Click for next page ( 172


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 171
4 Costing the Roadmap Elements T he charge for this study required that the committee “estimate program costs, on an annual basis, that will be required to imple- ment the roadmap.” The committee was directed to consider the detailed cost estimates presented in the 2003 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) report (EERI, 2003b), and validate or revise these estimates. In its deliberations, the committee initially focused on the 2008 NEHRP Strategic Plan, analyzing its goals, objectives, and strategic priorities, and then reviewed the EERI plan and cost estimates. Ultimately, the 18 tasks described in the previous chapter—the elements of the roadmap—are far broader in scope than the elements of the EERI plan, and consequently the costing estimates presented here are substan - tially different from those that were presented in EERI (2003b). In estimating costs to implement the roadmap, the committee rec- ognized the high degree of variability among the 18 tasks—some (e.g., deployment of the Advanced National Seismic System [ANSS]) are well developed and actually in the process of being implemented, whereas others are only at the conceptual stage. Costing each task required a thor- ough analysis to determine scope, implementation steps, and linkages or overlaps with other tasks. For some of the tasks, the necessary analysis had already been completed in workshops or other venues, and realistic cost estimates were available as input to the committee. For other tasks, the committee had nothing more to go on that its own expert opinion, in which case implementing the task may require some degree of additional detailed analysis. Table 4.1 lists the cost estimates for each task for implementation 171

OCR for page 171
172 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE TABLE 4.1 Compilation of Cost Estimates by Task, in Millions of Dollarsa Total Total Annualized Cost Cost Costs (av.) Years Years Total Years 1-5 1-5 6-20 Cost Task ($) ($) ($) ($) 1. Physics of Earthquake Processes 27 135 450 585 2. Advanced National Seismic System 66.8 334 1,002 1,336 (ANSS)b 3. Earthquake Early Warning 20.6 103 180 283 4. National Seismic Hazard Model 50.1 250.5 696 946.5 5. Operational Earthquake Forecasting 5 25 60 85 6. Earthquake Scenarios 10 50 150 200 7. Earthquake Risk Assessments and 5 25 75 100 Applications TBD c TBD c 8. Post-earthquake Social Science 2.3 11.5 Response and Recovery Research 9. Post-earthquake Information 1 4.8 9.8 14.6 Management 10. Socioeconomic Research on Hazard 3 15 45 60 Mitigation and Recovery 11. Observatory Network on Community 2.9 14.5 42.8 57.3 Resilience and Vulnerability 12. Physics-based Simulations of 6 30 90 120 Earthquake Damage and Loss 13. Techniques for Evaluation and 22.9 114.5 429.1 543.6 Retrofit of Existing Buildings 14. Performance-based Earthquake 46.7 233.7 657.8 891.5 Engineering for Buildings 15. Guidelines for Earthquake-Resilient 5 25 75 100 Lifelines Systems 16. Next Generation Sustainable 8.2 40.8 293.6 334.4 Materials, Components, and Systems 17. Knowledge, Tools, and Technology 8.4 42 126 168 Transfer to Public and Private Practice 18. Earthquake-Resilient Communities 15.6 78 923 1,001 and Regional Demonstration Projects TOTAL 306.5 1,532.3 5,305.1 6,837.4 a See following section for explanatory notes (all figures are 2009 dollars). b Does not include support for geodetic monitoring or geodetic networks. c Funding during the remaining 15 years of the plan would be based on a performance review after 5 years.

OCR for page 171
173 COSTING THE ROADMAP ELEMENTS time-frames of 0-5 years, 6-20 years, and the overall 20-year total. In sum- mary, the annualized cost for the first 5 years of the program for national earthquake resilience is $306.5 million/year. EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR COSTING Much of the finer detail used as the basis for task costing is presented in Appendix E. The following is summary information (using 2009$) to assist with reading the cost estimates presented in Table 4.1. Task 1—Physics of Earthquake Processes Basic research on the physics of earthquake processes is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) under NEHRP. In recent fiscal years, neither agency has explic - itly summarized its expenditures in this particular task area, but current investments can be estimated from reported agency budgets. • Significant support by NSF for research on the physics of earth- quake processes is channeled through the International Research Institu - tions for Seismology (IRIS) (total budget of $12.4 million in FY2010), the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) ($3.0 million), and Earth - Scope ($25.0 million), as well as through NSF’s Division of Earth Sciences (EAR) core program in geophysics. At least $15 million of these FY2010 funds supported basic research on earthquake physics. • The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program expended a total of $13 million on earthquake physics research in FY2010; this amount included $10.6 million for its internal program and $2.4 million for its external programs. Therefore, FY2010 NEHRP expenditures in support of Task 1 totaled more than $27 million/year, when summed over NSF and USGS. Many of the tasks outlined in this report require a better understanding of earthquake physics. Basic research in this area is proceeding vigorously, as described in Chapter 3, and current levels on investment should be maintained for at least the next 5 years, which implies a minimum 5-year budget of ~$135 million. Following this initial investment, we estimate average annual expenditure of ~$30 million/year. Task 2—Advanced National Seismic System • The capitalization cost for the full ANSS is estimated at $175 mil- lion. Prior to ARRA and through FY2009, USGS will have invested about

OCR for page 171
174 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE $26 million, and after the ARRA expenditure of $19 million—for a total of $45 million—the system will be about 25 percent complete at the end of 2011.1 • Current ANSS operations cost $24 million/year, and operational costs are estimated as $50 million/year when ANSS is fully implemented. The current USGS long-term budget request for ANSS is $50 million/year. Because operational costs will increase as the network is developed, it will become increasingly difficult to allocate sufficient capitalization funds for the network to be completed by the target date of 2018 unless there is a substantially increased funding allocation by Congress. • These cost estimates include continued support at existing levels for the Global Seismic Network, an important subsystem of ANSS, cur- rently funded under NEHRP at $9.8 million/year ($5.8 million/year by USGS and $4 million/year by NSF). • These costs also do not include geodetic monitoring, primarily by GPS and strainmeter networks, which is complementary to seismic moni- toring. In FY2009, USGS spent $2.35 million on geodetic data collection, which included network operations. NSF supports geodetic data collec - tion, including network operations, primarily through UNAVCO, which received $3.7 million for this purpose in FY2009. Additional support for GPS geodesy comes from NASA. • It is likely that the ANSS Steering Committee will soon recom- mend that geodetic networks be incorporated into ANSS, and this will obviously increase the scope and cost of ANSS. Task 3—Earthquake Early Warning The implementation of effective earthquake early warning (EEW) systems will require the full implementation of ANSS, and the budget analysis presented here assumes a full implementation. • Current development activities are limited to the USGS EEW dem- onstration project in California, which expended $0.5 million in FY2010. The President’s request to Congress for EEW is $1 million in FY2011. • The costs of a 3-year implementation plan for EEW in California have been estimated by the California Integrated Seismic Network to be $53.4 million. This includes $32.4 million for equipment upgrades, new equipment, and software development, and $21 million for product devel - opment, development of public and professional best practices, and man - agement. Operational costs for the California EEW system are estimated to be $8 million/year. 1 See earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/anss/documents.php.

OCR for page 171
175 COSTING THE ROADMAP ELEMENTS • Implementation of an EEW system for Cascadia can leverage on existing and planned elements of ANSS and the tsunami warning system. Based on a 3-year development timeline, a rough estimate of the marginal cost is $25 million, about half that of the California system. Operational costs, similarly scaled, would be ~$4 million/year. • The total 5-year costs for EEW systems in California and Cascadia are estimated to be $103 million. Task 4—National Seismic Hazard Model • A table listing annualized costs for years 1-5 ($42.3 million/year), 6-10 ($43.2 million/year), and 11-20 ($37.4 million/year) is presented as Table E.1 in Appendix E. • The costs of seismic hazard mapping are reported here, but it should be noted that this component contributes substantially to many other tasks, particularly Tasks 13 and 14. • The total 5-year costs for local and national mapping of seismic hazard are estimated to be approximately $250 million. Task 5—Operational Earthquake Forecasting • USGS and NSF are currently supporting the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) to develop the Uniform California Rupture Earthquake Forecast 3 (UCERF3), which will include a short-term forecasting capability, at a rate of approximately $2 million/ year. WGCEP is also receiving $0.8 million/year from the California Earth- quake Authority. A comparable level of expenditure would be needed to develop earthquake forecasting models in California and other seismically active regions of the United States. • The President’s FY2011 budget request to Congress allocates $3 million for the production of earthquake information at the National Earthquake Information Center in Golden, CO. It also requests $0.5 million to enhance the USGS program in operational earthquake forecasting. • The costs of prospective testing of operational earthquake fore- casts by Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) are estimated to be $0.5 million/year. • The total 5-year costs for operational earthquake forecasting are estimated to be approximately $25 million. Task 6—Earthquake Scenarios • The overall cost of producing an earthquake scenario and exercise for an individual community provides the benchmark for the national

OCR for page 171
176 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE scale budget estimates presented here. The Fedral Emergency Manage - ment Agency (FEMA) Authorized Equipment List (AEL) study identified 43 high-risk communities in the United States with AEL greater than $10 million (FEMA, 2008; see Table 3.2), comprising almost 30 percent of the U.S. population base. • Experience from conducting the pilot earthquake scenarios indi - cates that the level of effort is, in part, dictated by the size of the commu- nity. Small communities with populations less than 500,000 people, such as the Evansville, IN, example described in Chapter 2, have been able to map the local geology and site conditions, develop GIS databases for Urban Seismic Hazard Maps, improve local building and critical infra- structure inventories, and run loss estimation models for scenario events for ~$0.5 million over a period of 5 years under the USGS Urban Hazard Mapping Program. • There are 18 high-risk communities with populations of 500,000 or less. Cities with populations greater than 1 million would require propor- tionally more time and resources. The Saint Louis Urban Hazard Mapping Project, for example, has a mapping program for 29 quadrangles over 10 years. Costs associated with this effort are estimated to be ~$2 million. • Note that estimates for the Evansville, IN, and Saint Louis, MO, examples do not include costs for conducting community-wide earth - quake exercises. • Larger efforts, such as the 2008 southern California ShakeOut exercise discussed in Chapter 1, involved the NEHRP agencies as well as widespread participation by local scientific, community, and media orga- nizations. The initial “start up costs” for the ShakeOut scenario develop - ment and exercise totaled ~$6 million (L. Jones and M. Benthien, written communication, 2011). • Nationally, there are 16 high-risk communities with populations greater than 1 million. • Consequently, we estimate it would require ~$200 million to develop a uniform series of urban seismic hazard and risk maps and to conduct earthquake exercises for the 43 communities identified in Table 3.2. Funding for the development of comprehensive earthquake risk scenarios and risk assessments in the current (FY2009) NEHRP budget is $1.5 million; we estimate that $10 million/year will be required. Task 7—Earthquake Risk Assessment and Applications • At the national level, support for the development of hazards and risk assessment methodologies and support for the basic research that provides the various elements required for the methodology has been a key element of the NEHRP program. At present (FY2009), support for the

OCR for page 171
177 COSTING THE ROADMAP ELEMENTS development of advanced loss estimation and risk assessment tools in the NEHRP budget is $0.5 million. • Development of the next generation hazard loss estimation tool— although Hazards U.S. (HAZUS) is useful as an inexpensive and easy- to-use loss estimation tool, and is able to yield approximate estimates of hazard losses, greater accuracy is needed for the focused allocation of funding for loss reduction and for policy decisions in general. This program would take advantage of the significant advances in hazard loss estimation achieved by the three existing Earthquake Engineering Research Centers over the past dozen years, to synthesize these advances and develop an expert system for higher-level use. The goal is software that would be accessible to expert teams addressing strategic decisions and more severe disasters. • We estimate that the funding required for both short-term methodology development and longer-term capability development is $5 million/year. Task 8—Post-earthquake Social Science Response and Recovery Research • Development of Standardized Data Protocols, to include 2-4 m ethodological projects during the initial 2 years to develop stan - dardized research protocols for social science studies of post-disaster response and recovery activities and preparedness practices associated with them. The cost of these projects and resulting workshops are esti - mated at $1.5 million. • Establishment of a National Center for Social Science Research on Earthquakes and Other Disasters—the center’s primary mission would be to oversee the implementation of standardized research protocols and address, on a continuing basis, related data management issues. The esti - mated funding for such a center is $2.3 million/year for the initial 5 years; funding during the remaining 15 years of the plan would be based on a performance review after 5 years. Task 9—Post-earthquake Information Management • The cost estimates for a post-earthquake information management system (PIMS) are based on a two-phase development approach (PIMS Project Team, 2008). • The first phase would develop an initial PIMS capability and could be accomplished in 2 years at $1 million/year. • The second phase could take from 5 to 10 years and would involve development of a more advanced, “full-function” PIMS. Phase 2 will

OCR for page 171
178 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE involve about 7 to 9 pilot projects that would have both a development phase and an implementation phase. Operations costs would continue beyond the development period of Phase 2. • There would be substantial additional costs incurred whenever the system is activated post-event to harvest, distribute, and archive infor- mation. These costs are beyond the focus of this study and would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. A more detailed implementation budget is included with assumptions as Table E.2 in Appendix E. Task 10—Socio-economic Research on Hazard Mitigation and Recovery The task includes five research program elements that together total $3 million/year: • Research program on mitigation and recovery, to include studies on the cost and effectiveness of various resilient strategies and the use of these results to inform and develop prospective indices of resilience; estimated at $1 million/year. This program would also include evalua - tion of the role of the new business continuity industry as a complement to government assistance, deeper analysis of organizational response to disasters and obstacles to implementation of resilience, as well as policy instruments to overcome these obstacles and to promote best practice. It would also involve analysis of long-run effects of disasters and com - prehensive planning frameworks to promote resilience against any such losses. Research should also be extended into new areas such as equity and justice, and ecological resilience. • Research program on the long-term impacts of disasters; esti- mated at $0.5 million/year. This would involve the further development of a framework for analysis, and rigorous testing at sites of major earth - quakes and other major disasters. This program would also address key policy issues including such questions as the necessity of re-building in the same locations, migration support, and mandating of mitigation during the recovery and reconstruction processes. • Research program on equity and justice in hazard resilience; estimated at $0.5 million/year. Research would focus on the exploration of equity/justice principles, analysis of the implications of their applica - tion, and their acceptance by communities and policy-makers. It would be applied to a broad range of disadvantaged groups including racial/ ethnic minorities, women, the aged and the very young, the physically challenged, and the poor. • Development of a National Clearinghouse for Economic Resil- ience; estimated at $1 million/year. This clearinghouse would combine research and practice—research to develop resilience metrics and new

OCR for page 171
179 COSTING THE ROADMAP ELEMENTS resilience strategies that would then be transformed into operational activities and tested in pilot programs. Practitioners in the private and public sectors would share their experiences with the broad community through the clearinghouse. See also an expanded role for Task 11. Task 11—Observatory Network on Community Resilience and Vulnerability • Costs associated with development of an Observatory Network on Community Resilience and Vulnerability are estimated to total $14.5 mil- lion over the next 5 years (see details in Table E.3 in Appendix E), with continuing funding through Year 20 of $2.9 million/year. This estimate, based on the phased implementation outlined in the RAVON workshop report (Peacock et al., 2008), represents the middle of the cost range sug - gested in that report. • Although implementing Tasks 8, 9, 10, and 11 should be consid- ered separately, the potential for leveraging resources across these tasks is substantial. Because of its more global nature, Task 11 would serve as the umbrella for considering such leveraging. Task 12—Physics-based Simulations of Earthquake Damage and Loss • The annualized cost for years 1-20 of $6 million/year includes three components: earthquake science ($2 million/year), earthquake engi- neering ($2 million/year), and information technology ($2 million/year). Funding for the basic science and engineering tasks required to support, improve, and “operationalize” end-to-end simulation tools are included in Tasks 1, 13, 14, and 16. • Funding for the high-performance computing equipment required to enable end-to-end simulations is assumed to be available through federal agencies or through universities and facilities funded by federal agencies. Task 13—Techniques for Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings • A table listing annualized costs for years 1-5 ($22.9 million/ year), 6-10 ($34 million/year), and 11-20 ($26 million/year) is presented as Table E.4 in Appendix E, and a more detailed breakdown for each component—including component timing—is presented in Table E.5. • Program coordination and management costs are 20 percent of the combined research, development, and implementation costs for this task, distributed uniformly over the full 20 years.

OCR for page 171
180 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE • The costs for NEES operations and maintenance, a substantial contributor to this task, are reported under Task 14. • The costs for seismic hazard analysis, a key contributor to this task, are reported under Task 4. Task 14—Performance-based Earthquake Engineering for Buildings • A table listing annualized costs for years 1-5 ($46.7 million/year), 6-10 ($47.7 million/year), and 11-20 ($41.9 million/year) is presented as Table E.6 in Appendix E, and a more detailed breakdown for each component—including component timing—is presented in Table E.7. • Program coordination and management costs are 20 percent of the combined research, development, and implementation costs for this task, distributed uniformly over the full 20 years. • The costs of NEES operations and maintenance are reported here, but it should be noted that the NEES component contributes substantially to many other tasks, particularly Tasks 13 and 16. • The costs associated with deploying and maintaining ANSS and the costs of seismic hazard analysis, which are key contributors to this task, are reported under Tasks 2 and 4, respectively. Task 15—Guidelines for Earthquake-Resilient Lifelines Systems • Both the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (1997) and EERI (2003b) estimated $3 to $5 million annual budgets for the development of guidelines, manuals of practice, and model codes for seismic design and retrofit of buildings, lifelines, bridges, and coastal structures. EERI (2003b) also identified an additional $5 million/year for demonstration projects and $5 million/year for basic lifeline engineering research. • Based in part on this background information, we estimate that accomplishing the task as outlined in Chapter 3 would require $5 million/ year, representing a very substantial increase from the existing funding level of ~$100,000/year. Task 16—Next Generation Sustainable Materials, Components, and Systems • A table listing annualized costs for years 1-5 ($8.2 million/year), 6-10 ($13.9 million/year), and 11-20 ($22.4 million/year) is presented as Table E.8 in Appendix E, and a more detailed breakdown for each component—including component timing—is presented in Table E.9.

OCR for page 171
181 COSTING THE ROADMAP ELEMENTS • The costs for NEES operations and maintenance, a substantial contributor to this task, are reported under Task 14. Task 17—Knowledge, Tools, and Technology Transfer to Public and Private Practice • Annual costs include the development of seismic standards and the development of research consolidation documents ($8.4 million/year), for a total of $168 million over 20 years. Task 18—Earthquake-Resilient Communities and Regional Demonstration Projects • The resources that would be needed at any particular time would depend on the number of communities selected, the amount of matching funds provided, and the number and nature of demonstration projects. We recommend that the program begin with a few communities, and then expand as capacity improves and community leaders are developed who can provide peer-to-peer mentoring. • The average unit cost per community would be about $750,000/ year, varying depending on the size and complexity of each community and the nature of selected demonstration projects. We propose initial fund- ing for the first 2 years at $4 million/year, increasing to $69 million/year per year when the program includes a full complement of 60 communi- ties. Additional cost breakdown information is presented in Table E.10 in Appendix E.

OCR for page 171