| 1. |
How long has this program
been operational? Month: March
Year: 1994 |
| |
|
| 2. |
What are the major purposes of this program? What problem(s) or
issue(s) was it designed to address? |
| |
|
| |
The project, and its major publication, is intended to assist
emergency managers and other emergency responders in planning response and recovery
operations for a large earthquake in western Nevada. |
| |
|
| 3. |
Describe the specific activities and operations of the program. |
| |
|
| |
This award nomination is for the preparation of a scenario report,
Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake in Western Nevada (Nevada Bureau of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 20, released in November 1996, authored by Craig M. dePolo,
Jim G. Rigby, Gary L. Johnson, Steven L. Jacobson, John G. Anderson, and Thomas J.
Wythes). |
| |
|
| 4. |
Does this program take a new and creative approach or method? If yes,
please describe. |
| |
|
| |
Participation of eventual users of the report was sought from the
beginning of the project. The report benefits greatly from the input of data, text, and
technical support from approximately fifty individuals representing five federal agencies,
six state agencies, thirteen local agencies, and five private companies. As a result, the
report has the detail needed for effective use in planning for a major earthquake in the
area. |
| |
|
| 5. |
What were the program’s start-up
costs and source(s) of funding? |
| |
|
| |
$ 58,174
Budget Source: FEMA and State match |
| |
|
| |
What are the program’s annual operational costs and source(s)
of funding? |
| |
|
| |
$15,000 (2 yrs)
Budget Source: State, some from FEMA |
| |
|
| 6. |
How many employees
(full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this
program? 2.5 yrs @ 0.5 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? Yes |
| |
|
| |
Yes, but no other scenario reports have incorporated user input as
this has. |
| |
|
| 8. |
Has the program been
fully implemented? No |
| |
|
| |
If No, what actions remain to be taken? |
| |
|
| |
The report itself is the second phase of the overall scenario
project. The next major action that is planned is a scenario exercise utilizing this
report. |
| |
|
| 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. Planning for earthquakes is underway in local governments,
particularly in Washoe County, the center of the scenario. The report has also
significantly raised the level of awareness of earthquake hazards in the Reno-Carson City
area. Numerous presentations have been made to local government officials and the media
(TV, radio talk shows, newspapers). |
| |
|
| 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 Nevada Earthquake Safety Council, which has undergone
significant changes through strategic planning, has taken the lead, through a committee,
in implementation of the scenario report. The major obstacle in this program was time
because so much of the report depended on the input from volunteers from the user
community. |
| |
|
| 11. |
Additional comments: |
| |
|
| |
The report is having a major impact on the vitality of the Nevada
Earthquake Safety Council and on earthquake awareness in state government (at the level
the Governor, State Legislature, and in several agencies), local government (at the level
of county commissions and county and city departments), and in the private sector.
|
