Seaside, Oregon Tsunami Pilot Study—Modernization of FEMA Flood Hazard MapsBy Tsunami Pilot Study Working Group

Joint NOAA/USGS/FEMA Special Report

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency

NA

TIO

NA

L O

CE

ANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIO

N U

.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMER

CE

10 m

8

6

4

500-year tsunami—

maximum wave height (m) witha 0.002 annual probabilityof exceedance

Seaside, Oregon Tsunami Pilot Study—Modernization of FEMA Flood HazardMaps

Tsunami Pilot Study Working Group:

Frank I. González1, Eric Geist2, Costas Synolakis3, DiegoArcas4, Douglas Bellomo5, David Carlton5, Thomas Horning6,Bruce Jaffe2, Jeff Johnson7, Utku Kanoglu8, Harold Mofjeld1,Jean Newman4, Thomas Parsons2, Robert Peters2, Curt Peterson9,George Priest10, Vasily Titov4, Angie Venturato4, Joseph Weber5,Florence Wong2, Ahmet Yalciner8

1NOAA, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA2U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park and Santa Cruz, CA3University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA4Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO), University ofWashington, Seattle, WA

5FEMA, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. and Bothell, WA6Horning Geoscience, Seaside, OR7Northwest Hydraulics Consultants, Seattle, WA8Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey9Portland State University, Portland, OR

10Oregon Dept. of Geology and Minerals, Newport, OR

Joint NOAA/USGS/FEMA Special ReportU.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency

August 2006

NOTICE from NOAA

Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an endorsement byNOAA/OAR. Use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products or thetests of such products for publicity or advertising purposes is not authorized. Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration.

This report should be cited as:

Tsunami Pilot Study Working Group (2006): Seaside, Oregon Tsunami Pilot Study—Modernization of FEMA flood hazard maps. NOAA OAR Special Report, NOAA/OAR/PMEL,Seattle, WA, 94 pp. + 7 appendices.

Also available as:

Tsunami Pilot Study Working Group (2006): Seaside, Oregon Tsunami Pilot Study—Modernization of FEMA flood hazard maps. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1234 [available on the World Wide Web at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1234/].

Cover: Perspective view of 500-year tsunami in the Seaside/Gearhart, Oregon, pilot study area. Tsunami

wave heights (m) with a 0.2% annual probability of exceedance. Wave heights include the effects of

tides. Vertical exaggeration 10×; view looks southeastward.

Contribution No. 2975 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

Also available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

(http://www.ntis.gov)

ii

Contents

Executive Summary 1

1 Background and Introduction 5

2 Previous Methods Used for FIRM Tsunami Maps 92.1 Tsunami Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2 Trans-Pacific and Nearshore Numerical Models . . . . . . . . . . . 102.3 Predicted Tides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.4 Computing the 100- and 500-Year Tsunami Runup Heights . . . . 112.5 Application to Seaside, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3 Development of GIS Database 153.1 Digital Elevation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.2 Historical Tsunami Event Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2.1 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.2.2 Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.3 Model Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4 Tsunami Deposits 234.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.2.1 1964 tsunami deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.2.2 1700 tsunami deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.2.3 Older tsunami deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.2.4 Paleo-tidal inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.3 Discussion of Tsunami Deposit Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5 Probabilistic Method 355.1 PTHA Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1.1 Previous PTHA studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355.1.2 Application of PTHA to FIRM specifications . . . . . . . . . 36

5.2 Source Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.2.1 Source magnitude and geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.2.2 Far-field earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405.2.3 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . 44

6 Propagation and Inundation Modeling 516.1 Numerical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

6.1.1 Mathematical formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526.1.2 Moving boundary condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

iii

6.1.3 Tsunami propagation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546.1.4 Model verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6.2 Model Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556.2.1 Far-field sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566.2.2 Near-field sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.3 Numerical Model Setup and Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586.4 Database of Model Runs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

6.4.1 Discussion of model simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . 61

7 Evaluating Tsunami Impact Metrics 697.1 Forces on Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

8 Results 778.1 100-Year Tsunami Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778.2 500-Year Tsunami Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

9 Discussion: Resolvable Issues Through Future Research 839.1 Tsunami Earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839.2 Smaller Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . 839.3 Other Sources of Epistemic Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

10 Recommendations 8710.1 Scientific/Technical Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8710.2 Policy/Programmatic Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

11 Acknowledgments 88

12 References 89

Appendices 95A: Background tides and sea level variations at Seaside, OregonB: A digital elevation model for Seaside, OregonC: Summary of eyewitness observations from 1964 Alaska Tsunami inSeaside, OregonD: Location of sites used in this study and presence of 1964, 1700, and oldertsunami depositsE: Incorporating tides into probability calculationsF: Determining earthquake recurrence ratesG: Surface and area calculation for the 100-year and 500-year floods

iv

Executive Summary

FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) guidelines do not currently ex-

ist for conducting and incorporating tsunami hazard assessments thatreflect the substantial advances in tsunami research achieved in the last

two decades; this conclusion is the result of two FEMA-sponsored workshopsand the associated Tsunami Focused Study (Chowdhury et al., 2005). Therefore,as part of FEMA’s Map Modernization Program, a Tsunami Pilot Study wascarried out in the Seaside/Gearhart, Oregon, area to develop an improvedProbabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment (PTHA) methodology and to providerecommendations for improved tsunami hazard assessment guidelines. TheSeaside area was chosen because it is typical of many coastal communitiesin the section of the Pacific Coast from Cape Mendocino to the Strait ofJuan de Fuca, and because State Agencies and local stakeholders expressedconsiderable interest in mapping the tsunami threat to this area. The studywas an interagency effort by FEMA, U.S. Geological Survey, and the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in collaboration with the Univer-sity of Southern California, Middle East Technical University, Portland StateUniversity, Horning Geoscience, Northwest Hydraulics Consultants, and theOregon Department of Geological and Mineral Industries. Draft copies and abriefing on the contents, results, and recommendations of this document wereprovided to FEMA officials before final publication.

Methodology

The study methodology consisted of a number of important components,each of which was essential to successfully developing 100- and 500-yeartsunami inundation products required by FEMA for Flood Insurance RateMaps, including flooding depth and high velocity zones (V -zones). Thesecomponents were:

• Source Specification. Review of literature; consultation with expertcolleagues; development of a database of quantitative probabilistic mod-els of local and far-field earthquake tsunami sources in the CascadiaSubduction Zone (CSZ), the Alaska-Aleutian Subduction Zone (AASZ)and the Peru-Chile Subduction Zone (PCSZ).

• Data Acquisition. Performance of a paleotsunami deposit mapping andinterpretation study; acquisition of historical records and eyewitnessreports.

• Model Development, Testing, and Application. Development of a high-resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM) based on the latest available

1

2 Tsunami Pilot Study Working Group—Seaside, Oregon Tsunami Pilot Study

topography, bathymetry, and tidal information; development of a state-of-the-art, site-specific tsunami inundation model; testing of the modelwith all available tsunami field observations, including paleotsunamidata, historical records, and eyewitness reports; application of the model,using the source database, to generate the corresponding tsunami inun-dation database.

• Probabilistic Computations. Development of a systematic procedure toprocess the study data and compute the distributions of 0.01 and 0.002annual rates of occurrence (100- and 500-year) quantities, including theeffect of ocean tides; application of the procedure to create the site-specific tsunami hazard maps.

• Study-Specific Database Development. Development and documenta-tion of a comprehensive, study-specific, GIS-compatible database thatincludes sources, DEM, model output, field observations, and otherinformation relevant to the study; creation of web-based interface fordatabase access.

• Analyses and Interpretation. Use of the GIS database for quality controland error-checking, and to analyze and interpret the primary study re-sults; exploratory analyses and interpretation of various tsunami impactindices to generalize the concepts of tsunami hazard levels in general,and tsunami high-velocity flood zones (V -zones) in particular.

Results

Although Seaside suffered inundation and damage as a result of the tsunamigenerated by the Great 1964 Prince William Sound earthquake, little inundationis indicated by the 100-year tsunami hazard map. The interpretation of thisresult is that, on the 100-year time scale, Seaside is threatened primarilyby tsunamis generated by far-field earthquakes that are not generally as de-structive as those generated locally. In contrast, on the 500-year time scale,Seaside is threatened by large, destructive tsunamis generated locally by greatearthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, which lies just offshore. As aconsequence, the 500-year tsunami hazard map reflects very large regions ofSeaside inundated to significant depths.

Details of the methodology developed during the course of this project,a discussion of older tsunami assessment methods, data sources, literaturereferences, results, and other recommendations are provided in the body of thereport.

Recommendations

Some important factors influenced our recommendations, as follows. First,the methodology for probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment (PTHA) devel-oped by this study, while preliminary, is nonetheless a major advance overprevious methods, and should therefore be applied to upgrade assessments

3

in other coastal areas. However, considerable work remains to improve themethodology, and these follow-on studies should also be designed to refineand improve the methodology, as discussed in the report. Also, truly disastrouslocal events will inevitably devastate U.S. coastal communities near knownsubduction zones, such as the Cascadia and the Alaska-Aleutian SubductionZones; though infrequent, the impact of such events are so catastrophic thatthey must somehow be taken into account. Time limitations did not allowdevelopment of a “Credible Worst Case” methodology during the course ofthis study. However, our results lay the groundwork for the development ofthis method which, essentially, answers two fundamental questions: “Whatis the scientifically defensible and credible worst case scenario?” and “Whatis the probability of occurrence of this scenario?” This simple concept hasgreat intuitive appeal and should have very high practical value as an ac-tuarial tool. Finally, adequate PTHA for all U.S. coastlines is a long-term,challenging effort that requires an integrated, sustainable national approach,including the establishment and maintenance of Federal agency partnerships,in collaboration with State agencies, academic, and other institutions. Ourspecific recommendations are therefore grouped as Scientific/Technical andPolicy/Programmatic, as follows.

Scientific/Technical Recommendations

• Include all reasonable epistemic and aleatory sources of uncertainty ineach Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment, using the best availablescience.

• Utilize tsunami hydrodynamic models that meet NOAA standards, toensure consistency of Federal agency products.

• Test all earthquake and tsunami models by extensive field studies togather and exploit all possible paleogeography and paleotsunami data,historical tsunami measurements, eyewitness reports, and other types offield observations.

• Develop and maintain a comprehensive GIS database of all field data,model results, and a comprehensive site- and source-specific tsunami/earthquake bibliography for the region as an essential and invaluableanalysis and product development tool.

• Publish a report for each PTHA project that documents procedures, datasources, and results, that includes a bibliography, and that is reviewed forconsistency with FEMA standards.

• Publish PTHA results either as a separate Federal Insurance Rate Map, orinclude PTHA information as separate, tsunami-specific items on FIRMs.In either case, include: (a) the 100-year and 500-year events, (b) tsunami-specific V -zones, (c) measurements available for the worst case historicaland/or paleotsunami events, and (d) the “Credible Worst-Case Scenario”event.

4 Tsunami Pilot Study Working Group—Seaside, Oregon Tsunami Pilot Study

Policy/Programmatic Recommendations

• Establish a formal FEMA/NOAA/USGS partnership to address nationalneeds for tsunami hazard assessment products in a federally consistentand cost-effective manner.

• Apply PTHA to additional Cascadia Subduction Zone communities asNOAA inundation models are completed.

• Conduct pilot studies to adapt PTHA to other tsunami regimes in thePacific, Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf, using a preliminary assessment ofuncertainty.

• Apply PTHA to additional Pacific, Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf commu-nities as the corresponding pilot studies and NOAA inundation modelsare completed.

• Establish a systematic maintenance and improvement program to inte-grate scientific and technical advances into the PTHA methodology.