 This body has been able to come together, and I know that all the different entities and agencies are working hard, and there's been money allocated or money sought after, and there's been a lot of progress made. So, Ryan. Yeah. Thank you, Director Gilarducci. Again, my name is Ryan Arbaugh. I'm the branch chief for the earthquake and tsunami program. So yes, since the last time we met, a lot of progress has been made of the, in the federal or excuse me, in the fiscal year, 16, 17 funding, we've received 10 million. That's all we've been contracted and continuing to progress on work. Most notably, we allocated about six and a half million for station installations, so we're continuing the earthquake early warning system build out. Much progress has been made on scouting and identifying and working through the different steps prior to installing the stations. At this point, we've installed about 40 of the 183 stations. So much work remains to be done, but as mentioned, the steps prior to that are now, for the most part, done. So what we'll see over the next year now is some very aggressive station installation timelines. So in order to get to the point where we have installed the 183 that we committed to with the 16, 17 funds. In addition, we have a little less than two and a half million educated for a, or excuse me, allocated for a media campaign to accompany, to accompany our earthquake early warning. Not only our system build out, but also these initial stages of the system rolled out when we're starting to interface what the earthquake early warning system will look like to the public. So Joe Berry is here through the California Broadcasters Association, been working very closely with him on developing what that initial campaign could look like. And we're looking at incorporating some of the recommendations that you'll see coming from the business plan in terms of the timeline and matching that up with their initial stages of what's come to be known as the limited rollout for the system. So in addition, you've also, Emily is here. Tina Walker accepted a promotion to another division. So Emily Holland is now acting as our earthquake early warning executive officer to the board. So a few weeks ago, we hosted what we're calling a West Coast Symposium. So our partners in Oregon and Washington had wanted help in reaching out to the emergency management community in their states. And in addition, we wanted to also use that as an opportunity to socialize earthquake early warning within our stakeholders and such. So we went to CSTI, which is the California Specialized Training Institute, and hosted a one-day symposium where we learned about the specifics with earthquake early warning, and we heard from a few of the pilot programs, too. So a few of these pilot programs, one universal city, for example, has several different applications going right now for earthquake early warning. The city of Los Angeles has some plans on what they're looking to do in earthquake early warning coming up on the next six months to a year, as well as the city of San Francisco also talked about some of the concepts that they're working through. So these created some very good use cases that as we're rolling out over the next six months to a year, we can tap into those cases to build further successes. In addition, another concept that came from the business plan, which you'll hear later, is the need for a memorandum of understanding with the USGS. And that's something that we're in the initial stages of working through right now. So again, an opportunity for us to define roles and responsibilities and making sure that we're meeting the timelines that are being demanded on us by the public in order to move forward on this system. The stage one of rollout, as it's being called, is something that we're looking at for this year. So however, the final parameters of what that will look like, it may include just an institutional touch. It may include some level of a public touch and such. And I'm hoping that as we meet today and we go through the different components of the business plan, you can think through the different sections of society that you represent and see if you have any input and help us think through how we might frame that to those segments. And in addition, we have one project that we're funding, again, working with Oregon and Washington and the USGS on to create recommendations for specific tone and alert message and branding style for what earthquake early warning could look like as we're starting to look toward that public touch. So, yeah. Can you also talk about engaging with CTIA and some of the work that you've been doing? Yeah, certainly. So a few years ago, the Alliance for Telecom Industry Solutions, which is a group which represents some of the telecom firms as well as the handset developers, such as Nokia, Samsung, et cetera, took a really critical look at what earthquake early warning, what the requirements were and then what the system could handle. And we may have gone over this a little bit in the past, but in essence, their initial study was that using wireless emergency alerts would be too slow. So the latencies we were looking at were 30-plus seconds from the time the earthquake early warning alert or the shake alert gets delivered to the handsets and then for it to be distributed. Recently, the parts of this group have gone back and taken a really hard look and they've found that in some cases it may actually only be milliseconds to deliver that alert. So we have this opportunity now where as we hear feedback, we have some press opportunities and such where everybody's asking, not only when am I going to get the earthquake early warning signal, but when is it coming to my phone? So there may be a chance for certain parts within the system to be able to get an earthquake early warning alert over wireless emergency alerts. So it's something that we're tracking very closely and looking at those different system components to see how fast that can move. So I just want to say that after the fires, there's been a lot of attention given to alert and warning both at every level of government and a lot of meetings that we've had with the private sector, not just here at the state but nationally, the FCC and FEMA and DHS, all working on trying to improve the quality and the assurance, the reliability of these systems. I mean, one, and all of this does, you know, when you talk about alert and warnings that we utilized during the fires is one thing, but it's many of the same systems that would be utilized technically for earthquake early warning and there were cases where some of that infrastructure failed. And so we're looking and talking a lot about reliability and sustainability and hardening and how we can ensure that there's redundancies in place. I don't think that for earthquake early warning, really, there's a silver bullet or a single pathway but a series of redundant pathways that I think that we're going to be, well, that I know that we're looking at, including, you know, microwave and wireless and satellite and et cetera. But importantly, you know, there's been some pieces of legislation that have been introduced which will have a tangential impact on the alert warning in California. One is, for example, that many of the systems that individuals utilize or counties use that individuals could utilize have typically been opt-in systems. The legislation that's in a way will make all of those an opt-out system. In other words, everybody would get the alert unless they physically opt out, which is a better way to be and ensures that more people are getting it. And it does speak to why cell phones will be an important component to the earthquake early warning solution because of that, you know, the many of those systems would be utilized. I think we're also looking at, through legislation, standardized templating across all 58 counties, which would conceivably include earthquake early warning messaging that can be identified through that legislation. So, you know, there's, the whole basis of alert warning is more focused today, which is really a good thing. And I think that this whole piece, you know, and everybody truly understands that the earthquake early warning is, and I was really happy to hear this in many of the hearings that I've been in since the fires, that I get questions regularly about the fact that, hey, earthquake early warning isn't mutually exclusive from all the other warnings that we're doing. And really it needs to be all as part of that rubric of alert and warnings. And I think that's really important because, you know, it focuses all the efforts that are being made under that effort. And probably one of the most significant things that could happen in California obviously is getting this system in place. So, appreciate the updates and all the continual work that's being done. And looking at the sensor board, the addition of sensors represent on that board the newer ones represented in the different colors. What can you describe that? Yeah, in the upper left-hand corner, you're looking at what was existing prior to the 16, 17 budget being passed. Lower left-hand corner, you're seeing we're adding a color, which I'm kind of seeing out of the corner of my eye, blue, I think, which is the ones that we're working on installing right now. Those are being installed through contracts with the California Geologic Survey, UC Berkeley, USGS, and Caltech. The future one would be based on our budget proposal that we have going through the process right now, which would be for an additional 15 million. And that would complete the seismic instrument build out. So, I just want to say, I think it's very, I mean, you guys are doing a great job. And it's moving, given the fact that there's still existing environmental considerations and permitting and all these things that we're having to deal with, albeit they've been accelerated to the greatest extent possible. I continue to work on the issue of CEQA and to try to address that, to streamline that effort. Can't do much about NEPA, and we have been very successful in working with all the state agencies and local governments to ensure that sites could be utilized there. And we're finalizing agreements to ensure that there's no fees that are charged, that's happened in a few cases, and we're working through those. That if they're gonna be using state property for this endeavor, that there'd be no cost to it. So all of these are little cascading pieces and parts that are required to build out this system throughout the massive nation states of California, right? So, nice job. Thank you. So we'll have Matt and Katrina from Blue Sky. They're coming up next to provide an update on the business plan and we'll have time for a nice full in-depth discussion. But I thought prior to bringing Matt and Katrina up here, I would try to frame up ways that as advisory board members, you could help us at this point. So thinking through the business plan as you're hearing it, think about the challenge that lie ahead with implementing the business plan. We'll have a rough structure on this first rollout. Think through how that might impact the different sectors that you represent, and then also within those sectors, what's the best way to socialize this plan? And finally, I thought it might be worth since Matt and Katrina have done a very comprehensive part of capturing the risks. Think through the different sectors and how those risks weigh out within your communities. And with that, I'll invite Matt and Katrina to come up and present. It's good to see everybody again. Thank you very much for your patience as the advisory board meeting was rescheduled a few times. In the interim, there has been some really great discussions that have advanced the telemetry planning, telemetry being the transmission of the data from the sensors to the central processing sites. That have resulted in a better telemetry plan that's more cost effective that we've been able to include in this business plan. And we'll talk more about that as we get underway. Since we've met with you last, we've revised some of the budget numbers that you've seen previously, and we'll talk about those differences. As Ryan mentioned, there have been some additional federal and state funds that we've been able to incorporate here, or potential state funds and federal funds. So we are going to walk through, give you an overview of these budget numbers and present to you, go over these key issues that Ryan alluded to having to do with the limited public rollout, key decisions that need to be made about the breadth of and scope of that rollout. Risks and issues to consider there that Matt will go into detail about. As well as the thinking through the process by which those decisions need to be made in a collaborative sense between USGS and Cal OAS. And we look forward to a good discussion with you guys. As I mentioned, Cal OAS has been a great partner working through this business plan with us and working with USGS. And so this, what we're presenting to you today is really a collaborative effort among all of these parties. And we think that it outlines the significant steps that will really get us from where we are to where we need to go to get this critical system up and running. And so to give you a bit of an overview, Ryan mentioned some of this. But much has been already done to bring the system online. As Ryan mentioned, the $6 million have gone towards building out those stations. We anticipate an additional 15 million, at least there's the potential for the additional 15 million. And we've incorporated it in our budget at this point, assuming it's going forward and we can talk about how it would impact the budget should that not be the case. There is a working version of the alert algorithm that is currently being piloted by some institutions. And as Ryan went over the cell phone discussions, getting the technology up and going to alert individual cell phones, much still needs to be done for outreach and education and before we get there. So we'll talk about that as well. And we'll talk a little bit more about telemetry. The main challenges that remain are completing this seismic build out, which is really important and it's not just financing it as Mr. Ghulardici mentioned. It's also overcoming these permitting hurdles, which can add time and delay. And the more sensors you can get up, the more quickly, the more reliable the alerts are. The telemetry plan still needs to be refined. I'll pause here and give you a bit of a recap of where we were and kind of how we've come along. So initially USGS did a really great overview, a needs assessment of what do we need from our telemetry system in order to have sufficient diversity and redundancy such that it can be reliable during an earthquake. That currently it's too reliant on cell and internet technology, for example, which is vulnerable to being taken out during an earthquake, for example. It can add latency to the signal being delivered in certain geographical areas that do not have a microwave system in those areas. And so the USGS initially did that assessment and developed a financing, a budget for it that would minimize ongoing costs, but it involved more initial upfront costs. And then the Cal OES and USGS worked together to really take advantage of the state microwave system to the fullest extent possible. The state microwave system is excellent and has really fantastic reliability and is a great partner in this telemetry plan. And in so doing, to make it cost effective, the Cal OES has agreed to bring the price down. It's a part of the ongoing price. It's called the mileage rate. So we've been able to incorporate that lower ongoing cost in order to make it a cost effective, the most cost effective and reliable plan. And going forward that plan still needs to be refined because it's a very preliminary plan that's conceptual at this stage. Engineering hasn't taken place yet to really make sure that you have a line of sight from one location to another. Not all of the seismic station sites have been finalized. So there still is an aspect of uncertainty regarding those costs and those plans that need to continue to be flushed out over time. So I think that that gives you a sense of kind of where we've been. I mean, the telemetry planning just began in the fall and they've been working very diligently at negotiating this telemetry plan throughout these past few months and will continue to do so. But it's on a really good track. There are additional things that are important to be done include continued research and development to refine the computer algorithm that sends out the alerts. For example, GPS data needs to be incorporated into that algorithm. There needs to be more development of what will go into the public campaign for the outreach campaign prior to the general public receiving the alert. And the financing plan will need to be implemented. There needs to be a stable ongoing source of funding. And the various organizations involved need to continue to strengthen the development of their memorandum of understanding and their decision-making processes to get together. So the additional investments there are approximately 282 seismic stations that need to be built. And if the 15 million approved by the state general fund is approved, then that can cover those seismic stations. There need to be some upgrades to almost 300 GPS stations. And I've covered the telemetry improvements that need to be made. Oh, no, I guess I described the plan. But the telemetry improvements that need to be made in addition to connecting to the state microwave system, there are some areas where neither the USGS system nor the state microwave system extend. And in those areas, we do need to fund some additional build-out for some microwave towers in those areas not currently covered. And then the outreach and education budget includes a fund at a one-time cost for a big push up front that will communicate to the public what is the alert, how to interpret that alert, and how to respond to the alert given their particular circumstances. So these are the additional one-time capital investments. And here is the budget that we've worked hard with Cal OES and USGS to develop. These, the budget for the seismic stations, we've included along appendix in the report describing our methodologies for each of these items. The seismic stations were developed, for example, we walked through kind of, we started with historical budgets with the USGS partners through this and current budgets through their implementation of building the seismic stations using the $6 million from the state recently. They have a lot of very recent experience in building these stations and we really walked through, we developed a framework and walked through with them. What are the tasks that need to be done? How long will that take you to do and develop the per unit cost that we then multiplied by the number of seismic stations? We did the same kind of thing for the GPS stations. The telemetry plan has a lot of various components. It's pretty complicated. But as I mentioned, it involves some building out of stations where the state microwave doesn't extend. It involves rebalancing the spatial coverage. So an important concept of a reliable telemetry system involves diversity of modes. And so you need in each geographic region a balance of different types of telemetry. So cell and microwave and fiber cable and there are already some preexisting stations with a certain mode. And so rebalancing the spatial coverage just means rebalancing the type of mode in that geographical area to accomplish the diversity needed. So those are the types of costs folded into the backbone telemetry. And then I've already mentioned the outreach and education. And that cost was based on looking at interviewing strategists who have been involved in public and private campaigns, mainly public campaigns, and taking some budgets with some successful outreach like the H1N1 flu campaign in 2010, 2011, flex alert campaign, and some others to arrive at this estimate. There's a contingency here because as I mentioned, particularly with regard to the telemetry plan, it's still in the conceptual phase. And so we included some contingency funds here. As that engineering takes place, the costs may be different from what we expect. The best that we can estimate at this point. The potential state funds we've described, the federal government has passed in their fiscal year 2018 budget $10 million for early warning, which can be split between the West Coast. And the USGS has 180 days to determine how to spend those funds. So at this point, we've included an estimate based on historical funding of what might be attributed to California. So that's this five and a half million that you see here. So ultimately, the total we estimate is $37.5 million. But with these other funds, we estimate the total cost to be around $16 million. Katrina, what would be a good time to ask questions? Are you going to pause at some point? Interrupt me. Is that okay? Sure. Okay. On the backbone telemetry. Yes. So have we done a feasibility study to make sure that it has the capability, the handle, additional use of earthquake early warning? As the state microwave system? Yeah. Yes, actually, Cal OAS has been piloting that. Does someone from Cal OAS want to describe, give an update on that? Sure. So I believe the system today uses some level of microwave technology. And I'm looking at some of my partners here for a head nod and some former or another. Yes, excellent. Okay. So part of what we did with the 16-17 monies, we set aside a small amount in order to do what's considered the final drop-off. So we have our state microwave backbone, which consists of Cal OAS's towers as well as other state government towers, which we have governance over. We were sending, we set up a test for about a half dozen seismic instrument stations to basically hop on to the microwave network, take one hop over. So from one tower to another tower and then go to Cal Tech, where one of the servers is that processes the algorithm that eventually distributes you early warning alert. We've gotten that all the way to the, I think, to that final point. But I, of course, can get back on the details. But we view, we're using the technology now, we have the specific pilot to test the feasibility with the state microwave network. And once that's complete, then any seismic instrument that has line of sight to tower feasibly could hop on and be used. And I think, Barry, the fact that this massive infrastructure is in place and gives us a springboard, you know, instead of recreate the wheel that we're just leveraging the existing, and it covers the whole state, you know, pretty, pretty equally. No, it's good. No, I like the idea just, you know, I just say feasibility just around, you know, cybersecurity issues and you mentioned the coverage issues. But I like the idea, just curious on how deep we've gone with the making sure it worked. Yeah. And I think part of it is that there will always be a mix. It's never going to be one motor or the other. And some, even if, say, a seismic station is close to a tower, it's got to have the line of sight. So maybe in that case, it might use another form of telemetry. And I would just add, I think the OES people will correct me if I'm wrong here, but the state microwave network primarily is used for public safety communications. In fact, it's called public safety communications. So it is already very redundant in terms of it, the ways that data can go from one place to another, if there's a single tower or multiple towers that fail, the signal can still go through another path to get to where it needs to go. And the amount of additional data that would be added by having earthquake early warning put in place, in addition to what's already there, is apparently a very, very small additional fraction. It's, you know, they estimate less than a 1% increase in data traffic on the network. So there's no capacity issue in terms of the network's ability to handle that capacity. So my understanding is that the results of the test that Ryan described notwithstanding everyone's expectation is that this is very feasible. Are there other questions about the one-time cost before we move on, or how the cost estimates were put together? It turns out that for purposes of putting the business plan together, we spent a lot of effort on really trying to pin down as accurately as we could what these costs were. There had been preliminary estimates that had put in place before. But obviously, if we're going to go to the legislature and say we need some extra money, it's important to know how much money do we need. And then the event the legislature asked questions about why do you need this amount or how did you come up with these numbers? We certainly wanted to be able to provide them with the answer that they would have confidence in. So as Katrina said, we work closely with the network partners in Cal OES to try to put these together. But certainly welcome any questions you have as an audience that's looking at this and might anticipate what the legislature would say. Yeah, I have a question here. Oh, no, I'm sorry. No, go ahead. Yeah, it seems to vary quite a bit depending on the type of land that the station intends to be built on. From what I understand from a few months ago, so this may be a bit outdated, and Mr. Giladucci may have to correct me. But my understanding is that there needed to be, Cal OES needed to sort out if there could be an expedited process for the CEQA permitting. Without that, it could be very expensive and take quite a lot of time in order to do a full environmental review for each site. And that an expedited process would allow you to consider the fact that these have very small footprints. But you still have to go through a public comment process so that there's still going to be some type of delay of, I believe, 30 days to open any even an expedited site up for public process. Do you have anything to add to that? Well, that pretty much on my council's here. So then he's been working and the team has been working on this issue. You know, there's a lot of different ways to address this challenge. One is through, you know, through the normal process and talking with our experts in CEQA over at OPR, Office of Planning and Research. They, you know, 30 days is, it can be even a little faster than that. It depends on the circumstances and the location. If there's any high sensitivities like historical, tribal, or if you're putting it in the middle of a community where, you know, people generally are relooking at it and they need to get a sense of what it's doing. And so it can be an expedited process, but it could be a non expedited process could take a long time given those factors that I just spoke about to try to find ways to accelerate that further. We are exploring executive order authority. We are exploring just a piece of legislation that would give us the ability that's actually written in legislation about being able to expedite this, you know, and circumventing the CEQA process. So there's a couple of different areas that are factors in this. And in the interim, you know, the message has been to move forward irrespective of that. We'll continue to work through that. Not as simple as it is to say, you know, we'll waive CEQA. In the case of a disaster, our emergency, we waive CEQA all the time, but it's in that context. And this is sort of infrastructure build out, so a little more difficult. But we are addressing it. So I had a question about the budget. And so it looks like 16.3 million come from General Fund, assuming it gets approved this spring. 15.75 plus the 5.5 from Oh, that's federal fund. Okay. Yeah. So where does the rest of the money come from? We'll get there. Okay. No problem. It's an important question, one hopefully that we cover sufficiently. Okay, so let me quickly go over the main ongoing costs that we've estimated. We again took a similar approach as we did with the capital costs where we started with historical budgets and we really went through itemized it line by line. Historical budgets weren't sufficient to project what we anticipate is needed in the future due to the fact that the funding currently has been flat-funded and underfunded. It didn't take into account the fact that we need real-time telemetry. Those costs go up. The last mile telemetry charges as opposed to the full telemetry system that we've been talking about as the backbone telemetry. The station maintenance costs also include equipment replacement costs, which historically have not been incorporated in the budgets. Central site operations budgets also needed to be updated to account for more IT security, as well as additional personnel to monitor the data quality in real-time. Then it includes the telemetry data transmission costs in an ongoing basis. Outreach and education is a critical function here. In addition to Cal OES staff that really need to be spearheading the California strategy and outreach materials, they're working in collaboration with JCCO, which is the joint committee that focuses on communication education and outreach nationwide and tries to have a unified message nationwide. Cal OES is a part of that committee. Cal OES is in charge of the message for California. They need staff working diligently on that. We anticipate a lot of technical user support being necessary, especially in the early stages of unrolling this plan, working with institutions, having maybe a regional hands-on team, a help desk, what Cal OES determines as necessary. Then there needs to be ongoing research and media campaigns. We base these estimates on existing campaigns such as go slow for the cone zone, things like that. This is a new system. It's going to take time for the message to really saturate. There needs to be an ongoing push for that. We anticipate also needing additional research and development or funding Cal OES staff to keep pushing on research and development. Cal OES staff have done a great job of developing ideas for a prototype for data casting, which offers an alternative way of receiving the signal. Currently, the signal is sent out over the Internet and the data casting offers an alternative way. They've been thinking about how to develop a receiver that could even engage with machinery. These kinds of alternatives are important to continue to think about how to deliver the signal to the users. Then it includes program management. Here's the budget. This looks pretty different from what you saw last time. The way we laid it out is different for one. The numbers at the top include the full estimate. Then we take into account existing funds at the bottom. Our previous slide incorporated existing funds. These numbers look are very tough to compare to what we showed you last time. They take into account the full cost of the seismic stations and operating the central sites and the last mile telemetry. Much of that is covered by existing funding through CISN is the base network that already exists and includes and is funded with federal funds and state funds. As I mentioned previously, there are some additional costs to having a real-time early warning system. Those costs don't fully cover any more of the total costs that we projected here, the 20 million. In addition, we've incorporated GPS stations, which also have existing funds. We've incorporated backbone telemetry and ongoing funds here. We've included some contingencies since again this system is new. We've done our best effort to be most diligent to develop these cost estimates. We've included a contingency given that some things may happen that are unforeseeable. So that is this layout clear to everybody of what we've incorporated here. I kind of give you a snapshot of these ongoing costs and that we have existing funds. Of course, there's a lot of complexity behind these numbers that we can come back to later if you'd like. But I'd like to give Matt a chance to move things along unless anyone has some questions at this point. Okay. Well, thank you, Katrina. So now we get to the question of how do we pay for all of this. And just to be clear here, there's two components to what we need to pay for. One is the one-time or capital cost, and then the other is on an ongoing basis every year, what do we need. In these displays and in the business plan, what we've tried to show is what additional funding is needed after we take into account all the existing funding sources that we expect to continue, what additional funding is needed. So that's what this 16.4 million reflects is that's the amount of additional annual funding that we would need for California to come up with in order to get earthquake early warning going and sustain it on an ongoing basis. The report itself, which you I think have a copy of, has a lot of detail in the appendix about how these numbers were calculated. And again, if there's questions about that, we're happy to go over it. But I guess I hesitate to say what the most important elements here are. There's building all the stations and getting the system itself up and running. Obviously, that's critically important. The business plan talks about those tasks. But if we can't pay for it, then we don't have anything. And so the financing is also a very important component of the business plan and of getting the system going. So we tried to think about what are the characteristics that a financing plan or a financing strategy would have. Obviously, we need to come up with a money $16.4 million a year. We have to make sure that that amount of money would grow over time as costs increase with inflation because we don't want to be underfunded in five or 10 years because we didn't think about growth in the funding source. Ideally, there'd be some kind of a nexus between the people that are paying and the people that are benefiting from the system. So that would be important to have for the system. We don't want to create a brand new revenue source that's very expensive to collect, where we end up taking a lot of the money that is collected and paying it to tax collectors. We would like to leverage an existing revenue source or develop one which is inexpensive to collect. And of course, it has to be dedicated to this purpose and is a stable funding source. Ideally, not one which could easily be undone or unraveled or used for a different purpose, but something that would be dedicated to earthquake early warning. So here are some of the financing options that we considered. I think we went over these when we met with you all last fall. And I think one of the questions that was asked was, what are the pros and cons of these various financing options? And so we've added a discussion in the report and this table, which kind of lays out what are the highlights as far as why you might prefer one financing option or another. I don't think we necessarily need to go through all of these, but some of the things that could certainly work would be you could charge electricity utility users with a little extra charge on the utility bill, for example. Same thing could happen with natural gas. Regulated transportation providers could also be if the legislature gave authority to the CPUC, then they could pass this charge. They could have utility or transportation providers collect this extra revenue and that could be a funding source. We talked about a cell phone charge last time. That's still an option that could work. So these are the kinds of things that are considered. The business plan no longer makes a specific recommendation about which of these would work the best. That's in order to give OES the flexibility that it'll need to try to negotiate with stakeholders and the legislature over what kind of a financing strategy might make most sense. And so I think any of the four that I just mentioned are some combination thereof and probably others could work. And so that's kind of to the future for all of you and OES to work out with the legislature and the administration about how these could be put together to come up with the money that's needed. Have you done any type of calculation of what that charge would look like for say an electric utility user or a cell phone connection charge? Like what that cost to the consumer would be? Yeah, we have done that and we sort of have that information at the ready again because we haven't recommended a specific revenue source. That information is not presented here but we're talking about $16 million in a state of almost 40 million people. So you can imagine the charge per person is less than 50 cents per year, whether it's on a utility bill or on a cell phone bill. So a relatively minor charge, pennies per month per person. So in a big state like California, I think any of these charges would be it wouldn't have a tremendous impact on individual people's lives or it wouldn't radically change behavior where people would say well I'm going to use less of this and more of that because things have changed. They're pretty small amounts and that's even more true if it's a little charge on a cell phone bill and a little charge on electricity you know then it's even less on each of those bills individually. So but we do have those calculations and we're sort of I think prepared to answer questions from the legislature about those things if we need to but again because the amounts are relatively modest I think the impact will be relatively modest. Are there other questions about the specific financing sources that are on this table or other things that relate to that? Okay. Just to kind of summarize here we've tried to put together a strategy for financing the one time in capital costs and the ongoing costs. So as we showed in the capital cost display around 16 million is still needed. Everything is around 16 million which makes it kind of confusing here but there's about 16 million in capital costs that's needed. That assumes that this 15.75 which rounds to 16 million from the general fund is approved. So the governor proposed in his 18-19 budget to provide 15.75 million for earthquake early warning which is enough to complete the build out of the remaining seismic stations. So we're assuming that the legislature will approve the proposal in the governor's budget and that's what's incorporated into the financing plan. Obviously if that doesn't happen things would change but again at this point our assumption is that that is approved. So after the assuming the state general fund money is approved we still need about 16 million in one time costs. Now to pay for these we earlier talked about the possibility of a revenue bond or some other kind of financing mechanism to pay for these one time costs but since the fall what's happened is the estimated telemetry costs have come down by quite a bit. The proposal from the governor for 16 million in one time funding has been made and the federal government approved 10 million in ongoing or in one time funds for earthquake early warning. All of those things dramatically lowered the remaining outstanding one time costs that are needed such that now we only need about 16 million and I just don't think we would need nor would be practical to issue a bond for a relatively small amount like that. So how we could pay for it would be basically out of ongoing funds. If the legislature approves an ongoing revenue source or a combination of revenue sources that generates the 16.3 million a year or 4 million a year that we need not all of that money is needed immediately in the first year. For example that 16 million includes maintenance costs for 1115 size mixed stations but we don't have 1115 size mixed stations currently built so the ones that aren't built don't need to be maintained next year say. So if the legislature approves funding we can use some of that maintenance money and apply it towards one time costs. The same thing is true for outreach and education costs. We haven't launched the system yet but the funding to provide ongoing outreach and education costs would be included in the 16 million. We could use a portion of that money to pay for the one time cost. So basically what this shows is that over the next three or four years we could use the ongoing revenues to pay down the one time costs and then as the system gets built up the costs would increase but our need for those one time costs would have been paid off and then what will be left with is just the ongoing costs and a sufficient revenue source to pay for them. So again we think that we could kind of pay as you go without having to borrow the money or issue a bond. So are there questions about how we would pay these one time costs down using the ongoing revenue source? Okay so my question is this would impact the schedule then if you're sort of spreading those costs across four years would that delay the rollout of the system? We don't think so because as we've been talking about the schedule for example for building the seismic stations envisions that it doesn't all happen all at once. We have to identify where those stations will go and the seismologists have an idea of where they want to put the stations but sometimes the site they've selected isn't feasible because there's a CEQA problem or the landowner says no I don't want a station here whatever so those stations might have to get moved to another place so there's a need to identify where the final sites will be and then you have to get permits and then you have to build them and so that takes some time and so we think that the kind of schedule of building those stations for example would allow for for building them as quickly as possible but we wouldn't have to maintain them until a few years after their build and so the revenue would still be there so the short answer is no we don't think that this methodology or proposed approach would delay things. And I would add as you can see from from the numbers we anticipate that you could you could gear a lot of the ongoing funds in the first year a good chunk of that to building out the capital costs and so the pace you know it's not a full four years it's you would have the bulk of the ongoing costs that that you need you know pretty soon. Assuming the legislature is cooperative and approves the financing source which is what all of this depends on. But just to clarify there the feds have already approved their budget. Yeah so the federal budget that was just approved in March includes continued ongoing funding for the USGS for earthquake early warning actually an increase of a couple million dollars in the ongoing funding for earthquake early warning and 10 million dollars of one time funding for earthquake early warning and as Katrina said a portion of that would come to California and a portion would the other states that are part of the network but that is already appropriated money which people at the USGS are busy figuring out exactly how they'll spend but that is money that's that's already there. I guess I'm mad under the current governance structure that I guess it'd be Cal OES that would be responsible to kind of carry out this maintenance inspection of sensors. Has that been worked out? Well that's a good question. There isn't really the governance structure is not finalized and one of the recommendations we have in here is to continue to work on that so it's finalized. The pattern so far has been that the stations have been funded by federal sources or state sources via contract between OES excuse me on the entity that's responsible for building and operating the station and so each of the entities like UC Berkeley for example which got some funding to build the station is also doing the maintenance for that under a contract with OES. And I can add also we had earlier legislation and the numbers not coming to me that established an earthquake safety fund so that has the ability to capture whatever this source would be and then it would come through Cal OES and we would be operating through a similar format that we have today with our short-term money either you know through contracts and interagency agreements and so let me just say that so the California Integrated Sciences Network which is the consortium of of organizations that basically do earthquake early one in California will continue to have that responsibility for the most part. However as we grow and expand and incorporate partners across the board that may change or expand or if it brings value or there's a need you know for an organization like for example you know the organization has got a series of sensors and you know to incorporate that data analytics and make that as part of the system would be somewhere where there could be some joint efforts there so that's part we're still haven't worked through all of that but generally the CIS and partners are the the primary entity that will will keep that that program going. And maybe you were asking a slightly broader question I'm not sure and this is covered a little later in the presentation but it it's relevant now I guess is that if the legislature is going to appropriate 16 million dollars a year for this purpose then I imagine that they will want to make sure that the money is spent properly and there's some accountability so that when when the state spends money it gets what it thinks it's getting and I think it would then be up to OES to to make sure that the parties with whom they contract are living up to their obligations and that the money it spends itself is spent wisely so I think that is the role for OES is to be the the steward of those funds and be sure they're spent wisely. That's good thank you. Yeah so Barry what happens is if we if we're collecting a fee whatever the legislature gives us authority to collect that amount and then we bring that in and then we push it out to pay for the bills there has to be a audit trail and the requirement to make sure that that's all done appropriately and you know and then the books get balanced at the end of the fiscal year. Okay are there other questions about how we would pay for this? All right I'll let you ask another one later even though we're moving on so don't worry. So just kind of moving on to the next piece which is so important here which is the kind of management of the program and how we make sure that it that it happens assuming we've got the funding for it. You know I think we've largely covered this the state has done a lot in the last few years to really move earthquake early warning along including assuming the legislature approves it this year more than $25 million in in one-time funding and ongoing funding for OES to to implement the system. So there's a lot that's been happening which which Ryan has already covered and Katrina's talked about a little bit. So as far as what remains to be done I think the the most important piece other than the financing which remains is really to work out this this kind of governance that we've been talking about. This is a system which has been developed in partnership the USGS has has been building it with the university partners. OES is the state agency tasked with responsibility for implementing earthquake early warning in California and so kind of getting these parties to work together or figuring out the best way for the parties to work together is kind of the the remaining challenge and as Ryan said there's a memorandum of understanding which the parties the USGS and Cal OES have been negotiating but really figuring out who's doing what how a decision is made in the event that there's not an agreement about what should be done and making sure that there's open lines of communication or that those lines of communication continue to be open I think is really the fundamental management challenge of this program and I think there's been real evidence that that that process of communication can be very effective Katrina talked about something which is probably been behind the scenes for all of you but was really fundamental to this plan which was the development of a telemetry plan it's a big component of the capital cost and obviously getting the data from the sensors to the computers so the alert can go out is a fundamental component of the program and and what happened was the parties came together this is really one of the reasons why there was a delay in presenting this work to all of you is that OES really wanted to make sure that that telemetry plan leveraged the existing state network to the maximum extent possible and that meant getting the people from the who run that network here talking with the USGS people to try to work out that telemetry plan and I think a lot of progress was made I think the resulting plan is better than the kind of earlier incarnations which were a little bit developed more separately and so there's a real that's a real example of how effective communication has happened and if we can continue that I think that'll be important to moving things along in the future so our recommendations as far as program management are concerned are that they should be an MOU of some kind that's the sign between the two parties it should be in place prior to appropriating any funds under a fee or a tax that the legislature might approve so that there's this accountability that we've talked about where everyone knows kind of what's expected of them and and you know what the money is for that requires that the tasks be divided up who's going to do what but you know we haven't really taken a specific role on that that's up to the USGS and OES to negotiate but you know one logical division of labor would be for the USGS to continue to manage the scientific aspects of the system collecting the data developing the algorithm you know figuring out what should trigger an alert OES I think has a lot of expertise in communicating with the public around emergencies and disasters and leveraging that expertise with OES taking responsibility for kind of distributing the signal to people making sure that people know what to do when they get the signal making sure that people do get the signal in terms of they they know they have access to it there's been outreach to to businesses and individuals ultimately to so that people know to use the signal would be a good role for OES are there questions about this issue of the MOU or the division of roles and responsibilities I just might may add that the MOU actually is it's in the process so you know we have it USGS now has it and working through the finer details of that I suspect we should see something within the next few weeks on that so I'll address that issue is it a mark is it consistent with that division I think it is right it's pretty much consistent with the division of of labor speaks to the fact that the CISN is is the the body and the organization in the state that's been doing that and the role of USGS generally consistent with I don't know if it actually expels that exactly like that but it's consistent with what is up on the board yeah and there's there's also a part in the business plan too which goes through different roles and responsibilities so it's so you can see yes that's that's the one logical division I think that's our our basis but there's some level of overlap so part of this MOU that we're currently working on is really getting into the details on on that overlap and also starting to use that as a jumping place to plan for these next stages as we're going forward thank you no that makes sense yeah I mean it looks very tidy here there's two bullets there's two organization each each side does one thing but in reality there's a lot of things that don't sort of fit neatly into that and I think that's the the nuance that's being worked out now um but in this way um of course in addition to OES and USGS there is lots of other entities involved in making earthquake early warning a success we talked a little bit about the role that the cell phone providers will play in making sure people get the signal transportation providers might be asked to pay some of the costs and also to be users of the system Bart already is a user on a pilot basis but there's other trains and other trains of providers that could really benefit from the system school districts are another place where the system could really be used there's probably a role for third party vendors who will provide the kind of bridge between the signal and how to use the signal so if a office building wants to have its elevators automatically stop they may not know how to do that on their own it's likely that a third party would be hired to help them with the using of the signal or the automation the business plan doesn't presume that that's a role for OES or the government to play but rather that private companies on their own would have to you know with help and with the right information but with their own resources figure out how to use the signal let me quickly point out that that that usgs has supported the development of this of private entities developing the the capacity to do so and the expertise to do so they've been been granting limited access through research and development parameters to allow companies to begin to develop this expertise to fulfill this role once the signal is made accessible more widely and then lastly there's local offices of emergency management one of whom is represented here who will obviously also have a role to play in helping their communities you know make use of and respond appropriately to the signal and so that's another important entity or type of entity that's has a role to play in earthquake early warning the next thing which is shown here is a kind of a rough timeline of how things could progress if if the funding is provided and if things continue to move forward as they have in the past there's a much more detailed timeline presented in the report so this is just a quick summary of what would happen but it imagines a first stage rollout or a limited public rollout occurring this year and then continued development of the infrastructure that's needed to install the rest of the stations and then final full public access by 2021 and again there's a there's a lot more detail in the report on these things the next topic which we talked a little bit about before in the fall is the kind of what this first stage rollout or what the limited public rollout would look like the you know this is an important opportunity it's even though there's some pilot users now this is really the first chance the public would have to become aware of the system I hope and expect there would be a lot of press around this I assume Mark will talk to the media maybe the governor and other elected officials will and so it's a real opportunity to increase awareness of the system and so I think therefore it's an important opportunity to plan for and make take advantage of I think everybody thinks that some kind of first stage rollout or limited public rollout or whatever the term is should happen in 2018 but again as we talked about last time there's a little bit of discussion still happening over what the contours of that rollout would look like okay so you know the question is how how fast do we move how how how many users and which kind of users should have access right away and I don't want to rehash the discussion we had in the fall the issues are still really the same ones you know the faster we move the quicker we're able to give the public the public safety benefits of using the signal on the other hand moving more quickly carries with it some risks people may not know how to respond to the signal there could be false or missed alerts which would cause people to lose faith or confidence in the system and so those things need to be carefully balanced but I think we had a pretty good discussion about this last time and my recollection is that the consensus of this group was moving quickly made sense as long as there weren't undue risks to having people be misled but that in general as long as users were informed that the system was still in development that they could then make their own decision each user about is the risk worth it to me if I have very high costs of a false alert I might wait until I think there's more certainty about what the system can do but if I'm someone with a lower cost of a false alert say a school district I can just treat a false alert like a drill and oh we thought there might be shaking there wasn't but we practiced and we know what to do next time and so that's a example of an entity that would have a low cost of a false alert and so given that as long as users are informed that there's these possibilities of the signal not being perfect in its in its early incarnation we think it makes sense to move as quickly as we can I think that covers so just a quick question on that you had mentioned you had been working with some of the technology companies involved and being able to deliver the signal faster is there any sense that in addition to it being faster it could be more reliable as well or is that are those two totally separate technologies I mean when I when I tend to think about reliability in terms of this system I think about the the instruments and their ability to pick up the earthquake when it comes to distributing the message that's that's where speed is the the main focus so yes every every different opportunity from using say like something similar do and know a weather radio relying on like an FM radio signal or somewhere on that spectrum latencies are introduced satellite technology there's latencies and based on California and our system really anything beyond I would you know just to pick a number 10 seconds or so might produce enough of a a gap between where the earthquake starts and where the heavy shaking is that it wouldn't be potentially worthwhile no there's there are many cases where beyond that it could still be worthwhile but that's that's where you know especially looking at like Mexico City system for example they can use some of those other technologies because they're dependent on a fault line that's offshore so you have a 200 mile distance to travel so you can have latencies of 30 seconds per say and still be able to provide the benefit to Mexico City towards California we don't have that luxury in many cases and just to clarify I think there's there's different kinds of users the first group of users that I think most people are imagining would have access to the signal would be institutional users so where where you can train your own employees or you can work with school children to say this is what we do in the event of an earthquake with the alert to the general public probably coming a little bit later for two reasons one the cell phone technology is not quite ready yet as we've discussed and two we haven't done the outreach and education that would be needed to let people know what to do when this alert shows up on their phone and so I think in terms of phasing the rollout everyone I think thinks that makes sense with the the rollout to the general public probably happening down the road but again what the contours of this are is up to the OES and USGS and the other parties to work out and that's something which has not finally happened yet there's still discussions going on about what exactly should happen this year and what the schedule would be for for subsequent phases of the rollout so again the reason for our suggestion that continued discussions and a and an MOU that everyone understands for how to make those decisions is developed and further further clarification this concept of reliability really comes from how many stations are built out the more stations you have the more reliable that the stations can determine if it's an earthquake by triangulating from multiple stations so what Matt was talking about that an institutional user could decide if the risk of employing making use of this signal at this point in time is worth it to them or not there there could be a cost to a false alert for them once the stations are further built out and the telemetry is more robust then at a you know down the road that that metric for reliability is improved and more institutional users may find it in their interest to make use of the signal but in terms of this earlier limited rollout phase an institutional user may decide they'd like to wait until the system's more reliable or perhaps the risk for the cost for a false alert are low and they'd rather go ahead and make use of it so that's a good point I think is one of the challenges that you know are in front of us I will tell you that you know we believe that there's gonna and and I'm going to encourage some early adopters that will work with us on the private side you know industry that would want to utilize this I think that you know one could argue Bart's already using it it's it's already in place there they have you know they understand the false positives that could or the anomalies that could be in the system I think that's a good example to demonstrate that you know even without the official rollout there are there are industries that are using it to the reliability that it is bringing to the table it will only get better so early adopters are going to be important and I do think that you know there's this whole issue of quantifying limited rollout in 2018 will be important because I definitely want something out in 2018 so that that's something that we're pushing hard on to the best degree possible and but again all the things that that have been mentioned here are are challenges and so the staff and partner agencies and all of us have been working hard to try to to quantify that get the rest you know as many of these built out as possible and and I think we're we have places where we have saturation of sensors like in the LA basin and the Bay Area where we we we could do something on a limited basis at this point so we'll see how that goes that's that's in the in the coming months to to finalize all that we'll keep you all the speed on that thank you for clarifying that was going to be my question when you talk about the limited rollout where do you go first and then as you look at the build out how do you select where you're going to be going because if you look at you know San Francisco and LA with a concentration of the existing I'm sure that they welcome the opportunity but those areas that don't have it right now the question will be what when do we get it well I mean I I think that's you know like any of these events there's a high degree of interest and alert and warning across the land today more than ever before and recently there was a quake in I think the Channel Islands or Santa Barbara area that generated you know there was a test of the system apparently and generated a lot of interest people want to know I I think you know reality realistically you know from from our standpoint it'll probably be focused and again this the team will be working on this so don't take what I'm to say is cost well but I would I would suspect that it's going to be initially in the high density areas high population zones that have a lot of sensors already built out in it that we can have some level of reliability that we know that it's going to work in those and then and then they're going to have to figure out you know where the where the next rollouts are going to be but I I think it would be really important in our journey on that pathway to develop a timeline that we share where the this will progressively you know evolve and get communities around that so that they are also working at it and looking forward to it and you know and industries around it because you know what once it starts to work a few times and in the pilot areas and we really promote that you'll you'll see a great interest that people wanted to get it well and I would guess I mean I'm not the scientist here but that we've picked these spots because that's where the faults are and where the greatest risk rate greatest risk is versus maybe some of the other regions for placement of the sensor stations yeah they certainly are located where the faults are and and that brings up an important point when you look at the map the sensors where there's a lack of sensors if the earthquake initiates there that's you know that's where sensors wouldn't pick up on if if they're there and so as you're thinking about geography it's not just a matter of setting it up such that users are using the signal where the stations are that the signal could actually still be useful to individuals and other geographies even if the earthquake originates where there are sensors if the earthquake originates in San Francisco it could still be useful to locations outside of San Francisco they don't have sensors because what matters is where the earthquake originates does that make sense I went ahead and and grabbed out we've got a few of them here today so they can talk so I think the question just to recap was about where are the sensors today and based on the known faults and such but I think it's also looking toward how is the build out being determined and for the future is that a good way yep okay yeah I'm Doug Gibbon I'm the earthquake early warning coordinator for the US geological survey and I'm a geophysicist and one of the scientists in the room that's mother folks here too Piggie Hellwig from UC Berkeley Dave Croker USGS in Menlo Park I'll try to keep it really brief originally when we looked at how many stations it would take to cover the west coast and California there was a study done to look at what is the optimal station density for earthquake early warning there's a point of diminishing return you know you can blanket the state with sensors every 50 meters and that wouldn't help so the optimal spacing is approximately 20 kilometers actually a little bit less but what we decided to do in terms of design was a density of 10 kilometers in the highest population areas where there was also significant seismic risk and part of the reason for that over densification is that you can lose some stations and still not lose the speed that is reflected in that 20 kilometer optimal density 20 kilometers in areas of known sources and around the population centers and out where there's basically very little population and very few faults more like 40 kilometers and you can see that the station density diminishes as you go eastward away from the San Andreas system and the coastline so that's the bottom line there now we're only about 50 percent built out according to those numbers the magic number in California is 1115 and when we did get some funding to build out the network we prioritized the highest risk population areas and that's why we are well clustered in Los Angeles and the bay so that's the story as it stands today we think we have close to target density in those population areas we need additional building out to cover some other areas and another thing to keep in mind though there's a subtlety here is that even in some of these areas where you see dots that are contributing some of those still need additional upgrade to speed them up so it's a little bit of a complicated picture but we're making good progress and of course as more funding comes in we'll complete the build out so just for reference the density of stations in the bay area and in the greater LA area were already this high before the build out started they just weren't delivering data fast enough they were this high because this is the place where you want to measure the ground movement in a big earthquake so you can do evaluations for structural purposes and part of the early part of the build out was the improvement of those stations with fast telemetry and faster telemetry so that we actually get the data in time to do alerts so in essence Peggy what you're saying is that some of them were repurposed and upgraded no they they were multi-purposed and upgraded okay thank you thank you they're still good enough for the engineering purposes maybe even better including some of john's stations yes right you're at cal geologic survey is how many stations john how many stations this this cal geologic survey have okay and then so when they say dual purpose you're talking about strong motion sensing and earthquake early warning so a lot happened in that area so just to be clear I mean this was the early warning capability was built on top of the existing seismic networks the cisn so we leveraged all of that and that's one thing to keep in mind with the budget numbers that the budget assumes that the existing seismic networks are fully funded at their current levels and the additional incremental costs are on top of that already base cost for operating the networks that existed before the project started um yeah and and just to be clear and to whine a little bit we have been flat funded for many many years after going downhill that's not scientific that's just budget so thank you okay so I think that covers uh sort of where we are and what our suggestion is for the limited public rollout um the next piece is the risk assessment um this is largely unchanged from what you guys saw back in the fall clearly with any big project like this there are risks and what we tried to do is go through those risks which are um in the business plan report um and in the hard copy of the presentation that you guys have and try to figure out um at least some ideas of how we might mitigate those risks um so I don't know that we need to go through uh each of these but I think uh as Ryan suggested one of the roles that you all could play that would be helpful would be to think about um how do these risks interface with your organizations or the stakeholders that you have relationships with or represent um so that uh to the extent one of these risks does emerge um you're able to help try to try to mitigate it um so there's two pages of that uh the last thing is um the suggestion was made at the last um meeting of this group that we tried to the extent we could to talk about what are the benefits of earthquake early warning in a quantified way um to compare to the costs um and I think that's an important suggestion any time we're asking the taxpayers in California or the legislature to pay for something we probably need to let them know that they're going to get their money's worth or that it's a good idea um a full cost benefit analysis was really beyond the scope of our business plan here um but really I don't think necessary because the costs of the system are so small compared to the potential benefits um that they're they're really overwhelmed by those benefits um there was a report that the OES um commissioned a couple years ago um from the Pacific earthquake and engineering center uh at UC Berkeley um and they uh did a lot of outreach to the potential use of this system to figure out if industry really thought there were benefits here and the the overwhelming response to that assessment was yes um and then there was also a study done by um Richard Allen who heads the seismology lab at Berkeley and his colleague um and what they found was they they just took some examples what what is sort of the scope of the benefits that uh that exist here for earthquake early warning so one of the examples is um uh you know if there were if there were funding um and there was earthquake early warning in place they estimate that um two to three billion in injury related costs um stemming from the Northridge quake had it been in place at that time um could have been reduced um by about half in a similar quake so um there was an enormous amount of costs from that earthquake came from people's injuries the things falling on people um and so if you know a warning went off right now and we all had time to get under these not very big desks um there would be a real chance of avoiding injury and those injuries end up being quite costly so they they estimated that about half of the injury costs from a major earthquake uh could go away with successful earthquake early warning so obviously that's a big number if we if we saved a billion dollars in costs even if it's only a once every 30 year or less often earthquake um we're talking about 16 million dollars a year to fund a system like this so it would take a long time uh for the for the costs to outweigh the benefits of a system like this um another example they offered was uh how expensive a bar train is Bart's been in the process uh thankfully to someone who rides Bart occasionally of upgrading their cars um the new cars are about 30 million dollars um and so you wouldn't have to save very many bar cars from derailing um before you had paid for the whole cost of the system statewide obviously those benefits would accrue to any rail system anywhere in the state if you could prevent a derailment or injuries on a train um you could save a lot of money that way um so I think the point is that um the potential benefits and these are just some anecdotes um vastly outweigh the cost of the system and so we have a little section in the report which covers this and hopefully makes the case to uh the legislature and people who would be asked to pay for it that it's really an investment that's worthwhile yeah man just a comment to that and and for for consideration I really think a benefit that we don't think about are aftershocks we've got our first responders out there and you know so we think our earthquake early warning for the initial earthquake but it's got huge huge benefits for those other in the field restoring service and and helping injured people and so forth yeah that's absolutely right and in fact one of the reasons why um the uh upgraded telemetry system is so important is for exactly that reason that you might have a system that if it relies on the cell phone network like the system primarily does now that works for the first earthquake but if it goes down because the cell network is is down after the earthquake and there's an aftershock an hour later that and then you don't have telemetry then you can't get the benefit of earthquake early warning for the aftershock so that's why a robust telemetry system is so important um so I think you're right that the aftershocks are are not to be ignored and are thinking about all of this um so um just to summarize um our recommendations for the business plan are that Cal OAS and USGS should finalize their MOU and make sure that they've clearly delineated roles and responsibilities and some mechanism for making decisions about how we move forward from here um that you have a limited public rollout or first stage rollout um that occurs this year um to the widest possible group um uh that can be informed of what the risks are of the system and its limitations but that the widest possible group be given access to the system as soon as possible um and then to the legislature to approve a funding source or sources to pay for this program on an ongoing basis um so that's it for the business plan um are there questions about this last bit with the recommendations or any of the other elements mark did you want to add anything well if there's okay so the blue sky team have become experts on earthquake early warning I you know you guys have done really learned a great deal and have done a great job so really appreciate you all the work that you guys put into this report and I know we were we put some heavy duty um requirements and and expectations and you really rose the occasions and and really tracking down it also thank you very much for all of your efforts and um it's a it's a very important document that's really going to help us a great deal and help the state of California a great deal so very much appreciate that well thank you it's this is obviously very important work and you guys are all doing it we're just kind of trying to push it along a little bit but mostly I think your team and the USGS and university partners are doing great work and I really hope that the system is up and running soon and we all get to benefit from it is there any public comment see none if there are any other closing comments by any members of the advisory board I also would like to echo the words and say thank you very much this was a very thorough report and I appreciate the time and thought process that went into it and really spelling out the various recommendations and really making it a um a good case for it um so I appreciate the work that went into this thank you yeah I'd like to add the same as mark says this was a lot of moving parts and you've really simplified it to a way that's really understandable and I think actionable so thank you there might be a few people out here thinking we oversimplified it I hope not too much but we did we did realize that the legislature was the audience for this so a little simplification was needed I have a high level question and this goes to eventually ideally we would be able to leverage the existing alerting and warning systems that are installed across the state or in every municipality has one every university has one and I'm curious as to I mean these are all third-party vendor-based systems pretty much I'm curious as to the feasibility or what what discussions have occurred to kind of move in that direction in terms of actually disseminating you know the warning as part of all the other alerts and warnings that we currently disseminate you know just one one thing to start off that conversation most of to my knowledge a lot of those vendors rely on what's called cap messages common alerting protocol messages and I think some of the work that Doug and his team at USGS are doing right now with FEMA is testing how we can take the shake alert signal into a cap message to be distributed and so that's part of the equation I think there's I think there are higher end users that might want more flexibility on say setting threshold levels or you know other determinations and that's where the private sector really has to come in and and learn about what the signal is and in order to redistribute it in that way but two two basic concepts and I think I think though very well said but it's a very complicated topic because there's a lot of there's a lot of junk out there there's a lot of different stuff out there this is what we're finding with the whole alert and warning one of the things that we're working on now is this makes standards and guidelines for appropriate alert and warning messaging and how that's going to to operate some of the systems that are currently being used will fall off because they're just not going to be able to to meet the requirements but it is it is a it is something that we need to look through the other pieces there's going to be a lot of third party vendors that develop products that can go into your home can go into whatever your school can be the things that make the fire doors go up firehouse doors go up we need to be careful as we move forward with that and not not sort of diminish innovation but make sure that there's you know people buy something and it's not reliable and we're setting the signal out and they don't get it we may want to look at you know key standards for what's going to go into schools or public facilities or something like that certainly private organizations if they're going to put their manufacturing lines or their their their power distribution systems or whatever on this they need to have know that whatever they're putting there has got to be solid so I think that'll shake out in time but it's a it's a complicated one okay so let me just say again thank you to all of you this is look this is this is a this is a huge endeavor and something that has been going on for in the in the thought process and and the conceptual stage for 30 plus years you know our the effort here is that has been to get it off that conceptual and get it into the operational and you know there's there's a lot to it I don't think financially though I see any real big impediment if you look at what it's going to cost the baseline and get us going on an annual basis it's really in the bigger scheme of things not very much what the biggest challenge in my view is here is overcoming institutional you know organizational challenges you have so many different entities and players and how we get all everybody in the one team one fight effort on the same playing ground moving forward it's going to be really important it can be done it has been done in the past on different initiatives and that's where I think this board and and the the work that all the team is doing is so important the governance structure and the ability to to get this world out in the state as complicated as california I know what once we get it here that other states will will emulate but really getting it here and getting it in place sooner rather than later is really important so everybody thank you all and thank all the the partners and all of you for being here today thank you guys thank you so with that do we have a motion to adjourn so moved second all in favor motion passes