WSSPC Newsletter - Western States Seismic Policy Council

The Western States Seismic Policy Council is a unique organization, as I witnessed firsthand at WSSPC's Annual Conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, after being on the job only two weeks. I was impressed by the dedication of the Board to WSSPC's mission as well as the cooperation and alignment of purpose among the state geoscience/emergency manager groups. My goal is to foster increased collaboration and facilitate communications among the membership, and in particular expand WSSPC's educational outreach. I hope to build on the successes of it's previous director, Steven Ganz, and bring WSSPC to a higher level of recognition in the seismic hazards reduction community.

Since the last issue (Summer 1999) WSSPC held it's 21st Annual Conference with over 90 attendees. Thanks to our featured opening speaker T. Leslie Youd, who treated us to a report on the Turkey earthquake damage. Charles "Chip" Groat, Director of the USGS, was our keynote speaker, and Michael Armstrong and Tim Sheckler of FEMA were featured speakers. Thanks to all the unnamed panelists for their contribution in making the conference a success.

In this issue of EQ we feature two articles about costs of disasters- one providing the basics of loss-estimation methodology and an accompanying quiz, and the other article providing a federa; perspective on mitigating the costs of disasters.

Of special relevance to the San Francisco Bay Area, the USGS released their estimate of the probability of an earthquake (M>6.7) in the next 30 years. The odds are higher than ever. An associated article announces a study of housing losses expected from such an event.

Finally there is plenty of WSSPC news: from the 1999 Awards in Excellence winners, to WSSPC Committee, policy recommendations, National Earthquake Hazards Conference 2000 update, member agency reports from the Pacific states, and the Board Corner.

The Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS) has completed geologic mapping in central and east Anchorage, based on geotechnical boreholes and water-well data. Compilation of subsurface data for west Anchorage is under way. Future maps of the Anchorage area will include liquefaction susceptibility and NEHRP seismic soil types. ADGGS is participating with the University of Alaska Geophysical Institute (UAGI) in a seismic microzonation study of Anchorage, which will result in maps of site-amplification factors and probabilistic ground motions.

UAGI operates the Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC) in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey. AEIC monitors seismicity using a network of roughly 400 channels of seismic data, and disseminates earthquake information to the public. AEIC staff responds to significant earthquakes on a 24-hour basis and faxes or emails information releases on felt events to interested agencies, individuals, and the media within 1/2 hour.

A NOAA and Alaska-sponsored Tsunami Inundation Mapping project is in progress for three communities on Kodiak Island as part of the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. UAGI and ADGGS will complete the modeling and produce inundation maps. Three more communities will be selected for modeling and mapping.

The Tsunami Signs Project is moving forward, with Sitka serving as the pilot community. Signs are on order and expected to be in place by mid-September. Details are being considered for tsunami evacuation routes, community support, and tsunami sign placement in other communities.

The Alaska Division of Emergency Services (DES) seeks opportunities to deliver the earthquake preparedness message through venues like staffing a booth at the Alaska State Fair. DES's showcase activity is the Post-Earthquake Damage Assessment Program. This year the Municipality of Anchorage’s (MOA) Damage Assessment Coordinator conducted five courses, certifying 150 participants as post-disaster building safety inspectors. The partnership between DES and MOA has increased awareness and disaster preparedness in Alaska.

The objective of the Earthquake Hazard Studies in Southwestern British Columbia Project is to identify potential earthquake hazards in seismically active urban areas. The main hazards considered to date are liquefaction, ground motion amplification and earthquake-induced landslide hazards. The British Columbia Geological Survey has completed hazard mapping projects in the Chilliwack area and in the Capital Regional District (Greater Victoria). The 1999-2000 program has received municipal funding from the City of Richmond to begin a detailed study of the stability of dykes along the Fraser River in the Richmond area in the event of an earthquake. Richmond is surrounded by dykes and there is concern that dyke failure triggered by an earthquake could result in serious flooding concomitant with other earthquake damage.

Another 1999-2000 program objective is to determine the Quaternary stratigraphy and geotechnical properties of the subsurface materials, especially the thickness and extent of potentially liquefiable Holocene deposits and the depth to the top of the Pleistocene deposits. The study will include conducting seismic cone penetration and geophysical tests, drilling boreholes and analyzing post-liquefaction dynamic stability. The project is being conducted in co-operation with the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia.

CALIFORNIA
California Division of Mines and Geology
California Office of Emergency Services

The Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) staff began an analysis of expected future losses from earthquakes in California. The analysis incorporates the joint DMG/USGS earthquake hazards model developed for the 1997 Uniform Building Code, and a statewide site conditions map. A regional site condition map is being developed from 1:250,000 scale geologic maps, based on associations of shear-wave velocity in the upper 100 feet with geologic units.

DMG has undertaken a project to digitize the Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zone maps. AP maps show zones within which development must be regulated to avoid placement of structures for human occupancy across active fault traces. Upon sale of a property, it must be disclosed if the property is located within an AP zone. Two products are anticipated: 1) A CD-ROM of the map images, intended for those who must determine if a property is within a zone, is for disclosure purposes. 2) A series of GIS files that local lead agencies can incorporate into their own systems for building permit and planning purposes.

Twenty-four official seismic hazard zone maps covering 83 cities and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles and Orange counties were released by the Department of Conservation March 25, 1999. The maps are the last in a series of 39 to be released during a three-year project that began in 1995. Each map shows the results of detailed assessments of landslide and liquefaction hazards. Geologic mapping was done in cooperation with the USGS Southern California Areal Mapping Program. Technical training and workshops to assist in local implementation were held in cooperation with the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) and the Geotechnical Program of the Department of Civil Engineering, UC Berkeley. An ad hoc Implementation Committee was formed by SCEC at the request of the City and County of Los Angeles, to help establish site investigation, mitigation, and review standards for uniformity across the southern California region.

The Seismic Hazard Mapping Program is funded by building permit fees. Mapping of Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties is partially funded by a Stafford Act mitigation grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Office of Emergency Services (OES).

DMG participated in a USGS working group to reevaluate earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay area, incorporating new fault information and analytical techniques developed over the past decade. The report of the working group was released in October 1999.

TriNet is an OES/FEMA funded project under the OES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program established following the Northridge earthquake in 1994. The TriNet partnership combines the individually maintained seismic monitoring networks of the California Institute of Technology, DMG Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, and the USGS. Approximately half of the 600 monitoring stations in southern California have been installed. A significant product of the TriNet project is the ShakeMap, which will produce maps of ground shaking, based on measured shaking at stations in the network, within minutes following an earthquake. ShakeMap will identify areas of the greatest damage and will be provided to OES and other emergency managers to respond quickly to those areas following an earthquake.

A northern California counterpart to TriNet started earlier this year. Called TriNet North, it is a collaborative project of the UC Berkeley Seismological Laboratory, USGS Menlo Park and DMG's Strong Motion Instrumentation Program. TriNet North will install and upgrade 40 seismographic stations in northern California to provide rapid ground motion information after a large earthquake. A northern California ShakeMap will be generated from data following an earthquake. The ShakeMap interface for northern and southern California will be the same, and the institutions in each area will be linked to the others. The ShakeMap will be used by emergency agencies to quickly respond to those areas showing the greatest damage. The term of the OES/FEMA funding has expired, and additional funding is being sought from legislation through the Seismic Safety Commission to expand the seismic network in northern California to increase the capability of monitoring ground motion equal to southern California.

OES staff serve on several of the TriNet advisory committees. The TriNet Outreach Committee has provided a unique opportunity for direct OES input into the design and dissemination of the real-time products. Of particular interest to Emergency Services is the possibility that the network will be able to issue an Early Earthquake Warning of perhaps as much as a few tens of seconds. Regardless, emergency managers are going to be receiving information on the location and severity of strong ground motion within a few minutes of an earthquake.

In support of FEMA’s “Project Impact”, OES is providing technical assistance to the three current jurisdictions (City of Oakland, Santa Barbara County, and San Bernardino County) involved in mitigation planning in California. OES staff serve on advisory committees that include Promotion and Outreach, Public Education, Technical Standards, the Geotechnical Subcommittee, and the Oversight Committee.

Also as a part of Project Impact, DMG has undertaken an analysis of landslide hazards for the populated and developing portions of southern Santa Barbara County. Oakland’s designation as a Project Impact “disaster-resistant community” by FEMA influenced DMG's decision to expedite landslide and liquefaction hazards mapping of the city. Piedmont, entirely surrounded by Oakland, also has been mapped.

OES and Chevron Corporation are co-sponsors of “Bay Area Neighborhood Training” (BayNET), a consortium of regional citizen emergency response team program coordinators. This year's quarterly workshop topics included: “Polishing and Promoting Emergency Preparedness Programs;” “Community Post-Disaster Sheltering;” and “Residents as Disaster Service Workers.”

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries and
Oregon Office of Emergency Management

Detailed tsunami inundation maps have been completed for Seaside and are in progress for Astoria, Warrenton, and Gold Beach. Tsunami mitigation efforts include 1) tsunami evacuation brochure development, printing and distribution, 2) evacuation planning for communities, schools and state parks, 3) development of a tsunami video, curriculum, and workshops for schools, 4) interpretative tsunami education panels installation in communities and state parks, 5) tsunami evacuation site sign development, and 6) coordination of a multi-state Tsunami Warning Systems and Procedures Guidance document for the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program.

Washington Emergency Management Division and
Washington State Division of Geology and Earth Resources

The Earthquake Program continues to provide public education and mitigate against earthquakes through policies adopted by the Seismic Safety Subcommittee. Examples of the Program’s activities include the following accomplishments:

Washington State highway bridges prone to damage from earthquakes continue to be retrofitted by the Washington State Department of Transportation. To date, nearly one third of state-owned bridges have been completed.

In the past year, the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources (DGER) completed Geologic Folio of the Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater Urban Area, Washington: Liquefaction Susceptibility Map (GM-47). The geologic map and earthquake-induced-amplification map in this series is due out by late 1999.

April is designated “Disaster Preparedness Month”. The theme of the campaign is “Prepare Because You Care”. Local jurisdictions, state agencies, schools, businesses, and general public distribute materials. A statewide earthquake “Drop, Cover and Hold” drill is conducted and over 1.5 million citizens participate.

The Emergency Management Division (EMD) Public Education Section developed a Comprehensive All- Hazard Planning Guide and Model School Plan for Washington State Schools. The guide provides direction and instruction for developing the model school plan.

EMD developed a partnership with the National Weather Service, Navy, Coastal Counties, Tribal Nations and private sector for 100% coverage of the Washington State Coast and shipping lanes with the NOAA Weather Radio.

DGER, in cooperation with the Oregon Graduate Institute, prepared maps of expected tsunami inundation for a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake for the southern Washington coast. Draft maps were supplied to Grays Harbor and Pacific counties.

DGER, in cooperation with the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, developed a tsunami mitigation information program for the five Pacific states. The program's newsletter, TsuInfo Alert, is sent to more than 300 subscribers.

As part of Washington’s Tsunami Education Program, 29 tsunami interpretive signs were placed in coastal communities at locations of high visibility. A template similar to Oregon's was used to keep the message consistent.

DGER and EMD coordinated with a local TV station on a locally broadcast special news hour titled “On Fragile Ground”. The piece described the hazards of earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes. Local scientists and residents were interviewed. The video is used as a public education tool.

EMD and DGER participated in launching a series of Cascadia Region Earthquake Work Group (CREW) forums on post-earthquake business survival strategies.

It’s no exaggeration to say that Salt Lake City is a disaster waiting to happen. The city of 170,000, with a metropolitan area of 1.5 million, perches on the Wasatch fault – capable of hugely destructive earthquakes. The city is also at risk for flooding, severe winter storms, wildfires, hazardous material spills and the occasional tornado.

But Salt Lake City’s residents and officials aren’t ignoring the risks or throwing up their hands in defeat. The city has joined a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) national initiative aimed at reducing the risk of disaster in communities across the nation, and recently approved a precedent-setting $200 million bond measure to seismically upgrade all 38 of Salt Lake City’s schools.

The initiative, called Project Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities, was created in 1997 with seven pilot communities and a goal of spreading the concept of risk reduction across the country. Salt Lake City joins 184 other Project Impact cities actively addressing their risks in partnership with government officials, concerned residents and interested businesses. Centerville is Utah’s other Project Impact community.

“We’ve long recognized that partnerships were the wave of the future, a key to success, and that we need to focus not just on response, but mitigation” said Mike Stever, the city’s emergency program manager. “Project Impact was just what the doctor ordered.”

Despite the fact that Salt Lake City has not actually experienced a significant earthquake in recent history, Stever said there was wide acceptance in the city to protect key buildings. The city had already begun retrofitting fire stations and then began looking at schools.

“The people who are most vulnerable (in a disaster) are those least able to take care of themselves,” Stever said. “Schools are a particular problem.”

The city’s successful bond measure will seismically upgrade all the city’s schools to meet Uniform Building Code Seismic Level 4 – the most stringent standards. The plan will make Salt Lake City schools among the safest in the nation against seismic risks.

Franklin Elementary is one example. It is one of three schools currently being rebuilt. A computer simulation model had predicted the building could settle two or three inches during even a moderate seismic event, with a possible horizontal movement of up to eight feet. At a cost of $600,000, the project engineers decided on a plan of engineered soil improvements to strengthen the ground under and around the building. More than 10,000 tons of stone are being “injected” beneath the site to reinforce the existing soil.

“Salt Lake City is an excellent example of grassroots support, interested businesses and active government officials working to make risk reduction activities a reality,” said FEMA Director James Lee Witt. “In light of recent earthquakes and the U.S. Geological Survey’s increased probability for earthquakes in California, it makes sense for Utah to be addressing the vulnerabilities now.”

Other risk reduction activities in Salt Lake City include public education, the creation of Community Emergency Response Teams of citizens trained to respond quickly to a disaster, and school drills that include “duck, cover and hold.”

On the basis of research conducted since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other scientists conclude that there is a 70% probability of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater quake, capable of causing widespread damage, striking the San Francisco Bay region before 2030. Major quakes may occur in any part of this rapidly growing region. This emphasizes the urgency for all communities in the Bay region to continue preparing for earthquakes.

Just before dawn, residents of a bayside urban area, thought to be well prepared for earthquakes, were jolted from their beds by a magnitude 6.9 quake. This 1995 temblor killed more than 6,000 people and caused $100 billion in damage. The quake struck Kobe, Japan, but similar losses could have occurred in the San Francisco Bay region in 1989 had the magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake been centered in an urbanized area.

Damaging earthquakes are inevitable in the Bay region, but taking actions based on the odds of future quakes will help save lives and protect property. Following the Loma Prieta quake, the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities reassessed the likelihood of large quakes striking the Bay region and issued a report in 1990.

Since then, scientists have gained new insights into Bay region earthquakes, providing a better basis for determining quake odds. In 1997, the USGS working group, now known as WG99, was expanded to include more than 100 scientists from Federal and California State governments, consulting firms, industry, and universities.

Earthquake probabilities are based on balancing the continual motions of the plates that make up the Earth's outer shell with the slip on faults, which occurs primarily during earthquakes. To determine Bay region earthquake probabilities, WG99 gathered new data, developed analytical tools, and debated a wide variety of interpretations about how future temblors may occur.

WG99 determined that there is a 70% chance (±10%) of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake striking the San Francisco Bay region between 2000 and 2030. This result is the most important outcome of WG99's work, because any major quake can cause damage throughout the region. This was dramatically demonstrated when the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake caused severe damage in Oakland and San Francisco, more than 50 miles from the fault rupture. Although earthquakes can inflict damage at a considerable distance, shaking will be very intense near the fault rupture. Therefore, temblors located in urbanized areas of the region have the potential to cause much more damage than the 1989 quake.

In the Bay region's rapidly growing eastern valleys, four faults slice through Contra Costa, Alameda, Solano, Santa Clara, San Benito, and Napa Counties. WG99 calculated the odds of major quakes on these faults for the first time. They determined that there is a 30% chance of one or more magnitude 6.7 or greater quakes occurring somewhere on the Calaveras, Concord-Green Valley, Mount Diablo Thrust, and Greenville Faults before 2030.

Residents living near the Pacific coast in burgeoning San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties are sandwiched between the San Andreas and San Gregorio Faults. New data have allowed WG99 to calculate the first earthquake probabilities for the San Gregorio Fault and to better estimate probabilities for the San Andreas Fault. Combined, these two faults have a 25% chance of producing one or more magnitude 6.7 or greater quakes in these coastal areas before 2030.

When the 1990 USGS probability report was released, earthquake odds could only be estimated for the San Andreas Fault and the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault, although the danger posed by other faults was recognized. WG99 found that, of all the faults in the Bay region, these two and the Calaveras pose the greatest threat, because they have high quake odds and run through the region's urban core.

There are important differences between the 1990 and WG99 studies. WG99 analyzed five additional faults, which would be expected to increase the estimated regional probability of major quakes. This expected increase was largely compensated for, however, by two effects not included in the 1990 report: (1) slip on faults in the absence of earthquakes and (2) the effect of the 1906 earthquake in reducing quake activity throughout the region.

Additionally, the 1990 study considered only earthquakes of about magnitude 7 in determining there was a 67% chance of major quakes in the Bay region between 1990 and 2020. WG99 decided to focus on earthquakes of magnitude 6.7 and greater in their calculations, because the 1994 Northridge quake in southern California was only magnitude 6.7 yet killed 57 people and caused more than $20 billion in damage.

Magnitude 6.7 or greater quakes can cause damage throughout the Bay region, but even smaller quakes could be serious if centered in an urbanized area. WG99 found an 80% chance of one or more magnitude 6 to 6.6 quakes occurring in the Bay region before 2030.

WG99's conclusions from their 2-year effort are to appear in USGS Circular 1189, "Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2000 to 2030." Their finding that a major temblor is more likely than not emphasizes the ongoing need for the Bay region to prepare for earthquakes.

Large earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay region can produce sudden and tremendous loss of life and property, threatening the social and economic fabric of this region. Although quakes cannot be prevented, the damage they do can be greatly reduced through prudent planning and preparedness. Much preparation has already been done, but because a large quake is likely and couldhappen at any moment, further preparations should not be delayed. WG99's results will help business, government, and the public make informed decisions as they continue their preparations.

The work of USGS and other scientists in evaluating earthquake probabilities for the San Francisco Bay region is an ongoing part of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program's efforts. These efforts help to safeguard lives and property from the earthquakes that will inevitably strike in northern California and elsewhere in the United States.

The area of earthquake loss estimation in the U.S. has evolved over a period of about 30 years. Used initially as a planning tool, earthquake loss studies were vital in quantifying the potential impact of large, catastrophic events. In many cases, these earthquakes had very low probabilities of occurrence or equivalently, extremely long return periods. These studies, nevertheless, were useful in comparing existing resources (manpower, equipment, emergency facilities, etc.) to projected needs. In fact, many organizations used these “scenarios” as the basis for emergency response planning.

While these early studies provided useful information for planning, they often took several years to complete. In many cases, the planning scenarios became “outdated” before their conclusion, i.e., new facilities built after the study had started were not included in the analysis and some existing facilities were “retired” before the completion of the study. Therefore, any exercise or planning effort that was based on these scenarios had to be adjusted to account for these changes.

Today, we are fortunate that new technologies are available that allow rapid development of comprehensive scenarios. Inventory data that used to take many months to collect and process are often available in standard data formats (e.g., CAD, Excel data sheets), all designed to facilitate regular updating. Additionally, the introduction of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has allowed the spatial correlation of many datasets. Thus, analysis steps that took many months to complete (e.g., overlaying seismic hazard zones onto building locations) are now possible in a matter of minutes.

Development of Planning Scenarios – A suite of earthquake scenarios can be easily developed for an area once the basic databases are compiled. An emergency planner can use the results of these scenarios to evaluate whether existing emergency response plans are adequate. Planning exercises may be based around incidents or impacts that are consistent with these planning scenarios. Furthermore, these same scenarios may be used to identify future land use restrictions that would prevent the construction of buildings or other facilities in highly seismic areas.

Real-time Response – Because of the recent development of “real-time” earthquake monitoring systems (the CUBE[1] and the TriNet Systems in southern California, and the REDI system in northern California), a valuable extension of earthquake loss estimation tools is the rapid calculation of losses after major earthquakes. This capability was shown to be invaluable in effectively responding to the needs of affected populations after the Northridge Earthquake (Eguchi et al.,[2] 1997).

Mitigation Planning – Loss estimation tools should be used as the basis for establishing the cost-effectiveness of different mitigation strategies. Damage functions and building inventories can be adjusted to reflect changes in building codes, or the impact of planned retrofit programs. Loss estimation tools allow the user to forecast future benefits by simulating a sequence of events over some time period and examining the expected losses with and without mitigation measures. Similar results can be obtained by incorporating probabilistic seismic hazard analysis procedures.

Recovery Studies – Although not commonly used for recovery studies, loss estimation tools can be used to investigate the benefits and costs of various recovery strategies after catastrophic earthquakes. If performed prior to these events, the benefits associated with earthquake measures can be integrated with other non-earthquake benefits, such as improving the normal flow of transportation networks through better system designs.

With time, there will be more examples of how loss estimation methods can be applied to reduce future earthquake hazards. Furthermore, with the introduction of new and more advanced data management programs, we can improve the overall efficiency and reliability of these methods.

The following quiz was presented at the 21^st Annual WSSPC Conference held in Santa Fe, New Mexico between September 6-9, 1999. It was part of Policy Session #1 that dealt with the Economic Impacts of Natural Disasters. It was patterned after a game show that aired during this same time period that gained national attention – Who wants to be a millionaire. While no prizes were awarded at the WSSPC Conference, the audience did have a chance to rate their own loss estimation skills.

[1] CUBE refers to the Caltech-USGS-Broadcast-of-Earthquakes system that provides real-time observations of earthquake magnitude and location in southern California. The TriNet project is a collaborative effort by the Caltech, the USGS and the California Division of Mines and Geology to develop a digital seismographic network in southern California. A major product from this effort will be real-time “shake maps.” The REDI (Rapid Earthquake Data Integration) system provides information similar to the CUBE system but for northern California.

[2] Eguchi, R.T., Goltz, J.D., Seligson, H.A., Flores, P.J., Blais, N.C., Heaton, T.H., and E. Bortugno, “Real-Time Loss Estimation as an Emergency Response Decision Support System: The Early Post-Earthquake Damage Assessment Tool (EPEDAT), Earthquake Spectra,Vol. 13, No. 4, November 1997.

Author's Note: It was a great privilege and pleasure to dialog with the Western States Seismic Policy Council on the occasion of its 21^st Annual Conference, held in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I particularly appreciated the opportunity to discuss the economic impacts of natural disasters in their broadest aspects, in a panel with Dick Roth and Ron Eguchi. I appreciate the opportunity to make a short contribution to the newsletter. What follows is a mix of remarks I actually made at the time and afterthoughts woven in subsequently.

To begin, I emphasize that every Western States Seismic Policy Council member should reflect deeply from time to time on the sheer audacity of juxtaposing the words “seismic” and “policy” in the title of a single organization. WSSPC's title alone says a great deal. It implies an ambitious set of goals, and a set of challenges that must be conscientiously addressed, not ignored. The word “seismic” connotes a body of scientific work that in and of itself is demanding. Were the word “policy” dropped entirely from WSSPC's title, the seismologists among you would still find plenty to do. However, by extending its purview to policy, WSSPC automatically asserts that it will be examining the consequences of a seismically active planet for the national agenda. WSSPC must perforce extend the range of its membership, since seismologists alone cannot make this bridge. Perhaps that inclusiveness starts with emergency managers, but as Michael Armstrong of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and others at the Annual Conference so eloquently emphasized, it requires also that state and local officials more broadly, both career and elected, come to the table. The over-arching issues concern disaster mitigation, which is threaded through the entirety of the way our society does business, not simply emergency response. In the same way, the private sector needs to be involved. Within the academic community, not just the seismologists but also the social scientists need to be engaged. The melding of such a diversity, however needed, is unnatural to our society today. It cannot be achieved once and for all, and then taken for granted, but must constantly be nurtured. It cannot be the responsibility of the WSSPC staff alone, but must be the continuing responsibility of every WSSPC member.

I would like to address four subjects: What do we know about the economic impacts of natural disasters? Why should we refine loss estimates? What will be easy and what will be hard about this task? How should we move beyond loss estimation per se?

Well, we don’t know the figures precisely, but we do know that losses are large, and rising rapidly. Currently, losses in the U.S., though highly variable, are in the order of $1 billion each week. I find a lot of people question this figure, but consider the following: the Northridge earthquake produced a year’s worth of such losses in a few minutes. Furthermore, these losses represent less than one percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By comparison, the People’s Republic of China estimates that in bad years, they lose 5-7% of GDP. Hurricane Mitch, by itself, reduced Central American GDP by some 50%. According to figures compiled annually by Munich Reinsurance, worldwide losses are doubling or tripling each decade, even after adjusting for inflation.

Furthermore, the character of these losses is changing, as a result of urbanization and concomitant dependence on critical infrastructure (communications, electricity, gas, sewage, transportation, water, etc.). Once, property and structural losses were the bulk of the U.S. vulnerability. Increasingly, business disruption is becoming the major component of loss. Generally speaking, the more sophisticated and advanced the infrastructure of a given community is, the greater is the ratio of indirect losses to property losses when disruption occurs.

We can expect losses to continue to rise in the future. This inevitability is dictated by the following trends: population increase; economic growth; migration of populations to more dangerous locations; and urbanization and growing dependence on infrastructure. With respect to infrastructure, the emergence of megacities and the fragile state of the infrastructure supporting these huge, densely crammed populations are creating new and unprecedented vulnerability.

Two other trends will ensure that losses will rise. First is inertia itself. These trends are occurring faster than their consequences become apparent. As a result, ongoing decisions about where and how people live are hardwiring disaster vulnerability for future generations. Second, as people grow more mindful of disasters, the monitoring of losses after a disaster will improve, causing loss figures to continue to grow.

Currently, we are flying blind. Our experience as a nation and as a people is that when we keep score, we improve performance. We’ve kept track of economic indicators – employment statistics, cost-of-living statistics, wholesale prices, balance of payments, leading economic indicators – for decades, and in the process of monitoring economic performance have improved our ability to manage the economy. Mortality rates and all sorts of statistics on the physical health and well-being of our people have led to steady improvements in some areas, and added attention to others. Aviation accidents make headlines, but in fact aviation safety continues to advance. In large part we owe this progress to the hygiene of vigorous National Transportation Safety Board accident investigations and the follow up they perform with aircraft manufacturers and operators. These are just a few examples of the link between monitoring progress and improving performance, and the reason the federal government and the Congress today are operating under guidelines of the Government Performance and Results Act that seeks to institutionalize this approach.

No corresponding measures of public safety with respect to hazards exist. Cities, states and regions are not objectively compared with respect to their vulnerability to the full range of hazards they face. Insurance firms, particularly industrial insurers, require their policy holders to take certain measures, but these are highly variable from one circumstance to the next. Largely invisible, they motivate little public change. Estimating disaster’s toll is the first step to reducing it.

For the sake of discussion, I considered three classifications. These are qualitative notions, but give a general sense, which will not be altered if a given element shifts from one category to the next, either up or down:

- a more complete accounting of the so-called direct losses due to natural disasters: injuries and fatalities, self-insured losses, and even the ecological and environmental losses.

- improved estimates of the indirect (business/economic disruption) losses due to natural disasters.

- a quick-response capability for rapidly gathering highly perishable loss data in the hours and days immediately following a disaster.

- standard accounting methods/measures across hazards and regions of the country.

- moving from accounting for past losses to forecasts and projections of losses to be anticipated.

- proprietary issues. With the rise of information technology, information has become more valuable. Information once publicly available is rapidly becoming proprietary.

- establishing a clear link between mitigation measures and associated loss reductions, the key to motivating changes in public behavior.

- assessing the impact/costs of natural disasters when they are so great as to affect national security, strain the social fabric of nations, and other intangible impacts.

Loss estimation, while essential, is only the starting point to reducing losses from natural disasters. The federal Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction, which I chair, operates under auspices of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. It brings together nineteen federal agencies, and works together with private sector partners, towards these goals:

- make natural disaster reduction a public value. The single key to success is to transform the current national psychology that disasters are somehow unavoidable, or a matter of emergency response alone, to one where every individual assumes responsibility for his/her personal and family safety in the face of inevitable natural extremes.

- shift the emphasis from emergency response and recovery to pre-event mitigation measures. Cost-benefit studies are rudimentary but suggest 10-to-1 improvements in effectiveness here. Mitigation measures should include both structural and non-structural components.

- improve warnings and access to warnings. Not only do improved predictions save lives, but they help transform public awareness and attitudes. At the moment you and I can foresee a hazard, we can assume personal responsibility for preparing for it.

- develop new financing methods for insuring against catastrophic loss and spreading risk. Experience has shown that those societies most able to do this recover most effectively.

- paying attention to international aspects of these problems. The United States cannot operate in a vacuum.

- we don’t attempt to make nature irrelevant, but instead anticipate and build resilience to natural extremes.

The California Seismic Safety Commission received the WSSPC Award in Excellence for Overall Excellence and Mitigation Efforts for its publications, “The Homeowner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety” and “The Commercial Property Owner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety”. The booklets describe the most common weaknesses that can cause damage to homes and commercial buildings during an earthquake. Potential problems are described specifically, tips are given on how to identify problems, and solutions are outlined clearly. The “Homeowner's Guide” is aimed at educating homeowners on steps they can take to make themselves, their families, and their homes safer from the threat of earthquakes. The “Commercial Guide” is for commercial building owners and describes mitigation techniques they can utilize to reduce risk from earthquakes.

These publications make both the buyer and seller of a property aware of potential earthquake weaknesses in a building. Disclosure of earthquake weaknesses is required by law during the sale of any home constructed in California before 1960. Although the disclosure requirement does not apply for commercial buildings, buyer and seller are made more aware by the information contained in the Commercial Guide.

The major purpose of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries’ Tsunami Education Strategy is to save lives of Oregon coastal residents and visitors from the rapid arrival of devastating tsunami waves from Cascadia off-shore earthquakes.

· A school curriculum, including a video, designed for tsunami education programs for grades K-12.

· Educational Podiums, placed on frequently visited beaches along the Oregon coast to explain the tsunami hazard and provide instructions regarding evacuation when required.

· Brochures and other materials provided as information pieces and as takeaway educational items for visitors to coastal hotels and motels.

Most of the program was designed in Oregon and is currently being adopted or considered for adoption in other Pacific states. Public polling shows an increase in awareness of the tsunami hazard —especially in the schools—as a result of the program. Further, the components of this program could well serve as a model for educational efforts for other perils affecting a state or geographical area.