Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
tsunami-related disasters through redundant and reliable warning communications, public
readiness through community education, and oficial readiness through formal planning and
exercises. Jurisdictions (e.g., cities, counties, or states) are recognized after they submit an ap-
plication to the NOAA NWS and a local TsunamiReady Advisory Board veriies information in
the application. Since the NTHMP approved the implementation of the TsunamiReady program
in 2001, it has been constantly under review to increase its ability to effectively measure and
take into account the goals and objectives of the NTHMP. Draft TsunamiReady criteria currently
being discussed within the NTHMP broaden the emergency management scope of the original
criteria and include aspects of mitigation through land-use planning and regulation; promulga-
tion of inundation maps and their use in public education; alert and warning systems to notify
the public of potential dangers; training emergency response and management staff in the
nature of tsunami impacts and their roles and responsibilities in public notiication, response,
and recovery; and sustained education on evacuation procedures, routes, and refuge areas.
Based on the committee's discussion with representatives from the NOAA Tsunami Pro-
gram, the TsunamiReady Program, the emergency management community, and a review of
the original and new draft standards of the TsunamiReady Program (draft November 2008), the
committee observed the following:
Standards.
The TsunamiReady program lacks a professional standard (such as NFPA 1600 or the
Emergency Management Accreditation Program) regarding what actually constitutes tsunami
readiness and how success would be evaluated. The new, draft criteria for TsunamiReady
include an extensive list of possible actions, but local oficials have no guidance on which
actions are most effective and how to prioritize the various actions. The actions taken during
a tsunami on June 13, 2005, in Crescent City (see Box 3.4 and Table 3.1) illustrate how current
standards might not result in suficient community readiness. There is no current national data-
base of actions taken by each TsunamiReady community; therefore, it is not possible to identify
best practices, lessons learned, or additional needs in community resilience. Maintaining an
electronic database of TsunamiReady applications, for communities new to the program and
for those seeking re-certiication, would provide the NTHMP with the ability to conduct annual
needs assessments across the nation and to identify where additional efforts may be warranted.
Accountability for standards.
The practice of local committees (led by a local Warning
Coordination Meteorologist) to verify that communities have met program standards allows
communities to implement a lexible program but requires a level of accountability to be
maintained by the national program. In the course of our review, the committee observed
situations in which communities are not satisfying mandatory criteria (e.g., hazard or evacu-
ation signage) but are still recognized as TsunamiReady communities. The current metric for
the TsunamiReady program is the number of communities that are annually recognized, yet if
mandatory criteria are being ignored in the recognition process, the effectiveness of the pro-
gram and its success criteria are questionable. Some states (e.g., Washington) have recognized
the issue of accountability and now require state emergency management agency approval of
TsunamiReady applications before a community is recognized.
