THE CUSEC JOURNAL

A PUBLICATION OFTHE CENTRAL UNITED STATESEARTHQUAKE CONSORTIUM

VOLUME 4, NUMBER 1, SUMMER 1997

DISASTER RESISTANT COMMUNITIES:A Community-Based Approach toHazard Mitigation

ne of the inescapable facts of lifeis that virtually no community isimmune from natural hazards -whether it be flooding, severeweather, tornadoes, winter

storms, and even earthquakes. The March, 1997floods in Kentucky, Indiana, and several otherMidwest states drew the nation’s attention onceagain to the destructive power of these hazards.The bottom line, disaster related losses continueto escalate. From 1992 to 1997, disasters havecost the federal government alone nearly $14billion in aid to individuals and localgovernments, four times the amount from theprevious four years. This figure does notinclude insurance losses, and business losses.

Aside from dollar losses, disasters exact aheavy toll on the victims. Within seconds orminutes, homes and businesses can be disruptedor severely damaged by floods, earthquakes,severe weather and other natural disasters.Community recovery can take years.

The Good News

These hazards are not unavoidable calamities.The good news is that the escalating losses fromdisasters can be stemmed. Communities cantake action to reduce future losses. Buildingcodes can be adopted and enforced. Design andconstruction techniques can be adopted that willstrengthen and reduce damages from disasters.Schools, hospitals, day care centers, and other“critical facilities” can be targeted for mitigationprograms to improve the safety of these facilitiesfrom flooding, earthquakes and high winds.Losses from flooding can be significantlyreduced through community participation in theNational Flood Insurance Program.

O

0 1 2

Miles

KEY

Functional BridgeNonfunctional Bridge

CommunicationFacility

(All Functional)

Disaster RecoveryBusiness Alliances . . . . . . . . . . . ␣ 11

State Earthquake Programs . . . . ␣ 12

Seismic Safety of ExistingBuildings: An Update . . . . . . . . . ␣ 15

Planning For SeismicRehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Useful Publications . . . . . . . . . . . ␣ 19

CUSEC in Transition . . . . . . . . . . ␣ 20

Evansville, IN - Henderson,KY Pilot Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Evansville Becomes Nation’sFirst Showcase Community . . . . . . ␣ 8

Role of Business Alliancesin a Community-BasedMitigation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . ␣ 9

Forming a Disaster RecoveryBusiness Alliance:Some Considerationsin Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . ␣ 10

— Inside this issue —

The FEMA HAZUS loss estimation methodology can be an integral feature of a Disaster ResistantCommunity program. Source: Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

2

A New Approach to Dealing withNatural Hazards

In essence, we have the knowledge andtools to reduce the vulnerability of ourcommunities to natural hazards. What isneeded is a fundamental shift in publicperceptions of natural hazards. Hazardreduction policies and practices need to beintegrated into the mainstream ofcommunity and business activitiesthroughout the central United States andthe nation. Furthermore, these mitigationpolicies and programs should becompatible with community goals, asreflected in local comprehensive plans.

Against this backdrop, the FederalEmergency Management Agency hasmade the creation of disaster resistantcommunities in high risk areas a priority.To accomplish this goal, FEMA willfocus on three major areas of activity:1) Establishing a Pre-Disaster MitigationFund program, which will providefinancial incentives for communitiesto use in reducing the vulnerability ofbuildings and infrastructure; 2)Implementing a Public - PrivatePartnership to promote a closer workingrelationship with the business communityin carrying out mitigation programs; and3) Overhauling FEMA’s public assistanceprograms to streamline procedures andreduce the recovery time.

What is a Disaster ResistantCommunity?

Disaster “resistance” is an objective.Achieving “disaster resistance” will be along-term proposition. Expressed interms of performance standards, acommunity may be considered disaster“resistant” when - after a major,damaging earthquake, hurricane, flood orother disaster - the following conditionsare present:

• Instead of heavy casualties, there is aminimal loss of life and limitedinterruption of public services -including emergency medical andhealth services, electric and waterutilities, transportation andcommunications.

• The private sector is able to resumebusiness operations in a timelymanner, thus contributing to the

recovery of the community (e.g.,becoming part of the solution, ratherthan a big part of the problem).

• The community is able to managethe response operations,supplemented by pre-plannedresources from neighboringcommunities and State governmentresources.

• The community is able to recover toat least pre-disaster conditions in anaccelerated, ordered, pre-plannedmanner.

A “disaster resistant community” - aterm first introduced by Don Geiss, of theInternational City and CountyManagement Association - is acomprehensive, community-based,incentive-driven approach to hazardmitigation that emphasizes pre-disastermitigation actions, and the involvement ofthe business community in a public -private partnership with localgovernment.

Disaster resistance does not mean thatthere will be no damage, casualties andeconomic losses in large natural disasters.A major earthquake, for example, willcause substantial damages. A 500-yearflood or a major tornado in an urban areawill also cause substantial damages.

The overall objective of a DisasterResistant Community program is toreduce the vulnerability of a community -including business and industry - tonatural hazards, so that when a majorflood, earthquake, tornado, or othernatural hazard event does occur - injuries,deaths, property damage, economic lossesand human suffering are minimized, andcommunity recovery can be accelerated.

Disaster Resistant Community VersusShowcase Community

The Institute for Business and HomeSafety (IBHS), a non-profit educationalorganization dedicated to “reducinginjuries, property damage, economiclosses and human suffering caused bynatural disasters” has launched a nationalinitiative to nominate and support thedevelopment of “ShowcaseCommunities.” These are communitiesthat demonstrate - through adoption of aresolution - a public commitment to

developing and implementing acommunity hazard mitigation strategy.IBHS has further identified a number of

requirements to be a ShowcaseCommunity (e.g., a community mustadopt the latest model building codewithout modifications). Central to theShowcase Community initiative is theemphasis on a Partnership approach(IBHS has signed MOU’s with severalnational organizations), and the use ofincentives to promote mitigation. Afteran applicant community has adopted aresolution and becomes a ShowcaseCommunity, IBHS and its Partners willprovide direct support to enable thecommunity to implement the provisionsof the mitigation strategy (example: onerequirement is for the community toconduct a non-structural retrofit of allnon-profit child care centers. Thecommunity conducts the assessment ofthe child care centers; the Partnershipcarries out the retrofit).

Finally, participation in the ShowcaseCommunity program enables thecommunity to take advantage of a rangeof incentives and cost savings (e.g.,possible insurance premium reductionsfor specified mitigation actions; lowinterest loans for retrofitting, and others).The fundamental premise is that ifmitigation is to take place in this countryon a meaningful scale, it must involvebusiness and homeowners, and it mustinvolve incentives.

In essence, the Showcase Communityprogram can be viewed as an importantfirst step towards “disaster resistance.” Itoffers a structured program, with specificcriteria and requirements that must be metby a prospective “showcase” community.Disaster “resistance”, on the other hand, isa long-term proposition that will takedecades to achieve, and involve a shift incommunity perceptions about naturalhazards, and the need to assume personaland civic responsibility for the protectionof our families, businesses, andcommunities from the effects of disasters.

“ Disaster ‘resistance’ isan objective…and a longtermproposition.”

Disaster Resistant Community

THE CUSEC JOURNAL3

Elements of a Disaster ResistantCommunity: CUSEC’s Model

The Central U.S. EarthquakeConsortium has developed a DRC modelthat is designed to bring together keycommunity officials - public, private,nonprofit, professional, and others - todevelop a local mitigation strategy that isorganized around at least six program orgoal areas, as reflected in Figure 1.

Hazard and Risk Assessment - Thestarting point for a community-basedmitigation program and strategy is acomprehensive assessment of thevulnerability of the community toearthquakes, floods, tornadoes, severeweather, and other natural hazards.

Why is it Important for a Communityto Pursue “Disaster Resistance”?

While a community may neverbecome truly “resistant” to disasters,there is clear evidence that localcommitment to mitigation will, overtime, significantly reduce communityand business vulnerability to naturalhazards. A local mitigation strategywill, when implemented:

• Save lives, and generally makecommunities safer fromdisasters.

• Reduce property damages andeconomic losses from disasters.

• Minimize social disruption.

• Enable local governments toprovide essential services -health, public safety, welfare -following a disaster.

• Improve the chances thatbusiness will survive, and beable to resume operations in anexpedited manner.

• Shorten the recovery period - forbusiness, and the community atlarge.

• Enhance the “marketability” ofthe community by demonstratingpublic and private commitmentto building a communityinfrastructure that will survivemajor disasters.

Goal: Each Disaster Resistant Communityshould have a comprehensive, updated(preferably GIS based) Hazard and RiskAssessment that will provide a baseline ofinformation on community and businessvulnerability, and can be used by leadersto set reasonable performance objectivesand priorities for mitigation, response andrecovery from natural hazards. TheHAZUS earthquake loss estimationmethodology - which will be expanded toinclude flood and wind hazards - shouldbe an integral feature of a DisasterResistant Community.

Education and Public Outreach - Thekey to reducing loss of life, personalinjuries, and damage from naturaldisasters is widespread public awarenessand education on the nature of the hazards,and steps that can be taken before, during,and after an event. Education and PublicOutreach is the foundation of a DRCprogram; without an informed andknowledgeable public, progress towards“disaster resistance” willbe limited.

Goal: Each Disaster Resistant Communityshould have a program and strategy inplace to raise the public awareness ofnatural hazards, and measures that can be

taken to improve disaster preparednessand promote mitigation. Communityleaders, both in government and theprivate sector, should be able tounderstand the political, economic, andsocial benefits of investing in mitigation.

Community Land Use - Planners andother local officials have access to mapsand studies that identify the spatialboundaries of hazards, includingfloodplains, areas of potential liquefaction(ground failure). This information allowslocal officials to develop and implement“avoidance strategies” to limitdevelopment in hazard prone areas of ourcommunities. These strategies should beincorporated into a community’scomprehensive plan, and used to guidedecisions on future land use. Finally, thepost-disaster recovery phase offersnumerous opportunities to achievemitigation through changes in communityland use planning and implementation.

Goal: Each Disaster ResistantCommunity should have an officiallyadopted land use plan that identifieshazard-prone areas, and policies andprocedures to limit development in theseareas.

FIG.1 CUSEC’s DRC Model is designed to bring community officials together to develop a mitigationstrategy that is organized around at least six goal areas.

Leadership/Executive SupportEducation and Public Outreach

Incentives

ExistingDevelopment

Business LossReduction

NewDevelopment

CommunityLand Use

Hazard andRisk Assessment

DISASTER RESISTANT COMMUNITY

categories of structures (e.g., newcommercial, residential and industrialstructures should be constructed in amanner that in the maximum credibleevent, there will be no loss of life andoccupants will be able to safely leave thebuilding).

Business Vulnerability Reduction -Recent disasters have shown that a key torecovery is the ability of businesses -large and small - to resume operationsfollowing the disaster. Because of this, anincreasing number of communities areexamining the feasibility of forming“business preparedness councils” thatbring together the leadership andexpertise of businesses, emergencypreparedness, the engineering andscientific community, and others todevelop a partnership approach toreducing the vulnerability of businesses toall hazards.

Goal: Each Disaster ResistantCommunity should have a businesspreparedness and recovery strategy that isthe product of collaboration between thebusiness community and localgovernment. This strategy should haveclearly defined objectives; have executivesupport from business and government;and identify and prioritize measures thatcan be implemented to increase disasterpreparedness of business, improvecoordination with the public sector, andreduce long-term business vulnerability tonatural disasters.

communications). For example,community leaders may decide that thesefacilities should be designed and built tofunction immediately after the “maximumcredible event”.

3) High occupancy buildings.

New Development - While much ofour building stock is vulnerable todisasters, it is important that we do notadd to the problem of exposure tohazards. This can be accomplished bysiting, designing, and constructing newbuildings and lifelines (public works andutility system) in a manner that minimizestheir vulnerability to natural disasters.

Goal: Each Disaster ResistantCommunity should have an officiallyadopted policy and implementationstrategy to minimize the vulnerability of new construction to natural disasters.This strategy should includeperformance objectives for different

4

“ Recent disasters have shownthat a key to recovery is the ability ofbusinesses to resume operations.”

Existing Development - Communitiesin the Central U.S. have highconcentrations of unreinforced masonrybuildings (URMs) and other hazardousstructures that pose a risk to our citizens -at home and in the workplace - in theevent of an earthquake. Other existingstructures are located in areas that arechronically subject to flooding. Thus, amajor challenge for local officials is “howto address the vulnerability of existinghazardous buildings and utilities” in amanner that is sensitive to the political,social, and economic realities.

Goal: Each Disaster ResistantCommunity should have an officiallyadopted strategy for reducing thevulnerability of existing development.The strategy should include performanceobjectives for different categories ofdevelopment, including:

1) Public facilities (e.g., governmentbuildings) and electric utilities. Forexample, community leaders may decidethat these facilities and systems should beable to be repaired and occupied or usedshortly after a disaster.

2) Facilities essential to emergencyresponse (police, fire, emergencyoperations centers, emergency

Disaster Resistant Community

Maps of seismic hazards• Contour maps of intensities of ground shaking• Contour map of permanent ground displacement• Liquefaction probability• Landslide probability

Characterization of damage to general building stock• Structural and nonstructural damage probabilities by

census tract building type and occupancy class

Transportation and utility lifelines• For all components of all lifelines: damage state

probabilities, cost of repair or replacement andexpected functionality for various times followingearthquake

• For potable water system: percent service reduction toserviced areas

• For electric power systems:-probabilistic estimate ofservice outages

Essential facilities• Cost of repair or replacement• Loss of beds in hospitals and medical facilities

High potential loss facilities• Location of dams• Location of nuclear plants

Loss Estimation Outputs (Level 2)• Location of military installations• Others

Fire following earthquake• Number of ignitions by census tract• Percentage of burned area by census tract

Inundated areas• Exposed population and exposed dollar value of

facilities

Hazardous material sites• Location of facilities with hazardous materials

Debris• By weight and type of material

Social losses• Displaced households• Number of people requiring temporary shelter• Casualties in four categories of severity

Dollar losses associated with general building stock• Cost of repair or replacement• Loss of contents• Business inventory damage or loss• Relocation costs• Business income loss• Loss of rental income

FIG. 2 The HAZUS program will generate loss estimate outputs in either a map or tabular format.

THE CUSEC JOURNAL5

EVANSVILLE, IN - HENDERSON, KY PILOT PROJECTn order to test the CUSECDisaster ResistantCommunity model andfurther refine the program,two pilot communities

were selected by the CUSEC Board ofDirectors: Evansville, Indiana (population180,000) and Henderson, Kentucky(population 25,000). These communitieswere selected on the basis of theirmoderate/high risk (earthquakes andflooding), demonstrated local leadership,and perceived support for mitigation (inboth public and private sectors). Aworkshop was held on April 15-16 tolaunch the pilot project.

Workshop Goal

The workshop goal was to “develop amodel Disaster Resistant CommunityProgram” in Evansville and Hendersonthat will, when implemented, significantlyreduce the vulnerability of thesecommunities to future natural disasters.The DRC “model” could then be adaptedto other high risk communities in theCentral U.S.

Workshop Objectives

1. To demonstrate how HAZUS - a“loss estimation methodology” andsoftware program - can be used toassess community risk toearthquakes, and eventually floodsand hurricanes.

2. To demonstrate the benefits ofmitigation - actions taken prior to adisaster to reduce risk.

3. To develop a community-basedmitigation strategy andimplementation plan that reducesthe vulnerability of Evansville andHenderson to natural disasters.

4. To develop a model DisasterResistant Community Program thatcan be adapted to other states andregions.

Developing a Local Mitigation Strategy:Pre-Workshop Activities

The local Mitigation Strategy that willserve as the centerpiece of a DisasterResistant Community Program will

incorporate six key elements: Hazard andRisk Assessment, Education and PublicOutreach, Existing Development, NewDevelopment, Community Land Use, andBusiness Vulnerability Reduction.

At the outset, emphasis was given toestablishing “working groups” in each ofthe six areas, comprised of local leaders -public and private - and specialists from avariety of disciplines, with expertise inearthquake and flood hazard mitigation,public education, emergencymanagement, and risk assessment.

Each working group was given fourhours to develop a strategy andimplementation plan for their specific“mitigation area.” To guide thediscussion and ensure a degree ofconsistency among groups, a four stepprocess was adopted. Each group, underthe direction of the facilitator, was askedto: 1) Validate the goal statement andclarify definitions; 2) Identify and discusscurrent efforts in Evansville andHenderson that addressed the “mitigationarea” (e.g., existing programs that educatethe public on hazards); 3) Identify andprioritize programs and initiatives that—when implemented—will advance thestated goal (e.g., ensure that newdevelopment is located, designed, andconstructed in a manner that willminimize damages from natural hazards);and 4) Develop an implementationstrategy that addresses the “who, whatand how” of implementing the priorityprograms that were identified by thegroup.

Steering Committee Conclusions andRecommendations

An Interim Report was prepared,which outlined twenty-sixrecommendations - grouped under six keyareas: Hazard and Risk Assessment,Education and Public Outreach, ExistingDevelopment, New Development,Community Land Use, and BusinessVulnerability Reduction.

A Steering Committee was formed,and a meeting was held in Evansville onMay 21 that brought together key Stateand local officials, and representatives of

“Partner organizations” that will have asignificant role in the implementation of amodel Disaster Resistant CommunityProgram for Evansville, and Henderson.

The Steering Committee meeting wasguided by three objectives: 1) To identifypriority programs and initiatives forEvansville and Henderson, using thematrix of programs outlined in the InterimReport as a guide; 2) To determinewhether Evansville or Henderson wishedto apply for participation in the ShowcaseCommunity Program; and 3) To establisha Steering Committee that can coordinateprogram development and implementation.The Steering Committee made thefollowing recommendations:

1. Utilize a Phased Approach toDeveloping and Implementing aDRC Program.

The group acknowledged that aDisaster Resistant Community Programfor Evansville-Vanderburgh County willbe a long term effort. Achieving “disasterresistance” will be accomplished througha phased approach. The first priority is toget organized, draft a policy statement,and develop a program plan. This initialphase is referred to as Stage 1: PartnershipAgreement. It is a critical phase. This iswhen the partnership is conceived,agreements are worked out, andobjectives and priorities are agreed upon.Figure 3 - which was developed withinput from Tom Tobin (workshopspeaker) - outlines the objectives andsample activities in a long-term, phasedapproach to achieving disaster resistance.

2. Apply for the Community ShowcaseProgram

There was broad agreement among theSteering Committee members that theShowcase Community Program,administered by the Institute for Businessand Home Safety (IBHS) in partnershipwith several national and regionalorganizations, is an excellent opportunityto “pull together” the Evansvilleleadership in a structured program, withclear objectives, that offers incentives and

I

Disaster Resistant Community

6

resources (certainly technical) to “jumpstart” a local Disaster ResistantCommunity Program.

Jim Russell, Vice-President, IBHS,provided an overview of the range ofincentives (e.g., reduced insurancepremiums for mitigation actions) andpartnership technical and materialassistance that would be provided (e.g.,IBHS and its Partnership would carry outretrofit of all non-profit child care centersin Evansville).

A draft list of criteria for ShowcaseCommunities was presented. To becomea Showcase Community, Evansvilleagreed to meet the following criteria:

1. To adopt the latest model buildingcode without modifications.

2. To receive the Building CodeEffectiveness Grading Schedulegrade and develop an improvementstrategy.

3. To participate in the National FloodInsurance Program, and receive aCommunity Rating Service grade anddevelop an improvement strategy.

4. To have a minimum of 8 on the firesuppression rating system.

5. To undergo a community riskassessment conducted by IBHS andthe Partnership.

6. To develop and offer mitigationtraining to professionals (e.g.,engineers, architects, buildingofficials, contractors).

7. To conduct non-structural retrofitassessment of all non-profit childcare centers so that the Partnershipcan retrofit them.

8. To provide public education ofnatural hazards and mitigationtechniques to certify homeowners toqualify them for incentives.

9. To develop K-12 school curriculumteaching about natural hazard risksand mitigation.

10. To ensure that the community has aland use plan, a planner, and makeszoning decisions in compliance withtheir land use plan.

11. To develop an emergency recoveryplan and post-disaster recovery plan.

12. To develop a Disaster RecoveryBusiness Alliance to formulate andimplement a business mitigationstrategy.

13. To develop public/private sectorincentives.

14. To participate in the PartnershipSeal of Approval inspection andcertification.

Roger Lehman (BuildingCommissioner), pointed out to theSteering Committee that Evansville-Vanderburgh County has been activelyinvolved in promoting mitigation duringthe past ten years, through trainingprograms and demonstration projects, andthus has met several of the IBHS criteria.A missing component in the localprogram, however, is a Business -Government alliance that can direct andcoordinate a local business preparednessand mitigation strategy.

3. Form an Evansville-VanderburghCounty Disaster Recovery BusinessAlliance

At the April 15-16 workshop, theBusiness Vulnerability Reduction workgroup recommended that Evansvillepursue the formation of a “DisasterRecovery Business Alliance” that willbring together business and governmentleaders in a partnership program to reducethe vulnerability of local business tonatural disasters, and significantlyimprove their ability to recover. MaryCarrido (Disaster Recovery BusinessAlliance/workshop facilitator) providedthe Steering Group with an overview ofDRBA, and its role as a catalyst informing and supporting local businessalliances in high risk communities acrossthe nation.

The Steering Committee endorsed theproposal to form a Disaster RecoveryBusiness Alliance for Evansville, as anintegral feature of a long-term effort toreduce business and communityvulnerability to natural hazards. Thegroup further agreed on the following:

1) the Metropolitan Evansville Chamberof Commerce will serve in a supportingrole in developing a “unified” localbusiness - government alliance; and 2)the short-term priority is to identify andform a “secretariat” to undertake thefollowing: organize and conductmeetings, take and distribute minutes,recruit members, develop a brochure andother outreach materials, and serve as thefocal point for local fundraising andcoordination with external organizations(e.g., CUSEC, Indiana State EmergencyManagement Agency, the DisasterRecovery Business Alliance/ Irvine, CA,and local business alliances around thenation).

The secretariat function is critical. It isthe “glue” that holds the alliance togetherin the initial, formative stages of alliancedevelopment. In the Memphis alliance(the “Business Emergency PreparednessCouncil”), this function is performed by asenior member of a local insurancecompany, with support from an activecore membership of 12-15 companies,CUSEC and local government. To date,approximately $40,000 has been raisedfrom local business to support theMemphis alliance (part of which will bematched by the Electric Power ResearchInstitute, through the national DRBA).The goal for the Memphis BusinessEmergency Preparedness Council is toraise $100,000 in 1997, and hire a parttime director to manage the alliance, andcoordinate the implementation of projectsand activities.

As the Evansville business alliancebuilds support and attracts membersduring the organizational phase, attentionwill also be focused on identifyingpotential projects and activities that canbe carried out - under the auspices of theEvansville business alliance - that highlitethe advantages and benefits of businessparticipation in this partnership effort. Aswas pointed out, while many businesseshave internal plans and procedures forresponding to and coping with disasters,few businesses have developed externalplans that take into consideration thedisruption of electric power and water,lack of access to and from their facilities,

THE CUSEC JOURNAL7

loss of workforce for extended periods oftime, and other factors that have directand immediate implications for businessresumption and recovery. In this context,there was discussion among SteeringCommittee members on the value ofFEMA’s Earthquake Loss EstimationProgram (HAZUS), as a tool that can beused to support a Disaster ResistantCommunity Program, and the businessalliance.

4. Use the FEMA Earthquake LossEstimation Program - or “HAZUS” -to Support Business and CommunityRisk Assessment

An accurate hazard and riskassessment is the starting point for aDisaster Resistant Community Program,including the proposed EvansvilleBusiness alliance. The HAZUS LossEstimation Methodology, which will beavailable from FEMA through theNational Institute for Building Science(NIBS), can become an important riskassessment tool for the Evansvilleprogram. As demonstrated at the April15-16 workshop, HAZUS can be used todescribe: 1) quantitative estimates oflosses from earthquakes, including directcosts for repair and replacement ofdamaged buildings and lifelines, anddirect costs associated with loss offunction (e.g., loss of business revenue);2) functionality losses, including loss-of-function and restoration times forbuildings, critical facilities andtransportation systems; and 3) extent ofinduced hazards, including fire, flood,and hazardous materials releases. Inessence, HAZUS can be used to determinethe nature and extent of the earthquakerisk in Evansville (flooding and wind willbe added later), which is critical toestablish community mitigation priorities,including business.

Evansville officials - with support fromthe Indiana State Emergency ManagementAgency - propose to purchase and installthe HAZUS software program; to identifya technical working group to coordinatethe data input and receive HAZUS

training; and to fully integrate the riskassessment to support programs anddecision-making in the BuildingDepartment, Area Planning, EmergencyManagement, and the Evansville DisasterRecovery Business Alliance.

5. Implement Short-Term/MomentumBuilding Initiatives

The Steering Committee discussed theimportance of maintaining the momentumfrom the workshop. Towards this end, theEducation and Public Outreachcommittee, formed after the workshop,identified a series of projects that willpromote earthquake risk reduction, anddirectly involve the business community.

Sample Activities

• Policy statement drafted• Program plan developed• Resource committed• Process identified to measure

progress• Organizations formed• External accountability

determined (e.g., reports toelected bodies)

• Partnership activitiescommence

• Partner training conducted• Hazard baseline established• Partner expectations refined• Business councils are formed

and operating

• Knowledgeable constituencycreated

• Partners trained• Mitigation practices and

programs carried out in publicand private sectors

• Tangible evidence of reducedrisk

• Progress measured annuallyand external reports made

• External partners will havefulfilled their responsibilities

• Attitudes, policies, practices,and relationships formed duringearlier stages are wellestablished; a solid foundationis in place

• Progress is easily measured

Phased Approach to Disaster Resistant Communities

DRC Stage

Stage 1: Partnership Agreement(initial 2 months)

Stage 2: Start-Up(approx 2 years)

Stage 3: Operational(approx 3-10 years)

Stage 4: Institutionalization(10 years plus)

Objective

To reach agreement on objectivesand expectations

To establish public and privatesector capability needed to carry outrisk reduction projects and activities

To carry out risk reduction policiesand practices; integrate mitigationinto public and private sectors

To fully integrate mitigation intonormal routines of governmentagencies, utilities and businesses

In addition, the local Fox affiliate -WTVW - produced a four part series thataired on May 5-8, and addressed thevulnerability of Evansville to earthquakesand other hazards, with emphasis onschool safety and the role of HAZUS as arisk assessment tool that can beincorporated into the Evansville program.

Henderson - Henderson County

A Steering Committee will be formedfor Henderson, to examine theopportunities and determine the programpriorities for that community. In themeantime, Henderson officials - led byMark McCarty - will closely monitor theEvansville “Stage 1 activities,” andparticipate in Steering Group meetings.

FIG. 3 Phased Approach to Disaster Resistant Communities. Source: Tom Tobin: Tobin & Associates, Mill Valley, CA

8

In a signing ceremony on July 8 -attended by Federal, State, communityand business leaders - Evansville-Vanderburgh County officially becamethe nation’s first “Showcase Community.”

Harvey Ryland, President and CEO ofthe Institute for Business and HomeSafety (IBHS), and Wilson Cooney,President of USAA and Chairman ofIBHS, formally designated Evansville as aShowcase Community. Mayor FranklinMcDonald accepted on behalf of the Cityof Evansville, and its citizens.

The ceremony took place at theEnterprise Zone Day Care Center, whichhas been selected by the community asthe first day care in Evansville to undergoa non-structural retrofit to increase the

safety of the children inthe event of anearthquake or other majordisaster.

Evansville’sparticipation in theShowcase CommunityProgram is significant forseveral reasons. First,community leaders havedemonstrated a publiccommitment to hazardvulnerability reduction.The City and CountyCouncil adopted aresolution pledgingsupport for the ShowcaseCommunity Program,and specifically theirintent to implement themajor provisions of theprogram.

In addition, theEvansville DisasterRecovery BusinessAlliance has beenformed. Dale Olson,President and CEO ofCitizens Insurance ofEvansville, has beenappointed Chairman.Mary Carrido, DisasterRecovery BusinessAlliance, announced that$50,000 in matching

funds has been raised to support theEvansville DRBA (see BusinessAlliances: Their Role in a DRCProgram). The Alliance will play apivotal role in the Showcase CommunityProgram, bringing together the leadershipof the business community to develop along-term program to reduce thevulnerability of business and industry tonatural and technological hazards.

One of the priorities of the ShowcaseCommunity Program will be to carry outnon-structural mitigation measures (e.g.,securing computers, bookshelves,cabinets, ceiling fixtures, water heaters,etc.) at all nonprofit day care centers inEvansville-Vanderburgh County.

Other initiatives include: 1) Enrollmentin the Community Rating Systemprogram by September, 1997, which willreduce insurance rates of homeownersbased on the community’s agreement toadopt certain floodplain managementpractices; 2) Participation in the “Seal ofApproval” program, administered byIBHS, which will include the constructionof a model home that includes “disasterresistant” features; 3) A BusinessExecutive Roundtable to be held onAugust 27-28 - organized by the DisasterRecovery Business Alliance incoordination with the Evansville DRBA -to “examine business vulnerability andresumption principles and practices, andto develop a local business strategy;” and4) Revision of the Evansville/Vanderburgh County ComprehensivePlan to incorporate the most recent dataand maps on the earthquake and floodhazard risk.

The ceremony concluded withstatements of support for the Evansville-Vanderburgh County program fromseveral officials, including: MichelleBurkett, Regional Director, Region V,Federal Emergency Management Agency,Patrick Ralston, Director, Indiana StateEmergency Management Agency, KathyShoettlin, Director of Public Relations,American Red Cross, and Tom Durham,Executive Director, Central U.S.Earthquake Consortium.

Furthermore, as training programs areidentified and held in Evansville,Henderson representatives will beencouraged to participate with theirEvansville counterparts. In this way,both communities can take advantage of“economies of expertise/effort” in this“sister-city” approach to establishingdisaster resistant communities. Finally,the March 1997 floods in Kentucky,which impacted 94 counties, drasticallycurtailed the participation from theKentucky Disaster and EmergencyServices in the April 15-16 workshop.As the flood recovery efforts in Kentuckybegin to be scaled back in terms of Statepersonnel requirements, it is anticipatedthat additional resources (notably fromthe Kentucky DES), will be available tosupport the Henderson program.

EVANSVILLE BECOMES NATION’S FIRSTSHOWCASE COMMUNITY

Showcase Community

THE CUSEC JOURNAL

On June 25, an all day strategicplanning session was held, attended byrepresentatives from DRBA, CUSEC,local government, and business. At thissession, the following priorities wereagreed upon:

1) To build a broad-based membershipthat includes representatives from themanufacturing sector, insurance, banking,transportation, trade (wholesale andretail), utilities, construction and othersectors that have a role and vested interestin business vulnerability reduction. 2) To develop a county-widevulnerability analysis that addresses notonly the physical damages that could occurfrom earthquakes, floods and other natural

disasters, but also the economicvulnerability, expressed in terms of directeconomic losses (e.g., damages to buildingsand contents) and indirect economic losses(e.g., interruptions in critical supplies).

3) To develop a post-disaster planand strategy for communication andcoordination between government and thebusiness community in the aftermath of amajor disaster.

9

ROLE OF BUSINESS ALLIANCES IN ACOMMUNITY-BASED MITIGATION PROGRAM

ecent disasters have shownthat a key to recovery isthe ability of businesses -large and small - to resumeoperations in a timely

manner. Because of this, an increasingnumber of communities are examining thefeasibility of establishing “businesspreparedness councils” that bringtogether the leadership and expertise ofbusiness, emergency preparedness, theengineering and scientific community,and others to develop a partnershipapproach to reducing the vulnerability ofbusinesses to flooding, tornadoes andsevere weather, earthquakes, and otherhazards.

Businesses play a key role in a DisasterResistant Community program andapproach 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 of accessto and from their facilities, loss ofworkforce for extended periods of time,and other factors that have direct andimmediate implications for businessresumption and recovery.

Against this backdrop, the DisasterRecovery Business Alliance (DRBA) wasestablished to build partnerships betweenbusiness and government that will lead tosignificant improvements in the ability ofbusiness to recover from natural disasters(see article). With assistance fromDRBA, CUSEC and others, at least threecommunities in the Central U.S. havedeveloped “disaster recovery businessalliances” to promote businessvulnerability reduction.

Memphis Business EmergencyPreparedness Council (BEPC)

The Business Emergency PreparednessCouncil, which was initially formed in1991 but “revitalized” in 1996, is acoalition of business and government inthe Memphis region dedicated topromoting business vulnerabilityreduction, recovery, and preparedness.

Under the leadership of Don Batchelor,a local insurance executive and currentChair, BEPC has launched a re-invigorated campaign to buildmembership, raise funds and establishclear direction and priorities for theorganization (which has an activemembership of about twenty businesses).

An importantmilestone was thedecision of the BEPCmembership tobecome affiliated withthe Disaster RecoveryBusiness Alliance(DRBA). With amatching grant of$50,000 from theTennessee ValleyAuthority - throughDRBA - the BEPChas been busy raisingfunds locally to builda solid operating basefrom which to carryout its programs andinitiatives. Theefforts literally paiddividends. On June24, the BEPCsponsored a reception,held in conjunctionwith the TitanticExhibit in downtown Memphis, whichbrought together city leaders in thebusiness and government sectors toannounce that the target of $100,000 hadbeen reached. With start-up funds inhand, BEPC transitioned into the nextphase with the hiring of an executivedirector, Jeff Crenshaw.

R

FORMING A DISASTERRECOVERY BUSINESSALLIANCE: SOMECONSIDERATIONS INGETTING STARTED

Is your community considering theformation of a Disaster RecoveryBusiness Alliance? If so, there are anumber of steps that you can take to getstarted, as outlined below.

Step 1:Determine the need for, andfeasibility of, establishing aDRBA.

In the “organizational/start-up” phase,an important first step is to articulate tothe leadership of the business communitythe benefits of establishing a BusinessAlliance, its role in reducing businessvulnerability, and how a “public-privatepartnership” can be used to establish andsustain a DRBA.

Example: The Evansville Chamber ofCommerce co-sponsored, with CUSEC, aBusiness Executive luncheon to discussthe vulnerability of Evansville to naturalhazards, the need for government-business coordination, and the role of anEvansville Business Alliance.

Step 2: Form an “ExecutiveCommittee” and elect achairman to lead the“organizational/start-up phase.”

Every successful Disaster RecoveryBusiness Alliance has a “sparkplug” whotakes the lead in organizing the Alliance,coordinating with “external” organizations(e.g., State emergency managementagency, Disaster Recovery BusinessAlliance, CUSEC, FEMA, etc.) who canprovide assistance, and otherwise assume

10

The Memphis Business EmergencyPreparedness Council has madesignificant strides in the past six months.With an executive director and start-upfunding in place, this coalition of businessand government is well positioned tobegin the implementation phase ofpriority projects and initiatives.

Evansville Disaster Recovery BusinessAlliance

Evansville presents a second public-private partnership model. One ofEvansville’s priorities as a ShowcaseCommunity is to form a DisasterRecovery Business Alliance that canprovide a forum for decisionmaking asrelates to charting a course for businessvulnerability reduction in Evansville-Vanderburgh County.

The impetus for the Evansville DRBAwas the April 15-16 Disaster ResistantCommunity workshop in Evansville. Thebreakout group on Business VulnerabilityReduction was charged with “developinga strategy and implementation plan toreduce the vulnerability of businesses inEvansville to natural hazards.

Seven projects were identified andprioritized. The group recommended theformation of a business alliance tocoordinate the implementation of theseprojects.

A Steering Committee was formed.The Chief Executive Officer of theMetropolitan Evansville Chamber ofCommerce took a lead role, together withthe Evansville Building Commissioner.On July 8, it was announced that DaleOlson, CEO of Citizens Insurance wouldbe the Chair of the Evansville DRBA.Furthermore, it was announced thatapproximately $50,000 had been raised -to be matched locally - to support the“embryonic” DRBA.

The next step was to convene anExecutive Roundtable on August 27 togain support of key business executives,and to devote a day (August 28) toprioritizing programs and developing animplementation strategy.

New Hanover County/Wilmington (NC)Disaster Recovery Business Alliance

North Carolina is the sight of a third“Disaster Recovery Business Alliance”model. This article was prepared byWill Brothers , of the North CarolinaDivision of Emergency Management.

The North Carolina Division ofEmergency Management is leading aneffort to develop an alliance of businessand industry, government agencies, andcommunity volunteer organizations toaddress the vulnerability of Wilmingtonarea businesses - and the community atlarge - to natural disasters.

The purpose of this alliance is to createa partnership that will encourage businessand industry to work in concert withgovernment agencies, research andacademia and others to develop pre-disaster plans and strategies to reducecommunity vulnerability to hurricanes,earthquakes, floods and other naturaldisasters, and in the process to expediteprivate sector recovery after a disaster.This broad-based initiative will also focuson mitigation and prevention planning askey elements in the recovery process.

This pilot effort - known as the NewHanover County/Wilmington DisasterRecovery Business Alliance - is takingplace in a region of North Carolina thathas experienced recent disasters. This areawas victimized by both Hurricane Berthain July 1996, and Hurricane Fran inSeptember 1996. Against this backdrop,a series of introductory meetings wereheld in May 1997 to discuss the nature ofthis initiative, who needs to be involved,and how the community - and businesses- will benefit from participation in thealliance.

The response by the private and publicsector has been very positive, with totalsupport from business, industry andgovernment. A Steering Committeemeeting will held in September 1997.Eric Tolbert, State Emergency Directorfor North Carolina is directing this newinitiative.

Partners within the Division includethe Carolina Power and Light Company,the Electric Power Research Institute, andthe Disaster Recovery Business Alliance.

Business Alliance

THE CUSEC JOURNAL11

a leadership role in “getting the BusinessAlliance started.”

The first twelve months or so will bedevoted to building the organization,recruiting members, raising funds, andidentifying programs and initiatives thatwill reduce the vulnerability of thecommunity and businesses to naturalhazards and other potential risks.

With the assistance of an ExecutiveCommittee and Alliance members, theChairman’s responsibilities will fall intoat least three areas:

OrganizationalEstablish charter and identify Alliancegoals, priorities, and resource needs.

AdministrativeServe as the principal point of contactwith external organizations in theorganizational phase.

Organize and conduct meetings of theAlliance. Ensure that minutes of themeetings are recorded and distributed.

Develop a constituency building andoutreach strategy to “grow” the Alliance(e.g., develop a brochure, establish a linkon a local web page, etc.).

Recruit members - business andgovernment - who will take an active rolein Alliance activities.

FinancialRecruit a Treasurer. Establish an Alliancedues structure.

Organize and conduct a fund-raisingcampaign to meet financial needs.

Step 3: Identify and prioritizeprograms and initiatives thatwill galvanize support for theAlliance and at the same timereduce the vulnerability ofbusinesses to natural hazardsand other potential risks.

This step is important, and will help todefine the Alliance. Both Evansville andMemphis have used roundtablediscussions and one-day workshops to“establish their identities,” identify theirpriorities, assess strengths andweaknesses, identify gaps in expertise,and lay the groundwork for a strategicplan.

This is also when the “external”organizations - FEMA, State EmergencyManagement Agency, American RedCross, CUSEC, Disaster RecoveryBusiness Alliance, Association ofContingency Planners, and others - canplay an important role in providingtechnical and financial assistance.

In the final analysis, the success of anAlliance comes down to local leadership,and commitment to make the Alliancework. There is no shortage of technicalexpertise and “implementable” programs;what is needed is vision, and follow-through on creative ideas.

DISASTER RECOVERYBUSINESS ALLIANCESM

The Disaster Recovery BusinessAlliance (DRBA) is an innovative,proactive, and collaborative approach tominimizing the social and economiclosses which result from regionaldisasters. The DRBA is supported by theElectric Power Research Institute, U.S.Department of Energy, and SouthernCalifornia organizations which havesupported the two year old program, theOrange County Disaster RecoveryAlliance.

The Charter of the Disaster RecoveryBusiness Alliance has five elements:

• To provide ongoing research anddevelopment into the role of theprivate sector in mitigating lossesfrom a wide range of natural andman-caused disasters;

• In the above capacity, to provideliaison at national and internationallevels with public agencies,researchers, and trade associations toadvance shared goals of hazardmitigation on behalf of communitiesand essential commercial services;

• To provide launch support,programs, leadership development,continuity and corporate structure toa network of regional alliances andtheir local members;

• To create a planning and needs-assessment environment which willfacilitate the cohesive deployment ofrelevant mitigation and recoverytechnologies;

• To provide a central point ofadministration, financialmanagement, and financialdevelopment for the regionalalliances and associated technologyuser groups.

The Disaster Recovery BusinessAlliance approach to disaster mitigationis complementary to other organizationsand their missions in six ways:

• A focus on strengthening criticalinter-corporate dependencies, ratherthan on corporate planning;

• Emphasis on lifelines and keyeconomic players serving ametropolitan area, not all businessesat once;

• Corporate membership, representedby teams of enterprise-wideexpertise, rather than individualprofessional memberships;

• Systematic recovery planningprocess with progressivedeliverables, resulting in permanentand ongoing legacy to theparticipants and the community;

• Focus on recovery andreconstruction, rather thanemergency response;

• Restoration and optimization ofnormal commercial channels, notdisaster relief.

12

State Earthquake Program

MISSOURI SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION OFFERSRECOMMENDATIONS TO GOVERNOR, LEGISLATURE

he Missouri SeismicSafety Commission(MSSC) formally pre-sented their state mandatedreport on Missouri’s

earthquake threat and preparedness toMissouri Governor Mel Carnahan on May7, 1997. The Commission was created bylegislative Statute in 1993 to guide theState’s earthquake risk reduction efforts.Missouri is at risk from moderate to largedamaging earthquakes occurring on theNew Madrid, the Wabash, the Nemaha,and other regional fault systems.

The Commission is comprised of 15individuals with expertise in areas that areimportant to earthquake risk reduction:public utilities, soils engineering,architecture, local government, electricengineering, insurance, American RedCross, planning, business, fire protection,geology, emergency management andstructural engineering. Two State electedofficials are also Commission members.

The report offers 38 recommendationsto the Governor and Legislature.However, the Commission prioritized thetop eight recommendations to theGovernor.

The top priority for the Awareness andEducation Committee is to continue andincrease earthquake awareness activitiesto Missouri citizens. This past year, theCommission sponsored an EarthquakeAwareness Week (February 2-8) anddistributed public awareness materials to47 counties most at risk from anearthquake.

The Response and RecoveryCommittee’s top priorities are toencourage continued response training forlocal emergency management officials,first responders and to increase offeringsof the Community Emergency ResponseTraining (CERT) to Missouri’s citizens.A second recommendation is to continueto train volunteer engineers, architects,and building inspectors to rapidly inspectdamaged buildings through the StructuralAssessment Visual Evaluation (SAVE)training.

The Geoscience Committee’s two toprecommendations are to establish aGeoscience Response Team to conductand study post earthquake damage inMissouri. They also recommend thecurrent Earthquake Mapping Projectsponsored by the State EmergencyManagement Agency continue.

The Mitigation Committee’s priorityrecommendations to the Governor andLegislature include: 1) legislation toincorporate seismic safety into allbuildings; 2) a continuation of theprogram - administered by the MissouriDepartment of Transportation - tocontinue to upgrade and retrofit allMissouri bridges; and 3) a request that theLegislature appropriate General Revenuefunds to support the bridge retrofittingprogram.

In the next two years, the MissouriSeismic Safety Commission plans tocontinue to implement the 38recommendations in their report and tobegin working with private industry toimplement seismic safety in theworkplace.

T

THE CUSEC JOURNAL13

Since the 1989 Loma Prietaearthquake, Memphis Light, Gas andWater (MLGW) has pursued anaggressive plan to upgrade the utility’selectrical distribution system to reducethe vulnerability of this critical lifelinefollowing a damaging earthquake.Studies carried out by Allen and Hoshall(Memphis), the University of Memphis,and the National Center for EarthquakeEngineering Research (NCEER) havefocused on the vulnerability of theelectrical system to groundshaking, andpotential liquefaction. These studieshave also noted the interdependency oflifelines; that is, in the case of Memphis,water supply and distribution isdependent on the availability of electricpower (which power water pumpingstations).

A new initiative, undertaken withfunding provided by FEMA, is focusingon water distribution. The MLGW hascarried out a seismic retrofit project toprotect its Davis Water Pumping Station(located in Southeast Memphis), and toenhance the survivability of theconnections between the waterdistribution lines in one third of thecity’s production wells. The total cost ofthe retrofit of the Davis Water PumpingStation project is $448,000; theestimated cost of replacing the pumpingstation in the event of a large earthquakeis $17 million. The cost increases to$112 million when lost revenue fromlack of water service is factored in.

The second phase of the project willinvolve the replacement of 55 of thecity’s 170 rigid production wellconnectors with flexible connectorswhich better withstand the groundmotions and displacement often causedby seismic activity. The project involvesinstalling a flexible connection betweenthe rigid well pipe and the collectingmain. The result, according to MLGWengineers, is that the connectors willincrease the well’s capacity to withstanda 6.5 to 7.5 earthquake in the NewMadrid seismic zone. The cost ofretrofitting each well is approximately$9,200; this investment will help MLGWavoid estimated losses of $188,000 perday for each well connector damaged in afuture event.

This project will provide a number ofbenefits to not only MLGW, but thecommunity at large. Recent earthquakescontinue to demonstrate how criticalwater supply is to business resumptionand the pace of community recoveryefforts. Furthermore, it is clear that alack of water is going to serve as a majorimpediment to firefighting efforts, andother critical functions associated withemergency response and immediaterecovery efforts.

MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS, AND WATER CARRIES OUT SEISMICRETROFITTING TO PROTECT LIFELINES

14

State Earthquake Program

The New Madrid region is the mostseismically active area east of theRocky Mountains. Since its inception,CUSEC has recognized theimportance of basing its policies andprograms on scientifically soundinformation of the seismic hazard.Against this backdrop, the CUSECState Geologists were organized, withfunding from USGS, to assist themember states in identifying,gathering, analyzing, and interpretingseismic hazard information. Thefollowing article was written byRobert Bauer, Illinois StateGeological Survey, and the CUSECState Geologists Project Coordinator.

The first electronic map showing theclassification for soil amplification fromearthquake activity was turned over tothe Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) for inclusion in theirnational computer program forEarthquake Loss Estimation. The map,108 miles east-west and 70 miles north-south, covers the southern 1/3 of Illinois

and parts of Missouri, Kentucky andIndiana and was produced by the StateGeological Surveys in coordination withthe Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium(CUSEC). This is the first of 12 maps ofa scale of about one inch equals fourmiles, that will cover most of the highearthquake risk areas surrounding theNew Madrid Fault Zone .

These maps are specifically designedto be used in FEMA’s computerizedprogram that will be made availablenationally to state and local governmentsin 1997. The maps, when used inconjunction with placement of anearthquake of any magnitude, will showhow much the soils will amplify theearthquake ground motions. The LossEstimation methodology will thenestimate the amount of damage tobuildings and infrastructure, andcasualties. This will be a valuable toolfor mitigation work, preparingearthquake response plans and producingrealistic earthquake scenarios forexercises for emergency managers to

CUSEC STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS PRODUCESOIL AMPLIFICATION MAP FOR EARTHQUAKE LOSS ESTIMATION

This map shows the 1 x 2 degree namedquadrangles superimposed over the new USGSprobability map showing area of peakacceleration of 10% to 80% g with a 2%probability of exceedance in 50 years. Boxedareas are quadrangles which are currently beingmapped for seismic amplification by the CUSECState Geologists.

use. This work has been supported bythe U.S. Geological Survey’s NationalEarthquake Hazards Reduction Programalong with matching funds from theindividual State Geological Surveys.

Earthquake ground motionamplification or amplification capabilitymaps are based on the understanding ofthe earth’s upper 100 feet of geologicmaterials - 3-dimensional maps. It hasbeen found that variations in soilproperties and their thickness producedifferent amounts of amplification ofearthquake ground motion. Otherresearchers have previously produced acorrelation between measuredamplifications, observed earthquakeintensities (shaking), shear-wavevelocities characteristic of the soils, andphysical properties of geologic materialsas mapped in the upper 100 feet ofsediment. With these correlations, aclassification criteria of Soil Profile Typeswas established. Amplification ofearthquake ground motions by soils isprimarily dependent on their shear-wavevelocity characteristics. The CUSECState Geologists collected available shear-wave velocity measurements of soils inthe Midwest and compared them to thenear surface soil profiles. It was foundthat the soil types of the Midwest andtheir shear-wave velocities correlated withthe previously defined classificationwhich was based on work in the WesternU.S. Therefore, amplification maps inthe Midwest can be produced with a 3-dimensional understanding of the nearsurface materials and assigning generalshear-wave velocity values as defined inthe classification and making some of ourown shear-wave velocity measurementsfor unique stacks of materials in theMidwest.

The role and potential contributions ofthe CUSEC State Geologists in thedevelopment of HAZUS and other keyprograms will be among the subjects of ajoint meeting between the StateGeologists and Earthquake ProgramManagers on September 10, in Memphis.

THE CUSEC JOURNALNational Earthquake Program15

One of the greatest challenges forpolicy makers and practitioners in theearthquake risk reduction field is howto effectively address the complexissues associated with reducing thevulnerability of existing hazardousbuildings (e.g., unreinforced masonrystructures) that comprise a significantportion of the building stock in thedowntown areas of communities in theCentral U.S. - large and small. Thefollowing article provides an overviewand update of an important FEMA ledinitiative on Seismic Safety of ExistingBuildings. It was written by UgoMorelli , Policy Manager at FEMA,who has taken a leadership role in thedevelopment of the national programto promote seismic safety of existingbuildings.

SEISMIC SAFETY OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: AN UPDATE

Introduction

Since 1984, the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) has hadunderway a comprehensive, closelycoordinated program to develop a bodyof building practices that would increasethe ability of existing buildings towithstand the forces of earthquakes.Societal implications and issues relatedto the use of these improved practiceshave also been examined. At a cost ofabout $25 million, two dozenpublications, software programs, andaudio-visual training materials havealready been produced and distributed.The intended audiences includes designprofessionals, buildings regulatorypersonnel, local and State planning anddevelopment personnel, high-levelmanagers, master builders, educators,researchers, and the general public. Theprogram has proceeded along separate,but parallel approaches in dealing withprivate-sector and with Federalbuildings.

Private Sector Buildings

Already available to private-sectorpractitioners and other interested partiesis a “technical platform” of consensuscriteria on how to deal with some of themajor engineering aspects of seismicrehabilitation of buildings. Thistechnical material is contained in atrilogy, with supporting documentation,completed in 1992: 1) a method for rapididentification of buildings that might behazardous in case of an earthquake thatcan be conducted without gaining accessto the buildings themselves; 2) amethodology for a more detailedevaluation of a building that identifiesstructural flaws that have caused collapsein past earthquakes and might do soagain in future earthquakes, nowundergoing upgrading and expansion;and 3) a compendium of the mostcommonly used techniques of seismicrehabilitation.

In addition to these engineeringtopics, the program has also beenconcerned with societal implications ofseismic rehabilitation. Two editions of astudy of seismic rehabilitation costs havebeen prepared. Benefit/cost models andassociated software for application toboth private-sector buildings and Federalbuildings have also been developed. Forthe use of decisionmakers, major socio-economic issues that are likely to arise ina locality that undertakes seismicrehabilitation of its building stock havebeen identified, together with ways toarray them, and methods to analyzethem. Potential incentives have alsobeen identified.

The culmination activity in this fieldwill be the completion in September 1997of The NEHRP Guidelines for SeismicRehabilitation of Buildings andCommentary, FEMA 273 and 274, acomprehensive set of nationallyapplicable and consensus-backedtechnical criteria intended to ensure thatbuildings will better withstandearthquakes. This is a multi-year, multi-million dollar effort that represents a firstof its kind in the United States and willfill a significant gap in the segment of theNational Earthquake Hazards ReductionProgram dealing with the seismic safetyof existing buildings. These publicationswill allow practitioners to choose designapproaches consistent with differentlevels of seismic safety as required bygeographic location (seismicity),performance objective, type of building,occupancy, or other relevantconsiderations. Included will be newanalytical techniques and acceptancecriteria for all building materials andbuilding types that will yield reliableestimates of the seismic performance ofrehabilitated buildings.

The two documents are being givenconsensus review by representatives of abroad spectrum of users, including theconstruction industry, building regulatoryorganizations, building owners andoccupants groups, academic and researchinstitutions, financial establishments,local, State and Federal levels ofgovernment, and the general public. Theyhave passed the first ballot and are nowbeing balloted again to resolve issuesraised in the first ballot. This process isintended to ensure their nationalapplicability and encourage theirwidespread acceptance and use bypractitioners. It is expected that, withtime, the Guidelines and Commentary willbe adapted and adopted by model buildingcode organizations and standards-settinggroups, and thus will diffuse widely intothe building design and practices of theUnited States.

16

Significant corollary products of thisactivity are expected. Principal amongthem will be Example Applications of theNEHRP Guidelines for the SeismicRehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 276,an engineering applications handbookwith refined costs data; a somewhatsimilar handbook, Planning for SeismicRehabilitation: Societal Issues, intendedfor the use of decisionmakers at the localgovernment level, building owners, andsimilar audiences; a plan for a structuredtransfer of the technology embodied inthe Guidelines using advanceddissemination media; an identification ofmeans to ensure the continuing currencyand adequacy of the Guidelines; and anidentification of the most urgent researchand development needs.

Federal Buildings

In compliance with a Congressionalmandate contained in P.L. 101-614, a setof technical criteria with commentarywas developed by the InteragencyCommittee on Seismic Safety inConstruction (ICSSC), with managementand funding by FEMA. The criteriaprovide Federal agencies with minimumlife-safety standards for both the seismicevaluation and the seismic rehabilitationof buildings in agency inventories.To promulgate the standards, anExecutive Order was also prepared.

The order (No. 12941) was signed bythe President on December 1, 1994. Inaddition to promulgation of thestandards, it initiates a modest programof seismic rehabilitation in ExecutiveBranch owned and leased buildings byrequiring that the new standards beapplied in five specified conditions, or“triggers”. One such condition, andprobably the most significant of the five,is a normal upgrading or renovation of aFederally owned or leased buildingcosting more than 50 percent of thereplacement value of that building. TheOrder also requires Federal Agencies toinventory their owned and leasedbuilding stock and develop data on thecost of seismically rehabilitating it by

December 1998. These data will be thebasis for the preparation by FEMA of acomprehensive long-term program toensure the seismic safety of all ownedand leased Federal buildings that is dueto the Congress by December 1, 2000.Guidance to the Agencies as to how toproceed in the preparation of therequired materials was completed andissued by the ICSSC by December 1,1995, as mandated by the Order.Agencies are progressing towardimplementing the guidance as quickly asresources can be mustered. A summaryof the progress so far achieved was madeavailable to the President and theCongress in March 1997 in the firstmandated biennial report on this subject.

STATUS REPORT ONOTHER SEISMIC SAFETYINITIATIVES

In addition to the NEHRPGuidelines for the SeismicRehabilitation of Buildings and relatedCommentary (FEMA 273 and FEMA274, respectively), which are the“cornerstone” projects of a nationaleffort to improve seismic safety ofexisting buildings, there are otherimportant, related initiatives in thisongoing effort.

The Updating of FEMA 178,NEHRP Manual for the SeismicEvaluation of Existing Buildings, aimsat expanding and updating the existingdocument, which has become a de factostandard in this country and a de jurestandard in Canada (with somemodifications). The new version willcover higher-than-life-safety levels(consistent with the Guidelines),incorporate lessons learned from

earthquakes that have occurred in thisdecade, and reformat the contents into anAmerican Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE) pre-standard.

The Plan 20005 Project is designedto provide FEMA with another“roadmap” for improving the seismicsafety of existing buildings, similar to aneffort in 1985. The EarthquakeEngineering Research Institute (EERI) isthe contractor; an issues workshop washeld on August 12-13 to launch thisimportant initiative. The project isscheduled for completion in March,1998.

The Case Studies Project is intendedto provide defensible evidence that theGuidelines for the SeismicRehabilitation of Buildings yieldsrationale designs, is easy to use in the“real world”, is not too expensive toapply, is not more stringent than new-building provisions, and in the process,addresses “predictable” questions andissues that are likely to arise amongdesign professionals. A planned mix of50 buildings will be analyzed during thecourse of this project, which is scheduledfor completion in the spring of 1999.

THE CUSEC JOURNAL17

While considerable progress hasbeen made in recent years in thetechnical and engineering aspects of“seismic rehabilitation” of existingbuildings, emphasis more recently isbeing placed on “societal” issues. Inessence, what are the socio-economicissues that need to be addressed toeffectively promote the adoption ofseismic rehabilitation of existingbuildings? This is a key componentof the Seismic Rehabilitation ofExisting Buildings initiative, asreflected in the following article,prepared by James R. Smith,Executive Director, Building SeismicSafety Council.

Those involved in the complexprocess of preparing the NEHRPGuidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitationof Buildings (FEMA 273) and itsCommentary (FEMA 274) recognizedfrom the outset the importance ofhelping users deal with the social,economic, and public policycomplexities of rehabilitation. Theynoted that seismic rehabilitationdecision-makers quite likely are nottechnically oriented but will have to say“yea” or “nay” on incorporatinginformation into local practices, be theybusiness or regulatory. The SocietalIssues volume (FEMA 275) has beenprepared by Dr. Robert Olson, RobertOlson Associates, Inc., as part of theGuidelines effort to: (1) acquaintpotential users of the Guidelines withtypical problems not related to designand construction processes that mightarise when planning or engaging inseismic rehabilitation projects andprograms; and (2) to alert readers to thedifficulties inherent in implementingseismic rehabilitation recommendations.

The goals of seismic rehabilitation areimportant. They include, above all,protecting life and property in futureearthquakes as well as protectinginvestments, lengthening a building’susable life, reducing demands on post-earthquake search and rescue efforts,protecting historic structures, shorteningbusiness interruption time, maintaininginventories and customers, and reducingthe possibility of having to relocate.Other goals include limiting the need forpost-earthquake emergency shelter andtemporary housing, minimizing therelease of hazardous substances, conserv-ing natural resources, avoiding the costlyprocesses of settling insurance claims andapplying for post-disaster aid, protectingsavings and contingency funds, reducingthe amount of debris to be disposed, andgreatly facilitating an earthquake strickencommunity’s return to normal patterns ofactivity.

The Societal Issues volume is struc-tured to emphasize two basic user-oriented concepts.

• The first is a four-step iterativeprocess designed to outline a set ofdecision points so the user candetermine the need for and scope ofseismic rehabilitation efforts.

• The second offers a simple“Escalation Ladder” to help usersunderstand the degree of conflictinherent in and the implications ofchoosing what, if any, seismicrehabilitation strategies to follow.

The publication also examines thespectrum of socioeconomic issues orproblems that could face those involvedin seismic rehabilitation efforts; eachissue is discussed in terms of the natureof the problem, typical issues, and someexample solutions. The spectrumincludes issues related to historicproperties, the distribution of economicimpacts, occupant dislocation, businessinterruption, effects on housing stock,rehabilitation triggers, financingrehabilitation, legal problems, and theselection of buildings or properties forrehabilitation.

Inasmuch as the majority of users ofthe Guidelines and this publication aremost likely to be design professionals,local building and planning officials andprivate owners, three illustrative“application scenarios” are presented.Each scenario presents a situation (for aprivate company facilities manager, alocal government city manager andbuilding official, and a consultingengineer) and a list of considerations thatwould commonly have to be addressed.This publication also provides anextensive reference section to help thereader locate additional applicablematerials.

PLANNING FOR SEISMIC REHABILITATION:SOCIETAL ISSUES

Seismic Rehabilitation

SEISMIC SAFETY OF EXISTING BUILDINGS:Reducing Earthquake Hazards in the Central U.S.

This booklet, written by Robert B.Olshansky, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign, is the latest in thepopular series, Reducing EarthquakeHazards in the Central U.S. Otherbooklets cover: Seismic Building Codes,Critical Facilities, State Seismic SafetyAdvisory Committees, HistoricResources, Seismic Hazards Mapping,Nonstructural Hazards, and Education ofArchitects and Engineers.

One of the greatest challenges facingState and local planners, hazardsmanagers, policy makers and others whohave a role in promoting seismic safety is,“how to reduce the vulnerability ofexisting hazardous buildings.” Morespecifically, in a region of the nationwhere the earthquake risk can becharacterized as “low probability - highconsequence,” what steps can be taken -over a period of several years - togradually reduce the vulnerability ofthese structures?

This booklet outlines a step by stepprocess for communities to follow indeveloping a strategy for seismic“rehabilitation” (repairing orstrengthening of an existing building toimprove its seismic safety). Seismicrehabilitation not only will save lives andminimize injuries from futureearthquakes, but also protect property,maintain continuity of businessoperations, and preserve affordablehousing and historic buildings.

In laying out the step-by-step process,reference is made to key studies andpublications - notably the FEMAEarthquake Hazards Reduction Series(“yellow books”) - that provide moredetailed information on each of therecommended actions contained inSeismic Safety of Existing Buildings.

The first step is toidentify structures inyour community thatmay be vulnerable toearthquakes.Fortunately, thefederal government,through the AppliedTechnology Council(ATC), hasdeveloped asystematic methodfor visuallyevaluating buildingsfor seismic safety.The “ATC-21”procedure is alsooutlined in a 1995CUSEC publication,Rapid VisualScreening of Buildings for PotentialSeismic Hazards: A Guide forCommunities in the Central United States.

With an inventory in hand, Olshanskylays out the following steps: 1) Determinehazardous building priorities in yourcommunity, giving consideration tohazardous structural types (e.g.,unreinforced masonry, steel or concreteframe, etc.), occupancy and use (e.g.,buildings that hold large numbers ofpeople, and critical occupancy buildingssuch as schools and hospitals), historicbuildings, and public buildings;2) Consider what seismic rehabilitation isgoing to cost, including direct costs(actual rehabilitation) and indirect costs(e.g., costs to community, owner, tenant,etc.); and 3) Choose an appropriateseismic rehabilitation plan for stabilizingexisting buildings. A range of options areoffered, from voluntary programs, whichare the easiest to implement (but notalways the most effective), to mandatoryprograms, which may be the mosteffective, but also are the most expensiveand controversial means of achievingseismic rehabilitation.

The final section examines the criticalissue of “how to pay for seismicrehabilitation.” Private sector andcommunity incentives are examined, aswell as the role of State and federalgovernments in providing financial andtechnical assistance to communities andhomeowners to promote seismicrehabilitation of existing buildings.

The value of this booklet is that itprovides a simplified, easy to followprocess for communities and individualswho are interested in rehabilitating theirhazardous buildings. As mentioned in theprevious articles, there is a tremendousamount of technical information andresearch on the subject of seismicrehabilitation. It is easy to becomeoverwhelmed with data and studies.Seismic Safety of Existing Buildings is notintended to provide practitioners with agreat deal of technical data, but ratherbuilds a “framework and methodology forapproaching seismic rehabilitation ofexisting buildings.” With the aid ofseveral case studies from around thecountry, this publication is very readable,and useful.

18

FIG 4. HAZUS can be used to support an inventory of hazardous structures in yourcommunity. Source: Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

THE CUSEC JOURNAL19

USEFUL PUBLICATIONS

The Northridge Earthquake: LandUse Planning for Hazard Mitigation.Steven French, Arthur Nelson, S.Muthukumar, and Maureen M. Holland.1996, 160 pp. Prepaid ($10.00) copiesavailable from the City PlanningProgram, College of Architecture,Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,GA 30332-0155.

The Northridge earthquake (1994)provided an opportunity to examine theeffectiveness of land use planning forseismic safety, which has been mandatedin California for the past twenty years.Among the findings, the studydetermined that: 1) the hazarddelineation and public awarenesscomponents were effective; 2) lessdamage occurred in areas that werepreviously identify as likely toexperience liquefaction; and 3) planninghad a modest overall impact on reducingearthquake damage. This study providesland use planners and other practitionersin the Central U.S. with insight into role- and limitations - of land use planningas a tool for mitigating losses from futureearthquakes.

Economic Consequences ofEarthquakes: Preparing for theUnexpected. Edited by Barclay Jones.Report: NCEER SP-0001; ISBN 0-9656682-0-7). Copies ($40) areavailable from NCEER Publications,Red Jacket Quadrangle, State Universityof New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY14261.

This special report examines the ramifi-cations of large-scale earthquakes in theU.S. and preparedness options tominimize losses. Fifteen commissionedpapers are contained in the report,prepared by experts in the fields ofseismology, engineering, sociology,business and insurance. This publicationis useful to business, financial andgovernment policymakers - and otherswho are interested in the earthquake risk

in the U.S., and the potential implica-tions for economic recovery. Among thetopics addressed: characteristics ofearthquakes in the Eastern and CentralU.S., the impact of earthquakes onbusinesses and the economy, andrecommendations for future action.

Existing School Buildings: Incre-mental Seismic Retrofit Opportunities.Edited by Len Benning. 1995, 60 pp.Limited copies available from theFederal Emergency ManagementAgency, 500 C Street, SW. Washington,DC 20472.

One of the most significant challengesfor local officials who are concernedwith earthquake risk reduction andpublic safety is “what to do with existinghazardous school buildings (e.g.,unreinforced masonry )?” This intent ofthis document is to provide technicalguidance to school district facilitymanagers for linking specificincremental seismic retrofit opportunitiesto specific maintenance and capitalimprovements projects. The premise is -the best opportunity for implementingany structural or non-structuralmitigation technique is in conjunctionwith a maintenance or capitalimprovement project. With that in mind,the project team developed a matrix ofretrofit measures that could beundertaken by school facility managersin concert with general schoolmaintenance or improvement projects.In the process, this document provides auseful framework with which to developa strategy for reducing the vulnerabilityof individual schools.

Engineering and SocioeconomicAnalysis of a New MadridEarthquake: Impacts of ElectricityLifeline Disruptions in Memphis,Tennessee. Edited by MasanobuShinozuke, Adam Rose and RonaldEguchi. National Center for Earthquake

Engineering Research (NCEER). Limitedcopies available from NCEERPublications, Red Jacket Quadrangle,State University of New York at Buffalo,Buffalo, NY 14261.

Electricity is one of several utilitiestermed “lifelines” because of their crucialrole in maintaining social and economicsystems and because of their networkcharacteristics, which make themespecially vulnerable to disruption fromnatural disasters. This monograph,produced by an interdisciplinary team forNCEER, presents an integrated study ofthe implications of an electricity lifelinedisruption caused by a major earthquakein the New Madrid Earthquake Zone.Chapters address the results of a surveyon business vulnerability in Memphis,estimates of economic impacts, andestimates of regional impacts. Amongthe findings of the study: while Memphisbusinesses are highly vulnerable to loss ofelectric power, this concern and generalawareness of the problem is not -generally speaking - being translated intowidespread adoption of preparedness andmitigation measures. The authors suggestthat a new strategy is needed, one thatincorporates incentives.

20

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 associatemember states: Alabama, George, Iowa,Louisiana, South Carolina, NorthCarolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Nebraska andVirginia. The Federal EmergencyManagement Agency provides the basicfunding for the 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 ................................ cusec@ceri.memphis.edu

S T A F F

Joe Dillard, DirectorArkansas Office of Emergency Services

John Mitchell , 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

Addressing the Earthquake Risk in the Central U.S.: A Forumfor Insurance and Earthquake Hazards Professionals

December 3, 1997 at the Peabody Hotel, Memphis

This one day forum will focus on the nature, scope andcharacteristics of the earthquake risk in the Central United States,with emphasis on the implications for the insurance industry.Sessions will cover: Seismic Risk in the Central U.S.; Availabilityof Data and Maps on the Earthquake Risk; Insuring the EarthquakeRisk in the Central U.S.: Meeting the Challenge; ImplementingMitigation Measures: Role of the Insurance Industry; Establishinga “Working Partnership” with Insurance Industry. For moreinformation on this forum, please contact CUSEC.

The CUSEC Board and staff bid a fond farewell to Joe Dillard,board member from Arkansas, and wish him all the best in his newpursuits. Gov. Huckabee announced that Bud Harper, countyexecutive from Sabastian County, will become the new director inArkansas. CUSEC also welcomes Patrick Ralston, State Director,Indiana State Emergency Management Agency. Pat was formerlythe director, Indiana Department of Natural Resources. MikeLynch, former Program Manager, Kentucky has become the StateHazard Mitigation Officer for Kentucky, and his position has beentaken by Gelonda Casey, who comes to the KYDES from theKentucky Workforce Development Cabinet where she assisted inthe coordination of a federally funded training and educationprogram, the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA).