Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
TsunamiReady community requirements do not it within the concept, terminology, and for-
mat of a standard, but they would more appropriately be described as a detailed assessment
scorecard for rating a local government. EMAP provides a concept and structure that could
serve as a model for TsunamiReady. The documentation and costs of EMAP assessments and
accreditation may preclude its application below the level of state emergency management
agencies, but the process of developing standards, use of baseline assessments, peer review,
periodic assessment of program sustainability, and continuous improvement of both pro-
grams and standards could be a model for the TsunamiReady Program. Alternatively, the NOAA
Tsunami Program could simply encourage larger jurisdictions to become accredited through
EMAP, with the requirement that tsunami events be part of the multi-hazard plan. The NTHMP,
through EMAP, could initiate an ANSI-compliant standard development process, within which
the existing scorecard would be restructured and simpliied. At a minimum, the NTHMP could
consider the ive elements of EMAP as mandatory requirements, in addition to a public educa-
tion requirement based on the latest social science on hazard education: (1) hazard identiica-
tion, risk assessment, and consequence analysis; (2) a mitigation program to reduce structural
vulnerability in areas subject to tsunami inundation; (3) emergency operations, recovery, and
continuity of operations plans and procedures; (4) redundant communication systems capable
of communicating alerts; and (5) training of oficials and responders, exercises, program evalua-
tions, and development of corrective action plans.
Conclusion:
The primary mechanism for increasing community preparedness for tsunamis
in the United States is the NOAA TsunamiReady Program. The current success metric for
the program is the number of communities that are annually recognized. The committee
questions the effectiveness of the program and its success criteria because the program
lacks the following elements: (1) a professional standard to guide its development,
(2) metrics to assess baseline readiness and community needs, (3) evaluative criteria to
assess community performance during a tsunami, (4) accountability measures to ensure
recognized communities meet mandatory requirements, (5) local points of contact with
training in community preparedness, and (6) criteria and guidance on what constitutes
effective public outreach and preparedness efforts. Although signage is considered
mandatory under TsunamiReady, the use of tsunami signs is inconsistent among NTHMP
members, suggesting the need for greater TsunamiReady program accountability and likely
creating the incorrect impression that areas without signage are not tsunami hazard zones.
Recommendation:
The NOAA Tsunami Program should strengthen the TsunamiReady
Program by making the following changes:
•
Implement professional and modern emergency management standards following the
example of EMAP.
•
Develop evaluative criteria for the assessment of community performance during
actual tsunamis.
•
Increase the level of accountability required of communities in order to maintain their
TsunamiReady status.
