Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564944
label
[Earthquake] - First Report of the Governoräó»s Earthquake Council, 11/21/1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564944
contentType
document
title
[Earthquake] - First Report of the Governoräó»s Earthquake Council, 11/21/1972
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564944
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
ee61232b3933c4e9
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Earthquake] - First Report of the
Governor's Earthquake Council, 11/21/1972
Box: P34
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
FIRST REPORT OF THE
GOVERNOR'S
EARTHQUAKE COUNCIL
GREAT SEALTOF THE TH STATE
THE
OF
CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 21, 1972
RONALD REAGAN, GOVERNOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S EARTHQUAKE COUNCIL
ROOM 1341 RESOURCES BUILDING
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
November 24, 1972
The Honorable Ronald Reagan
Governor, State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Reagan:
It is my pleasure to transmit herewith the "First Report of the Governor's
Earthquake Council" for your approval in whole or in part. The report contains
26 major recommendations which, if pursued to full implementation, can prevent
the loss of thousands of lives and significantly reduce property damage in
future California earthquakes.
Time is the essence of this report. The Council has conducted its work during
these past nine months with the knowledge that damaging earthquakes will continue
to occur in the State and that a great earthquake, such as the 1906 San Francisco
event, may strike at any time. Those recommended earthquake hazard reduction
measures which you approve should be implemented by your request and direction
with all possible speed. The situation is analogous to preparing for the
explosion of one or more gigantic hidden time-bombs; we're not sure when or
where they will go off but we know that they're ticking.
Many of the recommendations in this report are for initial action that will lead
to further recommendations for more specific measures. The Council is particularly
suited to oversee, guide and coordinate these subsequent steps. I therefore
respectfully suggest that the Council be kept in existence until either the bulk
of this work is completed or a successor body is established.
A copy of the "California Universities Earthquake Hazards Proposal" is also being
transmitted to you under separate cover. This is a joint proposal for additional
earthquake engineering, seismological and geophysical research projects by seven
public and private universities in California. The proposal was coordinated by
Dr. Willard Libby.
Members of the Council and other individuals who assisted in the work of the
Council have done an outstanding job in a short period of time; many have done
so on their own time and at their own expense. All have worked with dedication
and a sense of urgency befitting the task you have set for us.
Respectfully submitted,
done
sh
James G. Stearns
Chairman
RONALD REAGAN, GOVERNOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S EARTHQUAKE COUNCIL
ROOM 1341 RESOURCES BUILDING
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
FIRST REPORT OF THE GOVERNOR'S EARTHQUAKE COUNCIL
November 21, 1972
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
ABBREVIATIONS
4
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
5
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. State Interagency Coordination
16
2. Post-Earthquake Studies
16
3. Earthquake Resistance of Public Utility Systems
24
4. Safety of Dams
24
5. Earthquake Geologic Hazards Maps
25
6. Dissemination of Earthquake-Related Earth Science Information
26
7. Earthquake Engineering Research
27
8. Seismicity Maps and Catalogs
29
9. Research on Faults, Crustal Strain and Faulting
30
10. Seismographic Networks and Basic Research in Seismology
32
11. Mechanism of Crustal Failure
34
12. Cost-Benefit Studies
35
13. Continuing Education
36
14. Earthquake Warnings
36
15. Emergency Response Plans
37
16. Emergency Operations
39
17. Emergency Medical Program
41
18. Disaster Communications
42
19. Education and Information
44
20. Government, Business and Industry Disaster Safety Program
45
21. Land Use Planning
46
22. Task Force for Research on Earthquake Hazards
Abatement in Structures and Facilities
48
23. State Regulation Conformance Committee
52
24. Earthquake Insurance
53
25. Term of the Governor's Earthquake Council
55
26. Consideration of a Successor Body
55
COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
56
COUNCIL ORGANIZATION
60
MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES AND SUB-COMMITTEES
STEERING COMMITTEE
61
PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE COMMITTEE AND SUB-COMMITTEES
62
RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE AND SUB-COMMITTEES
63
STAFF ASSISTANCE TO THE COUNCIL
64
1
INTRODUCTION
Recognizing the need for a coordinated approach to reduce future earthquake
losses in California, Governor Ronald Reagan appointed the Governor's
Earthquake Council in January, 1972. The following categories are repre-
sented on the Council: State agencies, Federal agencies, local government,
universities, private organizations, and the public. A representative and,
in most instances, an alternate were appointed from each entity represented
on the Council (see Council Membership). James G. Stearns, the Director
of the State Department of Conservation (now Secretary of Agriculture and
Services) was appointed chairman; Herbert R. Temple, Jr., Director of the
State Office of Emergency Services, was appointed vice-chairman; and State
Geologist Wesley G. Bruer was appointed secretary.
An organizational meeting was held in the State Capitol on February 28, 1972.
Governor Reagan charged the Council with the task of preparing recommendations
of whatever kind for reducing losses in future earthquakes and pledged his
full support to the efforts of the Council. Brief overviews of the earth-
quake-related programs and activities of organizations within each category
were presented by representatives of each of those categories.
The Council was organized into 3 committees: the Steering Committee, composed
of one member from each of the 6 categories represented on the Council plus
the 3 officers, chaired by Mr. Stearns; the Preparedness and Response Committee,
chaired by Mr. Temple; and the Research and Investigations Committee, chaired
by Mr. Bruer. The Steering Committee met on March 13, 1972 to provide direction
for the work of the other 2 committees. Those committees further divided into
sub-committees (see Council Organization).
Recommendations contained in the President's Office of Science and Technology
(OST) Report "Earthquake Hazard Reduction" (1970) were used as a basic starting
point for the work of the committees. Other specific background sources
included the "Report of the Los Angeles County Earthquake Commission" (1971),
reports of the implementation task forces of that Commission (1972), "Earthquakes
and Geologic Hazards in California; a Report to the Resources Agency, April
1967", and the several reports of the Joint Committee on Seismic Safety of the
California Legislature. The tremendous volume of other earthquake-related
literature provided a broad general source of information.
The most valuable contributions to the report came from the knowledge of the
Council members themselves and from other dedicated individuals who contributed
their special expertise to the work of the committees. The assistance of
individuals other than Council members was provided by direct participation, by
invitation, on the Research and Investigations Committee and its sub-committees;
outside assistance was provided to the Preparedness and Response Committee by
way of invited testimony at informal hearings. These invaluable contributions
to the work of the Council are hereby gratefully acknowledged.
2
Most of the content of this report originated with the sub-commitees.
Individual sub-committee reports were reviewed at meetings of their
respective full committees and consolidated into the separate reports of
the Preparedness and Response Committee and the Research and Investigations
Committee. These reports were reviewed at several meetings of the Steering
Committee and then further consolidated into a draft of this report of the
full Council. The draft was then circulated for review and comment to all
members of the Council and others who worked with the Council in its prep-
aration. The resulting comments were evaluated and the report was modified
to its present form.
Recommendations 1 through 14 are those developed primarily by the Research
and Investigations Committee, 15 through 24 are primarily those of the
Preparedness and Response Committee, and 25 and 26 originated in the Steering
Committee. Staff assistance to the Council for such things as editing,
rewriting, typing and reproducing reports, handling notices, minutes, travel
claims, and other correspondence, and arranging meetings was provided by the
California Division of Mines and Geology and the State Office of Emergency
Services.
The Council is well aware of the outstanding work of the Legislature's Joint
Committee on Seismic Safety (JCSS) and its Advisory Groups, which has been in
progress for several years. Some overlap in membership between these organi-
zations was consciously provided in the formation of the Council and its
committees. Observers from one organization have also been invited to various
meetings of the other to enhance coordination. The major thrust of the JCSS
has been directed toward development of legislative proposals while that of
the Council is toward administrative measures. Some duplication is inevitable
and not entirely undesirable; however both organizations are endeavoring to keep
such overlap to a minimum. An example of this is the absence of recommendations
by the Council on tax incentives (or penalties) relative to earthquake hazard
reduction measures undertaken (or not undertaken) by the private sector. The
JCSS has devoted considerable effort to such considerations and the Council
elected not to repeat that effort. It is also the desire of the Council that
its recommendations for legislation of broad scope be worked out by, or in
close cooperation with, the JCSS.
The principal weakness of past studies leading to recommendations for earthquake
hazard reduction has been the lack of concerted follow-through for implementation
of the recommendations. The greatest of recommendations is of little value if
not carried out. The recommendations in this report each contain an implementation
section in which, wherever feasible, the action required for at least the first
step toward implementation is described, responsibility for the action is assigned,
and a deadline for action is set. In many cases, follow-on recommendations will
result from these actions. The main function of the Council during the remainder
of its existence will be to work toward the implementation of those of its recom-
mendations that are approved by the Governor. Because implementation in some
categories promises to require appreciable time, the Council recommends that it be
continued in existence for a period concurrent with the term of the JCSS which
dissolves on June 30, 1974, and that the Council and JCSS jointly consider the need
for and, if warranted, the nature of a single successor body to both organizations.
3
With respect to recommended research, the "California Universities Earthquake
Hazards Proposal", in large degree, complements the report of the Council.
The recommendations for State funding for the operation of seismographic net-
works is an outgrowth of the proposal. The State should strongly support
funding of the remainder of the proposal by Federal agencies.
In addition to the preparation of this report, two other actions taken by
the Council to date are worthy of note. In late April, the Council prepared
and distributed a news release supporting Proposition 2, for earthquake-safe
school bonds, which passed by a narrow margin in the June 6, 1972 election.
Secondly, in response to a widely expressed need, the Council prepared
"Suggested Interim Guidelines for the Seismic Safety Element in General Plans".
These guidelines were distributed in July 1972 to all local governments in
California by the State Council on Intergovernmental Relations. The seismic
safety element requirement was the result of legislation recommended by the
JCSS and enacted and signed in 1971. The guidelines have been well received
by local government.
Recent estimates of the effect of future great earthquakes in or near urban
areas forecast many thousands of deaths. Most such deaths are preventable if
appropriate measures are taken in time. Many of those measures are recommended
in this report and others will be outlined in the forthcoming report of the JCSS.
The Council strongly urges that the recommendations in this report be approved
and that they then be implemented by all concerned as quickly as possible.
part G. STEARNS
CHAIRMAN
Date: Nov 24,1992
4
ABBREVIATIONS
AEC
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
AEG
Association of Engineering Geologists
AIP
American Institute of Planners
AISI
American Iron and Steel Institute
ANRC
American National Red Cross
ARPA
Advanced Research Project Agency (U.S. Department of Defense)
ASCE
American Society of Civil Engineers
CCCJ
California Council on Criminal Justice
CDMG
California Division of Mines and Geology (in Department of Conservation)
CHP
California Highway Patrol
CIR
State Council on Intergovernmental Relations
CIT
California Institute of Technology
CSAC
County Supervisors Association of California
CSLL
California Savings and Loan League
DCPA
U.S. Defense Civil Preparedness Agency
DI
State Department of Insurance
DGS
State Department of General Services
DOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
DPH
State Department of Public Health
DPW
State Department of Public Works
DRE
State Department of Real Estate
DWR
State Department of Water Resources
EERI
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
FAIR
Fair Access to Insurance Requirements
GEC
Governor's Earthquake Council
HCD
State Department of Housing and Community Development
HUD
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
ICBO
International Council of Building Officials
JCSS
Joint Committee on Seismic Safety of the California Legislature
LCC
League of California Cities
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NBS
National Bureau of Standards
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NSF
National Science Foundation
OAC
State Office of Architecture and Construction (In DGS)
OEP
U.S. Office of Emergency Preparedness
OES
State Office of Emergency Services
OPR
State Office of Planning and Research
OST
President's Office of Science and Technology
PUC
State Public Utilities Commission
SEAOC
Structural Engineers Association of California
SLD
State Lands Division
UCB
University of California at Berkeley
UCEER
Universities Council for Earthquake Engineering Research
UCLA
University of California at Los Angeles
UCSD
University of California at San Diego
USBR
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
USC
University of Southern California
USCE
U.S. Corps of Engineers
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
SUMMARY
Brief
Implementation
Organizations
Lead (co-lead)
Action
Rec. #
Pg.
Description
Action
Involved
Organizations
Deadlines
1
16
State Interagency
Administrative; form
State agencies,
GEC
01/31/73
Coordination
State coordinating body;
Universities,
(Chairman)
02/15/73
report to GEC
local govern-
ment
2
16
Post-earthquake
(See below)
All
(See below)
(See below)
studies
a
17
Select investigation
(1) Select members
(1) All
(1) State Coord.
(1) 02/28/73
team for out-of-State
body
04/30/73
earthquakes; provide
(2) Obtain authorization
(2) OES, Dept. of
(2) OES
(2) 03/01/73
funds
to expend emergency
Finance,
funds
Governor's
Office
b
17
Earthquake
Procedure development;
UCB, CIT, NOAA,
UCB
03/01/73
notification
report to GEC
others
(NOAA)
C
18
Clearinghouse for
Procedure development,
CDMG, others
CDMG
03/01/73
post-earthquake
notification and
(USGS)
earth science
acknowledgement
investigations
d
19
Clearinghouse for
Procedure development,
EERI, others
EERI
03/01/73
post-earthquake
notification and
engineering
acknowledgement
investigations
in
Brief
Implementation
Organizations
Lead (co-lead)
Action
9
Rec. #
Pg.
Description
Action
Involved
Organizations
Deadlines
20
Make funds available
Obtain authorization in
OES, DGS, Dept. of
OES
e
03/01/73
for OAC school
advance to expend emergency
Finance,
studies
funds
Governor's Office
f
20
Prior arrangements
Procedure development,
EERI, SEAOC, NOAA,
EERI
03/01/73
for coordination of
funding arrangements;
ICBO, UCEER, NSF,
post-earthquake
report to GEC
OES, OEP, DPW, OAC,
engineering
DWR, others
studies
21
g
Socio-economic
Procedure development;
OEP, OES, Uni-
OEP (Federal-
03/01/73
studies
report to GEC
versities, others
Regional Council)
(OFS)
(1) NOAA (CDMG)
h
22
Prepare to
Develop procedure,
NOAA, USGS, CDNG, UCB,
deploy instruments
inventory instruments;
CIT, OAC, SEAOC, DWR,
03/01/73
report to GEC
USCE, USBR
(2) EERI
i
23
Post-earthquake
(1) Obtain authorization
(1) OES, Dept. of
aerial photography
in advance to expend
Finance,
emergency funds
Governor's
Office
OES
03/01/73
(2) Maintain service
(2) OES, aerial
agreements
photo organi-
zations
j
23
Access by investi-
Procedure development;
OES, local
OES
03/01/73
gators to damage
report to GEC
governments
areas
3
24
Earthquake resis-
Assess status and
PUC, EERI, LCC,
PUC
03/01/73
tance of public
needs; report to
CSAC, UCEER, DWR,
utility systems
GEC
DPW, OAC, Public
Utilities, others
Brief
Implementation
Organizations
Lead (co-lead)
Action
Rec. #
Pg.
Description
Action
Involved
Organizations
Deadlines
4
24
Safety of dams
(1) Assess status of
(1) DWR, others
(1) DWR
03/01/73
safety of dams
requirements under
State and Federal
jurisdictions;
report to GEC
(2) Report on status of
(2) OES, others
(2) OES
07/01/73
contingency planning
below dams
5
25
Accelerate prep-
Augment State program
CDMG, USGS, NOAA
CDMG
03/01/73
aration of earth-
with Federal funds
NSF, others
quake geologic
hazards maps
6
26
Dissemination of
(See below)
(See below)
(See below)
(See below)
earthquake-related
earth science
information
a
26
State develop
Broaden scope of
additional
current newsletter
capacity
and publish quarterly;
CDMG
CDMG
03/01/73
establish data storage
and retrieval system;
report to GEC
b
27
State develop
Coordinated inter-
CIR, OES, CDMG
CIR
03/01/73
hazard criteria
agency development
OAC, OPR, others
for local govern-
of criteria; report
ment
to GEC
7
Action
Lead (co-lead)
Brief
Implementation
Organizations
Deadlines 8
Rec. #
Pg.
Description
Involved
Organizations
Action
01/15/73
7
27
(1) Coordination of State
DGS, DPW,
DGS
Augment research
02/01/73
in earthquake
conducted or sponsored
DWR
engineering
research; upgrade
building codes
02/01/73
NFS, NOAA, NBS,
NSF
(2) Determine ways
and means to
HUD, UCB, CIT,
establish
EERI, SEAOC,
national testing
UCEER, AISI,
laboratory;
Universities,
report to GEC
others
02/01/73
8
CDMG
29
Prepare seis-
Coordinate efforts;
CDMG, NOAA,
USGS, Universities
(NOAA)
micity maps and
report to GEC
catalogs
(see below)
9
30
(see below)
(see below)
Research on
(see below)
faults, crustal
strain and
faulting
03/01/73
a
30
Increase research
CDMG, NOAA, AEC,
CDMG
(1) Increase Federal
funding for fault
USGS, HUD, NSF,
(USGS)
on faults and
faulting
research
Universities,
others
03/01/73
(2) State agencies
DGS (OAC), DPW,
DGS
continue to support
DWR
design-related
geologic studies
Brief
Implementation
Organizations
Lead (co-lead)
Action
Rec. #
Pg.
Description
Action
Involved
Organizations
Deadlines
9
(3) GEC support approp-
GEC
GEC, Steering
December,
a (cont)
riate fault-zone
Committee
1972
legislation
(4) State encourage local
CDMG, local
CDMG
03/01/73
governments to main-
governments
tain files on engin-
eering geology studies
b
31
Continue crustal
(1) Maintain present
USGS, CDMG
CDMG
03/01/73
strain measure-
cooperative effort
(USGS)
ments at a high
on geodimeter net
level
(2) Increase frequency
NOAA, CDMG,
CDMG
03/01/73
of measurements in
USGS
(USGS, NOAA)
selected areas
(3) Consider precise
NOAA, CDMG
CDMG
03/01/73
leveling
(NOAA)
(4) Maintain funding
NOAA, USGA,
UCSD
03/01/73
of long base laser
UCSD
(NOAA, USGS)
strain meter program
10
32
Seismograph net-
(See below)
(See below)
(See below)
(See below)
works and basic
research in
seismology
a
32
Strengthen basic
Recommend appropriate fund-
Universities,
research programs
ing of non-duplicative parts
USGS, NOAA, NSF,
USGS
03/01/73
in seismology
of the joint California
ARPA, CDMG
(CDMG)
universities earthquake
hazard proposal; identify
overlapping proposals and
report to GEC
6
Brief
Implementation
Organizations
Lead (co-lead)
Action
10
Rec. #
Pg.
Description
Action
Involved
Organizations
Deadlines
10 b
33
Support and
(1) Specifically fund
UCB, Dept. of
UCB
03/01/73
selectively expand
UCB seismographic
Finance,
and modernize
network to ade-
Legislature
seismographic
quately support the
networks in
expanded network
California
(as proposed), in
UCB appropriation
(2) State funding
CIT, OES, CDMG,
OES
03/01/73
agency contracts,
DWR, DPW, DGS,
to support half of
Dept. of Finance,
operating cost of
Legislature
CIT seismographic
network; augment
State agencies, budgets
if necessary; adjust
funding to cover added
operating cost if net-
work expanded
(3) Coordinate exchange,
UCB, CIT, DWR
UCB
03/01/73
processing and
NOAA, USC, CDMG
(NOAA)
integration of data
SLD, USGS, USC,
from seismographic
others
networks in
California
11
35
Fundamental
Evaluate adequacy of on-
NSF, USGS, NOAA,
NSF
03/01/73
research on the
going research; report
ARPA, CDMG,
(UCB)
mechanism of
to GEC
Universities
crustal failure
12
35
Make cost-benefit
NOAA conduct or sponsor
NOAA
NOAA
03/01/73
studies of earth-
studies; report progress
quake counter-
to GEC
measures and
earthquake losses
Implementation
Organizations
Lead (co-lead)
Action
Brief
Action
Involved
Organization
Deadlines
Rec. #
Pg.
Description
13
36
Organizations
Organizations budget
ALL
sponsor or support
funds for support of,
and personnel attend
and attendance at,
courses and seminars
continuing educational
on new developments
activities
14
37
Determine optimum
Determine status of
OEP, OES, DCPA,
OEP
02/01/73
procedure for
studies; report to
LCC, CSAC, USGS,
(OES)
issuing earth-
GEC
NOAA, CDMG
quake warnings
15
38
Emergency Response
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
Plans
a
38
Mandate local
Draft legislation to
OES
OES
12/31/72
disaster plans
amend Emergency Ser-
Legislature
03/01/73
vices Act; amend Act;
Legislative
OES provide local
Counsel
assistance, obtain
Local govern-
funds, and coordinate
ments
planning effort
b
38
Develop evacuation
Require inclusion of
OES
OES
03/01/73
plans and procedures
evacuation element in
CHP
06/30/73
disaster plans
Local govern-
ments
e
39
Coordination of
Ensure State and
OES, DCPA, OEP,
OES
06/30/73
all disaster plans
Federal plans are
Public Health,
compatible with
Education, and
local plans
private sector
11
Brief
Implementation
Organizations
Lead (co-lead)
Action
Rec. #
Pg.
Description
Action
Involved
Organizations
Deadlines 12
di
39
Update and modify
Update and modify to
OES, OPR
OES
12/31/73
State Emergency
make applicable to
Resources Manage-
peacetime emergencies.
ment Plan
Inventory critical
resources
16
40
Emergency
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
Operations
a
40
Provide aerial
Develop State and
OES, CAP, NASA,
OES
08/01/73
and ground
local plans and
Aeronautics,
12/31/73
reconnaissance
procedures for
Sheriffs, Military,
of disaster
procurement and
News Media
areas
conduct of aerial
and ground recon-
naissance in a
disaster
b
41
Expand heavy
Determine requirement;
OES, DCPA, private
OES
03/01/73
rescue capability
inventory resources;
industry, local
06/01/73
statewide
develop plans, provide
government
06/30/73
training; arrange for
09/01/73
immediate activation
of rescue operations
post-disaster
C
42
Appoint task force
Conduct a study to
Governor, OES,
Task Force
04/01/73
to assess fire
determine reduction
Task Force,
12/31/73
service capability
of fire service capa-
others
bility due to disaster
effects
Brief
Implementation
Organizations
Lead (co-lead)
Action
Rec. #
Pg.
Description
Action
Involved
Organization
Deadlines
17
42
Emergency medical
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
program
a
42
Plans
Develop a State
Public Health,
Public Health
06/30/73
Medical Mutual Aid
OES, private
10/01/73
Plan with provisions
medical groups
to update and test
b
43
Communications
Require emergency medical
OES, Legislature,
Public Health
04/01/73
facilities to have a coor-
Legislative Counsel,
06/31/73
dinated medical communica-
Telecommunications
09/01/73
tions system
Committee, Public
12/31/73
Health
18
44
Disaster
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
communications
a
44
Establish emergency
Plan and develop addi-
OES, local govern-
OES
12/31/72
radio communications
tional disaster radio
ments, Legislature,
06/30/73
systems between local
communications systems
CCCJ, Cabinet
governments and State
to support emergency
agencies
operations
b
45
Radio Amateur Civil
Give higher priority and
OES, Legislature,
OES
06/30/73
Emergency Service
funding to RACES program
local governments
(RACES)
C
45
Public communica-
Make maximum use of
OES, ANRC, local
OES
06/30/73
tions service
amateur radio for traffic
governments, Radio
12/31/73
concerning health and
Amateur chapters
well-being of disaster
victims
13
Brief
Organizations
Lead (co-lead)
Action
Rec.
Implementation
#
Pg.
Description
Involved
Organization
Deadlines
Action
19
46
Public education and
08/01/73
Develop statewide emer-
OES, Education,
OES
information
broadcast, news,
(Supt. of
09/01/73
gency public education
information program;
and entertainment
Public
develop and initiate
media
Instruction)
mandatory disaster
training in schools;
obtain public service
time and space from
media
20
47
Government, business
04/01/73
Appoint task force to
Governor, OES,
OES
and industry disas-
06/30/73
develop a disaster
task force, local
ter safety program
10/01/73
safety program. OES
government, private
12/31/73
provide plan guidance.
sector
Organizations prepare
and implement plans.
21
48
Land use planning
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
a
48
Provide incentives
03/01/73
CIR propose legislation
CIR, Legislature,
CIR
and technical guid-
designating CIR as the
local government
ance for preparation
certifying agency
of seismic safety
element
b
49
Funding public
06/30/73
Federal and State agencies
CIR, Federal,
CIR
improvements
to consider local seismic
State, and local
aspects in public improve-
agencies
ment projects
c
49
Require geologic
12/31/72
Dept. of Conservation to
Dept. of Conser-
Conservation
reports on private
propose legislation in
vation, Legislature,
and public projects
1973 to make geologic
State Geologist,
that have signifi-
reports mandatory on
cities and counties,
cant land use con-
certain projects
private sector
siderations
Brief
Implementation
Organizations
Lead (co-lead)
Action
Rec. #
Pg.
Description
Action
Involved
Organization
Deadlines
22
50
Task force for re-
Chairman of GEC to
Chairman, GEC;
GEC
12/31/72
search on earthquake
appoint task force to
GEC Subcommittee;
06/01/73
hazards abatement in
study problems related
others
structures and facil-
to earthquake hazards
ities
abatement
23
53
Establish state
Committee should be
Selected State
OAC
04/01/73
regulation confor-
formed as a subgroup
agencies
mance committee
of Rec. 1. Exchange
data pertaining to
earthquake hazards to
avoid duplication of
effort
24
55
Earthquake
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
(See Below)
insurance
a
55
Long-term
Pass legislation
Department of
Department of
03/01/73
rehabilitation
mandating disaster
Insurance, Nat'l
Insurance
coverage into stan-
Assn. of Insurance
dard fire policy
Commissioners,
Legislature, Legis-
lative Counsel
b
56
Required avail-
Encourage insurance
Dept. of Insurance,
Department of
03/01/73
ability of
industry to advise
Insurance industry
Insurance
disaster insur-
policyholders of
ance
disaster coverage
25
57
Term of the Governor's
Extend to 6/30/74 by
Governor, GEC
Governor
Earthquake Council
approval
26
57
Consideration of a
Committees from GEC and
GEC, JCSS
GEC Chairman
Within 30 days
successor body
JCSS confer and report
JCSS Chairman
of approval
15
16
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. STATE INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
A coordinating body, with representatives from State agencies and universities
that deal in a major way with earthquake problems and from local government,
should be established administratively.
Arrangements should be made for representatives of appropriate State agencies
and universities dealing in a major way with earthquake problems and of
local government, to meet from time to time to discuss their activities,
concerns, and needs.
The purpose would be to create a general awareness, in the State public
service, of inter-agency responsibilities, available information and
expertise, and procedures related to earthquakes. Several specialized
coordination committees recommended in this report should function as
sub-committees of this body.
Federal agencies should also consider forming a similar coordinating body.
Implementation
Prior to January 31, 1973, the chairman of the Governor's Earthquake
Council should, with the Governor's authorization, call an
organizational meeting for such interagency group and serve as
temporary chairman thereof. The report of this meeting should be
submitted to the Council by February 15, 1973.
2. POST-EARTHQUAKE STUDIES
Post-earthquake studies should begin immediately after any significant
earthquake, and the resulting data should be disseminated quickly.
Lessons learned from each disastrous earthquake can be applied to reduce
losses from subsequent earthquakes. Many earthquake effects are ephemeral;
ground displacements in urban and agricultural areas are quickly and
deliberately obliterated by re-paving, re-leveling or re-ploughing, or
are obscured by action of the elements; structural effects are soon lost
to demolition and removal, or to remodeling or reconstruction; aftershocks
diminish rapidly in magnitude and frequency; and the later appraisal of
the effectiveness of response and recovery operations is dependent largely
on the reports and other records prepared during and immediately following
the event. Post-earthquake studies must therefore commence immediately.
In many cases, as much may be learned from a major earthquake outside of
California as from one within the State's boundaries.
17
(a) Potential members of an out-of-state or foreign destructive-earthquake
investigation team should be designated in advance for immediate dispatch
anywhere in the world, and contingency funds should be provided for the
investigation.
Several alternate members should be selected in advance from each
discipline required to investigate the geological, seismological,
structural, socio-economic, and governmental operations effects of
the earthquake and of the effectiveness of the emergency response.
Team members should be selected from public and private organizations
and universities.
Authority to make the decision as to whether to dispatch the investi-
gation team and to determine the composition of the team should be
vested by the Governor in the chairman of the State interagency coordi-
nation body. Decisions will be needed promptly on the significance of
the out-of-state earthquake to California, on the disciplines needed on
the team, and on the individuals from the designated group who will
represent those disciplines. It must be clearly understood that timely
reports, acceptable to the State interagency coordination body, will be
submitted for all investigations so conducted.
Members of the designated group should maintain current passports,
immunity from basic communicable diseases by way of inoculation, and
have ready access to supplies, equipment, and, if needed, funds and
travel authorizations necessary to conduct adequate short-term
investigations.
Implementation
If and when this recommendation has been approved by the Governor, the
State interagency coordinating body should designate potential members
of an out-of-state earthquake investigations team and establish
procedures for operation by April 30, 1973. Nominations for team
members syould be made by the committees of the Governor's Earthquake
Council by February 28, 1973.
Costs should range from $2000 to $12,000 per out-of-state investigation.
An average of one and a maximum of two out-of-state earthquake of
importance to California might be anticipated annually. OES should
explore the availability of emergency funds for this purpose, request
authorization for expenditure of same, and report to the Council by
March 1, 1973.
(b) Procedures should be developed to ensure that those vitally concerned
with earthquakes receive prompt and accurate notification of damaging
or potentially damaging earthquakes in California and of major out-of-
state (including foreign) earthquakes.
18
UCB, CIT, NOAA, and others now notify numerous organizations of the
occurrence, location, and magnitude of earthquakes on a more-or-less
bilateral basis. Notification procedures should be coordinated and
systematized.
Implementation
A meeting for this purpose should be convened and chaired by UCB. A
representative from NOAA should serve as co-chairman. A report on
the results of the meeting should be submitted to the Council by
March 1, 1973.
(c) For significant earthquakes within the state, the California Division
of Mines and Geology (CDMG) should be established as the clearinghouse
for the progress and results of post-earthquake seismological and
geological investigations.
The nearest district office (Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Sacramento)
of the Divison should serve as the data exchange center for all earth
scientists engaged in post-earthquake studies, at least in the early
stage of investigation. This will facilitate a better early evaluation
of the extent and nature of the event and allow more efficient early
deployment of instrumentation and personnel from the many organizations
involved.
The designated Division office can serve as a temporary headquarters
and/or message center for scientists from outside the area, within
the physical limitations of the facility.
In addition to conducting its own investigations, the Division should
promptly disseminate information to all concerned on the nature,
progress and, when possible, on the results of investigations, or
indicate the sources from which such results may be obtained. The
Division office should particularly maintain close liaison with the
OES operations center and promptly provide all pertinent earth science
information to that operations center.
This procedure was followed successfully on an impromptu basis after
the San Fernando earthquake.
When warranted, the Division office should be manned 24 hours a day.
Implementation
This procedure can be implemented by widely circulated written notice
from the Division of its intention to serve this function and by
acknowledgment from other concerned organizations. USGS should be
consulted in the preparation of this notice. A copy of the agreed
procedure should be submitted to the Council by March 1, 1973.
19
(d) For damaging earthquakes within the state, the Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute (EERI) should be established as the clearinghouse
for the progress and results of post-earthquake structural engineering
and soils engineering investigations.
EERI should designate regional coordinators and alternates to provide
a clearinghouse for information on post-earthquake structural and
soils engineering investigations in much the same manner as CDMG is
to provide earth-science information.
This will require that information centers and personnel to man the
centers be designated in advance, at least for the early stage of
post-earthquake investigations. Such centers could well be physically
located in the district offices of CDMG, by prior arrangement, with
distinct interdisciplinary advantages.
EERI should promptly disseminate information on the nature, progress
and, when possible, on the results of investigations, or indicate the
sources from which such results may be obtained. EERI should particu-
larly maintain close liaison with the OES operations center and
promptly provide all pertinent engineering and structural information
to the operations center.
UCEER should coordinate post-earthquake investigations and studies
relating to basic research and should inform EERI of the projects
underway.
Implementation
This recommendation should be implemented by EERI through development
of suitable procedures, designation of regional coordinators and alter-
nates, and by making other necessary arrangements as soon as
practicable. EERI should then widely circulate written notice of its
intention to serve this function and of the procedure it proposes to
follow. Acknowledgment of EERI's role by other concerned organizations
would complete implementation. A copy of the agreed-upon procedures
should be submitted to the Council by March 1, 1973.
20
(e) Contingency funds should be available to the State Office of
Architecture and Construction (OAC) for conducting comprehensive
post-earthquake school building and site inspections, in-depth
structural and site studies of selected school buildings, and the
preparation of reports thereon.
Funds for augmenting the efforts of in-house personnel were not readily
available immediately after the San Fernando earthquake. Consequently,
inspections of school buildings and sites were of necessity less than
comprehensive in many instances. Also, resources were not available to
conduct in-depth studies of particularly significant school buildings
and sites.
Implementation
Contingency funds should be available to OAC to allow professional
structural and soils engineers and engineering geologists to be
retained for assisting in the comprehensive post-earthquake inspection
of school buildings and sites, the in-depth study of selected school
buildings and sites, and the preparation of resulting reports.
A minimum of $25,000 should be immediately available for such an effort.
Significantly damaging earthquakes requiring augmented investigations
may be expected at two- to five-year intervals. OES should explore
the availability of emergency funds for this purpose, request
authorization for expenditure of same, and report to the Council by
March 1, 1973.
(f) Prior arrangements should be made for coordinated early
post-earthquake engineering inspections and studies.
Early post-earthquake engineering investigations and studies are
conducted by engineers and building inspectors from local, state and
federal agencies, universities, private organizations and by
individual consulting engineers.
The work of universities, private organizations and consultants is
especially valuable in augmenting the efforts of public agencies, yet
much of this work is done at the expense of those organizations and
individuals. Because of the expense, the efforts of the private
sector and university research workers may be less concerted and
effective than if prior arrangements had been made for directed and
reimbursed work.
21
Implementation
Representatives of EERI, SEAOC, NOAA, ICBO, UCEER, NSF, OES, DPW, OAC,
DWR, and other concerned organizations should convene to develop and
adopt procedures for coordinated early post-earthquake engineering
inspections and studies, including a mechanism whereby private
organizations, university personnel and consultants may be utilized
as fully and effectively as may be warranted. EERI should arrange and
chair the meeting. A copy of the results of the meeting should be
submitted to the Council by March 1, 1973.
(g) Post-earthquake socio-economic studies should be given more emphasis.
Socio-economic studies of earthquakes have been badly neglected as
compared to engineering and geologic studies. Social behavior and
economic dislocation occasioned by carthquakes should be investigated
in depth.
Fragmentary investigations following the San Fernando earthquake
suggest that dollar losses due to social and economic disruption,
including litigation and medical costs, may significantly exceed the
dollar loss of structures and facilities.
Social, economic, and political judgments as to the level of
acceptable (or tolerable) earthquake risk also need further
exploration and resolution.
Implementation
Representatives of OES, OEP, universities, and appropriate local,
state, and federal agencies should convene to develop and adopt
procedures which will assure that adequate early post-earthquake
socio-economic studies are conducted. Consideration should also
be given to needed, more general or long-range studies of the
socio-economic effects of earthquakes and the funding of such studies.
OEP should arrange with the Federal-Regional Council* to convene and
chair, and OES should co-chair, the meeting. A report on the results
of the meeting should be submitted to the Council by March 1, 1973.
*(Agencies on the Federal-Regional Council: Environmental
Protection Agency; and U.S. Departments of Housing and
Urban Development; Health, Education and Welfare;
Transportation; and Labor)
22
(h) Preparations should be made to deploy promptly and effectively
appropriate instrumentation on ground and structural sites for
measuring the effects of aftershocks.
Post-earthquake deployment of instruments has mostly been conducted
unilaterally by organizations owning or controlling such instruments,
although some informal coordination normally takes place in practice.
Most instruments deployed after an earthquake have been placed on
ground sites; few structures have been so instrumented, thus losing
an opportunity to gain much valuable information on structural
behavior during aftershocks.
Implementation
Representatives of USGS, NOAA, CDMG, UCB, CIT, OAC, and SEAOC should
meet for the purpose of developing a coordinated procedure for
deploying seismographs, accelerographs, creepmeters and other
appropriate ground-movement measuring instruments. An inventory
of such instruments available for rapid deployment in California
should be compiled jointly and then up-dated periodically by CDMG.
NOAA should convene and chair the meeting. CDMG should co-chair the
meeting. A report on the results of the meeting should be submitted
to the Council by March 1, 1973.
Representatives of EERI, SEAOC, NOAA, ICBO, OAC, DWR, DPW, USCE,
USBR, and other organizations concerned with aseismic design and
construction should meet for the purposes of (1) determining what
types of instruments would be most useful in providing engineering
information on the effects of ground shaking on structures,
(2) determining the availability of such instruments and compiling
an inventory of those which could be rapidly deployed, and
(3) developing procedures for rapid and effective post-earthquake
deployment of such instruments. EERI should convene and chair the
meeting and periodically update the inventory of available instruments.
A report on the results of the meeting should be submitted to the
Council by March 1, 1973.
(i) Prior arrangements and provisions for funding should be made for
immediate post-earthquake aerial photographic surveys and for
appropriate aerial remote sensing surveys of the affected area.
Aerial photography and low-level photogrammetry immediately following
a damaging earthquake are potentially useful for a variety of
purposes. Ground effects are often ephemeral; some of these occur
in remote areas and otherwise go undiscovered for long periods. Access
may also be difficult because of disrupted transportation systems.
23
Structural damage may also go unreported for long periods in remote
locations. Quick aerial photography can provide an over-all view of
the damage area useful in rescue and recovery work. Comparison of
"before and after" aerial photography can be especially valuable.
Infra-red, aeromagnetic and other aerial surveys may also be useful
in locating anomalies associated with earthquakes.
Guidance as to aerial survey areas should be obtained from the
information clearinghouses established under recommendations 2(c)
and 2(d).
Implementation
OES should explore the availability of emergency funds for this
purpose and request authorization for expenditure of same. A
minimum of $10,000 should be available. In addition, OES should
maintain service agreements (or interagency agreement) which will
permit employment of aerial survey equipment and aircraft in any
part of the state on short notice (one hour or first-light). OES
should report to the Council on the status of this recommendation by
March 1, 1973.
(j) Provision should be made in advance for legitimate post-earthquake
investigators to have ready access to areas affected by earthquakes.
Occasionally engineers, seismologists, and geologists have been
prohibited from entering critical earthquake damage areas by public
protection agency personnel. This has sometimes been because of lack
of properly accredited identification of the investigators, but other
times has been due to over-caution or lack of understanding of the
role of such earthquake investigators on the part of public protection
personnel. (It is recognized that public agencies cannot grant access
to private property.)
Implementation
OES should explore with law enforcement agencies mechanisms for
facilitating entry of earthquake investigators to earthquake damage
areas. This might take the form of approved identification cards or
badge, widely and readily recognizable by and acceptable to law
enforcement agencies. Alternate methods should also be explored.
OES should report to the Council on the status of this recommendation
by March 1, 1973.
24
3. EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE OF PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEMS
Special research should be directed to economically improving the
earthquake resistance of public utility systems.
welfare depends so greatly on the functioning of public utility
Public such as water supply, sewers, gas, electricity, communications to
systems, and transportation, that California should give special attention
insuring that their operation will not be seriously disrupted during an
earthquake. Public utilities are, in general, such complicated systems
that special studies should be made on how an adequate earthquake resist-
ance can best be achieved at economical cost. The State of California
should take the lead in initiating and sponsoring such research. This
would probably best be done at universities in the State.
Implementation
PUC should convene and chair a meeting of representatives of EERI, LCC,
CSAC, UCEER, DWR, DPW, OAC, public utilities organizations, and other
appropriate organizations to assess the status of development in the
earthquake-resistant design and construction of public utilities.
The need and scope of further research should be defined as specifically
as possible and sources of research funding should be explored. PUC
should make a status report to the Council by March 1, 1973.
4. SAFETY OF DAMS
The relative dam safety programs of the state and federal governments
should be assessed; contingency plans for areas below dams should be
prepared and adopted.
Failure of a dam could be one of the most catastrophic results of an
earthquake in the State. Vigorous efforts by appropriate State agencies
working in this area must be made to ensure that such an event will not
occur. The State has jurisdiction over all non-federally owned dams in
California of greater than 6 feet in height that store 50 or more acre-
feet of water, and of 25 or more feet in height that store more than
15 acre-feet of water.
The Division of Safety of Dams within DWR should assess the relative
programs of the State and Federal governments in terms of dam safety
requirements in California. If the Federal programs are inferior to
those of the State, the Governor and the Legislature should urge that
Federal programs be made at least equivalent to those of the State.
Conversely, if State programs are found to be inferior to Federal
programs they should be improved.
OES should be given responsibility for ensuring that operative contin-
gency plans for areas below dams are available in the event of damage
to any dam, regardless of ownership.
25
Implementation
The Division of Safety of Dams should make a status report of its
assessment of State and Federal dam safety programs and requirements
and submit it to the Council by March 1, 1973.
OES should report to the Council by July 1, 1973 on the status of
contingency plans for areas below dams.
5. EARTHQUAKE GEOLOGIC HAZARDS MAPS
The State should accelerate preparation of comprehensive maps of
earthquake geologic hazards.
The available mapping of geologic hazards in California is inadequate,
especially for rapidly urbanizing areas. Many of the available maps
are too generalized for detailed use. A major effort should be made
over the next several years to further expand the coverage and scope
of geologic hazards mapping, as a guide to local and regional planning
and building code development, as well as to provide better information
for land-use decisions at all levels of government. For example, DGS
needs this kind of information to better determine the location and
scope of geological investigations needed for public school sites.
Earthquake geologic hazards mapping involves careful (and often
difficult) interpretations of geologic data, and is absolutely essen-
tial to the evaluation of earthquake risk. The product commonly
delineates areas of relative earthquake risk, expressed according to
a qualitative scale, or in terms of probability.
Emphasis should be placed upon:
a. Distinctions among geologic faults in terms of nature and
amount of displacement, recency and recurrence periods of
movement, seismic activity, and probable future surface
offset.
b. Measurement of physical properties, areal distribution and
thickness of various rocks and surficial deposits, to
determine their probable responses to strong shaking during
an earthquake.
C. Evaluations of the natural stability of slopes, effects of
ground water conditions upon stability, and relationship
of stability to expectable ground shaking.
d. Correlation of earthquake intensity with duration and
spectral characteristics of earthquake motion, based upon
geologic conditions.
26
First priority should continue to be given to mapping in urban,
urbanizing and other critical areas of California. Resulting maps
should be periodically updated.
The compilation and frequent updating of an active and potentially
active fault catalog for California should be considered. The catalog
would contain all available data on such faults, including outcrop,
ground rupture, trenching and bore-hole descriptions, and displacement
and seismicity histories.
Implementation
CDMG is already heavily committed to urban geologic hazards mapping and
interpretation; further internal reallocation to this activity within
the Division is not feasible. A budget augmentation has been granted
for 1972-73. Further acceleration of the geologic hazards program
would require still more funds and personnel. If this recommendation
is accepted, additional funds should be sought by CDMG from federal
agencies. The alternative is another budget augmentation. Another
possibility for short-term acceleration of geologic hazards mapping is
by contract with consulting geologists; this is now done occasionally
by local government and should be encouraged. CDMG should report to
the Council on the status of this recommendation by March 1, 1973.
6. DISSEMINATION OF EARTHQUAKE-RELATED EARTH SCIENCE INFORMATION
(a) The State should develop additional capability in the collection,
summarization, organization and dissemination of earthquake-
related earth science data.
The demand for earthquake-related earth science information is
increasing rapidly. Information is being developed and collected
by various organizations, including the USGS, NOAA, universities,
CDMG, DWR, local agencies, private firms and professional societies.
Many of these data are disseminated independently, sporadically
and often with limited distribution.
USGS, NOAA, CDMG, DWR, and some universities and societies provide
general earthquake-related earth science information through their
publications and respond to specific requests. Since late 1970,
CDMG has published and distributed "Crustal Movement Investigations in
California" periodically, to summarize the salient developments in
such programs. This publications does not, however, cover the
entire earthquake-related earth science field.
CDMG functions as a state clearinghouse for all earth-science
information but the Division does not now have a central storage
and retrieval system for such data. A feasibility study of a data
system for this and other earth science information is planned for
1972-73.
27
Implementation
CDMG should broaden the scope of its "Crustal Movement Investigations in
California" to include the whole earthquake-related earth science
field and publish the newsletter on a quarterly basis. More effort
should be devoted to collecting and organizing information in this
field. The Division should continue its study on the feasibility of
establishing an electronic data storage and retrieval system. This
study should include consultation with other concerned organizations.
CDMG should make a status report to the Council by March 1, 1973.
(b) The State should develop criteria for the detailed delineation and
evaluation of geologic earthquake hazards by local government.
The recently mandated "safety element" and "seismic safety
element" of general plans require the development of policies for
the protection of the community from geologic hazards and an ident-
ification and appraisal of seismic hazards, respectively.
Local governments control zoning, siting and construction within
their respective jurisdictions. A few local governments have
considerable expertise in delineating and evaluating geologic
earthquake hazards; most do not. Private consultants are generally
experienced in this work but statewide guidelines would be useful
to them, as well as to local government which must make the final
decision on site development.
The Governor's Earthquake Council developed suggested interim
guidelines for the seismic safety element that were distributed
by CIR in July 1972.
Implementation
CIR should take the lead in coordinating input from appropriate agencies
to update seismic safety element guidelines and to prepare guidelines
for the safety element. CIR should make a status report to the Council
by March 1, 1973.
7. EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH
Research on earthquake engineering should be greatly augmented so as to
obtain the most needed and most beneficial results in the development
of safe and economical design criteria.
As a long-term program, it is vital to carry on analytical and experi-
mental research on three levels:
a. Basic research directed to the development of new information
and of methods of analysis that will form a basis for develop-
ing improved methods of earthquake-resistant design;
28
b. Intermediate research whereby the most promising results of
the first stage are further developed, data are collected,
and various implications and ramifications are studied;
C. Practical applied research and testing where the results can
be used directly, or with little modification, in design
practices and codes.
Earthquake engineering research is done by three types of organizations.
Universities are the main source of basic research; and Government
agencies and private organizations have the potential for intermediate
and practical applied research. Since California has the greatest
earthquake problem in the U.S., it would be expected that organizations
in the State should assume leading positions in earthquake engineering
research. This is, to a certain extent, the case, particularly in the
university research. However, California universities, both public and
private, have a potential for a much stronger research program than has
been carried on in the past. The same is true for Government agencies,
particularly the Seismological Field Survey, a NOAA agency based in
San Francisco.
The State should sponsor research in earthquake engineering at public
and private universities in California. Several years ago CIT and UCB
took the lead in forming the Universities Council for Earthquake
Engineering Research which has played a role in coordinating basic
research nationally; this organization could also undertake to provide
close coordination of basic research in California if an augmented
program is sponsored by the State.
Government agencies and private organizations in California have also
been leaders in sponsoring and doing intermediate and applied research,
but even so, the research has been at such a low level that it should
be augmented. SEAOC has recently formed an Applied Technology Council
whose functions are to provide funding (obtained from State and Federal
sources) and coordination of practical applied research aimed directly
at improving the earthquake provisions in the building code. There has,
as yet, been no corresponding group to provide coordination for research
done and sponsored by State agencies. To date, earthquake engineering
research has been sponsored mainly by Federal Government agencies and
relatively little has been sponsored by State agencies.
There is a need for an expanded network of strong motion accelerographs.
To meet this need in California the State recently initiated a program
for installing such instruments. In addition, there is a need for more
precise and more complete measurements of the motions and deformations
of the ground and of structures under earthquake conditions. New and
improved instruments should be developed.
There is a special need for a major laboratory facility that will per-
form static and dynamic tests of structures, structural components and
assemblages, and structural elements. The objective of these tests
should be to make clear the physical behavior of structures, and their
parts, in an earthquake environment; particularly, under conditions of
large strains that approach failure. The work done by this laboratory
should be mainly practical applied research and testing that can be
used directly, or with little modification, in design practices and
codes. Such an earthquake structures laboratory should probably be
a national laboratory and should be located in California.
29
There is also a need for a large capacity shaking table that can subject
large-scale structures to earthquake-like shaking. This equipment would
provide answers to many questions about earthquake behavior of struc-
tures without waiting for an actual earthquake. In addition to shaking
table tests, full-scale static and dynamic testing of structures and
structural members should be done.
The Uniform Building Code should be continually upgraded as new
engineering criteria are developed and made available for adoption
by local jurisdictions.
Implementation
A body for coordinating earthquake engineering research carried on or
sponsored by the State should be established with members representing
DGS, DPW, and DWR. The coordination body should also consider other
earthquake engineering research needed by the State. This body should
establish and maintain close liaison with EERI, the Applied Technology
Council of SEAOC, UCEER, and federal agencies engaged in or supporting
earthquake engineering research. DGS should convene and chair the
organizational meeting of the State coordination body, and submit
a status report to the Council by March 1, 1973. This can be done
concurrently at the meeting requested in Recommendation 1 and the
coordination body recommended herein should function as a subcommittee
of the body specified in Recommendation 1.
Representatives of the State earthquake engineering research coordi-
nation body, NOAA, UCEER, NBS, HUD, NSF, UCB, CIT, EERI, SEAOC, AISI,
and other concerned agencies, universities and private organizations
should meet to discuss and recommend ways and means for establishing
and supporting a national earthquake structural testing laboratory
which will include a large capacity shaking table. NSF should convene
and chair the first meeting, and make a status report to the Council
by March 1, 1973.
8. SEISMICITY MAPS AND CATALOGS
A comprehensive earthquake catalog should be compiled and various seis-
micity and seismic probability maps should be prepared for California.
The earthquake catalog should include historic seismicity data for all
significant earthquakes, such as epicenters, magnitudes, intensity dis-
tributions, structural damage reports, peak accelerations, duration of
shaking, ground displacement, and other crucial seismological parameters.
CDMG and NOAA have negotiated an agreement for a cooperative effort to
compile such a catalog during 1972-73.
Various maps should be prepared. These should include (1) seismicity
maps, i.e., those which depict the various parameters of historic
earthquakes, and (2) seismic probability maps, i.e., those which
attempt to indicate probable recurrence interval, acceleration, dura-
tion, frequency or period of motion, or other seismicity parameters.
Implementation
CDMG, NOAA, USGS, and some universities are working on various of these
aspects. CDMG should take the lead, in conjunction with NOAA, in
coordinating those efforts, and report to the Council on the status of
this recommendation by March 1, 1973.
30
9. RESEARCH ON FAULTS, CRUSTAL STRAIN AND FAULTING
(a) Coordinate research on the nature of faults and fault displacement,
and on the histories of fault displacements through the recent
geologic past should be increased.
In addition to accelerated geologic hazards mapping, more research
is needed on the nature of faults and fault displacements in order to
develop programs for the reduction of earthquake hazard to buildings,
utilities, bridges and highways and other structures. A research
program with both short- and long-term goals is needed.
Short-term research goals are:
(1) Detailed mapping of active and potentially active fault zones,
differentiating the degrees of fault activity to the greatest
extent possible.
(2) Determination of displacement histories of faults during the
past few million years, and especially during the past 50
thousand years.
(3) Detailed investigation of offshore faults by seafloor studies,
including continuous seismic profiling, and interpretation of
drilling logs.
(4) Detailed investigation of microearthquake activity to complement
the detailed mapping of faults.
(5) Coordinated studies of creep and strain phenomena along faults.
(6) Development of guidelines for acceptable definitions of "active
fault", "potentially active fault", and related terms.
Long-term goals:
(1) Research into interrelationships of various California fault
systems in time and space.
(2) Research on the behavior of major faults as they relate to sea-
floor spreading and disruption of the continental margin.
Implementation
USGS, CDMG and NOAA should increase their fault research activities. In addition,
federal agencies such as USGS, NOAA, HUD, AEC and NSF should give serious consid-
eration to funding more fault research projects to be conducted by universities,
CDMG and private organizations. CDMG should monitor all such projects and assure
coordination by publication of a newsletter (see Recommendation 6a) supplemented
by the convening of coordination meetings if and when warranted. USGS should co-
chair such meetings. CDMG should make a status report to the Council on the above
by March 1, 1973.
31
Funds should be made available for State agencies such as OAC, the Division of
Highways, and DWR to sponsor or continue to sponsor or conduct programs relating
to geologic hazards as required adequately to design and safeguard the projects
for which they are responsible. A report to the Council on the above should be
incorporated in the report by DGS requested under Recommendation 7.
The Governor's Earthquake Council should support appropriate state legislation
regarding zoning along faults, to restrict or control development until the
nature of fault activity is better known and wise decisions taken. The Council
should also support an appropriate tax relief measure to accompany restrictive
zoning along fault zones. The Steering Committee should examine the status of
such legislation or legislative proposals in December 1972.
The State should encourage counties or other appropriate jurisdictions to maintain
on file copies of all engineering geology studies, including core logs, trench
logs, and samples if possible, which have been prepared and submitted for both
public and private projects. CDMG should make a status report on the above to the
Council by March 1, 1973.
(b) Large-scale crustal strain measurements along the State "geodimeter"
network should be continued at a high level for at least the next decade.
The crustal strain measurements carried out under the State program have
been fundamental in importance to the understanding of faulting and earth-
quake generation along the San Andreas fault system in California. A par-
ticularly important feature of these measurements is their long-term
indications. It is of critical importance that these crustal measurements
be continued for at least the next decade and the long-term strain fluctu-
ations calculated.
CDMG and USGS should also continue to investigate the usefulness of tiltmeters
for detecting crustal strains associated with active faults. NOAA should
consider the application of precise leveling surveys for this purpose. UC SD
has an active program in perfecting long base laser strain meters which has
been supported by USGS and NOAA. Measurements of the above kinds lead to a
much clearer understanding of expected faulting, earthquake mechanism and
perhaps to an earthquake warning system.
CDMG and USGS are presently cooperating in conducting measurements along the
State network. CDMG measurements are carried out by private contractor at a
current annual level of about $50,000; an approximately equivalent amount of
work is conducted in-house by USGS. Work is divided generally on a geographic
basis.
Implementation
CDMG and USGS should maintain the present level of measurement. NOAA should
consider funding additional short frequency measurement of one or more critically
located closed figures along the net. NOAA should also consider the feasibility
of conducting precise level surveys in the vicinity of the State geodimeter net-
work. NOAA and/or USGS should continue support to the UC SD long base laser strain
meter program. CDMG should make a status report to the Council by March 1, 1973.
32
10. SEISMOGRAPHIC NETWORKS AND BASIC RESEARCH IN SEISMOLOGY
(a) Basic research programs in seismology should be strengthened.
A healthy research program in seismology is essential to the under-
standing of earthquakes and the reduction of earthquake hazards in
California. Although basic research should continue to be supported
by the Federal government, a modest program supported by the State
should be carried out to emphasize the State's responsibility to
its citizens in this field.
Particular emphasis should be placed on research of unique value
to California that can best be carried out by California agencies
and institutions. The geodimeter program along the San Andreas
fault is an example of this effort, as is the long-term gathering
of epicenter data and its analysis by the University of California
and several private universities.
From time to time, certain new observatory instruments are developed
which can be tested best under California conditions. The State
should not hesitate to join Federal agencies in giving at least some
initial support to these fresh research approaches.
The State should give favorable consideration to the Joint California
Universities Earthquake Hazard Proposal. Economic support by the
State, as well as by Federal agencies, for this coordinated program
might be looked upon as a prudent minimal investment to ensure that
first-class research by scientists in the State can go forward on
the earthquake problem.
Implementation
The Council should recommend appropriate funding from all available sources for
support of those parts of the Joint California Universities Earthquake Hazard
Proposal that conform with the recommendations of its committees and which would
not be duplicative of continuing or planned projects of such other agencies and
organizations as the universities concerned, USGS, NOAA, NSF, ARPA, and CDMG.
The USGS should convene and chair a meeting of representatives of these organi-
zations for the purpose of identifying duplicative proposals and make a status
report to the Council by March 1, 1973. CDMG should co-chair the meeting.
(b) Seismographic networks in the State should be expanded, adequately
supported, and certain of their facilities modernized.
The State has a responsibility to ensure that a long-term record of
basic information on California earthquakes be properly kept. This
requires continuously monitoring and analyzing seismic events, both
on land and off shore. UCB in the northern part of the state, and
CIT in the southern part, have a long history in carrying out this
responsibility. Both networks are underfunded in view of current
needs and responsibilities; even though inadequate at current levels,
the funding for the CIT network is also tenuous. Their efforts
33
should be supported by firm and adequate funding, including
financial support by the State, and the effort should be
expanded. (See discussion of these networks in the Joint
California Universities Earthquake Hazard Proposal.)
Expansion is urgent in the light of the rapid increase of State
population and industry. The data collected and analyzed include
such important features as the earthquake magnitudes, precise
locations of epicenters, the depth of foci and the general seis-
micity of California. They are regarded by engineers, planners
and others as of fundamental importance in coping with the problems
of earthquakes.
The expansion of seismograph networks in the state involves increased
coverage of certain parts of the state and conversion of some of the
present seismographic stations into more modern facilities. In some
ways, the facilities in Japan and New Zealand are now superior to
those in California.
It must be stressed that the networks operated by the Universities
also provide the basic information for research on seismology by the
seismologists at those institutions and by graduate students in
seismology. This stream of highly trained and competent seismologists
is an essential contribution of the State to understanding earthquakes,
not only in California but throughout the world.
There is also a need in California for special purpose networks of
seismographs of a modern type. The clearest examples of such networks
are those operated by DWR in connection with certain of its major dams
and water facilities, and by USC near large-scale oil-pumping in a
metropolitan center. These special purpose networks should have
adequate funding to enable continuous analysis and study of the seis-
mograms obtained.
The State could make a considerable contribution in reducing the cost
of maintaining the networks if it would make its microwave communication
system throughout the State available essentially without charge to the
University and State groups with need to telemeter seismic signals.
This would enable the Universities to link the out-stations to the
central observatories at Berkeley and Pasadena, for example, without
the great costs of telephone-telemetry lines that duplicate the State
microwave system. The State could contribute to the further reduction
of unnecessary duplication and cost by encouraging all groups now
operating seismographs in California, be it with Federal, State or
other financial support, to increase the present real-time exchange
of seismic data by expanded use of telemetry which permits one seis-
mometer to transmit continuously to two or more recording centers.
Implementation
The University of California Seismograph Station budget for basic continuous
support should be specifically identified in the annual appropriation for UCB;
the amount so designated annually should be equivalent to the 1971-72 allotment
($98,000) increased by the $70,000 estimated to be needed to support its
34
recommended added capabilities at such time as these additions are realized,
adjusted annually by an increment equal to annual changes in the cost of doing
business. With this assurance of continuous basic support by the State, one
or more Federal agencies, such as USGS, NOAA and NSF, should be requested by
UCB and the Council to fund the recommended improvements for the network and
its facilities. UCB should make a status report to the Council by March 1, 1973.
The CIT network and facilities perform essentially the same service to the State
and others in southern California as is performed by UCB in northern and central
California, but without significant State support. While the geographic area
covered by the CIT network is smaller than that covered by UCB, it contains a
larger population. The numbers of stations in each are nearly the same.
The State should therefore support at least one-half of the routine cost of
operating the CIT seismographic network. The current annual budget for that
operation is about $114,000. The half that the State should fund ($57,000)
should be provided by contract or contracts between CIT and State agencies,
such as OES, CDMG, DWR, DPW, and DGS, through the State interagency coordination
body. The budgets of the State agencies involved should be augmented accordingly,
if necessary. The amount of the contract or contracts should be adjusted annually
to accommodate changes in the cost of doing business. If the recommended new
stations are added to the CIT network, the contract or contracts with the State
should be adjusted accordingly. OES should make a status report to the Council
by March 1, 1973.
UCB should convene and chair an initial meeting, co-chaired by NOAA, of repre-
sentatives of all organizations operating seismographic networks in California
for the purpose of achieving better exchange, processing and integration of
data collected by those networks. This group should also consider the advisa-
bility of establishing an informal council of representatives from agencies
maintaining networks for the purpose of improving the overall system, including
data exchange. UCP should make a status report to the Council by March 1, 1973.
11. MECHANISM OF CRUSTAL FAILURE
Further fundamental research should be undertaken on the mechanism of
crustal failure.
Further fundamental research on the mechanism of crustal failure is required
for the solution of a variety of earthquake problems including the estimation
of the maximum earthquake that could be generated by a particular geologic
structure. Much of this relevant research is being carried out by USGS, NOAA
and by university groups, including many in California. A partial list of
the types of research that contribute to this goal are:
(1) Theoretical and laboratory studies of the properties and behavior
of rocks under the conditions of stress, temperature and strain
rates encountered within the crust and upper mantle.
(2) Development and evaluation of direct methods for determining in situ
stress in the crust.
35
(3) Development and evaluation of seismic methods for deducing
the characteristics of earthquake sources (dimension, time
history, stress drop, and so on).
(4) Computer modeling of earthquake rupture of various types,
propagation of seismic waves through the crust and soil layers
and the effect of topography and soil conditions on strong
ground motion at a pre-specified site.
Implementation
USGS, NOAA, NSF, ARPA and CDMG should jointly evaluate the overall adequacy
of on-going research in this field being conducted or sponsored by these agencies.
Other appropriate proposed studies, such as some of those contained in the Joint
Universities Proposal, should also be funded by one or several of these agencies.
NSF should convene and chair an initial evaluation meeting, co-chaired by UCB,
with representatives of USGS, NOAA, ARPA, CDMG and appropriate universities for
consideration of the above, and make a status report to the Council by March 1,
1973.
12. COST-BENEFIT STUDIES
Realistic cost-benefit studies should be made of earthquake counter-measures
and earthquake losses.
It is essential, from a broad point of view, to know what the overall cost of
an earthquake can be, and what the overall cost of earthquake counter-measures
can be. This knowledge is needed to arrive at the optimum expenditures for
earthquake-protective measures, including research thereon. Recommendations
for these kinds of studies have been made several times in the past but have
not been implemented.
Socio-economic studies are needed also in order to evaluate the true cost of
an earthquake. Harmful social effects or disruptive industrial effects may
be as costly as the damage to structures.
Attention should be given to the acceptable (or tolerable) loss of life
during an earthquake. For example, in the event of the repetition of the 1906
San Francisco earthquake, what number of deaths can be acceptable, 0-10, 10-100,
or more? This number has an important bearing on the cost of providing earth-
quake protection.
Pealistic cost-benefit studies and socio-economic studies must be made as an
interdisciplinary effort that includes engineers, economists, and social
scientists. This research can probably best be done at universities and
private research institutes, or organizations. There is no precedant for
such comprehensive research on costs of a natural disaster, but the potential
payoff is sufficiently large to warrant a major effort.
36
Implementation
NOAA, which has responsibilities in both engineering and earth-science aspects
of earthquakes, should conduct or sponsor comprehensive earthquake damage and
counter-measures cost-benefit studies. This is a logical follow-on to its
1967 report, "A Preliminary Study of Engineering Seismology Benefits" (J. D.
Crumlish and G. F. Wirth). NOAA should make a status report to the Council
by March 1, 1973.
13. CONTINUING EDUCATION
Organizations involved in earthquake-related activities should actively
support conferences, seminars and short courses for the purpose of dissemi-
nating information on new developments; key personnel with such organizations
should be encouraged to participate in such educational activities.
Much new information on seismology and earthquake engineering available to
researchers is continuously being developed. Organizations involved in
earthquake-related activities should provide partial support to assist in
disseminating of such information to professionals in California. Specific
reference is made to recent developments in site evaluation for seismic
risk which can be performed by only a few professionals. Such techniques
and skills must be acquired and understood by many more.
Implementation
Concerned organizations, especially public agencies, should budget funds for the
continuing education of key personnel in earthquake-related developments.
14. EARTHQUAKE WARNINGS
Criteria should be established for determining under what conditions earth-
quake warnings should be issued; who should be responsible for issuing such
warnings; what officials, agencies or groups should be alerted; and what
actions should be taken on receipt of such warnings by those so alerted.
A considerable amount of effort is now being expended on a program aimed at
eventual earthquake prediction. Local, State and Federal agencies particularly
concerned with public safety should be aware of these programs and stay abreast
of their progress. Some thought should be given to the ways in which warnings
might best be promulgated if an effective earthquake prediction capability is
to be achieved.
Implementation
Representatives of OEP, OES, DCPA, LCC, CSAC, USGS, NOAA, DWR and CDMG should meet
to discuss earthquake warning procedures. OEP should convene and chair the
meeting, co-chaired by OES, and make a status report to the Council by March 1, 1973.
37
15. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS
(a) Mandate Local Disaster Plans
It should be mandated that local governments have prepared disaster
plans which provide both intrinsic and mutual aid response following
an earthquake or other natural disaster, in order to expedite the
saving of lives and the reduction of property loss.
A regularly exercised emergency plan provides a local jurisdiction
with a readiness capability to accomplish the life-saving and prop-
erty protection goals stated above. To increase local capabilities,
plans should include mutual aid provisions with adjacent jurisdictions
and should dovetail with the State and Federal plans. Periodic
review and updating is imperative.
Implementation
The California Emergency Services Act should be amended to mandate local emer-
gency planning and make it compatible with the public safety and seismic safety
elements in general plan legislation. By December 31, 1972, OES will provide
the initial draft material for submittal to the Legislative Counsel for final
bill preparation. Legislation should require local governments to submit plans
to OES for review and approval. OES should continue to provide local juris-
dictions with planning guidance, training, and periodic evaluation of the plan
adequacy through testing and exercising. OES will submit a report of the status
of local emergency planning to the GEC by March 1, 1973. In addition, OES will
continue to negotiate with Federal agencies for plan funding and coordinate
State and local planning efforts.
(b) Evacuation Plans
Detailed plans and procedures to evacuate isolated or endangered
people from areas made hazardous by earthquake or other disaster
effects should be developed for each community.
After an earthquake, structural failure and debris may completely
block surface transportation and thereby isolate groups of people.
It is necessary, therefore, to arrange for the movement of these
people to undamaged and safe areas where they can receive medical
treatment and emergency care.
Implementation
Individual communities should include in their emergency plans and procedures
an clement to provide for evacuation of potentially hazardous areas. This
should be coordinated by OES and compatible with CHP traffic control plans.
38
After Recommendation 15.a. is implemented, OES will advise all jurisdictions
that emergency plans must include an evacuation element before OES can approve
them. By March 1, 1973, OES will review all available local emergency plans
and determine which lack the evacuation element. Jurisdictions not having this
element in their plans will be notified and instructed to amend their plans
and submit to OES by June 30, 1973. OES will make progress reports to GEC
and the Legislature no later than 30 days after the above deadline dates.
(c) Plan Coordination
The State and Federal governments should be urged to intensify their
joint emergency planning programs with local governments and the
private sector, to ensure availability of resources, mutual aid
pacts, coordination of plans, and emergency response training.
When an earthquake or other disaster strikes, it knows no geo-
graphical boundaries; therefore, the coordination of all levels of
government for services, resources, and manpower is imperative.
This joint effort further provides for financial burdens of equip-
ment, personnel, and training to be shared.
Implementation
This is an ongoing assignment in California to OES, DCPA, and OEP.
The emergency plans for schools, hospitals, and other public facilities must be
coordinated with the plans of local governments. The State Public Health,
Education, and other responsible State departments must work with OES to ensure
that such plans are coordinated.
OES will report to GEC, by June 30, 1973, the status of emergency plans and
progress made during the fiscal year 1972-73.
(d) State Emergency Resources Management Plan
The State Emergency Resources Management Plan should be updated
and modified to be applicable to earthquake or other emergencies.
In addition, an inventory of critical resources should be included
as an integral part of this plan.
The ability of each affected jurisdiction to perform emergency functions
following a major earthquake will be seriously reduced. The extra-
ordinary emergency requirements imposed by the loss of critical resources
in a community make it imperative that a state-wide inventory be de-
veloped. To accomplish this it is necessary to identify, locate,
determine availability, and make prearrangements for delivery of
critical resources under the control of private as well as governmental
sources.
39
Implementation
The OES should take full responsibility and work in close cooperation
with OPR.
OES should prepare and submit a suggested modified draft of the State
Emergency Resources Management Plan to the GEC by December 31, 1973.
16. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
(a) Reconnaissance
Resources should be identified and procedures developed for pro-
viding aerial and ground reconnaissance of any area of the State
which may be affected by an earthquake or other disaster.
As a basis for emergency operations after an earthquake, timely and
accurate reconnaissance is necessary to assess the degree and extent
of damage, perimeters of affected areas, and persons requiring
assistance. Since ther are a large number of private aircraft in
the State in addition to those owned by government, a comprehensive
plan to utilize this resource effectively must be prepared.
Implementation
The Department of Aeronautics should have the primary responsibility for
developing an aerial reconnaissance plan. OES should ensure that the
aerial reconnaissance plan provides for the use of resources of the Civil
Air Patrol, sheriffs' aerial squadrons, military, NASA, and the news media.
OES should develop procedures on how local jurisdictions can procure and
utilize aerial reconnaissance and, at the same time, develop ground re-
connaissance plan guidance for local governments. Such guidance should be
distributed to local governments by December 31, 1973.
The aerial reconnaissance plan, after being approved by the GEC, should be
published as part of the State Peacetime Plan and be ready for distribution
by August 1, 1973.
(b) Heavy Rescue
A heavy rescue capability should be expanded statewide, to ensure
that people entrapped in structures severely damaged during an
earthquake or other disaster can be rescued in time to save their
lives.
Considerable structural damage and destruction to highways, water-
ways, transportation, and other public and private facilities will
40
result from the effects of a major earthquake. Knowledgeable tech-
niques and rapid employment of heavy rescue will save lives of many
people entrapped in such damaged structures. The combined effort
and resources of government and industry must be brought to bear to
develop an emergency capability to perform heavy rescue operations.
Special emphasis in consideration of heavy rescue capability should
be given to the areas of planning, equipment, and heavy rescue
training. The Federal Government presently provides only partial
financial support for a heavy rescue training center in Los Angeles.
Implementation
OES should:
1. Determine the statewide heavy rescue requirements;
2. Identify and catalog the equipment and manpower of governmental agencies
and private industries which is suitable to conduct heavy rescue
operations;
3. Negotiate agreements with industry for providing heavy rescue
assistance;
4. Develop a system for mobilizing and dispatching heavy rescue teams
into earthquake-devastated areas;
5. Work with DCPA and other governmental agencies to obtain additional
training facilities and funding to satisfy the skilled manpower
requirements; and
6. Include plan for provision of heavy rescue in local disaster plans.
7. Report progress on above activities to the GEC as follows:
a. Heavy rescue requirements March 1, 1973
b. Heavy rescue resources - June 30, 1973
C. Agreements with industry : - June 30, 1973
d. Mobilization and dispatch system - September 1, 1973
e. Training facilities and funds - June 1, 1973
f. Local disaster plans - June 30, 1973
(c) Fire Service Capability
A task force should be created to investigate the capabilities of
local, State, and Federal fire service to discharge their responsi-
bilities when burdened by the disruption of supporting water and
communications systems in the aftermath of an earthquake or other
disaster.
41
The suppression of fires started as a secondary effect of earth-
quakes is made more difficult because of the destruction of water
lines and fire reporting systems. Impairment of surface routes,
and rescue and extrication of victims are added burdens during
this crisis. It is conceivable that under these conditions the
fire service as it exists today, despite mutual aid agreements,
may not be capable of accomplishing all the tasks it would be
called upon to perform.
Implementation
Prior to April 1, 1973, the Governor should direct the Director of OES
to appoint a task force to study the present fire capability, with the
objective to determine whether this service has the capability to perform
adequately under the stated conditions. The task force should consist of
members selected from:
Department of Conservation
Large metropolitan fire service
Rural fire representative
Local government, large city or county
Fire Marshal
Insurance industry (private)
Large metropolitan civil defense
Utilities
Public Works
Office of Emergency Services
The task force should make progress reports after each quarterly meeting,
and submit a final report to the GEC prior to December 31, 1973.
17. EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROGRAM
(a) Plans
Coordinated State and area emergency/disaster mutual aid medical plans
should be established, and provisions made to update and test them
annually.
The mass casualty potential of earthquakes and the susceptibility of
medical facilities to earthquake damage are well recognized. Even
though some hospitals, medical groups, and volunteer organizations
have developed emergency plans for their facilities and the area in
which they serve, others have done little or nothing. The vast re-
source of governmental and private medical facilities cannot be
effectively utilized to care for large numbers of casualties after
a major disaster without first developing and testing their emergency
plans in coordination with other organizations within the same and
adjacent areas. It is therefore necessary that operational area and
regional mutual aid plans be well coordinated in advance so that all
resources can be efficiently employed during an emergency.
42
Implementation
DPH should develop a basic emergency medical mutual aid plan for the State
and provide corresponding guidance to private medical groups to enable them
to prepare and test local plans. Consideration should be given to the
methods of reimbursement between these facilities and to providing for the
use of the State and Federally owned Packaged Disaster Hospitals and First
Aid Stations.
The State medical mutual aid plan should be completed by June 30, 1973.
Guidance for local planning should be distributed to appropriate medical
groups no later than October 1, 1973. DPH should report progress to the
GEC by June 30, 1973.
(b) Communications
All hospitals with emergency medical facilities should be required
to develop coordinated emergency medical communications systems.
An emergency medical communications system between medical facilities
and public safety agencies and other governmental emergency organi-
zations within a community would facilitate maximum coordination
and ensure effective utilization of facilities during an emergency.
The emergency medical communications system should be designed to
provide control and minimize time required to move injured persons
from the disaster scene to a medical facility in which they can
receive prompt medical attention.
Without such a system, facilities located nearest to a disaster
scene could be drastically overloaded, creating long delays in
treatment of patients.
Implementation
The OES Emergency Telecommunications Committee should recommend minimum
communications criteria for emergency medical facilities to DPH for con-
sideration in future legislation to make this a certification requirement.
Criteria should be submitted to Public Health no later than June 31, 1973.
DPH should prepare draft legislation and submit it to the Legislative Counsel
for final bill preparation by December 31, 1973. A progress report should
be submitted to the GEC by OES no later than April 1, 1973, and by DPH by
September 1, 1973.
18. DISASTER COMMUNICATIONS
(a) Emergency Operations System
There should be established additional radio communications systems
which can be dedicated to exchanging emergency traffic between local
governments and appropriate State agencies.
43
Experience has shown that commercial and private wire line communi-
cations facilities are prone to damage by earthquake, and their
damage or destruction sharply reduces the effectiveness of emergency
response. Communications in disaster situations are vital to the
conduct of efficient operations. It is recognized that public
safety agencies (fire, law enforcement, etc.) will require the full
time of their respective tactical radio systems to support their
own activities. Therefore, disaster-oriented information flow
necessary to support the coordination of disaster recovery operations
and resource management during widespread emergencies cannot depend
on individual service networks.
Implementation
OES should be responsible for planning and developing additional disaster
communications systems in conjunction with local governments. Such systems
shall be dedicated, during disaster periods, to supporting emergency oper-
ations. The systems shall interconnect the various State and Federal disaster
agencies and the supporting public safety agencies, as well as local govern-
ments.
OES has prepared a proposal for a radio system which will satisfy this
recommendation. This proposal, if given Cabinet approval and funds are
allocated by CCCJ, will be submitted to the Legislature during the fiscal
1973-74 session.
OES will report progress to the GEC by December 31, 1972 and June 30, 1973.
(b) Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES)
The Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) program should
be given a high priority and expanded to support and augment
existing State and local government communications systems.
Intragovernmental communications are generally adequate at each
jurisdictional level. Radio communications between local jurisdictions
and from local government to the State, however, is very limited. The
Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) is recognized and estab-
lished for the purpose of augmenting existing communications systems
during emergencies, and can establish this missing interjurisdictional
link.
Implementation
OES should provide leadership and a concentrated effort to revitalize the
RACES program statewide. The effort should emphasize planning, training,
organization, and updating of obsolete equipment. OES should request that
additional communications personnel be approved by the Legislature for
employment during fiscal 1973-74. OES will report progress to GEC by June
30, 1973. If personnel are approved, OES will submit to GEC a work plan
and schedule for implementation of this recommendation.
44
(c) Public Communications Service
Official recognition and maximum use should be made of qualified
amateur radio operation resources of existing amateur radio networks,
to provide supplemental communications for the health and well-
being of the general public during emergencies.
An extremely heavy message traffic burden vital to public morale
during disasters is health and welfare information. Most frequently
this aspect of public support is neglected by officials in disaster
areas. However, there exists the vast resource of amateur operators
organized into volunteer networks that are proficient in traffic
handling. These networks should be accorded official recognition
and support by State and local governments.
Implementation
Local governments and ANRC should be encouraged by OES to execute formal
agreements which reflect the way that existing amateur radio operator/
network resources will be used to provide communications for the public
during emergencies when commercial service is dedicated to operational
traffic. OES should coordinate plans with ANRC and provide guidance to
local governments to establish such a service no later than June 30, 1973,
and submit a progress report to GEC by December 31, 1973. Local American
Red Cross chapters should work with their respective governments and be
a party to local agreements.
19. EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
Develop and implement a comprehensive emergency information and education
program to provide the public with instructions that will enable them to
prepare for and safely respond to the effects of an earthquake or other
disaster.
Experience has shown that the public generally does not know what to do
before, during, or after an earthquake. Because of the unpredictability of
an earthquake and the violence and destruction in its wake, some individuals,
having failed to prepare properly, would probably react irrationally. Govern-
ment has a responsibility to provide, through the news media and other ed-
ucational services, advice and information to the public on how to prepare
themselves to meet this contingency and how to recover after the earthquake
has occurred.
45
Implementation
1. OES should develop a statewide public information program designed
to provide the citizens of California with information, advice, and
training on how to protect themselves, their families, and their
homes during earthquakes. A progress report should be submitted to
the GEC by August 1, 1973.
2. The Superintendent of Public Instruction should develop a compre-
hensive, mandatory program of disaster training for children in all
California schools. A pilot program should be implemented in a
representative number of schools during the spring semester of 1973,
and a report submitted to the GEC by August 1, 1973. The final pro-
gram should be available by September 1, 1973, for use by all school
districts.
3. Radio, TV, and press news and entertainment media should be expected
to provide public service time and space to disseminate the State
public information program materials. Some material has already been
provided by OES.
4. Procedure for disseminating post-earthquake information and instructions
to the public should be prepared and distributed to all local juris-
dictions by OES. The State and each local jurisdiction should pre-
designate the agency through which the news media will receive such
material for public announcement.
20. GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY DISASTER SAFETY PROGRAM
A task force of government, business, and industrial interests should be
created, to develop a disaster safety program which will result in the prep-
aration of internal emergency plans by pertinent organizations. Such plans
should provide for the protection of employees, facilities, and equipment
in an emergency. Particular emphasis should be placed on safety of indi-
viduals occupying high rise strctures.
During any kind of a disaster, facilities and personnel of government,
business, and industry are adversely affected--either economically or physi-
cally endangered. It is felt that in order for government, business, and
industry to minimize the loss of property and ensure the safety of their
employees, they must have emergency plans and safety programs. Some work
has been done at the Federal level to formulate guidance for war-caused
disasters, but no coordinated activity has been established for peacetime
emergencies. It is necessary that this program be described by a group
of knowledgeable people from government and industry.
An effective disaster safety program must include requirements for organi-
zational emergency contingency plans, procedures, instructions, and training,
46
so that each individual and group of employees understands the emergency
chain of command and can take independent action before, during, and
after a disaster. It is also important that the organization's ability
to respond not be impaired by unnecessary injury or damage to its
facilities.
Each organization should inspect and secure its facilities, so far as
practicable, from damage caused by various types of disasters. In the
case of earthquake plans, specific provisions should be made to anchor
or otherwise secure and arrange housekeeping items, equipment, bookcases,
cabinets, etc., so as to prevent damage and injury and minimize the dis-
ruption of the organization's post-earthquake operations.
Implementation
The Governor should direct the Director of the OES to appoint such a task
force prior to April 1, 1973. Coordination should be with OES and pertinent
Federal agencies. The task force should consist of at least one member from
each of the following:
Department of Industrial Relations
Insurance industry (private)
Fire Marshal
Organized labor (private)
Business and Transportation Agency
Construction industry (private)
Department of Agriculture
State Chamber of Commerce
Department of Public Health
Public information media (private)
Department of General Services
The task force should make monthly progress reports and submit to OES a
final report no later than June 30, 1973.
When sufficient direction has been received from the task force, the re-
quirements for the planning effort should be disseminated by OES to approp-
riate organizations along with planning guidance. OES should provide
specific guidance to local government so they can review and assist local
business, industry, and their own agency organizations to prepare and test
contingency plans.
State and Federal agencies should forward drafts of their proposed plans
to OES and OEP, respectively, by October 1, 1973. OEP and OES should respond
and plans should be adopted by December 31, 1973. OES should also review
those response plans of critical industries (utilities, communications, etc.)
on request.
OES should report to the GEC on the status of all above by December 31, 1973.
21. LAND USE PLANNING
(a) Seismic Safety Element
The State and Federal governments should provide incentives and tech-
nical guidance to regional, county, and city governments for the
47
preparation of seismic safety elements and action programs to
implement the elements.
Recognition of hazards as a threat must be considered as part of
State and local planning criteria and included in enabling legis-
lation in the areas of zoning, subdivision controls, specific plan
ordinances, mandatory referrals, and redevelopment. The legis-
lation can be improved, insofar as it pertains to general plans,
with respect to the consideration of hazardous situations in
establishing and enforcing controls over land development.
Comprehensive revisions of planning legislation which will be
more responsive to hazards reduction are now being drafted by a
committee of CIR. Additionally, State guidance to local government
relating to the seismic safety element and the public safety element
for the general plan are being drafted by CIR.
State and Federal agencies administering financial grants for re-
development and new development of land should require that hazard
reduction be considered and included as part of a local juris-
diction's proposal in order for a project to qualify for a grant.
The State now requires that open space and conservation elements
and open space action programs be provided in order to qualify for
Open Space Subvention Funds. Similar incentives contained in legis-
lation and regulations can be provided for the seismic safety element.
Implementation
Legislation should be proposed by the CIR which would require action programs
for implementation, and designate the CIR (with advice from other appropriate
State agencies) as the agency responsible for certification once the elements
and action programs are completed. State and Federal funds for related pro-
grams (such as the implementation of the Field Act) should be contingent
upon the preparation of a seismic safety element and action program. The
CIR should report to the GEC by March 1, 1973 on needed changes in regulations
or statutes to accomplish the above.
(b) Funding Public Improvements
Federal and State agencies should consider the seismic aspect
of all local plans in making and funding significant public
improvements.
Federal and State agency consideration of plans can be accomplished
through administrative direction and project reviews. Executive,
commission, and departmental orders can be issued to require agencies
to consider existing plans in developing improvement projects and
prior to funding or approval of public and private projects. Also,
48
Federal and State agencies should submit their projects to local
planning agencies for review similar to that of local projects
by local planning agencies as required by State law.
Conformance to general plans and their seismic safety contents
can be insured by the review process performed by the responsible
regional or State agency. Instruments to accomplish this include
administrative regulations and clearance reports.
Implementation
All Federal and State agencies involved in significant public works projects
should work closely with appropriate local agencies and should as a minimum
conform with seismic safety elements of local general plans.
The CIR should submit a progress report to the GEC by June 30, 1973 on how
this is being accomplished.
(c) Geologic Reports
Local government should require a geologic report on all private
and public projects that have significant land use considerations.
Most improvement projects require reports that include geological
data. Subdivision reports, etc., are required for privately-
initiated projects. The geological contents of these are all too
often inadequate to ascertain geologic hazards and they are fre-
quently not reviewed by competent authority. The public regulations
and guidelines specifying the contents of geologic reports should
require reports to cite known hazards in the project area and rec-
ommend how these conditions should be avoided or mitigated.
Implementation
The Department of Conservation should propose legislation for the 1973
session that would make the following procedure mandatory for all cities
and counties, including charter cities and counties: A preliminary geologic
report should be prepared, in the same manner that preliminary soil reports
are now required, for all subdivisions and for critical structures and
facilities, and other private and public projects that have significant
land use considerations, except in those areas that are mutually agreed to
be of low risk by the State Geologist and local government.
22. TASK FORCE FOR RESEARCH ON EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS ABATEMENT IN STRUCTURES AND
FACILITIES
The Governor should authorize the Chairman of the GEC to designate a select
task force to conduct research upon which to base recommendations to the
Governor relative to major changes and improvements in structural and
49
facility construction, reduction of existing earthquake hazards in
buildings and facilities, programs to assist local government in improv-
ing and implementing local code provisions, developing methodology to
encourage private ownership to take voluntary corrective measures where
earthquake hazards exist, identifying those areas of construction not
presently covered by existing regulations, and recommending those areas
of abatement of earthquake hazards in buildings and facilities requiring
new legislation.
Specific measure which should be studied for possible implementation
include the following:
a. Regardless of ownership, buildings, utilities, and facilities should
be designed and constructed to resist earthquakes;
b. Buildings, utility systems, and other facilities for which there is
a public need that they survive an earthquake in operable condition
shall be designed to a higher standard of performance than may be
required of other buildings and facilities;
C. Buildings shall be designed for varying requirements for earthquake
resistance, based on type of occupancy and number of occupants, in
a manner similar to that now generally required for fire resistance;
d. The design and installation of ancillary equipment, facilities,
machinery, furniture, etc., of every kind shall be performed in a
manner to resist earthquake effects;
e. All construction permits shall be issued on the basis of definitive
construction documents prepared by responsible, state-licensed design
professionals which have been reviewed by equally qualified officials;
f. Required level of competence of persons allowed to design the con-
struction and installation of buildings and of certain contents of
buildings and of other structures, utilities, and facilities, shall
be re-examined by their peers;
g. Require city and county authorities to enact and enforce correction
of existing hazards, with special attention to pre-Riley Act
structures; and
h. Explore incentive methods of inducing owners of existing buildings
and facilities to take voluntary corrective measures where earthquake
hazards exist.
50
Exposure to earthquake hazards involves several elements:
a. Seismicity of the site of a structure;
b. Use or occupancy of a structure, both as to number of occupants
and percentage of time occupied;
C. Ability of a structure to resist earthquakes; and
d. Life of a structure.
The exposure clearly includes a time element if the probability of any
given structure being damaged by earthquake forces during its useful life
is to be assessed.
There appears to be an inverse relationship between earthquake magnitude
and frequency of recurrence. The greater the earthquake, the longer is the
mean recurrence interval. Accordingly, the terms "maximum credible earth-
quake" and "maximum probable earthquake" are in use.
The degree of resistance to earthquakes to be provided in engineered
structures of all types should be a decision by the body politic, not by
the engineers. Some structures undoubtedly should be designed to resist
the maximum credible earthquake. Most, no doubt, should be designed to
resist the maximum probable earthquake. And some few, of short life and no
particular hazard to life or property, may not need to be designed for
earthquake. The decision as to what resistance should be provided involves
considerations of loss of life, cost to repair or replace, and need to
survive an earthquake in operating condition.
Human injury, loss of life, and property damage resulting from earthquakes
are not caused by structural deficiencies only, but also by ancillary equip-
ment, facilities, machinery, furniture, etc., of every kind.
It must be recognized that construction in earthquake country involves an
element of risk and therefore construction must be in accordance with that
risk. To simply not build because of the risk would potentially ellminate
many areas in California from any construction whatsoever. Any approach
to land use in conjunction with building construction must be in recognition
of the element of risk.
It is recognized that the accurate assessment of the degree of seismic risk
is not at this time (1972) everywhere possible or economically feasible for
most buildings and many facilities, but as implementation of other recommen-
dations of the GEC makes required information available, it should then be
employed.
Current restrictions on the design of structures, including some residences,
by persons insufficiently trained in structural design, appear inadequate
to secure acceptable limits of damage during earthquakes. Moreover, many
governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the building of structures
lack personnel who are competent to evaluate structural designs.
51
Throughout California there are many buildings built before 1933 prior
to enactment of the Earthquake Protection Law (Riley Act), California
Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 3. It is necessary to consider
the physical condition of such buildings and develop guidelines if we
are to come to grips with the problem.
We must be aware that many communities in California recognize the need
to make their older buildings earthquake safe; however, many have not
moved effectively to accomplish this end for reasons such as lack of
adequate State mandate, lack of finances, lack of capable personnel,
potential loss of tax base, lack of definition of what is a hazardous
building, and even because of the local political situation.
It must be recognized that there are many other communities in California
which do not recognize the problem. These communities also have within
their boundaries older buildings with questionable resistance to seismic
forces.
Although the Federal report speaks of "encouragement" of communities to
effectively deal with the problem, something more than "encouragement"
would be necessary if meaningful corrective work is to be undertaken.
The use of force of law, although often necessary, should not be the
sole or total answer, nor may it in fact be the best approach to reduction
of earthquake hazards in pre-1933 structures. Thought must therefore be
given to stimulate building owners to correct their buildings through
other means, such as fiscal incentives.
Implementation
The task force should be appointed by the Chairman of the GEC by December
31, 1972. It should be organized around a nucleus consisting of the
current members of the Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Structures Sub-
committee; however, this task force must be augmented by representatives
from the following areas of expertise:
Banking
Seismology
Insurance
Housing and Community Development
Real Estate
Architecture
Community Planning
Intergovernmental Relations
Geology
Legal (Legislative Law)
Local Government
Public
Because of the complexity and statewide impact of this task force's recommen-
dations, it will be necessary to utilize the services of a broad spectrum of
the government and private sector as consultants. In addition, full time
staff personnel to support the work of this task force may be necessary.
This task force should submit a status report to the Chairman of the GEC
no later than June 1, 1973.
52
23. STATE REGULATION CONFORMANCE COMMITTEE
Establish a special committee within the State interagency coordinating
body, from all agencies concerned with earthquake hazards in structures
and facilities.
The purpose of this committee would be to gather information, exchange
data of mutual interest pertaining to their area of responsibility and to
insure that regulations and policies of their respective agencies are
clearly understood and are non-conflicting with other State agencies with
similar responsibilities.
This committee would endeavor to eliminate duplication, conflict, and
overlap between regulations administered by each of the participants and
to serve as a State advisory body to the State interagency coordinating
body relative to reduction of earthquake hazards in buildings and structures.
The committee should also recommend to DGS the development of guidelines
and design codes for earthquake safety as the need for them becomes apparent.
There are many agencies within State government with regulatory or admin-
istrative responsibility which have impact upon a broad segment of the
public and private sector concerned with reduction of earthquake hazards.
In addition, some agencies have responsibilities but have not developed
appropriate regulations or plans. As the result of California's historic
interest in earthquake safety, many regulations and policy procedures have
been established for State government to administer and implement which
should be more closely coordinated with other interested agencies. It is
imperative that State government create some forum within which affected
agencies might consider their existing programs, policies and regulations
in coordination with agencies of a mutual interest.
Implementation
A State coordinating committee to conform regulations relating to earthquake
hazards in structures and facilities should be formed as a subgroup within
the State interagency coordinating body organized pursuant to Recommendation
1. Responsibility for the program and conduct of this committee's efforts
within the State interagency coordinating body should be given to OAC, and
the committee should be comprised of representatives from each of the
following agencies:
Department of Finance
Department of General Services
(Office of Architecture and Construction)
Office of Emergency Services
Fire Marshal
Public Utilities Commission
Department of Water Resources
Reclamation Board
Department of Housing and Community Development
53
Department of Public Works
(Division of Highways - Bridge Department)
(Division of Highways - Highway Department)
Department of Public Health
Building Standards Commission.
Department of Industrial Relations
(Division of Industrial Safety)
Department of Conservation
(Division of Mines and Geology)
This committee should be formed at the organization meeting called for in
Recommendation 1 and asked to report to the State interagency coordinating
body by April 1, 1973 their progress and achievements, an indication of
specific issues addressed and resolved, and a projection of their future
work.
24. EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE
(a) Long-term Rehabilitation
Insurance to cover the cost of long-term property rehabilitation
should be provided through private insurance companies as prefer-
able to the present system of grants and loans.
"Disaster" as used in the context of insurance shall include earth-
quake, volcanic eruption, flood, wave wash, tsunami, and mud slides
that are caused by heavy rain runoff. "Disaster" does not include
the consequences of landslides in areas where the ground is made
unstable by cut or fill techniques.
Disaster insurance is carried by only a small percentage of indi-
vidual homeowners and businessmen. Consequently, the financial
burden of long-term rehabilitation following a disaster is largely
borne by the Federal government through its disaster relief grants
and loans. The economy at large and individual property owners and
businessmen bear the loss directly to the extent that limitations
on the forgiveness portion of the federal loan programs apply. The
agencies employed to administer the federal programs are ill-equipped
to handle the large number of loan applications with prompt, equit-
able damage assessment and adjustment of loss estimates. Conversely,
it is felt that the private insurance industry is better equipped to
cope with the adjustment of disaster claims.
Such a system of private insurance would need to be universally, or
nearly so, carried by all owners of private residences in order to
constitute a viable alternative to the grants and loans program.
At the same time, it is likely that the financial backing of the
Federal government may be required in the early stages of a program
of universal disaster insurance in order to be assured that wide-
spread insolvency among insurance companies would not result from
a major disaster.
54
However, a compulsory carrying of disaster insurance should not
result in windfall profits to the insurance industry or a dissi-
pation of the premiums collected in loss-free years through
dividends, taxing, or subsidization of non-disaster losses.
Rather, the premiums should be collected in a tax-free mechanism
and retained (while earning interest) to be available to pay
losses when a disaster occurs.
Additionally, the California FAIR Plan Association should expand
its eligibility to include disaster insurance on one- to four-
family residences on a statewide basis.
Implementation
After sufficient studies have been made and the availability of federal
backup is assured, legislation should be passed mandating other disaster
coverages into the standard fire policy for one- to four-family residential
properties.
The Department of Insurance should pursue the establishment of such in-
surance, in conjunction with a national program, through the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners, in cooperation with the insurance
industry and the Federal government.
The Department of Insurance should submit a draft proposal to the GEC
no later than March 1, 1973. This proposal should include a recommended
course of action and draft legislation for consideration.
(b) Required Availability
Until recommendation 24(a) can be implemented, the insurance industry
should be encouraged to advise fire and homeowner policy holders of
insurance provisions relating to disaster coverage.
There is widespread ignorance among the general public, and in some
facets of the insurance industry, on the terms and availability of
disaster insurance in the present insurance market place. Because
of the misunderstandings and lack of public knowledge about disaster
insurance, and the fact that most segments of the insurance industry
are unwilling to actively solicit disaster coverage, many property
owners are either not aware of the availability of coverage or, from
misinformation, are discouraged from carrying it.
Implementation
The Department of Insurance should develop a plan to enlist the support of
the insurance industry to implement an information program to advise policy-
holders of the availability and relative cost of existing disaster coverage.
In addition, the Department will develop a public information program, to
be distributed through public service media, to recommend the private
55
citizens their personal action to secure this information from their
insurance carrier.
The Department should report progress to GEC no later than March 1,
1973 and whenever significant action is taken.
25. TERM OF THE GOVERNOR'S EARTHQUAKE COUNCIL
The Governor's Earthquake Council, and its working committees as needed,
should continue in existence through June 30, 1974.
The principal remaining work of the Council should be to oversee, encourage,
guide and coordinate efforts to implement such of its recommendations as are
approved by the Governor. Some of these will require a relatively short
time for implementation; others will require years. Many of the recommendations
are only for a first step toward significant earthquake hazard reduction;
recommendations for subsequent steps will need to be developed and carried
through. The Council, by its nature, is well suited for these tasks.
The Legislature's Joint Committee on Seismic Safety expires June 30, 1974.
It is probable that the mutual objectives of the Council and the JCSS will
not have been fully achieved by that time, in which case the creation of a
single successor body for both organizations may be desirable at that time.
26. CONSIDERATION OF A SUCCESSOR BODY
The Governor's Earthquake Council and the Legislature's Joint Committee on
Seismic Safety should jointly explore the advisability of the establishment
of a single successor body.
As noted under Recommendation 25, it is probable that the mutual objectives
of the Council and the JCSS will not have been fully achieved by June 30,
1974. This probability should be further explored and, if a single successor
body appears desirable, its nature should be considered.
Implementation
The Chairman of the Council should select a small committee of Council members
to meet with a like committee selected by the Chairman of the JCSS to discuss
the subjects of this recommendation and to jointly prepare recommendations
related thereto for consideration by their respective organizations. If this
recommendation is approved by the Governor, the Chairman of the Council should
contact the Chairman of the JCSS as soon as possible and arrange for said
meeting to take place within one month of the approval date.
56
COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
CHAIRMAN
James G. Stearns
Secretary of Agriculture and Services
1220 "N" Street
Sacramento 95814
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Herbert R. Temple, Jr.
Director, State Office of Emergency Services
2800 Meadowview Rd., P.O. Box 9577
Sacramento 95823
SECRETARY
Wesley G. Bruer
State Geologist
California Division of Mines and Geology
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341
Sacramento 95814
STATE AGENCIES
Representative
Alternate (same address if
none shown)
DEPARTMENT OF
Fred Hummel, State Architect
William R. Vick
GENERAL
Office of Architecture and
Deputy State Architect
SERVICES
Construction
1500 Fifth Street
Sacramento 95814
DEPARTMENT OF
Art Dreyer
Cal Jepsen
HOUSING AND
Housing Standards Coordinator
COMMUNITY
1121 "0" Street, Room 3344
DEVELOPMENT
Sacramento 95814
DEPARTMENT OF
Richards D. Barger
Lawrence C. Baker, Jr.
INSURANCE
Insurance Commissioner
Chief Deputy Insurance
107 So. Broadway, Room 8022
Commissioner
Los Angeles 90012
COUNCIL ON INTER-
Mrs. Carol Walker
(no alternate)
GOVERNMENTAL
1400 Tenth Street
RELATIONS
Sacramento 95814
STATE LEGISLATURE
Dr. Clarence R. Allen
Rodney J. Diridon, Consultant
JOINT COMMITTEE
Seismological Laboratory
Joint Comm. on Seismic Safety
ON SEISMIC
P.O. Bin 2 - Arroyo Annex
777 North First St. Suite 600
SAFETY
Pasadena 91109
San Jose 95112
STATE MINING
Karl V. Steinbrugge
Dr. Clarence R. Allen
AND GEOLOGY
Insurance Services Office
Seismological Laboratory
BOARD
465 California Street
P.O. Bin 2 - Arroyo Annex
San Francisco 94104
Pasadena 91109
57
STATE AGENCIES
Representative
Alternate
OFFICE OF
John B. Passerello
John S. Tooker, Director
PLANNING
Research Consultant III
AND RESEARCH
1400 Tenth Street, Suite 222
Sacramento 95814
DEPARTMENT OF
Robert J. Datel
Arthur L. Elliott
PUBLIC WORKS
State Highway Engineer
Bridge Engineer, Planning
Division of Highways
Box 1499, 1120 N Street
Sacramento 95807
DEPARTMENT OF
Thomas J. Nolan
Richard D. Carlson
REAL ESTATE
Assistant Commissioner
Chief Deputy
Headquarters Subdivision Section
714 P Street
Sacramento 95814
DEPARTMENT OF
Robert B. Jansen
Laurence B. James
WATER RESOURCES
Deputy Director
Chief Engineering Geologist
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento 95814
FEDERAL AGENCIES
NATIONAL OCEANIC
Dr. Leroy R. Alldredge, Director
Dr. S. Theodore Algermissen
AND ATMOSPHERIC
Earth Sciences Laboratories NOAA
(Boulder address)
ADMINISTRATION
Environmental Research Labs
Dr. Don Tocher, Director
Boulder, CO 80302
Earthquake Mechanism Lab. NOAA
390 Main Street, Room 7021
San Francisco 94105
NATIONAL SCIENCE
Dr. Roy E. Hanson
Dr. Charles C. Thiel
FOUNDATION
Program Director for Geophysics
RANN Program, Division of
Earth Sciences Section
Advanced Technology
(observors only)
National Science Foundation
Applications
Washington, DC 20550
OFFICE OF
Robert C. Stevens
Terence S. Meade
EMERGENCY
Regional Director, OEP Region 9
Disaster Assistance
PREPAREDNESS
120 Montgomery Street
Coordinator
San Francisco 94104
* (Ralph D. Burns)
DEFENSE CIVIL
Mrs. Frances K. Dias
Allen E. Wilmore
PREPAREDNESS
Regional Director
Deputy Regional Director
AGENCY
P.O. Box 1300
Santa Rosa 95403
*(Original representative; retired from Federal service in June 1972)
58
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Representative
Alternate
U.S. DEPARTMENT
G. Richard Schermerhorn
Dale James, Urban Planner
OF HOUSING
Special Assistant
Office of Community Planning
AND URBAN
Department of HUD, Region IX
and Management, Region IX
DEVELOPMENT
450 Golden Gate Ave. Box 36003
San Francisco 94102
U.S. GEOLOGICAL
Dr. Jerry P. Eaton, Chief
Dr. Robert E. Wallace
SURVEY, DEPT.
Office of Earthquake Research
Assistant Chief Geologist
OF THE INTERIOR
and Crustal Studies
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park 94025
UNIVERSITIES
UNIVERSITY OF
Dr. Bruce A. Bolt, Director
Dr. Joseph Penzien, Director
CALIFORNIA,
Seismographic Station
Earthquake Engineering
BERKELEY
University of California
Research Center (UC)
Berkeley 94720
1301 South 46th Street
Richmond 94804
UNIVERSITY OF
Dr. Willard F. Libby
Dr. Leon Knopoff
CALIFORNIA,
Department of Chemistry
Institute of Geophysics
LOS ANGELES
Los Angeles 90024
and Planetary Physics
UNIVERSITY OF
Dr. James N. Brune
Prof. J. Freeman Gilbert
CALIFORNIA,
Geophysics & Planetary Research
&
SAN DIEGO
P.O. Box 109
Prof. Richard A. Haubrich
La Jolla 92037
CALIFORNIA
Dr. George W. Housner
Dr. Clarence R. Allen
INSTITUTE OF
Civil Engineering and
Seismological Laboratory
TECHNOLOGY
Applied Mathematics
P.O. Bin 2 - Arroyo Annex
Pasadena 91109
Pasadena 91109
UNIVERSITY OF
Dr. Frank R. Bowerman
Dr. Orville L. Bandy
SOUTHERN
Director, Environmental Engrg.
Chairman, Geological Sciences
CALIFORNIA
Biegler Hall of Engrg. Rm. 210
Science Hall, Room 160
Los Angeles 90007
STANFORD
Dr. Richard H. Jahns, Dean
Prof. Robert L. Kovach
UNIVERSITY
School of Earth Sciences
Department of Geophysics
Stanford 94305
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
LEAGUE OF
Gene Block (Councilman)
Mary W. Henderson (Councilman)
CALIFORNIA
518 Aurora Drive
3098 Muller Court
CITIES
Claremont 91711
Redwood City 94061
COUNTY SUPERVISORS
Daniel D. Mikesell
Edward E. Bernard
ASSOCIATION OF
175 West Fifth Street
948 Galleron Lane
CALIFORNIA
San Bernardino 92401
St. Helena 94574
59
PRIVATE SECTOR
Representative
Alternate
AMERICAN
Charles A. Zahn, Chief of
(no alternate)
INSTITUTE
Advanced Planning Division
OF PLANNERS
Contra Costa County Department
of Planning
P.O. Box 951
Martinez 94553
AMERICAN
Greer W. Ferver, President
Jack S. Barrish, Consulting
SOCIETY OF
Ferver Engineering Company
Civil & Structural Engineer
CIVIL ENGINEERS
3487 Kurtz
2131 Capitol Ave. Suite 307
San Diego 92110
Sacramento 95816
ASSOCIATION OF
Lloyd S. Cluff
Jay L. Smith
ENGINEERING
Woodward-Lundgren & Associates
Fugro, Inc.
GEOLOGISTS
P.O. Box 24075
750 East 3d Street
Oakland 94623
Long Beach 90801
CALIFORNIA
Ronald S. Thacker
Fielding McDearmon
BANKERS
Senior Vice President
Vice President
ASSOCIATION
Real Estate Loans
Real Estate Loans
Union Bank
Wells Fargo Bank
445 South Figueroa Street
464 California Street
Los Angeles 90054
San Francisco 94120
CALIFORNIA
Kenneth H. Hack
James S. Brigham
SAVINGS AND
Vice President
Senior Vice President
LOAN LEAGUE
Eureka Federal Savings & Loan
Allstate Savings & Loan Assn.
4610 Mission Street
5077 Lankershim Blvd.
San Francisco 94112
North Hollywood 91601
STRUCTURAL
William F. Ropp
H. Robert Hammill
ENGINEERS
Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall
Nishkian-Hammill Associates
ASSOCIATION
3250 Wilshire Boulevard
812 Howard Street
OF CALIFORNIA
Los Angeles 90010
San Francisco 94103
PUBLIC MEMBERS
Melville Owen
Owen, Wickersham and Erickson
310 Sansome Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco 94104
Art Arthur
6041 Avenida Juan Diaz
Rubidoux, CA 92509
COUNCIL ORGANIZATION
60
GOVERNOR'S EARTHQUAKE COUNCIL
Steering
Committee
Research and
Preparedness
Investigations
and Response
Committee
Committee
Seismology
Geology
Emergency Response
Earthquake Hazard
Engineering
Sub-committee
and Planning
Reduction in Structures
Sub-committee
Sub-committee
Sub-committee
Sub-committee
61
MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES AND SUB-COMMITTEES
Steering Committee
James G. Stearns, Chairman
Herbert R. Temple, Jr., Vice-Chairman
Wesley G. Bruer, Secretary
Members
Representing
Robert C. Stevens
Federal agencies
Robert B. Jansen
State agencies
Gene Block
Local government
Willard F. Libby
Universities
Lloyd S. Cluff
Private sector
Melville Owen
Public
Recorders: Tom M. Wootton, California Division of Mines
and Geology
Thomas E. Gay, Jr., California Division of
Mines and Geology
62
GOVERNOR'S EARTHQUAKE COUNCIL
Preparedness and Response Committee
Herbert R. Temple, Jr., Chairman
Carlys Gilbert, Secretary
S. Theodore Algermissen, NOAA
Kenneth Hack, CSLL
Art Arthur, Public
H. Robert Hammill, SEAOC
Lawrence Baker, DI
Mary Henderson, LCC
Richards Barger, DI
Donald Henley, CSAC
Jack Barrish, ASCE
Daniel Mikesell, CSAC
William Berg, DI
Thomas Nolan, DRE
Frank R. Bowerman, USC
John Passerello, OPR
Richard Carlson, DRE
G. Richard Schermerhorn, HUD
Lincoln Chang, HUD
Pobert Stevens, OEP
Frances Dias, DCPA
Carol Walker, CIR
Rodney Diridon, JCSS
Robert Winsor, OEP
Art Dreyer, HCD
Charles Zahn, AIP
Greer Ferver, ASCE
Subcommittees
Emergency Response
Earthquake Hazard
and Planning
Reduction in Structures
Frances Dias, Chairman
Art Arthur
Donald Henley
H. Robert Hammill, Chairman
Lawrence Baker
Daniel Mikesell
Jack Barrish
Richards Barger
Thomas Nolan
Frank Bowerman
William Berg
John Passerello
Lincoln Chang
Richard Carlson
Robert Stevens
Art Dreyer
Kenneth Hack
Robert Winsor
Greer Ferver
Mary Henderson
Charles Zahn
G. Richard Schermerhorn
Other Contributors
Courtland Babcock, Office of Emergency Preparedness
Glenn F. Blossom, Department of City Planning, Los Angeles
Donald Foxen, Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriffs' Department
Richard F. Gordon, American National Red Cross
Fred Hodges, M.D., State Department of Public Health
Bill Holliman, League of California Cities
Robert James, City Administrator, City of San Fernando
Drew Lawrence, Industrial Indemnity Company
Evelyn Maley, American National Red Cross
Jene McKnight, Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission
Walt Meagher, Division Chief, Los Angeles County Fire Department
Karl Steinbrugge, Professor of Architecture, University of Calif., Berkeley
Carl Treseder, Consultant, Joint Committee on Seismic Safety
William Jeffris Williamson, Department of City Planning, Los Angeles
Allen E. Wilmore, Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, Region Seven
63
GOVERNOR'S EARTHQUAKE COUNCIL
Research and Investigations Committee
Wesley G. Bruer, Chairman
*Roger Greensfelder, Secretary
Clarence Allen, JCSS
*James Kahle, CDMG
Art Arthur, Public
*Kenneth Klemm, OES
Orville Bandy, USC
*James Koenig, CDMG
Jack Barrish, ASCE
*Stephen Lawrence, UCLA
*Robert Bean, AEG
*F. Beach Leighton, AEG
Gene Block, LCC
Willard Libby, UCLA
Bruce Bolt, UCB
*John Meehan, OAC
Frank Bowerman, USC
*Peter Molnar, UCSD
James Brune, UCSD
*W.D. Montgomery, CIT
*Philip Burkland, AEG
*Paul Morrison, DWR
*Clifford Cortright, DWR
*Mike Nagai, DPW
Rodney Diridon, JCSS
*Donald Palmer, USC
Jerry Eaton, USGS
John Passerello, OPR
Arthur Elliott, DPW
Joseph Penzien, UCB
Greer Ferver, ASCE
William Ropp, SEAOC
H. Robert Hammill, SEAOC
Jay Smith, AEG
Roy Hanson, NSF
*Ta-liang Teng, USC
Mary Henderson, LCC
Charles Thiel, NSF
George Housner, CIT
Don Tocher, NOAA
Fred Hummel, OAC
William Vick, OAC
Richard Jahns, Stanford
Robert Wallace, USGS
Laurence James, DWR
*Robert Winsor, OEP
*William Joyner, USGS
Subcommittees
Seismology:
Engineering:
Geology:
Bruce Bolt, Chairman
George Housner, Chairman
Laurence James, Chairman
Clarence Allen
Jack Barrish
Robert Bean
Jerry Eaton
Frank Bowerman
Gene Block
Roger Greensfelder
Arthur Elliott
Wesley Bruer
John Meehan
Greer Ferver
Philip Burkland
Peter Molnar
H. Robert Hammill
Clifford Cortright
Paul Morrison
Fred Hummel
Mary Henderson
Joseph Penzien
Laurence James
William Joyner
Ta-liang Teng
W.D. Montgomery
James Koenig
Don Tocher
John Passerello
F. Beach Leighton
Joseph Penzien
Donald Palmer
William Ropp
Jay Smith
Charles Thiel
Robert Wallace
*Participation by invitation of the Committee
STAFF ASSISTANCE TO THE COUNCIL
Everett Blizzard, OES
Mary Hill, CDMG
Mary Burgess, CDMG
James Koenig, CDMG
Sharon Burton, CDMG
Eva Laurin, OES
Dorris Campbell, CDMG
Gordon Oakeshott, CDMG
Michael Colby, OES
Merle Reed, OES
Loren Fields, OES
Allen Sherwood, OES
Thomas Gay, Jr., CDMG
Clifford Standing, OES
Carlys Gilbert, OES
Williscene Walker, OES
Roger Greensfelder, CDMG
William Ward, OES
Blanche Haley, OES
Tom Wootton, CDMG
Marilyn Dayton, CDMG
R. Merl Smith, CDMG