

Scott A. Ashford, Ph.D., Dean, College of Engineering, Oregon State University ......................................................................................................................... 4

Richard M. Allen, Ph.D., Director, Berkeley Seismological Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley .................................................................................. 4 

John D. Hooper, Senior Principal and Director of Earthquake Engineering, 

Magnusson Klemencic Associates, on behalf of the American Society of 

Civil Engineers ..................................................................................................... 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ........................................................................... 20 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Robert J. Fenton ...................................................................................................... 27 

Scott A. Ashford, Ph.D. ........................................................................................... 41 

Richard M. Allen, Ph.D. .......................................................................................... 49 

John D. Hooper ........................................................................................................ 52 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Robert J. Fenton, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Response and 

Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, responses to questions 

for the record ........................................................................................................ 35 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 94639.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 94639.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 94639.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 94639.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 94639.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 94639.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 94639.007
(1) 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST SEISMIC HAZARDS: 

PLANNING AND PREPARING FOR THE NEXT 

DISASTER 

TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ryan A. Costello presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 

order. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Pacific Northwest Seismic Hazards: Planning and Preparing for the Next Disaster.’’ 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA’s role in earthquake hazard preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. We are also going to 

speak with some of the world’s leaders in seismology and earthquakes. 

I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio for his leadership on 

this critical national issue. He has been an advocate for his State 

and the Pacific Northwest supporting preparedness and mitigation 

efforts and the development of a public west coast earthquake early 

warning system. 

Just last week, we saw the second devastating earthquake strike 

Nepal. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those impacted and the 

thousands that are working to help. 

We know earthquakes pose one of the greatest natural hazards 

here in the United States. They strike without warning and result 

in potentially catastrophic casualties and damage to buildings and 

infrastructure. 

Portions of all 50 States and the District of Columbia are vulnerable to earthquake hazards. Earthquakes cannot be prevented, but 

their impacts on life, property, and the economy can be managed. 

FEMA is responsible for coordinating the Federal response to a 

catastrophic earthquake and has been diligently working to help 

States plan and prepare for the inevitability of an earthquake. 

FEMA has a robust National Exercise Program that in recent years 

has tested State and regional earthquake response plans in Alaska, 

in the South and Midwest, along the New Madrid Seismic Zone, 

and just last week in California. 

2 

We know that FEMA’s national urban search and rescue teams 

are key assets in the wake of disasters like earthquakes. This Congress, H.R. 1471, the FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act of 

2015, which was voted out of committee in April, reauthorizes the 

USAR program and provides key protections to the individuals who 

serve on those teams. 

We also will hear from Dr. Ashford about the earthquake threat 

in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest and the efforts the State has 

led to bring together all members of the community to strengthen 

communities. 

While we are not able to predict earthquakes, I was excited to 

learn that Dr. Allen and his colleagues are working with the Federal Government to develop an earthquake early warning system. 

Finally, Mr. Hooper has been leading efforts to update model 

building codes to include the latest engineering and building 

science to minimize earthquake impacts on buildings. There are 

lessons to be learned from the efforts of leaders in the Pacific 

Northwest that should drive the way we plan for and mitigate 

against disasters. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and thank them all 

for being here today. 

I now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Carson, for a brief opening statement. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Costello. And we acknowledge the 

ranking member, Mr. Peter DeFazio. My good friend Albio is here 

as well. 

Good morning. I join in welcoming today’s witnesses for this important hearing. 

When someone hears ‘‘earthquake,’’ they immediately think of 

the west coast, but there are actually 42 States at significant risk 

for a quake. Indiana, the great Hoosier State, is one of them. Two 

major fault zones run in or near southwestern Indiana, the Wabash 

Valley Seismic Zone and the New Madrid Zone as well. 

In the past, the New Madrid Fault has produced magnitude 7 to 

8 earthquakes. If a 7.7 quake from the New Madrid Fault was to 

occur today, the Mid-America Earthquake Center estimates that it 

would damage 14,000 buildings, resulting in 2,000 deaths, and 

cause $12 billion in direct economic loss in Indiana alone. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, plays an 

important role in helping the Nation address earthquake risks. I 

appreciate that the 2011 National Level Exercise tested earthquake 

plans in the New Madrid Zone. Indiana had many participants and 

learned a great deal, including the need to address urban search 

and rescue issues beforehand. As a result of this exercise, communication has increased among the States affected by the New Madrid Fault. 

Last year, several public and private agencies in Indiana participated in the Central United States Earthquake Consortium 

multistate CAPSTONE–14 exercise. That exercise assessed national and regional response and recovery capabilities after a quake 

on the New Madrid Zone. Building on the 2011 exercise, the Hoosier State focused on housing recovery support functions to address 

post-disaster housing issues and to facilitate delivery of resources 

3 

to local governments for reconstruction. This exercise provides valuable insight into what works and what needs improvement. 

FEMA has statutory duties under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP, and I would like to see this 

subcommittee take a really more active role in the reauthorization 

of this program. We need to ensure that FEMA is fulfilling its mission and has adequate authority and funding levels to perform its 

duties. The GAO has identified no-notice catastrophic events such 

as earthquakes as one of the greatest emergency management challenges that FEMA faces. We cannot ignore this issue. 

And finally, I would be remiss to not recognize and commend the 

urban search and rescue teams that are assisting in the aftermath 

of the two recent Nepal quakes. Their training and skills are being 

put to effective use. Once again they are putting their lives at risk 

to help others around the world. This is a perfect example of why 

Congress needs to ensure the teams have the protection and benefits they deserve. Congress needs to move forward quickly on H.R. 

1471, the FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act of 2015, which 

was recently reported from this committee. 

Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. 

I now call on the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate your bringing attention to this. 

I would observe, unfortunately, here in Washington, DC, we 

seem to have what I call a tombstone mentality, which if this were 

the day after the Cascadia Subduction Fault or a big earthquake 

on New Madrid the room would be packed, press would be out in 

the hallways, and we would have lines waiting. 

But the sad fact is that if we are better prepared, if we invest 

in resilience, if we invest in the case of the west coast and an early 

warning system, we can save potentially thousands of lives and billions of dollars in infrastructure and economic damages and losses. 

The Cascadia earthquake, basically it is inevitable. The question 

is when and what will we do to prepare for it before then. I did 

get a minor provision in H.R. 1471 that would encourage States to 

use hazard mitigation and support of building capability for earthquake warning, except, unfortunately, FEMA is underinvesting in 

that program. 

For the Pacific Northwest, Oregon, Washington, at risk, and 

northern California, for $38 million the Government of the United 

States of America could fund a real-time, at-sea-based early warning system which would give people halfway up the coast a couple 

of minutes to get out of inundation zones. It would give people in 

Portland maybe 7 minutes to shut down the Metro, get people off 

the bridges, shut down manufacturing processes, et cetera, over in 

the valley. We would have 5 to 7 minutes to evacuate schools made 

out of bricks that are going to fall down and kill the kids. 

But we don’t have that because we are the United States of 

America and we can’t afford $38 million to save thousands of lives. 

And then everybody would be pointing fingers the day after the 

quake and say: Why didn’t we do that, just like with Amtrak, and 

4 

we can and we should. And so I am really pleased you are holding 

this hearing here today. 

I want to particularly thank Dr. Scott Ashford, dean of Oregon 

State University’s College of Engineering. He has worked very 

closely with the State of Oregon on an earthquake resilience plan. 

We are really at the beginning stages. Our legislature is deciding 

whether to commit more and how much State money to that sort 

of predisaster investment, and he has played a very key role in 

that. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Oh, I would like to put my entire statement, which is long and 

very thoughtful and more detailed, in the record, without objection. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Without objection. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. 

We will have a single panel of witnesses today. We have Mr. 

Robert J. Fenton, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Response and Recovery at FEMA; Dr. Scott A. Ashford, dean of the 

College of Engineering at Oregon State University; Dr. Richard M. 

Allen, director of the Berkeley Seismological Laboratory at UC 

Berkeley; and Mr. John Hooper, senior principal and director of 

Earthquake Engineering at MKA [Magnusson Klemencic Associates], representing the American Society of Civil Engineers. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your written testimony has been made a part of the record, 

the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony 

to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Fenton, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. FENTON, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; SCOTT A. 

ASHFORD, PH.D., DEAN, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY; RICHARD M. ALLEN, PH.D., DIRECTOR, BERKELEY SEISMOLOGICAL LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY; AND JOHN D. HOOPER, SENIOR PRINCIPAL AND DIRECTOR OF EARTHQUAKE 

ENGINEERING, MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIATES, ON 

BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS 

Mr. FENTON. Vice Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Carson, 

and members of the distinguished subcommittee, as a fifth-generation San Franciscan who has served 13 years for FEMA Region IX’s 

Oakland office in California and will soon be reporting as its Regional Administrator, I understand the significant threats that catastrophic earthquakes pose to our Nation. We have seen in recent 

weeks the devastating consequences of both the 7.3 and 7.8 magnitude earthquakes that struck Nepal, and our thoughts continue 

to be with the survivors. 

Catastrophic earthquakes of that magnitude in an urban area in 

the United States would impact millions of people and cause profound social and economic impacts. That is why it is vitally important that the Federal Government maintain a forward-leaning posture and be ready to act decisively at the direction of the President 

5 

to effectively support State, local, tribal, and territorial governments in saving lives and protecting property. 

I appreciate the opportunity today to update you on FEMA and 

our whole-community partner efforts to improve our Nation’s preparedness for earthquake threats and to maintain our readiness to 

respond. 

Over the past 4 years, and at the direction of the President, 

FEMA and our partners have worked to develop and implement 

the National Preparedness System, which includes a national planning framework for each of the five mission areas: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery. These frameworks identify how the whole community will build and deliver the core capabilities required to address the threats that pose the greatest risks 

to our Nation. 

In support of the national response and recovery frameworks, we 

recently developed Federal interagency operational plans which are 

all-hazards plans based on a maximum of maximums scenario that 

includes catastrophic incidents and cascading impacts, including a 

major earthquake. 

In addition to the Federal interagency operational plans, FEMA 

has developed five national-level incident annexes, one of which is 

focused on earthquakes. 

In addition, we have recently facilitated the development of allhazards plans in each of our 10 regions and developed 31 regional 

incident annexes. The one I am holding today is for the Cascadia 

Subduction Zone in the Pacific Northwest. 

Recognizing this, FEMA, in coordination with our State, local, 

tribal, and territorial partners, is constantly seeking ways to improve our ability to address potential threats and risks associated 

with catastrophic events such as earthquakes. Through our National Exercise Program, the whole community continues to test, 

improve, and assess national preparedness across the whole homeland security enterprise. 

This year FEMA participated in the southern California earthquake exercise involving a magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the San 

Andreas Fault. FEMA, in conjunction with our partners, is analyzing the results of the exercise and will integrate lessons learned 

into our plans, doctrine, and operations as required. 

In addition to the planning and exercising that FEMA supports 

with our whole community partners, I also want to highlight our 

efforts in improving individual preparedness for earthquakes. 

In 2013, FEMA and our partners unveiled the America’s 

PrepareAthon, a nationwide community-based campaign for action 

to increase emergency preparedness and resilience. A major activity of the America’s PrepareAthon is the Great Shakeout, an exercise whereby millions of people participate in earthquake drills. We 

continue to see increasing levels of participation in the Great 

Shakeout. 

I would also like to highlight that FEMA has made significant 

strides in alert and warning systems through our Integrated Public 

Alert and Warning System for all hazards called IPAWS. Early detection for earthquakes can be difficult. However, I am encouraged 

by our State partners that are actively installing sensors in the 

ground to warn of earthquake activities as early as possible. 

6 

In conclusion, FEMA is one part of the whole community effort 

that is required to effectively prepare for, respond to, and recover 

from disasters. The response to a major earthquake along one of 

our Nation’s fault lines will require resources from across all levels 

of Government, private sector, and nongovernmental organizations 

and the public. These are the scenarios that we are planning to exercise against, and we are adapting the way we do business based 

on these lessons learned. 

As outlined in our Administrator’s and our agency’s 2014 through 

2018 strategic plan, we are focusing on strategic priorities, including becoming an expeditionary organization and posturing and 

building capability for catastrophic disasters. That will help to institutionalize key improvements while building capacity and 

strengthening national capabilities for disaster preparedness. 

I look forward to working with you, distinguished members of 

this subcommittee, and other Members of Congress, to continue 

these important efforts. I am prepared to answer any questions the 

subcommittee has. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Fenton. 

Dr. Ashford, you may proceed. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

committee. My is Scott Ashford. I am dean of the College of Engineering at Oregon State University. I am pleased to be before you 

today testifying on my role as chair of our Governor’s Task Force 

on Resilience Plan Implementation. As chair, I was responsible for 

advancing Oregon on a path towards resilience in the face of the 

upcoming mega-quake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone, perhaps the greatest impending natural disaster to face the United 

States. 

I have seen firsthand communities destroyed by earthquakes. 

Most recently, in Japan I saw the devastation left by the 2011 9.0 

subduction zone earthquake and tsunami that killed over 15,000 

people and wiped entire communities off the map. 

This is a mirror image of what we expect in the Pacific Northwest. The Cascadia Subduction Zone extends from northern California to British Columbia, where a 9.0 magnitude earthquake felt 

from Salt Lake to San Francisco will shake 3 to 5 minutes and a 

tsunami will inundate much of the coastline, killing thousands. The 

last major Cascadia event occurred in the year 1700, and we are 

now due. 

The biggest challenge for Oregon is our legacy infrastructure, 

vulnerable buildings, bridges, and pipelines that were built before 

anyone knew that the Cascadia was active. 

This problem is not unique. States in the New Madrid Fault 

Zone, like Indiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky, are also seismically 

vulnerable because of their legacy infrastructure. 

Oregon leaders recognized the need to prepare for the eventual 

likelihood of a Cascadia event and called for the Oregon Resilience 

Plan. Our vision is that 50 years from now our businesses and communities will have the resilience to bounce back from this megaquake. The 300-page report completed in 2013 contains over 140 

different recommendations, and, frankly, it was difficult to figure 

out where to start. 

7 

To find a path forward, the legislature formed the Governor’s 

Task Force on Resilience Plan Implementation, which I chaired. 

Our specific recommendations were submitted to the legislature 

last September in a 2-page report, which I have submitted as part 

of my testimony. Based on our report, four bills now sit in our 

State’s Senate Ways and Means Committee waiting for action. 

Today, I would like to focus on our recommendations in just 

three areas where the Federal Government plays a key role in 

working in partnership with States and private enterprise. 

In transportation, mobility is critical to rescue, relief, and recovery efforts following a natural disaster and for the economy to start 

moving so that people can get back to work. Our State knows what 

we need to do, but the price tag for the seismic retrofit program 

in Oregon is over $5 billion. The first phase alone, to strengthen 

our bridges and prevent landslides in the Cascadia event only 

along key lifeline routes, is $1 billion. This is definitely an area 

where enhanced State-Federal partnership is needed, where the 

State is stuck with a plan but really no money to act. 

Around liquid fuels, 90 percent of all liquid fuel used in Oregon 

comes into one single location extremely vulnerable to damage in 

an earthquake. But due to the interstate nature of liquid fuel 

transmission, Oregon has no regulatory authority to act. This is another area where the Federal Government can work with affected 

States to require seismic resilience of federally regulated utilities. 

And finally in research, with the unique combination of a 9.0 

earthquake and the legacy infrastructure, applied research is a 

way that we can assure that precious taxpayer dollars are used in 

the most value- and cost-informed manner possible. Businesses already understand this. Companies like Portland General Electric 

and Northwest Natural Gas have joined the BPA [Bonneville 

Power Administration], the Port of Portland, and ODOT [Oregon 

Department of Transportation] to form the Cascadia Lifelines Program at Oregon State University. These lifeline providers pool and 

direct their research dollars in a consortium aimed at finding solutions to the seismic challenges that they jointly face. 

Key legislature opportunities in the Congress that can facilitate 

effective public-private partnerships for applied research include 

the highway bill with university transportation centers, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and seismic research funded by FEMA, NIST [National Institute of Standards 

and Technology], NSF [National Science Foundation], the USGS 

[U.S. Geological Survey], and the FHWA [Federal Highway Administration]. 

In closing, the Cascadia Subduction Zone is estimated to be the 

single greatest natural threat facing the United States. Oregon is 

taking steps on its own to mitigate this threat. Other West Coast 

States and those in the New Madrid Fault Zone can follow our example. 

It will take decades and significant resources to improve our resilience, but we need to start now, and we need to all work together collaboratively across Governments, academia, and the private sector. The Federal Government is a critical partner in our 

ability as a State, a region, and a country to effectively prepare for 

this impending natural disaster. 

8 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I stand ready to answer 

any questions that you might have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Ashford. 

Dr. Allen, you may proceed. 

Mr. ALLEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. 

The Pacific Northwest must be ready for a magnitude 9 earthquake. Recent magnitude 9 events around the world include the 

2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake in Japan and the 2004 Sumatra 

earthquake. These are responsible for tens and hundreds of thousands of lives lost. The last magnitude 9 in the Pacific Northwest 

was just over 300 years ago, and we are now in the period when 

we should expect the next megathrust earthquake. 

My name is Richard Allen. I am the director of the UC Berkeley 

Seismological Laboratory and a professor of earth and planetary 

science. I am also one of the architects of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system, a new technology that we hope to roll 

out along the U.S. west coast to reduce the impacts of the next big 

earthquake. We would very much like to build this warning system 

before the next earthquake occurs, but to do that will require action from this legislature. 

The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning project is a collaboration between the University of Washington, the University of Oregon, the University of California, Berkeley, the California Institute of Technology, the U.S. Geological Survey, and several State 

agencies. We are now operating a demonstration earthquake early 

warning system that issues alerts to a group of test users for 

events throughout Washington, Oregon, and California. 

So what is earthquake early warning? By using networks of geophysical sensors distributed across the west coast, we can rapidly 

detect the beginnings of an earthquake. ShakeAlert then estimates 

the size of the event and predicts the shaking intensity that will 

follow. The warning time depends on the distance from the initiation point. In the case of the Pacific Northwest, if a magnitude 9 

starts at the southern end of the Cascadia Subduction Zone, as research suggests, Portland could receive 3 minutes of warning and 

Seattle as much as 5 minutes. 

There are many things that can be done to reduce the impacts 

of earthquakes with a few minutes of warning. One of my colleagues, Professor Doug Toomey, at the University of Oregon, 

asked one of his local elementary school principals how long it 

would take to evacuate his 350-student school built in 1926. His 

answer: 11⁄2 minutes. This is just 1 of 1,000 schools that a recent 

Oregon State survey concluded would collapse in a magnitude 9 

earthquake. 

Studies of injuries caused by the 1994 Northridge earthquake 

show that more than 50 percent were caused by falling hazards, 

bookcases, ceiling tiles, lighting fixtures, et cetera. If everyone gets 

a warning, and if everyone drops, takes cover, and holds on, then 

we could reduce the number of earthquake injuries by 50 percent. 

Other applications of earthquake early warning include automated response of transportation systems, isolation of hazardous 

machinery and chemicals, opening elevator doors at the nearest 

9 

floors to stop people from being trapped, and alerting surgeons to 

remove the scalpel from inside a patient. 

The existing west coast ShakeAlert demonstration system has 

proven the capabilities of this technology. In the recent magnitude 

6 earthquake in Napa, California, ShakeAlert issued a warning 

across the San Francisco Bay area. Although this is only a demonstration system, it is of such value to the BART train system in 

the region that they have already implemented an automated 

train-stopping system. 

It takes BART just 24 seconds to bring a full-speed train to a 

stop, thereby reducing the likelihood of derailment. During peak 

hours at any point in time, there are between 40 and 45 trains running at full speed, each carrying 1,000 passengers. 

Earthquake early warning is not a panacea for the earthquake 

problem in the Pacific Northwest. It will not prevent buildings from 

collapsing, and we must continue to make progress improving our 

buildings so they will not collapse, as Dr. Ashford was just discussing. At the same time, ShakeAlert provides a new opportunity 

to reduce the impact of coming quakes. 

So what will it take to build an earthquake early warning system 

for the U.S. west coast? The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal 

agency with the responsibility for issuing alerts, but there is a critical role for the private sector. Their expertise is needed to distribute the alerts broadly through cell phones, Internet providers, 

TV, and radio. Building a public warning system will also create 

new business opportunities to provide specialized alerts to specific 

users and the development of automated control systems. 

Building the system is not expensive. The U.S. Geological Survey 

has developed an implementation plan for the U.S. west coast. This 

system could be operational in 2 years if the necessary funding is 

made available. The cost of operating the system would be $16.5 

million per year above what is currently spent. 

Last year, Congress appropriated $5 million to begin the process 

of transitioning from the current demonstration system to a fullblown public system. Thank you for that. The U.S. Geological Survey and west coast universities are now using those resources to 

improve the geophysical network infrastructure to make the current system faster and more robust. This is a great first step, but 

the full implementation plan needs to be funded. 

In closing, the earthquake threat along the U.S. west coast increases every day as the strain on the faults builds. It is not if, but 

when will the next earthquake strike, and we are due for an earthquake in multiple locations. 

Earthquake early warning is a new and important tool to have 

in our disaster preparedness kit. Japan has a warning system, 

Mexico has a warning system, China, Taiwan, Turkey, and Romania have systems. 

If there was an earthquake today, I believe we would build this 

warning system tomorrow. Let’s not miss this opportunity and let’s 

get ShakeAlert funded today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Dr. Allen, thank you. 

Mr. Hooper, please proceed. 

10 

Mr. HOOPER. Vice Chairman Costello and distinguished members 

of the subcommittee, I am John Hooper, a senior principal and director of earthquake engineering with MKA in Seattle. On behalf 

of the American Society of Civil Engineers, it is my pleasure to provide this testimony. 

In addition to designing building structures throughout the country, I have also participated in building code development and 

earthquake engineering research for over three decades. I have 

served in various capacities for these efforts, and am currently the 

chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers Seismic Subcommittee. 

This subcommittee is tasked with developing the seismic requirements for the vast majority of jurisdictions throughout the United 

States. Jurisdictions adopt these seismic requirements by voluntarily adopting the International Building Code, or IBC, a comprehensive code that provides requirements for building design and 

performance. 

The majority of State jurisdictions also adopt the IBC. The IBC 

then references ‘‘ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and 

Other Structures’’ for the design requirements for most natural 

hazards, including seismic. 

A major contribution to the evolution of seismic design, however, 

was development of ‘‘NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for 

New Buildings and Other Structures,’’ originally published in 1985. 

These seismic design guidelines were developed with the leadership 

and support from FEMA. These NEHRP provisions have been continually updated since that first version and with the next version 

due out at the end of this year. 

The provisions also serve as a resource document to the seismic 

design requirements currently found in ASCE 7, a collaboration 

that has been in existence for over 20 years. 

The potential of a Cascadia Subduction Zone was not really fully 

understood until USGS research occurred in the late 1980s and 

was presented to the structural engineering community in the Pacific Northwest. Based on this research, the seismic zone maps in 

the 1994 UBC [Uniform Building Code] were modified to include 

the effects of the Cascadia Subduction Zone for the first time. So 

buildings up to that point did not include that seismic hazard in 

the design of those structures. 

Policymakers, emergency planners, and engineers in the Northwest are very aware of the shaking that can result from Cascadia. 

Due to continued publicity regarding new research that is published in the newspapers throughout the Northwest, the public is 

fairly clear about the shaking that could occur, but not what the 

performance of buildings is really going to be like. They are not 

really aware of what we design to. 

So a quick summary of what performance goals we achieve or try 

to achieve. Given a rare event, we are out there to protect life, and 

doing so we may not necessarily achieve economically feasible repairs to a building in that case. For critical buildings like hospitals 

and fire stations, et cetera, we achieve a higher performance with 

the intent that these facilities will experience damage but will be 

functional following rare earthquake ground shaking. 

11 

To provide more resilient designs, though, a change is required 

in these seismic performance goals. This change will come with increased construction costs, however. Some Federal, State, and local 

jurisdictions have provided or are considering providing enhanced 

performance for some of their projects. Some large companies that 

would be financially affected by extended shutdowns have already 

done so. 

Typically, though, private owners and developers are generally 

unaware of what the building code gives them. And the few that 

do would use enhanced performance designs if they could have a 

reasonable return on their investment. 

Changing the design approach for an entire community to increase resiliency will be a challenge. First, the turnover of building 

stock in a typical community is low, so enhancing the performance 

of existing buildings will require seismic upgrading. However, it is 

not necessary that all buildings achieve enhanced performance to 

achieve a resilient community. Careful planning is needed to determine which buildings and facilities should be subject to enhanced 

seismic design or seismic upgrade. 

Second, and equally important, for a community to be resilient, 

the remainder of the community’s lifelines must also be seismically 

designed or upgraded to an enhanced level as well. 

Finally, to achieve a resilient community, the key element is to 

fund these capital costs. Regardless of these challenges, through 

policymaker leadership and careful community planning, the beginnings of resilient communities can and increasingly will be 

achieved. 

As previously mentioned, NEHRP has made significant contributions. NEHRP makes Americans safer and our Nation more secure, 

resilient, and financially stronger through research in the earth 

sciences, public policy, and engineering. ASCE and I urge you to 

work with the Science, Space, and Technology Committee to reauthorize this vital program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views. I am able to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Hooper. 

I will now begin the first round of questions limited to 5 minutes 

for each Member. If there are additional questions following the 

first round, we will have additional rounds of questions as needed. 

Given Ranking Member DeFazio’s strong interest and leadership 

on this issue, I would like to yield my time for questions to him. 

Mr. DeFazio, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is very generous 

of you. 

First to FEMA, I note that the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program gets $7.8 million of funding. Given what you just 

heard today, don’t you believe that we should perhaps be investing 

more money in that program to deal with both early warning and 

other things that have just been talked about in terms of mitigation? 

Mr. FENTON. Sir, the NEHRP program is one program among 

many programs and resources we have to assist in this issue. I 

went over a number of them in my opening. The planning that we 

provide, we probably have millions of dollars in planning each year. 

12 

We have requested money for predisaster mitigation this year. 

There is also post-disaster mitigation. 

So all those together provide a significant number of resources. 

I think we need to continue to look at the issue and continue to 

work with them, our partners across this table, to—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. Now, the early warning issue, I am looking 

at giving you specific authorization since it hasn’t been given a priority. Why hasn’t it been given a priority? I mean, you just heard 

here we can save thousands of lives, potentially mitigate billions of 

dollars—well, at least a lot of damage in terms of shutting down 

systems, et cetera, with warning. 

Mr. FENTON. Sir, we are looking into early warning systems. As 

you know, we have had early warning systems for years now. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. All right. Thanks. OK. That is good. We want 

to do more than look into them. 

I guess first I will go to Dr. Allen. 

You talked about the system, $38 million land-based. Would 

there be any advantage to having something that was based in the 

ocean? The Japanese have put sensors in the ocean. Does that give 

you more time? 

Mr. ALLEN. Absolutely it gives you more time. The piece I fo- cused on is the onshore piece. So it is $16 million per year to run, 

plus $38 million capital investment to have it running in 2 years. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. ALLEN. We have an implementation—we, the USGS, the 

west coast universities—have an implementation plan for that. It 

is a proven technology. So that is what we would like to do first. 

But in addition to that, as you say, if we were to put out additional sensors on the end of a cable, particularly in the Cascadia 

Subduction Zone, that would get us more sensors closer to the 

fault, and that would simply give us more warning time. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thanks. 

And then, Dr. Ashford, the work you have done, the $1 billion 

just for key lifeline routes in the little State of Oregon, that is because of bridge collapse and other, maybe landslides, I guess. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Yeah. That was just the backbone route, actually 

east of the Cascades and down through part of the Willamette Valley, and that is for strengthening bridges and trying to mitigate the 

landslides. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So what you are thinking is the east side of the 

Cascades will be less impacted, and then you would run lifeline 

routes down through the Cascades down to where all the people 

live. 

Mr. ASHFORD. That is right. But even with that, all of the routes 

to the coast would be shut down from bridge failure and landslides, 

and all of U.S. Highway 101 would also be shut down. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. That is a bit sobering. 

Give me that list again of countries that have early warning systems. I think you said Japan, China, Taiwan, Romania. 

Mr. ALLEN. That is right. Mexico and Taiwan. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mexico, yeah. I saw a very dramatic, actually, illustration of Mexico, which gives you the idea—I mean, the fault, 

I guess, is quite close to Mexico City, but it was in a TV station. 

Guy is broadcasting the news. He suddenly starts talking very 

13 

quickly. My Spanish isn’t that good, but I get the idea something 

is going on, and he talks for a full minute before things start falling down in the studio, and he is basically telling people to run for 

shelter. That is 1 minute with approximate, let alone what you 

could do with a longer—— 

Mr. ALLEN. That is right. And the analogy to the Cascadia 

Subduction Zone is exactly the right one in that it is offshore 

subduction zone earthquakes that Mexico City is worried about. 

Mexico City is onshore, and they have a little bit over a minute’s 

worth of warning, as you say. 

In the case of the Pacific Northwest, the warning time will increase with distance up or down, but the people who are closest to 

the event would have less warning time, that is right. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. 

And if we had this offshore, I mean, do have an estimate on what 

an offshore? The Japanese are deploying offshore, so we must—I 

mean, there is a known technology. Is that correct? 

Mr. ALLEN. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And, obviously, since you have to lay a cable, 

it is more expensive. 

Mr. ALLEN. That is right. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And you have to put things on the sea floor. So—— 

Mr. ALLEN. Yeah. I do not have a cost estimate that I can tell 

you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. ALLEN. It is significantly more expensive than onshore, and 

it is primarily because of putting out the offshore cable. But there 

is no question that what that would allow us to do in terms of early 

warning would be significant. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I note that a—I can’t remember who it is— 

but some major cable company is going to lay a new super fiber 

optic cable from Bandon to Asia. Maybe we can just run a little 

splice off that, and maybe we should look into that and see if we 

can somehow get spliced into that. 

So I guess that is it, Mr. Chairman. I would just observe that 

this is very, very shortsighted that we won’t partner. My State is 

ponying up a little money. We were gong to lose the little bit of 

land-based detection we had now. It was temporary, and it was 

going to be moved to Alaska, and I got the State to put up, I think, 

$440,000 to buy the sensor in place. 

So States will be willing to partner, but this should be a shared 

responsibility to build out a robust early warning system, save 

lives. And it will save manufacturing processes. It will potentially 

save the Metro system in Portland if they aren’t running the light 

rail over the bridges when the bridges go down. 

There will be one bridge that survives in Portland, which happens to be the brand new light rail pedestrian bridge. It is the only 

one probably that will survive. And that was a substantial Federal 

investment partnering with the State. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Carson. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. 

I am curious. There was a recent article in Science magazine 

talking about the usage of GPS smart phones, to add on to Ranking 

14 

Member DeFazio’s question, assisting in detecting earthquakes essentially. Is it feasible that this technology could be incorporated 

into the existing warning system? And at what point, if you could 

project, when will our early earthquake detection systems be compatible with cell phones and other personal devices? 

Mr. ALLEN. So yes. The answer is yes. It is feasible that we could 

use the sensors in smart phones. The article that you are talking 

about was actually trying to use the GPS sensor in a smart phone. 

There are also projects, including one at Berkeley, to use the accelerometer in the cell phone. So now we are talking about using 

the seismometer component and the GPS positioning component. 

So there are multiple projects out there that are exploring this 

use. I lead one of them. So clearly I think that there is real value 

to these systems. But I think it is important to separate clearly the 

smart phone-based kind of systems from the ShakeAlert demonstration system that we are running today. 

The ShakeAlert demonstration system is using what we now call 

traditional geophysical networks, which are hardened. They are 

more robust. We know that they will work. We know that they deliver warnings. They delivered warnings in the Napa earthquake. 

Cell phones, I believe, will help us improve the system in the future, but that is very much a research undertaking at this stage. 

It is not ready to start delivering public safety alerts. 

Mr. CARSON. OK. Next question. Have the lessons learned from 

the last year’s National Level Exercise on the Alaska earthquake 

scenario been compiled and publicly released? And, generally, in 

your mind, what is FEMA’s timeframe for compiling and even publicly issuing lessons learned from that exercise to ensure that plans 

can be improved and even tested in the next exercise? 

Mr. FENTON. Yes, sir. My understanding is the lessons learned 

from last year’s earthquake exercise have not been fully released 

yet. However, we have released some summaries of some of those 

lessons learned. 

Just from the recent exercise last week with southern California, 

there are a number of things that we are looking at with regard 

to prioritization and movement of assets, operational coordination, 

working with the private sector more closely, international support, 

especially when it comes to USAR and some of the legal issues 

there, and then some of the planning issues that we have already 

seen. 

We haven’t waited for the official after-action report to start taking action to improve on those lessons learned, and we continue to 

do that. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Perry. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Ashford and Dr. Allen, what potential is there for public-private partnerships to improve earthquake preparedness and response? And do you have any examples of successful partnerships 

that have emerged surrounding your particular work? 

Mr. ASHFORD. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

15 

I think one example is this Cascadia Lifelines Program that we 

have established at Oregon State University. This was where we 

have private companies together with State and Federal agencies 

pooling research funds to address joint challenges that all these 

lifeline providers face in the face of this Cascadia event. And it is 

funded and directed by these partners, both in the private sector 

as well as the public sector. 

Mr. ALLEN. And in the case of the earthquake early warning effort, very much to build the fully effective system is a public-private partnership. And what I mean by that is that we see the geophysical networks that are run by Federal agencies, State agencies, 

and universities, academic institutions, providing the kernel of the 

alert. But it is the private sector that is going to get that alert out 

to everybody most effectively. 

And so already we have partnerships with groups. Although this 

is a demonstration system and it is not public, there are groups 

who want to be participating in issuing the alerts, companies that 

have cell phone apps, companies that use dedicated radios like the 

NOAA weather radios, for example, things like that. 

And so the private sector is ready. When we have a public system, when we put out these sensors, when we issue these alerts, 

they are ready to then take it and deliver it to everybody in a multitude of ways. And so that is really the kind of private-sector part 

of the project. 

Mr. PERRY. So in that vein, could there be a public-private partnership in terms of post-earthquake damage assessment regarding 

the use of unmanned aerial systems? Have you looked into that at 

all? 

Mr. ASHFORD. Yeah. That is something that we at Oregon State 

University, we have several experts on unmanned aerial systems, 

and one of the things that we are considering is doing post-earthquake evaluation of infrastructure using those UAVs. 

Mr. PERRY. And they would be by private entities as opposed to, 

say, FEMA, for instance? 

Mr. ASHFORD. Yeah. They could be by private entities. Really, 

people would buy the UAVs to inspect their own infrastructure. So 

private companies like Portland General Electric, Northwest Natural Gas. I know that ODOT is also considering buying UAVs to 

do their own inspections. But it could be a private-sector company 

owns the UAVs and that they are subcontracted out to the agencies. 

Mr. PERRY. Dr. Allen, any input? 

Mr. ALLEN. So not with UAVs, no. I focus on the early warning 

piece before the shaking. So that is not really something I have 

knowledge of. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, 

and the ranking member. 

I live on the east coast and I have a stepdaughter on the west 

coast, and I wanted to be here to hear this. And I heard that you 

had in your research 140 recommendations that you were able to 

16 

determine would help. I don’t think you are going to be able to implement a lot of those recommendations because I don’t think there 

is a lot of money here for that. 

But I was wondering, of those 140 recommendations, which are 

the ones that are more reasonable and, quite frankly, less costly to 

implement? And the reason I say that is because, although it is different, in New Jersey we got hit by Sandy, one of the things that 

we found out was that gas stations had gas but had no electricity 

to pump it. 

So I was wondering, a reasonable recommendation would be to 

require these gas stations to have a generator. Can you just talk 

a little bit about that? 

Mr. ASHFORD. Sure. In my task force we took those 140 recommendations and we narrowed it down to about 15 that we 

thought were the most important. And I will just give you three examples. 

Our most important recommendation from our task force was for 

the Governor to appoint a chief resilience officer or policy adviser, 

someone that would really take the lead on resilience efforts in the 

State of Oregon. That is currently in our Ways and Means Committee in the State and pending funding. 

I think another example is one of our recommendations is to 

change hazard preparedness literature to extend the recommendation on how long people should be prepared to be on their own from 

72 hours to 2 weeks. Because of the geographical distribution of the 

damage in these subduction zone events, people should really be 

prepared for a couple of weeks to be ready. 

And I think the last thing, while there is a big price tag on the 

retrofit of the transportation system, we are taking a 50-year horizon. And I think by starting now and taking our time, I think that 

is not something we are trying to do all at once, but hoping that 

we can gain that resilience by the time that next earthquake hits. 

Mr. SIRES. Anybody else went to join in on anything? 

What can we do to ensure that States are properly developing 

building codes and enforcing them? Because I see the Tornado 

Alley. I mean, these homes are made out of wood. I was just wondering, what can we do to force the States to do a better job with 

the building code? 

Mr. HOOPER. The majority of States actually have a building 

code that they adopt voluntarily and then local jurisdictions do it. 

So the vast majority have it. The issue on tornadoes is that is a 

hazard that we do not design for. It is not one of those natural hazards that the ASCE 7 deals with because the return interval on a 

tornado hitting that house is, like, 100,000 years. It is just literally 

that act of God. 

Mr. SIRES. Yeah. But I was thinking in terms of where you have 

a school. I mean, we should really make those schools a place 

where the community gather if there is a catastrophe. 

Mr. HOOPER. You can do that with schools. They have had some 

success in the Midwest in hardening schools and putting safe 

rooms, big safe rooms in schools. So that technology is available. 

But just the typical home or mobile home and things like that, that 

will never be able survive a tornado hit. 

17 

Mr. SIRES. But what I am looking for is what can we do to, let’s 

say, tell the State: Look, you have to make these schools, that place 

where a community meets when there is a catastrophe or in anticipation of one, safer. 

Mr. HOOPER. Why don’t you go ahead. 

Mr. ALLEN. So I guess one comment that I would have to sort 

of both of these questions is that I think one of the real challenges 

we face when it comes to all natural hazards is that they don’t 

come around very frequently. I mean, that is good news, right? But 

the bad news is that it is very difficult, therefore, to get people’s 

attention when it comes to these houses. And that is why these 

things don’t get enforced very effectively sometimes. 

And this is actually, I think, one of the areas where the earthquake early warning effort has a potential for a significant broader 

impact. I mean, we would build an early warning system in order 

to provide warnings. But early warning has a cache with people because they can envision: Now I am going to get a warning on my 

cell phone. This is something very real. And we can use that interest to then leverage broader preparedness for, in that case, the 

earthquake problem. 

So I think what we have to do is kind of look for ways to link 

together these various technology opportunities to also get people’s 

interest and to encourage individuals to take responsibility to have 

the 2 weeks’ worth of supplies or to have a tornado shelter. 

Mr. SIRES. And, Dr. Allen, you said that you could evacuate a 

school in 11⁄2 minutes? I was a teacher for 10 years. I would like 

to see that. 

Mr. ALLEN. That was what the principal of a certain school—— 

Mr. SIRES. Well, you tell that principal I would like to see that. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

I will now recognize each Member for an additional 5 minutes of 

questions. 

I will direct my question to Mr. Hooper, but then ask each of you 

to weigh in, and I think we are sort of scratching the surface of 

this question already. 

This subcommittee has held a hearing and hosted a roundtable 

discussion on the dramatic increase in disaster costs and losses. We 

are working to identify opportunities to drive down the costs of disasters, and particularly the burden on the American taxpayer. 

Mr. Hooper, I will start with you, but then open it up to everyone. How can some of the work you are doing potentially reduce 

disaster costs and losses in the United States? 

Mr. HOOPER. Well, we are continually improving the knowledge 

and the design of how we deal with earthquakes and other natural 

hazards. The key thing there is to implement that correctly. The 

designers have to design the infrastructure and the buildings correctly. ASCE 7, the document that everyone uses can do that. 

Then we have to get it built correctly. And so there is also this 

side of making sure it gets constructed the way it needs to be done. 

But the other challenge we face, though, is the building turnover, 

guys, is really short. It takes a long time, meaning every year only 

one-half of 1 percent of the building stock turns over, so that it will 

take time to implement better design. 

18 

As I mentioned in my testimony, Cascadia did not exist in our 

design world until 1994. That is probably less than 2 or 3 percent 

of buildings in the Pacific Northwest that have been designed using 

that approach and that shaking hazard in mind. So over time we 

will get better designs as the 50-year window, as mentioned earlier, 

we will get better improvement just through that window of the 

length of time. 

And so there are a lot of different things happening, but I think 

time is on our side as long as we continue to implement good design and, very importantly, construction practices. 

Mr. ALLEN. So I think that in the case of earthquake early warning, the sort of cost-benefit argument of implementing a system is 

a very straightforward argument. Some of the examples of what 

you would save, I mentioned the Northridge earthquake, we know 

that 50 percent of the injuries were caused by falling hazards. If 

everybody was under a sturdy table having received a warning, 

then we would halve the number of injuries. It is estimated that 

the cost of just those injuries was $2 billion to $3 billion. 

When we think about the BART train system, each of the BART trains themselves is worth $30 million. So if you just save 1 train, 

you have saved $30 million, never mind about the 1,000 passengers 

that might be on the system. 

If we talk about schools that evacuate or other buildings that 

evacuate, we are talking about both reducing the number of fatalities and the number of injuries. 

The list goes on. So in terms of the cost-benefit for an early 

warning system, I think it is a real slam dunk. 

Mr. HOOPER. I would like to add one more comment as well. 

I mentioned our performance goal is life safety. That is the major 

thing in event of an earthquake, protect the people within the 

building from being killed or seriously injured. 

To help improve what we do economically, we need to up the 

game. We need to shoot for enhanced performance above that level 

if we really want to try to reduce costs. But in doing that, that requires the building costs to go up as well for anything that gets 

built new, upwards to 5 or 10 percent more of the construction 

costs in a school or a highrise or something like that. It doesn’t 

sound like much, but sometimes that is the tipping point between 

the developer saying yes to a project and no to a project. 

But that is something we should dialogue on because to be resilient, to be quite honest, we do need to have better performance in 

just the life safety that we target today. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Anyone else? 

Mr. ASHFORD. Yeah. I think that if you look at earthquake research and you look at wise use of taxpayer dollars, I will give you 

a couple of examples where research has saved millions of dollars 

with a huge return on the investment. 

An example in Oregon. Oregon Department of Transportation invested in about a $2 million research program at Oregon State 

University ultimately saving $500 million in a bridge retrofit program carried out in the last decade. 

Another example, for our Cascadia Lifelines Program, we are 

looking at innovative ways to retrofit old buildings, old masonry 

structures, that we, rather than having to tear down a structure, 

19 

we can retrofit it, leave it in place, and again save millions of dollars. 

Mr. FENTON. Sir, I would just add, codes and standards, I agree 

with. Through our NEHRP program we do a lot to establish standards to help improve the building codes across the country. There 

is an enormous amount of literature we provide that is used by the 

construction companies. This public education is used to make 

them aware of the threats and to show them what to do when 

these threats happen. 

Mitigation, whether it is building back stronger or moving individuals out of harm’s ways, is critically important. 

I think some of the new authorities we got after Sandy with regard to 424 allow us to, when we build back, to go ahead and build 

mitigation into those projects at a higher rate than previously before to build more resiliency. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you for your answers there. 

Mr. Carson? 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

My final question, is there anything that Congress can do specifically to encourage the private sector to incorporate seismic measures and infrastructure repairs and replacement? 

Mr. ASHFORD. I think that one of the things we are looking at 

in Oregon, especially with our private utilities, is allowing them to 

recover the cost in their rate base, allowing them to recover the 

costs not only of the risk assessment, but also their mitigation efforts. And that is some of our recommendations from our task force 

report, and those are things that are pending in front of the Oregon 

legislature. 

I would say that you could do the same thing for federally regulated utilities. 

Mr. CARSON. OK. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you for your valuable testimony. Your 

comments have been helpful to today’s discussion. If there are no 

further questions, I would ask unanimous consent that the record 

of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses 

have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to 

them in writing and unanimous consent that the record remain 

open for 15 days for any additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to once again thank our witnesses for their testimony today. 

If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

20 


Insert offset folio 8 here 94639.008
21 


Insert offset folio 9 here 94639.009
22 


Insert offset folio 10 here 94639.010
23 


Insert offset folio 11 here 94639.011
24 


Insert offset folio 12 here 94639.012
25 


Insert offset folio 13 here 94639.013
26 


Insert offset folio 14 here 94639.014
27 


Insert offset folio 15 here 94639.015
28 


Insert offset folio 16 here 94639.016
29 


Insert offset folio 17 here 94639.017
30 


Insert offset folio 18 here 94639.018
31 


Insert offset folio 19 here 94639.019
32 


Insert offset folio 20 here 94639.020
33 


Insert offset folio 21 here 94639.021
34 


Insert offset folio 22 here 94639.022
35 


Insert offset folio 23 here 94639.023
36 


Insert offset folio 24 here 94639.024
37 


Insert offset folio 25 here 94639.025
38 


Insert offset folio 26 here 94639.026
39 


Insert offset folio 27 here 94639.027
40 


Insert offset folio 28 here 94639.028
41 


Insert offset folio 29 here 94639.029
42 


Insert offset folio 30 here 94639.030
43 


Insert offset folio 31 here 94639.031
44 


Insert offset folio 32 here 94639.032
45 


Insert offset folio 33 here 94639.033
46 


Insert offset folio 34 here 94639.034
47 


Insert offset folio 35 here 94639.035
48 


Insert offset folio 36 here 94639.036
49 


Insert offset folio 37 here 94639.037
50 


Insert offset folio 38 here 94639.038
51 


Insert offset folio 39 here 94639.039
52 


Insert offset folio 40 here 94639.040
53 


Insert offset folio 41 here 94639.041
54 


Insert offset folio 42 here 94639.042
55 


Insert offset folio 43 here 94639.043
56 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 44 here 94639.044