 All right, well, good afternoon, everyone. I'm Mark Gilarducci, the Governor Brown's Director of Emergency Services, and welcome to the Earthquake Early Warning Advisory Board. This is the initial meeting of this new advisory panel that was put into a legislation statuette this last year that provides us the governance structure for implementing California's Earthquake Early Warning System. So I'll come back in a minute and touch based on a few topics. But first, I'd like to turn it over to Tina Walker, who is our program manager, who will do some of the housekeeping. Did you want to start with the rule? Yeah, go ahead. We're going to go ahead and call roll to begin with. David Bunn for John Laird, Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency. Here. Diana S. Dooley, Secretary. California Health and Human Services Agency. Samantha Louie representing the Secretary. Thank you. Brian Kelly, Secretary, California Transportation Agency, Designee Stephanie Delworthy. Good afternoon here. Thank you. Alexis Podesta, Secretary, California Business Consumer Services and Housing Agency. She's here yet. OK. Barry Anderson, Vice President, Emergency Preparedness and Response for PG&E. Good afternoon here. Thank you. Anne Cronenberg, Executive Director, San Francisco Department of Emergency Management. Thank you. I'm here. Thank you. Janet Napolitano, President, University of California, Designee Gary Leonard. President, thank you. Thank you. And Tim White, Chancellor, California State University, Designee Tom Kennedy. Tom Kennedy here representing California State University. Thank you, Tom. OK, before we begin, I'd like to let the board know and our audience that we are streaming live today. The video will be archived and available for viewing to all participants following the meeting. We understand that with the video that gestures may or may not be seen by our viewing audience. We're also audio recording for minutes taking purposes. That will not be archived or available following the meeting. Also, we've all had an opportunity, I believe, to review the agenda. I'd like to go over that briefly. We will have Tina Curry of Cal OES and Doug Given doing a presentation on the history of Earthquake Early Warning in California. And we'll also have an update from Ryan Arva. He is our branch chief for Earthquake Tsunami Volcano Program at Cal OES. And then item four will have a vision for moving forward from Deputy Director Tina Curry as well. And we will take public comment following that. I'd like to move to adopt the agenda. So moved. Thank you. Second? Second. Thank you. OK, great. Thank you, Tina. So before I ask Tina Curry to come up and kind of give us a little bit about history, first of all, let me thank all of you and for your engagement. And for many individuals in the audience, this has really been a collaborative, concerted effort to establish this government structure. Without stating too much of Tina's thunder, there's been a lot of work that has been done over the years in California related to earthquake assessments, earthquake shaking, earthquake warning. And really what this does is it's the whole saying that your time will come. And in this case, the time has come to be able to pull all of this great work that has been done, all of this capability that has been established, and put it into a way that we can build a reliable, sustainable, and collaborative warning system that the public can count on, that our various public critical infrastructures, the various lines of business, or health, or telecommunications, or transportation can count on to be able to react with some assurity, some high level of reliability, that those reaction actions will be the right things to do and will ultimately, while we know this is a lifesaving capability that we will be implementing, is also a massive hazard mitigation effort for California by buying down the risks that come with strong ground shaking and earthquakes. And we've learned from our partners, our colleagues in Japan, and in Mexico, and other parts of the world that have also implemented similar systems. We learned what works for them and what doesn't, best practices. And we learned that California is, as I often say, the nation state of California, a large and complex geography with many demographics and very, very challenging topographies to be able to get this system rolled out in an appropriate way that we can, again, deliver a reliable message, is really where we're at. So I'm very excited about today. This has been a long time coming. I particularly want to thank Senator Hill's office. And they were very helpful and instrumental in helping with the meeting logistics today, but also originally Senator Alex Padilla announced Secretary of State initially putting legislation in for earthquake early warning and then Senator Hill picking up on that and moving forward to establish this governance body. Now the big work begins with regards to taking all of our respective capabilities. And the board has been chosen because of your technical, specific technical expertise or the areas that you would represent in your particular industry area or possibly specifically the technical expertise you bring to the table. And my only ask of all of you is that you engage and we have a good dialogue and we work together to ensure that this new system gets implemented. There has been funding. You'll learn about that a little bit. And we haven't really waited since the legislation and the funding was made available by Governor Brown last year. There was $10 million made available as a sort of a jumpstart, so to speak. We've done a lot with that. And we are working closely with our partners in the federal government at the United States Geologic Survey and our partners in the academia, Caltech and Berkeley and other universities to be able to build on the great work that they have done. There has been some federal funding. And as most government funding sources as we all know, it is always subject to what's happening with the budget. So one of the challenges that we have in front of us is to continue to build this with some sustainable funding streams so that we've got a system that is operational in many years to come. So with that, I would just, if I could, I would just like to go around to the board members. If you could just introduce yourself, kind of talk about the agency that you represent and some of the areas, and give everybody sort of a sense of who's on the advisory panel. We'll start with you. Good afternoon. Stephanie Doherty. I'm the deputy secretary for transportation safety and enforcement at the California State Transportation Agency. We collectively, under our agency umbrella, we have the California Highway Patrol, CalTrans, Department of Motor Vehicles, Office of Traffic Safety, California Transportation Commission. So clearly, departments that have a role in infrastructure, public safety, emergency response, and we'll play a key role in coordinating in the events of OvenEarth Quake or other serious incident that would take use of this or make use of the system. Thank you. Good afternoon. David Bunn. I'm director of Department of Conservation here representing natural resources secretary John Laird. The Department of Conservation contains several divisions. And a key one's relevant to this is we have the California Geological Survey as directed by the state geologist John Parrish, who's here in the audience. And frankly, the real expert in our department on this topic. We also, you know what I mean, tangentially relevant is we manage oil and gas and geothermal resources. We also work with counties in managing mine reclamation and other natural resources. If we could just let the record reflect, the secretary of Podesta has arrived. And so secretary, we're just introducing ourselves and talk about your agency and what you oversee. Sure. And that's my turn. Yes, ma'am. OK, great. Hi, everyone. Thank you. So my name is Alexis Podesta. I'm the secretary of the business consumer services and housing agency. We oversee nine departments, one of which is the seismic safety commission. And that puts us uniquely positioned here, where we interface with consumers on the rest of everything we do. Plus, we've got the commission that we work with on a whole number of projects that many others here work on as well. I don't know how in depth we're. That's good. OK, cool. Awesome. Thanks for being here. Sure. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Samantha Louie. I'm an assistant secretary and representing Secretary Diana Dooley for the Health and Human Services Agency. Key departments, and why we're really thrilled to be a part of this advisory committee, are those that really impact the health and safety when we have emergency functions. So we have operations within the Department of Public Health, as well as emergency medical services agency. A critical one that we are also going to monitor our overlap are the hospital security pieces. So with the Office of Statewide Healthcare Planning and Development, I look forward to continuing our partnership with you. Great. Thank you, it's great. Barry. Good afternoon, I'm Barry Anderson. My day job is running the distribution system for PG&E. I also have responsibilities for corporate-wide emergency management. My role here is to represent the utility industry. We have a real vital role with first responders after an earthquake to secure the gas system and really get the lights back on. So that's my role, and I'm really looking forward to it. Thanks for being here, Barry. Good afternoon, I'm Anne Kronenberg, Director of Emergency Management for the city and county of San Francisco. I'm honored to be on this board, and I want to thank Senator Hill and the whole Senate for choosing me to represent the counties. I know it's going to be shifting between North and South, and so I take this responsibility very seriously. We know that there will be a major earthquake, 99% certainty in the next 30 years, and it's one of the things that keeps me awake in my job at night. We do many things in emergency response. I sit on FEMA's National Advisory Committee. I'm on the Bayricks JPA. I chair the Bay Area UASI. So lots of different hats, but earthquakes are something that is very near and dear to my heart, and I'm very happy that this advisory group has been formed, and thank you. Thanks, Anne. Great to have you here. Hi, Gary Leonard. I'm part of the office of president, office of risk services within the University of California. As many of you probably know, we have 10 campuses and five medical centers throughout the state, many in major urban areas. We partnered closely with the state partners and county partners in preparedness for natural disasters, earthquake being the one that we're all concerned about. So we're happy to be part of this panel as well, and we also have the research aspect that our Berkeley colleagues are involved with. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Tom Kennedy. I'm chief of architecture and engineering for the California State University System. We're a 23 campus system representing from San Diego to Humboldt and every location in between. We have a diverse portfolio of buildings and a long history of seismic experiences and involvement. We also have a seismic review board. This is an independent advisory board that has been established for some 25 years now. Helps us guide and manage and mitigate our risks and advises on how to well position ourselves. Fantastic. So thank you all again. I think that as you can see, we have the panel that has been chosen really does represent a great cross the board spectrum. And really, we believe can add to us having this reliable system get built and implemented in the near term future. So with that then, I would like to maybe move on to our first presenter. And that's going to be, I think Tina, are you going to come up with Doug or are you just going to come up by yourself? So Tina Curry is the deputy director of OES and OES is our preparedness and prevention earthquake programs. And Dr. Doug Gibbons from the United States Geologic Survey and one of the leading folks from the USGS on the earthquake early warning. Tina, we'll start with you. Thank you. Thanks for that introduction. It's probably obvious as under my portfolio is earthquake preparedness for Cal OES in the state of California, but really here with the representation of you all as the board and the people in the room, there's been a lot of collective effort towards getting us to where we are today and an exciting initiative of earthquake early warning. And as part of the meeting materials that we sent out, we included like a little bit of a primer on earthquake early warning. Some of you have been certainly familiar with the mechanics of it. Doug does a way better job of explaining the technology so he'll be doing that next. So I'm going to fast forward a little bit and then just cover through a few slides sort of a little bit brief history of what God is here today and Cal OES's involvement and some of the actions that have been taken. Let's see if I get to be the first one that figures out how to advance this slide. There we go. So what's been done in California, and I know Doug will get into this, is there is what is now called a prototype system that's in place in California, has been in place for some time that's allowing this to be tested. So the technology is in use and it's out there and many, many users are getting to see what earthquake early warning will look like and what kind of how basically it will be presented in advance of a major quake. There's also been legislation that California has put into place over the last few years. Back in 2013, I believe, was the first bill, SB 135, which established Cal OES as the lead organization working with many partners, as it had been in the past, really memorializing that to make sure that this happens in California. You have copies of these in your materials. The next bill, I don't recall exactly the year. It might have been 2015, was SB 494. And that bill established the Earthquake Safety Fund and why that's important and what we'll be talking about as we go through the beating today is the financing of this. It really, we want to be thoughtful. We want to think long term. We know how budgets work. We know how the economy works. How do we make sure that this is viable and sustainable in California for the long term, given the inevitable fluctuations? And again, as the director said, the important mitigation that this technology, this capability will provide us to really prevent losses, save lives, protect property, and help us recover more quickly. Things we haven't been able to do before and with the environment of earthquakes, as we've known them until now. And finally, SB 438 was signed in 2016, establishing you, the board, and really kind of setting into motion some of the important governance aspects of this to include a business plan and some other very specific elements that will make sure that we have the tools that we need to see this through. And Ryan Arba, our earthquake program manager, will be going through that process a little bit more. That director mentioned in the 2016-17 state budget last year, $10 million of general fund was authorized. We'll be talking to you about how that's been invested so far. There's also an implementation framework. So that's been written for California. We had a steering committee that preceded this board that was made up of many of the representatives at state, federal, private universities that have been working on not only earthquake readiness, but also earthquake early warning to start putting together the roadmap for how we get there in California, what's been done, how do we bring this together, what needs to be done ahead. So you have that as really a foundational document that we hope that you will take and we'll move from that into the actions we need to implement the system. And finally, another item that might be of interest to you is what we call a benefit study that was conducted just in this past year. And what we wanted to do was really is look at from the perspective of the ultimate users of the system all the different industries you can imagine that you represent and that are out there, including the public, exactly how do they see based on what they know and what they've heard and what they've experimented with, so to speak, where did the benefits lie? What do we need to examine in order to get there? So we have that available to you as well. And I'll talk a little bit in detail in the next slide about some of the results that came out of that. But again, it's looking at it from the perspective of, ultimately, the users of the system, what they see some of the opportunities and challenges are for earthquake early warning. So here's a little bit of the contents, if you will, of that implementation framework I mentioned. So it was developed by a steering committee that we had in place. As soon as that initial bill was signed, we wanted to get moving on establishing a forum for California to work on this together. Describes how the system will be rolled out for public use, building off the prototype that continues to be in place. And this is important about how it's going to build upon something we currently have in California in terms of the technology in Doug. We'll describe this in more detail, I think, is we do have a seismic network in California, the California Integrated Seismic Network. It has been in place for years. It's been a partnership where different agencies bring together not only funding but expertise and their personnel to run this network for us by real-time earthquake information so that we know the magnitude, the location of earthquakes in California. So fortunately, earthquake early warning can be built on the backbone of that system in terms of the technology. And finally, a framework that talks about the system, who will be responsible for what, how the public and private sector will work together and ultimately an implementation strategy. So that's a document that we hope you become familiar with that I think provides some good foundation for our work ahead. And Tina, those have a link for that. Yes, they do. They've given a link to that so you can drive that on. Thank you for that. And then the benefit study included interviews of representatives from 14 different sectors that we determined were really integral to help us paint a picture of where we are today and where we need to go. And the sectors that were represented in the study were organizations from the electric industry, telecommunication, mass transit, transportation, gas, water, hospitals, insurance, education, financial, information technology, and the industrial sector. So what you would imagine, as users of this, were consulted and asked some very specific questions and gave us some interesting results. And that study concluded that maybe not really surprising is that pretty much across the board it was agreed there's a significant life safety benefit to this, meaning if we can get this into the hands of people, whether they are workforce members in the line of work at the time, schoolchildren, those of us just in society, if we can get that warning to them, they can definitely see there's a benefit there for that sort of mass distribution of the signal. System standards are important. There needs to be some assurance that this system will perform when the time comes, that it was reliable and to the best that we can, that it's going to provide accurate information because we are expecting that really important decisions, whether they be automated or human, are going to occur based on these warning systems. There's an expectation of reliability. That was something that really rose to the top from the respondents. It is viewed as a major public safety infrastructure project and we need to approach it that way. So I think your consult with your expertise in infrastructure I think will really help us do the right things and look out for the important elements of something similar to this. It's liability protection is concerned. What happens when you get this warning? What does that mean in that arena? It should be viewed as something that's available to the public, that's available to everyone and the need for stable and consistent funding. So this really validated a lot of things that we expected or had experienced for those of us who've been working on this for a while, some working out a lot longer than me, but most recently myself included and some new things that rose to the top that was very interesting. So this was good data for us to have again to carry out the work that we're going to do from here. So we just wanted to let you know that these things are available to help this board move forward. Now this is probably impossible to read, so sorry about the I-Chart here, but we wanted to let you know that as part of the governance legislation and also as part of our implementation framework, we created really what we thought would be the best organization. This is for lack of a better term, your workforce that's gonna be putting this together and all the components that are in. So there's you as the advisory board, there's the Cal OES earthquake program, the staff that are members of that are all here. We were able to get some new positions with the budget allocation, so we're very grateful for that. The other agencies that you represent, seismic safety, Department of Conservation that are already working in the earthquake space together as partners with us, obviously our federal partners or universities all bringing together all of that, that earthquake, that great work that's been done on earthquake early warning and just earthquake preparedness in general, reflected in an organization structure for this particular endeavor. So a lot of what has been done that we're going to be talking about up to this point has been on what we call the system operations, building the network, getting the sensors in the ground, the things that have to absolutely be in place before we can make this available to the public has been a huge focus. Also we have this integrated seismic network. We have that, it has its own governance structure already. We wanted to use, it was important to use as much as we already have, not reinvent the wheel and carry out earthquake early warning through that structure. And then there's some other areas that are equally important, but maybe less developed that we want to use this program, use this governance process to really get it developed as much as we can so that they can work together and really see us through implementation. Research and development, clearly something that's needed, we wanted to find that, make sure that we have the right participants, the right way to drive that through existing forums or new ones if we need them. Finance and investment, we'll be talking about that. And then education and training, which is a wide swath of things. Some of the obvious would be, how do we coach the public and what to do when they get a warning? What does it mean? You can imagine other warning systems that are in your lives now. People need to know what to do when they receive this. And the wording of that is critical. All these things that have to be really in place and working correctly when those few seconds is what we'll get. But also training itself, what does it mean to use this? There's gonna be training that our 911 systems are first responders. Anybody who's gonna be receiving this that's gonna want or need to take an action, we have to think about that through what are their needs going to be, as well as with industry. The utilities industry just varies workforce out there in the field. You're probably going to want very specific protocols in place for this. As part of the benefit study, we heard loud and clear that there's people, we're ready for earthquakes. We prepared for these for a long time. Just about everybody who operates in California knows that this is a risk. And so we've set things up based on how we've found out about earthquakes in the past. Either feel the shaking or you get the notification in real time. And so now it's not a matter of just turning that switch on 20 seconds earlier. There's very different type of actions that we would expect would happen with early warning. So the training of across the board. So that's a really big component that we're working to define better and put the right organization together. But that can't be emphasized enough, I think that education component and how far and wide it spans. So that was really, I guess, the end of my presentation, kind of leading us up to sort of what got us here. I'll turn it over to Doug to talk about the, and you might want to do this yourself, just sort of the technical part and all the great work that USGS and their partners have been doing. Sure. Yeah, thank you, Tina. First I want to emphasize that I'm not from Washington, DC. I'm a native California born and raised. My degrees are from your fine institutions. So don't hate me for being from the federal government, but I am going to give the federal government perspective on this project. We've been at it for a while. I'm going to cheat. To try and keep the slide count down, I put like five slides worth of information on this one slide. So in the sort of the center left there, you see a flow chart from left to right showing the five major components that are needed for a viable earthquake early warning capability. You need sensors in the field and we've determined how dense that sensor array needs to be. And you can see the map on the right showing the stations that are currently in the ground, in the dark spots. The green spots are those that are in the ground but need to be upgraded to contribute and the yellow are the notional spots. So don't hold this to that. You can see they're in kind of a grid pattern. You go out into the field and you find out, oh, can't put it there, gotta move it a bit. So, but that's the approximate distribution of stations that we're talking about. And as part of the federal perspective, our goal is to do a three state system to protect the entire West Coast. So California is obviously a critical part of that. Most of the risk is concentrated in the state of California but we can't ignore the other states because obviously the earthquakes don't respect our geographic boundaries. And that includes integration ultimately with Mexico to the South and we're already working with the Canadians to the North. The sensor network data has to come into the central processing sites through field telemetry. That can be difficult to accomplish and expensive to operate over the long term so the more we can ride other existing telecom systems, the better off we are. We are using multiple technologies to do that. Once it gets into the central processing sites and those are shown as the yellow stars on the map. We have three major processing sites. We didn't build those from scratch. Those were the processing sites that already existed for the routine network monitoring, earthquake monitoring capabilities that we have. In the United States, there are many regional seismic networks. On the West Coast, there are basically three, Northern California, Southern California and the Pacific Northwest. So those have been operating for quite a long time and Cal OES has been financially supporting the operation of the California networks since 2001. Central processing, there's a lot that has to go on there. The data has to be collected. The scientific algorithms scan over the data, determine that an earthquake has begun at its size. The potential impacts determine whether or not an alert or a notification of some sort should go out. And then obviously that alert has to be delivered. Now you'll notice that the first two sensor networks, field telemetry and processing alert creation are in a darker blue and that's because they fall squarely within the purview of the existing data processing operations networks. Once the alerts leave our door, they have to be delivered by other technologies that we don't own, that we don't control, that we have to foster, that we have to educate, that we have to encourage to build the capabilities that are necessary in order to deliver those alert fast enough and reliably enough to make the impacts that we hope they will. And then of course the last box is the user actions. And when you think about the uses of early warning, you must always think in at least two major categories. The first is people and that's the one that usually comes to mind. What am I going to do? What are people I know going to do with an earthquake early warning message? Like that? And the- Nice plant. Yeah, I actually am hoping it'll come through on my pager but the, so two categories. People, but the other is things. Automatic systems, trains, elevators, factory lines. And that's again outside of our domain, we must encourage the real users to make the business case that that's something that is worthwhile for them to do. And also to encourage the development of industrial partners, companies who will make it their business to enable earthquake early warning activities to mitigate the hazard and loss of life and injuries in various settings. And that's actually already going underway. In the bottom center is a timeline of the USGS funded project we began in 2006. I won't go through it in excruciating detail. But we have made incremental progress along the way, both in developing the algorithms, setting up the computing infrastructure and in building outstations. It's nowhere near complete. But we are now at the point where we have what we call a full West Coast prototype running from Washington, Oregon, California. And producing alerts today. I'll say more about why we aren't done. Well, you know the answer to that. We're not fully funded. So that's one of the major issues. Quick primer on early warning, I think most people understand the concept. An earthquake is caused by slip on a fault. That slip on the fault generates elastic waves that travel through the crust of the earth. The fastest moving of those waves is called the P wave, the primary wave. It is relatively small and typically doesn't do damage. It's followed by a slower but stronger wave, the S wave, secondary wave. A lot of imagination there in the scientist, primary and secondary. And there are some other waves that follow after that. But some numbers there for the speed at which these waves move. And of course what is really behind early warning is if you can sense those waves, determine that the earthquake is big enough to be concerned about, you can send an alert at the speed of light, at the speed of information. And warn people to take actions. How much warning time you get, of course depends on both the speed at which the system can produce that alert and how far away you are. Farther away you are, the more warning you get. And obviously if you're far enough away, you don't care because the earthquake's too far away. So there's sort of a magic donut where the earthquake early warning makes the most sense. This makes so much sense that it's been done in lots of other countries. The Japanese began doing it in the 1960s to protect their bullet train. And after the devastating Kobe earthquake in 1995, they built it out for public use and went public in 2007. There is the most advanced system in the world. The Chinese are building regional based systems, not one for the entire country. There's a system in place in Taiwan. And then there are some smaller systems in, as you can see, Turkey and Romania, which are not public. So only the ones with the yellow ovals are public. And I shouldn't have left out the Mexicans because they were actually online before the Japanese were. They went live in 1991 without exception. These systems were motivated by large killer earthquakes that gave those societies the impetus to invest in earthquake early warning. It's our goal that USGS does not, or not USGS, the US does not follow that path, but we build our system before the big earthquake, not after the big earthquake. Here's a mesmerizing video. So if you go to sleep on this, you may not hear what I'm saying, but the point of this is that earthquakes are complex beasts. That video, by the way, is the shakeout scenario, magnitude 7.8, it's running 12 times real time. But the thing to note is that it starts down near the Salton Sea and it ruptures with San Andreas for about 180 miles northwestward. And so we tend to think of where was the earthquake and we get a spot on the map. Big earthquakes are not a spot on the map. They are a length of fault. And you have to account for that if you are going to do earthquake early warning properly for large earthquakes. So big earthquakes on a point. They rupture a large length of earthquake. In this particular case, it's a unilateral rupture, only breaking in one direction. It could break in two directions. It could jump faults. It could light up a second fault. Earthquakes can be extremely complicated. So we have to account for all of that and the system that we're building effectively tries to do scientific modeling of the earthquake in real time as it happens. The bad news, though, is that a big earthquake doesn't necessarily start out big. You can't tell how big it's going to be when it starts. You can't tell how big it is until it's over. It may stop. It may keep on running. And there's no way a priori based on the signal you've seen so far to figure out which is going to be the case. Also, the affected area is not just a simple circle or donut around the fault. So look at the LA Basin in this simulation. Notice this red tongue that comes out and lights up LA Inventor basins. That's a result of basin amplification effects. And so that has to be taken into account, too, when you're determining, okay, who do I warn? Who's going to meet some kind of threshold for alerting? So it is quite a complicated thing, given the geologic amplification that can occur. I'm going to show you a simpler idea here. This is a piece of software that we give to our, what we call beta users, industry partners who are interested in exploring the possibilities of the early warning system. So we give them this piece of software which receives the alerts from the shake alert system. I don't think I've used that word before. That's what we call the system at large as shake alert. So here's that same earthquake 7.8 starting down near the Salton Sea. The yellow circle is the P wave. The red circle is the S wave. And the red dot is the epicenter. But the earthquake ruptures North Eastward, or sorry, Northwestward, as I said. Now for the LA area, and this simulation is a countdown timer and an estimate for that little blue house in the LA area. You got 61 seconds, but it's far away. So it's not going to have much impact. The estimated shaking is light. But as the earthquake proceeds, more energy is released, more waves are coming from that fault as it ruptures. And 37 seconds before the S wave arrives, the estimate is now moderate shaking. But as the fault continues to grow towards us at the blue house in LA, the estimate of shaking grows. And then finally five seconds before the strongest shaking arrives, the estimate has jumped up to an estimate of very strong shaking. So again, this is to emphasize that it's not a trivial problem either for the scientists or for alerting because most alert processes are a single thing. There's going to be a hurricane. We're done. That's all you need to know in this area. Or there's going to be tornadoes. But in this case, we probably have to alert successively larger and larger areas as the earthquake grows. And that adds some complexity to the alerting problem. Back to sort of the nuts and bolts of what we've got. What we're running today is called the production prototype version 1.2 of the Shake Alert system. You've heard some of these times before. We went live in California in 2016. We added the Pacific Northwest in April. And we've now got a full West Coast prototype system. And that involves processing centers. I showed you those yellow stars earlier. We've laid the West Coast on its side. The stars have turned orange. And then the diagram with all the arrows and boxes, that's the shotgun aweslide. This is a sophisticated system that is built for redundants. And so it's not economically viable to send the ground motion information from every sensor to every site. It's too much data to move. So each of the local processing centers processes the data for the sensors in its local regional area. But once they've scanned the real time wave forms or time series, the ground motions, they produce what we call parameters derived from that. And those parameters can be fully shared among all the sites. And so we've got a very redundant system and alerts will be created and delivered even in the absence of any number of those processing centers. And we actually had an example of that. There was a fire in one of the processing centers, took that one down and the system went forward with no hiccups at all. And then ultimately there are public facing servers. Those two are redundant and multiple so that if you are receiving your alerts from Southern California and for whatever reason you lose calm to that center, you just switch over to Northern California or to Seattle in order to get your feed. The stations are shown again in the dots. The state of California, we have slated for about 740 stations. I'm sorry, let me make sure I match the dots here. I'll do it upside down. We're planning for about 1675 stations in the three states. And of those, 1,115 are in California. And where are we today? That's the bullet up above. We've got about 740 stations contributing to the system today. Of those, about 549 are in California. If you do the quick math that means that we're somewhere a little less than 50% built out. I hope that's the right math. So what does an alert look like? What is the product that comes out? Everybody expects, well, it's trivial, isn't it? It's easy. It just tells me duck, get down under the desk. But who does it tell that to? What area is involved? And we found, of course, that the message is one thing, but the actual action to be taken is not our decision, particularly for a company. Should they stop their pipeline flow? Should they take some other action that will cost money to their business? That's obviously a business decision they need to make. And we need to give them enough information to make that decision, not just a yes-no kind of alert. So the first dot there is the event source parameters. If a user is sophisticated enough to take the source information, begins as a point source, but ultimately grows into what we call finite fault, the fact that there's a line as the fault grows. They can do their own calculation about what the effects might be at their location to their facilities using what are called ground motion prediction equations. Now, not everybody's that sophisticated. So the next product down is ground motion intensity maps, where we use our best ground motion prediction equations to make a map of what the expected impacts of that earthquake will be. And the value that most folks are familiar with are modified Mercale intensities, but we could calculate that for expected acceleration or velocity or whatever makes engineering sense for an end user. But we can simplify that and simply set a threshold and say, okay, for MMI-6, we're gonna tell the public. We can put that boundary anywhere we want, but then we can draw a polygon describing that boundary, and that would be a much more simplified kind of alert product. And so you can see in these mockups various ways of drawing boundaries around the areas at different shaking levels. So alert polygons are what are really needed for public alerting. We're talking, as I'll talk about in a minute, to the cell carriers. So CAP formatted, which is common alert protocol. It's an existing format for sending emergency information to the cell carriers. We can send them a polygon and say, warn people within this polygon. They map their towers, the towers broadcast the alert, and they can then all users within those cells would get it on their phone. But I'll tell you in a minute why that's a problem. And then any other products or formats that might be needed for specific users, we could also potentially generate. All right, so I alluded to some issues with phones. Y'all have a phone, probably a smart phone. You get amber alerts. You get severe weather alerts. And why not earthquake early warning alerts? Well, the problem is the mechanisms by which those other alerts come to you are too slow for earthquake early warning. They were designed without earthquake early warning in mind. And so they take tens of seconds to maybe even minutes. And you may have been in a room where you've got an amber alert and some people get it. Oh yeah, we're all on Verizon. And then later the AT&T people get them. And it comes in at different times. And that is because there is no regulatory requirement on speed of delivery for these alerts through what is called wireless emergency alert. So that's a problem. But our intention is to send the alerts out through every available telecommunications technology. The internet, of course, can be fast and high volume, but it's fragile and is likely to go down either because of physical damage or traffic after a big earthquake. Well, if we're really early warning, we should get the alerts out before the big earthquake. But what about the aftershocks? So we have to take that into account. What I was talking about before the cell system is run by FEMA's iPods integrated public alert and warning system. It's an aggregator, it takes those alerts and then redistributes them out through many means, one of which is cell phones. WIA, wireless emergency alert, is the cell phone technology for doing that. And we are working closely with the cell carriers to develop the necessary standards to be implemented in the cell industry to allow those very fast alerts. But the process for making that technological change within the cell system, we're told will take three to seven years. So we're starting now. Over the top apps, why can't I just get a tweet? Same problem, volume. If you try to notify hundreds of thousands of people simultaneously, the technologies will slow down and somebody will get the alerts late. Push notifications are the technology behind those over the top apps, same problems. But another very promising technology is radio and television broadcast. They're already there, they're already transmitters, and you can send digital data over those airwaves in order to get the alerts to folks. The only thing you really need for that to be viable is a receiver. And so it has to be either received by a purpose built device or perhaps a set top box. But all that's technology stuff in industry and they're going to have to have either a business case or some other reason incentive to do those technological changes. And then the final slide is sort of the bad news. What are some of the constraints holding us back from doing earthquake early warning today? The most obvious is funding. But even with adequate funding, we're having difficulty with staffing. Government jobs are sometimes not attractive to IT tech kinds of folks, so that can be a problem. And then of course we're currently in a federal hiring freeze, which is also a difficulty. We sent up some waivers, got permission to hire, but given the current federal budget that suggests or the current president's proposed budget that suggests zeroing out the earthquake program, management is reluctant to hire into those perhaps gloomy future forecasts of our budget. The earthquake physics are a constraint. I've already explained those. Sensor coverage, we're not completely built out as you well know. And in order to get built out, we're finding that there are many barriers in the way, not the least of which are getting access permits and environmental okays to go into sites. Much of the land in California is controlled by federal government, and there are very stringent environmental requirements. We can't just go dig a hole in the ground. We've got to go through a big process, make sure we're not disturbing an indian burial ground, for example. So there are real constraints there. Likewise in telemetry, we have to put infrastructure out in the field with all those same issues. And the plan that we have, and that we have always done with our seismic networks, is to have a diversity of paths back, to use many different technologies to get the data back to the processing centers. We're continuing to pursue that strategy. But it still does mean that we need cooperators. We carry data over other people's comm systems. And we want to continue that model and need the help of the state to access some of the resources they have for telecom. The detection and alert, that's a scientific problem of how you very rapidly detect an earthquake, decide reliably that it is a big earthquake before you pull the trigger and send the alert out. So there's work being done there, but no system will be perfect and there will be missed faults and late alerts in the system. And so that has to be part of the messaging and training forward to the people so that a false alert does not result in a loss of confidence in the system. One of the closest analogs to that kind of thing we think is probably weather reports. Sometimes you're told it's gonna rain and it doesn't. Well, people still know how to cope with that kind of information. Actually, another good analogy is that you're not gonna decide whether somebody cancels their picnic, right? You just tell them what the chance of the rain is, it's up to them to decide whether to cancel the picnic. So that's part of the training and education part, is to allow companies and people to make educated choices about what to do. Now, in the case of the very short time you have for earthquake early warning, we hope that it's just a knee-jerk response, drop, cover, and hold on. But again, for business, it's gonna be a little more complex than that. System testing, we've got some challenges there. We'd like to fully test the system with every possible huge earthquakes that could happen in California, except we haven't had that many. And so we don't have a historical record that we can run through. We do have a test suite. We've got over a hundred earthquakes, noise glitches, problem, noise, all sorts of things that we do run through the system to try and test it as best we can. And we're also working on synthetics, although, frankly, the science to create synthetic ground motions is not well enough advanced to do adequate testing. So that's a challenge. Mass notification I've already talked about, public response, training and education we've alluded to, that's actually a huge component to this and was not in the USGS's original technical implementation plan. But we do now have a joint committee on communication, education, and training that is working very actively, including social scientists, to determine the best way to educate people, the best way to convey the limitations and capabilities of the system and what they should do. And they've recently, haven't quite finished, but they've got a report that says, what is the optimal sound to make for a cell phone? What voice instructions should come from the cell phone? What text should pop up on the cell phone? So that's gonna be science-based, not just ad hoc. And then, finally, the user implementations we've talked about too in the industrial sector. They're gonna have to have the tools to make informed decisions as a business, whether or not they take an action or not. And one of the reasons that some of our earliest adopters are organizations like BART, Bay Area Rapid Transit, is that the cost of a derailed train is huge and the cost of a slowed-down train is very small. So it's a very simple calculation for them to make. For other businesses, it's not quite so straightforward. I think that's enough. Thank you for your attention, and I don't know where we go from here. Okay, well, let me thank you guys very much. Good jobs. Questions from the board for either of these presenters? It was an excellent presentation. My question was more about the, you mentioned an initial earthquake can kind of be uncontrolled or understood in terms of its path. Is that the same way aftershocks work, or are they more predictable? Aftershocks are no more predictable one-on-one. They're statistically more predictable because we've seen many aftershock patterns and we know approximately how aftershock sequences behave. But we don't know that there will be, for example, if there were a magnitude 7.8, there will undoubtedly be several magnitude 6 and greater aftershocks. But we would have no way of knowing a priori where those would be. That's important because Tina mentioned the workforce and after a catastrophic earthquake in California, we're going to mutual ease. It's going to be very, very vital. And so the aftershock component with several workers up in bucket trucks and down in holes doing work across utility industry is going to be critical. That's why I had interest in the aftershock component. Sure, yeah, and that's why we're worried about the internet as a delivery mechanism because we do realize that there would be actually more vulnerability after the big earthquake. Buildings will be weakened, crews will be out in the field, emergency responders will be crawling around in precariously damaged buildings. So there's a lot of fragility that's introduced that wasn't there before. So what is the threshold in which somebody would receive a notification or the early warning system would be activated? Because presumably the ground's sort of always moving, right? So at what point does it trigger the warning? Well, what you're asking is at what threshold would we make a public alert? And the answer is it's to be determined. It's expert groups like this and others, including the social scientists who will help us make that determination. And one way to think about it is that's just one audience and we will have to determine at what level we make a public alert that will light up everyone. But there will certainly be other users that will want different levels that are more fragile or maybe more tolerant. We don't know. And so we have to just recognize that we're tracking the earthquake, we're characterizing what the effects will be, and then we'll basically have to customize alerts for various uses. Hopefully we do that well. Yeah. But there really is, I mean, there's an active discussion right now about do you only alert those people who are in the area that's likely to be damaged or do you alert everybody who will feel it? And there are arguments on both sides. If you alert everybody who will feel it, they start to say, oh, you know, this goes off when I have a little rinky-dink earthquake and I don't have to take any action. But the flip side of that is I just felt an earthquake and the system didn't go off, it doesn't work. What's the problem? And so it's really psychology and social science that will ultimately allow us to set those thresholds. We have fairly frequent earthquakes of like 3.0. Is that adequate for testing the system? I mean, these more common earthquakes we have for our routinely. Right. The system does detect those earthquakes, but big earthquakes are fundamentally different. And if you tune the system in such a way that it does pick up those earthquakes, it may do a poorer job of really getting the big ones. And so that's why I was saying that one of our constraints is the lack of data sets that show what a really big earthquake does and the signal that comes from the really big earthquakes. So the system does a pretty decent job of picking up the little ones, but that's not enough testing to give us confidence that it'll do the right thing on the big one. Thanks. You mentioned that it would be about seven years, I think, before the cell phone industry had the technology to be able to do the alerts or maybe I misheard that. I was wondering if places like Japan that I know they do the broadcasting over TV, if there's other kinds of public alerting there and if the technology exists someplace or if we're just creating it from scratch? We're not. And in fact, the direction we're headed with the cell carriers in the U.S. is to adopt the 3GPPTS268.22 standard. Is that impressive? It's probably wrong, I probably got that wrong. But anyway, there is an existing international standard for rapid notification and it's actually called the ETWS, earthquake and tsunami warning system. And that's what was implemented by the Japanese and that's what is the current standard on the table in these discussions with the cell carriers. So we're not inventing it from scratch, we're basically adopting an existing standard, customizing it for the U.S. But even that is going to have that three to five year timeline, maybe seven. And then what we're doing is we've been meeting, you know, there's a number of initiatives simultaneously going on. Obviously, one being FirstNet, which is this broad banding initiative where there's spectrum specifically designated for public safety communications and we've been working with the carriers through that process and others. We believe that pace can be accelerated. And we're looking at a multitude, as Doug mentioned, of ways to move the signal, everything from satellite, to microwave, to internet. But ultimately, everybody has this generally. And you know, what in 10 years or 15 years or whatever, maybe these will all be since. I mean, who knows how it's going to go with regards to that. But in recent meetings with some of the executives of the providers, I think they've got more capability necessarily that they're necessarily willing to roll out quite yet. They're doing some testing, but I'm hoping to shrink that timeframe from five years to maybe sooner rather than later. I don't know. But there's a lot of dynamics that are going on there. And I must say that Doug's examples and presentation show that you have a whole, I think we all have a better appreciation when you just say, hey, earthquake warning, all that goes into an earthquake warning, it's not as simple as just sending out a warning. There's just so many different pieces to that, which makes it a challenge in many ways. I actually had a second question too. So I'm really interested in the whole public response component of this and I saw in the proposed budget or the budget of the $10 million in this early stages, it's a tiny amount for that. So I'd be very interested to see what your committee came up with in terms of the criteria you said that of, you know, what the sound would be like and how the messaging would be because I know just in terms of getting our residents and visitors to San Francisco to be aware of preparedness in general, to make them, to prepare them to be resilient, which we certainly want them to do, and to get them to even view what steps they need to take because we're not gonna be there for the first 72 hours or 148 hours or whatever in terms of response. So again, I just have a real interest in that area and so any research that you've done from a scientific perspective, if that could be shared with the advisory group, that would be great. And I hope that as we move forward, we have time to talk about what that looks like in terms of messaging. Yeah, so I'm gonna turn around and find Kate. So she's the one who's, she's one of the principal people on that group and she knows what work they've been doing and she works for Cal-O-A-S, so. I think Ryan's gonna cover some of that too. The, we were asked to turn around very quickly for Ada's standards for cell phone carriers because there's this long timeline for them to get the standards into the hardware that will go on the backbone of the next generation of phones and then we ought to find new phones. So we had to come up with some very simple answers very quickly. There were also quite a few constraints that the social science would prefer is not there in terms of what makes a warning that people are likely to take up. And right now what the cell phone carriers are offering us is a much more blunt instrument that this is like a phase one as time goes on we hope to be able to improve it. So the committee with the help of some social scientists on the committee came up with what are to a large extent our best, our best practice ideas about what the message should be initially what's gonna be hard-baked into this first generation. We have, we would like to see testing done of this initial message. We also, as a group including the social scientists, believe that a bi-level message is ultimately a good idea to test where we would have two levels of messages. One said weak shaking coming, be aware. And another that says strong shaking coming, take action, not the exact words. But the idea that you could use if you were on the outskirts and not having strong shaking or if it's a smaller earthquake, it would give people a chance to experience the system. Because for people in organizations, for people in schools, they're gonna have a chance to drill and train which the social scientist says is extremely important for uptake of warning. For the person who, their phone goes off and they have never really looked at early warning before, their tendency is going to be to social milling and go well wonder what this is, let's seek more information rather than take action. So initially, getting people used to the system and trained and drilled in environments we do have control over is gonna be very important to uptake. And we have a, right now Cal OES is undertaking a literature review and gap analysis of where the social science hasn't looked at certain questions we're gonna need answers. But this initial standard we're giving to ADIS is based on our experience and best practice and a very small amount of research that was done by the USGS on earthquake early warning messaging. But a lot of it extrapolates from other larger warning message from earthquake and hurricane and so forth. But it's, we're engaged right now in the next few months we'll complete this initial literature review and gap analysis such that kinds of social science that still needs to be pursued. Thank you. Great, thanks. I just wanna ask a question about the cell service. I mean, another component of the cell service we work a lot in rural areas. There's still a large numbers of the state that don't have cell service. Absolutely. And so I don't know if there, that might wanna gap analysis of where we have no cell service overlaid with earthquake zones overlaid with important infrastructure that might be at risk or in other things. Yeah, it's a great point and in fact, exactly what we're doing with this first net initiative and statewide because under first net the idea is that you're gonna have a provider. This is a US Department of Commerce initiative. AT&T was awarded the nationwide contract for this first net initiative. And the fact of the matter is while AT&T has a lot of area they don't have all of the area and you're right. We have, in fact, not just withstanding cell service we're still up on dial-up service in parts of California. So broadbanding is a whole another factor that we need to take into consideration. And I think that really one of the ideas for the committee to consider as we move forward is sort of helping to prioritize maybe where we're going to maybe do these test beds or roll out the system. Probably not realistic to think that we will have a statewide rollout at the same time we have probably regional rollouts and we'll be able to give the operators the opportunity to test these in some markets and then we'll work to win those markets. But there's the business side. We're talking about what does an individual do when they get it? What do we want a business to do? Do we want, Barry and I have talked about this in the past, automated shutoffs to gas pipelines on some level or automated interruption to power distribution centers which would minimize loss and minimize the amount of time powers out to a community. So there's a lot of different things for consideration in the process. Great, any other questions from the panel for these facts? Excellent, thank you guys. Let me also state for the audience too, we will have a period of, I think you may have mentioned about industry at a public comment at the end where people can come up. So if you have questions or thoughts, keep writing them down and we'll get back with you. Okay, next up I'd like to have Ryan Arba who is with OES and is our earthquake program manager and he's gonna come up and talk about finance and some of the issues we've been working on there. So Ryan. Thank you, Director Gillarducci. Again, my name is Ryan Arba I'm the branch chief for the Cal OES earthquake and tsunami program. And I'm here, at least my specific portion of the presentation today is to demonstrate how we are spending the $10 million, which was budgeted to us through the state budgeting process for this year. So we'll be showing it in the context of our functional areas. And I won't go into too much detail because Tina Curry covered this earlier today. But we have our four functional areas, the system operations, which is the nuts and bolts, research and development, it's our mechanism we have for developing standards and also innovating the system and continuing to improve it over time. In the legislation, it's known as education and training. However, linking up with our federal partners and other states, it's also known as communication, education, training and outreach. So there's a few other components that we include in there. And then finally, finance, which is something that we're definitely involved in for now and into the future. So you've seen different, you've seen a few versions of this map. This is the one where as part of our budget proposal this year, we've allocated six and a half million dollars to invest in these sensors. Now there's other components to it. It's not just buying the hardware. It's not just buying the sensor. You have to get access to the land. You have to sometimes, you know, that could be on state land, it could be on other government lands, it could be on private land. But you have to then pay to install it and you have to make sure it's hooked up and contributing to the system. So with that, I wanted to show an image of what one of these sensors would look like. Now we have our scientific colleagues are here today if there are any specific questions if we want to get into more of the details on this. But since this is such a significant portion of what we were budgeted and what we're funding this year, I wanted to make sure that this board was aware of this component. So the picture on the left shows what it looks like from above ground. My team and I had the opportunity a few months ago to be able to go out and see one of these sites as they were being installed. Just so you have a picture in your mind, this is about a 20 by 30 foot footprint. However, the two components are somewhere in the neighborhood of three foot by three foot. They're spaced apart from each other in order to allow the electricity unit not to conflict with the seismic sensor. And so you're aware, as we've mentioned our partners earlier today, California's funding four different institutions through this in order to install 183, install and upgrade 183 sensors. Our state partners, the California Geologic Survey, UC Berkeley, the US Geologic Survey and Caltech are all gonna be contributing over the next two years to help make this contribution for the build out. So I dug one into this in great detail, so I won't, I won't, yes, in fact, the cell phone alert has certainly been something that's been all the possibilities that we're trying to speed up with them greatly. But what I wanna talk about is two ways that we're looking through our research and development functional work area to innovate in helping make these more delivery mechanisms available as well as making the system as reliable as possible. So the first one is our data cast pilot. And what this is is where we've created a partnership with the California Public Television stations. We selected five stations for this initial pilot. And the idea is to use the additional bandwidth that was left over when we converted from analog television to digital television. So real easy way to say this is instead of sending it over the internet, there's a chance that we can use that TV signal. So if you had a Nintendo on your house to receive your TV, we could also set out receivers in order to receive the signal. Our hope with that is that there will be greater control and again allow for a more reliable signal in some areas of the state. This we, while it could be used for general public, we're even exploring a way to have it so that you may have an application on your phone, on wifi could be able to receive this data casting signal while something in the interim while we're working with the cell carriers to be able to deliver it to the public. But also potentially some of the industrial users may be able to really leverage this in the meantime. And this through, and again, because PBS has a public mission, there's no cost to the state at this point to be able to use this mechanism. So it's a very small dollar amount in order to what we're hoping as a potential for a very high impact. And this is just a little bit about the different stations in California and where their coverage is. I know you've mentioned the rural areas. That's one thing where this may not be able to serve that population. However, we think it might be able to have an impact in some of the urban areas. And then in the North Coast where there's a significant earthquake risk. We also have our state microwave network. State microwave backbone is a system that Cal OES has overall governance for that is generally used through the public safety group. So your first responders to communicate over radio and for various many other means for using the system. So today the seismic stations communicate to the central processor through cell modems and through in some remote cases and landlines as we've learned and such. So what we're looking is hopefully both in the southern part of the state and in the northern part of the state connecting up to a half dozen seismic instruments, sending the signal from the seismic instruments over our state microwave network and down to the seismological lab where the data can then be processed and then generated into a signal. If these two proof cases are able to prove to be successful we then have a greater hope that as the program evolves over time that all of the sensors that can hit a microwave line of sight could then be able to hop onto the system and be able to deliver the signal to the central processing units in order to be processed. So again, just one more way that we can make the system more reliable and really improve our redundancy. So another component of our program and our charge for what we were budgeted this year is the communication, education, training and outreach. Our big goal with the funding we received, a little shy of two and a half million for this is to use it for public service announcements and we're working with the California Broadcasters Association which has the opportunity to produce these PSAs at a discounted rate so you get a three to one return for just compared to going to the broadcasters directly ourselves. And again, we'll be developing what these PSAs would look like and again with our partners and with our different community members and that's something that we'll be definitely keeping you briefed on over time. Community engagement is also very important, something that our staff at Cal OES will be doing as we look at what our rollout options are over time we'll be wanting to work with the community leaders in order to determine where those, how to best engage with your communities and learn especially how we can best leverage the system for the public. So the business plan, we again, per our legislation we have a report due to the legislature in February of 2018. The components include four parts, we have a cost analysis and proposed funding options, program rules and an expected program schedule and finally a risk analysis. And director, if I may for a minute we have our blue sky contractors so I just wanted to make sure he was invited up. He's still here, okay, great. We are fortunate enough to have Tim Gage, our former state of California finance director who will be working with us on this program. So he'll come up and just give a quick update on what his program is doing. Great, thanks Ryan. Hello all of the members of the advisory committee. I'm Tim Gage with the blue sky consulting group. My colleague Katrina Connelly is here with me today as well. We're getting started on this process and looking forward to working with Cal OES, all of its partners and all of you in terms of advancing the business plan for the rollout of the earthquake emergency alert system. As you can tell from the discussion here today, a lot of moving parts, a lot of pieces in motion and so we're in the process of getting our arms around that so then we can map out for the legislature and the broader public what the picture should look like hopefully going forward. One of the key components obviously has been mentioned several times and that is funding. So one of the things that we'll be particularly focused on is what's an appropriate approach in terms of funding. Some of that's already been developed to a limited extent. So we hope to build on that. But one of the things just to give you a sense of what's a little bit tricky about it is this question that Tina raised earlier about the results of the benefit study where the idea is that this is intended to be in effect a public good. Not something that's limited by way of access by subscription. And yet that can potentially create some complications in terms of what funding structure would be appropriate. So that's one of the things that we'll be looking at closely. So I'd be happy to answer any questions but I look forward to working with your representatives or staff in the future. And there you go. Thanks, Tim. Okay, just one more slide for the group. So the near-term considerations we're looking at. Of course, the sensor build-out, very high priority. Something that is very measurable and something we built into our contracts too where we broke it into quarterly goals so we can continue to make sure that we're keeping pace with the expectations of the legislation in this group. The deployment schedule. Again, our director hit upon it earlier but we have an opportunity in front of us to decide what the best timing is for that rollout and what's the most reasonable and most appropriate. Financing strategy is, of course, appropriate and then the development and the review of our technology standards. So one area where the U.S. Geologic Survey has several pilot users that are starting to implement some of those end-user products and we think there are many more ways where we'll find that people will find real benefit from this system and so we want to make sure that we're engaging those communities, empowering them to leverage this and we'll be ready to scale the solutions that they find as we move toward our final rollout. I think that, for example, one area we've contemplated given all of the state lands, state infrastructure, university infrastructure, local government infrastructure, utility partners infrastructure, that there is opportunities to accelerate the pay set which we put sensors in the ground in areas that are already under our direct control, respectively, and working on ways to get more flexibility and maybe regulatory oversight, things like CEQA, et cetera, that may be necessary but we could maybe look to find some relief for those areas. The other thing is working on streamlining any extra costs that may be associated by using state lands or our partners at the university system or in local government, et cetera, that this for the public good and because of the urgency of the need of putting them in the ground is something that we at the state family would move forward or working with our local counterparts to move forward with rapidly. So there's a couple of areas that we as the committee can consider as we move forward with regards to discussions from the operation of the Research and Development Group and certainly in financing. We obviously want to make a dollar stretch and our ability to leverage as much of that or clear any bureaucracy that will save dollars to be able to actually take the dollars that we do have available and put them into operation of this system is critical. In addition, we are looking at different grants and opportunities. Federal lands is a little bit more difficult. You have a NEPA requirement usually and sometimes federal grant dollars are not that we could possibly obtain. Hazard mitigation or other kinds of efforts are limited with regards to use in a federal setting. So again, it's a partnership across the board with everyone in this whole effort and it's really public, private and non-governmental really coming together as far as the whole approach. Any other questions for Ryan on the business plan? Ryan, thank you very much. So it brings us to this issue of kind of the vision. I think Tina, you want to come back up and we'll ask you to come back up and talk a little bit about that and then maybe I'll talk a little bit about some of the challenges. Go ahead. Well, just, you know, I want to pay attention to the time and we have just maybe have a short period here where we dialogue a little bit and get a chance to hear some of your input about the vision for this board. Our legislative charge was pretty straightforward. Basically, you know, the most recent bill, 438, recognize that this is important for California. I think we all can see what a critical initiative this is and also recognizes that it's complexity and that complexity calls for a governance structure to make sure that we are making all the right decisions in the right order and getting the right consult in order to carry this out for Californians. But also, you know, California, I don't think I have to remind this group has long seen ourselves as a leader and we know this is a national initiative. I guarantee that it will be here first in the nation and so we know that what we do here will be replicated and others are looking towards us for how to do this and I think that's why the partnership with the USGS and their mission to have a West Coast system is so compatible because we have that greater responsibility first foremost to Californians but also by extension to others and that's very consistent with the leadership we've had in so many other areas in emergency services and beyond. So your advice is critical to this process and you were selected from the different sectors that you represent because those are the components that are going to be so instrumental for us to understand so that we can implement this program the right way. So beyond that, we have to talk about with the details of that, what do you need to be able to conduct that advice who want to be pointed and very directed with your time and make sure to organize this large amount of information we've given to you and what's been done so far in a way that we can move forward rapidly and in a priority order that addresses the things that need to be addressed first, second, third and at the same time kind of building all this complicated structure together. So with that there's some materials that we sent you ahead of time that captures what Ryan went over which are some of the near current considerations obviously getting the projects done that the state funding has direct us to do and hopefully that makes sense that we would need the sensor network first and foremost there's some complications with that in terms of doing something on the scale of this we've obviously there's history of building a sensor network I don't believe that it's ever been done this big, this quickly and so that requires some broad actions to facilitate that so that we can get it done in a timely fashion and certainly the other things we've talked to you about which are near term but then there's some stuff that are on the horizon very quickly so page seven just kind of lays out some what we call considerations and an order for those not necessarily prioritized within each segment but we want to start working on all of these or keeping in mind as a goal all Californians will have earthquake early warning how do we start laying out a roadmap to get there in a way that makes the most sense so I would just then kind of maybe turn back to the director on some thoughts he has on your vision for this well let me thanks Tina let me just kind of reiterate as a background for everyone so historically there's been a funding stream to sustain what we call and Doug Gibbon had mentioned it the California integrated seismic network this has been a funding stream USGS contributes to that on the federal level with some of their federal funding and we as a state through OES contribute to that and that's money to keep the sensor the network sort of operational the earthquake early warning is sort of the build out from that it's the next level up and requires a lot of focused financing to support that there's been a lot of sort of review what Tim and his team are doing now in the business plan and looking at the financing is to sort of confirm the projected numbers that have been sort of professed by the various working groups something in the neighborhood of 28, 30 million to get the whole system fully where we need to that's building out the rest of the 50% of the network and doing all the things that we just talked about for the last hour or so and roughly around 15 million or so annually to keep the system operational sensors up to date and continued R&D and making sure that we have enough staffing across the board Doug mentioned a number of things and challenges with regards to staffing and other kinds of challenges we certainly are also looking at from our role as the state's Homeland Security Agency the concerns of cybersecurity as we roll the system out and ensuring that whatever does get implemented is a system that is as redundant as capable as possible against any potential cyber attack and so all of those are factors and standards that need to be built into the system we're working closely with the telecom ministry on that particular point as well so when we look at the near term considerations and we consider that the $10 million that was initially invested by was state dollars to really accelerate that portion of the state of California system in the past year and a half or two years I think there's been about I want to say something, correct my wrong Doug something like $10 to $16 million of federal dollars that were pumped in congressional appropriations these are all been great to accelerate a lot of the federal dollars supporting the state system but also to build out the Pacific Northwest in Oregon and Washington we I think certainly are very very supportive and want to do whatever we can to ensure that our partners at USGS continue to be funded appropriately and hope that the President's proposed budget the Congressional Oversign will come in and refresh that funding but in absence of that we still have an obligation to get our California system operational and so while the the governor appropriated the $10 million initially one of the challenges that we will move forward in is to look through public-private partnerships and other kinds of funding mechanisms to ensure that the system gets the funding it needs to be fully operational so we're you know there's a you know as the group's working on a plan that we brought back to the advisory board on maybe several potential ways to be able to do that moving forward but as Tim said being for the public good across the board how best are we going to be able to do that and we want to take into consideration all the various statutory requirements that may come into play in that as well so it's a complicated system that said we're trying to maximize the money and the effort that is made available and that near-term consideration in 2017 particularly addressing the ability to accelerate the pace by which we could build out that other 50% with additional funding that we currently have and funding that may be immediately on the horizon and have a good discussion about what areas of the state that we want to consider doing this limited rollout you know we've got beta projects on BART we have certain local governments in San Francisco and Los Angeles and as an OES we have some beta projects we've been working on the shake alert and so we may want to capitalize on those as we build out the rollout. Urban areas obviously make a lot of sense initially but you know I think that we're going to want to focus on where the earthquake threat is probably the most critical and you know our urban centers certainly I mean there's false all over the state but you know population density, industry base et cetera, infrastructure highway systems et cetera our big urban centers surely the Bay Area region and the Los Angeles base are certainly a great concern but not the only concern by any stretch of the imagination so I guess I would ask the board maybe what you see at this point as to maybe or maybe what concerns you have or maybe ideas or recommendations you may have to address some of the things particularly in the near term considerations that were put forth any thoughts? Barry? I think Doug said it well there's a lot of moving parts and you know getting an understanding on what are the most critical success factors early on and getting visibility into that and I think you mentioned it Mark I think a team is pulling together some of that but I think we could be most effective as a board and understanding what are the short term deliverables that really make a difference and moving this forward and with the inconsideration of cost and speed if anything else we can sleep on what those are and I think we come to the table with some creative alternatives from each of the areas we sit because I think there's you mentioned land and between all of us probably cover is interesting with the map up there showing where the sensor should go it's very similar to the map of assets I have in distribution across the service territory at PG&E so I think there's a lot of commonality here but I don't know if that is is that a major obstacle or not it could be medium so yeah no one wants to jump up and say oh yeah we can do this okay well I see that Kelsey Fortin is part of one of the campuses that is dealing with that research the tone of this and if you think about it most of the campuses are a small city microcosm on that early warning which we have but the technology may have that lag but we're kind of a market for that we also have a living lab concept where I would expect that this would fall right into an academic program that would go hand in hand to test this out set this up before it gets rolled out to a broader general public it seems to be a positive there you had mentioned the overlap of locations it doesn't have to be on flat land sounds like it could be on a hillside unbuildable sites otherwise I don't know how that map outlines where our campuses and off campus centers are but that made I think for all of us it would be a possibility to consider it there's a lot of flexibility and we've got a lot of hills for what it's worth yeah that's excellent let me just kind of reach out to Doug real quick I know you've got an idea where sensors need to be in place but you just mentioned hills versus flat land there's a lot of science behind that but there's still areas that could be considered in both those flat or on the hills you wouldn't necessarily exclude a sloping area but as far as I know NEPA would still have to be done whether it's a slope or a flat spot yeah but I think maybe one of the things for the advisory board which could be beneficial is to maybe have the operators present to us some of the criteria that's required for putting a sensor in the ground and some of the areas that would work to help build out that other 50% and then we can overlay those with areas where we all have jurisdictional lands and then whether they're saturated already or we can build out further and then I think it would give the members of the committee the ability to go back to their respective agencies and figure out how maybe best to make that work out because there could be I think certainly we are cognizant and aware of both NEPA sometimes it applies in one, sometimes it doesn't apply in another and so we want to work through those as well so if that would be a good deliverable and the other thoughts, questions? I'm just curious, do we know in terms of the complete full public rollout talking this current year with 10 million we're going to be able to install, I think I read 183 new and or renovated sites, if we're looking to 2,000 total which I think I also read we have a big gap to still go the way I see it, it's more than half that we still have to put in so I'd love to have what the director said and I think it would be interesting to know ultimately how much money do we need and also how much money do you need annually then to actually make sure to maintain them I appreciate that and there's been some estimates and the business plan is going to help us really kind of fine tune that final price tag if you will looking at all the elements and we should be able to see some kind of early results of that analysis as it's plans being developed so we'll definitely be able to come back to you with that. And I think that correct me if I'm wrong but a couple ways that we've tried to accelerate that and may not be reflected appropriately in the numbers is many of the sensors that the California geologic surveys has have been sort of would you say David repurposed to make a earthquake early warning and you've also added new ones but you've done kind of both right so we've done both so there's a selection on that we're adding additional sensors to those existing sensor sites and then of course then there's a need for additional sensor sites. Okay good and then you guys have both all the operas have put some new ones in but I do think it's very important that we get a finite number of total number of ones that we need that would be helpful as well and the other thing is that there are the sensors in the ground like some of the utilities currently operate sensor arrays it'd be good to know exactly where those are located and build that. I'd also ask that maybe we've got some great the operators of the system particularly UC Berkeley at least in the state family there's a lot of work being done in other University of California and even CSU campuses on this and leveraging that and those efforts and building it into the research and development arm and broadening that participation I think is really important. Today I think you see San Diego is doing a bunch of shake table work and they've got a lot of efforts going on down there that's pretty innovative so it'd be great to engage them a little bit more in detail Yeah I would agree I think trying to convene all that research that's going on at the different institutions and pull it together would be beneficial probably for the board to hear what's been going on My big concern is that we struggle with trying to address maybe a topic area that has been mentioned and there may be one of the universities that's already doing research in that area that we just don't know about why don't we take that, you know, do a scan and find out what's being done in the key areas and we could working back through you guys in your various respective systems and kind of get a sense about how much work is being done in that area and then leverage work that may be already being done. Great Yes ma'am I echo that and it was really triggered by Doug's presentation as well as Secretary Podesta's comment about determining what our threshold is for when these public notices come out I think it would be also helpful to get more background on what the existing practice is in terms of hospitals and facilities. Do we already notify let's say nursing homes if there's a specific magnitude I think that would help us get a better understanding in terms of baseline how much more the shake alert beyond the beta version and now moving forward could actually afford us more protections not just the time for someone to take action. Yeah, that's excellent. Very good. Any other items that you think as board members that you would like to see feedback on and you mentioned a couple on some of the cells the cell system we can maybe be a little bit more get more information to the board members on that. Mary? Mark, the work that was done for the benefits in the study is there an executive summary that there's probably this, I'm not looking for that but I think it would be good to share that. Absolutely, we'll pull that piece off and make sure that you get that. And if there's an interest maybe we can have someone come and debrief us. That's on the implementation plan? The benefit study. That was a fascinating work. That was commissioned Lori Johnson, I think. Yeah, actually the Seismic Safety Commission was a partner with us in conducting that study and it was done through UC Berkeley. Yeah, so leveraging all the different... I know there are really a lot of the box thinking as opposed to the utility industry for example. Absolutely. Thank you. Before I go to public comment, any other thoughts or comments by the board? Okay, great. So public comment, anybody would like to come up or present ideas or thoughts or discussions that we may have had today? Come on up. Hi Patrick. Introduce yourself please. My name is Patrick Welch. I work for Senator Jerry Hill and just wanted to come up here and thank the director and his excellent staff for the work. We've worked with them for the past two or three years to set this up as long as get the financing for it. Director Gillard Ducci has always worked with a sense of urgency. We appreciate that. We look forward to the work that this body produces. It's very important I think to the senator and I think the legislature by passing several pieces of legislation and putting some funding out there I think they've showed that too. We're concerned about what's happening at the federal level. Senator Hill is working with his colleagues and the California congressional delegation, one of which chairs a very important subcommittee that has jurisdiction over USGS. So we will continue to work with them to hopefully push back on that funding cut that's proposed by the president. And lastly I just want to say that Senator Hill again really wants to see this move forward so there's anything that he can do to continue to be supportive of this effort. Our door is open. Give us a call. Come knock. Come meet with us. We're always there to be helpful. I just want to thank you. Back at you guys have been fantastic and thanks to the senator very much for everything. Thank you. Any other, anybody else quiet group today? Anyway. Okay. All right. With that then I think that you've had a lot to chew on here. A lot of thought. Again very deeply appreciative of all of your time. This is really a project that takes a lot of embracing. So now you're all embraced in a big hug and look forward to working with you. We'll get all the information out to you and I think that we're going to be meeting quarterly. I think initially because there's so much going on that sense of urgency is important that we want to keep that momentum going. I want to thank the staff and everybody put the meeting together today for all the different agencies that have been working so, so hard on this. You have to be commended and again one team, one fight everybody keeps working at it and thank you with that. So with that I kind of have a motion to adjourn. Okay. All in favor? All right. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone.