Kaikoura Earthquake Response – a Controller's Perspective

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Kaikoura Earthquake Response – a Controller's Perspective Kaikoura Earthquake Response – A Controller’s Perspective John Mackie, Christchurch City Council Abstract Having just dealt with the tsunami alert and the overnight evacuation of 20,000 people from coastal areas of Christchurch, following the 7.8 magnitude earthquake at two minutes past midnight on 14 November 2016, key Civil Defence personnel from Christchurch were requested to assist with the response effort in Kaikoura who had suffered severe damage as a result of the quake. This paper outlines the priorities and challenges presented to emergency personnel that were deployed to assist the community and meet their immediate needs in response to one of New Zealand's largest recorded earthquakes. The first wave of responders from Christchurch included a Controller, Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) staff including operations manager, engineering support, planning and intelligence, welfare manager and staff, building and structural engineers, who were booked to fly to Kaikoura at first light on Tuesday 15 November. In a very short space of time after arrival on Tuesday morning, the team were briefed to gain a situational awareness from the local EOC team on the extent of the known damage, emerging issues and welfare needs in the community, which they had identified over the gruelling 34 hours since the event. We understood already that there was no road or rail access to the town due to landslips and cliff collapses, but the boat harbour had been rendered almost useless due to the seismic upheaval of the coast line. One of the short term priorities was to restore a temporary water supply as it was reported that three of the town's five reservoirs were damaged and there was one day of storage remaining at normal demand. There were also around 1,000 stranded tourists who, without road egress, were putting a real strain on the scarce food and water provisions, which in turn put enormous stress on the welfare centre at the Takahanga marae. The paper talks about how the EOC worked with the emergency services, defence forces, volunteers, contractors, utility providers and the Community to develop the plan to take Kaikoura from response to recovery. Key Words Kaikoura Earthquake, Civil Defence, Controller Introduction Like most people who work in Local Government, there is usually a section in the position description that says that the employee will be required to be involved with Civil Defence or something similar. In Christchurch the clause is something like “Be associated, as required, with CIVIL DEFENCE or any exercise that might be organised in relation to this council function.” This has always been widely accepted as the general “catch-all” clause to ensure there are people available to respond in those rare events. However the reality for local government personnel in Canterbury is quite different, in that responding to emergencies has sadly become an all too frequent feature of their working lives over the last few years. This paper will offer a Controller’s perspective on the Kaikoura earthquake response from a personal point of view, but will also discuss the impacts and frequency of other emergency events and question if we as a nation, are following international best practice and ensuring we are working collaboratively to achieve the objectives of the 4 Rs of (Risk) Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery. Earthquake and Tsunami Event Having just returned home from an all-night shift as the Duty Controller in the Christchurch Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) after evacuating 20,000 people from New Brighton, Southshore and Sumner, I received an email at around 6.15pm on Monday, 14 November requesting Civil Defence personnel to support the Kaikoura and Huranui response teams. By 8pm I was confirmed as the relief Controller for Kaikoura and started packing for departure at first light from the Air Force Air Movements centre in Christchurch. The instructions were simply to bring a sleeping bag and no more than 10kg of baggage. The first wave of Civil Defence support personnel from Christchurch included myself as Controller, Operations Manager - Chris Gregory, Welfare Manager - Gary Watson, Welfare Team - Matt McLintock, Welfare Team - Sol Smith, Operations Team - Tim Drennan, Planning and Intel - Graham Clark, Building Evaluation - Shane Bruyns, as well as 6 building inspectors and 4 structural engineers. Kaikoura District has a resident population of around 3,500 people, with approximately 2,000 living within the township. It was estimated that there were around 1,000 tourists in the town when the earthquake struck a few minutes after midnight on 14 November, 2016. The Council has 23 full time staff, rates income of $5.8m, total revenue $8.8m and total expenditure of $9m for the 16/17 year. This is a small Council by any standard and the response to the magnitude 7.8 earthquake put enormous strain on their resources, although they coped admirably through the initial response. On arrival at the Council offices on Tuesday morning we were keen to build our situational awareness and were briefed by the local Duty Controller, Suzanne Syme and the Chief Executive, Angela Oosthuizen. At that time it had been established that there was no working wastewater system, the oxidation ponds and 2 main pump stations were damaged, the water supply was out (with 3 of 5 reservoirs damaged and out of service) with an estimated one day of drinking water remaining, half the town had no power, all road routes north, south and inland were closed with severe slips and bridge damage with no accurate estimates on when any route could be even partially open to traffic. Mobile cellular and data services were either down or unreliable, rendering the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) phones virtually useless during the first few days. However, collaboration by the Telcos meant that the offshore Vodafone cable (which fortuitously came ashore at Kaikoura for a power boost) could be used to restore a reasonable service for all providers within just a few days As the Council only that week had commenced the move into their new office building, relocation was still in progress (with dozens of box files waiting to be unpacked), IT systems were still being established and there was also some minor earthquake damage to office equipment. At that time the EOC was being run out of a single room with people working in close quarters, and it was clear that we needed to scale up quickly as more personnel and resources would be arriving over the coming hours and days. A major clean-up was undertaken by the Defence Forces and Planning and Intel developed a new floor plan providing improved working areas for Civil Defence and Emergency Services operations while still making accommodation for Council activities to continue to function. As a means of rapidly deploying email, file-sharing and diary management, Google Docs had been set up across the EOC team and was quite effective. Another extraordinary finding was the scale of the tectonic movement, when it was observed that the foreshore off the Kaikoura had risen by about 1 metre and up to 4 metres further north up the coast. This had implications for marine structures that could now only function at high tide. Some remote areas had been evacuated and there were approximately 500 people in the welfare centre established at the Takahanga Marae (who ideally can cope with 80 people). It was estimated that there were approximately 1,000 tourists stranded in Kaikoura at the time and plans were afoot to evacuate as many of these people as possible not only to get them on their forward journey, but also to reduce the demand on the local resources (water, food, fuel and accommodation). The immediate priorities were to develop a number of strategies for; Provision of temporary water supplies (Hospital, Marae, Community and Businesses) Developing temporary wastewater service Develop solid waste plan Develop reliable temporary fuel and food delivery, handling and distribution Carefully monitoring and developing public health messaging to prevent outbreaks of gastroenteritis due to the damaged water and sanitary systems Prioritise structural inspection of Takahanga Marae Develop and implement evacuation plan for up to 1000 visitors by sea and air Rapid assessments for welfare needs and building stock Ensuring welfare of EOC and Council staff who were working under extreme conditions. There was also a need to gain an oversight of what other agencies were doing to assist the community meet their basic needs including; Restoring access to cash back into the community (no EFT-POS, banks closed, job loss) Work with Mainpower on electricity restoration, to keep community informed Restoring data and voice communications (telcos). Short term objectives were to: Establish Daily calendar and rotation roster Develop a road transport solution, particularly on the Inland Road Push welfare and needs assessments to remote areas Develop a Public Information Management (PIM) strategy Exit plan for welfare centre EOC staff welfare Establish Geotech lead Plan for animal welfare Establishment of a Recovery Assistance Centre (RAC) Undertake natural hazard assessments and monitoring (landslips, rivers and dams) Compile resource requests for much needed materials, plant and goods by air, land and sea. It was also important to bring some routine back to the community and a daily calendar was established that we would repeat every day during the response phase. 0600 Dayshift starts – review latest sit rep and action plan for the day 0700 National Group Controllers conference call 0800 Incident Management Team meeting (IMT) EOC managers and emergency services 1100 Canterbury Controllers conference call 1240 PIM briefing for public meeting with Mayor (Winston Gray) and Controller 1300 Public Meeting 1400 Press conference 1500 National Group Controllers conference call 1700 Incident Management Team meeting (IMT) EOC managers and emergency services 1800 Dayshift handover Wednesday 16 November was a big day.
Recommended publications
  • Public Health Response to the February 22 Christchurch Earthquake
    Public Health Response to the February 22 Christchurch Earthquake Progress Report Rebecca Dell Public Health Medicine Registrar Daniel Williams Medical Officer of Health, Incident Controller 30 March 2011 CONTENTS 1. Abbreviations 3 2. Background 3 3. Intelligence 4 4. Communications 6 5. Liaison 7 6. Operations 9 a. CPH Emergency Operations Centre 9 b. Water quality and technical advice 9 c. Welfare centres 11 d. Outbreak control 12 e. Community Welfare Recovery 12 f. Health In All Policies 13 7. Logistics 13 a. Staff 13 b. Building 14 c. Equipment 14 d. Staff welfare 14 8. Recovery 15 9. Assessment 17 10. Appendices 18 Appendix 1 Intelligence and surveillance inputs for earthquake response 18 Appendix 2 Enteric disease notifications for Canterbury 23 Appendix 3 E. coli transgressions mapping 26 Appendix 4 Free Associated Chlorine concentration mapping 28 Appendix 5 Enteric disease Episurv notifications by census area unit 29 Appendix 6 Campylobacter notifications following 22 February 30 Appendix 7 Draft results for Wave 1 of Christchurch Health Survey 31 Appendix 8 Latest public health key messages 45 Appendix 9 Public health guidelines for reopening of schools and early childhood centres 46 Appendix 10 Public health advice for early childhood centres 48 Appendix 11 Public health advice about asbestos dust 49 Appendix 12 Health Assessment Form for Welfare Centres 51 Page 2 of 54 1. ABBREVIATIONS CCC Christchurch City Council CDHB Canterbury District Health Board CPH Community and Public Health (public health division of CDHB) ECC Emergency Co-ordination Centre (at Christchurch Art Gallery) EOC Emergency Operations Centre EQRC Earthquake Recovery Centre (Civil Defence recovery phase at Christchurch Art Gallery HPO Health Protection Officer MOH Medical Officer of Health NZFSA New Zealand Food Safety Authority PHS Public Health South (Southern District Health Board) 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission on Selwyn District Council Draft Long Term Plan 2018-2028
    Submission on Selwyn District Council Draft Long Term Plan 2018-2028 To: Selwyn District Council Submitter: Community & Public Health A division of the Canterbury District Health Board Attn: Kirsty Peel Community and Public Health C/- Canterbury District Health Board PO Box 1475 Christchurch 8140 Proposal: Selwyn District Council is consulting on their long-term plan to ascertain views on how best to manage infrastructure and services in the district over the next 10 years. Page 1 of 9 Template File Pathway: Y:\CFS\CPHGroups\RMC\SDC\LTP\2018\SelwynLTPSubmissionFinal180503.docx SUBMISSION ON SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL DRAFT LONG TERM PLAN Details of submitter 1. Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) 2. The CDHB is responsible for promoting the reduction of adverse environmental effects on the health of people and communities and to improve, promote and protect their health pursuant to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and the Health Act 1956. 3. These statutory obligations are the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and, in the Canterbury District, are carried out under contract by Community and Public Health under Crown funding agreements on behalf of the Canterbury District Health Board. General comments 4. Health and wellbeing (overall quality of life) is influenced by a wide range of factors beyond the health sector. These influences can be described as the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, and are impacted by environmental, social and behavioural factors. They are often referred to as the ‘social determinants of health1. Barton and Grant’s Health Map2 shows how various influences on health are complex and interlinked.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln Planning Review December 2015
    Lincoln Planning Review December 2015. Volume 7. Issue 1-2 Coastal modelling of sea level rise for the Christchurch coastal environment Whose interests count? The Malvern Hills Protection Society and an irrigation scheme proposal A failed attempt at collaborative water planning Selwyn Waihora Variation 1 ISSN 1175-0987 Lincoln Planning Review, 7 (1-2) (2015) Table of Contents Lincoln Planning Review is the journal of the Lincoln University EDITORIAL ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Planning Association (LUPA) Sarah Edwards, Acting Editor-in-Chief and is an online publication produced twice each year and PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES primarily edited by students Coastal modelling of sea level rise for the Christchurch coastal The vision is “to be the pre- eminent source of information environment ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 3 Ashton EAVES, Crile DOSCHER on planning issues, research and education in and affecting the Central and upper South RESEARCH Island”. Whose interests count? The Malvern Hills Protection Society and an Contact LPR: irrigation scheme proposal ����������������������������������������������������������16 Editor Nicola SNOYINK LPR c/o NRE Building PO Box 85084 FIELD NOTES AND CASE STUDIES Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647 Canterbury A failed attempt at collaborative water planning: Selwyn Waihora New Zealand Variation 1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������23 Hamish G. RENNIE Email: [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • The Christchurch Earthquake
    The Christchurch Earthquake 4.35am 4th September 2010 RCA Forum 7 October 2010 The Main Event • The epicenter of the 7.1 magnitude quake was about 30km west of Christchurch near Darfield at a depth of 10km • The fault that caused the quake has been named the Greendale fault • It is likely that the Greendale fault had not moved for at least 16,000 years • Up to 4.6 metres horizontal and 1.5 metres of vertical offset has been recorded • Total surface rupture length of approximately 28 km RCA Forum 7 October 2010 RCA Forum 7 October 2010 Damage • Christchurch and environs has a population of 500,000 people – about 160,000 homes • About 50,000 homes are damaged – almost 1 in 3 • About 10,000 homes are uninhabitable • Over 100 commercial buildings are damaged and many are being demolished • As of 29 Sep 2010, Earthquake Commission received more than 80,000 claims from homeowners in Canterbury • The governments latest damage estimate is NZ$4 billion – the costliest natural disaster in NZ history. RCA Forum 7 October 2010 Some of The Most Affected Areas Bishopdale Brooklands Bexley Halswell Avonside Dallington RCA Forum 7 October 2010 What was I doing at the time? RCA Forum 7 October 2010 Response • Work and NZTA RCA Forum 7 October 2010 Response • Suppliers – Contractors and Consultants RCA Forum 7 October 2010 Estimated Roading Infrastructure Cost ($millions) Selwyn DC 2.5 – 3.0 Waimakariri DC 15 – 25 Christchurch City 170 – 200 SH Network North Canterbury 6 - 8 RCA Forum 7 October 2010 Dallington RCA Forum 7 October 2010 Horseshoe Lake RCA
    [Show full text]
  • Canterbury Museum Trust Board, Christchurch, New Zealand
    CANTERBURY MUSEUM TRUST BOARD, CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND Notice is given of a meeting of the Canterbury Museum Trust Board to be held at 3.30 pm on Monday 12 July 2021 in the Boardroom at Canterbury Museum AGENDA Agenda number Page number at top right bottom right 1 WELCOME 2 APOLOGIES 3 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST & UPDATES OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS (Attached p 1) PUBLIC EXCLUDED SECTION Resolution to exclude the public I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of its resolution are as follows: Agenda General subject of Reason for passing Ground(s) Item each matter to be this resolution in under section considered relation to each matter 48(1) for the passing of this resolution 4 The Museum Project S7(2)(h) To enable the Museum to carry out, 5 Investment without prejudice or committee disadvantage, commercial activities and 6 Executive s7(2)(i) To enable to Committee Museum to carry on, without prejudice or 7 Board and CEO only disadvantage, Section 48(1)(a) negotiations (including – The public 8 Board only commercial and conduct of this industrial negotiations) matter would be s7(2)(f) To enable the likely to result in Museum to maintain the disclosure of effective conduct of information for public affairs through – which
    [Show full text]
  • Selwyn District
    Free or low cost events and activities to increase physical activity in the Selwyn District There are many activities that are free or for low cost for anyone to join in Selwyn District. Listed below are some of the options available. Banks Peninsula Walks www.bankspeninsulawalks.co.nz Find out about all the walking and tramping tracks on beautiful Banks Peninsula. Banks Peninsula Walking Festival www.facebook.com/bankspeninsulawalkingfestival/ Offers a wide variety of walks on the weekends in November each year. Be Active Programme Contact: Anna Wilson at Sport Canterbury An eight-week course suitable for people Phone: 03 373 5045 new or returning to activity, who want to Email: [email protected] have fun along the way. www.sportcanterbury.org.nz/Physical- Run each term at a variety of locations Activity/Green-Prescription/Be-Active-Programme- across the city and region. 1 Anyone 16 years and over with any level of ability welcome. The cost is $3 per session. Christchurch Walking Festival www.ccc.govt.nz/news-and-events/whats- Offers many walks for every ability and on/?programme=7 interest during the spring school holidays (September/October) with several in the Selwyn District. Most walks are free, but some may have a cost for transport. Cycle Tracks and Trails www.sensationalselwyn.co.nz/cycling-biking/ Find out about mountain bike tracks or cycle trails including those on the Port Hills or The www.christchurchnz.com/what-to-see-and- Little River Rail Trail do/cycling-in-canterbury/selwyn/ Department of Conservation Areas Canterbury The Department of Conservation has www.doc.govt.nz/canterbury several reserves and conservation areas that can be explored on foot or by bike.
    [Show full text]
  • Canterbury), New Zealand Earthquake of September 4, 2010
    EERI Special Earthquake Report — November 2010 Learning from Earthquakes The Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury), New Zealand Earthquake of September 4, 2010 From September 8th to 20th, 2010, at 4:36 am, as well as to the moder- magnitude at 7.1 with a predomi- a team organized by the Earth- ate level of shaking in the most popu- nantly strike-slip focal mechanism quake Engineering Research Insti- lated areas of the Canterbury region. having a right-lateral focal plane tute (EERI) and the Pacific Earth- New Zealand also benefits from a striking east-west. However, more quake Engineering Research modern structural code and rigorous detailed and ongoing analysis has (PEER) Center investigated the code enforcement. Regional planning revealed a strong reverse faulting effects of the Darfield earthquake. had been undertaken to reduce criti- component to the mainshock. The team was led by Mary Comerio, cal infrastructure and lifelines vulner- The surface rupture spans nearly UC Berkeley, and included Lucy ability to natural hazards about 15 30 km and consists of fault scarps Arendt, University of Wisconsin, years ago (Centre for Advanced Engi- that locally exceed 4 m of right- Green Bay; Michel Bruneau, Uni- neering, 1997), with improvements in lateral and about 1 m of vertical versity of Buffalo, New York; local government and utilities pre- dislocation of the ground surface. Peter Dusicka, Portland State Uni- paredness, as well as the retrofitting In most places along and near the versity; Henri Gavin, Duke Univer- of bridges and other lifeline facilities. fault, the ground surface on the sity; Charles Roeder, University of Christchurch is the largest city on the south side has been raised relative Washington; and Fred Turner, Cali- South Island of New Zealand, and to the north side.
    [Show full text]
  • The Utility of Earth Science Information in Post-Earthquake Land- Use Decision-Making: the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence in Aotearoa New Zealand
    https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2020-83 Preprint. Discussion started: 8 April 2020 c Author(s) 2020. CC BY 4.0 License. The utility of earth science information in post-earthquake land- use decision-making: the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence in Aotearoa New Zealand 5 Mark C. Quigley1,2, Wendy Saunders3, Chris Massey3, Russ Van Dissen3, Pilar Villamor3, Helen Jack4, Nicola Litchfield3 1School of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3010, Australia 10 2School of Earth and Environment, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand 3GNS Science, Lower Hutt, 5040 New Zealand 4Environment Canterbury, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand Correspondence to: Mark C. Quigley ([email protected]) 15 Abstract. Earth science information (data, knowledge, advice) can enhance the evidence base for land-use decision- making. The utility of this information depends on factors such as the context and objectives of land-use decisions, the timeliness and efficiency with which earth science information is delivered, and the strength, relevance, uncertainties and risks assigned to earth science information relative to other inputs. We investigate land-use 20 decision-making practices in Christchurch, New Zealand and the surrounding region in response to mass movement (e.g., rockfall, cliff collapses) and ground surface fault rupture hazards incurred during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES). Rockfall fatality risk models combining hazard, exposure and vulnerability data were co-produced by earth scientists and decision-makers and formed primary evidence for risk-based land-use decision- making with adaptive capacity. A public decision appeal process enabled consideration of additional earth science 25 information, primarily via stakeholder requests.
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Mitigation Following Canterbury Earthquakes
    Risk Mitigation following Canterbury Earthquakes Jim Palmer Chief Executive Waimakariri District Council Risk Mitigation – Two Ideas • Risk Assessment and Financing Strategy • Risk–based Reticulation Renewals Waimakariri District Hurunui District Waimakariri District Christchurch City Selwyn District Banks Peninsula Our Challenge We’ve withstood one major event and it cost $127M – can we withstand another one? . We are a net-debt, high-growth Council with few realisable assets . The Alpine Fault failure is ‘overdue’ with a 30% chance within 50 years…. and we have other natural hazard risks Our Response Developed a Risk Assessment and Financing Strategy Risk Assessment and Financing Strategy relating to Considered largest natural risks Major Natural Disasters - earthquake, flood, tsunami November 2014 Our Biggest Risk Our Response . Guestimated what the damage might be . Ground-truth it against the 2010 event . Considered funding strategy, both with and without insurance being available . Assessed impact on net debt & affordability . Developed as policy: . Limits for debt . Priority list for asset replacement Council Funding Position with Crown Support and Insurance Estimated Crown/NZTA Insurance Council Share Reinstatement funding funding Cost $M $M $M $M Above-ground Infrastructure and 30 0 30 0 Buildings Below-ground Infrastructure 67 40 27 0 Roading 40 28 12 Reserves 10 0 0 10 Emergency Response/repairs 20 15 0 5 Community Support 5 0 0 5 Total 172 83 57 32 Debt Limits - borrowing as % of operating revenue Debt Limits with Headroom Outcomes . Gives confidence the consequences of major events can be accommodated . Demonstrates prudent management in terms of debt levels and affordability . Provides priority for asset reinstatement Risk-based Reticulation Renewals • Reticulation renewals were based on age, condition, and performance.
    [Show full text]
  • 13-1 the 2010-2011 Canterbury New Zealand Earthquakes
    THE 2010-2011 CANTERBURY NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKES AND THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Peter R Wood1, Dave Brunsdon2, John Hare3, Mike Stannard4, Bruce Galloway3 Abstract The 2010-2011 Canterbury sequence occurred in an area of New Zealand with a low probabilistic seismic hazard. The sequence commenced with the M7.1 Darfield earthquake of 4 September 2010 that caused unprecedented urban liquefaction and lateral spreading, severely damaged unreinforced masonry buildings, caused significant non-structural damage, and disrupted infrastructure. Aftershocks included the damaging events of: December 2010; February 2011; June 2011; and December 2011. The 22 February 2011 M6.3 event caused significant shaking of Christchurch, New Zealand’s second largest City, with even more unprecedented urban liquefaction, lateral spreading, additional severe damage to and collapse of unreinforced masonry buildings causing fatalities and injuries, further non-structural damage and disruption to infrastructure, and damage to modern buildings. Two multi-storey, reinforced concrete buildings collapsed with fatalities and injuries. Rock fall and cliff collapse caused additional fatalities and injuries. A total of 185 lives were lost. A state of National Emergency was in place for just over two months. Prior to the Canterbury earthquake sequence, ATC-20 Procedures for Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings was adapted to the New Zealand statutory environment and published by the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering as Building Safety Evaluations during a State of Emergency Guidelines for Territorial Authorities 2009. Adaptations incorporated experiences from earthquakes in Gisborne New Zealand, L’Aquila Italy, and Padang Indonesia, and included recognizing that a building may be compromised by the state of its neighboring surrounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Author's Response
    POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS Author response to comments: Anonymous Referee #1 RC1-1: This paper is dealing with earth sciences information is used for post-disaster land-use planning decisions during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (Christchurch, New Zealand). The scope of this paper is limited to mass movements and ground surface fault rupture because authors possess intimate knowledge of those hazards. Unfortunately, just brief comparisons are made for liquefaction. Author response 1: The utility of liquefaction science and engineering inputs into decision-making has been extensively analysed in our prior work (Quigley et al, 2019 – references 1,2 below) and we do not seek to duplicate that in this paper. We invited other science providers with unpublished knowledge of the liquefaction aspects to contribute to this paper and they declined. As such, the work of Quigley et al. (2019) represents the current authoritative account of liquefaction, and our choice to focus on lesser understood aspects (to-date) in this work is deliberate. Note that we do compare our study findings with those of Quigley et al. (2019 – refs 1,2) and these references are cited at several places in this manuscript. We have added a sentence to the Introduction that explicitly states why liquefaction is not the primary focus of this paper, and directs readers to Quigley et al. 2019 -1,2. REFERENCES: 1. Quigley, M.C., Bennetts, L.B., Durance, P., Kuhnert, P.M., Lindsay, M.D., Pembleton, K.G., Roberts, M.E., White, C.J., (2019) The provision and utility of earth science to decision- makers: synthesis and key findings, Environment Systems and Decisions, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09737-z 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Disability Specialist Service Provider in Waimakariri District
    Physical Disability Specialist Service Provider in Waimakariri District, Christchurch City, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn District Isleworth School Ph: 03 359 8553 59A Farrington Ave Fax: 03 359 8560 Bishopdale Christchurch List of schools covered by the specialist service provider (Isleworth School): Waimakariri District Ashgrove School Pegasus Bay School Ashley School Rangiora Borough School Clarkville School Rangiora High School Cust School Rangiora New Life School Fernside School St Joseph's School (Rangiora) Kaiapoi Borough School St Patrick's School (Kaiapoi) Kaiapoi High School Sefton School Kaiapoi North School Southbrook School Karanga Mai Young Parents College Swannanoa School Loburn School Tuahiwi School North Loburn School View Hill School Ohoka School West Eyreton School Oxford Area School Woodend School Christchurch City Aranui High School Our Lady of Fatima School (Chch) Avonside Girls' High School Our Lady of Assumption School (Chch) Addington School Our Lady of Victories School Aranui School (Christchurch) Ouruhia Model School Avondale School (Christchurch) Papanui High School Avonhead School Papanui School Bamford School Paparoa Street School Banks Avenue School Parkview School Beckenham School Queenspark School Belfast School Rangi Ruru Girls' School Bishopdale School Rawhiti School Breens Intermediate School Redcliffs School Bromley School Redwood School (Christchurch) Burnside High School Riccarton High School Burnside Primary School Riccarton School Canterbury Christian College Rudolf Steiner School (Christchurch) Casebrook
    [Show full text]