DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Project HMPC Meeting #2 – Risk Assessment Four Phases of Emergency Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Project HMPC Meeting #2 – Risk Assessment Four Phases of Emergency Management Placer County Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Project HMPC Meeting #2 – Risk Assessment Four Phases of Emergency Management Prevention/ Preparedness Mitigation Recovery Response Hazard Mitigation Mitigation Defined: Any SUSTAINED action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life, property and the environment from hazards Effective mitigation efforts can break the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage Benefits of Hazard Mitigation Planning Eligibility for FEMA pre- and post-disaster funding Opportunity for interagency collaboration – building mitigation partners Integration and linking of hazard mitigation principals and policies Engagement and education of public and private stakeholders Identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing potential risk reduction measures Reduce damages, minimize post-disaster disruptions, Speed recovery when disasters occur Promote long-term resilience! FEMA’s 4-Phase-10 Step DMA/CRS Planning Process Phase I: Organize Resources Phase III: Mitigation Strategy 1) Get organized 6) Set planning goals 2) Plan for public involvement 7) Review mitigation alternatives 3) Coordinate with other 8) Draft and action plan departments and agencies Phase IV: Adoption and Phase II: Risk Assessment Implementation 4) Identify the hazard(s) 9) Adopt the plan 5) Assess the risks 10) Implement the plan, evaluate Capability Assessment its worth, and revise as needed Phase II: Risk Assessment Three Components 4) Hazard Identification (what can happen here?) 5) Vulnerability Assessment (what will be affected?) Capability Assessment (how prepared are we?) Placer County Geographic Extents Placer County Jurisdiction Total % of Improved % of Total Unimproved % of Total Planning Area Acres Total Acres Improved Acres Unimproved Acres* Acres* Acres* Auburn 4,517 0.50% 1,922 1.07% 2,596 0.36% Colfax 794 0.09% 347 0.19% 447 0.06% Lincoln 15,267 1.70% 5,106 2.84% 10,161 1.41% by Jurisdiction Loomis 4,561 0.51% 3,246 1.80% 1,315 0.18% Rocklin 12,524 1.39% 5,743 3.19% 6,781 0.94% Unincorporated Placer County 861,501 95.81% 163,706 90.91% 697,795 97.04% Grand Total 899,164 100.00% 180,070 100.00% 719,094 100.00% Placer County Total Values at Risk Total Parcel Count Improved Total Land Value Improved Structure Estimated Contents Total Value Parcel Count Value Value Placer County Auburn 6,490 5,180 $648,497,133 $1,548,994,382 $908,323,171 $3,105,814,686 Planning Area Colfax 988 711 $64,997,967 $152,168,583 $104,699,837 $321,866,387 Lincoln 21,821 18,706 $2,431,202,724 $6,444,481,445 $3,560,063,139 $12,435,747,308 Loomis 2,995 2,552 $409,549,357 $818,568,036 $502,038,115 $1,730,155,508 Total Exposure Rocklin 23,657 21,009 $3,105,707,112 $8,167,173,274 $4,840,152,035 $16,113,032,421 by Jurisdiction Unincorporated 73,256 53,577 $12,506,552,035 $22,281,383,505 $12,220,563,685 $47,008,499,225 Placer County Total 129,207 101,735 $19,166,506,328 $39,412,769,225 $22,135,839,982 $80,715,115,535 Roseville 53,151 46,941 $6,576,698,043 $19,138,442,463 $12,518,871,465 $38,234,011,971 Grand Total 182,358 148,676 $25,743,204,371 $58,551,211,688 $34,654,711,447 $118,949,127,506 Placer County Total Values at Risk Unincorporated Property Use Total Improved Total Land Value Improved Structure Estimated Contents Total Value Parcel Parcel Count Value Value Placer County Count Agricultural 1,329 267 $395,087,021 $61,249,725 $61,249,725 $517,586,471 Total Exposure Commercial 1,533 951 $524,860,676 $793,192,976 $793,192,976 $2,111,246,628 by Property Industrial 704 354 $234,494,247 $389,232,140 $583,848,214 $1,207,574,601 Use Institutional 696 113 $50,761,281 $274,504,591 $274,504,591 $599,770,463 Miscellaneous 10,728 240 $596,937,975 $34,285,408 $34,285,408 $665,508,791 Natural / Open Space 2,520 458 $193,888,774 $218,046,988 $218,046,988 $629,982,750 Residential 55,746 51,194 $10,510,522,061 $20,510,871,677 $10,255,435,783 $41,276,829,521 Unincorporated Placer 73,256 53,577 $12,506,552,035 $22,281,383,505 $12,220,563,685 $47,008,499,225 County Total Critical Facility Definition Critical facilities are often defined as those essential services and facilities in a major emergency which, if damaged, would result in severe consequences to public health and safety or a facility which, if unusable or unreachable because of a major emergency, would seriously and adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Volume II of the Background Report to the Placer County General Plan, 1994 defines critical facilities as, “those services and facilities necessary during a major emergency.” This definition was refined by separating out three categories of critical facilities. Class 1 facilities include those facilities that contribute to command, control, communications and computer capabilities associated with managing an incident from initial response through recovery. Class 2 facilities include those facilities that house Emergency Services capabilities. Class 3 facilities are those facilities that enable key utilities and can be used as evacuation centers/shelters/mass prophylaxis sites, etc. Hazard Identification Pandemic Agriculture Hazard Seiche Avalanche Climate Change Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Dam Failure Severe Weather: Freeze and Snow Drought and Water Shortage Severe Weather: Heavy Rains and Earthquake Storms (hail, lightning) Flood: 1%/0.2% annual chance Severe Weather: High Winds and Flood: Localized/Stormwater Tornadoes Landslide, Mudslide, and Debris Flow Tree Mortality Levee Failure Wildfire Disaster Declaration History Placer County received 22 federal and 25 state declarations since 1950: Of the 22 federal declarations: 13 – Severe winter storms, heavy rains, flooding 1 – Dam 1 – Drought 1 – Freeze 1– Pandemic This included 2 state and federal declarations 1 – Hurricane Katrina since the 2016 LHMP: 1 - 2017 Flood 6 – Wildfire 1 - 2020 Pandemic Of the 25 state declarations: 16 – Severe winter storms, heavy rains, flooding 1 – Drought 1 – Wildfire 1 – Economic Disaster 1 – Pandemic 5 – Wildfire Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Placer Month Record High Date Month Record Date High Record High January 81° 1/9/1962 July 113° 7/15/1972 Temperatures February 78° 2/20/1964 August 111° 8/10/1978 March 93° 3/11/1910 September 109° 9/3/1950 (western April 90° 4/25/1910 October 100° 10/6/1913 Placer) May 102° 5/31/1910 November 89° 11/1/1965 June 110° 6/16/1961 December 85° 12/6/1913 Month Record High Date Month Record Date (eastern High January 59° 1/10/1990 July 93° 7/20/1931 Placer) February 60° 2/17/1985 August 94° 8/15/1933 March 67° 3/27/1988 September 87° 9/3/1931 April 74° 4/30/1981 October 80° 10/3/1933 May 89° 5/30/1910 November 70° 11/6/1988 June 90° 6/22/1961 December 60° 12/10/1990 Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Placer NCDC Extreme Event Type Number of Deaths Injuries Property Crop Damage Deaths Injuries Heat Events Events Damage (indirect) (indirect) (1950-2020) Excessive Heat 5 61 $0 $00 2 Heat 27 0 3 $0 $01 1 Total 32 6 4 $0 $01 3 Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Placer Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) California Tier 2 and Tier 3 Communities PSPS EOC Activations 2018 – 2 PSPS (Oct, Nov) 2019 – 7 PSPS (Sept – 2, Oct – 4, Nov – 1) 2020 – 5 PSPS (Sept – 2, Oct – 2) Severe Weather: Freeze and Snow Placer County Month Record Low Date Month Record Low Date January 20° 1/6/1913 July 41° 7/4/1948 Record Low February 21° 2/27/1962 August 35° 8/25/2004 Temperatures March 25° 3/1/1971 September 34° 9/15/1906 April 30° 4/20/1912 October 30° 10/19/1949 (western May 32° 5/6/1912 November 24° 11/24/2010 Placer) June 30° 6/26/1905 December 16° 12/9/1972 According to the WRCC, average snowfall on the western side of the County is 1.4 inches Month Record Low Date Month Record Low Date (eastern January -14° 1/9/1937 July 22° 7/1/1975 Placer) February -15° 2/7/1989 August 28° 8/30/1912 March -6° 3/10/1935 September 21° 9/30/1950 April 5° 4/12/1911 October 9° 10/28/1971 May 9° 5/18/1974 November -1° 11/23/1931 June 24° 6/1/1955 December -16° 12/11/1972 According to the WRCC, average snowfall on the eastern side of the County is 190.7 inches Severe Weather: Freeze and Snow Placer NCDC Freeze Event Type Number of Deaths Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage Deaths Injuries Events (indirect) (indirect) and Snow Blizzard 4 0 0 $30,000 $0 0 1 Events Cold/Wind Chill 19 1 0 $0 $02 8 (1996-2020) Extreme Cold/Wind Chill 1 00 $0 $00 0 Frost/Freeze 9 0 0 $200,000 $5,000,000 0 0 Heavy Snow 633 2 6 $1,675,000 $0 1 3 Winter Storm 154 2 3 $265,000 $0 1 1 Winter Weather 93 4 0 $10,000 $0 0 2 Total 913 9 9 $2,180,000 $5,000,000 4 15 Severe Weather: Heavy Rain and Storms Placer Disaster Type Federal Declarations State Declarations Disaster Count Years Count Years Declarations Flood (including 16 1950, 1955, 1958 13 1955, 1958, 1962, heavy rains and (twice), 1962, 1963, 1964, 1969, 1983, (1950 – 2020) storms) 1969, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1995 (twice), 1983, 1986, 1995 1997, 2006 (twice), (twice), 1997, 2008, 2017 2017 NCDC Heavy Event Type Number of Deaths Injuries Property Crop Deaths Injuries Rain and Storm Events Damage Damage (indirect) (indirect) Events Hail 9 0 0 $1,000 $0 0 0 (1950 –5/2020) Heavy Rain 59 2 0 $10,000 $0 0 0 Total 68 2 0 $11,000 $0 0 0 Severe Weather: Heavy Rain and Storms/ Flood California’s Mega ARkStorm Hazardous Materials Facilities – include, without limitation, (1000-yr any facility that could, if adversely impacted, release of Storm) hazardous material(s) in sufficient amounts during a hazard event that would create harm to people, the environment and property.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Arkstorm Scenario: California's Other "Big One"
    The San Bernardino County Museum Guest Lecture Series The ARkStorm Scenario: California’s other “Big One” Lucy Jones • U. S. Geological Survey Wednesday, January 25, 2012 • 7:30pm • Free Admission Landslides and debris flows. Coastal innundation and flooding. Infrastructure damage. Pollution. Dr. Lucy Jones will give an overview of the ARkStorm Scenario—catastrophic flooding resulting from a month-long deluge like was seen in 1862, and four larger such events in the past 100 years. This type of storm, resulting from atmospheric rivers of moisture, is plausible, and a smaller version hit San Bernardino in December of 2010 with a week’s worth of rain that impacted Highland and the surrounding communities. The ARkStorm Scenario explores the resulting impacts to our social structure and can be used to understand how California’s “other” Big One can be more expensive than a large San Andreas earthquake. Dr. Lucy Jones has been a seismologist with the US Geological Survey and a Visiting Research Associate at the Seismological Laboratory of Caltech since 1983. She currently serves as the Science Advisor for the Natural Hazards Mission of the US Geological Survey, leading the long-term science planning for natural hazards research. She also leads the SAFRR Project: Science Application for Risk Reduction to apply USGS science to reduce risk in communities across the nation. Dr. Jones has written more than 90 papers on research seismology with primary interest in the physics of earthquakes, foreshocks, and earthquake hazard assessment, especially in southern California. She serves on the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council and was a Commissioner of the California Seismic Safety Commission from 2002 to 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Hurricane Flooding
    ATM 10 Severe and Unusual Weather Prof. Richard Grotjahn L 18/19 http://canvas.ucdavis.edu Lecture 18 topics: • Hurricanes – what is a hurricane – what conditions favor their formation? – what is the internal hurricane structure? – where do they occur? – why are they important? – when are those conditions met? – what are they called? – What are their life stages? – What does the ranking mean? – What causes the damage? Time lapse of the – (Reading) Some notorious storms 2005 Hurricane Season – How to stay safe? Note the water temperature • Video clips (colors) change behind hurricanes (black tracks) (Hurricane-2005_summer_clouds-SST.mpg) Reading: Notorious Storms • Atlantic hurricanes are referred to by name. – Why? • Notorious storms have their name ‘retired’ © AFP Notorious storms: progress and setbacks • August-September 1900 Galveston, Texas: 8,000 dead, the deadliest in U.S. history. • September 1906 Hong Kong: 10,000 dead. • September 1928 South Florida: 1,836 dead. • September 1959 Central Japan: 4,466 dead. • August 1969 Hurricane Camille, Southeast U.S.: 256 dead. • November 1970 Bangladesh: 300,000 dead. • April 1991 Bangladesh: 70,000 dead. • August 1992 Hurricane Andrew, Florida and Louisiana: 24 dead, $25 billion in damage. • October/November 1998 Hurricane Mitch, Honduras: ~20,000 dead. • August 2005 Hurricane Katrina, FL, AL, MS, LA: >1800 dead, >$133 billion in damage • May 2008 Tropical Cyclone Nargis, Burma (Myanmar): >146,000 dead. Some Notorious (Atlantic) Storms Tracks • Camille • Gilbert • Mitch • Andrew • Not shown: – 2004 season (Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne) – Katrina (Wilma & Rita) (2005) – Sandy (2012), Harvey (2017), Florence & Michael (2018) Hurricane Camille • 14-19 August 1969 • Category 5 at landfall – for 24 hours – peak winds 165 kts (190mph @ landfall) – winds >155kts for 18 hrs – min SLP 905 mb (26.73”) – 143 perished along gulf coast, – another 113 in Virginia Hurricane Andrew • 23-26 August 1992 • Category 5 at landfall • first Category 5 to hit US since Camille • affected S.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation
    Severe Weather in North America Peter Hoeppe, Head Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Centre, Munich Re ECSS 2013, Helsinki, June 3, 2013 US Insurance Survey April 2013 Participants: 81 CEOs of US Primary Insurers What are the 3 most critical issues facing the primary insurance industry today? Issue Rank Low interest rates and capital market returns 1st (64%) Natural catastrophes/weather events 2nd (51%) Price competition 3rd (43%) Multiple responses allowed. Does not add to 100%. MR NatCatSERVICE The world‘s largest database on natural catastrophes The Database Today . From 1980 until today all loss events; for USA and selected countries in Europe all loss events since 1970. Retrospectively, all great disasters since 1950. In addition, all major historical events starting from 79 AD – eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (3,000 historical data sets). Currently more than 32,000 data sets 3 NatCatSERVICE Weather catastrophes worldwide 1980 – 2012 Percentage distribution – ordered by continent 18,200 Loss events 1,405,000 Fatalities 4% <1% 1% 8% 25% 11% 30% 41% 6% 43% 9% 22% Overall losses* US$ 2,800bn Insured losses* US$ 855bn 3% 3% 9% 31% 46% 18% 1% 16% 70% 3% *in 2012 values *in 2012 values Africa Asia Australia/Oceania Europe North America, South America incl. Central America and Caribbean © 2013 Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, Geo Risks Research, NatCatSERVICE – As at January 2013 Global Natural Catastrophe Update Natural catastrophes worldwide 2012 Insured losses US$ 65bn - Percentage distribution per continent 5% 91% <3% <1% <1% Continent
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing
    Constructing Mimi Hughes (NOAA), Tapash Das (SIO), Dale Cox (USGS) Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project • Fire / Debris Flow 2007 Post Fire Coordination • Earthquake / Tsunami Earthquake Scenario • Winter Storm Winter Storm Scenario • Information Interface Community Interface, Implementation, Tools and Training The Great Southern California ShakeOut • A week-long series of events to inspire southern Californians to improve their earthquake resiliency; >6 million participants • Based on a scenario of a major southern San Andreas earthquake designed by the USGS for California Office of Homeland Security’s Golden Guardian exercise, Nov 2008, Oct 2009, Oct 2010, … • December 24, 1861 through Jan 21, 1862: nearly unbroken rains • Central Valley flooding over about 300 mi long, 12 – 60 mi wide • Most of LA basin reported as “generally inundated” • San Gabriel & San Diego Rivers cut new paths to sea • 420% of normal-January precipitation in Sacramento in Jan 1862 • 300% of normal-January precipitation fell in K Street Sacramento, looking east San Diego in Jan 1862 • No way of knowing how intense the rains were, but they were exceptionally large in total and prolonged. • Implication: Prolonged storm episodes are a plausible mechanism for winter-storm disaster conditions in California • Implication: A combined NorCal+SoCal extreme event is plausible. 12 days separated the flood crest in Sacramento from the crest in Los Angeles in Jan 1862 Generating the scenario details Weather Research & Forecasting (WRF) model’s nested grids Mimi Hughes, NOAA/ESRL,V at the helm From James Done, NCAR ARkStorm Precipitation Totals Daily Precipitation at three locations 6” 20” 20” Percentage of ARkStorm period spent below freezing Ratio of VIC-simulated ARkStorm Runoff vs Historical Periods (1969, 1986) Runoff Maximum Daily Runoff Total Runoff Recurrence Intervals of Maximum 3-day Runoff (relative to WY1916-2003 Historical Simulation) Summary of ARkStorm Meteorological Events Percentage of ARkStorm period spent below freezing.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkstorm Emergency Planning Exercise for the Santa Clara River Basin
    ArKStorm Emergency Planning Exercise for the Santa Clara River Basin What is ArKStorm What ArKStorm is Not ArKStorm is a planning exercise that tests ArKStorm is not the 1% annual chance the effectiveness of current emergency (100-year) storm. It does not model the response practices of the County, 100-year flow and does not simulate the participating cities, and local service 500-year flow. providers, during a significant storm event. ArKStorm is a training exercise for ArKStorm is not intended to be used by response personnel and teams to be better FEMA or the local communities to develop prepared in the event of a major flood. new floodplain mapping, new flood zones, or new base flood elevations. ArKStorm is a storm simulation created by ArKStorm is not intended to be used to USGS based on observed rainfall from the identify new properties that require flood January 1969 and February 1986 storms in insurance nor will it be used to set new California that when combined, result in flood insurance rates. what is being called the ArKStorm. ArKStorm assesses potential flood risk The anticipated flooding impacts from the within the Santa Clara River basin and ArKStorm will not be as devastating in presents that risk through a number of Ventura County as will be experienced event scenarios that are likely to occur elsewhere in California (Los Angeles and during a major storm. Orange counties, Central Valley). Ventura County is generally situated at the fringe of the storms. ArKStorm is a risk assessment tool that can be used to identify community infrastructure (examples: bridges, railroads, gas lines) and critical facilities (examples: sewage treatment plant, hospitals) that are likely to be affected by flood-related impacts and so that local emergency response providers have a better understanding of where to focus their attention and allocate resources prior to, during and after a major storm.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracking an Atmospheric River in a Warmer Climate: from Water Vapor to Economic Impacts
    Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 249–266, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-249-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Tracking an atmospheric river in a warmer climate: from water vapor to economic impacts Francina Dominguez1, Sandy Dall’erba2, Shuyi Huang3, Andre Avelino2, Ali Mehran4, Huancui Hu1, Arthur Schmidt3, Lawrence Schick5, and Dennis Lettenmaier4 1Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 2Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 3Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 4Department of Geography, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA 5US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, USA Correspondence: Francina Dominguez ([email protected]) Received: 16 June 2017 – Discussion started: 26 June 2017 Revised: 24 October 2017 – Accepted: 13 January 2018 – Published: 16 March 2018 Abstract. Atmospheric rivers (ARs) account for more than 75 % of heavy precipitation events and nearly all of the extreme flooding events along the Olympic Mountains and western Cascade Mountains of western Washing- ton state. In a warmer climate, ARs in this region are projected to become more frequent and intense, primarily due to increases in atmospheric water vapor. However, it is unclear how the changes in water vapor transport will affect regional flooding and associated economic impacts. In this work we present an integrated model- ing system to quantify the atmospheric–hydrologic–hydraulic and economic impacts of the December 2007 AR event that impacted the Chehalis River basin in western Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Increasing Precipitation Volatility in Twenty-First-Century California
    ARTICLES https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0140-y Increasing precipitation volatility in twenty-first- century California Daniel L. Swain 1,2*, Baird Langenbrunner3,4, J. David Neelin3 and Alex Hall3 Mediterranean climate regimes are particularly susceptible to rapid shifts between drought and flood—of which, California’s rapid transition from record multi-year dryness between 2012 and 2016 to extreme wetness during the 2016–2017 winter pro- vides a dramatic example. Projected future changes in such dry-to-wet events, however, remain inadequately quantified, which we investigate here using the Community Earth System Model Large Ensemble of climate model simulations. Anthropogenic forcing is found to yield large twenty-first-century increases in the frequency of wet extremes, including a more than threefold increase in sub-seasonal events comparable to California’s ‘Great Flood of 1862’. Smaller but statistically robust increases in dry extremes are also apparent. As a consequence, a 25% to 100% increase in extreme dry-to-wet precipitation events is pro- jected, despite only modest changes in mean precipitation. Such hydrological cycle intensification would seriously challenge California’s existing water storage, conveyance and flood control infrastructure. editerranean climate regimes are renowned for their dis- however, has suggested an increased likelihood of wet years20–23 tinctively dry summers and relatively wet winters—a glob- and subsequent flood risk9,24 in California—which is consistent ally unusual combination1. Such climates generally occur with broader theoretical and model-based findings regarding the M 25 near the poleward fringe of descending air in the subtropics, where tendency towards increasing precipitation intensity in a warmer semi-permanent high-pressure systems bring stable conditions dur- (and therefore moister) atmosphere26,27.
    [Show full text]
  • Disaster Risk Financing a Global Survey of Practices and Challenges
    Disaster Risk Financing A GLOBAL SURVEY OF PraCTICES AND CHALLENGES Contents Executive summary Chapter 1. Financial management of disaster risks Disaster Risk Financing Chapter 2. Assessment of disaster risks, financial vulnerabilities and the impact of disasters A GLOBAL SURVEY OF PraCTICES Chapter 3. Private disaster risk financing tools and markets and the need for financial preparedness AND CHALLENGES Chapter 4. Government compensation, financial assistance arrangements and sovereign risk financing strategies Chapter 5. Key priorities for strengthening financial resilience Disaster Risk Financing Financing Risk Disaster A GLOB A L SU R VEY O F P ra CTICES A N D CH A LLENGES Consult this publication on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264234246-en. This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases. Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org for more information. ISBN 978-92-64-23423-9 21 2015 02 1 P Disaster Risk Financing A GLOBAL SURVEY OF PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Please cite this publication as: OECD (2015), Disaster Risk Financing: A global survey of practices and challenges, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264234246-en ISBN 978-92-64-23423-9 (print) ISBN 978-92-64-23424-6 (PDF) The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergence of the Concept of Atmospheric Rivers
    Emergence of the Concept of Atmospheric Rivers F. Martin Ralph UC San Diego/Scripps Institution of Oceanography International Atmospheric Rivers Conference (IARC) Keynote Presentation 8 August 2016, La Jolla, CA Outline Purpose: Describe major milestones in development of the AR concept • 1970s and 1980s: Underlying concepts established • 1990s: Global perspectives lead to the term “atmospheric river” (AR) • 2000s: U.S. West Coast experiments, forecasts and practical goals focus on ARs • 2010-2015: The concept matures, science and practical applications grow • 2016 and beyond: A diverse community exists and is pursuing a range of promising science and application directions The low-level jet Browning described the LLJ in the region of the polar cold front as a cork-screw like motion that can advance warm moist air both poleward and upward Browning and Pardoe (1973-QJRMS) Slide courtesy of J. Cordeira Warm and Cold Conveyor Belt Concepts • 3D kinematic and thermodynamic Cold conveyor belt schematic • Warm conveyor belt – Ahead of cold front – Ascends over warm front – Represents sensible and latent heat Image adapted from Carlson (1980) Warm conveyor belt Slide courtesy of J. Cordeira Zhu & Newell (1998) concluded in a 3-year ECMWF model diagnostic study: 1) 95% of meridional water vapor flux occurs in narrow plumes in <10% of zonal circumference. 2) There are typically 3-5 of these narrow plumes within a hemisphere at any one moment. 3) They coined the term “atmospheric river” (AR) to reflect the narrow character of plumes. 4) ARs are very important from a global water cycle perspective. Atmospheric Rivers are responsible for 90 - 95% of the total global meridional water vapor transport at midlatitudes, and yet constitute <10% of the Earth’s circumference at those latitudes.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 7: Floods
    Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Section 7 – Floods City of Newport Beach, California SECTION 7: FLOODS Table of Contents Why Are Floods a Threat to the City of Newport Beach? ............................ 7-1 History of Flooding in the City of Newport Beach ............................................................... 7-3 Historic Flooding in Orange County .......................................................................................... 7-8 Historic Flooding in Southern California ................................................................................. 7-11 What Factors Create Flood Risk? ................................................................... 7-14 Climate ........................................................................................................................................... 7-14 Tides ................................................................................................................................................ 7-19 Geography and Geology .............................................................................................................. 7-20 Built Environment ......................................................................................................................... 7-21 How Are Flood-Prone Areas Identified? ....................................................... 7-21 Flood Mapping Methods and Techniques ................................................................................ 7-22 Flood Terminology ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ARKSTORM by the Venturathe by County the to Presentation February 7, 2013
    ARKSTORM EXERCISE IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE Public Public Agency Works Presentation to the Ventura River Watershed Council By the Ventura County Watershed Protection District February 7, 2013 Objectives of Today’s Presentation 1. ArkStorm Background 2. What is ArkStorm / What ArkStorm is Not 3. ArkStorm Tabletop Exercise Public Public Agency Works 4. Mechanics of the Tabletop Exercise What is ArkStorm? Ar - Imagine an Atmospheric River across the Pacific Ocean. k - It comes around only once every 1000 years. Storm - It lasts for 40 days and 40 nights. Public Public Agency Works ArkStorm: The Pineapple Express Public Public Agency Works Thursday, February 07, 2013 Slide 4 USGS ArkStorm Precipitation Model Public Public Agency Works Thursday, February 07, 2013 Slide 5 USGS ArkStorm Precipitation Model Public Public Agency Works Thursday, February 07, 2013 Department Title [change in footer] Slide 6 What is ArkStorm / What ArkStorm is Not What is ArkStorm? . A Tabletop exercise that tests the effectiveness of current emergency response practices during a major storm event. A storm simulation created by USGS base on observed Public Public Agency Works rainfall from Jan. 1969 and Feb. 1986 storms in California. County / City teams to develop actions to respond to flooding impacts on critical community facilities and infrastructure. What is ArkStorm / What ArkStorm is Not What ArkStorm is Not . Not to be used to develop new floodplain mapping, new flood zones, or new flood elevations. Not to be used to identify new properties that require flood Public Public Agency Works insurance. Not to be used to establish new flood insurance rates. ArkStorm Tabletop Exercise Objectives 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Quantification of an Extreme Winter Storm Scenario for Emergency Preparedness and Planning Exercises in California
    Nat Hazards (2012) 60:1085–1111 DOI 10.1007/s11069-011-9894-5 ORIGINAL PAPER Design and quantification of an extreme winter storm scenario for emergency preparedness and planning exercises in California Michael D. Dettinger • F. Martin Ralph • Mimi Hughes • Tapash Das • Paul Neiman • Dale Cox • Gary Estes • David Reynolds • Robert Hartman • Daniel Cayan • Lucy Jones Received: 14 March 2011 / Accepted: 1 July 2011 / Published online: 13 July 2011 Ó The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract The USGS Multihazards Project is working with numerous agencies to eval- uate and plan for hazards and damages that could be caused by extreme winter storms impacting California. Atmospheric and hydrological aspects of a hypothetical storm sce- nario have been quantified as a basis for estimation of human, infrastructure, economic, and environmental impacts for emergency-preparedness and flood-planning exercises. In order to ensure scientific defensibility and necessary levels of detail in the scenario description, selected historical storm episodes were concatentated to describe a rapid arrival of several major storms over the state, yielding precipitation totals and runoff rates beyond those occurring during the individual historical storms. This concatenation allowed the scenario designers to avoid arbitrary scalings and is based on historical occasions from the 19th and 20th Centuries when storms have stalled over the state and when extreme M. D. Dettinger (&) Á D. Cayan U.S. Geological Survey, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] F. Martin Ralph Á M. Hughes Á P. Neiman NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory/Physical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA T.
    [Show full text]