An Assessment of the Consequences and Preparations for a Catastrophic California Earthquake Part 5

As you know, following my trip to view the destructive impacts of the volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the State of Was.h.i.+ngton, I directed that an a.s.sessment be undertaken of the consequences and state of preparedness for a major earthquake in California. This review, chaired by my Science and Technology Advisor, Frank Press, is now complete. We are grateful for the a.s.sistance provided by your staff and the other State, and local officials in this effort.

Although current response plans are generally adequate for moderate earthquakes, Federal, State, and local officials agree that additional preparation is required to cope with a major earthquake. Prudence requires, therefore, that we take steps to improve our preparedness.

While the primary responsibility for preparedness rests with the State of California, its local governments and its people, the magnitude of human suffering and loss of life that might occur and the importance of California to the rest of the Nation require increased Federal attention to this important issue. Accordingly, I have directed that the Federal government increase its work with you to supplement your efforts. The Federal efforts will be led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and include the Department of Defense and other Departments and agencies as appropriate.

As a Nation, we must reduce the adverse impacts of a catastrophic earthquake to the extent humanly possible by increasing our preparedness for this potential eventuality.

Sincerely,

[signed] Jimmy Carter

The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Governor of California Sacramento, California 95814

September 26, 1980

The Honorable Jimmy Carter The President The White House Was.h.i.+ngton, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Let me take this opportunity to review our conversations over the last few months regarding increased seismic activity in California.

When we met in Oakland on July 4 I raised the issue of seismic hazards. I was concerned then with the steady increase in seismic activity in California since 1978. Sharing my concern, you directed that the National Security Council join with my staff and certain local experts to conduct a quick study on the potential for a great earthquake in California.

As you know, significant theoretical and public policy research had already been completed by our Seismic Safety Commission, State Geologist, Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council and the Office of Emergency Services. Together with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), they had clearly been keeping abreast of the state of the art of earthquake prediction.

Indeed, combined state and federal efforts, founded on major theoretical advances in American, Russian and Chinese seismic and geological theory since the early 1970s, had s.h.i.+fted the language of earthquake prediction in California from "if" to "when"!

In light of my personal interest in this subject, I have signed into law a.s.semblyman Frank Vicencia's AB 2202, a jointly funded state-federal project to design a comprehensive earthquake prediction-response plan. It is the state's intention to prepare a plan for the greater Los Angeles area as quickly as feasible. In my view, such a fullscale prediction-response program had become possible only after the research findings of both physical and policy scientists during the past five years. It is my conviction that such a plan is now timely--neither too early nor too late.

In this context, your recognition of this issue in our conversation of September 22 in Los Angeles was a welcome personal reinforcement of our state and local efforts. I am also grateful for the September 3 briefing in Sacramento by Mr. John Macy, Director of FEMA, regarding the latest U.S. Geological Survey interpretations of anomalies around California's system of geological faults. As soon as we have received the final FEMA report on the details of those anomalies, I will ask the state geologist to evaluate the report, confer with colleagues in the Geological Survey and have all state and local officials fully briefed.

At that time, I would be grateful for an early opportunity to meet with you and explore next steps. I am confident that a heightened state of awareness among my fellow Californians will so deploy the resources of the state, plus available federal supplementary a.s.sistance, as to minimize the loss of life and property in the event of a great earthquake.

Sincerely,

/s/

Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Governor

ANNEX 2

CURRENT CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLANNING

A. NATURE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING

An emergency, as used in this report, is defined as an unexpected, sudden or out-of-the-ordinary event or series of events adversely affecting lives and property which, because of its magnitude, cannot be handled by normal governmental processes. Emergency response planning is the process that addresses preparedness for and response to an emergency.

Emergency response planning is an evolutionary, ongoing process and is prerequisite to all other emergency readiness activities. It is a comprehensive process that identifies the potential hazardous events, and the vulnerability to such hazards, estimates expected losses, and a.s.sesses impacts of such events. The development of written plans is followed by placement of capabilities to implement the response plan and by the conduct of periodic tests and exercises. The most difficult task in the development of an emergency plan is to antic.i.p.ate as many of the problems and complications resulting from a given disaster situation as possible and to provide a basis for response to those not antic.i.p.ated.

The objective of emergency planning is to create the capacity for government to:

Save the maximum number of lives in the event of an emergency

Minimize injuries and protect property

Preserve the functions of civil government

Maintain and support economic and social activities essential for response and the eventual long-term recovery from the disaster

Emergency planning is a logical and necessary pre-emergency activity for governmental (and other organizational) ent.i.ties likely to be affected by a disaster's occurrence. To be successful, such planning must be accomplished within the framework of the day-to-day governmental structure and activity but at the same time provide for response to the extraordinary circ.u.mstances and requirements inherent in disaster situations.

Emergency plans include the preparation of guidelines, policy directives, and procedures to be utilized in preparing for and conducting disaster operations, training, and test exercises. They should also contain clear statements of authorities, responsibilities, organizational relations.h.i.+ps, and operating procedures necessary for the accomplishment of disaster response and recovery activities.

Further, they should address the four elements of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (immediate and long-term).

Once plans are established they must be periodically updated as conditions change. Updating may become necessary for a number of reasons: increased scientific, technical, and managerial knowledge; feedback from evaluation of exercises; better understanding of vulnerability; s.h.i.+fts in population and economic activities; construction of new critical facilities; and changes in personnel, organization, and legislation.

Emergency planning is a shared responsibility at all levels--in this case from the Federal through the State and local jurisdictional levels. It should include business, industry, research and scientific inst.i.tutions, practicing professions, and the individuals. By involving all functions of government, the planning process enhances the capability for implementing the plans through the realistic consideration of available capabilities and elimination of conflicts and inconsistencies of roles and task a.s.signments.

Further, by being a part of the planning decision-making process and having identified the needs and areas of consideration, individuals, organizations, and officials responsible for emergency operations are better able to relate to the expected impact and the operational environment. The written plans also serve valuable purposes for training and familiarization of new organizations, individuals, and public officials. Experience has shown repeatedly that when emergency operations are conducted in accordance with existing plans, reaction time is reduced and coordination improved, with fewer casualties, less property damage, and a higher surviving socioeconomic capability to undertake recovery. Other benefits that accrue from planning include the enhancement of hazard awareness.

B. CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY PLANNING RESPONSE

The State of California emergency response planning is a series of related doc.u.ments, each of which serve a specific purpose. (See figures 1 and 2.)

The basic plan of a jurisdiction (item (1) in figures 1 and 2) is the foundation of this planning process. It is an essential administrative (rather than operational) doc.u.ment, and as such it:

Provides the basis (including legal authority) for and the objectives of emergency planning and operations

Outlines contingencies (emergency situations) to be planned and prepared for and establishes the general principles and policies (concepts of operations) to be applied to each

Describes the emergency organization in terms of who is responsible for what actions

Defines interjurisdictional and interservice relations.h.i.+ps and the direction and control structure to make a.s.signments and resolve conflicts

Contains or refers to information of common interest about supporting facilities, such as the Emergency Operations Center and warning and communications systems

Provides the planning basis for other supporting doc.u.ments which are more operationally oriented

The basic plan is supported by a Direction and Control annex and by functional annexes (see (2) and (3) respectively in figures 1 and 2).

The Direction and Control annex details how overall responses to an emergency will be managed and coordinated. Functional annexes (for both staff and services) are designed to address the extraordinary requirements created by emergencies. They identify the specific needs, the organizational resources available to meet those needs, and the scheme or "concept of operations" for their application. It should be noted that, because of unique requirements, annexes often do not reflect normal departmental structure. An annex becomes a departmental plan only when an agency represents the sole resource for meeting the stated need and when satisfying that need is the only task a.s.signed to that agency by the basic plan.