| 1. |
How long has
this program been operational? |
| |
|
| |
Eleven years - Revised Plan - one year in May
1998. |
| |
|
| 2. |
What are the major purposes of this program? What problem(s) or
issue(s) was it designed to address?
|
| |
|
| |
Sets Earthquake Loss Reduction Goals and Priorities for the State of
California. Serves as the State’s hazard mitigation plan, required for federal
mitigation
funding after an earthquake. |
| |
|
| 3. |
Describe the specific activities and operations of the program. |
| |
|
| |
Meets requirements of the California Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Act by implementing 120 specific initiatives, presented in eleven broad-based
elements. |
| |
|
| 4. |
Does this program take a new and creative approach or method? If yes,
please describe. |
| |
|
| |
This dynamic document is a "living plan", to be
continually updated with new information. In addition, the document emphasizes the use of
multilevel partnerships, including government, industry, locals, and academia. It sets
specific goals and ways to implement them. |
| |
|
| 5. |
What were
the program’s start-up costs and source(s) of
funding? |
| |
|
| |
$ 150,000 Budget Source: State Funds/ FEMA Funds |
| |
|
| |
What are the program’s annual operational costs and source(s)
of funding? |
| |
|
| |
$ 778,000 Budget Source: State General Fund |
| |
|
| 6. |
How many
employees (full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this
program? 10 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 |
| |
|
| 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). |
| |
|
| |
The program has spurred actions to save lives, prevent damage, and
reduce disruption associated with earthquakes (see section on "successes" in the
Plan). |
| |
|
| 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? |
| |
|
| |
Priorities and strategies have changed over the last 11 years. Each
damaging earthquake brings lessons, which are then incorporated into a revised and
updated
plan. Obstacles for other states: Mitigation activities require
substantial funding. |
| |
|
| 11. |
Additional
comments: |
| |
|
| |
This plan has been "considered" by FEMA as a national
model for earthquake
loss reduction mitigation efforts.
|
