NOAA coastal hazards assessment final report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone
Inormation
Center

NOAA/OFFICE of Ocean & Costal Resource Magmt

NOAA Coastal Harzards
Assessment Final
Report

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER
GF
85
.A45
1984

V, J-
UvNITED STATES OF CO'MMERCE
Q
National Iccanic and Atmospheric Adr-ninistr t..
N T 1 ON A L 0 CES E
-'L 7R E S 0E. J
3= OCE
"Arts '.)* ?-111" - - - , z
I U. -@*, @ @ @ N /OPM4: VA

February 23, 1984

TO: Distribution

FROM: N/ORM4 - Vickie A. Allin

SUBJECT: NOAA Coastal Hazards Assessment Final Report

Attached is the final report of the NOAA Coastal Hazards Assessment.
The report incorporates the comments I received on the previous draft. In
addition, I have reorganized it to delete two sections dealing with changes
in Federal coastal hazards policy and emerging coastal hazards issues and
have fit these points into the general issue discussion: Hopefully, this
will help those who were confused by the previous format about how these
points fit into the analysis*and recommendations. There was general
agreement with the recommendations and they remain unchanged.

In accordance with Kelly Taggart's memorandum of November 29, 1983, OCRM
is implementing the recommendations. First, we have established the structure
within OCRM for carrying out our coastal hazards responsibilities. The co-
chairs of OCRM's Coastal Hazards Task Force, Marcella Jansen in the Policy
Coordination Division and Dennis Carroll's replacement in the Coastal Programs
Division, will have overall responsibility for the program, with the advice
and assistance of the Task Force members. Second, we have established the
NOAA Coastal Hazards Coordinating Committee. The Committee has held two
meetings and has basically agreed on a statement.of purpose, operation and
objectives. Third, we have worked with FEMA to revise and consolidate annexes
D,E and F of the NOAA/FEMA MOU. Our proposed revisions are presently in
clearance within NOAA and FEMA. We will contact you, through the Committee
or individually, as we implement the remaining recommendations.

I want to thank all of you for your time and thoughtful attention to the
report and ask for your continued cooperation in its implementation.

Attachment

Distribution:

Nx1 - William Matuszeski
Nx22 - Ledolph Baer
N/PS - Eileen Mulaney
N/OMS Charles N. Ehler
Glenn Flittner
Philip Cohen
N/CG Lawrence W. Fritz
N/ORM Peter Tweedt
James Blizzard
Dail Brown
JoAnn Chandler

N/ORM James Burgess
CPD Regional Managers
William Millhouser
June Cradick
James Rucker
Marcella Jansen
George Kinter
W Richard I. Coleman
Allan Flanders
Jose Marrero
R/SE1 Robert Shephard
William Stubblefield
E - Celso Barrientos
F - Ann Terbush

AIJ 6'1? N

ABSTRACT

NOAA COASTAL HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

A. Introduction/Purpose:

Natural hazards pose a large and growing threat to lives and property
along much of the Nation's shoreline. Inadequate land use controls and
intense development pressure have resulted in rapid popu-lation growth and
accelerated economic development within the floodplain, in low-lying areas
and on barrier islands that are particularly vulnerable to coastal hazard 's
such as hurricanes, flooding, erosion, tsunamis and land subsidence. In recent
years, policy-makers have recognized that Federal programs have also facilitated
development and population growth in hazardous coastalareas. The growing
awareness of our vulnerability to natural hazards has lead to heightened
interest in natural hazard management to minimize loss of life and property.

This paper examines the future direction of NOAA's coastal hazards
policy coordination efforts and the NOAA Coastal Hazards Program (NCHP).
These two issues are intertwined because the NCHP was intended to establish
a new direction in NOAA coastal hazards policy--by integrating NOAA's products
.and services to facilitate comprehensive regional coastal hazard planning.
The intent was not implemented fully because funds were not available * The
responsibility for NOAA-wide policy coordination on coastal hazards and the
NCHP became partof the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM) in the November, 1982 NOAA reorganizati6n. The reorganization provided
a new opportunity to.reconsider NOAA coastal. hazards policy objectives and
explore new ways to work with states, other parts of NOAA and other Federal
agencies to improve coastal hazards planning and mitigation.

B. Background

For several reasons, the efforts of all levels of government to deal
with natural hazards have not been effective in curbing the trend towards
mounting property losses and increasing vulnerability to catastrophic
loss of life. At the state and local level, the obstacles include:

1. Inadequate standards for properly locating and constructing new
devel opment.

2. Lack of pre-disaster planning to guide reconstruction following a
disaster.

3. Legal challenges to state and local programs designed to avert or
mitigate hazard damage. (Claims of liability against local governments for
failing to protect their citizens from hazard losses are beginning to counteract
this obstacle.)

At the Federal level, the biggest problem is the lack of a consistent
-and coordinated policy to minimize development in hazardous areas. Most
Federal infrastructure investment programs have the effect of subsidizing

development in hazardous areas because they do not discriminate between
development in these areas and development in-less hazardous locations.
In addition, the National Flood Insurance Program provides'flood insurance
for existing construction and even some new construction in floodprone
areas at subsidized rates. Furthermore, although not designed to protect
against all magnitudes of a hazard, structural solutions like flood and
erosion control projects may encourage development in hazardous areas by
giving people a false sense of security. Increases in population and
development in some of these "protected" areas have created the potential
for truly staggering losses if storms exceed the design capacity of a
protective structure. In addition to increasing the risks to people,
these programs have the effect of committing the Federal government to
large, continuing expenditures to rebuild communities devastated by
natural hazards.

On the other hand', several Federal efforts have been directed to
reducing the risks (and future Federal costs) of hazard losses. These
include coastal zone management planning, the Floodplains and Wetlands
Executive Orders (which direct Federal agencies to avoid development
in hazardous areas), the Interagency Agreement on Flood Hazard Mitigation
(which directs Federal disaster relief and recovery programs to cooperate
on plans to reduce future flood losses), and the recently enacted Coastal
Barrier Resources Act (which restricts Federal expenditures, financial
assistance and flood insurance on undeveloped coastal barriers.)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEM) was created to coordinate
and direct federal policy in deali.ng with emergency situations, includIng
natural disasters. T 'he agency's efforts to carry out this mandate have
been impeded by a lack of authority over other federal agency hazards programs.
Since 1980, however, general trends in Administration policy have resull;ed
in major changes in the incentive structure for hazards management and more
consistency in Federal policy to avoid supporting unwise development and
encourage measures to reduce hazard risks and, thus, future Federal costs.

The "New Federalism" is placing greater programmatic and financial
responsibility on the states for the management of coastal resources. Natural
hazards management is part of this trend. At the same time, the states and
localities are being asked to provide 25 percent cost sharing with the Federal
Government for disaster relief. This new cost sharing policy will encourage
more cost effective disaster response efforts and it will provide an important
incentive for state/local emphasis on hazard mitigation and preparedness to
reduce future hazards losses and associated disaster relief costs.

C. Summary Analysis of NOAA's Role in Coastal Hazards and Future Directions:

As one of three Federal agencies with major coastal hazards programs
(the others are FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), NOAA has an
important interest in improving its coastal hazards policy coordination
efforts and the direction of its resources to deal with coastal hazards
problems. The NOAA Coastal Hazards Program (NCHP) was a step in this
d'irection. However, it emphasized NOAA's traditional technical services for
emergency preparedness rather than the planning elements that are essential

for. hazard mitigation. It also did not establish a process for effectively
involving state and local units of government, which have the major implement-
ation authority for most actions to reduce hazard losses.

In addition, the NCHP's role as the coordinating point for NOAA Coastal
Hazards programs did not develop as intended. While insti-tutional arrangements
exist to coordinate with other Federal coastal hazards agencies--the NOAA/FEMA
MOU, the Hurricane Committee and the Interagency Agreement on Hazard Mitigation---
there is no regular mechanism at present for coordinating the coastal hazards
programs within NOAA. Such coordination is needed, not only to take advantage
of OCRM's links with the states to "market" existing products and services,
but to coordinate evacuation planning with development and mitigation planning
and to take advantage of dual use opportunities for NOAA's products and
services.

The key coastal hazards issue of the next decade will be to correct
existing problems of hazardous development. The focus of the 1970's was on
new development--avoiding new development in hazardous areas or making it
more resistant to damage. However, such a focus provides only a marginal
opportunity to lower mounting hazards losses. The need in the 1980's is to
find incentives to motivate individual property owners and state and local
officials to take site-specific, and statewide and community actions to
reduce the vulnerability of existing development to hazards losses.

In a way, the NOAA Coastal Hazards Program was intended to help in this
effort. However, the Program evolved in a different direction and clearly
needs reorganization and refocusing to be an effective addition to NOAA's
coastal hazards role. The NOAA reorganization has created an opportunity to
balance NOAA's ongoing expertise in warning and evacuation with a new
pre-disaster,planning capability. This will address the needs for:

o better coordination of NOAA coastal hazards programs,
particularly its evacuation planning and mitigation efforts,

o better coordination both within NOAA and with other Federal
agencies to adjust to budget changes and make maximum use of limited
resources , and

o, better NOAA services on an agency-wide basis.

0. Summary Recommendations:

1. Redirect the NCHP to encourage comprehensive coastal hazards planning
and mitigation by states and communities. The new FEMA policy of requiring
25 percent state/local cost sharing in disaster relief creates a strong
incentive for states and communities to undertake hazard planning and mitigation
efforts. The structure of state planning and management programs established
under the CZMA is equipped to translate the high priority states and communities
may place on comprehensive hazard,planning and mitigation into concrete plans
and actions to reduce future hazards losses, and thus, state and community
costs of disaster relief and rehabilitation. NOAA should balance its ongoing
operational expertise in issuing warnings and assisting in evacuations with
a new pre-disaster planning capability to encourage and facilitate state and
local hazard mitigation efforts and improve NOAA's overall hazards program.

1. lestruclure the NCHP by incorporating it into OCRM's overall
technical assistance program.

Coastal hazards has already been identified as a high priority issue
for the OCRM technical assistance program. Incorporating the NCHP into this
program will allow us to bring substantial resources to bear immediately.
Also, OCRM's existing links with states should improve the effectiveness
with which we target and deliver technical assistance and handle liaison
between the states and the other Federal coastal hazards agencies.

3. Establish a regular mechanism for coordinating NOAA's coastal hazards
programs.

Marshalling technical assistance from all of the NOAA elements involved
in coastal hazards and maximizing our limited coastal hazards resources
requires coordination. To put in place a regular mechanism for NOAA-wide
coordination, OCRM should establish a NOAA coastal hazards coordination
group, including representation from the other NOAA line offices with coastal
hazards programs.

4. Improve NOAA products and services to address this issue by charging
the OCRM Coastal Hazards technical assistance task force and the NOAA coastal
hazards.coordination group with:

- improving packaging and marketing of coastal hazard related
products and serv ices to increase their use by our constituents,*

- considering new or modified products and services that
reflect an increased emphasis on pre-@disaster planning, and

- increasing our efforts to exchange information with constituents on
effective techniques for reducing hazard losses and to provide feedback
from them to improve NOAA's mix of products and services.

The new External Affairs Offices, and the new Ocean Service Centers
provide opportunities to address these needs.

5. Improve interagency and intergovernmental coordination on coastal
hazards by charging the OCRM Coastal Hazards technical assistance task force
with:

- compiling and exchanging information on innovative and cost effective
state techniques for deal.ing with coastal hazards,

- working with other NOAA offices, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to share inter-agency hazards
information more effectively with the states, and

- exploring with the Federal Emergency Management Agency ways to reorganize
and de,velop implementation plans for portions of the NOAAIFEMA Memorandum of
Understanding dealing with coastal zone management, risk and damage assessment,
and mitigation.

NOAA COASTAL HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

Natural hazards pose a large and growing threat to lives and property

along much of the Nation's shoreline. Inadequate land use controls and

intense development pressure have resulted in rapid population growth and

accelerated economic development within the floodplain, in low-lying areas

and on barrier islands that are particularly vulnerable to coastal hazards

such as hurricanes, flooding, erosion, tsunamis and land subsidence. In recent

years, policy-makers have recognized that Federal programs have also facilitated

development and population growth in hazardous coastal areas, and have supported

a construction-destruction-reconstruction cycle, largely at the taxpayer's

expense. The growing awareness of our vulnerability to natural hazards has

lead to heightened interest in natural hazard management to minimize loss of

life and property.

A. Background

Several factors contribute to the Nation's vulnerability to catastrophic

coastal hazards losses:

1. Population

According to the 1980 Census, about 40% of the Nation's population lives

along its coasts. Current population data show the nationwide migration

of people to the coasts that took place in the 1960s and 1970s is continuing

in the South Atlantic (coastal population up 31% from 1970), Gulf (up 25%),

Aut.hor's Note: The commonly used figure of 53% comes from a 1970 Census
Bureau calculation that included the population of all counties any portion
of which was within 50 miles of the coast or the Great Lakes. This more
conservative figure represents the population of coastal counties as
identified by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management for
the 30 coastal states (not including territories).

and le,t coast states (up 17%), while coastal population in the New England

states increased by only 4% and coastal population in the Mid-Atlantic and

Great Lakes states declined (by 2q,.*' and 3%, respectively). The largest growth

in coastal population is now concentrated in Florida, Texas, Alaska and
California. For example, Florida's coastal'counties grew by 57.4% from 1970

to 1980, Alaska's grew by 37.8%, Texas' grew by 33.2%, and California's
2/
grew by 27.9%.- Much of the continued growth in coastal population is

taking place in some of the areas most vulnerable to natural hazards.

2. Lack of Awareness

Many new coastal res idents have not experienced the hazards associated

with their locations. In the last two decades, there has been an unusual

lull in major Atlantic/Gulf hurricane strikes. Thus, many people have no

direct appreciation of the destructive power of these storms.

3. Inadequate.Evacuation Infrastructure

Meteorologists say that in spite of improvements in severe storm

forecasting, the potential for catastrophic loss of life in a major

disaster is greater now than at any time in the past. The rapid growth

of many population centers has exceeded their ability for timely evacuations.

Bridges, ferries, and exposed coastal highways that allow adequate transporation

in normal times can become clogged during an attempted emergency evacuation.

Rising tides and rainfall can disrupt transportation routes many hours before

a storm strikes, trapping people to become potential victims of high winds and

storm surge. For example, Dr. Neil Frank of the National Hurricane Center

has suggested that only one-half of the 60,000 residents of the Florida

2/
1980 Control List, by County -- Number 30, Robert W. Marx, U.S. Bureau
of the Census, June 6, 1983.

Keys could be.evacuated before a major storm9 given the limitations of

current weather prediction methodologies and the evacuation routes available.

The.major authority and responsibility for dealing with natural hazards

rests with state and local governments. The Federal government assists

states and communities primarily by providing forecast, warning and disaster

preparedness services, by providing flood insurance, by constructing

flood and erosion control projects and by providing funds for disaster

relief and infrastructure replacement and repair.

For several reasons, the efforts of all levels of government to deal

with natural hazards have not been effective in curbing the trend towards

mounting property losses and increasing vulnerability to catastrophic

loss of life. At the state and local level, the obstacles include:

1. Inadequate standards for properly locating and constructing new

development.

In part, the policies for proper location and.construction of development

are guided by community participation in the National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP), which requires that communities adopt floodplain management standards

in order to qualify for federal flood insurance. However, many communities

are still in the emergency phase of the program, where the requirements are

minimal. When communities enter the regular phase of the program (which

begins when the Flood Insurance Administration has completed the detailed

hydrological and topographic studies necessary to determine the base flood

elevation for the 100 year flood), the floodplain management requirements

are more stringent. However, even here the required standards and rates are

artificially low because they are based on calculations of storm surge/wave

heights which do not account for shoreline erosion and there is only one

locational requirement: structures must be located landward of mean hig.h

tide. While there is nothing to prevent states and communities from establishing

stricter standards, few have done so. A notable exception is the State of

North Carolina, which has established an oceanfront setback and permitting

system to protect structures from coastal storms and at least 30 years of

erosion.

2. Lack of pre-disaster planning to guide reconstruction following

a disaster.

The post-disaster period is a critical time for hazard mitigation.

It is a time when fundamental decisions are made that will determine

the pattern of development for years to come--or at least until the next

disaster. Sound decisions at this time can substantially reduce federal

costs for flood insurance, disaster relief, erosion control structures and

infrastr@cture investment, as well as future exposure of lives and private

property to hazard losses. Unfortunately, such planning is usually

neglected until a disaster strikes. At that point, quick action is required

and short-term recovery is emphasized over long-term hazard mitigation.

There is tremendous pressure following a disaster to restore the

affected area to its original state. To withstand this pressure,

reconstruction policies need to be in place to take advantage of mitigation

opportunities (be they relocation of infrastructure and residences,

reconstruction of facilities to safer standards, acquisition of high

hazard areas for public open space, etc.) that occur following a disaster.

Unless prudent reconstruction polices are implemented more widely, hazard

losses will be repeated again and again.

3. Legal Challenges---

During the 1970's many state and local programs were designed to avert

or mitigate hazard damage. These programs employed regulation, tax incentives

and/or compensation, depending on the character of the land and its existing
3/
use. Two types of challenges to regulatory programs arose:

- "Taking." Regulations that help the public by lessening

hazard losses also tend to decrease the value of regulated land because

this value to some extent reflects the discounted value of its prospective

development. If that prospect is limited by regulations, the landowner may

challenge the'regulations, alleging that his property has been "taken" in the

sense that the restrictions deprive him of a substantial portion of the

propertyls value. Many court decisions on this issue hold that regulation

enacted for a valid public purpose will be upheld unless the landowner is
denied all reasonabl'e beneficial 'use of the land. 4/

Equal Protection. This requirement means that laws must

not be discriminatory. In the context of hazard mitigation regulations, it

means that similarly situated property must be treated similarly. Legal

challenges on this basis have arisen usually in regard to the establishment

of hazard area boundaries, specifically the inclusion or exclusion of par-

ticular properties. The technical sufficiency of FEMA's floodplain studies

and resulting Rate Maps is a case-by-case decision because the studies are

done by different contractors throughout the country. This entire issue is

under study by FEMA, with the assistance of the National Academy of Sciences/
5/
National Research Council.

3_/
A Report on Flood-Hazard Mitigation, National Science Foundation (NSF),
September, 198U2 P. /T_
.I/NSF, p. 76
.t/NSF, p. 76

While these legal challenges can constrain state and local initiative

to undertake hazard mitigation programs, another development may encourage
such programs. This is the potential liability of local governments for

failing to protect their citizens from natural hazards.

Courts are changing their attitude toward legal defenses on "Acts

of God" arguments. No longer are all dama ges resulting from natural disasters

viewed as unavoidable and, hence, liability free. Technological advances

provide important guidelines on how to build, where to build, and how to

forecast disaster ev ents. Those who ignore such technologies, or fail to

implement them in a reasonable manner, may be held negligent under some
6/
circumstances. Suits against local governments have been successful in

redressing flood-related losses in inland settings, particularly in

California. It is likely that actions of coastal jurisdictions regarding
7/.
.hazard management may be subjected to judicial scrutinyin the'near future.
At the F@deral level, the biggest problem is the lack of a coinsistent

and coordinated policy to minimize development in hazardous areas. Most

Federal infrastructure investment programs have the effect of subsidizing

development in hazardous areas because they do not discriminate between

development in these areas and development in less hazardous locations.

In addition, the National Flood Insurance Program provides flood insurance

for existing construction and even some new construction in floodprone

areas at subsidized rates. Furthermore, although not designed to protect

6/
NSF, p. 126
7/
Association of State Floodplain Managers, Proceedings of a National Symposium
on Preventing Coastal Flood Disasters (Ocean City, Md., 1983), p. 308.

against all.magnitudes of a hazard, structural solutions like flood and

erosion control projects may encourage development in hazardous areas by

giving people a false sense of security. Increases in population and

developm ent in some of these "protected" areas have created the potential

for truly staggering losses if storms exceed the design capacity of a

protective structure. In addition to increasing the risks to people,

these programs have the effect of committing the Federal government to

large, continuing expenditures to rebuild communities devastated by

natural hazards.

On the other hand, several Federal efforts have been directed to

reducing the risks (and future Federal costs) of hazard losses. These

include coastal zone management planning, the Floodplains and Wetlands

Executive Orders (which direct Federal agencies to avoiddevelopm6nt

in hazardous areas), the Interagency Agreement o.n Flood Hazard Mitigation

(which directs Federal disaster relief and recovery programs to cooperate

on plans to reduce future flood losses), and the recently enacted Coastal

Barrier Resources Act (which restricts Federal expenditures, financial

assistance and flood insurance on undeveloped coastal barriers.)

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created to coordinate

and direct federal policy in dealing with emergency situations, including

natural disasters. The agency's efforts to carry out this mandate have

been impeded by a lack of authority over other federal agency hazards programs.

Since 1980, however, general trends in Administration policy have resulted

in major changes in the incentive structure for hazards'management and more

consistency in Federal policy to avoid supporting unwise development and

encourage measures to reduce hazard risks and, thus, future Federal costs.

The "New Federalism" is placing gr'eater programmatic and financial

responsibility on the states for the management of coastal resources. Natural

hazards management is part of this trend.' At the same time, the states and

localities are being asked to provide 25 percent cost sharing with the Federal

Government for disaster relief. This new cost sharing policy will encourage

more cost effective disaster response efforts and it will provide an important

incentive for state/local emphasis on hazard mitigation and preparedness to

reduce future hazards losses and associated disaster relief costs.

.B. NOAA's Role in Coastal Hazards

NOAA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (the Corps) all have major coastal hazards programs.

NOAA's coastal hazards programs address two basic missions: 1) protection of

people, property and natural resources,.an-d 2) providing financial and
technical assistance under th'e Coastal ZoneManagement Act (CZMA).to help
states to provide 6alanced management of their coastal zones. Mos't components

of NOAA have programs to deal with coastal hazards. These programs, and

associated products and services, are summarized in Appendix A.

1. Institutional arrangements for Coordinating NOAA Coastal Hazards

Programs.

NOAA's institutional arrangements for coordinating its coastal hazards

programs with those of other Federal agencies are primarily through the NOAA/

FEMA MOU, the interagency Hurricane Committee and the Interagency Agreement

on Flood Hazard Mitigation.

In 1980, NOAA and FEMA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

to coordinate their respective emergency-related responsibilities, A series

of nine annexes (later reduced to seven through the combination of annexes A

and B and.F and G) to the MOU were developed to provide specific guidance in

several program areas. Three of the annexes are now the responsibility of

NOS: Annex 0 on Coastal Zone Management, Annex E on Risk and Damage Assessment,

and-Annex F on Mitigation. and Research. Implementation plans have not been

completed for these Annexes.

The NOAA/FEMA MOU established a NOAA/FEMA Review Board, which meets

annually to review the coordination between the two agencies and consider

other issues as appropriate. NOAA is represented on the Review Board by

Richard E. Hallgren, Acting Assistant Administrator for the National Weather

Service, and FEMA is'represented by Hugh Richardson, Director of the Office

of Emergency Response. NOAA's representation by Dr. Hallgren of NWS is

appropriate because the MOU covers all emergency-related responsibilities,

not just those relating to coastal hazards. Although other NOAA Line Offices,

including NOS, have major emergency responsibilities, none in NOAA covers as

wide an array of emergency programs as NWS.

In addition to the Review Board, eacty of the seven annexes to the NOAA/

FEMA MOU calls for a Joint Working Group. These generally consist of one or two

members from each agency, who meet infrequently. Present members are:

Annex*A (combined with Annex B) - Planning and Prepardedness and

Warning and Communications Systems

Ric Coleman, NWS Ross McKay, FEMA
Dick Wood, NWS

Annex C - Technical Assistance

Ric Coleman, NWS Ross McKay, FEMA

Annex D - Coastal Zone Management

Vickie Allin, NOS Mike Robinson, FEMA

Annex E - Risk and Damage Assessment

NOS Joe Bishop, FEMA

Annex F (combined with Annex G) Mitigation and Research

NOS Art Zeizel, FEMA

Annex H.- Public Information

Stan Eames, NOAA/PA Sandy Farrell, FEMA/PA

Annex I - Training and Education

Dick Wood, NWS Gary Sepulvado, FEMA

Since the Annexes were developed, both NOAA and FEMA have reorganized

and readjusted resources among their program areas. As a result, in some cases

the Annexes do not reflect present organizations, resources and responsibilities.

NOAA and FEMA need to explore ways to reorganize and combine Annexes further

to match existing programs and available resources.

The Hurricane Committee is an informal group of representatives from

NOAA, FEMA and the Corps that was formed about two years ago. There were

two or three' init i.al meetings and then the Committee was dormant until

December, 1982. Since then, the Committee has met monthly to exchange plans

and discuss SLOSH, vertical evacuation and other topics. Richard Sanderson,

Director of FEMA's Natural Hazards Division,is chairing the Committee, with

Ross McKay of his staff as an active member. The Corps is represented by

Bill Donovan, Chief of the Division of Floodplain Management and Coastal

Resources, and Jerry Petersen. NOAA is represented by Ric Coleman of NWS and

Bill Millhouser and Marcella Jansen of NOS (OCRM). Many others have attended

from time to time. The Committee expects to continue meeting at approximately

monthly intervals. Through this Committee, NOAA, FEMA and the Corps coordinated

their financial and technical assistance to the State of Florida for regional

evacuation planning.

Through the Department of Commerce, NOAA also participates in the

Interagency Agreement on Hazard Mitigation. The Agreement was developed

in- 1981 in response to an Office of Management and Budget directive to

develop and implement a common policy for flood disaster planning and

postflood recovery to ensure that Federal financial assistance minimizes

future flood losses. FEMA was designated the lead agency. Other participants

are the Departments of Agriculture, Army, Commerce, Housing and Urban

Development and Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Small

Business Administration. Under the Agreement, Hazard Mitigation Teams are

mobilized when major disasters are declared. They recommend actions by

Federal agencies and state and local governments to reduce future hazard

losses. Federal agencies have agreed to comply with the recommendations

of the Team reports to the maximum extent practicable. Under Section 406,

state and local governments can be required to comply with the- recommendations

as a prerequisite for obtaining Federal disaster assistance.

While these mechanisms provide opportunities to coordinate with other

Federal coastal hazards agencies, there is no regular mechanism at present

for coordinating the coastal hazards programs within NOAA. The NOAA Coastal

Hazards Program was to serve as the coordinating point, but because the

program did not develop as intended, the coordination did not develop as

intended either. Ad hoc coordination is taking place--for example, the NWS

has met with OCRM and other NOAA units several times to gain our assistance

in implementing the SLOSH model more widely and effectively for state/local

evacuation planning. SLOSH was developed as a forecasting tool. Its use

for evacuation planning, not envisioned initially, makes possible a major

advance in the accuracy and reliability of area evacuation plans because it

estimates not only the maximum height and areal extent of the surge, but also

time-histories of both surge and winds over the forecast area. This

information could also be used in mitigation planning by improving the

vulnerability assessment of particular areas and,.hence, providing a guide

to the proper location and- construction of new development. This effort has

shown the need for more regular coordination, not only to take advantage of

OCRM's links with the states to "market" existing products and services, but

to coordinate evacuation planning with development and mitigation planning

and to take advantage of dual use opportunities for NOAA's products and

services.

2. Special NOAA Initiative in Coastal Hazards--The NOAA Coastal Hazards

Program

In 1980, NOAA initiated the NOAA Coastal Hazards Program (NCHP) and

prepared a Program Development Plan (POP) outlining a program to be of major

assistance in minimizing loss of life and property from coastal h@zards. A

NCHP Office was established in the National Ocean Survey (NOS) to coordinate

the program. The intention was to bring to bear all relevant NOAA program

efforts -in the development of 39 regional comprehensive hazards assessments,

encompassing storm surge modelling, climate data packages, storm evacuation

mapping, "land use controls," hazard warnings, evacuation planning, and

public education. The POP was based on a budget initiative of approximately

$2 million per year for the period FY 1983-1986. The budget initiative did

not receive a high enough priority to be funded in the NOAA budget. As a

result, the NCHP Office became a small technical services group, concentrating

on developing and disseminating a limited range of mapping and charting

products and services. Its current functions consist of a cooperative storm

evacuation mapping program with states and a joint NOS/Corps shoreline

movement study of segments of the Mid-Atlantic coast. It also has provided

modest funding, jointly with the former Office of Coastal Zone Management,

FEMA, and the Corps, of regional evacuation studies in Texas and Florida,

and has supported a Coastal Haz ards conference in Charleston, South Carolina,

that was very successful in generating a number of hazard mitigation and

preparedness activities in that state.

Although the NCHP was an important step toward assisting states in

comprehensive planning for coastal hazards, it emphasized NOAA's traditional

technical services for emergency preparedness rather than the planning

elements that are essential for hazard mitigation. It also did not establish

a process for effectively involving state and local units of government, which

have the major implementation authority for most actions to reduce hazard

losses. The NCHP Office was merged into NOS's Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management (OCRM) in the November 1982 reorganization of NOAA and

its future direction is a major issue addressed in this paper.

C. Future Directions for NOAA's Role in Coastal Hazards

The key coastal hazards issue of the next decade will be to correct

existing problems of hazardous development. The focus of the 1970's was on

new development--avoiding new development in hazardous areas or making it

more resistant to damage. However, such a focus provides only a marginal

opportunity to lower mounting hazards losses. The need in the 1980's is to

find incentives to motivate individual property owners and state and local

officials to take site-specific, and statewide and community actions to

reduce the vulnerability of existing development to hazards losses.

In a way, the NOAA Coastal Hazards Program was intended to help in this

effort. However, the Program evolved in a different direction and clearly

needs reorganization and refocusing to be an effective addition to NOAA's

coastal hazards role. The NOAA reorganization has created an opportunity to

take action to improve NOAA coastal hazards policy coordination efforts and

the direction af NOAA resources -to assist states and communities to deal

with coastal hazards problems. These actions should address the needs for:

o better coordination of NOAA coastal hazards programs., particularly

its evacuation planning and mitigation efforts,

o better coordination both within NOAA and with other Federal

agencies to adjust to budget changes and make maximum use of limited resources,

and

o better NOAA services on an agency-,wide basis.

1. NOAA's Objectives in Coastal Hazards

NOAA has data and expertise in coastal hazards. It has a well-established

program of technical services to provide forecasts and warnings of approaching
storms and to assist states and localities in designing and implementing a:ppro-'

priate responses to those warnings. It provides statisti cal probabilities

of hazards to guide design, planning and zoning decisions. It's Federal CZM

Program can also influence state and local actions to reduce the vulnerability

of people and development to coastal hazards. State and local governments have

the authority and responsibility for most risk reduction (i.e., mitigation)

and evacuation actions. Through state CZM programs, they are already addressing

the difficult question of how best to use the coast without unacceptable

risks of loss of life and property. These programs are ideal vehicles for

incorporating the difficult social and economic judgments involved in promoting

prudent coastal development and planning future uses of coastal areas so

that fewer people and less development will be affected by a natural disaster.

Such planning is the key to reducing hazards losses.

For these reasons, NOAA's coastal hazard objectives should be to continue

its programs of research and technical services for early and accurat e storm

warning and effective evacuation, and to:

a. serve as a catalyst for hazard mitigation (i.e., loss reduction)

planning at the state and local level,

b. coordinate NOAA programs to provide technical assistance to

states and localities in their planning efforts, and.

c. work with other Federal agencies to promote information exchange

between the Federal Government and the states and localities and to gain

Federal support for state/local hazard mitigation planning and actions.

2. NOAA's Coastal Hazards Constituents

Although NOAA does provide products and services to other Federal agencies,

its main hazards constituents are state agencies charged with emergency

preparedness and CZM responsibilities, local-governments and private individuals

and businesses. This is because states, localities and private citizens have

the primary authority to undertake those aspects of hazard planning and

mitigation to which most of NOAA's programs apply--particularly evacuation

planning and community and individual actions to reduce hazard losses.

3. Strategy for Achieving NOAA's Coastal Hazards Mitigation Objectives

a. Hazard Mitigation Planning - NOAA's main.incentive for encouraging

hazard mitigation planning by states has been financial assistance under the

CZMA--particularly under the Significant Improvement provisions of the 1980

amendments. However, the new FEMA policy of requiring 25 percent state/local

cost sharing in disaster relief adds another, and potentially stronger incentive.

Many states and communities have expressed concern that this requirement

could bankrupt them if a major disaster were to strike.

The structure of state planning and management programs established under
the CZMA is equipped to trans'late the high priority states and communities

may place on comprehensive hazard planning and mitigation into concrete plans

and actions to reduce future hazards losses, and thus, state and community

costs of disaster relief and rehabilitation. NOAA should balance its ongoing

operational expertise in issuing warnings and assisting in evacuations with

a new pre-disaster planning capability to encourage and facilitate state

and loca-1 hazard mitigation efforts and improve NOAA's overall hazards

program.

b. Better Services - NOAA's current hazards products and services

are heavily concentrated in the area of evacuation and warning systems,

based on the historic development of NOAA's weather, charting and geodetic

survey programs. Supporting data collection and research has also been

concentrated in these areas. NOAA's planning assistance program under the

CZMA is a relative latecomer. Despite several new products and technological

advances, the needs of this program for products and services that are better

tailored to pre-disaster hazard mitigation planning require more attention.

Areas where improvement is needed include:

- improved packaging and marketing of related products and services

to increase their use by our constituents,

- consideration of new or modified products and services that

reflect emerging trends and issues in reducing hazards losses, and

- increased effort to exchange information with constituents on

effective techniques for reducing hazard losses and to provide feedback

from them to improve IOAA's mix of products and services,

OCRM's technical assistance program, the new External Affairs Offices,

and the new Ocean Service Centers provide opportunities to address these

problems.

c. Improved Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination -

The NWS has excellent ties with state and.local civil defense offices

and with FEMA, just as OCRM has excellent ties with state CZM programs. NOAA

should use these ties to encourage coordinated coastal hazards planning and

mitigation at the state and local level and persuade other Federal agencies

to use acceptable state/local hazard mitigation plans to guide their own

disaster relief and rehabilitation activities.

The 1980 amendments to the CZMA and the NOAA/FEMA MOU provide a statutory

and policy basis for improving interagency and intergovernmental coordination.

Through them, NOAA can build a more effective coordination mechanism with states

and other Federal agencies to achieve the overriding objective of reducing

coastal hazards losses. Opportunities for improvement include:

exchanging information between states and Federal agencies on

innovative and cost effective techniques for coastal hazard management,

and

- developing remaining implementation plans for key annexes to the

NOAA/FEMA MOU dealing with coastal zone management, risk and damage assessment,

and mitigation, including considering ways to reorganize and combine the

annexes to match existing programs and available resources.

D. Options for Reorganizing the NCHP

1. Reinstitute the NCHP initiative as originally proposed.

This is not feasible because of fiscal constraints and the increasing

reliance on state/local versus Federal initiative in coastal hazards. Rather,

our aim should be to improve the direction of existing programs to meet

current needs.

2. Obtain renewed NOAA management commitment to a redirected NCHP,

but incorporate it into the overall OCRM technical assistance program..

The redirection would involve dropping the 39 regional comprehensive

hazards assessments as the focus of the program and, instead, concentrating

on encouraging state/local hazard mitigation planning and on improving our

products and services to help states do this. This redirection is fully

consistent with the Administration's philosophy that states and communities

should assume more of the responsibility for managing coastal resources. It

will also promote state and community measures to reduce future hazard losses,

and thus, future Federal costs of flood insurance, public works, infrastructure

repair and disaster relief.

The program would be carried out initially with existing staff and

resources. Organizationally, the NCHP fits in well with OCRM's expanded

technical assistance program. Coastal hazards-has already been identi-fied

as a high priority i*ssue for the OCRM technical assistance program. Also,

OCRM's existing links with states should improve the effectiveness with

which we target and deliver technical assistance and handle liaison between

the states and the other Federal coastal hazards agencies. The technical

assistance program will be carried out by task forces, made up of existing

OCRM staff serving on a part-time basis, in each of the high priority issue

areas. This structure will allow substantial resources and expertise to be

devoted to coastal hazards immediately. The disadvantages of merging the

NCHP into the OCRM technical assistance program are: (a) the NCHP may lose

visibility by being subsumed within a broader program, Iand (b) a high level

of coastal hazards activity may strain the informal task force structure.

However, the overriding need to get the program underway indicates that we

try this approach.

Coordination among NOAA MLC's with coastal hazards programs (NOS,

NWS, RD and NESDES) would be needed to build up our hazard mitigation

capability and assist states and communities in using our coastal hazards

products and services more effectively in their planning efforts. This need

for continued NOAA-wide coordination on coastal hazards is the reason we

still need a NOAA Coastal Hazards Program. Achieving coordination in coastal

hazards requires active NOAA management commitment to the program.

3. Drop the idea of a NCHP and concentrate on NOS/OCRM coastal hazards

issues and technical assistance.

As mentioned above, OCRM has already made coastal hazards a high

priority of its technical assistance program and can bring to bear the

products and services of the many units with coastal hazards functions that

have been co-located in the new NOS. If active NOAA management priority for

coastal hazards is not forthcoming, it makes no sense to keep the notion of

a NOAA CHP alive.because it cannot be effective. Therefore, this alter-

native would allow us to proceed to address current needs in this area without.

commitments beyond NOS.

E. Recommendations

1. Implement Option 2 and seek NOAA management's commitment to a

restructured and redirected NCHP to achieve the objectives discussed above.

2. Organizationally, incorporate the NCHP into OCRM's technical

assistance program for the present. If the future level of activity becomes

too great for this informal structure, organizational alternatives such as

re-establishing a NCHP Office or establishing a branch of PCD to deal

exclusively with hazards policy coordination issues could be considered,

3. Put in place a regular mechanism for NOAA-wide coordination on

coastal hazards. The Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal

Zone Management should send a-memorandum to the other NOAA Line Offices with
coastal hazards programs asking them to designate representatives to a joint

coastal hazards coordination group. (Done 11/29/83; two meetings have been

held).

4. If sufficient priority from top NOAA management cannot be obtained

within a reasonable time, implement Option 3 as the fallback position.

5. Independent of a decision regarding Option 2 or Option 3, charge

the Coastal Hazards Task-Force of OCRM's technical assistance program (Task

Force), working'with 'Other NOAA representatives to the joint coastal hazards

coordination group, with the following actions to improve NOAA's coastal

hazards products and services:

a. establishing priorities and making recommendations to NOAA

management for new or modified products and.services to reflect increased

emphasis Tiff" pre-disaster planning. In establishing these priorities and

recommendations, the group should survey state and local constituents and

should coordinate with other Federal agencies to avoid duplication. The

group should evaluate the following topics, among others: legal issues, the

relative costs and benefits of structural and non-structural measures for

flood and erosion loss reduction, sea level rise, and issues identified in

the 1981 OCZM Hazards Policy Paper.

b. exploring the new Ocean Service Centers as vehicles to improve

the distribution of NOAA's coastal hazards related products and services and

the integration of related products and services so that they are more meaningful

and easier to use. It is particularly important to integrate new maps,

data, etc., with interpretive services to help constituents determine their

policy implications and how 'they ca_n be incorporated into existing planning

efforts. The new regional Ocean Service Centers appear to be ideal vehicles

for accomplishing this integation. One of the concepts around which they were

organized was to integrate NOAA's oceanographic and marine information. Since

they are on-line, 24 hour facilities, they can interface constantly with

Civil Defense offices during disasters, providing them the most current

information and analyses.

c. consulting with the relevant NOAA External Affairs Offices to

obtain advice on improving information exchange with and feedback on products

and services from constituents.

6. To improve interagency and intergovernmental coordination on coastal

hazards, charge the Task Force with:

a. compiling information on the status of state hazard planning

under the CZMA and innovative techniques developed by the states, such as

the non-regulatory approaches embodied in Massachusetts Executive Order on
Barrier Islands and in North Carolina's, South 'Carolina's and Florida's

hazard mitigation policies that predate the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources

Act. The CZM Management Information System (CMIST) should be very useful in

this effort when it is operational.

b. working with other NOAA coastal hazards programs, FEMA, and

the Corps to share interagency coastal hazards information more effectively

with the states.

c.) exploring with FEMA ways to reorganize, combine and develop

implementation plans for Annexes D, E and F in order to give effect to the

cooperative hazard mitigation policies contained in Annex D and to improve

our liaison with FEMA for the benefit of the state s. (Proposal submitted

to NOAA and FEMA; presently in clearance.)

Appendix A

NOAA Coastal Hazard Related Programs, Products and Services

National Weather Service (NWS) - The NWS has four programs that provide

warnings of hazards and related services for all coastal areas. The National

Hurricane Center (NHC), the Eastern Pacific Hurricane Center, and the Central

Pacific Hurricane Center track and monitor tropical storms, issue hurricane

watches and warnings, conduct meterological research aimed at increasing

warning time and decreasing the area of hurricane watch and warning, and

provide public information presentations. The Severe Weather Branch

performs and coordinates studies of weather and flood hazards, developes

guidelines for the protection of life and property, and prepares and

disseminates informational materials designed to help educate the public

and public officials regarding hazards and the means of protection. Weather

Service Forecast Offices in coastal states issue warnings and forecasts-for

coastal storms, and Warnings and Preparedness Meteorologists provide technical

assistance to communities in weather hazard preparedness planning. The

Coastal Flood Warning Program provides a forecast of the degree of coastal

erosion and unusually high water due to storm surge or storm tides and

waves associated with tropical and extratropical storms. The Tsunami

Warning System monitors seismic activity and provides watches and warnings

of tsunamis for U.S. states and territories bordering the Pacific Ocean.

National Earth Satellite, Data_and Information Service (NESDIS) - NESDIS

supports NWS warning programs with satellite data and analysis. It also

acquires, archives and disseminates environmental (atmospheric, marine,

geophysical) data and information;'prepares summarized and descriptive

information packages tailored to specific regions based on long-term

historical records; prepares information on hurricanes and other geophysical

phenomena along with the impact on people and property; and determines

statistical probabilities of occurrences of these phenomena.

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) - OAR conducts weather

research including research on the modification of hurricanes and studies to

improve forecast accuracy. Its Office of Sea Grant (SG) sponsors hazard-related

research at various Sea Grant universities, particularly in the area of

evacuation. The Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service conducts workshops,

seminars and public meetings, and otherwise disseminates information to

educate local officials and the public about coastal hazards and appropriate

mitigation efforts.

National Ocean Service (NOS) - NOS is responsible for NOAA's ocean and

coastal zone services program.which includes analyses, statistics, forecasts

and warnings of weather and oceanographic phenomena off the U.S. shores.

NOS is responsible for the NOAA Coastal Waves Program which is in a prototype

operational mode. Since 1971, NOS's Office of Charting and Geodetic

Services has been producing Storm Evacuation Maps, which show evacuation

routes, elevation data, and topographic features of various coastal areas.

Only about 10 of the 190 base maps.required for the Atlantic and Gulf of

Mexico coasts remain incomplete. The program is now being conducted on a

cooperative basis with states to accelerate production and tailor the base

maps to meet specific local requirements. NOS is also involved in a cooperative

pilot program with states and the Corps of Engineers to produce shoreline

migration maps and related documents, which will show the movement of the

shoreline over the past 150 years for certain areas of the Atlantic coast.

NOS provides aerial photographic services to 'record hurricane damage and

provides storm surge data through the National Tide Observation Network.

The Coastal Zone Management Program, now part of NOS, provides states

and territories with financial and technical assistance to develop planning

and management processes to mitigate the effects of coastal hazards.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Under subsection 4(b) of P.L. 88-309, the Commercial Fisheries Research

and Development Act, NMFS provides disaster assistance to states to restore

commercial fisheries' harmed by natural disasters. States can apply for

funds when there is a Presidentially declared disaster or the NMFS Regional

Director determines that a restorable commer-r-i-a-T-fi-she-ry- resource has been

damaged. Most funds have gone for replanting oyster seeds. Funds for this

subsection are not routinely ap-propriated. Jnstead, NMFS usually requests a

supplemental.ap propriation from the Congress when it receives an'eligible

state application.

The products and services generated by these programs are listed on the

following pages according to four categories:

I. Routi ne Products

II. Financial and Technical Assistance

III. Special Purpose Studies/Surveys

IV. Other

I ROUTINE PRODUCTS

Geodetic Data - NOS(C&GS)

The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) develops and maintains the National
Horizontal and Vertical Networks of Geodetic Control which consist of about
I million precisely determined control points.' These points provide the common
base of reference to correlate longitude, latitude, elevation, scale, and
orientation throughout the Nation for communication, transportation, boundary
surveys, land records, public utilities, mapping, charting and a variety of
other activities. These data are available from the National Geodetic Informa-
tion Center of NGS.

Hydrographic Surveys NOS(C&GS)

The results of hydrographic surveys called smooth sheets are detailed
survey studies of water areas and provide the least depths of shoals; the con-
trolling depths in*natural waterways; and t'he positions of islands, rocks,
reefs and obstructions. Additional depths in these survey areas are available
in either digital or graphic form. In offshore areas where sufficient data is
not available in bathymetric maps, these original surveys are necessary to deter-
mine the effects of storm waves on coastal areas.

Bathymetric Maps - NOS(C&GS)
Bathymetric Maps are topographic maps of the sea.floor and portray the size,
shape, and distribution of underwater features through the use of depth contours
and point depths., These maps are used to determine the effects of storm waves on
coastal areas.

Bathymetric/Topographic Maps - NOS(C&GS)

These maps are produced by NOS in conjunction with USGS and show a graphic
presentation of the sea floor and adjacent-land areas through the use of land
and water contours and multiple tints. They are useful in determining the effects
of storm waves on coastal areas.

Nautical Charts - NOS(C&GS)

These charts are printed reproductions of some portion of the -navigational
part of the. Earth's surface and show the nature and. shape of the coast, depths of
water, configuration of the sea floor, prominent landmarks, etc. They are used in
coastal hazard planning.

2 .

Marine Weather Service Charts - NOS(C&GS)/NWS

This series of 15 charts, list the NOAA Weather Radio stations, and the
commercial and U.S. Coast Guard marine radio stations that broadcast marine
weather forecasts and warnings and their frequencies and schedule of weather
reports, the location of visual storm warning display sites, and an explanation
of marine warnings and other information. These charts cover the coastal
waters of the United States and Puerto Rico.

Storm Evacuation Maps - NOS

This series of 160 maps covers most of the Atlantic and-Gulf coast of
the U.S. These maps show the main evacuation and feeder routes and critical
elevations along these routes. They also include the shoreline, and elevation
zones along the coast in multiple tints.

Coastal Mapping Handbook - NOS(C&GS)

This handbook is designed to help planners and managers of coastal
programs in determining their mapping requirements, selecting the best maps
and charts for their needs, and communicating effectively with those who
gather data. and prepare maps.

Tide Data - NOS(OMS)

Actual measurements and predicted tidal heights are available in many
forms for the entire U.S. coast and many other parts of the world. The
height of storm waves is somewhat dependent on the tide at a specific location
and knowledge of tidal variation is important in planning for several coastal
hazards.

Hurricane and Severe Storm Forecast and Warnings - NWS

The Hurricane and Severe Local Storm forecast and warning service
supplements the Public Weather Service by providing watch 'and warnings
information on hurricanes, tropical storms, tornadoes, severe thunderstorms,
winter storms and flash floods. NWS offices issue advisories, warnings and
statements about these phenomena. The National Hurricane Center issues
watches and warnings for hurricanes, while local offices issue statements.

Coastal Flood Warning Program - NWS

Weather Service Forecast Offices with marine responsibility issue coastal
flood watches and warnings to the public and marine interests during coastal
storms events. During tropical.cyclone (hurricane).events, forecasts of
storm tide and flood threat are scheduled in advisories issued by the Hurricane
Centers. Local statements are then issued by Weather-Service Forecast Offices
and Weather Service Offices to amplify tropical cyclone advisories.

Marine Weather Program - NWS/NOS

Weather Service Forecast Offices issue warnings, advisories, and forecasts
for winds, waves, weather, visibility, and ice conditions essential to
conducting safe and efficient marine operations. The principal products
include coastal, offshore, high seas and Great Lakes forecasts, small craft
advisories, and gale,-storm, high surf, and coastal flood warnings.

Tsunami Warning System - NWS

,Tsunamis or seismic sea waves are usually caused by earthquakes under the
seas. Seismograph stations which participate in this system detect earthquakes
and report to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) and the Alaska
Tsunamic Warning Center (ATWC), where the earthquake location and magnitude
are determined. The PTWC and ATWC issue watches and warnings of tsunamis
which are disseminated by the Weather Services Forecast Offices responsible
for U.S. states and territories bordering the Pacific Ocean.

11 FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCES

Geodetic Advisory Service - NOS(C&GS)
This se@vice assists State and local governments in p@rforming supplemental
geodetic surveys and mapping and provides planning assistances. This is a coi-
operative service which varies from occasional technical assistance in an area
to the assignment of a permanent full-time NOS employee'to a State government.

Disaster Preparedness Program - NWS

Disaster Preparedness Meteorologists (DPMs) provide assistance in
developing disaster preparedness plans in various communities. They also
work with.local officials to test these plans, to ensure rapid dissemination
of warnings, encourage proper response to warnings, and to enlist the aid of
news media to increase public awareness of the threat of natural disaster.
NWS DMPs are instrumental in developing storm spotter networks which provide
critical feedback to NWS during severe storm events.

Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Energy Impact Program Grant and Loans - NOS(OCRM)

These grants and loans to coastal states are to help states to implement
management programs dealing with the competing demands on the lands and
waters surrounding the Nation's coast and to mitigate adverse effects of
coastal energy development. The Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended,
identifies improved management of coastal areas to minimize the impacts of
coastal hazards as one of nine national coastal management objectives.
Federal funding for both CZM and CEIP is scheduled to be phased out.

Marine Advisory Service - OAR(SG)

Sea Grant agents and specialists provides a link between the people who
live and work in coastal areas and researchers in the universities. These
advisors identify problems confronting coastal communities and aid is their
solution by their own expertise or through the Sea Grant University Network.
They also sponsor workshops, conferences and seminars on marine and,coastal
issues.

III SPECIAL PURPOSE STUDIES/SURVEYS

Crustal Movement.- NOS(C&GS)

The National Geodetic Survey conducts high precision geodetic surveys to
determine horizontal movement of the earth's crust in earthquake prone areas and
vertical crustal movement in.areas where subsidence (sinking) is suspected.

Aerial Photography - NOS(C&GS)

The NOS Photogrammetry Division operates a fleet of aircraft routinely-used
for chart update pictures... These aircraft are sometimes used for past disaster
surveys.

Shoreline Movement Mapping NOS(C&GS)

NOS, in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, is producing coastal maps
showing the changing position of the U.S shoreline along portions of the East
and West coast over the past 150 y-ears. These maps are produced by digitizing
shorelines from historic NOS maps and portraying them along with the present shore-
line position obtained from aerial photography. Since NOS possesses the only long-
term history of shoreline movement along the U.S. coast, these maps serve as the
basis for erosion studies and any attempt to predict future shoreline movement.

Coastal Wave_Program - NOS(OMS)

This program provides ocean wave field data and statistics from stations in
the U.S. coastal waters of the mid-Atlantic region. As this new program matures
and is extended regionally, data for all coastal waters will be available.

Circulatory Surveys - NOS(OMS)/ESDIS(NODC)

Recent measurement of water currents, temperatures and salinity structures
and associated data for selected areas are available from OMS. Older data of
this type, and that collected by other agencies, is available from NODC. These
data are necessary when hazardous substances enter the water.

Diving Program - NOS(OMO)

The-NOAA Diving Program provides basic and specialized diver training to NOAA,
state, and other Federal personnel and conducts underwater research.

Storm Surge Models NWS

The National Weather Service is adapting the generalized SLOSH model to
predict storn surge along the Atlantic and Gulf coast for particular bays
and estuaries. Model output is also used for evacuation planning conducted by
State and local agencies. Model outputs have been provided to planners in
-G-aTv--iff-t6ft,----T-exas and Tampa and Ft. Meyers, Florida and used in development
of evacuation plans. These models will be developed for at least 22 coastal
regions along the Atlantic and Gulf Coast.

IV. 2THER

Regearch

Research on Climate, Severe Weather, Geophysics, and the behavior of
individuals in a disaster is conducted and/or supported by NWS and OAR. Much
of this research is related to hazards.

Data and Analysis

NESDIS archives and analyzes marine, atmospheric and geophysical data which
is necessary in hazards research, planning and mitigation efforts.

IIIIN i..-
11111
36 141091423