The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20040841.tiff RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE NORTHEAST COLORADO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS,the Board has been presented with the Northeast Colorado Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the Office of Emergency Management,with terms and conditions being as stated in said plan, and WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the threat posed by natural hazards to people and property within our community, and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions will reduce the potential for harm to people and property from future hazard occurrences, and WHEREAS, an adopted Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is required as a condition of future funding for mitigation projects under multiple FEMA pre- and post-disaster mitigation grant programs, and WHEREAS, Weld County resides within the 11-county Northeast Colorado Emergency Management(NCEM)planning area,and fully participated in the NCEM mitigation planning process to prepare this Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, and WHEREAS, the Colorado Office of Emergency Management and Federal Emergency Management Agency,Region VIII officials have reviewed the NCEM Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and approved it contingent upon this official adoption of the participating governments and entities,and WHEREAS,after review,the Board deems it advisable to approve said plan,a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado,that the Northeast Colorado Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the Office of Emergency Management, be, and hereby is, approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that NCEM will, on its behalf, submit this Resolution to the Colorado Office of Emergency Management and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region VIII officials, to enable final approval of the NCEM Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2004-0841 EM0013 CC : O67'1 NORTHEAST COLORADO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN PAGE 2 The above and foregoing Resolution was,on motion duly made and seconded,adopted by the following vote on the 15th day of March, A.D., 2004. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS idiot/ WEL �C�OwN OL RADO 86i i,_` '�: '�, Robert D. Masden, Chair 1 ' !�„ Al rk to the Board \' -•, / William H. e e, Pro-Tem �., a a Al de ity Clerk t. the Board J. eile APPROVED AS TO FORM: \i oTh�� Davi' . ong / lao4P ounty Attorney EXCUSED Glenn Vaad Date of signature: (3/47 2004-0841 EM0013 Page 1of1 Carol Harding From: Bruce Barker Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:57 AM To: Carol Harding Subject: FW: Draft Document Review Northeast Colorado Multi-jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan From: Kim Ogle Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 2:45 PM To: Bruce Barker; Monica Mika Subject: Draft Document Review Northeast Colorado Multi-jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan See attached memorandum. Copy of document was delivered to Mr. Herring on Thursday afternoon prior to 3:00PM with this attached memorandum Kim Ogle Planning Manager Weld County Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 970 353 6100 x 3540 970 304 6498 Fax 3/12/2004 2004-0841 MEMORANDUM willO TO: Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services C Bruce Barker, Attorney's Office COLORADO Ed Herring, Weld County OEM DATE: February 11, 2004 FROM: Kim Ogle, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Draft Document Review Northeast Colorado Multi-jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (PL-106-390) A cursory review of the document was completed by the Department of Planning Services on Wednesday March 10, 2004. Based on this review, staff concludes that the intent of the Northeast Colorado Multi-jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (PL-106-390) has been met. There are a few housekeeping issues that should be addressed prior to adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. See itemized list: 1. Spell check should be completed for the entire document 2. The font, aside from the headings should all be the same type style and font size 3. The grammar should be rechecked, for determination of tense, and to verify that all statements are correct. Several sentences have extraneous words, letters and incorrectly placed punctuation. 4. All text should follow the same alignment nomenclature. 5. Change the phrase "County Board of Commissioners" to "Board of County Commissioners" 6. Several publications and maps are identified, however, there is not date associated with the document. 7. Abbreviations should be spelled out, if not on the list of acronyms, identified in Appendix of this document.. 8. If quoting an agency or individual, the name, agency and date of quotation should be identified. 9. If identifying a group of individuals, i.e., we, the group should be identified, likewise, if identifying an individual the person should be identified. 10. Weld County Planning Element data should be absolute in numbers for events. Statements ending in question marks should be resolved, and publications, events and maps should have dates of publication. A copy of the redlines of this document have been submitted to Ed Herring, Weld County OEM as requested in his electronic mail dated Tuesday March 9, 2004 - 4:20PM. The Department of Planning Services would be willing to complete a thorough review of this document at a later date. Ideally staff requests one week to complete this review. End Memorandum. M:\...\ogle\FEMA Flood Hazard Mitigation\Document Review memo.wpd Page 1 of 1 Carol Harding From: Bruce Barker Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:56 AM To: Carol Harding Subject: FW: PDM for Weld County From: Edwin Herring Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 4:20 PM To: Kim Ogle Cc: Bruce Barker; Margie Martinez; Monica Mika Subject: PDM for Weld County I would like to present this plan to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners on Monday, March 15th. I just received a disk with the plan on it today in Sterling and am forwarding it to you now. If you could have any comments or changes by Thursday, March 11th then a final draft will be ready by Monday, March 15th. The version going to COEM and FEMA with the signed pages from the Northeast Counties will be on Wednesday, March 17th. The signature page will need to be changed or we can use our standard page without any problem. If you have any questions please contact me at extension 3990. 3/12/2004 !:� �/- f Y`l1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This plan is the product of a yearlong planning process undertaken by the Northeast Colorado Emergency Management Association, a consortium of eleven northeast Colorado counties. The purpose is to meet the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (PL 106-3900) and thereby maintain continued eligibility for certain Hazard Mitigation—or disaster loss reduction—programs form FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, now a part of the Department of Homeland Security. The process followed a methodology prescribed y FEMA. It consisted of two levels of planning teams; a coordinating planning team compromised of all 11 County Emergency Managers and select state and federal agency representatives, and 11 local government teams—one in each county. Every local government and `FEMA-Eligible' entity in each county was invited to participate. The planning process examined the recorded history of losses resulting from natural hazards, and analyzed the future risks posed to each county by these hazards. The largest disasters, in terms of one-time losses, were the 1997 flood that primarily impacted Sterling and Atwood in Logan County and the 1990 tornado that struck Limon, in Lincoln County. Each event caused approximately $20 million in damages. The largest average annual loss across the entire planning area is agricultural, with over $10 million in damages each year. The most frequent events are tornadoes, with every county experiencing multiple events each year. Drought, blizzards, dam failures, hail, insects and wildlife plagues, noxious weeds, and West Nile Virus were also examined. The plan puts forth several regional goals and objectives for the entire planning area— most notably the objective of having all 11 counties become "Storm Ready" certified by the National Weather Service within the next three years. The plan also puts forth county-specific recommendations, many related to the community-by-community floodplain inventories that the planning teams developed. Most important is the fact that the development of this plan achieved what the legislation intended—and that was for communities to gather data about the risks they face, analyze the potential impacts and losses that such risks could cause, and develop an action plan to address the most critical and threatening issues. This process has highlighted some cases of extreme exposure that can easily be addressed before the next disaster strikes, as well as others that may not be possible until the next disaster generates the funding necessary to implement them. Regardless, however, all of the communities and counties that participated in this process --- citizens, businesses, and agricultural interests alike --- will likely be safer and experience reduced impacts from whatever happens next. PLAN INTRODUCTION What are Hazard Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Planning? Hazard Mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long- term risk to human life and property from hazards. Planning is the process of setting goals, developing strategies, and outlining tasks and schedules to accomplish the goals. Hazard Mitigation Planning is the process through which the natural hazards that threaten communities are identified, the likely impacts of those hazards are determined, mitigation goals are set, and appropriate strategies that would lessen the impacts are determined, prioritized, and implemented. Hazard Mitigation Planning is a requirement for state and local governments in order to maintain their eligibility for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding programs. Communities that are at risk from natural disasters can ill afford to jeopardize this funding. What is the Hazard Mitigation Planning Requirement? This plan has been developed pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, PL- 106- 390 (hereafter referred to as DMA; see Appendix A for a list of acronyms used in this document), and the regulations published in the Federal Register Volume 67, Number 38, Tuesday, February 26, 2002. Section 104 of DMA revises the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by adding Section 322, which provides new and revitalized emphasis on hazard mitigation, including adding a new requirement for local mitigation plans. These new local mitigation planning regulations are implemented through 44 CFR Part 201.6. Why is Hazard Mitigation Planning Important? Each year, natural disasters in the United States kill hundreds of people, injure thousands more, and leave as many as 50,000 people homeless. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars each year to help communities, organizations, businesses and individuals recover from disaster. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters, because additional expenses upon insurance companies and non-government organizations are un-reimbursed by tax dollars. Additionally, many natural disasters are predictable. Many more are repetitive, often with the same results. Many of the damages caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, has made reducing losses from natural disasters one of its primary goals. Hazard Mitigation planning and the subsequent implementation of the projects, measures, and policies developed through those plans, is the primary mechanism in achieving these goals. Where success in reducing disaster damages has taken place, it has been the result of mitigation projects that were implemented as a result of mitigation planning. That's why Hazard Mitigation Planning is important. That is why DMA now 1 requires local governments to have a FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan in place by November 1, 2004. That's why this plan was developed. Whose Plan is This? DMA allows for the development of multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans. This plan was developed by the Northeast Colorado Emergency Managers Association, and covers 11 counties and all of the incorporated communities within these counties, with the exception of the City of Greeley, in Weld County. The participating counties are Cheyenne, Elbert, Kit Carson, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld and Yuma. In addition to the incorporated communities within these counties, this plan also covers other FEMA "eligible applicants"that chose to participate in the planning process, such as Rural Electric Associations; and School, Irrigation and Watershed Districts. The participating incorporated communities and other FEMA "eligible applicants" are identified in each of the individual county sections of this plan. Participating in this planning process maintains their eligibility for FEMA mitigation program funding. -401,41 Northeast Colorado fr; Emergency Managers Association Hazard Mitigation Plan * 4 a M,ly.manwmro t r .s0 tfi�Y ry ty Chcyonne County c 1County ty ' KI( tot ty L C u,y PhilipCounty i County '§F hingro Courtly Setlfl County 4 I t JW Coo ry W itl La mry Gouoty R.iyr F' t w a For the purposes of this plan, participation was defined as: • Attending the appropriate planning team meetings, • Providing specific hazard and community data to the planning team committees, • Coordinating the Public Input process in their respective County and communities, • Reviewing and editing the DRAFTS of the plan, and • Assuring formal adoption by the governing board of each participant. The formal adoptions are included as Appendix B to this plan. 2 PHASE I: GETTING STARTED THE PLANNING PROCESS Before We Started - Garnering Community and Planning Support Prior to initiating the development of this regional multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, two critical activities took place that established the foundation for the entire planning process. First, a substantial coordination effort took place to ensure the participation of all 11 counties within the Northeast Colorado Emergency Management Association (NCEM). Second, a professional Hazard Mitigation Planning consultant was hired. In Colorado, the state Office of Emergency Management (OEM) utilizes a regional support structure to assist the counties with all aspects of Emergency Management, including planning. Each region has a "Regional Coordinator." In Northeast Colorado the Regional Coordinator is a former County Emergency Manager from Morgan County, one of the NCEM counties. The Regional Coordinator contacted the County Board of Commissioners in each of the 11 counties and explained the DMA planning requirement and the leadership and coordination role that each of the 11 County Emergency Managers would be required to undertake, and that the Board of Commissioners would be expected to formally adopt the plan upon its completion. The County Emergency Managers, in turn, then contacted each of the incorporated communities and other FEMA"eligible applicants" within their own counties, offering them the opportunity to participate in the development of the NCEM plan versus having to develop their own individual plans. Every incorporated community within the 11 counties, with the exception of Greeley in Weld County, chose to participate in the development of this plan. Greeley, the largest city within the entire 21,600 square mile planning area, is developing their own DMA plan with the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins, two similar cities in terms of size and risk, both of which are outside of the NCEM planning area. For a matter of perspective, the planning area is approximately the same size as the Space Shuttle Columbia's debris field. The NCEM then determined that the actual process of facilitating and developing their multi-jurisdictional DMA plan was beyond their capability and expertise. Thus, the organization decided to contract with a professional Hazard Mitigation Planning consultant. NCEM selected The Mitigation Assistance Corporation (TMAC) of Boulder, Colorado. TMAC's role was to: • Establish a planning organization for the entire planning area and all of the participants, • Meet all of the DMA requirements as established by federal regulations, following FEMA's planning guidance, • Facilitate the entire planning process, 3 • Identify the data requirements that the participating counties, communities, and other FEMA "eligible applicants" could provide, and conduct the research and documentation necessary to augment that data, • Develop and facilitate the Public Input process, • Produce the DRAFT and Final Plan documents, and • Guarantee acceptance of the final Plan by FEMA Region VIII. The majority of funding for the planning assistance contract was provided to the NCEM member counties by FEMA through OEM. The required local match was provided as an "in-kind" or"soft"match, through the many, many hours spent on this effort by each of the planning team participants, as well as the use of their facilities for meetings and actual cash disbursements for copying and public notices, where necessary. The Planning Process TMAC established the process for this planning effort utilizing the DMA planning requirements, and FEMA's associated guidance. This guidance is structured around a generalized 4-phase process. TMAC also integrated an older, more detailed 10-step planning process that was still required, at the time this effort was initiated, for other FEMA mitigation plans, such as for FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) programs. Thus, TMAC formulated a single planning process that melds these two sets of planning requirements together and meets the requirements of six major programs: CRS, DMA, FMA, HMGP, FEMA's Pre- Disaster Mitigation program (PDM) and new flood control projects authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The graphics below show how the old 10-step process fits within the new 4-phase process. • The CRS Loss Reduction Planning •• How The 10-Steps fit within ▪ Process (modified for All Hazards) * FEMA's DMA "How-To" Guidance • • O Oct Organized 0 Set Planning(foals • Getting Started Develop a Mitigation Plan • O Renew Possible • 0 Get Organized 0 Set Planning Goals • ©Plan for Public • Invohxment Aoticitien 0 Plan for Public 0 Review Possible.Activities • • Involvement 0 Draft an Action Plan • 0coordinate with other Ol)rall an Action Plan • O coordinate with other ©Adopt the Plait • Departments and O Adopt the Plan • Depanntents mid Agencies P • Evaluate Your Work Agencies phuplernent the Plan. • Understanding Four Risks •• m Implement the Plan, • Oldentih the DluzardEb Evaluate its worth, 0 Identify the Ilazerdis) Evaluate its Worth.and • • 0 Assess the Risks and Revise as Needed • 0 Assess the Risks Revise as Needed • • t • • ligti. m� i ary e,..... ^�. �. • tiLSI'. Parv. TMAC initiated this planning process in August 2002, by developing and delivering training for the 11 NCEM County Emergency Managers on the DMA requirements, this planning process, and their role in it. TMAC also provided each County Emergency Manager with a formatted Planning Notebook to help keep all their planning information organized. The first planning meeting took place in October 2002. 4 Step 1 : Get Organized - Building the Planning Team With the County Board of Commissioners approval of participation in the DMA Plan development, and the commitment to participate by the incorporated communities and invited other"eligible applicants"TMAC next established a framework and organization for the development of this plan. This plan was developed by a primary planning team composed of each County Emergency Manager and the OEM Regional Coordinator. (Two counties, Cheyenne and Kit Carson, share the same Emergency Manager). The team was chaired by TMAC, and supplemented by invited agency representatives. This team is called the Multi-County Planning Committee, or MCPC. The MCPC met monthly for one year to develop this plan. The meetings were conducted in conjunction with the regularly scheduled NCEM meetings, generally on the second Tuesday of each month. The MCPC meetings rotate location among the member counties. During the development of this plan, several changes occurred in the MCPC. Logan County, with the City of Sterling, hired a full- time Emergency Manager to replace their over-burdened Fire Department representative, and Elbert County had a change of personnel in the Emergency Manager position. The MCPC will stay in existence for the purpose of implementing and updating this plan. „ A r. d0 M. J , r i• ajItom,1\ C 4._` _. ` O _ i pj r et tt '�� µ,. 4 y r 1 {''!:!.44 The Northeast Colorado Emergency Management Association and DMA Multi-County Planning Committee(MCPC): The County Emergency Managers from all eleven Counties plus the Colorado OEM Regional Coordinator 5 Subordinate to the MCPC, each of the 11 counties established their own County Planning Subcommittee, or CPS. The County Emergency Manager chaired each CPS, with representatives of various county departments, incorporated communities, other"eligible applicants," and other participants comprising its membership. The meetings were facilitated either by TMAC or the County Emergency Manager. Typical county representatives to each CPS include the Sheriff's, fire, building, and planning departments and the Assessor's office. In some of the CPS's one person might be serving the position of several representatives, as they do in the course of their normal day-to-day job. In cases where large communities, or communities facing significant risks warranted representation by multiple departments, they would either all attend the CPS meetings or establish a separate community subcommittee to the CPS. Each CPS has met a minimum of five times throughout the planning process. Each CPS will stay in existence for the purpose of implementing and updating this plan. The following graphic is representative of the NCEM planning structure for this DMA plan: Multi County Planning Committee (MCPCI Feel Agencies Stale Agencies e.g.. _ e.g.. FEMA DOLA NWS DNR I I I 1 I I II Cheyenne CPS Elbert CPS Kit Carson CPS Lincoln CPS Logan CPS Morgan CPS Phillips CPS $ebgwick CPS Washington CPS Weld CPS Yuma CPS MCPC and CPS meeting dates, agendas and attendance logs are on file with the OEM Regional Planner(See Appendix C). 6 Step 2: Plan for Public Involvement — Engaging the Public At MCPC Meeting#1 in October 2002, a plan for public involvement was discussed and agreed upon. Interested members of the general public were invited to participate on the MCPC or their CPS, at their choosing. The invitations were extended from each County Emergency Manager through a Planning Public Awareness Campaign that consisted of a press release and article posting to the NCEM website at www.ncem10.org The press release and Internet web posting resulted in several newspaper articles and radio interviews. A collage of many of the newspaper articles is on the next page. The remaining articles, press releases and Internet postings are on file with the OEM Regional Coordinator. In addition to inviting the public to participate, some CPS's invited particular people to their meetings who they thought would be interested, or have something to contribute. In Elbert County, the standing Citizens Advisory Committee participated on the CPS. Additionally, a second press release and web posting were developed prior to the public review of the Mitigation Plan. This public review took place through a series of formal Public Meetings in each of the 11 participating counties in August 2003. In addition, TMAC gave formal presentations at professional meetings in 3 states to describe the NCEM DMA planning project, and additional planning ideas were generated as a result. Step 3: Coordinate with other Departments and Agencies: Early on in the planning process, the MCPC determined that data collection and plan approval would be greatly enhanced by inviting other state and federal agencies to participate in the planning process. As the planning structure graphic on the preceding page depicts, FEMA, the National Weather Service (NWS), OEM (an office within the Department of Local Affairs [DOLA]), and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (an organization within the Colorado Department of Natural Resources [DNA]) were offered permanent positions on the MCPC. In addition to those agencies, TMAC and/or the County Emergency Managers utilized the resources of the following agencies in the development of this plan: • The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) • The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and its subsidiary organizations: • The Farm Service Agency(FSA), • The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and it's predecessor, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and • The National Crop Insurance Service (NCIS) • The U.S. Department of Homeland Security(DHS) • The Colorado Department of Health (CDH) • The Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Office of the State Engineer • The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) • Colorado State University (CSU), and • The Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado Historical Society 7 FEMA funding hinges on participation in disaster planning Elbert County participating in mitigation planning O AICNrfl Bt CKER "Whit wi;ie doing is panning ...and that dorsal include losses Ell"..Conway n p,ni:lt.taq the plan nos, .ecru« and awmm.r. eras.Crony: 1 our picture,telling fhem(l IiM.AI to alfalfa andlnlstoi k. V .w llama.,pi r ,run oumua huo�fr on n.r l ;,nntd--et.n 11 non,. rI■waa,erh Isla V R ��. -Y hens om ..r -rued.,ternad,e.. snr,'mu.t.ranr'x ey 7 Cur, ddlNalammi taeistams how we live,'he told sirup of Rar..rch Al. de a 1010k , a d 4t, lnyrYr a.his ica worm.bhr,.rd" ,ne inn kr erinh d SO i 1. edrnial,gathered at the Starling County averages lightly lace �' I ,.. Ti n•, re"*spiir.in era, „ t grin n.an I , -I. • I t1. l u 1 riOnw.r.,.ern u,the >r•uetrlY Ow m r e 1 Ion*.vtltnd laiar.4,dilmh ale drpxn m,ml this morning. than one tornadoa4t year.leased , iii ...silo.). Ian, n 9.y s., arnwnun.dIrtinnry-AMOyod ntra.t.d,raM1 f tnnrt r,m a. PI shout any and Phil cn was lured 1 II on the Jd thin h:m:been record- r+ g.r,ey'alanan.mrne M<on paiai..PWI, t..'M,l.nu., tetra en'wd.,par glue's. II•■r —I hpsbn 9 I (PUMA. Crarcf,oPNn. aupiMriva� ,rid rumnp.:ycWll.a.., Ism,type el learn otn,nl corny *mains in Kwda•„p Coincides Lnl between J9`A and I'rl:. l ..aseA mY.ntk and lnw;,.a'.W Art,•r r in IognnCeumv-me b,tngurged including Logan County to help And t'o.it Uunblewred*see '" "'"tnie "t'• in dart preparing for disadrn.or Ilium put together their disaster more than a nuisance. i , deft Imb,g die,tutor Its(broth plan.Pan of that iutalc a anal- Phiililhhutn umod Orain some J 'nods howl.Federal lmergoncy in a hliiory of past diia,lr,s he pans of the stair.they lave tot 1 ', $ak¢E@ '�+^,7 g 12, IMO \l:uupgria:el.Agen-y rFfktAr. they outbreaks ul West Nile virus teeter]:long railroad Iru.F.. g_- -��• 7 7 ,a Y k R,._^P.b°" . And n•shouldn't cryon lug ll to perstaem twnbleweed poll. and.parks from passing trains ci cr wuwise01sa ll I}5I IYS u e F'7 y County l it;,fire.dots.or tornados A lems•and piffling a cost un have ignited them into Large oiliest k@,gl -a' 4 g lush, of Ilaaard, its lancet them• mnbifirs. will help create a database S. fl Cnnnn.nlepared at part of The This..ill help 1 CM•.deter- Tim owuhlrwerde nl,o IIi.•,r'rs;wd alma iarrilmals w' pia a.73� 'B n ins era alit being asked to Ada$R g.4 B •n g part of ,o„what prryornuom.If crag' .g 3 d""L ie Disaster mitigation meeting set +'Ylwtt In plxrtn deal with f•-1at, 3 E2 some ow ins ens and emery/snit,A pith. _ hazard Idled i. its hay.m feud vooloait II M The Fodet laid. rtb is lJlltnd feu; N. - u _s' haute i• ',aunt m9ir ado plea ee,aing hum oon,,.- federal Pauogcrly l poegemeni Agency l8 P m,1M.o.a:IS(',emn..hm SI.h,the*mauld ma:OW that was sad not 9ettmaaana andlef wmidwietnprmidrinpm, pQa to be .o.'tn.j •awning. min as TMa rid gw.ksa ter mldlCminn flan hdli nbom said he to ;3 ' plan per e+, the meow M,M meeting i.In Nnidctt WM:eley caW spill•ht feta*I aa,aWnne in iN•{1 nasery plan traty fed } !a n Clatwr Clancy Plii15an..b1none preside*M eh:Mili'ana die nen.al a d.',aua, ail and :1vuYde Corp,and ni*Won mod.*d Ike In Ow rtrtt,zesa of Mhlag the plrl,FJkn ttdn,n In FF.MA In ne,ohex a• ^2.`r•i o r us.ride r*dmin'a regional abgatk* C.twnty+een,maul front',rhos gnvemmer'.a+1 j,„1-F,,,,„ 'a_a E By Tony Rayl OM fox II Ranh...Ian,aoame..Clyne(AVM al lairale•an;trc workm ale mein*read etenned ,!g( O r are"a G§.1 Pk.. edwr Y rte plan poh s X E a r!7 rr 9'n A t A g I s r i i ' ,5 w-, (D l'w,simn,eot lode*and 1114' e ^E• r� tC q,,5 Q•y 9 • eleclncuy wfglien mat last y 0:;,., A n — x G, S erg S e 4 as g$S e.9 auk in Yid,*n dia..* J 5 't� , haunt miaRatioa. l' •a sAr E �r Mitigation Planning '3g{E r $$��++5pp.� a7ggo,�(r g I ii �.�� The meeting was idled t ��a+�a y et t^, a 7-a• a• >K C3 a B r n` 5,342 ,2 ! E ?.li' 8•A'5' by Roger Brown Yuma X if k *t. i F.'a 1 f; U County's hey pa> _ F y 4 Project meeting pun h,�director.He n- 21.:? , J =.r`J�m& L T .°dig P,9".� a- = po iltwd.he county is pat of g ff.x3 3:ra i, t-c c = Al,' unneuntx:d lost Sag ail tax*hnr a mitigation plan. ' 3 a, n;± a F'12 cry.Yuma County is t r'a•...• 5's Viz• lien'prny4r,in relyrm n Y :q y i. V: pitting in an 11-count) County plans for P:', ,seal El co Mop of the reel ry era, r M p ; ' d _d bandied by Clancy Philips. s 5 ,1 Ring,'effort. covering c'sl --- q .5. g g 3' bum.pmdma of The Mid. • �, e« g eastern Colorado in or • i: $ datino Amstar=Comoro- fi -'?-4.e s` let' K B i maintain`:its atigibili disaster prevention ;g I,° „n in Boulder.Pkd3Pbom p a wring the duaNee*Ow _3 2 0^$ et pre-and poet;disaster r 17h;rt Conary o pkallema,m,, Me',welly lame Iran identified. -a v_ 'area plan for the ll- £?' e-u= X t�'a t.ion or:la.. proven n uwml ptmn, ufrust and information n halo1 wl county group—which ia• AE > 3' s.' comma',snow,*Colorado bast on pmt *sane.ant :ludo, C'heyenue, Elbert � 'a.'"_ funding available tanm.aa,nn.mhphdr.lir re. �a • 9 a y. . tut 11 next planning -u. M laid. liltip, Logan,50111 4 •'—'7711 FEMA -• the Federal and l,wn<I,,uan m,ngali.,n.,r the inter ldanlin'pip will ltotgau. Phillip, seta OW 'envy Management Age tr.ro r,a•a tund„a..,,ail, h e iw identify olui,ssem.the wick. Wa,nanhiw Wail ,n abk ft,.II,RtkrAl nmer£e wy o my already Iliki irIil o and Yuma counties. Last T •.>%.1 s c. ▪ a-I Each county and the Maugenwa...gird trawl the pawl of won d roar a damn' involved Y Each eaa,9t and n.s the Yuma County p 'F'i9 j ti i_ porated duo ieipalities y "ia Nr4Inch a. net■ ay man- county h.lag L v n e `9 ea*a t-„ each county,must part M s •.s ngnkd,vw r .Tyw,`�uMomrnivaaY Fw n. T l:� � .�1 s 7 - in the planning proms P �6�. ui,xo,dry tuts PralynM,m explained PaN yiwnun define S � � a that the Federal emir ST `5 41.54i,a t ticipation is defined as, $ gem' 2. S 8_g **Awl the animus'msn- Aarr Olin step is..wined it - Mahedvntent Apoery now • g r .` . X y,a a a i rig the plminin>; me utgs yn,eidiot mfunulionpar- will he r dStm ud Masher iM required a taedeipa plan _885P. g _ providing inforinatiun 'star u` oast Jari+dredmr. ...mint systems PEW its be i err oa:h temtl of government e.a *sliding the lmklk and toter- strengthened The needs well - tT at be eligible for anivaau. 'F=+Zk• P. S g;' ^' Ocular to each jurist v,ird alakelYAMea.and hamal pecan the goals of the l l V - F°t 3 o t /Isa tnaa,lv;so ti., ,.,AO:., �w s ass., u , h x ants ruin d rani fete l rr M1 • ., — ,ay... eminJ by the federal god• u.,- '0.• yy meal a the Stafford ACS n j.1.0 g'- �■ r Haw 11`Mm saril by 5 Officials discuss disaster plans " __ P E 2 -'. See Hazard on pp.4 aeE•S - G _r 9'7-�. O ---- --�— ITlatlts and agencies. I 5.1."a$ �* _ by.lrnni ltrrttebreoa Accnnling to Ohms,last week' , r s e 3 y,;t' 'twenty-eight elected ntlicials tweeting was basically abrrut i(len• ' , :T t-=- ,-,�%'�? CL from throughout Elbert County ttfying possible hazard/disaster a ,_ .. = _s °.a is `■ gathered last week fn discuss pet- situations utilising the history of - "e r� tential disaster/hazards that the are;y ilunh with current situ. , V+ mold affect county ' %• Zi ft A+ planning and reaponst r r ti ■ -: iif ere; Disaster mitigation R X R e a"• 'This is gnatethingrtt ' t v c%'- `'s Rp x' is ��a dated by FENIA;the st I c,Ils af, yR crone up with ahazard 4 ^� ' e' ''€� plan,'ex ll unf Count Public comments onplan will be heard Tuesday at City Hall 4 y , Z 4-lo 1 ' E• withinve t'innOhrna.eE o - ≥< a tt ad i% As announced Iasi February, disasters—floods. tornadoes, plan for review print !0 the e within the stat4i is ids; Yuma County is participating droughts,ice storms,blizzards Public Meeting by contacting y=ep,. acs rase t.oconleUptviili their in en II-countyplanningeffort and the like. Even unusual Yuma County's Emergency • 32317 z1r..3 and mitigation plan" covering northeastern natural disasters, such as the Manager Roger Brown, at is a 0' a t.A •to 34 Nom■ The}insert!mitijaiti Colorado in order to maintain agricultural damage caused by g4R-5479. i Z4 8•-.41..,.._ 1!i' r� nue nfthe requirement its eligibility for -arid post- thepast overpopulation of Brown said, "The Public FEMA �P • a._ :§t:'i�n�,.� ow:.■ F'EMA f I�ederai}':mfr disaster mitigation--or foss rabbits and grasshoppers--and and Meeting is an important and r a •'` g revcntion--funding available g ors-- g 4't s-'15 fz: galt.inn Agenc 1 which,, P potential future disasters,such required step in the mandated g. •w= :' -,^ 1 _.I, Won't el is t i,-;o•irnt from FEMA--the Federal as the impart of West Nile Planning process, to your ':.•' �.,$gr_. _ . �r r T �h.-._::,. twine 'esseA in attendance is important to us. a.sa a= a r'= .i`i ^� planning Once we have revised the Plan at Pre disaster plan meeting set > 4'.:g."!_.rg l.;hT_ sea nredc wcss the• to reflect commend and e irardous concerns, a will be presented Y 5. F metal. glee,. . wig haldig m,n ...: ,n,r e:0,,•i OW. li eet,e.wnle.wt; .:ehn: -$" a a, ^revens. to the County Commissioners 'CSr °"g.= nor id i.ur.,H.lad.der tl.ronIMM •„ r •.:araonal ,,aw,r,or eh. n„L•. 4_'F n " _a 5 r" ,„nisei PIN teat••c,Th,.r..l.•. PP.li,P,.M. p.,, plum•err i..,a,.'h.,.,. ,teas is and City Council for formal } k„ i :,sends d"n•1 c•.,r:, di.Is. ..,.6' 1".m,.ein.,.,-:;iw.i:.ls'..,•• :y.'ra.tnoe,nn„es.:r:.,n• now we adoption, another FEMA �'�, a^�?, t'.� • , .r.%Pelt.Roar,la,. n P..k•a a-:,.t.. ...-o..•.•.e:••.c c.o...r.IPnamom.sr..a+•u.t'w 4 •=6-. .. F the r,,,l„..0h..h..n.oh.K‘..-III a.+;•,.:es. p;a,t,,.,a nr., rl public requirement. The completed s 511 ea a i k ,„ ea ..tun,:.:, clan.•y rt..,a.O....-..ui.....I , th.r, .;1-u-...'.,a,•,... ••. your Plan will maintain our dd +■� Phl barn,�isseax..t.a l he Lid:- t 1KM nlr.••.r E,ner.u:h NIP, i,vn ed.a. ,..l...l.o.. a• fr tTnrs :,-5'.5 rV i.,d,,r,E,,uu'oc.e.,,.:.r,•'-,n. ...k:,, r n t r,,.:e1._,c.,w,.O:,,,war.Li., County eligibility for funding to ••dT }.ea t ! �� - and n,wrcr- side„+.461.0 .I•wnllr"de''e.n. en-i tn.- a race—.wb..lal, :betided minimize future disaster - Y r.'%'e£*.._'ry p?R; Leau',•,r`L:,e11s:.. :,I.V. t-r,..0 ar•Irr :Mt..n,r:an,n , a.a,al.it .: .,I,:a,bun 11 Rlbn enL,ac.e:r„ 'T...A..0 to.la..: ,d.easp,rib i r at the losses. Examples of projects ,heettrrn(:•m•nirl-o.antot n,g.•ii atrth.p.an:..,.. rn.,t,ni..t,t:oi.erttan ,.. council that might be funded include ▪- -ti.tR'; ii .5 (ism*.snow i.. ne.n.:a.r f..r di w essd*r.-,n.1. r,ana s k s...3- w hlal.l. 221 S. disaster warning and drainage :.-n'}k3 •T t-'s ua n.F•m.,ranc,u,t. ,.,y.,, W,...o. ..KI,n::nF' 1., t. fe �r e�= � ,`F�i''^,^„ pr.. '�"I..�.,.I 1!,i,..�.. oly may xystemg, public education r-y $e 7 2-a.a i`t 4 M DRAFT programs,and flood protection y fr� ;r x "s=F B _■ measures." alireaili :?'ffic.(1j PHASE II: UNDERSTANDING OUR RISKS The Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Process Step 4: Identify the Hazards Introduction The Northeast Colorado Multi-County Planning Committee (MCPC) conducted a Hazard Identification study to determine what hazards threaten the planning area. This section of the plan documents the previous occurrence of hazards and the probability of future hazard events. Disaster Declaration History The simplest of methods to identify hazards based upon past occurrence is to look at what events triggered federal and/or state disaster declarations within the planning area. Disaster declarations are granted when the magnitude and severity of the event's impact surpass the ability of the local government to respond and recover. Disaster assistance is supplemental and sequential. When the local government's capacity has been surpassed, a state disaster declaration maybe issued, allowing for the provision of state assistance. Should the disaster be so severe that both the local and state government's capacity is surpassed, a federal disaster declaration may be issued, allowing for the provision of federal disaster assistance. Within the planning area, there have been both state and federal disaster declarations. Perhaps the most notable disaster event was the 1990 Limon tornado, a high profile event that caused staggering damage ($25M), yet did not qualify for federal disaster assistance. Another event with staggering damages ($20M) was the 1997 flooding along Pawnee Creek, a tributary to the South Platte River, most notably in Sterling and Atwood in Logan County. Here, however, federal assistance was provided. And probably most revealing, are the agricultural losses of more than $10M per year(as measured by crop insurance claims paid for heat, cold, excessive moisture, insects, drought, hail and other events). Only in severe instances did these events warrant disaster declarations. (It is important to note that the federal government may issue a disaster declaration through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Small Business Administration, as well as through FEMA. The quantity and types of damage are the determining factors.) The following map, from the FEMA website, displays the number of Presidential (FEMA) Disaster Declarations within the planning area. Preside tiu Disaster De4a atio $ . . January?,1965 to November I,2002 __,� ��^'` %IL 'r r . $.'�Y o Y' vrtuoumu kilik4 r ' ' r DLGMAnsss ''yy • -eD snoops Ilk + ryT�'fd ',. }(E17 r Disasters 9 This map indicates that, between 1965 and 2002, • Weld County has received between 7-9 Presidential Disaster Declarations, • Elbert, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Sedgwick and Washington counties have received between 4-6 Presidential Disaster Declarations, and • Cheyenne, Kit Carson, Phillips and Yuma counties have received between 1-3 Presidential Disaster Declarations. Unfortunately, other disaster data provided to the planning team is inconsistent and incomplete, and does not corroborate this information. The table below lists the State and Federal disaster declarations within the planning area that the Planning Team could verify: Year —",At.Ont Location- De4 atiorit Ii Source of Data., Types. 1965 Flooding 33 Counties, Federal CO-OEM including: Cheyenne Elbert 1969 Flooding 15 Counties, Federal CO-OEM including: Sedgwick Washington Yuma 1973 Flooding & Weld Federal CO-OEM Dam Failure 1980 Flood Weld State CO-OEM 1980 Grasshopper Morgan State CO-OEM Plague Phillips Sedgwick Washington 1981 Grasshopper Morgan State CO-OEM Plague Phillips Sedgwick Washington Yuma 1982 Winter Storm Weld State CO-OEM 1986 Winter Storm Weld State CO-OEM 1990 Drought Kit Carson USDA CO-OEM Phillips Sedgwick Washington Weld Yuma 1990 Tornado Lincoln State DOLA 10 Declaration $ Source of Data Year Event ° � . a `"�'' s �` .,la .Type 11i; .n• 1995 Flooding Logan State CWCB Morgan CO-OEM Phillips Sedgwick Washington Weld 1997 Flooding Elbert FEMA #1186 FEMA Lincoln (ADAMS) Logan Morgan Phillips Weld 1999 Flooding Elbert FEMA#1276 FEMA Weld (NEMIS) 2000 Drought Kit Carson USDA CO-OEM Lincoln Logan Morgan Phillips Sedgwick Washington Yuma 2001 Winter Storms Lincoln FEMA #1374 FEMA Logan Morgan Phillips Sedgwick Weld Yuma 2002 Wildfires Cheyenne FEMA#1421 CO-EOM Elbert Kit Carson Lincoln Washington Weld Yuma 2002 Drought All 11 counties USDA CO-OM 2003 Winter Storm Elbert FEMA CO-OEM Morgan EM#3185 Weld Clearly, the 11 county planning area of northeastern Colorado has been subject to a wide variety of disasters. This table indicates that flooding, winter storms, and drought, respectively, were the three most frequent hazards generating disaster declarations. That does not guarantee, however, that these three hazards are the most frequently occurring hazards. State and federal disaster 11 declarations do not always portray an accurate picture of the hazards to contend with. For example, there have been 738 tornadoes in the planning area between 1950 and 1997. Due to the vast open space within the planning area however, many of these tornadoes caused little or no damage. Certainly, though, the high numbers of tornadoes make them a hazard to plan for. In the following paragraphs, the process of further identifying the types of hazards that have occurred within the planning area is described. In the following section, the Vulnerability Analysis, the Planning Team will determine if each hazard poses a significant enough risk that it is addressed in this mitigation plan, and whether or not the hazard poses a greater risk for any particular jurisdiction versus the risk facing the entire planning area. Detailed Hazard Identification Process To further refine the list of natural hazards that have occurred within the planning area, each of the 11 County Planning Subcommittees (CPS's) reviewed the results of an exhaustive literature and Internet search conducted by TMAC, the planning consultant. The sources of hazard occurrence and frequency data that were researched included: • Bureau of Reclamation Dam Safety Reports • FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FIRMs and FHBMs) and the accompanying Flood Insurance Studies (FIS), • FEMA/NFIP participating community database • FEMA disaster assistance databases • NOAA's National Weather Service • NOAA's National Climatic Data Center • USACE Flood Plain Information reports • USDA's, Farm Service Agency, • USDA's National Crop Insurance Services database • USGS earthquake and landslide maps • USGS Water Supply papers • Colorado Climate Center at Colorado State University • Colorado School of Mines Hazard Mitigation Project Program • Colorado OEM disaster assistance databases • Colorado OEM maps for tornados, earthquakes, landslides, windstorms and dams, • Colorado OEM Hazard Mitigation Plans and Hazard Analyses • Colorado OEM and Morgan County Project Impact reports • Colorado Water Conservation Board's (CWCB) community floodplain studies, and • CWCB's flood impact studies and data Additional data was provided by local: • Citizens, including those at a Senior Citizen Living Center • Flood Control Districts • Historical Societies • Newspapers • Community officials • Rural Electric Associations, and • Watershed Districts 12 The MCPC utilized this data to calculate the recurrence interval for each hazard, and thus make a determination of the probable frequency of future hazard events. The Hazards The hazards identified as having had past occurrence in the planning area are: Flooding Riverine flooding is defined as when a watercourse exceeds its "bank-full" capacity. Riverine flooding generally occurs as a result of prolonged rainfall, or rainfall that is combined with already saturated soils from previous rain events. Colorado has never experienced a serious flood from snowmelt alone (CWCB Flood Mitigation Plan, 1986). Floods from rain on top of snowmelt are more common. Flash flooding is defined as those floods that rise and fall within a four-hour period. Flash floods are generally associated with intense rainfall events over confined watersheds or with dam or levee failures. When flooding occurs, water overflows into the floodplain, the area that is naturally inundated by floodwaters (not those areas that are flooded as a result of watercourse blockages, such as bridge constrictions or debris-clogged culverts). In its common usage, the floodplain most often refers to that area that is inundated by the 100-year flood, the flood that has a 1% chance in any given year of being equaled or exceeded. The 100-year flood is the national standard to which communities regulate their floodplains through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Most of the floodprone counties and incorporated communities within the planning area participate in the NFIP. Participation in the NFIP requires adoption of a local floodplain management ordinance and its enforcement within a mapped Special Flood Hazard Area. These maps are mostly produced and provided by FEMA. Flooding has occurred frequently within the planning area. The most significant floods were in 1935, 1965, 1969, 1995, 1997, and 1999. However, as the table below indicates, many other floods have struck the planning area as well. Flood Occurrences per County: 1950-2003 Cheyenne 7 Elbert 5 Kit Carson 8 Lincoln 4 Logan 9 Morgan 11 Phillips 4 Sedgwick 4 Washington 10 Weld 20 Yuma 10 11 County Total 92 Source:National Climatic Data Center Based on the information above, the northeast Colorado planning area has experienced an average of 1.7 floods per year. Most of these floods were less than the 100-year flood; the chance 13 of a 100-year flood occurring within any 30-year period is 26%. The chance of a 100-year flood occurring in any 100-year period is approximately 63%. Dam Failure Flooding Dam failure is a unique source of flash flooding. It is mentioned here in the Hazard Identification section because there are many dams within the planning area, and some have failed in the past. Most notably, the 1973 failure of Latham Dam in Weld County resulted in a Federal Disaster Declaration. There have been a total of 4 dam failures within the planning area; 3 within Weld County(Chambers Lake, 1907; and Prospect Dam, 1980 are the other two), and one in Sedgwick County(Julesburg Reservoir, 1917). The CO-OEM map below displays the location of Class 1 and Class 2 dams within the planning area. Class 1 and Class 2 dams are those that have been identified as presenting a high and moderate threat, respectively, should they fail. Dam Safety classifications are based upon the amount of loss that is estimated to occur to life and property should they fail. ' .4.•• d 1 . ♦ • . .. . ..+ter • o.n.(high.amoderate n.u,a) . mass . Cow 'y t C cowry batma p cowry e000a•w% y kx s s Via.. " W E 70 0 70 140 Mu.; .___..__.. .... S Class 1 and 2 dams are required by state law to have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) in place. There are no official recurrence intervals calculated for dam failures. Within the planning area there have been 4 failures between 1907 and 2003, a 95-year period. Thus one could infer that dams have been failing within the planning area on the average of once every 24 years. Blizzards and Severe Winter Storms Heavy snow, ice, severe winter storms, and blizzards are common to northeastern Colorado. With the exception of flooding, these hazards have caused more state and federal disaster declarations than any other hazard. Technically, the National Weather Service defines the following winter storm characteristics as follows: • Blizzard: Winds of 35 mph or more along with considerable falling and/or blowing snow, reducing visibility to less than one-quarter mile for three or more hours. Extremely cold temperatures often are associated with dangerous blizzard conditions, but are not a formal part of the definition. The hazard created by the combination of snow, wind and low visibility significantly increases, however, with temperatures below 20 degrees. 14 • Heavy snow: Depending on the region of the USA, this generally means that four or more inches of snow has accumulated in 12 hours, or six or more inches of snow in 24 hours. • Ice Storm: A damaging accumulation of ice expected during a freezing rain situation. Significant accumulations of ice are defined as one-quarter inch or greater. This can cause trees and power lines to fall down causing the loss of power and communication. Snow & Ice Storm Occurrences per County: 1950-2003 Cheyenne 16 Elbert 9 Kit Carson 20 Lincoln 6 Logan 11 Morgan 11 Phillips 0 Sedgwick 9 Washington 10 Weld 27 Yuma 15 11 County Total 134 Source:National Climatic Data Center There are no official recurrence intervals calculated for snow and ice storms. Within the planning area there have been 134 such storms between 1950 and 2003, a 53-year period. This equates to an average of 2.5 severe winter storms per year. Severe winter storms are not only likely in northeastern Colorado, they are expected each winter. Drought Drought has many definitions, even within the State of Colorado. They include: • A prolonged period without adequate precipitation (Hazards in Colorado), • A natural yet unpredictable occurrence in Colorado; An extended period of dry weather, especially one injurious to crops (Colorado Drought Mitigation & Response Plan), • A period of insufficient snowpack and reservoir storage to provide adequate water to urban and rural areas (Colorado Climate Center at CSU, from 2003 Drought Impact and Mitigation Report), and • Meteorologic: based on degree of dryness; actual precipitation is less than expected average or normal amount. Hydrologic: based on precipitation shortfall effects on streamflows and reservoir, lake and groundwater levels. Socioeconomic: occurs when the demand for water is greater than the supply due to a weather-related supply shortfall (FEMA, in Colorado's Hazard Mitigation Plan) The 11 county planning area has experienced 6 multi-year droughts since 1893, with the most pronounced being in the 1930's and 1950's. The following chart is from the Colorado Drought Mitigation &Response Plan. 15 Figure 1.1 Colorado's Historical Dry and Wet Periods DATE DRY WET DURATION(Years) 1893-1905 X 12 1905-1931 X 26 1931-1941 X 10 1941-1951 X 10 1951-1957 X. 6 1957-1959 X 2 1963-1965 X 2 1965-1975 X 10 1975-1978 X 3 1979-1996 X 17 Source:McKee,Doesken and Kleist,1999 The 1979-1996 wet period continued through 1999. Since then, Colorado entered another period of significant drought. As of June 2003, Colorado is still being impacted by drought— and even though the 2003 spring has been wetter-than-normal, the drought will continue for at least another year without continued above normal precipitation. (Colorado Climate Center, CSU). Based on the information above, Colorado has experienced 6 significant droughts in the past 110 years. This equates to a recurrence interval of experiencing a drought every 18.3 years, which lasts, on average, for 6.3 years. Tornadoes Tornadoes are rotating columns of air marked by a funnel-shaped downward extension of a cumulonimbus cloud whirling at destructive speeds of up to 300 mph, usually accompanying a thunderstorm (Hazards in Colorado). Tornadoes are ranked according to the Fujita scale, listed below: Fulita Tornado Scale FO: 40-72 mph (35-62 kt) Fl: 73-112 mph (63-97 kt) F2: 113-157 mph (98-136 kt) F3: 158-206 mph (137-179 kt) F4: 207-260 mph (180-226 kt) F5: 261-318 mph (227-276 kt) 16 Below is a CO-OEM map displaying tornado paths across the planning area. i s_ > 1 _ Tornado paths 1960-1996 \ — w A/5 Fulta I190sity 7 ✓/ 1 Ftn County Namos C County boundaries -- ("'T Firs perimeters 2002 4n 4.1t 70 0 70 140 Wes .3 The map only shows a representative sample of the tornadoes that have occurred within the planning area. Tornadoes have occurred across the planning area with alarming frequency. Tornado Occurrence per County: 1950-1997 Cheyenne 65 Elbert 51 Kit Carson 71 Lincoln 60 Logan 49 Morgan 50 Phillips 27 Sedgwick 23 Washington 93 Weld 192 Yuma 62 11 County Total 738 Individual County Data from each County Based on the information above, the northeast Colorado planning area has experienced an average of 16 tornadoes per year. There are no official recurrence intervals calculated for tornadoes. However, if one assumes a tornado affects one square mile and there are 21,600 square miles in the planning area, the annual probability of a tornado hitting any particular square mile in the planning area is 16 in 21,600, or a 0.07% (.0007) chance. Most of the tornadoes that have struck the planning area have been rated as FO, or F1, with an occasional F2. The only tornado recorded within the planning area higher than that was the F3 that struck Limon in 1990 (NCDC). It caused an estimated $25 million in damages. No deaths occurred, but there were 14 reported injuries. Most tornadoes within the planning area merely form and dissipate over open space. 17 • •• r x r ,� , ta"� E 'Y . �r F"'3 5 s - h4 '"' i 4 2 '♦� �gx ir3tt � • d �m to j, . ~♦s Source:NCEM newsletter OTHER WIND HAZARDS The planning area is also subject to significant, but non-tornadic (straight-line), winds. The map below shows the distribution throughout the planning area. •+r t � • r �t v� ♦y � ••, • • • Sever:Wind Evaeta 1960d9➢9 • 1 yat t • • • • 19-76 • .• • 66-90 it. �• • A• • •• - • T]-90 { •' • C IGO Y . T t County Name County boundarip r*� ₹'""`y. •"S• QFin O•rim K•rs 3002 .. . -' M t o ? • '*"fix r:gt « • W -E 70 0 70 190 MOn S The Planning Team has identified four distinct"groupings" of high winds within the planning area. These "groupings" of wind events can be explained by two sets of circumstances. First, the two groupings on the western edge of the planning area (Elbert and Weld counties) are the closest to the Front Range, the source of significant downslope, Chinook winds. They are also among the counties with the highest populations and experiencing the greatest rate of growth. 18 This creates a situation where (a) there are more frequent high winds, and (b) there are more people reporting these events. Secondly, the two groupings extending eastward across the planning area closely follow the routes of Interstate Highways I-76 and I-70. Most communities within the planning area are along these two Interstates, again creating population centers that likely record and report significant wind events. Hail and Severe Summer Storms Hail is formed when water droplets are thrown high into the upper atmosphere by the violent internal forces of thunderstorms. Frequently, hail and tornadoes are associated with severe summer storms, which occur almost daily throughout the spring, summer, and fall within northeastern Colorado. These storms have been identified as a separate hazard because hail is a major cause of agricultural losses within the planning area, as reported by the National Crop Insurance Services. The following table shows the # of times each county has experienced hailstorms with hail 2" or greater in diameter, between 1950 and 2003, a 53 year period. Hail (≥ 2") Occurrences per County: 1950-2003 Cheyenne 11 Elbert 7 Kit Carson 13 Lincoln 17 Logan 13 Morgan 17 Phillips 11 Sedgwick 13 Washington 28 Weld 33 Yuma 13 11 County Total 76 Source:National Climatic Data Center Based on the information above, the northeast Colorado planning area has experienced an average of 1.4 significant hailstorms per year. There are no official recurrence intervals calculated for hailstorms. However, using the same methodology that was employed for calculating tornado probability, if one assumes a hailstorm affects one square mile and there are 21,600 square miles in the planning area, the annual probability of a 2-inch or greater hailstorm hitting any particular square mile in the planning area is 1.4 in 21,600, or a 0.007% (.00007) chance. 19 Earthquake Below is a CO-OEM map displaying historical epicenters. ,— " 1 s ,r , , 7.4%t r � '''. , w '*' 4 1+g? 1 ��7,qqk��.< 1 ;%14,--icy,' zv �l '1'T n. R� rt \ Yyr�. \ Y!"-- „,1/4,‘:::,,v„,* F t' in %, " 44-I5t AT' y 7 yAq4`�G��u �., kt t. .,a.",,,,, 41� , fin° � } .ti .!a:.a ' 4 Z r 1` ..,,,,fit" �.vi�� This map does not display many occurrences within the planning area and does not provide much detail or accuracy in terms of location. However, the Planning Team was able to document 5 earthquakes within the planning area within a 123-year period (1870-1993) using a different, but non-reproducible CO-OEM map: • Cheyenne County, East of Kit Carson, S. of 40,between 1962-1993; 2.0-2.9 • Elbert County, south of Elizabeth, between 1962-1993; 3.0-3.9 • Kit Carson County, SE of Burlington, between 1962-1993; 3.0-3.9 • Lincoln County, near Lincoln/Crowley County line); between 1870-1961 • Weld County, east of Kersey, between 1962-1993; 3.0-3.9 (Source:Earthquakes and Related Hazards in Colorado, 1993 CO-OEM map) Based upon this data, a recurrence interval of one earthquake every 25 years can be estimated. While that is a moderately frequent recurrence interval, no earthquake within the planning area was greater than 3.9, and there is no record of damage associated with any of these events. The CGS describes northeastern Colorado as a region of minor earthquake activity--- essentially "aseismic." The USGS seismic mapping center delineates northeastern Colorado as a region of minor groundshaking potential --- less than the force of an automobile turning a corner that tumbles a stack of papers on the rear seat. The risk of a major/devastating earthquake in the planning area is minimal. Landslide Northeastern Colorado is a relatively flat area with great expanses of open space between communities. The open space is dotted with farms and ranches. While there are hills and gulleys, most Planning Team members mused about where a landslide could even occur. The Planning Team investigated landslides however, because of the following CO-OEM map. 20 J , l",) . - .- w 11 fi •/ • II • 1 /fN Pipelines i I } 'Y'ft'I 161:4:11"" w :11"" sir i;'t. f / pc .ryline's ss Cj'414t 14t.. I�� e nnmw.R aoae R_A Y Icla p otmllerls l'Al 0 . ,,, T LI. f US l ammlb ,::: al M.rb M1 .a ' t . Lelr.►41 '. e. no dos "� • _..„,t.„ N 70 0 70 140 MMr S The map depicts areas of suspected high and moderate landslide risk within the planning area, but no areas where an actual, documented risk is known. The Planning Team could not document there ever having been a landslide within the planning area. Wildland/Grassland Fires The NCDC database indicates that there have been zero events throughout the 11-county planning area between 1951 and 2003. However, there are two reasons for including the fire hazard in this section. First, in 2002, seven counties within the Planning Area were included in the Presidential Disaster Declaration for wildfires (FEMA DR-1421). To date, only one of the seven counties (Weld) has been able to document fire related expenses eligible for reimbursement ($5,896 in Individual Assistance). The second reason for including wildland and grassland fires in this analysis is because fires do occur frequently throughout the planning area, even though they cause little damage and do not qualify for disaster assistance. The fires are predominantly ignited by either lightening, sparks from braking trains, or cigarettes discarded from automobiles traversing the county roadways. Fires have grown to 16,000 acres, but losses have been minimal. Crops have been affected, though more often than not, it is the post-harvest "stubble" that catches fire once it has dried out. There are occasional reports of losses to agriculture outbuildings, farm equipment, and storage tanks as a result of these fires. The risk of future fires exists but is difficult to quantify. Noxious Weeds (Tumbleweeds) Among the more interesting natural hazards that affect northeastern Colorado, is that of"noxious weeds." Noxious weeds have been described as the "equivalent of biological pavement—They displace native vegetation and cause a loss of wildlife habitat." (Country Life, April 2003) Noxious weeds disguise themselves to humans with their attractive flowers, but they are non- native to Colorado. They were introduced as ornamental vegetation, or by accident. A recent newspaper article described a study underway documenting how noxious weeds are transported along roadways, by wind and vehicle tires. There are no natural predators for noxious weeds. The categories of noxious weeds include such vegetation as Tamarisk (Salt Cedar), introduced into Colorado during the 1930's WPA projects. Tamarisk can aggravate drought conditions by 21 sucking up incredible volumes of water from the riverbeds. They can aggravate flooding by becoming a barrier within the watercourse channels. Other noxious weeds such as spotted, diffuse, and Russian knapweed readily establish on any disturbed soil. Their early spring growth makes them competitive for soil moisture and nutrients and there is some evidence that they release chemical substances that inhibit surrounding vegetation. Field bindweed is a difficult weed to eradicate because of a root system that can penetrate the soil to a depth of 20 feet and which gives rise to numerous lateral roots. It can adapt to different environmental conditions and can be found at altitudes as high as 10,000 feet. Thistles, such as musk thistle and Canada thistle, can invade pastures and farm ground, along with roadsides or waste areas. Canada thistle is an aggressive weed that is difficult to control due to its extensive creeping root system. Leafy spurge has an extensive root system containing large nutrient reserves, which makes it extremely difficult to control. Further, the capsules on the plants explode when dry, often projecting seeds as far as 15 feet. Seeds may remain viable in the spoil for up to 8 years. All noxious weeds are aggressive and very competitive, stealing moisture, nutrients and sunlight from plants. Once a noxious weed gets established in an area it out competes the agricultural crop being produced by virtually choking it out. This is true for grain or feed crops and native grass in rangeland. Most aggravating to northeast Colorado residents, however, is the Tumbleweed. Common, somewhat whimsical, and seemingly harmless, tumbleweeds have, on occasion, inundated communities, contributed to grassland fires (particularly when fueled by winds) and clogged drainageways exacerbating flooding. Some believe the Tumbleweed problem to be directly related to both drought and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which pays landowners to not plant acreage registered in the program. The lack of crops contributes to weed growth(as does the lack of spraying), and then the lack of water contributes to the weed death, which then is dislodged from the ground by the wind, and the tumbleweeds are set free. The problem is when literally hundreds of thousands of tumbleweeds roam with the wind. The Planning Team was unable to find any documentation on the Tumbleweed hazard, and so cannot calculate a recurrence interval. The problem exists annually, with some years worse than others. It can be expected to continue. Wildlife and Insects (Coyotes, Rabbits, Grasshoppers & Mosquitoes) The final natural hazard affecting Northeastern Colorado is another unusual category; one not ordinarily considered— at least to FEMA and the vast majority of Emergency Managers. However, perspective is important— and to the residents of Northeastern Colorado, wildlife and insects have a long history of becoming "disasters"within the planning area. In fact, on December 29, 1924, the Colorado Governor declared a"Hunt Day," declaring open season on rabbits that were devastating the crops across the planning area. In one day, 125,000 rabbits were killed in a six county area(and 4,000 were shipped to Denver to feed the needy). In 1935, 15,000 rabbits were killed in Sedgwick County alone. Photos of"trains" of pick-up trucks piled high with the bounty still adorn the walls of local Historic Societies, barbershops and drug stores. 22 There is some documentation of similar hunts in earlier years (around 1900) that were organized to rid the fields of roving bands of coyotes. d $ t . ' 7 d f 4 H / �. 1' `'�'� i' •j f,,vz ,. ,t4-7,x i ' i . Sf� ? ,ji t. t .. /y y, i F y' it ,, e4 ;"d +. a ,--",,,:r al,. rt . Y a L; ,,,, ,, I, ,, ,1'. r }, F,M1 i Mtn 3-w `F yM1`"II S "Ba/�� RRBO1t, � . tF 1. 4 Hx Ik 11 I ' t w� f , , 3. . r brA T Circa 1920 "Are rabbits feet really luckyt" To emphasize the impact of natural predators, there were two state disaster declarations made for grasshopper plagues and their impact upon agriculture in 1980 and 1981. In 1931, 1937, and the late 1950's, all the sugar-beets in the community of Ovid were lost to grasshoppers. The cost of spraying for the eradication of the insects was split 3 ways between the Federal, state and local governments. Below is a typical grasshopper density map. USDA q-— Colorado Density ` Grasshoppers / Yard 1998 Adult Survey t . m • 15 + (867,088 acres) IN 12 to 15 (1,016,586 acres) • Illi 8 to 12 (2,571,366 acres) ' ` 5 to 8 (7,205,804 acres) 1 IIII 3 to 5 (6,667,611 acres) o, IN O to 3 (19,644,037 acres) The most current threat to the livestock and people of northeastern Colorado is West Nile Virus (WNV). Throughout the planning area in 2002, horses and birds were infected with the virus, with documented cases of several animal deaths as a result. In 2003, the spread of WNV grew significantly—though not uncommon for the "second year" in an area. As of October 02, 2003, Colorado had the most confirmed cases of WNV in the United States, 2,134 --- including 524 within the 11 county Planning Area. To date, there have been 44 human deaths in Colorado— including 4 within the 11 county Planning Area, including four human deaths. One county within the Planning Area (Weld) has authorized more than half a million dollars to eradicate the impacts 23 upon the livestock industry. In the past months some funding has been made available to the counties to assist with the expense of combating WNV, most notably through spraying. The "season" has now come to an end. One interesting approach to combating West Nile has been application of an old, seldom-used, state program for the landfilling of old worn tires. The tires, often used in many ways on almost every farm and ranch, collect and retain water --- serve as a breeding ground for mosquitoes, the insect responsible for spreading the disease. Now, with the real threat of West Nile Virus, the tire disposal program is seeing a significant increase in its use. No recurrence interval as been calculated for West Nile Virus, but it has spread nationwide in the past five years and eradication of the disease is nowhere yet in sight. 24 The Vulnerability Assessment Step 5: Assess the Risks Introduction The Northeast Colorado Multi-County Planning Committee (MCPC) conducted a Vulnerability Assessment to describe the impact that each hazard identified in the preceding section would have upon the planning area. This portion of the plan evaluates those risks where they are similar across the entire planning area, and where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. The hazards assessed are: • Floods • Blizzards and Severe Winter Storms • Drought • Tornadoes • Other Wind Hazards • Hail and Severe Summer Storms • Earthquakes • Landslides • Wildland/Grassland Fires • Noxious Weeds, and • Wildlife and Insects This portion of the plan begins with a general description for each hazard. In the next section, behind the Tab labeled "County Strategies,' there is a county-by- county accounting. Actual impacts and associated losses of past occurrences are included within the "History of Recorded Losses" developed for each county. These "histories" confirm that the hazard poses some risk to that county, and describes, where data is available, how it has impacted the county. The county-by-county assessments also detail what is vulnerable to all hazards by describing the population at risk, the rate of population growth, and a general description of land-uses and development trends. Each county assessment also presents a listing of the total values (actual and/or assessed) of property at risk. Then, a separate analysis was made to determine the vulnerability to floods. The Planning Team determined that the general risk to all the natural hazards identified, with the exception of floods, are similar across the entire planning area. A statement clarifying this determination is included in the general description of each hazard that follows. 25 Special Treatment of Flood Hazards: Inventory of Flood Hazard Areas The vulnerability to floods is included in each county-by-county assessment, but was treated differently from the other hazards in this plan because floods are the one hazard within the planning area where the risk specifically varies from place to place. Above all, this is because floods are the only hazard within the planning area where we can accurately predict where they will occur. This is also because each floodplain, while displaying the 1% event, is different from community to community. The floodplains vary in size and depth of flooding, as well as being populated with a different number of structures and community facilities, and with a differing assessed value. To address this issue of varying risk to floods, each County and incorporated community within the planning area that participates in the NFIP was asked to conduct a flood hazard area inventory that included: • The types and numbers of buildings (residential, commercial, and manufactured housing) in the identified floodplain, • The actual values of these buildings, so that an estimate of the potential dollar losses could be made, • The types and locations of critical facilities within each identified floodplain, and • The number of structures uninsured against flood through the NFIP. Such flood hazard inventories are useful in several ways. The Planning Team hopes that these inventories: • Characterize the extent of each community's exposure to potential flood losses, • Determine if adequate flood insurance coverage is in place, • Determine which buildings, occupants and critical facilities are at-risk, and • Help identify appropriate types of mitigation measures 26 The Hazards Each of the following hazards was discussed in the Hazard Identification section. Here, the hazards are described in terms of how they impact the planning area. Floods Floods present a risk to life and property, including buildings, their contents, and their use. Floods can affect crops and livestock. Floods can also affect lifeline utilities (e.g., water, sewerage, and power), transportation,jobs, tourism, the environment, and the local and regional economies. This is somewhat similar for all of the hazards identified with the planning area. However, floods are also unique, for floods are the only hazard addressed in this plan that are repetitive, not only in their nature, but in their location— floodplains. Floods have an annual probability of occurrence, have a known magnitude, depth and velocity for each event, and in most cases, have a map indicating where they will occur! Thus, in many ways, floods are often the most predictable and manageable hazard. Floods have occurred frequently throughout the planning area, 93 times in the past 53 years. They have caused millions of dollars in losses --- often uninsured and un- reimbursed. Floods will continue to occur. As with most hazards, impacts and losses can be anticipated and reduced, but nothing will keep the event from occurring again. Within the planning area there are three major river basins, the South Platte River Basin, the Republican River basin, and the Arkansas River Basin. Accordingly, some floods have occurred within a single basin, but there are also instances when broad patterns of rainfall have caused concurrent flooding in all 3 basins. I01 la• for Im• la• la. Im• IDY 11' T .. 1 Al' 7, -PSATrE .._ ._ Iw ,x it I RIVER x..`. -OWN PURE 0 il ° I ASIN w aq II ( GREEN RIVER OM � '� x l . + I 'ra raw REPUBLICAN' L, RIVE BASIN w j it _ r a I RIVER /{ I ..41". ;•tnva J M YMI 6° � E I C.; BASIN''py,Gw MEI.. It • \' I N....C. I IT �taw:. ARKANSASUses A CO RA DO RIVER B SIN I 311. ll 4.108RIYER I B• �T BASIN RIO GRANDE "-I'. pl I NapI�l SAN JUAN f, BASIN .AIM.RIVER ..r - BASIN Now 111--. _ -.1 . J..r---:,i----- --.—I w NI• la. IBr Ia• la• la• ,0+ 101' Source: Colorado Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan 27 As is required for participation in the NFIP, each participating community has an official map designating the Special Flood Hazard Areas. Within each county-by-county accounting of hazard vulnerability, there is a list of the official flood hazard map panel #'s. No flood hazard maps are included with this plan, due to their total number and volume. These maps, however, are available through each community's Building or Planning Department or at www.fema.gov Within the entire planning area, Morgan County is the only county that has "Q3" (digitized) flood data available. Morgan County is currently developing their GIS capability, which will allow them to use this data. Some communities (Weld County, Sterling, Limon, and Brush) have GIS, CADD, or other computer assisted graphic capabilities where they can display, merge or otherwise manipulate their specific floodplain data to facilitate the floodplain inventories that were completed. For the most part, however, the FEMA/NFIP paper maps were utilized manually to conduct the floodplain inventories. In some cases, such as Elbert County, this information was supplemented with maps from the CWCB. II wen. 9 le ,. �k J Rc r � , i� IAary an 031b odplalns ' k l yea 0oodplaln 1111 n 500 yea iloodplain Om I le t County Hanes O County bounden es Text Municipalay tlan,oc l FR Fire peril etun:100E P I Municipal boundalos 199 if t iien 1 lm NV Y E 10 0 10 20 Mlles 5 Morgan County Q3 Flood Data. Source:FEMA CD 98Q3CD2, F/PS 08087 Interestingly, the Q3 map above depicts that a significant percentage of Morgan County is within an identified Special Flood Hazard Area. However, as the county-by-county assessments and community flood hazard area inventories will reinforce, most of the floodplains outside the incorporated communities are undeveloped. 28 Dam Failure Flooding As stated in the Hazard Identification section of this plan, Dam Failure Flooding is included as a special subset of flooding because there are many dams within the planning area, and some have failed in the past. The Planning Team has been able to document four dam failures within the planning area; 3 within Weld County(Chambers Lake, 1907; Latham Dam, 1973; and Prospect Dam, 1980, and one in Sedgwick County (Julesburg Reservoir, 1917). Determining the vulnerability to flooding from dam failure differs from "normal"riverine flooding, in that the land areas that would be inundated in the event of a dam failure are not typically displayed on the FEMA and CWCB flood hazard area maps. This is because the retention structures, whether the primary function of the facility is for irrigation or flood control, are usually some distance upstream from the communities and users they provide for, and are in areas that have not otherwise been mapped. Colorado law, however, requires that Class 1 dams have Emergency Action Plans (EAP), and that failure inundation maps be prepared as part of the those plans. The Planning Team did confirm the existence of EAPs for the High Hazard dams. The emergency call-down notification lists for downstream property-owners serves as the initial vulnerability assessment for dam failure. The level of effort required by the communities to develop the inventories of the 1% mapped floodplain precluded completing detailed vulnerability assessments for the dam failure inundation zones. Detailed dam failure inundation zone inventories may be completed in the future, and are a recommendation of this plan. Class 1 High Hazard Dams per County Cheyenne 0 Elbert 0 Kit Carson 0 Lincoln 1 Logan 1 Morgan 1 Phillips 0 Sedgwick 1 Washington 1* Weld 9 Yuma 1** 11 County Total 15 Source: CO-OEM *Prewitt Reservoir is at the Logan-Washington County border and a failure would drain into Morgan County. **Bonny reservoir would drain into Kansas if it failed 29 Blizzards and Severe Winter Storms The National Climate Data Center recorded 134 significant snow and ice storms within the Planning Area over the past 53 years. } x i i E• $ 'mti to v "I f xy• 4 t . NL4 }} n £E `3b S•. � )123 .e. Oie :?Ir Blizzards and severe winter storms cover large land areas, impacting multiple counties concurrently. The impacts throughout the planning area are generally the same. Interstates and secondary roads are often closed because the road crews cannot"keep up" with the rate of snowfall; to prevent motorists from being stranded and necessitating rescue efforts; and to maintain the safety of the road crews. When the Interstate highways are closed, this action cuts the provision of primary supplies (gasoline and food) to the communities, and also strands thousands of motorists who were "passing through" for up to several days. In many cases, when the hotel rooms in one community"fill up,"the interstates are then closed back to the next community with available lodging. This is to prevent over-burdening of communities already hosting motorists, and to keep those still enroute from becoming stranded"in between." Ire * ` r ,x 30 A second common impact of blizzards and severe winter storms on the planning area is the loss of power. The weight of heavy continued snowfall and/or ice accumulating on power lines often brings them to the ground causing service disruptions for thousands of customers. This can cause a loss of community water and sewer services, as well as the supply of gasoline, as these services almost always require electrical pumps. In addition, prolonged power outages can mean loss of food to grocery stores, large facilities that provide feeding services (such as prisons, hospitals and nursing homes), and restaurants. The county-by county"History of Hazard Losses" identifies specific impacts (the monetary impact and number of downed power poles) where the data was available. Estimating future dollar losses is difficult though because one never knows which counties, and which areas within those counties, will be impacted by any particular storm. We can state unequivocally though that future severe winter storms will occur, and that most losses will be related to snow removal, roadway closures, and loss of electrical power. Drought The Planning Team's research showed that the 11-county planning area has experienced 6 multi-year droughts since 1893, with the two most pronounced being in the 1930's and 1950's. Similar to blizzards and severe winter storms, drought impacts such a vast area, that the MCPC considers the risk of drought to be the same across the entire planning area. The risk does not vary from county to county. The impacts of drought have been wide and varied. n•,.r .�„: ,•„:a .. W"ArMESE oo c,L.a.ocrsrs CALL. CPAl 04Y Q0CKY CR4"CERS?S? RESERW)RS c^e k qty_rel 3'. ' *4.. TY .,7f -,511 } y 4 � }-sWfr � 'a1.�e� of Yr�E is 3C.S11 k�"wvt+jog Ja(,kson L ake in Morgan County al lowest point myean. 31 Beyond the obvious impacts of crop loss and residential water"use restrictions" (e.g., hours for lawn watering and washing of cars), the lack of a"normal" supply of water, for both agricultural and urban uses, has: • Re-emphasized the significance of"senior"water rights. When there is not enough water to "go around," water users rely upon a old system "water rights"—which dictate who may utilize which particular water source, and how much of it. In many instances this has led to court cases, seeking to either enforce, change, or simply determine, the proper, legal priority for water use. For example, within the planning area, in 2002/03, a battle developed between well users and those that draw water directly from the South Platte River. The aquifer has been depleted to record low levels, leaving well users with a diminished water supply. Without replenishment, the lack of water affects many planting decisions (such as the type and timing of crops to be planted, or whether to plant at all). Well users turned to the river for water, but those with "senior rights"to the river argued that the water was theirs for first use—and in time of low water, that could mean no "left over" water for the others. The courts recently upheld the "senior water rights"by deciding that those with less senior rights must develop their own alternate water supply within the next three years. Alternate water supplies can be developed by drilling deeper wells (which might actually aggravate the aquifer depletion further), storing water (reservoirs, tanks, etc.), or transferring water from other sources. NE Colorado irrigation circles after 2002 summer drought. e ''^ n't";4'.alyKx..ra,o- `fit ': j F seM u'�v.. r f, v } YrY NL1 ..�.:.. A. py drv.� I 'f^.71 yYi ^ew • Photos by Venter,'I'recto_Bich Plains Sauazimn.Civil All Patrol-Hr ash.Colorado-October 26.2002 • Impacted the cattle industry by forcing ranchers to sell off their herds because they can't provide enough feed due to the drought impact upon feed-crops. This has additional impacts in that there are now fewer mothering cows, creating an ongoing downward spiral in herd population. Drought has further impacted the herds because ranchers take their cattle to feed lots earlier in order to reduce the amount of feed they need to have, and to use less electricity to power the irrigation pumps used to grow the feed. 32 • Created an increase in the rates for hydroelectric power. • Affected the population and distribution of wildlife. This, in turn, has affected the economy due to a lower than normal number of hunters and fishermen. • Affected wildfire by providing a greater fuel source (dried out plants) and diminished fire-fighting capacity(the closing off of wells has left less water to fight fires). • Increased the volume of noxious weeds, because they are now growing in areas that no longer can support crops. While the crop insurance loss data covers a variety of perils, it is indicative of the types of agricultural impacts that drought can have upon the planning area. The Planning Team has on file, with each County Emergency Manager, a detailed listing of the cause of losses resulting in these totals, where the drought losses could be separated from the other cause of losses. TOTAL CROP INSURANCE COVERAGE/CLAIMS: 1980-2001:NCIS Data COUNTY LIABILITY PREMIUM LOSS Cheyenne 40,578,442 6,488,308 25,417,815 Elbert 3,344,775 536,065 1,670,516 Kit Carson 94,386,097 9,913,753 45,760,024 Lincoln 13,545,618 2,172,351 6,764,911 Logan 47,723,953 4,506,051 17,936,045 Morgan 40,690,648 3,334,264 15,400,629 Phillips 45,085,255 4,213,333 18,200,278 Sedgwick 19,723,896 1,698,597 7,496,149 Washington 36,939,414 4,430,908 17,194,372 Weld 60,645,570 5,673,363 24,176,502 Yuma 76,348,828 6,559,521 33,698,482 TOTALS 479,012,496 49,526,514 213,715,723 33 Tornadoes Tornadoes are the most violent hazard affecting the planning area. Tornadoes can have an atmospheric pressure differential of 2 inches from the outer edge of the funnel to its center, creating winds in excess of 300 mph across an area as small as 300 yards. For the sake of comparison, a hurricane can have the same pressure differential across an area of 300 miles! Tornado Occurrence per County: 1950-1997 Cheyenne 65 Elbert 51 Kit Carson 71 Lincoln 60 Logan 49 Morgan 50 Phillips 27 Sedgwick 23 Washington 93 Weld 192 Yuma 62 11 County Total 738 The chart above, repeated from the Hazard Identification section, shows that 738 tornadoes have been recorded across the 11 county Planning Area over a 47-year period. At the same time, the chart indicates a wide range of occurrences on a per county basis. The Planning Team believes the data is more indicative of tornadoes being reported versus actual occurrences. The counties with the higher number of occurrences are also those counties with either higher population, greater damages experienced, closer proximity to Interstate Highways, or where official "Spotter Training" has been provided. Additionally, higher numbers of occurrences are reported in counties with the larger land areas. When the randomness of tornado location and the vast open space within the planning area are considered, the Planning Team does not consider any one area at a greater risk to tornadoes than any other. Thus, the risk of tornadoes is the same across the entire planning area. The risk does not vary from county to county. This is because tornadoes are just as likely to hit one location as another within the planning area. The area that tornadoes strike is random, depending upon the location of the weather system spawning them. The impact of tornadoes is also random across the planning area because of the tremendous amounts of open space between communities and farms and ranches. The planning area frequently experiences tornadoes that strike little or nothing. On the other hand, tornadoes need to be given serious consideration in this assessment, because if and when they do strike populated areas, the impact can be devastating. During the past years of record keeping within the Planning Area there has been one catastrophic incident --- the 1990 Limon Tornado that caused an estimated $25 million dollars of 34 damage. Tornadoes can impact communities by destroying buildings and infrastructure within seconds. They can annihilate power distribution systems, commercial businesses, residential neighborhoods, automobiles and crops. They can create tremendous debris removal problems, overwhelm building departments, and psychologically scar residents. Little can be done to reduce the damages caused by tornadoes—though recently, significant strides have been made to improve life safety during these events— most notably through improved warning systems and the installation of"safe-rooms." r + prier A £ lstRRRPPP �.: dif.„ I' 1 wY" it � t ti l, a i. ! 41 f r }e The "Sale Room Team"of n.Morgan Middle ' `-School Students build sale rooms and team spirit in F6 Morgan,CO a rt 1 d d� `�d, {.4x I it <' \ a :t , A M1 .;; x k ' Ad•.. .�. Ater = q.. ar rfix I' +. r i l - A '°N 4y, M. FEMA inspectors in Moore, OK, in 2003, where Safe-Rooms proved their worth! 35 The County Mitigation Strategies Step 6: Set Planning Goals Introduction The Hazard Mitigation Planning process followed by the MCPC is a typical problem- solving methodology: • Describe the problem (Hazards Identification), ■ Estimate the impacts the problem could cause (Vulnerability Assessment), • Assess what safeguards already exist that could/should lessen those impacts (Capability Assessment), and • Using this information, determine if you should do something (Determine Acceptable Risk), and if so, what that something should be (Develop an Action Plan). When we decide that certain risks are unacceptable and that certain actions may be worthy, the development of Plan Goals and Objectives takes place. Goals and Objectives help us describe what we would like to see take place, using increasingly more narrow descriptors. We begin with Goals, which are broad-based, long-term and general statements. Goals are accomplished by meeting Objectives, activities that are specific and achievable in a finite time period. In most cases there is a third level, called Recommended Actions, which are very detailed and specific ways of meeting the objectives. When developing the Goals and Objectives for this plan, the MCPC was provided with the model below as an example of this relationship. � (to: x Pro,': '•mitr re �' Data H lties ,nAv ,0./di pc, s s 1 .E, aF ` -Identify Hazards -Floodplain Management Adopt School Education Programs -Analyze Risks -Building Codes Host Construction Technique Workshops -Create Maps -Subdivision Ordinances Conduct"Hazard Awareness"Week -Coordinate with CO-OEM The MCPC discussed Goals and Objectives for this plan at two points in the planning process. First, early in the planning process, the MCPC established general Goals and Objectives to set the initial tone and direction for the overall plan. Then, after the problem solving as described above took place, the Goals and Objectives were revisited as a validation and refinement process to determine if the MCPC data collection supported them. 44 The data collection supports the Goals, Objectives and Recommended Actions in three ways: • The Hazard IdentificationNulnerability Assessment data identifies: o Areas exposed to hazards, o At-risk critical facilities, and o Future development at risk. As examples, this plan puts forth Recommended Actions concerned with the NFIP: o For communities that are experiencing growth but are not in the NFIP, o For communities that are mapped but do not participate in the NFIP, and o For communities with significant uninsured building inventories within the 100-year floodplain. • The Capability Assessment data identifies; o Areas for Emergency Management improvements As examples, this plan puts forth Recommended Actions concerned with County `Storm Ready' certification by the National Weather Service. At first hand, the recommendation seems response, not mitigation, oriented. However, the Storm Ready program requires not just redundant warning capabilities, but public education, training, and ongoing reviews as well. Additionally, it provides a focus on a complementary, but non-FEMA, mitigation program. • The History of Recorded Natural Hazard Losses data identifies; o Protective measures that could prevent past damages from becoming repetitive. As an example, this plan puts forth Recommended Actions concerned with flood protective measures recommended following studies of the 1997 flood. Each county used the results of the data collection efforts to develop goals and prioritize their actions. The priorities differ from county to county. Overall, for the entire planning area, achieving NWS "Storm Ready" certification is the top priority because it is something everyone in the region can achieve, it doesn't take a lot of money, it's effective, it's "visible," and it's good public/political relations. From county to county additional priorities were developed based on past damages, existing exposure to risk, other community goals, and weaknesses identified by the county-by-county capability assessments. 45 The Goals and Objectives developed for this plan are: 1. MAINTAIN FEMA ELIGIBILITY/POSITION COMMUNITIES FOR FEDERAL MITIGATION FUNDING 1.1. Develop and Adopt this DMA Plan 1.1.1. Attend the County Subcommittee Meetings 1.1.2. Provide Data regarding Hazards, Losses, and Existing Capabilities 1.1.3. Review and Comment Upon the Drafts 1.1.4. Stimulate and Participate in the Public Input process 1.1.5. Advise and Schedule Plan Adoption with Appropriate Authority 2. IMPROVE COUNTY CAPABILITY TO REDUCE DISASTER LOSSES 2.1. Have each County Certified as "Storm Ready"by NWS 2.1.1. Coordinate with National Weather Service (NWS) 2.1.2. Seek NOAA Weather Radio Repeaters 2.1.3. Identify other Program Requirement Needs 2.1.3.1.Communications Equipment 2.2. Improve Local Flood Protection Programs (where appropriate) 2.2.1. Promote NFIP participation 2.2.2. Promote Public Awareness of Flood Hazard Areas &Potential Losses 2.2.3. Promote Flood Insurance 2.2.4. Seek Improved Floodplain Mapping 2.3. Coordinate Planning Requirements and Community Plans 2.3.1. Disaster Plans 2.3.1.1.Local Emergency Operations Plans 2.3.1.2.Homeland Security Plans 2.3.1.2.1. Bioterrorism/Health Department Plans 2.3.1.2.2. WMD/Terrorism Plans 2.3.2. Hazardous Materials and LEPC Plans 2.3.2.1. Materials transported through County 2.3.2.2.Materials stored in County 2.3.2.3.Materials manufactured in County 2.3.3. Regional Transportation Plans 2.3.3.1.CDOT 2.3.4. County Comprehensive Plans 46 3. REDUCE LOSS OF LIFE & PROPERTY FROM WEATHER HAZARDS 3.1. Reduce Losses from Drought 3.1.1. Improve water supply 3.1.2. Seek grazing on CRP land 3.1.3. Use low-water crops 3.2. Reduce Losses from Flood 3.2.1. Promote Flood Insurance 3.2.2. Sponsor Cost-Effective Site-specific Projects 3.3. Reduce Losses from Tornadoes/Wind storms 3.3.1. Improve Warning 3.3.2. Promote "Safe-Rooms" and other shelters 3.3.3. Promote Erosion Mitigation Techniques 3.4. Reduce Agricultural Losses from (Multi-Peril) Weather Hazards (Hail/Ice/Insects/Too much-Too Little Water) 3.4.1. Promote Crop Insurance 4. INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL HAZARD LOSSES 4.1. Sponsor an Annual Public Education Project 4.1.1. Have an "Awareness"Week 4.1.1.1.Show hazard maps, list past losses, explain insurance availability/cost 4.1.1.2.Use billing "stuffers," county fair, websites, newsletters, radio, newspapers, 4-H clubs 4.1.2. Target specific areas (floodplains) These Goals and Objectives were developed for the entire Planning Area. Not every county has Recommended Actions for every Goal and Objective. Some counties developed additional or modified Goals and Objectives. Not every Goal and Objective is supported by a specific Recommended Action, though they retain their worthiness in providing long-range direction and focus that can be valuable in the implementation and maintenance of this plan. The Capability Assessments and the County-specific `History of Recorded Disaster Losses from Natural Hazards' are in the following county-by-county sections of this plan. This formatting was developed to prevent the reader from having to go back and forth between Risk Assessment data and County specifics, and to provide each county with their own, separate, `pull-out' section of the plan for easier and more functional use. 47 Introduction to the County Elements: This plan continues with a separate planning element that presents data specifically related to each county within the Planning Area. Each County Planning Element is structured with the same form and format. The following is an explanation of the template and what each data set represents. County Planning Element: Each County Planning Element section is presented in the `landscape' format. Each County Planning Element begins with a page of pictures meant to provide a representative sample of the County and its incorporated municipalities. Where available, USGS aerial photographs have been included, primarily to portray the relative size of the communities and the overall rural nature of the entire Planning Area. County Planning Subcommittee and General Description: This section begins with a list of the entities that participated in the planning process through the County Planning Subcommittee (CPS). The list identifies the County, the incorporated municipalities, and the other"local governments" as defined in the DMA regulations, which are seeking FEMA approval by their having participated in the planning process. In most every case, the County and the local governments were represented by more than just one person, department or agency. In many cases, knowingly ineligible entities, such as private businesses or mapped communities not enrolled in the NFIP, also participated in the planning process by attending meetings and providing data. They are also listed. The general description paragraph always details the number of square miles in the county, the 2000 population of the county, the 2000 population density of the county -- per square mile, and the rate of population growth in the county between the 1990 and 2000 census. If other interesting information was provided describing the county it was included in this section. County History of Recorded Natural Hazard Losses This section presents the county specific hazard data, where the Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment sections presented earlier in the plan described the hazards, and the impacts, that the entire Planning Area faces. The subtitle of this section identifies the number of events listed in the National Climate Data Center database for that particular county, for the time period, 1950-2002. The number of events cited is always larger than the number of events listed on the "History of Recorded Natural Hazard Disaster Losses." This is because a"screening" filter was then applied to the database so that only"significant" events were listed. The filters employed sought only those tornado events that were Fl or greater, wind events that exceeded 74 miles per hour(Category 1 hurricane strength), hailstones equal or greater than 2" in diameter, and any event that caused more than $3,000 worth of damage. The "History of Recorded Natural Hazard Disaster Losses, "is presented in a 48 table format, and includes the date, type of event, location, damages, other information, and data source for each listing. Blank boxes within the table indicate that the particular information was not available. Total Values at Risk from Hazards These figures were obtained from each county's Assessors office—a participant of each County Planning Subcommittee (CPS). The figures are included because many of the hazards present an equal risk across the entire county. It is unlikely, and unexpected, that a natural hazard would destroy the total value of property within a county. However, because the CPS cannot determine where a hazard will strike in the county, and which property/infrastructure or what percent of property/infrastructure will be impacted, listing the total value of the property/infrastructure at risk was deemed the most reasonable approach of detailing "what is at risk." In most cases assessed values were listed, due to the format of the available data. Floods are the only hazard addressed in this plan where the CPS can determine where they will strike, what will be impacted, and a reasonable estimate of the value of the damage. This is why each NFIP participating community conducted a detailed floodplain inventory. Floodplain InventoryNulnerability and Associated NFIP Data NFIP Mapping Information Listed are the names of all incorporated communities within each county, and the current status of mapping within the NFIP. If the community has been mapped, the Community Map # and the Effective Date is cited. Inventory: In communities with NFIP maps, the CPS counted every residential, commercial, and manufactured building within the identified Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). In most cases a CPS team member, accompanied by a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM), did this manually. In some instances, CADD or GIS maps showing lots and building footprints were utilized. In other cases, communities could provide a listing of properties within the SFHA. In Sterling/Atwood (Logan County), figures from engineering studies for proposed mitigation projects were utilized. The addresses of each building were then taken to the County Assessor's office where the individual property cards were pulled and the values of the improved structures were recorded. In a few counties, the Assessor's office was able to produce a digital listing of the properties and their values. The individual values were then totaled to arrive at a total value of property at risk. Actual values were listed. The actual values were utilized because they provide a more accurate picture of what it would cost to repair or replace the damaged properties. The actual values were calculated by"adding back in" the % deducted in calculating "assessed values." In Colorado in 2001, residential property was assessed at 9.15%. All commercial property is assessed at 29%. Only Real Property and Improvement values were used. Land values were not included in the calculations, because land is uninsurable, and generally not damaged, in floods. Finally, using NFIP depth-damage curves from FEMA's Riverine Flood Benefit-Cost software program, an average % of damage was calculated. This was done because 49 rarely does a flood event cause 100% damage to the property at risk. The value was then converted to an estimate of average annual damage— a figure that could be used to justify future mitigation projects— as the benefits of mitigation are calculated as future damages avoided. Policies and Claims Information Presented here is information detailing the number of NFIP policies currently in force, the number of A-Zone and non-A-Zone policies, and the claims filed and paid. This data provides an accurate description of vulnerability to floods in that the number of uninsured floodprone properties can be calculated. In addition, a high number of non-A-Zone policies might indicate an area susceptible to flood damages from ponding or inadequate drainage, because property owners in such areas are not forced to purchase flood insurance, it is strictly a voluntary purchase. Property owners that are incurring flood losses, and who discover that their losses can be insured, may explain groupings of policies outside the floodplain. Floodplain Population This section presents data from the State Hazard Mitigation Plan and includes the floodplain population, number of floodprone structures, and assigned flood risk designation. The state's flood risk designation is based upon the population and number of structures in the floodplain, plus the number of dams in the vicinity. Critical Facilities in the Floodplain Each CPS identified the "critical facilities"within the identified floodplain. Critical facilities were not identified outside of the floodplains because they could be subject to any of the other hazards on a hit-or-miss basis. The Planning Team felt that it is unlikely that protective measures for such facilities, (e.g., protecting a community water tower from a tornado) would be technically feasible or cost-effective. Where there is some feasibility, (e.g., protecting power supplies with sturdier poles spaced closer together), those actions are already being taken. Within the floodplains there is a quantifiable risk to these facilities, and potentially cost-effective protective solutions, (e.g., building a floodwall around a power substation, or protecting a school with temporary shields and closures). Crop Loss Data Each County Planning Element includes a summary tabulation of crop loss data for the county between the years 1980-2001. Listed are the average annual claims paid, the total amount of coverage purchased during the 21 year period, the total premiums paid during the 21 year period, and the total claims paid during the 21 year period. The National Crop Insurance Services, through the USDA/FSA, provided the data. The losses are for multiple hazards, as the policies cover multi-perils. In every county, average annual insured crop losses exceed the losses of any other hazard. Agricultural losses are the number one loss in each county within the Planning Area. The losses are likely even higher than those indicated because many crop losses are 50 uninsured. Also, in every county, the return on the investment of crop insurance averages 4-to-1 (claims paid versus premiums paid). Other Hazards in the County This section presents a listing of other pertinent hazard data that did not appear within the "History of Disaster Losses"table, such as total number of tornadoes, wildland/grassland fire reports, number of Class 1 and Class 2 dams, incidences of West Nile Virus, landslide risk, historical earthquakes, and high and low temperature extremes. Historic Sites in the County This provides a listing of the sites registered on either the federal or state Register of Historic Places. This is included because it is important for communities to have an awareness of cultural resources that could be impacted by natural hazards, and because if they are, the rules for repairing and rebuilding historic structures differ from others. Not having an inventory of historic resources available when disaster strikes can prolong a community's recovery and aggravate economic recovery. Development Trends in the County Clearly, mitigation is most effective in protecting development that doesn't yet exist. Knowing a community's development trends, when juxtaposed with the hazard analysis, is a valuable information tool that can provide direction, incentive and alternatives to placing new development at risk from natural hazards. This section describes the development trends within each county, where discernable. County Capability Assessment The purpose of this section of the planning process is to determine what policies, programs, regulations, and other mechanisms each County, and the incorporated communities, already have in place that either contribute to, or hinder the ability to mitigate the effects of natural hazards. The Hazard Identification section identifies those hazards that have, or could, adversely affect the jurisdictions. The Vulnerability Assessment then estimates the impacts that those hazards could have. This section quantifies what protective measures and practices exist and lessen those impacts --- leaving a net vulnerability upon which the plan's goals and objectives are based. Additionally, the analysis of the existing capabilities also allows the identification of those practices which may actually increase the impacts of hazards upon the communities. The true value of a Mitigation Capability Assessment is in its analysis. For this plan, each county presents a good first effort, as exemplified by the inventory they have completed. This is an ongoing process that will continue with the implementation and maintenance of this plan. But this is not to say that that an initial analysis has not been completed. It is such an analysis that has led to this plan's strongest regional recommendation: to have each county certified as "Storm Ready" by the National Weather Service within the next three years. On the following page is the "key" to the Capability Assessment Matrix utilized and presented by each county. 51 EXPLANATION OF CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT MATRIX Does the Community have: Comp Plan: A Comprehensive Long-Term Community Growth Plan? Land Use Plan: A plan that designates type of Land Use desired/required; uses Zoning Subdivision Ordinance: A regulation that dictates lot sizes, density, setbacks and construction type Zoning Ordinance: An ordinance that dictates type of Use and Occupancy, Implements Land Use Plan NFIP/FPM Ord: A Floodplain Management Ordinance: Directs development in identified Flood Hazard Areas. Required for Participation in NFIP and Availability of Flood Insurance Sub. Damage: Does your FPM Ordinance contain language on Substantial Damage/Improvements? Administrator: Do you have a Floodplain Management Administrator(someone with the responsibility of enforcing the ordinance and providing ancillary services (e.g., map reading,public education) #of FP Bldgs: How many buildings are in the mapped Floodplain? # of policies? How many buildings are insured against flood through the NFIP? #of RL's: #of Repetitive Losses: (Paid more than $1,000, twice in the past 10 years) CRS Rating: A Community Rating System rating from the NFIP, and if so, what is it? BCEGS: A Building Code Effectiveness Grading System Rating LEOP: A Local Emergency Operations Plan—a disaster RESPONSE plan HM Plan: A Hazard Mitigation Plan Warning: Any type of system, such as "Storm Ready"Certification from NWS, NOAA Weather Radio reception, outdoor sirens, Cable(TV) Override, or an Emergency Warning Notification System? GIS: A Geographic Information System Structural Protection Projects: (levees, drainage facilities, detention/retention basins) Property Protection Projects: (buy-outs, elevation of structures, floodproofing, small "residential" levees or berms/floodwalls) Critical Facility Protection: (for example, protection of power substations, sewage lift stations, water-supply sources, the EOC, police/fire stations or medical facilities that are at risk) Natural And Cultural Inventory: Do you have an inventory of resources, maps, or special regulations within the community? (wetlands and historic structures/districts, etc.) Erosion Or Sediment Control: Do you have any projects or regulations in place? Public Information And/Or Environmental Education Program: Do you have an ongoing program even if its primary focus is not hazards? Examples would be "regular" flyers included in city utility billings, a website, or an environmental education program for kids in conjunction with Parks & Recreation?) 52 In the County Capability Assessment matrix, a"C"means the County provides the service, and an "IP"means In Progress. Blank boxes or N/A means the information was either unknown or unavailable. County Recommendations The final section of each County Planning Element puts forth the Recommended Actions of the County Planning Team. Each recommendation is resented in a similar format: Action Item: A brief statement of what is needed Issue Statement: An explanation of why the Recommended Action is important Implementation Manager and Strategy: Identifies what person, position, department or agency has the initial lead responsibility for implementation. This could include a range of activities from identifying and applying for appropriate grants, to gathering the technical data needed for project development, or simply extending an invitation for Technical Assistance. Priority: A general statement of relative degree of importance, usually from a range of high, medium and low. The assignment of priorities changes from action to action and could be based upon the potential impact if the Action is not taken, pressing regulatory requirements, ease of implementation, potential availability of funding, or any combination of these factors. There is little or no inferred priority based upon the order in which the Recommended Actions are resented in the plan, beyond the goal of having each county become"Storm Ready" certified by the National Weather Service within the next three years. This is the highest priority for those counties not already certified. Cost Estimate: Where costs are known, they are presented. Potential sources of funding and/or local matches are also identified when known or considered. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: A statement of why the Planning Team believes these Recommended Actions would be cost-effective to pursue. In most cases, this s a generic description, as it is fully expected that any project being seriously considered for implementation will need to detail project costs and benefits, and due to the scope of this plan, and the constant fluctuation in project costs and values that help determine benefits, a detailed analysis is not worthwhile at this point in the planning process. 53 CHEYENNE COUNTY PLANNING ELEMENT } m +7• Imo,. L991 �. _ ... ..-' i pzc y'.r.S''. a. m .a. :4,-, py , ,y `iq R 's ,--;r S �: S:aB'i �#;n� t "M 9 C '_ ' Y� sn� y .eye-,s �. __0-„4.-74s, .=i �a..: pF.. ._ } �R "_ "+ �� r MUSEyVY c F ;R �.. h \ nr. a i� ._t'.::. "^l '`� Y!'. .lo- 3ta 1.' t 4 [ $k ?,' mss 4t. p^ 6 M r n .ars-tc{. , i 1 k s v' zx a 54 Cheyenne County Planning Subcommittee and General Description The following entities participated in the DMA planning process through the Cheyenne County Planning Subcommittee (CPS): • Cheyenne County • City of Cheyenne Wells • Town of Kit Carson • Town of Wild Horse • Plains-to-Peaks Regional Emergency Trauma Advisory Council (RETAC) • West Cheyenne Fire Protection District • Keefe Memorial Hospital • Cheyenne County#1 Fire Protection District • Duke Energy • Shell Pipeline • Union Pacific Railroad The land area of Cheyenne County is 1,782 square miles. The population (2000 census) for Cheyenne County was 2,231 --- an average density of 3.4 people per square mile. Cheyenne County lost population by 6.9%between 1990-2000. The county is predominantly rural. 55 Cheyenne County History of Recorded Natural Hazard Losses There are 316 events listed by the National Climatic Data Center between 1950-2002 (NCDC Filters Applied: Tornadoes ≥ Fl; Damage ≥ $3,000; Hail ≥ 2"; Wind ≥ 75 MPH) s Date,k Event g,44, a ,— Location' ,--Dairiagea ' Other Info. Data Source.-4 Unknown Fire Kit Carson Town torched by fire 5 Colorado Tourism Office, times, one started by train Planning Team 1887 Blizzard History of Cheyenne County 1912 Blizzard Burned cow chips History of Cheyenne County Trains out for 3 weeks 1919 Flu Pandemic 2 deaths in SE County History of Cheyenne County 3/26/1931 Blizzard Burned corn cobs NCDC 25' drifts, 8/4/1933 Flood Arapahoe 5 bridges washed out 10 hour downpour NCDC on US 40 Approx 26" 1930's Drought Dust Bowl Farms abandoned 47 day dust storm/1935 Planning Team 1945 Fire Wild Horse Burned from Hugo to Planning Team Tribune, followed ditch, started by cow kicking over lantern 1952-1958 Drought History of Cheyenne County March 1957 Blizzard 7/20/1958 Tornado $25K F2, 5 injuries NCDC June 1965 Flood Big Sandy R. & Homes damaged in KC Debris blocked RR bridge NCDC, CWCB, SCS Wild Horse Creek @ 40-287 5/10/1975 Tornado F2 NCDC 11/18/1975 Blizzard Livestock killed Planning Team July 31, 1976 Lightening I death NCDC 2/23/1977 Dust Storm Cheyenne Wells Homes filled with dirt Tumbleweeds galore! Planning Team 3/17/1977 Blizzard 5,500 poles lost Power/phones out 5 days, REA Ice damage 21 days in SE County Large cattle/calves loss 6/17/1977 Hail 2" NCDC 2/1978 Ice storm History of Cheyenne County 6/16/1979 Tornado $2.5M F2,200 yards x 3 miles NCDC 1980 Blizzard State Dec CO-OEM 1981 Grasshoppers State Dec CO-OEM 6/13/1986 Hail 2" NCDC 1987 Wildfire NE corner of County State Dec CO-OEM 56 e' ,.Location4.4,,,..,-4, `I` Data Source. , ��.x : Date-a, � :.Event_ ,,,,�• , „� � �� .w� Damages _ Other Info 5/21/1989 Hail 2.75" NCDC 6/29/1989 Hail 4.5" NCDC 5/28/1991 Hail 2.75" NCDC 5/22/1993 Hail Cheyenne Wells 2.5" NCDC 5/16/1995 Tornado Kit Carson $3K NCDC 7/20/1995 Hail Arapahoe 2.75" NCDC 10/29/1997 Blizzard Planning Team 3/26/1998 Severe Storm Arapahoe $1K NCDC 6/29/1998 Hail Arapahoe 2" NCDC 7/13/1998 Microburst Cheyenne Wells $6K NCDC Kit Carson $3K 5/22/1999 T-storm/Wind Arapahoe $2K 89 MPH NCDC 2000 Drought (USDA Dec) CO-OEM April 2001 Winter Storms Ice damage REA's damaged: KC CO-OEM Fed#1374 only rec'd State Dec 6/15/2002 Hail Kit Carson 2.75" NCDC 6/24/2002 Hail Cheyenne Wells 2.5" NCDC 2002 Grass Fire 11-17,000 acres Slurry drops used Planning Team 2003 West Nile Virus County-wide 4 cases in humans CDPHE reported 57 CHEYENNE COUNTY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOTAL VALUES AT RISK FROM HAZARDS: Cheyenne Wells: $3.657M in Assessed Value (2002 data) Kit Carson: $1.066M in Assessed Value (2002 data) Unincorporated County: $4.510M in Residential/Assessed Value $2.703M in Commercial/Assessed Value $16.792M in Agricultural Property/Assessed Value $4.871M in Industrial /Assessed Value FLOODPLAIN INVENTORY/VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND ASSOCIATED NFIP DATA: NFIP Mapping Information: Cheyenne Wells: Never Mapped Kit Carson: Mapped, but does not participate in the NFIP. Panel # 080033; 12/13/1974, (FHBM), No inventory conducted. Kit Carson is ineligible for FEMA PDM/FMA and HMGP funding for floods. Flood insurance is unavailable to the property owners who would want, or required, to purchase it County, Never Mapped Policies and Claims Information: Insurance not available Floodplain Population Information: The state estimates that there are 55 people in the county floodplains(1997). Cheyenne County was identified in the State flood risk assessment as Low Risk, based upon the floodplain population, the number of structures at risk, and the number of dams. Critical Facilities in the Floodplain: Kit Carson: sewage lift station CROP LOSS DATA (for the years 1980-2001, from the Federal Crop Insurance Services): $ 1,210,372/year in crop insurance payments (average claims paid: 1980--2001) $40,575,442 in coverage over the 21-year period $ 6,488,308 collected in premiums over the 21-year period $25,417,815 paid in claims over the 21-year period, receiving a 4:1 return on investment 58 OTHER HAZARDS IN CHEYENNE COUNTY: Tornadoes: 65 between 1950-1997 (1.3/year) Grass Fires: First View (burned down once, train fire), Wild Horse burned down twice (1930's), Kit Carson has burned down as many as five times Check with fire districts for additional data West Nile: 2 infected horses, (2002), 4 humans and 1 horse reported infected as of October 1, 2003 Dams: 0 Class 1 Dams; 0 Class 2 Dams; Earthquake: E of Kit Carson, S. of 40, between 1962-1993; 2.0-2.9 (CO-OEM, 8/99); Low Risk by USGS mapping Landslide risk: Suspected risk per OEM map, does not cross pipelines Severe Wind Storms: Average# Heat: Highest Recorded Temperature in County, 108 Cold: Lowest Recorded Temperature in County, -30 HISTORIC SITES IN CHEYENNE COUNTY: Cheyenne County Courthouse, Cheyenne Wells Cheyenne County Jail, Cheyenne Wells Mountain States Telephone& Telegraph Building, Cheyenne Wells Kit Carson Pool Hall Union Pacific Pumphouse, Kit Carson Kit Carson Museum/(UPRR Depot, currently being restored) Wild Horse Mercantile Wild Horse School Blue Star monument at state line(CO/KS) Monument at Smoky Hill Trail/6 miles W of Cheyenne Wells And 11 miles N of KC/Smoky Hill Trail DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN CHEYENNE COUNTY: None; County losing population 59 CHEYENNE COUNTY CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CHEYENNE Cheyenne Wells Kit Carson Comp Plan Y Y Y Land Use Plan Y C C Subdivision Ord N Y Y Zoning Ord Y Y Y NFIP/FPM Ord N N N - Map Date Not Mapped Not Mapped Y-FHMB-2/74 - Sub.Damage? N/A N/A N/A -Administrator? N/A N/A N/A -#of FP Bldgs? 0 0 UNKNOWN -#of policies 0 0 0 -#of RL's? 0 0 0 CRS Rating N/A N/A N/A Stormwater Prqrm N N N Building Code N N Everyone requires minimum State Plumbing & Electrical standards Building Official. N N N - Inspections? State P&E State P&E Everyone uses same State Plumbing & Electrical inspector BCEGS Rating N/A N/A N/A LEOP Y C C HM Plan Y-In Progress Y-In Progress Y-In Progress Warning Y Y Y Storm Ready? N C C Weather Radio? Y Y Y Dead Spot @ Wild Horse: Needs repeater Sirens? N Y-1 Y-1 Emergency Warning Y Y Y Notification? Other? Y-EAS Cable over-ride Cable over-ride GIS System N N N Structural Projects Y-Spread dam N N Property Protection N N N Crit.Fac.Protection Y N N Natural Res. Inv. Y N N Cultural Res. Inv. Y Y Y Erosion Control N N N Sediment Control N N N Pub. Info Prgrm Y Y Y Env. Ed Prgrm Y N N 60 CHEYENNE COUNTY RECOMMENDATIONS: GOAL: IMPROVE CHEYENNE COUNTY CAPABILITY TO REDUCE DISASTER LOSSES Action Item#1: County should work to become certified as "Storm Ready"by National Weather Service. Issue Statement: A primary goal of the Northeast Colorado Emergency Managers Association multi jurisdictional DMA Hazard Mitigation Plan is for each county to become"Storm Ready" certified within the next three years. "Storm Ready" certification is an indication that the community has prepared for adverse weather conditions, trained officials and citizens to recognize and report adverse weather conditions, and has established and regularly tested a system for receiving and disseminating severe weather information and warnings to the public. Tornadoes are frequent in Cheyenne County and there are gaps in the warning capability throughout the county. Radio "Repeaters," siren upgrades, and NOAA Weather Radios are needed. Among the known deficiencies are: • The need for NOAA Weather Radio "Repeaters" to provide coverage in known"dead spots" (e.g., Wild Horse) • A siren is needed for Arapahoe. Currently, notification is provided by the Sheriff driving out to Arapahoe, which is not timely. • NOAA Weather radios are needed in schools, hospital, Post Office, Municipal buildings, and Farm Service Agency(FSA). Implementation Manager and strategy: Cheyenne County Commissioner, District 3. The County Emergency Manager will contact the National Weather Service, the Communities and the Fire Districts to determine what Cheyenne County needs to accomplish, and then help those entities seek funding through grants to make the necessary improvements. Monitor funding opportunities, and potential "partners" in order to obtain the required equipment. Priority: High Cost Estimate: $11,000. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: The potential for saving just one life, and providing time for individuals and businesses to take effective actions to protect property, far outweighs the potential cost of the warning system and equipment. This goal and recommended action was selected by the MCPC due to its return on investment and relative ease in achieving. It may be the single most effective action the county and the entire Planning Area can undertake to reduce future disaster losses. 61 Update: As of November 1, 2003, the County has received and distributed NOAA Weather Radios to all government buildings, and is awaiting the NWS survey for Storm Ready certification. Action Item#2: Cheyenne County should pursue the development of a combined Emergency Operations Center/Communications Center/Shelter for Cheyenne and Kit Carson counties. Issue Statement: Currently the Cheyenne County communications is spread out and in unsheltered areas. Co-locating the EOCs with a Communications Center will improve the capabilities of all operations. This activity also provides a step forward towards Storm Ready certification by the NWS. The end goal is for each county to have their own underground communications center, with one serving as the back-up to the other during any type of disaster event. Implementation Manager and strategy: Elected Officials of Cheyenne and Kit Carson Counties. Priority: High Cost Estimate: Approximately$500,000. Funding can be obtained through bonds, grants, and E-911 fees. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: This would provide a long-term solution to the lack of a cohesive and coordinated communications system and Emergency Management facility. The proposed Center would serve 4,200 square miles, and serve as a shelter, as well. Action Item#3: Purchase and install 20 Heartland Underground shelters, 10 in Cheyenne County and 10 in Kit Carson County. Issue Statement: On average, both counties have experienced more than one tornado each year. While damage has been minimal to date, it is merely a matter of time before a more serious event occurs. There are few places for people to take shelter throughout the county, and several locations within the county where the need is more critical due to the number of people in the vicinity, or the inability of those in these areas to find safe shelter quickly in an alternate location. Among the known locations where shelters would be most useful, are area parks, ballparks, and tourist locations. Implementation Manager and strategy: County Emergency Manager, in conjunction with the communities, special needs facilities, and NWS, CO-OEM and FEMA. Priority: High 62 Cost Estimate: $160,000, or$8,500 each. In kind labor is available through the communities to help defray the construction costs and meet the "match"requirements of most grants. In addition, some existing buildings may have areas suitable for providing protection, such as basements in the city center. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: Preventing one loss of life or serious injury from wind or other hazards would be worth the expense. Tornado hazards are very frequent. Action Item#4: The Town of Kit Carson should reconsider joining the NFIP. Issue Statement: Due to their lack of participation in the NFIP, people in Kit Carson cannot obtain flood insurance, even if they wanted to. Not participating in the NFIP also makes Kit Carson ineligible for PDM, FMA and some HMGP $ from FEMA. Implementation Manager and Strategy: The Town of Kit Carson through their Town Council or Manager should invite the CWCB to explain the"pros and cons"of joining the NFIP to the City Council. Council will then make a decision regarding joining the NFIP. Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: No new expenses. Someone will need to verify that new construction in floodplain is properly constructed. The easiest method of implementation would be to not allow new buildings, or substantial improvements to existing buildings, within the mapped floodplain of Kit Carson. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: There is no increased cost to the Town. The benefits are to building owners who choose to insure against flood losses, and to taxpayers who no longer would have to subsidize those losses. Action Item #5: Implement a Countywide Emergency Management Public Education Program. Issue Statement: The Cheyenne County CPS identified two areas of concern that can be effectively addressed through an Emergency Management Public Education program. The information that needs to be disseminated includes: • Promoting continued crop insurance coverage. The largest hazard losses each year in Cheyenne County are agricultural. Crop insurance claims have returned more than 4-to-1 to those that chose to invest in it. The agricultural community would have an interest in these statistics. 63 • An explanation to purchasers of in-line phone "zappers" that these devices will not allow Emergency Warning Notification systems to reach them while they perform their function of blocking any computer generated call to get their telephone. Implementation Manager and strategy: County Emergency Manager, in conjunction with the FSA (for promoting Crop Insurance and electronic device dealers in the Cheyenne County area. Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: $2,000 to pay for producing and mailing posters, "flyers," handouts, and envelope "inserts." Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: Public Education programs are generally inexpensive and are one of the more effective means of communicating useful information to people so that they may take effective actions to protect themselves from loss of property or harmful injuries in emergency and disaster events. There are FEMA funds available through CO-OEM following presidentially declared disaster areas that can be utilized for such efforts without requiring a cost/benefit analysis. 64 I ELBERT COUNTY PLANNING ELEMENT t ,_v. / / �Elizabetb f i r at$, J — I . ,.,v rt. ,- ( 1,,t.,"-'.." s 1taw s � f ,S-.. lr i d ON7FENCE PROJEfrT "+ ,.,o f'la) 4" � ₹ t - • r.THE"DAD MILE" �# t /7. ±$/ 4�y. ': �' • - , LIVING SNOWtLNCE PROJECT 9N o RpR h " ors � h-'15.;.1,=,/,';1•,,,,„ w vF FmonPh N ' �• . ,.� ?.. s COImMo 5bk SalCW�.a.xzipn 66Stl k n R�rrcn . ...," x... Ln:Mmm�rs RryrrroMpsen Teny RNsry Oak Yoking • R i F a 5 44 -, . 2 '3 is ‘1,12 t e, y �F - 65 Elbert County Planning Subcommittee and General Description The following entities participated in the DMA planning process through the Elbert County Planning Subcommittee (CPS): • Elbert County • Elbert County Citizens Advisory Committee • Town of Elizabeth • Town of Kiowa • Town of Simla • Rattlesnake Fire District • Big Sandy School District • Elbert Volunteer Fire District • Elizabeth Fire Protection District • Kiowa Fire Protection District • North Central Fire Protection District • Centennial Mental Health Center • Colorado State University(CSU) Extension Service The land area of Elbert County is 1,849 square miles. The population (2001 DOLA data) for Elbert County was 21,453 --- an average density of 12 people per square mile. Elbert County grew at a rate of 30.2%between 1990-2000. The county is predominantly rural. 66 Elbert County History of Recorded Natural Hazard Losses There are 277 events listed by the National Climatic Data Center between 1950-2002 (NCDC Filters Applied: Tornadoes ≥ Fl; Damage ≥ $3,000; Hail ≥ 2"; Wind ≥ 75 MPH) Dat 7 -' ;Event -..m 5.. T,.-Location -. Damages,. .Othe info'" ?DataSaiice.'.t 5/21/1878 Flood Kiowa Creek Train engine missing in quicksand of CWCB Kiowa Cr. 1930 Flood Bijou Creek CWCB August 4, 1933 Dam Failure Kiowa Cr 3 bridges on Comanche Creek out Castlewood Dam fails CWCB May 31, 1935 Flood Kiowa Cr 7 lives lost at Elbert,9 total 3/4 of Town of Elbert destroyed CWCB All bridges lost,59 buildings lost and not rebuilt Water 8-15 feet deep,5 feet of sand 1940 Flood Bijou Creek CWCB 6/26/1952 Tornado $250K F2,7 miles long, NCDC 33 yards wide 5/17/1960 Hail/Tornado Fl tornado,2.75"hail NCDC 6/15/1965 Flood/Tornado Bijou,Running, I-70 washed out NCDC Kiowa,Plum Creeks 6/19/1980 Tornado $3K Fl NCDC 6/14/1982 Hail/Tornado F2 tornado,2.5"hail NCDC 6/04/1983 Tornado $250K F2 NCDC 6/06/1990 Tornado $3K F3 NCDC 6/21/1991 Hail 2.5" NCDC 8/12/1993 Hail $5K 1" NCDC 6/12/1994 High Winds $5K NCDC 10/05/1995 High Winds 78 MPH NCDC 4/19/1996 High Winds 98 MPH NCDC 7/23/1996 Hail Simla 4.5" NCDC 10/29/1996 High Winds $5.2M over 15 counties 101 MPH NCDC Hit NW Elbert County 1997 Severe Storms $399,688 FEMA Fed.#1186 7/30/1998 High Winds Elizabeth 81 MPH 7/27/1997 T-stonn/Wind Matheson, 1 injury 13 NE of Matheson NCDC 4/8&9,1999 Wind $21 M over many counties NCDC May, 1999 Flood $137,236 FEMA PA Gravel roads&culverts FEMA #1276 $21,806 State, $21,806 County CWCB 8/5/1999 Flood $772K,primarily road damage $550K-FEMA/State CO-OEM 2000 Flood Cut CO #13,North of Elizabeth 6"rain Planning Team 7/11/2001 Lightning 10 mi. SW of Kiowa Hit near scout tent-1 injury NCDC 67 - 4tDate Event: w6tii,httocation.�x / ''` Damages_t. i, ,v Ot1aerjnfo it Data Source 2001 Flood/Tornado Mile road washed out Planning Team 9/12/2002 Hail Elbert 2" NCDC 2002 Fire Chaparral Forest Forest fire,63.75 acres Planning Team (county subdivision) 2 out-buildings 68 ELBERT COUNTY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOTAL VALUES AT RISK FROM HAZARDS: Elizabeth: $17.495M in Total Assessed Value(2002 Data) Kiowa: $5.545M in Total Assessed Value Simla: $2.824M in Total Assessed Value Unincorporated County: $138.968M in Residential/Assessed Value $ 15.251M in Commercial/Assessed Value $ 14.532M in Agricultural/Assessed Value $ 1.376M in Industrial/Assessed Value FLOODPLAIN INVENTORYNULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND ASSOCIATED NFIP DATA: NFIP Mapping Information: Elizabeth: Mapped, but does not participate in the NFIP. Panel # 080056, 0001; 12/12/1978, (FHBM), No inventory conducted. Elizabeth is ineligible for FEMA PDM/FMA and HMGP funding for floods. Flood insurance is unavailable to the property owners who would want, or required, to purchase it. Kiowa: Panel # 080057A; 2/27/76, FHBM, Joined program in 1999 Inventory: Shopping Center on Comanche (Real Estate, High Plains, KC Liquor), Assessed Value =$239,195 Kiowa Creek Nursery-- $1,554 (improvements only) Simla: Never mapped County: Not mapped, does not participate in NFIP, but has a"no build"policy in floodprone areas based on CWCB map. Policies and Claims Information: Elizabeth: Insurance not available Kiowa: 3 policies: $600K coverage, no claims files, $0 paid Simla: Insurance not available County: Insurance not available Floodplain Population Information: The state estimates that there are 65 people, 0 1-4 family structures, and 3 other types of structures in the county floodplains (1997). Elbert County was identified in the State flood risk assessment as Low Risk, based upon the floodplain population, the number of structures at risk, and the number of dams. Critical Facilities in the Floodplains: Kiowa: Kiowa Schools(High School and Elementary School),which also serve as designated shelters 69 CROP LOSS DATA (for the years 1980-2001, from the Federal Crop Insurance Services): $79,548/year in crop insurance payments (average claims paid: 1980-2001) $3,344,775 in coverage over the 21-year period $536,065 collected in premiums over the 21-year period $1,670,516 paid in claims over the 21-year period, receiving a 3:1 return on investment OTHER HAZARDS IN ELBERT COUNTY: Tornadoes: 51 between 1950-1997 (1 per year) Grass/Forest Fires: Increasing Vulnerability West Nile: 6 infected horses, 1 human (2002); 7 reported human cases, 21 case in horses, 13 birds, 2 llamas and 7 mosquito pools as of 10/13/03 Dams: 0 Class 1 Dams; 0 Class 2 Dams; Earthquake: 1 since 1962, south of Elizabeth, 3-3.9; Low risk by USGS/CGS Landslide risk: Eastern border may be susceptible to landsliding(OEM map) May cross pipelines Severe windstorms Heat: Highest Recorded Temperature in County, 100 Cold: Lowest Recorded Temperature in County, -38 HISTORIC SITES IN ELBERT COUNTY: Denver&New Orleans Railroad Segment(S. of Elbert) Sacred Heart Church (Elbert) St. Mark United Presbyterian Church/Elbert Presbyterian Church(Elbert) Huber Building(Carlson Building)/(Elizabeth) Fondis Store (Fondis, SE of Kiowa) DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN ELBERT COUNTY: As a result of being located just east of Douglas County and the City of Castle Rock, communities that are part of Colorado's "Front Range"and within easy commuting distance of both Denver and Colorado Springs, significant growth is starting to impact Elbert County. Elizabeth: Experiencing growth to the west and north. Kiawa: Experiencing growth to south and east. Has annexed 117 acres to the south. Considering annexing 97 acres to east. 70 ELBERT COUNTY CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ELBERT Elizabeth Kiowa Simla Comp Plan Y Land Use Plan Master Plan Map Y Subdivision Ord Y Y Zoning Ord Y Y NFIP/FPM Ord N N Y - Map Date 1980-CWCB FIRM 2/27/76-FHBM Never Mapped - Sub.Damage? N/A N/A Y N/A -Administrator? Mapping Dept. N/A Y N/A -#of FP Bldgs? 0 UNKNOWN 1 N/A -#of policies N/A N/A 3 N/A -#of RL's? 0 N/A 0 N/A CRS Rating N/A N/A N/A N/A Stormwater Prgrm In progress Building Code Y Y Y Building Official. Y N Y - Inspections? Y Y Y State P&E BCEGS Rating LEOP Y C C C HM Plan In Progress C C C Warning Storm Ready? N Weather Radio? Y Y Y Y Sirens? Y-Elbert-1, 4 Y-partial coverage Y-1 + Boy Scout Ranch Emergency Warning N N N N Notification? Other? EAS/Cable? GIS System Y C C C I Structural Projects Y Y Property Protection N N N N Crit. Fac. Protection N N N N Natural Res. Inv. N N N N Cultural Res. Inv. Y Y Y Y Erosion Control N N N N Sediment Control N N N N Pub. Info Prgrm Building Website Bill Stuffers Stuffers/Newsletter N Env. Ed Prgrm N N Y N 71 ELBERT COUNTY RECOMMENDATIONS Action Item#1: County should work to become certified as "Storm Ready"by National Weather Service. Issue Statement: A primary goal of the Northeast Colorado Emergency Managers Association multi jurisdictional DMA Hazard Mitigation Plan is for each county to become"Storm Ready" certified within the next three years. "Storm Ready" certification is an indication that the community has prepared for adverse weather conditions, trained officials and citizens to recognize and report adverse weather conditions, and has established and regularly tested a system for receiving and disseminating severe weather information and warnings to the public. Tornadoes are annual occurrences in Elbert County and there are gaps in the warning capability throughout the rural portions of the county. Radio "Repeaters," siren upgrades, and NOAA Weather Radios are needed. Among the known deficiencies are: • NOAA Weather radios are needed in all government buildings. Implementation Manager and strategy: Elbert County Emergency Manager will contact the National Weather Service, the Communities and the Fire Districts to determine what Elbert County needs to accomplish, and then help those entities seek funding through grants to make the necessary improvements. Monitor funding opportunities, and potential "partners" in order to obtain the required equipment. Priority: High Cost Estimate: Unknown at this time Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: The potential for saving just one life, and providing time for individuals and businesses to take effective actions to protect property, far outweighs the potential cost of the warning system and equipment. This goal and recommended action was selected by the MCPC due to its return on investment and relative ease in achieving. It may be the single most effective action the county and the entire Planning Area can undertake to reduce future disaster losses. L, 72 Action Item#2: Obtain sirens for church, the Fairgrounds, Xiowa High School, and one for the west end of County.. Issue Statement: The siren system needs to be expanded. Implementation Manager and strategy: Elbert County Emergency Manager. Monitor available grant programs for equipment and provide labor for installation as part of the "local match." Priority: High Cost Estimate: The sirens will cost between $8,000 and $10,000 each. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: The potential for saving just one life, and providing time for individuals and businesses to take effective protective actions, outweighs the potential cost of the warning system and equipment, Sirens communicate warning to significant numbers of people immediately. Spread over the life of a siren, the cost of purchase and maintenance is minimal in relation to the number of citizens affected. Action Item#3: Continue the pursuit and installation of a countywide Emergency Warning Notification system. Issue Statement: Emergency Warning Notification systems allow for government notification to residents and businesses in an accurate, customized, fast manner for any variety of events: e.g., hazardous material spills, severe weather. R-911 can communicate warning to significant numbers of people immediately. Implementation Manager and strategy: 911 Board. Evaluate different commercial vendors for cost, speed, accuracy, effectiveness, and currency of phone #database. Develop a finance plan. Coordinate with the current move of the 911 Center. Often funded through 911 telephone surcharges. Priority: High Cost Estimate: $15,000. This is the initial cost for basic equipment and installation, which often include one test. Then, when activated there is a per call charge, up to .20/call. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: The potential for saving just one life, and providing time for individuals and businesses to take effective protective actions, outweighs the potential cost of the warning system and equipment, and the potential liability for not disseminating warning information. Spread over the life of the system, the cost of purchase and maintenance is minimal in relation to the number of citizens served. 73 Action Item#4: Improve the overall stature of floodplain management within Elbert County. Elbert County and the Town of Elizabeth should consider joining the NFIP. Kiowa should seek to revise their floodplain map. Kiowa school, which serves as the community shelter, needs to be protected against floodwaters. Issue Statement: Growth, and all of the impacts that accompany it, present both the greatest risk and the greatest opportunities in terms of natural hazards management in Elbert County. The county can position itself now and achieve a network of protection, before it experiences the consequences of continued growth. The growth in Elbert County is real. It was the second fastest growing county in all of Colorado between 1990-2000. A primary consequence of growth is on drainage systems, stormwater runoff and flooding. As more structures are built and more streets are paved, stormwater runoff and drainage problems will increase. Flood heights will also increase. Elbert County currently does not participate in the NFIP. Thus, development can cause increased flooding, people cannot obtain flood insurance, even if they wanted to. Elbert County currently has existing regulations that are more stringent than participation in the NEW, and could possibly qualify for reduced insurance rates as a result, should it join the NFIP. The Town of Elbert, an unincorporated community within the county, was severely flooded in 1935, and as a result, ' of the town was destroyed. Now, the Town is beginning to grow and has seemingly lost its institutional memory. A levee has been constructed, and development is occurring immediately adjacent (Post Office, new subdivision). A public education effort should be undertaken to explain the impact of levees upon floodplains and seemingly protected development. Because the Town is unincorporated, flood insurance would only become available if the County joined the NFIP. The Town of Elizabeth has a FEMA-issued floodplain map and has not joined the NFIP. This makes Elizabeth ineligible for PDM funding, FMA funding, and flood protection funding under HMGP, even though the community is participating in this planning effort (to maintain their eligibility for FEMA mitigation funding). As Elizabeth continues to experience its current growth, they will begin to experience drainage, stormwater and flooding problems. The Town is currently installing some stormwater pipes while paving is gong on, and some detention is being designed. Now would be the perfect time to establish a systematic and comprehensive system to manage future drainage and flooding problems. The Town of Kiowa is experiencing a few of the problems associated with growth. Primarily, the Town has outgrown their NFIP map and it should be updated to reflect the newer areas of town, where "an implied floodplain"can be assumed. There are two areas in particular; the Fawn Valley subdivision and the trailer park just behind the schools. Also at issue is the protection of the schools in the flood zone. The(dry) creek runs between the school building and the parking lot, and while the building is semi-protected by an earthen berm, the doors are openings that would allow the school to be flooded. The school District should consider obtaining removable protective barrier/floodgates for the door openings. The school is a designated shelter area. 74 Implementation Manager and Strategy: The County and Elizabeth, through their elected boards or Managers, should invite the CWCB to explain the"pros and cons" of joining the NFIP, and then make a decision regarding joining the NFIP. Kiowa should apply to CWCB and FEMA to have their floodplain map revised and updated. The School Board should consider flood protection for the buildings. For the school flood protection, monitor grants for available funding. Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Joining the NFIP is an administrative action, and implementation of the program can be included under existing staff budgets. The work in Elbert could be included in the cost of a Public Education campaign (See Action Item #5). The cost of flood protection for the school is unknown at this time. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: There is no increased cost to the Town. The benefits are to building owners who choose to insure against flood losses, and to taxpayers who no longer would have to subsidize those losses. Action Item#5: Establish an ongoing or annual Public Education campaign regarding Hazards and Emergency Management Issue Statement: There are many emergency management issues that need to reinforced with public education so that citizens know what risks they face, what protective actions they can take, and what government programs are in place to assist them. Included in these information needs is information pertaining to: • The impact of property-owners altering the flow of natural watercourses, either by grading or"dumping."Promote the concept of "No Adverse Impact"and provide information on where to dump; • Fire prevention. Promote "FireWise"practices for property protection, and provide information regarding county sponsored "Chipper Days;" FireWise is a planning and public information program that promotes fire-resistant construction materials, ample access and water supplies for fire fighters, and defensible space. (Elbert County is experiencing increasing vulnerability to wildfires as another consequence of growth. In addition, the current spread of"Beetle-Kill" exacerbates the wildfire problem). • West Nile Virus; • Noxious Weeds, and their control and management; and • Siren Warnings: What they mean, what to do, and "All Clear."As part of this program, consider the purchase of a portable message board for appropriate messages (road closures, bad weather, danger ahead), and a"table-top"display booth for us at the Fair, in schools, and at "Home Improvement"demonstrations. Print and distribute pamphlets, flyers and brochures. 75 Implementation Manager and strategy: Elbert County Emergency Manager in conjunction with appropriate County/Town Departments and State/Federal Agencies. Monitor grants, and seek private partners for cost-share opportunities. Priority: High Cost Estimate: $15,000 per portable sign board, $1,500 for portable display, $1,500 for printing and distribution costs. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: The potential for saving just one life, and providing time for individuals and businesses to take effective protective actions, outweighs the potential cost of the public education program. Public Education may be the most effective and least-expensive way to reduce disaster losses by changing human behavior to promote appropriate actions. Action Item#6: Verify the potential landslide hazard, and take actions that are appropriate for the risk Issue Statement: There are some indications that the eastern portion of the county may be susceptible to landslides, in areas where there may be pipelines. Implementation Manager and strategy: The County Emergency Manager should facilitate a meeting between the Colorado Geological Survey, Office of Emergency Management, and the pipeline owners. Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Minimal. The first step is to verify the existing threat, which s an administrative action. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: Unknown at this time. 76 Action Item#7: ID "special needs"populations& have emergency medical equipment(e.g., oxygen tanks) Issue Statement: The County needs to have supplies available for its shelters as well as for"special populations." Among the needs are blankets and cots and a portable power supply(generator). Implementation Manager and strategy: The County Emergency Manager should work with the regional representative of the American Red Cross (ARC) to identify minimum shelter requirements, and then seek funding and support through agencies and partnerships to fulfill those needs. Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Unknown until needs are identified. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: General tenet of government to provide for health, safety and general welfare the community. 77 KIT CARSON COUNTY PLANNING ELEMENT A m 7 1 sBe[hmle i .. -&2ZT ` 9 G"¢i¢ �C n :'. . .t Burli gtu uma r. I ra 4 `� y aY F p0� YY t •',75-7 " -sr 4/, 5. C t y: p w ''. ".a py eE.:aO y �� , �` '''LSE16E(3T ,.� � I� tFlagler ft t ' irl 1� , fir 1! • 4 sF4 1.2a,...', ,A :e 7 \ s ewtag 4 �t Pn f.f 1� fr :�d �' r 5 Y $t •'<iri g i. 4r <4 . nor 6 Stratton -w. � t e;. TMa gg i� rk ` 78 Kit Carson County Planning Subcommittee and General Description The following entities participated in the DMA planning process through the Kit Carson County Planning Subcommittee (CPS): • Kit Carson County • City of Burlington • Town of Seibert • Bethune School • Stratton School • Hi Plains School • Kit Carson Memorial Hospital • Burlington Rotary Club • Burlington VFW • CSU Cooperative Extension Service • Legacy Assisted Living • Colorado State Patrol, and The land area of Kit Carson County is 2,162 square miles. The population (2000 census) for Kit Carson County was 7,360 --- an average density of 3.4 people per square mile. Kit Carson County grew at a rate of 12.2%between 1990-2000 (which includes the local prison population). The county is predominantly rural. 79 Kit Carson County History of Recorded Natural Hazard Losses There are 408 events listed by the National Climatic Data Center between 1950-2002 (NCDC Filters Applied: Tornadoes ≥ F1; Damage ≥ $3,000; Hail ≥ 2"; Wind ≥ 75 MPH) Date = Event= .. , Location - -,:D3mages ,.:..,.:Other Info,_ 2: r Data Source z 1930's Drought Dust Bowl Farms abandoned Planning Team 1935 Flood Republican River 25 Ranch houses 25" in 10 hours; USDA Bonny Res. built after flood Actual Value(2002) State wants to study as $13.68M Nat'l Flood Standard 5/8/1952 Tornado $25K F2, 1 injury NCDC 5/15/1955 Tornado $25K NCDC 5/17/1960 Tornado $25K Fl NCDC 6/18/1960 Tornado $3K Fl NCDC 5/6/1961 Tornado $3K Fl NCDC 7/13/1962 Hail 2" NCDC 7/11/1963 Tornado $3K NCDC 5/23/1965 Tornado $25K Fl NCDC 7/5/1969 Tornado $25K FO NCDC 6/9/1971 Hail 4.5" NCDC 5/6/1973 Tornado $25K F2, 5 injuries NCDC 3/1/1977 Dust Storm Debris Removal expenses Tumbleweeds&Dust NCDC 3/17/1977 Blizzard 5,500 poles lost power out up to 6 days REA ice damage 1980 Blizzard State Dec CO-OEM 1981 Grasshoppers State Dec CO-OEM 5/24/1984 Hail 2.5" NCDC 86,87,88 Ice Storm KC Electric -poles down REA 5/30/1988 Tornado $25K F2 NCDC May, 1988 Dust Storm Caused 35-car pile-up NCDC July, 1990 Drought 20 counties $1 billion (USDA) USDA/CO-OEM 5/26/1991 Hail 2.75" NCDC 7/19/1992 Hail 2.75" NCDC 8/12/1993 T-Storm/Wind Bethune $5K NCDC Flood Burlington $5K 6/7/1995 Tornado Bethune $100K F1, 1 horse injured NCDC Farm shed&house 8/8/1995 Lightning/Fire 12 mi. NE Stratton 1,600 acres/Busby Ranch Planning Team/Newspaper 80 i, a Date ,. 6„.t n1Event ,, ,, a Location :,: : .:. 24E';: Damages Other Info . . „,ex, :. ' ''Data:Source 7/8/1997 Hail Stratton $10K .75" NCDC 7/27/1997 Hail Stratton/Burlington $500K: roofs, windows, 1.75" NCDC autos, siding 10/11/1997 Tornado $10K Fl NCDC 10/25/1997 Blizzard Stratton 1 death, lost sledder; NCDC up to 3,000 cattle 6/3/1998 T-Storm/Wind Flagler $100K 1 injury& other building NCDC microburst rolled MH w/man inside damages 6/10/1999 Hail Burlington 2" NCDC 6/30/1999 Hail Burlington Exceeded$10M 2.5" NCDC/newspaper 3/7/2000 Hail Flagler 2" NCDC 7/21/2000 Hail Flagler 2.75" NCDC 8/1/2001 Hail Burlington 3.75" NCDC 2000 Drought (USDA Dec) Contiguous County USDA/CO-OEM April 2001 Winter Storms Ice damage REA's damaged: KC only FEMA/CO-OEM Fed#1374 rec'd State Dec REA April 2002 Snow/Dirt storm Dirt drifts Clean-up problem Planning Team Stuck to everything May, 2002 Wind Seibert $130K Seibert School lost roof NCDC/Planning Flagler Roofs lost in Flagler Team/newspaper 8/23/2002 T-Storm/Wind Bethune $5K NCDC 2003 West Nile Virus 2 human cases reported No tracking of CDPHE immunization costs Planning Team 81 KIT CARSON COUNTY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOTAL VALUES AT RISK FROM HAZARDS: Bethune: $5.129M in Actual Value(2002 data) Burlington: $143.142M in Actual Value (2002 data) Lincoln Street Plaza, $25.267M Parmer's 3rd Addition, $3.153M Parmer's II, 2nd, Yersin's & unplatted, $18.068M Burlington Annex, $1.081M Flagler: $19.440M in Actual Value (2002 data) Seibert: $6.761M in Actual Value(2002 data) Stratton: 21.616M in Actual Value (2002 data) Vona: $2.059M in Actual Value (2002 data) Unincorporated County: $415.003M in Actual Value FLOODPLAIN INVENTORYNULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND ASSOCIATED NFIP DATA: NFIP Mapping Information: Bethune, Never mapped Burlington, Never Mapped Flagler, Never Mapped Stratton, Never Mapped County, Never Mapped, CPS identified 25 ranch-residences that flooded in 1935: 25" rain in 10 hours! Policies and Claims Information: No insurance available. Floodplain Population Information: The state estimates that there are 0 people, 0 1-4 family structures, and 0 other types of structures in the county floodplains (1997). Kit Carson County was identified in the State flood risk assessment as Low Risk, based upon the floodplain population, the number of structures at risk, and the number of dams. Critical Facilities in the Floodplains: There are no critical facilities in the floodplains of any community. CROP LOSS DATA (for the years 1980-2001, from the Federal Crop Insurance Services): $2,179,048/year in crop insurance payments (average claims paid: 1980-2001) $94,386,097 in coverage over the 21-year period $9,913,753 collected in premiums over the 21-year period $45,760,024 paid in claims over the 21-year period, receiving more than a 4:1 return on investment. 82 OTHER HAZARDS IN KIT CARSON COUNTY: Tornadoes: 71 between 1950-1997 (an average of 1.5/year) Grass Fires: frequent/3-4 year(several hundred acres) lightning started S. of Stratton in 2002: 2,000 acres S. of Flagler in 2002: 3,500 acres Vona burned down in 1911 West Nile: 7 infected horses (2002), 2 human cases reported as of 10-02-03 Dams: 0 Class 1 Dam; 1 Class 2 Dams; Flagler Lake is a Class 2 dam: Built in 1965, by USACE for flood control Land was donated for recreational purposes. It is currently a DOW State Wildlife area The 25 ranch houses are downstream on Republican River Little threat: houses more than 10 miles downstream Earthquake: 1 SE of Burlington, between 1962-1993; 3.0-3.9; Low Risk by USGS Landslide risk(OEM map) with steep grade at FLAGLER LAKE, Locals say there's not enough dirt or slope to cause water displacement/overtopping Severe wind storms: Average # Heat: Highest Recorded Temperature in County, 107 Cold: Lowest Recorded Temperature in County, -29 HISTORIC SITES IN KIT CARSON COUNTY: Burlington State Armory Elitch Gardens Carousel/KC Fairgrounds Winegar Building, Burlington(494-498 14`h St.) Flagler Hospital (Municipal Building) Second Central School, Flagler Spring Creek Bridge, Vona DEVELOPMENT TRENDS: Burlington: Experiencing slow growth in SE (South of Rose, North of I-70, and 8th. St to a block N. of Fay). There is also some growth on the North side by the Fairgrounds and on the West side extending into the county. Flagler: Annexations are occurring. Slow growth to west and north (noted by residences switching from septic to city sewer). Stratton: Developing slowly to the West. 83 KIT CARSON COUNTY CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT KIT Bethune Burlington Flagler Seibert Stratton Vona CARSON Comp Plan Y Y Land Use Plan Y N N N N N N Subdivision Ord Y Zoning Ord Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NFIP/FPM Ord N N N N N N N - Map Date Not Mapped Not Mapped Not Mapped Not Mapped Not Mapped Not Mapped Not Mapped -Sub.Damage? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -Administrator? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -#of FP Bldgs? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -#of policies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -#of RL's? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A CRS Rating N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Stormwater Prgrm N Y Y Building Code N Y Y Y Y Y Y _ Building Official. N N N N N C C - Inspections? State P&E State P&E State P&E State P&E State P&E State P&E State P&E BCEGS Rating LEOP Y C C C C C C HM Plan In Progress C C C C C C Warning Y C C C C C C Storm Ready? N Weather Radio? Y Y Y Y Y Y Limited, Dead spot, needs repeater Sirens? N Y-1 Y-4 Y-2 Y-1 Y-3 Y-1 Emergency Warning Y C C C C C C Notification? Other? Y-EAS C C & C C C C cable override GIS System N N N N N N N Structural Projects N N N N N N N Property Protection N N N N N N N Crit.Fac.Protection N/A REA generator Natural Res. Inv. Y @ Flagler Cultural Res. Inv. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Erosion Control Y-BMP N N N Y N N Sediment Control Y-BMP N N N N N N Pub. Info Prgrm Web-Site Y Web-Site Y Y Y Y Env. Ed Prgrm CSU-ext Y Y Y Y Y Y 84 KIT CARSON COUNTY RECOMMENDATIONS GOAL: IMPROVE MT CARSON COUNTY CAPABILITY TO REDUCE DISASTER LOSSES Action Item#1: County should work to become certified as "Storm Ready"by National Weather Service. Issue Statement: A primary goal of the Northeast Colorado Emergency Managers Association multi jurisdictional DMA Hazard Mitigation Plan is for each county to become "Storm Ready" certified within the next three years. "Storm Ready" certification is an indication that the community has prepared for adverse weather conditions, trained officials and citizens to recognize and report adverse weather conditions, and has established and regularly tested a system for receiving and disseminating severe weather information and warnings to the public. Tornadoes are frequent in Kit Carson County and there is a gap in the warning capability throughout the county. Radio "Repeaters," siren upgrades, and NOAA Weather Radios are needed. Known deficiencies include: • The need for NOAA Weather Radio "Repeaters" or tall antennae to provide coverage in a"Dead Zone"within Vona, and to cover the western portion of Flagler out to the Lincoln County line. The signal comes from the NWS in Goodland, KS and is weak. Flagler has an 80-foot siren tower on which the repeater can be mounted. • Sirens are needed for the east side of Stratton and the east side of Flagler. • NOAA Weather radios are needed in the Seibert, Stratton, and Vona schools. In Stratton notification is now accomplished through Fire Department personnel. The KC County shops in Burlington, Flagler and Stratton each need radios also. • Lightening detectors are needed at Burlington, Flagler, and Stratton swimming pools, ballfields and golf courses. Implementation Manager and strategy: County Emergency Manager will contact the NWS, the Communities and the Fire Districts to determine what KC County needs to accomplish, and then help those entities seek funding through grants to make the necessary improvements. Monitor funding opportunities, and potential "partners" in order to obtain the required equipment. Priority: High Cost Estimate: $35,000 for sirens, $25,000 for 2 "repeaters," and $500 for NOAA Weather Radios. Lightening detectors unknown. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: The potential for saving just one life, and providing time for individuals and businesses to take effective actions to protect property, far outweighs the potential cost of the warning system and equipment. This goal and recommended action was selected by the MCPC due to its return on investment and relative ease in achieving. It may be the single most effective action the county and the entire Planning Area can undertake to reduce future disaster losses. 85 Update: As of November 1, 2003, the County has received and distributed NOAA Weather Radios to all government buildings, and is awaiting the NWS survey for Storm Ready certification. Action Item#2: Promote the benefits of tornado shelters and "Safe-Rooms"and foster their construction. Issue Statement: On average, over the past 47 years, KC County has experienced at more than one tornado each year. While damage has been minimal to date, it is merely a matter of time before a more serious event occurs. There are few places for people to take shelter throughout the county, and several locations within the county where the need is more critical due to the number of people in the vicinity, or the inability of those in these areas to find safe shelter quickly in an alternate location. Among the known locations where "Safe-Rooms"or tornado shelters would be most useful, are: • In Burlington, the Old Town area, the Softball and Baseball Fields, and in the City Center • In the school buildings of Flagler, Seibert and Vona • In Flagler, at a location near the Assisted Living Facility and Elderly Housing Project. Implementation Manager and strategy: County Emergency Manager, in conjunction with the communities, special needs facilities, and NWS, CO-OEM and FEMA. Priority: High Cost Estimate: $8K each, x 20 = $160,000. In kind labor is available through the communities to help defray the construction costs and meet the"match" requirements of most grants. In addition, some existing buildings may have areas suitable for providing protection, such as basements in the city center. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: Preventing one loss of life or serious injury from wind or other hazards would be worth the expense. Tornado hazards are very frequent. 86 Action Item#3: Burlington should consider improving the drainage around the KC Fairgrounds, and adopt storm water/drainage regulations to prevent new development from worsening the existing problems. Issue Statement: Currently, 2" of rain at the fairgrounds can flood buildings, create the ponding of water, aggravate traffic, and threaten area homes with flooding. The present solution is to pump the water over the railroad tracks versus its natural drainage pattern. This aggravates drainage downstream as the water proceeds south towards the Old Town facilities, where new in-street drainage facilities transport the water out of town. New development is at increased risk east of 15th and North of Railroad Avenue. Runoff in the"Gross Addition" now ponds at the SE corner of the subdivision. There has been discussion of a drainage project on the west side of 15th near the fairgrounds. . w • Looking N. at Fairgrounds Looking E. at Fairgrounds The pumping station at RI?tracks The outlet looking south ' Akirik:? 4i ..R d�(+?�t ifY 1. :WILY �f/• f a • In-street drainage on south side of Burlington 87 Implementation Manager and strategy: Kit Carson County Commissioners and the City of Burlington. Design and build. Priority: High Cost Estimate: $70,000 for drainage improvements at Fairgrounds. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: Preventing future flood losses to fairgrounds and neighboring residential areas, and not interrupting traffic would be worth the expense. This is a frequent occurrence. Action Item#4: Implement an overall Communications program update. Issue Statement: The communications program upgrade is a two-step process. First, there needs to be an improvement in the communications between EMS, Fire, Police, the City of Burlington and the County Sheriff's Department. Existing coverage and linkages are weak and on different frequencies. Second, the countywide dispatch center is not in a tornado-safe building. It is currently in the ground level of the jail annex of the Courthouse—a block structure with a suspended roof. When it was being built, high winds blew down a wall of the structure. An underground location would be the best choice for a future location. It would also be able to function as a community shelter for the downtown area and neighboring residences. The underground communications center will also support a parallel goal of Cheyenne County, with whom KC County shares an Emergency Management Director. The end result that is sought would be that each county has their own underground communications center, with one serving as the back-up to the other during any type of disaster event. Implementation Manager and strategy: County Emergency Manager, in conjunction with the KC County Commissioners and Burlington City Council. First, detail the existing weaknesses in the communications system and identify the necessary improvements. Second, identify existing buildings that may have areas suitable for providing the needed protection, or that can be strengthened. Priority: Medium (3-5 years) Cost Estimate: $500K. M.kind labor is available through the communities to help defray the construction costs and meet the "match"requirements of most grants. Use of an existing building will reduce the expense enormously. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: Maintaining communications in an emergency is a critical element in a community's ability to respond and recover from a disaster. Ensuring that response agencies can communicate directly, and without interference, helps maintain an efficient and coordinated response. Tornado hazards are very frequent in KC County and present a realistic threat to the existing facility. 88 Action Item#5:Implement a Countywide Emergency Management Public Education Program. Issue Statement: The Kit Carson County CPS identified several areas of concern that can be effectively addressed through an Emergency Management Public Education program. The information that needs to be disseminated includes: • Promoting the"FireWise" Education Program, which teaches communities and property owners basic, simple, and inexpensive techniques that reduce damages from grass and wildland fires. This provides Fire Districts with an extra against defense measure when faced with such situations—which are moderately frequent throughout the county. (An example may be viewed at www. (WCFPD example). • An explanation to purchasers of in-line phone "zappers" that these devices will not allow Emergency Warning Notification systems to reach them while they perform their function of blocking any computer generated call to get their telephone. Implementation Manager and strategy: County Emergency Manager, in conjunction with the FSA(for promoting Crop Insurance), KCC Volunteer Fire Protection District (for promoting FireWise techniques), and electronic device dealers in the Kit Carson County area. Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: $2,000 to pay for producing and mailing posters, "flyers," handouts, and envelope"inserts." Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: Public Education programs are generally inexpensive and are one of the more effective means of communicating useful information to people so that they may take effective actions to protect themselves from loss of property or harmful injuries in emergency and disaster events. There are FEMA funds available through CO-OEM following presidentially declared disaster areas that can be utilized for such efforts without requiring a cost/benefit analysis. 89 Action Item #6:De-register the Historic Spring Creek Bridge. Issue Statement: During the planning process, The Kit Carson County CPS discovered that the Spring Creek Bridge has been designated a"Historic Structure." (The bridge is east of Vona on Highway 24 at the bottom of the hill.) The bridge is considered unsafe by some, and the Historic Designation may inhibit proper and warranted upgrades. In fact, the very purpose of identifying Historic Structures through this planning process was to lessen post-disaster delays in repairing such facilities. The Spring Creek Bridge was apparently submitted and listed as Historic by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) through a survey mechanism that did not include any local input. De-registering the structure now will eliminate any"paperwork"problems later when the bridge is either upgraded or damaged and need repair or replacement. Implementation Manager and strategy: KC County Road and Bridge Department with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and CDOT. Bring this situation to the attention of the concerned parties, and if consensus is reached, apply to have the structure de-registered. Priority: Low Cost Estimate: No funding is necessary. This is an administrative action. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: N/A. Action Item#7: Provide a back-up power supply for Seibert sewage pump. Issue Statement: There are frequent power interruptions in Seibert, and when they occur the sewage pumps stop working and back- up into homes and businesses in the southern part of Seibert. The pump is west of Seibert on the north side of Highway 24. Implementation Manager and strategy: Town of Seibert Public Works. Priority: High Cost Estimate: Unknown at the time. Need a backup battery to run a 35 HP pump and solar panel to keep the battery charged.. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: The cost will eliminate future damages. 90 LINCOLN COUNTY PLANNING ELEMENT o r f • L. inc+aln ; c. 'Ip ,. . WEED CONTROL County ; , COORDINATOR ` - sr µy - imm1 . . .... . g , ''''' 1 s • teosi OFFICE x E .-- Genoa I v , F i • fr � , t _ y ,,,,,.. 111111111111 ` _ • r a �ry'r j� .� ai4 W ',el * 7,• F _ Ho o ..t. ' t> f � .;;; r s, t. Y � r 4 o 91 Lincoln County Planning Subcommittee And General Description The following entities participated in the DMA planning process through the Lincoln County Planning Subcommittee (CPS): • Lincoln County • Town of Arriba • Town of Genoa • Town of Hugo • Town of Limon • Arickaree Groundwater Management District • Northeast Lincoln Fire Protection District • K-C Electric Association • Mountain View Electric Association • Southeast Colorado Power Association • Genoa-Hugo School District C-I 13 • Limon Schools • Lincoln Community Hospital • Natural Resources Conservation Service The land area of Lincoln County area is 2,585 square miles. The population (2000 census) for Lincoln County was 6,087 --- an average density of 2.4 people per square mile. Lincoln County grew at a rate of 34.4% between 1990-2000, which makes Lincoln County the fastest growing county within the entire Planning Area. The county is home to the Towns of Arriba, Genoa, Hugo and Limon, while the remainder is predominantly rural. Limon was struck by a tornado on June 6, 1990, resulting in approximately$25 million dollars in damages—the single largest disaster within the planning Area, and yet, Federal Disaster Assistance was not authorized. 92 Lincoln County History of Recorded Natural Hazard Losses There are 346 Events listed by the National Climatic Data Center between 1950-2002 (NCDC Filters Applied: Tornadoes ≥ Fl; Damage ≥ $3,000; Hail ≥ 2"; Wind ≥ 75 MPH) ' ::" Date it .= 4; Event _:_ ' -;Location. .Damage" . ' w,.. Qt'herInfo ,,,,,IZZ Ajata Source 1930's Drought Dust Bowl Farms abandoned Planning Team 11/1946 Blizzard Planning Team 6/6/1951 Tornado 200 yards x 5 miles $25K F2, 1 injury NCDC 6/15/1955 Hail 2" NCDC 7/18/1956 Hail 2" NCDC 7/12/1959 Hail 2.75" NCDC 5/23/1965 Tornado $25K F2 NCDC 5/12/1975 Tornado $25K Fl NCDC 3/1977 Snow/ice $337K replacing poles KC Electric REA 2/1978 Snow/ice $278K replacing poles Mountain View Elec REA $395K replacing poles KC Electric 3/1979 Snow/ice $338K replacing poles KC Electric REA 6/1/1982 Hail 2" NCDC 6/3/1985 Hail 2.75" NCDC 8/25/1985 Hail 2" NCDC 7/31/1986 Hail 2.75" NCDC 11/1986 Snow/ice $137K replacing poles KC Electric REA 1987 Wildfire??? State Dec? ? 6/6/1990 Tornado/Hail $25M: 762 homes F3; 2.5", 14 injuries NCDC 47 destroyed; State provides CO-OEM 44 businesses affected $13,057,325(?) CO-DOLA 23 destroyed $2.1M Ag. Loss $217K replacing poles Mountain View Elec. 5/2/1991 Tornado $250K Fl NCDC 8/1993 $111K replacing poles KC Electric REA 7/19/1992 Hail 2.75" NCDC 6/9/1994 Hail Genoa 51K property; 50K crops 2.5" NCDC 7/31/1996 Hail Genoa 2.75" NCDC 6/6/1997 Flood $69,522 9228 acres of wheat/millet FEMA,CWCB Fed Dec#1186 FEMA pd$42,268 &CO-OEM 6/13/1997 Hail Karval 2.75" NCDC 10/24/1997 Blizzard 2 deaths NCDC 5/24/1998 Hail Karval 2.5" NCDC 93 ..._ ate is l._ �,.:.. Xent __ Location - - ctky Damages.. : ,. ; - c Others nfo in't, Data;:,S,ouz e) is 7/28/1998 Flash Flood Hugo Several streets/bldgs. flooded NCDC 5/28/1999 Hail Hugo 2" NCDC 5/31/1999 Tornado Genoa $4M F2/F3 NCDC 7/21/2000 Hail Genoa 2.75" NCDC 8/18/2000 T-Storm/Wind Limon Semis blown over on I-70 51 Knots; 2 injuries NCDC 5/10/2001 Lightning Limon 1 injury NCDC 2000 Drought (USDA Dec) Contiguous County USDA April 2001 Winter Storms Ice damage Mountain View Elec. REA Fed#1374 $519K replacing Poles 9/8/2002 Flash Flood Limon&North Highway 71 washed out Planning Team Central county Limon School flooded NCDC School sewage back-up 94 LINCOLN COUNTY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOTAL VALUES AT RISK FROM HAZARDS: Arriba: $5,159,691 in Total Assessed Value(2002 data) Genoa: $3,484,483 in Total Assessed Value Hugo: $22,623,260 in Total Assessed Value Limon: $88,253,215 in Total Assessed Value Unincorporated County: $260,760,775 in Total Assessed Value Southeast Electric has $250K in transmission lines/poles at risk. FLOODPLAIN INVENTORYNULNERABILITY AND ASSOCIATED NFIP DATA: NFIP Mapping information; Arriba, Never Mapped Genoa, Never Mapped Hugo, Mapped, but does not participate in the NFIP. No inventory conducted: Hugo is ineligible for FEMA PDM/FMA and HMGP funding for floods. Flood insurance is unavailable through the NFIP, though some people have obtained it from other sources. Limon, Panel#080109, 11/1/84, revised to reflect LOMR 2/23/99 Inventory: 67 unprotected structures in the floodplain: 55 residential structures valued at$2.894M, 12 commercial structures valued at $1.624M. 3 buildings have been built in the floodplain since joining the program and are elevated appropriately. TOTAL VALUE AT RISK(not including elevated buildings) = $4.52 million. A 2-foot flood would equate to a 1% average annual risk of$900,000 in damage (20%) County, Never Mapped Policies and Claims Information: 19 policies, 12 in A-Zone; 70 structures in Floodplain (3 are elevated) 4 losses/claims in Limon; 0 payments (1978-1999), 5 losses/claims since 1999, $4,362 paid, so 1 paid for$4,361 between 1999 and 2002. (3/03 data) Floodplain Population: The state estimates that there are 549 people, 135 1-4 family structures, and 37 other types of structures in the county floodplains (1997). Lincoln County was identified in the State flood risk assessment as Low/Moderate Risk, based upon the floodplain population, the number of structures at risk, and the number of dams. Critical Facilities in the floodplain: Hugo: Sewage Treatment Plant Limon: Sewage Treatment Plant, (protected by elevation), Water Supply Wellheads, (protected by elevation) County: 2 Power Substations (owned by Mountain View Electric) 95 CROP LOSS DATA (for the years 1980-2001, from the Federal Crop Insurance Services): $322,139/year in crop insurance payments (average claims paid: 1980-2001) $13,545,618 in coverage over the 21-year period $2,172,351 collected in premiums over the 21-year period $6,764,911 paid in claims over the 21-year period, receiving a 3:1 return on investment. OTHER HAZARDS IN LINCOLN COUNTY: Tornadoes: 60 between 1950-1997 (1.3/year) Grass Fires: Increasing vulnerability West Nile: 8 reported cases in humans, and 4 in horses (as of 10/21/03) Dams: 1 Class 1 Dam; (Limon Watershed Dam#1) 2 Class 2 Dams; (Limon Watershed Dams #2 and#3) Earthquake: None, but 1 in SW county(Lincoln/Crowley line); between 1870-1961; Low Risk by USGS Landslide risk: Considerable suspected potential (OEM map) Severe wind storms: Average# Heat: Highest Recorded Temperature in County, 103 Cold: Lowest Recorded Temperature in County, -28 HISTORIC SITES IN LINCOLN COUNTY: Martin Homestead, Genoa World's Wonder View Tower, Genoa Hedlund House, Hugo Hugo Union Pacific Railroad Roundhouse Limon Railroad Depot (Limon Heritage Museum) Walk's Camp Park, CR27 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN LINCOLN COUNTY: Lower part of the county, the "L" is growing steadily. Highway 94 provides a direct route to Colorado Springs within 30/45 minutes. 98% of this growth is manufactured housing. The high growth rate, countywide, however, is attributed to the State Department of Corrections prison. 96 LINCOLN COUNTY CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT LINCOLN Aruba Genoa Hugo Limon Comp Plan Y N N N Y Land Use Plan Y N N Y Y Subdivision Ord Y-Being Updated N N N Y Zoning Ord Y N N Y Y NFIP/FPM Ord N N N N/SUSPENDED Y - Map Date Never Mapped Never Mapped Never Mapped 10/15/85-FIRM 11/1/1984, LOMR, 2/23/99 - Sub.Damage? N/A N/A N/A N/A Y -Administrator? N N N N Y -#of FP Bldqs? 0 0 0 Unknown 67 -#of policies 0 0 0 0 12-A; 7-X; 19 current -#of RL's? N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 CRS Rating N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Stormwater Prgrm N N N N Y Building Code Y-UBC '97 N N N Y Building Official. Y N N N Y - Inspections? Y N N Y-Limited Y BCEGS Rating N N N N In progress LEOP Y C C C C HM Plan In Progress C C C C Warning Y Y Y Y Y Storm Ready? N Weather Radio? Y Y N Y Y K-C Electric provides No reception Sirens? Y-Need 1 more Y-1 Y Y-3 Y-4, Needs 1 more Emergency Warning Notification? Y C C C C Other? EAS Cable Override Phone Tree N Cable Override GIS System N N N N N Structural Projects N N N N 3 Dams, RR culvert, & Fish Pond (for floods) Property Protection N N N N N Crit.Fac.Protection N N N N Y Natural Res. Inv. N N N N Y Cultural Res. Inv. Y Y Y Y Y Erosion Control N N N N N Sediment Control N N N N N Pub. Info Prgrm Website, Billing "Stuffers" Billing"Stuffers" N Y newspapers Env. Ed Prgrm N N N N N 97 LINCOLN COUNTY RECOMMENDATIONS Action Item#1: County should work to become certified as "Storm Ready"by National Weather Service. Issue Statement: Lincoln County, while not Storm Ready, has made advances in recent years in severe weather warning capabilities. However, there are possible gaps in that capability and becoming Storm Ready will assist the county in identifying and correcting them and allow for protection of our citizens, which is a high priority. A primary goal of the Northeast Colorado Emergency Managers Association multi-jurisdictional DMA Hazard Mitigation Plan is for each county to become "Storm Ready" certified within the next three years. "Storm Ready"certification is an indication that the community has prepared for adverse weather conditions, trained officials and citizens to recognize and report adverse weather conditions, and has established and regularly tested a system for receiving and disseminating severe weather information and warnings to the public. Implementation Manager and strategy: OEM, Lincoln County Sheriff and Town Managers. In coordination with NWS, determine areas in Lincoln County not covered by NOAA Weather Radio repeaters and identify other Storm Ready requirements, then upgrade and/or obtain equipment if necessary. The target date for being Storm Ready is 2005. Priority: High Cost Estimate: Cost is unknown due to possible deficiencies not being identified at this time. A potential source of funding would be PDM grants, with match from the county and possibly the towns. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: The potential for saving just one life, and providing time for individuals and businesses to take effective actions to protect property, far outweighs the potential cost of the warning system and equipment. This goal and recommended action was selected by the MCPC due to its return on investment and relative ease in achieving. It may be the single most effective action the county and the entire Planning Area can undertake to reduce future disaster losses This will be a coordinated effort by local agencies and the NWS, which should open up grant sources, if necessary, and lessen the need for local dollars. It's possible that while in the process of identifying and complying with Storm Ready requirements that Lincoln County may discover that it has minimal items to add or correct to do so, which will make notification to our citizens of severe weather relatively inexpensive. 98 Action Item#2: Encourage participation in the NFIP and the purchase of flood insurance in the County, Limon and Hugo. Issue Statement: Lincoln County is not mapped, and while there has been some discussion of having this done, funding has not been available to assist and the project is beyond the county's financial capability. Hugo is mapped, but not participating in the NFIP. However, there is some residential development occurring in areas of Hugo identified as being in the floodplain. Limon is also mapped and in the process of being remapped. There are 70 structures in the current floodplain, 3 of which are elevated above the expected elevation of the 100-year flood. While Limon is a participant in the NFIP, there are only 19 flood insurance policies. Citizens need to be informed, or reminded, that their structure is in a floodplain and that it's advisable to purchase flood insurance. Implementation Manager and strategy: OEM, Board of County Commissioners, Lincoln County Land Use, Hugo and Limon Town Managers and/or their Planning Department. Work with CWCB to provide current and appropriate information. Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: The cost estimate is $1,500 for Hugo and Limon to notify citizens if they're located in a floodplain and to encourage the purchase of flood insurance and to have Hugo begin participation in the NFIP. The cost to have Lincoln County mapped is unknown and grant funding will have to be obtained in order for this to be done. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: The cost to participate in the NFIP program is apparently minimal, with the end result being very beneficial to citizens. Notification to citizens to encourage the purchase of flood insurance could be accomplished through mailers enclosed with water bills, etc. or articles in local newspapers, thus making the cost relatively small. Action Item #3: Obtain a siren for Karval, an additional one for Limon, and generators for new and existing sirens in all towns. The target date for the new sirens, as well as generators, is 2004 and generators for existing sirens is 2005. Issue Statement: The unincorporated town of Karval does not have a siren. While the population is around 60, there is a school in Karval and when it is in session the population doubles. Karval has an Emergency Warning Notification, but a siren is needed as another means of warning. The town of Limon has four sirens, but one more is needed to provide complete coverage (to be placed at previous Town Hall site). They will be placed in various locations. The towns that have sirens do not have generators, except for Arriba and theirs is not working, to operate the sirens if power is lost. Since sirens are such an effective means of providing warning, obtaining generators to insure that they will be functional at all times is necessary. Implementation Manager and strategy: OEM, Town Managers and Patrick Leonard. Monitor available grant programs for equipment, look for private sector partners, and provide labor for installation as part of the "local match." Priority: High 99 Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: Spreading the cost of this project out over various agencies and companies and doing it during the county fair will allow the maximum amount of people to be reached for very little cost. Action Item#6: Determine shelter locations in Lincoln County, Arriba, Genoa, Hugo and Limon, and identify them for easy access. These would be utilized during severe weather and temporary evacuation situations. Target date is 2004. Issue Statement: Major highways come through Lincoln County. During severe weather, especially tornados, the traveling public will stop and ask where there is shelter. Public shelters in these situations have not been identified and management and staff at businesses cannot direct the traveling public to a safe location. Further, there are new citizens to the county who may not know where to seek shelter. Also, if temporary evacuation of citizens in any of the towns in Lincoln County would become necessary shelters have not been identified for this purpose. The safety of our citizens and those traveling through our county is paramount and shelters in both of these situations need to be identified. Implementation Manager and strategy: OEM and Town Managers Priority: High Cost Estimate: $1,000. The funding source for this project would come from Lincoln County and the towns. If necessary, PDM grant funds would be applied for to obtain signage for the shelters. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: Once shelters are determined they can be marked with signage and business management and staff can be provided lists of the locations. This project, while possibly providing safe locations for hundreds of people, can be accomplished with relatively little cost by the county and the towns, with most of it being in-kind. 101 LOGAN COUNTY PLANNING ELEMENT A. ( L ® G _ C �� .f Vi it,' f.C4c ) i w ` M k �.r .w8 ) J / l f .. t * .f 211.1""'l / '•, �. 'y - 't ;,ei I�1 z'" �r 3 ..,E .. .. t ___ i u: f_ 1 I}-tioiYwc _ {R i ' )t r l' { z „(�^-♦ yy,,..,,S.....1st, ..o °' x B' `'ct e7't'Y�4 '1:Sr...� I F,.` �a4, y -* _ - "', bterlr�g• } x'• `cam c v �. .... Fe • �and _ .f -_ IT t : ' +Y � es h Ltn w:, q x ` Zs�` �. .. . I 7 z 1 " —pia,, 102 Cost Estimate: The sirens will cost between $8,000 and $10,000. The cost for the generators could not be determined at this time. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: Sirens can communicate warning to significant numbers of people immediately. Spread over the life of a siren, the cost of purchase and maintenance is minimal in relation to the number of citizens affected. Action Item#4: Obtain generators for the schools in the county and the events building at the fairgrounds. The target date is 2006. Issue Statement: If sheltering for large numbers of people was needed, the schools and the events building at the fairgrounds would be the likely facilities used in Lincoln County. If the power were out for an extended period of time, a source of backup power would be needed in order to provide safe, adequate shelter. Purchasing generators for these facilities would allow Lincoln County to do this. Implementation Manager and strategy: OEM, Board of County Commissioners and School Superintendents Priority: High Cost Estimate: The cost of the generators could not be determined at this time. PDM grant funding would be a potential source, with match from the county and the schools. Cost-Effectiveness Explanation: If sheltering in Lincoln County was needed the buildings with the largest capacity would be used, so purchasing generators for the 3 schools and the events building at the fairgrounds would maximize the people benefiting with a minimum purchase of generators. Action Item#5: Have an annual Awareness Week, in conjunction with the county fair, where citizens are informed of hazards, losses, mitigation efforts and planning in Lincoln County. The date for the first of these events will be August 2004. Issue Statement: An Awareness campaign has never been done before in Lincoln County. Awareness will hopefully make people contribute ideas if something needs to be mitigated or improved or encourage them to take the necessary measures to protect themselves, whether by purchasing flood insurance or building safe rooms. Implementation Manager and strategy: OEM Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: $1,000. The source of funding for this project would come from the county, the towns and the utility companies. 100 Hello