Natural Hazards

Weather-related hazards and disasters

Hurricanes, coastal storms Flooding, blizzards, tornados Extreme heat, cold, drought
Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions Slope hazards: landslides, avalanches Support hazards: sinkholes, subsidence, liquefaction

Geologic hazards and disasters

Wildfire hazards

Weve seen our share in the last decade, the last year, the last month, the last week

This year:

Northeast flooding from Hurricane Irene, South/Mid-Atlantic flooding from TS Lee Texas drought and wildfires Midwest spring flooding; Killer tornadoes, Joplin, Midwest Japanese earthquake, tsunami Massive winter blizzards in U.S.; Record January floods in Australia, Brazil

Last 2 years:

2010 Haitian earthquake (316,000 dead); major earthquakes in Chile, Turkey, New Zealand (2010, 2011), China (2009) 2010 Pakistan floods: 1600 dead, 6 million displaced; 2010 Russian drought, heat wave, wildfires 2010 Tennessee floods, 2009 Atlanta flood; 2009 California wildfires

Last decade:

2004 Sumatran tsunami (230,000 dead among the top ten deadliest natural disasters of all time 2005 Katrina, 2008 Ike, 2004 Florida hurricanes among most damaging hurricanes in U.S. 2003 Extreme heat in Europe kills 40,000

Midwest floods May, June 2011

Nebraska nuclear power plants threatened by floods

2011: most deadly tornado season in U.S. Joplin, Missouri, Tornado

Japanese earthquake and tsunami

Chicago snow in February

Connecticut snow in January

2011 Australia Flooding

2011 Brazil Floods and Landslides

2010 Haitian Earthquake

2004 Tsunami, Banda Aceh, Sumatra, Indonesia

California wildfires 2009

2009 China Earthquake

Extreme Weather: Florida 2004

The vast majority of that destruction has been inflicted on Florida, whose miseries began August 13, when Hurricane Charley slammed into Punta Gordaabout 70 miles (113 kilometers) south of Tampawith winds of 145 miles an hour. Charley's wind speeds made it a Category 4. Hurricane Frances, a Category 2 hurricane, came next, striking on Labor Day weekend. Then came Hurricane Ivan, at one point, one of the most fearsome storms on record. Ivan had winds of 165 miles an hour as it rolled across the Caribbean. Ivan lost strength before making landfall near Mobile, Alabama, but the hurricane's front right quadrantwhich always packs the most powerful punchslammed into Pensacola, Florida. Finally, Hurricane Jeanne was the 4th .
Florida damages: Charley: $7B Frances: $6B Ivan: $35B Jeanne: $8B Total: $56B Loss of life: 100 dead

Punta Gordo In path of Hurricane Charley

Main Street, Salem, September 28, 2004

Reserve Avenue, Roanoke, September 28, 2004

2005: Hurricane Katrina-> 1800 dead

Katrinas damage to Biloxi, Mississippi

What Went Wrong with Katrina?

(Wall Street Journal (9/6/05)

Some reasons why the U.S. didnt adequately protect and rescue its citizens from a natural disaster

The absorption of the Federal Emergency Management Agency into the gargantuan--and terror-focusedDepartment of Homeland Security A military stretched by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which made commanders reluctant to commit some active duty units nearby A total breakdown in communications systems Missteps at the local level, including a rudimentary plan to deal with hurricanes A failure to plan for the possibility that New Orleans levee system would fail.

What should we have done? What should we do next time?

Contingency Planning? Emergency Response? Mobilization? Land Use Planning? Education? Reconstruction? Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning?

Natural Hazards/Disasters

What type of problem is this?

Ethical? Social? Population? Economic? Political? Technical? Legal? Regulatory? Planning?

Natural Hazard/Disaster Mitigation

Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning Flooding Hazard Mitigation

Structural measures Flood Plain Management Structural measures Smart coastal development practices Support Problems: Karst, Sudsidence, Stability Slope Problems: Stability, Landslides, Avalanches Seismic Problems: Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes

Hurricanes and Coastal Flooding

Geologic Hazard Mitigation

Wildfire

Hazard, Exposure, Vulnerability, and Risk

Hazard is the inherent danger associated with a potential problem, such as an earthquake or avalanche.

Exposure is the human population, ecological resource, or property exposed to the hazard.
Vulnerability is the unprotected nature of the exposure. Vulnerability can be reduced by engineering design (e.g., flood-proofing, earthquake resistant design). Risk is the probable degree of injury and damage likely to occur from exposure of people and property to the hazard over a specific time period. Risk analysis involves combining (or overlaying as maps) assessment of relative hazard, exposure, and vulnerability, as well as analyzing the probability of occurrence.

Do we rebuild, how do we rebuild New Orleans?

Hierarchy of Environmental Impact Mitigation Strategies

Emergency Response (contingency planning for emergency disaster response) Avoid the impact (move away altogether)

Lessen the impact by modifying location on site (move away to lesser impact area)
Lessen the impact by modifying design (apply engineering or design features) Offset the impact (compensate for the impact by monetary relief, reconstruction, or re-creation)

Disaster Response Planning

We wont be able to prevent or mitigate all natural hazards Contingency Planning:What do we do if.. planning Worst Case Scenarios:

think the unthinkable because it might happen assess the probability and risk education predictive models warning systems monitoring resources for response: $$, supplies, manpower communication mobilization

Emergency Preparedness:

Emergency Response:

Are some disasters so great we cannot anticipate them?

Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning

Identify Objectives Assess situation: Hazard and risk assessment Develop mitigation alternatives: Assess options and formulate Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan: Implement the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Evaluate the Mitigation Plan during and after each natural hazard event

Flooding
Near Buena Vista, Virginia, June 1995

Victory Stadium, Roanoke, September 28, 2004

Approaches to Flood Hazard Mitigation

Structural Measures:

Guide flood waters by building levees, flood walls, channel enlargement (flood protection); Lessen flood waters (peak discharge) through upland runoff control measures including detention (dams and reservoirs) (flood abatement); Adjust site characteristics by elevating sites with fill material; Adjust building characteristics by elevating and floodproofing structures and related infrastructure. Do nothing; Provide emergency preparedness measures such as flood warnings; Provide emergency response Provide relief, through private and federal disaster assistance; Provide affordable insurance for flood damages; Provide information, such as maps of flood plains and general information about flood risks and safe flood plain building practices; Adjust future land use by flood plain planning, vacant land acquisition, and regulatory zoning; Adjust existing land use by acquiring and relocating buildings.

Non-structural Measures:

 The floodway is a fairly narrow area close to the stream that must remain
open so that flood waters can pass through. The floodway fringe is the area within the 1% (100-yr) flood plain that can be subject to encroachment or filling without causing more than a one-foot surcharge in the height of the 1% (100-yr) flood carried by the floodway.
Floodway Fringe

Floodway

Floodway Fringe

FEMA rules for floodplain development under the National Flood Insurance Program:

http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/fhamr.shtm The regulatory floodway, which is adopted into the community's floodplain management ordinance, is the stream channel plus that portion of the overbanks that must be kept free from encroachment in order to discharge the 1-percent-annual-chance flood without increasing flood levels by more than 1.0 foot The intention of the floodway is not to preclude development. Rather, it is intended to assist communities in prudently and soundly managing floodplain development and prevent additional damages to other property owners. The community is responsible for prohibiting encroachments, including fill, new construction, and substantial improvements, within the floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that the proposed encroachment will not increase flood levels within the community. In areas that fall within the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain, but are outside the floodway (termed the "floodway fringe"), development will, by definition, cause no more than a 1.0foot increase in the 1-percent-annual-chance water-surface elevation. Floodplain management through the use of the floodway concept is effective because it allows communities to develop in floodprone areas if they so choose, but limits the future increases of flood hazards to no more than 1.0 foot.

Flood Plain Zoning using a Floodway Fringe District

Code of Blacksburg
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10159&sid=46 Section 3248 and 3231-32, 3234: In the Floodway, Flood Fringe, and Approximated Floodplain, no development shall be permitted except where the effect of such development on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements which have been approved by all appropriate authorities as required above. Creek Overlay District for Toms and Stroubles Creeks and Slate Branch:

1)

2) 3)

All areas of 25% or greater slopes adjacent to the flood plain, or if no flood plain is present, 25% or greater slopes that begin within 50 feet of the creek channel; All wetlands contiguous to lands described above; All the land within a corridor defined by a boundary line which is 50 feet from the center line of the creek, provided this land is not included in the Creek Valley Overlay as a result of 1 or 2 above.

Flood Hazard Boundary Map

Flood Insurance Rate Map

Limits of FEMA-guided Flood Plain Management

Controls new development only Limits restrictions in Floodway only False sense of security for Floodway Fringe and elevations >100 year flood level Actually encourages development in sensitive riparian zone in Floodway Fringe

Coastal Hazards

Number of Category 3 or higher Hurricanes by County, 1980-2005

Hurricane Andrew in Florida

Coastal Flood Zones

Conventional and Alternative Shoreline Lot Layouts

Geologic Hazards

Slope Stability

Falls, Slides, Slumps, FlowsLandslides Inherant and Superimposed Factors

Support Problems

Settlement Subsidence Karst

Earthquakes Volcanic eruptions

Seismic Problems

Relative Landslide Risk in U.S.

2005 La Conchita Landslide, Ventura County, CA, killed 10

Mapping Slope Stability

Three factors: % Slope = 100 x V/H (from slope analysis) Landslide Inventory shows presence of Landslide Deposits (from aerial photos) Underlying geology shows unconsolidated, weak, or fractured materials (from geologic map)

Relative Slope Stability

1. Stable: Areas of 0-5% slope that are not underlain by landslide deposits. 2. Generally Stable: Areas of 5-15% slope that are not underlain by landslide deposits. 3. Generally Stable To Marginally Stable: Areas of greater than 15% slope that are not underlain by landslide deposits or bedrock units susceptible to landsliding. 4. Moderately Unstable: Areas of greater than 15% slope that are underlain by bedrock units susceptible to landsliding but not underlain by landslide deposits. 5. Unstable: Areas of any slope that are underlain by or immediately adjacent to landslide deposits.

Landslide Hazard Map, Seattle

Support Problems

Settlement: weak soils Subsidence: removal of support material

Fluids: groundwater, crude oil, natural gas Mined materials: coal, other minerals Sinkholes Avenues for groundwater contamination

Karst: solution carbonate rock geology

Areas of Karst Terrain

Karst, Sinkholes, and Groundwater

Sinkhole Collapse Risk Map

Earthquake Hazards

Earthquake Hazards

Fault displacement Ground shaking: extends far beyond the epicenter; depends on underlying materials: e.g., hard rock has less shaking than clay muds Ground failure: e.g., landslides, liquefaction Indirect hazards: e.g., ruptured lines, fire Critical facilities: e.g., stadiums, hazardous facilities, power plants

Effect of underlying geology: 1989 SF Bay Area earthquake

Mapping Earthquake Hazard

Californias Increasingly Stringent Seismic Building Codes

The Safe Growth Audit

a natural hazard assessment tool for local governments

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Land Use

Does the future land-use map clearly identify natural-hazard areas? Do the land-use policies discourage development/redevelopment within hazard areas? Does the plan provide space for future growth in areas outside of natural-hazard areas?

Transportation Environmental Management Public Safety

ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE POLICIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)

Limitations of Building Codes

Nelson and French, 2002

Reduce vulnerability to hazard up to a certain magnitude; disasters exceeding this magnitude can be catastrophic False sense of security resulting in more development, increasing exposure and risk Increased development in related hazard lands (e.g.slopes) increasing risk of collateral damage

Limitations of Comprehensive Plans

Often lack adequate factual information Often lack strong policies based on facts Often are less restrictive than should be because of fear of losing fiscal benefits of growth and development Federal policies for disaster relief and aid for reconstruction bale out communities with weak plans

More Effective Hazard Mitigation

Retrofitting older homes to current standards Comprehensive plans can be effective at mitigating hazards if they contain high quality elements (factual info, goals, policies, public awareness) and effective implementation

Consistently effective quality and implementation depends on local planning in conjunction with state/regional/federal mandates and enforcement

Planning Mandates

Without state/regional mandates, local governments are usually ineffective in preserving natural resources, containing sprawl, improving infrastructure delivery, and mitigating natural hazards Planning mandates stimulate land analysis Implementation of mandates varies considerably and depends on state/regional oversight and enforcement

Wildfire Hazard

Evolution of Fire Management:

Moving from Suppression (Put it Out!) to Ecological Restoration (Let it burn.)

Dominant culture is suppression and militaristic approach to combating fire at all costs (even the death of fire fighters) Disturbance ecology indicates that fire is part of the natural system and that by suppressing fire we create conditions for more devastating fires Fire Learning Networks across the U.S. sponsored by the Forest Service and The Nature Conservancy are trying to change the culture of fire management to prescribed burning, selective control of wildfires, land use management to keep development out of harms way, and letting most fires burn. Live with nature, respect it, be smart, because we cannot control it.

Schwabs Lessons for Hazard Mitigation Planning

Act before a disaster. Foster patience, monitoring, and continuing evaluation. Be strategic and opportunistic. Nurture champions within planning staffs, elected officials, and the community Develop the political necessary for implementation. Account for stakeholder values in light of hazard mitigation. Emphasize multiple-objective planning to integrate hazard mitigation with other community sustainability goals Evaluate opportunities in the comprehensive plan for density reallocation. Emulate the green building trend, fostering a safe building trend. Communicate and educate risks and hazards. Quantify mitigation benefits in economic, environmental and social metrics. Above all, aim for resilience.