1. Putting USGS Research to Use: User Perspectives on Research Evolution, Accomplishments, and Challenges USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) Lloyd S. Cluff Director, Geosciences Department Earthquake Risk Management Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco, California Congressional Briefing on Earthquakes Natural Hazards Science: Reducing Americas Risk From Earthquakes May 12, 2006

2. Pacific Gas and Electric 70,000 square miles of service territory 70,000 square miles of service territory 15 million people served 15 million people served 4.1 million gas customers 4.1 million gas customers 5 million electric customers 5 million electric customers 3,400 buildings 3,400 buildings San Andreas fault 70% of SA fault traverses PG&E service territory Active faults PG&E at a Glance

3. EHP-Accomplishments Learning from earthquakes National Hazards Maps Surface fault rupture effects characterized Near-source ground motions characterized Regional hazards assessments Earthquake forecasts and Shake-Maps

4. San Francisco Bay Area (1992-2006) Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) on Earthquake Hazards Public/Private Partnership (1991-2006) Active Faults SF

5. Monterey Bay San Francisco Sacramento Active faults All PG&E Facilities

6. Earthquake Risk Management Policy* for Utilities and Transportation Systems Program to understand hazards and system vulnerabilities Program to understand hazards and system vulnerabilities Plan to implement risk management options Plan to implement risk management options Dedicated staff Dedicated staff Dedicated budget Dedicated budget Accountability Accountability *California Seismic Safety Commission, 1990

7. Public/Private Partnership Lifelines User-Driven Research Program (1996-2006) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PG&E Caltrans California Energy Commission Other stakeholders for specific projects (USGS, FEMA, and the Southern California Earthquake Center) $15 million leveraged funding

8. Nishenko 2006 San Andreas Fault Rupture Rodgers Creek Fault Rupture Hayward Fault Rupture Gas transmission Scenarios

9. Hayward Fault Scenario UC Berkeley

10. Nishenko 2006 Hayward Fault Scenario

11. PG&E Seismic Retrofit Projects for Earthquake Performance Improvements – (1986 to 2006 ) FacilitiesCost ($ millions) Buildings300 Substations 45 Dams and Related Hydro Facilities 75 Power Plants 60 Gas Pipeline Replacement 1950 Loma Prieta Repairs 75 TOTAL INVESTMENT~ $ 2.5 billion

12. Earthquake Performance Mitigation Improvements for Utilities and Transportation Systems San Francisco Bay Area (1989 to 2006) PG&E – Gas and electric systems Caltrans – Bridge and highway systems East Bay MUD – Water systems BART – Rail transportation system San Francisco Water Department Combined existing and planned expenditures ~ $15 billion

13. Susitna Glacier fault Epicenter Denali fault Totschunda fault Rupture Length ~ 354 km Maximum right slip ~ 8.8 m Trans-Alaska Pipeline Success Story November 3, 2002 M 7.9 Eq & Denali fault rupture TAPS T. Dawson, 2002 Not a drop of oil was spilled !

14. P. Haeussler 2002

16. Denali fault-crossing design zone 71-Fault characterization data sites Pipeline

17. Denali fault crossing Teflon-coated concrete and steel beams Teflon-coated pipeline support shoes L. Cluff, 1976

18. Denali fault crossing design zone L. Cluff, 1976 2000 ft

19. Fault rupture through Denali fault crossing design zone

20. 2000 ft Most likely location Right slip will cause pipeline to experience axial compression Denali fault-crossing design parameters Horizontal, 20 feet Vertical, 5 feet Up Pipeline performed as designed; and not a drop of oil was spilled ! November 3, 2002 rupture Horizontal, 18 feet Vertical, 3.5 feet Axial compression, 11 feet

22. 7.5 ft 10.5 ft Fault displacement 18 ft Width of deformation 660 ft Fault displacement design zone 2,000 ft wide

23. Conclusions and Recommendations Seismic safety must be given priority 39 states have significant seismic exposure They will experience painful deaths and staggering economic losses The losses are preventable by implementing mitigating measures

24. Conclusions and Recommendations The USGS must initiate a leadership role: A complete analysis of the consequences of catastrophic California earthquakes (San Francisco Bay Area / Southern California Region Integrate all hazards threats to develop a comprehensive emergency response for all infrastructure elements that will institute a full and speedy recovery for society The lessons learned in this demonstration project would be applicable to all national extreme disasters

25. Conclusions and Recommendations There is an urgent need to fully implement the USGS Advanced National Seismic System through appropriations that are consistent with Congressional Authorizations It is in the public interest to support research for lifelines infrastructure and buildings Multi-hazard emphasis User-driven Standardized post-event data collection Successes Challenges