initial commit of ebook 18527HEADmain

1 files changed, 2872 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/18527.txt b/18527.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7427c4a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/18527.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2872 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of An Assessment of the Consequences and
+Preparations for a Catastrophic California Earthquake: Findings and Actions Taken, by Various
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: An Assessment of the Consequences and Preparations for a Catastrophic California Earthquake: Findings and Actions Taken
+       Prepared By Federal Emergency Management Agency
+
+Author: Various
+
+Release Date: June 7, 2006 [EBook #18527]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Jeannie Howse and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+  +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
+  | Transcriber's Note:                                             |
+  |                                                                 |
+  | In this document, _italics_ are represented as underscores,     |
+  | =bold text= is marked with equals signs, and bullets are        |
+  | represented as "                                                |
+  |                                                                 |
+  | One of the tables in this document is very wide (80 characters) |
+  |                                                                 |
+  +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+
+AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES
+AND PREPARATIONS FOR A CATASTROPHIC
+CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE:
+FINDINGS AND ACTIONS TAKEN
+
+
+PREPARED BY
+FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
+FROM ANALYSES CARRIED OUT BY THE
+NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
+ad hoc COMMITTEE ON ASSESSMENT OF
+CONSEQUENCES AND PREPARATIONS FOR
+A MAJOR CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE
+
+
+
+[Illustration: fema symbol
+federal emergency
+management agency]
+
+Washington, D.C. 20472
+November 1980
+
+
+
+
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+
+
+                                                             Page
+
+CHAPTER:
+
+  I. Executive Summary of Findings, Issues, and Actions         1
+
+ II. Geologic Earthquake Scenarios                             15
+
+III. Assessment of Losses for Selected Potential
+     California Earthquakes                                    21
+
+ IV. An Assessment of the Current State of Readiness
+     Capability of Federal, State, and Local
+     Governments for Earthquake Response                       27
+
+  V. An Assessment of the Social Impacts                       35
+
+
+ANNEX:
+
+    1. Copies of Correspondence Between President
+       Carter and Governor Brown                               37
+
+    2. Current California and Federal Earthquake
+       Response Planning                                       43
+
+    3. California Assembly Bill No. 2202                       53
+
+
+ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                               57
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+
+EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, ISSUES, AND ACTIONS
+
+
+A. BACKGROUND
+
+After viewing the destruction wrought by the eruption of Mt. St.
+Helens in Washington State in May 1980, President Carter became
+concerned about the impacts of a similar event of low probability but
+high damage potential, namely a catastrophic earthquake in California,
+and the state of readiness to cope with the impacts of such an event.
+
+As a result of the President's concern, an _ad hoc_ committee of the
+National Security Council was formed to conduct a government review of
+the consequences of, and preparation for such an event. In addition to
+the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Committee included
+representatives from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the
+United States Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior, the
+Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation, and the
+National Communications System, at the Federal level; State of
+California agencies and California local governments at the State and
+local levels; and consultants from the private sector. During the
+summer of 1980, the participants in this review prepared working papers
+on relevant issues and problem areas for the consideration of the _ad
+hoc_ committee. Pertinent facts, conclusions and recommendations were
+reviewed with the Governor of the State of California. The President
+reviewed the _ad hoc_ committee's findings and approved the
+recommendations for Federal action. This report summarizes the results
+of the assessment and notes these actions.
+
+A number of Federal legislative and administrative actions have been
+taken to bring about, in the near future, an increased capability to
+respond to such an event. The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977
+(P.L. 95-124) authorizes a coordinated and structured program to
+identify earthquake risks and prepare to lessen or mitigate their
+impacts by a variety of means. The coordination of this program, the
+National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), is the
+responsibility of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
+which is charged with focusing Federal efforts to respond to
+emergencies of all types and lessen their impacts before they occur.
+The NEHRP has six high-priority thrusts:
+
+      " Overall coordination of Federal departments and agencies'
+        programs
+
+      " Maintenance of a comprehensive program of research and
+        development for earthquake prediction and hazards
+        mitigation
+
+      " Leadership and support of the Federal Interagency
+        Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction as it develops
+        seismic design and construction standards for use in
+        Federal projects
+
+      " Development of response plans and assistance to State and
+        local governments in the preparation of their plans
+
+      " Analysis of the ability of financial institutions to
+        perform their functions after a creditable prediction of
+        an earthquake as well as after an event, together with an
+        exploration of the feasibility of using these institutions
+        to foster hazard reduction
+
+      " An examination of the appropriate role of insurance in
+        mitigating the impacts of earthquakes.
+
+More recently, a cooperative Federal, State, local, and private-sector
+effort was initiated to prepare for responding to a credible
+large-magnitude earthquake, or its prediction, in Southern California.
+
+
+B. SUMMARY
+
+The review provided the overall assessment that the Nation is
+essentially unprepared for the catastrophic earthquake (with a
+probability greater than 50 percent) that must be expected in
+California in the next three decades. While current response plans and
+preparedness measures may be adequate for moderate earthquakes,
+Federal, State, and local officials agree that preparations are
+woefully inadequate to cope with the damage and casualties from a
+catastrophic earthquake, and with the disruptions in communications,
+social fabric, and governmental structure that may follow. Because of
+the large concentration of population and industry, the impacts of
+such an earthquake would surpass those of any natural disaster thus
+far experienced by the Nation. Indeed, the United States has not
+suffered any disaster of this magnitude on its own territory since the
+Civil War.
+
+The basis for this overall assessment is summarized below and
+discussed in more detail in the subsequent chapters of this report.
+
+
+C. LIKELIHOOD OF FUTURE EARTHQUAKES
+
+Earth scientists unanimously agree on the inevitability of major
+earthquakes in California. The gradual movement of the Pacific Plate
+relative to the North American Plate leads to the inexorable
+concentration of strain along the San Andreas and related fault
+systems. While some of this strain is released by moderate and smaller
+earthquakes and by slippage without earthquakes, geologic studies
+indicate that the vast bulk of the strain is released through the
+occurrence of major earthquakes--that is, earthquakes with Richter
+magnitudes of 7.0 and larger and capable of widespread damage in a
+developed region. Along the Southern San Andreas fault, some 30 miles
+from Los Angeles, for example, geologists can demonstrate that at
+least eight major earthquakes have occurred in the past 1,200 years
+with an average spacing in time of 140 years, plus or minus 30 years.
+The last such event occurred in 1857. Based on these statistics and
+other geophysical observations, geologists estimate that the
+probability for the recurrence of a similar earthquake is currently as
+large as 2 to 5 percent per year and greater than 50 percent in the
+next 30 years. Geologic evidence also indicates other faults capable
+of generating major earthquakes in other locations near urban centers
+in California, including San Francisco-Oakland, the immediate Los
+Angeles region, and San Diego. Seven potential events have been
+postulated for purposes of this review and are discussed in chapter
+II. The current estimated probability for a major earthquake in these
+other locations is smaller, but significant. The aggregate probability
+for a catastrophic earthquake in the whole of California in the next
+three decades is well in excess of 50 percent.
+
+
+D. CASUALTIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGE
+
+Casualties and property damage estimates for four of the most likely
+catastrophic earthquakes in California were prepared to form a basis
+for emergency preparedness and response. Chapter III gives details on
+these estimates. Deaths and injuries would occur principally because
+of the failure of man-made structures, particularly older, multistory,
+and unreinforced brick masonry buildings built before the adoption of
+earthquake-resistant building codes. Experience has shown that some
+modern multistory buildings--constructed as recently as the late
+1960's but not adequately designed or erected to meet the current
+understanding of requirements for seismic resistance--are also subject
+to failure. Strong ground shaking, which is the primary cause of
+damage during earthquakes, often extends over vast areas. For example,
+in an earthquake similar to that which occurred in 1857, strong ground
+shaking (above the threshold for causing damage) would extend in a
+broad strip along the Southern San Andreas fault, about 250 miles long
+and 100 miles wide, and include almost all of the Los Angeles-San
+Bernardino metropolitan area, and all of Ventura, Santa Barbara, San
+Luis Obispo, and Kern counties.
+
+For the most probable catastrophic earthquake--a Richter magnitude 8+
+earthquake similar to that of 1857, which occurred along the Southern
+San Andreas fault--estimates of fatalities range from about 3,000, if
+the earthquake were to occur at 2:30 a.m. when the population is
+relatively safe at home, to more than 13,000, if the earthquake were to
+occur at 4:30 p.m. on a weekday, when much of the population is either
+in office buildings or on the streets. Injuries serious enough to
+require hospitalization under normal circumstances are estimated to be
+about four times as great as fatalities. For the less likely prospect
+of a Richter magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood fault in
+the immediate Los Angeles area, fatalities are estimated to be about
+4,000 to 23,000, at the same respective times. Such an earthquake,
+despite its smaller magnitude, would be more destructive because of its
+relative proximity to the most heavily developed regions; however, the
+probability of this event is estimated to be only about 0.1 percent per
+year. Smaller magnitude--and consequently less damaging--earthquakes
+are anticipated with greater frequency on a number of fault systems in
+California.
+
+In either of these earthquakes, casualties could surpass the previous
+single greatest loss of life in the United States due to a natural
+disaster, which was about 6,000 persons killed when a hurricane and
+storm surge struck the Galveston area of the Texas coast in 1900. The
+highest loss of life due to earthquakes in the United States occurred
+in San Francisco in 1906, when 700 people were killed. By way of
+comparison (in spite of the vast differences in building design and
+practices and socioeconomic systems) the devastating 1976 Tangshan
+earthquake in China caused fatalities ranging from the official
+Chinese Government figure of 242,000 to unofficial estimates as high
+as 700,000. Fortunately, building practices in the United States
+preclude such a massive loss of life.
+
+Property losses are expected to be higher than in any past earthquake
+in the United States. For example, San Francisco in 1906, and
+Anchorage in 1964, were both much less developed than today when they
+were hit by earthquakes. And the San Fernando earthquake in 1971, was
+only a moderate shock that struck on the fringe of a large urban area.
+Each of these three earthquakes caused damage estimated at about $0.5
+billion in the then current dollars. Estimates of property damage for
+the most probable catastrophic earthquake on the Southern San Andreas
+(Richter magnitude 8+) and for the less probable but more damaging one
+(Richter magnitude 7.5) on the Newport-Inglewood fault, are about $15
+billion and $70 billion respectively. By comparison, tropical storm
+Agnes caused the largest economic loss due to a natural disaster in
+the United States to date but it amounted to only $3.5 billion (in
+1972 dollars).
+
+It should be noted, however, that substantial uncertainty exists in
+casualty and property damage estimates because they are based on
+experience with only moderate earthquakes in the United States (such
+as the 1971 San Fernando earthquake) and experience in other countries
+where buildings are generally less resistant to damage. The
+uncertainty is so large that the estimated impacts could be off by a
+factor of two or three, either too high or too low. Even if these
+lowest estimates prevail, however, the assessment about preparedness
+and the capability to respond to the disasters discussed in this
+report would be substantially unchanged.
+
+Assuming a catastrophic earthquake, a variety of secondary problems
+could also be expected. Search and rescue operations--requiring heavy
+equipment to move debris--would be needed to free people trapped in
+collapsed buildings. It is likely that injuries, particularly those
+immediately after the event, could overwhelm medical capabilities,
+necessitating a system of allocating medical resources to those who
+could be helped the most. Numerous local fires must be expected;
+nevertheless, a conflagration such as that which followed the Tokyo
+earthquake of 1923, or the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, is
+improbable, unless a "Santa Ana type" wind pattern is in effect. Since
+the near failure of a dam in the San Fernando, California, earthquake
+of 1971 (which was a moderate event), substantial progress has been
+made in California to reduce the hazard from dams, in some cases
+through reconstruction. For planning purposes, however, experts
+believe that the failure of at least one dam should be anticipated
+during a catastrophic earthquake in either the Los Angeles or San
+Francisco regions.
+
+Experience in past earthquakes, particularly the 1971 San Fernando
+earthquake, has demonstrated the potential vulnerability of commercial
+telephone service to earthquakes, including the possibility of damage
+to switching facilities from ground shaking and rupture of underground
+cables that cross faults. This is especially serious because
+immediately following earthquakes, public demand for telephone
+services increases drastically. This increased demand overloads the
+capability of the system, even if it had not been damaged, and
+therefore management action to reduce the availability of service to
+non-priority users and to accommodate emergency calls is mandatory.
+Radio-based communication systems, particularly those not requiring
+commercial power, are relatively safe from damage, although some must
+be anticipated. The redundancy of existing communication systems,
+including those designed for emergency use, means that some capability
+for communicating with the affected region from the outside would
+almost surely exist. Restoration of service by the commercial carriers
+should begin within 24 to 72 hours as a result of maintenance and
+management actions; however, total restoration of service would take
+significantly longer.
+
+While numerous agencies have the capability for emergency
+communication within themselves, non-telephonic communication among
+entities and agencies in the affected area is minimal. This is true
+for Federal, State, and local agencies. This weakness has been pointed
+out repeatedly by earthquake response exercises, and the problem is
+raised by almost every emergency preparedness official at every level
+of government. Consequently, a major problem for resolution is the
+operational integration of communications systems and networks among
+the relevant Federal, State, and local agencies.
+
+Because of their network-like character, most systems for
+transportation and water and power generation and distribution, as a
+whole, are resistant to failure, despite potentially severe local
+damage. These systems would suffer serious local outages, particularly
+in the first several days after the event, but would resume service
+over a few weeks to months. The principal difficulty would be the
+greatly increased need for these systems in the first few days after
+the event, when lifesaving activities would be paramount.
+
+Portions of the San Francisco Bay Area and of the Los Angeles Area
+contain substantial concentrations of manufacturing capacity for
+guided missiles and space vehicles, semiconductors, aircraft parts,
+electronic computing equipment, and airframes. Their specific
+vulnerability to the postulated earthquakes was not analyzed. In the
+event of major damage, however, the long-term impacts may be mitigated
+somewhat by such measures as the use of underutilized capacity located
+elsewhere, substitution of capacity from other industries, imports,
+use of other products, and drawing-down of inventories.
+
+Since we have not recently experienced a catastrophic earthquake in
+the United States, there are many unknowns which must be estimated
+with best judgment. This is true particularly for the response of
+individuals as well as governmental and other institutions. Popular
+assumptions of post-disaster behavior include antisocial behavior and
+the need for martial law, the breakdown of government institutions,
+and the requirement for the quick assertion of outside leadership and
+control. Practical experience and field studies of disasters, however,
+indicate that these assumptions are not necessarily correct. On the
+contrary, the impacts of the disaster commonly produce a sense of
+solidarity and cooperativeness among the survivors. Nonetheless, the
+perception remains among emergency response officials that there will
+be an increased need for law enforcement following the event.
+
+Another major unknown involves whether a medium or short-term warning
+of the event would be possible and how such a warning could be
+utilized most effectively. The technology for earthquake prediction is
+in an early stage of development and, therefore it is problematical
+that researchers will succeed in issuing a short-term warning before a
+catastrophic earthquake, should the event occur in the next few
+years. Yet as research progresses, scientifically-based,
+intermediate-term warnings are possible, but subject to a high degree
+of uncertainty. Consequently, response preparations must be made for
+both an earthquake without warning, and one with a short-or
+intermediate-term warning, possibly with a significant level of
+uncertainty.
+
+
+E. CAPABILITY FOR RESPONSE
+
+Planning for response to a large-scale disaster is a complicated
+process encompassing many variables such as population densities and
+distribution characteristics; land-use patterns and construction
+techniques; geographical configurations; vulnerability of
+transportation; communications and other lifeline systems; complex
+response operations; long-term physical, social, and economic recovery
+policies. These factors, together with the realization that an
+earthquake has the potential for being the greatest single-event
+catastrophe in California, make it incumbent upon the State to
+maintain as high a level of emergency readiness as is practicable, and
+to provide guidance and assistance to local jurisdictions desiring to
+plan and prepare for such events. Annex 2 reviews the general nature
+of preparedness planning and the basic characteristics of California
+and Federal Government plans.
+
+Federal, State, and local emergency response capabilities are judged
+to be adequate for moderate earthquakes--those that are most likely to
+occur frequently in California and cause property damage in the range
+of $1 billion. Such an event, however, would severely tax existing
+resources and provide a major test of management relationships among
+different governmental levels. Federal, State, and local officials,
+however, are quick to point out serious shortcomings in their ability
+to respond to a catastrophic earthquake. An analysis of the
+preparedness posture of 60 local governments, 34 California State
+organizations, and 17 Federal agencies, carried out by the California
+Office of Emergency Services (OES) and FEMA, indicates that response
+to such an earthquake would become disorganized and largely
+ineffective. Many governmental units have generalized earthquake
+response plans, some have tailored earthquake plans, and several plans
+are regularly exercised. The coordination of these plans among
+jurisdictions, agencies, and levels of government, however, is
+inadequate. In addition, the potential for prediction is not
+incorporated; long-term recovery issues are not considered; and
+communications problems are significant, as discussed above. Overall,
+Federal preparedness is deficient at this time. Early reaction to a
+catastrophic event would likely be characterized by delays,
+ineffective response, and ineffectively coordinated delivery of
+support.
+
+FEMA Region IX (San Francisco) has drafted an Earthquake Response Plan
+for the San Francisco Bay area. Annex 2 gives an overview of this
+draft plan. This is a site-specific plan for response to potential
+catastrophic earthquake occurrences. The emergency response portion
+relies upon a decentralized approach which provides for Federal
+disaster support activities to be assigned to selected Federal
+agencies by mission assignment letters. No specific plans have been
+prepared in this detail for other seismic risk areas, although it is
+expected that the Bay Area plan could be easily adapted to other
+areas. The Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation
+are developing detailed earthquake plans that would ensure a
+well-organized and adequate response to mission assignments for a
+major earthquake. The plans of other agencies need further
+development.
+
+Very significant capabilities to assist in emergency response exist
+within the California National Guard, California Highway Patrol, the
+Departments of Health Services and Transportation, and the U.S.
+Department of Defense. Capabilities exist for such lifesaving
+activities as _aerial reconnaissance, search and rescue, emergency
+medical services, emergency construction and repair, communications,
+and emergency housing and food_. Current estimates by both Federal and
+State officials, however, indicate that at least 6 to 8 hours would be
+required before personnel and equipment can be mobilized and begin
+initial deployment to the affected area. During the period before the
+arrival of significant outside assistance critical to the saving of
+lives (especially of those trapped in collapsed buildings), the public
+would be forced to rely largely upon its own resources for search and
+rescue, first aid, and general lifesaving actions. The current level
+of public preparation for this critical phase of response can be
+described as only minimal. Much of the current state of preparedness
+arises from past programs aimed at a wide spectrum of emergencies,
+particularly civil defense against nuclear attack. New or strengthened
+programs are needed to enhance public preparedness.
+
+FEMA has recently entered into a cooperative effort with California
+State and local governments to prepare an integrated prototype
+preparedness plan to respond to a catastrophic earthquake in Southern
+California or to a prediction of such an event. The plan's completion,
+in late 1981, promises to improve substantially the state of readiness
+to respond to the prediction and the occurrence of an earthquake in
+that area and to provide a model which could be applied to other
+earthquake-prone regions of California and the rest of the country.
+
+
+F. FINDINGS, ISSUES, AND ACTIONS
+
+The _ad hoc_ committee responsible for this review developed several
+significant findings related to the implications of major earthquakes
+in California and our capabilities to respond to them. It then
+identified major relevant issues raised by these findings and caused a
+number of actions to be taken. A brief discussion of the results of
+its review follows.
+
+
+1. Leadership
+
+=Finding=: _Effective leadership at all governmental levels is the
+single most important factor needed to improve this Nation's
+preparedness for a catastrophic earthquake in California._ The problem
+of emergency preparedness is severely complicated because
+responsibilities for preparation and response cut across normal lines
+of authority. Further complication arises from the large areal extent
+of the impacts expected from a major earthquake, affecting literally
+dozens of government entities. The emergency services coordinator at
+any level of government is effective only to the extent he or she is
+backed by the political leadership at that level. This is especially
+true when preparedness activities must be done, for the most part,
+within existing resources. City and county officials must increasingly
+accept their share of the responsibility for preparedness, but
+commitment by State or Federal leaders is also essential. The general
+tendency among elected officials and the public is to ignore the
+existing hazard problem. Experience, however, teaches that effective
+response mechanisms must be in place before the disaster; they cannot
+be developed in the time of crisis. Overcoming this apathy and
+developing the organizational arrangements among Federal, State, and
+local government and volunteer agencies--together with the private
+sector and the general public will require, above all, leadership.
+
+      =Issue=: The leadership role of the Federal Government in
+      preparing for a catastrophic earthquake in California and
+      how this leadership role is to be exerted require
+      clarification.
+
+        =Action=: The President has communicated with the
+        Governor of California to indicate the results of this
+        review, to express concern about the need for cooperative
+        leadership to prepare for the event, and to offer to
+        increase the Federal effort with the State of California
+        and local governments in the cooperative undertaking to
+        prepare for a catastrophic earthquake. He stressed that
+        the Federal role is to supplement the effort and
+        resources of the State, and that commitment of
+        significant Federal resources would be contingent upon
+        the application of significant State resources. In his
+        response to the President's communications, the Governor
+        of California underscored the State's readiness to
+        participate in this cooperative effort and announced his
+        signing into law a measure that would provide substantial
+        State resources (see annex 1). A summary of the new law
+        (A.B. 2202) is contained in annex 3.
+
+
+2. Management of Preparedness and Response Activities
+
+=Finding=: _Preparedness must be developed as a partnership between
+Federal, State, and local governments with improvements needed at all
+levels_, as none have the resources or authorities to solve the
+problem alone.
+
+      =Issue=: Since the Nation faces a very probable earthquake
+      in California sometime during the next 30 years, FEMA
+      should provide the necessary leadership, management, and
+      coordination required to strengthen planning and
+      preparedness within the Federal Government, as delegated
+      under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program of
+      1977 and the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. In this effort,
+      FEMA requires the support and assistance of numerous other
+      Federal agencies.
+
+        =Actions=: FEMA is taking steps to:
+
+        " Strengthen significantly its management, research,
+          application, and coordination functions, as delegated
+          under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
+          and Disaster Relief Act.
+
+        " Lead other agencies in the development of a
+          comprehensive preparedness strategy detailing specific
+          objectives and assignments, and periodically monitor
+          accomplishments in meeting assigned responsibilities.
+
+        Departments and agencies with appropriate capabilities
+        will provide needed support to FEMA in strengthening
+        Federal preparedness and hazard mitigation programs.
+
+      =Issue=: A major deficiency that has been identified is the
+      potential for delay following a catastrophic earthquake in
+      processing a request for a Presidential declaration of a
+      major disaster, and the subsequent initiation of full-scale
+      Federal support for lifesaving actions. The first few hours
+      are critical in saving the lives of people trapped in
+      collapsed buildings; consequently, this is when Federal
+      support is needed most. Decisions on post-event recovery
+      aspects of Federal assistance can be deferred until
+      lifesaving operations are underway and sufficient
+      information about damage is in hand.
+
+        =Action=: FEMA will develop and negotiate, before the
+        event, an agreement with the State of California which
+        will enable the President to declare a major disaster and
+        initiate full-scale Federal support for lifesaving and
+        humanitarian action within minutes of a catastrophic
+        earthquake. The agreement will defer resolution of issues
+        relating to longer-term restoration and recovery and
+        similar questions with large budgetary implications until
+        adequate damage estimates are available. The Executive
+        Branch will thus be able to arrive at an informed
+        decision.
+
+      =Issue=: Significant improvements in the Federal, State,
+      and local capability for coordination of operational
+      response to a catastrophic earthquake are needed.
+
+        =Actions=: FEMA and other appropriate Federal agencies will
+        increase their efforts, in a partnership with appropriate
+        State and local agencies and volunteer and private-sector
+        organizations, to:
+
+        " Complete development and agreement on fully integrated
+          earthquake response plans for both the San Francisco
+          and Los Angeles regions, including provision for
+          predicted as well as unpredicted earthquakes, building
+          upon the existing draft plan for San Francisco.
+
+        " Establish a small FEMA staff in California dedicated to
+          the coordination of earthquake preparedness planning and
+          implementation.
+
+        " Develop improved mechanisms for the coordination of
+          medical and mortuary activities following a catastrophic
+          earthquake.
+
+        " Identify and document the critical requirements for
+          emergency communications--particularly non-telephonic
+          communications--among Federal, State, and local
+          agencies. Shortfalls between critical requirements and
+          current capabilities, as well as remedial actions or
+          recommended solutions for each will be identified in
+          accordance with the "National Plan for Communications
+          Support in Emergencies and Major Disasters." This
+          review will include consideration of using existing
+          satellite communications or a dedicated system, should
+          it be found necessary.
+
+        " Cooperatively conduct practice response exercises with
+          State and local officials that will prepare officials
+          and the public for conditions that might be encountered
+          in a catastrophic earthquake and that would reveal
+          deficiencies in planning.
+
+      =Issue=: Improving the current inadequate preparedness of
+      the public for a catastrophic earthquake requires a
+      substantial increase in public information and public
+      awareness. Although public information is primarily a
+      State, local, and private-sector responsibility, the
+      Federal Government has a role as well. Because citizens
+      will have no choice but to rely largely upon their own
+      resources in the first several hours immediately following
+      a catastrophic earthquake, it is important that certain
+      basic knowledge about lifesaving measures be very widely
+      disseminated.
+
+        =Action=: FEMA will stimulate and work with the State of
+        California and other appropriate groups to develop and
+        publicize earthquake awareness, hazard mitigation
+        techniques, specific post-earthquake actions to be taken,
+        including first aid, and other pertinent information.
+
+      =Issue=: The possibility of a credible,
+      scientifically-based prediction of a catastrophic
+      earthquake poses serious challenges to government and our
+      society. The current level of scientific understanding of
+      earthquake prediction and the available resources are such
+      that present instrumentation efforts are directed toward
+      research rather than maintaining extensive monitoring
+      networks for real-time prediction. The transition from
+      research to fully operational capability will require
+      additional scientific understanding as well as resources.
+      Earthquake predictions are possible, perhaps likely,
+      however, from the current research effort. Even with a
+      significant level of uncertainty, any scientifically
+      credible prediction that indicates a catastrophic
+      earthquake is expected within about 1 year or less, will
+      require very difficult and consequential decisions on the
+      part of elected officials at all levels of government.
+      Decisions may include such possibilities as the
+      mobilization of National Guard and U.S. Department of
+      Defense resources prior to the event, the imposition of
+      special procedures or drills at potentially hazardous
+      facilities, such as nuclear reactors or dams, the
+      condemnation or evacuation of particularly unsafe buildings
+      with the subsequent need for temporary housing, and the
+      provisions of special protection of fragile inventories. If
+      the prediction is correct and appropriate actions are
+      taken, thousands of lives can be saved and significant
+      economic losses can be avoided. The costs of responding to
+      a prediction may be substantial, however, and the
+      commitment of resources undoubtedly will have to be made in
+      the face of considerable uncertainty and even reluctance.
+      Indeed, the possibility of an inaccurate prediction must be
+      faced squarely.
+
+        =Actions=: FEMA, in conjunction with other appropriate
+        Federal agencies, State and local governments, and
+        volunteer and private-sector organizations, will increase
+        its actions to develop procedures for responding to a
+        credible, scientific earthquake prediction, including:
+
+        " Identification of constructive and prudent actions to
+          be taken
+
+        " Analysis of the costs and benefits of various
+          alternative actions
+
+        " Identification of roles and responsibilities in deciding
+          which actions should be implemented and by whom
+
+        " Criteria for evaluating circumstances when the provision
+          of Federal assistance would be appropriate
+
+        The U.S. Geological Survey of the Department of the
+        Interior will:
+
+        " Maintain a sound and well-balanced program of research
+          in earthquake prediction and hazard assessment based
+          upon a carefully considered strategic plan
+
+        " Work with State and local officials and FEMA to develop
+          improved mechanisms for the transmission of earthquake
+          predictions and related information, and to plan for the
+          utilization of the capability for earthquake prediction
+
+
+3. Resources
+
+=Finding=: While leadership and management are essential ingredients to
+achieve an adequate earthquake preparedness posture, _the availability
+of adequate staffing and resources at all levels of government
+determines the efficacy of agency programs and initiatives_. In many
+agencies, earthquake preparedness has been accorded a low priority in
+their programs. This is a manifestation of a more general problem of
+minimal agency resource allocation to emergency preparedness. The
+results of the actions that have been indicated will be limited unless
+additional resources are made available.
+
+      =Issue=: Additional resources should be provided as
+      necessary to accelerate the earthquake hazard mitigation
+      and preparedness activities under the National Earthquake
+      Hazards Reduction Program.
+
+        =Action=: FEMA has reassessed its priorities and is
+        allocating resources to increase the staffing, funding,
+        and management attention and direction for earthquake
+        hazards mitigation, including preparations for a
+        catastrophic earthquake in California. This includes an
+        increase of staff resources in FEMA Region IX for
+        Federal, State, and local coordination of planning,
+        preparedness, and mitigation. Resource needs that cannot
+        be fully met by the reassessment and reallocation for
+        Fiscal Year 1981 should be identified and justified along
+        with needs for Fiscal Year 1982 in the course of the
+        budget submissions for Fiscal Year 1982. To facilitate an
+        adequate and balanced response by other Federal agencies,
+        FEMA will provide timely guidance to other agencies on
+        specific priorities for this effort in relation to other
+        major preparedness goals. The Office of Management and
+        Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy
+        will work together to develop a cross-agency ranking of
+        budgetary resources for earthquake preparedness for
+        Fiscal Year 1982.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II
+
+GEOLOGIC EARTHQUAKE SCENARIOS
+
+
+A. MAJOR EVENTS
+
+For purposes of assessing the consequences of a major California
+earthquake, scenarios for seven large earthquakes were developed. The
+scenarios depict expectable earthquakes that could severely impact on
+the major population centers of California. In each case they are
+representative of only one possible magnitude of earthquake that could
+occur on the indicated fault system. On each fault system there is a
+greater probability of one or more damaging earthquakes of somewhat
+smaller magnitude than the postulated event. The postulated
+earthquakes are listed in the following table.
+
+
+TABLE 1
+
+MAJOR CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKES
+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+                                               Current
+                                               Annual        Likelihood
+                                               Probability   of
+                                               of            Occurrence
+                                 Richter       Occurrence    in Next
+Region            Fault System   Magnitude[1]  (Percent)     20-30 Years
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Los Angeles-      Southern
+San Bernardino    San Andreas    8.3             2-5           High
+
+San Francisco     Northern
+Bay Area          San Andreas    8.3             1             Moderate
+
+San Francisco
+Bay Area          Hayward        7.4             1             Moderate
+
+Los Angeles       Newport-                                     Moderate
+                  Inglewood      7.5             0.1           -Low
+
+San Diego         Rose Canyon    7.0             0.01          Low
+
+Riverside                                                      Moderate-
+San Bernardino    Cucamonga      6.8             0.1           Low
+
+Los Angeles       Santa Monica   6.7             0.01          Low
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+   [1] This is the estimated largest magnitude earthquake expected
+   at a reasonable level of probability. The main shock can be
+   expected to be followed by large aftershocks over a period of
+   weeks or longer. Each large aftershock would be capable of
+   producing additional significant damage and hampering disaster
+   assistance operations.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+These earthquake scenarios represent the largest magnitude events
+estimated on the basis of a variety of geologic assumptions. The
+appropriateness of these assumptions depends on the intent of the
+analysis and the state of geologic knowledge. Therefore, the resulting
+estimates may not be appropriate for other purposes, such as the
+development of seismic design criteria for a specific site. The
+development of such criteria commonly requires detailed analyses of
+the site and its immediate geologic environment beyond the scope of
+this report. Consequently, detailed site analyses may require
+modification of the conclusions reached in this report, particularly
+fault systems other than the San Andreas and Hayward faults.
+
+
+B. GEOLOGIC EVIDENCE
+
+Some of the possible earthquakes listed are repeat occurrences of
+historical events, others are not, but geologic evidence indicates
+that earthquakes occurred on these faults before settlement of the
+region. Based on available data, the postulated earthquake magnitudes
+would be the largest events that could be expected at a reasonable
+level of probability. They represent a selection of events useful for
+planning purposes, but are by no means the only such events likely to
+occur either on these or other fault systems.
+
+The historic record of seismicity in California is too short to
+determine confidently how often large earthquakes reoccur. Information
+on past earthquakes must be gleaned from the geologic record and
+therefore, presents a picture of past seismicity that is incomplete
+and not yet fully deciphered. Current knowledge about the recurrence
+of large earthquakes on specific faults is rudimentary. The
+probabilities of occurrence shown above are order-of-magnitude
+estimates and subject to considerable uncertainty, especially for the
+less probable events.
+
+
+C. DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS
+
+Following are brief descriptions of postulated events. Figure 1 gives
+their geographic location.
+
+
+   1. Los Angeles-San Bernardino/Southern San Andreas Fault
+      (Magnitude 8.3)
+
+      For the past several thousand years, great earthquakes have been
+occurring over a 300 km length of the San Andreas fault approximately
+every 100 to 200 years, 140 years on the average. The last such event
+took place in 1857. The probability of occurrence of this earthquake
+is estimated to be currently as large as 2 to 5 percent per year and
+greater than 50 percent in the next 30 years. The fault skirts the
+edge of the Los Angeles-San Bernardino metropolitan region, thus most
+of the urbanized area lies further than 20 miles from the source of
+strong shaking. Because of the distance, shaking would be more
+hazardous for large structures than for one- to two-story houses. The
+long duration of shaking could trigger numerous slides on steep
+slopes and cause liquefaction in isolated areas.
+
+
+   2. San Francisco Bay Area/Northern San Andreas Fault
+      (Magnitude 8.3)
+
+      A repeat occurrence of the 1906 earthquake, in which the San
+Andreas fault broke over 400 km of its length, would cause severe
+damage to structures throughout the Bay Area and adjacent regions. The
+extensive urban development on lowlands and landfill around San
+Francisco Bay would be especially hard hit and liquefaction in many of
+these areas would intensify the damage to structures erected on them.
+
+
+   3. San Francisco Bay Area/Hayward Fault (Magnitude 7.4)
+
+      The last large events to occur on this fault were in 1836 and
+1868. Should a major earthquake occur, severe ground shaking and
+liquefaction is expected to cause damage throughout the entire
+circum-bay area nearly as severe as that resulting from a 1906-type
+earthquake on the San Andreas fault. This earthquake would be of
+particular concern because of the many dams located along or near the
+fault.
+
+
+   4. Los Angeles/Newport-Inglewood Fault (Magnitude 7.5)
+
+      This earthquake would be a serious threat to the nearby,
+densely-populated areas of Los Angeles. Shaking would cause extensive
+structural damage throughout the Los Angeles Basin and liquefaction
+near the coast would add still more destruction.
+
+
+   5. San Diego Area/Rose Canyon Fault (Magnitude 7.0)
+
+      This fault--a segment of an active zone of faults extending from
+the Newport-Inglewood fault to Northern Mexico--would present the
+greatest earthquake risk to the San Diego area. Severe damage due to
+shaking and liquefaction could be expected in the coastal areas.
+Because of unstable sea-bed sediments in the offshore area, local
+tsunamis (tidal waves) are possible.
+
+
+   6. Los Angeles/Santa Monica Fault (Magnitude 6.7 and 7.0) and
+      Riverside/San Bernardino/Cucamonga Fault (Magnitude 6.8)
+
+      These faults are part of a system of east-west tending faults
+bordering the northern edge of the Los Angeles basin. This fault
+system caused the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and is geologically
+similar to the system that generated the large 1952 Kern County
+earthquake. Although smaller in magnitude than the earthquakes
+previously described, these postulated events are potentially quite
+dangerous because of their vicinity to high population densities in
+Southern California.
+
+
+D. EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS
+
+Detailed maps were prepared for each event showing qualitative
+estimates of ground shaking intensity resulting from each earthquake.
+These estimates are indicative of the general severity of damage to
+ordinary structures. Empirical formulae providing quantitative
+estimates of peak ground motion at various distances from the
+postulated earthquakes were developed for use in the effects of
+severe ground shaking on individual structures or critical
+facilities. No estimates were made of localized effects, such as
+ground failures related to liquefaction (the complete failure or loss
+of strength, of a saturated soil due to shaking), landslides, and
+fault rupture. These effects can be far more destructive than ground
+shaking alone.
+
+[Illustration: Figure 1. Geographic Locations of Selected Regional
+Events]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+ASSESSMENT OF LOSSES FOR SELECTED POTENTIAL CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKES
+
+
+A. INTRODUCTION
+
+As part of a program that FEMA and its predecessor agencies have had
+underway for a number of years, property loss and casualty estimates
+were prepared in 1972 and 1973 for a number of potential maximum
+credible earthquakes that could impact on the San Francisco and the
+Los Angeles areas--North San Andreas (Richter magnitude 8.3), Hayward
+(Richter magnitude 7.4), South San Andreas (Richter magnitude 8.3),
+and Newport-Inglewood (Richter magnitude 7.5). These estimates have
+now been updated as part of the current assessment.
+
+Estimates of property loss and casualties are based on the expected
+type and distribution of damage for each postulated earthquake as
+determined by the size and location of the earthquake and the
+distribution and character of the buildings and structures within the
+affected area. Methodologies for estimates of this type are
+approximate at best. Consequently, the figures shown below may vary
+upward or downward by as much as a factor of two or three. This degree
+of uncertainty does not affect the validity of the conclusions of this
+report, however, since there are greater uncertainties in all other
+aspects of emergency response planning.
+
+
+B. PROPERTY LOSS ESTIMATES
+
+The property loss estimates were obtained by first estimating the
+total replacement dollar value of buildings and their contents,
+multiplying them by percentage loss factors (inferred from the
+anticipated strength of shaking in each county), and then summing to
+obtain the aggregate loss. Included in the estimates are private as
+well as Federal, State, and local government buildings, insured and
+uninsured. Excluded from consideration is the replacement value of
+transportation and communication facilities, dams, utility
+installations, and special purpose structures (e.g., convention
+centers and sports arenas). Also excluded is the potential damage
+resulting from a major dam failure or the indirect dollar losses due
+to such factors as higher unemployment, lower tax revenue, reduced
+productivity, and stoppage of industrial production. Experience
+indicates that indirect losses could be approximately equal to the
+dollar amounts lost in buildings and their contents. The property loss
+estimates for four postulated earthquakes on the faults listed below
+are as follows.
+
+
+TABLE 2
+
+ESTIMATES OF PROPERTY LOSSES FOR REPRESENTATIVE EARTHQUAKES[1]
+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------
+                            Loss to          Loss of
+                            Building         Contents         Total Loss
+Fault                   ($ in Billions)  ($ in Billions)  ($ in Billions)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Northern San Andreas          25               13               38
+Hayward                       29               15               44
+Newport-Inglewood             45               24               69
+Southern San Andreas          11                6               17
+----------
+   [1] Uncertain by a possible factor of two to three.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+C. CASUALTY ESTIMATES
+
+Deaths and injuries in these earthquakes principally would occur from
+failures of man-made structures, particularly older, multistory, and
+unreinforced brick masonry buildings built before the institution of
+earthquake-resistant building codes. Experience has shown that some
+modern multistory buildings--constructed as recently as the late
+1960's, but not adequately designed or constructed to meet the current
+understanding of requirements for seismic resistance--are also subject
+to failure. Consequently, the number of fatalities will be strongly
+influenced by the number of persons within high-occupancy buildings,
+capable of collapsing, or by failure of other critical facilities such
+as dams. Additional imponderables are the degree of saturation of the
+ground at the time of the event and the possibility of weather
+conditions conducive to the spread of fire. A conflagration such as
+occurred in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, is not considered
+likely to occur in any of the analyzed events, however, because of
+improvements in fire resistance of construction and firefighting
+techniques. Nonetheless, numerous smaller fires must be anticipated in
+any of the analyzed events and a "Santa Ana type" wind could cause
+serious problems.
+
+An additional element of uncertainty in estimating casualties from
+earthquake stems from not knowing where most of the population will be
+at the time of the earthquake. In the early morning (i.e., 2:30 a.m.)
+most people are at home, by far the safest environment during a
+seismic emergency. At 2:00 in the afternoon, on the other hand, the
+majority of people are at their places of employment and therefore
+vulnerable to collapse of office buildings. Around 4:30 p.m. many more
+people are in the streets and thus subject to injury due to falling
+debris or failures of transportation systems. Consequently, depending
+on the time of day, wide variations in the number of casualties can be
+expected.
+
+Following are estimates of dead and injured (requiring
+hospitalization) for each of the four representative faults and for
+the three time periods just discussed.
+
+TABLE 3
+
+ESTIMATES OF CASUALTIES[1]
+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fault                      Time         Dead     Hospitalized[2]
+-------------------------------------------------------------------
+Northern San Andreas     2:30 a.m.      3,000      12,000
+                         2:00 p.m.     10,000      37,000
+                         4:30 p.m.     11,000      44,000
+
+Hayward                  2:30 a.m.      3,000      13,000
+                         2:00 p.m.      8,000      30,000
+                         4:30 p.m.      7,000      27,000
+
+Southern San Andreas     2:30 a.m.     3,000       12,000
+                         2:00 p.m.     12,000      50,000
+                         4:30 p.m.     14,000      55,000
+
+Newport-Inglewood        2:30 a.m.      4,000      18,000
+                         2:00 p.m.     21,000      83,000
+                         4:30 p.m.     23,000      91,000
+----------
+   [1] Uncertain by a possible factor of two to three.
+
+   [2] Injuries not requiring hospitalization are estimated to be
+   from 15 to 30 times the number of deaths.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+D. OVERVIEW OF OTHER TYPES OF DAMAGE
+
+For this assessment, estimates of damage to substantial numbers of
+different type facilities essential to the immediate response
+capability were updated. Earthquakes associated with the same four
+major fault systems identified earlier in this chapter were used as a
+basis for these estimates. The types of facilities analyzed included
+_hospitals_, _medical supply storages_, _blood banks_, and _custodial
+care homes_, together with their essential services and personnel
+resources. Although newer hospitals in California are being built
+according to substantially improved seismic safety standards and
+practices, older hospital facilities can be expected to be poorly
+resistant to earthquakes.
+
+Among residential buildings, single family homes are expected to
+suffer structural damage and loss of contents. Damage to multifamily
+dwellings--particularly older buildings--would, in all likelihood, be
+more extensive. Analysis of expected damage indicates that temporary
+housing for as many as 200,000 families might be needed--a requirement
+calling for careful planning and exceptional management skills.
+
+Schools are judged to be among the safest facilities exposed to the
+earthquakes. Since passage of the Field Act in 1933, after the Long
+Beach earthquake, school buildings in California have been
+continuously improved to withstand seismic hazards.
+
+As a result of continuing and substantial upgrading of design and
+construction practices in the past 10 years, dams and reservoirs can
+be expected to show an improved performance in an earthquake.
+Nonetheless, on a contingency basis, one dam failure might be assumed
+for each planning effort.
+
+Realizing the fact that 84 key communications facilities, earth
+stations, Department of Defense voice and data switches, commercial
+transoceanic cable heads, Federal Telecommunications System switches,
+and major direct distance dial switches are located within 55 miles of
+either Los Angeles or San Francisco, damage must be expected to occur.
+With this realization, priorities have been assigned to all critical
+circuits transiting the key facilities, based on established criteria
+of criticality of service continuity. _National warning systems
+circuitry, command and control circuits, and circuits supporting
+diplomatic negotiations_ (of which a high concentration exists in
+California) are examples of those circuits carrying high-restoration
+priority.
+
+In the civil sector there would be 24 to 72 hours of minimal
+communications, with a possible blackout of telephonic communications
+in the area immediately following an earthquake. The commercial
+carriers would institute network control procedures to regain control
+of the situation as fast as possible.
+
+The impact on transportation facilities in any of the four
+hypothesized earthquakes could be massive. Since the magnitude and
+severity is unprecedented in recent years, conclusions regarding
+losses must be accepted as tentative. As in the case of hospitals,
+however, the lessons learned in earthquakes during the past 10 years
+are being incorporated in the design and construction of new
+facilities.
+
+In general, all major transportation modes would be
+affected--_highways_, _streets_, _overpasses and bridges_, _mass
+transit systems_, _railroads_, _airports_, _pipelines_, and _ocean
+terminals_, although major variances in losses are expected among the
+modes. From a purely structural standpoint, the more rigid or elevated
+systems (such as railroads and pipelines) which cross major faults on
+an east-west axis would incur the heaviest damage, with initial losses
+approaching 100 percent. Other major systems (such as highways,
+airports, and pile-supported piers at water terminals) have better
+survivability characteristics and therefore would fare much better,
+with damage generally in the moderate range of 15 to 30 percent. These
+transportation facility loss estimates are stated in terms of
+immediate post-quake effects. They do not reflect the impact of
+priority emergency recovery efforts and expedient alternatives that
+are available, some within hours, to aid in restoration of
+transportation capacity. In addition, transportation systems generally
+have an inherently significant degree of redundancy and flexibility.
+Consequently, an unquantified but significant movement capability in
+all transport modes is expected to survive. Finally, these loss
+estimates do not take into account the question of availability of
+essential supporting resources, particularly petroleum fuels,
+electricity, and communications. In the initial response phase, these
+could prove to be the most limiting factors in the capability of the
+transportation system.
+
+Business and industry would be affected by damage to office buildings,
+plants, and other support facilities. Although the 1971 San Fernando
+earthquake occurred on the margin of a largely suburban area,
+industrial facilities incurred significant damage. For example,
+several buildings of the kind commonly used for light industry or
+warehouses suffered from collapsed roofs or walls. Generally, building
+codes do not apply to special industrial facilities, and the ability
+of these structures to resist earthquake shaking will depend largely
+on the foresight of the design engineer. For example, a major
+electrical power switching yard and a water filtration plant were
+seriously damaged in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake.
+
+About 10 percent of the population and industrial resources of the
+Nation are located in California. Over 85 percent of these resources
+(or about 8.5 percent of the Nation's total) are located in the 21
+California counties that are subject to the possibility of damage from
+a major earthquake. Much of the aerospace and electronics industry is
+centered in California. For example, about 56 percent of the guided
+missiles and space vehicles, 40 percent of the semiconductors, 25
+percent of the electronic computer equipment, and approximately 21
+percent of the optical instruments and lenses manufactured in the
+Nation are manufactured in these 21 counties. The probability that all
+these counties would be affected by one earthquake is extremely
+remote; yet the significant concentration of key industries remains a
+concern. For example, about 25 percent of the Nation's semiconductors
+are manufactured in Santa Clara County, an area along the Northern San
+Andres fault that suffered very heavy damage in the 1906 San Francisco
+earthquake. Estimates of damage to these industrial facilities and the
+resulting loss of production have not been made. Similarly, the
+resulting impact of possible damage to national production has not
+been adequately analyzed.
+
+Federally regulated financial institutions were generically analyzed
+to determine their ability to continue to promote essential services
+in the event of a major earthquake like those that have been
+postulated for this assessment. The conclusion reached thus far is
+that large-magnitude earthquakes pose no significant or unanticipated
+problems of solvency and liquidity for such institutions. The Federal
+Reserve System and other regulatory entities have procedures in place
+that are designed--and have been tested--specifically to provide for
+the continued operation of financial institutions immediately
+following an earthquake or other emergency.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE OF READINESS CAPABILITY OF FEDERAL,
+STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE
+
+
+A. INTRODUCTION
+
+An earthquake of catastrophic magnitude, with or without credible
+warning, happens suddenly. The potential for disaster, however, does
+not occur suddenly. The degree of preparedness and commitment to
+comprehensive planning and mitigation programs for the inevitable
+event will largely determine the degree of hardship to be experienced
+through loss of life, human suffering, property destruction, and the
+other related economic, social, and psychological aspects of
+disruption to day-to-day community activities. The impacts can be
+reduced substantially from current expected levels through the
+development and implementation of improved and more widely practiced
+earthquake hazards reduction measures. These include _coordinated
+emergency preparedness plans and procedures_, _earthquake prediction
+and warning systems_, _improved construction techniques_, and
+_effective public education and information programs_.
+
+The State of California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and FEMA
+conducted an analysis of the readiness capability for potential
+catastrophic earthquakes in California at the Federal, State, and
+local government levels. The planning of 22 counties and 38 cities, of
+34 State agencies, and of 17 Federal organizations were reviewed with
+the following objectives: (a) identify opportunities for improvement;
+(b) provide a basis for making decisions that would strengthen program
+direction and planning efforts; and (c) specify resource needs and
+potential legislative initiatives. Annex 2 summarizes current Federal
+and California earthquake planning.
+
+The environment in which preparedness planning in California occurs is
+characterized by the following observations of public expectations and
+attitudes:
+
+        " There is widespread public support for government
+          action.
+
+        " Most people have some ideas as to what government should
+          be doing.
+
+        " There is understanding of the need for hazard reduction
+          as well as emergency response planning.
+
+        " People are willing, in the abstract, to have government
+          funds spent for hazard mitigation.
+
+        " The public is not very satisfied with what government
+          officials have done.
+
+        " Public officials perceive that current preparedness
+          plans and response are inadequate at best.
+
+As discussed below, the review indicates that all is not well in
+earthquake plans and preparedness. Current plans and preparedness are
+judged to be adequate for the "moderate" earthquakes most likely to
+occur frequently in California. By moderate it is meant an event
+causing property damage on the order of $1 to $2 billion. Such an
+event, however, will severely tax existing resources and provide a
+major test of management relationship among different governmental
+jurisdictions and levels. For a catastrophic earthquake, current plans
+and preparedness are clearly inadequate, leading to a high likelihood
+that Federal, State, and local response activities would become
+disorganized and largely fail to perform effectively for an extended
+period of time.
+
+
+B. STATE AND LOCAL RESPONSE
+
+Although there are widely differing approaches, local emergency
+planning in California generally consists of a basic plan and a series
+of contingency plans. The basic plan establishes the authority, sets
+forth references, addresses hazard vulnerability, states the planning
+assumptions, establishes an emergency services organization, assigns
+tasks, formulates a mutual aid system, and directs the development of
+specific support annexes. For those hazards identified in the basic
+plan, a separate contingency plan is then developed to address the
+unique nature of the hazardous event. The contingency plan contains
+service support plans for each of the functional operations, including
+detailed standard operating procedures. The planning efforts of local
+jurisdictions are coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions and the
+California OES for consistency.
+
+A plan is not considered complete without the support annexes which
+make the plan operational. The survey undertaken for this assessment
+disclosed that approximately 93 percent of the jurisdictions examined
+have existing, basic plans; 50 percent have completed annexes; 28
+percent of the basic plans addressed an earthquake hazard
+vulnerability; 35 percent have planned for earthquake contingency; and
+only 1 percent (one city) has a plan to respond to an earthquake
+prediction.
+
+At the State level, the California OES, as an integral part of the
+Governor's Office, functions as his immediate staff and coordinating
+organization in carrying out the State's emergency responsibilities.
+Specific emergency assignments have been made to 34 State agencies by
+the OES Director through a series of Administrative Orders. During
+emergencies the activities of these agencies and departments are
+coordinated by the California OES.
+
+The State OES is also responsible for maintaining and updating the
+California Emergency Plan (CEP) and associated readiness plans. As in
+the case of local plans, the basic document is supported by
+operational annexes as listed below:
+
+    CONTINGENCY                       MUTUAL AID
+
+    Earthquake                        Fire and Rescue
+    Earthquake Prediction             Law Enforcement
+    Oil Spill                         Medical
+    Nuclear Blackmail                 Utilities
+    Reactor Accident                  Military Support
+    Radioactive Material Incident
+    Flood
+
+
+    SUPPORTING SYSTEMS                EMERGENCY RESOURCES
+                                      MANAGEMENT
+
+    Warning                           Construction and Housing
+    Emergency Broadcast System        Economic Stabilization
+    Emergency Public Information      Food
+    Intelligence Operations           Health
+    Radiological Defense              Industrial Production
+                                      Manpower
+                                      Petroleum
+                                      Telecommunications
+                                      Transportation
+                                      Utilities
+
+Based on this planning concept, the review assessed quantitatively the
+preparedness activities of the 34 State agencies that have
+preparedness responsibilities in accordance with the CEP. The
+quantitative data are listed in the following table.
+
+
+TABLE 4
+
+QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF STATE PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES
+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
+                                     Number of   Percent of
+  Preparedness Element               Agencies    34 Agencies
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
+Existence of Plan                       22            65
+Conduct of Exercises                    27            79
+Public Education Activities             10            29
+Public Information Activities            9            26
+Operational Capability                  32            94
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+The quality of the plans, activities, and operational capabilities
+were then evaluated on a scale of 1 (expected to fail/inadequate) to 5
+(expected to succeed well/adequate). The qualitative results are shown
+below.
+
+
+TABLE 5
+
+QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF STATE PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES
+
+----------------------------------------------------------
+  Preparedness Element        Capability Rating
+----------------------------------------------------------
+  Planning                           2.67
+  Exercises                          2.64
+  Public Education                   1.44
+  Public Information                 1.50
+  Operational Capability             2.91
+----------------------------------------------------------
+
+It should be emphasized that these ratings apply to the State's
+_present_ level of planning and preparedness for response to a major
+destructive earthquake (magnitude 8), not a moderate (San
+Fernando-type) event.
+
+
+C. FEDERAL RESPONSE
+
+At the Federal level the principal capability to respond to a
+catastrophic earthquake in California resides in FEMA, the agency
+responsible by law to coordinate Federal activities in all
+emergencies. FEMA has developed a basic plan for supplemental Federal
+assistance for a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area. This
+plan, however, covers only the emergency phase of response (first few
+days of efforts to save lives and protect property). In addition, FEMA
+is participating in a broader effort concentrating in Southern
+California. This cooperative effort is getting under way with State
+and local governments, other Federal departments, voluntary agencies,
+practicing professions, business and commercial interests, labor,
+educators, and researchers. It is expected to develop an effective
+program to respond to an earthquake or a credible earthquake
+prediction in that part of the State. The emphasis is being placed on
+_public safety, reduction of property damage, self-help on the part of
+individuals, socioeconomic impacts, improved response and long-range
+recovery planning, mitigation activities, and public participation for
+both the post-prediction and immediate post-earthquake periods_. This
+pilot effort is expected to be usable in other highly seismic areas of
+California as well as in other States.
+
+In the event of a catastrophic earthquake, a substantial number of
+Federal agencies would provide support to and be coordinated by FEMA.
+Illustrative are the following:
+
+
+   1. Department of Defense (DOD)
+
+      Initially, local military commanders may provide necessary
+support to save lives, alleviate suffering, or mitigate property
+damage. Normally, additional DOD resources would not be committed
+until a presidential declaration of an emergency or major disaster.
+When this occurs, the Secretary of the Army is DOD Executive Agent for
+military support. The Commander, Sixth U.S. Army, at the Presidio, San
+Francisco, has been further delegated authority to coordinate disaster
+relief operations in the western portion of the United States.
+Extensive planning and coordination have taken place between the Sixth
+U.S. Army and FEMA Region IX. DOD emergency functions include: _damage
+survey_, _search and rescue_, _emergency medical care_,
+_identification and disposition of dead_, _emergency debris
+clearance_, _emergency roads and bridge construction_, _airfield
+repair_, and _identification and demolition of unsafe structures_.
+Specific units have been identified to respond to an earthquake in any
+of the major population centers of California. For example, at this
+time the following units would be prepared for commitment within 8
+hours after a disaster is declared by the President:
+
+        " Six medical units with a 1,320 bed capacity
+
+        " Seven helicopter units with 90 utility helicopters and
+          36 medium helicopters
+
+        " One Infantry brigade of 1,500 personnel
+
+        " Two engineer units with 78 pieces of heavy equipment
+
+        " Two transportation units with 124 cargo trucks and
+          trailers
+
+These as well as additional DOD assets could be made available,
+contingent on defense priorities.
+
+
+   2. The National Communication System
+
+      This Agency's plan, the "National Plan for Communications Support
+in Emergencies and Major Disasters," provides for planning and using
+national telecommunications assets and resources during presidentially
+declared emergencies and major disasters. The plan, which has been
+exercised repeatedly in past disasters, provides the management
+structure and the communications staff to support FEMA. Restoration
+priorities have been assigned to all critical circuits.
+
+
+   3. Department of Transportation (DOT)
+
+      DOT has established an Office of Emergency Transportation. This
+office has developed and maintains comprehensive emergency plans and
+procedural manuals for natural disasters and other civil crises. It
+constantly monitors the civil transportation system for indications of
+potential adverse impacts from all hazards. It conducts scheduled
+periodic training and readiness exercises for DOT emergency personnel
+and maintains quick response cells and emergency operating facilities
+at DOT headquarters and in the field to provide an immediate reaction
+capability. The system has been activated several times in the recent
+past (e.g., Three Mile Island, 1979 Energy/Fuel Crisis, Independent
+Truckers' Strike, and the Mt. St. Helens eruption).
+
+
+D. CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPROVING RESPONSE CAPABILITY
+
+Earthquake prediction has not been incorporated into existing plans.
+Response to predictions in the current environment, if given, would be
+_ad hoc_. The State of California has only a rudimentary plan and the
+Federal Government none. The City of Los Angeles has examined the
+problem extensively, but only considers its own jurisdiction and has
+not produced an actionable plan. Current planning for the recovery
+period is incomplete, uncoordinated, and not functional. State and
+local governments have done little to plan for the recovery period
+when, following the emergency lifesaving phase, efforts and resources
+are concentrated on restoring the functioning of the community. They
+presume that the Federal Government will "step in" after a
+presidential declaration. The Federal Government has an untested draft
+plan for the San Francisco area that is not fully coordinated with the
+State plans. Current Federal plans are geared to the provision of
+assistance on the order of a few hundred million dollars. Thus, there
+is little confidence that they would function under the requirements
+for tens-of-billions-of-dollars and concomitant service demands.
+
+Both Federal and State agencies need to commit the financial resources
+and assignment of personnel to maintain and enhance earthquake plans
+and preparedness. Earthquake preparedness, although responding to high
+damage expectation, is still based upon a relatively low probability
+occurrence. When it is in competition with pressing social needs for a
+portion of limited resources, social needs tend to prevail at all
+levels of government. Without a clear commitment, future development
+of earthquake preparedness, as in the past, is problematic and its
+implementation is in considerable doubt. The Federal earthquake
+preparedness effort needs to focus on a high state of readiness.
+
+History in the area of natural hazard mitigation suggests that
+assignment of responsibility, even by the President, when not followed
+by leadership and regular oversight over the allocation of financial
+resources, seldom leads to programs which can be expected to function.
+The same weakness is evidenced at the State and local government
+levels with few exceptions. The stresses likely to occur in emergency
+response programs after a catastrophic earthquake will be such that
+effective response will require a cooperative, integrated effort among
+different jurisdictions and levels of government.
+
+Experience in other areas of planning and preparedness, particularly
+for civil defense, indicates that damage to existing programs occurs
+when the Federal Government raises expectations of the public and of
+other levels of government and then fails to follow through with
+implementation and funding. It is better to maintain the _status quo_
+with minor changes at the margin than to announce substantial program
+initiatives and not meet their requirements.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL IMPACTS
+
+
+Often, it is assumed that disasters leave masses of the population in
+the impacted areas dazed and helpless and unable to cope with the new
+conditions, or that those not so immobilized panic or display
+antisocial behavior. Another common assumption is that local
+communities and organizations are rendered ineffective to handle the
+many problems, leading to further disorganization, loss of morale, and
+requiring the quick assertion of "strong" outside leadership and
+control.
+
+Practical experience and field studies of disasters indicate that
+these assumptions are not necessarily correct. The widespread sharing
+of danger, loss, and deprivation produces an intimate cooperativeness
+among the survivors, which overcomes social isolation and provides a
+channel for very close communication and expression and a major source
+of physical and emotional support and reassurance. This capacity seems
+to account for the resiliency of personality and social organization
+in dealing with threat and danger. It is also at the base of the
+ability of social life to regenerate.
+
+In addition, a good case can be made in that community systems
+experiencing impact may be more efficient and rational than they are
+in "normal" circumstances. Normal (pre-disaster) community life
+traditionally operates at a low level of effectiveness and efficiency.
+Activities are directed toward a very diffuse set of goals, just as
+human resources within the community are inadequately utilized. Upon
+disaster impact, certain community goals--care for victims and the
+restoration of essential services--develop a high priority while
+others are ignored or held in abeyance. Thus, the entire range of
+community resources, even taking into account "losses," can be
+allocated to the accomplishment of the more critical goals. Also,
+human resources are better utilized. Many women, older persons,
+younger persons, and members of minorities now become "productive;"
+the "labor" market after impact is open to those underutilized
+resources. In effect, then, disasters create the conditions for the
+more efficient utilization of material resources and the more
+effective mobilization of human resources.
+
+To accomplish this, certain modifications have to occur in the normal
+community structure, since the usual decision-making structures are
+designed for a different range and type of problem. Outsiders see this
+restructuring process as disorganized, chaotic, and creating the
+necessity for the imposition of some strong outside authority. On the
+contrary, this restructuring process is functional and adaptive. Its
+consequences are seen in communities and societies that rebound
+dramatically from the disruption and destruction to levels of
+integration, productivity, and growth capacity far beyond the
+pre-disaster state.
+
+In summary, the picture drawn points to the capacity of individuals
+and institutions to deal with difficult problems created by disaster
+impact. It also points to the adaptive capacity of social organization
+within communities to deal with unique and dramatic problems. These
+findings are not an argument against planning nor against "outside"
+assistance, but they should condition both the nature of planning and
+the direction of assistance.
+
+
+
+
+ANNEX 1
+
+LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE
+
+
+
+
+THE WHITE HOUSE
+
+WASHINGTON
+
+
+  September 19, 1980
+
+  To Governor Jerry Brown
+
+As you know, following my trip to view the destructive impacts of the
+volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the State of Washington, I
+directed that an assessment be undertaken of the consequences and
+state of preparedness for a major earthquake in California. This
+review, chaired by my Science and Technology Advisor, Frank Press, is
+now complete. We are grateful for the assistance provided by your
+staff and the other State, and local officials in this effort.
+
+Although current response plans are generally adequate for moderate
+earthquakes, Federal, State, and local officials agree that additional
+preparation is required to cope with a major earthquake. Prudence
+requires, therefore, that we take steps to improve our preparedness.
+
+While the primary responsibility for preparedness rests with the State
+of California, its local governments and its people, the magnitude of
+human suffering and loss of life that might occur and the importance
+of California to the rest of the Nation require increased Federal
+attention to this important issue. Accordingly, I have directed that
+the Federal government increase its work with you to supplement your
+efforts. The Federal efforts will be led by the Federal Emergency
+Management Agency and include the Department of Defense and other
+Departments and agencies as appropriate.
+
+As a Nation, we must reduce the adverse impacts of a catastrophic
+earthquake to the extent humanly possible by increasing our
+preparedness for this potential eventuality.
+
+  Sincerely,
+
+  [signed] Jimmy Carter
+
+  The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
+  Governor of California
+  Sacramento, California 95814
+
+
+  September 26, 1980
+
+  The Honorable Jimmy Carter
+  The President
+  The White House
+  Washington, D.C. 20500
+
+  Dear Mr. President:
+
+Let me take this opportunity to review our conversations over the last
+few months regarding increased seismic activity in California.
+
+When we met in Oakland on July 4 I raised the issue of seismic
+hazards. I was concerned then with the steady increase in seismic
+activity in California since 1978. Sharing my concern, you directed
+that the National Security Council join with my staff and certain
+local experts to conduct a quick study on the potential for a great
+earthquake in California.
+
+As you know, significant theoretical and public policy research had
+already been completed by our Seismic Safety Commission, State
+Geologist, Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council and the Office of
+Emergency Services. Together with the U.S. Geological Survey and the
+Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), they had clearly been
+keeping abreast of the state of the art of earthquake prediction.
+Indeed, combined state and federal efforts, founded on major
+theoretical advances in American, Russian and Chinese seismic and
+geological theory since the early 1970s, had shifted the language of
+earthquake prediction in California from "if" to "when"!
+
+In light of my personal interest in this subject, I have signed into
+law Assemblyman Frank Vicencia's AB 2202, a jointly funded
+state-federal project to design a comprehensive earthquake
+prediction-response plan. It is the state's intention to prepare a
+plan for the greater Los Angeles area as quickly as feasible. In my
+view, such a fullscale prediction-response program had become possible
+only after the research findings of both physical and policy
+scientists during the past five years. It is my conviction that such a
+plan is now timely--neither too early nor too late.
+
+In this context, your recognition of this issue in our conversation of
+September 22 in Los Angeles was a welcome personal reinforcement of
+our state and local efforts. I am also grateful for the September 3
+briefing in Sacramento by Mr. John Macy, Director of FEMA, regarding
+the latest U.S. Geological Survey interpretations of anomalies around
+California's system of geological faults. As soon as we have received
+the final FEMA report on the details of those anomalies, I will ask
+the state geologist to evaluate the report, confer with colleagues in
+the Geological Survey and have all state and local officials fully
+briefed.
+
+At that time, I would be grateful for an early opportunity to meet
+with you and explore next steps. I am confident that a heightened
+state of awareness among my fellow Californians will so deploy the
+resources of the state, plus available federal supplementary
+assistance, as to minimize the loss of life and property in the event
+of a great earthquake.
+
+  Sincerely,
+
+  /s/
+
+  Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
+  Governor
+
+
+
+
+ANNEX 2
+
+CURRENT CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLANNING
+
+
+A. NATURE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING
+
+An emergency, as used in this report, is defined as an unexpected,
+sudden or out-of-the-ordinary event or series of events adversely
+affecting lives and property which, because of its magnitude, cannot
+be handled by normal governmental processes. Emergency response
+planning is the process that addresses preparedness for and response
+to an emergency.
+
+Emergency response planning is an evolutionary, ongoing process and is
+prerequisite to all other emergency readiness activities. It is a
+comprehensive process that identifies the potential hazardous events,
+and the vulnerability to such hazards, estimates expected losses, and
+assesses impacts of such events. The development of written plans is
+followed by placement of capabilities to implement the response plan
+and by the conduct of periodic tests and exercises. The most difficult
+task in the development of an emergency plan is to anticipate as many
+of the problems and complications resulting from a given disaster
+situation as possible and to provide a basis for response to those not
+anticipated.
+
+The objective of emergency planning is to create the capacity for
+government to:
+
+        " Save the maximum number of lives in the event of an
+          emergency
+
+        " Minimize injuries and protect property
+
+        " Preserve the functions of civil government
+
+        " Maintain and support economic and social activities
+          essential for response and the eventual long-term
+          recovery from the disaster
+
+Emergency planning is a logical and necessary pre-emergency activity
+for governmental (and other organizational) entities likely to be
+affected by a disaster's occurrence. To be successful, such planning
+must be accomplished within the framework of the day-to-day
+governmental structure and activity but at the same time provide for
+response to the extraordinary circumstances and requirements inherent
+in disaster situations.
+
+Emergency plans include the preparation of guidelines, policy
+directives, and procedures to be utilized in preparing for and
+conducting disaster operations, training, and test exercises. They
+should also contain clear statements of authorities, responsibilities,
+organizational relationships, and operating procedures necessary for
+the accomplishment of disaster response and recovery activities.
+Further, they should address the four elements of mitigation,
+preparedness, response, and recovery (immediate and long-term).
+
+Once plans are established they must be periodically updated as
+conditions change. Updating may become necessary for a number of
+reasons: increased scientific, technical, and managerial knowledge;
+feedback from evaluation of exercises; better understanding of
+vulnerability; shifts in population and economic activities;
+construction of new critical facilities; and changes in personnel,
+organization, and legislation.
+
+Emergency planning is a shared responsibility at all levels--in this
+case from the Federal through the State and local jurisdictional
+levels. It should include business, industry, research and scientific
+institutions, practicing professions, and the individuals. By
+involving all functions of government, the planning process enhances
+the capability for implementing the plans through the realistic
+consideration of available capabilities and elimination of conflicts
+and inconsistencies of roles and task assignments.
+
+Further, by being a part of the planning decision-making process and
+having identified the needs and areas of consideration, individuals,
+organizations, and officials responsible for emergency operations are
+better able to relate to the expected impact and the operational
+environment. The written plans also serve valuable purposes for
+training and familiarization of new organizations, individuals, and
+public officials. Experience has shown repeatedly that when emergency
+operations are conducted in accordance with existing plans, reaction
+time is reduced and coordination improved, with fewer casualties, less
+property damage, and a higher surviving socioeconomic capability to
+undertake recovery. Other benefits that accrue from planning include
+the enhancement of hazard awareness.
+
+
+B. CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY PLANNING RESPONSE
+
+The State of California emergency response planning is a series of
+related documents, each of which serve a specific purpose. (See
+figures 1 and 2.)
+
+The basic plan of a jurisdiction (item (1) in figures 1 and 2) is the
+foundation of this planning process. It is an essential administrative
+(rather than operational) document, and as such it:
+
+        " Provides the basis (including legal authority) for and
+          the objectives of emergency planning and operations
+
+        " Outlines contingencies (emergency situations) to be
+          planned and prepared for and establishes the general
+          principles and policies (concepts of operations) to be
+          applied to each
+
+        " Describes the emergency organization in terms of who is
+          responsible for what actions
+
+        " Defines interjurisdictional and interservice
+          relationships and the direction and control structure to
+          make assignments and resolve conflicts
+
+        " Contains or refers to information of common interest
+          about supporting facilities, such as the Emergency
+          Operations Center and warning and communications systems
+
+        " Provides the planning basis for other supporting
+          documents which are more operationally oriented
+
+The basic plan is supported by a Direction and Control annex and by
+functional annexes (see (2) and (3) respectively in figures 1 and 2).
+The Direction and Control annex details how overall responses to an
+emergency will be managed and coordinated. Functional annexes (for
+both staff and services) are designed to address the extraordinary
+requirements created by emergencies. They identify the specific needs,
+the organizational resources available to meet those needs, and the
+scheme or "concept of operations" for their application. It should be
+noted that, because of unique requirements, annexes often do not
+reflect normal departmental structure. An annex becomes a departmental
+plan only when an agency represents the sole resource for meeting the
+stated need and when satisfying that need is the only task assigned to
+that agency by the basic plan.
+
+The second major portion of the California State planning structure
+consists of specific contingency plans (see (4) in figures 1 and 2).
+One such plan is prepared for each extraordinary emergency or
+disaster, likely to occur, detailing the probable effects of the
+emergency on the jurisdiction and the actions to be taken in
+offsetting these effects. It is also called a "response plan" since it
+describes the operations to be undertaken to deal with catastrophic
+situations. Contingency plans include service support plans and
+checklists (see (5) and (6) respectively in figures 1 and 2). Each
+involved element of the emergency organization details its response
+actions in Service Support Plans and itemizes functions appropriate to
+the specific contingency. The contingency plans, service support
+plans, and related checklists and standard operating procedures
+constitute the "operational" portions of the overall emergency plan.
+They address internal procedures to accomplish stated objectives and
+document, in advance, the specific organizational elements that will
+respond to each type of disaster or "need," with identification of
+procedures and resources.
+
+The third major part of California's overall State plan is a
+compendium of information and resources needed to cope with
+emergencies (see (7) in figures 1 and 2). This includes references
+describing the control structure (Emergency Operations Center
+locations, communications, key facilities, personnel lists, and
+equipment source listings).
+
+
+C. FEDERAL EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLANNING
+
+Most Federal agencies operating within the State have a generic
+emergency response plan that establishes their internal procedures for
+responding to disasters. Certain agencies such as the Corps of
+Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration, which provide
+services and support that are used on a regular and fairly extensive
+basis in disaster, tend to have more highly developed disaster
+response plans. Some of them even have rather basic earthquake
+response segments included in their basic plans. Thus, for moderate
+earthquakes these plans are relatively effective and the Federal
+response can be expected to be at least adequate. Few Federal
+agencies, however, have developed any specific plan that is adequate
+to respond to the demands of a catastrophic event causing property
+damage exceeding the $2 billion range. Of 24 Federal agencies whose
+earthquake planning status were recently evaluated by FEMA Region IX,
+only the Sixth U.S. Army was determined to have developed a
+comprehensive capability that is in acceptable detail, has been
+exercised, and appears to be operationally adequate and reliable.
+Other Federal agencies are now beginning to perceive the need to
+improve their planning and response capability following the expected
+event, and are gradually responding to this need.
+
+Providing impetus to this expanded planning activity has been the
+emergence of the FEMA Region IX Earthquake Response Plan for the San
+Francisco Bay Area. This is a site-specific FEMA plan based on a 1974
+draft that provided for a full range of Federal assistance during the
+emergency lifesaving phase following the earthquake. Although this
+plan never proceeded beyond the draft stage (because of evolving FEMA
+disaster field operations policy), it served as the basic guide for
+the development of the Sixth U.S. Army Plan, and has remained a core
+document for identifying expected Federal agency activities for
+earthquake recovery in the San Francisco Bay area. In 1979, the
+emergency response portion of the 1974 FEMA Region IX draft was
+restructured. The conduct of the post-event response program was
+shifted from being a centrally directed FEMA activity under the
+operational control of the Regional Director to a decentralized
+operation which provides for functional disaster support activities to
+be assigned by the Regional Director to certain Federal agencies by
+Mission Assignment Letters. Table 1 indicates functional task
+assignment areas. Those with the designation "Emergency Support
+Function (ESF)," have been assigned to other Federal agencies. Table 2
+reviews the principal and support agency assignments for each of the
+ESF functions.
+
+On the basis of these anticipated mission assignments, the tasked
+Federal agencies participated in the development of operational
+annexes in the 1979 version of the San Francisco Earthquake Response
+Plan. Upon completion of the annexes, all agencies were then required
+to develop the necessary agency support plans and standard operating
+procedures for accomplishing the mission assignment tasks.
+Additionally, those Federal agencies designated in the plan as
+principal agencies were tasked with the responsibility of organizing
+and coordinating the activities of Federal agencies designated as
+support.
+
+The rationale for this approach was to identify the various functional
+areas of disaster response for which a Federal activity could
+reasonably be expected to maintain after the occurrence of the event.
+With the functional areas identified, the range of Federal agency
+talent was evaluated and Federal response capabilities matched to
+expected functional demands. By the development of a matrix (figure
+2), a total of 16 functional response areas (such as transportation,
+mass care, and debris removal) were identified, and 20 Federal
+agencies, plus volunteer organizations such as the American National
+Red Cross, were designated as having appropriate disaster response
+capabilities. Subsequently, all agencies were rated on their
+capability for functioning in a principal or a support capacity. These
+agencies were then provided specific FEMA Region IX Mission
+Assignments or tasking statements which, when triggered by a
+Presidential disaster declaration, provide the legal basis for
+delivering the authorized assistance in response to State and local
+government needs.
+
+The end result of this approach has been to create a much more
+effective and reliable capability to respond to the needs of an
+earthquake disaster by those Federal agencies from which a significant
+response would be required.
+
+          +----------+
+          |Basic Plan|                  .
+          |   (1)    |                  .
+          +----------+                  .
+           |     |  |                   .
+           |     |  |                   .        +-----------------+
+           |     |  +----------------------------|Contingency Plans|
+           |     |                      .        |      (4)        |
+           |     |                      .        +-----------------+
+           |     | Administrative       .   Operational  |
+           |   +-------------+          .                |
+           |   |Direction and|          .                |
+           |   |Control Annex|          .                |
+           |   |     (2)     |          .                |
+           |   +-------------+          .                |
+    +------+------+                     .                |
+    |             |                     .                |
++-------+     +-------+                 .    +-----------------------+
+| Staff |     |Service|                 .    | Service Support Plans |
+|Annexes|     |Annexes|----------------------|          (5)          |
+|  (3)  |     |  (3)  |                 .    |  Response Checklists  |
++-------+     +-------+                 .    |   and SOP's (6)       |
+                                        .    +-----------------------+
+                                        .                |
+                                        .                |
+                                        .                |
+                                              +--------------------+
+                                              |Resources Compendium|
+                                              |         (7)        |
+                                              +--------------------+
+
+[Illustration: =Figure 1: Emergency Plans
+(Description of and Relationship Between Plan Components)=]
+
+
++-------------------------+           +-------------------------+
+| BASIC PLAN (1)          |           |                         |
+|                         |-+         |                         |-+
+|  Authorities            | |         |   RESOURCES MANUAL(S)   | |
+|   Policies              | |-+       |           (7)           | |-+
+|    Responsibilities     | | |       |                         | | |
+|     System Interfaces   | | |-+     |                         | | |-+
+|                         | | | |     |                         | | | |
++-------------------------+ | | |-+   +-------------------------+ | | |-+
+ |Direction and Control (2) | | | |    |Communication Capabilities| | | |
+ +--------------------------+ | | |-+  +--------------------------+ | | |-+
+  |Public Safety (3)          | | | |   |Law Enforcement/Fire       | | | |
+  +---------------------------+ | | |   +---------------------------+ | | |
+   |People Care (3)             | | |    |Medical-Health/Welfare      | | |
+   +----------------------------+ | |    +----------------------------+ | |
+    |System Restoration (3)       | |     |Engineering/Utilities        | |
+    +-----------------------------+ |     +-----------------------------+ |
+     |Resource Management (3)       |      |Transportation, etc.          |
+     +------------------------------+      +------------------------------+
+
+
+
+     +----------------+           +----------------+
+     |                |           |                |
+     |                |           |                |
+     | EARTHQUAKE     |-+         |     FLOOD      |-+
+     | Response Plan  | |         |  Response Plan | |
+     |     (4)        | |         |       (4)      | |
+     |                | |         |                | |
+     |                | |-+       |                | |-+
+     +----------------+ | |       +----------------+ | |
+      |                 | |        |                 | |
+      | D & C Checklist | |        | D & C Checklist | |
+      +-----------------+ |        +-----------------+ |
+        |Svcs. Sup.       |          |Svcs. Sup.       |
+        |  Plans (5)      |          |  Plans (5)      |
+        |Checklists &     |          |Checklists &     |
+        |  SOP's (6)      |          |  SOP's (6)      |
+        +-----------------+          +-----------------+
+
+
+     +----------------+          +----------------+
+     |                |          | WAR            |
+     |                |-+        |                |-+
+     |      WAR       | |        |                | |
+     |  Response Plan | |        |  Response Plan | |
+     |       (4)      | |        |     (4)        | |
+     |    In-Place    | |        | Crisis         | |
+     |   Protection   | |-+      |  Relocation    | |-+
+     +----------------+ | |      +----------------+ | |
+      |                 | |       |                 | |
+      | D & C Checklist | |       | D & C Checklist | |
+      +-----------------+ |       +-----------------+ |
+        |Svcs. Sup.       |         | Svcs. Sup.      |
+        |  Plans (5)      |         |   Plans (5)     |
+        |Checklists &     |         | Checklists &    |
+        |  SOP's (6)      |         |   SOP's (6)     |
+        +-----------------+         +-----------------+
+
+[Illustration: =Figure 2: Emergency Planning Format
+(A Partial Illustration of the Component Parts of a Jurisdictional
+Emergency Plan)=]
+
+
+TABLE 1
+
+FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REGION IX EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE AND
+ASSISTANCE TASKS
+
+(San Francisco Bay Area)
+
+
+ANNEXES TO BASIC PLAN
+
+                    Disaster Field Activities
+                     Disaster Field Location
+                       Mission Assignments
+               Emergency Transportation (ESF-1)[1]
+                      Communication (ESF-2)
+                Emergency Debris Clearance (ESF-3)
+                      Fire Fighting (ESF-4)
+         Emergency Roads, Airfields, and Bridges (ESF-5)
+                   Emergency Demolition (ESF-6)
+            Administrative Logistical Support (ESF-7)
+                  Emergency Medical Care (ESF-8)
+                    Search and Rescue (ESF-9)
+           Identification and Disposal of Dead (ESF-10)
+              Warnings of Risks and Hazards (ESF-11)
+           Emergency Distribution of Medicine (ESF-12)
+             Emergency Distribution of Food (ESF-13)
+      Emergency Distribution of Consumable Supplies (ESF-14)
+              Emergency Shelter & Mass Care (ESF-15)
+                  Damage Reconnaissance (ESF-16)
+                       Isoseismal Analysis
+                       Authorities Referral
+                          Administration
+
+   [1] Emergency Support Functions (ESF) are cross-referenced by
+   number in table 2.
+
+
+TABLE 2
+
+EMERGENCY SUPPORT FUNCTIONS
+
+
+KEY:
+ a: Emergency Transportation
+ b: Emergency Communications
+ c: Emergency Debris Clearance
+ d: Fire Fighting
+ e: Emerg. Roads, Air Fields & Bridges
+ f: Emergency Demolition
+ g: Logistical Support
+ h: Emergency Medical Care
+ i: Search and Rescue
+ j: Identif. & Disposal of Dead
+ k: Warnings of Risks & Hazards
+ l: Emergency Dist. of Medicine
+ m: Emergency Dist. of Food
+ n: Emergency Dist. of Consum. Supplies
+ o: Emerg. Shelter, Feed, & Mass Care
+ p: Damage Reconnaissance
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|ESF           | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10| 11| 12| 13| 14| 15| 16|
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|ANNEX         |(D)|(E)|(F)|(G)|(H)|(I)|(J)|(K)|(L)|(M)|(N)|(O)|(P)|(Q)|(R)|(S)|
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+| FEDERAL      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+| AGENCIES     | a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DOT - FAA     | S |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DOT - FHWA    | S |   |   |   | S |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DOT - FRA     | S |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DOT - RETCO-9 | P |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DOT - UMTA    | S |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DOT - USCC    | S | S |   | S |   | S |   |   | S |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DOD - 6th USA | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | P | P | P |   | S | S | S | S | P |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DOD - COE     |   | S | P | S | P | P |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|ICC           | S |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | S | S |   |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DA - USFS     |   | S |   | P | S |   |   |   | S |   |   |   |   |   | S | S |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DA - FNS      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | P |   |   |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DOC - MARAD   | S |   |   |   |   | S |   | S |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|NCS           |   | P |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|AYRC          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |   |   |   | S |   |   | P |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|Volunteer     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+| Agencies     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |   |
+| (Various)    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|HEW           |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |   |   |   |   | P |   |   | S |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|US ATTY       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |   |   |   |   |   |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|DOL - OSHA    |   |   | S |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|USPS          | S |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|FBI           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |   |   |   |   |   |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|VA            |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | S |   | S |   | S | S |   | S |   |
++--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+|GSA           | S | S |   |   |   | S | P |   |   |   |   | S |   | P |   |   |
++------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+P - Principal Agencies
+S - Support Agencies
+
+
+
+
+ANNEX 3
+
+ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2202
+
+
+The Governor of California signed into law Assembly Bill 2202 on
+September 25, 1980, which, among others, provides for State
+participation in a joint Federal, State, and local program to prepare
+a comprehensive program for responding to a major earthquake
+prediction. This action was initiated in January 1980 through the
+actions of the Assembly Committee on Government Organization, Frank
+Vicencia, Chairman. Inclusions of specific funds for preparedness was
+included following a subcommittee on Emergency Planning and Disaster
+Relief hearing on possible earthquake prediction on April 22, 1980.
+The text of the Law follows:
+
+                 Assembly Bill No. 2202
+
+                 CHAPTER 1046
+
+            An act to amend Section 8897 of, to amend and
+          renumber Section 8898 of, and to add Section
+          8895.1 to, the Government Code, relating to the
+          Seismic Safety Commission, making an appropriation
+          therefor, and declaring the urgency thereof, to
+          take effect immediately.
+
+          [Approved by Governor September 25, 1980. Filed
+          with Secretary of State September 26, 1980.]
+
+
+                 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
+
+            AB 2202, Vicencia. Seismic Safety Commission.
+
+            The Seismic Safety Commission Act, which will
+          self-repeal, effective January 1, 1986,
+          establishes the Seismic Safety Commission, and
+          confers upon it various powers and duties relating
+          to earthquake hazard reduction. The California
+          Emergency Services Act confers various related
+          powers and duties upon the Governor, the Director
+          and the Department of Emergency Services, and the
+          California Emergency Council.
+
+            This bill would amend the Seismic Safety
+          Commission Act by: changing the basic subject of
+          the powers and duties of the commission to
+          earthquake hazard mitigation and making certain
+          corresponding changes in its powers and duties;
+          including within commission responsibilities,
+          scheduling on its agenda as required, a report on
+          disaster mitigation issues from the Office of
+          Emergency Services and defining, for such
+          purposes, "disaster" as all natural hazards which
+          could have an impact on public safety; and
+          authorizing the commission to exercise various
+          specified powers in relation to other disasters,
+          as so defined, in connection with issues or items
+          reported or discussed with the Office of Emergency
+          Services at any commission meeting.
+
+            This bill would also require the commission to
+          initiate, as specified, a comprehensive program to
+          prepare the state for responding to a major
+          earthquake prediction, as specified.
+
+            This bill would appropriate $750,000 for the
+          purposes of this act.
+
+            This act would take effect immediately as an
+          urgency statute.
+
+            Appropriation: yes.
+
+
+          _The people of the State of California do enact
+          as follows:_
+
+            SECTION 1. Section 8895.1 is added to the
+          Government Code, to read:
+
+            8895.1. The commission shall initiate, with the
+          assistance and participation of other state,
+          federal, and local government agencies, a
+          comprehensive program to prepare the state for
+          responding to a major earthquake prediction. The
+          program should be implemented in order to result
+          in specific tools or products to be used by
+          governments in responding to an earthquake
+          prediction, such as educational materials for
+          citizens. This program may be implemented on a
+          prototypical basis in one area of the state
+          affected by earthquake predictions, provided that
+          it is useful for application in other areas of the
+          state upon its completion.
+
+            SEC. 2. Section 8897 of the Government Code is
+          amended to read:
+
+            8897. The commission is responsible for all of
+          the following in connection with earthquake hazard
+          mitigation:
+
+            (a) Setting goals and priorities in the public
+          and private sectors.
+
+            (b) Requesting appropriate state agencies to
+          devise criteria to promote earthquake and disaster
+          safety.
+
+            (c) Scheduling a report on disaster mitigation
+          issues from the Office of Emergency Services, on
+          the commission agenda as required. For the
+          purposes of this subdivision, the term disaster
+          refers to all natural hazards which could have
+          impact on public safety.
+
+            (d) Recommending program changes to state
+          agencies, local agencies, and the private sector
+          where such changes would improve earthquake
+          hazards and reduction.
+
+            (e) Reviewing the recovery and reconstruction
+          efforts after damaging earthquakes.
+
+            (f) Gathering, analyzing, and disseminating
+          information.
+
+            (g) Encouraging research.
+
+            (h) Sponsoring training to help improve the
+          competence of specialized enforcement and other
+          technical personnel.
+
+            (i) Helping to coordinate the earthquake safety
+          activities of government at all levels.
+
+            (j) Establishing and maintaining necessary
+          working relationships with any boards,
+          commissions, departments, and agencies, or other
+          public or private organizations.
+
+            SEC. 3. Section 8898 of the Government Code is
+          amended and renumbered to read:
+
+            8897.1. To implement the foregoing
+          responsibilities, the commission may do any of the
+          following:
+
+            (a) Review state budgets and review grant
+          proposals, other than those grant proposals
+          submitted by institutions of postsecondary
+          education to the federal government, for
+          earthquake related activities and to advise the
+          Governor and Legislature thereon.
+
+            (b) Review legislative proposals, related to
+          earthquake safety to advise the Governor and
+          Legislature concerning such proposals, and to
+          propose needed legislation.
+
+            (c) Recommend the addition, deletion, or
+          changing of state agency standards when, in the
+          commission's view, the existing situation creates
+          undue hazards or when new developments would
+          promote earthquake hazard mitigation, and conduct
+          public hearings as deemed necessary on the
+          subjects.
+
+            (d) In the conduct of any hearing,
+          investigation, inquiry, or study which is ordered
+          or undertaken in any part of the state, to
+          administer oaths and issue subpoenas for the
+          attendance of witnesses and the production of
+          papers, records, reports, books, maps, accounts,
+          documents, and testimony.
+
+            (e) In addition, the commission may perform any
+          of the functions contained in subdivisions (a) to
+          (d), inclusive, in relation to other disasters, as
+          defined in subdivision (c) of Section 8897, in
+          connection with issues or items reported or
+          discussed with the Office of Emergency Services at
+          any commission meeting.
+
+            SEC. 4. The sum of seven hundred fifty thousand
+          dollars ($750,000) is hereby appropriated from the
+          General Fund to the Seismic Safety Commission for
+          carrying out the provisions of Section 8895.1 of
+          the Government Code as added by this act,
+          contingent upon receipt of matching federal funds.
+
+            SEC. 5. This act is an urgency statute necessary
+          for the immediate preservation of the public
+          peace, health, or safety within the meaning of
+          Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into
+          immediate effect. The facts constituting such
+          necessity are:
+
+            In order to protect the public safety against
+          earthquakes, including the imminent possibility of
+          major earthquake predictions being made within the
+          next 12 months, it is necessary that this act take
+          effect immediately.
+
+
+
+
+ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
+
+
+=National Security Council Ad Hoc Committee on Assessment of
+Consequences and Preparation for a Major California Earthquake=
+
+_Dr. Frank Press_, Chairperson, President's Science Advisor
+_Clifton Alexander, Jr._, Secretary of the Army
+    _Roderick Renick_, Department of Defense
+_Cecil Andres_, Secretary of the Department of Interior
+    _H.W. Menard_, Department of Interior (USGS)
+_W. Bowman Cutter_, Executive Associate Director for Budget, Office of
+      Management and Budget
+_Lynn Daft_, Associate Director for Domestic Policy Staff, White House
+_Peter Hamilton_, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Department
+      of Defense
+_Ted Hodkowski_, Intergovernmental Assistant to the President, White
+      House
+_John W. Macy, Jr._, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+    _Richard Green_, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+    _Frank Camm_, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+_William Odom_, Military Assistant, National Security Council, White
+      House
+_Robert P. Pirie, Jr._, Assistant Secretary for Manpower, Reserve
+      Affairs and Logistics, Department of Defense
+
+
+=Working Group Members=
+
+_Philip Smith_, Chairperson, Office of Science and Technology Policy
+_Clarence G. Collins_, Department of Transportation
+_Richard DiConti_, National Communications System
+_Joseph Mullinix_, Office of Management and Budget
+_Chris Shoemaker_, National Security Council
+_Charles C. Thiel_, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+_Stephen Travis_, Domestic Policy Staff
+_Robert L. Wesson_, Office of Science and Technology Policy
+
+=Selected Contributors=
+
+_Richard E. Adams_, State of California, OES Region V
+_James Alexander_, State of California, OES Region I
+_William Anderson_, National Science Foundation
+_Ralph Archuleta_, United States Geological Survey
+_Roger D. Borcherdt_, United States Geological Survey
+_Robert D. Brown, Jr._, United States Geological Survey
+_James Brown_, George Washington University
+_Richard J. Buzka_, United States Geological Survey
+_Maria D. Castain_, United States Geological Survey
+_Lloyd Cluff_, Woodward-Clyde Consultants
+_John Crawford_, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+_Alex Cunningham_, State of California, OES
+_Donna Darling_, State of California, OES Region II
+_Gardner Davis_, State of California, OES Region VI
+_Henry Degenkolb_, H.J. Degenkolb & Associates
+_Joseph Domingues_, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX
+_Russell Dynes_, American Sociological Association
+_Raymond R. Eis_, United States Geological Survey
+_Susan Elkins_, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX
+_Jack F. Evernden_, United States Geological Survey
+_Charles Fritz_, National Academy of Sciences
+_Thomas E. Fumal_, United States Geological Survey
+_James T. Haigwood_, State of California, OES Region I
+_Jane Victoria Hindmarsh_, State of California, OES
+_Connie E. Hooper_, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+_William B. Joyner_, United States Geological Survey
+_Harry King_, State of California, OES Region II
+_Henry Lagorio_, University of California
+_Richard P. Liechti_, United States Geological Survey
+_Terry Meade_, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX
+_Ugo Morelli_, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+_William Myers_, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+_Robert A. Page_, United States Geological Survey
+_Daniel J. Ponti_, United States Geological Survey
+_H. Roger Pulley_, State of California, OES
+_F. Joseph Russo_, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+_Louis Schwalb_, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+_Wanda H. Seiders_, United States Geological Survey
+_Paul A. Spudich_, United States Geological Survey
+_Frank Steindl_, Oklahoma State University
+_Karl Steinbrugge_, Private Consultant
+_Christopher Stephens_, United States Geological Survey
+_Robert Stevens_, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX
+_John Sucich_, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+_Hurst Sutton_, Private Consultant
+_Richard Traub_, State of California, OES Region I
+_Monica L. Turner_, United States Geological Survey
+_Robert E. Wallace_, United States Geological Survey
+_Kay M. Walz_, United States Geological Survey
+_William W. Ward_, State of California, OES Region II
+_Robert R. Wilson_, Federal Emergency Management Agency
+_Robert P. Yerkes_, United States Geological Survey
+_Mark D. Zoback_, United States Geological Survey
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of An Assessment of the Consequences and
+Preparations for a Catastrophic California Earthquake: Findings and Actions Taken, by Various
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE ***
+
+***** This file should be named 18527.txt or 18527.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/1/8/5/2/18527/
+
+Produced by Jeannie Howse and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.