Lessons Learned from the 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake in Disaster Management

Home , 1964 Alaska earthquake

Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 21-25, 2014 10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE 1964 GREAT ALASKA EARTHQUAKE IN DISASTER MANAGEMENT

1 2 M. Tolon and D. N. Ural

ABSTRACT

It is not possible to predict the time and location of the next big earthquake, but the active geology of world guarantees that major damaging earthquakes will continue to occur. Scientists have estimated where large earthquakes are most likely to occur, and the probable levels of ground shaking to be expected. With these informations, as well as information on soil properties and landslide potential, it is possible to estimate earthquake risks in any given area. It is also possible to estimate the potential for earthquakes to generate tsunamis, and to model the tsunamis as a disaster [6]. Alaska has a population of approximately 710.000 and a land area of 586.400 square miles. Alaska is 1/5 of the size of the Lower 48 States, and is larger than the next three largest states (Texas, California and Montana) combined [16]. Alaska has changed significantly since the damaging 1964 earthquake, and the population has more than doubled. The Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates that with the present infrastructure and policies, Alaska will have the second highest average annualized earthquake loss ratio in the United States of America. Reducing those losses requires public commitment to earthquake conscious design, and construction. The San Francisco (1989), Northridge (1994) and Nisqually (2001) earthquakes caused comparatively low losses as a result of mitigation measures implemented in those areas. The lesson is clear for all communities and countries in earthquake prone regions that the presence of an active fault, such as the San Andreas in California, or North Anatolian fault in Istanbul, Turkey, constitutes only one of the dangers from future earthquakes [14]. A lessons learned case study is done for Alaska in the meaning of disaster management by comparing it with a recent disaster which is Van, Turkey 2011 Earthquake.

1 Ph.D., Civil Engineer, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey 2 Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

Lessons Learned From the 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake in Disaster Management

1 2 M. Tolon and D. N. Ural

ABSTRACT

Introduction

On March 27, 1964, at 5:36 p.m. ADT (03:36 3/28 UTC) a great earthquake of magnitude 9.2 occurred in Prince William Sound region of Alaska. The epicenter was about 10 km east of the mouth of College Fiord, approximately 90 km west of Valdez and 120 km east of Anchorage. The epicenter depth is approximately 25 km. This earthquake is the second largest earthquake ever recorded in the world, after a 9.5M earthquake in Chile in 1960. The duration of rupture lasted approximately 4 minutes [7]. As a direct result of the lessons learned from the earthquake of 1964, the U.S. Geological Survey began engineering geologic studies of all of Alaska's coastal communities, whether or not they received earthquake damage.

1 Ph.D., Civil Engineer, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey 2 Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

Tolon M., Ural D. N., Comparative Lessons Learned Case Study of Alaska Earthquake in the Meaning of Disaster Management. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014. Because of this planning efforts for coping with these kind of disasters in the response phase of disaster management are firstly improved. Chief objectives of these planning efforts in preparation for future great earthquakes are to define the kind and scope of investigations needed for scientific purposes and for protection of life and property; to provide guidelines to assume that the primary responsibilities of various organizations or individuals, governmental or private, are brought to boar on all necessary investigations; to provide for coordination between investigative groups; and to provide means for immediate funding and fielding of investigators when disaster strikes, including military logistics [14].

1964 Alaska Earthquake, Great Alaska Earthquake

As mentioned before, on March 27, 1964, at 5:36 p.m. ADT (03:36 3/28 UTC) a great earthquake of magnitude 9.2 occurred in Prince William Sound region of Alaska. The 1964 Alaska earthquake also known as the Great Alaska Earthquake, the Portage Earthquake and the Good Friday Earthquake. Since 1900, Alaska has had an average of; one "great" earthquake (magnitude 8 or larger) every 13 years; 1 magnitude 7 to 8 earthquake every year; 6 magnitude 6 to 7 earthquakes per year; 45 magnitude 5 to 6 earthquakes per year; 320 magnitude 4 to 5 earthquakes per year and an average of a 1,000 earthquakes are located in Alaska each month [6]. Across south central Alaska, ground fissures, collapsing structures, and tsunamis resulting from the earthquake caused about 143 deaths. Besides this, a 8.2 m (27 foot) tsunami destroyed the village of Chenega, killing 23 of the 68 people who lived there. From the standpoint of public safety, perhaps the most important bit of knowledge that was reemphasized by the Alaska earthquake is that faults, with breakage and displacement of surface materials, are relatively minor causes of widespread earthquake damage [14].

The Alaska Earthquake caused by an oceanic plate which is the northwestward motion of the Pacific plate at about 5 to 7 cm per year causes the crust of southern Alaska to be compressed and warped, with some areas along the coast being depressed and other areas inland being uplifted (Figure 1). The damage totaled 300-400 million dollars (1964 dollars). The number of deaths from the earthquake totaled 131. The death toll was extremely small for a quake of this magnitude due to low population density, the time of day and fact that it was a holiday, and type of material used to construct many buildings (Figure 2) [7]. Two kinds of tsunami waves devastated Alaska; first was an ocean wide sea wave generated by massive tectonic movement of the ocean floor and second type was a localized tsunami caused by underwater landslides and sediment slumps near bays and harbors [5]. The largest landslide in Anchorage (Figure 3) occurred along Knik Arm between Woronzof and Fish Creek, causing substantial damage to numerous homes in the Turnagain by the sea subdivision [4].

The aftershock zone of this earthquake was about 250 km wide and extended about 800 km from Prince William Sound to the southwestern end of Kodiak Island. Thousands of aftershocks were recorded in the months following the main shock. In the first day there were 11 aftershocks with magnitudes greater than 6.0; in the next three weeks there were 9 more. Smaller aftershocks continued for more than a year [4, 7]. Several small structures were only slightly damaged by seismic activity including the fire station, the phone building, which cracked at its corners, the ACS building, the gymnasium, which had some cracks at the top of the structure, and the tunnel between the Hodge Building and the school [11].

Figure 1. Earthquakes and Faults in Alaska [9].

Figure 2. Movement at Island [5]

During the earthquake of 1964, rapid changes in land elevation caused obvious changes in shore processes and beach morphology and biological effect of shoreline change, the environment and habitat of Alaska [12]. Also, the Anchorage hydrologic system was materially affected by the seismic shock. Permanent changes have resulted in an apparent increase in discharge from ground water system and lowering of artesian pressure [13].

Figure 3. Anchorage landslides. [4] Effects of the Alaska Earthquake in Disaster Management

Alaskans are familiar with natural disasters due to frequency, size, climate and geography. Because of this, the State of Alaska 2011 Emergency Operations Plan (State EOP) establishes a system for coordinating the operational phases of emergency management in Alaska. This plan specifies how the State will organize in response to disaster emergencies, and is designed to ensure a coordinated effort by local and tribal governments, State, Federal, volunteer, and private agencies in the management of emergencies or disasters, to save lives, and protect property and the environment; to describe conditions that affect disaster response operations; to describe hazards that threaten the people, property, and resources; to describe terrorist threats; to assign emergency management tasks to local, tribal, State, Federal, volunteer, and private agencies as appropriate for response to terrorist events, natural or manmade disasters and to identify the supporting plans and procedures in Alaska’s overall multi-agency disaster management system.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has an area office in Anchorage but its staff and resources are limited. Therefore, FEMA anticipates up to 72 hours before they can arrive and provide services in support of State and local response efforts. In an emergency / disaster situation, particularly in heavily populated areas, there will be a great deal of confusion. Some personnel who are in positions of responsibility may be unable to respond, or unable to take actions expected by subordinates. Such assistance, when authorized, will be provided by State agencies operating in an effort coordinated by the Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management operating on behalf of the Governor. The State EOP is the primary plan for managing incidents, and details the coordinating structures and processes used during emergencies in Alaska. Local emergency managers usually know how best to manage disaster relief resources within their communities. The State responders coordinate their activities with local managers to render State assistance in the most helpful manner. Similarly, Federal assistance is intended to support State and local efforts, not to be a substitute for them. The role of the Disaster Policy Cabinet (DPC) at Alaska is to provide expeditious, coordinated State agency recommendations to the governor in response to emergencies resulting from major disaster events and homeland security events. The State Emergency Operation Center (SEOC) assigns one of four levels (the preparedness, the mitigation, the response and the recovery levels) of preparedness based on current or potential events and their likely impact. All State agencies are responsible for developing supporting checklists and standard operating procedures in support of this plan. The relationships among various agencies and functions are shown in the following matrix (Figure 5). Matrix indicates agencies assigned primary functional responsibility and having supporting agency role [16]. All municipalities in Alaska have zoning authority that can incorporate hazard abatement measures and have adopted Uniform Building Code in 1982.

In 1977, the Alaska Legislature and Governor adopted the Alaska Disaster Act (AS 26.23), based on the Example State Disaster Act by the Council of State Governments (1972). This law expanded the former State Disaster Office into a new Division of Emergency Services (DES) in the Department of Military Affairs and gave it broad responsibilities in disaster preparedness. These responsibilities include such things as preparing a comprehensive state emergency plan, assisting local governments in designing their emergency plans, distributing emergency food and supplies, establishing public information programs, and arranging for public and private facilities during emergencies. A state emergency plan prepared by DES in accordance with the Alaska Disaster Act was adopted in 1978 and spells out disaster response and planning functions of local, state, and federal government agencies that concern floods, forest fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and utilities emergencies [15]. Following the shaking, Alaskans in coastal areas who did not feel the earthquake had no warning that a tsunami was on its way. As a result, the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center was established [3].

Figure 5. Basic structure and responsibilities of the joint State/Federal organization [16].

The Alaska Seismic Hazard Safety Commission (ASHSC) is chartered to advise the Governor, Executive Branch, State Legislature, and public on seismic issues. The Commission holds public meetings monthly and promotes development of effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction. One focus of this year for the Commission was public school seismic safety. The Commission also co-sponsored several training courses on earthquake mitigation and post earthquake safety inspection and also supports development of seismic planning scenarios that take advantage of the FEMA HAZUS program [1]. Communities, state and federal agencies, private industry, and emergency response organizations use scenarios as tools to increase public awareness, develop risk reduction strategies, and plan for response and mitigation. An example chart that defines some federal entities responsibilities is given in Figure 6.

The Hazards Identification committee of Alaska was established to provide guidance through the Commission to the Governor, the legislature, and the public regarding location and characteristic of the state’s seismic hazards. The goals of this committee is to promote identification and characterization of seismic hazards in Alaska; definition and description of seismic risks; seismic risk and hazard research; and dissemination of seismic hazard and risk information to the state and local governments, the public, business and industry, and the scientific and professional communities. The committee exercises the procedure for provide immediate advice to the Governor during the incident response and recovery phase.

Figure 7. Disaster Management Responsibilities Chart for Alaska.

Education and Outreach Committee sponsored courses in non-structural seismic mitigation (FEMA E-74) and rapid visual screening for seismic structural safety to train safety and engineering staff. The interactive displays, located in tourist venues, include science animations of earthquakes and tsunamis, preparedness information, explanation of emergency operations, and first person survivor interviews. Earthquake motion simulator and the “Quake Cabin” teach non-structural seismic hazard mitigation and preparedness. They also continued reproduction and distribution of seismic preparedness education materials around the state including the children’s disaster preparedness books [1]. The purpose of the Partnership Committee is to developing partnerships are to promote combined efforts to reduce loss of life and property; conduct education efforts to motivate key decision makers to reduce risks associated with earthquakes and foster productive connections between scientists, critical infrastructure providers, businesses, and government agencies to improve viability of communities after earthquake [2].

Lessons Learned From the 1964 Alaska Earthquake

As a direct result of the lessons learned from the earthquake of 1964, the U.S. Geological Survey began engineering geologic studies of all of Alaska's coastal communities, whether or not they received earthquake damage. Suitable networks of recording seismographs should be installed in all areas where earthquakes are considered likely to occur. Every large earthquake should be regarded as a full scale laboratory experiment whose study can give scientific and engineering information unobtainable from any other source. For this reason, it is essential that every earthquake strong enough to damage manmade structures or to have measurable effects on the natural environment should be studied thoroughly by scientists and engineers. Presumably the Federal Government will be deeply involved not only in relief and reconstruction after, but also in technical investigation of any future earthquake disaster that is at all comparable to Alaska earthquake. For this reason, it seems imperative that the Federal Government should take lead in contingency planning for future disastrous earthquakes [14]. Uniform Building Code was adopted, a comprehensive redevelopment plan was developed by a private contractor, and the entire city was relocated by the fall of 1967. Under this act, newly created Division of Emergency Services (DES) initiated major disaster preparedness plans and programs to improve the ability of state and local agencies to respond to disasters. The hazard mitigation is possible through research and meaningful regulation, which serve as basis for improved design, construction, and land use decisions, and better containment of disasters [15].

Methodology

Disaster management consists of organized analysis, planning, decision making, and assignment of resources to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the effects of hazards. The primary goals of disaster management are to avert fatalities, to prevent injuries, and to protect property and the environment from the potential effects of hazards. Preparedness is defined as: disaster management related planning, training and exercising aimed at effectively preparing for, mitigating against, responding to, and recovering from any hazard. Mitigation is defined as: the process of taking actions that are aimed at reducing or eliminating long-term risks associated with the people and the property due to potential hazards. Hazard evaluation works are done in these two phases. The objective of hazard evaluation for improving disaster management skills is to produce the following kinds of information, like descriptions of natural processes and controlling factors that relate to the hazard; location and extent of potentially affected areas; probability and frequency of occurrence; probable severity and expected physical effects. Understanding the natural processes and controlling factors that relate to a hazard is essential for determining the location and extent of potentially affected areas, probability and frequency of occurrence, probable severity, and expected physical effects.

As a result of continuous global and regional seismic monitoring and geological and geophysical studies over the past few decades, geoscientists are gradually developing a better understanding of processes that control the distribution, occurrence, intensity, and effects of earthquakes. As an example, like HAZUS project done by FEMA, the HAZTURK system is done for Turkey. The objective of the HAZTURK system is to provide a reliable loss estimation analysis that can be used by a region or municipality for earthquake hazard preparation and mitigation. These practices will help to secure Turkey’s communities, businesses, housing, and infrastructure from earthquake disasters. HAZTURK is a rapid and reliable tool that can perform earthquake loss assessment analysis for large numbers of buildings by using several different scenarios and parameters. This software also includes several different attenuation relations for different types of seismic zones. However, the inventory database of this study is limited to the Zeytinburnu District in Istanbul. Future studies aim to extend the current methodology to the other cities in Turkey by including inventory databases, hazard parameters, and fragility functions. Recommendations

Most of benefits of earthquakes were in the fields of socioeconomics and engineering. One of more important social, political, economic developments was use by Federal Government of a new device to channel and control reconstruction and rehabilitation aid. In addition, scientists learned much that helps toward a better understanding of earthquake mechanisms and effects and how to investigate. It’s also learned many new basic facts about the structural and historical geology and hydrology of large part of south central Alaska. For education, developing an effective public education and outreach program, conveying scientific and technical information from credible authorities and communicating information in a manner that is understandable by the public is important. For guidance, providing advice on seismic risk mitigation and recommend policies to improve preparedness; recommending goals and priorities for risk mitigation to public and private sectors; recommending needed research, mapping, and monitoring programs and offering advice on coordinating disaster preparedness and seismic risk mitigation. For implementation, establishing and maintain working relationships with other private and public agencies; analyzing, and disseminate information; conducting public hearings; appointing committees from commission membership and/or external advisory committees to address risk mitigation issues and accepting grants, contributions, and appropriations are so important [2]. Depending on the complexity and desired results, a scenario may describe the types and severity of shaking and ground breakage likely to result; the impacts to facilities, including types and extent of damage to buildings according to building type and age; and disruptions to utilities and transportation systems. A scenario may also describe secondary effects such as tsunamis, fire, and toxic materials release; estimate the numbers of deaths, injuries, and dollar value of losses by building type; and estimate the long term business losses and socioeconomic consequences. The resulting information provides the basis for planning earthquake response exercises, prioritizing and pre-locating response resources, and developing mitigating measures for reducing vulnerability to future earthquakes. Loss estimation technology such as FEMA’s HAZUS software is often used to model the event, incorporating all the compiled data. If done effectively, a scenario helps decision makers visualize specific impacts that are based on currently accepted scientific and engineering knowledge, providing a powerful tool for private industry, government officials, and the general public to develop effective mitigation policies and programs. Determine safety of your home and school; determine if you live or work in hazardous areas are is also a need for emergency management plans. For this needs you have to work with NGOs and for this you have to arrange Partnership Committee. You also have to publish Lessons Learned publications, flyers or etc.

On October 23rd, 2011 a severe M 7.2 earthquake caused damage in a wide spread area in the Van province located in eastern Turkey. This was followed by another damaging M5.7 earthquake on November 9th, 2011. This sequence of damaging earthquakes resulted in a total of 644 fatalities. This earthquake sequence imposed a series of disaster management challenges. The Van earthquake of October 23, 2011 was not first in the region. However, aftermath proved that losses suffered in previous years did not serve to build capacity, and prepare structures for future quakes. Official documentation of previous losses was missing at local government level. Current disaster plans were not shared with local communities, NGO’s and public. An important lesson from this disaster is that the local government can access and utilize social media tools prior to, during and after disasters to alleviate and overcome the losses. Another lesson learned, is that documentation of information prior to a disaster would have assisted in the response and recovery of the earthquake. When we compare Van earthquake disaster management with Alaska management, it is seen that despite it is done years ago, the correct responsibilities during and after the disaster is taken by the US Government. From now, an online easily accessible database is necessary to be successful. Initiation of joint training and full scale exercises of local officials, and non-governmental organizations representatives is essential for the preparedness efforts, as well as response and recovery. Also, for Turkey, alternate viable solutions for the probable water, power and communication problems during the disasters must be discussed and put in place. Although the seismic codes are in place, the enforcement in the disaster prone areas for Turkey were not regulated nor enforced during as a mitigation effort.

A final lesson learned for Turkey included the fact that official governmental announcements were scattered, made from various unknown authorities, which led to chaos. Therefore official announcement should be made from one official authority, at given and announced intervals during the response phase. Due to the complexity of earthquake disasters, making direct comparisons among different earthquake events is a complicated process. Nevertheless, it can be observed that the presence of a well-established disaster management system is done in Alaska, when compare with the crisis seen in 2011 Van Earthquake.

Conclusion

The lesson of the Alaska earthquake, however, is that no one can take comfort simply because their home or town is some distance removed from an active fault or from the possible epicenter of a future earthquake. For Alaska, the earthquake struck on March 27, 1964 and its intensity on the Modified Mercalli scale veried, depending partly on distance from the epicenter but much more on local geologic and hydrologic conditions and distribution of population. Much more research at all vulnerable regions is needed on the risk assessment of the region.

Chief objectives of planning efforts in preparation for future great earthquakes include to define the kind and scope of investigations needed for scientific purposes and for protection of life and property; to provide guidelines to assume that the primary responsibilities of various organizations or individuals, governmental or private, are implemented; to provide for coordination between all stakeholders; and to provide means for immediate funding and fielding of investigators when disaster strikes. Because federal, state, and local governments have different levels of financial and personnel resources and different management responsibilities, their roles in hazard mitigation are also quite different to describe. But with some comparisons of Alaska and Van earthquakes, establishing a disaster act for cities, arranging a commission for HAZUS or HARTURK activities, for disaster management policy of the countries. Also, a scenario committee will help coordinate a community approach to development of an earthquake scenario for the city, involving scientists, engineers, policy makers, and emergency managers, and soliciting as much volunteer support as possible. Another committee for Education and Outreach can sponsor courses in non-structural seismic mitigation and rapid visual screening for seismic structural safety to train safety and engineering staff.

Maybe the most important lesson for Turkey is to arrange a Partnership Committee under the municipality or emergency operation department, to investigate potential relationships with public. Basic goals of developing partnerships are to promote combined efforts to reduce loss of life and property; conduct education efforts to motivate key decision makers to reduce risks associated with earthquakes and foster productive connections between scientists, critical infrastructure providers, businesses, and government agencies to improve viability of communities after earthquake. We hope that by comparing and learning lessons from previous disasters, such shortcomings in future disaster investigations could be avoided by advance planning and at least a skeletal permanent organization.

References

1. Alaska Division Of Homeland Security And Emergency Management Report, Mark Roberts, State Hazard Mitigation Officer, Alaska Division Of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, 2010.

2. Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission Report, Governor and State Legislature, February 2011

3. Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Flyer, the Alaska Earthquake Information Center, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_alaska_earthquake, entered on 06.01.2013

5. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~coleen/1964%20alaska%20earthq..., entered on 06.01.2013

6. Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission Search Results, http://seismic.alaska.gov/seismic_hazards_earthquake_risk.html, entered on 06.01.2013

7. The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964 Report, http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/quakes/alaska_1964_earthquake.html, entered on 06.01.2013

8. Alaska Earthquake 1964 Photos, entered on http://www.vibrationdata.com/earthquakes/alaska.htm 06.01.2013

9. Map of Earthquakes in Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey.

10. Alaska Geology Report, 1964.

11. Effects of the Earthquake of March 27, 1964 at Whittier, Alaska by Reuben Kachadoorian, Geological Survey Professional Paper, 542–B, 1965.

12. The Alaska Earthquake March 27, 1964: Regional Effects, Geological Survey Professional Paper, 543, 1968.

13. Effects of the March 1964 Alaska Earthquake on the Hydrology of the Anchorage Area, by Roger M. Waller, Geological Survey Professional Paper, R 544–B, 1966.

14. The Alaska Earthquake March 27, 1964: Lessons and Conclusions, by Edwin B. Eckel, Geological Survey Professional Paper, 546, 1970.

15. Geologic Hazards Mitigation in Alaska, Public-Data File 85-29, Prepared For U.S. Geological Survey 'Workshop On Evaluation Of Regional And Urban Earthquake Hazards And Risk In Alaska' September 5-7, 1985 Anchorage, Alaska, by R. A, Combellick, September 1985.

16. State of Alaska Emergency Operations Plan, November 01, 2011, State of Alaska, Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management.

17. Istanbul Technical University, The Van Earthquake Report, 2012.

18. Ural, D. "Comparative Disaster Management", Federal Emergency Management Agency 9th Higher Education Conference, Emmitsburg, USA, Invited by Wayne Blanchard, June 6-9, 2006.

19. Ural, D. "Disaster Management in Turkey", Federal Emergency Mang. Agency 8th Higher Education Conf., Emmitsburg, USA, Invited by Wayne Blanchard, June 7, 2005.

20. Tolon M., Yazgan U. and Ural D.; “An International Comparison of the 2011 Van Earthquake in the Meaning of Disaster Management Principles”, Proceedings of the International Van Earthquake Symposium, Van, Turkey, October 23 – 27, 2013.