[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-042 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOE WALSH, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
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
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts,
Chairman Ranking Minority Member
DAN BURTON, Indiana BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PETER WELCH, Vermont
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
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
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.017
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.019
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, 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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.025
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.033
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.041
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. 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.046
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.''
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 so-called 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 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.
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?
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 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 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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.053