Canada earthquake risk 85 years after the Grand Banks earthquake and tsunami

November 18 marked the 85th anniversary of one of the largest and deadliest earthquakes in Canadian history, one that reiterates the importance of managing all drivers of earthquake risk effectively in the region.

The 1929 Grand Banks earthquake and tsunami was a magnitude 7.2 event that occurred just after 5:00 p.m. NST approximately 155 miles south of Newfoundland and was felt as a far away as New York City and Montreal. The earthquake caused limited damage on land and water, including minor landslides, but triggered a significant tsunami that was recorded as far south as South Carolina and as far east as Portugal.

Sea levels near the Newfoundland coast rose between 6 and 21 feet, with higher amounts recorded locally through narrow bays and inlets, and the tsunami claimed 28 lives. Had this event occurred near a more populated region, such British Columbia or Québec, the impacts could have been much worse.

Figure 1: A home in Newfoundland gets dragged out of a nearby cove following the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake and tsunami. Source: Natural Resources Canada

An event like this shows just how complex the Canadian earthquake risk landscape can be and how important it is to keep that view of risk as up-to-date and accurate as possible. On average, Canada experiences approximately 4,000 earthquakes each year. Most are small, but some can be large, particularly along the west coast near Vancouver and Victoria. There, in what is known as the Cascadia Subduction Zone, the Juan de Fuca plate is sliding underneath North America, causing subduction earthquakes, which tend to be less frequent but more severe than other Canadian seismic sources.

RMS has been modeling Canadian earthquake risk since 1991, with the last model update in 2009. The model inherently or explicitly includes the impacts of nearly all drivers of earthquake damage in that part of the world, from ground shaking, landslides, and liquefaction to fire following.

In building, updating, and validating the model over the years, RMS has collaborated with leading Canadian researchers and engineers, including representatives from what is now known as Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). RMS also maintains strong relationships with key insurance organizations and regulatory bodies, such as the Office of Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, to play a key role in influencing guidelines and practices throughout the Canadian earthquake market.

The next update to the RMS Canada Earthquake Model is targeted for 2016 as part of a larger RMS North America Earthquake Models update. Among other enhancements, the model will incorporate the latest seismic hazard data (2015), internal research by the RMS seismic hazard development team, and introduce a probabilistic earthquake-induced tsunami model that will include losses from inundation along impacted coastlines.

Together, these updates will reflect the latest view of earthquake hazard in Canada, enabling the market to price and underwrite policies more accurately, and manage earthquake portfolio aggregations more effectively.

Western Jihadists & the Risk They Pose to their Homeland

Since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, foreign jihadists from across the globe have travelled to Syria to fight the Assad regime. According to a report by the 9/11 commission, the civil war in Syria has attracted around 10,000 foreign fighters from more than 80 countries. A growing number of these foreign fighter contingents have also returned to Iraq determined to reignite sectarian tension in the region. While the majority of non-Syrian fighters are Middle Eastern, the influx of European, American, and Canadian born fighters is significant. A study done by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s College London on the number of foreign fighters in Syria found that 18% are from the West. Britons make up one of the biggest groups of Western fighters with Danes, Italians, and French not far behind.

The news that American Douglas McCain was killed while fighting in Syria also indicates that there are Americans currently in Syria fighting against the Assad regime. In February this year, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the US Congress that more than 50 Americans are thought to be fighting in Syria. Canada has also seen a rise in homegrown jihadists going overseas to fight. According to a report done by the Public Safety Canada, an estimated 130 Canadians have joined overseas conflicts, many of them gravitating toward Syria and Iraq to wage jihad. The influx of overseas jihadists is unprecedented. The figures exceed the number of foreign jihadists involved in Afghanistan during its decade of war and its subsequent violent aftermath. Unlike in Afghanistan, many are travelling overseas not to just train or provide financial logistical support, but to also participate in the conflict directly.

There are many reasons why so many individuals have traveled to Iraq and Syria to wage jihad. Many have been drawn in by predictions in a version of Islamic ideology that the apocalypse will take place in Greater Syria. Such narrative has been inflamed by stories of atrocities against Sunni Muslims alleged to be committed by the Alawite Assad regime.

Accessibility is also a factor. In contrast to other jihadi theaters such as in Afghanistan, Mali, and Somalia, Iraq and Syria are much more logistically accessible. Europol reports that many foreign jihadists have traveled through Turkey, a common vacation destination, which arouses no or limited suspicion. Most of the foreign jihadists have been assimilated to ISIL, also referred to as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), but not exclusively. Some have joined other salafi-jihadi rebel groups such as the Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham.

These groups were founded by individuals who at one time were senior members of al-Qaida. They tend to be more inclusive, highly organized, and much better financed than their more moderate counterparts such as the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The foreign fighters are not only getting indoctrinated ideologically, but are also given training on operational tactics. Many are instructed in using improvised explosive devices (IEDs), car bombs, and suicide attacks.

From a threat perspective, foreign jihadi involvement in both Iraq and Syria could impact the global terrorism risk landscape in multiple ways. First, the returning jihadis potentially could revitalize their cause in their homeland and act as a conduit reconnecting local groups to the global jihad. Second and more importantly, there is also a risk that some of these veterans may attempt a terrorist attacks back in their homeland. While the majority of jihadist foreign fighters do not end up attacking their home countries, a small number do and they often prove more capable and proficient than those without any fighting experience.

Given the stronger counter terrorism environment in the West, such attacks will more likely fall under the category of lone wolf terrorism attacks. These are individuals who work alone or in very small groups and do not seek any type of external assistance to execute their operation thus making it difficult for the authorities to gather enough intelligence to thwart any potential attack. Returning jihadists with proficiency in the local language and the ability to understand Western society can execute and plan their terrorism plot without raising much suspicion. While these homegrown lone wolf plots are much harder to detect and stop, their attacks tend to be limited to smaller attack types.

Current counter-terrorism practitioners assert that ISIS and its foreign contingent are interested in attacking western cities but question whether they have the ability to orchestrate a large-scale attack such a car bomb in cities such as in Toronto or London given the strong counter terrorism environment in these cities. Thus, it appears lone wolf attacks such as assassinations, beheadings, and kidnappings are the more likely scenarios. Despite these changes in the global terrorism landscape, RMS continues to recommend clients to use the standard risk outlook for its suite of probabilistic terrorism models.

What to expect this 2014-2015 Europe Winter Windstorm Season

When it rains in Sulawesi it blows a gale in Surrey, some 12,000 miles away? While these occurrences may sound distinct and uncorrelated, the wet weather in Indonesia is likely to have played some role in the persistent stormy weather experienced across northern Europe last winter.

Weather events are clearly connected in different parts of the world. The events of last winter are discussed in RMS’ 2013-2014 Winter Storms in Europe report, which provides an in-depth analysis of the main 2013-2014 winter storm events and why it is difficult to predict European windstorm hazard due to many factors, including the influence of distant climate anomalies from across the globe.

Can we predict seasonal windstorm activity during the 2014-2015 Europe winter windstorm season?

As we enter the 2014-2015 Europe winter windstorm season, (re)insurers are wondering what to expect.

Many consider current weather forecasting tools beyond a week to be as useful as the unique “weather forecasting stone” that I came across on a recent vacation.

I am not so cynical; while weather forecasting models may have missed storms in the past and the outputs of long-range forecasts still contain uncertainty, they have progressed significantly in recent years.

In addition, our understanding of climatic drivers that strongly influence our weather, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) is constantly improving. As we learn more about these phenomena, forecasts will improve, as will our ability to identify trends and likely outcomes.

What can we expect this season?

The Indian dipole is an oscillation in sea surface temperatures between the East and West Indian Ocean. It has trended positively since the beginning of the year to a neutral phase and is forecast to remain neutral into 2015. Indonesia is historically wet during a negative phase, so we are unlikely to observe the same pattern that was characteristic of winter 2013-2014.

Current forecasts indicate that we will observe a weak central El Niño this winter. Historically speaking this has led to colder winter temperatures over northern Europe, with a blocking system drawing cooler temperatures from the north and northeast.

The influence of ENSO on the jet stream is less well-defined but potentially indicates that storms will be steered along a more southerly track. Lastly, the QBO is currently in a strong easterly phase, which tends to weaken the polar vortex as well as westerlies over the Atlantic.

Big losses can occur during low-activity seasons

Climatic features like NAO, ENSO, and QBO are indicators of potential trends in activity. While they provide some insight, (re)insurers are unlikely to use them to inform their underwriting strategy.

And, knowing that a season may have low overall winter storm activity does not remove the risk of having a significant windstorm event. For example, Windstorm Klaus occurred during a period of low winter storm activity in 2009 and devastated large parts of southern Europe, causing $3.4 billion in insured losses.

Given this uncertainty around what could occur, catastrophe models remain the best tool available for the (re)insurance industry to evaluate risk and prepare for potential impacts. While they don’t aim to forecast exactly what will happen this winter, they help us understand potential worst-case scenarios, and inform appropriate strategies to manage the exposure.

Ebola in the US: How big of problem are we looking at?

As mentioned in my previous blog post, Ebola has the potential to be one of the deadliest epidemics in a century, but the primary area of concern is Western Africa, where the virus is most prevalent. However, as cases pop up in the U.S., concerns are rising, as evidenced by the acute media analysis and discussion around the first case in New York, for example.

Based on RMS modeling, we estimate that there will be between 15 and 130 cases in the U.S. between now and the end of the year—less than 1 case for every 2 million people. Our calculations assume that American medical professionals working with infected people in West Africa will account for the majority of cases. We simulated the number of new U.S. cases based on the existing infection rates among the American medical workers; this technique incorporates our projections for future West African caseloads and medical staff on the ground in the next two months, based on RMS’s epidemic scenario model. We then further modeled the virus’s spread once back in the U.S., taking into account the preparedness and higher quality of treatment facilities here versus the affected countries in West Africa.

The high end of the range is likely a slight overestimate as our calculations exclude automatic quarantining measures that some areas of the US are implementing. These measures can both reduce the number of contacts (people who come into contact with the infected person) for the imported cases, as well as increase the travel burden on U.S. volunteers planning to support the effort in Africa; this in turn could potentially reduce the number of people who actually make it over to the affected region.

The U.S. is prepared to handle the caseload even if it hits the upper range of 130 new cases. At any given time between now and December, specialized Ebola biocontainment facilities will have 11 beds available, which is enough to cope with the maximum weekly caseload in most of (but not all) of our modeled projections. In the more extreme scenarios, we still expect hospitals nationwide that have at least one Ebola treatment bed in place to handle overflow. Even if the reality over the next few months resembles a very pessimistic situation, it will be manageable given the U.S.’s higher capacity for managing cases.

Catastrophe modeling is an art and a science. The interesting, albeit challenging, part about calculating a range for something like this is that so much is contingent on estimates. The very nature of the virus and the exponential way the epidemic spreads means our estimates of the uncertainty in the variables are amplified in the number of cases. Our estimate is largely dependent on when affected regions reach the tipping point, where the number of new daily cases declines rather than increases. Everything is interconnected – the pace at which the epidemic spreads directly affects the tipping point, which then affects the need for treatment and number of professionals, which in turn affects the potential number of cases that can be imported back to the U.S.

As with all catastrophes we model, understanding risk is the first step toward mitigating and managing it.

New Storms, New Insights: Two Years After Hurricane Sandy

When people think about the power of hurricanes, they imagine strong winds and flying debris. Wind damage will always result from hurricanes, but Hurricane Sandy highlighted the growing threat of storm surge as sea levels rise.

While Sandy’s hurricane-force winds were not unusual, the storm delivered an unprecedented storm surge to parts of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast U.S. In total, Sandy caused insured losses of nearly $20 billion in the U.S., 65 percent of which resulted from surge-driven coastal flooding.

Considering the hazard and severity of the event, we used Sandy as the first real opportunity to validate our hydrodynamic storm surge model, which we released in 2011 and embedded in the RMS U.S. Hurricane Model. We verified the model against more than 300 independent wind and flood observations, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) 100-year flood zones, and the FEMA best surge inundation footprint for New York City. The model captured the extent and severity of Sandy’s coastal flooding exceptionally well.

We also conducted extensive analysis of claims data from Sandy, which involved reviewing nearly $3 billion in location-level claims and exposure data across seven lines of business, provided by several companies. The purpose of the study was to deepen our understanding of the impacts of flooding on coastal exposures, particularly for commercial and industrial structures.

What struck us was how vulnerable buildings are to below-ground flooding. In many cases, damage to ground- and basement-level property and contents contributed a much higher proportion of the overall losses than expected, particularly for commercial structures in New York’s central business districts.

This insight has prompted us to improve the flexibility of how losses are modeled for contents and business interruption, specifically for basements. Early next year, we will release an update to our flagship North Atlantic Hurricane Models to provide the most-up-to-date view of hurricane risk with new vulnerability modeling capabilities based on insights gained from Sandy.

The model update includes new location-specific content triggers to enable users to make business interruption loss projections dependent on either contents or building damage, rather than on building damage alone. The model also allows users to assess the impact of multiple basement levels in a building, as well as the total value of contents stored within.

The claims data analysis also highlighted the importance of using high-resolution data to model high-gradient perils, such as coastal flooding. Flood losses are extremely sensitive to the locations of coastal exposures, as well as the surrounding topographical and bathymetrical features. Using high quality data with location-level specificity across a variety of building characteristics, as well as a high-resolution storm surge model that can accurately capture the flow of water around complex coastlines and local terrain, minimizes uncertainty.

At this time, RMS remains the only catastrophe modeling firm to integrate a hydrodynamic, time-stepping storm surge model into its hurricane models to represent the complex interactions of wind and water throughout a hurricane’s life-cycle, and we continue to implement lessons learned from new storms.

Betting on Mother Nature

When you consider lofty odds like the chances you will win the Mega Million lottery (1 in 259 million) or the chance you will get hit by lightning (1 in 280,000) it blunts your appreciation of very unlikely, if not statistically improbable, events.

Consider some of the things with 500-to-1 odds:

We witnessed something that has a 500-1 chance of happening recently in nature: two storms hit Bermuda within six days of each other. Bermuda was recently hit by a tropical storm (Fay) and a borderline category 2/3 hurricane (Gonzalo) within six days. The chances of two tropical systems hitting what amounts to a tiny dot in the middle of Atlantic Ocean this year was 1-in-500 according to our modeling.

Not statistically improbable, but certainly not a normal occurrence.

Even more impressive, the natural fluke comes after a relatively inactive hurricane season. There have been seven named storms in 2014; six have reached hurricane status.

The climatological peak of the Atlantic season for hurricanes is mid-September and generally associated with storms that develop as they cross from Africa toward the Caribbean. However, there is a secondary peak in October related to storms developing closer to the U.S. in areas such as the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.

The cumulative intensity of this season’s storms is lower than average. Our research attributes this to cooler than normal sea temperatures in the Atlantic lessening energy, along with higher than normal sea pressures suppressing thunderstorms. It would be interesting to see what the odds were for Gonzalo and Fay both hitting Bermuda if we factored in a slow hurricane season.


Satellite Eyes First Major Atlantic Hurricane in 3 Years: Gonzalo

Are fears of a global Ebola pandemic warranted?

Ebola is a hot topic in the media right now, with multiple cases being reported outside of West Africa and much confusion among the general public around the reality of the danger. So, are the fear and sensationalism warranted?

RMS models infectious diseases and recently developed the world’s first probabilistic model for the current West African Ebola outbreak. While Ebola is indeed a very scary and relatively deadly disease, with a case fatality rate between 69 and 73 percent according to the WHO, RMS modeling shows that it is unlikely the outbreak will become a significant threat globally.

The spread of Ebola in West Africa is in part due to misconceptions and fear surrounding the disease and a lack of public health practices. Ebola can be passed solely via bodily fluids; the risk of unknowingly contracting the disease is low.

Fear is prevalent among some West African communities that Ebola is a lie or is being used purposefully to wipe out certain ethnic groups, causing them to hide sick family members from healthcare and aid workers. Customary burial practices, in which family members kiss and interact with the dead, also have contributed to Ebola’s spread. Getting the populace in these countries to trust foreigners who are telling them to abandon their customs has been an uphill struggle.

In more developed countries where health care is more advanced and understood, the chances of transmission are exponentially smaller due to the fact that extreme containment measures are taken. Controlling the spread of the disease comes down to a question of logistics; if the medical community can control the existing cases and trace the contact made with carriers, spread is much less likely. For example, the case in Texas can be contained to one degree as long as every single person in contact with the patient is tracked.

There is also a (speculative) fear of the virus mutating into an airborne pathogen; the fact is, the chances of the virus changing the way it is transmitted, from fluid contact to airborne passage, are very low and of a similar order of magnitude to the chance of emergence of a different highly virulent novel pathogen.

Vincent Racaniello, a prominent virologist at Columbia University wrote:

“When it comes to viruses, it is always difficult to predict what they can or cannot do. It is instructive, however, to see what viruses have done in the past, and use that information to guide our thinking. Therefore, we can ask: has any human virus ever changed its mode of transmission? The answer is no. We have been studying viruses for over 100 years, and we’ve never seen a human virus change the way it is transmitted.”

The tipping point in the modeling of a virus like Ebola is the point where the resources being used to mitigate the threat outpace the increase in new cases. Trying to get ahead of the epidemic itself is like a race against a moving target, but as long as people get into treatment centers, progress will be made in getting ahead of the illness.

So, while Ebola is a very scary and dangerous illness, it is not something that we expect to become a global pandemic. However, while the current outbreak is not expected to spread significantly beyond West Africa, it still has the potential to be the most deadly infectious disease in a century and could have drastic economic impacts on the communities that suffer from Ebola breakouts. In fact, the economic impacts are likely to be worse than the actual impacts of the disease, due to negative impacts to trade and inter-community relations.

The key is to contain it where it is, reach the tipping point as quickly as possible, and to promote safety around existing infected persons. Through travel control measures and the development of several new drugs to combat the virus, the danger of epidemic should be drastically reduced in Africa and, as a result, the rest of the world.

Your Excellent Questions On Earthquakes

Today marks the 25th anniversary of the magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake which rocked California’s San Francisco Bay Area on October 17, 1989. To commemorate the anniversary and raise awareness about resilience against earthquakes, Dr. Robert Muir-Wood, RMS chief research officer, and Dr. Patricia Grossi, RMS senior director of global earthquake modeling, hosted a Reddit Science AMA (Ask Me Anything).

They discussed a number of topics; participants expressed curiosity not just for routine details like the best immediate action in the event of a quake, but also what fault lines are at risk and the finer points of earthquake insurance.

Here are just a few of the subjects they tackled in a conversation that generated close to 200 comments by Thursday afternoon – you can also read the entire Reddit thread.

Is the Bay Area is better prepared [now] than for the Loma Prieta quake? What role have you (or other scientists) played in planning?

Grossi: There’s been a lot of work by PG&E, BART, and other agencies to mitigate earthquake risk – as well as the new span of the Bay Bridge. In addition, the California Earthquake Authority has been encouraging mitigation – and have mitigation incentives if you retrofit your home to withstand earthquake ground shaking. Scientists can help by creating strategic plans or perform cost-benefit analyses for mitigation/retrofit.

Is there a link between fracking and earthquakes?

Muir-Wood: The term ‘earthquake’ can cover an enormous range of sizes of energy release. Fracking may sometimes trigger small shallow earthquakes or tremors. One day there might be a bigger earthquake nearby and people will argue over whether it was linked to the fracking. The link, however, will remain tenuous.

Am I being overcharged for earthquake insurance? I was charged $1,500 a year with a 15 percent deductible.

Grossi: Premiums associated with the coverage seem high (as generally double premiums here in California). However, they are based on price-based pricing. The coverage is meant to be a ‘minimum’ coverage – and provide protection for the worst-case scenario.

Is Tokyo due for another big earthquake?

Muir-Wood: The Big One happened beneath Tokyo in 1923, and before that a similar Big One (not quite on the same fault) occurred in 1703. The 1923 earthquake is not so likely to come around again. However, there was a M7 earthquake in 1855 that occurred right under Tokyo and may be the type of damaging earthquake we can expect. It could do a lot of damage.

 

Was there anything we missed you wanted to discuss? Please let us know in the comments. 

The Next Big One: Expert Advice On Planning For The Inevitable

The 25th anniversary of the Loma Prieta earthquake provides an opportunity to remember and reflect about what we lost. It also offers an opportunity to think about how we can better plan and prepare for an inevitable earthquake on the Bay Area’s precarious fault lines.

While we can’t accurately predict when an earthquake will strike, we can say there’s more at risk here then there was in 25 years ago; the Bay Area’s population has grown 25 percent and the value of residential property is now $1.2 trillion. A worst-case, magnitude 7.9 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault could strike an urban center with 32 times the destructive force of Loma Prieta, potentially causing commercial and residential property losses over $200 billion.

As part of our activities around the Loma Prieta anniversary, we gathered experts at a roundtable to discuss how to improve resilience in the Bay Area. Here are some of their lessons and observations:

Patrick Otellini, Chief Resilience Officer, San Francisco
Think about people when crafting public policy:

Preparing for an earthquake is an enormous task. San Francisco is working to retrofit 4,800 buildings during the next seven years. You have to get the right people at the table when crafting policy changes and understand how citizens will be affected. There needs to be a dual focus: protect the public interest while building consensus on changes that protect safety and health.

Dr. Patricia Grossi, Earthquake expert and senior director of product model management, RMS
Don’t short change risk modeling:

Risk modeling helps us assess how we are planning for the next big event, highlights uncertainties and leads to thorough preparation. But any analysis shouldn’t just consider dollar signs; it should analyze the worst-case scenario and what an earthquake would do to our lives in the immediate days and weeks after.

Kristina Freas, Director of Emergency Preparedness, Dignity Health
Retrofit hospitals and prepare to help the most vulnerable:

Hospitals are little cities. The same issues with supplies and logistics affecting metropolitan areas in a disaster would affect hospitals. Hospitals need to have plans to mitigate damages from water and power loss and protect patients.

Danielle Hutchings Mieler, Resilience Program Coordinator for the Association of Bay Area Governments
Bridge the private and public gap in infrastructure repair:

There’s been progress in retrofitting public buildings. But many private facilities – homes, businesses and private schools – are vulnerable. This is problematic because the Bay Area is growing in areas like the shoreline, which are close to fault lines and at greater risk. Work is needed to ensure that all types of buildings – both private and public – are well prepared and sturdy.

Lewis Knight, planning and urban design practice leader, Gensler
Think different about infrastructure and retrofitting:

Many engineering firms report to Wall Street and big infrastructure. They aren’t truly considering changes that need to be made to protect communities affected by both earthquake risk and climate change. There needs to be frank discussions about how infrastructure can be part of a defense against natural disasters.

What else is crucial to consider when thinking about the next earthquake?

Infographic: When the "Big One" Hits

The Need for Preparation and Resiliency in the Bay Area

With the recent August 24, 2014 M6.0 Napa Earthquake, the San Francisco Bay Area was reminded of the importance of preparing for the next significant earthquake. The largest earthquake in recent memory in the Bay Area is the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. However, in the event of a future earthquake, the impacts on property and people at risk are higher than ever. Since 1989, the population of the region has grown 25 percent, along with the value of property at risk, and according to the United States Geological Survey, there is a 63 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake will hit the Bay Area in the next 30 years.

The next major earthquake could strike anywhere – and potentially closer to urban centers than the 1989 Loma Prieta event.  As part of the commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the earthquake, RMS has developed a timeline of events could unfold in a worst-case scenario event impacting the entire Bay Area region.

In the “Big One’s” Aftermath

Prepare

This black swan scenario is extreme and is meant to get the stakeholders in the earthquake risk management arena to consider long-term ramifications of very uncertain outcomes. According to RMS modeling, a likely location of the next big earthquake to impact the San Francisco Bay area is on the Hayward fault, which could reach a magnitude of 7.0. An event of this size could cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damage, with only tens of billions covered by insurance. Without significant earthquake insurance penetration to facilitate rebuilding, the recovery from a major earthquake will be significantly harder. A cluster of smaller earthquakes could also impact the area, which, sustained over months, could have serious implications for the local economy.

While the Bay Area has become more resilient to earthquake damage, we are still at risk from a significant earthquake devastating the region. Now is the time for Bay Area residents to come together to develop innovative approaches and ensure resilience in the face of the next major earthquake.