| Home › WSSPC Publications › WSSPC Newsletter › Winter 1999 | › Contact Us |
|
| About WSSPC | WSSPC Members | Publications | Awards Program | Public Policy Center | WSSPC Events | What's New! |
|
|
From the Desk of the Executive Director NEMA/CSG 1998 Report on the State Emergency
Management Designing Incentives for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Incentive and Impediments to Improving the Seismic
Project Impact Recognizes Communities and Partners for
Incorporation of the Consortium of Organizations
for Seismic Safety Advisory Boards Corner
From the Desk of the Executive Director Since our last issue we hosted the Western States Seismic Policy Council’s 20th Annual Conference. The conference was held in Pasadena, California and was a terrific success. We had over 150 people in attendance and heard from many experts in seismic hazard reduction, building codes and engineering, loss estimation modeling, hazard insurance and disaster resistant communities. We also hosted the second WSSPC Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Symposium. This event focused on developing practical solutions to the problems communities face when addressing tsunami hazards. In this issue of EQ we provide you with reports from our members agencies. We also feature two articles about creating incentives for earthquake mitigation. Both articles explore the difficulties of encouraging mitigation without necessarily requiring government mandates. This issue also highlights the recently released National Emergency Managers Association’s report the state emergency management funding and structures. Additionally, we recognize the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Project Impact’s communities and individuals that have made mitigation efforts successful. We have started a new section in our publication providing reviews of recent publications on earthquake hazards. We apologize for the fact that this issue is a double issue, but due to a temporary reduction in staff we were unable to produce one sooner. WSSPC is now fully staffed and looks forward to publishing future issues of EQ. Enjoy this issue of EQ and we hope to see you at the 21st WSSPC Annual Conference in Santa Fe in September.
ARIZONA Arizona Division of Emergency Management The Earthquake Program in the State of Arizona in 1998 can be characterized as a year of continuation and renewal. Continuation of the projects that will raise the earthquake hazard awareness throughout the State and renewal in the self assessment of our Advisory Council. The on going projects consisted of : Education:
Research & Studies:
The Arizona Council for Earthquake Safety (ACES) formed by Executive Order in 1993 completed a self evaluation this year. The Council developed a new Strategic Plan that will guide us into the 21st Century. The State Department of Emergency and Military Affairs is a partner with the Republic of Kazakhstan (former USSR) in the Federal Government’s Partners in Peace Initiative. The Division of Emergency Management and the Earthquake Programs is assisting Kazakhstan in preparing an earthquake based exercise in their Country in 1998.
ARIZONA Arizona Geological Survey The Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS) has been engaged in several earthquake-hazard related activities in the past year. The AZGS and the Utah Geological Survey are currently engaged in a cooperative research effort to evaluate seismic hazard associated with the Hurricane fault in southwestern Utah and northwestern Arizona. This research has been jointly funded by the state surveys and the U.S. Geological Survey NEHRP program. We have collected field data to estimate the late Quaternary fault slip rate and to estimate the age of youngest rupture along the fault at several places in Arizona. The AZGS is nearing completion of a project to develop a Quaternary fault database and map for Arizona. This work is being done in cooperation with the USGS as part of a world-wide effort to compile maps and data on young faults. In Arizona, we have identified about 100 known or suspected Quaternary faults. Available data on each of these faults is summarized in the database. The USGS has digitized the traces of each of these faults, and we are currently working to develop a 1:750,000-scale map to accompany the database. The AZGS has just begun a project to develop a Seismic Hazard Map of Arizona in cooperation with the Arizona Division of Emergency Management and the Arizona Earthquake Information Center in Flagstaff. We plan to develop a printed 1:1,000,000-scale map showing Quaternary fault and historical earthquake epicenters in and near Arizona. Finally, the Arizona Geological Society has recently released a new state highway geologic map of Arizona. In addition to an up-to-date geologic map of the state, this publication includes numerous smaller maps and text summarizing various aspects of the geology, geography, and natural history of Arizona.
ALASKA Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Survey The Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS) has compiled a GIS database of 4,100 geotechnical boreholes and well logs for the Anchorage area from public and private sources as the basis for a series of planned engineering-geologic maps and reports. Borehole data compilation for west Anchorage will be completed in 1999 after which the database will be made available to the public on-line and on CD-ROM. The University of Alaska Geophysical Institute (UAGI) in Fairbanks is leading the Anchorage Seismic Microzonation Project, which is funded by the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation and involves researchers from several institutions. ADDGS is now a formal participant in this project. The purpose of the project is to determine the surface and subsurface seismic characteristics of the soil and substrata beneath Anchorage. UAGI and ADGGS are collaborating on a Tsunami-Inundation Mapping Project with funding from NOAA through the Alaska Division of Emergency Services. Kodiak Island is the first area for which inundation modeling and hazard mapping will be completed. Supplemental funding will be provided by the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation to extend the mapping to additional communities. A detailed status report is available on the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program web site (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami-hazard/). Other UAGI earthquake-hazards research projects include:
BRITISH COLUMBIA British Colombia Provincial Emergency Program Shortly after WSSPC ’97, The Auditor General of British Columbia released a Performance Audit Report on British Columbia. Nearly a year in preparation, the 153-page report dealt with nearly all aspects of earthquake preparedness, especially at the government level- municipal and provincial. Bruce Ward of California OES was the Project Consultant. The result- 60 recommendations for improvement, 9 of which are strategic in nature. The long-term nature of preparedness was acknowledged, along with the recognition that many preparedness efforts are still in their infancy in British Columbia. Mitigative programs have been particularly slow to develop due to the expense involved. Improvements for the future, relative to the audit’s recommendations, have been seriously contemplated during the present year, and some additional resources have been assigned. We look forward to continued enhancement of preparedness programs in the next fiscal year and beyond.
BRITISH COLUMBIA British Colombia Geological Survey Project Name: Earthquake Hazard Mapping (Seismic Microzonation Mapping) in Southwestern British Columbia Project Purpose: The objectives of the British Columbia Earthquake Hazard Mapping project are to systematically map potential earthquake hazards in seismically active urban areas in southwest British Columbia. The main hazards considered to date are liquefaction, ground motion amplification and earthquake-induced landslide hazards. The British Columbia Geological Survey has completed mapping projects in the Chilliwack area and in the Capital Regional District. The current objectives, dependent on funding, are to extend the program into areas of rapid growth in the Lower Mainland (e.g. Richmond, Delta) and to communities on the east coast of Vancouver Island. The 1998/99 program has received federal funding through the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program which is contingent on the allocation of, as yet unsecured, provincial or municipal funding.
CALIFORNIA During fiscal year 1997 – 1998, the Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) completed preparation of maps and reports focused on identifying geologic hazards as a means of facilitating efforts to reduce losses from future earthquakes and other natural disasters. Digital products are emphasized. Local governments, principal users of loss reduction products, are making more efficient use of DMG information through their developing GIS capabilities. Active Fault Mapping: DMG provides active fault zone maps that delineate fault traces from which construction for human occupancy must be offset by at least 50 feet. DMG is completing digitization of the statewide active fault coverage at 1:24,000, which consists of zones existing in over 550 quadrangles. Both raster and vector products will facilitate use by local governments, consultants and the real estate industry. A CD-ROM of the raster format with statewide coverage is being planned. Based on new information, fault zones are being revised in the Simi Valley. Seismic Hazard Analysis: DMG completed its comparison of a public model based statewide annual earthquake loss estimation for residential properties with the proprietary analysis employed as the basis for residential insurance premium rates by the not-for-profit California Earthquake Authority. DMG also reviewed the results of another proprietary loss model for DOI on which Freddie Mac earthquake insurance requirements for condominium mortgage eligibility have been based. DMG continued to refine its hazard model by evaluating the contrasts between results employing time dependant and time independent analyses for selected faults. Work on the reevaluation of the locations of the 1836-1838 San Francisco Bay earthquakes was published. Seismic Hazards Mapping Program: DMG completed its multi-year Phase I zoning of liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslide hazards in portions of urban areas in Ventura, Los Angeles and Orange counties. Thirty-nine quadrangles have been or are being released. Guidelines for conducting required hazard investigations within the zones were released. Hazard zoning is beginning in the City of Oakland and will be coordinated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored Project Impact. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP): DMG is coordinating its installation of strong motion instrumentation in southern California with the California Institute of Technology and the US Geological Survey under the partnership, TriNet. TriNet facilitates coordinated monitoring in the region and the provision of "Shake Map" which displays contoured ground motion levels in real time and near-real time in the minutes that follow significant earthquakes.
CALIFORNIA California Office of Emergency Services Work on TriNet, California’s real-time earthquake information system, proceeds. TriNet will enable OES to access, within one minute of an earthquake, comprehensive information including computer-generated maps of estimated ground shaking that will be invaluable in managing emergency response. Progress has been made over the past year in developing the state’s Tsunami Mitigation and Response Plan.
COLORADO Colorado Office of Emergency Management and Colorado Geological Survey A number of agencies and schools in Colorado have conducted earthquake research, education, and outreach during the past year. The Colorado School of Mines, through the Princeton Earth Physics Project, has installed five seismographs at high schools in various parts of the state. The Colorado School of Mines also has a cooperative agreement with the Colorado Office of Emergency Management in which nine geologic hazard projects are submitted for study by undergraduate students. The projects involve real world, open-ended engineering projects, many of which incorporate seismic hazards or seismic design criteria. The Earthquake Subcommittee of the Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Council has established an Earthquake Reference Collection that contains not only various governmental and professional society publications, but also many hard-to-find unpublished seismotectonic reports by consultants and student theses and dissertations. The collection of references is housed at the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) offices at 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715, Denver, Colorado. The CGS recently compiled a publication on historical Colorado earthquakes that will be published as a CD-ROM. A database on Quaternary faults in Colorado is also being compiled by the CGS. The project is in part funded by NEHRP and is intended for use in the U.S. Geological Survey’s effort to develop a nationwide database on Quaternary faults. The Colorado Office of Emergency Management has financially supported several of the recent earthquake-related projects undertaken by the CGS.
IDAHO Idaho Geological Survey and Idaho experienced no major earthquakes during the past year but the activity was rather high. An earthquake-triggered landslide near Salmon blocked a major highway and resulted in $2,000,000 damage. Seismic activity persisted in the Challis area. Unusual activity was noted with felt events in Jerome, an area in the Snake River Plain devoid of instrumentation, and a significant felt event occurred north of Lewiston near Genesee. As part of an on-going BDS project to provide the state’s urban planners with hazard data, the IGS completed a study of earthquake ground motion in the Pocatello North and Pocatello South quadrangles, Idaho. The bedrock motion was characterized by identifying the magnitudes and epicentral distances for a characteristic earthquake and a random earthquake. IGS is completing a similar study this fall for the Idaho Falls area. Compilation of a data set for active faults in Idaho is nearing completion. The fault files have been updated and entered into a data base format. A new version of the Idaho fault map will be generated using the data base. The metadata for the files will be linked to the map. Idaho’s Hispanic population is growing, and this growth is in areas with moderate-to-high seismic risk. To convey risk and response information, two existing BDS brochures—Surviving Idaho’s Earthquakes and Earthquake Safety for People Who Work in Old Masonry Buildings—have been translated and will be printed this fall. The BDS website was expanded to include more earthquake information specific to the state, more links, and a catalogue of Idaho events combining information reported by Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Bureau of Reclamation, University of Utah, Boise State University, University of Washington, and the US Geological Survey. The state’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program used funds from three recent disasters to encourage local governments to adopt the Uniform Building Code. Because the state provides the nonfederal share for these grants, recipients must demonstrate a commitment to mitigation through regulation of development in hazardous areas and enforcement of a post-1990 UBC. Idaho also used Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds for nonstructural retrofits of schools. Again, the State provided the nonfederal share, only requiring recipients to prepare a hazard analysis and an all-hazards emergency response plan. Every school district in the state was provided the grant information and a copy of Nonstructural Earthquake Safety Manual for Idaho Schools. A follow-up mailing to every school principal included information on the grant. Another successful annual Earthquake Education Workshop was held in July in west-central Idaho. This workshop featured tectonics of western Idaho as well as landslides and floods from the 1997 disaster on the Little Salmon River.
MONTANA Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology The Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology was awarded a grant by the Montana Disaster and Emergency Services Division on July 28, 1998. The one-year grant was awarded from FEMA hazard mitigation funds for the purpose of mitigating earthquake hazards through public education and preparedness. Six individual tasks in the proposal include: 1) Establish Montana’s first three-component, broadband seismograph which will be operated in cooperation with the U.S. National Seismograph Network; 2) Purchase and install an un-interruptable power supply for the Earthquake Studies Office; 3) Publish a full-color map showing active faults and earthquake epicenters in western Montana; 4) Design and publish a pamphlet describing Montana’s earthquake hazards and mitigation measures; 5) Design a traveling display describing Montana’s earthquake hazards and mitigation measures; and 6) Become a member of the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology. Seismicity for the past year (August 1, 1997 – July 31, 1998) was typical of that observed during recent years. A total of 729 earthquakes were located in Montana and surrounding regions using data from the Montana regional seismograph network. Of these, 31 earthquakes had magnitudes of 3.0 or greater but none caused damage. A rare earthquake occurred in northeast Montana on July 29, 1998. Numerous residents in the region felt this magnitude 3.9 earthquake but no reports of damage were received. A magnitude 5 earthquake in this region in 1943 and a larger earthquake (magnitude 5.5-6.5) in 1909 demonstrate that significant earthquake hazards exist in parts of Montana outside the Intermountain Seismic Belt.
MONTANA Montana Disaster and Emergency Services Division The Montana Earthquake Program has kept busy. The main focus for the year has been implementing HAZUS into our state. Our goal is to have the program operating in our highest risk counties by the end of the year. Montana will once again recognize October as Earthquake Preparedness Month. Consistently, this event shows greater interest and involvement each year we sponsor it. Participation by County Coordinators is once again on the rise and with increased recognition of this topic, individual citizens, schools, businesses and the media are willing and excited to be participating this year. Some of the highlights for this year’s event include:
Another important and extensive project taken on by the Earthquake Program is the Risk / Hazard / Vulnerability Analysis for the State of Montana.
COLORADO Colorado Office of Emergency Management and Colorado Geological Survey A number of agencies and schools in Colorado have conducted earthquake research, education, and outreach during the past year. The Colorado School of Mines, through the Princeton Earth Physics Project, has installed five seismographs at high schools in various parts of the state. The Colorado School of Mines also has a cooperative agreement with the Colorado Office of Emergency Management in which nine geologic hazard projects are submitted for study by undergraduate students. The projects involve real world, open-ended engineering projects, many of which incorporate seismic hazards or seismic design criteria. The Earthquake Subcommittee of the Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Council has established an Earthquake Reference Collection that contains not only various governmental and professional society publications, but also many hard-to-find unpublished seismotectonic reports by consultants and student theses and dissertations. The collection of references is housed at the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) offices at 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715, Denver, Colorado. The CGS recently compiled a publication on historical Colorado earthquakes that will be published as a CD-ROM. A database on Quaternary faults in Colorado is also being compiled by the CGS. The project is in part funded by NEHRP and is intended for use in the U.S. Geological Survey’s effort to develop a nationwide database on Quaternary faults. The Colorado Office of Emergency Management has financially supported several of the recent earthquake-related projects undertaken by the CGS.
NEVADA Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and Earthquake programs in Nevada are interconnected among state and local agencies through the Nevada Earthquake Safety Council. Lead agencies for the state are the Division of Emergency Management, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, and the Seismological Laboratory at the University of Nevada, Reno. The Council facilitates public input, develops consensus about seismic issues within the public and private sectors, and is the public advisory body for state seismic policy and the Nevada Earthquake Risk Reduction Program of the Division of Emergency Management. The Board of Directors of the Council, which votes on policy recommendations, has 21 members from both southern and northern Nevada representing business and industry; city, county, and state governments, including the Assembly and Senate; geosciences; engineering; community organizations; universities; building officials; insurance; and primary-secondary education. Major accomplishments of the Nevada Earthquake Safety Council during the past year include use of the Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake in Western Nevada (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 20) in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) integrated emergency management course involving more than 60 officials from Washoe County and the Cities of Reno and Sparks, along with representatives from the private sector and state agencies; implementation of the Council’s strategic plan in its committee activities; display of earthquake information at the Nevada State Fair and at a booth during a Safety Expo ‘98 sponsored by emergency services personnel in Reno; statewide participation in Earthquake Awareness and Preparedness Week; provision of support to show Seismo-Watch earthquake information on public access television; and participation in planning Project Impact activities for the City of Sparks. At its August 1998 meeting, the Nevada Earthquake Safety Council’s Geoscience Committee and Engineering & Architecture Committee presented their combined analysis of the ground-motion maps in the draft International Building Code (IBC) 2000. The Nevada Earthquake Safety Council has endorsed all four policy recommendations adopted by the Western States Seismic Policy Council in 1997. The Governor declared the third week of April as Earthquake Awareness and Preparedness Week in 1998. This year the UNR Seismological Laboratory organized a poster contest for schools. A statewide earthquake drill was held in schools in Nevada, and the Seismological Laboratory and Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology held open houses during the week. Next year’s Earthquake Awareness and Preparedness Week is scheduled for February 21-27, 1999 to avoid missing student participation during spring breaks in the schools. The theme of next year’s contest will be "Get Your Kit Together." Selected posters from the 1998 contest are being included in a Nevada Earthquake calendar. The Council’s Risk Mitigation Committee is stressing nonstructural mitigation. One thousand buttons and a poster explaining nonstructural mitigation were prepared for the Nevada State Fair. Several proposals dealing with nonstructural mitigation have been submitted to the City of Sparks to include in their Project Impact plans. Emphasis will be on private preschools, public schools, and developing effective mitigation messages for the public. Earth Science Week has been officially designated as the second full week of October by Nevada Governor Bob Miller, the U.S. Congress, and the Association of American State Geologists to recognize how important geology and other Earth sciences are to society.
NEW MEXICO New Mexico Emergency Management Bureau We are continuing the training of building inspectors and engineers to conduct safety evaluations of buildings following a damaging earthquake. We held a ATC-20, Post Earthquake Safety Assessment of Buildings workshop last December. The New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT) is working closely with the New Mexico Museum of Natural History to enhance the seismological material they have available. NMIMT will improve station servicing and streamline network processing of seismic stations in the Albuquerque basin, and enhancing educational outreach activities in earthquake awareness and science through activities at the New Mexico Tech Mineral Museum, along with increasing the information on their world wide web earthquake education site. For the past two years The University of New Mexico has undertaken an effort to determine the precise paleoseismic behavior of the Alamogordo fault by dating Quaternary sediments as well as the sediments shed from the uplifted fault scarp. Results so far show that there have been three, and possibly four major ruptures of the fault in the past ~100 k.y. Each rupture resulted in approximately 2 to 5 meters of offset along fault segments at least 25 km in length. These results suggest that the Alamogordo fault is capable of generating earthquakes with moment magnitudes between 6.5 and 7.5 (similar to the more well-known Richter magnitudes) every 25 k.y. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) continues to be actively involved in paleoseismic studies of the Albuquerque basin (Personias, 1996) and in the development of a Quaternary fault map for the state (Machete and others, in review; Machette and others, 1996). The fault map should be available this fall.
OREGON Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries and DOGAMI continues to produce publication materials relating to earthquakes. A map was released which outlines potential earthquake hazards for the populated northern Willamette Valley, including much of Portland. A statewide earthquake hazards soil map developed in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), was published in the July issue of Oregon Geology. This map shows Oregon’s soil profile types and provides general information on areas with harder or softer USC soils over a broad region of Oregon Geology. A digital map of that product is planned for later this year. HAZUS database for calculating damage and loss assessments is completed and will be presented at AEG in September. The HAZUS model will be evaluated by running data from the 1993 Klamath Falls earthquake. The Klamath County mitigation project is currently underway. The project includes building inventory, partnership with the Oregon Institute of Technology, evaluation of landslide hazard and transportation routes. A strong motion instrument database has been developed and published. . The Eugene-Springfield relative earthquake hazard study is nearing completion. Oregon Earthquake/Tsunami Preparedness Month events included a statewide school "Drop, Cover and Hold" drill on April 30, coinciding with Washington State. Plans are underway to further expand this drill in 1999. OEM coordinated the drill with the assistance of schools, the Red Cross, The Salvation Army, and the Oregon Department of Geology. At the request of DOGAMI, Governor John Kitzhaber invited a group of public relations specialists from public and private organizations to create an outreach campaign to educate Oregonians on earthquake preparedness. The Seismic Design Team developed a plan about earthquake safety, specifically working toward making the vulnerable buildings in our state safer. The strategy adopted by the Team was to increase the frequency and effect of seismic safety messages through a variety of avenues. The plan involves business, community, schools, various governments, and special interest groups, as well as communications directed by DOGAMI. Oregon Office of Emergency Management (OEM) assisted two Seismic Zone 3 counties with earthquake preparedness and mitigation planning. As a member of the funding sub-committee of the Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC), OEM wrote proposals to private foundations to raise funds for an Earthquake At-Risk document for Oregon. OEM gave presentations on earthquake and tsunami preparedness to governments, businesses, and other groups. OEM attended HAZUS (earthquake loss estimation methodology) training at the Emergency Management Institute. HAZUS will be used by OEM as an earthquake mitigation tool for Oregon communities. A three day visit to Oregon of a Chinese earthquake delegation comprised of 12 earth scientists and emergency managers. The Rapid Alert Cascadia Earthquake (RACE) pager-based computer program was installed at OEM. RACE automatically provides preliminary information, such as earthquake location and magnitude, within minutes.
UTAH Utah Geological Survey The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) completed a paleoseismic study of the West Cache fault zone near Logan, and is nearing completion of a cooperative paleoseismic study with the Arizona Geological Survey of the Hurricane fault zone in southwestern Utah and northwestern Arizona. The UGS and Brigham Young University are using surficial geologic maps and geotechnical data to prepare a site-response map of the Salt Lake Valley showing 1997 Uniform Building Code soil-profile types. We have begun projects to produce 1:24,000-scale earthquake-hazards maps for Cache Valley in northern Utah and to update Utah’s Quaternary fault database and make it compatible with the U.S. Geological Survey national database. Our outreach efforts concentrated on earthquake education, and we participated in numerous workshops and field trips for earth-science teachers. The UGS and Utah Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management provide staff for the Utah Seismic Safety Commission, which sponsored conferences in 1997 and 1998 directed a preparing businesses for earthquakes.
UTAH Utah Division Comprehensive Emergency Management The award-winning traveling earthquake display created by the University of Utah Earthquake Education Services has been so well received that a second display was purchased by EPICenter to help handle both the instate and out-of-state requests. The display personalizes the earthquakes that have occurred in the Intermountain Seismic Belt with text and photos. EPICenter is continuing its funding of the University of Utah Earthquake Education Services’ "Earthquakes in the Science Core Curriculum" a series of teacher workshops at the 3rd, 5th, and 9th grades about earthquakes and earthquake science. In 1986, EPICenter partnered with KSL-TV to develop a half-hour program on the earthquake risk in Utah titled, "Not If, But When." KSL is currently in production updating the original program. EPICenter has provided some funding for the production of the hour long sequel. The program will focus on how far Utah has come in the last 12 years toward reducing the risk from earthquakes. Public outreach continues to be the main focus the EPICenter. The EPICenter updated its public awareness brochure titled "EARTHQUAKES - What You Should Know When Living In Utah". The county mapping program is also continuing. To date, five county maps have been completed. The EPICenter is heavily involved with the Utah Seismic Safety Commission. The Schools Subcommittee of the Education and Awareness Standing Committee distributed a survey to 731 school district run facilities and 102 privately run schools. Results from the survey will be used to address the needs of the schools as well as provide data for future projects. One such project is the "Prepared Schools" certification program. This program will hopefully be kick-off with the signing of a proclamation designating April as "School Earthquake Preparedness Month" by the Governor next spring.
WYOMING Wyoming State Geological Survey and Wyoming Emergency Management Agency National Seismic Network Seismic Station In order to establish a National Seismic Network seismic station for western Wyoming, the Wyoming State Geological Survey, the Wyoming Emergency Management Agency, and the University of Utah provided matching funds or equipment to the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Earthquake Information Center in late 1996. The station, which became operational in late 1997, is located at Wyoming’s Auburn Fish Hatchery. Wyoming Set to Participate in FEMA’s Earthquake Program The Wyoming Emergency Management Agency will include Earthquake Program participation in their CCA/PA negotiations with FEMA for FY99. The principal investigator for the program will be James Case, Wyoming Geoscience representative to WSSPC from the Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS).
Reports and Maps on Historical Seismicity and Future Earthquake Potential Over the last year, the Geologic Hazards Section at the Wyoming State Geological Survey released a report and map on historical seismicity in Wyoming. In addition, the Section has generated a number of seismological characterizations for uranium mines and mill tailings sites over the last two years. HAZUS: The Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS) generated HAZUS-based earthquake scenarios for the Casper area in central Wyoming. The results of the analysis were presented at a public meeting in Casper. The WSGS is in the process of converting to the ArcView version of HAZUS.
WASHINGTON Washington Emergency Management Division and The Seismic Safety Subcommittee, under the direction of the Emergency Management Council, provides the direction for the Earthquake Program. A progress report on activities for the period 1992 - 1997 was published in June 1998 and provided recommendations for increasing seismic safety in Washington State. The following activities took place in FY 1998:
NEMA/CSG 1998 Report on the State Emergency Management Funding and Structures
MEETING THE CHALLENGE From hurricanes to tornadoes, blizzards to earthquakes, and toxic spills to acts of domestic terrorism, all states share a common enemy: the threat of disasters. It is the responsibility of state governments to coordinate emergency response and to help local communities rebuild and recover from disasters.
The 1998 Report on State Emergency Management Funding and Structures describes how states are choosing to face this enemy and meet these challenges head on. It is part of continuing efforts by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and The Council of State Governments (CSG) to promote greater recognition of the states’ commitment to emergency management and to educate the public on the true cost of disasters. This report concludes that, given the tight budgets of many state governments, emergency management agencies are increasingly planning ahead, leveraging resources, building better, building smarter, and moving people out of harm’s way. States are strengthening their partnerships with federal agencies, the private sector and other states. These efforts represent the vital investments needed to break the cycle of destruction and rebuilding after disasters.
SPENDING ON STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT State spending on emergency management has been steadily increasing during the 1990s. Total spending by states amounted to $2.77 billion in fiscal 1997, which is almost double the amount spent only five years ago. On average, states spent $61-56 million on emergency management during fiscal 1997. An analysis of spending by states since 1992 reveals overall growth in all four phases of emergency management, with the largest growth occurring in disaster mitigation and recovery. States reported spending a total of $1.71 billion on pre-disaster activities in fiscal 1997, which suggests that states are now placing a greater emphasis on proactive, pre-disaster initiatives and less emphasis on reacting to disasters. While the damage caused by disasters continues to remain expensive, states are now actively taking steps to protect lives and property. In particular, the growth in spending can be attributed to a nationwide increase in spending on various risk-reducing mitigation projects. States spent a total of $1.24 billion in FY 1997 on both structural and nonstructural mitigation, with an average (mean) of $31.08 million per state. This represents an impressive 80 percent increase over the previous year. Even with these efforts, the number of major earthquakes, floods, snowstorms and wildfires still require states to spend significant resources on disaster response and recovery. States reported spending a total of $319.66 million on response activities, with an average of $7.61million per state. Total recovery costs for FY 1997 were even higher at $738.74 million, with an average of $19.44 million per state. This represents a 12 percent increase since fiscal 1996.
STRUCTURES IN STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT just as every state must contend with disasters and other major emergencies, every state also considers emergency management an essential function of state government. In every state, it is the governor who has sole authority to issue states of emergency or declarations and to request presidential disaster declarations. Of the 4,783 emergency events that required substantial state assistance during fiscal 1997, 915 (19 percent) were declared state emergencies and 49 (1 percent) were declared federal disasters. This represents a 284 percent increase in the number of gubernatorial declarations since fiscal 1992. It is very evident that a large majority of emergencies and disasters are handled at the state and local level and never receive federal disaster assistance. How states choose to structure their agencies varies. State emergency management agencies are most commonly part of state military agencies, other emergency management agencies are independent, executive-level organizations or are administered within public affairs agencies, community affairs agencies, or the state police. State emergency management directors are appointed in 42 states. They report directly to the governor in 17 states, the adjutant general in 16 states, and the public safety director or assistant director in 13 states.
FUNDING OF STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT State governments commit significant resources to build and maintain emergency management capabilities. This report shows that in fiscal 1998, the average (mean) budget for state emergency management agencies was $32 million. When compared to the average annual budget (including all related agencies and programs), emergency management accounted for less than I percent of annual state budgets. In addition to agency budgets, states have other mechanisms for providing disaster assistance. At least 30 states make special appropriations following disasters, while at least 23 states maintain separate funds for this purpose. INTERSTATE MUTUAL AID States are continuing to strengthen their partnerships with one another through interstate mutual aid agreements, such as the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). The purpose of EMAC is to assist states affected by major disasters and to supplement federal assistance. Currently, 23 states and Puerto Rico have ratified the compact. The successful operations conducted through EMAC during the 1998 Florida Wildfires, Hurricane Bonnie and Hurricane Georges demonstrate the effectiveness of interstate mutual aid. States will continue to help one another respond to and recover from the disasters every state must inevitably face. METHODOLOGY The data used in the report is taken from various surveys of state emergency management agencies conducted annually by NEMA and CSG since 1996. Information on state budgets for fiscal 1998 was taken from a survey conducted in November 1998, while spending data is derived from surveys conducted in 1996 to 1998. A total of 44 states responded to the 1996 and 1997 surveys, while 45 states responded to the 1998 survey. All spending figures include state spending by all agencies involved in emergency management and response and not simply state emergency management agencies. These figures do not include any federal funds. To obtain a copy of this publication contact CSG’s publication sales department at: 1-800-800-1910 or visit their web site at www.csg.org.
Designing
Incentives for
This is the third article in a continuing series focusing on the economics of earthquake mitigation. The ideas in this article are not necessarily the opinions of the Western States Seismic Policy Council, its members or its funders. At the 1998 Western States Seismic Policy Council Annual Conference, Michael Armstrong, the Associate Director for Mitigation at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), accused many individuals of "lobbing hot ones" when complaining about the deficiencies in hazard mitigation policy, but not offering tangible solutions to problems they observe. I would like to continue in this tradition of lobbing hot ones, BUT I am offering constructive, and maybe controversial, ideas designed to create market driven and government mandated mitigation incentives. A comprehensive package of incentives needs to be developed that will effectively encourage mitigation. Building owners utilize a wide range of factors when deciding whether or not to retrofit. For a full treatment on these factors refer to the recently published Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Special Report entitled, "Incentives and Impediments to Improving the Seismic Performance of Buildings." (See page 16 for the executive summary of this report.) Mitigation should not just occur for the sake of mitigating. Mitigation needs to make financial sense and needs to be implemented on a case by case basis. Incentives that distort the benefit-cost calculations for mitigating need to be avoided. Linkages Mitigation Costs Linked to Property. Encourage earthquake retrofit projects by offering loans that remain with the property after ownership is transferred. If it is assumed that mitigating a structure will not actually increase the value of that property, then the current owner bears the full cost of any mitigation project without the ability to recoup any of the investment. So if an owner is choosing between retrofit and upgrading a bathroom, which will increase the property resale value, the bathroom will usually get the nod. However, if the expense of mitigation is linked to the property, future owners will share in that expense and thus reduce the cost to the current owner. Such a program could be implemented through a governmental loan fund that allows homeowners to borrow money to undertake mitigation projects, but instead of the homeowner being personally responsible for the loan, the loan payments will remain with the property when the title is transferred. The value of a home is relatively arbitrary and often based on a combination of what the market will bear and what the buyer can afford. The buyer should not discount a home price if there is full disclosure regarding the long-term benefits of mitigation efforts and the costs of the loan payments. This concept may work on residential properties, but will not necessarily work for commercial property. Commercial real estate is generally priced by calculating a rate of return from the income that a property can generate. Any long-term mitigation costs will be calculated against any rents and will subsequently reduce the price of the building by an amount equal to the present value of the mitigation project.
Accelerated Depreciation or Tax Credit Federal and state governments should offer accelerated tax deductions for depreciation or tax credits for capital improvements for hazard mitigation. As explained above, current owners of commercial real estate would be unlikely to share the costs of mitigation with future owners. In order to create an incentive for current commercial real estate owner, accelerated depreciation or tax credit will make retrofit projects more affordable.
Linking Mitigation to Insurance Retrofitted homes should qualify for earthquake insurance premium discounts. Three factors are key in making a discount program successful. First, standards for the quality of work need to be established regarding what qualifies as mitigation. Second, different forms of mitigation should receive different discounts. Third, the more mitigation efforts a homeowner undertakes, the greater the discount the homeowner should receive. However, to accurately provide these discounts there needs to be more research about the effectiveness of the different forms of mitigation. Representatives of insurance companies have expressed a concern with this form of incentive because they cannot afford to inspect all of the insured properties for these forms mitigation. Implement a system of self-reporting, with the threat of nonpayment for false reports, then the insurance companies can limit their activities to random inspections. This is the current practice for discounts on homeowner’s insurance for items such as smoke detectors and circuit breakers and for automobile insurance for items such as car security alarms.
Linking Mitigation to Property Taxes Link mitigation to a property tax reduction. An incentive for local governments to offer this program is that if structures are properly mitigated, communities will save money in areas of such as emergency response and infrastructure repair or replacement. A system of standards would need to be established that establishes discounts on property taxes similar to the previously described insurance discount. However, this incentive could be difficult to implement. Unlike earthquake insurance discounts, this would require some form of inspection. Insurers have the ability to reduce or eliminate any payout due to breach of contract, but local governments that do not make such post-disaster distributions and are unlikely to recover any lost tax revenues. However, assuming the combined insurance and property tax discounts are large enough, a partnership between local communities and the insurance industry could lead to the development of an effective voluntary inspection system.
Linking Mortgage and Earthquake Insurance Lending Institutions need to encourage the purchase of earthquake insurance. In most cases mortgage lenders own at least 80% of most newly purchased homes. With this scenario in mind, a homeowner does not have much incentive to purchase earthquake insurance to cover the full value of a home, especially when most policies currently have a 15% deductible. This means that under the current situation a homeowner would be paying the premium based on the full value of the home, but will be insuring only 5% of their equity. However, having earthquake insurance on a property is in the lender’s best interest. Earthquake insurance protects the lender from a borrower "walking away" from a destroyed property and thus defaulting on their mortgage. I suggest two options that would create this incentive. First, lenders can provide interest rate or loan cost (points) discounts if the borrower buys earthquake insurance. Second, the lenders can share in the cost of the earthquake insurance premiums. If equitably split the lender should pay a percentage of the premium equal to the loan-to-value ratio in the first year. As the years pass, the ratio would adjust to the point in which the borrower would pay 100% of the premium by the end of the term of the loan. Free Market Mechanisms Expanded Legal Liabilities Building owners should be held liable for not evaluating their properties structural deficiencies and for not undertaking reasonable measures to address any of these deficiencies. The judicial case law is expanding in area of liability when building owners are found to have knowledge of deficiencies in their properties, but fail to act and retrofit. This form of limited legal liability encourages the building owner to use numbers that more accurately reflect the full cost of not mitigating when deciding whether or not to mitigate. However, it also creates a disincentive for building owners to avoid finding out what, if any, are the physical deficiencies in their buildings. On the other hand by expanding their legal liability due to structural failure during an earthquake, there will be an incentive for building owners to ascertain any deficiencies and act to repair them. Under this system not only will a more economically efficient amount of retrofit occur, but a better assessment of our current building stock will be undertaken.
Business Rating System Businesses should be rated on their mitigation efforts and the implementation of their emergency response plans. The effect of such a rating would be reflected in a company’s stock valuation if it is publicly traded and would be reflected in cost-terms with contracts and partnership for all companies. If the rating information was readily available, businesses could ask the question, "Would I prefer to conduct a long-term business relationship with a company that has mitigated and has a disaster recovery plan or one that does not?"
Community Rating Systems Metropolitan areas and individuals cities need to be publicly rated for hazard management. A metropolitan area rating system would be based on items such as the standards of construction and preparedness of their utility, transportation and communication infrastructure networks. The local communities rating would be based on their mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery capabilities. Such a rating system could effect a business’s decision regarding where to locate and may instill political pressure on elected officials to improve their rating.
Seals of Approval Develop standardized and effective seals of approvals for products and homes. Currently a big problem with mitigation and risk management is information or the lack of it. These seals would be effective only if there is a broad base of understanding and support for standards and practices used. Also these seals of approvals must be linked to insurance, tax relief and eventually to the resale of the structure. The goal of these seals of approval would be to institutionalize the concept of "natural hazards safety" to be as widely accepted as auto safety standards. Preventing the Problems Before They Arise Standards for New Construction Enforce seismic building code standards and fault setbacks for new construction. The most cost-effective time for implementing seismic standards is during the construction of the building. Local government must be diligent in enforcing these standards and must dedicate sufficient resources toward this end.
Transferring Ownership of Public Lands Permanently forbid construction on lands that are known to pose a natural hazard threat before they are transferred for development. Federal and state governments own large areas of land, many of which have known natural hazard threat such as earthquake faults, flood plains and landslide zones. If a permanent rider could be put on the title of lands transfers that forbids any construction on the specific areas in which this known hazard occurs we could avoid substantial future losses. Problems in Need of a Solution Retrofit Projects Can Trigger Other Building Code Upgrades As a result of the cost, some retrofit projects can trigger enforcement of ADA or fire upgrade standards. While both of these programs offer valuable benefits to society, the cost of implementation can double or triple the cost of earthquake mitigation thus dissuade building owners to undertake any action. I would not necessarily suggest removing these triggers for earthquake retrofit projects because individuals many disguise ordinary building upgrades as retrofit projects. However, some action needs to be taken to remove the disincentive to retrofit due to these triggers.
Linking Mitigation to Federal Emergency Relief Aid The federal government has a responsibility to help its citizens in time of crisis. If a disaster strikes, protecting or securing the safety of a nation’s citizens is one of its primary functions. However, individuals, local and state governments need to take responsibility for their respective actions and the federal government should not reward irresponsible actions. The equal treatment of its citizens, when dispensing relief aid, has been a fundamental standard, and it is one that must remain. However, dispensing equal amounts of aid is not the same as equal treatment. Let us assume two neighbors (X and Y) each own adjacent properties that straddle the same earthquake fault. Further, let’s assume that X builds a reinforced home setback from the fault and Y builds an unreinforced masonry building on top of the fault. If an earthquake occurs and X incurs $10,000 of property loses and Y incurs $100,000 of property loses, should the government compensate each for their entire loss, thus allowing Y to be rewarded for not mitigating? Should the government compensate each of them equally, still rewarding Y for not mitigating? Should X receive more relief aid than Y, thereby creating an incentive for X’s efforts in mitigating the home? In theory a system that rewards those who take actions to prepare for natural hazards would be a more economically efficient system. However, this system will only work if individuals or communities clearly understand what are the rules by which the government will play, and fully understand the hazards they face. The same problems face developing disaster relief aid policy for local and state governments. For example, City A has and enforces building codes, City B does not. The Federal government should not treat these two communities equally when determining emergency aid. Making policy regarding relief aid is not as simple as these unambiguous examples. There are many factors that complicate such decisions. There are homeowners that buy homes already constructed on top of a known fault; there are homeowners that find out later that they own a home on a previously unknown fault; there are homeowners that can not afford to retrofit their homes. Further, there are communities that do not have the resources to enforce building codes. A single policy or program cannot address all of these factors. Therefore it is essential to develop a comprehensive package of incentives that address many aspects of mitigation. This package must create incentives and remove disincentives for cost-effective mitigation. Incorporation of the Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation Systems
Incentive
and Impediments to Improving the Seismic
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document grew out of interest by the Structural Engineers Association of California and the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute in improving our understanding of both the incentives for owners to improve the seismic performance of their buildings, and the impediments to their doing so. With funding from the California Office of Emergency Services Earthquake Program, a small steering committee was convened to prepare this issues paper; it is intended to stimulate discussion and to serve as the starting point for actions to improve the incentives available. This paper argues that the decision to improve the seismic performance of a building involves a complex process. After examining many different situations and interviewing a range of building owners, the committee realized that no two buildings go through precisely the same process. The context in which each decision is made is particular to each owner. The objectives of the owner, his/her/its financial circumstances and incentives, and the function of the building all differ from one owner to the next. Inevitably, each building owner considers specific trade-offs in a unique way. A building owner makes many decisions about a building, the decision about improved seismic performance being but one of them. Seismic performance is evaluated along with decisions about maintenance, upgrading, future investment, and risk management. Owners have essentially four options in managing earthquake risk: (1) retaining, or self-insuring the risk; (2) mitigating the risk through improving the seismic performance of the building or other loss control measures; (3) purchasing insurance; and (4) externalizing (passing on) the possible losses to other parties (through government disaster assistance, for example).
The Decision-Making Context: Key Considerations Improving the seismic performance of a building is not always the optimal choice. For some buildings the expected economic benefit is too low, perhaps because market conditions are not right, the type of structure difficult to retrofit, or the perceived risk not great enough. This paper identifies the myriad considerations that influence a building owner making the decision to invest in better seismic performance:
Highlighted for each of these considerations are potential impediments to, and incentives for, improved seismic performance. In the final section, the paper sets out a series of recommendations for new or more effective incentives to improve the seismic performance of buildings.
Changing the Context: New and Better Incentives Build on current incentives Throughout this paper are examples of currently used incentives. While these examples are primarily from California, such programs could be modified and adopted in any state. By adopting a number of these incentives together, it is possible for public and private sector organizations to create a stronger program.
Public Sector Incentives
Private Sector Incentives
Encourage Investment in Seismic Performance Education, information dissemination, and technical assistance are critical to decisions to improve seismic performance of a building. More organizations could provide owners and other stakeholders with the necessary information and help.
Create More Effective Incentives
The Next Steps Conduct A Workshop In order to maximize the probability that a set of incentives can be developed and adopted, we propose a workshop with invited representation from all the potential stakeholders. This workshop would bring together policy setters from the insurance industry, lending institutions, design and construction professionals, the regulatory communities, government agencies, private and public sector information providers, and representatives of tenants and employee groups. Participants at the workshop would work toward setting a national agenda for the development and implementation of an effective set of incentives for the improved seismic performance of buildings.
Coalition Building Emerging from the workshop would be a stakeholders coalition interested in developing better incentives and removing impediments. As it coalesces, the coalition would act as a strong advocacy group for mitigation. Each of the stakeholder interests (owners, lenders, insurers, design professionals, government regulators, information providers, tenants) will be an active participant in the development of incentives, and will have networks, professional associations, and colleagues to lobby and/or involve in the discussions on regulations, procedures or practices. This coalition could develop a blueprint for improved seismic performance of buildings that would be available to state and local governments as well as to organizations in the private sector.
This executive summary was reprinted with the permission of the Earthquake Engineering research Institute. To receive a free copy of the full report contact Sarah Nathe, Senior Program Planner, California Office of Emergency Services, 1300 Clay Street, Suite 400, Oakland, CA 94612-1425.
Project Impact Recognizes Communities and Partners for Preventing Loss of Life and Damage The inaugural Project Impact: Building Disaster-Resistant Communities Summit recognized those people and communities who have worked toward building disaster-resistant communities across the nation during the past year. The award winners were announced during a Wednesday night awards banquet at the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Project Impact is a national initiative launched by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to include everyone - individuals, government officials, and business leaders - in a partnership to make their communities resistant to disasters. "Every Project Impact community has worked with local business, industry and community organizations to make their hometown better prepared for future disasters," FEMA Director James Lee Witt said. "The people of every Project Impact community have made a commitment to identify and prioritize disaster risk; and this commitment can make a difference for the community. These awards are to honor the hard work and dedication of our partners nationwide. Lives are being saved and we know prevention works."
Seismic Safety Advisory Boards Corner At the 1998 Annual Conference, WSSPC convened a meeting of state seismic safety advisory board members from across the country. At this meeting, the first such meeting for these group since 1996, the group decided that additional activity and coordination between the various commissions should continue. Additionally, it was a consensus such activity should be coordinated by WSSPC. Members of the boards are invited to attend the 1999 Conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico As a first step to broaden the dialogue among and between the various board members, WSSPC has set up a section in its web site dedicated to communication and information for these boards. Each state will have the opportunity to upload agendas, minutes, documents and other relevant information. Additionally, the web site will offer a discussion bulletin board for members to communicate and a virtual library for easy access to important documents. The web site will be linked to the new WSSPC Policy Center that allows visitors to track legislation in the various state and national legislatures.
After the success of the 1998 WSSPC Annual Conference, the Board of Directors continues to have several items on its agenda. At its last meeting, the Board created two new policy committees - the Ad-Hoc Committees for Public Policy Regarding Economic Impacts of Earthquake Disasters and for Engineering, Construction and Building Codes. These committees will both review and initiate policy recommendations in their respective issue areas. Full details and membership for these committees will be described in the next issue of EQ.
Changes at WSSPC - The Board welcomes its newest member, John Cline, who was approved during the last meeting to assume one of the three emergency management seats. Mr. Cline serves as the State Director of the Idaho Bureau of Disaster Services. WSSPC also has said good-bye to its first Board President Lorayne Frank. She has served as the Utah emergency management state director for many years and has been a tremendous supporter of WSSPC. We send her our best wishes for her retirement and hope that she enjoys her new activities as a disaster reservist and working at Nordstroms. We hope she will visit us at the WSSPC Annual Conferences in the future.\ |