Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutordinance.council.031-05ORDINANCE # (Series of 2005) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN FOR PITKIN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASPEN AND SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLANNING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAME WHEREAS, part of the ability of Pitkin County and the incorporated jurisdictions within the County (City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt) to serve the interests of the citizens is preparation for any type of disaster, which involves pre-disaster mitigation planning; and WHEREAS, the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (The Stafford Act) requires jurisdictions to prepare and adopt hazard mitigations plans before a disaster occurs in order to be eligible for future pre-disaster and post-disaster federal funding for mitigation purposes; and WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 110-2004, Pitkin County accepted $9,200.00 in reimbursable grant funds from Colorado Division of Emergency Management (Grant Award Letter 4EM72250) through an agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These funds were used to hire a consultant to guide Pitkin County and the incorporated jurisdictions within Pitkin County, in partnership with Eagle County and the incorporated jurisdictions within Eagle County, through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning process; and WHEREAS, the Emergency Management Coordinators of Pitkin and Eagle Counties, along with consultants and staff in all the incorporated jurisdictions within those counties, have created a comprehensive Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan; and WHEREAS, this process involved extensive input from citizens, government staff, and experts in the various hazard areas; and WHEREAS, the result is one all-hazards, comprehensive Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for Pitkin County and all the incorporated jurisdictions with Pitkin County. This PDM is tightly coordinated with the PDM for Eagle County and its incorporated jurisdictions, thereby better serving the citizens of both counties; and WHEREAS, adoption of this Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan by Pitkin County, Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Basalt will allow all jurisdictions to be eligible for future pre-disaster and post-disaster federal funding; and WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, a copy of which plan is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said plan on behalf of the City of Aspen. Section 2 A public hearing will be held on this ordinance the 11th day of July 2005 in the Aspen City Council Chambers. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 27~ day of June, 2005. ATTEST: Kathryn K~I~, City Clerk ~l~derud, Mayor FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this fi v~C day of July, 2005. Kathryn S. ¢1{, ~ity Clerk Multi-3urisdictional Ali-Hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan FOR Pitkin and Eagle Counties SITUATED WITHIN THE State of Colorado Version Date: June 1, 2005 Pitkin County, Colorado Eagle County, Colorado Ellen Anderson, Pitkin County Barry Smith, Eagle County Emergency Management Emergency Management Coordinator Coordinator ellena~ci.aspen.co.us barry.smith@eaglecounty.us Plan Approved: Pending Plan Approved: Pending This Plan encompasses the Colorado jurisdictions of: Pitkin County, Colorado Eagle County, Colorado Pitkin County Eagle County City of Aspen Town of Avon Town of Basalt Town of Basalt Snowmass Village Town of Eagle Town of Gypsum Town of Minturn Town of Red Cliff Town of Vail This Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan represents the work of Pitkin and Eagle Counties and the city and towns which were their partners in this important undertaking. The following report represents the best efforts of the plan's participants to comply with guidance from the State of Colorado, Division of Emergency Management, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. While it is believed to be fully responsive to the requirements of the state and federal governments, it is recognized and acknowledged by all participants that the disaster mitigation planning process is a dynamic one and will require future periodic updates, analysis and amendment. June 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado .lune 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION DiSASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000 PURPOSE, COAI.~ AND OBJECTIVES SCOPE OF THE PLAN PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AUTHORTIY PLAN ORGANIZATION PROJECT PLANNING AND METHODOLOGY THE PLANNING TEAM PROJECT INITIATION AND TEAM COORDINATION HAZARD IDENTIFICATION THE RISK ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF CURRENT PLANS, STUDIES AND REPORTS MITIGATION PLANNING DLAN MAINTENANCE AND ADOPTION COMMUNITY PROFILE EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PRESIDENTIAL AND U.S.D.A - DECLARED DiSASTERS HAZARDS IN PITKIN AND EAGLE COUNTIES PRIORITIZED HAZARDS HAZARDS RiSK BY JURISDICTION WILDFIRE WINTER STORMS FLOODING (INCLUDING FLASH AND SEASONAL FLOODING) LANDSLIDES AVALANCHE TRANSPORTED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (HAZMAT) OTHER HAZARDS DROUGHT HIGH WINDS, INCLUDING TORNADO LIGHTNING / THUNDERSTORMS EARTHQUAKE DISEASE OUTBREAK (SUCH AS WEST NILE VIRUS) URBAN FIRE (ACCIDENTAL) VOLCANIC ERUPTION ASTEROID/COMET IMPACT TERRORISM - INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC AIRPLANE CRASHES JAIL/PRISON ESCAPE CIVIL DISTURBANCE FLOOD DUE TO HIGH FLOW EVENT BREACH BY INTENTIONAL OR INADVERTENT HUMAN INVOLVEMENT 5 5 6 6 6 7 8 9 9 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 21 22 22 22 23 24 26 28 31 33 36 37 38 40 41 42 42 43 43 45 46 46 47 48 ]one 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 3 MILITARY ACCIDENT ARSON EXTREME ACTS OF VIOLENCE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - FIXED INSTALLATIONS VEHICLE CRASHES (MUTLI AND SINGLE) HAZARDS RISK BY JURISDICTION RISK ASSESSMENT PUBLIC RISK ASSESSMENT INPUT RISK ASSESSMENT HAZARD RISK BY JURISDiCTiON HAZARD IMPACT ON CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE HAZARD VULNERABILITY BASED ON PROJECTED LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS HAZARD MITIGATION MiTiGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES EXISTING HAZARD MITIGATION REPORTS, STUDIES AND PROGRAMS PROPOSED MITIGATION ACTIONS MITIGATION ACTION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY PLAN MAINTENANCE AND ADOPTION PLAN MAINTENANCE PLAN ADOPTION APPENDIX A - MITIGATION ACTIONS FOR PITKIN COUNTY WILDFIRE WINTER STORM HAZMAT TRANSPORTED AVALANCHE ROCKSLIDE / LANDSLIDE SEASONAL / FLASH FLOODING APPENDIX B - MITIGATION ACTIONS FOR EAGLE COUNTY WILDFIRE WINTER STORM TRANSPORTED HAZARDOUS MATEmALS AVALANCHE ROCKSLIDE / LANDSLIDE SEASONAL / FLASH FLOODING APPENDIX C - PUBIC SURVEY RISK ASSESSMENT APPENDIX D - STAPLEE SAMPLE TEMPLATE APPENDIX E - RISK ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION TEMPLATE APPENDIX F - REFERENCES USED IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX G - HAZARD MAPS 48 49 49 50 51 54 55 55 56 58 59 60 61 61 61 63 64 66 66 68 69 69 70 70 71 71 72 74 74 74 74 75 75 75 76 78 81 83 88 June 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 4 Introduction Natural hazards such as wildfire, avalanche, severe winter storms and others are common to the mountainous regions of Colorado and can impact, sometimes significantly, every aspect of life in Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado (the Counties). And today, human-caused hazards like technology failures and terrorism impose an equal, if not greater, threat to communities in Colorado and across the nation. To assist the Counties in reducing the impact on safety, property and critical infrastructure caused by all hazards, the Counties and incorporated jurisdictions (sometimes collectively referred to herein as the 'Counties') are augmenting their emergency planning efforts through development of this Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan ("PDMP" or the "Plan"). A requirement of the multi-jurisdictional PDMP is that each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted. In this case, the incorporated towns of Aspen, Snowmass Village and Basalt have actively participated in Plan development and have adopted the Plan along with Pitkin County. In Eagle County, participants that have adopted this Plan include the incorporated towns of Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff and Vail. Pitkin and Eagle Counties share a common geography, economic base and demographics, and they are subject to similar hazards. The Counties have also implemented formal and informal joint emergency response initiatives that have provided mutual benefit to the Counties and improved their residents' welfare. The Counties, therefore, have elected to develop a multi-jurisdictional Pre Disaster Mitigation Plan designed to leverage their common characteristics and planning resources and better prepare the Counties for potential hazards. The Plan itself, however, is utilized separately by each County to provide guidance for their specific disaster planning efforts. DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000 To better protect the Nation from disasters, particularly natural disasters, the U.S. Congress passed the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, enacted as the Disaster Nitigation Act of 2000 (DNA 2000). With this legislation the Federal government has placed renewed emphasis on pre-disaster mitigation of potential hazards. Host significant to state and local governments under the DNA 2000 are its amendments to Sections 203 (Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation) and 322 (Mitigation Planning). Section 203 of the DNA 2000 establishes a "National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund" to support a program that will "provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to assist in the implementation of pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures that are cost-effective and designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property, including damage to critical services and facilities under the jurisdiction of the state or local governments." Section 322 of the DNA 2000 provides a new and revitalized approach to mitigation planning by: · Establishing a requirement and delivering new guidance for state, local and tribal mitigation plans; June 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 5 · Providing for states to receive an increased percentage of HMGP funds (from 15 percent to 20 percent) if, at the time of the declaration of a major disaster, they have in effect an approved State Mitigation Plan that meets criteria defined in the law; and · Authorizing up to seven percent (7.0%) of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds available to a state to be used for development of state, local and tribal mitigation plans. Pitkin and Eagle Counties applied for and received funds from the State of Colorado to support development of this Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan and comply with the DMA 2000. Through the leadership of each County's Safety Council, direction from their respective Emergency Management Coordinators and contributions from emergency professionals and County residents, a common plan for their two-county region, including incorporated towns therein, has been prepared. This Plan, as described herein, is known as the Pitkin-Eagle Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. PURPOSE, GOALS AND OB3ECTZVES The purpose of the PDHP is to: · Protect life, safety and property by reducing the potential for future damages and economic losses that result from natural and human-caused hazards; · Support future grant requests for pre- and post-disaster initiatives; · Speed recovery and redevelopment following future disaster events; · Demonstrate the Counties' commitment to hazard mitigation principles; and · Comply with federal and state legislation and guidance for local hazard mitigation planning The output of the PDMP is a set of recommended pre-disaster mitigation actions that minimize the potential impacts from the prioritized hazards. Specific goals and objectives have been established to deliver measurable benefits to each County through mitigation actions that have been justified and prioritized using accepted practices and the methodology described in this document. The Counties and their participating cities, towns and villages have formally adopted this Plan and established a process to periodically evaluate and modify its goals, objectives and mitigation actions as part of on-going PDMP maintenance. SCOPE OF THE PLAN The PDMP is focused on those hazards determined to pose high and moderate risk as indicated by the Counties' risk assessment. Priority is given to hazards with greater potential to affect health and safety, impact emergency response capability or distress critical infrastructure within the Counties. The Counties considered a spectrum of natural hazards and human-caused threats, and the hazards and mitigation actions detailed in this plan are those prioritized by the Counties. Future iterations of the Plan will re-evaluate hazards and, if appropriate, prioritize new hazards and develop associated potential mitigation actions documented in updated versions to the Plan. PRO3ECT PARTZCTPANTS The PDMP leveraged the broad skills and interests associated with the participating jurisdictions. The Plan was developed by a multi-disciplined group consisting of emergency planners, emergency responders, local government officials, and other 3une 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 6 subject matter experts within the private and public sectors. Project participants represented the Counties and the respective jurisdictions which adopted this Plan. Residents within the Counties actively contributed to Plan development by participating in the risk assessment and by providing valuable input to the draft Plan. Subsequent versions of the Plan will seek to include an even broader set of stakeholders while maintaining a focus on public participation. Each County and participating jurisdiction contributed equally to the Plan, and, where appropriate, the PDHP distinguishes information unique to each County or jurisdiction. AUTHORI'TY The Plan is developed in accordance with current state and federal rules and regulations governing local hazard mitigation plans, including: · Section 322, I~litigation Planning, of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as enacted by Section 104 of the Disaster Hitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390); · FEMA's Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 at 44 CFR Part 201; and · The State of Colorado, Department of Emergency Hanagement, Office of the Governor. The authorities for jurisdictions participating in this PDHP have adopted the plan effective as of the dates shown in the following tables. Eagle County .lurisdiction Adopting Authority Plan Adoption Date Eagle County Board of County Pending Commissioners Town of Avon Avon City Council Pending Town of Basalt Basalt Town Council Pending Town of Eagle Eagle Town Council Pending Town of Gypsum Gypsum Town Council Pending Town of I~inturn Hinturn Town Council Pending Town of Red Cliff Red Cliff Town Council Pending Town of Vail Vail Town Council Pending Pitkin County ]urisdiction i Adopting Authority Plan Adoption Date Pitkin County Board of County Pending Commissioners Town of Aspen Aspen City Council Pending Town of Snowmass Village Town Pending Snowmass Village I Council Town of Basalt Basalt Town Council Pending The Plan is monitored and revised periodically in accordance with legislation and rules covering mitigation planning and as described in a subsequent section of this document. 3une 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 7 PLAN ORGANI[ZATI'ON The PDMP follows a format consistent with those adopted by FEMA and the State of Colorado. The Plan includes sections covering: · Introduction · Project Planning and Methodology · Community Profile · Risk Assessment · Hazard Mitigation Strategy · Plan Maintenance and Adoption · Appendices 3une ~., 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 8 Project Planning and Methodology This section describes the hazard mitigation planning process undertaken by Eagle and Pitkin Counties to develop the PDMP and create the framework for continuous Plan improvement. The Counties are subject to similar human-caused and natural hazards, and they share similar geography, demographics and economic base. As a result, the Counties have implemented this planning methodology using a process based on widely recognized best practices, guidance from FEMA and the Colorado Office of Emergency Management and input from private sector and from the Counties' respective constituents and emergency services professionals. Topics in this section include: · The planning team and the project charter process · Plan coordination and team meetings · Hazards identification and prioritization · Risk determination and impact on critical infrastructure · Identification and selection of mitigation strategies · Implementation of mitigation strategies · Plan maintenance and updates This Plan is developed to meet requirements under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). Although the DMA 2000 mandates mitigation planning for natural disasters only, the Counties understand that planning also for human-caused hazards can increase preparedness, and an all-hazards approach is encompassed by the Plan. THE PLANNZNG TEAM Project participants This Plan is developed using input from a cross-functional set of project participants representing both Counties. The Counties also recognize that the nature of this project and targeted project deadlines require additional planning resources. With funding through the Colorado Division of Emergency Management, the Counties selected The Infrastructure Protection Group and Coalfire Systems, Inc., companies with specialties in risk management and emergency planning, to provide planning guidance and prepare the draft Plan based on input from the project participants. As listed in the following tables, the project planning team consists of individuals representing Pitkin and Eagle Counties and their respective communities who have adopted this Plan. The project approach is constructed to involve community residents, community officials, including emergency response professionals, and representatives from the private sector. The planning team considered guidance from FEMA and interviewed a variety of stakeholders to consider possible project participants. As this planning process continues, the Counties intend to broaden participation to improve plan quality. 3une 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 9 Eagle County and Participating .lurisdictions Project Participant I General Project Role Eagle County Emergency Hanagement Eagle County Project Manager and sponsor for, and attendee of, regular Coordinator, Eagle County project meetings Subject matter expertise on overall mitigation planning Review and approve public survey Perform hazard identification and pdodtization Perform identification of critical infrastructure Support the risk assessment and identification of mitigation options and recommendations Collection of existing emergency and mitigation plans I,,lanager of Administration, Plan Review Eagle - Vail Hetro District Analysis of h~ard miti,cJation actions Director of Public Safety, Plan Review Cordillera IVletro District Analysis of hazard mitigation actions IVlanager, Community Provide survey of existing land use strategies and potential future trends Development, Eagle County Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Project Engineer, Provide h~ard identification and analysis support Engineering Department, Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Eagle County Town of Red Cliff Mayor, Fire Chief and Council · Reviewplan documents member for the Town of Red · Provide input to dsk assessment and mitigation actions Cliff Town of f4inturn Town Hanager, Police Chief, · Review plan documents Fire Chief and Public Works provide input to dsk assessment and mitigation actions Director for the Town of Minturn Town of Vail Police and Fire Chief for the · Review plan documents Town of Vail · Provide input to dsk assessment and mitigation actions Town of Avon Police Chief, Fire Chief, Public Review plan documents Works Director and Provide input to risk assessment and mitigation actions Community Development Director for the Town of Avon. Town of Eagle Police Chief, Fire Chief, and Review plan documents Public Works Director for the Provide input to dsk assessment and mitigation actions Town of Eagle Town of Gypsum Community Development Review plan documents Director and Planner for the Provide input to dsk assessment and mitigation actions Town of Gypsum Town of Basalt - See Pitkin County June 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 10 Pitkin County and Participating .lurisdictions Project Participant J General Project Role Pitkin County Emergency Management Pitkin County Project Manager and sponsor for, and attendee of, regular Coordinator, Pitkin County project meetings Subject matter expertise on overall mitigation planning Review and approve public survey Perform hazard identification and pdodtization Perform identification of cdtical infrastructure Support the dsk assessment and identification of mitigation options and recommendations Collection of existing emergency and mitigation plans County Manager, Pitkin Review draft documents County Assistant County Manager, Provide hazard identification and analysis support Pitkin County Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Director, Geographical Attend and support project kickoff meeting :Information Systems, Pitkin Review and revise draft plans County Provide land use information as available Community Public Health Mitigation action input Services, Pitkin County Review and plan input Director, Public Works, PEkin Provide hazard identification and analysis support County Analysis of h~Tard mitigation actions Director, Community Provide survey of existing land use strategies and potential future trends Development, Pitkin County Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Director of Operations, Provide hazard identitication and analysis support Sheriff's Office, Pitkin County Anal~is of hazard mitigation actions Director, Pitkin County · Review draft documents Combined Communications Chief, Carbondale Fire District ' · Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Review draft documents Attorney, Pitkin County Review draft documents Director, Environmental Review dralt documents Health, Pitkin County Director, Roaring Fork Transit Review dratt documents Agency Engineer, Pitkin County Review draft documents Director, Community Review draft documents Relations, Pitkin County City of Aspen Manager, City of Aspen Project planning and approval Review draft documents Chief, Aspen Police Review draft documents Department Fire Chief, Aspen Fire District Provide hazard identification and analysis support Analysis of h~zard mitigation actions Director of Operations, Aspen Review draft documents Valley Hospital Director, Aspen Ambulance Review draft documents Distdct Directorf Aspen Water Anal~is of hazard mitigation actions .lune 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 11 Department Review draft documents Chairman, Aspen Mountain Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Rescue Hazard anal)sis and miti~lation action selection Risk Manager, Aspen Mitigation action input Plan input and review of draft plan Director, Aspen - Snowmass Provide hazard identification and analysis support Ski Patrol Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Review draft documents Town of Snowmass Village Chief, Snowmass Village Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Police Department I Avalanche Expert, Snowmass Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Ski Patrol Review draft documents Town of Basalt Deputy Town Manager, Attend and support project kickoff meeting Operations, Basalt Review and approve public survey Provide input to hazard identification and mitigation, particularly flooding, winter storm and avalanche Provide existing plans for flooding Review and revise draft plan Fire Chief, Basalt Fire District Provide hazard identification and analysis support Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Review draft documents Chief, Basalt Police Attend and support project kick-off meeting Department Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Review draft documents ~lune 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 12 The Pitkin County Safety Council contributed to review, guidance and approval of the Plan. These Safety Council members include: Pitkin County Safety Council · Pitkin County Sheriffs Office Aspen Fire Protection Oistdct · Pitkin County Comb. Committee Basalt and Rural Fire Protection Distdct ~ Pitkin County Airport ARFF Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District Aspen Ambulance District Mountain Rescue Aspen · Aspen Po[ice Department Snowmass Village Police Department · Snowmass Village Fire Department Pitkin County Emergency Management Coordinator · Aspen Valley Hospital · Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners The Pitkin County Safety Council is supported by these agencies that also provided review and comment on the Plan: Pitkin County Safety Council Supporting Agencies Pitkin County Attorney American Red Cross Colorado State Patrol Aspen Skiing Company Community Health Services State Division of Emergency Management Aspen Water Department Pitkin County Environmental Health Public Works Pitkin County Community Relations RFTA City of Aspen Risk Management City of Aspen Town of Basalt Community Development ! · Transportation Security Administration The State of Colorado, Office of Emergency Management, was consulted to align to the State's hazard mitigation planning efforts. Experts from government agencies and private organizations outside the Counties also contributed to the plan. In some instances these non-County expert resources contributed to this project as part of the Pitkin County Safety Council. The non-County experts listed in the following table, however, provided detailed input to the plan collected through a series of interviews, plan analysis activities and plan reviews. These non-county experts are summarized in the following table. Resources Not Employed by the County or Participating .ludsdictions Contributing to the PDMP Development ProJect Participant General ProJect Role Chairman, Basalt Emergency Provide hazard identification and analysis support Hanagement Committee Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Review draft documents Principal Engineer, Hazard modeling and dsk assessment consultant Environment and Engineering Avalanche Consultant Provide hazard identification and analysis support Analysis of h~ard mitigation actions President, Hountain Rescue, Provide hazard identification and analysis suppod Pitkin County Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Review draft documents Director of Safety, Colorado Provide hazard identification and analysis support IVlotor Carriers Analysis of hazard mitigation actions .]une J., 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 13 Engineer, Colorado Geological Provide hazard identification and analysis support Survey Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Meteorologist, National Provide hazard identification and analysis support Weather Service Analysis of hazard mitigation actions District Forester Provide hazard identification and analysis support Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Captain, Colorado State Patrol Review draft documents Regional Planner, Colorado Analysis of hazard mitigation actions Division of Emergency Review draft documents Management Director, American Red Cross Review draft documents Senior Member, Infrastructure PDMP Consultant for project planning Protection Group Project kick-off facifitator Draft Plan development H~zard identification, risk Assessment and mitigation guidance Vice President, Coalfire PDMP Consultant for project planning Systems, Inc. Project klok-off facilitator Draft Plan development Hazard identification, dsk Assessment and miti!]ation guidance Community participation The Counties recognize that their respective community members provide valuable input to the hazard mitigation planning process. The methodology used in developing this PDMP maximized public involvement by utilizing a variety of informational resources and survey techniques. Public comment was collected through hardcopy and web-based surveys to increase the potential for public participation. As part of this survey process, the planning team also collected input from professionals in emergency management, fire services, medical and health services, law enforcement, planning, education, airport management, government administration, community development, transportation, utilities, and others in public and private sectors. The community's opinions of the hazards most threatening to their environment were used to identify and prioritize hazards and direct mitigation efforts. Public involvement also helped determine critical infrastructure subject to hazard impact. Sample survey forms and tabulated survey results are attached to the Plan as Appendix C. PRO3ECT IN1~T1~AT1~ON AND TEAM COORDI'NATt'ON Project planning was initiated through a project charter meeting conducted in Glenwood Springs on .June 15, 2004. The purpose of this meeting was to assemble primary project participants and confirm contact information as well as project activities, deliverables, schedules, roles and responsibilities. This meeting resulted in a charter document created to guide Plan development. As indicated previously, the plan is developed from input from a broad group of participants. To accommodate schedule issues and provide a mechanism to most efficiently and securely collaborate on the planning activities, the Counties managed the Plan development with a secure project portal accessible from the Znternet. This project portal supports planning activities and project communications, including .lune 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 14 document retention and destruction. Portal access rights are developed based on authority granted by each County project lead. A representation of the project portal home page is shown in the following figure. Home HAZARD TDENTTFTCATTON The United States is vulnerable to a wide variety of natural hazards that threaten life and property, including damage to critical facilities and disruption of vital services. Furthermore, recent local and national events establish that risks exist from human- caused hazards ranging from accidents to domestic and international terrorism. The planning team considered a comprehensive list of hazards and used risk assessment activities to prioritize certain hazards for mitigation actions on a jurisdictional basis. THE RZSK ASSESSMENT A risk assessment was conducted to analyze hazards, determine loss estimates and establish a justified basis for selection of mitigation actions. The risk assessment encompassed these activities: · Public input - Using community surveys discussed previously in this section, citizens provide input on hazards and hazard impact within the planning area. · Risk assessment - Based on subject matter expertise provided by emergency services professionals within the Counties and experts in the private sector, hazards were ranked and impact estimated. · [dentification of critical infrastructure - Resources, facilities and services within the planning area was evaluated for hazard impact and loss expectancy. .lune 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page The results of these activities allowed the Counties to identify and profile hazards affecting the area. The planning team used this information to determine vulnerabilities and provide the factual basis for the mitigation actions selected. REVZEW OF CURRENT PLANS~ STUDIES AND REPORTS To validate potential mitigation options and to coordinate outcome from the PDI~IP with existing mitigation strategies and plans, the planning team reviewed hazard studies, emergency planning reports, and other documents currently covering prioritized hazards within the Counties. These existing plans and documents reviewed are summarized in the Hazard Mitigation section of this document. MZTI'GATZON PLANNZNG The risk assessment process identified hazards considered a priority within the Counties, and the planning team developed and documented goals and objectives to guide mitigation planning efforts. The team also developed and evaluated strategies for implementing justified and prioritized mitigation actions. The Counties conducted research and interviewed experts to collect potential mitigation actions for these prioritized hazards. Potential mitigation actions and strategies then were evaluated using the FEMA-recommended STAPLEE methodology, which seeks to identify options acceptable and appropriate for the community. STAPLEE evaluates mitigation options by comparing them to these criteria: Social acceptance, Technical merit, Administrative support, Political support, Legal support, Economic viability and the Environment. Mitigation alternatives were also evaluated for cost-benefit and compared to current mitigation projects underway. The results of this process defined the mitigation actions included with the plan submitted for adoption by the Counties and their participating jurisdictions. Implementation strategies for prioritized mitigation actions were developed at a high level to guide follow-on planning efforts. All targeted mitigation strategies were assigned points of contact within both Counties. PLAN I~IAI'NTENANCE AND ADOPTi'ON The Counties will periodically review the plan and determine whether any significant changes have occurred requiring modifications to proposed mitigation actions and the PDMP document. As discussed in the Plan Maintenance section of this document, the planning team has selected specific timeframes and criteria and assigned roles for PDMP review and update. Public input is important to the development and maintenance of the plan, and the Counties will continue to seek input from a variety of sources including residents within the planning area. Significant modifications to the PDMP also necessitate adoption by the appropriate governing bodies within each County. ]une :t, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 16 Community Profile Pitkin and Eagle Counties are situated in west central Colorado and encompass vast areas of National Forest surrounding private and state-owned lands. Both Counties support world-class recreational activities and are home to established and emerging businesses and non-profit organizations in a variety of economic sectors. Communities within these Counties are popular with the wealthy, causing a significant portion of the Counties' population to be part-time residents. Land use projections and high property values in both Counties indicate that residential and commercial property trends will continue to include development in the urban - wildland interface. This fact increases risk from hazards such as wildfire, avalanche and rock slides, and places significant demands on emergency planning and response resources. The Counties share common natural and human-caused hazard potential, and, when appropriate, their emergency response professionals often work closely together under formal arid informal mutual aid arrangements. These factors and other similarities described below have caused Pitkin and Eagle Counties and the participating jurisdictions to jointly develop this multi-jurisdictional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. EAGLE COUNTYf COLORADO Geography Eagle County, Colorado comprises a land area of :~,701 square miles and 1,088,485 acres. More than 82% of Eagle County's land is public, including National Forests, wilderness areas, Bureau of Land Hanagement properties, and state and local public lands. Within the county, the U.S. Forest Service manages 595,860 acres of the White River National Forest, and the Bureau of Land Management manages 247,75! acres. Along the northeast boundary is the Eagles Nest Wilderness Areas, in the southeast quadrant is the Holy Cross Wilderness Area, and a small piece of Flat Tops Wilderness Area is in the northwest corner. There are several State Wildlife and Resource Management Areas and also Sylvan Lake State Park. The Continental Divide runs along a small portion of the southern boundary, and the Colorado Trail (a non-motorized use trail) crosses the southeast corner of the county. Eagle County includes all or portions of four proposed wilderness areas: Bull Gulch, Castle Peak, Deep Creek, and the Flat Tops Wilderness Addition. Eagle, the county seat, is located on U.S. 6 and Interstate 70, while Vail, the largest municipality, is located further east along the ]-70/U.S. 6 corridor. Eagle County is home to Vail and Beaver Creek Resorts. History Eagle County was a rural area until the 1950s. At that time, a group named the Trans-Mountain Rod and Gun Club, soon to be named Vail Corporation and later, Vail Associates and Vail Resorts, invested funds to obtain land use permits from the U.S. Forest Service for development of the Vail ski area. The area opened in 1962, with the nation's first gondola ski lift and 876 acres of skiable terrain. After eight years of work and $7 million, Beaver Creek opened in 1980. Arrowhead, a small ski mountain within the Edwards area, opened during the 1989- 1990 ski season, and it was acquired by Vail Associates in 1993. The Bachelor Gulch ski area was opened by Vail Associates during the 1996-1997 ski season as a new base area located between ]une 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 17 Arrowhead and Beaver Creek. The ski improvements at Bachelor Gulch allowed Beaver Creek to be connected with Arrowhead and created a single entity for all three areas as the Beaver Creek ski area. Airport The Eagle County Airport is located just a short distance from Vail and tallied more than 170,000 enplaned passengers in 2003 and, through June, 2004, more than 145,000 year-to-date. The airport is a vital asset to the economy of Eagle County and surrounding areas, and a recently announced $6 million radar system will allow it to improve capacity and increase security. Economy Average per capita income in 1997 for Eagle County was $31,890 which ranked 5th in the state. By comparison, Colorado's 1997 per capita income was $27,015. · Jn Eagle County, the majority of jobs (80%) are in wage and salary employment. Self- employment (an indication of entrepreneurship and a quality workforce) accounts for the remaining jobs (20%) and grew by 1,043% from 1970 to 1997. Demographics The number of jobs in Eagle County grew by 29,465 (an 809% increase) from 1970 to 1997, with the Service sector generating 38% of new jobs. In 1997, the Service, Retail Trade, and Construction sectors accounted for 36, 22, and 15% of total employment, respectively. The Service sector provides not only the most jobs; it has added the most new jobs from 1970 to 1997. The largest component of the Service sector is Amusement, Recreation, and Museums services, accounting for 28% of Service sector income. According to the 2000 Census, Eagle County's population was 41,659 and households numbered 15,148. The population increased in 2001 to 43,497 and households to 15,802. The county's population growth rate has increased 90% from 1990-2000. Caucasians account for 74.2% of Eagle County's population, while Hispanics make up another 23.2%. The racial composition of the rest is Asian or Pacific Islander, 0.9%, American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut, 0.7%, while the remainder is African-Americans and "Other". Eagle County encompasses eight communities, which include the towns of Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff and Vail. Edwards is the other community located in Eagle County. Tn 2000, 48% of residents resided in Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff, and Vail, while 52% of residents resided in unincorporated Eagle County. Emergency Services The County is prepared to respond to hazard incidents with emergency professionals in law enforcement, fire, medical services, search and rescue and others. pI'TKZN COUNTY~ COLORADO Geography Pitkin County, Colorado is located in the Colorado River watershed. It comprises a land area of 970 square miles (621,036 acres) with mountain elevations ranging from 6,625 to 14,259 feet atop Castle Peak. Within the county, the U.S. Forest Service manages 488,412 acres of the White River National Forest, and the Bureau of Land Management manages 26,417 acres. Along the eastern boundary are the Hunter Fryingpan and Collegiate Peaks Wilderness Areas, and to the south is the 3une 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area. There are two State Wildlife and Resource Management Areas in the county. 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. Pitkin County includes two proposed wilderness areas: a minor addition to Maroon Bells- Snowmass Wilderness, and most of the proposed Thompson Creek Wilderness. 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 1-70 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 Spri9gs at the northwest end to the top of Independence Pass on the southeast end. Aspen is surrounded by the White River NaLional Forest. At an elevation of 7800 feet, Aspen is surrounded by 14,000 foot mountains, and it encompasses 3.66 square miles. The town is positioned in a relatively flat valley floor surrounded on three sides by Aspen, Smuggler and Red Mountains. History The first silver prospectors in the Roaring Fork Valley arrived in the summer of 1879 and by that fall a small group of entrepreneurs and speculators had staked claims and set up camp at the foot of Aspen Mountain. Before a permanent settlement could be established, news of a nearby Indian uprising prompted Colorado's Governor Frederick Pitkin to urge Lhe settlers to flee back across the Continental Divide for their safety. Most of them did, and only a handful of settlers remained in the Roaring Fork Valley during the winter of 1879. Those who remained attempted to organize, and they passed a resolution to respect the claims of those who had fled, as well as the claims of those settlers who stayed. This action transformed the small group of settlers into a "sovereign" body in the eyes of the State of Colorado and recognized that the rules of local mining districts under the federal mining law of 1866 were to be followed. The citizens had begun the process of organizing themselves into a political body. More than 100 years later, by resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and passed by the electorate Pitkin County was established as a Home Rule County. Pitkin County now supports a vibrant, diversified economy. The County is best known for its four world-class ski mountains. Aspen was founded in 1880 and incorporated in 1881. Like Vail and Beaver Creek in Eagle County, Aspen and Snowmass Village are internationally renowned as a winter and summer resorts, have several ski areas and host various music and arts festivals. ~lune :~, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page Airport 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. A County emphasis is to promote quality and safe growth at the airport. There is also special focus on the impetus that the airport provides to attract resort visitors, support economic growth, as well as the provision of necessary regionally utilized general aviation facilities. Approximately 202,000 people visit the region annually via Aspen/Pitkin Airport. These visitors typically pursue recreational interests such as skiing, fishing, hiking, and hunting. In addition, travel agencies depend on airport transportation for their business. Combined, these visitors and businesses spend an estimated $255 million annually in the local economy on lodging, food, recreation, business services etc. Demographics Pitkin County is home to the incorporated communities of Aspen, Snowmass Village and a portion of Basalt. Additionally, the County includes the unincorporated communities of Redstone, Meredith / Thomasville, Snowmass and Woody Creek. Ghost towns within the County are Ashcroft and Independence. Other rural residential areas with active homeowner associations or local caucuses include Brush Creek Village, Aspen Village and Castle / Maroon Creek. According to the census of 2000, there are 14,872 people, 6,807 households, and 3,185 families residing in Pitkin County. The population density is 15 per mile, and there are 10,096 housing units at an average density of 10 per mile The racial makeup of the county is 94.33% White, 0.53% Black or African American, 0.27% Native American, 1.12% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 2.37% from other races, and 1.34% from two or more races. The census lists 6.54% of the population as Hispanic or Latino of any race, although county officials believe this percentage may be understated. The high season population is greater than 25,000 and is concentrated in the county's two primary population centers in the towns of Aspen and Snowmass Village. Economy The 2000 census reports average per capita income for Pitkin County in 1997 was $49,266 which ranked 1st in the state. By comparison, Colorado's 1997 per capita income was $27,015. In Pitkin County, the majority of jobs (79%) are in wage and salary employment (people who work for someone else). Self-employment (an indication of entrepreneurship and a quality workforce) accounts for the remaining jobs (21%) and grew by 395% from 1970 to 1997. The number of jobs in Pitkin County grew by 16,589 (a 372% increase) from 1970 to 1997, with the Service sector generating 43% of new jobs. In 1997, the Service, Retail Trade, and the Finance, ~'nsurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sectors accounted for 40, 23, and 13% of total employment, respectively. The Service sector provides not only the most jobs, but it also has added the most new jobs from 1970 to 1997. The largest component of the Service sector is Amusement, Recreation and Museums services, accounting for 32% of Service sector income. June 1, 200S Piti(in and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 20 Emergency Services Like Eagle County, Pitkin is prepared to respond to hazard incidents with emergency professionals in law enforcement, fire, medical services, search and rescue and others. PRESZDENT][AL AND U.S.D.A - DECLARED DZSASTERS The tables below describe disasters declared previously by presidential order in the planning area. Eagle County Hazard Type Location Disaster Characterization Drought County-wide 2000, widespread County affected Eagle County was the site of a U. S. Department of Agriculture Disaster Declaration Pitkin County Hazard Type Location Disaster Characterization Flooding Town of Basalt May, :!.984, moderate property without loss of life Wildfire Affecting Pinion / Juniper June, 2002, widespread regions of the County wildland impact with structural damage to mountain homes; no loss of life 3une 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 21 Hazards in Pitkin and Eagle Counties 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. Furthermore, recent local and national events establish that risks exist from human-caused hazards ranging from accidents to domestic and international terrorism. This section discusses all hazards with potential impact on the Counties. Some hazards have significant loss potential for the Counties, and these hazards are identified separately as Prioritized Hazards. Other hazards with less potential impact or with less effective mitigation action possibilities are 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 elsewhere in this Plan, the planning team prioritized these hazards for further analysis and mitigation planning: · Wildfire · Winter storms · Transported hazardous material (transported HazMat) · Avalanche · Landslide, including rockslide and rock fall · Seasonal / flash flooding The planning team recognized that other hazards such as drought occur periodically and have impact on the Counties. The planning team determined however that the prioritized hazards posed a greater risk on life, safety, critical infrastructure and vital services. Future iterations of the PDI~P will possibly include mitigation actions for hazards other than those prioritized by this Plan. Pitkin and Eagle Counties have each experienced Disaster Declarations in the past 20 years. Pitkin County experienced Presidential Disaster Declarations in :L984 for flooding and in 2002 for wildfires. Eagle County was the site of a U. S. Department of Agriculture Disaster Declaration in 2000 because of drought. Comparatively speaking, the volume of disaster declarations of any type experienced by these Counties is Iow compared to other Colorado counties. HAZARDS RISK BY 1URI~SDICTION Although these prioritized hazards affect the both Counties within the planning area, potential impact from each hazard varies by jurisdiction. 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 Plan. The June l, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 22 relative impact from each hazard on the jurisdictions participating in this plan is summarized in the Risk Assessment section of this document. WZLDFZRE The State of Colorado and the entire Rocky Mountain region have been plagued with Wildfires in the past several years. The situation has been exacerbated by drought conditions throughout the western U.S., and so it is no surprise that the PDMP risk assessment determined that wildfires pose a significant threat to the planning area. The wildfire threat is characterized by three classes of fire: · Surface fire: the most common of these three categories, the surface fire burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly and killing or damaging trees. · Ground fire: this fire is usually started by lightning or human carelessness and burns on or below the forest floor. · Crown fire: these spread rapidly by wind and move quickly by jumping along the tops of trees. Crown fires have the largest immediate and long-term ecological effects and the greatest potential to threaten human settlements near wildland areas. Surface fires play the important role of reducing Iow vegetation and woody, moss, lichens and litter strata, which helps to temporarily reduce the chance of such fuels leading to severe crown fires. Ground fires reduce the accumulation of organic matter and carbon storage and contribute to smoke production during active fires and long after flaming combustion has ended. These fires can also damage and kill large trees by killing their roots and the lower stem cambium. Wildfire in Colorado is topographically separated into three fire demand zones. The Alpine zone is characterized by high altitude and populated with spruce and firm. This is followed by the Montane zone populated by ponderosa pine and aspen woodlands. At the lowest but most densely populated elevations, the Pinion / Juniper zone is semi-arid and includes scrub oak woodlands. Many individual homes and cabins, subdivisions, resorts, recreational areas, organizational camps, businesses and industries are located within high fire hazard areas. Increasing recreational demands in popular and attractive areas such as Pitkin-Eagle 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. The 2002 Wildfire season was the worst in United States history, with some 2.3 million acres burned, 2.1 million more than in 2000. ]~n 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 ten-year average, Colorado typically experiences 3,1~.9 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-Eagle areas are, 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 3une ~, 2005 PitkJn and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 23 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. Wildfires - County Profile The potential for Wildfire is fairly uniform across the planning area. Residential and commercial properties are concentrated on the respective valley floors (Roaring Fork River, Frying Pan River, Brush Creek, Woody Creek, Crystal River, Lincoln Creek and others) 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 130,464.21 of Pitkin County's 621,026.9 acres as falling within the moderate- to high-risk range, or 21% of total State acreage. An estimated 319,184 acres of Eagle County's 1,088,545 acre total, or 29.32%, falls within the moderate to high risk range. During 2001 and 2002, the Colorado State Forest Service compiled a Wildland Urban Interface (WU]) Hazard Assessment for the purpose of mapping the residential areas throughout the State that lie in Wildland Fire Hazard Areas. Various data sources including housing density, fuel load and proximity to government lands were analyzed in a GIS model to identify the residential areas at risk. The WU! Hazard Assessment is intended to be used as a tool to compare fire hazard in various areas in Colorado and within the counties themselves. The Wildland Fire map at Appendix G illustrates clearly where the WU[ communities within the Pitkin-Eagle Counties area converge with areas showing a high potential for Wildfire. WTNTER STORMS 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 and Eagle Counties. 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. ]ce accumulation becomes a hazard by creating dangerous travel conditions, and impacting safety for vulnerable elements of the population such as the elderly and physically impaired. Winter Storms - County Profile The weather of Pitkin and Eagle Counties 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 .lanuary 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 made more difficult to respond to due to spotty cell phone coverage in some of the .lune 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 24 mountainous areas of the Counties, and hypothermia and carbon monoxide poisoning become clear threats to many, especially those stranded travelers unfamiliar with the area and unprepared for the conditions. [ce accumulation poses a real hazard in Pitkin and Eagle Counties during many winter storms, particularly when it impacts Tnterstate 70 running through Eagle County and Highway 82 in Pitkin County, the most important corridors for the transport of people and the provisions needed for the continuity of normal life. A disruption or blockage due to vehicle crashes on these roads can cause major disruptions to the Counties and beyond. The Thanksgiving Day 2004 rockslide that damaged and closed 1-70 in the Glenwood Canyon area is a recent and vivid example of the widespread problems that can ensue from a natural hazard incident in a major transportation corridor. The world-class recreational areas of Pitkin and Eagle Counties 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. Winter Storms - Historical Tnformation Since 1980, Pitkin and Eagle Counties have not experienced Presidential or SBA Disaster Declarations for Winter Storms. Notwithstanding this, however, the Counties do consider Winter Storms to have the potential for significant impact on resident's safety, critical infrastructure and vital services as discussed in the Risk Assessment section of this report. PiPkin County's emergency experts provided information for the 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. Eagle County is also vulnerable to the whims of winter storms and the associated problems. Roads can become impassable due to snow accumulation, although primary roads such as Tnterstate 70 and U.S. 6 are given the highest priority for snow removal and are rarely closed because of snowfall. The most common causes of road closures are avalanches and accidents. Closings of the regional airport are one standard by which the severity of a winter storm can be measured in Eagle County. For example, a winter storm hit part of Eagle County on December 29, 2004, causing adverse weather conditions and the closure of the airport during the afternoon hours and into the next morning. Using airport closures or flight delays as a measuring stick for the impact of winter storms on Eagle County may soon become less reliable though. A new navigational aid is planned to be fully operational at the airport in I~lay, 2005, and will greatly decrease the number of cancellations and diversions caused by poor weather days. The Instrument Landing System (TLS) will permit pilots to safely and precisely navigate aircraft into and out of EGE in visibility ranges over 75% lower than current capabilities allow. While Eagle County Regional Airport only experienced 26 extreme weather-related flight delays between October and December, 2004, the new ILS .June 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 25 should reduce that relatively Iow number in the future, and other metrics to gauge the impact of severe weather in Eagle County may have to be considered. FLOODI'NG (I~NCLUDI'NG FLASH AND SEASONAL FLOODI'NG) 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 is 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-Eagle Counties, and the extreme terrain in the area increases the potential for severe flooding. Seasonal flooding occurs in the Counties during the spring when the mountain snow pack starts its melting process and heavy rainfall sometimes combines with the runoff and causes some rivers and streams to swell out of their banks. .lurisdictions with Planning and Zoning responsibilities in the Pitkin-Eagle area are participants of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As a condition to participating in the NFIP, each member has committed to restrict the building of structures in the flood-hazard areas delineated by FEt4A FIRI~I (Flood-Insurance-Rate Nap) panels. This approach somewhat limits the vulnerability to flooding to structures built in the Flood Hazard Areas. In Pitkin County, the towns of Redstone, Aspen, Snowmass Village, Basalt and unincorporated sections of the planning area participate in the NFIP; while in Eagle County, the unincorporated areas along with the towns of Avon, Basalt, Gypsum, Redcliff, Eagle and Vail are included in the program. Flooding - County Profile 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 constructed 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. 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 1995-1996, the inflow for Ruedi Reservoir was 130% 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 June ]., 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 26 the counties as a result the tendency for cobbie and debris to "fall out" in this wide section of the valley creating a highly unstable channel. Flooding - Historical Information Pitkin and Eagle Counties have experienced significant seasonal floods in 1918, 1921, 1957, 1983, 1984 and 1995, especially in the Basalt area. The 1957 flood was determined to be a 50-year event. From 1995 to 2003, 12 flood events were reported in Pitkin County according to the State of Colorado. Areas near the Roaring Fork River around Aspen are at high risk of flooding, and Aspen and Snowmass Village suffered damages to roadways, bridges, recreational facilities and public property from mudslides and water during the flooding of 1984. A Presidential Disaster was declared in Pitkin and Eagle Counties due to the flooding of 1984. 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. In 1999, heavy rains caused two flash floods that were estimated at up to six feet deep across State Highway 133, and caused approximately $150,000 in damages. The town of Redstone too is vulnerable to seasonal runoff. In Eagle County, Brush Creek and Eagle River are listed as high-risk drainages which threaten the town of Eagle, as does Gore Creek. The Eagle River also poses a threat to Minturn and Red Cliff. Eagle County was included in the same Presidential Disaster declaration that covered Pitkin County in 1984, when the town of Redcliff experienced flooding and sanitation facilities and several bridges were damaged, despite extensive sandbagging measures. In Vail that year, flooding and landslides damaged buildings and roads and forced evacuations. Both Pitkin and Eagle Counties are home to several dams, damage to which could prove to be severely disruptive and even deadly. Class I and Class ]! dams are defined as follows: Class T: A dam shall be placed in Class ! when failure would result in probable loss of human life. Eagle County has six Class ! dams: Black Lake #1, Spring Park, Homestake Project, Robinson, Eagle Park Reservoir and Western Hillside Reservoir. Pitkin County has two Class ! dams: Ruedi and Wildcat. Class 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. Both Eagle and Pitkin Counties have four Class II dams each. June 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 27 LANDSLZDES 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 impact to the Counties. 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. In 2002, an update to Colorado's Landslide plan was completed, and it identified several areas of vulnerability in both counties. Colorado's plan compiled these areas into different priorities described in three distinct categories or tiers based upon the criticality of the threat. The three categories are further described as: · Tier One listings are serious cases needing immediate or ongoing action or attention because of the severity of potential impacts. · Tier Two listings are very significant but less severe; or where adequate information and/or some mitigation actions have taken place; or where current development pressures are less extreme. · Tier Three listings are similar to Tier Two but with less severe consequences or primarily local impact. Landslides are a significant problem in Eagle County according to the State's 2004 mitigation plan. The Vail area alone has 20 locations designated as high hazard earth flow areas. In :[984, six major earth flows occurred which affected the town and private properly. The Dowds Junction landslide at the intersection of [-70 and highways 6 and 24 is another area of significant concern. A landslide here could June 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 28 threaten the highway and dam the Eagle River, cause flooding and block the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad. 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: Landslides - Historical Information In 1984, a mudslide washed out Woody Creek Road seven miles from its intersection with River Road causing evacuations by personal injuries. In 1993, a large mudslide occurred on Castle Creek and damaged the Aspen f4usic 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. During the late 1970's and early 1980's in Eagle County, several slides caused road blockages on J~70 and US Highway 6. The Meadow Mountain slide between Minturn and Dowds Junction has been moving for about 35 years and caused considerable damage to Highway 6 in 1984. Also that year, a slide covered the railroad tracks near Minturn and a flow damaged several homes and required the removal of three feet of mud near County Road P-293. Historically, other Eagle County areas threatened by landslide include Shrine Pass, Basalt, Sweetwater, Beaver Creek and Red Cliff. Sample Event 1: Booth Creek Rockfall Hazard Area, Town of Vail, Eagle County: This serious rockfall hazard area required urgent attention in May, 1983 when a significant rockfall event occurred in the residential area. Since that time, concerted efforts to mitigate the hazard have been made and a ditch and berm mitigation barrier was constructed that protected much of the affected area. Another major rockfall event occurred in March 1997 near the western end of the barrier and caused much damage to some condominiums and has caused the state to urge that the highest priority be given to the construction of an additional protective barrier due to the potential hazards this slide poses to area residents and property. This hazard area is listed in the Tier One category by the state. Sample Event #2: Dowds Junction landslides Several major slide events have occurred in the last 20 years in the area known as Dowds Junction. Two are known as Dowds No. I and No. 2, while two other significant slides are called Meadow Mountain and Whiskey Creek. This area has received much attention in the past 20 years, and monitoring and various mitigation actions have been ongoing. This hazard area is listed in the Tier One category by the state. Sample Event 3: 1-70 sinkhole Heavy rains in the spring of 2003 caused a section of J-70 in Eagle County to collapse and required traffic to be rerouted until conditions were made safe. The Denver Post front page photo reflects the situation shortly after it occurred. ~lune 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 29 Sample Event 4: Snowmass Village, Pitkin ~i~' County Residential areas in close proximity to ski areas ii'-- In the 1970's and 1980's, Pitkin County experienced landslide problems in developing residential areas on certain ski slopes in the Snowmass Village area, and undertook remedial action that seems to have significantly reduced the problem. No major events in the area have been reported since 1988. This hazard is considered to be at the Tier Three level. Sample Event 5: Aspen Mountain, west side In May, 1996, two destructive debris flows occurred on the west side of Aspen I~lountain, 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 6: Dutch Creek, Coal Creek, Redstone areas Mine facilities in the Dutch Creek area were frequently disrupted by debris flow activity, but the abandonment and subsequent reclamation of the coal mines has eliminated the threat to the facility and its staff. Remaining debris in the area that feeds into Coal Creek however creates an annual backwater and erosion problem for the area of Redstone and Highway 133 during the spring runoff. 3une 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 30 Landslide Potenf~al Por Colc(a~ AVALANCHE Avalanches are a kind of slope failure that sometimes occurs on grades steeper than about 20 to 30 degrees. Avalanches can reach speeds of 200 miles per hour and can potentially 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. Exceptional weather conditions though 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. Avalanche - County Profile From 1950 to 2003, Colorado experienced more than double the number of avalanche-related fatalities as the next most dangerous state. Eagle County experienced nine fatalities during this time, while Pitkin County led the state with 33. From 1985-86 to 2003-04, 114 people were killed throughout Colorado by Avalanches. 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 hazard 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, l~lortality 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 3une 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 3~. 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. The Aspen and Tndependence Pass areas of Pitkin County and the Vail area of Eagle County are considered especially susceptible to Avalanche activity. 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. Avalanche - Historical Tnformation Sample Event # 1: Aspen Highlands Ski Area, Pitkin County 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 I! 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 # 2; Out of Bounds, Aspen Highlands Ski Area, Pitkin County 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 On January 25, 2000, one person died in an Avalanche in Hurricane Gulch near Aspen. Sample Event # 4: Aspen Highlands Ski Area, Pitkin County On January 23, :L999, also at Aspen Highlands ski area, two skiers triggered an Avalanche that resulted in one death and one injury. Sample Event # 5: Stone Creek, near Beaver Creek, Eagle County On February 23, 2005, one skier was buried after being swept over a cliff in Stone Creek near Beaver Creek. He and his skiing partner were not carrying beacons or shovels, but fortunately one of his ski tails emerged from the snow, enabling his partner to reach him. The victim, who had stopped breathing, was resuscitated by his partner and managed to ski away. June 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 32 Sample Event #6; Vail Pass, Eagle County On December 31, 1995, a 23 year old snowboarder from Tennessee was dropped off at mile marker 187 near Vail Pass. He climbed alone up a steep slope and triggered a 30 foot wide avalanche while snowboarding down. Rescuers later recovered him beneath 4 feet of debris, but not before triggering several other slides on nearby slopes while trying to reach the site. He had no beacon or shovel and although he was an experienced snowboarder at ski areas he knew very little about avalanches. It occurred during a snowstorm with 1-2 feet of new snow lying on a weak pre- existing snowpack. Sample Event #7; Castle Creek Road, Pitkin County In the late 1980's, an avalanche occurred approximately 4 miles up Castle Creek road from the intersection with State Highway 82. This event caused residents to be stranded for two days. Since 1980, Pitkin and Eagle Counties have not experienced either Presidential or SBA Disaster Declarations for Avalanche. Notwithstanding this, however, the Counties do consider threats from Avalanche to have the potential for significant impact on the safety of residents and visitors alike, and on critical infrastructure and vital services as discussed in the Risk Assessment section of this report. TRANSPORTED HAZARDOUS MATERI'ALS (HAZMAT) FEIVlA defines Hazardous Materials as chemical substances that, if released or misused, can pose a threat to the environment or health. These chemicals are used in industry, agriculture, medicine, research and consumer goods. Hazardous materials come in the form of explosives, flammable and combustible substances, poisons and radioactive materials. According to information from the Colorado Division of Emergency Management, the Environmental Protection Agency sorts HAZMAT into these categories: toxic agents, hazardous wastes, toxic pollutants, hazardous substances and extremely hazardous substances. The U.S. Department of Transportation uses these categories: explosive; blasting agent; flammable liquid; flammable solid; oxidizer; organic peroxide; corrosive material; compressed gas; flammable compressed gas; poison; irritating materials; inhalation hazard; etiological agent; radioactive materials; and other regulated material. These substances are most often released as a result of transportation accidents or because of chemical accidents in plants, but the risks are reduced significantly when these substances are used in the controlled environment for which they are intended. According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), HAZMAT transportation events are those which involve ground, rail, water, air or pipeline transport and occur outside the boundaries of a fixed-facility. Also included as transportation events are the releases which are discovered upon offloading at a fixed-facility, but which happened during transportation of the materials. 3une l, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 33 COLORADO HAZHAT ROUTE HAP FEMA figures from 1997 period showed approximately 6,774 HAZNAT events occurred nationwide. About 5,517 were highway incidents, 991 were railroad incidents and 266 were attributed to other causes. In Colorado between the years 1993-1997, 1930 HAZAHAT incidents were reported. Slightly less than 70%, or 1335 incidents, occurred at fixed-facilities; whereas 595 or slightly more than 30% were transported incidents. HAZiVlAT incidents consist of solid, liquid and/or gaseous contaminants that are released from fixed or mobile containers, due to an accident or intentional terrorist attack. A HAZHAT incident may last for hours, days, or longer, depending on the nature of the release. ]n addition to the primary release, explosions and/or fires can result from a release, and contaminants can be extended beyond the initial area by persons, vehicles, water, wind and wildlife. HAZNAT incidents can also occur as a result of or in conjunction with natural hazard events, such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, which in addition to triggering a HAZMAT incident can also hinder response efforts. In the case of Hurricane Floyd in September 1999, communities along the Eastern United States were faced with flooded junkyards, disturbed cemeteries, deceased livestock, floating ~lune l, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 34 propane tanks, uncontrolled fertilizer spills and a variety of other environmental pollutants that caused widespread concern. This gruesome scenario was repeated in areas of Florida in conjunction with the series of severe hurricanes that struck the state during 2004. Hazardous materials in transport are especially vulnerable to sabotage or misuse and, in the wrong hands, pose a significant security threat. The security of hazardous materials in transportation poses unique challenges as compared to security at fixed facilities because of the changing environment surrounding a moving vehicle. Most hazardous materials are frequently transported in large quantities, and once mobile, they are particularly susceptible to theft, interception, detonation or release. When transported in proximity to large population centers, accidental or intentional acts could have serious consequences. When hazardous materials are not controlled due to improper use or accidents, they can quickly create a dangerous and/or life threatening situation. Because of the interstate highway in Eagle County and the mountainous terrain found throughout the Pitkin-Eagle Counties area, the potential for accidents involving transported hazardous materials is very real. HAZMAT- Historical Information According to figures from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Pitkin County reported one event between the years 1993-1997, and that was at a fixed-facility. During that same period, Eagle County reported 15 events. Nine of those were at fixed-facilities, while the remaining six were transported events. Together the Counties' reported events comprise less than one percent of the total events reported throughout Colorado during the period. Sample event 1: 1-70, Eagle County A HazMat transportation incident at mile marker :L82 on ][-70 occurred in 1981 when a gasoline tanker overturned and caught on fire. One fatality and damage to the roadway occurred as a result. Sample event 2: Gore Creek, Eagle County Another HazlVlat transportation event occurred in :L987 at the main Gore Creek overpass on 1-70. Again, one person was killed, and the costs for the removal of contaminated soil related to this incident were over $1,000,000. Pitkin County reported no transported HazNlat events during the time frame covered by CDPHE's statistics. In addition to the incidents noted above, Eagle County faces greater comparative exposure to a transported HazMat incident because it has three locations listed as significant risks for hazardous materials transportation accidents. They are Interstate 70 from the top of Vail Pass to Glenwood Canyon, U.S. Highway 6 from Dowds Junction to Glenwood Canyon and U.S. Highway 24 from Tennessee Pass to Dowds Junction. All of these roadways run parallel to rivers or creeks, which adds the risk of waterway contamination. :lune 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 35 Figure 1: Geographic Disll'ibullon of Evenl$ by Counly i OTHER HAZARDS To conform to FEt4A guidance for PDMP development and to consider all relevant hazards with potential impact on the Counties, the planning team reviewed a comprehensive list of hazards in addition to those prioritized by risk assessment activities. Those other hazards considered by the planning team include: · Drought · Tornado · High Winds Lightning / Thunderstorms · Earthquake · Disease Outbreak · Flood due to Dam Breach · Fixed Installations of Hazardous Materials · Urban Fire (Accidental) · Arson · Airplane Crashes · Military Accidents · international Terrorism · Domestic Terrorism · Extreme Acts of Violence (e.g., the 2004 "Granby incident") · Civil Disturbance · .Jail/Prison Escape Public responses to the PDMP plan development included other potential hazards such as overpopulation, lack of adequate recycling and air pollution. These and other hazards suggested by community members and others will be considered as June 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 36 part of the on-going plan maintenance and addressed appropriately in subsequent updates to the PDMP. DROUGHT Drought is a naturally occurring climatic condition caused by a prolonged extended period of limited rainfall in a broad geographic area. High temperatures, high winds and Iow humidity can worsen drought conditions and can make areas more susceptible to wildfire. Human demands and actions can also hasten Drought-related impacts. Droughts are frequently classified as one of four types: · Meteorological · Agricultural · Hydrological · Socio-economic Meteorological droughts are typically defined by the level of "dryness" where the actual precipitation is less than an average or normal amount of precipitation over a given period of time. Agricultural droughts are based on deficiencies in soil moisture relative to the demands of plant life. Emphasis tends to be placed on factors such as soil water deficits, water needs based on differing stages of crop development and water reservoir levels. Hydrological drought is directly related to the effect of precipitation shortfalls on surface and groundwater supplies. Human factors, particularly changes in land use, can alter the hydrologic characteristics of a basin. Socio-economic drought is the result of water shortages that limit the ability to supply water-dependent products in the marketplace. 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 non-structural 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. The risk of a drought is uniform across the Pitkin-Eagle Counties area. 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- Eagle Counties 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. Overall the area has over 20,000 well permits as of .luly :~, 2003. ~lune 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 37 Drought - Historical Information Both Pitkin and Eagle Counties have been declared disaster areas due to drought. In 2000 and 2002, Pitkin was declared a disaster area by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and in 2000, Eagle County was declared a disaster area by the USDA. Sample Event: The Drought of 2002 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 the Pitkin-Eagle Counties area, 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 throughout the two counties saw declines in general 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 Iow 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 two counties 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. Hi'GH WI'NDS, I'NCLUDI'NG TORNADO The Pitkin-Eagle Counties area 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. 3une 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 38 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. A tornado is a violent and extreme extension of the high wind hazard. It is characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud extending to the ground. In Colorado, tornadoes are most often caused by thunderstorm activity when cool, dry air meets and overrides a layer of warm, moist air. This forces the warm air to rise rapidly. Damage caused by a tornado is the result of the excessive wind velocity and the wind-borne debris it creates. Lightning and large hail is a frequent byproduct of these serious windstorms. According to the National Weather Service, tornado wind speeds range from 40 to more than 300 miles per hour, and the most violent tornadoes have rotating winds of 250 miles per hour or more and are capable of causing extreme destruction. Typically, tornadoes cause the greatest damages to structures of light construction such as residential homes and, particularly, mobile homes. Tornadoes have been reported nine months of the year in Colorado, with peak occurrences between mid-May through mid-August..lune is easily the month with the most recorded tornadoes. Tornadoes occur at all times of the day, with more than half occurring between 3pm and 6pm, and about 88 percent occurring between 1pm an 9pm MDT. The topography of the Pitkin-Eagle area limits the occurrence of tornadoes in the area, but they occur statewide with the greatest number developing in the plains of eastern Colorado to the east of Interstate 25. Although mountain tornados are very rare, in :~960, a tornado cleared a path through heavy spruce timber about 60 yards wide and 300 yards along West Grouse Creek in Eagle County. Fortunately for the Pitkin- Eagle Counties region, only one tornado per county was reported in the period from 1950 - 1998, and thus this particular hazard is not considered a priority matter for the planning area. 3une 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Page 39 LTGHTNZNG / THUNDERSTORMS Lightning is the leading summer weather-related killer in Colorado. Hikers and climbers in the mountains of Pitkin and Eagle Counties who are caught in lightning storms are in danc but so are children at play in open areas. 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. Late spring and summer thunderstorms can appear quickly and depart rapidly, while leaving behind evidence of their brief existence. Heavy rains can trigger another hazard, flash flooding, which washes out roads and disrupts transportation routes. Lightning often sparks isolated fires, or "hot spots", that leave firefighters scrambling to contain before they spread. Hailstorms from the storms can damage structures and property in the area. Notwithstanding the comparative frequency of lightning strikes in Colorado, Pitkin and Eagle Counties are not considered high risk areas as are sections of El Paso and Latimer Counties, or even areas at moderate risk such as sections of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Douglas, Elbert, Fremont, Jefferson, La Plata, Las Animas, Lincoln, Mesa, Moffat, Montezuma, Park, Pueblo, Rio Blanco, Routt and Weld Counties. According to the National Weather Service, Pitkin County experienced three lightning-related deaths and two injuries from 1980-2003, while Eagle County experienced two deaths and nine injuries during the same period. June l, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado ['RE D!SASTER AIL HAZARDS ,!iTiGATI©N Pi EARTHQUAKE An earthquake is the motion or trembling of the ground produced by a sudden displacement of rock in the Earth's crust. Earthquakes often occur as the result of crustal strain, volcano activity, landslides, or the collapse of caverns, and they can affect hundreds of thousands of square miles, cause damage to property measured in the tens of billions of dollars, result in loss of life and injury to hundreds of thousands of persons and cause major social and economic disruptions. According to Colorado's Department of Emergency Management, the state's historical earthquake record is relatively short, which makes it difficult to predict accurately the timing or location of future damaging earthquake activity. Pitkin County has had some detectable earthquake activities over the years. One of the more significant occurred on September 17, 1880 when Aspen experienced an earthquake of significant magnitude and intensity, estimated to be at least five on the Richter Scale. Tremors were felt by all and some slight damage to structures was experienced in the affected area. Other earthquakes or tremors have been felt in the area over the ensuing years, including several in 1986. A very minor one of magnitude 2.9 on April 10 was located just southwest of Aspen and caused tremors at Basalt, Snowmass Village and was also felt in the Aspen area. Another minor quake occurred on May 9 about 25 miles southwest of Aspen but was felt in the Aspen area. This series of small earthquakes continued during August and September and were located about 8 miles northwest of Crested Butte and about 15.5 miles southwest of Aspen. During August, 14 earthquakes were located in the area and many were felt in the Aspen-Snowmass Village-Crested Butte-Redstone area. A quake on August 17 was also felt at Carbondale. A magnitude 3.5 occurred on September 3 about 8 miles northwest of Crested Butte and notable tremors were detected at Aspen, Crested Butte and Gunnison. Additionally, small but.noticeable quakes have been felt in the Aspen area at various times in 1987 and :L991. Eagle County is not without its earthq~ magnitude have been recorded in Eagle County, including one in Gilman in 1957. The western part of Colorado experienced four earthquakes during September and October of 1990. The first, on September 12, had a magnitude of 3.0 and was located about 25 miles southwest of Fraser near Frisco and Vail. Moderately significant effects were produced at Vail, Frisco and Minturn, and the quake was also felt at Avon, Dillon, Copper Mountain and Silverthorne. The County is located over several faults, and the occurrence of movement could cause significant damage. too. Several earthcj, uakes of small PRE DISASTER ALL HAZARDS rqliJS-AT ON PLA"i DI'SEASE OUTBREAK (SUCH AS WEST NILE VI'RUS) The epidemic hazard for humans in the Pitkin-Eagle Counties area may be considered somewhat elevated relative to other communities in the region due to the large annual influx of visitors from around the world, many of whom travel frequently and widely. Fortunately, there has been no major disease outbreak in the area in recent memory. Further, the county and municipalities have implemented contingency plans and protocols to enable rapid response to, and control, outbreaks if identified. Data were not available to estimate losses associated with the epidemic hazard for humans in the Pitkin-Eagle Counties area; however, all persons who reside in the a~ea are theoretically at some risk of developing a disease in the event that an outbreak occurs. Damages and losses that might accompany the epidemic hazard as related to human disease outbreak are primarily limited to effects on human populations and health and would not usually affect structures, utilities or transportation. Impacts on public health and safety facilities could occur, but some structures, furnishings and belongings that come into contact with a diseased person may need to be destroyed should these resources be considered infectious. Primary damages or losses associated with an outbreak or outbreaks could include economic losses associated with work absences or a decrease in productivity due to disease; human losses associated with disease and fatality in the community, adverse impacts on hospitals and other health care facilities and staff, and the fear and anxiety associated with a severe outbreak. URBAN FIRE (ACCIDENTAL) Another hazard profiled by the Pitkin-Eagle team was urban fires. Major structural fires can have a severe impact on a community. In addition to inventory loss and damage, which can be complete, structural fires can cause serious injury and death, as well as place strain on public safety infrastructure such as fire departments, hospitals, power and water supplies. A major concern in some areas of the Pitkin- Eagle Counties area is the availability of fire suppression equipment and infrastructure (e.g., fire hydrants and water sources) to rural populations. Because the Urban Fire was not deemed a priority hazard for this planning effort, data regarding the construction characteristics of structures in the area, such as primary building materials used (e.g., wood vs. brick, fire detection equipment, age, etc.), proximity to forested areas and availability of fire suppression infrastructure was not identified for this evaluation. Based on available information, all structures in the study area are at some risk of being destroyed or seriously damaged by a fire. Buildings constructed of wood are generally more likely to burn down than buildings constructed with bricks or concrete. While it is not possible to predict when and where a fire will start, the area's fire departments are well-equipped and prepared to respond to fires as they arise. Urban fires occur occasionally in the study area, and while the effects are localized, impact can sometimes be severe. Area problems that exacerbate the urban fire hazard include the fact that many homes and other structures in the area are isolated from emergency services. Although damages to individual buildings and other structures can be potentially high and complete - and capable of causing death and injury - losses and impacts to the structures, critical facilities and utilities would generally be local and short in duration. VOLCANZC ERUPT]'ON More than 75 percent of the Earth's surface above and below sea level, including the seafloors and some mountains, originated from volcanic eruption. Emissions from these volcanoes formed the Earth's oceans and atmosphere, and volcanoes can also cause tsunamis, earthquakes and dangerous flooding. A volcano is a vent in the Earth's crust that emits molten rock and steam. Volcanoes are relatively site specific, but the molten rock, steam and other gases they release can have an impact on much larger areas. Lateral blasts are volcanic explosions that are directed sideways, and can propel large pieces of rock at very high speeds for several miles. These explosions can kill by impact, burial, or heat and may have enough force to knock down entire forests. The majority of deaths attributed to the Mount St. Helens volcano were a result of lateral blast and tree blow-down. There are more than 500 active volcanoes in the world, more than half of which are part of the "Ring of Fire," a region that encircles the Pacific Ocean. More than 50 volcanoes in the United States have erupted one or more times in the past 200 years. The most volcanically active regions of the nation are in Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon and Washington. While the danger area around a volcano typically covers approximately a 20-mile radius, some danger may exist up to 100 miles away. Although hot springs exist in and around the Counties, Colorado is not deemed to be in direct danger from the effects of any of today's active volcanoes. This is not to say that the Pitkin-Eagle Counties' region is completely without risk from this natural hazard. The Dotsero volcano, or Dotsero crater as it is sometimes known, is now described as a pile of ash and reddened soil located on the east end of Glenwood Canyon near the town of Dotsero. Approximately four thousand years ago however, the volcano erupted and left its imprint on the surrounding area. Dotsero is a "maar," or explosive volcano and it produced "lahars," which are mudflows of water and volcanic ash that traveled about one and a half miles downstream of the volcano and caused the flow of the Eagle River to be diverted to the south side of the valley. Such mudflows can be quite damaging. For instance, the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 caused flows that dammed a river and extensively damaged buildings in the vicinity. Volcanic flow from the Dotsero crater is visible on the south side of 1-70 and the crater itself is north of the interstate, above a trailer park. The US Geological Survey (USGS) recently evaluated volcanic activity potential across the country for the first time many years, and rated Dotsero as a moderate threat for its potential to hurl volcanic ash into the skies at such an altitude as to create a threat to airplanes flying through the heavily trafficked area. While the threat of such an eruption of Dotsero is not deemed imminent, perhaps not even in several lifetimes, the USGS has indicated that scientists believe that any volcano which has been active in the last 10,000 years could become active again. Notwithstanding this sober assessment, the risk of volcanic activity is rated Iow for the Pitkin-Eagle Counties' area. ASTERO]D/COI~IET ]HPACT Residents and non-residents alike enjoy the vast open areas and the beautiful, starry night skies of Pitkin and Eagle Counties. The absence of the light pollution encountered in other less pristine locations and elsewhere along the Colorado Front Range makes the viewing of meteors a commonplace occurrence. Several citizens who participated in this project's Public Input meeting and Public Survey expressed concern that the area was prone to impacts from inter-terrestrial objects, but no historical evidence was found of damage or injury due to impacts from such objects. That doesn't mean that such a hazard doesn't exist, especially in light of recent findings that revealed a new, "near-Earth object", known as "2004 MN.". This recent discover,/ caused astronomers to refine their initial calculations from one chance in 170 to one in 38 that a 1,000 foot wide stone object, acting like a missile, will hit the earth as soon as April, 2029. Subsequent calculations indicate that the asteroid will miss the earth, but only by between 15,000 to 25,000 miles, and highlight the notion that such an event is perhaps more inevitable than previously thought. Asteroid 2004 MN4 is considered by experts to be a "regional" hazard, one that is big enough to flatten an area the size of Texas or some European countries with an impact equivalent to 10,000 megatons of dynamite, which is more than all the nuclear weapons in the world. Some scientists also state that even if the asteroid misses the earth in 2029, its gravitational effects on the Earth may be such that it develops an "orbit match up" with our planet that brings it close again in the years 2034 through 2038, and even later. Despite the discovery of 2004 i~1N4 and the emerging evidence of the future likelihood of a cataclysmic impact with Earth, there are no credible forecasts of immediate impact to the planning area. Furthermore, no mitigation strategies exist today that Pitkin and Eagle Counties could undertake on their own. Although a certain measure of fatalism is inherent with this conclusion, it is for those very reasons that this hazard is not considered significant to this planning team. HUMAN-CAUSED HAZARDS FEHA considers "manmade" hazards (referred to in this document as "human- caused) to be technological hazards and terrorism. These are distinguished from natural hazards because they generally originate from human activity. In contrast, while the risks presented by natural hazards may be increased or decreased as a result of human activity, they are not inherently human-induced. The term "technological hazards" refers to the origins of incidents that can arise from human activities such as the manufacture, transportation, storage and use of hazardous materials. To distinguish from intentionally-caused or terrorist events, this definition assumes that technological emergencies are accidental and their consequences unintended. The term "terrorism" refers to intentional, criminal, malicious acts designed to further a political or social agenda. Human-caused hazards reviewed pursuant to this plan run the gamut from potentially catastrophic Weapons of I~lass Destruction events threatened by international terrorists to widespread flooding caused unintentionally to hazardous materials spills to prison breaks. Public and professional participants in this project did not rank terrorism events as very likely and ranked HAZMAT and human-caused flooding events as having a greater probability of occurrence. Despite terrorism's lower rating, both Pitkin and Eagle Counties offer well-known, high profile events and venues, and the possibility of them being the site of a terrorist event has not been minimized. Potential Human-Caused hazards that were considered by the planning team are discussed in the following section. TERRORZSF,I - TNTERNATI'ONAL AND DOMESTZC Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." When terrorism strikes, victim communities may receive assistance from State and Federal agencies operating within the existing Integrated Emergency Management System. FENA is the lead Federal agency for supporting State and local response to the consequences of terrorist attacks. Terrorism is often categorized as "international" or "domestic", and this distinction refers not to where the terrorist act takes place but rather to the origin of the individuals or groups responsible. For example, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was an act of domestic terrorism, whereas the attacks of September 2001 were international in nature. For the purposes of consequence management, the origin of the terrorist is less important than the results of the attack on life and property; thus, the distinction between domestic and international terrorism is not as relevant for the purposes of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery than understanding the destruction such groups can cause. While the list of confirmed terrorism-related events in Colorado is not long, nonetheless Eagle County was the site of an act of domestic terrorism committed by the eco-terrorist group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) at the Vail Ski Resort. In October, 1998, three buildings and portions of four chair lifts were destroyed by fire and damages with a value of approximately $:1.2 million were incurred. In a letter sent to news-media outlets, ELF claimed responsibility for the arson "...to stop the destruction of natural habitat and the exploitation of the environment." It stated the Vail expansion plans would "...ruin the last, best lynx habitat in the state. Putting profits ahead of Colorado's wild!ire will not be tolerated. This action is just a warning. We will be back if this greedy corporation continues to trespass into wild and unroaded areas." Aftermath of Eco-Terrorism, Vail, 1998 While the threat advanced in the letter remains unfulfilled more than six years later, those responsible for the fires remain at large and have demonstrated their willingness and ability to strike at economic interests that do not measure up to their rigid notions of acceptable growth. On Narch 28, 2005, an individual caused a major structure fire in a residential building in the City of Aspen. Evidence showed that the individual tampered with natural gas lines, and the resulting fire displaced nearby residents. The quality of living and desirable lifestyle offered by the communities of Pitkin and Eagle Counties make them a highly attractive area to live or retire for many of today's "baby boomer" generation, among others. As a result of their desirability, rural qualities, high profile and patterns of growth, these counties will remain an attractive target in the coming years to fringe elements such as eco-terrorists. A~RPLANE CRASHES Periodic plane crashes are an unfortunate fact of life in mountain regions. Unpredictable, sometimes violent weather and rugged terrain often create a hazard for air travelers, especially those traveling in smaller craft. Pitkin County's recent history reflects a number of aviation incidents, some fatal, and many of which are concentrated around the county's airport. Aspen-Pitkin County / Sardy Field has a well-deserved reputation for demanding the best of pilots. Surrounding mountains rise more than 3,000 ft above the single 7,000-ft runway 15/33 and the airport's Web site has an extensive list of recommendations related to operations in and out of the airport. Between December, 1982 and August, 2004, Federal Aviation Administration statistics revealed a total of 24 accidents had occurred at Sardy Field, including five that involved a total of 30 fatalities. The most recent occurred on March 29, 2001, when a charter plane carrying 15 passengers and three crew members crashed into a hillside near Aspen as it attempted to land at Sardy Field, and all onboard were killed. There was heavy snow and fog in the area at the time of the crash. This accident was the second for the plane's corporate owner at Aspen. Another of the company's planes carrying actress Sally Field and three members of her family aborted its takeoff run after a rolling takeoff start and hit three parked aircraft in October 1988. Two occupants suffered minor injuries. The NTSB attributed the accident to pilot error. Another fatal turbine aircraft accident at the airport happened in April 1993, when a Eurocopter SA 316B crashed, killing three. The last fatal corporate jet accident involved a Lear-jet 35A in February 1991 in which three people were killed. According to Federal Aviation Administration records, Eagle County Regional Airport has been the scene of seven accidents in the 19 years between December, 1983 and December, 2002. Two of these accidents resulted in fatalities. On 3uly 29, 1991, an resulted in the death of the pilot when, immediately following takeoff, he attempted a right turn followed by an abrupt left turn to a steep bank angle. The failure to maintain adequate airspeed while executing these maneuvers on takeoff caused the aircraft to crash. On March 27, 1987, another crash resulted in three fatalities when a Lear-jet struck an 8022 feet high mountaintop while on a circling nighttime approach to runway 07 at Eagle County Regional Airport. The crew may have been misled by the approach charts which did not accurately depict terrain obstructions within the 5-mile radius of the airport. .1AIL/PRISON ESCAPE Although Pitkin and Eagle do not have a Department of Corrections facility located within their respective jurisdictions, the Rifle Correctional Center (RCC), a Level ! PhtE DiSASZEI-~ AiL HAZARDS ,~ 7/GAF!OI~ r Ax, minimum security facility is located just across county lines in Garfield County. This facility should house prisoners only of the lowest classification, or security risk, levels and has a maximum bed capacity of 192. During the four calendar years from 2000- 2003, the RCC reported one inmate escape, and that occurred in 2001. The problems and crimes associated with rapid growth in Eagle County over the past few decades have, not surprisingly, created a demand for increased law enforcement services. To meet some of these needs, a justice center was built in 1986 to replace the original jail, which had a six prisoner capacity. The facility houses the Sheriff's Office, the Courts and a forty-six bed jail with a modern security system. The functions undertaken at the justice center include: record-keeping, security and inmate control, court services, meals, booking, laundry, medical and dental services, counseling, visitation, recreation and work programs and other services mandated by the court. This was the first major building project by Eagle County citizens since 1932, and it was designed to help meet the demands of a growing community. Likewise, in Pitkin County, the Sheriff's Office has the responsibility for maintaining the jail. As in Eagle County, Pitkin County constructed a new jail in the mid-1980's. Although finding examples of Pitkin County jail breaks largely proved fruitless, the notorious serial killer Ted Bundy left his mark upon the County. In :~977, Bundy had been transported to the Pitkin County courthouse in preparation for his hearing in his Colorado murder trial. During a court recess, Bundy was allowed to visit the courthouse's law library, where he jumped from a second story window and escaped. He was recaptured in the area a week later. However, while in jail awaiting the start of his trial, Bundy escaped again. He had managed to acquire a hacksaw and, over time, sawed a square hole in the ceiling of his cell. On the night of December 30, 1977, Bundy climbed out of the hole and managed to reach the main hallway. Since the jailer was out for the evening, Bundy was able to walk out the jail's front door, steal a car in the parking lot, and drive off into the night. He made his way to Florida where he killed again three more times before being caught, tried and, finally, executed. IVlore recently, Roberto Feliciano and Devin Sayyae escaped from the Pitkin County jail in .lune, 2003. The escapees' freedom was short-lived however and they were arrested soon thereafter in Boulder, less than 48 hours after they slipped under a fence in the jail's exercise yard. The escape led to a reevaluation of the jail's security according to the Aspen Times. Although drug use, especially the use of cocaine, has been notorious in Pitkin County over the years, a i'4ay 1st Denver Post news article raises the specter of an increase in the problem for the area, and indicates that four deaths have been blamed on cocaine abuse in Pitkin County in the first four months of 2005 alone. The article quotes the county coroner as estimating that five or six of his 30 annual cases are cocaine-related, but that the figure has remained steady for about a decade. While the article is leaves unanswered the question of whether cocaine abuse is on the rise in Pitkin County, a reactive shift in the policy of the Sheriff's Department from one of primarily education and awareness to stronger enforcement policies could conceivably strain the capacity of the existing jail facility and require future potential mitigation actions. CZVZL DZSTURBANCE Potential losses and damages associated with civil disturbances have typically been associated with looting, rioting, destruction of property, vandalism and infliction of injuries. Historically, most major episodes of civil disturbance that have resulted in death, injury or the destruction of property have occurred in large cities with major socioeconomic problems and social justice issues. College campuses and surrounding areas are sometimes the focal point of protests or bad behavior, such as that associated with parties or sporting events. In Colorado, the periodic riots on the "hill" in Boulder come to mind. Annual or occasional events such as music festivals or rock concerts attended by large gatherings of young people create a venue for spontaneous civil disturbances, but predictive data do not exist to forecast accurately such events, and law enforcement must rely on experience, observation and human intelligence sources to glean such information in advance of the incident. Local officials may have information regarding issues of concern in the County that could result in future protests or uprisings. The worldwide prominence and affluence of resort towns like Aspen and Vail make them potential targets for certain kinds of attention-seeking protesters, and both Counties have high-profile residents and prominent visitors who could be targets of protest for a variety of reasons. But social and political activists and extremists in most environmental and animal rights movements, as an example, frequently operate under the cloak of anonymity rather than in traditional protest venues. Such individuals or groups probably pose a greater threat as domestic terrorists or arsonists than as catalysts for civil disturbance. FLOOD DUE TO HI'GH FLOW EVENT BREACH BY TNTENTZONAL OR INADVERTENT HUMAN 'I'NVOLVEI~IENT Dams have proven to be attractive wartime targets, and they are considered by many to be tempting targets for terrorists. However the terrorist's advantage may well be illusory in this case, because the deliberate destruction of a dam is not at all simple to bring about. Yet the possibility exists that such an act could take place, and it should not be discounted by law enforcement, the community or the dam owner. Human behavior involving simple mistakes, operational mismanagement or unnecessary oversights is an element of dam failure risk and can combine with other hazards to aggravate the possibility of failure. Many different kinds of human behavior can be included in the analysis of the risk to a dam. For instance, various pieces of mechanical equipment, manhole covers and rock riprap are especially susceptible to vandalism and damage. Dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles, in particular, can severely degrade the vegetation on embankments, and worn areas lead to erosion and more serious problems. Some community experts are concerned about the consequences of a major landslide into a water reservoir. Another activity that poses a risk is the tendency for people to settle below dams. The construction of residences, buildings and other structures in the potential flood zone creates new risks, and will probably create increased risks in the future. Notwithstanding these potential perils, the hazard of a human-caused high-flow event is considered Iow by the Pitkin-Eagle Counties' planning team. btl'L'tTARY ACCI'DENT Military accidents of all kinds were another hazard considered by the Pitkin-Eagle team, but little evidence is available to indicate these potential incidents should receive priority treatment. One incident that occurred in the project area and received nationwide happened in April, 1997 in Eagle County, when an Al0 Warthog, flown by Captain Craig Button and carrying four 500-pound bombs, veered off from a training mission in Arizona and was tracked by radar and visual sightings to the vicinity of New York Mountain. Residents near the flight path and crash site reported hearing loud explosions and seeing heavy smoke. The debris of Captain Button's plane was subsequently found on the side of a ~.2,500-foot peak about :~5 miles southwest of Vail. AL the time, rumors ran wild that Captain Button's plane may have been hijacked by terrorists or perhaps willingly turned over to radicals because of the presence of the bombs and the fact that the plane had veered as much as 800 miles off-course in southwestern Colorado. After a lengthy investigation though, the cause of the crash was officially ruled a suicide. Events such as these are spectacular but, thankfully, rare in the Pitkin-Eagle Counties' area, and the planning team accordingly ranked them Iow on their list of area hazards. ARSON Some statistics, derived primarily from the 1990's, suggest that arson is a significant problem in Colorado, with a rate that at the time was the third highest in the country. In an "average" year, according to Uniform Crime Reports data, there will be 1,589 reported arson fires, these fires will destroy $8.8 million in property, and less than 22 percent of these offenses will be solved. In 2002, property losses spiked to more than $25 million, perhaps in part due to the dire fire situation the state found itself in that year. Arson is the single greatest cause of fires in records repositories throughout the United States, and because records centers represent government, they may be targets of deliberate or random violence. In some cases, the arsonist is someone known to the center's staff. According to figures from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), since 1982 there have been 169 arsons and/or bombings of abortion clinics. The FBI considers such incidents not as routine criminal acts, but rather acts of terrorism, and a task force comprised of BATF, the FB], the U.S. Marshals Service and the Department of ~lustice continues an ongoing investigation to determine if a national conspiracy or conspiracies exist. Random acts of arson occur from time to time, and one that recently occurred in Aspen is described below in the section on "Extreme Acts of Violence." Such random acts are difficult to prevent but can be adequately prepared for by law enforcement and emergency officials. Despite the notoriety of the Aspen event, the planning team ranked arson as a Iow risk for both counties. EXTREME ACTS OF VZOLENCE Difficult to predict and hard to mitigate in advance, extreme or random acts of violence can severely impact a community and leave long-lasting effects. During a period in the fall of 2002, Lee I~lalvo, a 17 year old, and .lohn Muhammad, roamed the metropolitan Washington, DC area as snipers and senselessly killed 10 people and wounded several others. The pair terrorized the region for nearly three weeks, while many in the press and public arena, as well as a local citizenry still suffering from the acute shocks of the 9/:~1 attacks, speculated that the snipers were part of a scheme carefully planned and executed by foreign terrorists. Closer to home, during .lune, 2004, an armed man in a well-equipped and specially armored bulldozer exacted a personal vendetta on the town of Granby, in Grand County. During a siege which lasted hours and caused the evacuation of many residents and the closure of town roads, the man fended off numerous attempts by law enforcement officials to end his act of rampage that had been triggered by an adverse zoning decision. In the time before he took his life, the perpetrator destroyed or heavily damaged buildings that included Granby's town hall and library, a bank, the town's newspaper offices, an electric cooperative building, a store, an excavating business, a house owned by the town's former mayor and a concrete plant. More than 200 rounds of ammunition were fired in vain by law enforcement at the man's armored vehicle. One final and even more recent example occurred in Pitkin County. In Aspen during [,larch, 2005, an elderly resident of a senior housing complex, who was facing eviction, set three fires to the 40-unit complex using gasoline as an accelerant. The alleged perpetrator, who had a criminal record, then hanged himself at the scene. The fires, set at 3:30 in the morning, forced the residents into the street in subfreezing temperatures, but no injuries were reported. All the acts described above were either very serious or had the potential to create even more damage and bodily injury. They are unpredictable, but symptomatic of manmade threats facing American society today. Emergency managers everywhere have to be prepared to ask, "What if it happens in my community?" And how does one mitigate against acts so bizarre and well-planned, such as the Granby incident that a novelist might not conceive of them? HAZARDOUS MATERt'ALS - Fi'XED I'NSTALLATZONS Fixed facilities include companies that store hazardous waste at their facility as well as all hazardous waste sites. Fixed-facility hazardous materials events occur within or outside of buildings, but within the facility premises. Also included as fixed-facility events are situations such as offloading of transportation vehicles where an employee of the fixed-facility or transportation company drops a box or punctures a container with a forklift. These differ from hazardous materials transportation events such as releases which are discovered upon offloading at a fixed-facility, but which happened during transportation of the materials. Other examples of fixed-facility events include, but are not limited to, Hazklat problems that occur at industrial sites, farms, schools, private residences, hospitals and others. Figures provided by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment indicate that Pitkin County reported one HazMat event between the years 1993- 1997, and that was at a fixed-facility. During that same period, Eagle County reported 15 events. Nine of those were at fixed-facilities, while the remaining six were transported events. Most ominously, one-third of the HazMat events in Eagle County occurred within a quarter mile of a residential area. One example of a HazMat Fixed event occurred in the Town of Eagle during 2004 when an ammonia leak at Eagle Recreation Center on two separate occasions resulted in the evacuation of the center and several surrounding homes. The reported events from the two counties comprise less than one percent of the total events reported throughout Colorado during the period, but would indicate that the threat to Eagle County is somewhat greater than that posed to Pitkin County. PRE-DiSASTFt7 Al L HAZARDS i, IIi(}ATiON PLAN VEHICLE CRASHES (HUTLI AND SINGLE) The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), in its annual report on mortality, includes automobile crashes under the very general category of Unintentional Injuries. Fatalities due to motor vehicle traffic crashes comprise a significant proportion of all fatalities due to unintentional injuries, especially at younger ages. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Colorado suffered 632 of the nation's total of 42,643 traffic fatalities in 2003, and Pitkin and Eagle Counties were not exempt from this all too familiar experience. Total Total Total property Auto-related Total Injuries fatalities damage incidents Pitkln 2002 and 2003 139 5 375 519 Eagle 2002 and 2003 505 20 1,553 2,078 Combined Totals 644 25 1,928 2,597 More recent and detailed statistics for Pitkin and Eagle Counties have been updated by the Colorado State Patrol. These provide an insight not only into the number of crashes, injuries, fatalities and property damage, but also gives a glimpse into causes and some of the more hazardous roads in each county. NOTE: Statistics in this section are based on vehicle crashes within the Counties investigated by the Colorado State Patrol. Cashes for Pitkin County 01/01/04 to 12/31/04: Total Alcohol Percentage related of total Fatal Crash 3 0 0.0% ZnJury Crash 60 11 18.3% Property 106 2 1.9% Damage Top 3 Causal Factors for the Pitkin County Crashes (includes property damage) Rank Cause No. of Crashes Percentage of All Reported # I Exceeding safe 34 20.1% speed # 2 Tnattentive to 3! 18.3% driving] # 3 Animal Caused 22 13.0% Considering just fatal and injury vehicle crashes in Pitkin, the snapshot for 2000- 2004 is: Location Total Crashes Fatalities / No, #1 Casual #2 Casual #3 Casual of Crashes Factor (No. factor factor of crashes) CO 82 Eagle to Inattentive Exceeded DUI (19) Aspen CL 159 6/5 (29) Safe Speed (25) CO 82 Aspen CL ; Exceeded Lane Tnatteetive (2) to County Line ~.3 2/2 posted speed Violations (2) (2) CO 133 Exceeded tane Inattentive (6) 40 4/3 Safe Speed Violations (n) (6) County Roads Exceeded Inattentive DU! (16) 105 4/4 Safe speed (24) (34) Aspen's Tipsy Taxi is a mitigation strategy implemented to reduce the likelihood of vehicle crashes caused by drunk drivers. As an alternative ride program, it offers free rides home -- to Aspen's residents and visitors alike -- to those who have no other way to avoid driving drunk. Vouchers for the free rides are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week from bar tenders and peace officers. The program has operated without interruption since December, 1983. According to a report published in October, 2002 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: "Examination of crash data indicated that nighttime, injury and fatal crashes all declined after implementation of Tipsy Taxi. Injury crashes decreased by 15% in Pitkin County after implementation of Tipsy Taxi, and there was no reduction of injury crashes in the comparison counties. The fact that nighttime and fatal crashes declined coincident with the implementation of the Tipsy Taxi program and that injury crashes declined significantly gives credence to the proposition that this ride service program [mitigation strategy] has served to help reduce alcohol-related crashes." (Bracketed text added for emphasis.) 8 Fatal Vehicl® Crashes ? /~ Aspen and Pit, In County  Alcohol or Drugs present in At-Fault DHver 1980 - 2004 All accidents for Eagle County, as reported by the Colorado State Patrol, during the annual period ending December 31, 2004: Total Alcohol Per~entage related of total Fatal Crash 5 0 0.0% [nJury Crash 237 36 15.2% Property 750 32 4.3% Damage Top 3 Causal Factors for Eagle County Crashes (includes property damage): Rank I ~ause No. of Crashes Percentage of All Reported '3 Exceeding safe speed 320 32.2% # 2 Animal-Caused ~.31 ~.3.2% Lane Violations ~.09 1:L.0% Looking just at fatal and injury crashes in Eagle, the snapshot for 2000-2004 is reflected in the following table: Location Total Crashes Fatalities / No. #1 Casual #2 Casual #3 Casual of Crashes Factor (No. factor factor of crashes) Exceeded Exceeded Lane Violations CO 131 30 3/3 Safe Speed Posted (5) (10) Speed (5) Exceeded Lane Exceeded Safe Speed Violations posted speed CO 24 53 6/5 (16) (6) Animal (both S) DUI ( 11 ) Exceeded Safe Speed / Lane N/A CO 6 mp 142- 43 1/1 Violations / 159 Inattentive (a, S) DUI (5) Exceeded Left Turn / ' Safe Speed Lane Violations CO 6 mp 159- 25 0 (4) / 163 Following too close (all 2) Right of way Following too Left Turn (15) C01746 rnp 163- 114 2/2 (25) Close (20) Exceeded Lane Asleep (11) 1-70 mp 130- 91 7/6 Safe Speed Violations 147 (26) (16) Exceeded Lane Inattentive 1-70 mp 147- 202 2/2 Safe Speed Violations (20) 163 (97) Lane Exceeded Inattentive (4) 1-70 mp 163- 47 0 Violations Safe Speed 170 (12) (11) Exceeded Lane Safe Speed Violations / 1-70 mp 170- 53 1/1 N/A 172 (25) DUI (Both 6) While vehicle crashes are not considered a natural hazard, nature's contribution to the problem cannot be overlooked. A combination of typically severe Colorado mountain winter weather, topography and wildlife habits has melded with the characteristics of the area's roads to cause crashes to be ranked as a hazard for the area. The most severely affected of the two counties is Eagle as evidenced by the statistics. The 3:1 population ratio of Eagle County compared to Pitkin County is not the sole reason for the great disparity in the figures reported above. HAZARDS RISK BY 3URISDICTION Although these prioritized hazards affect all jurisdictions within the planning area, hazard risk and potential impact varies by jurisdiction. Impact from hazards for the jurisdictions participating in this plan is estimated in the Risk Assessment section of this Plan. Risk Assessment Best practices and guidance from the DNIA 2000 prescribes that multi-jurisdictional planning areas, such as conducted by Pitkin and Eagle Counties, consider risk priorities and potential losses for the region as a whole. Risks related to each jurisdiction should also be assessed for vulnerabilities and loss potential specific for those jurisdictions. The Counties conformed to this guidance by conducting the following risk assessment activities to establish risk potential and hazard impact within the planning areas: · Public Risk Assessment Input · Identification of Critical Infrastructure · Risk Assessment · Risk of hazard impact by participating jurisdiction The Counties Used the risk assessment activities discussed in this section to identify hazards that pose high risks to the Counties. The planning team determined that these hazards justify mitigation planning and are, therefore, the focus of the mitigation actions described in this PDMP: · Wildfire · Winter storm · Transported hazardous material (transported HazHat) · Avalanche · Landslide, including rockslide and rock fall · Seasonal / flash flooding It is anticipated that future versions of the PDMP will not only refine the risk assessment for these hazards, but it may encompass further analysis and planning for additional hazards not prioritized in this plan. PUBLi'C RZSK ASSESSt4ENT I'NPUT Public comment was collected through hardcopy questionnaires and web-based surveys to increase the potential for public participation. As part of this survey process, the planning team also solicited input from professionals in emergency management, fire services, medical and health services, law enforcement, planning, education, airport management, government administration, community development, transportation, utilities and others in public and private sectors. The community surveys were conducted according to this general methodology: Web-based and conventional survey mediums were used, including: 1) Survey population was identified as: a. Community residents b. Emergency responders c. Certain government officials and administrative staff d. Those with relevant subject matter expertise, such as those in planning, education, airport management, community development, veterinary services, utilities and the elements of the private sector :2) Survey notices were issued using: a. Newspaper advertisements b. Public noticing in libraries and selected government offices c. Individual invitations to groups such as fire departments, law enforcement and others d. Postings on the Counties' websites a. Forms with drop boxes at various public places such as library, government offices, community centers, churches. b. Web-based surveys through the websites linked to each County home page 4) Survey questions were developed for general community members and those in emergency services 5) The surveys were conducted to allow ample time for response. a. The survey launch is August 17, 2004 b. The survey concluded on October 30, 2004. 6) Data collection and reporting a. No personal data was acquired through this survey. Respondent names were requested on an volunteer basis only for survey validation b. Survey results were compiled and analyzed by the planning team The intent of the survey was to sample a broad set of stakeholders within the resources available. Although this survey was not conducted to scientific standards, the responses from community members were generally consistent with those from known experts and, therefore, considered valid input. The public survey results are summarized in Appendix C. RTSK ASSESSMENT The planning team developed and implemented a risk assessment to identify potential hazards and their impact on the Counties and its critical infrastructure and services. This approach was intended to collect specific input from emergency professionals and others with relevant expertise on hazards affecting the planning area. Templates were created as illustrated in Appendix E to help project participants rank hazard impact according to criteria shown in the following table. Variable Criteria Scoring Metric % Chance in any given year is the number of hazard events over :LO0 yrs. For instance, Geographic 5% - :L event in 20 years A extent of the 20% - approx.2 events in :LO yrs time hazard's impact :L00% - one event in any year. 200% - two events in any year What are loss expectations for property and life? What is the severity of the hazard? 5 - Catastrophic: more than 50% area / population/ Potential infrastructure affected, B Nagnitude 4 - Critical: 25% - 50%, 3 - IVledium: :L0°/o - 25%, 2 - Low: less than :L0% affected :L - Negligible :L - Low (Less than 5% of affected area population or maximum of 5 people affected) Impact to 2 - Moderate (between 5% - :L0% of affected area C Health and population or maximum of 20 people affected) Safety 3 - High (between :L0% - 20% affected or maximum of 50 people affected) 4 - Extreme (more than 20% or over 50 people affected) :L - Low (Less than 5% of personal property/ agriculture land in hazard area impacted) Impact to 2 - Moderate (Between 5%-:L0% impacted) D Property 3 High (between 10%-20% affected) 4 Extreme (more than 20% affected) Losses include direct revenues and opportunity losses such as downtime. I Low (Less than $10,000 losses on local Economic economy/businesses) E Impact 2 - Moderate (more than $10,000 but less than $50,000) 3 - High (expected losses more than $50,000 and less than $200,000) 4 - Extreme (expected losses more than $200,000) i - Low (Less than 5% of personal property/ agriculture Impact to land in hazard area impacted) Infrastructure 2 - Moderate (Between 5%-10% impacted) F and Critical Facilities 3 - High (between 10%-20% affected) 4 - Extreme (more than 20% affected) i - Low (less than 5% loss of operational efficacy) 2 - Moderate ( 5% - 10% loss in efficacy) Impact to First 3 - High (10% ~ 20% loss in efficacy) G Responders 4 - Extreme (more than 20% loss of operational effectiveness) These criteria were developed consistent with HAZUS-NH, a multi-jurisdictional risk assessment model endorsed by the Federal Emergency Hanagement Agency (FEMA) and accepted by emergency management planners nationwide. HAZUS-NH is a standardized loss estimation software program designed to determine damage and economic loss potential. Risk assessment scoring was also conducted according to HAZUS-MH using a formula of (based on variables in the above table): Composite Risk Score = (b + c + d + e + f + g) * (a / 100) Using the formula cited above, results of the risk assessment were tabulated to produce a composite risk score, which was used to prioritize hazards for mitigation. The Composite Risk Score is intended to provide a relative indication of risk impact with the planning areas. It is important to note, however, that these scores were but one element used to determine the hazards prioritized for mitigation actions under this plan. The planning team also considered results from the Public Survey and recommendations from experts contributing to the Plan. The Counties consider their respective emergency services professionals and certain experts from the private sector as valuable sources for determining risks from hazards within the planning area. The risk assessment templates were developed to allow a broad set of these professionals and experts to deliver comprehensive input in a standardized manner to produce useful planning results. Ecology and Environment, Inc., a leading environmental engineering firm, provided geospatial statistical modeling support for this plan using the FEl~lA-approved HAZUS-I~IH model. Risk assessment activities mentioned above provided input to the model to augment the standard HAZUS-NH datasets and improve the model results. HAZUS-NH was originally developed to model loss potential from earthquake, hurricane winds and coastal flooding, which are hazards not prioritized by this plan. Because HAZUS does not model all hazards, E&E adapted the HAZUS workflow by using ArcGIS to produce a series of maps that are intended to cartographically display potential hazards. In order to create hazard maps relevant to this Plan, "best available" geospaUal data from both Counties was acquired to create generalized maps for the prioritized hazards, and these maps are shown in Appendix G. The Counties recognize that hazard modeling, such as that supported by HAZUS-MH, is a valuable tool to planning. Although input and data for some of the prioritized hazards is not presently sufficient to produce adequate model results, the Counties intend to acquire or access additional geospatial data in these areas for future updates to this Plan. As a result of these risk assessment activities, the Counties and their participating jurisdictions prioritized these hazards for mitigation planning. Eagle and Pitkin Counties and Participating 3urisdictions Hazard Wildfire Winter Storm Flooding Landslide Avalanche HAZMAT - Transported Pitkin and Eagle Counties completed the risk assessments using processes most effective for their project teams. Pitkin County, under direction from its Emergency Management Coordinator, conducted multiple sessions where project participants reviewed then completed the qualitative risk assessment in workgroup settings. Eagle County participants completed the risk assessment using a combination of interviews and questionnaires facilitated by Eagle's Emergency Management Coordinator. The Counties elected to prioritize Transported Hazardous Material as a hazard for mitigation planning based on recommendations from the Basalt Fire Department Chief supported by input from the public risk assessment contributions. HAZARD RISK BY .1URISDICTION The risk assessment activities conducted as part of this project provided the planning team sufficient information and justification to describe hazard threats to the jurisdictions covered by this plan as shown in the table below. The Counties and participating jurisdictions elected to rank each hazard according to a risk scale defined by: Low - Hazard impact causes minor disruption to critical infrastructure and emergency services. Risks to life or safety are minor, and hazard impact causes little disruption to the Counties. Moderate Hazard impact causes some disruption to critical infrastructure and emergency services, but the likelihood of such disruption directly contributing to personal injury, loss of life or extensive property damage is not significant. High - Hazard impact results in disruption to critical infrastructure and emergency services and contributes to personal injury, fatalities or extensive property damage. This section does not predict the likelihood of a hazard incident, but rather it describes expected impact from the hazard if such incident occurs. 3urlsdiction Flooding City of Aspen Moderate Town of Basalt High Town of Snowrnass Low Village Zmp Wildfire High High High Pltkln County ict from Prioritized Hazards I winter Avalanche Landslide Storm Moderate Moderate High Low Low High Low Moderate High Moderate Low Please Note: The following table is under development for Eagle County and its related participating jurisdictions. 3urlsdlctlon Town of Avon Town of Basalt Town of Eagle Town of Gypsum Town of Minturn Town of Red Cliff Town of Vail Eagle County - Unincorporated Flooding Moderate Eagle County Zmpact from Prioritized Hazards Winter Wildfire Avalanche Landslide Sterm High Moderate High Moderate See Town of BasaJt under Pitkin County above. Moderate ; Moderate High High High Moderate High Moderate High Moderate High High Moderate Moderate High High High High Moderate Moderate High Moderate High High High High High High High High HAZHAT Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate High High The Planning team also considered the potential for the occurrence and future impact from the prioritized hazards. Expert input indicates that probability exists that the prioritized hazards will continue to affect the planning area. And based on population growth projections and anticipated property value increases, it was determined that the future impact potential from these hazards would increase in the absence of effective mitigation actions. HAZARD ZMPACT ON CRTTTCAL TNFRASTRUCTURE The planning team reviewed the Counties' critical infrastructure using the 13 critical infrastructure areas defined by the Department of Homeland Security as a guide. impact from the prioritized hazards was ranked as /ow, moderate or high for the identified critical infrastructures within the Counties. Findings from risk assessment activities were used to determine hazard impact on the critical infrastructure. Notwithstanding hazard impact on critical infrastructure, however, the Counties weighted mitigation actions for hazards affecting life and safety. Due to the potentially sensitive nature of the critical infrastructure inventory, and in keeping with State of Colorado practices for controlling critical infrastructure identification, the Counties monitor access to this information through the Emergency Management Coordinators for each County. This information is available on a need-to-know basis by application to the appropriate Emergency I~anagement Coordinator identified in this Plan. HAZARD VULNERAB[LZTY BASED ON PRO3ECTED LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS Based on land use and population growth projections, over the next 20 years the Counties anticipate continued rapid population growth, particularly along the wildland-urban interface and adjacent to 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 Counties' 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. Hazard Mitigation The risk assessment identified and prioritized these hazards for further mitigation planning: · Wildfire · Winter Storms · Transported hazardous material (transported HazMat) · Avalanche · Landslide, including rockslide and rock fall · Seasonal flooding These hazards were prioritized, in part, by their broad impact on the Counties, including financial impact and the risks to life, safety, critical infrastructure and vital services. The Counties have adopted mitigation strategy guidance from FEMA that suggests a risk-analysis method that uses two general categories for pre-disaster mitigation: · Actions to reduce the frequency and/or severity of hazard events · Actions that reduce the vulnerability of community assets Accordingly, the mitigation actions set forth in this section draw broadly on those concepts and from a collection of respected resources. For example, some of the proposed mitigation actions were suggested by survey and project participants from Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Other potential actions were found during the course of research conducted for the project and are provided for additional analysis and consideration by county officials and interested citizens. f4IT]GATION GOALS AND OB3ECTIVES To serve as a blueprint for the Counties' PDHP and to comply with FEMA guidance from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Final Rule, the Counties identified goals and objectives for mitigation actions. These goals and objectives provide metrics to gauge results of mitigation actions and to guide PDHP updates and improvements. A mitigation goal is a broad guideline that explains what is to be achieved, and it serves as the vision for mitigation actions. Objectives, on the other hand, are specific steps or measurable actions needed to achieve the goals. The planning team considered and developed goals and objectives as part of the mitigation actions, and those goals and objectives are summarized with related proposed mitigation actions below. Goals and associated objectives and mitigation actions are listed in Appendix A and Appendix B of this document. EX1~ST~NG HAZARD f4~TZGATION REPORTS~ STUDIES AND PROGRAMS The Counties have plans in place, studies either completed or in process, and programs underway that identify, assess or mitigate the hazards identified above and others impacting the planning area. These existing actions are summarized in the following tables. Eagle County Existing H=-~-n-rd Mitigation Reports; Studies and Programs .lurisdiction and Lead Mitigation Action Mitigation Relevant Agency Category Hazard(s) Eagle County Community Eagle County Wildfire Plan Property Wildfire Development - Draft Protection Eagle County Wildfire Regulations Eagle County Community Land Use and Zoning Property All hazards Development Protection Town of Basalt Basalt River Master Plan Prevention Flooding Planning Department Colorado Division of Colorado Hazard Mitigation Various All hazards Emergency Management Planf 2004 Eagle County Community Geologic Hazard Property Rockslide / Development Regulations Protection Landslide, Avalanche Eagle County Community Drainage Standards Property Flooding Development Protection Eagle County Community Commercial and Industrial Property HAZMAT- Development Standards Protection Transported Colorado Div. of Emergency Colorado Hazard Mitigation Various All hazards Management Planr 2004 Colorado Division of Northwest Region - All Various All hazards Emergency Management Hazards Response Plan Pitkin County Existing H~?;~rd Mitigation Reports, Studies and Programs 3urisdiction and Lead Mitigation Action Mitigation Relevant Agency Category Hazard(s) Emergency Management Pitkin County Wildfire Plan Natural Wildfire - Draft Resources Protection Emergency Management Conundrum Area Property Wildfire Community Wildfire Protection Protection Plan Pitkin County Community Land Use and Zoning Property All hazards Development Protection Town of Basalt Basalt River Master Plan Property Flooding Protection Collaborative effort between Ruedi Reservoir Table Top Emergency Flooding Colorado Div. of Emergency Exercise, After Action Services Management, Eagle Co. Report, 2004 Emergency Management and Pitkin Co. Emergency Management Colorado Div. of Emergency Colorado Hazard Mitigation Various All hazards Management Plan~ 2004 Colorado Division of Northwest Region - All Various All hazards Emergency Management Hazards Response Plan The planning team recognizes the benefit of incorporating, as appropriate, mitigation actions resulting from the PDMP with current and future hazard mitigation reports, studies, programs, including capital improvement plans, building codes reviews, hazard site reviews and permitting. The Mitigation Update Committee discussed in the Plan Update and Maintenance section of this document will work with the participating jurisdictions to facilitate that coordination PROPOSED M'fTZGATZON ACTXONS The Counties evaluated a broad set of mitigation actions for the prioritized hazards, Mitigation actions for these hazards were categorized into six groups: · Prevention · Property protection · Public education and awareness · Natural resource protection · Emergency services · Structural projects Potential mitigation actions were determined though interviews with public and private sector experts summarized in the table below supported by input from community residents and independent research by the planning team. The below table includes a partial but representative list of sources consulted for potential mitigation actions relevant to the prioritized hazards. Potential Mitigation Action Sources Prioritized Hazard Znterviews and Document Reviews Conducted for Potential Mitigation Actions · Chief, Basalt Fire Department · Pitkin County District Forester, State Forest Service · Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Eagle County · Eagle County District Forester, State Forest Service · Eagle County wildfire regulations Wildfire · Proposed Wildfire Plan, Pitkin County · Proposed Wildfire Plan, Eagle County · 3ack D. Cohen, Research Physical Scientist, USDA Forest · Service, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station · National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) · Director, Road and Bridge, Eagle County Winter Storm · Director, Pitkin County Public Works · U.S. Weather Service · President, Aspen Mountain Rescue Avalanche · Director of Aspen Ski Patrol · Pitkin County Sheriff's Department · Chief, Basalt Fire Department · Deputy Town Manager, Basalt · Director, Road and Bridge, Eagle County Flooding (Seasonal · Chair of Basalt Emergency Mgmt Committee and Flash Floods) · County Engineer, Eagle County · Ruedi Reservoir Table Top Exercise, After Action Report, 2004 · Proposed Basalt River Master Plan · Director, Pitkin County Public Works · Colorado Geological Survey Landslides · Eagle County Supervisor, Colorado Oept. of Transportation · Chief, Carbondale Fire Department HAZMAT - · Director of Safety, Motor Carriers of Colorado Transported · Colorado Dept, of Transportation Domestic and · ]ohn Mencer, F.B.I., Ret. International Terrorism Once collected, mitigation actions were evaluated using the STAPLEE methodology, which is a standard methodology, approved by FEI~IA, that seeks to objectively evaluate mitigation options and ensure those selected are consistent with and complementary to other community goals and objectives The results of the STAPLEE evaluation process produced prioritized mitigation actions for implementation within the planning area. A summary of STAPLEE evaluation criteria is shown in the table below. STAPLEE Mitigation Action Evaluation Criteria Overview Actions are acceptable to the community if they do not adversely affect a particular segment of the population, do not cause unreasonable impact to S -Socia[ lower income people, and if they are compatible with the community's social and cultural values. Actions are technically most effective if the provide long-term reduction of T - Technical losses and have minimal secondary adverse impacts. A - Administrative Proposed actions can have the necessary staffing and funding. Public support for the action is evident and all stakeholders have had an P - Political adequate opportunity to participate in the process. The jurisdiction or agency implementing the action has the legal authority to L - Legal do so. An evaluation of whether or not the proposed action is cost-effective, as E - Economic determined by a cost-benefit review and able to be funded. Verification that the proposed actions do not have an adverse environmental E - Environmental effect, comply with existing environmental laws and are consistent with the jurisdiction's environmental goals. AN example of the STAPLEE analysis tool used by the planning team is shown at Appendix D. The planning team considered the risk analysis, input from all project stakeholders and results of the STAPLEE evaluation to identify the hazard mitigation goals, objectives specific actions to be undertaken by each County and their participating jurisdictions. These goals, objectives and mitigation actions are listed in appendices to this Plan covering the jurisdictions as shown in the following table. Appendix A Appendix B Pitkin County, Colorado Eagle County, Colorado Pitkin County Eagle County City of Aspen Town of Avon Town of Basalt Town of Basalt Snowrnass Village Town of Eagle Town of Gypsum Town of Minturn Town of Red Cliff Town of Vail MITIGATION ACTION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY The mitigation actions identified in Appendices A and B will be implemented under guidance from mitigation work groups for each County and their respective participating jurisdictions. These work groups will be formed under direction of the emergency management coordinators for each County, and they will include public participants from the planning area as well as others representing jurisdictional agencies such as finance, facilities, parks and recreation, fire, law enforcement, planning and others. Budget availability for hazard mitigation is minimal within both Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Recent changes to federal law, however, encourage a more proactive strategy, aod the Counties' mitigation work groups will form the implementation plans to build on the work accomplished in this PDMP and meet that strategy. The planning team has conducted a high level cost / benefit analysis on the mitigation actions listed in Appendices A and B to this Plan. And these mitigation actions have been prioritized (high, medium or Iow) according to this initial analysis as reflected in the appendices. Further review, analysis and implementation planning will occur following adoption of this plan. Counties' mitigation action implementation plans will be formed by the mitigation work groups. Initial activities for these work groups will be to assess each proposed mitigation action in Appendices A and B and complete an implementation plan to include information, some of which is summarized in the following table. Mitigation Zmplementation Planning Prioritized Mitigation Action Jurisdiction(s) covered by the Mitigation Action Mitigation Category (prevention, structural~ etc.) Relevant Hazard(s) addressed by the action Priority (High, Medium~ Low) Estimated Cost for implementation of the mitigation action Potential Funding Sources Cost / Benefit Analysis Results Lead or Responsible Department Implementation Schedule Implementation Status Environmental review for required studies and approvals Plan Maintenance and Adoption PLAN MAINTENANCE The Plan is intended to be a 'living' document that informs stakeholders about hazard mitigation projects and plans undertaken by the Counties and their participating jurisdictions. Pitkin and Eagle Counties recognize the need to regularly review and update the PDMP based on evolving hazards, new mitigation techniques and changes in land use and critical infrastructure within the planning area. This review and update occurs on a schedule that, at a minimum, meets provisions, rules and laws covering hazard mitigation planning. This section provides a general overview of the Counties' PDMP maintenance process. Mitigation Update Committee The Counties have designated those following participants of the Mitigation Update Committee (the Committee). These individuals will guide plan maintenance and update activities, ensure that the information in the Plan is current and disseminate information to stakeholders within their respective jurisdiction. Eagle County .lurisdictJon Hazard Mitigation Update Committee Review Point-of-Contact Schedule Eagle County Emergency Management Coordinator Annually Town of Basalt Town Manager Annually Town of Eagle Town Manager Annually Town of Gypsum Town Manager Annually Town of Minturn Town Manager Annually Town of: Red Cliff Town Manager Annually Town of Vail Town Manager Annually Pitkin County ~lurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Update Committee Review Point-of-Contact Schedule Pitkin County Emergency Management Coordinator Annually City of Aspen City Manager Annually Town of Snowmass Town Manager Annually Village Town of Basalt Town Manager Annually Public Participation in Plan Maintenance Although Committee members represent the participating jurisdictions and have point-of-contact responsibility for PDMP maintenance, the Counties also understand the importance of direct public input to the plan update effort. To facilitate public involvement of the plan maintenance process, the Committee will establish guidelines, some of which may include: Copies of the plan will be made available at certain public libraries and at other public buildings within the Counties. Announcements regarding the location and availability of the plans will be periodically made in local newspapers, at safety council meetings and in other ways deemed appropriate by the hazard mitigation update committees. · Copies of the plan and proposed updates will be posted to the respective County websites along with instructions for public participation in contributing to the maintenance process. · Public meetings will be held prior to adoption of plan updates where citizen comments will be collected, their concerns discussed and ideas shared. · The Committee will incorporate public ideas and comments into the plan maintenance process and adjust the plan as appropriate. Annual Plan Review The Plan will be reviewed by the Committee annually or when: · Determined appropriate by the Update Committee · Significant changes occur within the planning area involving threat impact or potential impact · Changes occur to mitigation actions that are part of the Plan As part of the annual Plan review, the Mitigation Update Committee will follow a process that: · Requests input from project stakeholders not represented on the Update Committee, including members of the public. This input will include information on projects and programs important to mitigation planning. · Makes minor adjustments to the plan to keep mitigation actions in line with approved goals and objectives · Allows for a formal approval process for major changes to the Plan · Makes changes, as appropriate, to the Mitigation Update Committee Plan Review Criteria The Planning team has defined initial criteria for evaluating the Plan, and these criteria will be modified and approved by the Mitigation Update Committee as appropriate. When evaluating the Plan, the Committee will, among other things, assess whether: · Mitigation goals and objectives address current and expected conditions · The nature and magnitude of threats have changed · Current resources are appropriate for implementing the Plan · The mitigation actions underway continue to be compatible with STAPLEE criteria and any other criteria determined relevant by the Update Committee · The maintenance process includes a cross-functional set of participants, including members of the public and representatives of the jurisdictions involved in the Plan · Mitigation actions encounter problems in implementation · I~litigation actions are achieving outcomes as planned · Mitigation actions are coordinated with other planning studies, reports and programs in effect in the Counties and participating jurisdictions The Counties' respective Hazard Mitigation Update committees meet periodically to, among other things, ensure that mitigation actions are incorporated into on-going planning activities. For instance, certain mitigation actions affect the Counties' land use policies, zoning ordinances, capital improvement plans, wildfire plans and river plans. Following PDMP adoption, the update committees will work with agencies and departments within their respective jurisdictions to align mitigation actions in the PDMP to these policies, plans and regulations, some of which are identified earlier in this document. The Counties believe that this process will allow the plan to effectively address the hazard mitigation requirements within the planning area and incorporate input from a broad cross section of stakeholders, including community members. PLAN ADOPTt'ON The Counties and jurisdictions represented by this document will adopt the Plan according to this general process: · Posting of the draft plan with public notice' to allow community members to review and comment on the plan prior to adoption · A first reading as part of the Board of County Commissioners meetings or the Town Council meetings, whichever venue is appropriate · A second reading as part of the Board of County Commissioners meetings or the Town Council meetings, whichever venue is appropriate · Final adoption by the respective jurisdiction with execution by the proper jurisdiction officials The public posting of the draft Plan will occur using an Internet (web) posting along with distribution of the draft to public sites such as libraries, government offices. Announcements of the public postings will be made through local newspapers and using the Counties respective websites. Every five years, the updated plan will be re-submitted for adoption following the general process outlined above. Appendix A - Mitigation Actions for Pitkin County This appendix describes mitigation actions and associated goals and objectives for the prioritized hazards adopted by Pitkin County and the participating jurisdictions within Pitkin County. The hazards identified for mitigation include: · Wildfire · Winter Storms · Transported Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT- Transported) · Avalanche · Landslide · Seasonal / Flash Flooding WI'LDFZRE The planning team has determined that strategies to mitigate wildfire risk within the wildland-urban interface should be consistent with research and guidance promulgated by .]ack D. Cohen, Research Physical Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, and Rocky Mountain Research Station. Mr. Cohen's research indicates that the home and its immediate surroundings principally determine the home ignition potential during severe wildland-urban fires. This research also establishes that fire is an intrinsic and natural ecological process of nearly all North American ecosystems. Together, these understandings form the basis for a compelling argument for a different approach to addressing the wildland- urban fire problem. It argues for residential compatibility with wildland fire, rather than the necessary prevention of fire encroachment on the community. Wildfire Goal Reduce wildfire severity on Pltkin County I Priority Objective 1. Zmprove emergency response capability for wildfire within the planning area Mitigation Action Identify then certify all privately owned bridges with load Medium 1.1 limits to support emergency response Mitigation Action Acquire 4-wheel drive pumper trucks Medium Mitigation Action Have county staff certified by the National Wildfire ~ 1.3 Coordinating Group Objectiue 2 Enhance community policies and procedures as preventive measures to reduce wildfire impact Mitigation Action Adoption of County-wide Wildfire regulations (Pitkin) ~ Mitigation Action Strengthen and formalize oversight and enforcement for Medium 2.2 compliance to land use standards (H.B. 1041) Mitigation Action Develop, implement and promote subdivision wildfire 2.3 protection protocols (Protocols are to be targeted as an Medium alternative to laws.) Hitigation Action Implement code changes so that new developments shall 2.4 have dual ingress / egress to support emergency response Medium and evacuation Objective 3 Reduce the wildfire threat to critical infrastructure, Including ~=!d~qtlal and commercial property Mitigation Action Develop and implement a voluntary wildfire protection Medium 3.1 programs for residents within wildfire urban interface Mitigation Action Develop and implement fuel-reduction projects Medium 3.2 WINTER STORM Winter Storm Minimize the impact of Winter Storms on Pitkln County Priority Goal and participating Jurisdictions within the County Objective I improve emergency response capability for winter ~u,.., r=~pv,,.~ within the planning area Mitigation Action Incorporate GIS layer for Land-Ownership Parcels into Medium 1.1 emergency-response procedures Mitigation Action [dentify and improve bridges within the planning area that ~ 1.2 are inadequate for emergency response Objective 2 [reprove early notification capabilities for Winter SLur,,, events Mitigation Action Establish Storm Ready Programs, adapted for Winter Storms, Medium 2.1 within the Pitkin Eagle planning area Mitigation Action Expand radio coverage within the counties to better support I / 2.2 the All Hazard warning / alert system (NOAA weather alert ~ s stem HAZMAT TRANSPORTED Goal Mitigation 1.1 HAZMAT - Transported Reduce the potential for impact from transported hazardous materials to the public the County participating Jurisdictions Priority improve public ! private response capabilities for hazmat incidents Action Mitigation Action 1.2 Plan and execute Hazmat exercises, such as the airport triennial exercise. Such exercises to include stakeholders ~rivate sector. ~ion Action 2.3 below. Standardize hazardous material equipment carried on fire department trucks throughout the county. Objective 2 Mitigation Action 2.1 Mitigation Action 2.2 Mitigation Action Conduct a survey in selected business parks to identify use, 2.3 storage and transportation of hazardous materials identify and characterize facilities and companies that regularly receive or transport hazardous material Update and validate previously completed assessments of the quantity and frequency for transported petroleum products in ~ed areas within the Counties identify and improve bridges within the planning area that are inadequate for emergency response AVALANCHE Avalanche Reduce the potential for impact on human life and Goal safety and property loss from avalanche hazards Priority within County and participating jurisdictions O_~jective I Zmprove training and public awareness for avalanche mitigation Mitigation Action Expand current public avalanche training sessions 1.1 Mitigation Action Implement advanced avalanche training for public 1.2 participation Mitigation Action Develop web-portal with near real-time localized weather / Medium 1.3 avalanche hazard forecast linked to the Counties' websites Objective 2 Mitigation Action 2.1 Mitigation Action 2.2 Zmprove emergency response capability for avalanche ie~;nsa within hazard areas Provide additional training for emergency response staff (Hountain Rescue) using American Avalanche Training curriculum Organize and fund a committee to evaluate cost / benefit / impact of RECCO technology deployment for location and ~victims Medium O~ctive 3 IZmprove Identification and characterization of avalanche hazards Update mapping of avalanche-prone areas within the Coun~ ~ and participating jurisdictions and incorporate into G[S for i~ ublic distribution ~ ~ Conduct or pr~e studies to identify critical assets and services at risk from avalanche hazards within the County Medium ~lg jurisdictions Mitigation Action 3.1 Mitigation Action 3.2 ROCKSLi'DE / LANDSLIDE Rockslide / Landslide Reduce the rocksllde occurrences and impact potential Goal on human Iffe and safety and critical services within Priority the County and participating ]urledlctlons Objective I Improve emergency response capability for landslide response within hazard areas Mitigation Action [mplement warning and alert systems with specific ~ :1. :1 coverage of the hazard areas Mitigation Action [mplement and publicize emergency shelters for use Medium :1.2 immediately following a landslide event Mitigation Action Prioritize wildfire mitigation in Landslide hazard areas to 1.3 improve secondary impact of Landslide following a wildfire Medium Mitigation Action Verify, and provide as justified, dual ingress / egress in ~ 1.4 landslide hazard areas to support emergency response and __ evacuation Objective 2 Enhance community policies and regulations as measures to reduce Mitigation Action 2.1 impact from landslide Review and implement or update as necessary Land Use Regulations relevant to Rock, slide / Landslide Medium Mitigation Action Review and implement or update as necessary Building and Medium 2.2 Grading codes in the hazard areas Mitigation Action Implement enhanced oversight and enforcement of HB 104~. Medium 2.3 Mitigation Action [mplement 'overlay zoning' provisions to minimize Medium 2.4 development in high risk areas Mitigation Action Establish Special planning Districts for Landslide hazard areas Medium 2.5 Mitigation Action Develop public awareness programs to notify stakeholders in 2.6 hazard areas of policies and regulations in the areas Mitigation Action Expand use of risk assessment to guide future land use and 2.7 policy formation ~e 3 Zmprove identification and characterization of landslide hazards Mitigation Action Improve mapping in the hazard areas and incorporate results ~t.l into GIS Action Medium Mitigation 3.2 Mitigation Action 3.3 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 Create or update as necessa~/ maps useful planning and public, including landslide inventories, landslide-susceptibility maps and landslide hazard maps Medium Objective 4 ~ation Action 4.1 I Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk landslide hazard ~igh~edium risk landslide hazard areas and I evaluate and prioritize for physical mitigation systems, I Specifically target mitigation actions for potential impact to ~Hotel. SEASONAL / FLASH FLOODING Se;~;onal / Flash Flooding Reduce seasonal / flash flooding Impact In the Basalt Priority Goal I area ~e I Implement Roaring Fork River Stabilization Plan Mitigation Action Relocate the Pan and Fork and Roaring Fork Mobile Home 1.1 Parks Mitigation Action Construct Upper Bypass Bridge Flood Control [mprovementa 1.2 Mitigation Action Remove Emma Bridge, construct flood mitigation 1.3 improvements in sub-reach B Mitigation Action Construct Midland Avenue Bridge flood control improvements 1.4 and stabilization improvements in sub-reach Mitigation Action Construct bio-engineering improvements in sub-reach A-C as 1.5 designed by the US Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Action Construct sub-reach D stabilization improvements 1.6 Mitigation Action Install bio-engineermg ~mprevements in sub-reach D 1.7 Goal 2 Seasonal / Flash Flooding Reduce the potential for Impact on life and safety and property loss from seasonal / flash flooding within the Priority ~ounties and participating Jurisdictions Objective :L 1'reprove early warning and alerting systems for seasonal flooding within the hazard areas Mitigation Action Implementation of an early warning / alert system on the 1.1 Frying Pan River and the Crystal Valley River. Action Review and improve as appropriate public awareness and alerting functions using media outlets, including TV Channel ~d All Hazards Radio networks C Mitigation 2.2 Mitigation Action 1.3 Implementation of a secure, reliable early warning broadcast system in conjunction with a Storm Ready program Medium Objective 2 improve emergency response and evacuation capability during flood events within hazard areas Mitigation Action Establish conservative metrics and guidelines to trigger 2.1 evacuation of hazard prone areas O__b_/'ective 3 Improve Identification and characterization of flooding hazards Mitigation Action Update mapping of flood-prone areas and incorporate into 3.1 GIS Action Medium Mitigation 3.2 Conduct or promote studies to identify critical assets and services at risk from seasonal flooding Appendix B - Mitigation Actions for Eagle County This appendix describes mitigation actions and associated goals and objectives for the prioritized hazards adopted by Eagle County and the participating jurisdictions within the County. The hazards identified for mitigation include: · Wildfire · Winter Storms · Transported Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT- Transported) · Avalanche · Landslide · Seasonal / Flash Flooding WI'LDFI'RE Wildfire Goal Reduce wildfire severity in Eagle County Priority Objective I Enhance community policies and procedures as preventive measures to reduce wildfire impact Mitigation1.1 Action ~ Mitigation Action 1.2~ WZNTER STORM Goal Objective I Winter Storm Reduce tho community impacts of winter storms Priority Enhance abilities to provide for continuity of operations during winter storms Mitigation Action -~vide back up electrical power supply for critical 1.1 infrastructures Objective 2 Zmprove emer~lency response capability for winter storm Mitigation Action plan for areas to provide snow removal without compromising Medium 2.:1. road w dths ~ective 3 Mitigation 3,1 Action ~ ~~ ~lfft~e...r.~st~.orm events ~ ~eather radio coverage to ~ County Mitigation Action 3.2 TRANSPORTED HAZARDOUS MATERZALS Transported Hazardous Materials Reduce impact from hazardous materials Priority Goal incidents Ob~ve I Zmprove response capabilities for hazmat Incidents Mitigation Action Plan and execute hazmat exercises on an annual ~ 1.1 basis. Include hazmat component with other exercises Mitigation Action Improve hazmat response capabilities through 1.2 identification of relevant training, equipment and Medium staffing AVALANCHE Goal ~ective 1 Mitigation Action 1.1 ~ation Action 1.2 Avalanche safety and property loss from avalanche hazards Priority Reduce the potential for impact on human life, within the County [mprove training and public awareness for avalanche mltig&t;on Expand current public avalanche training sessions ~dd real time localized avalanche hazard information to the County's website Objective 2 l'mprove emergency response capability for avalanche response Mitigation Provide additional training for emergency response Medium personne Action 2,1 Objective 3 ~tion tImprove identification and characterization of avalanche hazards Update mapping of avalanche prone areas within the County and incorporate into GIS for public access Action 3.1 ROCKSLI'DE / LANDSLi'DE Rockslide/Landslide Reduce rockslide occurrences and impact potential Goal on human life and safety and critical services within Priority the County O_O__bjective i Xmprove emergency response capability for landslide response Mitigation Implement response plans to provide for quick ~ Action 1.1 remediation of slide damage O~ective 2 Develop physical mitigation projects for high hazard areas Mitigation Update mapping of rock/landslide areas within the County ~ Action 2.1 Mitigation Review high and medium risk landslide hazard areas and Medium Action 2.2 evaluate and prioritize for physical mitigation actions ;EASONAL / FLASH FLOODTNG Goal I Se_a~o~al / Flash Flooding Reduce seasonal / flash floedlng Impact In the Basalt area Priority NOTE: Mitigation actions for Goal 1 are common with those referenced under Goal 1, Seasonal / Flash Flooding for Pitkin County, Please refer to Appendix A for these mitigation actions. Goal 2 Reduce the potential for impact on life, safety and property loss from seasonal / flesh flooding within the County Objective 1 Mitigation Action Implement early warning alert systems on Gore, Brush 1.1 and Gypsum Creeks and the Colorado, Eagle, Roaring Fork and Frying Pan Rivers Mitigation Action Expand NOAA weather radio coverage to include the entire 1.2 County. Mitigation Action Establish "Storm Ready" programs throughout the County 1.3 Priority Improve early warning and alerting systems for seasonal flooding within the hazard areas Appendix C - Pubic Survey Risk Assessment Pitkin and Eagle Counties surveyed residents to collect public input on risks from natural and human-caused hazards within the participating jurisdictions. This survey was accessible electronically through the [nternet and in hardcopy form distributed at certain public buildings within the Counties. Tabulated results from this survey are listed in the tables below. This information was used to guide the Counties PDM planning efforts. The Counties will not necessarily, however, invest mitigation resources according to the priority assigned to these hazards as a result of this survey. In some cases, mitigating activities will not produce adequate benefits compared to implementation and maintenance costs. This survey was used, however, to provide general guidance to planning activities related to the Counties PDMP initiative. Total No. of Respondents 234 Pitkin Respondents 69 Eagle Respondents 165 The hazards below were ranked on a scale of I to 10, with l0 describing hazards with the most impact on the Counties. The values shown represent the average ranking for each hazard from all respondents. Highlighted hazards indicate those the Planning team elected to prioritize for remediation in this plan. Emergency responders were asked to identify themselves as part of the survey, and this class of survey respondent comprised approximately 50% of the survey takers. Rank I Wildfire 7.8974 Wildfire 7.7286 2 Auto Crashes (Multiple) 7.0043 Auto Crashes (Mui6ple) 6.6429 kuto Crashes (Multiple) 3 Auto Crashes (single) 6.6838 Auto Crashes (single) 6.5571 Drought 4 Drought 6.5897 Winter Storm 6.3714 Auto Crashes (single) Transport of Hazardous Winter Storm 6.2863 Drought 5.9571 Matedals 5 Transport of Hazardous 6.1197 Urban Fire (Accidental) 5.3714 Winter Storm 6 Materials Lightning I 5.8248 Avalanche 5.2857 Lightning I Thunderstorm 7 Thunderstorm 8 Urban Fire (Accidental) 5.6154 Lightning / Thunderstorm 5.1714 Urban Fire (Accidental) Transport of Hazardous 4.9571 Airplane Crash 9 Airplane Crash 5.1752 Matedals 10 Disease 4.8077 Airplane Crash 4.9286 Disease 11 Avalanche 4,6838 Flash Floods 4.5571 High Winds 12 Flash Floods 4.6154 Seasonal Floods 4.5143 Landslide 13 Landslide 4.6088 Landslide 4,4143 Arson 14 High Winds 4.5256 Disease 4.3714 Flash Floods 15 Arson 4.4829 Int'l Terrorism 4.1143 Domestic Teffodsrn Fixsd H~ardous 4.1000 Avalanche 16 Domestic Tenodsm 4.4188 Materials Fixed Hazardous Seasonal FIoeds 4.3803 Arson 4.0857 Materials Fixed H~ardous 4.2821 Domestic Terrorism 4.0286 18 Materials 19 Int'l Terrorism 4.2564 Violence 3.9143 ~t'l Terrorism 20 Violence 4.1923 High Winds 3.7857 Violence 21 Disturbance 3.7863 Disturbance 3.4714 Disturbance 22 Jail Break 3.3120 Jail Escape 3.1857 Jail Break 23 Darn Breach 3.1325 Dam Breach 3.0571 Military Accident 24 Military Accident 3.0598 Earthquake 2.7429 Darn Breach 25 Earthquake 2.3419 Militery Accident 2.4714 Earthquake 26 Tornado 1.8632 Tornado 1.9000 Tornado 8.1180 7.2919 6.9876 6.8634 6.7391 6.3665 6.2174 5.8261 9.3789 5.0870 4.9317 4.7764 4.7391 4.7267 4.6708 4.5093 4.4410 4.4037 4.3975 4.3913 3.9938 3.4286 3.3727 3.2236 2.2112 1.8820 The following represents the public survey form used to collect the public input. Pitkin and Eagle County Multi-3urisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Development Public Survey Form (P/ease circle your responses) Wildfire i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 0 Winter Storm I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 Seasonal Flooding {seasonal rains, melting snow) i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 Flash Flooding (caused by high run-off due to i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 0 excessive rain and drainage failure) Landslides 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 Avalanche 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 Drought i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 Tornado i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 High Winds i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 Lightning/Thunderstorms i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 Earthquake I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 0 Hazards (Please circle your responses,> Flood due to Dam Breach I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 InternationalTerrorism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t 0 Domestic Terrorism i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 Transportation of Hazardous Materials i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 Fixed Installations of Hazardous Haterlals ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ! 0 Urban Fire (Accidental) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 Airplane Crashes i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 0 Military Accident i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 0 Arson i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 Extreme Acts of Violence (eg. Granby incident) ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 Civil Disturbance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 Motor Vehicle Crashes (single vehicle) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 Motor Vehicle Crashes {multiple vehicles) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 .lailEsr, aRe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 OtherHazards-NaturalorManmade 12345678910 12345678910 12345678910 Appendix D - STAPLEE Sample Template The following table is an example of the STAPLEE template used' by the planning team to validate mitigation actions encompassed by this Plan. Each planning team member assessed each potential action item individually. The assessment for each criterion (consideration) was defined by: (-) negative response - indicates that the criteria would have a negative impact on the adoption of the associated mitigation action. (0) neutral response - indicates that the criteria would have a neutral impact on the adoption of the associated mitigation action. (+) positive response - indicates that the criteria would have a positive impact on the adoption of the associated mitigation action. The results of the STAPLEE analysis are available through the respective Counties' emergency management coordinators. o o Appendix F - References used in Plan Development The below resources were consulted during plan development. Additional references are cited throughout this plan. General reference resources 1) Federal Emergency Management Agency 2) Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 3) The City of Paso Robles, CA Hazard Mitigation Strategy 4) Tennessee Emergency Management Agency 5) Colorado State University 6) US Census Bureau 7) The City of Aspen and Pitkin County 8) Eagle County 9) The Wilderness Society (www.wilderness.org) 10) E-Podunk.com J. 1) The State of Colorado 12) Wikipedia.org ].3) Rootsweb.com 14) US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 15) The State of Colorado, Department of Transportation 16) Eagle County Airport (www.eaglecou nty. us/airport) 17) Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (www.aspenairport.com) References for Specific Hazards Avalanches 1) Snow Avalanche Hazards and Mitigation in the United States, Committee on Ground Failure Hazards Mitigation Research, National Research Council June 1, 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado 2) Colorado Geological Survey - Colorado Avalanche Information Center (www.geosurvey.state.co.us/avalanche) 3) Avalanche.org (www.avalanche.org/accidnt95.htm) 4) The Avalanche Center (www.csac.org) Earthquakes 1) US Geological Survey Earthquakes Hazard Program (http://eqhazmaps.usgs.gov) 2) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Wildfires 1) Colorado State Forest Service compiled a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Hazard Assessment in 2001 and 2002 2) Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behawor and Severity Department of Agriculture Forest Service, April 2004 Winter Storms U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Flooding 1) National Weather Service - Central Region Headquarters (crh.noaa.gov) 2) Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Tornadoes National Weather Service - Central Region Headquarters (crh,noaa.gov) Lightning and Thunder National Weather Service - Central Region Headquarters (crh.noaa.gov) HAZMAT 1) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 2) U.S. Coast Guard, National Response Center 3) State of Colorado, Department of Public Health and Environment Vehicle Crashes 1) Colorado State Patrol 2) US Department of Transportation 3) Colorado Department of Transportation 4) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Prison Escapes 1) State of Colorado, Department of Corrections 2) The Gallup Independent 3) Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections 4) Learn this info (http://encyclopedia.learnthis.info/t/te/ted_bundy.html) 5) The Denver Post 6) The Aspen Times Terrorism ~.) State of Colorado, Department of Public Safety, Office of Preparedness, Security and Fire Safety 2) US Department of Justice 3) Federal Bureau of Znvestigation 4) US Code of Federal Regulations Airplane Crashes 1) Aviation International News 2) Grand Miesa Repeater Association 3) Aviation Safety Network (www.aviation-sa~ety.net) 4) Federal Aviation Administration/National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center (www.nasdac.faa.gov) Military Accidents 1) CNN Arson 1) US Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 2) State of Georgia, Office of Secretary of State 3) State of Colorado, Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire Safety 4) National Criminal .]ustice Reference Service 5) Colorado State Fire Chiefs' Association Volcanoes ]~) US Geological Survey 2) TheDenverChan nel.com/7News 3) Associated Press Pre-Disaster t4itigation Plans 1) Upper Arkansas Valley, Colorado 2) Gunnison, County, Colorado 3) Houston-Galveston, Texas 4) Pennsylvania Office of Emergency Management Hazard Vulnerability Analysis Plan 5) iViulti-Jurisdictional All Hazard DMA 2000 Mitigation Plan - Tompkins County, New York 6) State of Utah Mitigation strategies 7) Indiana Department of Natural Resources Dam Safety Inspection Manual 8) Colorado Department of Public Safety Division of Fire Safety, Strategic Plan, Nlay ~L999 9) New Hampshire Office of Emergency i~anagement Natural Hazards lvlitigation Plan 10) State of Colorado, Department of Emergency Management, Natural Hazard Mitigation PLan Appendix G - Hazard Haps Hazard maps produced from the HAZUS-MH loss estimation model are shown in this section. It is important to note that due to lack of adequate data in some areas, certain prioritized hazards are not supported by hazard maps. Wildfire This map shows average historical risk levels for Wildfire. Unclassified areas of Pitkin County reflect a lack of data available for this HAZUS-iVlH model effort. Hap Title: Wildfire Risk File Name: wildfire_risk.pdf Data Source: Colorado State Forest Service 1996, 1997 Description: The wildfire risk map provides a picture of overall potential of wildland fire and its associated problems. The assessment of fire hazard areas can aid in improvements in public safety and protection of property losses. The data were provided by the Colorado State Forest Service. HAZMAT - Transported This map displays critical transportation infrastructure used by the Planning team in development of mitigation options for this hazard. Map Title: Transportation Features File Name: transportation_features.pdf Data Source: National Transportation Atlas, FEMA HAZUS-MH, 2005 Description: This map displays an inventory of highway transportation systems (roadways, bridges, and tunnels), railway transportation systems (tracks, public stations, bridges), bus stations, airports, and heliports. These public transportation facilities highlight the transportation lifeline within Eagle and Pitkin Counties. Please Note: Due to the potentially sensitive nature of the critical infrastructure inventory, and in keeping with State of Colorado practices for controlling critical infrastructure identification, the Counties monitor access to this information through the Emergency Management Coordinators for each County. This information is available on a need-to-know basis by application to the appropriate Emergency Management Coordinator identified in this Plan. Critical Infrastructure This map displays additional critical infrastructure assets. This information was used by the Planning team in development of mitigation options. Map Title: Utility and Communication Facilities File Name: utility_features.pdf Data Source: FEMA HAZUS-MH, 2005 Description: Utility and Communication Facilities are lifeline components vulnerable to natural disasters. The lifeline components inventoried in this map are natural gas facilities, potable water facilities, waste water treatment plants, and television and radio towers. Please Note: Due to the potentially sensitive nature of the critical infrastructure inventory, and in keeping with State of Colorado practices for controlling critical infrastructure identification, the Counties monitor access to this information through the Emergency Management Coordinators for each County. This information is available on a need-to-know basis by application to the appropriate Emergency Management Coordinator identified in this Plan.