National Tsunami Research Plan: 

Report of a Workshop Sponsored by NSF/NOAA
Frontispiece: Tsunami damage at Crescent City, California, 30 March 1964.
UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Carlos M. Gutierrez

Secretary

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

VADM Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.

Under Secretary for Oceans

and Atmosphere/Administrator

Office of Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Research

Richard W. Spinrad

Assistant Administrator

NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR PMEL-133

NATIONAL TSUNAMI RESEARCH PLAN:

Report of a Workshop Sponsored by NSF/NOAA

Eddie N. Bernard1

Lori A. Dengler2

Solomon C. Yim3

1Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

Seattle, WA

Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

Seattle, WA

March 2007

3

2Humboldt State University

Arcata, CA
NOTICE

Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an endorsement by

NOAA/OAR. Use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products

or the tests of such products for publicity or advertising purposes is not authorized.

Contribution No. 3043 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

Also available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

(http://www.ntis.gov)

iv
Contents v

Contents

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

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Organizing Committee (OC) and Workshop (February

2006) ................................. 3

3. Pre-Workshop Preparation (March–July 2006) ....... 4

4. Federal Agency Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

5. Workshop Process (25–26 July 2006) ............. 5

6. Post Workshop Synthesis (4–5 October 2006) ........ 7

7. Fifteen Workshop Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

8. Final Stages of Plan Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

9. Strategic Tsunami Research Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

9.1 Recommendation 1: Enhance and sustain tsunami education 9

9.2 Recommendation 2: Improve tsunami warnings . . . . . . . . 10

9.3 Recommendation 3: Understand the impacts of tsunamis at

the coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

9.4 Recommendation 4: Develop effective mitigation and recovery tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

9.5 Recommendation 5: Improve characterization of tsunami

sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

9.6 Recommendation 6: Develop a tsunami data acquisition,

archival, and retrieval system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Appendices 13

Appendix A: Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States:

A Framework for Action 15

Appendix B: Final Tsunami Workshop Participants 45

Appendix C: State of the Science Reports 47

C1. Hazard Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

C1.1 Introduction—Nathan Wood, USGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

C1.2 Tsunami hazard assessment; global historical tsunami and

paleotsunami data—Paula Dunbar, NOAA/NGDC . . . . . . 51

C1.2.1 Major references used to compile the NGDC tsunami

database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

C1.3 Geologic records of tsunamis and of their recurrence—Brian

Atwater, USGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

C1.3.1 Selected references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

C1.4 Strategic plan for tsunami research in the United States:

Priorities for tsunami hazard assessment—George Priest,

DOGAMI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

C1.4.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

C1.5 Earthquake recurrence and tsunami hazard assessment—

Bruce Jaffe and Stuart Nishenko, Geosciences Department,

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA . . . . 62

C1.5.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

C1.6 Status of current tsunami research—Coastal impacts; description of the state of the science research activity—Patrick

Lynette, TAMU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
vi Contents

C1.6.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

C1.7 Hazard assessment: Inundation mapping—Kwok Fai Cheung,

University of Hawaii at Manoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

C1.8 An assessment of structural design for tsunamis—H. Ronald

Riggs, University of Hawaii at Manoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

C1.8.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

C1.8.2 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

C1.8.3 Current status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

C1.8.4 Suggested research and development . . . . . . . . . 72

C1.8.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

C2. Warning Guidance Research and Recommendations . . . . 73

C2.1 Real-time data acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

C2.1.1 Sea level/tsunami observations . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

C2.1.2 Seismic observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

C2.1.3 Remote sensing in tsunami risk reduction—

John LaBreque, NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

C2.2 Analysis of seismic observational data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

C2.3 Tsunami forecasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

C2.3.1 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

C2.3.2 Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

C2.3.3 Data assimilation and inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

C2.4 Forecast information dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

C2.5 Research recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

C2.5.1 Real-time data acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

C2.5.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

C2.5.3 Tsunami forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

C2.5.4 Forecast information dissemination . . . . . . . . . . 84

C2.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

C3. Preparedness, Response, and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . 86

C3.1 Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

C3.1.1 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

C3.1.2 Outreach and communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

C3.1.3 Public response to warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

C3.1.4 International perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

C3.1.5 TsunamiReady Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

C3.2 Response and recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

C3.2.1 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

C3.2.2 Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

C3.3 Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

C3.3.1 Coastal structures and ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

C3.3.2 Land use planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

C3.3.3 Vulnerability and risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . 93

C3.3.4 Social science and tsunamis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

C3.4 Research needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

C3.4.1 Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

C3.4.2 Response and recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

C3.4.3 Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

C3.4.4 Social science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

C3.5 Tsunami research priorities—International Tsunami Information Centre (ITIC/IOC/UNESCO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

C3.5.1 Preparedness and response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Contents vii

Appendix D: Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 99

D1. National Science Foundation (NSF) .............. 100

D1.1 NSF activities on tsunamis, FY 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

D1.1.1 Future research needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

D2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 101

D2.1 NOAA’s Tsunami Program—A matrix program in NOAA’s

Weather and Water goal team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

D2.2 NOAA’s research supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

D2.3 Program capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

D2.3.1 Hazard assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

D2.3.2 Warning and forecast guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

D2.3.3 Preparedness and mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

D2.4 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

D2.5 External agency/organization partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . 106

D2.6 Program outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

D3. United States Geological Survey (USGS) . . . . . . . . . . 107

D3.1 Summary of U.S. Geological Survey tsunami activities in FY

2005 and future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

D3.2 President’s tsunami warning initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

D3.3 Response activities in the Indian Ocean region . . . . . . . . 108

D3.4 Ongoing tsunami hazard assessment research activities . . . . 109

D3.5 Tsunami outreach and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

D3.6 Future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

D4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . . . . . 111

D4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

D4.2 FEMA and State mitigation activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

D4.3 Specific FEMA-funded State tsunami projects . . . . . . . . . 114

D4.4 FEMA tsunami projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

D4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

D4.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

D4.6.1 Other resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

D5. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) . . . . 118

D5.1 Projection of future Federal agency tsunami activities . . . . 119

D6. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) . . . . . . . . . . . 120

D7. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 121

D7.1 Lead, Earth Surface and Interior focus area . . . . . . . . . . 121

Appendix E: Tsunami Warning and Education Act, Public Law

109–424—Dec. 20, 2006 125

Appendix F: Glossary of Acronyms 133

National Tsunami Research Plan:

Report of a Workshop Sponsored by NSF/NOAA

E.N. Bernard1, L.A. Dengler2, and S.C. Yim3

Executive Summary

The Office of Science and Technology released a report in 2005 that called for

a review of tsunami research needed to reduce tsunami vulnerability in the

United States. An Organizing Committee was appointed by the Chair of the

U.S. National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP) to develop a

Strategic Plan for tsunami research. The Committee assembled a group of

tsunami experts to review the current state of knowledge in areas essential to

tsunami risk reduction and a workshop was held 25–26 July 2006 to develop

a consensus on priority research needs. The focus of the effort was to define

the basic research in areas of technology, geosciences, oceanography, engineering, and social sciences needed to develop, promote, and institutionalize

tsunami-resilient communities in the United States. The group agreed to fifteen recommendations in tsunami hazard assessment, tsunami warnings, and

tsunami preparedness and education. The Organizing Committee combined

these recommendations into six synthesized high-priority areas for tsunami

research. The synthesized plan was approved by the NTHMP Steering Committee on 1 November 2006. This final report reflects the comments for the

NTHMP Steering Committee and workshop participants. Serendipitously,

the U.S. Congress passed the Tsunami Warning and Education Act which

President Bush signed into law on 20 December 2006. This Research Plan

is consistent with the Tsunami Act and provides a roadmap for successful

implementation of a multi-agency research effort.

1: Enhance and sustain tsunami education

Research needs: understand how individuals process and respond to natural

and official tsunami warnings, and how people behave and communicate

when warned to evacuate. Assess the effectiveness of outreach programs and

products.

2: Improve tsunami warnings

Research needs: assess and improve tsunami warning products, include projected water levels and duration at specific coastal locations. Design scalable,

sustainable multi-purpose observational networks for both local and distant

tsunami sources and tsunami dynamics, including existing and non-seismic

networks.

1NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle,

WA 98115-6349 2Department of Geology, Humboldt State University, #1 Harpst St., Arcata, CA 95521

3Oregon State University, 220 Owen Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-3212
2 Bernard, Dengler, and Yim

3: Understand the impacts of tsunamis at the coast

Research needs: implement a methodology for measuring the tsunami current regime in harbors and at the coast, improve hydrodynamic modeling,

develop credible fragility models of the interaction of tsunamis with the

built and natural environment, and validate models through benchmarking

against modern events, tsunami deposits, and other paleoindicators of past

tsunami events.

4: Develop effective mitigation and recovery tools

Research needs: understand the interaction of structures and the surrounding environment with high velocity, debris-strewn water, determine response

of buildings and structures to extreme waves, develop a framework for preevent mitigation techniques and post-event tsunami response, recovery, and

reconstruction that incorporates both sustainability and reducing vulnerability from future tsunami events.

5: Improve characterization of tsunami sources

Research needs: identify tsunami sources including earthquakes, subaerial

and submarine landslides, volcanic eruptions, and impacts, develop a probabilistic framework for characterization of tsunami sources that includes thousands of years of recurrence.

6: Develop a tsunami data acquisition, archival, and retrieval

system

Research needs: develop a web-based archival system for field and laboratory

observations, scenarios, remote sensing, topographic and bathymetric data,

numerical models, and mitigation products and projects.

Strategic Research Plan Formulation

1. Introduction

Tsunamis have been recognized as a significant hazard in the United States

since the mid-twentieth century when major tsunamis caused significant

damage in Hawaii, Alaska, and the West Coast of the United States. The

2004 Indonesian earthquake and tsunami has led to increased concern about

tsunami hazards in the United States and a reassessment of risk and mitigation programs. As part of this assessment effort, the December 2005 release

of the Office of Science and Technology Policy report “Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States: A Framework for Action” called for scientists to

perform a “review of tsunami research and develop a strategic plan for tsunami research in the United States” (Appendix A). An Organizing Committee was appointed by the Chair of the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation

Program (NTHMP), Dr. John Jones of NOAA, to develop a Strategic Plan

for Tsunami Research and write an initial draft Plan by 1 November 2006.
National Tsunami Research Plan 3

The focus of the effort was to define the basic research in areas of technology, geosciences, oceanography, engineering, and social sciences needed to

develop, promote, and institutionalize tsunami-resilient communities in the

United States.

2. Organizing Committee (OC) and Workshop

(February 2006)

An Organizing Committee (OC) was formed consisting of Dr. Eddie Bernard,

Director of the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL),

Professor Lori Dengler, Humboldt State University, and Professor Solomon

Yim, Oregon State University. A framework was developed to include all

areas of tsunami risk assessment and mitigation that are essential to creating

tsunami-resilient communities:

• Hazard Assessment: characterization of local and distant sources, determination of tsunami recurrence, estimation of tsunami impact using

field, laboratory, and model data, and evaluation of the threat to lives,

community infrastructure, and the natural environment.

• Warning Guidance: development, installation, and maintenance of

monitoring systems to detect and forecast tsunamis in real time, timely

dissemination of these warnings to save lives, and improving products

received by the end users of warning information.

• Preparedness and Response: developing, implementing, assessing, and

institutionalizing programs to reduce the long-term risk to human life

and property based on hazard assessment, and preparing threatened

communities through education, land use management, and other legislative and incentive policies.

Each OC member was responsible for one area of the framework, with

Bernard on Warning Guidance, Dengler on Preparedness and Response, and

Yim on Hazard Assessment. Dr. Bernard is the Director of NOAA/PMEL,

former Director of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, and the founding

Chairman of the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. Dr. Dengler is Professor and Chair of the Geology Department at Humboldt State

University. She developed the Strategic Implementation Plan for tsunami

mitigation projects in the NTHMP, and has been involved with tsunami

community mitigation, education, and outreach activities. Dr. Yim has

been conducting numerical and experimental research on tsunami effects on

coastal infrastructure. He is the Principal Investigator (PI) of the National

Science Foundation (NSF) Tsunami Wave Basin Construction Project and

the PI of the NSF Site Operation and Management Project at Oregon State

University.

Professor Yim wrote a proposal to NSF and Dr. Bernard provided matching NOAA funds to jointly sponsor the NSF/NOAA workshop, which had

three objectives:
4 Bernard, Dengler, and Yim

1. To review: (a) past tsunami research plans, (b) current tsunami research, (c) Federal agency plans for future tsunami research, (d) research needs resulting from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and (e)

experimental research capabilities in the U.S.

2. To develop a Strategic Research Framework for the development of

tsunami-resilient communities based on the reviews above and input

from all participants, including Federal and State agencies, academic

researchers, and private sector practitioners.

3. To document and disseminate the resulting review and strategic research framework to the tsunami research community.

The OC assembled a group of tsunami experts to review and report on

the current state of knowledge in areas essential to tsunami risk reduction,

and chose the workshop format to develop recommendations. After the

workshop, the OC met to synthesize the reports and recommendations to

constitute the Plan.

3. Pre-Workshop Preparation (March–July 2006)

Experts from academic institutions, governmental agencies, and the private

sector were selected based on balancing scientific discipline, ethnic, gender, research experience, and geographical diversity. Approximately half of

the participants were from Federal and State agencies with responsibilities

for research planning, funding, and implementation (NSF, NOAA, Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and United States

Geological Survey (USGS)). The other half were academic faculty and private sector representatives involved with research in a number of areas, including wave propagation, inundation, coastal structures, experiments, numerical modeling, instrumentation and sensor technology, education and outreach, social psychology, social and natural sciences, and oceanography. A

balance of junior- and senior-level researchers was maintained by having similar numbers of junior (assistant—5 and associate—2 professors) and senior

(full professors—9) faculty from the academics. The participants were geographically diverse and included the east coast (Pennsylvania, Florida, D.C.,

New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Maryland), south (Georgia, Mississippi,

Texas) mid-west (Illinois), central (Colorado), and west coast (California,

Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii).

Every participant was assigned a “state of the science” topic and asked to

write a report for a particular sub-element of the three framework categories,

Hazard Assessment, Warning Guidance, and Preparedness and Response.

They were also asked to vet their summary with colleagues in their field

and identify areas of needed research (see Appendix C for assignment letter,

submitted reports, and recommendations). Federal Agency representatives

were asked to provide a summary of tsunami activity and expenditures for

FY 2005. A description of agency activity and funding for tsunami activities for FY 2005 was provided by the NSF, NOAA, National Aeronautics
National Tsunami Research Plan 5

Table 1: FY 2005 Federal agency expenditures ($M) for tsunami risk reduction.

Agency Research Assessment Warnings Preparedness Totals % of Totals

NSF 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 12

NOAA 0.8 1.4 20.3 3.5 26.0 48

USGS 3.0 2.0 12.0 0.0 17.0 31

USACE 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 8

FEMA 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.7 1

Totals 10.1 8.4 32.3 3.7 54.5

% of Totals 19 15 59 7 100

and Space Administration (NASA), USGS, FEMA, and USACE (Appendix

D) and Federal agency expenditures on tsunami research is summarized in

Section 4 below.

Once the participants had agreed to participate and provide advanced

written material, the OC created an agenda with invited and Federal agency

presenters. The OC used the “state of the science” reports to compile a

preliminary draft research plan that contained 65 research recommendations

and was available to workshop participants.

A workshop to develop consensus for tsunami research strategic planning

was held 25–26 July 2006, in Corvallis, Oregon. Appendix B has a complete

list of the 48 participants.

4. Federal Agency Summary

Table 1 provides a Federal agency funding profile for the U.S. tsunami risk

reduction effort (extracted from Appendix D). Five agencies spent $54.4M in

FY 2005 to reduce the impact of tsunamis to U.S. coastlines. NOAA and the

USGS contributed about 80% of the effort, while NSF contributed 12%. The

agencies reported their expenditures in four categories: Research, Hazard

Assessment, Warnings, and Preparedness. About 60% of the effort went

into warnings, while Research represented a respectable 20% of the total.

Tsunami assessment was the third largest category, while Preparedness was

the smallest category at 7%. Preparedness efforts funded at the State or

local level are not included in this report. It is, therefore, incorrect to infer

that Preparedness is the lowest priority in the total Federal effort.

5. Workshop Process (25–26 July 2006)

Presenters gave overviews of the “state of the science” and agency activities

to plenary sessions of all the workshop participants. Following each presentation, discussions were held to elaborate on and clarify the issues. On the

second day of the meeting, participants were divided into three focus groups

based on the framework areas: hazard assessment, warning guidance, and

preparedness and response. Each focus group was asked to formulate five

recommendations in their respective areas. A plenary discussion of all the
6 Bernard, Dengler, and Yim

participants was held to combine and refine the focus groups’ recommendations. After extensive discussion and debate, workshop participants agreed

to recommendations listed in the section Fifteen Workshop Recommendations.

A major concern that emerged from the discussion was how will this

Plan offer an opportunity to actually conduct tsunami research? The group

wanted to have a tsunami research program established that would receive

proposals and provide a fair review process. Serendipitously, the Tsunami

Warning and Education Act (see Appendix E) was passed by Congress and

signed by the President on 20 December 2006. Section 6 of the law states

“The [NOAA] Administrator shall, in consultation with other

agencies and academic institutions, and with the coordinating

committee established under section 5(b), establish or maintain

a tsunami research program to develop detection, forecast, communication and mitigation science and technology, including advanced sensing techniques, information and communication technology, data collection, analysis, and assessment for tsunami

tracking and numerical forecast modeling. Such research program shall—

(1) consider other appropriate research to mitigate the impact

of tsunami;

(2) coordinate with the National Weather Service on technology

to be transferred to operations;

(3) include social science research to develop and assess community warning, education, and evacuation materials; and

(4) ensure that research and findings are available to the scientific community.”

A limitation of this authorization act is that the research program described in the law is about $2M/year for FY 2008–2012. Examining Table 1 reveals that in FY 2005, total Federal research expenditures exceeded

$10M. The Tsunami Act research program would represent about 20% of

the national tsunami research effort and may be the basis for a multi-agency

research program that includes NSF, NOAA, FEMA, and USGS. This National Tsunami Research Plan could serve as the starting point to establish

an interagency research program that could be supported by several agencies. One option would be for NSF to serve as lead agency with other

agencies providing annual contributions to support basic tsunami research

as suggested by the National Tsunami Research Plan.

Participants were allowed to study the 15 recommendations and provide

comments to the OC until 15 September 2006.

6. Post Workshop Synthesis (4–5 October 2006)

On 4 and 5 October 2006 the OC met to synthesize the preliminary report

and workshop recommendations. It was a concern of the OC and many
National Tsunami Research Plan 7

workshop participants that, while dividing the framework into the areas of

hazard assessment, warning guidance, and preparedness/response simplified

organization, it did not recognize the inherent overlaps in the three areas.

To develop a more integrated approach, the OC chose to organize the recommendations from the perspective of “a person on the beach,” and define

the essential needs to reduce the risks to this individual and his/her community. The 15 recommendations were distilled into 6 recommendations that

are presented in the Strategic Tsunami Research Plan section.

7. Fifteen Workshop Recommendations

1. Improve identification and understanding of tsunami sources

(earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes, asteroids, others (explosion))—Source

physics, geophysics, and geology. Includes paleotsunami studies to identify

and define sources and their recurrence (needed for prioritizing by coast and

State), and to test source models for consistency with coseismic land-level

change and geodetic observations.

2. Quantitative analysis of shore impacts—Improvements in hydrodynamic modeling of propagation and inundation, structural response, vulnerability (population, infrastructure in harm’s way). Methods of using tsunami

deposits to validate inundation models. Bathymetric focusing and defocusing, including problems with modeling for fringing reefs. Flow in built

environments. Social science. Regional damage and loss assessment methods (Hazards U.S. (HAZUS) analog). Modeling standards and benchmarks.

(HAZUS-MH, or Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard, is FEMA’s Geographic Information System- (GIS-)based multi-hazard loss estimation software program.

It currently covers earthquake, hurricane winds, and flood inundation.)

3. Develop probabilistic methods—subsumes deterministic and parametric studies; inundation maps, impact forces, national and communityspecific tsunami hazard maps (to be consistent with earthquake maps, FEMA

FIRM (flood insurance rate maps)).

4. Improve data acquisition, archiving, and retrieval—field observations and instruments; experiments; numerical computations, including

tsunami simulation results (inputs and outputs); remote sensing. Topography and bathymetry—submarine landslides identified this way; also basic to

identifying recently active faults.

5. Improve tsunami warning products, including forecasts of tsunami arrival times, amplitudes, period, duration, and “all clear” advisories

through tsunami imaging.

• Requires new tsunami monitoring methodology, including rapid earthquake magnitude estimation, spaceborne and oceanic tsunami imaging,

and new instruments for measuring the tsunami flow regime flooding.
8 Bernard, Dengler, and Yim

6. Design scalable multi-purpose observational networks for timeliness, accuracy, precision, and sustainability for both local and distant tsunami sources and tsunami dynamics.

a. Explore use and accessibility of existing observational networks such

as real-time Global Positioning System (GPS) networks, or enhanced

GPS remote sensing technologies for atmospheric, ionospheric, and

ocean surface disturbance mapping;

b. Evaluate non-seismic source networks.

7. Develop tsunami forecasting models and data assimilation and

analysis techniques.

a. Requires operational standards and calibration,

b. Requires improvements in rapid seismic and other tsunamigenic source

characterization,

c. Requires high-resolution global bathymetry and topography,

d. Requires continued bench-mark simulations based on laboratory and

tsunami field observations.

8. Develop interoperable communications protocols

a. To better exploit data, and

b. To disseminate information using standardized text and visual products that requires social and behavioral science research.

9. Quantify the impact and interaction of tsunamis on structures

and the built environment and develop design guidelines (include demonstration projects and possible tsunami-resistant building code criteria).

10. Describe the effects of tsunamis on the natural environment

(sediment transport, liquefaction, debris, etc.).

11. Develop risk quantification measures, including economic loss

analysis—such as an enhanced HAZUS module that includes ecosystem economic losses/value.

12. Assess how different population segments respond to official

and natural warnings, evacuation behavior—and how we promote appropriate behavior (including framework for local officials to assess alternative

warning and evacuation mechanisms).

13. Develop scenario-based guidelines for the response (evacuation),

recovery, and mitigation planning processes (exercises).
National Tsunami Research Plan 9

14. Address how building codes and land-use planning can be

incorporated into design and construction practices for a tsunamiresilient community.

15. Establish standards for tsunami education based on evaluation

and assessment to define best practices with regards to signage, curriculum,

door-to-door campaigns, print and video products, drills, and other outreach

programs.

8. Final Stages of Plan Development

The OC presented the October 2006 draft version of the Plan during the

annual meeting of the NTHMP in Washington, D.C. on 1 November 2006.

Based on the feedback from the NTHMP, the revised Plan was disseminated

to all participants for final review by 31 December 2006. Following a 2-week

vetting process, the final plan was published.

9. Strategic Tsunami Research Plan

9.1 Recommendation 1: Enhance and sustain tsunami education

Societal Need

Education is the core of any effective tsunami mitigation effort. The vulnerable individual on the beach must recognize both natural and official

warnings and respond quickly and appropriately, often with little official

guidance. Education is identified by the Strategic Implementation Plan for

Mitigation Activities in the U.S. Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program as the

first of five planning elements. The first recommendation of the California

Seismic Safety Commission report on California’s tsunami risk (2005) was to

“Improve education about tsunami issues in the State,” but even with the

heightened concern about tsunamis produced by the December 2004 Indian

Ocean tsunami, tsunami education and outreach programs have not seen an

increase in support commensurate with the scientific and engineering aspects

of warning systems.

Research Need

Research is needed to understand how individuals process warning information, whether it is an official warning issued by the warning centers or

natural indicators such as ground shaking or drawdown. There has been little analysis of what constitutes effective tsunami educational materials and

little coordination among States to define messages in terms of different user

groups and desired outcomes. Few studies have examined how individuals

identify what they consider a credible source of tsunami information and

what prompts them to evacuate.
10 Bernard, Dengler, and Yim

9.2 Recommendation 2: Improve tsunami warnings

Societal Need

As the populations of the U.S. continue to migrate to coastal areas, the need

for timely, accurate, and effective tsunami warnings is essential for coastal

populations to function efficiently. Failure to warn effectively as in the case

of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami can lead to catastrophic loss and public

outcry. Over warning diminishes confidence in the system, and involves

economic costs. For example, the economic losses of evacuation for a nondestructive tsunami can be as high as $70M for a city like Honolulu, Hawaii.

At the other extreme, the economic impact of closing the port of Los Angeles

for 6 months due to a destructive tsunami could be in the billions of dollars.

Hence, the need for accurate tsunami information to the right person at the

right time is vital to our coasts’ physical and economic survival.

Research Need

Research is needed to improve tsunami warning products and effectiveness,

including forecasts of tsunami arrival times, amplitudes, period, duration,

and “all clear” advisories for specific coastal locations. It is also essential to assess how people respond to natural and official tsunami warnings.

Such research will require new instrumentation, evacuation behavior studies,

and standard communication protocols to ensure compatibility with various

State and Federal dissemination systems. Research is also needed to design scalable, multi-purpose observational networks for timeliness, accuracy,

precision, and sustainability for both local and distant tsunami sources and

tsunami dynamics, including existing and non-seismic networks.

9.3 Recommendation 3: Understand the impacts of tsunamis

at the coast

Societal Need

No effective tsunami mitigation program can be undertaken without an understanding of the coastal impacts of tsunamis. In order to establish evacuation zones and routes, design for tsunami-resistant construction, estimate

likely losses, and develop education programs, coastal communities must understand what areas are at risk, the likely water heights and flow velocities,

and how tsunamis interact with the built and natural environment.

Research Need

Research is needed to improve hydrodynamic modeling of propagation and

inundation that includes not only expected water heights but also characterizes the distribution of flow velocities and duration of the tsunami event.

Instrumentation needs to be developed and deployed to measure tsunami

currents at the coast and in harbors to validate modeling results. Credible

fragility models and laboratory data are needed to understand the interaction of tsunamis with the built and natural environment. Methodology
National Tsunami Research Plan 11

for using tsunami deposits and other paleoindicators of past tsunami events

should be expanded to validate inundation models. Modeling standards and

benchmarks must be established to provide credibility to numerical modeling

results.

9.4 Recommendation 4: Develop effective mitigation and recovery tools

Societal Need

Mitigation taken in the broadest context includes all activities taken before

an event to reduce vulnerability, such as tsunami-resistant design and construction, land-use planning, response and recovery planning, and benefitcost analyses of potential impacts and mitigation activities. The construction, design, and layout of buildings and other infrastructure will affect damage, evacuation, and recovery. In the United States, regulations comparable

to those of other hazards such as earthquake ground shaking or hurricane

hazards have not been incorporated into building codes or land use zoning

decisions.

While many State and community recovery plans are multi-hazard in

nature, many of these plans do not specifically address the tsunami hazard

in sufficient detail. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that the United States

faces significant problems in both response and recovery for catastrophic disasters. While major tsunami events have been included in FEMA planning

exercises, there has been little research specific to tsunamis, or efforts that

incorporate the lessons from Katrina into tsunami response and recovery

plans.

Longer-term tsunami recovery plans are non-existent. Analyses of the

potential costs and benefits of mitigation measures can stimulate both government and the private sector to take action to reduce vulnerability.

Research Need

Research is needed to develop design and construction practices and guidelines for land use planning decisions, designation of vertical evacuation shelters, and realistic loss estimates. Research must be conducted to identify

both the unique issues involved with tsunami events and those in common

with other disasters. Research is needed to develop a framework for the

tsunami recovery and reconstruction process that incorporates both sustainability and reducing vulnerability from future tsunami events.

9.5 Recommendation 5: Improve characterization of tsunami

sources

Societal Need

Tsunami hazard mapping and coastal impacts depend upon an accurate

analysis of potential tsunami sources and their recurrence. Zoning that addresses hazards such as the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)

require a definition of 100-year and 500-year hazard zones. An accepted
12 Bernard, Dengler, and Yim

methodology for probabilistic tsunami hazard mapping has not been developed for the United States. Tsunamis cannot be addressed in a manner

comparable to other natural hazards until this methodology is developed.

Research Need

Research is needed to better identify and understand tsunami sources, including earthquakes, subaerial and submarine landslides, volcanic eruptions,

and impacts. It is necessary to develop a probabilistic framework for characterization of tsunami sources that includes recurrence so that tsunami

hazards can be incorporated into planning efforts in a manner comparable

to other hazards such as earthquakes and flooding.

9.6 Recommendation 6: Develop a tsunami data acquisition,

archival, and retrieval system

Societal Need

All recommendations listed above require basic data infrastructure to conduct tsunami research efficiently and with consistency. The 2004 Indian

Ocean tsunami exposed many shortcomings in our past practice of “ad hoc”

approach to tsunami data collection and archiving. While the world was

clamoring for accurate data on past tsunamis to evaluate potential threats

to coastal communities, many errors and inconsistencies were discovered in

the existing tsunami databases due to inadequate past investments. Without

accurate, assessable databases the tsunami research will be stymied.

Research Need

A research data acquisition system is needed—including field observations,

experiments, experimental scenarios, remotely sensed data, topography, high

resolution bathymetry—that is easily accessible through a web-based archival

system. The system should also include a searchable bibliography to ensure

publications are easily available.
APPENDICES

A: Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States: A Framework for Action

B: Workshop Participants

C: State of the Science Reports

D: Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs

E: Tsunami Warning and Education Act, Public Law 109–424—Dec. 20, 2006

F: Glossary of Acronyms

Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 15

Appendix A: Tsunami Risk Reduction for the

United States: A Framework for Action. National

Science and Technology Council, A Joint Report

of the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction and

the United States Group on Earth Observations,

December 2005
16 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 17
18 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 19
20 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 21
22 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 23
24 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 25
26 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 27
28 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 29
30 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 31
32 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 33
34 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 35
36 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 37
38 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 39
40 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 41
42 National Tsunami Research Plan
Appendix A—Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States 43

Appendix B—Final Tsunami Workshop Participants 45

Appendix B: Final Tsunami Workshop

Participants

Name Affiliation Specialty Email Address

Brian Atwater USGS HA atwater@usgs.gov

Goutam Bagchi US NRC HA gxb1@nrc.gov

Eddie Bernard NOAA/PMEL WG eddie.n.bernard@noaa.gov

Tom Birkland NSF PR tbirlan@nsf.gov

Michael Briggs US Army Corps of Engineers HA michael.j.briggs@erdc.usace.army.mil

Kwok Fai Cheung University of Hawaii HA cheung@hawaii.edu

Daniel Cox Oregon State University HA dtc@engr.orst.edu

George Crawford WA Emergency Management Div. PR g.crawford@emd.wa.gov

Melba Crawford Purdue University WG mcrawford@purdue.edu

Lori Dengler Humboldt State University PR lad1@humboldt.edu

Dale Dominey-Howes Macquarie University PR ddominey@els.mq.edu.au

Paula Dunbar NOAA/NGDC HA paula.dunbar@noaa.gov

Hermann Fritz Georgia Tech. HA fritz@gatech.edu

Chris Goldfinger Oregon State University HA gold@oce.orst.edu

Frank Gonz ́alez NOAA/PMEL HA frank.i.gonzalez@noaa.gov

David Green NOAA WG david.green@noaa.gov

Michael Hornick FEMA RIX PR michael.hornich@fema.gov

Benjamin Horton University of Pennsylvania HA bphorton@sas.upenn.edu

Li-San Hwang Tetra Tech HA lisanhwang@yahoo.com

Russell Jackson NOAA Pacific Services Center PR russell.jackson@noaa.gov

Bruce Jaffe USGS HA bjaffe@usgs.gov

Utku Kanoglu Middle East Technical University WG kanoglu@metu.edu.tr

Andrew Kennedy Univ. of Florida HA kennedy@coastal.ufl.edu

William Knight NOAA/WCATWC WG william.knight@noaa.gov

Laura Kong UNESCO IOC ITIC WG laura.kong@noaa.gov

John LaBrecque NASA HQ WG john.labrecque@nasa.gov

Yong Li US NRC HA yxli@nrc.gov

Michael Lindell Texas A&M University PR mlindell@tamu.edu

Philip Liu Cornell University WG pll3@cornell.edu

Patrick Lynette Texas A&M HA plynett@tamu.edu

Charles McCreery NOAA/PTWC WG charles.mccreery@noaa.gov

Harold Mofjeld NOAA/PMEL WG harold.mofjeld@noaa.gov

Andy Moore Kent State University HA amoore5@kent.edu

Andrew Murphy US NRC HA agm1@nrc.gov

Stuart Nishenko Pacific Gas & Electric HA spn3@pge.com

Emile Okal Northwestern University HA emile@earth.northwestern.edu

Cherri Pancake Oregon State University PR pancake@nacse.org

George Priest DOGAMI HA george.priest@dogami.state.or.us

Jane Preuss Planwest Partners PR jane.preuss@gmail.com

Ronald Riggs University of Hawaii HA riggs@hawaii.edu

Noel Raufaste NIST PR noel.raufaste@nist.gov

Michelle Teng University of Hawaii PR teng@eng.hawaii.edu

Vasily Titov NOAA/PMEL WG vasily.titov@noaa.gov

Burak Uslu University of Southern California HA uslu@usc.edu

Craig Weaver USGS WG craig@ess.washington.edu

Harry Yeh Oregon State University PR harry@engr.orst.edu

Solomon Yim Oregon State University HA solomon.yim@oregonstate.edu

Julie Young Princeton University PR yyoung@princeton.edu

HA—Hazard Assessment, WG—Warning Guidance, PR—Preparedness and Response

Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 47

Appendix C: State of the Science Reports

Dear Tsunami Scientist,

We are pleased to invite you to participate in a workshop to review tsunami research and formulate a strategic plan for future research in the United

States.

The December 2005 release of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

report “Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States: A Framework for

Action,” which is organizationally coordinated through the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP), calls for a “review of tsunami

research and develop a strategic plan for tsunami research in the United

States.” John Jones, NOAA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator for the National Weather Service and recently appointed as Chair of the NTHMP,

has requested completing the tsunami research review and strategic plan by

November 2006.

Building on previous efforts, the workshop will provide an opportunity

for U.S. tsunami scientists to update past planning. For example, in May

1979, NSF sponsored a workshop of 70 scientists to assess the state of tsunami research in the U.S. The proceeding was published by Li-San Hwang

and Y.K. Lee. A small ad-hoc advisory committee was elected from this

group to formulate a strategic plan. This group met in Hawaii in October

1979 and recommended that an assessment and planning guide be developed

with the assistance of agencies supporting tsunami research. In August 1980

NOAA and NSF convened a 3-day workshop of 20 experts from Federal agencies (NSF, NOAA, USGS, FEMA, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the

Army Corps of Engineers) and academia, with the resulting NSF/NOAA

publication “Tsunami Research Opportunities, An Assessment and Comprehensive Guide,” edited by Richard Goulet (NSF Engineering Directorate)

and E.N. Bernard (NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory). To

our knowledge, this 1981 report is the closest document we have to a U.S.

tsunami research strategic plan.

More recently, the National Research Council’s Network for Earthquake

Engineering Simulation (NEES) research agenda publication “Preventing

Earthquake Disasters, The Grand Challenge in Earthquake Engineering”

(2003) offers some short-, medium-, and long-term goals for tsunami research, including the grand challenge, stated on page 108, of “A complete

simulation of tsunami generation, propagation, and coastal effects should be

developed to provide a real-time description of tsunamis at the coastline for

use with warning, evacuation, engineering, and mitigation strategies.” One

of the short-term goals is “Work with the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program ........to define research needs...” Since NOAA is the agency

responsible for tsunami warnings and NSF is responsible for research in our

nation, NOAA and NSF should lead the effort.
48 National Tsunami Research Plan

Workshop Structure

Day 1—Review

A review of past tsunami research plans (1981 and 2003)—Hwang/Bernard

A review of current tsunami research—Liu/Okal

A review of Federal agency plans for future tsunami research—NSF, NOAA,

USGS, FEMA, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NASA, Army Corps of

Engineers representatives

A review of research needs resulting from the 2004 Asian tsunami—Synolakis/

Yeh

A review of the experimental capabilities at the NSF NEES Tsunami Wave

Basin Facility—Cox/Yim

Day 2—Assimilating Review Information into a Strategic Research Framework

We would structure the discussion along the lines of developing tsunamiresilient communities requiring contributions from Hazard Assessment, Warning Guidance, and Preparedness and Response (see Fig. C1). In the morning, we would divide into three facilitated discussion groups to formulate

recommendations. In the afternoon, we would listen to group reports and

formulate a list of recommendations.

We have an aggressive schedule to complete the strategic plan by November 2006, including:

1. Now–July 7, 2006: Participants develop input as provided in attached

guidance documents for Federal agencies and workshop participants

2. July 7–July 17: Bernard, Dengler, and Yim compile input and distribute to participants

3. July 17–July 24: Participants read initial plan and formulate responses

4. July 25–26: Workshop participants develop recommendations as second version of the strategic plan

5. July 26–August 18: Bernard, Dengler, and Yim polish second version

and distribute to participants

6. August 18–August 31: Participants provide comments and third version is distributed to participants and agencies

7. September 1–29: Agency comments on third version are provided to

Bernard, Dengler, and Yim

8. October 2–6: Final version of plan is distributed to participants for

final comments

9. October 15–31: Strategic Plan is published and distributed to NTHMP

and participants
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 49

Figure C1: Concept for developing Tsunami Resilient Communities.

With your cooperation, we can meet this schedule and provide our nation

with a roadmap for future tsunami research.

Thanks in advance for your service,

Eddie Bernard, Lori Dengler, and Solomon Yim

List of Assignments

1. Tom Berkland (NSF representative)—NSF activities document and

presentation

2. David Oppenheimer (USGS representative)—USGS activities document and presentation, research overview (WG)

3. Brian Atwater (USGS Seattle)—research overview (HA)

4. Eddie Bernard (NOAA/PMEL)—presentation

5. Michael Mahoney (DHS/FEMA)—FEMA activities document and presentation, research overview (PR)

6. Michael Briggs (USACE representative)—USACE activities document

and presentation

7. Kwok Fai Cheung (U. Hawaii)—research overview (HA)

8. Daniel Cox (OSU)—presentation
50 National Tsunami Research Plan

9. George Crawford (Washington State Emergency Agency Seattle)—

research overview (PR)

10. Melba Crawford (Purdue University)—research overview (WG)

11. Rob Combellick (Alaska Division of Geology)—(HA)

12. Lori Dengler (CSU Humboldt)—research overview (PR)

13. Paula Dunbar (NOAA/National Geophysical Data Center Colorado)—

research overview (HA)

14. Hermann Fritz (Georgia Tech)—research overview (WG)

15. Bruce Jaffe (USGS Menlo Park)—research overview (HA)

16. Frank Gonz ́ales (NOAA/PMEL)—research overview (HA)

17. David Green (NOAA representative HQ DC)—NOAA activities document and presentation, research overview (PR)

18. Benjamin Horton (U. of Pennsylvania)—research overview (PR)

19. Harold Mofjeld (NOAA/PMEL)—research overview (WG)

20. Eugene Imbro (NRC representative)—NRC activities document and

presentation

21. Russell Jackson (NOAA Hawaii)—research overview (PR)

22. Andrew Kennedy (U. of Florida)—research overview (WG)

23. Laura Kong (ITIC/IOC Hawaii)—research overview (PR), presentation

24. John LaBrecque (NASA representative)—NASA activities document

and presentation, research overview (WG)

25. Michael Lindell (Texas A&M)—research overview (PR)

26. Philip Liu (Cornell)—presentation

27. Patrick Lynette (TAMU)—research overview (HA)

28. Emile Okal (Northwestern)—presentation, research overview (WG)

29. George Priest (DOGAMI)—research overview (HA)

30. Costas Synolakis (USC)—presentation

31. Michelle Teng (U. of Hawaii)—research overview (HA)

32. Vasily Titov (NOAA/PMEL)—research overview (WG)

33. Paul Whitmore (West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center)—

research overview (WG)

34. Harry Yeh (OSU)—research overview (PR)

35. Yin Lu (Julie) Young (Princeton)—research overview (PR)

36. Solomon Yim (OSU)—presentation

37. Homa Lee (USGS)—research overview (HA)

38. Chris Goldfinger (OSU)—research overview (WG)

39. Murat Saatcioghu (U. of Ottawa)—research overview (HA)

40. Cherri Pancake (OSU)—research overview (PR)

41. Stu Nashinko (PG&E)—research overview (HA)

42. Chip McCreery (NOAA)—research overview (WG)

Legend: HA—Hazard Assessment, WG—Warning Guidance, PR—Preparedness and Response
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 51

C1. Hazard Assessment

C1.1 Introduction—Nathan Wood, USGS

Tsunami risk in U.S. coastal communities is a function of the extent of

tsunami hazards and the land use, population, and economic patterns in

threatened areas. To improve our nation’s ability to understand and manage

risks associated with tsunamis, we must augment the traditional NTHMP

research focus on hazard assessments with research dedicated to understanding societal vulnerability and resilience to these threats. Research is needed

that integrates tsunami hazard information with land cover, land use, population, and economic patterns to identify at-risk communities, regions, and

trade corridors. Risk of future tsunami disasters should be assessed based

on projected local and regional changes in land use and population patterns.

To better understand community resilience to tsunami hazards, we should

determine how threatened cities vary in the type and extent of mitigation,

preparedness, response, and recovery planning efforts, as well as variations

in risk perception and tolerance.

Faced with limited planning resources, local and State public officials

need vulnerability and resilience information to develop realistic and effective risk-reduction plans. This information will help practitioners to develop

targeted educational materials and awareness programs that highlight tsunami hazards and how communities and regions are specifically vulnerable to

these threats. Accessible geodatabases with relevant hazard and vulnerability information would support immediate response and recovery operations

if a tsunami were to occur. Science and technology that integrates our understanding of tsunami hazards and community vulnerability will further

our nation’s ability to assess the potential risks posed by tsunamis, to mitigate potential impacts in cost-effective and efficient ways, and to respond

and recover quickly when extreme natural events occur.

C1.2 Tsunami hazard assessment; global historical tsunami

and paleotsunami data—Paula Dunbar, NOAA/NGDC

Historic tsunami and paleotsunami data are important for assessing the tsunami hazard of a region. The past record provides clues to what might

happen in the future, such as frequency of occurrence and maximum wave

heights. The data can also be used to validate and calibrate tsunami inundation and propagation models and provide guidance for tsunami warning

centers.

Tsunamis have been reported since ancient times. The first historically

recorded tsunami occurred off the coast of Syria in 2000 B.C. and caused

many casualties and destruction. The completeness of the data for a particular region depends on population and settlement patterns and the length

of the written record for that area. Paleotsunami data are compiled from

geologic evidence found in sediment data. These data can extend the record

back several hundred years. This is particularly important for regions where

the recurrence intervals of tsunamigenic earthquake sources are longer than

the historic record. The Cascadia Subduction Zone off the coast of the U.S.
52 National Tsunami Research Plan

Pacific Northwest is an example of this type of situation. Evidence for the

last large earthquake that generated a major tsunami on this fault zone was

in 1700, prior to the written record for that region.

NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) archives historic

tsunami and paleotsunami (in progress) data for the world. The historic

tsunami database contains information on tsunami sources, such as source

location, date, time, maximum water heights, deaths, injuries, and damage. The database also contains information on locations (runups) where

tsunami effects occurred. The source event table contains information on

the generating event (e.g., earthquake, volcano, and landslide). If the event

was generated by an earthquake or volcanic eruption, the event is linked

to a table that contains more information on the earthquake (e.g., earthquake magnitudes—Mw, Ms, mb, Ml, Mfa, focal depth, Modified Mercalli

Intensity, deaths, injuries, and damage due to the earthquake) or the volcanic eruption (Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI), morphology, deaths, and

damage due to the eruption). A validity is assigned to each source event

ranging from 0 for erroneous entries to 4 for definite tsunamis. The validities are determined from the number of reports, reliability of the source, and

instrumental recordings vs. eyewitness accounts.

The information in the runup table includes arrival date and time, travel

time, maximum water heights, period of the wave, horizontal inundation

distance, deaths, injuries, and damage for the specific location. The water

height is the maximum height of the water observed above a given reference

level, such as the height of the tide at the time of the tsunami, or mean lower

low water, or sea level if the tide level at the time of the maximum wave was

not observed. If the water height was determined from a tide gage, it is the

amplitude or half the range.

The events in the database were gathered from scientific and scholarly

sources, regional and worldwide catalogs, tide gage reports, individual event

reports, diaries, ship’s logs, published works, and oral histories (reference

list attached). The source material(s) used to compile information on the

source event and runups are also provided for each entry source event and

runup (in progress).

The database contains over 1,500 valid tsunami source events and over

8,400 associated runups from 2000 B.C. to the present. There are 19 tsunami

events listed before 1 A.D., but only two of these entries are considered definite (validity 4): a tsunami generated by the 1380 B.C. eruption of Santorini

and a tsunami generated by an earthquake in 426 B.C. in Euboea, Greece.

From 1 A.D. to 1800 there are 575 events, 196 with validity 3 or 4; from

1800 to 1900 there are 682 events, 247 with validity 3 or 4; from 1900 until

the present, there are 1081 events, 639 with validity 3 or 4. The runups in

the database range from barely perceptible recordings on coastal sea level

gauges to descriptions of powerful tsunami waves that caused massive death

and destruction.

The global distribution of the tsunami events is 76% Pacific Ocean, 8%

Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, 4% Indian Ocean (including Malaysia

and part of Indonesia), 5% Mediterranean Sea, and 3% Black Sea. The global

distribution of runups is 86% Pacific Ocean, 7% Indian Ocean (including
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 53

Malaysia and part of Indonesia), 5% Atlantic Ocean, 2% Mediterranean

Sea, <1% Red Sea and Black Sea. The distribution of generating causes is

86% Earthquakes, 5% Volcanoes, 3% Landslides, 5% combination, and <1%

unknown. In addition, 227 of the 1,500 source events generated tsunami

waves that were observed at least 1,000 km from the source. Ninety percent

of these teletsunamis were generated by earthquakes in the Pacific Basin.

Although the historic and paleo records of tsunamis are extremely valuable for hazard assessment, erroneous conclusions can be drawn from the frequency and recurrence intervals of tsunamis taken from the database. Before

the invention of the modern seismograph in 1880, tsunamigenic earthquake

locations and magnitudes were determined from descriptions of earthquake

damage and tsunami effects. If there were no people in an area to observe

the phenomenon, it would not have been recorded. In addition, the historic

record is dependent on a society having written records which were preserved.

The amount of documentation for different time periods can be affected by

political instability and natural disasters such as fires or floods that destroy

archival documents. Until the invention of tide gages in 1832, even if an

area was populated and the people had a written language, only significant

tsunami events would have been observed. The first instrumental record of

a confirmed tsunami occurred on 23 December 1854, when an earthquake

off the coast of Japan generated tsunami waves that were registered on tide

gages in California and Oregon. In summary, to assess the tsunami history

in a region it is important to know the region’s history of written language,

political stability, and seismograph and tide gage instrumentation.

The discussion below provides an example of how the database can be

used for assessing the tsunami hazard for the United States.

The earliest description of a tsunami in the U.S. States or Territories was

a Hawaiian chant composed in the 16th century that described a huge wave

that came on the west coast of Molokai and killed the inhabitants. The next

listing of a U.S. tsunami begins after the migration of the Puritans to New

England. Since that time, there have been almost 300 tsunami events that

have caused more than 3000 recordings or descriptions (runups) of tsunami

effects in the coastal States and Territories of the U.S. The majority of these

runups were observed in Hawaii (54%), California (17%), and Alaska (14%).

Most of the tsunamis affecting the U.S. were generated by earthquakes

(73%) or earthquakes that caused landslides (11%). The remaining events

were caused by landslides (11%) and volcanic eruptions (5%). The distribution of sources affecting the U.S. is 56% distant (>1000 km), 19% regional

(200–1000 km), and 33% local (<200 km). Most of the distant sources were

from large earthquakes in the Pacific Basin including Kamchatka and Kuril

Is. (16%), South Pacific (16%), west coast of South America (15%), west

coast of North and Central America (15%), Alaska (11%), and Japan (10%).

These distant tsunami sources caused the majority (80%) of the runups in the

U.S. States. This percentage is dominated by the large number of recordings

in Hawaii (>1500) due to its location in the middle of the Pacific Basin and

extensive fieldwork that was done in Hawaii after several major tsunamis.

Since 1837, tsunamis have caused over 700 deaths and over $200M damage in the U.S. States and Territories. Of these 700 deaths, 328 occurred
54 National Tsunami Research Plan

in Hawaii from eight events (1837–1975). In Puerto Rico, a magnitude 7.3

earthquake in 1918 generated a tsunami that killed more than 116 people

and caused $4M in damage. The most significant economic loss due to a

tsunami in the U.S. resulted from the 28 March 1964, magnitude 9.2 Mw

Alaskan earthquake and ensuing tsunami, which caused a total of 136 deaths

and $540M in property loss in the U.S. ($94M and 106 deaths in Alaska).

The 1964 tsunami caused damage and fatalities on the west coast of the

U.S., including 10 fatalities in Crescent City, California.

Although local tsunami events are usually the most devastating, it is

interesting to note that local tsunamis in the U.S. resulted in 356 deaths,

regional tsunamis caused 36 deaths, and distant tsunamis caused 365 deaths.

A comparison of damage produces similar results; local tsunamis caused

$66.4M damage, regional tsunamis $31.5M damage, and distant tsunamis

$96.5M damage.

In conclusion, historic tsunami and paleotsunami data are valuable for

assessing tsunami hazard, but it is important to understand the quality and

limitations of the data.

C1.2.1 Major references used to compile the NGDC tsunami

database

Ambraseys, N.N. (1960) The seismic sea wave of July 9, 1956, in the Greek Archipelago. J. Geophys. Res., 65(4), 1257–1265.

Ambraseys, N.N. (1962) Data for the investigation of the seismic sea-waves in the

eastern Mediterranean. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 52(4), 895–913.

Antonopoulos, J. (1979) Catalogue of tsunamis in the eastern Mediterranean from

antiquity to present times. Annali di Geofisica, 32, 113–130.

Antonopoulos, J. (1980) Data from investigation on seismic sea-waves events in the

eastern Mediterranean from the birth of Christ to 500 A.D. Annali di Geofisica,

33, 141–161.

Antonopoulos, J. (1980) Data from investigation on seismic sea waves events in the

eastern Mediterranean from 500 to 1000 A.D. Annali di Geofisica, 33, 163–178.

Antonopoulos, J. (1980) Data from investigation on seismic sea waves events in

the eastern Mediterranean from 1000 to 1500 A.D. Annali di Geofisica, 33,

179–198.

Antonopoulos, J. (1980) Data from investigation on seismic sea waves events in

the eastern Mediterranean from 1500 to 1800 A.D. Annali di Geofisica, 33,

199–214.

Antonopoulos, J. (1980) Data from investigation on seismic sea waves events in

the eastern Mediterranean from 1800 to 1900 A.D. Annali di Geofisica, 33,

215–230.

Antonopoulos, J. (1980) Data from investigation on seismic sea waves events in

the eastern Mediterranean from 1900 to 1980 A.D. Annali di Geofisica, 33,

231–248.

Berninghausen, W.H. (1964) Tsunamis and seismic seiches reported from the eastern Atlantic south of the Bay of Biscay. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 54(1),

439–442.

Berninghausen, W.H. (1966) Tsunamis and seismic seiches reported from regions

adjacent to the Indian Ocean. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 56(1), 69–74.

Berninghausen, W.H. (1962) Tsunamis reported from the west coast of South America, 1562–1960. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 52(4), 915–921.
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 55

Berninghausen, W.H. (1968) Tsunamis and seismic seiches reported from the western north and south Atlantic and the coastal waters of northwestern Europe.

Informal Report No. 68-85, U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, Washington,

D.C., USA, 45 pp.

Berninghausen, W.H. (1969) Tsunamis and seismic seiches of Southeast Asia. Bull.

Seismol. Soc. Am., 59, 289–297.

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and the U.S. Office

of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) (2001) EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED

International Disaster Database, Universit ́e Catholique de Louvain, Brussels,

Belgium, retrieved, May 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web (http://www.

cred.be/emdat).

Iida, K. (1984) Catalog of tsunamis in Japan and its neighboring countries. Aichi

Institute of Technology, Yachigusa, Yakusa-cho, Toyota-shi, 470-03, Japan, 52

pp.

Iida, K., D.C. Cox, and G. Pararas-Carayannis (1967) Preliminary Catalog of Tsunamis Occurring in the Pacific Ocean. HIG-67-10, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, 275 pp. Bibliography to the

Preliminary Catalog of Tsunamis Occurring in the Pacific Ocean, 27 pp.

Lander, J.F., L.S. Whiteside, and P.A. Lockridge (2003) Two decades of global tsunamis, 1982–2002. Science of Tsunami Hazards, Int. J. Tsunami Soc., 21(1),

3–82.

Lander, J.F. (1996) Tsunamis Affecting Alaska 1737–1996. KGRD No. 31, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center,

Boulder, Colorado, USA, 155 pp.

Lander, J.F., L.W. Whiteside, and P.A. Lockridge (2002) A brief history of tsunamis

in the Caribbean Sea, Science of Tsunami Hazards, Int. J. Tsunami Soc.,

20(2), 57–94.

Lander, J.F., P.A. Lockridge, and M.J. Kozuch (1993) Tsunamis affecting the West

Coast of the United States, 1806–1992. KGRD No. 29, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 242 pp.

Lander, J.F., and P.A. Lockridge (1989) United States Tsunamis (Including United

States Possessions) 1690–1988. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, Colorado, USA, Publication

41-2, 265 pp.

Lockridge, P.A., L.S. Whiteside, and J.F. Lander (2002) Tsunamis and tsunamilike waves of the eastern United States. Science of Tsunami Hazards, Int. J.

Tsunami Soc., 20(3), 120–144.

Lockridge, P.A. (1985) Tsunamis in Peru-Chile. Report SE-39, World Data Center A for Solid Earth Geophysics, NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center,

Boulder, CO, USA, 97 pp.

O’Loughlin, K.F., and J.F. Lander (2003) Caribbean Tsunamis: A 500-Year History

from 1498–1998. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands,

in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

(CIRES, University of Colorado), 280 pp.

Sanchez Devora, A.J., and S.F. Farreras Sanz (1993) Catalog of tsunamis on the

western coast of Mexico. Report SE-50, World Data Center A for Solid Earth

Geophysics, NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, Colorado,

USA, 79 pp.

Soloviev, S.L., Ch.N. Go, and Kh.S. Kim (1986) Catalog of tsunamis in the Pacific,

1969–1982. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow, 208 pp. Translated

from Russian by Amerind Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India, 1988

[Originally published in Russian in 1986].
56 National Tsunami Research Plan

Soloviev, S.L. (1990) Tsunamigenic zones in the Mediterranean Sea. Nat. Hazards,

3, 183–202.

Soloviev, S.L., and Ch.N. Go (1984) A catalogue of tsunamis on the western shore of

the Pacific Ocean. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Nauka Publishing House,

Moscow, 310 pp. [Canadian translation of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No.

5077, 1984, translation available from Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information, National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A

OS2, 447 pp.]

Soloviev, S.L., and Ch.N. Go (1984) A catalogue of tsunamis on the eastern shore of

the Pacific Ocean. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Nauka Publishing House,

Moscow, 204 pp. [Canadian translation of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No.

5078, 1984, translation available from Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information, National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A

OS2, 293 pp.]

Soloviev, S.L., and M.D. Ferchev (1961) Summary of Data on Tsunamis in the

USSR. Bulletin of the Council for Seismology, Academy of Sciences of the

USSR [Byulleten Soveta po Seismologii Akademiya Nauk, SSSR], No. 9, 23–55,

Moscow, USSR, 37 pp.

Soloviev, S.L., O.N. Solovieva, Ch.N. Go, Kh.S. Kim, and N.A. Shchetnikov (2000)

Tsunamis in the Mediterranean Sea 2000 B.C.–2000 A.D., Advances in Natural

and Technological Hazards Research, Volume 13, Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Dordrecht, Netherlands, 237 pp.

Stover, C.W., and J.L. Coffman (1993) Seismicity of the United States, 1568–1989

(revised). U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 418 pp.

Tinti, S., A. Marmai, and L. Graziani (2004) The New Catalogue of Italian Tsunamis. Nat. Hazards, 33, 439–465.

Whiteside, L.S., J.F. Lander, and P. Hattori (2002) The tsunami history of Guam;

1849–1993, Science of Tsunami Hazards, Int. J. Tsunami Soc., 20(3), 158–174.

C1.3 Geologic records of tsunamis and of their recurrence—

Brian Atwater, USGS

The Indian Ocean tsunami of 26 December 2004 provided a horrific reminder

of a practical problem: Written and instrumental records rarely span enough

time to warn of the full range of a region’s tsunami hazards. In the past

two decades, geologists have started addressing this problem by extending

tsunami history thousands of years into the past. Documented examples

include tsunami deposits from Cascadia, Chile, Japan, Kamchatka, and the

North Sea.

Modern analogs provide geologic criteria for identifying ancient tsunamis. The analog studies began with surveys of the 1946 Aleutian tsunami

in Hawaii and the 1960 Chile tsunami in Japan. Reported examples now

encompass a broad range of stratigraphic and geomorphic evidence and includes several published comparisons between tsunami and storm deposits.

Although no one criterion suffices as geologic proof of a tsunami, several criteria together, in the right setting, can leave little room for doubt.

For example, the 1700 Cascadia tsunami can be identified with confidence

from a sheet of sand that tapers landward, contains marine fossils, extends

kilometers inland from the limit of sand deposition by storm surges, and
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 57

coincides stratigraphically with evidence for abrupt tectonic subsidence and

seismic shaking.

Identifying an ancient tsunami from its geologic traces can be difficult,

however, where tsunamis and storms have similar geologic effects. Such

ambiguity may prove common on the Atlantic Coast of North America.

Ultimate goals of tsunami sedimentology include quantifying the hydrodynamic differences between tsunamis and storm surges, and linking them to

the physics of sediment erosion, transport, and deposition.

The unambiguous presence of tsunami deposits provides a simple form of

ground truth for numerical simulations on which tsunami evacuation maps

are based. The next step is to interpret the deposits in terms of flow depth

and velocity, parameters of interest in the engineering design of tsunamiresistant buildings. This frontier of tsunami research requires collaboration

with wave-tank experimentalists and hydrodynamic modelers.

Stratigraphic records of many successive tsunamis have afforded estimates of recurrence intervals for tsunamis and earthquakes. Examples of

such records have been reported from Cascadia, Chile, Japan, and Kamchatka. The inferred tsunami history is commonly incomplete, however,

because of thresholds for creating a tsunami deposit and destruction of deposits by erosion or biological activity.

Tsunami deposits aid in tsunami education by providing tangible evidence of a community’s tsunami risk. Though best appreciated in the field,

the deposits can be made portable by means of peels.

In addition to such applications to public safety, tsunami geology has

provided fundamental insights into Earth science. These include asteroid

impact at the end of the Cretaceous, variation in rupture mode of subduction

zones in Japan and Chile, and the breadth of active plate boundaries in

northeastern Russia.

C1.3.1 Selected references

Atwater, B.F., S. Musumi-Rokkaku, K. Satake, Y. Tsuji, K. Ueda, and D.K.

Yamaguchi (2005) The orphan tsunami of 1700—Japanese clues to a parent

earthquake in North America. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 1707, 133 pp.,

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1707/.

Bondevik, S., J. Mangerud, S. Dawson, A. Dawson, and Ø. Lohne (2005) Evidence

for three North Sea tsunamis at the Shetland Islands between 8000 and 1500

years ago. Quat. Sci. Rev., 24(14–15), 1757–1775.

Bourgeois, J., T.A. Hansen, P.L. Wiberg, and E.G. Kauffman (1988) A tsunami

deposit at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in Texas. Science, 241, 567–570.

Cisternas, M., B.F. Atwater, F. Torrej ́on, Y. Sawai, G. Machuca, M. Lagos, A.

Eipert, C. Youlton, I. Salgado, T. Kamataki, M. Shishikura, C.P. Rajendran,

J.K. Malik, Y. Rizal, and M. Husni (2005) Predecessors to the giant 1960 Chile

earthquake. Nature, 437, 404–407, doi:10.1038/nature03943.

Jaffe, B.E., and G. Gelfenbaum (2006) A simple model for calculating tsunami flow

speed from tsunami deposits. Sedimentary Geology, in press.

Kelsey, H.M., A.R. Nelson, E. Hemphill-Haley, and R.C. Witter (2005) Tsunami

history of an Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600 yr record of great earthquakes

on the Cascadia subduction zone. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 114, 298–314.
58 National Tsunami Research Plan

Nanayama, F., K. Satake, R. Furukawa, K. Shimokawa, B.F. Atwater, K. Shigeno,

and S. Yamaki (2003) Unusually large earthquakes inferred from tsunami deposits along the Kuril Trench. Nature, 424, 660–663.

Pinegina, T., J. Bourgeois, L.I. Bazanova, I.V. Melekestsev, and O.A. Braitseva

(2003) A millennial-scale record of Holocene tsunamis on the Kronotskiy Bay

coast, Kamchatka, Russia. Quat. Res., 59, 36–47.

Priest, G.R., M. Qi, A.M. Baptista, C.D. Peterson, and M.E. Darienzo (1995)

Tsunami hazard map of the Siletz Bay area, Lincoln County, Oregon. Oregon

Dept. Geol. Mineral Indust. Geol. Map Series GMS-99.

Scheffers, A., and D. Kelletat (2002) Sedimentologic and geomorphologic tsunami

imprints worldwide—a review. Earth Sci. Rev., 63, 83–92, doi: 10.1016/S0012-

8252(03)00018-7.

Tuttle, M.P., A. Ruffman, T. Anderson, and H. Jeter (2004) Distinguishing tsunami

from storm deposits in eastern North America: the 1929 Grand Banks tsunami

versus the 1991 Halloween storm. Seis. Res. Lett., 75, 117–131.

C1.4 Strategic plan for tsunami research in the United

States: Priorities for tsunami hazard assessment—George

Priest, DOGAMI

National priorities for tsunami assessment research should focus on

reducing uncertainties and errors in estimates of tsunami hazard

to achieve a reduction in losses to the most at-risk U.S. communities. Reducing the impact of tsunamis on the U.S. coast requires a national

consensus on which tsunami sources pose the greatest threat, which coastal

areas are most at risk to these sources, and how best to specify the seasurface deformation imposed by these sources. Assessment proceeds by (1)

defining tsunami sources such as volcanic collapse, landslides, meteorites, or

undersea earthquakes; (2) estimating the probability and past severity of

tsunamis from each source through study of historic records and prehistoric

data from geologic and paleoseismologic investigations; and (3) simulating

propagation, inundation, and impact of tsunamis using computer models of

the tsunami and the source deformation processes. Each step has uncertainty and error that can be reduced by focused research. The following

observations should guide research priorities.

The most at-risk U.S. communities border the Pacific. About

900,000 people would be at risk from a 15 m tsunami striking the U.S.

Pacific Coast1. Steinbrugge (1982) estimated that ∼80% of the tsunami activity occurs in the Pacific Ocean and ∼10% occurs in the Atlantic Ocean.

He also noted that Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, as well as the West

Indies, have significant hazard from locally generated tsunamis, as well as

great tsunamis originating off Portugal and Morocco. While citing examples

of Atlantic tsunamis, he concluded that the eastern U.S. has no apparent

significant tsunami hazard. This conclusion seems counter to widely advertised threat to the east coast of large tsunamis from landslides in the Canary Islands, but Wynne and Masson (2003) show compelling evidence that

this source probably does not generate tsunamis large enough to threaten

1Source: Designing for Tsunamis, http://www.oes.ca.gov/Operational/OESHome.nsf/

PDF/Tsunamis, Designing for $file/DesignForTsunamis.pdf
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 59

the east coast. Steinbrugge (1982) did not know about the severe threat

posed by tsunamis from Mw 9+ earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction

Zone on the Pacific Northwest Coast, arguably the largest tsunami threat

to the U.S. Clearly, assessing and reducing the potential impact of tsunamis

from subduction zones of Alaska and Cascadia, with frequent magnitude 9+

earthquakes, should be a high research priority.

Locally generated tsunamis will cause far more loss of life than

distant tsunamis. Tsunamis generated from local sources are generally

larger and arrive much sooner after the causative source event than tsunamis

from distant sources. Indonesia sustained 72 to 80 percent of the ∼200,000

lost to the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami2 because the Mw 9.3

subduction zone earthquake source was on the continental shelf of Sumatra.

Loss of life from distant tsunamis in the Pacific has been reduced since

1946 when the national warning system was implemented. Only about 500

people have been lost since 1946 to distant tsunamis in spite of the fact

that six transpacific tsunamis struck the Pacific Coast of the U.S., two from

magnitude 9+ earthquakes, the 1960 Chile and 1964 Prince William Sound

earthquakes.

Assessment and education are the most effective ways to reduce

loss of life to local tsunamis. Loss of life was negligible in the 2004 Indian

Ocean tsunami where cultural memories of native populations informed them

(1) that an earthquake or sudden change of sea level means evacuate and (2)

where to evacuate. Improving the assessment of where local tsunamis will

and will not pose a threat is therefore a key research objective. Research

into better warning systems is not as effective in reducing loss of life to local

tsunamis because these systems cannot generally respond in the short time

available and will likely not reach everywhere. Fortunately, the earthquake

itself serves as an effective warning for nearly all locally generated tsunamis,

and when coupled with education, can save innumerable lives.

By far the greatest source of uncertainty in tsunami risk assessment is in definition of sources and source probabilities. If the

U.S. coast had several thousand years of detailed records of historic tsunami inundation, much of our uncertainty based on repeat time for a given

area could be eliminated. The reality is that even the most at-risk U.S.

coastlines in the Pacific have historical records that are generally shorter

than the average repeat times for their most devastating tsunami sources.

A partial exception is the Cascadia Subduction Zone source along the Oregon, northern California, and Washington coasts where there is a developing

long-term (10,000-year) record that can be used at the present time to define

the probability of the recurrence of locally generated tsunamis (Goldfinger

et al., 2003). Even this area has large gaps in understanding of the tsunami source and potential impact. Computer-simulated Cascadia source

scenarios produce tsunami amplitudes varying by a factor of at least two

(e.g., Geist, 2005). This large range of uncertainty in source deformation is

typical of subduction zone sources and can only be decreased by a holistic

2http://ioc.unesco.org/iosurveys/Indonesia/yalciner/yalciner.htm; http://

www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/05/content_422102.htm; http://www.

daraint.org/nueva/docs/TEC0.pdf
60 National Tsunami Research Plan

approach that combines geologic inference of source characteristics, studies

of paleotsunami inundation, paleoseismic estimates of coseismic deformation,

computer simulations of coseismic deformation, and simulations of resulting

tsunami inundation. Simulations that match field observations of coastal

deformation and inundation are of critical interest to decision makers and

scientists alike, since they are the best representation of actual events. For

example, fault dislocation scenarios that produce observed paleo-inundation

and paleo-deformation may give insights into the fault rupture process in

offshore areas where direct observational data is lacking.

Study of historical analogues to the Cascadia Subduction Zone,

the Alaskan subduction zones, and other tsunami sources threatening U.S. coasts should be a priority for research. Modern tsunamis

with robust observational data provide invaluable field tests of assessment

technologies. Better understanding of the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean

fault rupture may be particularly pertinent to the Cascadia problem, since

the subduction zone off of Sumatra shares many geological characteristics

with Cascadia (Guitierrez-Pastor et al., 2005; Gutscher et al., 2006). This

event offers a valuable opportunity to test fault rupture and tsunami simulation models against an unprecedented amount of observational data. It

may be argued that the first step in developing a holistic approach to assessment for any tsunami source with limited historical data is application

of the approach to the Indian Ocean event.

Assembly and support of scientific teams to investigate the

most important tsunami sources should be a national priority.

Both probability and source definition require intensive collaborative research by a multidisciplinary team of scientists from the fields of geophysics,

geology, paleoseismology, geodesy, hydrodynamic modeling, fault modeling,

and oceanography. Federal leadership in setting priority targets and funding

these teams is critical to advances in assessment science.

Priority should be given to development of accurate probabilistic tsunami inundation maps and risk assessments. Tsunami assessment research in the U.S. should be aimed at providing decision makers with

more than maps of the maximum credible inundation, the current focus of

inundation mapping by the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program.

While maps of maximum inundation are useful for emergency management,

effective risk reduction can only be achieved by minimizing the hazard exposure through innovative land use, building codes, and insurance policies that

encourage hazard avoidance. Inundation assessments that portray the probability of tsunami runup and inundation empower both emergency and land

use planners to make better decisions. Such maps are particularly critical

in low-lying communities with limited evacuation options where evacuating

for the maximum credible event is not a realistic option. Risk assessments

that build on the probabilistic maps could apply HAZUS or other algorithms

that can use tsunami flow depth and velocity estimates to predict damage

and loss. Some research priority should be given to refining damage and loss

estimation tools and acquiring needed observational and statistical inputs

for these tools.

Decreasing uncertainties in the hydrodynamic modeling, while impor-
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 61

tant, should have a lesser overall priority for assessment research than tsunami source research. Benchmark tests of hydrodynamic models show similar results and compelling evidence that the particular model is much less

important for accurate reproduction of observed inundation than use of accurate sources (Geist and Yoshioka, 1996), detailed bathymetry, and refined

numerical grids (Myers, 1998; Myers and Baptista, 2001). Real-time assessment of inundation from distant tsunami sources is in the implementation

rather than research phase (Koike et al., 2003; Titov et al., 2005), owing to

the relatively mature state of hydrodynamic modeling technology, low sensitivity of inundation to details of far-field source characteristics, and real-time

constraints from seismic and tsunami buoy data. Research priority for hydrodynamic modeling should focus on development of models with better

numerical representation of the governing equations, greater numerical efficiency, greater numerical stability, ability to utilize unstructured grids with

refinement varying smoothly to spacing as small as ∼2 to 3 m, and 3-D

simulation of tsunami currents and forces exerted on structures for design of

vertical evacuation structures in tsunami inundation zones. Understanding

of the relationship between earthquake-resistant and tsunami-resistant design for these vertical evacuation structures should also be a priority, since

most of these structures will be subjected to both forces. Better simulation

of erosion and deposition by tsunamis is important for assessment of paleotsunami deposits, scouring, and sediment deposition hazards. Priority should

be given to testing hydrodynamic models against empirical data from field

observations and wave tank experiments.

Achieving design standards for structures in tsunami inundation zones,

while useful for developed areas with few evacuation options, will facilitate

development in vulnerable areas, so the research is still of lesser overall priority than better definition of vulnerable areas. If increased life safety is the

primary objective of assessment research, then research that will empower

users to build in hazardous areas should be of lesser priority than defining

these areas.

C1.4.1 References

Geist, E. (2005) Local Tsunami Hazards in the Pacific Northwest from Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquakes. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper

1661-b, 17 pp. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1661b/pp1661b.pdf).

Geist, E., and S. Yoshioka (1996) Source parameters controlling the generation

and propagation of potential local tsunamis along the Cascadia margin. Nat.

Hazards, 13(2), 151–177.

Goldfinger, C., C.H. Nelson, J.E. Johnson, and the Shipboard Scientific Party (2003)

Deep-water turbidites as Holocene earthquake proxies: The Cascadia subduction zone and Northern San Andreas Fault systems. Annals Geophys., 46(5),

1169–1194.

Gutierrez-Pastor, J., C.H. Nelson, C. Goldfinger, and J. Johnson (2005) Holocene

turbidite and onshore paleoseismic record of great earthquakes on the Cascadia

Subduction Zone: Relevance for the Sumatra 2004 Great Earthquake. Am.

Geophys. Union, Spring Meeting 2005, abstract #U51A-03.

Gutscher, M.A., J.A. Malod, D. Graindorge, and J. Malavieille (2006) Landward

vergence at the toe of the NW Sumatra accretionary wedge: Implications for the
62 National Tsunami Research Plan

rheology of the decollement in the source region of the 26 Dec. 2004 Sumatra

earthquake. Geophys. Res. Abst., 8, p. 04389.

Koike, N., Y. Kawata, and F. Imamura (2003) Far-field tsunami potential and

a real-time forecast system for the Pacific using the inversion method. Nat.

Hazards, 29(3), 425–436.

Myers, E.P. (1998) Physical and numerical analysis of long wave modeling for tsunamis and tides. Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology. PhD.

Dissertation, 273 pp.

Myers, E.P., and A.M. Baptista (2001) Analysis of factors influencing simulations

of the 1993 Hokkaido Nansei-Oki and 1964 Alaska tsunamis. Nat. Hazards,

23(1), 1–28.

Steinbrugge, K.V. (1982) Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Tsunamis, An Anatomy of

Hazards. Skandia America Group, New York, New York, 392 pp.

Titov, V.V., F.I. Gonz ́alez, E.N. Bernard, M.C. Eble, H.O. Mofjeld, J.C. Newman,

and A.J. Venturato (2005) Real-time tsunami forecasting: Challenges and solutions. Nat. Hazards, 35(1), 35–41.

Wynn, R.B., and D.G. Masson (2003) Canary Islands landslides and tsunami generation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Submarine Mass

Movements and Their Consequences, Locat, J. and Mienert, J. (eds.), Kluwer,

Dordrecht, 325–332.

C1.5 Earthquake recurrence and tsunami hazard assessment—Bruce Jaffe and Stuart Nishenko, Geosciences Department, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA

While the relatively short historic record for many coastal regions in North

America provides few empirical data for identifying the Probable Maximum

Tsunami, information about the location and behavior of tsunami source

zones around the circum-Pacific does provide a basis for knowledgeable estimates. Information about the location and behavior of tsunami source zones

around the Atlantic and Caribbean is more limited and this discussion will

focus on the circum-Pacific, though many of the principles are applicable to

eastern North America.

For a given coastal location, over a sufficiently long period of time, tsunami amplitudes have been shown to follow a definable frequency-size distribution, similar to that observed for earthquakes (Soloviev, 1969; Wiegel,

1970; Houston and Garcia, 1978; Horikawa and Shuto, 1983; Burroughs and

Tebbins, 2005). As in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), the sizefrequency distribution of tsunami amplitudes forms the empirical basis for

probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis (PTHA) (Geist and Parsons, 2005).

Initial studies by Wiegel (1970) for Hilo, Hawaii, San Francisco, California,

and Crescent City, California, for the period 1900 to 1965 (see Fig. C2) laid

the foundation for the application of probabilistic methodologies to tsunami

studies. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis has become standard practice

in the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard to structures and critical

infrastructure. Its ability to condense the complexities and variability of

seismic activity into a manageable set of parameters greatly facilitates the

design of effective seismic-resistant buildings but also the planning of infrastructure projects. Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis (PTHA) seeks to

achieve the same goals for hazards posed by tsunamis.
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 63

RECURRENCE INTERVAL, IN YEARS

AVERAGE YEARLY FREQUENCY OF TSUNAMIS

OF EQUAL OR GREATER HEIGHT

MAXIMUM TSUNAMI WAVE HEIGHT OR RUN UP, IN FEET

1 10 100 1000

1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.01 0.001

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Japan

Hilo, Hawaii

Crescent City

San Francisco

Humboldt Bay

San Diego

Figure C2: Comparison of maximum tsunami runup frequencies for sites in Japan, California, and Hawaii

(Wiegel, 1970).

Houston and Garcia (1978) conducted studies to define the 100- and

500-year tsunami runup elevations along the west coast of the United States

produced by distantly generated tsunamis. 100- and 500-year runups are

defined as those that are equaled or exceeded with an average frequency of

once every 100 or 500 years, respectively. Historic tsunami intensity and frequency of occurrence relations were developed for the Alaska-Aleutian and

Peru-Chile trenches. Tsunamis were generated from individual segments

along these two trench systems and propagated to the near shore, combined with astronomical tides, and summed to determine the cumulative
64 National Tsunami Research Plan

probability distributions at each grid point for the combined tsunami and

astronomical tides.

More recent work on PTHA includes Downes and Stirling (2001), who

proposed to use an empirical attenuation relation similar to ground-motion

attenuation relations. A similar approach was used in a recent report by the

New Zealand Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (IGNS) (Berryman, 2006), who carried out an extensive analysis of probabilistic tsunami

hazard for New Zealand based on simple empirical distance and magnitudedependent amplitude relations for local site conditions.

Rikitake and Aida (1988) proposed a numerical approach to the evaluation of tsunami hazard probabilities, using a combination of earthquake

recurrence models and synthetic tsunami waveforms. A similar approach

was used by Annaka et al. (2004) and Geist and Parsons (2005), who introduced the concept of logic trees to probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis

to incorporate epistemic uncertainties into earthquake models, and who also

demonstrated how to incorporate empirical data into PTHA. These studies

are all limited to local tsunamis, i.e., tsunamis generated from earthquakes

that are directly offshore to the sites being studied, although the same principles can be applied to distant tsunamis. Thio et al. (2006) further extend

this approach using subfault Green’s function summation, which allows for a

full integration over probabilistic sets of earthquakes (as opposed to MonteCarlo simulation) that can typically contain thousands of earthquake scenarios, including distant tsunamis.

At a more regional scale, Geist and Parsons (2005) generated a set of

far-field tsunami runup estimates for the western United States in 100-kmlong zones with runups >1 m, using a Monte-Carlo analysis of historic tide

gage records (Fig. C3).

Of the different tsunami sources considered, earthquakes are probably

the best understood in terms of recurrence relations and tsunami generation, and earthquake recurrence models are widely available, such as the

California Geological Survey (CGS)/USGS models for California and the

USGS models for Alaska and the Pacific Northwest (Frankel et al., 2002;

Geist, 2005; Wesson et al., 1999). Our better understanding of earthquake

sources over other kinds of sources (e.g., asteroid impacts, volcanic collapses,

submarine landslides) reflects the fact that earthquake-generated tsunamis

are far more prevalent, and in a probabilistic manner are likely to dominate the hazard at short to intermediate return periods (<1000 years), even

though other sources can give rise to much larger tsunami amplitudes.

Uncertainties in understanding earthquake recurrence around the circumPacific region can be characterized in terms of aleatory and epistemic uncertainties.

Aleatory uncertainty addresses the natural or intrinsic variability in the

earthquake recurrence process, and cannot be reduced through more sampling.

Epistemic uncertainty results from inadequate observations or understanding and can be reduced through more sampling.

Studies such as those by the USGS Tsunami Subduction Source Working Group (Kirby et al., 2006) seek to address epistemic uncertainties in
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 65

Frequency: run up > 1m

Far-field Tsunami Occurrence 1850–2004

Distance (km) from 42°N

975

875

775

675

575

475

375

275

175

–25

–125

–225

–325

–425

–525

–625

–725

–825

–925

–1025

–1125

–1225

75

0 5 10 0 5 10

(a) (b)

950

850

750

650

550

450

350

250

150

50

–50

–150

–250

–350

–450

–550

–650

–750

–850

–950

–1050

–1150

–1250

–128° –126° –124° –122° –120° –118°

50°

48°

46°

44°

42°

40°

38°

36°

34°

32°

Source

Alaska

South America

Japan & C. Pacific

Kuril

Run up (m)

6 5 4 3 2

–128° –126° –124° –122° –120° –118°

50°

48°

46°

44°

42°

40°

38°

36°

34°

32°

–128° –126° –124° –122° –120° –118°

Annual probability (%) of  1m run up from far-field events 

(a) (b)

Crescent City Crescent City

0.5 0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

2.4

2.4

2.4

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

4.4

4.4 4.4

0.5

1.1

5.4

Figure C3: Observations and estimates of annual probability of >1 m runup from far field events along

the west coast of the United States (Geist and Parsons, 2005).

the characterization of subduction zones. Other studies (e.g., Nishenko and

Buland, 1987; Thatcher, 1990; Sykes and Menke, 2006) and debates (e.g.,

Nishenko and Sykes, 1993; Kagan and Jackson, 1991) are concerned with

the aleatory aspects of the earthquake recurrence problem (i.e., what is the

intrinsic variability of earthquake recurrence times, earthquake sizes, is the

recurrence of large and great earthquakes along plate boundaries time dependent or random (i.e., time-independent))?

C1.5.1 References

Annaka, T., K. Satake, N. Shuto, T. Sakakiyama, and K. Yanagisawa (2004) Logictree approach for probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis and its applications

to the Japanese coasts. Eos Trans. AGU, 85(47), Fall Meeting Supplement,

Abstract 0523D-1349.

Berryman, K. (2006) Review of tsunami hazard and risk in New Zealand. Inst.

Geol. Nuclear Sci. Ltd., 139 pp.

Burroughs, S.M., and S.F. Tebbins (2005) Power law scaling and probabilistic forecasting of tsunami runup heights. Pure Appl. Geophys., 158, 331–342.

Downes, G.L., and M.W. Stirling (2001) Groundwork for development of a probabilistic tsunami hazard model for New Zealand. In Proceedings of the International Tsunami Symposium 2001 (ITS 2001), Session 1-6, Seattle, WA, 7–10

August 2001, (on CD-ROM), 293-301.

Frankel, A.D., et al. (2002) Documentation for the 2002 update of the national

seismic hazard maps. U.S. Geol. Survey Open File Rpt. 02-420, 33 pp.

Geist, E.L. (2005) Local tsunami hazards in the Pacific Northwest from Cascadia

subduction zone earthquakes. U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 1661-B, 17 pp.
66 National Tsunami Research Plan

Geist, E.L., and T. Parsons (2005) Probabilistic analysis of tsunamis. Nat. Haz.,

37(3), 277–314.

Houston, J.R., and A.W. Garcia (1978) Type 16 Flood insurance study: Tsunami

predictions for the west coast of the continental United States. U.S. Army

Engineer Waterway Experiment Station WES-TR-H-78-26, 73 pp.

Horikawa, K., and N. Shuto (1983) Tsunami disasters and protection measures in

Japan. In Tsunamis—Their Science and Engineering, K. Iida and T. Iwasaki

(eds.), Terra Scientific Publishing Company, 9–22.

Kagan, J., and D. Jackson (1991) Seismic gap hypothesis: ten years after. J.

Geophys. Res., 96, 21,419–21,431.

Kirby, S., E. Geist, W.H.K. Lee, D. Scholl, and R. Blakely (2006) Tsunami Source

Zone Characterization for Western Pacific Subduction Zones: A Preliminary

Report. U.S. Geol. Survey, 10 pp.

Nishenko, S.P., and R. Buland (1987) A generic recurrence interval distribution for

earthquake forecasting. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 77, 1382–1399.

Nishenko, S.P., and L.R. Sykes (1993) Comment on “Seismic gap hypothesis: ten

years after.” J. Geophys. Res., 98, 9909–9916.

Rikitake, T., and I. Aida (1988) Tsunami hazard probability in Japan. Bull. Seism.

Soc. Am., 78, 1268–1278.

Soloviev, S.L. (1969) Recurrence of tsunamis in the Pacific. In Tsunamis in the

Pacific Ocean, W.M. Adams (ed.), East-West Center Press, 149–163.

Sykes, L.R., and W.R. Menke (2006) Repeat times of large earthquakes: Implications for earthquake mechanics and long-term prediction. Bull. Seismol. Soc.

Am., in press.

Thatcher, W. (1990) Order and diversity in the modes of circum-Pacific earthquake

recurrence. J. Geophys. Res., 95, 2609–2623.

Thio, H.K., G.A. Ichinose, and P.G. Somerville (2007) Probabilistic tsunami hazard

analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett., in press.

Wesson, R.L., A.D. Frankel, C.D. Mueller, and S.C. Harmsen (1999) Probabilistic

seismic hazard maps of Alaska. U.S. Geol. Survey Open File Report 99-36, 20

pp.

Wiegel, R. (1970) Tsunamis. In Earthquake Engineering, R.L. Wiegel (ed.), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 253–306.

C1.6 Status of current tsunami research—Coastal impacts;

description of the state of the science research activity—

Patrick Lynette, TAMU

Recent tsunami-related research in the U.S. has been largely funded by the

National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In the past 15 years, this research has had

a strong focus on nearshore effects, such as wave transformation and breaking, runup and inundation, transport of sediment and debris, and interaction

with infrastructure. Across all of these topics, significant understanding has

been gained in the past decade. A number of tsunamis in the early 90s,

including the 1992 Nicaragua, 1992 Flores Island, and 1993 Hokkaido tsunamis, spurred investigations into the physics of nearshore tsunami behavior

as well as the development of computer models to predict this behavior.

Notable research accomplishments include quantification of the importance

of nonlinearity as well as using accurate bathymetry (e.g., Satake, 1995).

Numerous moving-shoreline approaches were developed to simulate the inundation and runup of a tsunami (e.g., Liu et al., 1995), and many were
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 67

compared at a series of long-wave runup workshops (Yeh et al., 1996). With

the increasing database of tsunami field and experimental data, development

of accurate and validated numerical codes followed. These codes (e.g., Titov

and Synolakis, 1998) formed the basis of applied prediction models, such as

the Method of Splitting Tsunami (MOST) model used by NOAA to predict

tsunami inundation and runup.

As the research community passed the tsunami propagation models into

practical use at State and Federal agencies, the research focus shifted to

smaller scale details of coastal impact. In 2000, NSF awarded a collaborative

grant of approximately $1M to five institutions, with the goal of furthering

understanding of tsunami turbulence, forces, and scour on structures, and

tsunami interaction with complex coastal features. Results of this research

include development of fully 3D wave and structure interaction models (e.g.,

Raad and Bidoae, 2005) and insight into the tsunami-induced scour around

a cylinder such as a bridge pile (Tonkin et al., 2003).

Before the 1998 Papua New Guinea tsunami understanding of the coupling between an underwater landslide and the generated tsunami was minimal (Synolakis et al., 2002). This event stimulated research into this poorly

understood source, with studies showing how the traditional shallow water tsunami models were often inadequate descriptors of landslide tsunami

physics in the coastal zone (e.g., Lynett and Liu, 2002). Investigations into

the Papua New Guinea (PNG) tsunami have provided some understanding

of both the nearshore landslide source as well as the risk these types of tsunamis pose to U.S. coastlines. Research into the landslide source continues,

with three ongoing NSF funded research projects looking at the hydrodynamic aspects of these tsunamis, all funded before the Indian Ocean tsunami

of 2004.

Through the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)

Research program, experimental studies of tsunami can be carried out at the

recently upgraded Oregon State University tsunami wave basin. This experimental facility, one of the 15 NEES equipment sites, received a NSF grant

of over $5M to create a state-of-the-art tsunami testing facility. This basin

is unique in academia for its ability to generate long and nonlinear waves for

3D studies. The facility has already been utilized for landslide studies (Liu

et al., 2005) and is in use for numerous ongoing research projects involving

nearshore tsunami evolution, with a particular focus on wave-structure interaction and wave breaking and runup over highly complex coastal terrain.

These experimental investigations are in great need; while the Indian

Ocean tsunami of 24 December 2004 has shown that our current modeling

ability can predict coarse, or large-scale, patterns in coastal tsunami impacts,

our understanding of smaller scale processes that can control local impacts,

such as the dynamics of a breaking tsunami bore or tsunami interaction with

coastal structures, is incomplete.

C1.6.1 References

Liu, P., Y.-S. Cho, M. Briggs, U. Kanoglu, and C.E. Synolakis (1995) Runup of

solitary waves on a circular island. J. Fluid Mech., 302, 259–285.
68 National Tsunami Research Plan

Liu, P.L.-F., T.R. Wu, F. Raichlen, C.E. Synolakis, and J.C. Borrero (2005) Runup

and rundown generated by three-dimensional sliding masses. J. Fluid Mech.,

536, 107–144.

Lynett, P., and P. L.-F. Liu (2002) A numerical study of submarine landslide generated waves and runup. Proc. Roy. Soc. London A., 458, 2885–2910.

Raad, P., and R. Bidoae (2005) The three-dimensional Eulerian-Lagrangian marker

and micro cell method for the simulation of free surface flows. J. Computat.

Phys., 203 (2), 668–699.

Satake, K. (1995) Linear and nonlinear computations of the 1992 Nicaragua earthquake. Pure Appl. Geophys., 144(3–4), 455–470.

Synolakis, C.E., J.P. Bardet, J.C. Borrero, H.L. Davies, E.A. Okal, E.A. Silver,

S. Sweet, and D.R. Tappin (2002) The slump origin of the 1998 Papua New

Guinea Tsunami. Proc. Roy. Soc. London A., 458, 763–789.

Titov, V.V., and C.E. Synolakis (1998) Numerical modeling of tidal wave runup. J.

Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng., 124(4), 157–171.

Tonkin, S., H. Yeh, F. Kato, and S. Sato (2003) Tsunami scour around a cylinder.

J. Fluid Mech., 496, 165–192.

Yeh, H., P. Liu, and C. Synolakis (eds.) (1996) Long-wave runup models. World

Scientific, 403 pp.

C1.7 Hazard assessment: Inundation mapping—Kwok Fai

Cheung, University of Hawaii at Manoa

Numerical modeling of tsunami propagation and inundation is routinely done

using seismic data. The methodology, however, is far from being mature for

hazard assessment. Existing depth-integrated modeling approaches underestimate tsunami inundation in varying degrees. This inconsistent performance presents a challenge when long-term runup records are not available

for model calibration. The lack of modeling capabilities to relate seismic

energy and tsunamis also negates the use of probabilistic or other more sophisticated approaches in risk assessment. The long-wave and Boussinesq

equations generally provide adequate descriptions of tsunami propagation

across the open ocean. The major errors arise from the initial tsunami condition and the inundation calculation.

The common technique to define initial tsunami conditions derives from

idealization of the seafloor deformation as well as approximations of the energy transfer to the water. An analytical solution provides the earth surface

deformation based on seismic data, in spite of the complexity of Earth’s

crustal structure and the uncertainty of earthquake activities. The initial

tsunami is assumed to be identical to the vertical component of the seafloor

deformation. The approach does not consider seafloor relief and the horizontal displacement of the water, both of which become important when

earthquakes occur in deep trenches or on steep volcanic island slopes. While

the initial sea surface response accounts for the potential energy from the

seafloor deformation, the process does not consider the event time-history

as well as the kinetic energy transferred to the water. These approximations are within the framework of the depth-integrated models for tsunami

propagation, but may have contributed to a large portion of the discrepancy

between computed and observed tsunami heights and runup.

Most numerical models used in tsunami inundation mapping are based
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 69

on finite difference or finite element solutions of the non-conservative form

of the nonlinear long-wave equations. These models fail to satisfy volume

conservation, and if they remain stable, underestimate the runup when the

seabed slope is steep or discontinuous or when a bore develops. This presents

an issue when these models are applied to the gentle slope off continental

coasts where tsunami bores are likely to develop or to tropical island environments where the fringing reefs exist along the coastlines. The remedy has

been to manipulate numerical damping to match the energy dissipation of a

particular event. This is accomplished by adjustment of computational resolution and will work only if measured data of a tsunami bore is available for

calibration. The formation of bores depends on several factors and cannot

be predicted in advance. Such tuning will have limited use in implementing

these models for tsunami hazard assessment.

The finite volume method has the advantage of solving the integral form

of the nonlinear long-wave equations as a fully conservative scheme. The

Godunov-type formulation with a Riemann solver has good shock-capturing

capability. The method has a long history of application in gas dynamics and

provides the impetus for the FVWave (Finite Volume Wave) model, which

has recently been implemented for tsunami inundation mapping in Hawaii.

FVWave is based on a well-balanced formulation and a second-order solution

scheme in time and space. The computed surface elevation, flow velocity,

and runup have been verified with analytical solutions and validated by

laboratory experiments. The model accurately describes breaking waves as

bores or hydraulic jumps and conserves volume across flow discontinuities.

Implementation of FVWave improves the computed runup in relation to

two finite-difference long-wave models, but still cannot fully reproduce the

recorded runup based on published seismic energy.

Historical runup records provide a vital link in the absence of direct relationships between seismic energy and tsunamis. Among all the coastal

States and Territories, only Hawaii’s inundation maps are validated by historical runup records. There were five major trans-Pacific tsunamis which

inundated Hawaii’s coastlines during the last century. A series of coupled

depth-integrated models reconstruct the five tsunami events by adjusting

the seismic energy to match the scattered runup records along the coastline. This produces continuous inundation limits of the five events for the

definition of the 100-year inundation limit. The approach requires a 3- to

5-time increase of the published seismic energy to reconstruct the tsunami

events, while the use of FVWave reduces the energy increase by 10 to 20%.

This alludes to serious doubts on inundation maps produced directly by

seismic scenarios without proper ground-truthing. However, the absence of

historical records need not be an obstacle to tsunami inundation mapping.

Paleo-tsunami deposits provide indications of past tsunami activities and

observed tsunami inundation limits at similar sites provide good reference

for inundation mapping.

A comparative study is needed to fully understand the strengths and

weaknesses of various depth-integrated models, especially when applied to

fringing reef and bore conditions. The major issue in tsunami modeling lies

in the commonly used tsunami initial condition, which accounts for the ma-
70 National Tsunami Research Plan

jority of the errors in inundation modeling. Proper modeling of tsunami generation needs to go beyond the confines of the conventional depth-integrated

approach. An improvement to the tsunami generation model will not only

provide a sound approach to model inundation of far-field tsunamis but also

provide better understanding of near-field or local tsunamis. Further research is needed to improve the modeling capability of tsunami generation

from seismic data.

C1.8 An assessment of structural design for tsunamis—H.

Ronald Riggs, University of Hawaii at Manoa

C1.8.1 Overview

The problem with tsunamis is almost exclusively the potential loss of life

and damage to the built coastal infrastructure. That is, society is principally

concerned about tsunamis because of the danger they represent to the safety

of those living in the nearshore areas and to the potentially catastrophic

economic damage that can incur on the built infrastructure. Given that

the infrastructure is built, and will continue to be built, in areas subject

to tsunami threat, it is important that those structures be designed so that

they will perform according to accepted criteria. The current sophistication

of structural analysis and design for tsunami loading, however, is relatively

low. This document presents a brief assessment of structural design3 for

tsunamis and suggests research and development that is needed to improve

our ability to design for tsunamis.

C1.8.2 Assessment

Tsunamis, like earthquakes, represent relatively rare but potentially catastrophic natural disasters. However, tsunamis are much less common than

earthquakes, and therefore the general public doesn’t always appreciate the

threat that they represent. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami opened many

eyes to the threat, but even so the level of threat is not always understood,

even by professionals. For example, a recent article (Borrero et al., 2005)

describing the potential devastation should a tsunami strike southern California, with predictions of losses in the billions of dollars, generated significant controversy even among professionals. Consequently, the current ability

to assess tsunami risk is clearly not sufficient for agreement in the professional community about risk assessment or consequences. One reason for

this is because the occurrence of major tsunamis are infrequent, especially

at a given location, and there are relatively few good tsunami records (as

compared to seismic records for earthquakes). Therefore, the probabilitybased predictions of tsunamis, their source and strength, are often based on

extrapolations from scant records.

Estimating the economic losses associated with a tsunami requires an

assessment of the damage caused by the ocean waves on the built infrastructure. The capability of such an assessment at present is limited. With

3The term “structure” is used generically to refer to all built infrastructure, including

buildings, bridges, roads, railroads, pipelines, piers, wharves, etc.
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 71

few exceptions, coastal on-shore structures are simply not designed for any

kind of tsunami loading. This issue is reinforced by the poor performance

of some coastal structures during the storm surge from Hurricane Katrina

(Robertson et al., 2006a; Robertson et al., 2006b). Although there are some

differences between tsunamis and hurricane storm surge, there are also many

similarities. The failure of some Gulf Coast structures demonstrated that

many buildings, and even bridges over bays and inlets, were not designed

for fluid loadings that occur during these events. Indeed, there is relatively

little guidance in manuals of design loads as to how a structural engineer

should estimate and design for such loads, even when the property owner

and/or the local government insist on compliance. Manuals (ASCE, 2006a;

ASCE, 2006b; FEMA, 2005) on design loads provide insufficient guidance

on possible loads from tsunamis.

Tsunamis present two primary threats to structural integrity (excluding

the potential foundation failure that may occur, e.g., from erosion and liquefaction): direct fluid loading and impact from waterborne debris. Although

some recent work has been carried out toward quantifying both fluid forces

(Arnason, 2005) and impact forces (Haehnel and Daly, 2002), a recent assessment has illustrated that the state of the art in assessing these forces is

woefully lacking (Yeh et al., 2005).

The structural integrity of major coastal structures has implications not

just for economic reasons, but also for life-safety. In near-source tsunamis,

as well as for some geographic areas that cannot physically be evacuated in

the event of a far-source tsunami, people will need to ride out the tsunami

in safe shelters. A recent effort (ATC, 2006) is underway to provide initial

help in the design of such structures. This effort has also confirmed that our

knowledge of the relevant forces is not sufficient.

C1.8.3 Current status

Significant strides have been made in the last decade or so on the development of performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE). Earthquake

design of structures is evolving from design based on simplistic, prescriptive

requirements to a scenario where different levels of building performance

and associated economic consequences for different levels of seismic events

can be assessed and designed for (Porter, 2005). The development of this

multi-level, probabilistic-based approach is the result of coordinated and sustained research and development efforts, funded substantially by the Federal

government. Design for tsunamis lags far behind.

As mentioned previously, although some interesting recent contributions

are being made to our understanding of the forces during tsunamis, most of

the efforts are individual and not coordinated. A new NSF-funded project at

the University of Hawaii at Manoa is aimed at developing performance-based

tsunami engineering (PBTE), patterned after PBEE. Given the magnitude

of the task, the effort can be considered a good beginning. It will help to

answer some important questions, such as what the loads are that structures

will need to resist. Both experiments and numerical simulations will be used

to answer some of these questions. The objectives of the project include
72 National Tsunami Research Plan

the development of specific recommendations to structural designers on the

anticipated loadings. Such recommendations are critical, as they are lacking

in the current state of the art. However, the 4-year project with limited

funding cannot hope to match the level of sophistication of the much more

established, more coordinated, and larger effort that has led to the “secondgeneration” PBEE.

C1.8.4 Suggested research and development

Significant percentages of the population and economic activity are in the

coastal regions that are subject to tsunami risk. Without intentionally designing our infrastructure for such a natural hazard, we are risking severe

loss of life and economic destruction should a large tsunami hit the U.S. A

large, coordinated effort should be initiated to develop our structural design

capability. The pattern should be that chosen by the earthquake engineering

design community, i.e., PBEE. PBTE will provide a framework to develop

the coastal regions with specific performance levels and an understanding of

the economic consequences of design decisions.

The development of PBTE requires advancements in the following areas:

1. Wave propagation and energy dissipation in the littoral and on-shore

areas, including complex bathymetry that leads to bore formation and

breaking

2. Tsunami risk assessment and scenario predictions for given geographic

areas

3. Understanding tsunami generation and a reduction in the uncertainty

in the tsunami source and the risk of specific regions to tsunamis

4. Understanding the forces that structures must withstand

5. Computational methods and tools for the fluid-structure interaction,

including breaking and broken bores and surges for coastal and onshore structures, especially as they relate to predicting the effect of

fluid forces on structures

6. Understanding how to design structures to best resist tsunami forces,

based on a probabilistic design methodology that incorporates the uncertainty of the tsunami source

7. Understanding how to assess existing structures for expected performance for specific tsunami risks

8. Understanding how to retrofit existing structures to best resist tsunami

forces

9. Establishment of acceptable performance criteria for structures

10. Understanding of scour and liquefaction from tsunami inundation

11. Establishment of code guidelines for tsunami resistance

12. Education of engineers, government officials, and the public as to the

tsunami risk

The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center has been

instrumental in the development of the second-generation PBEE. A comparable Tsunami Engineering Research Institute (TERI), a multi-State, multi-
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 73

university research consortium, should be established to provide coordination

and support to develop PBTE, performance-based tsunami engineering.

C1.8.5 References

Arnason, H. (2005) Interactions between an incident bore and a free-standing coastal

structure. Ph.D dissertation, University of Washington.

ASCE (2006a) Flood resistant design and construction. Report ASCE/SEI 24-05,

American Society of Civil Engineers, 61 pp.

ASCE (2006b) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Report

ASCE/SEI 7-05, American Society of Civil Engineers, 388 pp.

ATC (2006) Design of structures for vertical evacuation from tsunamis: State of

the art report and preliminary recommendations. Report ATC-64, Applied

Technology Council, in preparation.

Borrero, J., S.W. Cho, J.E. Moore II, H.W. Richardson, and C. Synolakis (2005)

Could it happen here? ASCE Civil Engineering Magazine, April, 54–65, 133.

FEMA (2005) Coastal Construction Manual. Report FEMA 55, Federal Emergency

Management Agency.

Haehnel, R.B., and S.F. Daly (2002) Maximum impact force of woody debris on

floodplain structures. Report ERDC/CRREL TR-02-2, U.S. Army Corp of

Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, 40 pp.

Porter, K. (2005) PEER testbeds, http://www.peertestbeds.net/.

Robertson, I., H.R. Riggs, S. Yim, and Y.L. Young (2006a) Lessons from Katrina.

ASCE Civil Engineering Magazine, April, 56–63.

Robertson, I., H.R. Riggs, S. Yim, and Y.L. Young (2006b) Lessons learned from

Hurricane Katrina storm surge on engineered structures. J. Waterw. Port

Coast. Ocean Eng., under review.

Yeh, H., I. Robertson, and J. Preuss (2005) Development of design guidelines for

structures that serve as tsunami vertical evacuation sites. Report 2005-4, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 34 pp.

C2. Warning Guidance Research and

Recommendations

Most natural disaster warning centers, including tsunami warning centers,

perform four basic functions: real-time data acquisition, data analysis, tsunami forecast, and forecasted information dissemination. The state of the

science is described for each of these four functions, and a set of recommendations are listed in the final section.

C2.1 Real-time data acquisition

Since the origin of the tsunami warning system in the 1940s, sea level/tsunami

and seismic networks have been the source of observational data used to produce tsunami warnings. Reliance solely on these sets of data has hampered

the warning centers, especially when tsunami sources other than earthquakes

are considered. Sea level/tsunami data are a better indicator of tsunami

severity, but network coverage is very sparse and non-uniform throughout

the ocean basins. Seismic data has its limitations in that even in the case of

an earthquake-generated tsunami there is not a clear relationship between

earthquake magnitude and tsunami destructiveness.
74 National Tsunami Research Plan

C2.1.1 Sea level/tsunami observations

Bottom pressure and water level instruments provide the direct observations

of tsunamis that are used by Tsunami Warning Centers during events to assess their potential threat to coastal communities. These instruments are

also used to monitor tsunamis during events to determine when the period

of danger has passed. As a result of the 2004 Sumatra tsunami, the United

States is greatly expanding its open-ocean network of DART (tsunameter)

systems and upgrading its network of coastal tide gages. Many of the DART

systems are deployed near source regions to acquire the observations quickly

after a tsunami has been generated, in order to maximize the warning time

for coastal communities. They also serve to measure locally generated tsunamis to quickly cancel warnings if this is appropriate. NOAA will be archiving

the U.S. data and making them available to the research community; similar

efforts are planned internationally.

The tsunami measurements from these operational networks, and those of

other countries, will provide a much larger dataset for tsunami research than

has been available. These in situ observations provide tsunami time series at

a set of locations. The design of the DART network and the interpretation

of the series require the use of numerical tsunami models. The same is true

for the tide gage observations. Hence, advancing tsunami science requires a

strong connection between tsunami measurements and modeling.

Since many more small tsunamis are generated than large ones, sensitive instruments that sample rapidly in time provide the largest dataset.

Open-ocean tsunamis typically decrease in amplitude with distance from

their sources. Hence, sensitive instruments are required to measure tsunamis at great distances, including those propagating into other oceans and

seas. At present, open-ocean bottom pressure systems routinely measure <1

cm tsunami at 15-s intervals. Such sensitivity is also available at coastal tide

gages, although the level of background noise is much larger.

After significant tsunamis, post-event survey teams collect data in and

near the impact zone to document the events. This is done as soon as possible, before clean-up operations have obscured the quantitative evidence.

These surveys include direct observations of wave height and runup, damage

to structures, and sediment movement. Aerial and satellite remote sensing

complement the direct observations. Paleo-tsunami surveys provide information on sequences of tsunami events that occurred before instrumentation

was available. The survey data are used to characterize the events and to

tune and test tsunami source and inundation models. They are also used to

develop probabilistic models of tsunami occurrence and inundation.

C2.1.2 Seismic observations

The seismological/earthquake communities have done the world a service

by constructing and maintaining a global network of real-time seismic instruments, by designing a network that allows the free and open access to

data from seismic instruments throughout the world, by establishing measurement and communications standards that allow interoperability between
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 75

networks, and by networking the community of scientists to utilize and maintain this world resource. The net result of these efforts is that millions of

earthquakes are recorded each year and destructive earthquakes are identified within minutes and reported globally. The Global Seismographic

Network, jointly funded by USGS and the National Science Foundation

and carried out in partnership with the Incorporated Research Institutions

for Seismology (IRIS) Consortium and University of California San Diego

(UCSD), received funds from the tsunami initiative to expand the number

of GSN stations that deliver continuous real-time data to National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) and through NEIC to the NOAA tsunami

warning centers. In FY 2005, USGS collaborated with UCSD, NOAA, and

the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty Organization to add telemetry links or

expand bandwidth to improve communications at GSN sites. To improve

the detection and rapid assessment of earthquakes in the Caribbean and Atlantic, the USGS purchased equipment for nine new seismic stations to be

deployed in the Caribbean.

C2.1.3 Remote sensing in tsunami risk reduction—John

LaBreque, NASA

Outline of issues to address

• Preparedness

• Timely and effective warnings

– Imaging of tsunami from space

– Altimetry—radar altimeter/Global Navigation Satellite Systems

(GNSS) bistatic reflection imaging

– Rapid earthquake assessment—role of space geodesy

• Mitigation

– Topography—Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) 30,

LIDAR, coastal topography/coastal topography from altimetry

– Risk estimation from population and infrastructure distribution

– Earthquake risk estimates

• Public outreach

– Role of integrated tsunami runup modeling for specific localities

– Advanced imaging and computer modeling is required

– Work to reduce false alarms

• Research

– Understanding tsunami processes and impacts

– Bbetter risk assessment

– Better risk communications

– Prediction

– Preparedness

– Mitigation and warning measures

• International coordination
76 National Tsunami Research Plan

– Geohazards natural laboratories for regional preparedness—international scientific participation required—open data policy

– Understanding tsunami processes and impacts

– Better risk assessment

– Better risk communications

– Prediction

– Preparedness

– Bitigation and warning measures

Remote sensing is a critical component in the development and execution of tsunami risk reduction strategies. Remote sensing provides the most

cost-effective means of developing the societal and physical datasets for the

development of effective risk models, the detection and tracking of blue water tsunamis, and the planning of evacuation and recovery strategies on both

regional and global scales. Remote sensing technologies of interest include

optical imaging from the ultra violet to the thermal infrared, used to determine the distribution of coastal zone geology, population densities and their

associated societal infrastructure; geodetic imaging that provides precision

topography and surface change of land and ocean, including bathymetry;

and geopotential imaging, including the gravity and geomagnetic fields and

their changes for a better understanding of the large-scale forces that determine tsunami potential. Utility of these three remote sensing technologies

to tsunami risk reduction also relies upon the timely delivery of the data and

the availability of the proper modeling systems for their utilization and presentation. Remote sensing and the associated modeling capability can also

play a major role in the education, preparedness, and warning of coastal populations. Advanced computer modeling transforms these intriguing images

from a new vantage point to realize the full impact of these observations.

Sustainability of tsunami risk reduction systems is of major concern given

the sparse occurrence of tsunami-related disasters in recent history. The

multitude of applications for remote sensing data will serve to increase the

availability and reduce the cost of space-based, airborne, and ground-based

remote sensing systems. New capabilities based upon the Global Navigation

Satellite Systems (GNSS) that include the U.S. GPS, European Galileo,

and Russian Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS), should also

be carefully examined. These systems are all increasing the size of their

constellations and plan to broadcast new and more powerful coded signals in

the next decade. GNSS remote sensing is a promising technology that could

impact tsunami risk mitigation, and includes imaging of traveling ionospheric

disturbances, the measurement of crustal deformation, and the continued

development of GNSS occultation and reflection techniques. Subdecimeter

real-time GNSS positioning is also a new capability that should be considered

for inclusion in buoys and regional ground networks for the detection of

earthquake deformation and tsunamis.

Optical Imaging products derived from space-based and airborne sensors are especially important to Preparedness and Mitigation of the

effects of tsunamis. Optical imaging is useful in supporting risk assessment,

providing input to estimate the size and distribution of affected populations,
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 77

identifying high-risk regions and assets, and mapping the location of critical

infrastructure. Optical stereo imaging can also provide high-resolution topographic maps of coastal zones. Space-based and airborne sensors determined

the extent of runup and draw-down, assessed ecological impact, mapped infrastructural damage, and supported rebuilding more resilient communities

following the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004.

Unfortunately, the latency inherent in optical imaging limits its utility

in tsunami warning. The bureaucratic, operational, and technical challenges

of scheduling acquisitions by both governmental and commercial assets, the

limited number of observing platforms, local and regional weather conditions, and the time required for processing and delivery, all contribute to

delays in the delivery of vital imaging products. Airborne remote sensing

can provide timely information for the recovery phase if appropriately configured systems are regionally available. Technical advances in space-based

optical imaging that reduce latency include autonomous image scheduling

and on-board evaluation (Earth Observing-1 (EO-1)), and direct broadcast

capabilities (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)).

The inclusion of these technologies aboard multiple optical imaging satellites significantly reduces the latency of remote sensing products for disaster

mitigation and recovery.

Geodetic imaging can address preparedness, timely and effective

warnings, and mitigation by providing the bathymetric, topographic,

and surface change information necessary to evaluate risk, devise mitigation strategies, model tsunami propagation, and detect propagating tsunamis. The workshop has demonstrated very clearly that detailed knowledge of bathymetry and topography at local, regional, and global scales is

critical to the modeling of tsunami risk for preparedness and mitigation.

There are numerous and well-developed technologies for the task. These include microwave (Imaging Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)), Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) for topography and change detection,

radar altimeters and GNSS bistatic reflections for ocean surface topography,

and electro-optical Light Detection and Ranging (laser radar) (LIDAR) for

precision coastal-zone shallow-water bathymetry and topography. Swathmapping bathymetric surveys from ocean vessels also provide an effective

means of topographic mapping in moderate to deep waters. The wide-swath

all-weather geodetic imaging capability of synthetic aperture radar (e.g.,

SRTM) and its sensitivity to surface change (e.g., European Remote Sensing Satellite ERS-1/2 etc.) are ideal for broad-scope and high-resolution

coastal zone studies. LIDAR, with its ability to penetrate both vegetation

and shallow coastal waters, can provide high-resolution bare-earth and littoral bathymetry for estimating risk. Ocean radar altimeters when combined

with regional acoustic soundings now provide the most cost-effective and regionally accurate means of bathymetry of the deep ocean via the inversion

of the free air gravity field.

Effective warnings are likely to emerge as the next significant contribution of geodetic imaging. GNSS ground networks such as the Japanese

GPS Earth Observation Network System (GEONET) and the various sub

networks of the U.S. EarthScope Plate Boundary Observatory can provide
78 National Tsunami Research Plan

rapid assessment of an earthquake’s tsunamigenic potential if these networks

are operated as real-time systems. These networks have also been used to

remotely detect the ionospheric disturbance associated with a propagating

tsunami. Spaceborne remote sensing might also be used to detect and warn

of a propagating tsunami if data latency is sufficiently reduced. The Jason I and Topex/Poseidon altimeters measured profiles over the propagating

Aceh tsunami. Recent studies report that GNSS reflection receivers utilizing the GPS L5 signals might provide a very cost-effective means of imaging

tsunamis in near real time at a fraction the cost of radar altimeters. The

imaging of tsunamis, whether large and dangerous or small and interesting,

will provide important new information on the generation and propagation

of tsunamis.

Finally, real-time GNSS receivers could be placed upon DART buoys and

tide gages to provide a back-up ocean surface measurement system and to

check for ground displacements.

Geopotential field imaging. The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) measured a significant regional-scale gravity anomaly

generated by the Aceh earthquake. Published models of this anomaly call for

significant changes in lithospheric density due to dilation seaward of the subduction zone. The GRACE gravity measurement is the first remotely sensing

measurement of the mass transport during a strong earthquake. The combined use of seismic observations, GNSS altimetric imaging of the tsunami,

and time variable gravity analysis of the lithospheric and crustal disruption

could lead to new understandings of tsunamigenic sources, stress transfer,

and earthquake dynamics.

Geomagnetic field remote sensing from space provides clear images of

the geomagnetic anomalies due to oceanic tidal dynamics. It is believed

that signals from large tsunamis should be measurable from both spaceborne and deep-ocean sensors, particularly at low latitudes. Geomagnetic

sensors aboard GNSS remote sensing microsatellites could provide backup

verification of a tsunami detection. The cost effectiveness and sustainability are substantial given the broad applicability of these measurements, including navigation, crustal dynamics, resource assessment, atmospheric and

ionospheric dynamics, and geodynamo research.

Better public outreach can result from the remote-sensing strategies

outlined above if they are coupled with informative local and regional models. High-resolution optical and geodetic imagery, including bathymetry and

topography, could be used to generate animations displaying local risk of

tsunami in coastal regions. For example, the Malaysian Centre for Remote

Sensing is developing a 3-D visual display based upon Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) topography and tsunami models that display runup

at locations along the Malaysian Coast. These models provide intuitive,

informative displays that illustrate risk and the value of mitigation easily

understood by all.

International coordination in research is critical. The distribution of

datasets via the GEOSS is an important concept that must be implemented.

NASA, USGS, NSF, and several international space agencies have endorsed

the development of geohazards natural laboratories that would focus upon
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 79

regional geohazards, including tsunamis. The concept would encourage the

development of regional research environment with the involvement of regional governmental organizations within a framework that includes open

data policies and the involvement of the international scientific community.

EarthScope and the Asia-Pacific Arc Natural Laboratory are prototype laboratories. Meetings and discussions are underway to develop similar collaborations in the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) region,

Central and western South America.

C2.2 Analysis of seismic observational data

Presently, data processing at the tsunami warning centers can be separated

into seismic data processing for initial projections, and sea level data processing which is combined with forecasting techniques to refine initial output.

Several improvements are needed to enhance existing techniques, especially

when considering non-seismic sources. The goal for data processing at a tsunami warning center is to determine whether or not a potentially damaging

tsunami has been generated. We present a discussion of seismic analysis in

this section and of tsunami analysis in section 2.3, “Tsunami Forecasting.”

The main reason for the failure to obtain in real or quasi-real time an adequate estimate of the Sumatra earthquake’s seismic moment lay principally

in the inadequacy of the measuring algorithms which had not been developed

for such a large event: Even the retouched Harvard Centroid-Moment-Tensor

(CMT) moment, computed at 300 s (instead of the usual 135), fails to properly integrate a rupture lasting at least 500 s, and the Mwp computation

initially used at PTWC obviously stumbles when the duration of the source

becomes longer than the processed window. Along the same lines, Ji et al.’s

(Caltech web site, 2004) initial source tomography, computed on a 300-km

long grid, could not pretend to resolve the full 1200 km of rupture. While

adjustments can always be made (e.g., pushing the measurements of mantle

waves to still longer periods or expanding tomographic algorithms on larger

grids), systematic limitations may appear, for example with Mwp when P

waves will extend into the S wavetrain for very long sources.

Developments in instrumentation and computational procedures have

produced a plethora of superb results concerning the mapping of the rupture

and of its evolution during the event. Among the newest and most remarkable results, we highlight Ishii et al.’s (2005) dynamic source tomography,

as imaged using a 700-station seismometer array in Japan, a technique also

used at greater distance and on a coarser but worldwide network by Kr ̈uger

and Ohrnberger (2005). Similar or compatible resolutions of the space-time

history of rupture were obtained by Tsai et al. (2005), and using a totally

different technology, from the beaming of hydroacoustic T waves received

at Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) arrays by Tolstoy and Bohnenstiehl (2005), Guilbert et al. (2005), and de Groot-Hedlin (2005). In the

same context, Salzberg (2006) has proposed to use the ultra-high-frequency

part of the spectrum of T waves to resolve the depth of uppermost rupture

along the slab interface.

However, it is doubtful that all such algorithms can be processed in real
80 National Tsunami Research Plan

time in the context of tsunami warning, or even that they would yield information of a crucial nature for that purpose. In the near field, tsunami

warning must rely on self-evacuation motivated by the human perception of

the earthquake, and thus on an educated population, as well as on a handful

of automatic procedures triggering at relatively low magnitudes. In the far

field, and barring anomalous situations such as the influence of major island

structures reducing the integrated water displacement (see Synolakis and

Arcas (2005) in the case of the second Sumatra event of 28 March 2005),

tsunami potential is expected to reflect the low-frequency components of

the seismic source (both temporally and spatially) and thus to be relatively

insensitive to intricate details of its rupture. This is indeed verified by systematic simulation experiments similar to those of Okal and Synolakis (2004)

in the near field, and by the good correlation found between DART-based

pressure records of tsunamis and the seismic moment of their parent earthquakes (Okal and Titov, 2006).

Accordingly, the most promising avenues for new developments in realtime tsunami warning would target robust measurements of fundamental

source parameters; among them the duration of source rupture appears to

be most accessible, either from hydroacoustic waves (which have the disadvantage of long propagation times) or from P waves filtered for their

components of highest frequency, thus eliminating contamination by later

phases (Ni et al., 2005). In a related context, the cumulative body-wave

magnitude mb developed empirically by Bormann et al. (2006), and consisting of integrating over an a priori open-ended time window the classical

measurement of mb, may also hold significant promise. At the other end of

the spectrum, GPS measurements (conceivably on a global scale but with

mandatory near field input) could have resolved the earthquake’s moment

based on 15-min-long datasets (Blewitt et al., 2006), an approach conceptually equivalent to inverting the P- and S-wave near and intermediate fields.

Finally, the stunning observations by Yuan et al. (2005) of actual tsunami

waves on long-period horizontal seismometers deployed on island or continent shorelines and the quantification of these records (Okal, 2006) could

lead to the use of such existing observatories as complements to DART-type

ocean-bottom receivers in the quest for the direct detection of the tsunami

as it propagates on the high seas.

C2.3 Tsunami forecasting

A tsunami forecast can be short-term and long-term. The short-term forecast is used for tsunami warning applications in the real-time mode. The

long-term forecast is applied for tsunami hazard assessment and mitigation

purposes. Both types of forecast provide practical guidance for critical decisions for emergency managers and the general public; both use similar

modeling techniques. However, substantial differences exist in the model

requirements, the way of model application, and the type of data used for

the two categories of forecast products.

Since 1946, the Pacific tsunami warning system has provided warnings of

potential danger in the Pacific basin by monitoring earthquake activity and
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 81

the passage of waves at coastal tide gages. A warning is always based on a

forecast of potential tsunami behavior based on the measured data. Initially,

tsunami warnings used only rudimentary tsunami forecasts: “yes” or “no”

for tsunami generation. Today, the warning messages provide forecasts of

the arrival time of the first tsunami wave at a coastline. However, the most

crucial tsunami forecast for estimating tsunami impact—potential tsunami

amplitudes at a coastal location—is not broadcasted during the warning.

Part of the reason is that neither seismometers nor tide gages provide data

that allow accurate forecasts of tsunami amplitude. Monitoring earthquakes

gives an estimate of the potential for tsunami generation, based on earthquake size and location, but gives no direct information about the tsunami

itself. The variation in local bathymetry and harbor shapes severely limits

the effectiveness of harbor tide gages in providing useful data for the forecast. Partly because of these data limitations, 15 of 20 tsunami warnings

issued since 1946 were considered false alarms because the waves that arrived

were too weak to cause damage. Recently developed real-time, deep-ocean

tsunami detectors provide the data necessary for models to make forecasts

(Gonz ́alez et al., 2005). The modeling of tsunami dynamics has only recently

matured into a robust technology that could provide fast and accurate prediction of the tsunami amplitude during propagation and runup (Synolakis

and Bernard, 2006)—the other reason for the absence of amplitude forecast

in today’s tsunami warnings. However, at present, necessary components for

providing practical tsunami amplitude forecasts are available (Titov et al.,

2005).

The necessary component of any short-term forecast are (1) real-time

measurements, (2) real-time modeling, and (3) a data assimilation scheme

that combines date and model to provide accurate forecasts for a location

where measurements are not yet available.

C2.3.1 Measurement

Several real-time data sources are traditionally used for tsunami warning

and forecast. They are (1) seismic data to determine source location and

source parameters (Oppenheimer et al., 2005), (2) coastal tide gage data used

for direct tsunami confirmation (McCreery, 2005) and for tsunami source

inversion studies (mostly research studies not in real-time mode), and (3)

real-time deep-ocean data from the DART network (Gonz ́alez et al., 2003).

There are several key features of the deep-ocean data that make it indispensable for the forecast model input:

1. Rapid tsunami observation

2. No harbor response

3. No instrument response

4. Linear tsunami dynamics (allows efficient data assimilation schemes)

C2.3.2 Modeling

Modeling methods have matured into a robust technology that has proven

to be capable of accurate simulations of historical tsunamis, after careful
82 National Tsunami Research Plan

consideration of field and instrumental historical data. However, application

of the modeling for real-time forecast applications remains a challenging

task. Technical obstacles of achieving this are many, but three primary

requirements are accuracy, speed, and robustness.

Accuracy: Errors and uncertainties will always be present in any forecast.

A practical forecast, however, minimizes the uncertainties by recognizing and

reducing possible errors. In the tsunami forecast, measurement and modeling

errors present formidable challenges; but advancements in the science and

engineering of tsunamis have identified and researched most of them.

1. Measurement error

2. Model approximation errors

3. Model input error

Speed: We refer here to forecast speed, relating to the time taken to make

the first forecast product available to an emergency manager for interpretation and guidance. This process involves at least two important, potentially

time-consuming, steps: (1) data stream to Tsunami Warning Center (TWC)

and (2) model simulation speed.

Robustness: With lives and property at stake, reliability standards for a

real-time forecasting system are understandably high; and the development

of such a system is a difficult challenge. It is one thing for an experienced

modeler to perform a hindcast study and obtain reasonable, reliable results.

Such exercises typically take months to complete, during which multiple runs

can be made with variations in the model input and/or the computational

grid that are suggested by improved observations. The results are then

examined for errors and reasonableness. It is quite another matter to design

and develop a system that will provide reliable results in real time, without

the oversight of an experienced modeler.

C2.3.3 Data assimilation and inversion

An effective tsunami forecast scheme would automatically interpret incoming

real-time data to develop the best model scenario that fits this data. This is

a classical inversion problem, where initial conditions are determined from

an approximated solution. Such problems can be successfully solved, only if

proper parameters of the initial conditions are established. These parameters

must effectively define the solution; otherwise the inversion problem is ill

posed (Avdeev et al., 1999).

Various methods of tsunami forecast have been discussed in the literature, most suggesting use of seismic data (e.g., Izutani and Hirasawa, 1987;

Shuto et al., 1990). Japan has implemented the real-time local forecast based

on seismic data (Tatehata, 1997). The U.S. is implementing a forecast system for Pacific-wide tsunami based on seismic and DART data (Titov et al.,

2005).

C2.4 Forecast information dissemination

The present tsunami warning centers have multiple, robust tsunami warning

dissemination systems. However, delivery of the tsunami warnings to coastal
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 83

residents varies dramatically along the coast and is not understandable to

all. The social aspects of tsunami forecast dissemination will be addressed

in Section 3, “Preparedness, Response, and Mitigation.”

C2.5 Research recommendations

C2.5.1 Real-time data acquisition

• Evaluate the value of real-time satellite-based observations of the sea

surface for tsunami warning application. Note the European Space

Agency proposal called the Passive Reflectometry and Interferometry

System (PARIS) Concept also suggests this, and rogue wave research

has been moving toward monitoring sea surface topography.

• Research on direct determination of ground displacement through global

GPS networks, or possibly sub-sea accelerometer networks.

• Research the uses of acoustic data acquisition for potential analysis of

landslide and seismic sources.

• Establish standardization of tide gage instruments throughout the

world.

• Research into use of underwater cables to record both seismic and

tsunami data.

• Explore the use of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems for rapid sampling of bottom pressure and nearshore measurements of tsunami currents.

• Preserve and analyze analog records of historical tsunamis to discriminate between small tsunamis and the background noise due to seismic

and meteorological fluctuations.

• Conduct research to provide uncertainty estimates for tsunami forecast

products.

• Create and maintain a rapid-response tsunami damage survey capability.

C2.5.2 Analysis

• Create a fast and accurate finite-fault moment tensor determination capability using standard seismic data, seismic array data, and/or ground

displacement data.

• Create operational models to determine ground deformation for complicated fault geometries.

• Utilize acoustic and/or infrasound data to identify and characterize

potential tsunami-generating events.
84 National Tsunami Research Plan

• Explore seismic analysis techniques and discriminators for landslide

events.

• Research into the use of neural networks or pattern recognition to help

analysts with the expanding amount of seismic data.

• Research into identifying offshore areas which have slope stability and

morphology characteristics such that tsunami-generating landslides are

possible.

C2.5.3 Tsunami forecasts

• Extend forecast models to include all potential sources (non-subduction

zone earthquake sources, landslide sources, impact sources, etc.). Research into characterizing these sources, using seismic or other data,

and then understanding how best to assimilate sea level observations

(whether obtained from tide gage networks, deep ocean pressure sensors, altimetry satellites, or elsewhere) is needed. Three-dimensional

numerical treatment of these sources may be a requirement as well—an

issue for further research to tackle.

• Identify strengths and weaknesses of different forecast models and their

range of applicability through a model standards process.

• Conduct research to provide uncertainty estimates for tsunami forecast

products.

C2.5.4 Forecast information dissemination

• Develop graphical product dissemination to better communicate tsunami threat to coastal residents and emergency management.

• Evaluate emergent communication technologies, such as satellite systems, cell phone systems, the proposed National Alert System, and

others as appropriate, in tsunami warning dissemination.

• Develop standards for an “Emergency Dissemination Protocol” for use

by all agencies involved in emergency response message dissemination

that exploit off-the-shelf electronics and future data transmission protocols such as IPv6.

C2.6 References

Ando, M. (1975) Source mechanisms and tectonic significance of historical earthquakes along the Nankai Trough, Japan. Tectonophysics, 27, 119–140.

Blewitt, G., C. Kreemer, W. Hammond, H.-P. Plag, S. Stein, and E.A. Okal (2006)

Rapid determination of earthquake magnitude using GPS for tsunami warning

systems. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33(11), L11309, doi: 10.1029/2006GL026145.

Bormann, P., K. Wylegalla, and J. Saul (2006) A cumulative broadband bodywave magnitude for quick reliable estimation of the size of great earthquakes.

Seismol. Res. Lett., 77, 285.
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 85

Cisternas, M., B.F. Atwater, F. Torrejon, Y. Sawai, G. Machuca, M. Lagos, A.

Eipert, C. Youlton, I. Salgado, T. Kamataki, M. Shishikura, C.P. Rajendran,

J.K. Malik, Y. Riza, and M. Husni (2005) Predecessors of the giant 1960 Chile

earthquake. Nature, 437, 404–407.

de Groot-Hedlin, C.D. (2005) Estimation of the rupture length and velocity of the

Great Sumatra earthquake of December 26, 2004 using hydroacoustic signals.

Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(11), L11303, doi: 10.1029/2005GL022695.

Guilbert, J., J. Vergoz, E. Schissel ́e, A. Roueff, and Y. Cansi (2005) Use of hydroacoustic and seismic arrays to observe rupture propagation and source extent of

the Mw = 9. 0 Sumatra earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(15), L15310, doi:

10.1029/2005GL022966.

Hanson, J.A., and J.R. Bowman (2005) Dispersive and reflected tsunami signals

from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami observed on hydrophones and seismic

stations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(17), L17606, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023783.

Ishii, M., P.M. Shearer, H. Houston, and J.E. Vidale (2005) Extent, duration, and

speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array.

Nature, 435, 933–936.

Kr ̈uger, F., and M. Ohrnberger (2005) Tracking the rupture of the Mw = 9.3 Sumatra earthquake over 1,150 km at teleseismic distance. Nature, 435, 937–939.

Ni, S., H. Kanamori, and D.V. Helmberger (2005) Energy radiation from the Sumatra earthquake. Nature, 434, 582.

Okal, E.A. (2006) Seismic records of the 2004 Sumatra and other tsunamis: A

quantitative study. Pure Appl. Geophys., submitted.

Okal, E.A., and C.E. Synolakis (2004) Source discriminants for near-field tsunamis.

Geophys. J. Intl., 158, 899–912.

Okal, E.A., and V.V. Titov (2007) MTSU: Recovering seismic moments from tsunameter records. Pure Appl. Geophys., 164(1–24), coi: 10.1007/s00024-006-

0180-5.

Okal, E.A., J.C. Borrero, and C.E. Synolakis (2006a) Evaluation of tsunami risk

from regional earthquakes at Pisco, Peru. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., 96(5),

1634–1648.

Okal, E.A., H.M. Fritz, R. Raveloson, G. Joelson, P. Panˇcoˇskov ́a, and G. Rambolamanana (2006b) Madagascar Field Survey after the December 2004 Indian

Ocean Tsunami. Earthquake Spectra, 22, S263–S283.

Okal, E.A., A. Sladen, and E.A.-S. Okal (2006c) Field survey of the 2004 Indonesian

tsunami on Rodrigues, Mauritius and R ́eunion Islands. Earthquake Spectra, 22,

S241–S261.

Okal, E.A., J. Talandier, and D. Reymond (2006d) Quantification of hydrophone

records of the 2004 Sumatra tsunami. Pure Appl. Geophys., in press.

Ruff, L., and H. Kanamori (1980) Seismicity and the subduction process. Phys.

Earth Planet. Inter., 23, 240–252.

Salzberg, D. (2006) Using T-phase spectra to estimate rupture depth and static

offset of the seafloor. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 119, 3252.

Stein, S., and E.A. Okal (2007) Ultralong period seismic study of the December

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and implications for regional tectonics and the

subduction process. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., 97(1a), S279–S295.

Synolakis, C.E., and D. Arcas (2005) quoted by Kerr, R.A., Model shows islands

muted tsunami after latest Indonesian earthquake. Science, 308, 341.

Tolstoy, M., and D.R. Bohnenstiehl (2005) Hydroacoustic constraints on the rupture duration, length and speed of the great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake.

Seismol. Res. Lett., 76, 419–425.

Tsai, V.C., M. Nettles, G. Ekstr ̈om, and A.M. Dziewonski, Multiple CMT source

analysis of the 2004 Sumatra earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(17), L17304,

doi: 10.1029/2005GL023813.
86 National Tsunami Research Plan

Yuan, X., R. Kind, and H. Pedersen (2005) Seismic monitoring of the Indian Ocean

tsunami. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(15), L15308, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023464.

C3. Preparedness, Response, and Mitigation

The United States has invested relatively little research effort on tsunami

mitigation compared with other natural hazards. Mitigation includes actions

taken to permanently eliminate or reduce the long-term risk to human life,

property, and function from hazards (Stafford Act 44 CFR 206:401). While a

number of research efforts have addressed the science of tsunamis (modeling,

propagation, inundation, tsunami deposits, historic impacts), and examined

tsunami warning issues, there are still relatively few studies on effective

education, communication, evacuation, land use planning, construction, lossestimation, recovery and other mitigation issues directed specifically toward

tsunamis or assessments of the effectiveness of existing programs. FEMA

breaks the broad category of hazard reduction into three areas: preparedness,

response, and mitigation.

C3.1 Preparedness

Preparedness includes education, communication, evacuation planning, and

local warning dissemination. Education is the most critical element as no

other mitigation activity can occur if the public, emergency planners and

responders, and decision makers don’t understand what a tsunami is or

know how to respond to natural and official warnings. Research should be

conducted to assess the effectiveness of existing education materials and outreach programs to develop best-practices benchmarks, to develop risk communication programs that will increase households’ and businesses’ adoption and implementation of hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness

measures, to examine evacuation behavior, and to determine the most effective mechanisms of communicating warning information. This work should

closely examine studies of other hazards such as floods, hurricanes, and

earthquakes.

C3.1.1 Education

Education is identified by the Strategic Implementation Plan for Mitigation

Activities in the U.S. Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP) as the

first of five planning elements. During the first 5 years of the NTHMP all of

the Pacific States have developed a variety of tsunami educational products.

However, there has been little research addressing what constitutes effective

tsunami educational materials and little coordination among States to define messages in terms of different user groups and desired outcomes. Few

studies have assessed who people consider credible sources of tsunami information and what prompts them to evacuate. The first recommendation of

the California Seismic Safety Commission report on California’s tsunami risk

(2005) was to “Improve education about tsunami issues in the State,” but

even with the heightened concern about tsunamis produced by the Decem-
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 87

ber 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, tsunami education and outreach programs

have not seen an increase in support commensurate with the scientific and

engineering aspects of warning systems.

C3.1.2 Outreach and communication

The goal of tsunami outreach programs is to ensure that communities and

individuals take appropriate actions while preparing for and responding to

future hazard events. Outreach programs should be based on best available

science, tools that communicate risk appropriately, and account for a community’s background and culture. Tsunami modeling by the NTHMP has

produced inundation information for many coastal areas of the five Pacific

States but may be difficult for the general public to understand. A variety

of tsunami hazard maps have been produced with considerable differences

between States or even for communities within States. Outreach programs

need to take the hazard information and display and communicate it effectively so all identified user groups understand the issues and are motivated

to take action. All of the five Pacific States developed outreach programs at

the State level and encouraged local programs as part of NTHMP mitigation activities. Washington State developed one of the most comprehensive

programs that included warning and evacuation signage in all coastal communities, sirens in some communities, tsunami brochures with evacuation

maps, and information on how to respond to natural and official warnings,

K-12 curriculum, and other materials, including a media guidebook and

video products. Washington has conducted several surveys to assess the

effectiveness of their program.

Seaside, Oregon was the focus of a joint USGS, FEMA, and NOAA pilot project that began in September 2004 to develop probabilistic tsunami

hazard maps. A separate project began in 2004 to convey risk and appropriate response through an extensive outreach program. The program lasted

nine months and targeted local residents, businesses, visitors, and children.

The project surveyed public tsunami awareness and preparedness actions before the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, after the tsunami, and again 4 months

later after an extensive outreach program had been carried out. The largest

change in perception of hazard occurred between the first two surveys, illustrating the educational impact of the Indian Ocean event. Outreach activities had very little impact on level of concern. However, outreach caused a

significant improvement in understanding of what a tsunami is, recognition of

the difference between warning signs of a distant and local tsunami, how best

to evacuate, and in developing personal plans. Results showed that trained

neighborhood volunteers going door to door reached the most people and

left the strongest impression for tsunami awareness and preparedness. This

practice of anchoring tsunami outreach in grass roots groups should be applied through existing tsunami programs, such as requiring “TsunamiReady

Communities” to designate community groups to be responsible for ongoing

tsunami outreach. The Seaside study illustrates both the significant impact

of the 2004 event on awareness, but that awareness alone does not lead to

understanding or appropriate response.
88 National Tsunami Research Plan

C3.1.3 Public response to warnings

Individuals and emergency managers are likely to receive tsunami warning

information from multiple sources and at differing times. There are two

tsunami warning centers in the United States, and although each has a

specific area of responsibility, bulletins from both centers are readily available

to the media and the public. During the 15 June 2005 Gorda plate event in

Northern California, the West Coast Alaska Tsunami Warning Center issued

a warning bulletin for the entire West Coast of the United States and the

Pacific Tsunami Warning Center issued an information bulletin stating no

tsunami watch or warnings were in effect. Both were correct in terms of area

of responsibility but the media and some local emergency personnel and the

public were confused by the seemingly contradictory messages.

There are two schools of thought to explain how people receive and respond to warnings. One emphasizes factors when a warning is issued. Our

understanding of human behavior in response to warnings in the U.S. has

relied heavily on this idea, which involved the study of compliance with

warnings of earthquake aftershocks in California (Mileti et al., 1994). A

second school argues that response is influenced more by factors well in advance of a hazard than those at the time the warning is issued, such as self

efficacy (people’s appraisal of their ability to take actions that effectively

reduce risk), outcome expectancy (the notion that a hazard can be mitigated by anyone), trust (people’s trust in officials or other people to provide

protection, access to information, assistance with evacuation planning, etc.),

and risk perception. People who do not believe they possess the knowledge

or physical capability to take recommended actions are less likely to do so

than those that do have such knowledge. People who are unlikely to believe

that risk can be mitigated are less likely to undertake mitigation, preparedness, or response actions than those who believe risk can be reduced, by, for

example, maintaining an emergency response plan, running to high ground,

etc. Finally, people who have low levels of trust in official agencies to develop

comprehensive warning and emergency response plans for communities are

less likely to take action recommended by officials and to take matters into

their own hands, which may conflict with official plans, thus increasing risk

for everyone. There are few published studies that address human behavior

in response to either official or natural tsunami warnings.

C3.1.4 International perspectives

The United Nations (UN) has been engaged for 15 years in a process of creating awareness and promoting the development of policies to diminish the

loss of life and property from natural and man-made disasters. Delegates

from 155 countries and organizations adopted the “Hyogo Framework for

Action 2005–2015” in January 2005. The Framework states that “[W]e are

far from powerless to prepare for and mitigate the impact of disasters. We

can and must alleviate the suffering from hazards by reducing the vulnerability of societies. We can and must further build the resilience of nations and

communities to disasters through people-centered early warning systems,
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 89

risk assessments, education, and other proactive, integrated, multi-hazard,

and multi-sectoral approaches and activities in the context of the disaster

reduction cycle, which consists of prevention, preparedness, and emergency

response, as well as recovery and rehabilitation.”

In the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami, the International Tsunami Information Centre (ITIC) of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic

Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, formed in 1965 to support the activities of

the 40-year old Intergovernmental Coordination Group (ICG)/Pacific Tsunami Warning and Mitigation System, has advocated for a comprehensive

approach to tsunami risk reduction.

ITIC has identified a number of key elements specific to preparedness:

1. Awareness activities that enable ordinary citizens to recognize a tsunami so that they know what to do.

2. Preparedness activities that educate and inform a wide populace, including government responders and those providing lifeline and critical

infrastructure services, on the procedures and activities that must be

taken to ensure public safety.

3. Planning activities that identify and create the public safety procedures

and products and build capacity for organizations to respond faster.

4. Strong buildings, safe structures, and prudent land-use policies, that

save lives and reduce property damage, implemented as pre-disaster

mitigations.

5. Stakeholder coordination as the essential mechanism that facilitates

effective actions in warning and emergency response.

6. High-level advocacy that ensures a sustained commitment to prepare

for infrequent, high-fatality natural disasters such as tsunami.

C3.1.5 TsunamiReady Program

The TsunamiReady Program was developed by the National Weather Service (NWS) in 2001 to promote community tsunami preparedness. It is

modeled on the NWS Storm Ready Program and was developed in coordination with the NTHMP Steering Committee. To achieve TsunamiReady

certification, a community must meet a number of criteria related both to

emergency planning/operations and education. By March of 2004, eight

U.S. communities had achieved TsunamiReady status, three each in Washington and Alaska and one in Oregon and California. The Indian Ocean

tsunami and expansion of the NTHMP has led to increased interest in the

program and currently 29 communities in 7 U.S. States have been designated

TsunamiReady. Congress and the General Accounting Office (GAO) have

recently emphasized that the TsunamiReady program needs to accelerate

the rate of recognition of U.S. coastal communities.
90 National Tsunami Research Plan

The TsunamiReady Program has been given a more significant role in

promoting tsunami mitigation in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami. Efforts to date have been piecemeal and always rely on a “champion” in the administration of the local coastal community. The goal is to

evolve and institutionalize TsunamiReady into viable mitigation, preparedness, response, and even recovery programs. Under consideration is changing

TsunamiReady into more of an all-hazards program developed specifically

for coastal communities.

A recent challenge is the expansion of the Tsunami Program to the Atlantic Ocean Basin. Ordered by President Bush and Congress after the

Indian Ocean tsunami, it presents a number of new political, financial, and

motivational issues to the TsunamiReady Program, as well as NOAA’s overall Tsunami Program. Very few historic events have impacted the region, no

tsunami hazard assessments are available, and other events like hurricanes

and flooding are far more frequent.

C3.2 Response and recovery

The NTHMP Strategic Plan for mitigation identified response and recovery planning as one of the strategic planning elements. Hurricane Katrina

demonstrated that the United States faces significant problems in both response and recovery for catastrophic disasters. While major tsunami events

have been included in FEMA planning exercises, there has been little research specific to tsunamis, or efforts that incorporate the lessons from Katrina into tsunami response and recovery plans. Research must be conducted

to identify both the unique issues involved with tsunami events and those

in common with other disasters. Research is needed to develop a framework

for the tsunami recovery and reconstruction process that incorporates both

sustainability and reducing vulnerability from future tsunami events.

C3.2.1 Response

Response addresses issues during the immediate disaster and its aftermath.

It includes both formal (governmental) and improvised (affected population)

responses to the event such as implementing evacuations, search and rescue,

fire suppression, securing the impacted area, providing immediate relief and

medical aid to victims, the treatment of bodies and control of contamination. The nature of response varies as a function of the type and degree of

impact and cultural issues. While all of the five Pacific States have developed response plans specific to tsunamis, this effort has not carried down

to all local jurisdictions. The 15 June 2005 West Coast tsunami warning

illustrated a broad range of local responses from setting off sirens (Crescent

City) to no notification whatsoever (most other California communities). In

Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington most counties have developed protocols for

response in the event of a significant tsunami. Few have been developed in

California and almost none in the other coastal States and Territories.
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 91

C3.2.2 Recovery

Recovery and reconstruction planning for tsunamis have received even less

attention than response in the United States. The immediate post-disaster

period can offer an opportunity for permanent changes in land use and construction that reduce future vulnerabilities, but such planning must be in

place ahead of time in order to be implemented in the face of chaotic postdisaster circumstances on the ground and political pressure to take action.

It is also a time when decisions regarding rebuilding can significantly impact

future economic diversity and sustainability of an area.

One of the lessons from the Indian Ocean tsunami is that the impact is

never merely local. While the physical damage is concentrated along a relatively narrow coastal fringe, the tsunami profoundly affected communities,

networks, and economies beyond the local sites of impact. In a number of

areas the impact was international, affecting migrant workers and international tourists. These extra-local places have had to deal with the death

of their loved ones, the stress of not finding them or knowing their whereabouts, or even their eventual return—the latter often creating a deficit in

household income.

How communities affected by disasters are able to recover depends on

a number of factors, such as the kind and extent of damage, the timeliness

and effectiveness of assistance from various institutional structures, village

cohesiveness, and community access to economic, social, and political resources. Social capital, the ability to mobilize access to resources through

prior or post-tsunami social networks, plays a crucial role in response and

recovery activities. These networks often stretch across a number of scales,

from networks within the community, to those that span district or regional

boundaries, or even beyond international borders. State and internal organizations are unable to provide support which reaches to every area, every

settlement, and every household. This places considerable emphasis on the

role of communities and local leaders in mobilizing and organizing resources

in situ, and attempting to access them ex situ.

Major disasters affect more than the physical well-being of a community.

The psychological impacts may include increased incidence of illness and

abuse. The Indian Ocean tsunami created an intense sense of fear in the

affected populations and a variety of local explanations blending science and

cultural issues.

An event on a scale of the Indian Ocean tsunami may radically transform

structures and processes of social relations and economic production. Posttsunami reconstruction does not mean recreating the pre-tsunami state of affairs. Just as the physical and environmental geographies may be profoundly

altered by a tsunami, so too may the social and economic geographies. The

danger-and therefore the challenge-is that because a post-tsunami situation

is one where people are characteristically emotionally and economically vulnerable, it may create opportunities for outsiders, for the worst of reasons,

to take advantage of the situation.
92 National Tsunami Research Plan

C3.3 Mitigation

Mitigation refers to construction, planning, and economic activities that

reduce vulnerabilities. The construction, design, and layout of buildings

and other infrastructure will affect damage, evacuation, and recovery. Risk

assessment that includes credible fragility estimates of the built and natural

environment to tsunami hazards can lead to loss estimates that will motivate

mitigation. Research is needed to understand the interaction of structures

with high velocity, debris-strewn water for input into construction guidance

and land use planning decisions, designation of vertical evacuation shelters,

and realistic loss estimates.

C3.3.1 Coastal structures and ports

Tsunami inundation and surge can damage coastal structures due to (1)

horizontal (hydrostatic, hydrodynamic, impulsive, and inertial) fluid forces

acting on a structure, (2) vertical fluid forces acting on a structure (buoyancy,

hydrodynamic uplift, and weight of water in a contained space), (3) debris

impact and potential water damming effect on the structure, (4) erosion

and momentary liquefaction of the soil. In addition to damage to buildings,

bridges, and oil tanks, port facilities are also subject to damage due to

tsunami inundation and surge. Tsunami-induced soil erosion and momentary

liquefaction can lead to undermining of structural foundations, roadways, sea

walls, embankments, underground pipelines, and other coastal structures.

Ships and boats docked in ports may be affected by large amplitude waves

and harbor resonance. Buoyancy, hydrodynamic uplift, and wave actions can

cause collapse of bridge decks and structural floor systems. Floating debris is

also a major source of structural damage due to initial impact and damming

effect when debris is lodged against structural elements. Japan is the leader

in implementing both warning and structural mitigation measures, including

evacuation routes, building codes, seawalls (some 10 m high) along shore

lines to minimize the inundation zone, and floodgates at bays and harbors to

prevent tsunamis from entering river systems. In the U.S., tsunami warning

systems and inundation maps have been developed for high-risk coastal areas

such as Hawaii, Alaska, and the Western States.

The built environment presents serious problems in protecting lives and

economies in the coastal area. Efficient evacuation may not be a practical

solution given the population at risk and the possibility of nearshore events.

There is no comprehensive construction guidance comparable to seismic or

wind building codes for structures that may experience both strong ground

shaking and near simultaneous impacts from high velocity debris-strewn water. As a result it is currently not possible to regulate construction within

inundation zones through zoning and building requirements. Shelters for vertical evacuation cannot be designated with confidence that they will survive

both shaking and inundation. The current ASCE 24 provides flood design

guidelines for residential construction in riverine floodplains and coastal inundation zones. The FEMA Coastal Construction Manual provides design

guidance for residential structures subjected to storm surge and coastal wave
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 93

action. The only U.S. community to have adopted tsunami design guidelines

is the City and County of Honolulu, which has jurisdiction over all private

and some public construction on the island of Oahu.

C3.3.2 Land use planning

Land utilization practices can exacerbate or reduce tsunami exposure through

street and building location and layout and related site development activities such as drainage, as well as vegetation management. Multi-hazard

comprehensive planning is a prerequisite to minimizing losses from coastal

hazards, including tsunami, hurricane, or severe storms. Comprehensive

multi-hazard planning is also the key to orderly recovery. Clearly articulated goals must guide future development to desired locations, and building

construction must comply with standards. By combining a variety of loss

reduction methods, communities can improve the capabilities of coastal environments to withstand the unexpected pressures from nature and from

humans. Setbacks or other mitigation strategies within the coastal hazard

zone must be defined based on scientifically based criteria. Once these strategies are defined they must be adopted by policy and enforced. For example,

poorly built structures that do not comply with current codes and policies

and which have been destroyed by tsunamis should be prevented from being

rebuilt in the same areas or to the same poor standards. These structures

are not only more vulnerable to tsunamis, but to other coastal hazards and

earthquake ground shaking as well.

C3.3.3 Vulnerability and risk assessment

In the United States, the current emphasis in tsunami mitigation has been on

detection, warning, and hazard assessment. There has been almost no work

assessing risk or vulnerability—the intersection of hazard with exposure and

the built environment. New Zealand undertook an ambitious probabilistic

tsunami hazard assessment, developed relations between water velocity and

structural damage, and made an estimate of the likely losses from significant

tsunami events. In concert with the hazard assessment, the New Zealand

Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences also undertook a review of the

country’s preparedness for tsunamis. These studies are unprecedented in

their scope, probabilistic framework for tsunami risk, societal impacts, and

thorough social science framework for tsunami preparedness assessment, but

are based on very little quantitative data or fragility relationships. The work

also assumed that the vulnerable population would not evacuate. There is

no information on what percentage of the population will evacuate under

various tsunami scenarios.

To manage risks associated with tsunamis, risk assessments must be developed for a variety of tsunami scenarios, including defining credible worst

case events that combine ground shaking, ground level changes, inundation,

and scour so that the vulnerability of both the people and the built environment can be understood. Such models should also include vulnerability of

vehicles subjected to tsunami surge. Risk should be assessed based on pro-
94 National Tsunami Research Plan

jected local and regional changes in land use and population patterns. To

better understand community resilience to tsunami hazards, it is important

to determine how threatened cities and communities vary in the type and

extent of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery planning efforts,

as well as variations in risk perception and tolerance. This information

should provide coastal communities with the detailed steps for building a

tsunami-resilient community.

C3.3.4 Social science and tsunamis

A recent review of research concluded the social impacts of natural disasters could be summarized by a model in which the physical (casualties and

damage) and social (psychological, demographic, economic, and political)

impacts of a disaster are determined by pre-impact conditions, emergency

management interventions, and event-specific conditions. Three pre-impact

conditions are hazard exposure, physical vulnerability, and social vulnerability. Pre-impact emergency management interventions include hazard mitigation practices, emergency preparedness practices, and recovery preparedness

practices. The three event-specific conditions are hazard event characteristics, improvised disaster response, and improvised disaster recovery. There

is a need to examine tsunamis in terms of this emerging consensus of the

impact of natural disasters.

C3.4 Research needs

C3.4.1 Preparedness

1. Develop mechanisms to incorporate the results of recent scientific and

engineering advances in tsunami science into education products. Define tsunami education goals and develop mechanisms to assess the

effectiveness of education programs. Define best practices in terms of

the result of this assessment.

2. Conduct research on what motivates people to evacuate in response

to either official or natural warnings. Evaluate how well people understand the tsunami information and alert bulletins issued by WCATWC

and PTWC. Collaborate with social scientists studying evacuation for

other natural and human-caused events. Use mathematical evacuation

models to assess warning capacity.

3. Examine significant community cultural issues for outreach and communication to effectively reach all potentially vulnerable populations

such as women and different religious or ethnic groups.

4. Research the effectiveness of different forms of conveying tsunami hazard information such as evacuation and hazard maps and public information materials to promote consistency among coastal jurisdictions.

5. Research the way in which individuals communicate with one another

during tsunami events, how exposure to informal information interacts
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 95

with observations of natural warnings and receipt of official warnings,

and how these collectively influence the decision-making process to

evacuate or not.

6. Evaluate people’s beliefs and expectations about safe places under tsunami wave heights of varying magnitudes and reconcile these with official evacuation plans.

7. Develop GIS-based hazard maps for all U.S. coastal regions so that

planners can develop reasonable preparedness, response and mitigation

plans, and hazard layers can be added to existing infrastructure and

zoning maps. Consider a phased approach with elevation-based maps

developed now and updated as tsunami modeling becomes available.

8. Research on how to effectively empower local businesses and homeowners in this mitigation and preparedness process.

9. Research on how transients (tourists, business visitors, seasonal workers) get information on hazards and response.

10. Research on communication of warning information especially at the

county and local level that emphasizes new technologies and how people get their information.

11. Research on the impacts (social and economic) of false warnings and

evacuations.

C3.4.2 Response and recovery

1. Research tools to provide emergency managers and first responders

guidance in re-entering inundation zones after a damaging event. Develop guidance for search and rescue and declaring all-clears.

2. Assess the effectiveness of exercises (drills) in improving response.

What types of exercises are the most effective? How frequently should

they be carried out?

3. Develop tsunami recovery planning guidance for different credible tsunami scenarios. Incorporate the experiences of the Gulf Coast in Hurricane Katrina and guidelines for reduction of future vulnerability.

C3.4.3 Mitigation

1. Define exposure and recurrence through incorporating paleotsunami

work with modeling and other hazard assessment.

2. Research the patterns of tsunami-related erosion and accretion and

how built and natural environments affect them.

3. Understand the impacts of tsunamis on structures and infrastructure—

roads and lifelines—and how planning can reduce impacts and loss.
96 National Tsunami Research Plan

4. Develop models of land level changes that may result from great earthquakes and tsunamis.

5. Address how building codes and land use planning can be incorporated

into community planning.

6. Research how the role of vegetation and surface roughness and nearshore and littoral structures such as coral reefs and dunes may reduce

or exacerbate tsunami impacts.

7. Research how tsunamis impact the coastal and nearshore ecosystem

and what interventions can reduce impact and speed recovery.

8. Assess how incentives such as insurance and tax rates can promote

mitigation.

9. Establish programs to investigate the effects of sediment transport and

scour, including soil liquefaction, due to tsunamis and storm surges.

Develop risk quantification measures for coastal structures, ports, and

underground pipelines against tsunami damage.

10. Develop performance-based design methods for coastal structures and

ports against tsunamis.

11. Explore the possibility of designing and constructing vertical evacuation structures to withstand seismic and tsunami loads (ATC, 2006).

12. Develop strategies to motivate land use planners, developers, and government to forgo the status quo and find new ways to build survivable

communities subjected to tsunami hazards.

13. Develop legal strategies to hold government, developers, and others

accountable for development in known hazardous areas where catastrophic loss of life can occur.

14. Develop fragility relations to estimate the physical, social, and economic impacts of different scenario tsunami events.

15. Develop reasonable tsunami loss estimation models that include both

short- and long-term economic impacts, comparable to treatments

available for other events such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.

C3.4.4 Social science

1. Research the influence of social cognitive factors such as self-efficacy,

outcome expectancy, and trust on the adoption of mitigation actions

and practice of evacuation plans.

2. Identify, measure, and enhance social capital to develop and maintain

outreach programs.

3. Foster closer collaboration among scientists and social scientists in both

researching tsunami impact and developing mitigation programs.
Appendix C—State of the Science Reports 97

C3.5 Tsunami research priorities—International Tsunami Information Centre (ITIC/IOC/UNESCO)

C3.5.1 Preparedness and response

1. The best method to teach the public about tsunami preparedness in

a sustained manner is through school curriculum, particularly at the

primary school level. There are excellent tsunami curricula developed

nationally and internationally. However, their integration and adoption into mainstream science curricula within the public and private

school systems has been largely voluntary and sporadic.

The NSF needs to advocate the MANDATORY adoption of a natural hazards curriculum of multiple hazards (i.e., tsunami, earthquake,

hurricane, tornado, flood, etc.) into science curriculum taught at the

primary level in both public and private schools.

2. There is a need to develop multiple, affordable communication methods to reach the public on a 7 × 24 basis, particularly during the night

and early morning hours when they are asleep. Rapid communications

to the public are essential in tsunami and other multi-hazard emergency response and evacuations. Radio and television announcements

through the media and Emergency Alert Systems are one of the primary means to reach the public. However, many television and radio

stations are not 7 × 24 operations, and shut down programming late at

night through the early morning hours. Moreover, the majority of the

public turn off their radio, television, and cellular telephones at night

before they go to bed. This leaves the public in a vulnerable period

when it is difficult to communicate with them while they are asleep.

Partial solutions to this problem include sirens, and “reverse 911” telephone calls.

Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 99

Appendix D: Federal Agency Activities and

Future Needs

Dear Federal Agency Representatives,

NOAA—David Green

USGS—Craig Weaver

FEMA—Michael Mahoney

NSF—Tom Birkland

Army Corps of Engineers—Michael Briggs

Nuclear Regulatory Commission—Eugene Imbro

NASA—John LaBrecque

We are on a tight schedule to complete the tsunami research review and

strategic plan by November 2006. To provide time for agency review and

publication, we are planning to have the report completed by September 1,

2006. To meet this schedule, we are asking participants to prepare plan information before the workshop so we can compile their input and distribute

a portion of the plan at the workshop on July 25 and 26, 2006. Your cooperation on workshop preparation is essential to the success of this project.

Our audience is the general public, so we will need to write in nontechnical language. As part of our plan, we envision a chapter on Federal

Agency Tsunami Activities. The chapter would include a description of

agency activity and funding for these activities for FY 2005. The categories

of activities should include Hazard Assessment (characterization of local and

distant sources and estimation of tsunami frequency, estimation of tsunami

impact using actual or model data, and evaluation threat to lives and community infrastructure), Warning Guidance (installation and maintenance of

monitoring systems to detect and forecast tsunamis in real time and the

timely dissemination of these warnings to save lives), Response and Preparedness (sustained actions to reduce the long-term risk to human life and

property based on hazard assessment and preparing threatened communities through education and land use management), and Research on these

categories. A budget estimate for each category should be included for FY

2005. From these data we can construct a table showing each agency’s tsunami activity and summarize the total U.S. effort. To keep the length of the

report to a minimum, we ask that your agency input be no more than two

pages of 12 point font text. A projection of future research needs would also

be useful. Future needs text can be any length you feel appropriate. Finally,

we are asking that you make a short presentation on your agency’s tsunami

activity to the workshop participants.

Your input should be e-mailed to Eddie Bernard eddie.n.bernard@

noaa.gov by July 7, 2006.
100 National Tsunami Research Plan

D1. National Science Foundation (NSF)

D1.1 NSF activities on tsunamis, FY 2005

The following brief report is a review of NSF funding activity in tsunami

research for awards that commenced in FY 2005. This does not necessarily

mean that this activity was funded primarily or solely by FY 2005 dollars,

but it is a reasonable approximation. It should also be noted that all the

following is research related. The NSF generally does not engage in programmatic activity, but NSF funded research certainly finds applications in

agency, private sector, and NGO efforts.

For FY 2005, NSF awarded a total of $6.3M for research on tsunamis.

Many of these studies were direct outcomes of the 2004 Sumatra tsunami.

The subject matter of these research grants is as follows:

Subject Dollars

Hazard Assessment $3.1M

Response and Preparedness $2.7M

Warning $0.4M

By comparison, for FY 2001–2004, the NSF funded projects totaled just

under $10M, or about $2.5M per year. Clearly, the 2004 Sumatra event

triggered greater interest in tsunamis; it also generated greater interest in

warning aspects of tsunamis, as well as in the social, economic, and recovery

aspects of tsunamis. This is reflected in the large number of awards given

under the Small Grant for Exploratory Research (SGER) program in the Human and Social Dynamics (HSD) competition in FY 2005. The 2001–2004

period was dominated by basic geophysical research, often linked to instrumentation and/or the emerging NEES system, and did not often consider

human dynamics.

If we include all awards that include the term tsunami in the title or

abstract for FY 2005, the total amount funded exceeds $48M, but $35M of

this is accounted for by the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation

(NEES) Consortium award. A closer approximation is $13M for a total of 42

projects, but many of these mention tsunamis incidentally to a discussion of

seismic hazards specifically, so, for comparison with other agency activities

explicitly related to tsunamis, it is best to use only those projects that

directly address tsunamis.

D1.1.1 Future research needs

Future research needs from NSF’s perspective will be a function of the research community’s interest in tsunami-related research, and in the demand

for such researchers from governments, both in the United States and elsewhere, the private sector, and NGOs. So far in FY 2006 the NSF has only

funded about $850,000 in tsunami research; this number may grow to about

$1M by the end of the fiscal year. It appears from past data that there is
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 101

in general about $2 to $3M in fundable projects in a given year on tsunami

issues. This number will grow if the user community promotes research in

this area, if researchers detect a benefit to science from this research, and if

more resources are made available to NSF for such research, such as through

a solicitation, jointly funded by NSF and a mission agency, that seeks to

expand tsunami research across all aspects of the disaster cycle, including,

very importantly, mitigation.

D2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA)

D2.1 NOAA’s Tsunami Program—A matrix program in

NOAA’s Weather and Water goal team

NOAA’s Tsunami Program is part of a cooperative effort to save lives and

protect property through hazard assessment, warning guidance, mitigation,

research capabilities, and international coordination. With FY 2005 expenditure of $26M and out year projections at comparable levels, the Tsunami Program contributes to and leverages activities across NOAA’s Mission

Goals: $824M Weather and Water, $1034M Ecosystem, $220M Climate, and

$150M Commerce and Transportation.

The Tsunami Program exists to coordinate and integrate the scientific

and operational expertise, resources, and capacity across NOAA required to

monitor, understand, and provide early warning of tsunami and related natural marine hazards to meet our Nation’s national and international economic,

social, and environmental needs. Addressing the physical and temporal scale

of the “tsunami” phenomenon requires multiple functional capabilities to be

harnessed efficiently and effectively, including real-time ocean and coastal

observation, tsunami forecast models that optimally interpret these observations, hazard and economic assessment, and prediction, data management

and communications, and outreach and education.

D2.2 NOAA’s research supports

• Improved measurement technology and the design of optimal tsunami

monitoring networks,

• Development and implementation of improved models to increase the

speed and accuracy of operational forecasts and warnings,

• Development of improved methods to predict tsunami impacts on the

population and infrastructure of coastal communities.

Improvement to tsunami observation networks, production of inundation

maps, and coordination and technical support for forecast delivery are coordinated under the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program

(NTHMP)—a NOAA-led partnership with other Federal agencies having

tsunami risk reduction efforts and with all U.S. coastal States, Territories,

and Commonwealths.
102 National Tsunami Research Plan

In 2005, the Tsunami Program began a 2-year project to strengthen the

existing U.S. tsunami warning system. This includes assisting State efforts to

extend hazard assessments and inundation forecast modeling to previously

unmapped coastal regions, enhancing the availability of a quality-assured

and quality-controlled historic tsunami data catalogue, increasing availability of timely and accurate seismic, sea level, and deep-ocean bottom pressure monitoring data through expanded geographic coverage, technology upgrades, improving data ingestion, documentation, and archiving, enhancing

existing information dissemination systems, improving forecasts and warnings, and extending education and outreach programs to ensure sustainment

and capacity building.

In parallel with the domestic effort, the Tsunami Program is supporting and strengthening existing international agreements and relationships

with other nations and organizations to improve the durability of regional

tsunami warning and mitigation systems. For example, the U.S. Government has a strong ongoing relationship with several United Nations agencies

and intergovernmental bodies involved in tsunami and tsunami-related risk

reduction. The U.S. also maintains numerous long-term science and technology agreements with other countries driving tsunami research and risk reduction efforts. In particular, NOAA’s Tsunami Program works closely with

the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO-IOC), providing expertise, knowledge, and technology to coordinate the regional and global tsunami warning

systems. The Tsunami Program partners with the World Meteorological

Organization, promoting multi-hazard early warning systems for integrated

disaster risk management and strengthening of communications infrastructure, in particular the Global Telecommunications System. The Tsunami

Program is also linked with the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) since

the global tsunami warning system is the highest priority contribution to

the all-hazards warning system of the Global Earth Observing System of

Systems (GEOSS).

D2.3 Program capabilities

D2.3.1 Hazard assessment

FY 2005 expenditure of $1.37M for characterization of local and distant sources

and estimation of tsunami frequency, estimation of tsunami impact using actual

or model data, socio-economic impacts

and evaluation of threat to lives and

community infrastructure.

NOAA, through its various projects

and partnerships, identifies tsunami sources, estimates tsunami frequency, develops models and maps

of inundation, and provides input to

hazard assessments that are used to

determine coastal risks. In addition,

the NOAA Tsunami Program links

with coastal service, zone management, and ecosystem programs to contribute to exposure, vulnerability, and risk assessments.

NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite and Information Service (NES-
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 103

DIS) provides data archive capability through its National Geophysical Data

Center (NGDC).

NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), and in

particular the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), conducts

research and development for tsunami detection, sensor platforms, communication networks, improved understanding of tsunami generation mechanisms, tsunami forecasts, inundation models and maps, and related activities leading to breakthrough performance in accuracy, timeliness, reliability,

and effectiveness of tsunami warnings and mitigation efforts.

D2.3.2 Warning and forecast guidance

FY 2005 expenditures of $20.33M for installation and maintenance of monitoring systems to detect and forecast tsunamis in real time and the timely dissemination of these warnings to save lives.

NOAA operates 24-7 two Tsunami

Warning Centers: The West Coast

and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (WC/ATWC) in Palmer, Alaska

and the Richard H. Hagemeyer

Pacific Tsunami Warning Center

(PTWC) in Ewa Beach, Hawaii. The warning centers acquire observational

data from seismic, sea level, and deep-ocean bottom-pressure monitoring networks, analyze the data to assess the tsunami threat, and disseminate using a

variety of communication systems to issue timely and accurate warnings and

information bulletins to emergency management agencies and the public.

NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) is responsible for the overall

execution of the Tsunami Program. This includes operation of the Tsunami Warning Centers as well as leadership of the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP). It also includes the acquisition, operations, and maintenance of observation systems required in support of tsunami warning, such as DART, local seismic networks, coastal, and coastal

flooding detectors. NWS also supports observations and data management

through the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) and mitigation through

its TsunamiReady Program, outreach to partners, and dissemination of the

Tsunami Program’s products.

NOAA’s National Ocean Service is responsible for deploying, upgrading,

and maintaining the multi-mission sea level stations that detect tsunamis

and provide real-time data that assist in preparing tsunami warnings, and

dealing with the issues of tidal datum conversions to orthometric datums

using the Vertical Datum (V-DATUM) tool for different regions of the U.S.

NOS encourages States and regions to adopt appropriate hazard mitigation

measures, including guiding development away from risk areas. NOS is also

responsible for mobilizing the assets of the Emergency Response Program to

prepare and respond to tsunamis, and it provides financial support to coastal

States for tsunami planning and preparedness activities. NOS also provides

bathymetric, shoreline, and topographic datasets used in the development

of tsunami forecast models.

NOAA’s Marine and Aviation Operations (NMAO) aids fleet allocation

and vessel acquisition and deployment, in coordination with the NWS National Data Buoy Center management of the Tsunami Program’s platform
104 National Tsunami Research Plan

c

Future Research Needs include

• linking NOAA inundation forecast products with evacuation maps,

• establishing modeling standards for U.S. coastlines,

– benchmark (validate, verify, and calibrate) all relevant models

• advancing tsunami data archival and availability standards,

– increase relevant paleoseismic/paleotsunami contributions to mitigation and risk assessment

– advance studies of historic events and impacts

• building consensus methodology/process for hazard assessment mapping,

• analyzing potential sources of highest impact, including landslide, volcanic/flank collapse,

• providing multi-purpose data and meta data, promoting integration of technical, socio-economic and

ecosystem data into assessments and decision support,

• enhancing international science and technology transfer and best practices.

resources (including DART stations), and to meet operations, maintenance,

and research requirements.

NOAA’s NESDIS provides satellite capabilities necessary for remote collection of sea level data in near real time and for dissemination of warnings

through systems such as GPS Earth Observation Network System (GEONETCast), Emergency Managers Weather Information Network (EMWIN), and

Radio and Internet for the Communication of Hydro-Meteorological and Climate Related Information (RANET).

D2.3.3 Preparedness and mitigation

FY 2005 expenditures of $3.53M for

sustained actions to reduce the longterm risk to human life and property

based on hazard assessment and preparing threatened communities through education and land use management.

Preparedness and mitigation are advanced through collaborative initiatives such as TsunamiReady,

partnership programs such as the

National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, and the NOAAhosted UNESCO Intergovernmental

Oceanographic Commission’s International Tsunami Information Center

(ITIC). All these efforts contribute to capacity building, education, and outreach using a multi-hazards approach to enhance awareness and preparedness

for communities at risk.

The Tsunami Program partners with other NOAA Weather and Water,

Climate, Commerce, and Transportation research projects working at the

community level to mitigate multiple hazards, including hurricane storm

surges and coastal flooding.
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 105

D2.4 Research

FY 2005 expenditures of $800,000 for research and development of tsunami forecasting systems, including activities in

improving hazard assessment, warning

guidance, and response and preparedness.

NOAA conducts research and development for tsunami detection,

sensor platforms, communication

networks, improved understanding

of tsunami generation mechanisms,

tsunami forecasts, inundation models and maps, and related activities

leading to breakthrough performance in accuracy, timeliness, reliability, and

effectiveness of tsunami warnings and mitigation efforts.

Research tools include: (1) instrumentation to measure tsunamis in the

deep ocean and along the coastline (in real time, to be used for warnings

and retrospectively for model verification) and (2) numerical models to use

real-time data to issue real-time tsunami forecasts and evaluate the tsunami

hazard at specific locations. Research products include publications in the

refereed literature, specialized reports (such as standards for measurement

and modeling protocol), and evaluation of technologies to make NOAA operations more efficient and cost effective.

Relevant research areas focus on identifying and facilitating means to

modernize and advance existing investments in warning, forecast, and mitigation system components, operation and maintenance, and associated training/capacity building required to ensure long-term sustainability.

Future Research Needs include

• improving NOAA warning products, including forecasts of tsunami amplitudes, period, duration, and

“all clear” advisories,

• enhancing tsunami monitoring and forecasting instrumentation, including technical function and sustainability,

• advance design and scalability of observational networks for timeliness, accuracy, uncertainty, and sustainability,

• advancing standards, numerical models, and data assimilation techniques,

• establishing best practices for quality controlling and assimilating multipurpose and multiuse data,

• developing communications protocols and related interoperability to better exploit data and disseminate

information that engages, advises, and informs,

• enhancing warning product effectiveness through surveys and evaluations of activities such as the

TsunamiReady program,

• integrating socio-economic research to better communicate uncertainty and drive desired decisions.

Research-to-operations and commercialization are cross-cutting science,

technology, and infusion activities that include integrated observation system design, forecast modeling and mapping, new warning center concepts of

operation and analysis, data management and assimilation, and next generation warning product development, testing, and evaluation in partnership.

Future opportunities include partnership programs, including a tsunami

test bed to identify and develop technologies.
106 National Tsunami Research Plan

International coordination involves working with other agencies,

countries, and organizations to ensure interoperability of regional tsunami

warning systems with the U.S. national system and the exchange of data to

increase national tsunami safety and system sustainability.

Encourage nations to work together to develop a strategic implementation plan for an end-to-end capability that (1) leverages and supports risk

reduction for multi-hazards, (2) supports regional interoperability and standards for relevant observational, data, and communications systems, and

(3) coordinates the activities of various contributors and priorities of funding science and technology transfer.

D2.5 External agency/organization partnerships

• United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center—Provides much of the key seismic data in support of

NOAA’s warning operations and research development. Collaborates

with NOAA’s research groups by developing specifications of potential seismic, landslide, and other tsunami sources suitable for forecast

models, including the probability of occurrence, when possible, and

providing bathymetry, coastlines, and topography for numerical modeling and other purposes. Assists NOAA with optimization of its own

local seismic networks for tsunami warning. Partners with NOAA for

its TsunamiReady Program.

• Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA)—Partners with NOAA for promoting tsunami preparedness and mitigation through the NTHMP, facilitating efforts to

provide emergency managers with assistance in hazard mitigation and

response planning, and collaborates in development of NOAA/FEMA

training courses for emergency managers. Ongoing efforts include advancing loss estimation tools for tsunami and related coastal hazards.

• National Science Foundation coordinates with NOAA in research planning and including use of the Network for Earthquake Engineering

(NEES) program to work to focus tsunami research on national needs.

• Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology is advancing projects to collaborate on community resilience.

Future Research Needs include

• creating a tsunami test bed to identify and develop next generation technologies, models, and tsunami

forecast capabilities,

• managing technology transfer and intellectual property,

• advancing standards and prototyping,

• encouraging international collaboration to harmonize databases, modeling, standards, hazard maps,

interoperability standards, cultural and socio-economic methodologies.
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 107

• U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—U.S. Government’s lead agency to manage and coordinate a multi-agency effort involving NOAA, USGS, U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA),

the U.S. Forest Service, and the State Department to develop an integrated, end-to-end Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System (IOTWS)

within a multi-hazard disaster management framework.

D2.6 Program outcomes

• Reduce loss of life, injury, and damage to the economy through improved tsunami detection, and detailed forecast and warning information to emergency and coastal zone managers.

• Reduce loss of life, injury, and damage to the economy by increasing

tsunami awareness and knowledge for persons in tsunami-vulnerable

areas.

• Reduce the loss of human lives and property through improved tsunami

detection, forecast and warning, and hazard mitigation activities.

• Increase the number of persons educated about tsunami preparedness.

• Provide emergency managers with enough detail to appropriately scale

their tsunami mitigation activities (evacuations are based on tsunami

size, runup maps, etc.).

D3. United States Geological Survey (USGS)

D3.1 Summary of U.S. Geological Survey tsunami activities

in FY 2005 and future research directions

The USGS contributes to many facets of the Nation’s efforts to characterize and monitor tsunami hazards faced by coastal populations in the U.S.

and worldwide. Three programs within the Survey’s Geologic Discipline,

Coastal and Marine Geology, Earthquake Hazards, and the Global Seismographic Network, conduct this work. The USGS collaborates extensively

with the Federal-State National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program and

academic partners. The U.S. Agency for International Development supports

USGS international tsunami studies coordinated with the Intergovernmental

Oceanographic Commission.

As requested, the following summary focuses on activities during FY

2005, including both ongoing USGS activities and those initiated in response

to the December 2004 Sumatra event in order to aid recovery in the Indian

Ocean region and reduce the impact of future tsunami events in the United

States and around the globe. Future research directions are also addressed.

D3.2 President’s tsunami warning initiative

In January 2005, the Administration announced a $37.5M initiative in FY

2005–2006 for NOAA and USGS to improve tsunami detection and warning
108 National Tsunami Research Plan

systems. For FY 2005, USGS received $8.1M in an Emergency Supplemental

Appropriation to support both NOAA’s tsunami warning responsibility and

the USGS responsibility for earthquake notification and hazard reduction.

As part of the President’s tsunami warning initiative, the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program made numerous improvements to the Advanced

National Seismic System (ANSS) in the areas of seismic data collection, analysis, processing, and notification procedures. These improvements increased

the speed and accuracy of earthquake data for tsunami assessment and of

rapid earthquake information worldwide. Key accomplishments in FY 2005

included hardware and software improvements at the National Earthquake

Information Center (NEIC), which initiated full-time, on-site operations in

FY 2006. The USGS made significant progress in fortifying its computer support and IT security operations at the NEIC. Software development efforts

included Common Alert Protocol (CAP)-formatted earthquake information

messages, support for the expansion of the California Integrated Seismic

Network (CISN) Display PC software to include access to NOAA tsunami

warnings, and an expanded geographic information system (GIS) dataset

for that software. Contractors were funded to support and enhance several existing earthquake information products used by emergency managers,

lifeline operators, and State highway departments. These products (ShakeCast, CISN Display, and ShakeMap) allow rapid delivery of earthquake and

shaking information critical to decision makers who must manage the event.

The Global Seismographic Network, jointly funded by USGS and

the National Science Foundation and carried out in partnership with the

IRIS Consortium and University of California San Diego (UCSD), received

funds from the initiative to expand the number of GSN stations that deliver

continuous real-time data to NEIC and through NEIC to the NOAA tsunami

warning centers. In FY 2005, USGS collaborated with UCSD, NOAA, and

the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty Organization to add telemetry links or

expand bandwidth to improve communications at GSN sites. To improve

the detection and rapid assessment of earthquakes in the Caribbean and

Atlantic, the USGS purchased equipment for nine new seismic stations to

be deployed in the Caribbean. In FY 2006, tsunami warning initiative funds

also went to the Coastal and Marine Geology Program to support offshore

mapping activities focused in the Caribbean.

D3.3 Response activities in the Indian Ocean region

As members of international response teams, USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program scientists provided scientific and technical expertise to support improvements in hazard mitigation and coastal planning relating to the

Indian Ocean tsunami. This effort included developing tsunami models and

related information on regional tsunami generation and propagation; providing critical geologic expertise; and collecting information on tsunami inundation, erosion and deposition, nearshore bathymetry, and coastal change

impacts. USGS staff led or participated in International Survey Team expeditions to Sumatra (twice), Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. Resulting geological

information and interpretations provide critical field validation for improved
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 109

tsunami models, aid in reconstruction efforts and future response planning,

define future vulnerability, and inform the public regarding tsunamis and

their impacts.

Beginning in FY 2005, USAID funded USGS scientists to carry out a

variety of activities in support of hazard reduction in the Indian Ocean and

development of an Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System. These activities

include hazard assessments, monitoring system deployment, and training to

build capacity for tsunami science in the region.

D3.4 Ongoing tsunami hazard assessment research activities

Continuing basic research includes mapping tsunami, earthquake, and landslide hazards in the Caribbean, Alaska, and the Pacific Northwest. Work

in the Caribbean was completed as a joint effort with the University of

Madrid, the Spanish Royal Naval Observatory, and the University of Puerto

Rico. The deployment of seismometers to image the fault structure of the

ocean bottom will assist in calibrating the seismic network to better locate

earthquakes in the Puerto Rico Trench and in planning an expanded Caribbean tsunami warning system. Collaboration with NOAA focused on efforts

to develop shared priorities for tsunami source assessments and to develop

forecast models as part of the Tsunami-Resilient Community concept.

USGS is attempting to improve the understanding of physical models

that underlie tsunami generation and warnings for the Pacific, Atlantic, and

Caribbean regions of the United States. A particular focus is identifying

the potential for tsunami generation by offshore landslides. Research on

tsunami deposits will lead to improved methodologies for estimating tsunami

inundation recurrence and magnitude. Numerical modeling will improve

understanding of earthquake and landslide mechanics in support of improved

tsunami source assessments.

A variety of geological and geophysical investigations are supported by

both the Coastal and Marine and Earthquake Hazards programs, with funding going to both internal and external researchers through the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program grants activity. These investigations have led to discoveries about tsunami hazards that are unknown from

written history in Cascadia, the Puget Sound, and other regions. They have

also improved discrimination of tsunami deposits from other storm deposits

and helped improve inference of flow speeds from tsunami deposits.

The open data policy of the GSN made it possible for researchers to access

the data quickly to study the earthquake and its rupture process in detail,

and GSN recordings of the Sumatra earthquake have been extensively used

in scientific studies to help scientists understand the physics of earthquake

rupture and dynamics of other subduction zones.

D3.5 Tsunami outreach and education

In 2005 the USGS issued two general-interest publications about tsunamis. One updates a popular booklet on tsunami survival (http://pubs.

usgs.gov/circ/c1187/). The other tells the scientific detective story be-
110 National Tsunami Research Plan

hind concerns about near-source tsunamis along the Pacific Coast between

southern British Columbia and northern California (http://pubs.usgs.

gov/pp/pp1707/). USGS scientists regularly assist State and county officials in tsunami-preparedness workshops in coastal communities and Indian

reservations of Washington State. The USGS presenters depict earthquake

and tsunami hazards that the officials are beginning to address through

evacuation maps and signage and with emergency planning.

D3.6 Future research directions

The following opportunities largely reflect collaborative activities with the

National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, universities, and other global

partners.

• Improved assessments of tsunami source potential for the development

of improved tsunami warning systems for the Pacific, Atlantic, and Caribbean regions of the United States. Existing data will be analyzed

to identify potential for tsunami generation by offshore landslides. Research on tsunami deposits will lead to improved methodologies for

estimating tsunami inundation recurrence and magnitude. Numerical modeling will improve understanding of earthquake and landslide

mechanics in support of improved tsunami source assessments.

• Fast identification and verification of large magnitude earthquakes for

improved response time for possible tsunamigenic events. This research

could lead to early warning capabilities for Cascadia. Improving the

immediate depth resolution along Cascadia and the ability to calculate

moment tensors would pay big dividends in verifying whether an earthquake was likely tsunamigenic (plate interface) or not (crustal fault,

Benioff zone).

• Timely information on the location, geometry, extent, and slip history

of offshore faults that threaten major metropolitan areas along the

west coast. Analyses will result in improved modeling of potential fault

motions and resulting earthquake and tsunami hazards, providing the

basis for improved forecasts of tsunami probabilities.

• Study of relation of strike-slip faulting to tsunami generation, in particular whether landslide-driven tsunamis are likely off Cape Mendocino,

where a magnitude 7+ strike-slip event occurs approximately every 15

years.

• Subduction source zone characteristics, including a robust comparison

with seismic and tsunami data. Most of this effort would come from

the Kirby/Geist working group report and use the Western Pacific to

hone models that could be applied to Cascadia.

• Improve regional assessments of tsunami hazard potential in the Caribbean (Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands) by developing enhanced geological and geospatial information leading to an improved hazard assessment for the region.
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 111

• Geologic investigations leading to an extended timescale for tsunami

history of U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

• Building capacity for tsunami science in developing countries.

D4. Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)

D4.1 Introduction

FEMA is a primary partner in the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation

Program (NTHMP). However, FEMA is not a research agency, so our input

into this report will focus on our mitigation and implementation work with

State and local agencies using the tools developed under the NTHMP. These

tools, such as tsunami inundation maps and tsunami warning systems, serve

as the basis for preparedness and mitigation planning and to improve public

awareness of the hazard.

Until now, the NTHMP’s and FEMA’s focus has been in the Pacific

Northwest, Alaska, and Hawaii, since this is where the largest number of

tsunamis and associated fatalities have historically occurred, although we

have also funded tsunami planning for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Probably the greatest risk to the U.S. would be a tsunami generated by an

earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone off the coast of Washington,

Oregon, and northern California. A Cascadia subduction earthquake would

be very large (estimated to be magnitude 9.0–9.5) and would result in a

tsunami very similar to the 2004 Sumatra earthquake and resulting Indian

Ocean tsunami. Unfortunately, such an event would only give 10–20 minutes

of warning time to the residents along the Pacific Northwest coastline.

While the tsunami threat is a low probability compared to other hazards

we address, it has the potential of being a very high-consequence event,

especially given the attraction of the coastline. For these reasons, FEMA

and our State and local partners have undertaken a series of mitigation

projects to help ensure that the resident and non-resident population will

have sufficient warning, a safe place to go, and the time to get there to better

prepare and reduce the risk of a future disaster.

D4.2 FEMA and State mitigation activities

The Mitigation Subcommittee of the NTHMP is coordinated by FEMA and

includes State emergency managers and geoscientists. The Subcommittee

wrote a plan for mitigation projects promoting development of “tsunami resistant communities” (Dengler, 1998; Jonientz-Trisler, 2001). The plan lists

five goals describing the nature of a tsunami-resistant community. The word

“resistant” was later changed to “resilient.” Tsunami resilient communities

should: (1) understand the nature of the tsunami hazard, (2) have the tools

they need to mitigate the tsunami risk, (3) disseminate information about

the tsunami hazard, (4) exchange information with other at-risk areas, (5)

institutionalize planning for a tsunami disaster.
112 National Tsunami Research Plan

The Subcommittee uses a Tsunami Resilient Communities Activities Matrix (Table 1) to track product development to meet the goals of the plan.

The matrix is broken into planning elements to implement the goals. The

Education Planning Element implements Goal 1 (understanding the nature

of the hazard) and Goal 3 (disseminating information about the hazard).

Two planning elements, Tools for Emergency Managers and Building and

Land Use Guidance, implement Goal 2 (having tools to mitigate the risk).

The Information Exchange and Coordination Planning Element implements

Goal 4 (exchanging information with other at-risk areas). The Long-term

Tsunami Mitigation Planning Element implements Goal 5 (institutionalize

planning for a tsunami disaster). The program uses this information to measure accomplishments and refine goals for future years. The matrix is also a

reference for others to identify what products exist.

The first Subcommittee project was installation of consistent tsunami

evacuation signage among four of the five Pacific States (Hawaii already

had signs installed). Alaska, California, and Washington adopted Oregon’s

evacuation sign design. States save time and money by sharing, adapting products, or pooling resources to develop something all need. Other

products (Table 2) are educational, such as videos; information products

for targeted audiences like tourists and local officials; tools for emergency

managers, such as inundation maps, evacuation route brochures, warning

programs and guidance, needs assessments and surveys, and some guides for

codes, construction, zoning, and land use; information exchange mechanisms

like multi-jurisdiction and interdisciplinary workshops and tsunami advisors;

and long-term mitigation activities such as all-hazards planning and formal

or informal State and local tsunami work groups. Most products did not

exist in 1994. Hawaii and Alaska were a source of tsunami knowledge for

the others.

The Subcommittee also develops national-level products that require

more resources and are more broadly applicable. Examples include consistent public information products, a guidance document about planning

and designing for tsunami hazards (National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation

Program, 2001), a guidance document for the public about ways to survive

a tsunami (Atwater et al., 1999, 2001), a mechanism for disseminating a

broad range of tsunami information to local and congressional officials (National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, 1999–2005), an early report to

Congress and others that describes State programs and products in detail

(Jonientz-Trisler, 1999), and a tsunami warning procedures guidance document (Oregon Emergency Management and Oregon Department of Geology

and Mineral Industries, 2001). A current project funded by NTHMP and

DHS/FEMA addresses design of a structure that might withstand both severe ground shaking and tsunami forces in order to be used for vertical evacuation in low-lying areas. Future projects include a tsunami loss projection

study and use of social science to measure and define product effectiveness

for target audiences, including the general public and businesses. The program provides resources to local jurisdictions through States. “Surviving a

Tsunami—Lessons from Chile, Hawai’i and Japan” was translated for use

by Spanish speaking people in this country and in South America.
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 113

Table 1: Tsunami Resilient Communities Activities Matrix (contact Mitigation Subcommittee for more

information on individual products).

Education Element—Goal 1 “Understand the risk,” Goal 3 “Disseminate risk information”

Evacuation and educational signs Exist, continue to offer communities, maintain

Media materials Develop

Public information products Integrate social science input for successful message to

public

Public service announcements Develop with social science input

Cost/Benefit of business tsunami mitigation Develop

State and local videos Exist for all States and a tribal video

Curriculum materials Exist for some States

Library resource materials Exist for some States

Training materials Some exist, others need development

Tsunami information for tourists Exist, need social science review and input

Tsunami information for State and local officials Exist, maintain, and update

Public education Exist, need social science review and input

Tools for Emergency Managers Element—Goal 2 “Tools to mitigate the risk”

Inundation maps Some exist in all States, some require bathymetry or

refining

Evacuation routes Some exist in all States, continue to develop

Evacuation brochures States assist communities to develop, continue

Warning programs Exist for all States, continue to improve

Local warning system guidelines Document exists

Guides for unmapped communities Exist in some States, continue development

Community needs assessments Exist at some level in all States, incorporate social

science input

Surveys Exist with target audiences, incorporate social science

input

Building and Land Use Guidance Element—Goal 2 “Tools to mitigate the risk”

Codes and construction guides Some available or under development

Zoning regulations and land use guides Some available in some States

Infrastructure guides Some available

Vegetation guides Some available

Vertical evacuation guides Under development

Information Exchange and Coordination Element—Goal 4 “Exchange information with others”

Coast jurisdiction contact Exists in all States

Multi-disciplinary meetings Exists in all States

Resource center to catalog products Exists, continue to add materials and share

Web page development Exists in all States, continue to update

Work with non-NTHMP States and entities Ongoing nationally and internationally, continue

Tsunami workshops Exist in all States, greatly accelerated in communities

post-Indian Ocean event

Tsunami technical advisor access Exists in all States

Long-Term Tsunami Mitigation Element—Goal 5 “Institutionalize tsunami planning”

State/Local tsunami work groups Exist in all States, reduces staff turnover affects

State tsunami mitigation planning Required in all States with tsunami risk

Incorporate tsunami into all-hazards planning States are incorporating into all-hazards mitigation

plan as required by DMA2000

Post-tsunami recovery guide At least one State has worked on this, is a priority national product to develop, increasing interest postIndian Ocean event

Loss estimation A subcommittee priority national product, increasing

interest post-Indian Ocean event

Local government tsunami planning guides Most States report available or in development

Tsunami legislation Exists in some States, increasing interest and action

post-Indian Ocean event
114 National Tsunami Research Plan

Table 2: A selective list of some NTHMP mitigation products to promote tsunami resilient

communities.

Signage

Tsunami hazard zone signs

Evacuation signs

Educational signs

Evacuation brochures

For homes, visitors centers, tourists, and hotels

Collaboration with other programs

Like TsunamiReady Communities, a NOAA Weather Service program

Guidance for

Surviving a tsunami

Planning and designing for tsunami hazards

Warning system procedures and protocols

A newsletter to disseminate and exchange information on tsunami facts, products,

activities and history

Public information and outreach products

Tsunami bookmarks that tell what to do

Coffee mugs that show what to do

Trivia puzzles using tsunami facts and words

Family disaster cards, magnets, stickers, and tent cards

Tsunami place mats for restaurants

Coloring books

Ice scrapers

School curriculum and booklets for children

Videos

Including local science, history, and eyewitness accounts

Native American oral history

There is great value to interweaving agencies’ expertise and aspects of

the NTHMP such as hazard identification, modeling, mapping, community

outreach, evaluation, and adjusted plans. NTHMP scientists and emergency managers work together to translate science and technology into userfriendly products for Federal, State, and local officials who plan for and respond to disasters, and for the public that is deeply impacted. We also try to

institutionalize tsunami planning and mitigation by weaving NTHMP activities into agency programs wherever possible. The Subcommittee provided input to and works with the National Weather Service (NWS) TsunamiReady

Communities Program to strengthen community warning systems. The

Subcommittee also provided input to FEMA’s Community Rating System

in the National Flood Insurance Program to lower flood insurance premiums through credits as an incentive to communities participating in certain tsunami warning system activities. Members incorporate tsunamis into

FEMA’s required Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant all-hazards plans. FEMA

provided some post-storm disaster grants to deal with fisheries recovery and

economic issues that address similar issues that tsunamis would trigger.

D4.3 Specific FEMA-funded State tsunami projects

Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, all of the Pacific Coast States

have now developed State Mitigation Plans that include addressing the tsu-
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 115

nami hazard along with their other hazards. Several communities within

these States have also developed Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plans under the

FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program that address the tsunami

hazard. This will allow them to be eligible for future mitigation funding

under FEMA’s grant programs. Some of these communities have been quite

innovative with their plans. These States and communities have recognized

their vulnerability to the tsunami hazard and they are addressing this risk

along with their other more frequent hazards. Some examples of coastal

counties that have FEMA-approved multi-hazard mitigation plans that include tsunami chapters are:

• OR—Coos, Curry, and Douglas Counties

• WA—Clallam, Kitsap, Skagit, Jefferson, and Cowlitz Counties

• AK—Cities of Nome and Juneau

Beyond awareness and evacuation route activities, the tsunami mitigation actions contained in some communities’ plans also include actions to

protect public and critical facilities. For example:

• Jefferson County, WA, plan includes proposed actions to make breakaway jetty improvements and to relocate their Port Townsend Police

Station outside of the inundation zone.

• Douglas County, OR, plan utilizes tsunami risk information from the

Oregon State Hazard Mitigation Plan and from the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries to develop their action items

for the coastal area of their county.

• Kitsap County, WA, plan includes a comprehensive range of actions

from awareness training, warning systems, evacuation routes, hazard

identification integration into transportation analysis, utilities and infrastructure protection, and debris/hazard materials.

Some communities have taken their Mitigation Plans even further and have

completed mitigation activities using local funding. Some examples here

include:

• Seaside, Oregon—several bridges susceptible to earthquake and tsunami damage that are required to evacuate citizens outside the inundation zone have been rebuilt to improved standards.

• Cannon Beach, Oregon—a new fire station was built outside of the inundation zone to replace an old fire station located within the tsunami

inundation zone.

D4.4 FEMA tsunami projects

There are several FEMA efforts that address the tsunami hazard already

underway that should be highlighted.
116 National Tsunami Research Plan

The first of these activities is that FEMA, through its National Flood

Insurance Program, along with NOAA and USGS, co-funded a $540,000

pilot project, in Seaside, Oregon, to develop more accurate tsunami data

and to demonstrate how that information could be incorporated on our new

improved flood hazard map products. The project also included improved

risk identification products to help communities better determine their risk

from a tsunami. The goal of the project was to develop techniques that

could be used to determine the probability and magnitude of tsunamis in

other communities along the west coast of the United States. The National

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was involved because we are responsible

for mapping areas subject to flooding in order to properly rate flood insurance policies and provide risk assessment information to States and local

communities. The NFIP has considered tsunami wave heights, beginning

with the original development of Flood Insurance Rate Maps since the late

1970’s in areas of Hawaii and the west coast, where tsunami was considered

a significantly probable flood threat.

Under the NFIP, inundation from tsunami would be covered by insurance

as a general condition of flooding. Also under the NFIP, communities that

meet certain Community Rating Service (CRS) criteria for tsunami planning

and mitigation get credit for that work, resulting in lower flood insurance

premiums for the community’s citizens.

FEMA addressed coastal seismic and tsunami design loads for buildings

when we developed the FEMA Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA-55).

This manual was developed to provide design and construction guidance for

structures built in coastal areas throughout the United States. The Coastal

Construction Manual (CCM) addresses seismic loads for coastal structures

and provides information on the tsunami hazard and associated loads. The

conclusion of the CCM is that tsunami loads are too great for conventional

residential construction and that, in general, it is not feasible or practical

to design these normal structures to withstand these loads. It should be

noted that the study did not address the possibility of special design and

construction details that would be possible for critical facilities.

A project was initiated by FEMA two years ago to develop tsunami design and construction criteria for refuge shelters capable of withstanding

specific tsunami loads that would allow for vertical evacuation of the local

population where high ground is not accessible in time (Rojahn et al., 2006).

Work for the tsunami vertical evacuation refuge project is being done with

input from the engineering and design communities and the States to research and produce the construction design guidance for a tsunami refuge

structure capable of withstanding both the severe ground shaking expected

during a design earthquake and specific velocities and water pressure from a

tsunami that would impact a structure. This is a significant challenge since

current design codes and practice take into account earthquake or coastal

storm surge but do not address stronger forces that a tsunami would generate. The project includes the results of work done at the Oregon State

University’s improved tsunami testing basin, funded by the National Science Foundation’s Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES).

The project is being done under contract to the Applied Technology Coun-
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 117

cil, and the guide is due out in mid-2007. Funding for this 3-year $500,000

effort was equally provided by FEMA (under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program), and NOAA (under the NTHMP).

An additional project phase has been contracted to develop a planning

guide for States and local communities on how this tsunami design guidance

can be utilized. This information will especially be critical for low-lying

communities that lack evacuation access to high ground following a local

earthquake and that may have to rely on vertical evacuation in existing

buildings.

In preparing for tsunami, warning systems are also a critical link. The

Department of Homeland Security has incorporated tsunami warnings into

its all-hazard warning systems.

FEMA funds the public/private consortium Cascadia Region Earthquake

Workgroup (CREW). CREW has developed products to assist the business

community in developing contingency plans for hazards that include tsunami. For example, they recently developed a subduction zone earthquake

scenario for planning for Pacific Northwest corporations, lifeline, and government entities.

D4.5 Conclusion

FEMA recognizes the value of educating the public, and is working with the

at-risk States to increase public awareness. Even the best warning system

is not enough if the public does not know how to respond. Residents and

visitors to coastal communities need to know local evacuation routes and safe

areas, and be prepared with emergency supplies. Strong ground shaking near

the ocean may be their only clue to the arrival of a tsunami within minutes.

If shaking is felt, or if they see the ocean suddenly begin to recede, they need

to know to immediately go to high ground and wait for further instructions.

They also need to be aware that tsunami waves can last for hours, and it is

the subsequent waves that can be the most dangerous, as they can be higher

and contain debris generated from the initial waves.

FEMA’s work enables communities to improve their emergency management by planning and preparing for innovative ways of evacuating to safety

and improving public awareness of the tsunami hazard in a multi-hazard

context. Anytime we can look at a potential threat comprehensively, we are

better able to deal with its risks. FEMA is proud to be able to help provide

the tools that States and local communities will need to be able to address

their risk from this rare but potentially catastrophic hazard.

Please contact the NTHMP Mitigation Subcommittee for more product

information and availability.

D4.6 References

Atwater, B.F., V.M. Cisternas, J. Bourgeois, W.C. Dudley, J.W. Hendley II, and

P.H. Stauffer (1999) Surviving a Tsunami—Lessons from Chile, Hawaii, and

Japan. USGS Circular 1187, 18 pp. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1187/

c1187.pdf.
118 National Tsunami Research Plan

Atwater, B.F., V.M. Cisternas, J. Bourgeois, W.C. Dudley, J.W. Hendley II, and

P.H. Stauffer (2001) Sobreviviendo a un tsunami: lecciones de Chile, Hawai

y Japon. USGS Circular 1218, 18 pp. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1218/

c1218.pdf.

Dengler, L. (1998) Strategic Implementation Plan for Tsunami Mitigation Projects,

approved by the Mitigation Subcommittee of the National Tsunami Hazard

Mitigation Program, April 14, 1998. NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL PMEL-113

(PB99-115552), NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/deng2030/deng2030.pdf.

Jonientz-Trisler, C., and J. Mullin (1999) 1997–1999 Activities of the Tsunami

Mitigation Subcommittee: A Report to the Steering Committee NTHMP.

FEMA Region 10 publication, 45 pp., Appendices. http://www.pmel.noaa.

gov/tsunami-hazard/TsunamiActivitiesBooklet.pdf.

Jonientz-Trisler, C. (2001) The Mitigation Strategic Implementation Plan: Toward

Tsunami Resistant Communities. In Proceedings of the International Tsunami Symposium 2001 (ITS 2001) (on CD-ROM), NTHMP Review Session,

R-8, Seattle, WA, 7–10 August 2001, 119–159. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/

its2001/.

National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, 1999–2005, TsuInfo Alert. Prepared for the NTHMP by C. Manson and L. Walkling, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, published

bi-monthly as a newsletter. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/tsuinfo/.

National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (2001) Designing for

Tsunamis—Seven Principles for Planning and Designing for Tsunami Hazards,

59 pp. http://nthmp-history.pmel.noaa.gov/Designing_for_Tsunamis.

pdf.

Oregon Emergency Management and Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral

Industries (2001) Tsunami Warning Systems and Procedures: Guidance for

Local Officials. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Special

Paper 35.

Rojahn, C., J.A. Heintz, S.M. Baldridge, I. Robertson, J.D. Hooper, and H. Yeh

(2006) Development of Design Guidance for Special Facilities for Vertical Evacuation from Tsunami (ATC-64 Project), (Keynote Talk), Proceedings, 10th

East-Asia Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction,

Bangkok, Thailand.

D4.6.1 Other resources

Example of an evacuation brochure: http://emd.wa.gov/5-prep/PnP/

prgms/eq-tsunami/OceanShores.pdf

D5. United States Army Corps of Engineers

(USACOE)

The main emphasis within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is

mitigation, or flood zone planning. The USACE cooperates with other Federal, State, and local agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA), Civil Defense, coastal zone management commissions, and

Office of Emergency Services (OES) organizations. The U.S. Army Engineer

Research and Development Center (ERDC) does not currently have a mission in tsunami research. We do, however, provide assistance when asked
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 119

by these agencies via our Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL) and

TeleEngineering Operations Center (TEOC).

During 2005, the USACE continued the survey of bathymetry and topography using state-of-the-art LIDAR technology at many islands and coastlines that have historically been affected by tsunamis. This effort was led

by our Joint Airborne LIDAR Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise

(JALBTCX) in Mobile, AL. The estimated budget of this Hazard Assessment activity in 2005 was $4.5M that included surveys from Maine to Miami,

the SW coast of Florida, and the Florida panhandle to Grand Isle, LA. The

Gulf of Mexico coasts have had several surveys to assess damage due to the

hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. Surveys for the Pacific Coast are scheduled

to begin in FY 2008. Bathymetric horizontal spacing is either 4 or 5 m,

depending on which LIDAR system is used. For topographic LIDAR, it is

all sub-meter spacing.

In 2005, the TEOC was asked to provide assistance with an assessment

of useable infrastructure in several countries affected by the 2004 Indian

Ocean tsunami. Information on inundation levels and in-country support

was provided to assess infrastructure, including salvageable and useable

roads, bridges, ports, and harbor facilities.

D5.1 Projection of future Federal agency tsunami activities

Since the Katrina Hurricane in late FY 2005, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has authority for emergency management activities in flood control and

coastal emergencies. Under PL84-99, the Chief of Engineers is authorized

to undertake disaster preparedness, advance measures, emergency operations for flood and post-flood response, rehabilitation of flood control works,

and protection or repair of federally authorized shore-protection works. Under the National Response Plan, the USACE is the Coordinator for Emergency Support Function #3, Public Works and Engineering, that includes

needs assessments, emergency infrastructure repair, critical public facility

restoration, demolition and structural stabilization, and technical assistance

as team leaders and subject matter experts (SME). FEMA is still the primary agency for recovery activities and can assign USACE missions to assist

in the execution of recovery missions. Of course, these are historically hurricane and storm-related missions, but can include the devastation from a

tsunami along U.S. coastlines.

The Government of Guam, represented by the Guam Homeland Security/Office of Civil Defense (HS/OCD), requested the U.S. Army Engineer

District, Honolulu (POH) to develop a scope of work to conduct a tsunami inundation mapping study for the U.S. Territory of Guam. Guam is the main

island in the Mariana Islands. Other islands in the chain include Saipan,

Rota, and Tinian, the principal islands in the Commonwealth of Northern

Marianas Islands (CNMI).

The University of Hawaii, working with the POH, is doing a tsunami

inundation study for the Hawaiian Islands. The Coastal and Hydraulics

Laboratory (CHL) plans to use these flood zone levels as a basis for hurricane

inundation levels in FY 2007. The CHL did some pioneering research on
120 National Tsunami Research Plan

tsunami wave inundation in the 1970s and 1980s and had written a tsunami

engineering manual. The CHL will continue to respond to requests from

FEMA, other government agencies, and Corps Districts and Divisions for

flood level predictions. Basic and applied research, and engineering design

and coastal planning activities will be performed and/or contracted with

academic institutions as necessary to accomplish these requests.

The Joint Airborne LIDAR Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise

(JALBTCX) in Mobile, AL will continue to provide LIDAR surveys of offshore bathymetry and landside topographic features along vulnerable coastlines in the U.S. The Joint Center is a partnership between the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command

with its Naval Oceanographic Office, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service. The Joint Center’s mission

is to conduct airborne coastal mapping and charting in support of the partners and perform research and development to evolve our capabilities and

supporting technologies. Spatial data is being used to characterize physical

and environmental conditions of the tsunami-vulnerable, U.S. coastal zones

along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico. Products include a seamless

digital survey of the coast with bathymetric LIDAR at a 5-m horizontal spacing and topographic LIDAR at a 1-m spacing. These surveys cover from the

waterline landward 500 m, and where water clarity permits, seaward 1000 m.

Digital imagery is also collected, coincident with the LIDAR surveys.

The TeleEngineering Operations Center (TEOC) will continue to respond

to disaster requests from other U.S. agencies where they can provide quick

estimates of infrastructure damage and repair costs. The TEOC has access

to SME’s within the ERDC organization that can be called on with short

notice and work in a virtual environment to assist requesting agencies.

D6. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

NRC’s primary mission is to protect the public health and safety, and the

environment from the effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, materials,

and waste facilities. We also regulate these nuclear materials and facilities to

promote the common defense and security. NRC carries out its mission by

conducting activities that include Regulations and Guidance, and Support

for Decisions (Research), among others.

Regulations and Guidance: NRC develops several types of documents

that contain guidance for applicants, licensees, and staff. Two types discussed here are regulatory guides and standard review plans (SRPs). SRPs

are issued as formal publications in NRC’s NUREG series. Guidance documents do not contain regulatory requirements, although licensees may commit to following regulatory guides as conditions of their licenses.

Support for Decisions (Research): The NRC regulatory research

program addresses issues in three arenas: nuclear reactors, nuclear materials,

and radioactive waste. The research program is designed to improve the

agency’s knowledge of where uncertainty exists, where safety margins are

not well characterized, and where regulatory decisions need to be confirmed
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 121

in existing or new designs and technologies. Information gained from the

research program is documented in our NUREG-series publications and is

used in the development of Regulatory Guides. Some of these publications

document technical computer codes used in research and provide information

on their use.

NRC’s regulations provide for protection of nuclear power plants against

natural hazards such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, and seiches. Following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, NRC reviewed

the licensing basis for currently operating nuclear power plants along the

coast and determined that there is adequate safety at the coastal plants for

tsunami. NRC also reviewed the guidance provided in the Standard Review

Plan for protection against tsunami, and determined that this guidance is

sufficiently conservative, but it could benefit from including a more detailed

technical basis reflecting the state of the art. The Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), is assisting NRC by providing the state-of-theart technical basis in a technical document for NRC’s use. This technical

basis document will be used in a detailed NUREG/CR report by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory related to protection of nuclear power

plant facilities against tsunami to augment the guidance in the SRP. NRC

is coordinating its reactor safety guidance development with NOAA to be

consistent with the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program.

NRC’s current study with PMEL is on characterizing tsunami sources

and numerically modeling wave heights from tsunamis. The research organization of NRC is also involved in a study of a methodology to assess realistic

scenarios of the probability of exceeding various tsunami heights at a coastal

site.

D7. National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA)

D7.1 Lead, Earth Surface and Interior focus area

The Earth Surface and Interior (ESI) Focus Area within NASA’s Science

Mission Directorate is tasked with coordinating NASA’s solid Earth research

program in accordance with NASA’s founding legislation, the “Space Act” of

1958. The strategic plan of the ESI focus area and its review by the National

Research Council can be obtained at http://solidEarth.jpl.nasa.gov.

NASA’s Earth Science program is not a funded component of the National Tsunami Research Program, but it does support significant research

directed to tsunami-related phenomena. NASA’s ESI focus area seeks to develop robust and cost-effective approaches to tsunami risk reduction through

the application of space-based and airborne remote sensing techniques. The

NASA all-hazards program is congruent and supports the goals of the U.S.

Tsunami Relief and Reconstruction Program (TRRP) in its goals of identifying the threat, effective and timely warnings, outreach, and international
122 National Tsunami Research Plan

collaborations. The ESI program differs from the TRRP in perspective because it is global in coverage and all-hazard in approach.

NASA is developing techniques to better understand and predict earthquakes (hazard assessment), to quickly estimate the tsunamigenic potential of earthquakes when they occur, and to estimate the impact of these

predicted tsunamis on coastal communities (hazard assessment and warning guidance). ESI is developing tsunami imaging techniques based upon

the Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) to image both the ocean

surface disturbances and the surface coupled ionospheric disturbances generated by tsunamis (warning guidance). NASA is working to improve global

ocean bathymetry and coastal zone topography (warning guidance, outreach,

and global collaboration) to better understand and predict tsunami impacts.

NASA is also working with national and international agencies to enhance

the environment for all-hazards research by developing organizational structures, information systems, and regional collaborations such as geohazards

natural laboratories (global collaboration). Advances within any one of these

points will reduce the tsunami risk. These efforts are aimed at developing a

long-term sustainable and effective tsunami warning capability.

A significant component of NASA’s effort is embodied in the development of space geodetic techniques in the measurement of solid Earth deformation. NASA is embarking upon the upgrade of its real-time Global

Differential GPS network (GDGPS), capable of real-time global decimeter

positioning. The GDGPS is comprised of NASA’s real-time global GPS

network, central processing facility, and a real-time data distribution system that utilizes multiple broadcasting systems, including NASA’s Tracking

and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) and commercial International

Maritime Satellite Organization (InMARSAT) satellites. A recent NASAsupported publication by Blewitt et al. demonstrated that real-time GNSS

networks, acting as 4-D strain gages, provide very significant improvements

in the estimation of earthquake magnitude and tsunamigenic potential over

that of presently available seismic techniques. NASA is beginning the development of real-time GNSS 4-D strain gage networks that could interface to

high-performance computing systems such as NASA’s Project Columbia for

the dissemination of real-time tsunami predictions within minutes of large

earthquakes. NASA supports the development of global earthquake prediction models and crustal deformation modeling, including Jet Propulsion

Laboratory’s (JPL) QuakeSim program, seismic data mining, and pattern

informatics such as Rundle et al., automated GNSS network data analysis

techniques, and finally GNSS based ionospheric and atmospheric modeling.

NASA is also developing a new GNSS remote sensing capability for ionospheric dynamics, atmospheric dynamics, and surface characterization based

upon its real-time GDGPS. The new GNSS receiver will use GPS and Europe’s Galileo, and the Russian GLONASS satellites and their new signal

structures. The end result is denser measurements each with a significant

(

√2) improvement in fidelity. The new receiver will also process the reflected

GNSS signals from the ocean surface with fidelity sufficient to generate model

images of the tsunami as it propagates. Many of us have observed how the

sun’s specular reflection on the ocean surface appears to follow an airplane,
Appendix D—Federal Agency Activities and Future Needs 123

effectively scanning the surface of oceans and lakes. Orbiting GNSS receivers

will see similar reflections from up to 36 different GNSS satellites, providing

dense measurements of ocean surface disturbances. This altimetric system

of 30–40 spot beams, using inexpensive GPS receivers, would detect ocean

surface disturbances, measure sea level changes, and provide for accurate

atmospheric and ionospheric structure. The GNSS-based ocean observation

system would be an impressive tool in the hands of the decision-making community, and as a public outreach tool to indicate the need to prepare and

heed warnings.

InSAR is an extremely valuable tool in the study of crustal deformation,

the development of accurate topography, and the support of all-weather posttsunami recovery. NASA is pursuing the development of InSAR technology,

research, and applications to geohazards. The Shuttle Radar Topography

Mission is the most recent success of NASA’s InSAR program. SRTM developed high-resolution accurate topography for 80% of Earth’s land surface

and coastal areas. The ESI is working to secure funding for an L-Band InSAR satellite system. NASA is developing the Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle–

Synthetic Aperture Radar (UAVSAR)—a small, easily deployable L-band

airborne InSAR system for geodetic imaging and surface change detection.

The UAVSAR’s first test flights are scheduled for January 2007. NASA is

working with our sister agencies to develop the ground infrastructure to deal

with the demands of orbiting and planned InSAR satellites and the delivery

of timely data to the research communities. NASA intends to utilize the

UAVSAR in support of geohazards natural laboratories such as EarthScope

and InSAR for supporting geohazards research and the evaluation of geohazard potential. NASA is working with GEO and Integrated Global Observing

Strategy (IGOS) in support of similar natural laboratories in the ASEAN,

Central, and South American regions.

These research activities are global and all-hazard in approach. They are

funded through several NASA programs and total approximately $7M/year

annual investment. NASA’s Earth Surface and Interior program has experienced significant budget reductions in recent years and its ongoing investments in many of these areas are under considerable stress.

Appendix E—Tsunami Warning and Education Act 125

Appendix E: Tsunami Warning and Education

Act, Public Law 109–424—Dec. 20, 2006

120 STAT. 2902 PUBLIC LAW 109–424—DEC. 20, 2006

Public Law 109–424

109th Congress

An Act

To authorize and strengthen the tsunami detection, forecast, warning, and mitigation

program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to be carried

out by the National Weather Service, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tsunami Warning and Education

Act’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term ‘‘Administration’’ means the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration.

(2) The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are—

(1) to improve tsunami detection, forecasting, warnings,

notification, outreach, and mitigation to protect life and property in the United States;

(2) to enhance and modernize the existing Pacific Tsunami

Warning System to increase coverage, reduce false alarms,

and increase the accuracy of forecasts and warnings, and to

expand detection and warning systems to include other vulnerable States and United States territories, including the Atlantic

Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico areas;

(3) to improve mapping, modeling, research, and assessment efforts to improve tsunami detection, forecasting,

warnings, notification, outreach, mitigation, response, and

recovery;

(4) to improve and increase education and outreach activities and ensure that those receiving tsunami warnings and

the at-risk public know what to do when a tsunami is

approaching;

(5) to provide technical and other assistance to speed international efforts to establish regional tsunami warning systems

in vulnerable areas worldwide, including the Indian Ocean;

and

(6) to improve Federal, State, and international coordination for detection, warnings, and outreach for tsunami and

other coastal impacts.

33 USC 3202.

33 USC 3201.

33 USC 3201

note.

Tsunami

Warning and

Education Act.

Dec. 20, 2006

[H.R. 1674]

126 National Tsunami Research Plan

PUBLIC LAW 109–424—DEC. 20, 2006 120 STAT. 2903

SEC. 4. TSUNAMI FORECASTING AND WARNING PROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, through the National

Weather Service and in consultation with other relevant Administration offices, shall operate a program to provide tsunami detection,

forecasting, and warnings for the Pacific and Arctic Ocean regions

and for the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico

region.

(b) COMPONENTS.—The program under this section shall—

(1) include the tsunami warning centers established under

subsection (d);

(2) utilize and maintain an array of robust tsunami detection technologies;

(3) maintain detection equipment in operational condition

to fulfill the detection, forecasting, and warning requirements

of this Act;

(4) provide tsunami forecasting capability based on models

and measurements, including tsunami inundation models and

maps for use in increasing the preparedness of communities,

including through the TsunamiReady program;

(5) maintain data quality and management systems to

support the requirements of the program;

(6) include a cooperative effort among the Administration,

the United States Geological Survey, and the National Science

Foundation under which the Geological Survey and the

National Science Foundation shall provide rapid and reliable

seismic information to the Administration from international

and domestic seismic networks;

(7) provide a capability for the dissemination of warnings

to at-risk States and tsunami communities through rapid and

reliable notification to government officials and the public,

including utilization of and coordination with existing Federal

warning systems, including the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration Weather Radio All Hazards Program;

(8) allow, as practicable, for integration of tsunami detection technologies with other environmental observing technologies; and

(9) include any technology the Administrator considers

appropriate to fulfill the objectives of the program under this

section.

(c) SYSTEM AREAS.—The program under this section shall

operate—

(1) a Pacific tsunami warning system capable of forecasting

tsunami anywhere in the Pacific and Arctic Ocean regions

and providing adequate warnings; and

(2) an Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico

tsunami warning system capable of forecasting tsunami and

providing adequate warnings in areas of the Atlantic Ocean,

Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico that are determined—

(A) to be geologically active, or to have significant

potential for geological activity; and

(B) to pose significant risks of tsunami for States along

the coastal areas of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea,

or Gulf of Mexico.

(d) TSUNAMI WARNING CENTERS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, through the National

Weather Service, shall maintain or establish—

Establishment.

33 USC 3203.
Appendix E—Tsunami Warning and Education Act 127

120 STAT. 2904 PUBLIC LAW 109–424—DEC. 20, 2006

(A) a Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii;

(B) a West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center

in Alaska; and

(C) any additional forecast and warning centers determined by the National Weather Service to be necessary.

(2) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The responsibilities of each tsunami

warning center shall include—

(A) continuously monitoring data from seismological,

deep ocean, and tidal monitoring stations;

(B) evaluating earthquakes that have the potential

to generate tsunami;

(C) evaluating deep ocean buoy data and tidal monitoring stations for indications of tsunami resulting from

earthquakes and other sources;

(D) disseminating forecasts and tsunami warning bulletins to Federal, State, and local government officials and

the public;

(E) coordinating with the tsunami hazard mitigation

program described in section 5 to ensure ongoing sharing

of information between forecasters and emergency management officials; and

(F) making data gathered under this Act and postwarning analyses conducted by the National Weather

Service or other relevant Administration offices available

to researchers.

(e) TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY; MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out this section, the National

Weather Service, in consultation with other relevant Administration offices, shall—

(A) develop requirements for the equipment used to

forecast tsunami, which shall include provisions for multipurpose detection platforms, reliability and performance

metrics, and to the maximum extent practicable how the

equipment will be integrated with other United States

and global ocean and coastal observation systems, the

global earth observing system of systems, global seismic

networks, and the Advanced National Seismic System;

(B) develop and execute a plan for the transfer of

technology from ongoing research described in section 6

into the program under this section; and

(C) ensure that maintaining operational tsunami detection equipment is the highest priority within the program

carried out under this Act.

(2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—

(A) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment

of this Act, the National Weather Service, in consultation

with other relevant Administration offices, shall transmit

to Congress a report on how the tsunami forecast system

under this section will be integrated with other United

States and global ocean and coastal observation systems,

the global earth observing system of systems, global seismic

networks, and the Advanced National Seismic System.

(B) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment

of this Act, the National Weather Service, in consultation

with other relevant Administration offices, shall transmit

a report to Congress on how technology developed under
128 National Tsunami Research Plan

PUBLIC LAW 109–424—DEC. 20, 2006 120 STAT. 2905

section 6 is being transferred into the program under this

section.

(f) FEDERAL COOPERATION.—When deploying and maintaining

tsunami detection technologies, the Administrator shall seek the

assistance and assets of other appropriate Federal agencies.

(g) ANNUAL EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATION.—At the same time Congress receives the budget justification documents in support of

the President’s annual budget request for each fiscal year, the

Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on

Science of the House of Representatives a certification that—

(1) identifies the tsunami detection equipment deployed

pursuant to this Act, as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year;

(2) certifies which equipment is operational as of December

31 of the preceding calendar year;

(3) in the case of any piece of such equipment that is

not operational as of such date, identifies that equipment and

describes the mitigation strategy that is in place—

(A) to repair or replace that piece of equipment within

a reasonable period of time; or

(B) to otherwise ensure adequate tsunami detection

coverage;

(4) identifies any equipment that is being developed or

constructed to carry out this Act but which has not yet been

deployed, if the Administration has entered into a contract

for that equipment prior to December 31 of the preceding

calendar year, and provides a schedule for the deployment

of that equipment; and

(5) certifies that the Administrator expects the equipment

described in paragraph (4) to meet the requirements, cost,

and schedule provided in that contract.

(h) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATIONS.—The Administrator shall

notify the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

of the Senate and the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives within 30 days of—

(1) impaired regional forecasting capabilities due to equipment or system failures; and

(2) significant contractor failures or delays in completing

work associated with the tsunami forecasting and warning

system.

(i) REPORT.—Not later than January 31, 2010, the Comptroller

General of the United States shall transmit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate

and the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives

that—

(1) evaluates the current status of the tsunami detection,

forecasting, and warning system and the tsunami hazard mitigation program established under this Act, including progress

toward tsunami inundation mapping of all coastal areas vulnerable to tsunami and whether there has been any degradation

of services as a result of the expansion of the program;

(2) evaluates the National Weather Service’s ability to

achieve continued improvements in the delivery of tsunami

detection, forecasting, and warning services by assessing policies and plans for the evolution of modernization systems,

Deadline.
Appendix E—Tsunami Warning and Education Act 129

120 STAT. 2906 PUBLIC LAW 109–424—DEC. 20, 2006

models, and computational abilities (including the adoption of

new technologies); and

(3) lists the contributions of funding or other resources

to the program by other Federal agencies, particularly agencies

participating in the program.

(j) EXTERNAL REVIEW.—The Administrator shall enter into an

arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to review

the tsunami detection, forecast, and warning program established

under this Act to assess further modernization and coverage needs,

as well as long-term operational reliability issues, taking into

account measures implemented under this Act. The review shall

also include an assessment of how well the forecast equipment

has been integrated into other United States and global ocean

and coastal observation systems and the global earth observing

system of systems. Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit a report containing the National Academy of Sciences’ recommendations, the

Administrator’s responses to the recommendations, including those

where the Administrator disagrees with the Academy, a timetable

to implement the accepted recommendations, and the cost of implementing all the Academy’s recommendations, to the Committee

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the

Committee on Science of the House of Representatives.

(k) REPORT.—Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a process for

monitoring and certifying contractor performance in carrying out

the requirements of any contract to construct or deploy tsunami

detection equipment, including procedures and penalties to be

imposed in cases of significant contractor failure or negligence.

SEC. 5. NATIONAL TSUNAMI HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, through the National

Weather Service and in consultation with other relevant Administration offices, shall conduct a community-based tsunami hazard

mitigation program to improve tsunami preparedness of at-risk

areas in the United States and its territories.

(b) COORDINATING COMMITTEE.—In conducting the program

under this section, the Administrator shall establish a coordinating

committee comprising representatives of Federal, State, local, and

tribal government officials. The Administrator may establish subcommittees to address region-specific issues. The committee shall—

(1) recommend how funds appropriated for carrying out

the program under this section will be allocated;

(2) ensure that areas described in section 4(c) in the United

States and its territories can have the opportunity to participate

in the program;

(3) provide recommendations to the National Weather

Service on how to improve the TsunamiReady program, particularly on ways to make communities more tsunami resilient

through the use of inundation maps and other mitigation practices; and

(4) ensure that all components of the program are

integrated with ongoing hazard warning and risk management

activities, emergency response plans, and mitigation programs

in affected areas, including integrating information to assist

in tsunami evacuation route planning.

Establishment.

33 USC 3204.

Deadline.

Reports.
130 National Tsunami Research Plan

PUBLIC LAW 109–424—DEC. 20, 2006 120 STAT. 2907

(c) PROGRAM COMPONENTS.—The program under this section

shall—

(1) use inundation models that meet a standard of accuracy

defined by the Administration to improve the quality and extent

of inundation mapping, including assessment of vulnerable

inner coastal and nearshore areas, in a coordinated and

standardized fashion to maximize resources and the utility

of data collected;

(2) promote and improve community outreach and education networks and programs to ensure community readiness,

including the development of comprehensive coastal risk and

vulnerability assessment training and decision support tools,

implementation of technical training and public education programs, and providing for certification of prepared communities;

(3) integrate tsunami preparedness and mitigation programs into ongoing hazard warning and risk management

activities, emergency response plans, and mitigation programs

in affected areas, including integrating information to assist

in tsunami evacuation route planning;

(4) promote the adoption of tsunami warning and mitigation measures by Federal, State, tribal, and local governments

and nongovernmental entities, including educational programs

to discourage development in high-risk areas; and

(5) provide for periodic external review of the program.

(d) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section shall be construed

to require a change in the chair of any existing tsunami hazard

mitigation program subcommittee.

SEC. 6. TSUNAMI RESEARCH PROGRAM.

The Administrator shall, in consultation with other agencies

and academic institutions, and with the coordinating committee

established under section 5(b), establish or maintain a tsunami

research program to develop detection, forecast, communication,

and mitigation science and technology, including advanced sensing

techniques, information and communication technology, data collection, analysis, and assessment for tsunami tracking and numerical

forecast modeling. Such research program shall—

(1) consider other appropriate research to mitigate the

impact of tsunami;

(2) coordinate with the National Weather Service on technology to be transferred to operations;

(3) include social science research to develop and assess

community warning, education, and evacuation materials; and

(4) ensure that research and findings are available to the

scientific community.

SEC. 7. GLOBAL TSUNAMI WARNING AND MITIGATION NETWORK.

(a) INTERNATIONAL TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM.—The Administrator, through the National Weather Service and in consultation

with other relevant Administration offices, in coordination with

other members of the United States Interagency Committee of

the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, shall provide

technical assistance and training to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, the World Meteorological Organization, and

other international entities, as part of international efforts to

develop a fully functional global tsunami forecast and warning

system comprising regional tsunami warning networks, modeled

on the International Tsunami Warning System of the Pacific.

33 USC 3206.

33 USC 3205.
Appendix E—Tsunami Warning and Education Act 131

120 STAT. 2908 PUBLIC LAW 109–424—DEC. 20, 2006

(b) INTERNATIONAL TSUNAMI INFORMATION CENTER.—The

Administrator, through the National Weather Service and in consultation with other relevant Administration offices, in cooperation

with the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, shall

operate an International Tsunami Information Center to improve

tsunami preparedness for all Pacific Ocean nations participating

in the International Tsunami Warning System of the Pacific, and

may also provide such assistance to other nations participating

in a global tsunami warning system established through the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. As part of its responsibilities around the world, the Center shall—

(1) monitor international tsunami warning activities

around the world;

(2) assist member states in establishing national warning

systems, and make information available on current technologies for tsunami warning systems;

(3) maintain a library of materials to promulgate knowledge

about tsunami in general and for use by the scientific community; and

(4) disseminate information, including educational materials and research reports.

(c) DETECTION EQUIPMENT; TECHNICAL ADVICE AND TRAINING.—

In carrying out this section, the National Weather Service—

(1) shall give priority to assisting nations in identifying

vulnerable coastal areas, creating inundation maps, obtaining

or designing real-time detection and reporting equipment, and

establishing communication and warning networks and contact

points in each vulnerable nation;

(2) may establish a process for transfer of detection and

communication technology to affected nations for the purposes

of establishing the international tsunami warning system; and

(3) shall provide technical and other assistance to support

international tsunami programs.

(d) DATA-SHARING REQUIREMENT.—The National Weather

Service, when deciding to provide assistance under this section,

may take into consideration the data sharing policies and practices

of nations proposed to receive such assistance, with a goal to encourage all nations to support full and open exchange of data.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator

to carry out this Act— (1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which—

(A) not less than 27 percent of the amount appropriated

shall be for the tsunami hazard mitigation program under

section 5; and

(B) not less than 8 percent of the amount appropriated

shall be for the tsunami research program under section

6;

(2) $26,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which—

(A) not less than 27 percent of the amount appropriated

shall be for the tsunami hazard mitigation program under

section 5; and

(B) not less than 8 percent of the amount appropriated

shall be for the tsunami research program under section

6;

(3) $27,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, of which—

33 USC 3207.
132 National Tsunami Research Plan

PUBLIC LAW 109–424—DEC. 20, 2006 120 STAT. 2909

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1674 (S. 50):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 109–698 (Comm. on Science).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 109–59 accompanying S. 50 (Comm. on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Dec. 6, considered and passed House.

Dec. 8, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

(A) not less than 27 percent of the amount appropriated

shall be for the tsunami hazard mitigation program under

section 5; and

(B) not less than 8 percent of the amount appropriated

shall be for the tsunami research program under section

6;

(4) $28,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, of which—

(A) not less than 27 percent of the amount appropriated

shall be for the tsunami hazard mitigation program under

section 5; and

(B) not less than 8 percent of the amount appropriated

shall be for the tsunami research program under section

6; and

(5) $29,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, of which—

(A) not less than 27 percent of the amount appropriated

shall be for the tsunami hazard mitigation program under

section 5; and

(B) not less than 8 percent of the amount appropriated

shall be for the tsunami research program under section

6.

Approved December 20, 2006.
Appendix F—Glossary of Acronyms 133

Appendix F: Glossary of Acronyms

ANSS Advanced National Seismic System

ART Alliance for Research in Tsunami

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations

ATC Applied Technology Council

ATWC Alaska Tsunami Warning Center

CAP Common Alert Protocol

CCM Coastal Construction Manual

CENR Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGS California Geological Survey

CHL Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory

CIRES Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

CISN California Integrated Seismic Network

CMT Centroid-Moment-Tensor

CNMI Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands

CRED Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters

CREW Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup

CRREL Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

CRS Community Rating Service

CSU California State University

CTBT Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty

DART Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DMA Disaster Mitigation Act

DOC Department of Commerce

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOGAMI Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

DOJ Department of Justice

DOT Department of Transportation

EERI Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

EM-DAT Emergency Events Database

EMWIN Emergency Managers Weather Information Network

EO-1 Earth Observing-1

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center

ERL Environmental Research Laboratories (NOAA; no longer exists)

ERS European Remote Sensing Satellite

ESI Earth Surface and Interior

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps

FVWave Finite Volume Wave

GAO General Accounting Office

GDGPS Global Differential Global Positioning System

GEO Group on Earth Observations

GEONET GPS Earth Observation Network System

GEONETCast GEONETCast is the data dissemination system of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems

(GEOSS) established by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO)

GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of Systems

GIS Geographic Information System

GLONASS Global Navigation Satellite System

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite Systems
134 National Tsunami Research Plan

GPS Global Positioning System

GRACE Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment

GSN Global Seismographic Network

GTS global telecommunication system

HA Hazard Assessment

HAZUS Hazards U.S.

HAZUS-MH Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard

HHS Health & Human Services

HIG Honolulu Institute of Geophysics

HS Homeland Security

HSD Human and Social Dynamics

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

ICG Intergovernmental Coordination Group

IGNS Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences

IGOS Integrated Global Observing Strategy

InMARSAT International Maritime Satellite Organization

InSAR Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar

IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

IOCARIBE Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Sub-commission for the Caribbean and Adjacent

Regions

IOTWS Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System

IRIS Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology

ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

ITIC International Tsunami Information Centre

JALBTCX Joint Airborne LIDAR Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

KGRD Key to Geophysical Records Documentation

LIDAR Light Detection And Ranging (laser radar)

MODIS Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer

MOST Method of Splitting Tsunami

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NDBC National Data Buoy Center

NEC Nuclear Energy Commission

NEES Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation

NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

NEIC National Earthquake Information Center

NESDIS National Environmental Satellite and Information Service

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

NGDC National Geophysical Data Center

NGO Non-Governmental Organizations

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NMAO NOAA’s Marine and Aviation Operations

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS National Ocean Service

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRP National Response Plan

NSF National Science Foundation

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

NTHMP National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program

NTIS National Technical Information Service

NUREG Nuclear Regulatory Commission report series

NUREG/CR Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contractor Report

NWS National Weather Service

OAR Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

OC Organizing Committee

OCD Office of Civil Defense
Appendix F—Glossary of Acronyms 135

OES Office of Emergency Services

OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSPHS Office of Science and Public Health Service

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

OSU Oregon State University

P&R Preparedness and Response

PARIS Passive Reflectometry and Interferometry System

PBEE performance-based earthquake engineering

PBTE performance-based tsunami engineering

PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation

PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric

PI Principal Investigator

PMEL Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

PNG Papua New Guinea

POH Pacific Ocean Honolulu (US Army Corps of Engineers USACE)

PR Preparedness and Response

PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

PTHA Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis

PTWC Pacific Tsunami Warning Center

RANET Radio and Internet for the Communication of Hydro-Meteorological and Climate Related

Information

RIX Region IX (FEMA)

SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar

SDR Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction

SGER Small Grant for Exploratory Research

SME subject matter experts

SRP standard review plans

SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

TAMU Texas A&M University

TDRSS Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System

TEOC TeleEngineering Operations Center

TERI Tsunami Engineering Research Institute

TRRP Tsunami Relief and Reconstruction Program

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

TWC Tsunami Warning Center

UAVSAR Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle–Synthetic Aperture Radar

UCSD University of California San Diego

UN United Nations

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USC University of Southern California

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USG United States Government

USGS United States Geological Survey

USTDA United States Trade and Development Agency

VA Veterans Affairs

V-DATUM Vertical Datum

VEI Volcanic Explosivity Index

WC West Coast

WCATWC West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center

WG Warning Guidance

WSSPC Western States Seismic Policy Council