U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–491PDF 2011

ARE WE PREPARED? 

ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE RISK REDUCTION IN 

THE UNITED STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 7, 2011 

Serial No. 112–13 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

HON. BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona, Chair 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, April 7, 2011 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Benjamin Quayle, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative David Wu, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Jack Hayes, Director, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

(NEHRP) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Biography .......................................................................................................... 21 

Mr. Jim Mullen, Director, Washington State Emergency Management Division and the President of the National Emergency Management Association 

(NEMA) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Biography .......................................................................................................... 27 

Mr. Chris Poland, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Degenkolb Engineers and Chairman of the NEHRP Advisory Committee 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Biography .......................................................................................................... 34 

Dr. Vicki McConnell, Oregon State Geologist and the Director of the Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37 

Biography .......................................................................................................... 42 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Jack Hayes, Director, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

(NEHRP) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ...... 56 

Mr. Jim Mullen, Director, Washington State Emergency Management Division and the President of the National Emergency Management Association 

(NEMA) ................................................................................................................. 71 

Mr. Chris Poland, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Degenkolb Engineers and Chairman of the NEHRP Advisory Committee ............................... 73 

Dr. Vicki McConnell, Oregon State Geologist and the Director of the Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries ................................................ 74 
Page

IV 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted Statement by Representative Randy Neugebauer, Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 78 
(1) 

ARE WE PREPARED? 

ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE RISK REDUCTION 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin Quayle 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Are We Prepared? 

Assessing Earthquake Risk Reduction in 

the United States 

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose 

On Thursday, April 7, 2011 the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation of 

the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will hold a hearing to examine 

earthquake risk in the United States and to review efforts supporting the development of earthquake hazard reduction measures, and the creation of disaster-resilient communities. 

Witnesses 

Dr. Jack Hayes is the Director of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program (NEHRP) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

Mr. Jim Mullen is the Director of the Washington State Emergency Management 

Division and the President of the National Emergency Management Association 

(NEMA). 

Mr. Chris Poland is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Degenkolb Engineers and the Chairman of the NEHRP Advisory Committee. 

Dr. Vicki McConnell is an Oregon State Geologist and the Director of the Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 

Brief Overview 

The hearing will examine various elements of the Nation’s level of earthquake 

preparedness and resiliency including the U.S. capability to detect earthquakes and 

issue notifications and warnings, coordination between federal, state and local 

stakeholders for earthquake emergency preparation, and research and development 

measures supported by the federal government designed to improve the scientific 

understanding of earthquakes. 

Background 

Earthquake Risk and Hazard in the United States 

Portions of all 50 states are vulnerable to earthquake hazards, although risks 

vary across the country and within individual states. Twenty-six urban areas in 

fourteen U.S. states face significant seismic risk. Earthquake hazards are greatest 

in the western United States, particularly in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. Though infrequent, earthquakes are unique among natural hazards 

in that they strike without warning. Earthquakes proceed as cascades, in which the 

primary effects of faulting and ground shaking induce secondary effects such as 

landslides, liquefaction, and tsunami, which in turn set off destructive processes 

within the built environment; structures collapse, people are injured or killed, infrastructure is disrupted, and business interruption begins. The socioeconomic effects 

of large earthquakes can reverberate for decades. 

The recent earthquake that struck off the coast of northern Japan on March 11, 

2011, illustrates that the effects of an earthquake can be catastrophic. The earthquake, recorded as a 9.0 on the Richter scale, is the most powerful quake to hit the 

country, and it triggered a devastating tsunami that swept over cities and farmland 

in the northern part of the country. As Japan struggles with rescue efforts, it also 
4 

faces a nuclear emergency due to damage to the nuclear reactors at the Fukushima 

Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. As of March 31, the official death toll from the 

earthquake and resulting tsunami includes more than 11,600, and more than 16,000 

people were listed as missing. The final toll is expected to reach nearly 20,000. More 

than 190,000 people remained housed in temporary shelters; tens of thousands of 

others evacuated their homes due to the nuclear crisis and related fear. 

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) 

In 1977 Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act (P.L. 95–124) establishing NEHRP as a long-term earthquake risk reduction program for the United 

States. The original program focused on research to understand and predict earthquakes. NEHRP’s focus was changed in 1990, when Congress decreased the emphasis on earthquake prediction, expanded the program objectives, and required federal 

agencies to adopt seismic safety standards. 

Currently under NEHRP, four federal agencies have responsibility for long-term 

earthquake risk reduction: NIST, FEMA, the NSF, and the USGS. Current program 

activities are focused on four broad areas including supporting the development of 

effective earthquake hazard reduction measures, promoting the adoption of these 

measures by federal, state, and local governments, improving the basic understanding of earthquakes and their effects on people and infrastructure, and developing and maintaining the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), the George 

E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering and Simulation (NEES), and the 

Global Seismic Network (GSN). 

Primary responsibilities for the NEHRP agencies break down as follows: 

• NIST is the lead NEHRP agency and has responsibility for the planning and 

coordination of the program. NIST also promotes earthquake resistant design 

and construction practices through building codes, standards, and construction practices. 

• FEMA assists other agencies and private-sector groups to prepare and develop earthquake risk modeling tools, and aids the development of performance-based codes for buildings and other structures. 

• NSF supports basic research to improve the safety and performance of buildings and structures using the research facilities of NEES and other institutions engaged in earth sciences, engineering, and social sciences relevant to 

understanding the causes and impacts of earthquakes. 

• USGS conducts research to assess earthquake causes and effects, produces 

national and regional seismic hazards maps, monitors and rapidly reports on 

earthquakes and their shaking intensities in the U.S. and abroad. The USGS 

maintains the ANSS and the GSN. 

The table below shows the authorized and enacted levels of funding for NERHP 

over the last reauthorization period. 
5 

1 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Strategic Plan for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Fiscal Years 2009–2013, October 2008, http://www.nehrp.gov/ 

pdf/strategic—plan—2008.pdf. 2 National Research Council of the National Academies, National Earthquake Resilience: Research, Implementation, and Outreach, March 2011, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record— 

id=13092. 

110th and 111th Congressional Hearings 

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held one hearing in the 

111th Congress entitled ‘‘Reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program’’ to review NEHRP in preparation for reauthorization. The Subcommittee also held two hearings related to this legislation during the 110th Congress. 

Reauthorization 

The last year to provide an authorization for NEHRP was fiscal year 2009. The 

House passed reauthorization legislation (H.R. 3820) in the last Congress, but it was 

not considered by the Senate. 

Issues for Examination 

Coordination of Federal Preparedness Efforts 

The Subcommittee has requested that witnesses address the coordination between 

federal, state, and local stakeholders, and their roles in earthquake preparedness efforts. Witnesses will also discuss how well NEHRP is functioning, opportunities to 

improve coordination among the NEHRP agencies, and the priorities for NEHRP 

moving forward. 

Hazard Mitigation Costs and Benefits 

Much of the expense resulting from damage caused by earthquakes is borne by 

the federal government. Witnesses are asked to discuss the costs and benefits of 

hazard mitigation spending, specifically, whether the cost of government investments in natural hazard mitigation with the objective of reducing or eliminating 

losses from future natural disasters results in a measurable benefit. 

The State of Hazards Reduction Science 

In the Strategic Plan for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

Fiscal Years 2009–2013 1, the NEHRP agencies list nine strategic priorities to accomplish the goals of understanding earthquakes and their impacts, developing costeffective measures to reduce these impacts, and improve earthquake resiliency nationwide. The Subcommittee has asked witnesses to address how these goals are 

bring accomplished, challenges faced by the NEHRP agencies, and how research priorities align with the strategic plan goals. Also, in a recent National Research Council report 2, eighteen preparedness tasks were identified, ranging from basic research 

to community-oriented applications. Witnesses have been asked to discuss how this 

‘‘roadmap’’ helps to further NEHRP goals and implement the NEHRP Strategic Plan 

to provide the basis for a more earthquake resilient nation. 

Response and Recovery Planning 

The Subcommittee has requested that witnesses address research and development for hazard mitigation tools and products. These activities must meet the needs 

of state and local officials who must prepare their communities for disasters and 

help them respond. How well do NEHRP activities meet state and local needs, how 

could efforts be better aligned, and what are the lessons that can be drawn from 

the resilience demonstrated in responding to a moderate earthquake in preparing 

for a great one? 
6 

Chairman QUAYLE. The Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation will come to order. 

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Are We Prepared? Assessing Earthquake Risk Reduction in the United 

States.’’ In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies and truth in testimony disclosures for today’s 

witnesses. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening 

statement. I would like to welcome all the witnesses here today for 

this hearing. 

In light of the devastating effects of the recent earthquake and 

subsequent tsunami that struck off the coast of northern Japan on 

March 11th, many countries are examining their own level of preparedness. The scale of the human tragedy is difficult to comprehend, and our thoughts and prayers are with the people of 

Japan. It is always a challenge to measure how prepared we are 

for the next unexpected event, and whether current efforts are adequate. 

Although earthquake risks vary across the country, portions of 

all 50 states are vulnerable to these hazards. Twenty-six urban 

areas in 14 different U.S. states face significant seismic risk. My 

own district in Arizona does not lie on top of a major subduction 

zone or fear the threat of tsunamis. But I believe today’s topic is 

important for all of us. Earthquake catastrophes have the potential 

not only to destroy lives and buildings, but also to wreak havoc on 

civil and industrial infrastructure and the national economy. 

In Japan, the aftereffects of the earthquake have reduced supplies of water and electricity, hampering Japan’s ability to export 

many manufacturing products and forcing some businesses to slow 

or stop operation all together. Supply chains for important technology products here in the United States have also been interrupted, directly impacting our productivity. 

The impacts and consequences of a major earthquake are felt on 

a global scale. These hazards consequently represent a serious 

threat to both national security and global commerce. Given our 

current economic situation, it would be even more painful for the 

United States to endure a disastrous earthquake, the socioeconomic 

effects of which would reverberate for decades. 

This Committee has supported ongoing work amongst four federal agencies focused on researching and developing techniques to 

minimize the devastation of earthquakes. This includes improving 

forecasting, supporting the development of effective hazard reduction measures, engineering disaster-resilient buildings, and furthering our basic understanding of earthquakes and their effects on 

people and infrastructure. Coordination of these elements is important in order to effectively deal with these hazards, and communication between federal, state and local stakeholders is critical. 

Much of the federal research and development effort is housed in 

the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, also known 

as NEHRP. This program coordinates the earthquake hazards reduction efforts of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, the United States Geological Survey and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Coordination of these agencies’ work provides the public and private sectors with the necessary scientific and engineering informa-
7 

tion to prepare for earthquakes, and hopefully reduce their impact. 

NEHRP was last authorized in 2009, and while the House passed 

reauthorization legislation in the last Congress with bipartisan 

support, it was not considered by the Senate. 

We have an excellent panel of witnesses today, who will examine 

earthquake risk in the United States and review efforts supporting 

the development of earthquake hazard reduction measures. We will 

hear perspectives from the director of a federal program created to 

reduce earthquake hazards, a state geologist, an emergency management professional, and a structural engineer and member of a 

national advisory committee overseeing earthquake engineering 

programs. I would like to extend my appreciation to each of our 

witnesses for taking the time and effort to appear before us today. 

Thanks again to our witnesses for their participation. I look forward to a productive discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quayle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BEN QUAYLE

Good morning. I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing. 

In light of the devastating effects of the recent earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck off the coast of northern Japan on March 11, many countries are 

examining their own level of preparedness. The scale of the human tragedy is difficult to comprehend and our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Japan. 

It is always a challenge to measure how prepared we are for the next unexpected 

event, and whether our current efforts are adequate. 

Although earthquake risks vary across the country, portions of all 50 states are 

vulnerable to these hazards. Twenty-six urban areas in fourteen different U.S. 

states face significant seismic risk. My own district in northern Arizona, does not 

lie on top of a major subduction zone or fear the threat of tsunamis. But I believe 

today’s topic is important for all of us—earthquake catastrophes have the potential 

not only to destroy lives and buildings, but also to wreak havoc on civil and industrial infrastructure and the national economy. 

In Japan, the after effects of the quakes have reduced supplies of water and electricity, hampering their ability to export many manufacturing products and forcing 

some businesses to slow or stop operation all together. Supply chains for important 

technology products here in the States have also been interrupted, directly impacting our productivity. 

Clearly the consequences of a major earthquake are felt on a global scale. These 

hazards represent a serious threat to both national security and global commerce. 

Given our current economic situation, it would be even more painful for the United 

States to endure a disastrous earthquake, the socioeconomic effects of which would 

reverberate for decades. 

This Committee has supported ongoing work amongst four federal agencies focused on researching and developing techniques to minimize the devastation of 

earthquakes. This includes improving forecasting, supporting the development of effective hazard reduction measures, engineering disaster-resilient buildings, and furthering our basic understanding of earthquakes and their effects on people and infrastructure. Coordination of these elements is important to deal with hazards, and 

effective communication between federal, state and local stakeholders is critical. 

Much of the federal research and development effort is housed within the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, also known as NEHRP [′′KNEE– 

HURP′′]. This program manages the earthquake hazards reduction efforts of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). These agencies have distinct but highly complementary missions. Coordination of these agencies’ work provides the public and private 

sectors with the necessary scientific and engineering information to prepare for 

earthquakes, and hopefully reduce their impact. NEHRP was last authorized in 

2009. While the House passed reauthorization legislation in the last Congress with 

bipartisan support, it was not considered by the Senate. 

We have an excellent panel of witnesses before us today, who will examine earthquake risk in the United States and review efforts supporting the development of 

earthquake hazard reduction measures. We will hear perspectives from the director 
8 

of a federal program created to reduce earthquake hazards, a state geologist, an 

emergency management professional, and a structural engineer and member of a 

national advisory committee overseeing earthquake engineering programs. I’d like 

to extend my appreciation to each of our witnesses for taking the time and effort 

to appear before us today. 

Thanks again to our witnesses for their participation. I look forward to a productive discussion. With that, I now recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu, for 

his opening statement. 

Chairman QUAYLE. With that, I now recognize the Ranking 

Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu, 

for his opening statement. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling this 

very important hearing to assess the state of earthquake risk reduction in the United States and our readiness, and thank you to 

our witnesses. Many of you have traveled a long distance to be here 

with us today, and I appreciate it very much as does the rest of 

the Committee. 

Our hearts go out to the Japanese people as they continue their 

work to recover and rebuild from last month’s devastating earthquake and ensuing tsunami. The loss of life and property is a stark 

reminder of the destruction that can be caused by a large-scale 

earthquake, even in a country like Japan that is on the leading 

edge in earthquake preparation and mitigation, and this tragedy 

certainly forces us to take stock of our own vulnerabilities. 

As an Oregonian, I am particularly concerned with the prospect 

of a similar disaster occurring in the Pacific Northwest. Off the 

coast of Oregon, Washington and northern California, we have the 

Cascadia subduction zone, and this fault is currently locked in 

place, but research over the last 30 years indicates that the same 

stress now accumulating has been released as a large earthquake 

once about every 300 years dating back to the last ice age about 

12,000 years ago. The last Cascadia earthquake occurred 309 or 

310 years ago. It was a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, the same destructive magnitude as the one that stuck Japan. All indications 

show that we Oregonians can expect another quake any time. It is 

a matter of when, not a matter of if. 

When the next earthquake occurs on our fault, there will be prolonged shaking, perhaps for as long as five minutes, with the potential to collapse buildings, create landslides, and destroy water, 

power, and other crucial infrastructure and lifelines. Such an 

earthquake will also likely trigger a devastating tsunami that could 

overwhelm the Oregon coast in less than 15 minutes, resulting in 

potentially thousands of fatalities and billions of dollars in damage. 

Unfortunately, this type of disaster scenario is not limited to the 

Western United States. In fact, more than 75 million Americans 

across 39 states face significant risk from earthquakes. 

The good news is that we have already learned a lot about how 

to prepare for, mitigate, and respond to a large-scale earthquake. 

There is a lot of work already underway to help us better understand earthquakes, develop safer building construction standards, 

and ensure that affected communities can respond to and recover 

from earthquakes as quickly as possible. 

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, or 

NEHRP—lovely acronym—has driven us to make significant 

progress in this area. I expect that we will hear testimony today 
9 

that the four NEHRP agencies, NIST, FEMA, NSF and USGS, are 

making significant strides with at-risk communities by developing 

new hazard maps, model building codes, and public outreach efforts. I have no doubt that the progress we have made through 

NEHRP has enhanced the safety of our communities and will save 

lives. NEHRP’s good work must be continued. 

That is why I have reintroduced the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act, which will reauthorize the NEHRP program. This bipartisan legislation passed the House by an overwhelming margin 

in the last Congress, and already this year, my bill has been introduced in the Senate, where they are moving quickly to mark it up 

next week. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this 

Subcommittee and Full Committee, and in the Senate to get this 

bill signed into law as quickly as possible, so that we can continue 

addressing the large challenges that remain: retrofitting existing 

structures, improving the performance of critical infrastructure, 

and encouraging the adoption of mitigation measures by households, businesses, and communities. And I might add here that I 

am particularly interested in education measures, education that 

can reduce casualties from earthquakes but especially along the 

Oregon coast where appropriate education not only of the coastal 

population but of the populations in the valley, well, what we call 

the valley where a significant number of people vacation on the 

coast is particularly important so that people will head for high 

ground immediately after the ground stops moving so that they can 

have a good chance of avoiding the ensuing tsunami. 

We are here today to engage in a productive discussion about 

where we stand, particularly in relation to other countries that 

have suffered large-scale earthquakes, in terms of our preparedness and resiliency to earthquakes, and what more needs to be 

done. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important 

hearing and I look forward to the witness testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DAVID WU

Thank you, Chairman Quayle, for calling this very important hearing to assess 

the state of earthquake risk reduction in the United States. And thank you to our 

witnesses for being here today. Many of you have traveled a great distance to be 

here, and I appreciate that. 

Our hearts go out to the Japanese people as they continue their work to recover 

and rebuild from last month’s devastating earthquake and tsunami. The loss of life 

and property is a stark reminder of the destruction that can be caused by a largescale earthquake, even in a country like Japan that is on the leading edge in earthquake preparation and mitigation. This tragedy forces us to take stock of our own 

vulnerabilities. 

As an Oregonian, I am particularly concerned with the prospect of a similar disaster occurring in the Pacific Northwest. Off the coast of Oregon, Washington, and 

Northern California lies the Cascadia Subduction Zone. This fault is currently 

locked in’ place, but research shows that the same stress DOW accumulating has 

been released as a large earthquake once about every 500 years. The last Cascadia 

earthquake occurred 300 years ago. It was a magnitude 9.0, the same destructive 

magnitude that hit Japan last month. All indications show that we Oregonians can 

expect another one at any time. 

When the next earthquake occurs on our fault, there will be prolonged shaking 

with the potential to collapse buildings, create landslides, and destroy water, power, 

and other critical lifelines.Such an earthquake will also likely trigger a devastating 

tsunami that could overwhelm the Oregon coast in less than 15 minutes, resulting 

in thousands of fatalities and billions of dollars in damages. 
10 

Unfortunately, this type of disaster scenario is not limited to the Western United 

States. In fact, more than 75 million Americans across 39 states face significant risk 

from earthquakes. 

The good news is that we have already learned a lot about how to prepare for, 

mitigate, and respond to a large-scale earthquake. There is a lot of work already 

underway to help us better understand earthquakes, develop safer building construction standards, and ensure that impacted communities can respond to and recover from earthquakes as quickly as possible. 

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP, has driven us 

to make significant progress in this area. I expect that we will hear testimony today 

that the four NEHRP agencies—NIST, FEMA, NSF, and USGS—are making significant strides with at–risk communities by developing new hazard maps, model building codes, and public outreach efforts. 

I have no doubt that the progress we have made through NEHRP has enhanced 

the safety of our communities and will save lives. NEHRP’s good work must be continued. 

That is why I have reintroduced the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act, which 

will reauthorize the NEHRP program. This bipartisan legislation passed the House 

by an overwhelming margin in the last Congress. Already this year, it has been introduced in the Senate, on the heels of the recent disaster in Japan. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this Committee and in the Senate to get this bill signed into law as quickly as possible, so that we can continue 

addressing the large challenges that remain: retrofitting existing structures, improving the performance of critical infrastructure, and encouraging the adoption of mitigation measures by households, businesses, and communities. We’re here today to 

engage in a productive discussion about where this country stands—particularly in 

relation to other countries that have suffered large-scale earthquakes—in terms of 

our preparedness and resiliency to earthquakes, and what more needs to be done. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. And thank you again 

to the witnesses for being here. I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Wu. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses and then we 

will proceed to hear from each of them in order. Our first witness 

is Dr. Jack Hayes, Director of the National Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Program at the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. Next we will hear from Mr. Jim Mullen, President of 

the National Emergency Management Association and Director of 

the Washington State Emergency Management Division. Our third 

witness is Mr. Chris Poland, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Degenkolb Engineers and Chairman of the NEHRP Advisory Committee. Our final witness is Dr. Vicki McConnell, Oregon 

State Geologist and Director of the Oregon Department of Geology 

and Mineral Industries. 

Thanks again to our witnesses for being here this morning. As 

our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each. After all witnesses have spoken, Members of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Jack Hayes, Director, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JACK HAYES, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM, NIST 

Dr. HAYES. Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Wu and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to testify on the state of earthquake risk reduction in the United States. 

My testimony reviews the impact of the NEHRP partnership that 
11 

includes FEMA, NIST, which is my home agency, NSF and USGS. 

This partnership also includes other federal agencies, state and 

local governments, non-governmental professional organizations, 

model building code and standards organizations, and earthquake 

professionals in the private sector and academia. 

NEHRP fosters unique cooperation among the four agencies with 

each agency having a crucial role that complements but does not 

overlap or compete with the roles of the other NEHRP agencies. 

Briefly, NSF supports relevant basic research in the earth and social sciences and the relevant engineering disciplines. The USGS 

carries out earthquake hazards assessments, earthquake monitoring and notification, and targeted research in those areas. NIST 

serves as the program lead agency and develops and tests earthquake-resistant design and construction practices. And finally, 

FEMA promotes the implementation of earthquake safety tools and 

policies focusing on the development of earthquake-resistant building codes and practices. 

NEHRP has an Interagency Coordinating Committee consisting 

of the leaders of each NEHRP agency and the directors of OMB 

and OSTP. This committee, the ICC, provides overall program direction. NEHRP also has an external advisory committee that provides independent assessment of our work and recommends warranted program changes back to the ICC. The current chair of the 

advisory committee, Mr. Chris Poland, is also a witness at this 

hearing. We have developed a strategic plan that guides our partnership. As stated in that plan, our vision is to create a Nation 

that is earthquake-resilient in public safety, economic strength and 

national security. 

How are we achieving this vision? Significantly, NEHRP is not 

a regulatory body. We develop, disseminate and promote knowledge, tools and practices for earthquake risk reduction, working 

through coordinated multidisciplinary interagency partnership both 

internal to NEHRP and with our stakeholders. We emphasize resilience, or the ability for a community, region or even the Nation to 

recover in a timely manner from the occurrence of an earthquake 

or other hazard, recognizing that this is key to long-term sustainability. Attaining resilience requires coordinated application of 

planning, mitigation, redundancy, robustness, and response and recovery activities. 

Our NEHRP annual reports, website and other publications 

cover our activities. While I summarize some recent program highlights in my written testimony, time does not allow me to review 

them in detail with you now. Of course, I will certainly respond to 

any specific questions you may have later. 

During the last 14 months, we have seen devastating earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, New Zealand and Japan. We offer our sympathy to these nations and their citizens who have been affected 

by these events. Despite their tragic consequences, these events 

teach us numerous lessons that can be applied at home. There are 

many technical and scientific aspects of these earthquakes that we 

are investigating, but two overarching lessons are already clear. 

First, these devastating earthquakes strike without warning, and 

often at locations where their full impacts are not expected or understood. Second, earthquake preparedness and resilience meas-
12 

ures can greatly reduce earthquake impacts, human suffering, and 

societal and economic disruption. The purpose of NEHRP is to ensure that we are prepared and that we do not have to relearn those 

two lessons here at home. 

Chairman Quayle and other Subcommittee Members, thank you 

again for the opportunity to testify on NEHRP efforts to reduce 

earthquake risk in the United States. This concludes my remarks, 

and I shall be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JACK HAYES DIRECTOR, NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE

HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM, NIST 

Introduction 

Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Wu and Members of the Subcommittee, on 

behalf of Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and the Department of Commerce, 

thank you for inviting me to testify on the current activities of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) today. Before I start, I wanted to 

share with you that all of us at the Department share in the grief felt by people 

around the world for the people of Japan. On behalf of the Department of Commerce, Secretary Locke expressed his condolences at the Embassy of Japan on 

March 23rd. 

My testimony provides an overview of the statutory four-agency NEHRP partnership that includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—my home agency, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This partnership also extends far beyond these Federal agencies to include other Federal 

agencies, state and local governments, non-governmental professional organizations, 

model building code and standards organizations, and earthquake professionals in 

the private sector and academia. Without this extended ‘‘family’’ of dedicated earthquake professionals, the NEHRP agencies simply could not fulfill their statutory responsibilities effectively. 

In the almost-two years since I last testified before this Subcommittee, the U.S. 

has fortunately continued to experience a relatively quiet period of seismic activity. 

However, worldwide seismic events during that time, particularly those around the 

Pacific ‘‘Ring of Fire’’ that borders the West Coast of the U.S., have been devastating, taking many lives, disrupting many other lives, and costing billions in direct and indirect impacts on infrastructure and economic activity. Since the beginning of 2010, we have witnessed horrific losses of life in Haiti (over 230,000) and 

Japan (toll still unknown but numbering in the tens of thousands) due to the combined earthquake and tsunami impacts, and lesser, but nevertheless significant, 

losses of life in Chile and New Zealand. The toll in terms of human life is overwhelming, and we all offer our heartfelt sympathy to those nations and their citizens. 

The NEHRP agencies have begun analyzing lessons-learned from all of these tragic events. Some preliminary ‘‘big picture’’ lessons are already clear. The 2010 Haiti 

and Chile earthquakes provided a stark contrast in the effectiveness of modern 

building codes and sound construction practices. In Haiti, where such standards 

were minimal or non-existent, many thousands were killed in the collapses of homes 

and other buildings. In Chile, with much more modern building codes and engineering practices, the loss of life, while still tragic, was far smaller, about 500, despite 

the fact that the Chile earthquake had a significantly higher magnitude of 8.8 

(M8.8) than the Haiti earthquake (M7.0). The fault rupture that caused the Chile 

earthquake released approximately 500 times the energy released in the Haiti 

earthquake. The Chilean building code provisions had been based in large part on 

U.S. model building codes that have been developed by researchers and practitioners 

who have been associated with and supported by NEHRP. 

Scientists and engineers have not yet had enough time since the 2011 earthquakes in New Zealand (M6.3) and Japan (M9.0) to draw detailed conclusions. We 

do know that Japan and New Zealand are international leaders in seismology and 

earthquake engineering—we in the U.S. partner with our counterparts in both countries, because we have much to learn from one another. Despite their technical 

prowess, leaders in both countries have been taken aback by the amount of damage 

that has occurred. One lesson we take from this before we even begin detailed studies is that we still have much to learn about the earthquake hazards we face and 
13 

the engineering measures needed to minimize the risks from those hazards. Assuming that we already know everything we need to know is the surest strategy for catastrophe. The other broad lesson that has already become clear from both of these 

events is that local, and indeed national, resilience —to recover in a timely manner 

from the occurrence of an earthquake or other hazard event—is vital, going far beyond the essential, but narrowly focused, issue of ensuring life safety in buildings 

and other locations when an earthquake occurs. In Christchurch, NZ, the central 

business district has been largely closed since the February 21 earthquake, severely 

impacting the local economy. Some reports indicate as many as 50,000 people are 

out of work as a result of this closure. In Japan, the impact of the March 11 earthquake and resulting tsunami have been far worse on the national economy, with energy, agriculture, and commercial disruptions of monumental proportions. Some estimates already put the economic losses over $300 billion, and economic disruption 

is certain to continue for years and extend far beyond Japan’s shores. 

The 2010 and 2011 events followed decades or even centuries of quiescence on the 

faults where they struck and are sobering reminders of the unexpected tragedies 

that can occur. The USGS has recently issued updated assessments of earthquake 

hazards in the U.S. that provide appropriate perspectives for us. For example, in 

2008, the USGS, the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), and the California Geological Survey (CGS), with support from the California Earthquake Authority (CEA), jointly forecast a greater than 99% certainty of California’s experiencing a M6.7 or greater earthquake within the next 30 years. The recent New Zealand earthquake, at M6.3, is slightly less severe than that which is postulated for 

California. The recent Chile and Japan earthquakes, at M8.8–M9.0, occurred in 

tectonic plate collision zones where one plate overrides another; that characteristic 

is closely comparable to those which generated 1964 Alaska earthquake and more 

ancient earthquakes off the coasts of Oregon and Washington, in the Cascadia 

Subduction Zone. Seismologists thus believe that what we have recently observed 

in Chile and Japan should serve as clear indication to us for what may likely occur 

again someday off the Alaska, Oregon, and Washington coasts. 

While concern for future earthquake activity is always great along our West 

Coast, the National Research Council has noted in its publications that 39 states 

in the U.S. have some degree of earthquake risk, with 18 of those having high or 

very high seismicity. In 2011 and 2012, earthquake practitioners and state and local 

leaders in Memphis, St. Louis, and other Midwestern locales will participate in 

events that will commemorate the bicentennial anniversary of the New Madrid sequence of earthquakes, which included at least four earthquakes with magnitudes 

estimated at 7.0 or greater. 

NEHRP is predicated on the reality that earthquakes are inevitable and will occur 

without warning, but that there is much the nation can do to minimize their consequences. The NEHRP agencies strive to perform the needed research and then 

translate the research results into actions that ensure that U.S. citizens are less 

threatened by devastating earthquakes. As described briefly in this testimony, the 

NEHRP agencies work in partnership, with each agency fulfilling its unique role, 

to perform a national service that simply cannot be duplicated by others. The studies and monitoring of the earthquake hazard cuts across both governmental and 

commercial boundaries. The research and implementation in both science and engineering by the NEHRP agencies is made possible by the ‘‘critical mass’’ they provide, which would not otherwise be possible if all responsibilities were left to the 

many states and (for the most part) small corporate entities that work in this field. 

NEHRP Organization, Leadership, and Reporting 

NEHRP is authorized through the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2004. 

The Senate Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation has introduced 

S. 646, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011, to reauthorize these program. A similar bill was passed through the House of Representatives in the last 

session of Congress. We and the other agencies involved look forward to working 

with both chambers of Congress in the 112th Congress on this important legislation. 

The NEHRP Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) and the external Advisory 

Committee on Earthquake Hazard Reduction (ACEHR) continue to provide leadership to the program. 

Interagency Coordinating Committee 

Since 2006, the ICC has been very actively engaged in NEHRP leadership, meeting formally and conducting informal exchanges of information. This has resulted 

in a significant increase in program visibility in each agency and in the Executive 

Office of the President and has elevated key interagency decisions directly to the 
14 

1 Http://www.shakeout.org/ 

agency leader level. The direct involvement of, and interactions between the agency 

leaders has greatly improved program coordination and efficiency. The ICC has actively overseen the development of NEHRP’s annual reports and, most importantly, 

the development of the new NEHRP Strategic Plan that was released in October 

2008. The ICC members viewed the significance of the Strategic Plan to be so great 

that they remained fully engaged with its development throughout its preparation. 

Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

The ACEHR advises the NEHRP program on trends and developments in the 

science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction; Program effectiveness in 

carrying out Program activities; Program management, coordination, implementation and activities; and any need for Program revision. The ACEHR first met in 

2007 and consists today of 16 leading earthquake professionals from across the U.S., 

from all walks of the non-Federal earthquake practitioner sector. 

Lead Agency 

The 2004 reauthorization designated NIST as the NEHRP Lead Agency with primary responsibility for planning and coordinating the Program. 

While NIST ‘‘leads’’ NEHRP activities it is only with the outstanding teamwork 

of all the agencies working together under well defined roles and responsibilities 

that NEHRP accomplishments occur. There is a genuine camaraderie, sense of common purpose, and dedication to improving earthquake safety and resilience among 

the agency representatives. 

NEHRP Strategic Plan 

Vision 

The 2008 Strategic Plan presents a new NEHRP vision for our nation: 

A nation that is earthquake-resilient in public safety, economic strength, and national security. 

This vision sets a fresh course for NEHRP, recognizing the importance of not only 

improving public safety in future earthquakes but also enhancing national economic 

strength and security. For example, if a southern California earthquake severely 

damaged the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as happened to the port of Kobe, 

Japan, in 1995, there would be national economic implications. Similarly, if a major 

earthquake occurred in the Central U.S., one or more Mississippi River transcontinental rail or highway crossings in the Saint Louis to Memphis region, as well 

as oil and natural gas transmission lines could be severely disrupted. Working with 

its partners in both the Federal and non-Federal sectors, NEHRP can and should 

provide tools to assist the government and private sector entities who address those 

challenges. 

More significantly, the vision also recognizes the need for improving our national 

resilience in the face of future damaging earthquakes. Achieving resilience requires 

coordinated application of mitigation, redundancy, robustness, and response and recovery activities and is a vital issue for the nation. 

NEHRP does play a role in providing the means for improving response and recovery capacity. For example, led by FEMA and USGS, the NEHRP agencies are 

engaging in scenario demonstration projects, such as the 2008 Great Southern California Shakeout 1 and subsequent similar activities. These projects serve to catalyze 

both pre-earthquake mitigation measures and post-earthquake response and recovery activities for state and local leaders. 

Plan Structure 

The Strategic Plan sets three overarching program goals that involve synergies 

among the agencies: improve understanding of earthquake processes and impacts 

(basic research); develop cost-effective measures to reduce earthquake impacts on individuals, the built environment, and society-at-large (applied research and development); and, improve the earthquake resilience of communities nationwide (knowledge transfer and implementation). 

The Plan also sets out nine areas of strategic priority for the program, areas of 

great importance to the nation that will be emphasized more prominently as resources become available to address them: fully implement the Advanced National 

Seismic System (ANSS); improve techniques for evaluating and rehabilitating existing buildings; further develop performance-based seismic design (PBSD); increase 
15 

consideration of socioeconomic issues related to hazard mitigation implementation; 

develop a national post-earthquake information management system; develop advanced earthquake risk mitigation technologies and practices; develop guidelines for 

earthquake-resilient lifeline components and systems; develop and conduct earthquake scenarios for effective earthquake risk reduction and response and recovery 

planning; and, facilitate improved earthquake mitigation at state and local levels. 
16 

Figure 1. Primary NEHRP Activity Areas 

The slide above shows the primary roles of the four agencies and further emphasizes that NEHRP is incomplete without the significant contributions made by those 

outside the four agencies—in fact, that non-Federal community is a major factor in 

the historic success of NEHRP. In addition to the strong principles of ensuring synergy without duplication, the NEHRP agencies will seek, within their designated 

mission areas, closer ties to the international community. Not only can NEHRP-developed technologies be applied to help others, but the U.S. can learn from advances 

that are being made abroad. 

NEHRP agencies seek to foster synergies among disciplines as well as with those 

who work with other hazards, such as wind, flood, and fire. The NEHRP agencies 

are aware of the similarities, differences, and linkages that exist among the hazards. Most of the technical issues that are tied to monitoring hazard occurrence, assessing the resulting risks, and developing tools, standards, and guidelines for design and construction differ substantially from hazard to hazard, making direct 

interactions at that level difficult. However, there are opportunities for the coordination of some NEHRP activities with those that have parallels for other hazards: e.g., 

similarities in disaster response that can and should be shared with professionals 

in other hazard areas and similarities in structural response analysis for earthquakes and for blast or impact situations. Some key linkages provide excellent opportunities for multi-hazard cooperation, e.g., tsunami warnings for such events that 

are caused by earthquakes (USGS-provided data used by the National Weather 

Service) and structural fire effects from any source (NIST). 

The NEHRP agencies are also aware of the 30+ year history of organized NEHRP 

interaction with the earthquake professional community and state and local governments. This provides much organizational experience that can be shared with those 

working in other hazards-related fields, which typically have not enjoyed long histories of such cooperation. 

Recent NEHRP Activities-Fostering Technology and Knowledge Transfer 

The NEHRP agencies have worked both individually and collectively in recent 

years to improve the nation’s earthquake resilience. Annual reports on the Program 

activities can be found at www.nehrp.gov. The following are brief descriptions of 

agency roles and accounts of some of their more prominent recent activities, as reported at the March 2011 ACEHR meeting. 
17 

USGS 

The USGS is the applied earth science component of NEHRP. USGS delivers 

rapid characterization of earthquake size, location, and impacts; develops seismic 

hazard assessment maps and related mapping products; builds public awareness of 

earthquake hazards; and supports targeted research to improve monitoring and assessment capabilities. Noteworthy in 2011 is the USGS role in the U.S.-Japan Natural Resources Panel for Earthquake Research; this panel will be actively engaged 

in analysis of the recent Japan earthquake and its impacts on U.S. practice. 

Monitoring 

The USGS has significantly advanced its delivery of comprehensive earthquake 

information from monitoring systems, in the U.S. and internationally. In the U.S., 

monitoring is accomplished via the developing Advanced National Seismic System 

(ANSS), which is now deployed at about 25% of its planned capacity. Internationally, USGS works in partnership with NSF and the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) to maintain the Global Seismographic Network as a tool 

for earthquake monitoring and research. The USGS National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) assimilates all monitoring data on a 24/7 basis and issues rapid 

reports of potentially damaging earthquakes to key Federal, state, and local institutions, and to an electronic mailing list of over 250,000 users. USGS has implemented full on-site 24/7 operations at the NEIC and developed products such as the 

Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system that provides rapid (within minutes of earthquake detection) estimates of population exposure to strong shaking in earthquakes worldwide and delivers that to aid agencies, 

emergency managers, and others who use it to prioritize response activities. The 

most recent version of PAGER provides order-of-magnitude estimates of fatalities 

and economic losses. The USGS is also working with the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) to install seismic instrumentation at 27 VA medical centers around the 

country—this will provide valuable information on actual building responses in future earthquakes. 

Mapping 

In 2008, the USGS released new U.S. national seismic hazard maps based on the 

most recent field observations and research results. The maps show that earthquakes are serious threats to 75 million people in 39 states. The USGS used these 

updated hazard maps to develop new ‘‘risk-targeted earthquake’’ (RTE) design maps 

for national model building codes that focus on the likelihood over time of building 

collapse due to earthquake ground motions instead of simply focusing on the likelihood of earthquake ground motions themselves. This has resulted in a lowering of 

earthquake design forces for many types of buildings in the Central and Eastern 

U.S. The USGS is also developing more detailed urban hazard maps for various 

areas; such maps have been released recently for Memphis and Seattle and are currently underway for St. Louis and Evansville, Indiana. 

Scenario-Based Exercises 

In 2008, the USGS, California Geological Survey, and Southern California Earthquake Center produced a plausible scenario of a rupture of the southern end of the 

San Andreas fault that could result in about 1,800 deaths, 50,000 injuries, and economic losses exceeding $200 billion in the greater Los Angeles area. This scenario 

formed the basis for the 2008 Great Southern California Shakeout earthquake preparedness and response exercise. Over five million Southern California residents 

participated in the Shakeout, making it the largest public preparedness event ever 

held in the U.S. The State of California has begun annual renditions of the Shakeout exercise across the state. Along with FEMA, the USGS is supporting similar activities for the Great Central U.S. Shakeout that will be staged in April 2011. 

Central U.S. Activities 

The Central U.S. has been a major focus of the USGS and its partners in the past 

year, with the approach of the bicentennial of the 1811–12 New Madrid earthquake 

sequence there, which still ranks among the most severe earthquakes ever experienced in the U.S. In addition to its work in support of upcoming Great Central U.S. 

Shakeout, the USGS is working to support the FEMA National Level Exercise 

(NLE) 2011. In response to recommendations made by the NEHRP ACEHR, the 

USGS is working through its National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council 

(NEPEC) to support an independent evaluation of the hazard posed by the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ). The Arkansas Geological Survey and Center for Earth-
18 

quake Research and Information at the University of Memphis, a regional network 

in the USGS Advanced National Seismic System, has been actively monitoring the 

recent swarm of low-magnitude earthquakes in north-central Arkansas. 

NSF 

NSF is NEHRP’s primary basic research arm, supporting research that addresses 

earth science, geotechnical and structural engineering, lifeline engineering, and the 

social sciences, and integrating those disciplines. Following the devastating 2010 

earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, NSF convened workshops to develop consensus reports on research needs. 

Earth Science 

NSF supports fundamental research related to seismology, geodesy, soil and rock 

mechanics, paleoseismology—the geologic studies of prehistoric earthquakes—structural geology, and relevant theoretical, modeling, and laboratory projects. Recent 

outcomes from these programs range from explanatory mechanisms for episodic 

tremor and slip observed along plate boundaries around the world to insight into 

the slip differential across the southern San Andreas Fault. This work has substantially improved the description and understanding of strain buildup along major 

plate boundary faults such as the southern San Andreas Fault and the southern 

California San Jacinto Fault. 

Following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, NSF awarded grants supporting a five 

year project that installed and maintains 100 field stations around the Caribbean 

basin to provide continuous GPS (ground deformation) and weather monitoring. 

This new network is known as COCONet (Continuously Operating Caribbean GPS 

Observational Network). 

NEES 

Established in 2004, the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) provides world-class experimental facilities at 14 academic 

institutions across the U.S. The facilities include seismic shake tables, geotechnical 

centrifuges, a tsunami wave basin, large strong-floor and reaction-wall facilities 

with unique testing equipment, and mobile and permanently installed field equipment. The network’s cyberinfrastructure technology links the facilities via the 

Internet2 grid, forming the world’s first prototype of a distributed ‘‘virtual instrument,’’ and includes a national repository for experimental data, as well as numerical simulation and collaborative tools. 

NEES plays a unique role among NEHRP agency investments for basic earthquake engineering research, providing diverse experimental capabilities, substantial 

user support, emphasis on education and outreach, and a university environment 

characterized by openness for academic, industry, and government use. NEES has 

promoted change in the earthquake engineering research culture through open access to unprecedented experimental capabilities, collaboration with experimental facility staff to develop formal testing protocols, archival of all experimental data in 

a community data repository for reuse by other investigators, and a new generation 

of students trained in advanced experimentation techniques and analytical modeling. NEHRP agency partners FEMA and NIST, and other Federal agencies, support projects to transfer NEES research findings into technical briefs for practitioners, performance-based seismic design (PBSD) guidelines, and seismic provisions 

in model building codes. 

NSF’s Memorandum Concerning Cooperation in the Area of Disaster Prevention 

Research with the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and 

Technology enables U.S. researchers to use both NEES and Japan’s Earth Defense 

(E–Defense) shake table, the world’s largest shake table, to simulate seismic performance on large- to full- scale models with geotechnical and structural innovations. U.S. and Japanese researchers meet at least annually to discuss topics of mutual research interest and have a close collaborative relationship; as a result, several joint U.S.-Japan projects have now been performed using the E–Defense facility. 

NSF continues to support, along with other Federal agencies, the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The Center’s annual July workshop assembles leading U.S. natural hazards researchers, policy makers, and practitioners. This is the major national forum for linking the producers of research with 

appropriate user communities. 
19 

NIST 

NIST has devoted significant attention to establishing the NEHRP program. The 

Secretariat has established the NEHRP web site (www.nehrp.gov) that contains 

much information about the Program, links to all of the NEHRP agency sites, links 

to other organizations that are involved with earthquake-related research and implementation issues, and an electronic clearinghouse of documents produced by 

NEHRP activities. 

Through the NEHRP Secretariat, NIST has sponsored a NEHRP-wide study by 

the National Research Council (NRC) that will provide a broad 20-year roadmap for 

the NEHRP agencies to consider as they implement the NEHRP Strategic Plan. The 

NRC study assembled a broad panel of national experts in earthquake risk reduction to identify and prioritize possible activities that could be considered to achieve 

the objectives set out in the NEHRP Strategic Plan, and to estimate the costs of 

those activities. The results of the study were released on March 30, 2011 and are 

now widely available. 

In 2010 and 2011, the NEHRP Secretariat has also worked to support the U.S.- 

Japan Natural Resources Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects and is currently in frequent communication with Japanese counterparts regarding possible cooperative efforts to survey and analyze the damage that occurred in the recent Japan earthquake. The NEHRP Secretariat is also engaged in leading the Federal Interagency 

Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction (ICSSC) and currently supports s an 

independent study to develop updated standards for seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of existing Federal buildings. 

NIST’s technical role in NEHRP is chiefly one of linking the basic research products that come from NSF-supported university research with the implementation activities that are largely led by FEMA. Commencing in 2007 and continuing now, in 

a strong commitment to the Program, NIST began strengthening its capabilities in 

the earthquake research arena, to bridge the research-to-implementation gap. The 

NIST earthquake risk mitigation research program supports several key areas: providing technical support for the earthquake engineering practice and building code 

development process; developing the technical basis for performance-based seismic 

design; supporting the development of technical resources that improve earthquake 

engineering practice; and, making developed and evaluated technologies available to 

practitioners in the design and construction communities. These activities are consistent with the NIST mission of serving the measurement and standards needs of 

the building and fire safety industries. NIST is a critical source of metrics, models, 

and knowledge for predicting the extent of damage from natural and man-made hazards, mitigating their impact, and helping to enhance the disaster resilience of communities and the built environment. 

NIST performs about half of its earthquake research via a contractual partnership 

with the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, which links NIST with the nation’s 

leading earthquake engineering researchers and practitioners. Several projects have 

been completed, and additional projects are ongoing. In addition, NIST has been 

building its in-house capabilities by hiring new earthquake research staff members. 

Given the unique nature of the necessary interaction between NIST and FEMA 

in fulfilling their respective roles, the two agencies have formed a special partnership with their programs that involves complete, frequent exchanges of project information and in some instances actual direct collaboration on projects that involve 

complementary topic areas. The Administration has committed NIST to support 

post-earthquake investigations for NEHRP. The President’s 2012 budget request includes funding to support the formation of a formal Disaster and Failure Studies 

Program at NIST that would include post-earthquake investigation activities, in addition to field studies in a number of other hazards areas. Following the 2010 Chile 

earthquake, FEMA, NIST, and USGS staff members joined scientists and engineers 

sponsored by American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the NSF-supported 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) Learning from Earthquakes 

(LFE) program in surveying the damage to Chilean infrastructure. Following the 

field work, NIST co-sponsored a Chile research needs meeting with American Society of Civil Engineers and the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) 

Center that resulted in NIST’s making mid-year programming changes to focus key 

research efforts on lessons learned from the Chile earthquake. 

FEMA 

While the other agencies contribute to NEHRP implementation efforts, FEMA is 

NEHRP’s primary implementation and outreach arm. 
20 

Implementation Activities 

FEMA has a prominent NEHRP leadership role in working with the practitioner 

community, the ASCE, and the International Code Council (ICC) to support the development of model building code provisions. FEMA works with the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) to develop the next generation of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P–750) that was released in early 2010 for use in future ASCE standards and model building codes. USGS in turn supports the development of the Recommended Provisions with its hazards mapping activities. 

FEMA works directly with the model building code organizations to assist in the 

development of new seismic provisions for new editions of the International Codes, 

or ‘‘I–Codes,’’ that are promulgated by the ICC. The I–Codes have been adopted in 

part or whole by all 50 states, standardizing safe design practices nation-wide. 

FEMA supports projects to develop earthquake engineering guidelines for designers 

and works closely with NIST in this activity. This partnership and the resulting development, publication, dissemination, and promotion of building design and construction materials are signature elements of NEHRP. 

FEMA has developed and published over 200 earthquake design guidance publications on all aspects of earthquake risk mitigation, including: seismic design and construction of new buildings; evaluation and cost-effective rehabilitation/retrofit of existing hazardous structures; and other related structural and non-structural issues. 

FEMA has pioneered developmental work that supports the emergence of Performance-Based Seismic Design of buildings. Basic research supported by NSF has supported this effort, and, in recent years, NIST has initiated several knowledge transfer projects that complement the FEMA activity. PBSD is essential to fostering resilience in the constructed environment, because it helps engineers to work with building owners to enhance building performance beyond the basic life safety that is provided by the prescriptive measures found in model building codes. 

FEMA began a significant new public outreach effort in 2008 with its new 

QuakeSmart initiative, which is designed to encourage business leaders and owners 

in areas that are at risk from earthquakes to take actions that will mitigate damage 

to their businesses, provide greater safety for customers and employees, and speed 

recovery if an earthquake occurs. The initiative began with a series of Community 

Forums in four cities in the Midwest and on the West Coast. Further forums are 

scheduled and FEMA is working with the Home Depot and ServiceMaster companies to broaden public outreach. 

Outreach Activities 

To support and increase the adoption of NEHRP earthquake resiliency measures, 

FEMA leads NEHRP efforts to maintain strong partnerships with other earthquake 

and hazards-related agencies, state and local governments, academia, the research 

community, code enforcement officials, design professionals, and the remainder of 

the private sector. 

FEMA provides technical and financial assistance to states to increase awareness 

of the earthquake hazard and to foster plans to reduce seismic vulnerabilities. To 

provide state financial assistance, FEMA administers the Earthquake Hazards Reduction State Assistance Program which provides financial support to 33 states and 

territories. 

FEMA also provides grants to support earthquake-related outreach and educational activities that promote earthquake mitigation and awareness to a series of 

multi-state consortia and organizations, including the Cascadia Regional Earthquake Working Group (CREW), which serves states in the Pacific Northwest affected by the Cascadia Subduction Zone and related faults; the Central United 

States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC), which serves the states impacted by the 

New Madrid seismic zone; the Northeast States Emergency Consortium (NESEC), 

which serves northeastern states on a multi-hazard basis; and the Western States 

Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC). 

In addition to outreach activities to promote training courses and publications, to 

improve education and awareness, FEMA has co-sponsored series of informational 

conferences, including the National Earthquake Conference held in Seattle in April 

2008, as well as the 100 Year Anniversary of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. 

Along with USGS, FEMA is providing support for the upcoming National Level Exercise (NLE) 2011 and the Great Central U.S. Shakeout. The NLE 2011 will focus 

on testing the earthquake catastrophic plan and the emergency response capacity 

of the NMSZ states. 

In a project closely related to its other NEHRP efforts, FEMA completed development and publication of its Guidelines for Design of Structures for Vertical Evacu-
21 

ation from Tsunamis. This document was jointly funded by FEMA and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA issues tsunami warnings 

and leads the TsunamiReady program, a community preparedness and mitigation 

initiative. Tsunami safety is a critical issue for many coastal communities along the 

West Coast of the U.S. that are vulnerable to tsunami. The States of Oregon and 

Washington have already expressed interest in using this publication. This publication has taken on added significance as a result of the recent Japan earthquake and 

tsunami. 

Conclusion 

The earthquakes of the past fourteen months—Haiti, Chile, New Zealand and now 

Japan—remind us of the persistent nature of the tectonic forces active within the 

Earth. There is nothing we can do to stop these processes, but the impacts of earthquakes, while not completely avoidable, can be greatly reduced. 

Two major lessons from the recent earthquakes can be simply stated: 

• Devastating earthquakes strike without warning, often at locations where 

their size and impacts are not fully expected. 

• Earthquake preparedness and resilience measures can greatly reduce losses 

of lives, property, economic capacity, and societal well being. 

These lessons seem obvious. But, we have recently seen nature teach them to us 

again, at the expense of others less fortunate and incompletely prepared. There is 

no need or justification for us to be forced to re-learn these lessons at home. Our 

challenge is to see that the new knowledge and experience gained through NEHRP 

continues to be developed and applied to domestic practices and policies that foster 

a more resilient American society. 

Chairman Quayle and other Subcommittee Members, thank you again for the opportunity to testify on NEHRP activities. This concludes my remarks. I shall be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 
22 

BIOGRAPHY FOR DR. JACK HAYES DIRECTOR, NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS

REDUCTION PROGRAM, NIST 
23 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Dr. Hayes. 

I now recognize Mr. Jim Mullen, Director, Washington State 

Emergency Management Division, and President of the National 

Emergency Management Association, to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JIM MULLEN, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON 

STATE 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION AND PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MULLEN. Thank you, Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member 

Wu and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today regarding earthquake preparedness. I am 

President of the National Emergency Management Association and 

we represent the state emergency management directors of the 50 

states, territories and the District of Columbia. I have submitted 

my written statement for the record already so I will take advantage of this opportunity to summarize my statement and leave 

some time for questions. 

The initial phase of an incident, whether it is an earthquake or 

a tsunami or a hurricane, usually involves the lights and sirens of 

response, and while firefighters, law enforcement officials and 

emergency medical personnel bravely constitute the traditional 

first responders, emergency managers provide the all-important 

function of coordination. Emergency managers often manage multiple events simultaneously while preparing for a wide range of 

hazards from floods and earthquakes to category 5 hurricanes and 

terrorist attacks. 

The response to an incident usually includes three phases of escalation. First, the local jurisdiction responds with immediately 

available assets. Should the local jurisdiction become overwhelmed, 

my counterparts at the state level are available to provide more robust state capabilities. On occasion, an event will even overwhelm 

the state, and this is usually the only time in which the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency is called upon to offer assistance. 

Without broad coordination by emergency managers during the response phase and this escalation of assistance, the transition from 

response to recovery would be nearly impossible. 

In my written statement, I go into more detail on the National 

Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program and other witnesses have 

and will address it specifically, but I would be remiss if I didn’t 

stress the importance of Congress reauthorizing this program. 

Without adequate authorization and funding of NEHRP, the collaborative work done by several federal agencies and institutes 

could leave communities without a critical source of research and 

technical assistance on earthquake preparedness. This work is invaluable during the planning for a response, but irreplaceable during a disaster. Programs such as NEHRP and the response and recovery issues I just discussed will be on display this May during 

a national-level exercise throughout the mid-central United States. 

This exercise is sponsored by FEMA, and through the simulation 

of a major earthquake on the New Madrid Seismic Zone will test 

the policies and doctrines of the Federal Government and eight 

states. This endeavor will involve thousands of government officials 
24 

at the federal, state, local and tribal levels, members of the private 

sector and the general public. Once this exercise is complete, I am 

quite sure the Committee will be interested in any after-action report FEMA can make available. 

Exercises, and programs such as NEHRP only go so far, however, 

in establishing a baseline capability for response and exercise efforts. Each year, Congress supports one of the most critical programs the Federal Government has to offer. The Emergency Management Performance Grants, or EMPG, allow state and local 

emergency managers the ability to enhance their capability to protect lives and property. This coordination between state and local 

emergency managers is critical prior to an event. Since inception, 

EMPG has required a 50 percent non-federal match, and many 

state and local jurisdictions regularly overmatch. 

To give you an idea of the impact of EMPG, consider the following examples. In 2009, 59 disasters occurred which required a 

Presidential Declaration and federal assistance. At the state level, 

however, 180 disasters required a gubernatorial declaration but no 

federal assistance, and another 122 events required State resources 

but no declaration. Without solid capabilities at the state and local 

levels afforded through EMPG, these events normally not requiring 

federal action could need significant federal expenditures. 

As you can see, the emergency management process is complicated, and while I strayed somewhat from earthquakes specifically, this demonstrates the need to be prepared for a wide range 

of events from the initial response to the transition to recovery to 

the various levels of support FEMA can offer and the programs 

such as EMPG and NEHRP help states stand on their own. There 

is much we can accomplish if that program continues. 

The emergency management team stands ready to continue assisting you in Congress in ensuring the safety and security of millions of Americans against a broad range of hazards and threats. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mullen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. JIM MULLEN, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON STATE

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION AND PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

Introduction 

Thank you Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Wu, and distinguished Members 

of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today regarding earthquake preparedness and efforts undertaken each and every day by dedicated emergency management professionals to help protect lives and property. 

Emergency management is far more complex, however, than discussing specific 

response and recovery efforts of just one hazard. We often manage multiple events 

simultaneously while preparing for a wide range of hazards from floods and earthquakes to Category 5 hurricanes and terrorist attacks. 

While other witnesses today have highlighted the attributes of the National 

Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), I will go over general response 

and recovery issues, current efforts underway to simulate a massive earthquake in 

the Mid-Central region of the country, and recommend the best way you can support 

your state and local emergency managers. 
25 

Response & Recovery 

A major event involving multiple disciplines is complex and difficult to manage. 

While firefighters, law enforcement officials, and emergency medical personnel often 

constitute the traditional first responders, emergency managers provide the all important coordination function. This coordination far exceeds the initial response as 

emergency managers also maintain responsibility for the transition from the lights 

and sirens of response into the complex and often long-term efforts of recovery. 

Once an event occurs, the response is a three-tiered process of escalation where 

the level of support is directly related to the need of the impacted jurisdiction. The 

initial response is at the local level where first responders and local emergency managers provide assistance. Should the incident exceed the capacity of those local responders, the state may offer assistance in myriad ways including personnel, response resources, financial support, and mutual aid. On rare occasions, an event 

will even overwhelm the state’s ability to mount an effective response. This is usually the only time in which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

is called upon to offer assistance. 

FEMA assistance is triggered by a direct request from the Governor to the President. Should the President deem the event worthy of federal assets, a Presidential 

Disaster Declaration is declared and FEMA can provide assistance such as assets 

from the Department of Defense, financial aid, and expertise. 

Disaster assistance from FEMA traditionally comes in one of three forms. The 

first is the Public Assistance (PA) Program which provides supplemental financial 

assistance to state and local governments as well as certain private non-profit organizations for response and recovery activities required as a result of a disaster. The 

PA Program provides assistance for debris removal, emergency protective measures, 

and permanent restoration of infrastructure. Federal share of these expenses are 

typically not less than 75 percent of eligible costs. The PA Program encourages protection from future damages by providing assistance for Hazard Mitigation Measures pursuant to Section 404 of the Stafford Act during the recovery process. 

The next level of assistance is the Individual and Family Grant Program or Individual Assistance (IA) which may provide money and services to eligible individuals 

in the declared disaster area when losses are not covered by insurance and property 

has been damaged or destroyed. Assistance for Individuals and Households may include cash grants for housing assistance and other needs assistance. Homeowners 

may use these grants for essential repairs to make their residence safe, secure, and 

livable. IA is designed to help with critical expenses not already covered by other 

means. Finally, the federal government can provide assistance to prevent damage from 

occurring in the future through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). 

HMGP provides funding to local communities for projects and plans to reduce damages, losses, and suffering in future disasters. Hazard mitigation is the ongoing effort to lessen the impact disasters have on lives and property. Coupled with HMGP, 

FEMA sponsors programs including Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) 

and Predisaster Mitigation Program (PDM). Such measures could include communities removing homes from flood-prone or landslide-prone areas, elevating houses, 

tornado safe rooms and community shelters, and other projects that may help reduce the impact from the next inevitable disaster. 

While FEMA can provide all these forms of assistance after a disaster, part of the 

preparedness puzzle is learning how we all work together in forming a seamless response and recovery effort. As emergency managers, we best practice through the 

use of regular exercises and after-action reviews. 

New Madrid National Level Exercise 

After a significant event, the question is often asked ‘‘Can this happen to us?’’ In 

the case of the recent earthquake in Japan, the answer is most certainly ‘‘yes.’’ In 

fact, one of the most severe earthquakes in history occurred in 1812 along the New 

Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) in the Mid-Central United States. 

This year, FEMA is sponsoring National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE 2011). The 

purpose of NLE 2011 is to prepare and coordinate a multiple-jurisdictional integrated response to a national catastrophic event—specifically a major earthquake in 

the central United States region of the NMSZ. 

The exercise will involve thousands of government officials at the federal, state, 

local, and tribal levels, members of the private sector, and the general public. Participants will conduct simultaneous, related exercise activities at Command Posts, 

Emergency Operation Centers and other locations in the Washington DC. area and 

the eight affected central U.S. states including Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. NLE 2011 will offer agencies and 
26 

jurisdictions a way to validate their plans and skills in a real-time, realistic environment and to gain the in-depth knowledge only available through experience. 

NLE 2011 is also an opportunity to continue highlighting to the public their need 

to be prepared for earthquakes, and specific steps they can take to be ready. Exercises only go so far, however, in establishing a baseline capability for response and 

exercise efforts. Each year Congress supports one of the most critical programs the 

federal government has to offer. The Emergency Management Performance Grant 

(EMPG) Program allows state and local emergency managers the ability to enhance 

the capability to protect life and property. 

Emergency Management Performance Grants 

Often referred to as the ‘‘backbone of the nation’s emergency management system,’’ EMPG allows state, tribal, and local governments to make key investments 

in building capacity and enhancing the capability of states and localities to respond 

to disasters. 

EMPG stands as the only source of federal funding directed to state, local, and 

tribal governments for planning, training, exercises, and key professional expertise 

for all-hazards emergency preparedness. In addition, EMPG supports emergency operations centers, which are the coordination hubs for all disaster response and to 

conduct risk and hazard assessments. The program also provides public education 

and outreach, enhanced interoperable communications capabilities, and the ability 

to manage statewide alerts and warnings. 

Since inception, EMPG has required at least 50 percent non-federal match. This 

partnership recognizes every level of government as having an interest in building 

emergency management capacity nationwide. Even during these tough economic 

times, state and local governments continue to demonstrate a commitment to building capacity by contributing far in excess of the required 50 percent contribution. 

EMPG allows states and local jurisdictions to respond to or support emergency incidents involving threats to life or property. Direct support includes activation of 

emergency operations centers, deployment of personnel, and the mobilization of resources. In order to illustrate the impact of EMPG throughout the emergency management community, it is significant to call attention to the many disasters occurring each year not requiring a presidential disaster declaration. 

For example, in 2009, 59 disasters occurred requiring a presidential declaration 

and federal assistance. At the state level, however, 180 disasters required a gubernatorial declaration but no federal assistance, and another 122 events required state 

resources but no declaration. According to a recent joint survey we conducted with 

the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), more than 44,637 actual local and tribal emergency response incidents, including 19,571 state response 

incidents, were supported utilizing EMPG funds. Without solid capabilities at the 

state and local level afforded through EMPG, events normally not requiring federal 

action could realize significant federal expenditures. 

National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program 

While other witnesses have discussed NEHRP, I would be remiss if I did not also 

make mention of the program in this testimony. Since Congress established NEHRP 

in 1977, the building code standards, technical guidance, education, and research 

have been critical to reducing risks to life and property resulting from earthquakes. 

FEMA works in a support role to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which is the lead agency under NEHRP. The emergency management 

community relies heavily on the actionable data provided by the program. 

One of the key responsibilities of FEMA is supporting public-private partnerships 

to help inspire and sustain disaster-resilient communities. By providing estimates 

of potential losses due to seismic hazards to decision makers on the State and local 

level, FEMA leverages the work supported by NEHRP allowing communities to develop earthquake resistant design, public outreach and education programs, and 

construction standards and building codes. 

Without adequate authorization and funding of NEHRP, the collaborative work 

done by NIST, National Science Foundation, FEMA, and the U.S. Geological Society 

could leave communities without a critical source of research and technical assistance. The information disseminated by NEHRP partner agencies inform public education efforts and this outreach can help communities across the country understand 

seismic risks and use this understanding to take action by mitigating their homes 

and businesses. 

For example, in my home State of Washington, we utilize NEHRP to conduct seismic needs assessments of public schools with the aim of developing a methodology 
27 

to assess all public schools for seismic safety throughout the state. We are also creating a plan for improving our resilience to damaging earthquakes through the Resilient Washington State Initiative. Due to the success of this initiative, Oregon has 

also recently passed a resolution to complete a similar resiliency project. 

We remain thankful of FEMA Administrator Fugate’s continued support of the 

use of hazard and risk data developed by NEHRP and other similar programs used 

to inform mitigation decisions throughout the emergency management community. 

He also consistently discusses the need to invest in mitigation on the early and 

often to alleviate response and recovery efforts and costs after an incident occurs. 

As we learned following the catastrophic disaster in Japan last month, even the best 

mitigation efforts cannot prevent damage or loss of life from an earthquake but it 

unequivocally reduces the risk and helps a community recover sooner as a sustainable and safer place to live and do business. 

Conclusion 

As you can see, the response and recovery from any hazard, not just earthquakes, 

is complex and fraught with potential pitfalls. The continued support from Congress 

can provide emergency managers the assets to continue effectively managing these 

events in order to protect lives and property. EMPG, NEHRP, and the range of response and recovery programs constitute an invaluable toolbox of options for emergency manager. As you continue to explore these issues, we offer NEMA as a resource. 
28 

BIOGRAPHY FOR MR. JIM MULLEN, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON STATE EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT DIVISION AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
29 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Mullen. 

I now recognize Mr. Chris Poland, Chairman and Chief Executive 

Officer, Degenkolb Engineers, and Chairman of the NEHRP Advisory Committee, for five minutes to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CHRIS POLAND, CHAIRMAN AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DEGENKOLB ENGINEERS 

AND CHAIRMAN, NEHRP ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

Mr. POLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the 

American Society of Civil Engineers. 

Over the course of my structural engineering career that began 

in the early 1970s, the goal of seismic design has undergone a radical change. When I started working, it was all about keeping people safe. Since then, the primary goal has expanded to also include 

protecting communities so that they can recover quickly, and that 

is a much more complicated problem. This transition brought with 

it the need to design parts of the community to be undamaged and 

immediately usable, other portions to be usable while being prepared, and the majority be usable after repair. The communities’ 

lifeline systems need to be designed so that they can be restored 

quickly and support recovery. 

Achieving this goal is the focus of the current national strategic 

plan for the NEHRP program. We believe it is in the federal interest to continue pursuing resilience for the sake of national security, 

interstate commerce, public safety, economic strength and community restoration. I would also like to point out that this work will 

stimulate jobs and protect neighborhoods, protect people and the 

small businesses that serve them. 

You have asked us to comment on whether we think we are prepared, and what I can say as a structural engineer is that depends. 

We are certainly more prepared than Haiti was prepared. But at 

the same time, we know that we are nowhere near as prepared as 

Japan was prepared, and we know what happened in Japan. 

For me, I don’t think we are prepared as a Nation to face a major 

earthquake and the impacts it will have. The vast majority of our 

building stock and utility systems in place today were not designed 

for earthquake effects, let alone given the ability to recover quickly 

from strong shaking and land movement. The tools and process we 

have available to achieve those goals are honestly too expensive to 

implement. 

Each earthquake brings different styles of shaking, and new insights into the performance of the built environment. Each event 

reminds us that there is a lot of uncertainty about what causes 

failures and that generally leaves the profession developing conservative solutions to the problems the observe. That is what 

causes the very expensive price tag. Continuing and expanding the 

significant ongoing research will lead to engineering tools and processes that will allow the needed cost-effective solutions to be developed and implemented. 

Last week, the National Research Council of the National Academies released a study that recommends a roadmap of what needs 

to be done to implement the NEHRP strategic plan. The NRC list 
30 

of needed activities is comprehensive and it certainly justifies the 

reauthorization of the NEHRP program. They have called for a 20- 

year program that moves at a much faster pace than NEHRP is 

currently proceeding. On behalf of my clients who seek to achieve 

resiliency at an affordable level, I fully support the NRC recommendations and call for a faster pace. We need to accomplish resiliency in our Nation, and at the pace we are going, we are not 

going to accomplish it maybe ever. 

I recognize the NRC programs address four fundamental needs 

of resiliency. They point out that we need to significantly increase 

our ability to gather information, data, catalog it and store it on 

what happens. Extensive instrumentation is needed to understand 

how strong the earthquake shakes everywhere after an event. We 

know the shaking is different in every block of a city. You can tell 

that by the damage that occurs, and right now we only have a 

handful of instruments in each city to tell us what is happening. 

In addition to that, a network of operation centers is needed to 

record, catalog and maintain information related to the impacts on 

society and their response. Just cataloging how a community responds to and recovers from an earthquake, that process has never 

been done in a coordinated matter. We need that information. 

We need a framework that defines resilience in terms of what is 

needed to recover. Resiliency is more about improvisation, adaptation and redundancy than about how any single building or system 

performs. We design single buildings and systems but we need resilient communities. We should not spend money on things that we 

can improvise around. A consistent national framework for measuring, monitoring and evaluating community resilience is needed to 

guide the development of the new tools and processes. This is a 

fundamental need that we have. We need social science research to 

quantify the role of improvisation and adaptation and to determine 

how decisions are made. 

Achieving earthquake resilience requires a community-based holistic approach to response that includes decisions and actions that 

are based on overarching goals, a clear understanding of the built 

environment, rapid and informed assessment data, and planned reconstruction and recovery. Research on the gathered data will 

allow lessons to be learned in one community and transferred to 

the next. That is a process that doesn’t go on right now. 

Finally, we need to develop performance-based engineering design tools that can be used nationwide. For the past decade, the engineers have been developed performance-based standards but 

these early efforts have been severely limited by insufficient data 

on building performance, insufficient analysis tools to predict performance, and inadequate training in the use of developing techniques. Basic research, extensive full-scale testing, applied research 

and implementation programs are needed to complete the development of the standards that will make achieving resilience affordable and cost-effective. 

I appreciate the opportunity to present our views and urge you 

to recognize the value of the work, the extraordinary work that 

needs to be done and to reauthorize the NEHRP program. I would 

be very happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Poland follows:] 
31 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. CHRIS POLAND, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF- FICER, DEGENKOLB ENGINEERS AND CHAIRMAN, NEHRP ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Chris Poland and I am testifying on behalf of the 140,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers 

(ASCE). At ASCE, I am Chairman of the Infrastructure and Research Policy Committee. Additionally, I serve as Chairman, Degenkolb Engineers; and I serve as 

Chairman of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Advisory Committee.I am registered civil and structural engineer, and have worked for 

more than 35-years as an advisor on government programs for earthquake hazard 

mitigation and in related professional activities. 

My professional experience includes projects of all construction types, ranging 

from new design to seismic retrofit and rehabilitation and historic preservation. I 

was the founding co-chair of the NEHRP Coalition for Seismic Safety and chaired 

the ASCE Standards Committee on Seismic Rehabilitation and the U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee on Structural Safety. I am a member of 

Boards of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the San Francisco Planning 

and Urban Research Association and elected as a member of the National Academy 

of Engineering in recognition of my career long work in support of Performance 

Based Earthquake Engineering. I served on the Board of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) for ten years in two separate roles, first as the Secretary and then as the President from 2001 to 2002. 

ASCE, founded in 1852, is the country’s oldest national civil engineering organization representing more than 140,000 civil engineers in private practice, government, 

industry and academia dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession 

of civil engineering. ASCE is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational and professional society. Research in civil engineering, properly conceived, conducted and implemented, 

should assure significant advances in the quality of life of individuals by providing 

essential service with minimal adverse effects on the environment by applying the 

principle of sustainable development and disaster resilience. 

ASCE is pleased to offer this testimony before the Technology and Innovation 

Subcommittee on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on the hearing, ‘‘Are We Prepared? Assessing Earthquake Risk Reduction in the United States’’. 

Shift from Safety to Resilience 

During my career as a Structural Engineer and Earthquake Professional, the 

focus and goal of seismic design work has undergone a radical change. As the result 

of the damage and economic impact that occurred during major earthquakes and 

other natural disasters over the past 20 years, the primary goal of hazard reduction 

has shifted from one aimed at protecting people to one that also seeks to protect 

the built environment to the extent necessary to allow rapid recovery. This transition brought with it the need to design portions of the built environment to be immediately usable without interruption, other portions to be usable while being repaired, and the majority to be usable after repair. This change in performance expectation is often referred to as a change from a life safety goal to a resilience goal. 

Achieving this goal is the focus of the current strategic plan for the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP 2008). This is new territory and the 

basic research, applied research, and guidelines that are needed for success are in 

a formative stage. 

It also must be recognized that resilience is not just about the built environment. 

It starts with individuals, families, communities, and includes their organizations, 

businesses, and local governments. In addition to an appropriately constructed built 

environment, resilience includes plans for post event governance, reconstruction 

standards that assure better performance in the next event, and a financial roadmap for funding the recovery. This new style of planning and implementation must 

be tailored to the socioeconomic and cultural aspects of each community. Resilient 

communities form resilient regions and states which in turn will create a resilient 

nation. While the nation can promote resilience through improved design codes and 

mitigation strategies, implementation and response occur at the local level. Making 

such a shift to updated codes and generating community support for new policies 

are not possible without solid, unified support from all levels of government. 

The federal government needs to set performance standards that can be embedded 

in the national design codes, be adamant that states adopt contemporary building 

codes including provisions for rigorous enforcement, provide financial incentives to 

stimulate mitigation that benefits the nation, and continue to support research that 

delivers new technologies that minimize the cost of mitigation, response, and recovery. Regions need to identify the vulnerability of their lifeline systems and set pro-
32 

grams for their mitigation to the minimum level of need. Localities need to develop 

mandatory programs that mitigate their built environment as needed to assure recovery. (ACEHR 2009) 

Are we prepared? 

No. 

The vast majority of our building stock and utility systems in place today were 

not designed for earthquake effects let alone given the ability to recover quickly 

from strong shaking and land movement. Earthquake Engineering is a new and 

emerging field and only since the mid 1980s has sufficient information been available to assure safe designs. Design procedures that will assure resilience are just 

now being developed. Strong, community destroying earthquakes are expected to 

occur throughout the United States. In most regions outside of California, little is 

being done about it. While modern building codes and design standards are available, they are not routinely implemented on new construction or during major rehabilitation efforts because of the complexity and cost. Many communities do not believe they are vulnerable and if they do accept the vulnerability, find the demands 

of seismic mitigation unreachable. 

The problem of implementation and acceptance does not just lie with the public, 

but also with the earthquake professionals. Because this is an emerging area of understanding, conservatism is added whenever there is significant uncertainty. Earth 

Science research has made great strides in identifying areas that will be affected 

by strong shaking. Unfortunately, each earthquake brings different styles of shaking 

and building performance. This leaves many structural engineers generally uncertain about what causes buildings to collapse, and unwilling to predict the extent of 

damage that will occur, let alone whether a building will be usable during repairs 

or if lifeline systems can be restored quickly enough. Resilience demands transparent performance and significant earthquake science and earthquake engineering 

research and guideline development is needed to bring that ability to communities. 

Recommend areas that need Federally Sponsored Research 

The NEHRP was originally conceived to provide the knowledge, tools, and practices needed for earthquake risk reduction and has steadily made progress toward 

that goal. Many argue that the research that is needed to assure safety is complete. 

While that is debatable, it is certainly not the case for the research and tools needed 

to provide resilience. The 2009–2013 NEHRP Strategic Plan represents a broadbased and comprehensive statement of what activities are needed to achieve resilience through basic research, development of cost effective measures to reduce impacts, and sponsorship of implementation programs at all levels. It was developed 

over a three year period with input and review by the earthquake professional community and represents consensus about what needs to be done by the Federal Government through the core Federal Agencies. 

Last Week, the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC 2011) 

released a study that recommends a road map of national needs in research, knowledge transfer, implementation, and outreach that will provide the tools needed to 

implement the NEHRP Strategic Plan and achieve its vision of a nation that is 

earthquake resilient in public safety, economic strength, and national security. The 

NRC study stands on a foundation of numerous similar reports that have been produced over the past 20 years and have persistently outlined what is needed. The 

list of references in the NRC report includes a complete listing of the available studies and recommendations. The list of needed activities is comprehensive, and the extent of work needing to be accomplished is long. It is an outstanding list of what 

can be done and what eventually needs to be done. The nation needs to continue 

stepping toward resilience, and the goals objectives and tasks outlined in the 

NEHRP Strategic Plan need to be achieved. The reauthorization of the NEHRP program is a mandatory minimum step to maintain the momentum that has been developed. Accelerating the pace of achieving the goals of that plan will bring many 

benefits and the value is well documented. 

Key areas in need of improvement that are supported by the Federal Government 

The NEHRP Strategic Plan is recognized as an appropriate plan for achieving national resilience. The NRC Road Map is a detailed assessment of what needs to be 

done in the next 20 years to implement the plan. As a practicing Structural Engineer and Earthquake Professional, I recognize the need for every effort and my clients will benefit significantly from the resulting work. From my perspective, they 
33 

are all a part of the following four key areas that must benefit from federally supported research if we are to have the knowledge and tools to become resilient: 

(1) Comprehensive worldwide monitoring and data gathering related to earthquake intensity and impact. 

Extensive instrumentation is needed to adequately record the size and characteristics of the energy released and the variation in intensity of strong shaking 

that affect the built environment. We are lucky if we obtain a handful of 

records for entire cities but in reality thousands are needed to record the dramatic differences that occur and to understand the damage that results. In addition, the geologic changes that occur due to faulting, landslides, and liquefaction need to be surveyed, recorded, and used to understand the future vulnerability of the built environment to land movement. A network of observation centers is needed to record, catalogue and maintain information related 

to the impacts on society, and the factors influencing communities’ disaster 

risk and resilience. At present, earthquake engineering is based more on anecdotal observations of damage that are translated into conservative design procedures without the benefit of accurate data about what actually happened. In 

my mind, expanded monitoring is the single most important area that will reduce the cost of seismic design and mitigation that will allow us to achieve 

greater resilience. 

(2) Overarching Framework that defines resilience in terms of Performance 

Goals 

Resiliency is all about how a community of individuals and their built environment weather the damage, respond and recover. It is more about improvisation 

and redundancy than about how any single element or system performs. Buildings and systems are designed one structure at a time for the worst conditions 

they are expected to experience. This approach worked well when life safety 

was the goal, and there was no need to consider the overall performance of 

the built environment. Resiliency, however, demands that performance goals 

and their interdependencies are set at the community level for the classes of 

structures and systems communities depend during the recovery process. 

Facilities providing essential services during post earthquake response and recovery must function without interruption. Electric power is needed before any 

other system can be fully restored. Emergency generators can only last a few 

days without additional deliveries of fuel. Power restoration, however, depends 

on access for emergency repair crews and their supplies. Community level recovery depends on neighborhoods being restored within a few weeks so the 

needed workforce is available to restart the local economy. People must be able 

to shelter in place in their homes, even without utilities, but cannot be expected to stay and work after a few days without basic utility services. To ensure that past and future advances in building, lifelines, urban design, technology, and socioeconomic research result in improved community resilience, 

a framework for measuring, monitoring and evaluating community resilience 

is needed. This framework must consider performance at various scales-e.g., 

building, lifeline, and community-and build on the experience and lessons of 

past events. 

Only the Federal government can break the stalemate related to setting performance goals that if left alone will eventually cripple the nation. 

(3) Social Science Research to quantify the role of improvisation and adaptation, 

how decisions are made at all levels and the need for rehabilitation. 

American cities are an eclectic collection of buildings and lifeline systems built 

over the life of a city. The vast majority were built before adequate design 

codes and standards were available to assure the needed durability and performance. Achieving earthquake resilience requires a community-based, holistic approach that includes decisions and actions that are based on overarching 

goals, a clear understanding of the built environment, rapid and informed assessment data, and planned reconstruction and recovery. 

Communities build based on traditional standards and when affected by major 

earthquakes respond and recover based on intuition, improvisation, and adaptive behaviors that are drawn from the individuals available to participate. The 

lessons learned in one community and event rarely translate to the next community affected. In a perfect world, all buildings and systems could be rehabilitated to the needed level to assure resilience. In reality, the majority will 

not be rehabilitated unless financial incentives are provided. Such incentives 

are only appropriate and affordable when the subsequent action will contribute 
34 

to a community’s resilience. Only through social science research will the balance between mitigation and response be understood. 

(4) Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering design tools 

Earthquake engineering is done every day based on the available building 

codes, design standards, industry best practices and intuition of the nation’s 

earthquake professionals. Engineers traditionally have not been asked to disclose how buildings will perform, only whether or not they ‘‘meet the code’’. For 

most buildings, that means nothing with regard to their safety or usability 

after a major event. 

For the past decade, engineers have been developing performance-based standards, but these early efforts are severely limited by insufficient data on building performance, insufficient analysis tools to predict performance, and inadequate training 

in the new techniques that are under development. New standards that support resiliency are needed throughout the seismic regions of the nation and need to be included in the development of national design and rehabilitation codes. Basic research, extensive full scale testing, applied research and implementation programs 

are needed to make the necessary seismic mitigation efforts affordable and cost effective. 

Summary 

In conclusion, ASCE supports research, practices and policies that identify earthquake hazards and mitigate earthquake risks, including: 

• Continuance and expansion of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program (NEHRP) and similar initiatives. 

• The use of state-of-the-art performance standards for existing critical, essential, educational and disaster-recovery facilities, such as hospitals, schools 

and emergency shelters. 

• Targeting buildings that are likely to collapse in major earthquakes for mandatory retrofit, reduced occupancy, reconstruction or demolition. 

• Improvements of collaborative community preparedness and their related civil 

infrastructure with vulnerable regions so that they are economically resilient 

to earthquake hazards. 

• Development of nationally accepted consensus-based standards for evaluation 

and retrofit of existing buildings; 

• Development of national seismic standards for new and existing lifelines. 

• Improvement of seismic mitigation applications focusing on low cost techniques; and 

• Improvement of large risk mitigation programs at organizations, including at 

state Departments of Transportation, and at utilities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views, I would be happy to answer 

any questions you might have and to provide the Committee with further information. 

References 

• Achieving National Disaster Resilience through Local, Regional, and national 

Activities. Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazard Reduction. 

www.nehrp.gov, February 2010. 

• Strategic Plan for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Fiscal Years 2009–2013. Interagency Coordinating Committee of NEHRP. 

www.nehrp.gov. October 2008. 

• National Earthquake Resilience: Research, Implementation, and Outreach. 

National Research Council of the National Academies. www.nap.edu. Prepublication Version. 
35 

BIOGRAPHY FOR MR. CHRIS POLAND, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

DEGENKOLB ENGINEERS AND CHAIRMAN, NEHRP ADVISORY COMMITTEE
36 
37 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Poland. 

I now recognize our final witness, Dr. Vicki McConnell, Oregon 

State Geologist and Director, Oregon Department of Geology and 

Mineral Industries, for her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. VICKI MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OREGON 

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES 

Dr. MCCONNELL. Thank you, Chair Quayle and Mr. Wu, and I 

really appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak with you 

today, and thank you for this opportunity to comment on the state 

of earthquake risk reduction in the United States to discuss the importance of the coordination between federal, state and local stakeholders and for emergency preparedness and allowing me to recommend improvements to federal programs. 

As stated, my name is Vicki McConnell and I am the Director of 

the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries for Oregon. We 

work in close partnership with several federal programs that are 

focused on earthquake hazards characterization and risk reduction. 

We implement those programs at the state and local level. 

I am also representing the Western States Seismic Policy Council, whose mission is to develop seismic mitigation policies and 

share information to promote those programs intended to reduce 

earthquake-related losses through 13 western states, three U.S. 

territories and western Canada. This council serves as a shining 

example of FEMA- and USGS-funded programs through NEHRP 

that assist in reducing earthquake risk in the United States. 

And even though I am the Oregon State Geologist, I want to just 

remind you as a geologist that earthquakes and the hazards caused 

from earthquakes care little about state or national boundaries. 

You have to really look at the full geologic regions and we have to 

think about national investments in risk reduction. 

First and foremost, I want to stress that the return on investment made by building resilient communities is tremendous. By 

definition, resilient communities spring back and they cost much 

less. The cost is minimized to get everyone back up and running. 

So my primary recommendation to you is to maintain robust federal programs within the National Science Foundation, NOAA, 

NIST, NASA, FEMA and the USGS that address earthquake and 

tsunami hazard research, mitigation and preparedness, particularly the cooperative federal-to-state and local programs that implement those federal missions and goals. 

It is now estimated that the fatalities in Japan from the Tohoku 

earthquake and tsunami may reach 25,000, and the economic damage may reach $300 billion, and as has been stated before, our 

hearts go out to everyone in Japan and our condolences for their 

losses. 

We did not escape unscathed here in the United States, though. 

We had tens of millions of dollars in damage in Hawaii, Oregon 

and California, and we had one fatality, all of that from the tsunami from the earthquake. Although it is going to take time to assess what has happened in Japan, it is clear that Japan’s research 

and development, their technology and preparedness saved hundreds of thousands of lives and damages that would have gone into 
38 

more billions from that earthquake, something that we need to 

take a lesson from them. 

And as Mr. Wu summarized, we have very similar geologic and 

seismic areas off the northwest coast of the continental United 

States and the coastline of Alaska. We have in historic times witnessed a 9.0 magnitude earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction 

Zone in 1700 as well as the 1964 9.2 magnitude Aleutian-Alaska 

Subduction Zone earthquake. We also now realize that magnitude 

8 and higher earthquakes can occur along these same areas, and 

the reason we know that is because of the NSF and USGS funding 

opportunities for basic earthquake science. 

I want to quickly go through some of the programs that are important for what we see: NSF’s research at universities to understand and monitor earthquakes, the USGS Advanced National 

Seismic Network, our crucial seismic network, the USGS Earthquakes Hazards Program, which has external grants that bring in 

local expertise in science and engineering, and the NOAA Tsunami 

Warning Program and the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation 

Program, which really is our leading edge for understanding and 

mitigating tsunami hazards. Finally, don’t forget about the NASA 

fleet of earth-observing satellites and their help with these. 

I want to thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the 

Nation’s earthquake preparedness and the federal programs that 

assist building resilient communities. I would be happy to answer 

any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. McConnell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. VICKI MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OREGON DEPARTMENT

OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES

My name is Vicki S. McConnell. I am the Director of the Oregon Department of 

Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), an executive branch agency in the State 

of Oregon. I serve Governor Kitzhaber and the state as the Oregon State Geologist. 

The agency is tasked by statute to be the centralized source of geologic and 

geoscientific data and geologic hazard data for the State of Oregon. As such we work 

in close partnership with several federal programs that are focused on earthquake 

hazards characterization and risk reduction. We implement those programs at a 

state and local level. My testimony will focus on the state of these programs, how 

they do or do not accomplish their goals of earthquake risk reductions, and recommendations for improvement. 

I am also representing the Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC) whose 

mission is to develop seismic mitigation policies and share information to promote 

programs intended to reduce earthquake-related losses throughout the 13 western 

states, three U.S.territories, a Canadian territory and a Canadian province, and liaisons to seven western state seismic safety councils and commissions. WSSPC is a 

501(c)(3) non-profit organization and is funded by the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS). Headquartered in Sacramento, California, members are the State 

Geological Survey and Emergency Management Directors. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the state of earthquake risk reduction in the United States, discussing the importance of coordination between federal, 

state, and local stakeholders for emergency preparedness, and allowing me to recommend improvements to federal programs. 

Although I will be providing examples about how Oregon is working toward earthquake risk reduction and identifying and mitigating the hazards associated with 

earthquakes I want to stress that earthquake faults, seismic hazards, tsunamis, and 

seismic-induced landslides care little for state or national boundaries. When considering the effects of these hazards and how to reduce those effects we must consider 

the geologic regions and think about national investments in risk reductions. 

First and foremost, I want to stress that the return on investment made by building resilient communities is tremendous; resilient communities spring back quickly 

with rapid economic recovery; with infrastructure from schools to roads reoccupied 
39 

1To view the final seismic vulnerability report go to: http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/ 

projects/rvs/default.htm. To view the results of the rehabilitation grant programs go to: http:// 

www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/plans—train/SRGP.shtml 

and with the need for state and federal assistance minimized. My primary recommendation to you is to maintain robust federal programs within the National 

Science Foundation, NOAA, NIST, NASA, FEMA, and the USGS that address earthquake and tsunami hazard research, mitigation, and preparedness particularly the 

cooperative federal-to-state and local programs that implement the federal missions 

and goals. 

Some examples of these federal programs include the USGS Earthquake Hazard 

Program, the NIST-administered National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

and the NOAA administered National Tsunami Hazards Mitigation Program. These 

are federal programs that build resilient communities and do so through collaboration with experts outside the federal government. Through competitive and other 

grants, federal agencies work with scientists, engineers and local-area experts to understand the hazard, prepare communities, reduce losses and keep the local economy on track after a natural disaster hits. 

We must continue to observe and understand hazards, prepare for hazards, mitigate potential losses and respond to hazardous events. These long-standing federal 

programs and partnerships provide the foundation for resilient communities. While 

the events in Japan are tragic, the fatalities, injuries and losses could have been 

orders of magnitude worse if not for Japan’s attention to research, technology and 

preparedness leading to some of the most resilient communities in the world. 

I offer four examples of work being conducted in Oregon that is crucial to developing resilient communities. These projects were possible because of federal assistance from NEHRP and other programs. My written testimony provides references 

to all four if you would like further information. 

Oregon is the first state in the nation to conduct an evaluation of the seismic 

vulnerability of all public schools and emergency response facilities statewide 

and to develop a grant program to assist with seismic rehabilitation of the 

most vulnerable facilities. While these are primarily state funded programs 

both relied on data and guidance provided by NEHRP. By funding overarching development standards and guidelines, the national program assists 

the states with developing comprehensive research and science and engineering evaluations.1 

Portland METRO Multi-Hazard Project. Through a collaborative effort of 

DOGAMI and USGS Earthquake Hazard Program, USGS Landslide Hazard 

Program, and National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program a series of 

hazard maps for the Portland Oregon metro area are being developed. These 

maps will be used to drive the development of local land use planning and 

building codes for the Portland urban growth zone. 1

Oregon’s Department of Transportation published in 2009 the Seismic Vulnerability of Oregon State Highway Bridges: Mitigation Strategies to Reduce 

Major Mobility Risks. This study incorporates FEMA HAZUS risk assessment 

modeling funded by NEHRP as well as NEHRP soil conditions data to determine peak ground acceleration (PGA). Their findings indicate that 38% of 

state-owned bridges in western Oregon would fail or be too heavily damaged 

to be serviceable after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and that repair or replacement would take 3–5 years essentially cutting the Oregon coastal communities off from the rest of the state. 

The Oregon Lidar Consortium is using an excellent modern technology called 

light detection and ranging (or lidar) to identify and locate faults and related 

hazards throughout Oregon. Lidar allows us to image the bare earth by removing vegetation, so we can see fault structures, old landslides and other 

features that define hazards. Lidar was developed through research and development, led primarily by researchers funded through the National Science 

Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey. It is now an essential tool for research and for land-use planning. See Figure 1 for an example of bare earth 

lidar imagery of fault scarps or go to: http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/ 

projects/olc/default.htm 

It is now estimated that the fatalities in Japan from the Tohoku earthquake and 

tsunami may reach 25,000 and the economic damage may reach $300 billion. Across 

the Pacific Ocean—there was $30 million in damage in Hawaii, $7 million in damage in Oregon, and one death and more than $50 million in damage in northern 
40 

2 Earthquake magnitudes are expressed in the moment magnitude scale. 

California. Most of the death and damage in Japan and beyond Japan can be attributed to the tsunami. Although it will take more time to assess what has happened 

in Japan, it is clear that Japan’s R&D, technology and preparedness saved hundreds 

of thousands of lives and billions of dollars in damages from the massive earthquake 

and also probably from the ensuing massive tsunami. 

We have similar geologic and seismic areas off the northwest coast of the continental United States and the coastline of Alaska as they do off the coast of Japan. 

The Pacific Plate and other smaller plates are subducting beneath the North American Plate and in all three areas history has recorded very large magnitude 

megathrust earthquakes followed by massive tsunamis. These include a magnitude 2

9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake in northwestern United States in 1700, 

a magnitude 9.2 Aleutian-Alaska Subduction Zone earthquake in Alaska in 1964, 

and the recent magnitude 9.0 Tohoku earthquake. Additionally, we now realize that 

these subduction zones are prone to magnitude 8.0 and higher earthquakes occurring as frequently as ten times the magnitude 9.0 and larger earthquakes. See Figure 2 at the end of this testimony for a timeline of Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes over the last 10,000 years. 

Are we ready for another Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake? Or an earthquake on the Portland Hills Fault similar to the recent New Zealand earthquakes? 

No we are not; however we have made great strides toward understanding and mitigating for such natural disasters through state implemented programs funded in 

partnership with federal agencies or that use data gathered by federal agencies. 

Your Subcommittee and the Full Committee can help to ensure that the federal 

programs are there to help the states develop resilient communities across the nation. My colleagues here today are explaining the excellent work that NIST and 

FEMA are conducting and I bring your attention to several other federal agency programs whose mission is to reduce earthquake risk.. 

NSF supports research at universities to understand and monitor earthquakes 

and tsunamis. NSF’s EarthScope-US Array experiment, which has been deploying 

a network of seismic instruments that are moving across the country, has demonstrated how useful a robust national seismic network could be. For example, the 

U.S. Array instruments helped to detect several low magnitude seismic swarms in 

Oregon. While not directly hazardous, this previously undetected seismic activity indicates areas in the state that need additional hazard characterization and research. 

Unfortunately, most communities cannot afford to maintain the U.S. Array instruments so they have been pulled out as NSF’s experiment moves east. The remaining 

USGS-supported regional seismic network can no longer detect the smaller events 

that would help us understand earthquakes or that might be critical for an early 

warning system for many urban areas throughout the country. 

The USGS ’s Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) is crucial for developing 

earthquake resilience. It includes a backbone network, a global information center, 

a strong ground motion network and 15 regional networks. When an earthquake 

strikes, ANSS delivers real-time information, providing situational awareness for 

emergency-response personnel. The Pacific Northwest regional array in my area is 

operated jointly by the University of Washington and the University of Oregon. 

USGS support of a national seismic and geodetic network, with collaboration from 

state and university-based regional networks, is vital to understand and mitigate 

the hazards related to earthquakes. Without greater support for these networks 

they may deteriorate, leaving us highly vulnerable to earthquake hazards (essentially blind to earth movements). We recommend that the USGS work closely with 

their state and local stakeholders to design the information tools and seismic hazard 

maps that are useful to land use planning and emergency response. 

The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program is also vital to earthquake resiliency. 

The external Earthquake Grants program, which has successfully engaged leading 

scientists and engineers through a peer-reviewed grant process brings local expertise to basic and applied earthquake research. We recommend that progress to build 

a prototype earthquake early warning system be evaluated and continued. This system would warn people within seconds after a major earthquake starts to shake the 

ground, in time for many people to take cover, protect their children, and automatically implement electronic safety measures (such as opening firehouse doors, slowing trains, and backing up computers). Japan already has a functional system in 

place, but the President’s budget calls for the United States to stall its efforts. The 

system that we need would surely save lives and facilitate a rapid recovery after 

an earthquake strikes. The Earthquake Hazards Program also needs funding to 

take advantage of new technologies (such as better seismic instrumentation, more 
41 

geodetic measurements, and more use of lidar in mapping faults) that are improving 

our abilities to reduce risks from earthquakes. 

The NOAA Tsunami Warning Program and the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program in concert with federal earthquake programs and in partnerships with 

state efforts is essential to understanding and mitigating tsunami hazards. While 

we did have death and damage in the United States resulting from the Tohoku 

earthquake and tsunami it would have been much, much worse without the federal 

programs designed to track distance tsunami activity, model and calculate the 

waves’ path and arrival times, advise and warn state and local communities, and 

most importantly empower communities to prepare and respond. Developing resilient communities depends on understanding the social and demographic factors that 

affect how individuals and communities respond to natural disasters and to best deliver the message that, ‘‘Yes, you can plan for and survive an earthquake or tsunami.’’ Oregon has 7 communities and 3 counties that have been declared ‘‘Tsunami 

Ready’’ through NOAA’s Tsunami Ready program. 

It is important to require federal programs and their stakeholders to coordinate 

their activities and missions to optimize the investment. An example of this coordination is the Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR) that 

guides and advises the many NEHRP programs. 

Finally above all of these coordinated activities in R&D and technology is the 

NASA fleet of Earth-observing satellites. These satellites provide information about 

the land, ocean and atmosphere before and after an event. DESDyNI, which stands 

for Deformation, Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics of Ice is under development 

and would observe deformation from earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and landslides, 

among other things. It would include InSAR and lidar to follow earth movements. 

It would be helpful to support the development of this satellite without too much 

delay because of budgetary concerns. (http://science.nasa.gov/missions/desdyni/) 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity to comment on the Nation’s Earthquake 

Preparedness and the federal programs that assist building resilient communities. 
42 
43 

BIOGRAPHY FOR DR. VICKI MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF

GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES
44 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Dr. McConnell, and thank you to 

all the witnesses for their testimony. We are going to enter into the 

question portion of this discussion, and I want to remind Members 

that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. The Chair 

will at this point open the round of questions, and I recognize myself for five minutes. 

Dr. Hayes, I want to start with you. In your testimony, you 

talked about the importance of collaboration and linkages amongst 

NEHRP partners. There is an interagency coordinating committee, 

an external advisory committee on earthquake hazards reduction, 

and four federal agencies that have responsibility for long-term risk 

reduction; is there any redundancy in these efforts or do all agencies play a distinct role in NEHRP? 

Dr. HAYES. That is a good question. In my written testimony, I 

actually posted what has infamously been referred to as the wiring 

diagram for NEHRP. I understand from our legislative affairs people that NIST has never used such a figure in testimony before but 

it is a good, graphic representation of what NEHRP is and what 

it does. I don’t think there is any duplication of effort among the 

agencies. I think that there are complementary activities at the 

four agencies. The National Science Foundation is responsible for 

basic research, but it is also responsible for training the next generation of leaders in this area for our country, and that is a really, 

really important part of what they do. 

FEMA, on the other hand, is at the other end of the spectrum, 

if you will, and FEMA is responsible for the implementation efforts, 

and FEMA works very, very closely with the national model building code organizations, particularly the American Society of Civil 

Engineers and the International Code Council, to get the results of 

NEHRP research into the national model building codes and then 

get adopted by states and localities around the Nation. 

In the middle, USGS plays an extremely important role in the 

whole process with its monitoring program, its hazard mapping 

program, the work that it is now doing in the early, early stages 

of trying to understand how early warning might be implemented. 

It is an extremely valuable part of the process that is not duplicated in any other agencies. 

Finally, my agency is responsible for doing applied R&D, if you 

will, to bridge the gap between the basic research done at the National Science Foundation and the really applied work that is done 

at FEMA. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Poland, in your testimony you compared the different results 

of the earthquakes that occurred in Haiti and Japan, and even 

what happened in the Northridge quake, and the quake that occurred in San Francisco. You mentioned that it would be cost-prohibitive to retrofit buildings across the United States. What is your 

suggestion to minimize the repercussions of an earthquake? Do you 

mostly look at where different communities lie along faults? For example, a city is close to the San Andreas fault, you obviously take 

different things into account than cities in middle America located 

away from the New Madrid fault line. 

Mr. POLAND. As I mentioned, the biggest problem we have is that 

the built environment that we have right now in the country has 
45 

not been designed for earthquake effects, both in terms of public 

safety and in terms of being able to recover and resiliency. And so 

the biggest problem we have is, what do we do with 85 or 90 percent of our buildings and systems that are not adequate for the 

kind of performance that we want. When I spoke about it being 

cost-prohibitive, I was speaking about retrofitting those buildings 

and those systems so that they can perform properly, and that is 

what costs so much money. The most important thing is to not fix 

or retrofit anything that doesn’t need to be fixed and not to do it 

too much. I can say that. 

Okay. How do we stop doing it too much? The first thing is that 

the earth science research has to continue to move forward to expand our understanding of how strong the ground is going to 

shake, what the damage to the land is going to be and what the 

impact on the buildings is going to be, so that needs to continue 

so that we can better understand where the pockets of shaking are 

going to occur. Right now we consider huge areas that are going 

to shake very hard and in reality when we look at the damage and 

we look at the instrumentation that is available, we see that there 

are pockets of damage that occur so there is a whole body that 

needs to be done there. 

Secondly, it is just the techniques we use to analyze buildings 

and determine how much they need to be retrofitted. It is based on 

anecdotal evidence that we gather from our field reconnaissance. 

We go out and we look at earthquake damage. We see broken 

buildings, don’t really know how strong the ground was shaking 

and determine what we need to do to stop that. Through full-scale 

testing and basic research and applied research, we can learn and 

have learned a lot about how to improve building performance just 

enough, and it is this just-enough idea that will bring the cost 

down and make it affordable. 

Chairman QUAYLE. You were talking about community awareness; since you don’t want to do too much, is your goal to focus on 

one specific pocket that will resist a certain level of earthquake so 

that the area can be up and running post earthquake and basically 

prioritizing different pieces of infrastructure so that cleanup and 

repair work can happen in a much more efficient manner? 

Mr. POLAND. That is correct, and the focusing is really around 

the systems and buildings that are needed for the recovery. The 

buildings that you need during the emergency response period need 

to be running all the time. The big issue that we have right now 

is we recognize that our workforce, the neighborhoods need to be 

restored within a few months in order for the economy to come 

back to life and so the systems that support the neighborhoods and 

the small businesses need to be taken care of next, and then the 

commercial districts and the industrial areas need to be taken care 

of after that, an orderly process of doing that, and then, as you 

said, recognizing in the community what areas are inherently safer 

than others, don’t shake as hard, and focusing attention in those 

areas is one of the keys. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Okay. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Wu for five minutes. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
46 

Dr. McConnell, you mentioned in your testimony—this is really 

a question for all of the witnesses. You mentioned that one study 

found that up to 38 percent of Oregon’s highway bridges would fail 

in the case of a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and that it would take 

potentially five years to repair or replace these damaged bridges, 

and this would leave some communities, especially coastal communities, cut off from the rest of the state for a number of years. Can 

you all comment on how we are trying to design resiliency into crucial lifelines, and as Mr. Poland has said, also work on workarounds for some of these where we cannot design in survivability 

in the first round? 

Dr. MCCONNELL. Chair Quayle and Mr. Wu, I appreciate that 

question and the comment. That particular study was designed and 

taken and carried forth by the Oregon Department of Transportation, and they did use the data and information that was gleaned 

from NEHRP whenever they developed their scenarios, so that is 

very important to bring this back around is how are we using the 

information and data that is coming out of NEHRP for very practical questions like are the bridges going to be there if we have that 

type of earthquake. It doesn’t matter if the roads are there if you 

can’t get across the bridge. 

So what I would like to say in answer to your question is, in 

building resiliency, and, as Mr. Poland said, you must recognize 

and prioritize those infrastructure, those buildings, those parts of 

the community that you really need to have there both during and 

immediately after. So yes, it would take us three to five years to 

fix every one of those bridges but not every one of those bridges 

need to be fixed right off. What we need to do is recognize where 

are those priority lifelines and particularly the ones to the coast 

that need those bridges fixed, and those are the ones you start. 

Those are the ones you focus on. And we are actually working 

with—and I say ‘‘we’’, the State of Oregon, working with the Department of Transportation, emergency management, a variety of 

other agencies and working with our federal partners toward developing those type of identifying the infrastructure that really needs 

the first look at and to try to fix those first as we work through 

these kind of projects. Because otherwise you look at it and you 

just say this is going to cost so much and it is going to take so long, 

we can’t get our arms around it, but we absolutely can. You just 

have to think strategically. And it engages everyone, not just the 

earthquake, not just these programs that work on earthquake and 

work on earthquake science but the Department of Transportation. 

Those types of agencies as well need to be incorporated into these 

discussions. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Poland? Well, it is fine if you have nothing further to add. 

Mr. POLAND. I have nothing further to add. 

Mr. WU. Okay. Terrific. 

Dr. Hayes, your agency works on developing some model codes, 

and that applies to buildings, I believe, and also potentially to 

bridges and other structures. Do you want to comment on this from 

the perspective of critical infrastructure? 

Dr. HAYES. We don’t do work on bridges and those kinds of structures. The Federal Highway Administration is primarily respon-
47 

sible for that work. We do focus on the building side of the problem, if you will. I don’t think there is any doubt that we have a 

long way to go to have a completely coordinated approach to our 

lifelines in virtually every major city in the United States. That is 

an area that I think that the advisory committee that Mr. Poland 

chairs, as well as this NRC report that he referred to, have mentioned as an area that we really need to be looking at as we go into 

the future. It is an area that is not as well established as the buildings area is. There is no question about that. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Dr. Hayes. 

My second question, before my time runs out, is that we do have 

a number of nuclear reactors that are sitting on active seismic 

zones, and I believe one of them is on the West Coast. Can you all 

comment on what can be done to build resiliency and recovery into 

these nuclear facilities? You know, what we found in Japan is that 

it wasn’t the earthquake, it was the tsunami and the loss of electricity and it affected both the reactor itself and the fuel that was 

stored in pools on top of the reactor facility. Can you all comment 

on how we can do a better job with our own nuclear facilities? 

Dr. HAYES. You are looking at me, so I will give you a short answer. NEHRP itself does not address the nuclear facilities in the 

United States. That is the responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission and the Department of Energy. So we really don’t directly get engaged with that. However, we have frequent communications with the folks over in Rockville at NRC, and in fact, the 

day before the horrendous earthquake in Japan hit, we had a staffer from the NRC briefing the NEHRP advisory committee on the 

activities there. There are many interactions that occur between 

the USGS and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that are tied to 

examining the ground motions and the propagations of those motions following an earthquake, so there is interaction there but it 

is not a formal responsibility of the program. 

Mr. POLAND. I would just like to add that the design process that 

has been done for nuclear power plants since their inception has 

been extraordinarily rigorous and much more detailed and much 

more carefully done than for any other kind of construction by 

many orders of magnitude. Our facilities, our nuclear facilities from 

a standpoint of strong shaking are the safest buildings that we 

have in the Nation. 

The problem in Japan, as you mentioned, had to do with the tsunami, and it wasn’t that they didn’t think they were going to have 

a tsunami. They had a wall. The wall wasn’t tall enough. The 

backup systems didn’t work as well as they thought that they 

would. All of that would be factored into the programs that we 

have now just like they are being done, and that extra level of redundancy will be added. Our nuclear power plants are designed 

with many, many levels of redundancy, and you have to look at 

what the worst cases are. They do a better job of that. Looking at 

our power plants that are on the West Coast, it is my understanding that we are not facing that same kind of tsunami issue 

but it is causing a reevaluation and consideration of what is being 

done. I just wanted to add that this is a much higher level of consideration and sophisticated design than is done anywhere else. 

Mr. WU. I may follow up later. 
48 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me 

thank you and particularly the Full Committee Chairman for 

scheduling such a timely hearing, given what has occurred recently 

in Japan, and let me confess at the outset that my first question 

is directed towards Dr. Hayes and my second question is to Mr. Poland, and confess that it is a very provincial question, so I hope you 

will excuse that, and it is this. Over the last several weeks, the 

Texas Advanced Computing Center in Austin, which is part of my 

district, came to the assistance of Tokyo’s Earthquake Research Institute and other scientists in Japan, who reached out to them 

when Japan’s own high-performing supercomputers, used to research earthquake tremor scenarios and radiation disbursal simulations, were knocked offline due to power outages. 

So the question, Dr. Hayes, is this. How much does the National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which you manage, rely 

on supercomputing capabilities and how much do you invest in 

supercomputing capabilities for earthquake research? 

Dr. HAYES. I can’t give you a quantitative answer because I have 

never actually attempted to gather that specific information, but 

much of the work that is being sponsored by the National Science 

Foundation and by USGS involves the use of supercomputers. I 

would have to find out more specific information for you. Obviously 

where it is appropriate to use them, they are being used in the research that is being performed. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Dr. Hayes, thank you. 

Mr. Poland, second question is, does your advisory committee 

find the current level of investment in supercomputing adequate, 

and given the tight budgets, in what research areas would you recommend a higher or lower level of investment for earthquake research? 

Mr. POLAND. Quite honestly, our advisory committee has not considered or discussed the investment in supercomputers. 

Mr. SMITH. Maybe I am giving you and Dr. Hayes some new 

ideas here today. Do you think you will get to that? 

Mr. POLAND. I do believe that we will. I think that supercomputing gives us the ability to do community-wide simulation and 

detailed building simulation and simulation of systems. They are 

necessary to do the kind of estimation of what the damage is going 

to be. I think that that level of simulation is going to be very necessary for us to move forward and figure out what we need to do 

to make our systems more resilient. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Now, let me know what additional research 

you do on that subject, if you would. 

Last question is this. It has to do with the budget. And let me 

ask each of the panelists if they would to give a very, very quick 

response. You don’t necessarily have to limit it to good or bad, but 

be as brief as you can. 

In the fiscal year 2012 budget request currently before Congress, 

the President’s Office of Management and Budget canceled NASA’s 

Deformation, Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics of Ice satellite 

mission, which would monitor for and anticipate earthquakes, vol-
49 

canoes, landslides, glacial ice sheet changes and other practical applications, in favor of other NASA satellite missions to monitor 

greenhouse gases. How will that cancellation affect earthquake research? And Dr. Hayes, let us just go down real quickly, if you 

could. 

Dr. HAYES. Sir, I will have to find out more information for you 

on that. Since NASA is not a part of the NEHRP program, we don’t 

directly deal with that. We were known of that cancellation. Actually it was made aware to the advisory committee about three 

weeks ago, and—— 

Mr. SMITH. Maybe I should make it easy for you. Can the cancellation be good? I mean, there is some common sense involved 

here too. 

Dr. HAYES. Well, I don’t mean to be evasive but I am a structural 

engineer like Mr. Poland is, and so I don’t know a good answer to 

that question. I will be glad to find out for you. 

Mr. SMITH. We will go to Mr. Mullen then. Thank you. 

Mr. MULLEN. Sir, I can only say that I am a consumer of research. It is best if I don’t try to produce too much. Any information I get, I will be happy to use as an emergency manager. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Poland? 

Mr. POLAND. As I mentioned, one of the biggest uncertainties we 

have is when and where and how strong the earthquakes are going 

to occur. We are looking forward to the day when we have clear 

information. There is reason to believe that satellite observation is 

going to give us some of that information. That is a hope. In that 

sense, it is important. How much will it affect our work today? Not 

very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

And Dr. McConnell? 

Dr. MCCONNELL. Thank you. The satellite you mentioned here 

with the acronym DESDynI is of great interest to looking at building baseline topographic information for areas that may be vulnerable to earthquakes, volcano hazards, etc. You can then—because 

what you are looking at both InSAR and LIDAR, which are acronyms for types of digital imaging, is are there changes, are there 

subtle changes in the topography that may be indicating that we 

have stresses building up or that we have inflation occurring in 

volcanic areas. These are things we are very sensitive to when we 

are doing hazards monitoring, and this particular satellite would 

be of great interest to broadening our monitoring capabilities and 

looking at what we call interferometry. 

Mr. SMITH. Good to hear. Thank you, Dr. McConnell. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Before I recognize our 

next questioner, I just wanted to let everybody know that there actually has been another earthquake off the east coast of Japan just 

an hour and a half ago, magnitude about 7.5. We have just been 

notified. So our thoughts and prayers are definitely with the people 

of Japan right now. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 

Sarbanes, for five minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 

panel. 
50 

If all of the measures you would like to see put in place with resiliency and preparation and recovery and so forth represent, say, 

100 on a scale of 1 to 100, where would you say we are on that 

scale as a Nation right now? Anybody want to try to quantify that? 

Mr. POLAND. One to 100. We are talking about here with the federal investment involved in developing tools and knowledge and 

implementation programs. I would think we are down in the 25 

range. We have a fair set of tools that are expensive to use. We 

have a set of implementation programs that would help states and 

regions become more resilient but they are not really being implemented right now and so we are really at a very low level. 

Mr. SARBANES. So we are in the 20s out of 100 in terms of investing our attention and resources to the problem, but in terms of our 

preparedness as a Nation, according to the standards you would set 

to be enough prepared for the kinds of scenarios that you model, 

where are we on that scale from 1 to 100? 

Mr. POLAND. I guess they are going to let me talk. I would say 

it is even lower, maybe 10. 

Mr. SARBANES. Okay. 

Mr. POLAND. Let me just say quickly that in areas of very high 

seismicity in California, Oregon and Washington, there have been 

building codes in place for 20 years that are going to help people 

be safe. Other parts of the country that we talk about, those things 

are not in place. 

Mr. SARBANES. Well, that was the next question I wanted to ask 

you. I assume that the West Coast would be higher on the scale 

than other places, so California, where would you put that? 

Mr. POLAND. From a scale of safety, I believe that California will 

maybe 50 or 60. On a scale of resilience to be able to recover quickly and not have a significant impact on the national economy, we 

are still down in the 10–20 range. 

Mr. SARBANES. Okay. Humans are notoriously shortsighted about 

everything, and even with the earthquake activity of recent days, 

we will get back to being shortsighted even on this question, and 

I wonder if you could speak to—I mean, I would imagine if you 

went to any budget hearing at a local level, at a city, municipality 

level or at the state level if earthquake preparation and resiliency 

was even on the budget document, it would be on the last page on 

the last line because there are so many other things obviously that 

are pulling on our resources and our attention. So it makes me 

wonder how much—and I think you have spoken to this a little bit, 

but the opportunity to piggyback the kinds of things you want to 

see done onto other kinds of initiatives that are out there that have 

greater priority in the minds of planners and budgeters and all the 

rest of it so that you can kind of come along with a little bit, of 

leverage and not so much add a cost, say, well, as long as you are 

doing X, Y and Z, why not add this into the mix, and that can go 

to codes and building standards and so forth. But it also could go 

particularly well with community resiliency planning, and I wonder 

if you could speak to that and maybe throw in whether sort of 

green building codes and sustainable building codes are ones where 

there can be some added elements with respect to resiliency and 

so forth. Thank you. 
51 

Mr. MULLEN. Sir, let me try to help with some of that. I will tell 

you that on the West Coast, there are significant discussions taking 

place in local communities about earthquakes and tsunami threats 

and measures that should be taken. One of the things we haven’t 

really talked about is the importance of the general public understanding not only the risk they face but the measures they can 

take to protect themselves. I am very enthusiastic about getting a 

warning about something that might be coming like the tsunami 

warning we got a few weeks ago really helped us but the type of 

events, the no-notice events that we would deal with in the central 

Puget Sound or in Oregon or on the coast, they are not going to 

get a lot of warning for an earthquake. One of the things that we 

need to do is make sure people are prepared to take the protective 

steps that they need immediately. They need to be able to drop 

cover and hold. They need to know that they have got—that they 

need to have some resources for themselves. And on the coast, we 

have been working hard with the communities about their evacuation programs, knowing what it means to move quickly. The 

ground motion in an earthquake that is right off our coast is your 

signal. We also have an elaborate system of warning systems that 

we can activate to tell people to move to high ground. 

The difficulty we have, the challenge that communities have as 

they prepare with us and they have worked with us is there is not 

a vertical evacuation site that is necessarily readily available to 

every community, and so we have been trying to plan for the type 

of vertical evacuation structure that would be necessary on the 

coast in the Port of Los Angeles or Long Beach or Ilwaco where 

those folks can get to a place of safety which may not be the warmest, driest place but it will at least be above any kind of potential 

wave. That is an important step. There is no such structure right 

now but the communities are planning with it. 

I think the key to this whole thing that you are getting at in 

terms of where people are, and I would not hazard a guess about 

the scale because I would just be making something up. I will tell 

you if you educate people about the risks that they face and you 

level with people about what they can do to protect themselves and 

their families, whether it is the average citizen, someone running 

a business or the emergency management community or the local 

elected officials, you begin to generate the kind of interest that will 

get people looking at this as another issue that they have to deal 

with and move it up on that committee agenda. The national-level 

exercise I spoke of in my testimony is an attempt in the Midwest, 

in eight Midwestern states to begin to educate people at the same 

time that we are determining whether our doctrines and plans are 

going to work for us or not. That will be an extremely challenging 

exercise. We expect failure to occur because we want to find out 

what our condition is. So we are very eager to find out where we 

are weak, where we have got strengths and make sure we capitalize on the strengths and shore up the weaknesses. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the Full Committee, 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for inviting a very capable group of witnesses here, and don’t judge our 
52 

interest or our appreciation of you by empty seats here because it 

is kind of a desperate time up here. Right now we are all looking 

for a bus ticket home or how long we are going to have to stay 

here. But in this day and time with the hurricane, the tsunami, the 

earthquake and other vicissitudes of nature, your testimony is very 

timely and very important to us, and we have probably the hardest 

working man in the entire hearing room that sits to my left here, 

and he is taking down everything that is said, and all these Members will be given copies of your answers, and you are not in vain 

when you are talking to our very capable Chairman and Ranking 

Member and a few of us here. So I thank you for that. That is all 

I really want to say. 

We had a hearing some 15 years ago on asteroids, and with the 

thought in mind of getting everybody in the world to work together 

to determine whether or not—and I learned at that hearing something that I didn’t know then and hadn’t even heard of it. An asteroid had just passed Earth and by their testimony, only missed us 

by about 15 minutes sometime in the 1980s. And those are things 

that people like you live with every day and know about that we 

don’t know about, and we cast our legislation based on the testimony of folks like you that are kind enough to prepared yourself, 

leave your offices, come here and give us your testimony, and I 

thank this good Chairman and Mr. Wu for gathering such a good 

group here and asking proper questions, and I yield back my time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, and the Chair now recognizes the 

gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Fleischmann, for five minutes. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Wu. This 

is a particularly pertinent Subcommittee hearing and topic, and I 

appreciate the opportunity to participate. 

And also Chairman Hall, I want to thank you. I am one of those 

freshmen to the witnesses, and it has been a great privilege. I 

serve on three committees and I represent the Oak Ridge area, so 

I have got the lab and Y12, but the hearings that we have been 

having in Science, Space, and Technology and the tremendous leadership from Chairman Hall and I think bipartisan cooperation has 

been outstanding on these issues, so I thank you for being here. 

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Japan. I was 

unaware of the additional earthquake Mr. Chairman. I am very 

sorry to hear that. 

I have some questions. I think I will start with Dr. Hayes, if I 

may. Dr. Hayes, what is NEHRP’s relationships with other countries, and what are other countries federal earthquake research 

and development programs? How are they different or similar to 

ours? 

Dr. HAYES. I don’t know that there is another country that does 

it quite the way we do it. I think that that is largely because different governments are organized in different ways. But we really 

have many international partnerships within the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. Probably right at the moment, 

what would be most of interest to all of you all is the fact that we 

work very closely with the Japanese. There are two bilateral committees or panels that are involved with earthquake-related issues 

between the United States and Japan. One is in the seismological 
53 

area. It is called, the basic title of it is Earthquake Research, and 

the other is in the engineering area, wind and seismic effects. We 

are in close contact with the Japanese. My counterparts on the 

Japanese part of the committee that I co-chair for the United 

States and I have been in frequent contact for the last several 

weeks since the earthquake hit there. We fully anticipate that we 

will be going over there once things have passed into a study stage 

from where they are now still response and recovery and the radiation issues are resolved. We will be working closely with them. 

The National Science Foundation works very closely with their 

Japanese counterparts. The world’s largest experimental facility, 

what we call a shaking table that you can build models on and actually subject them to earthquake effects is just outside of Kobe, 

Japan, between Kobe and Kyoto, and we actually have cooperative 

projects where U.S. funded projects are placed on that shaking 

table and U.S. and Japanese researchers work literally side by side 

on those projects and we typically meet every September to review 

the kinds of technical issues that are being performed. At the moment, there is a group from the American Society of Civil Engineers with one person from NIST in New Zealand examining some 

of the damage that occurred in the Christchurch earthquake a few 

weeks ago as well. 

USGS has far more bilateral arrangements of that kind because 

the ground issues are the same no matter what national border is 

in place whereas the built environment can depend greatly upon 

the society in which you are examining the issues and so USGS 

does a lot more with the other countries than the rest of us, but 

we work with many other countries all the time. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. 

Dr. McConnell, how, if at all, do the costs of preparing for earthquakes diminish as you become more prepared? Once a community 

reaches a certain level of preparation, can its annual investment be 

reduced? And how do you measure a community’s level of resilience? 

Dr. MCCONNELL. Well, I guess I will tackle that last one first as 

I am not sure that we have an ability to quantify how you measure 

a community’s level of resilience. What we would look at—what we 

would really look at is, have they met certain goals depending on 

what their hazard is that they are looking at, and I will use an example of coastal communities that have—on the Oregon coast that 

have both the earthquake hazard from the Cascadia Subduction 

Zone and impending tsunami, both a local tsunami and distant 

tsunamis as we see that they had to deal with after the Tohoku 

earthquake. 

So as you invest in your infrastructure and your built environment based on good earthquake research and tsunami research, 

where are the areas that are in the inundation zones, where are 

your building codes and where is your land-use decision making, as 

you build up that infrastructure in the built infrastructure, what 

you really need to shift your work on and that we are realizing is, 

as Mr. Mullen said earlier, is on the outreach and the education 

because the demographics of our communities aren’t that everyone 

is there, that they have seen everything that has happened, that 

their grandparents live in the same community that they live in 
54 

and that this kind of a level of awareness is ingrained in the communities. So yes, you would invest less in your infrastructure and 

you would begin to invest more in continuing that education and 

outreach so that you stay resilient. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Fleischmann. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Wu for a quick follow-up. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, and with that request for a quick 

follow-up and the good example of the Full Committee’s Chair, I 

will submit a question about codes for the record and ask the witnesses to respond. 

Just a quick follow-up on the nuclear power issue. The reactors 

that we have at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon and I believe at 

Hanford are all pressure reactors and require electricity to circulate water through them, and I realize now that this is an NRC 

issue but there is significant contact. There is a different model for 

reactors, and I believe that Oregon State University has been 

working on this for quite some time and also a couple of other research centers, and this is a passive circulation system that doesn’t 

require electricity, and I know that you all are not experts in this 

field but in terms of resiliency and the conversations about resiliency that we have had, if you all care to address this, and if not, 

we will forward this question on to someone else. If you would care 

to address this, I would assume that these smaller reactors that 

are very similar to the reactors that are in nuclear-powered ships 

and submarines, that a passive circulation system that does not require electrical power to circulate the coolants, that would be an inherently more resilient system, especially if they can be distributed 

in, say, five reactors rather than one highly powered, high-pressure 

reactor. That is the question. 

Dr. HAYES. What I would like to offer is to pass the question to 

my counterparts at NRC and get a well-informed answer for you. 

Anything I would say would be strictly speculative. But I will be 

happy to try to help with answering the question by doing that. 

Mr. WU. That is absolutely terrific, and Mr. Chairman, I think— 

well, I am not going to go there about Committee jurisdiction. But 

I find that answer very helpful. Thank you very much. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you. 

And I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable time and 

testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of 

the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses, 

and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will 

remain open for two weeks for additional comments and statements 

from Members. The witnesses are excused. 

Thank you all for coming. The hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(55) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
56 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Jack Hayes, Director, National Earthquake Hazards 

ReductionProgram, NIST 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Responses by Jim Mullen, President of the National Emergency 

Management Association (NEMA) 

Questions submitted by Representative Ben Quayle 

Q1. In your opinion, what areas of directed research are the most cost effective to 

pursue in reducing earthquake vulnerabilities? Are there areas of research and 

development that have not been focused on, but should be, to result in cost savings? 

A1. As emergency managers, we benefit greatly from the research produced by 

groups such as those funded by NEHRP. Reference publications are published based 

on NEHRP research and utilized by states to provide practical information and 

guidance for earthquake mitigation. Some recent examples which have been of assistance to states include Techniques for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Building 

(FEMA 547) and Seismic Considerations for Steel Storage Racks Located in Areas 

Accessible to the Public (FEMA 460). These documents are made available to public, 

private, and non-governmental organizations to provide specific information earthquake design and mitigation. The documents are distributed whenever the state 

conducts training on earthquake mitigation. 

NEHRP participation in post-earthquake building and infrastructure investigations, like those conducted for the recent Japan, New Zealand, Chile, and Haiti 

earthquakes, provide valuable information on the performance of facilities in earthquakes. The findings from these investigations are used to inform U.S.building code 

revisions, building practices, and earthquake mitigation procedures. 

Questions submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer 

Q1. What do you see as the United States’ greatest flaw in its current earthquake 

hazard reduction strategies, and what can be done to address that? How much 

would improving the strategy rely on additional federal funding? 

A1. The greatest flaw in the current earthquake reduction strategy is a lack of integrated hazard reduction measures across the suite of FEMA programs and divisions. 

By implementing hazard reduction programs within a single division, FEMA has not 

leveraged the unique work done in the other parts of the agency in order to build 

capabilities for earthquake mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. 

NEHRP activities carried out by FEMA are housed within the Mitigation Directorate but should also incorporate preparedness, response, and recovery aspects as 

well-which would help approach hazard reduction in a holistic way. Better integration of earthquake hazard reduction programs into the other areas of the agency 

would leverage the resources already at their disposal, allowing the agency to accomplish more with limited funds. 

When programs operate independently of one another, efforts may be duplicated 

which wastes precious federal, state, and local money. In addition, risk reduction 

measures can often be implemented with many different types of hazards in mind. 

By understanding the connection between a bridge built to withstand an earthquake, and a bridge built to withstand a bomb blast, limited mitigation and preparedness dollars can be spent efficiently and effectively. 

In 2009, NEMA wrote a white paper with numerous other stakeholders, including 

FEMA, and the paper articulated suggestions for necessary elements of a mitigation 

strategy. ‘‘If the discussion of mitigation of future loss was embedded in a wider variety or policy and public choice discussions, then decisions that inadvertently increase risk would either be avoided or, at least, acknowledged in an open and transparent dialogue. (For example, an opportunity would have been a requirement to include hazard mitigation measures, or at least their consideration, in the project 

guidance for the Infrastructure Investment Act of 2009).’’ 

Questions submitted by Representative Chip Cravaack 

Q1. The United States is in the middle of a financial crisis. In the coming months, 

Congress is going to have to make some very hard decisions about the priorities 

of this nation. Why should Congress consider the National Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Program a priority and what are some recent accomplishments of this 

agency that justifies the millions of dollars that Congress has invested in this 

program? 
72 

A1. By funding the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), 

Congress has the opportunity to invest in the safety and security of vulnerable communities. NEHRP has provided the resources and leadership leading to significant 

advances in understanding the risk earthquakes pose and the best ways to counter 

them. Through NEHRP, the federal government has engaged in seismic monitoring, 

mapping, research, testing, engineering and related reference materials for code development, mitigation, and emergency preparedness. NEHRP has served as the 

backbone for protecting U.S. citizens, their property, and the national economy from 

the devastating effects of large earthquakes. Although NEHRP is well known for research programs, it is also the source for hundreds of new technologies, maps, design techniques, and standards that are used by design professionals every day to 

mitigate risks and save lives, protect property, and reduce adverse economic impacts. 

Each state approaches public outreach and education campaigns differently, relying on proven techniques which communicate best with their constituents. The State 

of Alaska, for example, has benefited from NEHRP and the corresponding NETAP 

(National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program) in the following ways: 

• NEHERP state assistance is currently being used to develop and install 

earthquake safety education kiosks in three communities where there were 

fatalities in the 1964 Great Alaskan Earthquake. The kiosks will present 

1964 survivor interviews, earthquake science information and safety instruction. These kiosks target residents and the large tourist populations which 

visit the State every year and include practical life saving information on 

earthquakes. 

• NETAP provided qualified instructors for the hospital seismic mitigation 

course that was attended by facility leaders from both the private non-profit 

and for-profit hospitals in the South-central Alaska area. 

• NEHERP assistance to state’s program provided funding to complete an active earthquake fault database for the State which coordinates with the 

USGS fault database and provides fault location information for builders and 

infrastructure planners as well as the general public. 

In Washington State, NEHRP funding has been instrumental in the conduct of 

a pilot project to assess seismic vulnerability of school buildings in two local jurisdictions which may prompt more widespread attention by school districts across the 

state, using the methodology in the pilot. NEHRP funds are also being used to assess critical interdependencies as part of the Resilient Washington initiative. 

As mentioned before, each state approaches earthquake risk reduction in a unique 

way, and the NEHRP website contains many success stories to illustrate their work. 

Q2. Looking forward, I expect all federal agencies to do more with less. This is simply the fiscal reality. Can all of you talk about ways that NEHRP can be reformed so it can work more efficiently and still accomplish its core mission? 

A2. NEHRP activities carried out by FEMA are housed within the Mitigation Directorate ofthe agency but should also incorporate preparedness, response, and recovery aspects as well which would help approach hazard reduction holistically. Better 

integration of earthquake hazard reduction programs into the other areas of the 

agency would leverage the resources already at their disposal allowing the agency 

to do more with their limited funds. This integration already occurs at the state and 

local levels where earthquake programs and initiatives are coordinated across division lines often incorporating multiple areas of the agency to fully accomplish mission assignments. 

When programs operate independently of each other, efforts can be duplicated, 

wasting precious federal, state, and local money. In addition, risk reduction measures can often be implemented with many different types of hazards in mind. By 

understanding the connection between a bridge built to withstand an earthquake, 

and a bridge built to withstand a bomb blast, limited mitigation and preparedness 

dollars can be spent efficiently and effectively. 

In 2009, NEMA wrote a white paper with numerous other stakeholders, including 

FEMA, and the paper articulated suggestions for necessary elements of a mitigation 

strategy. ‘‘If the discussion of mitigation of future loss was embedded in a wider variety or policy and public choice discussions, then decisions that inadvertently increase risk would either be avoided or, at least, acknowledged in an open and transparent dialogue. (For example, on opportunity would have been a requirement to include hazard mitigation measures, or at least their consideration, in the project 

guidance for the Infrastructure Investment Act of 2009).’’ By embedding mitigation 
73 

across the spectrum of disaster related activities, duplication of effort and funding 

can be avoided. 

Q3. Can you speak to the interactions that NEHRP has with local governments? 

What types ofinformation does NEHRP share with local entities and how is this 

information communicated? 

A3. NEMA specifically represents the state emergency management directors of all 

50 states, Territories, and the District of Columbia. Therefore, while NEMA works 

closely with our local counterparts, it would be imprudent for us to comment specifically on the relationship between NEHRP and local governments. 

Q4. There is a great deal of expense that the federal government must endure when 

a natural disaster such as an earthquake occurs. Can you discuss the costs and 

benefits of hazard mitigation spending? 

A4. To quantify the effectiveness of mitigation projects, Congress commissioned two 

studies. One study, conducted by the National Institute of Building Sciences in 

2005, reported for every $1 spent on various mitigation activities, $4 in response 

and recovery costs are saved. 

In September 2007, the Congressional Budget Office evaluated the Predisaster 

Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) in a report titled ‘‘Potential Cost Savings from the 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program.’’ In the report, compiled disaster data suggests 

that for every $1 spent on mitigation projects, losses from future disasters are reduced by $3. As the years pass, the return on investment grows since development 

in risky locations continues. While comprehensive studies remain valuable and very 

effective in accurately analyzing facts and figures, the success of mitigation projects 

are often best seen in pictures of property improvements, and in personal stories 

of community survival. NEMA has worked with States to compile success stories of 

mitigation projects completed to address many different types of hazards, from 

flooding to ice storms and these examples exist in every state and their benefits can 

be seen after each disaster. 

The value placed on hazard mitigation projects differ from state to state, and are 

certainly considered more vital in areas of the country where disaster relief dominates state and local spending; but the understanding that prevention is more effective and responsible than reacting after a catastrophic event is universal. To realize 

cost saving as budgets become more constrained contributing to mitigation grant 

programs are wise investments for state and local officials. 

Although natural disasters receive the most news coverage when they create the 

significant damage, successful mitigation projects by definition create non-events. 

The value of mitigation funds are judged by what does not happen, rather than 

what did. While comprehensive estimated cost-benefit examples are important figures to consider when deciding the relevance and effectiveness of mitigation programs, more telling are the dramatic real life stories of mitigation projects fulfilling 

their purpose and truly changing how States and localities are affected by disaster. 

Responses by Mr. Chris Poland Chris Poland, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 

Degenkolb Engineers and Chairman, NEHRP Advisory Committee 

Questions submitted by Representative Ben Quayle 

Q1. Looking forward, what are your thoughts on the reauthorization legislation of 

the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program being coupled with the 

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. 

A1. I support reauthorization legislation that couples NEHRP with NWIRP as was 

done during the last session in HR 3820. While the technical issues related to mitigating the effect of earthquakes and wind are quite different, the programs needed 

to define pre-event mitigation, response and recovery activities are quite similar. 

The two programs will benefit from independent advisory committees of professionals expert in the respective hazards. At the same time, oversight of both programs by a common Interagency Coordinating Committee is needed to avoid duplication and the development of inconsistent practices. Both programs need to carry 

sufficient authorization levels to carry out their activities at a much faster pace 

than currently funded. 

Q2. In your opinion, what areas of directed research are the most cost effective to 

pursue in reducing earthquake vulnerabilities. Are there areas of research and 

development that have not been focused on, but should be, to result in cost savings? 
74 

A2. The NEHRP Strategic Plan and the recently published NRC Report outline the 

work that needs to be done. Among those recommendations, I believe that the following three areas of directed research will be the most cost effective in the long 

run. 

(a) Development of a set of nationally applicable performance goals for buildings and lifeline systems that support resilience at all levels. Quantification 

of the role of improvisation and adaptive behavior is needed to understand 

how badly a community can be damaged and still recover quickly enough 

to maintain its cultural and economic viability. That should be the basis of 

the minimum standards for all construction. Up to now, these performance 

goals have been set by engineers focused on life safety, one building at a 

time, and defined in a non-transparent manner. Resilience must be approach from a community basis, involve all related stakeholders and perspectives, and remain transparent throughout. 

(b) Development of national design guidelines for all lifeline systems that deliver the specific and transparent performance standards established for national resilience. Damaged regions cannot begin significant recovery until 

transportation routes for repair crews and are open, electric power, fuel and 

water are available, and waste water handling systems are operational. At 

present there is no overarching performance standard available or even 

agreement on what the restoration timeframes and priorities should be. 

(c) Development of affordable and enforceable standards for the rehabilitation 

of existing buildings and lifeline systems. Most of the research to date has 

focused on the development design standards for new construction. That’s 

good, but the vast majority of the infrastructure is already in place and not 

due for replacement for decades. The needed systematic upgrade of the inplace construction to the resilience level will only occur when the cost is significantly reduced and enforceable, mandatory programs are developed. 

Responses by Dr. Vicki McConnell, Director, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 

Questions submitted by Representative Ben Quayle 

Q1. Looking forward, what are your thoughts on the reauthorization legislation of 

the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program being coupled with the 

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program? 

A1. I can see the applicability of including the two natural hazard reduction programs under the umbrella of one act whose mission is to reduce impacts of natural 

hazards. There may be overlap in certain agency charges regarding both hazards 

(e.g., in NIST and NSF charges) and it is possible that some of the basic research 

in developing tools to assess vulnerability and communicate risks may be applied 

to multiple hazards. I have concerns about the dilution of efforts and funding to 

characterize, monitor, and mitigate for very different hazards if the two acts become 

more entwined. We do not monitor for wind storms like we monitor for earthquakes, 

nor does the basic or applied research for these hazards have much in common. The 

benefits to hazard mitigation reduction of both programs could be impacted. 

Q2. In your opinion, what areas of directed research are the most cost effective to 

pursue in reducing earthquake vulnerabilities. Are there areas of research and 

development that have not been focused on, but should be, to result in cost savings? 

A2. In my opinion, basic research into understanding earthquake processes and applied research into identifying and characterizing earthquake hazards returns high 

value for the investment. It is critical to understand and quantify the problem before you begin designing for or mitigating to reduce vulnerability. Investment in 

basic research that develops models and tools to assess vulnerability and risk from 

multiple hazards would also assist states in implementing mitigation and local land 

use decision making thus helping to build resilient communities. For example, presently we cannot compare the relative risk a community faces between earthquakes, 

floods, volcanoes, or other natural hazards making it difficult for communities to develop reasonable response and recovery plans that are comprehensive. 
75 

Questions submitted by Representative Chip Cravaack 

Q1. The United States is in the middle of a fiscal crisis. In the coming months, Congress is going to have to make some very hard decisions about the priorities of 

this nation. Why should Congress consider the National Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Program a priority and what are some recent accomplishments of this 

agency that justifies the millions of dollars that Congress has invested in this 

program? 

A1. This program should be considered a priority because the products from the 

four agencies that are tasked with implementing the program reduce the national 

vulnerability to potentially catastrophic earthquakes, and in the long run save the 

nation money. The program funds research into understanding the hazard (NSF and 

USGS), assessing the vulnerability (NSF and FEMA), monitoring (USGS), determining the risk, and developing standards and methods to reduce that risk (NIST). 

This targeted approach allows full consideration of how to mitigate the hazard, and 

through cooperation with state and local experts actually, reduces the risk. Too 

often federally funded programs only address one or two aspects of natural hazard 

risk reduction, such as only basic research, but that will not get the nation to resiliency. 

I offer two examples of recent work toward earthquake risk reduction to which 

NEHRP funding has contributed. Both examples incorporate and study the effect of 

the multiple hazards that an earthquake can cause over space and time, and both 

examples show how coordination and cooperation spanning federal, state, and local 

agencies and the private sector can leverage the greatest benefit for cost of informing and educating our citizens, and building strong communities. First is the Great 

Southern California Shakeout earthquake drill that was first activated in 2008. 

Through the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program and NEHRP funding, the USGS 

Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project developed the most likely earthquake scenario 

for southern California. In cooperation with NSF, FEMA, and a host of state, local 

and private sector co-sponsors the scenario became the basis of full response earthquake drill. The results from such activities help identify gaps in the ability to respond and recover from a natural hazard, thus helping communities understand if 

they are facing a disaster or a catastrophe. The full drill is now in its third year 

of activity, and the concept has been expanded to the central U.S. and the Madrid 

Fault Zone. I refer you to the data and information-rich website if you are interested 

in reviewing the many publications and outreach products of this project: http:// 

www.shakeout.org/. 

In the Pacific Northwest, the USGS Earthquake Hazard Program and state and 

local agencies have taken a slightly different tack to accomplish similar goals of understanding and developing mitigation tools to reduce the risk of the multiple hazards posed by an earthquake in the Portland Oregon and Seattle Washington metropolitan areas. Here, scientists are using state-of-the-science high resolution lidar 

data to identify and locate earthquake fault scarps and landslides. That information 

is combined with comprehensive bedrock and surface geologic mapping to develop 

digital spatial maps of the potential hazard zones. Lidar data and susceptibility 

maps are being developed that will indicate areas in communities that are vulnerable to earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, and ground acceleration. Understanding the extent of the hazard, and identifying the vulnerable areas will allow 

for risk reduction through better land use planning, emergency response plans, and 

recovery strategies. 

Q2. Looking forward, I expect all federal agencies to do more with less. This is simply the fiscal reality. Can all of you talk about the ways NEHRP can be reformed so it can work more efficiently and still accomplish its core mission? 

A2. I commend the original concept for implementing NEHRP by incorporating the 

purpose and goals of the program into the already existing agencies that were conducting similar work, instead of creating yet another federal agency silo. Improvements and streamlining can always be made to increase efficiency, and certainly all 

four agencies should look closely at their missions and charges, and reduce or eliminate overlaps and redundancies. I refer you to the recently published National Research Council’s evaluation of the NEHRP: National Earthquake Resilience: Research, Implementation and Outreach. One recommendation of the NRC committee 

would be ‘‘to consider that an analysis to determine whether coordination among all 

organizations that contribute to NEHRP could be improved would be useful and 

timely.’’ http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13092.html 
76 

Q3. There is a great deal of expense that the federal government must endure when 

a national disaster such as an earthquake occurs. Can you discuss the costs and 

benefits of hazard mitigation spending? 

A3. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has researched this question 

in light of their charge to prepare for natural disasters, as well as respond to them. 

Determining the benefit-to-cost of investing in mitigation for a natural disaster such 

as an earthquake is complex, yet some excellent work has gone into quantifying the 

benefits and costs. FEMA models have been developed in conjunction with engineers, public officials, and economists, and are generally accepted on making public 

decisions for mitigating natural hazards. Analysis of the hazard mitigation grants 

awarded from 1993—2003 indicate that 1.5-to-1 benefit on average is derived from 

mitigation of earthquake hazards. An important factor with benefit-to-cost analysis 

of earthquake hazard mitigation is that such mitigation is anticipated to reduce the 

loss of life and injury by as much as 62%, much higher than other mitigation for 

other natural hazards, such as floods or wind (http://bechtel.colorado.edu/porterka/ 

Rose-et-al-2007–NHR–BCA.pdf). 
(77) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
78 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE RANDY NEUGEBAUER, MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, 

AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this full Committee hearing 

to examine the United State’s level of preparedness for earthquakes and how we can continue to reduce the related risks. The 

recent earthquake off the coast of Japan has had devastating consequences for the Japanese people, economy, and environment, and 

it is appropriate for us to consider how prepared our nation is for 

a natural disaster of that magnitude. 

Thank you. 

Æ