FEMA rethinks its approach...

Posted by: Andy

FEMA rethinks its approach... - 08/17/11 02:42 PM

Watched this video on C-SPAN this morning. The approach that Mr. Fugate lays out I think is both thoughtful, pragmatic and aligns with what many of us think about both preparedness and shared responses to a natural or man made disasters.

I know there are cynics out there who will find fault with whatever the government says but I work with senior government managers everyday and this guy impressed me as being both smart and sincere.

Worth the time to view.
Posted by: LesSnyder

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 08/17/11 03:32 PM

those of us in the state of Florida, hated to lose his management expertise, but he left us a model of what an emergency management system should look like
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 08/17/11 05:28 PM

From your experience though, how much of Fugate's common sense approach has filtered down through the organisation or is it just a case that some poor fellow (no doubt a Business and Emergency Management postgraduate degree holder wink ) was tasked with editing the FEMA management documentation that is already in place to replace the words 'Victim' and 'Special Needs' for political correctness etc.

Is it possible that Fugates approach that as prepared folks (preppers) within a community affected by a large scale disaster impact less FEMA's ability to provide limited resources, will just end up on deaf ears for the rest who expect that they get value for money from FEMA because they are tax payers and it should be themselves that get assistance first and foremost over the poorer sections of the affected community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPzGUsYyKM Part 4-Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering.

The bottom line approach of the profit and loss accounts by local and national business organisations during FEMA negotiations (bringing them into the team fold) are just an indication of the intractable problems to the new approach Fugate is trying to implement. i.e. these private businesses will not help unless its helps the bottom line.

Posted by: nurit

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 08/20/11 12:46 AM

Andy, thanks very much for posting this. I found it well worth the time.
Posted by: Lono

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 08/20/11 01:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor
From your experience though, how much of Fugate's common sense approach has filtered down through the organisation or is it just a case that some poor fellow (no doubt a Business and Emergency Management postgraduate degree holder wink ) was tasked with editing the FEMA management documentation that is already in place to replace the words 'Victim' and 'Special Needs' for political correctness etc.


FWIW, words matter, and one man's poison is another man's passion. Special needs connotes that folks who have disabilities have some sort of special need - where as if society provided an accommodation which is the law in the US, there would be no 'special need.' Special need, handicapped - it takes about an hour to do a search / replace for the new accepted and neutral term, "functional need". The fact is that folks who aid in disaster response need to respond to functional needs, section 508, ADA provisions etc, and this is a relatively new realization. But words matter, at least to those who get labeled 'special need.' No matter what the term used, we will just address real human needs in this instance. Same goes with the label 'victim' - I deal with folks affected by disasters every day, and very few are what I would consider to be victims of the disaster. Most have more spine than to be victimized. I don't care what FEMA wants to call them, I can't legitimately call them victims.
Posted by: Mark_R

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/04/11 08:06 PM

I wonder if this explains the formations of local NEC (Neighborhood Emergency Corps). They're still in their formation stage, but it looks their purpose is to have time zero boots on the ground in the form of neighborhood volunteers. Their job is to get things going and keep then going until the heavy resources (National Guard, FEMA, etc) are on site.

Mission statement
Quote:
In Terms of Preparedness Activities, We Will:

• Disseminate emergency preparedness information for various emergency scenarios

• Participate in and/or conduct training seminars/workshops with local response agencies

• Participate in and/or conduct drills for various emergency scenarios

• Stockpile and encourage individuals to stockpile emergency supplies (food, water, batteries, etc.)

In Terms Of Response And/Or Recovery Activities, We Will Provide/Coordinate Community-Based:

• Communication and information services

• Housing/temporary shelter (community-based ARC trained teams

• Animal Shelter/Services (Large Animal Support Team Volunteers)

• Food and meals for survivors and/or volunteers*

• Medical health services/first aid*

• Volunteer center services (at neighborhood/micro level)

• Search and rescue teams (encourage CERT volunteers)

• Special needs care for the elderly & handicapped*

• Transportation for survivors and their families”

• Interpretation/translation resource location

• Mental health services:

• Advocacy services*

• Insurance advocacy*

*=Identification of community resources only; serve as interface for resources
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/04/11 09:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_R
I wonder if this explains the formations of local NEC (Neighborhood Emergency Corps).


It seems like there's significant overlap with CERT.
Posted by: ratbert42

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/06/11 02:07 AM

It sounds like an add-on for CERT volunteers. Even within my (now defunct) CERT group, there was a lot of interest in 'going further' and getting more training. I think it's a good thing, but volunteers are always a mixed bag. There are always a few 'yahoos' that want to jump right into the middle of the action but have never been tested. That's where you need strong leadership and a structure to handle them as well as a way to get the volunteers some experience before 'the big one' hits. CERT has generally not been very good at that, at least in my experience. They get people through the training and participate in a drill or three a year but most volunteers have little experience and are not very connected to the organization. I can't really blame CERT for that because it's not really within their charter. Their focus is training a team in each neighborhood that can work with their untrained neighbors to handle minor problems during a wide-spread disaster.

But I've worked with very competent disaster volunteers that have been 'battle tested' in groups like Salvation Army, Red Cross, and amateur radio. Red Cross volunteers keep busy with assisting families affected by house / apartment fires, so they are constantly getting experience. Ham radio groups often stay busy doing communications for 'public service' events like charity walks and bike rides. (They sound easy but I've seen hams handle events with heart attacks, a cyclist hit by an 18-wheeler, etc.) No amount of table-top exercises or even simulated drills can build up volunteers as much as real-world experiences.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/06/11 11:22 AM

Well said, ratbert.

I've been thinking about working with my local RACES group for that reason among others, but I haven't been able to make the time. Maybe next year.
Posted by: Pete

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/17/11 08:59 PM

Andy ... I'm glad to hear that there's some practical, independent thinking happening at FEMA.

If L.A. or San Francisco are hit ever by a devastating earthquake - and it is coming sooner or later - tell them to do just ONE thing first. Figure out a plan to get as much fresh water as possible to residents of the city. They need to collect water containers from across the USA and get them into the city ... to as many different locations within the city boundaries as possible.

That one action is most likely to minimize rioting and ensure the best survival for the urban population. It won't be easy to accomplish, but it will be effective.

Pete2
Posted by: Pete

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/18/11 10:50 PM

Izzy ... I agree. I think that the military bases could be a tremendous boost to any relief efforts. I'm hoping that someone has got a plan to take over local air traffic control, so relief flights can be landing at multiple military bases (without the risk of collisions). I'm expecting that some control towers, such as those as LAX, could be damaged by a quake. Some of the military towers could be out of action too, and I dunno if they have backup generator power. But if someone could direct relief flights in and out of Los Angeles, it would speed things up tremendously.

i also expect that the city could have serious problems with fires, at least in some neighborhoods. That will put a lot of smoke into the air, and complicate the flight paths for airplanes with relief supplies. So the overall job of air traffic control could be a challenge. But there are definitely people in the USA who know how to do this. The Air Force has guys who can parachute into remote areas and do flight control - maybe the Marines and Navy have these guys too. It would be really helpful if someone put this whole plan together.

cheers,
Pete2
Posted by: Susan

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/19/11 03:00 AM

When people discuss a mega-quake on the west coast, no one ever seems to consider that transportation is going to come to a dead stop. A DEAD STOP.

The Sylmar Quake (6.6) lasted about 60 seconds, a long one.

The Loma Prieta (6.9) lasted 10-15 seconds.

The Northridge Quake (6.7) lasted between 10 and 20 seconds.

The ground dropped about 3 feet in some of these 6+ earthquakes.

Geologists say that the length of a mega quake (9+)is going to be in MINUTES, like around five (Japan's was over 5). They say that the un-reinforced buildings can last about a minute, but the rest of them will start coming apart at the 2-minute mark.

The mega-quake that hit Anchorage in 1964 (9.2) lasted about 4 minutes, and the land displacement was more than 35 feet at the surface!

Very, very few buildings have been built to withstand a mega quake, so the entire area for miles will just be piles of rubble. I can't imagine that the freeways are going to be any better -- I doubt that many overpasses are going to be left.

So, exactly where are the C-5s, that need 6000 ft of runway to land, going to come down? And if they can land, how will the water and supplies going to be distributed to the 22 million people who need it?

I've never even heard of a whisper of a plan for this. Nothing whatsoever.

In other words, folks, you'll be on your own. And it's going to UGLY!

Sue
Posted by: Richlacal

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/19/11 04:18 AM

Hey Sue,That Juan de Fuca in Seattle I think is going to be the Mega-Monster of All,like you've said many times before,there will be Nowhere to go,I just saw a special on the weather channel lastnight about it,Tsunami City!That last Northridge Quake we had here,damaged every single overpass from Sylmar to Santa Monica on the 405 fwy,& Dropped the overpasses in alot of places from Santa monica to Hancock Park on The 10 fwy,Suprisingly the Tunnel on Sepulveda near the Mulholland Pass was unscathed,short of a few rockslides in the pass.A 9.0 centered in The Inglewood fault would shut down Everything from Orange County to Canyon Country,& LAX/Burbank airports would probably be destroyed at best,Ugly would be a Nice/Kind description!FEMA would be pitching pennies on the curb!
Posted by: Pete

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/19/11 05:32 PM

Susan and Rich .... YES it's very likely that all major transportation routes will be down after a BIG quake in L.A. or S.F.. I'm certainly expecting all freeways in L.A. to be closed, and also probably most major roads. Likewise, as you point out it's likely that cracks will develop (maybe big ones!) in long runways.

There are potential solutions to everything - but I just don't see anyone putting together the BIG SOLUTION. I do think that if the current plan is that local cities are going to "piecemeal" their way thru' the crisis" then we're probably going to be toast. But let's look at possible solutions:

1. Airports: Runways get bombed and destroyed during war. The military has "quick-fix" ways of dealing with this ... by patching holes and getting things working again. The question is - does the USA have a plan for how these military teams will be dropped into L.A., San Francisco, Portland or Seattle in the evnt of a major west coast quake? Someone needs to do the damage assessment promptly, and then get these teams moving. These teams could have runways fixed in 3-4 days if this was done right. Otherwise we're looking at 2-4 weeks, and that's way too slow. It CAN be done if people get on the ball.

2. We can bypass C-5 airplanes if we have a fleet of heavy-haul helicopters. So the relief goods from around the USA could be funneled to an airport outside the disaster zone, and then the helo's could carry the supplies to military airports and other designated drop-off points in the disaster zone. BUT once again - the BIG PLAN needs to be figured out now. Advance planning could have this entire network ready to go.

3. I was thinking this morning, while driving to work, that emergency services inside L.A. should have certain major streets designated as "emergency corridors". This means that after the earthquake, everyone focuses on getting these particular streets cleared of rubble, patched up, and running as soon as possible. The idea is not to facilitate civilian traffic - the intention is to be able to mobilize convoys of trucks carrying relief goods. Once again, if some smart thinking was done at the top-level, and the right streets were chosen for clearance, then relief efforts could be faciliated in a major way.

But Sue - you are also right that a threat of major urban breakdown does exist in our large cities ... esp. places like L.A. that have comparatively few sources of drinkable fresh water. I have heard several residents of this city say to me - over the last few months - that they are stockpiling ammo and are willing to defend their own resources with firepower if necessary. So it could indeed get ugly, once people get seriously thirsty and hungry. And this doesn't even include the major problems associated with fires (or firestorms) immediately after the quake, or the problems with broken water mains (hence no H2O for fire trucks), gas mains etc.

And by the way Rich - have to agree with you that the Cascadia subduction zone is also one nasty animal !! :-)

Right now L.A. is overdue for two major earthquales:
1. Newport-Inglewood fault running under many high-density communities in the city.
2. San Andreas southern rupture.

Pete2
Posted by: Susan

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/19/11 07:59 PM

Quote:
Runways get bombed and destroyed during war. The military has "quick-fix" ways of dealing with this ... by patching holes and getting things working again.


War is holes, holes can be patched. How do you deal with runways where half of it has dropped 20 or 30 feet? NOT an easy fix!

Quote:
We can bypass C-5 airplanes if we have a fleet of heavy-haul helicopters. So the relief goods from around the USA could be funneled to an airport outside the disaster zone, and then the helo's could carry the supplies to military airports and other designated drop-off points in the disaster zone.


I think reality is going to get in the way. For instance, the UH-60 Black Hawk can carry (drumroll!) 11 fully equipped soldiers, or a max. weight of about 12,000 lbs. That's about 1450 gallons of drinking water, minus the weight of the containers. If they give out 5 gallons per person, that's... 290 people. They only need to make 75,862 trips per day! If they have 20 Black Hawks, they each only have to make 3,793 trips per day.

And that just gets it to the secondary drop-off points. Anyone who is mobile is probably going to be afoot, working their way through debris, so how far can they go for 5 gals of water (40+ lbs)?

And that's just water, no food or medical supplies. I just don't think that is going to cut it.

Your idea of 'emergency corridors' is a good one, but even if the military jumps right in, how long will that take? SoCal in the summer, around 20 million people with no water for 3+ days...

The first wave of deaths comes with the earthquake, the second wave due to dehydration? YUCK! The place is gonna stink, for sure! So what's the plan for all the dead bodies?

Early in this thread, Izzy said,
Quote:
In the middle of my county (Volusia) they're building a giant 35,000 square foot "Command Center" that he pushed through. It looks like Fort Knox and it's not even halfway built.


THAT'S what is needed! Maybe not that big, but strong, stable bunker/warehouses of pre-planned stored water, food and medical supplies. Have them spotted around so people could get to them while FEMA and the military are deciding what to do.

Seattle? Seattle is probably going to consist of piles of rubble crowning seven islands (formerly called 'hills'), with the Space Needle overlooking it. And I hope I'm nowhere nearby at the time.

Sue
Posted by: LED

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/19/11 09:08 PM

Thats why they emphasize the first responders in a major crisis are going to be those closest to you. Neighbors, volunteers, etc. Thats why its important to know your neighbors.
Posted by: Jeanette_Isabelle

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/19/11 10:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Susan
Quote:
Runways get bombed and destroyed during war. The military has "quick-fix" ways of dealing with this ... by patching holes and getting things working again.


War is holes, holes can be patched. How do you deal with runways where half of it has dropped 20 or 30 feet? NOT an easy fix!

File this under "Something Is Better Than Nothing." Depending on the location of the drop off, small planes may be able to take off where large planes cannot.

Jeanette Isabelle
Posted by: Pete

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/19/11 11:23 PM

Sue - you made a number of good responses there. You've convinced me that the likely outcome could be even worse than I was expecting. I do get the feeling that most residents of Los Angeles believe that "help will be on the way" - in some fashion. It's not clear that most of them will receive such help in time. It would require an amazing airlift operation - which as you point out may not really be feasible (though I don't want to stop people from trying). I have to believe that death from dehydration, sickness & injuries, and fire/smoke will be leading causes of fatalities in the week(s) after a big quake.

By the way - your point about what is going to happen to the bodies is also well taken. How could they be collected and disposed of by the city authorities? Again ... I think this planning falls through the cracks. In which case the city will smell like a war zone.

The idea of building a special disaster relief center, complete with seismically reinforced runways - is quite interesting. But we would probably need several such zones. And since Los Angeles, like many metropolitan areas, is becoming bankrupt - I'm not sure it's going to happen.

Maybe the option is just to air-drop relief supplies directly into the "war zone" city. And just hope for the best. It's probably a lot better than doing nothing.

cheers,
Pete2
Posted by: thseng

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/19/11 11:42 PM

Who needs a runway?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Altitude_Parachute_Extraction_System
Posted by: Dagny

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/20/11 01:28 AM


The 2011 great California "Shake Out" is scheduled for October 20

http://www.shakeout.org/history/

FEMA is one of the sponsors. Hopefully these drills are drilling the notion of preparedness into some heads and prompting more locals to ask these questions.
Posted by: Susan

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/20/11 01:42 AM

Thseng, I have never heard of that! It looks to be the most logical solution... even if they aren't being shot at.

Sue
Posted by: Susan

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/20/11 01:48 AM

I wonder how man SoCal residents are relying on their swimming pools as a water source. And I wonder how much would be left in them after the shake?

It would certainly play havoc with the real estate values, wouldn't it?

Sue
Posted by: hikermor

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/20/11 04:45 AM

The past experience in major quakes in SoCal (Sylmar and Northridge) is that real estate values are depressed for about three months, and then everything gets back to normal. A really large quake, an 8 or 9, might keep values down a bit longer....
Posted by: Pete

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/20/11 02:31 PM

Sue and folks ... The various thoughts expressed here were quite helpful. I've been thinking about possible solutions, and I am going to go away for a couple of days and put together a trial "plan" for a fast-response to an earthquake in L.A. Then we can take a look. I wonder if anyone at FEMA ever reads these threads???

Meanwhile ... the Great Shakeout is an attempt by many agencies to get the residents of L.A. "involved" in planning for a major disaster in their own city. You would think that everyone would be highly motivated. BUT several factors tend to undermine preparedness.
(1) People in So. Cal have been told that the Big One is coming for at least the last 40 years. So the typical reaction to this news is "Yeah ... heard it all before".
(2) Like many cities, life in L.A. is incredibly busy and stressful these days. Especially in a never-ending economic recession. So families are just struggling to get by each day, while parents try to avoid getting fired from their jobs and bosses demand that people work longer hours. It's tough.
(3) Even when people do get together some earthquake supplies, the pile of stuff gets "eroded" over a period of weeks or months. Things get moved. Water and food are used for other things. Tools are used for other jobs. And pretty soon your earthquake supplies are mostly gone.

I think I said before - but will repeat again. I asked people here in Los Angeles (where I work) how many days of supplies they had put away for a disaster. This was immediately after the Sendai quake in Japan. My co-workers had enough food & water to last maybe 2-3 days - if they were lucky. Many only had 1 container of water in the cupboard at home. And these are professional people (!). I really doubt that anything has changed, since i asked those questions.

So real preparedness in L.A. remains very low - at least at the level of the civilian population. And most local agencies, like fire and police, do have plans. But they tend to be "responsive" - meaning that they will adjust to the real conditions of the incident AFTER it happens. However, if that incident involves a disaster of Biblical proportions, along with a civilian population that is virtually unprepared, then you know what the end outcome is going to be.

Pete2
Posted by: Susan

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/20/11 05:21 PM

I haven't been back to SoCal since I left in 1980, 30 years. I know it's worse than what I remember, and even then, you could almost walk the rooftops from the Pacific Ocean to Redlands without touching the ground.

The idea of a mega quake hitting there is mind-boggling, more than the mind can really comprehend. But I'll bet that most of the people there will be found on their lawn chairs, watching the sky for FEMA helicopters to deliver their cold drinks and hot meals.

And Pete, you're absolutely right about the current day-to-day stresses that are eating away at people. If we don't slide right into a full-scale economic depression, I will be incredibly surprised.

Can you imagine a full-scale depression and then being hit by a mega-quake anywhere in the western U.S.? A zombie apocolypse pales by comparison.

Sue
Posted by: AKSAR

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/20/11 05:53 PM

Not to minimize the consequences of a major earthquake in LA, San Francisco Seattle, Portland, or other large cities. However, one needs to keep in mind that the amount of ground breakage is very dependent on local geologic conditions, which vary dramatically in a small area. Above ground features, such as highway overpasses, are different, in that they can collapes due to the shaking itself. A runway can shake a lot and not be damaged if there isn't actual ground breakage. Certainly the damage in Anchorage from the '64 quake varied tremendously over small distances. Part of my house dates from pre '64, and was not damaged at all, so far as I know. About a quarter mile away, a whole neighborhood was totally destroyed in a landslide.

Regarding airports specifically, the control tower at Anchorage International collapsed. I'm not sure how much damage was done to the runways. I do recall reading somewhere that Elmendorf AFB (just north of downtown) was able to get recon flights into the air the day following the '64 quake, to begin surveying the extent of damage. I will try to find out more info on this.

Beacause they are designed to operate in war zones, military aircraft are a good deal more versatile than many people realize. Besides the big C5A's, there are somewaht smaller C-17's, and smaller still C-130's. Either of these can operate on shorter and rougher strips. If even a portion of the runways (or even taxiways) at SeaTac or LAX were left intact, there is a good chance these aircraft could get in. Bring in a few bulldozers in the initial loads, and even more of the runways might be put back into operation. Helo's would be essential to ferry supplies out from these airports to outlying areas. The military also has mobile teams that could quickly come set up local air traffic control to fill the gap left by destroyed control towers etc.

There is no doubt that a major earthquake under a big city would be catastrophic. And no question that people should prepare, as much as their particular circumstances permit. However, there is also no doubt that some significant help would be coming in from areas outside the damage zone.
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/20/11 05:59 PM


Quote:
But I'll bet that most of the people there will be found on their lawn chairs, watching the sky for FEMA helicopters to deliver their cold drinks and hot meals.


A Mullberry harbour might be useful. But they would need to make sure that they don't let it blow away in the wind. wink
Posted by: MostlyHarmless

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/20/11 06:36 PM

Originally Posted By: thseng


Now those are really cool, but they don't scale up for supplying a major city in rubbles with water and food...

I think shipping is the only way to realistically move the quantities needed for supplying million-size cities when there's no working infrastructure. Most really big cities are at or close to the coast. You still have the problem of distributing withing a city without any working roads, but at least you've got shiploads and shiploads of supplies in the harbour.

Shiploads full of useful supplies along with skilled relief workers, trucks to deliver supplies and heavy machinery to clear the docks and the roads so stuff can get unloaded and the trucks can go anywhere ...... That kind of organization isn't something you just improvise. Just think about the recent big EQ in Haiti and how long it took before heavy-duty relief effort was being shipped in substantial quantities. Pre-planning can cut the response time considerably.
Posted by: Richlacal

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 02:52 AM

For the city of Los Angeles,the most practical way to deliver supplies inland from the coastline would be by Tsunami.LAPES are not going to cut it for a population over a few thousand,at best!LAPES loaded with fae's or daisycutters would be more of a humanitarian effort in the longrun!
Posted by: AKSAR

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 03:21 AM

Originally Posted By: AKSAR
Not to minimize the consequences of a major earthquake in LA, San Francisco Seattle, Portland, or other large cities. However, one needs to keep in mind that the amount of ground breakage is very dependent on local geologic conditions, which vary dramatically in a small area. ......Regarding airports specifically, the control tower at Anchorage International collapsed. I'm not sure how much damage was done to the runways. I do recall reading somewhere that Elmendorf AFB (just north of downtown) was able to get recon flights into the air the day following the '64 quake, to begin surveying the extent of damage. I will try to find out more info on this.......


OK, replying to myself now, I did a bit of research after work today. Damage to airports after the '64 Alaska Earthquake was overall surprisingly light. According to Hansen et al (1966, USGS Prof Paper 541, "The Alaska Earthquake March 27, 1964: Field Investigations and Reconstruction Effort"): "Damage to airports was relatively minor....Greatest damage was at Anchorage International Airport, where a life was lost when the control tower collapsed...and where minor damage was sustained by other buildings.....Runways and taxi strips were only slightly damaged."

However, port damage was another matter. The ports of Whittier, Seward, and Valdez were almost totally destroyed by a combination of fires, slumping, locally induced waves due to underwater landslides, and the tsunami generated by the earthquake. The Port of Anchorage (which is not subject to tsunamis) was damaged, though much less severly, by slumping and shaking.

As I noted in my previous post, damage in an earthquake is highly dependent on the local geology of each site (soils, topographical relief, etc). How succeptable a port is to tsumanis is likewise highly dependent on the local underwater topography.
Posted by: Richlacal

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 03:53 AM

Liquifaction,Plays a very big role in resulting damage from earthquakes!
Posted by: AKSAR

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 04:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Richlacal
Liquifaction,Plays a very big role in resulting damage from earthquakes!


Yup. Along with a whole lot of other things.
Posted by: LED

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 06:56 AM

If the house is still standing after a quake, my biggest concern will be gas leaks and fire. I have 4 kitchen size fire extinquishers around the house. Thats not going to be enough. But if the water mains are broken, even a tanker truck wouldn't be enough. Hopefully the car will be undamaged so we can evac if necessary. So many unknowns, its mindboggling.
Posted by: Dagny

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 01:09 PM

If I were living in southern California today (I grew up there in the 1960s/70s - the Sylmar quake experience stands out), I think these would be my preparedness priorities:

1) Shelter-in: the ability to live outside (tent, screenroom, camping gear, portable toilet, water storage, portable shower). Portable radio + batteries.

2) Backpack in car: in case you're not at home when the quake hits and roads are impassable. Also in the car 24/7: hiking shoes/socks, seasonally appropriate jacket, hat, umbrella, highly detailed area map, first aid kit, PSK (including Micropur tablets), water bottles, flashlight/headlamp/batteries, cash (hidden), leather gloves, prybar. Portable radio + batteries (extremely important).

3) Know thy neighbors: and see if anyone would help increase preparedness awareness on your own block. It's in everyone's interest to reduce the risks of fire (ex: know whose homes have gas and having the tools to shut it off), guard against looters and otherwise join together in the aftermath to help fill in the void left by emergency services perhaps being preoccupied elsewhere. Families should have added incentive to participate because children may be home alone when a quake hits.

4) Workplace preparedness: Is this a priority for your employer? Stash what you can at work, too.


I'd assume the worst about the government's preparedness.

Posted by: hikermor

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 01:23 PM

Dagny, you are absolutely right. I might add that I keep a hatchet and collapsed Sven saw in the car, as well.

These personal preparations may be moot, as I see by the papers today are asserting that the PROCESS THAT SHALL BE NAMELESS is raising its ugly head. Without funding, any good plan is severely restricted......
Posted by: Dagny

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 02:37 PM

Originally Posted By: hikermor
Dagny, you are absolutely right. I might add that I keep a hatchet and collapsed Sven saw in the car, as well.

These personal preparations may be moot, as I see by the papers today are asserting that the PROCESS THAT SHALL BE NAMELESS is raising its ugly head. Without funding, any good plan is severely restricted......



A bit cryptic for me. What process is "the process that shall be nameless?"

What the government does or doesn't do or may or may not fund, is irrelevant to my personal preparedness.

In a major disaster here, I assume government will do nothing for me -- no services, no protection.

Living in DC, even at the best of times I have learned to have low expectations for government services.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 02:51 PM

There is currently a dustup in Congress relative to funding FEMA - the agency may shut down fairly soon.

I agree that one should be prepared on a personal level. That is the help that is immediately available. My family and neighbors are much more handy than any government services.

However, my experience in the provision of services, particularly in emergencies, has been more positive than yours, evidently. They do come along and it works nicely with local efforts.
Posted by: Pete

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 06:13 PM

If we use the 1906 San Francisco earthquake as a guide to the general level of destruction for a major quake in a large CA city then we get the following ...

* About 0.7-1% casualties amongst urban population
* About 56-75% of all city residents homeless after the quake
* Most destruction caused by fires after the earthquake

Here is the Wikipedia summary of the fires after the 1906 event:

"As damaging as the earthquake and its aftershocks were, the fires that burned out of control afterward were even more destructive. It has been estimated that up to 90% of the total destruction was the result of the subsequent fires. Over 30 fires, caused by ruptured gas mains, destroyed approximately 25,000 buildings on 490 city blocks. Worst of all, many were started when firefighters, untrained in the use of dynamite, attempted to demolish buildings to create firebreaks, which resulted in the destruction of more than 50% of the buildings that would have otherwise survived.
... As water mains were also broken, the city fire department had few resources with which to fight the fires. Several fires in the downtown area merged to become one giant inferno. Brigadier General Frederick Funston, commander of the Presidio of San Francisco and a resident of San Francisco, tried to bring the fire under control by detonating blocks of buildings around the fire to create firebreaks with all sorts of means, ranging from black powder and dynamite to even artillery barrages. Often the explosions set the ruins on fire or helped spread it."

This potential problem with fires is probably even worse for Los Angeles today because the density of structures has increased considerably. The worst-case outcome could potentially be real firestorms erupting in some high-density neighborhoods - since without water it would be impossible to put out the fires quickly. I doubt that firefighters will use dynamite these days - but we have portentialy many more sources of fire due to various industrial processes.

And going back to the casualty and homeless rates, if we apply them to the L.A. city region:

Casualties = approx 21,000 - 31,000 people
Homeless = 1.7 - 2.3 million people

and this is only using the population figures for Los Angeles (not counting Orange County or other bedroom communities).

Which raises an important point ... how many of these homeless people have EDC kits prepared and ready to go? And if their homes are destroyed by earthquake or fire - doesn't this mean that any emergency supplies stored inside their houses would also be destroyed as well?

Pete2

Posted by: hikermor

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 07:41 PM

Don't forget that buildings in California today are built to far higher standards (though not necessarily perfect) than the structures present in 1906 San Francisco, which included many unreinforced masonry buildings.

For what area of destruction are you deriving your casualty figures? You will get maximum destruction at or near the epicenter, but damage will tail off in surrounding areas, subject of course to local factors, such as geology and soils.

I would be very surprised if authorities have not already gamed this scenario, perhaps at an even higher level of sophistication that we are capable of, incredible as that might seem.

Of course, I am no stranger to surprises......
Posted by: AKSAR

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 08:08 PM

I am a geologist by training, and have lived most of my life in earthquake prone regions (grew up in the PNW, and the last 25 years in Alaska), so I'm kind of interested in this stuff.

I don't wish to minimize the danger of a major earthquake occuring under a major west coast city such as Vancouver BC, Seattle, San Francisco, or LA. However, it is also good to keep in mind that damage and destruction in an earthquake (and resulting tsunami) is generally highly variable over an area. Extrapolating damage from the worst hit area across an entire region can be misleading. At the same time it is prudent not to underestimate the risks.

Damage from an earthquake can occur in a number of ways. The direct ground motion can cause buildings, bridges, and other structures to collapse. The intensity of ground motion depends on how near the epicenter is (map view) and how deep it is. The damage is also highly dependent on local soil and bedrock conditions, and how long the quake lasts. Landslides triggered by the quake can be extremely destuctive, but tend to be localized, depending on topgraphical relief and soil conditions. Structures built directly across a fault which moves will be heavily damaged, but this tends to be a very narrow linear zone. Tsunamis can come from distant earthquakes, or be locally generated. In either case tsunami damage is very dependent on local coastal bathymetry. Some areas are very low risk, and some are high risk.

The 1964 Alaska Earthquake provides a good illustration of this. At 9.2 it is still considered to be the 2nd most powerfull earthquake recorded in modern times. Some of the most graphic images of that earthquake were from Anchorage. But it is well to remember that even in Anchorage, the degree of damage varied dramatically over short distances. The Turnagain area and downtown were severly damaged by landslides, but much of the rest of the city was not. The only deaths directly resulting from the earthquake were the 9 people killed in Anchorage. The other ~124 deaths were elsewhere (16 outside of Alaska), resulting from tsunamis.

Based on actual damage in '64, and more recent geological research, a seismic risk map has been compiled for present day Anchorage: http://www.muni.org/Departments/OCPD/Planning/Planning%20Maps/Anch_Bowl_Seismic_8x11.pdf

The USGS, NOAA, and other agencies attempt to compile similar maps for other threatened cities. For example, in the Seattle area there is a map showing the relationship of earthquake risk to important infrastructure "lifelines" at http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/lifeline/index.html
For Seattle tsunami hazards see: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/wals2794/wals2794.pdf

Again, I'm not trying to minimize the risks, only to keep them in some kind of realistic perspective.
Posted by: Pete

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 09:06 PM

Thanks for the comments. I went back and took a look at the 1964 Alaska earthquake - which as you pointed out was a whopping BIG event. It's amazing really that Alaska came out as well as it did ... considering the enormous size of that 9.2 quake. Based on population estimates, it looks like there were about 90,000-95,000 people living in Anchorage at the time. It's pretty miraculous that only 9 were killed - there must have definitely been factors that helped to save lives.

Personally, when I computed those numbers above for Los Angeles, I was thinking that 20,000-30,000 fatalities was really not that bad [of course - it's not great if you're one of them!]. It still means that 99% of the residents of L.A. would survive the event. The predictions on homeless numbers may be too high, but I guess it depends on how widespread the fire danger is. I can think of some suburbs of L.A. where homes are VERY close together, and they are 2-story (or 3-story) dwellings. There certainly will be structural damage. And you know how people handle fire risks in their homes ... I doubt that many residents are taking strict precautions with fire dangers & flammables. So the possibility of fires seems very plausible to me, and there's no way that anyone will stop fires in those high-density communities. I'm less comfortable with how the outcome might work out down here.

But I do appreciate the counterpoints that you are making. I'd like to hope that you are right.

Pete2
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 09:32 PM

Quote:
Personally, when I computed those numbers above for Los Angeles, I was thinking that 20,000-30,000 fatalities was really not that bad [of course - it's not great if you're one of them!]. It still means that 99% of the residents of L.A. would survive the event.


If LA was struck with a direct Mega quake (8+) on a hot Autumn day, which precipitated a true firestorm then your casualty figures, I suspect are probably an order of magnitude out.

1923 Tokyo Earthquake


Quote:
The fires spread rapidly due to high winds from a nearby typhoon off the coast of Noto Peninsula in Ishikawa Prefecture, and some developed into firestorms which swept across cities. As a result many people died when their feet got stuck in melting tarmac; however, the single greatest loss of life occurred when approximately 38,000 people packed into an open space at the Rikugun Honjo Hifukusho (Former Army Clothing Depot) in downtown Tokyo were incinerated by a firestorm-induced fire whirl. As the earthquake had caused water mains to break, putting out the fires took nearly two full days until late in the morning of September 3. The fires were the biggest causes of death.


The Tokyo Firestorm of 1945 has also had estimates off up to 1 million people dying although the figure of 100,000+ is more readily accepted historically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II

Quote:
These casualty and damage figures could be low; Mark Selden wrote in Japan Focus:
The figure of roughly 100,000 deaths, provided by Japanese and American authorities, both of whom may have had reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll, seems to me arguably low in light of population density, wind conditions, and survivors' accounts. With an average of 103,000 inhabitants per square mile (396 people per hectare) and peak levels as high as 135,000 per square mile (521 people per hectare), the highest density of any industrial city in the world, and with firefighting measures ludicrously inadequate to the task, 15.8 square miles (41 km2) of Tokyo were destroyed on a night when fierce winds whipped the flames and walls of fire blocked tens of thousands fleeing for their lives. An estimated 1.5 million people lived in the burned out areas.[7]




Posted by: hikermor

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/21/11 10:41 PM

Again, consider that Japanese architecture, particularly domestic structures, were highly flammable, more so than such buildings in the United States. It is true, on the basis of several incidents, that fire after an earthquake, can present a serious hazard that may equal or exceed that of the quake itself.

I keep my gas shutoff tool underneath my bed, where I can get to it very quickly.
Posted by: Susan

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/22/11 02:08 AM

What I think of in the case of an earthquake, are the broken gas lines and water mains.

I remember watching the aftermath of the Northridge Quake, and the fires that soon followed, and wondered how many of them were started by nervous smokers who immediately pulled out their cigarettes and lighters.

Sue
Posted by: Pete

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/22/11 03:59 PM

Thanks for the various comments. I didn't start this thread ... but I kinda' hijacked the topic to the discussion of possible disasters in West Coast cities in America.

If you look at the spread of options for risks - you can see why this is a difficult problem for FEMA. Taking Los Angeles as an example, an optimistic scenario might lead to casuatlies in the hundreds or low thousands (assuming that most buildings do have capabilities to meet seismic vibrations from a quake). A moderate-risk scenario might involve casualties in the tens of thousands. And a worst-case scenario (major firestorm) could involve casualties in the hundreds of thousands. How is FEMA supposed to cope with this kind of spread in risks?? That's a pretty tough assignment, and so is the plan for dealing with the after-effects.

Still, I think there are some things that could be done - that aren't necessarily being done right now. I will probably post these ideas in a separate thread soon.

Pete2
Posted by: paramedicpete

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/22/11 04:57 PM

One thing to keep in mind is that FEMA is a federal resource and must be requested by the state government to supplement in-state resources that become overwhelmed. So looking at FEMA as a supplemental responding agency, what resources are available locally/regionally (community, city/town, county and state) to meet the needs before calling in FEMA resources?

Pete
Posted by: AKSAR

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/22/11 05:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Pete
.... If you look at the spread of options for risks - you can see why this is a difficult problem for FEMA. ..... How is FEMA supposed to cope with this kind of spread in risks?? That's a pretty tough assignment, and so is the plan for dealing with the after-effects.

Still, I think there are some things that could be done - that aren't necessarily being done right now. I will probably post these ideas in a separate thread soon.

Pete2


Yes it is a very tough problem, but I agree with you that much can be done.

One of my favorite quotes is from Dwight D. Eisenhower who was Supreme Commander for the Normandy Invasion during World War II, and later the 34th President of the United States. He said: "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything."

Emergencies will never happen exactly as you expect, therefore your plans will never be entirely right. However, having done the planning, you are in a much stronger position to respond to whatever has happened. You have evaluated your resources, and tried to fix areas where you are weak. It is usually much easier to modify an existing plan than to build one on the fly (under severe stress).
Posted by: AKSAR

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/22/11 07:22 PM

Originally Posted By: paramedicpete
...... So looking at FEMA as a supplemental responding agency, what resources are available locally/regionally (community, city/town, county and state) to meet the needs before calling in FEMA resources?

This is the kind of pre-planning that doesn't cost a lot to do, but can be hugely valuable after a disaster occurs. This can be done at the local level, and that planning in turn can be incorporated at the FEMA level. Some specific examples, by no means inclusive:

1. Communications inventory & pre-plan. Inventory what equipment, frequencies, procedures etc each agency has. There will be incompatabilities, so try to create a comm plan that will minimise problems and enable agencies to communicate with each other as best as possible. Disseminate this plan so that all agencies can pull it out in a hurry and put it into action.

2. Medical resources inventory. What hospitals are located where, what capabilities do they have. Integrate them into the comm plan. After an earthquake or other disaster, you want to find out as quickly as possible what medical resources are still functional, and which are knocked out.

3. Helicopter resources. Who has what aircraft, where are they based, and what are their capabilities. As with hospitals, integrate into comm plan so that those still operational can be most efficienly used.

4. Private resources (aircraft, bulldozers, etc). Again, inventory what and where. When FEMA (and Federal dollars) comes into the picture, contracting these will be important. Have contracts already agreed upon, which can be quickly activated when the need arises. (Wildland fire fighting agencies already do this kind of thing.)

5. Volunteer agencies. Local SAR teams, Red Cross, etc. As above, what is available, where are they, what are the capabilities, how to communicate.

6 ..Etc.... Etc

Hold regular table top drills to get all of the agencies practice in working together. Nothng smooths a rapidly changing response as much as knowing the faces of those you are called upon to work with.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/22/11 11:21 PM

The annual local drill, the California Shakeout, is coming up on Oct 20. This thread is prompting me to inquire a bit more closely into the state of planning for the Big One. I actually suspect that some fairly extensive gaming has occurred.

One thing about California. We should be able to cooperate effectively in the event of an earthquake-induced firestorm, fires being fairly common occurrences around here. Santa Ana season is on the horizon.
Posted by: Susan

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/22/11 11:43 PM

Quote:
Santa Ana season is on the horizon.


How's this for an awful double-whammy: Major earthquake during Santa Ana Winds?

I've been through enough Santa Anas for just the idea to make me feel sick.

Sue
Posted by: Pete

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/23/11 12:28 AM

The combo of a major quake and Santa Ana winds would be a very bad combination for Los Angeles. Not only because of the risk from natural phenomena and firestorms, but also because as you know a few nut-jobs seem to show up every year and start man-made fires at that time. Fortunately, statistics are probably on our side. The chances seem unlikely - although far from being impossible.

I have the actual shakemaps that have been calculated by USGS scientists for the rupture on the Southern San Andreas. You can find them online. I enlarged them and printed them digitally. I studied them carefully for quite a while, and decided that the results are NOT encouraging. USGS simulated a 7.8 magnitude quake for the San Andreas, so real results would be worse if the Big One is stronger.

Pete2
Posted by: hikermor

Re: FEMA rethinks its approach... - 09/23/11 12:53 AM

On the other hand, we might just as likely experience the vaunted Big One during one of our fairly common winter soakers, which will dampen everything down quite nicely.

I just love the unpredictability of quakes, especially since we can track storms and hurricanes so exquisitely.