Although the San Andreas Fault and the New Madrid Seismic Zone get most of the megaquake disaster headlines in the United States, they aren't the only threats. Some of my three loyal readers may also be aware of the
Cascadia subduction zone, a portion of the Ring of Fire off the coast from Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and northern California. The geologic record indicates it's produced some rather significant quakes, most recently an estimated magnitude 9.0 on January 26, 1700. Because it's an offshore fault line, it also spawns tsunamis.
Last week, the Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (that's a mouthful) released
the draft version of their report on the Cascadia hazard and their recommended measures for state disaster resilience. I'm reading through the whole report because it's relevant to both my studies and my interests, but it is a monster - 319 pages. However, if you have an interest in these things, and
particularly if you live in the threatened area, I strongly recommend you download the file and read the executive summary. The article that originally tipped me off to the report is
here.
One item that struck me as particularly significant was the acknowledgement of individual household preparedness. For a while now, I've seen various emergency management blogs saying that FEMA's 72-hour recommendation - that you should stock supplies sufficient to get through three days before outside help arrives - is insufficient. The prepper/survivalist community has been saying that for even longer. Response efforts in major disasters over the past decade do seem to support those assertions. This report is one of the first official documents I've seen that openly acknowledges the inadequacy of a mere three days of supplies:
The old guideline of having a 72-hour emergency survival kit falls far short of the anticipated needs given the extensive impacts of a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake. Even if basic supplies could be readily and broadly dispersed, it would likely take more than three days to achieve that dispersal, and emergency supplies would still fall short of what many people need to avoid deteriorating health (for example, medications, medical equipment, and ongoing healthcare support). There is clear value in members of the public having robust emergency supplies. In many areas, subsistence levels of food and water may be available within a week, but the public should be advised that response will take much more than 72 hours, and recovery times will likely be measured in months. This is especially important in coastal communities where response times could be measured in weeks, and recovery times could be measured in years.
Of course, it's easier to recommend than to implement. Many households don't have the financial resources or storage space to set back 72 hours of essential supplies, let alone two weeks or more (this report's new recommended minimum). Of those that do, fewer will actually have the awareness and motivation to make not only the initial investment, but the more critical ongoing commitment to rotation and maintenance. It doesn't have to be done all at once, though. Incremental preps, a general awareness of the issues, and a strong mutual support network of trusted and like-minded individuals can all help offset individual disadvantages.
The biggest thing I'm taking away from this report, though, is that it's not all doomie-doom. Whether on a household, local, state, or regional level, there are a
lot of measures that can be taken to mitigate any given disaster's effects and ensure individual and community resilience. That resilience is really the report's main thrust, which aligns with the "culture of resilience" model that the federal government has been trying (and, in my opinion, failing) to promote for the last couple of years. I don't think the resilience culture is implementable on a national plane. Cultural change like that has to come from lower levels, where the recommendations are more specific and relevant to the people whose mindsets need to change
and where the local first responder community that will deal with the disaster is the source of the recommendations and actions. Something like this is a good first step and I'm interested - and tentatively hopeful - about Oregon's ability and willingness to work toward the goals outlined in the report.