U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

68–042 PDF 2011

TSUNAMI WARNING, PREPAREDNESS,

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION: LESSONS LEARNED

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,

HOMELAND DEFENSE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 14, 2011

Serial No. 112–25

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

CONNIE MACK, Florida

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking

Minority Member

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JACKIE SPEIER, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, HOMELAND DEFENSE AND FOREIGN

OPERATIONS

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts, Ranking

Minority Member

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 14, 2011 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Leith, William, Acting Associate Director for Natural Hazards, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Interior; Mary Glackin, Deputy

Under Secretary for Operations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce; Nancy Ward, Region

IX Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, accompanied by Kenneth Murphy, Region X Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency; and John W. Madden, director, Alaska

Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management .................. 23

Glackin, Mary ............................................................................................ 32

Leith, William ............................................................................................ 23

Madden, John W. ....................................................................................... 52

Ward, Nancy .............................................................................................. 42

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Utah, various prepared statements ............................................................. 3

Glackin, Mary, Deputy Under Secretary for Operations, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 34

Leith, William, Acting Associate Director for Natural Hazards, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Interior, prepared statement of ........ 26

Madden, John W., director, Alaska Division of Homeland Security and

Emergency Management, prepared statement of ....................................... 54

Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts, prepared statement of ................................................... 21

Ward, Nancy, Region IX Administrator, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, prepared statement of .................................................................... 44

(1)

TSUNAMI WARNING, PREPAREDNESS, INTERAGENCY COOPERATION: LESSONS LEARNED

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, HOMELAND

DEFENSE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:12 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Gosar, Labrador, and Tierney.

Also present: Representative Hanabusa.

Staff present: Thomas A. Alexander, senior counsel; Molly Boyl,

parliamentarian; Kate Dunbar, staff assistant; Adam P. Fromm, director of Member liaison and floor operations; Mitchell S.

Kominsky, counsel; Justin Kim and Scott Lindsay, minority counsels; and Zieta Merchant, LCDR, fellow.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The committee will come to order.

Good afternoon and welcome to today’s hearing, Tsunami Warning, Preparedness and Interagency Cooperation: Lessons Learned.

I would also like to welcome Ranking Member Tierney, members

of the subcommittee and those of you watching live on the Web

cast at oversight.house.gov. Thank you all for joining us.

I appreciate your patience. We have a lot of votes and things

happening on Capitol Hill today. I appreciate the distance that

many of you have traveled, some short, some rather long. We appreciate it. This is an important topic and we appreciate your participation.

Apologies in advance; we get called out for votes. Also, we have

a markup going on in the committee I am participating in next

door, and I may need to go to that as well. Nevertheless, we are

glad you are here. This is an important topic that literally would

affect millions of people’s lives. Hopefully it will never come to that.

Hopefully it is just a lesson in preparedness. But when that disaster, if, and hopefully it doesn’t ever happen, the work that you

are doing now and the preparation is vital to our country and the

lives and safety of so many Americans and people around the

world.

Fifty thousand people were dead or went missing and millions

more were suddenly homeless in 11 countries. Our Pacific states

and territories are also in reach of the damaging effects of

tsunamis. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration, the contiguous United States has suffered from

2

tsunamis originating in Chile, Japan, Russia and Alaska. In 2009,

American Samoa was struck by a tsunami that killed 22 people.

That is why we are here today.

This subcommittee will examine the extent to which the Federal

Government is capable of determining the threat from tsunamis,

can issue timely and effective warnings about a tsunami and has

the plans in place to respond to a tsunami. Also, the subcommittee

will look at how successful the Federal Government is in helping

local and State authorities develop tsunami-resilient communities,

and how these entities conduct public outreach. We will also examine lessons learned from Japan and the extent to which they can

be applied.

Taxpayers have invested substantial resources to ensure U.S.

preparedness. The Federal entities principally responsible for this

mission are the U.S. Geological Survey, NOAA and the Federal

Emergency Management Agency. Career officials from these agencies are here today. We have also invited their State counterparts

to testify about collaboration with the Federal Government.

A representative from the State of Alaska is here with us today.

The States of Oregon, Washington and Hawaii have submitted

their statements for the record. We are only disappointed that California chose not to participate.

I ask unanimous consent that those statements be placed in the

hearing record. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses. I would like to recognize the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney, for his opening statement.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank the witnesses for

being with us here today.

I am going to ask that my statement in its entirety be placed in

the record, if there is no objection.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. TIERNEY. I would just make a couple of quick points, in the

interest of time here. One is obviously that we stand by the Japanese people during this very difficult time and we will continue to

do that, I am sure.

But also, by all accounts, it would seem to us that the response

in this country worked admirably during the Japanese tsunami situation. So I want to thank all of you and congratulate you on that.

According to the interim director of the Emergency Management

Association from Oregon, ‘‘The Federal response to this disaster

was magnificent.’’

So it doesn’t belie the fact that we all need to continue to be prepared. We can never be too prepared on that. And Congress has to

make sure that there is adequate support for each and every one

of these agencies in all of their responsibilities, but in particular

on this topic with respect to the tsunamis.

I am a bit concerned when I look at some of the budget proposals

being put forward. They do reduce the budget for a number of the

agencies, and I want to hear from the witnesses at some point during the time whether or not that is likely to impact our ability

going forward to be as prepared and ready both to detect and to

respond to these incidents.

So with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John F. Tierney follows:]

21

22

23

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements for the

record.

We will now recognize our panel. Dr. William Leith is the Acting

Associate Director for Natural Hazards at the U.S. Geological Survey. Ms. Mary Glackin is the Deputy Under Secretary for Operations at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Ms. Nancy Ward is the Regional Administrator for Region IX of the

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Kenneth Murphy is the

Regional Administrator for Region X of the Federal Emergency

Management Agency. And Mr. John Madden is the director of the

Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for the

State of Alaska.

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. If you would please rise and raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered

in the affirmative. Thank you.

We will now hear your testimony. If you would be so kind as to

limit your comments to 5 minutes. Your full statement will be submitted for the record, for others to be able to peruse. But if you

could keep your verbal comments to 5 minutes, in order to get

through this, plus the questioning, we would certainly appreciate

it. You should see a nice red light when you get to that 5 minutes.

We will start with you, Dr. Leith. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM LEITH, ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR NATURAL HAZARDS, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; MARY GLACKIN, DEPUTY

UNDER SECRETARY FOR OPERATIONS, NATIONAL OCEANIC

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF COMMERCE; NANCY WARD, REGION IX ADMINISTRATOR,

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY KENNETH MURPHY, REGION X ADMINISTRATOR,

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; AND JOHN

W. MADDEN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF HOMELAND

SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LEITH

Mr. LEITH. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank

you for inviting the U.S. Geological Survey to testify at this hearing.

The USGS is tasked under the Stafford Act to issue forecasts and

warnings for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and landslides. For

tsunami, we provide critical science and monitoring support to

NOAA, FEMA and other agencies. We provide hazard alerts to a

broad suite of users, including the general public.

The scope of each notification depends on the severity and extent

and possible impact of the event. Our key users include not only

FEMA and NOAA, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, State

transportation and water Management agencies, including Utah,

24

for example, local emergency managers and national and international disaster response organizations.

To monitor earthquakes in the United States and abroad, the

USGS operates the Advanced National Seismic System, and in

partnership with the National Science Foundation, the Global Seismographic Network. ANSS and GSN seismic data are relayed directly to the NOAA tsunami warnings centers, enabling them to respond within minutes of a major event.

We also participate in the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program [NTHMP]. The USGS invested $2.3 million in fiscal year

2010 in research and assessment activities supporting the goals of

the NTHMP. USGS contributes guidance in the preparation of tsunami inundation maps, as well as capabilities to survey coastal and

near-shore bathymetry and topography, which of course strongly

influence tsunami wave heights and inundations.

The U.S. west coast, Hawaii and the Pacific territories are all at

risk for damage from tsunami generated by earthquakes. Our

shores host two subduction zones that are capable of magnitude 9

earthquakes: one offshore of Alaska, which last ruptured in 1964,

and the other in the Pacific Northwest, known as Cascadia, which

last ruptured in 1700. This latter one deserves special mention. Recent investigations of offshore deposits indicate that the zone may

have produced magnitude 9 size earthquakes perhaps 20 times in

the last 10,000 years. Further research is therefore needed to fully

document and assess the earthquake potential in this area.

With respect to our southern and eastern shores, the USGS has

done extensive research for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on

tsunami history and potential in the Atlantic coast and the Caribbean. These regions have less frequent damaging tsunami than in

the Pacific, and historic tsunami of the size that hit Japan on

March 11th are not known. But the historic and geologic record

suggests that the tsunami risk here cannot be dismissed.

What did we learn from the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami? On the day of the earthquake, technical coordination between NOAA, the tsunami warning centers and the USGS National

Earthquake Information Center was seamless. Since then, close coordination of post-disaster information and response activities has

occurred under the protocols of the National Earthquake Hazard

Reduction Program.

Also, while tsunami damage and loss of life were heavy in Japan,

it appears that the investments made there in monitoring and

warning systems, earthquake-resistant construction, public information and preparedness activities actually significantly limited

the damage and loss of life before the earthquake. Still, the disaster has taught us that scientists need to thoroughly document

the prehistoric record of large earthquakes in order to fully assess

their likelihood and consequences.

Looking forward, the United States can reduce tsunami risks,

improve public warning and response in three basic areas. First,

continued public education through ongoing efforts in the United

States, Pacific States and territories, particularly in Hawaii and

the Pacific Northwest. Second, the completion of this advanced national seismic system including the enhancement of networks in

the eastern United States and the development of earthquake early

25

warning capabilities which were in place in Japan and apparently

effective. And third, enhanced research into the frequency and effects of prehistoric tsunamis. Our recorded history is simply too

short to provide adequate probabilities for such rare events.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I would be happy

to take any questions you or the committee may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leith follows:]

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I appreciate your comments.

Ms. Glackin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MARY GLACKIN

Ms. GLACKIN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Tierney and others members of the committee. We appreciate the opportunity to testify on this important topic this

afternoon.

NOAA plays a critical role in ensuring our Nation is warned of

many natural and man-made hazards and prepared to respond to

these. The March 11th Japanese earthquake and tsunami served

as reminders of our vulnerability to these hazards. And as my colleague has just described, there are major threats in our coastal regions. A rupture along any of these faults could set off a tsunami

relatively close to the shore and impact coastal communities in

mere minutes. NOAA is working to ensure our Nation is prepared

for such potential catastrophes.

A comprehensive and effective tsunami warning process requires

three parts. First, observations for detection and models to forecast

the path and the impact. Second, timely and accurate alerts. And

perhaps most importantly, community education and awareness to

ensure the proper public response to alerts and warnings.

Today I want to discuss very briefly how NOAA integrates all

three of these components and works with our customers and partners to ensure our Nation is prepared. We provide a host of products and services that minimize the impact of tsunamis, from advance preparedness of coastal communities to detection and warning service to post-event response and recovery efforts. NOAA operates a suite of instruments and tools, including an array of ocean

buoys and monitoring stations more to the sea floor, sea level

gauges at the coastline, our polar orbiting satellites are involved

and that of our advanced computer modeling.

NOAA’s services include around the clock forecast and warning

centers and extensive public outreach and education efforts. Within

minutes of the Japanese earthquake, NOAA received seismic data

from USGS and other partners, and issued tsunami warnings and

information statements for both domestic and international communities through our two centers in Hawaii and Alaska.

Wave data from our deep ocean data buoys and coastal data from

our tide gauges were relayed via satellites and integrated into tsunami models. Our talented professionals translated this into warnings and forecasts. These alerts and warnings provided lead times

of 7 hours for Hawaii, 4 hours for Alaska, and 9 hours for the west

coast. Local and national weather service forecast offices that serve

the U.S. coastline issued localized tsunami impact statements.

Together, this information helped emergency managers and local

officials evaluate the ongoing threat until all the warnings and

advisories were finally dropped over 36 hours after the initial

earthquake.

The best warning information, however, is worth little unless

those at risk are prepared and ready to respond. To achieve this

level of preparedness, NOAA is engaged in an extensive array of

outreach and education efforts. We work with our Federal partners,

with local and State governments through the National Tsunami

33

Hazards Mitigation program. This program, formed in 1995 and reauthorized by Congress in 2006, works to reduce the impact of

tsunamis on the U.S. coastal communities and includes all 28 U.S.

coastal States, territories and commonwealths.

This program stresses the importance of NOAA’s tsunami-ready

program, a voluntary partnership among NOAA, State and local

emergency management agencies. It strives to increase the public

awareness of the threat that tsunamis pose, improve hazard planning and strengthen warning communication, linking the emergency management community with the public. Currently, there

are 83 tsunami-ready communities. NOAA’s goal is to recognize

105 by 2013.

We believe that tsunami-ready and the National Tsunami Hazards Mitigation Program is a model program for how the government at all levels can work together to improve hazard resilience

in the United States.

In summary, the investments made by Congress and the administration in NOAA’s tsunami warning system and the National

Tsunami Hazard Mitigation program directly saved lives in the

United States during last month’s Pacific-wide tsunami disaster.

Nothing can eliminate the physical threat that tsunamis pose.

However, NOAA remains committed to leading U.S. efforts to save

lives and property through tsunami preparedness, detection and

forecasting efforts.

We will work in partnership to continuously improve our natural

hazard services to the Nation. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Glackin follows:]

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Ms. Ward, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF NANCY WARD

Ms. WARD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Tierney and distinguished members of the subcommittee.

I am the Regional Administrator for FEMA Region IX. My region

encompasses California, Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada, American

Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated

States of Micronesia.

I am pleased to be here alongside Ken Murphy, Regional Administrator for FEMA Region X, which encompasses Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. We are honored to be here today.

I would first like to say that our thoughts and prayers go out to

the people of Japan as they continue to recover from the devastation of the past several weeks. The events in Japan also serve,

however, as a reminder of the importance of tsunami preparedness

in our own country. While tsunamis occur infrequently, they have

the potential to cause major destruction to the coastal communities

in several FEMA regions.

Because tsunamis present great potential for damage to both

people and property, all levels of government must be prepared for

the threats associated with them. We in government also have a

responsibility to coordinate our preparedness efforts with non-governmental entities, including private sector organizations, non-profit and faith-based groups, and perhaps most important, the individuals and families who live in these potentially affected communities.

My written testimony discusses FEMA’s catastrophic planning

efforts, which both includes all hazards approaches, a certain hazard-specific plans in areas at heightened risk for tsunami. This

afternoon, however, I would like to discuss the recent tsunami

threat to Region IX as an example of how FEMA works to support

our State and local partners in the event of tsunami threat.

Just after 10 p.m. March 9th, FEMA region was alerted to a

magnitude 9 earthquake, soon followed by a Pacific-wide tsunami

warning. The Region IX watch center immediately alerted Region

IX senior staff and made contact with our national watch center.

Within the hour, the FEMA regional support team and our regional

support coordination center was activated to a Level 1, FEMA’s

highest activation level. Our regional on-call incident management

assistance team was noticed and placed on alert for immediate deployment to a potential tsunami-impacted area. Key Federal agency partners were also mobilized and directed to report to the RRCC

to emergency support function coordination and assets.

Immediately following activation of our regional response coordination center, Region IX established lines of communication with

our States and territorial partners, including FEMA Region X as

a communication hub for jurisdictions throughout the Pacific. Simultaneously, in Hawaii, the FEMA Region IX Pacific Area office,

located out in Fort Shafter in Hawaii, went operational. The Pacific

Area office deputy director was dispatched to the State of Hawaii’s

civil defense emergency operations center and co-located with our

State partners throughout the entire incident period.

43

In the aftermath of the tsunami, Region IX worked closely with

Hawaii and California to conduct preliminary damage assessments.

These PDAs resulted in disaster declarations requests for both Hawaii and California, a disaster declared last week for the State of

Hawaii and California’s request is still under review. Similarly, in

Region X, FEMA’s activation and coordination with their States resulted in a disaster declaration for the State of Oregon.

As is both policy and doctrine at FEMA, we worked very closely

with all of our Federal Government partners, including invaluable

contributions by both NOAA and the USGS. We also plan, train

and exercise year around with State, local, tribal and territorial

governments to help with tsunami and other planning education

and awareness. As an example, FEMA supports the National

Weather Service to promote the tsunami-ready campaign. We also

encourage States and localities to use their grant funding to increase their disaster preparedness.

While no coastal community is tsunami-proof, we work with the

community leaders and emergency managers to reduce the potential for disastrous tsunami-related consequences. The events in

Japan have also raised important questions as to how a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami might affect our nuclear facilities

and surrounding areas. At the direction of Administrator Fugate,

we have increased our participation and exercises associated with

our nuclear plants.

We are focused on conducting exercises that provide a true test

of our emergency protocols and capabilities. This week, for instance, in San Onofre, California, State emergency experts are

leading a mandated biennial exercise of the Southern California

Edison Beachfront Nuclear Power Plant stationed in Orange County, California, a site, I might add, that supports the National

Weather Service’s tsunami-ready designation. As would be the case

in any actual event, the NRC and the State have the primary authority. FEMA Region IX is participating in the exercise, both as

a player and as an evaluator of how the exercise unfolds.

Most important, however, we work to instill a commitment to

personal preparedness. April is also earthquake preparedness

month, which will provide more of a platform for us to disseminate

information. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ward follows:]

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Oh, joint statement. My apologies. Thank you. Well done, Mr. Murphy. [Laughter.]

Best one we have heard yet. No offense. [Laughter.]

Mr. Madden, we appreciate the distance that you have traveled

here. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MADDEN

Mr. MADDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member

Tierney, and members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity.

I am the director of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for the State of Alaska. I am responsible for confronting the

entire range of hazards that nature and humans can inflict on our

citizens and economy.

We are no stranger to disasters. We have fires, floods, storms

and cold every year. But the seismic hazards of earthquakes and

tsunamis give little or no warning and require a different approach

to preparedness.

In our history are many destructive earthquakes. The largest

was the 9.2 earthquake which generated many tsunamis. It happened on Good Friday in 1964. That killed 131 people in Alaska,

Oregon and California.

We believe that tsunami preparedness is an enterprise, a purposeful and industrious undertaking that requires extreme coordination. The State of Alaska works with many organizations on this

enterprise, including several that are here at the table today.

We recently conducted the latest tsunami operations workshop in

Dutch Harbor, Alaska, for communities throughout the 1,500 miles

of the Aleutian Islands, the Alaskan peninsula and Kodiak Island.

Many of these communities are within the areas that were threatened by the Japanese tsunami. Each community left that workshop

with plans on evacuation, emergency operations and solid understanding of warnings, advisories and watches which were put to

the test just a few weeks ago.

On March 10th, Alaska received almost instant notification of

the earthquake and shortly thereafter received the first advisories

from the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center. This

emergency combined four factors that greatly complicated our response. The warnings came in the middle of the night, in winter,

in adverse weather and in isolated communities far remote from

each other and from the nearest help. We established voice contact

with every community in the warning and advisory area, and ensured that community leaders had the information necessary for

their local decisions.

Alaska was very fortunate that only limited damage occurred in

our coastal communities.

During last month’s event, the tsunami preparedness enterprise

worked as designed overall. The continuous monitoring yielded immediate detection. The computer models determined the potential

for tsunami. The alert and warning centers transmitted the critical

information. The deepwater buoys provided data to recalculate the

estimated arrival times and amplitudes to very high accuracy. And

all the State assets were primed and ready to respond as needed.

53

Most importantly, the communities received the information and

invoked the plans that had been recently validated.

The State of Alaska strongly supports this tsunami enterprise,

and particularly the continued authorization and funding of the

National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation program within the Federal

Government. Through funding to the States with tsunami risk, this

program advances preparedness through tsunami-ready communities, sirens, training, exercises, signage and much more. We also

recommend that resilient and redundant communications systems

be made the highest priority to ensure continuity of the tsunami

warning network.

The most critical element of the entire enterprise is public outreach and education. All the science, all the computers, all the

warnings are useless if the affected community does not know how

to respond to that threat. We must create and sustain a posture

of preparedness in each person living or visiting our coastal communities. Only through exemplary interagency cooperation can we

prepare for this most unpredictable and potentially devastating

hazard.

With the continued support of Congress, you can provide the

partners in this vital enterprise, Federal, State and local governments and the general public, with the means to continue effectively to protect lives and property.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Madden follows:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I appreciate all your testimony. We

will now move to a round of questioning. I am going to recognize

myself to start for 5 minutes.

Ms. Glackin, let’s talk about the modeling. Because the key to all

of this is that chain reaction that all starts with the modeling that

says, here it comes. How complete is that? As you look at the U.S.

coastline, including our territories, obviously Alaska and Hawaii,

are there parts of that aren’t mapped? I don’t know the technical

way to ask that, but where are the vulnerabilities in the detection

models?

Ms. GLACKIN. It is not all mapped. This is an area that we have

been working on and in particular, using some of the resources

that we have gotten from the Spectrum sale, which happened after

the Indonesian tsunami. We have approached this in dealing with

where we know there are risk areas. For example, as has been

highlighted, off of Alaska and off of the Cascadia zone there.

We have a recent report, we have gone to the National Academies of Science to ask for a review of our tsunami warning program overall. One of the things that they have encouraged us to

do is, in partnership with our Federal partners and States is to do

an overall risk assessment across the United States to really have

a handle on what the particular challenge areas are. We would like

to take that on as one of the things that we will be looking at to

find ways to resource this.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So of our coastline, what percentage is not?

Ms. GLACKIN. We are able to issue a tsunami warning for any

part of our coastline. It is not that there would not be a tsunami

warning. We will be able to give you a better, where we have the

more detailed modeling done, we will be able to give you more information about what the potential impacts will be, how much inundation and things like that. I will have to get back to you with

exactly what percentage of all that.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And that is the curiosity, as to where the

vulnerabilities are. We have talked a lot about the Pacific, and my

other part of the question is what about the Atlantic and obviously

the Gulf and what-not? I don’t know if you can speak to that.

Ms. GLACKIN. I think that when you think about vulnerabilities,

tsunamis are caused primarily by the seismic activity there. They

can also be caused by landslides under water. There is a more technical term for this, my colleague knows, to do that. And so a lot

of what we have been doing in partnership is being driven by the

seismic assessment of theirs. So we have done that risk assessment. That has informed how we put out our monitoring stations,

what we call our DART buoys for doing this. So that level is done.

For us to make more progress, we have to do mapping of the inland areas there, so we have better handles on how the water will

actually roll up.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. As a followup, I would be very curious again, as

to where the vulnerabilities are.

Let me go to another part. In your written testimony you stated

that ‘‘NOAA provides a host of products and services that minimize

the impacts from tsunamis, from advanced preparedness of coastal

communities to detection and warning services to post-event response and recovery efforts.’’

60

Ms. GLACKIN. I can use exactly the example for this recent event.

One of the things that NOAA does as part of our National Ocean

Service is we do navigational mapping. So we went into Crescent

Harbor in California, where there had been so much destruction,

and our ships did surveys there to identify debris that was on the

sea bed floor and allowed the Coast Guard to be able to, we found

out where it is, the Coast Guard comes in and removes it. So they

were able to open the ports in a timely fashion.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let me go to Mr. Murphy. Your perceptions of

concerns about what happens in your region, how good is this information that you are going to get? How is the coordination between

the two different agencies?

Mr. MURPHY. I can tell you that it is very good, Mr. Chairman.

We totally rely, actually not only on NOAA, but USGS products.

And I can tell you from this recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami, everybody that I work with in our States usually are well

wired into both the tsunami warning centers. You can also get your

own personal alerts on your smart phone, BlackBerrys, computers.

So I think a lot of that really pays dividends.

I agree with Ms. Glackin, I know that we have reached out to

them, because we had damage in some of the ports in Oregon. We

had great partners, working together to try and get those ports

back open. Because there are so many issues where you need

NOAA and USGS, Coast Guard, a few other agencies to get these

communities in a recovery mode and back operating.

So I think as a group of agencies, we really do have to work together pre-event and post-event.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. My time is expired.

I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts for 5 minutes.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Glackin, I just want to cover a little bit of territory with you.

I note that there was some speculation when the H.R. 1, the socalled fiscal year 2011 proposal was originally presented, and was

aiming to cut 16 percent of NOAA’s budget, particularly that area

devoted to operations, research and facilities, which would in fact

fund some of the things yo have been talking about here today, including the DART buoys that are currently inoperative and the

ability to maintain and repair them.

Do we still run that risk? How much of a budget cut could you

sustain without running that type of risk, which seems to me to be

quite serious?

Ms. GLACKIN. We were much relieved to see the numbers this

week, compared to H.R. 1, in allowing us to be able to resource

some of our critical operations. We are in the process of putting together a spend plan in terms of going forward in this. I think even

importantly, getting some stability in the full-year funding is important, because we need to get out there with our ships and maintain some of our buoys, which we will be able to do once we all

hope, I think, there is successful action this week on an appropriation.

Mr. TIERNEY. I take it that the fact that you suspended the

maintenance and detection infrastructure and repair on that basis

61

would indicate that 16 percent was certainly going to require that

you cut some?

Ms. GLACKIN. That is right.

Mr. TIERNEY. And now you are looking to see how much you

have to cut? Or is there a chance that you won’t have to cut anything?

Ms. GLACKIN. I think it is premature for me to say. We have

challenges, certainly, at the funding level that is presented to us.

And NOAA is working within the administration to develop a

spend plan, which it will bring up for approval in Congress. So I

think we will have tough choices to make in that, but it is premature to say what they would be.

Mr. TIERNEY. Now, the nine DART buoys that are currently inoperative, how long have they been inoperative?

Ms. GLACKIN. Sir, let me say a few words about that. Our DART

buoy network is designed with some redundancy in it.

Mr. TIERNEY. I would assume.

Ms. GLACKIN. Yes, because you have them off the coast of Alaska. They will fail becomes sometimes the weather just pulls the

moorings out and things like that.

What we like to do is get out there as soon as possible when we

get good weather, get our ships out there and get those repaired.

So we have been delayed in doing that this year, because of the

lack of funding situation. So with the stability and funding going,

we will be able to get those ships out there and get them repaired.

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

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

I now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador.

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. Thanks for taking the time and also

thanks for waiting for a long time. We have had a hectic day and

I know it has been difficult for you waiting. So I appreciate that.

Dr. Leith, in your testimony you state that the west coast of the

United States, Hawaii and the Pacific Territories are all at risk for

damage from tsunamis generated by distant earthquakes. How do

you think, and Ms. Glackin, how do risks of such destructive

tsunamis for the United States compare to what we have seen in

Japan historically? And can you describe the potential damage that

would result, and are we prepared as a Nation?

Mr. LEITH. The example that I would like to give in terms of the

risk that we face is coming from Alaska, a known zone which can

produce very large earthquakes and tsunami, is that we have had

tsunamigenic earthquakes in the 1920’s and 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s

and 1960’s. But we have not had any since the 1960’s. So we are

in a situation, the earth is quite unpredictable in its generation,

the timeliness of its generation of earthquakes. And what I would

say as an earth scientist is that stress is building up. We can expect another tsunami coming from Alaska.

I can’t comment, and it is outside the work of our agency, in

terms of the preparedness on the coastline for that. But we are

working with NOAA and FEMA and developing scenarios for a

large earthquake generated in Alaska and its impact all the way

down on the coast. USGS provides the scientific basis for that scenario, and then the other partners, Federal, State and local, take

it from there to evaluate the impacts.

62

Mr. LABRADOR. Ms. Glackin.

Ms. GLACKIN. Thank you. I think all of us appreciate this committee taking the time to have this hearing. Because I think what

we can’t afford as a Nation is complacency. That is the danger with

events that are infrequent, like tsunamis.

I think with respect to the vulnerability in this country that our

ability to put out warnings, as long as we are able to sustain our

infrastructure that is there, I feel good about. I think that there is

a real challenge, though, in keeping the local communities ready to

respond for this.

I really want to make the point to this committee that is in my

written testimony but I didn’t say here, when you have these local

tsunamis, you really need to know, to move and not wait for the

warning. People have to be trained and in tune and when that

ground is shaking and the water is receding, you move. You are not

waiting for your cell phone to tell you something.

And the fact that this is in the coastline, where we have so many

visitors, populations swell there, people are unfamiliar with roads,

it is incredibly important that they are able to move from that

coastline and know what to do.

So that is going to take a continued, I think, investment and attention at all levels of government.

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you.

To followup on that comment, Mr. Murphy, and I am going to

ask the question of all the panelists, what can we do to improve

warning and response times?

Mr. MURPHY. I think probably, and I would agree with Ms.

Glackin, we can never be too prepared. As you might well imagine,

we have so many visitors on the Pacific coast, both in Ms. Ward’s

region and mine, that you never can over-educate the people. I

think it is something you have to consistently do. You clearly have

to partner with everybody.

In FEMA, we have taken an initiative called the whole of community. You really have to share resources and make everybody a

part of that team.

I can tell you that some of our States in Region X, Oregon and

Washington, you have to partner with the hotel association and get

them to make some investments about teaching their visitors who

stay in their facilities what to do. Because somebody from a landlocked State or part of the country may not understand what you

need to do in a tsunami. I know we promote really, don’t drive, you

go up a hill or things like that, and try to teach them some things.

And of course, basic preparedness for any type of disaster. If that

family takes the time to have a family plan, build a kit and stay

informed of what is going on, they will have a much better chance.

Then I would finally say, both Ms. Ward and I in our regions

continue to work on catastrophic planning of what can happen.

Since this is a no-notice event, the Cascadia Subduction Zone lies

very close to the west coast of the United States, it would take a

very quick second to change how life would be out there. So we

keep working on the catastrophic issue and how we might deal

with it.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman?

63

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes?

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that

the gentlewoman from Hawaii be allowed to participate on the

panel. And given that all the Members have asked at least one

round, be now allowed to ask 5 minutes of questions.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We will now recognize the gentlewoman from Hawaii.

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the

members of this committee.

To those who are testifying, thank you for being here. As mentioned, I represent Hawaii, and I represent the first congressional

district, which as some of you may know, contains the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. It is a place and an issue that is very dear

to many of us, especially in light of the last tsunami that hit

Japan. And we do know the impact of what the warning system

meant for the people of Hawaii. We were very fortunate, we had

no deaths. We did have property damage. But I credit that to really

how well it operates. Because of that, I asked to be permitted to

sit here.

My main concern, of course, first, and I guess we can start with

Ms. Glackin, is to discover the NOAA budget, which is presently

scheduled to be cut. What impact will that have on, for example,

the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center? I know I am reading your

statement, you felt the Continuing Resolution has had an impact

in terms of the DARTs not being able to be repaired and so forth.

I think you said nine are inoperative at this time.

So can you tell me exactly what impact it would have, at the

present funding level?

Ms. GLACKIN. With the proposed funding level of the bill that is

under consideration now, it does present challenges for NOAA. We

will have some very tough choices in front of us given the breadth

of activities that we have and the many critical services we provide. I didn’t go into it here but mentioned elsewhere are things

like hurricane services, severe weather, we have flooding going on

in the country now, in the north central part of the country, and

dams that are in danger of failing there.

So we will have very tough challenges in front of us. It is premature to say, and I am not able to today, because decisions

haven’t been made about how we will make all of those decisions.

But we are anxious, getting the DART buoys repaired is, I can tell

you, near the top of our list. So I expect to see action on that,

shortly after getting this next pot of money in our checkbooks at

NOAA.

Ms. HANABUSA. The issue of the DARTs, and I think our written

testimony stated that there are nine that are inoperative. Can you

tell me where those nine are located?

Ms. GLACKIN. They are along Alaska and along the Aleutian Islands. I have a little map here that will tell me that.

Ms. HANABUSA. Is that the map in your testimony?

Ms. GLACKIN. Yes, it is the map in the testimony. So there is one

on the Aleutians, there is one off of the Puget Sound, out that way.

They are in the territories, in the Midway between Hawaii and

64

Japan. And then there are several, one in the Caribbean, one off

the Atlantic coast and two down toward Australia.

Ms. HANABUSA. So are those the ones in red in your map?

Ms. GLACKIN. Yes.

Ms. HANABUSA. Can you explain, I only have a minute plus here,

but can you explain what the DART does and how significant they

are to the warning system?

Ms. GLACKIN. One of the things I think it is important to understand about warnings is, you don’t want to cry wolf. If you warn

too much, people won’t take action. We have talked about here

today how important it is for people to take action. NOAA will

make its first judgment about issuing information based on the

seismic activity. So when we hit a 7.1, we are going to go ahead

and alert people of this potential.

What the DART does is allow us to actually detect whether a

wave is moving. And if a wave isn’t moving, we will immediately

tell people to stand down. We haven’t cried wolf, you will be more

responsive next time.

So that is what the DART buoy does. It helps us pick up the

wave moving across the ocean. Then we further confirm that with

coastal tide gauge stations. So for example, off of Hawaii, we have

a good network of tide gauge stations. They will also begin to detect water level changes.

Ms. HANABUSA. I would like to say that you were spot on on the

height of the waves as they hit the Hawaiian Islands. I believe that

is really due to the DART system that you have in place.

I also wanted to emphasize that my understanding is the biggest

tsunami we had in Hawaii, that killed about 159 people, and the

biggest one that hit Alaska, were off the Aleutian islands, weren’t

they?

Ms. GLACKIN. Yes, that is correct.

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

I would now like to recognize myself for another 5 minutes.

Mr. Madden, you are right there on the front lines. You have testified that in terms of your interactions that things are as they are

supposed to be. But this is a golden opportunity to suggest, crystal

clear for the committee and for the Congress, what it is you think

is missing from what the Federal Government is providing you in

terms of information, etc.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Chairman, there are two items on that. One

is that the emphasis so far has been on the seismic-generated

tsunamis. The major killer in 1964 were the local tsunamis. The

earthquake caused half of a mountain to slide down into the water.

The water then proceeded in, not at a 33 feet height, but at a 200

feet height. And that gives almost no notice.

So it is the shaking of the ground, which is the only notice that

the people have. That is why the preparedness is so important.

The second part is that, during this event, I am fortunate that

the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center is only 40

miles from my emergency operations center. I put a person in that

center with a cell phone and a radio just in case something happened. And in this event, there was so much worldwide interest

that the Web site could no longer put out their notices. They were

65

still putting it out by fax and other means. But they lacked the

bandwidth to fully accommodate all of the interest and all of the

system’s demand.

We accommodated that within our State, that served us. Had it

been longer than that, we were standing ready to contact our counterparts in Hawaii to act as that go-between. So it is communications system, bandwidth and enough capacity to handle a worldwide interest item, and that public education that for those coastal

communities, if the earth shakes, don’t wait, go to higher ground.

That is the only way that the local tsunami threat will be reduced

and save lives.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

Ms. Ward, we don’t have California represented, and I believe

that is part of your region. From your perspective, the Federal Government perspective, what are the States doing right or wrong?

How well prepared are they?

Ms. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I think that along with my counterparts in Region X and the State of Alaska, they are doing the

things that they need to do to get out the preparedness campaign,

all hazards. And we have a couple of things, tsunami awareness

week that ironically was just last week. And we do all hazards and

catastrophic planning that we have focused on for the last several

years significantly.

While some of those plans have focused on earthquake-specific,

what we use and what we saw just recently for the State of Hawaii, as an example, is that planning, we use that specific plan

that was for a Category 5 hurricane hitting Honolulu, we used the

same elements of that plan, those checklists, to start our response

activities for this event.

So we feel that they are doing what they need to be doing in

partnership with all of us for preparing. But as you have heard

from the panel, the complacency of preparedness, especially in an

event or scenario that doesn’t happen very often but that can have

devastating effects to coastlines where we all share, at least at this

end of the table, with tourists who come now and then to a place

where they may not be as aware of these types of risks. It is a challenge and a balance to keep that preparedness.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. From your perspective, Ms. Ward and Mr. Murphy, are any of the States not doing what they are supposed to be

doing? From your perspective, your professional perspective, are

there any that are lagging behind or just ignoring the threat?

Ms. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I would say no. But I would also caution that in these economic times, for State governments and our

territorial governments, that it is a challenge to prioritize these

types of activities. But it is certainly a priority for all of my States

and territories.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. As we kind of wrap up here, maybe

you could just, we will start with Mr. Madden, the No. 1 thing you

would like to see happen moving forward.

Mr. MADDEN. The ability for communities to make informed decisions requires the network and on the training and exercise for

them. So it is continuous emphasis on the individual’s and the community’s decisionmaking.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

66

Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. I would concur with Mr. Madden, but I would also

say that we need to continue to improve and escalate our efforts

in catastrophic planning. If we really did have something that

would hit the entire west coast, you really need a plan that will

deal with that. So more and continued work.

Ms. WARD. And I would agree with both of them and add that

the emphasis on personal preparedness for a plethora of risks is extremely important.

Ms. GLACKIN. I think what I would say is sustained improvement

of the services we have now. And going to your first question, Mr.

Chairman, I would say your point about really having the overall

national assessment of tsunami risk done for the Nation, so that

we are ensuring that we are covering everything that needs to be

done.

Mr. LEITH. Thank you. I would come in from the technical and

scientific side and say that I would very much like to see the completion of a seismic network and delivery system in the United

States, a modern one that replaces the one that was built over the

decades at the last part of the previous century.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Very good.

Thank you all for attending. Please, if there are additional comments that you wish to submit, information that you can provide

the committee, we would certainly appreciate that. Your full testimony, if you weren’t able to get through it all, will be submitted

again for the record. We appreciate the great length and time, we

appreciate your understanding. We started a bit late, given the

votes on the floor. Particularly Mr. Madden, who traveled such a

great distance, we appreciate you all being here.

The great work that you do, it is a thankless job in many ways,

but so vital when that disaster hits. We appreciate your dedication

and your work for our country and thank you for being here.

At this time, the committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Æ