SCEC INSTANeT
News
|
SCEC INSTANeT
News |
|
Part 1 of this document focuses on how the southern California earth science research community developed a plan to work with government officials, building and design professionals, educators, media reporters and writers, and the public to increase awareness of the region's seismic hazard and to facilitate decisions that result in strengthened and enforced codes and better building practices. Part 2 includes specific examples of how we implement our outreach plan through interactions with our end users, especially those who develop risk mitigation measures. Part 3 addresses the southern California scientific community's plans for response to a damaging metropolitan earthquake.
Part 3: Pre-Earthquake Planning for Post-Earthquake Response (A SCEC Science Seminar, June, 1999) To consider the scientific questions that SCEC researchers want to address through post-earthquake investigations, we conducted a seminar led by US Geological Survey Pasadena Office Chief Scientist and seismologist Lucile M. Jones. The seminar was an interactive discussion about why we do what we do after an earthquake. We examined what we are trying to achieve and which of the traditional investigations are obsolete in the era of broadband seismic networks and geodesy. Up until this seminar, SCEC's earthquake response plan had been mostly names and phone numbers of people to be asked to organize others who would be going out into the field. Our objective from this seminar was to form a new plan organized around the scientific objectives of a post-earthquake investigation and how those objectives could be achieved. We also agreed that interactions should be identified and more accurately defined with the already-established "California Post-Earthquake Information Clearinghouse" (see page 18). The goal was to set objectives so that after the next earthquake we can look at the list, pick the three or four objectives most relevant to this event (urban near-field damage? San Andreas rupture? Strike-slip along the side of a basin? etc.), and deploy our resources accordingly. Scientists with field experience following large events brought to the meeting a transparency with important scientific questions they wanted to see answered by the next big earthquake. These were generic, applicable to all events, or specific to a plate boundary event, urban earthquake, etc. The outcome of this seminar contributes to how research money will be spent after the next event. Questions presented were assigned to one or more of three disciplinary groupings: Geology, Geodetics, and Seismology. Participants divided into these three disciplinary groupings and discussed and rank the questions presented in the morning session. They then formulated field experiments that would be done after an earthquake to address each question. The results of the discussions were presented to the group as a whole, and the group discussed possible implementation methods. The results of the workshop will be synthesized into an official SCEC Response Plan. A summary of the three groups follows: Geology Group Summary (Tom Rockwell) Following a large earthquake, geologists need to do the following in the first hours:
Geologists would need to do the following in the first day:
There is also a need for a structured response with common standards. This should be a collaborative effort between the USGS, CDMG, SCEC geologists, and others. Geodesy Group Summary (Ken Hudnut) Geodesists would like to have continuous instrumentation out in the field, which would eliminate the need to rush out to the field after the event. SCIGN has not built this capability into its program. Geodesists need GPS arrays across the fault to measure displacement. Topics of interest for such investigations:
Geodesists would rely on SCEC/USGS to coordinate efforts. A possible structure:
Seismology Group Summary (Ralph Archuleta) The group discussed what experiments could be deployed to answer the scientific questions. Timing, priority, organization, and personnel were taken into account. Archuleta constructed an organizational chart that indicated coordination of data analysis and modeling, communication, and field investigations, as well as considering real-time inventory of instruments. Scientific questions considered included:
Other issues discussed by the entire group:
The California Post Earthquake Information Clearinghouse For two weeks following the January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake, the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) Pasadena office served as the nerve center of an extensive reconnaissance effort. Every morning, earth scientists, engineers, social scientists, and public policy experts headed out to the damaged areas. After a day of looking at and studying the earthquake's effects, these experts returned to a crowded conference room in Pasadena to spend the evening sharing and reviewing their observations. That was the first extensive operation of the California Post Earthquake Information Clearinghouse, a project of many organizations involved in earthquake studies. The clearinghouse is a unique way in which information can be exchanged among various types of investigators who come from other states and counties. Within one day of the Northridge earthquake, clearinghouse field investigators were on site, bringing back damage reports that aided emergency response activities and focused earth science investigations. In a few days, the daily information became an impressive body of data for future analysis and use. Clearinghouses had been organized following other California quakes. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) and the USGS worked with OES and the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) to run the modest operations out of local school gymnasiums, firehouses, community colleges, and even motels. The value of sharing information after these events was obvious, but they also realized that the clearinghouse was an efficient way to involve and track the large number of investigators who came to the damage scene. A few months before the Northridge earthquake, the four leading organizations were joined by the California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC). They reached an informal agreement to establish and operate a large clearinghouse after the next major earthquake. That agreement came just in time. Hundreds of investigators passed through the doors of the Northridge clearinghouse during its two weeks of operation. Although it as an unqualified success, it also showed the need for formal plans and the involvement of more organizations. The Plan Clearinghouse collaborators have been meeting quarterly since March 1996 to plan for the needs of all the involved organizations. In summary, the plan calls for the clearinghouse to: 1) be the check-in and check-out point for all investigators and officials who arrive at the scene; 2) collect and verify perishable reconnaissance information; 3) convey that information to the planning/intelligence function of the OES Regional Emergency Operations Center; 4) provide updated damage information through daily briefings and reports; 5) track investigators in the field; and 6) perhaps even direct their movements for maximum coverage with minimal disruption to residents. In the few years since Northridge, the technology for capturing data has been vastly improved, and what was a comparatively primitive system in 1994 is now a networked geographic information system capable of tracking the investigators as well as their findings. Within the clearinghouse management group, CDMG and USGS are responsible for conducting seismologic and geologic assessments of earthquakes. EERI has a charter from the National Science Foundation to investigate the structural and social effects of all major earthquakes in the U.S. and abroad. The CSSC is the main seismic policy body in the state, recommending new legislation and regulations to minimize earthquake losses. OES coordinates all the emergency planning and response activities in the state. Besides the members of the management group, ten other organizations have signed on as participants in the clearinghouse plan:
Triggering a Clearinghouse An earthquake in an urban area will trigger establishing a clearinghouse when the quake is damaging and has a magnitude of 6.0 or above. A clearinghouse may be established under other conditions if recommended by CDMG staff during initial field surveys following an earthquake. A federal disaster declaration is not necessary to activate the clearinghouse, but the clearinghouse will always be activated when there is a federal disaster declaration. In the first 24 hours after a serious quake, the OES region in which the earthquake strikes will provide, or work with other governmental units to arrange for, the clearinghouse space. The duration of the clearinghouse operation depends on the extent of the damage and the length of the response period. While there is still a need for information to support response activities, or perishable data to be gathered, the field investigators will survey the damaged area.
Part 1 of this document focuses on how the southern California earth science research community developed a plan to work with government officials, building and design professionals, educators, media reporters and writers, and the public to increase awareness of the region's seismic hazard and to facilitate decisions that result in strengthened and enforced codes and better building practices. Part 2 includes specific examples of how we implement our outreach plan through interactions with our end users, especially those who develop risk mitigation measures. |
||
Phone 213/740-5843 Fax 213/740-0011 e-mail: SCECinfo@usc.edu |