FLOOD03422 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t99S. Colorado Rood Hazard Mitigation Plan (409) were estimated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the U_S_ Geological Suvey (USGS)_ The CWCB obtained detailed surveyed cross-sections on the North Fork of the South Platte River, Sand Draw, I and Buffalo Creek. The estimated flow rates on July 12 range from 4 to 25 times the published FEMA 100- year flow values_ Obviously, the Buffalo Creek flash flood produced enormous flow magnitudes and was extremely dangerous_ 2.4 Risk Information To reduce the community's vulnerability to hazards, some knowledge of the riskllhreat must exist Thus, hazards assessment has two important components 1_ Hazard Identification - What are the hazards that pose a threat to the community or a particular segment of the population? What is their expected magnitude? How fre- quently could they be expected to occur? Where are they likely to occur? 2_ Vulnerability Analysis - What is the risk from the threat? What are the likely im- pacts? What are the economic, social, and political ramifications of these impacts? In most communities, substantial work has al- ready been completed on a hazard assessment, and maps portraying these risks are readily avail- able_ This is an integral step in the emergency planning process_ Hazard assessment is the foun- dation upon which the local Emergency Opera- tions Plan (EOP) is built It is also the foundation for hazard mitigation planning, as well. A hazard assessment provides the information that identifies the need to mitigate, as well as the ability to accurately focus mitigation efforts on a particular problem area_ However, simply identify- ing vulnerability from an identified risk does not guarantee that any action will be undertaken to mitigate that situation_ Thus, a critical component necessary to mitigate the impacts of hazards is a determination of acceptable risk. When vulnera- bility to a hazard risk is determined to be at an acceptable level, mitigation activities are not pur- sued_ However, when communities determine that the vulnerability to a given risk is too great to chance (a determination of unacceptable risk), mitigation is pursued_ (See Figure 2. 10)_ This concept of acceptable risk is central to the community's determination as to whether mitiga- tion is undertaken or not_ This determination is typically answered based on community values being combined with technical information_ Hazard assessments allow communities to focus on haz- ard mitigation planning needs_ However, imple- Fi/e:FHMP-chaprer-2.pub mentation of mitigation measures will only occur fol- lowing the public's acceptance of both the problem and the solution_ This requires a determination that there is unacceptable risk. To sum up, the hazard mitigation planning process begins with the five preliminary steps relating to haz- ard assessment First, the hazards affecting the juris- diction must be identified_ Second, the community's vulnerability to those hazards must be determined_ , Third, a determination of whether that vulnerability constitutes an unacceptable risk must be made_ Fourth, if an unacceptable risk exists, it must be communicated to those who are in the position to effect its change_ Fifth, the people receiving this risk information must agree that the risk is unacceptable, that there are viable solutions to the problem, and that _> ~-!. ~,.:.,' :.'.1: i >~Z.!JJp_"" J I Hazard Vulnerability Community Goals Community Values 1 /\ (community goals. long term objec:tives e.g. capital improvements, open space acquisitions) .__ _, _1:">.'--'-~ _,_ ^__~,.... ---- Figure 2.10 .v.'.,,' ,_ " I;;.: ,_'1, _'.J"-, ''''' .,.~' Chapter 2 . 12 1129P.l8 10:48 AM