|

|
WSSPC Awards in Excellence 1997
Award Recipients
Awarded Category: Excellence in Outreach to General Public
Program Name Increasing Earthquake Awareness in Utah
Administering Agency Utah Geological Survey
Contact Person (Name/Title) Sandy Eldredge, Program Manager
Geological Extension Service
Address Utah Geological Survey, P.O. Box 146100
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6100
Telephone Number 801-537-3300
Fax Number 801-537-3400
| 1. |
How long has this program
been operational? Year: 1994 |
| |
|
| 2. |
What are the major purposes of this program? What problem(s) or
issue(s) was it designed to address? |
| |
|
| |
To increase awareness of earthquake hazards and risks in Utah by
providing publications tailored specifically for the layperson (general public, realtors,
and public officials). Prior to this program's inception, translated geologic information
was limited and not readily available; in addition, new earthquake research results
required translation and dissemination. The public needed consistent information that
translated technical, sometimes seemingly contradictory scientific information about
earthquakes, and addressed misconceptions about the earthquake threat in Utah. |
| |
|
| 3. |
Describe the specific activities and operations of the program. |
| |
|
| |
- The program published the following
complementary maps and brochures:
-
Page-size liquefaction-potential maps for four Wasatch Front
counties (to be companions to pre-existing fault maps for those counties), 1994;
Ground shaking information pamphlet
to address this
misunderstood, yet most frequently occurring hazard, 1994;
A Homebuyers' Guide to Earthquake Hazards in Utah
- a
comprehensive guide explaining the hazards, where they occur, relative risks, and
directions to additional
sources of information, 1996;
The Wasatch Fault brochure
illustrating and describing the
longest, most active fault in Utah along which the majority of Utahns reside, 1996; and
Earthquakes and Utah
- a comprehensive "everything you
wanted to know about earthquakes in Utah" brochure, 1997.
To encourage use of the publications, UGS staff distribute them at
scientific conferences, teacher workshops, state and local fairs, and give talks to a wide
variety of audiences.
UGS alerted the media and local
officials about the publications, and received both newspaper and television coverage.
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Does this program take a new and creative approach or method? If yes,
please describe. |
| |
|
| |
Although other states provide similar information, the UGS has taken
a more comprehensive approach to increasing earthquake awareness in Utah. The UGS realized
it could provide geologic brochures to complement the preparedness brochures and seismic
retrofitting brochures available from the Utah Division of Comprehensive Emergency
Management and other agencies. The UGS worked with the University of Utah Seismograph
Stations and the Utah Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management to produce the best
product that all agencies could use. These agencies share information and duties to serve
the public. To publicize the program, the UGS contacted and
delivered copies of these publications to the media and local government officials
resulting in wide coverage.
|
| |
|
| 5. |
What were the program’s start-up costs and source(s) of
funding? |
| |
|
| |
$35,692
Budget Source: 1/2 U.S. Geological Survey (NEHRP) 1/2
UGS |
| |
|
| |
What are the programs annual operational costs and source(s)
of funding? |
| |
|
| |
$ 5,000
Budget Source: UGS; general funds and sales revenue |
| |
|
| 6. |
How many employees (full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this
program? .5 FTE |
| |
|
| 7. |
To the best of your knowledge, did this
program originate in your state? No |
| |
|
| |
Are you aware of similar programs in other states? *Yes
|
| |
|
| |
*But those programs are not as comprehensive
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Has the program been fully implemented? Yes |
| |
|
| |
If No, what actions remain to be taken?
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Is there evidence that the program has been effective in achieving
its stated purpose(s)? Briefly summarize evaluations (pro and con) of how well the program
has addressed the defined problem(s) or issue(s). |
| |
|
| |
- Following newspaper and television coverage, the distribution of the
publications substantially increased.
- The UGS taught the Salt Lake City Fire Department's CERT (Community
Emergency Response Team) instructors about earthquake hazards and risks. CERT now uses A
Homebuyers' Guide to Earthquake Hazards in Utah to teach in their classes and
distributes copies of the brochure.
- Information and illustrations from these UGS brochures have been used
in public information brochures prepared and distributed by other agencies.
- Some of our information is now included in Building Inspectors
reports for home buyers.
- Public inquiries received at UGS about earthquakes have changed from
an uninformed public to a more educated public.
|
| |
|
| 10. |
How has the program changed since its
inception? What limitations or obstacles might other states expect to
encounter if they attempt to adopt this program? |
| |
|
| |
- The program has evolved as the public's needs for information have
changed and expanded, and as our understanding of earthquake hazards has improved. We will
expand (by demand) by producing page-size fault maps and liquefaction maps for other
counties in Utah.
- The program is readily adoptable by other states, and to some extent
they may use our products as models for similar products adapted for their conditions.
|
Back to Top
Back to 1997 Recipients
Awarded Category: Excellence in
Outreach to General Public
Program Name Yuma Earthquake Preparedness
Administering Agency Yuma City/County Division of Emergency
Management
Contact Person (Name/Title) Cristina Herrera/Acting Director
Address 298 W. 4th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364
Telephone Number (520) 783-5960
Fax Number (520) 343-8608
| 1. |
How long has
this program been operational? Month: April
Year: 1993 |
|
|
| 2. |
What are the major purposes of this program? What problem(s) or
issue(s) was it designed to address? |
|
|
| |
The major purpose of this program is to increase the awareness level
of the community regarding the potential earthquake hazard. Yuma is in a Zone 4 seismic
hazard region. Yuma is subject to ground shaking from earthquakes originating in southern
California and northern Mexico. Earthquakes that occur outside Arizona are felt in the
Yuma region at least once per year on average. Three fault zones are within 28 to 65 miles
range. A segment of the San Andreas fault nearest Yuma has not ruptured in a major
earthquake in more than 300 years. It is considered a likely segment to rupture in a
magnitude of 8 or greater earthquake! |
|
|
| 3. |
Describe the specific activities and operations of the program. |
|
|
| |
- Distribution of earthquake awareness and preparedness information.
- Development of a public education program.
- Response planning
- Seismic hazard mitigation
|
|
|
| 4. |
Does this program take a new and creative approach or method? If yes,
please describe. |
|
|
|
Yes, this program took a "team" approach. This office alone
could not have accomplished the activities. This emergency management office is the
smallest in staff and budget. It a joint office serving the City and County of Yuma,
Arizona. Our only resources are expertise and time. Therefore, we focus on improving
public safety by enabling individuals, groups and communities to effectively manage
hazards and the effects of disaster.
We conducted the
following strategic activities to carry out our program:
- Built closer ties among emergency management professionals, elected
officials, and first responders.
- Developed partnerships with Federal, State and other local government
agencies.
- Developed partnerships with businesses, community and the media.
|
|
|
| 5. |
What were the
program’s start-up costs and source(s) of
funding? |
|
|
|
$ 6,060 Budget Source:
FEMA |
|
|
|
What are the programs annual operational costs and source(s)
of funding? |
|
|
|
$ 6,060
Budget Source: FEMA |
|
|
| 6. |
How many
employees (full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this
program? 3 FTE |
|
|
| 7. |
To the best
of your knowledge, did this program originate in your state? Yes
|
|
|
|
Are you aware of similar programs in other states? No |
|
|
| 8. |
Has the
program been fully implemented? No |
|
|
|
If No, what actions remain to be taken? |
| |
|
|
The Yuma community has not completed seismic hazard mitigation
activities to some essential and critical facilities. They conducted a seismic evaluation
as an effort to stimulate long-term seismic hazard mitigation in 1993. One of those
facilities studied was the Emergency Operations Center that remains to be seismically
retrofitted. Due to other budget considerations and administrative priorities, they have
not put aside local funding for this project. |
| |
|
| 9. |
Is there evidence that the program has been effective in achieving
its stated purpose(s)? Briefly summarize evaluations (pro and con) of how well the program
has addressed the defined problem(s) or issue(s). |
|
|
|
Yes, mitigation products have been completed to some critical
facilities. The leaders of the community have increased knowledge of our earthquake
hazard. Most of our community members are now aware that they live in a potential
earthquake prone area. |
|
|
| 10. |
How has the
program changed since its inception? What limitations or obstacles
might other states expect to encounter if they attempt to adopt this
program? |
|
|
|
The Yuma Earthquake Preparedness Program has changed since its
inception in that we have expanded it to reach out to the community. It originally focused
on increasing the awareness level of only those responsible for the protection of people
and property. It now has reached out to educate the community members. People can reduce
the impact of disaster and sometimes avoid the danger altogether. They must learn to
provide for their own shelter, first aid, food, water and sanitation. The only limitations
or obstacles that may be encountered are those frightful things you see when you take your
eyes off your goals! |
|