GEOG 3402_ Assignment 2-Risk Assessment_ Boulder County
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Colorado, Boulder *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3402
Subject
Geography
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
Pages
8
Uploaded by kmccormack6
Assignment 2: Risk Assessment: The Boulder County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Which hazards are listed as potentially affecting Boulder County? Do you find any of
them surprising?
The hazards listed as potentially affecting Boulder County in the Risk Assessment are:
●
Air Quality
●
Avalanche
●
Communicable/Zoonotic Disease Outbreak
●
Dam and Levee Failure
●
Drought
●
Earthquake
●
Expansive Soils
●
Extreme Heat
●
Flood
●
Hailstorm
●
Landslide/Mud and Debris Flow/Rockfall
●
Lightning
●
Subsidence
●
Tornado
●
Wildfire
●
Windstorm
●
Winter Storm (Severe)
Air Quality was added as a hazard due to its association with climate change, and climate
change itself was incorporated as a consideration for determining hazard significance. Social
considerations and ecological considerations were also added to the assessment of each
hazard to address climate change.
The list seems pretty comprehensive and aligns with the various potential hazards for the area.
Which hazards are excluded from this analysis? On what basis?
The following hazards were discussed by the Multi Hazard Planning Committee (MHPC) but
were ultimately not included in the plan. The excluded hazards and reason for exclusion are as
follows:
●
Thunderstorm: While thunderstorms are called out as individual hazards, instead they
are recognized for their role in the flood, lightning, and windstorm hazards.
Thunderstorms were not listed separately because they are considered in the context of
other related hazards.
●
Erosion/Deposition: Erosion and deposition were not identified previously for inclusion in
the plan. However, after the September 2013 rain and flood events, it was recognized
that these phenomena have unique and different impacts. Therefore, further mitigation
efforts and planning will need to occur and should be included in future updates to the
plan. These hazards were not included initially but are now seen as important for future
planning.
●
Fog and Volcanoes: Fog and volcanoes were considered but removed from the hazard
list due to their minor occurrences and/or impacts. These hazards were excluded
because they are not considered significant or common hazards for the region.
●
Coastal Erosion, Coastal Storm, Hurricane, and Tsunami: These hazards were excluded
from the plan because they are not experienced in Boulder County. Since Boulder
County is not located near coastal areas, hazards related to coastal erosion, coastal
storms, hurricanes, and tsunamis are not relevant to the region they were excluded.
What criteria are used to compare and evaluate the hazards? How do these compare with
the list of factors laid out in lecture, and in the Burton et al. reading? (Hint: these criteria
are summarized on pg. 43, and on pp. 51-53.)
The criteria used to compare and evaluate hazards in the Boulder County Hazard Mitigation
Plan are:
●
Geographic Extent: Hazards are categorized based on their potential impact on the
planning area, including limited, significant, or extensive impact.
●
Increase Threat from Climate Change: Hazards are assessed for their likelihood to
become an increased threat due to climate change, categorized as low, moderate,
substantial, or severe.
●
Probability/Frequency: Hazards are evaluated based on the probability or likelihood of
future occurrences, categorized as highly likely, likely, occasional, or unlikely.
●
Magnitude/Severity: Hazards are classified based on their potential magnitude and
severity, including catastrophic, critical, limited, or negligible impact.
●
Overall Significance: Hazards are ranked based on their overall vulnerability and
potential impact, considering the probability of future occurrence, magnitude of previous
occurrences, and assessments of public safety risk and threat to property and
infrastructure.
These criteria are similar to the principles discussed in the lecture and the Burton et al. reading,
which emphasize the importance of considering factors such as geographic extent, probability of
occurrence, magnitude of impact, and the influence of climate change when assessing hazards.
Overall, the plan's criteria provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating and prioritizing
hazards based on their potential significance and impact on Boulder County.
Do any of the rankings of “overall significance” in the table surprise you? That is, do any
rankings seem higher or lower than you would expect, based on the criteria?
The rankings of "overall significance" in the table match the evaluation criteria. High-ranking
hazards have extensive reach, high likelihood, catastrophic impact, and a substantial climate
change threat. Low-ranking hazards have limited reach, low likelihood, limited impact, and low
climate change threat. The rankings seem reasonable based on these criteria, and they align
with risk assessment and mitigation principles.
Pg. 50 outlines 13 population groups that have been identified by FEMA as “likely to be
disproportionately impacted by natural disasters.”
Choose two of these groups.
Brainstorm how and why these groups are likely to be more vulnerable to natural
disasters. Based on what you know of Boulder, are there certain hazards that would be of
particular concern for these groups?
1. Rural Communities:
Why They Are Likely More Vulnerable:
●
Limited Access to Resources: Rural communities often have limited access to
emergency services, healthcare facilities, and transportation, making it harder to respond
to and recover from disasters.
●
Geographic Isolation: Most rural areas are geographically isolated, which can delay the
arrival of emergency responders and increase the time it takes for help to reach the
community.
●
Economic Challenges: Rural communities may have lower income levels and fewer
economic opportunities, making it difficult to afford insurance, home improvements, or
evacuation costs.
●
Wildfires: Rural areas in Boulder County may lack the infrastructure and resources to
combat wildfires effectively.
●
Flooding: Some rural communities may be located in flood-prone areas without adequate
flood protection measures or evacuation routes.
2. Elderly and Youth Populations:
Why They Are Likely More Vulnerable:
●
Limited Mobility: Elderly individuals may have limited mobility, making evacuation during
disasters more difficult and challenging. Young children may not be able or strong
enough to take appropriate actions in an emergency.
●
Health Issues: Both groups may have specific health needs that can be compromised
during disasters, such as the need for medical equipment or special medications.
●
Lack of Independence: Some elderly individuals may rely on caregivers or assisted living
facilities, while children depend on their caregivers/family/guardians for safety and
support.
Hazard Concerns in Boulder County:
●
Extreme Heat: Elderly individuals are more susceptible to heat-related illnesses, which
can be exacerbated during heatwaves.
●
Severe Storms: Both the elderly and young children are more vulnerable to severe
weather events, such as tornadoes or hailstorms, due to their limited ability to react
quickly and their reliance on other people to see them through the emergency.
Can you think of any additional groups that should be included in this list? Why would
they be more susceptible to disasters?
Additional Groups to Consider who are Vulnerable:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
●
People with Disabilities: Individuals with physical or cognitive disabilities may face
difficulties evacuating, accessing shelters, or receiving critical information during
disasters. They should be considered for their unique or special needs.
●
New Immigrants and Refugees: These groups may be unfamiliar with local hazards and
may face language barriers, making it harder to understand and respond to warnings.
●
People with Limited Access to Transportation: Those who do not own cars or have
limited access to public transportation may struggle to evacuate in a timely manner.
Summarize and compare how the two hazards are evaluated, according to the following
criteria:
●
Geographical extent.
●
Probability of occurrence.
●
Likely magnitude/severity.
●
Social impacts.
●
Effects of Climate Change.
Earthquakes (medium) vs. Landslides (high)
1. Geographical Extent:
●
Earthquake: Extensive, with 50-100 percent of the planning area potentially impacted.
●
Landslide: Limited, with less than 10 percent of the planning area prone to occurrence.
2. Probability of Occurrence:
●
Earthquake: Occasional, with less than a 1 percent chance of a significant earthquake
occurring over the next 100 years.
●
Landslide: Occasional, with a 1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year.
3. Likely Magnitude/Severity:
●
Earthquake: Catastrophic, with more than 50 percent of property severely damaged in a
worst-case scenario.
●
Landslide: Limited, with 10-25 percent of property severely damaged and/or shutdown of
facilities for more than one week.
4. Social Impacts:
●
Earthquake: Earthquakes can cause structural damage, injury, loss of life, and damage
to infrastructure networks. Vulnerable populations, including low-income, elderly, youth,
and BIPOC individuals, may be disproportionately impacted.
●
Landslide: Landslides can result in property damage, threaten human life, impact
transportation, and cause property damage. Low-income individuals may face
challenges in recovery due to limited resources.
5. Effects of Climate Change:
●
Earthquake: No direct correlation between earthquakes and weather or climate change.
●
Landslide: Climate change may increase the intensity of heavy precipitation events,
potentially leading to more landslides.
On what basis does the hazard management plan conclude that communicable disease is
of only moderate concern? How does this evaluation compare to your experience of 2+
years of Covid shutdowns? How does a bona-fide pandemic compare to the other
natural hazards you explored?
The hazard management plan concludes that communicable diseases, including zoonotic
diseases and pandemics, are of only moderate concern based on the following several factors:
●
Probability of Future Occurrences: The plan indicates that communicable diseases have
a likelihood of future occurrence considered likely, with a 10-100 percent chance of
occurrence in the next year, meaning they are anticipated but not inevitable.
●
Magnitude/Severity: The severity of outbreaks is expected to fluctuate from year to year,
depending on various variables such as weather patterns, mosquito populations, and
immunity in humans. The majority of infectious diseases are treatable and do not
necessarily result in permanent disability.
●
Climate Considerations: Climate change is mentioned as a factor that can impact the
occurrence and spread of infectious diseases. Warmer global temperatures and changes
in weather patterns can affect disease transmission, but the plan does not suggest that
these changes are expected to lead to high levels of concern.
●
Ecological Considerations: The plan highlights the role of deforestation, resource
extraction, and the removal of biodiversity in increasing the interaction with disease
carriers and providing opportunities for diseases to jump to humans. However, it also
emphasizes that reforestation and the protection of natural spaces can reduce the
probability of future occurrences.
●
Overall Hazard Significance: Based on assessments of probability, geographic extent,
and magnitude/severity, communicable and zoonotic diseases are classified as having a
medium overall hazard significance, with a moderate potential impact. This suggests that
while they are recognized as a concern, they are not considered the most severe or
critical hazard.
Regarding the comparison to your experience of over 2 years of COVID-19 shutdowns and how
a bona-fide pandemic compares to other natural hazards explored in the plan:
Comparatively, COVID-19, as a pandemic, has had a longer and more widespread impact than
many other natural hazards mentioned in the plan with severely devastating consequences for
numerous people. While other hazards like landslides and earthquakes can cause immediate
and localized damage, pandemics can have long-lasting and global effects on public health,
economies, and daily life. The response to pandemics often involves measures like shutdowns
and social distancing, which can have wide-ranging social and economic consequences.
However, the plan also notes that the overall significance of communicable diseases is
classified as medium, indicating that they are considered a concern but not the most severe
natural hazard. The assessment is based on the specific context of Boulder County and may not
fully capture the broad impact of a pandemic like COVID-19, which is a highly contagious and
new virus.
What county did you choose? Compare and contrast the hazards identified for your
chosen county with those identified for Boulder County. What significant additions or
deletions do you see?
I chose Summit County, Utah.
Similar Hazards in Both Boulder and Summit Counties Counties:
●
Drought
●
Earthquake
●
Flood
●
Wildfires / Wildland Fire
●
Landslides
●
Lightning
●
Tornadoes
●
Dam and Levee Failure
●
Air Quality
●
Winter storms (snow storms/blizzards)
●
Avalanche
Differences and Unique Hazards:
Boulder County identifies these regional hazards, including: communicable/zoonotic
disease outbreaks (with a focus on social and ecological considerations), expansive
soils, extreme heat, hailstorms, subsidence, windstorms.
Summit County identifies and calls out the following as regional hazards: algal blooms
and severe weather: cold, wind chill, extreme cold, dense fog, hail, heavy rain, high
wind/thunderstorm wind/strong wind, funnel clouds.
In summary, while both Boulder County and Summit County share common hazards like
drought, earthquakes, floods, and wildfires, there are differences in the unique hazards they
identify. Boulder County has a more extensive list of hazards, including a focus on
communicable disease outbreaks, climate change, and various geological and meteorological
events. In contrast, Summit County adds specific mountain-related hazards such as
avalanches, which may not be as prevalent in Boulder County. Additionally, both counties face
air quality concerns related to wildfires and climate change.
Choose ONE of the hazards you read about in the Boulder County plan. (Alternatively,
choose a different hazard, which is not present in Boulder County.)
How is it present in
the county you chose? How do the authors of your county’s Hazard Management Plan
evaluate the risk it poses?
Hazard Chosen: Algal Blooms
Selected County: Summit County
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Description of Presence: Algal blooms are a recurring hazard in Summit County, particularly in
water bodies like Utah Lake, where the probability of occurrence is high. These blooms occur
when naturally existing cyanobacteria in the water multiply rapidly under warm conditions,
leading to the production of cyanotoxins that can pose severe health risks to humans and
animals. While algal blooms can occur naturally in pristine mountain lakes, certain conditions,
such as warmer waters and high concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen, increase the
likelihood of blooms. Scientists have observed an increase in the frequency of algal blooms,
partly attributed to rising global temperatures. The presence of nitrogen and phosphorus,
common pollutants originating from various sources including sewage treatment plants, erosion,
urban runoff, and agricultural activities, contributes to the vulnerability of water bodies to algal
blooms.
Evaluation of Risk: In Summit County's Hazard Management Plan, the risk posed by algal
blooms is assessed as significant, given the high probability of occurrence and critical severity.
The plan recognizes that lake-adjacent cities and businesses that rely on water-based
recreation are susceptible to adverse effects from algal blooms. Additionally, the perception of
water safety in the region is impacted, affecting both residents and visitors. Children and pets
are especially vulnerable to ingesting water contaminated by cyanotoxins. Summit County's
mitigation strategies include proper land management and investment in new technologies for
wastewater treatment to reduce the likelihood of algal blooms. Specific actions recommended in
the plan include reducing the use of fertilizers on lawns, opting for phosphorus-free fertilizers
and detergents when possible, addressing leaking septic systems, preventing yard debris like
leaves and grass clippings from entering storm drains, and ensuring the responsible disposal of
pet waste.
What types of community assets does the plan identify? (Hint: look at the subheadings
for each section.) How do these correspond to the categories of vulnerable populations
you looked at?
The Boulder Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies various types of community assets categorized
into social, ecological, and technological systems, which correspond to the categories of
vulnerable populations addressed in the plan:
Social Assets:
●
Physical and Financial Capacities: This refers to people who may be economically
vulnerable like those living in rural areas or the elderly population living on a fixed
income, making them more susceptible to hazards due to limited financial resources.
●
Cultural Literacy: It involves culturally diverse populations and individuals with language
barriers who may struggle to understand and respond to hazard information. Elderly
immigrants or immigrant children who are not comfortable with the English language.
●
Housing and Education: This considers vulnerable populations living in inadequate
housing conditions and those with limited access to education. Rural areas have less
education resources.
Ecological Assets:
●
Access to Natural Spaces: Communities' access to parks and natural areas affects their
ability to withstand hazards. This can also impact populations relying on these spaces for
recreation or their livelihoods like the rural communities..
●
Ecosystem Health: The health of local rural ecosystems influences populations
dependent on them for resources like food and water.
●
Wildfire Risk: Vulnerable rural populations in wildfire-prone areas may face varying
levels of impact based on their proximity to forests and wildlands
Technological Systems:
●
Access to Technology: This relates to populations with limited access to technology like
the elderly and children with restricted resources, which can hinder their ability to receive
emergency alerts and access information during hazards.
●
Emergency Communication: It pertains to the availability and reliability of emergency
communication systems, which can affect all populations, particularly those with
disabilities, the elderly, or children relying on specific communication methods.
You’ve been hired at a job that will keep you in Boulder County for the next five
years—long enough to look for a long-term apartment, or buy a house or condo. Would
you find a document like this Hazards Management Plan useful, as you decide where to
live? What might make its conclusions more accessible to the general public?
Yes, I'd find the Boulder County Hazard Management Plan a valuable resource as I make
decisions about where to live in the area for the next five years. It is a very comprehensive
document that offers crucial insights into various hazards and their associated risks across
different parts of the county. It would allow me to make well-informed decisions regarding
potential hazards and how they might affect my housing choices. To enhance its accessibility to
the general public, simplifying technical jargon and providing clear, concise summaries of key
findings could be beneficial. Additionally, incorporating interactive maps and user-friendly digital
tools, perhaps with a map, could greatly improve accessibility and engagement, ensuring that
both residents and newcomers can readily understand and navigate the extensive hazard
information presented in the plan.