WSSPC Awards in Excellence 1998

Award Recipients

Awarded Category: Innovations

Program Name Seismic Hazard Mapping Program

Administering Agency California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology

Contact Person (Name/Title) Dr. James F. Davis, State Geologist

Address 801 K Street, MS 12-30, Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone Number 916-445-1923

Fax Number 916-445-5718

1.	How long has this program been operational?
	The Seismic Hazard Mapping Program was established by legislation (Seismic Hazard Mapping Act of 1990). Implementation was delayed for the first four years, however, as program funding was only one-third of anticipated levels due to repeal of the California Residential Earthquake Recovery Act and California’s deep economic recession. Charged by a FEMA Mitigation Grant following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, the program took on the challenge of the production of 38 Seismic Hazard Zone Maps covering over 2000 square miles of urbanized Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties in three years. Seismic zonation was completed for this special three-year project June 30, 1998, and the final release of maps will become official March 1999 after the 6-month mandated review and revision period.
2.	What are the major purposes of this program? What problem(s) or issue(s) was it designed to address?
	The principal objectives of the project included 1) designation of official Seismic Hazard Zones addressing liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides for 38 7.5’ quadrangles at a 1:24,000 mapping scale, 2) assessment of future ground shaking hazard, and 3) local assistance in implementation of the zone maps for use by local government. Seismic hazard zones are used by local agencies to regulate the seismic resilience of new construction. They identify where geotechnical site investigations and necessary mitigation must be required as a condition for permitting new construction. Building codes have only general provisions for earthquake-induced ground failures, and results of the required site investigations provide the necessary justification to require more stringent standards for design and siting of the proposed construction.
3.	Describe the specific activities and operations of the program.
	First, designation of seismic hazard zones requires the collection, integration, and interpretation of enormous volumes of geological data to evaluate the hazard potential and designate the zones. Second, effective use of the resulting zone maps requires heavy interaction with local government stakeholders and the public. The large project area involved interactions with over 100 local jurisdictions.
	a.  Mitigation efforts - Once a seismic hazard zone has been designated, every     new building proposed for human occupancy that is located within the zone will     be constructed to mitigate liquefaction or slope hazards at the site,     increasing public safety. Benefits will continue to compound as new     construction proceeds over time. The local implementation process triggered by     this program has revitalized the awareness of and has focused attention     on standards for hazard identification and mitigation at construction sites.     Local governments are making more decisions on acceptable level of risk,     as these standards are being used to judge the adequacy of site     investigations and recommended mitigation.
	b.  Use of New Technology - To manage the formidable task of data collection     and analysis over such a large region, and maintain high quality standards,     the program utilized the latest geographic information technology, and     included the acquisition of new terrain data using the latest airborne radar     terrain mapping technology.
	c.  Innovations - extensive partnerships were developed with NASA/JPL, US     Geological Survey, US Bureau of Reclamation, Southern California     Earthquake Center, Department of Defense, and the University of California,     Berkeley in order to effectively employ quality geotechnical practice, new     innovative technologies, and stakeholder outreach. At the request of the     City of Los Angeles, a special committee was formed under the auspices of     the Southern California Earthquake Center to assist local jurisdictions in the     implementation of site investigation guidelines. Representatives of     neighboring counties and the geotechnical site remediation industry joined     to help facilitate the process by providing expert knowledge of mitigation     options and to ensure uniformity of standards across jurisdictional     boundaries. Members have acknowledged that such a committee is     unprecedented, and will undoubtedly help to ensure full effectiveness in the     identification and mitigation of geotechnical hazards at the construction     site. The need to assess the expected level of future earthquake ground     motions for zoning purposes resulted in a partnership with the US Geological     Survey which lead to an unprecedented consensus probabilistic ground     motion map of California. The map is now under use in the development of     the year-2000 building code recommendations. Information from this     assessment was used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency     (FEMA) and the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) to evaluate     mitigation grant proposals following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake to     ensure effective distribution of mitigation funds.
	d.  Outreach to Business/Government - A local Government User and Advisory     Group was formed to ensure effective communication with lead agencies.     Personal visits were made to planning and building departments of over 100     cities and counties. The requirements of the Act and map products were     described, draft maps and reports were provided, and questions were     answered. Digital files of the seismic hazard zones were provided to     facilitate relative land parcel/zone location using lead agency geographic     information systems. A local government bulletin was established to     announce scheduled map releases and share implementation experience     among jurisdictions. An Internet web site was established to provide easy     access to new information, including presentation of actual zone maps     online. Extensive media briefings, with wide area coverage by television and     radio talk shows, were held to inform the public of the availability of the     maps and the value of disclosure requirements. In a spontaneous effort to     support the intent of the Act, UC Berkeley initiated a cooperative special     3-day course on "Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Mitigation." The course was     designed for local regulators to ensure high standards of review and for the     geotechnical consulting profession at large, to ensure full effective     implementation of the Act. Included in the course are published "Guidelines     of Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards." The guidelines represent a     landmark consensus document that was developed by special working     groups comprised of representatives from the geotechnical industry,     academia, and local, state, and federal government. Following public     hearings and an extensive 6-month external review and comment period,     indications are that the document will permanently improve the quality of     practice for seismic hazard site investigations through out California.
4.	Does this program take a new and creative approach or method? If yes, please describe.
	The program partnered with the Department of Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory to apply new technologies for acquisition and analysis of earth science data. This effort resolved the issue of radar data transfer to a common GIS platform, and demonstrated the potential for significant cost savings for topographic data. It also demonstrated improved data quality in the acquisition of modern topography that has resulted from extensive hillside grading in urban areas, significantly improving the reliability of the derivative seismic hazard zones. Finally, the effort spawned the creation of the GeoSAR program, which is a joint State/Federal/Private endeavor to establish a commercial radar-based terrain mapping system for the acquisition and distribution of high-quality topographic data for general use by private and public entities.
5.	What were the program’s start-up costs and source(s) of funding?
	$ 12.5 Million Budget Source: State Special Fund and FEMA Mitigation Grant
6.	What are the program’s annual operational costs and source(s) of funding?
	$1,076,000 Budget Source: Building Permit Fees
7.	How many employees (full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this program? 30 FTE
8.	To the best of your knowledge, did this program originate in your state? Yes
	Are you aware of similar programs in other states? No
9.	Has the program been fully implemented? No
	If No, what actions remain to be taken?
	Seeking permanent funding to retain highly qualified trained staff. Only 15 percent of California’s high risk areas have been addressed. Seismic zoning is just beginning for the seismically vulnerable San Francisco Bay region.
10.	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).
	Local government response to zone maps and program has been positive. Most believe it will improve public safety.
11.	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?
	Most difficult aspect has been variable funding. The large area at risk in California requires a large mapping program and budget. Funding has been difficult to obtain in fact of their competing needs.