Full-Rip 9.0: The Next Big Earthquake in the Pacific Northwest

by Sandi Doughton

  Scientists are testing a prototype system in California. Bay Area Rapid Transit trains are already programmed to shut down automatically. The Northwest network is still in its infancy. Vidale and other scientists are testing the software on their own computers, and so far, it’s worked well with small quakes. Their next step is to see how businesses, utilities, and government agencies could use the warnings. A full-scale system like Japan’s, which includes public notification, is years down the road.

  It all depends on money, Vidale said. Japan invested heavily in its system, but the U.S. government hasn’t been as willing to open the vault. Much of the initial work is being funded by a $6 million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation in Palo Alto. A pioneer of the semiconductor industry, Gordon Moore is the cofounder of chipmaker Intel. But it’s unlikely he or any other billionaire will be willing to pay the $200 million or so it would cost to roll out a coastwide network.

  CHAPTER 14:

  INEVITABLE, INSCRUTABLE

  THE PACE OF GEOLOGIC DISCOVERY in the Pacific Northwest has been breathtaking. Brain Atwater published the first definitive evidence of ancient megaquakes in 1987. Five years later, scientists pieced together the story of the Seattle Fault and a powerful earthquake that tore through the heart of Puget Sound. By 2005, maps were crowded with new fault lines turning up on lidar surveys, and scientists were using GPS to watch in real-time as the region’s tectonic train wreck unfolded. Findings continue to pour in. From hidden faults east of the Cascades to subterranean rumblings that might presage the next subduction zone quake, there’s no shortage of surprises.

  People who live in the Northwest might be forgiven for saying, “enough already.”

  The human mind has a tendency to wander after one too many worst-case scenarios, and earthquakes are the toughest natural disaster to wrap the brain around anyway. Hurricanes, forest fires, and floods follow seasonal schedules. There’s usually enough warning time to board up the windows, stack sand bags, and evacuate. Earthquakes operate on a time scale that’s both inevitable and inscrutable. Another Cascadia megaquake will strike. It could be ten minutes from now, or it could hold off until today’s toddlers are great-grandparents.

  When he took over FEMA in 1993, James Lee Witt grappled with the question of how to make American communities more resistant to rare catastrophes. The standard approach to disaster management at the time was reactive: Wait for nature to wreak havoc, then open the federal wallet to fix the mess. Witt thought it made more sense to invest up front and reduce damage in the long term. He picked the Puget Sound area to be part of Project Impact, an initiative launched in 1997. The goal was to help the region size up its earthquake risk; identify the most vulnerable bridges, buildings and economic links; and develop plans to strengthen them before the next quake hits. The program expanded Seattle’s home retrofit classes and other education efforts. It brought together people who usually didn’t talk to each other, like highway officials, seismologists, port commissioners, business owners, and hospital administrators.

  “The reason we focused on this program was that we could no longer continue the damage-rebuild-damage-rebuild cycle,” Witt recalled. “We knew that if we raised public awareness about the way we dealt with disaster that it would catch on—and it did.”

  When the Nisqually quake struck in 2001, one reason the damage wasn’t worse were steps taken under Project Impact, like bolting down television monitors and bookshelves in daycare centers and classrooms. Seattle’s mayor said at the time that he was convinced the number of casualties would have been far higher if the work hadn’t been done.

  Project Impact lasted only four years, but Witt’s philosophy inspired many of the efforts today to brace the region for coming quakes and allow it to recover as quickly as possible. The resilience planning projects in Washington and Oregon are translating three decades’ worth of scientific research into detailed scenarios of expected damage and impacts on the people of the Northwest and the wider economy.

  The findings are both chilling and encouraging: Chilling in the extent of the damage and how long it could take to fix, but encouraging in the way so many players have come together to map out a way forward.

  In Oregon, where most of the state’s gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel are concentrated in vulnerable facilities and pipelines near the Willamette River, a Cascadia megaquake could disrupt supplies for weeks or months. Natural gas lines pass through the same area, and high-voltage transmission towers sit near the water’s edge, where soil liquefaction is expected to cause the ground to shift twenty feet or more. Oregon’s resilience plan, released in February 2013, estimates electrical service in Portland and surrounding areas will be knocked out for one to three months, while it could take up to a year to fully restore water supplies and repair damaged sewer pipes and waste treatment plants. In tsunami-ravaged coastal areas it could be six months before power is restored to pre-quake levels.

  Washington’s plan estimates it will take one to three months to fully restore telephone and Internet services, and up to three years to rebuild damaged power transmission lines. Some petroleum refineries and transmission pipelines could be closed for a year or more.

  In the aftermath of the quake, simultaneous damage to so many crucial lifelines and services across Washington, Oregon, Northern California, and British Columbia is likely to lead to a kind of paralysis. Without gasoline, crews won’t be able to repair buckled roads and bridges. Until roads and bridges are repaired, it will be difficult to fix downed power lines and damaged electrical substations. And without electricity, it won’t be possible to bring telephone and Internet services back online. A lack of power also means no ATMs at a time when many banks will be closed because of earthquake damage. If outages persist for even a month, warns the Oregon plan, many businesses will leave the area.

  Experiences in Japan and Chile prove that planning and preparation can minimize the downtime and gridlock. After its 2010 megaquake and tsunami, Chile was able to restore most electrical power, telephone, and Internet services within two weeks. Commercial airline flights resumed in ten days. In Japan, electrical power was almost back to normal within ten days of the 2011 megaquake and tsunami, though shutdowns at nuclear power plants required homes and businesses to cut back on energy use for several months. Most Japanese cell phone towers were operational again within three weeks of the quake.

  The Northwest isn’t close to that level of preparedness, but the region is making progress. For example, fuel companies with storage facilities and pipelines in Oregon agreed to evaluate their seismic risk and start upgrades. And the utility that owns the high-voltage transmission towers on the banks of the Willamette plans to strengthen them.

  It’s great to see the Pacific Northwest taking earthquake risk so seriously, said Witt, who left FEMA in 2001 and now runs a consulting firm that helps businesses and governments plan for disaster. Witt also launched an advocacy group called ProtectingAmerica.org, along with former Coast Guard Commandant and Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security James Loy. Their goal is to reduce the economic ripples from catastrophes like a Cascadia megaquake and tsunami. “In a major subduction zone quake, not only will the direct damages to structures and infrastructure be enormous, the long-term economic impact could alter our entire economy,” Witt said. The damage to roads, utilities, and productivity will reverberate across the nation.

  The cost will be too much for the Northwest to absorb. Much of the loss won’t be insured, because policies are so costly many people don’t bother with them. Witt’s solution is a law that would create a national catastrophe fund. His logic is the same as for Project Impact: It’s better to prepare ahead of time for those bad days that will surely come. “The economic devastation from major disasters can be minimized if we begin to strengthen our financial infrastructure now,” he said.

  The federal government would administer the fund, but the money wouldn’t come from the Treasury. Insurance companies would chip in a portion of the pre
miums they collect. The fund would be tapped to backstop states and insurers after calamity strikes. The system as Witt envisions it would actually reduce the cost of insurance because the amount companies chip in would be less than what they now pay for reinsurance to protect themselves against financial calamity. Interest that accrues on the fund would be plowed back into equipment and training for first responders and public education. “The law would protect taxpayers from the inevitable after-the-fact bailouts we use today to help communities recover from natural catastrophes.”

  For an example of the time-honored approach, consider the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. The cyclone lashed the northeastern United States just before Halloween 2012. Millions of homes lost power, thousands of buildings were destroyed, and more than 130 people died. At a time when Congress was locked in a wrestling match over federal deficits and spending, the lawmakers voted to appropriate $50 billion in federal aid. The scenario is repeated over and over. Including the Sandy funds, the federal government has given states $300 billion for disaster recovery since 1992.

  Another aspect of Witt’s crusade is a push for better building codes. There’s no more effective way to reduce earthquake deaths than good construction. The 2010 Haiti earthquake proved it by killing 200,000 people when shoddy buildings collapsed. The recent megaquakes in Chile and Japan proved it with low death tolls due to structural damage.

  In the United States, the development of building codes is a process largely left up to engineers. But many of them wish the public would weigh in more to help define acceptable levels of risk. Are the residents of Seattle or Portland or Vancouver comfortable with new buildings that have a 10 percent chance of collapse at the maximum level of shaking the codes consider? Is it OK that many of the structures that survive a major quake will have to be torn down because they’re so damaged?

  “Why should a bunch of structural engineers in a conference room be making those decisions?” asked Peter Yanev, author of the “Shake, Rattle, Seattle” op-ed in The New York Times.

  One of the reasons nuclear power plants are built to such strict standards is that the public demands it. Realistically, there won’t be an outcry for changes in American building codes until another major quake strikes. “The public doesn’t perceive this as a big issue—yet,” said Yanev. Incremental steps to strengthen the buildings that pose the greatest risk are possible, though, like Seattle’s proposal to require retrofits on brick buildings.

  Both Oregon’s and Washington’s resilience plans recommend measures to mandate seismic upgrades to schools and hospitals. Oregon’s plan goes even further, calling for a statewide push to identify and fix vulnerable, critical buildings like medical facilities and the emergency responder headquarters. A 2011 FEMA analysis estimated that nearly 900 fire stations and 150 police stations across the Northwest would be destroyed by a Cascadia megaquake. Damage to hospitals would result in the loss of up to 5,000 beds, at a time when as many as 30,000 injured people would be clamoring for treatment.

  As an incentive to retrofit old buildings, Oregon’s plan advocates mandatory disclosure of seismic risk during real estate sales. The state plan also proposes a seismic rating system for buildings to inform people about the risks where they live and work and encourage owners and builders to go beyond the minimum code for new structures.

  Over the coming years, science will undoubtedly yield new insights into the seismic forces that shape the region, and how they are likely to play out in the future. But unless geologists find a way to predict earthquakes, the new discoveries are more likely to be incremental than revolutionary. In many ways, geoscience has done its part for the Pacific Northwest.

  On the flanks of Mount Hood in 2011, Ian Madin reflected on decades of progress, even as he pushed the research forward with another trench on another fault. As chief scientist for the Oregon Department of Geology, Madin loves the thrill of finding something new. But he’s convinced the best investment the region can make now is to use whatever breathing room nature provides to create communities that will be able to bounce back after the Big One strikes. “Let’s fix the most important highway corridors so that within 24 hours we can reach communities on the coast,” he said. “Let’s make sure we have hospital facilities that will be functional. Let’s make sure schools and police stations will still be standing.”

  While Madin spoke, a backhoe clawed at the ground, lengthening the trench across the newly discovered fault. “This is exciting stuff for a geologist, but it’s just adding detail to a big picture that’s pretty clear by now,” he said.

  “We already know what we need to do. Now we just have to do it.”

  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  PARTWAY THROUGH THE RESEARCH for this book, I realized I needed to visit the Niawiakum River. In all my years of reporting on earthquake science in the Pacific Northwest, I had never seen the little river on Willapa Bay where so many discoveries were made.

  I didn’t want to bug Brian Atwater again. He had already hauled me along on multiple field trips and sat patiently through more interviews than any one person should have to endure. But I did ask his advice on the best vantage points.

  I should have known better.

  It wasn’t long before Brian and I were headed out for another daylong excursion.

  Throughout this project, Brian was unfailingly generous with his time and expertise. The book would not have been possible without his help. Equally crucial was the assistance of dozens of other scientists, emergency managers, and experts.

  Chris Goldfinger had the Pacific Storm detour into Newport so I could join the cruise and get a feel for seismic fieldwork at sea. Dave Yamaguchi let me tag along as he schooled a group of teachers on subduction zone quakes and the Copalis ghost forest. He spent hours on other occasions explaining the life of samurai in eighteenth-century Japan and the intricacies of tree-ring dating. Ian Madin welcomed me at his trench on Mount Hood, and Brian Sherrod opened my eyes to the evidence of giant earthquakes on Alki Beach, in my own neighborhood of West Seattle.

  Patrick Corcoran toured me around the northern Oregon coast and convinced me to always have an escape plan when I visit the Northwest seashore. Stephanie Fritts introduced me to the special perils faced by the people of Washington’s Long Beach Peninsula, and the pragmatic way in which they’re tackling them.

  I’m grateful to everyone who appears in these pages—and many who don’t—for taking the time to share their knowledge and insights. Several people went far beyond what I had any right to expect. I lost track of how many conversations and e-mail exchanges I had with Tom Heaton, who responded graciously even in the midst of a long-awaited sabbatical. Tom Pratt and Ralph Haugerud both offered private tutorials on aspects of earth science and Northwest geology I was struggling to understand.

  Tim Walsh, of Washington’s Department of Natural Resources, was always there to answer questions and clear up confusion. And if John Vidale charged for every question he fielded, I would be more indebted to him than I already am.

  John Vidale and Craig Weaver reviewed the entire manuscript and helped weed out errors. Several others were kind enough to review individual chapters. The mistakes that remain are my own doing.

  Thanks to Hal Bernton and Patti Epler for their comments, inspiration and suggestions on the journalistic side of the equation. Jerry Holloron, best copy editor I’ve ever worked with, undertook a final check of the manuscript just days before deadline. Thanks also to Gary Luke at Sasquatch Books, for luring me into the project.

  I’m grateful to my editors at The Seattle Times, who never complained when I asked for time off—and who let me come back to the job I love when the book was done. A grant from the National Association of Science Writers arrived at the perfect time and helped pay my travel expenses.

  Finally, I’m lucky to have a friend like Carmen Dybdahl. Not only did she track down and process most of the illustrations for the book, she also reviewed and proofed the manuscript, offered suggestions, dug up obscure facts,
and never wavered in her support and encouragement.

  SOURCES

  INTRODUCTION: A WARNING FROM THE PAST

  For information about Native American life on the West Coast of North America in 1700:

  Ludwin, Ruth, University of Washington, and Alan McMillan, Simon Frasier University, conversations with author.

  Losey, Robert J. “Native American vulnerability and resiliency to Cascadia earthquakes,” Oregon Historical Quarterly, 2 (2008): 108.

  On the casualty/damage estimates for Oregon:

  Wang, Yumei. “The first statewide earthquake risk assessment using HAZUS-estimated losses in Oregon.” Presented at the American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, WA, 1999.

  Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Committee. The Oregon Resilience Plan, Report to the 77th Legislative Assembly, Draft. February 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/osspac/docs/Oregon_Resilience_Plan_draft.pdf

  For Professor Cobb’s words:

  Cobb “Promotional Ad,” The Outlook: An Illustrated Weekly Journal of Currently Life 231 (June 1921): 128.

  Ellensburg Daily Record, November 13, 1939.

  For Eldridge Moore’s quote:

  McPhee, John. Annals of the Former World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1998.

  CHAPTER 1: QUIET AS KANSAS

  Ratcliff, Stan, and Daniel Pope, conversations with author, auction at Satsop Nuclear Plant, October 2011.

  Information on WPPSS, the region’s nuclear history and early thinking about the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Pope, Daniel. Nuclear Implosions: The Rise and Fall of the Washington Public Power Supply System. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.