Urban Hydrologic and Geologic Hazards Initiative

Fiscal Years 1997 to 2001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this initiative is to produce an assessment of multiple geologic and hydrologic hazards and potential losses in a five county area (Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, and Kitsap) in the Puget Sound basin. This multiple-hazard and loss information is envisioned as an important foundation to the National Mitigation Strategy being developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In addition, this is the first time that the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has applied multiple-hazard analysis to a single urban area. It is expected that the methods and conclusions developed in the Puget Sound area can be applied to other urban areas. Project scientists will work closely with officials from the five counties, the State of Washington and selected segments of the private, healthcare, emergency response, and lifeline sectors to develop information relevant to their disaster planning, mitigation, and response decisions.

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

Second, hazard statements for individual hazards (floods, earthquakes, windstorms) will be woven into a multiple-hazard statement based on GIS analyses. This statement is planned to be released in late 1999 (FY2000) and it will form the basis for developing regional loss assessments.

Third, the USGS and FEMA will partner directly to provide a multi-hazard loss estimate for the study area. This activity will take advantage of the comprehensive multiple-hazard loss estimation program now being developed under FEMA guidance. The USGS offices in Puget Sound will work with their counterparts in FEMA's local offices to develop a strategy to best present the loss estimates. A multiple-hazard loss assessment will be issued jointly with FEMA in the final year. Significant interaction with users is built into the implementation plan. Total budget over five years is $9.5M; the budget for FY97 is $2.0M.

ISSUE STATEMENT

Current hazards programs of the USGS focus on understanding and monitoring the physical processes that result in individual natural hazards and on producing assessments of these geologic and hydrologic hazards. In the Puget Sound basin, hazards that are especially common and also have a high propensity for damage include earthquakes, floods, and high winds. This initiative will be concerned primarily with earthquakes and floods, and information on high winds will be acquired from NOAA and included in the analysis. Other hazards in the region that are discussed are either more localized, cause less damage, or are less frequent and include landslides, debris flows, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions.

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

Only recently has consideration been given to the idea of characterizing regions in terms of multiple geologic and hydrologic hazards. Usually, mitigation measures are tied to individual hazards, making it difficult for many local jurisdictions and private companies to easily factor multiple-hazard loss-reduction strategies into their long-term planning. Indeed, without a proper framework and a complete understanding of possible losses, mitigation techniques for one hazard may contradict those for another. For instance, building in flood plains is discouraged to reduce potential flood losses. However, highly liquefiable ground is often found in flood plains, and engineering solutions to overcoming liquefaction rely on more intensive development on a particular site. In addition, most local jurisdictions and many private companies suffer both from poor loss estimates as well as poor methods to relate mitigation efforts to a reduction in the size of these loss estimates.

Finally, focusing on a single urban area adds new complications. As usually cast, national multiple-hazard and loss assessments are seen as the call to action for mitigating the catastrophic hazards: big earthquakes, big floods, and big windstorms. Focusing on individual urban areas will require careful integration of losses from low-frequency, high-damage hazards (such as powerful earthquakes); and higher-frequency, lower-damage hazards (such as severe flooding). The disparity in the potential costs and frequency of various natural hazard events provides a major opportunity for the USGS to test the uses of multiple-hazard statements in single urban areas.

GOALS OF THE INITIATIVE

The overall goal of this effort is to improve the utilization of earth-science research results in support of disaster mitigation measures, disaster response, and long-term urban planning that will reduce human and economic losses from natural hazards in the five-county, Seattle/Tacoma area.

The objectives of the five-year initiative are:

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

• Involve Federal, State, local, and private stakeholders to help design useful multiple-hazard and information and products.

• Translate our understanding of geologic and hydrologic processes into a clear statement of hazards.

• Develop a statement in a multiple-hazard format tailored to the urban environment of Puget Sound.

• Provide single-hazard loss analyses for the urbanized portions of the study area. Develop a method to perform a multiple-hazard loss assessment for the study area.

• Communicate information about multiple-hazards and risks to users and collaborators in an effort to encourage public and private mitigation and loss reduction efforts.

USGS expertise and abilities clearly can provide natural hazard information that is needed for actions that will reduce such losses. The USGS is the primary source of the hydrologic and geologic information that must be melded into clear, concise multiple-hazards statements. Because we have collected, analyzed, and communicated these hazard data, we are ideally suited to lead the examination of the usefulness of multiple-hazard loss assessments as well.

RATIONALE

Developing a comprehensive, overarching strategy to reduce the Nations losses from catastrophic natural disasters has long been recognized as needing federal leadership. Many catastrophic disasters show no regard for state or local boundaries, thus the Federal government has a role in any event to coordinate and direct resources among affected states. Also, a significant portion of the huge costs associated with catastrophic disasters are underwritten by the Federal government through such programs as National Flood Insurance. As the number of catastrophic disasters increased over the last 10 years, the insurance industry has become increasingly concerned about its ability to cover future insured losses.

As a result of these concerns, the Federal responsibility has been recognized by both political parties and the private sector. In addition, virtually all current discussions on establishing Federal policy on natural disasters are exploring multiple-hazards approaches.

As the national discussions go forward on establishing a National Mitigation Strategy, a comprehensive approach to insurance and re-insurance for disasters and other measures, the need for a clear understanding of multiple-hazards and associated risks will rapidly escalate. The USGS is ideally positioned to provide strong leadership in developing multiple-hazard statements and risk assessments because much of the basic data needed is already being collected under our existing programs.

In particular, the USGS is one of the four primary Federal agencies in the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. Since the inception of this program, the USGS has been viewed as the primary provider of the Nations earthquake information needs. Our Volcano Program is the only significant volcano hazards effort in the entire country. From just the viewpoint of these two programs, it is clear that the USGS is already in an established leadership position in developing hazards information.

Although the USGS primary expertise is developing hazards statements (and providing the supporting underlying information such as river levels), our ability to move toward loss statements is well recognized. The just released report, Strategy for National Earthquake Loss Reduction (National Science and Technology Council and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy), gives national leadership of virtually all loss and risk estimation studies for earthquakes to the USGS. That same report also charges the USGS to develop an accessible, digital spatial database. Thus, from hazard statements, to loss estimation and risk assessment, to database development, the USGS has a clear mandate.

Because of our heavy involvement throughout the Puget basin, we are the ideal agency to pioneer a multiple-hazard loss assessment program.

APPROACH

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

The multiple-hazard analysis, due to be completed by the end of 1999, will weave together the multitude of hazards facing the south Puget Sound area. This analysis will become one of the primary inputs to the calculation of regional losses. We are now beginning to determine how the USGS will collaborate with FEMA on this phase. Preliminary discussions with FEMA in July 1996 led to an agreed timeline to have a coordination plan to our respective agency managers by late November 1996. In the Puget Sound region, the USGS has proposed that we provide the computer equipment necessary to begin working with the loss estimation computer code. We are proposing to temporarily locate the computer equipment at the FEMA regional office and have USGS employees from Seattle and Tacoma work with side-by-side with FEMA employees.

Much of the early work joint work will focus on earthquakes, because this hazard has been incorporated into the initial loss estimation package. To help the development of a flood module, the USGS has named a liaison to provide additional technical oversight. Currently, FEMA expects to incorporate flood and windstorm loss estimates into the package by 1999.

Because of this developing partnership, we believe that under the Initiative the USGS will be able to focus on filling data and knowledge gaps, explore specific topics related to hazards, losses, and risk, and communicate these findings through outreach activities. In addition, the collaboration with FEMA positions the USGS to be the primary provider of input hazards data both for other major urban centers and nationwide.

INFORMATION AND OTHER PRODUCTS AND TIMELINES

Meeting the project objectives requires completion of a series of seven primary tasks. In addition, because of the large degree of inter-divisional coordination required, an eighth management task has been added. A detailed outline listing the tasks and subtasks follows below, with the responsible division(s) noted for each task or subtask as appropriate. The product timeline is keyed to the task outline, with product symbols described in an accompanying product list.

From the outset, this Initiative will be strongly tied to potential users. We have incorporated a key liaison group that will meet throughout the Initiative. The group will meet every six months and will consist primarily of potential key users of the major products. We expect this group to include representatives from the healthcare, emergency response, and lifeline sectors, possibly the insurance and banking industry, as well as members of local governments. It is hoped this group can help the USGS shape its risk assessment strategy.

Primary Task Outline and Division Assignment

Task 1.  Interaction with user community
    a.  Contact potential partners and users of hazard information to evaluate their needs and determine their interest in serving on a project liaison group. (G, W, N) 
    b.  Assess needs of user community. (G, W, N) 
    c.  Refine workplan, schedules, funding requirements and send workplan to bureau. (G, W, N)
    d.  Continue dialog with user community throughout initiative. (G, W, N)
                                  
Task 2.  Produce or acquire non-hazard data and data bases
    a.  Produce and acquire base cartographic data. (N)
       i.  Vector data sets - transportation, hydrology, boundaries, public land survey, culture
       ii.  Raster elevations
       iii.  Digital raster graphics
       iv.  Digital orthophoto quadrangles
    b.  Acquire socio-economic data. (N)
       i.  Census data 
       ii.  Infrastructure - critical facilities, lifelines, emergency response
       iii.  Land parcels and property values
       iv.  Zoning 
       v.  Historical and contemporary land use and cover types
       vi.  Building characterization inventory
    c.  Investigate utility of National Technical Means source. (G, W, N)
    d.  Acquire existing geologic, geophysical, hydrologic and seismic data. (G,W)
    e.  Integrate data into a common geo-spatial data base. (N) 
       i.  Determine data-base management scheme
       ii.  Determine data model, standards, and data-processing procedures
       iii. Hold workshop on metadata standard and its application by project participants
       vi.  Integrate data sets

Task 3. Collect existing information on frequency, duration, extent, and severity of hazards; identify and fill data and knowledge gaps; and improve response capability during hazard events
    a.  Collect existing information. (G, W, N) 
       i.  Provide existing 100- and 500-year flood inundation maps in pilot basin(s)
       ii.  Develop 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50-year flood inundation maps in pilot basin(s)
       iii.  Wind storms
       iv.  Wildfires
       v.  Storm surges
    b.  Identify and fill data and knowledge gaps. (G, W)
       i.   Evaluate accuracy of existing inundation maps and modify where required
       ii.  Evaluate temporal changes in flood frequency statistics
       iii.  Evaluate and map geomorphic considerations, including channel migration, sedimentation, and debris dams 
       iv.  Map tsunami inundation areas in collaboration with NOAA 
       v.  Map crustal fault systems using aeromagnetic and seismic imaging techniques
       vi.  Map geology needed to complete Tacoma 1:100,000 sheet
       vii. Complete maps of liquefaction and landslide potential for urbanized quadrangles
    c. Improve response capability during hazard events. (G, W) 
       i.  Expand (improve) real-time telemetry network (precipitation, snowpack, streamflow) 
       ii.  Produce improved flood-forecasting models for local users
       iii.  Develop capability to forecast and produce real-time inundation in a pilot study.
       iv.  Expand regional seismographic network in Mount Rainier and Glacier Peak areas
       v.  Add digital strong-ground-motion sensors to the existing regional seismographic network and develop appropriate interfaces to display ground-motion estimates.
       vi.  Add permanent GPS receivers to provide estimate of crustal deformation rates.

Task 4.  Write an integrated hazard assessment and make multiple hazards map
    a.  Explore cartographic techniques and select those appropriate for representing individual and multiple hazards. (N)
    b.  Develop techniques to communicate the value of a multi-hazard assessment. (G, W, N)
    c.  Develop selected hazard scenarios for regional models for response planning. (G, W, N)
    d.  Demonstrate improved assessment of floodplain hazards in a pilot study area. (W)
    e.  Evaluate basin amplification of seismic waves and effects of local site conditions. (G)
    f.  Demonstrate application of microzonation maps in selected pilot study area. (G)
    g.  Evaluate eruption and other volcanic hazards of Mount Rainier. (G)
    h.  Produce an integrated hazard assessment and a multi-hazard map. (G, W, N)

Task 5.  Develop methods to characterize and forecast degree of societal and economic vulnerability for each hazard
    a.  Create a project loss analysis team. (G, W, N) 
    b.  Develop partnerships with FEMA, private consulting community, academia and others to select appropriate methods for forecasting both societal (human life, suffering, and displacement) as well as the insured, uninsured, and business-interruption costs of primary hazards. (G, W, N)
    c.  Estimate social and economic costs of hazard events.

Task 6.  Develop multiple hazards loss index from information derived during tasks 2-5
    a.  Provide early input to project loss analysis team for method development. (G, W, N) 
    b.  Develop methods to combine project products into multi-hazard loss index. (G, W, N) 
    c.  Develop methods to contrast usefulness of multi-hazard index with standard probabilistic hazard
       analysis applied to individual hazards. (G, W, N) 
    d.  Apply methods to produce multiple hazard loss index for the entire study area. (G, W, N)
    e.  Develop cartographic techniques for presenting multiple-hazard risks. (N)
                                  
Task 7.  Identify specific areas of increased loss for consideration by State and local agencies
    a.  Develop independent evaluation of usefulness of multi-hazard loss assessment as applied to single urban area. (G, W, N)
    b.  Link multi-hazard and loss assessments to established mitigation programs (National Flood Insurance, seismic provisions in building codes). (G, W, N)
    c.  Conduct a series of State and local workshops to explain the derivation and utility of the multi-hazard loss assessment.  (G, W, N)
                                  
Task 8.  Inter-Divisional Project Management
    a.  Coordination (G, W, N)
    b.  Budget tracking (G, W, N)
    c.  Outreach activities (G, W, N)
    d.  Press relations (G, W, N)
    e.  Develop a plan to transfer techniques to a second urban area. (G, W, N)

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

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

An existing data clearing house will provide users access to the distributed digital spatial database. Data and information will be available over the Internet and by other appropriate means of transmission. In addition, analytical techniques and algorithms developed in the course of the project will also be made available to collaborators and cooperators.

INITIATIVE MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

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

A Steering Committee will be formed to ensure that activities under the Initiative are consistent with USGS policies and are well coordinated. This committee will include: Bob Page, Geologic Division, Chair; Ernie Hubbard, Water Resources; John Kemelis, National Mapping; Roz Helz, Director's Office; Craig Weaver, Geologic Division, Seattle; Carl Goodwin, Water Resources, Tacoma; Mike Crane, National Mapping, Denver; Tom Yelin, Project Coordinator, Geologic Division, Seattle. The Chair of this committee will name additional members as needed for appropriate oversight as the work progresses. This committee will meet once or twice annually to track progress and review priorities for the next fiscal year. The Committee Chair, Bob Page, has primary responsibility to coordinate the negotiations with FEMA on defining each agency's role under the proposed collaboration.

A subset of the Steering Committee will constitute the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will be concerned with tracking overall coordination and budget to ensure that the necessary tasks are being accomplished. The Executive Committee will be responsible for forming necessary Working Groups, convene the Liaison Group meetings, and provide the local coordination with FEMA, Region X, in the Seattle area. This committee will be chaired by a representative of the Geologic Division. The members of the Executive Committee are: Craig Weaver, Chair, Geologic Division, Seattle; Carl Goodwin, Water Resources, Tacoma; Mike Crane, National Mapping, Denver; Tom Yelin, Project Coordinator, Geologic Division, Seattle. The committee will meet at least quarterly and will be responsible for preparing necessary budget documents and progress reporting.

The Project Coordinator is responsible for communications within the Urban Hazards Initiative, for overseeing the preparation of necessary reports, and for scheduling activities (meetings, press conferences, and the like) undertaken as part of the effort.

Besides general coordination and budget, there are two other very important functions that will fall under the Executive Committee. The first is outreach coordination. Here our goal is to ensure that clear standards are established for our non-technical products (posters, fact sheets, video clips, traveling displays, etc.). A second goal is to ensure the widest possible distribution of Initiative results to the general public. Both of these functions will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator (the Executive Committee may determine that it is necessary to name an overall Outreach Coordinator to work under the Project Coordinator).

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

Working Groups will be formed as needed. It is anticipated that a Loss Estimation Working Group will be established soon after the detailed negotiations begin with FEMA. This Group will be chaired by Craig Weaver of the Executive Committee and charged with evaluating the loss estimation portion of the FEMA software package. Other Working Groups in the planning stages include a Project Working Group (consisting of the major Project Chiefs), a Data Standards and Management Working Group (chaired by NMD), and a Customer/Collaborator Working Group. The Executive Committee will select chairs for each working group. The Project Coordinator will be responsible for providing summaries of the working group activities to the Steering Committee.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

From the outset, the Writing Team has felt that a complete outside review of all initiatives should be undertaken. We believe it is very important to have an independent documentation of the successes and failures of our internal USGS initiative process. Accordingly, we urge the Director's Office to seek an independent, disinterested party or organization to establish appropriate review procedures. We believe strongly that the outside review should have full authority to establish appropriate performance measures of the effectiveness of all initiatives. The outside review group should participate in as many of each initiatives functions as necessary. We urge that this review begin immediately in FY97.

The outside reviewers should have the opportunity to watch each initiative unfold, and have early access to our collaborators and customers.

Beyond the outside review, we have established a liaison committee to guide work undertaken in the Initiative. The group will be asked to submit reports on how well the USGS is meeting the terms of the Initiative; however, as an interested party the liaison group cannot be considered unbiased.

A second opportunity for performance evaluation comes from the developing partnership with FEMA. Because FEMA is the lead Federal agency for the National Earthquake Loss Reduction Program (NEP) and manages the National Flood Insurance Program, they have authority to conduct reviews of the effectiveness of both programs. As FEMA is now developing a complete loss estimation package for use nationwide, it is very likely that FEMA could be convinced to conduct a review on the effectiveness of this Initiative during its last year. This would give FEMA valuable information on the usefulness of the databases and techniques developed in the Puget basin for multiple-hazard statements and risk assessments.

Within the Initiative, there are two tasks designed to compare the effectiveness of the two primary products, an integrated hazard statement and an integrated loss assessment, with conventional, single-hazard statements.

RESOURCES

The current plan for the Urban Hazards Initiative is a derivative of a concept document used for planning purposes by the Policy Council during the summer of 1995. In that document, this Initiative was envisioned as a four year effort. However, as the writing team convened meetings, held discussions in the region, and began framing work necessary to produce a useful product, it has become clear that fifth year is needed. There are three reasons for this additional year. First, data gaps are larger than anticipated. An example is the lack of geologic mapping in the Tacoma area. Second, understanding of several hazards, particularly the volcanic eruption history of Mount Rainier and the hazard from a major crustal earthquake, is particularly lacking. And third, the full power of the FEMA loss estimation program, incorporating flood and wind modules, will no be available until FY99.

Under the original four year schedule, this would leave only 12 months to complete the multi-hazard loss estimation portion of the project. That short amount of time is unrealistic considering the complex issues being examined.

During the first year, the funding will be divided 50% to Geologic Division, 30% to Water, and 20% to National Mapping. Second year funding switches the proportions to Water and National Mapping; this change reflects the additional resources needed to complete the database integration. During the final three years the split in funding will be as in the first year (50% GD, 30% Water, 20% NMD).

We recommend the following distribution of funds to better meet the requirements of this initiative. The budget reflects the current fiscal realities facing the USGS and shows level funding for four years. However, the Steering Committee recognizes that increased funding is needed in years two and three in order to full conduct essential field data-collection programs, ensure the success of the spatial data-coordination activities, and initiate stakeholder and education activities.

As noted above, another year of funding is needed during mid-initiative to complete filling of data gaps, analyze new and existing data for presentation of hazard information, develop an adequate risk analysis, interact with stakeholders and incorporate their ideas into products and plans for presentation of results, and continue outreach and education work. A reduced yet substantial funding level during the last year of the initiative is needed to assure completion of products, establish the kiosk network, and meet product demands.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
The URL of this page is:  http://rmmcweb.cr.usgs.gov/~dcatts/hazards/restricted/fiveyear.html
Contact:  dcatts@usgs.gov
Updated:  8 April 1999