Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update

Transcription

1 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt, Aspen Fire Protection District, Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District January 4, 2012

2

3 Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update Participating Jurisdictions: Pitkin County City of Aspen Town of Snowmass Village Town of Basalt Aspen Fire Protection District Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 04 January 2012 Emergency Management Pitkin County Sheriff's Office 506 E Main Street, Garden Level Aspen, CO Telephone:

4 Disclaimer: This plan has been specifically prepared for planning purposes only. The figures and specifications contained herein are not suitable for individual property analyses or budgeting purposes. Mapping and analyses were conducted using data from others and were not technically verified for accuracy. Modeling software used for this plan is limited to planning-level analyses. ii

5 Acknowledgements Pitkin County Emergency Management Tom Grady, Pitkin County Emergency Manager Valerie MacDonald, Pitkin Emergency Management Administrator Aspen/Pitkin County Public Safety Council Pitkin County Board of Commissioners Pitkin County Sheriff s Office Pitkin County Combined Communications Pitkin County Airport Aspen Ambulance District City of Aspen Aspen Police Department Aspen Fire Protection District Basalt Police Department Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Mountain Rescue Aspen Snowmass Village Police Department Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Aspen Valley Hospital URS Corporation David Cooper, Project Manager Jean Sanson, Senior Planner Jennifer Orozco, Senior Planner Rich Chamberlain, HAZUS-MH/GIS Jason Campbell, GIS/Mapping Kimberly Pirri, Floodplain Manager, Mitigation Engineer iii

6 Table of Contents Introduction to Mitigation Planning Plan Purpose and Participating Jurisdictions Mitigation Planning Requirements Grant Programs Requiring Hazard Plans Plan Organization Planning Process Pre-Disaster Mitigation Workshops Step Planning Process Community Profile Location, Geography, and Climate History Population Economy Government Fire Protection Districts Risk Assessment Hazard Identification Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability Wildfire Prioritized Hazard Winter Storms Prioritized Hazard Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Prioritized Hazard Seasonal/Flash Flooding Prioritized Hazard Avalanche Other Hazard Drought Other Hazard Lightning Other Hazard Windstorms/Tornados Other Hazard Earthquake Other Hazard Hazard Profile Summary Capability Assessment Community Asset Inventory iv

7 Social Vulnerability Land Use and Development Trends Capability Summary Mitigation Strategy Plan Strategy Statements, Goals, and Objectives Identification of Mitigation Action Alternatives Implementation of Mitigation Actions Plan Implementation and Maintenance Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms Continued Public Involvement v

8 Appendix A: Plan Review Crosswalk Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation Appendix C: Mitigation Action Evaluation Appendix D: Plan Maintenance Forms Appendix E: References Appendices vi

9 Figures Figure 4-1: Colorado Avalanche Fatalities by County, Figure 4-2: Colorado Drought Conditions August 27, 2002 Extreme Drought Figure 4-3: Colorado Drought Conditions August 25, 2009 No Drought Conditions Figure 4-4: Lightning Fatalities by State, Figure 4-5: Pitkin County Excerpt from Colorado s Earthquake and Fault Map Figure 4-6: Probability of 5.0 or Greater Earthquake in the Next 150 Years Figure 4-7: Colorado Seismic Hazard Map 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Figure 5-1: Social Vulnerability by County Compared with the Nation Figure 5-2: City of Aspen/Pitkin County Urban Growth Boundary Figure 6-1: STAPLEE Criteria Used for Prioritization of Mitigation Actions vii

10 Tables Table 2-1: 10-Step Planning Process Used to Develop the Plan Table 2-2: Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Workshops Table 2-3: Workshop Participants Table 3-1: Monthly Statistics for Temperature and Precipitation in Aspen Table 3-2: Pitkin County Population by Jurisdiction ( ) Table 3-3: Pitkin County Jobs by Sector (2009 Estimate) Table 3-4: Aspen/Pitkin County Public Safety Council Table 4-1: Federal Disaster Declaration History in Pitkin County, Table 4-2: USDA Farm Service Agency Disaster Designations, Pitkin County Table 4-3: Hazards Identified in the 2005 All-Hazards PDM Plan and 2011 PDMP Update Table 4-4: Hazards Not Profiled in this Plan Table 4-5: Potential Wildfire Losses, by Jurisdiction Table 4-6: Significant Winter Storms in Pitkin County Table 4-7: Landslides/Rockslides/Rock Fall in Pitkin County Table 4-8: Flood History for Pitkin County Table 4-9: NFIP Status for Pitkin County Table 4-10: Damage Summary by Building Occupancy (% of Total Estimated Damages) Table 4-11: Structures Damaged During Modeled Flood Events Table 4-12: Expected Damages (number of buildings), 100-year event Table 4-13: Expected Damages (number of buildings), 500-year event Table 4-14: Damage Estimates and Economic Losses for Modeled Flood Events Table 4-15: Pitkin County Avalanche Occurrences, Table 4-16: Known Drought periods in Pitkin County Table 4-17: Lightning Events in Pitkin County Table 4-18: List of Windstorms/Tornado in Pitkin County Table 4-19: Magnitude and Intensity Scales for Earthquakes Table 4-20: Known Historical Earthquakes, Pitkin County Table 4-21: Potential Earthquake Losses in Pitkin County Table 4-22: Overall Risk Ranking of Hazards by Jurisdiction Table 5-1: Building Permits Issued for Pitkin County, Table 5-2: Critical Facilities by Category Table 5-3: Critical Facilities in Pitkin County viii

11 Table 5-4: List of Rare Species in Pitkin County Table 5-5: Pitkin County Historic Properties/Districts in National Register Table 5-6: Principal Employers in Pitkin County Table 5-7: Labor Force Statistics for Pitkin County Table 5-8: Population Growth in Pitkin County, Table 5-9: Growth in Housing Units in Pitkin County, Table 5-10: Population and Housing Unit Density in Pitkin County, Table 5-11: Population Projections for Pitkin County, Table 5-12: Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table 5-13: Pitkin County Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation Table 5-14: City of Aspen Land Use Policy Guidelines related to Natural Hazard Mitigation Table 5-15: Town of Snowmass Village Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation Table 5-16: Town of Basalt Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation Table 5-17: Regional Policy Guidelines related to Natural Hazard Mitigation Table 5-18: Administrative and Technical Capabilities Table 5-19: Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Table 6-1: Categories of Mitigation Actions Table 6-2: Mitigation Action Matrix ix

12 Exhibits Exhibit 3-1: Pitkin County Context Map Exhibit 3-2: Pitkin County Fire Protection Districts Exhibit 4-1: Pitkin County Wildland Urban Interface Hazards Map Exhibit 4-2: Pitkin County Historic Wildfire Occurrence Map Exhibit 4-3: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Aspen Exhibit 4-4: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Aspen Exhibit 4-5: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village Exhibit 4-6: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village Exhibit 4-7: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Basalt Exhibit 4-8: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Basalt Exhibit 5-1: Pitkin County Critical Facilities Map x

13 Prerequisites xi

14 Documentation of Plan adoption by participating jurisdictions. xii

15 The purpose of the Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan update process was to eliminate or reduce long-term risks to people and properties due to natural and human-caused hazards. This multi-hazard mitigation Plan update (hereafter the Plan ) was developed to reduce future losses caused by natural and human-caused hazards within unincorporated Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village and Town of Basalt. The Plan update was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to achieve eligibility for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard mitigation grant programs including: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Repetitive Flood Claim (RFC) This Plan is an update of the 2005 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for Pitkin and Eagle Counties (2005 PDMP). This update focuses exclusively on Pitkin County and includes the following participating jurisdictions: Pitkin County City of Aspen Town of Basalt Town of Snowmass Village Aspen Fire Protection District Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District Carbondale Fire Protection District Snowmass Fire Protection District Through the leadership of the Pitkin County Office of Emergency Management, participating jurisdictions and a cross-section of representatives from throughout the community assisted with the development of this Plan update, including data collection, public input on history, community assets xiii

16 and strategies, and identification of preferred mitigation alternatives. Representatives from participating jurisdictions, stakeholders and members of the general public participated in two planning workshops. This Plan update represents the collective work of the citizens, elected and appointed officials, and other stakeholders in the County. Following FEMA s guidelines in developing a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, participating jurisdictions identified risks, assessed vulnerabilities, prioritized hazards and identified goals, objectives and actions for mitigating the effects of natural and human-caused hazards on communities in the County. The following hazards were profiled in this Plan update: Wildfire Winter Storm Avalanche Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Seasonal/Flash Flooding Drought Lightning Windstorm/Tornado Earthquake The results of the risk assessment for identifying probability and magnitude of these hazards in Pitkin County are summarized below by jurisdiction. Overall Risk Ranking of Hazards by Jurisdiction (Table 4-22) Pitkin County and Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Critical 2 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Catastrophic 1 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked xiv

17 Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked Town of Snowmass Village and Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Critical 2 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked Town of Basalt and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Flood - Significant Occasional Catastrophic 1 Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked * Based on input at planning workshops, perceived threat of natural hazards number 1 being the largest perceived threat. Planning workshop participants used the risk and vulnerability assessment to develop mitigation strategies through a list of goals, objectives, and actions. Workshop participants recommended consolidating the goals from the original 2005 PDM Plan to (1) reduce repetition and (2) provide a more overarching policy statement that is more supportive of the comprehensive range of mitigation action types needed to reduce vulnerability. Participants also carefully reviewed the 2005 PDM Plan objectives and revised and updated each based on updated conditions and a renewed emphasis on goals and objectives that encompass multi-hazard categories. The following goals and objectives were developed for the Pitkin County mitigation strategy for the 2010 update: GOAL 1: Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to the natural environment by natural hazards. GOAL 2: Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to the natural environment by human-caused hazards. xv

18 Objective 1: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies. 1 Objective 2: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. Objective 3: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. Objective 4: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. Objective 5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. Objective 6: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. Objective 7: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. Objective 8: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning. Planning workshop participants identified and prioritized mitigation actions to achieve these goals and objectives and to support the purpose of this planning process. Responsible jurisdictions/agencies were assigned to each action and workshop participants agreed upon timeframes and rough cost estimates. 2 The mitigation actions are summarized in the following table. Mitigation Action Matrix (Table 6-2) Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Hazard(s) Addressed Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency Timeframe Cost Estimate Objective 1: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies. 1.1 Continue the Public Safety Council, which provides multi-agency and jurisdictional coordination for hazard planning and incident management. 1.2 Provide training and equipment to improve communications between different agencies and remote locations, with interoperability with the 800mhz statewide radio system. 1.3 Establish Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Identify, train and drill EOC staff to ensure basic level of training for County staff, not just emergency agencies. Conduct, at minimum, annual EOC full-scale disaster exercise across jurisdictions and agencies. High High All All County Emergency Management Pitkin County Communicatio ns Ongoing Training: 1 year Equipment: 3 years $26K/ year Training: staff time Equipmen t: $400K High All All 1 year $100K 1 The Federal Emergency Management Institute supports this objective. January 2009 IEMC: EOC-IMT Interface training materials state that the role of the EOC is to Provide a program with which government at any level can provide interagency coordination and executive decision-making in support of incident response or maintenance of community wide services and protection. 2 It is important to note that the cost estimates do not represent budgeted amounts. The County will seek grants as appropriate, but at this time there is no expectation that Pitkin County will be appropriating funds for these projects from its General Fund. xvi

19 Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority 1.4 Identify, train and drill EOC staff to ensure basic level of training for targeted staff (Finance, Public Works, Fleet, PIO, Administrative staff, GIS). Conduct, at a minimum, an annual EOC tabletop exercise (all agency participation), continue tri-annual full-scale exercises at Sardy Field, and consider planning other full-scale exercises to address natural hazards. 1.5 Ensure that existing mutual aid agreements are current and establish new ones as required. (Note that mutual aid Intergovernmental Agreements are complete for Fire and EMS services, but are not complete for Law and Public Works). High Medium Hazard(s) Addressed All All Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency County Emergency Management County Administration/ Emergency Management Timeframe Cost Estimate 1 year Staff time 1 year Staff time Objective 2: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. 2.1 Designate enforcement body within policy and regulation. 2.2 Establish policies and processes to ensure governmental bodies communicate regarding development applications that could be impacted by hazards, and provide input to governmental bodies. 2.3 Create or refine enforceable flood and mudslide policies through permit restrictions. 2.4 Update the Land Use Code to incorporate new State regulations into local floodplain regulations. 2.5 Adopt new floodplain maps. High High High High High All All Flood/ Landslide/ Rockslide Floods Floods County Administration, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt County Community Development, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt County Administration, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt County Community Development County Community Development/ Engineering 1 year $10K 1 year Staff time 2-3 years $100K 1 year Staff time Summer 2012 Staff time xvii

20 Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority 2.6 Strengthen regulations to require mandatory clearing of flammable vegetation in key areas, i.e. around houses as a prerequisite to land/structure modifications. 2.7 Prioritize needed Community Wildfire Protection Plans for subdivisions (from the Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011). High High Hazard(s) Addressed Wildfire Wildfire 2.8 Continue to conduct required and voluntary wildfire hazard inspections and disseminate info to FPDs (from the Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011). High Wildfire 2.9 Develop, implement and maintain wildfire codes (including brush management, weed abatement, building code, construction types). High Wildfire Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD County Emergency Management, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt, CSFS, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD County Community Development, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD, County Administration, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt Timeframe Cost Estimate 3-5 years $50K 3-5 years $300K Ongoing 2-3 years Staff time $200K + 1 full time employee Objective 3: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. 3.1 Update and maintain annual hazard High All County GIS 1 year $5K occurrences maps and critical facilities. 3.2 Develop and maintain access to ownership County GIS/ and property value information in hazard High All Ongoing Staff time Assessor areas. 3.3 Create a web map application with property High All County GIS 1 year $10K information, including hazards. 3.4 Acquire new floodplain mapping for entire County. High Floods County Community Development/ Engineering/ GIS 1-3 years $10K xviii

21 Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority 3.5 Create useable mud and debris flow mapping (including dry gulch and alluvial fan). 3.6 Create avalanche prone area mapping and historical occurrences. High Medium Hazard(s) Addressed Floods/ Mudslide Avalanche Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency County Public Works/ Engineering/ Community Development/ GIS County Public Works/ Engineering/ Community Development/ GIS Timeframe Objective 4: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. 4.1 Continue to use and market various means of County communicating early warnings and alerts, High All Community including multimedia. Review and improve the Relations process quarterly 4.2 (a) Identify hazard areas for each of the four prioritized hazards in this Plan and pre-build automated emergency notification lists for these areas. (b) Develop subscription groups for emergency notification on Pitkin Alert specific to identified hazards. 4.3 Continue to improve the Mud and Flood management team and involve Snowmass/Aspen/Carbondale. High Med All Floods/ Mudflow 4.4 Improve coordination with Bureau of Reclamation and other water rights entities, such as the City of Denver. Med Floods Objective 5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. 5.1 Create and assign a multi-jurisdictional team to implement physical mitigation actions and High All update actions annually. 5.2 Complete the Basalt levee project (currently in final design). High Floods 5.3 Improve levee conditions at the Roaring Fork Mobile Home Park and adjacent areas. High Floods 5.4 Continue to pursue ongoing stormwater mitigation projects in the Capital Improvement Plan. High Floods County Community Relations County Emergency Management, Public Safety Council County Administration County Administration County Engineering/ Public Works, Town of Basalt, CDOT Pitkin/Eagle Counties Public Works, HOAs Pitkin County/ Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Cost Estimate 1-3 years $200K 1-2 years $50K Ongoing Staff time 6 months Staff time Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Staff time Staff time Staff time $1.5M 1-3 years $80K Ongoing Variable xix

22 Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority 5.5 Improve drainage at the Aspen Airport Business Center and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District wastewater treatment facility. 5.6 Identify cross-boundary (CSFS, USFS/BLM) fuel reduction projects within the Wildland Urban Interface (from the Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011). 5.7 Remove/down trees with Pine Mountain Beetle hazards where they interface with residential and public use areas. 5.8 Design and install mitigation measures (concrete barriers) in areas along roadways that are susceptible to mud and rock slides. Areas should include Independence Pass, Hwy. 133, Snowmass Creek, Castle, Redstone Boulevard and other county road hot spots. Conduct a study to identify risks and potential damages of mudslides off Aspen Mountain. Conduct a study at the base of Buttermilk ski area to analyze drainage, mud and vegetation conditions. Conduct a study at the base of Ajax ski area to analyze drainage, mud and vegetation conditions. Improve, or restore, the river alignment at the confluence of Coal Creek and the Crystal River. High High Med High Med Med Med Med Low Hazard(s) Addressed Floods and Mudflows Wildfire Wildfire & blow down trees Floods, Landslide/ Rockslide/ Mudflows Mudflows Floods/ Mudflows Floods/ Mudflows Floods Objective 6: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency Pitkin County/ Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District CSFS, USFS/BLM, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD BLM, County Open Space, USFS CDOT, IPF, County Public Works City of Aspen, County Engineering, Aspen Skiing Company County Engineering, Aspen Skiing Company County Engineering, Aspen Skiing Company County Engineering, CDOT, Forest Service Timeframe Cost Estimate 1-3 years $250K Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Staff time and project dependen t $50K/year Project dependen t 1-3 years $100K 1-3 years $100K 1-3 years $100K 3-5 years $20M+ xx

23 Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority 6.1 Develop comprehensive, pro-active, on-going public and business outreach program to improve awareness and educate the public about hazards, including seasonal hazards. For example: Hold public forums at the start of each season and discuss hazards and include seasonal populations. Improve Emergency Management web page with links to pertinent safety information, videos, etc. with pages for each potential hazard with localized (not generic) information. Awareness raising campaign for CGTV Channel 11 the place where videos will be broadcast about all hazards, safety info. etc. Increase viewership. Install river-watch web cams. Host live press conferences during emergent situations in board rooms wired for television, including Aspen City Council, Board of County Commissioners, and Town of Snowmass Village. Produce regularly scheduled TV series on all hazards safety. Educate the public by participating in biannual Safety Fairs, setting up Safety Awareness booths at farmer s markets, Public Service Announcements, Grass Roots Spotlight programs, etc. 6.2 Improve public signage that provides warnings and information about hazards, such as dangerous rockfall areas, flood areas, and areas at risk to seasonal fires. High High Hazard(s) Addressed All All Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency County Emergency Mgt./ Community Relations County Administration/ Public Works, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt Timeframe Cost Estimate 1-3 years Staff time 1-3 years $20K Objective 7: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. 7.1 Identify a secondary emergency shelter and intermediate care facilities. High All All 1 year Staff time 7.2 Increase security of critical infrastructure, including city/ county / public safety bases. Med All All 3-5 years $500K 7.3 Conduct an annual threat analysis by area agencies to prioritize critical infrastructure and determine vulnerability points that could be strengthened. Med All All 1 year+ Staff time Objective 8: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning xxi

24 Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority 8.1 Create an all-hazard team from Public Safety Council membership (and others as PSC identifies) to address planning and recovery needs 8.2 Create sustained funding for planning and training exercising and recovery expenses 8.3 Initiate and develop use of the Emergency Support Function #8 (ESF-8) role of disaster recovery/ surge capacity at the local medical level. High Hazard(s) Addressed All Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency Public Safety Council High All All High Medical Disaster Public Safety Council Timeframe Cost Estimate 6 months Staff time 6 months 1 year Unknown 1 year Staff time This Plan update resulted in 48 mitigation actions which update, consolidate, and enhance the mitigation actions developed in the 2005 PDMP. The Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update will be maintained and updated according to the plan maintenance structure summarized in Chapter 7. This Plan will be updated again within the next five years to maintain eligibility for the FEMA mitigation grant programs. xxii

25 This chapter provides information on the purpose and participating jurisdictions for the Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update ( Plan ), describes federal hazard mitigation planning requirements and grant programs, and lists an outline of the plan s organization. This 2011 plan updates the 2005 Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for Pitkin and Eagle Counties Plan Purpose and Participating Jurisdictions Pitkin County prepared this Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update to better protect the people and property within the county from the impacts of natural hazard events. The 2005 plan was a multijurisdictional plan prepared in partnership with Eagle County and its incorporated municipalities. As part of the plan update process, Pitkin County decided to prepare its own multi-jurisdictional plan, focused specifically on the hazards, goals, priorities, and projects most important to the County and its municipalities. Participating jurisdictions include: Pitkin County, the City Aspen, the Town of Snowmass Village, the Town of Basalt, Aspen Fire Protection District, Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, and Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. 1-1

26 Hazard mitigation is defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event. Mitigation creates safer communities by reducing loss of life and property damage. Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified and profiled; likely impacts of those hazards are assessed; and mitigation strategies to lessen those impacts are identified, prioritized, and implemented. The results of a three-year, congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities provides evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $4 in avoided future losses in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries. This plan demonstrates the participating jurisdictions commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct and coordinate mitigation activities and resources, including local land use policies Mitigation Planning Requirements Haz ard Mit'i ga'tion n. Any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $4 in avoided future losses, in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries. 3 The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) passed by Congress includes a mitigation planning section (322). This section emphasizes the need for State, Tribal, and local entities to coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. In addition, it provides the legal basis for FEMA s mitigation plan requirements for mitigation grant assistance. To implement these planning requirements, FEMA published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 (FEMA 2002a), 44 CFR Part 201 with subsequent updates. The planning requirements for local entities are identified in their appropriate sections throughout this plan. FEMA s October 31, 2007 changes to 44 CFR Part 201 combined and expanded flood mitigation planning requirements with local mitigation plans (44 CFR 201.6). It also required that communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) identify and address properties repetitively damaged by flood in both their risk assessments and mitigation strategies. Appendix A, attached to this plan, includes a completed FEMA Crosswalk, which is an official report card used by FEMA when reviewing local hazard mitigation plans for compliance with 44 CFR National Institute of Building Science Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council,

27 1.3. Grant Programs Requiring Hazard Plans Local hazard mitigation plans qualify communities for the following federal mitigation grant programs: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL), and Repetitive Flood Claim (RFC). The HMGP and PDM grant programs are authorized under the Stafford Act and DMA 2000, while the FMA, SRL, and RFC grant programs are authorized under the National Flood Insurance Act and the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act. The HMGP is a state competitive grant program for communities in areas covered by a recent disaster declaration. The PDM, FMA, RFC, and SRL programs are also competitive but are available on an annual basis and do not require a disaster declaration; they rely on specific pre-disaster grant funding sources. In 2008, FEMA combined the PDM program with the FMA, RFC, and SRL programs into a unified Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) program application cycle. The intent of this alignment was to enhance the quality and efficiency of grant awards on an allocation and competitive basis. The HMA program supports States, Indian Tribal governments, and local entities in undertaking worthwhile, cost-beneficial activities designed to reduce the risks of future damage in hazard-prone areas Disaster Funded Mitigation Assistance Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) The HMGP provides grants to States, Indian Tribal governments, local entities, and private non-profit organizations to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. Projects must provide a long-term solution to a problem: for example, elevation of a home to reduce the risk of flood damages as opposed to purchasing supplies to fight the flood. In addition, a project s potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing the project. Funds may be used to protect property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. The amount of funding available for the HMGP under a disaster declaration is limited. The program may provide a State or Indian Tribal government with up to 20 percent of the total disaster grants awarded by FEMA. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent non-federal Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Programs Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program The PDM program provides funds to States, Indian Tribal governments, and local entities, for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Grants are awarded on a nationally competitive basis. Like HMGP funding, a PDM project s potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing the project. In addition, funds may be used to protect either public or private property or to purchase 1-3

28 property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent Federal/25 percent non-federal (or 90 percent federal/10 percent non-federal if the subgrantee or Tribal grantee is a small impoverished community). There is approximately $50 million to $150 million available each year. Communities compete nationally for the funds, although Colorado is guaranteed $500,000 in annual project dollars; so it is expected that at least one community in Colorado will receive money, assuming approvable grant applications are received. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant Program The goal of the FMA grant program is to reduce or eliminate flood insurance claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Particular emphasis for this program is placed on mitigating repetitive loss properties. Repetitive loss properties are properties for which two or more NFIP losses of at least $1,000 each have been paid within any 10-year period since Project grants, which use the majority of the program s total funding, are awarded to States, Indian Tribal governments, and local entities, for planning and technical assistance and/or to apply mitigation measures to reduce flood losses to properties insured under the NFIP. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent non-federal (or 90 percent federal/10 percent non-federal for severe repetitive loss properties with a Repetitive Loss Strategy). In Colorado there is approximately $100K-$150K available annually state-wide. After communities compete for a share of state-allocated funds, they may go on to compete for national funds, if there is money left over in the system. Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Program The RFC program provides funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to residential and nonresidential structures insured under the NFIP that have had one or more claim payments for flood damages. All RFC grants are eligible for up to 100 percent federal funding. There is $100 million available each year. This is nationally competitive program for "small and impoverished" communities and it only provides mitigation assistance to properties with flood insurance that have previous flood claims. Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program The SRL program provides funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to residential structures insured under the NFIP that have at least four NFIP claim payments over $5,000 each, when at least two such claims have occurred within any 10- year period, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or for which at least two separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the value of the property, when two such claims have occurred within any 10-year period. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent non-federal (or 90 percent federal/10 percent non-federal with a Repetitive Loss Strategy). 1-4

29 1.4. Plan Organization The Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update is organized as follows: Prerequisites include the participating jurisdictions resolutions of adoption for the plan. Executive Summary provides a general summary of the plan update document. Chapter 1: Introduction describes the plan s purpose, hazard mitigation planning requirements, and federal hazard mitigation grant programs. Chapter 2: Planning Process describes the planning process used to develop the plan update, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. Chapter 3: Community Profile provides a general description of Pitkin County and its municipalities, including location, geography, climate, history, population, economy, and government. Chapter 4: Risk Assessment identifies and profiles the hazards that could affect the county and assesses vulnerability to those hazards. It provides an inventory of critical facilities and other community assets in the city, and describes land use and development trends. Chapter 5: Capability Assessment details existing plans, programs, and policies in the participating jurisdictions that relate to mitigation. Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategy identifies goals and actions to mitigate hazards in Pitkin County based on the results of the risk assessment. The mitigation actions are analyzed and prioritized, including a status update on the mitigation actions identified in the 2005 plan. This chapter also includes an implementation strategy. Chapter 7: Plan Implementation and Maintenance provides a formal process for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan; discusses how to incorporate the plan into existing planning mechanisms; and offers plans for continued public involvement. Appendix A: Plan Review Crosswalk includes a completed FEMA crosswalk for local hazard mitigation plans documenting compliance with 44 CFR Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation compiles agendas, sign-in sheets, press releases, and other materials documenting the planning process. Appendix C: Mitigation Action Evaluation includes the worksheets used by the workshop participants to identify and prioritize mitigation actions. Appendix D: Plan Maintenance Forms provides a mitigation action progress reporting form and an annual plan review questionnaire to assist in evaluating and maintaining the plan. Appendix E: References provides references for information sources cited in the plan and a list of key contacts, web resources, and acronyms used in the plan. 1-5

30 This page intentionally left blank. 1-6

31 This chapter describes the planning process used to develop the 2011 plan update, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved Pre-Disaster Mitigation Workshops Pitkin County contracted with URS Corporation (URS) of Denver in April 2011 to assist in updating the pre-disaster mitigation plan by facilitating the planning process and developing the plan document. The Pitkin County Sheriff s Office and the Emergency Manager, together with URS, worked to convene two workshops to guide the planning process and make key decisions. In the planning process for the 2011 update, the workshop participants reviewed and updated each of the sections of the previously approved 2005 plan, including improving organization and formatting and adding substantially more in-depth information specific to Pitkin County. The process for updating each section is described in the following planning process steps, as well as in each relevant plan chapter. The plan preparation process was similar to that of the 2005 PDMP in that the County formed a team, included the public and state and federal agencies, pulled information from other various sources and stakeholders, and reviewed drafts of the document. This plan update builds upon the success of the 2005 process. To ensure adequate participation in plan development, workshop participants were asked to do the following: Participate in workshop activities; Collect risk assessment data; Make decisions on plan process and content; Submit mitigation action implementation worksheets; Coordinate and assist with the public outreach strategy; Review plan drafts; and Coordinate the final adoption of the plan. FEMA Requirement 44 CFR 201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process and how the public was involved. 2-1

32 The Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update was prepared over six months. Table 2-2 lists the dates and agenda items for the planning workshops. Full agendas and sign-in sheets are included in Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation Step Planning Process The workshop participants used FEMA s 10-step planning process and integrated recommendations from FEMA s Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (2008), the Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guides, and the 10-step planning process used for FEMA s Community Rating System (CRS) and Flood Mitigation Assistance programs. Table 2-1 shows how the modified 10-step process corresponds with the planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act. Table 2-1: 10-Step Planning Process Used to Develop the Plan Disaster Mitigation Act Requirements 44 CFR Phase I: Organize Resources 201.6(c)(1) 201.6(b)(1) 201.6(b)(2) and (3) Phase II: Assess Risks 201.6(c)(2)(i) 201.6(c)(2)(ii) Phase III: Develop the Mitigation Plan 201.6(c)(3)(i) 201.6(c)(3)(ii) 201.6(c)(3)(iii) Phase IV: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress 201.6(c)(5) 201.6(c)(4) Source: FEMA Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, Modified CRS Planning Steps Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort Step 2: Involve the Public Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies Step 4: Identify the Hazards Step 5: Assess the Risks Step 6: Set Goals Step 7: Review Possible Activities Step 8: Draft an Action Plan Step 9: Adopt the Plan Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan The following section provides a narrative description of the planning process Phase I: Organize Resources Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort The planning process began with a kick-off workshop on June 23, During the first workshop, URS presented information on the scope and purpose of the plan, participation requirements, and an overview of the planning process and schedule. 2-2

33 Table 2-2: Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Workshops Date June 23, 2011 July 21, 2011 Meeting Type and Agenda Workshop #1: Project Kick-off: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Introduce the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and purpose and requirements of hazard mitigation planning; Discuss requirements and expectations for participation; Discuss the planning process and the public outreach requirements and strategies Discuss hazard identification, preliminary risk assessment results, and the data collection process; Share expectations for the planning process and results; and Distribute data request for assistance with capability assessment and identification of critical facilities. Workshop #2: Goals and Mitigation Actions Review capability assessment and the critical facilities data; Review and refine mitigation goals; Review, refine, and introduce objective and actions; Prioritize mitigation actions; and Agree upon a method and schedule for plan implementation and for monitoring, evaluating, and maintaining the plan over time. Step 2: Involve the Public Prior to the kick-off workshop, URS, the Pitkin County Emergency Manager, and the Pitkin County Public Information Specialist discussed ideas for involving the public (Step 2) and coordination with other agencies and departments (Step 3). Workshop Recording and Television Broadcast: Both Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Workshops were video-recorded. Video of the workshops was streamed live on the County website and recordings were provided for later public viewing on the Pitkin County Emergency Management Website: Management. Additionally, video of the workshops was rebroadcast 22 times on the local Government TV channel. General Community Outreach: Pitkin County Community Relations sent numerous public service announcements to both local newspapers and both ran stories on the PDMP project (see Appendix B). The Pitkin County Television Broadcast of Hazard Mitigation Planning Workshop Emergency Manager did an interview on KJAX Aspen Public Radio regarding the PDMP. Project information was also distributed by the County via Facebook Page and Twitter (see Appendix B) and repeated s were sent to the County s outreach list to keep people apprised of meeting dates and assignments. 2-3

34 Presentations to Governing Authorities: The PDMP project was an agenda item at three Public Safety Council meetings from May to September Additionally, the Pitkin County Emergency Manager provided informational reports to the Board of County Commissioners on June 18 and September 6, These appearances streamed live on the County website and aired on Government TV multiple times. Public Review of Plan Drafts: The draft PDMP plan update was available for public review in hard copy from September 6, 2011 until September 20, 2011 at the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office at 506 E. Main Street, Suite 101, Aspen, as well as in the other participating jurisdictions. The draft plan was also available for electronic review on the Pitkin County Emergency Management website at: from September 6, 2011 to September 20, 2011, and beyond. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager and Public Information Specialist publicized the availability of the draft plan by purchasing airtime on the local radio station during the public review period: 18 advertisements over a nine-day period. Additionally, the public review period and the two planning workshops were publicized by a ticker tape message on Government TV and announcements in the local paper. Several editorial comments were received from workshop participants and members of the Public Safety Council; however, no additional public comments were received during the Plan review period. Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies FEMA Requirement 44 CFR 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private a non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager invited a range of local, state, and federal departments and agencies and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process. Workshop sign-in sheets are included in Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation. The agencies that participated are listed in Table

35 Table 2-3: Workshop Participants Agencies/Organizations/Individuals that participated in the Pitkin County PDM workshops: Pitkin County Emergency Management Pitkin County Administration Pitkin County Community Relations Pitkin County Board of Commissioners Pitkin County Community Development Pitkin County Public Works Pitkin County Coroner Pitkin County Sheriff s Office Pitkin County 911 Pitkin County Local Emergency Planning Committee Pitkin County Public Safety Council Pitkin County Health and Human Services Pitkin County Public Health/Community Health Services Pitkin County Senior Services Council Pitkin County Landfill Aspen Pitkin GIS City of Aspen City of Aspen Engineering City of Aspen Stormwater Aspen Volunteer Fire Department/Aspen Fire Protection District Aspen Police Department City of Aspen Power and Electric Aspen Valley Hospital Aspen Ambulance District Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Aspen Historical Society Colorado Mountain College, Aspen Campus Aspen Mountain Ski Area Highlands Ski Area Snowmass Ski Area Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Snowmass Village Police Basalt Police Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District Basalt Sanitation District Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Holy Cross Energy Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Upper Colorado Interagency Fire Management Unit (Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, National Park Service) NWIMT Colorado Division of Emergency Management Colorado Water Conservation Board American Red Cross Incorporation of Other Plans and Studies: As part of the coordination with other departments and agencies, URS and workshop participants reviewed and incorporated existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. This information was used in the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment in Chapters 4 and 5, and in the formation of goals, objectives and mitigation actions in Chapter 6. These sources are documented throughout the plan and in Appendix E: References. The plans and studies specific to Pitkin County and the participating jurisdictions included the following: Aspen Area Community Plan, draft March 2011 The Aspen Economy, Economics Research Associates, October 2008 Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan for Colorado, August 2007 Multi-Jurisdictional All- Hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for Pitkin and Eagle Counties, June 2005 Pitkin County Land Use Code, July 2006 Pitkin County Land Use Policy Guidelines, September 2002 Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan, July 18, 2011 Roaring Fork River Stewardship Master Plan for the Town of Basalt, 2003 Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, draft March

36 Rural Living in Pitkin County, Pitkin County Community Development, November 2006 State of the Aspen Area, 2008 State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, January 2011 Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan, March 2010 Basalt Master Plan, Phase II: Assess Risks Step 4: Identify the Hazards At the Project Kick-off Workshop on June 23, 2011, URS presented information on the requirements for the risk assessment section of the hazard mitigation plan. The workshop participants reviewed the list of hazards that FEMA recommends for consideration in mitigation planning and discussed the past and potential impacts of these hazards on the city. The workshop participants initially agreed to eliminate six hazards due to low risk and insufficient data or lack of relevance with this plan s purpose and scope (dam failure, expansive soils/subsidence, extreme heat, hailstorm, and volcano). Chapter 4 describes the identified hazards that impact Pitkin County and the participating jurisdictions: Wildfire, Winter Storm, Avalanche, Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall, Seasonal/Flash Flooding, Drought, Lightning, Windstorm/Tornado, and Earthquake. Step 5: Assess the Risks A profile of each identified hazard was created using available online data sources and existing plans and reports. The profiles include a hazard description, geographic location, past occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity (extent) for each hazard. The profiles also describe overall vulnerability to each hazard and identify structures and estimate potential losses to structures in identified hazard areas. Workshop participants used a worksheet to provide additional information to URS about hazard data sources and past events in the county. The draft risk assessment was posted online at for public review prior to developing the mitigation strategy. Workshop participants also completed a mitigation capability assessment, which identifies the existing government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and plans that mitigate or could be used to mitigate risk to disasters. This plan update includes information on the participating jurisdictions regulatory, personnel, fiscal, and technical capabilities, as well as ongoing initiatives related to interagency coordination and public outreach. This capability assessment is contained in Chapter 5. Capability Assessment. 2-6

37 Phase III: Mitigation Strategy Step 6: Set Goals Also at the first planning workshop on June 23, 2011, URS provided an overview of the mitigation strategy and the goals of the 2005 All-Hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, as well as the Colorado State Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. The workshop participants discussed the goals to be included in this plan update and listed possible objectives and mitigation actions. Step 7: Review Possible Activities After reviewing risk assessment data and a group discussion of priorities at the first workshop, participants decided to focus on four priority hazards in the PDMP mitigation strategy. Wildfire, Winter Storm, Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall, and Seasonal/Flash Flooding. Workshop participants agreed that these hazards pose the greatest to Pitkin County. It is highly likely that each of these hazards will occur annually. Although occurrences may have a limited or negligible magnitude and severity, there is definite potential for critical or catastrophic losses. At the second workshop on July 23, 2011, the participants also identified and prioritized mitigation actions. Details on this process are included in Chapter 6. Mitigation Strategy. The workshop participants identified the responsible agency and completed an implementation worksheet for each mitigation action. The purpose of these worksheets is to document background information, ideas for implementation, alternatives, responsible offices, partners, potential funding, cost estimates, benefits, and timeline for each identified action. Step 8: Draft the Plan URS developed a draft of the plan update document for review by the workshop participants. The draft was made available online and in hard copy for review and comment by the public and other agencies and interested stakeholders. This review period was from September 6, 2011 through September 20, Methods for inviting interested parties and the public to review and comment on the plan were discussed in Steps 2 and 3, and materials are provided in Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation. Comments were integrated into a final draft for submittal to the Colorado Division of Emergency Management, Colorado Water Conservation Board, and FEMA Region VIII Phase IV: Plan Maintenance Step 9: Adopt the Plan The Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, Aspen City Council, Snowmass Village Town Board, and Basalt Town Board adopted the Plan in Copies of the resolutions of adoption are included in the Prerequisites section of the Plan. Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan 2-7

38 The workshop participants developed and agreed upon a method and schedule for plan implementation and for monitoring, evaluating, and maintaining the Plan over time. This information is described in Chapter 7. Plan Implementation and Maintenance. 2-8

39 The following sections describe the location, geography, climate, history, population, and governments of Pitkin County Location, Geography, and Climate Location Pitkin County is situated in the mountains of west central Colorado, approximately 200 miles southwest of Denver. The county encompasses vast areas of National Forest surrounding private and state-owned lands. Pitkin County includes the incorporated communities of Aspen, Snowmass, and portions of Basalt; and the unincorporated communities of Woody Creek, Old Snowmass, Meredith, Thomasville, and Redstone. Other rural residential areas with active homeowner associations or local caucuses include Brush Creek Village, Aspen Village and Castle/Maroon Creek. Ghost towns within the county are Ashcroft and Independence. Pitkin County and its communities are illustrated in Exhibit 3-1. Geography This section was taken directly from the 2005 PDMP, with minor adaptations and updates: Pitkin County, Colorado is located in the Colorado River watershed. It comprises a land area of 975 square miles, with mountain elevations ranging from 6,625 to 14,259 feet atop Castle Peak. Within the county, the U.S. Forest Service manages 493,007 acres of the White River National Forest, and the Bureau of Land Management manages over 26,000 acres. Along the eastern boundary are the Hunter Fryingpan and Collegiate Peaks Wilderness Areas, and to the south is the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area. Additionally, the proposed Hidden Gems Wilderness Area would contain 15 areas totaling approximately 65,000 acres. Pitkin County also boasts two State Wildlife and Resource Management Areas. The Continental Divide forms the eastern boundary along the crest of the Sawatch Range and is drained by the Fryingpan River, which is dammed to form the Ruedi Reservoir. The Roaring Fork River flows northwest from the high peaks, and the Crystal River is on the western side of the county. The Crystal, Roaring Fork and Frying Pan rivers flow into Pitkin County from the north, and tributaries of the Roaring Fork, including Castle and Maroon Creeks, flow into the southern part of the county. 3-1

40 Exhibit 3-1: Pitkin County Context Map 3-2

41 The city of Aspen, the county seat and the county s largest municipality, is located on Colorado Highway 82 with an airport nearby. Highway 82 is the only major roadway in Pitkin County leading into and out of Aspen: via I-70 at Glenwood Springs to the north and over the 12,000-foot Independence Pass to the south. Located high in the Rocky Mountains, Aspen, originally known as Ute City, is the 53rd largest city in the state. Situated 200 miles southwest of Denver and 130 miles east of Grand Junction, it is at the southeastern end of the Roaring Fork Valley. The Roaring Fork Valley stretches from Glenwood Springs at the northwest end to the top of Independence Pass on the southeast end. Aspen encompasses 3.66 square miles and is surrounded by the White River National Forest. At an elevation of 7,800 feet, Aspen is positioned in a relatively flat valley floor surrounded on three sides by 14,000-foot Peaks: Aspen Mountain, Smuggler Mountain and Red Mountain. Climate The climate of Pitkin County is typical of high altitude areas with low humidity and intense sunshine. Summer weather is warm and dry with temperatures occasionally reaching 90 degrees during the day. During the winter, sunny days and clear blue skies often give way to severe conditions and significant snowfall accumulations. Average December and January highs are relatively temperate at 35-degrees Fahrenheit, while lows during the winter months average about 8-degrees Fahrenheit. Table 3-1: Monthly Statistics for Temperature and Precipitation in Aspen Average Max. Temperature (F) Average Min. Temperature (F) Average Total Precipitation (in.) Average Total Snowfall (in.) Average Snow Depth (in.) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Source: Station at Aspen 1 SW, Colorado from City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan, April History This section was adapted from the 2005 PDMP; the 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan; and the Snowmass Village, Basalt, and Aspen Valley Hospital, websites: Long before skiers and even settlers discovered the Roaring Fork, Fryingpan, and Brush Creek Valleys, the Ute Indians hunted, fished, and gathered wild foods in the summers. The first European/non-natives 3-3

42 explored the Elk Mountains as early as 1853 during the Gunnison Survey, and returned in the 1870s for the Hayden Survey. During the height of silver mining in the early 1880s, there was great change and dynamic growth in the Roaring Fork, Fryingpan and neighboring river valleys. In 1881 Aspen was incorporated as a silver mining town and the nearby Brush Creek Valley became home to numerous ranches running sheep and cattle. Between 1880 and 1892 Aspen grew to become the third largest city in Colorado, behind Denver and Leadville. Demand for charcoal from smelters in Aspen resulted in the construction of seven kilns near the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan Rivers in With the development of the railroad and the Colorado Midland Railroad Company, the Town of Aspen Junction was formed in 1887 across the Fryingpan River from the kilns. In 1895 Aspen Junction was renamed Basalt for the basaltic rock formation of Basalt Mountain, north of the town; the Town of Basalt was officially incorporated during the summer of , the Citizens' Hospital Association opened Aspen's first hospital. However, only two years later, Congress repealed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act [which demonetized silver] and Aspen s development as a silver mining community quickly declined. Aspen s population dropped from 12,000 residents in 1893 to just 3,300 by The Smuggler mine closed permanently in The area then settled into its quiet years until the late 1930s creation of a downhill ski run by Andre Roch aptly called Roch Run Trail or the Roch. Just after World War II in 1946, Aspen permanently carved out a place among international ski resorts with the longest chairlift in the world Lift 1. In 1958 Olympic Skier Bill Janss began buying up ranches in the Brush Creek Valley with an eye toward emulating the Aspen ski area s success. In December of 1967, Snowmass-At-Aspen opened with five chairlifts, fifty miles of ski trails, seven hotels, and six restaurants. A decade later the Town of Snowmass was incorporated. Around the same time, industrialist Walter Paepcke and his wife Elizabeth began promoting Aspen as an intellectual center. The Paepckes had a clear vision for the town and brought influential and celebrated artists, writers, and thinkers to Aspen which led to the creation of the Aspen Institute, Aspen Center for Physics, and Aspen Music Festival to name a few, and ultimately led to the development of the Aspen Idea the pursuit of mind, body and spirit. Pitkin County now supports a vibrant, diversified economy, in addition to four world-class ski mountains. Aspen and Snowmass Village are internationally renowned as a winter and summer resorts and host various music and arts festivals. Aspen Valley Hospital, relocated and expanded through the formation of a hospital district in the 1970s, is considered one of the most sophisticated small hospitals in the country Population According to the 2010 Census, there are 17,148 people residing in Pitkin County, which ranks it as the 28th largest population of the 64 counties in Colorado. Of this population, 6,658 people reside in Aspen and 2,826 reside in Snowmass Village. As illustrated in Table 3-2, the rate of population growth in the county over the past decade has nearly kept pace with growth in the State. The county has 8,152 households and 12,953 housing units, of which approximately one-third, or 3,807 units, are for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. The racial makeup of the county is 93.5% White, 0.5% Black or African American, 0.3% American Indian, 1.2% Asian, and 0.5% from other races. 9.1% of the population is 3-4

43 Hispanic or Latino of any race. The high season population is greater than 25,000 and is concentrated in the county s two primary population centers: Aspen and Snowmass Village. According to The Aspen Economy, a white paper prepared for the City of Aspen in October, 2008, it is estimated that a third of Aspen area employees live in government-supported affordable housing, 55 percent commute via Highway 82, and only about 13 percent of total employees actually live in local free market housing. An increasing percentage of permanent and seasonal residents are retired, a trend that can be expected to continue. Accordingly, the average age of the Pitkin County resident population is rising considerably, with the median age increasing from 34.9 years to 42 years from the 1990 to 2010 census. Table 3-2: Pitkin County Population by Jurisdiction ( ) Area Percent Change City of Aspen 5,914 6, % Town of Snowmass Village 1,822 2, % Town of Basalt 2,681 3, % Pitkin County 14,872 17, % Colorado 4,301,261 5,029, % Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, Economy The basic industry in Pitkin County is tourism, including the winter ski industry, summer outdoor recreation, special events, second homes, etc. Activities associated with the tourism industry include the area s hotels and lodging, eating and drinking places, retail and transportation. While the real estate and construction sectors have lost ground in the recent economic recession, these industries have traditionally been strong sectors within Pitkin County s economy. In 2009, per capita personal income for Pitkin County was $84,264 which ranked 1st in the state. By comparison, Colorado s 2009 per capita income was $41,895 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010). Within the county, the Accommodation and Food sector accounts for 19% of jobs, with Arts, Real Estate, and Government sectors accounting for 32% of jobs. Table 3-3 lists primary job sectors by number of employees. Table 3-3: Pitkin County Jobs by Sector (2009 Estimate) Sector Jobs Percent of Total Jobs Accommodation and Food 3,791 19% Arts 2,132 11% Real Estate 2,115 11% Government 2,035 10% Admin and Waste 1,662 8% Retail Trade 1,497 8% Other Services, except public administration 1,438 7% 3-5

44 Sector Jobs Percent of Total Jobs Construction 1,429 7% Professional and Business Services 1,354 7% Health Services 506 3% Finance Activities 456 2% Education 383 2% Transportation and Warehousing 277 1% Information 275 1% Manufacturing 154 1% Agriculture 132 1% Wholesale Trade 130 1% Management of Companies and Enterprise 31 <1% Estimated Total Jobs 19,822 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, The Aspen-Pitkin County Airport is the third busiest in the state, with over 240,000 annual enplaned passengers and over 40,000 take-offs and landings annually. The airport is recognized as a vital county asset, which contributes to the stability and the future of the area s economy Government As a home-rule county, Pitkin County is self-governing under the State Constitution, Colorado Revised Statutes, and the Home Rule Charter for Pitkin County. The County provides general government, public safety, road and bridge, and health and welfare services required by state statute, as well as other services such as solid waste landfill and recycling, ambulance, and open space and trails services. The city of Aspen is the county seat, and in an effort to increase efficiency, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County also provide services through several joint departments, such as information technology and dispatch communications. A five-member Board of County Commissioners is the decision making body for the County. Each Commissioner is elected at large from one of five districts and serves a four year term. The Board of County Commissioners appoints a county manager and county attorney, as well as a variety of citizen boards, such as the Planning and Zoning Commission, Open Space and Trails Board, and the Financial Advisory Board. The City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village are both home-rule municipalities. The Town of Basalt is a statutory municipality. All three municipalities have council-mayor-manager forms of government. An appointed city/town manager oversees each municipality s day-to-day operations on behalf of the elected mayor and council members. All powers are vested in the councils, which enact local legislation, adopt budgets, determine policies and appoint the city/town managers. Aspen and Snowmass Village have five-member councils (including the mayor), while Basalt has a seven-member council (including the mayor). 3-6

45 Emergency Management in Pitkin County The Pitkin County Department of Emergency Management is responsible for the planning and coordination of the local disaster services. 4 Traditional guiding principles of emergency management concern planning, preparation, mitigation, and recovery from natural and human-caused emergencies and disasters. To enhance planning and coordination, the Pitkin County Public Safety Council (PSC) brings together 38 cooperating agencies, including all first response agencies (such as law enforcement and fire departments) and other supporting agencies (such as American Red Cross and Community Health) every other month to discuss public safety issues in the Roaring Fork Valley. Table 3-4: Aspen/Pitkin County Public Safety Council Member Agencies: Pitkin County Board of Commissioners Pitkin County Sheriff s Office Pitkin County Combined Communications Pitkin County Airport Aspen Ambulance District City of Aspen Aspen Police Department Aspen Fire Protection District Basalt Police Department Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Mountain Rescue Aspen Snowmass Village Police Department Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Aspen Valley Hospital Pitkin County Emergency Management Support Agencies: Pitkin County Attorney Colorado State Patrol Pitkin County Environmental Health Colorado Division of Emergency Management Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Transportation Security Administration Aspen/Pitkin GIS Colorado Mountain College Community Health Aspen Water Department Pitkin County Road and Bridge Pitkin County Community Relations Aspen Skiing Company Snowmass Public Works Aspen School District Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Basalt BEMC American Red Cross City of Aspen Risk Management Pitkin County Community Development Town of Snowmass Village Pitkin County Information Technology In 2001, the Pitkin County Emergency Medical and Trauma Advisory Council (EMTAC) was established to: 1. Oversee the annual inspection and licensing process for county ambulances. 2. Coordinate emergency medical and trauma services among the county ambulance services, first responder agencies, and Aspen Valley Hospital; 3. Provide direction and recommendations to our representatives on the Central Mountain Regional Emergency and Trauma Advisory Council; 4. Administer the required State Annual EMS plan and the state subsidy moneys; and 5. Implement and coordinate accident prevention programs on a countywide basis. 4 Colorado Revised Statute (4). 3-7

46 The EMTAC includes appointed representatives from the following entities: Aspen fire protection district; Basalt fire protection district; Carbondale fire protection district; Snowmass-Wildcat fire protection district; Aspen ambulance district; Pitkin County sheriff s office; Aspen ski company ski patrols; Aspen Valley hospital emergency room; Aspen Valley hospital trauma coordinator office; Aspen Valley hospital trauma surgeons; Pitkin County Emergency Management Coordinator s office. In 2003, the Town of Basalt established an Emergency Management Committee (BEMC) to direct community input to ensure the public safety entities are meeting the needs of the community in order to protect the lives and property of citizens in the Basalt area. BEMC tasking is directed to: The continued development and implementation of the Town of Basalt Emergency Plan of June 2002 and prioritization of plan annexes; Educate the community on emergency preparations and evacuation procedures; Educate the community and Town of Basalt staff on the principles and structure of the Incident Command System (ICS); Advise the Basalt Town Council on the development and implementation of emergency policies; Coordinate Basalt emergency services to support professional emergency services already in place; Coordinate with the Bureau of Reclamation the local concerns regarding Ruedi Reservoir including, but not limited to, warning systems, flood flow elevations, risk from the Roaring Fork and other tributaries, potential inundation and impacts to down valley communities, and emergency procedures Fire Protection Districts Four fire protection districts serve Pitkin County and are described below. Each of the districts participated individually in this planning process. Exhibit 3-2 shows all fire districts in Pitkin County. Aspen Fire Protection District The Aspen Fire Protection District serves 87 square miles in Pitkin County. It encompasses the Town of Aspen, and several unincorporated areas such as Woody Creek, Brush Creek and Starwood. The Aspen Fire District is staffed by a combination of career and volunteer members who are state certified to handle diverse emergency calls. The district is comprised of geographically different areas ranging from 3-8

47 downtown Aspen to sparse residential and mountainous terrain with significant wildland-urban interface, each having different suppression and rescue requirements. Those requirements are met with a multi-faceted line of apparatus, equipment, and training. The department also operates active fire prevention and emergency preparedness programs which provides for fire inspections, hazardous process permitting, burn permits, fire code enforcement, community education, and business emergency planning in accordance with Colorado laws. Each year the Aspen Fire Protection District spends over 4,000 hours completing hands-on training activities, which build important practical skills and provide each firefighter with the abilities needed to quickly and correctly respond to all types of emergency situations. 5 Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District provides emergency and non-emergency services for the protection of life and property in portions of Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Encompassing 492 square miles, the department is one of the largest fire districts in Colorado. The department provides 24-hour emergency response to a wide variety of critical situations, including fires, explosions, hazardous materials incidents, medical emergencies, accidents and miscellaneous public assistance requests. In addition, the department operates active fire prevention and emergency preparedness programs which provides for fire inspections, hazardous process permitting, fire code enforcement, community education and business emergency planning in accordance with Colorado laws. 6 Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District was organized in 1971 as an all-volunteer department. Since that time, population demands have increased the need for prompt reliable emergency services; this has gradually transformed the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District into a professional agency with 16 fulltime employees and 11 resident firefighter emergency medical technicians (EMTs). The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District uses nine fire suppression units and three advanced life support ambulances that serve the community s citizens, tourists, and day-skier population. The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District encompasses 21 square miles, which includes the Town of Snowmass Village, Snowmass Creek drainage, and Wildcat Ranch areas. Emergency services mutual aid is offered with cooperation by the Aspen, Basalt, and Carbondale Fire Departments. 7 Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District protects the life and property of the unincorporated town of Redstone in Pitkin County, as well as the town of Carbondale in Garfield County and Marble in Gunnison County. This response area covers a 320-square-mile area of central Colorado and protects approximately 15,000 residents and 20,000 commuters. Founded in 1953, the department has 19 career personnel and 68 volunteer personnel who respond from five fire stations to provide fire and medical services to the community. A full service, all-hazards organization, CRFPD provides fire prevention/inspection services, fire suppression (structural, wildland, and vehicle), advanced life support 5 Aspen Fire Protection District, 6 Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, 7 Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan,

48 emergency medical services (paramedic ambulance transportation), public and risk reduction education, hazardous materials response, and technical rescue (high angle and swift water rescue) services. In 2008, the Fire Department responded to 1201 calls for service, and the staff and volunteers logged approximately 6000 hours of training. 8 8 Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District,

49 Exhibit 3-2: Pitkin County Fire Protection Districts 3-11

50 This page intentionally left blank. 3-12

51 This chapter profiles the natural hazards that affect Pitkin County and assesses vulnerability to those hazards. The risk assessment allows the participating jurisdictions to better understand its risks and provides a framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future natural hazard events Hazard Identification This section identifies the hazards that are likely to affect Pitkin County. The planning workshop participants considered the hazards identified in the State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2007), the hazards recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA publication 386-2, Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (2002), and the hazards identified in the previous Pitkin and Eagle Counties All-Hazards PDM Plan (2005) Federal Disaster Declarations The planning workshop participants also reviewed events that triggered federal and/or state disaster declarations. Disaster declarations are typically made at the county level and may be granted when the severity and magnitude of an event surpasses the ability of the local government to respond and recover. The federal government may issue a disaster declaration through FEMA, the U.S. FEMA Requirements: 201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the types of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction (c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the location and extent of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and the probability of future hazard events (c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment shall include a description of the jurisdiction s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community (c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area (c)(2)(ii)(B): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(a) of this section (c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. 4-1

52 Department of Agriculture (USDA), and/or the Small Business Administration. FEMA also issues emergency declarations, which are more limited in scope and do not warrant the long-term federal recovery programs of major disaster declarations. Table 4-1 lists federal disaster declarations which included a designation for Pitkin County. These declarations were for drought, severe storms/mudslides/landslides/flooding, and wildfires. Table 4-1: Federal Disaster Declaration History in Pitkin County, Year Event Type Description Type of Declaration 1977 Drought Presidential Emergency May Severe Storms, Mudslides, Town of Basalt: flooding with moderate property damage; no Presidential 1984 June 2002 March 2009 Landslides, Flooding Wildfires Severe Storms loss of life. Pinion/Juniper regions of the county: widespread wildland impact with structural damage to mountain homes; no loss of life. Pitkin County included as a contiguous county to the primary natural disaster area of Chaffee County: excessive crop losses occurred due to an early fall 2008 front, below-normal suffer temperatures, and excessive spring 2009 snowfall. Disaster Presidential Disaster USDA Secretarial Disaster Sources: Pitkin and Eagle Counties All-Hazards PDM Plan, 2005; State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, 2008; Office of Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, Jr., Press Release from USDA Secretary of Agriculture, March 5, 2009; Public Entity Risk Institute Presidential Disaster Declaration Site, accessed May 18, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Disasters A USDA disaster declaration certifies that the affected county has suffered at least a 30 percent loss in one or more crop or livestock areas and provides affected producers with access to low-interest loans and other programs to help mitigate the impact of the drought. All counties neighboring those receiving disaster declarations are named as contiguous disaster counties and are eligible for the same assistance in accordance with the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. As shown in the following table, from 2005 to 2010, the Farm Service Agency of the USDA issued eight disaster declarations affecting Pitkin County. Most of these declarations resulted from periods of drought, high winds/excessive heat, below normal temperatures, or winter storms. 4-2

53 Table 4-2: USDA Farm Service Agency Disaster Designations, Pitkin County Year Disaster Excessive Number Drought Insects Wildfires High Winds Heat Below Normal Temp. Winter Storms Excessive Moisture S S S S S Sources: State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, 2011; USDA Farm Service Agency, and State of Colorado Press Release, FSA News Release, accessed May 18, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center Records The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported 37 climatic events in Pitkin County between 1950 and While most were not to the level for disaster declarations by the federal government, these nevertheless included events such as hail, tornado, lightning, flash flood, thunderstorm wind, and heavy rain. Pitkin County s record of these list little to no property damage in that 60-year period. In the last 10 years, a flash flood in Snowmass caused $40,000 in property damage, where any other flash flood or heavy rain reports in that period were no more than $5, Planning Continuity The 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties All-Hazards PDM Plan identified wildfire, winter storms, avalanche, landslide (including rockslide and rock fall), seasonal/flash flooding, and transported hazardous material as posing the most risk to Pitkin County. This 2011 plan profiles the same hazards identified in the 2005 plan, with the removal of transported hazardous material and the addition of drought, lightning, windstorms/tornados, and earthquake. 9 National Climatic Data Center, 4-3

54 Table 4-3: Hazards Identified in the 2005 All-Hazards PDM Plan and 2011 PDMP Update 2005 All-Hazards PDM Plan 2011 PDMP Update Wildfire Wildfire Winter storm Winter Storm Avalanche Avalanche Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Seasonal/Flash Flooding Seasonal/Flash Flooding Transported Hazardous Material Drought Lightning Windstorm/Tornado Earthquake Other hazards that are not profiled in the plan, due to the low likelihood of occurrence or low probability that property or populations would be significantly affected, are listed in Table 4-4 along with an explanation. Table 4-4: Hazards Not Profiled in this Plan Hazard Dam / Levee Failure Expansive Soils / Subsidence Extreme Heat Hailstorm Volcano Explanation for Omission Although there are 19 dams whose failure would potentially impact the County, each dam with either a significant or high hazard potential is required to have an Emergency Action Plan. The Emergency Action Plan includes measures to reduce the potential for property damage and loss of life in an area affected by a dam failure. All dams in Colorado fall under the regulatory authority of the Colorado Division of Water Resources Dam Safety Branch. Although some underlying swelling clays may exist in Pitkin County, the overall impacts are negligible and are mitigated through existing development policies and practices. This hazard has not created problems in the past that are unrelated to drought. High temperatures affecting human health are rare due to the County s high, alpine geography. Large-sized, damaging hail is rare due to Pitkin County s high, alpine geography. Colorado s only volcano of concern, Dotsero, is located approximately 20 miles north of Basalt, near the confluence of the Colorado and Eagle Rivers. However, Dotsero has not erupted in approximately 4,200 years. A 2005 study by the US Geological Survey rated Dotsero as a moderate threat for its potential to spew volcanic ash into the air at such altitudes that it could disrupt airplane traffic. Human-Caused Hazards The primary focus of this PDMP update is to assess and provide mitigation strategies for natural hazards. However, the following human-caused hazards are also of special concern for Pitkin County: Special Events, Aviation, Pandemics, Terrorism, Traffic Casualties, Infrastructure (Power Outage, Water Contamination), and 4-4

55 Transported Hazardous Material. A robust Incident Command System (ICS), as taught by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), is Pitkin County s primary means of anticipating and responding to both human-caused and natural hazards. The Pitkin County Sheriff s Office began implementing ICS in By 1990 the Pitkin County Sheriff s Office policy and experience had influenced the adoption of ICS by all 16 agencies of the Pitkin County Public Safety Council as standard operating procedure for an all hazard, all risk system. Today ICS is utilized in Pitkin County on nearly a daily basis, with the accepted definition of an emergency incident being any incident requiring three or more first responders or two or more agencies. The Pitkin County Public Safety Council s overwhelming success is based on sincere mutual aid agreements using the Incident Command System as the common language between the diverse agencies and emergency response disciplines Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability The United States is vulnerable to a wide variety of natural hazards that threaten life and property. Damage to critical facilities and disruption of vital services caused by natural hazards has a significant impact on our communities. Additionally, recent local and national events further establish that risks exist from human-caused hazards. These may be caused accidentally, as with disasters caused by transport of hazardous materials or dam failures, or intentionally, as with domestic and international terrorism. Some natural hazards have significant loss potential for Pitkin County, and these hazards are identified separately as Prioritized Hazards. Other hazards with less potential impact or with less effective mitigation action possibilities are also discussed later in this section and are referred to as Other Hazards. In this plan, the determination of the Prioritized Hazards was made through a multi-step risk assessment process combining statistical modeling with more qualitative assessment activities. These qualitative risk tasks consisted of numerous interviews and surveys of emergency response and planning professionals, online and written surveys of county residents and independent historical research, which drew information from many sources. Through this process, certain hazards were determined to pose the greatest threats to the planning area and were prioritized as discussed in the following section. Prioritized Hazards Based on the risk assessment discussed in this Plan, the planning workshop participants prioritized these hazards for further analysis and mitigation planning: Wildfire, Winter Storm, Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall, and Seasonal and Flash Flooding. The planning team recognized that other hazards such as drought occur periodically and have impact on the county. The planning team determined that the prioritized hazards posed a greater risk on life, 4-5

56 safety, critical infrastructure and vital services. Future iterations of the PDMP will possibly include mitigation actions for hazards other than those prioritized by this Plan. Pitkin County has experienced Disaster Declarations in the past 25 years, including the Presidential Disaster Declarations in 1984 and 2002 for Flooding and Wildfires, and the USDA Disaster Declarations in 2000 and 2002 for drought. Comparatively speaking, the volume of disaster declarations of any type experienced by Pitkin County is low compared to other Colorado counties. Risk assessment activities conducted during this project provided the planning team adequate information to establish risk from each hazard for the jurisdictions covered by the PDMP. The research methodology and elements of each hazard profile are defined here along with their relative impact on the jurisdictions participating in this plan. Research Methodology The sources used to collect information for the hazard profiles include, but are not limited to the following: State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, 2011; Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Pre-disaster Mitigation Plan for Pitkin and Eagle Counties, 2005; Information gathered from the Pitkin County website; Information on past hazard events from the Spatial Hazard Event and Loss Database; (SHELDUS), a component of the University of South Carolina Hazards Research Lab, that compiles countylevel hazard data for 18 natural hazard event types; Information on past extreme weather and climate events from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); Disaster declaration history from FEMA, the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency; Information on Natural Hazards gathered from the United States Geological Survey (USGS); Information on Natural Hazards gathered from the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS); Information on mitigation and previous events from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB); Information on drought occurrences from the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC); Geographic information systems (GIS) data from Pitkin County; Existing plans and reports; and Meetings and data collected from the planning workshops. Detailed profiles and vulnerability assessments include the following characteristics of each identified hazard: HAZARD DESCRIPTION provides a general description of the hazard and considers the relationship between hazards. Descriptions of the hazards are more in-depth than what was provided in the 2005 PDMP. 4-6

57 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION describes the geographic extent or location of the hazard in the planning area and determines which participating jurisdictions are affected by each hazard. PREVIOUS OCCURRENCES includes information on the known hazard incidents and includes information related to the impact of those events, if known. Information from the 2005 PDMP was used in addition to numerous other resources to build upon the event history for this Plan update. It is important to note that SHELDUS data provides information on a county-average basis. The number of injuries, fatalities, and property damages associated with a particular event are equally distributed amongst the affected counties for that hazard event. For example, if 5 deaths were attributed to a blizzard that affected 20 counties, then each county would show 0.25 deaths for that event. PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCE uses the frequency of past events to estimate the likelihood of future occurrence. Probability is described more quantitatively in this Plan update than the 2005 PDMP. The 2005 PDMP more generally described probability in terms of whether or not the city expects the event to occur often or not. For this update, the probability, or chance of occurrence, was calculated based on existing data. The probability was determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years and multiplying by 100. This provides the percent chance of the event happening in any given year. For example, three droughts occurring over a 30-year period suggests a 10 percent chance of a drought occurring in any given year. Based on historical data, the probability of future occurrences is categorized as follows: Highly Likely: Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it happens every year. Likely: percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Occasional: 1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or it has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. Unlikely: Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in the next 100 years or it has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years. MAGNITUDE/SEVERITY summarizes the extent or potential extent of a hazard event in terms of deaths, injuries, property damage, and interruption of essential facilities and services. Magnitude and severity is categorized as follows: Catastrophic: extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, and/or government functions which includes sustained city and regional impacts; overwhelms the existing response strategies and state and local resources; and requires significant out-of-state and Federal resources. Critical: Isolated deaths and/or multiple injuries and illnesses; major or long-term property damage that threatens structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for hours. 4-7

58 Limited: Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours. Negligible: No or few injuries or illnesses; minor quality of life loss; little or no property damage; and/or brief interruption of essential facilities and services. The planning workshop participants used discretion to modify some of the probabilities and magnitudes when necessary. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT describes the county s overall vulnerability to each hazard; identifies existing and future structures, critical facilities, and infrastructure in identified hazard areas; and estimates potential losses to vulnerable structures, where data is available. This Plan update utilized FEMA s HAZUS software for estimating losses attributed to flooding. The 2005 PDMP used the available data at the time to estimate losses, identify assets, and analyze development trends. This Plan update built upon that process by utilizing new County data as well as a myriad of other sources that may not have otherwise been available during the development of the 2005 PDMP. DATA LIMITATIONS makes note of where the consultant and planning workshop participants encountered data limitations when completing the hazard profile Wildfire Prioritized Hazard Hazard Description Fire conditions arise from a combination of hot weather, an accumulation of vegetation, and low moisture content in air and fuel. These conditions, especially when combined with high winds and years of drought, increase the potential for wildfire to occur. There are three major factors that sustain wildfires and predict a given area s potential to burn. These factors are fuel, topography, and weather. Fuel is the material that feeds a fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel is generally classified by type and by volume. Fuel sources are diverse and include everything from dead tree needles and leaves, twigs, and branches to dead standing trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses. Manmade structures, such as homes and associated combustibles, are also considered a fuel source. The type of prevalent fuel directly influences the behavior of wildfire. Light fuels such as grasses burn quickly and serve as a catalyst for the spread of fire. In addition, ladder fuels can spread a ground fire up through brush into trees, leading to a devastating crown fire that burns in the upper canopy and cannot be controlled. In general, fires are more likely at lower elevations because of higher temperatures and drier conditions in the mountain shrub and pinyon-juniper fuel types. Examples of nearby fires that burned in these fuel types in neighboring counties include: Battlement Creek 1976 (1,047 acres, three firefighters killed), South Canyon 1994 (1821 acres, 14 firefighters killed), Coal Seam 2002 (11,694 acres, 38 buildings lost), and Panorama (1,590 acres, north of Basalt, six buildings lost). Topography, or an area s terrain and land slopes, affects its susceptibility to wildfire spread. Due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection, both fire intensity and rate of spread increases as 4-8

59 slope increases. The arrangement of vegetation throughout a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes. Weather components such as temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning also affect the potential for wildfire. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry out the fuels that feed the wildfire creating a situation where fuel will more readily ignite and burn more intensely. Wind is the most treacherous weather factor. The greater the wind, the faster a fire will spread and the more intense it will be. In addition to wind speed, wind shifts can occur suddenly due to temperature changes or the interaction of wind with topographical features such as slopes or steep hillsides. Lightning also ignites wildfires; often in terrain that is difficult for firefighters to reach. Drought conditions contribute to concerns about wildfire vulnerability. During periods of drought, the threat of wildfire increases. Human-caused fires result from activities such as campfires, smoking, equipment use and arson. Geographic Location The potential for wildfire is fairly uniform across the planning area. Residential and commercial properties are concentrated on the Roaring Fork and Crystal River valley floors and the edges of each valley are covered with dense coniferous forests which have become popular locations for mountain homes. The current State of Colorado mitigation plan ranks 130, of Pitkin County s 621,026.9 acres as falling within the moderate- to high-risk range, or 21% of total State acreage. The County recently updated the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan and is eligible for several grant programs for fuels mitigation. In this plan, the wildland urban interface (WUI) is defined as the part of the county where people and development intermingle with wildland fuels and topography. Many individual homes and cabins, subdivisions, resorts, recreational areas, organizational camps, businesses, and industries are located within the WUI. Increasing recreational demands in popular and attractive areas such as Pitkin County place more people in wild lands during holidays, weekends, and vacation periods. Residents and visitors to these areas are often inadequately educated or prepared for the inferno that can sweep through the brush and timber, affecting safety and destroying property in minutes. Risks associated with each of the fire protection districts in Pitkin County do not vary from those identified for Pitkin County. Aspen Fire Protection District, Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District, Carbondale Fire Protection District, and Snowmass Fire Protection District collaborated with Pitkin County and other agencies to prepare the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The Community Wildfire Protection Plan addresses wildfires in fire hazard areas countywide. Therefore, in keeping with the structure of that recently-adopted plan, this PDMP update defines the wildfire risk (probability and magnitude) at the county-level and fire protection district-level as one and the same. Similarly, mitigation strategies outlined in this plan are defined at the county-level rather than the individual fire protection district-level. 4-9

60 Exhibit 4-1: Pitkin County Wildland Urban Interface Hazards Map 4-10

61 Previous Occurrences The 2002 wildfire season was the worst in United States history, with some 2.3 million acres burned. In Colorado, 4,612 wildfires burned over 619,000 acres that year and cost approximately $152 million in suppression costs. Approximately 81,400 people were evacuated and about 1,000 structures burned. In addition, nine lives were lost. Based on a 10-year average, Colorado typically experiences 3,119 wildfires with a loss of 70,000 acres per year. According to the Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan 2011, history shows that in most areas in Colorado, the majority of fires started are from human-caused (including equipment) ignitions. Likewise, only a few of the fires in the County end up accounting for the majority of acreages burned. Many of Colorado s wildfires are caused by lightning strikes from the many thunderstorms that pass through the state on a regular basis during the summer months. The Pitkin area is, unfortunately, not exempt from these weather conditions. Given the semi-arid climate of Pitkin County, many of the storms fail to produce rain, and the lightning strikes sometimes create hotspots of fire that have the potential to grow into larger full-fledged fires. The hotspots can spread over a large area and are very challenging for fire crews to locate and control. They also place a strain on fire suppression equipment and supplies, and many times the hotspots occur deep within the forest and go unnoticed until a larger fire erupts. Additionally, it should be noted that the evolving Forest Service healthy forest management policy acknowledges that fire plays a natural role in the ecology of a wildland, and significantly contributes to ensuring wildlife habitat and forest diversity. Not all fires should, nor will be, extinguished. Sample Event 1: Snowmass Creek - October 30, 2003 This fire burned 48 acres and some structures were lost. Sample Event 2: Hwy 82/Weller Lake - July 17, 1980 This fire from an escaped campfire burned 1,211 acres and cut off travel East on Highway 82. Sample Event 3: Below Starwood - Approximately 1974 A wildfire burned a few acres and threatened a number of homes both in Starwood and McClain Flats. 4-11

62 Exhibit 4-2: Pitkin County Historic Wildfire Occurrence Map 4-12

63 Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Pitkin County experiences many wildfires on an annual basis, most of which are relatively small and/or contained quickly. As shown in Exhibit 4-2, between 1984 and 2006 the entire county has had a history of fire occurrences to varying degrees from dozens in size that are under an acre to approximately five that are larger than 75 acres. With 5 large-scale (75 acres+) wildland fires over a 22-year period, Pitkin County has experienced one event every 4.4 years on average, and has a 23% chance of a large-scale fire occurring in any given year. Therefore, the probability of the County experiencing a large-scale fire every year is likely. Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) Catastrophic: Extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, and/or government functions which includes sustained city and regional impacts; overwhelms the existing response strategies and state and local resources; and requires significant out-of-state and Federal resources. Should a major wildfire occur in Pitkin County, particularly within the Wildland Urban Interface, the results would be devastating. Depending on the size of the wildfire and its location, the loss of life and amount of damage could be catastrophic. Potential losses from wildfire include human life; structures and other improvements; natural and cultural resources; the quality and quantity of the water supply; range and crop lands, and economic losses (tourism, fire expenditures, etc.). Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard. Other secondary impacts include future flooding and erosion during heavy rains. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Due to many reasons including climate, vegetation, and increasing populations, it is likely that large-scale fires will occur within Colorado and have devastating impacts. Pitkin County is taking great leadership in mitigation and prevention of wildfires, yet the possibility of a fire that quickly burns out of control is still present. The relationship of the natural and built environment defines the risk of wildfires to life and property. Throughout Pitkin County, there are 10,913 structures within the WUI, with a combined estimated actual value of nearly $14.6 billion. Structures located within the WUI account for approximately 58% of all structures within the County. Further, more than 77% of structures within the WUI are located within Category 3 or higher wildfire hazard areas. The following table summarizes the aggregate vulnerability. 4-13

64 Table 4-5: Potential Wildfire Losses, by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Number of Parcels in Hazard Area Low Wildfire Hazard Area (Categories 1 and 2) Number of Structures in Hazard Area* Value of Structures in Hazard Area** (Millions) Medium Wildfire Hazard Area (Category 3 and 4) Number of Parcels in Hazard Area Number of Structures in Hazard Area* Value of Structures in Hazard Area** (Millions) Number of Parcels in Hazard Area Severe Wildfire Hazard Area (Category 5) Number of Structures in Hazard Area* Value of Structures in Hazard Area** (Millions) City of Aspen 2, $3,175 2,820 1,860 $3, $74 Town of $112 2,677 1,398 $2, $119 Snowmass Village Town of Basalt $ $ $17 Unincorporated Pitkin County $576 2,748 4,893 $3, $325 *Includes only parcels with structures. ** Value of structures was calculated by subtracting Assessed Land Value from Actual Improved Land Value (as estimated by the County Assessor). Future Development: For all new construction or redevelopment applications in the County, the land owner/applicant must complete a Wildfire Hazard Analysis. This analysis includes a wildfire hazard assessment for the home site. Based on fuels, slope, aspect and access, construction sites are rated as a Low, Medium or High Hazard areas. All new or additional permitted construction is required to have supplemental fuels mitigation (thinning) as defined by a qualified wildfire professional for Low, Medium and High Hazard sites. Homes within a High Hazard area have more stringent building materials and construction requirements that must be incorporated into the building design prior to permit approval. 10 Data Limitations: Wildfire risk maps are not wholly accurate to the parcel level. Regionally, these maps identify larger areas of concern based on slope, aspect, and fuels, however each individual parcel may contain more or less fuel, may be implementing defensible space, or may have structures made with considerably stronger materials Winter Storms Prioritized Hazard Hazard Description As expected, winter storms can and do occur frequently within the planning area, and they vary significantly in size, strength, intensity, duration, and impact in Pitkin County. Strong winds create snowdrifts that block roads, create dangerous wind chill factors and sometimes lead to life-threatening power outages. The National Weather Service issues a wind chill advisory when wind and temperature combine to produce wind chill values of 20 to 35 degrees below zero, significantly raising the potential for hypothermia and frostbite affecting health and safety. Hypothermia is the most common winter weather killer in Colorado. Ice accumulation becomes a hazard by creating dangerous travel conditions, 10 Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan,

65 and impacting safety for vulnerable elements of the population such as the elderly and physically impaired. The weather of Pitkin County is typical of Colorado s mountain areas. Sunny days and clear blue skies often give way to severe conditions and significant snowfall accumulations, as might be expected from areas that boast some of the best skiing in the world. Average December and January highs are a relatively temperate 35 degrees Fahrenheit, while lows during those coldest months average about 8 degrees Fahrenheit. High winds and ice accumulation often accompany the area s winter storms. These winds can produce sizable snowdrifts that can cause residents and travelers to be stranded for hours, potentially causing life threatening conditions. The problem is sometimes made worse because of spotty cell phone coverage in some of the mountainous areas of Pitkin and surrounding counties, and hypothermia and carbon monoxide poisoning becomes a clear threat to many, especially those stranded travelers unfamiliar with the area and unprepared for the conditions. Geographic Location Ice accumulation poses a real hazard in Pitkin County and adjacent counties during many winter storms, particularly when it impacts Highway 82, the most important corridor for the transport of people and the provisions needed for the continuity of normal life. A disruption or blockage due to accidents on these roads can cause a major disruption to the county and beyond. Previous Occurrences Pitkin County s emergency experts provided information for the PDMP update about winter storms that extended back over 20 years. Based on their collective experiences, it was estimated that winter storms, characterized in the county by Accident Alert designations, generally close Highway 82 approximately twice each season. Highway 82 is the major transportation artery running through Pitkin County, but despite its occasional closure during severe winter storms, county officials characterize the community as adequately prepared. Additionally, winter and spring storms and below normal suffer temperatures can contribute to excessive crop losses, as declared by the Secretary of U.S. Department of Agriculture in March This USDA Secretarial Disaster declaration was given to Chaffee County that year and extended to adjacent Pitkin County and several other counties that suffered crop loss. In recent history, there have been 44 severe winter storms recorded in Pitkin County. The following table shows the results from the SHELDUS database for storms from 1960 to It is important to note that SHELDUS data provides information on a county average basis. The number of injuries, fatalities, and property damages associated with a particular event are equally distributed amongst the affected counties for that hazard event. For example, if 5 deaths were attributed to a blizzard that affected 20 counties, then each county would show 0.25 deaths for that event. Table 4-6: Significant Winter Storms in Pitkin County Date Injuries** Fatalities** Property Damages ($)** Storm Characteristics 4/30/ $0 Freeze 9/2/ $1,315 Snow 9/20/ $312 Heavy Snow 4-15

66 Date Injuries** Fatalities** Property Damages ($)** Storm Characteristics 1/8/ $7,936 Cold, snow, and wind 1/10/ $79 Cold 4/18/ $79 Snow and Cold 4/20/ $0 Freezing Temperatures 1/25/ $27 Snow 10/11/ $793 Snow, Cold, Wind 10/13/ $0 Cold 10/29/ $0 Snow 3/1/ $312 Heavy Snow 9/16/ $793 Snow, Cold 5/20/ $0 Freeze 11/24/ $21 Heavy Snow, Wind 2/19/ $0 Winter storm 4/18/ $0 Freeze 12/5/ $0 Heavy Snow, Cold 12/17/ $0 Ice, Heavy Snow 5/7/ $12 Snow 11/19/ $793 Blizzard 2/1/ $79 Snow, Cold 12/23/ $793,651 Blizzard 3/14/ $793 Heavy Snow 11/26/ $7,936 Snow, Wind 4/19/ $793 Snow/Wind 6/6/ $4,166 Snow 1/30/ $793 Extreme Cold 1/31/ $793 Extreme Cold 10/10/ $847 Snow 1/17/ $125 Heavy Snow, Wind 2/1/ $79,365 Cold 2/1/ $793 Snow 3/2/ $1,063 Heavy Snow 1/10/ $2,777 Heavy Snow 2/8/ $40,697 Heavy Snow 2/20/ $0 Heavy Snow 2/22/ $0 Winter Storm 12/8/ $15,000 Winter Storm 10/18/ $384 Winter Weather/Mix 11/14/ $166 Winter Weather/Mix 10/20/ $625 Winter Storm 10/20/ $333 Winter Weather * Data from SHELDUS are by county, therefore exact location is unknown. Some records may not be applicable to Colorado Springs specifically. **Damages, Injuries, and Fatalities are divided between the affected counties for any one documented disaster within the SHELDUS database. Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Highly Likely: Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it happens every year. The data suggest that there have been 44 severe winter storm events since 1960, or nearly one per year. It is expected that a severe winter storm will occur every year in Pitkin County. 4-16

67 Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) Limited: Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours. Heavy snow can immobilize a region by stranding commuters, stopping the flow of supplies, and disrupting emergency and medical services. Accumulations of snow can collapse roofs and tear down trees and power lines. Loss of power affects homes, businesses, and water, sewer, and other services operated by electric pumps. The cost of snow removal, damage repair, and business losses can be significant. Heavy accumulations of ice and or strong winds can bring down trees, power lines, telephone poles and lines, and communication towers, causing communication disruptions that can last for days or weeks. Blowing snow can severely reduce visibility. Serious vehicle accidents can result with injuries and deaths. Prolonged exposure to the cold can cause frostbite or hypothermia and can become life-threatening; infants and the elderly are most at risk. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Winter storms in Pitkin County cause widespread impacts. The greatest threat is to public safety on major roads and highways. Power outages caused snow, ice, and wind accompanied by cold temperatures creates additional need for shelter. Other issues caused by winter storms can be related to school closures, business closures, road closures, snow removal, and maintaining critical services like emergency services, food providers, and banks. Further, the world-class recreational areas of Pitkin County are among the most popular in the nation, and are also impacted by severe winter storms. Skiers, hikers, snowmobilers and snowshoers are sometimes trapped deep in the wilderness by sudden climate changes. When these victims are stranded in remote areas, rescue personnel can be endangered and costly supplies and specialized equipment are sometimes needed for response. Estimating Potential Losses: Winter storms affect the entire planning area, including all above-ground structures and infrastructure. Although losses to structures are typically minimal and covered by insurance, there can be other costs associated with lost time, maintenance costs, and contents within structures. Future Development: New structures built in Pitkin County should be able to withstand significant snow loads when constructed to current building codes. Development on the fringe may be more susceptible to access issues for emergency services and road crews. Data Limitations: Weather data is limited by the observations reported; many events are never reported or recorded with the National Weather Service or other archiving agencies. 4-17

68 4.5. Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Prioritized Hazard Hazard Description Landslides, including rock fall and other debris flow, as a natural hazard exist in almost every state in the US, and are a serious geologic hazard. They sometimes present a threat to human life, but most often result in a disruption of everyday services, including emergency response capabilities. Landslides can and do block transportation routes, dam creeks and drainages and contaminate water supplies. When these hazards affect transportation routes they are frequently expensive to clean-up and can have significant economic impacts to the county. FEMA describes debris flows, sometimes referred to as mudslides, mudflows, lahars, or debris avalanches, as common types of fast-moving landslides. These flows most frequently occur during or after periods of intense rainfall or rapid snow melt. They typically start on steep hillsides as shallow flows that liquefy and accelerate to speeds that of about 10 miles per hour, but that can exceed 35 miles per hour. Debris flows have a consistency ranging from watery mud to thick, rocky mud that can carry large items such as boulders, trees, and cars and can damage road surfaces. Flows from many different sources can combine in channels, and can increase in destructive power. These flows continue and grow in volume with the addition of water, sand, mud, boulders, trees, and other materials. When the flows reach flatter ground, the debris spreads over a broad area, sometimes accumulating in thick deposits that can wreak havoc and cause significant destruction in developed areas. Wildfires sometimes lead to destructive debris-flow activity. In July 1994, the notorious wildfire on Storm King Mountain, west of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, stripped the slopes of vegetation and killed many firefighters. Heavy rains on the mountain during the following September resulted in numerous debris flows, one of which blocked Interstate 70 and threatened to dam the Colorado River. Rockfalls, sinkholes, subsidence, swelling or expansive soils and debris flows are geologic hazards related to landslides. Geographic Location Pitkin County faces its share of landslide-related problems; despite conscientious land use planning, concerns remain in many areas of the county, including but not limited to Aspen Mountain, Snowmass Village, Independence Pass and Redstone. Furthermore, there have been significant rock fall/debris flow events almost every year along Coal Creek Road. 4-18

69 Previous Occurrences Table 4-7: Landslides/Rockslides/Rock Fall in Pitkin County Date Type Location Injuries Fatalities Property Damages 1970s- Landslide Residential areas near ski slopes Unknown $ 1980s 1984 Mudslide Woody Creek Rd, 7 mi from River Rd several 1993 Mudslide Castle Creek Unknown$ 1994 Mudslide Shale Bluffs, west of Pitkin County Airport 1996 Landslide Aspen Mountain, west side 1997 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 1997 Landslide Aspen Country Day School Unknown $ Source 1998 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 1999 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 2001 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 11/25/2004 Landslide 0 0 $466,666 SHELDUS* 1/1/2006 Landslide 0 0 $23,333 SHELDUS* 2/20/2007 Rockslide 0 1 $0 SHELDUS* 2007 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 7/21/2008 Landslide 0 0 $333 SHELDUS* 2009 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 5/11/2009 Landslide Buttermilk Base Area 0 0 $33,333 SHELDUS* 8/2010 Landslide Redstone 5/2011 Mudslide 450 Tiehack Rd Unknown $ 2011 Mudslide Independence Pass Mudslide Redstone: Hwy 133, Redstone Blvd, Redstone Campground 0 0 *Damages, Injuries, and Fatalities are divided between the affected counties for any one documented disaster within the SHELDUS database. 4-19

70 Sample Event 1: Redstone in 2011 In July 2011, following a significant rain event, multiple mud flows/debris flows occurred along Hwy. 133, Redstone Blvd and through the Redstone campground. Both the Boulevard and Hwy 133 were closed for a period of time while crews cleared the areas. Sample Event 2: Independence Pass in 2011 A mudslide closed Independence Pass southeast of Aspen for approximately three hours on the evening of June 6, The slide occurred approximately 100 yards below the ghost town of Independence and motorists were stranded on either side of the blockage, but no one was injured. Sample Event 3: Landslide at Aspen Country Day School in 1997 In the spring of 1997, a landslide developed in a tributary drainage to Castle Creek. The volume of the landslide was estimated to be approximately 50,000 cubic meters and the flow inundated the parking lot of the Aspen Country Day School, damaging six cars and impacting school buildings and grounds. No injuries were reported and classes were relocated for the remainder of the year. 11 Sample Event 4: Aspen Mountain, west side in 1996 In May, 1996, two destructive debris flows occurred on the west side of Aspen Mountain, despite mitigation measures that had been put in place. The area remains capable of additional debris flows, and facilities and residents are at risk each spring. Essentially the entire Aspen Mountain area is fraught with potential landslide-related conditions and the state s hazard plan cautions residents, local officials and resort facility owners and developers to bear this in mind for future development and operating plans and decisions. Sample Event 5: Shale Bluffs Mudslide, 1994 During President Clinton s visit to the area in 1994, a major mudslide occurred in the area known as Shale Bluffs, west of the Pitkin County Airport. May 2011, 450 Tiehack Rd August 2010, Redstone May 2009, Buttermilk Base Area 11 US Geological Survey,

71 Sample Event 6: Castle Creek Mudslide, 1993 In 1993, a large mudslide occurred on Castle Creek and damaged the Aspen Music School. Sample Event 7: Mudslide on Woody Creek Road, 1984 In 1984 a mudslide washed out Woody Creek Road seven miles from its intersection with River Road causing evacuations for personal injuries. Sample Event 8: Residential areas in close proximity to ski areas in the 1970s and 1980s In the 1970s and 1980s, Pitkin County experienced landslide problems in developing residential areas on certain ski slopes, and undertook remedial action that seems to have significantly reduced the problem. No major events in the area have been reported since Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. As pointed out in the debris flow description that occurred on the west side of Aspen Mountain (Sample Event 4), mitigation measures have been shown to fail. In that area alone, additional debris flows are possible each spring because the entire Aspen Mountain is fraught with potential landslide-related conditions. In other areas, remedial actions in landslide areas have proven to be effective. Even with these measures in place, the fact that at least 22 events have been recorded in the 25 years between 1984 and 2009 indicates the probability of future occurrence is about 88 percent, which falls in the likely category of recurring at intervals of 10 years or less. Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) Critical: Isolated deaths and/or multiple injuries and illnesses; major or long-term property damage that threatens structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for hours. Landslides and slope failures in the past have caused major structural damages to homes and businesses. A significant landslide could not only demolish the above ground structures, but also wreak havoc on underlying utilities (gas, electric, water, etc.), and cause personal harm and/or death should these events occur quickly without warning. Damage from subsidence can range from hairline cracks in plaster or wall board, to damaged foundations, to major road failure with injury and/or death in the case of abrupt failure. Vulnerability Assessment Summer 2007, Top of Maroon Creek Rd Overall Summary and Impacts: The general assessment for where landslides may occur within the Pitkin County is somewhat predictable based on slope, aspect, vegetation, moisture content, and angle of bedrock amongst other variables. At the individual parcel level however, the threat of landslides typically requires further study. Individual soil properties, the type of human activity on the lot, and understanding previous failures in the specific area all influence the probability of a future event occurring. 4-21

72 Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: The ability to identify structures and estimate potential losses is limited by the availability of geologic hazard data in the County. Hard copy regional assessment/1041 maps of geologic hazard areas are maintained by Pitkin County, but are over 30 years old and this information is not accurate to the individual parcel. Future Development: Pitkin County, and its incorporated cities and towns, have been extremely aggressive in limiting future development in geologically hazardous areas, including steep slopes and areas prone to landslides. The City of Aspen has adopted development regulations that include heightened review standards for development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), which include areas within the 8040 Greenline (located at or above 8040 feet mean sea level) and the Hallam Lake Bluff area in order to, among other things, protect against slope erosion and landslide. The Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan includes a policy to [discourage] construction on slopes greater than 30 percent grade. Data Limitations: The prediction of slope failures is difficult to achieve. Often slopes that were considered stable may fail under ideal conditions including but not limited to prolonged periods of rain and/or extensive cut and fill. Hard copy regional assessment/1041 maps of geologic hazard areas are maintained by Pitkin County, but are over 30 years old and this information is not accurate to the individual parcel. Geotechnical studies must be prepared in order to determine a particular lot s vulnerability to slope failure Seasonal/Flash Flooding Prioritized Hazard Hazard Description According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), flash floods in the United States are responsible for more deaths than any other thunderstorm phenomena. Year to year in Colorado, only lightning is more deadly. Flash flooding usually is the byproduct of very heavy rains in a short period of time over a small geographic area, all of which combine to cause small streams to turn violent. Flooding as a natural hazard is a long-recognized problem for Pitkin County, and the extreme terrain in the area increases the potential for severe flooding. Seasonal flooding occurs in the county during the spring when the mountain snowpack starts its melting process and heavy rainfall sometimes combines with the runoff and causes some rivers and streams to swell out of their banks. Geographic Location Pitkin County is located within the Roaring Fork Watershed. The Roaring Fork River is the major waterway within the watershed, and its start near Independence Pass, east of the City of Aspen, and flow west from the Continental Divide. The Roaring Fork continues to the northwest through the City of Aspen and Towns of Snowmass and Basalt and joins the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs. The Frying Pan River is a main tributary of the Roaring Fork River and flows into the Ruedi Reservoir, runs through Basalt, and into the Roaring Fork River. Located at the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Frying Pan Rivers, the Town of Basalt is particularly vulnerable to flood events along the Roaring Fork River. Likewise, Redstone, located at the confluence 4-22

73 of the Coal Creek and Crystal River, is susceptible to flood events. Specifically, in Basalt, the Pan-Fork Mobile Home Park, the Roaring Fork Mobile Home Park and the Lazy Glen Mobile Home Park are areas prone to flooding, as well as Elk Park in Redstone. Jurisdictions with Planning and Zoning responsibilities in the Pitkin County area are participants of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As a condition to participating in the NFIP, each agency has committed to constrain the building of structures in the flood-hazard areas delineated by FEMA FIRM (Flood-Insurance-Rate Map) panels. This approach limits the vulnerability to flooding to structures built in the Flood Hazard Areas prior the respective NFIP commitments for each governing body. In Pitkin County, the unincorporated areas (including Redstone), the City of Aspen and the Towns of Snowmass Village and Basalt participate in NFIP. Previous Occurrences The Roaring Fork River has a significant flood history, particularly at the confluence of the Frying Pan and Roaring Fork Rivers. Flood events (defined as events above the mean peak flow) have been recorded in 26 years since 1900, including eleven years since the construction of Ruedi Dam in 1968, which reduced annual peak flows in the Fryingpan. Flooding in 1995 was estimated to be a 50-year event in Aspen and a 25-year event in Basalt. 12 A 50-year event also occurred in 1957 at the confluence of the Frying Pan and Roaring Fork Rivers. Sample events, many of which are the result of seasonal runoff, are provided below. Sample Event 1: Flash Floods in the Upper Castle Creek Valley in 2008 Heavy runoff in upper Castle Creek Valley washed out Pearl Pass Road just below the intersection with Montezuma Road Backcountry at a bridge. Backcountry enthusiasts piled rocks as a temporary measure to continue to use bridge. The bridge was rebuilt in Sample Event 2: Flash Floods across SH 133 in 1999 In 1999, heavy rains caused two flash floods that were estimated at up to six feet deep across SH 133, and caused approximately $150,000 in damages. Sample Event 3: Flash Flood West of Snowmass in 1997 A flash flood four miles west of Snowmass in 1997 produced a mudslide that buried a 30 foot stretch of Highway 82 near Basalt with mud two to four feet deep, and took road crews seven hours to clear. Sample Event 4: Floods of 1995 According the Basalt River Master Plan, [flooding] in 1995 was estimated to be a 50-year event in Aspen and a 25-year event in Basalt. In June and July 1995, the Roaring Fork River valley experienced snowmelt flooding. At Aspen, the 1995 peak flow of 2,230 cubic feet per second (cfs) was the greatest experienced since Downstream at Glenwood Springs, the 1995 peak flow of 12,000 cfs was the highest peak flow since Extensive problems with bank erosion and channel migration were experienced throughout the Roaring Fork Valley, leading to damage to property, infrastructure and river corridor habitat. Sample Event 5: Floods of Roaring Fork River Stewardship Master Plan for the Town of Basalt, 2003; accessed 25 August

74 A Presidential Disaster was declared in Pitkin County due to the flooding of Following a winter of above-average snowpack, resulting mudslides and water floods in Aspen and Snowmass Village caused damages to roadways, bridges, recreational facilities and public property. According to Tom Grady, That was the year the Chateau Eau Claire and Chateau Roaring Fork condominium complexes had flooding up to the balconies. That year the Roaring Fork River also flooded into the Aspen Art Museum. Table 4-8: Flood History for Pitkin County Year Description of Event Data Source 6/17/1965 Flood description not provided. $3,846,000 in damages. SHELDUS 6/7/1979 Flood description not provided. SHELDUS 5/1/1984 Flood description not provided. $172,000 in damages. SHELDUS 7/11/1995 Rapid snowmelt resulted in flooding along the Roaring Fork River. In Basalt, a 25-year event flooded a mobile home park and basements. A levee was eroded and a section of old Highway 82 was washed out. At Aspen, the peak flow of 2,230 cubic feet per second (cfs) was considered a 50-year event and the greatest experienced since /22/1997 Heavy rains from a thunderstorm resulted in five mudslides across a five-mile stretch of Colorado Highway 133 near Redstone. 1 to 3 feet of mud and debris closed both lanes of the highway for about an hour, before state maintenance crews were able to open one lane. It took another six hours to clear the remaining debris before both lanes were open. 7/22/1997 Heavy rains resulted in a mudslide across Colorado Highway 133, 3 miles south of Redstone, closing the road for about an hour. The mud and debris was 4 to 5 feet deep along a 30 foot stretch of the highway. 9/4/1997 Heavy rains resulted in a mud slide which blocked a road in a subdivision located one mile south of Redstone. $5,000 in damages. 9/4/1997 A flash flood produced a mud slide which completely buried a 30 foot stretch of high 82 near Basalt with mud 2 to 4 feet deep. It took state road crews nearly seven hours to clear the highway. 7/21/1998 Heavy rainfall resulted in a flow of mud and debris several feet deep across a 25 foot stretch of Maroon Creek Road. 7/27/1998 Heavy rainfall over a two to three hour period caused a flow of mud and rock several feet deep to cover a 50 foot stretch of Castle Creek Road. 7/31/1998 A four foot wall of water came roaring down Avalanche Creek and washed out a section of a trail near a campground. 7/28/1999 Heavy rain resulted in two flash floods up to 6 feet deep across State Highway 133. It took road crews about three hours to remove the rocks and mud off the road. 7/28/1999 A photographer was out of his vehicle taking pictures on the flanks of Mount Sopris and became trapped by a flash flood which inundated his van with water and mud. The flash flood also washed out the road. The initial wall of water was 10 feet high, while the crest of the flash flood was about 15 feet high. The water and debris crashed into several culverts, causing them to explode; eight-inch steel I- beams were twisted like straws. The incident occurred six miles northeast of Redstone. $180,000 in damages. 8/6/2001 Heavy rain from a strong thunderstorm resulted in water up to a foot deep along Highway 133 south of Redstone, along with mud and rock slides across portions of the highway. 8/6/2001 Heavy rainfall from a strong thunderstorm produced a torrent of water across portions of the Maroon Creek Road. The flash flood also brought down debris which left up to a foot of mud and rocks on the road. NCDC, Town of Basalt NCDC NCDC NCDC/ SHELDUS NCDC NCDC NCDC NCDC NCDC/ SHELDUS NCDC/ SHELDUS 7/3/2006 Flood description not provided. $40,000 in damages. SHELDUS NCDC NCDC 4-24

75 Year Description of Event Data Source 7/18/2007 Heavy rain caused water and debris to flow down a normally dry drainage running through the Maroon Creek Day Use Area provided by the USFS. The water and debris average depth was 5 feet with a width of 30 feet. The flash flood hit the Maroon Creek Road and a trailhead parking lot where it spread out about 100 feet wide, clogging culverts and burying the road and day-use area under 1 to 2 feet of debris. Improved trails were destroyed and tons of debris had to be removed from the road and day-use area. Additionally, hailstones up to 1/2 inch diameter accompanied the heavy rain. There were people camping nearby in tents when the event occurred. Heavy rain producing thunderstorms caused flash flooding southwest of Aspen in a recreational day-use area. 7/18-19/ 2007 Heavy rain producing thunderstorms caused flash flooding across a forest service road between Highway 133 and the Avalanche Creek Campground. About 3 feet of debris was deposited on the road in the wake of the flash flood. Dozens of campers were stranded in the campground until the next day. An influx of monsoonal moisture resulted in an outbreak of heavy rain producing thunderstorms. $7,000 in damages. 7/26/2009 Heavy rainfall resulted in a flash flood with a large amount of mud that flowed across Highway 133. When the flooding stopped, it left a deposit of mud on the Highway up to 4 feet deep. The highway was opened to traffic within two hours after the flash flooding ended. Dams NCDC/ SHELDUS Pitkin County has two Class I (Ruedi and Wildcat) and four Class II dams located in the county. Class I and Class II dams are defined as follows: Class I: A dam shall be placed in Class I when failure would result in probable loss of human life. Class II: Significant damage is expected, but not loss of human life. The phrase Significant damage refers to structural damage where humans live, work or recreate, or to public or private facilities exclusive of unpaved roads and picnic areas. Damage refers to rendering these structures uninhabitable or inoperable. National Flood Insurance Program The following table details the NFIP status and claims for Pitkin County and its municipalities. NCDC NCDC Table 4-9: NFIP Status for Pitkin County Jurisdiction Date Joined Effective FIRM Date Policies in Force Insurance in Force Number of Claims Claims Total Pitkin County 06/04/87 10/19/ $41,243, $41, City of Aspen 12/24/76 10/19/ $19,544,900 9 $168, Town of Snowmass Village 06/04/87 10/19/04 15 $4,452,800 Town of Basalt 03/18/80 12/04/07 93 $29,416,700 1 $3, Source: National Flood Insurance Program BureauNet, and all on August 24, $0 4-25

76 The NFIP also tracks repetitive loss properties throughout the United States. According to its database, there is one repetitive loss property (single family residential) in Pitkin County as of Community Rating System Pitkin County participates in the Community Rating System Program of the NFIP. This program is an incentive program developed by the NFIP to raise awareness of flood insurance, promote accurate insurance ratings, and ultimately reduce flood losses. Pitkin County holds a current class rating of 8 as of October 1, This means that properties within Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) are eligible for a 10% discount on flood insurance policies. The highest achievable rating is a 1, where SFHA properties are eligible for a 45% discount on flood insurance policies. The lowest rating is a 10, where the community is not participating. There are 18 credible activities within four categories to increase a jurisdiction s rating. The categories include: Public Information, Mapping and Regulations, Flood Damage Reduction, and Flood Preparedness. Probability of Future Occurrence For the purposes of this Plan, flooding events have been broken out into two distinct categories: frequent floods that are typical of the area, flooding streets, overtopping curbs, and causing minimal damages; and significant flooding defined by an event that causes significant damages to properties, involves streams overflowing their banks, and can include the 100- and 500-year flood interval. The probability of the two categories is as follows: Typical Flood (All Jurisdictions) Likely: percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Based on historical data for previous occurrences in Pitkin County, there were 19 flooding events that occurred within a 45-year period. This equates to a probability of 42% that a flood will occur in any given year, or that a flood will occur approximately once every 2.4 years. Typical flooding events in Pitkin County flood streets, cause stream bank erosion, wash out bridges, and cause limited damages to property. Significant Flood (All Jurisdictions) Occasional: 1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or it has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. When taken literally, the 500-year flood event should occur once every 500 years, or have a 0.2% chance of occurring in any given year. The 100-year flood event should occur once every 100 years, or have a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. The likelihood of a more significant flood such as a 50- or 100- year flood is far less than the typical flood. Magnitude/Severity As with probability, this Plan breaks out flooding events into two distinct categories for measuring magnitude: frequent floods that are typical of the area, flooding streets, overtopping curbs, and causing 13 Colorado Water Conservation Board, Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan for Colorado, September 2010, 14 FEMA Community Rating System website, accessed on June 15,

77 minimal damages; and significant flooding defined by an event that causes significant damages to properties, involves streams overflowing their banks, and can include the 100- and 500-year flood interval. The magnitude of the two categories is as follows: Typical Flood (All Jurisdictions) Limited: Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours. Significant Flood (Pitkin County/Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, Town of Snowmass Village/Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District) Critical: Isolated deaths and/or multiple injuries and illnesses; major or long-term property damage that threatens structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for hours. Most of the flooding events in Pitkin County have caused property damages and flooded roadways. These damages are fairly limited in magnitude, as services are interrupted for brief periods, and there are few if any injuries. Significant flooding events within the unincorporated County and Snowmass Village would likely result in isolated injuries and/or deaths, property damage and short-term disruption of essential services. Significant Flood (City of Aspen/Aspen Fire Protection District, Town of Basalt/Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District) Catastrophic: Extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, and/or government functions which includes sustained city and regional impacts; overwhelms the existing response strategies and state and local resources; and requires significant out-of-state and Federal resources. Workshop participants agreed that should a significant flood occur within the City of Aspen or Town of Basalt, residents and businesses in these areas could face catastrophic conditions. Significant flooding events can be devastating and multiple lives can be lost due to flash floods and/or slope failures. Multiple homes and businesses could be destroyed, and essential services could be compromised for long periods of time. The Aspen fire stations, at 43 Sage Way and at Hopkins and Galena, are well south of the 500-year floodplain. Similarly, the fire station in Basalt is east of 2 Rivers Road and outside the 500-year floodplain. However, emergency response by Aspen Fire Protection District and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District could be severely hampered by bridge failures or flooding of major thoroughfares. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Some flooding can be predicted by weather reports, but many times smaller flash floods are a result of a microburst system, which simply overwhelms both natural and manmade drainage systems. Such failures sometimes cause excessive damage to towns, industry and farms in the floodplain areas. Emergency services, transportation, power, water and wastewater services, business and hazardous materials storage may be substantially disrupted and can affect the population located in or near the flooded area. With 19 flood occurrences recorded in the 44 years between 1965 and 2009, the probability of future occurrence is about 43 percent in any given year, or a likelihood of one flood event every 2.3 years. Therefore, flood events fall in the likely category for recurring in intervals of 10 years or less. 4-27

78 The following is an excerpt from the 2005 PDMP: Although the operation of reservoirs and water diversions for the East Slope can reduce the risk of devastating floods, the extent to which the risk is reduced is in question. To date, experts have not yet shown a statistical difference in hydrology as a result of these reservoirs and diversions. According to the Annual Operations Plan of the Fryingpan Arkansas Project for the Water Year of , the inflow for Ruedi Reservoir was 130 percent of average and was due, in part, to waters left in the Fryingpan River Basin that normally would have been diverted to the East Slope but were not because the reservoirs on the East Slope had already filled during the spring runoff. It is also clearly stated by the agencies that manage the reservoirs and the tunnel diversions that neither was constructed for flood control purposes. More importantly, the Town of Basalt is at greater risk of flooding than other areas in this region as a result of the tendency for cobble and debris to fall out in this wide section of the valley creating a highly unstable channel. Many of the streams and creeks in the region are also diverted into irrigation ditches, which direct the water to ranches and farms in the area. This action also limits the amount of runoff available to cause a damaging seasonal flood. Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: A new digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) for Pitkin County was in development as part of FEMA s Risk MAP program during the time that this plan was being developed and was not available for analysis. When the DFIRM becomes effective, it will be the most accurate data and the official regulatory floodplain map. For mitigation planning purposes, HAZUS-MH, FEMA s loss-estimation software program, was used to calculate potential losses from flooding in Pitkin County and to generate a map of the 100-year floodplain, or the flood that has one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. HAZUS-MH models streams draining a 10-square mile minimum drainage area and uses 30-meter digital elevation models (DEM). Hydrology and hydraulic processes use the DEMs, along with flows from USGS regional regression equations and stream gauge data, to determine reach discharges and to model the floodplain. For this plan, the HAZUS-MH model was customized with the latest available FEMA FIS studies because the pre-packaged HAZUS data set tended to underestimate flows for both the 100-year and 500-year flood events. The customized model yielded deeper floodwaters and a slightly larger floodplain extent. HAZUS-MH calculated potential losses by using default national databases (buildings and population) at the census block level. The HAZUS-MH generated damage estimates are directly related to depth of flooding and are based on FEMA s depth-damage functions. The HAZUS modeling may contain errors, both in the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and in the loss estimates, and it is being used for planning level applications only. 4-28

79 Exhibit 4-3: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Aspen 4-29

80 Exhibit 4-4: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Aspen 4-30

81 Exhibit 4-5: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village 4-31

82 Exhibit 4-6: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village 4-32

83 Exhibit 4-7: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Basalt 4-33

84 Exhibit 4-8: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Basalt 4-34

85 HAZUS provides reports on the number of buildings impacted, building repair costs, and the associated loss of building contents and business inventory. Building damage can also cause functional losses to a community, which relate to the opportunity loss of being able to use a building. Income loss data accounts for business interruption and rental income losses as well as the resources associated with damage repair and job and housing losses. These losses are calculated by HAZUS using a methodology based on the building damage estimates. Flood damage is directly related to the depth of flooding. For example, a two-foot flood results in approximately 20 percent of the structure being damaged (which translates to 20 percent of the structure s replacement value). For Table 4-10 to Table 4-13, the results are for comparative analysis only. The results in these tables assume that a flood event occurred throughout the entire modeled region, rather than as localized events. Table 4-10: Damage Summary by Building Occupancy (% of Total Estimated Damages) Percentage of Total Estimated Damages (Building Value) Occupancy Type 100-year flood 500-year flood Agriculture 0.66 % 0.67 % Commercial % % Industrial 2.92 % 2.97 % Residential % % Religion 2.59 % 2.56 % Education 0.62 % 0.62 % Government 0.41 % 0.40 % TOTAL % % % Total Estimated Exposure Value $1,160,142,000 $1,174,308,000 Table 4-11: Structures Damaged During Modeled Flood Events Event Total Structures in Modeled Region Number of Structures Damaged % of Total Structures in Modeled Region 100-year 9, % 500-year 9, % Table 4-12: Expected Damages (number of buildings), 100-year event Occupancy Percent damaged (US$) 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% Substantially Agriculture Commercial Education Government Industrial Religion Residential TOTAL

86 Table 4-13: Expected Damages (number of buildings), 500-year event Occupancy Percent damaged (US$) 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% Substantially Agriculture Commercial Education Government Industrial Religion Residential TOTAL The following table shows that HAZUS estimates total damages and economic losses of over $71 million for a 100-year flood event in Pitkin County. Damages and losses for a 500-year event are estimated to be nearly $78 million. In addition, HAZUS estimates that the number of households displaced by a 100-year flood event to be 305 and the number of people requiring short-term sheltering to be 528. For a 500- year event, 331 households would be displaced and 583 people would seek short-term shelters. Table 4-14: Damage Estimates and Economic Losses for Modeled Flood Events Damage Type 100-year 500-year Building Damage $24.32M $27.59M Contents Damage $45.59M $48.61M Inventory Loss $950,000 $990,000 Income Loss $290,000 $300,000 Relocation Loss $60,000 $60,000 Rental Income Loss $60,000 $60,000 Wage Losses $320,000 $330,000 TOTAL LOSSES $71.59M $77.94M Future Development: Pitkin County, and its incorporated cities and towns, have very stringent floodplain policies and regulations limiting development in flood prone areas and requiring permitting. Pitkin County requires an extensive permit for any work within the designated 100-year flood plain, including bank stabilization, bridges, dredging, installation of irrigation equipment, and revegetation. The Town of Snowmass Village requires all new development to be located outside the 100-year floodplain. And, according the City of Aspen s Urban Runoff Management Plan, the City regulates jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional floodplains to control the alteration of the natural floodplains; prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas; restrict or prohibit uses which may result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities; protect and preserve the natural riparian corridor; and to control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damages. Specifically, the City requires that all proposed development and/or redevelopment in the 100-year floodplain, not just construction of buildings, be reviewed and permitted in compliance with floodplain regulations. 4-36

87 The Town of Basalt is also proactive in limiting new development in flooding hazards as well as limiting development that would add to existing flood hazards. According to the Basalt River Master Plan, In September 2000, the Town adopted Ordinance 25 which addressed criteria for development in the floodplain. This Ordinance prohibits development which would result in any rise in flood elevations and puts the burden of proof on developers and landowners to verify that their proposals would not add to existing flood hazards. The ordinance also prohibits development that would negatively impact the ability of the Town to implement the River Master Plan. Data Limitations: HAZUS is limited in its capabilities to census block data. This modeling software provides a less accurate estimate of the floodplain than Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) maps will, once approved by FEMA and made effective. Pitkin County and its municipalities will be able to revise the estimations of structures and values once the DFIRMs become effective (estimated Fall 2011) Avalanche Other Hazard Hazard Description Avalanches are a type of slope failure that sometimes occurs on slopes steeper than about 20 to 30 degrees. Avalanches can reach speeds of 200 miles per hour and can exert enough force to destroy buildings and uproot large and healthy trees. Avalanche-prone areas can be determined with some accuracy, since under normal circumstances avalanches tend to run down the same paths year after year. However, exceptional weather conditions sometimes produce avalanches that overrun normal path boundaries or create new paths. Unlike other forms of slope failure, snow avalanches can build up and be triggered on more than one occasion during a single winter season. Geographic Location The Aspen and Independence Pass areas of Pitkin County are considered especially susceptible to avalanche activity. Specifically, the Aspen Highlands ski area has seen a number of previous occurrences. Previous Occurrences As reported in the 2005 Plan, Colorado typically experiences more than double the number of avalanche-related fatalities as the next most dangerous state. Pitkin County led the state with 39 fatalities (1950/51 to 2009/10), according to the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC). Also per CAIC, 61 deaths occurred in Colorado in the decade between 1999/00 and 2009/10, compared to the next highest, Montana, with 48 deaths in that time period. Sample Event 1: East Snowmass Creek Valley, Sand's Chute, Pitkin County, 2011 On February 22, 2011, a group of three skiers encountered an avalanche in the East Snowmass Creek valley. Members of the group were very familiar with the area and had visited many times this season and during the previous four or five winters. Skiing Sand s Chute one at a time, the second skier triggered the avalanche and was caught, carried, and fully buried. With the assistance of an avalanche beacon, the other members of the group were able to uncover the victim within minutes; however, they were unsuccessful in their resuscitation attempts. 4-37

88 Sample Event 2: Aspen Highlands Ski Area, Pitkin County, 2005 On March 6, 2005, a 32-year-old man was buried and killed in a sizable avalanche in the backcountry near the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. At the time of the avalanche the man was participating in a Level II avalanche-awareness class in Five Fingers Bowl (Five Fingers Bowl is a popular out-of-area ski tour adjacent to the Aspen Highlands ski area. Access is gained either from the top of Highlands Peak via a US Forest Service backcountry access gate or by climbing from the bottom starting at Conundrum Creek.) He was the only person caught in the avalanche. Sample Event 3: Out of Bounds, Aspen Highlands Ski Area, Pitkin County, 2002 On February 1, 2002, at Aspen Highlands ski area in Pitkin County, a 67-year-old man skiing alone fell victim to a very small loose-snow avalanche about 4 to 6 feet wide which he triggered after sliding off the boundary of the trail. The avalanche only traveled about 130 feet and was just over two feet deep, but the victim s fall incapacitated him and he was found buried under 18 inches of snow. This avalanche is considered one the smallest fatal avalanches in Colorado history, and demonstrates that even small avalanches can be deadly. Sample Event 3: Hurricane Gulch, Pitkin County, 2000 On January 25, 2000, one person died in an Avalanche in Hurricane Gulch near Aspen. Sample Event 4: Aspen Highlands Ski Area, Pitkin County, 1999 On January 23, 1999, also at Aspen Highlands ski area, two skiers triggered an Avalanche that resulted in one death and one injury. Sample Event 5: Castle Creek Road, Pitkin County, late 1980s In the late 1980s, an avalanche occurred approximately four miles up Castle Creek Road from the intersection with SH 82. This event caused residents to be stranded for two days. 4-38

89 Figure 4-1: Colorado Avalanche Fatalities by County, Source: accessed on June 20, Table 4-15: Pitkin County Avalanche Occurrences, Date Location Description March 1997 Castle Creek, Aspen 1 out-of-area snowboarder caught, partly buried and injured March 1998 Aspen Mountain Elk Range 1 out-of-bounds skier caught, partly buried and killed January 1999 Aspen Highlands 2 out-of-area skiers caught, 1 buried and killed January 2000 Backside of Aspen Mountain 1 backcountry skier buried and killed March 2000 Aspen Highlands 2 out-of-area skiers caught, buried and killed February 2002 Aspen Highlands 1 skier caught, buried, and killed March 2002 Aspen Mountain 1 out-of-area skier caught, buried and killed March 2002 Maroon Bowl 1 backcountry snowboarder (or skier) caught March 2005 Five Fingers Bowl, Aspen 1 backcountry skier caught, buried, and killed December 2006 Rayburn Area of Snowmass Ski Resort 1 skier caught, completely buried and killed December 2008 Aspen Backcountry 1 skier caught, buried, and killed February 2010 South of Aspen Mountain, West Side 1 skier triggered, not caught near Annies February 2010 Ophir Gulch, Aspen Mountain Side 2 skiers caught, 1 fully buried and injured Country January 2011 Maroon Bowl, Highlands Ridge 1 skier caught and partially buried January 2011 West Willow drainage, Snowmass Solo skier caught, fully buried, self-rescued sidecountry February 2011 East Snowmass Creek Valley, Sand's 1 skier caught, fully buried, and killed Chute April 2011 Green Mountain, west side of Independence Pass 1 skier caught, carried, and partially buried 4-39

90 Date Location Description April 2011 Highlands Ridge, Desolation Row, Aspen 1 skier caught and killed zone April 2011 Headwall, Snowmass (closed for season) 1 skier caught, partly buried Source: accessed on June 20, Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Threats from avalanche in Pitkin County have the potential to significantly impact safety for residents and visitors, as well as critical infrastructure and vital services. In fact, with 39 deaths occurring over a 60-year period, 15 the probability of it continuing to occur at that rate is 63 percent, which falls in the likely category at a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) Critical: Isolated deaths and/or multiple injuries and illnesses; major or long-term property damage that threatens structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for hours. Avalanches in Pitkin County have the potential to kill and injure multiple people, damage property and cause road closures. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Avalanches are a very significant threat as development and recreation increase in mountain areas. Data show the incidence of avalanches has increased, as has the number of people affected by avalanche events. Information from avalanche accidents shows that this activity occurs in about one-third of the states and is a significant hazard in much of the West, where avalanches are the most frequently occurring lethal form of mass movement. Mortality due to snow avalanches exceeds the average mortality due to earthquakes and all other forms of slope failure combined on an annual basis. Sometimes, avalanches pose hazards that affect a significant sector of the public, involve a number of private organizations, and require cooperation and action by government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. The avalanche hazard causes economic loss to residents, businesses, transportation systems, and government agencies and can have a negative impact on the local economy of many mountain regions. Many of the annual visitors to these areas head into the backcountry ill-equipped and without an adequate appreciation for the dangers that avalanches pose. Many times in the recent past people have been caught in these avalanches and been hurt or have died. The rescue and recovery of these people is a labor-intensive and dangerous task for the emergency personnel involved. In general, the amount of personnel in the rescue efforts can far exceed the number of people who are caught in the avalanche. Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: Pitkin County does not have any comprehensive digital mapping of avalanche hazard areas, so there is not data available to identify specific structures at risk or estimate potential losses to structures. 15 Colorado Avalanche Information Center:

91 Future Development: Each jurisdiction within Pitkin County prohibits or severely limits building on steep slopes. In 1974 Colorado State University performed an Environmental Resources Analysis for Pitkin County and produced a series of maps identifying Potential Geologic Hazards and Snow Avalanche Areas for the Frying Pan River Valley, Lower Roaring Fork Valley, Upper Roaring Fork and High Valleys, Crystal River Valley. These maps are consulted by the Community Development Department during the development review process, however, they are not accurate to the parcel level. Data Limitations: The Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC), a program of the Colorado Geological Survey, produces avalanche observation reports submitted by individuals on the CAIC web site. Avalanche data is limited to best available data submitted and smaller avalanche activity, or avalanches that do not result in injuries or fatalities, may go unreported Drought Other Hazard Hazard Description Drought is a shortage of water associated with a deficiency of precipitation, and occurs when a normal amount of moisture is unavailable to satisfy an area s usual water consumption. Drought can be defined regionally based on its effects in the following categories: Meteorological drought is usually defined by a period of below average water supply. Agricultural drought occurs when there is an inadequate water supply to meet the needs of the state s crops and other agricultural operations such as livestock. Hydrological drought is defined as deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is generally measured as streamflow, snowpack, and as lake, reservoir, and groundwater levels. Socioeconomic drought occurs when a drought impacts health, well-being, and quality of life or when a drought starts to have an adverse economic impact on a region. Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or wildfires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts occur slowly, over a multi-year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and ends. Drought is a familiar and natural part of Colorado s history. It is one of the most destructive, but least understood of all natural hazards. Its onset is slow and silent and its effects can last for years. Geographically, drought can occur locally, regionally or statewide. The impacts from drought are nonstructural and generally affect the economy and environment of the host area. A drought event can be short-term or it can be a multi-year event, much like the current drought affecting Colorado for the past several years. From a historical perspective, scientific studies have shown that Colorado has experienced drought periods lasting ten years and longer. Research suggests that multi-year droughts typically have one peak year that is more dramatic and more devastating than all of the others. A look at recorded information suggested that 2002 was the peak year of the current drought event. Geographic Location 4-41

92 Drought is a regional phenomenon and affects all areas of Pitkin County with similar frequency and severity. Annual precipitation is fairly consistent across the region with variations occurring as the topography changes from mountain to valley floors. Overall the Counties receive an average of 11 to 15 inches of moisture a year. With such a small amount of annual precipitation, any decrease in moisture over a single year or for a multiyear period can greatly affect the region. The tourism and recreation economy, as well as individuals, can be disrupted by a drought at a parcel level. A large portion of Pitkin County relies on individual ground wells and constructed water retention structures for their water resources. Ground wells service a large portion of the population while local ranchers rely upon ponds and ditches for livestock and crops. Previous Occurrences The U.S. Drought Monitor provides online maps of the current drought status nationwide, updated weekly. Following are examples of Colorado drought conditions; one from August 2002 (Figure 4-2) and the other from August 2009 (Figure 4-3). In 2002, Colorado saw one of the driest years on record, whereas 2009 was somewhat of a wet year for the region. Figure 4-2: Colorado Drought Conditions August 27, 2002 Extreme Drought Source: National Drought Mitigation Center s Drought Monitor, accessed November 19,

93 Figure 4-3: Colorado Drought Conditions August 25, 2009 No Drought Conditions Source: National Drought Mitigation Center s Drought Monitor, accessed November 19, In 2000 and 2002, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), declared Pitkin County a disaster area due to drought. There have been several documented periods of drought throughout Colorado history. The following table outlines known periods of drought in Pitkin County. Sample Event 1: The Drought of 2007 In 2007, late frosts and drought decreased the number of berries available for bears to eat. Therefore, bears moved closer to populated areas within the county and confrontations with humans increased. It also caused the Colorado Division of Wildlife to trap bears searching for food in garbage cans left out by Aspen residents. Sample Event 2: The Drought of 2002 From the 2005 PDMP: The drought of 2002 began early that year with a general lack of snow statewide. By April 2002, statewide snow pack was 52% of average and general precipitation was well below the 70% average that is commonly used to define a severe drought. This continued the pattern of the previous 4 years in Colorado which was also below normal precipitation amounts. The highly anticipated spring precipitation never occurred and warming temperatures caused the remaining snow pack to quickly diminish. The extreme drought had a devastating effect on the state and local economies. The State economy suffered an estimated $1.1 billion impact on agriculture, tourism and recreation. For example, ranchers in southern Colorado sold 80% of their herds due to lack of water. Outfitters estimated recreational visitation was down 40%, and fishing licenses sales were down by 93,000 with a $1.8 million impact to the Division of Wildlife. Within Pitkin County, drought effects were easily discerned. Snowfall in the high country was well below normal and this negatively affected the local ski industry and tourism. Ski resorts saw declines in general 4-43

94 lift tickets sold, and even the visits by season tickets holders experienced a drop off. When summer arrived, the lack of snow pack caused the rivers in the area to run well below normal water levels. The low water, in addition to the nationally publicized drought, caused the cancellation of many pre-planned river trips and tourism to the region. Rafting trips in the county fell significantly. The numerous summertime visitors to the area come for camping, hiking, fishing and biking activities. Many of the visitors are in-state residents of Colorado, and they enjoy a variety of campgrounds for brief getaways. The drought of 2002 caused the region to go into a full fire ban and many campgrounds and forest tracts were closed to the public. These measures predictably deterred many would-be tourists and visitors from visiting the region and their tourist dollars were spent elsewhere. Table 4-16: Known Drought periods in Pitkin County Years Description of Event Data Source Widespread, severe, and long lasting drought in Colorado. State Drought Plan Statewide, worse than the 1930s in the Front Range. $40 million in Federal aid made NDMC available for 13 drought stricken states and used to defer cost of transporting hay Estimated crop damages nearly $1,000,000. SHELDUS Significant multi-year statewide drought, with many areas experiencing most severe conditions in Colorado in instrumented history was the driest year on record for much of the state. For the first time in state history, the Colorado governor asked the Federal government to declare all of Colorado a drought disaster area. Estimated 1.1 billion in losses to Colorado s agricultural, tourism, and recreational industries. CWCB Sources: Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Drought and Water Supply Assessment, 2004, National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) Drought Impact Reporter, accessed on August 29, Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Occasional: 1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or it has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. When known previous occurrences are examined, there were four known periods of drought affecting Pitkin since 1931, an 81-year period. Based on this we can estimate a probability of less than one percent that a drought will occur in a given year, or that a drought will occur once every 20 years. Using historical dry periods, Colorado experiences a dry period every 15 to 20 years. Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) Limited: Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours. Although no injuries or property damages are typically associated with drought, the loss of farmland, diminishing domestic water supply and tourism impacts can stress Pitkin County s local economy. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: The most significant impacts from drought are related to waterintensive activities, such as municipal usage, agriculture (both crops and livestock), wildfire protection, commerce, recreation, and wildlife preservation (through maintained wetlands), as well as a reduction 4-44

95 of electric power generation and water quality deterioration. Secondary impacts of drought are wildfires, wind erosion, and soil compaction that can make an area more susceptible to flooding. The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) identifies impacts of drought by county through their Drought Impact Reporter. This is a collection of disaster declarations, online newspaper articles and scientific publications, and other information pertaining to drought that identifies a particular impact to drought including environmental, social, agricultural, water use/energy, fire, and others. This database includes 105 drought impacts specific to Pitkin County since The most prominent impact listed is agricultural, followed by fire and social. Social impacts are those associated with the public or recreation/tourism, loss of human life, loss of aesthetic values, etc. Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: Drought normally does not impact structures. Although water and sewer infrastructure may be affected by drought, other critical facilities are generally not. Data is not available to estimate potential losses to structures in identified hazard areas. The greatest risk to people from drought is the loss of drinking water supply through water systems or individual wells. Future Development: One of the most significant impacts of drought is the decreased supply of water for the county s inhabitants. As growth continues, so does the vulnerability for residents and business owners to drought impacts. Careful monitoring of the area s water supply will help drive conservation efforts and potential land use regulations aimed at minimizing drought impacts amongst other growthrelated impacts. The City of Aspen's Energy Efficiency Division is one example of public outreach regarding water conservation efforts. The City provides residents with do-it-yourself (DIY) tutorials to assist homeowners in completing simple home improvement measures aimed at water conservation, such as soaker hoses and drip irrigation, mulching and low-flow showerheads. Data Limitations: Total event-specific losses are difficult to assess due to the inability to determine the exact beginning and ending of a drought period Lightning Other Hazard Hazard Description Lightning is an electrical discharge between positive and negative regions of a thunderstorm. It is sudden, extremely destructive and potentially deadly. Intracloud lightning is the most common type of discharge. This occurs between oppositely charged centers within the same cloud. Usually it takes place inside the cloud and from the outside of the cloud looks like a diffuse brightening that flickers. Although not as common, cloud-to-ground lightning is the most damaging and dangerous form of lightning. Most flashes originate near the lower-negative charge center and deliver negative charge to earth. However, a large minority of flashes carry positive charge to earth. These positive flashes often occur during the dissipating stage of a thunderstorm s life. Positive flashes are also more common as a percentage of total ground strikes during the winter months. This type of lightning is particularly dangerous for several reasons. It frequently strikes away from the rain core, either ahead or behind the thunderstorm. It can strike as far as 5 or 10 miles from the storm in areas that most people do not consider to be a threat. Positive lightning also has a longer duration, so fires are more easily ignited. And, when positive lightning strikes, it usually carries a high peak electrical current, potentially resulting in greater damage. 4-45

96 Geographic Location Lightning can occur anywhere in Pitkin County, and poses a similar risk to all areas within the county. Previous Occurrences The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and SHELDUS listed eight major lightning events as occurring in Pitkin County since Sample events are described below. Table 4-17: Lightning Events in Pitkin County Date Injuries Fatalities Property Damages Source 8/1/ $161 SHELDUS 8/5/ $0 SHELDUS 7/26/ $0 SHELDUS 4/23/ SHELDUS/NCDC 7/24/ $0 SHELDUS/NCDC 7/15/ $0 SHELDUS/NCDC 7/29/ $2,000 SHELDUS/NCDC 7/6/ $0 SHELDUS/NCDC Sample Event 1: American Lake Trail in 2008: On July 6, 2008, a family of five from Idaho was struck by lightning while hiking on the American Lake Trail, approximately 10 miles south of Aspen. A 15-year-old girl was revived after being administered CPR and a 17-year-old boy was burned on the soles of his feet. The other three family members did not receive any significant injuries. Sample Event 2: Aspen Mountain in 2006: On July 29, 2006, lightning struck and damaged aviation navigational equipment on Aspen Mountain. The equipment failure resulted in many cancelled flights. It took 14 hours to repair the damaged equipment. Sample Event 3: Conundrum Hot Springs in 2000: On July 15, 2000, a hiker near Conundrum Hot Springs was struck by lightning and injured. The victim's clothing was shredded and her boots were blown off. The lightning victim also was bleeding from the ears and nose and had burns on her chest and feet. Sample Event 4: Capitol Creek in 1997: On July 24, 1997, a man was struck by lightning and fell off a cliff while hiking up a ridge above Capitol Creek. The county coroner determined the cause of death was the lightning and not the subsequent fall. Sample Event 5: Capitol Peak in 1994: April 23, 1994, lightning struck three climbers near the summit of Capitol Peak, located in the Elk Mountains west of Aspen. One male climber was killed and the two other male climbers were injured. Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. A significant lightning event in Pitkin County has a likely probability of occurring every year. Based on historical data, a significant lightning event in Pitkin County has an occasional probability of occurring every year. There were 8 recorded significant lightning events in the past 50 years in Pitkin County, 4-46

97 which equals one event every 6.3 years on average, or a 16% chance of a significant lightning event occurring in any given year. Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) Limited: Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours. Although the frequency of lightning events is relatively high, the magnitude is limited. Generally damages are limited to single buildings and in most cases, personal hazard insurance covers any losses. Lightning can cause deaths, injuries, and property damage, including damage to buildings, communications systems, power lines, and electrical systems. It also causes forest and brush fires. According to the National Weather Service, the State of Colorado ranks second nationally, behind Wyoming, with a death rate of 0.55 per one million people. 16 The following figure illustrates the number of lightning related fatalities by state from Colorado (26 fatalities) was second only to Florida, which had 62 lightning deaths. Figure 4-4: Lightning Fatalities by State, Source: NOAA s lightning safety site, accessed on July 6, Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Lightning is the leading summer weather-related killer in Colorado, and as noted in the description of past events, hikers and climbers in the mountains of Pitkin County who are caught in lightning storms are in particular danger. However, children at play in open areas are also at risk. While lightning frequently accompanies thunderstorms, the occasion of a thunderstorm is not necessary for lightning to occur. Lightning may strike as far away as 10 miles from any precipitation. Many of the tourists who travel to the region are unaware of the speed with which a thunderstorm can build in the mountains, and they can easily be caught in a storm while traveling in the high country. The 16 National Weather Service, Lightning Deaths by State and Deaths Population Weighted: , accessed July 6,

98 vast recreation opportunities in Pitkin County place hikers, bikers, campers, amongst others at risk during major electrical storms. Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: Lightning affects the entire planning area, including all above-ground structures and utilities. Structure damage due to lightning is usually covered under private insurance. Personal injury can also occur as a result of lightning if individuals are outdoors during an event. Many damages and injuries caused by lightning are the result of ensuing fires. Future Development: Building standards can offer only limited protection from lightning damage. Lightning rod/grounding systems can improve the performance of a building during such an event. Fire codes in place result in fewer structure damages caused by lightning-sparked fires. Increasing population growth and development increases vulnerability to lightning. Data Limitations: Although national weather centers keep excellent records of previous events, it should be noted that many lightning events often go unreported to the National Weather Service Windstorms/Tornados Other Hazard Hazard Description Windstorms represent the most common type of severe weather. Often accompanying severe thunderstorms (convective windstorms), they can cause significant property and crop damage, threaten public safety and disrupt utilities and communications. Straight-line winds are generally any wind not associated with rotation and in rare cases can exceed 100 miles per hour (mph). The National Weather Service defines high winds as sustained wind speeds of 40 mph or greater lasting for one hour or longer, or winds of 58 mph or greater for any duration. Windstorms are often produced by super-cell thunderstorms or a line of thunderstorms that typically develop on hot and humid days. The National Weather Service defines a tornado as a violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground. Tornadoes are the most violent of all atmospheric storms. Wind speeds can exceed 250 miles per hour, and damage paths can be more than one mile wide and 50 miles long. Geographic Location Windstorms can occur virtually anywhere in Pitkin County with equal probability and magnitude. Previous Occurrences Thirty-one major wind events were reported in Pitkin County between 1960 and 2010, as shown in Table The only tornado to hit Pitkin County in recent history was in 1975 and it rated a F2 on the Fujita Scale, a scale used to measure tornado intensity. A F2 tornado is classified as a significant tornado with winds between 113 and 157 miles per hour that causes considerable damage, such as roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; and light object missiles generated. 4-48

99 Table 4-18: List of Windstorms/Tornado in Pitkin County Date Injuries* Fatalities* Property Damages* Storm Characteristics 4/16/ $793 Wind 4/7/ $781 Wind 4/4/ $454 Wind 6/17/ $79 Wind 1/7/ $19,230 Wind 4/6/ $79 Wind 4/14/ $79 Damaging Wind 11/30/ $793 Wind 3/17/ $79 Wind 5/19/ $294 Wind 6/20/ $5,000 Tornado 11/30/ $2,173 Wind 2/17/ $1,785 High Winds 4/18/ $17.86 High Winds 9/24/ $7,936 Wind 1/23/ $19,230 Wind 5/6/ $7,936 Wind 2/1/ $793 High Winds 3/14/ $12,820 High Winds 4/7/ $2,941 High Winds 5/2/ $1,923 High Winds 6/2/ $33,333 High Winds 4/18/ $78,947 High Winds 2/13/ $8,333-4/20/ $2,055-5/21/ $ /1/ $1,000-5/11/ $222-2/15/ $2,000 Strong Wind 4/17/ $2,000 Strong Wind 6/6/ $181 Strong Wind * Data from Tornado History Project, accessed on July 5, 2011 and SHELDUS. *Damages, Injuries, and Fatalities are divided between the affected counties for any one documented disaster within the SHELDUS database. Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Based on the data available, a windstorm occurring in Pitkin County has an occasional probability of occurring every year. There were 31 recorded wind events in the past 50 years in Pitkin County which equals one wind event every 1.6 years on average, or a 62% chance of a windstorm occurrence in any given year. Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) Limited: Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours. 4-49

100 Any structures and above ground utilities in Pitkin County are vulnerable to damages caused by major wind events. Major wind events can cause downed trees and power lines, damages to structures and fences, and send dangerous debris into the air which can threaten public safety but rarely threaten lives. Given that past losses have not been significant, the overall magnitude of this hazard is limited. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Predicting a major wind storm is nearly impossible, however it is expected that major wind events will occur in Pitkin County every year. Damages from winds are primarily to structures, trees, and utilities. Streets lined with older, unstable trees present specific hazard to passersby, structures, and automobiles. According to the 2005 PDMP, Pitkin County is subject to frequent and often intense gusts of high winds. Although they are not usually life-threatening, high winds can disrupt daily activities, cause damage to building and structures and increase the potential of other hazards. Some areas with little or no ground cover experience blinding gusts of dust and road debris, which becomes a hazard for travelers and an occasional disruption for local services. High winds in the winter sometimes cause complete whiteouts and create significant snowdrifts and transportation disruptions. Wildfires can be accelerated and made unpredictable by high winds, which can cause grave danger to firefighters, emergency response personnel and residences or other structures which happen to be in their path. Damage to structures happens regularly due to high winds but it is usually minimal and goes unreported. Effects of the high winds may be seen in roof damage, cracked windows and damage to trees and landscaping. Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: Data is not currently available that identifies specific costs for an individual event within Pitkin County. Future Development: Building codes help to diminish potential damages to future structures during a major wind event. However, as development continues, the overall vulnerability to windstorms will increase. Data Limitations: Major wind storms are often secondary effects of other severe weather events. Therefore, many major windstorms are not classified as such. Also, major wind events often go unreported to the National Weather Service or other archiving agencies Earthquake Other Hazard Hazard Description An earthquake is caused by a sudden slip on a fault. Stresses in the earth s outer layer push the sides of the fault together. Stress builds up and the rocks slip suddenly, releasing energy in waves that travel through the earth s crust and cause the shaking that is felt during an earthquake. The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs using the Richter scale. Another measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is used to describe the effects of the earthquake at a particular place. Intensity differs throughout an affected area and is an expression of the amount of shaking, typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes, at any given location on the surface as felt by humans and defined in the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. 4-50

101 According to the Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado is comprised of areas with low to moderate potential for damaging earthquakes. There are about 100 potentially active faults that have been identified in Colorado, with documented movement within the last 1.6 million years. However, there are several thousand other faults that have been mapped in Colorado that are believed to have little or no potential for producing future earthquakes. Table 4-19: Magnitude and Intensity Scales for Earthquakes Magnitude and Intensity Comparison Richter Scale Maximum Modified Mercalli Intensity 1.0 to 3.0 I 3.0 to 3.9 II to III 4.0 to 4.9 IV to V 5.0 to 5.9 VI to VII 6.0 to 6.9 VII to IX 7.0 and Higher VIII or Higher Defined Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Rating I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. Source: USGS, online at accessed on February 6, Geographic Location Many of Colorado s historic earthquakes have occurred in mountainous regions of the state and all of Pitkin County is at risk for a potential earthquake. According to the Colorado State Earthquake Evaluation Report, 17 Basalt Mountain Fault and Sawatch Range Faults are the known faults in the county. However, other faults outside the county were of most concern for the state; those analyzed for their potential impact on the Pitkin County include: Chase Gulch, Cimarron, Frontal, Mosquito, N. Sangre, N. Sawatch, S. Sawatch, and Williams Fork. Some of these faults are illustrated in Figure Colorado State Earthquake Evaluation Report, Annex to the State Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, January

102 Figure 4-5: Pitkin County Excerpt from Colorado s Earthquake and Fault Map Source: Colorado s Earthquake and Fault Map, Colorado Geological Survey, , accessed 29 August Previous Occurrences The Colorado State Earthquake Evaluation Report and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) together report 15 earthquakes in Pitkin County since Sample Event 1: Carbondale Area Earthquakes, April-May, 1984 In April and May of 1984, a series of earthquakes occurred about five miles south of Carbondale. The first quake, at 1:17 p.m. MST on April 12, had with a magnitude 2.4. The largest quake occurred on May 4-52

103 14 at 4:14 a.m. MDT and had a magnitude of 3.2, which was felt in the Carbondale and Glenwood Springs area. Of the hundreds of earthquakes that in the two-month period, 12 were reported as felt. 18 Sample Event 2: Basalt Earthquake, September 8, 1944 An earthquake in Basalt on September 8, 1944 quake had a Modified Mercalli Intensity of VI. During the tremor bricks fell from chimneys and walls and chimneys cracked in Basalt. 19 Table 4-20: Known Historical Earthquakes, Pitkin County Date Location 09/17/1880 Aspen 04/08/1940 Aspen 02/1941 Aspen 09/08/1944 Basalt 10/17/1960 Aspen 03/05/1962 Aspen 06/23/1968 SW of Carbondale 09/24/1977 SW of Carbondale 05/29/1978 SW of Carbondale 04-05/1984 Carbondale 04/21/1991 Aspen 07/07-08/1993 Aspen 10/13/2002 Aspen 01/01/2003 Aspen 11/06/2003 Aspen Sources: Colorado State Earthquake Evaluation Report; USGS, Colorado Earthquake History, accessed 29 August Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Earthquakes have occurred regularly in Pitkin County over the past 130 years. However, the earthquake hazard in Colorado is thought to be not well understood and the potential for unknown active faults exists. The USGS offers an online mapping system for earthquake probability as part of the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. The following figure illustrates the probability of a 5.0 or greater magnitude earthquake occurring in the Pitkin County area in the next 150 years. This map shows a 25-35% probability of an earthquake of that magnitude in and around Pitkin County in the next 150 years. 18 USGS, Colorado Earthquake History, accessed 29 August USGS, Colorado Earthquake History, accessed 29 August

104 Figure 4-6: Probability of 5.0 or Greater Earthquake in the Next 150 Years Source: accessed on 29 August Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) Limited: Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours. As shown in the next figure, in Pitkin County, the shaking level with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded over a period of 50 years is 9 percent peak acceleration or less. Western Pitkin County lies in the range of 9 percent peak acceleration and eastern Pitkin County lies in the range of 6 percent peak acceleration. Thus, western Pitkin County has a slightly greater earthquake risk. Significant earthquake damage typically does not occur until peak accelerations are greater than 30 percent. Secondary impacts of earthquakes may include landslides, seiches, liquefaction, fires, and dam failure. Figure 4-7: Colorado Seismic Hazard Map 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years 4-54

105 4-55

106 unreinforced masonry. Pitkin County has 37 listings in the National Register of Historic Places and the City of Aspen has over 200 historic landmark sites and structures, many of which are located in the downtown core. The City of Aspen is particularly vulnerable to a seismic event due to its historic buildings and population center. Other critical facilities or infrastructure at risk are unknown; their construction determines their ability to withstand seismic shaking. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) ran a series of deterministic scenarios for selected Colorado faults using HAZUS-MH to assess potential economic and social losses due to earthquake activity in Colorado. The earthquake magnitudes used for each fault were the maximum credible earthquake as determined by the U.S. Geological Survey. There were three faults analyzed for Pitkin County: Chase Gulch, Cimarron, Frontal, Mosquito, N. Sangre, N. Sawatch, S. Sawatch, and Williams Fork. Table 4-21 summarizes the results for estimated potential losses for Pitkin County. The loss ratio is the percentage of the total building stock value damaged. The higher this ratio, the more difficult it is to restore a community to viability (loss ratios of 10 percent or greater are considered critical by FEMA). The greatest losses to Pitkin County would likely result from a magnitude 7.25 earthquake or greater on the S. Sawatch fault, which is predicted to cause some fatalities and more than $77 million in economic loss. Table 4-21: Potential Earthquake Losses in Pitkin County Fault Magnitude Fatalities Total Economic Loss ($) Loss Ratio (%) Chase Gulch M million Cimarron M million Frontal M million Mosquito M million N. Sangre M million N. Sawatch M million N. Sawatch M million S. Sawatch M million Williams Fork M million Source: Earthquake Evaluation Report, Future Development: All Pitkin County jurisdictions have adopted building codes; therefore, the potential cost of damages to future structures from earthquakes is significantly reduced. The magnitude and intensity of any earthquake will be the key determinant as to total damages. Data Limitations: It is not possible to accurately estimate the timing or location of future dangerous earthquakes in Colorado. The lack of an adequate network of seismometers in Colorado makes it difficult to detect and locate earthquakes. The historical record also is quite short about 140 years Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado s Earthquake and Fault Map,

107 4.12. Hazard Profile Summary Table 4-22, below, is a summary of the risk assessment probabilities and magnitudes, and the overall hazard risk rankings for the Pitkin County jurisdictions based on research for this PDMP update and discussions with workshop participants. The risk rankings reflect slight geographic differences in the jurisdictions vulnerabilities to specific hazards, particularly flooding. The probabilities/ Magnitudes/ Risk Rankings for individual fire districts are the same as those identified for the main municipality within their respective service areas. These rankings will be reviewed regularly by the Office of Emergency Management to ensure that hazards are prioritized in a way that focuses resources where they are most needed. Table 4-22: Overall Risk Ranking of Hazards by Jurisdiction Pitkin County and Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Critical 2 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Catastrophic 1 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked Town of Snowmass Village and Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Critical 2 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited

108 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked Town of Basalt and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Flood - Significant Occasional Catastrophic 1 Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked * Based on input at planning workshops, perceived threat of natural hazards number 1 being the largest perceived threat. 4-58

109 The following sections provide details on community assets, social vulnerability, and land use and development trends. The Capability Summary that follows includes a general description and analysis of the effectiveness of local mitigation policies, programs, and capabilities Community Asset Inventory This section identifies the assets within Pitkin County that could potentially be impacted by natural hazards. By identifying these assets, the Pitkin County gains a better understanding of how a particular natural hazard event may impact the community. Pitkin County is the 28 th largest county in the state; the 2010 census estimated the population at 17,148, with most of those people living within incorporated areas population estimates were 6,658 people in the City of Aspen, 2,826 people in the Town of Snowmass Village and 3,857 people in the Town of Basalt. The rate of increase in population from 2000 to 2010 was 15.3% for Pitkin County. The State Demographers Office projects a Pitkin County population of 30,432 in the year Table 5-1 below, illustrates the downward trend, beginning in 2007, in residential building permits issued in Pitkin County. This can be largely attributed to the latest national economic recession. Table 5-1: Building Permits Issued for Pitkin County, Non-Residential Construction Residential Construction Year Number of Permits Value Number of Permits Value $991, $175,728, $7,704, $70,855, $9,441, $114,432, $2,667, $74,656, $4,797, $87,482, $6,208, $126,365, $5,777, $115,438, $7,133, $120,985, $11,989, $130,387, $4,453, $71,949, $4,018, $76,295,044 *Source: Pitkin County Building Department, Includes permits issued for new construction, additions, and remodels. 5-1

110 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical (or essential) facilities can be described as services, places, or key infrastructure and resources that are integral for day-to-day operations for the function of the county. These facilities are especially important to the county during and after a hazard event. Critical facilities include hospitals, schools, fire stations, and more. Critical facilities typically fall within the Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) categories defined by the Department of Homeland Security (listed in Table 5-2). Table 5-2: Critical Facilities by Category Category / Sector Water Emergency Services Communications Gas/Electric Healthcare and Public Health Food/Grocery Transportation Banking Government Facilities Nearby Dams Computer Driven Technology Nuclear Materials/Waste Chemical Facilities Defense Industry Contractors Postal or Shipping Critical Manufacturing Monuments and Icons Places of Assembly Examples Reservoirs, stormwater system, wastewater facilities Fire stations, police stations, etc. Telephone lines, radio towers, cellular service Natural gas lines, power lines, gasoline stations Hospitals, urgent care facilities, doctor s offices Restaurants, grocery stores, markets Major roads, bridges, bus stations, airports Banks and other financial institutions City hall, jails, military installations Dams (private and public) Fiber-optic and cable Nuclear power plant, waste storage facility Propane storage, other chemical storage Staff support services to military installation USPS offices, FedEx, UPS, others Manufacturing critical to local economy Historical buildings, natural features, local icons Churches, public squares Table 5-3 summarizes the number and type of critical facilities for Pitkin County according to local GIS data. Exhibit 5-1 is a map showing the locations of the critical facilities. Table 5-3: Critical Facilities in Pitkin County Type of Facility Unincorporated Pitkin County Total Number of Facilities City of Aspen Town of Snowmass Village Town of Basalt Police Stations Fire Stations Hospitals Schools Dams Major Bridges Government Buildings Post Offices Wastewater Treatment Facilities Public Airports Source: Pitkin County, GIS data 5-2

111 Exhibit 5-1: Pitkin County Critical Facilities Map 5-3

112 In addition to these critical facilities, there are hundreds of miles of roads, overhead transmission lines, and water and sewer lines, minor bridges, and other facilities that are critical to the functionality of Pitkin County and its municipalities Natural, Historic, and Cultural Assets Assessing the vulnerability of Pitkin County to disaster also involves inventorying the natural, historic, and cultural assets of the area. This step is important for the following reasons: The community may decide that these types of resources warrant a greater degree of protection due to their unique and irreplaceable nature and contribution to the overall economy. If these resources are impacted by a disaster, knowing this ahead of time allows for more prudent care in the immediate aftermath, when the potential for additional impacts are higher. The rules for reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement are often different for these types of designated resources. Natural resources can have beneficial functions that reduce the impacts of natural hazards, such as wetlands and riparian habitat, which help absorb and attenuate floodwaters. Natural Resources: Wetlands and Endangered Species Natural resources are important to include in a benefit-cost analyses for future projects. They may be used to leverage additional funding for projects that contribute to other community goals as well. A number of natural resources exist in Pitkin County. The discussion below comes from data regarding wetlands and endangered species in Pitkin County. Wetlands are a valuable natural resource for communities, due to their ability to improve water quality, wildlife protection, recreation, and education, and play an important role in hazard mitigation. Wetlands reduce flood peaks and slowly release floodwaters to downstream areas. When surface runoff is dampened, the erosive powers of the water are greatly diminished. Furthermore, the reduction in the velocity of inflowing water as it passes through a wetland helps remove sediment being transported by the water. Wetlands also provide drought relief in water-scarce areas where the relationship between water storage and streamflow regulation are vital. To further understand natural resources that may be particularly vulnerable to a hazard event, as well as those that need consideration when implementing mitigation activities, it is important to identify at-risk species in the planning area. An endangered species is any species of fish, plant life, or wildlife that is in danger of extinction throughout all or most of its range. A threatened species is a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Both endangered and threatened species are protected by law and any future hazard mitigation projects are subject to these laws. Candidate species are plants and animals that have been proposed as endangered or threatened but are not currently listed. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as of July 2010, there were ten Federal endangered, threatened, or candidate species in Pitkin County. These species are listed in the following table. 5-4

113 Table 5-4: List of Rare Species in Pitkin County Common Name Scientific Name Type of Species Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias Threatened Humpback chub* Gila cypha Endangered Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Razorback sucker* Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly Boloria acrocnema Endangered Ute ladies -tresses orchid Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate Source: Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Colorado Counties (July 2010), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain-Prairie Region, Historical and Cultural Resources National and state historic inventories were reviewed to identify historic and cultural assets in Pitkin County. The National Register of Historic Places is the nation s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The Colorado State Register of Historic Properties is a listing of the state s significant cultural resources worthy of preservation for the future education and enjoyment of Colorado s residents and visitors. Table 5-5 lists the properties in Pitkin County that are on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties and the National Register of Historic Places. Table 5-5: Pitkin County Historic Properties/Districts in National Register Property Name Jurisdiction Location Date Listed Ashcroft, Colorado Ashcroft White River National Forest 5/12/1975 Armory Hall / Fraternal Hall Aspen 130 S. Galena St. 6/5/1975 Aspen Community Church Aspen 200 N. Aspen St. 5/12/1975 Boat Tow Aspen 700 S. Aspen St. (Willoughby Park) 6/22/1990 Bowles-Cooley House Aspen 201 W. Francis St. 3/6/1987 Matthew Callahan Log Cabin Aspen 205 S. 3rd St. 3/6/1987 Collins Block-Aspen Lumber & Supply Aspen 204 S. Mill 3/6/1987 Dixon-Markle House Aspen 135 E. Cooper Ave. 3/6/1987 D.E. Frantz House Aspen 333 W. Bleeker St. 3/6/1987 Samuel L. Hallett House Aspen 432 W. Francis St. 3/6/1987 Holden Mining & Smelting Co Aspen 1000 Block W. Colo. Hwy. 82 6/22/1990 Hotel Jerome Aspen 330 E. Main St. 3/20/1986 Hyman-Brand Building Aspen 203 S. Galena St. 1/18/1985 Thomas Hynes House Aspen 303 E. Main St. 3/6/1987 La Fave Block Aspen 405 S. Hunter St. 3/6/1987 Maroon Creek Bridge Aspen Colo. Hwy. 82, Aspen vicinity 2/4/1985 New Brick / The Brick Saloon / Red Onion Aspen 420 E. Cooper Ave. 3/6/1987 Pitkin County Courthouse Aspen 506 E. Main St. 5/12/1975 Riede s City Bakery Aspen 413 E. Hyman Ave. 3/6/1987 Judge Shaw House / Newberry House Aspen 206 Lake Ave. 3/6/

114 Property Name Jurisdiction Location Date Listed Sheely Bridge Aspen Mill Street Park 2/4/1985 Shilling-Lamb House Aspen 525 N. 2nd St. 3/6/1987 Smith-Elisha House Aspen 320 W. Main St. 1/19/1989 Smuggler Mine Aspen Smuggler Mountain 5/18/1987 Ute Cemetery Aspen Ute Ave. 4/1/2002 Davis Waite House Aspen 234 W. Francis St. 3/6/1987 Henry Webber House / Pioneer Park Aspen 442 W. Bleeker 3/6/1987 Wheeler Opera House Aspen 330 E. Hyman Ave. 8/21/1972 Wheeler-Stallard House Aspen 620 W. Bleeker St. 5/30/1975 Independence & Independence Mill Site Independence Colo. Hwy. 82, White River National 4/11/1973 Forest Osgood Castle / Cleveholm Redstone Redstone vicinity 6/28/1971 Osgood Gamekeeper s Lodge Redstone Colo. Hwy /19/1989 Osgood-Kuhnhausen House Redstone 642 Redstone Blvd. 8/18/1983 Redstone Coke Oven Historic District Redstone Colo. Hwy. 133 & Chair Mountain 2/7/1990 Stables Rd., Redstone vicinity Redstone Historic District Redstone Along Crystal River, Hawk Creek to 7/19/ Redstone Blvd. Redstone Inn Redstone 82 Redstone Blvd. 3/27/1980 Source: Directory of Colorado State Register Properties, Economic Assets Economic assets at risk may include major employers or primary economic sectors, such as retail trade or health care, whose losses or inoperability would have severe impacts on the community and its ability to recover from disaster. After a disaster, economic vitality is the engine that drives recovery. Every community has a specific set of economic drivers, which are important to understand when planning ahead to reduce disaster impacts to the economy. When major employers are unable to return to normal operations, impacts ripple throughout the community. Table 5-6 lists major employers in Pitkin County and their estimated number of employees. This data was extracted from the Pitkin County Annual Financial Report for 2009 and may not reflect current employee counts. Table 5-6: Principal Employers in Pitkin County Employers Number of Employees Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Hotel 3,600 Aspen Valley Hospital 389 City of Aspen 354 St. Regis Aspen Resort 268 Pitkin County 256 Roaring Fork Transit Agency 250 Aspen School District 238 Silvertree Hotel of Snowmass 218 Ritz Carlton 188 Viceroy Snowmass Resort 150 Source: Pitkin County, Colorado Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Year ended December 31,

115 Table 5-7 below, describes the labor force, employment and unemployment information for Pitkin County from April 2011 data. Table 5-7: Labor Force Statistics for Pitkin County Area Civilian Labor Force Number Employed Number Unemployed Unemployment Rate Pitkin County 11,175 10, % Colorado 2,670,161 2,448, , % Source: State of Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, accessed on June 2, Social Vulnerability Certain demographic and housing characteristics affect overall vulnerability to hazards. These characteristics, such as age, race/ethnicity, income levels, gender, building quality, public infrastructure, all contribute to social vulnerability. A Social Vulnerability Index compiled by the Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute in the Department of Geography at the University of South Carolina measures the social vulnerability of U.S. counties to environmental hazards for the purpose of examining the differences in social vulnerability among counties. Based on national data sources, primarily the 2000 Census, it synthesizes 32 socioeconomic and built environment variables that research literature suggests contribute to reduction in a community s ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from hazards. Nine composite factors were identified that differentiate counties according to their relative level of social vulnerability: socioeconomic status, elderly and children, rural agriculture, housing density, black female-headed households, gender, service industry employment, unemployed Native Americans, and infrastructure employment. Figure 5-1 below, illustrates Colorado counties compared to the national average. 5-7

116 Figure 5-1: Social Vulnerability by County Compared with the Nation Source: The Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, accessed on June 2, Compared to other counties in the nation and in Colorado, Pitkin County s social vulnerability is low, meaning that compared to other counties in the nation, Pitkin County is considered to be less socially vulnerable than most, or within the 20 percent least vulnerable. To better understand the characteristics behind this ranking, the workshop participants reviewed information from the 2000 Census on four factors of social vulnerability: gender, age, language spoken in home, and poverty. One characteristic of social vulnerability is differential access to resources and greater susceptibility to hazards. All factors considered here are related to this characteristic. Figure 5-1 displays these variables and compares them to the same variables for Colorado and the United States. These factors of social vulnerability hold many implications for disaster response and recovery and are important considerations when identifying and prioritizing mitigation actions and overall goals of the Plan Land Use and Development Trends This section provides a general description of land uses and development trends within Pitkin County and includes data on growth in population and housing units. The 2005 PDMP stated the following: Based on land use and population growth projections, over the next 20 years the [County anticipates] continued rapid population growth, particularly along the wildland urban interface and adjacent to 5-8

117 major transportation corridors. In the absence of effective mitigation measures, these projections indicate increasing loss potential from the prioritized hazards identified in this plan. Demographic projections predict continued population growth of part time residents, including those inexperienced with the challenges posed by the county s environment and natural hazards. Part time residents include senior citizens who can be more at risk from these hazards and less capable of dealing with emergency response requirements. These at-risk populations may impose increased demands on the Counties emergency services. The primary source of development in the City of Aspen will be redevelopment. Due to strong growth management systems, most new development occurs by demolishing and replacing existing structures. One exception to this is the West of Castle Creek Corridor, which provides a gradual transition from rural Pitkin County to the more developed neighborhoods of the West End and downtown Aspen areas. According to the County, because this corridor provides a relatively less expensive alternative to Aspen, it has also been a growing area for workforce housing. In respect to development trends in and around the Town of Basalt, the 2007 Town of Basalt Master Plan stated the following: Until the mid-1990s the Town of Basalt had grown in a relatively typical manner for small rural communities, concentrically out from the historic downtown core. This trend changed when the Town annexed acres of land including already approved and developed projects such as River Oaks, Aspen Junction, Sagewood, Pineridge, and Silverado along with the Sopris Meadows property. These developments were incorporated into the Town by annexing across public land as allowed in the State Statutes governing annexation ( , C.R.S.). This created a town with two distinct areas separated by approximately one and a half miles of unincorporated land (see Figure 1). In 1996 the Town also conducted a serial annexation which included the Roaring Fork Club property along with remaining portions of the Kittle and Waterman properties. These two annexation actions created a town that stretches along Highway 82 for nearly five and a half miles (including the unincorporated area between West Basalt and East Basalt). Table 5-8, Table 5-9, and Table 5-10 provide information on growth in population and housing units for Pitkin County and its municipalities. Table 5-11 provides population projections for Pitkin County in 5- year increments to the year Table 5-8: Population Growth in Pitkin County, Jurisdiction Percent Change (%) City of Aspen 5,914 6, % Town of Snowmass Village 1,822 2, % Town of Basalt 2,681 3, % Pitkin County 14,872 17, % Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, Table 5-9: Growth in Housing Units in Pitkin County, Jurisdiction Percent Change (%) City of Aspen 4,354 5, % Town of Snowmass Village 1,734 2, % 5-9

118 Jurisdiction Percent Change (%) Town of Basalt 1,218 1, % Pitkin County 10,096 12, % Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, Table 5-10: Population and Housing Unit Density in Pitkin County, Population Density* (per sq. mile) 2010 Population Density* (per sq. mile) 2000 Housing Unit Density* (per sq. mile) 2010 Housing Unit Density* (per sq. mile) Area in Square Jurisdiction Miles City of Aspen 3.8 1,556 1,752 1,146 1,560 Town of Snowmass Village Town of Basalt 2.0 1,341 1, Pitkin County *Densities rounded to the nearest integer. Sources: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, Table 5-11: Population Projections for Pitkin County, Population 17,176 19,009 21,260 23,569 25,898 28,205 30,432 Percent Change (%) 2.0% 2.3% 2.1% 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 2.0% Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, June As indicated in the tables above, population growth rates from 2000 to 2010 in the Towns of Snowmass Village and Basalt were greater than within the City of Aspen or Pitkin County. However, the population density within the City of Aspen and Town of Basalt (1,556 and 1,341 persons per square mile respectively) is considerably greater than the density in Pitkin County, which is estimated to be 15 persons per square mile. It can be generally stated that should major natural hazards hit the area, the impacted population would typically be greater in Aspen, Snowmass Village and Basalt than unincorporated Pitkin County. The State Demographers Office projects that the Pitkin County population will rise to nearly over 30,000 by the year Capability Summary A community s regulatory, administrative and technical, and financial capabilities are directly related to the ability of that community to mitigate natural hazards prior to a major event taking place. For instance, a county with a full professional staff of geologic engineers will be well-equipped to provide protection and advice for landslide-prone properties. Conversely, for example, a municipality or fire protection district without enforceable WUI building and wildfire protection codes may not have the leverage necessary to protect lives and properties during a major wildfire event. 21 Following is a list of Pitkin County s capabilities that foster hazard mitigation in one way or another. 21 In Pitkin County there are no regulatory provisions for continued monitoring of properties for wildfire protection following development nor application of standards to existing properties. Consequently, significant at-risk areas within the county lack a dynamic correction action plan and pre-disaster mitigation avenues are sorely lacking. 5-10

119 Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table 5-12: Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Capability Pitkin County City of Aspen Town of Snowmass Village Town of Basalt Master or Comprehensive Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Emergency Operations Plan Yes Not current No No Economic Development Plan In process Yes No Yes Capital Improvements Plan Expected in 2012 Yes Yes Unkown Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes No Yes No Building Code Yes Yes Yes Yes Building Code Year IBC 2003 (updating 2009 to 2009) Floodplain Ordinance Yes Yes No No Zoning Ordinance Yes Yes Yes Yes Subdivision Ordinance Yes Yes No Yes Stormwater Ordinance No Yes No Yes Growth Management Ordinance Yes Yes No No Site Plan Review Requirements Yes Yes Yes Yes Erosion/Sediment Control Program Yes Yes Yes No Stormwater Management Program Yes Yes Yes No National Flood Insurance Program Participant Yes Yes No Unknown Community Rating System Participant Yes No No Unknown Several policies and procedures from Pitkin County s existing regulations, plans, and studies are related to natural hazard mitigation. Strong growth management systems are one of the most important natural hazard mitigation tools available to the County and its incorporated cities and towns. In 2000, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly adopted an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) which identifies the land surrounding the City as either appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development (outside the UGB). Land within the UGB is appropriate for urban development and is expected to become part of the City s urbanized area, at some point, while land outside the UGB is not appropriate for urban development and should only be annexed as a method of preserving the non-urban character of lands surrounding the City of Aspen. 22 The UGB includes Red Mountain, East of Aspen neighborhoods, the Airport Business Center, the Airport, Buttermilk Base area, and portions of the Castle Creek and Maroon Creek valleys. By limiting urban sprawl, the UGB deters urban development patterns in rural areas that are more susceptible to risks from natural hazards, such as land within the wildland-urban interface. 22 City of Aspen/Pitkin County: accessed 29 August

120 Figure 5-2: City of Aspen/Pitkin County Urban Growth Boundary Complementing the Urban Growth Boundary is the County s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, which has proven to be another effective growth management tool. The County s TDR program was originally adopted to encourage the relocation of development from the backcountry to areas closer to existing services and infrastructure. However, the program has since been expanded to encourage the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and to discourage development in environmentally hazardous areas. 23 Table 5-13: Pitkin County Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation Chapter 7-20: Development Standards - Rural Character, Environmental Protection, and Natural Hazards Subsection : Site Preparation and Grading Standards in this section apply to grading and filling on a site that can take place only within a defined Activity Envelope. Applicable standards include: Clearing, Grubbing, and Vegetation Removal Tree Removal and Mitigation Protection of Natural Terrain Section : Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes 23 Pitkin County: accessed 29 August

121 The provisions in this section apply whenever steep slopes or potentially unstable slopes occur within an approved Activity Envelope, but do not apply when an Activity Envelope have been defined to avoid such areas. Section : Water Courses and Drainage The water resources standards are applicable to all development and include the maintenance of historical flow patterns and runoff amounts to reasonably preserve the natural character of an area and prevent property damage attributable to runoff rate and velocity. Section : Floodplain Hazards The standards in this section apply to mapped floodplain hazard areas as depicted in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, National Flood Insurance Program (June 4, 1987, and including any subsequent amendments to that map) and areas determined by the County Floodplain Administrator to be in flood hazard areas. Section : Geologic Hazards This section identifies development standards applicable to specific geologic hazard areas. Major geologic hazards are identified on the Geologic Hazards Map maintained in the Community Development Department. Applicable standards include: Avalanche Areas Landslide Areas Rockfall Areas Alluvial Fans Talus Slope Mancos Shale Faults Expansive Soil and Rock Ground Subsidence Section : Wildfire Hazards This section establishes the standards for development in wildfire hazard areas. The level of hazard is determined primarily by grade or slope and continuity of fuels. As a general guideline, low hazard is located on slopes of zero to twenty (0-20) percent with discontinuous fuels; moderate hazard is located on slopes of ten to twenty (10-20) percent with continuous fuels, or on slopes greater than twenty (20) percent with discontinuous fuels; and severe hazard is located on slopes of greater than twenty (20) percent with continuous fuels. Standards applicable to all Wildfire Hazard Areas include: Defensible Space Access Water Supply for Fire Safety Roofing Materials, Roofing Vents and Projections at and Below Roof Line Maintenance and Miscellaneous Requirements Table 5-14: City of Aspen Land Use Policy Guidelines related to Natural Hazard Mitigation City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Certain land areas within the City are of particular ecological, environmental, architectural or scenic significance and all development within such areas shall be subject to heightened review procedures and standards as set forth in this Chapter. These areas shall be known as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) and shall include the following: A Greenline. Areas located at or above 8040 feet mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) and including that area extending one hundred fifty (150) feet below, measured horizontally, the 8040 Greenline. Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rockfall and mudslide and aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses. Review shall further ensure the availability of utilities and access to any development and that disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features be kept to a minimum. B. Stream margins. Areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or within the one-hundred-year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or within a Flood Hazard Area (stream margin). Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features. D. Hallam Lake Bluff. That bluff area running approximately on a north-south axis bordering and/or overlooking the Aspen Center for 5-13

122 Environmental Studies Nature Preserve and bounded on the east by the 7850-foot mean sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, up slope and there terminating and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street. Development in this area shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature preserve, protect against slope erosion and landslide, minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain views to and from the nature preserve and ensure the aesthetic and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve. Sec Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA) In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: [Whether] the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Chapter Planned Unit Development (PUD), Sec General provisions The following provisions shall apply to all property designated with a PUD Overlay on the Official Zone District Map unless otherwise provided pursuant to an adopted final PUD development plan for the property. B. Density: Unless otherwise established pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan, the maximum aggregate density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district, considering the inclusions and exclusions of Lot Area, as defined and the mandatory density reduction for steep slopes as described below. Mandatory reduction in density for steep slopes: In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall be reduced in areas with slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) according to the following schedule: Slope classification. (Slope percentage) Maximum density allowed. (Percentage of that allowed in the underlying zone district): 0 20 %: 100% %: 50% %: 25% slope > 40 %: 0% Chapter Subdivision, Sec , Suitability of land for subdivision. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan Chapter 6 - Floodplains 6.2 Floodplain Development Regulations The purpose of these regulations is to control the alteration of the natural floodplains; prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas; restrict or prohibit uses which may result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities; protect and preserve the natural riparian corridor; and to control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damages. The City of Aspen requires that all proposed development and/or redevelopment in the 100-year floodplain, not just construction of buildings, be reviewed and permitted in compliance with this Manual and Chapter 8.50 of the City Code. The Development Engineer administers the ordinance through the issuance of permits, inspection of construction, and collection and maintenance of FEMA Elevation Certificates to show the final elevation of new and substantially improved construction. Note that garages, sheds, additions, athletic courts, driveways, and fill all require permits from City of Aspen Engineering Department. 6.3 Requirements for Development in Floodplains A Floodplain Development Permit is required for any development, redevelopment or construction that will occur within jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional floodplains. Those activities include, but are not limited to, building or enlarging a structure, remodeling or improving a structure, the placement of a manufactured home, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavating, and drilling Critical Facilities Flooding does occur above and beyond the 100-year floodplain. For that reason, new critical facilities and substantial changes to critical facilities shall be regulated to the 500-year flood event. New critical facilities should be located outside of the 500-year floodplain and have continuous non-inundated access during a 500-year flood event. Substantial changes to critical facilities should meet these requirements to the maximum extent possible. Critical facilities that cannot be located outside of the 500-year floodplain will require protection to the 500-year level. Critical facilities for floodplain purposes means a facility (structure, infrastructure, equipment, service, etc.) that if flooded may result in severe consequences to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during, or after a flood. Examples of critical facilities include police, fire, emergency management or responders, hospitals, urgent care, communications facilities, public utilities, primary access routes or evacuation routes, hazardous materials facilities, gas stations, schools, day cares, senior centers, community centers, etc. 5-14

123 Chapter 7 Mudflow Analysis Mudflow analysis requirements may be applicable to all development and redevelopment within the City of Aspen jurisdiction and that is developing slopes greater than 15%, that lie within the mudflow plain, or as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. For development projects in a mudflow hazard area that will modify existing grades, create additional obstructions (such as buildings, roads, etc.), or change the orientation of obstructions, the applicant must conduct analyses to demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely affect nearby properties. In addition, development activities within the mudflow hazard area must be designed to withstand the hydrostatic and shear forces of the mudflow event. Table 5-15: Town of Snowmass Village Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Subdivision Regulations Sec. 16A Fire Protection Development in Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards. Purpose. There are certain types of lands within the Town that have the potential to pose hazards to human life and safety and to property due to wildfire. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that development avoids these wildfire hazard areas whenever possible. Where it is not possible for development to avoid these areas, standards are provided to reduce or minimize the potential impacts of these hazards on the occupants of the property and, as applicable, the occupants of adjacent properties. Includes required mitigation techniques recommended by the Colorado Forest Service that can include: locations, manipulate vegetation, structural design, water supply, access, maintenance and compliance. Sec. 16A Storm Drainage General Standard. The integrity of existing and natural drainage patterns shall be preserved in order that the aggregate of future public and private development activities will not cause storm drainage and flood water patterns to exceed the capacity of natural or constructed drainage ways, will not subject other areas to increased potential for damage by flood erosion or sedimentation and will not pollute natural streams. Sec. 16A Geologic Hazard Areas, Steep Slopes and Ridgeline Protection Areas Purpose. Steep slopes prone to erosion and soil instability, are difficult to revegetate and may also be subject to geologic hazards. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that development does not occur on slopes that are excessively steep, unstable or hazardous. Requirements can include: development prohibited in geologic hazard areas and development prohibited on slopes greater than 30%. Sec. 16A Flood Plains and Wetland Areas Flood Plains. All development proposed in an application for PUD, subdivision or special review shall be located outside of the limites of the one-hundred-year flood plain, as depicted on the most recent edition of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for areas within Town. (Or independent study, if no FIRM maps exist). Table 5-16: Town of Basalt Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation Town of Basalt Land Use and Subdivision Regulations Sec Natural hazards. These standards are intended to assure that new development will not be permitted in areas where the environmental characteristics of the area may create hazardous conditions for new residents or for adjoining property owners. (1) Building development is generally discouraged on slopes that exceed thirty percent (30%). In special cases, development may be permitted, provided that approved mitigation techniques are employed. As per Section of the Zoning Ordinance, all development proposed for sites with slopes in excess of thirty percent (30%) must be reviewed under the special review application procedures of Article III, Chapter 16. In such cases, analyses must be approved by independent professional geologists and engineers. (2) Hazards shall include subsidence, unstable soils, rockfall hazards and flooding. (3) All development shall be subject to the provisions of the floodplain regulations of the Town. (4) Mitigation techniques may include but are not limited to: a. Slope stabilization by landscaping, revegetation or other means. b. Elevation of structures or approved floodproofing. 5-15

124 c. Catchment walls for rockfall hazards. d. Control of potential debris; diversion structures. e. Reinforcement of uphill building walls, windows and doors. (Prior code 57-21) Sec Preliminary plat Subdivision preliminary plates require the following: Drainage plan. When the plat of a proposed subdivision includes a stream course, a mudflow course or dry wash subject to flood crest or heavy runoff generated by precipitation or rapid spring-thaw runoff, a drainage plan, based on an engineering analysis of the catchment and the tributary area and detailed drainage easements and structures necessary to accommodate a design one-hundred-year storm, mudflow or flooding, shall be provided by an engineer registered in the State. Sec Methods of reducing flood losses In order to accomplish its purposes, this Article includes methods and provisions for: (1) Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities. (2) Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction. (3) Controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters. (4) Controlling filling, grading, dredging and other development which may increase flood damage. (5) Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas. (Prior code 33-3) Table 5-17: Regional Policy Guidelines related to Natural Hazard Mitigation Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, Draft March 2011 Urgent Actions: Riparian and Instream Areas Plan and Implement Key Riparian/Instream Protection and Restoration Projects RI B1a. Working with landowners, resource experts, and other interested parties, plan and implement riparian/ instream protection and restoration projects. Provide Adequate Stream Setbacks Throughout the Watershed RI C1c. Develop and enforce stream setbacks that protect riparian areas throughout the watershed. Increase Awareness of the Importance of Riparian Areas RI D1a. Provide education to the public about the important functions of riparian areas, development and other threats to riparian areas, what can be done to protect and restore riparian areas, and potential sources of funding for riparian projects. RWM C. Objective: Ensure coordination of local land use actions to prevent or mitigate water resource impacts throughout the watershed. Land use planning and development in the Roaring Fork Valley should adopt a watershed perspective whenever possible. The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan provides an ideal opportunity to improve cooperation and information sharing among local planning and engineering departments, state water commissioners, local fire protection districts and other interested entities. RWM C2. Improve communication between local entities and state water commissioners on projects of common interest (e.g., local land use and development approvals for microhydro facilities and ornamental ponds). RWM C2a. Modify local land use regulations to require referrals to state water commissioners and local fire protection districts during the land use application review phase. RWM C2b. Request that local land use planning departments adopt a policy of offering state water commissioners and local fire protection districts an opportunity to participate on any technical advisory/working groups developing amendments to land use regulations and/or forms addressing water resource matters of common interest. RWM C2c. Conduct a bi-annual meeting of local land use planners, local fire protection district personnel, and state water commissioners to provide a forum for discussing land use and water resource matters of common interest. SW E. Objective: Reduce the negative impacts of drought and floods. Water conservation and drought are topics of continuing interest, given the arid climate and landscapes of the Roaring Fork Watershed and the Upper Colorado River Basin 5-16

125 High flows are desirable to support numerous ecosystem services within river systems. A functioning flood plain attenuates flood flows and contributes to base flows. However, development in flood plains and controlled flows related to operation of dams and diversions, in combination with large storm events, can lead to flooding issues. Climate-driven changes to the hydrological system will likely increase the frequency, magnitude, and financial costs of extreme weather events. Snowmelt-driven basins like the Roaring Fork Watershed are at especially high risk. High flows associated with spring melt of the snowpack, particularly if it is above average, is tied to spring temperature fluctuations. A rapid spring warm-up and sustained high temperatures pose a serious risk of flooding. Other important considerations are dust and rain on snow events that may contribute to flooding by accelerating snowpack melting. SW E1. Plan for drought to reduce its impacts. SW E1a. Utilize the CWCB s 2010 Drought Mitigation and Response Plan and Drought Planning Toolbox. SW E1b. Work with the CWCB s Office of Water Conservation and Drought Planning to obtain technical assistance and grants to help develop local drought mitigation plans. SW E1c. Create shovel-ready drought-mitigation projects that can be quickly implemented. SW E1d. Investigate the potential benefits and disadvantages of acquiring small storage water rights that can be delivered for municipal uses in times of need and used to mitigate low stream flows. Pursue a streamlined approval process for landowners, if warranted. SW E1e. Investigate opportunities to temporarily loan water to streams using C.R.S Discuss triggering criteria, such as low snowpack levels on specific spring dates, and draft agreements with critical water rights holders, the CDWR Division Engineer and CWCB that can be quickly implemented when needed. SW E2. Develop plans that address the public health and safety issues associated with high flows while recognizing and retaining their environmental benefits. SW E2a. Ensure that county and municipal emergency management plans minimize the potential for harmful flooding in developed floodplains. SW E2b. Where feasible, restore the natural function of floodplains. SW E2c. Ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps for the watershed used by local jurisdictions are up to date and available digitally for public access. SW E2d. Develop and enforce local regulations that minimize development in the flood plain. SW E2e. Identify and pursue opportunities to maintain decision makers and the public s interest in flooding issues after flood events have passed, such as by creating shovel-ready flood mitigation projects that can be quickly implemented. RI B. Objective: Enhance and preserve native riparian and instream flora and fauna including wild, naturally reproducing fish communities. RI B1. Maintain/increase the extent and continuity of native riparian plant communities so that riparian and aquatic systems are functionally connected. RI B1a. Working with landowners, resource experts, and other interested parties, plan and implement riparian/instream protection and restoration projects, including: Working with landowners on conservation easements or acquisitions; Identifying and revitalizing historic wetlands and reconnecting stream channels to the historic floodplain; Working with the USFS and BLM to protect or restore high quality and priority riparian areas; Introducing beavers to create dams and wetland areas in appropriate stream reaches; and Working on ways to manage the timing of available streamflows (high and low), their duration, rise and fall rate, and inter-annual variation to maintain or restore riparian/instream health. Pursue opportunities for riparian/instream protection and restoration where: Small changes in land management or small projects will yield significant riparian/instream improvements; Significant ecological benefit will be derived from changes in land management or a project; Program support exists and access to the riparian/instream area is relatively uncomplicated; Partnerships can be developed (e.g., using the Wyden Amendment for USFS involvement); and An in-lieu fee program can be developed with a regulatory agency. RI B1b. On an ongoing basis, reassess the Colorado Natural Heritage Program s Potential Conservation Areas for changes in resource conditions or management needs. RI B1c. Assess greenbelts/greenways as effective tools for protecting riparian areas in the watershed and pursue, as appropriate. RI B1d. Research wetland mitigation banks and work to expand such a program, if warranted. RI B1e. Investigate regional planning mechanisms available for protection of riparian areas (e.g., a special district crossing local governments jurisdictional boundaries) and funding available to support such a regional effort. Pursue suitable opportunities, if warranted. RI B1f. Support state and federal tax credits for donations of conservation easements. Investigate additional tax incentives for such donations; work with interested parties on adoption of new incentives. 5-17

126 Administrative and Technical Capabilities Table 5-18: Administrative and Technical Capabilities Administrative/ Technical Resources Pitkin County City of Aspen Town of Snowmass Village Town of Basalt Planner/ Engineer with knowledge of land Yes Yes Yes Yes development practices Engineer/ Professional trained in construction Yes Yes Yes No practices related to buildings/ infrastructure Planner/ Engineer/ Scientists with understanding Yes Yes Yes Yes of natural hazards GIS capabilities Yes Yes No use County s Yes GIS Full-time building official Yes Yes Yes Yes Floodplain administrator Yes Yes No No Emergency manager Yes No No No Grant writer No No No No Warning Systems/ Services Some Yes No No Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Table 5-19: Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Financial Resources Pitkin County City of Aspen Town of Snowmass Village Town of Basalt Community Development Block Grants No Unsure No Unknown Capital improvements project funding Yes Yes Yes Unknown Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Voter approval Yes Yes No Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services No Yes Yes Yes Impact fees for new development Yes Yes Yes Yes Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes Yes Yes Yes Incur debt through special tax bonds N/A Yes Yes Yes Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships Pitkin County and local jurisdictions are currently providing several public and private outreach programs aimed at natural hazard mitigation and risk reduction. Programs include the following: Pitkin County Wildland Fire Plan, 2011: The intent of the Plan is to aid in the implementation of a seamless, coordinated effort among all relevant agencies in determining appropriate combinations of wildland fire management actions and programs in the county. It outlines six interagency management objectives necessary to effectively implement wildland fire management programs, including Prevention, Preparedness, Mitigation, Suppression, Reclamation/Rehabilitation, and Fiscal objectives. Basalt River Master Plan, 2002: This Plan was developed through a collaborative process that included local business owners, property owners, interested citizens, technical consultants and federal, state and local governments and agencies. It addresses flood hazards and recommend actions aimed at minimizing those hazards and addresses other aspects of the Town's relationship with the Roaring Fork River, 5-18

127 including social and cultural interaction, recreational access and use, riparian habitat, fishery health, development and public infrastructure. Roaring Fork Watershed Plan Draft, 2011: This Plan is the product of a four-year collaboration between dozens of agencies, governments and interests throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. The Plan is intended to be meaningful and useful to both water managers and the general public. One of the Plan's key objectives is to provide a reference to enable laymen, students, activists and recreationists to get involved in watershed management by providing a menu of programs, studies, projects and initiatives aimed at enhancing or protecting some aspect of local water resources. Water-topic sections include Regional Water Management, Surface Water Management, Ground Water Management, Water Quality, and Riparian and Instream Areas. The Plan specifically addresses the need for intergovernmental cooperation to mitigate for flooding. For instance, one objective calls for [developing] plans that address the public health and safety issues associated with high flows while recognizing and retaining their environmental benefits. Pitkin County Guide to Rural Living, 2006: This document is intended to help prospective Pitkin County homebuyers make an informed decision about moving to the area. The guide focuses on providing realistic expectations for those who are interested in moving from an urban to a mountainous rural area. It addresses a number of natural hazard considerations, including wildfire hazards, drought conditions, variable weather, variable road conditions and development adjacent to rivers or streams. For example, the guide prepares potential buyers for required land use reviews such as the Environmental Protection and Natural Hazards Review that is meant to identify any areas on a site that could prove hazardous for development (e.g., unstable slopes, avalanche areas, the 100-year floodplain) and measures that might be taken to avoid or mitigate for the natural hazard. Pitkin Alert: This program is a community notification system managed by the Aspen-Pitkin County Communications Center that allows officials to immediately contact residents during a major crisis or emergency, such as a severe weather incident. It delivers important emergency alerts, notifications and updates to residents on a number of devices, including , wireless devices, and landline telephones. Pitkin Alert provides real-time updates, instructions on where to go, what to do, or what not to do, and who to contact during an emergency. Pitkin County Flood Safe Flier: This flier is available online and outlines how to prepare for a flood and what to do in case of a flood. It includes information about sandbags, including local vendors, a link to a You Tube video with instructional information about sandbagging and a how to guide to filling sandbags. The flier also recommends signing-up for Pitkin Alert, flood preparation steps such as a Kit Checklist and safety measure such as not camping or parking vehicles along streams or washes. 5-19

128 This page intentionally left blank. 5-20

129 This chapter describes the updated mitigation strategy developed by the planning workshop participants based on the risk assessment described in Chapter 4 and the capability assessment described in Chapter 5. Plan Update The planning workshop participants reviewed and revised the 2005 mitigation goals and strategies, formulating 2011 plan goals and actions, through a collaborative group process. The 2011 mitigation strategy consists of the overall strategy statements, goals, objectives, and mitigation actions. Goals are general guidelines that explain what the plan means to achieve. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent on the means of achievement. They are meant to be achieved over the long term and typically consist of broad, policy statements. Objectives are standards that can be reasonably achieved within a certain timeframe. Mitigation Actions are specific actions designed for implementation that help achieve the goal and objectives Plan Strategy Statements, Goals, and Objectives At the first Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Workshop (Workshop #1) on June 23, 2011, the participants evaluated the five previous plan goals and developed two new goals that provide direction for reducing the impacts of the hazards profiled in the risk assessment. The goals from the previously approved 2005 plan were specific to each of the six prioritized hazard categories and included the following: Wildfire: Reduce wildfire severity on Pitkin County. FEMA Requirement 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. FEMA Requirement 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. 6-1

130 Winter Storm: Minimize the impact of Winter Storms on Pitkin County and participating jurisdictions within the county. Hazardous Materials: Reduce the potential for impact from transported hazardous materials to the public the county participating jurisdictions. Avalanche: Reduce the potential for impact on human life and safety and property loss from avalanche hazards within county and participating jurisdictions. Rockslide/Landslide: Reduce the rockslide occurrences and impact potential on human life and safety and critical services within the county and participating jurisdictions. Seasonal/Flash Flooding: Reduce seasonal / flash flooding impact in the Basalt area. The Workshop #1 attendees recommended consolidating the goals from the 2005 plan to (1) reduce repetition and (2) provide a more overarching policy statement that is more supportive of the comprehensive range of mitigation action types needed to reduce vulnerability. After reviewing goals presented by URS, the Workshop #1 attendees came to consensus on the following goals for the 2011 plan update. GOAL 1: Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to the natural environment by natural hazards. GOAL 2: Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to the natural environment by human-caused hazards. The Workshop #1 attendees also carefully reviewed the 2005 plan objectives and revised and updated each based on updated conditions and a renewed emphasis on goals and objectives that encompass multi-hazard categories. Based on this input, URS synthesized the results of the workshop recommendations and defined the following objectives for the 2011 plan update: Objective 1: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies. 24 Objective 2: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. Objective 3: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. Objective 4: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. Objective 5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. Objective 6: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. Objective 7: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. Objective 8: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning. 24 The Federal Emergency Management Institute supports this objective. January 2009 IEMC: EOC-IMT Interface training materials state that the role of the EOC is to Provide a program with which government at any level can provide interagency coordination and executive decision-making in support of incident response or maintenance of community wide services and protection. 6-2

131 6.2. Identification of Mitigation Action Alternatives To update the mitigation actions from the 2005 plan, participating jurisdictions completed a status worksheet describing whether the action was completed, incomplete, or ongoing. This worksheet is provided in Appendix C: Mitigation Action Evaluation. The planning workshop participants used some of this information to identify and prioritize new mitigation actions, but also found that many of the 2005 plan action items were no longer relevant or had been completed. To begin identifying a comprehensive range of mitigation actions at their second meeting on July 21, 2011 (Workshop #2), the participants discussed the six categories of mitigation actions described below. Table 6-1: Categories of Mitigation Actions Category Prevention Property Protection Structural Natural Resource Protection Emergency Services Public Education and Awareness Definition Administrative or regulatory actions or processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built. Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or remove them from the hazard area. Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of hazard. Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Actions that ensure the continuity of emergency services. Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about the hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Source: National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System. Workshop participants then reviewed a list of potential mitigation actions for each objective based on recommended actions gathered from a homework assignment distributed to participants following the first workshop. The participants created a final list of mitigation actions for each objective. The list of mitigation actions is shown in Table 6-2. Participants were asked to carefully review each action and priority, and to develop a mitigation action implementation matrix identifying the following characteristics for each action or project: Priority Responsible Agency Timeline Cost Estimate 25 FEMA Requirement 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include] a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdictions participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. 25 It is important to note that the cost estimates do not represent budgeted amounts. The County will seek grants as appropriate, but at this time there is no expectation that Pitkin County will be appropriating funds for these projects from its General Fund. 6-3

132 During Workshop #2, participants used the STAPLEE method, which assesses the social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental implications of each action, to identify and prioritize actions. Figure 6-1: STAPLEE Criteria Used for Prioritization of Mitigation Actions Source: FEMA, Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, 1 July Implementation of Mitigation Actions Table 6-2 summarizes the prioritized mitigation actions for Pitkin County and the participating jurisdictions. The worksheets used for prioritization are included in Appendix C. 6-4

133 Table 6-2: Mitigation Action Matrix Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Hazard(s) Addressed Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency Timeframe Cost Estimate Objective 1: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies. 1.1 Continue the Public Safety Council, which provides multi-agency and jurisdictional coordination for hazard planning and incident management. 1.2 Provide training and equipment to improve communications between different agencies and remote locations, with interoperability with the 800mhz statewide radio system. 1.3 Establish Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Identify, train and drill EOC staff to ensure basic level of training for County staff, not just emergency agencies. Conduct, at minimum, annual EOC full-scale disaster exercise across jurisdictions and agencies. 1.4 Identify, train and drill EOC staff to ensure basic level of training for targeted staff (Finance, Public Works, Fleet, PIO, Administrative staff, GIS). Conduct, at a minimum, an annual EOC tabletop exercise (all agency participation), continue tri-annual full-scale exercises at Sardy Field, and consider planning other full-scale exercises to address natural hazards. 1.5 Ensure that existing mutual aid agreements are current and establish new ones as required. (Note that mutual aid Intergovernmental Agreements are complete for Fire and EMS services, but are not complete for Law and Public Works). High High All All County Emergency Management Pitkin County Communicatio ns Ongoing Training: 1 year Equipment: 3 years $26K/ year Training: staff time Equipmen t: $400K High All All 1 year $100K High Medium All All County Emergency Management County Administration/ Emergency Management 1 year Staff time 1 year Staff time Objective 2: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. 2.1 Designate enforcement body within policy and regulation. 2.2 Establish policies and processes to ensure governmental bodies communicate regarding development applications that could be impacted by hazards, and provide input to governmental bodies. High High All All County Administration, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt County Community Development, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt 1 year $10K 1 year Staff time 6-5

134 Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority 2.3 Create or refine enforceable flood and mudslide policies through permit restrictions. 2.4 Update the Land Use Code to incorporate new State regulations into local floodplain regulations. 2.5 Adopt new floodplain maps. 2.6 Strengthen regulations to require mandatory clearing of flammable vegetation in key areas, i.e. around houses as a prerequisite to land/structure modifications. 2.7 Prioritize needed Community Wildfire Protection Plans for subdivisions (from the Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011). High High High High High Hazard(s) Addressed Flood/ Landslide/ Rockslide Floods Floods Wildfire Wildfire 2.8 Continue to conduct required and voluntary wildfire hazard inspections and disseminate info to FPDs (from the Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011). High Wildfire 2.9 Develop, implement and maintain wildfire codes (including brush management, weed abatement, building code, construction types). High Wildfire Objective 3: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency County Administration, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt County Community Development County Community Development/ Engineering AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD County Emergency Management, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt, CSFS, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD County Community Development, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD, County Administration, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt Timeframe Cost Estimate 2-3 years $100K 1 year Staff time Summer 2012 Staff time 3-5 years $50K 3-5 years $300K Ongoing 2-3 years Staff time $200K + 1 full time employee 6-6

135 Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority 3.1 Update and maintain annual hazard occurrences maps and critical facilities. 3.2 Develop and maintain access to ownership and property value information in hazard areas. 3.3 Create a web map application with property information, including hazards. 3.4 Acquire new floodplain mapping for entire County. 3.5 Create useable mud and debris flow mapping (including dry gulch and alluvial fan). 3.6 Create avalanche prone area mapping and historical occurrences. Hazard(s) Addressed Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency Timeframe Cost Estimate High All County GIS 1 year $5K High All County GIS/ Assessor Ongoing Staff time High All County GIS 1 year $10K High High Medium Floods Floods/ Mudslide Avalanche County Community Development/ Engineering/ GIS County Public Works/ Engineering/ Community Development/ GIS County Public Works/ Engineering/ Community Development/ GIS Objective 4: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. 4.1 Continue to use and market various means of County communicating early warnings and alerts, High All Community including multimedia. Review and improve the Relations process quarterly 4.2 (a) Identify hazard areas for each of the four prioritized hazards in this Plan and pre-build automated emergency notification lists for these areas. (b) Develop subscription groups for emergency notification on Pitkin Alert specific to identified hazards. 4.3 Continue to improve the Mud and Flood management team and involve Snowmass/Aspen/Carbondale. High Med All Floods/ Mudflow 4.4 Improve coordination with Bureau of Reclamation and other water rights entities, such as the City of Denver. Med Floods Objective 5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. 5.1 Create and assign a multi-jurisdictional team to implement physical mitigation actions and High All update actions annually. County Community Relations County Emergency Management, Public Safety Council County Administration County Administration 1-3 years $10K 1-3 years $200K 1-2 years $50K Ongoing Staff time 6 months Staff time Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Staff time Staff time Staff time 6-7

136 Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority 5.2 Complete the Basalt levee project (currently in final design). 5.3 Improve levee conditions at the Roaring Fork Mobile Home Park and adjacent areas. High High Hazard(s) Addressed Floods Floods 5.4 Continue to pursue ongoing stormwater mitigation projects in the Capital Improvement Plan. High Floods 5.5 Improve drainage at the Aspen Airport Business Center and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District wastewater treatment facility. 5.6 Identify cross-boundary (CSFS, USFS/BLM) fuel reduction projects within the Wildland Urban Interface (from the Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011). 5.7 Remove/down trees with Pine Mountain Beetle hazards where they interface with residential and public use areas. 5.8 Design and install mitigation measures (concrete barriers) in areas along roadways that are susceptible to mud and rock slides. Areas should include Independence Pass, Hwy. 133, Snowmass Creek, Castle, Redstone Boulevard and other county road hot spots. Conduct a study to identify risks and potential damages of mudslides off Aspen Mountain. Conduct a study at the base of Buttermilk ski area to analyze drainage, mud and vegetation conditions. Conduct a study at the base of Ajax ski area to analyze drainage, mud and vegetation conditions. High High Med High Med Med Med Med Floods and Mudflows Wildfire Wildfire & blow down trees Floods, Landslide/ Rockslide/ Mudflows Mudflows Floods/ Mudflows Floods/ Mudflows Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency County Engineering/ Public Works, Town of Basalt, CDOT Pitkin/Eagle Counties Public Works, HOAs Pitkin County/ Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Pitkin County/ Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District CSFS, USFS/BLM, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD BLM, County Open Space, USFS CDOT, IPF, County Public Works City of Aspen, County Engineering, Aspen Skiing Company County Engineering, Aspen Skiing Company County Engineering, Aspen Skiing Company Timeframe Ongoing Cost Estimate $1.5M 1-3 years $80K Ongoing Variable 1-3 years $250K Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Staff time and project dependen t $50K/year Project dependen t 1-3 years $100K 1-3 years $100K 1-3 years $100K 6-8

137 Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Improve, or restore, the river alignment at the confluence of Coal Creek and the Crystal River. Low Hazard(s) Addressed Floods Objective 6: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. 6.1 Develop comprehensive, pro-active, on-going public and business outreach program to improve awareness and educate the public about hazards, including seasonal hazards. For example: Hold public forums at the start of each season and discuss hazards and include seasonal populations. Improve Emergency Management web page with links to pertinent safety information, videos, etc. with pages for each potential hazard with localized (not generic) information. Awareness raising campaign for CGTV Channel 11 the place where videos will be broadcast about all hazards, safety info. etc. Increase viewership. High All Install river-watch web cams. Host live press conferences during emergent situations in board rooms wired for television, including Aspen City Council, Board of County Commissioners, and Town of Snowmass Village. Produce regularly scheduled TV series on all hazards safety. Educate the public by participating in biannual Safety Fairs, setting up Safety Awareness booths at farmer s markets, Public Service Announcements, Grass Roots Spotlight programs, etc. 6.2 Improve public signage that provides warnings and information about hazards, such as dangerous rockfall areas, flood areas, and areas at risk to seasonal fires. High All Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency County Engineering, CDOT, Forest Service County Emergency Mgt./ Community Relations County Administration/ Public Works, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt Timeframe Cost Estimate 3-5 years $20M+ 1-3 years Staff time 1-3 years $20K Objective 7: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. 7.1 Identify a secondary emergency shelter and intermediate care facilities. High All All 1 year Staff time 7.2 Increase security of critical infrastructure, including city/ county / public safety bases. Med All All 3-5 years $500K 6-9

138 Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority 7.3 Conduct an annual threat analysis by area agencies to prioritize critical infrastructure and determine vulnerability points that could be strengthened. Objective 8: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning 8.1 Create an all-hazard team from Public Safety Council membership (and others as PSC identifies) to address planning and recovery needs 8.2 Create sustained funding for planning and training exercising and recovery expenses 8.3 Initiate and develop use of the Emergency Support Function #8 (ESF-8) role of disaster recovery/ surge capacity at the local medical level. Hazard(s) Addressed Responsible Jurisdiction/ Agency Timeframe Cost Estimate Med All All 1 year+ Staff time High All Public Safety Council High All All High Medical Disaster Public Safety Council 6 months Staff time 6 months 1 year Unknown 1 year Staff time Continued Compliance with National Flood Insurance Program Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, the Town of Snowmass Village, and the Town of Basalt currently participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Pitkin County and the incorporated municipalities will continue participation in and compliance with the NFIP. Specific activities that they will undertake to continue compliance include the following: Working with FEMA and the State in the map modernization program and adopting new DFIRMs when effective; and Improving education and outreach efforts regarding flooding throughout the County and incorporated municipalities. 6-10

139 This chapter provides a formal process to ensure that the Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan will remain an active and relevant document. The plan maintenance process includes a method and schedule for all participating jurisdictions to participate in the process of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. This chapter also discusses the incorporation of this plan into existing planning mechanisms and continued public involvement Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Plan Monitoring and Evaluating Planning workshop participants discussed and approved the plan maintenance procedures described in this chapter. The process provides a clear monitoring process that documents progress prior to the next update. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will serve as the primary point of contact and will coordinate all local efforts to monitor, evaluate, and update the plan. The participating jurisdictions will be responsible for implementing their specific mitigation actions and reporting on the status of these actions to the Pitkin County Emergency Manager. The 2005 PDMP described the general process for monitoring and evaluating the plan. This 2011 update provides more detail as to how the plan will specifically be monitored including timing, responsibilities, and forms. After this plan update is approved, the local planning committee has agreed to meet annually to evaluate the implementation of the Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager is responsible for scheduling those meetings, or adding the plan implementation as an agenda item to one of the regularly-scheduled Public Safety Council Meetings. The purpose of the meetings will be the following: Report on the usefulness of the plan and the progress on mitigation actions; Report on any input received from the public; Discuss hazard events and observations; FEMA Requirement 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4): The plan maintenance process shall include a section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. Report on how the plan has been incorporated into other planning mechanisms; 7-1

140 Discuss mitigation issues and ideas; Work to secure funding and identify opportunities for cost-sharing, establishing partnerships, and satisfying multiple objectives; Discuss how to keep the attention of community leaders and the public on hazard mitigation problems and opportunities; Discuss new sources for data to improve future updates; and Make recommendations on specific updates to the Plan. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will the Mitigation Project Progress Report (included in Appendix D) to each agency responsible for actions in the plan two weeks prior to the scheduled meetings. These progress reports serve as criteria by which the mitigation strategy may be evaluated. During the meeting, the group will review and discuss their progress and how they have utilized the plan. Once a year, the Pitkin County Emergency Manager will also distribute the Mitigation Plan Annual Review Questionnaire and will summarize these reports into an annual Mitigation Plan Progress Report, which will be incorporated into an annual Emergency Management Annual Report to the Public Safety Council and the Board of County Commissioners. After considering the findings of the submitted progress reports, the Public Safety Council may request that the implementing department or agency meet to discuss project conditions. Should review of the Plan warrant changes to the PDMP prior to the five-year update cycle, a notice and revised document will be provided to the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions, the State and FEMA, following the review and update. It is a near-term goal of the Public Safety Council is to organize at the Emergency Support Function (ESF) level. In the future, it is conceivable that all the supporting tasks for the PDMP, such as mitigation action implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, could be assigned to relevant ESF groups. Plan Update Process The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will initiate a five-year plan update process within the time necessary to ensure that the current plan does not expire before the updated plan is approved. The schedule will be sufficient to allow for the contracting for technical or professional services (if necessary); State and FEMA reviews; revisions, if necessary, based on review comments; and the adoption procedures of the participating jurisdictions. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will coordinate the participation of the jurisdictions. The updated plan will meet FEMA s requirements and do the following: Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation; Document areas where mitigation actions were or were not effective; Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks; Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities; Incorporate growth and development-related changes to inventories; and Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization. The Public Safety Council and mitigation planning participants will also meet after a disaster to focus on the following items: 7-2

141 Identify potential mitigation projects, particularly those eligible for mitigation grant programs if available; Evaluate effectiveness of existing mitigation projects; and Reassess hazard profiles and vulnerability. Updates to the plan will be accomplished through written changes and submissions incorporated by the Pitkin County Emergency Manager and as approved by the participating jurisdictions Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms The Pitkin County Emergency Manager, with support and guidance provided by the participating jurisdictions, will work with the responsible agencies to incorporate this plan into the following existing planning mechanisms (and future updates of these mechanisms) where possible: Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan and subarea plans, as appropriate; Aspen Comprehensive Plan and subarea plans, as appropriate; Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan and subarea plans, as appropriate; Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan; Pitkin County Emergency Operations Plan; Evacuation Plans; Building codes; Site plan review; Zoning, subdivision, and floodplain ordinances; Capital improvement plan and budgets; Economic development plans; Urban renewal plans; Historic preservation plans; and Other plans and policies outlined in the Capability Assessment (Section 5.4.1). Incorporation of plan elements into existing planning mechanisms will require coordination between the Emergency Manager and the department staff responsible for drafting each plan document. This will ensure that the relevant elements of this plan are taken into consideration Continued Public Involvement FEMA Requirement 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. FEMA Requirement 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. The planning workshop participants are committed to identifying additional opportunities to raise community awareness about the plan and mitigation efforts in Pitkin County. Mitigation action

142 specifically addresses means to achieve this involvement. Videos of both workshops are available on the County s website. And, the plan document will be posted online as well. The website contains an address and phone number to which people can direct their comments or concerns. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will present an update of the plan s progress in the annual report to the Board of County Commissioners. This report will be available to the public and will include a section on local hazard mitigation planning (or similar). The Pitkin County Emergency Manager and other representatives from participating jurisdictions will also identify opportunities to raise community awareness about the plan and the hazards that affect the County and participating jurisdictions. This effort could include attendance and provision of materials at City/Town or County events, school-sponsored events, activities of the fire protection districts, through the Red Cross, events through other organizations, or by public mailings. Any public comments received about the plan will be collected by the Pitkin County Emergency Manager and included in the Annual Plan Progress Report. During the plan update process, the Emergency Manager will develop a schedule for the public to submit comments to be considered for incorporation into the plan, as appropriate. All public comments will be attached as an appendix to plans that are submitted for approval by the State and FEMA. 7-4

143 DRAFT A-1

144

145 Attached is a Plan Review Crosswalk based on the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, published by FEMA in July, This Plan Review Crosswalk is consistent with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), as amended by Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L ), the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L ) and 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 201 Mitigation Planning, inclusive of all amendments through October 31, Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of a requirement must be rated Satisfactory in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a summary score of Satisfactory. A Needs Improvement score on elements shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing. When reviewing single jurisdiction plans, reviewers may want to put an N/A in the boxes for multi-jurisdictional plan requirements. When reviewing multijurisdictional plans, however, all elements apply. States that have additional requirements can add them in the appropriate sections of the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements. Optional matrices for assisting in the review of sections on profiling hazards, assessing vulnerability, and identifying and analyzing mitigation actions are found at the end of the Plan Review Crosswalk. SUMMARY SCORE JULY 1, 2008 A-1 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FOR REVIEW OF LOCAL MITIGATION PLANS SCORING SYSTEM N Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer s comments must be provided. S Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer s comments are encouraged, but not required. The example below illustrates how to fill in the Plan Review Crosswalk.: Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Location in the Plan (section or SCORE Element annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction s vulnerability to each hazard? B. Does the new or updated plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction? Section II, pp The plan describes the types of assets that are located within geographically defined hazard areas as well as those that would be affected by winter storms. Section II, pp The plan does not address the impact of two of the five hazards addressed in the plan. Required Revisions: Include a description of the impact of floods and earthquakes on the assets. Recommended Revisions: This information can be presented in terms of dollar value or percentages of damage.

146 JULY 1, 2008 A-2 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY The plan cannot be approved if the plan has not been formally adopted. Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of the requirement must be rated Satisfactory in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a score of Satisfactory. Elements of each requirement are listed on the following pages of the Plan Review Crosswalk. A Needs Improvement score on elements shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing. Reviewer s comments must be provided for requirements receiving a Needs Improvement score. SCORING SYSTEM Please check one of the following for each requirement. N Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer s comments must be provided. S Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer s comments are encouraged, but not required. Prerequisite(s) (Check Applicable Box) NOT MET MET 1. Adoption by the Local Governing Body: 201.6(c)(5) OR 2. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption: 201.6(c)(5) AND 3. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation: 201.6(a)(3) Planning Process N S 4. Documentation of the Planning Process: 201.6(b) and 201.6(c)(1) Risk Assessment N S 5. Identifying Hazards: 201.6(c)(2)(i) 6. Profiling Hazards: 201.6(c)(2)(i) 7. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview: 201.6(c)(2)(ii) 8. Assessing Vulnerability: Addressing Repetitive Loss Properties (c)(2)(ii) 9. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures, Infrastructure, and Critical Facilities: 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) 10. Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses: 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) 11. Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends: 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C) 12. Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment: 201.6(c)(2)(iii) *States that have additional requirements can add them in the appropriate sections of the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements. Mitigation Strategy N S 13. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals: 201.6(c)(3)(i) 14. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: 201.6(c)(3)(ii) 15. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: NFIP Compliance (c)(3)(ii) 16. Implementation of Mitigation Actions: 201.6(c)(3)(iii) 17. Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions: 201.6(c)(3)(iv) Plan Maintenance Process N S 18. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan: 201.6(c)(4)(ii) 19. Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms: 201.6(c)(4)(ii) 20. Continued Public Involvement: 201.6(c)(4)(iii) Additional State Requirements* N S Insert State Requirement Insert State Requirement Insert State Requirement LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN APPROVAL STATUS PLAN NOT APPROVED See Reviewer s Comments PLAN APPROVED

147 Pitkin County X 8 JULY 1, 2008 A-3 CRS Class LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK Local Mitigation Plan Review and Approval Status Jurisdiction: Title of Plan: Pitkin County Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Local Point of Contact: Tom Grady Title: Pitkin County Emergency Manager Agency: Pitkin County Sheriff s Office Phone Number: (970) Update 2011 Address: 506 E Main Street, Garden Level Aspen, CO tom.grady@pitkinsheriff.com State Reviewer: Title: Date: Date of Plan: September 20, 2010 FEMA Reviewer: Title: Date: Date Received in FEMA Region [Insert #] Plan Not Approved Plan Approved Date Approved Jurisdiction: NFIP Status* Y N N/A City of Aspen X Town of Snowmass Village X Town of Basalt X * Notes: Y = Participating N = Not Participating N/A = Not Mapped

148 JULY 1, 2008 A-4 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK PREREQUISITE(S) 1. Adoption by the Local Governing Body Requirement 201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). Element A. Has the local governing body adopted new or updated plan? B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included? 2. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption 3. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments To be adopted, insert in prerequisites To be included in prerequisites Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments Pages 2-4 to 2-8; Appendix B SUMMARY SCORE SCORE NOT MET MET Requirement 201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted. Element A. Does the new or updated plan indicate the specific jurisdictions represented in the plan? B. For each jurisdiction, has the local governing body adopted the new or updated plan? C. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included for each participating jurisdiction? Requirement 201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans. SCORE NOT MET MET Element A. Does the new or updated plan describe how each jurisdiction participated in the plan s development? B. Does the updated plan identify all participating jurisdictions, including new, continuing, and the jurisdictions that no longer participate in the plan? Page 1-1 Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments Cover Page; Page 1-1 To be adopted To be included in prerequisites SUMMARY SCORE SCORE NOT MET MET

149 SUMMARY SCORE JULY 1, 2008 A-5 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK PLANNING PROCESS: 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. 4. Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement 201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Requirement 201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. SCORE N S Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the Chapter 2 process followed to prepare the new or updated plan? B. Does the new or updated plan indicate who was involved in the current planning process? (For Pages 2-1, 2-4 to 2-5 example, who led the development at the staff level and were there any external contributors such as contractors? Who participated on the plan committee, provided information, reviewed drafts, etc.?) C. Does the new or updated plan indicate how the public Pages 2-3 to 2-4 was involved? (Was the public provided an opportunity to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to the plan approval?) D. Does the new or updated plan discuss the opportunity Pages 2-2 to 2-5 for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process? E. Does the planning process describe the review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, Pages 2-5 to 2-6 reports, and technical information? F. Does the updated plan document how the planning team reviewed and analyzed each section of the plan and whether each section was revised as part of the update process? Narrative provided within each Chapter SUMMARY SCORE

150 RISK ASSESSMENT: 201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. SUMMARY SCORE JULY 1, 2008 A-6 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK 5. Identifying Hazards Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. Element A. Does the new or updated plan include a description of the types of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction? Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments Page 4-4 SCORE N S 6. Profiling Hazards Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. SCORE S Location in the Plan (section or N Element annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., Chapter 4 geographic area affected) of each natural hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the Chapter 4 new or updated plan? C. Does the plan provide information on previous Chapter 4 occurrences of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? Chapter 4 SUMMARY SCORE

151 JULY 1, 2008 A-7 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK 7. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction s vulnerability to Chapter 4 each hazard? B. Does the new or updated plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction? Chapter 4 8. Assessing Vulnerability: Addressing Repetitive Loss Properties SUMMARY SCORE Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(ii): SCORE N S [The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods. Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of repetitive loss properties located in the identified hazard areas? Page 4-26 Note: This requirement becomes effective for all local plans approved after October 1, SUMMARY SCORE 9. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? B. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? Chapter 4 Flood, Wildfire Chapter 4 Flood, Wildfire Note: A Needs Improvement score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. Note: A Needs Improvement score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. SUMMARY SCORE

152 JULY 1, 2008 A-8 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK 10. Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures S identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(a) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N Element annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures? Chapter 4 Flood, Wildfire Note: A Needs Improvement score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. B. Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate? 11. Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends Chapter 4 Flood, Wildfire Note: A Needs Improvement score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. SUMMARY SCORE Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. S Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N Element annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan describe land uses and development trends? Throughout Chapter 4 and Pages 5-8 to 5-10 Note: A Needs Improvement score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. 12. Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment SUMMARY SCORE Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan include a risk Pages 4-57 to 4- assessment for each participating jurisdiction as 58 needed to reflect unique or varied risks? SUMMARY SCORE

153 MITIGATION STRATEGY: 201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. JULY 1, 2008 A-9 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK 13. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments A Does the new or updated plan include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term Pages 6-1 to 6-2 vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? 14. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions SUMMARY SCORE Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard? Pages 6-5 to 6-9 B Do the identified actions and projects address Pages 6-5 to 6-9 reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings and infrastructure? C. Do the identified actions and projects address Pages 6-5 to 6-9 reducing the effects of hazards on existing buildings and infrastructure? SUMMARY SCORE

154 JULY 1, 2008 A-10 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK 15. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance Requirement: 201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan describe the Pages 4-25 to 4-26 Note: This requirement becomes effective for all local jurisdiction (s) participation in the NFIP? mitigation plans approved after October 1, B. Does the mitigation strategy identify, analyze and prioritize actions related to continued compliance with the NFIP? Page 6-10 Note: This requirement becomes effective for all local mitigation plans approved after October 1, Implementation of Mitigation Actions SUMMARY SCORE Requirement: 201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. Element A. Does the new or updated mitigation strategy include how the actions are prioritized? (For example, is there a discussion of the process and criteria used?) B. Does the new or updated mitigation strategy address how the actions will be implemented and administered, including the responsible department, existing and potential resources and the timeframe to complete each action? C. Does the new or updated prioritization process include an emphasis on the use of a cost-benefit review to maximize benefits? D. Does the updated plan identify the completed, deleted or deferred mitigation actions as a benchmark for progress, and if activities are unchanged (i.e., deferred), does the updated plan describe why no changes occurred? Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments Page 6-4 Pages 6-5 to 6-9 STAPLEE, Page 6-4 Appendix C, and narrative provided throughout Chapter 6 SUMMARY SCORE SCORE N S

155 JULY 1, 2008 A-11 SCORE N S SCORE N S LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK 17. Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. Element A Does the new or updated plan include identifiable action items for each jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval of the plan? B. Does the updated plan identify the completed, deleted or deferred mitigation actions as a benchmark for progress, and if activities are unchanged (i.e., deferred), does the updated plan describe why no changes occurred? Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments Pages 6-5 to 6-9 Appendix C, status update SUMMARY SCORE PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS 18. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. Element A. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for monitoring the plan, including the responsible department? B. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for evaluating the plan, including how, when and by whom (i.e. the responsible department)? C. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for updating the plan within the five-year cycle? Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments Pages 7-1 to 7-3 Pages 7-1 to 7-3 Pages 7-1 to 7-3 SUMMARY SCORE

156 19. Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. JULY 1, 2008 A-12 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK Element A. Does the new or updated plan identify other local planning mechanisms available for incorporating the mitigation requirements of the mitigation plan? B. Does the new or updated plan include a process by which the local government will incorporate the mitigation strategy and other information contained in the plan (e.g., risk assessment) into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate? C. Does the updated plan explain how the local government incorporated the mitigation strategy and other information contained in the plan (e.g., risk assessment) into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate? Continued Public Involvement Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments Page 7-3 Page 7-3 Page 7-3 SUMMARY SCORE SCORE N S Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan explain how continued public participation will be obtained? (For example, will Pages 7-3 to 7-4 there be public notices, an on-going mitigation plan committee, or annual review meetings with stakeholders?) SUMMARY SCORE

157 This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each natural hazard that can affect the jurisdiction. Completing the matrix is not required. Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An N for any element of any identified hazard will result in a Needs Improvement score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk. To check boxes, double click on the box and change the default value to checked. JULY 1, 2008 A-13 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK MATRIX A: PROFILING HAZARDS Hazard Type Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Levee Failure Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other Hazards Identified Per Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i) A. Location B. Extent C. Previous Occurrences D. Probability of Future Events Yes N S N S N S N S Legend: 201.6(c)(2)(i) Profiling Hazards A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? C. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each natural hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?

158 JULY 1, 2008 A-14 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK MATRIX B: ASSESSING VULNERABILITY This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that the new or updated plan addresses each requirement. Completing the matrix is not required. Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An N for any element of any identified hazard will result in a Needs Improvement score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk. Note: Receiving an N in the shaded columns will not preclude the plan from passing. To check boxes, double click on the box and change the default value to checked. Hazard Type Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Levee Failure Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other Hazards Identified Per Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i) 201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview A. Overall Summary Description of Vulnerability B. Hazard Impact 201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures A. Types and Number of Existing Structures in Hazard Area (Estimate) B. Types and Number of Future Structures in Hazard Area (Estimate) 201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses A. Loss Estimate B. Methodology Yes N S N S N S N S N S N S Legend: 201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview A. Does the new or updated plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction s vulnerability to each hazard? B. Does the new or updated plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction? 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? B. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses A. Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures? B. Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate?

159 This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure consideration of a range of actions for each hazard. Completing the matrix is not required. Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An N for any identified hazard will result in a Needs Improvement score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk. JULY 1, 2008 A-15 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK MATRIX C: IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS Hazard Type Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Levee Failure Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other Hazards Identified Per Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i) A. Comprehensive Range of Actions and Projects Yes N S Legend: 201.6(c)(3)(ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions A. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard? To check boxes, double click on the box and change the default value to checked.

160

161 Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation CONTENTS: 1. Pitkin County Public Outreach Highlights 2. Public Safety Council Contact List 3. PDMP Outreach List 4. PDMP Local Planning Committee Invitation and Information Packet 5. Aspen/Pitkin Emergency Management Website, June Aspen/Pitkin Emergency Management Website, July Aspen/Pitkin Emergency Management Website, June Aspen/Pitkin Emergency Management Website, September Grassroots Government TV: Workshops 1 & 2 TV air dates 10. Public Safety Council Agenda, May 4, Public Safety Council Agenda, June 1, Public Safety Council Agenda, August 10, Announcements: Draft PDMP Public Review Period 14. Pitkin County Facebook Post, 06/15/2011: PDMP Workshop Announcement 15. PitkinSheriff Tweet: PDMP Public Review Period 16. The Aspen Times, 06/23/2011, Event Calendar: 6/23/11 PDMP Meeting 17. Aspen Daily News, 06/22/2011, News Brief: Pre-Disaster Meeting 18. Aspen Daily News, 07/11/2011, This Week in Pitkin County: Invitation to Workshop Aspen Daily News, 07/18/2011, This Week in Pitkin County: Invitation to Workshop Aspen Daily News, 09/12/2011, This Week in Pitkin County: Announcement of Public Review Period 21. Aspen Daily News, 09/02/2011, Community Brief: Disaster plan draft to be released 22. Aspen Daily News, 08/08/2011, Local News: City IDs need for a disaster plan DRAFT B-1

162 23. The Aspen Times, 06/08/2011: Officials plan for disasters 24. Aspen Daily News, 07/14/2011: Second pre-disaster meeting 25. The Aspen Times, 09/15/2011: Plan pegs wildfire as county s top disaster risk 26. Agenda: PDMP Workshop 1, 06/23/ Sign-In Sheet: PDMP Workshop 1, 06/23/ Handout: FEMA Long List of Potential Hazards 29. Handout: Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 30. Results of Workshop 1: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 31. Agenda: PDMP Workshop 2, 07/21/ Sign-In Sheet: PDMP Workshop 2, 07/21/ Handout/Homework Assignment: Description of Previous Natural Hazard Occurrences 34. Agenda: Carbondale Fire PDMP Teleconference, 08/18/ Meeting Minutes: Carbondale Fire PDMP Teleconference, 08/18/2011 B-2 DRAFT

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198 Pitkin County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Project Kick-Off Meeting/Workshop #1 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment June 23, 2011 Aspen City Hall Council Chambers 8:30 am to 12:30 pm AGENDA 8:30 Welcome and Introductions 8:40 Review Workshop Agenda and Goals 8:45 Purpose and Benefits of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 9:00 Public Involvement Process and Schedule Opportunities for public involvement Schedule and workshops Participating jurisdiction/stakeholder requirements and draft list of participating jurisdictions Discussion 9:30 Risk Assessment Review and Discussion FEMA hazard list Group exercise 2005 plan hazards and proposed 2011 hazards

199 10:30 BREAK Critical facilities discussion Format for risk assessment and vulnerability analysis Discussion 10:45 Mitigation Goals, Objectives & Actions 2005 goals and objectives Proposed 2011 goal and objectives Group exercise for objectives Review STAPLEE list and example Homework for participating jurisdictions (review 2005 action items, determine status, and develop new 2011 action items (matrices to be provided) 12:15 Discussion and Next Steps Opportunities for feedback PDMP in subject line) Next workshop (July 21, 2011) Homework assignments Other 12:30 Adjournment

200

201

202

203 FEMA Long List of Potential Hazards Avalanche: a mass of snow, ice, and debris; flowing and sliding rapidly down a steep slope. (also called snowslides). Drought: an extended period of dry weather, especially one injurious to crops. Earthquake: a vibration or movement of a part of the earth s surface, due to the faulting of rocks, to volcanic forces, etc. Wildfire: an open fire which spreads unconstrained through the environment. If not quickly controlled, the result can be a firestorm, often termed a conflagration, which destroys large amounts of property and threatens lives. (Colorado State Forest Service 1995) Floods: Accumulation of water within a water body and the overflow of excess water onto adjacent floodplain lands (FEMA 1997). Hailstorms: showery precipitation in the form of irregular pellets or balls of ice, falling from a cumulonimbus cloud. Landslides, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfalls: landslide - downward and outward movement of slopes composed of natural rock, soils artificial fills, or combinations thereof. Common names for landslide types include slump, rockslide, debris slide, lateral spreading, debris avalanche, earth flow, and soil creep (Colorado Geological Survey (CGS)). mud flow - a mass of water and fine-grained earth materials that flows down a stream, ravine, canyon, arroyo or gulch (CGS). debris flow - if more than half of the solids in the mass are larger than sand grainsrocks, stones, boulders, the event is called a debris flow (CGS). rockfall - the falling of a newly detached mass of rock from a cliff or down a very steep slope (CGS). Lightning: a luminous, electrical discharge in the atmosphere caused by the electric-charge separation of precipitation particles within a cumulonimbus, or thunderstorm, cloud. Subsidence: the sinking of the land over manmade or natural underground voids. In Colorado, the type of subsidence of greatest concern is the settling of the ground over abandoned mine workings. (From CGS Special Publication 12, co.us/pubs/geo-hazards/docs/sp12.htm).

204 Tornados: a localized, violently destructive windstorm occurring over land, especially in the mid-western U.S., and characterized by a long, funnel-shaped cloud, composed of condensation and containing debris, that extends to the ground and marks the path of greatest destruction. Windstorms: characterized by wind gusts air in motion, as along the earth s surface. Winter Weather: characterized as a blizzard, which is a heavy and prolonged snowstorm covering a wide area. A blizzard combines heavy snowfall, high winds, extreme cold and ice storms.

205 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical (or essential) facilities can be described as services, places, or key infrastructure and resources that are integral for day-to-day operations for the function of the County and its local jurisdictions. These facilities are especially important during and after a hazard event. Critical facilities include hospitals, schools, fire stations, and more. Critical facilities typically fall within the following categories: Police Stations Fire Facilities Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs) and Command Centers Hospitals Schools (public and private) Dams Major Bridges Communication Towers City Buildings Wastewater Treatment Facilities Wastewater Storage Facilities Public Airports Others?

206 RESULTS OF WORKSHOP #1: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT JUNE 23, Risk Assessment Prioritization of Natural Hazards: Workshop participants reviewed a long-list of potential natural-hazard hazard categories, prioritized categories through a dot exercise, and reached consensus on prioritizing the following categories: Wildfire Winter Storms Landslides, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfalls Flood Notes: Avalanches were a natural hazard category that was prioritized in the 2005 PDMP, but was removed from the list of prioritized hazards during the group exercise. URS will complete data collection, including previous occurrences, for the risk assessment. If the data analysis reveals a need to consider other hazard categories for prioritization, URS will confer with participating jurisdictions and revisit the recommended list of natural-hazard categories. Prioritization of Human-Caused -Hazards: Workshop participants reviewed a long-list of potential human-caused hazard categories, prioritized categories through a dot exercise, and reached consensus on prioritizing the following categories: Special Events Aviation Pandemics Terrorism Traffic Casualties Infrastructure (Power Outage, Water Contamination) Transported Hazardous Material Notes: Categories of human-caused hazards will be described in the PDMP. URS will also clarify the relationship between mitigation plans and processes for human-caused hazards and the updated PDMP, which will focus on natural hazard categories. 1

207 2. Goals and Objectives Goals: Workshop participants reached agreement on consolidating the goals from the 2005 PDMP into two overarching goals for the updated PDMP. The updated goals include: Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to the natural environment by natural hazards. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to the natural environment by human-caused hazards. Objectives: Workshop participants worked in small break-out groups to review 2005 PDMP objectives and suggest revisions. A common theme of this exercise was to broaden the relevance of each objective to include multi-hazards. The result of this exercise and the following synthesis of recommendations by URS are presented below PDMP Objective #1: Improve emergency response capability. Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Continue to prepare (train and equip) emergency response capability. Identify need and improve emergency response capability. Improve regional coordinated emergency response capability to include management and long-term events. Manage long-term events provide infrastructure and management personnel. Improve emergency response capability through improved interagency cooperation (written mutual aid). Recommended Update: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies. Suggested mitigation considerations improve the interoperability and communication between neighboring counties and districts; develop community-wide system for exercising all emergency plans and protocols; improve interagency communication. 2

208 2005 PDMP Objective #2: Enhance community policies and regulations as measures to reduce impact from hazards. Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Give regulations teeth so they can be enforced. More staff for zoning. Enhance community policies and regulations as measures to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards with enforcement capability. Accomplished through land use codes. Recommended Update: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. Suggested mitigation considerations more zoning staff; strengthen land use codes 2005 PDMP Objective #3: Improve identification and characterization of hazards. Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Improve to find new and better ways. Through mapping and re-evaluating as necessary. Recommended Update: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. 3

209 2005 PDMP Objective #4: Improve early warning and alerting systems for seasonal flooding within the hazard areas. Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Improve early warning and alerting systems update Pitkin Alert to fit more categories. Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to the community of affected areas. Improve early warning and alerting systems for hazard areas. Identify and improve early warning and altering systems for all hazards within hazard area. Improve early warning and alerting systems for seasonal and flash flooding within hazard areas through multimedia and interpersonal direct contact communication with public. Recommended Update: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. Suggested mitigation considerations update Pitkin Alert to fit more categories; utilize multimedia and interpersonal direct contact communication 2005 PDMP Objective #5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk landslide hazard areas. Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Improve physical mitigation actions. Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. Improve physical mitigation actions and public awareness for high risk landslide hazard areas. Recommended Update: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. 4

210 2005 PDMP Objective #6: Improve training and public awareness for avalanche mitigation. Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Improve training and public education. Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. Identify and improve training and public awareness for all hazard mitigations. Improve training and public awareness for wildfire and flood mitigation. Improve training, prevention, education and public awareness. Recommended Update: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. Suggested mitigation considerations incorporate prevention into public education campaigns PDMP Objective #7: Reduce the threat to critical infrastructure, including residential and commercial property. Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. Reduce the threat, and improve redundancy and availability of critical infrastructure, including residential and commercial property. Recommended Update: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. Suggested mitigation considerations improve redundancy of infrastructure, like roadway access. 5

211 2005 PDMP Objective #8: Implement Roaring Fork Stabilization Plan. Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Upper Basalt Roaring Fork River Flood Control Plan Remove as objective and consider under implementation actions. Recommended Update: Remove Objective #8 and incorporate into mitigation actions. Suggested New Objectives from Break-Out Groups: 1. Improve regionally coordinated planning and response. See Objective #1. 2. Develop community-wide system for exercising all emergency plans and protocols. See Objective #1. 3. Improve interagency communication. See Objective #1. 4. Improve the interoperability and communication between neighboring counties and districts. See Objective #1. 5. Improve recovery capabilities. Recommended Updates: Incorporate Suggested New Objectives #1-4 into Updated Objective #1. Add New Objective: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning. 6

212 Summary of Updated PDMP Objectives: 1. Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies. 2. Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. 3. Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. 4. Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. 5. Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. 6. Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. 7. Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. 8. Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning. 7

213 Pitkin County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Project Workshop #2 Mitigation Actions July 21, 2011 Aspen City Hall Council Chambers 8:30 am to 12:30 pm AGENDA 8:30 Welcome, Introductions, and Meeting To Do List 8:45 Review and Confirm List and Responsibilities of Participating Jurisdictions 9:00 Planning for Natural Hazards and Human-Caused Hazards Relationship between Incident Management Planning and Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Incorporating Discussion of Human-Caused in the PDMP 9:15 Review Results of Workshop #1 Prioritized Hazards and Natural Hazards Risk Assessment Plan Objectives 9:30 Discuss Capabilities of Participating Jurisdictions Small group breakouts with worksheets

214 9:45 Review Status of 2005 Plan Action Items Open discussion 10:15 Break 10:30 Develop 2011 Mitigation Actions Introduction (State DEM representative) Small group breakout Small groups report to entire group 12:15 Discussion and Next Steps Opportunities for feedback PDMP in subject line) Actions to complete the PDMP Report compilation and draft Other 12:30 Adjournment

215

216

217

218 Participants in Workshop #1 reviewed a long-list of potential natural-hazard hazard categories, prioritized categories, and reached consensus on prioritizing the following hazards that are likely to affect Pitkin County: Landslides, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfalls Flood Wildfire Winter Storms An important step in estimating the likelihood of future occurrences and developing mitigation strategies for potential hazards is to understand previous occurrences. The planning team is in the process of updating the description of previous hazard occurrences in Pitkin County. We have listed hazard events that were included in the 2005 Plan and have added information from available datasets, but there's nothing like getting information from local sources - people like you who have lived through and experienced the impacts of these natural hazards first-hand. The purpose of this homework assignment is to develop a more complete picture of natural hazards that have impacted Pitkin County throughout its history. 1. Read the description of previous occurrences for each hazard on the following pages. If you would like to add information, or a narrative about a particular sample event, or provide a new one, type your information where it is requested in red. 3. Return via to david_cooper@urscorp.com by Friday, July 15 th. Thank you for your participation in this important process! 1

219 Pitkin County too continues to face its share of landslide-related problems and, despite conscientious land use planning, concerns remain in many areas of the county, including but not limited to Aspen Mountain, Snowmass Village and Redstone. Examples of historical problems, some of which continue to this day, are set forth below: 11/25/ $466,666 Landslide 1/1/ $23,333 Landslide 2/20/ $0 Rockslide 7/21/ $333 Landslide 5/11/ $33,333 Landslide *Damages, Injuries, and Fatalities are divided between the affected counties for any one documented disaster within the SHELDUS database. Sample events are described below. In 1984, a mudslide washed out Woody Creek Road seven miles from its intersection with River Road causing evacuations and personal injuries. In 1993, a large mudslide occurred on Castle Creek and damaged the Aspen Music School. During President Clinton s visit to the area in 1994, a major mudslide occurred in the area known as Shale Bluffs, west of the Pitkin County Airport. In the spring of 1997, a landslide developed in a tributary drainage to Castle Creek. The volume of the landslide was estimated to be approximately 50,000 cubic meters and the flow inundated the parking lot of the Aspen Country Day School, damaging six cars and impacting school buildings and grounds. No injuries were reported and classes were relocated for the remainder of the year. Source: 2

220 In May, 1996, two destructive debris flows occurred on the west side of Aspen Mountain, despite mitigation measures that had been put in place. The area remains capable of additional debris flows, and facilities and residents are at risk each spring. Essentially the entire Aspen Mountain area is fraught with potential landslide-related conditions and the state s hazard plan cautions residents, local officials and resort facility owners and developers to bear this in mind for future development and operating plans and decisions. Do you have anything to add? Based on your local knowledge of the area, please describe Sample Events that provide an example of the conditions and impacts of landslides, mudflow/debris flow, and rockfalls on Pitkin County: Provide the year and location of the rockslide/landslide here: Describe the rockslide/landslide and its impacts here: Provide the year and location of the rockslide/landslide here: Describe the rockslide/landslide and its impacts here: Provide the year and location of the rockslide/landslide here: Describe the rockslide/landslide and its impacts here: 3

221 Flooding has occurred numerous times in the Roaring Fork Basin at the confluence of the Frying Pan and Roaring Fork Rivers, with a 50-year event occurring in Error! No text of specified style in document. 6/17/1965 Flood description not provided. $3,846,000 in damages. SHELDUS 6/7/1979 Flood description not provided. SHELDUS 5/1/1984 Flood description not provided. $172,000 in damages. SHELDUS 7/11/1995 Rapid snowmelt resulted in flooding along the Roaring Fork River in Basalt. A mobile NCDC home park and basements were flooded. A levee was eroded and a section of old Highway 82 was washed out. 7/22/1997 Heavy rains from a thunderstorm resulted in five mudslides across a five-mile stretch NCDC of Colorado Highway 133 near Redstone. 1 to 3 feet of mud and debris closed both lanes of the highway for about an hour, before state maintenance crews were able to open one lane. It took another six hours to clear the remaining debris before both lanes were open. 7/22/1997 Heavy rains resulted in a mudslide across Colorado Highway 133, 3 miles south of NCDC Redstone, closing the road for about an hour. The mud and debris was 4 to 5 feet deep along a 30 foot stretch of the highway. 9/4/1997 Heavy rains resulted in a mud slide which blocked a road in a subdivision located one mile south of Redstone. $5,000 in damages. NCDC/ SHELDUS 9/4/1997 See Sample Event 2. NCDC 7/21/1998 Heavy rainfall resulted in a flow of mud and debris several feet deep across a 25 foot NCDC stretch of Maroon Creek Road. 7/27/1998 Heavy rainfall over a two to three hour period caused a flow of mud and rock several NCDC feet deep to cover a 50 foot stretch of Castle Creek Road. 7/31/1998 A four foot wall of water came roaring down Avalanche Creek and washed out a NCDC section of a trail near a campground. 7/28/1999 See Sample Event 3. NCDC/ SHELDUS 7/28/1999 A photographer was out of his vehicle taking pictures on the flanks of Mount Sopris and became trapped by a flash flood which inundated his van with water and mud. The flash flood also washed out the road. The initial wall of water was 10 feet high, while the crest of the flash flood was about 15 feet high. The water and debris crashed into several culverts, causing them to explode; eight-inch steel I-beams were twisted like straws. The incident occurred six miles northeast of Redstone. $180,000 in damages. 8/6/2001 Heavy rain from a strong thunderstorm resulted in water up to a foot deep along Highway 133 south of Redstone, along with mud and rock slides across portions of the highway. NCDC/ SHELDUS NCDC 4

222 8/6/2001 Heavy rainfall from a strong thunderstorm produced a torrent of water across portions of the Maroon Creek Road. The flash flood also brought down debris which left up to a foot of mud and rocks on the road. NCDC 7/3/2006 Flood description not provided. $40,000 in damages. SHELDUS 7/18-19/ 2007 Heavy rain producing thunderstorms caused flash flooding across a forest service road between Highway 133 and the Avalanche Creek Campground. About 3 feet of debris was deposited on the road in the wake of the flash flood. Dozens of campers were stranded in the campground until the next day. An influx of monsoonal moisture resulted in an outbreak of heavy rain producing thunderstorms. $7,000 in damages. NCDC 7/18/2007 Heavy rain caused water and debris to flow down a normally dry drainage running through the Maroon Creek Day Use Area provided by the USFS. The water and debris average depth was 5 feet with a width of 30 feet. The flash flood hit the Maroon Creek Road and a trailhead parking lot where it spread out about 100 feet wide, clogging culverts and burying the road and day-use area under 1 to 2 feet of debris. Improved trails were destroyed and tons of debris had to be removed from the road and day-use area. Additionally, hailstones up to 1/2 inch diameter accompanied the heavy rain. There were people camping nearby in tents when the event occurred. Heavy rain producing thunderstorms caused flash flooding southwest of Aspen in a recreational day-use area. 7/26/2009 Heavy rainfall resulted in a flash flood with a large amount of mud that flowed across Highway 133. When the flooding stopped, it left a deposit of mud on the Highway up to 4 feet deep. The highway was opened to traffic within two hours after the flash flooding ended. NCDC/ SHELDUS NCDC Sample events, many of which are the result of seasonal runoff, are described below. A Presidential Disaster was declared in Pitkin County due to the flooding of Following a winter of above-average snowpack, resulting mudslides and water floods in Aspen and Snowmass Village caused damages to roadways, bridges, recreational facilities and public property. According to Tom Grady, That was the year the Chateau Eau Claire and Chateau Roaring Fork condominium complexes had flooding up to the balconies. That year the Roaring Fork River also flooded into the Aspen Art Museum. A flash flood four miles west of Snowmass in 1997 produced a mudslide that buried a 30 foot stretch of Highway 82 near Basalt with mud two to four feet deep, and took road crews seven hours to clear. 5

223 In 1999, heavy rains caused two flash floods that were estimated at up to six feet deep across SH 133, and caused approximately $150,000 in damages. Do you have anything to add? Based on your local knowledge of the area, please describe Sample Events that provide an example of the conditions and impacts of floods on Pitkin County: Provide the year and location of the flood here: Describe the flood and its impacts here: Provide the year and location of the flood here: Describe the flood and its impacts here: Provide the year and location of the flood here: Describe the flood and its impacts here: 6

224 In 2005, Pitkin County s emergency experts provided information for the 2005 PDMP about winter storms that extended back 22 years. Based on their collective experiences, it was estimated that winter storms, characterized in the county by Accident Alert designations, generally close Highway 82 approximately twice each season. Highway 82 is the major transportation artery running through Pitkin County, but despite its occasional closure during severe winter storms, county officials characterize the community as adequately prepared. In recent history, there have been 44 severe winter storms recorded in Pitkin County. The following table shows the results from the SHELDUS database for storms from 1960 to It is important to note that SHELDUS data provides information on a county average basis. The number of injuries, fatalities, and property damages associated with a particular event are equally distributed amongst the affected counties for that hazard event. For example, if 5 deaths were attributed to a blizzard that affected 20 counties, then each county would show 0.25 deaths for that event. 4/30/ $0 Freeze 9/2/ $1,315 Snow 9/20/ $312 Heavy Snow 1/8/ $7,936 Cold, snow, and wind 1/10/ $79 Cold 4/18/ $79 Snow and Cold 4/20/ $0 Freezing Temperatures 1/25/ $27 Snow 10/11/ $793 Snow, Cold, Wind 10/13/ $0 Cold 10/29/ $0 Snow 3/1/ $312 Heavy Snow 9/16/ $793 Snow, Cold 5/20/ $0 Freeze 11/24/ $21 Heavy Snow, Wind 2/19/ $0 Winter storm 4/18/ $0 Freeze 12/5/ $0 Heavy Snow, Cold 12/17/ $0 Ice, Heavy Snow 5/7/ $12 Snow 11/19/ $793 Blizzard 2/1/ $79 Snow, Cold 12/23/ $793,651 Blizzard 3/14/ $793 Heavy Snow 11/26/ $7,936 Snow, Wind 8

225 4/19/ $793 Snow/Wind 6/6/ $4,166 Snow 1/30/ $793 Extreme Cold 1/31/ $793 Extreme Cold 10/10/ $847 Snow 1/17/ $125 Heavy Snow, Wind 2/1/ $79,365 Cold 2/1/ $793 Snow 3/2/ $1,063 Heavy Snow 1/10/ $2,777 Heavy Snow 2/8/ $40,697 Heavy Snow 2/20/ $0 Heavy Snow 2/22/ $0 Winter Storm 12/8/ $15,000 Winter Storm 10/18/ $384 Winter Weather/Mix 11/14/ $166 Winter Weather/Mix 10/20/ $625 Winter Storm 10/20/ $333 Winter Weather *Damages, Injuries, and Fatalities are divided between the affected counties for any one documented disaster within the SHELDUS database. Do you have anything to add? Based on your local knowledge of the area, please describe Sample Events that provide an example of the conditions and impacts of winter storms on Pitkin County: Provide the year and location of the winter storm here: Describe the winter storm and its impacts here: Provide the year and location of the winter storm here: Describe the winter storm and its impacts here: Provide the year and location of the winter storm here: Describe the winter storm and its impacts here: 9

226 08/18/11 Carbondale Fire PDMP Teleconference Agenda Deanne Butterbaugh, Colorado Division of Emergency Management David Cooper, URS consultant Vern Holmes, Carbondale Fire Emergency Manager Darryl Grob, Pitkin Emergency Manager Consultant Scheduled for Thursday, August 18, Call- in to Carbondale Fire Darryl Grob and Vern Holmes will be in attendance at the Carbondale Firehouse. Program documents will be reviewed prior to the call. 1. Review purpose of plan Public involvement - posted and address for invites Validate Carbondale Emergency Manager review and briefing Darryl Grob 2. Review topics covered - review agendas 1 & 2 walk-through David Cooper 3. Mitigation actions - existing and/or proposed projects Darryl Grob 4. Additional thoughts All Prepared by: Darryl Grob, Consultant Pitkin County Emergency Manager Aspen, Colorado darryl.grob@pitkinsheriff.com

227

228

229 CONTENTS: 1. Status of 2005 PDMP Action Items 2. Evaluation Criteria for Mitigation Actions (FEMA STAPLEE) 3. Potential Mitigation Actions 4. Action Items for Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning DRAFT C-1

230

231 1 Mitigation Actions for Natural Hazards Pitkin County 2005 PDMP WILDFIRE Objective 1: Improve emergency response capability for wildfire within the planning area Action Priority Current Status 1.1 Identify then certify all privately owned bridges with load limits to support emergency response 1.2 Acquire 4-wheel drive pumper trucks Medium Ongoing Medium Ongoing. Municipal and County Codes ensure load-bearing minimums during land-use application and building permit processes. 1.3 Have county staff certified by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group Low Not sure what certification is referred to? S130/190 red cards? ICS100, 200? ICS Position Specific? Fledgling but working, esp C'dale, Basalt. Type III IMT would be our limit. Objective 2: Enhance community policies and procedures as preventive measures to reduce wildfire impact Action Priority Current Status 2.1 review process - but no follow-up or enforcement is enabled subsequently without a Wildfire Code adoption. Adoption of County-wide Wildfire regulations (Pitkin) High Incomplete. Land use application process includes a Strengthen and formalize oversight and enforcement for Medium Complete compliance to land use standards (H.B. 1041) 2.3 Develop, implement and promote subdivision wildfire protection protocols (Protocols are to be targeted as an alternative to laws.) 2.4 Implement code changes so that new developments shall have dual ingress / egress to support emergency response and evacuation Medium Ongoing with Fire Protection Districts Medium Complete given cul-de-sac or K-turn requirements.

232 2 Mitigation Actions for Natural Hazards Pitkin County 2005 PDMP Objective 3: Reduce the wildfire threat to critical infrastructure, including residential and commercial property Action Priority Current Status 3.1 Develop and implement a voluntary wildfire protection programs for residents within wildfire urban interface Medium Complete 3.2 Develop and implement fuel-reduction projects Medium Ongoing with Fire Protection Districts and Inter-Agency Cooperation programs. WINTER STORM Objective 1: Improve emergency response capability for winter storm response within the planning area Action Priority Current Status 1.1 Incorporate GIS layer for Land-Ownership Parcels into emergency-response procedures 1.2 Identify and improve bridges within the planning area that are inadequate for emergency response Medium Not complete Low County bridges are adequate. More remote bridges, like USFS bridges, have not been studied. Objective 2: Improve early notification capabilities for Winter Storm events Action Priority Current Status 2.1 Establish Storm Ready Programs, adapted for Winter Storms, within the Pitkin Eagle planning area 2.2 Expand radio coverage within the counties to better support the All Hazard warning / alert system (NOAA weather alert system) Medium Complete. Upgraded notification, evacuation routes, reverse 911, RAFTA and Red Cross for evacuation, 10,000+ beds, PSA s. Low Complete

233 Action Priority Current Status 1.1 Expand current public avalanche training sessions High Complete 3 Mitigation Actions for Natural Hazards Pitkin County 2005 PDMP AVALANCHE Objective 1: Improve training and public awareness for avalanche mitigation 1.2 Implement participation advanced avalanche training for public 1.3 Develop web-portal with near real-time localized weather / avalanche hazard forecast linked to the Counties websites High Medium Objective 2: Improve emergency response capability for avalanche response within hazard areas Action Priority Current Status 2.1 Provide additional training for emergency response staff (Mountain Rescue) using American Avalanche Training curriculum 2.2 Organize and fund a committee to evaluate cost / benefit / impact of RECCO technology deployment for location and recovery of victims Medium Complete Low Complete Objective 3: Improve identification and characterization of avalanche hazards Action Priority Current Status 3.1 Update mapping of avalanche-prone areas within the County and participating jurisdictions and incorporate into GIS for public distribution 3.2 Conduct or promote studies to identify critical assets and services at risk from avalanche hazards within the County and participating jurisdictions High Not Complete Medium Not complete

234 4 Mitigation Actions for Natural Hazards Pitkin County 2005 PDMP ROCKSLIDE / LANDSLIDE Objective 1: Improve emergency response capability for landslide response within hazard areas Action Priority Current Status 1.1 Implement warning and alert systems with specific coverage of the hazard areas 1.2 Implement and publicize emergency shelters for use immediately following a landslide event 1.3 Prioritize wildfire mitigation in Landslide hazard areas to improve secondary impact of Landslide following a wildfire 1.4 Verify, and provide as justified, dual ingress / egress in landslide hazard areas to support emergency response and evacuation High Alert (non geo-based) and Target Notification (geo-based) in place. There are not any predefined canned notifications for high risk areas for rockslide/landslide notifications. Two notification systems in place: Pitkin Medium Not complete Medium Objective 2: Enhance community policies and regulations as measures to reduce impact from landslide Low Not complete, or needed. Action Priority Current Status 2.1 Review and implement or update as necessary Land Use Regulations relevant to Rockslide / Landslide 2.2 Review and implement or update as necessary Building and Grading codes in the hazard areas Medium Medium 2.3 Implement enhanced oversight and enforcement of HB 1041 Medium 2.4 Implement overlay zoning provisions to minimize development in high risk areas Medium 2.5 Establish Special planning Districts for Landslide hazard areas Medium 2.6 Develop public awareness programs to notify stakeholders in hazard areas of policies and regulations in the areas 2.7 Expand use of risk assessment to guide future land use and policy formation Low = Low

235 5 Mitigation Actions for Natural Hazards Pitkin County 2005 PDMP Objective 3: Improve identification and characterization of landslide hazards Action Priority Current Status 3.1 Improve mapping in the hazard areas and incorporate results into GIS 3.2 Conduct a planning session with the CGS, CDOT and Dept. of Natural Resources to identify and prioritize Landslide mitigation techniques relevant to the planning area 3.3 Create or update as necessary maps useful planning and public, including landslide inventories, landslide-susceptibility maps and landslide hazard maps High Not complete Medium Not complete Medium Not complete Objective 4: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk landslide hazard areas Action Priority Current Status 4.1 Review high and medium risk landslide hazard areas and evaluate and prioritize for physical mitigation systems. Specifically target mitigation actions for potential impact to St. Regis Hotel. High Aspen Skiing Company did not take any action specifically in response to the 2005 Plan. We have been doing many things over the years that help prevent damage to the St. Regis and that neighborhood that could result from Rockslide/Landslide. Among them: Jersey barriers placed along the Summer Rd. at the top of Strawpile ski run to catch rock fall from Trainor s; Subsurface horizontal drains in Strawpile; Snow is pushed off Strawpile into Corkscrew Gully after the season; Some snow piles left on Strawpile to catch or slow falling rocks

236 Update STAPLE/E Evaluation Category Evaluation Criteria for Mitigation Actions Discussion It is important to consider Considerations Social The public support for the overall mitigation strategy and specific mitigation actions. Technical If the mitigation action is technically feasible and if it is the whole or partial solution. Administrative If the community has the personnel and administrative capabilities necessary to implement the action or whether outside help will be necessary. Political What the community and its members feel about issues related to the environment, economic development, safety, and emergency management. Legal Whether the community has the legal authority to implement the action, or whether the community must pass new regulations. Economic If the action can be funded with current or future internal and external sources, if the costs seem reasonable for the size of the project, and if enough information is available to complete a FEMA Benefit-Cost Analysis. Environmental The impact on the environment because of public desire for a sustainable and environmentally healthy community. Community acceptance Adversely affects population Technical feasibility Long-term solutions Secondary impacts Staffing Funding allocation Maintenance/operations Political support Local champion Public support Local, state, and federal authority Potential legal challenge Benefit/cost of action Contributes to other economic goals Outside funding required FEMA Benefit-Cost Analysis Effect on local flora and fauna Consistent with community environmental goals Consistent with local, state, and federal laws

237 The 2002 wildfire season was the worst in United States history, with some 2.3 million acres burned, 2.1 million more than in In Colorado, 4,612 wildfires burned over 619,000 acres that year and cost approximately $152 million in suppression costs. Approximately 81,400 people were evacuated and about 1,000 structures burned. In addition, nine lives were lost. Based on a 10-year average, Colorado typically experiences 3,119 wildfires with a loss of 70,000 acres per year. History shows that most of Colorado s wildfires are caused by lightning strikes from the many thunderstorms that pass through the state on a regular basis during the summer months. The Pitkin area is, unfortunately, not exempt from these weather conditions. Many of the storms fail to produce rain, and the lightning strikes sometimes create hotspots of fire that have the potential to grow into larger full-fledged fires. The hotspots can spread over a large area and are very challenging for fire crews to locate and control. They also place a strain on fire suppression equipment and supplies, and many times the hotspots occur deep within the forest and go unnoticed until a larger fire erupts. The chances for fire are now increasing due to the epidemic infestation of the mountain pine beetle. They have impacted 1.5 million acres in Colorado to date. Pitkin County is approximately 50 percent forested, but the mix of coniferous and deciduous trees is not quantitatively tracked by the USFS or Pitkin County, and without stand-level analysis the percentage of coniferous trees susceptible to mountain pine beetle is not known. Nevertheless, the Pitkin County Wildland Fire Plan (July 2009 Draft) has made efforts to predict fire behavior and develop appropriate planning for the types of live and dead vegetation fuels found in stands of trees with mountain pine beetle. Do you have anything to add? Based on your local knowledge of the area, please describe Sample Events that provide an example of the conditions and impacts of wildfires on Pitkin County: Provide the year and location of the wildfire here: Describe the wildfire and its impacts here: Provide the year and location of the wildfire here: Describe the wildfire and its impacts here: Provide the year and location of the wildfire here: Describe the wildfire and its impacts here: 7

238 POTENTIAL MITIGATION ACTIONS Flood Wildfire If participating in NFIP, you are required to identify and prioritize at least one action related to NFIP compliance Community will continue to comply with NFIP does not constitute an action Update and improve floodplain regulations Update and improve building codes and zoning ordinances Update maps (find funding and develop maps with hydraulic/hydrologic analysis,) Enroll communities in the NFIP or CRS that have not already done so Work with floodplain manager to identify and pursue NFIP-approved actions to improve CRS rating Update data/information/mapping on interface between critical facilities and the floodplain Work with floodplain managers and public works agencies to identify potential future projects that correspond with high-risk areas Channel stabilization Storm drainage improvements, i.e. diversion ponds (identify specific locations where this is needed) Replace or retrofit bridges and/or culverts to improve channel capacity and take homes, businesses, and/or critical infrastructure out of the 100 year floodplain Conduct annual dam safety exercises for Class I and II dams Develop Firewise program in vulnerable communities Develop or update a Community Wildfire Protection Plan Identify areas with heavy fuel loads and implement fuels reduction projects (if possible, explain what specific areas would be considered) 1

239 Drought Conduct public education program to encourage and train property owners to manage fuel loads on their own properties and use fire-resistant building materials Encourage use of fire resistant materials for all new developments in identified hazard risk areas Retrofit critical facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. in the WUI with fireresistant roofs, siding and/or windows Address ingress/egress access issues in vulnerable subdivisions Develop drought monitoring and response program Can use state drought plan as reference Identify potential actions that jurisdictions can implement during drought years Public information/awareness programs during drought and non-drought years Work with water supply organizations to promote conservation and efficiency initiatives (i.e. promoting federal tax credits for energy efficient appliances, tips on xeriscaping) Water storage projects Encourage purchase of crop insurance Water use restrictions (during droughts) Identify and pursue potential Federal infrastructure improvement grants to replace or improve aging water supply systems Identify potential Federal (USDA) grants for irrigation systems improvements Tornado/Severe Storms Install, improve early warning systems Identify and publicize storm shelter locations Public education program for severe storms and tornadoes Encourage/build safe rooms at schools, hospitals and other public buildings 2

240 Winter Storm Earthquake Obtain StormReady designation Encourage use of, or include high wind engineering in building codes: Structural bracing Straps and clips Impact-resistant glass Reinforced windows and doors Hail-resistant and wind-resistant roofing Bury power lines Anchoring for mobile homes Identify and map winter weather shelters Identify special needs populations and create policies and procedures to ensure their needs are met during a severe winter storm Public information/awareness programs including promoting disaster kits and building maintenance Inventory snow removal equipment and assess if more is needed Inventory other resources and identify potential gaps in services Bury utility lines Building codes in relation to snow loads and roof slope Install snow fences Work with USGS and CGS to further explore and identify potential effects from faults in planning region Collect/obtain information on building types (i.e. unreinforced masonry buildings, wood frame structures, etc) to identify vulnerable residences, businesses, schools, hospitals and other critical facilities 3

241 Landslide/Land Subsidence Work with CGS, CDOT and USGS to further study and map vulnerable geologic hazard areas Develop slope stabilization/debris flow reduction projects to protect homes and infrastructure (try to identify specific locations in need of this) Public Health Energy dissipation Flow control Acquisition of structures on high risk/unstable slopes Zoning ordinances and building codes Open Space designations Conduct annual exercises for pandemic disease outbreaks Work with CDPHE, USDHHS and CDC to develop or improve continuity of operations plans for hospitals and public health agencies Identify gaps in resources/services Develop and conduct public awareness and education program for pandemic diseases Work with schools to develop or improve pandemic/public health emergency protocols General Mitigation Actions Evaluate and improve mutual aid agreements Update land use plans to guide development away from identified hazard areas Form and officially recognize Mitigation Advisory Committees/Hazard Mitigation Team to quarterly, bi-annually or annually evaluate progress of plan implementation 4

242 Participants in Workshop #1, held on June 23 rd, identified the following goal for reducing risks to natural hazards in Pitkin County: Participants also developed eight objectives to support these goals. The following objectives consolidate and synthesize input received by workshop participants: 1. Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies. 2. Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. 3. Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. 4. Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. 5. Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. 6. Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. 7. Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. 8. Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning. The next step in this planning process is to develop specific mitigation actions designed for implementation that help achieve these goals and objectives. The purpose of this homework assignment is to develop draft mitigation actions for discussion at Workshop #2, to be held on July 21 st. 1. Read each objective (#1-8) on the following pages. Under each objective, write corresponding mitigation action items (including Priority, Hazards Addressed and Responsible Jurisdiction/Agency) in each table. 3. Consider the following questions when developing action items: Will the action have public and political support? Is it technically feasible? Does the community have the personnel and administrative capabilities to implement the action? Or, is outside help necessary? Does the community have the legal authority to implement the action? Or, are new regulations needed? Can the action be funded with current or future internal and external sources? Will the action be consistent with local environmental goals? 4. Return via to by Friday, July 15 th. Thank you for your participation in this important process! 1

243 Objective 1: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies. Objective 2: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. Responsible Jurisdiction/Agency Responsible Jurisdiction/Agency 2 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan Update Action 1.1 Priority (High, Med, Low) Hazards Addressed (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Action 2.1 Priority (High, Med, Low) Hazards Addressed (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Floods, Landslide/Rockslide)

244 Responsible Jurisdiction/Agency 3 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan Update Objective 3: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. Action 3.1 Priority (High, Med, Low) Hazards Addressed (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Objective 4: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. Action 4.1 Priority (High, Med, Low) Hazards Addressed (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Responsible Jurisdiction/Agency

245 4 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan Update Objective 5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. Action 5.1 Priority (High, Med, Low) Hazards Addressed (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Responsible Jurisdiction/Agency Objective 6: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. Action 6.1 Priority (High, Med, Low) Hazards Addressed (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Responsible Jurisdiction/Agency

246 5 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan Update Objective 7: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. Action 7.1 Priority (High, Med, Low) Hazards Addressed (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Responsible Jurisdiction/Agency Objective 8: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning. Action 8.1 Priority (High, Med, Low) Hazards Addressed (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Responsible Jurisdiction/Agency