Craig Weaver was not in Christchurch when the quake hit, but his focus was riveted on Canterbury nonetheless. Craig is the Pacific Northwest Coordinator for the US Geological Survey’s Earthquake Hazards Program, and studying and learning from earthquakes is his profession. He has spent the last few weeks in New Zealand, including what he describes as “unbelievable and overwhelming” time in Christchurch, working with Kiwi colleagues.

Their joint goal is to determine how the two countries can best share knowledge about earthquakes, and to develop, refine, and share best practices for preparing for and responding to seismic events. The US Government is supporting several such collaborative efforts. Both of our countries have high-hazard quake areas as well as regions where quakes are possible but populations are under-prepared. There is still a lot to learn, and Craig has been focused on what events in Christchurch have to teach.

* * *

Craig Weaver.

CW: Earthquakes are often tragic events that leave deep scars on the affected populations. I know from good friends and colleagues just how terribly the Christchurch area has suffered from the continuing seismic sequence.

I remember February 22nd very clearly in part because we had Kiwi researchers from GNS Science with us then at a county fair in Spokane, Washington, conducting research on quake risks and perceptions.

For scientists and disaster preparation professionals, quakes can be learning experiences that help save many lives in the future. We cannot bring back those lost, but we can adapt planning, construction, and other factors to protect people more effectively in the future.

So, what does the Canterbury earthquake sequence tell cities here in New Zealand, in the United States, and elsewhere?

The tragic deaths, damage, and disruption from the earthquakes, liquefaction, and rock falls caught the Canterbury region by surprise, as the area has been one of the lower earthquake hazard zones in the country. Plus, the resulting post-earthquake recovery facing New Zealand is daunting. For many cities, including in the United States, the Christchurch experience is both a warning and a sobering call to prepare to lessen such consequences.

In particular, the Christchurch earthquakes struck areas of construction similar to that found in many other cities. The loss of life, concentrated in three collapsed structures, dominated the post-earthquake news coverage, and few people outside the region appreciated the challenges and obstacles to long-term recovery. It is these challenges and obstacles that the United States Geological Survey (USGS), GNS Science of New Zealand, and Washington Emergency Management Division (EMD) hope to bring to the attention of other cities, including in America.

What are those lessons and why are they needed? In much of the United States, for example, most people perceive that earthquake risks are lower than more frequent perils such as floods, tornados, or winter storms. Christchurch shows the danger of thinking that lower probability events won’t happen. There is also a tendency in areas outside of the high earthquake hazard zones for elected officials and the population to overlook the consequences of somewhat “ordinary” earthquakes in the magnitude 6 range. In many ways, the events of February 22nd provide a critical teaching opportunity for other cities in lower earthquake hazard zones.

Under the banner of “low risk does not mean no risk,” the USGS, GNS, and EMD have been exploring ways to bring the lessons of Christchurch to cities in my region. All three agencies are well-acquainted, having partnered on tsunami and seismic hazard issues since 2001.

Three areas stand out as particularly fruitful for collaboration in an effort to bring lessons learned from Canterbury to eastern Washington and elsewhere:

First, What earthquake information tools worked?

Seismologists in New Zealand provided a number of information tools to support the emergency management and contingency planning community during the Canterbury earthquakes. The USGS develops and offers a wide-range of information tools – everything from real-time assessments of actual shaking and estimated damage as it is occurring to estimates of future ground shaking — but to date there have been no large urban earthquakes in the United States that would cause agencies to use these capabilities. Christchurch offers a rare and relevant laboratory for USGS scientists to understand the effectiveness of information tools, so that others can use them more effectively.

Second, What mitigation worked?

Beginning in the mid-1990′s, utilities and others instituted a seismic strengthening program for portions of the infrastructure in the region. What was the cost of this strengthening and how did it improve seismic performance, reduce loss of life and damage to the built environment, lower economic losses, and speed recovery? Answers to these questions from Christchurch would help local officials in other cities to consider how to include seismic-strengthening of existing infrastructure in cost-benefit analyses.

Third, what scientific studies, engineering analysis, or community decisions not done before the earthquakes would have reduced overall losses?

What were the gaps in long-term and short-term communication of earthquake risk? Could better integration of geological and seismological understanding with community planning and economic analysis have led to lower social and economic disruptions and costs? The ability to explore the wealth of data available from the Christchurch area is the type of information that other cities in New Zealand and elsewhere need to expand their abilities to ensure more resilient futures.

The three agencies are discussing targeting four cities in eastern Washington to develop an approach of bringing lessons from Christchurch to areas of similar hazard levels in New Zealand, the US, and elsewhere. The four test cities — Spokane, Walla Walla, Yakima, and the Tri-Cities (Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland) — have a combined population of over a million people.

Earthquake issues vary in those cities, with Walla Walla and Yakima having higher seismic hazards, but earthquake swarms in both Spokane and Tri-Cities have caused significant anxiety among residents.

An October 25, 2011 workshop on earthquake hazards in the Tri-Cities area, sponsored by the USGS, EMD, and GNS, drew about 90 local first responders, engineers, and citizens. Information presented by all three agencies generated enthusiastic discussion during the workshop and all were impressed with how easily the initial lessons from Christchurch — emergency response and initial problems of recovery such as debris removal — resonated with the audience.

There is still a lot to learn, both from the Canterbury earthquakes and from quakes in the Pacific Northwest and California. I look forward to continuing to be part of the vibrant web of collaborations that that link the seismic research and disaster preparedness communities in our two countries. By working together in the wake of such tragic events, we can save many lives in the future.

*   *   *

Craig, thank you for sharing a few notes about your work in the months leading up to and then following February 22nd.