**URBAN GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC HAZARDS**

**Five-Year Implementation, Fiscal Years 1997 to 2001**

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

The purpose of this initiative is to produce an assessment of geologic
and hydrologic hazards in a five county area (Snohomish, King, Pierce,
Thurston, and Kitsap) in the Puget Sound basin. This multiple hazard
assessment is envisioned as an important foundation to the National
Mitigation Strategy being developed by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). It is expected that the methods and conclusions developed
in the Puget Sound area can be applied to other urban areas. Project
scientists are working closely with officials from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, local governments, the State of Washington, and
representatives of the private sector to develop information relevant to
their disaster planning, mitigation, and response decisions.

A three-pronged approach is outlined in this implementation plan. First,
the USGS will integrate existing data and identify and aggressively fill
data and knowledge gaps. Examples of gaps include geologic mapping,
uncertainty in the eruption history of Mount Rainier, the hazards from
shallow earthquakes under the urban area, as well as flood frequencies
and inundation areas. Concurrent with filling these gaps, existing data
sets (some digital, some not) will be acquired and integrated into a
common digital spatial database, using defined standards and indices, to
facilitate analyses and data sharing. New techniques for displaying
individual and multiple hazards will be developed.

Second, hazard statements for individual hazards (floods, earthquakes,
landslides) will be developed for GIS. A variety of data sources from
USGS and regional agencies will be combined and integrated into a
multi-scale and multi-resolution database that will be GIS compatible.

Third, the Initiative will provide new earth-science information for use
in loss estimation studies.

This Initiative supports FEMA's project IMPACT in the city of Seattle.

**ISSUE STATEMENT**

Current hazards programs of the USGS focus on understanding and
monitoring the physical processes that result in geologic and hydrologic
hazards and on producing assessments of these hazards. In the Puget
Sound basin, hazards that are especially common and also have a high
propensity for damage include earthquakes, floods, and landslides. This
initiative will be concerned primarily with these hazards. Other less
frequently occurring hazards in the region that will be studied include
tsunamis and volcanic eruptions, including ashfall hazards.

Although substantial knowledge about these natural hazards now exists
and important monitoring systems are in place, implementation of
mitigation measures and preparedness actions that would reduce losses
have lagged. Typically, many private firms and government agencies have
more advanced response plans (what to do after disaster strikes) than
aggressive actions to lessen losses.

This Initiative hopes to facilitate the consideration and interaction of
many natural hazards in the region by allowing the selection and
treatment of the hazards through GIS. In many instances areas threatened
by natural hazards overlap geographically, such as liquefaction from
earthquakes and inundation from floods and tsunamis. Mitigation
decisions require a complete understanding of the location and processes
of all natural hazards that threaten a region in order to take a
comprehensive approach to loss reduction, land use and response
planning, and hazards warning.

**GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE INITIATIVE**

The overall goal of this effort is to improve the application of
earth-science research in disaster mitigation measures, disaster
response, and long-term urban planning in order to reduce human and
economic losses from natural hazards in the five-county area.

The objectives of the five-year Initiative are to:

1 Fill highest priority data and knowledge gaps that limit our
understanding of geologic and hydrologic hazards in the Seattle/Tacoma
area.

2 Involve Federal, State, local, and private stakeholders in designing,
producing, and applying useful multiple-hazard information, analyses,
and products.

3 Translate our understanding of geologic and hydrologic processes into
clear statements of hazards.

4 Explore the possibility of expressing the risk of each hazard on a
common basis and context both spatially and probabilistically.

5 Provide single-hazard assessments for selected hazards in some
urbanized portions of the study area.

6 Communicate information about natural hazards and risks to users and
collaborators in an effort to support public and private mitigation and
loss reduction efforts.

7 Combine a variety of data sources into an integrated multi-scale and
multi-resolution database that will be GIS-based.

**RATIONALE**

It has long been recognized that Federal leadership is needed to develop
a comprehensive, overarching strategy to reduce the Nation's losses from
catastrophic natural disasters. Many catastrophic disasters show no
regard for state or local boundaries, thus the Federal government has a
role in any event to coordinate and direct resources among affected
states. Also, a significant portion of the huge costs associated with
catastrophic disasters are underwritten by the Federal government
through such programs as the National Flood Insurance Program. As the
number of catastrophic disasters increased over the last 10 years, the
insurance industry has become increasingly concerned about its ability
to cover future insured losses. As a result of these concerns, the
Federal responsibility has been recognized by Congress and the private
sector. In addition, virtually all current discussions on establishing
Federal policy on natural disasters include exploring multiple-hazards
approaches.

As the national discussions go forward on establishing a National
Mitigation Strategy, and a comprehensive approach to insurance and
re-insurance for disasters, the need for a clear understanding of
multiple-hazards and associated risks will rapidly escalate. The USGS is
ideally positioned to provide strong leadership in developing hazard and
risk assessments because much of the basic data needed is already being
collected under our existing programs. In particular, the USGS is one of
the four primary Federal agencies in the National Earthquake Hazard
Reduction Program. Since the inception of this program, the USGS has
been viewed as the primary provider of the Nation's earthquake
information needs. Our Volcano Program is the only significant volcano
hazards effort in the entire country. In addition, the Water Resources
Program operates over 4,000 real-time stream-gaging stations that
support the flood watch and warning system of the National Weather
Service, as well as a host of other users of near-time streamflow data.
From just the viewpoint of these three programs, it is clear that the
USGS is already in an established leadership position in developing
hazards information.

We expect to use our experiences in the Puget Sound region as a model
for USGS involvement in the national discussions to lower future losses.
USGS expertise and abilities clearly can provide natural hazard
information that is needed for actions that will reduce such losses.
USGS is the primary source of hydrologic and geologic information that
must be melded into natural hazard assessments and usable, multi-hazard
GIS databases

**APPROACH**

This project will use a coordinated interdisciplinary approach that
builds on the established strengths of the participants and aggressively
fills data and knowledge gaps during the first three years. There are
three reasons for using this approach. First, most programs already have
a rich collection of collaborators, customers, and cooperators. Thus, we
will use the need to fill data gaps to build interest in
multiple-hazards approaches. Second, the hazards posed by shallow
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions of Mount Rainier require particular
attention. The most efficient path to increasing our understanding of
these hazards is through the existing programs. And third, pulling
together existing data sets from cooperators into a common digital
spatial database is consistent with the \"Framework\" data concept
advocated by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and minimizes
redundant efforts.

The GIS will make it possible to weave together the various hazards
facing the Puget Sound area. New earth-science information will be
provided for use in loss estimation methodologies such as the
FEMA-developed HAZUS program. Much of the early work will focus on
earthquakes, because this hazard has been incorporated into the initial
loss estimation methodology. To help the development of a flood module
for HAZUS, the USGS has named a person to provide additional technical
advice to FEMA. Currently, FEMA expects to incorporate flood loss
estimates into the methodology by 2000.

Under the Initiative the USGS will be able to focus on obtaining new
data and increasing our understanding of hazards, exploring specific
topics related to hazard and risk assessments, and communicating these
findings through outreach activities. In addition, the experience from
this Initiative positions the USGS with FEMA and other organizations as
the primary source of hazard information for loss estimates and other
hazard issues.

**INFORMATION AND OTHER PRODUCTS AND TIMELINESS**

From the outset, this Initiative will be strongly tied to potential
users. The Initiative will work with existing organizations and programs
such as FEMA's Project Impact, Cascadia Regional Earthquake Working
Group (CREW), the Puget Sound Regional Council, City of Seattle, and
numerous local governments to support their efforts to mitigate the
effects of natural hazards in the Puget Sound area.

Appendix A includes the Urban Geologic and Hydrologic Hazards Initiative
Time Lines and Products.

**DATA REQUIREMENTS AND DATA MANAGEMENT**

A variety of base cartographic data will be collected, including the
transportation network, hydrography, culture, digital elevation data,
and digital orthophoto quadrangles. Much of this data will be acquired
from cities, counties, State agencies such as the Washington Department
of Natural Resources, and Federal agencies such as FEMA and the Forest
Service. Other thematic data that will be acquired or derived consists
of surficial and structural geology, liquefaction potential, soils,
historic flood inundation and historical and contemporary land use and
land cover. Using these and other data, hybrid data sets will be created
to better characterize the natural environments in which the hazards
occur. Similarly, hybrid data sets will be created to depict certain
components of the cultural landscape such as infrastructure, population
density and distribution, emergency response facilities, toxic and
hazardous waste sites, and other socio/economic elements at risk from
natural hazards.

Database activities will initially focus on the establishment of
standards for use by project scientists. These will include the
establishment of such things as the horizontal and vertical datum,
geoid, format, transfer protocols, resolutions, accuracy, attribution,
file naming conventions, projection, and a consistent application of the
metadata standard. The actual database will reside on a number of
computer platforms in a distributed fashion, making the adherence to
agreed upon standards and practices all the more critical. Because of
the diverse nature of data sources expected in the digital spatial
database, data integration is expected to be require considerable effort
and time. This is one of the primary reasons that the time frame for the
project was extended from four to five years.

Data and information will be available over the Internet and by other
appropriate means of data transfer. The Initiative's Web Site will serve
as an interface to the project participants and as access by the public,
providing information, scientific results, and links to associated
hazard activities. The Web application is designed to be run using
commonly available browsers and will allow users to select, display, and
synthesize analysis and samples of ongoing research. Emerging internet
map delivery systems will be evaluated periodically to improve the
effectiveness and public understanding of products produced by the
Initiative The Web Site will also serve as a distribution mechanism for
spatial data, products and information, and analytical techniques and
algorithms.

**INITIATIVE MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION**

Within the USGS nearly all activities will be managed through our
existing program structures. As noted above, most programs already have
work underway in the Puget Sound basin, and in most cases new activities
under this Initiative will complement on-going program work. Project
chiefs will be responsible for providing progress reports and delivering
products on agreed schedules. Frequent meetings will be held to foster
inter-divisional cooperation.

A Steering Committee will be formed to ensure that activities under the
Initiative are consistent with USGS policies and are well coordinated.
This committee will include: John Filson, Geologic Division, Chair; John
Costa, Water Resources; John Findley, National Mapping; Tim Cohn,
Hazards Theme Coordinator, Director\'s Office; Craig Weaver and Ralph
Haugerud, Geologic, Seattle, Tom Zembrzuski and Joseph Jones, Water
Resources, Tacoma; David Catts, National Mapping, Denver, and Paula
Gori, Geologic Division, Reston. The Chair of this committee will name
additional members as needed for appropriate oversight as the work
progresses. This committee will meet twice annually to track progress
and review priorities for the next fiscal year. A subset of the Steering
Committee will constitute the Executive Committee. The Executive
Committee will be concerned with tracking overall coordination and
budget to ensure that the necessary tasks are being accomplished. The
Executive Committee will be responsible for forming necessary Working
Groups, This committee will be chaired by John Filson. The members of
the Executive Committee are: John Filson, John Costa, John Findley,
Paula Gori, and Tim Cohn.

Another committee will handle local responsibilities and is called the
Implementation Team. Members are: Craig Weaver, Chair, and Ralph
Haugerud, Geologic Division, Seattle, Tom Zembrzuski and Joseph Jones,
Water Resources, Tacoma; and David Catts, National Mapping, Denver. The
committee will meet at least quarterly and will be responsible for
preparing necessary budget documents and progress reporting.

The Chair of the Steering Committee or his designated assistant is
responsible for communications within the Urban Hazards Initiative, for
overseeing the preparation of necessary reports, and for scheduling
activities (meetings, press conferences, and the like) undertaken as
part of the effort.

There are two other very important functions. The first is outreach
coordination. Here our goal is to ensure that clear standards are
established for our non-technical products (posters, fact sheets, video
clips, etc.). A second goal is to ensure the widest possible
distribution of Initiative results to the general public. The Outreach
Committees will be designated to handle this function.

The second function is media relations. We expect that certain aspects
of this Initiative will have wide media interest. The Implementation
Team will oversee the development of appropriate press releases, press
packets, and press conferences to ensure that the widest possible
representation of Initiative goals is being communicated to the public
through the media. Initiative media issues must be carefully
distinguished from on-going hazards programs, particularly the
Earthquake and Volcano Programs, both of which have very high public
visibility.

Working Groups will be formed as needed. Working Groups include 1)
Comparable hazard probability statements Working Group (chaired by John
Costa, 2) Data management and information delivery systems Working Group
(chaired by David Catts), and 3) Outreach Working Group (chaired by
Carolyn Driedger). The working group chairs will be responsible for
providing summaries of their committees activities to the Steering
Committee.

**PERFORMANCE MEASURES**

The Steering committee will provide annual reviews of the progress of
the Initiative which will include summaries of the accomplishments of
projects supported by the Initiative. Every effort will be made to
evaluate the usefulness of the research, research products, and methods
of disseminating information for other public officials and the private
sector in the Puget Sound area. The Initiative's 5-year effort to
increase the understanding of the many geologic and hydrologic hazards
and to encourage mitigation measures to reduce the effects of natural
hazards will be the foci of the evaluation. The Initiative will also
undertake an evaluation of the effectiveness of addressing multiple
hazards in concert as opposed to a single hazard in an urban area.
Finally the Initiative will provide recommendations for future
multihazard research projects so that decisions to support similar
efforts can be based on experiences from the effort in the Puget Sound
area.

**RESOURCES**

The current plan for the Urban Hazards Initiative is a derivative of a
concept document used for planning purposes by the Policy Council during
the summer of 1995. In that document, this Initiative was envisioned as
a four year effort. However, as the writing team convened meetings, held
discussions in the region, and began framing work necessary to produce a
useful product, it became clear that a fifth year was needed. There are
three reasons for this additional year. First, data gaps are larger than
anticipated. An example is the lack of geologic mapping in the Tacoma
area Second, understanding of several hazards, particularly the volcanic
eruption history of Mount Rainier and the hazard from a major crustal
earthquake, is particularly lacking. And third, the Initiative needs to
deliver map products and other products via the Web which may require
additional time for the development or application of new technology.
Under the original four year schedule, this would leave only 12 months
to complete the multi-hazard loss estimation portion of the project.
That short amount of time is unrealistic considering the complex issues
being examined.

During the first year, the funding will be divided 50% to Geologic
Division, 30% to Water, and 20% to National Mapping. Second year funding
switches the proportions to Water and National Mapping; this change
reflects the additional resources needed to complete the database
integration. During the final three years the allocation in funding will
be as in the first year (50% GD, 30% Water, 20% NMD). The budget
reflects the current fiscal realities facing the USGS and shows level
funding for four years. However, the Steering Committee recognizes that
increased funding is needed in years two and three in order to fully
conduct essential field data-collection programs, ensure the success of
the spatial data-coordination activities, and initiate stakeholder and
education activities. As noted above, another year of funding is needed
during mid-initiative to complete filling of data gaps, analyze new and
existing data for presentation of hazard information, develop an
adequate risk analysis, interact with stakeholders and incorporate their
ideas into products and plans for presentation of results, and continue
outreach and education work. A reduced yet substantial funding level
during the last year of the initiative is needed to assure completion of
products.

**Proposed Funding for Urban Geologic and Hydrologic Hazards
Initiative**

+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|              | FY       | FY       | FY       | FY       | FY       |
|              |          |          |          |          |          |
|              | 1997     | 1998     | 1999     | 2000     | 2001     |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Base         | \$1.0M   | \$1.0M   | \$1.0M   | \$1.0M   | \$0.75M  |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| New Funding  | \$1.0M   | \$1.0M   | \$1.0M   | \$1.0M   | \$0.75M  |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Total        | \$2.0M   | \$2.0M   | \$2.0M   | \$2.0M   | \$1.50M  |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+