GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AN EARTHQUAKE ...

GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AN

EARTHQUAKE SCENARIO

Publication and distribution of this report was funded by the Endowment Fund of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

and FEMA, Department of Homeland Security

March 2006, Revised October 2021

©2006, 2021 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute 499 14th Street, Suite 220 Oakland, California 94612-1934 Telephone: (510) 451-0905 Fax: (510) 451-5411 Website: http://www.eeri.org All rights reserved. Downloading and reproduction of this document is encouraged. Publication and distribution of this report was funded by the Endowment Fund of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and FEMA, Department of Homeland Security. Writers, 2006 version:

Jane Preuss, PlanWest James Godfrey, EERI (includes production) Writers, 2021 Update: Janise Rodgers, Julie Jomo, Heidi Stenner, GeoHazards International Reviewers, 2006 version (with affiliation at time of review):

Rich Eisner, California Office of Emergency Services John Hooper, Magnusson Klemencic Associates Wilfred D. Iwan, Caltech Marshall Lew, MACTEC Ellen Rathje, University of Texas, Austin Susan Tubbesing, EERI Reviewers, 2021 update:

Maggie Ortiz-Millan, EERI Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of EERI, the authors’ organizations, or any funding agencies. Cover image: From San Diego Earthquake Planning Scenario: Magnitude 6.9 on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, EERI 2020

http://www.eeri.org/

Table of Contents PREFACE ....................................................................................................................... 1

AN OVERVIEW OF SCENARIO PLANNING ................................................................. 3

What can be done now to prevent the damages from future catastrophic earthquakes? .................3

Why develop an earthquake scenario? ...........................................................................................4

How the Community Benefits .........................................................................................................5

How to Use These Guidelines .........................................................................................................6

LAUNCHING THE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT EFFORT ........................................... 7

Engage the Community ..................................................................................................................7

Identify Key Participants and Audiences .........................................................................................8

ORGANIZING THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM ................................................................ 10

Identify the Process and the Organizational Plan .......................................................................... 10

Workgroups ................................................................................................................................. 12

Workgroup Leaders ...................................................................................................................... 13

Management Team ...................................................................................................................... 13

Project Director ........................................................................................................................... 13

CONSTRUCTING THE SCENARIO ............................................................................. 14

Information to Collect from Available Sources .............................................................................. 14

Components and Steps in the Process........................................................................................... 15

Useful Tools ................................................................................................................................. 20

SHARING THE SCENARIO .......................................................................................... 22

Telling a Story with Maps and Graphics ........................................................................................ 22

Reaching Different Audiences ....................................................................................................... 23

Conducting Informational Workshops .......................................................................................... 23

Working with the Media .............................................................................................................. 24

PUTTING THE SCENARIO TO WORK ........................................................................ 25

Plans and Policies that Consider Hazards Risk, One City’s Examples ............................................... 25

Emergency Response and Recovery Examples ............................................................................... 27

Hazard Mitigation Planning Examples ........................................................................................... 27

FUNDING THE PROJECT ............................................................................................ 29

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 31

Guidel ines for Develop ing an Earthquake Scenar io | 1

PREFACE Scenarios can serve as powerful planning tools that help communities understand earthquakes and plan for the future, telling the story of a defined earthquake and its specific impacts. Using scenarios can increase interest in and support for earthquake risk mitigation. Earthquake scenarios can be used as planning and exercise tools for emergency response, recovery, and community planning for disaster preparedness or risk mitigation. This document covers a wide range of ideas and types of earthquake scenarios. This guidance was created to help communities through the process of developing and using effective earthquake scenarios. You will find here tools and suggestions to help communities through the process, including examples of completed scenarios as well as resources.

An earthquake scenario tells the story of a defined earthquake and its consequences.

The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) has supported and encouraged its Regional Chapters to develop scenarios that local professionals and earthquake safety advocates can use to help communities improve their earthquake resilience. After the EERI Washington Chapter participated in the development of a scenario for a Seattle Fault earthquake with the Washington Emergency Management Department, EERI worked with local planner Jane Preuss to produce the original 2006 version of Guidelines for Developing an Earthquake Scenario. An Earthquake Scenario Planning Workshop, convened by EERI on September 17-18, 2008 provided insights and lessons learned from a broader group of scenarios, with the goal of supporting wider use of earthquake scenarios. The workshop brought together people who had developed scenarios, people who were beginning scenarios, and representatives from communities considering such a journey. Small working groups developed recommendations on scenario organization, leadership, consensus building, administrative support, logistics, ownership, promotion, public relations, and fundraising. The workshop agenda and reports are available from EERI’s Digital Library.

An earthquake scenario can be used to: Help a community understand its

earthquake risk and possible risk reduction measures

Help stakeholders visualize specific physical, social, economic and environmental impacts

Inform response planning and exercises Inform mitigation and land use planning Raise awareness to promote business

continuity

https://eeri.org/what-we-offer/digital-library/


The story is based on currently accepted scientific knowledge (including social, economic and environmental science) and engineering.

Following the workshop, EERI synthesized the findings and made them available on the web in 2009, with funding from the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). Steering committee members and contributors (with affiliations at the time of the workshop) to the web-based guidance were: Ivan Wong, URS Corp (Chair); Douglas Bausch, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Bill Burns, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI); Rod Combellick, Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys; Richard Eisner, The Fritz Institute; John Filson, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); Marjorie Greene, EERI (staff); Jack Hayes, NEHRP/NIST; Greg Hempen, URS Corp; Andre LeDuc, Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resistance; Elizabeth Lemersal, USGS; Ines Pearce, Consultant; Michael Reichle, California Geological Survey; Hope Seligson, MMI Engineering; Susan Tubbesing, EERI; Yumei Wang, DOGAMI; Barry Welliver, BHW Engineers and Gabe Mulford, EERI (website support). In 2021, GeoHazards International incorporated the 2009 website material into the original Preuss and Godfrey 2006 guidance document, and added some new material and examples. GeoHazards International’s team included Janise Rodgers, Julie Jomo, and Heidi Stenner. The intent of this revised guidance document is to combine the practical experiences synthesized in the 2009 website with the original 2006 guidance document. Advances in scenario practice since 2009, ongoing research by GeoHazards International into what makes scenarios effective, and experiences in developing and using scenarios since 2009 are not substantively included in this 2021 update due to the limited scope of the update project. It is suggested that such learning be incorporated into future revisions to these Guidelines.


AN OVERVIEW OF SCENARIO PLANNING What can be done now to prevent the damages from future catastrophic earthquakes? Scenarios are widely used to better understand and help plan for the future. A successful scenario tells the story of a defined earthquake and its specific impacts. It draws the reader in by incorporating familiar aspects of the community that they can readily recognize. It helps decision makers to visualize specific impacts that are based on currently accepted scientific knowledge (including social, economic and environmental science) and engineering. Few regions have fully formed response plans for earthquakes. Even fewer regions have mitigation plans in place that involve the various segments of a community. A scenario improves awareness of what an earthquake can do to a community as a whole. By bringing together experts from a number of disciplines and taking advantage of their unique knowledge and perspectives to describe a single, catastrophic event, a community can produce a scenario that realistically describes the earthquake risk and potential impacts, giving clear reasons for individuals, businesses, and policy makers to act now to prevent devastating losses. The same participants who will respond or work to rebuild the community when an actual earthquake occurs should be involved in the multi-agency development of the scenario. Scenarios help to challenge assumptions. Conflicts that arise between planners when constructing a scenario can help to clarify issues or areas where knowledge is lacking. Challenges from other agencies provide new views which would not be possible if disaster planning occurred privately or individually.

A scenario can be as simple as a quick HAZUS run for a meeting of city officials to a multi-year complex process involving many stakeholders.

Currently we do not have the scientific knowledge to predict the precise location, time, and magnitude of a future earthquake. However, we do have many tools and sufficient scientific and engineering knowledge to anticipate and describe likely events and their impacts. The scenario will not specifically instruct an audience how to respond, but by providing a wide variety of information about the projected earthquake, readers will be able to identify areas of greatest vulnerability to inform decisions and actions. Some scenarios are created to expose problems in the present system. Often, weaknesses become evident only in a catastrophic event. A scenario can test strategies for response, relief, and recovery. It can project performance levels of buildings and other structures under various design codes and policies. When new policies are established, a scenario can project how these changes


will influence the nature, level and extent of damage. By telling a story, scenarios give life to abstract concepts. They provide a common language for all players in the community: the planners and builders, policy makers, residents, and emergency responders. Because the effects of an earthquake are so varied, scenario developers should plan to communicate their story to a wide audience. The general audience for the completed scenario may grasp simple concepts through the use of narrative, but quantitative data will give an authoritative voice to the report. Scenarios must be credible and relevant to compel decision makers to use them. A plausible earthquake scenario builds on current knowledge of local seismicity and geology, and incorporates characteristics of the building stock, lifelines, and other infrastructure within the social, economic, and cultural context of the community at risk. Why develop an earthquake scenario? A scenario has as its end goal the reduction of earthquake risk. The process to develop this scenario builds a common understanding of local risk and the issues involved in managing this risk. The process also brings people together from different perspectives. Their collaboration to tell a realistic, science-based story may lead to:

■ collective problem-solving

■ common understanding of the risks and a “mental model” of what can happen

■ identifying flaws and strengths in the community’s response systems and making modifications before a real disaster

■ advocacy for the community to reduce earthquake risk, and to secure funding and resources

■ engaging and informing stakeholders and decision makers

■ examining alternate futures, with and without specific mitigation

■ improving emergency response through training exercises based on the scenario

Hayward Fault Scenario California Geological Survey 1987 This scenario described a potential magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Hayward Fault in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the effects of that event on transportation networks, utilities, and critical buildings. The scenario intended to give state and local government emergency planners a picture of the catastrophic event they will face. The state agency also recognized the need for private sector planners and the media to understand the hazard in order to motivate preparation and mitigation strategies among residents of Northern California. While scenario development approaches and technology have advanced significantly since this scenario was prepared, early scenarios like this one were significant in raising awareness of earthquake risk and mitigation needs.


How the Community Benefits When a major earthquake occurs in a community where policy makers and the public are unaware of an earthquake risk and have not taken steps to address that risk, losses can be catastrophic. Buildings that are not engineered for seismic safety may collapse or become uninhabitable. Transportation networks may be severed, affecting the lives of commuters and workers. Disruption of utility systems may result; fire and chemical releases may interrupt critical services and threaten life safety. Landslides and, in coastal communities, tsunamis, may be triggered by the earthquake and cause further severe losses. A well-crafted scenario provides a powerful tool for members of private industry, government officials, and the general public to begin to draft mitigation policies and programs. It will help the community weigh various risks associated with the earthquake and begin to set priorities that will systematically reduce the impact of the likely future event.

Scenario for a Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake on the Seattle Fault Washington State Emergency Management Department 2005 An extensive collaboration of disciplines in the private and public sectors made the initiation, process, and final ownership of this scenario unique. EERI and FEMA funded the development of the scenario. Collaboration between leading engineering firms in the region, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and academicians knowledgeable about transportation systems and the neighborhood economies provided thorough research estimating damage and impacts from a magnitude 6.7 earthquake on the previously unknown Seattle Fault. Washington State Emergency Management Department (EMD) incorporated the scenario into the agency’s ongoing earthquake preparedness program.

Earthquake Damage in Oregon: Preliminary Estimates of Future Earthquake Losses, Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries 1999 Oregon’s first major earthquake scenario project examined the impacts of a magnitude 8.5 Cascadia Subduction Zone event as well as average earthquakes on faults across the state. Led by state agency professionals, it raised awareness of earthquake risk, and provided policy-makers with substantive information on earthquake consequences. Scenario results were used to advocate for state legislation and bond measures to fund earthquake risk mitigation programs, including for schools and emergency facilities.


How to Use These Guidelines These Guidelines will lead you through the five basic steps of scenario development. Launching the Scenario Development Effort. An effective scenario requires involving the right people from the beginning. Participants should include those who are expected to use the scenario or to initiate mitigation policies, and professionals from relevant disciplines who can contribute to the development of the story. Organizing the Development Team. The credibility of the scenario will depend on who participates in identifying vulnerabilities and contributing data. The primary work group for scenario development may be a few individual planners in related disciplines, or may consist of a large number of representatives from a large collaboration of agencies. Establish leadership. A project director is needed to guide the disparate interests of the group. The director’s guidance will help ensure that the scenario speaks with one voice. Constructing the Scenario. To be comprehensive, a scenario should include sections that describe the components of the earthquake risk and projected effects on the community. Each section of the scenario should be considered carefully to ensure credibility and to establish the project’s value to the community. Sharing the Scenario. It is critical that the presentation of the completed scenario reach those people who are expected to take action or who can demand action from policy makers. It should address those involved in building and maintaining critical structures, and response and recovery planners. The scenario should be presented in a medium and language that can easily be grasped by a wide audience of homeowners, businesses, and others interested in the safety and security of the community. Putting the Scenario to Work. The work of using the scenario findings and putting its recommendations into practice determines whether the report sits on the shelf or becomes a tool in planning for safer outcomes from earthquakes. Putting the scenario to work involves processes that bring together government agencies, stakeholders, and the public. The results can be risk mitigation plans, policies that consider earthquake risk, outreach across the population, emergency response and recovery plans, and emergency response exercises.


LAUNCHING THE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT EFFORT Engage the Community Be realistic about the community’s level of interest in developing a scenario. One way to gauge that interest is to begin the scenario project with an open forum designed to attract a wide range of individuals who have been active in earthquake research and risk mitigation fields. Use the meeting to identify the level and sources of political commitment to hazard mitigation generally, and to earthquake mitigation specifically. Broad community support for the scenario can be built by involving people from a number of disciplines.

Discussion Points for an Effective Launch Meeting Discuss participants’ expectations for the project. Who will use the scenario and how? Is its intent to stir the general public to take measures in self-preparedness, or to show decision makers the need for new government policy? Stress the need for the participation of experts from a wide range of disciplines. Who will sponsor the scenario, providing funds and other support? Who will take ownership of the scenario when it is completed? Demonstrate local support for the effort by including speakers and endorsements from government, leaders in the business community, and members of the academic and research fields.

Together, participants can begin to discuss the size, scope, and likelihood of the scenario event. The earthquake and its impact must reflect current scientific and engineering knowledge to be credible to policy makers and others who will be in a position to take necessary actions. Emphasize that the scenario is a tool to enhance advocacy. It is the first step toward mitigation, which can take many years to accomplish. Keep a sign-in list of participants. This list provides an indication of interested people who may be called upon to serve on committees or periodically review the scenario as it develops. It will also help to identify users of the final product.

Southern California ShakeOut Scenario U.S. Geological Survey 2008 Originally prepared for the 2008 Golden Guardian emergency response exercise, this hypothetical scenario describes how a magnitude 7.8 Southern California earthquake would impact the region, causing loss of lives and massive damage to infrastructure, including critical transportation, power, and water systems. In November 2008, millions participated in the Great Southern California ShakeOut public earthquake drill. ShakeOut drills have since spread worldwide. Results from the ShakeOut Scenario were used in the development of resilience plans and programs in the City of Los Angeles.


Identify Key Participants and Audiences The scenario process can have many stakeholders and audiences. They may be involved in the planning and development of the scenario as well as implementation of recommendations that result from the scenario. Engaging people who can act on the results—from the beginning—is important for creating an effective scenario. Depending on the purpose of the scenario, these stakeholders may include the following people:

■ Government officials, including emergency managers, first responders, community planners. Local government officials will likely play a major role in the management of the scenario process, particularly if it will be used to test the community’s ability to manage a future earthquake. Emergency managers and land use planners are often primary audiences for a scenario. They can benefit from small-scale scenarios as well as larger, more elaborate ones. A small-scale scenario, focusing on a more likely event, may generate the awareness needed to begin planning for a larger, more extreme event.

■ Elected officials. Ultimately, elected officials are responsible for the actions, or lack of actions, a community takes to reduce and/or manage its earthquake risk. If you can engage them, they can be an important resource and ally in the development of the scenario, and a political champion for implementing recommendations.

■ Medical and public health professionals. Health professionals can provide information on local health systems and identify the health consequences of earthquake damage to those systems and the public. Hospitals play a critical role post-disaster, and participation of medical professionals may encourage measures to ensure hospital function as well as staff exercises to prepare for a surge of injured patients.

■ Education professionals. Earthquake damage to school buildings not only endangers children’s lives but can also disrupt children’s education for an extended period. Educators’ participation will lead to better understanding the risks to schoolchildren as well as how to mitigate these risks.

■ Utilities/infrastructure. Water, power, telecommunications, fuel, waste, and transportation systems are critical for communities to function and recover following an earthquake. The scenario will be more realistic if people from these companies and agencies participate.

■ Business and volunteer leaders. Other community leaders, from business and volunteer networks, bring access to these communities, their volunteers, expertise, knowledge of local issues, and are ultimately necessary to community buy-in of the scenario.

■ Technical experts, including economists, engineers, scientists and other earthquake professionals. Any one agency is unlikely to have all the technical expertise necessary for a scenario, so bringing in experts from a variety of disciplines, institutions and organizations can help make the scenario more credible.

■ Academic community. Local universities and community colleges are great sources of information about the local environment–natural, social, political, built–and local history. Local academic experts in many subject areas can be a resource for technical data as well as a potential source of volunteers to contribute to scenario development.


■ Media. Media play an essential role in publicizing the scenario, summarizing it for the public, and getting the attention of policy-makers.

■ Organizations that serve people with unique functional or access needs. Including people who understand specific challenges that people with differing abilities will face after a disaster will support more inclusive mitigation and preparedness efforts.

■ General public. Interested members of the public bring diverse perspectives and help the scenario reflect local priorities and needs.

■ Administrative support, GIS, graphics, interns. Depending on the scope of the scenario, it will be helpful to have support with specific technical tasks, such as GIS and graphics design for community mapping and displays, as well as administrative support in terms of organizing participants and meetings.

■ Professional associations. Members of professional associations such as structural engineers, earth science, planning, building, business, and teaching associations can be a good source of information about community issues, and a source of volunteers who may be willing to contribute to scenario development and implementation.

■ Seismic or multi-hazard safety commission or regional earthquake planning groups (where they exist). These bodies can provide key links to policy-makers and can assist with implementation of recommendations based on scenario findings.

■ Government technical or scientific agencies. Institutions with recognized scientific and technical expertise bring credibility to the results.

■ Historical societies. The local historical society is a good source of information on historical development patterns and experience with past earthquakes.

Getting Started: A Checklist Decide what decisions you want the scenario to inform Clearly state the scenario objectives Identify stakeholders (consider using focus groups) Form workgroups, and task forces for specific issues Use existing earthquake safety groups where possible Include a professional PR or media person on the team Engage people with experience in outreach to the community and

business leaders Select an overall leader/manager Designate leaders for areas such as structural engineering, earth

sciences, health sciences, emergency management, lifelines


ORGANIZING THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM Deciding which people to involve in scenario development can depend on the purpose of the scenario. Bring key leaders in at the front end. In particular, leaders who will be necessary to implement any change that comes from the scenario should be a part of the development process. Involving a range of stakeholders from day one of the development effort increases buy-in and ownership of the scenario’s findings and recommendations. For the people involved, the development process may be more important than the eventual scenario product. The process may bring stakeholders together who have not worked this way before, examining possible alternative futures, and understanding the interconnectedness of community planning issues. Participatory processes and two-way communication to incorporate stakeholder and public input can be helpful to this effort.

In terms of scenario consequences, the range of development participants can consider what is important to the community, and what do people value that might be affected by an earthquake. They can help the scenario incorporate the concept of community resilience. Identify the Process and the Organizational Plan The process can be critical to the success of the scenario. Explicitly identify the leadership (project manager, management team, workgroups), the budget, the timeframe, and the decision-making process. Will workgroups work in tandem, or sequentially? Acknowledge the need for flexibility. As the community or organization works through the scenario development, the process needs to accommodate enthusiasm from participants, as well as information and people that may not have been available when the scenario was first scoped out. The process should be flexible enough to scale up or down, depending on volunteer commitments, data availability, and management support.

An earthquake scenario can be prepared in different ways. The model used affects how the scenario is organized, who does the work, and how it gets done. In the professional community model an association, such as an EERI Regional Chapter, prepares the scenario on a mostly volunteer basis. In the government agency model, a federal/national, state, or local agency, or a consortium of agencies, prepares the scenario

Scenario for a M7.0 Earthquake on the Wasatch Fault–Salt Lake City Segment EERI Utah Chapter 2015 Prepared for the Utah Seismic Safety Commission, the scenario utilizes HAZUS results from the Utah Division of Emergency Management. The scenario includes estimates of building damage, human casualties and sheltering needs, lifeline losses and estimates of recovery time, and economic losses. Recommendations to the Seismic Safety Commission provide a way forward to improve earthquake safety along the Wasatch Front.


using mostly the time of its technical staff and possibly a few consultants, using internal funding. In the organization-led model, a non-profit organization, university or company prepares the scenario, usually with external funding. This document was originally intended to provide guidance primarily on using the professional community model to develop scenarios. The update has been enhanced to better include other models of scenario preparation. Create a Schedule To ensure credibility and to stress the importance of the effort, the scenario project should be completed within a timeframe set out to the audience when the project is first announced. Establish various internal timelines to effectively manage the disparate planning groups and to keep them on schedule. Build in time for reviews and to achieve consensus among local professionals on important technical aspects of the scenario. Buy-in from the various stakeholders, audiences, and leadership needed for implementation is critical to the ultimate success of the scenario. Time necessary for educating these stakeholders and leaders about the scenario and including them in its development should be built into the process. Different components of the scenario will take different amounts of time to complete. Some sections will require the data of another section before work can begin. For example, an inventory of seismically vulnerable buildings may take time to create. To show how those buildings will be damaged, however, the planners developing this section will need information about ground motion. Those data need to be provided by earth scientists. Strong leaders for each of the planning groups are needed. Designate an overall project director to guide the project to the deadline. A flow chart can be helpful to keep work on the various sections on time (Figure 1).

Section Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Geological Data Geotechnical Data Induced Hazards Buildings Lifelines Transportation Interdependencies Social/Economic Impacts Response Recommendations

Figure 1: A sample flow chart showing the various timelines for the work groups creating each scenario component. These timelines will vary with the levels of paid and volunteer labor, and the complexity of the scenario.


Workgroups Workgroups are one way to create a participatory scenario development structure that involves people from the organizations listed previously in the “Identify Key Participants and Audiences” section. The most accurate picture of the proposed earthquake and its effects is created only when experts from a wide variety of disciplines are involved, along with local stakeholders who can help describe the impacts. A successful scenario integrates science, engineering, social and economic issues, and government planning. Increase its acceptance by working with local “champions” for the scenario, choosing a credible scenario, involving leaders and experts who are respected in the community or organization. Eventual users of the scenario will represent many perspectives, including all levels of government, local businesses, homeowners, hospital administrators, utility and school districts, and many others. Technical disciplines usually represented in scenario workgroups include:

■ Earth scientists (seismologists, geologists, engineering geologists) ■ Geotechnical engineers ■ Structural engineers ■ Architects ■ Land use planners ■ Transportation, civil and lifeline engineers (for water, power and other lifelines) ■ Emergency managers ■ Social scientists (sociologists, anthropologists) and public health professionals ■ Economists

Establish workgroups by organizing key participants around the components or key parts of the scenario (discussed in the section Constructing the Scenario), which include:

a. A description of the earthquake and its features; b. Estimates of damage and impact; c. Discussion of response and community recovery issues; and d. Recommendations to mitigate impacts and a call to action.

Workgroups are the most active and critical cogs in the scenario process. The members of the workgroups are responsible for writing the individual sections, or reviewing the work of scenario developers preparing those sections. The most active participants may not be the same people who were invited to the initial launch meeting. As the scenario evolves, new perspectives may become important, and the resources of additional disciplines will become helpful. To maximize the long-term impact and credibility of the scenario, members should represent a diversity of affiliations (i.e., not only from one agency or company). Workgroup members who represent larger groups—for example, a government agency, an engineering firm—may be more effective than an individual consultant because the organization may have a bigger voice in the community. Inevitably, during the course of the development


process, the schedules of some members may preclude their active participation. Planners who represent an organization can be represented by colleagues from that organization, ensuring continuity. Workgroup Leaders Establish a leader for each workgroup. During the development of the scenario, that leader will be the public face for that particular discipline. When the media, for example, have a question about transportation resilience in an earthquake, the leader of the transportation workgroup can be called upon to answer that question. Leaders will assign parts of the discipline’s analysis to various members and ensure that work is produced on schedule. The leader takes responsibility for the final report of that group. The position of workgroup leader will demand considerable time. If this is a volunteer position, dedication and commitment to the entire development process is necessary. Public recognition as a technical lead in a community’s scenario effort can demonstrate the individual’s or company’s dedication to community safety, and help to offset the unpaid contribution to the project. Management Team Create a management team consisting of the leaders of each workgroup. The various groups working on each section or variable cannot work independently of the others. The workgroup leaders should meet regularly throughout the process to ensure that the parts of the scenario are developing according to schedule and are in concert with one another. Periodic reports of workgroup findings enable disciplines to quickly review another group’s progress. Throughout the development process, regularly evaluate the information to ensure that the scenario remains on track to achieve the project goals. Regularly discuss the validity of assumptions developed along the way. This method of evaluation ensures an internally consistent and integrated document. The evaluation also educates workgroup leaders, providing new relevant information for their own sections. Project Director The administrative tasks of such a large work project should be the responsibility of a single leader. A project director ensures the regular sharing of information as the various sections of the scenario are separately developed. Through the management team, the director guides the progress of the project. The project director acts as editor, compiling the work of the groups and helping the workgroups see the big picture. By periodically circulating workgroup drafts, the director can alert the planners to possible inconsistencies. Ongoing reviews can be conducted through a secure website on which drafts are posted or through the distribution of numbered drafts. The workgroups and participants will generate a great deal of information that must be accessible to all the scenario planners. Ideally, one of the participating organizations can host the storage of information.


CONSTRUCTING THE SCENARIO

It is important to have very clear objectives for the scenario before embarking on the activity.

Information to Collect from Available Sources What are the kinds of information and data available that can be built on in scenario development? What data are still needed? Involve experts and stakeholders in identifying what data are available at the community level. Any one agency is unlikely to have all the experts needed. A consistent depth of information is needed, including:

■ Hazard data, including historic earthquakes Begin by involving earth scientists knowledgeable about the earthquake hazard, and gather available information and data. Published reports and papers, historic accounts, academic proceedings are all places to start to see what information exists. Include information and data on hazards that may be triggered by shaking, such as landslides, liquefaction, tsunamis, and fire following earthquake.

■ Building inventory data Any building inventory data in the community can be useful. Particularly if the scenario will use U.S. loss estimation software HAZUS or other loss estimation software, these community data can replace default data. (Please see the “Useful Tools” section for more details on loss estimation software.) Building inventory data can help to identify classes and numbers of buildings that are potentially vulnerable. Data may be available from local building departments, tax assessors, universities, professional organizations, or regional planning agencies. If data do not exist or have not been compiled, consider an investment in a building inventory. The data can be expensive and time-consuming for a community to collect, but once collected can be used in all future scenarios and specific risk mitigation programs, reducing costs associated with future efforts.

■ Infrastructure data Work with local utilities and transportation agencies to gather data on basic infrastructure in the community (power, water, transportation and communication networks). Data on infrastructure can sometimes be difficult to obtain due to security concerns, so it may be necessary to generalize, or to request utilities and transportation agencies to prepare their own estimates of damage and service restoration times. Consider interdependencies.

■ Demographic data Understanding who lives or works in the area for which the scenario is being prepared, depending on the scale of the scenario, is critical to developing a realistic picture of what might happen in an earthquake. Basic data are available from the Census and from state agencies; specialized data may be available from local universities and community-based organizations. Data should be disaggregated in a way that supports identification of impacts that different populations may experience.


■ Economic data Economic data are important in understanding the resilience of a community, its ability to prepare for and recover from a future event. Data are available from similar sources as demographic data: federal and state agencies as well as local universities.

■ Cultural and historical data These data are important in understanding the character of a community–for example, historic development patterns, cultural traditions represented in the community, and experience with earthquakes.

Components and Steps in the Process

To ensure credibility, the analyses of each component must stand on the best available science and engineering. A good scenario will be comprehensive and demonstrate interrelationships between various parts of the community. For example, a section on building damage should include the earthquake’s effect on such critical structures as hospitals, fire and police stations, which must also be addressed by writers of the section on emergency response. Descriptions of the nature and extent of damage to the existing building stock are critical for those developing the section on economic and social impact reflecting housing losses, small business interruption, and others. This section discusses basic building blocks, or components, of an effective earthquake scenario, following the typical chronological steps in the process. Define the Scenario Earthquake Why is an earthquake expected? How big will the earthquake be? When will it occur? What will it do?

Figure 2: Location of fault rupture (black line) and shaking from a magnitude 7 scenario earthquake on the Hayward Fault, prepared by USGS. Red indicates the strongest shaking.


Selecting the scenario earthquake(s) is an important decision that reflects both sound science–scientists must consider the events plausible and defensible–and risk communication principles. Most commonly, scenario developers select a single earthquake to make it simpler to tell the story of how the event impacts the community. In some cases, developers select a repeat of a historic earthquake occurring in the present day to tie the scenario to a real event. The scenario earthquake that is chosen needs to be credible to local audiences. A smaller, more plausible earthquake as the basis for a scenario is often more credible than a catastrophic event. The scenario earthquake should still be large enough to expose important seismic vulnerabilities. Otherwise, policy-makers may come to the erroneous conclusion that the community is not really at risk. Describe why the defined earthquake will cause the damages identified in the following sections of the scenario. Though diagrams and narrative should be simple, assumptions need to be based on scientific research and reviewed carefully by the workgroup for accuracy. Geologists and seismologists provide knowledge about the nature of the earthquake event such as rupture length, amount of slip, duration, and magnitude. (Figure 2). Geotechnical engineers provide expertise on how the ground behaves in an earthquake and how that affects engineered buildings and structures (Figure 3). The particular kind of ground motion expected in the region can determine the level and type of building damage to expect. The later scenario sections that describe the effects of the earthquake on our daily environment should be able to tie damage projections to the nature of the earthquake depicted in this first section.

Figure 3: The effects of liquefaction, which is one result of an earthquake, on a structure.


Estimate Damage and Impacts of the Chosen Event The audience for your scenario will be primarily interested in the projected losses caused by the earthquake. The most obvious loss is damage to buildings and other structures (or to “the built environment”). Quantify descriptions of building damage; where possible, use figures to show the estimated magnitude of the problem. In order to paint a comprehensive picture of the disaster, each section that describes an earthquake effect should refer to other sections describing various aspects of the community. For example, to explain the seismic impact and the damage to unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, it will be important to know how many URM buildings are in the region and what type of services they provide. Do they house low income families or small businesses? Are they used as schools or other critical facilities? This information helps to better define the particular impact on the community. The three-day closure of a two-story office building to assess and repair nonstructural damages to lighting and water systems will have a different impact on the community than will a similar closure of a critical care facility or public hospital, which will be needed immediately after the earthquake to treat the injured. Involve stakeholders in estimating impacts from their perspectives. It is important to decide on the scale and scope for these estimates.

Scenarios provide an excellent mechanism for exploring complex interdependencies and cascading impacts on the community.

Stress the wide reach of a catastrophic disaster. Based on soil conditions, directivity, and other geologic features, describe how ground motion may impact a quiet neighborhood located miles away from the damages near the fault that ruptured. Request state transportation agencies to make estimates of damage based on expected ground motions. Transportation system interruptions are interesting not only to transit and transportation agencies—impacts on specific roadways and bridges challenge emergency response operations and create economic impacts on neighborhoods throughout the region. Figure 4 was produced for Scenario for a Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake on the Seattle Fault (commonly called the Seattle Fault Scenario) and provides an example of how the shaking can vary across the affected area.


Figure 4: A map showing the extent of ground motion in a projected magnitude 6.7 Seattle Fault earthquake. Ground motion is at its peak in the areas shaded in red.

Damage to water, power and communications systems causes interruptions in service. The agencies or utility companies that provide these lifeline services can provide estimates of the amount of time it may take to restore service. These estimates should account for the interdependencies between lifeline systems. For example, water systems need power to run pumps and treatment plants. Crews repairing the power system depend on roads that may be damaged by liquefaction or blocked by landslides. Scenarios provide an excellent mechanism for exploring complex interdependencies and cascading impacts on the community that are difficult to model but that experienced professionals can describe qualitatively. Determine Response and Community Recovery Impacts Response and recovery concerns life safety and the social impact of disasters. Response is better understood than recovery, which will likely include effects on housing, jobs, transportation networks, schools, hospitals, and more.


Different stakeholder groups may be involved in these estimates. By nature, descriptions of these activities will be more qualitative than sections describing the earthquake and damage estimates. Link social impacts to quantitative data. For example, to estimate demands for mass care shelters, a planner should be familiar with the projected damages to single and multi-family housing. Estimates of shelter needs must also take into account the number of commuters who could be stranded due to regional transportation system failures. The economic impact of the event is one of the most important considerations for decision-makers. The recovery section should explain the challenges of returning a community to its pre-earthquake status. Consider earthquake effects on large and small businesses, referring to experience with other disasters in your region. Attempt to estimate cost and duration of lifeline recovery, especially of the transportation system, which directly impacts both the response immediately after the earthquake and the long-term economic recovery. Economists should be drawn in to explain the dependency of local commerce on the transportation systems.

Public decision making about infrastructure improvements often takes many years. Discussion can be shortened if the alternatives, and the implications of those alternatives, are considered in the scenario, before the disaster happens. The scenario can start to focus attention on needs that lead to pre-packaged mission requests to state and federal response agencies.

Include a Call to Action, and Focus on Resilience If the scenario is meant to educate and persuade decision-makers or the public to take action, it is useful to have specific, clear recommendations. Develop specific recommendations for change that can be implemented or that can form the basis for new policy. Keep such recommendations simple and practicable. Link consequences with mitigation actions. Focus attention on a community’s ability to survive and prosper–what economic strategies might be needed, considering the existing economic situation? Establish a Vetting and Review Process

The vetting process should take place before the scenario is shared widely, so that any scientific and engineering disagreements can be resolved beforehand. If technical professionals publicly disagree on the assumptions, the community may not believe the scenario findings or take action to mitigate identified risks. Make time to address divergent opinions during development and review, so that the scenario findings and recommendations represent a broader consensus. Beyond the Earthquake

Consider the possible opportunities that an earthquake could create. For example, an earthquake could provide a long-awaited opportunity for community redevelopment of areas already identified in the community’s plan for redevelopment. Historic preservation may emerge as a planning issue, because earthquakes often seriously damage significant historic


buildings. Unless a mechanism for preservation has been considered before the earthquake, such structures may not be preserved or rebuilt. Alternatively, if a plan for historic preservation does not exist, decisions about the removal or renovation of these structures may result in rancorous debate that could delay reconstruction and economic recovery for months, if not years. Useful Tools In the United States, every state is required by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) to prepare and adopt a Hazard Mitigation Plan, which can be a good starting point for the scenario. (Completion of such a plan, if it is still in development, may also be a good justification for the scenario project.) Some local communities adopt plans that provide more detailed information than the state plan. To be approved by FEMA, the Hazard Mitigation Plan must include features, which can be used to structure your scenario:

■ a risk assessment identifying local hazards, losses from past disasters and vulnerabilities;

■ a mitigation strategy that includes goals, specific projects with priorities, and estimated timeline for implementation; and

■ a maintenance process for the resulting plan that includes public involvement.

Existing Hazard Mitigation Plans will contain data on past disasters. Disaster information in that plan can be used to initiate your scenario, especially if the community has not experienced a recent earthquake. FEMA supported the development of HAZUS (Figure 5), earthquake damage and loss estimation software for the United States. HAZUS uses census databases of building stock, highway and utility lifelines, demographic, and economic information, together with geographic maps, to estimate anticipated earthquake damage in a community. Physical and economic losses can then be estimated. HAZUS can also estimate casualties, fire, and loss of function, depending on the available data. A benefit of using HAZUS for your scenario is that the tool can also estimate losses from flood and wind disasters and can be applied to a community’s multi-hazard mitigation program.

Figure 5: The HAZUS software program, which requires an existing GIS application, is available for free from www.fema.gov/hazus/

http://www.fema.gov/hazus/


More recently developed loss estimation and regional simulation tools include the Global Earthquake Model’s OpenQuake; the CAPRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment) platform currently run by the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia; and the University of California, Berkeley-based SimCenter’s Regional Resilience Determination Tool (R2D), among others. The U.S. Geological Survey has a library of scenario earthquake ShakeMaps that includes numerous historical and hypothetical earthquakes in the United States and selected international locations.

The Advantages of Multidisciplinary

Scenario Development

The latest technology used by one discipline can be combined with new tools of other disciplines to create a scenario that is based on the latest scientific evidence and credible.

In the development of the Seattle Fault Scenario, LiDAR was used to identify the previously unmapped Seattle fault. (LiDAR is a remote sensing device, similar to radar, which uses pulsed laser rather than microwaves to identify geographic features, such as faults, despite obscuring ground cover, such as trees or man- made structures.)

In addition, the USGS used current attenuation models to define the areas with the highest ground motions. These data, together with the databases of HAZUS, were used to create a loss estimation model for the region surrounding the fault.

Though the advantage of using a number of different technologies to generate data is clear, the director should set baseline assumptions to ensure consistency throughout the scenario report.


SHARING THE SCENARIO An effective strategy for sharing the scenario is critical to attracting public awareness and initiating mitigation action. As a first step, identify the potential audiences for the presentation. The scenario can be explained in individual or small group settings, presented to live or virtual audiences, shared via interactive story maps, and distributed as a published document. New groups or stakeholders, not envisioned at the start, may show interest during the project. Create a communication plan that will reach all who have a vested interest in seismic safety. Including participatory, two-way communication approaches can increase engagement with the scenario content. Telling a Story with Maps and Graphics

A confusing, unfocused compilation of technical details will not stir an audience to action and will dilute the message of the scenario. Tell a story based on the best scientific and engineering knowledge available. Graphics are an important way to make complex data comprehensible. Colorful bar graphs are more interesting than lists of numbers and equations. Pictures of earthquake damage from similar events in other countries add urgency. A common map is the single most effective component (Figure 6). On it you can clearly define the geographic focus—show potential landslide locations, the extent of ground motion, liquefaction zones, and the distribution of structural damage. These features can highlight where emergency response will be needed, and where the greatest impacts on recovery and reconstruction are located.

Figure 6: A map used for the Seattle Fault Scenario shows a particularly vulnerable cluster of water, fuel, and sewage lifelines that will experience severe ground motion.


Reaching Different Audiences Different types of reports—scientific, technical, narrative, graphic—appeal to different audiences. The scenario findings can be described for different audiences, with presentations that focus on different elements and desired outcomes or actions.

■ Understand the audience in order to make the correct presentation Technical audiences will likely require more data, while policymakers and political leaders will want shorter, more focused presentations describing what actions are required.

■ Distinguish between the public and the private sector audiences Tailor materials for the different audiences and for the different actions that would be required of each.

■ Prepare a short (one-page) summary for decision-makers The summary should be clear and credible, with recommended actions for the decision-maker to take.

■ Make easy-to-reproduce maps and infographics that are personal, that speak to a stakeholder or decision-maker As a way of engaging them in the process, develop maps that focus on the areas of interest for the stakeholder.

■ Use outreach beyond the two-dimensional Consider what other ways besides a written document a scenario could be presented: through a website, interactive kiosks, role-playing exercises, GIS-based interactive infographics, video, participatory games.

■ Present the scenarios online Social media and websites allow for wide sharing of the information, and for organizing and presenting information in multiple ways.

Conducting Informational Workshops

Community workshops can engage a wide audience of stakeholders as well as the public in accepting and taking responsibility for reducing risks identified in the scenario. Workshops can be an important tool in developing acceptable, community-based mitigation actions. The scenario can be presented in a one-time workshop or in modules that focus the scenario to the interests of different stakeholder groups. For example, an audience that has the power to make decisions on highway seismic upgrade projects is primarily interested in the transportation section of the scenario; present that material in the context of how the damages to the network affect critical functions of the community, such as the availability of medical care and the economic recovery of regional businesses and neighborhoods.


To advocate for stronger building codes and regulations, or financial incentives for the strengthening of older buildings, present the scenario to policy-makers and their staff in a more technical and comprehensive form. When speaking to an audience of small business owners, include experts who can explain specific economic impacts of the earthquake. Some seismic effects are beyond a company’s direct control, such as disruption to transportation systems, water, power, and communications. However, a business may still have the power to secure the condition of buildings through structural improvements, or the continuity of operations through contingency planning. Banks and insurers will be curious about loss estimation and how risk details were calculated. For such an audience, a demonstration of some of the technical tools used to create the scenario may be useful. At every opportunity, try to get the audience to commit to actions that can prevent earthquake losses now, in the short term, as well as actions that will need to be taken over time. To keep the scenario process alive and relevant, it will be helpful to involve new stakeholders and leaders as they change over time, and to re-evaluate assumptions, data available, and conclusions.

Working with the Media To inspire earthquake preparedness among individuals and to build broad support for government mitigation policies, such as the rehabilitation of schools and other public facilities, present the scenario simply and dramatically. Use newspapers, local television stations, and social media to reach the general public. Despite the availability of data-intensive statistics, building inventories, or HAZUS results, the media want dramatic descriptions of the earthquake and key results such as numbers of casualties, building collapses, housing losses, and economic losses. Describe the effects of the earthquake in day-to-day terms.

The Great Southern California ShakeOut: Sharing the Scenario in the Media The Great ShakeOut developed a specific media guide, animations, and various partners and staff associated with the ShakeOut were all available for interviews and to assist the media with questions. Looking for opportunities to share the scenario through the media or other public outlets can greatly increase chances of the community understanding it.


PUTTING THE SCENARIO TO WORK After envisioning events unfold in a scenario, a community can initiate risk reduction, leading to direct actions that can save lives and property. The success of the scenario in motivating action depends in large part on the participation of local stakeholders, decision makers, and the public. They must believe the picture that the scenario presents of their risk, take ownership of finding solutions, and manage the pathway to change. Developing and sharing an earthquake scenario, as described in previous sections, builds a local understanding of why and how to take action.

Mitigation is a long and challenging process. Regularly and effectively presenting a credible scenario helps create advocates who can increase public awareness and initiate mitigation policy

and programs.

Recommendations in the scenario become the starting point to develop mitigation action plans, outreach across the local population, design and implement specific programs (a later step), prepare emergency response and recovery plans, and conduct emergency response exercises.

Depending on how the scenario was constructed, different agencies are likely to lead planning processes, program development and other implementation measures than led the scenario development effort. This occurs because the scenario development agency may not have governmental authority to prepare mitigation or response plans, develop policy, or implement mitigation programs. In these cases, close coordination between agencies is crucial.

Plans and Policies that Consider Hazards Risk, One City’s Examples Scenarios can also inform general plans and development policies. Planners use scenarios to present alternative futures to communities as part of the general planning process. Living with the risks associated with various hazards, as well as examining options for reducing risks, should be presented as part of these choices for the future. An example of the relationship between community plans and hazards is well-illustrated in Table 1 from Cannon Beach, Oregon.


Table 1: Community plans and hazards for Cannon Beach, Oregon


Emergency Response and Recovery Examples

Scenarios are very effective tools to use in emergency response and recovery exercises. They present the hazard and risk in terms that make the event real for participants. Major scenario-driven exercises include the Golden Guardian series in California. In 2007, many state agencies participated in an exercise based on a repeat of an earthquake on the San Andreas fault in northern California. In November 2008, the exercise used the Southern California ShakeOut Scenario, a simulated, catastrophic magnitude 7.8 earthquake along the southern portion of the San Andreas Fault (see box, page 7). The ShakeOut Scenario was the most elaborate scenario conducted in the United States at the time. While the scope and budget for this exercise is unusual, there are many excellent, low-cost ideas for involving communities in such a regionwide exercise

Another example of scenarios in an exercise includes testing the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) agency post-earthquake investigation plan through a series of scenarios.

Hazard Mitigation Planning Examples Scenarios can be used to drive the planning process, in particular when communities are faced with decisions about reducing or mitigating risk.

The Resilient City, San Francisco, California

The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) provides examples of using a scenario to define resilience goals and develop mitigation policies to achieve these goals. In their discussion of the “expected” earthquake, the authors of the report point out that scenario earthquakes are especially useful for citywide or regional planning, and scenario earthquakes are easier to understand than probabilistic measures, which makes them effective for communicating earthquake risk to policymakers and the public. SPUR utilized the results of San Francisco’s scenario-based planning effort under the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) program.

http://www.ohs.ca.gov/hseep/golden_guardian/

http://urbanearth.gps.caltech.edu/scenario08/

http://urbanearth.gps.caltech.edu/wp-content/uploads/shakemap_intensity.pdf

http://www.spur.org/


Creating Resilient Communities, Charleston, South Carolina This is a project in the Charleston, South Carolina region to help residents understand the natural hazards facing their communities and to plan for them using holistic planning and management strategies. The initiative mapped regional resources and identified vulnerable neighborhoods and facilities. It identified areas at risk from natural hazards and conservation areas that may help to mitigate hazards’ impacts. Charleston is currently implementing a number of resilience programs, through the regional Charleston Resilience Network and the Mayor's Office of Resilience and Sustainability.

Building a Resilient State, Oregon

Another example of using hazard information in planning was The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience, a coalition of public, private, and professional organizations working collectively toward the mission of creating a disaster resilient and sustainable state. Oregon’s experience using scenarios to identify and address earthquake risk began with scenarios for a major Cascadia subduction zone earthquake and others in 1998-1999, prepared by the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (see box, page 5). Scenarios are used as part of the planning process in individual Oregon cities.


FUNDING THE PROJECT The cost of the scenario project varies considerably depending on the purpose, the level of technical input, and depth of process required. There is no single model for funding because an earthquake scenario developed for a particular region is unique. The funding model also depends on what type of organization leads scenario development (professional community, government agency, or other organization).

For the 1987 Hayward Fault Scenario (see box, p. 4) produced by what is now the California Geological Survey, federal funding from the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program partially financed an effort that was internally supported through staff time and resources provided by the state agency. In the case of the Seattle Fault Scenario (see box, p. 5), a combination of state and federal agencies, private businesses, a university, and EERI contributed significant staff time, space, and technical resources; technical input was largely contributed by professionals in the earthquake community. For the 2008 Southern California ShakeOut Scenario (see box, p. 7), federal funding supported significant aspects of scenario development and outreach, and numerous federal, state, and local agencies contributed staff time and technical resources. FEMA funded the scenario prepared by EERI’s Utah Chapter for the Wasatch Fault (see box, p. 10), with chapter members and state agencies providing primary technical input. Businesses or firms in your area have a significant interest in the impacts of the event on their operations and may be willing to contribute funds or resources as a service to the effort. The involvement of a few key regional companies can inspire others to lend their expertise and staff to the scenario effort. A participating agency can provide logistical assistance by sharing existing tools for online communication between planners. In-kind contributions of meeting space, editing services, maps, or graphic services are valuable contributions from participating organizations or agencies. If scenario development occurs in conjunction with other multi-hazard planning, other sources of funds could be available, depending on the levels of government involved in the project. Financial resources available to scenario developers can include:

■ Federal funding

Some previous scenarios have been supported with some funding from FEMA and the USGS. Other possible federal sources include NOAA.

■ Community funding Some previous scenarios have used a variety of community funding sources, including local government discretionary funds and in-kind contributions.

■ State funds Previous scenarios have also used state funds from emergency management agencies, geological surveys, and community development agencies.

■ Non-profit, private sector grants Grants from a variety of community-based grant-making organizations are another possible source. Businesses or firms with significant interest in the scenario impacts may provide funds, staff time, data, or other resources.


A single owner or sponsor of the scenario will give a sense of unity to the project. The right sponsor adds credibility to the report. In some cases, ownership evolves during the development process. For example, a single agency (the California Geological Survey, at the time named the California Division of Mines and Geology, or CDMG) initiated the Hayward Fault scenario and sponsored the preparation, ultimately taking long-term responsibility for distribution and implementation. However, in the case of the Seattle Fault Scenario, EERI sponsored the initiation and development of the project, and the State of Washington printed and distributed the report and is actively involved in its implementation. The extent to which the scenario is used to influence mitigation relies on broad participation from the community. The issue of ownership should be carefully considered. If planning is centralized and the final product resides within one agency, other participating agencies may feel that their findings are not valued, leading to a drop in participation, and resulting in a less comprehensive scenario. Similarly, after the project is complete, if one agency is seen to “own” the scenario, others may not see a responsibility to advocate for mitigation. Value the contributions of all participants.


CONCLUSION A scenario project begins with the question: What can be done now to prevent damages from a future catastrophic earthquake? The answer will be found as you study and report on the various impacts of the earthquake. Mitigation activities will begin once you convince those with a stake in the safety of the community of the nature and extent of the earthquake risk and how that risk can be addressed. Mitigation is a long and challenging process. By regularly presenting a credible scenario—through small meetings and well-chosen media—you will create advocates who can increase public awareness and initiate mitigation policy and programs.

GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AN EARTHQUAKE ...

Documents

Transcript of GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AN EARTHQUAKE ...