Northland Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan, 2010

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Hazard and risk analyses and the review of existing control mechanisms are ongoing activities carried out by andshared among CDEM stakeholder agencies. These are further discussed within the Reduction Section of this plan.2.2.2 HAZARDS EXCLUDED FROM DETAILED ANALYSISSome hazards have not been assessed in detail but are summarised below. In general, these hazards wereexcluded from detailed analysis because they are events in which the CDEM Group is unlikely to play an active orprimary role. The hazards include:a) Urban fire can cause significant damage to commercial, industrial and retail buildings and can occur at anytime,anywhere in Northland. Fire to homes is more prevalent in some of the isolated rural areas where lack ofelectricity can mean a reliance on candles and lamps for lighting, and in lower socio-economic areas where smokealarms are either not maintained or installed.b) Large Space debris (asteroid, meteor, bolide etc) entering the earth’s atmosphere and impacting in the sea oron land is a possibility however significant events have an extremely low probability and are most likely to occur inthe ocean, potentially causing devastating tsunami waves. A significant space debris incident is considered beyondthe scope of a CDEM Group response.c) Mine subsidence: Sub-bituminous coal has been mined in several places in Northland including Kamo, Kiripaka,Hikurangi Kawakawa and at the Avoca minefields northeast of Dargaville. At each of these locations there is a riskof subsurface subsidence due to the underground mining of coal seams, however the impact is considered to bevery localised and unlikely to be in a CDEM Group role. Hazard zones and development controls are in place inKamo and Hikurangi, but other mines may need further evaluation.d) Coastal erosion is the retreat of the shoreline caused by water, waves, currents and wind. It is a naturalprocess but it can be exacerbated by human activities such as sand extraction, vegetation removal andconstruction of coastal structures. Coastal erosion occurs predominantly at sandy beaches and along weak coastalcliffs such as those located at One Tree Point. Most erosion occurs in large increments during storms when heavyswells and /or storm surges buffet the coast. During intervening calm periods a beach will generally rebuild itself.However much of Northlands coast has been modified through coastal development and some many areas areexperiencing problems with coastal erosion.e) Tornados: Tornados have been experienced at Kaitaia and Whatatiri in recent times. The tornado at Whatatiricaused mature avocado trees on a horticulture block to be knocked over along with wind damage to native trees.In Kaitaia the tornado caused damage to the hospital and homes. Around 20-30 tornadoes are observed in NZeach year, most lasting less than 15 minutes and typically small and short-lived.f) Land instability: Northland is susceptible to shallow soil slides involving the movement of the upper soil layer,often including vegetation, and deep seated creeping earthflows which occur in the saturated clay-rich areas. Onvery steep slopes the rock and soil may simply fall and accumulate on the bottom of the slope as debris. Howeverthe consequences of landslides are generally localised in scale and only widespread when associated with a storm,therefore landslip risks have been dealt with in that section.2.2.3 CLIMATE CHANGEClimate Change has not been considered as a separate hazard in this Plan, but as a factor that impacts on thefrequency and intensity of many of the other hazards. It may introduce long-term shifts in climate patterns suchas more intense rainfall and associated flooding, more frequent and intense droughts in eastern areas, moredamaging winds and increased wildfire risk especially in eastern areas, sea level rise and a change in wavepatterns.The extent to which hazards may be impacted by climate change are discussed in Appendix B. The impact ofclimate change also gets factored into the hazard prioritisation process through the application of the ‘growth’factor Refer Section 2.3.1.Northland Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan, 2010-2015 Page 24
2.3 HAZARD RISK PRIORITIES2.3.1 THE RISK PRIORITISATION MODELThe National CDEM Plan Review Guide recommends the use of the ‘SMG’ model for prioritising risks for CDEMGroup action. The model takes into account:- The ‘seriousness’ of the hazard consequence.- The ‘manageability’ difficulty in relation to the hazard.- The likelihood that there will be ‘growth’ in either the frequency of the hazard or the communityexposure to the hazard.HAZARD SERIOUSNESSA 1-5 consequence rating is evaluated for impact on each of the social, built, economic and natural environments(as detailed in Table 3). In calculating the overall seriousness score, a higher weighting is given to the social area(50%), with 25% weighting to built environment impact, 15% to economic and 10% to natural environment impact.This reflects the higher priority given by CDEM to human life and safety and community resilience. The weightedscore is multiplied by 2 to give a total score out of 10.The hazards rated most serious in terms of consequence are Local Tsunami, Severe Widespread Storm, LocalVolcano and Human Pandemic.HAZARD MANAGEABILITYThe manageability of the hazard is rated for each of the ‘4Rs’ area, as summarised below. The manageability is acombination of how difficult it is to manage the hazard and the current level of effort applied (each category isscored as Low, Medium or High). The highest score of 5 is given to those hazards that are most difficult to manageand have the least effort applied, and vice versa for the lowest score of 1.Reduction: Hazard risk can be reduced through activities such as construction standards, land-use planning,protection works and national security. Analysing and understanding the hazard is also considered as a key‘reduction’ activity. Volcano and terrorism hazards are rated as the most difficult to manage and with limitedeffort currently being applied to risk reduction. Tsunami also rates as difficult to manage but scores slightly lower(ie considered to be better managed) given that there is more knowledge of the hazard probability andconsequence than the volcano and terrorism hazards. Reduction priorities are further discussed in Section 3.1.3.Readiness: Risk readiness can be enhanced through forecasting/warning systems, CDEM staff capability andcommunity preparedness. The hazards that the community is assessed as being least ready for are volcano andearthquake; it is difficult to forecast and provide warnings for earthquake and there is low community awarenessof earthquake and volcanos as a potential Northland hazard. Readiness priorities are further discussed in Section 4.1.2.Response: Generally the more widespread and serious hazards are considered more difficult to respond to asresources will be stretched across the region. Infectious diseases (human/plant/animal) are rated as the mostdifficult to respond to and slow-evolving hazards (drought) the easiest. Response priorities are further discussed in Section 5.1.3Recovery: A score of ‘Low/Medium’ has been given to ‘level of effort applied’ for all hazards, reflecting therelatively low priority that recovery planning has been given compared to readiness and response planning. Recovery priorities are further discussed in Section 6.1.3Northland Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan, 2010-2015 Page 25
Page 2: PLAN STRUCTURESection1:Introduction
Page 5 and 6: GLOSSARY OF TERMSCommonly used term
Page 7 and 8: SUMMARYThe Northland Civil Defence
Page 9 and 10: 1 INTRODUCTIONSection 1 outlines th
Page 11 and 12: 1.3 THE PLAN CONTEXT1.3.1 CORE PRIN
Page 13 and 14: 1.4.1 NORTHLAND CDEM GROUP VISION A
Page 15 and 16: 1.4.3 HOW THIS PLAN SUPPORTS NATION
Page 17 and 18: Whangarei District population risin
Page 19 and 20: 2.1.3 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTPROFILETh
Page 21 and 22: 2.2 CDEM GROUP HAZARDSCAPE2.2.1 ANA
Page 23: Figure 12: River Network in Northla
Page 28 and 29: 3 RISK REDUCTIONThis section provid
Page 30 and 31: In 2009, NRC published a review of
Page 32 and 33: 4 READINESSThis section provides an
Page 34 and 35: 4.2 COMMUNITY READINESS4.2.1 AWAREN
Page 36 and 37: 4.3 GROUP READINESS: STAFF CAPACITY
Page 38 and 39: 2. To facilitate communication betw
Page 40 and 41: Other OrganisationPlans(refer Appen
Page 42 and 43: OBJECTIVE 3d:Current Status:Methodo
Page 44 and 45: In terms of effort applied to respo
Page 46 and 47: 5.3 CDEM EMERGENCY OPERATING CENTRE
Page 48 and 49: Welfare Centres can also be set up
Page 50 and 51: Table 9: Specific Response Issues a
Page 52 and 53: audience. The information it provid
Page 54 and 55: 6 RECOVERYThis section sets out the
Page 56 and 57: The role of the Group Recovery Mana
Page 58 and 59: 7 MONITORING AND EVALUATIONThis sec
Page 60 and 61: CommunityEducation /ParticipationCD
Page 62 and 63: 8 MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCEThis sec
Page 64 and 65: The functions of the Group are deta
Page 66 and 67: 8.3.3 WORK PROGRAMMESAn annual work
Page 68 and 69: During a declared emergency (Level
Page 70 and 71: APPENDIX A - ORGANISATIONS WITH A K
Page 72 and 73: APPENDIX B - HAZARD SUMMARIESThe re
Page 74 and 75:
WIDESPREAD HEAVY STORMSOverviewHaza
Page 76 and 77:
VOLCANOOverviewHazardLikelihood (E)
Page 78 and 79:
Figure 20: Historical Earthquake Lo
Page 80 and 81:
DROUGHTSOverviewA drought can be de
Page 82 and 83:
Table 13: Infrastructure Failure Sc
Page 84 and 85:
MAJOR TRANSPORT ACCIDENTOverviewHaz
Page 86:
ANIMAL / PLANT DISEASE AND PESTSOve
show all

Northland Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan, 2010

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?