TopStory

Modern Wildfires Require Large-Scale Solutions

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:55:27 +0000

Modern Wildfires Require Large-Scale Solutions Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 01/17/2022 - 15:55

Justin Wang

As wildfires in Boulder and in the West continue to worsen, the Global Supertanker is a much needed technology.

Two weeks after finishing her wildland firefighting training with the Boulder Emergency Squad, Aerospace Engineering Master’s student Rydell Stottlemyer was called to the scene of the Calwood Fire on Saturday, October 17, 2020.

On that Saturday morning, she was in drone training when she and her team heard on the radios about a new fire breaking out in Boulder County. “We ended up being one of the first departments on scene,” said Stottlemyer.

Once people evacuated and they evaluated the scale of the fire, Stottlemyer helped create a ‘fire line’, which entails removing any flammable objects, such as trees and brush, to prevent the fire from spreading further. However, the fire moved faster than the firefighters could maintain with the flames spreading as fast as a thousand acres per hour.

In wildland firefighting, it is tremendously difficult and dangerous to work against the ‘flame front’, which is the direction the fire predominantly moves. Instead, a safe anchor point is established where firefighters work to develop these fire lines to contain the fire as much as possible. Since cooler temperatures lead to decreased fire activity in the evenings, Stottlemyer worked through the night with her team on the scene.

“Several of us spent the night in the Calwood Education Center,” said Stottlemyer. The next day, she went back along the fire line to put out any fires that had the potential to cross it. After spending her weekend in smoke with little sleep, she returned to the University of Colorado Boulder to continue her studies and job as a teaching assistant.

After burning 10,113 acres, the Calwood Fire reached 100% containment on November 14, 2020. It was Boulder County’s largest wildfire on record. The fire destroyed 26 structures worth a total of $37 million, and the cost of suppression efforts for both the Calwood Fire and the neighboring Lefthand Canyon Fire, which started on October 18, totaled $6.6 million.

“The country spends a lot of money on fighting fires,” said Stottelmyer. “The last thing they want to do is spend even more money because it goes over budget almost every year.” She argues that we should “spend more money on fire prevention, more controlled burning and trying to fix unhealthy forests.”

Since wildfires have been prematurely extinguished over the last hundred or so years, modern wildfires are exceptionally harmful. Forest ecosystems evolved with periodic wildfires that would naturally thin forests. By preventing them in the past, the amount of vegetation that can fuel wildfires has significantly increased. Increased drought and a warming climate have contributed to making wildfires so large that they cause irreparable damage to these forest ecosystems.

“The country spends a lot of money on fighting fires... the last thing they want to do is spend even more money because it goes over budget almost every year."

As wildfires become larger and more frequent, it is apparent that new technological developments are required to deal with them. Thomas Parsons is the Assistant Chief Pilot at Global Supertanker Services, and he and his team operate the 747 supertanker, the largest tanker ever used in wildfire mitigation.

The Global Supertanker is a Boeing 747- 400 Very Large Airtanker (VLAT) aircraft that is capable of dropping nearly 19,000 gallons of water or fire retardant to fight wildfires. This vehicle can fill its 10 liquid tanks in less than 30 minutes, and it utilizes eight high pressure and two low pressure air tanks to release its cargo from as low as 200 feet above the surface. It is the largest VLAT ever created and can hold nearly twice as much cargo as the second largest VLAT used for wildfire suppression.

“In the beginning, we would often see comments from around the world on social media saying, ‘they’ll learn you can’t fly a 747 in low altitude mountainous environments effectively.’ We proved them wrong through hundreds of hours of test flights and training flights, and we wrote the book on operating the 747 as an effective firefighting tanker”, said Parsons.

“The better the technology, the safer it is for us, and the more efficient we can be at mitigating these fires.”

The Global Supertanker has fought wildfires in California and Oregon in addition to numerous international missions in Bolivia, Chile and Israel. “When I push the button to make the drop, a lot of people contribute to that”, said Parsons. “It takes a team of 15 people or so. This includes those in maintenance, ground operations and loaders that all help to make it happen.”

Parsons also emphasized that “airplanes do not put out fires. We are just a tool for the guys on the ground. The guys on the ground are doing the heavy lifting and doing most of the hard work.”

Still, when looking at fires in the West, it is apparent that there needs to be more investment into advancing technology both to prevent wildfires and to help fight them. “To me there is no doubt that the planet is warming,” said Parsons. “Every year we are burning more acreage with bigger fires. As long as there are people building and living in the forests, we don’t have the luxury to let these big fires burn. I think it’s important to invest in new technology to try and get a handle on these fires that are bound to come.”

“I also think it’s important to keep hiring these contractors that come up with new technologies,” said Parsons. “New technology makes it safer. The better the technology, the safer it is for us, and the more efficient we can be at mitigating these fires.”

Parsons emphasized that an ‘initial attack’ is required, which involves fighting fires when they are first detected rather than waiting to see how they develop. When initial attack fires aren’t contained or controlled, they become ‘extended attack fires’ that are often more damaging and costly. Parsons argued that “In a perfect world, it’s healthy to let forests burn, but we don’t live in that world anymore. With the planet warming, more people building and living in forests, poor land management for over a hundred years and various other factors, we need to hit these fires early and hard.”

A study by Dr. Stephen Fuller and Dr. Keith Waters at George Mason University (GMU) supports this notion. This study utilized U.S. Forest Service data to conclude that deployment of air tankers, like the Global Supertanker, early in the life of wildfires dramatically reduces fire duration and the resulting economic impact.

It is challenging, however, to implement these results. Parsons said, “It’s a difficult problem when the fire is small and management orders a VLAT. Let’s say a wildfire was contained at 5 acres, then someone must explain why an expensive tanker was ordered on such a small fire. If management didn’t put a VLAT on the scene and if that same fire were to spread into an urban area and destroy multiple structures, then someone now must explain why they didn’t get a VLAT on the scene earlier. Change is slow, but each year VLATs are being more and more used on initial attack fires instead of letting them grow into what often becomes expensive and destructive extended attack fires.”

Global Supertanker, the world’s largest air tanker ever created for fighting wildfires, was retired in April 2021 due to financial difficulties. The aircraft was then sold and converted into a cargo aircraft. Nevertheless, a new investor purchased Global Supertanker Services, and at the time of this writing there is talk of modifying another 747 with technology from the Global Supertanker for the 2022 wildfire season.

In addition to air tankers, innovations in wildfire technology have included developing new fire retardants and using infrared radiation detectors on drones, aircraft and satellites that search for heat signals to help detect and monitor wildfires.

Nevertheless, more needs to be invested in order to prevent and fight wildfires. Another study from GMU reported that wildfires cost a minimum of $185 billion annually in the United States, and the cost will likely keep rising due to the increasing occurrences of wildfires unless thorough and systematic changes are made.

To save over $100 million a year, the state of California utilizes up to 1,000 prison inmates a year to fight wildfires on pay ranging between $1 to $5 a day and an additional $1 to 2 an hour when on a fire line. The ethics of this practice have been debated since the program started in 1946.

Another debated practice is that the majority of wildland firefighters are not provided with ample protection for their eyes or airways. Indoor firefighting personal protective equipment (PPE) are too heavy to take to the scene of a wildfire and typical face masks, such as a N95, and respirators aren’t very effective at filtering out wildfire gases.

“The basics of firefighting are still what they were about 50 years ago, and there’s been limited technological improvement,” said Stottlemyer. It is exceptionally challenging to meet a growing problem when technologies to combat them have not matured in tandem. Wildfires are getting worse and more extensive. As this problem grows so too does the need for new innovations to make fighting wildfires more effective, economical and safe. This increasing disparity between growing challenges and stagnant technology indicates that more must be done if we are to truly tackle all aspects of wildland firefighting head on.

Photos in order of appearance:

Rydell Stottlemyer on scene at the Calwood Fire.

Firefighters at night. Photo Courtesy of Rydell Stottlemyer.

737 Supertanker on ground Photo Courtesy of Global Supertanker Services.

A T-944 Lead B 9 1 plane flies in front of the Global Supertanker at the Apple Fire in Riverside, California. Photo Courtesy of Steve_San_Diego .

Off

Traditional

White

The Gross Reservoir Dam Expansion: Denver Water v. Boulder County

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:07:09 +0000

The Gross Reservoir Dam Expansion: Denver Water v. Boulder County Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 01/17/2022 - 15:07

Nikki Edwards

After a multi-year legal battle over the Gross Reservoir Dam Expansion, Boulder County and Denver Water settled on a $12.5 million agreement. For Boulder County, this decision was not the favored outcome.

Nestled in the mountains, about 26 miles from Boulder via Flagstaff road, Gross Reservoir holds a portion of the Denver Metro area’s water supply.

The reservoir was built in 1954 by Denver Water’s former Chief Engineer Dwight D. Gross, and after 67 years, Denver Water plans to renovate the dam to address current and future water imbalances. Boulder County raises concerns over the project’s environmental impacts, and questions about its call for more water.

On July 14, 2021, Denver Water sued Boulder County claiming that local authorities are prolonging the implementation of a federally permitted project. For two decades this project has been in contention, but on Nov. 2, 2021 the Board of County Commissioners settled with Denver Water to pay $12.5 million to mitigate the expansion’s environmental impact.

Both the Boulder County commissioners and environmental groups are not pleased with the outcome.

"We believe the settlement agreement is the best we can get from Denver Water to help compensate our constituents and the environment.”

“We understand that settling with Denver Water is not acceptable to many of our constituents. It isn’t the outcome we would have liked to see,” said Commissioner Claire Levy in a public statement. “Unfortunately, Boulder County was not in control of this process, and despite our best efforts, a far worse outcome is the most likely result of rejecting the offer. It would have been reckless not to consider an offer that offset at least some of the destructive impacts of this project. Under these circumstances, without a full public consideration of this project through our local review process, we believe the settlement agreement is the best we can get from Denver Water to help compensate our constituents and the environment.”

Currently, the top of Gross dam reaches 340 feet and the reservoir is 41,811 acrefeet by volume. To increase water storage, construction efforts aim to add 77,000 acrefeet by raising the dam 131 feet, allowing for an additional 25 billion gallons to be stored.

In this expansion process, however, Dr. Gordon McCurry, Principal Hydrologist at McCurry Hydrology LLC, identified substantial flaws in Denver Water’s environmental impact statement (EIS). He reviewed the purpose and need of the expansion and if the dam raise was the least “environmentally damaging practicable alternative” to water imbalances. “I found that both the ‘purpose and need’ wasn’t valid and that this was not the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative,” he said.

The citation from Denver Water claimed that “Projected metro Denver demand will increase by 134,000 acre-feet to 280,000 acre feet by 2050 against a 2015 baseline and [the Denver metro] area likely will experience a supply shortfall, even accounting for the Gross Reservoir expansion and other water projects, a drop in per-capita use and further conservation and reuse.”

The validity of this claim was challenged in light of the outdated information, collected in 2010, that was presented in the EIS. In Dr. McCurry’s memo (or review of the project) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), he identifies that Denver Water’s demand projections are much higher than the 2010 water use. In addition, water use has also trended downwards since 2010, even as Colorado’s population increased.

“Some of the information is 15 plus years old, and they never bothered to update it, because I guess if they had, then they wouldn’t have been able to suggest that there is a purpose and need,” Dr. McCurry said. Denver Water “probably assumed that the people at the Corps of Engineers or the FERC weren’t going to dig into the details, they were just going to read what the report said and go, ‘Okay, approved,’ which is basically what happened.”

In order to manipulate federal land, Denver Water needed approval from the Army Corps of Engineers and the FERC. On July 6, 2017, the Army Corps of Engineers approved the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on its purpose, need, and alternatives analysis. FEIS was completed on April 25, 2014, and after the Corps completed an environmental assessment (EA).

The FERC produced a Supplemental Environmental Assessment focusing on the effects of an amendment of the Gross Reservoir Project license in February of 2018.

Complaints on the FERC’s environmental assessment (EA) and the FEIS were brought to the FERC’s attention in a letter written on March 20, 2018, from Boulder County Attorney Ben Pearlman. “The FERC should determine that both the FEIS and the EA fail to meet the standards of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and therefore reject staff’s unreasonable approach,” Pearlman wrote.

Graphic Used in Dr. Gordon McCurry's memo to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

NEPA’s standards require organizations like Denver Water to apply the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” to projects. According to Dr. McCurry’s review, Denver Water proposed five alternatives that attempt to meet standards, but the alternatives cause considerable loss of rare vegetation, wetlands, and habitats.

Boulder County disputes the FERC’s staff advising process of overlooking environmental impact and deciphering a need for the project. “Since Denver Water initiated its effort to construct the project, Boulder County has become increasingly concerned that Denver Water’s preferred alternative [of raising the dam] does not meet the purpose and need Denver Water established for the project,” Pearlman wrote.

The FERC approved the project in 2020 regardless of Dr. McCurry’s memo, the Attorney’s letter raising concerns and various comments from concerned citizens.

In this lawsuit, Denver Water presents a reasonable defense, despite Boulder County’s arguments to the contrary.

Jeff Martin is the project manager on the expansion. He said, “Colorado is expanding, and Denver Water provides water to 25% of the state. We need to make sure that we can meet that future demand, or more importantly, we need to make sure we have a resilient system. So, engineers and planners like that resiliency; that means we can deal with uncertainty and risk that is going to occur in the future. In this case, that risk is in the forms of drought, climate change, and increasing wildfires...We not only needed to meet future demand, we needed more water in strategic locations.”

Ninety percent of Denver Water’s water supply lives in the south collection system, and only 10% resides in the north system. They’re concerned that too much of the supply is consolidated in the south, which puts the south system and thus Denver Water as whole in a position that is vulnerable to natural catastrophe.

According to Martin, in their discussions with the Corps, the Gross Reservoir expansion was the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The Corps advised that raising an existing dam caused less environmental impact than building new facilities.

Continuing with the environmental discussions, the Corps provided Denver Water with requirements to mitigate impacts of the project, such as flooding of the wetlands and Boulder Creek. “A big project Denver Water had, which was called Two Forks, was vetoed by the EPA and environmental groups that were against the project actually pointed to gross reservoir saying, ‘Hey, a responsible project to do would be raising the existing dam like Gross Reservoir,’ and here we are 20 years later doing exactly what was suggested that we do.”

In the legal disputes, Boulder County pushed the 1041 process, also known as the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act. The process was enacted in 1974 and allows local governments to regulate, through specific criteria, a variety of development projects. Boulder County wanted to cease the project through the 1041 process, but the county did not have the authority to review the plan because the FERC approved the project in 2020.

“This project represents outdated planning and thinking. Unfortunately, instead of using our land use process to review this project to address the concerns we heard from the public, we are faced with trying to address these issues in a legal arena with a large corporation that holds all the power within the legal framework. Being put in a position that does not allow us to stop the expansion of the Gross Reservoir and Dam is heart-wrenching and very unsatisfying to us as elected officials and as stewards of public health and safety,” said Commissioner Loachamin in a statement.

Commissioners agreed with the concerns of the project. Due to the hydroelectric generation being controlled by federal law, however, the county had to settle on the terms that Denver Water will apply the most environmentally practicable alternatives moving forward.

“I wouldn’t be working on [the expansion] if I didn’t think Denver Water’s values were in line with my own on protecting the natural environment,” Martin said. “I can assure you this carries on for me to our CEO, to our board, to everybody at Denver Water that we have been entrusted with managing a huge, valuable resource. And we take that very seriously, and we want to do it the right way.”

Photos by Elliot Whitehead

Off

Traditional

White

Letter From the Editor - 'Facing the Future' Issue

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:49:54 +0000

Letter From the Editor - 'Facing the Future' Issue Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 01/17/2022 - 14:49 Justin Wang

Engineering has the potential to be transformative, but we need to maintain a balanced perspective to prepare for the challenges ahead.

Dear Readers,

This semester marks a big transition for the student body at the University of Colorado. After the majority of students attended school remotely for over a year, we have finally made a more or less complete migration back to campus. While some things resumed as normal, such as large lecture rooms being filled and the Center for Community dining hall offering buffet-style meals again, campus feels different than it did before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Social introductions continue to include that “awkward wave” in place of a handshake, and wearing masks remains mandatory while indoors. Nevertheless, school is in session and we have learned to adapt. The theme of ‘Facing the Future’ seemed very appropriate for the current campus climate. In spite of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, new policies were put in place to provide a safe, on-campus experience. A vaccine mandate has led to 94% of ��ý�Ļ��Ʒ students and 96% of ��ý�Ļ��Ʒ employees getting vaccinated. This effort caused a significant decrease in on-campus spread of COVID-19, making ��ý�Ļ��Ʒ’s COVID infection rate significantly lower than that of the city of Boulder and the state of Colorado. With mask mandates, the combined efforts of our community have made it safer and more comfortable to be on campus and continue doing our important work. In this issue, we discuss some of the amazing work being done at the Engineering College that will make our future a better place. Ranging from robots designed to save lives from collapsed buildings to a student-made sounding rocket headed for space, we hope to celebrate the current state of innovation at CU Engineering. Yet, at the same time, there are things that we feel still need to be addressed. As we adjust to being comfortable working in a global pandemic, the threat of climate change looms over us. In this issue of the Colorado Engineer, we also discuss how climate change has affected our local Boulder community and discuss aspects of the problem that call for attention. With our campus being so lively and filled with activity now, the state of our community is the best it has been for over a year. But without a balanced view, it is easy to be blindsided by the challenges the future may present to us. And so, we hope to provide you with some much needed perspective as we both celebrate making it to today while also preparing ourselves for tomorrow’s concerns.

Sincerly,

Justin Wang

Editor in Chief

Off

Traditional

White

Vaccinating the Virus

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Jun 2021 23:18:31 +0000

Vaccinating the Virus Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 06/01/2021 - 17:18

Nikki Edwards

At CU, the battle against COVID-19 proceeds into a new phase with vaccinations

In early March of 2020, CU’s campus was a lively place where everyday operations and interactions were “business as usual”. Later in the month, Chancellor Phillip DiStefano announced the shutdown of campus due to the health concerns associated with COVID-19. Campus has been nearly deserted since.

One year later, faculty and students are coming to campus in reduced numbers and campus safety guidelines assist in the reintroduction of normalized school operations. Within these 365 difficult and disorienting days, much of the world learned about and improved its management of COVID-19. And today in Colorado, we witness the long awaited distribution of three FDA approved vaccines to all citizens who want them in a graduated plan.

The three FDA approved vaccines are: Pfizer, Moderna and (most recently approved) Johnson & Johnson. Each vaccine yields efficacious results.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, approved for the first emergency use authorization (EUA) on Dec. 11, shows efficacy of 95% at preventing symptomatic COVID infection after two doses. TThe Moderna vaccine, introduced on Dec. 18, was 94.1% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 after the second dose. Developed by J&J’s vaccine division, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, their single-dose vaccine, approved on Feb. 27, was shown to be 66% protective against moderate to severe Covid infection in a multi-country study. Importantly, it was 85% effective in protecting against severe disease and there were no hospitalizations or deaths among people who received the vaccine of a large clinical trial.

As of April 20 in Colorado, 2.5 million people have been immunized with one dose and 1.5 million people are fully immunized. There are over 1000 vaccine providers and CU is one of them.

“At Medical Services, we are really proud to be partnering with the state and Boulder County to be what’s called a designated provider to our ��ý�Ļ��Ʒ and local community,” said Gloria Brisson, Senior Director of Medical Services, during a campus Q&A webinar regarding vaccine distribution.

Governor Jared Polis’s vaccine rollout plan consists of 6 phases; each phase authorizes specific age groups and demographics to receive the vaccine.

“Currently the state is in Phase 1B.2, which means that all of the people in the prior phases have been eligible for vaccination.” Patrick O’Rourke, Chief Operating Officer, said during the webinar on March 2. “They’re trying to complete the population of Coloradans aged 65 to 69 and K-12 educators and some people who are necessary for the continuity of the state government. That phase is proceeding and very shortly we think we’re going to be entering Phase 1B.3.”

Since the beginning of January, the university administered vaccines to individuals within the campus community in efforts to complete phases 1A, 1B.1, 1B.2, 1B.3, 1B.4 and now 2. As of April 20, the university has fully vaccinated 3,159 individuals.

Medical Services wants to vaccinate as many people as they can, but the vaccine supply varies each week. The state provides medical services with the vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, and the current supply is scarce. Recipients do not have a choice in what vaccine they receive due to the minimal supply.

Progress is being made in vaccinating critical demographics. On Feb. 26 Governor Polis announced that forward facing higher education faculty and staff were eligible in phase 1B.4. This phase of distribution began on Mar. 19. On Apr. 2, Colorado moved to Phase 2, making all adults age 16 and over eligible for the vaccine.

Administered vaccines and continued practice of Center of Disease Control’s (CDC) guidelines have moved Boulder County to a “Level Blue” on the COVID dial. The variables for the dial include:
New Cases: How much the virus is circulating in a county.
Percent positivity: Whether there is sufficient COVID-19 testing to capture the level of virus transmission.
Impact on hospitalizations: Whether hospitalizations are increasing, stable or declining.
As of April 20, the county reports a low number of cases, low positivity rates and a declining or stable amount of hospitalizations.

“Now this could change if any of the new COVID variants become more prevalent, or if we aren’t diligent in how we are looking at our behaviours and what we’re doing to make sure that COVID remains well controlled within the county and state, but it’s headed in the right direction,” O’Rourke said.

The three new mutations (United Kingdom, South Africa and Brazil) of COVID-19 generate concern because the variants seem to spread more easily among people and the U.K. variant specifically is, “Associated with an increased risk of death compared to other variants,” according to the MAYO Clinic.

Dr. Gail Daukas is a PhD scientist and she worked in the biotechnology industry doing cell biology research for the development of drugs. She is currently an instructor at the Community College of Denver. “Mutations are just changes in the DNA or RNA of the virus,” Dr. Daukas said. “Sometimes those mutations change the virus enough so that it changes how easily it can be transmitted by respiratory droplets, how easy it can infect skin cells in my nose, how long it can live in the air making transmission easier.”

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines utilize messenger RNA, mRNA, that delivers a small amount of genetic code to cells producing the T-surface protein (known as the spike) on the SARS-2 virus. The proteins produced with the mRNA instructions activate the immune system, teaching the cell to identify the spike proteins as foreign, and thus help it develop antibodies to fight the virus.

“In terms of how long immunity would last, the good news is that the current vaccines, the three that we have approved in the U.S., show robust T cell immunity to all the variants, meaning that it still has that really protective nature,” Matt McQueen, Director of Epidemiology and member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the ��ý�Ļ��Ʒ Pandemic Response Office, said. “So the efficacy in terms of whether you might get sick may change and at that point in the next two or three years, we may need a booster if there’s enough drift in the variants. At this point it is too early to say it [the vaccine] would be annual.”

Various questions regarding COVID-19 are being researched as we speak. The countless hours spent in the lab manipulating and understanding the virus and its behavior can only help us predict so far into the future.

In the spring of 2020, humanity was faced with a harmful, unforeseen problem. One year later the problem still persists, but collective actions from research on CU’s campus and around the world have presented advanced scientific breakthroughs and prevention of the excessive loss of life due to COVID-19.

Scientists, medical health professionals and society still have a lot of work to do to kill this virus, not only within the lab but through our own contributions. Wear a mask. Stay 6 feet apart. Get vaccinated when it’s your turn.

Photo by Kevin Wu

Off

Traditional

White

Student and Faculty Diversity in CEAS

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Jun 2021 22:51:13 +0000

Student and Faculty Diversity in CEAS Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 06/01/2021 - 16:51

Kefin Fajrial

Various developments in science have helped developed countries contend with the COVID-19 pandemic more quickly and efficiently than ever before. Despite the US government’s pandemic response being slower in some respects to that of other nations, it did manage to produce vaccines and treatments that have helped save many people, including many vulnerable populations, from succumbing to the virus. Prior to the COVID pandemic, many people might have been skeptical that the developed nations of the world could mass produce a viable vaccine in the 9 months subsequent to the genetic analysis of the virus. Medical technology has come a long way in the last 20 years, and this progress owes much to the collective efforts of a diverse body of scientists.

Diversity efforts in STEM can greatly enhance innovation insofar as they help bring various perspectives together to generate ideas and solutions. Yet, even though the benefits of such diversity are clear, its promotion and actualization is a long and difficult process. Schools have been desegregated for 60 years now, but in STEM fields, Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) continue to be underrepresented, despite tremendous efforts to increase diversity.
Within the College of Engineering and Applied Science at ��ý�Ļ��Ʒ, we have seen some progress from the standpoint of student and faculty demographics. Our student body is more diverse in 2020 than it ever was. From 2010 to 2020, the relative population of BIPOC students has almost doubled on average for all ethnic and racial groups. Currently, more than 30% of our students are BIPOC.

From the perspective of gender distribution, engineering programs are traditionally known to enroll fewer female students. Ten years ago, for example, only one fifth of our students were female. Now, females represent one third of the students in CEAS. In the future, the College’s hope is to attract more women and eventually achieve a 50:50 gender ratio. This and other improvements in diversifying our student population have been exciting news.
When we look at faculty representation, on the other hand, we see varying degrees of progress regarding representation. On the one hand, the proportion of tenure and tenure track female faculty (Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor) has increased from 19% in 2010 to 25% in 2020. Additionally, one third of all Assistant Professors are female.

By contrast, BIPOC faculty representation has stagnated in the last 10 years, hovering at around 24%. Additionally, the proportion of young BIPOC TTT faculty is even lower than it was in 2010.

The hiring of new faculty is the only way to increase BIPOC faculty representation. Getting a TTT faculty position is a challenging & competitive endeavor. Typically in every year, there are only 10 TTT faculty positions available in the College, and there are thousands of applicants. This is a common situation in every research-intensive university in the country. Due to what has been termed a structural bias in the academic system (Barber et al., Science 2020), BIPOC people are often found at a disadvantage and unable to compete with non-BIPOC applicants for the same TTT faculty job. As a result, fewer BIPOC faculty tend to be hired. Granted, other factors influence faculty hiring, and so it is difficult to know for sure why numbers of BIPOC faculty have dropped from 13% in 2010 to 5% in 2020, but they have. The yearly average over the last ten years of newly hired BIPOC faculty has been 17%. This data indicates that improvements in the faculty hiring process may be necessary to increase the cultural diversity in the new faculty pool.

While the concept of meritocratic achievement lies at the heart of Academia, a true meritocracy is only fair if everyone has equal access to similar opportunities. To help increase the representation of women & BIPOC faculty in a field in which they are traditionally underepresented, such as engineering, several institutions abroad have adopted the more controversial practice of positive discrimination recruitment policy.

Dr. Robyn Sandekian, who leads the Diversity Faculty Recruitment initiative in our College, spoke to the Colorado Engineer on the University’s approach to increase faculty diversity. “In the past 3-5 years, the College has implemented at least 5 evidence-based strategies to expand the diversity of the faculty applicant pool”, Dr. Sandekian said; “These strategies include improving descriptions of job advertisements and broadening personal networks to reach underrepresented minorities faculty candidates”. Sandekian also added, “These efforts have led to small improvements in the diversity faculty recruitment, but we have not been able to match the population of our undergraduate student body”. Recently, Sandekian reported how some of these approaches changed the CEAS faculty hiring outcome in the American Society for Engineering Education conference paper entitled “Interventions in Faculty Recruiting, Screening, and Hiring Processes Enable Greater Engineering Faculty Diversity”.

“Beyond the current best practices that we have been implementing for years, we need a systemic, cultural change in the College that will value the diversity itself”, Sandekian said. If we do not intervene with the status quo, “It will take us 20 years to reach female faculty ideal representation and up to 70 years for underrepresented minorities”, Sandekian added.

Since its inception in 1893, our College has evolved many times to provide the best academic environment for its students and faculty. In the century to come, we need to maintain this momentum by continuing to strive for a world-class education and research environment for people of all backgrounds.

True diversity is not just about hiring people with different backgrounds. It is what happens when people are free to bring their perspectives to bear, to speak their mind, and to bring the best of themselves into the room. If we are willing to experiment with bold methods, it is my hope that we will one day achieve that kind of diversity.

You can use just the image in this folder and/or take screenshots of the diagrams from the pdf, up to you. I think they can help the article but aren’t fully necessary. I don’t have better quality versions of these than the screenshots, but let me know if they are still very messy and I can ask Jack to send me them.

Engineering Center photo by Elliot Whitehead

Off

Traditional

White