ML20151H185

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Regional Earthquake Hazards Assessments in Pacific Northwest Draft Work Plan:FY87-89, Presented at 880412-15 Meeting in Olympia,Wa
ML20151H185
Person / Time
Site: Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date: 04/12/1988
From:
INTERIOR, DEPT. OF, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
To:
Shared Package
ML20151H012 List:
References
NUDOCS 8808010176
Download: ML20151H185 (29)
v • d • e


Text

-_ . - - - - _ - - - . .-- - -

t .. 9' . .

REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS ASSESSMENTS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

( DRAFT WORK PLAN: FY 87-89  !

! FOREWORD 1

{

l This draft work plan describes the integrated goals, plans, and activities of l

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington State Department of National Resources, Washington Office i of Emergency Services and others for the program element, "Regional Earthquake 1 .

(

Hazards Assessments: t'uget Sound-Portland Area," a part of the Geological  ;

Survey's National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The purpose f I

of the work plan is to define research CUIDELINES and general RESPONSIBILITIES j for 3-years. FY 87-89, the first phase of a focused effort on the Pacific

[

Northwest. The program concentrates studies in the Puget Sound, Washington,  !

and in the Portland, Oregon, regions. The work plan will be reviewed eaen year and revised, as appropriate, to reflect progress, new goals, opper-tunities for synergism, and more effective use of resources. The following persens participated in the planning meeting held in Bothell, Washington, en .

December 9-10, 1996, and contributed to the formulation of the work plan  !

Walter Hays U.S. Owlegical Survey Albert Rogers (

l U.S. Geological Survey I Thomas Terich Washington University Eugene Hoerrauf Western Washington University {

i Lora Murphy U.S. Department of Community Development Janice Leonardo Whatcom County Department of Emergency Services {

Lt. William H. Stockhan King County Office of Emergency Management l l

Richard Buck Federal Emergency Manatement Agency Ayres W. Johnson, Jr. Evergreen Safety Council  !

l Bill Brown Federal Emergency Management Agency l Cary Johnson Federal Emergency Management Agency William Mayer j Federal Emergency Management Agency i Robert Brelin Building System Technology l Ray Lasmants Washington State Department of Natural Resources  !'

(WSDNR) l Anshel G. Johnson Portland State University i

Bruce C. Olsen Censulting Engineer  !

Peter May University of Washington j Gerald W. Thorsen Washington State Department of Natural Resources -

(WSDNR)

Karl V. Steinbrugge Structural Engineer Philip S. Cegan Federal Emergency Manager.ent Agency  !

Chwk Steele Federal Emergency Management Agency Jane Pruess Urban Regional Research l i

Robert S. Yeats Oregon State University John D. Beaulieu l Oregon Department of Geology and !(ineral Industries  !

(DOGAMI) I

( Patricia Bolten Bate 11e Seattle Research Center '

typrpNN ~ 1 ssos010196 880615 4 PDR ADOCK 0500 P

J

..~..

i,*

HISTORICAL BACKCROUND

(

The concept of the Regional Earthquake Ha:ards Assessments progran element evolved out of discussions held at As11omar Conference Center, Pacific Crove, Callfernla, in April 1982. At this meeting, 54 participants (27 USGS and 27 non-Survey) in the NEHRP were asked to debate the question "are changes in the NEHRP, now 5 years old, needed and it so what are they?" Frem these discussions, the five interrelated program elements constituting the current NEHRP were defined as follows:

1) Regional Menitoring and Earthquake Potential--Perform geologic and selsmologleal analyses of current earthquake activity including the selsmic cycle of active f aults and estimates of earthqueke potential in earthquake-prene regions of the United States (235 of budget).
2) Earthquake Prediction Research--Conduct field, laberatory, and theoretical studies of earthquake phenomena with the goal of reliable predictlen of the time, place, and magnitude of damaging earthquakes

' (44% of budget ).

3) Data and Infermatien Servlees--Provide data on earthquake occurrence to the pubile, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, emergency res;ense organi:stiens, and the scientific cemmunity (12% of budget).
4) Engineering Selsmology--Operate a nattenal netwerk of strong-motten Instruments, disseminate the basic greund-notion informatten, and conduct research on the data (91 of budget).
5) Reglenal Earthquake Hn ards Assessnents--Complie and synthes 1:e l geologic and geophysical data needed fer evaluating the earthquake hazards of ground shaking, ground failure, surface fault rupture, and I tectonic deferratien and for assessing the risk in broad geogra; hic regions containing important urban areas. Tester an environment for implementation, creating partnerships and providing high quality 1

2 l

scientific information that can be used by State and local governments

( to devlse, foster, and implement loss-reduction measures (such as building codes, zoning ordinances, personal prepardness, etc.) (125 of budget).

COMPONENTS OF THE REGIONAL EARTHOUAKE HAZARDS ASSESSMENTS PROGRAM ELEMENT The Regional Earthquake Ha:ards Assessments pregram element has five INTERRELATED compenents:

1) Information Systems--The goal is to produce QUALITY data along with a comprehensive information system, available to both internal and external users for use in earthquake ha:ards evaluattens, risk assessment, and implementation of less-reduction measures, 1

l l 2) Synthesis of Ceelegical and Geophysleal Oata fer Evaluatien of

,F.arthquake Hazards--The goal is to produce synthesis reperts describing the state of-knowledge about earthquake ha:ards (ground shaking, surf ace f aulting, esrthquake-induced ground f ailure, and reglenal tectonic deformation) in the region and to recemmend future research to increase the state of knewledge required for the creation and implementatien o.' loss-reduction measures.

3) Creund Motien R*dellnt--The goal is to produce deterministic and i

probabilistic ground-motien models and mars of the ground-shaking ha:ard with commentaries ?n their use. '

I

4) Less Estientlen Models--The goal is to devise economical methods for i

acquiring inventories of structures and lifeline s) Ster.s in urban areas, to create a standard model and ccamentary for' loss estimation, ar.d to produce loss and casualty estimates fcr urban areas. I i

l l l

\ \

3 1

s

9) 2mplementa*lon--The goal is to foster the creation and implementation of hazard-reduction measures in urbaa sreas, providing h!Eh-quality I j scientific information that can be used by local government decision-makers as a basis for "calling for change in seismic safety policy."

Research focusing on one or more of the above components is presently being o

conducted in the following urban areas, ranked according to their respective  ;

) priority >

1) Puget Sound, WA-Pertland, CR 21Wasatch Front, UT
3) Californtal 4) Anchorage AK
5) Mississi;el Valley 6) Puerto Rico
7) Charleston, SC 8) Buffalo-Rochester area, NY

! In each region, the research is performed using the resources of the USGS's r

q internal and external programs (the external program is implemented througn

] grants awarded annually following a nattenal solicitation for proposals. The t

{ goal is to achieve maximum synergism of State and Federal resources with

! everyone having a stake in the process. In seme cases, suCgested task i assignments outside the USGS as shown below are uncertain and are dependent on '

the interests and resources of those ergant:ations.

STR ATEGIES FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN THE PUCET SOUND, WASHINGTCN-PORTLAND, i CR ECCN , APEA t

i The strategies for the Puget Sound-Pertland area are i 1

1 l 1) i Fester Partnerships--USGS and TEMA will seek to foster strong i partnerships with the universities, private sector, agencin of local l

] government, and other State and Federal agencies. Existing

) partnerships will be strengthened. The geal is to obtain a stronger !

) coenitment at all levels of state and local governrents, f

! I

2) Take Advantare of Past Research Studles and Other Activities--Results

{

of past research and vulnerability studies will be utill:ed to the l fullest extent pessible. Achievements of the USGS-TEMA spensered  !

( i 6  ;

i i

1

earthquake-hazards workshop of October 1985 will be used as ballding

{ blocks for future activities. Also, the recommendations of the Washington State Selselo Safety Counc!1, published in 1986, will be addressed to the fullest extent posalble.

}) Convene Annual Meetings to Review Progress and Recommend New Research-

-Beginning in 1988, an annual workshop will be held in the Puget Sound area to review: WHAT MAS BEEN ACC0teLIS$ FED and WHAT IS STILL NEEDED TO ACColeLISH THE 00ALS. Participants from many different disciplines in the workshop will be asked to address the question "what changes, if any, are needed to accemplish the goals of the program?"

4) Publish Annual Reports and Communleate Findings -Procsedings of the workshops, which will include papers documenting results from all research projects in the Pacific Northwest area will be published as USGS Open-file Reports approximately 3- or 4-months after each meeting. In fY 89, the third year of the program, a USGS Professional Paper will be complied. The workshops, their products, and the

( findings in tne professional paper w!11 be COMMUNICATgD to policymakers whose task is to implement hasard-reduction policy.

1

5) Tawe Advantare of Earthquakes--Use knowledge gained from past earthquakes in the Puget Sound-Portland area and other areas such as the Mexico earthquake of September 1985 to improve the methodolegy ,

that is currently used in the assessment of earthquake hazards and risk in the Puget Sound-Portland area. }Wny scientists consider the 1985 Mexico earthquake as re;resentative of the type of earthquake that can occur in the Puget Sound-Portland area. In addition, other parts of the world have a similar tectonic setting as the Puget Sound-Portland area.

Earthquakes in all of these areas will be inves'.1 gated to provide insight into the characteristics of ground-shaking and the physical effects that might occur in a major subduction earthquake in the Puget Sound-Portland area. Because large shallow crustal earthquakes like 5

4 the 1872 eastern Washington carthquake control the risk (chance of l loss) to a large degree, earthquakes having similar characteristics j

(

will be investigated in detail.  ;

1 i RESEARCH 00ALS, OBJEC'f!VES, AND TASKS OF THE PROGRAM ELEMDIT "REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS ASSESSMDITS: PUGET SOUND-PORTLAND AREA"  !

! s a

f i ~

INTRODUCTION l f 1 I 1

I j The five INTERRELATED components ccmcrising the program element 'Reglenal  !

1 j Earthquake Hazards Assessments: Puget Sound-Pertland Area" are described  !

j below to provide GUIDgLINES fer researchers who are either working now er l

j planning to work in the area. Thesi guidelines will also help to guide the j formulation of seismic safety policy in the Puget Sound Pertland area. Each compenent of the workplan will be reviewed annually and revised as  !

vppropriate, to meet ths research gNia of the program element. l l

Study Area--In Washington, the primary study area includes King, Kitsap, j ,

Mason. Pierce. Snohomish. Thurston, Clark, Cowlitz, Crays Harbor. Island, j Skagit, and Whatcom Counties.

f i

In Cregen, the main emphasis will be on Marlon )

i

, and Multnemah Countles. The urban areas includei Seattle Tacema, Vancouver. l 1 '

Bellingham, cad Olympia, Washington, and Portland and Salem. Oregen. I i l 8

l COMPCNENT 1: INFORMATION SYSTEMS E 1

h Every research study will generate basle data on earthquake ha:ards which must  !

be organt:ed with existing data. A large but unorganized quantity of data l I

relating to the earthquake ha:ards in the Puget Sound-Pertland area already j exists in published maps, reports, and co puter1:e1 datte sets. If these data h

}

were erganized, the resultant data base would be an extremely valuable 8

resource for a wide variety of user groups. Including the participanta in the 1

NEHRP. In addition, the data base is expected to grew as research studies

! eature.

i

)

)

i k

6 4

}t  !

J

The objectives or this component are: 1) to make quality data readily

( available to meet the needs of researchers and polleymakers, 2) to create asystem that assures that new data will be available in the ferm most useful to meeting program oojectives 3) to devise a system vnereby potential users '

will have easy access to data in media, scales, and formats that will be most l useful to them, and 4) to provide continuing interaation on objectives and '

progress of the program element. Accomplishing these objectives will
1) inventorying existing data sets, 2) developing data standards fer j require: i

] critical data sets, 3) identifying user groups and their needs 4) develeping

! strategies for dats management and data dissemination, and 5) assuring that ,

i '

pertlnent hazards data are available to the user community.  !

Prierities--The first priority 19 the creation of a directory of hazards

infermation. Secend prierity is an tr3ventory of existing data sets, ptrhaps ustng a standard questlennaire or form. Third priority is to test the capability fer dsta interchange and communleations.

I-1 l Aetien--The ebjectives listed above will be accomplished primarily by the

, Federal and State partners. The task statements includes i 4

a f 1) Inventery er Existine bata--Cee;11e a computerized bid 11ography of the Puget Sound-Pertland geolegy and geophysles that provides fer keywerd '

j searches, including terms that are pertinent to the evaluatten of earthquake hazards and the assessment of risk. The bibliography will

{

be upgraded to acet the needs of the progran element.

3

(

1 j U!ds Rele--USGS will cesplie a directery of ha:ards infereatten to [

1 q determine what data exist, what form the data are in, and the {

availability of the data. A cetermination will be ea:e et each data h

set as to its adequacy for the needs of the research pregram, i l

) 2) Standsedi:stien--To the extent ;essible, the cataleg et Puget Sound-1 Portland earthquakes (espelally the preinstrumental data) will be  ;

3 standart1:ed because it is lepertant, if net crucial, te several of ,

the research studies. The catalegs of the University of 'dashingten k

i

! 7 i

l

)

1

Seismograph Network and the USGS (Naticual Earthquake Information  ;

k  : Service, Algermissen) are the best starting point. Standards may need to be established for other major data sets, such as computer flies of t digitized geological data.

Part of this effort will be the selection of standard base maps and.

I mapping scales for cata compilation and publication by all l participants in the program. Reproducible base materials must be available for rapid productior, of green 11nes, paper copies, and flim

)

composites of maps. In addition, standards for comput-P storage of point data and line data will have to be established if automated cooputer mapping is to be realized.

USGS Role -The USGS will implement a new Geographical Information System (GIS) in collaboration with DOGAMI, WSDNR to integrate existing base map data with new geographical data sets develc;cd during the l r

course of Puget Sound-Portland studies, t L

l

3) Data set Management--A complete library of publications, reports, and  :

a hard copy of data sets related to the Puget Sound-Portland area are needed. These could be established as a part of the existing libraries, i USGS Role--The successful management of computerized datt should i expedite many research studies. Existing computer resouJces in Golden, Colorado and other locations will be utilized. The University  !

of Washir.gton Computer Center and the NOAA data center in Boulder are  !

other systems that may have to be accessed. Documented software to access and utilize the major data sets must also be available. i,

4) Information Transfer--An s'rthquake information office is needed in  !

the Puget Sound-Portland area. Such an off4ce will be concerned t

i primarily with the dissemination of earth science information (e.g.,

in a quarterly newsletter) related to the earthquake hazards of '

i ground-shaking, surface rupture, ground failure, and tectonic l '(

i e

,,,,_,.e- ,,4 ,, - -. u w o--n, -m nw w' - p w m .av+r~ w^ 'P9- ^~M **~ '

'~M ~~*

l s

deformation, as well as earthquake preparedness. The office will

( provide, to a wide variety of users: historic and current data on Puget Sound-Portland earthquakes, information on current research, and

] advice on obtaining access to earthquake-related literature and data.

[

COMPONENT 2: SYNTHESIS OF GEOLOGIC AND GEOPHYSICAL DATA FOR EVALUATION OF L EARTHQUAXE HAZARDS f

r I

Geologic and geophysical research aimed at a better understanding of the  !

potential for the occurr6.1ce of large, damaging earthquakes in the Puget I Sound-Portland area have been carried out since the early 1970's. These  ;

studies have provided a critical perspective on the level of the potential hazard for the region and have contributed, in large part, to the high priority given to this area in the Regional Earthquake Hazards Assessments program element. The geologic and geophysical data collected in these studies are essential in the evaluation of earthquake hazards and the assessment of <

risk from earthquakes occurring in the region. However, the results of these studies have been released primarily as discrete scientific papers in research k journals or in the "gray" literature of USGS open-file reports and other publications. They have not been synthesized or integrated into a  :

comprehensive evaluation of the potential for the occurrence of damaging earthquakes and the associated hazards of ground-shaking, ground failure, surface fault rupture, vid tectonic deformation in the Puget Sound-Portland area.

Priorities--First priority will be given to collecting and synthesizing basic geologic and geophysical data required for evaluation of earthquake hazards.

The second priority is to conduct additional research needed to achieve the goals of the program element by closing gaps in knowledge.

Action--Federal, state, and university scientists (identified below) will provide leadership and perform the specified research tasks. Researchers in universities and the private sector (e.g., University of Washington, and l

\

others) will participate under the auspices of the USGS's grants program.  !

l 9 i

i -

1) Collection and Synthesis--Research initiated in prior years will be

( continued. New research will also be conducted focusing on the co)1ection and synthesis of those data needed for realistic deterministic and probabilistic calculations of hazard and risk for the region. These data collection and synthesis efforts provides a) a broader understanding of the tectonic settings and rates of tectonic activity and b) definition of specific geologic hazards of special significance to the Puget Sound-Portland area.

The objective of the above task is to develop synthesis reports and maps on four main topics:

1) Geologic / tectonic setting of current seismicity of the Puget Sound-Portland area. ThesJ activities are related to source zone modeling for probabilistic hazard calculations and the revision of existing neotectonic maps of these regions. This research will seek to improve understanding of the tectonics of this region throuLh reexamination of old ult data, collection of new f fault data, and Quaternary mapping ,elsmicity, geophysical, and remote sensing data will also 1 - evaluated. (USGS: WH EELER ,

THENHAUS, ALGERMISSEN). Studies of current seismicity including focal mechanism, state of stress, and relatfor. ship between seismicity and faults will be conducted. This work may include reevaluation of some aspects of historical earthquakes (USGS:

HOPPER, SPENCE; Ud: CROSSON, MALONE: OSU--JOHNSON). For instance, reevaluation of tha historic intensities as they relate to source zones will also be conducted (USGS: HOPPER).

2) Quaternary tectonlo activity of the Puget Sound-Portland area.

These tasks have two principal elements: 1) to assess the I potential for a great subduction zone earthquake; and 2) to '

assess the potential for shallow or 11thospheric earthquakes.

Studies related to the assessment of subduction zone earthquakes l Involve research on subsidence of Washington and Oregon estuarine deposits (USGS: ATWATER, NELSON: STATE SURVEYS OSU--PETERSON, 10 l

l l

. ~

v DARIENZO: UW--BOURGE0IS), coastal uplift / terraces (USGS:

PERSON 1US: HUMBOLDT STATE--UARVER, KELSEY, BURKE: DOOAMI, WSDNR), ,

back-tilted Pleistocene beach deposits (DOGAMI, WSDNR),  !

earthquake induced landslides _(USGS: MADOLE, SCHUSTER), lake sediment liquefaction or other liquefaction (USGS: MADOLE, '

OBERMEIER), crustal structure (TELEDYNE: McLAUGHLIN ) Ste11es related to the potential for shallow earthquakes involve research _

on Quaternary stratigraphy (CASCADE VOLCANO OPLSERVATORY: DOGAMI, WSDNR OSU--YEATS), research on Quaternary deformation in the i Seattle-Kitsap Peninsula area primarily from study of coastal I marsh deposite, (USGS BUCKNAM, BARNHARD), high-frequency I

reflection /Minisosie (USGS: HARDING, URBAN, BUCKNAM, BARNHARD:

WSDNR
LINGLEY, UNIVERSITIES).

i

3) Timing and character of Quaternary ground-failure events. These l

tasks are directed at producing ground failure inventory maps  !

(USGS: CHLEBORAD, SCHUSTER, MADOLE: DOGAMI, WSDNR) and i susceptibility maps (USGS: CHLEBORAD, SCHUSTER: DOGAMI) WSDNR).

i  ;

1

4) Informai.a.' for uso in local and regional hazards reduction  ;

activities, i i COMPONENT 3: GROUND MOTION MODELING '

This component is concerned primarily with the prediction of the effects of source, path, and local geologic site conditions on ground shaking in the j Puge* Sound-Portland area. Knowledge of the r.ature and severity of ground motion induced at a site is fundatrantal to sound earthquake-resistant design. Although the importance of local geologic conditions has been

[

] recognized for many years, the quantitative prediction of their influence on l ground shaking using either empirical or theoretical models is still i evolving. In this component, the application, extension, and validation of relevant research techniques will be continued in the Puget Sound-Portland area.

(

i n 1 i

i 1

i i

3 Priorities--The first priority is to install and maintair. strong-motion k accelerographs in the Puget Sound-Portland area and to acquire and use the '

Min 1Sosle portable reflection system in ground-response research. .Ninty-six strong motion accelerographs are currently in place in. Washington and  ;

Oregon. The second priority is to prepare a synthesis report of the ground 3 shaking data available from prior studies in the Puget Sound-Portland. The f 2

third priority is to extend the results of these studies, performing ,

deterministic and probabilistic hazard analysis and utilizing new equipment j (Min 1Sosie, strong motion accelerographs, etc.) to acquire basic date.

l l

t Action--The research will be conducted primarily by USGS and non-USGS researchers who may participate thaough the Survey's external grants and contract program. The tasks are described below:

I

) 1) Synthesis Report--A report of the current knowledge of ground motion characterisitics in the Puget Sound-Portland area. '

4

2) Deterministic and Probabilist!c Hazard Analysis--Research on

\

I deterministic and probabilistic hazard analysis, applied in 1982 on a national scale by Algermissen and others, will be applied in the Puget l t

Sound-Portland areas, and extended by using a variety of probabilistic  !

models of earthquake occurrence ('uoGS: ALGERMISSEN, PERKINS, THENHAUS, h WHEELEn, ARNOLD). Maps of the peak acceleration, velocity, and intens1ty will be prepared for exposure periods of 10, 50, and 250 years. These maps will incorpo ate the effects of regional attenuation and local geologic conditions. Maps of spectral velocity j for selected periods may also be prepared. These analyses, combined 1 l with the Inventory and vulnerability studies discussed below in the  !

l loss estimation component, will form the basis for estimates of  !

i i

j economic loss (risk) and casualties, i

i 1  !-

1 3) Research on Attenuation and Ground Response--A methodology to zone the

' l ground

  • shaking hazard will be applied to the Puget Sound-Portland area l

) (USGO: KING, TARR). Site effects at a large number of sites in the l Serttle-Portland regions w111 be measured using local earthquake 1 (

) 12 i

4 5

1

._---------a

i .

data. Uphole/ downhole shear-wave velocity measurements will also be

( collected at select sites (USGS: KING, TINSLEY). Sites will be

, classified into site types or clusters according to significant geotechnical factors for three period bands (0.05 to 10 seconds). By combining and comparing the cluster results at selected sites throughout the city with mapped near-surface geology and geotechnical data (USGS: TINSLEY, KING, BUCHANAN-BANKS: UW: QAMAR), maps of the ground-shaking response. relative to rock can be constructed for each i of the three period bands on a regional basis. These results will j also be used to construct intensity maps for. scenario earthquakes.

Several approaches will be taken in the study of attenuation.

Attenuation and source functions are likely to differ for each of the major source types, i.e., subduction zone events, i.e., events within the subduction plate and shallow events. Regional seismic-wave attenuation functions for the Puget Sound-Portland area will be derived using data from other subduction zone earthquakes, including data for the 1985 Chile and Mexico earthquakes (USGS: ALGERMISSEN, i CAMPBELL). These two earthquakes provide a unique data sample of close-in data from major subduction zone earthquakes. Using small shallow and deep earthquakes, a Q-model will be deriv % that will serve as data for stochastic modeling of earthquake ground motions from the various source types (USGS: LANGER, JOYNER, CAMPBELL, a HARMSEN). Deterministic modeling of subduction-zone earthquakes will also be conducted (EARTH TECH. CORP.: CROUSE WOODWARD-CLYDE:

SOMMERVILLE). Intensity attenuation for historical Pacific Northwest earthquakes will be evaluated (USGS HOPPER, ALGERMISSEN:

UNIVERSITIES).

4) Zoning Research--Beginning in FY 87, research with high-frequency techniques (e.g., MiniSos19) will be initiated to determine subsurface l

conditions within the study area that are known to exhibit high ground

response (USGS
KING. TARR). For example, in the Los Angeles study near-surface velocity contrasts in the depth range of 10-20 meters were found to cause the highest levels of ground response for I

(

13

buildjngs'that are in the two- to five-story class. Buildings having

( more than five stories were also found to be at greatest risk when located at sites where the depth to basement rock is the greatest.

Because reflection techniques may provide the only mean* to define the important subsurface factors controlling site response in some urban areas, experiments will be conducted in Seattle and Portland at sites where measured site response can be correlated with reflection data.

COMPONENT 4: LOSS ESTIMATION MODELS This component has three parts: 1) definition of the scenario earthquake (s),

l

2) Inventory, and 3) ground-motion-damage matrices or algorithms. 1 In this component all available hazards data will be used in the development

~

of economic loss (risg) and casualty estimates. Estimates of probable losses and casualties in an earthquake are important results. Loss estimates provide a scientific basis for land-use planning, an economic basis for the implementation of suitable building codes, and form the framework for disaster mitigation, preparedness, and relief programs. A considerable amount of research on loss estimation (seismic risk) has already been done in the Puget Sound-Portland area by USGS and its consultants. A deterministic earthquake loss study was completed in 1976 (Hopper, et al 1976) to provide planning guidance for earthquatte preparedness and mitigation.

Priorities--The first priority is to update the existing building inventory in the Puget Sound-Portland area (especially considering high-rise buildings) and to create an inventory for lifeline systems. The second priority is to establish building inventories and lifeline system inventories in other parts of the study area, seeking to achieve uniformity with other inventories. The third priority is to reassess the vulnerability relationships for the Puget Sound-Portland area.

Action--Both USGS Internal research and grants studies will contribute to this effort. Die tasks are described belows

(

14

1) Loss Estimation, Seattle area; other urban areas--The primary emphasis

( will be placed on research concerning earthquake loss (risk) studies is the Seattle metropolitan areas (USGS: LEYENDECKER, ALGERMISSEN, HIGHLAND, ARNOLD, HOPPER, POWERS; OLSEN CONSULTING: ENGLEKtRK AND HART: HART: KENNEDY /JENKS/CHILTO: BALLANTYNE: TELESIS: THIEL). The data requirements are: 1) update the existing building inventory in Seattle, 2) develop an inventory of bu11dinge in other parts of the study area, 3) reassess vulnerability relationships for the Puget Sound-Portland area utilizing new data from the 1983 Coalinga, California, earthquake and data obtained from additional review and analysis of the 1971 San Fernando, California, earthquake, and 4) develop additional data on the distribution and vulnerability of lifeline systems in the Seattle area. Develop scenario intensity maps for several possible major earthquakes. These maps will incorporate regional attenuation functions and site response effects (USGS:

HOPPER).

Deterministic loss and casualty estimates will be made for magnitude

, (Ms ) 6.5 and 7.5 earthquakes (and possibly for a major subduction zone event having various locations in the Puget Sound-Portland area.

Probabilistic loss and casualty estimates will be computed for exposure times of interest of 10, 50, and 250 years at the 90 percent probability level. Both deterministic and probabilistic loss estimates will be based on appropriate ground-motion hazard maps which, where possible, will include site response (see above discussion of ground-motion modeling). The loss estimates will also include, where possible, losses associated with the geologic effects of earthquakes such as liquefaction. Total economic losses will be estimated and, in addition, losses by class of construction and the vulnerability. In general, the classes of construction used will be based principally on their framing system. Casualty estimation will require additional data on building occupancy.

(

15

4

2) Loss Estimation, Other Parts of the Study Area--To the extent

( possible, the same data Identified in task 1 above will be acquired in other parts of Washington and Oregon and used to perform loss estimates.

COMPONENT 5: IMPLEMENTATION The goal of this component is effective use of scientific information to reduce loss of life and damage to property Jaused by earthquake hazards as  %

well as by other geologic and hydrologic hazards. Successful achievement of

! the goal requires COMMUNICATION of TRANSLATED SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION to RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS and INTERESTED PARTIES seeking to REDUCE HAZARDS by use of one or more REDUCTION TECHNIQUES. These aspects of the problem and its solution will be discussed below, providing a framework'for an integrated work plan involving all concerned parties and guidelines for proposals to the USGS's external grants and contracts program.

Priorities--The first priority is to determine the needs of users in the Puget

( Sound-Portland area for earthquake hazards information. The second priority is to produce translated (i.e. , interpreted information derived from basic scientific data) scientific information that meets the needs of these user groups. The third priority is to foster an environment for implementation of research results by local governments, utilizing workshops, training classes, questionnaires and other per . dures to communicate the scient8fic information. ,

{

Action--Leadership for the implementation components will be provided by FEMA l and USGS. FEMA, Region X, will take a major role in the implementation process. One objective of this component is to make it easy for local i government, engineers, architects, planners, emergency preparedness planners, and emergency responders to use the technical information generated in this and prior programs (UW- MAY). A key strategy is to build on past successful activities such as the Soi/hern California Earthquake Preparedness Project which has produced some 20 publications on varloJs aspects of l Implementation. Partnerships between the research community (USGS, DOGAMI, WSDNR, univers1tles, and the private sector) and those who will ultimately use

(.

16 I l

I .

the information to implement loss-reduction measures are necessary for success, and the strongest possible effort will be made to achieve these

~

partnerships within the initial three years.

1) Scientific Information--Many prior studies have already produced considerable high quality information in the Puget Sound-Portland area. Adoption and generalization of scientific information is a prerequisite to its transfer to a user and its use in a loss-reduction measure or technique. While a great deal of scientific information can be used directly by engineers or other scientists, some information must be translated to enhance its understanding and effective use by nonscientists. Such translated information includes fault-rupture locations with forecasts of earthquake recurrence intervals and the anticipated surface displacement, ooastal flooding from tsunamis, seiches and/or subsidence, liquefaction with levels of susceptibility, areas of landslide hazard with levels of susceptibility, areas of inundation caused by hypothetical dam failures, and areas of building failures caused by ground shaking.

( SOME TRANSLATION ACTIVITIES WILL TAKE PLACE USING GIS TECHNIQUES (USGS, TARR). The following actions are likely to improve use of scientific information by nonscientists:

Identify and catalog existing earthquake hazards maps and reports.

Identify the hazards maps and reports needed for loss hazard-reduction measures.

-- 4 Estimate cost and determine responsibility, funding, and delivery of the information that can be provided.

Assure that new information is prepared in detail and at the scales needed by the users (see Table 1).

t 17

../

Make special efforts to present the information in a format and

(. language sulcable for use by engineers, planners, polley recommenders, and decisionmakers.

I Assure that information (including discoveries, advances, and i innovative uses) is released promptly through approcriate  !

communicators and communication techniques '(see Tables 2 and.3).

2) Communication--This task is also a continuation of past activities. '

Corrmunication of scientific information consists of both its transfer i and its effective use for hazard reduction. Examples of communicators !

and communication techniques are listed in Tables 2 and 3. The following actions are likely to improve effective use of the technical L information  !

Design the communications program after an assessment of potential [

users' needs and capabilities.

f --

Select the most effective educational, advisory, and review l services (Table ?) appropriate to the targeted users.

I i

Design the communications program so that information can be effectively disseminated (including use of the scientists and '

investigators to help communicate). '

i L

3) Determine Users' Needs--The past work on geologic hazards has succeeded to some extent in determining the needs for earthquake hazards informatton in Wash 1ngton. Use of scientific information by l

I nonscientists requires a considerable effort on the part of both the i producers and the users to communicate with each other, and although a {

variety of users exist, effective use depends upon the users' t

(

interests, capabilities, and experience in hazard reduction. Examples -

I of users are listed in Table 1. The following actions will ersure '

effective transfer of the information to potential users: I l

(

18 1

l Identify and target users _(Table 1) who have urgent needs and who

( could be expected to use the hazards information most effectively, b

Consult with those users about their needs and priorities and l prioritize the hazards information needed.

[

Honitor a.'d analyze the tenactment of local, State, and Federal  !

, hazard-reduction laws or regulations and the issues that affect users An order to antic!phie and respond to their needs.

i Encourage users- bot'i public and private--to develop an in-house

capability to obtain and apply the inferration (including risk assessment).

]

i Orient or train users in order to enable them to understand and to i use tne information effectively, i

I l 4) Reduction Techniques--This task must also build on past activities.

( Pany opportunities are available for reducing geologic and hydrologic hazards. Examples of hazard-: eduction techniques are listed in Table l 4 The following actions will increase the likelihood of an effective I reduction of hazards:

l Identify the most effective reduction techniques that are either being used by the users or are available to them.

1 l

Review existing State programs or laws that could incorporate such

] reduction techniques and recommend changes or new programs and i 1

laws.

Devise and test innovative reduction techniques.

4 i

5) Evaluation--Continuing systematic evaluation will be a part of this 1

program and is a key to any successful State-local earthquake hazards ,

f reduction program. An inventory of uses made of the scientific j

( ',

4 j 19 l I

4 b

Information, interviews with users, and an analysis of the inventory l

( and responses will result in identifying new users,- and any obstacles to communication of the Information or its effective use. The

, following actions will make evaluation easier and enhance implementation!

Inventory uses of hazards information (Table 4) to identify and f document the type and nuitber of uses of each hazards map or report, j i

Analyze uses of the hazards Information and any problems Adentified and suggest improvement to the format or content of

]

information or the communication techniques.

+ i' l

Identify problems with and suggest improvements to reduction

.l .

techniques by the monitoring of land-use decisions. .

j Interview users of information (Table 1) to evaluate the adequacy 4

{ t of the information and the communication techniques and to identify obstacles to their effectiveness. -

l  :

Preposed-Selection Criteria--Numerous combinations of scientific Information, l communication techniques, users, and reduction techniques exist. Consideration of l l the following factors will be helpful in the selection of proposals for grants in support of the above implerentation tasks:

1 User is an applicant.

l j i i j

Experienced communicator is an ap;11 cant.  !

t i  !

j --

A high probability exists for successful transfer and effective use of the 1

j information. '

J A communicator is in place and communication technique are in operation.

3  !

( .

I I

, 20  !

4

Translated scientific information is immediately available to the user.

(

Minimum time is required for translation and transfer of the information.

A large number of people or numerous critical facilities are at risk in the targeted ares.

Rapidly urbanizing areas are located in the targeted area.

An opportunity exists for innovative or prototypical communication or redaction techniques.

I Sponsor, convene, and coordinate at least one works'.:op each year designed j to foster an environment for implementation of loss-reduction measures at the State and local level.

Evaluate proposals snd fund selected projects that will enhance implementation.

Enlist Federal partners.

Suggested Roles for State Agencies--Initially, the role of the State Agencies will be to l

1 Advise the USGS on the LJ1ection of projects that will enhance implementation.

l Serve as a technical advisor ant. reviewer of funded implementation projects. 1 Enlist partners in states of Washington and Oregon, i

21

. Table 1 Some Potential Users of Geologic and Hydrologic Information for Earthquake-Hazard Reduction in the Puget Sound-Portland Area.

City, County, and Area-wide Government Users City building, engineering, zoning, and safety departments County building, engineering, zoning, and safety departments Mayors and city council members Multicounty planning, development, and preparsdness agencies Municipal engineers, planners, and administrators City and county offices of emergency services

Planning and zoning offlclais, commissions and departments l Police, fire, and sheriff's departments Public works departments
  • County tax assessses School districts State Government Users Department of Community and Economic Development (Community Services i Office, Economic and Industrial Development) i Department of Business Regulation (Contracts Division, Real Estate i

Division) j Department of Financial Institutions l

i Department of Health (Environmental Health, Health Care Financing)

!(

Department of Natural Resources Department of Transportation Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management DOGAMI l i

Division of Water Resources Division of Water Rights Fac111tles Construction and Management Geological and Mineral Survey Governor's Office Legislative Fiscal Analyst Legislative Research and General Counsel National Guard Planning and Budget Office Public Service Commission Science Advisor State Tax Commission WSDNR

(

22

=- - -

Federal Government Users

(-

i 1 Army Corps of Engineers Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation r Congress and Congressional staffs ,

Department of Agriculture I Department of Energy  :

Department of Housing and Urban Developrent i 4 Department of Interior l Department of Transportation Environmental Protectior Agency Farmers Home Administration  :

, Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Housing Administration Federal Insurance Administration  !

Federal Power Commission Forest Service General Services Administration Geological Survey '

National Bureau of Standards National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service National Science Foundation  !

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Small Business Administration

Soll Conservation Service I (.

l Other National Users 9

Applied Technology Counell American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials American Public Works Association l American Red Cross Association of Engineering Geologists t Association of State Geologists i j Council of State Governments Earthquake Engineering Research Institute j

) International Conference of Building Officials ,

National Academy of Sciences '

j National Association of Counties i j National Association of Insurance Commissioners National Governors' Association  !

, National Institute of Building Sciences l

1 Natural Hazards Research and Appi.lcations Center National League of Cities l

Professicnal and scientific societies (including geologic, engineering, l l, architecture, and planning societies)

United States Conference of Mayors  !

i l

! i 1

23 l

j l  !

r

o  ;

Private,' Corporate, and Quasi public Users -

(

\. Civic and voluntary groups Concerned citizens l Construction con:panies Consulting planners, geologists,~ ' architects, and engineers Extractive, manufacturing, and processing industries Financial and insuring institutions .

Landowners, developers, and real-estate persons J News media f

, Real-estate salespersons [

Utility companies i University departments (including geology, geography, civil engineering,

, architecture, urban and regional . planning, and environmental departments).

l

.j ,

  • I f

k 1

l 1

i l -

i i 1 4

l 2

4 i

G I I I

! 24 i

i I

i

1 1

t Table 2  !

Typical Ccamunication Techniques ,

Educational services ,

Assisting and cooperating with universities and their extension divisions in the preparation of course outlines, detailed lectures, casebooks, and i display materials. i Contacting speakers and participating as lecturers in regional and community '

educational programs related to the application of hazard information.

Sponsoring, conducting and participating in topical and areal seminars, ,

conferences, workshops, short courses, technology utilization sessions, i cluster meetings, innovative transfer meetings, training symposia, and ,

, other discussions with user groups, e.g. 1983 Utah Governor's Conference ,

I on Geologic Hazards, UGMS Circular 74.

Releasing Information needed to address critical hazards early through oral ,

briefings, newsletters, seminars, map-type "interpretive inventorieu,"

open-file reports, reports of cooperating agencies, and "official use only" materials.

Sponsoring or cosponsoring conferences or workshops for planners and

, decisionmakers at which the results of hazard studies are displayed and I reported on to users, e.g. scheduled USGS workshop, August 1984 '

] Providing speakers to government, civic, corporate, conservation, and citizen  !

groups, and participating in radio and television programs to explain or report on hazard-reduction programs and products.

l Assisting and cooperating with regional and community groups whose intention t

It is to incorporate hazard information into school curricula.

Preparing and exhibiting displays that present hazard infor=3 tion and ,

1119 strate their use in hazard reduction. i Attending and participating in meetings with local, district, and State agencies and their governing bodies for the purpose of presenting hazard 3 information.

Guiding field trips to potentially hazardous sites. ,

Preparing and distributing brochures, TV spots, flims, and other visual materials to the news media.

Advisory services i Preparing annotated and indexed bibliographies of hazard information and I

, providing lists of pertinent reference material to various users. l

Assisting local, State, and Federal agencies in designing policies,  !

, procedures, ordinances, statutes, and regulations that cite or make other use of hazard information.

Assisting in recruiting, Interviewing, and selecting planners, engineers, and scientists by government agenclos for which education and training in ,

4 hazard information collection, interpretation, and application are  !

criteria, e.g. pending proposal to fund county geologists, i 1

Assisting local State, and Federal agencies in the design of their hazard

! Information collection and interpretation programs and in their work Specifications.

Providing expert testimony and depositions concerning hazard research information and its use in reduction techniques.

< (

25 l

}

1 O

L s

i Assisting in the presentation and adoption of plans and plan-implementation devices that are based upon hazard information.

( Assisting in the Incorporation of hazard information into local, State, and Federal studies and plans. -

Preparing brief' fact sheets or transmittal letters about hazard products.

explaining their impact on, value to, and most appropriate use to local.

State, and Federal planning and decisionmaking, i -

Assisting users in the creation, organization, staffing, and formation of

local, State, and Federal planning and planning-1mplementation programs so j as to arsure the proper and timely use of hazard information.

Preparing and distributing appropriate user guides relating to earth hazard l processes, mapping, and hazard-reduction techniques, e.g. UGMS (11ers. i Preparing model Stt'to safety legislation, regulations, and development policies.

Preparing model local safety policles, plan criterla, and plan-implementation

  • devices, i

Review services t h

Review of proposed programs for collecting and interpreting hazard l Information. '

Review of local, State, and Federal policies, administrative procedures, and  !

I legislative analyses that have a direct effect on hazard information. ,

Review studies and plans based on hazard information, i 5 1 l h

h' i

4 .

f f i 4

^

I l

4 I

I )

) l

! l 1 i i

. 1 j 26 i

l i l i

4 i

l 1

i Table 3 '

Representative Communicators of Hazard Information American Institute of Architects /Research Corporation l l American Institute of Certified Planners  ;

j American Institute of Professional Geologists American Society of Public Administrators  !

q American Society of Civil Engineers  !

Association of Engineering Geologists r Children's Museum l' Church groups, church organizations, and church-sponsored events i Circuit riders (regional or project area) i City Management Association 1 Civic and voluntary groups Community planning assistance programs l Council of State Governments l County extension agents  !

, Educators (un1@lrsity, college, highschool,andelementaryschoolicvels) l Governor's Advisory Council on Local Governments i

Hazard-information clearinghouse (national, regional, or project area) j Hazard researchers, interpreters, and mappers .

1 International Conference of Building Officials, Utah Chapter l 1

Journalists, commentators, and editors, and their professional associates  !

Local seismic safety advisory groups  !

1 Mountain Lands Association of Governments j

]

Museum of Natural History  ;

i ( National Council of State Legislators  :

7 National Governor's Conference j Neighborhood associations Public information offices (Federal and State) {

Researchers, engineers, and planners Speakers bureaus (regional or project area)  ;

Society of American Foresters, Wasatch Front Chapter e Urban and Regional Information Systems Association I

United States Conference of Mayors j 4 U.S. Bureau of Land Management '

i U.S. Forest Service U.S. Geological Survey U.S. So11 Conservation Service l j Western Governor's Policy Office I i

4

)

i i

4 27 i

i

a .

Table 4

{ Some Opportunities for Using Geologic and Hydrologic Information to Reduce Earthquake Hazards in the Puget Sound-Portland Area, Washington Preparing development studies and plans Circulation of transportation studies or plans Community facility and utility Inventories or plans Environmental impact assessments and reports Land-use and open-space inventories or plans Land subdivision lot layouts Multiha:ards inventories, risk analyses, and response capabilities Natural-hazards reduction plans Redevelopment plans (pre- and post-earthquake)

Seismic safety and public safety plans Site-specific investigations and ha:ard evaluations Discouraging new or removing existing unsafe development Capital-improvements expenditures Costs of insurance Disclosing ha:ards to real-estate buyers Financial incentives and disincentives Governor's executive orders Policies of private lenders Non-conforming use provisions in ening ordinances

, Posted warnings of potential hazards Public acquisition of hazardous areas Public facility and utility service policies Public information and education Recording the hazard on public records Removing unsafe structures Special assessments or tax credits Strengthening or retrofitting of unsafe structures Regulating development / construction Building ordinances Design and construction regulations Grading regulations Hazard-:ene investigations Land-use ening districts and regulations Speelal hazard-reduction ordinances Subdivision ordinances Critical facilities, siting, design, and construction Public-facility or utility reconstruction or relocation Reconstruction after earthquakes Repair of dams k I l

l 25 i l

1 w-_-_______

,t*

  • Preparing for and responding to disasters

(

Antic 1pating damage to critical facilities Damage inspection, repair, and recovery procedures Dam and reservoir supervision Disaster training exercises Earthquake predletion response plans Earthquake preparedness plans Emergency response plans Monitoring and warning systems Relocating occupants of exceptionally hazardous buildings

(

29 l 4

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20151H185&oldid=2967875"