Geodetically Derived Strain Across the 

Northern New Madrid Seismic Zone

Seismic Hazard Mitigation in the 

Central United States: The Role of the States

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1538-F-G

MISSOURI 

.XWVT,

ARKANSAS
Cover. Part of a gray, shaded-relief, reduced-to-pole magnetic anomaly map. Map area 

includes parts of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas. Illumination is from the west. Figure is from Geophysical setting of the Reelfoot rift and relations between rift structures and the New Madrid seismic zone, by Thomas G. 

Hildenbrand and John D. Hendricks (chapter E in this series).
Investigations of the New Madrid Seismic Zone

Edited by Kaye M. Shedlock and Arch C. Johnston

F. Geodetically Derived Strain Across the 

Northern New Madrid Seismic Zone

By Richard A. Snay, James F. Ni, and Helen C. Neugebauer

G. Seismic Hazard Mitigation in the Central United States: 

The Role of the States

By Robert B. Olshansky

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1538-F-G

Chapters F and G are issued as a single volume 

and are not available separately

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1994
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Gordon P. Eaton, Director

For Sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Map Distribution

Box 25286, MS 306, Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and 

does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Geodetically derived strain across the northern New Madrid seismic zone / by Richard A. 

Snay... [et al.]. Seismic hazard mitigation in the Central United States: the role of the States 

/ by Robert B. Olshansky.

p. cm.—Investigations of the New Madrid seismic zone : F-G U.S. Geological Survey professional paper; 1538)

Includes bibliographical references.

Supt. of Docs, no.: 119.16:1538-F-G

1. Seismology—Missouri—New Madrid region. I. Title: Geodetically derived strain 

across the northern New Madrid seismic zone. II. Title: Seismic hazard mitigation in 

the Central United States: the role of the States, in. Series. IV. U.S. Geological Survey 

professional paper; 1538. 

QE535.2.U6159 1994 vol. F-G

551.2'2'09778985 s—dc20 93-42636 

[363.3'495'0977] CD*
Geodetically Derived Strain Across the 

Northern New Madrid Seismic Zone

By Richard A. Snay, James F. Ni, and Helen C. Neugebauer

INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE 

Edited by Kaye M. Shedlock and Arch C. Johnston

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1538-F

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1994
CONTENTS

Abstract........................................................................................................................... Fl

Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1

Data................................................................................................................................. 1

Estimating Horizontal Deformation............................................................................... 3

Epilog............................................................................................................................. 5

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................... 6

References Cited............................................................................................................. 6

FIGURES

1. Map showing geodetic stations occupied during the 1991 GPS survey........................................................................ F2

2. Graphs showing residuals for the intersite GPS vectors................................................................................................ 3

3. Map showing selected geodetic stations in the northern NMSZ................................................................................... 4

4. Graphs showing estimated shear-strain rates................................................................................................................. 5

TABLES

1. Distribution of geodetic data by decade and type.......................................................................................................... F3

2. Estimated shear-strain rates........................................................................................................................................... 5

IV
GEODETICALLY DERIVED STRAIN ACROSS THE 

NORTHERN NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

By Richard A. Snay, 1 James F. Ni,2 and Helen C. Neugebauer1

ABSTRACT

Data from a 1991 Global Positioning System (GPS) 

survey are combined with preexisting GPS and 

triangulation-trilateration data to estimate the rate of horizontal deformation across the northern New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ) for the 1929-91 interval. We estimate 

that the maximum horizontal shear-strain rate, y, equals 

0.030±0.019 |arad/yr and the direction of maximum horizontal contraction, 9, equals 116°±19°. (Throughout this 

report, a dot over a symbol denotes the time derivative of 

the quantity represented by the symbol.) We also estimate 

y and 9 for four subregions of the northern NMSZ to test 

if spatial variability in the strain field might explain why 

our estimate for y for the entire northern NMSZ does not 

differ from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. Two 

of these subregions define a north-south partition of the 

northern NMSZ; the other two define an east-west partition. Estimates for y and 9 do not differ from one subregion to another at the 95 percent confidence level, nor do 

any of the four y estimates differ from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. Our estimate of y for the northern 

NMSZ is consistent with (linear) strain rates derived from 

seismic and geologic evidence. Our estimate of y, however, differs significantly from a geodetic estimate of 

y that is in excess of 0.1 jarad/yr—this geodetic estimate 

has been derived for the southern NMSZ.

INTRODUCTION

Three major earthquakes, each with body magnitude 

greater than 7, occurred in the New Madrid area during the 

winter of 1811-12. Moreover, a high level of microseismicity has been observed in this area since the installation

* National Geodetic Survey, Coast and Geodetic Survey, National 

Ocean Service, NOAA, Rockville, MD 20852.

2 Department of Physics, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, 

NM 88003.

of a seismic network in 1974. Epicenters of more than 

2,000 small events (mb < 5.0) recorded since 1974 delineate three linear trends (fig. 1). Focal mechanisms for 

events on the southern and northern trends indicate rightlateral slip on near-vertical faults in the 4- to 14-km depth 

range (Himes and others, 1988). Events on the central trend 

distribute on northwesterly trending planes that dip to the 

southwest in this same depth range (Chiu and others, in 

press). This central trend represents a left-restraining step 

connecting the two right-lateral fault segments.

Strain rates for the New Madrid seismic zone have 

been inferred from seismic and geologic evidence. The 

inferred rates range from 0.007 |Jstrain/yr (Anderson, 

1986) to 0.150 ustrain/yr (Johnston and Nava, 1985) with 

several values in between. To measure strain rates directly, 

a GPS survey was conducted in the early spring of 1991 

(fig. 1). The survey measured relative positions among 46 

previously established geodetic stations. Forty of these 46 

stations had been positioned originally by triangulation surveys performed between 1929 and 1955. Moreover, some 

of these stations had been occupied during two or more 

geodetic surveys prior to the 1991 GPS survey.

Two independent research groups have analyzed different combinations of the new GPS data with preexisting 

geodetic data. One group (Liu and others, 1992) has studied a combined geodetic data set for the region located 

south of lat 36.4°N., here called the southern NMSZ. We 

report here on our study of geodetic data for the region 

located north of this latitude, the northern NMSZ.

DATA

The GPS survey commenced on 12 March 1991 and 

concluded on 24 April 1991. The survey involved 30 individual observing sessions. Sessions averaged 5.5 hours in 

duration and were scheduled during that part of the day 

when the geometry of the satellite constellation was optimal for measuring relative positions among the stations. 

Five Trimble 4000SST dual-frequency receivers were 

deployed simultaneously for most sessions. Some sessions,

Fl
F2 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

37°30' -

— "~~~VGIDE

________L,_BOEKA_1^PLEA________________

Figure 1. Geodetic stations occupied during the 1991 GPS survey of the NMSZ. Fault lines are inferred from recent seismicity. 

Triangles on central fault segment indicate events that occur on 

northwesterly trending planes that dip to the southwest. The 

dashed line denotes the boundary between the northern NMSZ and 

the southern NMSZ.

however, involved as many as seven receivers, others as 

few as three. Each station was occupied for at least two 

sessions.

We processed the GPS phase data using the OMNI 

software package (Mader and others, 1991) to derive threedimensional intersite vectors together with appropriate 

covariance information among these vectors. Each intersite 

vector (AX, AY, AZ) represents the difference between the 

positional coordinates of two geodetic stations in an 

adopted Cartesian reference system. We processed the data 

using "precise" orbital information for the GPS satellites as 

provided by the Defense Mapping Agency. The term precise is used to distinguish these orbits, which have been 

postfit to satellite-tracking data, from those orbits that are 

broadcast in real time as part of the GPS signal.

The 30 observing sessions, in combination, produced 

120 intersite vectors that we subsequently employed to 

estimate three-dimensional positional coordinates for the 

46 GPS stations in the context of a least squares network 

adjustment. The ADJUST software of Milbert and Kass 

(1987) was used for this estimation process. Data residuals

from this network adjustment provide an indication of the 

internal precision for the GPS vectors. The north-south 

components of the 120 residual vectors have a precision, p, 

of 7.0 mm:

(i)

where 

v,- denotes the north-south component of the /th residual

vector, and 

/ denotes the degrees of freedom for the north-south

components of these vectors. 

In particular,

/= 120 vectors - 46 stations + 1 constraint = 75

The constraint was imposed because intersite GPS vectors 

provide no information about absolute position. Hence, the 

latitude of one station was specified and held fixed for the 

estimation process. Similarly, the longitude and the elevation of this station were also specified and held fixed. Correspondingly, the east-west components have a precision of 

11.6 mm, and the vertical components have a precision of 

42.8 mm.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of residuals in each 

component as a function of intersite distance. Given that 

each station was occupied for at least two observing sessions, derived horizontal coordinates should have a precision of at least 10 mm in each component relative to the 

adopted coordinates for the "fixed" station, "Bluffport" 

(BLUF in fig. 1). In contrast, coordinates derivable from 

existing triangulation-trilateration data have a precision 

that is more than an order of magnitude larger.

From the geodetic database maintained by the 

National Geodetic Survey (NGS), we extracted preexisting 

geodetic observations involving stations located within or 

near the rectangular region bounded by lat 36.25°N. and 

37.25°N. and by long 89°W. and 90°W. This region 

encloses the northern NMSZ, plus it slightly overlaps the 

southern NMSZ. These data, some measured as early as 

1929, include observed directions, azimuths, and distances 

for lines that connect monumented geodetic stations. The 

data also include some 78 intersite GPS vectors that had 

been observed prior to the 1991 survey.

Whereas an azimuth refers to the orientation of a line 

relative to geographic north, a direction refers to a line's 

orientation relative to an arbitrary azimuth—the azimuth of 

the zero mark on the measuring instrument. Directions for 

several lines emanating from a station are measured as a 

group; whereby, angles among these lines may be obtained 

by differencing directions in the group. The standard error 

for a typical direction observation is about 0.7 seconds of 

arc (Gergen, 1989); for a typical azimuth observation, the 

standard error is about 1.4 seconds of arc (Strange, 1989);
GEODETICALLY DERIVED STRAIN, NORTHEN NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE F3

30U<J

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

I I I I 1 1 I 1

"NORTH-SOUTH RESIDUALS 7T

—

*

* * * jjj* *

**f* **jf^{%|-^

* * * *******

_ *

*

*

—

I I

————

* * * ————

* •* Ji 

* * * *

f 1 ** * *

i # J* * * 

% * $ **

—

*

—

1 1 1

A

30

£20

LLJ 

LU

| 10

— I

^ 0

00

1-10

CO

LUnr-

-20

-30

I I I I

~ EAST-WEST RESIDUALS

~~ * *

— * * * #

* |f* .^1** **

** *** * i

* * * #•* 4^j/*ji *•

* **

ryn

* * *

*

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

*

* —

* * *

7T

f* ** f

*• * y y * *

*** ** $ ** 

* *

y.

* —

* *

i i i* r

B

80

60

40

20

0

-20 

-40

-60

-80

_l II

VERTICAL RESIDUALS

————— rV,

* *L

** 

* * — ** *

* ** f « *

————————— 'X' 

*********/*** 

*Vy S0+ TK* " 

^

A^jf ——————————

^ Jt

* **|f**

* ****** *.

* * *

** *

•• - t :

- * * % * * *~ 

* # * * * *

* * * % * 

———— * ———— #

* * ' ____| 

* * -

1 1

* *

! 1 1* *^

40 80 120 

DISTANCE, IN KILOMETERS

160

Figure 2. Residuals for intersite GPS vectors from a minimally 

constrained adjustment of the data. Residuals are plotted as a function of intersite distance. A, North-south residuals; B, East-west 

residuals; C, Vertical residuals.

standard error is about 1.4 seconds of arc (Strange, 1989); 

and for a typical distance observation, the standard error is 

between 1 and 2 parts per million (Gergen, 1989).

ESTIMATING HORIZONTAL 

DEFORMATION

We combined the 1991 GPS vectors with the preexisting geodetic data for the northern NMSZ. Table 1 

summarizes the temporal distribution of this combined 

data set, and figure 3 summarizes the spatial distribution. 

Note that the combined data set contains 288 geodetic stations, whereas figure 3 shows only those 44 stations that 

were occupied for at least two different surveys with at 

least 15 years separating the first and last occupations. 

These statistics reveal that the data for most of the geodetic stations contribute only indirectly towards the resolution of crustal deformation by providing network ties 

among the repeatedly observed geodetic stations.

We processed the combined data set through the software package entitled DYNAP (Drew and Snay, 1989). 

This software accepts various geodetic data types to generate least-squares estimates for the positional coordinates of 

the stations and, simultaneously, for parameters that characterize crustal deformation rates. For our application, we 

assumed that the deformation rate is spatially uniform 

throughout the area spanned by these data and that deformation occurred at a constant rate during the 1929-91 

interval.

Certain constraints were introduced to eliminate existing datum defects and configuration defects in the data. 

For example, because the data provide height information 

at the GPS stations only, the heights at all the non-GPS stations were constrained to adopted values, and the tilt-rate 

parameters in DYNAP were constrained to zero. In all 

cases, we selected constraints so as to avoid biasing the 

geodetic data.

Preliminary results with DYNAP revealed several 

inconsistencies among the data involving station "Pleasant" 

(PLEA in fig. 1). We subsequently treated "Pleasant" as 

two separate stations—one for the GPS data and one for 

the triangulation-trilateration data—and these inconsistencies disappeared. Estimated horizontal positions for these

Table 1. Distribution, by decade and type, of geodetic data used 

for estimating deformation within the northern NMSZ.

Interval

1920-29

1930-39

1940-49

1950-59

1960-69

1970-79

1980-89

1990-91

Directions

111

215

20

665

78

217

0

0

Distances

1

2

8

8

16

231

0

2

Azimuths

2

2

0

0

0

7

0

0

GPS vectors

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

190

Total 1,306 268 11 198
F4 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

37°30' 90°00' 89°30' 89°00'

37°00'

36°30'

36°00'

A A

n A

TENNESSEE

0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS 

I , , i i i i I I

EXPLANATION 

A 15-30 years

D 30-45 years

<Q) 45-60 years

( ) 60+ years

Figure 3. Selected geodetic stations in the northern NMSZ. 

Symbol shape indicates the time interval between the earliest and 

latest observations at the corresponding station. Solid symbols 

identify stations that were occupied for the 1991 OPS survey. The 

horizontal dashed line denotes die boundary between the upper and 

lower subregions of the northern NMSZ. The vertical dashed line 

denotes the boundary between the eastern and western subregions. 

Triangles on central fault segment indicate events that occur on 

northwesterly trending planes that dip to the southwest

two stations (as derived with DYNAP) differ by more than 

2 m. Because this difference exceeds any tectonic motion 

that may reasonably be expected, we suspect that "Pleasant" may have been disturbed by human activity.

As described by Drew and Snay (1989), the deformation parameters estimated with DYNAP may be mathematically converted into more familiar parameters. Of these 

parameters, only those that characterize horizontal shearstrain rates are resolved with a reasonable degree of accuracy. These parameters are conventionally represented by 

the symbols Yi and 72. where YI denotes the rate of 

change of a right angle whose initial side is oriented 135°,

and Y 2 denotes the rate of change of a right angle whose 

initial side is oriented 90°. Here the right angles exist in a 

plane approximating the Earth's surface, and angles are 

reckoned positive in the clockwise direction. By virtue of 

the fact that deformation rates are here assumed to be spatially uniform, the deformation rate, a , of any angle in the 

horizontal plane may be expressed by the equation:

<x = (sin 2p2-sin 2p1 )Yi+(cos 2p2-cos 2p1 )<y2 (2) 

where

Pi and P2 denote the azimuths of the initial and terminal

sides of the angle, respectively. 

The parameters YI and "fa may be further transformed 

into the parameters Y and 9 by the equations:

Y +Y ' 1 '2

,0.5

0 = 0.5 arctan (-J2 /Yi)

(3)

(4)

where 

Y denotes the maximum horizontal shear-strain rate (that

is, the magnitude for the rate of angular change that

is greatest among all right angles in the horizontal

plane), and 

9 denotes the direction of maximum contraction (or,

equivalently, minimum extension) as measured

clockwise from north.

Using the combined geodetic data set for the northern 

NMSZ, we estimate that Y equals 0.03010.019 ^rad/yr and 

that 9 equals 116°±19°. Corresponding estimates for YI 

and Y2 a*6 given in table 2. This estimate of Y does not 

differ from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. A possible explanation for the lack of detectable deformation is 

that the strain field is not spatially uniform across the 

region as was assumed. Significant strain in one subregion 

could cancel equally significant strain of opposite orientation in another subregion.

To test for spatial variability, we estimated the shearstrain rates for four subregions of the northern NMSZ (fig. 

3). Two of these subregions define a north-south partition 

of the northern NMSZ. They are separated by lat 36.75°N. 

(We call these subregions "upper" and "lower" to distinguish them from the regions that we have designated as the 

northern NMSZ and the southern NMSZ.) The other two 

subregions define an east-west partition of the northern 

NMSZ. They are separated by long 89.5°W. Shear-stain 

rates derived from the geodetic data for these four subregions (table 2) do not differ from one another at the 95 percent confidence level. Also, none of the corresponding Y 

estimates differ from zero at the 95 percent confidence 

level. Figure 4 demonstrates these results graphically.
GEODETICALLY DERIVED STRAIN, NORTHEN NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE F5

Table 2. Estimated shear-strain rates with standard errors for the 

northern NMSZ and four of its subregions.

[Northern NMSZ region is shown in fig. 1; subregions within the northern NMSZ are 

shown in figure 3. -y |, -fat Y t and 9 are described in the text]

Region or 

subregion

N. NMSZ region

Upper subregion

Lower subregion

Eastern subregion

Western subregion

Yl 

(urad/yr)

-0.018 

±0.018

-0.048 

±0.029

+0.006 

±0.031

-0.036 

±0.036

+0.001 

±0.032

Y2 

(urad/yr)

+0.024 

±0.020

+0.032 

±0.040

+0.039 

±0.032

+0.010 

±0.045

+0.057 

±0.035

Y 

(urad/yr)

0.030 

±0.019

0.058 

±0.030

0.040 

±0.033

0.037 

±0.033

0.058 

±0.035

6 

(degrees)

116 

±19

107 

±20

140

±23

97 

±36

136 

±16

All northern 

NMSZ data

Upper 

subregion

YI

i i jpa4 i i i i i }>

.05: V .10

Lower 

subregion

Although it is possible to partition the northern NMSZ 

in various ways, we venture to conclude that the level of 

spatial variability in the shear-strain rate lies within the 

uncertainty level of the geodetic data. In particular, the data 

do not allow us to distinguish between the shear-strain rate 

of the upper subregion and that of the lower subregion 

even though these two subregions span distinctly different 

segments of the linear features delineated by recent seismicity (solid lines in fig. 3). That is, the upper subregion 

spans only the most northern of these seismic trends, which 

is thought to correspond to a near-vertical, right-lateral 

fault (Himes and others, 1988). The lower subregion, on 

the other hand, spans the central seismic trend as well as 

part of the other two seismic trends. Chiu and others (in 

press) suggest that this central trend corresponds to an 

active fault having a component of reverse slip.

EPILOG

Geodetic data indicate that y equals 0.030±0.019 

Urad/yr for the northern NMSZ over the 1929-91 interval. This result is consistent with both seismic and geologic evidence. Anderson (1986, table 8) presents 

estimates for the linear strain rate, e, in the range from 

0.007 to 0.045 ustrain/yr, based on seismic evidence, and 

in the range from 0.023 to 0.070 ustrain/yr, based on geologic evidence. Furthermore, Johnston and Nava (1985) 

estimate that e ranges from 0.10 to 0.15 ^strain/yr, based 

on geologic evidence. Here

All northern 

NMSZ data

Figure 4. Estimated shear-strain rates with 95 percent confidence ellipses for the northern NMSZ and for four of its subregions. Axes are labeled in units of (aradVyr. Diagrams show 

data for: A, all of the northern NMSZ, the upper subregion, and 

the lower subregion; B, all of the northern NMSZ, the western 

subregion, and the eastern subregion. Subregions of the northern 

NMSZ are shown on figure 3.

e=max(|e,|,|e 2 |) (5)
F6 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

where

EI denotes the linear strain rate in the direction of maximum extension, and

£2 denotes the linear strain rate in the direction of maximum contraction (extension is reckoned as positive). 

Even though 7 and e are not directly comparable, 

they are related. In particular, because

it follows that

y<2e

(6)

(7)

for shear-strain rates expressed in units of (irad/yr and linear strain rates expressed in units of ^strain/yr.

Our estimate for the shear-strain rate across the northern NMSZ does not differ statistically from zero; however, 

Liu and others (1992) find that shear strain is accumulating across the southern NMSZ at a rate in excess of 0.1 

jarad/yr. Their estimate is derived from a combination of 

the 1991 GPS data with preexisting geodetic data spanning 

the southern NMSZ.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The 1991 GPS survey was performed by a National 

Geodetic Survey (NGS) field crew with assistance from 

David Tralli and Paul Lundgren of the Jet Propulsion Lab 

and from John Weber and Lisa Leffler of Northwestern 

University. The U.S. Geological Survey funded the greater 

part of this GPS survey. Edward Carlson, Cindra Craig, 

John Love, and Richard Yorczyk (all at NGS) and Shawn 

Larsen (Lawrence Livermore Lab) helped us plan the GPS 

survey and organize the combined geodetic data set. We 

thank Stephen Hilla (NGS) and Edward Timmerman 

(NGS) for comments that improved the presentation of this

paper. One of us (J.F.N.) was supported under U.S. Geological Survey grant no. 14-08-0001-G1933.

REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, J.G., 1986, Seismic strain rates in the Central and Eastern United States: Seismological Society of America Bulletin, 

v. 76, p. 273-290.

Chiu, J.M., Johnston, A.C., and Yang, Y.T., in press, Imaging the 

active faults of the central New Madrid seismic zone using 

PANDA array data: Seismological Research Letters.

Drew, A.R., and Snay, R.A., 1989, DYNAP: Software for estimating crustal deformation from geodetic data: Tectonophysics, 

v. 162, p. 331-343.

Gergen, J.G., 1989, Terrestrial data, in Schwarz, C.R., ed., North 

American Datum of 1983: Rockville, Maryland, National Geodetic Information Center, National Oceanic and Atmosperic 

Administration, NOAA Professional Paper NOS 2, p. 27-35.

Himes, L., Stauder, W., and Hermann, R.B., 1988, Indication of 

active faults in the New Madrid seismic zone from precise 

location of hypocenters: Seismological Research Letters, v. 59, 

p. 123-131.

Johnston, A.C., and Nava, S.J., 1985, Recurrence rates and probability estimates for the New Madrid seismic zone: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 90, p. 6737-6753.

Liu, L., Zoback, M.D., and Segall, P., 1992, Rapid intraplate strain 

accumulation in the New Madrid seismic zone: Science, 

v. 257, p. 1666-1669.

Mader, G.L., Schenewerk, M.S., and Chin, M.M., 1991, OMNI 

2.00 User's Guide: Rockville, Maryland, National Geodetic 

Survey, National Oceanic and Atmosperic Administration.

Milbert, D.G., and Kass, W.G., 1987, ADJUST: The horizontal 

observation adjustment program: Rockville, Maryland, 

National Geodetic Information Center, National Oceanic and 

Atmosperic Administration, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NOS NGS-47,53 p.

Strange, W.E., 1989, Extraterrestrial data, in Schwarz, C.R., ed., 

North American Datum of 1983: Rockville, Maryland, 

National Geodetic Information Center, National Oceanic 

and Atmosperic Administration, NOAA Professional Paper 

NOS 2, p. 39-47.
Seismic Hazard Mitigation in the 

Central United States: 

The Role of the States

By Robert B. Olshansky

INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE 

Edited by Kaye M. Shedlock and Arch C. Johnston

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1538-G

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1994
CONTENTS

Introduction..................................................................................................................... Gl

Background—Evolution of Earthquake Policy in the Central United States................. 1

Federal Activities.................................................................................................. 1

Congressional Interest in Earthquake Hazards............................................... 1

USGS Efforts.................................................................................................. 1

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)....................................... 2

Regional Activities................................................................................................ 2

Center for Earthquake Research and Information (CERI).............................. 2

Central United States Earthquake Preparedness Project (CUSEPP) and

Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC)........................... 2

Awareness of Local Officials................................................................................ 3

Summary: Historical Trends................................................................................ 3

Problem Statement.......................................................................................................... 3

Need for Hazard Mitigation.................................................................................. 3

Limited Existing State Programs for Seismic Hazard Mitigation........................ 4

Need for State Action............................................................................................ 4

Need to Study the Role of the States.................................................................... 4

Factors Affecting Implementation of Seismic Mitigation Policy................................... 4

Research Method............................................................................................................ 5

Research Questions............................................................................................... 5

Research Tasks...................................................................................................... 5

Observations—Recent State Activities........................................................................... 6

State Agency Role in Mitigation Activities.......................................................... 6

Awareness............................................................................................................. 6

Windows of Opportunity...................................................................................... 6

Seismic Advisory Councils................................................................................... 7

Assessing and Mapping Hazards.......................................................................... 7

Land-Use Regulation............................................................................................ 7

Reducing Hazards in New Construction............................................................... 8

Reducing Hazards in Existing Construction......................................................... 9

Relation to Other Planning Issues......................................................................... 9

Recommendations—A Strategy for State Action........................................................... 10

Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 10

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................... 12

References Cited............................................................................................................. 12

Appendix—Programs for Seismic Hazard Mitigation in the Central United States,

Listed by State............................................................................................................ 14

Arkansas................................................................................................................ 14

Illinois................................................................................................................... 14

Indiana................................................................................................................... 14

Kentucky............................................................................................................... 15

Mississippi............................................................................................................ 15

Missouri................................................................................................................ 16

Tennessee.............................................................................................................. 16

TABLE

1. Existing State-level programs for seismic hazard mitigation in the Central United States........................................... Gl 1
SEISMIC HAZARD MITIGATION IN THE 

CENTRAL UNITED STATES: 

THE ROLE OF THE STATES

By Robert B. Olshansky1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this research is to examine potential for 

State-level seismic hazard mitigation policies in the seven 

member States of the Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC). The seven States are: Arkansas, Illinois, 

Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. 

The work aims at identifying:

1. Existing State-level seismic mitigation programs in 

the seven States,

2. General trends in the seven States regarding potential 

for new seismic hazard mitigation programs, and

3. Potentially effective and feasible policy directions

for implementing seismic hazard mitigation. 

This research assumes the plausibility that large earthquakes will occur in the New Madrid region within our lifetimes and within the lifetimes of presently existing 

structures. Although precise estimates of this risk vary, this 

general statement appears well supported by current scientific consensus (Johnston and Nava, 1985; Nishenko and 

Bollinger, 1990).

BACKGROUND—EVOLUTION OF

EARTHQUAKE POLICY IN THE

CENTRAL UNITED STATES

Scientists and policy makers over the past two decades 

have steadily increased their interest in the hazards of the 

New Madrid seismic zone. The initiation of this interest is 

largely attributable to the work of the late Otto Nuttli (1973). 

He struggled for years, virtually alone, to remind scientists 

and the public of previous studies (Fuller, 1912) and to recast 

previous work into a present-day context (Nuttli, 1987). Dr. 

Nuttli's work coincided with a period of gradually increasing 

concern with earthquake hazards throughout the United 

States.

1 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois 

at Urbana-Champaign, 907 "/2 West Nevada Street, Urbana, IL 61801.

FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST IN 

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS

Federal interest in earthquakes steadily increased following the 1964 Alaska earthquake and the 1971 San 

Fernando earthquake. Five years of congressional efforts 

culminated in the enactment of the Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Act of 1977, which created the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) (see VSP Associates, 1989). The 1977 Act was aimed largely at research 

and provided funding to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

and National Science Foundation. Congressional amendments in 1980 made the NEHRP into a more action-oriented 

program and added funding for the National Bureau of Standards and the newly formed Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was designated as the lead 

agency.

USGS EFFORTS

In the years preceding enactment of the Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Act, the USGS began to increase its presence in the Central United States. In 1973, the USGS began 

to study the deeply buried geologic structure in the New 

Madrid region (noted by McKeown, 1982, p. 7), and Saint 

Louis University, with USGS support, established a regional 

seismic network in 1974 (Stauder, 1982). These projects and 

related work performed by or in association with the USGS 

in the mid to late 1970's are reported by McKeown and 

Pakiser(1982).

Following the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act, 

USGS research efforts in the region increased to about $1 

million per year. Beginning in 1977, the USGS began to hold 

a series of regional workshops and conferences that were 

designed to gather knowledgeable participants, exchange 

ideas, and strengthen earthquake hazard reduction activities 

in the region. By 1987, the USGS had held 38 such

Gl
G2 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

workshops (VSP Associates, 1989), with at least five of 

them in the Central United States: September 1981 in Knoxville, Tenn.; May 1982 in St. Louis, Mo.; September 1983 in 

North Little Rock, Ark.; November 1984 in Cape Girardeau, 

Mo.; and March 1986 in Nashville, Tenn. (Hays and Gori, 

1986). Most of these workshops were cosponsored by 

FEMA and local agencies.

USGS research efforts in the New Madrid area 

increased following the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 

1989. The USGS convened a workshop in Memphis in 

November 1989 to prepare recommendations for intensified 

research in the New Madrid seismic zone (Hamilton and 

Johnston, 1990). Congress appropriated additional funds to 

the USGS in fiscal year 1990 for earthquake research, 

including $3 million that was allocated for New Madrid 

studies. A level of increased funding has continued since that 

time.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

(FEMA)

FEMA was created by Executive Order in April 1979. 

It consisted of a reorganization of several existing Federal 

departments, scattered throughout Washington, D.C. (VSP 

Associates, 1989). In 1980, Congress designated FEMA as 

the lead agency in NEHRP. VSP Associates (1989) 

observed that, because of the youth of the agency and the 

ambiguous charge given by Congress, the early 1980's 

were characterized by periodic reorganizations and lack of 

direction. According to the NEHRP Five-Year Plan for 

1985-89 (Federal Emergency Management Agency and 

others, 1984), NEHRP objectives assigned to FEMA 

included: post-disaster mitigation studies, earthquake hazard mitigation strategies, federal response planning, State 

and local preparedness planning, multihazard planning, and 

earthquake education and information transfer.

A major role of FEMA under NEHRP has always been 

to provide financial and technical assistance to the States, 

such as its financial support of CUSEC, cosponsorship of 

regional workshops, and publication and free distribution of 

the popularly termed "yellow book" series of technical 

reports. In 1989, FEMA formally began a cost-sharing program with eligible States under the Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Assistance Program (44 CFR 361). Under this 

program, FEMA has given annual grants to the seven 

CUSEC States, ranging from about $25,000 to $75,000 per 

year, matched by equal amounts of State funds. Prior to this 

program, beginning in the early 1980's, FEMA had provided grants to the States on an individual-project basis. 

Most of the grants were aimed at increasing earthquake 

awareness and improving emergency preparedness and 

response capabilities.

REGIONAL ACTIVITIES

CENTER FOR EARTHQUAKE RESEARCH AND 

INFORMATION (CERI)

In 1977, the same year as the passage of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act, the Tennessee State Legislature established the Tennessee Earthquake Information 

Center, now called the Center for Earthquake Research and 

Information (CERI), at Memphis State University. The 

establishment of this center was prompted by a 1976 earthquake near Marked Tree, Ark. This earthquake, coupled 

with the increasing level of earthquake interest nationally 

and regionally, focused the attention of State legislators on 

earthquake risk, particularly in the Memphis area. CERI's 

primary function has been as a scientific research institution, but it also has been a leader in earthquake awareness 

activities in the Central United States. CERI has benefited 

from substantial State funding to support its academic and 

basic functions, particularly since Tennessee designated it 

as a Center of Excellence in 1984, but CERI also has 

received considerable Federal funds via NEHRP programs 

to support its research. In 1983, CERI received FEMA 

funding to be one of three, 3-year, pilot Earthquake Education Centers (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

1987). One purpose of the program was to introduce earthquake information into an area with little previous knowledge or interest in the subject. CERI now has a seismic 

resource center, with a full-time manager responsible for 

public information.

CENTRAL UNITED STATES EARTHQUAKE

PREPAREDNESS PROJECT (CUSEPP) AND

CENTRAL UNITED STATES EARTHQUAKE

CONSORTIUM (CUSEC)

In 1981, FEMA initiated the Central United States 

Earthquake Preparedness Project (CUSEPP) to assist State 

governments in their earthquake-planning efforts. This 

organization, based in Kansas City, was directly responsible 

to FEMA, and for this reason, according to VSP Associates 

(1989), it was not effective in engaging local and regional 

activities.

As a response to CUSEPP, the emergency management 

directors of the seven potentially affected States founded 

their own organization, the Central United States Earthquake 

Consortium (CUSEC) in 1983. In 1984, they opened an 

office in Marion, 111., and contracted with FEMA to support 

the project. CUSEC's initial charge was to promote and support earthquake preparedness in the Central United States, 

improve the administration of earthquake preparedness 

through the agencies of the member States, and address the 

needs of the Earthquake Hazard Reduction Act—planning, 

public education, and mitigation (Jones, 1988). Following 

the death of its first executive director, CUSEC moved in
SEISMIC HAZARD MITIGATION IN THE CENTRAL UNITED STATES: THE ROLE OF THE STATES G3

January 1989 to its current office in Memphis, Tenn. In 

1991, CUSEC added four associate members: Alabama, 

Ohio, North Carolina, and Louisiana. Currently, CUSEC has 

four outreach goals: public awareness and education, mitigation, multi-State planning for response and recovery, and 

research. Most of CUSEC's annual budget consists of base 

funding from FEMA, but this has been increasingly supplemented by project-specific grants and numerous corporate 

sponsors.

AWARENESS OF LOCAL OFFICIALS

Drabek and others (1983), in a 1981 study of local government officials and building professionals in Missouri, 

found a surprisingly high level of concern for earthquake 

hazards, much higher than the previous work of Rossi and 

others (1982) had implied. For example, 92 percent of 

respondents were either very concerned or somewhat concerned about the occurrence of a damaging earthquake. 

However, the level of activities at that time were relatively 

low: only 18 percent of key actors could recall meetings during the previous 5 years at which the topic was seismic 

safety, and only 21 percent indicated that their agencies were 

in the process of developing or had developed earthquake 

mitigation plans. In sum, despite a relatively high level of 

awareness and concern among the key actors, "Earthquake 

mitigation policies and activities in Missouri were found to 

be minimal and/or short-lived" (Drabek and others, 1983, p. 

74). The only mitigation activities identified were U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers seismic requirements for public 

dams and some cases of local adoption of seismic-load 

requirements in building codes.

Mushkatel and Nigg (1987a, 1987b) performed an 

earthquake-risk-opinion survey of residents and local government officials in the New Madrid seismic area between 

November 1983 and April 1984. They surveyed residents of 

areas identified as having high and moderate risk from an 

earthquake on the New Madrid fault zone. They found that a 

substantial proportion of citizens and government officials 

were at least somewhat worried about the possibility of a 

damaging earthquake before the year 2000. They also found 

high levels of support for mitigation measures in both 

groups, although, surprisingly, the support was much stronger among community residents than government officials. 

Among government officials only, they found significant 

differences in attitudes toward mitigation policies between 

the high- and moderate-risk zones (Mushkatel and Nigg, 

1987b). For example, 53 percent of government officials 

from the high-risk area felt that building codes were justified 

for their community, whereas only 21 percent of the respondents from the moderate-risk areas agreed. Retrofitting 

codes and land-use restrictions received less support, both 

measures being supported by 41 percent of government officials in high-risk areas, compared to 11 percent and 10 percent in moderate-risk areas. Administrative officials were

significantly more favorable than elected officials toward 

these mitigation actions.

The surveys by Mushkatel and Nigg (1987a, 1987b) are 

significant in several ways. First, they document a higher 

level of concern among public officials than was suggested 

by previous studies (e.g., Wyner and Mann, 1986). Second, 

this was the first study to compare opinions of community 

residents to those of government officials, and it found a 

higher level of concern among the residents than the officials. Previous studies (e.g., Drabek and others, 1983; Wyner 

and Mann, 1986) had found that government officials perceive that they have a higher level of seismic awareness and 

concern than does the citizenry, and this study shows that 

perception to be incorrect. Third, the study demonstrates that 

government officials are sensitive to objective risk: the scientific information is reaching them, and their policy decisions are sensitive to the level of risk determined for their 

community.

SUMMARY: HISTORICAL TRENDS

This historical account documents several trends. 

First, Federal interest in earthquake hazard reduction 

throughout the United States has increased steadily over 

the past 20 years. Second, Federal funding for earthquake 

research and hazard mitigation in the Central United States 

began in 1974 and has steadily accelerated since then. 

Third, local officials are aware and concerned about earthquakes but have taken relatively little action. Fourth, as of 

the mid-1980's, the seven New-Madrid-area States had 

taken relatively little initiative other than establishment of 

the Center for Earthquake Research and Information and 

the initiation of CUSEC. Fifth, Federal policy initiatives 

and Federal funding have driven most of the earthquake 

preparedness and mitigation activities that exist in the 

Central United States. Even CUSEC and CERI owe much 

of their success to Federal financial support. A sixth trend, 

discussed below, is that Federal earthquake policy has 

increasingly emphasized mitigation.

PROBLEM STATEMENT 

NEED FOR HAZARD MITIGATION

Mitigation is an important aspect of disaster management. Increasingly, Federal disaster policy has emphasized 

reducing hazards rather than responding to disasters. Mitigation of earthquake hazards, by improving design and construction practices, is one of the major stated purposes of the 

National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. FEMA 

explicitly requires that at least 15 percent of its financial 

assistance to States under the National Earthquake Hazard 

Reduction Program be spent on mitigation, and this proportion will increase over the next few years (CFR 361.3(g)).
G4 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

Hazard mitigation also is required as a condition of receipt 

of post-disaster Federal assistance under the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (PL 100-707, Section 409), which applies to all types of disasters. As a result 

of this act, most States have begun to prepare hazard mitigation plans (e.g., Tennessee Emergency Management 

Agency, 1991).

Potential seismic hazard mitigation activities have been 

listed by Berke and others (1989) and Bolton and others 

(1986). Gori and Millen (1991) classify earthquake hazard 

mitigation actions into two groups: (1) those that reduce 

expected losses, such as land-use regulations, building 

codes, building practices, structure siting, retrofitting buildings, and securing objects within buildings; and (2) those 

that support mitigation actions, such as assessing and 

mapping hazards, estimating vulnerability and loss, improving seismic construction practices, and training design professionals and public officials. This classification provides a 

useful framework for reviewing mitigation actions in the 

Central United States

LIMITED EXISTING STATE PROGRAMS FOR 

SEISMIC HAZARD MITIGATION

Despite the Federal programs cited above, few States 

outside of California have implemented seismic hazard mitigation programs (see May and Williams, 1986, p. 98-101). 

California's programs include land-use planning requirements, construction standards, and mitigation of hazards in 

existing unreinforced masonry buildings (see California 

Seismic Safety Commission, 1988). The USGS also has 

been working in Utah to implement mitigation measures 

based on the hazard information developed by its studies of 

the Wasatch Front (e.g., Christenson, 1989). Drabek and others (1983) documented early initiatives to develop earthquake mitigation policy in the States of Missouri and 

Washington and analyzed the limited implementation of the 

policies in those States. Earthquake preparedness efforts in 

the Central United States began in the mid-1980's with the 

advent of CUSEC, but mitigation efforts have lagged.

NEED FOR STATE ACTION

States are the governmental entities that will most 

directly affect emergency management activities. Federal 

agencies have provided basic tools to aid emergency preparedness and response. FEMA provides funding and guidance to the States, and the USGS performs basic research to 

better understand the risks. But it is the States that can produce tangible results in earthquake hazard mitigation, both 

by their own administrative programs and by their direct 

support of local activities (May, 1991; Berke and Beatley, 

1992). State mandates are an important initial condition to

local government actions (Wyner and Mann, 1986, p. 69). 

Policies and funding priorities set by the States translate into 

direct action in reducing earthquake hazards.

NEED TO STUDY THE ROLE OF THE STATES

Most earthquake mitigation studies have focused on the 

role of local communities in implementing seismic safety 

policies. Most of this work has studied communities in seismically active regions wholly within a single State or two 

neighboring States, such as California, Washington, Oregon, 

or Utah (e.g., Wyner and Mann, 1986; May, 1989). Studies 

in the Central United States have continued in this vein, 

examining awareness and implementation at the community 

level (Mushkatel and Nigg, 1987a, 1987b; Berke and others, 

1989). Only Drabek and others (1983) looked at activities at 

the State level, examining the early policy initiatives in 

Washington and Missouri.

Much of this previous work implicitly assumes a California model, in which local governments implement State 

policy. In California, the State has initiated seismic policy 

through major legislation such as: the Field Act (1933), a 

requirement for seismic-safety elements in local plans 

(1971), Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (1972), the 

establishment of the Seismic Safety Commission (1974), 

Unreinforced Masonry Act (1986), and Seismic Hazards 

Mapping Act (1990). It has fallen on local governments to 

implement these mandates, and the success of these local 

efforts has been of great interest to researchers and policy 

makers alike. Thus began a tradition of studying local awareness and implementation of seismic policy.

In contrast, in the Central United States, several factors 

point to the States as the key actors in promoting seismic 

safety. First, the hazard in the Central United States encompasses several States, and adequate preparedness demands 

cooperation among the States. Second, the hazard is diffuse, 

and variations in hazard are not distinguishable at the scale 

of local jurisdictions. Third, most of the initiative in policy 

setting has come from the Federal Government. Thus, in the 

Central United States, it is the States that play a key role as 

both the implementors of Federal earthquake policy and the 

initiators of their own policy to catalyze local action.

FACTORS AFFECTING

IMPLEMENTATION OF SEISMIC

MITIGATION POLICY

As pointed out by May (1991), all of the previous earthquake-awareness studies show relatively high levels of 

awareness and concern by local officials but little action by 

local governments. Various reasons have been suggested: 

earthquakes themselves are not well understood; there is no 

public constituency; costs are immediate and benefits uncertain; benefits do not occur during current elected officials'
SEISMIC HAZARD MITIGATION IN THE CENTRAL UNITED STATES: THE ROLE OF THE STATES G5

tenure; public safety is not visible; and other public issues 

are more immediate (Wyner and Mann, 1986; May, 1991; 

Berke and Beatley, 1992; Atkisson and Petak, 1982). The 

point is that, even with improved awareness, political and 

institutional roadblocks exist.

Various authors have drawn lessons from case studies 

of local implementation of earthquake policies. Several of 

these can apply to State-level implementation as well. 

Alesch and Petak (1986, p. 223-234) offer insightful observations on factors influencing the adoption of earthquake 

mitigation policies, the most conclusive of which I summarize as follows: (1) recognition of the problem by the policy 

community; (2) an available, practical policy option; (3) persistent and credible "inside" policy advocates; (4) windows 

of opportunity; (5) political solutions to complement technical ones; and (6) attendance by local officials at professional 

meetings and conferences. Berke and Beatley (1992) found 

that factors internal to local governments were key in facilitating local mitigation actions: (1) presence of credible advocates, (2) coordination and communication among key 

participants, (3) availability of resources, and (4) linkage to 

other issues.

Drabek and others (1983, p. 213-214), in a study of 

State-level policy, found only very limited policy successes 

in Missouri and Washington. Based on these two cases, they 

provided some guidance as to what circumstances appeared 

to encourage implementation: (1) a key person or group 

becomes concerned and has authority to act, (2) Federal 

agency actions cause earthquake mitigation to become a 

State or local policy issue, and (3) the earthquake issue links 

to another policy issue.

Lambright (1984), in a study of southern California, 

North Carolina, and Japan, examined a range of seismic 

policy environments, from emergent to mature. He outlined the course of earthquake policy innovation as follows: (1) awareness of a problem by a few "entrepreneur" 

individuals, (2) a trigger that converts awareness into policy action, (3) search for an appropriate response, (4) adoption of a policy option by government, thereby giving 

legitimacy to the policy, (5) implementation of policy into 

program action, and (6) institutionalization of programs. 

Most programs in the Central United States are still in the 

early stages of this process.

Some common themes emerge from these studies. 

Earthquakes are not high on the political agenda because 

they occur infrequently and are overshadowed by more 

immediate, visible issues. Seismic safety never elected a 

governor or mayor. On the other hand, seismic safety policies do get adopted by local governments, usually due to the 

following factors: (1) awareness of the problem, (2) persistent and credible advocates, (3) opening of a window of 

opportunity, (4) existence of a politically acceptable and feasible solution, (5) linkage to other issues, and (6) repeated 

communication among key participants. In addition, implicit 

in most of these studies is some sort of policy mandate from

a higher level of government. These observations appear to 

be as applicable to State governments as they are to local 

governments. Indeed, we found all, except linkage to other 

issues, to apply to successful State-level programs in the 

Central United States. Because many of these factors have 

occurred in the Central United States over the past decade, 

earthquake mitigation activities have increased above the 

levels reported by Drabek and others (1983) a decade ago. 

Still, mitigation activities are not yet as widespread in this 

part of the country as in the Western United States.

RESEARCH METHOD

This research represents an initial step in examining 

current and potential policy activities at the State level. 

Because the number of cases is small (seven States), a casestudy approach is the most appropriate method. The 

research has been exploratory, attempting to document and 

measure all relevant activities. This could serve as the basis 

for a later more systematic study, perhaps one that would 

include other States that have seismic concerns.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research focused on the following questions: 

(1) What is the current role of each State in seismic hazard mitigation? (2) What are the unique aspects of seismic hazard in each State, requiring customized policy 

approaches, such as liquefaction zones, port facilities at 

risk, or historic resources? (3) What agencies are best 

equipped to implement seismic hazard policy, and what 

is their potential role? (4) What new legislative or policy 

efforts might be most effective in each State?

RESEARCH TASKS

Research tasks included review of existing legislation, 

interviews with key officials, and acquisition and review of 

relevant government documents. For each State, the following documents were collected: emergency preparedness acts, 

planning enabling acts, building code legislation, seismic 

mitigation work plans, public information documents relating to earthquakes, agency program statements, proposed 

legislation, internal memoranda, and a variety of technical 

and policy reports.

For each State, we identified individuals in the following categories: Earthquake Program Manager (Emergency 

or Disaster Agency), State Geologist or designee, Building 

Code Administrator, architect/engineer in charge of design 

of State buildings, engineer in charge of dam-safety program, engineer in charge of highway bridge and embankment design, other individuals identified as being active 

advocates of seismic mitigation (such as university professors in engineering or earth sciences).
G6 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

We also sought to interview two to three knowledgeable local planners in each State. In the absence of any Statelevel agencies that coordinate local land-use planning, we 

interviewed officers of each State's chapter of the American 

Planning Association.

Fifty-nine comprehensive interviews have been conducted, 37 of them in person. These encompass 30 different State agencies in the seven States, as well as six 

universities, several local agencies, and professional associations. Thirteen key planning professionals in the seven 

States also have been interviewed. These in-depth interviews (averaging two to three hours each) have identified 

additional issues, which are still being investigated via telephone interviews.

OBSERVATIONS—RECENT STATE 

ACTIVITIES

The Central United States is different from the seismically active Western United States, where earthquake hazard mitigation programs have been most active. These 

differences reflect: the geophysically different nature of the 

hazard (widespread, diffuse, level topography), differences 

in earthquake experience and awareness, and differences in 

political culture. Some of the more notable findings of this 

research are those that highlight the unique characteristics 

of the practice of seismic hazard mitigation in the Central 

United States and show how State policies must necessarily 

be different from those in the Western United States.

Following is a summary of recent State-level activities 

related to seismic hazard mitigation. They are organized 

under topical headings, progressing from awareness activities to direct hazard reduction.

AWARENESS

Awareness of the seismic hazard in the Midwest has 

increased dramatically since 1980 (as documented at that 

time by Drabek and others, 1983). This is due primarily to: 

educational efforts by Otto Nuttli and colleagues at Saint 

Louis University, the 1977 formation of the Tennessee 

Earthquake Information Center (now the Center for Earthquake Research and Information) at Memphis State University, the 1983 formation of CUSEC, ongoing efforts by 

FEMA and the USGS under the National Earthquake Hazard 

Reduction Program, the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and 

the December 3, 1990, earthquake prediction by Iben 

Browning.

The latter two events were particularly significant in 

accelerating awareness and preparedness activities since late

1989. In many ways, the hysteria of late 1990 was a mixed 

blessing. All seven States reported being overwhelmed by 

requests for earthquake information during the latter half of

1990. For example, Illinois and Missouri each distributed 

250,000 copies of their earthquake preparedness brochures. 

On the positive side, most State officials reported a tremendous increase in public awareness, although opinions were 

mixed regarding whether this corresponded to improved preparedness. In some States, most of the resources of the 

emergency management agency were dedicated to providing 

earthquake information. The positive benefits of public education may have been outweighed by the inability of so many 

public officials and researchers to do any other work. In 

addition, several officials expressed concern that citizens 

now doubt the credibility of all earth scientists, mistakenly 

equating Browning's credentials with those of the various 

geological surveys. The most positive long-term result was 

the acceleration of preparedness and mitigation activities 

within State agencies and by public utilities.

STATE AGENCY ROLE IN 

MITIGATION ACTIVITIES

Most Central U.S. States are concerned about mitigating seismic hazards and are making slow but steady 

progress. Interagency communications regarding this issue 

have increased dramatically over the past decade, and this 

administrative activity has resulted in a number of creative 

new programs. However, virtually all the States are constrained by very tight State budgets (including hiring 

freezes). Furthermore, mitigation is not an exciting political issue—indeed, some mitigation actions, such as seismic 

building codes, are unpopular (see Drabek and others 1983, 

p. 90). Still, many States have used creative and costeffective techniques to initiate programs to mitigate future 

earthquake damages. These successes are generally due to 

the presence of effective advocates inside the government.

WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY

The most prominent window of opportunity was the 

year following the Loma Prieta earthquake and the subsequent New Madrid earthquake prediction by Iben Browning. 

Legislation, new programs, and executive orders in the 

States of Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, and Illinois can all be 

directly attributed to the heightened awareness during this 

time period. In both Arkansas and Missouri, drafts of legislation existed prior to October 1989, and their proponents 

explicitly used the window of opportunity to advance their 

goals.

Heightened interest and knowledge in the New Madrid 

region has allowed major earthquakes that have occurred 

elsewhere in the world to provide windows of opportunity. 

Respondents in Missouri and Tennessee reported increases 

in earthquake interest following the 1988 Armenia and 1985 

Mexico City earthquakes. Following any major event, the
SEISMIC HAZARD MITIGATION IN THE CENTRAL UNITED STATES: THE ROLE OF THE STATES G7

press is quick to point out similarities to local conditions. In 

general, some of the newspapers in the region have been 

effective in maintaining a level of interest, which provides an 

environment for seizing opportunities as they arise. For 

example, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a series on earthquake hazards during September 1989. Following the Loma 

Prieta earthquake the next month, some of the information 

presented in these articles caught the attention of State legislators and triggered the enactment of comprehensive 

seismic-safety legislation in 1990.

SEISMIC ADVISORY COUNCILS

Earthquake advisory councils are an extremely effective way of promoting earthquake awareness in State agencies and of providing leadership in mitigating the effects of 

future earthquakes. They serve to involve stakeholders, use 

knowledge of local experts, and promote interagency communication (see Berke and Beatley, 1992). FEMA has 

encouraged the formation of seismic advisory councils in 

States receiving Federal earthquake funds. The most successful model of such a body is the California Seismic Safety 

Commission, formed as an independent agency in 1974 (see 

Olson, 1982). The advisory councils in the Central United 

States are more modest in scale and are not independent 

organizations, but they are very effective at collecting available expertise and promoting interagency coordination.

The council in Kentucky was the first to form in the 

Central United States (1983) and is an excellent model. Its 

regular meetings foster steady progress in helping several 

agencies meet mitigation goals. The panel currently has 23 

members representing the public sector, the technical community, State legislature, and major utilities. Kentucky has 

been very successful at using small amounts of funding to 

leverage extraordinary amounts of work from its members.

Arkansas' advisory council, formed in 1984, was the 

key to the drafting and successful legislative enactment in 

1991 of a State seismic building code. The council developed the idea several years earlier, drafted the bill, argued for 

seismic codes whenever members gave public presentations, 

and shepherded it through the legislature. The council currently has 37 members, all of whom volunteer considerable 

time to the council's work.

Interagency communication fostered by Indiana's 

advisory board is at least partly responsible for an innovative agreement in 1990 between the State's building code 

office and the State geological survey. This agreement may 

have occurred anyway, but the advisory board provided a 

mechanism for frequent contact between these key agencies. Indiana's board has 23 members.

Mitigation efforts appear to be much less coordinated in 

States without active advisory councils. Both Tennessee and 

Missouri briefly formed advisory councils in the early 

1980's, but neither one has been active since that time. The

Governor of Illinois formed an Earthquake Preparedness 

Task Force in October 1989, but it disbanded following submi ttal of its report in April 1990.

ASSESSING AND MAPPING HAZARDS

Seismic hazard maps are an important step in any earthquake hazard reduction program. Although the earthquake 

hazard in the Central United States does not vary at a fine 

enough scale to be useful for local land-use planning, such 

basic information is vital for estimating risk and planning for 

emergency response. Estimates of magnitude and spatial 

variation of damages, such as the so-called "Six Cities 

Study" by the Central U.S. Earthquake Preparedness Project 

(1985), are invaluable for State and local governments in 

preparing earthquake plans and policies.

Seismic zonation or risk mapping has been very limited 

in the Central United States The most substantial effort in the 

region has been by the State of Indiana. The Indiana Geological Survey, under contract to the State Department of Fire 

and Building Services since June 1990, has been collecting 

basic geotechnical and geophysical data in southern Indiana, 

with the ultimate aim of producing a seismic zonation map 

for the State building code. A unique aspect of this project is 

the funding sources: State building permit application fees, 

supplemented by a grant from the city of Evansville. Missouri enacted legislation in 1990 authorizing its geological 

survey to map geologic and seismic hazards, but the program 

has not yet been funded. The Center for Earthquake 

Research and Information at Memphis State University has 

prepared a liquefaction potential map of the Memphis area 

(Chang and others, 1991). The University of Kentucky in 

1992 completed a seismic microzonation study of Paducah, 

identifying three zones of relative amplification of seismic 

shaking. The Kentucky and Illinois Geological Surveys have 

been actively seeking funding for seismic zonation activities. Illinois and Arkansas received grants from the U.S. 

Geological Survey in 1990 for investigations of earthquakeinduced landsliding. All seven States have discussed performing a prototype study to establish a consistent methodology for seismic zonation, but this project has not yet been 

funded.

LAND-USE REGULATION

The diffuse nature of the seismic hazard in the Midwest 

and the relatively level topography imply limited effectiveness of land-use regulations, except perhaps along river 

bluffs and liquefiable alluvial bottomlands. Until the USGS 

or the States produce specific ground-failure and liquefaction-hazard maps, land-use regulation would not be a very 

effective means of seismic hazard mitigation (see Bolton and 

others, 1986, part D). Mushkatel and Nigg (1987b) found
G8 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

that most local officials, even in high-hazard zones, do not 

believe land-use restrictions would be justified for reducing 

seismic hazards in their communities.

The role of land-use planning in addressing seismic 

hazard is limited, not only by the geographic characteristics 

of the hazard, but also by typical functions of local planning 

in these States. Local planning agencies appear to be best 

suited for indirect activities to support earthquake preparedness, such as collecting, coordinating, and distributing information that could aid emergency response planning. Local 

planning agencies also could prepare plans to support mitigation activities of local building officials and public works 

agencies. Local comprehensive plans could address priorities for seismic retrofitting of critical structures and could 

also establish policies for post-earthquake rebuilding (see 

Spangle and others, 1987). These activities are potentially 

significant but are less direct than those typically proposed in 

the Western United States Awareness by local planners of 

earthquake hazards and of the role they can play in hazard 

mitigation currently is quite low in the Central United States 

according to our interviews of planners.

REDUCING HAZARDS IN 

NEW CONSTRUCTION

Building codes in general, and seismic codes in particular, are not very popular in the Midwest but are slowly 

gaining acceptance. Concurring with this perception, Mushkatel and Nigg (1987b) found that slightly over half (53 

percent) of local government officials surveyed in the highrisk zone believed that building codes were justified for 

their community. New seismic codes were enacted in Missouri in 1990 and Arkansas in 1991. Missouri's new law 

requires all local governments to adopt ordinances requiring 

that all new public and educational buildings meet the seismic requirements of the Building Officials and Code 

Administrators (BOCA) Code or Uniform Building Code 

(UBC). Arkansas' law requires all new public structures to 

meet the seismic-design provisions of the latest edition of 

the Standard Building Code (SBC).

Three of the States have had codes for several years. 

Indiana has had a State building code since 1923 and, since 

1973, has adopted the Uniform Building Code, including its 

extensive seismic-design requirements. Kentucky, since 

1979, has used the BOCA Code, which has been updating 

its seismic requirements over the past few years (the 1992 

version is based on the latest Federal NEHRP standards). 

Tennessee also has a State-wide code, based on the Standard Building Code, and adopted the 1988 SBC seismic 

provisions in 1990. Memphis attained some notoriety in the 

trade press in 1989 and 1990 when it decided against adding seismic protection to its new downtown arena ("the 

great American pyramid"), and it adopted the 1988 SBC 

with reduced seismic requirements. Under State law,

however, Memphis will need to fully comply with the 1988 

SBC by 1996.

Only Mississippi and Illinois have no State-wide code 

requirements, although many individual municipalities in 

these States do have building codes. Over 300 communities 

in Illinois use the BOCA Code, although many of these are 

in the northern part of the State where earthquake hazard is 

relatively low. Most of the major municipalities in the highest risk area of Mississippi have adopted the Standard Building Code

Having a code and enforcing it are two very different 

matters. Enforcement depends on level of commitment, 

political support, level of expertise, and funding for adequate 

plan review and inspection. These factors vary among States 

and among localities within each State. Quality of local 

enforcement is difficult to document and was beyond the 

scope of this study. CERI, in 1992, is beginning a study of 

local implementation of seismic codes, and the results 

should shed considerable light on this issue. Typically, 

larger towns have their own building departments that provide plan review and inspections. In Indiana, Kentucky, and 

Tennessee, the State reviews plans for significant buildings 

not otherwise covered by a local agency. In Arkansas, the 

new code puts much of the responsibility on professional 

engineers, who must sign the plans. Missouri's new code 

emphasizes enforcement by local government. Generally 

speaking, in all seven States, code enforcement focuses on 

larger buildings and urbanized areas.

Seismic-design expertise of architects and engineers is 

generally quite low throughout the CUSEC States. This is 

beginning to change, however, and some seismic-design 

training courses have recently been initiated in Illinois and 

Kentucky. Since 1991, Illinois requires a seismic problem 

on the structural engineer licensing exam, and this has created a demand for more training courses. Indiana also runs 

courses on the Uniform Building Code.

In contrast to regulation of private construction, States 

can easily require seismic standards in construction of publicly funded buildings and highways. The Federal Government has set an example in this area, in the President's 

Executive Order 12699 (January 5, 1990), "Seismic Safety 

of Federal and Federally Assisted or Regulated New Building Construction." Illinois has an active program promoting 

and implementing seismic design of new State-owned structures, supported by an Executive Order of the Governor. 

Missouri, in 1990, passed legislation directed at improving 

seismic safety and preparedness in schools.

Most States have requirements for seismic design of 

new dams and highway bridges, although almost all these 

requirements have been introduced in only the last 10 years, 

generally in response to federal requirements. The States 

generally follow Corps of Engineers guidelines for dam construction and American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design guidelines for 

highway bridges.
SEISMIC HAZARD MITIGATION IN THE CENTRAL UNITED STATES: THE ROLE OF THE STATES G9

Non-structural hazards in new buildings are not being 

addressed very effectively. In contrast to the increased attention to structural design, most architects and mechanical 

engineers are not very aware of methods of designing for 

earthquake hazards, according to several interviewees.

REDUCING HAZARDS IN EXISTING 

CONSTRUCTION

The greatest hazard in the Midwest is the large number 

of existing unreinforced masonry buildings (URM's), 

according to most observers (see also Central U.S. Earthquake Preparedness Project, 1985, p. 3-31-3-37). Most of 

these were built many years ago with no seismic-design considerations. Many observers have noted similarities between 

towns in the Central United States and Coalinga, Calif., 

which sustained significant damage from Modified Mercalli 

Intensity VIII shaking in May 1983 (Hopper and others, 

1983). Most of the severe damage occurred to pre-1930 brick 

buildings in the downtown area (Scholl, 1986), and 75 percent of these buildings were total losses (Hopper and others, 

1983). Although there is virtually no data on seismic susceptibility of building stock in the Central United States, the 

damage data from Coalinga is indicative of the magnitude of 

risk in this region.

Existing buildings represent a very sensitive issue 

because the hazard is substantial and extensive in its magnitude and the costs of adequately mitigating the hazard are 

enormous. Our research found that numerous officials were 

reluctant even to discuss hazards to existing buildings. Older 

areas, central business districts, low-income areas, and historic districts are particularly vulnerable. Retrofit requirements, such as the Unreinforced Masonry Law (SB 547, 

1986, codified as Government Code Section 8875 et seq.) in 

California, would be politically unacceptable to State governments, infeasible, and not very cost effective. For example, Drabek and others (1983) describe the political 

controversy that erupted in St. Louis in 1976 when the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

tried to impose seismic standards for building rehabilitation. 

Local officials were concerned that it would stifle development in the central city. Many URM's exist in the Midwest, 

and, unlike California, the economy does not have enough 

new development money to help cover the needed repairs. 

Of course, it would be misleading to imply that the URM law 

in California has been without controversy. Indeed, Alesch 

and Petak (1986) describe the contentious 8-year battle to 

enact an existing building ordinance in the City of Los Angeles. The ordinance was finally enacted in 1981. A similar 

result appears unlikely anywhere in the Central United 

States.

Some States tentatively have begun to identify hazardous structures. The State of Kentucky, in 1992, will be providing some of its FEMA funds to the University of

Louisville to screen existing buildings in downtown Paducah. This is an outgrowth of a project begun voluntarily by 

a member of the State's seismic advisory council. In a 

USGS-funded project, CUSEC is testing the feasibility of 

using local government personnel in evaluating hazardous 

buildings, conducting building surveys in Evansville, Ind., 

and Cape Girardeau, Mo., using the method of ATC-21 

(Applied Technology Council, 1988). States and local governments have shown a willingness to cooperate in such 

evaluations, but very few have taken the initiative. If the 

CUSEC study shows them to be cost effective, such evaluations may become more widespread.

Kentucky and Illinois have initiated major long-term 

programs to identify, assign priorities, and correct seismic 

deficiencies in existing highway bridges on designated priority routes. The Illinois Department of Transportation, following the report of the Governor's Task Force in 1990, 

internally reallocated over $1 million to evaluate and assign 

repair priorities to bridges. Kentucky, in 1990, completed a 

4-year study, funded by the Federal Highway Administration, to inventory priority routes. Detailed analyses were 

made of 283 bridges, and 111 bridges were found to be in 

need of retrofitting. Kentucky retrofitted 11 of the bridges in 

1991. Missouri and Arkansas also have identified bridges 

likely to fail on priority routes but have not systematically 

evaluated or ranked them. Tennessee has no organized seismic retrofit program, but the State repairs approximately 60 

bridges per year under the Federal bridge inspection program, and each repair routinely includes upgrading to seismic standards.

Existing non-structural hazards also are a significant 

problem in the Central United States. Many of these hazards 

can be secured easily and inexpensively, but earthquake 

awareness is not a part of people's daily lives in the Central 

United States. One of the easiest ways to help reduce seismic hazards is to include information on non-structural hazards in earthquake awareness programs. Many States are 

doing this and, in particular, are focusing on critical institutions, such as schools and hospitals. However, only Illinois 

and Kentucky currently have programs that directly support 

non-structural mitigation actions. Illinois actively promotes 

and implements non-structural mitigation activities in local 

schools. The State performs walk-through hazard surveys of 

approximately 10 schools per year and also provides grants 

to purchase materials for local non-structural projects. Kentucky, in 1991, began a matching-fund grant program to support local hazard mitigation efforts, including non-structural 

hazard mitigation projects.

RELATION TO OTHER PLANNING ISSUES

It is known that hazard mitigation efforts are more 

likely to be successful if they can also address other issues, 

such as environmental protection or economic development
G10 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

(e.g., Drabek and others, 1983, p. 214; Berke and others, 

1989). For example, floodplain protection serves the purposes of hazard reduction, environmental protection, and 

urban recreation (e.g., Task Force on Federal Rood Control 

Policy, 1966).

Unfortunately, there appears to be no other existing 

issue that could help carry seismic regulations in the Midwest. In fact, the converse may be true for rehabilitation of 

existing structures: existing planning policies serve to discourage URM seismic rehabilitation. This is because the 

most hazardous URM's tend to be concentrated in decaying 

central business districts, which often are the focus of 

planning efforts for physical preservation and economic 

revitalization. Such revitalization efforts usually are not 

well funded, and requirements for seismic rehabilitation 

would severely strain their budgets (see Drabek and others, 

1983, chapter V). In many ways, requirements to rehabilitate or demolish URM's would run counter to these deeply 

rooted, existing policies for revitalizing traditional community centers. Nelson (1990) documented some of the problems encountered in Santa Cruz, Calif., when concerns for 

historic preservation conflicted with public-safety decisions. Public officials need to recognize this dilemma and 

seek solutions before disaster occurs.

RECOMMENDATIONS—A STRATEGY 

FOR STATE ACTION

A useful way to summarize the conclusions of this 

research is to organize them by type of policy action. The 

following list is divided into major legislative efforts, other 

legislative efforts, and administrative programs.

The most effective State actions for seismic mitigation 

would require explicit mandates by legislatures and governors. Such actions, all of which appear to be feasible in most 

of the seven CUSEC States, include:

1. Seismic building codes for new construction, although implementation may be limited by enforcement problems.

2. Seismic advisory councils (made up of representatives of State agencies, major industries, and universities) with regular meetings (approximately two per 

year).

3. Tax incentives for seismic rehabilitation. 

Even in States where enactment or enforcement of 

building codes would be difficult, States could take the following minimum legislative actions:

4. Seismic codes and enforcement procedures for new 

schools, hospitals, fire and police stations, and utilities (power, water, sewage treatment).

5. Requirements for long-term identification and mitigation of existing hazards in schools, hospitals, fire 

and police stations, and utilities.

6. Seismic standards for State-owned structures:

a. Seismic design of all new structures, 

b. Identification and retrofit of all vulnerable Stateowned structures, such as highway bridges and 

dams.

The following actions could be initiated by individual 

agencies, without explicit authorization by the legislature or 

governor. However, all these actions would be facilitated by 

legislative mandates, particularly if accompanied by funding 

appropriations.

7. Geologic mapping to identify potential ground-failure hazard areas in order to assist emergency management agencies as well as inform the public.

8. Programs to encourage non-structural mitigation, including handbooks, training programs, and distribution of mitigation kits.

9. Cooperation with historic preservation agencies to 

prepare guidelines for rehabilitation that is sensitive 

to both cultural resources and seismic safety.

10. Seismic mitigation handbooks and model plans for 

local officials addressing: building inventory methods, establishing retrofitting priorities, identifying 

funding opportunities for seismic retrofitting, and 

guidelines for post-earthquake demolition and reconstruction.

11. Education programs (workshops, handbooks, newsletters) for design professionals in order to elevate 

the accepted standard of practice (this has legal implications that encourage compliance).

CONCLUSIONS

All seven States have greatly increased their seismic 

awareness and preparedness activities since 1985, and activities accelerated following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake 

and subsequent Browning earthquake prediction. Currently 

active mitigation programs are summarized in table 1. The 

most tangible activities have been the adoption and implementation of State-wide requirements for seismic design and 

construction. Building codes had also previously been identified by others as being the most prevalent and popular 

action for seismic hazard reduction at the local level (Mushkatel and Nigg, 1987b; Berke and others, 1989). This is 

likely to continue to be an area of activity in the future, 

although, in some States, it may be necessary to initially 

emphasize only critical facilities. On the other hand, all the 

States suffer from inadequate awareness in the building-anddesign-professional community, and only a few educational 

programs have begun to address this. A major success has 

been the seismic advisory councils, most of which formed in 

the 1980's. These groups are extremely effective relative to 

their minimal cost and are thus easily supported by elected 

officials.

Strengthening of existing hazardous buildings needs 

public attention. We cannot eliminate these hazards, but we 

can reduce them. Any actions that can cost-effectively
SEISMIC HAZARD MITIGATION IN THE CENTRAL UNITED STATES: THE ROLE OF THE STATES Gil

Table 1. Existing State-level programs for seismic hazard mitigation in the Central United States.

[X, major program or State-wide requirement; x, limited program; --, minimal program or no program. For some programs, year 

of initiation, if known, is indicated in parentheses above mark in column. If a program type is not listed (such as structural retrofitting), it is because no such programs exist in any of the seven CUSEC States]

Seismic hazard

mitigation program

Earthquake program in State 

disaster agency, fully staffed.....................

Seismic advisory council.............................

Seismic building codes................................

Seismic-design criteria for 

new State buildings ..................................

Identifying and evaluating existing 

structural hazards .....................................

Nonstructural hazard reduction....................

Seismic zonation mapping........ ...................

Highway bridges — hazard identification ......

Highway bridges — retrofit...........................

Training of design professionals ..................

Ark.

(1983)

........ X...

(1984)

........ X...

(1991)

........ X...

........ X...

.........X....

............

111.

(1982) 

X

X

....X....

....X....

X

....X....

Ind.

....X....

(1986) 

X

(1973) 

X

X

....X....

X

....X....

State

Ky.

(1983) 

X

(1983) 

X

(1979) 

X

X

....X....

....X....

X

....X....

Miss. Mo.

(1991) (1985)

...X......X...

(1979)

«• X

(1990)

X

....X.......X...

... — .......x....

....X........X....

..............

Tenn.

...X

(1980) 

....X

(1990)

...X

...X

....x

....x

reduce property damage and save lives are warranted. The 

most effective and feasible approaches at this time are to 

identify existing hazards (such as by the method of Applied 

Technology Council, 1988) and prepare long-term plans to 

identify possible mitigation opportunities in the future. In 

particular, these efforts should focus on critical facilities 

(schools, hospitals, fire and police stations, utilities, and 

transportation). In addition, States should explore ways to 

encourage private rehabilitation efforts, such as by providing 

tax incentives. Experiences in Santa Cruz and Charleston in 

1989 (Nelson, 1990) have shown that, with some foresight 

and interagency cooperation, historic resources can be saved 

from natural disasters.

Several States have initiated seismic-risk mapping 

efforts for use by emergency-management and buildingcode agencies. These efforts are funded incrementally, 

through grants from the USGS, private contributors, and 

other State agencies, and this is likely to continue to be the 

case. A new trend, such as in Indiana, is for potential users 

to fund data collection and map production. Another example of this trend elsewhere in the United States is California's Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (A.B. 3897, 1990, 

codified as Public Resources Code Section 2690, et seq.), 

under which earthquake insurance funds are to be used to 

prepare seismic hazard maps (see Holden and Real, 1990).

Non-structural hazards, in both existing and new structures, are not being effectively addressed in most States. 

Because of the variety of non-structural hazards (Lagorio, 

1990, p. 107-137), they typically are not addressed by building codes but need instead to be addressed by architects, 

mechanical engineers, and building users. The most effective State-level programs would need to be directed at these 

parties and could include manuals, training programs,

demonstration projects, or direct distribution of materials 

(such as velcro, bolts, etc.) for stabilizing non-structural 

elements.

How does this research compare to previous work on 

local implementation of seismic safety policies? Our observations are generally consistent with the six factors of successful implementation, summarized earlier in this paper. 

First, awareness of the problem clearly has been effective as 

a first step, and the heightened awareness of 1989 and 1990 

produced tangible results. Second, persistent and credible 

advocates, from Otto Nuttli to the current members of the 

seismic advisory councils, have played a key role in keeping 

seismic safety on the public agenda. Third, almost every legislative act for seismic safety in the Central United States 

occurred during a window of opportunity following an earthquake. Fourth, actions have necessarily been limited to those 

that are politically acceptable; programs have been pragmatic and incremental. Fifth, there is virtually no positive 

linkage of seismic safety to other issues in the Central United 

States. The absence of this factor probably is the most significant reason why seismic policy in this region presents such 

a difficult implementation problem. And, sixth, communication among key participants, largely through the seismic 

advisory councils, clearly has played a significant role in 

identifying, designing, and implementing programs to 

reduce seismic hazards in the seven CUSEC States.

One of our interviewees stated that the ultimate goal of 

improving earthquake preparedness is to integrate seismic 

awareness into all of our activities. This is a simple and profound observation. Seismic hazard mitigation programs will 

have succeeded when they no longer need to be separate programs. To effectively mitigate earthquake hazards, awareness must be smoothly integrated into building codes,
G12 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

building design, facility maintenance, State and local emergency preparedness, local planning, and historic preservation programs. States, through legislative and administrative 

policy decisions, can contribute significantly to the realization of this goal. This paper has documented some of the 

creative ways in which Central U.S. States are already 

addressing the problem, and this research has identified 

some of the most feasible and potentially effective strategies 

to pursue in the coming years.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The contents of this paper were developed under a grant 

from the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

under award number 14-08-0001-G1938. However, the contents of this paper do not necessarily represent the policy of 

the USGS, and one should not assume endorsement by the 

Federal Government.

REFERENCES CITED

Alesch, D. J., and Petak, W.J., 1986, The politics and economics of 

earthquake hazard mitigation: Boulder, Colorado, The University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science, Program on 

Environment and Behavior Monograph No. 43,273 p.

Applied Technology Council, 1988, Rapid visual screening of 

buildings for potential seismic hazards: A handbook 

(ATC-21): Washington, D.C., Federal Emergency Management Agency, Earthquake Hazards Reduction Series 41, 

FEMA-154,185 p.

Atkisson, A. A., and Petak, W.J., 1982, The politics of community 

seismic safety, in Preparing For and Responding To a Damaging Earthquake in the Eastern United States, Proceedings of 

Conference XV: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

82-220, p. 92.

Berke, P.R., and Beatley, T., 1992, A national assessment of local 

earthquake mitigation: Implications for planning and public 

policy: Earthquake Spectra, v. 8, no. 1, p. 1-15.

Berke, P.R., Beatley, T., and Wilhite, S., 1989, Influences on local 

adoption of planning measures for earthquake hazard mitigation: International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 

v. 7, p. 33-56.

Bolton, P.A., Heikkala, S.G., Greene, M.M., and May, P.J., 1986, 

Land use planning for earthquake hazard mitigation: A handbook for planners: Boulder, Colorado, University of Colorado, 

Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information 

Center, Special Publication 14,121 p.

California Seismic Safety Commission, 1988, California at risk: 

Steps to earthquake safety for local government: Sacramento, 

California, Report No. SSC 88-01,55 p.

Central United States Earthquake Preparedness Project (CUSEPP), 

1985, An assessment of damage and casualties for six cities in 

the Central United States resulting from earthquakes in the 

New Madrid seismic zone: Washington, D.C., Federal Emergency Management Agency, 13 sections.

Chang, T.S., Tang, P.S., Lee, C.S., and Hwang, H., 1991, Liquefaction potential in the Memphis area, in Proceedings, Fourth 

International Conference on Seismic Zonation: Oakland, California, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, p. 11-459.

Christenson, G.E., 1989, Utah's Wasatch Front county hazards 

geologist program: Natural Hazards Observer, v. 14, no. 1, 

p. 1-2.

Drabek, T. E., Mushkatel, A.H., and Kilijanek, T.S., 1983, Earthquake mitigation policy: The experience of two States: Boulder, Colorado, University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral 

Science, Program on Environment and Behavior Monograph 

No. 37,238 p.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987, Final report on 

the evaluation of three earthquake education projects: Washington, D.C., Office of Natural and Technological Hazards 

Programs.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, National Science Foundation, and National Bureau of 

Standards, 1984, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program five year plan, fiscal years 1985-89: Washington, 

D.C., Federal Emergency Management Agency, five sections.

Fuller, M.L., 1912, The New Madrid earthquake: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 494,119 p.

Gori, P.L., and Millen, J.H., 1991, Opportunities to expand earthquake hazards mitigation efforts by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency through State and local programs: 

Chicago, Illinois, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Region V, July 1991, unpublished, 15 p.

Hamilton, R.M., and Johnston, A.C., 1990, Tecumseh's prophecy: 

Preparing for the next New Madrid earthquake: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1066, 30 p.

Hays, W.W., and Gori, P.L., eds., 1986, Proceedings of Conference 

XXXV; A workshop on earth science considerations for earthquake hazards reduction in the Central United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-425,172 p.

Holden, R., and Real, C.R., 1990, Seismic hazard information 

needs of the insurance industry, local government, and property owners in California: Sacramento, California, California 

Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 

Special Publication 108, 83 p.

Hopper, M.G., Thenhaus, P.C., Barnhard, L.M., and Algermissen, 

ST., 1983, Damage survey in Coalinga, California, for the 

earthquake of May 2, 1983, in Bennett, J.H., and Sherburne, 

R.W., eds., The 1983 Coalinga, California Earthquakes: Sacramento, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, 

Special Publication 66, p. 5.

Johnston, A. C., and Nava, S.J., 1985, Recurrence rates and probability estimates for the New Madrid seismic zone: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 90, no. B8, p. 6737-6753.

Jones, E.E., 1988, Central United States Earthquake Consortium, in 

Hays, W.W., ed., Proceedings of Conference XLI; A review of 

earthquake research applications in the National Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Program: 1977-1987: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 88-13-A, p. 272.

Lagorio, H.J., 1990, Earthquakes: An architect's guide to nonstructural seismic hazards: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc., 312 p.

Lambright, W.H., 1984, Role of States in earthquake and natural 

hazard innovation at the local level, a decision-making study: 

Syracuse, New York, Syracuse Research Corporation,
SEISMIC HAZARD MITIGATION IN THE CENTRAL UNITED STATES: THE ROLE OF THE STATES G13

[prepared for National Science Foundation, distributed by 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NTIS], eight sections. 

May, P.J., 1989, Anticipating earthquakes: Risk reduction policies 

and practices in the Puget Sound and Portland areas: Seattle, 

Washington, University of Washington, Institute for Public 

Policy and Management, unpublished, 31 p.

————1991, Addressing public risks: Federal earthquake policy design: Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, v. 

10, p. 263-285.

May, P.J., and Williams, W., 1986, Disaster Policy Implementation: Managing Programs Under Shared Governance: New 

York and London, Plenum Press, 198 p.

McKeown, F.A., 1982, Overview and discussion, in McKeown, 

F.A., and Pakiser, L.C., eds., Investigations of the New 

Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake Region: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1236-A, p. 1-14.

McKeown, F.A., and Pakiser, L.C., eds., 1982, Investigations of the 

New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake Region: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1236,201 p.

Mushkatel, A.H., and Nigg, J.M., 1987a, Opinion congruence and 

the formulation of seismic safety policies: Policy Studies 

Review, v. 6, p. 645-656.

————1987b, Effect of objective risk on key actor support for seismic mitigation policy: Environmental Management, v. 11, p. 

77-86.

Nelson, C.L., 1990, Protecting the past from natural disasters: 

Washington, D.C., The Preservation Press, National Trust for 

Historic Preservation, 192 p.

Nishenko, S.P., and Bollinger, G.A., 1990, Forecasting damaging 

earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States: Science, 

v. 249, p. 1412-1416.

Nuttli, O.W., 1973, The Mississippi valley earthquakes of 1811 and 

1812—Intensities, ground motion and magnitudes: Bulletin of 

the Seismological Society of America, v. 63, p. 227-248.

Nuttli, O.W., 1987, The effects of earthquakes in the Central United 

States: Marion, Illinois, Central United States Earthquake Consortium, 33 p.

Olson, R.A., 1982, The California Seismic Safety Commission, 

1975-80: Public policy and a practitioner's observations, in 

Jones, E.G., and Tomazevic, M., eds., Social and Economic 

Aspects of Earthquakes: Institute for Testing and Research in 

Materials and Structures, Ljubljana, Slovenia, and Program in 

Urban and Regional Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, New 

York, p. 275-285.

Rossi, P.H., Wright, J.D., and Weber-Burdin, E., 1982, Natural 

Hazards and Public Choice: New York, Academic Press, 

337 p.

Scholl, R.E., 1986, Reducing earthquake hazards: Lessons learned 

from earthquakes: El Cerrito, California, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Publication 86-02,208 p.

Spangle, W.E., Meehan, R.L., Degenkolb, H.J., and Blair, M.L., 

1987, Pre-earthquake planning for post-earthquake rebuilding: 

Pasadena, California, Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project, 96 p.

Stauder, W., 1982, Present-day seismicity and identification of 

active faults in the New Madrid seismic zone, in McKeown, 

F.A., and Pakiser, L.C., eds., Investigations of the New 

Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake Region: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1236-C, p. 21-30.

Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy, 1966, A unified national program for managing flood losses: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Communication from the 

President of the United States, August 10, 1966, House Document No. 465,47 p.

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, 1991, State of 

Tennessee Hazard Mitigation Plan: Nashville, Tennessee, June 

1991, 83 p.

VSP Associates, Inc., 1989, To save lives and protect property: A 

policy assessment of Federal earthquake activities, 1964- 

1987: Washington, D.C., Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, FEMA-181,246 p.

Wyner, A.J., and Mann, D.E., 1986, Preparing for California's 

earthquakes: Local government and seismic safety: Berkeley, 

University of California, Institute of Governmental Studies, 

109 p.
G14 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

APPENDIX—PROGRAMS FOR

SEISMIC HAZARD MITIGATION IN

THE CENTRAL UNITED STATES,

LISTED BY STATE

Following is a list, by State, of the most significant programs for earthquake hazard mitigation in the Central United 

States. This list does not include any programs for awareness, public information, preparedness, or post-earthquake 

response. For purposes of this list, "mitigation" follows the 

Gori and Millen (1991) definition and includes actions that 

reduce expected losses as well as those that support mitigation actions.

ARKANSAS

Building Code.—The Standard Building Code applies 

to all buildings in Arkansas and is administered by the State 

Fire Marshal. The latest edition of this code has seismicdesign requirements.

Seismic Design of Public Buildings.—Act 1100 (1991) 

requires that all public structures (buildings open to the public) be designed to resist seismic forces in accordance with 

the 1988 Standard Building Code or latest edition. Structural 

plans must be signed and sealed by a qualified, registered 

professional engineer. The act specifies seismic zones by 

county. This act is somewhat redundant with the State's 

existing building code requirements, but it is more authoritative in that it legislatively requires seismic design.

Code Enforcement.—The State reviews plans for certain types of public buildings. State Building Services 

reviews plans for State buildings. The Education Department reviews plans for school buildings to enforce the 

requirements of Act 1100. The State Health Department 

reviews plans for hospitals and health clinics.

Building Alterations.—Act 1100 applies to alterations 

and repairs that increase the market value of a building by at 

least 100 percent.

Dams.—Since 1990, the design of dams that meet the 

criteria for "high" or "significant" hazard must address 

stability against seismic forces.

Professional Training.—The State Office of Emergency Services, with the University of Arkansas at Little 

Rock, offered earthquake hazard mitigation courses in 1991. 

The University of Arkansas at Little Rock also has an Earthquake Engineering Technology Transfer Center to provide 

technical seminars to engineers, architects, and contractors.

Earthquake Advisory Council.—Arkansas has a 40- 

member Earthquake Advisory Council, which has existed 

since 1984. It is very active, meets at least twice a year, 

and has three active subcommittees.

Geologic Hazard Assessment.—The Arkansas Geological Commission, with USGS funding, has performed a 

seismic-induced landslide study in northeast Arkansas.

ILLINOIS

Seismic Design of State-Owned Buildings.—Illinois 

has no State-wide building-code requirement, nor does it 

have a seismic-design requirement. However, the Capital 

Development Board has required seismic design of State 

buildings since 1977. This policy was reinforced by an 

Executive Order of the Governor in 1990, applying to all 

State-owned, leased, or regulated buildings.

Existing State-Owned Buildings.—When State-owned 

buildings are renovated, the work must comply with the seismic provisions of the most recent applicable code.

Highway Bridges.—New highway bridges have been 

designed to seismic standards for several years. In 1990, the 

Illinois Department of Transportation funded (approximately $1 million) a study of 6,000 existing bridges. More 

detailed analysis has begun for the 160 bridges found to have 

the highest priority. No repairs have begun.

Dams.—Illinois follows U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

guidelines for design of new dams. The State also has 

inspected existing dams and requires correction of defects by 

their owners.

Non-Structural Hazards.—The Illinois Emergency 

Management Agency distributes to public schools an earthquake hazard survey, which is not only a guide to nonstructural hazards in schools, but also includes diagrams of 

low-cost solutions and a list of local sources of supplies. 

The agency also conducts a walk-through hazard survey of 

approximately 10 schools per year, attended by officials 

from neighboring schools. Illinois also provides grants to 

local organizations for hazard mitigation projects.

Professional Licensing.—Illinois has separate licensing 

for structural engineers as an engineering specialty. As of 

1991, the licensing exam includes a mandatory seismic question. The Structural Engineers Association of Illinois now 

includes material on seismic design in its annual examreview course.

Geologic Hazard Assessment.—The Illinois State 

Geological Survey, with USGS funding, has performed a 

seismic-induced landslide study along the Ohio River.

INDIANA

Building Code.—Indiana has had a State building code 

since 1923. Since 1946, the Indiana Building Code has 

generally followed the Uniform Building Code and therefore has included seismic requirements for many years. 

Plans for all buildings open to the public are reviewed by 

the State Department of Fire and Building Services. Local
SEISMIC HAZARD MITIGATION IN THE CENTRAL UNITED STATES: THE ROLE OF THE STATES G15

governments are supposed to issue the permits and perform 

inspections, although numerous small towns and rural 

counties still have not adopted the required ordinances.

Hazard Assessment.—CUSEC, with USGS funding, 

performed a rapid visual assessment pilot study in Evansville, partly because of Evansville's many past efforts at 

seismic hazard reduction.

Highway Bridges.—Indiana has followed seismicdesign criteria for new bridges since 1984.

Professional Training.—The Department of Fire and 

Building Services holds classes on the Uniform Building 

Code seismic requirements, which people from outside of 

Indiana have also attended.

Geologic Hazard Assessment.—The Indiana Geological Survey, with funding from Evansville and the Department of Fire and Building Services, conducted a 2-year study 

to assess seismic response of geologic materials in the southem part of the State. The Indiana Geological Survey also has 

cooperated with the USGS in research on liquefaction 

features in the Wabash Valley. Earthquake studies now represent approximately five percent of the State Geological 

Survey's annual budget.

Seismic Advisory Board.—Indiana has a 23-member 

Seismic Advisory Board, begun in about 1986. It meets periodically, and the members of its six committees maintain 

informal contact by telephone.

KENTUCKY

Building Code.—Kentucky has had a State building 

code since 1991, based on the BOCA Code. The code is 

updated every 3 years and therefore includes recent BOCA 

seismic standards. The State Department of Housing, Buildings, and Construction reviews plans, issues permits, and 

provides inspection for all major buildings. Six of the larger 

cities and counties administer the code themselves. Plans 

must be signed by a structural engineer.

Hazard Assessment.—The department of Disaster and 

Emergency Services and the University of Louisville, 

assisted by a FEMA grant, are systematically evaluating 

existing buildings in downtown Paducah. This project 

should be completed in 1992.

Highway Bridges.—Since the mid-1980's, new bridges 

must be built to AASHTO seismic standards. In 1990, the 

Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, 

completed a 4-year study of potential hazards along more 

than 1,000 miles of priority routes in western Kentucky. It 

identified 111 bridges in critical need of retrofitting. Eleven 

of them have been repaired at a cost of $237,000.

Dams.—All designs for dams rated as having high or 

moderate hazard must include seismic-stability analysis 

before receiving a permit.

Non-Structural Hazard Mitigation.—Kentucky has 

provided several grants to support local non-structural 

hazard mitigation projects, with a local cost match of 25 

percent. One county, for example, is using $5,000 for a 

demonstration project in a public school.

Professional Training.—The department of Disaster 

and Emergency Services has twice conducted a course in 

earthquake hazard mitigation for utility lifelines. In 1991, 

several agencies cosponsored a seismic-design workshop for 

structural engineers. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, 

in 1990, sponsored the Federal Highway Administration's 

short course on seismic design of highway bridges.

Geologic Hazard Assessment.—The University of 

Kentucky maintains a seismic network in the State. A doctoral student at the University of Kentucky completed a 

microzonation study of Paducah in 1992. Three zones of 

ground amplification were mapped.

Infrastructure.—The Center for Hazards Research and 

Policy Development at the University of Louisville has 

several projects related to risk management for utilities, 

with seismic risk as a significant component. One project is 

looking at risk management for water companies and 

includes an assessment of liquefaction potential in Louisville. The director of the center is the chair of the Governor's Earthquake Hazards and Safety Technical Advisory 

Panel's (GEHSTAP) mitigation committee.

Earthquake Hazards Advisory Panel.—Kentucky's 

Governor's Earthquake Hazards and Safety Technical 

Advisory Panel (GEHSTAP) has existed since 1983. It now 

has 23 members, four committees, and several subcommittees. It meets four times per year and has been actively 

involved in developing all of Kentucky's earthquake hazard 

programs.

MISSISSIPPI

Seismic Design of State-Owned Buildings.—Mississippi has no State-wide code requirement. The Department 

of Finance and Administration, General Services Division, 

Bureau of Building is responsible for monitoring contracts 

for new State buildings. The Bureau administratively 

requires compliance with the Standard Building Code and 

is now using the latest edition that includes seismic 

requirements.

Highway Bridges.—New bridges are designed according to the latest AASHTO standards. The State Highway 

Department hosted the Federal Highway Administration's 

earthquake-design workshop in 1991. The department has 

evaluated existing bridges in the highest risk portion of the 

State but has no plans for retrofitting.

Dams.—Since 1990, Mississippi has considered seismic factors before granting permits for designated highhazard dams.
G16 INVESTIGATIONS OF THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

MISSOURI

Seismic Building Codes.—Missouri has no State-wide 

building code requirement, although most larger communities do have building codes. Missouri's Geologic Hazard 

Preparedness Act, enacted in 1990, requires the 47 highest 

risk counties to adopt an ordinance, stating that all new 

buildings larger than 10,000 ft2, as well as all public and 

educational buildings, must comply with the seismic-design 

standards of either the Uniform Building Code or the 

BOCA Code. All jurisdictions have now adopted such an 

ordinance. The act does not address administration or 

enforcement.

Seismic Design of State-Owned Buildings.—As a result 

of the Geologic Hazard Preparedness Act, the State's Division of Design and Construction is now beginning to review 

all State-funded buildings for seismic design.

Renovation of Existing Buildings.—The Geologic 

Hazard Preparedness Act requires seismic design for major 

renovations of buildings, as defined by BOCA and UBC. 

The State delayed enforcement of this provision until late 

1991 because of a legislative attempt to delete it (the 

attempt failed).

Highway Bridges.—Since 1989, new bridges have been 

designed according to the latest AASHTO standards. The 

Highway and Transportation Department sponsored a 

National Highway Institute 4-day course on seismic design 

in early 1990. A task force, organized by the Highway and 

Transportation Department, has identified 630 critical 

bridges requiring retrofitting. Priorities for repair have not 

yet been established.

Dams.—The Missouri Dam and Reservoir Safety Act, 

enacted in 1979, regulates the construction and operation of 

all new non-Federal dams exceeding 35 ft in height. The 

Dam and Reservoir Safety Council enacted seismic regulations in 1985, and 21 new dams have been constructed to this 

standard.

Non-Structural Hazards.—The Geological Hazard 

Preparedness Act requires all schools to include "protective measures" as part of their earthquake preparedness 

planning. This may mean that more schools will be 

engaged in non-structural hazard reduction projects in the 

future. The Emergency Management Agency has taught 

some courses on non-structural hazard mitigation.

Geologic Hazard Assessment.—The Geologic Hazard 

Preparedness Act provides for geologic hazard assessments 

throughout the State, but these activities have not yet been 

funded. The Division of Geology and Land Survey has completed two pilot studies to identify potential inundation areas 

if dams were to fail in an earthquake. Saint Louis University 

maintains a regional seismic network.

TENNESSEE

Seismic Building Code.—Tennessee has had a mandatory State building code since 1982. The State administratively has chosen to adopt the Standard Building Code. The 

State, in 1990, adopted the 1988 SBC, the first one containing seismic requirements. Twenty-five local governments 

administer their own code, and the State Department of 

Commerce and Insurance, Division of Fire Prevention, provides plan-review and inspection services for the rest of the 

State. The Division of Fire Prevention maintains jurisdiction 

over all State-owned and educational buildings.

Highway Bridges.—All new bridges are designed 

according to the most recent AASHTO standards. Since 

1987, Tennessee has evaluated, ranked, and repaired existing bridges under the federal bridge inspection program. 

Approximately 60 bridges per year are repaired. Seismic 

risk is not a factor in determining repair priority, but when 

repair work is done, it is done according to current seismic 

standards.

Dams.—The Safe Dams Act of 1973 provides for permitting of new non-Federal dams and for periodic inspection 

of existing dams. The program has had seismic-design 

requirements since at least 1987.

Professional Training.—The Division of Fire Prevention has provided a course on seismic design.

Geologic Hazard Assessment.—The Center for Earthquake Research and Information, Memphis State University, maintains a regional seismic network. Researchers at 

CERI, in 1991, published a liquefaction potential map of 

the Memphis area.

Hazard Mitigation Council.—Tennessee does not have 

a seismic advisory council, but it does have an interagency 

Hazard Mitigation Council, with 14 members. This group 

completed a State hazard mitigation plan in 1991. One of its 

recommendations was to improve local enforcement of seismic codes.

Published in the Central Region, Denver, Colorado 

Manuscript approved for publication December 3,1993 

Edited by Richard W. Scott, Jr. 

Graphics prepared by Gayle Dumonceaux; use made of

author-drafted material 

Photocomposition by Marie Melone, Debra Sokol

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994-573-038/86043