Save for Title Page

4.16 Risk Assessment Summary

While the jurisdictional risk varied somewhat from the past plan, one fact remains; Valley is still at risk despite its efforts to mitigate natural hazards. Within Valley County and its participating jurisdictions, the hazard that has the highest number of disaster declarations for the county has been flooding. However, flooding has also had the highest number of mitigation actions, so one can recognize that the county is taking steps towards mitigating the impact and risk of flooding on the county.

This update identified 12 hazards as having a potential impact on the community. In taking a more in-depth look at each of the hazards and determining the frequency with which they occur, and calculating the impact and risk potential on the community, mitigation actions can be identified and prioritized accordingly. Of the 12 hazards in Valley County, the hazards with the highest impact potential are floods, and dam failure. These hazards are highly likely to occur in Valley County each year and have a high-risk potential for the community.
Through Valley County’s risk analysis, it was determined that the city of Glasgow has the highest number of moderate or high impact and risk analysis ratings compared to other cities in the county. Glasgow has a high impact and risk rating for dam failure, flood, and severe summer weather. It also has amoderate impact and risks analysis ratings for the structural fire, severe winter weather, wildfire, and hazardous material hazards. This is important information for mitigation actions and prioritizing Glasgow among the other cities in the county. A more detailed look at which hazards were at the High, Moderate, and Low-level prioritization can be seen below in table 72.

Table 72 shows the hazard prioritization for Valley County as a whole, while Tables 73 through 77 show the hazard prioritization for each individual city in Valley County including Glasgow, Fort Peck, Nashua, Opheim, and the unincorporated areas of Valley County.

Table 72: Valley County Hazard Prioritizations

Valley County Hazard Prioritizations
Level	Hazard
High	Flood Dam Failure
Moderate	Hazardous Material Severe Winter Weather Severe Summer Weather Structural Fire Wildfire
Low	Infectious Disease Subsidence Tornado Transportation Incidents Civil Disobedience

Table 73: City of Glasgow Hazard Prioritization

City Glasgow Hazard Prioritization
Level	Hazard
High	Flood Dam Failure Severe Summer Weather
Moderate	Hazardous Material Severe Winter Weather Structural Fire Wildfire
Low	Infectious Disease Subsidence Tornado Transportation Incidents Civil Disobedience

Table 74: City of Fort Peck Hazard Prioritization

City Fort Peck Hazard Prioritization
Level	Hazard
High	None
Moderate	Hazardous Material Dam Failure Structural Fire Severe Winter Weather Severe Summer Weather Wildfire
Low	Infectious Disease Subsidence Flood Tornado Transportation Incidents Civil Disobedience

Table 75: City of Nashua Hazard Prioritization

City Nashua Hazard Prioritization
Level	Hazard
High	None
Moderate	Dam Failure Flood Hazardous Material Structural Fire Severe Winter Weather Severe Summer Weather Severe Winter Weather Wildfire Structural Fire
Low	Infectious Disease Subsidence Tornado Transportation Incidents Civil Disobedience

Table 76: City of Opheim Hazard Prioritization

City Opheim Hazard Prioritization
Level	Hazard
High	None
Moderate	Severe Winter Weather Structural Fire Severe Summer Weather
Low	Flood Infectious Disease Subsidence Tornado Dam Failure Hazardous Material Wildfire Transportation Incidents Civil Disobedience

Table 77: Unincorporated Areas of Valley County Hazard Prioritization

Unincorporated Hazard Prioritization for Valley County
Level	Hazard
High	Flood Dam Failure
Moderate	Hazardous Material Severe Winter Weather Wildfire Severe Summer Weather Structural Fire
Low	Infectious Disease Subsidence Tornado Civil Disobedience Transportation Incidents

The hazard prioritizationwas determined by using the best possible information concerning risks and vulnerabilities. The following factors were considered when prioritizing the hazards: Probability or Frequency of a “Disastrous” Event and impacts concerning Casualties/Trauma, Communication/Lack thereof, Continuity of Government, Debris, Emergency Services Disrupted/Limited, Evacuation Needs, Fatalities, Hazardous Material Release, Overwhelm of First Responders, Mass Care Needs, Physical Damage / Asset Destruction, Power, Disruption/Outages, Transportation, Disruption/Failure, and Economic Loss. For more information on these determinations, see the risk assessment methodology and individual hazard profiles.

As with any assessment involving natural or human-caused hazards, not all potential events may be represented here and an actual incident may occur in a vastly different way than described. This assessment, however, will be used where possible, to minimize damages from these events in the future. Every type of event is different, ranging from population to property, to economic impacts. Incidents also have different probabilities and magnitudes even within hazards. For example, a light snowstorm will be different from a blizzard and a moderate flood will be different from both of those. Some hazards have estimates of dollar losses and population impacts, whereas others are more qualitatively assessed, based on the information available during the risk assessment process.

Download 4.32 Mb.

Share with your friends: