Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · ofr20131170E

The SAFRR tsunami scenario-physical damage in California: Chapter E in The SAFRR (Science Application for Risk Reduction) Tsunami Scenario

Abstract

his chapter attempts to depict a single realistic outcome of the SAFRR (Science Application for Risk Reduction) tsunami scenario in terms of physical damage to and recovery of various aspects of the built environment in California. As described elsewhere in this report, the tsunami is generated by a hypothetical magnitude 9.1 earthquake seaward of the Alaska Peninsula on the Semidi Sector of the Alaska–Aleutian Subduction Zone, 495 miles southwest of Anchorage, at 11:50 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) on Thursday March 27, 2014, and arriving at the California coast between 4:00 and 5:40 p.m. (depending on location) the same day. Although other tsunamis could have locally greater impact, this source represents a substantial threat to the state as a whole. One purpose of this chapter is to help operators and users of coastal assets throughout California to develop emergency plans to respond to a real tsunami. Another is to identify ways that operators or owners of these assets can think through options for reducing damage before a future tsunami. A third is to inform the economic analyses for the SAFRR tsunami scenario. And a fourth is to identify research needs to better understand the possible consequences of a tsunami on these assets. The asset classes considered here include the following: Piers, cargo, buildings, and other assets at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Large vessels in the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Marinas and small craft Coastal buildings Roads and roadway bridges Rail, railway bridges, and rolling stock Agriculture Fire following tsunami Each asset class is examined in a subsection of this chapter. In each subsection, we generally attempt to offer a historical review of damage. We characterize and quantify the assets exposed to loss and describe the modes of damage that have been observed in past tsunamis or are otherwise deemed likely to occur in the SAFRR tsunami scenario. Where practical, we offer a mathematical model of the damageability of assets exposed to loss. Then, applying the damageability model and the velocity, wave amplitude, and inundation models discussed in other SAFRR chapters we offer a single realistic depiction of damage. Other outcomes are of course possible for this hypothetical event. Where practical we estimate repair costs and estimate the duration required to restore the assets to their pre-tsunami condition. We identify opportunities to enhance the resiliency of the assets, either through making them less vulnerable to damage or able to recover more quickly in spite of the damage. Finally, we identify uncertainties in the modeling where research would improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of damage and loss or otherwise improve our ability to estimate the future impacts of tsunamis and inform risk-management decisions for tsunamis. However, it is certain that the kinds of damages discussed here have occurred in past tsunamis, even in developed nations, and in a sufficiently large event, will occur in California. Our uncertainties can operate in either direction, either leading to an overestimate of damage or an underestimate. Therefore, losses in an actual future tsunami could be greater than depicted here. Furthermore this evaluation is not intended to be an exhaustive depiction of what could happen in this or similar tsunamis. Other impacts could occur that are not presented here.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.53° to 42.01° latitude; -124.48° to -114.13° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Keith Porter, William Byers, David Dykstra, Amy Lim, Patrick Lynett, Jaime Ratliff, Charles Scawthorn, Anne Wein, Rick Wilson. 2013. The SAFRR tsunami scenario-physical damage in California: Chapter E in The SAFRR (Science Application for Risk Reduction) Tsunami Scenario. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20131170e

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 2, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 2 (April–June), 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov.

Open-File Report↗

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 1, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 1 (January–March) of 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov . One specific activity that the ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team closely monitored was a Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor encoder alerts anomaly. On March 18, 2026, the Thermal Infrared Sensor instrument’s mechanism control electronics board reset, driving several parameters to default power-on values. Subsequent telemetry and analysis determined that no persistent hardware misconfiguration was present and no radiometric or geometric degradation was observed.

Open-File Report↗

Floods of June 20–July 6, 2024, in the Big Sioux River, Rock River, Little Sioux River, Ocheyedan River, and Floyd River Basins, northwestern Iowa

Major flooding occurred on June 20–July 6, 2024, in northwestern Iowa affecting the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd River Basins. Heavy rain fell in northwestern Iowa, southwestern Minnesota, and southeastern South Dakota on June 20–22, 2024. Parts of northwestern Iowa recorded 2–6 inches of rainfall and localized amounts exceeding 12 inches. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 175,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Big Sioux River at Akron, Iowa (06485500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at four locations along the Big Sioux River between U.S. Interstate 29 at Sioux City, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 north of Hawarden, Iowa, a distance of 75.7 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 157,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Rock River near Rock Valley, Iowa (06483500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability of less than 0.2 percent. High-water marks were measured at eight locations along the Rock River between County Road B30 east of Hudson, South Dakota, upstream to Iowa Highway 9 at Rock Rapids, Iowa, a distance of 39.3 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 63,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Little Sioux River at Correctionville, Iowa (06606600), was recorded on June 24, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at 11 locations along the Little Sioux River between Iowa Highway 31 west of Correctionville, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 north of Spencer, Iowa, a distance of 134.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 24,500 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Ocheyedan River near Spencer, Iowa (06605000), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at three locations along the Ocheyedan River between County Road M38 west of Spencer, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 west of Everly, Iowa, a distance of 12.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 41,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Floyd River at Alton, Iowa (06600100), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 1–1.99 percent. High-water marks were measured at six locations along the Floyd River between Iowa Highway 3 at Le Mars, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 at Alton, Iowa, a distance of 27.5 river miles. The high-water marks were used to develop flood profiles for the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd Rivers.

Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota↗