No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The Mw7.9 Denali, Alaska earthquake of 3 November, 2002, caused minor damage to at least 20 houseboats in Seattle, Washington by initiating water waves in Lake Union. These water waves were likely initiated during the large amplitude seismic surface waves from this earthquake. Maps of spectral amplification recorded during the Denali earthquake on the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN) strong‐motion instruments show substantially increased shear and surface wave amplitudes coincident with the Seattle basin. Because Lake Union is situated on the Seattle basin, the size of the water waves may have been increased by local amplification of the seismic waves by the basin. Complete hazard assessments require understanding the causes of these water waves during future earthquakes.

On November 15, 2006, Crescent City in Del Norte County, California was hit by a tsunami generated by a M w 8.3 earthquake in the central Kuril Islands. Strong currents that persisted over an eight-hour period damaged floating docks and several boats and caused an estimated $9.2 million in losses. Initial tsunami alert bulletins issued by the West Coast Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (WCATWC) in Palmer, Alaska were cancelled about three and a half hours after the earthquake, nearly five hours before the first surges reached Crescent City. The largest amplitude wave, 1.76-meter peak to trough, was the sixth cycle and arrived over two hours after the first wave. Strong currents estimated at over 10 knots, damaged or destroyed three docks and caused cracks in most of the remaining docks. As a result of the November 15 event, WCATWC changed the definition of Advisory from a region-wide alert bulletin meaning that a potential tsunami is 6 hours or further away to a localized alert that tsunami water heights may approach warning-level thresholds in specific, vulnerable locations like Crescent City. On January 13, 2007 a similar Kuril event occurred and hourly conferences between the warning center and regional weather forecasts were held with a considerable improvement in the flow of information to local coastal jurisdictions. The event highlighted the vulnerability of harbors from a relatively modest tsunami and underscored the need to improve public education regarding the duration of the tsunami hazards, improve dialog between tsunami warning centers and local jurisdictions, and better understand the currents produced by tsunamis in harbors.

No abstract

A new generation of tsunami inundation maps is now available for 20 coastal counties in California. These maps represent an improvement over previous efforts, as they are based on the most recent descriptions of potential tsunami sources, apply recently updated numerical modeling techniques, and cover previously unmapped regions of the State. Since the maps are based on deterministic rather than probabilistic modeling, they are only intended for emergency preparedness and evacuation planning and are not to be used in engineering siting studies. The California maps cover a greater coastal area than any other US State. To be helpful, the maps need to be integrated into a consistent statewide hazard-planning framework. Indeed, tsunami preparedness in California was tested on several occasions over the past 5 years, i.e., during the 14 June 2005 event, about 90 miles SW of Crescent City, the 15 November 2006 Kuril Islands, and the 27 February 2010 Chile earthquake. We discuss briefly the State's response as these events unfolded.

We assess tsunami hazards in San Diego Bay, California, using newly identified offshore tsunami sources and recently available high resolution bathymetric/topographic data. Using MOST (Titov and Synolakis, J Waterways Port Coastal Ocean Eng ASCE 124(4):57-171, 1998), we simulate locally, regionally and distant-generated tsunamis. Local tsunami source models use more realistic fault and landslide data than previous efforts. With the exception of the Alaska-Aleutian Trench, modeling results suggest that local sources are responsible for the largest waves within the San Diego Bay and Mission Bay. Because San Diego Bay is relatively well protected by North Island and the Silver Strand, the wave heights predicted are consistently smaller inside the harbor than outside. However, historical accounts, recent tsunamis and our predictions show that San Diego Bay is vulnerable to strong tsunami induced currents. More specifically, large currents are expected inside the harbor for various distant and local tsunami sources with estimated flow velocities exceeding 100 cm/s. Such currents have been damaging to harbor facilities, such as wharves and piers, and may cause boats to break from moorings and ram into adjacent harbor structures, as observed in recent historic tsunamis. More recently, following the M w 8.8 February 27, 2010 Chile earthquake, tsunami-currents damaged docks/piers in Shelter Island confirming our findings. We note that the first generation of inundation maps in use in San Diego County by emergency management was based on much larger ''worst case but realistic scenarios'' (Synolakis et al. 2002a), which reflected the understanding of offshore hazards pervasive ten years ago. Large inundation and overland flow depths were observed primarily in local tsunami source simulations. In