the national earthquake hazards reduction programnehrp.gov/pdf/biennial_2003_2004.pdfthe magnitude...

The National EarthquakeHazards ReductionProgram Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004

January 2005

Cover:

National Seismic Hazard 2003 .2 seconds map

(USGS)

Contents

1 Executive Summary

4 I. Introduction4 The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Program5 The NEHRP Agencies6 The NEHRP Partners 6 Scope of This Report

7 II. Achieving the Goals of the NEHRP

7 NEHRP Accomplishments: Goal A8 The NEHRP Agencies12 Regional Consortia15 Selected State,Territorial, and Local

Accomplishments22 Other Organizations

26 NEHRP Accomplishments: Goal B26 The NEHRP Agencies30 Selected State,Territorial, and Local


33 NEHRP Accomplishments: Goal C33 The NEHRP Agencies36 Regional Consortia37 Selected State,Territorial, and Local


42 NEHRP Accomplishments: Goal D42 The NEHRP Agencies48 Selected State,Territorial, and Local


53 III. Seismic Safety of Federal Buildings: A Progress Reporton Federal Agencies’ Implementation of Executive Orders12699 and 12941

66 IV. Future Directions

69 Appendices69 Appendix 1: List of Acronyms72 Appendix 2: Executive Orders

72 Executive Order 1269974 Executive Order 12941

i

In 1977, Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards ReductionAct (Public Law 95-124), establishing the NationalEarthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), a long-term, national program to reduce the risks to life andproperty in the United States from earthquakes.The NEHRPagencies, which are described below, work separately and incooperation with each other and other federal and stateagencies, the private sector, universities, and regional,voluntary, and professional organizations to improve theNation’s understanding of earthquake hazards, prepare forearthquakes, and develop knowledge on best practices toreduce earthquake damage.

The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 requires thatthe Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) shall:

“prepare, in conjunction with other Programagencies, a biennial report, to be submitted to

the Congress within 90 days after the end ofeach even-numbered fiscal year, which shalldescribe the activities and achievements of theProgram during the preceding two fiscal years.”1

This report describes the progress of the NEHRP agencies andtheir partners in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and 2004 in mitigatingearthquake losses through basic and directed research andimplementation activities in the fields of earthquake scienceand engineering.The progress described in this report isorganized according to the four goals of the Strategic Plan for theNEHRP for 2001-2005, Expanding and Using Knowledge To ReduceEarthquake Losses (Strategic Plan).The four goals represent thecontinuum of activities undertaken by the NEHRP agencies,ranging from research and development to application andimplementation.The activities form a complementaryprogram that has the ultimate aim of reducing earthquakelosses across the Nation.

The foundation of the NEHRP is research, which underpinsnearly all of activities of the NEHRP agencies and partners.The basic research supported and conducted by the NationalScience Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) extends across a number of earthquake-related

1

Executive Summary

1 Beginning in FY 2005, NIST, which has become the lead agency for theNEHRP, will be responsible for submitting an annual report to theCongress on NEHRP activities, as required by the Earthquake HazardsReduction Authorization Act of 2004, Public Law 108-360, enacted onOctober 25, 2004.

Nevada State Mapping Advisory Committee (NBMG) utilized HAZUS to produced an earthquake scenario for the Death Valley Region and worked with FEMAHAZUS to update the Nevada portion of the earthquake fault database that is part of HAZUS.

disciplines, including earthquake engineering, seismology,geology, and the social sciences.The knowledge gained bybasic research is used by the National Institute of Standardsand Technology (NIST) to help industry adopt and useinnovative technologies through problem-focused researchand development. FEMA synthesizes NIST and USGS appliedresearch results into useable loss-reduction tools andmethods, and uses research results to guide policy andpractice into seismic risk reduction.

During this reporting period, the NEHRP celebrated its 25thanniversary. Some of the achievements of the NEHRP over thelast 25 years, such as the survival of the Trans-Alaska oilpipeline during the 2002 Denali earthquake, are based onearth science and earthquake engineering research. Mitigationand outreach efforts have resulted in safer homes, schools,and businesses in communities such as Los Angeles andSeattle. All of the accomplishments share common features:science and engineering drive the effort, partnerships areestablished to achieve results, and the public benefits from thesynergy.Two notable domestic earthquakes that occurredduring this reporting period illustrate the benefits of theNEHRP in reducing earthquake losses.

The magnitude 7.9 Denali earthquake rocked Alaska onNovember 3, 2002.This was one of the largest recordedearthquakes in our Nation’s history, causing countlesslandslides and road closures, but minimal structural damageand amazingly few injuries and no deaths. Although theremote location of the earthquake helped ensure that it wasnot more devastating, advanced seismic monitoring from theUSGS and NEHRP partners, long-term research, and acommitment to earthquake preparedness and mitigationplayed key roles.

The magnitude 6.5 San Simeon earthquake occurred onDecember 22, 2003, with an epicenter near the Pacific coastin central California.While it did not rupture the surface, theearthquake triggered landslides and caused strong shaking.The worst damage occurred in Paso Robles, 24 milessoutheast of the epicenter, where numerous older buildingswere damaged and one building collapsed, killing two people.Significant liquefaction also damaged housing and buriedutilities in Oceano, nearly 50 miles away. In response to theSan Simeon earthquake, the USGS produced a ShakeMapwithin 9 minutes of the event.The ShakeMap served as thebasis for loss estimation by the California Office of EmergencyServices using HAZUS, or Hazards U.S., within 1 hour.

One of the most successful risk assessment tools is HAZUS, acutting edge software program developed by FEMA with theNational Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). In the 7 yearssince FEMA published the prototype earthquake editionHAZUS97, HAZUS has helped communities across the UnitedStates identify and plan for earthquakes by giving them

access, free of charge, to specialized databases and GIS-basedanalytic tools. HAZUS-MH (HAZUS Multihazard) forearthquakes streamlines modeling by merging up-to-datenatural hazards engineering and science with a powerfulgeographic information system. Users can estimate damageand other earthquake effects and then map, display, andmanage the results.With the completion of HAZUS-MH inFebruary 2004, FEMA has improved seismic hazardidentification and risk assessment methods with theimplementation of the fifth version of its nationally applicableearthquake hazard model.

During this reporting period, the NIST continued to conductproblem-focused research and development designed toimprove building codes, standards, and practices. In 2003,NIST, in cooperation with the Applied Technology Council(ATC), completed and published an action plan,The MissingPiece: Improving Seismic Design and Construction Practices (ATC-57).Theaction plan identifies industry priorities in two areas: (1)support of the seismic code development process throughtechnical assistance and development of the technical basis forperformance standards; and (2) improved seismic designproductivity through the development of tools for theevaluation of advanced technologies and practices. NIST isnow looking forward to working with the stakeholdercommunity to explore ways to best meet those needs via apublic-private partnership. NIST also expects that this effortwill build on NSF-funded basic research, including researchconducted as part of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network forEarthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES).

The George E. Brown, Jr. NEES project was initiated by NSFand the earthquake engineering community in response to acongressional mandate (NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 1994)to take stock of the Nation’s experimental and testingcapabilities in earthquake engineering. NEES will operate fromOctober 1, 2004, through September 30, 2014, and will bemanaged by the nonprofit NEES Consortium, Inc., which willallocate research time at equipment sites; lead training,education, and outreach activities; and establish ties with U.S.and international partners.The NEES will upgrade, modernize,expand, and network major facilities, including:

• Shake tables used for earthquake simulations

• Geotechnical centrifuges for testing soils and foundationsunder earthquake loading

• Tsunami wave basin for earthquake simulations

• Large-scale experimentation systems, e.g., reaction walland modular simulation equipment

• Field monitoring and testing facilities

2

NEES will lead to a new era of collaboration in earthquakeengineering research.Teams of experts in the United Statesand around the world will have the unprecedentedopportunity to jointly plan, conduct, and analyze the resultsof experiments and models. Easy access to the Network’sresources will facilitate broad participation, both informallyand through official partnerships, by many communities ofusers, including researchers, educators, students, engineers,government agencies, professional organizations, industry, anddisaster preparedness and response teams. NEES ushers in anew generation of earthquake engineering research. Enhancedunderstanding of earthquakes and seismic performance madepossible by the Network’s people, ideas, and tools will lead toinnovative, cost-effective measures for better protecting thevast network of facilities and services on which everyonedepends.

From these accomplishments and others described in thisreport, it is apparent that the NEHRP agencies and theirpartners have made a significant impact on the Nation’searthquake loss-reduction activities in FY 2003 and 2004.Although there are challenges ahead for everyone in thedisaster community, the NEHRP is well positioned to bothcontinue as a strong, self-sustaining program and successfullyevolve as a key component of the new national infrastructureprotection scheme.This report highlights a cross-section ofachievements from the NEHRP agencies and their partnersthat illustrate just some of the many benefits the NEHRP hasbrought to the public during the past 2 years. By building onthese and other achievements, the future holds great promisefor protecting our country from earthquakes and otherhazards.

3

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

Earthquakes represent the largest single potential source forcasualties and damage from a natural hazard in the UnitedStates. Although damaging earthquakes occur infrequently,they strike without warning, resulting in catastrophicconsequences.The 1994 Northridge, California earthquake,for example, resulted in over 60 deaths, more than 5,000injuries, and over 25,000 people left homeless. Directeconomic losses from the Northridge earthquake areestimated at over $20 billion.

The Northridge earthquake, however, was not even a greatearthquake. It was a large (magnitude 6.7) earthquake ofrelatively short duration (the main shock lasting roughly 15seconds) that occurred along the fringe of a majormetropolitan area and struck during off-hours when impactwas reduced. By contrast, the 1906 San Francisco earthquakewas estimated as a magnitude 8.3 event, lasting 45 seconds.The largest recorded earthquake in the United States was amagnitude 9.2 event, lasting 3 minutes, that struck PrinceWilliam Sound, Alaska on Good Friday, March 28, 1964.Large events such as these can be expected in the UnitedStates, and they may not be confined solely to the West Coastregion.Two of the most severe earthquakes in U.S. history

occurred east of the Rockies: one in Charleston, SouthCarolina, in 1886 and the other a series of three shockscentered near New Madrid, Missouri, in 1811-12. Measuringan estimated 7.5-7.7 (near magnitude measure), the largest ofthe New Madrid earthquake series sent shock waves as farwest as the Rocky Mountains and as far east as Washington,D.C. and Boston.

Although earthquakes cannot be prevented, their impact onlife and property can be managed to a large degree.To thatend, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program(NEHRP), which is authorized by the Earthquake HazardsReduction Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-124), as amended,seeks to mitigate earthquake losses in the United Statesthrough both basic and directed research and implementationactivities in the fields of earthquake science and engineering.

The NEHRP agencies are the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards andTechnology (NIST); the National Science Foundation (NSF);and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).These agencies worktogether to: improve understanding, characterization, andassessment of hazards and vulnerabilities; improve modelbuilding codes and land use practices; reduce risks throughpost-earthquake investigations and education; improve design

4

I. Introduction

Northridge Earthquake, CA, January 17, 1994 — FEMA and local agencies provide a variety of emergency services to the disaster stricken area.Approximately114,000 residential and commercial structures were damaged and 72 deaths were attributed to the earthquake. Damage costs were estimated at $25 billion.(FEMA News Photo)

5

and construction techniques; improve the capacity ofgovernment at all levels and of the private sector to reduceand manage earthquake risk; and accelerate application ofresearch results.The role of each of the NEHRP agencies issummarized below.

The NEHRP Agencies

Federal Emergency Management Agency

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and 2004, FEMA had primaryresponsibility for leading, planning, and coordinating theoverall NEHRP effort.The programmatic responsibilities ofFEMA include the following:

• Works closely with national standards and modelbuilding code organizations, in conjunction with NIST, topromote the implementation of research results

• Promotes better building practices within the buildingdesign and construction industry, including architects,engineers, contractors, builders, and inspectors

• Assists in the preparation and dissemination of seismicresistant design guidance and related information onbuilding codes, standards, and practices for new andexisting buildings, structures, and lifelines, and thedevelopment of performance-based design guidelines

• Provides grants and assistance to enable states to developmitigation, preparedness, and response plans, andencourages the development of multi-state groups

• Supports state and local governments by providing multi-hazard loss estimation capability for use in planning andresponse

• Translates research results into technical publications

National Institute of Standards and Technology

The NIST conducts problem-focused research anddevelopment to improve building codes, standards, andpractices, including the following:

• Promotes better building practices among architects andengineers

• Works with national standards organizations to developimproved seismic standards for new and existing lifelines

• Chairs and provides the secretariat for the InteragencyCommittee on Seismic Safety in Construction (ICSSC),which recommends practices and policies to reduceearthquake hazards in federally owned, leased, assisted,and regulated facilities

National Science Foundation

The NSF funds research on earth sciences to improve theunderstanding of the causes and behavior of earthquakes, onearthquake engineering, and on human response toearthquakes.The activities of the NSF include the following:

• Encourages prompt dissemination of significant findings,sharing of data, samples, physical collections, and othersupporting materials, and development of intellectualproperty so research results can be used by appropriateorganizations to mitigate earthquake damage

• Supports individual investigators and university researchconsortia and centers for research in geosciences and inearthquake engineering

• Works closely with the USGS to identify geographicregions of national concern that should be the focus oftargeted solicitations for earthquake-related researchproposals

• Supports research that improves the safety andperformance of buildings, structures, and lifeline systemsusing large-scale experimental and computationalfacilities of the George E. Brown Jr. Network forEarthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) and otherinstitutions engaged in research and the implementationof the NEHRP

U.S. Geological Survey

The USGS conducts and supports earth science research thatincreases knowledge about the origins and effects ofearthquakes, including the following:

• Develops national and regional seismic hazard maps

• Conducts engineering seismology studies of the ground-shaking phenomenon

• Develops standardized procedures for predictingearthquakes

The 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

• Supports an external cooperative grants research program

• Operates national seismograph networks

The NEHRP Partners

Many NEHRP accomplishments result from the coordinationand interaction among the four NEHRP agencies and withpublic and private sector partners. For example, 28 federalagencies and departments are members of the ICSSC, whichrecommends uniform practices and policies to reduceearthquake risk at federal facilities.The states, private sector,universities, and regional, voluntary, and professionalorganizations also contribute significantly to earthquake risk-reduction efforts.

The multi-state regional organizations supported by theNEHRP agencies are listed below.

• Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (CREW)

• Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC)

• Northeast States Emergency Consortium (NESEC)

• Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC)

There also are a number of organizations involved inearthquake risk reduction activities that range fromengineering-based professional organizations, private sectororganizations, universities, and building code organizations toorganizations supported by one or more of the four NEHRPagencies, such as the earthquake engineering centers (EERCs)that were established by the NSF in 1997. Some of theorganizations supported by the NEHRP agencies are listedbelow.

• Disasters Roundtable of the National Academies

• Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)

• Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake EngineeringResearch (MCEER)

• Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center

• Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center

• Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC)

• Natural Hazards Research and Applications InformationCenter (NHRAIC)

Scope of This Report

This report responds to the congressional requirement toreport on the status of earthquake loss-reduction activities forFY 2003 and 2004.The activities of the four NEHRP agencies,federal agencies, state and local governments, and the privatesector, universities, and regional, voluntary, and professionalorganizations listed above are described to illustrate thenationwide scope of NEHRP’s impact.This report is organizedby the four NEHRP goals, which are the foundation uponwhich NEHRP strives to reduce earthquake losses.

Goal A: Develop effective practices and policies forearthquake loss reduction and accelerate theirimplementation.This goal addresses the spectrum ofactivities that result directly and indirectly in the reduction ofearthquake losses. Among these activities are: developing andpromoting incentives for mitigation action; facilitating seismicbuilding code adoption, implementation, and enforcement;and providing technical assistance for developing and usingloss-reduction measures. Goal A activities are designed toensure that information about methods to reducevulnerability is provided to policymakers, buildingprofessionals, and the public.

Goal B: Improve techniques to reduce seismicvulnerability of facilities and systems. This goal includesthe development and distribution of tools to guide design andconstruction practices as well as improvements in the use ofnew technology, applied research, and problem-focusedstudies.

Goal C: Improve seismic hazard identification and riskassessment methods and their use. This goal addressesthe development and dissemination of products thatcharacterize earthquake-related hazards and vulnerability toaccurately measure seismic risk. Included are mapping ofground motion, modeling earthquake effects based on themaps, data collection (geophysical and structures inventory),applying risk assessment modeling to local communities, andoperating earthquake information centers.

Goal D: Improve the understanding of earthquakesand their effects. This goal supports research in the scienceof earthquakes and associated hazards to advance earthscience, engineering, and social and economic knowledge.Much of this research is accomplished through earthquakemonitoring, post-earthquake investigations, and experimentalearthquake engineering research facilities.

This report also includes a progress report on the seismicsafety of federal buildings that is required by Executive Orders12699 and 12941.

6

The four National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program(NEHRP) agencies work in close coordination to improve theNation’s understanding of earthquake hazards and to mitigatetheir effects.The missions of the four agencies arecomplementary.The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA), which is now a component of the U.S. Departmentof Homeland Security (DHS), works with the states, localgovernments, and the public to develop tools and improvepolicies and practices that reduce earthquake losses.TheNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) enablestechnology innovation in earthquake engineering by workingwith industry to remove technical barriers, evaluate advancedtechnologies, and develop the measurement and predictiontools underpinning performance standards for buildings andlifelines.The National Science Foundation (NSF) strives toadvance fundamental knowledge in earthquake engineering,earth science processes, and societal preparedness andresponse to earthquakes.The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)monitors earthquakes, assesses seismic hazard for the Nation,and researches the basic earth science processes controllingearthquake occurrence and effects.

In March 2003, the NEHRP agencies submitted to theCongress the Strategic Plan for the NEHRP for 2001-2005, Expandingand Using Knowledge To Reduce Earthquake Losses (Strategic Plan).The

Strategic Plan serves as the operational plan for the NEHRPagencies and guides federal earthquake research, lossreduction, and mitigation efforts in the United States.TheStrategic Plan articulates the mission and the four primarygoals of the NEHRP, provides a framework for priority-settingand coordinating activities, and defines priority areas for thefuture.The activities of the NEHRP agencies and partners inFiscal Year (FY) 2003 and 2004 are described below underthe four primary goals of the NEHRP, as set forth in theStrategic Plan.

NEHRP Accomplishments:Goal A

Through Goal A of the Strategic Plan, the NEHRP seeks toreduce the seismic vulnerability of the built and socialenvironment by disseminating earthquake hazard and riskinformation and advocating risk reduction techniques.Theactivities identified under Goal A are designed to accelerateearthquake loss reduction in the public and private sector byengaging and supporting partners at the local, state, andnational levels.

7

FEMA’s NEHRP web site home page (www.fema.gov/hazards/earthquakes/nehrp).

II.Achieving the Goals of the NEHRP

Goal A: Develop effective practices and policies forearthquake loss reduction and accelerate theirimplementation

1: Develop and provide information on earthquake hazardsand loss-reduction measures to decision-makers and thepublic.

2: Promote incentives for public and private sector loss-reduction actions.

3: Advocate state and local government practices andpolicies that reduce losses in the private sectors.

4: Implement policies and practices that reduce vulnerabilityof federal facilities.

5: Develop the Nation’s human resource base in theearthquake field.

The NEHRP Agencies


As the lead agency for the NEHRP in FY 2003 and 2004,FEMA had primary responsibility for planning andcoordinating the Program, including leadership of the NEHRPInteragency Coordinating Committee (ICC); strategicplanning for the NEHRP; organizing and implementingforums, such as conferences and workshops for stakeholdersin the earthquake community; implementing interagencyagreements with agencies involved in seismic safety activities;and public outreach and awareness.

The ICC, which was chaired by FEMA in FY 2003 and 2004,met on a quarterly basis to discuss the interagencycoordination of projects, programs, plans, budgets, andoperational NEHRP issues.The periodic meetings of the ICCprovided the forum for discussing common activities,exploring crosscutting issues, collaborating on joint projects,identifying and resolving conflicts, and seeking interagencysupport and cooperation. As needed, Subcommittees wereestablished by the ICC for specific projects, such as theestablishment of performance measures for the NEHRP.

The Strategic Plan discusses the need to develop aperformance plan for the NEHRP, including the developmentof performance indicators or measures. For many publicsector organizations, implementing performancemeasurement practices is a challenge because of the difficultyinherent in measuring outcomes.The NEHRP faces thischallenge because earthquakes occur infrequently and it isdifficult to directly measure how earthquake mitigationactivities contribute to dollar losses avoided and a reductionin casualties. An additional challenge to establishing

performance measures for the NEHRP is the differentmissions, goals, and budgets of the four NEHRP agencies.

In FY 2003, FEMA initiated a project to develop aperformance management plan that includes a refined set ofperformance measures for the NEHRP and a framework fortracking, managing, maintaining, and reporting on theperformance of the NEHRP.When completed, theperformance management plan will assist the NEHRP leadagency with coordination and planning and will assist theother three NEHRP agencies with their responsibilities byenabling them to monitor, improve, and report on programperformance at the agency level.The project work to establishperformance measures for the NEHRP is being guided by theICC Subcommittee on Performance Measures, which wasestablished in FY 2004.The performance measures for theNEHRP and the performance management plan will becompleted by September 2005.

The primary ongoing responsibilities of FEMA under theNEHRP fall under Goal A and Goal C of the Strategic Plan.TheNEHRP is structured such that efforts culminate in thegeneration of a large range of products that addressearthquake hazards, document the associated seismic risk, andprovide loss-reduction alternatives.These products, which aregenerated under Goal A, are largely the outgrowth of activitiesunder Goals B through D of the Strategic Plan. Successfulmitigation requires that the products be understood,distributed, accepted, and used, and that a broad base ofearthquake-aware individuals be developed and nurtured at alllevels. FEMA’s responsibility for implementing risk reductionwas carried out through activities to develop and distributeearthquake mitigation tools and products so that they can beused effectively.Web sites, publications, press releases, andconferences were some of the means of marketing earthquakemitigation.

In FY 2004, FEMA began work on a publications marketing,outreach, and distribution strategy for the NEHRP.Thepurpose of the project is to evaluate available information onNEHRP publications and outreach efforts and to identifymarketing and further implementation concepts.Themarketing strategy, which incorporates a market analysis,audience analysis, evaluation of product quality anddistribution, and a strategic market plan, will assist FEMA andthe NEHRP agencies to effectively allocate resources toincrease the usefulness of NEHRP publications and tools to awider audience.The marketing strategy also is designed toimprove communication and distribution activities to meetthe overall NERHP goal of managing the impacts ofearthquakes so that loss of life and property are reduced.

In FY 2004, FEMA designed a new web page for the NEHRPthat includes sections designed to inform the public andprivate sector of ongoing activities in earthquake mitigation

8

by all of the NEHRP agencies and partners.The new web site(www.fema.gov/hazards/earthquakes/nehrp) includes:general information on earthquakes and the NEHRP; NEHRPsuccess stories and community and homeowner successstories; news and events, including press releases and articlesand information on upcoming meetings and conferences;FEMA for Kids; links to related earthquake sites; a directory ofstate earthquake resources; information on Hazards U.S.(HAZUS), the FEMA Geographic Information System (GIS)-based loss estimation software tool; seismic safety forbuildings; and frequently asked questions. FEMA also is in theprocess of making NEHRP technical and non-technicalpublications accessible in PDF format and text versions on theweb site.To facilitate this process, FEMA held a focus group atthis year’s National Earthquake Conference to gather feedbackfrom a representative cross-sample of participants on the bestway to present the publications online.

During this reporting period, FEMA also developed theNEHRP Earthquake Coordinators web site(www.training.fema.gov/emiweb/EarthQuake/welcome.htm).This web site provides state and federalNEHRP Earthquake Coordinators with a training course onearthquake basics, hazards, risks, building science, advocacyand partnerships, and priorities and successful activities.

FEMA also produced numerous products in FY 2003 and2004 in support of the mission and goals of the StrategicPlan. Among these products are: brochures that highlight theachievements of the NEHRP agencies and partners andbrochures that focus on a specific mitigation area, such asretrofit options for homeowners; exhibits for earthquakeconferences; PowerPoint presentations for FEMA MitigationDivision staff and other organizations on the activities of theNEHRP; and press releases.

In 2003, FEMA coordinated the activities in celebration of the25th anniversary of the NEHRP and produced a brochure onthe achievements and initiatives of the four NEHRP agenciesover the past 25 years that have contributed to making ourcommunities and citizens safer from the effects ofearthquakes.The brochure includes a cross-section of selectedsuccess stories from the NEHRP agencies that illustrate justsome of the many benefits that the NEHRP has brought to thepublic since its inception.The brochure was distributed at anevent commemorating the anniversary at the NationalAcademy of Sciences (NAS) in March 2003.

The National Earthquake Conference, which was fundedjointly by FEMA and the USGS, was held in St. Louis,Missouri, on September 26-30, 2004.The four regionalearthquake consortia hosted the Conference, which wasunique in bringing together the private sector, utilities, non-profit organizations, academics, and as well as scientists,emergency managers, and transportation officials from alllevels of government.The discussions were informative andforthright, and sessions provided the private sector and otherswith examples of success stories in earthquake mitigation thatthey could take back to their organizations.

In FY 2003, FEMA administered NEHRP’s contribution ofEmergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds tothe State Offices of Emergency Services. (In FY 2004, theadministration of the EMPG funds was transferred to the DHSOffice of Disaster Preparedness.) The EMPG funding was inaddition to the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP),which is separate funding after a presidential disasterdeclaration. NEHRP-related activities conducted by the stateswith EMPG funds and HMGP funds are described belowunder the appropriate NEHRP goals.

9

FEMA’s NEHRP Earthquake Coordinators web site (www.training.fema.gov/emiweb/EarthQuake/welcome.htm).

The Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) of the NationalInstitute of Building Sciences (NIBS) has been responsible fororganizing and conducting the Multihazard Building DesignSummer Institute (MBDSI) at FEMA’s Emergency ManagementInstitute (EMI) since late 2000.Two sets of 1-week courseswere offered to college and university undergraduatestructural engineering professors. In 2003 and 2004, a courseentitled “Topics in Performance-Based EarthquakeEngineering” was offered. A more basic earthquake-resistantdesign course based on the NEHRP Recommended Provisions forSeismic Regulations for New Building and Other Structures was offered inearlier years.

In FY 2003 and 2004, the FEMA Regions continued tosupport the implementation of effective practices and policiesfor earthquake loss reduction through support to stateearthquake and mitigation programs, promoting the use ofHAZUS and NEHRP publications through outreach to variousaudiences, including professional organizations, emergencymanagers, and businesses.The FEMA Regions also encouragedmitigation, earthquake awareness and preparedness, and thedevelopment of better response and recovery capabilitiesthrough exercises. FEMA staff provided support to theearthquake safety exercises of the Central United StatesEarthquake Consortium (CUSEC) and to the Fifth Army usingNew Madrid earthquake scenarios in 2003 and 2004, and inKansas to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)Tuttle Creek Dam Safety Exercise 2004 that used anearthquake on the Nemaha Fault.


NIST chairs and provides the Technical Secretariat for theInteragency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction(ICSSC).The ICSSC is composed of representatives of 32federal agencies and acts as an advisory body to FEMA andother government agencies on issues of seismic safety.TheICSSC provides consistent standards for seismic safety offederal buildings and establishes consistent guidance onevaluation and mitigation of seismic risks in existingbuildings.The ICSSC helps to establish federal agencyleadership in ensuring the seismic safety of buildings andlifeline systems. Recent accomplishments of the ICSSC aredescribed below.

• A comparison of the current model building codes (2003International Building Code (IBC), 2003 InternationalResidential Code (IRC), and 2003 National FireProtection Association (NFPA) 5000) and AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-02 to the 2000NEHRP Recommended Provisions has been completed.The ICSSC will issue guidance on the use of these codes,based on the findings of the code comparison, to thefederal agencies in early 2005.

• ICSSC Subcommittee 2 has developed and implemented aprocess for development of guidance to federal agencieson seismic safety of lifeline systems. Using this process,Subcommittee 2 has completed a draft report on seismicsafety of electric power production and distributionsystems.The draft report documents guidance currentlyused by federal agencies with the responsibility for theconstruction and operation of such systems, gaps whereresearch is needed to develop guidance for evaluation,and recommendations for use by federal agency owneroperators to evaluate and mitigate seismic risks in thesesystems.The final report, following approval of the ICSSC,will be published in 2005. Subcommittee 2 is planningto undertake a similar effort for water and wastewatersystems following completion of the report on electricpower production and distribution systems.

• In cooperation with ICSSC member agencies, NIST iscarrying out a project to develop a handbook for seismicrehabilitation of existing buildings. NIST has established asearchable database of relevant research conducted since1990 and has used the database to identify rehabilitationtechniques for inclusion in the handbook.The handbookwill address 17 standard building types and foundationsand is consistent with the Standard for Evaluation of Seismic Risksin Existing Buildings (ASCE 31) and the Prestandard for the SeismicRehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356).The handbook alsowill be consistent with current FEMA publications onseismic evaluation of existing buildings (FEMA 310) andseismic rehabilitation of existing buildings (FEMA 356),and will provide practical guidance on the application ofavailable and proven rehabilitation techniques andassociated impacts, i.e., relocation of occupants anddisruption of business.The handbook will be publishedin 2005.


The Directorate for Engineering at NSF works with itsgrantees to provide local outreach programs designed toeducate the public, promote earthquake awareness, anddevelop strategies to transfer research findings intoimplementation. NSF also supports outreach and informationdissemination through symposia and through grants toorganizations such as the Natural Hazards Research andApplications Information Center (NHRAIC) and theEarthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and itsLearning From Earthquakes program.

In the reauthorization legislation of the NEHRP in 1994,Congress instructed the President to conduct a needsassessment of earthquake engineering experimental researchfacilities in the United States. NSF and NIST funded theassessment, which was completed by EERI and resulted in areport published in 1995, Assessment of Earthquake Engineering

10

Research and Testing Capabilities in the United States.The report makesrecommendations for improving the capacity of U.S. academicresearch institutions to continue to carry out world-classearthquake engineering experimental research, and notes that“as the highest priority, existing laboratories must beupgraded and modernized with new testing equipment.”

Over the years, NSF has continued to provide significantfunding for establishing and modernizing earthquakeengineering research facilities in the United States.Today, NSFsupports the following research centers and organizations:

• Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center at the Universityof Illinois- Urbana-Champaign

• Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake EngineeringResearch (MCEER) at SUNY Buffalo

• Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center atthe University of California-Berkeley

• Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC)

• Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS)

In FY 2000, NSF started construction of the George E. Brown,Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), a

comprehensive and networked system of earthquakeengineering test facilities.The NEES project, which wascompleted at the end of FY 2004, is described under Goal D.


The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program is the applied Earthscience component of NEHRP.The three basic elements of theUSGS Earthquake Hazards Program are assessment andcharacterization of earthquake hazards; monitoring andreporting earthquake activity and crustal deformation; andconducting research into earthquake causes and effects.

The USGS contributes to earthquake hazard mitigationstrategies by estimating and describing the likelihood andpotential effects of moderate-to-large earthquakes in high-riskregions of the United States and by transferring thisknowledge to individuals, organizations, and agencies that canreduce the impact of potentially damaging earthquakes.Federal, state, and local government agencies; architects andengineers; insurance companies and other private businesses;land-use planners; emergency response officials; and thepublic rely on the USGS for earthquake hazard information torefine building codes, develop land use strategies, safeguardlifelines and critical facilities, develop emergency responseplans, and take other precautionary actions to reduce lossesfrom future earthquakes.

To answer the growing concern over the implications of theNorthridge earthquake and other recent seismic events insouthern California, the USGS and SCEC developed in 1995Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country, a graphically illustrated,32-page color handbook on earthquake science, mitigation,and preparedness. A new version of Roots, updated by SCECand USGS in 2004, features current scientific understandingof when and where earthquakes will occur in SouthernCalifornia, and how the ground will shake as a result.Updated maps of earthquakes, faults, and potential shakingare included, as well as instructions on how to getinformation after earthquakes.The preparedness section hasbeen completely reworked and is now organized according tothe “Seven Steps on the Road to Earthquake Safety.”Thesesteps provide a simple set of guidelines for preparing andprotecting lives and property and for surviving andrecovering from a damaging earthquake. In January 2004,200,000 copies were printed with funding from theCalifornia Earthquake Authority (CEA) and FEMA; anadditional 150,000 copies were printed in September 2004,with funding from the CEA, USGS, Edison, Amgen,Quakehold, and others. Copies of the document aredistributed at home improvement centers, via the AmericanRed Cross, and by many other means.The updated handbookis available at http://www.earthquakecountry.info/ and aNorthern California version is in development. Both versions

11

USGS’s Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country handbook cover.

will also be translated into Spanish and versions for otherregions may be created.

Regional Consortia

A number of regional organizations have been established toreduce earthquake risk and loss among their populations.These regional organizations work in close cooperation withthe NEHRP agencies and other partners.

Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup

The Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (CREW) is anon-profit coalition of private and public representativesworking together to increase the ability of Cascadia Regioncommunities in the Pacific Northwest to reduce the effects ofearthquake events. CREW, which was established in 1996 bythe scientific community, promotes efforts to reduce the lossof life and property; conducts education to motivate keydecision-makers to reduce risks associated with earthquakes;and fosters productive linkages among scientists, criticalinfrastructure providers, businesses, and governmentalagencies to improve the viability of communities afterearthquakes.

In February and March 2004, CREW held special purposeforums for the Oregon land use planning community.Programs were delivered by the University of Oregon HazardsCenter and the University of Washington’s Institute forHazards Mitigation. Each half-day forum presented currentseismic information and focused on the specific needs of landuse planners. A “snow card” approach was used and a paperwas presented to CREW and at the annual American PlannersAssociation Conference.

The CREW Business Survival Kit for Earthquakes and Other Disastersvideo includes a CD containing the Institute for Business andHome Safety (IBHS) tool kit.This product will be enhancedwith a revised tool kit being developed by the Seattle DisasterResistant Business Project. CREW is helping edit thedocument and structuring it as an interactive web-based tool.The kit was distributed at the National Earthquake Conferencein St. Louis, Missouri.

Evaluations of the National Earthquake Conference indicatedthat the event was a resounding success, and CREW deservesmuch credit. CREW was a sponsor of the National EarthquakeConference and its executive director was one of the fourconference chairs. In support of the conference, CREWidentified speakers, oversaw the preparation of a conferencevideo, marketed the event, and participated on the steeringand subject area committees.

CREW conducted preparatory work for a workshop on April5, 2004, involving 13 representatives of key area businesses,

with the purpose of identifying economic sector impacts to a6.7 Seattle Fault earthquake.The workshop was conducted bythe University of Washington Institute for Hazards Mitigation.

Other CREW activities during the reporting period include:

• Participated in bi-monthly planning meetings of thePartners In Emergency Preparedness conference steeringcommittee, staffed a booth at the conference, andprovided presenters.

• Participated in activities of the Contingency Planning andRecovery Managers (CPARM), the Snohomish BusinessRecovery Managers, and the Association of ContingencyPlanners (ACP).

• Actively supported the Seattle Disaster Resistant andBusiness Emergency Network initiatives

• Supported the activities of the Pacific NorthwestEconomic Region and its scheduled “Blue CascadiaExercise”

• Provided continuing support to the Western States SeismicPolicy Council (WSSPC) and Emergency ManagementCouncil

CREW, in partnership with the Oregon Department ofGeology and Mineral Industry (DOGAMI), printed 500copies of Cascadia Earthquakes – A Clear and Present Danger anddistributed copies at the National Earthquake Conference.Thefinal document will be available for distribution by February2005.

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

The efforts of CUSEC are built on an all-hazards emergencymanagement approach that centers on preparedness,mitigation, multi-state planning (response and recovery), andresearch. CUSEC was formed as, and continues to be, apartnership of the Federal Government (primarily FEMA) andthe eight member states it represents: Alabama, Arkansas,Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, andTennessee. CUSEC also represents 10 associate states: Georgia,Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,South Carolina, and Virginia. Earthquakes occurring in theNew Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) and in other nearby faultzones can significantly affect these states. CUSEC serves as anintegral link in helping its member states bridge the gaps inaddressing the seismic hazard between local and state needsand their federal counterparts.This link, and the regionalapproach to addressing a single hazard shared by multiplestates, is one of the four goals of the NEHRP.

12

CUSEC activities included assistance in the development ofoutreach programs, such as earthquake awareness week, tothe states of Missouri, Mississippi,Tennessee, and Arkansas.CUSEC, along with the emergency management agencies ofArkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee, co-sponsored the secondannual Tri–State Earthquake conference, which promotesunity of the earthquake program by allowing theseneighboring states to combine their efforts.The benefit isgreater exposure to the issues and a more cost effectiveapproach than three separate efforts.

During this period, CUSEC continued to expand the conceptof regional working groups as a method of bringing focusedexpertise on the earthquake risk. A key group has includedstate Public Information Officers, whose expertise in publicawareness has resulted in the development of materials suchas the Central U.S. Earthquake Hazard Media Guide, as well asstandardization of press releases used by the CUSEC states,ensuring the release of accurate and concise information tothe media and the public.

Technology has enhanced the methods for deliveringinformation.The CUSEC web page added a considerableamount of new information during this period. Informationincluded posting of the NEHRP Strategic Plan; informationspecific to the working groups; new publications; seismicmapping resources; an update of the original Six Cities Study

using FEMA’s state-of-the-art HAZUS software; and new linksto informational earthquake sites.The web page also providedbackground on the programs of the CUSEC member states sothat visitors could gain a better understanding of how eachstate addressed the seismic risk and how that relates to theoverall regional approach to reducing the risk.

In an effort to determine that earthquake-related educationalmaterials were available for K-3, materials from across theUnited States were collected and compiled into a databasedistributed among the CUSEC states.The database serves threepurposes: (1) it gives the earthquake program managers ofthe CUSEC states an idea of the materials available to them;(2) it helps to determine if any gaps exist in the types ofmaterials available; if gaps are determined, these will beconsidered as future projects; and (3) it helps to identify anyduplication that exists so that limited funds that can be usedfor other purposes.

The coordination of earthquake planning efforts has been aCUSEC priority since the organization’s inception in 1983.The regional impact of a major earthquake in the centralUnited States, coupled with complex operational and logisticproblems associated with emergency response, underscoresthe need for a multi-state approach to planning. One of thekey multi-state/regional issues that continue to be a priorityis coordination among the CUSEC states to address thepriorities of one state in relation to its neighboring states.Thisis an essential process not only for the immediate responseneeds following an earthquake or other large-scale disaster,but also for economic recovery. An Operations subcommitteewas formed to work with the CUSEC Transportation TaskForce in addressing key issues raised during this period, suchas the establishment of a uniform definition of a priorityroute.

The strength of CUSEC has been and continues to be builtaround the partnership approach to addressing the seismichazard.This partnership, although predominately betweenpublic sector organizations, has continued to reach out to theprivate sector. International Paper Corporation and SimpsonStrong Tie, Inc. both became corporate sponsors during thisperiod.Their inclusion in CUSEC’s efforts has not onlybroadened the planning perspective, it also provides theopportunity to gain a better understanding of the emergencypreparedness issues important to the private sector.

Training also remained an essential part of CUSEC’s efforts.Toregionalize the training offered and to build uniformity,CUSEC has encouraged the adoption of the MissouriStructural Assessment Visual Evaluation (SAVE) Coalition as amodel for all CUSEC states in the development of theirprograms. By adopting a program with a similar structure,each state would be assured of a program with a level ofaccountability.Years of training have yielded numerous

13Estimated ShakeMap for the 1812 New Madrid earthquake.

14

inspectors, but lack of structure in the program in many caseshas made it difficult to manage.

A regionalized approach to training was also adopted duringthis period to stretch available funding.The PostearthquakeSafety Evaluation of Buildings (ATC-20) workshops wereoffered as a collaborative effort. CUSEC provided the basicfunding and workshop coordination while the states ofArkansas and Missouri provided the instructors and arrangedfor the workshop sites. As a contribution to the trainingeffort, each site was provided free of charge.The ArkansasElectric Cooperative and the Missouri Department ofConservation-Discovery Center in Kansas City were bothexcellent facilities to host the workshop.

To complement state and local mitigation efforts in support ofthe Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, and to improvetechniques to reduce seismic vulnerability of facilities andsystems, training workshops on the Rapid Visual Screening ofBuildings for Potential Seismic Hazards were conducted. Usedextensively during the 1980s and early 1990s, theseworkshops provided the training needed by the communitiesof today to evaluate the structures in their community todetermine the level of vulnerability.

During this reporting period, the CUSEC State TransportationTask Force analyzed the need for a regionalized approach tobridge inspection. Using a program developed at PurdueUniversity for the Indiana Department of Transportation(DOT), the CUSEC states are looking at methods to assess theviability of a regional approach.

One of the most effective ways to improve the odds ofreducing or eliminating vulnerability is to expose individualsand groups to exemplary efforts undertaken by others inreducing their vulnerability. CUSEC sponsored a field trip to arecently completed project in Tuckerman, Arkansas.Representatives from state departments of education, localemergency management, and universities received first-handinformation on a school mitigation project that turned theelementary school’s main hallway into a safe room.Theproject, which was completed under budget and duringsummer recess, was viewed by field trip participants as aviable project that could be implemented in theircommunities.

Northeast States Emergency Consortium

The Northeast States Emergency Consortium (NESEC)develops, promotes, and coordinates natural disaster andemergency management activities throughout the Northeast.This includes natural hazard evaluation and assessment, publicawareness and education programs, hazard mitigation, andinformation technology transfer. Connecticut, Maine,Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, RhodeIsland, and Vermont form the NESEC.

During this reporting period, the Executive Director of NESECserved as Chairman of the Organizing Committee for theNational Earthquake Conference in Saint Louis.The effort toorganize this conference, which was hosted by the fourregional earthquake consortia, spanned a period of 2 years.The conference was attended by more than 300 participantsand from all accounts was a tremendous success.The privatesector was well represented at the conference, comprisingapproximately 30 percent of the attendees.The lead agenciesand conference organizers are developing a conference reportwith recommendations for future follow-up actions andactivities.

Western States Seismic Policy Council

The WSSPC is a regional earthquake consortium formed as aprivate not-for-profit corporation.WSSPC draws itsmembership from the emergency managers and geoscientistdirectors of 13 western states, 3 territories, a Canadianterritory, and a Canadian province.The mission of the WSSPCis to help reduce future earthquake losses by providing aforum to advance earthquake programs throughout theWestern Region and by developing and facilitating theimplementation of seismic policies and programs throughinformation exchange, research application, and education.WSSPC provides a broad regional and multidisciplinary forumto enhance and create partnership opportunities for seismichazards mitigation and to fulfill its missions of developingseismic policies and sharing information to promoteprograms intended to reduce earthquake-related losses.

The Awards in Excellence program recognizes achievement indifferent areas of earthquake mitigation, preparedness, andresponse. Categories include mitigation, educational outreach,research, response plans or materials, non-profit agencyefforts, seismic legislation, use of new technology, andinnovations.Winners are selected by the WSSPC Board ofDirectors and the awards are featured on the WSSPC websiteand in the Awards in Excellence volume. Eleven programsfrom 7 western states won awards in 2003. In 2004, theWSSPC Awards in Excellence program was used as a modelfor the National Awards of Excellence given at the NationalEarthquake Conference. A committee comprised of membersfrom numerous national organizations selected the 10winners from across the country.

WSSPC members develop and adopt policy recommendationsthat local, state, or federal agencies can implement.Thesepolicy recommendations address a range of seismic risk,monitoring, mitigation, and response issues, and providesubstantial credible support for earthquake programimprovements.The participation of WSSPC memberorganizations in developing these policies, and rigorousreview of these recommendations by stakeholders throughoutthe region, provide assurance that the recommendations areappropriate and relevant to the particular jurisdiction.The

WSSPC policy committees provide a neutral forum for suchpolicy development by a credible group of experts.TheWSSPC adopted eight policy recommendations in 2003 and2004.

Annual conferences provide a regional and national forum forscientists, engineers, emergency managers, the businesscommunity, policymakers, and other stakeholders to exchangeideas and information. In 2003, the WSSPC-led conferencefocused on Earthquake Loss Reduction and DevelopingEffective Communication, Realistic Strategies and SuccessfulMitigation Actions for Communities.

In 2004,WSSPC was the financial, logistical, and marketingmanager for the National Earthquake Conference, put onprimarily with FEMA, USGS, CREW, CUSEC, and NESEC, butalso including representatives from the private sector, non-profit organizations, and state seismic safety and advisoryboards.The goal of the conference was to provide a forum fordiscussion of national earthquake issues and generate ideas forfuture collaborative actions to be taken to reduce earthquakerisk in the United States. One of the outcomes was theproduction of a 27-minute video “Living with Risk,”intended as an educational tool for a general audience.

WSSPC, USGS, and FEMA, along with western statesgeological surveys, sponsored the second Basin and RangeProvince Seismic Hazards Summit to bring togethergeoscientists, engineers, emergency managers, andpolicymakers to discuss the latest earthquake hazards researchand to evaluate its implications for hazard reduction andpublic policy.The meeting highlighted technical issuesimportant to understanding earthquake hazards in theextensional Basin and Range Province.

Selected State, Territorial, And Local Accomplishments

FEMA allocates a portion of its NEHRP funds to stategovernments as part of the annual EMPG.With the grantfunds, state and local agencies undertake numerous activitiesto protect their citizens from the earthquake hazard.Highlights of some of the many successful state, territorial,and local government efforts in support of Goal A aredescribed below.

Alaska

The Alaska Denali Fault 7.9 earthquake spurred great interestin Alaska’s earthquake hazard. Subsequent to the earthquake,there was a surge of requests for non-structural seismichazard mitigation demonstrations for the Division’s outreachtools, including the Quake Cottage earthquake simulator and theEarthquake Resistant Model Home.These tools provide audienceswith effective earthquake preparedness and mitigation lessonsas well as build visual relationships to the effects of hazards

affecting structures. Over 11,500 people attended thesepresentations at 23 public and private schools, at safety eventswith major petroleum corporations, health institutions,government agencies, and State Fairs. The Division alsocoordinated a multi-agency effort to update and reprint theearthquake and tsunami preparedness booklet, Are You Preparedfor the Next Big Earthquake in Alaska. This was a majorundertaking; 250,000 copies were printed, with 130,000copies of the booklet inserted into newspapers statewidecommemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1964 GreatAlaskan Earthquake.

Alaska’s tsunami partnership led to significant mitigationprogram results. The group conducted remote communityassistance visits bringing Earthquake Preparedness,TsunamiReady® and StormReady®,Tsunami Sign ProgramAwareness, and Disaster Preparedness information to Chignikand Perryville in the Aleutians and Craig, Klawock,Thorne Bayand Hydaburg, located along the Southeast Alaska panhandle.The City of Kodiak, Alaska became Alaska’s fifthTsunamiReady® community in February 2004, furtheringpreparedness initiatives for Alaska’s population and its visitors.

The State of Alaska’s Division of Homeland Security andEmergency Management (DHS&EM) combines its mitigation,earthquake, tsunami, and preparedness programs to ensurethe public is educated about the natural hazard threats.

15

Are You Prepared for the Next Big Earthquake in Alaska booklet cover.

DHS&EM takes great pride in its partnerships with theUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute(UAF/GI), Alaska Department of Natural Resources Divisionof Geological and Geophysical Survey, Alaska EarthquakeInformation Center, Alaska Department of Transportation andPublic Facilities,West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center,National Weather Service (NWS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) Pacific MarineEnvironmental Laboratory and Tsunami Inundation MappingEffort (TIME), FEMA, the Department of Interior (DOI), andAlaska’s boroughs, local, and tribal governments. Very fewprojects would be accomplished without quality partnershipsand willing participation.

DHS&EM aggressively supports and funds the statewide use ofthe Municipality of Anchorage’s Building Safety Officer tomanage and coordinate its Post Disaster Damage Assessment(PDDA) training program. The PDDA Coordinator conductedsix Post Disaster Damage Assessment courses resulting in anincrease of 195 damage assessment evaluators between thespring of 2003 and summer 2004. Refresher training wasalso conducted for 47 students. These efforts allow for thetracking of training while ensuring that trained individualscan be contacted and deployed statewide during disasters tosupport Search and Rescue operations with timely buildingassessments. Sitka, Alaska is the first community to adopt asection into their statutes concerning damage assessment andallowing the use of volunteer evaluators from other areas.

The Tsunami Inundation Mapping project for Homer andSeldovia, Alaska, sponsored by NOAA and State of Alaska, willbe published in late 2004. This project provides potentialtsunami mapping coverage to local community partners sothat they can tailor the information obtained from theinundation maps toward effective planning efforts. Thesemaps will assist the communities prepare for and mitigateagainst potential tsunamis. The Alaska Division of Geologicaland Geophysical Survey produces the final maps fordistribution by the local government and emergencymanagement. Seward, Alaska is in the beginning stages ofthis mapping effort and Sitka, Alaska has recently undergonebathymetric (undersea) mapping by NOAA This informationis vital to completing inundation modeling and thesubsequent maps after the models are validated.

California

Staff of the California Office of Emergency Services (OES)continued to serve on the Board of Directors of the NorthernCalifornia Chapter of the EERI; the Board of Directors of theNIBS; the California Earthquake Safety foundation; as Chair ofthe EERI Special Projects and Initiatives Committee(Endowment); the Steering Committee for the 1stInternational Conference on Urban Hazard Mitigation, to beconvened in Kobe in January 2005; and on the organizing

and coordinating Committee for the 100th AnniversaryConference for the 1906 Earthquake, including theConference Steering Committee and the ’06 Alliance, whichserves to coordinate all 1906 anniversary activities innorthern California. In addition, staff serves on numerousstate and regional committees to coordinate earthquakepreparedness and response planning, including the CaliforniaEmergency Services Association and Mutual Aid AdvisoryCommittees.

The OES Director and his designate participate on the Boardof Directors of the WSSPC and participated in Board andannual meeting activities, including planning for the NationalEarthquake Conference held in St. Louis in 2004.TheCalifornia Integrated Seismic Network, as a Region of theAdvanced National Seismic System (ANSS) of the USGS, isrepresented on a number of coordinating committees ofANSS. Staff also participated on a NAS Panel on the economicbenefits of seismic networks in the U.S.

OES GIS staff developed and delivered statewide hazard mapsto each of the Operational Areas (counties), completing theStatewide Hazard Atlas in support of local preparedness andpreparation of local plans as part of the Disaster Mitigation Actof 2000 requirements. Atlases were provided in both hardcopy and digital formats for use by local planners.The mapsincluded probabilistic earthquake ground motions, historicearthquake epicenters, liquefaction susceptibility (whereavailable), flood, and land slide. Maps were provided toOperational Area emergency managers and land use planningagencies.

Resource Centers in Southern and Coastal Region offices ofOES continue to provide information on preparedness,mitigation, and response to the public, local governments,and state agencies. Information is available for day carecenters, schools, for persons with disabilities, businesses, and

16

Tsunami inundation map for Eureka, CA.

the general public. Publications include sample emergencyplans, safety elements, mitigation programs, as well as graphicand video materials for presentations to client groups. Hazardmitigation materials address fire, flood, tsunami, landslides,and terrorism, in addition to general earthquakepreparedness. Coastal Region staff continues to distributematerials from PrepareNow.org targeted to specialpopulations, including the disabled, the elderly, and non-English speakers.

OES continued the statewide distribution of School Districts Guidefor Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in California Schools. Thedocument was also distributed at the National EarthquakeConference and at WSSPC meetings, as well as being availableon the OES and NIBS websites.

California, along with other NEHRP states, was inundatedwith inquires about Douglas Copp and the “triangle of life.”The OES earthquake program coordinated with FEMA RegionIX and Region X staff, the American Red Cross, andrepresentatives from the other western states in drafting anddistributing and official response.The OES position is thatbased on all available information from the structuralengineering and medical communities, the greatest benefit tobuilding occupants in California is provided by the currentDuck (Drop), Cover and Hold instruction.

The California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council(CEPEC) met twice during this reporting period.The firstmeeting reviewed several commercial proprietary earthquakeprediction services being marketed in the United States.Thesecond meeting was convened to review and respond to thepress releases related to ‘predictions’ made by Dr.VladimirKeilis-Borok of the University of California, Los Angeles.CEPEC met in February 2004 with representatives of theUSGS to review Dr. Keilis-Borok’s methodology and previouspredictions. CEPEC concluded that the “uncertainty alongwith the large geographic area included in the prediction(about 12,400 square miles) leads (us) to conclude that theresults do not at this time warrant any special policy actionsin California.” CEPEC findings were provided to FEMA, USGS,local governments, and the media.

OES staff participated on the Steering Committee of theNOAA National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program(NTHMP) and continued to support use of tsunamiinundation maps and public information materials developedby the State and NTHMP to develop evacuation plans andprocedures by the coastal cities and counties. OES convenedtwo meetings of the State Tsunami Hazard SteeringCommittee, comprised of representatives of the coastalcounties, to review program progress and set overall programpriorities.Two activities were initiated during this period.Thefirst was a Workshop of Tsunami Sources that will focus ondeveloping a probabilistic approach to mapping tsunami

inundation along the California Coast.The second activity is atraining workshop for coastal jurisdiction emergencymanagers that will address developing evacuation plans,coordinating public information with adjacent states, and useof NOAA Alert Radio, Emergency Alert Systems, and sirensystems to alert coastal residents and visitors to an imminenttsunami threat. OES also contracted with the University ofSouthern California for the development of inundation maps.Maps have been produced for all counties south of the SanFrancisco Bay Region, and maps from the Bay to the Oregonborder will be completed this year.

Hawaii

The Hawaii State Civil Defense (SCD) Earthquake Program hasmade notable accomplishments in earthquake loss reduction.The SCD-sponsored Hawaii State Earthquake AdvisoryCommittee (HSEAC) has served as a catalyst to identify andimplement priorities in short- and long-range goals ofearthquake hazard reduction. HSEAC is composed of avoluntary partnership of scientists, engineers, land useplanners, and emergency managers from the federal, state,county, and private sectors.

HSEAC provided technical expertise to the high hazardCounty of Hawaii to adopt the 2000 IBC.The seismicprovisions were written specifically for the island of Hawaii’sunique volcanic geology. Moreover, HSEAC wrote seismicstructural specifications for the county’s simplified designprocedures ordinance. Both amendments have been wellreceived by the County of Hawaii Building Division andincluded as part of the county’s proposed adoption of the1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) currently underconsideration.

HSEAC created and posted a Construction Guide on StrengtheningExisting Houses in Hawaii Against Hurricanes and Earthquakes on a statehazard mitigation website.The construction guide providesthe public with information on how to retrofit unique Hawaiiconstructed home types, which significantly differ fromcontinental United States home construction.The web site iswww.MotherNature-Hawaii.com.

Idaho

The Bureau of Disaster Services and the Idaho GeologicalSurvey have an active and ongoing partnership for assessingand mitigating the state’s natural hazards.The partnership alsoprovides an annual field workshop for earth scienceeducators. In addition to supporting counties in promotingearthquake awareness and loss-reduction techniques, a multi-agency advisory committee provides input to the Survey’smapping activities, which provide input to the seismicstudies.

17

The annual field workshops for earth science educatorsstudied the geology and geologic hazards of the ClearwaterRiver area in west-central Idaho in 2003 and the Long Valleyarea in western Idaho in 2004.Teachers use workshopinformation to create curricula that combine science withhazard awareness to engage students at various levels—frommapping buildings using GIS and an abbreviated Rapid VisualScreening inventory to identifying non-structural hazards intheir schools.

In 2004, the Bureau of Disaster Services funded workshopson Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings (ATC-20).The Bureau of Disaster Services also funded all-hazardsmitigation planning for 13 counties.

Activities of the Idaho earthquake hazard reduction programinclude:

• Increased inquiries from insurance agencies, banks, andcitizens about location of active faults and local seismicity

• Increased opportunities for educators and buildingofficials in appropriate hazard mitigation techniques

• Increased interest in, and participation by, teachers inearthquake education

• Increased adoption and updating of building codes—important because Idaho is developing rapidly, so that anup-to-date building code will have a positive impact onthe new building stock

• Increased interest in retrofit codes so that older buildingsare seismically stronger

• Increased response to annual surveys of public buildingsby the Idaho Division of Building Safety

Maine

The State of Maine has a staff person within the MaineEmergency Management Agency who provided earthquake-related support to various activities within the State, includingthe following:

• Updated the seismic portion of the State EmergencyOperations Plan

• Provided Maine Department of Transportation personnelin Bridge Design and in Road Construction divisionswith seismic mitigation information and with

information about various EMI courses, including theHAZUS courses

• Provided the University of Maine Engineering facultywith information about various seismic-related courses,including the MBDSI courses

• Provide schools with seismic-related educational materials

• Provided the Maine Department of Education unit thatreviews school construction plans with seismic mitigationpublications

• Participated in seismic notification for tests and actualevents

Missouri

The Missouri State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA)Earthquake Program continues to promote earthquake loss-reduction practices and policies by encouraging mitigation,sponsoring earthquake awareness and preparedness programs,and developing better response and recovery capabilitiesthrough exercises.

SEMA made the initial request to CUSEC to hold anearthquake exercise in 2007 for all of the states that would beaffected by an earthquake along the New Madrid Fault. SEMAalso continues to provide funding and support for the SAVECoalition to train and certify post-earthquake structuralinspectors in the Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation ofBuildings (ATC-20 training). SAVE now has over 1,200volunteer member inspectors qualified to perform post-earthquake structural inspections.

Each year, SEMA and the Missouri Seismic Safety Commissionhold a weeklong earthquake awareness campaign.Thecampaign features: (1) a signed Governor’s Proclamation; (2)the Missouri SEMA Public Information Officer e-mail posts tothe homepage, a media kit with press releases, and brochuresto 130 Emergency Management Directors and 185 mediavenues in the 47 counties at risk; (3) seminars conducted inSt. Louis and other population centers; (4) earthquake displayat the Truman Building and Capitol in Jefferson City and St.Louis Science Center; and (5) a hands-on event at the St.Louis Science Center.

Montana

With fewer resources available to sustain efforts in Montana, ithas been necessary to become extremely creative withfinances and resources. As Montana is no longer able to sendout publications and other materials in mass quantities,reliance on its web site for supplying information has becomea critical part of the State’s focus. The entire “Earthquake

18

Preparedness Month” campaign is delivered online. WhereMontana once sent out thousands of fliers, bookmarks,posters, press releases, and fact sheets, Montana now providesthat information via its web site. This approach has saved theprogram money and is much more effective in reaching thepublic. In this regard, fewer resources have contributed to abetter campaign effort.The program manager continues tovisit schools, businesses, and governmental agencies toprovide training on earthquake preparedness.

Nevada

Funding from NEHRP has been instrumental in reducing risksfrom earthquakes in Nevada. Funds from NEHRP throughFEMA have been used to support the Nevada EarthquakeSafety Council, which advises the State Division of EmergencyManagement on earthquake issues.The Council, with the helpof the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (the stategeological survey) and the Nevada Seismological Laboratory,undertook several projects in public education, preparedness,and mitigation. Minutes of quarterly meetings of theCouncil, technical guidelines adopted by the Council, andrelated documents are available on the Web(http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/nesc/index.html).

A major accomplishment of the Council was the passage ofNevada Assembly Bill 59. This bill, which was signed intolaw by the Governor near the end of the 2003 biennialsession of the Nevada Legislature, requires adoption of theseismic provisions of the IBC for state buildings and by localjurisdictions, and requires adoption of standards for theinvestigation of earthquake hazards relating to surfaceruptures and liquefaction.

Oregon

The Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Commission has convened atask force to support the issuance of Government ObligationBonds to implement Senate Joint Resolutions 21 and 22 thatauthorized the state to issue bonds to finance seismic retrofitof public education buildings and emergency servicebuildings.This task force is working closely with the StateSenate President for submission to the legislature.

The Oregon DOGAMI and Oregon Emergency Management(OEM) have partnered to survey county emergency managerson the seismic vulnerability of their emergency facilities.Oregon University System is currently evaluating its campusfacilities for seismic vulnerability and prioritizing retrofitprojects.

In partnership with Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup,OEM promoted “drop, cover, and hold” earthquake andtsunami drills and evacuations through Earthquake Awarenessactivities and presentations.

Puerto Rico

As part of the Puerto Rico State Emergency ManagementAgency (PRSEMA) role to save lives and properties in theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico, the following earthquakeactivities were conducted:

• Creation, reproduction, and dissemination throughoutthe 78 municipalities of educational pamphlets associatedwith preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery toreduce the loss of life and property, in coordination withthe American Red Cross.

• Conduct of a Tsunami Workshop for Local and StateEmergency Managers.This workshop provides historicaltsunami data, possible earthquake, submarine landslide,volcano activities, and explosions that could causetsunamis. Also included is information on equipmentavailability, present and future activities to enhancecommunity awareness, and the establishment oftopographic and bathymetric data and photo collectionfor the entire Caribbean zone.

• Creation, reproduction, and dissemination throughoutthe 78 municipalities of an interactive CD for youths,teens, and adults that provides graphics, maps, games,and an informative pamphlet regarding preparedness,response, recovery, terrorism, and mitigation.

• In coordination with the Puerto Rico Seismic Network,conducted seven seismic and tsunami-related activities,which include the establishment of a technical SeismicCommittee; seismic and tsunami-related workshops forgovernment officials; tsunami alert system data; a tsunamidrill scenario for schools located on the coast; update tothe Seismic Network website with PRSEMA’s data andother emergency preparedness, response, recovery, andmitigation information; and participation in the AnnualNational Tsunami conference.

• Conducted 12 mitigation activities for “SpecialCommunities” for the entire family to promote positivemental health during disasters.

• Conducted four workshops for State and Regional HazardMitigation Team representatives on mitigation measuresand activities related to the State Mitigation Program,including the Annual PRSEMA Conference held in May2004.

• Conducted 20 site inspections of potential EmergencyDisaster Recovery Centers for certification and use in caseof an emergency of disaster.

19

• Developed and adopted a Standard State HazardMitigation Plan.

• Continued work with the International Code Council(ICC) and the NFPA to develop and maintain disaster-resistant building codes and work with communities topromote local adoption of disaster resistant buildingcodes, in coordination with the Puerto Rico State FireDepartment.

• Developed guidance documents, multi-hazard trainingcourses, and other resources to improve risk assessments,mitigation planning, and residential and commercialconstruction practices for multi-hazard risk reduction.

• Actively coordinated with other federal departments andagencies to identify ways to work together to supportnational mitigation goals, and to keep and secure newpartnerships with business, non-profit, faith-based, andpublic sector organizations at the national, state, andcommunity levels.

• Supported the development and use of seismic designguidance for new construction and for upgradingexisting buildings and other structures in partnershipwith regulatory agencies.

• Increased the number of Emergency Action Plans incommunities located below significant and high-hazard-potential dams.

Washington

Every year, April is designated “Disaster Preparedness Month.”The theme of the campaign is “Prepare Because You Care.”Local jurisdictions, state agencies, schools, businesses, and thegeneral public distribute materials. A statewide earthquake“Drop, Cover and Hold” drill is conducted with over 1.5million citizens participating.The campaign provides anexcellent opportunity to educate and increase awareness onthe seismic risk the public faces and how to mitigate it.Achievements included two WSSPC National Awards inExcellence in 2003 for overall excellence in mitigation andeducational outreach. In addition, five InternationalAssociation of Emergency Managers (IAEM) 2003 and threeIAEM 2004 Media Awards were received for earthquakeproducts produced for the campaign.

In conjunction with the Seismic Safety Committee (SSC),Washington Emergency Management Division (EMD) andDepartment of Natural Resources/Division of Geology andEarth Resources fostered implementation of SSC PolicyRecommendations by developing a report for the EmergencyManagement Council. One of the top recommendations wasthe state adoption of the IBC, which was approved by the

2003 legislature and signed by the Governor on May 14,2003.

EMD and the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences inNew Zealand partnered to quantify the public and privatesectors’ understanding of earthquake and tsunami hazards onthe Washington coast, their knowledge of the WashingtonState All Hazard Alert Broadcasting (AHAB) Radio and NOAAWeather Radio notification systems, and their preparedness todeal with earthquake and tsunami activity.To fix deficienciesnoted in the school assessments, EMD developed andpublished a book for K-6, How the Smart Family Survived a Tsunami.The book addresses the tsunami warning process, theWashington’s AHAB Radio, and actions they should take whena tsunami warning is received.The book also includesinformation on a family disaster plan and disaster supply kit.The book is now being used nationally by other tsunami at-risk states and has been given to the International TsunamiInformation Center for use by countries susceptible totsunamis. It provides a baseline for emergency managers indeveloping risk communication, public education, and

20

EMD’s How the Smart Family Survived a Tsunami book cover.

mitigation planning.The book won the 2004 NationalEarthquake Conference Award of Excellence.

EMD partnered with the private sector to design and developthe AHAB Radio System to provide both tone and voice alertnotification to at-risk communities for any hazardoussituation. It can be powered by wind, solar, or commercialelectricity.When used in concert with the NOAA WeatherRadio, it becomes a highly effective alert and notificationsystem. A pilot system was installed with a wind-generatedpowered system on a beachhead in Ocean Shores,Washington, in June 2003. Five electrical systems wereinstalled in 2004 for port security, volcano, and tsunamiwarning.The system is presently being deployed in Alaska,California, American Samoa, and Guam. Fiji,Tonga, andSamoa are now interested in the system. In partnership withthe City of Seattle and NOAA, the State is installing foursystems on the Seattle waterfront that will be used for alertand notification but also have chemical detectors, a weatherstation, cameras, and seismometers allowing real-timereporting for all hazards.This proof of concept will becompleted in May 2005.The AHAB Radio won the 2004National Earthquake Conference Award of Excellence.

EMD, the State/Local Tsunami Workshop in partnership withthe Provincial Emergency Program, British Columbia, andOlympic Peninsula Intertribal Cultural Advisory Committeedeveloped an Earthquake Tsunami Tribal Video for the K-6State Tsunami Curriculum. Elements include a nativestoryteller from the Hoh Tribe and an imaginative anddramatic two-dimensional animated story of a largeearthquake and tsunami off the Washington coast, as seenthrough the eyes of a young boy.This video is the first of itskind and was showcased at an Earthquake Tribal Workshophosted by the Quinault Nation in April 2004. A State ofWashington Certificate of Commendation signed by theGovernor was presented to the storyteller in the video for heroutstanding work to better prepare children and families foran earthquake or a tsunami through the creative use ofNorthwest Coastal Native American oral history, art, andculture.The film is now available in Alaska, California, andOregon; eight South Pacific Nations have been givenpermission to reproduce the video for use in their publiceducation programs.

EMD and the Quinault Nation partnered to host the firstEarthquake Workshop for Tribes in Washington State. Federal,state, and tribal representatives participated in this workshopthat educated tribal officials on the earthquake and tsunamithreat in the state and provided public education materialsand training opportunities specifically for tribal officials. Manyof the speakers were tribal members, ensuring thatinformation important to them was disseminated andprovided a backdrop for tribes to showcase their efforts inemergency management for possible use as a template by

other tribes.The workshop featured a field trip to areas ofsubsidence along the Washington coast that provided linkageof scientific evidence to coastal Native American oral history.The workshop has increased the understanding of tribalneeds, how to better approach those requirements, and hasenhanced cooperation among government-to-governmentofficials.

A 2-year project to develop a comprehensive scenariodiscussing the impacts of a potential M6.7 earthquake on theSeattle Fault and providing recommendations for policymakers will be completed in 2004.The recommendationswill focus on mitigation. Development of the scenario projectis guided by a multi-disciplinary, public/private steeringcommittee. Funding support is provided by the EERI. Amongthe organizations involved in the project are EMD, City ofSeattle, City of Bellevue, USGS, Structural EngineersAssociation of Washington, ASCE, University of Washington,and CREW. HAZUS was used to develop the scenario, whichwill provide the framework for engineers, emergencymanagers, and response personnel to identify key policyissues that coincide with the Washington EmergencyManagement Council’s Seismic Safety 2004 PolicyRecommendations.

Washington was the first state in the Nation to receive FEMAapproval of its enhanced hazard mitigation plan.The planidentifies earthquakes as one of the state’s priority hazards.The concept of “best available science” required by land-useplanning in the State was used to develop the plan’s hazardprofiles for earthquake, tsunami, and landslide. EMD provided

21

Washington State’s Project Impact Earthquake Home Retrofit Handbook cover.

these and other natural hazard profiles to all local jurisdictionsaround the State for use in local hazard mitigation plans.Theprofiles are posted on the EMD web site and have been usedby a variety of individuals and groups.

In February 2003, EMD partnered again with Seattle ProjectImpact, a public-private mitigation partnership led by the Cityof Seattle Emergency Management, to develop a toolkit.Under the Disaster Resistant Business (DRB) Program,partners have spent 18 months building the DRB Toolkit toassist businesses of all types and sizes to prepare themselvesagainst all-hazards using best practices and low-cost strategies.The DRB Program is using industry experts to create easy-to-follow steps that will assist businesses to create their owndisaster plan if they do not have one, or improve a plan thatalready exists. Seattle Project Impact will use the website as aclearinghouse for business disaster solutions and examples.The DRB Toolkit will be an interactive web-based resourcethat can be used within the region or anywhere it is needed.

Under Seattle Project Impact’s Regional Home RetrofitProgram, 19 cities and counties are now participating on theearthquake strengthening effort. Based on the standard type ofconstruction used throughout the state before earthquakecode adoption, over 250,000 houses are vulnerable. In 2003,EMD connected the SSC-Buildings representative to theRegional Home Retrofit effort, as he is also a representative ofthe Washington Association of Building Officials. Includingbuilding officials in this program has been a key to success, asall of the retrofits are permit-driven to provide quality controlin following the pre-engineered prescriptive standards. Over600 homes have been retrofitted to date.

The Nisqually Earthquake provided an opportunity toshowcase mitigation success and also provide increasedmitigation efforts through the HMGP. Examples of HMGPawards are:

• City of Aberdeen – Fire Station Seismic Retrofit:This project completed a seismic retrofit in the main firestation that installed positive connections for the overheadbeam structures and seismic switches and sensors to openapparatus doors at the time of sensing seismic movement.As part of the grant, the city completed a hazardmitigation plan.

• Highline Water District – Reservoir SeismicRetrofit: Highline Water District completed two separateseismic retrofits and pipe flexibility projects at seven sites.These involved retrofitting standpipes, elevating tanks,and protecting ground level tanks to ensure operationand continuity after an event for drinking water and fireprotection. As part of the grant, a hazard mitigation planhas been developed.

• Clark College – Structural Seismic Retrofit:Thisproject provided for structural seismic improvements toseven buildings on the Clark College campus, includingpinning of bricks. Structural reinforcements will improveperformance and reduce the potential for damage, loss,hardship, and suffering to students and staff.

Other Organizations

The NEHRP is a partnership of many organizations that havethe common goal of keeping us safe from the earthquakehazard.The organizations involved in earthquake riskreduction activities range from engineering-basedprofessional organizations, private sector organizations,universities, and building code organizations to organizationssupported by one or more of the four NEHRP agencies, suchas the earthquake engineering centers (EERCs) that wereestablished by the NSF in 1997. Highlights of some of themany successful activities conducted by professionalorganizations in support of Goal A are described below.

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

The EERI is a national, nonprofit technical society ofengineers, geoscientists, architects, planners, public officials,and social scientists.The objective of EERI, which wasfounded in 1949, is to reduce earthquake risk by advancingthe science and practice of earthquake engineering, byimproving understanding of the impact of earthquakes on thephysical, social, economic, political, and culturalenvironment, and by advocating comprehensive and realisticmeasures for reducing the harmful effects of earthquakes.

The Northern California chapter of EERI has held severalworkshops, with FEMA support, to transmit technicalengineering knowledge to more than 200 building officialsand water and school district managers.The technicalengineering knowledge will enable them to better prepare forearthquakes in northern California by putting into practicenew programs to strengthen their systems, address non-structural hazards, and identify structurally vulnerablebuildings. Many of these earthquake techniques are easilytransferable to other natural and technological hazards and toWeapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

During the past 2 years, EERI has been able to use funds inthe Cooperative Agreement to support travel for dozens ofstudents and young professionals to attend the EERI Annualmeetings, to learn about the latest research and designtechniques that improve understanding of the seismic hazard,the design and rehabilitation of buildings and otherstructures, and social and policies issues that currentlychallenge seismic risk reduction.

22

Initiated through an EERI Technical Seminar in Seattle, EERImembers and others have been drawing on funds from theEERI Endowment, plus additional support from the FEMACooperative Agreement, to develop a comprehensive,multidisciplinary, seismic risk scenario and Call to Action forPuget Sound.The scenario development led by EERI membersbrought together members of the Washington StructuralEngineers Association, the state Division of EmergencyServices, FEMA Region X, the USGS, and CREW in a majorvoluntary effort to create this valuable tool.The completedscenario will be distributed to more than 2,000 EERImembers in the United States in CD-ROM format and printedand distributed to decision makers and others in the PugetSound area. It will be publicly unveiled in early 2005 by theState of Washington’s Emergency Management Division, in apublic forum aimed at the region’s decision makers. It willalso serve as a valuable model for other communities thatwish to develop a scenario to help create public interest inand support for the adoption of seismic risk reductionpolicies.

Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake EngineeringResearch

The goal of MCEER, which is housed at the State University ofNew York at Buffalo, is to enhance the seismic resiliency ofcommunities through improved engineering andmanagement tools for critical infrastructure. MCEER workstoward this goal by conducting integrated research, outreach,and education activities. MCEER maintains a clearinghouse ofearthquake publications and resources on its website.

MCEER researchers have made many key contributions to thetwo most advanced building codes and seismic guidelinesover the years. MCEER researchers have continued to engagepractitioners through their contributions in the ATC (undersponsorship of the FEMA ATC-58 project).The next-generation performance-based seismic design proceduresdeveloped under this project will express performancedirectly in terms of the quantified risks that the buildingowner or decision maker will be able to understand.Theserisks may be expressed in a variety of formats, includingexpected loss for a given earthquake event, probablemaximum loss over a given number of years, the probabilityof loss exceeding a specified value over a period of years, thenet present value of future potential losses, average annualizedloss, and other formats depending on the needs of individualdecision makers. Stakeholder guidance will be developed toassist decision makers in selecting appropriate risk levels asthe basis of design and upgrade projects. Engineeringguidelines will be prepared to assist design professionals todevelop building designs that are reliable and capable ofmeeting the selected risk criteria.The ATC-58 project iscompletely oriented toward implementation and does notundertake new research. Instead, it draws upon available

existing information and upon new research results that willbe generated during the life of the project. Given theconsiderable body of new knowledge generated by MCEER onthe seismic retrofit of structural and nonstructural systemsand components in acute care facilities and on thedevelopment of decision support methodologies, MCEER willbecome a natural “feed” to this important implementationproject.

Natural Hazards Research and Applications InformationCenter

The NHRAIC works to strengthen communication betweenthe hazards academic and applications communities toimprove the implementation of hazard mitigation andemergency management programs. It is a widely recognizedresource for researchers and practitioners who wish to obtainthe most current knowledge available to solve hazard-relatedproblems.The Center accomplishes its work through fourmajor activities: information dissemination, an annualworkshop, information services, and research.The majority ofthe Center’s work is supported by a NSF grant. During thisreporting period, nine other federal agencies contributedfunds to NSF to support the grant.

The Center’s information dissemination program is composedof three parts: production of the bimonthly newsletter, theNatural Hazards Observer; publication of monographs, workingpapers, Quick Response (OR) research reports, specialpublications, bibliographies, and other reports, including theNatural Hazards Informer series and the Natural Hazards Reviewjournal; and Internet activities, which include the distributionof an electronic newsletter, Disaster Research, and maintenance ofa web site.

The Natural Hazards Observer, now in its 28th year of publication,is the Center’s most visible and highly regarded activity. Since2001, the Observer has devoted considerable attention to theconsequences of the September 11 terrorist attacks, as well asto homeland security policies and programs.The “On theLine” section of the Observer included commentaries onemergency evacuation of individuals with special needs,FEMA’s multi-hazard mapping initiative, community-basedpreparedness for urban/wildland fires, and the legislation,policies, and principles that serve as the basis for all-hazardsemergency planning. In 2003, the Observer was distributed toover 15,000 individuals in the United States and abroad. Inaddition to hard-copy mailings, each issue of the Observer isavailable on-line via the Center’s web site in both html andPDF formats.

The Center’s publications program includes many types ofpublications.These publications range from full-lengthresearch studies (monographs), to research-in-progress orarticle-length discussions (working papers), bibliographies,

23

QR research reports, and other special publications.TheCenter also publishes the Natural Hazards Informer series, and incooperation with the ASCE, the Natural Hazards Review journal.

In 2003, the Center completed a 604-page Special Publicationcontaining findings from QR research undertaken in theaftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.Thevolume, Beyond September 11:An Account of Post-Disaster Research(SP39), contains contributions from researchers who receivedfunding from the Center, as well as from researchers fundedthrough other sources. During FY 2003, seven new QRreports were published, all of which are available free on-line.

In 1999, the Natural Hazards Center established a state-of-the-art publications series called the Natural Hazards Informer.Written by experts in the field, each issue features a summaryand synthesis of current information on a specific hazardstopic, as well as a description of emerging knowledge aboutwhich readers should be aware. An electronic version of eachissue of the Informer is available from the Center’s web site,thereby making the series accessible to a wider audience.

The Natural Hazards Review is dedicated to bringing togetherauthors representing the physical, social, and behavioralsciences; engineering; and regulatory and policy disciplines ina forum that addresses cutting edge, holistic, and cross-disciplinary approaches to natural hazards loss and costreduction.

The Center distributes a bi-weekly, worldwide electronicnewsletter, Disaster Research (DR), via the Internet. DR providesinformation about recent disasters; research-in-progress;legislative, policy, and institutional developments; newprograms, projects, and information sources; and upcomingmeetings. Perhaps more important, the newsletter allowssubscribers to post queries, responses, and comments to theentire readership and thus facilitates global access toknowledgeable individuals and resources.

The Center also maintains the Natural Hazards Center WebSite from which a wealth of information can be accessed(http://www.colorado.edu/hazards). Back issues of DR andthe Observer and other Center publications, the Center’s librarydatabase (HazLit), and materials from the annual hazardsworkshop are complemented by extensive lists of resources ofinformation about hazards.These include contact informationfor hazards-related agencies, organizations, and institutions; aroster of useful periodicals; abstracts of recent hazardsliterature; links to other hazards information sources; and acomprehensive schedule of upcoming conferences. In 2003,staff devoted a considerable amount of time to redesigningthe web site to make it more user-friendly.

The 28th annual invitational Hazards Research andApplications Workshop was held in Boulder, Colorado, July13-16, 2003.This event was attended by 333 public- andprivate-sector professionals involved in all aspects of hazards.About 11 percent of the participants were from outside theUnited States. Countries represented included Australia,Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Switzerland.

The library of the Natural Hazards Center is one of the largestin the United States and worldwide, covering materials on thesocial science aspects of natural, technological, and human-induced hazards and on strategies for reducing losses fromthose events. Library holdings currently include over 28,000books, periodicals, reports, individual articles, CDs,videotapes, and other materials.The library is available for useby students, researchers, practitioners, and others seeking toobtain information regarding hazard-related issues.

In September 2003, a consortium of which the Center is amember received an information technology research (ITR)grant from the NSF.The 5-year ITR project, which is entitled“Responding to the Unexpected,” is headquartered at theUniversity of California at Irvine.The project seeks to exploreways in which advanced information technology solutionscan be used to improve the management of extreme eventssuch as major earthquakes and terrorist attacks. Partners in theproject, which is known as “RESCUE-ITR” (“Responding toCrises and Unexpected Events”), include the City and Countyof Los Angeles, the City of San Diego, and the City of Irvine.The Center’s role in the project will be twofold: to develop abetter understanding of the factors associated with the

24

The Natural Hazards Observer cover.

adoption and implementation of advanced technologies inemergency management and to provide research-based inputinto modeling efforts, e.g., behavioral and risk communicationmodeling, that are being undertaken by other investigators.

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

The PEER Center is an engineering research centeradministered under the NSF’s Engineering Research CentersProgram and is headquartered at the University of Californiaat Berkeley.The PEER Center is a part of NSF’s program toreduce losses due to earthquakes through the NEHRP.TheFederal Government, the State of California, and privateindustry provide funding for PEER. Investigators from over 20universities and several consulting companies conductresearch in earthquake-related geohazard assessment,engineering seismology, risk management, public policy, andgeotechnical and structural engineering.

The mission of PEER is to “develop and disseminateperformance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE)methodology and supporting technologies to meet the safety,functionality, and economic needs of owners and society.”PBEE is the current widely accepted state-of-the-artmethodology for the seismic design of buildings and otherstructures, in which owners and other decision makers defineperformance targets in terms of safety, cost, and functionalityneeds.This approach translates these performance targets intoengineering criteria that aim to produce facilities that performto expectations.To help make seismic hazard mitigation morecost effective, the PEER Center has undertaken a user-drivenresearch approach where researchers, funding entities, andthose who implement seismic hazard mitigation worktogether to develop credible and useful contributions toincreasing seismic safety throughout the United States andinternational communities.The PEER Center’s research andtechnology transfer activities contribute to the four majorgoals of the NEHRP by helping to systematically reduceseismic risk through the development of PBEE technologiesand products, the transfer of the results of PEER’s research tothe public and private sectors, and in the training of futurestudents, engineers, and researchers.

PEER’s research has two heavily interrelated majorcomponents: the Core Program and the Lifelines Program.Under the Core Program, the PEER Center is developing PBEEtechnologies that address the economic and safety needs ofproperty owners and society. Applied research for utilities andtransportation systems is conducted under the LifelinesProgram.

PEER undertook a number of earthquake mitigation activitiesduring this reporting period for Goal A. From a broadersocietal perspective, PEER’s work is contributing to a betterunderstanding of how performance-based regulations fitwithin the broader regulatory system. Performance-basedapproaches are founded on the notion that regulations shouldbe based on achievement of specified results rather than onadherence to particular technologies or prescribed means.This notion has been widely accepted as a basis for improvingsocial and environmental regulations; variants ofperformance-based regulations have been adopted for aspectsof air and water quality, building and fire safety, consumerproduct safety, energy efficiency, food safety, forest practices,nuclear power plants, pipeline safety, and worker safety.Adoption of performance-based regulations requiresconsideration of how to characterize outcomes, whatconstitutes desired achievements with respect to theoutcomes, and how to measure the level of performance thatis obtained. In addressing these fundamental questions fromthe perspective of affected stakeholders, PEER is laying thegroundwork so that PBEE will be an effective basis forachieving building and infrastructure earthquake safety.

PEER has developed significantly improved understanding ofthe building blocks of PBEE. In the area of strong groundmotion, PEER has created extensive databases that allow us tobetter characterize and predict future earthquake shaking thatmay affect a facility or network. In the area of engineering,PEER has developed improved models for ground failure(fault rupture and liquefaction); procedures for mitigatingground failure; methods for evaluating failure of existinghazardous buildings, bridges, and electric utility systems;

25

PEER has created extensive databases that allow us to better characterize andpredict future earthquake shaking that may affect a facility or network.

design procedures for improved performance of existing andnew facilities; and models for performance of buildingcontents. In areas of loss modeling, PEER is developingprocedures for computing losses and ways of customizingthese to meet specific client needs.

PEER is sponsoring research to hasten the adoption andutilization of performance-based risk management amongmajor stakeholders (facility owners and operators, riskmanagers and insurers, and building-code officials). PEER hascontributed to various aspects of earthquake riskmanagement, including work to articulate decisionconsiderations, evaluate earthquake losses, and facilitateimplementation of PBEE tools and frameworks. On the topicof decision considerations, PEER has contributed fundamentalknowledge on the basis for decisions, including the framingof decisions, financial and other tools for evaluating choices,and studies of how to best present the metrics to stakeholders.PEER has discovered the importance of emphasizing tradeoffs,as opposed to absolute decision metrics, with one importantexception being concerns about catastrophic events leading to“risk-of-ruin.” On the subject of earthquake losses, PEER hasimproved fundamental knowledge of the losses and costsassociated with structural and non-structural damage tobuildings. On implementation, PEER has investigated issuesand barriers associated with moving from current prescriptivebuilding codes to emerging performance-based regulations.

NEHRP Accomplishments:Goal B

Goal B activities assure the availability of improved techniquesto reduce the seismic vulnerability of facilities and systems.These improvements are achieved through several means,including publication of design, construction, and evaluationguidelines for buildings and lifelines; development of tools toassist in the use of the guidelines; problem-focused researchand development to fill knowledge gaps; execution ofcoordinated post-earthquake investigations; publication oflong-term studies to address special problems identified aftermajor earthquakes; cooperation with professional and tradeassociations to improve the use of technology; advocacy; andthe international exchange of information.

Goal B: Improve techniques to reduce seismicvulnerability of facilities and systems

1: Facilitate technology transfer among standardsorganizations, state and local governments, and private-sector professionals.

2: Improve earthquake loss-reduction knowledge and thequality of practice.

3: Support efforts to improve seismic standards and codesand improve design and construction practices forbuildings and lifelines.

The NEHRP Agencies


The Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) of NIBS haspartnered with FEMA since the agency’s inception to achievethe goals of the NEHRP, primarily to develop effectivepractices and policies for earthquake loss-reduction andaccelerate their implementation and to improve techniques toreduce seismic vulnerability of facilities and systems.

During FY 2003 and 2004, the BSSC completed work on the2003 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for SeismicRegulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. The seventh editionof this landmark work reflects the results of recent researchand includes seismic design maps based on current USGShazard maps.The 2003 Provisions document and itsaccompanying Commentary (FEMA Publication 450, Parts I andII) have the consensus approval of the 64 BSSC memberorganizations and reflect the voluntary efforts ofapproximately 200 of the Nation’s experts on seismic designand construction who contributed their time and expertise inthe national interest.

In response to life safety concerns expressed to FEMA byofficials in the State of Washington, the BSSC mounted aneffort during FY 2004 to develop up-to-date earthquakeperformance guidance concerning the large steel storage rackscommonly used in large home supply and discount stores.

In complementary efforts funded by FEMA, the BSSC’s CodeResource Support Committee (CRSC) worked to advanceincorporation of the Provisions’ requirements in the Nation’smodel building codes and standards. Proposals for changebased on the 2003 Provisions have been developed forincorporation in the 2006 editions of the ICC’s IBC and IRC.CRSC representatives also worked on the committeesdeveloping the NFPA model building code, and are involvedin the process to update that document. Further, participantsin the BSSC Provisions update process developed a proposal tomodify the seismic provisions in the national load standard(ASCE 7) published by the ASCE to reflect the 2003 Provisions.CRSC representatives have responded to local requests forassistance in adopting the Provisions-based seismic requirementsappearing in the model building codes.

Work to update documents produced earlier by the BSSC tostimulate awareness and use of the NEHRP Recommended Provisionsand to serve as the basis for education and training programswas initiated during the past 2 fiscal years and is nearingcompletion.These documents include a guide to application

26

of the 2000 and 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions (FEMAPublication 351), a non-technical explanation of the Provisions(FEMA Publication 99), and a new version of FEMA’s guidefor homebuilders that introduces the seismic provisions in the2000 IRC (FEMA Publication 232). BSSC volunteer expertsparticipated in a variety of meetings and conferences tointroduce the concepts embodied in the Provisions.

The MMC of NIBS has conducted several projects related theNEHRP goals to develop effective practices and policies forearthquake loss-reduction and accelerate theirimplementation, improve techniques to reduce seismicvulnerability of facilities and systems, and improve seismichazard identification and risk assessment methods and theiruse.The American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) was established byFEMA in 1998 as a public-private partnership to reduce theearthquake risks to lifelines (essential utility andtransportation systems that serve communities across alljurisdictions).When the MMC began managing the ALA atthe beginning of FY 2003, the scope of ALA efforts wasbroadened to encompass all hazards. Several earthquake-specific projects and several all-hazards projects consideringearthquake risks were conducted in FY 2003-2004:

• The development of a guideline providingcomprehensive but easy to follow guidance for theseismic design of piping systems in essential facilitiessuch as power plants, chemical process facilities, oil andgas distribution systems and terminals, and critical post-disaster facilities such as hospitals.

• The development of a guideline presenting designprovisions for use in evaluating the integrity of buriedpipelines for a variety of applied loads, includingearthquake ground motion.The ASME B31 GuidelineCommittee is considering the integration of this guidanceinto its standard.

• The development of proposals for revising the aboveground steel storage tank seismic design requirementscontained in American Petroleum Institute (API) andAmerican Water Works Association (AWWA) standards.API and AWWA standards featuring the revisedrequirements are being balloted.

• The development of a guide presenting the availableperformance data for six classes of mechanicalcomponents that often must perform critical functionsduring and after earthquakes (valves, valve operators,pumps, compressors, fans, and packaged air-handlingunits).

• The development of a set of design provisions to providewater utilities with clear and practical guidance fordesigning water pipelines with improved resistance todamage from earthquakes.

• The development of procedures that can be used toevaluate the probability of earthquake damage to watertransmission systems.

• The development of guidelines for use by electric poser,oil and natural gas pipeline, and wastewater systemowners and operators in defining the scope of actionsnecessary to assess system performance during and afterhazard events.

• The periodic assessment of ALA-developed matrices thatprovide an overview of the current status of natural andmanmade hazards guidance available to lifeline systemoperators in the United States.


The NEHRP Strategic Plan identified a technology transfer gapthat limits the adaptation of basic research knowledge intopractice.The Strategic Plan recommends an expandedproblem-focused research and guidelines development effortto facilitate the implementation of new mitigationtechnologies.

As a first step, NIST requested the ATC to convene a workshopof national leaders in earthquake design, practice, regulation,and construction in July 2002.The purpose of the workshopwas to assess the state of knowledge and practice and tosuggest an action plan to address the gap between researchand practice.The action plan identifies industry priorities intwo areas: (1) support of the seismic code developmentprocess through technical assistance and development of thetechnical basis for performance standards; and (2) improvedseismic design productivity through the development of toolsfor the evaluation of advanced technologies and practices.Theaction plan, “The Missing Piece: Improving Seismic Designand Construction Practices (ATC-57),” was published in 2003and is available from the ATC, www.atcouncil.org. NIST nowlooks forward to working with the stakeholder community toexplore ways to best meet those needs via a public-privatepartnership. NIST expects this effort will build on NSF-fundedbasic research, including that conducted as part of the GeorgeE. Brown, Jr. NEES Consortium.

In the aftermath of the World Trade Center Disaster, Congressgave NIST the authority to investigate major building failuresin the United States, including those caused by earthquakes.The National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act gives NISTthe authority to dispatch teams of experts within 48 hours

27

following a major building disaster.The Act specifies that theNIST Director develop implementing procedures that“provide for coordination with Federal, State, and localentities that may sponsor research or investigation of buildingfailures, including research conducted under the EarthquakeHazards Reduction Act of 1977.” In addition, the CommitteeReport 107-530 published by the House Science Committeeon June 25, 2002 states that, “The Director should clearlydefine how earthquake researchers and Teams will carry outtheir responsibilities in a coordinated fashion in cases wherebuilding failures have been caused by an earthquake.”

NIST’s responsibilities under the NCST Act have beenincorporated into the recently completed plan to coordinatepost-earthquake investigations issued by the NEHRP agencies.The plan (USGS Circular #1242) states that, within 48 hours,NIST will examine the relevant factors associated withbuilding failures that occur as a result of the earthquake andwill make reasonable efforts to consult with the other NEHRPagencies before determining whether to conduct aninvestigation under the Act. Any NIST investigation conductedunder the authority of the Act will be limited to failures ofone or more buildings or on one class or type of buildingselected by NIST. In early 2004, NIST participated in a seriesof tabletop exercises with representatives from the otherNEHRP agencies.The exercises simulated the response toearthquake scenarios in different parts of the United States totest the plan.

NIST initiated a project to develop and implementperformance criteria for codes and standards, tools, andpractical guidance for prevention of progressive structuralcollapse. Progressive collapse refers to the spread of astructural failure–by a chain reaction–that is disproportionateto a localized triggering failure, often due to abnormal loads.Such collapse can result in a disproportionate loss of life andinjuries.The project is considering four distinct butinterrelated strategies to mitigate progressive collapse: (1)

System design concept; (2) Retard collapse after triggeringevent; (3) Built-in redundancy via alternate load paths; and(4) Retrofit and design to “harden” structure.

A key focus of the project is to develop retrofit and designmethods that take advantage of the synergies associated withmitigating progressive collapse under multiple threats (blast,impact, fire, wind, and earthquake).The project dependsheavily on the development and use of advanced modelingand simulation tools to evaluate the vulnerability of structuralsystems to progressive collapse under different threats.Theproject is reviewing and using knowledge gained fromcontrolled demolition technology and builds on thatknowledge to develop effective mitigation strategies forprogressive collapse. Finally, the project is developingperformance criteria and methods to mitigate progressivestructural collapse cost-effectively for both new and existingstructures based on a combination of existing knowledge, theresults of analytical model sensitivity studies, and laboratoryand field measurements. NIST has completed a draft bestpractices guideline and is currently revising the guidelinebased on comments received from practitioners.The revisedguideline will be published in early 2005.

NIST is using a multi-hazard approach to facilitate thedevelopment of mitigation technologies. In addition, buildingfires can often result following an earthquake.The objective ofthe Fire Safety Design and Retrofit of Structures project is todevelop significantly improved standards, tools, and practicalguidance for the fire safety design and retrofit of structures.The project is focusing on standards and tools for design ofsteel and concrete structures and on verified predictive toolsand performance criteria to evaluate structural fireperformance in real fires.

Five key factors are being considered in developing suchperformance-based methods.

1. While the current standard fire endurance test method,which stipulates a prescribed time-temperature exposure,is adequate to compare relative performance of structuralcomponents, it does not provide any indication about theactual performance, i.e., load carrying capacity, of acomponent in a real fire environment, i.e., involving fireof building contents.

2. The role of structural connections, diaphragms, andredundancy in enabling load transfer and maintainingoverall structural integrity during fire is ignored instructural design. Current design methods are based onfire endurance tests of single components and do notaccount for the behavior of inter-component connectionsor the complex two- and three-dimensional behavior ofthe entire structure.

28

NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory conducted standard fire tests atthe UL (Northbrook) Furnace.

3. There is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of alternativeretrofit, design, and fire protection strategies to enhancestructural fire endurance (including alternatecementitious spray or board systems, intumescentcoatings, high-performance fire protective coatings, activesuppression systems, and more sensitive sensing andmonitoring). No practical, high-level models exist todaythat couple the fire dynamics to the structural systemresponse, and the resulting transient, multi-dimensionalheat transfer through structural components made withmultiple materials.

4. There is a lack of knowledge about the fire behavior ofstructures built with innovative materials, i.e., high-strength concrete or steel structures.

5. There is a need to better model and predict the firehazard to structures from internal and external fires, i.e.,due to accidents or terrorist threats.This includesdeterministic and probabilistic models for specifying themagnitude, location, and spatial distribution of firehazards on structures; determination of reliability-basedload factors for combined dead, live, and fire loads andresistance factors for loss in structural strength andstiffness; and methods for load and resistance factordesign (LRFD) under fire conditions.

The project is developing performance criteria and methodsto assure cost-effective structural performance under fire forboth retrofit and design applications based on a combinationof existing knowledge from around the world, the results ofanalytical model sensitivity studies, and laboratory and fieldmeasurements.

NIST chairs and provides the technical secretariat for the US-Japan Joint Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects (UJNR).ThePanel provides a government-to-government forum for theexchange of research data and information between countriesthat share similar concerns regarding earthquake and windeffects on the built environment.The Panel adopted a strategicplan, jointly developed by NIST and the Public WorksResearch Institute, at its 33rd Joint Meeting in May 2001.Thestrategic plan streamlined the operation of the Panel andemphasized the importance of joint research on topics ofmutual interest.The Panel has seven technical task committeesthrough which this cooperation occurs:

• Geotechnical Engineering and Ground Motion

• Next-Generation Building and Infrastructure Systems

• Dams

• Wind Engineering

• Transportation Systems

• Advanced Information and Communication Technologyfor Disaster Prevention and Public Health

• Storm Surge and Tsunami

The Panel is actively exploring the formation of a TaskCommittee on Fire Performance of Building andTransportation Structures.This new Task Committee will beformed jointly between the Panel on Wind and Seismic Effectsand the Panel on Fire Research and Safety.

The Task Committee on Transportation Systems completed ajoint guideline on testing of bridge isolation systems inSeptember 2004.This joint guideline establishes consistentmethods for evaluating performance of these systems and willbe published and used in both the United States and Japan.

The Panel held a successful 36th Joint Meeting in May 2004at which 27 technical papers were presented. NIST publishedthe proceedings of the 36th Joint Meeting in September2004.


Goal B activities sponsored by the NSF are described belowunder the earthquake engineering research facilities fundedby NSF.


In the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, the USGS worked inconjunction with the UAF to integrate 14 new strong motionrecording systems with an existing network of 22 stationsoperated by the UAF.The enhanced, 36-station network willprovide the critical data needed to generate near-real-timeShakeMaps of the Anchorage area. USGS-led efforts inAnchorage have significantly improved the quality andquantity of seismic instrumentation needed for emergencyresponse and the assessment and mitigation of damagingearthquakes in south-central Alaska.

As part of the Anchorage upgrades, ANSS instrumented the20-story, State of Alaska (Atwood) building with digitalsensor systems located at 10 levels throughout the structure.The USGS Menlo Park office was responsible for installing thestructural monitoring system, while UAF personnel installedthe interconnecting conduit, cabling, and other ancillaryequipment.The ANSS funding also allowed for the installationof sensors and recording systems for a network of sixunderground (borehole) recording stations located adjacentto the Atwood Building.The combined network representsone of the best instrumented urban areas and soil/structuresystems in the country. Data recorded by this network will be

29

invaluable to civil and structural engineers for assessing soil-structure interaction, building response, and buildingperformance during large earthquakes.

The Atwood Building installation was unveiled at an eventcommemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1964 GoodFriday earthquake.The March 26 event was sponsored by theUSGS, the UAF GI, and members of the local engineeringcommunity. Alaska is the most seismically active state in theUnited States, and the Good Friday earthquake, at momentmagnitude 9.2, was the second largest earthquake everrecorded.


Alaska

The UAF/GI installed real time earthquake monitoringequipment in the State Emergency Coordination Center(SECC). The system provides immediate earthquakenotification showing seismic station depictions of the quake,scientific data, and graphically relates the earthquake toadjacent communities. It allows the SECC to quickly contactcommunities to gather impact data for potential damageestimates. Alaska is installing this system in other emergencyoperation centers around the state.

Hawaii

SCD sponsored a series of statewide professional structuraland non-structural seismic safety workshops. Structuralengineers from the DOI, Bureau of Reclamation, presented atthe workshops, which were videotaped for future broadcaston public access channels.

HSEAC also provided technical review of state dam safetyearthquake construction standards at the request of the StateDepartment of Land and Natural Resources.

Missouri

SEMA’s Earthquake Program Manager continues to act as staffto the Missouri Seismic Safety Commission to urge theadoption of building codes at the local level, supportearthquake education, and to sponsor outreach programs.

In addition, SEMA continues building a strong relationshipwith the Missouri Department of Insurance to educateMissouri’s citizens, local government, and the insuranceindustry about ways to mitigate earthquake damages and theneed for appropriate insurance coverage in endangered areas,and to plan for responding to a major earthquake.

Oregon

Oregon conducted a state-wide earthquake exercise QUAKEX2003 in April 2003, participated in City of Portland full-scaleearthquake exercise Shake Ex 04, and produced the EarthquakePreparedness and Mitigation Guidance.

Washington

In partnership with the NTHMP, EMD continues to work withthe engineering community to investigate whether there areadequate building designs available for both high seismicloading (zone 4 or equivalent in the IBC) and a tsunamiinundation area. An example of the problem is Ocean Shores,which would be subject to strong shaking from a CascadiaSubduction Zone earthquake and tsunami inundation within30 minutes, giving no time for evacuation.This workshop isdeveloping guidance for retrofitting buildings to withstandboth the earthquake and tsunami.This year, data has beencollected to assess construction requirements of structuresrequiring earthquake and tsunami design and workshops havebeen held to review and agree to proposal requirements.Thisdata will be given to FEMA for development of a structuralguidance document within the next 3 years.

Other Organizations


NEHRP support has made it possible for EERI to develop anddistribute many new publications, including oral histories,monographs, post-earthquake reconnaissance reports, andCD-ROMs from recent damaging earthquakes.Thesepublications are aimed at the engineering and designcommunities, and disseminate the latest analytical and designtechniques. Monographs issued in this period focus on bridgedesign, energy dissipation systems, and risk analysis, and willenable practicing engineers to incorporate these newtechniques into the design and rehabilitation of new andexisting buildings and bridges.These publications are

30

The ANSS funding also allowed for the installation of sensors and recordingsystems for a network of six underground (borehole) recording stations locatedadjacent to the Atwood Building..

distributed free of charge to over 2,000 EERI membersthroughout the United States and abroad.

Each year, EERI has awarded a Fellowship to a practicingprofessional from one of the many fields that contribute toearthquake engineering, to enable that person to gain greaterskills and broader expertise in earthquake hazards reduction.In recent years, the fellowships have supported work ofprofessionals in structural engineering, tsunami hazardmitigation, and the earth sciences.The results of their researchprojects have been incorporated into current building codesand practices, into tsunami hazard modeling, and mostrecently by helping to bridge the gap between geologists andgeotechnical engineers in better understanding themechanism of liquefaction in earthquakes.

Each year, NEHRP funds also have supported a graduateresearch fellow from engineering, earth science, or publicpolicy in the completion of their graduate studies.Thisfellowship is prestigious and very highly sought after.Students have been selected from many universitiesthroughout the United States.Their work has contributed tothe goals of NEHRP by developing new tools specific to eachof their disciplines that will reduce losses from futureearthquakes. All of the recipients have gone on to careers ashighly regarded researchers in earthquake engineering orrelated fields of public policy and decision sciences. Many arein academic positions, where they are influencing a wholenew generation to embrace a commitment to earthquakehazard mitigation.


As part of its research dedicated to the seismic retrofit ofacute care facilities, MCEER initiated a co-operativeexperimental program with National Taiwan University andthe National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering(NCREE) to investigate the seismic performance of ShearPlated Walls (SPW) designed and fabricated using low yieldstrength (LYS) steel panels and Reduced Beam Sections (RBS)added to the beam ends. A total of four LYS SPW specimenswere designed by MCEER researchers, fabricated in Taiwan,and tested collaboratively by MCEER and NCREE researchersat the NCREE laboratory in Taiwan.

The results of the tests indicated that SPW buildings with lowyield steel webs appear to be a viable option for use inresistance of lateral loads imparted during seismic excitation.Collaborative research between MCEER and NCREE is nowfocusing on developing reliable models that can capture theexperimentally observed behavior, and investigating thebenefits of this system on enhancing the seismic performanceof nonstructural components in acute care facilities.

An advanced systems analysis expands the frontiers of scienceand engineering by enabling, for the first time, a quantitativeprediction of functional degradation of the utility powernetwork under natural and manmade disasters.Thedegradation of the power network can severely impact theeconomy and welfare of the community it serves. MCEER’smulti-institutional and multidisciplinary team of investigators(involving more than 20 students with diverse backgrounds)collaborated with industry users such as Los AngelesDepartment of Water and Power (LADWP), SouthernCalifornia Edison, Memphis Light Gas and Water, and withinternational partners such as Taiwan Power and NCREE inTaiwan, and Bridgestone Corporation in Japan.Thiscollaboration led to the development of a pioneering softwaresystem integrating Western Electricity Coordinating Council’s(WECC) power grid database with the Electric PowerResearch Institute’s (EPRI) Interactive Power Flow analysiscode.WECC’s database covers 14 western states and beyond.This integration is achieved through an advanced GISframework that allows visual demonstration of the impact ofdisasters. Innovative use of GIS allows incorporation of naturalhazard and infrastructure information and societal data (suchas location and number of households served by thenetwork).The software can predict, for example, thepossibility of power black-out in each service area of LADWPin Los Angeles after an earthquake, also demonstrating thatevents as remotely located as the State of Washington can havean impact on Los Angeles. It allows stakeholders to decide ifsuch a possibility is acceptable for various earthquakescenarios, and whether proposed seismic retrofit schemes canbe cost-effective. Efforts are continuing to upgrade thesoftware to integrate both of LADWP’s water and powernetworks, and to assess their combined and interdependentperformance during an earthquake.

Using finite element analyses and full-scale experiments onpipe specimens supplied by the LADWP, MCEER researchers

31

MCEER Shear Plated Wall (SPW) specimen being tested at the NationalCenter for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE) in Taiwan.

developed fiber reinforced polymers (FRPs) in collaborationwith industry participants.When the FRPs are wrappedaround the joints of large diameter water pipelines duringnew construction or retrofit activities, they substantiallyincrease the axial load capacity of the joints, in many casesdoubling pipeline resistance against earthquake compressiveloads.The FRPs are now commercially available from severalcompanies. Model contract documents and specifications forFRP strengthening are being prepared by LADWP and MCEERin the construction of over $100 million of new trunk linesin Los Angeles. MCEER researchers also developed andexecuted the largest laboratory experiments ever performed ofground rupture effects on buried pipelines.The experimentswere used to validate an analytical model for evaluatingground rupture effects on pipeline bends, which are criticallocations for stress concentration.The analytical model andexperimental results were used to make inexpensive changesin welds and wall thickness at the bends that increase capacityby over 100 percent.The work was recognized by the JapanGas Association Best Paper Award in 2003 and was used todevelop a Large Displacement Soil-Structure InteractionFacility for Lifelines at Cornell University, which will be partof the George E. Brown, Jr. NEES sponsored by NSF.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is overseeingMCEER’s ongoing work to produce design guidelines for useby highway bridge engineers on the following subjects:seismic retrofitting of highway bridges and other highwaystructures such as retaining walls, slopes, tunnels, pavements,and culverts; seismic retrofitting of highway bridge trusses;seismic isolation of highway bridges; and seismic behavior oftimber bridges.These references will help transportationagencies and their engineers assess the risk of seismic damageto bridges and take appropriate action to mitigate the risk.These publications are being made available to potential usersto disseminate knowledge gained from recent research.Workshops are planned as a means of introducing these intothe engineering community.

MCEER conducted a research task to develop ways ofimproving the seismic performance of slab-on-girder steelbridges through the use of embedded energy dissipators andintelligent semi-active control devices located at or in theend-diaphragms.The relative flexibility of these bridges in thetransverse direction may result in overstressing or even failureof load-carrying components such as the end-diaphragms,beams, shear connectors between the deck and girders,bearings, piers, and columns. By using structural dampers orsemi-active devices to dissipate energy at the end diaphragms,the safety and reliability of steel bridges can be improved.Theresults of this research will enable the development ofguidelines for use in the design of new bridges and theretrofit of existing bridges using control devices to optimizestructural performance and safety.

MCEER has conducted a study on energy dissipation ofcompression members in concentrically braced frames, and isconducting experimental work to expand this knowledge toimprove the seismic performance of steel truss bridges andpiers.


In the event of a major earthquake, those who are called uponas first responders will be critical to determining howemergencies are handled, including police officers,emergency operators, hospital staff, and fire fighters. Beforethese emergency personnel can even begin to do their jobproperly, however, they need electric power.

As a result of research sponsored by the California EnergyCommission’s PIER program and PG&E, and conducted by thePEER, new tools and methods are being developed to makeelectric power transmission more reliable in the event of amajor seismic event. Among the areas under study are thesubstations that receive and distribute electricity to large areas.The major causes of outages during past earthquakes were thecatastrophic failures of circuit breakers, transformer bushings,and disconnect switches at the substations.

Concrete is a popular building material. For the most part, itserves its purpose well.To perform well during earthquakes,however, reinforced concrete buildings and bridges need tobe properly reinforced with steel.This lesson has been learnedand relearned in past California earthquakes, including the1971 San Fernando earthquake, 1979 Imperial Valleyearthquake, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and 1994Northridge earthquake.

Many hazardous concrete buildings, including manygovernment buildings, also have high and importantoccupancies, posing a significant life safety risk. Onechallenge has been deciding whether a building is indeed athigh risk: earthquake engineers need better evaluation tools tosort out the good buildings from the bad ones. Anotherreason is the high cost of building retrofitting; better tools areneeded for cost-effective, non-intrusive retrofitting.

PEER has recognized the need and the challenge of mitigatingthe high seismic risk posed by some of our older existingbuilding stock, and has devoted a significant portion of itsresearch activity toward this problem.

PEER researchers and industry practitioners have successfullyapplied and tested the performance-based engineeringmethodology through application to several building andbridge case studies. In one case, the methodology has beenapplied for the seismic assessment of a science laboratory onthe University of California at Berkeley campus to investigatemitigation techniques for a high-tech laboratory as well as the

32

inter-relationships to the larger campus network of which thelaboratory building is a part.Working closely withprofessional engineering consultants and universityadministrators, PEER is providing campus administration withtools to assess campus risk, to develop retrofit/mitigationstrategies, and to conduct disaster planning.This study isbeing coordinated with a FEMA-supported Disaster ResistantUniversity initiative, whose aim is to develop a model thatother university and industrial campuses can follow. In a casestudy of a highway bridge, PEER is working in collaborationwith CALTRANS and FHWA to investigate bridge performanceand its inter-relationships to highway network performanceneeds for post-earthquake emergency response and recovery.Demonstration of the PEER methodology through these andother case studies is leading to broad acceptance of themethodology in the earthquake engineering research andpractice communities.

The PEER Center work with other earthquake engineeringresearch centers in the United States and in Europe, Japan, andTaiwan, already has led to the sharing of informationregarding specific PBEE research results for bridgecomponents and highway transportation system studies thatcan help emergency response officials direct traffic aroundmajor blockages.

NEHRP Accomplishments:Goal C

Seismic hazard identification and risk assessment are criticalcomponents of NEHRP’s earthquake mitigation strategy.Under Goal C, NEHRP agencies identify and quantify seismichazards through improved seismic monitoring and throughdetailed geological and geophysical characterization ofregions of active faulting.The seismic hazard information thenbecomes the foundation upon which subsequent riskassessment models are based.

Goal C: Improve seismic hazard identification and riskassessment methods and their use

1: Provide rapid, reliable information about earthquakes andearthquake-induced damage.

2: Improve seismic hazard characterization and mapping.

3: Support development and use of risk and loss assessmenttools.

The NEHRP Agencies


Securing the Nation’s communities, businesses, housing, andinfrastructure from disasters requires a comprehensiveapproach that includes hazard resistant construction, prudentland use, emergency preparedness, rapid response andrecovery, and increased awareness of multiple threats.Information on potential damage, shared at federal, state, andlocal levels, is a key to these life-saving priorities.

To assess risk and share data effectively requires a nationallyapplicable, computer-based disaster planning and analysis toolable to:

• Estimate size and location of possible threats

• Calculate resulting damage and disruption

• Utilize supporting data from varied sources

• Link with other emergency management and planningtools before, during, and after disasters

In 1992, through agreements with FEMA, the NIBS begancrafting such a tool, beginning with the potential effects ofearthquakes. Methodologies reviewed by seismic experts wereprogrammed into advanced, easily usable software calledHAZUS. Before the debut of HAZUS in 1997, plotting thelikely result of an earthquake required expensive engineeringconsultants, laborious hand calculations, and piecemeal use ofcomputers.

In the 7 years since FEMA published the prototype earthquakeedition HAZUS97, HAZUS has helped communities across theUnited States identify and plan for earthquakes by givingthem access, free of charge, to specialized databases and GIS-based analytic tools. Planning with HAZUS can save lives,property, and tax dollars.

HAZUS-MH (HAZUS Multihazard) for earthquakesstreamlines modeling by merging up-to-date natural hazardsengineering and science with ESRI’s powerful geographic

33

PEER is working in collaboration with CALTRANS and FHWA to investigatebridge performance and its inter-relationships to highway network performanceneeds for post-earthquake emergency response and recovery.

information system, ArcGIS. Users can estimate damage andother earthquake effects and then map, display, and managethe results. Interoperability with other software is aided bythe use of standard third-party platforms, editable nationaldatabases, and access to external data and the capabilities ofother models.

With the completion of HAZUS-MH in February 2004, FEMAhas improved seismic hazard identification and riskassessment methods with the implementation of the fifthversion of its nationally applicable earthquake hazard model.HAZUS-MH supports the latest revision of the originalearthquake tool plus integrated multihazard analysis with newflood and hurricane damage models. A third-party integrationoption gives operational access to other natural and man-made hazard models. HAZUS-MH maintains two datamanagement tools designed to help users incorporate theirown detailed, site-specific data for more precise results:

• Building Inventory Tool (BIT) for tax assessor data.

• Inventory Collection and Survey Tool (InCAST) forbuilding data.

The updated Earthquake Model continues to enable bettercollaboration among federal, state and local agencies, and theprivate sector.

• HAZUS-MH is supporting state and local agencies inimplementing programs for Pre-Disaster Mitigation underthe Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

• HAZUS-MH is supporting a congressionally mandatedprogram to determine the benefits of mitigation.

• Twenty user groups consisting of public and privatesector HAZUS users have been formed in cities, such asLos Angeles and San Francisco, to discuss uses andapplications of HAZUS and to pool resources and data toidentify and carry out specific projects.

• Twice the number of emergency managers has beentrained to use HAZUS-MH than were trained in the 6years following the release of HAZUS97.

• The number of new users implementing HAZUS-MH isexpected to rise dramatically with the expansion ofcapability from earthquake-only to earthquake, hurricane,flood, and third-party software modeling.

HAZUS-MH’s latest earthquake software incorporates over 20databases including Census Bureau demographics and otherfederal resources.To refine and improve results, HAZUS canreadily import site-specific soils, liquefaction, building, andpopulation data from several common formats. HAZUS-MH’s

data management system is designed to permit futureoperation from the Internet.

The Earthquake Model provides estimates of damage toproperty, hospitals, fire and police stations, schools, bridgesand other transportation facilities, and utilities. Groundmotion and ground failure information is used to calculateearthquake damage.The model also addresses building debrisgeneration, fires that occur after earthquakes, casualties,shelter requirements, and economic losses.The EarthquakeModel includes the Advanced Engineering Building Modulefor analysis of earthquake resistant construction in individualand groups of buildings.

A sixth edition of the HAZUS Earthquake Model, which willbe released as part of HAZUS-MH MR1, will feature fasterruntimes for supporting rapid loss estimation duringearthquake response operations, a capability to add specializedlocal building types to the earthquake analysis, updated third-party software platforms, and numerous improvements basedon user input.

HAZUS-MH for earthquake analysis is available on acombination of CD-ROMs and DVDs from the FEMA websiteat www.fema.gov/hazus. From here, technical and softwareuser manuals are available for viewing or downloading.Technical support for HAZUS users is provided on-line, viatelephone and fax, and through FEMA-sponsored training.HAZUS-MH MR1 availability will be streamlined to a set ofDVDs.

The FEMA Region VII Earthquake Program continuespartnering with Missouri SEMA to reduce seismicvulnerability of facilities and systems. FEMA Region VII staffheld the kickoff meeting of the Heartland HAZUS UsersGroup in May 2004. Staff also partnered with the Universityof Missouri-Rolla (UMR) Hazard Mitigation Institute and theUMR School of Engineering to provide HAZUS-MH trainingto a class of 30 students from businesses, federal, state andlocal agencies, and UMR. Regional staff promoted earthquakesafety and the use of HAZUS through various exhibits andpresentations, including the 2003 Annual Conference of theAssociation of State Flood Plain Managers in St. Louis.Regional staff also serves on the Advisory Committee for theUSGS St. Louis Urban Seismic Mapping Project.


USGS national seismic hazard maps are used to develop new,unified building codes for the United States.The mapsintegrate geologic mapping, fault locations, fault slip rates,and earthquake recurrence intervals, and analyses of crustaldeformation, ground-motion patterns, and recent seismicity.These maps are in digital format and provide, as a function oflatitude and longitude, the maximum severity of ground-

34

shaking (in terms of horizontal acceleration) that can beexpected during exposure periods of 50, 100, and 250 years.The maps serve as the basis for applying the seismic designcriteria contained in the building codes, and the maps andtheir associated databases are also being used to predictearthquake losses and to define insurance risks.Thisearthquake hazard mapping effort includes Hawaii, PuertoRico, the U.S.Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.Periodic review and updating of the seismic hazard maps toincorporate new information are among the highest prioritiesfor the USGS.The USGS works closely with earthquakeresearchers, engineers, and state and local governmentrepresentatives across the United States to ensure that the basegeologic data represent the most current and accurateinformation available.

The USGS National Hazard Maps are the federal and industrystandard used throughout the country for Building SeismicDesign Codes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyrequirements, insurance-loss estimation, and hazardsassessment and emergency-response planning by FEMA.Updated and revised maps were published in FY 2002.Review and updating of the maps by USGS benefited fromthe participation of many state and federal agencies as well asthe private sector.The FY 2002 revision took into account awide range of recent research results related to pastearthquakes in various regions of the United States and relatedurban centers, including the Pacific Northwest (Seattle),southern California (Los Angeles), central California (SanFrancisco-Oakland), the Western States (Las Vegas, Salt LakeCity), the Central United States (Memphis, St. Louis), and the

Eastern United States (Boston, Charleston). USGS has begunplanning the process for the next periodic map update in2008.

A component of the seismic hazard assessment effort is thepreparation of design maps for use in model building codes.The USGS seismic hazard maps are incorporated into theNEHRP Recommended Provisions, which serve as the resourcedocuments for the IBC and the IRC.The IBC and IRC havelargely replaced regional-based codes in the United States, andwill be subject to periodic updates every 3 years. As part ofthe design map effort, USGS researchers released a CD-ROMthat allows designers to easily locate pertinent seismic mapdesign parameters; this single source for all designinformation represents a significant timesaving for designers.The model code groups include the CD with all copies of thecode document that are sold.

The national-scale earthquake hazards maps cannot take intoaccount variations in the amplitude and duration of seismicshaking caused by local geologic structures and soilconditions.The USGS generates products that address thespecific hazards in high- to moderate-risk urban areas, such asthe San Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles, California; Seattle,Washington; Salt Lake City, Utah; Memphis,Tennessee; andCharleston, South Carolina. Earthquake shaking scenarios arebeing developed for public planning, and modeling ofground motion is being provided for engineeringapplications. In conjunction with these products, the USGSconducts workshops to ensure the proper transfer ofknowledge and to help design effective mitigation.

The Memphis area is part of the NMSZ, an area of frequentearthquakes that stretches along the lower Mississippi Valleyjust west of Memphis,Tennessee, into southern Illinois. Moreearthquakes occur in this zone than any other part of theUnited States east of the Rockies.The USGS and the Center forEarthquake Research and Information (CERI) at the Universityof Memphis updated probabilities of earthquakes in theNMSZ.The new estimate is that there is a 7 to 10 percentchance, in the next 50 years, of a major earthquake similar tothe series of several magnitude 7 to 8 events that occurred in1811-1812, and a 25 to 40 percent chance of a magnitude6.0 or greater earthquake. A suite of detailed hazard maps forMemphis and Shelby County,Tennessee, were completed inFY 2003.These include new 1:24,000-scale geologic mapsfor Memphis; a map of seismic wave amplification potentialthat demonstrates the enhancement of seismic shaking nearthe Mississippi River; and a 3-D model of the sedimentarystructure and shear wave velocity of rocks and soilsunderlying the city, used to predict the path of seismic waves.Together with Georgia Tech, the USGS developed a newmethodology for calculating the potential for soil liquefactionduring strong shaking and applying the method in maps forthe Memphis and Shelby County areas. In a dramatic phase of

35

Debris generated from a HAZUS simulated earthquake scenario.

the work, large blasts were detonated deep within sedimentsalong the Mississippi River to simulate an earthquake, helpingscientists to understand how seismic “waves” move throughthe deep sand and clay layers of sediment that arecharacteristic of the region. In this experiment, USGSscientists used newly-installed strong motion seismographs,part of the ANSS, to record the explosions and learn moreabout how buildings and other infrastructure are affected byground shaking. Builders, developers, and the insuranceindustry can factor this kind of earthquake shakinginformation into how and where buildings are built and howbuilding codes and zoning regulations are developed. Earthscientists and engineers will use the information to studyseismic wave propagation and soil amplification, to estimateearthquake hazard, and to develop safer structures.

Extending back into the 17th century, there is a record ofearthquakes striking various locations in the central UnitedStates. In FY 2001, the USGS published a new full-color wallposter map of the central United States showing all of thehistoric earthquakes recorded or otherwise known to haveoccurred in the region since 1699.The map area includes thewell-known NMSZ.The poster map (USGS GeologicInvestigations Series I-2812) is an important educational toolfor the population in the region and also serves as a planningdocument for agencies such as the CUSEC and FEMA forpromoting earthquake preparedness.

USGS recently unveiled an up-to-date and comprehensivenationwide compilation of information on known orsuspected active faults. Accessible via a user-friendly Webinterface at: http://Qfaults.cr.usgs.gov/, the databasesummarizes geologic, geomorphic, and geographic data forabout 2,000 faults in the United States that are believed to besources of earthquakes greater than magnitude 6 and havingdocumented activity during the past 1.6 million years. Muchof the information is based on paleoseismology, which is thegeologic study of prehistoric earthquakes. Paleoseismologycombines geologic tools such as trenching witharcheological-style analysis to determine the times and sizesof ancient earthquakes in the Quaternary Period.The databaseis designed to fulfill the needs of a broad group of users,ranging from the science community to the general public.The seismic hazard assessment community will benefit frompublic access to all data available on potential earthquakesources in one location.The database will allow these users toidentify faults that have likely produced strong groundmotion in the geologically recent past and that maycontribute to future seismic hazards. Other potential usersinclude the earthquake-engineering community, the insuranceindustry, and companies managing large infrastructures, suchas pipelines or power-transmission networks. In addition,state and local planners can use the database to locatepotential earthquake sources on maps. Similarly, emergencyresponse officials can use the database to plan earthquake

drills and to identify and fortify critical infrastructure nearactive faults. Finally, the general public is becomingincreasingly aware of potential hazards in their environment.The USGS, as well as State Geological Surveys, frequently arecalled upon to respond to questions regarding the location ofhazardous faults that may impact the lives of the population atlarge.

Regional Consortia

Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup

For the Cascadia Scenario Project, CREW Board members areworking jointly with the Oregon DOGAMI to prepare adocument describing the seismic risks facing the CascadiaRegion.This is a follow-up to the HAZUS working groupproducts completed last year.The CREW leadership alsoattended a HAZUS training program held at FEMA’s EMI andsupported the Washington State HAZUS Users Group.

Central United States Earthquake Consortium

The Association of CUSEC State Geologists has continued tolook at ways to improve seismic hazard identification and riskassessment methods and their use.Working in collaborationwith other CUSEC partners, the Association has developed amapping partnership that includes the USGS-Mid AmericaMapping Center, the CUSEC State Transportation Task Force,and the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. Efforts haveconsisted of collection of shear wave data for the purpose ofrevising the Borcherdt Soils Classification. In support of thiseffort, workshops were held to demonstrate the benefits ofusing geoscience products at the community level.

CUSEC also sponsored field trips during this period toobserve field work by the USGS in collecting shear waveinformation throughout the central United States.The fieldtrips provided an opportunity for researchers and non-researchers to discuss the importance of this type of work andhow it can be used.The interaction has resulted in the pursuitof additional field investigations in other areas of the centralUnited States.

During this period, new seismic recording instruments wereinstalled in New Harmony, Indiana, further enhancing thelimited seismic network in the central United States.

One of the most promising tools for identifying andultimately improving the region’s seismic risk is HAZUS.Participants at introductory workshops represented local andstate government, as well as university students.

To improve the understanding of earthquakes and theireffects, CUSEC offered a number of workshops specificallyfocused on the earthquake hazard and its associated risk.The

36

understanding of the earthquake risk is directly tied to theunderstanding of the hazard in the central United States.Thelow recurrence intervals of seismic events, and the longerreturn periods between them, contributes to a lack ofunderstanding.Working with the USGS, the Association ofCUSEC State Geologists has provided basic Earthquake 101workshops to increase the level of understanding not only forthose who are responsible for the community’s safety, but alsofor those who can be champions for the cause.

A considerable amount of work has also gone into preparingfor the next damaging event so that valuable information isnot lost.The coordination of the research response is anessential element in this effort. It is also important that thecollection of this information does not interrupt theemergency response that would take place.To address theseissues, CUSEC organized a committee to assist in thedevelopment of a research coordination plan.The PostEarthquake Technical Clearinghouse Plan will help assure asmooth co-existence between the research and emergencyresponse efforts.

Northeast States Emergency Consortium

NESEC established a HAZUS-MH and GIS Assistance andCoordination Center within its existing office in Wakefield,Massachusetts. NESEC’s priority is to provide direct support tothose Northeast State Emergency Management Agencies thatpresently do not have the resources and staff to develop an in-house GIS and HAZUS-MH capability.


Alaska

Alaska is using VRISKMap® software to facilitate risk andvulnerability analysis from earthquake and other naturalhazards. The software allows Mitigation Staff to overlayhazard maps, delineate by degree of hazard, and run queriesgiving population and infrastructure associated information todetermine potential impact and estimated losses. Alaska iscurrently assisting its largest communities and boroughs withdeveloping Local All-Hazard Mitigation Plans to fulfill theDisaster Mitigation Act of 2000 criteria. These plans areessential for identifying the risks, vulnerabilities, and theeconomic impact to the State’s population and infrastructurefrom natural hazards, such as Alaska’s extensive earthquakehazard. These plans cover approximately 83 percent ofAlaska’s population. Mitigation Plans will soon becoordinated with a web-based interface usingMitigationPlan.com® software to facilitate associating localhazard mitigation plans, hazard data, strategies, goals, andinitiatives with the State Plan.

Arkansas

Arkansas has trained several local coordinators and economicdevelopment districts on planning for disasters, developingrisk assessments, and identifying their hazards. Currently,Arkansas and several of its counties are using HAZUS to runrisk assessments and to help develop their local hazardmitigation plans.

California

OES Earthquake Program staff continues to serve on theHAZUS Earthquake committee and as beta testers for theearthquake module of HAZUS-MH. Staff performs benchmarkevaluations of beta versions before formal release by FEMA.HAZUS continues to be used extensively by OES GIS staff innorthern and southern California in the development ofplanning scenarios for state agencies and local governments.OES uses both HAZUS generated ground motions as well asShakeMap ground motion maps to generate earthquake lossestimates. Staff also continues to participate in the HAZUSUsers Groups in the Bay Area and southern California andwith the ESRI HAZUS Users.

OES used HAZUS to provide initial assessments of damage inthe San Simeon earthquake (December 22, 2003) and for theParkfield earthquake in 2004. In both earthquakes, HAZUSestimates with ShakeMap input were used to assist state andlocal agencies and FEMA in determining response priorities.

Hawaii

HSEAC successfully implemented the HAZUS Earthquake LossEstimation Methodology using a newly constructed BuildingInventory Database for Hawaii and Maui Counties that yieldmore accurate damage results. Moreover, during a destructiveHawaii earthquake event, the Pacific Disaster Center (PDC)will generate a HAZUS report and construct a power pointgraphics briefing within 60 minutes after earthquake origintime for critical decision-making by the Hawaii EmergencyManagement community.

HSEAC and the PDC developed a HAZUS Atlas of 20 credibleearthquake damage scenarios for use in community planningin mitigation, preparedness, and emergency response andrecovery.

Idaho

The Bureau of Disaster Services and Idaho Geological Surveyare working with network operators, end-users, andrepresentatives of USGS to develop a plan to implement theANSS in the state and to resuscitate failing networks.The planis available at the Bureau of Disaster Services website,http://www2.state.id.us/bdsmitigation/resources_doc.html#.

37

Urban geologic hazard mapping is a high priority in Idaho.The Idaho Geological Survey has completed updated versionsof the Idaho fault map, posted on the Survey’s website(http://www.idahogeology.org/Services/GeologicHazards/default.htm).The Survey also completed quaternary maps innorthern, western, and central Idaho that address landslideand faulting hazards.

Missouri

SEMA continues to partner with the Missouri DNR to addressearthquake geologic issues and provide support to the SeismicSafety Commission. DNR collects, interprets, and providesgeologic information, maps, and reports regarding thepotential for geologic hazards, including earthquakes,landslides, and sinkhole collapses. DNR also continuesmapping Missouri’s geologically seismic areas, an effortinitiated with NEHRP seed money provided by FEMA and theUSGS.

New Jersey

The New Jersey earthquake hazard reduction programemphasis during FY 2003-2004 has been a continuing effortto populate the HAZUS loss estimation model in concert withNew York State and New York City through a cooperative,multi-agency organization known as NYCEM (New York AreaConsortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation). Under thismulti-year program, data for counties radiating outward fromthe New York metropolitan area has been developed andintegrated into the HAZUS model.

New Jersey data for HAZUS is provided by two organizationsunder contract from the New Jersey Office of EmergencyManagement.The New Jersey Geological Survey (NJGS)provides geological and earthquake history data. During2003-2004, the NJGS completed geologic databases forMiddlesex County and Passaic County. An engineeringconsulting firm provided structural and census information in2003-2004 and completed studies for Morris, Middlesex, andPassaic Counties.

Middlesex CountyGeologic, topographic, and test-boring data were acquiredand analyzed to map seismic soil class, liquefactionsusceptibility, and landslide susceptibility for MiddlesexCounty.The soil class, liquefaction susceptibility, and landslidesusceptibility data were entered into the HAZUS model foreach census tract in the county.The HAZUS model was runwith the full upgraded geologic data and with the defaultgeologic data for earthquake magnitudes of 5.5 and 6.Toassess the effect of liquefaction, runs were also made with fullupgraded geology and with upgrade without liquefaction formagnitudes 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, and 7.The upgraded geologychanged both the spatial distribution of damage and the totaldamage estimates compared to default geology.The upgradedgeology produced greater building damage in the lowerRaritan River valley and Arthur Kill areas of the county, wheresalt-marsh soils are softer and more liquefiable than thedefault, and less building damage in most other areas, wheretill, weathered-bedrock soils, and Cretaceous clay and sand arestronger than the default. Because most soils in the county arestronger than the default, the total economic loss is between10 and 20 percent less with the upgraded geologic data thanwith the default data at all magnitudes. Adding liquefaction

38

Earthquake Loss Estimation using HAZUS.

increases building damage about 10 percent in susceptiblecensus tracts, especially at magnitudes less than 7, but resultsin less than a 5 percent increase in total loss for the entirecounty.This is a minimum value because the model does notcalculate damage to roads, railways, and underground utilitiescaused by liquefaction. Structures particularly susceptible todamage from permanent ground displacement, such aspipelines and bridges, show significantly increased breakagewhen liquefaction is added.

In addition to the HAZUS data upgrades and runs, shear-wavevelocity was measured on four soil types (Cretaceous clay,Cretaceous sand, Pensauken Formation sand and gravel, andstream-terrace sand) at a total of 12 locations.Thesemeasurements were made to check the soil-class assignments,which use test-drilling data as a proxy for shear-wave velocity.The measured velocities generally confirmed the assignments.Weathering reduces velocities in the near-surface parts ofCretaceous sand and clay, an effect previously observed in tillin glaciated terrain.

Passaic CountyGeologic, topographic, and test-boring data were acquiredand analyzed to map seismic soil class, liquefactionsusceptibility, and landslide susceptibility for Passaic County.The soil class, liquefaction susceptibility, and landslidesusceptibility data were entered into the HAZUS model foreach census tract in the county.The HAZUS model was runwith the full upgraded geologic data and with the defaultgeologic data for earthquake magnitudes of 5.5 and 6.Toassess the effect of landslides, runs were also made with fullupgraded geology and with upgraded geology withoutlandslide hazard for magnitudes 5.5, 6, and 7.The upgradedgeology changed both the spatial distribution of damage andthe total damage estimates compared to default geology. Theupgraded geology produced greater building damage in thePompton River valley, Preakness Valley, and parts of the PassaicRiver valley, where glacial-lake and alluvial soils are moreliquefiable than the default, and less building damage in mostother areas, where till, bedrock, and glacial gravel are strongerthan the default and have low liquefaction susceptibility.

In addition to the HAZUS data upgrades and runs, shear-wavevelocity was measured on four soil types (alluvium, glacialsand, glacial gravel, and till) at 12 locations.Thesemeasurements were made to check the soil-class assignments,which use test-drilling data as a proxy for shear-wave velocity.The measured velocities confirmed the assignments.

Over the past 2 years, three studies were performed using thesoil information and geologic data to forecast the losses thatMorris, Passaic, and Middlesex Counties could suffer after anearthquake.These studies describe the scale and extent ofdamage and disruption that may result from potentialearthquakes in these counties and compliment current and

past earthquake loss-estimation work in Bergen, Essex,Hudson, and Union Counties, as well as the greater NY-CT-NJMetropolitan Region. An improved building inventory for thecounties was established for implementation in HAZUS.Theinfrastructure represents a combined 1.1 billion square feet,and a total replacement value of $73.1 billion. Almost543,000 households are in these counties, representing a totalpopulation of 1.7 million.

New YorkA preliminary forecast of the type of losses that the New YorkCity area could suffer after an earthquake is the subject of astudy funded by FEMA Region II and coordinated by MCEER.The initial stages of this study involved fact-finding andassessment, with the development of preliminary soil mapsand building inventories.The primary objective of this studywas to carry out an initial risk characterization for Manhattanbelow 59th Street.The report documents the findings of apreliminary study focusing on seismic risks in the New YorkCity area.

The tasks of this study were to:

• Become familiar with earthquake loss estimationmethodologies and HAZUS.

• Perform HAZUS scenario runs in the New York City areausing default soil and building information supplied bythe HAZUS code.

• Perform HAZUS scenario runs using two representativecensus tracts in Manhattan to examine the sensitivity ofloss estimation to different soil conditions and differentbuilding inventories.

The preliminary results of the research indicate:

• Dramatic differences in total loss estimates between runsdone with default values and runs done with improvedestimates of soil conditions and building inventories.

• Differences are more dramatic for smaller magnitudeevents.

• Total loss estimates in the modified runs can differsignificantly with those of the default (by more than afactor of 10).

• The effect of switching to better estimates of buildinginventory can be as important as the effect of switchingto better estimates of soil conditions.

• Parts of New York City have the unique characteristic of aconsiderable percentage of tall buildings.

39

• It is of paramount importance to establish betterestimates for soil conditions and building inventory forthe entire New York City area.

During the last 2 years, work refining the research to developa more accurate loss estimate was undertaken.This included:

• Providing better data for building age, type, quality,height, square footage, and seismic design level, andperforming sensitivity analyses to determine their relativeimportance.

• Upgrading soil and building inventory information forthe entire New York City area.

• Developing and upgrading more accurate fragility curvesfor the type of buildings unique to the New York Cityarea.

The goal of this loss estimation project is provide aframework for businesses and agencies to take mitigationactions to reduce potential damage and losses from anearthquake.

The New York State Emergency Management Office has beenan active user of HAZUS since it was first introduced byFEMA in 1994. Major efforts have included collaboration withthe NYCEM study of the New York metro area; spearheadingefforts with the New York State Geological Survey in shearwave velocity testing of the state’s surficial geology, leading tothe development of county level HAZUS ready soil siteclassification maps; a HAZUS validation study based on acomparison of observed versus modeled losses from theAusable Forks, New York earthquake; incorporation ofHAZUS-based risk assessments into the State HazardMitigation Plan; and assisting New York City Office ofEmergency Management in adopting and using HAZUS.

Vermont

For the first prototype of a pre-disaster mitigation plan inVermont, the Vermont Geological Survey ran a number ofHAZUS-MH scenarios to predict earthquake damage inAddison County. The earthquake estimation and loss datawere transferred to plans that will be adopted by towns aspreparation for earthquake events.The State of Vermontrecently submitted to FEMA the Draft State Hazard MitigationPlan. The Vermont Geological Survey supplied HAZUS-MHinformation for the plan based on postulated events in andaround Vermont. HAZUS-MH was used for the critical portionof the plan to indicate risk, vulnerability, and estimatinglosses.

Washington

The State of Washington produced reconnaissance NEHRP siteclass maps and liquefaction susceptibility maps for everycounty in the state. Detailed maps were prepared for selectcities.The project was funded by an HMGP grant awardedafter the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake.The mapssupport state IBC/IRC implementation and are used inmitigation and preparedness planning at the state and locallevel.

In partnership with the NTHMP and the NOAA Center forTIME,Washington produced tsunami hazard maps for Seattle,Whidbey Island, Bellingham, and Anacortes.The maps areused in land use planning at the state, county, and communitylevel, and in response-planning activities at state and locallevel.

Washington continued the collaborated effort with FEMA andFEMA Region X to teach HAZUS locally to the public andprivate sector.The HAZUS course has been updated to teachHAZUS-MH and is followed up with one-on-one trainingwithin the local jurisdiction to ensure that HAZUS is correctlyloaded and used. A Washington HAZUS Users Group (HUG)meets monthly and works with various jurisdictions/privateentities on HAZUS issues and better data sharing among all

40

Generated by HAZUS, this map describes the distribution of soil/rock typesacross the island, with higher elevations in uptown Manhattan on stiffrock/soil (Class B), intermediate type C in Midtown, and softsoil (Class D) inlower Manhattan, along the identified fault zones in Upper Manhattan and inlow-lying, coastal areas.

state HAZUS users.The course allows students to deal withlocal issues and focuses on a multi-disciplinary approach tousing HAZUS for hazard mitigation. HAZUS training is moreaccessible to the local communities and provides theopportunity for the emergency manager and others to takeHAZUS directly to local officials and community groups.

The City of Seattle completed a HAZUS Pilot Project ondesignated schools.The project used HAZUS-MH to supportemergency response plans for schools in the Seattle PublicSchool District. It emphasized the seismic vulnerabilities ofschool facilities, nearby bridges, and other resources uponwhich the schools would depend in an emergency. UsingHAZUS-MH, each “Hazard Impact Area” was analyzed basedon several earthquake scenarios to produce damage estimatesthat will later be used to support mitigation and preparationplanning.The project also produced two maps for eachparticipating school showing resources in their area.The goalis to develop a template that school districts in Washington

can use to assess their school structures and developappropriate mitigation and preparedness plans.

Other Organizations


In 2003, the University of California, Berkeley EERI Studentchapter, together with leading practicing engineers in EERI,partnered with the City of Berkeley to conduct a walkabout,to help city officials identify and inventory seismicallyvulnerable multi-unit, soft story buildings in theircommunity.The students were excited to put their academicknowledge to such practical use and further reinforced theirdecision to make earthquake engineering a career.


For the past several years, MCEER has been developing, underthe sponsorship of the FHWA, a new methodology fordeterministic and probabilistic seismic risk analysis ofhighway systems nationwide. MCEER has recentlyimplemented this new methodology into a public-domainsoftware package named REDARS (Risks from EarthquakeDamage to Roadway Systems).

This software has since become an important tool in enablingresearch collaboration between the three EERCs. For example,CALTRANS has initiated a trial study to apply REDARS to aregion of the Bay Area Highway Network.While CALTRANSfunding for this project is from outside the three EERCs, thePEER Center and MCEER-FHWA are providing input to theproject. MCEER-FHWA is providing technical support for amore user-friendly demonstration version of REDARS. PEER issharing data sets developed previously in its own HighwayDemonstration Project of the Bay Area and is interested incooperating on the implementation of enhanced bridgeperformance models and hazard modules in REDARS.TheMAE Center also is exploring whether REDARS couldpotentially be used for a small region, e.g., Memphis, to serveas a validation/calibration to the more global loss modelingwork by MAE researchers. Facilities and modules in REDARSthat are amenable to implementation within the MAE CenterVisualization module MAEVIZ are also being considered aspart of this tri-center collaboration.

MCEER has produced seismic risk analysis software calledREDARS 1.0 that will allow transportation asset owners toperform network analysis for pre-event planning and post-event response. A validation study was successfully completedusing historical data in the Los Angeles metropolitan area andin June 2003, MCEER hosted a researcher and user workshopto verify the direction of product development being done toproduce REDARS 2.0. Completed work consists of (a)

41

Tsunami hazard map of Seattle.

developing a public-domain version of software (REDARS2.0) that will be based on the seismic risk analysismethodology; (b) expanding various technical features of thehazards and component modules of this software; (c)programming new variance-reduction and decision-guidancethat will substantially reduce the number of scenarioearthquakes and simulations needed to achieve givenconfidence levels and limits for probabilistic applications ofthe REDARS methodology for seismic risk analysis of highwaysystems; and (d) documentation of alternative approaches forrepresenting relative costs and risks of various highwaysystem seismic risk reduction options that may be evaluatedin future applications of REDARS.

MCEER also is developing fragility curves for seismicallyretrofitted bridges and effects on transportation networkperformance.


Soil-structure interaction is where energy and motion aretransferred from the soil to a structure or building.This is anarea of complex activity during earthquakes. By developingtools to reduce the uncertainty in models for soils structureinteraction, engineers can better understand the performanceof foundation elements, buildings, and structures duringearthquakes.The PEER center is creating tools for computingsoil structure interaction using the OpenSees platform.

A major Lifelines Program project kicked off by the PEERCenter is the Next Generation of Attenuation Project.Thisproject is made up of many individual projects in the PEERLifelines program. It is anticipated that the updatedattenuation relations will lower uncertainty levels compared tothe current versions, thereby potentially driving down thecost of future structures.The project will also develop newcomputer models describing how soil or geologic structurecan increase ground motion under certain conditions.Thiseffort uses personnel from the PEER Center universities,consultants, the USGS, the California Geological Survey, theCalifornia Department of Transportation, and the SCEC.

Recognizing the need to improve access to earthquake groundmotion data, PEER embarked on an effort to create a web-based, searchable database of strong ground motion data.Thefirst step was to gather the most important records fromaround the world.The next step was to ensure that all the datahad been processed consistently and reliably.The third stepwas to gather related information, such as earthquakemagnitude, distance, site conditions, and other relevantengineering parameters. Finally, PEER created the onlinedatabase to make all the information available. In itscompleted form, the PEER Strong Motion Database bringstogether over 1,500 strong ground motion records from 143different earthquakes in a web-accessible format.

NEHRP Accomplishments:Goal D

Activities under Goal D comprise the basic researchcomponent of the NEHRP and cover a range of disciplinesfrom geology to seismology, to earthquake engineering andstructural engineering, to the behavioral and economicsciences. NSF and USGS are the two primary NEHRP agenciessupporting Goal D, with USGS emphasizing geologic andseismologic disciplines and NSF supporting these areas, inaddition to studies of the built environment and thebehavioral and economic impact of earthquakes.

Goal D: Improve the understanding of earthquakesand their effects and consequences

1: Improve monitoring of earthquakes and earthquake-generating processes.

2: Improve understanding of earthquake occurrence andpotential.

3: Improve earthquake hazards assessments and developearthquake-potential estimates as planning scenarios.

4: Improve fundamental knowledge of earthquake effects.

5: Advance earthquake engineering knowledge of the builtenvironment.

6: Advance understanding of the social and economicimplications of earthquakes.

The NEHRP Agencies


The NSF created and continues to fund the George E. Brown,Jr. NEES, a major national infrastructure project to create acomplete system of test facilities that will revolutionizeearthquake engineering research.The project was initiated byNSF and the earthquake engineering community in responseto a congressional mandate (NEHRP Reauthorization Act of1994) to take stock of the Nation’s experimental and testingcapabilities in earthquake engineering.

NEES will operate from October 1, 2004, through September30, 2014, and will be managed by the nonprofit NEESConsortium, Inc., which will allocate research time atequipment sites; lead training, education, and outreachactivities; and establish ties with U.S. and internationalpartners.The NEES will upgrade, modernize, expand, andnetwork major facilities, including:

42

• Shake tables used for earthquake simulations

• Geotechnical centrifuges for testing soils/foundationsunder earthquake loading

• Tsunami wave basin for earthquake simulations

• Large-scale experimentation systems, e.g., reaction walland modular simulation equipment

• Field monitoring and testing facilities

The NEES is using ultra-high-speed Internet2 technology tolink 15 nationally distributed earthquake research facilities.NEES’ collaborative and integrated experimentation,computation, theory, databases, and model-based simulationwill improve the seismic design and performance of U.S. civiland mechanical infrastructure systems.The NEES networkprovides interoperability, resource sharing, scalable, andefficient net-wide deployment, open-system standardization,database consistency and integrity, and modularity in bothsoftware and hardware architectures.

NEES will lead to a new era of collaboration in earthquakeengineering research.Teams of experts in the United Statesand around the world will have the unprecedentedopportunity to jointly plan, conduct, and analyze the resultsof experiments and models. Easy access to the Network’sresources will facilitate broad participation-both informallyand through official partnerships-by many communities ofusers, including researchers, educators, students, engineers,government agencies, professional organizations, industry, anddisaster preparedness and response teams. Individuals andteams can take part in NEES activities onsite or at remotelocations and can participate in different kinds of research,from individual and small group studies to “grand challenge”projects in which teams from different institutions andorganizations pursue a comprehensive systems approach to aspecific, broad-based earthquake engineering problem.

To help guide NEES through the next decade, a panelorganized by the National Research Council (NRC) of theNational Academies has developed a long-term researchagenda for the earthquake engineering research community.This plan identifies important research needs that are wellsuited to investigate techniques involving NEES equipmentsites and resources, especially with regard to the integratedresearch approach that the Network embodies. NEES researchwill provide the foundation for the development of newtechnologies in critical areas such as:

• High-performance materials used to strengthenbuildings, bridges, soils, and critical lifelines;

• Performance-based engineering involving codes anddecisions related to seismic risk, new designs, andretrofitting

• Structural controls to protect buildings, bridges, andother structures

• Monitoring tools and sensors to conduct rapid post-earthquake condition assessment of the built environment

• Advanced warning systems to protect coastal regionsfrom earthquake-generated tsunamis

• In situ evaluation and remediation to improve and stabilizesoil response during earthquakes

• Improved techniques to protect critical lifelines such asabove- and below-ground fuel, water, and sewer pipelinesand electrical, communication, and transit systems duringearthquakes

• Improved simulation tools for analyzing more completeand comprehensive models of seismic performance

• Methods to improve decision making with regard toplanning and evacuation, emergency response, and post-earthquake recovery

NEES ushers in a new generation of earthquake engineeringresearch. Enhanced understanding of earthquakes and seismicperformance made possible by the Network’s people, ideas,and tools will lead to innovative, cost-effective measures forbetter protecting the vast network of facilities and services onwhich everyone depends.


The USGS has the federal responsibility for monitoring andnotification of seismic activity in the United States.The USGSfulfills this role by operating the U.S. National SeismographNetwork (USNSN), the National Earthquake InformationCenter (NEIC), and the National Strong Motion Program(NSMP), and by supporting 16 regional networks in areas ofmoderate-to-high seismic activity. All of these efforts are

43

A tsunami wave basin.

coordinated under the ANSS, http://www.anss.org/.TheUSGS also supports geodetic monitoring systems that measurethe static deformation of the Earth’s crust due to earthquakesand earthquake-generating processes.The geodeticmonitoring is done with high-precision, land-basedsurveying techniques and the satellite-based GPS. Data derivedfrom these monitoring systems are used to identify seismichazards and, following an earthquake, to rapidly characterizethe probable size and extent of damage, assess the continuingrisks from aftershocks and related ground-motion andground-failure hazards, and facilitate the work of responseofficials.

The USGS and cooperating universities operate regionalseismic networks in areas of high seismicity. Data from all U.S.seismic networks are used to monitor active tectonicstructures in much greater detail than is possible with thenational scale network. Each region has a local data centerwhere the data are processed and regional catalogues ofearthquakes are produced.These data centers serve as localdistribution points for transmitting information aboutearthquakes to the public, local and state agencies, and otherregional interests.The regional data centers relay earthquakedata in real time to the NEIC as well as to other regionalnetworks. Data centers also provide information aboutregional earthquake hazards and accepted mitigationpractices, and those data centers located at universities providetraining and research facilities for students.

Conventional seismometers used in earthquake monitoringnetworks cannot accurately record strong ground andbuilding motions caused by large, nearby earthquakes; yetthese technical data are extremely valuable for the design ofearthquake-resistant buildings and other structures.Throughthe NSMP, the USGS maintains about 840 strong motionrecorders in 35 states and territories.The strong motion datashow the amplitude, frequency content, and duration ofstrong accelerations caused by an earthquake.Theseparameters are direct inputs to computer models and scalemodels of structures to test their performance under realisticearthquake shaking.

Geodetic networks provide essential information aboutmovement of the land surface near faults and earthquakesource zones.The USGS is working with universities and localagencies to conduct geodetic investigations using GPS andlaser-ranging surveys. A dense network of continuous GPSstations is being installed in southern California incooperation with the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA), NSF, and Scripps University todetermine the distribution of long-term crustal deformationand the spatial and temporal variations of the strain field.During the next year, with funding support from USGS

cooperators, new stations will be sited and installed,communications and data retrieval operations will bedeveloped, and processing and archiving centers will beestablished.The USGS has a lead role in the operation of thenetwork, with responsibility to maintain stations anddownload and interpret the data. In addition, the USGS isinvestigating a new satellite technology, InterferometricSynthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), that has the potential ofquickly and accurately providing large aerial maps of pre- andpost-earthquake land deformation.Work is under way todevelop computational tools necessary to efficiently analyze,interpret, and model InSAR data.The InSAR results insouthern California will be used to augment, check, and, ifnecessary, correct the independent GPS measurements.

In 2000, Congress authorized the upgrade of the seismicmonitoring networks in the United States through theimplementation of the ANSS.The ANSS initiative is being usedto improve the performance and integration of the nationaland regional seismic monitoring networks whenever fundsare available.The primary goals are to unify, modernize, andexpand earthquake monitoring equipment and activities inthe United States. Implementation of an ANSS would involvefive basic components: (1) an expanded U.S. NationalSeismograph Network; (2) expanded and modernizedregional networks; (3) creation of dense networks of urbanstations capable of monitoring strong motion both on theground and in structures; (4) two portable, temporaryseismograph arrays that can be rapidly deployed following anearthquake; and (5) upgrade and integration of regional andnational recording centers with the capability ofdisseminating data and information in real time. An importantemphasis of ANSS is improved monitoring in metropolitanareas in regions of high-to-moderate seismic risk. In total,ANSS envisions the addition of 6,000 new seismicmonitoring instruments in over 25 urban centers; 3,000 ofthese would be deployed in reference sites, i.e., ground based,and an additional 3,000 in structures. Implementation ofANSS would also result in improved integration of existingnetworks and the replacement of obsolete equipment at1,000 stations in regional networks across the Nation.

As part of the expansion and modernization of earthquakemonitoring in the United States that is being carried outthrough the development of ANSS, USGS installed 64 seismicstations in FY 2004, significantly expanding the ANSS andmeeting its Government Performance Results Act (GPRA)targets and increasing the total number of ANSS urban andregional monitoring stations. A major accomplishment wasthe expansion of the ANSS national seismic “backbone”network from 53 to 63 stations.This backbone networkprovides a nationwide earthquake detection capability ofmagnitude 3.5 or better–essentially allowing the rapid

44

technical characterization of all felt earthquakes.This has beena major program goal for many years, and its achievementmeans that a key performance target of the program’s Five-Year Plan has been met–nearly 4 years ahead of schedule.ANSS is also working with the NSF to expand the backbonenetwork to 80 stations. NSF will provide funding in FY 2005-FY 2006 for 17 new ANSS backbone stations and 8 stationupgrades as part of their EarthScope research initiative. USGSwill install, operate, and maintain the stations as part of ANSS.The design goal for the ANSS backbone network is 100stations, with a national earthquake detection capability ofmagnitude 3.0.

The ANSS initiative provides comprehensive new data onearthquake ground-shaking in urban areas. ShakeMap, aflagship product of the ANSS, is a tool used to rapidly portraythe extent of potentially damaging shaking following anearthquake. It is generated and served via the Internet withinminutes of the earthquake, and is used primarily foremergency response, loss estimation, and public information.ShakeMap coverage areas include urbanized areas ofCalifornia, the Seattle-Tacoma metro area, Anchorage, and theReno/Las Vegas corridor. Efforts are underway to bring thesystem online in the Memphis/New Madrid region asinstrumentation in these areas increases. Maps madeimmediately after the 2003 San Simeon (M6.5) and 2004(M6.0) Parkfield, California earthquakes were used by avariety of agencies and responders, although the impact ofboth earthquakes was relatively low due to their remotelocations.

ShakeCast is a fully automated system designed to deliverspecific ShakeMap products to critical users and trigger

established post-earthquake response protocols. ShakeCastprovides utilities and other large organizations withinstantaneous, hierarchical listings of users’ affected facilities,notifies users (via pager, cell phone, e-mail) when user-setthresholds have been exceeded, and automatically initiatesother software systems, e.g., loss estimation, GIS. Currently, theCALTRANS Bridge Engineering Division and PG&E are testingthe prototype system. CALTRANS has over 25,000 bridgesand overpasses under their responsibility in California andwill use ShakeCast to construct an instantaneous snapshot ofthe likely damage to each, thereby allowing them to prioritizetraffic rerouting, closures, and inspections following adamaging earthquake. In 2005, USGS will be coordinatingwith several other large, critical facility agencies to implementShakeCast, including the California Department of WaterResources (Division of Dam Safety),Washington Departmentof Transportation,Washington State and the City of SeattleEmergency Management Divisions, FEMA, and the LADPW.Deployment of ShakeCast to better use USGS ShakeMaps willgreatly enhance these agencies’ ability to respond to andrecover from earthquakes.

The USGS Community Internet Intensity Map is an automaticweb-based system for rapidly generating seismic intensitymaps based on reports collected from Internet usersimmediately following earthquakes.These volunteer reportsare plotted on a map and provide a general, regional pictureof how widely and intensely an earthquake was felt.Thesemaps also provide important information on regional-to-localvariations in shaking intensity and are particularly valuable inareas with few seismometers.This system—popularly knownas “Did you feel it?”—has now received over 1/2 millionindividual responses in the United States. Based on this

45

Existing and proposed ANSS stations and shaking hazards in the US.

success, the system was recently expanded to work in all areasof the world. Rather than ZIP codes, international Internetusers simply pick from over 55,000 cities; their local intensityof shaking gets instantly mapped based on the city locationand is available to all via the Internet.This worked well for arecent magnitude 5.9 earthquake in Romania, with reports ofshaking coming in from six different countries the day afterthe system went online. Further efforts to increase awarenessof the global system will be made in the 2005.The globalmaps can be found at http://earthquake.usgs.gov under “DidYou Feel It?’’ by selecting “Outside US.”

The USGS, along with NSF, funds the SCEC, a 40-institutionresearch consortium headquartered at the University ofSouthern California. SCEC was founded in 1991 with amission to gather new information about earthquakes insouthern California, integrate this information into acomprehensive and predictive understanding of earthquakephenomena, and communicate this understanding to end-users and the general public to increase earthquake awareness,reduce economic losses, and save lives. Leading scientists frominstitutions throughout the country participate in SCEC.Tosupport this community, SCEC also engages in informationtechnology research that will revolutionize methods of doingcollaborative research and distributing research products on-line. In addition, the SCEC Communication, Education, andOutreach Program offers student research experiences, web-based education tools, classroom curricula, museum displays,public information brochures, online newsletters, andtechnical workshops and publications.

Three notable domestic earthquakes occurred during thisreporting period. USGS scientists studied the short- and long-term effects from the magnitude 7.9 Denali earthquake whichrocked Alaska on November 3, 2002.This was one of thelargest recorded earthquakes in our Nation’s history, causingcountless landslides and road closures, but minimal structuraldamage and amazingly few injuries and no deaths.Theremote location of the earthquake helped ensure that it wasnot more devastating; however, advanced seismic monitoringfrom the USGS and partners, long-term research, and acommitment to hazard preparedness and mitigation alsoplayed key roles. For example, in the late 1960s and early1970s, USGS scientists serving on a federal task force wereinstrumental in ensuring that the Alaska pipeline wasdesigned and built to withstand the effects of a magnitude8.0 earthquake. USGS design guidance proved to be on-target,and the pipeline suffered little damage.This earthquake islikely similar to ones destined to occur on the San AndreasFault, in particular its northern portion that ruptured in 1906,and its southernmost reaches near Palm Springs and SanDiego, which last ruptured around the year 1640. Such anearthquake could have disastrous impacts on the denselypopulated urban areas nearby.Therefore, scientists are makingdetailed observations of the earthquake, including the

ruptured ground surface along the Denali fault line, strongseismic shaking, and induced landslides and liquefaction inthe region, to more accurately assess the hazards from suchearthquakes and relay those assessments to local officials inways that could be acted upon.

The M6.5 San Simeon earthquake occurred on December 22,2003, with an epicenter near the Pacific coast in centralCalifornia.While it did not rupture the surface, the quaketriggered landslides and caused strong shaking, with theworst damage in Paso Robles, 24 miles southeast of theepicenter, where numerous older buildings were damagedand one building collapsed, killing two people. In addition,significant liquefaction damaged housing and buried utilitiesin Oceano, nearly 50 miles away. Repeated thrust-typeearthquakes such as this are responsible for buildingCalifornia’s Coast Ranges.The area around San Simeon hasexperienced significant earthquakes in 1853, 1906, and1952, the last being the largest at magnitude 6.2 and centeredjust 6 miles from the San Simeon event. Similar “blind”thrusts caused the magnitude 6.7 Coalinga earthquake in1983, also in the Central Coast Ranges, as well as the $47billion Northridge earthquake that struck the Los Angeles areain 1994. In response to the San Simeon earthquake, the USGSproduced a ShakeMap within 9 minutes of the event.TheShakeMap served as the basis for a loss estimation by theCalifornia OES using FEMA’s HAZUS software within 1 hour.Such estimations used to take 1-2 days, with OES calling eachcounty and waiting for estimates based on field visits.CALTRANS used the ShakeMap information to determine thenumber and location of bridges that needed to be inspected.USGS data and analysis allowed PG&E to decide not to defercritical maintenance on the Diablo Canyon nuclear powerplant when it was demonstrated that the earthquake hadactually reduced stress on the faults near the plant. USGS alsoprovided real-time information on aftershock location andprobability of occurrence.

The long-anticipated M 6.0 Parkfield earthquake struckcentral California at 17:15:14 UTC on September 28, 2004.The epicenter was located 11 km southeast of the rural townof Parkfield adjacent to Gold Hill and on the San AndreasFault.The 2004 Parkfield earthquake is the sixth in a series ofsimilar earthquakes that have occurred on the Parkfieldsection of the San Andreas Fault since the great (M7.8) 1857Fort Tejon earthquake.The 2004 Parkfield earthquake,anticipated since 1984, occurred on the San Andreas Faultwithin a dense network of geophysical sensors specificallydesigned to trap it. No precursory changes were observedeven though the epicentral region was instrumented to detecta variety of subtle precursors that might be used for short-term earthquake prediction. Little structural damage occurredin the rural epicentral region, but surprising near-sourcevariations in the strong shaking were recorded. Strong

46

shaking decreased more rapidly with distance than predictedby models that serve as the basis for current building codes.

The USGS supported a project to demonstrate the potential tosolve challenging scientific and engineering problems bycombining the capabilities of the USGS and the NSF-sponsored IRIS and the NEES. A pilot field study wasconducted in August 2004 on the use of state-of-the-artseismic recording instrumentation. A new NEES shaker truckgenerated seismic waves as proxies for earthquake waves.Theexcitement of the community about the potential of suchcollaborations was evident in the growth of the experiment toinclude resources and participants from the MAE Center,SCEC, the Center for Embedded Network Sensing, and theHigh Performance Wireless Research and Education Network(all NSF-supported), and the Los Alamos National Laboratory(LANL). A tremendous dataset was collected for study of non-linear sediment response, ground motion site and basineffects, basin and fault imaging, and broad-scale deepimaging. Collaborations continue with ongoing analyses andintriguing new results already are beginning to emerge.

In the summer 2004, earthquake researchers completed a10,000 foot scientific drillhole to within a few hundredmeters of the San Andreas fault near the Central Californiatown of Parkfield.The research team, spearheaded by theUSGS and Stanford University, will make field and laboratorymeasurements and install a variety of undergroundinstruments that will help scientists better predict the timingand severity of earthquake activity along the 800 mile-longfault.This completed Stage 1 of the ambitious drilling projectcalled the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD),one of the four components of NSF’s EarthScope MREinitiative. Data are now being analyzed in preparation for thecommencement in April 2005 of Stage 2 drilling, which willextend the borehole to cross the San Andreas fault at a depthof approximately 3 km.When complete, SAFOD will be thefirst underground earthquake observatory to penetrate aseismically active fault zone, giving scientists a uniqueopportunity to continuously monitor a section of the faultwhere earthquakes actually happen.The drilling project is acollaborative effort between the USGS, NSF, and theInternational Continental Drilling Program (ICDP).

In recognizing the important role that sedimentary basinsplay in controlling strong-ground motions from earthquakes,the USGS has conducted structure and velocity imaging andwave propagation studies in the Santa Clara Valley (“SiliconValley”), south of San Francisco Bay.This major populationcenter is exposed to a significant seismic hazard frombounding faults, with the San Andreas Fault on the west andthe Hayward and Calaveras Faults on the east. A variety ofseismic and geologic studies have led to a new 3D structuralmodel for the Santa Clara sedimentary basin. A series ofseismic imaging experiments have yielded revised

information on the velocities of buried geologic units.Together, this information forms the basis for an improvedcapability to predict ground motions from potentiallydamaging earthquakes. Our predictions are being comparedwith actual ground motion recordings of local earthquakesfrom a 50-element array of portable recorders.The studiesunderway in the Santa Clara Valley are capable of forming thetemplate for seismic hazard evaluation in other urban areasacross the United States.

The USGS and King County (Washington) signed anInteragency Agreement that funds a detailed investigation ofthe Southern Whidbey Island fault near the BrightwaterWastewater Treatment plant site, a $1.8 billion dollar projectand the largest public capital improvement project inWashington State.The USGS identified the probable extensionof the fault last summer using a combination ofaeromagnetic, Lidar imagery, and field studies. Based on thesestudies and using funding from King County, the USGS hasopened four research trenches across two distinct strands ofthe fault.These trenches reveal evidence of young faultingcutting through the Brightwater site and evidence ofsignificant liquefaction that has occurred in past earthquakes.Neither result was initially considered in plant design; theUSGS subsequently met with the Brightwater engineeringdesign team to discuss the implication of the findings onseismic and foundation design.

47

An instrumental shaking intensity map for the 2004 Parkfield earthquake.


Hawaii

Hawaii supported the USGS ANSS to upgrade seismicnetworks in Hawaii to more rapidly detect earthquakes andgenerate products that estimate ground-shaking effects.Hawaii also partnered with NOAA, the State Office ofPlanning, and the University of Hawaii to gather data onunique volcanic-based soil profiles for the islands of Hawaiiand Maui.The information will be used to upgrade HAZUSmodels to more accurately simulate soil ground shakingeffects to improve damage estimates.

Nevada

Funding from the NEHRP has been critical to bettercharacterizing the earthquake hazards in urban and suburbanareas in Nevada. NEHRP funds through the USGS and NSFhave supported seismic monitoring that has led to newdiscoveries about deep earthquakes in northern Nevada andfault studies in northern and southern Nevada. Thecombination of geodetic measurements (chiefly fromultrahigh precision global positioning system instruments),seismic monitoring, geologic mapping, and fault-trenchstudies is revealing that about 20 percent of the motionbetween the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate isalong the Walker Lane, a zone of northwest-trending strike-slip faults in western Nevada and eastern California. Most ofthe remainder of the plate motion is accommodated along theSan Andreas fault system farther west in California.

Oregon

Trench investigation along the Portland Hills Fault byDOGAMI reveals deformed sediment layers, providing strongevidence of fault activity during the past 10,000 years.

DOGAMI and the USGS are currently conducting LightDetection and Ranging remote sensing terrain imaging in thePortland Metro area to better define active faults and locateunknown faults.

DOGAMI released a new Map of Selected Earthquakes forOregon, 1841 through 2002, that pinpoints 14,000 historicand recent earthquakes.

Texas

The Texas Regional Seismographic Network recently grew to atotal of eight permanent stations with the addition of a newstation in West Texas (MNTX) in 2003 and a new station inNacogdoches in 2004 (NATX).These new stations are bothjoint projects between the University of Texas (UT) at Austin,Texas Tech University, and the USGS. In conjunction with the

installation of MNTX, the State forged an additionalcollaboration with seismologists at UT El Paso to broaden thecircle of those interested in and willing to help maintain thestation. In conjunction with station NATX, a similarcollaboration was forged with scientists at Stephen F. AustinState University. Both of these stations are members of theANSS.

MNTX and NATX are equipped with state-of-the-art three-component broadband seismometers (Streckeisen STS-2) and24-bit digitizers (Quanterra Q730) and each delivers its datain quasi-real-time to the NEIC in Golden, Colorado, to beanalyzed jointly with data from other ANSS stations.TheMNTX station is equipped with satellite communications; theNATX station delivers its data via the Internet. NATX cameonline in August 2004 and is delivering high quality dataquite reliably.These new stations join JCT (Junction,TX), LTX(Lajitas,TX), and HKT (Hockley,TX) as flagship ANSS stations.

In addition to the flagship stations, four other stations makeup the TexSeis network.These include MDO (MacDonaldObservatory, near Fort Davis,TX), LBTX (Lubbock,TX), andAMTX (Amarillo,TX).These consist of Guralp 40Tseismometers, which are also three-component andbroadband but have slightly noisier characteristics than theSTS-2 seismometers at MNTX and NATX and the Guralp 3Tseismometers at LTX and JCT, and significantly higher thanthe top-of-the-line (but no longer manufactured) StreckeisenSTS-1 at HKT.

In July 2004, MNTX, after being online only 8 months,received a direct hit by lightning. Despite elaborate protection,virtually every electronic component of the station was ruinedand must be replaced.The USGS immediately agreed, as isstipulated in the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, toreplace all the equipment and get the station back inoperating order.While it is not rare for stations to be struckby lightning, every station has elaborate lightning protectionand it is quite uncommon for them to be damaged soseverely. Only time will tell if this will be a recurring problemat MNTX. At the moment, there is no reason to move thestation to a different location or install it differently.The site isoutstanding, as is the access provided by the owner (UTPermanent Land Fund) and the rhyolite host rock, whichprovides excellent coupling to bedrock. A great deal of effortwas expended in identifying and obtaining permission to usethis site, and there is no reason to believe that other sites inthe region would suffer fewer lightning strikes.

An additional station near Austin (ATX) was planned and thesite was prepared for installation. Upon testing, however, itwas discovered that the sensor intended to be installed at ATXwas defective.The sensor is recording data but because it hasonly the vertical and one horizontal component functioning,real-time data communications were not installed.The

48

seismometer will be sent back to the manufacturer for repairbefore its permanent installation at ATX.

The ANSS stations are also serving as the backbone of a new,10-year project funded by the NSF, called EarthScope.Thisprogram might be characterized as a “Mission to NorthAmerica” because its goal is to understand the structure andcomposition of our continent and the processes by which ithas evolved to its current state. One of the four componentsof EarthScope is USArray, a dense deployment of 400seismographic stations in stripes across the United States,from west to east. Each deployment will last forapproximately 1 year, and then the stations will be removedand re-deployed to the east.The unprecedented density of thedeployments will bring a great deal of new data andinformation, particularly from regions such as Texas, that havebeen historically under-instrumented and are less activeseismically. However, these deployments will still betemporary and it is important to densify the distribution ofpermanent stations as well—to provide long-term baselineobservations, help guide us to features of particular interestfor more intensive study, and to calibrate the temporarystations so they can be used to maximum advantage.TexSeis isa critical regional network in this nationwide backbone.

The goal is to ensure that every earthquake of magnitude 3.0or greater that occurs in or near Texas will be located andreported in the NEIC catalog.There are several reasons for thischoice. First, although magnitude 3.0 events are generally toosmall to cause damage, they aid in identifying seismogenicfaults, and thereby facilitate understanding the tectonics of theTexas region. Second, they provide useful data to model theregional structure.This structural information is needed tounderstand larger events when they occur. Finally, the ultimateaim is to provide comprehensive information about thecharacteristic and maximum intensities of ground motionthat could be expected to occur in Texas as a result of futureearthquakes. Rather than focus efforts on existing cities, it isprudent to record data that can be used to estimate seismichazards statewide, including areas that are now sparselypopulated, and might experience growth in the future.Theseestimates of ground accelerations are needed by engineersand architects to design appropriate buildings for eachlocation.The successes of building codes in protecting livesduring earthquakes are underscored by almost every event inthe western United States.

Other Organizations


In FY 2003 and 2004, funding continued for the support ofEERI Student Chapters, now located at 23 universitiesthroughout the United States, including Puerto Rico and onein Vancouver, BC.The involvement of these young people,

while still in school, has influenced numerous students tochoose earthquake engineering and earthquake hazardreduction as a career. Many of these students have, in turn,shared their knowledge and passion about earthquakemitigation with students in elementary and secondary schoolsin the Midwest, Southeast, and California, stimulatingexcitement about earthquake engineering and earthquakehazard reduction in our future scientists and engineers.

• Students at Notre Dame University pride themselves inthe outreach activities they have sponsored, helping tomake a difference in the lives of young people andspreading earthquake awareness.Their Shakes & Quakesprogram aimed at K-12 is designed to stimulate youngminds and allow them to better understand the way new,life-saving technologies, such as base isolation, changethe way in which engineered structures behave in severeearthquakes.The chapter members visit local classroomsand demonstrate how buildings perform using a portableshake table, LEGO and K’NEX models.

49

EERI’s Shakes & Quakes program aimed at K-12 is designed to stimulateyoung minds and allow them to better understand the way new, life-savingtechnologies, such as base isolation, change the way in which engineeredstructures behave in severe earthquakes. In this picture, elementary students waitanxiously for the quake to end.

• Students in the Georgia Tech Chapter of EERI have createda community outreach program for local elementary andmiddle schools.They visit classrooms and discussearthquakes and the damage they can cause, as well aspreparedness measures.They work with students to builda model three-story building on a portable shake tableand subject it to motions from the Northridge and Kobeearthquakes.The program is working to create interest inearthquake engineering, math, and science.

NEHRP funds have enabled EERI to expand its comprehensivewebsite to provide access to the EERI Newsletter, immediateinformation after damaging earthquakes, post-earthquakereconnaissance reports, and links to critical, technicalinformation and programs of value to engineers and othersengaged in earthquake hazard mitigation throughout theworld.The value of web-based information is that it provideseasy access to those in areas of less frequent seismic activityand expertise to cutting edge research and knowledge aboutearthquake hazard mitigation.

In 2003, EERI brought together experts from manydisciplines in a technical workshop focusing on the “legacy ofearthquake engineering” to identify contributions earthquakeengineering has made to other fields of natural andtechnological hazard mitigation in the past, and to look to thefuture, to the potential that earthquake engineering offers tomitigate other natural and technological risks and terroristthreats. A final document summarizing the past and potentialcontributions is expected to be published later this year.

The Year 2006 will be the 100th anniversary of the great1906 San Francisco Earthquake. NEHRP funds have begun tounderwrite early planning of an international conference thatwill be held in San Francisco in 2006 to commemorate theevent. EERI, the Seismological Society of America, and theCalifornia Governor’s OES will convene the conference aspartners.The conference will focus on developments in theearth sciences, engineering, and emergency planning andresponse that have taken place during the past century andoffer insights to deal with challenges ahead. It is expected thatthis will be the largest, most important earthquake conferencein history, attracting several thousand emergency managers,earth scientists, and engineers from all over the world to learnabout current codes and practices, emergency procedures, andgain new insights into the opportunities presented bydevelopments in engineering and earth science research.

In February 2004, EERI organized a charette at the Alexandriacampus of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity. Students and architects competed on designs fornew public buildings in Washington D.C. that utilized the

security recommendation in FEMA 426, Reference Manual toMitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings. Findings from thecharette will be included in FEMA 430, Building, Site, and LayoutDesign Guidance to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks, currently indevelopment by EERI.This publication will describe conceptsin landscape design and architecture that can mitigate thethreat of terrorist attack, without compromising public accessto and enjoyment of a space. It will include a discussion ofcurrent planning efforts of the National Capital PlanningCommission to redesign and secure the public spaces inWashington D.C.The target audience is architects andlandscape designers who work on public buildings andspaces.The book is currently at a 75 percent draft stage.

Designing for Earthquakes:A Manual for Architects is an update of amanual produced in 1978. Part of FEMA’s Multihazard RiskManagement Series, the book is intended to educate architectsabout the earthquake hazard and current trends and issues inseismic structural design and building codes. A 99 percentdraft was presented by EERI to FEMA for final review inSeptember 2004.The document will be published as FEMA454.

In a project funded jointly by FEMA and NSF, EERI issurveying current academic programs at universitydepartments of architecture throughout the United States todetermine the nature and extent of seismic design in theeducation of today’s architects.The results will be provided toNSF in the spring 2005 and will hopefully be a tool toinfluence increased attention to hazards mitigation in theeducation of today’s architects.


To advance hazard mitigation, it is essential to enhance publicunderstanding about hazards and the necessary steps toachieve it–on personal, political, and scientific levels. MCEERendeavors to work with disseminators of information to reachthe public arena, using its website, public briefings, publiclyoriented publications, and media opportunities. Perhaps moresignificantly, however, such prominent media vehicles as theDiscovery Channel and the New York Times, to name but afew, are important conveyors of messages critical to theexecution of earthquake and other hazard mitigation efforts.MCEER has worked with the Discovery Channel on threeprograms in the last 2 years to advance understanding of theearthquake hazard and potentials for mitigation. One of theseof particular pride to MCEER-which derives substantialfinancial support from the State of New York-is Earthquakes inNew York City?, which was designed to educate viewers in theeastern United States either unaware or unwilling to acceptthe threat of earthquakes outside of California.To further thismessage in print media, MCEER contributed to a full-pagearticle in the New York Times this past summer, highlighting

50

the vulnerability of the city to many hazards and the ongoingefforts to help mitigate against them.The same articledescribed the integration of information for all hazards andillustrated the potential connections between earthquakeresearch and research related to other hazards, such as blast.

Assessing damage and disruption and prioritizing responseresources are perhaps the most significant challenges facingcrisis managers after a major disaster. Rapid impact anddamage assessment—for example, the identification ofcollapsed structures—is especially critical because research onearthquake mortality and morbidity indicates that death tollsrise following earthquakes unless trapped victims can befound and extricated in a timely manner. Rapid and accuratesituation assessment also helps response managers to betterestimate impacts and allocate resources to areas of greatestneed. Recognizing that remote-sensing technologies can makea major contribution to improving post-disaster damage andsituation assessment, MCEER researchers have carried outpioneering research on post-earthquake damage assessmentusing a range of remote-sensing techniques, includingsynthetic aperture radar and moderate resolution opticalimagery. Most recently, researchers have been investigating theuse of high-resolution QuickBird imagery in post-disasterreconnaissance in the December 2003 Bam earthquake.

The increasing availability of high-resolution images andimproved potential for collecting data in near-real-time, i.e.,through the use of unmanned airborne vehicles, are makingeven more significant advancements possible. Remotely-sensed data are now being used in the development of newtools, such as the VIEWS (Visualizing Earthquake ImpactsWith Satellite Imagery) system, which was developed byMCEER researchers and deployed for post-earthquakereconnaissance following the Bam event.The goal of MCEER’s

remote sensing research group is to triangulate data obtainedusing different technologies and merge those data withadvanced GIS to develop integrated decision support systemsfor post-earthquake response.

The FHWA and MCEER have conducted workshops andconferences to further the exchange of knowledge amongresearch professionals and engineers in the United States andabroad. Annual collaborative workshops have been held withJapan,Taiwan, and the People’s Republic of China.Workshopproceedings are available to researchers and practitioners togain a better understanding of policy and practices employedelsewhere.

The 4th National Seismic Conference, which was held inMemphis,Tennessee on February 8-10, 2004, drew over 200registrants from state transportation departments from acrossthe United States.The venue especially allowed participantsfrom the mid- America zone to participate. Attendance andinterest is evidence of the increased awareness and of theneed to protect highway structures in parts of the countrywhere severe earthquakes can hit, but do so with a returnperiod of several hundred years.Topics at the conferenceincluded the provisions available for the design of newbridges as well as case studies of successful retrofit strategies.

Instrumentation for seismic monitoring was purchased aspart of MCEER’s FHWA contract and delivered for the cablestayed bridge in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Data will becollected and transmitted for further study to USGS, FHWA,Missouri DOT, and Illinois DOT. Upon appropriate securityclearance, data will be shared with authorized researchers andeducators.This response data will help engineers andacademics gain a better understanding of the dynamiccharacteristics of the new bridge and pave the way for moreearthquake resistant designs in the future.


A centerpiece of PEER’s program is new research onsimulation models and computational methods to assess theperformance of structural and geotechnical systems. Breakingthe barriers of traditional methods and software developmentprotocols, PEER has embarked on a completely new approachin the earthquake engineering community by developing anopen-source, object-oriented software framework. OpenSeesis a collection of modules to facilitate the implementation ofmodels and simulation procedures for structural andgeotechnical earthquake engineering. By shared developmentusing well-designed software interfaces, the open-sourceapproach has effected collaboration among a substantialcommunity of developers and users within and outside ofPEER. Unique among software for earthquake engineering,OpenSees allows integration of models of structures and soils

51

Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) interferogram showing relative founddisplacements measured after the 1994 Northridge earthquake.

to investigate challenging problems in soil-structure-foundation interaction. In addition to improved models forreinforced concrete structures, shallow and deep foundations,and liquefiable soils, OpenSees is designed to take advantageof the latest developments in databases, reliability methods,scientific visualization, and high-end computing.

PEER has developed state-of-the-art computational andinformation technologies to compute in detail how buildingsand bridges respond to earthquake ground motions. PEER ismaking significant advances in computational procedures, andis educating a new generation of earthquake engineers whoare familiar with the latest information technologies.Toaccelerate development and broaden acceptance, PEER hasmade its computational technologies available on-line and haspromoted use through user/developer workshops.

Immediately after a major earthquake, emergency respondersand operators of lifeline systems in the affected area needguidance as to the likely distribution of damage. In areas thatare densely instrumented with a network of seismometers,the measured distribution of strong ground shaking can berapidly assembled and broadcasted as an indirect measure of

likely damage. In sparsely instrumented locations, however,insufficient empirical data may be available.To supplementsuch data, new methods make it possible to automaticallydetermine finite-source parameters of earthquakes such as thecausative fault plane characteristics and rupture velocity.Thesesource parameters are then used to simulate near-fault groundmotions for areas where there are no nearby recordinginstruments.This process can be carried out automatically, toproduce and distribute estimates of shaking within 30minutes of the event, and can then be reviewed and updatedby seismologists in real time.The process is aided by previousPEER studies aimed at improving simulation technologies.This is an important contribution toward the objective ofnear-real-time reporting of earthquake shaking hazard, andhas been provided to ShakeMap V2.x software for widespreadapplication.

52

PEER’s OpenSees computer model representation of soil-structure interaction of a bridge.

Executive Order 12699—Seismic Safety of Federal andFederally Assisted or Regulated New Building Construction

Executive Order 12699, issued in 1990, applies to federalagencies that are responsible for (1) designing andconstructing new federal buildings, (2) constructing andleasing new buildings for federal use, (3) providing orguaranteeing financing for new buildings, or (4) regulatingthe structural safety of new buildings.The Order directs theseagencies to maintain and ensure the use of appropriateseismic design and construction standards for new buildingswithin their purview. Activities carried out pursuant to

Executive Order 12699 during Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and2004 are reported below for each affected agency.

Architect of the CapitolAlthough it is not required to comply with Executive Ordersas an agency of the legislative branch, the Architect of theCapitol has voluntarily striven to observe seismic safetystandards in the spirit of Executive Orders 12699 and 12941.During FY 2003 and 2004, the Architect of the Capitolrequired that all new construction for the legislative branchcomply with the seismic resistance provisions of the BuildingOfficials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International’sNational Building Code (NBC).

53

The Architect of the Capitol has voluntarily striven to observe seismic safety standards in the spirit of Executive Orders 12699 and 12941.

III. Seismic Safety of FederalBuildings:A Progress Report onFederal Agencies’ Execution ofExecutive Orders 12699 and 12941

Department of CommerceThe Department has required that new facilities designed forits use meet all building codes in effect where the building isto be located, including seismic safety codes.

Department of DefenseFor more than 30 years, the Department of Defense (DoD)has maintained seismic design standards for new facilitiesbuilt for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. During FY 2003 and2004, DoD worked to develop supplemental standardsapplicable to new construction of critical national defenseassets.The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) continuedits development of tools and standards that can be used toimprove seismic design for new buildings, power generationfacilities, dams, retaining walls, and mechanical and electricalequipment.The Naval Facilities Engineering Command(NAVFAC) began updating the seismic design criteria forNavy piers and wharves.

Department of EnergyThe Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the safetyof personnel and activities at all of its sites.This includesprotecting structures and occupants from the effects ofearthquakes and other natural phenomena throughappropriate policies, rules, orders, standards, guidance, andpractices.

During FY 2003 and 2004, evaluations continued to showthat DOE’s seismic design requirements were substantiallyequivalent to the standards mandated under Executive Order12699, and DOE continued to require that its orders andstandards relating to natural hazards be consistent with part830 (Nuclear Safety Management) of Title 10 of the Code ofFederal Regulations (10 CFR Part 830).

DOE Order 420.1A, “Facility Safety,” required that DOEfacilities be designed, constructed, and operated so that thepublic, workers, and the environment are protected from theadverse impacts of earthquakes and other natural hazards.Related design guidance was provided in Design Guide DOEG-420.1-2.The Department continued to require that newbuildings be constructed in accordance with DOE Standard(STD) 1020-2002, “Natural Phenomena Hazards Design andEvaluation Criteria for Department of Energy Facilities.”Accompanying standards included DOE-STD-1021, “NaturalPhenomena Hazards Performance Categorization Guidelinesfor Structures, Systems, and Components;” DOE-STD-1022,“Characterization Criteria;” and DOE-STD-1023, “AssessmentCriteria.”

Following are examples of recent progress in seismic safetyrelating to new structures at DOE sites:

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory,Tennessee—At the Y-12National Security Complex, seismic hazard studies were

updated to reflect all new information obtained over thelast 10 years, including the latest U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) and NEHRP seismic hazard maps. Studiesrelating to the spallation neutron source facilityconcluded that the structural design of the facility’s targetbuilding can accommodate the latest USGS regionalaccelerations. New buildings constructed during the past2 years are in compliance with the seismic requirementsof International Building Code (IBC) 2000.

• Pantex Plant,Texas—The seismic requirements of DOEOrder 420.1A, DOE STD-1020-2002, and IBC2000/2003 were incorporated into site design andconstruction projects, and used in designing the Building12-44 and Building 12-64 upgrade projects.

• Savannah River Site, South Carolina—DOE began areevaluation of the Site’s probabilistic seismic hazardanalysis.This work is being performed using hazarddetermination methodology, the latest assessments oflocal seismic sources, and ground motion attenuationmodels.

• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California—DOE STD-1020-2002 was formally adopted into theLaboratory’s Work Smart Standards, requiring the use ofIBC 2000 Seismic Use Group I (or equivalent) criteria fordesigns of new Performance Category 1 Structures,Systems, and Components (SSCs), and Seismic Use GroupIII criteria for new Performance Category 2 SSCs. ForPerformance Category 3 SSCs, peak ground accelerationsare determined from the site’s probabilistic seismichazard analysis and used in conjunction with DOE STD-1020-2002 for building designs or evaluations.Thesecriteria were used in designing or constructing several

54

At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Y-12 National Security Complex,seismic hazard studies were updated to reflect all new information obtained overthe last 10 years, including the latest USGS and NEHRP seismic hazard maps.

new structures, including Building 155 (isotopeseparation facility); Building 140 (international securityresearch facility); Building 471 (central cafeteria);Building 368 (bio-safety level-3 facility); and Buildings142, 242, and 264 (replacement office buildings).

• Bonneville Power Administration, Oregon—DOE workedto implement IBC 2000/2003 seismic requirements fornew construction during 2003 and 2004. It nowenforces IBC 2003 and the code’s state supplements,requirements that are consistent with state building codesand NEHRP provisions applicable within BonnevillePower’s service region.

• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California—Themolecular foundry was designed to the requirements ofthe 2001 California Building Code and the Laboratorypublication LBNL RD 3.22, “Lateral Force DesignCriteria.”

• Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York—TheBuilding Code of New York State, May 2002 Edition,which is consistent with IBC 2000, was used indesigning two new buildings: the Center for FunctionalNanomaterials and the Research Support Building.

• Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico—TheLaboratory updated the structural chapter of its“Engineering Standards Manual,” as well as the majorityof its construction specifications, to ensure compliancewith Executive Order 12699, DOE Order 420.1A, DOEG-420.1-2, and DOE STD-1020-2002.

• Hanford Site,Washington—The Richland OperationsOffice issued a contract modification to clarify therequirements of subpart B of 10 CFR Part 830, and toensure that the contractors apply these requirementsduring the planning or conceptual-design stage of anynew facilities subject to subpart B.The Office of RiverProtection has been applying DOE Order 420.1A to thedesign and construction of the high-level waste, pre-treatment, and low-activity waste buildings.This Officehas also begun reassessing portions of the 1996probabilistic seismic hazard analysis relating to the wastetreatment and immobilization plant.The objective is toreduce the uncertainty in the seismic design basis thatresulted from extrapolating California attenuation data tothe Hanford Site, and from limited shear wave velocitydata. New shear wave velocity profiles down to 500 feetare being acquired using downhole and spectralamplification of surface wave techniques. Geophysicaldata are being reanalyzed, the latest Pacific EarthquakeEngineering Research Group attenuation relations arebeing applied, and uncertainty in attenuation related tointerbedded sediments among basalt layers between 500and 1,500 feet in depth is being remodeled.

• Idaho National Engineering and EnvironmentalLaboratory, Idaho—Twenty-five outdated analoginstruments were replaced with digital strong motionaccelerographs in facilities and at free-field sites (notwithin buildings). Earthquake analysis programs werereplaced with SEISAN, a program that allows analyses ofboth seismograms and accelerograms. PerformanceCategory 3 and 4 design-basis earthquake site responseanalyses and enveloping time histories were developed (5percent damped spectra) for the Idaho NuclearTechnology and Engineering Center (completed) and theTest Reactor Area (in review).

Department of Health and Human ServicesStandards and guidelines have been in place since 1992 forfederally assisted construction that is within the purview ofthe U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Since1999, the Department has also maintained constructionguidelines for buildings to be leased by the Indian HealthService (IHS). All new Departmental facilities must complywith the seismic requirements of national model constructioncodes.

Federal Bureau of PrisonsThe Federal Bureau of Prisons, a component of the U.S.Department of Justice, published seismic design andcertification guidelines in accordance with the Department’sSeismic Safety Program.These guidelines require that new

55

DOE is responsible for the safety of personnel and activities at all of its sites.This includes protecting structures and occupants from the effects ofearthquakes.This illustration is an example of properly anchored cylinders.

buildings constructed for the Bureau comply with theNational Fire Protection Association’s Building Constructionand Safety Code (NFPA 5000) and the seismic safetystandards of the Interagency Committee for Seismic Safety inConstruction (ICSSC). Any local requirements that are morestringent must also be met.

Federal Emergency Management AgencyFor buildings leased by FEMA, compliance with therequirements of Executive Order 12699 is included in thestandard GSA lease language.The building owner must affirmcompliance.

For buildings owned by FEMA, the Facility ManagementBranch has a 2-year-old assessment of all FEMA buildings.FEMA also tracks the condition of buildings through the RealProperty Management System (RPMS). Seismic issues orretrofitting are not kept track of in this system; repairs that aregenerally accomplished are deferred maintenance or updatingmechanical and other systems.The Facilities ManagementBranch will work to identify the best means of capturingseismic retrofit opportunities in the RPMS and duringcondition assessments.

General Services AdministrationIn 2003, the General Services Administration (GSA) adoptedthe family of codes issued by the International Code Council(ICC) in lieu of the NBC, the Uniform Building Code (UBC),and the Standard Building Code (SBC). Structural designs fornew buildings have since conformed to the latest edition ofIBC.

GSA promotes the use of new technology in seismic safetyand has investigated, tested, and installed steel-plate shearwalls, unbounded braces, and base isolators in buildings.Thedesign of the Seattle Federal Courthouse incorporated a steel-plate shear wall system in conjunction with concrete-filledpipe columns for its seismic lateral system.This innovativeapproach, referred to as the Steel Plate/Composite ConcreteShear Wall System, was developed over 24 years throughcollaboration among GSA, the University of California atBerkeley, Magnusson Klemencic Associates, and the CanadianInstitute of Steel Construction. It provides the building’sprimary system for gravity, wind, and earthquake resistance,and is expected to improve seismic performance, speed upconstruction, and save construction dollars.

The Civil Engineering Research Foundation awarded the 2004“Charles Pankow Award for Innovation” to the GSA SeattleCourthouse Team and Magnusson Klemencic Associates at theAmerican Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) awards ceremonyon May 12, 2004.The Pankow award recognizes collaborativeefforts that demonstrate innovative design-, materials-, orconstruction-related research and development, transferred

into practice, that enhance productivity and performance inthe industry.

Public Works and Government Services Canada invited thedirector of GSA’s Pacific Rim Region Property DevelopmentDivision, and the manager of GSA’s Seismic Safety Program, toparticipate in an informal exchange on seismic and securityissues facing both agencies. GSA seismic engineerssubsequently gave presentations on seismic and securitycriteria and on recent project successes and challenges.

GSA and the Pennsylvania State University Department ofArchitectural Engineering are conducting research on amultihazard-resistant, panelized brick-veneer wall system.Theobjectives are to develop (1) a brick-veneer wall system withsteel stud backup walls that minimizes the potential forcracking under high wind loads; (2) a prefabricated,panelized wall system with seismic isolation connections; and(3) a method of strengthening the wall system for improvedperformance under impact and blast loading situations.Dynamic racking tests will be performed to verify in-planeseismic isolation.The wall system will be designed to offeroptional enhancement of impact resistance through the use ofcomposites.

To secure private-sector expertise and achieve excellence inseismic-structural and blast design, the Office of the ChiefArchitect awarded three supplemental Seismic/Structural Blastcontracts to nationally recognized firms.These contracts areavailable for use by all GSA regional offices as well as by otherexecutive branch agencies.

Department of the InteriorThe Department of the Interior (DOI) Seismic Safety Programhas implemented all requirements of Executive Order 12699.The Department has required use of the latest, most stringentbuilding codes since before the Order was issued, and itspractices for new buildings conformed to “Recommendationof Design and Construction Practices in Implementation ofExecutive Order 12699” even before its issuance in 1995.

Seismic safety resources that DOI applies to the design andconstruction of new federal facilities include Departmentalrequirements about the use of appropriate model buildingcodes, and analyses of local building codes that may be usedfor particular projects. New facilities are designed by DOI’s in-house engineering design resources, or by private architectureand engineering (A&E) firms under contracts that requirethem to use the most current state and local structural designcodes. Regardless of their source, all designs are reviewed byDOI engineers to ensure compliance with seismic safety andother technical requirements.

Within DOI, seismic safety issues are routinely discussedamong the bureaus’ seismic safety contacts. Departmental

56

seismic safety coordinators routinely conduct workshops,attended by all bureau seismic safety contacts, wherecompliance with the Seismic Safety Program is discussed.Program compliance is monitored and documented throughfrequent Department-wide seismic safety status reports.TheDepartment also shares information on seismic safety withother agencies.

DOI bureaus occasionally receive requests to supersedeprescribed building codes with local building codes. On theserare occasions, DOI seismic safety coordinators review thelocal codes to ensure that they are at least as stringent as theprescribed code.

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)has incorporated the requirements of Executive Order 12699into its “NASA Facilities Program ImplementationRequirements” policy document. NASA provides technologyupdates prepared by ICSSC to the facility engineers at NASAcenters and installations.

NASA’s decentralized management structure allows its facilityengineers to meet user requirements and still provide well-designed and well-constructed facilities that conform totoday’s engineering and environmental standards andpractices, and national and local building codes. NASA viewsimplementation of Executive Order 12699 as goodengineering practice. Incorporation of all appropriate safetystandards and codes is left to the design professionals workingon each project.

NASA centers conduct design reviews to ensure compliancewith all standards, codes, laws, and Executive Orders. In-house personnel check designs prepared by contractedarchitects and engineers, and peer reviews are held for in-house designs. Life-safety standards are used for mostfacilities; higher standards are used when mission-criticalfacilities are involved. NASA facility engineers evaluate eachprospective facility in consultation with the end users todetermine the appropriate level of safety.

Seismic safety has been a priority and a routine part of facilityplanning, design, construction, and budgeting at NASAheadquarters and at NASA centers in seismically active areas.The Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division at NASAheadquarters leads NASA seismic safety efforts. A member ofthe Division serves on the ICSSC and oversees disseminationof seismic safety information. NASA uses local and modelbuilding codes and relies upon the ICSSC to determine whichmodel code best meets NEHRP requirements.

Executive Order 12699 has had little impact on NASA becauseit has always been NASA practice to design and constructfacilities that meet or exceed current seismic safety standards.Contracting procedures used for new construction have notchanged and NASA has not allocated additional staff, funding,or training in response to the Order. Designing to currentsafety standards (seismic or other) is considered to be anengineer’s professional responsibility, although NASA providesthe training needed to keep its engineers current in theirfields. Although it costs more to design and constructbuildings to ever more stringent seismic safety standards andcodes, NASA believes that these added costs are necessary toprovide safe facilities and should be considered in the overalleconomic justification of new facilities.

Department of the NavyThe Department of the Navy (DoN) has maintained a seismicsafety policy that is in full compliance with the requirementsof the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 andExecutive Orders 12699 and 12941.The DoN componentthat designs and constructs Navy shore facilities, the NAVFAC,is responsible for establishing cost-effective design policiesand criteria for DoN that incorporate adequate seismic safetystandards.

In July 2002, DoN, in partnership with the other militaryservices in the DoD, updated the building standards anddesign criteria for new U.S. military facilities in UnifiedFacilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01, “Design: General BuildingRequirements.” UFC 1-200-01 incorporates nationallyaccepted private-sector standards and practices, referencingIBC 2000 along with specific code modifications for facilitiesunique to DoD. DoN and the other DoD services have sincebegun updating UFC 1-200-01 to reference IBC 2003.

This will ensure that DoD’s seismic safety building standardsand design criteria continue to reflect the most current,nationally accepted private-sector standards and practices.

NAVFAC Instruction 11000.40, “Seismic Safety Requirementsfor Navy Owned and Leased Buildings,” released in October2003, updates and promulgates DoN-specific seismic safetypolicy. It requires that all new Navy buildings, whether ownedor leased, must be designed and constructed in accordancewith UFC 1-200-01. Similarly, the NAVFAC P-73 “Real EstateProcedural Manual” requires that new leases comply withcurrent NAVFAC seismic criteria.

Tennessee Valley AuthorityThe Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has the technicalexpertise needed to develop designs, including seismicdesigns, for a wide variety of buildings.TVA also providesfinancial assistance for building construction through itseconomic development programs and through loans made toits electric power distributors.

57

TVA has continued to update the implementation procedurefor Executive Order 12699 that it originally issued in 1993.This procedure establishes compliance requirements for newbuildings and for additions to existing buildings, specifyingdocument review processes, the responsibilities of theapproval engineer and construction verifier, minimumqualifications for the approval engineer and constructionverifier, and required documentation. It also includes a modelseismic safety clause to be used in contracts for newconstruction and expansions.

TVA’s approval engineers, who perform building plan andspecification reviews related to seismic safety, must meet thefollowing minimum qualifications: have a degree in structuralor civil engineering, have at least 5 years of experience instructural design and in analysis of building framing andfoundations, and be a licensed professional engineer.Construction verifiers, who review final construction toensure that it is consistent with design drawings andspecifications, must be competent in construction methods toa degree that ensures accurate performance of this function.Contractor personnel can fill either of these roles providedthey meet the minimum qualifications.

During each construction project, the approval engineers andconstruction verifiers are required to provide a certificate ofseismic compliance to TVA’s seismic safety coordinator.Thecoordinator has programmatic responsibility for ensuring thatseismic safety requirements are being met by TVA’s operatinggroups.The contractor’s architect or engineer withresponsibility for the building design must submit a writtenstatement to TVA that acknowledges the provisions ofExecutive Order 12699 and identifies the code used forseismic design.

Executive Order 12699 also affects TVA’s economicdevelopment programs that provide financial assistance fornew construction.These programs review beneficiaries’design and construction contracts to verify seismic safetycompliance.The beneficiaries are local and regionaleconomic-and industrial-development organizations located

within the Tennessee Valley area. Assistance is provided fornew construction within industrial parks, for expansion ofexisting industrial facilities, and for other constructionassociated with commercial and business development.

TVA operates some facilities, such as nuclear power plantsand dams, which require special seismic safety standards.TVA’s nuclear facilities are regulated by the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC) and are designed to anoperating basis-earthquake and a safe shutdown-earthquakethat fully meet NRC requirements.TVA’s Dam Safety Programoperates under the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety and complieswith the seismic safety requirements specified therein.

Department of Veterans AffairsThe Department’s seismic regulations were promulgated longbefore the 1993 deadline set by Executive Order 12699.Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Handbook H-18-8(formerly H-08-8), “Seismic Design Requirements,” has beenperiodically updated, with the latest edition released inDecember 2003.The requirements in this handbookreference, and are fully coordinated with, the followingnational model codes and standards: IBC 2003; ASCE Standard31-02, “Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings;” FEMA350, “Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New SteelMoment-Frame Buildings;” FEMA 353, “RecommendedSpecifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for SteelMoment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications;” andFEMA 356, “Prestandard and Commentary for the SeismicRehabilitation of Buildings.”

VA has invested significant funds since 1973 to ensure that allnew construction projects, as well as seismic upgrades ofexisting buildings, are in full compliance with VA seismicdesign standards. Although budget constraints have slowednew construction in recent years, seismic upgrade projectscontinue to receive significant funding. Recent projectsinvolving seismic design for new buildings include thefollowing: a building being designed for Anchorage, Alaska,that will house regional offices and outpatient clinic facilities;a new medical facility being planned for Las Vegas, Nevada; areplacement inpatient building constructed in Memphis,Tennessee; and an inpatient facility being planned for SanJuan, Puerto Rico.

Executive Order 12941—Seismic Safety of ExistingFederally Owned or Leased Buildings

Executive Order 12941, issued in 1994, applies to federalagencies that own or lease buildings for federal use.TheExecutive Order directed the ICSSC to adopt minimumstandards of seismic safety for existing federally owned orleased buildings. In accordance with the adopted minimumstandards, federal agencies were required to evaluate andmitigate unacceptable seismic risk in their buildings.

58

TVA has the technical expertise needed to develop designs, including seismicdesigns, for a wide variety of buildings.

In addition, the Executive Order required that federal agenciesestimate the costs of bringing their buildings into compliancewith ICSSC standards and directed FEMA to use these costestimates to prepare a report for Congress “on how to achievean adequate level of seismic safety in federally owned andleased buildings in an economically feasible manner.” In lateFY 2000, FEMA submitted a draft of this report to the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB). FEMA has made severalrevisions to the report in response to this review and hasresubmitted the report to OMB.

Activities carried out pursuant to Executive Order 12941during FY 2003 and 2004 are reported below for eachaffected agency.

Architect of the CapitolDuring FY 2003 and 2004, the Architect of the Capitolrequired that renovation projects, when feasible, includeupgrades to the seismic safety standards specified in ICSSCRecommended Practice 4, “Standards of Seismic Safety forExisting Federally Owned or Leased Buildings andCommentary.” One such project is the renovation of the U.S.Botanic Garden’s administration building, planned for FY2006. In the design for this work, hazardous elements such asan incomplete load path were corrected by strengtheningroof-to-wall connections.The added cost for this seismicupgrade was projected to be less than 1 percent of totalproject costs.

The Architect of the Capitol has also been including seismicstudies in its condition assessments of existing buildings.These evaluations are guided by ASCE Standard 31-03,“Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings.”

Department of CommerceThe Department of Commerce has a small number offacilities, and few of them failed the seismic evaluationscarried out pursuant to Executive Order 12941. One of theDepartment’s bureaus, the National Institute of Science andTechnology (NIST), has no facilities needing seismicrehabilitation at this time.The other primary bureau, theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),has a few buildings that have been identified as needingrehabilitation.

The National Weather Service (NWS), a part of NOAA, hasbeen systematically renovating all of its facilities, and thiswork has included the correction of any seismic deficiencies.NWS awarded a contract to renovate its office in St. PaulIsland, Alaska, in mid-September 2004; project completion isanticipated by the end of September 2005.This will remedyone of the Department’s most severe seismic deficiencies.

Department of DefenseDoD has followed the intent of Executive Order 12941 with apassive triggering program in compliance with ICSSCRecommended Practice 6, “Standards of Seismic Safety forFederally Owned and Leased Buildings.” During FY 2003 and2004, the USACE and NAVFAC pursued a variety of activitiesaimed at enhancing seismic safety among existing facilities.

USACE has been developing seismic evaluation and mitigationtools, including computer programs, criteria documents,process flowcharts, decision-making templates, a relativeseismic hazard map, and an expanded benchmark-year tablewith Tri-Services criteria.These tools are designed for usewith buildings, power generation facilities, mechanical andelectrical equipment, retaining walls, dams, and other existingconstruction.

USACE and DoD started working with other ICSSC-memberagencies to develop a pilot program on seismic safety withinthe Nation’s lifeline infrastructure systems. Initial work hasfocused on the electric power system. USACE has also used itsongoing partnership with the power marketingadministrations of DOE and DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation toidentify common interests and concerns regarding the electricpower system.

In addition to providing direct emergency assistancefollowing earthquakes, researchers from USACE’s EngineeringResearch and Development Center have carried out numerouspost-earthquake reconnaissance trips.These trips are intendedto improve scientists’ understanding of the seismic behaviorof structural and geotechnical materials.

In March 2000, NAVFAC issued “Seismic Hazards MitigationProgram for Facilities Outside of the United States, ItsTerritories and Possessions,” to reduce inconsistenciesbetween the level of protection afforded existing Navyfacilities within the United States and the protection afforded

59

NAVFAC recently began updating the seismic design criteria used for evaluatingNavy piers and wharves.

overseas facilities. Since then, occupied Navy buildingsoverseas have been inventoried; modified procedures havebeen developed to estimate the potential seismic risks facedby the occupants, missions, and assets of Navy facilities inEurope; and a prioritized seismic risk strategy has beencreated for Europe that is based on the results of the seismicrisk estimation procedures.

NAVFAC recently began updating the seismic design criteriaused for evaluating Navy piers and wharves, and begancontributing to the development of a new version of FEMA172, “NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the SeismicRehabilitation of Existing Buildings.”The latter effort, whichis being managed by NIST, will update best practices andrecommendations for seismic rehabilitation of existingbuildings, and make FEMA 172 consistent with other FEMAdocuments that address the seismic safety of existingbuildings.

In 2003, NAVFAC developed draft guidelines for reassessingNavy buildings that were found to have the potential forbeing “exceptionally high risk” (EHR) in prior seismicevaluations conducted pursuant to Executive Order 12941.These guidelines, which are now being reviewed by DoN, areintended to (1) update and refine the list of potentially EHRbuildings by incorporating risk mitigation actions carried outto date, and (2) establish a process for prioritizing furtherevaluations of these buildings that is based on potentialdamage estimates, occupancy, and mission criticality.

NAVFAC has also been participating with FEMA in a pilotproject involving the use of an enhanced version of theHazards US (HAZUS) software at the Puget NavalShipyard/Bremerton Naval Station.The intent is todemonstrate the usefulness of HAZUS as an effective andstrategic disaster-related decision-support tool, and to validateits ability to rapidly predict the potential seismic risk to asingle building or a portfolio of buildings using limitedinformation.

Department of EnergyDOE natural phenomena hazards (NPH) mitigation programscontinued through FY 2003 and 2004. Headquarterspersonnel focused on reviewing and updating requirementsand standards used in mitigating earthquake effects. Field-level activities included identifying and reducingvulnerabilities to earthquakes through compliance withExecutive Orders 12699 and 12941, and continuing sitecharacterization efforts to improve understanding of seismichazards.

DOE STD-1020-2002, which is consistent with therequirements of ICSSC Recommended Practice 6, has guidedDOE’s efforts to evaluate and prioritize existing facilities forseismic mitigation, as required under Executive Order 12941.

Additional guidance has been provided through DOE Order420.1A, which is consistent with the latest NEHRP andindustry seismic design standards. Because DOE has manybuildings containing hazardous materials, which requiremore stringent evaluation criteria, this order includessupplemental requirements in the areas of nuclear safety,explosives safety, fire protection, nuclear criticality safety, andNPH safety.

Following are examples of recent progress in seismic safetyrelating to existing structures at DOE sites:

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory,Tennessee—TheLaboratory began implementing its plan to evaluatebuildings for compliance with DOE STD-1020-2002.Theone building found to be seismically deficient during theinitial evaluations conducted pursuant to Executive Order12941 was retrofitted to meet IBC 2000 seismicrequirements. At the Y-12 National Security Complex,seismic evaluations of existing nuclear facilities wereperformed in preparing the documented safety analysisreports required under 10 CFR Part 830. Theseevaluations were based on the site’s newly updatedseismic hazard studies, which were more stringent thanthose required by ICSSC Recommended Practice 6.

• Pantex Plant,Texas—The Pantex site evaluated its buildinginventory for potential seismic risks (Paragon StructuralEngineering report) and concluded that 359 buildings(49 percent of the inventory) were exempted fromseismic evaluation. Evaluations of existing nuclear andnuclear-explosive facilities were completed, and aschedule for evaluating existing explosive processingfacilities was approved for FY 2005 and 2006. A projectplan was developed to further investigate specific areas ofconcern that emerged from the nuclear and nuclear-explosive facility evaluations.

• Savannah River Site, South Carolina—The glass wastestorage and tritium extraction buildings were determinedto meet the performance requirements andimplementation standards of DOE Order 420.1A, as wellas applicable national standards for the protection ofpersonnel and processes during NPH events.Theserequirements are more stringent than those of ICSSCRecommended Practice 6.

• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California—Amitigation program and a prioritization system wereimplemented for buildings found to be seismicallydeficient in evaluations conducted pursuant to ExecutiveOrder 12941. Fifty-three buildings (approximately 8percent of the building inventory) had been identified ashaving unacceptable seismic deficiencies. A 10-yearseismic rehabilitation plan was developed for the 16 most

60

vulnerable buildings. It was determined that rehabilitationin the remaining 37 buildings could await majorrenovations. Seismic improvements have already beenmade during renovations in the following buildings:Building 151 (chemistry laboratory), 100 percent ofseismic upgrades completed; Building 321C (engineeringtechnology complex), 100 percent completed; Building298 (physics laboratory), 85 percent completed; Building141 (engineering building), 70 percent completed; andBuilding 511 (plant engineering maintenance facility),30 percent completed.

• Bonneville Power Administration, Oregon—DOEevaluated one additional building for seismicvulnerabilities during FY 2003 and 2004.

• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California—UsingFEMA 310, “Handbook for Seismic Evaluation ofBuildings—A Prestandard,” and its successor, ASCEStandard 31-03, the Laboratory has completed 23building evaluations since 2003.

• Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico—TheLaboratory completed seismic evaluations required underExecutive Order 12941 for those existing facilities thatdid not have a model building type assigned to them inthe Department’s Facility Information ManagementSystem. A program modeled on SAFER, the seismic safetyprogram of the University of California at Berkeley, isbeing considered to assist in prioritizing mitigation inexisting facilities.

• Idaho National Engineering and EnvironmentalLaboratory, Idaho—The Idaho Nuclear Technology andEngineering Center prepared seismic qualifications for thebins in Calcined Solids Storage Facility 1.

• Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico—SandiaNational Laboratories (SNL) has completed many seismicupgrades since evaluating its existing facilities in 1998.SNL policy is to consider seismic upgrades to existingfacilities when building modifications are made. On thebasis of recently revised seismic data provided by USGS,the Sandia Site Office has requested that SNL reassess the1998 evaluations to determine current vulnerabilities,and prioritize seismic upgrades among high-riskfacilities. Since the evaluations were performed in 1998,12 buildings have been classified as high-risk facilities. Ofthese, three essential facilities have been upgraded(Buildings 800, 802, and 880), and two facilities havebeen evacuated and demolished (Buildings 805 and841).Two additional buildings are scheduled fordemolition in FY 2007 and FY 2010 (Buildings 806 and807).The remaining high-risk facilities are part of a

conceptual design study that is evaluating renovation orreplacement.

Environmental Protection AgencyThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed itsNational Seismic Safety Program in 1997 and has sinceworked to ensure that all of its facilities become compliantwith seismic safety requirements. EPA has been evaluatingseismic safety in buildings scheduled for major alterationsand, more recently, has begun assessing facilities that aresubject to potential seismic risk, regardless of whetherrenovations are planned.

During FY 2003 and 2004, EPA completed seismic safetymitigation or evaluation activities at three EPA-ownedfacilities.These projects are described below.

• Region 10 Laboratory, Manchester,Washington—EPAdiscovered during construction of a new wing at theLaboratory that the design of the addition, completed in1999, had inadequately addressed EPA’s seismic safetyrequirements, and had positioned concrete footings forthe wing on beach deposits susceptible to liquefactionand lateral spreading. EPA concluded that these findingsposed unacceptable risks for this critical facility andimmediately undertook remedial actions. EPA obtained afull analysis from a qualified seismic engineer,strengthened the new tilt-up wall concrete building, andinstalled more than 100 Geopiers into native soil belowthe beach deposits.The dedicated efforts of engineers andcontractors resulted in a successful outcome withminimal delay (about 2 months) and added costsacceptable to EPA. EPA also retained a seismic engineer toevaluate the existing laboratory in accordance with FEMA310, because a major renovation of the structure wasplanned. Several deficiencies were identified, andmitigation measures were incorporated into the plannedstructural modifications.The first phase of the renovationbegan in September 2004.

• National Health and Environmental Effects ResearchLaboratory,Western Ecology Division, Corvallis,Oregon—In 2003, EPA conducted a Tier 1 study of themain building in accordance with FEMA 310.The resultsindicated that a Tier 2 study was required, includinggeotechnical exploration. A report with findings,conclusions, and recommendations is due in November2005. Preliminary reports indicate that the potential forfailure of the soils and foundations during a seismic eventis low or negligible, but that some building modificationsmay be needed to achieve acceptable seismic safety.

61

• National Risk Management Research Laboratory,WaterSupply and Resources Division, Edison, New Jersey—EPAis constructing an emergency operations center in aWorld War II-era building located at its Laboratory inEdison. A seismic safety analysis of the existing structurewas included in the design process, and it revealed theneed for additional structural-steel seismic bracingthroughout the roof framing.This bracing wasincorporated into the construction drawings and hasbeen installed in the 30,000 square-foot, one-storybuilding.

EPA has begun to evaluate its main laboratory at the CoastalEcology Branch in Newport, Oregon; this was promptedprimarily by changes in seismic performance requirements inthe Northwest over the past decade. Also, as part of majorrenovations at the Andrew W. Breidenback EnvironmentalResearch Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA is conducting aseismic safety evaluation of the main, seven-story laboratorybuilding.Through all of these actions, EPA is continuing towork to ensure that its people and property are protectedduring seismic events.

Federal Bureau of PrisonsThe Federal Bureau of Prisons has continued to require thatall major renovation projects at existing facilities nationwideinclude prevailing seismic safety standards and buildingcodes, as applicable, in the project design plans andspecifications.The Bureau receives no special funding orappropriations specific to this effort.

General Services AdministrationAs of September 2004, GSA had fully evaluated 43 percent ofthe 745 federally owned buildings that it had previouslytargeted as seismically deficient. Seismic evaluations ofexisting buildings are conducted in accordance with ASCEStandard 31-03; life safety is the minimum acceptableperformance level for existing federal buildings.

Funding limitations preclude rehabilitation of all buildingsfound to have seismic deficiencies.To facilitate efficient andeffective use of available funds, GSA prepared a nationwide listof owned properties ranked by seismic risk.This “SeismicHazard Priority List” ranks buildings for rehabilitation on thebasis of their location, type of structural framing, and numberof occupants. Rehabilitation of existing buildings isperformed in accordance with FEMA 356.

GSA conducts risk analyses of seismically deficient buildingsto assess their vulnerability and the costs of improving theirseismic performance through partial or complete retrofits.Each such analysis yields a probable maximum loss (PML)estimate, the maximum expected financial loss to thestructure from earthquake damage.The PML represents losson property in its current condition, without the benefit ofrenovation or retrofit. Even though a building may not be incompliance with GSA life-safety criteria, if the life-safety riskfor occupants is low, the building is deemed acceptable foroccupancy during the period of the analysis.The risk-analysistool helps in determining whether risks are acceptable foroccupancy when seismic mitigation must be delayed untilfunds become available.

In mid-2004, GSA began installing 75 friction pendulumisolators at the Pioneer Courthouse in Portland, Oregon.Thisbuilding, a 129-year-old national historic landmark, is thesecond oldest federal courthouse west of the Mississippi Riverand is ranked second in historic significance among GSAbuildings.When the work to seismically isolate andrehabilitate the courthouse is complete, the structure will bethe first base-isolated federal building in the PacificNorthwest.

In addition to its seismic work with federally ownedbuildings, GSA has effectively applied seismic safety standardsto the privately owned, leased buildings within its purview.GSA is responsible for about 63 percent of all privately ownedbuildings leased by the Federal Government. Approximately15 percent of the buildings leased by GSA are located inregions with high seismicity. GSA includes language in all ofits new leases requiring building owners to meet therequirements of ICSSC Recommended Practice 6, and GSAengineers review and verify seismic certifications submittedby owners’ engineers.

62

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,WesternEcology Division, Corvallis, Oregon.

63

GSA partnered with USGS to produce guidelines, revised inNovember 2002, for installing seismic instrumentation inbuildings.The main objective of deploying seismicinstrumentation is to enhance understanding of the behaviorof structures and of their potential for sustaining damageunder the dynamic loads of earthquakes. Better understandingcan lead to new design and construction practices that canreduce future earthquake damage. “Seismic Instrumentationof Buildings,” the guidelines document prepared under thisjoint GSA-USGS project, includes sample specifications forseismic building instrumentation systems.

Department of Health and Human ServicesThe Department found seismic deficiencies at its IHS facilitiesduring 1999 and 2000.The total cost of correcting theseproblems was estimated to be $149 million.Various strategieshave since been developed to correct the deficiencies,including removing buildings from the Department’sproperty inventory and incorporating structural and non-structural seismic upgrades into all major renovation projects.As a result, the deficiencies have been reduced byapproximately 33 percent over the past 4 years.

Department of the InteriorThe overall seismic rehabilitation cost estimate that theDepartment prepared in 1998 had two components: costsdeveloped for each deficient building in high seismic zones,and a statistical projection of high-zone costs to buildings inmoderate and low seismic zones. During FY 2003 and 2004,the DOI Seismic Safety Program continued to extend theinventorying, screening, and evaluating requirements of ICSSCRecommended Practice 6 to buildings in moderate and lowseismic zones.This involves identifying seismically deficientbuildings in these zones and developing building-specificrehabilitation cost estimates that are consistent with estimatesprepared for high-zone buildings.These new building-specificestimates will replace the statistically projected rehabilitationcost estimate for buildings in low and moderate zones.

DOI has actively pursued the mitigation of unacceptableseismic risk in existing buildings, which is a specificrequirement of ICSSC Recommended Practice 6.TheDepartment has placed a high priority on addressing deferredmaintenance issues, including seismic safety issues, that affectthe health and safety of employees and the public. DOI hasframed this priority in budget guidance, requesting a 5-yearplan from each DOI bureau addressing, as a priority, criticalhealth and safety deferred maintenance.These plans willinclude the rehabilitation of high-risk buildings identifiedpursuant to Executive Order 12941.

Mitigation designs for the Department’s highest-risk buildingswere initiated in FY 1999, and a specific funding plan is inplace that allows mitigation resources to be directed to thesestructures. DOI has developed a risk-based methodology thatdetermines the mitigation priority of all buildings found tobe seismically deficient.This innovative approach has allowedthe Department to move quickly to initiate seismic riskreduction projects at the highest-priority facilities as fundingpermits.

The Department’s seismic safety coordinators managemeetings of the DOI Seismic Safety Team, which includesseismic safety contacts from each bureau.The U.S. ForestService and IHS have also participated in Team meetings.Meeting agendas encompass general coordination, resourcesharing, training, compliance, Seismic Safety Programimplementation, program annual reports, and bureau statusreports.The Team has met with and made presentations toseismic safety program directors from the State of California,the Salt Lake City School District, and the City of Seattle, andhas met with numerous service providers and manufacturersof seismic restraints.

Department of LaborDuring FY 2003 and 2004, the Department of Labor’s seismicsafety activities related to buildings that it owned and leasedfor the Employment and Training Administration’s (ETA) JobCorps program. Before buildings are purchased for the JobCorps, ETA evaluates their seismic safety and forwards itsfindings and recommendations, including cost estimates forany required mitigation, to the Department for review. ETAmonitors planned renovations of leased facilities to determinewhether accompanying seismic upgrades are required, andreviews upcoming lease renewals to determine whether thelessor must complete mitigation work or certify seismiccompliance before the Department can renew the lease.

ETA completed detailed seismic analyses of Job Corps facilitiesthat were unable to be exempted from such scrutiny throughearlier screening performed under Executive Order 12941.These analyses, comprising FEMA 310 evaluations andpreparation of mitigation recommendations, were performedat five Job Corps centers.The buildings found to requiremitigation and the mitigation strategies pursued are describedbelow for each center.

• Memphis Job Corps Center—An A&E firm has begunpreparing mitigation designs for the Center’s mainbuilding and gymnasium.

• Los Angeles Job Corps Center—Buildings 1 (main), 2(education), 3 (business, education), and 4 (residential)were found to be in need of seismic mitigation.TheCenter has decided to vacate these structures and findalternate facilities in cooperation with the lessor.

• Sacramento Job Corps Center—A contract has beenawarded to demolish and replace the gymnasium.

• Sierra Nevada Job Corps Center—A project has beenfunded to design seismic upgrades for Buildings 11(Donner Hall), 15 (Washoe Hall), 18 (Lassen Hall), 19(Comstock Hall), 20 (Fremont Hall), 21 (Carson Hall),22 (cafeteria), and 31 (theater).

• Cascades Job Corps Center—The lessor, the State ofWashington, has agreed to let contracts to design andinstall seismic upgrades for Buildings 24 and 28; theDepartment of Labor will contribute funds toward thiswork.

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationDuring the late 1970s and the 1980s, NASA implemented aseismic safety review process in areas of high seismicity andmodified many existing buildings. Since then, NASA hascontinued these efforts by programming facility revitalizationprojects that comply with current building codes and seismicstandards. Seismic safety has remained a prime considerationamong facility engineers at NASA centers located invulnerable areas. NASA has also continued to work withFEMA, the ICSSC, and other agencies in developing seismicevaluation methodologies and proposed Executive Orders.

Since NASA incorporated the requirements of Executive Order12941 into the “NASA Facilities Program ImplementationRequirements” policy document, its centers have continued torespond by evaluating existing buildings and determiningwhich require seismic upgrades or replacement. Mitigationprojects are considered in NASA’s yearly budget deliberations.Despite the budget constraints it has faced, NASA hasmaintained a prudent course of identifying and upgradingfacilities that may present unwarranted risks from seismicallyinduced hazards. Buildings leased by NASA are required tocomply with seismic safety standards before the lease isexecuted.

In FY 2003, NASA completed a seismic survey of facilities atthe Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. In2004, NASA prepared a preliminary engineering reportconcerning seismic upgrades for a tall office building at JPLthat was initially evaluated in FY 2002. On the basis of thesestudies, NASA decided to replace this building. NASA alsocompleted construction documents for the seismic retrofit ofanother building at JPL and made plans to seek bids for theproject in FY 2005.

At the Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California,NASA completed seismic upgrades in two buildings; theseprojects were initiated in FY 2002 and FY 2003. In FY 2004,NASA began seismically strengthening two more buildings atthe Center and made plans to upgrade another building in FY

2005. NASA has also hired consulting engineers to evaluatethree more buildings at the Center, and will budget funds forseismic upgrades as needed.

Department of the NavyIn October 2003, DoN issued NAVFAC Instruction 11000.40to update and promulgate DoN seismic safety policy.Thisinstruction adopted ICSSC Recommended Practice 6 as theminimum acceptable seismic standard for the Department’sexisting owned and leased buildings within the United States,its territories, and possessions.

Department of Veterans AffairsThe Department has been evaluating and mitigating seismicrisk at its health care facilities since the mid-1970s. Inresponse to Executive Order 12941,VA has combined the riskdata that it had already developed with data generatedthrough additional screening and evaluation studies(including detailed studies of 220 buildings), to create anextensive building inventory containing detailedinfrastructure and seismic risk data.

Of the 6,000 buildings in the VA inventory, 700 are subject tosome level of seismic risk. Of those 700 structures, 150 havebeen designated as high-risk and 75 as EHR. Buildings subjectto high or exceptionally high risk are ranked individually byseverity of risk in the inventory.The inventory is being usedto develop project-level mitigation cost estimates forincorporation into VA’s major construction program.

64

In FY 2003, NASA completed a seismic survey of facilities at the JPL inPasadena, California.

At the close of FY 2004, 12 seismic mitigation projects wereunder way or had recently been completed in Puerto Ricoand California, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Each ofthese projects is listed below along with its status at the endof the fiscal year.

• VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach,California—The retrofit for Building 133 (nursing home)was being designed, and A&E firms were being selectedfor the Building 7 (wards and clinic) and Building126OP (outpatient facilities) work.

• VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park Division,Menlo Park, California—Building 137 (psychiatricfacilities) was scheduled to be demolished and Building324 (wards and administrative offices) to be replaced.

• VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto Division, PaloAlto, California—A&E firms were being sought for theBuilding 2 (psychiatric facilities) and Building 4(research facilities) retrofits, and seismic upgrades hadbeen completed in Buildings 23 (therapeuticgymnasium) and 40 (boiler house).

• Sacramento VA Medical Center, Mather, California—Aconstruction contract had been issued for the Building650 (hospital) retrofit.

• VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California—Seismic design work was underway for Building 1(medical center).

• San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco,California—The design work for Building 203 (inpatienthospital) was in progress.

• Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center and Nursing Home,Sepulveda, California—Seismic construction had beencompleted in Building 99 (nursing home).

• West Los Angeles Healthcare Center, Los Angeles,California—Retrofits were being designed for Buildings114 (research laboratory) and 500 (main hospital).

• VA Montana Health Care System, Fort Harrison,Montana—Work had been completed on Building 154A(outpatient clinic).

• Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, Oregon—Construction was set to begin on the upgrades forBuildings 6 (research facilities) and 16 (research andadministrative facilities).

• San Juan VA Medical Center, San Juan, Puerto Rico—A&Eselection was in process for work on Building 1 (mainhospital).

• VA Puget Sound Health Care System, American LakeDivision,Tacoma,Washington—Seismic upgrades wereunder construction in Buildings 6 (domiciliary), 61(mental health facilities), and 85 (mental healthfacilities).

As these projects indicate,VA has made seismic safety animportant goal for its health care facility managers and hasaggressively supported construction funding for therehabilitation of seismically deficient buildings.TheDepartment has issued a seismic safety directive mandatingspecific organizational responsibilities and directing facilitymanagers to develop strategic plans to address seismically at-risk facilities.

VA owns the National Strong Motion InstrumentationNetwork, which records and analyzes seismic activity through85 recording systems located at 60 VA medical centers aroundthe country. USGS operates and maintains this network underan interagency agreement with VA. Recently,VA had USGSreplace the old analog strong motion instruments at 45medical centers with more sophisticated digital instruments.

VA has continued to participate, along with FEMA, ICSSC, andthe BSSC, in the development of seismic standards, codecomparisons, and data collection initiatives.The manager ofVA’s seismic program routinely attends related conferencesand keeps up with the state of the art in seismic risk analysisand mitigation.

65

On October 25, 2004, Congress enacted the EarthquakeHazards Reduction Authorization Act of 2004, Public Law108-360. Public Law 108-360 provides for a number ofchanges affecting the National Earthquake Hazards ReductionProgram (NEHRP) starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, includingthe transfer of lead agency status over the NEHRP from theFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to theNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).Another significant change is the requirement that NISTestablish an Advisory Committee on Earthquake HazardsReduction. The Advisory Committee, which will becomprised of representatives from research and academicinstitutions, industry standards development organizations,state and local government, and financial communities, willmake recommendations to the NEHRP agencies inimplementing the Program. Beginning in FY 2005, theserecommendations will be included in an annual report to theCongress, rather than a biennial report, on NEHRP progress.

The Strategic Plan for the NEHRP for 2001-2005, Expanding and UsingKnowledge To Reduce Earthquake Losses (Strategic Plan) articulates themission and the four primary goals of the NEHRP, provides a

framework for priority-setting and coordinating activities, anddefines priority areas for the future. In FY 2004, the NEHRPInteragency Coordinating Committee (ICC) established aSubcommittee on Performance Measures. By the end of FY2005, the ICC Subcommittee will have establishedperformance measures for the NEHRP based on the mission,goals, objectives, and priorities in the Strategic Plan. Theseperformance measures will serve as the foundation forupdating the Strategic Plan and will provide the basis for bothassessing progress and establishing priorities and futuredirection of the NEHRP.

Over the next year, the NEHRP agencies will continue to buildon the projects and initiatives described in Section II of thisreport. Recent events also will bring a new focus to some ofthe NEHRP agencies’ priorities and future directions, some ofwhich are described below.


In response to the magnitude 6.5 San Simeon earthquake onDecember 22, 2003, the California Office of EmergencyServices used FEMA’s HAZUS software program, in

66

This photos was taken on a survey along and near the Denali fault after Alaska’s Nov. magnitude 3 7.9 earthquake. (USGS)

IV. Future Directions

conjunction with a ShakeMap produced by the U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS), as the basis for arriving at loss estimationwithin 1 hour of the event.

In the 8 years since FEMA published the prototype earthquakeedition HAZUS97, HAZUS has helped communities across theUnited States identify and plan for earthquakes by givingthem access to specialized databases and GIS-based analytictools.

The FEMA HAZUS earthquake loss estimation methodologyuses mathematical formulas and information about buildingstock, local geology, the location and size of potentialearthquakes, economic data, and other information toestimate losses from a potential earthquake. HAZUS usesArcGIS to map and display ground shaking, the pattern ofbuilding damage, and demographic information about acommunity. Once the location and size of a hypotheticalearthquake is identified, HAZUS estimates:

• ground shaking

• the number of buildings damaged

• the number of casualties

• the amount of damage to transportation systems

• disruption to the electrical and water utilities

• the number of people displaced from their homes

• the cost of repairing projected damage and other effects

In FY 2005, FEMA's Mitigation Division released HAZUS-MHMR1 (HAZUS-MH Version 1.1), an updated and revisedversion of HAZUS-MH that includes a sixth edition of theHAZUS Earthquake Model. In addition to providing estimatesof damage to property, hospitals, fire and police stations,schools, bridges and other transportation facilities, andutilities, the Earthquake Model addresses building debrisgeneration, fires that occur after earthquakes, casualties,shelter requirements, and economic losses. HAZUS-MH MR1features faster runtimes for supporting rapid loss estimationduring earthquake response operations, a capability to addspecialized local building types to the earthquake analysis,updated third-party software platforms, and numerousimprovements based on user input. A FEMA priority is tocontinue to update HAZUS to best meet the needs of thepublic and decision-makers in preparing for and respondingto earthquakes and other natural disasters.

National Institutes of Standards and Technology

For over 100 years, the Nation has relied upon NIST forscientific and technical expertise, not only to enhance nationalsecurity but to promote economic growth, commerce, andtrade. In times of war or other national emergencies, NISTscientists and engineers have stepped forward with a vastarray of expertise and knowledge in areas as diverse as radiotransmission and forensic DNA typing.

Through approximately 120 ongoing and newly initiatedresearch and standards development projects, NIST is helpinglaw enforcement, the military, emergency services,information technology, airport and building security, andother areas protect the American public from terrorist threats.Similar to earthquake hazard reduction, an essential tool inresponding to extreme events is a solidly built and protectedinfrastructure. NIST is contributing to this goal throughprojects focused on strengthening the safety and security ofbuildings and the physical infrastructure.

In August 2002, NIST launched a $16 million, multi-yearfederal building and fire safety investigation of the WorldTrade Center disaster.The study of World Trade CenterBuildings 1 and 2 and World Trade Center Building 7 isfocusing on the building construction, the materials used, andall of the technical conditions that contributed to theoutcome of the World Trade Center disaster. Similar to mostof NIST's work, this project is a partnership with manyorganizations and world-class experts. From this study, NISTexpects to learn-and pass on-many lessons in several differentareas, including structural fire protection, life safety, andengineering practice. These broader R&D and disseminationefforts will focus on using the results of the World TradeCenter investigation to develop cost-effective solutions toimprove the safety of existing and future buildings againstextreme events such as fires, attacks, and natural disasters,including earthquakes. NIST will release the final investigationreport on World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 in April orMay 2005. The WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplementto the main report, with a draft issued in May and the final inJuly 2005.

These NIST efforts also will help provide a betterunderstanding of how emergency responders and buildingoccupants behave in a crisis, and to use the lessons learned tohelp occupants survive future disasters and enable emergencyresponders to do their jobs more safely and effectively. NISTexpects to engage leaders of the construction and buildingcommunity in the implementation of proposed changes topractices, standards, and codes. Guidance and practices basedon this study will be disseminated broadly to standards andcode-developing organizations and to state and local agencies.

67

NIST believes the resulting code reforms will further protectproperty and save lives, as well as provide better emergencyresponse capabilities and procedures in future disasters.


The December 26, 2004, tsunami in South Asia is oneexample of how the NEHRP agencies can rapidly focus theirefforts to respond to events and look to the future to reducethe impacts of these events. With the appropriateinformation, communities and nations can characterize risksand determine how best to allocate resources for detection,warning, and preparedness. The National Science Foundation(NSF), in cooperation with the world research community,will continue to generate new knowledge about the naturalphenomena of earthquakes and tsunamis, the design of bettercoastal structures, the development of early warning andresponse systems that can mitigate loss of life, and recoveryfrom such disasters.

NSF has long funded scientific and engineering researchinfrastructure to detect and understand the impacts ofearthquakes, tsunamis, and other phenomena. Prominentexamples include the real-time Global SeismographicNetwork (GSN), the data from which forged the critical coreof the early warning of the December 26, 2004, earthquake.This Network, operated by the Incorporated ResearchInstitutions for Seismology (IRIS), is funded in partnership byNSF and the USGS, and is the primary international source ofdata for earthquake location and tsunami warning.

NSF also funds research designed to support damage and lossprediction and avoidance for the United States and elsewhere,including earthquake and tsunami effects on buildings,bridges, and critical infrastructure systems, and estimates ofeconomic consequences, human and societal impacts, andemergency response. NSF recently established the George E.Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation(NEES), a major national infrastructure project to create acomplete system of test facilities.The project isrevolutionizing earthquake-engineering research. NSF-fundedresearchers create physical and computational simulations tostudy how earthquakes and tsunamis affect buildings, bridges,ports, and other critical infrastructure.The NEES TsunamiWave Basin at Oregon State University is now the world’smost comprehensive facility for studying tsunamis and stormwaves.


During the past year, more than 27 major disasters weredeclared in the United States from earthquakes, landslides,storms, fires, and floods.The year ended with the tragictsunami in the Indian Ocean, triggered by a magnitude 9earthquake off the coast of Sumatra. As part of a 2-yearcommitment by the Administration to expand tsunamidetection and monitoring to protect residents in the U.S. andits territories, the USGS facilities and operations will providemore robust detection and notification of earthquakes thatcould trigger tsunamis. USGS will conduct this effort inpartnership with National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA). USGS also will enhance its volcanomonitoring program and will maintain a strong landslideprogram to provide advance warnings of potential debris flowand landslides.

As part of the Administration’s plan to improve the safety ofthe United States, the USGS also will increase its ability torapidly determine the location, size, and depth of largeearthquakes; improve landslide models and alert systems;improve monitoring of the most dangerous volcanoes in theUnited States; and work with its partners to ensure timelywarnings for all geologic hazards.

The NEHRP is a very successful program that has significantlyimproved our Nation’s ability to prepare for, respond to,recover from, and mitigate earthquakes. The NEHRP willsucceed in meeting the challenges brought about byearthquakes by continuing to combine the talents, expertise,and energy of the NEHRP agencies and all of its partners. Inlooking to the future, the NEHRP will play a critical role bymaking the performance of our buildings and lifelines highlymeasurable and predictable.This measurement and predictionability will provide the critical foundation upon which toachieve specified levels of performance and seismic riskreduction via workable and practicable solutions. The UnitedStates, through the work of the NEHRP, will be safer andmore secure for it.

68

List of Acronyms

ACP Association of Contingency Planners

A/E Architect/Engineer; Architectural/Engineering

AHAB All Hazard Alert Broadcasting

ALA American Lifelines Alliance

ANSS Advanced National Seismic System

AOC Architect of the Capitol

API American Petroleum Institute

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ATC Applied Technology Council

AWWA American Water Works Association

BOCA Building Officials and Code Administrators

BSSC Building Seismic Safety Council

CALTRANS California Department of Transportation

CEA California Earthquake Authority

CEPEC California Earthquake Prediction EvaluationCouncil

CERI Center for Earthquake Research and Information

CPARM Contingency Planning and Recovery Managers

CREW Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup

CRSC Code Resource Support Committee

CUSEC Central United States Earthquake Consortium

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DHS&EM Division of Homeland Security and EmergencyManagement (Alaska)

DNR Department of Natural Resources

DoD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOGAMI Department of Geology and Mineral Industry(Oregon)

DOI Department of Interior

DoN Department of the Navy

DOT Department of Transportation

DR Disaster Research Newsletter (NHRAIC)

DRB Disaster Resistant Business Program

EERC Earthquake Engineering Research Center

EERI Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

EHR Exceptionally High Risk

EMA Emergency Management Agency

EMD Emergency Management Division (Washington)

EMI Emergency Management Institute (FEMA)

EMPG Emergency Management Performance Grant

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPRI Electrical Power Research Institute

ETA Employment and Training Administration (DOL)

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FRP Fiber-Reinforced Polymer

FY Fiscal Year

GIS Geographic Information System

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

GSA General Services Administration

HAZUS Hazards U.S.

HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

69

HSEAC Hawaii State Earthquake Advisory Committee

HUG HAZUS Users Group

IAEM International Association of Emergency Managers

IBC International Building Code

IBHS Institute for Business and Home Safety

ICC International Code Council; InteragencyCoordinating Committee

ICDP International Continental Drilling Program

ICSSC Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety inConstruction

IHS Indian Health Service

InSAR Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar

IRC International Residential Code

IRIS Incorporated Research Institutions forSeismology

ITR Information Technology Research

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory

LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design

LYS Lowe Yield Strength

MAE Center Mid-America Earthquake Center

MBDSI Multihazard Building Design Summer Institute

MCEER Multidisciplinary Center for EarthquakeEngineering Research

MMC Multihazard Mitigation Council

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NASA National Aeronautical and Space Administration

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

NBC National Building Code

NCREE National Center for Research on EarthquakeEngineering

NEES Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation

NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

NEIC National Earthquake Information Center

NESEC Northeast States Emergency Consortium

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

NHRAIC Natural Hazards Research and ApplicationsInformation Center

NIBS National Institute of Building Sciences

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NJGS New Jersey Geological Survey

NMSZ New Madrid Seismic Zone

NOAA National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

NPH Natural Phenomena Hazards, DOE

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission; NationalResearch Council

NSF National Science Foundation

NSMP National Strong Motion Program

NTHMP National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program

NYCEM New York Area Consortium for Earthquake LossMitigation

OEM Oregon Emergency Management

OES Office of Emergency Services

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PDC Pacific Disaster Center

PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

PML Probable Maximum Loss

PRSEMA Puerto Rico State Emergency ManagementAgency

70

QR Quick Response Research Reports (NHRAIC)

RBS Reduced Beam Sections

REDARS Risks from Earthquake Damage to RoadwaysSystems Software

RPMS Real Property Management System

SAFOD San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth

SAVE Structural Assessment and Visual Evaluation

SBC Standard Building Code

SCD State Civil Defense (Hawaii)

SCEC Southern California Earthquake Center

SECC State Emergency Coordination Center (Alaska)

SEMA State Emergency Management Agency (Missouri)

SNL Sandia National Laboratory

SPW Sheer Plated Walls

SSC Seismic Safety Commission (Washington);Structures, Systems and Components (DOE)

TIME Tsunami Inundation Mapping Effort

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

UAF/GI University of Alaska Fairbanks, GeophysicalInstitute

UBC Uniform Building Code

UFC Unified Facilities Criteria

UJNR U.S.-Japan Joint Panel on Wind and SeismicEffects

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USNSN U.S. National Seismograph Network

UT University of Texas

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

VIEWS Visualizing Earthquake Impacts with SatelliteImagery

WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council

WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction

WSSPC Western States Seismic Policy Council71

Executive Order 12699: SeismicSafety of Federal and FederallyAssisted or Regulated NewBuilding Construction

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitutionand laws of the United States of America, and in furtheranceof the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, asamended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), which requires thatFederal preparedness and mitigation activities are to include“development and promulgation of specifications, buildingstandards, design criteria, and construction practices toachieve appropriate earthquake resistance for new…structures,” and “an examination of alternative provisions andrequirements for reducing earthquake hazards throughFederal and federally financed construction, loans, loanguarantees, and licenses…” (42 U.S.C. 7704(f)(3, 4)), it ishereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Requirements for Earthquake Safety of New FederalBuildings

The purposes of these requirements are to reduce risks to thelives of occupants of buildings owned by the FederalGovernment and to persons who would be affected by thefailures of Federal buildings in earthquakes, to improve thecapability of essential Federal buildings to function during orafter an earthquake, and to reduce earthquake losses of publicbuildings, all in a cost-effective manner. A building means anystructure, fully or partially enclosed, used or intended forsheltering persons or property.

Each Federal agency responsible for the design andconstruction of each new Federal building shall ensure thatthe building is designed and constructed in accord withappropriate seismic design and construction standards.Thisrequirement pertains to all building projects for whichdevelopment of detailed plans and specifications is initiatedsubsequent to the issuance of the order. Seismic design andconstruction standards shall be adopted for agency use inaccord with sections 3(a) and 4(a) of this order.

Section 2. Federally Leased, Assisted, or Regulated Buildings

The purposes of these requirements are to reduce risks to thelives of occupants of buildings leased for Federal uses orpurchased or constructed with Federal assistance, to reducerisks to the lives of persons who would be affected byearthquake failures of federally assisted or regulated buildings,and to protect public investments, all in a cost-effectivemanner.The provisions of this order shall apply to all the newconstruction activities specified in the subsections below.

(a) Space Leased for Federal Occupancy. Each Federal agencyresponsible for the construction and lease of a new buildingfor Federal use shall ensure that the building is designed andconstructed in accord with appropriate seismic design andconstruction standards.This requirement pertains to all leasedbuilding projects for which the agreement coveringdevelopment of detailed plans and specifications is effectedsubsequent to the issuance of this order. Local building codesshall be used in design and construction by those concernedwith such activities in accord with section 3(a) and 3(c) ofthis order and augmented when necessary to achieveappropriate seismic design and construction standards.

(b) Federal Domestic Assistance Programs. Each Federalagency assisting in the financing, through Federal grants orloans, or guaranteeing the financing, through loan ormortgage insurance programs, of newly constructed buildingsshall plan, and shall initiate no later than 3 years subsequentto the issuance of this order, measures consistent with section3(a) of this order, to assure appropriate consideration ofseismic safety.

(c) Federally Regulated Buildings. Each Federal agency withgeneric responsibility for regulating the structural safety ofbuildings shall plan to require use of appropriate seismicdesign and construction standards for new buildings withinthe agency’s purview. Implementation of the plan shall beinitiated no later than 3 years subsequent to the issuance ofthis order.

Section 3. Concurrent Requirements

(a) In accord with Office of Management and Budget CircularA - 119 of January 17, 1980, entitled “Federal Participation inthe Development and Use of Voluntary Standards,” nationallyrecognized private sector standards and practices shall be usedfor the purposes identified in sections 1 and 2 above unlessthe responsible agency finds that none is available that meetsits requirements.The actions ordered herein shall consider theseismic hazards in various areas of the country to be asshown in the most recent edition of the American NationalStandards Institute Standards A58, Minimum Design Loans forBuildings and Other Structures, or subsequent maps adoptedfor Federal use in accord with this order. Local building codesdetermined by the responsible agency or by the InteragencyCommittee for Seismic Safety in Construction to provideadequately for seismic safety, or special seismic standards andpractices required by unique agency mission needs, may beused.

(b) All orders, regulations, circulars, or other directivesissued, and all other actions taken prior to the date of thisorder that meet the requirements of this order, are herebyconfirmed and ratified and shall be deemed to have beenissued under this order.

72

(c) Federal agencies that are as of this date requiring seismicsafety levels that are higher than those imposed by this orderin their assigned new building construction programs shallcontinue to maintain in force such levels.

(d) Nothing in this order shall apply to assistance providedfor emergency work essential to save lives and protectproperty and public health and safety, performed pursuant toSections 402, 403, 502, and 503 of the Robert T. StaffordDisaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act)(42 U.S.C. 5170a, 5170b, 5192, and 5193), or for temporaryhousing assistance programs and individual and family grantsperformed pursuant to Sections 408 and 411 of the StaffordAct (42 U.S.C. 5174 and 5178). However, this order shallapply to other provisions of the Stafford Act after apresidentially declared major disaster or emergency whenassistance actions involve new construction or totalreplacement of a building. Grantees and subgrantees shall beencouraged to adopt the standards established in section 3(a)of this order for use when the construction does not involveFederal funding as well as when Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) funding applies.

Section 4. Agency Responsibilities

(a) The Director of the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency shall be responsible for reporting to the President onthe execution of this order and providing support for thesecretariat of the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety inConstruction (ICSSC).The ICSSC, using consensus procedures,shall be responsible to FEMA for the recommendation foradoption of cost-effective seismic design and constructionstandards and practices required by sections 1 and 2 of thisorder. Participation in ICSSC shall be open to all agencies withprograms affected by this order.

(b) To the extent permitted by law, each agency shall issue oramend existing regulations or procedures to comply with thisorder within 3 years of its issuance and plan for theirimplementation through the usual budget process.Thereafter,each agency shall review, within a period not to exceed 3years, its regulations or procedures to assess the need toincorporate new or revised standards and practices.

Section 5. Reporting

The Federal Emergency Management Agency shall request,from each agency affected by this order, information on thestatus of its procedures, progress in its implementation plan,and the impact of this order on its operations.The FEMA shallinclude an assessment of the execution of this order in itsannual report to the Congress on the National EarthquakeHazards Reduction Program.

Section 6. Judicial Review

Nothing in this order is intended to create any right orbenefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by aparty against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or anyperson.

George H.W. Bush

The White House

January 5, 1990

73

Executive Order 12941: SeismicSafety of Existing FederallyOwned or Leased Buildings

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitutionand laws of the United States of America, and in furtheranceof the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, asamended by Public Law 101-614, which requires thePresident to adopt “standards for assessing and enhancing theseismic safety of existing buildings constructed for or leasedby the Federal Government which were designed andconstructed without adequate seismic design andconstruction standards” (42 U.S.C. 7705b(a)), it is herebyordered as follows:

Section 1. Adoption of Minimum Standards

The Standards of Seismic Safety for Existing Federally Ownedor Leased Buildings (Standards), developed, issued andmaintained by the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safetyin Construction (ICSSC), are hereby adopted as the minimumlevel acceptable for use by Federal departments and agenciesin assessing the seismic safety of their owned and leasedbuildings and in mitigating unacceptable seismic risks inthose buildings.The Standards shall be applied, at aminimum, to those buildings identified in the Standards asrequiring evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation. Evaluationsand mitigations that were completed prior to the date of thisorder under agency programs that were based on standardsdeemed adequate and appropriate by the individual agencyneed not be reconsidered unless otherwise stipulated by theStandards. For the purposes of this order, buildings aredefined as any structure, fully or partially enclosed, locatedwithin the United States as defined in the Earthquake HazardsReduction Act of 1977, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 7703 (5)),used or intended for sheltering persons or property, exceptfor the exclusions specified in the Standards.

Section 2. Estimating Costs of Mitigation

Each agency that owns or leases buildings for Federal useshall, within 4 years of the issuance of this order, develop aninventory of their owned and leased buildings and shallestimate the costs of mitigating unacceptable seismic risks in

those buildings.The cost estimate shall be based on theexemptions and evaluation and mitigation requirements inthe Standards. Guidance for the development of the inventoryand cost estimates will be issued by the ICSSC no later than 1year after the signing of this order. Cost estimates withsupporting documentation shall be submitted to the Directorof the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) nolater than 4 years after the signing of this order.

Section 3. Implementation Responsibilities

(a) The Federal Emergency Management Agency is responsiblefor (1) notifying all Federal departments and agencies of theexistence and content of this order; (2) preparing for theCongress, in consultation with the ICSSC, no later than 6 yearsafter the issuance of this order, a comprehensive report onhow to achieve an adequate level of seismic safety in federallyowned and leased buildings in an economically feasiblemanner; and (3) preparing for the Congress on a biennialbasis, a report on the execution of this order.

(b) The National Institute of Standards and Technology isresponsible for providing technical assistance to the Federaldepartments and agencies in the implementation of this order.

(c) Federal departments and agencies may request anexemption from this order from the Director of the Office ofManagement and Budget.

Section 4. Updating Programs

The ICSSC shall update the Standards at least every 5 years. Itshall also update the Standards within 2 years of thepublication of the first edition of FEMA’s Guidelines forSeismic Rehabilitation of Buildings and Commentary.

Section 5. Judicial Review

Nothing in this order is intended to create any right toadministrative or judicial review, or any other right, benefit,or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceableat law by any party against the United States, its agencies orinstrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any person.

The White House

December 1, 1994

74

the national earthquake hazards reduction programnehrp.gov/pdf/biennial_2003_2004.pdfthe magnitude...

Documents