Region VIII Mitigation GIS Region VIII Applications of Nationwide HAZUS Flood and Earthquake Modeling-Multi Multi- Hazard Vulnerability Index 22 May 2009, EF-3 Tornado Forms in Northern Colorado http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48747834_colorado-gov-ritter-issues-formal-disaster-declara
MR-2 2 100-Year Riverine Runs 10 sq mile drainage 30 meter (1 arc sec) DEM Flows from USGS regressions and gauge data (no variation in permeability) Losses using HAZUS national baseline inventories at census block level.
Problem Reaches Addressed in MR-4 4 with new discharge regressions May be more prevalent in west
County Summaries
Quickly order relative rankings Tabulated Rankings
HAZUS Level I Applications State Mitigation Plan The out of the box Level I runs may have more application in support of the State-wide mitigation plan than the local plans. This is because they provide an apples-to to-apples comparison of relative losses by jurisdiction (County). We have found it useful to rank the Counties by total loss, as well w as per-capita (divide total $ loss by population) or loss ratio (divide total $ loss by total $ exposure). The latter two provide useful information on high risk rural Counties. In addition, ranking by deciles or groups of high, moderate and low losses may be just as useful in prioritizing jurisdictions by relative risk as a detailed ranking and better reflect the uncertainty inherent in the loss estimates.
Local Mitigation Plan Applications The HAZUS Level I runs once imported by a knowledgeable HAZUS user provide the starting point for a particular County, but at least some QA/QC is typically warranted before publishing detailed loss information for a particular jurisdiction. The user should go through a process where the Level 1 flood hazard ard delineation is replaced by available DFIRM data as the DFIRM should be the authoritative product and was based on more extensive analysis. The QA/QC should determine if any of the problem reaches are in areas that can contribute to losses and should be reanalyzed. The reanalysis may be done by running the reaches separately The QA/QC should consist of overlaying the flood polygons on imagery, or other flood and stream data, such as the National Hydrologic Dataset to identify potential erroneous flood hazard polygons. Erroneous errors are frequently related to the DEM being too poor quality to support the analysis. If this is the case, redoing the analyses on 10 meter (1/3 arc second) or better DEM may be warranted. High risk areas where data are available may require a Level II HAZUS analysis that would consist of developing a water depth grid analysis by combining quality DFIRM and high resolution terrain data. In addition, incorporating a site-specific specific or parcel based approach can greatly improve the inventories and loss estimates over the Level I census block approach.
Region VIII Vulnerability Index Hazards: Flooding Fire Wildland and Grassland Earthquake Severe Weather Winter Weather Hail Lightning Severe Thunderstorm Tornado Landslide Levees 8 January 2009, Colorado Wildfire, Boulder Huffington Post
Vulnerability Index - Methodology: Compilation of national datasets including historical hazard information Incorporation of HAZUS Level I 100 year Flood and Earthquake Average Annualized Losses All data sets were complied into a single data structure and database. Relative ranking of counties by deciles and deciles per capita for each hazard examined. September 1994, Colorado, Mudflow near Glenwood Springs as a result of Storm King Mountain Fire USGS
Vulnerability Index - Purpose: Standardized, documented, and actively maintained analysis platform for apples to apples comparison on an intra- and inter- region basis. Method for driving risk based decision making processes. Method for identifying program implementation gaps (areas where high risk is prevalent but planning and mitigation projects are lacking). 1997, North Dakota, Red River Flooding, Grand Forks USGS
Vulnerability Index Data Structure: All data hosted out of a single geodatabase. Geodatabase includes raw data and final (ranked) data. Ideally maps would be automatically updated with new data through persistent data links to hazard data sources. Not region specific (data structure can be linked to any region). 5 June 2009, Wyoming, La Grange Sideways Tornado
Vulnerability Index Hazard Analysis: Flooding HAZUS (Modeled Analysis), SHELDUS (Historical Analysis) and BureauNet (National Flood Insurance Policy, NFIP, Data) Wildfire LANDFIRE (Modeled Analysis) and SHELDUS (Historical Analysis) Earthquake HAZUS (Modeled Analysis) Severe Weather SHELDUS (Historical Analysis) Landslide SHELDUS (Historical Analysis) 2 June 1997, Colorado, Tornado Near Fort Morgan www.ladeltaweather.com/archives/tornado5.jpg Levees Army Corp of Engineers
Vulnerability Index Data Sources: HAZUS Loss estimation software, Department of Homeland Security (FEMA) SHELDUS Spatial Hazards Events & Losses Database for the United States (University of South Carolina) LANDFIRE Landscape Fire & Resource Management Planning Tools Project (USDA Forest Service & Department of the Interior) HSIP Homeland Security Information Program, Department of Homeland Security (FEMA) BureauNet Department of Homeland Security (FEMA) Data Warehouse Department of Homeland Security (FEMA) USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers FEMA Region VIII Mitigation GIS
Total Composite Hazard Risk *Top 30 Counties Larimer County, CO Utah County, UT Washington County, UT Jefferson County, CO Cass County, ND Weber County, UT Missoula County, MT Pitkin County, CO Summit County, CO Summit County, UT Pueblo County, CO Weld County, CO Mesa County, CO Adams County, CO Salt Lake County, UT Douglas County, CO Gunnison County, CO Minnehaha County, SD Denver County, CO Arapahoe County, CO El Paso County, CO Ravalli County, MT Codington County, SD Boulder County, CO Park County, MT Lincoln County, MT Fremont County, CO Lake County, MT Brown County, SD Grand Forks County, ND Total Composite Hazard Risk Per Capita *Top 30 Counties Hinsdale County, CO San Juan County, CO Ouray County, CO Mineral County, CO Gunnison County, CO Treasure County, MT Garfield County, UT Sheridan County, MT Golden Valley County, MT Jackson County, CO Garfield County, MT Summit County, CO San Miguel County, CO Piute County, UT Morgan County, UT Juab County, UT Pitkin County, CO Daggett County, CO Crook County, WY Archuleta County, CO Petroleum County, MT Custer County, CO Meagher County, MT Toole County, MT McCone County, MT Kiowa County, CO Campbell County, SD Dolores County, CO Mineral County, MT Madison County, MT
The End