Circular 1242

The Plan to Coordinate

NEHRP Post-Earthquake 

Investigations

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in Coordination with the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, National Science Foundation, and 

National Institute of Standards and Technology
This plan was developed with the assistance of the Applied Technology Council 

(ATC) of Redwood City, California, under USGS cooperative agreement 1434-WR97-AG-00015, ATC-35. Input for the plan was solicited at a workshop that was 

co-sponsored by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).

Cover photograph: Broken gas line, Balboa Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 1994 Northridge earthquake (photograph by M. Rymer)

Inset photographs from top to bottom: 

Collapsed building, Marina District, San Francisco California, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Photograph by C.E. Meyer, USGS)

Crater formed by liquefaction near Ten Mile Hill, South Carolina, 1886 Charleston earthquake (Photograph credit: USGS 9th Annual Report, plate XX)

Damaged buildings in Korfez, Turkey, 1999 Kocaeli earthquake (Photograph by C. Mueller, USGS)

USGS rapid instrumental intensity map of 2001 Nisqually, Washington, earthquake (http://quake.usgs.gov/shakemap)

Cypress Viaduct collapse, Oakland, California, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. (Photograph by H.G. Wilshire, USGS) 

Oversight Committee

Daniel Abrams, Mid-America Earthquake Engineering Research Center

Jonathan Bray, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

James Davis, Association of American State Geologists

Richard Eisner, California Office of Emergency Services

Willliam Elliott, American Society of Civil Engineers, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering

Richard Fragaszy, National Science Foundation, Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems, Arlington

Edward Fratto, Northeast States Emergency Consortium

Robert Hendershot, Structural Engineers Association of California

Leigh House, National Science Foundation, Division of Earth Sciences

Thomas Jordan, Southern California Earthquake Center

George Lee, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research

Jill McCarthy, U.S. Geological Survey

Rawn Nelson, National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Timothy Sheckler, Federal Emergency Management Agency

S. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Susan K. Tubbesing, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

Frank Vernon, Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology

James Wilkinson, Jr., Central United States Earthquake Consortium

Phillip Yen, Federal Highway Administration
The Plan to Coordinate 

NEHRP Post-Earthquake 

Investigations

By 

Thomas L. Holzer, U.S. Geological Survey, Chairperson

Roger D. Borcherdt, U.S. Geological Survey

Craig D. Comartin, Comartin-Reis

Robert D. Hanson, University of Michigan

Charles R. Scawthorn, ABS Consulting (formerly EQE International)

Kathleen Tierney, University of Delaware

T. Leslie Youd, Brigham Young University

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in Coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

National Science Foundation, and National Institute of Standards and Technology

Circular 1242
Published in the Western Region, Menlo Park, California

Manuscript approved for publication, August 28, 2002

Text edited by James W. Hendley II

Production and design by Susan Mayfi eld

U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2003

Any use of trade, product, or fi rm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional copies please contact:

USGS Information Services

Box 25286

Denver, CO 80225

This report and any updates to it are available at http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/circular/c1242/

Additional USGS publications can be found at http://geology.usgs.gov/products.html

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS (1–888–275–8747)

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/
iii

Contents

Abbreviations .....................................................................................................................................................................iv

1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................1

2. Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................3

3. Background .....................................................................................................................................................................4

4. NEHRP Post-Earthquake Coordination Plan ..............................................................................................................4

4.1 Domestic Earthquakes .......................................................................................................................................4

4.1.1 Phase I ........................................................................................................................................................5

4.1.1.1 Incident Report and Plan Implementation (USGS) ............................................................5

4.1.1.2 Web Site Management (USGS) .............................................................................................5

4.1.1.3 Technical Clearinghouse (USGS, FEMA, EERI) ...................................................................6

4.1.1.4 NEHRP Investigations Coordinator (USGS) .........................................................................7

4.1.1.5 National Construction Safety Team Act (NIST) ..................................................................8

4.1.2 Phase II ......................................................................................................................................................8

4.1.2.1 Phase II Meeting (Investigations Coordinator) ...................................................................8

4.1.2.2 Budget Supplemental Decision (FEMA, NIST, NSF, USGS) ...............................................9

4.1.3 Phase III .....................................................................................................................................................9

4.1.3.1 Workshop for Setting Investigation Priorities (NSF, USGS, FEMA, NIST) ....................9

4.1.3.2 Information Dissemination (USGS, NSF, FEMA, NIST) .....................................................10

4.2 Foreign earthquakes .........................................................................................................................................10

5. Recommendations for Further Action ......................................................................................................................12

5.1 Recommendation 1—Broaden Coverage and Comprehensiveness of Investigations of 

Earthquake Impacts ..........................................................................................................................................12

5.2 Recommendation 2—Encourage Use of Information Technology ...........................................................14

5.3 Recommendation 3—Formalize Data Management and Archiving ........................................................15

5.4 Recommendation 4—Funding to Support Post-Earthquake Investigations ............................................15

6. Annual Review of Plan ................................................................................................................................................16

References .........................................................................................................................................................................17

Figures

1. Activities timeline for NEHRP Post-Earthquake Coordination Plan—Domestic earthquakes .........................5

2. Investigators meet at technical clearinghouse to discuss fi ndings from fi eld investigation of 2001 

Nisqually, Washington, earthquake .................................................................................................................6

3. Activities timeline for EERI post-earthquake activities—Foreign earthquakes ................................................11
iv

Abbreviations

ANSS, Advanced National Seismic System

ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers

ATC, Applied Technology Council

COSMOS, Consortium of Strong-Motion Observation Systems

CERI, Center for Earthquake Research and Information 

CUSEC, Central United States Earthquake Consortium

CUREE, Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering

DFO, Disaster Field Offi ce

DLESE, Digital Library for Earth Science Education (NSF)

EERI, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

FCO, Federal Coordinating Official 

FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency 

GIS, Geographic Information System 

GPS, Global Positioning System 

HAZUS©, Hazards United States

ICC, NEHRP Interagency Coordinating Committee 

InSAR, Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar 

IRIS, Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology

IT, Information technology

LIDAR, Light detection and ranging

MAE, Mid-America Earthquake Center

MCEER, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research

NAVSTAR, The U.S. constellation of GPS satellites

NAWAS, National Warning System

NCEA, National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

NCST, National Construction Safety Team

NEED, National Earthquake Experience Database 

NEES, Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation

NEHRP, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

NEIC, National Earthquake Information Center

NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NISEE, National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering

NSF, National Science Foundation

PDA, Personal Digital Assistant 

PEER, Pacifi c Earthquake Engineering Research Center 

SCADA, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System

SCEC, Southern California Earthquake Center 

SCO, State Coordinating Offi cial

SGER, Small (NSF) grants for exploratory research

SSA, Seismological Society of America

TCLEE, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering

UNAVCO, University NAVSTAR Consortium

USGS, United States Geological Survey

WSSPC, Western States Seismic Policy Council
1

1. Executive Summary

This is the plan to coordinate domestic and foreign 

post-earthquake investigations supported by the National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The plan 

addresses coordination of both the NEHRP agencies—Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National 

Science Foundation (NSF), and U. S. Geological Survey 

(USGS)—and their partners. The plan is a framework for 

both coordinating what is going to be done and identifying 

responsibilities for post-earthquake investigations. It does not 

specify what will be done. Coordination is addressed in various time frames ranging from hours to years after an earthquake. The plan includes measures for (1) gaining rapid and 

general agreement on high-priority research opportunities, 

and (2) conducting the data gathering and field studies in a 

coordinated manner. It deals with identification, collection, 

processing, documentation, archiving, and dissemination of 

the results of post-earthquake work in a timely manner and 

easily accessible format.

For the purposes of this plan a significant domestic earthquake is defined as either (1) an earthquake resulting in a Presidential disaster declaration, or (2) an earthquake considered 

by NEHRP agencies to provide an opportunity to learn how to 

reduce future earthquake losses in the United States. The plan 

organizes domestic post-earthquake investigation and information dissemination activities into three phases, which include 

the following elements: 

Phase I (immediate to several days)

• Incident Report and Plan Implementation—Within a few 

minutes after a large or potentially damaging domestic 

earthquake, the USGS shall notify emergency managers, NEHRP agencies, state geological survey(s) in the 

affected state(s), and personnel designated by the NEHRP 

agencies. Following this incident report, the USGS shall 

convene with FEMA, NIST, NSF, the state geological 

survey(s), and the Earthquake Engineering Research 

Institute (EERI) to determine if the earthquake is signifi -

cant and warrants implementation of either all or part of 

the NEHRP post-earthquake coordination plan. Immediately following this consultation, the USGS in cooperation with FEMA and the state geological surveys shall 

alert emergency management agencies about implementation of the plan. 

• Web Site Management—Within hours of the event, the 

USGS shall establish an event Web site with links to 

other earthquake-related Web sites. The USGS shall have 

principal responsibility for collating and linking to earthscience information. EERI shall have principal responsibility for collating and linking to engineering information 

as provided by engineering centers, institutions, and private practice. 

• Technical Clearinghouse—Within 24 hours following 

mutual consultation, the USGS, FEMA, and EERI will 

work with state agencies to organize a field technical 

clearinghouse. Depending on ability and capability, 

the affected state(s) may take the lead in organizing 

the clearinghouse. California already has formalized 

the process for establishing a clearinghouse, with the 

principal NEHRP-sponsored participants being FEMA 

(Region IX), EERI, and the USGS. State planning currently is being conducted for the central and western 

United States under the aegis of the Central United 

States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC) and the 

Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC). The 

clearinghouse is the focal point for coordinating activities and promoting the safety of all field parties during 

initial post-earthquake reconnaissance.

• NEHRP Investigations Coordinator—Within 24 hours of 

a significant earthquake, the USGS in consultation with 

the other NEHRP agencies shall designate a NEHRP 

Investigations Coordinator. The Coordinator shall be kept 

abreast of all NEHRP activities and relevant communications with regards to the earthquake, ensure liaison 

with emergency managers is adequate, and assist the 

NEHRP agencies to optimize the deployment of NEHRP 

resources and to establish priorities for investigations.

• NCST Investigation—Within 48 hours, NIST will examine 

the relevant factors associated with building failures that 

occur as a result of the earthquake and will make reasonable 

efforts to consult with the other NEHRP agencies prior to 

determining whether to conduct an investigation under the 

National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act. Any NIST 

investigation conducted under the authority of the Act will 

be limited to building failures on one or more buildings or 

on one or more class or type of buildings selected by NIST.

Phase II (several days to 1 month)

• Meeting—When the initial reconnaissance phase nears 

completion, the NEHRP Investigations Coordinator shall 

The Plan to Coordinate NEHRP Post-Earthquake Investigations
2

convene a meeting to identify opportunities and needs for 

rapid concentrated data gathering and investigation, including systematic collection of perishable data. Within 24 

hours of the meeting, the Coordinator shall prepare a report 

containing summary reconnaissance findings, recommendations for collection of perishable data, and an estimate of 

both the level of effort and amount of funding that will be 

required to conduct recommended activities. On the basis 

of this report and pending available funds, NEHRP agencies may invite, consider, and support proposals for rapid 

investigations. The Coordinator shall be kept informed of 

all NEHRP-supported investigations in order to facilitate 

coordination and minimize duplication of effort.

• Budget Supplemental Decision—If the earthquake presents opportunities for investigations that would improve 

earthquake risk mitigation, but which cannot be supported with existing funds, the NEHRP agencies shall 

convene within a few days after the earthquake to consider a request for a budget supplemental.

Phase III (1 month to 5 years)

• Workshop on Investigation Priorities—Within 1 to 2 

months of the earthquake, NSF and the USGS shall 

jointly sponsor a multidisciplinary workshop to evaluate both short- and long-term research and development 

opportunities, including what intensive follow-up investigations are warranted. The workshop will identify major 

opportunities and recommend priorities for funding.

• Investigations Solicitation—Based on the outcomes 

of the Workshop on Investigation Priorities and within 

constraints of available funding, a joint statement may 

be issued by FEMA, NSF, USGS, and NIST that solicits 

proposals for long-term research and problem-focused 

studies. If possible, awards are to be made within 5 

months of the event. 

• Information Dissemination—NEHRP shall support at a 

minimum three types of information dissemination activities following every significant domestic earthquake.

(1) An event summary report for a broad audience 

shall be published within 3 months of the event. 

The report shall integrate preliminary observations 

on the response of the natural, built, and socioeconomic environments. It shall be prepared by 

the USGS and EERI in collaboration with other 

NEHRP supported investigators and institutions.

(2) On the first anniversary of the earthquake, FEMA, 

NIST, NSF, and the USGS, shall support local and 

state agencies involved in risk reduction to hold a 

public conference with an accompanying proceedings that summarizes the implications of the earthquake and identifies opportunities for earthquake 

risk reduction. The conference and proceedings 

shall be targeted at local and state decisionmakers and shall be held in the region impacted by the 

earthquake. Participation by Federal stakeholders 

shall be encouraged as well. 

(3) A comprehensive synthesis of research and professional reports shall be published within 5 years of 

the event by the USGS and NIST. Data and other 

detailed information shall be archived in a NEHRP 

virtual data center and appropriately summarized in 

the synthesis report. If NIST is conducting an investigation under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act, NIST will contribute to the 

publications described above to the extent possible.

For foreign earthquakes, which typically are less intensively investigated than domestic earthquakes, the plan recommends that all U.S. post-earthquake investigators inform EERI 

of plans and schedules of investigations before departure, 

as well as their ongoing status once in the field. EERI shall 

regularly report these planned activities and their status to the 

NEHRP agencies as well as on its Web site. NEHRP agencies 

shall monitor these plans to avoid interference by visiting U.S. 

investigators with local experts. 

This proposed plan concludes with recommendations that 

address several deficiencies in current domestic post-earthquake investigations. The deficiencies were identified at an 

invitational workshop of experienced post-earthquake investigators held as part of the process to prepare this plan. Areas in 

need of major improvement include:

• Coverage and comprehensiveness of investigations of 

earthquake impacts, including performance of the built 

and socioeconomic environments.

• Application of new information technology to data 

collection.

• Data management and archiving.

The plan recommends that NEHRP develop standard 

formats for the collection of data on the performance of buildings and other structures in regions of severe ground shaking, 

including damage to nonstructural components and information characterizing the earthquake resisting properties of structures. The standard formats for data collection shall consider 

those already developed for existing damage prediction tools, 

such as HAZUS©, as well as current standardized procedures 

for seismic design, pre-event evaluation and rehabilitation, and 

post-event evaluation and repair of structures. All post-earthquake data, including that accumulated by both FEMA as part 

of the disaster assistance process and private structural engineering firms, should be both collected digitally and stored 

in a virtual Web-based archive. This new database could be 

maintained either by the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) or at various sites from where data 

would be retrievable from a single or mirrored Internet site 

using time stamps and a georeferencing system. The database would be addressable using all of the tools of a modern 

geographic information system as well as using modern 

relational database technology on the Internet. NEHRP also 

should involve a wider range of disciplines, including economics, sociology, and political science, in post-earthquake 

investigations. Protocols for data collection in these disciplines also should be standardized.
3

Because much of this information helps to reduce future 

losses, it is important that adequate funding be available for 

domestic post-earthquake investigations. For example, domestic post-earthquake investigations for each significant earthquake could be funded by establishing a separate fund during 

the next NEHRP reauthorization that could then be drawn 

upon for Federally-declared earthquake disasters; such funds 

could be administered by FEMA. Another possibility could 

be to designate and utilize existing agency programs to fund 

these activities. However, in the absence of such funds, all of 

the NEHRP agencies shall be prepared to submit a request 

through FEMA to Congress for appropriate emergency supplemental funding following a significant domestic earthquake. 

Such a template could also be used for post-event investigations of other types of disasters, including natural and terrorist 

events, which would allow for the documentation of information that would help improve the protection of the Nation’s 

infrastructure from future events.

2. Purpose

This report presents the plan to coordinate domestic 

and foreign post-earthquake investigations supported by the 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). 

As has been demonstrated in numerous disasters, authoritative 

and timely scientific and engineering advice after a disaster 

both improves emergency response and helps allay public 

fears and anxiety. Large urban earthquakes in the United States 

can cause many fatalities and great property loss. It is likely 

after a great earthquake that the Nation will turn to officials 

of NEHRP for authoritative advice following these inevitable 

events. By coordinating its post-earthquake response, NEHRP 

will be in a stronger position to provide input and work effectively with officials involved in the post-earthquake emergency 

response activities.

Major earthquakes also provide critical information on 

earthquake processes, ground shaking, and the performance 

of the built and socioeconomic environments. A set of coordinated efforts during and following the event can enhance the 

information acquired. The nature and quality of this information can significantly reduce losses not only immediately following the specific event, but also from future events through 

improved planning, design, and construction. The infrequency 

of large damaging earthquakes and the many NEHRP-supported investigators who can be expected to conduct field studies after earthquakes require that post-event investigations be 

closely coordinated in order to maximize the learning that will 

improve mitigation of the effects of future earthquakes. Postearthquake investigations are critical for:

• Providing insight into why and how faults rupture.

• Understanding and predicting shaking and secondary 

ground deformation.

• Documenting and improving performance of the built 

environment.

• Evaluating the adequacy of current building standards 

and practices.

• Documenting societal and economic impacts and providing information for improving earthquake response and 

recovery activities.

• Identifying specific opportunities to mitigate the impacts 

of future earthquakes. 

In summary, benefits from post-earthquake investigations 

can include improved emergency response, a safer built environment, cost-effective construction of new structures and rehabilitation of older ones, improved land-use practices, and better 

understanding of earthquake hazards in the United States.

This plan provides a framework for both coordinating 

what is going to be done and identifying responsibility for 

post-earthquake activities. It does not and cannot specify what 

will be done because each earthquake offers different challenges and learning opportunities. The plan applies primarily 

to the NEHRP Federal agencies and their partners, which 

range from state agencies, multi-state consortia, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), the NSF-funded 

centers and organizations for earth science and earthquake 

engineering research and education, the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), to other academic and 

professional groups with professional interests in post-earthquake investigations. It is important to recognize that NEHRP 

post-earthquake activities primarily consist of information 

gathering and documentation of what happened. Some of this 

information, however, is of immediate interest to emergency 

managers and the public. NEHRP agencies and partners need 

to convey this information in a timely manner. The primary 

responsibility is to alert the public and Federal and state 

agencies about the occurrence and scope of the event. However, NEHRP investigators must be prepared to convey other 

aspects that bear on public safety or concerns.

In addition to proposing a structure to improve coordination of the activities and investigations that typically are 

conducted following significant earthquakes, the plan also 

identifies new activities—some of which are permitted by 

advances in technology—that are considered significant to 

improve loss reduction in future earthquakes. These activities and a mechanism for their funding are described in four 

recommendations. Their implementation would substantially 

improve the contribution of NEHRP post-earthquake investigations to earthquake risk reduction in the United States.

Earthquakes are one of several hazards that can cause 

large disasters that result in great loss of life and property. The 

most significant of these are hurricanes, floods, winter storms, 

tornadoes, wildfires, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and terrorism. Indeed, from 1992 to 1996, losses in the U.S. from 

natural hazards averaged about $1 billion per week (OSTP, 

1997). Post-event documentation of these hazards and their 

consequences contributes significantly to improvements in 

mitigating their impact and thereby reduces future losses. 

Although scientific and technical aspects of these hazards may 

differ, post-disaster investigations pose many similar challenges. Thus, this plan for post-earthquake coordination should 

be useful for planning and coordinating investigations of these 

other hazards.
4

3. Background

The 2001-2005 NEHRP Strategic Plan (FEMA, in press) 

stresses the importance of post-earthquake investigations. 

NEHRP has long supported post-earthquake investigations 

including efforts in the earth sciences, engineering, and socioeconomic disciplines. Improved coordination is necessary if 

these investigations are to maximize learning through the sharing 

of information. Because the USGS has the statutory responsibility and authority under Public Law 101-614 to conduct 

post-earthquake investigations, the Strategic Plan tasks NEHRP 

under the leadership of the USGS to (1) examine the roles and 

responsibilities of the various groups involved in post-earthquake 

investigations and (2) develop a NEHRP protocol action plan as 

well as a funding mechanism for investigations following major 

domestic and foreign earthquakes. According to the Strategic 

Plan, the NEHRP protocol action plan should detail the degree 

of coordinated learning desired, how those findings will be 

obtained, and how findings can be most effectively disseminated 

to all stakeholders in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary NEHRP 

report. The objectives of the present plan are to improve coordination during post-earthquake investigation efforts, minimize 

duplication of efforts, identify activities that could be supported 

with additional resources (such as disaster funds from FEMA or 

supplemental appropriations), and maximize the opportunity to 

learn from both domestic and foreign earthquakes. 

To develop the NEHRP protocol action plan, the USGS 

requested the assistance of the Applied Technology Council 

(ATC) of Redwood City, California, under USGS cooperative 

agreement 1434-WR-97-AG-00015, ATC-35. ATC organized 

a multidisciplinary 7-member committee to draft the plan and 

a multi-institutional oversight committee to review the plan. 

Input was solicited from experienced post-earthquake investigators and NEHRP agencies at an invitational workshop held 

March 13-14, 2001, in Menlo Park, California. The workshop 

was jointly sponsored with EERI. Based on input from the 

workshop, a draft plan was prepared. In addition to the review 

by the oversight committee, comments were solicited from the 

general post-earthquake investigation community on a draft 

posted on the ATC Web site. The present plan is the result of 

this manifold input and comment process.

4. NEHRP Post-Earthquake Coordination Plan

The plan addresses coordination during three time frames 

or phases after the earthquake: 

• Phase I—Post-earthquake reconnaissance during the first 

few days. 

• Phase II—Intensive gathering and archiving of perishable 

data during the first few weeks.

• Phase III—Research and investigations, including additional data gathering and archiving, conducted during the 

subsequent months and years.

The response of NEHRP to domestic and foreign earthquakes is sufficiently different in scope that earthquakes 

occurring in the United States and abroad are treated separately. Domestic earthquakes provide NEHRP with its best 

opportunity to evaluate seismic hazards and the performance 

of the built and socioeconomic environments in the United 

States. Furthermore, NEHRP is directed to conduct investigations of domestic events by the 1977 Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Act. Consequently, domestic earthquakes typically 

receive greater scrutiny by NEHRP than do foreign earthquakes. Foreign earthquakes, however, usually provide insight 

into crustal failure processes, seismic radiation fields, and 

some construction practices that contribute to earthquake risk 

mitigation in the United States, as well as opportunities for 

model validation. For example, about $1.5 million in NEHRP 

funds was used to support U.S. research investigations of the 

1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, and Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquakes. In 

some cases, such as the 1988 Spitak, Armenia, and the 1999 

Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquakes, the affected countries request 

specific technical assistance from the U.S. Government, and 

these requests are usually fulfilled by NEHRP agencies.

4.1 Domestic Earthquakes

The proposed plan to coordinate post-earthquake investigations for significant domestic earthquakes is shown schematically in figure 1. For the purpose of implementing the plan, 

either in part or in total, a significant domestic earthquake will 

be defined as follows: (1) an earthquake resulting in a Presidential disaster declaration or (2) an earthquake considered 

by NEHRP agencies to provide an opportunity to learn how 

to reduce future earthquake losses in the United States. The 

plan identifies the steps and approximate timeline necessary to 

achieve coordination goals, as well as the parties responsible 

for each activity. The responsible parties include NEHRP 

agencies, entities funded either in part or totally by NEHRP, 

and other entities with whom NEHRP should coordinate. As 

shown in the figure, these activities are parts of a continuum. 

Initial or Phase I post-earthquake activities focus on defining 

the scope of the disaster and are reconnaissance in nature. 

They quickly assess the character and distribution of inflicted 

damage and generated ground effects, identify research 

opportunities that will improve the practice of earthquake risk 

mitigation, set the stage for subsequent in-depth data gathering, and aid emergency managers by identifying hazardous 

situations that may be exacerbated by aftershocks or other processes. These Phase I activities are typically followed by more 

intensive data gathering for subsequent research and analysis. 

This period is commonly referred to as Phase II and may last 

for weeks after the event. Phase III is the longer period after 

the earthquake when comprehensive research and investigations are conducted.

Most of the activities identified in the plan are currently 

conducted by NEHRP following domestic earthquakes. The 

plan is designed to place them into a more formal structure. 

Some of the activities, particularly those that apply new information technology, are evolving with each earthquake. For 

these activities, the plan tries to anticipate their evolution and 

assign responsibility for their implementation. 
5

4.1.1 Phase I

Following the USGS incident report and decision by the 

NEHRP agencies to activate the plan, several decisions must 

be made promptly by NEHRP. These decisions occur almost 

simultaneously. They include: (1) activation of an event web 

site, (2) establishment of a field technical clearinghouse, and 

(3) designation of an Investigations Coordinator. 

4.1.1.1 Incident Report and Plan Implementation (USGS)

When a large or potentially damaging earthquake occurs 

in the United States, the USGS shall determine and announce 

the magnitude and location of the earthquake within minutes. 

Once announced, emergency response personnel are alerted 

through the National Warning System (NAWAS), which is 

operated by FEMA. As development of the Advanced National 

Seismic System (ANSS) progresses, the USGS capability to 

estimate the strength and geographic distribution of strong 

shaking will also improve. The USGS has the mandate to 

quickly provide information on the strength and distribution of 

strong ground shaking to emergency managers and others. The 

improved ANSS system is greatly improving the capability of 

USGS to fulfill this mandate. 

Each NEHRP agency shall identify (and review annually) 

a contact who shall be alerted directly by the USGS about the 

event. Each NEHRP agency also should develop a list and 

strategy for contacting entities that have partnership responsibilities in the area of post-earthquake investigation. Examples 

of such entities include EERI, state geological surveys and 

regional associations, earth science centers, and NSF-funded 

centers for earthquake engineering research and education. 

These entities should request that the USGS provide automatic 

e-mail alerts, which can be received on cell phones, pagers, 

and computers. 

Following the incident report, the USGS shall convene a 

conference call with the NEHRP agencies, the state geological 

survey(s) in the affected state(s), and EERI to determine if the 

earthquake is significant. If the earthquake is deemed signifi -

cant, the USGS in consultation with the preceding agencies 

and organizations shall decide whether to implement all or part 

of the NEHRP post-earthquake coordination plan. If the decision is made to implement the plan, the USGS in collaboration 

with the state geological surveys shall inform emergency management agencies of the implementation.

4.1.1.2 Web Site Management (USGS) 

Under the plan, the USGS shall be responsible for 

establishing, within a few hours of a significant earthquake, 

an event Web site with links to other Federal and non-Federal earthquake-related Web sites. The USGS has recently 

automated this process for any domestic earthquake with a 

magnitude of 6.5 or greater and foreign earthquakes with a 

magnitude of 7.0 or greater; smaller events may still be significant, however, and regional earthquake information centers 

will need to adopt and modify the automatic posting criteria 

to best meet the needs of their region. Beginning with the devastating earthquake in 1995 in Kobe, Japan, the Internet has 

become an important source of information about earthquake 

disasters for both technical personnel and the public.

To facilitate searches for the event Web site, its URL and 

a link shall be posted on the USGS Earthquake Program Web 

site (http://earthquake.usgs.gov) and the EERI Web site (http:

Figure 1. Activities timeline for NEHRP Post-Earthquake Coordination Plan—Domestic earthquakes.
6

//www.eeri.org). The event Web site shall include brief descriptions of linked sites so that earth scientists, engineers, and social 

scientists will be able to search efficiently for information about 

the earthquake. Entities that are funded by NEHRP agencies 

and that establish Web sites shall be instructed by their funding agencies to inform the USGS of their URL and provide the 

USGS with a brief description or abstract of the Web site. The 

USGS event Web site also shall include information about the 

location of and activities at the technical clearinghouse (see 

4.1.1.3). The Web site shall include authoritative sources of 

information; the USGS, EERI, and FEMA have responsibility, 

respectively, for earth science, engineering, and Federal disaster information and assistance. The USGS shall have principal 

responsibility for collating and linking to earth-science information. EERI shall have principal responsibility for collating and 

linking to engineering information as provided by the engineering centers, institutions, and private practice.

The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program along with the 

USGS regional and National Earthquake Information Center 

(NEIC) Web sites will be critically important sources of basic 

information for the news media and general public in the first 

few hours following a damaging earthquake. Commonly the 

demand for information surges several orders of magnitude 

during this period. In the past, the USGS has had difficulty 

in meeting this surge in demand; accordingly the USGS has 

recently contracted with a private vendor for web content distribution. It is important that the USGS continue to employ a 

web-content distribution strategy that is scaleable and designed 

to perform well during peak periods. This will ensure that the 

media, the general public, and responding officials, all have 

information about what is happening as soon as it is available.

4.1.1.3 Technical Clearinghouse (USGS, FEMA, EERI)

Within 1 day after a significant earthquake, a place should 

be established in the region affected by the earthquake where 

post-earthquake field investigators can meet to review progress 

and to organize and coordinate their activities. For very large 

events, multiple places might be appropriate. Such a field facility, known as a technical clearinghouse, is increasingly becoming part of the post-earthquake investigation culture in the 

United States (fig. 2). For purposes of coordination and safety, it 

is strongly recommended that all field investigators, regardless 

of affiliation, go through the clearinghouse before conducting 

field investigations. Formal clearinghouses were established 

after the 1994 Northridge, California, and 2001 Nisqually, 

Washington, earthquakes. Establishment of the technical clearinghouse is paramount to ensure an orderly post-earthquake 

technical reconnaissance that does not interfere with emergency 

response activities. To meet this goal, direct communication 

between the clearinghouse and state and Federal Disaster 

Coordinating Officers needs to be established and maintained. 

California has formalized the process for establishing a clearinghouse, with the principal NEHRP-sponsored participants 

being FEMA (Region IX), EERI, and the USGS (OES, 1998). 

Recently, the Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC) 

and Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC) 

have sponsored efforts to formalize the clearinghouse process 

Figure 2. Investigators meet at technical clearinghouse to discuss fi ndings from fi eld investigation of 2001 

Nisqually, Washington, earthquake (photograph by Charles Scawthorn).
7

in their regions. WSSPC recently both adopted a policy that 

“each state, province, and territory establish a plan for postearthquake clearinghouses to be activated within 24 hours after 

each major earthquake...” (WSSPC, 2001) and published a 

model plan (http://www.wsspc.org/publicpolicy/committees/ 

clearinghouseplan.pdf). CUSEC, which coordinates earthquakerelated efforts of geological surveys in the central United States, 

is developing a regional plan that will identify a single point of 

contact following an event.

The USGS, FEMA, and EERI shall work together on 

behalf of NEHRP and develop a general procedure for establishing a clearinghouse within 24 hours following a significant 

earthquake. The procedure shall be formulated in collaboration 

with state emergency management, state geological surveys, 

and appropriate multi-state consortia. The degree of leadership or responsibility by NEHRP entities for a specific event 

will depend on the level of involvement of non-Federal agencies in the clearinghouse. In cases where the states have a 

clearinghouse plan and resources, a state may take the lead in 

establishing the clearinghouse, with NEHRP and its affiliated 

agencies being partners in that effort. In other cases where 

states are not prepared to establish a clearinghouse, NEHRP 

shall take the lead in establishing the clearinghouse, with participation as available from state and local agencies. If NIST is 

conducting an investigation under the authority of the National 

Construction Safety Team Act, NIST will coordinate with the 

clearinghouse to the extent possible.

Both the specific design and operation of the clearinghouse 

are the responsibility of the participants, but general operational 

plans must be prepared in advance by the USGS, FEMA, and 

EERI, if a fully functional clearinghouse is to be quickly established. With regards to NEHRP-supported investigations, EERI 

shall take responsibility for the engineering and socioeconomic 

aspects of the operation, and the USGS shall take responsibility 

for the earth science aspects. It is crucial that NEHRP funding 

agencies encourage funded centers, groups, and individuals 

to coordinate their activities with either EERI or the USGS 

through the clearinghouse. It is especially important that academic investigators, students, and technical representatives 

of the earthquake engineering research and education centers 

[Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE), Multidisciplinary 

Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), and 

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER)] and 

earthquake earth science centers and organizations [Southern 

California Earthquake Center (SCEC), Center for Earthquake 

Research and Information (CERI), the Incorporated Research 

Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), and the University NAVSTAR Consortium (UNAVCO)] contribute and participate in the 

coordination efforts. These centers and organizations comprise 

a valuable assembly of multidisciplinary expertise in earthquake 

investigations. In addition, students from these centers can 

gain first-hand experience and provide valuable support to the 

technical clearinghouse. USGS shall formalize agreements 

with the major NEHRP-affiliated earth science centers and 

organizations to facilitate coordination; EERI shall formalize agreements with the major NEHRP-affiliated engineering 

centers and professional groups, such as the Technical Council 

on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE), that routinely 

investigate earthquakes. It is critically important that these 

centers and organizations develop plans for post-earthquake 

investigations and share them with EERI and the USGS. 

Finally, at the time of an event, participation of faculty and 

students from universities and colleges, who are not affiliated 

with either earthquake engineering or earth science centers and 

organizations, will be welcomed.

Both the operational relation and physical proximity of 

the technical clearinghouse to the Disaster Field Office (DFO) 

need to be considered when the clearinghouse is established. 

Some information collected during the Phase I activity may 

be relevant to decisions being made at the DFO. Coordination 

of the clearinghouse with the DFO may also provide a basis 

for a state’s request that the clearinghouse be given a mission assignment by the appropriate state emergency services 

agency and thereby qualify the clearinghouse for partial funding support from disaster relief funds authorized by the 1974 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq.).

If the earthquake is substantial and receives prominent 

coverage by the news media, many foreign researchers can be 

anticipated to visit. The USGS, EERI, and state agencies shall 

arrange at the clearinghouse to welcome, orient, and possibly 

brief these visitors about potential sites for their inspection and 

study as well as safety concerns. Close coordination between 

U.S. and foreign efforts can augment U.S. expertise and provide assistance with NEHRP post-earthquake investigations. 

Information directing visiting scientists and engineers to the 

clearinghouse should be posted on the event Web site.

4.1.1.4 NEHRP Investigations Coordinator (USGS) 

Within 1 day of a significant earthquake, a NEHRP Investigations Coordinator shall be designated by the USGS. The 

USGS shall maintain a list of suitable candidates, both in and 

out of the Federal service, and ensure that a mechanism is available to retain the full-time services of each individual on short 

notice for a minimum of 1 month. Preparation of the list and 

selection of the Coordinator shall be done in consultation with 

FEMA, NSF, and NIST. The Coordinator shall be an individual 

with broad technical background, previous post-earthquake 

investigation experience, and a thorough awareness of the 

capabilities of the various NEHRP agencies and their affiliated 

centers and organizations. The primary responsibilities of the 

Coordinator are (1) to ensure that disaster response activities 

are not impeded by scientific and technical investigations, (2) to 

provide emergency managers with timely and relevant information from the ongoing field investigations, (3) to facilitate coordination of NEHRP agencies, (4) to ensure that NEHRP press 

releases are coordinated and consistent, and (5) to work with 

scientific and engineering leaders to identify critical investigations and gaps in the ongoing investigation. Because it is impossible to delegate authority to the Investigations Coordinator 

under NEHRP, program managers in each NEHRP agency must 

work closely and cooperatively with the Coordinator to take 

advantage of the broad perspective of the Coordinator.
8

The advent of the Internet has greatly facilitated timely 

communication and reporting during natural disasters. Most 

organizations involved in post-earthquake investigations routinely 

provide daily situation reports on findings, progress, and difficulties encountered. Most of these reports are issued as e-mail. The 

Coordinator shall be (1) informed by each NEHRP agency about 

the scope of their post-earthquake investigation and (2) copied on 

all e-mail reports from supervisory field personnel and planning 

staff when possible. The Investigations Coordinator must also be 

kept abreast of activities at the technical clearinghouse.

In summary responsibilities of the Investigations Coordinator are to:

• Ensure that liaison with the Federal and State Coordinating 

Officials (FCO and SCO) and state and local emergency 

managers is established promptly. The purposes of the 

liaison activity are to ensure that NEHRP field efforts do 

not impede emergency response and recovery management 

and that relevant scientific and technical assessments from 

the field investigators are appropriately communicated to 

emergency managers. In addition to the scientific and technical assessments, some physical resources may be useful 

for emergency response. For example, it may be of value to 

make emergency managers aware of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory portable real-time aftershock 

warning system that can be shipped on short notice to an 

impacted area1

. If a state has already established a liaison 

person for scientific and technical investigations, the Coordinator should work with the designated state liaison person. 

• Identify duplication and gaps in initial field reconnaissance and work with NEHRP program managers and 

state agencies to improve coordination and rectify shortcomings.

• Work with NEHRP and state agencies and Federal, state, 

and local emergency managers to ensure that news releases 

are consistent and helpful to the public. 

• Convene and report results from Phase II meeting (see 

4.1.2.1).

4.1.1.5 National Construction Safety Team Act (NIST)

Prompted by the collapse of the World Trade Center 

Towers on September 11, 2001, Congress passed the National 

Construction Safety Team Act, which was signed into law on 

October 1, 2002. The Act authorizes the Director of NIST 

to establish and deploy a Team to investigate the failure of a 

building or buildings that has resulted in substantial loss of life 

or that posed significant potential for substantial loss of life. 

To the maximum extent practicable, the Director shall establish and deploy a Team within 48 hours after such an event.

Congress anticipated the Act to be applicable to building failures caused by earthquakes. In section 2(c)(1)(J) of the 

Act, it specifies that the NIST Director develop implementing 

procedures that “provide for coordination with Federal, State, 

and local entities that may sponsor research on investigations of 

building failures, including research conducted under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977.” In addition, Committee 

Report 107-530, published by the House Science Committee on 

June 25, 2002, states that “The Director should clearly define 

how earthquake researchers and Teams will carry out their 

responsibilities in a coordinated fashion in cases where building 

failures have been caused by an earthquake.”

The purpose of the Act is to (1) establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure, (2) evaluate the 

technical aspects of evacuation and emergency response failures, (3) recommend as necessary specific improvements to 

building standards, codes and practices, and (4) recommend 

any research and other appropriate actions needed to improve 

the structural safety of buildings and improve evacuation and 

emergency response procedures, based on the findings of the 

investigations. The Act requires that NIST issue a public report 

no later than 90 days after completing an investigation.

Within 48 hours, NIST will examine the relevant factors 

associated with building failures that occur as a result of the 

earthquake and will make reasonable efforts to consult with 

the other NEHRP agencies prior to determining whether to 

conduct an investigation under the Act. Any NIST investigation conducted under the authority of the Act will be limited to 

building failures on one or more buildings or on one or more 

class or type of buildings selected by NIST.

4.1.2 Phase II

4.1.2.1 Phase II Meeting (NEHRP Investigations Coordinator)

When initial reconnaissance activities have been completed and initial assessments of earthquake effects and 

damage have been made, typically within a few days to a 

week, it will be the responsibility of the Investigations Coordinator to convene a meeting to identify opportunities and needs 

for further investigation and concentrated data gathering. This 

meeting should involve leaders of the field efforts and include 

representatives from the USGS, FEMA, NIST, NSF, EERI, 

earthquake engineering research and education centers, earth 

science centers, IRIS, UNAVCO, state agencies, multi-state 

consortia, and groups representing the earth science, engineering, and social sciences communities. The meeting is referred 

to in figure 1 as the Phase II meeting. The primary purpose of 

the meeting is to identify important or unique geologic and 

seismologic effects, damage to the built environment, and 

societal impacts for which concentrated short-term investigations and data gathering are required to ensure that important 

information is collected before it is lost or obliterated. It is particularly important to identify opportunities to collect important perishable data, such as data on structural and lifeline 

performance, aftershocks, and ground failure, including fault 

rupture and secondary deformation. These are investigations 

1

The aftershock warning system consists of a base station and 8 remote 

stations. A self-contained broadcasting system sends signals to pagers within 

60 miles of the base station. The pagers provide as much as a few seconds 

warning of potentially hazardous shear-wave arrivals from aftershocks. The 

pager signals can be used as switches for either automatic response or to emit 

noise and flashing light.
9

that must be conducted quickly before effects and damage 

are obliterated by recovery efforts and natural processes. In 

retrospect, important data have been lost following past earthquakes that could have been used to develop better engineering 

criteria and other hazard mitigation tools. As a consequence, 

valuable lessons were not learned and many needed tools to 

reduce losses and casualties have not been developed. 

Within 24 hours after the meeting, the Investigations 

Coordinator shall prepare a brief summary of the meeting for 

the NEHRP agencies that describes (1) major preliminary 

findings of the reconnaissance teams and (2) opportunities for 

further investigations identified by participants in the meeting. The summary shall consider hazard mitigation and risk 

management priorities in applicable local and state hazard 

mitigations plans while identifying investigation priorities. 

The report shall include an estimate of the level of additional 

support required to pursue these opportunities. On the basis of 

this report of the Investigations Coordinator, NSF, the USGS, 

EERI, the earthquake engineering research and education centers, and earth science centers shall work jointly to optimize 

the collection of perishable data.

If recommendation 4 (see 5.4) to seek additional funds 

to increase the level of post-earthquake support is successful (or if supplemental funds are appropriated), it is recommended that a statement, which is jointly prepared by 

FEMA, USGS, NSF, and NIST, of opportunity for directed 

data collection be posted on the USGS and EERI event Web 

sites and the NSF Web site soliciting statements of qualifi -

cations and funding requests from groups or organizations 

willing to conduct data gathering. This statement of opportunity should specifically identify urgent investigations and 

note that funding decisions will be made quickly by the process described in recommendation 4. Data gathering teams 

responding to this statement of opportunity will typically 

include professors and students, representatives from both 

the earthquake engineering research and education and earth 

science centers, representatives of state and Federal agencies, 

personnel from professional organizations, and groups from 

engineering and other private firms.

If recommendation 4 is not successful (or if supplemental 

funds are not appropriated), the report should be used to take 

maximum advantage of available NEHRP and other resources. 

These resources include those of (1) NSF, which may supplement 

existing research contracts and award both new peer-reviewed 

grants and Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER), (2) 

USGS, which redirects agency personnel and their research funding, (3) FEMA, whose engineering studies support recovery as 

specified under the Stafford Act, (4) NIST, which has the authority to conduct building investigations, and (5) the earthquake 

engineering and earth science centers, which provide support 

from discretionary funds. If NIST is conducting an investigation 

under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team 

Act, NIST will use its available resources for the conduct of its 

investigation. In addition, the NSF award to EERI to support the 

Learning from Earthquakes Program now includes funding for 

a few small grants for post-earthquake data collection. Because 

these resources are collectively modest and typically do not provide for comprehensive documentation of earthquake damage and 

effects, it is imperative that they be directed towards investigations 

of highest priority. This will require that these institutions work 

together before making awards.

To improve the utility of data gathered during Phase II, 

NEHRP needs to standardize formats for data gathering and 

archiving. This is the purpose of recommendations 1, 2, and 

3 (see 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3). We strongly encourage the NEHRP 

agencies to begin developing these standards and a process 

for electronically archiving these data before NEHRP is confronted by the next significant earthquake. While the success 

of recommendation 4 would provide funding that could support implementation of this activity, planning must be completed before the next earthquake.

4.1.2.2 Budget Supplemental Decision (FEMA, NIST, NSF, USGS)

If the earthquake presents opportunities for investigations that would improve earthquake risk mitigation, but which 

cannot be supported with existing funds, the NEHRP agencies 

shall convene and consider a request for a budget supplement 

within a few days after the earthquake. The meeting shall be 

convened when field reports are adequate to make strategic 

decisions about these opportunities. This meeting will be 

unnecessary if the potential permanent funding sources have 

been established (see 5.4). 

4.1.3 Phase III

4.1.3.1 Workshop for Setting Investigation Priorities (NSF, 

USGS, FEMA, NIST)

Establishing priorities for long-term investigations, development, and implementation strategies following significant 

earthquakes is an important challenge for NEHRP. Large 

damaging earthquakes typically provide many opportunities to 

improve the understanding of earthquakes and their impacts. 

The NEHRP agencies (NSF, USGS, NIST, and FEMA) and 

appropriate state agencies and multi-state consortia shall 

jointly sponsor a workshop of earth scientists, engineers, and 

social scientists within 1 to 2 months of significant earthquakes to discuss priorities for long-term (Phase III) research 

and development opportunities presented by the earthquake. 

The workshop shall consider priority initiatives in applicable 

local and state hazard mitigation plans when evaluating investigation priorities. The format adopted in the EERI workshops 

following recent foreign earthquakes is a possible model that 

might be supported by NEHRP. These EERI 2-day workshops 

have served effectively to identify the most promising research 

opportunities—those that have the greatest potential to 

improve the current state of knowledge and practice throughout the world’s seismic zones. The results of the NEHRP 

workshop will be presented immediately afterwards in a report 

that identifies major needs and opportunities for investigation, 

with a recommended set of priorities for funding.

Within the constraints of available funding, a joint statement shall be issued soliciting long-term research and inves-
10

tigations. Funding shall be made within approximately 5 months 

of the event. The internal post-earthquake research activities of 

the USGS, FEMA, and NIST shall be coordinated with externally supported research of the NEHRP funding agencies.

4.1.3.2 Information Dissemination (USGS, NIST, NSF, FEMA)

The publication and dissemination of findings from 

NEHRP post-earthquake investigations currently are both 

inconsistent and incomplete. Research findings are published in a wide variety of journals in a more or less timely 

manner, but official publications of the participating organizations often are not available until years after the event. This 

significantly reduces their potential impact on both earthquake-related knowledge and loss-reduction policy. This plan 

envisions that three different types of publications will be 

issued either under the aegis of or with facilitation by NEHRP 

for every significant domestic earthquake (these are not meant 

to preclude publication of institutional reports like those currently prepared after significant earthquakes):

• Three-Month Event Summary—An event summary for a 

broad audience shall be published within 3 months of a 

significant earthquake. The summary should be well illustrated, comprehensive, and integrate preliminary observations on the seismological processes controlling the event 

and the response of the natural, built, and socioeconomic 

environments. It is recommended that the event summary 

be prepared under the leadership of the USGS and EERI 

with formal collaboration of FEMA, NIST, and other NSFfunded entities. For example, the contributions of all of the 

major engineering and earth science investigative efforts 

supported under NEHRP should be integrated and incorporated. The USGS and EERI should designate editors 

within 1 week of the event, but co-editors from contributing agencies and centers should be included to facilitate 

agency participation. The summary is intended as a multidisciplinary document covering the earth sciences, engineering, and social sciences. It is not intended to substitute 

for institutional reports such as the EERI reconnaissance 

report, the USGS circular, and center reports that currently 

are produced following significant earthquakes.

• One-Year Conference Proceedings—Because of the opportunity to implement change in the aftermath of disasters, 

FEMA, NIST, NSF, and the USGS will encourage and 

support local and state agencies in sponsoring a public conference with a proceedings on the 1-year anniversary of a 

significant earthquake. The conference should identify and 

synthesize the policy implications of the event for earthquake risk reduction. NEHRP agencies shall participate and 

provide support to the state agencies as needed to promote 

a successful conference. The conference and proceedings 

would be analogous (but without the legal implications) to 

transportation disaster assessments by agencies, like the 

National Transportation Safety Board, that investigate transportation accidents to determine causality. Another model 

is the 1995 Earthquake Information Exchange Workshop, 

which was held following the 1994 Northridge, California, 

earthquake. The anniversary conference should be held in 

the region impacted by the earthquake and the content of 

the conference should be designed to target an audience of 

local and state policymakers in addition to Federal stakeholders. It is also expected that NEHRP will sponsor technical conferences, as is the current practice.

• Comprehensive Synthesis (3 to 5 Years)—A comprehensive 

report that consists of one or more volumes that synthesize 

the results and findings from studies carried out by the 

research and professional practice communities shall be 

published within 3 to 5 years of the event by the USGS and 

NIST, with assistance from NSF and FEMA. The cost of 

this publication shall be shared among the NEHRP agencies. The report shall emphasize the significant contributions of the post-earthquake investigations to the knowledge 

base on earthquakes and earthquake loss reduction and 

bring relevant data together in a summary fashion. The 

report shall be coordinated with the data archive discussed 

later (see 5.3) where detailed investigations of representative structures, including plans, design criteria, estimated 

force distributions, and displaced shapes could be presented. The report should contain overviews of important 

findings derived from research on earth sciences and on 

the built and socioeconomic environments. This synthesis 

should include an extensive bibliography of the post-earthquake publications and should focus both on damage and 

disruption and on situations where the built environment 

performed well and little or no damage occurred. A comprehensive Phase III synthesis is important for several purposes to researchers and practitioners, including providing 

both rapid entry into the literature on the earthquake and 

overviews of studies that have been conducted in different 

disciplinary areas. A synthesis also distills significant lessons learned for future research, practice, and loss-reduction 

policy. Finally, NEHRP shall publicize the report to both 

the research and practice communities.

If NIST is conducting an investigation under the authority 

of the National Construction Safety Team Act, NIST will contribute to the publications described above to the extent possible.

4.2 Foreign Earthquakes

NEHRP supports investigations of foreign earthquakes 

because they often provide special opportunities to validate models and to learn about both the performance of 

specific aspects of the built environment and the geologic 

and seismologic processes that will have implications for 

earthquake risk mitigation in the United States. Cost and 

logistics generally limit the size of NEHRP foreign postearthquake investigations. Federal agencies generally do 

not participate unless officially invited by the impacted 

country. These factors cause tremendous differences in 

the character of individual investigations. At one extreme, 

investigations are modest and limited to small EERI reconnaissance teams, as for example, with the 1992 Erzincan, 
11

Turkey, earthquake. At the other end of the spectrum, 

affected foreign governments request U.S. assistance and 

these investigations have foreign policy implications, as 

with the 1988 Armenia, USSR, 1995 Kobe, Japan2, and 

1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquakes. In the latter situation, 

some of the investigating teams are representatives of the 

U.S. Government while others, who are not covered by the 

request, are independent.

Failure to coordinate schedules of field teams may 

lead to interference with the work of local experts and 

is the principal operational issue for NEHRP-supported 

foreign deployments. U.S. institutions typically respond 

independently in the earth sciences, engineering, and social 

sciences. Field parties supported by the EERI Learning 

from Earthquakes Program, the three earthquake engineering research and education centers (MAE, MCEER, and 

PEER), SCEC, CERI, IRIS, UNAVCO, as well as individuals with small NSF grants for exploratory research 

(SGER) may all visit earthquake-damaged areas with 

Federal funding support. In addition, the USGS, NIST, 

private firms from both the U.S. and foreign countries, and 

research entities from foreign countries commonly deploy 

field teams. The uncoordinated deployment of U.S. citizens 

has prompted complaints by affected countries to the U.S. 

Department of State.

In its recent award to EERI for the Learning from 

Earthquakes Program, the Civil and Mechanical Systems 

directorate of NSF requested that EERI coordinate investigators funded by that directorate. In investigations in 

Turkey in 1999 and India in 2001, EERI has increasingly 

served as a point of contact for foreign post-earthquake 

investigations. This plan recommends that NEHRP expand 

this EERI role. This plan recommends that each NEHRP 

agency request all of its post-earthquake investigators to 

inform EERI of plans and schedules of their investigations 

before departure as well as their ongoing status once they 

are in the field. EERI shall report these planned activities 

and their status regularly to the NEHRP agencies and post 

this information on its Web site. Because authority to influence schedules rests with the NEHRP funding agencies, 

the agencies shall review proposed plans for their potential 

impact on the proposed country.

Although it is beyond the scope of the NSF mandate to 

EERI, this plan encourages EERI to keep local technical and 

scientific personnel abreast of U.S. activities, to involve them 

in these activities where possible, and encourage them to 

communicate relevant findings directly to the government of 

the country affected by the disaster. These communications 

from local personnel may be useful for reconstruction as well 

as encourage mitigation of future losses.

It is noted that EERI in its Learning From Earthquakes 

Proposal to NSF has strengthened the coordination role of 

the EERI Team Leader and group leaders for each of the 

disciplines. In the field they solicit cooperation with other 

investigators. In preparing the preliminary and final EERI 

reports, they solicit and coordinate contributions from 

others who participated in field investigations. The EERI 

Team Leader also plays a significant role in helping to 

coordinate the second phase of data collection by making 

contact with each of the investigative teams before they 

enter the field and maintaining contact with them during 

field investigations by e-mail and phone. The EERI Team 

Leader offers to direct these investigators to areas that 

require further investigation before perishable data are lost. 

The approach allows researchers to collect data in several 

Figure 3. Activities timeline for EERI post-earthquake activities—Foreign earthquakes.

2

In this case, the Japanese request for U.S. Government assistance was 

delayed for more than a month following the event.
12

waves, improving the comprehensiveness of the documentation of earthquake impacts. Coordinating field investigations and drawing on contributions from other teams 

ensures a clear understanding of damage and impacts, less 

duplication, less disruption of local emergency response 

and research efforts, more effective utilization of limited 

research funding, and a more comprehensive report on the 

earthquake. The EERI post-earthquake investigation plan is 

shown in figure 3.

5. Recommendations for Further Action

At the March 13-14, 2001, invitational workshop held to 

provide input for this draft plan, participants identified several 

aspects of NEHRP post-earthquake investigations that are defi -

cient. These deficiencies diminish the potential contribution of 

NEHRP to risk reduction in the United States. Aspects in need 

of improvement include the following:

• Comprehensiveness—Investigations of earthquake 

impacts do not comprehensively cover all aspects of the 

natural, built, and socioeconomic environments.

• Effi ciency—Emerging new information and technologies 

can greatly increase the quality and quantity of data collection, while lowering costs.

• Data storage and retrieval—Much of the data that has 

been collected in past earthquakes has been effectively 

lost. If data collection is to become even more comprehensive, data management, archiving, and linking to 

existing data must be improved.

The following recommendations propose solutions to 

these interrelated deficiencies. The objectives of the first 3 

recommendations are to improve the scope (Recommendation 1), the quality and quantity (Recommendation 2), and 

the utility (Recommendation 3) of data acquired during 

post-earthquake investigations. Recommendation 4 proposes 

mechanisms for funding these improvements.

5.1 Recommendation 1—Broaden Coverage and 

Comprehensiveness of Investigations of Earthquake 

Impacts

Issue—Impacts on built and socioeconomic environments are 

not well documented

Research on the impacts of earthquakes on the natural 

environment (for example, seismology, ground motion, and 

permanent ground deformation) is relatively well organized 

and documented by NEHRP because the USGS has both 

budgetary and operational responsibility in this area. The 

result has been significant improvement by both USGS and 

non-USGS scientists in the basic understanding of the natural 

consequences of earthquakes, such as shaking and permanent 

ground deformation.

In contrast, performance data on the built environment 

(for example, buildings and lifelines) are not systematically 

compiled. Documentation of the seismic performance of nonstructural components in facilities is particularly lacking. This 

failure to document fully the physical impacts of an earthquake has serious consequences because full-scale testing of 

the performance of engineered systems under dynamic loading 

is often impractical. Because damaging earthquakes are infrequent, each failure to systematically document damage is a 

lost opportunity to improve:

• Performance-based design.

• Loss estimation.

• Safety assessments of badly damaged structures.

The current trend in earthquake engineering is to 

base seismic risk evaluations and design decisions on the 

predicted behavior of structures and their components 

during assumed levels of earthquake ground shaking. This 

approach, called performance based earthquake engineering, shows great promise as a framework to enhance the 

ability of both the private and public sectors to identify and 

to quantify levels of risk, to develop cost-effective strategies for risk reduction activities, and to implement efficient 

seismic rehabilitation. Yet these techniques rely completely 

on assumptions on the part of engineers of the actual performance of the built environment. An overly optimistic 

view can overlook significant risks or lead to ineffective 

designs. In the other extreme, excessive conservatism leads 

to unnecessarily high costs or, worse yet, inaction in the face 

of a seemingly insurmountable problem. Effective decisions 

on the part of building owners and managers, insurance and 

financial institutions, and public policymakers require realistic predictions of expected behavior in a statistical context. 

Extensive documentation of actual behavior, good and bad, 

of a broad range of structures subjected to real earthquakes 

will provide the data to meet this critical need.

These data that document performance of the built 

environment are also essential for improving earthquake 

loss estimation models. Predictions of earthquake impacts 

with computer-based loss estimation models are becoming 

increasingly common in both the private and public sectors 

because the rarity of large damaging earthquakes does not 

permit robust actuarial estimates of future losses. Comprehensive documentation of the impacts of future earthquakes 

will improve model-based estimates of structural and nonstructural damage, casualties, and financial loss.

Documentation of the performance of the socioeconomic environment also is very incomplete. Increasingly 

post-earthquake investigations include social, organizational, 

and economic issues, but much more progress is needed. For 

example, despite their obvious importance, relatively little 

emphasis is currently being placed on the systematic collection of data on earthquake-related deaths and injuries, both for 

U.S. and foreign earthquakes. The same can be said for other 

topics of major societal relevance such as the short- and longterm social and economic impacts of earthquakes, including 

impacts on regional economies, communities, households, 

and businesses. Because of its importance, the organization 
13

and effectiveness of emergency response and relief activities 

should be routinely documented.

Potential Solutions

Built Environment

Two aspects of structural performance surveys are particularly important—(1) adequate inventories of the building 

stock and others structures at risk and (2) systematic documentation and compilation of both damaged and undamaged 

structures. The lack of adequate data inventories hampers 

assessment of the significance of observed damage in many 

cases. Inventories make it possible to characterize the damage 

data and place it in proper context. For example, the knowledge that 1,000 steel buildings in the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, 

Japan, suffered significant damage is incomplete information 

and fails to answer questions such as “How many steel buildings were subject to strong ground shaking?” or “Where were 

the damaged buildings located relative to the fault?”

Fortunately, with the increasing application of standardized procedures for (1) seismic design of structures, (2) preevent evaluation and rehabilitation of structures [see FEMA 

310 (ASCE,1998a) and 356 (ASCE, 1998b)], (3) post-event 

evaluation and repair of structures [FEMA 306/307/308 (ATC, 

1998a,b,c)], and (4) damage prediction [FEMA 154 (ATC, 

1988), HAZUS© (HAZUS, 1999)], a framework is emerging in the United States for both the collection of performance data and the development of inventories. For example, 

HAZUS©, which was developed by FEMA to standardize loss 

estimates from earthquakes and other natural hazards, provides 

a framework for inventories of facilities and the description 

of performance. This plan recommends that NEHRP adopt a 

format for documenting performance that is consistent with 

these methodologies. It also recommends that NEHRP through 

FEMA also promote the development of robust inventories of 

structures by working with HAZUS© users groups and others 

who have adopted and adapted these procedures. Important 

work in these areas is already ongoing at the NSF-funded 

earthquake engineering and research and education centers.

This plan recommends that the systematic documentation 

and compilation of damaged and nondamaged structural performance, as well as the documentation of earthquake resisting 

properties of structures, be spearheaded by FEMA and NIST, 

because the data also would ultimately be used to improve 

building codes and standards and practices for structures and 

lifelines. The format for this documentation shall be established 

by FEMA and NIST before the next earthquake and could be 

similar to the ATC-38 post-earthquake building performance 

assessment form (ATC, 2000) and the EERI clearinghouse 

report form (S. McAfee, written commun., 2001; EERI, 1996). 

The actual surveys could be conducted by a contract with 

engineering organizations, such as American Society of Civil 

Engineers (ASCE), National Council of Structural Engineers 

Association (NCSEA), and ATC under the supervision of 

FEMA and NIST. In the absence of the success of Recommendation 4 for supplemental funding, it is unclear how the postearthquake damage surveys will be funded.

The extensive and detailed information on the damage to 

facilities that is routinely compiled by FEMA as a part of the 

disaster assistance funding process and by private structural 

engineering and design firms are existing valuable sources 

of information that are not currently available for research 

purposes. Coordination with FEMA and private firms to capture these data would provide a large source of additional 

data3

. Once the collection of data on the built environment 

is improved, the data must be appropriately archived and 

made available. This can be accomplished by promotion of a 

NEHRP database (see Recommendation 3).

Socioeconomic Environment

A wider range of disciplines and specialists also needs to 

be incorporated into post-earthquake reconnaissance activities. 

Although there has been movement in the direction of greater 

disciplinary diversity, post-earthquake reconnaissance activities are undertaken primarily by earth scientists and engineers. 

Groups that remain underrepresented in post-earthquake investigations include public health specialists (such as epidemiologists), researchers from the various social science disciplines 

(for example, economics, sociology, geography, and political 

science), and experts from the emergency management and 

public policy communities. 

Mechanisms must be established to encourage greater 

participation by investigators with expertise in the social science and public health fields, experts in economic modeling, 

and others who can contribute to the collection and analysis of data on the pre- and post-impact social environment. 

NEHRP should coordinate and work with organizations 

involved in studying the socioeconomic and public health 

aspects of disasters to recruit and train a cadre of qualified 

health and social science investigators who can participate in 

future post-earthquake studies. A partial list of these organizations include the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the University of California at Los Angeles Center 

for Public Health and Disasters, leading social science centers such as the Natural Hazards Research and Applications 

Information Center at the University of Colorado and hazardfocused geographic information system (GIS) laboratories 

such as the Hazards Research Lab at the University of South 

Carolina, and professional associations such as the International Research Committee on Disasters. As an initial step, 

EERI should initiate outreach efforts aimed at informing 

social science and public health researchers about NEHRPrelated post-earthquake data collection opportunities and 

more effectively integrate members of these groups into postearthquake investigations.

EERI should also seek input from social scientists on 

how to improve the quantity and quality of data that are 

collected on the societal aspects of earthquakes. As is the 

case with other disciplines involved in post-earthquake 

investigations, new protocols are needed to ensure that the 

data-collection strategies and instruments that are used to 

3

Previous studies have emphasized the need for systematic collection and 

compilation of economic impacts (see NRC, 1999).
14

obtain data on the social, economic, and health impacts of 

earthquakes are standardized, so that comparisons can be 

made across time and across earthquake events. Existing 

documents such as the EERI Post-earthquake Investigation 

Field Guide outline in broad terms the types of social and 

economic impact data that should be obtained during the 

post-earthquake reconnaissance phase. This guide should 

be reviewed, revised, and expanded to incorporate a broader 

range of social science data as well as to provide more systematic frameworks for recording those data. When revised, 

the guide should be distributed widely within the social science research community.

Agencies that sponsor post-earthquake investigations should also recognize that gaps in knowledge exist 

because many disciplines and topics lack adequate funding. In making funding decisions, NEHRP agencies should 

examine how to ensure better disciplinary coverage so that 

significant research topics—including those focusing on the 

socioeconomic environment—are not overlooked. Both the 

Investigations Coordinator and the entities responsible for 

organizing the Phase II and III meetings to set priorities shall 

be responsible for ensuring that significant socioeconomic 

issues are included in the research plans that are developed 

and that adequate funding is available to support that work. 

Finally, societal impact data must be placed in a larger context. For example, this could be done through the systematic 

collection of data on both pre- and post-event characteristics 

of affected communities, populations, and economies.

5.2 Recommendation 2—Encourage Use of Information 

Technology

Issue—Information Technology (IT) offers opportunities to 

improve collection of data

Data that are amenable to collection using remote 

sensing, digital imaging, global positioning system, and 

other new and emerging technologies are distributed widely 

within the natural, built, and social environments. A wide 

variety of data, which previously could not be collected or 

only collected at great effort, can now be collected and analyzed rapidly, often in near-real time. Examples include the 

following:

• Regional geodetic and geological effects. 

• Recordings of strong shaking on the ground and in engineered structures during the main shock. 

• Aftershocks.

• Ground deformations associated with faulting, liquefaction, landslides, and shaking.

• Direct and indirect damage to structures and lifelines 

(both in a regional statistical sense and in detailed studies 

of selected structures). 

• System responses, such as pressures and flows in gas, 

water, and wastewater systems, telephone demand surges, 

and traffic patterns. 

• Collateral dynamic phenomena, such as growth and 

spread of post-earthquake fires and spills of hazardous 

materials.

• Data on earthquake casualties and on other social and 

economic impacts.

Potential Solution

Advances in information technologies now permit rapid, 

cost-effective collection and analysis of virtually exhaustive data 

sets in each of the above categories. A few examples of current, 

but only recently available technologies include the following:

• PDA-GPS-digital camera technology to permit standardized but rapid and extensive digital descriptions of 

georeferenced damage data for regional and detailed 

structure and lifeline damage studies.

• Remote sensing (for example, InSAR, LIDAR) for compilation of inventories of the visible built environment 

before and immediately after the main event, for regional 

assessments of damage.

• Digital recording and near-real-time dissemination of 

strong shaking measurements throughout the affected 

built environment during the occurrence of damage from 

the main earthquake to provide the quantitative recordings needed for emergency response, performance-based 

engineering, and the rebuilding of a safer society. 

• High-resolution low-altitude vertical and oblique 

aerial photographs as a mandatory part of the NEHRP 

post-earthquake reconnaissance, to be made available free 

on the Internet.

• On-site digital video image capture by special imagecapture vans with mounted digital cameras to document 

building status on both sides of a street immediately following the event.

• Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) 

data for understanding of the real-time impacts and 

response to earthquakes of distributed systems such as 

gas, water, and wastewater systems. SCADA systems 

have emerged as a typical feature of lifeline networks 

over the last several decades—the data are generally 

available but have been little used for studying the effects 

of earthquakes, damage and post-earthquake response, 

and demands on distributed systems. 

It should also be mentioned that while not observational 

data, both ShakeMap and HAZUS© results can be valuable 

adjuncts to post-earthquake investigations (in addition to 

emergency response). Existing GIS inventories of the built 

environment can guide comprehensive inspection and data 

collection for essential facilities and infrastructure.

These are only a few examples of relatively new technologies that can be used more effectively in post-earthquake 

investigations. IT is developing so rapidly that new tools and 

applications are emerging constantly. In order to enhance 

post-earthquake investigations and analyses, this plan recommends that NSF, USGS, NIST, and FEMA support ongoing 

research into applications of IT and ways to analyze and use 
15

the collected data. The NSF-funded earth science organizations and earthquake engineering research and education 

centers provide excellent resources for this effort. We also 

recommend that, in the immediate response to the event, 

NSF, USGS, NIST, and FEMA support equipment and other 

resource needs and facilitate access to and use of selected IT 

assets that may be beyond the resources of individual investigators (for example, if FEMA tasks national reconnaissance 

assets to fly over a domestic earthquake the imagery should be 

available to NEHRP-supported investigations to the maximum 

extent feasible). If NIST is conducting an investigation under 

the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act, 

NIST will support this solution to the extent possible.

5.3 Recommendation 3—Formalize Data Management 

and Archiving

Issue—Collected data are not well archived and therefore are 

effectively lost

It is critical to develop strategies for the formal and systematic archiving of data collected during post-earthquake 

investigations. These data, which focus on the natural, 

built, and socioeconomic environments, address a wide 

variety of phenomena. The data are voluminous and are 

acquired in many forms (for example, digital recordings, 

digital images, clipboard survey sheets, photographs, and 

narratives). If not organized and archived soon after an 

earthquake event, these data are often lost. No mechanism currently exists either to archive these data or to 

make them readily accessible to the research community. 

Because of this failure to adequately document, preserve, 

and access data, an enormous volume of highly relevant 

data has been effectively lost.

Potential Solution

Management of these data requires:

• Research on cost-effective fi eld data collection—Much 

of the initial data from post-earthquake investigations 

are collected on foot in the field. Use of georeferenced 

personal digital assistants and digital and video cameras 

with GPS capability and other efficient data collection 

tools should be encouraged by the development and free 

dissemination of standardized software applications and 

associated data protocols for use both in the field and for 

downloading data. 

• Development of a consensus-based repository for collected data—Rather than relying on physical repositories, technology now permits most data to be digitally 

recorded and stored. Therefore, this plan recommends the 

creation of a virtual web-based archive, analogous to the 

structure and functioning of the Consortium of StrongMotion Observation Systems (COSMOS) Virtual Data 

Center (http://db.cosmos-eq.org/). This new database, to 

be called the “National Earthquake Experience Database” 

(NEED) should be maintained at individual centers, but 

retrievable from a single or mirrored Internet site using 

time stamps and a geocoded referencing system. NEED 

would be addressable with all of the tools of a modern 

GIS, as well as with modern relational database technology on the Internet. Researchers could contribute to it 

from any location, according to established quality control guidelines. NEED will fill the need for a permanent, 

interactively managed national and international archive 

for the unprecedented data sets to be collected from 

future damaging earthquakes. 

One approach to this effort would be to require each 

recipient of NEHRP funding (NSF grantee, the earthquake 

centers, USGS awardees, NIST, and others) to budget a percentage of the grant funds (for example, 1 or 2 per cent) for 

archiving raw and reduced data in NEED. Alternatives for 

management and maintenance of NEED include:

(1) Integration into and management by the Network for 

Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES).

(2) Residency in the National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering (NISEE), and with oversight by a 

board consisting of representatives of organizations such 

as MCEER, PEER, MAE, EERI, Seismological Society 

of America (SSA), ATC, and Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). 

NEED could reside on the NISEE server with mirror 

servers on the MAE, MCEER, and PEER servers.

(3) Residency in the NSF Digital Library for Earth Science 

Education (DLESE).

The costs associated with implementing this solution 

range from research funding focused specifically on the integration of new technologies into post-earthquake investigations 

to providing funds for a workshop where investigators share 

information on their data collection and archiving strategies 

and to supporting a Web site where data-sharing will be accomplished. Each level of effort has an associated cost. Once the 

data repository format has been established, implementation of 

a consensus-based repository can be accomplished. Dedicated 

costs for creation and maintenance of NEED would be perhaps 

two staff-years to start, and one staff-year annually thereafter, 

with hardware and expenses perhaps in the tens of thousands 

of dollars annually. Contribution of data into NEED would be a 

distributed cost, borne by each contributing investigation. This 

plan recommends that all NEHRP-supported investigations be 

required to budget a small fraction of the investigation’s overall 

costs for this purpose. 

5.4 Recommendation 4—Funding to Support Post-Earthquake 

Investigations

Issue—Funding of post-earthquake investigations is inadequate

The absence of readily available financial resources to 

fund immediate, short-term, and long-term post-earthquake 

investigations has resulted in the failure to collect valuable 
16

data vital for development of earthquake disaster reduction 

measures and has handicapped substantial follow-up research 

investigations. For the 1989 Loma Prieta, California, earthquake, Congress enacted “Emergency Supplemental Funds” 

for use by the NEHRP agencies for post-earthquake investigations. The emergency supplemental funding provided 

by Congress following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake 

was $20 million, of which $8 million was designated for 

post-earthquake investigations administered by USGS. The 

emergency supplemental funding provided by Congress following the 1994 Northridge earthquake was $13 million. 

It was recognized that this is neither the best nor the most 

efficient means to fund these efforts 4. The report to Congress 

by FEMA (1993), which was requested in the 1990 reauthorization bill, provides an excellent summary of the benefits of 

post-earthquake investigations and suggests several alternative 

approaches to establishing a fund for this purpose. It was clear 

that the four principal NEHRP agencies could not agree on a 

single best approach. 

Potential Solution

One possible solution for funding domestic post-earthquake 

investigations to be used when an earthquake has been designated as a Presidentially declared disaster could be obtained by 

establishing a separate fund during the next NEHRP reauthorization that could then be drawn upon for Federally-declared 

earthquake disasters; such funds could be administered by 

FEMA. Another possibility could be to designate and utilize 

existing agency programs to fund these activities. However, in 

the absence of such funds, all of the NEHRP agencies shall be 

prepared to submit a request through FEMA to Congress for 

appropriate emergency supplemental funding following a signifi -

cant domestic earthquake. Such a template could be used as well 

for post-event investigations of other types of disasters, including 

natural and terrorist events, which would allow for the documentation of information that would help improve the protection of 

the Nation’s infrastructure from future events.

Foreign post-earthquake investigations could continue to be 

funded on a basis of need from each of the NEHRP agencies.

Background—The issue of funding of post-earthquake 

investigations is a very significant one and received considerable 

attention at the March 2001 workshop and subsequently by the 

authors. One alternative that was explored but ultimately not 

included in the recommendations was the possibility of utilizing 

the Stafford Act to provide funds for post-disaster investigations. 

The amount of funds could be equal to 1 percent times the Section 406 disaster relief funds5

. For the Loma Prieta earthquake 

this would have amounted to about $28 million, and for the 

Northridge earthquake it would have totaled about $60 million. 

The funds made available by such change in the Stafford Act 

could also be used to provide post-disaster funds for disaster 

related investigations following other natural events such as 

hurricanes and, even more significantly, man-made events such 

as acts of terrorism. However, this alternative was not included 

in the report’s recommendations because any proposed new 

language modifying the Stafford Act would require action by 

Congress, which is unlikely at the present time.

Because the funding of post-earthquake investigations remains a crucial issue, this plan recommends that all 

NEHRP agencies be prepared to submit a request through 

FEMA to Congress for appropriate emergency supplemental funding following a significant domestic earthquake. 

Recommended Administration—With any of the funding mechanisms discussed above, this plan recommends 

that FEMA, as lead NEHRP agency, be responsible for the 

identification of investigation topics, distribution of the 

funds, and reporting of the results to Congress6

. For earthquake disasters, it is recommended that the NEHRP Policy 

Coordinating Group, Presidentially appointed individuals 

from the four principal NEHRP agencies, create a standing 

nine-member post-earthquake investigation Selection Committee to assist FEMA in fulfilling these responsibilities. 

This Selection Committee shall be mobilized within days 

after a significant earthquake, attend all briefings, participate in the joint NSF/USGS/FEMA/NIST priority-setting 

workshop, and be responsible for identifying the basic and 

problem-focused investigation efforts required to maximize 

learning from the specific earthquake disaster. On the basis 

of the outcomes and recommendations of the workshop, 

the Selection Committee shall recommend to FEMA topical areas and funding levels for each area. FEMA would 

determine the funds to be allocated to each NEHRP agency. 

Each NEHRP agency shall be responsible for the identification of appropriate projects and investigators, administration of its grants, project supervision, and be accountable 

for funds allocated to their agency in their topical areas. 

They will actively contribute to the report to Congress. The 

nine members of the Selection Committee shall consist of 

one member from each of the four principal NEHRP agencies and at least four members from the non-Federal earthquake community.

6. Annual Review of Plan

The United States historically has been fortunate that 

large damaging urban earthquakes have been infrequent. This 

is due more to the relatively recent formation of the United 

States as a nation than to a lack of seismicity. Potentially 

damaging earthquakes, such as the 1811-12 New Madrid 

sequence in the Midwest, the 1755 Cape Anne, Massachusetts, and 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, events on the 

east coast, the 1857 Fort Tejon event in southern Califor4

Public Law 101-614, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

(NEHRP) Reauthorization Act, Section 11 (b), November 1990. 5

For comparison, Section 404 currently provides between 15 and 20 percent 

times the 406 expenditures for hazard mitigation grants. For the Northridge 

earthquake this amounted to about $722 million.

6

FEMA currently reports to Congress on hazard-mitigation grant projects 

funded by Stafford Act Section 404 even though these projects are selected 

by the state for which the disaster has been declared and approved by FEMA 

before expenditure.
17

nia, and the 1700 mega-event in the Pacific Northwest, are 

all well documented, but occurred before major urban or 

suburban development of the regions. In modern times, the 

only large (M>7) earthquakes that affected U.S. cities were 

the 1906 San Francisco, California, and 1964 Good Friday, 

Alaska, earthquakes, both of which devastated cities. Smaller 

(M<7) but more frequent modern events, however, such as the 

1971 San Fernando, 1989 Loma Prieta, 1994 Northridge, and 

2001 Nisqually earthquakes, offer opportunities to learn how 

to reduce earthquake risk—the ultimate goal of NEHRP. 

Thus, opportunities to implement this proposed plan in 

its entirety will only happen irregularly. As normal turnover 

in NEHRP management occurs, however, new managers 

may be unfamiliar with the plan. Implementation of the 

plan is further complicated by NEHRP’s lack of a line-management structure to activate this plan immediately after 

an event. Therefore, it is recommended that the NEHRP 

Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) review this 

plan annually, and after each review remind agency and 

institutional managers of their obligations under the plan. 

The annual review should also include an opportunity for 

comments from the professional and research community 

involved in earthquake risk mitigation. It is recommended 

that this annual review occur on the anniversary of the 

largest recorded earthquake in U.S. history, the March 27, 

1964, Good Friday earthquake in Alaska.

The annual review would provide opportunities to revise 

or modify the plan as appropriate. A fundamental tenet of 

emergency management is that the process and currency of 

planning are as important as the plan itself.

References

ASCE, 1998a, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings—a Prestandard: prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-310 Report, Washington, D.C.

ASCE, 1998b, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation 

of Buildings: prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers 

for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-356 Report, 

Washington, D.C.

ATC, 1988, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: a 

Handbook: prepared by the Applied Technology Council, ATC-21 Report, for 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-154 Report, Washington, D.C. (FEMA-154, 2nd Edition is in Preparation.)

ATC, 1998a, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall 

Buildings, Basic Procedures Manual: prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-306 

Report, Washington, D.C. 

ATC, 1998b, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall 

Buildings, Technical Resources: prepared by the Applied Technology 

Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-307 

Report, Washington, D.C. 

ATC, 1998c, Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall 

Buildings: prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-308 Report, Washington, D.C.

ATC, 2000, Development of a Database on the Performance of Structures near 

Strong-motion Recordings: 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake, 

Applied Technology Council, ATC-38 Report, 245 p.

EERI, 1996, Post-Earthquake Investigation Field Guide; Learning From Earthquakes: Oakland, Calif., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 

Publication 96-1, 144 p.

FEMA, 1993, Funding Post-Earthquake Investigations: Report to Congress: 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

FEMA, in press, Expanding and Using Knowledge to Reduce Earthquake 

Losses: The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Strategic 

Plan 2001-2005: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 

D.C. (Available in draft.)

HAZUS, 1999, Hazards United States: National Institute of Building Sciences, 

Washington, D.C.

NRC, 1999, The Impacts of Natural Disasters – A Framework for Loss Estimation: National Research Council, Washington, D.C., National Academy 

Press, 49 p.

OES, 1998, California Post-Earthquake Information Clearinghouse (draft): California Offi ce of Emergency Services, Sacramento, Calif., 23 p.

OSTP, 1997, Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative: U.S. Offi ce of Science and 

Technology Policy Fact Sheet, July 1997.

USGS, 1999, An Assessment of Seismic Monitoring in the United States—

Requirement for an Advanced National Seismic System: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1188, 55 p.

Wald, D., Wald, L., Goltz, J., Worden, B., and Scrivner, C., 2000, “Shake Maps” 

– Instant maps of earthquake shaking: U. S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 

103-00, 2 p.

WSSPC, 2001, Policy Recommendation 01-3, Post-Earthquake Technical Clearinghouses: Western States Seismic Policy Council, Palo Alto, Calif.
18

Notes
19

Notes
20

Notes
Activities timeline For NEHRP Post-Earthquake Coordination Plan—Domestic Earthquakes.

Holzer and others—The Plan to Coordinate NEHRP Post-Earthquake Investigations—U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1242