ACHIEVING EARTHQUAKE RISK REDUCTION THROUGH … · 2010-11-02 · embrace a new approach to hazard...

A PUBLICATION OFTHE CENTRAL UNITED STATESEARTHQUAKE CONSORTIUM

VOLUME 5, NUMBER 1, SPRING 1998

CUSEC’s 1998 Conference . . . . . . . . 16

Mid-America EarthquakeCenter is Launched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Housing Recovery Strategy for aNew Madrid Earthquake . . . . . . . . . . 19

Assessing the Earthquake Riskin the Central U.S.:A Forum for Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Sources of Information andTechnical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

DRC’s: Getting Organized . . . . . . . . . 2

Hazard and Risk Assessment . . . . . . . 4

Education and Public Outreach . . . . . 6

Existing Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8␣

Community Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Business Loss Reduction . . . . . . . . . 11

Showcase Communities . . . . . . . . . . 15␣

gainst a backdrop ofrecurring losses fromnatural disasters,communities throughoutthe Central U.S. and

across the nation are beginning toembrace a new approach to hazardmitigation and business loss reduction.The premise behind the Disaster ResistantCommunity (DRC) initiative isstraightforward: disaster losses in thiscountry continue to escalate, creatingmisery and economic hardship forcommunities. Yet, we clearly have theknowledge, experience, tools and abilityto reduce future losses from earthquakes,floods, tornadoes, and other naturaldisasters.

What is needed is a community-basedapproach to reducing risk that involves allelements of the community–business,government, community organizations,local universities, and others–in a broad-based Disaster Resistant Communityinitiative to identify the risks, and todevelop a long-term, sustainable strategyin partnership with FEMA, Stategovernment, non-profit organizations (e.g.CUSEC, Institute for Business and HomeSafety) to reduce the risks from naturaldisasters.

CUSEC Annual Conference - June14-16, Louisville, KY - to focus onDisaster Resistant Communityinitiatives (see article on page)

This Special Issue of the CUSECJournal is devoted to Disaster ResistantCommunities, with emphasis on how thisinitiative can be used to promote theimplementation of earthquake risk

A

reduction policies and programs at thecommunity level. With the creation ofthe Mid-America Earthquake Center (seearticle) in 1997, there is an unprecedentedopportunity in the Central U.S. to developa unified strategy to reduce the earthquakerisk in this region that capitalizes on themomentum generated by the DisasterResistant Community initiative.

“ With the creation of the Mid-America Earthquake Center in 1997,there is an unprecedentedopportunity in the Central U.S. todevelop a unified strategy to reducethe earthquake risk in this region”

— Inside this issue —

ACHIEVING EARTHQUAKE RISK REDUCTIONTHROUGH COMMUNITY-BASED PARTNERSHIPS

Communities withorganized DisasterResistant Communityinitiatives in theCUSEC region.

Pascagoula, MS

Wilmington, NCHenderson, KYCape Girardeau, MO

Evansville, IN

Clay County, AR

2

Disaster Resistant Communities

Finally, as more communities activelypursue this community-based approach toreducing future losses from disasters,lessons are beginning to emerge fromthese experiences. Some of these lessonsare captured in this issue of the Journaland are intended to help communityleaders, business leaders and others whoare giving thought to initiating a DRCprogram in their community.

GETTING ORGANIZED

One unique aspect of the DRCinitiative is the unprecedented effort toengage and actively involve key decision-makers in government, business, researchand academia, non-government andvoluntary organizations, communityactivists, and others. Each group has arole and contribution to make in a long-term effort to make a community–including the business sector– “resistant”or at least more “resilient” to naturaldisasters.

In getting organized, there are anumber of issues to address and decisionsto make, including:

• The goals, objectives and expectationsof the organization(s), what groups itwill be accountable to (e.g., report to).

• How to recruit and actively involve thebusiness leadership of the communityin the DRC initiative.

• The geographic area of the DRCinitiative (e.g, city, city-county, multi-county).

• Committees that need to be formed(e.g, Education and Outreach) toadvance the goals and objectives of theorganization and how the progress ofthese committees will be measured.

• Resources (financial and in-kind) thatwill be needed to sustain theorganization.

• Role and contributions of externalpartners (e.g., State, FEMA/federal,CUSEC, Institute for Business andHome Safety, etc.) in establishing andaccomplishing goals and priorities.

• Recruitment of a program coordinatorwho can serve as the point of contactfor the DRC program.

Evansville-Vanderburgh County,Indiana has elected to pursue a regionalapproach to developing a DisasterResistant Community initiative. Thedecision to take a regional approach wasinfluenced by at least three factors: 1) theflood and earthquake hazards are regional,which calls for a regional loss reductionstrategy; 2) business and industry–includ-ing several multi-national companies insurrounding counties–will be a drivingforce in the SW Indiana DRC initiative,warranting a regional loss reductionstrategy; and 3) a regional approach cantake advantage of an economy ofexpertise and effort. It is envisioned thatmany of the products and services (e.g,training, demonstration projects, etc.) thatare developed by the Evansville-basedDRC initiative can be shared withsurrounding counties.

As reflected in the organizationaldiagram, the SW Indiana DRC willcoordinate policy, planning, programdevelopment, priority setting, funding,and draw upon resources, input andexpertise from at least four sources: 1)Public–including local, State, and federalgovernment; 2) Research and academia -including the University of Evansville,State geologists, and the Mid-AmericaEarthquake Center; 3) Private–includingthe Disaster Recovery Business Allianceand Metropolitan Evansville Chamber ofCommerce; and 4) Non-profit/voluntarysector–including CUSEC, American RedCross, and others.

Clay County, Arkansas, a ruralcommunity in the northeastern part of thestate, has launched its own DisasterResistant Community initiative. Thiseffort is led by the Clay County DisasterPreparedness Council, a community-based group of elected and appointedofficials, civic and volunteer groups(notably the American Red Cross), and

Southwestern Indiana Disaster Resistant Community model.

Non-Profit Organizations

SW IndianaDisaster RecoveryBusiness Alliance

Public Sector(Steering Committee)

Research and Education

• • • • • • DRC CoordinatorSW INDIANA DRC

Executive Committee

THE CUSEC JOURNAL3

FEMA’S PROJECT IMPACT GAINS MOMENTUM

Under the leadership of Director James Lee Witt, FEMA has launched Project Impact, a national initiative to support thecreation of Disaster Resistant Communities across the nation. This year, seven pilot communities have been selected todemonstrate the benefits of disaster mitigation, including the importance of developing public-private partnerships. Thesecommunities are: Pascagoula, MS, Deerfield Beach, FL, Wilmington/Hanover County, NC, Oakland, CA, Seattle, WA,Allegany County, MD, Randolph County, Tucker County, WV.

There are least four fundamental principles associated with the Disaster Resistant Community concept:

1) Communities must build a partnership of all elements of the community that can work together towards the common goalof saving lives and protecting property;

2) Communities must undertake a program of risk identification so that they clearly know the magnitude and types of threatsthat are faced every day;

3) Communities must identify what they are going to do to mitigate against and prepare for these threats and lay out aprogram to address these issues; and

4) Communities must get support to initiate these programs from all segments of their population.

Project Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities (1997, 48pp. , free from FEMA Publications Center, (800) 480-2520) outlines a step by step process for organizing a Disaster Resistant Planning Committee, recruiting and motivatingmembers, creating alliances, identifying and prioritizing risk reduction actions, and establishing a long-term, community-basedprogram that can be tailored to the unique characteristics of communities across the Central U.S. and the nation.

businesses. The Arkansas Office ofEmergency Services has taken the leadrole in providing technical andorganization support, as well as seedfunding for start-up projects.

Clay County, with a population of8,000, mirrors many rural communities inthe Central U.S. The Clay County DRCinitiative can serve as a rural communitymodel for this part of the country,demonstrating the tangible benefits ofcooperation between business and thecommunity leaders in a long-term effortto reduce community vulnerability tonatural disasters.

Meanwhile, a third Disaster ResistantCommunity initiative is underway inCape Girardeau, Missouri–a floodprone community of 30,000 in theBootheel section of the state–which isalso in the heart of the most seismically

active part of the New Madrid SeismicZone. Cape Girardeau recently formed aDRC Steering Committee, drawn fromcommunity and business leadership, todirect and coordinate that community’sDRC initiative, with support from theState Emergency Management Agency,FEMA, and other organizations,including CUSEC. In a significant move,Cape officials appointed a DRCcoordinator, Walter Denton, who is theAdministrative Assistant to the CityManager.

4


SHOWCASE COMMUNITIES

Another major community-based initiative is the Showcase Communities Program,

sponsored by the Institute for Business and Home Safety, which is designed to

demonstrate the benefits of taking specific, creative steps within an entire community to

reduce deaths, injuries, property damage, economic losses and human suffering caused

by natural disasters.

The Showcase Communities program has three key objectives:

1) Help a community help itself by reducing its vulnerability to hurricanes,

earthquakes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, or whatever natural disaster

threatens it.

2) Generate a “me too” attitude among other communities by showcasing the

successful efforts of particular jurisdictions.

3) Learn what works and what does not work to reduce the emotional and financial

devastation caused by natural disasters.

IBHS has established 14 areas for participation in the program:

• Formally commit to participation by adopting a formal resolution to that effect.

• Complete a risk assessment of its natural hazards or agree to do so.

• Adopt or agree to adopt the latest version of one of the model building codes as the

minimum code and enforce it.

• Complete a land use plan that delineates the relevant hazards and incorporates

them as factors in all land use decisions.

• Participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) if in a floodplain and

apply for/participate in the NFIP’s Community Rating System.

• Receive a suitable Fire Suppression Rating System grade from the Insurance

Services Office (if a community is vulnerable to wildfire, be a participant in an

Incident Command System and mutual aid agreements).

• Maintain emergency response and post-disaster recovery plans in place.

• Develop programs to increase the public’s awareness of natural hazards and ways to

reduce or prevent damage.

• Incorporate natural hazard awareness and reduction programs into its school

curriculum.

• Support IBHS and its partners in the non-structural retrofit of non-profit child care

centers.

• Offer mitigation training to building design and construction professionals.

• Develop public sector incentives for mitigation to complement private sector

financial incentives developed by IBHS and its partners.

• Develop inspection and certification procedures for incorporating mitigation into

new construction and retrofit of existing buildings.

• Develop a Disaster Recovery Business Alliance.

Among the first tasks of a DRCSteering Committee is to clarify itsmission, goals and objectives, to recruitmembers, and to establish asubcommittee structure to carry out thework of the DRC. The following sectionexamines five potential elements of aDisaster Resistant Community strategywith emphasis on setting goals,establishing priorities, recruitingmembers, and identifying resources tocarry out the initiatives.

HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENT

In communities throughout the CentralU.S., decisions are made on a daily basison the siting, design and construction ofnew development, and these decisions areoften made without the benefit ofaccurate information on the nature ofhazards and their consequences.

The starting point for a DisasterResistant Community initiative is acomprehensive assessment of communityand business risk to earthquakes, floods,and other natural as well as technologicalhazards. The Hazard and RiskAssessment can provide a baseline ofinformation on community and businessvulnerability and can be used by leadersto set reasonable performance objectivesand priorities for hazard mitigation,response, and recovery.

Hazard and Risk Assessment, then, iscentral to planning for earthquakemitigation, response, and recovery.Officials in the public and private sectorsare more inclined to invest in mitigationif they have reliable information onpotential losses (economic and social)

“ Among the first tasks of a DRCSteering Committee is to clarify itsmission, goals and objectives, torecruit members, and to establish asubcommittee structure to carry outthe work of the DRC. ”

THE CUSEC JOURNAL5

CUSEC’s DRC Model is designed to bring community officials together to develop a mitigation strategythat is organized around at least six goal areas.

from earthquakes and other hazards, andthe potential benefits–short term and longterm–from adopting and implementingmitigation measures.

Sample Goal: To develop acomprehensive, all-hazards riskassessment that can be used by theDisaster Resistant Community SteeringCommittee and others to establishpriorities, develop risk reductionprograms and measure progress.

Strategy Considerations:

1. Getting organized and assessing needs.Among the tasks that need toconsidered include: forming a Hazardand Risk Assessment Committee;identifying, gathering andconsolidating hazards information(maps, building inventory data, etc.);identifying gaps in hazard and riskassessment data; determining how theinformation is going to be used,including how the information can beused to establish a “vulnerabilitybaseline” against which to measureprogress in reducing vulnerability.

2. Recruiting committee members.There are a variety of knowledgeableindividuals who can assist inconducting a Hazard and RiskAssessment. At the State and locallevel, expertise includes: CUSECState geologists, State and localemergency managers (includingEarthquake Program manager), StateFloodplain manager, businesscontinuity planners from the privatesector, local government “areaplanners,” natural resourceprofessionals, and researchers fromlocal university or hazards center.Among federal agencies, FEMA’sregional offices can be consulted indeveloping a hazard and riskassessment.

3. Identifying resources to support thisgoal. The tools that are available tosupport earthquake hazard and riskassessment fall into at least threecategories: seismic hazard maps;building vulnerability surveys; andloss estimation methodologies(including FEMA’s HAZUS).

Seismic hazards maps show whereearthquakes are likely to cause damage.They provide scientific informationregarding expected future locations andprobabilities of ground shaking andground failure from earthquakes. Thisinformation is important for makingdecisions regarding the safety of new orexisting buildings. Examples of seismichazards maps:

• Earthquake Hazards Map of the St.Louis, Missouri, Metro Area (1: 100,000scale, prepared by the MissouriDepartment of Natural Resources,1995) shows potential for severe andmoderate liquefaction, soilamplification, landslide potential, andcollapse potential.

Building vulnerability surveys can beused to identify structures that arevulnerable to earthquakes, floods, andhigh winds. As an example:

• Rapid Visual Screening ofBuildings for Potential SeismicHazards: A Handbook (FEMA-154,1988). This handbook presents amethod for quickly identifyingbuildings posing risk or death, injury, orsevere curtailment in use following anearthquake. The “ATC-21”methodology can be used by trainedpersonnel to identify potentiallyhazardous buildings on the basis of a 15to 30 minute exterior survey.

• Inventories of Essential Facilitiesin Mid-America (Mid-AmericaEarthquake Center). This project willassemble GIS inventories of essentialfacilities in the seven CUSEC states.

DISASTER RESISTANTCOMMUNITY

STEERING COMMITTEE

Business LossReduction

CommunityLand Use

Hazard andRisk Assessment

NewDevelopment

ExistingDevelopment

Education andPublic Outreach

6


HAZUS TRAINING AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT INEVANSVILLE

In support of the Southwestern Indiana Disaster Resistant Community initiative,the Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium and partner organizations–includingFEMA and the Indiana Emergency Management Agency–have selected Evansville-Southwestern Indiana as a pilot for a HAZUS demonstration project.

The goal of the project is to develop a successful model of the application ofHAZUS to support a community DRC initiative. The project has four components:1) Training of an interdisciplinary team of geologists, local government officials,university engineering students, and business risk managers; 2) Development of astrategy to gather and input the inventory data; 3) Application of HAZUS tosupport the planning efforts of the Southwestern Indiana Disaster ResistantCommunity initiative, and Disaster Recovery Business Alliance; and 4)Preparation of a report that documents the step-by-step process followed in theEvansville Demonstration Project, to be available to other communities that areconsidering using HAZUS.

After the two and one-half day training and strategy session, the group agreedthat: 1) the Area Plan Commission would take the lead in gathering the inventorydata with priority given to: Essential Facilities, Geological data, TransportationLifelines, Utility Lifelines, and Hazardous Materials (General Building Stockwould be entered in a second phase effort); 2) the University of Evansville wouldestablish a “HAZUS station” in the Engineering Department and take the lead ininputting the data; and 3) the SW Indiana DRC Steering Committee would overseethe development, at least initially, of potential strategies for the application ofHAZUS to support decision making, mitigation planning and priority setting,scenario development for response and recovery planning, and other HAZUSapplications. Finally, it is hoped that HAZUS can become a “hook” to get thebusiness community in Southwestern Indiana further involved in the DRCinitiative.

HAZUS - FEMA’s Earthquake LossEstimation Methodology. Developedby FEMA, HAZUS is intended toprovide local, state, and regionalofficials with a user-friendly riskassessment tool to forecast futurelosses from scenario earthquakes. Fora given magnitude earthquake, the“loss estimation methodology” willdescribe the scale and extent ofdamage and disruption that will result,including:

• Quantitative estimates of losses,including direct costs for repair andreplacement of damaged buildings and

lifeline system components; direct costsassociated with loss of function (e.g.,loss of business revenue); casualties;people displaced from residences;quantity of debris; and regionaleconomic impacts.

• Functionality losses, includingloss-of-function and restoration timesfor buildings, critical facilities such ashospitals, and components oftransportation and utility lifelinesystems and rudimentary analysis ofloss-of-system function for electricdistribution and potable water systems.

• Extent of induced hazards, includingfire, flooding, and hazardous materialsreleases.

HAZUS can be a valuable tool inforecasting potential losses totransportation, utilities, and other regionalinfrastructure that is so important tobusiness continuity.

EDUCATION AND PUBLICOUTREACH

The key to reducing loss of life,personal injuries, and damage fromearthquakes and other natural disasters iswidespread public awareness andeducation. People must be made aware ofwhat natural hazards they are likely toface in their own communities. Theyshould know in advance what specificpreparations to make before an event,what to do during an earthquake, flood,tornado, or other likely event, and whatactions to take in its aftermath.

Education and public outreach is thefoundation for a Disaster ResistantCommunity initiative. Put another way, acommunity whose citizens are informed,educated and prepared will fare muchbetter in a disaster. Fewer resources willhave to be devoted to response. Recoverywill be expedited, including businessresumption.

An Education and Public Outreachprogram should be tailored to theinformation needs of a broad range oftarget groups, including: public officials,school children, families, professionalgroups, the workplace, and critical facilitymanagers (hospitals, police and fire,shelters).

“ The key to reducing loss of life,personal injuries, and damage fromearthquakes and other naturaldisasters is widespread publicawareness and education.”

THE CUSEC JOURNAL7

Special efforts should be made to reachand plan for the care of particularlyvulnerable segments of the population–latch-key children, the elderly, individualsin health care and correctional facilities,people with disabilities, and those who donot speak English–with information aboutpossible disasters and what to do in anemergency.

Sample Goal: To develop andimplement a program and strategy toraise the public awareness of naturalhazards, and measures that can be takento improve disaster preparedness andpromote mitigation.


1. Getting organized and assessing needs.Among the tasks that need to beconsidered include: identifying targetgroups for an all-hazards publicoutreach and education campaign;identifying community partners (e.g.,American Red Cross, local chamber ofcommerce, volunteer and community-based organizations)–as well as“external” partners (e.g., StateEmergency Management Agency) tocollaborate with in developing acommunity-based program;inventorying education and publicoutreach programs and materials thatare available, and appropriate fortarget groups; identifying“measurements of progress” to guagethe success of the program; andforming an Education and PublicOutreach Committee to coordinate thisaspect of the program.

2. Recruiting committee members.Education and public outreachprograms can be an excellent way togalvanize support for a local DRCinitiative, and to establish momentum.Committee members can be drawnfrom the local emergency managementagency, volunteer and communty-based organizations, American RedCross, local chamber of commerce,and community schools, includinglocal colleges or universities.

Components of Loss Estimation

Earthquake Hazard• Ground Motion• Ground Failure• Tsunami

Direct Physical Damage• General Building Stock• Transportation Systems• Lifeline Utilities• Essential Facilities• High Potential Loss Facilities

Direct Economic/Social Losses• Economic Losses• Casualties• Shelter

Indirect Economic Losses

Induced Physical Damage• Inundation• Fire Following• Hazardous Substances• Debris

Inventory• Buildings• Lifelines• Economic / Social

3. Identifying resources to support thisgoal. A number of sources can beconsulted for information onearthquake preparedness andmitigation, including the AmericanRed Cross, FEMA, USGS, and State

emergency management agencies (seeSources of Information and TechnicalAssistance for website information).The new Mid-America EarthquakeCenter also has an Education program.

CLAY COUNTY IS “COOKING.”

To build support for the Clay County Disaster Resistant Community initiative,the Clay County Disaster Preparedness Council sponsored a fish fry which drew anestimated 120 people. The three hour program featured a range of speakers,including Richard Simmons, Arkansas State Representative and champion ofearthquake risk reduction, Bud Harper, State Director of the Office of EmergencyServices, and a number of State and community officials with a role in disasterpreparedness.

The Clay County initiative has already produced results. Dan Cicirello,Earthquake Program Manager, announced that gas valve shut-off devices will beinstalled in each of the county’s four schools, as part of the Disaster PreparednessCouncil’s effort to focus on schools and school safety. Another program, fundedin part by FEMA, is targeting a county school for a non-structural retrofit, whichwill demonstrate cost-effective techniques that can be readily applied to promoteschool safety and minimize injuries in the next earthquake.

Clay County, with a population of 8,000, mirrors many rural communities in theCentral U.S. The Clay County DRC initiative can serve as a rural communitymodel for this part of the country, demonstrating the tangible benefits ofcooperation between business and the community leaders in a long-term effort toreduce community vulnerability to natural disasters.

8

expertise in the education field (e.g,researchers with the Mid-AmericaEarthquake Center).

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Communities in the Central U.S. havehigh concentrations of unreinforcedmasonry buildings (URMs) and otherhazardous structures that pose a risk toour citizens –at home and in the work-


4. Measuring progress. A DRCEducation and Public OutreachCommittee should, at a minimum,keep records of target groups that arereached with educational and publicoutreach materials. Follow-up surveyscan determine if these groups aretaking action to improve preparednessat home and/or the workplace. Othermeasurements can be identified by theCommittee in consultation with

place–in the event of an earthquake.Other existing structures are located inareas that are chronically subject toflooding. Thus, a major challenge forlocal officials is how to address thevulnerability of existing hazardousbuildings and utilities in a manner that issensitive to the political, social, andeconomic realities of the community.

The basic argument for the seismicstrengthening or rehabilitation ofbuildings is that strengthened buildingsare less likely to fail during anearthquake, thereby resulting in fewercasualties, a lower demand on urbansearch and rescue teams, emergencymedical services, emergency shelter, andother services.

From a commercial perspective, lessdamage to structures means that morebusinesses will survive an earthquake.Buildings and inventories will be betterprotected, business interruptions will bereduced, and business resumption timesshortened. Recent disasters have shownthat the pace of community recovery isclosely tied to business and economicrecovery.

From a governmental sectorperspective, less damage to structuresmeans that key government agencies thatmanage and coordinate State and localhousing, human services, finance andadministration, planning and communitydevelopment, natural resources and otherservices - can resume normal operationsin a more efficient manner, therebyexpediting response and recovery.

“ …a major challenge for localofficials is how to address thevulnerability of existing hazardousbuildings and utilities in a mannerthat is sensitive to the political,social, and economic realities of thecommunity.”

SHOWCASE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

The Institute for Business and Home Safety and its partners are working closelywith the Southwestern Indiana DRC Steering Committee in a broad based program toimprove community awareness of hazards and their consequences and to educatedesign professionals, contractors, home inspectors, and other key officials who are wellpositioned to influence design and construction practices in Evansville and itsenvirons. An Education and Public Outreach Committee has been established underthe leadership of Kathy Schoettlin of the American Red Cross. The committee–whosemembers are drawn from varied professions, disciplines and backgrounds–havedeveloped a program that is guided by the following goals or criteria of a ShowcaseCommunity Program:

• Develop programs to increase the public’s awareness of natural hazards and waysto reduce or prevent damage (Showcase Community criteria).

• Incorporate natural hazard awareness and reduction programs into its schoolcurriculum.

• Support IBHS and its partners in the non-structural retrofit of non-profit child carecenters.

• Offer mitigation training to building design and construction professionals.

Progress Report

• Establishment of a student intern program at the American Red Cross, a group oftwenty students who will be carrying the preparedness and prevention message totheir peers.

• First phase implementation of the IBHS-sponsored non-structural retrofit of childcare centers program.

• Meetings with parochial and public school principals in Evansville and apresentation on preparedness and prevention to all southern Indiana schoolsuperintendants.

• Collaboration with Evansville-Vanderburgh County Building Commission and theProfessional Training Institute (PTI) to develop and implement, over the next twoyears, continuing education courses on 1) floodproofing and proper floodplainconstruction; 2) earthquake mitigation for contractors, subcontractors andarchitects; and 3) financial incentives for homeowners who carry out designatedmitigation measures. Many of these programs will be featured at the AnnualContractor Continuing Education Trade Show, October 22-24, 1998, in Evansville.

THE CUSEC JOURNAL9

Finally, it is important to assessopportunities for cross-hazard mitigationprograms (e.g, measures that improveresistance to floods, wind, and/or groundshaking). Or conversely, to ensure thatmitigation measures for one hazard(building elevation for flooding) do notinadvertently increase exposure toanother hazard (e.g., increased exposureof an elevated building to groundshaking).

Sample Goal: To develop andimplement a program to reduce thevulnerability of existing development(buildings and lifelines) to the effects ofearthquakes and other natural hazards.


1. Getting organized and assessing needs.One of the first questions the committeewill have to address is, “ What categoriesof existing development (buildings andlifelines) should receive priority inadopting and implementing structural ornon-structural mitigation measures?” Forexample, in developing a strategy forexisting development, a DRC committeemay want to establish performanceobjectives for different categories ofdevelopment, including:

• Public facilities (e.g., schools andgovernment buildings) and electricutilities. For example, community leadersmay decide that these facilities andsystems should be able to be repaired andoccupied or used shortly after a disaster.

• Facilities essential to emergency response(police, fire, emergency operationscenters, emergency communications). Forexample, community leaders may decidethat these facilities should be designed andbuilt to function immediately after the“maximum credible event.”

• Hospitals and medical care facilities.

2. Recruiting committee members. Amongthe local officials who can contributetoward this goal include: buildingcommissioner, county engineer, publicworks director, school superintendant,hospital administrator, electric utilityengineer, planning director, and roadssuperintendant.

3. Identifying resources to support thisgoal. There are at least threecategories of assistance from“external partners” that can betapped to assist in meeting the goalof reducing the vulnerability ofexisting development: research andpublications; training and technicalassistance; and demonstrationprojects.

Resources in the category of Researchand Publications include:

• FEMA’s program on Seismic Safetyof Existing Buildings, whichcontains a wealth of information,including The Guidelines for theSeismic Rehabilitation of Buildingsand related Commentary (FEMA 273and FEMA 274, respectively), a“first-of-its-kind” performance-based, nationally applicable designand engineering documentscontaining new approaches, newanalytical techniques, choices as toseismic safety levels, andacceptability criteria for all types ofbuildings and construction materials.

• Manual for the Seismic Evaluation ofBuildings-A Prestandard (FEMA310). This document expands aprevious FEMA publication (FEMA178) and presents a nationallyapplicable method for engineers toidentify buildings or buildingcomponents that presentunacceptable risks in case of anearthquake.

• Benefit-Cost of Retrofit forCommunities (Mid-AmericaEarthquake Center), a project that

will investigate the relative benefitsof seismic retrofit measures foressential facilities. Using HAZUS,costs and benefits of seismic retrofitwill be examined in two case studyareas.

Resources in the category of Trainingand Technical Assistance include:

• The Mid-America Earthquake Center(see article) and its EssentialFacilities Program, which is intendedto identify needs and priorities forseismic retrofit of essential facilities,economical retrofit methods that canbe adapted in communities in theCentral U.S., and strategies forimplementation, including throughthe DRC initiatives. The EssentialFacilities Program, which is in itsstart-up phase, will emphasize theapplication of research products andguidelines, to the benefit of CentralU.S. communities.

Resources in the category ofDemonstration Projects include:

• Non-structural retrofit of hospitalsand medical care facilities (CUSEC).

• Non-structural retrofit of non-profitchild-care facilities (Institute forBusiness and Home Safety).

4. Measuring progress. With aninventory of existing development–including essential facilities,lifelines, building stock–acommunity can set goals for non-structural and structural mitigation,and establish a tracking mechanismto monitor progress. Also, HAZUScan be used to measure the costs-benefits of retrofit measures, andfactored into a program to measurecommunity progress in addressingthe vulnerability of existingdevelopment.

10


CUSEC UNDERTAKES HOSPITAL MITIGATION PROJECTS

Hospitals play a critical role in a community’s response to a major disaster, yetthese facilities, and the equipment and infrastructure that support them, are oftenhighly vulnerable to earthquakes. Experience has shown that even a modestinvestment can pay dividend in terms of improved functionality following a disaster.For these reasons, hospital mitigation can be an excellent project for a DisasterResistant Community initiative.

During the past year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)liaison to CUSEC, in cooperation with member states and FEMA, has carried out aseries of hospital mitigation projects. With funding from the Mississippi StateHazard Mitigation Program, CUSEC and the University of Mississippi carried out aNon-Structural Demonstration Project at Baptist Memorial Hospital in DeSotoCounty, Mississippi. This project featured: a seismic vulnerability analysis of thehospital, based on a magnitude 6.5 earthquake; the development of a training video;a non-structural retrofit of the hospital’s critical care unit; and the development oftwo hospital mitigation training programs for hospital and health care facilityofficials.

The Baptist Memorial Hospital project can be replicated in other communities.The cost is minimal. For example, CUSEC provided $1,600 to purchase earthquakesafety non-structural mitigation straps, bolts, velcro blocks, quick release straps, etc.Hospital maintenance staff installed the materials purchased. Cost/benefit analysisperformed after the installation revealed that for every dollar spent on non-structuralmitigation of this unit, approximately $15,500 to $18,250 of savings is realized innot having to replace or repair damaged medical equipment should a damagingearthquake occur. Furthermore, hospital staff have reacted very positively to themitigation measures.

Meanwhile, other hospital mitigation projects are underway. With fundingsupport from FEMA, CUSEC is conducting a non-structural mitigation project atMemorial Hospital of Carbondale. This initiative is guided by two objectives: toprovide training to hospital and other health care officials on the role of mitigation inreducing potential losses in hospital settings; and secondly, to carry out a mitigationdemonstration project to strengthen and reinforce (nonstructurally) a critical careservice area in the hospital. Again, CUSEC used a FEMA grant to purchase thematerials, and collaborated with hospital engineering staff to install the equipment.In phase two, CUSEC will use the remaining funds ($8,900) to upgrade the ceilingsystem in the hospital. Finally, the same mitigation “formula” demonstrating cost-effective mitigation techniques in collaboration with hospital staff is also beingutilized in two Evansville, Indiana hospitals: Deaconess and Welborn BaptistMemorial Hospital. Both projects include visual engineering analyses, costestimates of non-structural mitigation measures for critical service units, and projectimplementation with the assistance of hospital personnel. One-day workshops areused in all demonstration projects to discuss the mitigation techniques, the potentialcosts savings and value added, and how these projects can be replicated in otherhospitals in the community.

COMMUNITY LAND USE

Recent advances in hazard mappingand risk assessment have made it morepractical than ever to incorporate hazardsinformation into the land use planningprocess.

Flood hazard mapping and floodplainmanagement practices have become wellestablished in many communities in theCentral U.S. Several factors havecontributed to progress in floodplainmanagement: repetitive flooding, whichenables communities to delineate floodhazard areas; and the availability offloodplain management tools and technicalassistance (e.g., Community RatingSystem, Flood Insurance Maps, etc.).

Seismic hazards mapping in the CentralU.S. is still relatively new. Seismichazards maps show where earthquakes arelikely to cause damage. They providescientific information regarding expectedlocations and probabilities of groundshaking and ground failure fromearthquakes.

Increasingly, state statutes areincluding provisions that require naturalhazards elements in local comprehensiveplans. The purpose of natural hazardselements are to document the nature,scope frequency and severity of naturalhazards that potentially affect thecommunity; to determine the adequacy ofexisting transportation facilities andpublic buildings to accomodate disasterresponse and recovery needs; to developcost-effective measures for mitigation ofidentified hazards; and to identifyresources needed for effective on-goinghazard mitigation programs.

Sample Goal: To officially adopt alocal comprehensive plan that includesprovisions that address natural hazards,including the identification of hazard-prone and/or environmentally sensitiveareas, and policies and procedures tolimit development in these areas.

THE CUSEC JOURNAL11


1. Getting organized and assessingneeds. The Community Land Useelement of a Disaster ResistantCommunity initiative is an excellentmechanism to integrate flood hazard,seismic hazard, and natural resourcesexpertise in a multi-disciplinary andcross-hazards approach to land useplanning and hazard mitigation.

2. Recruiting committee members.Many of the discplines and organizationsinvolved in the Hazard and RiskAssessment will have an important role inCommunity Land Use; the efforts of thesecommittees should be closelycoordinated.

3. Identifying resources. Severaluseful Internet sites contain information,including: http://www.colorado.edu/

hazards (Natural Hazards Center); http://www.iris.edu(Incorporated ResearchInstitutions for Seismology); http://www.scecdc.scec.org/ (SouthernCalifornia Earthquake Center); andhttp://geohazards.cr.usgs (U.S.Geological Survey).

4. Measuring progress. By mappingnatural hazards and determiningpercentages of the built environment inhazard-prone areas of the community orregion, the Community Land UseCommittee can assess progress in limitingdevelopment in these areas.

BUSINESS LOSS REDUCTION

Recent disasters have shown that a keyto recovery is the ability of businesses,large and small, to resume operationsfollowing the disaster. Because of this,an increasing number of communities areexamining the feasibility of forming“business preparedness councils” thatbring together the leadership andexpertise of business, emergencypreparedness, the engineering andscientific community, and others todevelop a partnership approach toreducing the vulnerability of businessesto flooding, tornadoes and severeweather, earthquakes, and other hazards.

Businesses play a key role in aDisaster Resistant Community programand approach to vulnerability and riskreduction. The reason is straightforward.If businesses do not survive a disaster,people are out of work, a community’srevenue stream is severely disrupted, anda ripple effect begins to occur thatprolongs the recovery phase.

While many businesses have internalplans and procedures for responding toand coping with disasters, fewerbusinesses have developed external plansthat take into consideration the disruptionof electric power and water, lack ofaccess to and from their facilities, loss ofworkforce for extended periods of time,

SHOWCASE COMMUNITIES INITIATIVES

The Area Plan Commission, Evansville-Vanderburgh County, is taking an activerole in incorporating hazard identification and risk assessment criteria into land useplanning and zoning decisions. As a Showcase Community, Evansville iscommitted to the following goals:

• Add local Emergency Management Agency as a reviewer of proposedrezoning and subdivision proposals that would likely require fill andconstruction in the floodplain.

• Prepare and submit application for Evansville-Vanderburgh County toparticipate in the Community Rating System (CRS) of the National FloodInsurance Program.

• Revise the mapping in the Physical Features section of the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Comprehensive Plan to reflect earthquake and othernatural hazards, and to develop appropriate policies as a result of themapping.

Progress Report

• CRS application for Evansville-Vanderburgh County is complete; countywill qualify for initial 5 percent rate.

• Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company will do a mass mailing to 16counties on flood risk and mitigation, which will qualify Evansville foradditional CRS credits.

• Evansville-Vanderburgh County now require disclosure of 100-year floodboundary on proposed subdivision plats, along with minimum finished floorelevation required (2 feet freeboard). This “disclosure” creates eligibilityfor a CRS credit.

• Vanderburgh County has applied for FEMA Hazard Mitigation GrantProgram funding to buy out homes in the floodway.

• Area Plan Commission participants in the HAZUS training in March willuse the data sets entered into HAZUS, maps generated, and projected lossestimations in the comprehensive planning update.

• Evansville’s repetitive flooding is caused by drainage problems. $30million in bonds have been sold to provide funding for drainageimprovements, which have been included in the budget and will beconstructed over the next 3 to 5 years. This action should allow numerousproperties to be removed from the city’s repetitive loss list.

12


Example of Ground Failure Map of the 5.0 Magnitude Earthquake.Source: Risk Management Solutions

and other factors that have direct andimmediate implications for businessresumption and recovery.

Sample Goal: To establish andsustain a public-private partnership toguide the development of a businesspreparedness and resumption strategythat is the product of collaborationbetween the business community, localgovernment, and volunteer andcommunity-based organizations.


Arguably, the greatest challenge indeveloping and sustaining a DRCinitiative is how to approach, engage, andmaintain a meaningful and productiveworking relationship between the businesscommunity and local government in along-term effort to reduce community andbusiness vulnerability to natural disasters.Based on the experiences of two activebusiness alliances–Evansville andMemphis–the following observations areoffered:

1. In establishing a public-privatepartnership, it is important to identify andcarry out projects and initiatives thatclearly demonstrate the need, and valueadded, of business participation in thesepartnerships.

2. Support of chief executive officersis very important to the short-term andlong-term success of a public-privatepartnership.

3. At the outset of the organizationalphase, consideration needs to be given tohiring a full-time coordinator for thebusiness alliance; furthermore, thisposition should be occupied by anindividual who can work effectively withchief executive officers in the businesscommunity.

4. The local chamber of commerce (orother business group) can play a pivotalrole in galvanizing support among thebusiness community for the DisasterResistant Community initiative. Thechamber can assume a number of roles in

epicenterepicenterepicenter

0 1 2

Miles

CUSEC SPONSORS GAS UTILITY MITIGATIONWORKSHOP, MAY 20-21, 1998

Natural gas distribution companies devote significant resources to providingsafe and reliable service to their customers. This effort includes both capital andmaintenance improvements to address expanding customer needs, improvingoperational efficiency, and reducing the hazards associated with the operation ofolder underground piping.

The threat posed by earthquakes cannot be overlooked or ignored by gas utilitycompanies in the face of day-to-day operational requirements. In this workshop -Integrating Earthquake Risk in Distribution Gas Pipeline Safety and Reliability-the participants will focus on learning about earthquake hazards and how they canbe appropriately addressed in effective strategies for evaluating pipeline conditionsand optimizing pipeline performance.

The workshop will cover:

• Effects of earthquakes on gas system safety and reliability, using examplesfrom recent earthquakes in California and Japan;

• Information about earthquake hazards in the central U.S., so that eachparticipant can understand the potential risks their gas systems faces;

• Strategies and advanced methods that can be used to integrate earthquakesafety and reliability into a practical, prioritized risk management programthat addresses routine, short-term, and long-term maintenance and operationsneeds along with seismic vulnerability reduction.

Workshop facilitators are: William “Woody” Savage, a Senior Seismologist inthe Geosciences Department of Pacific Gas & Electric and the manager of PG&E’sSeismic Risk Management Program, and Mark Heckman, a Senior Engineer in theTechnical Services Department of PG&E, and manager of the utility’s $2.2 billionGas Pipeline Replacement Program.

THE CUSEC JOURNAL13

organizing a business alliance:leadership, clearinghouse for inquiries,recruitment of new members, fundraising support, and dedication of staff(including through member businesses)to sustain the partnership.

5. The “business community” iscomprised of a wide spectrum of interests(sometimes competing interests); it isimportant to recognize this in developinga business constituency.

6. Business continuity planning is thepredominant concern among members ofbusiness alliances. In strategic planningsessions with the Memphis DisasterRecovery Business Alliance (DRBA) andEvansville DRBA, businessrepresentatives expressed interest inprograms that address response/recovery/resumption issues moreso thanprevention or pre-disaster loss reductionmeasures.

7. With respect to business sectorsinsurance, banking, building supply,utilities (electric, gas, water), hospitalsand medical care facilities are mostrepresented; builders, developers, realestate and major manufacturing are leastrepresented.

8. In the final analysis, progress oftencomes down to interpersonalrelationships–finding a private sector“champion” who is willing to committime and resources. Cultivating theserelationships is important.

Metropolitan Evansville Chamber of Commerce President Robert Quick discussing the SW IndianaDisaster Recovery Business Alliance at Chamber breakfast, with (left to right) FEMA director James LeeWitt, DRBA Chair Dale Olson, SW Indiana DRC Chair Roger Lehman, and Indiana State EmergencyManagement director Patrick Ralston.

MEMPHIS DISASTER RECOVERY BUSINESS ALLIANCECONTINUES TO MAKE PROGRESS

The Memphis DRBA initiative has an active core group of nine members: ATSTelephone & Data, Bell South, First Tennessee Bank, International Paper,Methodist Health Systems, NextLink, Perkins Restaurants, Sedgwick, and UnionPlanters Corporation. Under the leadership of Jeff Crenshaw, DRBA ExecutiveDirector, the organization has identified two priorities:

Post-Disaster Business Communication, a project that is designed to increasebusiness awareness of hazard vulnerabilities and steps that each business can taketo reduce their vulnerabilities. In the short-term, this project will establish acommunication network so that when a major disaster does occur, business willunderstand the role of key services providers (including public sector), and how tocoordinate and communicate with public, private, non-profit and researchorganizations in a post-disaster environment.

Vulnerability Assessment, a two-year project that will provide businesseswith an assessment of their vulnerabilities to natural, technological and man-madehazards in Shelby County, including a comprehensive hazards database, and inthe process serve as an important educational tool for other Shelby Countybusinesses that need to become involved in a community-based businessvulnerability reduction program, developed under the auspices of the DRBA.

14


SOUTHWESTERN INDIANA DISASTERRECOVERY BUSINESS ALLIANCE: AN UPDATE

One of the recommendations of the Evansville-Henderson (KY) Disaster Resistant Community Workshop onApril 15-16, 1997, was the formation of an Evansville-Vanderburgh County Disaster Recovery Business Alliance(DRBA) that would become the focal point for regional business resumption planning in partnership with localgovernment and the university community.

The Evansville DRBA was formerly established on May 11, 1997, with Dale Olson, CEO of Citizens Insurance,nominated as the Chair. The following decisions were made: 1) The Metropolitan Evansville Chamber ofCommerce would serve in a supporting role to assist in recruitment of members, fund raising, and some of thesecretariat functions that are necessary to support the DRBA in the organizational phase; and 2) Priority would begiven to an outreach campaign to communicate the value added of business participation in an Evanville-basedregional DRBA. With the active support of the Chamber of Commerce, nineteen companies were recruited asmembers of the DRBA. Approximately $162,000 was raised from the 19 Founders, with matching funds providedby a local donor.

On January 26, the Chamber of Commerce sponsored a strategic planning session, which resulted in thefollowing recommendations to be made to the DRBA Founders: 1) Because several of the major companies that areactively interested in the DRBA are located in surrounding counties, and because earthquakes and other hazardshave a regional impact, the DRBA should be regional in scope; and 2) A Work Plan should be drafted that reflectsthe following priorities:

• Development of a Business Resumption Planning seminar series, to be delivered to the Founder members,that emphasizes regional business impact assessments and public-private coordination in pre-disasterplanning for response and recovery.

• Training for business in the application of HAZUS to support a regional business impact analysis.

• Application of incentives to stimulate the adoption of mitigation measures (in coordination with the Institutefor Business and Home Safety and other partners).

A major milestone in DRBA’s development was a Chamber sponsored breakfast meeting–attended by DirectorJames Lee Witt of FEMA, that drew over 200 business representatives to a ninety minute interactive discussion onProject Impact, and the role of business alliances in supporting this initiative. At the breakfast meeting, DirectorWitt observed that Evansville can serve as a national model for what one community can accomplish with littleoutside funding.

THE CUSEC JOURNAL15

The following article was written byDiana L. McClure, Director of ShowcaseCommunities and Special Projects,Institute for Business and Home Safety(IBHS).

A Societal Challenge:

As we approach the 21st century, amajor economic and societal issue thatmust be addressed is, how will we as anation live with Mother Nature, and payfor natural disasters–disasters which oftenare of our making, caused by the choiceswe make to live, work and play in harm’sway? The Midwest floods, HurricaneAndrew, the Northridge Earthquake, theOakland fires and many other recentnatural hazard events have challengedsome basic assumptions by which oursociety has abided, such as “change theriver, but don’t change me.”

Consequently, the American taxpayer;federal, state, and local governments;private sector interests and individuals arewondering

• Should we rethink our society’s view of itsinterrelationship and interdependence withMother Nature; in essence move from amentality of attempting to control the forcesof nature, to an approach that emphasizesharmony, co-existence, andinterdependence?

• Should we rethink the balance of rights andresponsibility? Is there too much emphasison rights, and too little on responsibility?

• Should we place greater emphasis oncommunicating the risk, listening to oneanother’s point of view, and articulating theconsequences of our actions?

IBHS Response:

Developing answers to these questionsis crucial to the implementation of themission and strategic plan of the Institutefor Business and Home Safety (IBHS), aninitiative of property/casualty insurers thatwrite a majority of the property insurancebusiness in the United States, as well as byothers who have an interest in lossreduction. The overarching goal of IBHSis to protect human life and property, and

SHOWCASE COMMUNITIESAn Insurance Perspective

to do this it aims to make mitigation apublic value, to foster incorporation of thepotential impacts of natural hazard eventsinto the daily decision-making ofgovernments, businesses and individuals.This is important if we are to keepinsurance affordable and available, so thatit can be utilized when most needed. Inother words, IBHS recognizes the need forpeople to understand their relationshipwith their surroundings and to takeappropriate responsibility forconsequences that arise from their choices.

IBHS has approached this challenge tomake mitigation a public value bydeveloping a focused strategic plan, whichaddresses five key areas–public outreach,community land use, new buildingconstruction, retrofit of existing structuresand information management–as thestrategy to achieve its mission which is to“reduce deaths, injuries, property damage,economic losses and human sufferingcaused by natural disasters.” Insurersrecognize they cannot achieve this goalalone, as do many individuals; local, state,and federal government organizations; andprivate sector entities. Throughpartnerships, working together, even whenour interests may seem juxtaposed, wehave a much better chance of making adifference.

Showcase Communities

In recognition of the fact that much ofthe impetus for loss reduction must occurat the local level, IBHS established theShowcase Community Program tooperationalize the goals of its strategicplan. Since most mitigation strategies andmeasures are implemented locally–although they are influenced by both stateand national policy and private sectoractions–4 criteria were developed to serveas an organizing strategy to integratemitigation into daily decision making andto stimulate collaboration amongst thepublic and private sectors. As one of theprivate sector stockholders in lossreduction, member insurers recognized thekey role they play in helping to reduce thehuman suffering and losses caused bynatural hazard events.

Progress and Measurements of Success

In July 1997, Evansville/VanderburghCounty, Indiana was the first pilotShowcase Community to be designated byIBHS. The designation followed a broadlyattended public/private sector meeting inApril, 1997, organized by CUSEC, whicharticulated the community’s vision of adisaster resistant community into sixsubject areas that encompassed the 14criteria of the IBHS Showcase CommunityProgram. Close to a year later, there hasbeen demonstrable progress towardsimplementation of the vision, due to thestrong and committed public and privatesector leadership in Evansville/Vanderburgh County, and to the externalpartners such as CUSEC, the ElectricPower Research Institute (EPRI) DisasterRecovery Business Alliance (DRBA)group, the State geologist, the Universityof Evansville, and the State EmergencyManagement Agency. This issue of theCUSEC Journal clearly illustrates thatprogress.

To sustain the momentum towardsdisaster resistance that Evansville/Vanderburgh County has generated, short-term, measurable accomplishments mustbe realized and communicated. On theother hand, for the long term, anycommunity committing itself to become adisaster resistant community mustinstitutionalize a philosophy that willsustain making mitigation a public value,incorporating the potential impacts ofnatural hazard events into daily decisionmaking. This means communities mustaddress the appropriate balance betweennature’s agenda and our sometimesconflicting agenda, the appropriate balanceof rights and responsibilities with regard toassumption of risk and responsibility forthose choices, and the kinds ofpartnerships and communication strategiesnecessary to generate individual andsocietal change across a broad range ofinterests.

Interspersed throughout this issue of theCUSEC Journal are examples of short-andlong-term measurers and strategies takenby Evansville/Vanderburgh County,utilizing the 14 Showcase Communitycriteria as a tool to move itself–and SWIndiana, as the initiative expands–towardsdisaster resistance.

16

CUSEC Annual Conference

CUSEC 1998 ANNUAL CONFERENCE:ACHIEVING EARTHQUAKE RISK REDUCTION THROUGH COMMUNITY-BASED PARTNERSHIPSCUSEC ANNUAL CONFERENCE THE GALT HOUSE, LOUISVILLE, KY JUNE 14-16, 1998

CUSEC’s 1998 Annual Conference,which starts on Monday, June 15, 1998,will bring together a diverse group ofcommunity officials, business leaders,seismologists and geologists, riskassessment professionals, engineers,emergency managers, universityresearchers, non-profit and volunteerorganizations, and other groups that havea role in creating and sustaining a DisasterResistant Community program in theircommunity.

The conference will provide anopportunity for participants to:

• Learn from community leaders inEvansville, Memphis, CapeGirardeau, Deerfield Beach (FL),Clay County (AR) and othercommunties that have organizedDisaster Resistant CommunityPrograms underway.

• Learn about programs and projectsthat are available to assess andmitigate the earthquake risk in theircommunity and region.

• Gain a better understanding of therole, resources and potentialcontributions of organizations thatare actively supporting DisasterResistant Community initiatives:State emergency management agency(and other State agencies), FederalEmergency Management (throughProject Impact), the Institute forBusiness and Home Safety (throughthe CommunityShowcase Program),CUSEC, and the Disaster RecoveryBusiness Alliance.

Plenary sessions will address:

• A Unified Strategy for EarthquakeRisk Reduction in the Central UnitedStates

• Role of Business Alliances in aDisaster Resistant CommunityProgram

• Keys to Successful Community-Based Partnerships: Some EarlyLessons

• A Housing Recovery Strategy for theCentral U.S.

• Earthquake Risk Reduction andEarthquake Insurance: Developing anAction Agenda

Breakout sessions will address:

• Hazard and Risk Assessment: Role ofHAZUS Loss EstimationMethodology in a Disaster ResistantCommunity Initiative

• Education Programs and Projects

• U.S. - Latin American PartnershipPrograms

• Mitigation Programs for Hospitalsand Other Essential Facilities

• Establishing and Sustaining BusinessAlliances

• Transportation Networks: Researchand Implementation

For more information on theconference, call: 901-544-3570, or visitthe Web Site at www.cusec.org

THE CUSEC JOURNAL17

Active Program Planned Program

Essential Facilities

Commercial Facilities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Transportation Networks

he Central United Stateshas a major new player inthe earthquake researchand risk reduction field–the Mid-America

Earthquake Center, a newly fundedearthquake engineering research center,based at the University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.

The “MAE Center,” as it is known,was “ born” on October 1, 1997 when theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was awarded one of the threeNational Science Foundation earthquakeengineering research centers. The MAECenter brings together researchers fromseven core institutions–University ofIllinois, Urbana-Champaign, Universityof Memphis, Massachusetts Institute forTechnology, Georgia Tech, Saint LouisUniversity, Texas A&M, and WashingtonUniversity (St. Louis)–with mutuallycompatible talents in seismology,geophysics, geotechnical and structuralengineering, social science, economics,risk assessment, and urban planning.

In December, 1997, a Strategic Planwas prepared that identifies four generalgoals of the MAE Center:

1. Improve engineering of the builtenvironment.

2. Improve data for construction ofstandards and codes.

3. Continue the development of seismichazards and risk assessment tools.

4. Develop an understanding of societalimpacts and responses related toearthquake hazard mitigation.

As Dan Abrams, Director of the MAECenter, points out, “The Mid-AmericaEarthquake Center is a new concept inearthquake engineering research.”Emphasis will be placed on aninterdisciplinary approach to research thatcarefully integrates education,implementation, outreach, andcollaboration into all of the MAE Center’sactivities.

The Central U.S. EarthquakeConsortium, which is represented on theMAE Center Board of Directors, will playan active leadership role to ensure that theproducts and services of the MAE Centerare carefully integrated into theearthquake risk reduction strategies of themember states, including the DisasterResistant Community initiatives.CUSEC-MAE Center collaboration will

be one of the themes of the CUSECAnnual Conference, on June 14-16, 1998in Louisville.

Center Priorities: Essential Facilitiesand Transportation Networks

Early in the planning process, thedecision was made to give priority toEssential Facilities (shelters, police andfire stations, hospitals) because thesebuildings play a direct and pivotal role insupporting disaster response andrecovery; and Transportation Networks(highways, waterways, railways,airways), because of the fact that

TMID-AMERICA EARTHQUAKE CENTER IS LAUNCHED

Mid-America Earthquake Center Coordinated Research Programs

YEAR

Power Networks

Telecommunication Networks

Industral Facilities

18

extensive damage to any of these systemshas national economic and securityramifications, and would seriouslyimpact emergency response and recoveryoperations.

The objectives of the EssentialFacilities Program are: (1) to identifyneeds and priorities for seismic retrofitbased on functional criticality, predictedground motions, and expected structuralperformance; (2) to develop, validate,and standardize economical retrofitmethods; and (3) to implement thoseretrofit methods by encouraging plannersand public officials to adopt them. It isanticipated that Essential Facilitiesretrofit demonstration projects can bedeveloped and implemented as part of aDisaster Resistant Communitiesinitiative.

The primary objectives of theTransportation Networks Program are to:(1) assess vulnerabilities and estimatepotential economic losses in the nationaltransportation network, and (2) identify

effective retrofit methods for reducingthese potential losses.

Role of MAE Center in DRC Initiative

The Mid-America Earthquake Center,with encouragement from the NationalScience Foundation, has made researchapplication a priority. So far, forexample, the MAE Center has sponsoredtwo End User Focus Group meetings forTransportation and Essential Facilities.Many of the products of the MAE Centercan be readily adapted to a community-based DRC program, including:

• Manuals for seismic retrofit ofprocedures.

• Guidance on earthquake riskreduction to schools, hospitals,medical care facilities and fire/policedepartments.

• Teaching modules on earthquakescience and mitigation technologyfor K-12 grades.

Mid-America Earthquake Center

Achieving Earthquake Risk Reduction Through Community-Based Partnerships

• Hazard maps to support communityand regional planning efforts.

• Inventories and database ofinformation on buildings andtransportation structures at risk.

• Knowledge on the effectiveness ofincentives and regulations infurthering mitigation andpreparedness actions.

• Technologies for assessing thecondition of existing buildings, cost-effective strengthening techniquesand rational guidelines for assessingconditions of existing buildings.

In essence, the MAE Center can be animportant source of expertise andpractical, user-friendly research products,which can be incorporated into the riskassessment and mitigation strategies ofthe “embryonic” Disaster ResistantCommunity initiatives in the Central U.S.

DISASTER RESISTANTCOMMUNITY

STEERING COMMITTEE

Business LossReduction

CommunityLand Use

Hazard andRisk Assessment

NewDevelopment

ExistingDevelopment

Education andPublic Outreach

Earthquake Risk Reduction Through Community - Based Partnerships

Mid-AmericaEarthquakeCenter

States CUSEC• State Geologist

Private Sector FEMA/Federal Non-Profit/Volunteer• IBHS

THE CUSEC JOURNAL19

R ecent earthquakes inNorthridge, California(1994) and Kobe, Japan(1995) have focusedattention on the significant

and complex problems associated withproviding shelter to tens of thousands ofdisplaced disaster victims in these urbanareas. The problems of post-disasterhousing recovery in the Central U.S. willbe compounded by several factors: 1) theconcentration of unreinforced buildings inurban area neighborhoods of St. Louis,Memphis, and other Central U.S.communities, which suggests that it maybe necessary to shelter 20 to 30 percent ofa community’s population following amajor earthquake; 2) the relatively highpercentage of urban dwellers living at orbelow the poverty line, typically inhazardous structures (e.g., approximately30,000 Memphis residents live in publichousing); 3) the multi-state impact of aNew Madrid earthquake resulting inconsiderable competition for limitedresources; 4) the tremendous difficultiesin gaining access to damaged areas anddisplaced populations; and 5) the lack ofexperience in the Central U.S. in dealingwith the consequences of a majorearthquake.

It is clear that an effective approach toaddressing the basic housing needs ofpotentially thousands of displaced disastervictims will require a comprehensive,long-term strategy that involves the inputand active support from a range ofagencies and organizations–Federal,State, local, non-profit community-based,and others.

A Housing Recovery Strategy

Acknowledging the nature, scope andmagnitude of the post-disaster shelter andhousing problem in the Central U.S.following a catastrophic earthquake, the

Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium,member States, FEMA, the American RedCross and other organizations arecollaborating to develop and implement aHousing Recovery Strategy for a NewMadrid Earthquake. A HousingRecovery Working Group has beenestablished to coordinate this multi-yearinitiative.

The Strategy will complement andsupport the Federal Response Plan, andset forth a range of pre-disaster, scenariodriven policy options to guide decision-making in three, overlapping phases:

1. Spontaneous Shelter (first 72 hours)–objective is to provide an interim,safe haven while the situationstabilizes.

A HOUSING RECOVERY STRATEGY FOR A NEW MADRIDEARTHQUAKE: A FEMA/FEDERAL - CUSEC INITIATIVE

2. Emergency Shelter (first 60 days)–objective is to provide emergencyshelter and feeding to displacedpopulation requiring shelter.

3. Interim Housing (first year, orbeyond)–objective is to providetemporary housing–safe and secureshelter, water, power, and heating–todisplaced disaster victims whileefforts are underway to makepermanent repairs to dwellings, or tofind other suitable permanenthousing.

The following section highlights someof the key findings and recommendationsfrom the Housing Recovery Strategy,organized under each of the three phasesof housing recovery.

This figure depicts the phases of housing recovery, and several of the functions that must be planned for in each of the overlapping phases.

20

Based on previous major disasters, it isassumed that approximately 25 percent ofthe displaced population will seekemergency shelter. Among the issues thatneed to be addressed in developing anemergency shelter strategy: minimumcriteria for shelter selection (e.g., size andconfiguration of interior space, long-term“usability”, etc.); communicatingemergency shelter information topotentially thousands of displacedvictims; how to cope with aftershocks;when to encourage relocation of disastervictims outside the disaster area; dealingwith the potential for social conflict ifextended stays in shelters are required;and establishing policies on allocatingshelter to disaster victims, as well as thethousands of disaster workers who willalso need housing.

The Emergency Shelter Strategy thatwas developed by the Housing RecoveryWorking Group has four elements:

1. Pre-designation of congregateshelters. This traditional approach toemergency sheltering involves pre-designation of schools, churches,community centers, armories andother facilities that can serve astemporary shelters for disastervictims. The limitation with thisapproach is that many of thesefacilities are among the mostvulnerable to earthquakes. Forexample, a 1996 survey conducted bythe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Memphis District, determined thatonly 5 percent of designated sheltersin Memphis would be availablefollowing a magnitude 7.5 earthquakein the New Madrid Seismic Zone.

2. Conversion of structurally soundcommercial and publicly ownedfacilities. This strategy focuses onthe conversion of existing,structurally sound, accessiblebuildings for use as emergencyshelter to meet basic human needs inthe first 60 to 90 days. Structures in

this category include: commerciallyowned warehouses, manufacturingplants, unused military bases, hotels,and transient lodging.

3. Utilization of tents/other portablestructures. This strategy calls for thedeployment and installation of tentsand other portable structures to serveas emergency, short-term shelters.The advantages of this strategy arethe availability and transportability ofthese materials. Disadvantagesinclude the lack of protection againstcold weather, and societalconsiderations (e.g., lack of privacy,confined spaces, hygienic issues,etc.).

4. Increase the supply of safe housingthrough targeted/coordinatedbuilding inspection program that canbe carried out in 60 days post event.This strategy focuses on the supplyside of the equation, and involvesclose coordination among State,Federal, and local agencies with post-disaster building inspectionresponsibilities.

Emergency Shelter Strategy:Pre-Disaster Actions

In practice, a strategy to provideEmergency Shelter following anearthquake or other major disaster willinvolve a combination of the fourstrategies outlined above, and others. Inorder to develop an emergency shelteringcapability in the Central U.S., theHousing Recovery Working Groupidentified a number of pre-disasteractions that need to be undertaken, asoutlined below.

• Develop a consensus on a cleardefinition of the minimum criteria forshelter selection.

• Complete structural surveys (ATC-21) of designated shelters todetermine the likely availability ofthese shelters following anearthquake.

Housing Recovery Strategy

SPONTANEOUS SHELTER

Earthquakes occur without anywarning, and for the first 24 hours,response will be dominated byspontaneous actions (e.g., search andrescue, medical aid, fire suppression).Furthermore, given the potential fordamages over a seven to ten state region,and the inability to access the disastersites, some communities may not receiveany substantial outside help for 72 hours,including the provision of managedshelters. Under these conditions, peoplewill generally seek whatever shelter theycan, whether that shelter is “safe” or not.

EMERGENCY SHELTER

In a 1994 study, the American RedCross estimated that a magnitude 7.6earthquake in the New Madrid SeismicZone could lead to an unprecedenteddemand for emergency shelter–approximately 576,000 in the seven statesthat would be most impacted. The sheltershortfall is estimated to be 445,000.

In going beyond the numbers, it isimportant to consider the basic needs, andcoping capabilities, of the victims of aNew Madrid earthquake. An emergencyshelter strategy–designed to providesustained emergency care for displacedvictims (food, water, medical attention,emergency information, security)–musttake into account the needs of urbanpopulations, as well as rural populations.

“ Based on previous majordisasters, it is assumed thatapproximately 25 percent of thedisplaced population will seekemergency shelter”

THE CUSEC JOURNAL21

• Identify privately owned structuresthat could serve as emergencyshelters; develop memorandums ofunderstanding with private owners ofthese facilities; encourage/rewardemployers to provide emergencyshelter for employees.

• Prioritize building inspections, assignresponsibilities to ensure designatedshelters are inspected in a timelymanner.

• Establish linkages with communityservices agencies, housingauthorities, and other local agenciesthat are the day-to-day “lifeline” ofurban populations.

• Develop/refine emergency publicinformation program to targetpotentially tens of thousands ofdisaster victims.

• Consider the unique requirements ofthe elderly, handicapped, homeless,and other special needs populations.

• Develop policies and criteria foraddressing the housing needs ofdisaster workers, so that competitionwith victims for scarce housing spacecan be adjudicated in a systematicway.

INTERIM HOUSING

This is a critical phase that may last foryears. The goal is to provide safe, interimhousing–including utilities–to disastervictims until they can make permanentrepairs to damaged homes, or findpermanent housing.

There are a number of factors that willdirectly influence a strategy to provideInterim Housing following a majordisaster: 1) Construction resources in theimpacted areas will be overwhelmed, andthe construction industry, includingmaterials, labor and equipment will alsobe victims of the disaster. An acceptablerate of reconstruction will requireaugmentation from construction supportfrom outside the Midwest. 2) Weatherconditions will have a significant impacton the type of housing that will be

necessary. 3) Displaced residents willresist leaving the general vicinity of thedamaged dwellings. 4) While thepredominant form of assistance providedby most housing recovery programs isfinancial (money provided to rent orrepair homes), this strategy will not beappropriate or effective following acatastrophic earthquake. 5) Repair ofdamaged housing will be a primary meansof meeting housing needs.

The Interim Housing Strategy thatwas developed by the Housing RecoveryWorking Group has five elements:

1. Accelerated repair of damageddwellings. Returning displacedpeople to their own repairabledwellings in a short period of time ismuch cheaper and more efficient thanobtaining or building temporary orinterim housing, needs no additionalland, and is least disruptive to the lifeof neighborhoods.

This strategy seeks to increase thesupply of habitable dwellings throughan accelerated program that targetsminimally damaged buildings foremergency repairs. The success of arapid repair strategy will depend ona number of factors, including: rapidbuilding inspections; repair standardsin place that are agreed upon bypertinent building officials;availability of technical support forgetting design and engineering workcompleted and permitted in a short

period of time; availability of publicand private financing for repairs; andavailability of “residentialconstruction workers” who can makeuse of volunteer labor and accessiblematerials.

2. Conversion of existing resources.This strategy calls for remodeling oradaptation of available, structurallysound buildings, or other resources,as temporary housing on anintermediate term. This includesprivately owned buildings that can beappropriated by local authorities forconversion to housing. Examples ofstructures/resources that can beconverted to temporary housinginclude: vacant public housing stock;travel trailers, campers, recreationalvehicles; rail cars; campgrounds;military bases; warehouses andstorage facilities.

3. Construction of new temporaryhousing. There is a wide range ofmodular building systems availablein the United States which can beused to house large numbers ofdisaster victims. This option wouldrequire potentially large, serviceabletracts of land. In a catastrophicdisaster, “temporary” housing canbecome permanent.

4. Extended congregate care. In acatastrophic earthquake, it is likelythat a significant portion of theemergency shelter population will bein congregate shelters beyond thefour week target maximum. This isdue to a number of factors, from lackof water, power, and other services,to the sheer complexity of matchingvictim’s housing desires with viableoptions. Reliance on extendedcongregate shelter is not desirable,but should be anticipated and plannedfor.

5. Establishing temporary housing instreet rights-of-way. In urban areas,in particular, street rights-of-way canbe used as temporary sites for

“ Interim housing is a criticalphase that may last for years…thegoal is to provide safe, interimhousing–including utilities–todisaster victims until they can makepermanent repairs to damagedhouses.”

22

housing following an earthquake.The advantages are: displacedvictims can be in or near theirneighborhoods, which will allowvictims to remain in familiar socialand neighborhood surroundings, andfacilitate rebuilding; and services canbe brought to the temporary housingsites (e.g., “service pods” consistingof rest room facilities, utilities,common cooking areas, child care,communications can be incorporatedinto design layouts).

Interim Housing Strategy:Pre-Disaster Actions

With five policy options for InterimHousing identified by the HousingRecovery Working Group, the next step isto establish and prioritize a range of “pre-disaster actions” that can be undertaken byFederal, State, local government andcommunity based organizations in a long-term initiative to develop a capability todeliver a range of interim housingsolutions following a major or catastrophicearthquake. Outlined below are a sampleof the pre-disaster actions that localgovernments have a role in implementing.

• Develop and/or refine space andlocation criteria for selection of sitesthat can support new temporaryhousing.

• Develop criteria and standards forrepair of damaged buildings.

• Prepare instructional materials thatcan be disseminated to residents toencourage “do-it-yourself” quick fixesto make structures habitable untilpermanent repairs can be made.

• Work with financial institutions toaccelerate the processing of loanapproval for housing repairs andrebuilding.

• Identify a range of serviceable tractsof land in an around high riskcommunities that can serve astemporary housing sites.

• Develop procedures to facilitate andsupport the construction of on-siteinterim housing (e.g., basic, hand-

made shelter) on or near premiseswhile repairs are being undertaken.

• Seek waivers on local codes,permitting requirements, and fees toaccelerate construction of temporaryhousing.

• Conduct a structural survey ofdesignated shelters and other publiclyowned facilities that can serve astemporary housing following a majorearthquake.

• Anticipate and documentrequirements associated withoverseeing the procurement, siting,and placement of mobile homes andother forms of temporary housing.Develop memorandums ofunderstanding.

• Determine feasibility of using streetright-of-ways and other vacant spaces(e.g., backyards, parking lots,neighborhood parks, etc.) in high riskcommunities for temporary housing;assess post-disaster accessibility;determine space and locationrequirements for “service pods.”

How to Use the Strategy

The primary objective of the HousingRecovery Working Group is to develop acoordinated strategy to meet the short-termshelter and long-term housing requirementsof displaced disaster victims, andultimately to develop a capability at thelocal level to take care of displaced disastervictims following an earthquake or othermajor disaster.

More specifically, the Strategy, whenfinalized, can be used by Federal, State,local, non-profit and non-governmentorganizations, and business community toassess the nature and scope of the problem;to identify assumptions, impediments, andcritical issues to be addressed; to identify arange of policy and program options thatwhen implemented will lead to acoordinated strategy for housing recovery;and finally, the Strategy can be used toprioritize actions, and to monitor progressin implementing program elements.

Housing Recovery Strategy and DisasterResistant Communities

Finally, the Housing Recovery Strategycan become an integral feature of ProjectImpact–the FEMA-led initiative to developDisaster Resistant Communities. Disaster“resistance” is an objective. Expressed interms of performance objectives andperformance standards, a community canbe said to be disaster resistant when after amajor earthquake, flood, hurricane, orother major disaster the followingconditions are present:

• Instead of heavy casualties, there is aminimal loss of life and limitedinterruption of public services–including emergency shelter,emergency medical and healthservices, electric and water utilities,transportation, and communications.

• The private sector is able to resumebusiness operations in a timelymanner, contributing to the recoveryof the community.

• The community is able to manage theresponse operations–including theprovision of emergency shelter andmedical care following a majordisaster–supplemented by pre-plannedresources and State and Federalgovernment resources.

• The community is able to recover to atleast pre-disaster conditions in anaccelerated, ordered, pre-plannedmanner. This includes the capabilityto implement a housing recoverystrategy that is the product ofcollaboration between localgovernment leaders, the businesscommunity, State and Federalgovernment, and non-profit and non-government organizations.

In essence, housing recovery should bean integral feature of a long-term strategyto reduce the vulnerability of a communityto natural hazards, so that when a major orcatastrophic disaster does occur, there is astrategy in place that lays out policy andprogram options to expedite housingrecovery, and in the process guidedecision-making in the critical days andweeks following the disaster.

Housing Recovery Strategy

THE CUSEC JOURNAL23

T here continues to beconsiderable interest andconcern among insuranceprofessionals and othersover the vulnerability of

the Central U.S. to a damaging earthquakein the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Thisconcern is understandable. In the lastdecade, the insurance industry has paidout record sums of insured losses causedby earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, andother natural disasters.

Against this backdrop, a Forum washeld–organized by CUSEC in cooperationwith the Center for Earthquake Researchand Information, University of Memphis,the Memphis Business EmergencyPreparedness Council, the Institute forBusiness and Home Safety, the FederalEmergency Management Agency, and theU.S. Geological Survey–that broughttogether approximately 200 insuranceofficials, risk assessment professionals,earth scientists, and emergency managersto address several fundamental issues atthe center of insurance industry dialogue:

• What is the probability of a damagingearthquake in the New Madrid SeismicZone?

• What structures are likely to bedamaged, and how do soil conditionsand construction practices in theCentral U.S. contribute to the seismicrisk?

• What specific tools–including maps,studies, risk assessment models–areavailable to assist insuranceprofessionals in making decisions oninsuring the seismic risk in the CentralU.S.?

• What steps can be taken to develop a“working partnership” amonginsurance, risk assessment, andearthquake hazards professionals?

The following excerpts capture someof the dialogue and discussion at theInsurance Forum.

Probabilities of a DamagingEarthquake

“Within any 50-year window, there isvirtually a 100 percent chance that we’regoing to have a magnitude sixearthquake somewhere in the NewMadrid Seismic Zone. It just becomes aquestion of where it’s going to occur.”Kaye Shedlock, Research Geophysicist,U.S. Geological Survey.

Nature of the Seismic Risk

Jill Stevens Johnston, Center forEarthquake Research and Information:

“...in many ways, the New MadridSeismic Zone has given us a gift. Andthat is the gift of time. By choosing torelease a large load of energy in 1811-12when the population of the Central U.S.was relatively small, when people wereself-sufficient and didn’t rely onlifelines, on transportation systems, onelectric power facilities.....the impactthen was relatively small. We can learnthrough this gift of time how to lessenthe impact of another repeat of acatastrophic earthquake.”

“Soil failure is a problem, which hasimportant implications for land usepolicy and planning. For example, wehave alot of service infrastructures thathave no seismic design components yet,we can look to a current movementtowards a commitment of funds toretrofit key structures, such as theHernando DeSoto Bridge.”

Because of the concentrations ofunreinforced masonry buildings in oururban and rural areas, there is a significantrisk to businesses, and other occupants ofhazardous buildings. In particular,schools in older areas, urban and rural, arehighly vulnerable to the effects ofearthquakes. The fact that many of theseschools are designated shelters will beproblematic in a response operationfollowing an earthquake.

Hemant Shah, Risk ManagementSolutions:

The potential for a truly catastrophicMidwest earthquake is driven by at leastfive parameters, including:

1. Tremendous level of energy release inmajor New Madrid earthquakes.

2. Attenuation of ground motion–NewMadrid earthquakes will causeintensities of ground motion over greatdistances.

3. Soil related hazards–large areas ofliquefaction are likely to occur in amajor earthquake.

4. Vulnerability of built environment–the building inventory of the CentralU.S. is highly vulnerable to earthquakedamage.

ASSESSING THE EARTHQUAKE RISK IN THE CENTRAL U.S.:A FORUM FOR INSURANCE AND EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROFESSIONALS

24

5. Level of insurance exposure - since1990, the amount of earthquakeinsured exposure in the region hasincreased dramatically, driven by anincreased awareness within the regionof the risk potential and by lowinsurance prices for earthquakecoverage.

Modeling the Earthquake Risk in theCentral U.S.

Hemant Shah:

“I’ve been involved in thedevelopment of approximately 20earthquake models for countriesaround the world, and surprisingly ornot, the New Madrid earthquake isperhaps the most challenging area thatwe have encountered....challenging notonly in terms of technical issues, butalso in terms of the level of interestthat the model has generated. In veryfew places in the world do we have asituation where we have a trulysingular catastrophic event at the edgeof our perception, the edge of ourhistorical consciousness, overlayedwith tremendous amounts of economicvalue.”

Bob Healy, EQE International:

Earthquake catastrophe models areused by insurers and reinsurers to:

1. Manage aggregate exposure (probablemaximum loss).

2. Manage geographic exposureconcentration.

3. Quantify “cat” loss cost for pricing.

4. Develop risk transfer strategies.

5. Support individual risk screening,mostly in commercial settings.

6. Model impact of acquisitions anddivestitures.

Underwriting and Managing Risk

Hemant Shah:

Given the uncertainties that exist onthe baseline level of risk in the CentralU.S., a key question is, “what is anappropriate strategy for underwriting andmanaging risk in the high-loss potential/low probability regions of the CentralU.S.? Using IRAS as the foundation forquantified guidance, Risk ManagementSolutions has recommended the followingbasic strategy for underwriting and riskmanagement by insurers and reinsurers:

1. All exposures should be quantifiedand accounted for. Becausedamaging events are so infrequent inthe region, there may be the tendancyto overlook the need for managementof all exposures and limits written inthe region.

2. Special attention should be given tomanaging/controlling earthquakeliabilities for insurance andreinsurance contracts within theregion. Given the potential forlosses across large geographic areas,

Insurance Forum

EARTHQUAKEEFFECTS

Hypothetical maximum intensitiesfrom a 7.6 earthquake

Kansas City

Jefferson City

Springfield

St. Louis

Springfield

Poplar Bluff

Chicago

Fort Wayne

Indianapolis

LouisvilleLexington

Frankfort

EvansvilleCarbondale

Paducah

NashvilleKnoxville

MemphisLittle Rock

Fort Smith

Jackson

Biloxi

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

X

IX

VIII

VIII

VII

VII

VII

VI

VI

VI

INTENSITY

VI Strong VII Very StrongVIII Destructive IX Ruinous X Disastrous

EFFECTS

trees sway, suspended objects swingwalls crack, plaster fallspoorly designed buildings damagedgreat damage to substantial buildingsmany buildings destroyed

RICHTER

4.9 - 5.45.5 - 6.1

6.2 - 6.97.0 - 7.3

This map shows hypothetical maximum intensities from a magnitude 7.6 earthquake.

Modified from S.T. Algermissen and M.G. Hopper, 1984

THE CUSEC JOURNAL25

earthquake liabilities can becontrolled through application ofoccurrence sub-limits for both multi-location accounts and proportionalaccounts.

3. Underwriting opportunities exist dueto variation in both hazard andvulnerability in the Central U.S.Certain classes of constructionoutperform others during groundmotion; certain areas, whether due todistance from epicenter or local soiltype and liquefaction are inherentlyhigher or lower risk.

Michael J. Hudson, J&H Marsh &McLennan, Inc.:

“Earthquake losses are not like otherlosses...its going to effect you, yoursuppliers, your customers, youremployees, and the infrastructure,with no warning. And don’tunderestimate the effect on youremployees, particularly whenaftershocks are involved.”

In discussing insurance policies, it isvery difficult to answer the question,“how much coverage is needed?” Thereason is the unpredictability of damages;and the lack of information in studies onProbable Maximum Losses (PML) thatshed light on damages to infrastructure,availability of resources (e.g.,contractors), and competitorbenchmarking.

It is very important to pay closeattention to how earthquake policies arewritten, particularly for commercialproperties, including: 1) probable damageversus ensuing loss; 2) ingress/egress(e.g., access to building); 3) contingenttime element (e.g., what period of timedoes the policy cover, including waitingperiods for suppliers); and 4) coverage fordebris removal requirements.

Reducing the Risk: Role of Insurance

Dennis Fasking, Allstate Insurance:

On the definition of mitigation....”it isto promote the building of safer anddamage resistant structures. Whatthat means is that we need to buildawareness and understanding of therisk and risk assessment, and we needto teach people where to build andhow to build, and that with theirfreedom of choice comesresponsibility and accountability fortheir decisions.”

John Robinson, State Farm Insurance:

The question posed is, how to createdemand for mitigation for anearthquake hazard that can becharacterized as “low probability -high risk?” There are fundamentalissues to address. The first is apathy.The second is “how much are peoplewilling to pay for mitigation?” Andclosely related, “how do wecommunicate the benefits ofmitigation?” And the third challenge,which relates to the insuranceindustry, is if we do create a demandfor mitigation and people take action,is the insurance industry going to bewilling to respond with insurancecoverage on this property?

Against this backdrop of challenges,State Farm is taking action in thefollowing areas. First, is education andpublic awareness. For its part, StateFarm has distributed 38,000 “Moversand Shakers” kits to K through grade 12in the Central U.S., which serves as amodel for insurance industry activism.The second area of activity is tocomplement and support theorganizations that take a direct role inpromoting earthquake mitigationincluding the model codes groups,CUSEC, IBHS, and FEMA . A thirdarea of activity is economic incentives.The Building Code EffectivenessGrading Schedule–a joint initiative of theInsurance Services Organization and

IBHS–provides a standard against whichto measure the commitment of buildingcode departments to adopting andenforcing codes, and also provides acredit for policy holders in communitiesthat score well on the “BCEGS.”

Dean Flesner, formerly with State FarmInsurance:

“My view of the starting point forstrengthening codes is to push formandatory state-wide building codes,which do not permit local amendmentsor exceptions to the code, or at leastpermit amendments which are morestringent than the code.”

Kaye Shedlock:

“The risk is very real here. Theuncertainties are such that you’regoing to need to really focus in onhow to set rates, how to examine theseismic research and data to come upwith fair and equitable mitigationstrategies, but our colleagues anduniversities, CUSEC and the USGSare excited about working with you todo that.”

26

Associate Members

Alabama Emergency Management Agency224 Marietta Avenue, Muscle Shoals, AL35661. Paulette Williams,Pager: (800) 991-6710, Pin # 991-5726.

Georgia Emergency Management AgencyP. O. Box 18055, Atlanta, GA 30316-0055.Terry Lunn, (404) 635-7016;Fax: (404) 635-7005.Email: [email protected]

Georgia Geological SurveyEnvironmental Protection Division, 19 MLKJr. Drive, S.W., Room 400, Atlanta,GA 30334. William H. McLemore,(404) 657-5947; Fax: (404) 657-8379.

Iowa Division of Emergency ManagementHoover State Office Bldg., Room 29, DesMoines, IA 50319-0113. Brian Wood,(515) 281-0657; Fax: (515) 281-7539.Email: [email protected]

Louisiana Office of EmergencyPreparedness

P. O. Box 44217, Baton Rouge, LA 70804.Brett Kriger, (504) 342-1570;Fax: (504) 342-5471.Email: [email protected]

Louisiana Geological SurveyP. O. Box G, University Station, BatonRouge, LA 70893. Bill Marsallis,(504) 388-5320; Fax: (504) 388-5328.Email: [email protected]

Nebraska Civil Defense Agency1300 Military Road, Lincoln, NE 68508.Dennis Kumm, (402) 471-7213;Fax: (402) 471-7433.

Nebraska Geological SurveyConservation of Nebraska, University ofNebraska, 113 Nebraska Hall, Lincoln, NE68588-0517. Perry B. Wigley,(402) 472-3471; Fax: (402) 472-2410.Email: [email protected]

Arkansas Office of Emergency ServicesP.O. Box 758, Conway, AR 72033.Dan Cicirello, (501) 730-9801;Fax: (501) 730-9754.Email: [email protected]

Arkansas Geological CommissionVardelle Parham Geology Center,3815 West Roosevelt Road, Little Rock,AR. 72204. Bill Bush, (501) 296-1877;Fax: (501) 663-7360.

Illinois Emergency Management Agency2309 West Main Street, Suite 110,Marion, IL 62959. Chuck Cutrell,(618) 997-5847; Fax: (618) 997-2642.Email: [email protected]

Illinois State Geological Survey615 East Peabody Drive, Room 121Champaign, IL 61820. Bob Bauer,(217) 244-2394; Fax: (217) 244-0029.Email: [email protected]:uiuc.edu

Indiana State Emergency ManagementAgency

302 West Washington Street, E-208,Indianapolis, IN 46204. John Steel,(317) 233-6519; Fax: (317) 232-4987.Email: [email protected]

Indiana Geological Survey611 North Walnut GroveBloomington, IN 47405. Norman Hester,(812) 855-9350; Fax: (812) 855-2862.Email: [email protected]

Kentucky Disaster and Emergency ServicesBoone Center, EOC Bldg., Room 106,Frankfort, KY 40501-6168. GelondaCasey, (502) 564-8628Fax: (502) 564-8618.Email: [email protected]

Kentucky Geological Survey228 Mining and Mineral Resources Bldg.,Lexington, KY 40506-0107. John D. Kiefer,(606) 257-5500; Fax: (606) 257-1147.Email: [email protected]

Mississippi Emergency ManagementAgency

P. O. Box 4501, 1410 Riverside Dr.,Jackson, MS. 39296-4501. Grady Kersh,(601) 960-9978; Fax: (601) 960-9983.Email: [email protected]

Mississippi Department of EnvironmentalQuality Office of Geology

P.O. Box 20307, Jackson, MS 39289-1307.Craigin Knox, (601) 961-5503;Fax: (601) 961-5521.Email: [email protected]

Missouri Emergency Management AgencyP. O. Box 116, Jefferson City, MO 65101.Ed Gray, (573) 526-9131; Fax: 634-7966.Email: [email protected]

Missouri Geological SurveyP. O. Box 250, Rolla, MO 65401. IraSatterfield, (573) 368-2101Fax: (573) 368-2111.Email: [email protected]

Tennessee Emergency Management AgencyP. O. Box 41502, 3041 Sidco Drive,Nashville, TN 41502. Cecil Whaley,(615) 741-0640; Fax: (615) 242-9635.Email: [email protected]

Tennessee Division of GeologyDepartment of Environment andConservation, 401 Church Street, Life andCasualty Tower, Nashville, TN 37243-0445.Ronald P. Zurawski, (615) 532-1500;Fax: (615) 532-0231.Email: [email protected]

SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND TECHNICALASSISTANCEThe following is a partial listing ofsources of information and technicalassistance for earthquake risk assessmentand mitigation.

Member States

THE CUSEC JOURNAL27

North Carolina Division of EmergencyManagement

116 West Jones Street, Raleigh,NC 27603-1335. Will Brothers,(919) 733-3627; Fax: (919) 733-0795.Email: [email protected]

North Carolina Division of Land Resources,Department of Environmental Health andNatural Resources

P. O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27687.Charles Gardner, (919) 733-3833;Fax: (919) 733-4407.Email: [email protected]

Ohio Emergency Management Agency2855 W. Granville Road, West Jones Street,Columbus, OH 43235-2206.Candice Sherry, (614) 889-7172;Fax: (614) 791-0018Email: [email protected]

Ohio Department of Natural ResourcesDivision of Geological Survey

5383 Fountain Square Drive, Columbus, OH43224-1362. Thomas Berg, (614) 265-6576;Fax: (614) 268-3669.Email: [email protected]

Oklahoma Civil EmergencyManagement Agency

P. O. Box 53365, Oklahoma City,OK 73152. Fred Liebe, (405) 521-2481;Fax: (405) 521-4053.Email: [email protected]

Oklahoma Geological Survey100 East Boyd Room N-131, Norman,OK 73019-0628. Dr. Charles J. Mankin,(405) 325-3031; Fax: (405) 325-3180.Email: [email protected]

South Carolina EmergencyPreparedness Division

1429 Senate Street, Columbia, SC 29201.Tammie Dreher, (803) 734-8020;Fax: (803) 734-8062.Email: [email protected]

South Carolina Geological Survey5 Geology Road, Columbia, SC 29210-0098.C.W. (Bill) Clendenin, (803) 896-7702;Fax: (803) 896-7695.Email: [email protected]

Virginia Department of Emergency Services310 Turner Road, Richmond,VA 23225-6491. Addison Slayton, Jr.,(804) 674-2499; Fax: (804) 674-2490.

Federal Emergency ManagementAgency Regions

Region IV3003 Chamblee-Tucker Road,Atlanta, GA 30341. Jim Smith,(770) 220-5426; Fax: (770) 220-5440.Email: [email protected]

Region V175 West Jackson Street, 4th Floor,Chicago, IL 60604. William King,(312) 408-5575; Fax: (312) 408-5551.Email: [email protected]

Region VI800 North Loop 288, Denton, TX 76201.Dennis Lee, (940) 898-5260, Anna Hart,(940) 898-5107; Fax: (940) 898-5195.Email: [email protected];

[email protected]

Region VII2323 Grand Blvd., Suite 900, Kansas City,MO 64108-2670. Joe Rachel,(816) 283-7015; Fax (816) 283-7018.Email: [email protected]

Non-Government Organizations

American Red CrossDisaster Services National Headquarters,615 N. Asaph Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.Ken Deutsch, Associate for Mitigation,(703) 206-8631.

Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC)1201 L Street N.W., Washington D.C.20005. Jim Smith, Executive Director,(202) 289-7800.

Center For Earthquake Research andInformation (CERI)

University of Memphis, 3890 CentralAvenue, Memphis, TN 38152. Jim Dorman,Director, (901) 678-2007;Fax: (901) 678-4734.

Disaster Research Center (DRC)University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716. Joanne Nigg, Director,(302) 831-6618; Fax: (302) 831-2091.

Earthquake Engineering ResearchInstitute (EERI)

499 14th Street, Suite 320, Oakland,CA 94612-1902. Susan Tubbesing,Executive Director, (510) 451-0905;Fax: (510) 451-5411. Sharam Pazesh,President, New Madrid Chapter,(601) 678-4727.

Institute for Business and Home Safety73 Tremont Street, Suite 510, Boston,MA 02108-3910. Harvey Ryland,President and CEO, (617) 722-0200;Fax: (617) 722-0202.

Mid-America Earthquake Center(MAE Center)

1241 Newmark Laboratory, 205 NorthMatthews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801.Dan P. Abrams, Director, (217) 333-0565;Fax: (217) 333-3821.Email: [email protected]

National Center for EarthquakeEngineering Research (NCEER)

State University of New York at Buffalo,Red Jacket Quadrangle, P.O. Box 610025,Buffalo, N.Y. 14261-0025. George Lee,Director; Patricia Ann Coty, Manager,Information Services, (716) 645-3391;Fax: (716) 645-3399.

Northeastern States EmergencyConsortium (NESEC)

607 North Avenue, Suite 16, Wakefield,MA 01880. Ed Fratto, Executive Director,(617) 224-9876; Fax: (617) 224-4350.

Southern Building Code CongressInternational (SBCC)

900 Montclair Road, Birmingham,AL 35213-1206. Rick Vognild, Director/Technical Services, (205) 591-1853;Fax: (205) 592-7001.

Western States Seismic Policy Council(WSSPC)

121 2nd Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco,CA 94105. Steve Ganz, Executive Director,(415) 974-6422; Fax: (415) 974-1747.Email: [email protected]

28

CUSEC-Board Members

Central United States Earthquake Consortium2630 East Holmes RoadMemphis, Tennessee 38118

DO NOT FORWARD

Non-Profit Org.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDMemphis, TN 38101

Permit No. 764

The Central United States EarthquakeConsortium is a not-for-profit corpora-tion established as a partnership with theFederal government and the sevenmember states: Arkansas, Illinois,Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouriand Tennessee; and ten associate memberstates: Alabama, George, Iowa, Louisi-ana, South Carolina, North Carolina,Ohio, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Virginia.The Federal Emergency ManagementAgency provides the basic funding forthe organization.

CUSEC's purpose is to help reducedeaths, injuries, damage to propertyand economic losses resulting fromearthquakes occurring in the centralUnited States. Basic program goalsinclude: improving public awarenessand education, mitigating the effectsof earthquakes, coordinating multi-state planning for preparedness,response and recovery; and encourag-ing research in all aspects of earth-quake hazard reduction. CUSECsupports the International Decade forNatural Disaster Reduction.

CUSEC PartnersAmerican Red Cross

Center for Earthquake Research and InformationDisaster Recovery Business Alliance

Federal Emergency Management AgencyInstitute for Business and Home Safety

National Science FoundationNortheastern States Emergency Consortium

Organization of American StatesU.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of TransportationU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Public Health Services - Centers for Disease Control

Western States Seismic Policy Council

Tom Durham ................................ Executive DirectorPeggy Young ......................... Administrative OfficerJim Wilkinson ........................... Mitigation SpecialistLinda Mauldin ................... Administrative AssistantGwen Nixon ...............................................AccountingRick Roman ............................................ CDC LiaisonElaine Clyburn .............................. Red Cross LiaisonDanny Daniel .......................................TEMA Liaison

CUSEC Phone number ...................... (901) 544-3570

Toll Free ............................................ (800) 824-5817Fax ...................................................... (901) 544-0544

E-mail ................................ [email protected]

S T A F F

Bud Harper , DirectorArkansas Office of Emergency Services

Rex Coble, Acting Director

Illinois Emergency Management Agency

Patrick Ralston, DirectorIndiana Emergency Management Agency

W. (Ronn) Padgett, Executive DirectorKentucky Disaster & Emergency Services

James E. Maher, DirectorMississippi Emergency Management Agency

Jerry Uhlmann , DirectorMissouri State EmergencyManagement Agency

John White, DirectorTennessee EmergencyManagement Agency

C U S E C I N T R A N S I T I O N C O N F E R E N C E S A N D T R A I N I N G

The CUSEC Board and staff bid a fond farewell to JohnMitchell, board member from Illinois, and wish him all thebest in his new job with the Illinois Department ofTransportation in Chicago. CUSEC welcomes Rex Coble intohis new position as acting director, Illinois EmergencyManagement Agency. Closer to home, CUSEC wishes all thebest to Linda Mauldin, Administrative Assistant, who leftCUSEC on April 20, 1998, and is living in Brownsville,Tennessee. Please visit CUSEC at its new website–www.cusec.org.

Hospital Mitigation Demonstration Project, Deaconess Hospital,Welborn Baptist Memorial Hospital, Evansville.April 22, 1998 in Evansville, Indiana

Integrating Earthquake Risk in Distribution Gas PipelineSafety and ReliabilityMay 20-21, 1998 at Sheraton Four Points, Memphis.Sponsored by CUSEC in cooperation with the U.S.Department of Energy.

CUSEC’s 1998 Annual Conference: Achieving EarthquakeRisk Reduction Through Community-Based PartnershipsJune 14-16, 1998 at The Galt House, Louisville, Kentucky

Date post:	07-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ACHIEVING EARTHQUAKE RISK REDUCTION THROUGH … · 2010-11-02 · embrace a new approach to hazard...

Documents