Resolution 2022-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Boulder Hazard Mitigation Plan Introduction with lodgepole pine, and mixed Ponderosa and Douglas fir forests as well as pockets of quaking aspen. The foothills display mountain mahogany shrublands while grasslands, wetlands, and riparian areas are scattered throughout the rest of the County. Boulder County exhibits the most condensed transition from plains to mountains of all the Front Range communities in Colorado, with only 15 miles of transition between the two environments (CNHP 2008). This increases the landslide risk for certain parts of the County, but also creates a large diversity of plant and animal species. The mountains in Boulder County include some of the oldest rock in Colorado, with Precambrian elements that date from 1,800-900 million years ago. Intricate fault lines and magma intrusions weave throughout these formations, and the uplift of the Rocky Mountains injected them with mineral rich ore that enticed White settlers into the area and contributed to a long tradition of extractive mining in the area. Besides precious metals, the ecological systems in Boulder County have provided resources to the Indigenous Tribes in the area, agricultural viability for early farmers, and now power a large tourism industry that includes hiking, camping, leaf watching, cycling, and skiing. 1.5.1 Social, Ecological, Technological Systems (SETS) Framework Natural hazards such as earthquakes, winter storms, wildfires, and even zoonotic diseases do not impact one jurisdiction, community or sector in isolation. Hazard impacts are wide ranging and felt at many scales, and response and recovery take many forms and require a variety of resources. Recognizing the diverse nature of hazard impacts across human, natural, and built environments, this document uses a social, ecological, and technological systems (SETS) framework to explore interconnections and identify co -existing risks and vulnerabilities within these systems. This framework is based on the understanding that past efforts to harden infrastructure and create robust systems have depended on an ability to control or prevent any level of disruption on infrastructure/technological systems from hazards. With increasing volatility from climate change and the inability to predict hazard occurrence or scales of return with confidence, hardening infrastructure and relying on engineered control has become maladaptive. In situations where technology is considered as the only system, engineered solutions can lock communities into fragile infrastructure design that cannot adapt to new hazards and risks. A glaring example of this is Houston. As the city has massively increased the amount of impervious surface coverage without regard for ecological systems, FEMA floodplain maps failed to account for 75% of insured losses between the years 1999 and 2009. In order to increase system flexibility, adaptive capacity, and long-term solutions creation, the SETS framework considers the intertwined nature of human, natural environment, and infrastructure systems. Examining the impacts that these systems have on one another and the ways in which they interact leads to increased ability to meet the demands of changing climate and increasing hazard impacts. This document uses the SETS framework throughout Section 4.0 in order to better analyze hazard profiles and functionally address the risks and vulnerabilities that community members, ecological systems, and the built environment have and will experience within Boulder County. For each hazard profile, consideration of social, ecological, and technological systems is included in each hazard profile. Likewise, vulnerability and risk assessments consider how interactions between these systems result in increased risk for certain populations.