HomeMy WebLinkAbout20212074.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: ADOPT 2021 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 2021 Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan, prepared by Synergy Disaster Recovery, LLC, in consultation with various
participating communities and agencies for the use and benefit of 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, and
WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to adopt said Updated Northeast
Colorado Regional Hazard Mitigation 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 2021 Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, prepared by Synergy
Disaster Recovery, LLC, in consultation with various participating communities and agencies for
the use and benefit of 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, adopted.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 19th day of July, A.D., 2021.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:dl W �C. o;eA
Weld County Clerk to the Board
ounty orney
Date of signature: 07/277a. \
CC'.OEMCRR)
or/o2/Z1
Steve Moreno, Chair
2021-2074
EM0019
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PASS -AROUND REVIEW
PASS -AROUND TITLE: Hazard Mitigation Plan Adoption
DEPARTMENT: Emergency Management
PERSON REQUESTING: Roy Rudisill
DATE: July 8, 2021
Brief description of the problem/issue: Commissioners, the State and FEMA requires each County to
participate in the development or update their Hazard Mitigation Plan. FEMA requires the county to prepare
their plan in accordance with 44 CFR 201.6. Weld County followed this process by hiring a contractor to help
us complete a State and FEMA approved Plan. Our final draft of the Hazard Mitigation Plan was submitted to
FEMA on July 8th for approval. One of the requirements to having an approved plan is to allow the County to
apply for Hazard Mitigation Grant Funding. This was critical after the 2013 floods, we were ablet to receive
funding for generators at several location across the county (SW Services Center, Fuel sites), Stream warning
system (6 locations), and community preparedness guides.
The process for this update to our plan was bit of a struggle due to COVID-19 and some organizations not
wanting to meet in person, but we have completed the 15 month process of evaluating hazards for the county
and the participating communities. Identifying Mitigation Actions for the communities to work on and completing
a section in the plan for each participating community identifying their hazards and risks.
As part of the process for adoption and approval by FEMA the BOCC needs to adopt the plan, if FEMA has
any recommended changes, we will bring that before the Board for approval. The plan is quite long so I have
provided this to Karla for a download if you wish to review the whole plan. I have attached some of the specific
document we use for your review.
My request is to allow me to add this to the boss agenda for adoption to complete the update process.
What options exist for the Board? (include consequences, impacts, costs, etc. of options):
Approve adding to agenda for Adoption, hold a work session to discuss plan.
Recommendation:
Approval for adding to BOCC agenda.
Perry L. Buck
Mike Freeman
Scott K. James, Pro-Tem
Steve Moreno, Chair
Lori Saine
V/ 6?
Approve Schedule
Recommendation Work Session Other/Comments:
2021-2074
WELD COUNTY 2021
MULTI -
JURISDICTIONAL
HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
[THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
2
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Contents
1 Mitigation Strategy 6
1.1 Overview 6
1.2 Hazards 8
1.3 Mitigation Goals & Objectives 8
1.4 2016 HMP Action Report 10
1.5 2021 HMP Actions 15
1.6 Lifeline Mitigation 23
1.7 Mitigation Capabilities 24
2 Plan Implementation and Maintenance 28
2.1 Plan Integration 28
2.2 Plan Maintenance and Implementation 28
2.3 Municipal Efforts 30
3 Planning Process 32
3.1 Background 32
3.2 Update Process and Methodology 33
3.3 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) 36
3.4 Public and Stakeholder Participation 41
4 County Profile 54
4.1 Demographics 58
4.2 Community Inclusion 59
4.3 Housing Stock 64
4.4 Community Lifelines 65
4.5 Future Development 67
5 Risk Assessment 73
5.1 Introduction 73
5.2 Disaster Declarations 74
5.3 Update Summary 75
5.4 Hazard Rankings 86
5.5 Lifeline Hazard Rankings 92
5.6 Hazard Data Viewers 93
5.7 Agricultural Hazards (including Disease & Pests) 96
5.8 Cyber Hazards 99
5.9 Drought 101
I3
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.10 Earthquake 112
5.11 Extreme Temperatures 123
5.12 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure) 132
5.13 Hazmat Release 150
5.14 Land Subsidence 158
5.15 Prairie Fire 163
5.16 Public Health Hazards 174
5.17 Severe Storm (Including Hail, Lightning & Winter Storm) 181
5.18 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind 193
6 Appendix A: 2021 Mitigation Action Guides 1
7 Appendix B: Municipal Annexes 1
7.1 Town of Ault 2
7.2 City of Dacono 8
7.3 Town of Eaton 17
7.4 Town of Erie 24
7.5 City of Evans 33
7.6 Town of Firestone 41
7.7 City of Fort Lupton 49
7.8 Town of Frederick 57
7.9 City of Greeley 66
7.10 Town of Hudson 74
7.11 Town of Johnstown 82
7.12 Town of Keenesburg 88
7.13 Town of LaSalle 96
7.14 Town of Mead 104
7.15 Town of Milliken 113
7.16 Town of Nunn 120
7.17 Town of Pierce 126
7.18 Town of Platteville 133
7.19 Town of Severance 140
7.20 Town of Windsor 147
8 Appendix C: Earthquake Hazus Risk Report 1
9 Appendix D: Flood Hazus Risk Report 1
10 Appendix E: Wildfire Risk Assessment Summary Report 1
4
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
I I Appendix F: FEMA Approval & Local Adoptions I
Professional planning services for this plan update provided by:
DISASTER RECOVERY'
it • 0
IfYY
With support from:
LOGANSIMP
J iParametrics
5
N
SO
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
I Mitigation Strategy
This section of the Plan provides the blueprint for Weld County and its participating municipalities to
become less vulnerable to hazards. The mitigation goals, objectives, and actions are based on the general
consensus of the Weld County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and local stakeholder
feedback, along with the findings of the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.
I . I Overview
The intent of the mitigation strategy is to provide Weld County and participating jurisdictions with the
goals that will serve as the guiding principles for future mitigation policy and project administration,
along with a list of proposed actions deemed necessary to meet those goals and reduce the impact of
hazards. It is designed to be comprehensive and strategic in nature. The development of the strategy
included a thorough review of hazards and identified actions intended to reduce their future impacts, in
addition to helping Weld County and participating jurisdictions achieve compatible economic,
environmental, and social goals. The mitigation strategy is composed of the following three pieces:
• Mitigation goals are general guidelines that explain what the County wants to achieve. Goals
are usually expressed as broad policy statements representing desired long-term results.
• Mitigation objectives describe strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified
goals. Objectives are more specific statements than goals; the described steps are usually
measurable and can have a defined completion date.
• Mitigation Actions provide more detailed descriptions of specific efforts to help the county
and its municipalities achieve prescribed goals and objectives.
Based on input from the Weld County HMPC, the mitigation strategy from the 2016 Plan has been
modified and updated accordingly. The goals and objectives, while largely the same, have been revised to
align with current County strategies and programs. Previously identified actions were reviewed and new
actions have been identified by Weld County and its local jurisdictions.
In order to prioritize the mitigation actions in this plan, the County and each participating jurisdiction
referred to FEMA's STAPLEE methodology, in addition to a number of additional criteria. This allowed
for a careful review of the feasibility of mitigation actions. Ultimately, mitigation actions were prioritized
by each community using a three -tiered High, Medium, or Low methodology.
Following is a list of those prioritization criteria that each jurisdiction considered. FEMA mitigation
planning requirements indicate that any prioritization system used shall include a special emphasis on the
extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost -benefit review of the proposed projects.
• Positive Cost -Benefit
• Social considerations — life/safety impact
• Administrative considerations — admin/technical assistance
• Economic considerations — project cost/reduce future disaster costs
• Alignment with other local objectives
• Environmental considerations
• Lifeline protection
• Social equity
• Legal considerations
• Availability of local funding
6
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure I shows the HMPC polling results when asked about action prioritization in their communities.
Figure I. Action Prioritization Criteria HMPC Poll
What do you feel are the most important prioritization criteria for mitigation
actions? (pick up to 3)
Funding availability •
Lifeline protection •
Alignment with other local objectives
Social considerations
• Administrative considerations
Economic considerations
• Environmental considerations
SYNERGY
In order to ensure that a broad range of mitigation actions were considered for the Mitigation Strategy,
the Weld County HMPC analyzed a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions for each hazard
after the risk assessment was complete. This helped to ensure that there was sufficient span and
creativity in the mitigation actions considered.
There are four categories of mitigation actions which Weld County considered in developing its
mitigation action plan. Those categories include:
• Structure & Infrastructure Projects: These actions involve modifying existing structures
and infrastructure to protect them from a hazard or remove them from a hazard area. This
could apply to public or private structures as well as Lifelines. This type of action also involves
projects to construct manmade structures to reduce the impact of hazards. Many of these
types of actions are projects eligible for funding through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance
program.
o Examples include: Removal of structures in hazard areas, elevation of structures in flood
prone areas, utility under -grounding, structural retrofits, flood walls and retaining walls,
detention and retention structures, culverts, and safe rooms.
• Local Plans & Regulations: These actions include government authorities, policies, or codes
that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built.
o Examples include: comprehensive plans, land use ordinances, subdivision regulations,
development review, building codes & enforcement, capital improvement programs,
open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations & plans.
• Natural Systems Protection: These are actions that minimize damage and losses and also
preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.
o Examples include: forest management, sediment & erosion control, stream corridor
restoration, conservation easements, wetland restoration & preservation, and defensible
space.
• Education & Awareness Programs: These are actions to inform and educate citizens,
elected officials, and property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. These
7
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
actions may also include participation in national programs, such as StormReady or Firewise
Communities. These types of actions provide a greater understanding and awareness of hazards
and risk among local officials, stakeholders, and the public. This knowledge is likely to lead to
implementation of other types of hazard mitigation.
o Examples include: participation in national risk awareness programs, mailing to residents
in hazard -prone areas, presentations to local schools, groups, & organizations, websites
with maps and information, real estate disclosures, and incentivizing drought tolerant
landscaping.
1.2 Hazards
One of the largest inputs to a successful mitigation strategy is a thorough understanding of those
hazards that impact communities and the ultimate risk they present. A large portion of this Plan is
devoted to a detailed review of these hazards and each community's vulnerabilities. See the Risk
Assessment and Appendix B: Municipal Annexes sections of this Plan for additional details. An overall
Countywide hazard risk ranking is provided in Table 32.
Table I. Countywide Hazard Risk Ranking
Weld
County
lu�.lii lu�.lii
Low
Risk
Moder
ate
Risk
lu�.lii lu�.lii
Low
Risk
Moder
ate
Risk
1.3 Mitigation Goals & Objectives
Together, the goals and objectives identified by the HMPC established the scope and focus of the
proposed mitigation actions outlined in this Plan. The following table provides a summary of the
updated mitigation goals for the 202 I Plan. It also outlines the planning objectives identified by the
HMPC for each goal.
Table 2. 2021 Mitigation Goals & Objectives
GOAL I: Protect people,
property, and natural resources,
while decreasing the economic
impacts of a disaster.
A. Continue to develop and expand programs for community
preparedness and resilience education, including community
Lifelines.
B. Enhance training for hazard prevention, Lifeline impacts and
mitigation options.
C. Incorporate risk reduction principles into policy documents
and initiatives, as well as other institutional plans.
D. Continue to collaborate with area partners through mutual
aid agreements and long-term planning efforts.
8
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
E. Reduce the vulnerability of local assets and Lifeline services
to the impacts of hazards.
GOAL 2: Improve capabilities
within the County and local
jurisdictions to maintain delivery
of lifeline critical services and
reduce disaster losses.
A. Continue to develop and expand programs for community
preparedness and resilience education, including community
Lifelines.
B. Enhance training for hazard prevention, Lifeline impacts and
mitigation options.
C. Incorporate risk reduction principles into policy documents
and initiatives, as well as other institutional plans.
D. Continue to collaborate with area partners through mutual
aid agreements and long-term planning efforts.
E. Reduce the vulnerability of local assets and Lifeline services
to the impacts of hazards.
GOAL 3: Increase community
resilience by engaging the public
and community leaders in
education about preparedness
and mitigation strategy.
A. Continue to develop and expand programs for community
preparedness and resilience education, including community
Lifelines.
B. Enhance training for hazard prevention, Lifeline impacts and
mitigation options.
GOAL 4: Support the active
participation of Weld County
communities in ongoing
mitigation planning, to maintain
eligibility for FEMA, other federal
mitigation funding and additional
grant funding opportunities.
A. Continue to develop and expand programs for community
preparedness and resilience education, including community
Lifelines.
B. Enhance training for hazard prevention, Lifeline impacts and
mitigation options.
C. Incorporate risk reduction principles into policy documents
and initiatives, as well as other institutional plans.
D. Continue to collaborate with area partners through mutual
aid agreements and long-term planning efforts.
E. Reduce the vulnerability of local assets and Lifeline services
to the impacts of hazards.
9
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
1.4 2016 HMP Action Report
The Weld County HMPC reviewed and reported on the status of mitigation actions included in the 2016 Plan. Table 3 provides a summary of
this reporting. 2016 actions from Brighton, Garden City, Gilcrest, and Kersey are not reported as these municipalities did not participate in the
planning process for the 2021 update. A number of 2016 mitigation actions are on -going or have been deferred to this updated 2021 Plan.
These are highlighted in green throughout the Table.
Table 3. 2016 Mitigation Action Summary
2016
-01
Weld County
County Resiliency
Study
Whole Community Meeting was built up in 2018 and meetings were held every two
months to engage members of the 32 jurisdictions and educate on resilience building,
we are currently surveying resilience through this group. An actual study has not
been completed.
2016
-02
Weld County
Load -limited Bridge
Replacements
This project was completed. The bridge replacement list changes annually for load
restricted bridges. We modify our annual bridge replacement list to accommodate
new bridges being added to the load restricted list.
2016
-03
Weld County
County Road 49
Interchanges
None at this time. On -going project.
2016
-04
Weld County
Drainage
Improvements near
Parkway
Study was completed, identifying several possible projects, BOCC to prioritize
projects. On -going project.
2016
-05
Weld County
Railroad Crossing
Improvements
Most have been completed with the exception of 2.
On -going project but not included as a 2021 action in this Plan.
2016
-06
Weld County
River Channel
Clearing
None at this time. On -going project.
2016
-07
Ault
Storm Ready
Completed.
Brighton
All
This community did not participate in this Plan update.
2016
-08
Dacono
Design and
Construction of
Colorado Blvd. Bridge
To date, this project has undergone engineering review and design. Completion of this
project will depend on available funding, and it has not yet been scheduled. This
project should be continued as a 2021 mitigation action. On -going project.
2016
-09
Dacono
Grandview St. and
York St. Flood
Mitigation
To date, this project has undergone engineering review and design. Completion of this
project will depend on available funding, and it has not yet been scheduled. This
project should be continued as a 2021 mitigation action. On -going project.
1 10
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2016
-10
Erie
Install Emergency
Generator
Designed in 2020, installation in 2021.
2016
- I I
Erie
Install Outdoor
Warning Sirens
Project complete, don't have project costs available
2016
-12
Erie
Boulder Creek
Improvements
Project completed April 2016
2016
-I3
Erie
Coal Creek
Improvements
Preliminary Design is complete. Need funding partners prior to final design and
construction. On -going project.
2016
-14
Evans
Implement High
Priority Actions from
Drainage Plan
On -going project. 31St Street Stormwater Outfall & Bay at the Landings Inlet
2016
-15
Evans
"Weather Ready
Ambassador" status
with NOAA
Project complete
2016
-I6
Evans
Implement
Ordinances to
Prevent Building in the
100 -year Floodplain
Project complete
2016
-17
Evans
Mitigation of 49th St.
& Industrial Pkwy.
Roadways
Completed 2016-17
2016
-18
Firestone
Installation of Culverts
along 4000 block of
Firestone Blvd.
This project was completed in 2017.
2016
-19
Firestone
Installation of Culverts
at Colorado Blvd. &
Pine Cone Ave.
Town of Firestone installed a culvert in this location, but the connection on the west
side of the road has not been completed. This action needs to be done by the Town
of Frederick and is listed as a new action for them. Complete for Firestone
2016
-20
Fort Lupton
Draining
Improvements in
Storm Drainage g
Master Plan
Projects completed. Intersection flooding at 6th Street and McKinley — 2017,
Localized flooding at Hoover Ave and 7th Street — 2017, Localized flooding issue
storm sewer repairs at Hoover Ave and 9th Street — 2017, Localized flooding issue
CR 12 and S Denver avenue — 2019. Kahil outfall project under construction
currently, On -going project.
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
This project was partially completed in 2018. Damage has been repaired but the lack
2016
-21
Frederick
Box Culvert at Bella
Rosa Pkwy.
of adequate box culverts to handle a 100 -year flood will result in future damage. The
Town of Frederick Stormwater Master Plan will identify this project as a priority. On-
going project.
2016
-22
Frederick
Snow Removal
Capabilities
Complete, another alternative was identified.
2016
-23
Frederick
Tipple Pkwy. Box
Culvert
Box Culvert on Tipple Pkwy. was completed by the Town of Firestone.
2016
-24
Frederick
Tipple Pkwy. Paving
This project was completed in 2018.
Garden City
All
This community did not participate in this Plan update.
Gilcrest
All
This community did not participate in this Plan update.
2016
City -Initiated
On -going project.
-25
Greeley
Floodway Rezone
2016
Mitigate Severe
On -going project.
-26
Greeley
Repetitive Loss
Property
2016
Greeley
Cache la Poudre,
West Greeley USACE
On -going project.
-27
Project
2016
On -going project.
-28
Greeley
Poudre River Cleaning
2016
Hwy. 85 Bridge
On -going project.
-29
Greeley
Replacement
2016
On -going project.
-30
Greeley
River Bypass Channel
2016
Poudre River Flood
On -going project.
-31
Greeley
Mitigation Master
Planning
Update EOP / Crisis
2016
-32
Hudson
Action Guide and
Incorporate Hazard
Mitigation
Updated into New MAG, On going project
1 12
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2016
-33
Hudson
Integrated
Community Mitigation
Planning and 2015
Citizen Survey Review
Not completed
2016
-34
Hudson
Develop Resilience -
Hazard Awareness &
Preparedness
Education Plan
Not completed
2016
-35
Hudson
Distribution of All
Hazards Emergency
Alert Radios
Updated to new MAG, Repeater System. On -going project.
2016
-36
Keenesburg
Floodplain Training
On -going project.
2016
-37
Keenesburg
Notify Travelling
Public about Shelter
Locations
Shelter information is updated on the community website. On -going project.
2016
-38
Keenesburg
Tornado Warning
System Public
Education
The town does have one siren that is operated by Weld County, education is
ongoing. On -going project.
Kersey
All
This community did not participate in this Plan update.
2016
-39
LaSalle
Community
Preparedness
Education
On -going project.
2016
-40
LaSalle
Develop Upkeep
Schedule for
Emergency Power
System
On -going project.
2016
-41
LaSalle
Implement Planned
Stormwater
Improvements
Completed 2017/18.
2016
-42
Mead
Policy Group Training
for Elected Officials
This will be an ongoing project to train incoming elected officials, and refresher
training for those retaining positions in the community. On -going project.
1 13
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2016
Acquire Back-up
-43
Mead
Power for Public
Works
Updated: In progress. On -going project. New public works facility.
2016
Update Policies and
-44
Mead
Plans with Mitigation
Principles
Completed
2016
Josephine Storm
-45
Milliken
Sewer Improvements
Project
Completed
2016
Acquisition of Flood
-46
Milliken
Prone Lands and
Structures
Completed and ongoing
2016
Procurement and
-47
Milliken
Installation of
Tornado Sirens
Siren installed at PD, Project ongoing.
2016
-48
Milliken
Generators for Public
Buildings
Completed
2016
Stormwater
-49
Milliken
Improvements
Throughout Milliken
Completed and on -going project.
2016
Tornado Shelters in
-50
Milliken
Public Buildings and
Parks
Not Completed. Not currently a priority project.
2016
Community
-51
Pierce
Preparedness
Education
Completed annually, On -going project.
There is no current progress on this project. Project will be ongoing through 2020-
2016
Pierce
Drainage County Rd.
2025, with collaboration of county and state and City of Thornton for adjoining
-52
88 / Hwy. 85
property. On -going project.
2016
-53
Platteville
Emergency
Management Plan
Project was not completed. On -going project.
2016
-54
Platteville
Early Warning System
for Various Hazards
A fifth tornado siren was installed in 2018 and Platteville now has sufficient emergency
warning coverage for the community. Project Completed.
1 14
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2016
-55
Platteville
Master Storm
Drainage Study
The study was completed in September of 2016 and the Town is pursuing various
recommendations. Project Completed.
2016
-56
Severance
Downtown Drainage
and Street
Improvements
Completed November 2016- Updated towns Master Drainage Plan with includes
implementation and finance plan to continue mitigating localized flooding issues
2016
-57
Windsor
John Law Ditch -
Flood Mitigation
Project
Generator project completed in Oct. 2019, Cost 49k.
2016
-58
Windsor
Acquire Emergency
Power System
Generator project completed in 1st Qrt 2019, Transfer switches on all buildings on
Public Safety Complex budgeted for 2021 - Cost $49k. On -going project.
2016
-59
Windsor
Conduct LETA 91 1
Outreach to
Residents
Completed 2017- LETA 911 is now known at NOCO Alerts
2016
-60
Windsor
Flood Mitigation on
CR 13
Completed and ongoing - budgeted for routine yearly maintenance along the Cache
La Poudre River. On -going project.
1.5 2021 HMP Actions
The final, and arguably the most important step in updating the Mitigation Strategy was the creation of new mitigation actions. In preparing their
mitigation actions, the County and each participating jurisdiction considered the planning goals and their individual hazard risks, priorities, and
capabilities to mitigate identified hazards. The actions below represent the key outcome of the mitigation planning process. A number of 2016
mitigation actions are on -going or have been deferred to this updated 2021 Plan. These are highlighted in green throughout the Table.
The full Mitigation Action Guides (MAGs) for 2021 are included in Appendix A: 2021 Mitigation Action Guides.
Table 4. 2021 Mitigation Actions
2021-
0 I
I -Weld county
County Resiliency, Building of Lifelines and
Subcomponents in all Jurisdictions
2021-
Lifeline Integration — Health and Medical Resiliency
02
2 -Weld County
Study
202 I -
03
3 -Weld County
Floodplain Management
I 15
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
202 I -
04
4 -Weld County
Alert Flood Warning System
202 I -
05
5 -Weld County
Improve Dam Safety
2021-
06
6 -Weld County
Establish an ongoing or annual Public Education
Campaign regarding Hazards and Emergency
Management
2021-
07
7 -Weld County
Inventory Critical Facilities within the Floodplain to
Determine if they should be Protected
2021-
08
8 -Weld County
Public Warning System - IPAWS
Awareness and Training
2021-
09
9- Weld County
Storm Ready / Weather Safety
202 I -
I0
I -Weld County - PW
WCR 120,1 10,108 Low Water Crossing
202 I -
II
2 -Weld County - PW
Bridge 19/46.5A
202 I -
12
3 -Weld County - PW
Bridge 54/ 13A
202 I -
13
4 -Weld County - PW
Bridge 60.5/49A
202 I -
14
5 -Weld County - PW
Bridge 34/ 17A
202 I -
I5
6 -Weld County - PW
Galeton Drainage Project
2021-
16
7 -Weld County - PW
Gill Drainage Project
2021-
17
I -Ault
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -
Shelter Capabilities Planning
2021-
18
2 -Ault
Hazardous Materials — Community Impact Study
2021-
19
I -Dacono
Design and Construction of CO Blvd Bridge
Completed Engineering Review and Design
and On -going
1 16
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2021-
20
2-Dacono
Grandview Street and York Street Flood Mitigation
202 I -
21
I -Eaton
Drought Plan Development
Target date 12/31/2029
202 I -
22
2 -Eaton
Roundabout Collins Rd & CR35
202 I -
23
3 -Eaton
Pump Pit
202 I -
24
I -Erie
County Line Rd, Tellane to Cheeseman
2021-
25
2- Erie
Coal Creek Improvements Reach 1
2021-
26
3 -Erie
Coal Creek Improvements reach 2
2021-
27
4 -Erie
Coal Creek Improvements reach 3
2021-
28
5 -Erie
Old Town Drainage Improvements
2021-
29
6 -Erie
Zone 3 Storage Tank
Updated 1 1-13 -20 , Designed in 2020,
installation in 2021
202 I -
30
7 -Erie
Well Project
2021-
31
8 -Erie
Zone 2 Water System Improvements
202 I -
32
9 -Erie
Zone 3 Storage Tank
2021-
33
10 -Erie
Zone 3 Waterline Improvements
202 I -
34
I I -Erie
Erie Parkway & WCR 7 Intersection Improvements
202 I -
35
12 -Erie
Signal Communications Project
202 I -
36
I -Evans
3 I st St Stormwater Outfall
1 17
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2021-
37
2 -Evans
Bay at the Landings Inlet Flood Mitigation
Some ordinance implemented, some
elevations done, on going project
2021-
38
3 -Evans
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -
Shelter Capabilities Planning
2021-
39
I -Firestone
Installation of Infrastructure Transmission
Technologies
2021-
100
2 -Firestone
Godding Hollow Tri-Town Basin Outfall
Improvements
2021-
101
3 -Firestone
Community Connect Program
202 I -
41
I -Fort Lupton
Warning Sirens
202 I -
42
2 -Fort Lupton
Emergency Notification Signs
202 I -
43
3 -Fort Lupton
Water Storage
2021-
44
4 -Fort Lupton
Well Inclusions
202 I -
45
5 -Fort Lupton
Localized Flooding
202 I -
46
6 -Fort Lupton
Emergency Shelter Generator
202 I -
47
I -Frederick
Box Culvert at Bella Rosa Parkway
202 I -
48
2 -Frederick
Potable Water System, Emergency Supply
202 I -
49
3 -Frederick
Town Facilities- Expansion & Modification
202 I -
102
4 -Frederick
Community Connect Program
2021-
50
I -City of Greeley
Extreme Heat/Drought Resiliency Program
Development
2021-
51
2 -City of Greeley
Prairie Fire Mitigation Program Development/CWPP
1 18
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2021-
52
I -Greeley- PW
City -Initiated Floodway Rezone
202 I -
53
2 -Greeley -PW
Mitigate Risk to Severe Repetitive Loss Property
2021-
54
3-Greeley-PW
Cache la Poudre, West Greeley USACE Project
2021-
55
4-Greeley-PW
Poudre River Cleaning
2021-
56
5 -Greeley -PW
Hwy 85 Bridge Replacement
2021-
57
6 -Greeley -PW
River Bypass Channel
2021-
58
7-Greeley-PW
Poudre River Flood Mitigation Master Planning
Project — Ash Ave to 21St Ave
2021-
59
I -Hudson
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -
Shelter Capabilities Planning
2021-
60
2 -Hudson
Repeater System
2021-
61
3 -Hudson
Updates Comprehensive Plan / Identify Mitigation
actions
Combined 2 from Previous update, Updated
into New MAG
202 I -
62
I -Johnstown
Resiliency Study
Updated to new MAG, Repeater System.
2021-
63
2 -Johnstown
Drainage Improvements Old Town
2021-
64
3 -Johnstown
Install Emergency Generator
2021-
65
4 -Johnstown
Community Preparedness Education
2021-
66
5 -Johnstown
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -
Shelter Capabilities Planning
-
2021-
67
I-Keenesburg
I -Keenesburg
Floodplain Training
2021-
68
2-Keenesburg
Notify Travelling Public about Shelter Locations
1 19
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2021-
69
3-Keenesburg
Tornado Warning System Public Education
Shelter information is updated on the
community website- this is an ongoing
project
2021-
103
4-Keenesburg
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -
Shelter Capabilities Planning
2021-
70
I -LaSalle
Community Preparedness Education
The town does have one siren that is
operated by Weld County, education is
ongoing.
2021-
71
2 -LaSalle
DevelopUpkeep Schedule for Emergency Power
Systems
2021-
104
3 -LaSalle
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -
Shelter Capabilities Planning
202 I -
72
I -Mead
Policy Group Training for Elected Officials
2021-
73
2 -Mead
Update Policies and Plans with Mitigation Principles -
North Creek Flood Plain Analysis
2021-
74
3 -Mead
Update Policies and Plans with Mitigation Principles -
Emergency Operations Plan
2021-
75
4 -Mead
Update Facilities- Public Works facility — Design &
Construction
2021-
76
5 -Mead
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -
Shelter Capabilities Planning
2021-
77
I -Milliken
Convert acquired land and property in the floodplain
to Open Space
2021-
78
2 -Milliken
Procurement and Installation of Tornado Sirens
2021-
79
3 -Milliken
Storm Water Improvements Throughout Milliken
2021-
80
4 -Milliken
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -
Shelter Capabilities Planning
202 I -
81
I -Nunn
Master Drainage Plan
2021-
82
2 -Nunn
Tornado Shelter to be ADA Compliant
I 20
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2021-
83
3 -Nunn
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -
Shelter Capabilities Planning
2021-
84
I -Pierce
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -
Shelter Capabilities Planning
2021-
85
2 -Pierce
County Road 90 Improvements
2021-
86
3 -Pierce
Community Preparedness Education
202 I -
87
4 -Pierce
Drainage County Rd 88 / Hwy 85
2021-
88
1 -Platteville
Comprehensive Plan Update and Training
There is no current progress on this project.
Project will be ongoing through 2020-2025,
with collaboration of county and state and
City of Thornton for adjoining property.
2021-
89
2 -Platteville
Community Education of updated Early Warning
System, Training and Utilization
2021-
90
3 -Platteville
Tornado Sirens - Maintenance and testing
2021-
91
4 -Platteville
Comprehensive EM Plan - Update and training
2021-
92
5 -Platteville
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -
Shelter Capabilities Planning
202 I -
93
6 -Platteville
Master Storm Drainage Plan
2021-
94
I -Severence
Downtown Drainage and Street Improvements
(Phase 2)
-
2021-
95
2-Severence
2-Severence
Hidden Valley Parkway Crossing
-
2021-
96
3-Severence
3-Severence
Harmony Regional Drainage Project
202 I -
97
I -Windsor
Eastman Park Riverwalk Project
2021-
98
2 -Windsor
Acquire Emergency Power System Transfer Switches
- Public Safety Complex
Generator project completed in 1st quarter
2019, Transfer switches on all buildings on
I 21
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Public Safety Complex budgeted for 2021
Cost 49k
2021-
99
I 22
3 -Windsor
Flood Mitigation on CR 13
Completed and ongoing- budgeted for
routine maintenance along the Cache La
Poudre River- Yearly Maintenance
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
1.6 Lifeline Mitigation
Through development of the MAG documents, each jurisdiction also worked at identifying those specific
Lifelines and Subcomponents applicable to each mitigation action. A summary of these mitigation
actions is shown by Lifeline in Figure 2. This information will allow Weld County to better assess and
track the mitigation actions included in this plan going forward. During future plan maintenance
activities, this Lifeline analysis will provide communities an opportunity to re-evaluate mitigation actions
and remaining unmet needs.
Figure 2. 2021 Mitigation Actions by Lifeline
2021 Mitigation Actions by Lifeline
Transportatio/111
n
23%
Safety &
Security
28%
I 23
Communications
8%
Energy
6%
Food, Water &
Shelter
22%
HazMat
4%
Health & Medical
9%
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
I.7 Mitigation Capabilities
The mitigation capability assessment examines the ability of Weld County to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
County are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the county's hazard mitigation program.
Mitigation capabilities are classified into the following types and are detailed in the following Tables.
• Planning & Regulatory
o Plans
o Building Code, Permitting, & Inspection
o Land Use Planning & Ordinances
• Administrative & Technical
o Administration
o Staff
o Technical
• Financial
o Funding Resources
• Education & Outreach
o Programs & Organizations
I 24
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The County
currently utilizes or has implemented most of these capabilities shown in Table 5. It is important for the
County to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk reduction
efforts.
Table 5. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
r i i' it i=i; „ i , i i1t' .;
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H' 11-- -1
Yes
I HI it ,l
Portions updated in 2020
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
Public Works — roads only
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Stormwater Program / Plan
No
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Economic Development Plan
No
Other:
Yes
OEM plans
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018 IBC, No Maint. Code, Uniform code
abatement of dangerous buildings (1997), No Fire
Code
Building Code Effectiveness Grading
Schedule (BCEGS) Rating
Unknown, this will be further researched as part
of this Plan's future maintenance process
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Planning review, County code
Other:
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
County code
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
Updating in 2020 County code
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
County code
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
There are gaps that need to be studied, County
Code
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
County code
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
County code
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
No
Growth Management Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
County code
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
Yes
Airport Overlay District, Geologic Hazard
Overlay
Other:
Yes
Non -conforming structures, County code
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Weld County is fortunate to have most all of these capabilities
identified in Table 6.
I 25
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 6. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Planning Commission
!H —Ili .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Mitigation Planning Committee
Yes
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Public Works in Right -of -Way
Emergency Manager
Yes
OEM
Building Official
Yes
Director of Planning
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Director of Planning
Community Planner
Yes
7 planners plus Director
Transportation Planner
Yes
Public Works
Civil Engineer
Yes
Public Works
GIS Capability
Yes
IT
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
Yes
Stream gauges / river warning (6)
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Code RED, IPAWS, tornado sirens, EAS plan
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Each Director, per department
Other:
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 7 and show that the County
utilizes a number of these financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 7. Financial Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H —Ili .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Fire Protection Districts
Utilities Fees
No
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
Impact fees come from Public Works
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Conservation fund: lottery $ all goes to
municipalities
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Comes from Public Works
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
Specific to grant applied for
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
I 26
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 8 shows that the County
does leverage most of these capabilities.
Table 8. Education & Outreach Capabilities
r-il i i i11'-
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
!H =111
Yes
I ell il ,l_�
OEM - Community education
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
Yes
Whole Community Group, LEPC
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
Yes
OEM
Other:
Each participating municipality has also evaluated their own mitigation capabilities, details are included in
Appendix B: Municipal Annexes.
I 27
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2 Plan Implementation and Maintenance
This chapter discusses how the mitigation strategy will be integrated across other planning efforts and
how the overall Hazard Mitigation Plan will be evaluated, maintained, and enhanced over time. This
section also discusses how the public and participating stakeholders will continue to be involved in the
hazard mitigation planning process.
2.1 Plan Integration
Weld County maintains a comprehensive set of emergency management plans, developed in a multi-
disciplinary environment where county departments, jurisdictional agencies and representatives, non-
profit and community organizations, and the private sector are included in the planning process. This set
of plans encompass all phases of emergency management and the work done on the 2021 Weld County
Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) will be integrated into these efforts moving forward.
The 2021 HMP, and especially the hazard and risk assessment within it, will be used to inform the Local
Emergency Operations Plan (LEOP) and the Recovery Plan (RP). For example, the highest risk hazards
and highest priority actions identified in the HMP influence coordinated planning for response in the
LEOP. Additionally, when the LEOP and RP are activated, there will be an opportunity to identify
mitigation actions and capability gaps that may be addressed in the HMP. By integrating the HMP with
the County's comprehensive set of emergency management plans, a strong foundation for resilience has
been set through smart emergency preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery; before, during,
and after an emergency or disaster event.
Additionally, there are a number of other community plans that will benefit from content within this
Plan. Integrating components of this hazard mitigation plan across these other community planning
efforts will be an ongoing effort and will help to ensure no strategic conflicts are created through other
plans. This will also help to ensure that hazard mitigation is considered during all applicable future
County, local, and regional planning efforts.
Appendix B: Municipal Annexes also contain some additional content, specific to some municipalities,
regarding Plan Integration efforts.
2.2 Plan Maintenance and Implementation
Weld County will actively maintain the hazard mitigation plan by coordinating a review of all mitigation
actions annually, and will determine needed updates to other sections of the HMP at the January Multi -
Agency Coordinating Group meeting each year. This will include a review of all referenced hazard
webmaps cited in the plan as a resource for communities.
Weld County OEM will present a summary status report of the HMP to the Weld County
Commissioners annually. This report will be made available to the general public to highlight progress
made towards implementation. Additionally, Weld County OEM staff will meet with participating
jurisdictions on a bi-monthly schedule to review progress made towards implementing mitigation
actions.
As discussed during a HMPC workshop, implementation of mitigation actions is oftentimes challenging.
Some of the larger obstacles the HMPC identified were funding and a lack of implementation champions
(Figure 3). The funding challenges can potentially be offset through the use of Federal and State grant
funding. The Weld County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) will disseminate information
relating to potential mitigation funding sources to communities and the HMPC as application periods are
identified.
I 28
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Appendix B: Municipal Annexes also contain some additional content, specific to some municipalities,
regarding Plan Maintenance and Implementation efforts.
Figure 3. Implementation Obstacles HMPC Poll
2. What are the biggest obstacles to implementing r" ` .f
mitigation?
16
10
5
4
3
2
1
Ntitc sfpart Pdrtrcdwpport Funding Groot Devebpmorrt Lock ofpropct Organoatland
applimtion review process champon slicing/
pnxess co.mrr,nicabon
The HMPC was also asked during a workshop which members of their community were the most vital
to Plan implementation. Figure 4 shows that many felt elected and non -elected leadership support is the
key to successfully implementing mitigation.
Figure 4. Plan Implementation HMPC Poll
4. Which member of your community is the most
pivotal to plan implementation?
14
11
7
6
2
0
Elected City/Town Department Emergency Special
Officials Manager Heads Manager Districts
Other
Other efforts aimed at continued public participation will include mitigation -specific public outreach and
engagement activities (e.g. town hall meetings, information booths at community events, social media
campaigns, etc.) These annual efforts (if not more frequent) will be spearheaded by the County to
facilitate continued public participation in the plan maintenance process over time.
I 29
t R'I FRO C. 01ritioy:F Mr rt
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The 2021 Plan will be updated by the FEMA approved five-year anniversary date, as required by the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, or following a disaster event. Future Plan updates will account for any
new hazard vulnerabilities, special circumstances, or new information that becomes available. During
the five-year review process, the following questions will be considered as criteria for assessing the
effectiveness of the Weld County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• Has the nature or magnitude of hazards affecting the County changed?
• Are there new hazards that have the potential to impact the County?
• Do the identified goals and actions address current and expected conditions?
• Have mitigation actions been implemented or completed?
• Has the implementation of identified mitigation actions resulted in expected outcomes?
• Are current resources adequate to implement the plan?
• Should additional local resources be committed to address identified hazards?
Issues that arise during monitoring and evaluation which require changes to the local hazard, risk and
vulnerability summary, mitigation strategy, and other components of the plan will be incorporated during
future updates.
2.3 Municipal Efforts
Figure 5 presents relevant polling responses that the HMPC provided during the planning workshops,
when asked about effective ways to continue public participation.
Figure 5. Continued Public Participation HMPC Poll
What are the most effective ways to continue HMP public
participation? (pick 2)
StormReady program •
Coordination through local
citizen groups
Public hazard educati
outreach programs
16
on/•
Annual status reporting on
actions
tir TuC,Y
Additional poll responses provided other specific ideas for jurisdictions to consider when continuing
public HMP participation. Some suggestions included: town hall meetings, social media, booths at
events, newsletters / utility bill inserts, websites, push notifications, public information nights, and adding
HMP discussions to agendas of regular standing meetings,
Figure 6 and Figure 7 show responses from the HMPC relevant to effective tools for implementing
mitigation. Additional responses mentioned creating HMP work groups or advisory boards and
integrating mitigation strategy conversations into annual budgeting processes.
130
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 6. Implementation Tools (Plans / Programs) HMPC Poll
Which plans and programs are most effective in implementing the HMP across
your community? (pick up to 3)
Open Spa ce/conservaRLEHIPF 6iftg
Economic development plan
Community wildfire protection plan (CWPP1 • ipipp, p,
Stormwater program / plan •
7
Floodp₹ain management plan
15
Comprehensive plan
• Capital improvement plan
SYNi:Fl&\
Figure 7. Implementation Tools (Regulatory) HMPC Poll
Which programs and regulatory tools are the most effective opportunities to
implementing the H MP across your community? (pick up to 3)
Stormwater ordinance.
Growth management ordinance
Building codes •
Community Rating System (CRS) participation •
Elevation certificates for floodplain development •
Zoning ordinance
6114•94
14
Subdivision ordinance
Site plan review
S'f.`i YRGY �f `
I 3i
te.1I RU vCv MAN WI M1 N I
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
3 Planning Process
The following section reviews the planning process and public outreach with participating jurisdictions
and Weld County to inform the Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
3.1 Background
The 2021 Weld County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is an update to the 2016 Plan. Hazard mitigation
plans are community -led efforts designed to identify, manage, and avoid risks through pre -planning. This
plan is designed to reduce the risks posed by hazards that affect Weld County communities and must be
updated and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) every five years to keep
it current and to maintain eligibility for certain federal Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Grants.
3.1.1 What is Hazard Mitigation?
The term "hazard mitigation" describes actions that can help reduce or eliminate long-term risks caused
by hazards, such as floods, wildfires, tornados, and earthquakes. Hazard mitigation is best accomplished
when based on a comprehensive, long-term plan developed before a disaster strikes. As the costs of
disaster recovery continue to rise, governments and citizens must find ways to reduce community
hazard risks. Oftentimes after disasters, repairs and reconstruction are completed in such a way as to
simply restore damaged property to pre -disaster conditions. These efforts may "get things back to
normal," but the replication of pre -disaster conditions often results in a repetitive cycle of damage,
reconstruction, and repeated damage. Hazard mitigation breaks this repetitive cycle by producing less
vulnerable conditions through pre- and post -disaster repairs and reconstruction. The implementation of
such hazard mitigation actions by state and local governments means building stronger, safer, and
smarter communities that will be able to reduce future disaster losses.
3.1.2 Purpose
Mitigation is an investment in a community's future safety and resiliency. Recent cost -benefit studies
have proven mitigation to be cost effective for communities, with mitigation projects returning six
dollars for every one dollar spent. Hazard mitigation planning helps residents, business owners, elected
officials, and municipal departments think through how to plan, design, build, and establish partnerships
for risk reduction. Consider the critical importance of mitigation to:
• Protect public safety and prevent loss of life and injury.
• Reduce property damage to existing and future development.
• Maintain community continuity and strengthen the social connections that are essential for
recovery.
• Prevent harm to a community's unique economic, cultural, and environmental assets.
• Minimize operational downtime and accelerate recovery of government and business after
disasters.
• Reduce the costs of disaster response and recovery and the exposure to risk for first
responders.
• Help accomplish other community objectives, such as capital improvements, infrastructure
protection, open space preservation, and economic resiliency.
Additionally, Weld County and its municipalities will benefit from this project by:
• Ensuring eligibility for all sources of hazard mitigation funds made available through FEMA.
• Increasing public awareness and understanding of vulnerabilities as well as support for specific
actions to reduce losses from future disasters.
132
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
• Ensuring community policies, programs, and goals are compatible with reducing vulnerability to
all hazards and identifying those that are incompatible.
• Building partnerships with diverse stakeholders, increasing opportunities to leverage data and
resources in reducing workloads, as well as achieving shared community objectives.
• Expanding the understanding of potential risk reduction measures to include: local plans and
regulations; structure and infrastructure projects; natural systems protection; education and
awareness programs; and other tools.
• Informing the development, prioritization, and implementation of mitigation projects. Benefits
accrue over the life of these projects as losses are avoided from each subsequent hazard event.
3. I.3 Scope
This 2021 Plan has been prepared to meet requirements set forth by FEMA and the Colorado Division
of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHSEM) in order for Weld County and its
municipalities to be eligible for funding and technical assistance from state and federal hazard mitigation
programs. This Plan will be updated and FEMA-approved within its five-year expiration date.
3. I.4 Authority
This Hazard Mitigation Plan has been adopted by Weld County and its participating jurisdictions in
accordance with the authority granted to counties and municipalities by the State of Colorado. This Plan
was developed in accordance with current state and federal rules and regulations governing local hazard
mitigation plans. The Plan shall be monitored and updated on a routine basis to maintain compliance
with the following legislation and guidance:
• Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C., Section 322,
Mitigation Planning, as enacted by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-
390) and by FEMA's Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, at
44 CFR Part 201
The following Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guides and reference documents were
used to prepare this document:
• FEMA. Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide. October I, 2011
• FEMA. Local Multi -Hazard Mitigation Planning Handbook. March, 2013.
3.2 Update Process and Methodology
The planning process included data gathering and modeling while simultaneously meeting with a Hazard
Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and gathering public input to support the Plan. The following
section details the timeline and methods of public outreach, committee meetings and plan development.
A high-level summary is presented in Figure 8.
I 33
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 8. Process Timeline
abtro
Aukbot
Risk and
Vulnerability
Assessment
Data Gathering
Mitigation Strategy
and Plan
Development
Meeting Series #1 :
Kickoff
Meeting Series # 2:
Risk Assessment
Meeting Series #3:
Mitigation Strategy
Newsletter,
social media
content, and press
release
Survey #1: HIRA,
and launch of
project website
Survey #2: Resilient
Weld County;
social media
content; and Survey
#3: Mitigation
Strategies
3.2. I Participating Organizations
All municipalities and special districts were notified of the participation requirements related to the
adoption of the Plan and the formation of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC).
Numerous planning meetings were held to ensure that all information contained in the Plan is correct,
and that the input provided by participating agencies, organizations, and the public has been included.
The following jurisdictions shown in Figure 9 joined the County and participated in the planning process.
I 34
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 9. Map of Adopting Communities
Weld County Hazard Mitigation Plan - Adopting 'Municipalities
10 20 30 40
Wes
fnil
*Nunn
*Pierce
*Ault
..Severanc'e Eaton
,.Windsor
*Mead
Firestone
ie lIFrederick .Keenesburg
-Dacono*Fort Lupton*
Hudson
Johnstown
*Milliken
c. Greeley
Evans
VrLa Salle
*Platteville
Erie
,�..rvs,nnn
"i t'I, '
N T Y
C 0 'J
Legend
Adopting Communities
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, modifications were made to the intended outreach formats. To avoid
the spread of the virus all HMPC meetings were held in an online interactive format with polling and
group discussions. Separate stakeholder meetings were conducted over the phone or in small groups.
To ensure public participation, the online surveys, educational materials, and press releases were
distributed widely through various social media, direct e -mailing, newsletters, media organizations, and
targeted groups for several municipalities.
3.2.2 Incorporation in Community Plans
The current 2018 State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan was reviewed for incorporation
into the 2021 Weld County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in addition to the following
documents and resources, as appropriate:
• 2018 Milliken Risk Assessment
• 2018 Colorado Drought Mitigation Response Plan
• 2019 Weld County Office of Emergency Management Hazmat Transportation Plan
• 2019 Economic & Demographic Profile, Weld County, CO
• 2020 Colorado State Demography office
• 2021 Weld County Comprehensive Plan
I 35
e R�rnue+�cv MANov:F MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
3.3 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC)
The Weld County HMPC consisted of members of participating local governments and districts, as well
as public stakeholders, special interest groups, and County staff. Invitations to participate were broadly
distributed across these groups.
Additionally, Weld County invited all neighboring counties and other relevant organizations to also
participate in the planning process. County staff extended this invitation regularly during their monthly
Northeast Emergency Manager meetings, other coordination calls, and other regional meetings held
over the course of 2020. These meetings and calls provided numerous opportunities for Weld County
to provide HMP project updates during the planning process. Weld County staff also coordinated
directly with neighboring counties whom they share bi-county municipalities with, to ensure these
communities are adequately covered by a hazard mitigation plan.
The role of the HMPC was to review and comment on the content of the plan as it was developed and
to weigh in on the big decisions to enhance the plan with local expertise. The HMPC was tasked with
participating in meetings, to meet one-on-one with Weld County Office of Emergency Management, to
disseminate public outreach materials, and to inform and review plan content. Members of the HMPC
participated in development of the risk assessment, mitigation strategy development, plan review, public
outreach, and plan maintenance strategies. Table 9 presents a list of the HMPC members.
Table 9. HMPC Members
Roy Rudisill
OEM - Director and LEPC Chair
Weld County
Denise Bradshaw
Emergency Management Coordinator
Weld County
David Burns
Emergency Management Sr. Coordinator
Weld County
Gracie Marquez
Emergency Management Specialist
Weld County
Adrienne Sandoval
Mayor
Town of Platteville
Andrew Martinez
Mayor
Town of LaSalle
Angela Wilson
Communications Manager
Town of Frederick
Brian Phillips
Police Chief
Town of Johnstown
Bryce Border
Deputy Police Chief
Town of Firestone
Cathy Payne
Town Clerk
Town of Nunn
Colleen Whitlow
Mayor
Town of Mead
Dan Frazen
Emergency Manager - OEM
City of Greeley
Jeff Schreier
Town Administrator
Town of Eaton
Jennifer Finch
Director of Communication
Weld County
Jennifer Krieger
Community Development Director
City of Dacono
Jim Flesher
Long Range Planner - Planning & Zoning
Weld County
Jim Gerdeman
Police Chief
Town of Severance
Joe Clingan
Police Chief
Town of Nunn
John Gates
Mayor
City of Greeley
Kenneth Gfeller
Mayor
Town of Keenesburg
Kris Krazian
Windsor Fire
Town of Windsor
Kristina Duran
Clerk
Town of Pierce
136
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Kurt Boudette
Emergency Manager
City of Evans
Larry Lorentzen
Town Administrator
Town of Gilcrest
Mark Thompson
Mitigation Planning Specialist
DSHEM
Matthew LeCerf
Town Manager
Town of Hudson
Merrie Garner
OEM Coordinator
Carbon Valley EMA
(CVEMA) [Dacono,
Firestone, Frederick]
/ Frederick-Fireston
FPD
Mike Haefele
Police Commander
Town of Erie
Monica Bortolini
City of Longmont
Nanci Crom
Mayor
Town of Pierce
Nicholas Wharton
Town Administrator/Manager
Town of Severance
Patricia Gavelda
State Mitigation Planning Program Manager
DHSEM
Pepper McClenahan
Community Development Director
Town of Milliken
Rick Klimeck
Police Chief
Town of Windsor
Rob Piotrowski
Mayor
Town of Ault
Shannon McVaney
Emergency Management Coordinator
City of Longmont
Stephanie Hackett
EM Coordinator
City of Brighton
Steve lacino
Deputy Chief
Frederick -Firestone
FPD
Steve Moreno
BOCC
Weld County
Sue Frederickson
Town of Nunn
Todd Hepworth
Flood Plains Administrator
City of Evans
Tom Nissen
Ault Police
Town of Ault
Tom Parko
Planning Director
Weld County
Troy Renken
Town Administrator
Town of Platteville
Zo Stieber
Mayor
City of Fort Lupton
Formal Plan adoptees signed a letter of participation and attended several of the HMPC meetings. Table
10 lists the meetings attended by each participating organizations, in addition to other interactions with
non -Adopting communities..
Table 10. Organizational Participation
Weld County
Ault
Dacono
Eaton
Erie
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
137
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Evans
x
NIT
N I T'�, .
x
111
x
r 1 1 � Z1
x
Firestone
x
x
x
x
x
Fort Lupton
x
x
x
x
Frederick
x
x
x
x
x
Greeley
x
x
x
x
Hudson
x
x
x
x
Johnstown
x
x
x
Keenesburg
x
x
LaSalle
x
Mead
x
x
x
x
Milliken
x
x
Nunn
x
x
Pierce
x
x
x
x
Platteville
x
x
x
x
Severance
x
Windsor
x
x
x
x
3.3.1 HMPC Meetings
The HMPC had four sets of formal meetings. Meeting dates were identified through an online Doodle
Poll to identify the dates available for most participants. Once a set of dates and times was selected,
calendar invites and the Weld County (ReadyOP) notification system were used to alert the HMPC
members.
Pre -Kickoff Meetings (March 20th, April 9th 2020)
Prior to the first HMPC meeting, two small group meetings occurred on March 20th and April 9th to
establish project timelines, goals, stakeholders, and update needs for the project. These pre -kickoff
meetings addressed the need for virtual platforms due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an increased
jurisdictional collaboration and participation, successes and desired updates from the 2016 Plan, and
FEMA approval requirements. Additionally, during these meetings the Lifeline construct was discussed to
determine how to best integrate that framework in the HMP.
HMPC Kickoff Meetings (June I5th,
17th 2020)
138
000 a6 071
N. b wa-
o a n
• 4! C IT
tt ,
Li p5 $
!j
kMI FWY CV 14nnC:FMFvi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The kickoff meeting was held virtually on two separate dates to provide flexibility and encourage
participation. The meeting started with an introduction to the planning process, schedule, and
responsibilities of the HMPC. Discussion also focused on the list of hazards to profile including
agricultural hazards (disease and pests) and
cyber threats which were not included in
the 2016 plan. Participants were invited to
discuss how the 2016 plan is used and what
elements work well. Other main topics
included an introduction to the public
outreach portion of the planning process
and the group was encouraged to comment
on the public outreach process and tools
that work best. Other topics included an
introduction to the Lifeline construct used
by FEMA and Plan requirements to achieve
FEMA approval. Group discussion focused
on the definition and application of the
hazards being added to the 2021 Plan, and a
review of the participating jurisdictions. To
encourage dialogue in a virtual presentation, live polling was used through a program called Mentimeter.
The program presents the results of polls asked in real-time to gather input from the HMPC. The
results of the polls are shown throughout this documents to support what was heard.
Weld County
Hazard
Mitigation Plan
1. Were you involved in the 2015/2016 Weld County
Hazard Mitigation Plan?
was inwlved ugh another
commurtty's PIMP
24
At the end of the meeting, participants were given four action items:
I. Provide the best available hazard data and recent community plans
2. Help expand the HMPC roster
3. Provide input on the public involvement plan
4. Assist with dissemination of public involvement plan messaging
HMPC Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) Meetings
The HIRA meeting was also held virtually
on two separate dates. Discussion in these
August meetings focused on the risk
inventory and assessment as well as
responding to the results of the discussions
in the previous June meetings. The kickoff
meeting identified funding as the primary
obstacle to implementing mitigation. This
finding prompted a discussion of assistance
programs and an introduction of the new
(BRIC) Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities grant program. The
presentation then stepped through the data analytics that were assessed as part of the risk and
vulnerability assessment. The discussion then focused on how tools and Lifelines can be assessed to
address hazards that pose significant risk. Group discussion focused on how to present the composite
risk graphics in the plan, and which municipalities modeled a greater level of risk.
Weld County
Hazard
Mftlgation Plan
ERIC
Principles
Running Re5in¢nt IntInstrrn
and Communities [88121 g ant MR..
Mating Alnelples
®
4M:= 4=1212D
ry
(August
18th,
Evaluating Individual Hazards
Enhanced Composite
19th 2020)
7�oupw r,
�Fd
I 39
t R'II.FWY Cv Mrnnt:FMINI
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
At the end of the meeting, participants were given several action items:
I. Continue to expand the HMPC roster
2. Continue to assist with dissemination of public involvement plan - social media content,
newsletter, and survey #1
3. Complete a mitigation capabilities assessment
4. Begin reporting on 2016 mitigation actions
HMPC HIRA Part 2 and Mitigation Strategy Meetings (October 26th, 27th, 28th 2020)
The third meeting was held virtually on three separate dates. The agenda focused on presenting the
remaining pieces of the HIRA and initial discussions focused on the Plan's mitigation strategy. Discussion
in the October meetings focused again on
integrating Lifelines into this Plan.
At the end of the meeting, participants were
given several action items:
Weld County
Hazard
Mitigation Plan
I . Assist with continued dissemination of f'
public involvement plan social media content, newsletter, and survey #2
2. Update and send hazard ranking updates
3. Begin drafting new 2021 mitigation actions
HMP Mitigation Strategy Part 2 Meetings (December 1st, 2nd, 3rd 2020)
The final HMPC meetings were held virtually on three separate dates. The agenda focused on plan
requirements, public outreach responses and survey results, and development of goals, objectives and
strategies, mitigation strategy types, and strategy funding mechanisms. Group discussion focused on goal
development and the desire to change some wording from the previous plan.
At the end of the meeting, participants were
given four action items:
I. Assist with continued public
involvement plan messaging and
dissemination of survey #3
2. Develop new 2021 mitigation actions
3. Remaining follow-ups from previous
requests
4. Provide hazard photos for plan
incorporation
Survey Participation
Weld County
Hazard
Mitigation Plan
zoz1 Mitigation Goals
HMP Individual Municipality One -on -Ones (on -going throughout planning process)
Weld County OEM also facilitated a number individual community meetings with local municipalities
over the course of the planning process. These meetings were vital to planning participation and to
ensure municipalities are able to Adopt the updated HMP.
140
t R�rnue+�cv MANIv:FMF, i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
3.3.2 HMPC Review & Comment
The HMPC was provided a review and comment period before the Public Draft Plan was made available.
Over 100 comments were received and resolved, as appropriate.
3.4 Public and Stakeholder Participation
Public involvement was a key component to informing the Hazard Mitigation Plan update. Due to
COVID-19, in -person events did not occur. However, several techniques listed below were employed
to educate the public about the Plan and process and to gather public input on issues and opportunities
to make mitigation improvements. The HMPC was asked how best to engage the public in their
jurisdiction and the responses highlighted: surveys, social media, providing materials for local groups,
newsletters, direct mailers, local press, and community events. The following materials were distributed
to communities by the HMPC.
Website
Weld County developed a webpage within the Office of Emergency Management website dedicated to
the HMP update. The website provided background information, contacts, and links to the surveys and
supporting documents.
141
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Newsletter
In order to provide hardcopy
materials for small group gatherings
or to insert educational material
into existing newsletters, project
information was sent out to
participating municipalities for
distribution. The newsletter
described the purpose of the
project, timeline, contact, links to
the survey, and ways to stay
involved in the process.
Social Media
Text describing the HMP and
update process was sent to
communities in multiple formats to
accommodate: e-mail list serves,
Facebook, Next Door, and Twitter.
Graphic elements were also
distributed to allow communities to
incorporate educational materials
and links to surveys in different
media materials.
E-mail distribution
Throughout the process Weld
County residents signed up to
receive project updates. Direct e -
mails were sent to those ninety-
four individuals with these updates
and survey links.
3.4. I Community Surveys
As part of the outreach process, Septembembed ' ep a' - �•. °a%R °»�d �eayshatemberienselnealenemeenehoeln rla�
three surveys were launched to gather community feedback. The first two, "Hazard Risk and Perception
Survey" and the "Vision for a Resilient Weld County Survey," were also conducted as part of the 2016
plan, providing opportunities to compare results between years. A map of the survey respondents by
survey is shown below. Summaries of the survey results are detailed here.
OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT
wr.� ELsrLNIN,L;
FAKE OUR SURVEY!
naInterested In reviewing the 2016
plan in LNER, Reatl Hex, rtl
NTeri5 M122e01rrnigarion, - MEOROLL0.62uu
E M1ezard mixlgadon im Partanl'a.[aunt., and mumripelnies?
How...Veld County and .0...or's benefit from., type of plannine
now con I go, involve,
well County Ha]Ard ML garinn Plan pdare
GheatgrassVowny Warn)
can spread wudraes at more
then
PtoteetYour Property:
as Wilton Aln rkarawale
impacted hynatwal drsas
1m201/atoned....
PmteetYotlr Properly:
In the bet 10 years diem hat,
been we; 30Gtomedort#
reported In ("flew*, -.
MOECct yank Plppm/:
142
E MERLFNCY MAN Ad:FMI!,I
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 10. Map of Survey Respondents
3.4.2 Survey #1 Hazard Risk Perception Survey
OPEN JULY 22, 2020 -SEPTEMBER 2 I, 2020 - The survey received 345 responses.
Figure 1 I. Survey 1 Responses
How many times has a natural hazard
significantly impacted your daily life in
the last five years?
The goal of survey #1 was to understand the
public perception of hazards in Weld County.
When asked how many times a natural hazard
significantly impacted daily life in the last five years
within the Northern Colorado region, almost half
of those who answered the question stated that
I -2 events have significantly impacted their life in
the last five years. Sixty seven percent indicated
that one or more events had impacted daily life in
the last five years.
Responses to the question "How well do you
understand the various hazards that can impact
your community and their risks? Zero being the
lowest and ten being the highest." The majority of respondents chose the middle score. However,
different municipalities had different results. Below is a graph that shows the lowest score, high score,
I 43
4%
15%
47%
■ 0 Times
1-2 Times
3-5 Times
6+ Times
e R�rnue+�cv MANIIQF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
and the average score for each municipality; low shown in grey and high shown in dark blue. The
average is represented as a green circle. Some communities had a high number of responses while
others had very few responses, changing the survey sample per community, however, this graph gives a
general indication of the range of risk understanding that survey respondents chose.
Figure 12. Survey I Responses
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
10 10 10 10 10
9
On a scale from one to ten, how well do you understand the various hazards
that can impact your community and their risks?
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
9 9
8 8
L e ((D d O n 7 f Qp N N
a 0 9' N !' (' Sa. 7 di di
d q,
co
8 8 8 8
7
5
o G �L. -D. � r o G O a Ga 1.0
�, d N i N o d0 o GO. N
se L ?iP % N (^. 6O3 O !G o0 N O (v,
e O,
d,4
0-
n
G'
L
Survey respondents were asked about the perception of risk for their community for each hazard
reviewed in the plan. Below is a graphic of the responses average for each hazard for each community.
Those hazards which the public thought posed the greatest risk include severe storms (lightning and
hail), drought, extreme temperatures, public health hazards, wind and tornados, and cyber-attacks. On
average for the County, residents were less worried about land subsidence, earthquake, and flood.
I 44
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table I I. Survey I Responses
Hazard
Average
Severe Storm
s
au
0
L
Public Health Hazards
ind and Tornados
Cyber Attacks
Extreme Temperatures
Hazardous Materials
L L N -
L.L .r cs
7
✓ cn v
L
Q V
b4 O
Q LL J W
Ault
Berthoud
Brighton
Dacono
Eaton
Erie
Evans
Firestone
Fort Lupton
Frederick
Greeley
Grover
Hudson
Johnstown
Keenesburg
Kersey
La Salle
Lochbuie
Longmont
Mead
Milliken
Nunn
Pierce
Platteville
Severance
Windsor
Outside Weld
County
Unincorporated
County
I 45
7.5 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.4 4.4 4.2 4.2 3.8 2.8 1.8
7.2 7.8 4.5 8.0 5.0 3.4 3.5 4.3 4.3 1.5 2.0 1.5
6.0 5.5 8.0 5.5
8.5 6.0 6.7 4.8 5.3 5.0 3.7 3.3 3.3 2.0 2.0 1.0
8.0 6.5 3.5 4.3 4.3 6.0 4.5 5.3 5.0 4.0 4.8 2.8
6.6 5.0 5.0 5.4 5.3 2.8 1.8 4.5 2.0 3.8 0.8 1.5
7.8 5.3 7.3 5.0 4.0 4.3 7.5 3.2 2.8 3.4 4.6 2.4
7.1 6.0 7.7 6.8 5.6 6.2 5.0 3.9 4.8 5.7 2.7 0.7
7.4 5.5 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.2 4.8 4.3 4.5 3.7 3.5 1.7
7.3 6.0 4.1 5.2 5.5 5.1 3.3 4.3 4.3 2.7 2.2 1.4
7.4 5.6 6.4 5.5 5.9 5.6 4.3 3.9 4.3 3.5 3.4 2.2
8.0 6.0 6.0 5.7 6.1 5.7 4.5 3.6 4.1 4.0 2.5 2.0
7.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 8.0 R 2.0 2.0 1.0
7.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 4.0 5.6 3.4 4.4 3.7 2.0 1.8 1.6
7.7 5.5 5.3 5.3 6.5 5.4 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.0 3.3 1.9
7.5 10.0 5.5 5.5 6.0 5.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 2.0 1.0
7.8 7.6 3.8 6.8 4.5 5.6 4.4 7.5 5.0 5.4 1.4 0.8
9.0 9.0 5.5 7.6 6.2 4.8 6.0 5.5 8.6 5.0 1.0 5.5
�.,2.0 3.0 7.5 6.0 5.0 1.0 6.5 1.0 3.5 3.5 1.0
8.5 1.0 4.5 2.0 1.5 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 0.0
7.0 9.3 7.3 4.0 5.7 9.3 3.3 4.5 6.3 2.8 1.0 0.0
7.1 8.3 6.0 6.0 3.7 6.9 5.2 6.0 3.5 4.4 3.3 1.3
9.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
6.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 6.0 6.0 3.5 6.5 5.5 6.0 5.0 3.5
6.4 7.6 5.7 7.5 5.0 3.3 4.8 3.4 6.0 4.3 1.0 1.0
7.5 5.5 4.5 7.0 9.0 5.0 8.0 7.0 3.0 6.5 1.0 0.5
6.8 3.4 5.4 5.6 5.0 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.6 2.5 1.4
4.5 5.5 8.0 3.0 7.0 4.5 1.5
7.8 4.7 6.3 7.3 7.6 4.8 3.7 4.8 2.5 3.5 2.3 2.0
7.1 7.2 7.3 6.2 5.3 6.6 5.0 4.9 4.4 3.6 2.0 1.2
e R�rnue+�cv M4Nnr,F mF vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The graph below shows the aggregate County concern for each scenario. Survey respondents were
primarily "somewhat concerned" about all scenarios. Respondents were likely to be extremely
concerned with lack of clean water and access to medications and doctors. Survey respondents were
primarily not concerned with lack of transportation and not receiving emergency alerts.
Table 12. Survey I Responses
Not concerned Somewhat concerned
Lack of food 19%
Lack of clean water 9%
44%
Access to medications/doctors 19% 55%
Lack of transportation 39% 51%
Not receiving emergency alerts 31% 46%
Extremely concerned
16%
45%
23%
8%
21%
When asked about emergency preparedness, about half of survey respondents indicated that they do
have an emergency preparedness kit. More than half of the survey respondent indicated that they have
taken mitigation actions at their home, but very few have taken steps in their neighborhood or business.
3.4.3 Survey #2 Visions for a Resilient Weld County Survey
OPEN OCTOBER 1, 2020 -NOVEMBER 30, 2020 - The Survey received 86 responses.
The second survey was designed to gauge public perception of the disaster recovery conditions and
resources within the County. The same survey was distributed in 2016, providing the opportunity to see
what statements gained and lost agreement in that four-year period. Comparing results between surveys
gave an overview of general community opinion changes, however, results did come largely from
different communities and 2020 has not been an average year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, months
of wildfire, local and national elections, and other related influences. Therefore, some comparative
statements are likely influenced by those impacts.
Survey respondents were asked to mark their level of agreement with the following statements. The
information below reflects the results of the 2020 survey with a greater percentage of strongly agree
and agree at the top.
Table 13. Survey 2 Responses
5%
People in my community help
each other.
My community treats people 7%
fairly no matter what their
background is.
My community supports 5%
programs for children and
families.
People in my community feel 2%
like they belong to the
community
People in my community are 5%
committed to the well-being of
the community
146
1,7 G G ,r_
10%
10%
12%
48%
26%
0%
22% 33% 24%
3%
12% 14% 43% 24% 2%
6% 17% 47% 23% 5%
9% 17% 51% 17% 0%
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
14%
20%
My community keeps people 10%
informed about issues that are
relevant to them.
People in my community have 6%
hope about the future.
My community works with 2% 10% 28% 28% 13% 19%
organizations and agencies
outside the community.
My community has effective 13% 15% 26% 31% 12% 3%
leaders.
My community tries to prevent 8% 13% 19% 33% 12% 16%
disasters.
My community has the 9% 17% 22% 28% 10% 13%
resources it needs to take care
of community problems.
My community has services and 9% 20% 20% 19% 9% 23%
programs to help people after a
disaster.
If a disaster occurs, my 10% 17% 26% 21% 9% 15%
community provides
information about what to do.
People in my community 5% 9% 29% 36% 9% 10%
communicate with leaders who
can help improve the
community.
People in my community are 6% 21% 23% 27% 8% 14%
able to get the services they
need.
My community can provide 8% 15% 20% 29% 8% 19%
emergency services during a
disaster.
People in my community work 6% 13% 17% 56% 8% 0%
together to improve the
community.
My community has priorities 3% 13% 30% 38% 7% 8%
and sets goals for the future.
People in my community know 3% 21% 26% 37% 6% 7%
where to go to get things done.
My community actively 8% 17% 28% 24% 5% 17%
prepares for future disasters.
My community looks at its 10% 19% 24% 26% 5% 16%
successes and failures so it can
learn from the past.
People in my community trust 10% 19% 36% 26% 3% 6%
public officials.
36%
16%
3%
5% 21% 44% 15% 9%
The statements that had the greatest percentage of respondents agree or strongly agree
include:
I . People in my community help each other. (48% Agree, 26% Strongly Agree)
147
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2. My community treats people fairly no matter what their background is. (33% Agree, 24%
Strongly Agree)
3. My community supports programs for children and families. (43% Agree, 24% Strongly Agree)
4. People in my community feel like they belong to the community. (47% Agree, 23% Strongly
Agree)
5. People in my community are committed to the well-being of the community. (51% Agree, 17%
Strongly Agree)
The top four agree and strongly agree statements in 2020 are the same as the results in 2016. The only
difference from 2016 is the fifth statement, which was "People in my community have hope about the
future." This statement moved down to the 6th most supported statement in 2020. The COVID-19
pandemic and other current events this year may have had an impact on the community's agreement
with this statement.
The statements that had the greatest percentage of respondents disagree or strongly
disagree include:
I. My community looks at its successes and failures so it can learn from the past. (Strongly
Disagree 10%, Disagree 19%)
2. People in my community trust public officials. (Strongly Disagree 10%, Disagree 19%)
3. My community has services and programs to help people after a disaster. (Strongly Disagree 9%,
Disagree 20%)
4. My community has effective leaders. (Strongly Disagree 13%, Disagree 15%)
5. If a disaster occurs, my community provides information about what to do. (Strongly Disagree
10%, Disagree 17%)
There are no statements where the percentages of respondents who disagree or strongly disagree are
greater than the neutral, agree, or strongly agree percentages. For statements where the percentages of
respondents who agree or strongly agree are not the majority, the number of neutral or don't know
responses increased. The list illustrates the smaller percentages of respondents who disagree than the
list of agree and strongly agree above. This shows that in this survey there are no statements where the
public overwhelmingly feels that there are shortfalls or holes in community support.
Positive Trends since 2016
Because the survey measured the percentage of individuals who agree or disagree with a statement, an
overall increase in community support can be measured by tracking a decrease in the population who
disagree with a statement or an increase in the percentage of the population who agree with a
statement. Below is a list of the biggest positive shift since 2016; showing statements with the greatest
decrease in respondents who disagree or strongly disagree, and the statements with the greatest
increase in respondents who agree or strongly agree.
These results indicate a slight decrease in the number of people who feel that the community does not
communicate with leaders —indicating there is greater communication with leadership. There is also a
positive shift toward the statement "People of different backgrounds are treated fairly" with both a
decrease in the number of disagree and an increase in the number of people who agree with the
statement. 2020 responses also showed a positive shift in people feeling that they know where to go to
get things done, and that people work together to improve the community.
148
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Biggest Increase of "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" since 2016
I. People in my community work together to improve the community. (from 57% to 64%) +7%
2. My community treats people fairly no matter what their background is. (from 50% to 57%) +7%
Biggest Decrease of "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" since 2016
I. People in my community communicate with leaders who can help improve the community.
(from 23% to 14%) -9%
2. My community treats people fairly no matter what their background is. (from 23% to 17%) -6%
3. People in my community know where to go to get things done. (from 30% to 24%) -6%
Concerning Trends since 2016
Other statements decreased in support. These statements had a greater percentage of respondents that
disagree or strongly disagree, or a lower percentage of respondents that agree or strongly disagree. The
statements with the greatest drop in support are listed below.
These statements generally indicate a decrease in agreement about available information and programs
and services, including those for children and families, during and after a disaster. There was also an
increase in the percentage of respondents who disagree with statements about learning from the past
and trying to prevent disasters. The greatest overall changes are shown below in the decrease of those
who agree or strongly disagree with 20%+ drops in agreement.
Biggest Increase of "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" since 2016
I. My community has services and programs to help people after a disaster. (from 22% to 29%)
+7%
2. My community looks at its successes and failures so it can learn from the past. (from 22% to
29%)
+7%
3. If a disaster occurs, my community provides information about what to do. (from 22% to 28%)
+6%
4. My community tries to prevent disasters. (from 15% to 21%) +6%
5. My community supports programs for children and families. (from 1 1% to 16%) +6%
Biggest Decrease of "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" since 2016
I. My community can provide emergency services during a disaster. (from 61% to 37%) -24%
2. My community has services and programs to help people after a disaster. (from 49% to 28%) -
21
3. If a disaster occurs, my community provides information about what to do. (from 49% to 30%) -
19%
3.4.4 Survey #3 Mitigation Strategy
OPEN DECEMBER 1, 2020 -JANUARY 25, 2021- The Survey received 144 complete responses
Between December I and January 25, the Mitigation Strategies Survey was distributed widely through
several outreach methods including social media, newsletters, and direct e-mail distribution. The content
below lists the questions asked and a brief analysis of community response.
Q I . What community do you live in?
I 49
e R�rnue+�cv MANov:F MF N i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Responses came from many municipalities in Weld with the exception of Brighton, Hudson, Garden
City, Gilcrest, Grover, Longmont, Lochbuie, Mead, Nunn, Northglenn, and Raymer. The breakdown in
responses by place is listed in the table below.
Table 14. Survey 3 Responses
Location
Responses
Windsor
48
Frederick
22
Erie
18
Firestone
12
Greeley
9
Dacono
6
Fort Lupton
6
Johnstown
5
Unincorporated County
3
Pierce
3
Location
Responses
Ault
2
Platteville
2
Eaton
I
Evans
I
Severance
I
Keensburg
I
Kersey
I
La Salle
I
Milliken
I
Outside Weld County
I
Q2. If you do not live in an incorporated area, what zip code do you live in? Zipcodes include: 80534,
80603, and 8063 I
Figure 13. Survey 3 Responses
Q3. How long have you lived in Weld County?
Just over half of the respondents have lived in
Weld County for ten years or more. The
responses are shown in the pie chart to the
right. This feedback illustrates that many of the
survey respondents have lived in Weld County
through several major hazard events and were
living in Weld at the time of the previous hazard
mitigation plan.
150
■ Less than I year
I - 5 years
5 - 10 years
■ 10 years or more
e R�rnue+�cv MANov:FMF, i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Q4-7. Questions four through seven ask "What is your level of support" for four different mitigation
strategy types, from one (lowest) to ten (highest). The strategy types include structure and
infrastructure, local plans and regulations, natural system protection, and education and awareness
programs.
Results indicate that there is strong support for each of the mitigation strategy types. Natural system
had the highest number of respondents select level ten support out of any category.
Average Level of Support (out of 10):
• Structure and Infrastructure: 7.0
• Local Plans and Regulations: 6.9
• Natural System Protection: 7.5
• Education and Awareness Programs: 7. I
Figure 14. Survey 3 Responses
35%
30%
25%
N
a,
N
C
0
0—
N
0
C
C
v
v
0—
I 51
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
i
d
i
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
structure and infrastructure local plans and regulations
• natural system protection • education and awareness programs
e R�rnue+�cv MAN ov:F MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Q8. Select the top three hazards where you think mitigation efforts should be prioritized.
The graph below indicates the number of respondents who chose each hazard. The hazards that were
selected by the fewest number of respondents are earthquakes, land subsidence, and extreme
temperatures. The three hazards selected by the greatest number of respondents include sever storm,
public health hazards, and wind/tornado. Flood and drought were both identified as a top three hazard
by 34-35% of respondents. Mitigation efforts for cyber attacks and HAZMAT were identified by about a
quarter of respondents to be prioritized. Agricultural hazards and wildfire were prioritized by less than
20% of respondents.
Figure 15. Survey 3 Responses
50%
45%
45%
40%
Y
= 35%
al
v
• 30%
cc 25%
0
c 20%
ai
L 15%
o_
42%
38%
35%
34%
26%
25%
17%
14%
10% 8% 8%
5%
0%
5`<E 1%:- t��ao
O
�.ti o
e
4,e` e'er y�a
Qess
oa
<o
1%
oJe `�� ee5 e�oe J� e
Ok �S• �▪ a bra
P$`• .?•
were \,o
Q9. Share your ideas for specific mitigation actions that you would like to see implemented by your
government, should funding be available.
Over a third of the respondents provided feedback on specific mitigation actions that they would like to
see implemented. Actions included:
Infrastructure
• Tornado sirens were identified in several communities as a needed mitigation improvement.
• Under grounding utility lines.
• Improved street drainage systems.
• Enlarging highway and road culverts and bridges as necessary to accommodate large storm
events.
• Review transportation systems to ensure emergency access/egress from natural hazards.
152
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Local regulations and programs
• Rebates for wind/storm resistant building materials.
• Public outreach and cost-effective methods for disposal of trash and debris after an event.
• Increasing the oil and gas buffer around schools, parks, and homes to prevent accidents.
• Temporary shelters for people who are displaced in a crisis with pre -designated reunification
locations so people know where and how to reconnect with family and loved ones in crisis
situations.
• Implement no -burn days in windy dry weather.
• Limit development in areas with a high hazard potential.
• Cyber security enhancements and upgrades to protect utilities.
• First Responder communications network improvement and coordination.
• Funding assistance for acquiring raw water during drought could provide relief for existing
municipal water needs and assist in economic growth for small communities.
• Land surveying for possible land collapse under new build areas yearly.
• Mobile relief unit that is specifically set up to respond to communities that have been hit by
hazards etc. this unit should have the ability to supply things like water, food, cloths
toothbrushes etc.
Natural systems
• Farmland and small community preservation.
• Fishing and hunting preservation.
• Water conservation.
• Erosion and dust control.
• Flood control.
• Reservoirs for water storage.
Education and awareness
• Increase public education and awareness related to oil and gas, fracking, and groundwater.
• Provide education on the use of methane detectors in crawl spaces.
• Involve oil and gas companies in community safety conversations.
• More community safety events and informational mailers.
• Online water reduction classes with incentives for completion.
3.4.5 Public Plan Review & Comment
A public review and comment period was held, following the final HMPC review of the HMPC Draft
Plan. The comment period was kept open for three weeks and the public was able to access and
comment on the plan online. A total of 5 comments were received and vetted through the HMPC.
I 53
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4 County Profile
Weld County is located in the Northern Front Range of central Colorado. The County spans an area
from northern Metro Denver to the Wyoming state line. Slightly less than four thousand square miles in
size, the County seat is located in the City of Greeley, and thirty-one incorporated municipalities lie
within the County's borders. Weld County is the third largest county in the State in terms of land area
and is larger than the size of Rhode Island, Delaware, and the District of Columbia combined.
Figure 16. Map of Weld County
Pa wn rye
Noboru',
Grass+and
Co'hrs
Pawnee
Ndbonal
Grasand
7 OpenStreetMap (and) contributors. CC -BY -SA
Weld County is relatively flat in terms of terrain and topography, as the northeastern portion contains
the Pawnee National Grassland. The Pawnee Buttes, two prominent rock formations that stand out
against the plains, can be seen while traveling through the Grassland. Two interstate highways run
through the County: I-25 (US 87) runs through the southwestern and northwestern corner and 1-76
from the south central edge northeastward to the Morgan County border. Other major transportation
I 54
e R�rnue+�cv MMMANI QF MF v
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
routes include US 85 and US 34, which intersect near Greeley, as well as State Highway 14, which runs
through Ault. Many of Weld County's incorporated cities and towns are located along these highway
corridors although the County consists of numerous gravel roads that serve to connect communities to
amenities.
Figure 17. Weld County Transportation Routes
c R.r Inrd
128
18
Weld Count14 y KO 90
i tonxh �m
F _rFi, cll in-
C,40t,,an a
LAN❑
Bm
Timm
F rt
}Rlrina
l
r lr]t,suR
Illn'. Lcr:'ckalrJ
port
LAW
frond
Mond
Idi ll+ e-9
P 1.1 tte.11la
y .vzlrl
UR EE}EY '+ r-rr4lrp Jlt
•51
N:-(1 LINT _ Fryggn-
f it z; tcn=
rre xric4
6acnnr
:,n field
ERIE n'
t VILLE
Fci 1 Lrrl.1.-,n
Hsi it s on
keen=;.bury
cli EE
S.o.urces:.EsS kl&RE, DeLorme, USGS. Intermap. increment P Corp., NRCAN„ ].-
Esri Japan, METI. Esri China (Hong Kong). Esri (Thailand). Mapmylndia.
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
The Platte and Cache la Poudre Rivers are the significant waterways in the County and the most
important sources of water in the large, semi -arid region. The agricultural portions of western Weld
County are fed by a system of irrigation canals. A broader mixture of land uses and greater
concentrations of the population are located in the western third of the County, while the drier eastern
landscape remains largely open, less populated, and more uniform in terms of land use.
The rural region of the County holds historic resources, including archaeological and cultural sites. As of
November 2019, Weld County has a total of 41 properties and districts listed on the National Register
I 55
t RdI HLY C9 r+MANIQFMrNi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
of Historic Places and Historic Districts. Landmark buildings, historic structures and sites, as well as
commercial and residential districts can be found in communities across Weld County.
Weld County is one of the top ten economically producing agricultural counties in the United States.
Due to the dry climate, mild winters, and warm summers, the County leads the state in the production
of grains, beef cattle, and sugar beets. Over eighty percent of Weld County's 2.5 million acres is devoted
to agriculture. Weld County farmers are also the state's leading producers of potatoes, poultry, eggs,
milk, dry beans, and other dairy products. There are over 4,000 farms in Weld County and the County's
agricultural products create over $ I billion of market value each year.
The energy industry is another important driver of Weld County's economy. Due to its location above
the Wattenberg Field, oil and gas extraction has been occurring for decades in Weld County. Currently,
Weld County has more oil and gas wells than any other county in the state. The County's 2019 oil and
gas revenue was $8.9 billion.
156
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 18. Oil and Gas Production Report (12/2020)
19,357
ACTIVE WELLS IN
WELD COUNTY
153 from 11/30120
72
1041 WOGLA
PERMITS RECEIVED
2 from 11/30120
4,109
statewide
Weld County, a consistent feaderin oil and natural ga.s
production in the state of Colorado. is currently responsible for
87% of the state's oJf production and 43% of its gas production.
2,614
(64 0) in
Weld County
PENDING PERMITS AT COGCC
481 388 from 11130/20
157
128,357,637
BARRELS OF OIL
FROM WELD COUNTY
18,942,211 from 11/30/20
77
I0k WOGLA
HEARINGS HELD''
3 from 1 1130120
PRODUCTION
COMPARISON
76%
of the 2619 total
barrels of oil
produced
11% from 11/30/20
158,594,865
8OE OF NATURAL GAS
FROM WELD COUNTY
23,655,191 from 11/30/20
(47,f)
66
1041 WOGLA
APPROVED
3 from 11/30/20
Sorrels (foil equivalent
**Reflects new and continued hearings
e R�rnue+�CV M4NIQFMFvi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The sheer size of the County's land area presents challenges related to the availability of resources. The
distances which must be traveled sometimes delay emergency responses including law enforcement,
ambulance, and fire. During a weather event, snow removal priorities mean that roads from subdivisions
to arterials may not be cleared for several days. Rural residents are exposed to different hazards (and
have different vulnerabilities) than urban or suburban residents and must be more self-sufficient by
necessity. When developing and implementing a local hazard mitigation program, it is important to
recognize the various differences for rural and urban communities.
4. I Demographics
Weld County is a relatively young county, with a median population age of 34 years. Between 2010 and
2019 the population of the County grew by 28.3%. The current population of over three hundred
thousand residents is expected to reach almost half a million by the year 2030.
Weld County is the ninth most populated county in Colorado. However, rapid growth in the last few
years has established the County as one of the 100 -fastest growing counties in the nation, according to
the US Census. Planners anticipate that much of the coming growth will occur in southwest Weld
County, along 1-25 and along the southern stretch of US 85.
Table 15. Population Forecasts for Weld County, 2010 - 2050
Colorado
Weld County
5,050,332
254,230
5,819,337
331,895
6,562,402
425,999
7,342,121
550,178
7,929,215
678,612
Source: State Demography Office, Colorado (2020)
The key economic sectors for employment and income in Weld County are:
• Manufacturing
• Agriculture
• Energy Production
• Health and Wellness
• Business Service
Prior to the impact of Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), the February 2020 unemployment rate in
Weld County was 2.9%, slightly higher than the State unemployment rate of 2.5%. Per the most recent
data, the September 2020 unemployment rate for the County was 6.6% and was slightly higher than the
State unemployment rate at 6.4% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). The impacts of COVID- 19 have been
far reaching in the local, state and national economies, at the time of publishing the unemployment rate
continued to fluctuate rapidly.
Weld County is adjacent to Adams County, Morgan County, Logan County, Boulder County, Larimer
County, the City and County of Broomfield, Laramie County, WY, and Kimball County, NE. Many
Weld County residents commute across county boundaries for work. This creates important
emergency management considerations both pre- and post -disaster. The top five commuting
destinations by workers living in Weld County are as follows (DRCOG Weld County Community
Profile):
I. Larimer County
2. Boulder County
3. Denver County
158
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4. Adams County
5. Arapahoe County
The table below provides an economic and demographic snapshot of Weld County.
Table 16. 2019 Economic and Demographic Snapshot
Population (2018 ACS)
11 ni
324,492
Median Age
34
Median Household Income
$70,908
Unemployment Rate
2.7%
Percent of Population > Age 25 with Bachelor's Degree or Higher
26.7%
Percent of Population with High School Diploma Only
88.1
Sources: 2019 Economic & Demographic Profile, Weld County, CO. Stats America, EMS!, BLS., U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2018 American
Community Survey
4.2 Community Inclusion
Community inclusion in preparedness, response, recovery and the mitigation of hazards is a crucial
component to the resilience of a community. This is especially important for those in the community
who experience access and functional needs (AFN) during disasters. Access and functional needs are the
factors which may limit a person, in an emergency situation, in their ability to communicate, maintain
their health, act independently, access adequate transportation and acquire necessary services and
support. These needs encompass a variety of social and economic factors, which are critical to consider
when developing inclusive emergency systems and planning with those with AFN. Those factors are
divided into four main categories: socioeconomic status, household composition & disability, language &
minority status, and housing type & access to transportation. The components in these categories
directly affect a community's ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from hazards and disasters.
Impacts of hazards fall disproportionately on those with access and functional needs in a community, for
example: low income or unemployed individuals, children, the elderly, those with disabilities, and
underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. This can be seen in situations needing self -evacuation which can
be unmanageable for elderly people, people with disabilities and mobility issues, those with independent
living difficulty, institutionalized individuals and those without necessary finances and means of
transportation. In considering preparedness actions, individuals and families may have limited resources
to invest into residential mitigation actions, their home may be a rental property or they may not be
physically capable of completing the needed actions. Social and economic factors like these have an
effect on the safety of community members, decrease the ability of communities to recover from a
disaster and inhibit the building of resilience against future disaster events. Because these factors create
unequal conditions outside of disasters too, it is clear that planning with non-traditional community
partners who understand everyday community experiences will be critical for planning inclusive
emergency responses.
The Plan update integrates community inclusion by assessing the needs of community using the
Community Inclusion in Colorado (CICO) maps created by the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment. These maps are designed to illustrate the various aspects of demographics and AFN
within the population of Colorado and Weld County. These maps are designed to aid in the
I 59
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
improvement of local relationship building with organizations supporting access & functional needs,
decision making, hazard prioritization, and emergency management activities. By incorporating
community inclusion into the risk assessments of individual hazards, local communities are able to
identify more vulnerable areas and tailor their mitigation actions to accommodate all members of their
community, including groups who may have difficulty accessing information and resources.
Figure 19 was taken from the CDC and illustrates the characteristics within each category for social
vulnerability, as well as community inclusion. Social conditions which can contribute to disaster losses
can be identified by using social vulnerability indicators. These conditions present varied challenges for
people and preparedness planning. All categories should be considered regardless of the perception of
the vulnerability, as the impacts of a disaster will disproportionately affect those within these categories.
Figure 19. Overall vulnerability categories and factors
I-
lEt
w
C
3
i
O
}
Socioeconomic
Status
Household
Corn position &
Disability
Minority Status
& Language
Housing Type &
Transportation
Below Poverty
Unemployed
Income
No High School Diploma
Aged 65 or Older
Aged 17 or Younger
Older tha ri Ages with a DIAalliiiitv
Single -parent Households
Minority
Speaks English "Less than Well'
Multi -Unit Structures
Mob' le Home
Crowding
No Vehicle
Group Quarters
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5 -year) data
During the risk assessment and mitigation strategy development phases of the 2020 planning process,
participating jurisdictions reviewed the social indicator data and maps. The community inclusion
information allowed communities to recognize areas with more people with access and functional needs
and better prioritize their local mitigation actions. This information also helped communities design
effective and appropriate local risk communication and hazard mitigation outreach activities.
The CICO maps are capable of zoning into specific municipalities and communities, where information
breakdowns for the community inclusion data can be seen at a local level. The maps can be found here:
http://www.cohealthmaps.dphe.state.co.us/colorado community inclusion/
The maps seen in Figure 20 -Figure 25, for Weld County are a visual representation of some of the
critical groups for community inclusion. These maps are based on US Census Bureau data and are
broken into census tracts.
I 60
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 20. Overall % with a disability (mobility, cognitive, hearing, vision, self -care and independent living)
Percentage of the
Population with a Disability,
2013-2017 ACS Estimates
>-45.9%ofthe
Population
20.2 - 45.8
13.3 - 20.1
8 4 - 13.2
0.0-83 of the
Population
WELD
Figure 21. Overall % of people over age 65
I 61
Percentage of the Total Population Age
55 or Older, 2013-2017AC5 Est mates
3D.4 - 81.8 °v of the Populaticn
2D.8 - 30,3
14.5 - 20.7
9-1 -'.4.5
0 0 - 9.0 4 cf the Pojulation
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 22. Overall % of people that speak English less than well
Percentage of the Population
Age 5+ That Speaks English Less
Than Well, 2013-2017 ACS
Estimates
23.1 • 52.7 % of the
Population Age 5-
14.3 - 23.0
7.9 - 14.2
3.3 - 7.8
0.0-3.2%of the
Population Age 5 -
Figure 23. Overall % of people with income below poverty level
Percentage of All Persons with
Income Below the Federal
Poverty Level, 2013-2017 ACS
Estimates
53.6-80.6%of Al
it" Persons
27.7 - 53.5
16.1 -27.6
8.0 - 16.0
0.0 - 7.9 % of All Persons
WELL
I 62
k e.1I HL F'�CV MANAL Fm,vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 24. Overall % of housing that are mobile homes
Percentage of Occupied Housing
Units that are Mobile Homes,
2013-2017 ACS Estimates
te�7
44.2 - 79.0 % of Occupied
Housing Units
22.9 - 44.1
11.9 - 22.8
4.0-11.8
0.0 - 3.9 % of Occupied
Housing Units
WELD
Figure 25. Overall % of households with no vehicle
Percentage of the Occupied
Housing Units with No Vehicle
Availability, 2013-2017 ACS
Estimates
212 • 45-9 % of Occupied
Housing Units
12.3 - 22.1
6.9 - 12.2
3.0 • 6.8
0-0 - 2-9 % of Occupied
Housing Units
I 63
e&1i Fw +acv M4NAQFMFvi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
4.3 Housing Stock
Colorado Department of Local Affairs keeps data on housing status throughout the state. The
Housing Snapshot, in Table 17, highlights the variations and similarities for housing between the
state and Weld County.
Weld County's low rental vacancy rate means that as population growth continues to surge, rents
are likely to increase, putting pressure on the labor force and potentially leading to more
commuters into the County.
Table 17. 2019 Housing Data for Weld County and Colorado
Total Housing Units
11 n,lT
116,710
2,464,109
Average Household Size
2.78
2.56
Group Quarter Proportion*
4.3%
4.8%
Vacancy Rate
1.9%
4.6%
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019
* - Group quarter populations include those living at shelters, care facilities, college campuses, correctional facilities, etc.
One in three households, or an estimated 35,013 households, in Weld County are defined as
"Housing Cost -Burdened Households."' These are defined as any household that spends more than
30% of its income on housing. The number of households that are housing cost -burdened has
various impacts on a community. For those in the household, the economic strain can result in
difficult decisions regarding basic needs such as food and health care. Community members who are
struggling in this respect are less likely to invest time and resources into personal disaster
preparedness and hazard mitigation activities.
Figure 26 gives insight into who makes up the Weld County households. Understanding not only
who lives in your community, but what those households look like can offer awareness into the
needs of the community. This is also a factor of community inclusion, knowing how people live can
help when planning for public outreach and emergency communications.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, based on 2018 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey Data
I 64
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 26. Weld County Household Composition
Weld County Household Composition
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
74%
Families
38%
20%
9%
27%
Lives alone One or more people Over age 65, living Renter Occupied
under age 18 alone
Source: 2019 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey
4.4 Community Lifelines
The Community Lifelines Framework was developed by FEMA to increase effectiveness in disaster
operations and enable the continuous functioning of critical government, infrastructure, and business
activities. In day-to-day community functions, Lifelines support the recurring needs of the community.
When these Lifelines are stabilized, they safeguard the health, safety, and well-being of the public during
a natural disaster occurrence.
I 65
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Each lifeline category has subcomponents which impact the functionality of the lifeline. The lifeline
categories and subcomponents are:
• Safety and Security
o Law Enforcement/Security
o Fire Service
o Search and Rescue
o Government Service
o Community Safety
• Food, Water and Shelter
o Food
o Water
o Shelter
o Agriculture
• Health and Medical
o Medical Care
o Public Health
o Patient Movement
o Medical Supply Chain
o Fatality Management
• Energy
o Power
o Fuel
• Communications
o Infrastructure
o Responder Communications
o Alerts, Warnings, and Messages
o Finance
o 91 I and Dispatch
• Transportation
o Highway/Roadway/Motor Vehicle
o Mass Transit
o Railway
o Aviation
o Maritime
• Hazardous Materials
o Facilities
o HAZMAT
■ Pollutants
■ Contaminants
Lifelines were created to provide an outcome -based, survivor -centric framework to assist responders
with determining the scale, complexity, and severity of a disaster. This information is used to establish
operational priorities for the response and involves identifying the root causes and interdependencies of
impacts to critical services, especially those that are life -sustaining or lifesaving.
An important component to the lifeline framework is the ability to communicate disaster -related
information across all levels of public, private, and non-profit sectors using commonly understood, plain
language. This is vital to preparedness education, community engagement, and public outreach.
Weld County uses the Lifelines Framework as a base for emergency management planning,
preparedness education, and mitigation planning. The County has worked closely with municipalities to
determine the lifeline capabilities that must be considered when planning and the resilience of Lifelines
to disruption.
By collecting data for the Lifelines in each community and determining the level of lifeline dependency,
the County supports the creation of prioritized, community specific mitigation actions and system
redundancies to minimize the impact of any lifeline disruptions.
During one of the HMPC workshops, a poll asked participants what they thought were the County's
most vital Lifelines. Figure 27 presents these results, where Safety & Security and Food, Water, &
Shelter were thought to be most important to the community, though all Lifelines are by definition vital
and each received some votes.
I 66
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 27. Vital Lifelines HMPC Poll
3. What are Weld County's most vital life lines? (pick
3)
14
Safety and
Securty
14
10
9
8
Food Water and Hedth and Medxi Enemy (Pao. Caemnwebans
5hehx Fug)
5
Tray aMalw
2
5Y)im?1GY '.'
As part of the Plan's Mitigation Strategy, Lifelines and Subcomponents were identified and integrated
into each jurisdiction's Mitigation Actions.
4.5 Future Development
A key strategy for reducing future losses in a community is to avoid development in known hazard areas
while enforcing the development of safe structures in other areas. The purpose of this strategy is to
keep people, businesses, and buildings out of harm's way before a hazard event occurs. The 2020 Weld
County Comprehensive Map (Figure 28) highlights areas where future development can be expected.
Commercial and industrial development required a zoning change and will be directed towards the
identified Opportunity Zones. Residential development needs to be consistent with development scales
shown.
I 67
t Rfrn(_iE M Mt vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 28. 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map
Comprehensive Plan Map
I 68
C
Legend
CitherCounty5uildary
lllll� biunici:al Bourdon
Interstate
— US High'. ay
— Cl] Highway
z County Higtvsy
Arterial
L C U0
Railroads
Floodplain C Cnstr arts
Residential Constraints
�js old �cunty 0ppartunityZones
- TO Y: n site .3
�Nr^exatic n
r —J LI rt: an
n Urban -ft or U rban of rc
IJOrUrt an
Rural
eMIF YCV Mnnn�:FMFvi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The State Demography Office, a division of the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA),
monitors population growth trends across the state and within counties. Projection data in Table 18
shows that the Weld County population will grow at roughly double the rate of the state population
over the next two decades. As a proportion of the state's population, Table 19 shows Weld County's
population is expected to increase by around 0.5% each year and by 2045 the County is estimated to
make up about 8% of the state population. Currently, based on 2020 data, Weld County residents are
an estimated 5.7% of the state population.
Table 18. Population Change Forecasts by Region and County, 2010 - 2050
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
Colorado
1.7%
1.9%
1.7%
1.4%
1.3%
1.1%
1.0%
0.8%
Weld
Count
2.2%
3.0%
3.2%
2.9%
2.6%
2.3%
2.1%
1.9%
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), 2020
Table 19. State Demographers Office Population Projections by Region and County (2010 - 2045)
July, 2015
July, 2020
July, 2025
July, 2030
July, 2035
July, 2040
July, 2045
Colorado
5,439,290
5,819,337
6,132,563
6,562,402
6,970,549
7,342,121
7,658,761
Weld County
283,767
331,895
370,012
425,999
487,195
550,178
614,124
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), 2020
The first of the following maps (Figure 29) shows population growth rate forecasts for the state of
Colorado. Weld County is expected to grow at a faster rate than the majority of Colorado counties
between now and 2040. The second map (Figure 30) shows projected population change across the
state between 2010 and 2040.
I 69
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 29. Average Annual Percent Change in Population, Statewide
Colorado Population Growth
Average Annual Percent Change
2010 - 2040
s..i wick
Moi'iat
Jackson T.arirncr
Logan
Phillips
,,
: r- �i
—
r
r�'.++ hNMAS� .n. Boulder
Rio Blanco
Morgan
Yuma
- .1
.-,meid
��i'i
''i Ipin,-
Adams.
IA
Average Annual -
i'
•
Cl.�I`
_
,
Percent Change .
a
Arapahoe
il
rn
e ,.G _- '-
idle son
En 1% to 2% j
Pitkin I,akc
l_-{
Douglas
Kil Carson
II 2% CO 2.5°/o Mesa
A > 2.5%
Delta
Chaffee I Weller
El Paso
T,incoln
Cheyenne
Gunnison Z
Montrose
Fremont
Kiowa
_r
L
Crowley
uray
Hinsdale
Dolores San
5atzuachc 1, Costs"
-� f �`��
Pueblo
t
Otero
Bent
Provers
,JUan
fir. ral
{ ' r' �I I
Rio Grande
Hllel'faY10
Aiamasa `Z
fi.ntezurna •y
•
DnClpa
'l Cosl ilia
1..as Animus
Baca
Colorado State Demography Office, 10/24/2013 Seur::es- Fsri .ISGS NGAA
I 70
t&1I FW:,Cs M4NAQFMovm
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 30. Projected Statewide Population Growth
:
La rimer r
:Rautt Weld —71
P - C ;. Boulder r 1
l ob .... ..:....:. ...... Jai ?km
i
.. ......, .:, G�.. Broroomrlel d i_ Adams
" - Gilpin ::.
1
.,.. - - Clear CrIrek Denver:--. . .. I
Garfield Eagle `45ummif - - '- Arapahoe
•� _ Jefferson
......."_ .., ...... - - - , Douglas- Elbert
G$�
Mesa �� • -
.. i - -
I DE STIRCITI
ae
-
.Blts- .Tel ler
- --. El Paso
t
I
:Montrose .-..d _„ {remont - - .__._.. .........r"---Clitezat
Sag Lac he
�
e
I
ChG
fuZ.R.u3 Juan
CAA
-.�-...«
I
ii
t
cibigmt, Tow=
i
L-a.Plata_
r
t �
Projected Growth N
Projected Population Change . _ . ‹ 5: CCD A �
201 0 to 2040 a O 5 to 20 :C00 %.
MI 2O,CC1 to 50.000 Miles lf-
C 25
State Demography Office 12110,2312 �'. l`•:in •.
Source: St"'00 I I
'� 50 . I I I I
Weld County has grown significantly in the past decade and is one of the fastest growing counties in the
State. The amount of growth that Weld County has seen over the past decade has been dictated by the
availability of undeveloped land. Based on observed population growth trends, housing demand within
Weld County is expected to remain steady over the next decade.
Since the adoption of the 2016 Plan, new residential and commercial development has continued to
occur across the County. Table 20 depicts the number of new residential building permits issued
annually in Weld County between 1990 and 2019. Most of the permit -issuing jurisdictions are
municipalities, the remainder are county offices.
Based on this permit data, Weld County has had fluctuating increases in issued permits between 2015
and 2019. The number of permits issued in 2016 drastically increased over those issued in 2015 by 790
permits or a 27% increase. The next highest increase in the same period was in 2018, with a 9.9%
increase over the previous year. There was a 5.1% increase in 2017 and a 7.6% increase in 2019.
The number of units permitted year over year differed substantially, as well. In 2016, there was a
decrease in unit permits issued of -5.8%. The rest of the time period saw varied growth between 6.3%
and 17.5%.
I 71
t R,rnue+�cv M4NAQF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 20. Annual New, Privately -Owned Residential Building Permits Issued in Weld County
2019
3,668
4,387
2018
3,389
4,107
2017
3,051
3,646
2016
2,893
3,009
2015
2,103
3,186
2014
2,053
2,708
2013
1,650
1,935
2012
1,192
1,241
2011
807
889
2010
802
863
2009
726
761
2008
867
980
2007
1,572
1,847
2006
2,609
2,922
2005
4,127
4,279
2004
3,915
4,414
2003
3,691
3,963
2002
3,891
4,411
2001
3,991
4,301
2000
4,001
4,369
1999
3,413
3,557
1998
2,839
3,069
1997
1,832
2,117
1996
1,710
1,856
1995
1,326
1,470
1994
1,103
1,164
1993
862
965
1992
511
521
1991
335
357
1990
256
271
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Survey, Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)
I 72
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5 Risk Assessment
5.I Introduction
A key step in preventing future disaster losses in Weld County is developing a comprehensive
understanding of the hazards that pose risks to local communities. The following terms facilitate
comparisons between communities and can be found throughout the Plan.
Table 21. Key Risk Assessment Terminology
i
Event or physical conditions that have the potential to cause fatalities, injuries,
property damage, infrastructure damage, agricultural loss, damage to the
environment, interruption of business, other types of harm or loss
Product of a hazard's likelihood of occurrence and its consequences to society; the
estimates impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and
structures in a community
Degree of susceptibility to physical injury, harm, damage, or economic loss; depends
on an asset's construction, contents, and economic value of its functions
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2001
The Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) summary is a method for evaluating risk as
defined by probability and frequency of occurrence of a hazard event, exposure of people and property
to the hazard, and consequences of that exposure. Different methodologies exist for assessing the risk
of hazard events, ranging from qualitative to quantitative approaches.
Weld County and its communities are vulnerable to a wide range of natural and human -caused hazards
that threaten life and property. The hazards identified by the HMPC for inclusion in the Plan are those
determined to be of actual potential threat to Weld County and its municipalities. They are consistent
with the hazards identified by the State of Colorado and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for
this part of the State and this region of the country. The hazards profiled for the 2021 Plan include:
• Agricultural Hazards (Including Disease & Pests)
• Cyber Hazards
• Drought
• Earthquake
• Extreme Temperatures
• Flood (Including Dam & Levee Failure)
• Hazmat Release
• Land Subsidence
• Prairie Fire
• Public Health Hazards
• Severe Storm (Including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
• Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
The HMPC agreed to add Agricultural Hazards and Cyber Hazards to this updated Plan. All other
hazards were included in the 2016 Plan. Some of these hazards can be interrelated (for example, severe
I 73
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
storms can cause flooding, drought can lead to wildfire), and thus discussion of these hazards may
overlap where necessary throughout the Risk Assessment.
5.2 Disaster Declarations
The following table presents a list of all federal FEMA disaster and emergency declarations that have
occurred in Weld County since 1953. This list presents the foundation for identifying what hazards pose
the greatest risk to the County and to its local jurisdictions. Weld County has experienced 16
declarations in total, with only two (both relating to the current COVID-19 pandemic) occurring since
the last Plan update.
Table 22. Federal FEMA Disaster and Emergency Declarations in Weld County
�: 1 _c i,1 , it _
FEMA-4498-DR
F tii,=
1 /20/2020 — present
it = F = n1
COVID-I9 pandemic
FEMA-3436-EM
1 /20/2020 — present
COVID-I9 pandemic
FEMA-4 145 -DR
09/14/2013
Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides
FEMA-3365-EM
09/12/2013
Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides
FEMA-1762-DR
05/26/2008
Severe Storms and Tornadoes
FEMA-3224-EM
09/05/2005
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
FEMA-EM-3185
04/09/2003
Snowstorm
FEMA-1421-DR
06/19/2002
Wildfires
FEMA-I374-DR
05/17/2001
Severe Winter Storms
FEMA- 1276 -DR
05/17/1999
CO Flooding 4/30/1999
FEMA-1 186 -DR
08/01 / 1997
Severe Storms, Heavy Rain, and Flash Floods, Flooding,
Mudslides
FEMA-5 17 -DR
08/02/1976
Severe Storms and Flash Flooding
FEMA-385-DR
05/23/1973
Heavy Rain, Snowmelt, Flooding
FEMA-379-DR
05/08/1973
Dam Failure
FEMA-26 I -DR
05/19/1969
Severe Storms, Flooding
FEMA-200-DR
06/19/1965
Tornadoes, Severe Storms, Flooding
Source: FEMA Disaster Declarations Summary
Additionally, the county has experienced U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretarial Disaster
Designations. There have been eight crop years since 2006 when Weld County received such
designations. Additional details can be found in the Drought Profile (Table 37).
The following table presents state disaster declarations that have impacted Weld County. There have
been four declarations since the last Plan update. One concerns the ongoing global COVID-19
pandemic, another was a statewide wildfire declaration, and the other two related to winter storms.
Table 23. State Disaster Declarations in Weld County
2020
-1ic1
COVID-19 pandemic
=i = i1;'%
X
2017
Snow, heavy rains
2017
Wildfire
X
2016
Blizzard
I 74
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2014
Extreme weather
X
2013
Flooding
2013
Winter storm
X
2009
Severe spring snowstorm
X
2009
Severe blizzard
X
2008
Severe tornadoes
2003
Snow emergency
X
2002
Wildfires
X
2002
Drought
X
1999
Flooding, landslides, mudslides
1997
Flooding
1995
Flooding
1994
Wildfires
X
1986
Winter storm
1982
Severe winter storm
1981
Tornadoes
1981
Dam safety
1980
Flooding
1980
Grasshopper infestation
Source: CO State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Governor Executive Orders
5.3 Update Summary
As part of this Plan's five-year update, the risk assessment was updated across this document as best
available data allowed. The HMPC also revisited the hazard risk rankings performed in 2016 and have
updated these accordingly.
Additionally, the County utilized data analytics to improve the quantitative risk assessment and serve as
an additional input into community risk assessments.
5.3.1 Hazard Events Since 2016 Plan
The following section details the larger hazard events that have occurred across Weld County since
development of the 2016 Plan's risk assessment.
5.3. I. I Events Summary
Table 24 presents summary information relating to hazard events that have occurred since the previous
Plan update in 2016. This is the best available data, as sourced from the HMPC and available hazard
databases and resources. It is important to note that this only includes hazard events that have been
reported and is not a full picture of the occurrences of less disruptive hazard events.
I 75
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 24. Hazard Event Summary (2015 - 2020)
Flood
n,l'
10
F;: i= it
0
II Fri
0
$1.57 M
$425 K
Flood (Dam Failure)
1
0
0
$0
$0
Public Health Hazards
(COVI D- 19)
1
145
0
$0
$0
Severe Storms (Hail)
248
0
0
$15 K
$0
Severe Storms (Lightning)
1
0
0
$5 K
$0
Severe Storms (Winter)
42
0
0
$0
$0
Tornado
25
0
0
$0
$0
Wind
74
0
1
$300 K
$0
Source: NOAA (1/1/2015 - 6/30/2020), Weld County (COVID losses current as of 12/10/2020)
5.3.1.2 Damaging Events
Additional details relating to reported losses from damaging hazard events since the 2016 Plan are
presented below.
Table 25. Damaging Events (2015 - 2020)
F ALL I l l iJ,,,._.}.
3/I 1/2020
(ongoing)
Pandemic, Cascading
Public Health Issues
Global
$0
$0
COVID-19 is caused by infection with a new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. As of this plan's writing, this
global pandemic continues to rage on. As of 12/10/2020 there have been 16,578 reported cases
across Weld County, resulting in 145 deaths. While not causing direct damages to any property or
crops, this virus has caused major impacts to local economies. Additional details will be added in
future plan updates when the pandemic has ended.
9/25/2020
Flood (Dam Failure)
Johnstown
$0
$0
On 09-25-2020 Weld OEM was informed of a dam failure at Johnstown Reservoir. The State Dam
Inspector was doing an inspection and noticed it was leaking badly. The reservoir was near capacity.
An evacuation was not needed however it required an urgent response. The Emergency Response
Plan was activated. At 12:35 a conference call took place between Weld OEM, FRFR, Town of
Johnstown, Public Works, and members of the State Division of Water Resources. The plan was to
stop the leak in the short term, and a long term solution would be coordinated between the Town
and State.
No injuries, no deaths were reported. Front Range Fire Rescue arrived at 14:41 and proceeded to
reduce the leak to a manageable level. Town staff worked with dam safety personnel to arrange for a
more permanent fix to be completed the following morning. No property damage dollar amount is
available at this time. Long term repairs have not yet been completed. Public works estimates they
will be completed in 2021. Estimated cost for the repairs: $ 425k.
6/18/2018
Flood, Hail, Lightning
Multiple
$10 K
$0
In Weld County, several communities received hail damage and flooding due to severe
thunderstorms: Frederick, Firestone, Hudson, Keenesburg, and Prospect Valley. Lightning struck an
I 76
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
r
F ALL I l l iJ,,,._.}.
injection well northeast of Hudson, sparking a fire. First responders worked this incident for several
hours. Weld County had several road closures due to flash flooding including Hudson, Keenesburg,
Roggen, and Prospect Valley. Some of the road closures included: County Road 46 from between
County Roads 45 to 47, County Road 63 from County Roads 16 to 16.5. Trained spotters measured
storm total rainfall from 2.93 inches to 5.53 inches. Several roads were damaged. The frontage road
at Interstate 76 and Weld County Road 53 was inundated by floodwaters and completely washed.
County Roads 16 and 63, and County Road 49 and State Highway 52 were partially flooded.
5/8/2017 Hail, Flood, Lightning Countywide $505 K $50 K
Hail and heavy rain clogged drains and caused flash flooding throughout Greeley. Up to three feet of
water covered the roadway near U.S. 34 and U.S. 85. Flooding was reported throughout Greeley.
The Greeley Fire Department received 30 calls of flooding. Firefighters helped several residents get
out of garden level apartments that had flooded. Several other businesses and buildings suffered flood
damage, including Greeley City Hall and an apartment complex in Evans. The Greeley Mall was
extensively damaged when water poured into the mall from the roof and debris inundated the main
floor. The Frontier Academy Elementary School was also flooded, with administrators canceling
classes the following day to clean up the damage. Windsor -Severance Fire Protection District had
multiple reports of lightning strikes, including one that hit near Windsor Middle School and set off the
school's fire alarms.
3/7/2017 Wind Countywide $100 K $0
Strong winds blew over a semi -tractor trailer on Interstate 25 near the Wyoming border, no injuries
were reported. The high winds and very dry conditions continued across the northeast plains of
Colorado. In west Greeley, a building under construction completely collapsed. The 5,000 square -
foot addition to a church swayed under the force of the wind then collapsed. Some of the debris
pinned a construction worker; he suffered minor injuries. Peak wind gusts included: 66 mph, 4 miles
southwest of Sterling; 64 mph at Briggsdale and Crook; 63 mph, 8 miles south of Holyoke; 62 mph, 8
miles south-southwest of Grover; 60 mph, 2 miles south-southeast of Denver International Airport;
58 mph at Akron Municipal Airport and 55 mph at Greeley Airport.
8/19/2016 Hail Multiple $15 K $0
Severe thunderstorms also produced damaging wind and hail across parts of Adams, Larimer, Lincoln
and Weld Counties. Large hail dented cars, damaged shingles and broke windows.
7/17/2016 Flood, Hail Multiple $5 K $10 K
Severe thunderstorms produced large hail, from 1 to 2 inches in diameter; along with intense straight-
line winds. Flash flooding was also observed I O miles northeast of New Raymer. The combination of
heavy rain and hail produced flash flooding along small creeks and streams.
6/13/2015 Flood, Hail Multiple $15 K $10 K
Flash flooding forced numerous road closures in and around Milliken and Platteville. Water, up to 3 ft
deep, was observed at Division Rd and State Highway 66. State Highway 60 and Forest Rd were also
closed due to floodwaters. Severe thunderstorms produced large hail, up to quarter size. Flash
flooding was also observed which forced several road closures.
6/2/2015 Flood Multiple $25 K $50 K
I 77
e R�rnue+�cv MANov:FMF, i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
r
F ALL I l l iJ,,,._.}.
A prolonged period of heavy rainfall coupled with snowmelt produced flooding along the Cache La
Poudre and South Platte Rivers. The Cache la Poudre near Greeley crested at 9.05 feet on the 13th.
The South Platte River near Kersey crested at 11.24 feet on the 14th. Both the Cache La Poudre and
South Platte Rivers crested over a foot above flood stage. In Greeley, 6th Avenue was closed due to
flooding. The water levels forced the closure of Weld County Road 53. The waters also flooded
some nearby homes and farmland.
5/20/2015 Flood Multiple $500 K $200 K
The Cache La Poudre and South Platte River rose above flood stage producing a prolonged period of
minor to moderate lowland flooding. Numerous county roads along the rivers remain closed due to
floodwaters.
5/9/2015 Flood Multiple $515 K $105 K
Areal flooding developed along the Cache La Poudre and South Platte River Basins as a combination
of heavy rainfall and spring runoff inundated the region. The Cache La Poudre reached flood stage
from the 10th to the 14th. The South Platte rose above flood stage at Kersey from the 9th to the
15th. Flooding resulted in numerous road closures in the vicinities of Barnesville, Briggsdale,
Firestone, Frederick, Ft Lupton, Gill, Highland Lake, Keenesburg, Kersey, Mead, New Raymer,
Riverside Reservoir near Masters, Roggen, Riverside Reservoir near Masters, and Windsor. The next
day heavy rain produced additional flooding along already swollen creeks and streams in southwestern
Weld County. Mandatory evacuations were ordered at the St. Vrain Campground in Weld County
along with numerous roads closures across southern, central and eastern portions of Weld County.
Source: NOAA (1/1/2015 - 6/30/2020)
The HMPC was also polled during a workshop on recent hazard events, which are summarized in Figure
31.
Figure 31. Recent Hazard Events HMPC Poll
7. What are some recent hazard events that
impacted your community?
explosion _C
lo M
Q (6)D
o tornado " N tornados
‘-',P
N o' wild fires
flood N public health
winter storms fires �
heavy
raIn covid d _ °
c
°
hazmat ;phis
blizzards bomb cyclone
a
Svyi;�o•r �!`
I 78
e R�rnue+�cv MANIIQF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.3.2 Data Analytics
The risk analysis commonly relies on the expertise and industry knowledge of community -based planning
teams, including local government officials, public stakeholders and county residents. While the
knowledge and input from these community -based planning teams provides irreplaceable insight, a shift
towards data -driven analyses and analytics can lead to significant improvements in the risk identification
step.
Why is analytics beneficial? Analytics offers many advantages, including:
• Objective, data -driven outcomes;
• Flexible and open methods;
• Reproducible workflows and results;
• Easily updated analyses over time and after events; and
• Defensible outputs.
With the use of data analytics, the risk identification step is less subjective and the analysis can be easily
updated, transferred, and explained. The outcome of the analysis is not dependent on the participation
of individuals or on knowledge transfer between individuals — any turnover, retirements, etc. that may
have occurred within the community over time will not affect the analyses. Also, once the analytics
process is established, the analysis can be easily rerun with updated or new data without the need for
time and labor-intensive events, such as planning meetings. The analytics framework allows for flexibility
as existing parameters can be easily modified and new hazard types or datasets can be easily
incorporated into the existing model. Further, the use of analytics allows for defensible outputs as all
results can be tracked to data and calculated transformations.
Given the above advantages, a portion of the hazard risk analysis for Weld County uses data analytics
and GIS technology. Specifically, a composite risk map for Weld County was created by inputting
multiple hazard -specific datasets into a suitability model.
5.3.2. I Suitability Model
The risk analysis for the updated Plan was performed using a suitability model that was created in the
GIS software, Esri ArcGIS. In general, a suitability model is used to identify the most fitting areas based
on specified criteria. The analysis holds value in a wide variety of sectors, including retail, housing,
biology, and health, due to its flexibility and scalability. For example, park rangers can consider factors
such as elevation, foot traffic, proximity to streams, and vegetative cover to identify areas for bear
relocation that will reduce the chances of bear interactions with park visitors. Regardless of the
application, a suitability model ingests desired criteria at varying weights and outputs corresponding
scores based on how closely the area of analysis adheres to the criteria.
A suitability model was employed to answer the following question: Where are the areas of highest risk?
The suitability model was performed using a I kilometer by I kilometer resolution and the following
workflow.
I. Determine and prepare the criteria data:
The criteria data was gathered from over I 0 different agencies, including NOAA, FEMA, USGS,
EPA and CDPHE, to represent 9 different hazards. The datasets were also processed in various
ways to derive necessary parameters; for example, annual snowfall data from the past 12 years
was averaged to determine the average annual snowfall accumulation, while EPA RCRA facility
I 79
c
N
e R1rnue CV MANov:FMF, i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
data was used to determine the minimum amount of hazardous waste being generated
throughout the county.
2. Transform the values of each criterion to a common hazard scale:
The data from the previous step was transformed to a common hazard scale of I to 9 with I
denoting areas with the lowest hazard and 9 denoting areas with the highest hazard. One of
three transformation methods: unique categories, range of classes, and continuous functions,
was used for each dataset.
o Unique categories: one-to-one matching of the criterion value to the hazard value that is
best used for categorical data (e.g. FEMA flood zones)
o Range of classes: ranges of values grouped into homogeneous classes are assigned the
same hazard value (e.g. depth to mines)
o Continuous functions: applies linear and non-linear functions to transform the values
continuously to the hazard scale (e.g. distance to hazardous materials routes)
3. Weight criteria relative to one another and combine them to create a risk map:
Each hazard type was weighted based on the population likely affected by the corresponding
hazard.
5.3.2.2 Hazard Types
The Plan considers 12 hazard types, but due to the nature of some hazards and data limitations, the
suitability model only included nine. For example, an appropriate data source to evaluate the cyber
hazard was not available, while drought does not vary enough throughout the county to be appropriate
for the model. The following table shows the 12 hazards of interest to Weld County and a reason for
exclusion in the model, if applicable.
Table 26. Hazards Included in Suitability Model
i = rp it 1 i c 11
Agriculture Hazards
1 ;r.°1.n 1 11
Yes
°1:n i. ;i F< << , ;I
Cyber Hazards
No
Data Limitation
Drought
No
No Geographic Variability
Earthquake
Yes
Extreme Temperatures
No
No Geographic Variability
Flood
Yes
Hazmat Release
Yes
Land Subsidence
Yes
Prairie Fire
Yes
Public Health Hazards
Yes
Severe Storm
Yes
Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Yes
For the hazard types included in the suitability model, Figure 32 details the data sources used in the
model. The hazards were combined at varying weights to determine the composite risk, with the
weights assigned based on the potential magnitude of the population that would be affected in the case
of the respective hazard event. The general classes of affected population can be seen in Table 27.
I 80
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 32. Flowchart Illustrating the Composition of the Composite Risk Score; Population Data Used to
Determine the Weights of Each Hazard
Colorado State Forest
Service Atlas
Vegetation
FEMA National Flood
Hazard Layer
USGS Depth to Coal
Mining in the Colorado
Front Range
Colorado Department
of Public Health
Influenza
Hospitalization Rates
Colorado Department
of Public Health Heath
Status in Adults
National Weather
Service SVRGIS
Tornado Events
National Weather
Service SVRGIS Wind
Events
I 81
USGS Seismic Hazard
Map (2014)
EPA RCRA Faciltiies
Colorado Department
of Transportation
Hazmat Routes
Pipeline of Hazardous
Materials Safety
Administration Incident
Data
Colorado State Forest
Service Atlas Wildfire
Risk
National Weather
Service SVRGIS Hail
Events
National Weather
Service NOHRSC
National Snowfall
Analysis
National Weather
Service NCEI Storm
Database
Agriculture
Earthquake
Flood
Hazardous Materials
Land Subsidence
Prairie Fire
Public Health
Severe Storm
Straight Line Wind and
Tornados
Composite Risk
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 27. Classes of Affected Population and Hazard Type
50 to 100
15 to 50
5 to 15
0 to 5
Hazardous Material, Severe Storm, Straight -Line
Wind/Tornado
Agriculture, Prairie Fire
Earthquake, Flood, Public Health
Land Subsidence
5.3.2.3 Analytic Results
Summary results are available below in Table 28 for the unincorporated County areas and 3 I
municipalities full or partially located within the County. In addition, the resulting composite risk layer
from the suitability model can be seen visually in Figure 33. Further, the composite risk layer was
combined with the County's social vulnerability index layer from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and can be seen in Figure 34.
Table 28. Composite Risk Across Jurisdictions
il
Unincorporated
County
15.20%
32.09%
23.21 %
19.54%
9.95/ °
Ault
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25.00%
75.00%
Berthoud
0.00%
0.00%
21.43%
78.57%
0.00%
Brighton
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Dacono
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.17%
95.83%
Eaton
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
87.50%
12.50%
Erie
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.65%
95.35%
Evans
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
34.48%
65.52%
Firestone
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
44.74%
55.26%
Fort Lupton
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
21.21%
78.79%
Frederick
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
22.86%
77.14%
Garden City
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
21.92%
78.08%
Gilcrest
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Greeley
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25.38%
74.62%
Grover
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Hudson
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
78.57%
21.43%
Johnstown
0.00%
0.00%
11.54%
84.62%
3.85%
Keenesburg
0.00%
0.00%
60.00%
40.00%
0.00%
Kersey
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
83.33%
16.67%
La Salle
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
Lochbuie
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Longmont
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
56.25%
43.75%
Mead
0.00%
0.00%
9.09%
69.70%
21.21
Milliken
0.00%
0.00%
15.63%
71.88%
12.50%
New Raymer
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Northglenn
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
I 82
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
,l
Nunn
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
35.71%
64.29%
Pierce
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
60.00%
40.00%
Platteville
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
Severance
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.00%
92.00%
Timnath
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Windsor
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
15.52%
84.48%
I 83
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 33. Composite Risk Score
Composite Risk
a)
N
O
Cd
C
0
U
Lowest Risk
Moderate Risk
I 84
lJ�
e R�rnue +acv M MFvi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 34. Composite Risk Score and Social Vulnerability
Composite and Social Vulnerability
L /w.
dypgeaauinnimos
11D-
A
I 85
Data Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability In
LJ�
e R�rnue +acv M mF vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Overall across both Figures, it is apparent that hazard risk varies across the County. This risk does
somewhat align with more densely populated areas, though there are multiple additional factors at play.
The intent of this data is to be used at a countywide scale, enabling communities to determine the
relative hazard risk that they face compared to other Weld jurisdictions. This enables consideration of
the question: "Why are we at higher risk than our neighboring communities and what is driving that
risk?"
The individual hazard inputs into the suitability model are included across the applicable hazard profiles
later in this chapter.
5.4 Hazard Rankings
Hazards were ranked in order to provide guidance during development of this Plan's updated mitigation
strategy. This ranking was both quantitative and qualitative. First, the quantitative analysis considered all
the historical and geospatial hazard -specific data available. Then, a qualitative method, the Risk Factor
(RF) approach, was used to provide additional insights on the specific risks associated with each hazard.
This process also served as a valuable cross-check and validation of the quantitative analysis performed.
The RF approach combines historical experiences, local knowledge, and consensus opinions to produce
numerical values that allow identified hazards to be ranked against one another. For the 2021 Plan
update, this same RF approach was followed.
RF values are obtained by assigning varying degrees of risk to five categories for each hazard: probability,
impact, spatial extent, warning time, and duration. Each degree of risk is assigned a value ranging from 1 to
4 and a weighing factor for each category was agreed upon by the HMPC (documented in the following
Table). Based upon any unique concerns for the planning area, the HMPC may also adjust the RF
weighting scheme. To calculate the RF value for a given hazard, the assigned risk value for each category
is multiplied by the weighting factor. The sum of all five categories equals the final RF value, as
demonstrated in the following example equation:
FP n ,s
Table 29. Risk Factor Criteria
Pal ti? 1 c- 1
2
PROBABILITY
What is the likelihood of a
hazard event occurring in
a given year?
Unlikely
Less than I% annual probability
Possible
Between I - 10% annual
probability
Likely
Between 10 - 99% annual
probability
3
Highly Likely
100% annual probability
4
30%
IMPACT
In terms of injuries,
damage, or death, would
Minor
Very few injuries, if any. Only
minor property damage &
minimal disruption of quality of
30%
I 86
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
life. Temporary shutdown of
Lifelines.
you anticipate impacts to
be minor, limited, critical,
or catastrophic when a
significant hazard event
occurs?
Limited
Minor injuries only. More than
10% of property in affected area
damaged or destroyed.
Complete shutdown of some
Lifelines for more than one day.
2
Critical
Multiple deaths / injuries
possible. More than 25% of
property in affected area
damaged or destroyed.
Complete shutdown of some
Lifelines for more than one
week.
3
Catastrophic
High number of deaths / injuries
possible. More than 50% of
property in affected area
damaged or destroyed.
Complete shutdown of some
Lifelines for more than one
month.
4
SPATIAL EXTENT
How large of an area
could be impacted by a
hazard event? Are
impacts localized or
regional?
Negligible
Less than I% of area affected
Small
Between 1 - 10% of area
affected
2
Moderate
Between 10 - 50% of area
affected
3
Large
Between 50 - 100% of area
affected
4
20%
WARNING TIME
Is there usually some lead
time associated with the
hazard event? Have
warning measures been
implemented?
More than 24
hours
Self -defined
12 — 24 hours
Self -defined
2
6 — 12 hours
Self -defined
3
Less than 6
hours
Self -defined
4
10%
DURATION
How long does the hazard
event usually last?
Less than 6
hours
Self -defined
Less than 24
hours
Self -defined
2
10%
I 87
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
r 111 -
Less than I
week
More than I
week
Pi r
Self -defined
Self -defined
3
4
According to the weighting scheme applied, the highest possible RF value is 4.0. The methodology
illustrated above lists categories that are used to calculate the variables for the RF value.
The following table summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by Weld County. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards within the County from the perspective of local
stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors previously mentioned.
Table 30. Risk Factor Results for Weld County
i— c ,l
Agricultural Hazards
i_iliT
2
1I,l , is
3
4
I
I i s_;:, ;i
4
FP
2.8
Cyber Hazards
3
3
3
4
3
3.1
Drought
3
2
3
1
4
2.6
Earthquake
2
1
2
4
1
1.8
Extreme Temps.
3
1
4
1
3
2.4
Flood
3
2.5
3
1
3
2.7
Hazmat Release
4
2
2
4
2
2.8
Land Subsidence
2
1
1
4
3
1.8
Prairie Fire
3
2
2
4
2
2.5
Public Health
Hazards
3
2.5
3
4
4
3.1
Severe Storms
4
3
3
2
1
3.0
Tornado & Wind
3
1.5
2
4
1
2.3
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment carried out by the HMPC are organized into
three categories shown in Table 3 I and provide a summary of hazard risk for Weld County as a whole -
based on High, Moderate, or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning
discussions around local and regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's
updated mitigation strategy.
Table 3 I . Hazard Risk Conclusions for Weld County
-11 1 F 1 1�. ���� . ��i I
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Drought, Flood,
Hazmat Release, Prairie Fire, Public Health Hazards,
Severe Storm
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
Extreme Temperatures, Tornado & Straight -Line
Wind
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Earthquake, Land Subsidence
I 88
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
A majority of the hazards profiled in this Plan have been determined to be High Risk for the County.
This is primarily due to the high probability of these hazards occurring, coupled with the wide spatial
extent of their potential damages and impacts.
Comparing the updated ranking to those from 2016, many of the High Risk hazards remain the same,
with the additions of the two newly profiled hazards (agricultural and cyber hazards). Two hazards
previously considered Moderate Risk are now also rated as High Risk (Drought, Public Health Hazards),
as both on -going hazards are currently impacting the County.
The hazards of extreme temperatures and tornado & straight-line wind were determined to now be a
Moderate Risk to the County, as opposed to the High Risk they were previously labeled. The two Low
Risk hazards remain the same.
Table 32 presents each participating jurisdictions' final individual hazard risk ranking. This ranking
originated through the RF approach. Additional individual qualitative and quantitative community inputs
then lead to the final hazard risk conclusions.
The remaining sections of this chapter present individual hazard profiles and risk assessments for each of
the twelve hazards identified by the HMPC for the 2021 Plan update. The hazards are presented in
alphabetical order rather than by their levels of risk. Additionally, individual municipal risk assessments
are included in Appendix B: Municipal Annexes, which focuses on those specific High Risk hazards
impacting each jurisdiction.
I 89
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 32. Risk Factor Results by Jurisdiction
Weld
County
Town of
Ault
City of
Dacono
Town of
Eaton
Town of
Erie
City of
Evans
Town of
Firestone
City of Fort
Lupton
Town of
Frederick
City of
Greeley
Town of
Hudson
Town of
Johnstown
Town of
Keenesburg
Iii IF
Low Risk
IF IL IF
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
ri IF IF IF
ri IF IF IF
Iii IF IF In IF
Low Risk
IF IF
ri IF IF IF
IF IF IF IF
ri IF IF IF
ri IF IF IF
IF
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
ri IF IF IF
Low Risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
In visIF
Iii IF In IF
Low Risk
Iii IF
Low Risk
Iii IF
Moderate
Risk
In IF
Moderate
Risk
Iii IF In IF
Iii IF
Moderate
Risk
Iii IF
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
IF
In IF
Low Risk
IF Iii IF In IF
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
In IF
Low Risk
Iii ` 'ii IF
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
IL IF IF
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
IF IF IF
IF IF IF
IF n IF
Moderate
Risk
IF IF IF
IF IF IF
IF IF IF
IF IF IF
Iii IF IF IF
Iii IF IF IF IF
IF
IF IF IF
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
190
Town of
LaSalle
Town of
Mead
Town of
Milliken
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Low Risk
ri IF
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
I
IF IF
Moderate
Risk
Town of
Nunn
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Town of
Pierce
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Town of
Platteville
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Town of
Severance
Moderate
Risk
I
Moderate
Risk
I
Low Risk
IF IF
Low Risk Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
IL IF
IF IL IF
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
IL IF
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
IL IF
Town of
Windsor
Low Risk
IF IF
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
IL IF
Low Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk Moderate
Risk
IL IF IF IF
IF IF IF
Low Risk Moderate Low Risk
Risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
In visIF
Moderate Moderate
Risk Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
IF
IF
IF
Moderate
Risk
IF
IF
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
In vi»IF
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Low Risk
Low Risk
IF n IF
Moderate
Risk
191
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.5 Lifeline Hazard Rankings
Hazards pose varied levels of risk to a community and its abilities to protect life safety, prevent property
damages or loss, and support Lifelines. Lifelines are the most fundamental services in the community
that, when stabilized, enable all other aspects of society to function. The integrated network of assets,
services and capabilities that provide lifeline services are used to support the day-to-day needs of the
community and enable society to function cohesively. Lifelines are separated into the following
categories:
• Communications
• Energy (Power and Fuel)
• Food, Water and Shelter
• Hazardous Material
• Health and Medicine
• Safety and Security
• Transportation
As shown in Table 33 the HMPC members ranked the risk of each hazard on a scale of 1-5, based on
the perceived effect of the hazard on each specific Lifeline. Figure 35 shows an example of the polling
results.
Figure 35. Lifeline Risk Rankings HMPC Poll
What level of risk does SEVERE STORM present to each of s —r- 5
Weld County's Lifelines?
Communication
36
Energy (Power and Fuel)
Food, Water, and Shelter
Hazardous Materials
Health and Medical
Safety and Security
Transportation
3.4
These rankings were averaged, to gain an understanding of the overall risk that each hazard poses to
these Lifelines. For example, the highest risk to all Lifelines comes from cyber attack (3.4). Other
hazards posing a higher risk to Lifelines include severe storms, straight-line winds and tornadoes,
Hazmat release, and flood.
The other side of determining risk is the level of risk the Lifeline itself holds. Each Lifeline encompasses
agencies, organizations, and infrastructure crucial to meeting the specific needs of the community. Based
on the criticality of the Lifeline, as well as the vulnerabilities within its systems, each Lifeline carries its
own risk of being disrupted. For example, the HMPC rankings determined that, on average, the Lifeline
192
eMIFMFNI
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
with the highest risk for disruption is Food, Water, & Shelter (3.2), followed by Health & Medical and
Safety & Security.
Ultimately, the risk posed by hazards to Lifelines is best assessed individually. Every Lifeline is unique
and composed of its own complex network of people, equipment, materials, structures, and
infrastructure. To fully understand the risk, each component of a Lifeline's network needs to be
evaluated against hazard risk.
Table 33. Lifeline Risk Ranking
Agricultural Hazards
1.8
2.3
3.4
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.1
-1i c1
2.5
Cyber Hazards
4.5
3.5
2.6
2.1
3.4
4.4
3.1
3.4
Drought
1.4
2.3
4.1
1.5
2.3
2.1
1.5
2.2
Earthquake
2.2
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.7
3
3.1
2.8
Extreme Temperatures
1.9
3
3.5
2.1
3.2
2.4
2.1
2.6
Flood
2.5
3.3
3.7
2.9
2.9
3
3.7
3.1
Hazmat Release
2.3
2.6
3.3
4.4
3.8
3.1
2.8
3.2
Land Subsidence
1.6
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.7
2.1
2.4
2.0
Prairie Fire
2.4
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.7
2.9
2.1
2.5
Public Health Hazards
2.9
2.2
2.9
2.3
4.4
3.4
2.1
2.9
Severe Storm
3.6
3.4
3.4
2.6
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.3
Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
3.4
3.6
3.9
2.5
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.3
Lifeline Average
2.5
2.8
3.2
2.5
3.0
3.0
2.7
5.6 Hazard Data Viewers
All of the information contained in the following risk and vulnerability assessments is considered a snap-
shot in time, based upon the best available data during the time of this Plan's development. It is expected
that over the 5 -year life of this updated Plan many of these data sets will continue to be updated and
enhanced, while new data sources will become available. In order for communities to ensure they are
referencing the latest and greatest hazard data, it is important that they are aware of how to access this
information.
Fortunately, communities are now able to leverage state and federal web map viewers to assess the
most current hazard mapping available for many of the hazards profiled in this Plan. The following bullets
provide details on these tools.
• FEMA's Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT): The RAPT Viewer is a free GIS
web map that allows communities to examine the interplay of census data, infrastructure
I 93
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
locations, and hazards, including real-time weather forecasts, historic disasters and estimated
annualized frequency of hazard risk.
QFEMA Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT)
,Fran raake.r.i mmyrma Comer
?.- ALL T::tSan
Weld
tll
rXtrOXIXANtrVerraaa
Illatratar
Hazards
a X
Lcyors
..5 NrHr-rlooe Hazard Zones I=onsto act vale)..
..am_Ilazara
y r USA Sta,a(C,en-raln-o)
Co....,os ni•,a�ol3od Jaq�n�q-olnx.�ra�
Hla,aone on woo Fdo er_a �efiv
Watches onoeWarqingo
Nsauns 'Jrea:ie, ..einru Sltpil'ir'ara Hlrr
ny ,Dtit ool
Nat ono Vkat^eer :ernca • Adam c;Can_tean
Net rna W=.en=r Servic=-Fese�n FacHlr.
Nat Hz Katherier..w 6eecc,
NEXP\O Peal T!mo Wrat ' do!
• Colorado Future Avoided Cost Explorer (FACE): The FACE Viewer is a public web map
that presents the results of a statewide study concerning the direct impacts of flood, drought,
and wildfire on select sectors of the Colorado economy. It is intended to help inform
preparedness and resilience policies, support recovery and adaptation investments, and provide
decision -makers with tools to quantify the growing cost in inaction.
Select hazard and scenarios
Select Hazard
Select Climate Scenario
Moderate
rate
Select Population Scenario
Medium
ra z, th
ctiA
I 94
Clld: on a metre button and county to vletr damogee a^d sectors roncidered Cfick to •.slew by re G'
$1.65
Total Unirla Ees'
53.01,
$190
Iotnl Uair .� pr...n
2.6x
11 ge
$100M
1.1111111
FAMINI Atti+
r"'''
■
Central Moun
tains
Grand Valley
Northern Fro
nt Range
Northern Mo
untains
Northern Plai
ns
San Luis Vali
ey
Southern Fro
nt Range
Southern Plat
ns
Western San
Juan Mountai
ns
•
•
•
•
•
A
•
•
I
e R�rnue CV MNANatzr Mt zrI
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
• Colorado Forest Atlas — Wildfire Risk Viewer: The Wildfire Risk Viewer is a web -mapping
application that allows users to identify specific wildfire risk levels within a I/2 -mile radius of a
home, or any other point of interest on the map. A risk level description and link to additional
resources is provided for users wanting to know how to reduce their risk.
fic baritone page Leh Armor,
eiob1-slvk or uul, doom to sioor b,sary
K PUBLIC VIEWER
EL $ .
(� Getting Started
Reference Layers
Explore Map Themes
Select a map theme,
wildfire 9ioe teems
wudM���=IIeY•.v monw,
I and,oloo
Hklo'1[a V/Acrre occurrence
adjust Theme Transparency:
VIE4V LEGEND
Active Map theme.
'Midland Urban 4nerface Risk
A measure of the potential impact on
people and their homes from wildf,re_
I 95
OCoordinates:
Lat 4Q° 37.07' fJ
DDM
Lng:104' 51.09' Ca
4
0
'1•
t R'Il AS!'aCv Al An meFMtmI
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.7 Agricultural Hazards (including Disease & Pests)
5.7.1 Hazard Identification
As agriculture is the one of the largest economic drivers for Weld County, hazard risks are a significant
concern, specifically disease and pests. An outbreak of disease is when a parasite or pathogen infects
animals and livestock, or in some cases crops, creating an illness that causes harm and possibly death. In
the case of a pest infestation, this can include insects, animals (mammals and birds), or organisms (such
as fungi and other invasive plant species, including noxious weeds) which negatively impact crop health
and yield.
Diseases can include those that are known and required as reportable to the State Department of
Agriculture, but can also involve those that are newly emerging. For some diseases, protocols are
already put into place at the state level to minimize spread and negative impact, but it can be difficult to
hold individual operations accountable to follow them.
Pest populations are impacted by climate and weather, which means they can vary greatly from year to
year. Pests can be vectors for disease, such as flies and mosquitoes, or can damage agricultural products
directly, such as grasshoppers and the Wheat Stem Sawfly.
Invasive plant species are those that are introduced to the agricultural area and begin to take resources,
such as moisture, nutrients, and sunlight, from crops and the local ecosystem. Specifically, noxious
weeds can be both non-native or indigenous to Colorado, based on the growth and range of a species
throughout Colorado.
5.7.2 Previous Occurrences
There was a significant disease outbreak in 2019 of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) which affected
counties across the State. According to the Colorado Department of Agriculture, in Weld County, this
resulted in 73 quarantined animals. In 2014, 97 farms and ranches in Weld County were placed under
quarantine for VSV.
The virus primarily affects horses and cattle, but exposure was shown in other animals, including swine,
sheep, goats, llamas, and alpacas. There is a human risk of exposure, but it is rare. While VSV is seldom
fatal, it can lead to malnutrition, dehydration, and weight loss. The mechanism of spread is unknown,
however insects, specifically mites and flies, are the suspected vectors. Presently, there is no vaccine
available. VSV is likely to have reoccurrence, however protocols are in place to minimize spread.
Grasshoppers are an annual occurrence and depending on the extent of population size can pose a risk
to crops. Since 2005, Weld County has received USDA Secretarial Disaster declarations for insect
infestation in 2006, 2012, and 2013. Weld County also experienced minimal damage to crops in 201 1.
The Wheat Stem Sawfly was an issue in 2010 and 201 I, where it infested the winter wheat. Data for
crop loss is not available, so it is unknown how significant the impact was on the harvests for those
years. The Wheat Stem Sawfly has a continuous presence in Colorado and neighboring states and has
spread to other counties in Colorado, therefore it is continually a threat to wheat production in Weld
County.
196
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Invasive plant species or noxious weeds outbreaks are not tracked but are common throughout
Colorado and Weld County. Weld County has a Weed Management Department which works with
community members to identify plant species and avoid any rapid growth in the area.
In 2015, $68,000 in grant funding was used to control and remove noxious, invasive weeds along County
roads in northern Weld County. This effort was jointly funded by the County, the Colorado
Department of Agriculture, the US Forest Service, Pawnee National Grassland and area landowners.
5.7.3 Data Analytics
The input into the composite risk layer developed with the data analytics suitability model for
agricultural hazards is shown in Figure 36.
Figure 36. Composite Risk Layer Agricultural Hazards Input
Agr icul tur e
Colorado State Forest Service
Land Cover
Agriculture
Other
Data So orce Colorado State Forest Service Colorado Foxes[ Ram Risk Redisrvn FYCII,Pf *gewwn
5.7.4 Inventory Exposed
In a 2017 census by the USDA, Weld County had 4,062 farms which make up 2,098,803 acres in land
and employ 7,232 producers from the community. The total market value of products sold was
$2,047,177,000 and accounted for 27% of the state agriculture sales.
5.7.5 Potential Losses
The agriculture industry in Weld County is a major contributor to the economy of the State and to the
nation. The negative impact of an outbreak of disease, or impact of a natural or man-made disaster could
197
e R1rnue Cv M4NAQFMFvi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
result in economic losses of enormous scale. The losses associated with an animal disease outbreak
would not only directly impact the livestock value, but also the network of farming, transportation,
processing, and animal medical industries that directly supports Colorado's farmers.
As agricultural losses are oftentimes a cascading hazard impact, it is important to recognize the
relationship. The following Table presents insured crop losses caused by hazards from 2015 through
the end of 2018. It is clear that outside of the agricultural hazards profiled in this section, severe storms
(including hail) are the most potentially destructive hazard to the agricultural sector.
Table 34. Weld County Insured Crop Losses
P: L.
Drought
r I,l.IC,'UH
$1,510,192
r: L_im
$4.96
F .. 1 1 U
89
Flooding
$3,249
$0.01
I
Hail
$14,834,013
$48.79
158
Heat
$2,088,057
$7.15
57
Severe Storm / Thunder Storm
$7,837,009
$27.26
216
Wildfire
$982
$0.00
4
Wind
$669,368
$2.30
37
Winter Weather
$1,595,755
$5.55
53
Source: SHELDUS vI9.0
5.7.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
The probability of future occurrences is high. The large amount of imports and exports in Weld County
increases the risk of introduction of invasive species and previously unseen diseases.
Reportable diseases are closely monitored to ensure early detection of an outbreak, should one occur.
One of the key responsibilities of the Animal Health Division, a branch of the Colorado Department of
Agriculture, is to prepare for, control, and mitigate livestock disease outbreaks. The division has a
number of preparedness and response plans for the various livestock sectors in Colorado.
The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) branch is responsible for monitoring
pests and diseases that pose high risks to agricultural resources. They base their preparedness and
response plans from the feedback of stakeholders, however there is not a required list of reportable
pests.
5.7.7 Land Use and Development
Although communities located in the eastern region of Weld County are less populated than many
communities located to the west, the largely agricultural area is more susceptible to the impacts of
health hazards that affect livestock and plants. In these communities, the spread of a highly destructive
livestock disease or plant pest/disease could have devastating consequences to the local economy and
environment. Early detection and a rapid response to a pest or disease infestation are critical to limiting
the economic, social, environmental and public health impacts of such an incident.
198
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.8 Cyber Hazards
5.8.1 Hazard Identification
Society is dependent on technology for day to day operations, and a major cyber incident could have
significant and widespread impacts. Cyber hazards vary in the method of attack and area of technology
targeted. They have been shown to affect a large variety of organizations, including hospitals, businesses
and both state and local governments. These cyber attacks can result in the drastic slowing or halting
entirely of productivity for an agency or organization. Data breach due to an attack is of great concern,
not only for privacy reasons, but for the negative impacts that deletion or altering of data can have on
future work for the organization.
Physical infrastructure damage is another cyber related hazard which should be considered. The
potential cascading effects on the virtual systems that communities rely on could be devastating and long
lasting. Extended power outages, fiber optic cable damage and other infrastructure damage or disruption
would have widespread consequences for conducting everyday operations. Critical facilities and
infrastructure (Community Lifelines) for water distribution and treatment, power and fuel supply
delivery, as well as communications could see drastic impacts to capabilities from a cyber attack.
5.8.2 Previous Occurrences
Previous occurrences for cyber attacks are hard to track, as there is not a mandatory reporting
structure for cyber incidents. Organizations often shield any incidents from public knowledge due to
concerns about public perception of security.
5.8.3 Data Analytics
Cyber hazards were not able to be utilized as an input into the composite risk layer due to data
limitations.
5.8.4 Inventory Exposed
All systems and communities are exposed to cyber hazards, either directly or indirectly, as so much of
our current society is technologically dependent. Cyber hazards can impact government operations,
release sensitive information, and impact Lifelines. Cyber attacks could interfere with emergency
response activities in the event of a disaster and an attack may reduce the public's trust in the
government. In some cases, hospitals have been attacked putting patient lives at risk, with no access to
their medical records and treatment plans. Impacts specific to the County's municipalities would not
vary from those of the County.
5.8.5 Potential Losses
It is difficult to predict potential losses without much publicly available previous occurrence data. Losses
could vary significantly based on the event, with the potential for numerous cascading impacts across all
community sectors. Losses could also be incurred through paying an attacker or through fines from
regulators. Additionally, a large-scale attack could cause economic losses if services are impacted
through an attack.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations oversees incidents that are voluntarily reported to them.
According to their nationwide data, the incidents reported in 2019 added up to estimated losses of $3.5
I 99
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
billion in the U.S. Per the 2019 Internet Crime Report, Colorado ranked II th in the nation for self -
reported incidents, which resulted in losses of over $65 million.
5.8.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
Although there have been very few publicly reported previous occurrences, cyber attacks (especially
ransomware attacks) are becoming more common, particularly geared towards local governments and
hospitals. Therefore, the probability is assumed to be likely.
Many organizations handle cyber situations internally, which makes tracking the number of incidents that
have occurred difficult to quantify and therefore it is difficult to quantify possible increases in incidents.
However, per the FBI data, nationwide, almost 470,000 incidents were self -reported in 2019, or around
1,250 per day. This was a substantial increase from the 2018 number of the roughly 350,000 reported.
While the actual number of incidents that has occurred each year is unknown, we can assume it is much
higher than reported and growing exponentially annually.
5.8.7 Land Use and Development
With the significant population increases in the County, more people are exposed to the impacts of a
potential cyber-hazard. The need for more critical infrastructure increases as population grows, which
creates more opportunities for cyber-hazards to disrupt processes crucial to day to day operations.
As information technology becomes increasingly integrated with physical infrastructure operations, there
is an increased risk for wide -scale or high -consequence events that could cause harm or disrupt services
upon which our economy and the daily lives of millions of Americans depend. In light of the risk and
potential consequences of cyber events, strengthening the security and resilience of cyberspace has
become an important homeland security mission. Education for citizens and community partners is key
in supporting the battle against cyber hazards.
I 1 oo
kMI.FWY CV MANIQFMFNI
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.9 Drought
5.9.1 Hazard Identification
Drought is a normal part of virtually all climates, including areas with high and low average rainfall. It is
caused by a deficiency of precipitation and can be aggravated by other factors such as high temperatures,
high winds, and low relative humidity.
Droughts can be grouped as meteorological, hydrologic, agricultural, and socioeconomic.
Representative definitions commonly used to describe the various types of drought are summarized
below.
• Meteorological drought is defined solely on the degrees of dryness. It is expressed as a
departure of actual precipitation from an expected average or normal amount based on monthly,
seasonal, or annual time scales.
• Hydrologic drought is related to the effects of precipitation shortfalls on stream flows and
reservoir, lake, and groundwater levels.
• Agricultural drought is defined principally in terms of soil moisture deficiencies relative to water
demands of plant life, usually crops.
• Socioeconomic drought associates the supply and demand of economic goods or services with
elements of meteorological, hydrologic, and agricultural drought. Socioeconomic drought occurs
when the demand for water exceeds the supply as a result of a weather -related supply shortfall.
The incidence of this type of drought can increase because of a change in the amount of rainfall, a
change in societal demands for water (or vulnerability to water shortages), or both.
The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) was developed by Wayne Palmer in the 1960s and uses
temperature and rainfall information in a formula to determine dryness. Over time it has become the
semi-official drought index for risk assessment and hazard analysis. The Palmer Index is most effective in
determining long term drought (a matter of several months) and is not used for short-term forecasts (a
matter of weeks). It uses a 0 as normal conditions, and drought is shown in terms of negative numbers;
for example, -2 is moderate drought, -3 is severe drought, and -4 is extreme drought. The following
table provides an overview of the Palmer Index compared to other classifications.
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 35. Drought Severity Classification
Minor
Drought
n
3 to 4
Going into drought; short-term
dryness slowing growth of crops or
pastures; fire risk above average.
Coming out of drought; some
lingering water deficits; pastures or
crops not fully recovered.
F? nr IIi ::
R n 1> I FR ''
-0.5 to -0.7
;n ] IIr l ,l
I r I
cry
DO
rlr_
R H 1
- I.0 to -
1.9
Moderate
Drought
5 to 9
Some damage to crops or pastures;
fire risk high; streams, reservoirs, or
wells low, some water shortages
developing or imminent, voluntary
water use restrictions requested.
-0.8 to - I.2
D I
-2.0 to -
2.9
Severe
Drought
10 to 17
Crop or pasture losses likely; fire
risk very high; water shortages
common; water restrictions imposed
- I.3 to - I.5
D2
-3.0 to -
3.9
Extreme
Drought
18 to 43
Major crop and pasture losses;
extreme fire danger; widespread
water shortages or restrictions
-1.6 to -1.9
D3
-4.0 to -
4.9
Exceptional
Drought
44 +
Exceptional and widespread crop and
pasture losses; exceptional fire risk;
shortages of water in reservoirs,
streams, and wells creating water
emergencies
Less than -2
D4
-5.0 or
less
Source: National Drought Mitigation Center
5.9.2 Previous Occurrences
With its semi -arid climate, drought is a natural part of the Colorado environment. Because of natural
variations in regional climate and precipitation, it is rare for the entire state to be deficient in moisture
at the same time. Single season droughts that cover portions of the state, however, are fairly common.
Drought impacts can cover large areas and may come in many forms. The most significant drought
impacts in Colorado are related to water -intensive activities including agriculture, municipal use, wildfire
protections, recreation, wildlife preservation, commerce, and tourism. Drought conditions can lead to
the compaction of soil, increasing erosion potential and decreasing water quality. The impacts associated
with drought magnify as the duration of the event increases, as supplemental supplies in reservoirs are
depleted and water levels in groundwater aquifers decline.
The State of Colorado has experienced severe, widespread drought several times since the late I800s.
The 2018 State of Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan included a comprehensive
description of the major droughts that have occurred in Colorado, including the Dust Bowl of 1930s,
1102
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
the 1950s drought of the Great Plains, and the Colorado drought of 2002. The table below summarizes
the duration of historical dry and wet periods in Colorado.
Table 36. Historical Dry and Wet Periods in Colorado
i=
1893-1905
F -
X
F rp i -i it
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
1978-1999
X
20
2000-2006
X
6
2007-2010
X
3
2011-2013
X
3
Source: 2018 Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan
The previous table highlights seven multi -year droughts in Colorado since 1893. The most dramatic
drought event occurred in the late 1930s and 1950s when a number of states in the region were
affected by a several -year drought.
The Colorado drought of 2002 was the single most intensive year of drought in Colorado's history.2
Statewide snowpack was at or near all-time lows, and the year is considered the driest single year
recorded in Colorado history. What made the 2002 drought event so unusual was that all of the State
was dry at the same time. Regional soil moisture was depleted and reservoirs dropped to extremely low
levels. The dramatic drought conditions prompted widespread water restrictions that were heavily
enforced and regulated. These restrictions included limits to watering lawns, washing cars, or the use of
water for any other non -essential uses. Some municipalities offered incentives for property owners to
remove their lawns and adopt xeriscaped landscape designs. Ultimately, it was the wet period of the late
1990s and the increased reservoir storage during that time that helped Colorado to survive the drought
of 2002.
More recently, severe drought conditions have impacted the State of Colorado. Based on the U.S.
Drought Monitor, approximately 50% of Colorado was already experiencing drought conditions by the
start of 2012. Minimal accumulations of snow worsened conditions further, as below average snowfall
and above average temperatures occurred in February and March. In April and May of 2012, warm
temperatures caused early runoff as the thin snowpack melted rapidly. The entire State of Colorado was
under drought conditions by the end of May 2012 and stream flows measured only slightly better
compared to the extreme drought years of 1934, 1954, 1977 and 2002.
2 Pielke and Doesken, 2003. The Drought of 2002 in Colorado.
I 103
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Local agricultural production was heavily impacted by the 2011-2013 drought. Because soil moisture was
low and temperatures high on the plains during the spring planting season, many crops struggled to take
root and failed to survive the summer. Agricultural drought impacts were exacerbated by limited water
availability for summer irrigation diversions due to less snowpack and runoff. In the eastern plains of
Colorado, June temperatures were consistently over 100°F. As hay production decreased to 10% - 50%
of average supply, prices increased dramatically. For example, corn prices increased 43% over two years
as neighboring corn -producing regions in other states also struggled with drought. By early June 2013,
many areas of the Eastern Plains normally covered by crops or cattle were barren. Many ranchers sold
their herds as grasses had gone dormant and hay was expensive and in short supply.
In addition to having a devastating economic impact on Colorado agriculture and tourism, the 2011-
2013 drought period contributed to elevated wildfire risk across the state. Two of the State's most
destructive wildfires occurred during the 2012 drought period: the High Park Fire and the Waldo
Canyon Fire. Dry conditions on the Eastern Plains contributed to an extended grass fire season that
threatened homes and property.
As of the fall of 2020, large portions of the State are experiencing extreme and exceptional drought
conditions. The entire State is experiencing some type of ongoing drought condition. A large majority
of Weld County is experiencing severe drought, with the northwest corner of the County being less
severe (abnormally dry and moderate drought). Figure 37 presents the current drought situation as of
the fall of 2020.
I 104
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 37. U.S. Drought Monitor (October 2020)
U.S. Drought Monitor
Colorado
1.1.1111
galft
11141/11160
leer
October 6, 2020
(Released Thursday, Oct. 8, 2020)
Valid 8 a.m. EDT
Drought Condltorls (Percent Area)
None
0.00
DO -D4
100.00
D1-04
99.30
€T2'-[34
90.39
m -D4
04
Current
59.23
16.722
Last Week
09.29-2029
0.00
100.00
99.29
09.35
52.86
22.64
3 Month sAgo
07.07-202C.
1567
04.33
69.18
55.41
34.07
0.00
Start of
CalendarYear
.22.2.9
31.72
68.28
51.19
20.11
0.00
0.00
Start of
Water Year
09.29-2020
0.00
100.00
99.29
89.35
52.88
264
D'' YearAgG
v -ca -2019
25.40
74.52
37.01
11.23
0.00
0.00
intensity -
None D2 Severe Drought
DO Abnormally Dry =D3 Extreme Drought
D1 Moderate Drought -D4 Exceptional Drought
The Drought Monitor focuses on broad-sca?e coedtrafrs.
Local conditions may vary For more l,vforrnatlo,n on the
Drought Monitor go to htfpsI/droughtmomtor unl. edwAbout.aspx
Author:
Brian Fuchs
National Drought Mitigation Center
USDA
droughtmonitor.unl.edu
During drought conditions Secretarial Disaster Declarations are used to make low interest loans and
other emergency assistance available to those who have been affected (largely farmers and ranchers).
Under the process laid out by the Farm Services Agency (FSA), a USDA Disaster Declaration can be
made if any portion of a county has experienced eight consecutive weeks of severe drought according to
the U.S. Drought Monitor.3 The following Table lists the disaster declarations that have affected Weld
County since 2003. Declarations have been made in four of the last five years since the previous Plan
update.
3 The 2018 Colorado Drought Mitigation Response Plan
I 105
e R9rFUF'9Cv r+1An ar:F Mrvi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 37. USDA Secretarial Disasters Affecting Weld County 2005 - Present
2020
Drought
2018
Drought, Flood, Excessive Rain, Hail, High Winds, Tornadoes, Lightning
2017
Drought
2016
Hail
2013
Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, Insect Infestation
2012
Drought, Hail, High Winds, Flood, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, Insect Infestation
2008
Drought, Hail
2006
Drought, Heat, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, Insect Infestation, Crop Disease
Source: USDA — Colorado Farm Services Agency
Numerous drought declarations occurred between 2006 and 2020. One of the most significant disaster
periods occurred in early July 2012, in which 62 of the State's 64 counties were included in a Secretarial
disaster designation due to the 2011-2013 drought. Farmers in designated counties were able to apply
for Farm Service Agency emergency loans for the next eight months.
Because drought is usually considered a regional hazard, all jurisdictions are assumed to have the same
risk level within Weld County. Drought risk is based on a combination of the frequency, severity, and
spatial extent (the physical nature of drought) and the degree to which a population or activity is
vulnerable to the effects of drought. The degree of Weld County's vulnerability to drought depends on
the environmental and social characteristics of the region and is measured by its ability to anticipate,
cope with, resist, and recover from drought.
The National Drought Mitigation Center assesses the impacts caused by drought conditions. Following
is a summary of the impact categories:
Agriculture: Drought impacts associated with agriculture, farming, aquaculture, horticulture, forestry or
ranching. Examples of drought -induced agricultural impacts include: damage to crop quality; income loss
for farmers due to reduced crop yields; reduced productivity of cropland; insect infestation; plant
disease; increased irrigation costs; cost of new or supplemental water resource development (wells,
dams, pipelines) for agriculture; reduced productivity of rangeland; forced reduction of foundation stock;
closure/limitation of public lands to grazing; high cost or unavailability of water for livestock, Christmas
tree farms, forestry, raising domesticated horses, bees, fish, shellfish, or horticulture.
Business and Industry: Drought impacts affecting non -agriculture and non -tourism businesses, such as
lawn care businesses, sales of recreational vehicles or other recreational gear, and plant nurseries.
Examples of drought -induced business impacts could include: reduction or loss of employees, change in
sales or volume of business, variation in number of calls for service, early closure or late opening for the
season, bankruptcy, permanent store closure, economic impacts.
Energy: Drought impacts associated with power production, electricity rates, energy revenue, and
purchase of alternate sources of energy. Examples include hydropower and non -hydropower production
when affected by drought, electricity rates, revenue shortfalls and/or windfall profits, purchase of
electricity when hydropower generation is down.
Fire: Drought impacts contributing to forest, range, rural, or urban fires, fire danger, and burning
restrictions. Examples of fire impacts include: Enactment/easing of burning restrictions, fireworks ban,
increased fire risk, occurrence of fire (number of acres burned, number of wildfires compared to
1106
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
average, people displaced, etc.), increase in firefighting personnel, state of emergency during periods of
high fire danger, closure of roads land due to fire occurrence or risk.
Plants and Wildlife: Drought impacts associated with unmanaged plants and wildlife, fisheries, forests,
and other fauna. Examples of drought -induced impacts on plants and wildlife include: loss of biodiversity
of plants or wildlife; loss of trees from rural or urban landscapes, shelterbelts, or wooded conservation
areas; reduction and degradation of fish and wildlife habitat; lack of feed and drinking water; greater
mortality due to increased contact with agricultural producers, as animals seek food from farms and
producers are less tolerant of the intrusion; disease; increased vulnerability to predation (from species
concentrated near water); migration and concentration (loss of wildlife in some areas and too many
wildlife in other areas); increased stress to endangered species; salinity levels affecting wildlife, wildlife
encroaching into urban areas, loss of wetlands.
Relief, Response, and Restrictions: Drought effects associated with disaster declarations, aid
programs, requests for disaster declaration or aid, water restrictions, fire restrictions. Impacts include:
Disaster declarations, aid programs, USDA Secretarial disaster declarations, Small Business Association
disaster declarations, government relief and response programs, state -level declarations, county -level
declarations, a declared "state of emergency," requests for declarations or aid, non-profit organization -
based relief, water restrictions, fire restrictions, declaration of drought watches or warnings.
Society and Public Health: Drought effects associated with public and human health. Examples of
drought -induced social impacts include: health -related problems related to reduced water quantity
and/or quality, such as increased concentration of contaminants; loss of human life (e.g., from heat
stress); increased respiratory ailments; increased disease caused by wildlife concentrations; population
migration (rural to urban areas, migrants into the United States); loss of aesthetic values; change in daily
activities (non -recreational, like putting a bucket in the shower to catch water), elevated stress levels,
meetings to discuss drought, communities creating drought plans, lawmakers altering penalties for
violation of water restrictions, demand for higher water rates, cultural/historical discoveries from low
water levels, cancellation of fundraising events, cancellation/alteration of festivals or holiday traditions,
stockpiling water, public service announcements and drought information websites, protests.
Tourism and Recreation: Drought effects associated with recreational activities and tourism. Examples
of drought -induced tourism and recreation impacts include: water access or navigation problems for
recreation; bans on recreational activities; reduced license, permit, or ticket sales (e.g. hunting, fishing,
ski lifts, etc.); losses related to curtailed activities (e.g. bird watching, hunting and fishing, boating, etc.);
reduced park visitation; delayed opening for ski resorts; increase in artificial snow generation;
cancellation or postponement of sporting events.
Water Supply and Quality: Drought effects associated with water supply and water quality. Examples
of drought -induced water supply and quality impacts include: Dry wells, water restrictions, changes in
water rates, easing of water restrictions, increase in requests for new well permits, changes in water use
due to water restrictions, greater water demand, decrease in water allocation or allotments, installation
or alteration of water pumps or water intakes, changes to allowable water contaminants, water line
damage or repairs due to drought stress, drinking water turbidity, change in water color or odor,
declaration of drought watches or warnings, mitigation activities.
1107
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Based on data collected by the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), the state-wide impact
assessment, Weld County has recorded major impacts from drought since 1935.4 Figure 38 summarizes
these impacts over the last decade. A majority of the impacts affect agriculture, with other common
impacts focused on: plants & wildlife; relief, response, & restrictions; and water supply & quality.
Figure 38. Weld County Drought Impacts (2010-20)
NATIONAL DROUGk1T MITIGATION CENTER
IINIV.[RSITY Or N£BRASIt�A
Map
Advanced Search Submit a Report About the DIR Help
(g)
0S t Like C!ty
Albuquerque
Source: NDMC Drought Impact Reporter
"FortC
Impacts I Weld County, CO
10-13-2010 - 10-13-2020
County Impacts 34
Category
•Agriculture 21
• Business & Industry 3
• Fire 5
• Plants & Wildlife 14
Q Relief, Response & Restrictions 10
• Society & Public Health 1
QTourism & Recreation 3
•Water Supply & Quality 11
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Paleoclimatology Program studies drought by
analyzing records from tree rings, lake and dune sediments, archaeological remains, historical
documents, and other environmental indicators to obtain a broader picture of the frequency of droughts
in the United States. According to their research, "paleoclimatic data suggest that droughts as severe as
the 1950's drought have occurred in central North America several times a century over the past 300-
400 years, and thus we should expect (and plan for) similar droughts in the future. The paleoclimatic
record also indicates that droughts of a much greater duration than any in the 20th century have
4 2018 Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan
I 108
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
occurred in parts of North America as recently as 500 years ago." Based on this research, the 1950's
drought situation could be expected approximately once every 50 years or a 20% chance every ten
years. An extreme drought, worse than the 1930's "Dust Bowl," has an approximate probability of
occurring once every 500 years or a 2% chance of occurring each decade.5 A 500 -year drought with a
magnitude similar to that of the 1930's that destroys the agricultural economy and leads to wildfires is
an example of a high magnitude event.
5.9.3 Data Analytics
Drought was not utilized as an input into the composite risk layer due to the hazards lack of geographic
variability.
5.9.4 Inventory Exposed
Drought typically does not have a direct impact on structures and infrastructure, though certain Lifelines
can be affected. Lifelines impacted by drought include Food / Water, with indirect impacts to Health &
Medical, and Safety & Security. Drought conditions evolve slowly over time and communities typically
have ample time to prepare for the effects. Should a drought affect the water available for public water
systems or individual wells, the availability of clean drinking water could be compromised. This situation
would require emergency actions and could possibly overwhelm the local government and financial
resources.
Impacts from drought can include the following:
• Economic losses to agricultural producers (crops and livestock)
• Physical and mental health issues
• Water supply interruption for business and industry
• Water quality problems
• Reduced soil and vegetation moisture
• Vegetation mortality, insect infestations
• Impacts to fish and wildlife populations
• Increase in wildland fires and associated losses
5.9.5 Potential Losses
Possible losses/impacts to facilities include the loss of critical function due to low water supplies. Severe
droughts can negatively affect drinking water supplies. Should a public water system be affected, the
losses could total into the millions of dollars if outside water is shipped in. Private springs/wells could
also dry up. Possible losses to infrastructure include the loss of potable water.
Although drought events rarely pose immediate risks to public health, they can impact local public health
in numerous ways. Examples of drought -induced public health impacts include: increased respiratory
ailments due to increased particulate matter in the air; sickness due to decreased availability of clean
water; increased disease caused by wildlife concentrations; population migrations (rural to urban areas);
loss of human life (e.g. from heat stress, suicides); and impacts on behavioral health (due to
unemployment in the agricultural sector, stress on the tourism and other businesses related to the
natural environment and/or water).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003
I 109
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The impacts of drought on local vegetation and wildlife can include death from dehydration and spread
of invasive species or disease because of stressed conditions. In general, environmental impacts from
drought are more likely at the interface of the human and natural world. The loss of crops or livestock
due to drought can have far-reaching economic effects on communities, wind and water erosion can
alter the visual landscape, and dust can damage property. Water -based recreational resources are also
heavily affected by drought conditions. Indirect impacts from drought arise from wildfire, which may
have additional effects on the landscape and sensitive resources such as historic or archeological sites.
Due to the nature of drought, all jurisdictions within Weld County are expected to experience similar
physical impacts from drought conditions. However, local communities with large agricultural, livestock,
and tourism -based economies are expected to bear the brunt of drought effects in the county.
5.9.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
Due to the nature of drought, it is an extremely difficult hazard to predict. However, identifying various
indicators of drought, and tracking these indicators, provides a crucial means of monitoring drought.
Additionally, understanding the historical frequency, duration, and spatial extent of drought assists in
determining the likelihood and potential severity of future droughts. The characteristics of past
droughts provide benchmarks for projecting similar conditions into the future. The probability of Weld
County and its municipalities experiencing a drought event can be difficult to quantify. However, based
on historical record of 7 drought -related USDA Secretarial Disasters affecting Weld County between
2006 and 2020, this type of event has occurred once every 2 years.
Historic frequency suggests that there is a 50% chance of this type of event occurring each year. The
Colorado Climate Report, published by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), include
climate models that project Colorado will warm by 2.5°F by 2025 and 4°F by 2050, relative to the 1950-
99 baseline. If these projections are accurate, changes in the quantity and quality of water are likely to
occur due to warming, even in the absence of precipitation changes.
5.9.7 Land Use and Development
Society's vulnerability to drought is affected largely by population growth, urbanization, demographic
characteristics, technology, water use trends, government policy, social behavior, and environmental
awareness. These factors are continually changing, and society's vulnerability to drought may rise or fall
in response to these changes. For example, increasing and shifting populations puts increasing pressure
on water and other natural resources —more people need more water.
Future development greatly impacts drought hazards by stressing both surface and ground water
resources. Agricultural and industrial water users consume large amounts of water. Expansion of water -
intensive enterprises is limited in a time when water resources are strained. In rapidly growing
communities, new water and sewer systems or significant well and septic sites could use up more of the
water available, particularly during periods of drought. Public water systems are monitored, but
individual wells and septic systems are not as strictly regulated. Therefore, future development could
have a profound impact on the vulnerability of Weld County communities to drought.
Related to both current land use and future development trends, the use of turf grass affects the
available water supplies. Maintaining lush, green lawns in the semi -arid climate of the Front Range
requires large amounts of water. Urban lawn watering is the single largest water demand on most
municipal supplies. Outdoor water use accounts for about 55 percent of the residential water use in the
I 110
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Front Range urban area, most of which is used on turf. 6 Residential and commercial landscaping can
greatly impact future drought events and future water use regulations may be able to mitigate this trend.
As Weld County continues to grow, it will consider practical guidelines for determining the impacts of
drought such as measuring the economic value of water in alternative uses and objective methods for
quantifying non -market impacts of drought on those uses. Additionally, Weld County will consider
guidance found within the State of Colorado's Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan as well as the Colorado
Drought Mitigation and Response Plan.
6 http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/consumer/09952.html
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.10 Earthquake
LOW RISK HAZARD
5.1 0.1 Hazard Identification
An earthquake is the motion or trembling of the ground produced by sudden displacement of rock
usually within the upper I 0 - 20 miles of the Earth's crust. Earthquakes can affect hundreds of
thousands of square miles, cause damage to property measured in the tens of billions of dollars, result in
loss of life and injury to hundreds of thousands of people, and disrupt the social and economic
functioning of the affected area. Most property damage and earthquake -related deaths are caused by
the failure and collapse of structures due to ground shaking which is dependent upon amplitude and
duration of the earthquake.
Regardless of the source of the earthquake, the associated energy travels in waves radiating outward
from the point of release. When these waves travel along the surface, the ground shakes and rolls,
fractures form, and water waves may be generated. Earthquakes generally last a matter of seconds but
the waves may travel for long distances and cause damage well after the initial shaking at the point of
origin has subsided.
Breaks in the crust associated with seismic activity are known as "faults" and are classified as either
active or inactive. Faults may be expressed on the surface by sharp cliffs or scarps or may be buried
below surface deposits.
"Foreshocks," minor releases of pressure or slippage, may occur months or minutes before the actual
onset of the earthquake. "Aftershocks," which range from minor to major, may occur for months after
the main earthquake. In some cases, strong aftershocks may cause significant additional damage,
especially if the initial earthquake impacted emergency management and response functions or
weakened structures.
The damage associated with each earthquake is subject to four primary variables:
Seismic Activity: The properties of earthquakes vary greatly from event to event. Some seismic activity
is localized (a small point of energy release), while other activity is widespread (e.g., a major fault shifting
or slipping all at once). Earthquakes can be very brief (only a few seconds) or last for a minute or more.
The depth of release and type of seismic waves generated also play roles in the nature and location of
damage; shallow quakes will hit the area close to the epicenter harder, but tend to be felt across a
smaller region than deep earthquakes.
Geology and Soils: The surface geology and soils of an area influence the propagation (conduction) of
seismic waves and how strongly the energy is felt. Generally, stable areas (e.g., solid bedrock)
experience less destructive shaking than unstable areas (e.g., fill soils). The siting of a community or even
individual buildings plays a strong role in the nature and extent of damage from an event.
Development: An earthquake in a densely populated area which results in many deaths and
considerable damage may have the same magnitude as a shock in a remote area that has no direct
impacts. Large magnitude earthquakes that occur beneath the oceans may not even be felt by humans.
Time of Day: The time of day of an event controls the distribution of the population of an affected
area. On work days, the majority of the community will transition between work or school, home, and
I 112
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
the commute between the two. The relative seismic vulnerability of each location can strongly influence
the loss of life and injury resulting from an event.
Additional damages from an earthquake can stem from the following processes:
Shaking: During minor earthquake events, objects often fall from shelves and dishes rattle. In major
events, large structures may be torn apart by the forces of the seismic waves. Structural damage is
generally limited to older structures that are poorly maintained, poorly constructed, or improperly (or
not) designed for seismic events. Un-reinforced masonry buildings and wood frame homes not anchored
to their foundations are typical victims of earthquake damage.
Loose or poorly secured objects also pose a significant hazard when they are loosened or dropped by
shaking. These "non-structural falling hazard" objects include bookcases, heavy wall hangings, and
building facades. Home water heaters pose a special risk due to their tendency to start fires when they
topple over and rupture gas lines. Crumbling chimneys may also be responsible for injuries and property
damage.
Dam and bridge failures are significant risks during stronger earthquake events, and due to the
consequences of such failures, may result in considerable property damage and loss of life. In areas of
severe seismic shaking hazard, shaking Intensity levels of VII or higher (see Table 38) can be experienced
even on solid bedrock. In these areas, older buildings especially are at significant risk.
Ground Displacement: Ground displacement can also occur due to shaking, resulting in similar
damages as mentioned previously.
Landslides: Even small earthquake events can cause landslides. Rock falls are common as unstable
material on steep slopes is shaken loose, but significant landslides or even debris flows can be generated
if conditions are ripe. Roads may be blocked by landslide activity, hampering response and recovery
operations.
Liquefaction and Subsidence: Soils may liquefy and/or subside when impacted by the seismic waves.
Fill and previously saturated soils are especially at risk. The failure of the soils has the potential to cause
widespread structural damage. The oscillation and failure of the soils may result in increased water flow
and/or failure of wells as the subsurface flows are disrupted and sometimes permanently altered.
Increased flows may be dramatic, resulting in geyser -like water spouts and/or flash floods. Similarly,
septic systems may be damaged creating both inconvenience and health concerns.
Seiches: Seismic waves may rock an enclosed body of water (e.g., lake or reservoir), creating an
oscillating wave referred to as a "seiche." Although not a common cause of damage in past Colorado
earthquakes, there is a potential for large, forceful waves similar to a tsunami ("tidal waves") to be
generated on the large reservoirs within and neighboring Weld County. Such a wave would be a hazard
to shoreline development and pose a significant risk on dam -created reservoirs. A seiche could either
overtop or damage a dam leading to downstream flash flooding.
The impact an earthquake event has on an area is typically measured in terms of earthquake intensity.
Intensity is most commonly measured using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale based on direct
and indirect measurements of seismic effects.
Another way to express an earthquake's severity is to compare its acceleration to the normal
acceleration due to gravity. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) measures the strength of ground
movements in this manner. PGA represents the rate in change of motion of the earth's surface during
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
an earthquake as a percent of the established rate of acceleration due to gravity. PGA can be partly
determined by what soils and bedrock characteristics exist in the region. Unlike the MMI, PGA is not a
measure of the total energy released by an earthquake, but rather of how hard the earth shakes at a
given geographic area (the intensity). PGA is measured by using instruments including accelerographs
and correlates well with the Mercalli scale. A detailed description of the Modified Mercalli Intensity
Scale is shown in the following table.
Table 38. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
r r1
I
1 F'—'— sr17�
Instrumental
r rr r-1 , v r rr
Detected only on seismographs
r� �sJi
< 0.0017
_ r1
ri „ _ I s i'-,, r;—,
< 4.2
II
Feeble
Some people feel it
0.0018 —
0.014
III
Slight
Felt by people resting; like a truck
rumbling by
IV
Moderate
Felt by people walking
0.015 —
0.039
V
Slightly Strong
Sleepers awake; church bells ring
0.040 —
0 .092
< 4.8
VI
Strong
Trees sway; suspended objects
swing; objects fall off shelves
0.093 — 0.18
< 5.4
VII
Very Strong
Mild alarm, walls crack, plaster falls
0.19 — 0.34
< 6.1
-111
F ;r
Moving cars uncontrollable,
masonry fractures, poorly
constructed buildings damaged
0.34 — 0.65
< 6.9
<<
r.r ;u .n
Some houses collapse, ground
cracks, pipes break open
0.65 — 1.24
Pi qz
Ground cracks profusely, many
buildings destroyed, liquefaction
and landslides widespread
> 1.24
< 7.3
XI
Very
Disastrous
Most buildings and bridges collapse,
roads, railways, pipes and cables
destroyed, general triggering of
other hazards
> 1.24
< 8.1
XII
Catastrophic
Total destruction, trees fall, ground
rises and falls in waves
> 1.24
> 8.1
I 114
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Studies indicate that there are about 100 potentially active fault lines in Colorado. Over 500 earthquake
tremors of magnitude 2.5 or higher have been recorded across the state since 1870. It is likely that
more earthquakes of similar magnitude occurred during that time, but were not recorded due to low
population densities and limited coverage of sensors across most of the State. For comparison, over
20,500 similarly sized events have been recorded in the State of California since 1870.
Relative to other western states, Colorado's earthquake risk is higher than Kansas or Oklahoma, lower
than Utah, and much lower than Nevada and California (Colorado OEM, 2003). Despite Colorado's
lower earthquake risk, based on geologic observations and characteristics of faults located in the region,
seismologists predict that Colorado will indeed experience a magnitude 6.5 earthquake at some point in
the future.
Future earthquakes are assumed to be likely to occur where earthquakes have produced faults in the
geologically recent past. Quaternary faults are faults that have slipped in the last 1.8 million years and it
is widely accepted that they are the most likely source of future large earthquakes. For this reason,
quaternary faults are used to make fault sources for future earthquake models.
5.10.2 Previous Occurrences
Earthquakes are relatively infrequent in Colorado and records of historical earthquakes in and around
Weld County are limited. The following Table provides a list of Colorado's larger earthquakes recorded
since 1870.
Table 39. Notable Earthquake Events in Colorado (1870 - 2020)
1870
Pueblo/Ft. Reynolds
VI
1871
Lily Park, Moffat County
VI
1880
Aspen
VI
1882
North central Colorado
6.6*
VII
1891
Axial Basin (Maybell)
VI
1901
Buena Vista
VI
1913
Ridgeway Area
VI
1944
Montrose/Basalt
VI
1955
Lake City
VI
1960
Montrose/Ridgeway
5.5
V
1966
NE of Denver
5.0
V
1966
CO -NM border, near Dulce, NM
5.5
VII
1967
NE Denver
5.3
VII
1967
NE Denver
5.2
VI
2011
Southwest of Trinidad
5.3
VIII
*Estimated, based on historical felt reports
Source: Colorado Geological Survey
The most economically damaging earthquake in Colorado's history occurred on August 9th, 1967 in the
Denver metro area. The 5.3 magnitude earthquake caused more than a million dollars of damage in
Denver and the northern suburbs. That earthquake was followed by an earthquake of magnitude 5.2
three months later in November 1967. Although these two earthquake events cannot be classified as
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
"major earthquakes" they are significant because of their location along the Front Range Urban
Corridor, an area where nearly 75 percent of Colorado residents and many Lifelines are located.
Historically, earthquake risk in Colorado has been rated lower than most subject experts consider
justified. It is critically important that local emergency managers in and around Weld County become
fully aware of the size and consequences of an earthquake that could occur.
Figure 39 presents the locations of historical earthquakes around Weld County. Many of the larger
events in the Region have occurred within miles of the County's Southern boundary.
I 116
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 39. Historical Earthquakes
I 117
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.1 0.3 Data Analytics
The input into the composite risk layer developed with the data analytics suitability model for
earthquake is shown in Figure 40.
Figure 40. Composite Risk Layer Earthquake Input
Earthquake
USGS Selsmk Hazard
PGA 2% in 50 Years {%z
4
6
ID
Dail Source Limed states Geologx Surrey Nmmond Se1snnc Hczcn Map •20741
5.10.4 Inventory Exposed
The most appropriate risk assessment methodology for seismic hazards involves scenario modeling using
FEMA's Hazus loss estimation software. Hazus is a very useful planning tool because it provides an
acceptable means of forecasting earthquake damage, loss of function of infrastructure, and casualties,
among many other factors.
Utilizing Hazus 4.2, an updated earthquake analyses was conducted for Weld County. The Hazus
earthquake scenario modeled a magnitude 6.5 probabilistic event using a 2,500 year return period. This
return period equates to a 2% probability of occurrence in 50 years and is the return period used by the
International Building Code as the basis for seismic building design. This scenario was used because it
represents the "worst case scenario" for Weld County communities.
According to the Hazus inventory, there are an estimated 90,000 buildings in Weld County with a total
building replacement value (excluding contents) of over $23 Billion. Approximately 92% of the buildings
(and 82% of the building value) are associated with residential housing.
1118
e R�rnue+�cv >Hnnn�:r MF v
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.1 0.5 Potential Losses
In Colorado, earthquakes are considered low probability, high -consequence events. Although
earthquakes may occur infrequently, they can have devastating impacts. Ground shaking can lead to the
collapse of buildings and bridges and disruptions to other Lifelines. Deaths, injuries, and extensive
property damage are possible vulnerabilities from this hazard. Some secondary hazards caused by
earthquakes may include fire, hazardous material release, landslides, flash flooding, seiches, and dam
failure. Moderate and even very large earthquakes are inevitable, although very infrequent, in areas of
normally low seismic activity. Consequently, buildings in these regions are seldom designed to deal with
an earthquake threat; therefore, they are extremely vulnerable.
Most property damage and earthquake -related injuries and deaths are caused by the failure and collapse
of structures due to ground shaking. The level of damage depends upon the amplitude and duration of
the shaking, which are directly related to the earthquake size, distance from the fault, site, and regional
geology.
Figure 41 details the estimated total economic losses based upon the modeled 6.5 event. The Hazus
tool performs its earthquake analysis at the Census Tract level. In Weld County, the largest losses are
expected to occur in Greeley and the surrounding areas. This is caused by the higher population
densities in these areas, coupled with the age and type of building stocks present across those
communities. A number of variables are included in Hazus analyses in order to arrive at the estimated
values of loss. For this reason, it is important to note that the Hazus loss estimates detailed below
should not be used as a precise measure, but rather viewed from the perspective of the potential
magnitudes of expected losses.
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 41. Hazus Earthquake Estimated Losses
1120
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Other loss estimates from the Hazus scenario to point out include:
• The vast majority of damages are expected to affect residential housing.
• Unreinforced masonry structures will experience —70% of the collective expected complete
building damages.
• No major damages are modeled for any "Essential Facilities", which includes: hospitals, schools,
fire and police stations, and EOCs.
• No major damages are expected to any transportation systems or utility facilities, though a
number of water utility pipeline leaks and breaks are anticipated.
• 61,000 tons of debris are expected to be generated from this type of event.
• Only 56 households are modeled as being displaced by this event.
For additional loss estimates and further details see Appendix C: Earthquake Hazus Risk Report.
5.10.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
Even though the seismic hazard risk in Weld County is low to moderate, it is likely that earthquakes will
occur in the County in the future. It is reasonable to expect future earthquakes as large as magnitude
6.5, the largest event on record in Colorado. Calculations based on the historical earthquake records
and geological evidence of recent fault activity suggest that an earthquake of magnitude 6 or greater may
be expected somewhere in Colorado every several centuries.
Ultimately, the probability of an earthquake occurring in Weld County is low. Additionally, if an
earthquake were to occur in the near future it is likely to be of a low magnitude, with expected damages
to property and people to be minimal. History has shown, however, that Weld County and Colorado
are at risk to a larger magnitude seismic event. Should that type of event occur, major damages and
losses should be expected. This fact makes these low probability, high impact hazards a challenge to
deal with when planning a mitigation strategy to combat all hazards faced by a community.
5.10.7 Land Use and Development
With the unpredictable nature of earthquake epicenter locations, it is not feasible to identify specific
areas where development may exacerbate the risk to an earthquake. It should be assumed that all
development increases the risk to the County from the threat of earthquakes. As population and
development continue to expand in Weld County, continued enforcement of the unified construction
code has great potential to mitigate increasing vulnerability and development pressure.
Due to the nature of earthquake hazards, areas in Weld County with high population densities and large
numbers of structures and Lifelines are expected to experience greater damage and loss from an
earthquake event. This includes jurisdictions located primarily in the central western and southwestern
portion of the county, such as:
• Greeley
• Windsor
• Johnstown
• Evans
• Fort Lupton
Communities located in the eastern part of the County, may experience differential impacts from an
earthquake event if transportation or utility infrastructure is damaged and prevents communities from
responding or evacuating.
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Standard building codes have the opportunity to provide Weld County with reasonable guidance for
development throughout unincorporated and incorporated areas. Contractors and builders should be
aware of applicable codes and regulations designed to reduce losses sustained by new and existing
construction due to seismic hazards.
As development grows in the County and its municipalities, it will be important for citizens to consult
with local building codes as modern building codes generally require seismic design elements for new
construction.
I 122
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.11 Extreme Temperatures
MODERATE RISK HAZARD
5.1 1.1 Hazard Identification
Extreme temperatures pose a risk to all Weld County communities and include the ranges on the far
ends of a thermometer, exceptionally cold or extraordinarily hot. These temperatures can lead to crop
or property damage and in the worst cases injuries or death of community members. The impacts of
extreme cold and extreme heat differ, but are immediate and can be long lasting.
Extreme Cold
Weld County has relatively mild temperatures throughout the year, which do not vary much across the
County geography. Winter temperature averages fall between 40-50°F highs and 15-25°F lows, between
November and February. Winters on the eastern plains are typically dry, cold, and windy. Although
snowfall is usually light, winter blizzards do affect Weld County residents.
Hazardous cold temperatures are those that drop well below what is considered normal for an area
during the winter months. Windchill temperature is a critical factor in deciding the safety of the outside
weather. Windchill is how cold people or animals feel outside and is based on the rate of heat loss from
exposed skin to wind and cold. Windchill is calculated from wind speed and the outdoor temperature.
As the wind increases, it draws heat from the body, driving down skin temperature and eventually the
internal body temperature. These temperatures can be life threatening to people and animals exposed
for extended periods of time.
The elderly, young children, people with mobility issues, those with independent living difficulty, low
income families, and those experiencing homelessness are the most likely to suffer the negative effects of
extreme cold.
The Wind Chill Chart (Figure 42) from the National Weather Service illustrates the effect of wind
speeds on temperatures. The chart shows the actual air temperature and based on the effect of wind
speed, what the perceived temperature is. The data also includes the amount of time until frostbite
occurs.
I 123
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 42. Wild Chill Chart
Wind Chill Chart
Temperature (OF)
Calm 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45
5 36 31 25 19 13 7 1 -5 -11 -16 -57 -63
10 34 27 21 15 9 3 -4 -10 -16 7 -53 -59 46 72
15 32 25 19 13 6 0 -7 -13 -45 -51 -58 -64 -71 -77
20 30 24 17 11 4 -2 -9 -15 - - ': -42 -48 -55 -61 -68 -74 -81
25 29 23 16 9 3 -4 -11 -17 7 -44 -51 -58 -64 -71 -78 -84
E 30 28 22 15 8 1 -5 -12 -39 -46 -53 -60 -67 -73 -80 -87
c 35 28 21 14 7 0 -7 -14 34 -41 -48 -55 -62 -69 -76 -82 -89
40 27 20 13 6 -1 -8 -15 -36 -43 -50 -57 -64 -71 -78 -84 -91
45 26 19 12 5 -2 -9 -16 -37 -44 -51 -58 -65 -72 -79 -86 -93
50 26 19 12 4 -3 -10 -17 -38 -45 -52 -60 -67 -74 -81 -88 -95
55 25 18 11 4 -3 -11 - - 2 -39 -46 -54 -61 -68 -75 -82 -89 -97
60 25 17 10 3 -4 -11 -33 .40 -48 -55 -62 -69 -76 -84 -91 -98
Frostbite Times • 30 minutes ❑ 70 minutes n 5 minutes
Wind Chill (°F) = 35.74 + 0.62151- 35.75(V°•'6) + 0.4275T(V°.}6)
Where, T= Air Temperature (OF) V� Wind Speed (mph) Effective 11101101
The National Weather Service issues alerts when weather conditions may be dangerous. The following
table explains the specific circumstances for an alert to be issued.
Table 40. National Weather Service Wind Chill Alert
Wind Chill Watch
Wind Chill Advisory
Wind Chill Warning
There is a chance that wind chill temperatures will decrease to at least 24°F
below zero during the next 24 to 48 hours.
The wind chill conditions could be life threatening if action is not taken. The
expected wind chill readings will be between 15°F to 24°F below zero.
Wind chill readings are life threatening. Expected readings of 25°F below zero
or lower.
Source: National Weather Service
I 124
e R�rnue+�cv M4Ni _.F Mi.vI
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 41. Extreme Cold Illnesses
Frost Bite
Frostbite is caused by freezing, resulting in
a loss of feeling and color in the affected
areas. It most often affects the nose, ears,
cheeks, chin, fingers, or toes. Frostbite can
permanently damage body tissues
Abnormally low body temperature which
affects the brain, making the victim unable
to think clearly or move well. Particularly
dangerous because a person may not
know it is happening and will not be able
to do anything about it.
Reduced blood flow to hands and
feet
Numbness, Tingling or stinging,
Aching
Bluish or pale, waxy skin
Shivering, Fatigue, Blue skin
Loss of coordination
Confusion and disorientation
Dilated pupils
Slowed pulse and breathing
Loss of consciousness
Hypothermia
Source: Centers for Disease Control
Extreme Heat
Weld County see its highest temperatures between June and August. Summer temperature averages fall
between 80-90°F highs and 50-60°F lows. Extreme heat events are most common between June and
August, when above average temperatures are sustained for an extended period, but events may occur
in May or September, as well.
Extreme heat criteria vary based on the average high temperature for a region. A heat wave is described
as extreme high temperatures for at least two days and prolonged exposure to the heat can lead to
illness and possibly death. While rare in Weld County, high humidity during heat waves makes the
effects of heat more harmful.
Extreme heat events are a considerable public health concern and heat is the primary weather -related
cause of death in the United States. Especially susceptible are young children, the elderly, people with
mobility issues, those with independent living difficulty, low income families, outdoor laborers and those
experiencing homelessness.
During extreme heat events, individuals can suffer a variety of health problems, including heatstroke,
heat exhaustion, heat syncope, and heat cramps. Heat -related illness and death can occur from exposure
to intense heat in one afternoon, however, heat stress on the body has a cumulative effect.
The National Weather Service Heat Index (Figure 43) measures the severity of hot weather by
estimating how hot it feels to humans. By combining air temperature and relative humidity, the Heat
Index is directly related to skin temperature. The index includes classification of how dangerous
exposure and strenuous activity can be based on the temperature range.
It is worth noting heat index values were devised for shady, light wind conditions and exposure to full
sunshine can increase heat index values by up to 15°F. Also, strong winds, particularly with very hot, dry
air, can be extremely hazardous.
I 125
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 43. National Weather Service Heat Index
Relative Humidity {°10}
NWS Heat index
Temperature (°F}
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 1D$ 108 110
80 81 83 85 88 91 94 97 101
80 82 84 87 89 93 96 100
8'l 83 85 88 91 95 99 103
81 84 86 89 93 97 101
82 84 88 91 95 100
82 86 89 93 98 103
83 86 90 95 100
84 88 92 97
84 89 94 100
85 90 96 102
86 91 98
86 93 100
87 95 103
Likelihood of Heat Disorders with Prolonged Exposure or Strenuous Activity
ID Caution 0 Extrerne Caution IN Danger • Extreme Danger
Source: National Weather Service
The National Weather Service issues alerts when weather conditions may be dangerous. The following
table explains the specific circumstances for an alert to be issued.
Table 42. National Weather Service Heat Alerts
Excessive Heat Warning
Issued within 12 hours of onset of extremely dangerous conditions.
Criteria vary across the country, but in general warning is issued when
the maximum heat index temperature is expected to be 105°F or higher
for at least 2 days and nighttime air temperatures will not drop below
75°F.
Excessive Heat Watch
Issued when conditions are favorable for an excessive heat event in the
next 24 to 72 hours. Used when the risk of a heat wave has increased
but its occurrence and timing is still uncertain.
Source: National Weather Service
Table 43 holds explanations of the most dangerous illnesses related to heat exposure. For the safety of
community members, it is important to understand that not all heat -related illness occurs during
extreme event conditions and it is critical to recognize the onset of a heat -related illness regardless of
weather activity. Understanding the signs and symptoms can help to get medical care for a person as
quickly as possible. Outside temperatures that may not seem dangerous can have negative effects on a
variety of people, such as sports teams practicing outside and construction workers due to strenuous
activity. Incredibly unfortunate incidents can happen when people and pets are left in cars or homes
without air conditioning on what seems like a reasonable temperature day. Proper education about
I 126
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
heat illness and temperature fluctuations involves the understanding that extreme heat can come in a
weather event, but illness and death can occur due to smaller scale temperature fluctuations.
Table 43. Heat Stress Illnesses
Heat Exhaustion
Excessive loss of the body's water due to
excessive sweating, typically. Most
susceptible are the elderly, those with high
blood pressure and those work in a hot
environment.
Headache, Nausea, Dizziness,
Weakness, Irritability, Thirst, Heavy
sweating, Elevated body temperature
Heat Stroke
The most serious of heat -related illness,
can be fatal if treatment is delayed. Body
temperature can rise to 106°F or higher
within 10 to 15 minutes.
Confusion, slurred speech,
Loss of consciousness (coma).
seizures
Hot, dry skin or profuse sweating
Very high body temperature
Source: Centers for Disease Control
5. I 1.2 Previous Occurrences
Extreme Cold
Winter weather alerts go out to the region at least once a year and most of these warn about large
amounts of snow and expected road conditions. In some cases, they will warn specifically about extreme
cold dangers and discourage people from being outside for extended periods. Two recent storms were
large enough to impact Weld County considerably, with dangerous roadways and extreme cold
conditions that put the community at significant risk.
In March 2019, a bomb cyclone impacted large parts of the state, disrupting power, causing numerous
multi -car accidents and stranding 1,500 motorists across the state. A bomb cyclone is a storm
characterized by a large, rapid drop in barometric pressure over 24 hours and wind gusts between 60-
100 mph. The impacts of the bomb cyclone in Weld County began with beneficial steady rainfall and
progressed to 54 mph wind gusts, whipping snow across roadways and crops. With a midday high
temperature of only 29°F the event brought windchill temperatures of 10°F and below. While only 4.1
inches of snow fell in Greeley during the March event other towns got up to 9 inches. An April storm
which was predicted to be similar to the bomb cyclone, brought 10 inches of snow to Greeley. The
April storm was milder in winds with only 36mph wind gusts and less barometric pressure change, but
had windchill temperatures of around 10°F.
In January 2017, an unforecasted storm surprised Weld County residents with 6 inches of snow
overnight. The storm continued to snow with accumulation between 6-12 inches across the county.
With hazardous conditions of low visibility and icy roads on the 1-25 corridor, the temperatures
presented even more of a threat to motorists and residents. Low temperatures of -2°F and wind chill
temperatures of -25°F created a dangerous extreme cold event
NOAA's National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) storm database tracks historical cold
weather conditions, which are categorized as winter weather, winter storm, blizzard or cold/windchill
events.
I 127
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
• Winter weather is an event in which there is freezing rain or when 2-4 inches of snow (alone or
in combination with sleet and freezing rain) is expected to cause inconvenience for community
members.
• Winter storm is a weather event which has more than one significant hazard (a combination of
two or more of the following: snow, heavy or blowing snow, ice or sleet) and meets or exceeds
12 and/or 24 hour local warning criteria for at least one of the precipitation elements. Normally
a winter storm would pose a threat to life or property.
• A blizzard is a life -threatening event produced by a combination of falling or blowing snow, and
high winds, typically 35 mph or more for a prolonged period of time. There is no temperature
requirement that must be met to achieve blizzard conditions. This combination can create
potentially deadly travel conditions with impassable roads and zero visibilities.
• Cold/wind chill events have periods of extremely low temperatures or wind chill temperatures
reaching or exceeding locally/regionally defined warning criteria.
The NCEI database began in 1950, however, data for Weld County is only available beginning in 1996.
The NCEI explains that this is due to adaptations in data collection and processing procedures over
time. It can be logically assumed that Weld County had significant weather and extreme cold events
prior to 1996. Unfortunately, the lack of data interferes with the ability to track changes and patterns
longitudinally. Table 44 lists the significant winter weather and cold/wind chill events for Weld County,
separated by type and grouped by decade. Listing the specific events in each year does not lend itself to
creating a holistic picture of the number of events seen in Weld County over time.
Table 44. Cold Weather Events in Weld County (1996 — June 2020)
1-
iild
0
1996 - 2005 0
21 0 2
0
0
0
2006 - 2015
23
22
0
0
0
$102,000
0
2016 -June
2020
18
12
7
0
0
0
0
Event
Type
Totals
41
55
7
3
0
$102,000
0
Total
Events
106
Source: NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database; SHELDUS; Weld County
Extreme Heat
Data supports a shift towards a warmer climate with an increase in extreme high temperatures across
the United States. Figure 44 below depicts the Colorado annual mean temperature history from 1895 to
2019. The probability of continued and more frequent extreme heat events across Colorado is
supported by the clear upward trend in high temperatures since 1895.
I 128
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 44. Mean Colorado Temperature Trends (1895 — 2019)
melt; �:o:rtu, Caloraon
— LOESS Filter
I
Source: NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance
The Extreme Heat Events data available on CDC WONDER are county -level measures of the number
of heat wave days in the months of May through September spanning the years 1981-2010. Heat events
for daily maximum Heat Index were defined as any period of at least two consecutive days on which the
county maximum Heat Index reached or exceeded the 95th percentile. When this condition was met,
each of the consecutive days was identified as a "heat event day" for this definition. Table 45 presents
this data by decade.
Table 45. Weld County Heat Wave Days (1981-2010)
1981- 1990
1991- 2000
2001-2010
Total Events
39
41
94
174
Source: CDC WONDER Database
5. 11.3 I.3 Data Analytics
Extreme temperatures were not utilized as an input into the composite risk layer due to the hazard's
lack of geographic variability.
5. 11.4 I.4 Inventory Exposed
Damages in Weld County from extreme temperature events depend on a variety of factors and which
end of the thermometer the event is defined by. All inventory and assets located in Weld County can be
considered to be exposed to extreme temperatures.
I 129
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The County's critical facilities should be able to provide adequate protection to community members in
the event of an extreme temperature incident. Facilities with back-up generators are equipped to
handle power outages during severe weather. Additionally, public buildings with heating and cooling
systems are ideal shelters for both extreme cold or extreme heat occurrences.
Crops and livestock can be adversely affected by all extreme temperature events. Livestock are as
sensitive as humans to low temperatures and even lower wind chill, so shelter is imperative for farmers
during these events. If a low temperature event comes too early in the season, crops that may still be
viable in the field could freeze and be lost before the chance to harvest them. During heat events,
livestock may struggle without adequate water or shade, and crops may be irreversibly damaged due to
the extended period of heat. Unfortunately, in most cases, there is little that can be done by farmers to
mitigate the effects of extreme temperatures on their crops.
Extreme Cold
The most common building damage from extreme cold temperature exposure are freezing pipes that
may burst and cause water damage. This is an issue for private homeowners and businesses, as well as
Weld County properties.
Risks for buildings exposed to extreme cold changes are based on features such as the age and type of
the building, construction material used, and condition of the structure. Specific construction elements
can pose a greater likelihood of damage, such as large span roofs, which may leak or collapse under
heavy snow loads.
Travel infrastructure can be affected during the winter months, as freezing temperatures and repeated
freeze -thaw events can cause potholes, which may damage vehicles. Hazardous travel conditions, due to
winter weather, may be more dangerous if potholes are not tended to promptly.
Damage and possible losses to critical infrastructure are a significant concern during an extreme cold
event. Physical damage to essential parts of infrastructure due to ice build-up, burst pipes or high winds
could result in disruption of vital services, including water, fuel and power supply systems,
communications, and impassable roadways.
While people may stay indoors during an extreme cold event, without proper heating they are still
susceptible to conditions such as frostbite and hypothermia. Extended power outages during a cold
weather event can lead to dangerous situations for those trying to heat their homes with portable
generators. If not vented properly, this can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning.
Motorists may be stranded due to poor winter road conditions, which requires the exposure of first
responders who must go out and retrieve the motorists from their vehicles. Once retrieved, the
logistical needs of shelter, feeding and medical care become another challenge.
Extreme Heat
The most significant impact of extreme heat on general building stock and critical facilities within Weld
County is the resulting increased demand on air conditioning equipment. Surges in air conditioning
demand may strain electrical systems and energy resources. Public utility infrastructure (including
electrical generating and conveyance systems) may become damaged and break down causing localized
and/or widespread power outages.
I 130
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Transport and roadways could be impacted resulting in service disruptions and potentially hazardous
travel conditions. Extreme heat may cause damage to the pavement of roads and bridges and could
possibly cause railroad tracks to crack or buckle.
5.1 1.5 Potential Losses
Since 1996, there has only been one extreme cold event that caused property damage losses of
$102,000. Currently, estimated property and crop losses associated with extreme temperature hazards
are anticipated to be minimal across the planning area.
Despite the low likelihood of monetary losses, the human risk is considered great. Extreme heat and
cold events present a significant life and safety threat to the population of Weld County, especially those
with mobility issues, independent living difficulty, the elderly, low income families, outdoor laborers and
those experiencing homelessness. Some of these people may be isolated, with no immediate family
and/or limited mobility, which makes it more difficult for them to remove themselves from danger.
Casualties caused by extreme cold events can result from a lack of adequate heating and carbon
monoxide poisoning from unsafe or unventilated heating systems, and hypothermia or frostbite from
exposure to the elements. Individuals may not have access to a heat source or may be unable to afford
to operate one on a regular basis, also increasing their risk for burst pipes. On the other end of the
spectrum, those without adequate cooling can succumb to heat illnesses and struggle to find a way to
cool down.
5. I 1.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
Based on data provided by the NWS and NCEI, it is likely that Weld County will continue to experience
extreme temperature events in the future which will last for longer periods of time.
As more extreme temperature events are expected, limiting the effect of this hazard on the people and
property in Weld County is crucial, as well as feasible. Ongoing mitigation activities should focus on
protecting lives and preventing injuries during periods of extreme heat or cold. This includes actions
such as community outreach campaigns to educate the public about risks and available support,
establishing cooling and heating centers, reaching out to susceptible populations and educating the public
on what advisories and warnings mean.
5. I 1.7 Land Use and Development
Increased development trends in and around Weld County will multiply the opportunities for exposure
of growing areas to extreme temperatures. Enforcing and adhering to building codes for new
development is imperative for community safety during future climate extremes. As the rural portions
of the county continue to grow, consideration of reliable access to those rural residents should be
prevalent in emergency management and mitigation planning.
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.12 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
5.12.1 Hazard Identification
A flood is a naturally occurring event for rivers and streams and occurs when a normally dry area is
inundated with water. Excess water from snowmelt or rainfall accumulates and overflows onto the
stream banks and adjacent floodplains. As illustrated in Figure 45 below, floodplains are lowlands,
adjacent to rivers, streams, and creeks that are subject to recurring floods. Flash floods, usually
resulting from heavy rains or rapid snowmelt, can flood areas not typically subject to flooding, including
urban areas. Additionally, extreme cold temperatures can cause streams and rivers to freeze, causing
ice jams and creating flood conditions.
Figure 45. Floodplain Terminology
Special Flood Hazard Area
(1UO-Year Floodplain)
Flood Fringe
Floadway
Base Flood
Elevation
Floed Frir}ge
Floods are considered hazards when people and property are affected. Nationwide, hundreds of floods
occur each year, making it one of the most common hazards in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Most
injuries and deaths from flooding happen when people are swept away by flood currents and most
property damage results from inundation by sediment -filled water. Fast-moving water can wash
buildings off of their foundations and sweep vehicles away. Pipelines, bridges, and other infrastructure
can be damaged when high water combines with flood debris. Basement flooding can also cause
extensive damage. Flooding can cause extensive damage to crop lands and bring about the loss of
livestock. Several factors determine the severity of floods including rainfall intensity and duration,
topography, and ground cover.
Flood
Riverine flooding originates from a body of water, typically a river, creek, or stream, as water levels rise
onto normally dry land. Water from snowmelt, rainfall, freezing streams, ice flows, or a combination
thereof, causes the river or stream to overflow its banks into adjacent floodplains. Winter flooding
usually occurs when ice in the rivers creates dams or streams freeze from the bottom up during
I 132
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
extreme cold spells. Spring flooding is usually the direct result of melting winter snow packs, heavy
spring rains, or a combination of the two.
Flooding events are typically measured in terms of magnitude and the statistical probability that they will
occur. The I% annual chance flood event is the standard national measurement for flood mitigation and
insurance. A I% annual chance flood, also known as the 'I00 -year flood', has a I in 100 chance of being
equaled or exceeded in any 1 year and has an average recurrence interval of 100 years. It is important to
note that this recurrence interval is an average; it does not necessarily mean that a flood of such a
magnitude will happen exactly every 100 years. Sometimes, only a few years may pass between one I
annual chance flood and another while two other I% annual chance floods may be separated by 150
years. The 0.2% annual chance flood event, or the `500 -year flood', is another measurement which
represents a 0.2% chance (or 1 in 500 chance) of occurring in a given year.
Figure 46 shows the current Effective FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) across Weld County,
which correlate to the I% annual chance flood event. In addition, the current updated Preliminary, and
not yet regulatory, SFHAs are also presented. It is expected that these Preliminary floodplains will
supersede the current Effective floodplains in the near future for those areas.
I 133
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 46. FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas
I 134
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Flash floods can occur anywhere when a large volume of water flows or melts over a short time period,
usually from slow moving thunderstorms, rapid snowmelt, or a snow on rain event. Because of the
localized nature of flash floods, clear definitions of hazard areas do not exist. These types of floods
often occur rapidly with significant impacts. Quickly moving water, only a few inches deep, can lift
people off their feet, and only a depth of a foot or two is needed to sweep cars away. Most flood
deaths result from flash floods.
Urban flooding is the result of development and the ground's decreased ability to absorb excess water
without adequate drainage systems in place. Typically, this type of flooding occurs when land uses
change from fields or woodlands to roads and parking lots. Urbanization can increase runoff two to six
times more than natural terrain. The flooding of developed areas may occur when the amount of water
generated from rainfall and runoff exceeds a storm water system's capability to remove it.
Ice jams are stationary accumulations of ice that restrict flow through a waterway. Ice jams can cause
considerable increases in upstream water levels, while at the same time, downstream water levels may
drop. Types of ice jams include freeze up jams, breakup jams, or combinations of both. When an ice
jam releases, the effects downstream can be similar to that of a flash flood or dam failure. Ice jam
flooding generally occurs in the late winter or spring.
Dam Failure
Floods from Dam Failure events are typically the result of either hydrologic or structural deficiencies.
Dam failure by hydrologic deficiency is a result of inadequate spillway capacity, which can cause a dam to
be overtopped during large flows into the reservoir. Failure usually occurs when excessive runoff
happens after unusually heavy precipitation events. The sudden inflow from upstream dam failures is
another potential cause of dam failure by overtopping.
Colorado's Dam Safety Program rates the hazard classifications for dams on a three-tier system:
• High Hazard: A high -hazard rating does not imply or otherwise suggest that a dam suffers from
an increased risk for failure. It simply means that if failure were to occur, the resulting
consequences likely would be a direct loss of human life and extensive property damage.
• Significant Hazard: Significant hazard dams are those structures whose failure would result in
significant damage to developed downstream property and infrastructure or that may result in
an indirect loss of human life.
• Low Hazard: Low hazard dams typically are located in sparsely populated areas that would be
largely unaffected by a breach of the dam. Although the dam and ancillary features may be totally
destroyed, damages to downstream property would be restricted to undeveloped land with
minimal impacts to existing infrastructure.
Figure 47 presents dams located throughout Weld County and the State. There are 117 located within
the County, and many more across the Region that could impact Weld County communities. Of these
within the County, sixteen are rated by the Colorado Dam Safety Program as being High Risk with
another sixteen labeled a Significant Risk. Currently, there are eight dams with an Overall Condition
ranking of Unsatisfactory.
Thirty-three Weld County dams are required to have Emergency Action Plans (EAP). Of these EAPs,
twenty-four have been updated within the last five years. Twenty-five of the EAPs have inundation
mapping identified. It should be noted that in many cases these inundation areas are larger than the
SFHA.
I 135
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 47. Dam Locations & Hazard Class
I 136
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Levee Failure
Levees provide strong flood protection; however, they do not eliminate risk because they only reduce
the risk to individuals and structures behind them. Levees are designed to protect against specific, pre-
determined flood levels and are sometimes overtopped during severe weather events. As water passes
over the top of a levee, it sometimes erodes the levee, worsening the flooding and potentially causing a
breach. Levee Failure floods occur when a breach occurs, which may happen gradually or suddenly. The
most dangerous breaches happen quickly. The resulting torrent can quickly inundate a large area behind
the failed levee with little or no warning.
Figure 48 presents those areas identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as being
protected by levees. Note that there may be other areas protected by levee -like structures that are not
officially tracked by the USACE.
I 137
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 48. Identified Areas Protected by Levee
I 138
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.1 2.2 Previous Occurrences
Documentation of flooding in Colorado collected by NOAA's National Center for Environmental
Information (NCEI) goes back to 1950. The table below provides a history of major flood events that
affected Weld County between 1950 and 2019. The earliest reported damaging event in Weld County
didn't occur until 1996, but it is known that here were flooding events prior to then.
Table 46. Weld County Historical Flood Events (1950 - 2018)
9/25/2020
Dam Failure
0
0
0
0
6/18/2018
Flash Flood
0
0
$10,000
0
5/8/2017
Flash Flood
0
0
$500,000
$50,000
7/17/2016
Flash Flood
0
0
$5,000
$10,000
6/13/2015
Flash Flood
0
0
$15,000
$10,000
6/2/2015
Flood
0
0
$25,000
$50,000
5/20/2015
Flood
0
0
$250,000
$100,000
5/9/2015
Flood
0
0
$15,000
$5,000
5/8/2015
Flood
0
0
$500,000
$100,000
8/25/2014
Flood
0
0
$25,000
$25,000
7/29/2014
Flash Flood
0
0
$10,000
$10,000
6/1/2014
Flood
0
0
$250,000
$50,000
5/30/2014
Flash Flood
0
0
$15,000
$10,000
5/25/2014
Flood
0
0
$15,000
$10,000
9/14/2013
Flash Flood
0
0
0
0
9/12/2013
Flood
0
0
$230,000,000
$3,750,000
8/3/2013
Flash Flood
0
0
$50,000
$50,000
9/26/2012
Flash Flood
0
0
$15,000
$10,000
6/7/2012
Flash Flood
0
0
$10,000
$5,000
7/12/201 1
Flash Flood
0
0
$50,000
$100,000
6/12/2010
Flash Flood
0
0
$24,000
$50,000
6/11/2010
Flash Flood
0
0
$24,000
$50,000
5/26/2010
Flash Flood
0
0
$24,000
$250,000
5/25/2009
Flash Flood
0
0
$24,000
$50,000
8/6/2008
Flash Flood
0
0
$50,000
$25,000
8/22/2007
Flash Flood
0
0
$1,000
0
8/2/2007
Flash Flood
0
0
$1,000
0
6/9/2004
Flash Flood
0
0
0
0
7/26/2003
Flash Flood
0
0
0
0
7/13/2001
Flash Flood
0
0
$600,000
0
7/11/2001
Flash Flood
0
0
0
0
6/7/2001
Flash Flood
0
0
0
0
8/17/2000
Flash Flood
0
0
0
0
8/4/2000
Flood
0
0
0
0
7/19/2000
Flash Flood
0
0
0
0
7/10/1999
Flood
0
0
0
0
5/4/1999
Flood
0
0
0
0
5/1/1999
Flood
0
0
$200,000
0
4/28/1999
Flood
0
0
0
0
7/4/1998
Flood
0
0
0
0
I 139
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
11 IF=
7/29/1997
Prl9L I, till 1T r,:=
Flash Flood
II lip I
0
IL Ir i
0
H ir, =1 C r- II I I l rt=.
0
0
7/28/1997
Flash Flood
0
0
0
0
7/27/1997
Flash Flood
0
0
0
0
6/14/1997
Flood
0
0
0
0
6/3/1997
Flood
0
0
0
0
5/24/1997
Flash Flood
0
0
0
0
8/29/1996
Flash Flood
0
0
0
0
8/27/1996
Flood
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
$232,708,000
$4,770,000
Source: SHELDUS; NOAA (NCEI)
The most significant flooding event to collectively impact the State of Colorado occurred during
September 2013. During the week beginning on September 9th, a slow moving cold front circulated over
the state, clashing with warm, humid monsoonal air from the south. NOAA's NCEI estimates that Weld
County sustained $23 I million in property damage and another $4.5 million in crop damage. It should
be noted, however, that the 2013 flooding was not a worst -case event for Weld County.
In September 2020, a dam failure did occur in Johnstown. No losses were reported, though repairs are
anticipated to cost the Town $425 thousand. Additional details can be found in Table 25.
I 140
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.1 2.3 Data Analytics
The input into the composite risk layer developed with the data analytics suitability model for flood is
shown in Figure 49.
Figure 49. Composite Risk Layer Flood Input
Flood
National Flood Hazard Layer
Flood Zone
AE. AH, AO
x
. Area Not Included
Darn Sci.vre. Federal Energenry .Monagemele Agency Mop Service Center Nonni Rood Hnzurd toyer
5.12.4 Inventory Exposed
Flood
The most appropriate risk assessment methodology for flooding involves scenario modeling using
FEMA's Hazus loss estimation software. Hazus is a very useful planning tool because it provides an
acceptable means of forecasting flood damage, loss of function of infrastructure, and casualties, among
many other factors.
Utilizing Hazus 4.2, an updated flood analysis was conducted for Weld County. The Hazus flood
scenario modeled a countywide I% annual chance flood event. According to the Hazus inventory, there
are an estimated 90,000 buildings in Weld County with a total building replacement value (excluding
contents) of over $23 Billion. Approximately 92% of the buildings (and 82% of the building value) are
associated with residential housing.
t r��rnue+rcv Mnnnr,F MF v
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Additional exposure analysis was also conducted outside of Hazus. There are 2,177 address points
across Weld County that have elevated potential for flooding due to their location in the SFHA. This
equates to 1.6% of all address points within the County.
Dam Failure
There are 28,41 1 address points across Weld County that have elevated potential for flooding due to
their location in mapped dam failure inundation areas. This equates to 1.0% of all address points within
the County. It is important to note that not all dams across the County currently have this mapping
available. While this inundation data is unable to be mapped in this Plan, community leadership is able to
access this data housed by the Colorado Dam Safety Program.
Levee Failure
There are 1,308 address points across Weld County that have elevated potential for flooding due to
their location in mapped areas protected by known levees. This equates to 1.6% of all address points
within the County.
5.1 2.5 Potential Losses
The type of property damage caused by flood events depends on the depths and velocity of the
floodwaters. Faster moving floodwaters can wash buildings off their foundations and sweep cars
downstream. Pipelines, bridges, and other infrastructure can be damaged when high waters combine
with flood debris. Extensive damage can be caused by basement flooding and landslide damage related
to soil saturation from flood events. Seepage into basements is common during flood events. Most flood
damage is caused by water saturating materials susceptible to loss (e.g., wood, insulation, wallboard,
fabric, furnishings, floor coverings, and appliances). Homes in flooded areas can also suffer damage to
septic systems and drain fields. In many cases, flood damage to homes renders them uninhabitable.
Flood events impact businesses by damaging property and by interrupting business. Flood events can cut
off customer access to a business as well as close a business for repairs or permanently. A quick
response to the needs of businesses affected by flood events can help a community maintain economic
vitality in the face of flood damage. Responses to business damages can include funding to assist owners
in elevating or relocating flood -prone business structures.
During flooding events, homes, businesses, and people face the threat of explosions and fires caused by
leaking gas lines along with the possibility of being electrocuted. Domestic and wild animals forced out
of their homes and brought into contact with humans by floodwaters can also pose a threat. In rural
areas, property damage caused by flooding can be devastating to ranchers and farmers. When flooding
occurs during the growing season, farmers can suffer widespread crop loss. Stock growers may lose
livestock if they are unable to find safety from rising floodwaters. Flooding may also cause damage to
pasture land, fences, barns, and out buildings.
Publicly owned facilities are a key component of daily life for all citizens of the county. Public buildings
are of particular importance during flood events because they house critical assets for government
response and recovery activities. Damage to public water and sewer systems, transportation networks,
flood control facilities, emergency facilities, and offices can hinder the ability of the government to
deliver services. Loss of power and communications can be expected. Drinking water and wastewater
treatment facilities may be temporarily out of operation.
I 142
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Mitigation against flood events is accomplished through sensible floodplain management and regulations
as well as identifying flood prone areas, tributary watersheds that experience instability or sediment
loading problems, and channel instability hazards. This involves strategies to modify flooding and to
modify infrastructure to decrease the likelihood of damage. To modify the impact of flooding, measures
must be taken to decrease susceptibility to flood damage and disruptions. Natural and cultural
resources must also be protected and managed. Coordination with mitigation plans by Floodplain
managers will increase effectiveness of flood mitigation projects. City and County Planners will be
valuable resources to incorporate flood mitigation plans into their respective plans.
The methodology used to determine potential losses to flooding was conducted using FEMA's Hazus
loss estimation software. For this Plan, a 100 -year flood scenario was modeled for the County. The
results of the Hazus assessment are presented below.
Figure 50 details the estimated total economic losses based upon the I % annual chance flood scenario.
The Hazus tool performs its flood analysis at the Census Block level. While losses are estimate across
most all of Weld County, it is clear some of the larger losses correlate to those floodprone areas with
higher population and building densities. A number of variables are included in Hazus analyses in order
to arrive at the estimated values of loss. For this reason, it is important to note that the Hazus loss
estimates should not be used as a precise measure, but rather viewed from the perspective of the
potential magnitudes of expected losses.
I 143
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 50. Hazus Flood Estimated Losses
I 144
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Other loss estimates from the Hazus scenario to point out include:
• The vast majority of damaged structures are expected to be residential housing.
• Damages are modeled for "Essential Facilities", which includes: hospitals, schools, fire & police
stations, and EOCs. The analysis expects damages to a handful of fire & police stations, in
addition to a few schools.
• The model estimates —8,200 people will be displaced due to the flooding.
• Total building -related losses are estimated to be —$250 Million. 45% of these losses related to
expected business interruptions. Residential housing makes up —41% of these losses.
For additional loss estimates and further details see Appendix D: Flood Hazus Risk Report.
5.12.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
Frequency of previously reported flood events in Weld County provide an acceptable framework for
determining the probability of future flood occurrence in the area. The probability that the County and
its municipalities will experience a flood event can be difficult to predict or quantify. However, based on
historical records of forty-eight flood events since 1950, it can reasonably be assumed that this type of
event has occurred once every 0.7 years from 1950 through 2020. It should be noted that the oldest
historical record of flood is from 1996. Looking only since then, two flood events have occurred on
average each year.
Severe flooding has the
potential to inflict
significant damage to
people and property in
Weld County. Mitigating
flood damage requires that
communities throughout
the County remain diligent
and notify local officials of
potential flood (and flash
flood) prone areas near
infrastructure such as
roads, bridges, and
buildings. While the
potential for flooding is
always present, Weld
County has existing land -
use policies and regulations
for development to help lessen potential damage due to floods.
5.12.7 Land Use and Development
As population continues to increase in Weld County, future development trajectories can be expected
to put more people and property, both private and public, at risk of flooding. It is essential that zoning
and land use plans take into account not only the dollar amount of damage that buildings near
waterways could incur, but also the added risk of floodplain development activity that alters the natural
flood plain of the area (for example, narrowing the floodplains by building new structures close to rivers
I 145
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
and streams). The county as a whole should plan for the likelihood of increased exposure of property
and humans to flood events.
Existing floodplain management ordinances are intended to address methods and practices to minimize
flood damage to new and substantial home improvement projects as well as to address zoning and
subdivision ordinances and state regulations. Currently, Weld County is a National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) participant and continues to support floodplain management activity at the county and
local scale.
The greatest protection against flooding is afforded by quality construction and compliance with local
ordinances which exceed NFIP requirements. Code adoption by local jurisdictions, compliance by
builders, and local government inspection of new homes can greatly reduce the risk of flooding. Moving
forward, Weld County will continue to support monitoring, analysis, modeling, and the development of
decision -support systems and geographic information applications for floodplain management activities.
Additionally, jurisdictions within the county should consider participating in the Community Rating
System (CRS).
In addition to land -use planning, zoning, and codes applicable to new development, flood mitigation
measures include structural and non-structural measures to address susceptibility of existing structures.
Flood mitigation measures such as acquisition, relocation, elevation -in -place, wet/dry flood proofing, and
enhanced storm drainage systems all have the potential to effectively reduce the impact of flooding in
Weld County.
5.12.8 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Weld County and many of its municipalities have been mapped for flood hazards and participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Given the flood hazard and risk across the County, and
recognizing the importance of the NFIP in mitigating flood losses, an emphasis will be placed on
continued compliance with the NFIP by participating jurisdictions. As NFIP participants, many of these
communities have and will continue to make every effort to remain in good standing with NFIP. This
includes continuing to comply with the NFIP's standards for updating and adopting floodplain maps and
maintaining and updating the floodplain zoning ordinance.
Details of local jurisdiction participation status are shown in Table 47. Currently, FEMA is in the
process of updating a number of floodplain maps across the County and Preliminary maps are being
reviewed by the local communities.
I 146
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 47. NFIP Participation
080266
Weld County
1/20/20I6
080179
Town of Ault
1/20/20I6
080236
City of Dacono
1/20/20I6
080180
Town of Eaton
1/20/20I6
080181
Town of Erie
8/15/2019
080182
City of Evans
1/20/20I6
080241
Town of Firestone
1/20/20I6
080183
City of Fort Lupton
1/20/2016
080244
Town of Frederick
1/20/20I6
080123
Town of Gilcrest
1/20/20I6
080184
City of Greeley
1/20/2016
080249
Town of Hudson
1/20/20I6
080250
Town of Johnstown
12/19/2006
080251
Town of Keenesburg
1/20/20I6
080186
Town of La Salle
1/20/20I6
080182
Town of Mead
1/20/20I6
080187
Town of Milliken
1/20/2016
080188
Town of Nunn
1/20/2016
080189
Town of Pierce
1/20/20I6
080190
Town of Platteville
1/20/20I6
080317
Town of Severance
1/20/20I6
080264
Town of Windsor
1/20/20I6
Source: FEMA 7/17/2020
Repetitive Loss properties (RL) are structures covered by a contract for flood insurance made available
under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that: (a) have incurred flood -related damage on two
occasions, in which the cost of repair, on the average, equaled or exceeded 25% of the market value of
the structure at the time of each flood event; and (b) at the time of the second incidence of flood -
related damage, the policy for flood insurance contained Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage.
Weld County has had a total of nineteen RL events, with two in Erie and the remainder in
Unincorporated areas. These 19 events correlate to nine properties, all of which are single family
residences.
A Severe Repetitive Loss property (SRL) is defined as a single-family or multi -family residential property
that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and: a) has at least four NFIP claim payments
(including building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments
exceeds $20,000; or, b) a property for which at least two separate claim payments (building payments
only) have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the
market value of the building. For both a) and b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have
occurred within any ten-year period, and must be greater than ten days apart.
There is one severe repetitive loss (SRL) structure located within Weld County. The single-family
residence is located in the City of Greeley and is currently in a Zone A floodplain. The property has not
undergone any mitigation projects.
I 147
e R�rnue+�cv MANov:FMF, i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 48. Severe Repetitive Loss Property - City of Greeley
5/31/2014
rrn1 Ili II r �;I li-;I'
$8,25 I.70
ll IC r-. - `-.,,
$3,047.70
a1
$11,299.40
9/15/2014
$102,217
$102,217.42
$204,434
6/ 1 1 /201 1
$7,333.92
$18,055.11
$25,389.03
6/10/2010
$18,055.11
$1,786.72
$19,841.83
Total
$135,857.73
$125,106.95
$260,964.68
Source: Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Table 49. SRL Structure - City of Greeley Loss Summary
Property Value
$374, 702
Cumulative Loss and LAE Paid
$219,328
Replacement Cost
$329,100
30 Year Savings to the Fund Value
$197,948
100 Year Savings to the Fund Value
$227,622
Source: Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
The City of Greeley has identified this property in their mitigation strategy and has developed a
Mitigation Action Guide to reduce the risk (and cost) associated with flooding of the SRL structure.
Table 50 presents the current status of flood insurance policies and claims paid across the
County. Weld County has a total of 459 NFIP policies (412 were documented in the 2016 Plan).
Unincorporated areas of Weld County have by far the largest number of policies and historical
claims paid.
I 148
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 50. NFIP Flood Insurance Summary
080266
Weld County
it
$292,318
1] i ;l
234
it
$62,305,900
tl
125
it ; ii 11
$5,052,696
080179
Town of Ault
$1,865
2
$177,600
0
$0
080236
City of Dacono
$25,686
15
$3,341,500
4
$133,425
080180
Town of Eaton
$4,032
6
$1,820,000
1
$0
080181
Town of Erie
$26,934
55
$14,783,100
7
$78,68
080182
City of Evans
$22,796
35
$9,647,800
0
$0
080241
Town of
Firestone
$10,125
17
$3,715,600
6
$38,123
080183
City of Fort
Lupton
$2,751
5
$2,015,800
0
$0
080244
Town of
Frederick
$10,221
25
$7,240,100
10
$40,592
080184
City of Greeley
$93,356
74
$25,210,500
13
$66,902
080249
Town of
Hudson
$5,020
3
$670,200
0
$0
080250
Town of
Johnstown
$5,756
15
$4,411,000
1
$9,971
080186
Town of
LaSalle
$2,610
4
$1,280,000
4
$88,671
080187
Town of
Milliken
$2,323
4
$1,720,900
3
$150,680
080188
Town of Nunn
$8,945
8
$1,327,000
0
$0
080189
Town of Pierce
$35,623
18
$3,557,300
1
$312
080190
Town of
Platteville
$412
1
$280,000
0
$0
080317
Town of
Severance
$2,471
8
$1,608,100
0
$0
080264
Town of
Windsor
$28,683
64
$20,170,000
II
$6,932
Total*:
$520,554
459
$125,918,700
167
$5,571,401
Source: FEMA 7/17/2020, if a jurisdiction is not listed it does not currently have any policies
* Total does not include bi-county communities (Erie, Johnstown, Windsor)
Weld County communities do not participate in FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS) program.
CRS is a voluntary program for NFIP participating communities. The goals of the CRS is to reduce flood
damages to insurable property, to strengthen and support the insurance aspects of the NFIP, and to
encourage a comprehensive approach to floodplain management.
The CRS was developed to provide incentives in the form of insurance premium discounts to
communities that go above and beyond the minimum floodplain management requirements and develop
extra measures to reduce flood risk. There are I O CRS classes and the classification determines the
insurance premium discount for policy holders. The discounts range from 5% to a maximum of 45%.
CRS activities are summarized into four main categories and include: public information, mapping &
regulation, flood damage reduction, and flood preparedness.
I 149
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.13 Hazmat Release
5.13.1 Hazard Identification
A hazardous material (also known as Hazmat) is defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation as
"articles or substances which are capable of posing a risk to health, safety, property, or the
environment, are listed or classified in the regulations and are transported in commerce."
Hazardous materials are defined and regulated in the United States primarily by laws and regulations
administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). Each has its own definition of a "hazardous material."
For the purpose of tracking and managing hazardous materials, the DOT divides regulated hazardous
materials into nine classes.
Table 51. Hazardous Materials - Classes and Descriptions
Class I: Explosives
I . I mass explosion hazard
1.2 projectile hazard
1.3 minor blast/projectile/fire
1.4 minor blast
1.5 insensitive explosives
1.6 very insensitive explosives
Class 2: Compressed Gases
2.1 flammable gases
2.2 non-flammable compressed
2.3 poisonous
Class 3: Flammable Liquids
Flammable (flash point below 141°)
Combustible (flash point I41°-200°
Class 4: Flammable Solids
4.1 flammable solids
4.2 spontaneously combustible
4.3 dangerous when wet
Class 5: Oxidizers and Organic
Peroxides
5.1 Oxidizer
5.2 Organic Peroxide
Class 6: Toxic Materials
6.1 Material that is poisonous
6.2 Infectious Agents
Class 7: Radioactive Material
Radioactive 1
Radioactive II
Radioactive III
Class 8: Corrosive Material
Destruction of the human skin
Corrode steel at a rate of 0.25 inches per year
Class 9: Miscellaneous
A material that presents a hazard during shipment but does
not meet the definition of the other classes
I 150
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
There are three common sources for Hazmat incidents within the County: delivery lines, fixed storage
facilities/use locations, and transportation lines. Specific safety regulations apply when handling and
storing hazardous materials at fixed facilities. Hazardous materials that are being transported must have
specific packaging and labeling. If a Hazmat incident occurs, the area impacts will depend on the nature
of the chemical and climate conditions. All areas should be considered at risk. Some areas may have
greater impacts from a spill, such as those close to aquifers and other water supplies.
Weld County's 2035 Transportation Plan summarizes existing transportation conditions including current
hazardous materials routes. 'Weld County has significant oil well activity," states the 2035 Plan. "As a result,
trucks carrying oil well production utilize nearly every road in the county."
In Weld County, transportation of hazardous materials is occurring throughout the day, every day, by
rail and road. While roadway transport accounts for the largest amount of hazardous materials moving
though the County, rail cars pose
an increased risk due to the large
quantities they can carry. With
that said, there have been a limited
number of Hazmat incidents
involving rail cars in Weld County.
Routing of hazardous materials by
motor vehicles on all public roads
in the state is governed by Title
42, Article 20 of the Colorado
Revised Statutes. CDOT Policy
Directive 1903.0 (effective
5/20/2010), and CDOT Procedural
Directive 1903.1 (effective
2/3/201 I), govern CDOT's role in
the designation of hazardous
material routes. In order to
designate a Colorado state
highway as hazardous material
route, CDOT staff members, local
governments, or private entities
must request the Mobility Section
of the Division of Transportation
Development to perform an
analysis of the route. To perform
this analysis, the Mobility Section
convenes a "Hazmat Advisory
Team" to determine if the
proposed route meets
the required criteria. If the required
CDOT will file a petition with the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) for approval. If the petition is approved,
the route is designated a hazmat route.
Approved by the Board of Commissioners on July 8, 2019, the Weld
County Oil and Gas Energy Department (OGED) was created
to firmly establish the county's local control over mineral resources in
unincorporated Weld County - a delegation included in Senate Bill
181 and accepted by the commissioners upon the bill being signed
into law on April 16, 2019.
With the goal of serving residents and the energy industry, the OGED
is where to file and get more information about 1041 Weld County
Oil and Gas Location Assessment (1041 WOGLA) permits, Location
Assessment for Pipeline (LAP) permits and more. The OGED can also
assist residents who have questions regarding oil and gas activity in
Weld County. You can find many of the documents you need and the
answers to many questions you may have throughout this website.
The OGED is responsible for permitting, regulating and enforcing
surface regulations related to oil and gas operations for drilling sites
located in unincorporated Weld County. The department is currently
staffed with 12 employees who will enforce regulations to ensure the
health, safety and welfare of the public and the environment.
Weld County is the number one producer of oil and gas in the State.
87% of all crude oil production and 43% of all natural gas production
in Colorado comes from Weld County!
criteria are met and approved by the Transportation Commission,
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Currently Weld County has submitted a petition to CSP for an oil, crude, and gas exemption for CR 49,
between Highway 34 and 1-76.
The required criteria that the route must meet before it is brought before the Transportation
Commission are as follows:
• The route(s) under consideration are feasible, practicable, and not unreasonably expensive for
such transportation.
• The route(s) is continuous within a jurisdiction and from one jurisdiction to another.
• The route(s) does not unreasonably burden interstate or intrastate commerce.
• The route(s) designation is not arbitrary or intended by the petitioner merely to divert the
transportation of hazardous materials to other communities.
• The route(s) designation will not interfere with the pickup or delivery of hazardous materials.
• The route(s) designation is consistent with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations;
and
• The route(s) provides greater safety to the public than other feasible routes. Considerations
include but are not limited to:
o AADT, crash and fatality rates
o Population within a one -mile swath of each side of the highway
o Locations of schools, hospitals, sensitive environmental areas, rivers, lakes, etc.
o Emergency response capabilities on the route
o Condition of the route, i.e., vertical and horizontal alignment, pavement condition, level
of access to the route, etc.
Colorado State Patrol
Hazardous Materials Unit
(303) 273-1900
http://csp.state.co.hazmat.html
Troop 8-C is the Hazardous Materials Section of the
Colorado State Patrol. Their mission is to contribute to
the safety of hazardous materials transportation in order
to protect citizens and the environment. Twenty-eight
troopers trained as Hazardous Materials Technicians are
deployed throughout the state.
Weld County's Office of Emergency Management is the Designated Emergency Response Authority
(DERA) for all unincorporated areas of the County. Local municipalities are the DERA for their
community unless they have delegated their role to local fire districts. State Patrol has jurisdiction for
highways.
For security reasons, it is not within the scope of this plan to map the locations of all industrial and
commercial fixed sites.
The following CDOT map shows the state's designated nuclear, hazardous materials, and gasoline, diesel
fuel, and liquid petroleum gas routes, many of which pass through the western portion of Weld County.
I 152
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 51. Colorado Hazardous and Nuclear Materials Route Restrictions
I 153
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.1 3.2 Previous Occurrences
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Incident Reports Database,
shows a total of 200 Hazmat incidents reported in Weld County between 1977 and 2019. The majority
of these incidents occurred due to improper preparation for transport, product leakage due to loose or
defective components, and overfilling of product. Roughly 10% were traffic accidents.
Table 52. PHMSA Causes of Hazardous Material Incidents (1977 — 2019)
1977-1988
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010-2019
Total
2
62
46
90
200
2
8
16
34
60
II
10
10
31
14
4
2
20
4
2
14
20
25
14
30
69
The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) also keeps a database of past spills and
releases. Table 53 presents these documented incidents since 2010. The County averaged 292 spills
and releases per year during this time. It should be pointed out the 12% drop from that average during
2020. This recent reduction in spills is attributed to on -going work between the county and industry.
Table 53. COGCC Hazardous Material Incidents (2010 - 2020)
2010
159
2011
179
2012
199
2013
327
2014
418
2015
327
2016
262
2017
367
2018
364
2019
352
2020
258
Total
3,212
5.1 3.3 Data Analytics
The input into the composite risk layer developed with the data analytics suitability model for Hazmat
release is shown in Figure 52.
I 154
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 52. Composite Risk Layer Hazmat Release Input
Hazardous Material
PLD
I 155
Cl PHMSA Incidents (I 971 - 2020)
Hazardous Materials Routes
Data Sources: United States Department ofTransportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials SafetyAdministration
Colorado Department ofTransportation Current Hazmat Routes
( 14 )
66
14
EPA RCRAActive Sites Hazardous Materials Generation
Minimum Kilograms Generated Monthly within 800
Meters (-1/2 Mile)*
None
0 to 20
20 to 315
315 to 1000
■ 1000 to 1300
■ 1300 to 4400
Data Source: Environmental Protection Agency Facility Registry Service Facilities
* Notes and Assumptions: Ready recommends evacuating at least a 1/2
mile in the event of a hazardous materials incident
e R1rnue+�CV M4NAQFMFvi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.1 3.4 Inventory Exposed
Approved transportation routes crisscross the County geography, moving large amounts of hazardous
materials each day, and significant quantities of chemicals are used in the agricultural regions. Therefore,
the inventory and assets in the County, public and private, are exposed. Risks to people, property and
crops may vary substantially at local levels and should be determined in mitigation planning accordingly.
As development continues closer to existing industrial areas and population density increases near
hazardous materials transportation routes, the inventory exposed to future occurrences multiplies.
The effects of exposure may not only be near a direct spill or release of hazardous materials, as some
chemical vapors can travel considerable distances based on wind conditions and the type of chemical.
The inventory that is most often exposed to Hazmat risks are railways, roadways, and fixed facilities that
contain hazardous materials, and all assets that lie within at least a mile of the potential release areas.
5.13.5 Potential Losses
Hazmat related events occur throughout Weld County every year. The potentials costs and damages
are based on the intensity, magnitude and risk of these incidents. Hazardous material responses depend
on various factors including:
• Type of material released
• Cause and process of release
• Weather conditions
• Location of the event
• Presence of population nearby
• Time until responders arrive
These events have the potential to threaten lives, disrupt services to the public and disrupt business
activity due to possible evacuations and extended closure of roadways. Hazmat incidents can result in
environmental contamination to non-renewable resources such as soil and water sources.
Human exposure to hazardous materials may have the most immediate and extreme consequences. The
presence of a Hazmat response teams brings with it very specific dangers to first responders and the
protective equipment they wear is typically discarded after the response, creating a need for this
inventory to be replenished.
Potential losses should consider the costs of responses. The Colorado Department of Public Safety has
a set of rules and regulations concerning claims for reimbursement of costs incurred for the handling of
hazardous substance incidents. These direct costs include:
• Personnel overhead
• Supplies expended
• Vehicles and equipment
• Contracted services
• Laboratory testing
• Storage/disposal of the materials
Indirect costs such as administrative staff hours may also be included. If the incident response is not
properly documented, submitted, and processed, it could result in only partial or no reimbursement to
the local jurisdiction.
I 156
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.13.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
The probability of future occurrences of Hazmat events is likely. The COGCC incident data shows an
average of 292 events occurred yearly since 2010. Trends from the last four years show that incidents
are decreasing, most likely due to increased coordination between the county and industry.
As operations utilizing hazardous materials fluxtuate, such as oil production, so do handling and
transport. This contributes to the probability and risks of future events.
5.13.7 Land Use and Development
As Weld County continues to experience population growth and development over time,
considerations must be made concerning land use and regulations. Increasing development may cause
residential and commercial investment closer to railways and identified hazardous and nuclear materials
routes.
I 157
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.14 Land Subsidence
LOW RISK HAZARD
5.14.1 Hazard Identification
Land Subsidence describes any depressions, cracks, and/or sinkholes in the earth's surface which can
threaten people and property. Causes of subsidence include, but are not limited to, the removal or
reduction of sub -surface fluids (water, oil, gas, etc.), mine subsidence, and hydro compaction. Of these
causes, hydro compaction and mine subsidence usually manifest as localized events, while fluid removal
may occur either locally or regionally.
Land subsidence can occur rapidly due to a sinkhole or the collapse of an underground mine, or during
major earthquakes. Subsidence can also take place slowly, becoming evident over the time span of many
years. Soils that tend to collapse and settle are those characterized by low -density materials that shrink
in volume when they become wet and/or are subjected to weight from development. Subsidence events,
depending on their location, can pose significant risks to health, safety, and local agricultural economies
and interruption to transportation, and other services.
There are hundreds of abandoned underground coal mines scattered throughout Colorado that present
potential subsidence hazards to structures and surface improvements. The Colorado Geological Survey
(CGS) operates the Colorado Mine Subsidence Information Center (MSIC) which is the repository for
all of the known existing maps of inactive or abandoned coal mines in the state. Subsidence tends to be
problematic along the Colorado Front Range, Western Slope, and in the central mountains near Eagle
and Garfield Counties.?
Based on data provided by CGS, there are a number of known undermined areas within southwestern
Weld County that are more vulnerable to subsidence, with additional small pockets scattered across the
southern half of the County. Figure 53 presents a map identifying the locations within Weld County that
have potential for subsidence due to historical mining activity. Note that this data is best available and is
the same utilized during the 2016 Plan update.
2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
I 158
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 53. Undermined Areas
I 159
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.14.2 Previous Occurrences
Reliable, county -specific historical records of land subsidence events in the State of Colorado is sparse.
That said, CGS has been researching land subsidence in Colorado for over two decades. In addition to
publishing regional susceptibility maps and GIS datasets, the CGS has also compiled a series of case
histories that describe select land subsidence events across the state.
Out of the five case histories highlighted on the CGS "Geologic Hazards" resource site, two are located
in Weld County.
Table 54. CGS Land Subsidence Case Histories — Weld County
i=i�
Erie, CO
January 2009 - A large subsidence hole was reported at a residence near the corner of a
horse barn. The property owners reported the hole opened up overnight and a fence
and gate had been destroyed by the event. The hole measured roughly 25 feet by 25 feet
by 15 feet deep and was filled with water. Because of the nature of the opening and the
proximity to livestock and human activities, the event was considered a subsidence
emergency and was backfilled by the Abandoned Mine Lands program
December 2008 - A large subsidence hole in a field west of Erie was reported. The hole
was about 50 feet in diameter and 35 feet deep before being filled with water. The field
where the hole appeared was under consideration for annexation by the town for future
residential development. A geophysical investigation conducted 3 months prior did not
show any evidence of voids in the area. The hole was located outside of the mined area
shown on the mine map indicating that the mine map was inaccurate. During the
mitigation process, a secondary subsidence pit of smaller dimensions was found directly
west of the original hole. Both holes were backfilled by the Abandoned Mine Lands
program.
Erie, CO
Source: CGS
As a general rule of thumb, land subsidence occurrence can be expected where it has occurred in the
past. For this reason, the County may benefit from developing a reporting system and database for
tracking land subsidence events.
5.14.3 Data Analytics
The input into the composite risk layer developed with the data analytics suitability model for land
subsidence is shown in Figure 54.
1160
e R�rnue+�cv MANov:FMF, i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 54. Composite Risk Layer Land Subsidence Input
Land Subsidence
es
11 '
Ouses Urccrmmca Arc.,
USES Dapm xo Mine
Depth R.irgc f Fec[ I
■ 0 to50
■ 50 toICC
. 100 to 150
. 150 to 200
200 to 250
250 to 300
300 to 350
2soea400
aoo to aso
❑uto Seurce United S[ctes Geologe,Sarrey From Range lnf unructi.ve Resources fro.ert Depth to Cool M Fw g.v, the CoA,,orb fM!.. Range f2GO4J
5.14.4 Inventory Exposed
A structure may be at risk to the impacts of land subsidence if it is located over or close to an
undermined area. Therefore, an important first step in determining exposure at a specific location is to
determine if the area is undermined or near an area where underground mining took place. There are
8,453 address points across Weld County that have elevated potential for subsidence due to historical
mining activity and development activity. This equates to 6.2% of all address points within the County.
Most of the undermined areas within Weld County that are vulnerable to subsidence are located in the
southwestern portion of the County. This is an area of the County where both development and
population are growing rapidly. Impacted communities include Erie, Dacono, and Frederick. As
population growth brings new development into available land in the southwestern portion of the
County, more assets may become exposed to subsidence hazards.
5.14.5 Potential Losses
The risk analysis indicates that Weld County has relatively high exposure to land subsidence, primarily
because of the location of historically undermined areas in relation to urban development and
population growth. Not only have there been previous land subsidence events reported in the County,
CGS data of at -risk areas shows a number of areas of historical undermining in the County, many of
t R�rnue Ce nr:GoFMFv
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
which intersect with Lifelines, largely populated areas, and future development areas. A lack of historical
losses makes it difficult to quantify potential losses from land subsidence events.
5.14.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
Due to the lack of identified subsidence occurrences and uncertainty associated with existing data, it is
challenging to calculate any type of probability for future events. It can be assured however, that
subsidence will continue to slowly alter the landscape of Weld County.
In areas where there is decreased precipitation in the summer months and reduced surface -water
supplies, communities are often forced to pump more ground water to meet their needs. In Colorado,
the major aquifers are composed primarily of compressed clay and silt, soil types that are prone to
compact when groundwater is pumped. In the past, major land subsidence has occurred in agricultural
settings where groundwater has been pumped for irrigation. It is important that Weld County considers
future mitigation actions that will address this hazard, particularly in rapidly growing areas.
5.14.7 Land Use and Development
As the population of Weld County grows, there is a possibility that some development will encroach
into identified subsidence hazard areas. These hazards include the potential for sagging ground,
sinkholes, and the collapse of mine shafts that have not been adequately closed. Any of these hazards
can cause damage to property, structures, transportation infrastructure, utility lines, and in some cases,
can threaten human life. Only a few inches of differential settlement beneath a structure could cause
many thousands of dollars of damage. It is important that subsidence risk data is considered in the
designs and plans of future development proposals.
I 162
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.15 Prairie Fire
5.15.1 Hazard Identification
Prairie Fires (also known as wildfires) are defined as unwanted or unplanned wildland fires. They include
unauthorized human caused fires, escaped prescribed burn projects, and all other wildland fires where
the objective is to put the fire out.
Prairie fires are fueled by natural ground cover, including native and non-native species of trees, brush
and grasses, and crops along with weather conditions and topography. While available fuel, topography,
and weather provide the conditions that allow fires to spread, most fires are caused by people through
criminal or accidental misuse of fire.
Prairie fires pose serious threats
to human safety and property in
Weld County. They can destroy
crops, timber resources,
recreation areas, and critical
wildlife habitat. Wildfires are
commonly perceived as hazards
in the western part of the state;
however, they are a growing
problem in the wildland-urban
interfaces of eastern Colorado,
including communities within
Weld County.
Prairie fire behavior is dictated in
part by the quantity and quality of
available fuels. Fuel quantity is the
mass of material per unit area.
Fuel quality is determined by a number of factors, including fuel density, chemistry, and arrangement.
Arrangement influences the availability of oxygen surrounding the fuel source. Another important aspect
of fuel quality is the total surface area of the material that is exposed to heat and air. Fuels with large
area -to -volume ratios, such as grasses, leaves, bark and twigs, are easily ignited when dry.
Climatic and meteorological conditions that influence prairie fires include solar insulation, atmospheric
humidity, and precipitation, all of which determine the moisture content of wood and leaf litter. Dry
spells, heat, low humidity, and wind increase the susceptibility of vegetation to fire. Additional natural
agents can be responsible for igniting fires, including lightning, sparks generated by rocks rolling down a
slope, friction produced by branches rubbing together in the wind, and spontaneous combustion.
Arson and accidents, including sparks from equipment and vehicles, can also cause prairie fire. Human -
caused fires are typically worse than those caused by natural agents. Arson and accidental fires usually
start along roads, trails, streams, or at dwellings that are generally on lower slopes or bottoms of hills
and valleys. Nurtured by updrafts, these fires can spread quickly uphill. Arson fires are often set
I 163
Prairie Fire near Weld County
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
deliberately at times when factors such as wind, temperature, and dryness contribute to the spread of
flames.
Local impacts from prairie fire events include the following:
• Loss of life (human, livestock, wildlife)
• Damage to municipal watersheds
• Loss of property
• Evacuations
• Transportation interruption (closing highways)
• Reductions in air quality and human health
• Injuries — burns, smoke inhalation, etc.
• Coal seam or other energy facility ignitions
• Loss of vegetation (erosion, loss of forage and habitat for livestock and wildlife)
• Expense of responding (equipment, personnel, supplies, etc.)
• Loss of revenue from destroyed recreation and tourism area
Predicting the intensity of a prairie fire, its rate of spread, and its duration are important for wildfire
mitigation activity, response, and firefighter safety. Listed below are the three key factors affecting
prairie fire behavior in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Very often, however, the only factor that a
community can have direct influence over is fuel.
I. Fuels: The type, density, and continuity of surrounding vegetation and, sometimes, flammable
structures, that provide fuel to keep a wildfire burning. Fuels consist of combustible materials
and vegetation (including grasses, leaves, ground litter, plants, shrubs, and trees) that feed a fire.
2. Weather: Relative humidity, wind, and temperatures all affect wildfire threat and behavior.
3. Topography: The steepness and aspect (direction) of slopes, as well as building -site locations,
are features that affect fire behavior.
Wildfires are often rated based on their ability of their fuels to ignite. Descriptions for the commonly
used "Fire Danger Rating" system are listed below:
• Low: Fuels do not ignite readily from small firebrands. However, an intense heat source, such as
lightning, may start fires in duff or rotted wood. Fires in open grasslands may burn freely for a
few hours after rain, but wood fires spread slowly by creeping or smoldering, and burn in
irregular fingers. There is little danger of spotting.
• Moderate: Fires can start from most accidental causes, with the exception of lightning. Fires in
open grasslands will burn briskly and rapidly on windy days. Timber fires spread slowly to
moderately fast. The average fire is of moderate intensity, although heavy concentrations of fuel
may burn hot. Short -distance spotting may occur. Fires are not likely to become serious and
control is relatively easy.
• High: All fine dead fuels ignite readily and fires start easily from most causes. Unattended brush
and campfires are likely to escape. Fires spread rapidly and short -distance spotting is common.
High -intensity burning may develop on slopes or in concentrations of fine fuels. Fires may
become serious and their control difficult unless they are attacked successfully while small.
I 164
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
• Extreme/Very High: Fires start easily from all causes and immediately after ignition, spread
rapidly and increase quickly in intensity. Spot fires are a constant danger. Fires burning in light
fuels may quickly develop intensity characteristics such as long-distance spotting and fire
whirlwinds when they burn into heavier fuels.
For the purpose of prairie fire mitigation strategy development, this Plan divides the various land use
types within Weld County into four categories: cultivated agricultural land, forested land, grazing land, and
miscellaneous. Cultivated agricultural lands include both irrigated and non -irrigated crop land. Typically,
this category of land has very dynamic burning characteristics and seasons. Crops and dormant stands
located on Weld County's cultivated agricultural land can both serve as fuel for wildfires. What makes
agricultural land unique is the dynamic nature of the fuel locations and seasons of availability. These
factors add to the challenge of wildfire suppression and mitigation.
In the context of the Weld County landscape, forested land includes the riparian forest, windbreaks,
shelterbelts, living snow fences, and urban forests. Much of the forested land in Weld County occurs
along rivers, seasonal water courses, lakes, and ponds. Other forested lands include farmsteads and
urban areas. Here, trees are often planted near homes and outbuildings, which contribute to elevated
wildfire risk. In addition to the trees, forested lands include a surface cover of dry brush and grasses,
which are primary fuel sources for rapidly moving fires.
Grazing lands are primarily made up of sandhill steppe and prairie landscapes. Sandhill steppe is a
combination of mixed grasses and sage, and is widely used for livestock grazing. Fuel loads on grazing
lands are moderate to heavy and large fires have occurred with this fuel type during springtime wind
events. In some areas within Weld County livestock grazing maintains a rather sparse fuel load.
Miscellaneous areas include transportation right of ways, fence lines, disturbed areas, and other locations
that contain grasses, tumbleweeds, wild sunflowers, and other vegetation.
Long-term regional weather patterns in Colorado have followed a cyclical pattern of wet years
(characterized by average to high precipitation levels for the region), followed by a series of drought
years (characterized by below average precipitation levels). During wet years, the typical fire season is
from March through November. During drought years, the fire season in Colorado has been as long as
the full year.
Before discussing wildland fire risk in Weld County, a key wildfire management term must first be
defined. The term "wildland-urban interface", or WUI, is widely used within the wildland fire
management community to describe any area where manmade buildings are constructed close to or
within a boundary of natural terrain and fuel, where high potential for wildland fires exist. Communities
are able to establish the definition and boundary of their local WUI, and the boundaries often help in
meeting local management needs.
As part of this Plan's risk assessment, the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) produced Weld
County's Wildfire Risk Assessment Summary Report. This report provides many additional details
pertaining to wildfire risk across the County. It has been included in Appendix E: Wildfire Risk
Assessment Summary Report. Some pieces of this report are also included on the following pages.
Readers can also visit the Colorado Forest Atlas to learn more and access a web viewer of these various
risk maps.
Figure 55 provides an overview of Weld County's WUI. These areas have been identified mainly in the
Southwestern quarter of the County.
I 165
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 55. Wildland-Urban Interface
Wildland Urban Interface
1 house, -20 ac to 1 house: 10 ac
I house, -10 ac to I house',- ac
1 house, -2 ac to 3 hnnses•ac
More than 3 housesiac
I 166
e R�rnue +acv M MFvi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
"Wildfire Risk" represents the possibility of loss or harm occurring from a wildfire. It identifies areas
with the greatest potential impacts from a wildfire, considering both WUI Risk, Drinking Water Risk,
Forest Assets Risk, and Riparian Areas Risk.
Figure 56 identifies areas with the greatest potential impacts from a prairie fire, in other words, those
areas most at risk. The highest wildfire risk areas are located in the Northwest corner of the County in
addition to some areas in Southcentral Weld County.
Specific to WUI Risk, Figure 57 presents the CSFS data that rates the potential impact of a wildfire on
people and their homes. This data identifies those areas of the County at the most risk, which can be
seen to vary across much of the Western portion of the County.
I 167
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 56. Wildfire Risk
Wildfire Risk
C
zz
Lowest Risk
4
Moderate Risk
I 168
e R1rnue +acv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 57. Wildland-Urban Interface Risk
Wildland Urban Interface Risk
-1 (Least Negative Impact)
rd
CLJ
•
I 169
e R�rnue +acv M MFvi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Wildfires can occur at any time of day and during any month of the year. Moreover, the length of a
wildfire season and/or peak months may vary appreciably from year to year. As evidenced by the
wildfire risk map, areas within Weld County that are characterized by dense development and single-
family homes along the wildland-urban interface are most vulnerable to wildfire. The jurisdictions with
the highest WUI Risk Index rating include areas of Erie, Hudson, Firestone, Frederick, Windsor,
Greeley, and portions of unincorporated Weld County.
5.1 5.2 Previous Occurrences
Based on data provided by NOAA's NCEI Storm Events Database, there has been one prairie fire with
reported damages in Weld County in recorded history. Damages were estimated to be $1.5M from this
9/12/2010 event in Northwestern Weld County.
Figure 58 presents historical wildfire ignitions, from both Federal and non -Federal lands. This data from
the CSFS also included some of the largest perimeter fires to impact Weld County from 2000-2012.
This shows that generally the largest fires occur on the eastern portion of the County, while the
number of ignitions increase towards the more densely populated portions of Southwestern Weld
County.
I 170
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 58. Historical Prairie Fires
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.15.3 Data Analytics
The input into the composite risk layer developed with the data analytics suitability model for prairie fire
is shown in Figure 59.
Figure 59. Composite Risk Layer Prairie Fire Input
Prairie File
Colorado State Forest Service
Wildfire Risk
Non -Burnable
Lowest Risk
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
. High Risk
Data Source Colorado State Forest Sernce Co brado Fa tea Adas Risk Rednct.n Plonner WtldLire Risk
5.15.4 Inventory Exposed
Fires can extensively impact the economy of an affected area, including the agricultural, recreation and
tourism industries, water resources, and the critical facilities upon which Weld County depends. A
structure may be at risk to the impacts of prairie fire if it is located within the wildland urban interface
(WUI). There are 67,562 address points across Weld County that are located in the WUI. This equates
to 49.6% of all address points within the County.
5.15.5 Potential Losses
It is clear there is potential for large losses resulting from a wildfire event, as nearly 50% of the Weld
County housing stock resides in the WUI. This would be in addition to the other Lifelines that are
situated in these hazard areas.
5.15.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
Recent wildfires and brush fires across Colorado have forced school closures, disrupted telephone
services by burning fiber optic cables, damaged railroads and other infrastructure, and adversely affected
I 172
e R�rnue+�cv MAnir:F mirk!
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
tourism, outdoor recreation, and hunting. The likelihood of one of those fires attaining significant size
and intensity is unpredictable and highly dependent on environmental conditions and firefighting
response. Weather conditions, particularly drought events, increase the likelihood of wildfires occurring.
That said, it is important to note that 98% of wildfires are human -caused. Ultimately, the occurrence of
future wildfire events will strongly depend on patterns of human activity and events are more likely to
occur in wildfire -prone areas experiencing new or additional development.
Reported non -Federal land ignitions in Weld County over the recent past provide an acceptable
framework for determining the future occurrence in terms of frequency for such events. Based on
historical record of 3,890 ignitions from 2010 - 2017, it can be reasonably assumed that a wildfire event
has a large chance to develop across the County in any given year. The probability of the County and its
municipalities experiencing a wildfire associated with damages or loss is a different question to quantify.
5.15.7 Land Use and Development
Future development is an important factor to consider in the context of wildfire mitigation because
development and population growth can contribute to increased exposure of people and property to
wildfire. During the past few decades, population growth in the Weld County WUI has increased
greatly. Subdivisions and other high -density developments have created a situation where wildland fires
can involve more buildings than any amount of fire equipment can possibly protect. As development in
Weld County expands into wildland areas, people and property are increasingly at risk.
By identifying areas with significant potential for population growth and/or future development in high -
risk areas, communities can identify areas of mitigation interest and reduce hazard risks associated with
increased exposure.
Wildfire mitigation in the wildland-urban interface has primarily been the responsibility of property
owners who choose to build and live in vulnerable zones. In practice, successful wildfire mitigation
strategies can be quite involved. The most important aspect of successful suppression is disruption of
the continuity of fuels, achieved by creating breaks or defensible areas. For interface fires, where homes
and other structures fill the space, fuel reduction is best accomplished before the fires begin.
Safety zones can be created around structures by reducing or eliminating brush, trees, and vegetation
around a home or facility. FEMA recommends using a 30 -foot safety zone; including keeping grass below
2 feet tall and clearing all fallen leaves and branches promptly. Additionally, only fire-resistant or non-
combustible materials should be used on roofs and exterior surfaces. Firebreaks -- areas of inflammable
materials that create a fuel break and reduce the ability for fires to spread over roads and pathways --
can be planned and designed to serve as wildfire mitigation.
I 173
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.16 Public Health Hazards
5.1 6.1 Hazard Identification
Public health hazards are those that can adversely impact the health and environment of a large number
of people. These hazards can manifest as primary events by themselves, such as epidemics and
pandemics, or they may be secondary to another disaster or emergency, such as a flood, severe storm,
or hazardous materials incident. Environmental components of public health hazards that can affect the
health of the community include air and water quality, which can be affected by pollutants, such as
disease or smoke from a fire.
Public health hazards, including epidemics and pandemics, have the potential to cause serious illness and
death, especially among those who have compromised immune systems due to age or underlying
medical conditions. Emergency Support Function 8 (ESF 8) of the Weld County Emergency Operations
Plan provides an organizational framework for public health and medical service preparedness, response,
and recovery efforts for various emergency epidemics.
A pandemic can be defined as a disease that attacks a large population across great geographic distances.
Pandemics are most often caused by new subtypes of viruses or bacteria for which humans have little or
no natural resistance. Consequently, pandemics typically result in more deaths, social disruption, and
economic loss than epidemics. Epidemics tend to occur seasonally, affect much smaller areas and fewer
members of the community.
According to data from the Colorado Reportable Disease Statistics (CDPHE) database, Influenza viruses
represent the most common cause of hospitalization due to disease in Weld County. Seasonal influenza
(often referred to as the flu) is a common infection that affects large numbers of people in Colorado
every year. Influenza is an acute respiratory disease caused by influenza type A or B viruses. The typical
features of seasonal influenza include abrupt onset of fever and respiratory symptoms such as cough,
sore throat, as well as headache, muscle ache, and fatigue. For seasonal influenza, the incubation period
ranges from I to 4 days and the clinical severity of infection can range from asymptomatic infection to
primary viral pneumonia and death. Most people experience influenza as a very uncomfortable, but
ultimately benign illness. However, the influenza virus can mutate, causing it to be much more dangerous
to humans. Yearly seasonal influenza remains a significant disease in the U.S. and Colorado, and seasonal
epidemics can result in high morbidity and mortality, as well as create strains on the health care system
and communities.
A new virus emerged in China in December 2019 and was named the 2019 Novel Coronavirus
(COVID-19). In Weld County, the first COVID-19 case presented on March 13th, 2020. Weld County
saw rapid spread of the virus. As of 12/10/2020 there have been 16,578 reported cases across Weld
County, resulting in 145 deaths.
The incubation period for COVID-19 can be from 1 to 14 days. Risk of contraction has been tied to
proximity to others and exposure to respiratory droplets. Initial common symptoms can include a dry
cough, fever, fatigue, difficulty breathing or shortness of breath and loss of sense of taste and smell.
People may be asymptomatic, which means a positive result for the virus, but having no recognizable
symptoms, and still be active spreaders of the virus. In the case of contracting the virus, one is
considered no longer contagious after I 0 days since symptoms first appeared, 24 hours with no fever,
I 174
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
without the use of fever -reducing medications, such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen and other
symptoms are improving. The disease can range from mild fatigue and discomfort to rapid deterioration
of the person's health, resulting in hospitalization and often being put on a ventilator. While most cases
resolve in a reasonable amount of time, many people have been sick for a duration of multiple months.
Once cleared of the virus, many people are seeing long term negative impacts to their health and a very
slow return to regular functioning in day to day life.
In 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) updated their phase descriptions in the pandemic alert
system plan. While this plan was written for an influenza pandemic, the phases also correlate to other
zoonotic or emerging diseases and therefore apply to the COVID- 19 pandemic. Zoonotic diseases are
diseases that can be spread from animals to humans. These diseases can be caused by bacteria, viruses,
parasites, and fungi that are carried by animals and insects.
These phases can be utilized for any emerging disease to gauge the awareness and response of public
health organizations. The six -phase approach was designed for the easy incorporation of
recommendations into existing national and local preparedness and response plans. Phases 1-3
correlate with preparedness in the pre -pandemic interval, including capacity development and response
planning activities, while Phases 4-6 signal the need for response and mitigation efforts during the
pandemic interval.
Pre -Pandemic Interval
In nature, diseases circulate continuously among animals (primarily birds). Even though such viruses
might develop into pandemic viruses, in Phase I no viruses circulating among animals have been
reported to cause infections in humans.
• Phase I is the natural state in which diseases circulate continuously among animals but do not
affect humans.
In Phase 2 an animal diseases virus circulating among domesticated or wild animals is known to have
caused infection in humans and is thus considered a potential pandemic threat.
• Phase 2 involves cases of animal diseases that have circulated among domesticated or wild
animals and have caused specific cases of infection among humans.
In Phase 3 an animal or human -animal disease has caused sporadic cases or small clusters of illness in
people, but has not resulted in human -to -human transmission sufficient to sustain community -level
outbreaks. Limited human -to -human transmission may occur under some circumstances, for examples,
when there is close contact between an infected person and an unprotected caregiver. Limited
transmission under these circumstances does not indicate that the virus has gained the level of
transmissibility among humans necessary to cause a pandemic.
• Phase 3 represents the mutation of the animal disease in humans so that it can be transmitted
to other humans under certain circumstances (usually very close contact between individuals).
At this point, small clusters of infection have occurred.
I 175
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Pandemic Interval
Phase 4 is characterized by verified human to human transmission of the disease, able to cause
"community -level outbreaks." The ability to cause sustained disease outbreaks in a community marks a
significant upward shift in the risk for a pandemic.
• Phase 4 involves community -wide outbreaks as the disease continues to mutate and become
more easily transmitted between people (for example, transmission through the air)
Phase 5 is characterized by verified human to human spread of the disease into at least two countries in
one World Health Organization (WHO) region. While most countries will not be affected at this stage,
the declaration of Phase 5 is a strong signal that a pandemic is imminent and that the time to finalize the
organization, communication, and implementation of the planned mitigation measures is short.
• Phase 5 represents human -to -human transmission of the disease in more than one country of
one WHO region
Phase 6, the pandemic phase, is characterized by community -level outbreaks in at least one other
country in a different WHO region in addition to the criteria defined in Phase 5. Designation of this
phase will indicate that a global pandemic is underway.
• Phase 6 is the pandemic phase, characterized by community -level disease outbreaks.
Additionally, there are two periods after the phases, which describe the decline of cases of disease.
These include:
• Post -Peak Period, when levels of the pandemic disease in most countries with adequate
surveillance have dropped below peak level.
• Post -Pandemic Period, levels of disease activity have returned to levels seen for seasonal
influenza or illness in most countries with adequate surveillance.
5.16.2 Previous Occurrences
Public health hazard occurrences range from common to relatively rare. Diseases can greatly impact the
public health and health care system, but the vast majority of these are known reportable diseases,
which may have outbreaks but do not reach epidemic or pandemic levels. These case numbers are
required to be submitted to the state to help track which diseases are impacting the population most in
the County. Also commonly known are the hazards to public health that follow a disaster, such as flood
or earthquake, which are well documented and prepared for.
Pandemics are the rarest disease occurrence and other than the current global health situation with
COVID-19, there was only one other pandemic in the last 50 years. As we are still in the midst of the
COVID-19 pandemic, additional details of this event will be added in future Plan updates.
The influenza virus, H 1 N I, came to the world's attention in March 2009. The symptoms of pandemic
H I N 12009 influenza were similar to those of seasonal influenza. Illness in most cases was mild, but
there were cases of severe disease requiring hospitalization and a number of deaths. While no cases
were reported in Weld County in 2009, a hospitalization, resulting in death, did occur in 2013. The
HINI virus no longer presents a widespread threat due to an available vaccine.
I 176
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) releases an annual reportable
disease summary for each county. The events with the highest incidences in Weld County between 2014
and 2017 are summarized in Table 55.
Chronic Hepatitis C and influenza resulting in hospitalizations represent the largest disease incidence in
Weld County between 2014 and 2017.
Table 55. Colorado Reportable Disease Statistics (CDPHE), Weld County
Animal Bites
38
33
92
98
261
Campylobacter
56
83
108
117
364
Cryptosporidiosis
5
9
10
17
41
Giardiasis
II
9
II
15
46
Haemophilus Influenzae
2
4
6
7
19
Hepatitis B, Chronic
7
24
29
16
76
Hepatitis C, Chronic
100
116
163
214
593
Influenza- Hospitalized
200
80
90
204
574
Pertussis
183
57
34
14
288
Salmonellosis
33
40
42
48
163
Shigellosis
3
4
9
9
25
STEC
(Shiga Toxin producing E.coli)
8
17
15
*
40*
Strep Pneumo Invasive
24
28
3I
34
I I7
Varicella (Chicken Pox)
12
17
20
19
68
West Nile Virus
20
10
27
14
71
Total:
702
531
687
826
2746
Source: Division of Disease Control and Environmental Epidemiology, CDPHE
Note: * indicates no data for this year
5.1 6.3 Data Analytics
The input into the composite risk layer developed with the data analytics suitability model for public
health hazards is shown in Figure 60.
I 177
e R�rnue+�cv MANov:FMF, i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 60. Composite Risk Layer Public Health Hazards Input
Public Health
rLD
I 178
CDPHE Influenza Hospitalizations
Age -Adjusted Influenza Hospitalization Rate Per 100,000
Persons
No Data
0 to 35
35 to 45
45 to 60
■ 60 to 90
■ 90 to 290
Data Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Influenza Hospitalizations
CDPHE Adult Health Status
Percent of Adults with Fair or Poor Perceived Health
Status
■
■ 18 to 23
0 to 12
12 to 14
14to 16
16 to 18
Data Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Health Status in Adults
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.16.4 Inventory Exposed
Public health hazards by nature are a concern for all populations. However, when considering the entire
population, hazards can have a greater effect on certain subgroups and it is important to understand the
proportion these groups account for in the whole population. In the Weld County community, the most
at -risk members are:
• The elderly (people over 65 years of age)
• Children (under 5 years old)
• Those with pre-existing and/or chronic conditions (i.e. asthma, diabetes and heart disease)
The following table highlights the demographic data for Weld County residents within these categories.
Table 56. At -Risk Population Data
PI il <-- i_n1
Population
H ,nnc - i= i
1 1 n,I-,
324,492
1 t �
5,758,736
n ,�.�i i__�
328,239,523
Age: 4 and Under (%)
7. I
5.8
6
Age: Under 18 (%)
25.9
21.9
22.3
Age: 65 and Over (%)
12.4
14.6
16.5
Persons in Poverty (%)
10.5
9.3
10.5
Persons with a Disability (%)
10.2
19.1
26
Persons Age 65+ with a Disability (%)
35.4
32.2
43.8
Adults who are Obese or Overweight (%)
64.47
57.4
71.3
Adults with Diabetes (%)
8.6
7.3
8.2
Adults with Asthma (%)
9.22
9.1
7.7
Adults with Coronary Heart Disease (%)
3.27
2.7
4.2
Source: American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau (2013-2019), Colorado Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2014-
2019), Colorado Birth Dataset, Vital Records (2013-2017)
5.16.5 Potential Losses
COVID-19 has shown the sweeping impacts a pandemic can have on a community and the economy.
These impacts result from people becoming ill and being unable to work, but also due to public health
measures put in place to protect the rest of the population from becoming ill. With the public health
COVID-19 response, communities were placed into lockdown to limit spread of the virus, businesses
had to temporarily shut their doors to minimize community interaction.
The results of these actions are difficult to quantify at the time of this report, as the pandemic continues
to spread in communities and there are some restrictions still in place at varying levels in different
communities. However, many businesses, such as retail stores and restaurants do not have the capital to
remain closed for extended periods of time or to function at lower capacities to ensure public health
guidelines are followed. The number of businesses that will not be able to maintain long-term operations
or reopen at all will likely grow.
As businesses have been either restricted in their operations or unable to reopen, many members of the
community have become unemployed. Data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the
unemployment rate in Weld County in February 2020, prior to the first COVID- 19 case in March, was
2.9% and reached a high of 10.1% in June 2020. Per the most recent available data at the time of this
I 179
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
report, the August 2020 rate has declined to 6.6%. Weld County lifted public health restrictions on
businesses and restaurants in April 2020.
For an overall picture, in the 2020 annual report for the state, from the Colorado Business Economic
Outlook Committee, the projected outlook was for a loss of 128,500 (-4.6%) jobs, spanning every major
industry. It is difficult to pinpoint the accuracy of these projections down to the County or municipality
level, especially as each jurisdiction made decisions about reopening and guidelines specific to their
community.
Due to the closures there may be a resulting drop in revenue for businesses and the possible loss of
sales taxes for municipalities may have a noticeable long-term impact. Weld County does not have a
sales tax and the majority of tax revenue comes from property taxes on lands used for oil production.
These taxes are based on a two-year cycle, so the County may not see impacts until 2022, at which
point the expected drop in revenue due to the pandemic, which suppressed the global demand for fuel,
may have severe effects.
5.16.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
Public health hazards will continue to occur with numerous impacts to communities. Of the various
types of public health hazards, the scale and type of hazard should always be considered when
determining risk to the population. While many public health hazards typically have small scopes, it is
important to recognize the magnitude of impact to the community, including cascading effects to other
communities and long-term consequences.
The increase in global transport, as well as urbanization, can introduce new diseases in and around Weld
County, which makes epidemics likely to occur. While not every new disease turns into an epidemic or
a pandemic, there is no way to predict which diseases will.
The spread of infectious diseases is likely to increase, as future conditions affect temperature,
precipitation, and humidity levels which allow disease carrying vectors and pathogens to come into
closer contact with humans. Human population growth and expansion of humans into previously
uninhabited areas can increase the risk of exposure to animals and disease transmission.
The highest probability of increased occurrences is in existing reportable disease cases. For example,
mosquitoes capable of transmitting West Nile virus are already present in Colorado. An impact specific
to agricultural areas is irrigation for crops, which can be a breeding ground for mosquitoes which carry
West Nile virus and increased irrigation could lead to higher population numbers.
5.16.7 Land Use and Development
Future development in and around Weld County has the potential to change how infectious diseases
spread through the community and impact human health in both the short and long term. New
development may increase the number of people and facilities exposed to public health hazards and
greater population concentrations put more people at risk.
1180
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.17 Severe Storm (Including Hail, Lightning & Winter Storm)
5.17.1 Hazard Identification
Severe storms, including thunderstorms, hail, lightning, and winter storms, occur throughout the year in
Weld County. While each hazard occurs typically during a particular part of the year, changes in climate
are increasing the likelihood of more sporadic events.
Severe thunderstorms are categorized as such, by the National Weather Service, if hail at least 3/4
inch in diameter is produced, winds are 58 MPH or stronger, or a tornado is present. The typical
thunderstorm is 15 miles in diameter and lasts an average of 30 minutes. Thunderstorms create the
conditions for hail and lightning based on the types of precipitation present, the various air temperatures
and the characteristics of the wind. While a severe thunderstorm carries excessive winds, there are
many thunderstorms which can still produce hail at winds speeds that can cause significant damages and
safety concerns.
Hail is a frequent and damaging weather event in the region for property, livestock, and crops, as well
as the danger it poses to human safety. Hail is a precipitation that is formed when updrafts in
thunderstorms carry raindrops upward into extremely cold areas of the atmosphere. The super cooled
raindrops grow into balls of ice, which are a potential hazard when they fall back to the earth.
Hail season in Weld County is typically between March and October. The County sees hailstones from
< I " up to 3" during a typical year. Hailstones can result in extreme damages, injuries and sometimes
death. In 2019, the largest size hailstone record in Colorado was broken, when a hailstone weighing
over half a pound and 4.83 inches in diameter was discovered.
Lightning may accompany hail and develops when ice particles in a cloud collide with other particles
causing a separation of electrical charges. Positively charged ice particles rise to the top of the cloud and
negatively charged ones fall to the middle and lower sections of the cloud. The negative charges at the
base of the cloud attract positive charges at the surface of the Earth. Invisible to the human eye, the
negatively charged area of the cloud sends a charge, called a stepped leader, toward the ground. Once
it gets close enough, a channel develops between the cloud and the ground. Lightning is the electrical
transfer through this channel. The channel rapidly heats to 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit and contains
approximately 100 million electrical volts. The rapid expansion of the heated air causes thunder.
The state of Colorado ranks 32nd in terms of its cloud -to -ground lightning flash densities between 2009-
2018. Unfortunately, the state ranks 4th in the country in terms of lightning death rate per million (0.81)
people from 1959-2016. However, it is worth noting over that time period, there were 146 deaths total
in Colorado. Lightning deaths are rare, but the risk increases due to the large amounts of outdoor
recreation and outdoor workers. Since 1983, Weld County has had II injuries and 1 death due to
lightning.
The U.S. National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) tracks the average cloud -to -ground lightning
flash densities in the US, also called lightning incidence. Figure 61 shows the US data for 2009-2018 and
Figure 62 shows the data for Colorado between 1996-2016. These images are the result of contouring
millions of cloud -to -ground lightning flashes and averaging annually.
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 61. Average Lightning Flash Density in the U.S.
Fin D9flsq
FlashevNq krnitear
. e
c •I
1 :6
■ c s
7.2!
Source: Vaisala National Lightning Detection Network
I 182
k n1l.rl(F,Cv 1.AANA::F MI NI
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 62. Colorado Lightning Flash Density Map
v.: GS
C5 C'5
L. i5•`G
=-•r5
• rs•ao
5=5 55
iS .60
6C 6:5
6=5 C.5
X51
Source: Vaisala National Lightning Detection Network
The flash density maps show a wide range of values across the US and the state of Colorado. Weld
County, which is 10,400 km2, has roughly between 1.0 and 2.75 flashes/year/km2 on average, depending
on location.
Winter weather events encompass a number of types of weather occurrences. Winter weather in
Colorado is typically relatively mild, however large weather events are known to impact safety, business
continuity and the integrity of lifeline infrastructure, such as communications and electrical power
supply. Each event carries its own specific characteristics, some posing more hazards than others and it
is important to consider the impacts to your community for the entire spectrum of events.
The NCEI storm database tracks historical cold weather conditions and these are broken down based
off the elements of the weather event.
Winter weather is an event in which there is freezing rain or when 2-4 inches of snow (alone or in
combination with sleet and freezing rain) is expected to cause inconvenience for community members.
Winter storm is a weather event which has more than one significant hazard (a combination of two or
more of the following: snow, heavy or blowing snow, ice or sleet) and meets or exceeds 12 and/or 24
hour local warning criteria for at least one of the precipitation elements. Normally a winter storm
would pose a threat to life or property.
I 183
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Blizzard is a life -threatening event produced by a combination of falling or blowing snow, and high
winds, typically 35 mph or more, reducing visibility to 114 mile or less for at least 3 hours. These winds
can contribute to dangerous wind chill temperatures, however there is not a temperature or snowfall
requirement that must be met to achieve blizzard conditions. Ground blizzards can develop when strong
winds lift snow off the ground and severely reduce visibilities. The combination of these elements can
create potentially deadly travel conditions with impassable roads and zero visibilities.
Heavy snow, in large quantities, may fall during winter storms. Six inches or more in 12 hours or eight
inches or more in 24 hours constitutes conditions that may significantly hamper travel or create
hazardous conditions. The National Weather Service issues warnings for such events. Smaller amounts
can also make travel hazardous, but in most cases, only results in minor inconveniences. Heavy wet
snow before the leaves fall from the trees in the fall or after the trees have leafed out in the spring may
cause problems with broken tree branches and power outages.
Ice storms are the result of significant accumulation of freezing rain, which lasts several hours. Freezing
rain occurs when snowflakes descend into a warmer layer of air and melt completely. When these liquid
water drops fall through another thin layer of freezing air just above the surface, they do not have
enough time to refreeze before reaching the ground. Because they are "supercooled," they instantly
refreeze upon contact with anything that that is at or below 32°F, creating a glaze of ice on the ground,
trees, power lines, or other objects. Thick, heavy accumulations of ice can bring down trees and power
lines, which makes already dangerous driving and walking more hazardous.
Extreme Cold, poses risks to people, property, livestock, and crops across Weld County. When
temperatures become colder than is normal for an area, for an extended period of time, the dangers to
the community may not be immediately apparent. Cold temperatures and wind combine to create
dangerous wind chill temperatures, which are a critical factor in deciding the safety of the outside
weather. These temperatures can be life threatening if exposed for extended periods of time. See the
Extreme Temperatures section of the Plan for more specifics about the hazards to the County.
5.1 7.2 Previous Occurrences
Hail
Hail can be difficult to accurately quantify, as it relies on public reporting and monitoring by various
weather organizations, Therefore, there is a high population bias with hail reports. A majority of reports
align with cities and major roadways, while less reports come from rural areas but not necessarily less
hail.
The eastern portion of Colorado is considered a "hot spot" for severe weather. For Weld County, this
means that over 500 hail events were reported between January 1996 and August 2020, making it likely
there will be more hailstorms in the future.
Table 57. Historic Hail Events Reporting Losses in Weld County
1 n1 17 .F1 LI il �..
i'll
F LI it i,,
r „�
5/16/1991
Unincorporated Weld County
1.00
$4,000
5/31/1994
Cit of Greele
0.75
$4,000
7/16/1994
Town of Windsor
1.25
$5,000
7/16/1994
Town of Eaton
2.50
$5,000
I 184
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7/16/1994
Town of Eaton
2.00
$5,000
7/24/1994
Unincorporated Weld County
2.00
$3,000
7/24/1994
Unincorporated Weld County
1.75
$4,000
7/31/1996
Unincorporated Weld County
0.75
$200
6/23/1997
City of Greeley
1.50
$3,100
8/10/2004
Town of Eaton
2.00
$2,000
8/19/2016
City of Greeley
1.50
$15,000
Total
$50,300
Figure 63 presents the distribution and size of historical hail events across the County from 1955 - 2018.
Although more likely to be reported if occurring in populated areas, the events on the map show that
hail can impact every part of Weld County and its municipalities.
I 185
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 63. Historical Hail Events
+•
• • • • • • •• •
N • •• • •
�••� •
• • •
N
W •
• •
•
•
V
0
2
•
C •
• •
•
CL
L
[d
N
A
4-1 d •
C
0
U
•
•
•
• ••
•
•
!•
• •
•• • _
•
•
•
• • •
•
• •• •
•"
•
•
Diameter (inches)
0J5-1.25
0
O
N
• •
100-100
3.00 - 4.50
•
•I'
•
• • •
• !
'••
• • '
• • ••
• • •« • •••• •
_ . •« •
• • ••
• •
•0,. • 2. !
• • i
• +•• • • w+ .••
'•
• •. «_• • • •
• . ••• • • 's •• •
24
• • • • • •
•
• • • • • • .400 ▪ a.III
!
• Oa :• •
U
• • • •• • .• •
tiii
• . • •
• •
V
0
• •
••' •
•
•• •
V y•
Z LL
Source: NOAA 1955 - 2018
I 186
e R1rnue +acv � 14Ni ,F M�vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Lightning
According to NCEI data, there were 27 lightning events between 1996 and 2019, in Weld County.
These have resulted in 4 four injuries and I death. The resulting damages were $1,049,000 in property
and $26,000 in damage to crops. The events which caused property and crop damage are summarized in
Table 58.
Table 58. Lightning Strikes Resulting Property or Crop Damages
6/4/1996
Greeley
$50,000
$0
6/8/1996
La Salle
$1,000
$0
6/25/1996
Greeley
$0
$6,000
7/8/1997
Roggen
$100,000
$0
9/20/1998
Windsor
$500,000
$0
7/27/1999
Hudson
$100,000
$0
4/20/2000
Windsor
$200,000
$0
7/10/2001
Greeley
$40,000
$0
9/20/2010
Kersey
$0
$10,000
9/20/2010
Kersey
$0
$10,000
5/8/2017
Greeley
$5,000
$0
Total
$9,000
$26,000
Source: NOAA; NCEI Storm Events Database
Winter Storm
Historic winter weather data between January 1996 and June 2020, lists a total of 106 events in Weld
County. Within those events, there were no reported injuries or deaths. As far as losses, there was no
crop damage and $102,000 worth of property damage. Winter weather events, according to the NCEI
Storm Events Database definitions include: winter storm, winter weather, blizzard and cold/wind chill.
An event is recorded if there are more than one significant hazard (a combination of two or more of the
following: snow, heavy or blowing snow, ice or sleet) and meets or exceeds local twelve or twenty-four
hour warning criteria for at least one of the precipitation elements.
Table 59. Historic Winter Storms in the Weld County (1996 — 2020)
1 11
ro, s
�1i a H1-1 - 11[1 n'1.'
�l�ll
1996 - 2005 0
21
0
2
0
0
0
0
2006 - 2015
23
22
0
0
0
$102,000
0
2016 -June
2020
18
12
7
0
0
0
0
0
Event
Type
Totals
41
55
7
3
0
0
$102,000
0
Total
Events
106
Source: NOAA; NCEI Storm Events Database
I 187
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
In March 2019, a bomb cyclone impacted large parts of the state, disrupting power, causing numerous
multi -car accidents, and stranding 1,500 motorists across the state. A bomb cyclone is a storm
characterized by a large, rapid drop in barometric pressure over 24 hours and wind gusts between 60-
100 mph. The impacts of the bomb cyclone in Weld County began with beneficial steady rainfall and
progressed to 54 mph wind gusts, whipping snow across roadways and crops. With a midday high
temperature of only 29°F the event brought windchill temperatures of 10°F and below. While only 4.1
inches of snow fell in Greeley during the March event other towns got up to 9 inches. An April storm
which was predicted to be similar to the bomb cyclone, brought 10 inches of snow to Greeley. The
April storm was milder in winds with only 36mph wind gusts and less barometric pressure change, but
had windchill temperatures of around 10°F.
5.1 7.3 Data Analytics
The inputs into the composite risk layer developed with the data analytics suitability model for severe
storm are shown in the following Figures.
1188
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 64. Composite Risk Layer Severe Storm Input I
Severe Storm
PLD
I 189
14
52
NWS Storm Database (1996 - 2020)
Severe Storm Reports
32
64
■ 90
Data Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Environmental Information Storm Events Database
NWS Snowfall Accumulation (2008 - 2020)
Average Season Accumulation in Inches
30 to 35
35 to 40
40 to 45
■ 45 to 55
■ 55 to 65
Data Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center National Snowfall Analysis
e R�rnue+�cv MANov:F MF N i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 65. Composite Risk Layer Severe Storm Input 2
Severe Storm
PLD
I 190
SVRGIS Hail Events (1955 - 2018)
Severe EventsWithin 10 Kilometers (-6 Miles)*
O to 14
14 to 28
28 to 57
■ 57 to 94
■ 94 to 162
Data Source: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration Storm Prediction Center Severe Weather GIS Hail
CD
nuuuuuu�—
SVRGIS Hail Events (1955 - 2018)
Significant Severe Events Within 10 Kilometers (-6 Miles)*
0 to 2
2 to 5
5 to 8
■ 8 to II
■ II to 17
Data Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center Severe Weather GS Hail
* Notes and Assumptions: Per NWS, the average hail swath is 6 miles long
NOAA defines severe hail events as storms that produce hail I inch in diameter or larger and
significant severe hail events as storms that produce hail 2 inches in diameter or larger
Per NOAA severe weather reports tend to cluster around population centers; the data generally
matches the understanding of severe weather climatology, but may show a slight bias towards
population centers
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.17.4 Inventory Exposed
The variety of severe storms that impact Weld County each year have diverse and sometimes harmful
impacts on the community, property, crops, and livestock. While it is true that all inventory across the
County could be impacted by these distinct weather events, generalizing these impacts can leave gaps in
planning. When looking at each weather event, it is important to recognize the different risk levels of
each hazard for specific inventory and assets. Damages may occur as a result of high winds, lightning
strikes, hail, ice accumulation and other winter storm impacts. However, consequences to these
elements differ greatly, for example the risk to power supply infrastructure from high winds and ice
accumulation is much higher than from hail, while water supply would be most greatly affected by
extreme cold.
5.17.5 Potential Losses
Potential losses greatly depend on the frequency, intensity, and type of weather event. It is difficult to
quantify and previous losses are not a reliable indicator to determine future losses. Grouping by type of
event can help to illustrate specific impacts on property or crop damage.
Hail poses threats to both property and crops. Small hail in large volumes or driven by a strong wind are
most damaging to crops. Large hail is most damaging to physical structures and poses a threat to human
and livestock safety. Hail often damages vehicles, windows, and roofs. If the hailstones are large enough
they may go through windshields and roof. The buildup of weight on a roof can collapse structures.
Lightning poses a threat to human life, may damage buildings, if directly struck, and has the potential to
ignite grassland fires. These fires may become a threat to crops or developed areas.
Winter weather events include various types and therefore have varied impacts. Winter storms may
bring snow quickly but result in only a minor inconvenience to the community and typically little damage
past vehicle accidents. Ice storms can greatly impact infrastructure due to the consequences of ice
accumulations, creating dangerous conditions and straining infrastructure with the weight of the ice.
Power lines may be downed which could result in a disruption of service until safely repaired and trees
falling under the weight could cause property damage. Blizzards and/or heavy snow present dangers to
snow removal equipment and crews, as road conditions are the most likely impact. Heavy snow may
impact structural integrity due to the weight on roofs and may also bring down trees.
Losses to structures are typically minimal and covered by insurance, but uncovered losses may be
personnel overhead, maintenance costs, and contents within structures. A timely forecast may not be
able to mitigate the property loss, but could reduce the casualties and associated injuries.
5.17.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
Severe storms are likely in the future. While understanding the historical frequency, duration, and spatial
extent of severe weather is critical to planning, it is important to recognize that with changing climate it
may be more difficult to determine the likelihood and potential severity of future occurrences. The
characteristics of historical events illustrate the impacts on the County, but will not foretell the impacts
of future events due to the unpredictability of timing, location and intensity of weather events. The large
growth of the County brings new considerations, as storm elements change and more people, property,
livestock, and crops may be impacted.
In recent years, there is a trend toward a shorter yet more intense hail season, with increasing
proportions of significant and very large hail. As population density grows there will be a noticeable
difference in the magnitude of hail risk.
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Lightning flash density is increasing across the US, making an increase likely in Weld County.
Winter weather events are likely in the future. While each type may have its own probability, it is fair to
say an increase in events may happen in Weld County.
5.17.7 Land Use and Development
Increased development trends in and around Weld County will multiply the possible consequences of
severe storms. Enforcing and adhering to building codes for new development is imperative for
community safety during future climate extremes. As the rural portions of the County continue to
grow, consideration of reliable access to those rural residents should be prevalent in emergency
management and mitigation planning.
I 192
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.18 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
MODERATE RISK HAZARD
5.18.1 Hazard Identification
Tornadoes typically occur during the spring and early summer months of March through June and are
most likely to form in the late afternoon and early evening. According to the National Weather Service,
tornado wind speeds can range between 30 to more than 300 miles per hour. Most tornadoes are a few
dozen yards wide and touchdown briefly, but even small, short-lived tornadoes can inflict tremendous
damage. The damage caused by a tornado is a result of high wind velocities and wind-blown debris,
which ranges depending on the intensity, size, and duration of the storm. The majority of Colorado
tornadoes occur in the eastern plains, including large areas of Weld County.
According to NOAA data from May 1952 to May 2020, Weld County has a total of 280 tornado
segments, more than any other County in the U.S. A segment is the portion of a tornado's path within a
single county. If a tornado stays in one county, then a "tornado" is the same as a "segment." The
National Weather Service historically has verified tornado warnings by county, which is the reason for
county -segment tornado recordkeeping.
Tornadoes are classified based on the damage inflicted once it has passed over a man-made structure,
which allows experts to assess and estimate wind intensity. The Fujita Scale (Table 60) was used until
2007, classifying the intensity from the least to most intense, in seven categories (FO -F6). This scale was
replaced by the Enhanced Fujita Scale (Table 62), which uses six intensity categories (EF0-EF5) to
measure tornado strength and associated damages. The scale was revised to reflect better examinations
of tornado damage surveys, to align wind speeds more closely with associated storm damage. The new
scale takes into account how most structures are designed and is considered a more accurate
representation of the surface wind speeds in the most violent tornadoes. Table 60 provides details on
how the Enhanced Fujita Scale intensities can be derived from the previous Fujita Scale.
Table 60. Derived EF Scale
F Number
P nil= i i1
3 Second Gust (mph)
EF
Number
F ..r] d h i1
3 Second Gust (mph)
0
45-78
0
65-85
I
79-117
I
86-109
2
118-161
2
110-137
3
162-209
3
138-167
4
210-261
4
168-199
5
262-317
5
200-234
Source: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/efscale/ef-scale.html
I 193
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 61. Fujita Tornado Damage Scale
1 -
F Fl i i I
FO
it . 1 ,l ,l i -
=J ( Ili 1
Gale tornado
i ,l 1
40-72
mph
Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes
over shallow -rooted trees; damages signboards.
F I
Moderate
tornado
73-112
mph
The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels
surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or
overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached
garages may be destroyed.
F2
Significant
tornado
113-
157
mph
Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile
homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or
uprooted; light object missiles generated.
F3
Severe
tornado
158 -
206
m h
P
Roof and some walls torn off well -constructed houses; trains
overturned; most trees in forest uprooted
Pi
Devastating
tornado
207-
260
mph
Well -constructed houses leveled; structures with weak
foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large
missiles generated.
P'
Incredible
tornado
261-
318
mph
Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried
considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles
fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel
reinforced concrete structures badly damaged.
F6
Inconceivable
tornado
3 19-
379
mph
These winds are very unlikely. The small area of damage they
might produce would probably not be recognizable along with
the mess produced by F4 and F5 wind that would surround the
F6 winds. Missiles, such as cars and refrigerators would do
serious secondary damage that could not be directly identified
as F6 damage. If this level is ever achieved, evidence for it might
only be found in some manner of ground swirl pattern, for it
may never be identifiable through engineering studies
Source: htto://www.soc.noaa.pov/faa/tornado/f-scale.html
I 194
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 62. Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale
l it L,l un=_L _wL= r
i ill1 11.I il_ it
r= il=i L1F LI it Lr,
EF0
65-85
Light damage:
Peels surface off some roofs; some damage
to gutters or siding; branches broken off
trees; shallow -rooted trees pushed over.
EF I
86-110
Moderate damage:
Roofs severely stripped; mobile homes
overturned or badly damaged; loss of
exterior doors; windows and other glass
broken.
EF2
III - 135
Considerable damage:
Roofs torn off well -constructed houses;
foundations of frame homes shifted; mobile
homes completely destroyed; large trees
snapped or uprooted; light -object missiles
generated; cars lifted off ground.
EF3
136-165
Severe damage:
Entire stories of well -constructed houses
destroyed; severe damage to large buildings
such as shopping malls; trains overturned;
trees debarked; heavy cars lifted off the
ground and thrown; structures with weak
foundations blown away some distance.
166-200
Devastating damage:
Well -constructed houses and whole frame
houses completely leveled; cars thrown and
small missiles generated.
P',
>200
Incredible damage:
Strong frame houses leveled off foundations
and swept away; automobile -sized missiles fly
through the air in excess of 100 m (109 yds.);
high-rise buildings have significant structural
deformation; incredible phenomena will
occur.
Source: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-scale.html
Straight line winds and other severe wind events, which can be more damaging than tornadoes, can
cause injuries and death to people and animals, along with damages to property and crops. Straight-line
I 195
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
wind is a term used to define any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation, and is used
mainly to differentiate from tornadic winds.
Downburst is the general term for all localized strong wind events that are caused by a strong
downdraft within a thunderstorm, and is used to broadly describe macro and microbursts.
A macroburst is an outward burst of strong winds that occurs when a strong downdraft reaches the
ground, spreading over 2.5 miles. Macroburst winds may begin over a smaller area and then spread out
over a wider area, sometimes producing damage similar to a tornado. Although usually associated with
thunderstorms, macrobursts can occur with showers too weak to produce thunder.
A microburst is a small concentrated downburst that produces an outward burst of strong winds at or
near the surface. Microbursts are small, less than 2.5 miles across and short-lived, lasting only five to I 0
minutes, with maximum windspeeds sometimes exceeding 100 mph.
A derecho is a widespread, long-lived wind storm that is associated with a band of rapidly moving
showers or thunderstorms. A typical derecho consists of numerous microbursts, downbursts, and
downburst clusters. By definition, if the wind damage swath extends more than 240 miles and includes
wind gusts of at least 58 mph or greater along most of its length, then the event may be classified as a
derecho.
5.18.2 Previous Occurrences
NCEI's Storm Events Database estimates that 280 tornadoes have touched down in, or moved through,
Weld County between 1950 and May 2020. A majority of these events have been classified as FO or Fl
events, with 15 F2 tornadoes, I F3 and I EF3. Table 63 illustrates the breakdown of occurrences,
damages, injuries, and deaths over that time period.
Table 63. Tornado History in Weld County (1950 — 2020)
1950-
1961
21
3
5
1
H
6
0
$46,620
$0
1962-
1971
10
5
1
1
0
$77,530
$0
1972-
1981
44
22
1
3
0
$2,840,250
$0
1982-
1991
63
41
7
3
0
$696,010
$0
1992-
2001
63
7
1
0
0
$75,000
$0
2002-
2011
41
3
2
1
79
1
$147,020,000
$5,000
20 12-
5/2020
38
1
1
1
0
$105,000
$5,000
Total: 280
81
15
1
3
1
1
93
1
$150,860,410
$10,000
Source: NOAA; NCH Storm Events Database
Weld County saw its most destructive tornado event on May 22, 2008. The tornado, ranked an EF3 on
the Enhanced Fujita Scale, swept north -northwestward across the County, carving a path of destruction,
I 196
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
nearly 39 miles in length. The storm, which was up to one mile wide at times, had a continuous at path
of 24 miles and brought baseball sized hail. This tornado event caused 78 injuries and one death, along
with millions of dollars in damages.
Nearly 300 homes were significantly damaged or destroyed and I ,259 individuals applied for federal
disaster aid. At one point over 60,000 people were without power, as over 200 power poles were
snapped or blown down, which cost Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association an estimated $ I million. A
reported 85 tractor trailers and 15 railroad cars were overturned. The Town of Windsor saw much of
the damages, including the leveling of the main feed lot and a destroyed dairy barn resulting in the death
of almost 400 cattle.
The following Figure depicts the tornado touchdown locations that occurred on May 22, 2008.
Figure 66. Tornado Touchdowns in Weld County, May 22, 2008
FEMA TORNADO TOUCHDOWNS MAY 22, 2008 FEMA RermnTV1Ii
PRELIMINARY DATA FROM THE �Mitg Mitigation
05123,2008
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
1:330PM
ara
j6:4sPrvi1
Cheyenne 18:33PM
Alban y
5:00PM
WY 1:22PM ``
r
Laramie
2:55PM
CO
Wellington
Weld
12:16PM
Larimer
/
)1'2-07PM I
r
I12_:09PM
y , 11:57AM
Tim nath
1Wndso 11:50AM I
f12:02PP.1 I
I.-:
!Greeley
Milliken
• _11'40AM
11:27AM Gil crer,t 11.1 o ANI
I
g •
Boulder Longmont
Platteville 1:32AIvl
in
Grand I_
112^_3PM
--k•
(12:32PM I
Broomflefal
Adams
0 5 10 20 30 40
. . Miles
Legend N
• Cities _i
Q° Tornado Touchdowns l' ---
Figure 67 depicts historical tornado tracks and events in and around Weld County. The map illustrates
where tornadoes have touched down (and traveled) between 1955 and 2018. It is important to note
that all portions of the County are susceptible to tornado hazard, from the urban western portions to
the rural eastern side.
I 197
e R�rnue+�cv
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 67. Historical Tornado Events
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ♦
•
•
•
•
•
•
LL
N m
LL LL
• •
i
•
•
••
•
•
• a •
• \
•
•
• •
•
•• _
}• __ _..
• •
•
•
•
•
W
0
LL
I 198
e R�rnue +acv Mi _.F M�vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Data from NOAA's NCEI Storm Events Database for straight-line wind events, in Weld County, was
used for historical thunderstorm and high wind events. Thunderstorm winds and high winds differ in
their characteristics, but both can be dangerous to public safety and cause significant damages to
property and crops. Table 64 and Table 65 illustrate the breakdown of historical events, the difference
in time periods is due to changes in the NCEI Event categorizations.
Thunderstorm Winds arise from convection, occurring within 30 minutes of lightning being observed or
detected. Characterized by wind speeds of at least 58 mph, or thunderstorm related winds of any speed
below 58 mph that produce a fatality, injury, or damage.
High Winds are sustained non -convective winds of 40 mph or greater lasting for I hour or longer, or
gusts of 58 mph or greater for any duration.
Based on data provided by NCEI's Storm Events Database, 167 high wind events have occurred in Weld
County between 1996 and August 2020. Between 1985 and August 2020, a total of 237 thunderstorm
wind events have occurred across the County.
Table 64. Thunderstorm Winds Event History in Weld County (1985 — 2020)
--
1985- 1994
59
F- i l 111
Frill fl °--II
47-7I
0
0
$13,600
$0
1995-2004
63
50-70
$63,000
$0
2005-2014
62
50-76
0
0
$241,000
$10,000
2015-8/2020
53
50-71
0
0
$0
$0
TOTAL: 237
$317,600
$10,000
Source: NOAA; NCEI Storm Events Database
Table 65. High Winds and Strong Winds Event History in Weld County (1996 — 2020)
1996-2005
2006-2015
2016-8/2020
. -pi l 1 -
Frill fl .,'„'fl
88
49
30
TOTAL:
167
39-100
35-88
50-78
7
7
0
17
0
0
0
0
$1,436,000
$235,000
$300,000
$1,971,000
$0
$255,000
$0
$255,000
Source: NOAA; NCEI Storm Events Database
The following Figure 68 provides a geospatial view of these historical severe wind events in Weld
County between 1996 and 2018. As with tornadoes, it should be noted that severe winds affect all
portions of the County.
I 199
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 68. Historical Severe Wind Events
•
•
•
•
In
4)
ci)
Tri
0
2
� o
C m
CL
C
0
'4 ry
E
L
N
cd r
2
4-)�
C
0
-v •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
gs•
•
••
• •
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
• • •
••
•
•
z
O
Miles Per Hour
0 O
rn .0
✓ ▪ • v in
• • •
••
•
•
• • • • • ogre
•
i
•
• •
•
•
•
•
I 200
•
•
•
•
•
•• •
•
• •
••• �
• •
•
•
•
4111
• ',•
•
•
� LL
•
•
•
1
e R�rnue +acv M4Ni ,F M�vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.18.3 Data Analytics
The inputs into the composite risk layer developed with the data analytics suitability model for tornado
& straight-line wind are shown in the following Figures.
1201
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 69. Composite Risk Layer Tornado & Straight -Line Wind Input I
Straight -Line Wind/Tornado
rLD
I 202
( 14
( 52 )
SVRGIS Wind Events (1955 - 2018)
Severe Events Within 24 Kilometers (-15 Miles)*
7 to 46
46 to 71
■ 71 to 91
■ 91 to 117
■ 117 to 157
Data Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center Severe Weather GIS Wind
SVRGIS Wind Events (1955 - 2018)
Significant Severe Events Within 24 Kilometers (-15 Miles)*
0 to 4
4 to 7
■ 7to 10
■ 10 to l2
■ 12 to 18
Data Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center Severe Weather GIS Wind
* Notes and Assumptions: Per NWS, the average severe storm is 15 miles wide
NOAA defines severe wind events as storms that produce damaging winds or wind speeds of 58
miles per hour or greater and significant severe wind events as storms that produce wind speeds
of 75 miles per hour or greater
Per NOAA severe weather reports tend to cluster around population centers; the data generally
matches the understanding of severe weather climatology, but may show a slight bias towards
population centers
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 70. Composite Risk Layer Tornado & Straight -Line Wind Input 2
Straight -Line Wind/Tornado
rLD
I 203
SVRGISTornado Events (1955 - 2018)
Severe Events \A/ithin 10 Kilometers (-6 Miles)*
0 to 3
3 to 7
■ 7 to II
■ II to 16
■ 16 to 24
Data Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center Severe Weather GIS Tornado
SVRGISTornado Events (1 955 - 2018)
Significant Severe Events Within 0.2 Kilometers (-200 Yards)*
0
• 1
■ 2
Data Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Storm Prediction Center Severe Weather GIS Tornado
* Notes and Assumptions: Per NWS and National Geographic, the average tornado swath is 6 miles long
and 100-300 yards wide
Severe tornado events were provided as initial points
Significant severe tornado events were provided as paths
NOAA defines severe tornado events as a tornado and significant severe tornado events as a tornado
that produces EF2 or greater damage
Per NOAA, severe weather reports tend to cluster around population centers; the data generally
matches the understanding of severe weather climatology, but may show a slight bias towards
population centers
e R1rnue+�cv M4NAQF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.18.4 Inventory Exposed
All assets located in Weld County can be considered at risk from severe wind and tornadoes. Exposure
to high winds is assumed to be as destructive, if not more so than tornadoes.
Due to the nature of these events, it is difficult to predict the intensity of the tornado, wind speed, and
flying debris that may result. Therefore, it is also difficult to determine if any inventory or assets are
more exposed than others. Overall, infrastructure, property, crops, livestock, and people could be
impacted by wind events, even the events considered "small".
Structure type and material are important to consider, as those made of light materials, such as mobile
homes, are most susceptible to damage.
5.18.5 Potential Losses
Tornadoes and straight-line wind events damage or destroy what is in their path and the lasting impacts
depend upon wind speeds and duration of the event. Inventory and assets face potential losses primarily
due to damages to property and structures, but losses may be incurred due to livestock or crop
damage, as well. Due to the erratic nature of these events, it is difficult to quantify what may be
realistically damaged or lost. Damages to roads, homes and infrastructure should be considered when
looking at the potential losses at a local level. Additional costs may stem from the response to the event,
debris removal, maintenance, and necessary repairs.
Accurate and current valuation of properties and assets is vital to understanding potential losses. The
scale of damages to inventory may vary depending on the age and type of the building, construction
materials used and the condition of the structure. Critical infrastructure may be impacted during an
event, which may have cascading effects on services to the public. These disruptions or halting of
services may result in losses. Electrical supply, communications, water and fuel supply are essential to
maintain during and after a tornado or wind event.
Due to the nature of tornadoes and severe wind events, not all jurisdictions within Weld County are
likely to be impacted equally. Over 7,700 homes or roughly 7% of the homes in Weld County are
mobile homes, according to 2018 US Census Bureau data. The structural characteristics of these homes
are a concern for property losses and life safety obstacles are critical to focus on when planning. The
residents of mobile homes are more likely to have access and functional needs, such as those with low-
income, the elderly and a larger population of immigrants. Deaths from tornadoes are significantly more
likely in mobile homes than for those in fixed homes, NOAA research estimates that since 1975 over
one-third of all tornado deaths in the country were of those in mobile homes. Between January and
August of 2020, there were 78 deaths in the US from tornadoes, 36 of those people were located in
mobile homes. As communities across Weld County continue to grow, it is important that local
agencies monitor the inventory and locations of mobile homes. Communities or geographic locations
with large numbers of mobile homes require specific discussion of mitigation actions for straight-line
winds, tornadoes, and all hazards in general.
I 204
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
5.18.6 Probability of Future Occurrences
The probability of the County and its municipalities experiencing a tornado or straight-line wind event is
high. The frequency and magnitude of these events historically is an indicator of the likelihood of events
in the future. However, this data does not inform the characteristics of impending events, especially
considering the unpredictability of tornadoes and the undiscriminating impacts of straight-line winds.
Understanding previous events can help with informing planning efforts, but it is important to think long-
term about the potential for these events to grow in frequency and intensity.
5.18.7 Land Use and Development
All future structures built in Weld County will likely be exposed to severe wind and tornado damage.
Weld County and its jurisdictions should continue to adhere to building codes and to facilitate new
development that is built to the highest design standards to account for heavy winds.
I 205
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
6 Appendix A: 2021 Mitigation Action Guides
I Appendix A -
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Contents
Weld County (9 Projects) 3
Weld County -PW (7 Projects) I 0
Ault (2 Projects) 14
Carbon Valley - Dacono (2 Projects) 16
Carbon Valley - Firestone (3 Projects) 18
Carbon Valley - Frederick (4 Projects) 21
Eaton (3 Projects) 24
Erie (12 Projects) 26
Evans (3 Projects) 34
Fort Lupton (6 Projects) 36
Greeley (2 Projects) 41
Greeley PW (7 Projects) 43
Hudson (3 Projects) 49
Johnstown (5 Projects) 52
Keenesburg (4 Projects) 56
LaSalle (3 Projects) 59
Mead (5 Projects) 61
Milliken (4 Projects) 65
Nunn (3 Projects) 69
Pierce (4 Projects) 71
Platteville (6 Projects) 75
Severance (3 Projects) 79
Windsor (3 Projects) 81
I Appendix A - 2
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Weld County (9 Projects)
I -Weld County: County Resiliency, Building of Lifelines and Subcomponents in all
Jurisdictions
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: County Wide
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021-2025
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Annually
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
LIFELINE: All
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: Traditional educational programs have not been measured, Weld County is working with each
jurisdiction individually in the "Whole Community Approach" to strengthen capabilities, build
resilience, incorporate preplanning for all hazards, development of COOP, EOP, ERGS and
community wide educational programs.
RECOMMENDATION: The goal would be to better understand each community's resilience (social
vulnerability, capabilities and social capital) and then build upon the existing preparedness education
program to target the areas that will make communities more resilient. The program would include
an evaluation tool for measuring results annually and evaluating the effectiveness of preparedness
outreach. Meetings have been set up with Weld Communities to continue every other month for the
next five years. Goals are to focus locally on building resiliency on the local level.
ACTION: We will continue working "Whole Community" by letting the local communities lead the
program, while OEM collaborates with Local EM's and Community Leaders to develop training,
community education and overall resilience planning. Meetings have been scheduled with each
community every two months, to engage, collaborate, strengthen capabilities, track mitigation
projects, develop COOPS, EOP, COG, ERG and community programs.
LEAD AGENCY: Weld OEM
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Community EM's
and Leaders, First Responder Agencies
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
2 -Weld County: Lifeline Integration -
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: County Wide
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021
I Appendix A - 3
EXPECTED COST: OEM Staff time
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: CDBG, HMPG
grants; Private grants or Weld County Government
Special Project funding.
Health and Medical Resiliency Study
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: January LIFELINE: Health and Medical
3 I , 2021 January 3 I, 2022
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: Lifeline Resiliency in Health & Medical have not been accurately measured, Weld County is
working with each Health Care Facility using the "whole Community approach" to strengthen
capabilities, build resilience, identify gaps and potential mitigation projects.
RECOMMENDATION: The goal would be to better understand each Health Care Facilities'
(vulnerability and capabilities) and then build upon the existing policies and programs to target the
areas that will make facilities more resilient. The program would include utilize the CO PHRCA
measuring results annually and evaluating the effectiveness of facility preparedness.
ACTION: Engage the Health Care Facilities by using the Whole Community approach utilizing the
CO PHRCA spreadsheet that gauges staffing needs, capabilities, and infrastructure requirements.
LEAD AGENCY: Weld OEM, Whole EXPECTED COST: OEM and Public Health Staff time
Community Group, WCDPHE
SUPPORT AGENCIES: OEM, WCDPHE, POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: General Fund
Health Care Facilities and Providers
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Engage the Whole Community Group to address the goals of the Survey
questions and encourage participation to develop a measurable record of capabilities, preparedness
goals and critical infrastructure resilience.
3 -Weld County: Floodplain Management
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: County Wide
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Jan 2021
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: On going LIFELINE: Food, Water, Shelter/ Safety &Security/
Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Water, Rivers, Roads,
ISSUE: Weld County strives to comply with NFIP standards, and will adjust as needed with changes
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to coordinate with the Planning Department on Floodplain
management, Support community education on NFIP.
ACTION: Annual review of NFIP standards and ordinances
LEAD AGENCY: Weld County Planning EXPECTED COST: Weld County Staff Time
Dept. Flood Plain Management
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: General Fund
I Appendix A - 4
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Weld County is not participating in the CRS program. Weld is a member
of NFIP and Weld County adopted the model ordinance in January of 2014, as required by the state.
Weld County enforces floodplain regulations as outlined in Article XI of Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code, in accordance with FEMA's requirements.
4 -Weld County: ALERT Flood Warning System
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: County Wide
RECOMMENDATION DATE: June 2021
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Ongoing LIFELINE: Food, Water, Shelter/ Safety &Security/
Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Water, Rivers, Roads,
ISSUE: Weld County has several rivers downstream from high elevations, where flooding can occur
very quickly to heavily populated communities.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to install additional flood warning gauges and monitoring equipment
as needed.
ACTION: Identify and install additional flood level gauges at critical points on waterways
LEAD AGENCY: Weld County OEM EXPECTED COST: estimated equipment costs 8,000.
Per site
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld County Public POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: HMGP Grants
Works, CO Div of Water Resources
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Several ALERT river gauges have been installed throughout Weld County.
Identify locations across Weld County with high flood risk, evaluate sites for additional warning
equipment.
5 -Weld County: Improve Dam Safety
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: County Wide
RECOMMENDATION DATE: June 2021
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Ongoing LIFELINE: Food, Water, Shelter, Safety &Security
SUBCOMPONENT: Water, Rivers, Roads, Community
Safety
ISSUE: Weld County has several rivers downstream from high elevations, where flooding can occur
very quickly to heavily populated communities. Many dams have indicators of aging infrastructure,
regular inspection and assessments on earthen dams throughout the county.
I Appendix A - 5
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to maintain emergency response plans for the dams in Weld
County, Work with the Division of Water Resources to update all documentation and coordinate
with owners for planning and preparedness. Participate with the Division of Water Resources and the
Bureau of Reclamation on Dan Safety Exercises and planning
ACTION: Identify and install additional flood level gauges at critical points upstream of dams and
rivers, in order to identify potential concerns and allow for prewarning of residents and staff.
LEAD AGENCY: OEM EXPECTED COST: Unknown, Staff time
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Division of Water POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: General Fund
Resources/ Dam Safety
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Coordinate with the State Div. of Water Resources to make sure
inspections are completed on high hazard dams and emergency plans are up to date.
6 -Weld County: Establish an ongoing or annual Public Education Campaign regarding
Hazards and Emergency Management
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All hazards
LOCATION: County Wide
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Jan. 2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Ongoing
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, E
LIFELINE: All
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: There are many Emergency Management issues that need to be 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.
RECOMMENDATION: 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. Weld OEM is working with each
community separately to gauge and evaluate public education needs, based on current Risk Rankings
and Capabilities that have been identified through the Hazard Mitigation planning process. Each
community will have separate strengths and challenges and as these challenges are addressed,
progress will be documented in both Capabilities and Lifeline Integration.
ACTION: Establish an ongoing or annual Public Education campaign regarding Hazards and Emergency
Management
LEAD AGENCY: Weld County Emergency EXPECTED COST: $2,500 for printing and
Management, in conjunction with distribution costs
appropriate County/Town Departments
with municipalities
SUPPORT AGENCIES: State and Federal POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Monitor grants,
agencies seek private partners for cost sharing
I Appendix A - 6
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
PROGRESS MILESTONES: The planning team agreed that this should remain a high priority, ongoing
project. Since 2009, Weld County OEM and many participating jurisdictions have continued to make
public preparedness train -the -trainer curriculum and invites community members to participate in the
course. These trainers are equipped to teach preparedness in their communities, healthcare facilities,
assisted livings centers or wherever their sphere of influence might be. Weld County OEM also
actively participates in the community Outreach Events, raising awareness about disaster
preparedness. This action item will continue to be a priority 2021-2025. Weld County OEM will
develop a new mitigation action focused on studying disaster resilience in communities throughout
the Weld County in order to better understand how to develop the preparedness program. Weld
OEM is working with each community separately to gauge and evaluate public education needs, based
on current Risk Rankings and Capabilities that have been identified through the Hazard Mitigation
planning process. Each community will have separate strengths and challenges and as these challenges
are addressed, progress will be documented in both Capabilities and Lifeline Integration.
7 -Weld County: Inventory Critical Facilities within the Floodplain to Determine if they
should be Protected
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: County Wide
RECOMMENDATION DATE: January
2021
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Ongoing LIFELINE: All
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: In floodplains there is a known risk. Not having critical facilities protected against such risks
can severely handicap a community's ability to respond and recover from a flood. Potential losses
should be estimated for the failure of each critical facility. Then a cost estimate should be calculated
for the favored method of protection. A benefit -cost comparison will then indicate whether or not
the facility is worth protecting.
RECOMMENDATION: 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. Collaborate with critical facility
managers to mitigate and retrofit potentially vulnerable structures or assets.
ACTION: Each incorporated community with a mapped floodplain should inventory critical facilities
within the floodplain to determine if they should be protected. Facilities would include power
substations, water sources such as wellheads, sewage treatment facilities, police and fire stations,
hospitals, and nursing homes.
LEAD AGENCY: County Emergency
Manager in conjunction with appropriate
County/Town Departments. Technical
Assistance is available from state agencies if
help in making these determinations is
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Planning
Department, Public Works
I Appendix A - 7
EXPECTED COST: Staff time only for initial inventory
and discussion of protection methods, and cost -
benefit analysis
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: There is no cost
for
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Classes
held annually in the spring March -May
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
the initial inventory and decision -making. Protective
measures should be taken where cost-effective.
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
8 -Weld County: Public Warning System- IPAWS Awareness and Training
PRIORITY: Medium HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All
LOCATION: County Wide GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Annually OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2025 LIFELINE: Communications, Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENT: Early Warning Systems,
Community Safety
ISSUE: IPAWs system was integrated with CODE RED in 2020, continued training is needed to
understand usage and when to request an alert. Weld County OEM is running a Test every week,
however many jurisdictions are not aware of how the system works or how to request an alert.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue working with the jurisdictions throughout Weld County to explain
the IPAWS integration and identify hazards where it would be utilized.
ACTION: Set up training in each jurisdiction and set up templated messaging
LEAD AGENCY: Weld OEM EXPECTED COST: Included with
Outreach/Awareness
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Response Agencies POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
9 -Weld County: StormReady / Weather Safety
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe Storms
LOCATION: County Wide GOALS ADDRESSED: 2, 3
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Annually OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B
LIFELINE: Communications, Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENT: Early Warning Systems,
Community Safety
ISSUE: One of the goals for the Northeast Region is to have all I I counties participate in Storm
Ready. Weld County has been a participant in the past, and the intent is to maintain Storm Ready
status.
I Appendix A - 8
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Maintain our procedure for reporting storm damage to the National Weather Service Office in real
time. EOC Activations Procedures, Spotter Activation Criteria and classes, maintain Local Warning
System Activation Criteria
ACTION: Maintain 'StormReady" status with NOAA
LEAD AGENCY: Weld OEM in conjunction EXPECTED COST: Staff Time and funds for meeting
with appropriate County/Town for drinks and goodies. This will come from the OEM
Departments within municipalities budget
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Sheriff's Office,
Weld County Regional Communications,
Public Works
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: OEM Budget and
local business sponsor's
PROGRESS MILESTONES: 2019-2020 We held a Weather Spotter Class in Greeley and Virtually, we
discuss storm weather preparedness in Whole Community Meetings. IPAWS was integrated into the
CODE Red Emergency Alert System, staff was trained and have been doing a weekly IPAWS test.
Weld OEM held Code Red sign up, EXPO, Project Connects, and Employee Fair in Windsor.
I Appendix A - 9
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Weld County -PW (7 Projects)
I -Weld County - PW: WCR 120, 110, 108 Low Water Crossings
PRIORITY: High HAZARD(S) MITIGATED: Flood, Erosion, and
Subsidence.
LOCATION: Latitude: 40.446330 to
40.783420 Longitude: -104.701460 to -
104.801590
LIFELINE(S) MITIGATED: Safety and Security, Health
and Medical, and Transportation.
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2013 GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: 1, 2
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2025
OBJECTIVE(S) ADDRESSED: E
ISSUE: The roads have to be closed during major storm events.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reconstruct the roads and install large culverts to keep water from
overtopping the road and washing it out. This project will achieve resiliency from severe storms and
minimize the risk to the general public. It will also eliminate road closures due to washouts.
LEAD AGENCY: Weld County EXPECTED COST: $1,574,762.60
SUPPORT AGENCY(IES): N/A POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(S): DOLA
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
STATUS UPDATE(S): The WCSO is constructing their new training facility off WCR 120 and Public
Works will be mining gravel for county roads, so it makes this project a higher priority.
2 -Weld County — PW: Bridge 19/46.5A
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: WCR 19 between SH 60 and
WCR 46.5
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2013
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2021
HAZARD(S) MITIGATED: Flood and Erosion
LIFELINE(S) MITIGATED: Safety and Security, Health
and Medical, and Transportation.
GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVE(S) ADDRESSED: E
ISSUE: Constructing a new bridge to span the entire floodplain in accordance with the new FEMA
DFIRM standards for this drainage basin.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Construct a new bridge to achieve resiliency from major flood events
and allow the road to remain open to minimize the risk to the general public.
LEAD AGENCY: Weld County EXPECTED COST: $3,373,205
SUPPORT AGENCY(IES): Town of
Johnstown
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(S): CDOT Bridge
Grant
PROGRESS MILESTONES: The design will be completed in 2020. Construction will be completed in
2021.
STATUS UPDATE(S): Weld County has contracted with JUB Engineers to design the new bridge.
I Appendix A - 10
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
3 -Weld County - PW: Bridge 54/I 3A
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: WCR 54 between WCR 15
and WCR 13
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2013
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2023
HAZARD(S) MITIGATED: Flood and Erosion
LIFELINE(S) MITIGATED: Safety and Security, Health
and Medical, and Transportation.
GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVE(S) ADDRESSED: E
ISSUE: Constructing a new bridge to span the entire floodplain in accordance with the new FEMA
DFIRM standards for this drainage basin.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Construct a new bridge that is wide enough to accommodate the future
widening of this arterial roadway from two to four lanes. A new bridge will achieve resiliency from
major flood events and allow the road to remain open to minimize the risk to the general public.
LEAD AGENCY: Weld County EXPECTED COST: $6,532,055
SUPPORT AGENCY(IES): N/A POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(S): DOLA
PROGRESS MILESTONES: The design will be completed in 2021. Construction will begin in 2022 and
be completed in 2023.
STATUS UPDATE(S): Weld County has contracted with JUB Engineers to design the new bridge.
4 -Weld County — PW: Bridge 60.5/49A
PRIORITY: Medium HAZARD(S) MITIGATED: Flood and Erosion
LOCATION: WCR 60.5 between WCR 49 LIFELINE(S) MITIGATED: Safety and Security, Health
and WCR 51 and Medical, and Transportation.
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2013
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2025
GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVE(S) ADDRESSED: E
ISSUE: Constructing a new bridge to span the entire floodplain in accordance with the new FEMA D -
FIRM standards for this drainage basin.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Construct a new bridge that is wide enough to accommodate the future
widening of this arterial roadway from two to four lanes. A new bridge will achieve resiliency from
major flood events and allow the road to remain open to minimize the risk to the general public.
LEAD AGENCY: Weld County
SUPPORT AGENCY(IES): N/A
EXPECTED COST: $4,117,575
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(S): DOLA
PROGRESS MILESTONES: The design will start in 2022. Construction will begin in 2024 and be
completed in 2025.
STATUS UPDATE(S): Weld County has contracted with JUB Engineers to design the new bridge.
I Appendix A - I I
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2025
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
5 -Weld County — PW: Bridge 34/I 7A
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: WCR 34 between WCR 17
and WCR 19
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2013
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2026
HAZARD(S) MITIGATED: Flood and Erosion
LIFELINE(S) MITIGATED: Safety and Security, Health
and Medical, and Transportation.
GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVE(S) ADDRESSED: E
ISSUE: Constructing a new bridge to span the entire floodplain in accordance with the new FEMA D -
FIRM standards for this drainage basin.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Construct a new bridge that is wide enough to accommodate the future
widening of this arterial roadway from two to four lanes. A new bridge will achieve resiliency from
major flood events and allow the road to remain open to minimize the risk to the general public.
LEAD AGENCY: Weld County EXPECTED COST: $8,800,000
SUPPORT AGENCY(IES): N/A POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(S): DOLA
PROGRESS MILESTONES: The design will be in 2022. Construction will begin in 2023 and be
completed in 2026.
STATUS UPDATE(S): Weld County has contracted with JUB Engineers to design the new bridge.
6 -Weld County — PW: Galeton Drainage Project
PRIORITY: High HAZARD(S) MITIGATED: Flood, Erosion, and
Subsidence.
LOCATION: WCR 49 between WCR 74 LIFELINE(S) MITIGATED: Safety and Security, Health
and WCR 76 and Medical, and Transportation.
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2020 GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVE(S) ADDRESSED: E
ISSUE: The flooding has closed the road and impacted adjacent landowners.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reconstruct of WCR 49 and include the installation of culvert(s) to
keep water from overtopping the road and flooding properties. This project will achieve resiliency
from severe storms and minimize the risk to the general public. It will also Eliminate road closures
due to washouts and provide continuous access to the Galeton Fire Protection District.
LEAD AGENCY: Weld County
SUPPORT AGENCY(IES): N/A
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 12
EXPECTED COST: $1,000,000
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(S): DOLA
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
STATUS UPDATE(S): Public Works would like to add this drainage project into our Capital
Improvement Plan to contract the work.
7 -Weld County — PW: Gill Drainage Project
PRIORITY: Low HAZARD(S) MITIGATED: Flood, Erosion, and
Subsidence.
LOCATION: Latitude: Gill Townsite off of LIFELINE(S) MITIGATED: Safety and Security, Health
WCR 55 and Medical, and Transportation.
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2020 GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
OBJECTIVE(S) ADDRESSED:
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2026
ISSUE: The entire Gill Townsite sits in a bowl and has trouble draining during large storm events,
which creates flooding.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reconstruct the roads and install large culverts to keep water from
overtopping the road and washing it out, thereby reduce flooding to homes within the Gill Townsite.
It will also eliminate damage to additional public and private infrastructure.
LEAD AGENCY: Weld County EXPECTED COST: $3,000,000
SUPPORT AGENCY(IES): N/A POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(S): DOLA
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
STATUS UPDATE(S): Need to include on the Public Works Capital Improvement Plan.
I Appendix A - 13
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Ault (2 Projects)
I -Ault: Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter Capabilities Planning
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Town of Ault
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 7/31/2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/202 I
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
Lifelines: Public Safety
ISSUE: Due to the potential impact of severe storms, long term power outages, tornados, proximity
of hazmat routes and the lack of sheltering capabilities in the community; the impact by natural
hazards and cascading events would require Ault to acquire outside assistance to shelter local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study to identify vulnerable areas and
neighborhoods that be greatly impacted by identified high ranking natural hazards or the cascading
effects of natural hazards. Identify shelter locations, that include generators, capability to sustain
winds up to 200 mph, cots, blankets and maintain supplies for emergency provisions. Provide Train
the Trainer course to include preparation for all hazards that could impact the community. Update
Emergency planning to include early warning procedures and sheltering/shelter-in-place protocols.
Harden infrastructure systems to prevent long term disruption of services and supplies. Identify and
obtain grant funding for all components of above projects.
ACTION: identifying shelters and designating them as critical facilities
- providing backup power through fixed generators
- mitigating the shelters against hazards (wind, flood, fire, etc.)
- building safe rooms or shelters for identified vulnerable areas that need them
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Ault
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM,
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
EXPECTED COST: Staff Time,
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
2 -Ault: Hazardous Materials - Community Impact Study
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Town of Ault
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 7/31/2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/202 I
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Hazardous Material
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
LIFELINES: Public Safety, Hazmat, Communications
ISSUE: Due to proximity of Hazmat Routes and Railroad through Ault, Hazmat is the highest-ranking
risk to the community at a 2.5. The risks include Hwy 85, Hwy 14 and UP Railway that runs parallel
I Appendix A - 14
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
to Hwy 85 on the East side of town. A Hazmat spill on either route would significantly impact the
entire community of Ault, traffic on Hwy 85 and Hwy 14, the residential area, and the environment.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study addressing the hazmat routes, UP
railway commodity flow study, update the current commodity flow study using the recently
developed Application (Zone Survey) develop a public awareness campaign and establish protocol and
procedure for responding to most prevalent hazmat concerns based on the study. Conduct training
for community, government and first responders to address Response, Mitigation, and shelter in place
protocols. Identify options at the crossing guards to harden and/or lengthen the closure for a train.
Identify funding opportunities for identified projects.
ACTION: Schedule a meeting with government officials, first responders, Weld OEM, Union Pacific,
and CDOT/CSP to conduct a community impact study, consulting with Subject Matter Experts from
every agency.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Ault EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM, POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
CSP,CDOT
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 15
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Carbon Valley - Dacono (2 Projects)
I -Dacono: Design and Construction of Colorado Blvd. Bridge
PRIORITY: High (#1) HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flood
LOCATION: Colorado Blvd (WCR 13) GOALS ADDRESSED: 1, 2, 4
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 10/19/2015 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: LIFELINES and SUBCOMPONENTS ADDRESSED:
12/31/2025 Safety and Security: Community Safety; Law, Fire,
Government Services; Transportation:
Highway/Roadway
ISSUE: Based on previous experience with flooding on Colorado Boulevard, the particular area
of road that intersects with the Little Dry Creek water -way, a bridge needs to be constructed
to mitigate the impact of water flowing over that section of Colorado Blvd often requiring the
road be closed.
RECOMMENDATION: Bridging Colorado Blvd at Little Dry Creek
ACTION: Design and Construction of Colorado Blvd. Bridge
LEAD AGENCY: City of Dacono Public
Works
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld County,
Army Corps of Engineers
EXPECTED COST: $2 Million; Staffing would include
city staff and administration throughout the entire
process
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Dacono City
Budget; Grants (State and Federal)
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Design Completion, Impact Reports, permitting, RFC., RFP, bidding,
construction, reclamation, and completion.
Updated: To date, this project has undergone engineering review and design. Completion of
this project will depend on available funding, and it has not yet been scheduled. This project
should be continued as a 2021 mitigation action.
2-Dacono: Grandview Street and York Street Flood Mitigation
PRIORITY: High (#2) HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flood
LOCATION: Grandview (Weld County
Road 12) at York Street (Weld County
Road 11)
RECOMMENDATION DATE:
10/19/2015
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/2025
I Appendix A - 16
GOALS ADDRESSED: 2, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINES and SUBCOMPONENTS ADDRESSED:
Safety and Security: Community Safety; Law, Fire,
Government Services;
Transportation: Highway/Roadway
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
ISSUE: In the event of sustained moderate or heavy rain, this intersection experiences flooding.
RECOMMENDATION: Installation of box culverts
ACTION: Engineering design and construction
LEAD AGENCY: City of Dacono Public EXPECTED COST: Unknown
Works
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld County POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Dacono city
budget; State and Federal grants
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Engineering design and construction, RFP, bidding, construction,
reclamation, completion.
To date, this project has undergone engineering review and design. Completion of this project
will depend on available funding, and it has not yet been scheduled. This project should be
continued as a 2021 mitigation action.
I Appendix A - 17
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Carbon Valley - Firestone (3 Projects)
I -Firestone: Installation of Infrastructure for Transmission Technologies
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Town of Firestone
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 1/2/2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/2022
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: ALL
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: C, E
LIFELINES and SUBCOMPONENTS ADDRESSED:
Safety and Security: Government Services; Community
Safety
Communications: Infrastructure; Alerts, Warnings, and
Messages; Responder Communications
ISSUE: lack of stable and redundant communication services to households and businesses in
Firestone. The population growth has been significant and communication systems are in need of
update.
RECOMMENDATION: Install stable and redundant communication system to ensure dependable
communication to residents and businesses in Firestone during a disaster.
ACTION: Install Fiber To The Premises (FTTP) network to all residents and businesses in Firestone.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Firestone EXPECTED COST: $200,000.00
SUPPORT AGENCIES: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Town of
Firestone, Grants, and Public -Private Partnership
PROGRESS MILESTONES: RFP completed in 2020. Next steps will be scope of work and system
installation.
2 -Firestone: Godding Hollow Tri-Town Basin Outfall Improvements
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Town of Firestone
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 6/21/2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Interim
improvements by December 2022; Final
improvement by June 203 I, as agreed upon
with ditch company.
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flood
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINES and SUBCOMPONENTS ADDRESSED:
Interim improvements by December 2022; Final
improvement by June 2031, as agreed upon with ditch
company.
ISSUE: he Godding Hollow Drainage Basin and the Tri-Town Drainage Basin confluences at this
location. A couple of hundred years of irrigation ditch construction, county road construction, and
gravel mining have eliminated the natural drainage way so major storm events in the basins cause
significant flooding where these two irrigation ditches and drainage basins all come together.
I Appendix A - 18
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
RECOMMENDATION: Construct a concrete box culvert and related drainage channel improvements
to convey stormwater under the Last Chance Irrigation Ditch and WCR 26. Install grouted riprap
sloping rock drop structures, relocate conflicting utilities, realign two irrigation ditches and the
associated irrigation laterals.
ACTION: Perform interim improvements to minimize immediate impact, then bid out the entire
project for final improvements, as recommended.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Firestone EXPECTED COST: $5,000,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES: City of Dacono,
Town of Frederick, and Weld County
Government
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Support agencies
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Plan, schedule, and perform interim improvements, determine needs for
final improvements, secure funding, prepare RFP, bid out project, schedule and perform
improvements.
3 -Firestone: Community Connect Program
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Town of Firestone
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 11/1/2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31 /2022
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, C, E
LIFELINES and SUBCOMPONENTS ADDRESSED:
Safety and Security: Fire, LE, SAR, Gov. Services and
Community Safety.
Communications: alerts, warnings, and messages.
Health and Medical: Medical Care.
ISSUE: First responders have limited information about specific critical issues at a residence or
location. They typically discover these issues when they arrive on scene of an incident. It would be
helpful to know ahead of time when critical issues are present, and to get to know our community
residents better.
RECOMMENDATION: Working with the Frederick -Firestone Fire Protection District, support the
implementation of a program that allows residents to provide critical information on a voluntary basis
to help first responders have critical knowledge about community members and locations prior to
responding to the location. Critical issues could include property access, systems available
(sprinklers), location details, people with disabilities who may need assistance or adaptive technology.
ACTION: Support community education about potential hazards and public safety preparedness and
the use of the Community Connect Program, when purchased and implemented by the Frederick -
Firestone Fire Protection District.
LEAD AGENCY: Frederick -Firestone Fire EXPECTED COST: Unknown; will update as cost
Protection District information is provided by vendor.
I Appendix A - 19
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Town of Firestone, POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: FFFPD Budget,
Town of Frederick, and the Carbon Valley potential grant sources to be researched.
Emergency Management Agency
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
The Towns of Firestone and Frederick will help to develop implementation plan, communicate, and
educate the community about hazards and emergencies, and how the technology can support public
safety and resilience, and actively invite the community to utilize the Community Connect tool. The
Frederick -Firestone Fire Protection District will Identify cost, seek budget approval and funding,
acquire software, help develop public messaging about the use of the software, educate FFFPD
responders on the use of the information provided by the community, monitor and update the use of
tool annually.
I Appendix A - 20
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Carbon Valley - Frederick (4 Projects)
I -Frederick: Box Culvert at Bella Rosa Parkway
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
LOCATION: Bella Rosa Parkway/No
Name Creek
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 09/19/2015
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
09/20/2023
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINES and SUBCOMPONENTS ADDRESSED:
Safety and Security: Community Safety; Law, Fire, and
Government Services.
Transportation: Highway/Roadway
ISSUE: Flood control and drainage improvements have been done subsequent to the 2013 flood.
More improvements are needed in order to withstand a 100 -year flood.
RECOMMENDATION: Completion of the box culverts as designed but not yet funded.
ACTION: Engineering and construction of box culverts
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Frederick EXPECTED COST: $3 million
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld County OEM, POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Town capital
Carbon Valley EMA budget, CDBG, DOLA, EIAF
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
This project has been partially completed - Damage was repaired but the lack of adequate box
culverts to handle the 100 -year flood will result in future damage. The Town of Frederick Stormwater
Master Plan will identify this project as a priority.
2 -Frederick: Potable Water System Emergency Supply
PRIORITY: Medium HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Drought, Extreme
Temperatures, Water Supply Suspension
LOCATION: SE4NE4 Section 32, GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
Township 2, Range 67
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2005, 2010 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
Appendix A - 21
e R�rnue+�cv M4Nn:,F MFvi
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2025 LIFELINES and SUBCOMPONENTS ADDRESSED:
Potable Water, Fire Suppression Supply, Pressure
Regulation
ISSUE: Loss of service by Central Weld County Water District
RECOMMENDATION: The CWCWD contract states that CWCWD will provide some emergency
water but the Town must have storage to meet emergency supply needs. There is an existing
interconnect with LHWD to CWCWD within Town limits which can provide an alternative supply if
there is an issue with CWCWD service. To provide additional supplies to meet immediate needs in
the event of an emergency the Town should build an additional storage tank. The Town currently
receives water through a 2.58MG tank and direct connections to the CWCWD transmission mains.
The construction of an additional 1.5 MG tank on the existing tank site would provide additional
emergency storage capacity to serve the Town as the area that can be served through the tank site
has grown.
ACTION: Installation of additional storage tank to serve Frederick
LEAD AGENCY: Frederick EXPECTED COST: $4.5M
SUPPORT AGENCIES: CWCWD, LHWD POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: State Revolving
Fund — Drinking Water
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Location identified
3 -Frederick: Town Facilities - Expansion & Modification
PRIORITY: Medium HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All
LOCATION: Town of Frederick GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 12/8/2020 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: LIFELINES and SUBCOMPONENTS ADDRESSED:
Safety & Security, Communications
Components: Government Services, Law Enforcement
and Security, Infrastructure, and Finance. (Continue to
provide)
ISSUE: Limited space for employees to provide high levels of service to the community. Aging
buildings are becoming costly for routine maintenance. Many key infrastructure items such as HVAC
is past its life cycle. Workflow and ability to social distance during the 2020 COVID- 19 pandemic is
challenging with current building structures.
RECOMMENDATION: Identify and construct a new Town Hall to meet the growing needs of the
community for the next 30 years.
ACTION: Obtain location and funding for larger Town Hall.
12/31/2025
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Frederick EXPECTED COST: T.B.D.
I Appendix A - 22
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld County OEM
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Capital Facility
Fee, Sales Tax Increase, Mill Levy Increase.
4 -Frederick: Community Connect Program
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Town of Frederick
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 11/1/2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/2022
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, C, E
LIFELINES and SUBCOMPONENTS ADDRESSED:
Safety and Security: Fire, LE, SAR, Gov. Services and
Community Safety.
Communications: alerts, warnings, and messages.
Health and Medical: Medical Care.
ISSUE: First responders have limited information about specific critical issues at a residence or
location. They typically discover these issues when they arrive on scene of an incident. It would be
helpful to know ahead of time when critical issues are present, and to get to know our community
residents better.
RECOMMENDATION: Working with the Frederick -Firestone Fire Protection District, support the
implementation of a program that allows residents to provide critical information on a voluntary basis
to help first responders have critical knowledge about community members and locations prior to
responding to the location. Critical issues could include property access, systems available
(sprinklers), location details, people with disabilities who may need assistance or adaptive technology.
ACTION: Support community education about potential hazards and public safety preparedness and
the use of the Community Connect Program, when purchased and implemented by the Frederick -
Firestone Fire Protection District.
LEAD AGENCY: Frederick -Firestone Fire
Protection District
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Town of Frederick,
Town of Firestone, and the Carbon Valley
Emergency Management Agency
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
EXPECTED COST: Unknown; will update as cost
information is provided by vendor.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: FFFPD Budget,
potential grant sources to be researched.
The Towns of Firestone and Frederick will help to develop implementation plan, communicate, and
educate the community about hazards and emergencies, and how the technology can support public
safety and resilience, and actively invite the community to utilize the Community Connect tool. The
Frederick -Firestone Fire Protection District will Identify cost, seek budget approval and funding,
acquire software, help develop public messaging about the use of the software, educate FFFPD
responders on the use of the information provided by the community, monitor and update the use of
tool annually.
I Appendix A - 23
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Eaton (3 Projects)
I -Eaton: Drought Plan Development
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Eaton Community
RECOMMENDATION DATE:202I
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/202 I
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Drought
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: C, E
LIFELINES: Food, Water, Shelter, Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENTS: Water supplies, Government
Services
ISSUE: Eaton has been impacted previously by drought in the area. Much of the city water is piped in
from Horsetooth Reservoir. Should the only water source for Eaton be impacted or disrupted the
community would be left without water. Colorado's dry weather and drought conditions impact
regional water reserves.
RECOMMENDATION: Community to develop a drought plan to ensure better water usage and back
up resources for city water supplies.
ACTION: Conduct study, develop plan to develop redundant sources and retain needed water
sources and supplies
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Eaton EXPECTED COST: TBD
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
2 -Eaton: Roundabout Collins Rd & C R 35
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Eaton Community
RECOMMENDATION DATE:202I
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/202 I
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Town budget,
BRIC, additional grant funding
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All
GOALS ADDRESSED: 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINES: Transportation, Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENTS: City Streets, County Roads,
Community Safety
ISSUE: Eaton is currently building a new High School on the NE section by Collins Rd and C R 35, due
to a study of traffic in that area, it is recommended that a roundabout be built at that intersection.
RECOMMENDATION: recommended to build at roundabout at the Collins/ CR 35 intersection, due
the amount of traffic and pedestrian foot traffic in the area that will increase with the completion of
the High School.
I Appendix A - 24
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
ACTION: Roundabout construction
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Eaton
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld County,
CDOT
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
3 -Eaton: Pump Pit
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Eaton Public Safety Training
center: 320 4th St
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Dec 2020
EXPECTED COST: TBD
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Town budget,
Weld County PW, additional grant funding
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Drought
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1,2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: July 2021 LIFELINES: Food, Water, Shelter, Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENTS: Water supplies, Fire Services
ISSUE: Provisioning against future drought measures and in the interest of fire department essential
training we are installing a "pump pit" that would be used for ongoing fire training but reuses a stored
volume of water instead of direct hydrant use which often becomes run-off.
RECOMMENDATION: A below ground pump pit with a capacity of 2500 gallons (minimum) to
conserve water use during training under drought conditions for water conservation and to secure
emergency water sources for public safety.
ACTION: Budgeted and planned for installation summer 2021
LEAD AGENCY: Eaton EXPECTED COST: 90,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Town of Eaton
under IGA approval for Training Center.
Eaton Fire Protection District.
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 25
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: EFPD annual
operating budget
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Erie (12 Projects)
I -Erie: County Line Road, Tellane to Cheeseman
PRIORITY: Medium HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe storm
LOCATION: County Line Road, Tellane to GOALS ADDRESSED: 1 and 2
Cheeseman
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Design 2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2023
LIFELINE: Transportation, Public Safety
SUBCOMPONENT: Roadway
ISSUE: This section of County Line road has multiple connections and is between two schools and a
day care center. There are no turn lanes or sidewalks. It is difficult for children to cross the roadway
to get to school and cars back up waiting to make left turns. The Town has applied for a Safer Main
Streets funding for this project. There have been multiple accidents in the stretch of County Line
Road.
RECOMMENDATION: Assuming the project will receive funding in early 2021, begin the design, and
work with the power company to underground overhead lines. Construction is anticipated to begin in
2022. The project will include left turn lanes, rectangular rapid flashing beacons for pedestrian
crossings, bike lanes and sidewalks on each side.
ACTION: County Line Road, Telleen to Cheesman
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926- EXPECTED COST: $2,950,000
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Transportation
Impact Fund for 20%, DRCOG Safer Main Streets
funding for 80%
2 -Erie: Coal Creek Improvements Reach I
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
LOCATION: Coal Creek from south of GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, and 4
Cheeseman St to north of Briggs St
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Early 2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Mid 2022 LIFELINE: Safety and Security
SUBCOMPONENT: Community Safety
ISSUE: A Coal Creek Master Plan and a Flood Hazard Area Delineation (FHAD) study was completed
for Coal Creek in 2016. The flows in Coal Creek increased from the FIS. Because of the increased
I Appendix A - 26
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
flows, the Town worked with MHFD to study three reaches of Coal Creek from Cheesman St to
Kenosha Rd. Reach I is just east of Old Town Erie. This section of Erie is protected from the 100 -
year flood with a levee. To ensure the Levee has adequate freeboard to continue to protect the
Town, this section was designed. Currently the design and a CLOMR is being reviewed by FEMA.
RECOMMENDATION: Once the CLOMR is approved by FEMA, the construction of the
improvements will be completed, and a LOMR submitted to FEMA.
ACTION: Coal Creek Improvements Reach I
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926- EXPECTED COST: $2,000,000
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Storm Drainage
Fund
3 -Erie: Coal Creek Improvements Reach 2
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Coal Creek from Briggs
Street to County Line Road.
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Begin design
2022
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2026
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, and 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Safety and Security,
SUBCOMPONENT: Community Safety
ISSUE: A Coal Creek Master Plan and a Flood Hazard Area Delineation (FHAD) study was completed
for Coal Creek in 2016. The flows in Coal Creek increased from the FIS. Because of the increased
flows, the Town worked with MHFD to study three reaches of Coal Creek from Cheesman St to
Kenosha Rd. Reach 2 is between Briggs Street and County Line Road. Currently there is a
conceptual design for this section. Property for the Coal Creek improvements needs to be acquired
and a final design and permitting is needed before construction can occur. The improvements in this
reach along with Reach 1 and 3 and a Bridge Replacement for County Line Road, has the potential to
remove Weld County properties from the Flood Hazard Zone.
RECOMMENDATION: Prepare a preliminary design and apply for funding for final design and
construction.
ACTION: Coal Creek Improvements Reach 3
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926- EXPECTED COST: $12,000,000
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
I Appendix A - 27
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Storm Drainage
Fund Grant funding from multiple sources such as
CWCB, GoCO, FEMA and DRCOG.
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
4 -Erie: Coal Creek Improvements Reach 3
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Coal Creek from County
Line Road to Kenosha Road
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Early 2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Mid 2022
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, and 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Safety and Security
SUBCOMPONENT: Community Safety
ISSUE: A Coal Creek Master Plan and a Flood Hazard Area Delineation (FHAD) study was
completed for Coal Creek in 2016. The flows in Coal Creek increased from the FIS. Because of the
increased flows, the Town worked with MHFD to study three reaches of Coal Creek from Cheesman
St to Kenosha Rd. Reach 3 is between County Line Road and Kenosha Road. Currently the design
and a CLOMR is being reviewed by FEMA.
RECOMMENDATION: Once the CLOMR is approved by FEMA, the construction of the
improvements will be completed, and a LOMR submitted to FEMA.
ACTION: Coal Creek Improvements Reach 3
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926- EXPECTED COST: $5,000,000
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Storm Drainage
Fund and Mile High Flood District
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
5 -Erie: Old Town Drainage Improvements
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
LOCATION: Old Town Erie to Coal
Creek
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, and 4
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Begin design OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
2021, begin implementation of
improvements in 2023
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2024 for LIFELINE: Safety and Security
near term improvements
SUBCOMPONENT: Community Safety
ISSUE: Old Town Erie's storm drainage system does not handle a minor storm. A conceptual plan
has been developed to add detention and additional storm sewer systems. With redevelopment of
I Appendix A - 28
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Old Town Erie, storm drainage improvements are needed to improve the exiting conditions and not
make it worse.
RECOMMENDATION: Begin the design for implementation of the Old Town Infrastructure
Improvements for drainage. Need to review conceptual recommendations and implement a plan to
complete improvements. Conceptual plan recommends 2.5 mill in next 5 -years and 9.3 mill for mid
to long term implementation.
ACTION: Old Town Drainage Improvements
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926-
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
6 -Erie: Zone 3 Storage Tank
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: North of SH 52
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Design 2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2024
EXPECTED COST: $3,500,000 for near term and
9,500,000 for long term.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Storm Drainage
Fund Grant funding from multiple sources such as
CWCB and DRCOG.
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe storm, Drought
GOALS ADDRESSED: I and 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Food Water Shelter
SUBCOMPONENT: Water
ISSUE: The Town is developing new water supplies that will be locating on the north side of Erie. By
constructing a new water treatment facility close to the water supplies the infrastructure needed to
transport water for treatment will be reduced. A second water treatment facility will provide
redundancy in the event of a natural disaster.
RECOMMENDATION: Begin the design and permitting in 2021. Begin construction in 2022.
ACTION: Zone 3 Water Storage Tank
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926-
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
7 -Erie: Well Project
PRIORITY: Medium
I Appendix A - 29
EXPECTED COST: $7,000,000
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Water Fund
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe storm, Drought
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
LOCATION: North of SH 52 GOALS ADDRESSED: I and 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Design 2020 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2024 LIFELINE: Food Water Shelter
SUBCOMPONENT: Water
ISSUE: The Town is developing new water supplies that the well system is part of. Having diversified
water supplies will provide redundancy in the event of a natural disaster.
RECOMMENDATION: The design of a well system for water supply is underway. The installation
and distribution system for the well system will begin construction in 2021. The water from the well
system will be treated from a new water treatment facility.
ACTION: Well project
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926-
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
EXPECTED COST: $4,000,000
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Water Fund
8 -Erie: Zone 2 Water System Improvements
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe storm, Drought
LOCATION: Linear project between WCR GOALS ADDRESSED: 1 and 2
3, WCR 7, SH 52 and Erie Parkway
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Design 2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2024 LIFELINE: Food Water Shelter
SUBCOMPONENT: Water
ISSUE: The Zone 2 Waterline Improvement project will provide the first phase in a needed Zone 2
transmission waterline and new Zone 2 water storage tank. This transmission line and storage tank
will provide reliability to the Zone 2 water system. It is also needed to get water out to the Zone 2
distribution system.
RECOMMENDATION: Begin the design and property acquisition for the storage tank and easements
where the waterline is outside of right-of-way.
ACTION: Zone 2 Water System Improvements
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926- EXPECTED COST: $12,000,000
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 30
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Water Fund
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
9 -Erie: Zone 3 Storage Tank
PRIORITY: Medium HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe storm, Drought
LOCATION: SW corner of Erie GOALS ADDRESSED: 1 and 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Design 2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2024 LIFELINE: Food Water Shelter
SUBCOMPONENT: Water
ISSUE: The Zone 3 storage tank is needed for reliability. The existing tanks are on the east side of
Erie, by placing a new storage tank on the west side it provides reliability and a balance to the water
distribution system.
RECOMMENDATION: Begin the design and property acquisition for the storage tank and easements
for waterlines needed to connect to the tank waterline is outside of right-of-way.
ACTION: Zone 3 Water Storage Tank
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926- EXPECTED COST: $7,000,000
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Water Fund
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I 0 -Erie: Zone 3 Waterline Improvements
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe storm, Drought
LOCATION: from the existing water
treatment facility west of I 19th street to
the existing water storage tank west of
WCR 7.
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1 and 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
Construction 2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2021 LIFELINE: Food Water Shelter
SUBCOMPONENT: Water
ISSUE: The Zone 3 Waterline Improvement project will provide an additional transmission waterline
connecting the water treatment facility to the water storage tank site. It is not only needed to provide
a back-up transmission line to the storage tank, but it is needed to get water out to the distribution
system.
RECOMMENDATION: This project is 95% designed and will be ready to bid and begin construction
in 2021.
ACTION: Zone 3 Waterline Improvements
I Appendix A - 31
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926- EXPECTED COST: $5,200,000
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Water Fund
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I I -Erie: Erie Parkway & WCR 7 Intersection Improvements
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe storms, Flooding
LOCATION: Erie Parkway & WCR 7 GOALS ADDRESSED: 1 and 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Design 2020 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2021 LIFELINE: Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Roadway
ISSUE: The Town has designed the intersection improvements and is actively acquiring the additional
ROW and easement needed for construction. The project includes adding turn lanes and a traffic
signal. This intersection has experienced multiple accidents, exacerbated by severe weather. The first
phase is to improve the roadway and the second is to install a traffic signal.
RECOMMENDATION: Complete the right of way acquisition needed for the roadway improvements,
then bid and construct the roadway improvements, then install the traffic signal.
ACTION: Erie Parkway & WCR 7 Intersection Improvements
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926- EXPECTED COST: $4,000,000
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I 2 -Erie: Signal Communication Project
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Town wide
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Design 2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2022
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Transportation
Impact Fund for roadway improvements, FHWA
funding for Traffic Signal
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe storm
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1 and 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Roadway
ISSUE: The Town began looking into a signal communications project in 2018. Without adequate
funding the project was put on hold. The Town was successful in acquiring funding in late 2020 for
Appendix A - 32
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
the design and implementation of the project. This project will allow Town Staff to monitor and
control the traffic signals. It will assist during storm events to monitor the roadway conditions. By
having signals communicating traffic flow will be safer.
RECOMMENDATION: Complete the funding agreement, start the design and implement the
communications project.
ACTION: Signal Communication Project
LEAD AGENCY: Todd Fessenden, 303-926-
2895.
SUPPORT AGENCIES: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: General Fund,
DRCOG funding qualified intersections
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 33
EXPECTED COST: $910,000
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Evans (3 Projects)
I -Evans: 3 I St Street Stormwater Outfall
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: 3 I St Street from HWY 85
east to the railroad track.
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2016
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 7/2021
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Stormwater & Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Rivers & City Streets
ISSUE: This project will reduce localized flooding problems and reduce transportation problems
during high water/storm events.
RECOMMENDATION: Enlarging pipeline and increase conveyance capacity.
ACTION: Additional pipeline crossing US Highway 85 and Union Pacific Railroad and installation of
east Side stormwater piping and inlets. Mitigate stormwater interfering with transportation routes,
general public safety/protection from flooding.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Evans EXPECTED COST: <$10,000,000.00
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Colorado Water POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: State Revolving
Resources and Power Development Fund
Authority
PROGRESS MILESTONES: 60% plans received 12/4/20. Anticipated construction date March/April
2021.
2 -Evans: Bay at the Landings Inlet Flood Mitigation
PRIORITY: Medium HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
LOCATION: Boardwalk/Anchor GOALS ADDRESSED: Mitigating flooding to residences
from insufficient inlet capacity.
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2016 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: Residences on Boardwalk
were getting flooded due to stormwater, traffic was
impacted on local collector due to stormwater.
LIFELINE: Stormwater & Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Rivers & City Streets
ISSUE: Flooding prevention and traffic improvement.
RECOMMENDATION: Enlarge storm drainage inlets.
ACTION: Construction per recommendation above.
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/2020
LEAD AGENCY: City of Evans
I Appendix A - 34
EXPECTED COST: $80,000.00
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
SUPPORT AGENCIES: N/A POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Local
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Completion of construction 12/31/2020.
3 -Evans: Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter Capabilities
Planning
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All Hazards
LOCATION: Evans
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 07.31.2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12.31.2021
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
LIFELINE: Public Safety
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: Due to the potential impact of severe storms, long term power outages, tornados, proximity
of hazmat routes and the lack of sheltering capabilities in the community; the impact by natural
hazards and cascading events would require Evans to acquire outside assistance to shelter local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study to identify vulnerable areas and
neighborhoods that be greatly impacted by identified high ranking natural hazards or the cascading
effects of natural hazards. Identify shelter locations, that include generators, capability to sustain
winds up to 200 mph, cots, blankets and maintain supplies for emergency provisions. Provide Train
the Trainer course to include preparation for all hazards that could impact the community. Update
Emergency planning to include early warning procedures and sheltering/shelter-in-place protocols.
Harden infrastructure systems to prevent long term disruption of services and supplies. Identify and
obtain grant funding for all components of above projects.
ACTION: identifying shelters and designating them as critical facilities
- providing backup power through fixed generators
- mitigating the shelters against hazards (wind, flood, fire, etc.)
- building safe rooms or shelters for identified vulnerable areas that need them
LEAD AGENCY: City of Evans
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 35
EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Fort Lupton (6 Projects)
I -Fort Lupton: Warning Sirens
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: City of Fort Lupton
RECOMMENDATION DATE: I I -16-2020
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
December 2023
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe Storms
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, E
LIFELINE: Safety and Security; Communications
SUBCOMPONENT: Community Safety; Infrastructure;
Alerts
ISSUE: As the community grows additional outdoor warning sirens will be needed to help cover areas
outside the current range of the sirens already functioning. A lot of growth including a new fire
station has occurred in the southern region of our community. Expansion of Fort Lupton's outdoor
warning system within our growing community is essential to efforts to minimize loss of life during
severe weather events. The development is also underway to the west which if positioned correctly
could also help warn neighboring communities.
RECOMMENDATION: Install an early warning system to minimize loss of life and increase public
safety.
ACTION: Install Outdoor Warning Sirens.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Fort Lupton
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Fort Lupton Fire
EXPECTED COST: $60,000 x 2 = $120,000
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Grants, City
Capital Improvements Budget, Private Funding
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
Work with Fire to ensure proper placement.
Obtain funding to install.
Ensure they are functional under the dispatch alert system.
2 -Fort Lupton: Emergency Notification Signs
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: City of Fort Lupton
RECOMMENDATION DATE: I I -16-2020
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
December 2025
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe Storms, Hazmat,
Flooding, Tornado's
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2,
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, D, E
LIFELINE: Transportation; Safety and Security
SUBCOMPONENT: Alerts; Search and Rescue;
Community Safety
ISSUE: There are several instances during severe weather that a void of information about conditions
in the area is lacking. This information signage and weather camera service would help local and
regional services to have a better understanding of the conditions on the ground.
Appendix A - 36
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
RECOMMENDATION: Work with CDOT to get additional information for the traveling public,
service agencies, and emergency response on both Highway 85 and Highway 52.
ACTION: Install Emergency Notification Sign and Weather Station with CDOT
LEAD AGENCY: City of Fort Lupton EXPECTED COST: $ unknown at this time
SUPPORT AGENCIES: CDOT, State Patrol, POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Grants, CDOT,
Traffic Management Team City Capital Improvements Budget
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
Get a planning meeting together with CDOT to help guide pathways.
Obtain funding.
Install and get functional on CDOT system.
3 -Fort Lupton: Water Storage
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: City of Fort Lupton
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 1 1-16-2020
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
December 2025
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Drought, Severe Storms
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Food Water Shelter
SUBCOMPONENT: Water
ISSUE: The City requires water storage for augmentation planning of well use. Additional storage
capacity will provide redundancy in the event severe drought.
RECOMMENDATION: Multiple opportunities are available due to gravel mining operations within
City limits.
ACTION: Well Project
LEAD AGENCY: City of Fort Lupton
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Colorado Water
Board
EXPECTED COST: $750,000
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: City Capital
Improvements Budget, Utility Fund, Water Sales Tax
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
Obtain right of first refusal from current mine operations.
Obtain funding to purchase mining properties for water storage (post mining operations).
I Appendix A - 37
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
4 -Fort Lupton: Well Inclusions
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: City of Fort Lupton
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 1 1-16-2020
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
December 2025
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Drought, Severe Storms
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Food Water Shelter
SUBCOMPONENT: Water
ISSUE: The City is expanding new water supplies that the well system is part of. Having diversified
water supplies will provide redundancy in the event of a natural disaster.
RECOMMENDATION: A non -potable well system for water supply is operating in the city. The
installation and distribution system for the well system continues to grow to help offset potable water
demands. The system continues to provide a source that if needed could integrate to a mixed system
to produce treated water. The addition of key wells will help to insure functionality of the
pressurized system.
ACTION: Well Project
LEAD AGENCY: City of Fort Lupton
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
EXPECTED COST: $500,000
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: City Capital
Improvements Budget, Utility Fund, Water Sales Tax
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
Have wells included into augmentation plan.
Obtain funding to have connections made and well in operation.
Master plan for non -potable water system.
5 -Fort Lupton: Localized Flooding
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: City of Fort Lupton
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 01/01/2019
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Annually
portions through 2025
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flood
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: D, E
LIFELINE: Safety and Security; Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Community Safety;
Highway/Roadway
ISSUE: Existing storm drainage infrastructure is undersized and aging. Many CMP require replacement
with larger RCP. Multiple major drainage basins have no viable outfall to the west.
RECOMMENDATION: Storm Sewer systems to direct flows west to be designed and constructed.
Kahil Street from S Denver Ave to detention provided in Lone Pine Park. Storm sewer / channeled
outfall along future 14th Street extension to discharge to existing Golden Pond detention facility.
Identify and map storm sewer network, prioritize replacement.
Appendix A - 38
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
ACTION: Coordinate with new developments and program projects into CIP..
LEAD AGENCY: City of Fort Lupton EXPECTED COST: $2,500,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Storm Drainage
Fund (Revision of fee basis on % pervious surface per
lot/parcel)
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
GIS mapping and camera inspection summer 2021
CR 31 / 14th St outfall - Coordination begun / Develop design and participation method.
Kahil outfall is currently under Construction as of 1 1 / 15/2020. Anticipated completion early 2021
Update Master Drainage Plan
6 -Fort Lupton: Emergency Shelter Generator
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All
LOCATION: Fort Lupton Recreation and GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
Community Center (203 S. Harrison Ave,
Fort Lupton, CO 80621)
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 11-16-2020 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: LIFELINE: Safety and Security; Food, Water, Shelter;
December 2022
SUBCOMPONENT: Search and Rescue; Shelter;
water; food
ISSUE: Currently there is no back-up power to this location to support emergency coordination
functions.
RECOMMENDATION: The wiring and installation of a generator and a transfer switch would allow
for a reliable back up power source at a single critical city facility. This generator would support city
staff and services at this location and would allow for the relocation of staff and continuity of critical
services. It is identified as an emergency shelter location. In addition, emergency support related
services and functions could be coordinated from this location. Critical emergency support functions -
operation of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), location of the Policy Group meeting area
and information center, the Joint Information Center (JIC) and local law enforcement operations
could also function at this location if need be.
ACTION: Install a generator and associated wiring at the Fort Lupton Recreation Center in an effort
to support emergency functions during a short or long term power outage.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Fort Lupton EXPECTED COST: $250,000 to $300,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Grants, City
Capital Improvements Budget
I Appendix A - 39
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
Develop and publish an RFP
Construction to wire the building (in coordination with PD and United Power) to include locating,
digging, accessing and splitting existing cabling
Install transfer switch and complete wiring
Complete installation of generator and initiate testing
I Appendix A - 40
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Greeley (2 Projects)
I -Greeley- Extreme Heat / Drought Resiliency Program Development
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: City of Greeley
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2020
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: TBD
ISSUE: Projected increases in frequency and
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Drought/ Extreme Heat
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D
LIFELINE: Safety & Security, Water, Food, Shelter,
Health & Medical
SUBCOMPONENT: Community Safety, Food, Water,
Agriculture, Public Health
intensity of extreme heat events and drought
RECOMMENDATION: Collaborate between various City departments and programs to mitigate
extreme heat events and droughts with various mitigation measures including tree plantings (Share
the Shade), bluegrass conversion to native lawns (Water Conservation), backyard xeric habitats
(Natural Areas & Trails), restored native ecosystems (Natural Areas & Trails).
ACTION: Extreme Heat and Drought Resiliency
LEAD AGENCY: City of Greeley Culture,
Parks and Recreation Department
SUPPORT AGENCIES: City of Greeley
Public Works Department and Community
Development Department
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
EXPECTED COST: Multi -million and multi -year
projects
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: City of Greeley
and grant opportunities
• locating and adding shade structures where appropriate (picnic shelters, shade
umbrellas/sails) in park areas
• Forestry's "Share the Shade" program to encourage private property owners to plant trees
to increase shade canopy and reduce heat islands in the community
• Bluegrass turf conversion to native lawns (Water Conservation)
• Backyard xeric habitats (Natural Areas & Trails, Water Conservation)
• Restored native ecosystems in City Natural Areas
• Reduction of turf areas in City Parks (Parks)
2 -Greeley: Prairie Fire Mitigation Program Development / CWPP
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: City of Greeley
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2020
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: TBD
I Appendix A - 41
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Prairie Fires
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D
Lifeline: Safety & Security
Subcomponent: Fire Services, Community Safety,
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
ISSUE: Non-native vegetation dominates much of the undeveloped land with Greeley's LREGA,
including within the City's Natural Areas properties. Encroachment of development adjacent to
Natural Areas and other Open Lands provides a plains version of a Wildland-Urban Interface strategy.
RECOMMENDATION: Coordinate between Greeley Fire Dept., Natural Areas & Trails, Stormwater,
and Water & Sewer to develop grassland management plans, SOPs for mowing/grazing/haying and
other methods of vegetation management, develop and maintain wildland fire resources including
equipment and staff with sufficient certifications to support prescribed fire program.
ACTION: Fire Mitigation in the City -limits (Community Wildfire Protection Plan)
LEAD AGENCY: Greeley Fire Department EXPECTED COST: Undetermined
SUPPORT AGENCIES: State of Colorado
Division of Fire Protection and Control
(DFPC), City of Greeley Culture, Parks and
Recreation Department, National Wildfire
Coordinating Group (NWCG)
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
• 2018 -2019 Draft Outline for Fire Chief
• City Department collaboration
I Appendix A - 42
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: City of Greeley
and State of Colorado
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Greeley PW (7 Projects)
I -Greeley - PW: City -Initiated Floodway Rezone
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: City of Greeley
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2015
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2024 —
Following adoption of state Risk Map
updated flood study
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: C
LIFELINE: Water, Food, Shelter,
SUBCOMPONENT: Waterways, Residential Areas,
ISSUE: Following adoption of the State of Colorado updated flood study, the City of Greeley will
initiate a floodway rezone of all properties impacted by the revised floodway boundary. Properties
within the revised floodway will be rezoned Conservation District (C -D) to restrict development
within this area and preserve natural open space.
RECOMMENDATION: Restricted development within the regulated floodway and preservation of
natural open space
ACTION: City -Initiated Floodway Rezone
LEAD AGENCY: City of Greeley EXPECTED COST: Under development
SUPPORT AGENCIES: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Under
development, likely largely in house
PROGRESS MILESTONES: This has been identified by the city as a future zoning map change. This
mitigation action item will be continued as a mitigation action item for the 2016 plan update.
2 -Greeley - PW: Mitigate Risk to Severe Repetitive Loss Property
PRIORITY: Medium HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
LOCATION: 760 71St Ave, Greeley, CO GOALS ADDRESSED: I
8063 I. Property not within city limits
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2015 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2025 LIFELINE: Food, Water, Shelter, Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENT: Waterways, Residential homes,
Community Safety
ISSUE: This residence has severe repetitive loss history due to flooding on the Cache la Poudre River.
The City of Greeley provides resources (man power, sand bags) to this property during flooding
events as it is directly abuts city limits and city crews are typically mitigating road closures next to this
property. The city attempted to purchase/acquire this property through the HMGP process in 2014
but was unsuccessful due to valuation discrepancies.
RECOMMENDATION: Reduce or eliminate severe repetitive flood losses on this property.
ACTION: Continue to work with property owner on flood mitigation efforts and consider acquisition
if conditions allow and are favorable to all parties.
I Appendix A - 43
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
LEAD AGENCY: City of Greeley EXPECTED COST: $400,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES: City of Greeley
Office of Emergency Management
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Program not funded; no current timeline established
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: CDBG, HMGP
3 -Greeley - PW: Cache la Poudre, West Greeley Project (Corps of Engineers)
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
LOCATION: Poudre River Corridor
between 83rd Avenue and 47th Avenue
GOALS ADDRESSED: I
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Begin first OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
phase construction 2016
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2025
LIFELINES: Food, Water, Shelter, Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Waterways, City Streets
ISSUE: As a nationally significant ecosystem, portions of the Cache la Poudre River that flow through
Greeley and areas adjacent to Greeley, years of channelization of the river and neglect and invasion of
non-native weeds and vegetation have significantly reduced habitat loss. Restoration of wetland and
riparian habitats can provide critical floodplain and river corridor connections, habitat for state -listed
threatened and endangered species, and international bird habitat. The COE has identified a total of
nine (9) parcels to rehabilitate, of which five (5) are identified as a first phase for improvements. Out
of these 5 parcels, I or 2 may be addressed in the first year of a multi -year project. Although the
Project doesn't specifically address flood control, a desired outcome is addressing the river channel
itself and preserving/planning for the inevitable future flooding of the corridor and water flows.
RECOMMENDATION: Phase I construction is complete. Additional funding to complete other
phases is being considered.
ACTION: Environmental restoration and controlled recreational access
LEAD AGENCY: City of Greeley EXPECTED COST:
$12,967,000 (Phase II)
SUPPORT AGENCIES: All COG, Parks and POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Great Outdoors
Rec Colorado (Colorado Lottery), City of Greeley
Water/Sewer Dept., US Department of
Defense/Corps of Engineers, Conservation Trust Fund
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Design — 2015/2016, Construction in phases starting in 2016
4 -Greeley - PW: Poudre River Cleaning
PRIORITY: Low
LOCATION: City of Greeley
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2015
I Appendix A - 44
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2023 LIFELINE: Food, Water, Shelter
SUBCOMPONENT: Waterways
ISSUE: The Cache la Poudre River is known from several studies including a 1999 Army Corps of
Engineers study, to have sediment building up in it and therefore over time has been silting in and
losing capacity. A program to clean the river of its sandbars, sediment and remove some vegetation is
necessary to help convey flood flows through the City of Greeley. This will help especially mountain
snow melt events that happen annually and fill the main channel most years and tend to cause minor
to moderate flooding in many areas.
RECOMMENDATION: To develop a program to annually evaluate maintaining the Poudre River by
removing any sand bars and any unwanted vegetation that are restricting main channel flows. The
program likely would take several years to work through the City limits, and then would cycle back to
the beginning and evaluate the corridor continuously as needed. Bridges also need to be evaluated,
but need to be done annually to ensure they are clear.
ACTION: Clean sediment and vegetation from the Cache la Poudre main channel to restore main
channel flow capacity.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Greeley EXPECTED COST: $1,500,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES: US Army Corps of POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: FEMA grant and
Engineers, Public Works Department Stormwater Utility
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
Removal of all sandbars, restrictions and unwanted vegetation.
5 -Greeley - PW: Highway 85 Bridge Replacement
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: City of Greeley
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2015
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2027
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Transportation, Water, Food, Shelter
SUBCOMPONENT: Bridges, City Streets, Water
Treatment Facility
ISSUE: The Cache la Poudre River floodplain model shows that the river overtops the Highway 85
bridge near the Greeley Water Pollution Control Facility. Past flooding events of less than 100 year
events have also demonstrated that this bridge is easily overtopped at less than a 25 year storm
event. When this bridge is overtopped all other roads except 59th Avenue that run north and south
are underwater. With Highway 85 flooded greatly impedes the ability for people, commerce, and
emergency vehicles to navigate the city and reach citizens on the northern area of the city. River
flood events typically last for many weeks so impacts to the community can be very impactful and
devastating.
RECOMMENDATION: Replace the Highway 85 Bypass bridge over the Cache la Poudre River.
ACTION: Replace the bridge with a higher capacity bride including some channel improvements to
improve capacity of the river at this location.
I Appendix A - 45
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
LEAD AGENCY: Colorado Department of EXPECTED COST: $8,000,000
Transportation & the City of Greeley
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Colorado
Department of Transportation, Army Corps
of Engineers, FEMA, Public Works
Department, 970-350-9795
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Completion of bridge replacement and channel improvements.
6 -Greeley - PW: River Bypass Channel
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: City of Greeley
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2015
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2021
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: FEMA grant,
CDOT FASTER Funds
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Food, Water, Shelter. Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Rivers, Water Treatment Facility,
City Streets, State Highways
ISSUE: The Cache la Poudre River floodplain model shows that the river splits around the Greeley
Water Pollution Control Facility. This isolates and floods some of the property limiting access to the
plant. Additionally many businesses along east 8th Street east of Highway 85 are flooded.
RECOMMENDATION: Channel improvements and/or a by-pass channel are needed to guide water
safely around the Water Pollution Control Facility and many businesses along 8th Street east of
Highway 85. This would safely control flows and route them back to the river on the eastern side of
Greeley.
ACTION: Purchase property and build a by-pass channel to route flows from the Poudre River west
of Highway 85 and route them north of East 8th Street and then back into the river in eastern
Greeley.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Greeley EXPECTED COST: $18,000,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES: US Army Corps of POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: FEMA grant,
Engineers, FEMA, Public Works Department Federal Block Grant Funds, Stormwater Utility
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Completion of by-pass channel improvements.
7 -Greeley - PW: Poudre River Flood Mitigation Master Planning Project — Ash Ave to
21St Ave
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: City of Greeley
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2019
I Appendix A - 46
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Fall 2030 LIFELINE: Food, Water, Shelter, Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Waterways, City Streets,
ISSUE:
Over the past 150 -years the Poudre River has been significantly modified by human activity,
particularly along the reach from Fern Avenue to 47th Avenue. These modifications include
channelization, encroachment, soil berms along the river banks, gravel mining, floodplain
disconnection, and river relocation. As a result of these modifications, the city experiences significant
flooding from small to medium sized hydrologic events, on the order of 15-30 year recurrence
frequency. Most notably the floods of 1983, 1999, and 2014 have caused significant property damage
to the city.
The city's largest exposure to riverine flooding is along the reach from Ash Avenue to 1 Ith Avenue,
or approximately 2.3 miles. In the spring of 2014, a large spring runoff event overtopped the 6th
Avenue river berm and inundated approximately 46 -acres of commercial -industrial area.
Development restrictions associated with the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) encumber a
significant amount of developed property between II th Avenue and Ash Avenue. This includes
residential neighborhoods, commercial businesses, and industrial businesses. It is estimated that every
road along the river in this area would be flooded in a 100 -year event, including the US Highway 85
Bypass. Further, there is a large flow split at the US -85 Bypass that proceeds to the east along E. 8th
Street (also known as SH-263) and does not have a defined return flow -path to the river.
RECOMMENDATION:
This project produced a comprehensive Poudre River flood mitigation master plan document for the
following river reaches:
• Greeley Urban Reach: Specifically from the Ogilvy Ditch head structure (1,400 -feet
downstream from Ash Avenue) and proceeding upstream to 21st Avenue; approximately
17,600 -feet along the Poudre River.
• East 8th Street Flow Split: Specifically from the flow split off the main channel at US Highway
85 then proceeding east (downstream) along 8th Street until the flow split returns to the
main river channel, approximately 7,000 - 8,000 -feet along E. 8th Street.
This project should produce a Master Plan along the Poudre River to guide river maintenance, reduce
flood losses, and potentially remove properties from the FEMA 100-yr floodplain. The Master Plan
document will be used by the City to guide a river channel maintenance program, identify and
prioritize flood mitigation projects, provide scientific basis for granting opportunities (Federal, State,
and Other) to fund capital projects, and facilitate the refinement of the effective FEMA river model
along the study reach. This plan shall be feasible, implementable, and provide a foundation for
pursuing grant funding opportunities.
ACTION: City -Initiated Flood Mitigation Master Planning Project
LEAD AGENCY: City of Greeley EXPECTED COST: $60,000,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES: City of Greeley
Office of Emergency Management, Public
Works Department
I Appendix A - 47
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: City of Greeley
e R�rnue+�cv MANov:FMF, i
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
• Implementation of the masterplan and the identified projects.
I Appendix A - 48
e R1rnue,cv M4Nn:,F MFvi
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Hudson (3 Projects)
I -Hudson: Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter Capabilities
Planning
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All hazards
LOCATION: Town of Hudson GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 7/31/2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Lifelines: Public Safety
12/31/202 I
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Due to the potential impact of severe storms, long term power outages, tornados, proximity
of hazmat routes and the lack of sheltering capabilities in the community; the impact by natural
hazards and cascading events would require Hudson to acquire outside assistance to shelter local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study to identify vulnerable areas and
neighborhoods that be greatly impacted by identified high ranking natural hazards or the cascading
effects of natural hazards. Identify shelter locations, that include generators, capability to sustain
winds up to 200 mph, cots, blankets and maintain supplies for emergency provisions. Provide Train
the Trainer course to include preparation for all hazards that could impact the community. Update
Emergency planning to include early warning procedures and sheltering/shelter-in-place protocols.
Harden infrastructure systems to prevent long term disruption of services and supplies. Identify and
obtain grant funding for all components of above projects.
ACTION: identifying shelters and designating them as critical facilities
- providing backup power through fixed generators
- mitigating the shelters against hazards (wind, flood, fire, etc.)
- building safe rooms or shelters for identified vulnerable areas that need them
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Hudson
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM,
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
2 -Hudson: Repeater System
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Town of Hudson
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2021
I Appendix A - 49
EXPECTED COST: Staff Time,
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All Hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINES: Safety & Security, Transportation
Communications
SUBCOMPONENTS: Government Services, Roadways,
PW Communications
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
ISSUE: The Public Works Department does not have a reliable means to communicate efficiently and
safely when operating heavy machinery on a blue sky day and is more dangerous and life threatening
during severe storms when working in different parts of the Town. Use of cellphones is illegal while
operating heavy equipment.
RECOMMENDATION: Integrate a repeater system to strengthen and harden the communication
systems for Public Safety and Communications to include communications with essential workers to
clear arterial roadways for first responders during a disaster/storm. enable the Public Works
Department to communicate effectively and quickly across the community.
ACTION: Integrate repeater into communications systems, receive training in use of system, test out
and operate new system.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Hudson EXPECTED COST: $16,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Town of Hudson
Admin Department Public Works
Department,
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Integration of repeater system; all essential staff trained; full
implementation of system into daily operations.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
Hudson 2021 FY Budget
3 -Hudson: Updates Comprehensive Plan / Identify Mitigation actions
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Hudson
RECOMMENDATION DATE:
Immediately
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All Hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2021 LIFELINE: All
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: Creation of a Comprehensive Plan that will address all potential hazards from blizzards, to
active shooter, to pandemics. Upon finalization, this will include a separate list of mitigation items for
the Town to work on as well as be tested in semiannual tabletop exercises.
RECOMMENDATION: Due to the current COVID-19 situation, the majority of the writing will be
done by Town of Hudson staff, a full draft provided to regional partners to review and offer revisions
before final adoption. Afterwards, additional mitigation items and semiannual tabletops can lead to
improvements and corrections of the Comprehensive Plan.
ACTION: Regional support for the project, potential to be used as a template for other smaller
communities in Weld County.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Hudson EXPECTED COST: None (Staff time)
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Several Regional
Partners including Weld County OEM,
Hudson Fire Protection District, BNSF,
Appendix A - 50
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: N/A
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
United Power, Northern Water, RE -3J
School District, Best Western, Weld
County Dispatch, CDOT, among other
private businesses.
PROGRESS MILESTONES: First draft of Comprehensive Plan; review by regional partners and other
stakeholder groups; adoption; semiannual tabletop training exercise; additional mitigation items
discovered through development of Comprehensive Plan.
I Appendix A - 51
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Johnstown (5 Projects)
I -Johnstown: Resiliency Study
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Town Wide
RECOMMENDATION DATE:
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Drought, Land Subsidence,
Extreme Temperatures, Flood, Public Health, prairie
fire
GOALS ADDRESSED: 3, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: LIFELINE: All
10/31/202 I
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: Traditional preparedness education has not been measured, and as a result, we don't have a
good understanding of their effectiveness. Johnstown wants to better understand the vulnerability
and capability of the people in our communities, and work toward building resilience to preparedness
outreach and education.
RECOMMENDATION: Johnstown has in the works a resiliency study being done with an outside
firm. The goal would be to compare ours to other communities and continue adding to the study to
create a better understanding of needs as the Town grows.
ACTION: Conduct/Finish a resiliency study
LEAD AGENCY: Johnstown EXPECTED COST: OEM staff time, contractor costs
$75,000.
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Community POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: grants; private
Emergency Managers and First Responder grant or Johnstown government special project
Agencies funding (if available).
PROGRESS MILESTONES: An actual study is being conduct with a private firm
2 -Johnstown: Drainage Improvements Old Town
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
LOCATION: Old Town Basin GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 10.12.2008 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Transportation, Food, Water, Shelter
SUBCOMPONENT: Town roads, waterways
ISSUE: The old town basin was constructed during a time when urban drainage design was not used.
This area is 90% surface run water from events and creates flooding in the old Town community.
The Town has hired a consultant to study and design a new drainage in the area and produce a
project list for improvements that would help protect people and property in the area from future
floods and ensure the road stays open to travel.
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
10.12.2021
I Appendix A - 52
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
RECOMMENDATION: It will be implemented as funding becomes available in 2021 or 2022 at the
latest
ACTION: Install inlets and underground piping to remove surface flow and carry water safely to drain
ways
LEAD AGENCY: Johnstown EXPECTED COST: Implementation costs are 2.7
million
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: annual budget,
possible grant funding
PROGRESS MILESTONES: The study is expected to be completed in June, 2021 or 2022
3 -Johnstown: Install Emergency Generator
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe Storms
LOCATION: Johnstown GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2010 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2021 LIFELINE: Energy
SUBCOMPONENT: Utilities
ISSUE: Johnstown raw water source is located in Berthoud Colorado. The building was constructed
from brick and block with an underground pump station. the building lacks a sufficient emergency
generator to supply electrical power to be able to pump raw water to our water treatment plant to
produce potable water during power outages/floods
RECOMMENDATION: Provide water for treatment continuity of operations.
ACTION: Install emergency generator
LEAD AGENCY: Johnstown EXPECTED COST: $375,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Annual budgets
4 -Johnstown: Community Preparedness Education
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Johnstown
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 06.2019
I Appendix A - 53
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Drought, Earthquake, Land
Subsidence, Extreme Temperatures, Flood, Severe
Storm, Wind & Tornado, Fire, Public Health, Hazmat
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 3
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: LIFELINE: All
10.06.2022
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: There are many emergency management issues that need to be 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.
RECOMMENDATION: 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: Establish an ongoing or annual Public Education campaign regarding Hazards and Emergency
Management
LEAD AGENCY: Johnstown EXPECTED COST: $4,500 for printing and
distribution costs
SUPPORT AGENCIES: County Emergency
Management, First Responder Agencies,
FEMA
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES Local budgets
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Since 2009, Weld County OEM and many participating jurisdictions have
continued to make public preparedness outreach and education a priority. The Town of Johnstown
will continue to work with Weld County OEM on community preparedness education and hazard
identification.
5 -Johnstown: Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter Capabilities
Planning
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All Hazards
LOCATION: Johnstown
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 07.31.2021
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: LIFELINE: Public Safety
12.31.2021
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: Due to the potential impact of severe storms, long term power outages, tornados, proximity
of hazmat routes and the lack of sheltering capabilities in the community; the impact by natural
hazards and cascading events would require Johnstown to acquire outside assistance to shelter local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study to identify vulnerable areas and
neighborhoods that be greatly impacted by identified high ranking natural hazards or the cascading
effects of natural hazards. Identify shelter locations, that include generators, capability to sustain
winds up to 200 mph, cots, blankets and maintain supplies for emergency provisions. Provide Train
the Trainer course to include preparation for all hazards that could impact the community. Update
Emergency planning to include early warning procedures and sheltering/shelter-in-place protocols.
Harden infrastructure systems to prevent long term disruption of services and supplies. Identify and
obtain grant funding for all components of above projects.
ACTION: identifying shelters and designating them as critical facilities
I Appendix A - 54
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
- providing backup power through fixed generators
- mitigating the shelters against hazards (wind, flood, fire, etc.)
- building safe rooms or shelters for identified vulnerable areas that need them
LEAD AGENCY: Johnstown
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 55
EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Keenesburg (4 Projects)
I -Keenesburg: Floodplain Training
PRIORITY: Low
LOCATION: Town of Keenesburg
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Annually
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flood
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Ongoing LIFELINE: Safety & Security, Water
with annual review
SUBCOMPONENTS: Warning Systems, Outreach,
Waterways
ISSUE: Staff is small with many varied responsibilities and no experience with reading FIRM's
RECOMMENDATION: Staff training of flood plain rules and regulation in general, as well as direction
and instruction in reading maps and determining elevation requirements. Careful review of any
annexations in conjunction with the FIRM's for determination of the any existing flood plain zone.
ACTION: Careful review of building permit applications, and location of project to determine if
within a possible flood plain, as the Town of Keenesburg has not been mapped, importance placed on
annexations and determining if any annexations lie within a flood zone. The Town of Keenesburg is
not participating in the CRS program, however we are member of the NFIP. The Town of
Keenesburg has adopted the model ordinance in October of 2013 as required by the State of
Colorado. The Town of Keenesburg will enforce flood plain regulation in accordance with FEMA's
requirements for any annexed property that lies within a mapped flood zone. Have a different staff
member attend flood plain training on an annual basis
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Keenesburg EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Colorado Water POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: N/A
Conservation Board
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Assistant Town Manager attended a Floodplain Management training
course on September 9, 2015.
Ongoing project. 2020-2025
2-Keenesburg: Notify Traveling Public about Shelter Locations
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Community -wide
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Annually
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe Weather
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, D
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Annually LIFELINES: Safety & Security, Shelter
SUBCOMPONENTS: Shelters, Outreach
ISSUE: Traveling public not aware of help available if stranded due to severe weather and or the
closure of the 1-76
RECOMMENDATION: Place a notice at entry to town (existing kiosk) providing contact information
I Appendix A - 56
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
ACTION: Create signage to be located at kiosk, motel, and gas station all located on Market Street
just off of 1-76 containing contact information for anyone seeking shelter due to severe weather and
or closure of 1-76.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Keenesburg EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Southeast Weld POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: N/A
Fire Protection District
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Complete once signage is in place.
Update: This was not completed and will continue to address
3-Keenesburg: Tornado Warning System Education for Residents
PRIORITY: Medium HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Tornado
LOCATION: Town of Keenesburg GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, and 3
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Annually OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, and E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Ongoing LIFELINES: Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENT: Early Warning Systems, Outreach
ISSUE: As new residents move into town many do not know what to do when the siren sounds.
RECOMMENDATION: Outreach and education of the public to identify the action that should be
taken when the siren sounds
ACTION: We will post educational information about what to do in the event of a tornado and
specifically what it means when the siren sounds on the town's facebook page, and website, as well as
place different articles in the local newspaper every month during tornado season
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Keenesburg EXPECTED COST: Staff time
SUPPORT AGENCIES: N/A POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: N/A
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Education outreach consists of an article in the newspaper, on our
website, as well as on the town's Facebook page.
Project is ongoing
4-Keenesburg: Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter Capabilities
Planning
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Town of Keenesburg
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 6/17/2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/202 I
I Appendix A - 57
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
Lifelines: Public Safety
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
ISSUE: Due to the potential impact of severe storms, long term power outages, tornados, proximity
of hazmat routes and the lack of sheltering capabilities in the community; the impact by natural
hazards and cascading events would require Keenesburg to acquire outside assistance to shelter local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study to identify vulnerable areas and
neighborhoods that be greatly impacted by identified high ranking natural hazards or the cascading
effects of natural hazards. Identify shelter locations, that include generators, capability to sustain
winds up to 200 mph, cots, blankets and maintain supplies for emergency provisions. Provide Train
the Trainer course to include preparation for all hazards that could impact the community. Update
Emergency planning to include early warning procedures and sheltering/shelter-in-place protocols.
Harden infrastructure systems to prevent long term disruption of services and supplies. Identify and
obtain grant funding for all components of above projects.
ACTION: identifying shelters and designating them as critical facilities
- providing backup power through fixed generators
- mitigating the shelters against hazards (wind, flood, fire, etc.)
- building safe rooms or shelters for identified vulnerable areas that need them
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Keenesburg EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 58
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
LaSalle (3 Projects)
I -LaSalle: Community Preparedness Education
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Town of LaSalle
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 10.06.20
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2020-
2025
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Drought, Earthquake, Land
Subsidence, Extreme Temperatures, Flood, Severe
Storm, Wind & Tornado, Fire, Public Health, Hazmat
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1,3
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B
LIFELINES: Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENTS: Community Safety, Education
Programs
ISSUE: There are many emergency management issues that need to be 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.
RECOMMENDATION: 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: Establish an ongoing or annual Public Education campaign regarding Hazards and Emergency
Management
LEAD AGENCY: Town of LaSalle EXPECTED COST: $2,500 for printing and
distribution costs
SUPPORT AGENCIES: County Emergency POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES HMPG, SHSG,
Management, First Responder Agencies, Local budgets and private partner cost share.
State DHSEM, FEMA
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Since 2009, Weld County OEM and many participating jurisdictions have
continued to make public preparedness outreach and education a priority. The Town of LaSalle will
continue to work with Weld County OEM on community preparedness education and hazard
identification.
2 -LaSalle: Develop Upkeep Schedule for Emergency Power Systems
PRIORITY: Medium
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Earthquake, Land Subsidence,
Extreme Temperatures, Flood, Severe Storm, Wind &
Tornado
LOCATION: Project location LaSalle GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 10.06.15 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Ongoing LIFELINES: Safety & Security, Energy
SUBCOMPONENTS: Government Buildings, Power
ISSUE: In Colorado, there are a number severe weather events that could cause a power outage to
the Town Offices and facilities. In case of an emergency, there are several town employees who need
Appendix A - 59
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
to stay connected to town networks and communication systems. Town offices are also used for
command posts, damage assessment data collection points and information points for citizens
RECOMMENDATION: The Town has a generator for backup power, continued maintenance to keep
the generator operation will allow the town to stay operational during emergencies.
ACTION: Town staff will test and maintain the operational condition of the generator.
LEAD AGENCY: LaSalle Town Staff EXPECTED COST: Annual budget will meet this need.
SUPPORT AGENCIES: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES annual budget
PROGRESS MILESTONES: funding will be included in annual budgets.
3 -LaSalle: Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter Capabilities
Planning
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All hazards
LOCATION: Town of LaSalle GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 6/17/2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Lifelines: Public Safety
12/31/202 I
ISSUE: Due to the potential impact of severe storms, long term power outages, tornados, proximity
of hazmat routes and the lack of sheltering capabilities in the community; the impact by natural
hazards and cascading events would require LaSalle to acquire outside assistance to shelter local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study to identify vulnerable areas and
neighborhoods that be greatly impacted by identified high ranking natural hazards or the cascading
effects of natural hazards. Identify shelter locations, that include generators, capability to sustain
winds up to 200 mph, cots, blankets and maintain supplies for emergency provisions. Provide Train
the Trainer course to include preparation for all hazards that could impact the community. Update
Emergency planning to include early warning procedures and sheltering/shelter-in-place protocols.
Harden infrastructure systems to prevent long term disruption of services and supplies. Identify and
obtain grant funding for all components of above projects.
ACTION: identifying shelters and designating them as critical facilities
- providing backup power through fixed generators
- mitigating the shelters against hazards (wind, flood, fire, etc.)
- building safe rooms or shelters for identified vulnerable areas that need them
LEAD AGENCY: Town of LaSalle
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 60
EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/202 I
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Mead (5 Projects)
I -Mead: Policy Group Training for Elected Officials
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Mead or Weld County
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2020
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2021,
2022,2024
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSE: B, C
LIFELINES: Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENTS: Local Government Services,
Community Safety
ISSUE: While many of the tactical and strategic decisions will be handled by partner agencies, such as
Mountain View Fire Protection District, Weld County OEM, and Weld County Sheriff's Office, the
Town of Mead Board of Trustees must be prepared to make policy decisions and must undergo
training to understand what a Policy Group is and what its roles are and are not in an emergency.
RECOMMENDATION: Offer Policy Group training to the Town of Mead Board of Trustees.
ACTION:
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Mead EXPECTED COST: Food, travel expenses, < $350
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld County OEM, POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Existing training
Colorado Municipal League budget
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
2 -Mead: Update Policies and Plans with Mitigation Principles - North Creek Flood Plain
Analysis
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
LOCATION: Mead GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 4
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: C, E
LIFELINES: Safety and Security, Transportation,
SUBCOMPONENTS: Waterways, Roads, Residential
Housing
ISSUE: The North Creek Flood Plain Analysis is needed to accurately identify the flood plain and its
impact on the community. The anticipated cost is $85,000. Completion in 2021.
RECOMMENDATION: Perform floodplain mapping study
ACTION: Mapping is needed to accurately identify the flood plain and its impact on the community.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Mead EXPECTED COST: North Creek Flood Plain Analysis
$85,000
I Appendix A - 61
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Town of Mead
General Fund and Drainage Fund.
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
3 -Mead: Update Policies and Plans with Mitigation Principles - Emergency Operations
Plan
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Mead
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2021
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: C, E
LIFELINES: All
SUBCOMPONENTS: All
ISSUE: Emergency Operations Plan — Mead's Emergency Ops Plan is out of date. It is currently being
updated by staff. Support may be sought from Weld County OEM, anticipated completion in 2021.
RECOMMENDATION: Incorporate mitigation principles into policy documents and plans.
ACTION: Emergency Operations Plan for planning and reference.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Mead EXPECTED COST:
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Town of Mead
General Fund, Drainage Fund, and Sewer Enterprise
Fund. In addition, grant funding may be available
through Department of Local Affairs Grant and/or
SIPA
4 -Mead: Update Facilities- Public Works Facility - Design & Construction
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All
LOCATION: Mead GOALS ADDRESSED: 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: C, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2021 LIFELINES: Safety and Security,
SUBCOMPONENTS: Government Services, Law
Enforcement
ISSUE: A Public Works facility is under design with anticipated construction in 2021. This will provide
more space for both our PW staff and PD staff as they currently share a temporary facility. The
primary PW impact will be to consolidate town resources to one location which allows better access
Appendix A - 62
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
and improved responsiveness. This will also allow Mead PD dedicated space in the temporary
modular which provides more security, confidentiality and additional facility space.
RECOMMENDATION: Build a facility that allows the affective and efficient provisions of government
services.
ACTION: Complete design and construction of facility to consolidate resources.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Mead
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
EXPECTED COST: $5,000,000
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: DOLA
Complete design in 2020. Begin construction 2021.
5 -Mead: Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter Capabilities Planning
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Mead
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All Hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 07.31.2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12.31.2021
LIFELINE: Public Safety
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: Due to the potential impact of severe storms, long term power outages, tornados, proximity
of hazmat routes and the lack of sheltering capabilities in the community; the impact by natural
hazards and cascading events would require Mead to acquire outside assistance to shelter local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study to identify vulnerable areas and
neighborhoods that be greatly impacted by identified high ranking natural hazards or the cascading
effects of natural hazards. Identify shelter locations, that include generators, capability to sustain
winds up to 200 mph, cots, blankets and maintain supplies for emergency provisions. Provide Train
the Trainer course to include preparation for all hazards that could impact the community. Update
Emergency planning to include early warning procedures and sheltering/shelter-in-place protocols.
Harden infrastructure systems to prevent long term disruption of services and supplies. Identify and
obtain grant funding for all components of above projects.
ACTION: identifying shelters and designating them as critical facilities
- providing backup power through fixed generators
- mitigating the shelters against hazards (wind, flood, fire, etc.)
- building safe rooms or shelters for identified vulnerable areas that need them
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Mead EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
I Appendix A - 63
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 64
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Milliken (4 Projects)
I -Milliken: Convert acquired land and property in the floodplain to Open Space
PRIORITY: High (#1) HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flood Hazard and Other
Hazards
LOCATION: Land previously Martin Home GOALS ADDRESSED: 2
Mobile Park -current Open Space Projects
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: LIFELINES: Health & Medical
12/31/2023
SUBCOMPONENTS: Public Health
ISSUE: Identify Open Space features for the previously acquired mobile home space. We are working
with FEMA and our Town GOMill (Great Outdoors Milliken) Committee on options for that area
with keeping the intent of the acquisition.
RECOMMENDATION: Committee to research ideas for open space area
ACTION:
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Milliken EXPECTED COST: $2,500,000
Administration Dept.
SUPPORT AGENCIES: FEMA HMGP, POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: FEMA HMGP
CDHSEM 75%, CDHSEM 12.5%
PROGRESS MILESTONES;
2 -Milliken: Procurement and Installation of Tornado Sirens
PRIORITY: High (#2)
LOCATION: Town of Milliken
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/2022
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Tornado/Wind Hazard
GOALS ADDRESSED: I
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINES: Safety & Security; Food, Water & Shelter;
Health & Medical
SUBCOMPONENTS: Community Safety, Shelter, Public
Health
ISSUE: Warn public regarding pending tornadoes and high wind events
RECOMMENDATION: The Town has installed a Tornado Siren at the back for the Police Station.
However, looking into other sites around Town would be beneficial as well.
ACTION: Install additional tornado sirens throughout Milliken
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Milliken Police EXPECTED COST: $60,000 -$100,000
and Fire Department
I Appendix A - 65
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
SUPPORT AGENCIES: FEMA, Colorado
Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: FEMA HMGP
75%, CDHSEM HMGP 12.5%.
3 -Milliken: Storm Water Improvements Throughout Milliken
PRIORITY: Medium (#3)
LOCATION: Town of Milliken
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flood Hazard
GOALS ADDRESSED: 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 9/1/2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/29/202 I
LIFELINES: Safety and Security
SUBCOMPONENTS: Community Safety
ISSUE: Identify storm drainage problem areas throughout the Town of Milliken
RECOMMENDATION: Cherry Street Stormwater and Road Rebuild project. We are currently
budgeting for the construction phase hopefully to start in early 2021 after the design is complete. Est
completion for this project is Fall of 2021.
ACTION: Construct storm drainage improvements throughout Milliken
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Milliken Public EXPECTED COST: $20,000,000
Works
SUPPORT AGENCIES: FEMA, Colorado
Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, Colorado Water
Board
I Appendix A - 66
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: FEMA HMGP,
CDHSEM HMGP 12.5%.
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
4 -Milliken: Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter Capabilities
Planning
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Milliken
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 07.31.2021
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All Hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: LIFELINE: Public Safety
12.31.2021
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: Due to the potential impact of severe storms, long term power outages, tornados, proximity
of hazmat routes and the lack of sheltering capabilities in the community; the impact by natural
hazards and cascading events would require Milliken to acquire outside assistance to shelter local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study to identify vulnerable areas and
neighborhoods that be greatly impacted by identified high ranking natural hazards or the cascading
effects of natural hazards. Identify shelter locations, that include generators, capability to sustain
winds up to 200 mph, cots, blankets and maintain supplies for emergency provisions. Provide Train
the Trainer course to include preparation for all hazards that could impact the community. Update
Emergency planning to include early warning procedures and sheltering/shelter-in-place protocols.
Harden infrastructure systems to prevent long term disruption of services and supplies. Identify and
obtain grant funding for all components of above projects.
ACTION: identifying shelters and designating them as critical facilities
- providing backup power through fixed generators
- mitigating the shelters against hazards (wind, flood, fire, etc.)
- building safe rooms or shelters for identified vulnerable areas that need them
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Milliken EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
I Appendix A - 67
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 68
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Nunn (3 Projects)
I -Nunn: Master Drainage Plan
PRIORITY: Moderate
LOCATION: Town of Nunn city limits
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2022
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2022
ISSUE:
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Transportation, Water
SUBCOMPONENT: Town streets, waterways
Improper and insufficient stormwater drainage throughout town
RECOMMENDATION: Drainage plan needed. Reduce the number of closed or damaged roads in
town due to flooding or water damage.
ACTION: Prevent flooding in community streets, provide better stormwater runoff. Review existing
flood study information and Map from FEMA, utilize existing contours of topography, measure
existing culverts and drainage structures at street crossings, identify 100 -year stormwater runoff that
enters town limits, identify current drainage improvements for the future, outline drainage design
criteria to be utilized as development occurs in the future.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Nunn EXPECTED COST: $28,000, including time and labor
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld County POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: BRIC, General
Funds, looking for others
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Nunn has the estimate from KBN Engineers: Review of existing
information, Field reconnaissance of existing culverts, conceptual stormwater runoff flows, identify
drainage areas of concern, prepare a Town Drainage design exhibit, prepare recommendation for
major improvements, prepare an outline for drainage design criteria: 3 months to complete.
2- Nunn: Tornado Shelter to be ADA Compliant
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Town Hall
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2021
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Tornados
GOALS ADDRESSED: I
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENT: Community Safety, Government
Buildings
ISSUE: Tornado shelter is in the basement and is not ADA Compliant. This will help to reduce the
risk of injury or death of AFN citizens during a tornado
RECOMMENDATION: Nunn would like to get a chair lift, and include a compost toilet in the event
of an active shelter situation.
ACTION: Install Chairlift for AFN citizens and install compost toilet for emergency shelter
I Appendix A - 69
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Nunn EXPECTED COST: $28,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld County POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: BRIC, General
Funds, looking for others
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Nunn would like to have this completed in 2021. They are currently
getting estimate for a chairlift, cost to install, and purchasing and installing a compost toilet. Projected
completion date Spring 2021
3 -Nunn: Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter Capabilities Planning
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Nunn
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All Hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 07.31.2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12.31.2021
LIFELINE: Public Safety
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: Due to the potential impact of severe storms, long term power outages, tornados, proximity
of hazmat routes and the lack of sheltering capabilities in the community; the impact by natural
hazards and cascading events would require Nunn to acquire outside assistance to shelter local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study to identify vulnerable areas and
neighborhoods that be greatly impacted by identified high ranking natural hazards or the cascading
effects of natural hazards. Identify shelter locations, that include generators, capability to sustain
winds up to 200 mph, cots, blankets and maintain supplies for emergency provisions. Provide Train
the Trainer course to include preparation for all hazards that could impact the community. Update
Emergency planning to include early warning procedures and sheltering/shelter-in-place protocols.
Harden infrastructure systems to prevent long term disruption of services and supplies. Identify and
obtain grant funding for all components of above projects.
ACTION: identifying shelters and designating them as critical facilities
- providing backup power through fixed generators
- mitigating the shelters against hazards (wind, flood, fire, etc.)
- building safe rooms or shelters for identified vulnerable areas that need them
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Nunn
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 70
EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Pierce (4 Projects)
I -Pierce: Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter Capabilities
Planning
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Town of Pierce
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 7/31/2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12/31/202 I
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
Lifelines: Public Safety
ISSUE: Due to the potential impact of severe storms, long term power outages, tornados, proximity
of hazmat routes and the lack of sheltering capabilities in the community; the impact by natural
hazards and cascading events would require Pierce to acquire outside assistance to shelter local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study to identify vulnerable areas and
neighborhoods that be greatly impacted by identified high ranking natural hazards or the cascading
effects of natural hazards. Identify shelter locations, that include generators, capability to sustain
winds up to 200 mph, cots, blankets and maintain supplies for emergency provisions. Provide Train
the Trainer course to include preparation for all hazards that could impact the community. Update
Emergency planning to include early warning procedures and sheltering/shelter-in-place protocols.
Harden infrastructure systems to prevent long term disruption of services and supplies. Identify and
obtain grant funding for all components of above projects.
ACTION: identifying shelters and designating them as critical facilities
- providing backup power through fixed generators
- mitigating the shelters against hazards (wind, flood, fire, etc.)
- building safe rooms or shelters for identified vulnerable areas that need them
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Pierce
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM,
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
2 -Pierce: County Road 90 Improvements
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: CR 90/hwy85- CR 29
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021-22
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2022
I Appendix A - 71
EXPECTED COST: Staff Time,
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Hazmat evacuations/severe
storms/ flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINES: Transportation
SUBCOMPONENTS: County Roads, State Highways
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
ISSUE: Past and potential future flooding in the lower drainage areas and ditches that the roadway
crosses, along with the age/deterioration of the roadway poses a threat to using this road as an exit
route from the town in an emergency. Hazmat route traffic exacerbates road conditions during
storms and flooding. The road is also an evacuation route for the school directly to the south of the
intersection. Now that CR 29 is a paved through road between Hwy 14 and CR 100 , CR 90 is
becoming an increasingly important exit route for residents from Pierce.
Planned Road maintenance- increased truck traffic, degraded road condition
RECOMMENDATION: Repair the roadway
ACTION: Maintain and improve condition of Hazmat and Evacuation Route for community
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Pierce EXPECTED COST: $1m + awaiting estimate
SUPPORT AGENCIES: FEMA POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: FEMA, BRIC,
Revenues, WC IGA
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
Get an estimate for road repair, awaiting property tax revenues that will go towards funding the
project. Grant funding submission start project 2021, projected project timeframe 6 months to I
year.
3 -Pierce: Community Preparedness Education
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Town of Pierce
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 10.06.2015
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Annually
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Drought, Earthquake, Land
Subsidence, Extreme Temperatures, Flood, Severe
Storm, Wind & Tornado, Fire, Public Health, Hazmat
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1,3
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B
LIFELINES: All
SUBCOMPONENTS: All
ISSUE: There are many emergency managements issues that need to be 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.
RECOMMENDATION: 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: Establish an ongoing or annual Public Education campaign regarding Hazards and Emergency
Management
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Pierce EXPECTED COST: $2,500 for printing and
distribution costs
I Appendix A - 72
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
SUPPORT AGENCIES: County Emergency POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES HMPG, SHSG,
Management, First Responder Agencies, Local budgets and private partner cost share.
State DHSEM, FEMA
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Since 2009, Weld County OEM and many participating jurisdictions have
continued to make public preparedness outreach and education a priority. The Town of Pierce will
continue to work with Weld County OEM on community preparedness education and hazard
identification.
Updated: Ongoing project
4 -Pierce Drainage County Road 88 / Hwy 85
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Pierce
RECOMMENDATION DATE: I/1/2016
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2025
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flood, Storm water
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: D, E
LIFELINE: Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Roads
ISSUE: The Town of Pierce has a Comprehensive Plan identifying storm drainage issues and goals.
The primary goal is to preserve flood plains and natural drainage ways in the Pierce planning area.
Drainage at County Road 88 and Highway 85 requires a larger engineered culvert to prevent standing
water on the street and nearby properties.
RECOMMENDATION: The Town of Pierce is working jointly with Weld County to engineer a larger
culvert to drain storm water under County Road 88 and allow it to flow down the natural drainage
area. Agreements with the State of Colorado, City of Thornton and Fort Collins Lateral may be
necessary to help direct the drainage to the proper natural areas.
ACTION: This is a high priority currently being planned in conjunction with Weld County to engineer
a culvert large enough to drain storm water and direct it to a ditch system approximately 3/4 mile
away.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Pierce
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld
County
I Appendix A - 73
EXPECTED COST: Storm drainage improvements in the
vicinity of US85 and County Road 88. Installation, agreements,
and engineered design directing the flow to a ditch system
approximately 3/4 mile. $500,000
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Pierce charges drainage
fees.
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
PROGRESS MILESTONES
Update: There is no current progress on this project. Project will be ongoing
Through 2020-2025, with collaboration of county and state and City of
Thornton for adjoining property.
I Appendix A - 74
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Platteville (6 Projects)
I -Platteville: Comprehensive Plan Update and Training
PRIORITY: High
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe Storms (Tornadoes,
Blizzards, Floods & other severe weather events)
LOCATION: Town of Platteville GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
RECOMMENDATION DATE: March 2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: C, E, D
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: May 2021 LIFELINES: Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENT: Government Services
ISSUE: Update Comprehensive Plan to include an Annex for Continuity of Government (COG) Plan
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct annual elected officials and staff training on the COG Plan.
ACTION: Update and review the Comprehensive Plan each year with Elected Officials and Town
staff.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Platteville EXPECTED COST: TBD
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Legislative,
Administration, Police & Public Works
PROGRESS MILESTONES: The Continuity of Government Plan was adopted in 2019 and will be
integrated into the Comprehensive Pan and submitted as an Annex by elected officials and staff.
Scenario training will also be implemented in 2021.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: General Fund
2 -Platteville: Community Education of updated Early Warning System, Training and
Utilization
PRIORITY: Medium
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe Storms (Tornadoes,
Blizzards, Floods & other severe weather events)
LOCATION: Town of Platteville GOALS ADDRESSED: 1,2,3,4
RECOMMENDATION DATE: Ongoing OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A,B, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Ongoing LIFELINES: Safety & Security, Communications
SUBCOMPONENTS: Government Services, Early
Warning System
ISSUE: Emergency Communication Systems (Everbridge) was purchased, but underutilized
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the utilization of the Town's Emergency Communication System to
provide emergency notifications and warnings to the community during severe storms and similar
events.
ACTION: Utilize the Town's Emergency Notification System during severe weather events as
needed. Promote the system in the community to increase use of the system.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Platteville EXPECTED COST: $6,000 Annual Renewal
I Appendix A - 75
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Police & Public POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: General Fund
Works
PROGRESS MILESTONES: The Town's Emergency Communication System (Everbridge) was
purchased and implemented in 2014 and has been used regularly since that time to provide regular
(weekly) community information and emergency notifications as needed. Since implementation
there are approximately 600 users who receive notifications.
3 -Platteville: Tornado Sirens - Maintenance and Testing
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Town of Platteville
RECOMMENDATION DATE: April 2021
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: Sept 2021
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe Storms & Tornadoes
GOALS ADDRESSED: 1,2,4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: B,C,E
LIFELINES: Communications, Safety & Security
SUBCOMPONENT: Early Warning System,
Community Safety
ISSUE: Annual Testing of Tornado Sirens in Platteville & Gilcrest
RECOMMENDATION: Continuation of annual emergency warning / tornado siren testing.
ACTION: Conduct monthly Tornado Siren testing the first Saturday of each month from April —
September at I0:00am each date in coordination with the Platteville/Gilcrest Fire Protection District
(PGFPD) and Platteville Police Department.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Platteville EXPECTED COST: TBD
SUPPORT AGENCIES: PGFPD POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: General Fund
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Five Tornado Sirens (3 Platteville, 1 Gilcrest, 1 US85 & SH60) were
initially acquired and installed in 2009. One additional Tornado Siren acquired and installed in 2019 to
provide better emergency warning coverage to the north portion of Platteville. Backup batteries
were also replaced in 2018 for all Tornado Sirens.
4 -Platteville: Comprehensive Plan - Update and training
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Town
RECOMMENDATION DATE: February
2021
I Appendix A - 76
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Severe Storms (Tornadoes,
Blizzards, Floods & other severe weather events)
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2, 3, 4
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: April LIFELINE: All
2021
SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: Comprehensive Plan needs updated and continued training and exercise
RECOMMENDATION: Update the Comprehensive Plan annually and provide bi-annual training each
spring and fall to all Town employees. Promote the plan to the community annually.
ACTION: Update and review the EMP by April of each year with Elected Officials and Town staff.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Platteville EXPECTED COST: TBD
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Administration, POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: General Fund
Police & Public Works
PROGRESS MILESTONES: The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2009 and updated again in 2019.
Update and review the plan annually each spring and fall with Elected Officials, Town staff and
community members.
5 -Platteville: Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter Capabilities
Planning
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All Hazards
LOCATION: Platteville GOALS ADDRESSED: 1-4
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 07.31.2021 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: A, B, C, D, E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: LIFELINE: Public Safety
12.31.2021 SUBCOMPONENT: All
ISSUE: Due to the potential impact of severe storms, long term power outages, tornados, proximity
of hazmat routes and the lack of sheltering capabilities in the community; the impact by natural
hazards and cascading events would require Platteville to acquire outside assistance to shelter local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Community Impact study to identify vulnerable areas and
neighborhoods that be greatly impacted by identified high ranking natural hazards or the cascading
effects of natural hazards. Identify shelter locations, that include generators, capability to sustain
winds up to 200 mph, cots, blankets and maintain supplies for emergency provisions. Provide Train
the Trainer course to include preparation for all hazards that could impact the community. Update
Emergency planning to include early warning procedures and sheltering/shelter-in-place protocols.
Harden infrastructure systems to prevent long term disruption of services and supplies. Identify and
obtain grant funding for all components of above projects.
ACTION: identifying shelters and designating them as critical facilities
- providing backup power through fixed generators
- mitigating the shelters against hazards (wind, flood, fire, etc.)
- building safe rooms or shelters for identified vulnerable areas that need them
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Platteville EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
I Appendix A - 77
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
SUPPORT AGENCIES: Weld OEM
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: TBD
6 -Platteville: Master Storm Drainage Plan
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Platteville
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All Hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 12.01.2019 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: C, E
LIFELINE: Transportation, Public Safety
SUBCOMPONENT: Roadways
ISSUE: The Town of Platteville applied and received DOLA funding to assist in completing a Master
Storm Drainage Study. The Plan is currently being written by the Town's Engineer and Public Works
Director to mitigation current flooding and storm drainage concerns as well as develop long-term
mitigation plans for future development and growth in areas identified in the 2010 Comprehensive
Plan Update.
RECOMMENDATION: Task PW Director and Engineers to draft the plan and identify long term
mitigation projects for future development and growth.
ACTION: Complete master storm drainage plan
TARGET COMPLETION DATE:
12.01.2021
LEAD AGENCY: Town Administration
SUPPORT AGENCIES: State Planning,
Engineering, Public Works
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 78
EXPECTED COST: Staff Time
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: Capital
Improvement Fund, General Fund, State and Federal
Funding Sources.
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Severance (3 Projects)
I -Severance: Downtown Drainage and Street Improvements (Phase 2)
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Severance
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2019
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: December 31, 2021
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding,
Drainage
GOALS ADDRESSED: I
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINES: Safety & Security, Transportation
SUBCOMPONENTS: Town Roads,
Community Safety
ISSUE: Localized flooding and drainage issues in the older part of Town.
RECOMMENDATION: The benefits are to decrease impacts created by localized flooding and drainage
in the old part of Town by installing curb, gutter, sidewalk and storm drainage facilities to alleviate the
problem
ACTION: Construct curb, gutter, sidewalk, street and drainage improvements, along with replacing
dilapidated water and sewer infrastructure.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Severance EXPECTED COST: $4,000,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: General Fund
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Phase I Completed in Summer 2016
2 -Severance: Hidden Valley Parkway Crossing
PRIORITY: High
LOCATION: Severance
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2019
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: December 31, 2021
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Access, Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINES: Safety & Security, Transportation
SUBCOMPONENTS: Town Roads,
Community Safety
ISSUE: Lack of an access to cross over the Floodplain/Floodplain.
RECOMMENDATION: This crossing structure will also for better connectivity west and east through
Town, provide quicker emergency access from the Middle School to the High School, and provide an
elevated crossing during a potential flooding situation.
ACTION: Construct a box culvert "bridge" structure with curb, gutter, sidewalk, street and drainage
improvements that will provide vehicle and pedestrian access across the floodplain.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Severance EXPECTED COST: $1,800,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
I Appendix A - 79
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: General
Fund/Storm Water Fund/Development
Reimbursement
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Design Completed 2019
3 -Severance: Harmony Regional Drainage Project
PRIORITY: Medium
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding,
Drainage
LOCATION: Severance GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2020 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: December 31, 2021 LIFELINES: Safety & Security, Transportation
SUBCOMPONENTS: Town Roads,
Community Safety
ISSUE: Localized flooding and drainage issues along E. Harmony Road between WCR 21 and Timber
Ridge Parkway.
RECOMMENDATION: The benefits are to decrease impacts created by localized flooding and drainage
along Harmony by significantly decreasing the over toping of this roadway during a flooding situation
and addressing capacity issues downstream in the Storm water system.
ACTION: Construct an underground storm drainage system and retention pond.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Severance EXPECTED COST: $1,500,000
SUPPORT AGENCIES: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: General
Fund/Storm Water Fund
PROGRESS MILESTONES: Design Completed 2020
I Appendix A - 80
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
Windsor (3 Projects)
I -Windsor: Eastman Park Riverwalk Project
PRIORITY: High HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
LOCATION: Eastman Park Riverwalk/7th St GOALS ADDRESSED: I, 2
Windsor
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021-22 OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2023 LIFELINE: Water & Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Rivers & City Streets
ISSUE: This project will improve the river channel, remove banks and increase wetlands. Overall it
should improve flow of river channel and prevent flooding of city streets in the area along and
adjacent to 7th St
RECOMMENDATION:
ACTION: Remove banks, improve river channel, increase wetlands.
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Windsor
SUPPORT AGENCIES: NISP
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
EXPECTED COST: $1.5 million
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
2 -Windsor: Acquire Emergency Power System Transfer Switches - Public Safety
Complex
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Windsor
RECOMMENDATION DATE:
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2022
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: All Hazards
GOALS ADDRESSED: I
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Public Safety, Energy
SUBCOMPONENT: Government Buildings, Backup
Power
ISSUE: Generator project was completed in 2019, Now Transfer switches need to be completed in
the Public Safety Complex
RECOMMENDATION:
ACTION:
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Windsor
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
I Appendix A - 81
EXPECTED COST: $49k
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: general budget,
BRIC
Mitigation Action Guides: 2021-26 Weld County
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
3 -Windsor: Flood Mitigation on CR 13
PRIORITY: Medium
LOCATION: Windsor
RECOMMENDATION DATE: 2021-22
TARGET COMPLETION DATE: 2022
HAZARDS ADDRESSED: Flooding
GOALS ADDRESSED: I
OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED: E
LIFELINE: Water & Transportation
SUBCOMPONENT: Rivers & County Roads
ISSUE: CR 13 is vulnerable to flooding each year, Windsor removed gravel and sediment deposits
from the cache La Poudre River near CR 13 Bridge crossing. Budgeted annually for routine
maintenance along river.
RECOMMENDATION: Maintain project yearly
ACTION:
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Windsor
SUPPORT AGENCIES:
PROGRESS MILESTONES:
I Appendix A - 82
EXPECTED COST: $50k1 yearly
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: general budget,
BRIC
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7 Appendix B: Municipal Annexes
The following municipal annexes provide additional, specific information that is unique to each
participating jurisdiction (see Figure 71) included in this Hazard Mitigation Plan. Individual municipal risk
assessments are included for each municipality's High Risk hazards. It should be noted that for many
hazards, community exposure and risk are the same across the entire County. When possible,
community scale risk assessments are presented as data allows.
Additionally, communities are encouraged to leverage available web map viewers to access the most
recent hazard data as they reference this Plan. This will ensure municipalities are consulting the best
available data which they can view at multiple scales, allowing hazard risk to be reviewed across the
entire community, within specific neighborhoods, or for site specific assessments. Additional details and
links are provided in the Hazard Data Viewers section of this Plan.
Figure 71. Map of Adopting Communities
Weld County Hazard Mitigation Plan - Adopting 'Municipalities
10 20 30 40
Wes
fnil
*Nunn
*Pierce
*Ault
..Severanc'e Eaton
,.Windsor
*Mead
Firestone
ie '' Frederick .Keenesburg
-Dacono*Fort Lupton*
Hudson
Johnstown
*Milliken
c. Greeley
Evans
VrLa Salle
*Platteville
,a. u, s,nnn
r wri
�rlJ
C 0 L
NTY
Legend
Adopting Communities
I Appendix B -
e R�rnue+�cv MANov:F MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.1 Town of Ault
The Town of Ault Comprehensive Plan shares the vision and guiding principles of the community.
"Ault will be a vibrant, safe, friendly, attractive small town with thriving businesses, well -tended neighborhoods,
excellent parks, good schools and opportunities for everyone. It will be a model for social, economic and
environmental sustainability."
Guiding Principles:
• Maintain and Enhance Ault's Small -Town Appeal
• Cultivate Sustainable Community
• Grow Responsibly
• Foster an Open, Inclusive Town Culture
• Continue to Enable Citizens to Travel Safely and Efficiently by Car, Bike and Foot
7.1.1 Community Profile
Ault is located on the intersection of Hwy 85 and Hwy 14 and is known as the "Gateway to the Pawnee
Grasslands." The Town is an important crossroads for transporting goods and services and is not heavily
reliant on its agricultural roots. In recent years, Ault has transformed into a bedroom community for
residents working in Cheyenne, Fort Collins and Greeley, all of which are within 45 minutes.
I Appendix B - 2
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 66 shows some development information for the Town of Ault. Current information for specific
characteristics of the population is only available from the US Census Bureau for municipalities with
populations over 5,000 people.
Table 66. Town of Ault Demographics
nl=
1,843
5,758,736
Population, 2019
21.0%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
2.62
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
Note: Recent data is unavailable from the US Census Bureau for some categories, based on the size of the municipality. Source: US
Census Bureau
Growth in Ault has been substantial over the last decade and when the 2020 Census data is available the
characteristics of the population should be reviewed to help with inclusive preparedness, mitigation, and
response planning. See Chapter 4 of this Plan for information on Community Inclusion within the
County.
7. I.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 67 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Ault. The results
represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of local
stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 67. Risk Factor Results for Ault
1 L7/ tiL H1 I�
Agricultural Hazards
r ,'L -1i' .q
I
11 ii _� L .
I
i=i i1
-
I
c ,n II-
I
I r 17 -=U
4
FP
1.3
Cyber Hazards
I
I
I
4
4
1.6
Drought
2
I
3
I
4
2.0
Earthquake
I
2
I
4
I
1.6
Extreme Temps.
3
I
I
3
3
2.0
Flood
I
I
2
4
4
1.8
Hazmat Release
2
2
4
4
I
2.5
Land Subsidence
I
I
I
4
I
1.3
Prairie Fire
3
I
I
4
2
2.0
Public Health Hazards
3
2
2
I
4
2.4
Severe Storms
3
2
2
2
I
2.2
Tornado & Wind
2
2
I
4
I
1.9
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Ault as a whole - based on High, Moderate, or
Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and regional
hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
I Appendix B - 3
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 68. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Ault
-11 1 F 1 ��. ���� . ��] - I
Hazmat Release
MODERATE RISK (2.0 — 2.4)
Drought, Extreme Temperatures, Prairie Fire, Public
Health Hazards, Severe Storms
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Earthquake,
Flood, Land Subsidence, Tornado & Straight -Line
Wind
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has decreased the assessed risk from prairie fire and straight-line winds &
tornadoes to Moderate Risk (both formerly High). It has also elevated drought and public health
hazards from Low Risk to Moderate. Besides the newly added hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber
hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of Ault's High Risk hazards and include any specific content
relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard profile in
the main body of this Plan.
7.1.2. I Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased for the Town of Ault, mainly due to the location of a CDOT
hazardous materials route through the community. Additionally, railroads span across Ault, which
present their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County, the presence of
any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of events.
Based on data supplied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA)
Incident Reports Database there have been three events that have occurred within Ault between 1991
and 2019. One of these events was a rollover accident. Future occurrences are expected to mirror that
of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7. I.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Ault to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes some of these capabilities shown in Table 69. It is important for all municipalities to
regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk reduction efforts.
Table 69. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
Comprehensive, Master, or
General Plan
Yes
Capital Improvement Program
or Plan (CIP)
No
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Stormwater Program / Plan
No
I Appendix B - 4
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
!H —Ili .,
No
I,ll it ,l_�
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Economic Development Plan
No
Other:
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018 IBC
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Planning Committee / Town Board
Other:
Yes
Consultant
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Planning Committee / Town Board
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
Planning Committee / Town Board
National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for
Floodplain Development
Yes
Consultant
Community Rating System
(CRS) Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
No
Growth Management
Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
No
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Ault is fortunate to have a number of these capabilities identified
in Table 134.
Table 70. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Planning Commission
!H —Ili .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
No
Emergency Manager
Yes
Tom Nissen
Building Official
Yes
Consultant
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Consultant
Community Planner
Yes
Development review team
Transportation Planner
No
Civil Engineer
Yes
Consultant
GIS Capability
Yes
Limited
I Appendix B - 5
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Resiliency Planner
!H —Ili .,
No
I,ll it il=
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
Yes
Sirens
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Code Red / IPAWS through Country
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
FPD
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 135 and show that Ault could
leverage a number of tools in the future to implement mitigation activities.
Table 71. Financial Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H —Ili
No
I,ll it il=
Utilities Fees
Yes
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
For police, infrastructure, drainage, streets and parks
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
No
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
No
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
Partner with County
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 136 shows that Ault does
leverage a public outreach program for wildfire.
Table 72. Education & Outreach Capabilities
"I i`it i=i ll - i ?; i ili -
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
H -di- ,
Yes
I ill il ll=�,
Wildfire
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
No
I Appendix B - 6
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Other:
No
7.1.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 73.
Table 73. 2021 Mitigation Action
2021-17
2021-18
I -Ault
2 -Ault
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter
Capabilities Planning
Hazardous Materials — Community Impact Study
I Appendix B - 7
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.2 City of Dacono
The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Dacono, Dacono Forward, was updated in 2017. The expansion
upon the original plan from 2005 reflects the economic changes in the community and the renewed
perspective on growth and development.
"The Guiding Principles which informed this Dacono Forward plan are intended to provide direction for future
land use and resource investment decisions. To this end, they should be considered in matters related to
rezoning, subdivision and site design requests; as well as, the selection of priority initiatives, capital expenditures,
and investment incentives. As they relate to this Dacono Forward Plan, they served as the foundation for its Goals
(desired outcomes) and Strategic Public Initiatives (recommendations and actions)."
The Guiding Principles are:
• Grow the City's economy through diversification of job and business opportunities, and balance
growth through efficient development patterns.
• New development and redevelopment will meet Dacono's expectations for excellence in design
and the creation of places consistent with long-term economic viability.
• Today's neighborhoods remain vital and desirable places that meet the needs of existing
residents and also appeal to future residents.
• Housing choices available in Dacono are accessible and affordable to people at all stages of their
lives.
• City leaders and decision -makers will focus sufficient attention and investment on distinctive
areas throughout the City so that each can achieve the vision described in this plan.
7.2.1 Community Profile
The City of Dacono is located in southwestern Weld County, about 10 miles north of the Denver
metropolitan area. Dacono is located east of 1-25 and south of Highway 52. The city encompasses nearly
8.2 square miles, with a future growth boundary of 22 square miles.
I Appendix B - 8
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
I- I
�rl I�
J r f , J
x-
Dacono is part of the Carbon Valley area which also includes the Towns of Frederick and Firestone. The
three municipalities share a Chamber of Commerce and a Park and Recreation District. They are
represented in the Carbon Valley Emergency Management Agency, which also includes the Frederick
Fire Protection District and Mountain View Fire Rescue. The municipalities work with their specific
stakeholders in determining risks and vulnerabilities, however the unique agreement between them is
important to planning efforts.
The table below summarizes key demographic and development related characteristics of the City of
Dacono.
Table 74. City of Dacono Demographics
6,034
5,758,736
Population, 2019
45.2%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
10.6%
5.8%
% Population under 5 years, 2019
28.0%
21.9%
% Population under 19 years, 2019
7.6%
14.6%
% Population 65 years and over, 2019
I Appendix B - 9
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
69.9%
64.9%
Homeownership Rate, 2019
2.84
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
$67,524
$68,811
Median Household Income, 2014- 2018
5.9%
9.3%
Persons below poverty level, %, 2014- 2018
10.50/0
7.30/0
Population under 65 years, with a disability 2014-
2018
19.9%
17%
Language other than English spoken at home, % age
5+, 2014- 2018
Source: US Census Bureau
The City's current population is estimated at 6,034 people, according to the US Census Bureau.
Population forecasts are unavailable for municipalities in Colorado, however the population growth rate
for Dacono was 5.9% from 2015 to 2018. This is almost double that of Weld County and around four
times that of the state for the same period.
7.2.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 75 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the City of Dacono. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 75. Risk Factor Results for Dacono
Agricultural Hazards
3
3
e
4
-I I it
I
4
C Ill it
3.1
Cyber Hazards
3
4
4
4
4
3.7
Drought
3
2
4
I
4
2.8
Earthquake
I
2
4
I
I
1.9
Extreme Temps.
2
2
2
I
3
2.0
Flood
3
3
4
2
4
3.2
Hazmat
3
2
2
3
2
2.4
Land Subsidence
I
I
I
2
I
1.1
Prairie Fire
3
2
I
4
3
2.4
Public Health Hazards
4
2
4
I
3
3.0
Severe Storms
4
3
4
3
2
3.4
Tornado & Wind
3
4
2
4
4
3.3
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Dacono as a whole - based on High, Moderate,
or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and
regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
I Appendix B - 10
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 76. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Dacono
-11 -1 P 1 r�. ���� . ��], I
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Drought, Flood,
Public Health Hazards, Severe Storms, Tornado &
Straight -Line Wind
MODERATE RISK (2.0 — 2.4)
Extreme Temperatures, Hazmat, Prairie Fire
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Earthquake, Land Subsidence
Since the 2016 Plan, the City has decreased the assessed risk from extreme temperatures to Moderate
Risk (formerly High) and land subsidence to Low (formerly Moderate). It has also elevated prairie fire
from Low Risk to Moderate. Besides the newly added hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber hazards,
all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the City of Dacono's High Risk hazards and include any specific content
relevant to the City. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard profile in the
main body of this Plan.
7.2.2. I Agricultural Hazards (including Disease & Pests)
Vulnerability to agricultural hazards is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards. There are no previous events to document specific to Dacono. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.2.2.2 Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting Dacono, the threat of this hazard is continually
increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to Dacono. Future occurrences are
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
7.2.2.3 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to Dacono. Future occurrences
are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details.
7.2.2.4 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood is a very localized hazard and vulnerability is unique for each municipality. There are no previous
events to document specific to Dacono.
I Appendix B - I I
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Overall vulnerability to flood is increased for the City of Dacono, where 2.2% of address points (58) are
located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This is a larger percentage of structures at risk, as
compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in the SFHA.
Flood events can also occur as a result of dam or levee failure. In these cases, flood waters may not
follow the typical floodplains mapped as the SFHA.
The City of Dacono's overall vulnerability to flooding in dam inundation areas is significantly different
from the rest of the County, as Dacono has no address points located in these dam inundation areas.
This is compared to 1.0% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
The City is not the first jurisdiction downstream of any dams. Additional information pertaining to dams
can be referenced at the State's Dam Safety website: https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/DamSafety/Dams .
The City's overall vulnerability to flooding in areas protected by known levees is substantially different
from the rest of the County, as Dacono has no address points located in within levee protected areas.
This is compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
It is important to note that this analysis is only as good as best available data allows. Current
floodplains, dam inundation areas, and areas protected by levees may not currently map all hazard areas.
Additionally, mapped hazard areas may be dated and in need of updated mapping and analysis.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.2.2.5 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Dacono. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details,
including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.2.2.6 Severe Storm (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. Dacono's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk.
Any structures not constructed to meet recent building codes experience the greatest risk from
structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the City of Dacono has had
seven severe thunderstorms which resulted in reports of hail. There was no reported damage to
property or crops and no injuries or deaths. The hail in these storms ranged in size from 1 inch to 1.75
inches.
No other events for severe storm, specific to Dacono, were recorded over this time period.
I Appendix B - 12
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.2.2.7 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Dacono's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes.
Between 2015 and 2020, there were no reports of occurrences specific to Dacono. Future occurrences
are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details.
7.2.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the City of Dacono to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the city's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented many of these capabilities shown in Table 77. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 77. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
r11`.1r, 11 11 1 1 111'
Comprehensive, Master, or
General Plan
=11i : ,
Yes
1i11 11 11'
Dacono Forward adopted 2017
Capital Improvement Program
or Plan (CIP)
No
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Stormwater Program / Plan
No
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Economic Development Plan
No
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018 Edition
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
I Appendix B - 13
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Elevation Certificates for
Floodplain Development
!H —Ili .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Community Rating System
(CRS) Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
No
Growth Management
Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Dacono is fortunate to have most all of these capabilities identified
in Table 78.
Table 78. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Planning Commission
!H —Ili .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Emergency Manager
Yes
Carbon Valley Emergency Management Agency
(CVEMA)
Building Official
Yes
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Community Planner
Yes
Transportation Planner
No
Civil Engineer
Yes
GIS Capability
Yes
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
No
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Grant Writing / Management
No
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 79 and show that Dacono
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
I Appendix B - 14
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 79. Financial Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H —Ili .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Utilities Fees
Yes
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
Yes
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 80 shows that Dacono could
benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 80. Education & Outreach Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
!H —Ili .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
CVEMA Hazard and Preparedness Education and
Outreach
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Other:
No
7.2.4 Plan Maintenance and Implementation
The City of Dacono has developed a Plan Maintenance and Implementation Strategy outlining their
method and schedule for keeping the plan current. The Implementation Strategy below also includes a
discussion of how the City will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.
• The Carbon Valley Emergency Manager will facilitate an annual review of hazard mitigation plan
and actions with City staff and leadership. In addition, The City of Dacono and CVEMA will
periodically engage the public in the process of identifying hazards, risks, and prioritizing
mitigation actions.
I Appendix B - 15
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.2.5 Integrating Hazard Mitigation into Local Planning
The City also identified ways to integrate hazard mitigation into their local planning mechanisms and
policies. Following are the specific integration strategies identified by the City of Dacono.
• To consider implementing hazard mitigation actions into the City's capital improvement projects
and building codes.
7.2.6 Mitigation Actions
The mitigation actions identified by the City during the Plan update are included in Table 81. Both of
these actions from the 2016 Plan have been carried over into the City's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 81. 2021 Mitigation Actions
1F'/
2021-19
2021-20
I -Dacono
2-Dacono
Design and Construction of CO Blvd Bridge
Grandview Street and York Street Flood Mitigation
I Appendix B - 16
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.3 Town of Eaton
"The Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Eaton is intended to be a statement of the collective vision for Eaton's
future. The goals and policies within the plan define the values that are important to the community.... These
overall goals set forth our intent and describe our mission." - 20 18
Overall Community Goals:
• Preserve a sense of community, high quality schools, a sense of safety, and a sense of history.
• Allow planned growth, high quality and affordable housing, and sustainable growth.
• Encourage the maintenance and improvement of existing commercial and industrial businesses.
• Encourage a balance of new commercial and industrial development that will serve the
community's needs.
• Encourage new jobs to keep the economy balanced and provide opportunities for those who
wish to live and work in the community.
• Enhance the provision of local services, including those provided by local government or the
private sector.
• Enhance the existing community programs that make the Eaton community strong and assure
that this sense of community remains strong.
• Promote affordable and comfortable housing for senior citizens and maintain the related
programs that support them.
• Avoid land uses and development activities that damage Eaton's environment and its community
resources.
• Eliminate any environmental contamination of abandoned buildings and related land uses.
• Manage the growth that is likely to occur in the Eaton community and develop and maintain the
new and the existing infrastructure that will serve that growth.
• Work with other community agencies and organizations to solve issues, plan for future growth,
and build the best possible Town.
7.3.1 Community Profile
The Town of Eaton is located 7 miles north of Greeley, along US Route 85. It is located on the Denver,
Colorado -Cheyenne, Wyoming mainline of the Union Pacific Railroad.
The local economy's foundation has a long history rooted in agriculture. Eaton takes pride in that
foundation and considers itself the Town of "Beef, Beets and Beans" Retail businesses, professional
services and industrial development have helped to diversify the economy and with continued growth
are expected to strengthen the tax base for the Town.
I Appendix B - 17
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
1
Table 82 shows some development information for the Town of Eaton. Current information for specific
characteristics of the population is only available from the US Census Bureau for municipalities with
populations over 5,000 people, until each decennial census.
Table 82. Town of Eaton Demographics
5,707
5,758,736
Population, 2019
30.3%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
2.77
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
Note: Recent data is unavailable from the US Census Bureau for some categories, based on the size of the municipality. Source: US
Census Bureau
7.3.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 83 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Eaton. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
I Appendix B - 18
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 83. Risk Factor Results for Eaton
1 i tier, l
Agricultural Hazards
i fli .;
2
1 I ,l _ i
3
-
3
4
r i=i -_ it
4
FP
2.9
Cyber Hazards
3
2
3
4
3
2.8
Drought
3
I
4
I
4
2.5
Earthquake
I
3
3
4
I
2.3
Extreme Temps.
3
I
4
3
I
2.4
Flood
I
I
2
4
2
1.6
Hazmat Release
2
2
4
4
3
2.7
Land Subsidence
1
1
2
4
4
1.8
Prairie Fire
3
2
2
4
1
2.4
Public Health Hazards
4
2
3
1
4
2.9
Severe Storms
4
3
4
2
3
3.4
Tornado & Wind
3
3
3
2
1
2.7
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Eaton as a whole - based on High, Moderate,
or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and
regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 84. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Eaton
-11 1 F11 1�. �_�� . Ali - I
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Drought,
Hazmat Release, Public Health Hazards, Severe
Storms, Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
MODERATE RISK (2.0 — 2.4)
Earthquake, Extreme Temperatures, Prairie Fire
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Flood, Land Subsidence
The following sections highlight the Town of Eaton's High Risk hazards and include any specific content
relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard profile in
the main body of this Plan.
7.3.2. I Agricultural Hazards (including Disease & Pests)
Vulnerability to agricultural hazards is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards. There are no previous events to document specific to Eaton. Future occurrences
are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details.
7.3.2.2 Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting Eaton, the threat of this hazard is continually
increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to Eaton. Future occurrences are
I Appendix B - 19
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
7.3.2.3 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to Eaton. Future occurrences
are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details.
7.3.2.4 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased for the Town of Eaton, mainly due to the location of a
CDOT hazardous materials route through the community. Additionally, railroads span across Eaton
which present their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County, the
presence of any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of
events.
Based on data supplied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA)
Incident Reports Database there have been two events that have occurred within Eaton between 1991
and 2019. These were due to improper preparation for transport and mishandling.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.3.2.5 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Eaton. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details,
including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.3.2.6 Severe Storms (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. Eaton's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in
addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not constructed to meet
recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of Eaton has had
eleven severe storm which resulted in reports of hail. The hail in these storms ranged in size from 0.75
inches to 1.75 inches. There was no reported damage to property or crops and no injuries or deaths.
No other events for severe storm, specific to Eaton, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
I Appendix B - 20
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.3.2.7 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Eaton's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, one event, an EF0 tornado,
was reported. A brief landspout caused minor damage to a farmstead, although no claims for property
damage were reported. There were no injuries and no deaths.
No other events for severe storm, specific to Eaton, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.3.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Eaton to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented a number of these capabilities shown in Table 85. It is important
for all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 85. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
"1 i-' iJ iil 7s i ili -
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H -' 117/ i1
Yes
. 71' HI ll 11 =�
Eaton Comprehensive Plan- last update 10/2020
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
No
Future project
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Eaton Draw
Stormwater Program / Plan
No
Water restrictions, Drought Plan next year
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
Yes
City of Greeley -standards
Economic Development Plan
No
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018 Updated building codes- (Procode) 3rd
party contractor for inspections
Site Plan Review Requirements
No
Baseline Engineering
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
I Appendix B - 21
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
ri'it i =i, „ i,i ili-
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
H'71 1Z%
Yes
Iill ,l ,l
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
No
Eaton Draw
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
No
Tension, retention, no formal program
Growth Management Ordinance
Yes
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Building Code- snow load for houses
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Eaton is fortunate to have most all of these capabilities identified in
Table 86.
Table 86. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Planning Commission
!H —Ili- .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Eaton Planning Commission
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
May be a possibility going forward
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Eaton Public Works, Maintenance
Emergency Manager
Yes
Jeff Schreier
Building Official
Yes
John Gesick
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Jeff Schreier
Community Planner
Yes
Vince Harris
Transportation Planner
Yes
Vince Harris
Civil Engineer
Yes
Greeley- Brad Curtis
GIS Capability
Yes
Started 2019
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
No
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Code Red, IPAWS
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Jeff Schreier
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 87 and show that Eaton
utilizes some financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
I Appendix B - 22
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 87. Financial Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H —Ili— .,
No
I,ll it ,l_�
Utilities Fees
Yes
Town of Eaton, Water/Sewer/Irrigation/Trash
Enterprise funds
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
Impact Fees
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
No
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
No
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
No
future East Eaton, Jeff Schreier on the committee
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 88 shows that Eaton could
benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 88. Education & Outreach Capabilities
r 1` it ,]: it z i i11'
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
H_ =,-Ili-- ,
No
= Ili II >>'_:
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
In Progress
Storm Spotter classes, shelter (board chambers)
Other:
No
7.3.4 Mitigation Actions
The mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 89.
Table 89. 2021 Mitigation Actions
1F
2021-21
2021-22
2021-23
I -Eaton
2 -Eaton
3 -Eaton
Drought Plan Development
Roundabout Collins Rd & CR35
Pump Pit
I Appendix B - 23
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.4 Town of Erie
In the 2015 update of the Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan, key principles were created based on the
community's aspirations and the ideals for the Town within the planning area.
These key principles are:
• A Coordinated and Efficient Pattern of Growth
• Quality Design and Development
• Provide Infrastructure and Public Services Efficiently and Equitably
• Stable, Cohesive Neighborhoods Offering a Variety of Housing Types
• A Comprehensive, Integrated Transportation System
• Stewardship of the Natural Environment
• Trails, Parks and Recreation Opportunities
• Protected Lands Program
• Balanced Land Use Mix
• Overall Economic Vitality
• Downtown Vitality
7.4.1 Community Profile
The Town of Erie is situated at the center of Colorado's major economic and population hubs. Located
in both Boulder and Weld Counties, Erie lies just west of 1-25 and spans 48 square miles, extending
from the north side of State Highway 52 and south to State Highway 7.
I Appendix B - 24
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 90 summarizes key demographic and development related characteristics of the Town of Erie.
Table 90. Town of Erie Demographics
27,003
5,758,736
Population, 2019
48.5%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
8.4%
5.8%
% Population under 5 years, 2019
30.3%
21.9%
% Population under 19 years, 2019
9.3%
14.6%
% Population 65 years and over, 2019
86.9%
64.9%
Homeownership Rate, 2019
2.95
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
$119,973
$68,811
Median Household Income, 2014- 2018
4.5%
9.3%
Persons below poverty level, %, 2014- 2018
2.2%
7.3%
Population under 65 years, with a disability 2014-
2018
11.0%
17%
Language other than English spoken at home, % age
5+, 2014- 2018
Source: US Census Bureau
I Appendix B - 25
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The Town of Erie has a projected population growth of 4.6% by 2023, estimating the future population
to be 31,035. The population growth in Erie has created an economy primarily driven by housing
construction and the community is working on diversifying the economy and strengthening the tax base.
7.4.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
The Town of Erie is situated in both Boulder and Weld Counties. For the purpose of this plan, spatially
analyzed hazard risks have been only assessed for the areas of Erie that lie specifically within Weld
County.
Table 91 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Erie. The results
represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of local
stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 91. Risk Factor Results for Erie
1 L7/ ir. rr11
?1
Agricultural Hazards
r , 'L i11' .n
3
1I ll -=C .
2
= i L1
-
e
3
c,n II-
1 iK:
I
il' LL i -=-=i
4
F P
F =t ill it
2.6
Cyber Hazards
4
2
4
4
4
3.4
Drought
3
3
4
I
4
3.1
Earthquake
I
2
3
4
I
2.0
Extreme Temps.
3
2
3
2
3
2.6
Flood
3
3
3
3
3
3.0
Hazmat Release
3
I
2
4
I
2.1
Land Subsidence
2
I
I
4
I
1.6
Prairie Fire
3
1
1
4
1
1.9
Public Health Hazards
4
3
3
2
4
3.3
Severe Storms
4
3
3
2
1
3.0
Tornado & Wind
2
2
2
4
1
2.1
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Erie as a whole - based on High, Moderate, or
Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and regional
hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 92. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Erie
-11 1 G11 1�. �_�� . ��]I
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Drought,
Extreme Temperatures, Flood, Public Health Hazards,
Severe Storms
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
Earthquake, Hazmat Release, Tornado & Straight -Line
Wind
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Land Subsidence, Prairie Fire
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has decreased the assessed risk from earthquake, hazmat release, and
tornado & straight-line wind to Moderate Risk (all were formerly High). It also decreased the assessed
I Appendix B - 26
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
risk from land subsidence and prairie fire from High to Low. Besides the newly added hazards of
agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of Erie's High Risk hazards and include any specific content
relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard profile in
the main body of this Plan.
7.4.2. I Agricultural Hazards (including Disease & Pests)
Vulnerability to agricultural hazards is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards. There are no previous events to document specific to Erie. Future occurrences
are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details.
7.4.2.2 Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting Erie, the threat of this hazard is continually
increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to Erie. Future occurrences are
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
7.4.2.3 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to Erie. Future occurrences are
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
7.4.2.4 Extreme Temperatures
The Town of Erie's vulnerability to extreme temperatures is not noticeably different from the rest of
the County. Those communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do
experience higher risk to these hazards due to potential crop and livestock losses. Additionally,
individuals at a higher risk to extreme temperatures include those with mobility issues, independent
living difficulty, the elderly, low-income families, outdoor laborers, and those experiencing homelessness.
Data for these demographics is collected at census tract level, however snapshot data for populations
that can fluctuate drastically, such as the number of outdoor laborers and those experiencing
homelessness is not included. These are still considerable populations in the County and the Town of
Erie and local efforts to quantify these populations periodically can help with mitigation planning.
The data for high risk populations has been analyzed by Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) and has been used to create Community Inclusions maps. These maps can be
zoomed into specific census tracts for municipalities and communities, illustrating the population
variances. Refer to Chapter 4 for examples of these maps for Weld County.
There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Erie. Future occurrences are
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
I Appendix B - 27
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.4.2.5 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood is a very localized hazard and vulnerability is unique for each municipality. According to the
NOAA's Storm Events Database, a flood caused by heavy rain, on 5/8/2015, impacted Erie. The flood
caused $500,000 in property damages and $100,000 in crop damages. There were no injuries or deaths.
The Town of Erie's overall vulnerability to flood is noticeably lower than the rest of the County. Erie
spans both Boulder and Weld Counties and the information for vulnerability includes only those address
points within Weld County. Erie has 37 address points located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
This equates to 0.5% of all address points for the Town, as compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses
located in the SFHA.
Flood events can also occur as a result of dam or levee failure. In these cases, flood waters may not
follow the typical floodplains mapped as the SFHA.
Overall vulnerability to flooding in dam inundation areas is increased for the Town of Erie, where 1.6%
of address points (I 12) are located within these dam inundation areas. This is a larger percentage of
structures at risk, as compared to 1.0% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
Additionally, the Town is the first jurisdiction downstream from four dams. Two of these have a hazard
classification of Significant or High, both of which have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs). Additional
information pertaining to dams can be referenced at the State's Dam Safety website:
https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/DamSafety/Dams .
Overall vulnerability to flooding in areas protected by known levees is increased for the Town of Erie,
where 5.6% of address points (400) are located within levee protected areas. This is a larger percentage
of structures at risk, as compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in protected areas.
It is important to note that this analysis is only as good as best available data allows. Current
floodplains, dam inundation areas, and areas protected by levees may not currently map all hazard areas.
Additionally, mapped hazard areas may be dated and in need of updated mapping and analysis.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
There are currently two Repetitive Loss (SRL) structures in Erie. Additional details pertaining to this
and FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) can be found in this Plan's flood chapter.
7.4.2.6 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Erie. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details,
including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
I Appendix B - 28
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.4.2.7 Severe Storm (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. Erie's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in
addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not constructed to meet
recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of Erie has had
eight severe storm events. Seven of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in size from
0.75 inches to 1.5 inches. None of these events resulted in damage to property or crops and no injuries
or deaths.
One event, on 7/25/2018, was reported as thunderstorm winds with magnitudes of 61 mph and 70 mph.
This storm produced large hail, damaging winds and heavy rain. The storm knocked out power, dented
cars and damaged trees. Near Jasper Road east of U.S. 287, the storm picked up a 40 -foot grain trailer
and pushed it almost 200 yards.
No other events for severe storm, specific to Erie, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.4.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Erie to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented most of these capabilities shown in Table 93. It is important for all
municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk reduction
efforts.
Table 93. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
G;1' 1, 1'1 „ 1 , 1 111'x°
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H ,711 1Z%
Yes
I ll ll ,I
Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
5 -Year CIP Plan
Floodplain Management Plan
Yes
Stormwater Program / Plan
Yes
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
Yes
Economic Development Plan
Yes
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2015
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
No
I Appendix B - 29
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
ri'it i=i, „ i,i ili-
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
H'71 1Z%
Yes
Iill ,l ,l
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
No
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
Yes
Growth Management Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
Yes
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Erie is fortunate to have many of these capabilities identified in
Table 94.
Table 94. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Planning Commission
!H —Ili .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Emergency Manager
Yes
Building Official
Yes
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Community Planner
Yes
Transportation Planner
No
Civil Engineer
Yes
GIS Capability
Yes
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
No
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
No
Grant Writing / Management
No
Other:
No
I Appendix B - 30
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 95 and show that Erie utilizes
a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 95. Financial Capabilities
Ph1`.1r 11 11 1 1 111'
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
=11i :,
No
1i11 11 11'
Utilities Fees
Yes
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
Yes
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
No
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 96 shows that Erie could
benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 96. Education & Outreach Capabilities
Ph1`.1r, 11 11 1 1 111'
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
H=11i :,
No
1i11 11 11'
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Other:
7.4.4 Plan Maintenance and Implementation
The Town of Erie has developed a Plan Maintenance and Implementation Strategy outlining their method
and schedule for keeping the plan current. The Implementation Strategy below also includes a discussion
of how the Town will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.
I Appendix B - 31
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
• The Town of Erie will follow Boulder County's schedule for plan monitoring, revision, and
maintenance. Mitigation Actions will be monitored and administered by appropriate Town
Departments (i.e. - Administration, Police and Public Works).
• The Town is participating in Hazard Mitigation Plans with both Boulder and Weld County. Plans
will be made public (online) when they are brought forward for Board approval. Any changes to
these plans requiring Board approval would also be made public.
7.4.5 Integrating Hazard Mitigation into Local Planning
The Town also identified ways to integrate hazard mitigation into their local planning mechanisms and
policies. Following are the specific integration strategies identified by the Town of Erie.
• The Town will update our Capital Improvement Plans to integrate our mitigation actions.
7.4.6 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 97Table
73. Three actions from the 2016 Plan have been carried over into the Town's updated mitigation
strategy.
Table 97. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11;
2021-24
i,n— inn it
I -Erie
7 it
County Line Rd, Tellane to Cheeseman
2021-25
2- Erie
Coal Creek Improvements Reach 1
2021-26
3 -Erie
Coal Creek Improvements reach 2
2021-27
4 -Erie
Coal Creek Improvements reach 3
2021-28
5 -Erie
Old Town Drainage Improvements
2021-29
6 -Erie
Zone 3 Storage Tank
2021-30
7 -Erie
Well Project
2021-31
8 -Erie
Zone 2 Water System Improvements
2021-32
9 -Erie
Zone 3 Storage Tank
2021-33
10 -Erie
Zone 3 Waterline Improvements
2021-34
I I -Erie
Erie Parkway & WCR 7 Intersection Improvements
2021-35
12 -Erie
Signal Communications Project
I Appendix B - 32
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.5 City of Evans
In the current City of Evans Comprehensive Plan, the City adopted a set of Strategic Priorities which
encompasses their principles, informs their goals and guides their actions. These priorities are:
• Economic Development
• Infrastructure Development
• Regional Leadership
• Public Safety
7.5.1 Community Profile
The City of Evans is located in northern Colorado at the crossroads of US Highway 85 and US Highway
34. Evans is located just south of Greeley and was once the County seat of Weld County. Evans is the
second most populated municipality in the County with a population of 21,205 according to the US
Census Bureau (2019).
x-
1
-1 Lli
� fill � �.1-1
The table below summarizes key demographic and development related characteristics of the City of
Evans.
I Appendix B - 33
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 98. City of Evans Demographics
21,205
5,758,736
Population, 2019
14.6%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
8.9%
5.8%
% Population under 5 years, 2019
29.8%
21.9%
% Population under 19 years, 2019
6.6%
14.6%
% Population 65 years and over, 2019
62.0%
64.9%
Homeownership Rate, 2019
3.04
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
$58,405
$68,811
Median Household Income, 2014- 2018
12.7%
9.3%
Persons below poverty level, %, 2014- 2018
6.6%
7.3%
Population under 65 years, with a disability 2014-
2018
30.7%
17%
Language other than English spoken at home, % age
5+, 2014- 2018
Source: US Census Bureau
The City of Evans has a diverse economy, which is primarily driven by construction, retail trade and
personal & professional services. The City has focused its infrastructure projects on upgrading outdated
infrastructure and redeveloping roads to accommodate for the growth and increased traffic.
7.5.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 99 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the City of Evans. The results
represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of local
stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 99. Risk Factor Results for Evans
Agricultural Hazards
I
0.5
i i t
2
c, n I I J `-
I
4
1.4
Cyber Hazards
3
4
2
4
4
3.3
Drought
3
3
4
I
4
3.1
Earthquake
I
I
3
2
I
1.5
Extreme Temps.
3
I
I
I
2
1.7
Flood
2
4
2
I
4
2.7
Hazmat Release
3
2
2
4
3
2.6
Land Subsidence
I
I
I
I
I
1.0
Prairie Fire
2
I
2
I
I
1.5
Public Health Hazards
4
4
3
I
4
3.5
Severe Storms
3
3
3
4
I
2.9
Tornado & Wind
3
3
3
4
I
2.9
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Evans as a whole - based on High, Moderate, or
I Appendix B - 34
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and regional
hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 100. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Evans
-11C-, 1 F 1 1�. ���� . �I] - I
Cyber Hazards, Drought, Flood, Hazmat Release,
Public Health Hazards, Severe Storms, Tornado &
Straight -Line Wind
MODERATE RISK (2.0 — 2.4)
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Agricultural Hazards, Earthquake, Extreme
Temperatures, Land Subsidence, Prairie Fire
Since the 2016 Plan, the City has decreased the assessed risk from earthquake, extreme temperatures,
land subsidence, and prairie fire to Low Risk (all formerly High). Besides the newly added hazards of
agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the City of Evan's High Risk hazards and include any specific content
relevant to the City. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard profile in the
main body of this Plan.
7.5.2. I Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting Evans, the threat of this hazard is continually
increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to the City of Evans. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.5.2.2 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to the City of Evans. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.5.2.3 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood is a very localized hazard and vulnerability is unique for each municipality. There are no previous
events to document specific to Evans.
The City of Evans' overall vulnerability to flood is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Evans has 159 address points located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This equates to 1.7% of
all address points for the City, as compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in the SFHA.
Flood events can also occur as a result of dam or levee failure. In these cases, flood waters may not
follow the typical floodplains mapped as the SFHA.
Overall vulnerability to flooding in dam inundation areas is increased for the City of Evans, where 14.0%
of address points (1,332) are located within these dam inundation areas. This is a larger percentage of
structures at risk, as compared to 1.0% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
I Appendix B - 35
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Additionally, the City is the first jurisdiction downstream from eight dams. Two of these have a hazard
classification of Significant or High, both of which have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs). Additional
information pertaining to dams can be referenced at the State's Dam Safety website:
https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/DamSafety/Dams .
Overall vulnerability to flooding in areas protected by known levees is increased for the City of Evans,
where 9.5% of address points (904) are located within levee protected areas. This is a larger percentage
of structures at risk, as compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in protected areas.
It is important to note that this analysis is only as good as best available data allows. Current
floodplains, dam inundation areas, and areas protected by levees may not currently map all hazard areas.
Additionally, mapped hazard areas may be dated and in need of updated mapping and analysis.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.5.2.4 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased for the City of Evans, mainly due to the location of a CDOT
hazardous materials route through the community. Additionally, railroads which span across Evans
present their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County, the presence of
any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of events.
Based on data supplied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA)
Incident Reports Database there have been 35 events that have occurred within Evans between 1991
and 2019. All events involved leakage, spillage or damage due to improper transportation preparation
or handling.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.5.2.5 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to the City of Evans. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details, including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.5.2.6 Severe Storm (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. The City of Evan's more densely developed areas experience the greatest
risk, in addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not constructed to
meet recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the City of Evans has had
five severe storm events. These events were reports of hail, which ranged in size from 0.88 inches to
I Appendix B - 36
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
1.5 inches. None of these events resulted in reported damage to property or crops and no injuries or
deaths.
No other events for severe storm, specific to Evans, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.5.2.7 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Evans' more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes.
Between 2015 and 2020, there were no reports of occurrences specific to Evans. Future occurrences
are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details.
7.5.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the City of Evans to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the City's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The City
currently utilizes or has implemented most of these capabilities shown in Table 101. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 101. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
r i i' it i =i; „ i , i i1t' .;
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H' 11-/ -1
Yes
I HI it ,l
Currently being updated, completion 2021
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
Updated Zo2o/Annually
Floodplain Management Plan
Yes
Enforced by ordinance, Todd Hepworth
Stormwater Program / Plan
Yes
Updated 2020
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Under jurisdiction of Evans Fire District
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
Yes
Part of MS4 updated in 2020
Economic Development Plan
Yes
Included in master planning effort
Other:
Yes
THIRA/HIRA included in master plan
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
Current IBC 2018
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Part of land development code/design
requirements
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Part of code and comprehensive plan
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
Part of code and comprehensive plan
I Appendix B - 37
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
"1 i-' iJ iil 4 2, i ili -
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
-`71i- 1IZ%
Yes
. ��I' ill ll II=
Part of comprehensive plan/land use regulations
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
2021 Update in process
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Current with FEMA requirements
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Under consideration
Open Space / Conservation
Program
Yes
Part of development - % of open space
preservation
Growth Management Ordinance
Yes
CPA with Weld County, IGA with Evans, Greeley,
Kersey
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
Ties to MS4 Program
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
Yes
Included in Master Plan
Other:
Yes
Weight limit posting on bridges
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Evans is fortunate to have most all of these capabilities identified in
Table 102.
Table 102. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
"I1`it iice-,I -i i i11'-
Planning Commission
ll-Ili- ,
Yes
I ill il II=
Meets monthly
Mitigation Planning Committee
Yes
Informal group of partners
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Normal daily activities
Emergency Manager
Yes
Part time/temporary
Building Official
Yes
Contract
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Todd Hepworth
Community Planner
Yes
Lauren Richardson
Transportation Planner
No
Civil Engineer
Yes
City Engineer with two Civil Engineer Reports
GIS Capability
Yes
ARCGIS - Anna Jereb
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
Yes
Economic Development Manager/Community
Development Director/Neighborhood
Services/Compliance
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
No
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Code Red, IPAWS, Reverse 911
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Finance/Comm. Dev./Engineering/Operations
Other:
Yes
City Attorney, Staffed E0C
I Appendix B - 38
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 103 and show that Evans
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 103. Financial Capabilities
r-il i i i11'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H =111- : ,
Yes
I ell il ,l_�
Submitted as a ballot measure as needed
Utilities Fees
Yes
Enterprise funds
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
Part of City fee schedule
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
Yes
City does not currently have any. In order to obtain
voter approval required.
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
Yes
City does not currently have any. In order to obtain
voter approval required.
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Conservation trust fund in place
Stormwater Utility Fees
Yes
Updated 2019
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
CIP funds included annually in budget
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
Through Weld County/State
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
Yes
CDOT/GOCO/State Parks/Safe Routes to School
etc.
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 104 shows that Evans does
leverage some of these capabilities and is currently working on expanding these efforts.
Table 104. Education & Outreach Capabilities
r 1` it i =i it i i i11'
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
H -di-
Yes
�. err = >>'_�
Various community outreach programs
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
Yes
Storm Spotter Training/NWS Spotters
Other:
No
7.5.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the City during the Plan update are included in Table 105Table
73. One action from the 2016 Plan have been carried over into the City's updated mitigation strategy.
I Appendix B - 39
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 105. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11;
i In— inn it
7 it
2021-36
I -Evans
31st St Stormwater Outfall
2021-37
2 -Evans
Bay at the Landings Inlet Flood Mitigation
2021-38
3 -Evans
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter
Capabilities Planning
I Appendix B - 40
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.6 Town of Firestone
"The Town of Firestone is a unique community of citizens, businesses, and governments that are united in
creating a stable, safe, prosperous, and healthful environment in which to live, work, worship, learn, recreate and
exercise the rights and freedoms provided by the United States Constitution."
— Firestone Master Plan 2013
7.6.1 Community Profile
The Town of Firestone is located on the northern edge of the Denver -Boulder metropolitan area along
Interstate 25, midway between Denver and Fort Collins, just east of Longmont. Firestone's boundary is
approximately 7,774 acres with a planning area of about 56 square miles. The Town of Firestone offers
residents the charm of a small town along with easy access to the Rocky Mountains, front range
communities, parks, trails, schools, community events, and more.
N
�� ti
IMI
-- _ d
I. i J } I.
—
Firestone is part of the Carbon Valley area which also includes the Towns of Frederick and the City of
Dacono. The three municipalities share a Chamber of Commerce and a Park and Recreation District.
They are represented in the Carbon Valley Emergency Management Agency, which also includes the
Frederick Fire Protection District and Mountain View Fire Rescue. The municipalities work with their
specific stakeholders in determining risks and vulnerabilities, however the unique agreement between
them is important to planning efforts.
I Appendix B - 41
e R�rnue+�cv MANIv:FMF, i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 106 summarizes key demographic and development related characteristics of the Town of
Firestone.
Table 106. Town of Firestone Demographics
16,177
5,758,736
Population, 2019
58.6%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
7.9%
5.8%
% Population under 5 years, 2019
30.0%
21.9%
% Population under 19 years, 2019
9.2%
14.6%
% Population 65 years and over, 2019
88.6%
64.9%
Homeownership Rate, 2019
3.09
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
$97,102
$68,811
Median Household Income, 2014- 2018
3.6%
9.3%
Persons below poverty level, %, 2014- 2018
6.7%
7.3%
Population under 65 years, with a disability 2014-
2018
10.4%
17%
Language other than English spoken at home, % age
5+, 2014- 2018
Source: US Census Bureau
7.6.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 107 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Firestone. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 107. Risk Factor Results for Firestone
Agricultural Hazards
3
3
i i1
4
c ,n II-
I
I Fr 17 II
4
FP
3.1
Cyber Hazards
3
4
4
4
4
3.7
Drought
3
2
4
I
4
2.8
Earthquake
I
2
4
I
I
1.9
Extreme Temps.
2
2
2
I
3
2.0
Flood
3
3
4
2
4
3.2
Hazmat Release
3
2
2
3
2
2.4
Land Subsidence
I
I
I
2
I
1.1
Prairie Fire
3
2
I
4
3
2.4
Public Health Hazards
4
2
4
I
3
3.0
Severe Storms
4
3
4
3
2
3.4
Tornado & Wind
3
4
2
4
4
3.3
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Firestone as a whole - based on High,
Moderate, or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around
I Appendix B - 42
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
local and regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation
strategy.
Table 108. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Firestone
-11C-, 1 F 1 1�. ���� . �I] - I
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Drought, Flood,
Public Health Hazards, Severe Storms, Tornado &
Straight -Line Wind
MODERATE RISK (2.0 — 2.4)
Extreme Temperatures, Hazmat Release, Prairie Fire
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Earthquake, Land Subsidence
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has increased the assessed risk from drought and public health hazards to
High Risk (both formerly Low). Severe storms and tornado & straight-line wind also elevated from
Moderate to High Risk. Besides the newly added hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all
other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of Firestone's High Risk hazards and include any specific
content relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard
profile in the main body of this Plan.
7.6.2. I Agricultural Hazards (including Disease & Pests)
Vulnerability to agricultural hazards is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Firestone.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.6.2.2 Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting the Town of Firestone, the threat of this hazard
is continually increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to Firestone. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.6.2.3 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Firestone.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.6.2.4 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood is a very localized hazard and vulnerability is unique for each municipality. There are no previous
events to document specific to the Town of Firestone.
The Town of Firestone's overall vulnerability to flood is noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Firestone has 51 address points located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This
I Appendix B - 43
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
equates to 0.8% of all address points for the Town, as compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses
located in the SFHA.
Flood events can also occur as a result of dam or levee failure. In these cases, flood waters may not
follow the typical floodplains mapped as the SFHA.
Overall vulnerability to flooding in dam inundation areas is increased for Firestone, where 6.8% of
address points (434) are located within these dam inundation areas. This is a larger percentage of
structures at risk, as compared to 1.0% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
Additionally, the Town is the first jurisdiction downstream from one dam. It has a hazard classification
of Significant and does have an Emergency Action Plan (EAP). Additional information pertaining to dams
can be referenced at the State's Dam Safety website: https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/DamSafety/Dams .
The Town of Firestone's overall vulnerability to flooding in areas protected by known levees is
significantly different from the rest of the County. Firestone has no address points located within levee
protected areas, compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
It is important to note that this analysis is only as good as best available data allows. Current
floodplains, dam inundation areas, and areas protected by levees may not currently map all hazard areas.
Additionally, mapped hazard areas may be dated and in need of updated mapping and analysis.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.6.2.5 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Firestone. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details,
including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.6.2.6 Severe Storm (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. Firestone's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in
addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not constructed to meet
recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of Firestone has
had fourteen severe storm events. Twelve of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in
size from 0.75 inches to 1.75 inches. None of these events resulted in reported damage to property or
crops and no injuries or deaths.
I Appendix B - 44
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Two events were reported as thunderstorm winds with magnitudes of 52 mph and 70 mph. One storm
uprooted trees, but for both events there was no damage to property or crops and no injuries or
deaths in Firestone.
No other events for severe storm, specific to Firestone, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.6.2.7 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Firestone's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes.
Between 2015 and 2020, there were no reports of occurrences specific to Firestone. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.6.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Firestone to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented many of these capabilities shown in Table 109. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 109. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
r i i' it i =i; „ i , i i1t' .;
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H' 11-/ -1
Yes
I HI it ,l
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Stormwater Program / Plan
Yes
Stormwater Coordinator on staff overseeing the
MS4 Program Pollution Prevention Strategy,
along with SOP's for departments
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
Yes
MS4 Program for all municipal construction
activities, landscaped areas, street maintenance
and utility and storm sewer replacement and
construction
Economic Development Plan
No
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
Currently 2012
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Firestone Development Code
I Appendix B - 45
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
I "1 i-' iJ i i l 4 2, i -CH -
Other:
H -'- -fl - 11
No
. � �I' ill l l II -
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
No
No Ordinance, but covered in the Firestone
Developoment Code
Subdivision Ordinance
No
No Ordinance, but covered in the Firestone
Developoment Code
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
No Ordinance, but covered in the Firestone
Developoment Code
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
Firestone Developoment Code
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
Yes
Future adoption of Parks Master Plan. Firestone
Developoment Code addresses also
Growth Management Ordinance
No
No Ordinance, but regulated through Master
Plan and Firestone Developoment Code
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
Adopted February 2020
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
No Ordinance, but covered in the Firestone
Developoment Code
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Firestone is fortunate to have most all of these capabilities
identified in Table 110.
Table 110. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
"I l` it i i1 -1 ?;i ill'7
Planning Commission
H --di— 11
Yes
I -�lr-�l ll-�,
Firestone Planning & Zoning Commission is a seven -
member commission that recommends various
development matters to the BOT for consideration
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Parks and Stormwater Maintenance Staff
Emergency Manager
Yes
IGA with Carbon Valley Emergency Management
Agency, FTE EM Coordinator
Building Official
Yes
Currently contract with SAFEbuilt and bringing
building official in house within next 2 years.
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Matt Wiederspahn
Community Planner
No
The Town of Firestone has a Planning Department
(Sr. Planners, Planning Manager and Director)
Transportation Planner
No
Town Engineer on staff overseeing transportation
and upcoming Transportation Master Plan
I Appendix B - 46
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Civil Engineer
Yes
Civil engineer on staff
GIS Capability
Yes
GIS coordinator on staff
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
No
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
CodeRed Emergency Notification Service and
Blackboard Connect for updates and emergency
alerts
Grant Writing / Management
No
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table I I I and show that Firestone
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table I I I. Financial Capabilities
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
Yes
Occupation/Lodging Tax
Utilities Fees
Yes
Water/Street lights based on rate studies
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
Impact Fees charged by Planning on permit process
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
Yes
2014 Revenue Bonds
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Conservation Trust from State
Stormwater Utility Fees
Yes
Stormwater fees based on rate studies
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
i% Sales tax limited to parks and streets
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
No
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 112 shows that Firestone
could benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 112. Education & Outreach Capabilities
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
Yes
Hazard and Preparedness Education and Outreach
in partnership with CVEMA
I Appendix B - 47
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
Yes
Through Frederick -Firestone Fire Protection District
Community Outreach
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Other:
7.6.4 Plan Maintenance and Implementation
The Town of Firestone has developed a Plan Maintenance and Implementation Strategy outlining their
method and schedule for keeping the plan current. The Implementation Strategy below also includes a
discussion of how the Town will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.
• The Carbon Valley Emergency Manager will facilitate an annual review of the hazard mitigation
plan and actions with Town of Firestone police department, departmental staff, leadership, and
the Town Board.
• Hazard mitigation will be evaluated by the Town annually in conjunction with project planning
and the annual budget.
7.6.5 Integrating Hazard Mitigation into Local Planning
The Town also identified ways to integrate hazard mitigation into their local planning mechanisms and
policies. Following are the specific integration strategies identified by the Town of Firestone.
• The Town will integrate hazard mitigation actions into our Capital Improvements Plan by
emphasizing projects that mitigate the impacts of our highest risk hazards.
7.6.6 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 113.
Table 113. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11`1;
2021-39
i,n— i7 it
I -Firestone
7 it
Installation of Infrastructure Transmission Technologies
2021-
100
2 -Firestone
Godding Hollow Tri-Town Basin Outfall Improvements
202 I -
101
3 -Firestone
Community Connect Program
I Appendix B - 48
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.7 City of Fort Lupton
"The City of Fort Lupton will be a premier destination of the Front Range. Well positioned to capture growth and
investment on the periphery of the Denver area, Fort Lupton will have numerous opportunities to shape its
future. Combining quality living with a variety of services and amenities, the City will become a prominent
community within Colorado."
— City of Fort Lupton Comprehensive Plan 2018
One of the primary goals of Fort Lupton is to become a sustainable city that provides ample
opportunities for residents to live, learn, work and play. The Comprehensive Plan addresses the
following areas in the work toward achieving that goal:
• Growth and Development
• Subarea Plans
• Regional Presence
• Transportation and Mobility
• Parks, Open Space & Environmental Features
• Public Facilities and Services
• Implementation
7.7.1 Community Profile
The City of Fort Lupton is located along the South Platte River, approximately 26 miles north of
Denver, 23 miles south of Greeley, and 24 miles east of Boulder. Fort Lupton is positioned at the
intersection of US Highway 85 and Colorado Route 52, providing access to Interstate 25 to the west
and Interstate 76 to the east as well as the greater Denver and Front Range regions.
I Appendix B - 49
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The table below summarizes key demographic and development related characteristics of the City of
Fort Lupton.
Table 114. City of Fort Lupton Demographics
8,317
5,758,736
Population, 2019
12.2%
14.5%
Population, % change April I, 2010 to July I, 2019
8.1%
5.8%
% Population under 5 years, 2019
28.9%
21.9%
% Population under 19 years, 2019
10.2%
14.6%
% Population 65 years and over, 2019
72.0%
64.9%
Homeownership Rate, 2019
3.09
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
$63,548
$68,811
Median Household Income, 2014- 2018
7.7%
9.3%
Persons below poverty level, %, 2014- 2018
11.2%
7.3%
% Population under 65 years, with a disability 2014-2018
34.2%
17%
Language other than English spoken at home, % age 5+,
2014- 2018
Source: US Census Bureau
I Appendix B - 50
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.7.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 115 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the City of Fort Lupton. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 115. Risk Factor Results for Fort Lupton
I�
1 L7/ tiL" j1
Agricultural Hazards
r ,'L i1i
I
1, ii -,C .
I
_ i �1
-
i=
2
�r ,n II-
—1 iK:
I
I- �Y � ,i -=-=i
4
r.1�
I- =fill i il-
1.5
Cyber Hazards
3
2
1
4
4
2.5
Drought
3
2
4
I
4
2.8
Earthquake
1
3
4
4
2
2.6
Extreme Temps.
2
2
4
I
4
2.5
Flood
2
2
2
3
3
2.2
Hazmat Release
3
2
1
4
2
2.3
Land Subsidence
1
1
1
4
3
1.5
Prairie Fire
2
2
2
4
2
2.2
Public Health Hazards
2
3
4
I
4
2.8
Severe Storms
3
3
3
4
1
2.9
Tornado & Wind
3
3
4
4
1
3.1
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Fort Lupton as a whole - based on High,
Moderate, or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around
local and regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation
strategy.
Table 116. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Fort Lupton
-11 1 G11 1�. �_�� . ��], I
Cyber Hazards, Drought, Earthquake, Extreme
Temperatures, Public Health Hazards, Severe Storms,
Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
Flood, Hazmat Release, Prairie Fire
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Agricultural Hazards, Land Subsidence
Since the 2016 Plan, the City has increased the assessed risk from earthquake and tornado & straight-
line winds to High Risk (both formerly Moderate). The City has also increased the assessed risk from
extreme temperatures and severe storm to High Risk (both formerly Low). Besides the newly added
hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the City of Fort Lupton's High Risk hazards and include any specific
content relevant to the City. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard
profile in the main body of this Plan.
I Appendix B - 51
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.7.2. I Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting City of Fort Lupton, the threat of this hazard is
continually increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to Fort Lupton. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.7.2.2 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to City of Fort Lupton. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.7.2.3 Earthquake
Vulnerability to earthquake is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. The City of Fort
Lupton's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes. There are no previous events to document specific to Fort
Lupton. Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk
Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.7.2.4 Extreme Temperatures
Vulnerability to extreme temperatures is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards due to potential crop and livestock losses. Additionally, individuals at a higher risk
to extreme temperatures include those with mobility issues, independent living difficulty, the elderly,
low-income families, outdoor laborers, and those experiencing homelessness. Data for these
demographics is collected at census tract level, however snapshot data for populations that can fluctuate
drastically, such as the number of outdoor laborers and those experiencing homelessness is not
included. These are still considerable populations in the County and City of Fort Lupton and local
efforts to quantify these populations periodically can help with mitigation planning.
The data for high risk populations has been analyzed by Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) and has been used to create Community Inclusions maps. These maps can be
zoomed into specific census tracts for municipalities and communities, illustrating the population
variances. Refer to Chapter 4 for examples of these maps for Weld County.
There are no previous events to document specific to the City of Fort Lupton. Future occurrences are
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
7.7.2.5 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
I Appendix B - 52
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Fort Lupton. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details, including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.7.2.6 Severe Storm (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. Fort Lupton's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk,
in addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not constructed to meet
recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the City of Fort Lupton has
had ten severe storm events. All of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in size from
0.88 inches to 2 inches. None of these events resulted in reported damage to property or crops and no
injuries or deaths.
No other events for severe storm, specific to Fort Lupton, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.7.2.7 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Fort Lupton's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures
not constructed to meet recent building codes.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, there was one (I) report of
an EF0 tornado in Fort Lupton. The event did not cause damage to property or crops and no injuries or
deaths.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.7.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the City of Fort Lupton to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the City's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The City
currently utilizes or has implemented some of these capabilities shown in Table 117. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 117. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
1 1-' 1r L 1II 1 2, 1 111 .n
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H -`111- i1 /
Yes
. �I III II II '�
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
Floodplain Management Plan
No
I Appendix B - 53
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
"1 i-' -J -il 4 2, i ili -
Stormwater Program / Plan
H -'- l 1IZ%
No
. ��I' ill ll II-
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
Yes
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Economic Development Plan
No
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
ICC FIRE CODE 2012
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
No
Subdivision Ordinance
No
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
No
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
No
Growth Management Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
No
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Fort Lupton could benefit by developing the capabilities identified
in Table 118.
Table 118. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
"I l` -It -I i1 -1 ?;i ill'7
Planning Commission
H -il v91
No
I ill il ll-�,
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
No
Emergency Manager
No
Building Official
No
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Community Planner
No
Transportation Planner
No
Civil Engineer
No
I Appendix B - 54
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
GIS Capability
!H —Ili
No
I,ll it ,l_�
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
Yes
CodeRed
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Local Sirens
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Internal
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 119 and show that Fort
Lupton utilizes a range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 119. Financial Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H —Ili .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Until 2022 for Station 2
Utilities Fees
No
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
No
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
Yes
Station 2
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
No
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
No
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 120 shows that Fort Lupton
could benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 120. Education & Outreach Capabilities
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
No
I Appendix B - 55
e R�rnue+�cv MANov:F MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Firewise
NOAA StormReady Program
Other:
No
No
Yes
Fire Safety
7.7.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the City during the Plan update are included in Table 121. One
action from the 2016 Plan has been carried over into the City's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 121. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11;
202 I -4 I
i,n— inn it
I -Fort Lupton
7 it
Warning Sirens
2021-42
2 -Fort Lupton
Emergency Notification Signs
2021-43
3 -Fort Lupton
Water Storage
2021-44
4 -Fort Lupton
Well Inclusions
2021-45
5 -Fort Lupton
Localized Flooding
202 I -46
6 -Fort Lupton
Emergency Shelter Generator
I Appendix B - 56
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.8 Town of Frederick
The 2016 Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan includes statements of goals and objectives, which
provide the framework for planning recommendations, policies and future projects and actions. These
goals are:
• Growth & Development - Manage growth to accommodate future population expansion while
supporting the preservation of the Town's rural and natural areas.
• Residential Neighborhoods - Promote a diverse housing inventory to accommodate Frederick's
growing population while maintaining its existing rural character.
• Commercial & Industrial Areas - Leverage Frederick's strategic location and developable areas
to promote employment growth and achieve a jobs -housing balance.
• Transportation & Mobility - Support a transportation system that accommodates the Town's
growing population while ensuring safety and mobility for all modes of travel.
• Parks, Recreation & Open Space - Support a park and open space system that accommodates a
range of recreational activities and meets the needs of the Frederick population.
• Community Facilities & Infrastructure - Provide infrastructure and services to maintain and
support a high quality of life for residents and businesses through collaborative efforts and
partnerships.
• Urban Design, Beautification & Tourism - Establish a coordinated program of urban design
initiatives, infrastructure improvements, community services, and development standards that
celebrate and promote the agricultural and mining heritage of Frederick, distinguishing it from
other communities within the region.
7.8.1 Community Profile
The Town of Frederick is located 20 miles north of Denver and 20 miles east of Boulder. It
encompasses more than 14 square miles and is bisected by 1-25. Frederick is south of State Highway 1 19
and stretches for nearly six miles along State Highway 52.
I Appendix B - 57
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Lel
�— —1 IL fill IC
. f
I. • } I.
The Town of Frederick is part of the Carbon Valley area which also includes the Town of Firestone and
the City of Dacono. The three municipalities share a Chamber of Commerce and a Park and Recreation
District. They are represented in the Carbon Valley Emergency Management Agency, which also
includes the Frederick Fire Protection District and Mountain View Fire Rescue. The municipalities work
with their specific stakeholders in determining risks and vulnerabilities, however the unique agreement
between them is important to planning efforts.
The table below summarizes key demographic and development related characteristics of the Town of
Frederick.
Table 122. Town of Frederick Demographics
13,960
5,758,736
Population, 2019
61.1%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
8.3%
5.8%
% Population under 5 years, 2019
28.8%
21.9%
% Population under 19 years, 2019
9.1%
14.6%
% Population 65 years and over, 2019
91.6%
64.9%
Homeownership Rate, 2019
3.05
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
I Appendix B - 58
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
$100,057
$68,811
Median Household Income, 2014- 2018
1.7%
9.3%
Persons below poverty level, %, 2014- 2018
4.50/0
7.30/0
Population under 65 years, with a disability 2014-
2018
8.4%
17%
Language other than English spoken at home, % age
5+, 2014- 2018
Source: US Census Bureau
7.8.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 123 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Frederick. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 123. Risk Factor Results for Frederick
Agricultural Hazards
3
3
iit
I
4
cHni_,
-II it
I
4
C = Ill it
3.1
Cyber Hazards
3
4
4
4
4
3.7
Drought
3
2
4
I
4
2.8
Earthquake
I
2
4
I
I
1.9
Extreme Temps.
2
2
2
I
3
2.0
Flood
3
3
4
2
4
3.2
Hazmat Release
3
2
2
3
2
2.4
Land Subsidence
I
I
I
2
I
1.1
Prairie Fire
3
2
I
4
3
2.4
Public Health Hazards
4
2
4
I
3
3.0
Severe Storms
4
3
4
3
2
3.4
Tornado & Wind
3
4
2
4
4
3.3
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Frederick as a whole - based on High,
Moderate, or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around
local and regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation
strategy.
Table 124. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Frederick
-11 1 F1 1�. �_�� . ��i I
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Drought, Flood,
Public Health Hazards, Severe Storms, Tornado &
Straight -Line Wind
MODERATE RISK (2.0 — 2.4)
Extreme Temperatures, Hazmat Release, Prairie Fire
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Earthquake, Land Subsidence
I Appendix B - 59
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has increased the assessed risk from extreme temperatures and hazmat
release from Low to Moderate. Public health hazards, formerly Low Risk, is now considered as High.
The Town has reduced its assessed risk from prairie fire from High to Moderate. Besides the newly
added hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of Frederick's High Risk hazards and include any specific
content relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard
profile in the main body of this Plan.
7.8.2. I Agricultural Hazards (including Disease & Pests)
Vulnerability to agricultural hazards is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Frederick.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.8.2.2 Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting the Town of Frederick, the threat of this hazard
is continually increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to Frederick. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.8.2.3 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Frederick.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.8.2.4 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood is a very localized hazard and vulnerability is unique for each municipality. There are no previous
events to document specific to Frederick.
The Town of Frederick's overall vulnerability to flood is not noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Frederick has 72 address points located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This
equates to 0.9% of all address points for the Town, as compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses
located in the SFHA.
Flood events can also occur as a result of dam or levee failure. In these cases, flood waters may not
follow the typical floodplains mapped as the SFHA.
Overall vulnerability to flooding in dam inundation areas is increased for the Town of Frederick, where
3.5% of address points (283) are located within these dam inundation areas. This is a larger percentage
of structures at risk, as compared to 1.0% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
Additionally, the Town is the first jurisdiction downstream from two dams. Both have a hazard
classification of Significant and associated Emergency Action Plans (EAPs). Additional information
pertaining to dams can be referenced at the State's Dam Safety website:
https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/DamSafety/Dams .
I Appendix B - 60
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The Town's overall vulnerability to flooding in areas protected by known levees is significantly different
from the rest of the County. Frederick has no address points located in these within levee protected
areas, compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
It is important to note that this analysis is only as good as best available data allows. Current
floodplains, dam inundation areas, and areas protected by levees may not currently map all hazard areas.
Additionally, mapped hazard areas may be dated and in need of updated mapping and analysis.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.8.2.5 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Frederick. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details,
including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.8.2.6 Severe Storm (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. Frederick's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in
addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not constructed to meet
recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of Frederick has
had four severe storm events. All of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in size from
I inch to 2.5 inches. None of these events resulted in reported damage to property or crops and no
injuries or deaths.
No other events for severe storm, specific to Frederick, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.8.2.7 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Frederick's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes.
Between 2015 and 2020, there were no reports of occurrences specific to Frederick. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
I Appendix B - 61
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.8.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Frederick to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented most of these capabilities shown in Table 125. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 125. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
r i i' it i =i; „ i , i i1t' .;
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H' 117/ -1
Yes
I HI it ,l
Multiple master plans
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
Annual Updates
Floodplain Management Plan
Yes
Stormwater Program / Plan
Yes
Master Plan underway - complete 12/21
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Economic Development Plan
No
In process
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2012
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Town Code/Website
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Town Code
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
Yes
Growth Management Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
Town Code
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
I Appendix B - 62
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Frederick is fortunate to have many of these capabilities identified
in Table 126.
Table 126. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r-il i i i11'-
Planning Commission
!H =111 : ,
Yes
I ell il ,l_�
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Through Public Works
Emergency Manager
Yes
Emergency Management Coordinator through IGA
for Carbon Valley Emergency Management Agency
Building Official
Yes
Staff CBO
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Engineering Director
Community Planner
Yes
Planning Director
Transportation Planner
No
Administered by Engineering Dept
Civil Engineer
Yes
2 Engineers plus Engineering Director
GIS Capability
Yes
GIS Staff
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
No
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
No
Grant Writing / Management
No
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 127 and show that Frederick
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 127. Financial Capabilities
Ph1`.1r 11Ii 1 1 111'
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
=11i :,
Yes
IIII II II'
Utilities Fees
Yes
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
Yes
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Stormwater Utility Fees
Yes
I Appendix B - 63
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
"I i`-t iice-,I -i?; i ili-
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
H -di :,
Yes
I-,ll-,l ,l=�,
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 128 shows that Frederick
could benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 128. Education & Outreach Capabilities
r 1` it i=i ,l i i i11'
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
!H —Ili-
Yes
�. ,r�,� ,�'_�
Hazard and Preparedness Education and Outreach
in partnership with CVEMA
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
Yes
Through Frederick -Firestone Fire Protection District
Community Outreach
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Other:
No
7.8.4 Plan Maintenance and Implementation
The Town of Frederick has developed a Plan Maintenance and Implementation Strategy outlining their
method and schedule for keeping the plan current. The Implementation Strategy below also includes a
discussion of how the Town will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.
• The Carbon Valley Emergency Manager will facilitate an annual review of hazard mitigation plan
and actions with Town of Frederick's leadership team, in cooperation with partner agencies,
such as the fire district and the Weld County Office of Emergency Management. In addition, the
Town of Frederick and CVEMA will periodically engage the public in the process of identifying
hazards, risks, and prioritizing mitigation actions. To do so, mitigation actions and priorities will
be posted on the Town's website for public review and comment.
7.8.5 Integrating Hazard Mitigation into Local Planning
The Town also identified ways to integrate hazard mitigation into their local planning mechanisms and
policies. Following are the specific integration strategies identified by the Town of Frederick.
• Current Land Use Code includes environmental constraints related to hazard mitigation. The
Town's CIP includes priority mitigation projects related to Storm Water Management.
7.8.6 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 129.
One action from the 2016 Plan has been carried over into the Town's updated mitigation strategy.
I Appendix B - 64
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 129. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11;
i,n— inn it
7 it
2021-47
I -Frederick
Box Culvert at Bella Rosa Parkway
2021-48
2 -Frederick
Potable Water System, Emergency Supply
2021-49
3- Frederick
Town Facilities- Expansion & Modification
202 I -
102
4 -Frederick
Community Connect Program
I Appendix B - 65
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.9 City of Greeley
"Greeley promotes a healthy, diverse economy and high quality of life responsive to all its residents and
neighborhoods, thoughtfully managing its human and natural resources in a manner that creates and sustains a
safe, unique, vibrant and rewarding community in which to live, work and play."
— City of Greeley 2060 Comprehensive Plan
Greeley's Core Values & Guiding Principles are outlined in their comprehensive plan, City of Greeley
2060, and serve as a guide for future development and policy decisions within the City's boundaries.
They are as follows:
• Excellence in actions, attitude, leadership and focus
• Progressive and Appealing Industrial Development
• A Safe, Prepared, Secure and Harmonious community environment
• Sustainable Community Development through healthy behaviors, sensitive environmental
stewardship, varied and compact community design and a complete, effective & forward -thinking
transportation system
• A Community Rich in Diversity of People, Customs, and Ideas
• Every Neighborhood Thrives reflecting the spirit of community
• Center of a comprehensive Premier Educational System
• `Better Together' leadership mode of intergovernmental & public/private cooperation to achieve
exceptional community benefits
• A Regional Leader and Northern Colorado destination
These core values and guiding principles are interwoven throughout the City's Comprehensive Plan and
form the basis for daily decision making, project/policy prioritization, and implementation strategies.
7.9.1 Community Profile
According to the City of Greeley's Department of Economic Development "Greeley is the business
center for Weld County." The second largest community in northern Colorado, Greeley serves as a
major retail trade center for agricultural communities in northeastern Colorado, southeastern
Wyoming, and southwestern Nebraska.
I Appendix B - 66
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The City of Greeley is characterized by expansive prairie to the east and the towering Rocky Mountains
to the west. Greeley is located in a semi -arid climate. The summers are hot and the winters are mild.
Precipitation occurs mostly in the form of rain or snow from October to April: snowfalls are often light
and usually melt within a few days.
The table below summarizes key demographic characteristics of the City of Greeley.
Table 130. City of Greeley Demographics
108,649
5,758,736
Population, 2019
16.9%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
7.0%
5.8%
% Population under 5 years, 2019
25.3%
21.9%
% Population under 19 years, 2019
11.8%
14.6%
% Population 65 years and over, 2019
59.7%
64.9%
Homeownership Rate, 2019
2.71
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
$55,007
$68,811
Median Household Income, 2014- 2018
17.1%
9.3%
Persons below poverty level, %, 2014- 2018
I Appendix B - 67
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
I- 1
8.0%
26.1%
7.3%
17%
Population under 65 years, with a disability 2014-
2018
Language other than English spoken at home, % age
5+, 2014- 2018
Source: US Census Bureau
7.9.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 131 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the City of Greeley. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 131. Risk Factor Results for Greeley
Agricultural Hazards
4
2
i i t
3
c, n I I J `-
I
4
2.9
Cyber Hazards
3
3
3
4
4
3.2
Drought
3
2
4
I
4
2.8
Earthquake
I
2
2
4
I
1.8
Extreme Temps.
3
2
4
I
4
2.8
Flood
3
2
2
I
4
2.4
Hazmat Release
2
4
4
4
4
3.4
Land Subsidence
I
I
I
3
2
1.3
Prairie Fire
3
2
2
4
2
2.5
Public Health Hazards
2
3
3
2
4
2.7
Severe Storms
3
3
2
2
2
2.6
Tornado & Wind
2
2
2
4
I
2. I
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Greeley as a whole - based on High, Moderate,
or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and
regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 132. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Greeley
-11 1 G11 1�. �_�� . ��], I
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Drought,
Extreme Temperatures, Hazmat Release, Prairie Fire,
Public Health Hazards, Severe Storms
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
Flood, Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Earthquake, Land Subsidence
Since the 2016 Plan, the City has increased the assessed risk from prairie fire to High Risk (formerly
Moderate). Besides the newly added hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all other risk
rankings remain the same.
I Appendix B - 68
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The following sections highlight the City of Greeley's High Risk hazards and include any specific content
relevant to the City. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard profile in the
main body of this Plan.
7.9.2. I Agricultural Hazards (including Disease & Pests)
Greeley does not see a noticeably different vulnerability to agricultural hazards from the rest of the
County. Those communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do
experience higher risk to these hazards. There are no previous events to document specific to Greeley.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.9.2.2 Cyber Hazards
Vulnerability to cyber hazards for any municipality does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting Greeley, the threat of this hazard is continually
increasing. Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk
Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.9.2.3 Drought
Vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those communities
whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher risk to this
hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to Greeley. Future occurrences are
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
7.9.2.4 Extreme Temperatures
Vulnerability to extreme temperatures is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards, due to potential crop and livestock losses. Additionally, individuals at a higher risk
to extreme temperatures include those with mobility issues, independent living difficulty, the elderly,
low-income families, outdoor laborers, and those experiencing homelessness. Data for these
demographics is collected at census tract level, however snapshot data for populations that can fluctuate
drastically, such as the number of outdoor laborers and those experiencing homelessness is not
included. These are still considerable populations in the County and the City of Greeley and local
efforts to quantify these populations periodically can help with mitigation planning.
The data for high risk populations has been analyzed by Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) and has been used to create Community Inclusions maps. These maps can be
zoomed into specific census tracts for municipalities and communities, illustrating the population
variances. Refer to Chapter 4 for examples of these maps for Weld County.
There are no previous events to document specific to Greeley. Future occurrences are expected to
mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.9.2.5 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood hazard is not ranked as a High Risk for the City. However, there is currently one Severe
Repetitive Loss (SRL) structure in Greeley. Additional details pertaining to this property and FEMA's
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) can be found in the flood section of Chapter 5 — Risk
Assessment.
I Appendix B - 69
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
An event of note occurred in 2015, which caused $250,000 in property damage and $100,000 in crop
damage. As of the writing of this plan, there were no other recent events.
7.9.2.6 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased for Greeley, mainly due to the location of CDOT hazardous
materials routes through the community. Additionally, railroads span across the City which present
their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County, the presence of any
businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of events.
Based on data supplied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA)
Incident Reports Database, 26 events have occurred within Greeley between 1990 and 2019. The
majority of these events were spillage and overfilling, however four of them were vehicular or rollover
accidents. Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk
Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.9.2.7 Prairie Fire
Vulnerability to prairie fire is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Greeley has 15,730
address points located in the wildland urban interface (WUI). This equates to 42.8% of all address
points for the City, as compared to 49.6 percent of Countywide addresses located in the WUI. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to document
specific to Greeley. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.9.2.8 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Greeley. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details,
including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.9.2.9 Severe Storm (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. Greeley's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk.
Any structures not constructed to meet recent building codes experience the greatest risk from
structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the City of Greeley has had
twenty-seven severe storm events. Twenty-four of these events resulted in reports of hail, which
ranged in size from 0.88 inches to 2.5 inches. One of these events resulted in $ 15,000 of damage to
property. There was no reported damage to crops and no injuries or deaths.
Two events were reported as thunderstorm winds with magnitudes of 60 mph and 70 mph. There was
no reported damage to property or crops and no injuries or deaths. One event was a lightning strike
which cause $5,000 in property damage. There were no injuries or deaths.
I Appendix B - 70
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
No other events for severe storm, specific to Greeley, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.9.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the City of Greeley to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the City's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The City
currently utilizes or has implemented most of these capabilities shown in Table 133. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 133. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
1 1-' 1r L 1 11 1 2, 1 111 .n
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H-`7117� i1 /
Yes
. �111 1 11 11 '�
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
5 -year plan
Floodplain Management Plan
Yes
Stormwater Program / Plan
Yes
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
In
Progress
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
Yes
Economic Development Plan
Yes
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
Yes
Growth Management Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
I Appendix B - 71
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
Other:
No
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Greeley is fortunate to have most all of these capabilities identified
in Table 134.
Table 134. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
"I i` it i=i l l - i ?; i i1i'-
Planning Commission
H -di= ,
Yes
I ill il ll=�,
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Emergency Manager
Yes
Building Official
Yes
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Position is in the Stormwater Division of Public
Works
Community Planner
Yes
Transportation Planner
Yes
Position is in Public Works Traffic Division
Civil Engineer
Yes
GIS Capability
Yes
Resiliency Planner
Yes
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
Yes
Poudre River and 3 rain gauges give alerts
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Weld County CodeRed
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 135 and show that Greeley
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 135. Financial Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H —Ili— .,
No
I,ll it ,l_�
No Mill Levy
Utilities Fees
Yes
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
Yes
Available, but not currently using this tool for debt
I Appendix B - 72
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
Yes
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Colorado Lottery Conservation Trust
Stormwater Utility Fees
Yes
Utility since 2002
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 136 shows that Greeley
does leverage some of these capabilities and is currently working on expanding these efforts.
Table 136. Education & Outreach Capabilities
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
No
City OEM developing
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
Yes
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
Yes
County
Other:
No
7.9.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the City during the Plan update are included in Table 137.
Seven actions from the 2016 Plan have been carried over into the City's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 137. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11`1;
2021-50
i,n— i7 it
1 -City of Greeley
7 it
Extreme Heat/Drought Resiliency Program Development
2021-51
2 -City of Greeley
Prairie Fire Mitigation Program Development/CWPP
2021-52
1 -Greeley- PW
City -Initiated Floodway Rezone
2021-53
2 -Greeley -PW
Mitigate Risk to Severe Repetitive Loss Property
2021-54
3-Greeley-PW
Cache la Poudre, West Greeley USACE Project
2021-55
4-Greeley-PW
Poudre River Cleaning
2021-56
5 -Greeley -PW
Hwy 85 Bridge Replacement
2021-57
6 -Greeley -PW
River Bypass Channel
202 1-58
7-Greeley-PW
Poudre River Flood Mitigation Master Planning Project —
Ash Ave to 2 I st Ave
I Appendix B - 73
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.10 Town of Hudson
"The Hudson Comprehensive Use Plan establishes the type of town residents want Hudson to become by
presenting a comprehensive view of the community, defining the visions of the Town's future, and establishing
general methods by which to realize those visions. Its purpose is to articulate the collective desires of the
community. It establishes a policy framework for the Town to use in evaluating key issues facing the Town,
amendments to the Hudson Comprehensive Plan and to the Town's Land Development Code, and development
proposals. Our mission is to enhance the quality of life for those who live in, work in, or visit our community" —
2018
7.10.1 Community Profile
The Town of Hudson is located in south-central Weld County approximately 30 miles northeast of
downtown Denver. Located at the intersection of Interstate 76 and State Highway 52, Hudson is
surrounded by farms and other agricultural and energy -related industries. The Burlington Northern
Santa Fe railway is nearby and a recently operational BNSF Logistics Center is located in northern
Hudson, occupying 436 acres.
The table below summarizes development information of the Town of Hudson. Current information for
specific characteristics of the population is only available from the US Census Bureau for municipalities
with populations over 5,000 people.
I Appendix B - 74
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 138. Town of Hudson Demographics
1,891
5,758,736
Population, 2019
-20.1%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
2.9
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
Note: Recent data is unavailable from the US Census Bureau for some categories, based on the size of the municipality. Source: US
Census Bureau
7.10.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 139 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Hudson. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 139. Risk Factor Results for Hudson
I�
1 L7/tiLH1
Agricultural Hazards
r ,'L i1i
-
2
11 ii -,C L .
I
i i1
-
. II '
2
c ,n ,l,
'MI I I
I
I Fr L,i -=-U
4
F P
F i Ill l l
1.8
Cyber Hazards
3
3
I
4
2
2.6
Drought
3
I
3
I
4
2.3
Earthquake
2
2
4
4
I
2.5
Extreme Temps.
3
I
4
I
4
2.5
Flood
I
I
2
2
3
1.5
Hazmat Release
3
3
3
4
2
3.0
Land Subsidence
2
I
I
I
4
1.6
Prairie Fire
2
3
3
3
3
2.7
Public Health Hazards
3
2
3
I
3
2.5
Severe Storms
4
2
4
I
3
3.0
Tornado & Wind
2
3
3
4
2
2.7
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Hudson as a whole - based on High, Moderate,
or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and
regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 140. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Hudson
-11 -11-1 1�. �_�� . ��], �I
Cyber Hazards, Earthquake, Extreme Temperatures,
Hazmat Release, Prairie Fire, Public Health Hazards,
Severe Storms, Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
Drought
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Agricultural Hazards, Flood, Land Subsidence
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has increased the assessed risk from drought from Low to Moderate.
I Appendix B - 75
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The Town has also increased the assessed risk from earthquake from Low to High. Risk from extreme
temperature, public health hazards, and prairie fire are all now considered High (previously Moderate).
Besides the newly added hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all other risk rankings remain
the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of Hudson's High Risk hazards and include any specific
content relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard
profile in the main body of this Plan.
7.10.2. I Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting Hudson, the threat of this hazard is continually
increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Hudson. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.10.2.2 Earthquake
Vulnerability to earthquake is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. The Town of
Hudson's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes. There are no previous events to document specific to
Hudson. Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk
Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.10.2.3 Extreme Temperatures
Vulnerability to extreme temperatures is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards due to potential crop and livestock losses. Additionally, individuals at a higher risk
to extreme temperatures include those with mobility issues, independent living difficulty, the elderly,
low-income families, outdoor laborers, and those experiencing homelessness. Data for these
demographics is collected at census tract level, however snapshot data for populations that can fluctuate
drastically, such as the number of outdoor laborers and those experiencing homelessness is not
included. These are still considerable populations in the County and the Town of Hudson and local
efforts to quantify these populations periodically can help with mitigation planning.
The data for high risk populations has been analyzed by Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) and has been used to create Community Inclusions maps. These maps can be
zoomed into specific census tracts for municipalities and communities, illustrating the population
variances. Refer to Chapter 4 for examples of these maps for Weld County.
There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Hudson. Future occurrences are
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
7.10.2.4 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased for the Town of Hudson, mainly due to the location of a
CDOT hazardous materials route through the community. Additionally, railroads span across Hudson
which present their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County, the
presence of any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of
events.
I Appendix B - 76
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Based on data supplied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA)
Incident Reports Database there has been one event within Hudson between 1991 and 2019. This was a
railway transport event and was caused by a loose closure or component.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.10.2.5 Prairie Fire
Vulnerability to prairie fire is increased for Hudson, where 54.8% of address points (362) are located
within the wildland urban interface (WUI). This is a larger percentage of structures at risk, as compared
to 49.6 percent of Countywide addresses located in the WUI. Future occurrences are expected to
mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to document specific to Hudson. Refer to
Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.10.2.6 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Hudson. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details,
including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.10.2.7 Severe Storm (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. The Town of Hudson 's more densely developed areas experience the
greatest risk, in addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of Hudson has
had six severe storm events. Four of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in size from
I inch to 2 inches. None of these events resulted in reported damage to property or crops and no
injuries or deaths.
Two events were reported as thunderstorm winds with magnitudes of 60 mph and 63 mph. There was
no reported damage to property or crops and no injuries or deaths. No other events for severe storm,
specific to Hudson, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.10.2.8 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Hudson's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes.
I Appendix B - 77
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, there was one (I) report of
an EF0 tornado in Hudson. The event did not cause damage to property or crops and no injuries or
deaths.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.10.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Hudson to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented many of these capabilities shown in Table 141. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 141. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
r i i' ]r 1; „ i , i 111x°
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H ,' 111- _1
Yes
I il il ,I
2035 Comprehensive Plan, passed March 2018
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
No
Currently in progress
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Stormwater Program / Plan
No
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
Yes
Adopted by reference in engineering standards
Economic Development Plan
No
Other:
Yes
Passed January 2020
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
IBC, IRC 2018
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
All except single-family residential
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Adopted by reference in engineering standards
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Adopted by reference in engineering standards
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Regulated through engineering standards
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
No
I Appendix B - 78
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
ri'it 1,-,,l i,i -CH-,-
Growth Management Ordinance
n -,l- 1Z%
Yes
-1_i Ili i,l-,,
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
Regulated through engineering standards
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Hudson is fortunate to have most all of these capabilities identified
in Table 142.
Table 142. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r 1` ]r i ] it i i i11' n
Planning Commission
H -ili— 1
Yes
�. �� r �� >>'_�
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
As needed
Emergency Manager
Yes
Assistant to the Town Manager
Building Official
Yes
Contract with SAFEbuilt
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Guy Patterson
Community Planner
Yes
Transportation Planner
Yes
Same as Community Planner
Civil Engineer
Yes
Contract with Northern Engineering
GIS Capability
Yes
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
No
Minimal floodplain issues
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Tornado sirens (Weld County)
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Multiple Staff
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 143 and show that Hudson
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 143. Financial Capabilities
"I i`]r i ice- ll -1. ?; i i1i'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
H --di- ,
Yes
I ill it II -
"Property Tax Special Revenue Fund"
Utilities Fees
Yes
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
Park, Facilities, Street Impact Funds (low $ amount)
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
Yes
I Appendix B - 79
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
Yes
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 144 shows that Hudson
could benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 144. Education & Outreach Capabilities
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
No
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Other:
No
7.10.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table I45Table
73. Two actions from the 2016 Plan have been carried over into the Town's updated mitigation
strategy.
Table 145. 2021 Mitigation Actions
1F
2021-59
2021-60
2021-61
I -Hudson
2 -Hudson
3 -Hudson
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter
Capabilities Planning
Repeater System
Updates Comprehensive Plan / Identify Mitigation actions
I Appendix B - 80
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
I Appendix B - 81
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.11 Town of Johnstown
The 2020 Town of Johnstown Comprehensive Plan states the community mission as "enhancing the
quality of life of our residents, businesses, and visitors through community -focused leadership." Along with this
mission the vision statement of "connecting community with opportunity" shows the commitment to
community -driven growth and development.
7.1 1.1 Community Profile
The Town of Johnstown falls in both Larimer and Weld Counties. Greeley is approximately ten miles to
the east-northeast and Loveland is approximately nine miles to the northwest. With a location adjacent
to Interstate 25 and a Great Western Railroad interchange, the Town has a unique advantage for
transporting goods and services across the region.
v
The table below summarizes key demographic characteristics of Johnstown.
Table 146. Town of Johnstown Demographics
18,198
5,758,736
Population, 2019
54.1%
14.5
Population, % change April I , 2010 to July I , 2019
9.2%
5.8%
Population under 5 years, 2019
I Appendix B - 82
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
25.7%
21.9%
% Population under 19 years, 2019
12.9%
14.6%
% Population 65 years and over, 2019
88.5%
64.9%
Homeownership Rate, 2019
2.87
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
$90,240
$68,811
Median Household Income, 2014- 2018
2.9%
9.3%
Persons below poverty level, %, 2014- 2018
4.70/0
7.30/0
Population under 65 years, with a disability 2014-
2018
13.7%
17%
Language other than English spoken at home, % age
5+, 2014- 2018
Source: US Census Bureau
7. I 1.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
The Town of Johnstown is situated in both Larimer and Weld Counties. For the purpose of this plan,
spatially analyzed hazard risks have been assessed for the areas of the city that lie specifically within
Weld County.
Table 147 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Johnstown.
The results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective
of local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include
the weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 147. Risk Factor Results for Johnstown
Agricultural Hazards
3
I
2
I
4
2.1
Cyber Hazards
3
I
2
4
4
2.4
Drought
2
I
4
I
4
2.2
Earthquake
I
I
3
4
I
1.7
Extreme Temps.
2
I
4
I
4
2.2
Flood
3
2
I
2
3
2.2
Hazmat Release
3
I
I
4
I
1.9
Land Subsidence
4
I
I
4
4
2.5
Prairie Fire
3
I
I
4
2
2.0
Public Health Hazards
2
3
4
I
4
2.8
Severe Storms
3
I
4
2
2
2.4
Tornado & Wind
4
I
2
4
I
2.4
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Johnstown as a whole - based on High,
Moderate, or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around
local and regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation
strategy.
I Appendix B - 83
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 148. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Johnstown
-11C-, 1 F 1 ��. ���� . ��] - I
Land Subsidence, Public Health Hazards
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Drought,
Extreme Temperatures, Flood, Prairie Fire, Severe
Storms, Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Earthquake, Hazmat Release
The following sections highlight the Town of Johnstown's High Risk hazards and include any specific
content relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard
profile in the main body of this Plan.
7.11.2. I Land Subsidence
Johnstown's vulnerability to land subsidence is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Although undermined areas have not been identified within the Town's borders, there are multiple
identified areas within ten miles of Johnstown that had historic mining activities. There are no previous
events to document specific to Johnstown. Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the
County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.11.2.2 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Johnstown. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details, including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7. I 1.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Johnstown to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented many of these capabilities shown in Table 149. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 149. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
Yes
I Appendix B - 84
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
ri'it i =i, ,l i,i ili-
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
H'71 1Z%
Yes
Iill ,l ,l
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Stormwater Program / Plan
No
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
Yes
Require grading and ECP prior to site work
Economic Development Plan
Yes
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
Not in FEMA certificate
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Under consideration for 2021
Open Space / Conservation
Program
No
Growth Management Ordinance
Yes
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
Yes
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Johnstown is fortunate to have most all of these capabilities
identified in Table 150.
Table 150. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
"I i` it i ice- l l - i ?; i i1i'-
Planning Commission
H -di- ,
Yes
I ill il ll=�,
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Emergency Manager
Yes
Building Official
Yes
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
I Appendix B - 85
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Community Planner
!H —Ili
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Transportation Planner
Yes
Civil Engineer
Yes
GIS Capability
Yes
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
No
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 151 and show that Johnstown
utilizes a range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 151. Financial Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H —Ili .,
No
I,ll it ,l_�
Utilities Fees
Yes
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
No
Stormwater Utility Fees
Yes
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
No
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 152 shows that Johnstown
could benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 152. Education & Outreach Capabilities
I Appendix B - 86
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
No
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Other:
No
7. I 1.4 Mitigation Actions
The mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 153.
Table 153. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11;
2021-62
i,n— inn it
I -Johnstown
7 it
Resiliency Study
2021-63
2 -Johnstown
Drainage Improvements Old Town
2021-64
3 -Johnstown
Install Emergency Generator
2021-65
4 -Johnstown
Community Preparedness Education
2021-66
5 -Johnstown
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter
Capabilities Planning
I Appendix B - 87
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
1
7.12 Town of Keenesburg
The motto of Keenesburg is "Home of 500 Happy People and a Few Soreheads." While the Town has
grown to a population of over 1,200, the importance of positive progression of the community is at the
forefront of the Town's character. Pride in the community's involvement and roots in agriculture have
guided the development of this municipality.
7.12.1 Community Profile
The Town of Keenesburg is located in Southeast Weld County, approximately 25 miles southeast of the
County Seat of Greeley. Keenesburg is located along the 1-76 corridor and approximately 35 miles
northeast of Denver. The Town has a total area of 0.6 square miles and is part of the agricultural
community.
I
,-.=.-r''. -
-7-U_, c, —
r f J
The table below summarizes development information of the Town of Keenesburg. Current information
for specific characteristics of the population is only available from the US Census Bureau for
municipalities with populations over 5,000 people.
Table 154. Town of Keenesburg Demographics
1,237
5,758,736
Population, 2019
I Appendix B - 88
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
8.7%
2.56
14.5%
2.56
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
Persons Per Household, 2019
Note: Recent data is unavailable from the US Census Bureau for some categories, based on the size of the municipality. Source: US
Census Bureau
7.12.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 155 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Keenesburg.
The results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective
of local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include
the weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 155. Risk Factor Results for Keenesburg
Agricultural Hazards
3
2
i it
3
c ,n II
I
4
FP
2.6
Cyber Hazards
3
2
2
4
2
2.5
Drought
4
3
3
I
4
3.2
Earthquake
I
3
3
4
I
2.3
Extreme Temps.
3
3
3
2
3
2.9
Flood
2
3
3
3
2
2.6
Hazmat Release
3
4
3
4
3
3.4
Land Subsidence
I
I
I
4
I
1.3
Prairie Fire
2
2
2
4
I
2.1
Public Health Hazards
4
4
4
I
4
3.7
Severe Storms
4
3
4
2
I
3.2
Tornado & Wind
3
3
3
4
I
2.9
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Keenesburg as a whole - based on High,
Moderate, or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around
local and regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation
strategy.
Table 156. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Keenesburg
-11= -11-1 1
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Drought,
Extreme Temperatures, Flood, Hazmat Release, Public
Health Hazards, Severe Storms, Tornado & Straight -
Line Wind
Earthquake, Prairie Fire
Land Subsidence
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has increased the assessed risk from drought and flood to High Risk
(both formerly Moderate). The Town has also increased the assessed risk from extreme temperatures,
I Appendix B - 89
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
hazmat release, public health hazards, and prairie fire to High Risk (all formerly Low). Besides the newly
added hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of Keenesburg's High Risk hazards and include any specific
content relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard
profile in the main body of this Plan.
7.12.2. I Agricultural Hazards (including Disease & Pests)
Vulnerability to agricultural hazards is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Keenesburg.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.12.2.2 Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting the Town of Keenesburg, the threat of this
hazard is continually increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to Keenesburg.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.12.2.3 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Keenesburg.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.12.2.4 Extreme Temperatures
The Town of Keenesburg's vulnerability to extreme temperatures is not noticeably different from the
rest of the County. Those communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture
industry do experience higher risk to these hazards due to potential crop and livestock losses.
Additionally, individuals at a higher risk to extreme temperatures include those with mobility issues,
independent living difficulty, the elderly, low-income families, outdoor laborers, and those experiencing
homelessness. Data for these demographics is collected at census tract level, however snapshot data for
populations that can fluctuate drastically, such as the number of outdoor laborers and those
experiencing homelessness is not included. These are still considerable populations in the County and
the Town of Keenesburg and local efforts to quantify these populations periodically can help with
mitigation planning.
The data for high risk populations has been analyzed by Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) and has been used to create Community Inclusions maps. These maps can be
zoomed into specific census tracts for municipalities and communities, illustrating the population
variances. Refer to Chapter 4 for examples of these maps for Weld County.
There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Keenesburg. Future occurrences
are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details.
I Appendix B - 90
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.12.2.5 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood is a very localized hazard and vulnerability is unique for each municipality. On 6/16/2018 a flash
flood impacted Keenesburg, resulting in $10,000 in property damages. Numerous roads were closed and
damaged due to the heavy rain.
The Town of Keenesburg's overall vulnerability to flood is not noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Keenesburg has I address point located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This
equates to 1.7% of all address points for the Town, as compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses
located in the SFHA.
Flood events can also occur as a result of dam or levee failure. In these cases, flood waters may not
follow the typical floodplains mapped as the SFHA.
The Town of Keenesburg's overall vulnerability to flooding in dam inundation areas is significantly
different from the rest of the County, as Keenesburg has no address points located in these dam
inundation areas. This is compared to 1.0% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
Additionally, the Town is the first jurisdiction downstream from two dams. Both have a hazard
classification of Low. Additional information pertaining to dams can be referenced at the State's Dam
Safety website: https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/DamSafety/Dams .
The Town's overall vulnerability to flooding in areas protected by known levees is substantially different
from the rest of the County. Keenesburg has no address points located in these within levee protected
areas, compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
It is important to note that this analysis is only as good as best available data allows. Current
floodplains, dam inundation areas, and areas protected by levees may not currently map all hazard areas.
Additionally, mapped hazard areas may be dated and in need of updated mapping and analysis.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.12.2.6 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased for the Town of Keenesburg, mainly due to the location of a
CDOT hazardous materials route through the community. Additionally, railroads span across
Keenesburg which present their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County,
the presence of any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of
events.
Based on data supplied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA)
Incident Reports Database, eight events occurred within Keenesburg between 1991 and 2019. One was
a rollover accident, while the rest were due to improper transport preparation and loose or defective
components.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.12.2.7 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
I Appendix B - 91
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Keenesburg. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details, including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.12.2.8 Severe Storm (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. The Town of Keenesburg's more densely developed areas experience the
greatest risk, in addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of Keenesburg
has had 8 severe storm events. Four (4) of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in size
from 1 inch to 1.5 inches. None of these events resulted in reported damage to property or crops and
no injuries or deaths.
Four (4) events were reported as thunderstorm winds with magnitudes of 50 mph and 61 mph. There
was no reported damage to property or crops and no injuries or deaths. No other events for severe
storm, specific to Keenesburg, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.12.2.9 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
The Town of Keenesburg`s more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to
any structures not constructed to meet recent building codes.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, there was one (I) report of
an EF0 tornado in Keenesburg. The event did not cause damage to property or crops and no injuries or
deaths.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.1 2.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Keenesburg to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented many of these capabilities shown in Table 157. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
I Appendix B - 92
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 157. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
ri'it i =i; „ i,i ili-
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H'71 1Z%
Yes
I ill il ,l
Comprehensive Plan, update in 2021
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Stormwater Program / Plan
In
Progress
In development- planning stages
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Erosion control, Construction permits
Economic Development Plan
No
City Council informal group
Other:
Building Codes
Yes
Updated 2018- New update in process
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Municipal Code
Other:
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Municipal Code/Adopted Standards
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
Municipal Code
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
No
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
No
Growth Management Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
No
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Keenesburg is fortunate to have many of these capabilities
identified in Table 158 and are currently increasing these abilities.
Table 158. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
Planning Commission
Mitigation Planning Committee
Yes
No
I Appendix B - 93
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
"I i`it iice-,I -i i ili-
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
H —Ili- :,
Yes
I-,ll il II=
Easement, cleaned and cleared, tree trimming in
progress, Tree USA town in future
Emergency Manager
Yes
Fire Chief SE Weld FPD
Building Official
Yes
Contract Charles Abbott & Assoc, Troy Dicker
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Mark Grey
Community Planner
Yes
Contract, Todd Hodges
Transportation Planner
In progress
2021 -transportation plan -hiring position
Civil Engineer
Yes
Kent Bruxvoort
GIS Capability
In progress
goal for 2021
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
Yes
Emergency Siren -All Hazards
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Emergency Siren, CodeRed, IPAWS
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Debra Chumley
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 159 and show that
Keenesburg utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 159. Financial Capabilities
"I l` it i ice- , I - i i ill'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
H —Ili ,
No
I ill il I I =
Utilities Fees
Yes
Water, Sewer
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
Yes
Sales Tax Revenue Bond
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Capital Improvement Fund
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
Participating with Weld County
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
I Appendix B - 94
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 160 shows that Keenesburg
does leverage some of these capabilities and would benefit by expanding upon these efforts.
Table 160. Education & Outreach Capabilities
r 11'. 1r 1'1 Ii 1 1 111'
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
=11 i- ,'
No
i il I II II '
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
Yes
SE Weld Fire Protection District
Other:
No
7.1 2.4 Mitigation Actions
The mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table I6 I Table 73.
Three actions from the 2016 Plan have been carried over into the Town's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 161. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11;
iIn—inn;l
;-;l
2021-67
I -Keenesburg
Floodplain Training
2021-68
2-Keenesburg
Notify Travelling Public about Shelter Locations
2021-69
3-Keenesburg
Tornado Warning System Public Education
2021-
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter
103
4-Keenesburg
Capabilities Planning
I Appendix B - 95
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.13 Town of LaSalle
The LaSalle 2018 Comprehensive Plan identified guiding principles to inform decisions for the present
and future of the community. These are based on the community's core values and are used to guide
decisions, prioritize allocation of resources and preserve the unique qualities that define LaSalle. These
Guiding Principles are:
• Preserve LaSalle's Small -Town Character.
• Ensure growth pays its own way and contributes to the community as a whole.
• Continue to maintain and upgrade infrastructure and community facilities.
• Foster economic vitality and resilience by supporting existing local businesses and attracting new
businesses.
• Approach decisions in the spirit of cooperation and work together to find solutions that are
beneficial to the community.
• Form and nurture partnerships with other communities and agencies to help strengthen LaSalle
and enhance community services.
• Respect and protect the environment.
• Preserve and enhance opportunities and services to support and attract families.
• Be resilient economically and environmentally.
• Continue to acknowledge and support the local agricultural community and responsible
development of mineral resources within the LaSalle Planning Area.
7.13.1 Community Profile
LaSalle is located approximately 7 miles south of Greeley. The Town is bisected by U.S Highway 85 and
houses a switchyard for Union Pacific Railway. The Town has a total area of 0.7 square miles and is an
agricultural community, although recent growth has started to diversify the economy.
I Appendix B - 96
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The table below summarizes development information of the Town of LaSalle. Current information for
specific characteristics of the population is only available from the US Census Bureau for municipalities
with populations over 5,000 people.
Table 162. Town of LaSalle Demographics
2,337
5,758,736
Population, 2019
18.9%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
2.8
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
Note: Recent data is unavailable from the US Census Bureau for some categories, based on the size of the municipality. Source: US
Census Bureau
7.13.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 163 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of LaSalle. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
I Appendix B - 97
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 163. Risk Factor Results for LaSalle
Agricultural Hazards
2
2
2
I
2
1.9
Cyber Hazards
2
1
4
4
2
2.3
Drought
4
3
4
1
4
3.4
Earthquake
1
1
1
1
1
1.0
Extreme Temps.
2
2
3
1
2
2.1
Flood
3
3
3
4
4
3.2
Hazmat Release
3
3
4
4
2
3.2
Land Subsidence
1
1
1
1
1
1.0
Prairie Fire
2
1
1
4
1
1.6
Public Health Hazards
4
4
4
2
4
3.8
Severe Storms
4
3
4
2
3
3.4
Tornado & Wind
3
3
3
4
1
2.9
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for LaSalle as a whole - based on High, Moderate,
or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and
regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 164. Hazard Risk Conclusions for LaSalle
-11C-, 1 F1 1�. �_�� . ��]I
Drought, Flood, Hazmat Release, Public Health
Hazards, Severe Storms, Tornado & Straight -Line
Wind
MODERATE RISK (2.0 — 2.4)
Cyber Hazards, Extreme Temperatures
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Agricultural Hazards, Earthquake, Land Subsidence,
Prairie Fire
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has decreased the assessed risk from earthquake to Low Risk (formerly
Moderate) and from extreme temperatures to Moderate Risk (formerly High). LaSalle increased its risk
assessment for flood to be High Risk (formerly Moderate). Besides the newly added hazards of
agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of LaSalle's High Risk hazards and include any specific content
relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard profile in
the main body of this Plan.
7.13.2.1 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to LaSalle. Future occurrences
are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details.
I Appendix B - 98
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.13.2.2 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood is a very localized hazard and vulnerability is unique for each municipality. There are no previous
events to document specific to LaSalle.
The Town of LaSalle's overall vulnerability to flood is considerably less than that of the rest of the
County. LaSalle has no address points located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), compared to
the 1.6% of Countywide addresses that are located in the SFHA.
However, flood events can occur as a result of dam or levee failure. In these cases, flood waters may
not follow the typical floodplains mapped as the SFHA.
Overall vulnerability to flooding in dam inundation areas is increased considerably for the Town of
LaSalle, where 81.4% of address points (75 I) are located within these dam inundation areas. This is a
significantly larger percentage of structures at risk, as compared to 1.0% of Countywide addresses
located in these areas.
Additionally, the Town is the first jurisdiction downstream from eight dams. One has a hazard
classification of Significant and currently has an Emergency Action Plan (EAP). None are classified as
High. Additional information pertaining to dams can be referenced at the State's Dam Safety website:
https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/DamSafety/Dams .
The Town's overall vulnerability to flooding in areas protected by known levees is substantially different
from the rest of the County. LaSalle has no address points located within levee protected areas. This is
compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
It is important to note that this analysis is only as good as best available data allows. Current
floodplains, dam inundation areas, and areas protected by levees may not currently map all hazard areas.
Additionally, mapped hazard areas may be dated and in need of updated mapping and analysis.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.13.2.3 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased for the Town of LaSalle, mainly due to the location of a
CDOT hazardous materials route through the community. Additionally, railroads span across LaSalle
which present their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County, the
presence of any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of
events.
Based on data supplied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA)
Incident Reports Database there have been six events that have occurred within the Town of LaSalle
between 1991 and 2019. One of these was the derailment and rollover of a train car. The rest were due
to overfilling and improper preparation for transport. Future occurrences are expected to mirror that
of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.13.2.4 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
I Appendix B - 99
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to the Town of LaSalle. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details, including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and
the State.
7.13.2.5 Severe Storm (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. LaSalle's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in
addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not constructed to meet
recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of LaSalle has had
four severe storm events. All of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in size from .75
inch to I inch. None of these events resulted in reported damage to property or crops and no injuries
or deaths.
No other events for severe storm, specific to LaSalle, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.13.2.6 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
LaSalle's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes.
Between 2015 and 2020, there were no reports of occurrences specific to LaSalle. Future occurrences
are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details.
7.1 3.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of LaSalle to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented most of these capabilities shown in Table 165. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 165. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan CIP
Yes
Yes
Reviewed annually
I Appendix B - 100
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
"1 i-' ]J ]il 4 2, i ili -
Floodplain Management Plan
H -'- l 1IZ%
. ��I' ill ll II-
County Plan
Stormwater Program / Plan
Yes
MS4-
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
Yes
Economic Development Plan
Yes
Other:
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2003 IBC
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
FEMA
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
Yes
Growth Management Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
Yes
Building Code
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. LaSalle is fortunate to have most all of these capabilities identified
in Table 166.
Table 166. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
Planning Commission
Yes
Mitigation Planning Committee
Yes
Staff
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Emergency Manager
Yes
Carl Harvey
Building Official
Yes
Procode
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Carl Harvey
Community Planner
Yes
Transportation Planner
Yes
Staff
I Appendix B - 101
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Civil Engineer
!H —Ili
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Contracted
GIS Capability
Yes
County
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
Yes
Cod eRed, IPAWS
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Cod eRed, IPAWS
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 167 and show that LaSalle
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 167. Financial Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H —Ili .,
No
I,ll it ,l_�
Clerk
Utilities Fees
Yes
Water, Sewer, Trash, Stormwater
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
No
Stormwater Utility Fees
Yes
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Annual Budgeted
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
County
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
Yes
DOLA
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 168 shows that LaSalle could
benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 168. Education & Outreach Capabilities
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Pro:ram
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
No
Occasional events, no formal program
I Appendix B - 102
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Firewise
NOAA StormReady Program
Other:
No
No
No
7.1 3.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation action identified by the Town during the Plan update is included in Table 169. Two
actions from the 2016 Plan have been carried over into the Town's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 169. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11;
i In— inn it
7 it
2021-70
I -LaSalle
Community Preparedness Education
2021-71
2 -LaSalle
Develop Upkeep Schedule for Emergency Power Systems
2021-
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter
104
3 -LaSalle
Capabilities Planning
I Appendix B - 103
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.14 Town of Mead
In the 2018 Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Mead, a shared community plan was developed
through stakeholder input. The major themes of this plan guide the direction and decisions of
community development.
The major themes are:
• A small-town community character
• Diverse economy
• Friendly neighborhoods
• Strong connectivity
• Dynamic parks, recreation and open space
• An expansive natural and agrarian setting
• Thoughtful community planning, facilities and services
7.14.1 Community Profile
The Town of Mead is located on the western edge of Weld County. The town's total area is 4.4 square
miles, although the Town is included in the larger planning area spanning almost 50 square miles. Mead is
bisected by both Interstate 25 and Highway 66. Highway 66 corridor is the southern scenic gateway into
Rocky Mountain National Park and more than 80,000 people drive through the Town limits each day.
I Appendix B - 104
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The table below summarizes development information of the Town of Mead. Current information for
specific characteristics of the population is only available from the US Census Bureau for municipalities
with populations over 5,000 people.
Table 170. Town of Mead Demographics
4,677
5,758,736
Population, 2019
36.1%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
3.03
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
Note: Recent data is unavailable from the US Census Bureau for some categories, based on the size of the municipality. Source: US
Census Bureau
7.14.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 171 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Mead. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
I Appendix B - 105
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 171. Risk Factor Results for Mead
Agricultural Hazards
3
2
i it
3
c ,n II
I
4
FP
2.6
Cyber Hazards
3
3
3
4
4
3.2
Drought
3
2
3
I
4
2.6
Earthquake
I
3
3
4
2
2.4
Extreme Temps.
3
3
3
2
3
2.9
Flood
3
3
3
4
4
3.2
Hazmat Release
3
3
3
4
2
3.0
Land Subsidence
I
I
I
4
I
1.3
Prairie Fire
3
I
2
4
I
2.1
Public Health Hazards
4
4
4
I
4
3.7
Severe Storms
4
3
4
2
3
3.4
Tornado & Wind
3
3
3
4
I
2.9
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Mead as a whole - based on High, Moderate, or
Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and regional
hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 172. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Mead
-11= -11-1 1
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Drought,
Extreme Temperatures, Flood, Hazmat Release, Public
Health Hazards, Severe Storms, Tornado & Straight -
Line Wind
Earthquake, Prairie Fire
Land Subsidence
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has increased the assessed risk from drought to High Risk (formerly
Low) and from earthquake and prairie fire to Moderate Risk (formerly Low). Mead increased its risk
assessment for extreme temperatures, flood, and hazmat release to be High Risk (all formerly
Moderate). Public health hazards, previously a Low Risk, are now considered High. Besides the newly
added hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of Mead's High Risk hazards and include any specific content
relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard profile in
the main body of this Plan.
7.14.2. I Agricultural Hazards (including Disease & Pests)
Vulnerability to agricultural hazards is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Mead. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
I Appendix B - 106
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.14.2.2 Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting Mead, the threat of this hazard is continually
increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Mead. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.14.2.3 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Mead. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.14.2.4 Extreme Temperatures
The Town of Mead's vulnerability to extreme temperatures is not noticeably different from the rest of
the County. Those communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do
experience higher risk to these hazards due to potential crop and livestock losses. Additionally,
individuals at a higher risk to extreme temperatures include those with mobility issues, independent
living difficulty, the elderly, low-income families, outdoor laborers, and those experiencing homelessness.
Data for these demographics is collected at census tract level, however snapshot data for populations
that can fluctuate drastically, such as the number of outdoor laborers and those experiencing
homelessness is not included. These are still considerable populations in the County and the Town of
Mead and local efforts to quantify these populations periodically can help with mitigation planning.
The data for high risk populations has been analyzed by Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) and has been used to create Community Inclusions maps. These maps can be
zoomed into specific census tracts for municipalities and communities, illustrating the population
variances. Refer to Chapter 4 for examples of these maps for Weld County.
There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Mead. Future occurrences are
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
7.14.2.5 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood is a very localized hazard and vulnerability is unique for each municipality. There are no previous
events to document specific to Mead.
The Town of Mead's overall vulnerability to flood is noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Mead has 12 address points located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This equates to 0.5% of
all address points for the Town, as compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in the SFHA.
Flood events can also occur as a result of dam or levee failure. In these cases, flood waters may not
follow the typical floodplains mapped as the SFHA.
The Town of Mead's overall vulnerability to flooding in dam inundation areas is significantly lower than
the rest of the County. Mead has one address point located in these dam inundation areas. This
equates to 0.04% of all address points for the Town, as compared to 1.0% of Countywide addresses
located in these areas.
I Appendix B - 107
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Additionally, the Town is the first jurisdiction downstream from two dams. Both have a hazard
classification of Low. Additional information pertaining to dams can be referenced at the State's Dam
Safety website: https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/DamSafety/Dams .
The Town's overall vulnerability to flooding in areas protected by known levees is substantially different
from the rest of the County. Mead has no address points located in these levee protected areas. This is
compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
It is important to note that this analysis is only as good as best available data allows. Current
floodplains, dam inundation areas, and areas protected by levees may not currently map all hazard areas.
Additionally, mapped hazard areas may be dated and in need of updated mapping and analysis.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.14.2.6 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased for the Town of Mead, mainly due to the location of a
CDOT hazardous materials route through the community. Additionally, railroads span across Mead
which present their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County, the
presence of any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of
events.
Based on data supplied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA)
Incident Reports Database there have been six events within Mead between 1991 and 2019. These
events were due to overfilling and improper preparation for transport. Future occurrences are expected
to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.14.2.7 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Mead. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details,
including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.14.2.8 Severe Storms (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. The Town of Mead's more densely developed areas experience the
greatest risk, in addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of Mead has had
seven severe storm events. All of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in size from .88
inch to 1.25 inches. None of these events resulted in reported damage to property or crops and no
injuries or deaths.
I Appendix B - 108
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
No other events for severe storm, specific to Mead, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.14.2.9 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Mead's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes.
Between 2015 and 2020, there were no reports of occurrences specific to Mead. Future occurrences
are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details.
7.1 4.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Mead to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented most of these capabilities shown in Table 173. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 173. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
1 1-' 1r L 1 11 1 2, 1 111 .n
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H-`7117� i1 /
Yes
. �111 1 11 11 '�
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
No
Informal
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Stormwater Program / Plan
Yes
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
Yes
Economic Development Plan
No
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
I Appendix B - 109
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
ri'it i=i, „ i,i ili-
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
H'71 1Z%
Yes
Iill ,l ,l
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
Yes
Growth Management Ordinance
Yes
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
Master Plan
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Mead is fortunate to have most all of these capabilities identified in
Table 174.
Table 174. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Planning Commission
!H —Ili
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Emergency Manager
No
Building Official
Yes
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Town Engineer
Community Planner
Yes
In-house Staff
Transportation Planner
Yes
Contract Staff
Civil Engineer
Yes
In-house/Contract Staff
GIS Capability
Yes
In-house/Contract Staff
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
Yes
Currently identified systems: Weld County dispatch;
CodeRed; social media
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Currently identified systems: Weld County dispatch;
CodeRed; social media
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
In-house Staff
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 175 and show that Mead
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
I Appendix B - 1 10
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 175. Financial Capabilities
r 1` I i I ,l i i 111'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H —Ili— . ,
No
I ,l l it ,l_�
General Mill Levy 11.522, but no specific purpose
mill levy
Utilities Fees
Yes
Sewer PIF
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Impact Fees
Stormwater Utility Fees
Yes
Impact Fees
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Impact Fees
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
IGA with Weld County for CDBG
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 176 shows that Mead could
benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 176. Education & Outreach Capabilities
r 1` I i I ,l i i 111'-
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
!H —Ili—
No
I ,l l it ,l_�
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Other:
No
7.14.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 177.
Two actions from the 2016 Plan have been carried over into the Town's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 177. 2021 Mitigation Actions
1 �1
2021-72
2021-73
1 -Mead
2 -Mead
Policy Group Training for Elected Officials
Update Policies and Plans with Mitigation Principles -North
Creek Flood Plain Analysis
I Appendix B- I I I
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2021-74
3 -Mead
Update Policies and Plans with Mitigation Principles -
Emergency Operations Plan
202 I -75
4 -Mead
Update Facilities- Public Works facility — Design &
Construction
2021-76
5 -Mead
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter
Capabilities Planning
I Appendix B - 1 12
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.15 Town of Milliken
Based on the Town of Milliken 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, the Town's vision is "founded on the
premise that the vitality and future growth of the Town and the quality of life of its residents are dependent upon
the balancing of multiple contributing factors."
These contributing factors were used to create guiding principles, which serve as a framework for
organizing planning and recommended actions for implementation in the community.
The Town's guiding principles are as follows:
• A strong, diversified economic base
• A vibrant downtown that functions as the heart of the community
• A complete and highly accessible system of parks, open space, trails, and recreational
opportunities
• A distinct community identity that reflects Milliken's cultural, archaeological, historical, and
agricultural resources
• A fiscally sustainable pattern of development
• A diverse mix of housing types to meet the needs of residents of all ages, incomes, and abilities
• A safe and disaster resilient community
The Town recently conducted its own Town of Milliken Risk Assessment — Planning for Hazards
Implementation Project (November 2018). Readers are encouraged to reference this document in addition
to the content contained in this updated HMP.
7.15.1 Community Profile
Milliken is approximately 5.7 square miles with no large bodies of water. The Town is primarily a
farming community and sits six miles east of Interstate 25 in the western part of Weld County between
the Town of Mead and the City of Greeley.
Agricultural uses make up a large portion of the overall land use mix in the Town. Much of Milliken's
planning area is part of a single Planned Unit Development (PUD)—the Centennial Master Plan —that is
being developed incrementally over time. Some portions of the original PUD have been rezoned from
industrial to multifamily residential use.
I Appendix B - 113
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
x-
1
t68/'
�—H-1
I 1r'
The table below summarizes key demographic and development related characteristics of the Town of
Milliken.
Table 178. Town of Milliken Demographics
G-; 11-,1 it
8,164
1:, , 1,,,
5,758,736
Population, 2019
45.4%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
4.9%
5.8%
% Population under 5 years, 2019
28.6%
21.9%
% Population under 19 years, 2019
8.3%
14.6%
% Population 65 years and over, 2019
87.8%
64.9%
Homeownership Rate, 2019
2.79
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
$72,101
$68,811
Median Household Income, 2014- 2018
5.6%
9.3%
Persons below poverty level, %, 2014- 2018
5.2%
7.3%
Population under 65 years, with a disability 2014-
2018
11.7%
17%
Language other than English spoken at home, % age
5+, 2014- 2018
I Appendix B - 1 14
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Source: US Census Bureau
7.15.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 179 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Milliken. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 179. Risk Factor Results for Milliken
I�
1 L 1 7/ L ;
Agricultural Hazards
r ,'L i1i
2
11 ii -,C L .
2
i ;I
-
2
,n II-
I
I r L,i-=-U
2
FP
1.9
Cyber Hazards
I
2
4
4
3
2.4
Drought
4
3
4
I
4
3.4
Earthquake
I
I
I
I
I
1.0
Extreme Temps.
2
2
3
I
2
2. I
Flood
4
4
2
4
4
3.6
Hazmat Release
3
3
2
4
2
2.8
Land Subsidence
I
I
I
I
I
1.0
Prairie Fire
3
I
2
4
I
2.1
Public Health Hazards
2
1
2
1
4
1.8
Severe Storms
3
2
2
4
1
2.4
Tornado & Wind
2
2
2
4
4
2.4
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Milliken as a whole - based on High, Moderate,
or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and
regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 180. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Milliken
-11 1 G11 1�. �_�� . Ali I
Drought, Flood, Hazmat Release
MODERATE RISK (2.0 — 2.4)
Cyber Hazards, Extreme Temperatures, Prairie Fire,
Severe Storms, Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Agricultural Hazards, Earthquake, Land Subsidence,
Public Health Hazards
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has increased the assessed risk from drought and hazmat release to High
Risk (both formerly Moderate). Milliken decreased its risk assessment for land subsidence to be Low
Risk (formerly Moderate). The Town also reduced assessed risk for prairie fire, severe storm, and
tornado & straight-line wind to be Moderate (all previously High). Public health hazards, previously a
Low Risk, are now considered High. Besides the newly added hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber
hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of Milliken's High Risk hazards and include any specific
content relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard
profile in the main body of this Plan.
I Appendix B - 1 15
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.15.2.1 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Milliken. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.15.2.2 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood is a very localized hazard and vulnerability is unique for each municipality. There are no previous
events to document specific to Milliken.
The Town of Milliken's overall vulnerability to flood is significantly different from the rest of the County.
Milliken has I address points located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This equates to 0.03% of
all address points for the Town, as compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in the SFHA.
Flood events can also occur as a result of dam or levee failure. In these cases, flood waters may not
follow the typical floodplains mapped as the SFHA.
The Town of Milliken's overall vulnerability to flooding in dam inundation areas is not noticeably
different from the rest of the County. Milliken has 22 address points located in these dam inundation
areas. This equates to 0.6% of all address points for the Town, as compared to 1.0% of Countywide
addresses located in these areas.
Additionally, the Town is the first jurisdiction downstream from six dams. Three of these have a hazard
classification of Significant or High, but only two currently have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs).
Additional information pertaining to dams can be referenced at the State's Dam Safety website:
https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/DamSafety/Dams .
The Town's overall vulnerability to flooding in areas protected by known levees is substantially different
from the rest of the County. Milliken has no address points located in these levee protected areas.
This is compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
It is important to note that this analysis is only as good as best available data allows. Current
floodplains, dam inundation areas, and areas protected by levees may not currently map all hazard areas.
Additionally, mapped hazard areas may be dated and in need of updated mapping and analysis.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.15.2.3 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased, mainly due to railroads spanning across the Town of
Milliken which present their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County, the
presence of any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of
events.
Based on data supplied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA)
Incident Reports Database, seven events that have occurred within Milliken between 1991 and 2019.
These events were due to overfilling and spillage caused by improper transport preparation. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
I Appendix B - 1 16
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.1 5.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Milliken to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented many of these capabilities shown in Table 181. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 181. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
1 1-' 1r L 1 11 1 2, 1 111 .n
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H-`7117� i1 /
Yes
. �111 1 11 11 '�
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
Floodplain Management Plan
Yes
Stormwater Program / Plan
Yes
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Economic Development Plan
No
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
Yes
Growth Management Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
No
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
I Appendix B - 1 17
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Milliken is fortunate to have most all of these capabilities identified
in Table 182.
Table 182. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
Ph1`.1r 11 11 1 1 111'
Planning Commission
=11i :,
Yes
1i11 11 11'
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Emergency Manager
Yes
Building Official
Yes
3rd Party BO - ProCode
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Community Planner
Yes
Transportation Planner
No
Civil Engineer
Yes
3rd Party Engineer
GIS Capability
No
Priority for the 2021 Budget
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
No
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Tornado Sirens
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Existing Staff
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 183 and show that Milliken
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 183. Financial Capabilities
Ph1`.1r, 11 11 1 1 111'
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
H=11i :,
Yes
1i11 11 11'
Utilities Fees
Yes
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
Yes
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
Yes
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Stormwater Utility Fees
Yes
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
I Appendix B - 1 18
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 184 shows that Milliken
could benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 184. Education & Outreach Capabilities
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
No
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Other:
No
7.15.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation action identified by the Town during the Plan update is included in Table 185. Three
actions from the 2016 Plan have been carried over into the Town's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 185. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11;
2021-77
i,n— inn it
I -Milliken
7 it
Convert acquired land and property in the floodplain to
Open Space
2021-78
2 -Milliken
Procurement and Installation of Tornado Sirens
2021-79
3 -Milliken
Storm Water Improvements Throughout Milliken
2021-80
4 -Milliken
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter
Capabilities Planning
I Appendix B - 1 19
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.16 Town of Nunn
"Nunn will be a community where people and the environment come first; a place where our small-town charm
and community spirit are celebrated and our history and peaceful quality of life are treasured. Our community
will strive to provide exceptional services and housing, jobs, shopping and recreational opportunities for
everyone."
-Town of Nunn Comprehensive Plan 2009
7.16.1 Community Profile
The Town of Nunn has a total area of 1.8 square miles, all of which is land, according to the United
States Census Bureau. The growth and development of Nunn is driven by community members,
especially their priorities and goals for the Town. The Town has utilized surveys, community events and
workshops for important input from residents. One community event was a "Planning Fiesta" where
feedback and discussion were critical to evaluating plans. An important workshop was with the local high
school to ask students about their vision for a more dynamic Town of Nunn. The pride of community
members in the Town is evident in their careful consideration of the future progress of Nunn.
The table below summarizes development information of the Town of Nunn. Current information for
specific characteristics of the population is only available from the US Census Bureau for municipalities
with populations over 5,000 people.
I Appendix B - 120
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 186. Town of Nunn Demographics
468
5,758,736
Population, 2019
12.2%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
2.5
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
Note: Recent data is unavailable from the US Census Bureau for some categories, based on the size of the municipality. Source: US
Census Bureau
7.16.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 187 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Nunn. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 187. Risk Factor Results for Nunn
� 1 L7/tiLH
Agricultural Hazards
r ,'L i1i
1.5
1I it -,C L .
2
L 1 L1
-
i'
2
c Hi ,l,-
'MI II
2.5
I r L,i -=U
4
FP
P =LH11 il
2.1
Cyber Hazards
2
1.5
2
4
3.5
2.2
Drought
3
I
3
I
4
2.3
Earthquake
I
2.5
2
4
I
2.0
Extreme Temps.
3
I
2.5
3
2
2.2
Flood
I
I
2
4
3
1.7
Hazmat Release
1.5
2
4
4
2
2.5
Land Subsidence
I
I
1.5
4
2.5
1.6
Prairie Fire
2.5
1.5
1.5
4
1.5
2.1
Public Health Hazards
3.5
2
2.5
I
4
2.7
Severe Storms
3.5
2.5
3
1.5
2
2.8
Tornado & Wind
2.5
2.5
2
3
I
2.3
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Nunn as a whole - based on High, Moderate,
or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and
regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 188. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Nunn
,,�,. �_�� . �
-11 -1 R1 1 i I
Hazmat Release, Public Health Hazards, Severe
Storms
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
Agricultural Hazards, Cyber Hazards, Drought,
Earthquake, Extreme Temperatures, Prairie Fire,
Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Flood, Land Subsidence
I Appendix B - 121
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The following sections highlight the Town of Nunn's High Risk hazards and include any specific content
relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard profile in
the main body of this Plan.
7.16.2. I Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased for the Town of Nunn, mainly due to the location of a
CDOT hazardous materials route through the community. Additionally, railroads span across Nunn
which present their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County, the
presence of any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of
events.
There have been no events in the Town of Nunn, between 1991 and 2019, based on data supplied by
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Incident Reports Database.
Future occurrences can be expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk
Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.16.2.2 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Nunn. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details,
including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.16.2.3 Severe Storms (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. The Town of Nunn's more densely developed areas experience the
greatest risk, in addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of Nunn has had
nine severe storm events. Seven of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in size from
1.25 inches to 1.75 inches. None of these events resulted in reported damage to property or crops and
no injuries or deaths.
Two events were reported as thunderstorm winds with magnitudes of 56 mph and 58 mph. There was
no reported damage to property or crops and no injuries or deaths. No other events for severe storm,
specific to Nunn, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.16.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Nunn to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
I Appendix B - 122
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented many of these capabilities shown in Table 189. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 189. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
"1 i-' iJ iil 7s i ili -n
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H -`111- 1IZ%
Yes
.71'171 ll 11 =�
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
Annually by department
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Participating in statewide planning
Stormwater Program / Plan
Yes
FEMA Floodplain plan
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Permitted through the state, 1 acre per min
Economic Development Plan
No
Refer to Upstate Colorado
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
SAFEbuilt, adopted by Ord. IRC 2018
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Website-fliers for building
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
4-5 years
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
SAFEbuilt, adopted by Ord. IRC 2018
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
Yes
Part of conservation/CO lottery/Open Space
Growth Management Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
No
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
Yes
Snow loads, included in building codes
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Nunn is fortunate to have many of these capabilities identified in
Table 190.
I Appendix B - 123
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 190. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Planning Commission
!H —Ili .,
No
I,ll it ,l_�
Town Board
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Informal Town Board
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Emergency Manager
Yes
Sue Frederickson
Building Official
Yes
SAFEbuilt
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Community Planner
No
Town Board
Transportation Planner
Yes
Refer to CD0T/Town Board
Civil Engineer
Yes
Contract Northern engineering
GIS Capability
No
Weld County
Resiliency Planner
No
Town Board
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
Yes
Siren, FD initiated or county
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Code Red, IPAWS
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Contracted per grant/grant writer
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 191 and show that Nunn
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 191. Financial Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H —Ili .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Yes, Mill Levy
Utilities Fees
Yes
Water, trash
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Conservation Funds
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Possible in the future
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Annual budgeting
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
No
Possible in the future
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
I Appendix B - 124
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 192 shows that Nunn does
leverage some of these capabilities and is currently working on expanding these efforts.
Table 192. Education & Outreach Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
!H —Ili .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Town board, Fire Dept, Police Dept
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Nunn Facebook page
Firewise
Yes
Fire department
NOAA StormReady Program
Yes
Town board, Fire Dept, Police Dept
Other:
No
7.1 6.4 Mitigation Actions
The mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 193.
Table 193. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11`1;
i In— i7 it
7 it
2021-81
1 -Nunn
Master Drainage Plan
2021-82
2 -Nunn
Tornado Shelter to be ADA Compliant
2021-83
3 -Nunn
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter
Capabilities Planning
I Appendix B - 125
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.17 Town of Pierce
The Town is a rural agricultural community located on the Colorado Eastern Plains along U.S. Highway
85, north of Greeley. The Town has a total area of 0.7 square miles, including 1.0 sq. mi. annexed in
2018 where a natural gas processing facility has been constructed. The Town shares a police and fire
department with the Town of Ault.
7.17.1 Community Profile
The Town of Pierce was a key railroad stop at the time of founding and became a local shipping point
for cattle, sheep, potatoes, beans, and sugar beets. The Town has grown more rapidly than much of the
region, however it is still one of the smallest municipalities adopting this plan.
The table below summarizes development information of the Town of Pierce. Current information for
specific characteristics of the population is only available from the US Census Bureau for municipalities
with populations over 5,000 people.
Table 194. Town of Pierce Demographics
�1
1,153
37.9%
5,758,736
14.5%
Population, 2019
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
I Appendix B - 126
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2.68
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
Note: Recent data is unavailable from the US Census Bureau for some categories, based on the size of the municipality. Source: US
Census Bureau
7.17.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 195 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Pierce. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 195. Risk Factor Results for Pierce
Agricultural Hazards
2
I
1 Lil
2
c Hi II
I
4
FP
1.8
Cyber Hazards
2
1
3
4
3
2.2
Drought
3
2
4
1
4
2.8
Earthquake
2
1
3
4
1
2.0
Extreme Temps.
4
2
4
2
3
3.1
Flood
2
2
3
2
2
2.2
Hazmat Release
3
2
4
4
3
3.0
Land Subsidence
1
1
2
1
3
1.4
Prairie Fire
1
1
1
4
1
1.3
Public Health Hazards
2
2
1
3
4
2.1
Severe Storms
4
2
4
2
2
3.0
Tornado & Wind
4
2
4
1
2
2.9
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Pierce as a whole - based on High, Moderate,
or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around local and
regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 196. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Pierce
Drought, Extreme Temperatures, Hazmat Release,
Severe Storms, Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
Cyber Hazards, Earthquake, Flood, Public Health
Hazards
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Agricultural Hazards, Land Subsidence, Prairie Fire
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has increased the assessed risk from drought, extreme temperatures, and
hazmat release to High Risk (all were formerly Low). It also increased the risk from severe storm and
tornado & straight-line wind to High (both were previously moderate). Pierce increased its risk
assessment for earthquake, flood, and public health hazards to be Moderate Risk (all were formerly
Low). Besides the newly added hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all other risk rankings
remain the same.
I Appendix B - 127
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The following sections highlight the Town of Pierce's High Risk hazards and include any specific content
relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard profile in
the main body of this Plan.
7.17.2.1 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Pierce. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.17.2.2 Extreme Temperatures
Vulnerability to extreme temperatures is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards due to potential crop and livestock losses. Additionally, individuals at a higher risk
to extreme temperatures include those with mobility issues, independent living difficulty, the elderly,
low-income families, outdoor laborers, and those experiencing homelessness. Data for these
demographics is collected at census tract level, however snapshot data for populations that can fluctuate
drastically, such as the number of outdoor laborers and those experiencing homelessness is not
included. These are still considerable populations in the County and the Town of Pierce and local
efforts to quantify these populations periodically can help with mitigation planning.
The data for high risk populations has been analyzed by Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) and has been used to create Community Inclusions maps. These maps can be
zoomed into specific census tracts for municipalities and communities, illustrating the population
variances. Refer to Chapter 4 for examples of these maps for Weld County.
There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Pierce. Future occurrences are
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
7.17.2.3 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased for the Town of Pierce, mainly due to the location of a
CDOT hazardous materials route through the community. Additionally, railroads span across Pierce
which present their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County, the
presence of any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of
events.
There have been no events in the Town of Pierce, between 1991 and 2019, based on data supplied by
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Incident Reports Database.
Future occurrences can be expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk
Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
7.17.2.4 Severe Storms (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. The Town of Pierce's more densely developed areas experience the
greatest risk, in addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
I Appendix B - 128
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of Pierce has had
four severe storm events.
Three of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in size from 1.5 inches to 2.5 inches.
These events resulted in damages to property and crops, but no injuries or deaths.
One event was reported as thunderstorm winds with magnitudes of 52 mph. There was no reported
damage to property or crops and no injuries or deaths. No other events for severe storm, specific to
Pierce, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.17.2.5 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Pierces more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes.
Between 2015 and 2020, there were no reports of occurrences specific to Pierce. Future occurrences
are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for
additional details.
7.1 7.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Pierce to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented some of these capabilities shown in Table 197. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 197. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
ri'it i=i; „ i, i i1t'.;
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H' 11 ,
Yes
I HIit ,l
Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
No
Floodplain Management Plan
Yes
Contract Northern CO Engineering
Stormwater Program / Plan
No
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Fire Protection District -Adam Ferrel
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Economic Development Plan
No
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018 updates
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
No
I Appendix B - 129
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
ri'it i=i, „ i,i ili-
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
H'71 1Z%
Yes
Iill ,l ,l
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
On the rated map
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
Yes
Growth Management Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
No
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Pierce has some of these capabilities identified in Table 198.
Table 198. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i i11'-
Planning Commission
!H —Ili- .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
Citizen appointed committee
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
For municipal properties
Emergency Manager
No
Building Official
Yes
Contract SAFEbuilt/Planning Commissioner
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Contract Northern CO Engineering
Community Planner
No
Contract as needed
Transportation Planner
No
Civil Engineer
Yes
Contract Northern CO Engineering
GIS Capability
No
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
Yes
Audible Siren System, Ault/Pierce FD
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
CodeRed, IPAWS
Grant Writing / Management
No
Other:
No
I Appendix B - 130
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 199 and show that Pierce
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 199. Financial Capabilities
Ph1`.1r 11Ii 1 1 111'
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
=11i :,
No
IIII II II'
Utilities Fees
Yes
Water, Sewer
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
i currently
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
No
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
No
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 200 shows that Pierce does
leverage some of these capabilities and is currently working on expanding these efforts.
Table 200. Education & Outreach Capabilities
r-il i i i1t'-
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
!H =111 : ,
No
I err �l ,l_�
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
Yes
Informal Facebook page -residents of Pierce
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Possibly in the future.
Other:
Yes
School Education -Community Risk Reduction
7.1 7.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 201.
Two actions from the 2016 Plan have been carried over into the Town's updated mitigation strategy.
I Appendix B - 131
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 201. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11;
2021-84
i,n— inn it
I -Pierce
7 it
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter
Capabilities Planning
2021-85
2 -Pierce
County Road 90 Improvements
2021-86
3 -Pierce
Community Preparedness Education
2021-87
4 -Pierce
Drainage County Rd 88 / Hwy 85
I Appendix B - 132
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.I8 Town of Platteville
"We are committed to growing and being innovative, collaborative and creative with a full appreciation of our
location and heritage which include agriculture and energy production support services."
— Town of Platteville Comprehensive Plan (2017)
The Plan Guiding Principles include:
• Environment- Protect and enhance Platteville's natural environment and scenic beauty of the
town and surrounding area, with particular emphasis on the South Platte River Corridor.
• Economic Development- Attract and retain a broad range of commercial and industrial
businesses that provide local employment opportunities and meet the needs of residents.
• Growth Management- Retain the small town, rural character by guiding growth and new
development, maintaining distinct community edges with abundant open lands.
• Transportation- Provide an efficient, safe and connected transportation system.
• Community Vision- Committed to growing and being innovative, collaborative and creative.
• Services and Infrastructure- Provide public services and infrastructure in a cost-effective manner
that accommodates new growth while enhancing Platteville's quality of life.
• Community Character- Foster community pride and establish a strong sense of place by
preserving cultural resources, enhancing Platteville's image and revitalizing its downtown core.
• Parks and Recreation- Provide a coordinated and continuous system of parks, trails, and
recreation that serves the present and future needs of Platteville residents.
7.18.1 Community Profile
Platteville is one of the oldest communities in Weld County. It is located along the east bank of the
South Platte River, at the intersection of US Highway 85 and Colorado Highway 66. Platteville is
approximately 1.48 square miles in size and has an economy driven by agriculture and energy
production.
I Appendix B - 133
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The table below summarizes development information of the Town of Platteville. Current information
for specific characteristics of the population is only available from the US Census Bureau for
municipalities with populations over 5,000 people.
Table 202. Town of Platteville Demographics
1 ,==
3,010
5,758,736
Population, 2019
20.7%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
2.88
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
Note: Recent data is unavailable from the US Census Bureau for some categories, based on the size of the municipality. Source: US
Census Bureau
7.18.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 203 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Platteville. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
I Appendix B - 134
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 203. Risk Factor Results for Platteville
1 i tier, l
Agricultural Hazards
i fli .;
2
1 I ,l _ i
I
-
2
I
r i=i -_ it
4
FP
1.8
Cyber Hazards
2
1
2
4
3
2.0
Drought
3
1
1
1
4
1.9
Earthquake
1
2
4
4
1
2.2
Extreme Temps.
3
1
4
1
4
2.5
Flood
3
1
2
1
3
2.0
Hazmat Release
2
3
2
4
3
2.8
Land Subsidence
1
1
1
1
1
1.0
Prairie Fire
2
2
2
2
2
2.0
Public Health Hazards
2
1
2
1
3
1.8
Severe Storms
3
3
3
4
2
3.0
Tornado & Wind
3
3
3
4
2
3.0
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Platteville as a whole - based on High,
Moderate, or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around
local and regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation
strategy.
Table 204. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Platteville
Extreme Temperatures, Hazmat Release, Severe
Storms, Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
Cyber Hazards, Earthquake, Flood, Prairie Fire
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Agricultural Hazards, Drought, Land Subsidence,
Public Health Hazards
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has increased the assessed risk from earthquake to Moderate Risk
(previously Low) and for extreme temperatures and hazmat to High Risk (formerly Moderate). Flood
also increased from a Low to Moderate risk ranking. The risk to Public health hazards was modified to
Low Risk (formerly Moderate). Besides the newly added hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber
hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of Platteville's High Risk hazards and include any specific
content relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard
profile in the main body of this Plan.
7.18.2. I Extreme Temperatures
Vulnerability to extreme temperatures is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards due to potential crop and livestock losses. Additionally, individuals at a higher risk
to extreme temperatures include those with mobility issues, independent living difficulty, the elderly,
low-income families, outdoor laborers, and those experiencing homelessness. Data for these
demographics is collected at census tract level, however snapshot data for populations that can fluctuate
I Appendix B - 135
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
drastically, such as the number of outdoor laborers and those experiencing homelessness is not
included. These are still considerable populations in the County and the Town of Platteville and local
efforts to quantify these populations periodically can help with mitigation planning.
The data for high risk populations has been analyzed by Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) and has been used to create Community Inclusions maps. These maps can be
zoomed into specific census tracts for municipalities and communities, illustrating the population
variances. Refer to Chapter 4 for examples of these maps for Weld County.
There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Platteville. Future occurrences are
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
7.18.2.2 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased for the Town of Platteville, mainly due to the location of a
CDOT hazardous materials route through the community. As is true for the entire County, the
presence of any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of
events.
Based on data supplied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA)
Incident Reports Database there have been seven events within Platteville between 1991 and 2019.
Two of these events were vehicular accidents. The rest were due to overfilling and spillage.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.18.2.3 Severe Storms (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. Platteville's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in
addition to potential greater losses to the agriculture sector. Any structures not constructed to meet
recent building codes experience the greatest risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of Platteville has
had five severe storm events. All of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in size from I
inch to 1.5 inches. None of these events resulted in reported damage to property or crops and no
injuries or deaths.
No other events for severe storm, specific to Platteville, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.18.2.4 Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
Vulnerability to tornado & straight-line wind is not noticeably different from the rest of the County.
Platteville's more densely developed areas experience the greatest risk, in addition to any structures not
constructed to meet recent building codes.
Between 2015 and 2020, there were no reports of occurrences specific to Platteville. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
I Appendix B - 136
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.1 8.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Platteville to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented some of these capabilities shown in Table 205. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 205. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
r i i' it i =i; „ i , i i1t' .;
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H' 117/ -1
Yes
I HI it ,l
Comp Plan updated in 203.6
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Stormwater Program / Plan
Yes
Adopted 2016
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Economic Development Plan
Yes
Adopted 2020
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018 IBC Adopted
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
Yes
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
No
Growth Management Ordinance
No
Stormwater Ordinance
No
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
I Appendix B - 137
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Platteville is fortunate to have many of these capabilities identified
in Table 206.
Table 206. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r-il i i i11'-
Planning Commission
!H =111 : ,
Yes
I ell il ,l_�
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Emergency Manager
Yes
Building Official
Yes
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Community Planner
Yes
Transportation Planner
No
Use Town Engineer for transportation planning
Civil Engineer
Yes
GIS Capability
Yes
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
Yes
Warning sirens and emergency phone system
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Warning sirens and emergency phone system
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 207 and show that Platteville
utilizes a number of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 207. Financial Capabilities
r 1` it i=i il i i i11'-
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
!H =111 : ,
No
I ell il ,l_�
Utilities Fees
Yes
Water & Sewer Enterprise Funds
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
Update 2015
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Conservation Fund
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Storm Drainage Impact Fees for new development
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
I Appendix B - 138
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
Yes
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 208 shows that Platteville
could benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 208. Education & Outreach Capabilities
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
No
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Other:
No
7.18.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 209.
One action from the 2016 Plan has been carried over into the Town's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 209. 2021 Mitigation Actions
11;
i,n— inn it
7 it
2021-88
I -Platteville
Comprehensive Plan Update and Training
202 1-89
2 -Platteville
Community Education of updated Early Warning System,
Training and Utilization
2021-90
3 -Platteville
Tornado Sirens - Maintenance and testing
2021-91
4 -Platteville
Comprehensive EM Plan - Update and training
2021-92
5 -Platteville
Community Impact Study -Vulnerable Populations -Shelter
Capabilities Planning
2021-93
6 -Platteville
Master Storm Drainage Plan
I Appendix B - 139
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.19 Town of Severance
The 2020 Severance Comprehensive Plan "recognizes and respects private property rights while
acknowledging the appropriate balance between these rights, the impact on health, safety, and welfare, for both
existing and future residents of the Town, and the infrastructure requirements to adequately serve future
development."
7.19.1 Community Profile
The Town of Severance is located approximately 10 miles east of Fort Collins, 7 miles north of Windsor
and 10 miles northwest of Greeley. Severance has a total area of 2.1 square miles and was historically a
rural farming community, which has evolved into a bedroom community. The construction of new
residential communities, due to a doubling of the population in the last 10 years, has left the original
agricultural community surrounded by modern construction.
N
1
�— _ 1 L fill IC
I- f J
x-
The Windsor -Severance Fire Rescue (WSFR) provides fire, rescue, and hazmat services to the Towns of
Windsor and Severance, as well as the rural areas surrounding them.
The table below summarizes key demographic and development related characteristics of the Town of
Severance.
I Appendix B - 140
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 210. Town of Severance Demographics
6,949
5,758,736
Population, 2019
104.3%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
10.8%
5.8%
% Population under 5 years, 2019
29.8%
21.9%
% Population under 19 years, 2019
9.5%
14.6%
% Population 65 years and over, 2019
95.2%
64.9%
Homeownership Rate, 2019
2.94
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
$99,375
$68,811
Median Household Income, 2014- 2018
2.4%
9.3%
Persons below poverty level, %, 2014- 2018
2.8%
7.30
Population under 65 years, with a disability 2014-
2018
3.5/
17%
Language other than English spoken at home, % age
5+, 2014- 2018
Source: US Census Bureau
7.19.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Table 211 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Severance. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 21 I . Risk Factor Results for Severance
Agricultural Hazards
2
2
II =
3
-I I it
I
4
C Ill it
2.3
Cyber Hazards
3
3
3
2
3
2.9
Drought
3
2
3
I
4
2.6
Earthquake
2
I
2
3
I
1.7
Extreme Temps.
3
2
3
I
4
2.6
Flood
3
3
3
3
3
3.0
Hazmat Release
4
2
2
4
I
2.7
Land Subsidence
2
I
2
3
4
2.0
Prairie Fire
3
I
2
4
I
2.1
Public Health Hazards
4
3
3
I
4
3.2
Severe Storms
4
I
3
2
I
2.4
Tornado & Wind
2
3
2.5
3
I
2.4
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Severance as a whole - based on High,
Moderate, or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around
local and regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation
strategy.
I Appendix B - 141
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 212. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Severance
Cyber Hazards, Drought, Extreme Temperatures,
Flood, Hazmat Release, Public Health Hazards
MODERATE RISK (2.0 — 2.4)
Agricultural Hazards, Land Subsidence, Prairie Fire,
Severe Storms, Tornado & Straight -Line Wind
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Earthquake
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has increased the assessed risk from flood, hazmat release, and public
health hazards to High Risk (all were previously Low). The risk from land subsidence also was increased
from Low to Moderate. Severance has decreased the assessed risk for both severe storms and tordano
& straight-line winds, from High to Moderate. Besides the newly added hazards of agricultural hazards
and cyber hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of Severance's High Risk hazards and include any specific
content relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard
profile in the main body of this Plan.
7.19.2. I Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting the Town of Severance, the threat of this
hazard is continually increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to Severance.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.19.2.2 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Severance.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.19.2.3 Extreme Temperatures
Vulnerability to extreme temperatures is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to these hazards due to potential crop and livestock losses. Additionally, individuals at a higher risk
to extreme temperatures include those with mobility issues, independent living difficulty, the elderly,
low-income families, outdoor laborers, and those experiencing homelessness. Data for these
demographics is collected at census tract level, however snapshot data for populations that can fluctuate
drastically, such as the number of outdoor laborers and those experiencing homelessness is not
included. These are still considerable populations in the County and the Town of Severance and local
efforts to quantify these populations periodically can help with mitigation planning.
The data for high risk populations has been analyzed by Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) and has been used to create Community Inclusions maps. These maps can be
zoomed into specific census tracts for municipalities and communities, illustrating the population
variances. Refer to Chapter 4 for examples of these maps for Weld County.
I Appendix B - 142
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
There are no previous events to document specific to the Town of Severance. Future occurrences are
expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details.
7.19.2.4 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood is a very localized hazard and vulnerability is unique for each municipality. According to the
NOAA's Storm Events Database, there has been one flood event in Severance between 2015 and 2020.
On 5/9/2015, a flood affected Severance when heavy rain produced flooding along already swollen
creeks and streams in southwestern Weld County. This flood caused $15,000 in property damages and
$5,000 in crop damages. There were no injuries or deaths.
The Town of Severance's overall vulnerability to flood is not noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Severance has 47 address points located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This
equates to 1.2% of all address points for the Town, as compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses
located in the SFHA.
Flood events can also occur as a result of dam or levee failure. In these cases, flood waters may not
follow the typical floodplains mapped as the SFHA.
The Town of Severance's overall vulnerability to flooding in dam inundation areas considerably different
from the rest of the County, as Severance has no address points located in these dam inundation areas.
This is compared to 1.0% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
Additionally, the Town is the first jurisdiction downstream from two dams. Both have a hazard
classification of Significant or High and associated Emergency Action Plans (EAPs). Additional information
pertaining to dams can be referenced at the State's Dam Safety website:
https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/DamSafety/Dams .
The Town's overall vulnerability to flooding in areas protected by known levees is significantly different
from the rest of the County. Severance has no address points located within levee protected areas,
compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
It is important to note that this analysis is only as good as best available data allows. Current
floodplains, dam inundation areas, and areas protected by levees may not currently map all hazard areas.
Additionally, mapped hazard areas may be dated and in need of updated mapping and analysis.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.19.2.5 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is noticeably different from the rest of the County. There have been no
events in the Town of Severance, between 1991 and 2019, based on data supplied by the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Incident Reports Database.
The presence of any businesses that transport and store hazardous materials will increase the risk for
these types of events.
Future occurrences can be expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk
Assessment of this Plan for additional details.
I Appendix B - 143
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.19.2.6 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Severance. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional
details, including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.19.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Severance to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented a portion of these capabilities shown in Table 213. It is important
for all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 213. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
1 1-' 1r L 1 11 1 2, 1 111 .n
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H-`7117� i1 /
Yes
. �111 1 11 11 '�
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
New for 2021 Budget
Floodplain Management Plan
No
Stormwater Program / Plan
No
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Economic Development Plan
No
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
No
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
Subdivision Ordinance
Yes
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
I Appendix B - 144
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
ri'it i =i, „ i,i ili-
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
H'71 1Z%
Yes
Iill ,l ,l
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
Yes
New Plan for 2021
Growth Management Ordinance
Yes
Stormwater Ordinance
No
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Severance is fortunate to have many of these capabilities identified
in Table 214.
Table 214. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r1`it iice,l i i 111'-
Planning Commission
!H —Ili- .,
Yes
I,ll it ,l_�
https://www.townofseverance.org/pla nning-
commission
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Emergency Manager
Yes
Chief James Gerdeman
Building Official
Yes
Russ Weber, SAFEbuilt
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Mike Ketterling, Northern Engineering
Community Planner
Yes
Mitch Nelson, Community Development Director
Transportation Planner
No
Civil Engineer
Yes
Colorado Civil Group
GIS Capability
Yes
Mitch Nelson, Community Development Director
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
No
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
Yes
Tornado Sirens
Grant Writing / Management
Yes
Mitch Nelson, Community Development Director
Other:
No
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 215 and show that Severance
utilizes a few financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
I Appendix B - 145
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 215. Financial Capabilities
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
No
Utilities Fees
Yes
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
No
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
No
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
Yes
Stormwater Utility Fees
No
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
No
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
No
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 216 shows that Severance
could benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 216. Education & Outreach Capabilities
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
No
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Other:
No
7.19.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 217.
Table 217. 2021 Mitigation Actions
1F
2021-94
2021-95
2021-96
I-Severence
2-Severence
3-Severence
Downtown Drainage and Street Improvements (Phase 2)
Hidden Valley Parkway Crossing
Harmony Regional Drainage Project
I Appendix B - 146
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
7.20 Town of Windsor
The 2016 Windsor Comprehensive Plan "serves as a foundation for decision -making and a reference for
Town officials, residents, and stakeholders as they consider development proposals, capital improvements,
infrastructure investments, policy changes, and other actions in the decades to come."
7.20.1 Community Profile
The Town has a total area of 25.6 square miles of which 1.27 square miles of it is water. The Cache la
Poudre River runs through the west and south sides of Town. It on the BNSF Railway and east of
Interstate 25. It is approximately halfway between Fort Collins and Greeley and 15 miles northeast of
Loveland.
1
—� fill � �.
Lli
1-1
I.
The Windsor -Severance Fire Rescue (WSFR) provides fire, rescue, and hazmat services to the Towns of
Windsor and Severance, as well as the rural areas surrounding them.
The table below summarizes key demographic and development related characteristics of the Town of
Windsor.
Table 218. Town of Windsor Demographics
ii 11..
30,477
5,758,736
Population, 2019
I Appendix B - 147
e R�rnue+�cv MANI QF MF v i
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
63.4%
14.5%
Population, % change April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
7%
5.8%
% Population under 5 years, 2019
29.2%
21.9%
% Population under 19 years, 2019
14%
14.6%
% Population 65 years and over, 2019
82.4%
64.9%
Homeownership Rate, 2019
2.81
2.56
Persons Per Household, 2019
$96,710
$68,811
Median Household Income, 2014- 2018
4.3%
9.3%
Persons below poverty level, %, 2014- 2018
4.6%
7.3%
Population under 65 years, with a disability 2014-
2018
6.4%
17%
Language other than English spoken at home, % age
5+, 2014- 2018
Source: US Census Bureau
7.20.2 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
The Town of Windsor is situated in both Larimer and Weld Counties. For the purpose of this plan,
spatially analyzed hazard risks have been assessed for the areas of the city that lie specifically within
Weld County.
Table 219 summarizes the results of the RF ranking exercise performed by the Town of Windsor. The
results represent the relative risk of different hazards across the municipality from the perspective of
local stakeholders and subject matter experts. Note the final RF Ranking values in this table include the
weighting factors detailed in the Risk Assessment chapter of this Plan.
Table 219. Risk Factor Results for Windsor
Agricultural Hazards
I
I
iit
I
c,nII- J`-
2
3
FP
1.3
Cyber Hazards
2
4
4
4
4
3.4
Drought
4
3
4
I
3
3.3
Earthquake
I
2
2
4
2
1.9
Extreme Temps.
2
3
2
2
3
2.4
Flood
3
3
3
3
4
3.1
Hazmat Release
4
3
3
I
3
3.1
Land Subsidence
I
2
2
I
2
1.6
Prairie Fire
I
I
I
I
I
1.0
Public Health Hazards
4
4
4
3
4
3.9
Severe Storms
4
3
3
2
4
3.3
Tornado & Wind
2
2
2
2
4
2.2
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative assessment are organized into three categories shown in the
following table and provide a summary of hazard risk for Windsor as a whole — based on High,
Moderate, or Low risk designations. This process helped frame ongoing planning discussions around
local and regional hazard risks and assisted with the development of the Plan's updated mitigation
strategy.
I Appendix B - 148
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 220. Hazard Risk Conclusions for Windsor
Cyber Hazards, Drought, Flood, Hazmat Release,
Public Health Hazards, Severe Storms
MODERATE RISK (2.0 - 2.4)
Extreme Temperatures, Tornado & Straight -Line
Wind
LOW RISK (1.9 or lower)
Agricultural Hazards, Earthquake, Land Subsidence,
Prairie Fire
Since the 2016 Plan, the Town has increased the assessed risk from drought to High Risk (previously
Moderate). The Town also increased the assessed risk from flood, hazmat release, and public health
hazards to High Risk (previously all were Low). Windsor has decreased the assessed risk for extreme
temperatures, from High to Moderate and prairie fire from Moderate to Low. Besides the newly added
hazards of agricultural hazards and cyber hazards, all other risk rankings remain the same.
The following sections highlight the Town of Severance's High Risk hazards and include any specific
content relevant to the Town. They are intended to supplement information included in each hazard
profile in the main body of this Plan.
7.20.2. I Cyber Hazards
For any municipality, vulnerability to cyber hazards does not vary from that of the County as a whole.
While there are no documented cyber events impacting the Town of Windsor, the threat of this hazard
is continually increasing. There are no previous events to document specific to Windsor. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.20.2.2 Drought
The community vulnerability to drought is not noticeably different from the rest of the County. Those
communities whose economies are more dependent on the agriculture industry do experience higher
risk to this hazard. There are no previous events to document specific to Windsor. Future
occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this
Plan for additional details.
7.20.2.3 Flood (including Dam & Levee Failure)
Flood is a very localized hazard and vulnerability is unique for each municipality. According to the
NOAA's Storm Events Database, there have been two flood events in Windsor between 2015 and
2020. On 5/20/2015, a flood affected Windsor when the Cache La Poudre and South Platte River rose
above flood stage producing a prolonged period of minor to moderate lowland flooding. Numerous
county roads along the rivers were closed due to floodwaters. This flood caused $250,000 in property
damages and $100,000 in crop damages. There were no injuries or deaths.
Another event on 6/2/2015, both the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers crested over a foot
above flood stage due to rainfall and snowmelt. This flood caused $25,000 in property damages and
$50,000 in crop damages. There were no injuries or deaths.
The Town of Windsor spans both Larimer and Weld Counties and the information for vulnerability
includes only those address points within Weld County.
I Appendix B - 149
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Overall vulnerability to flood is increased for the Town of Windsor, where 2.2% of address points (287)
are located within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This is a larger percentage of structures at
risk, as compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in the SFHA.
Flood events can also occur as a result of dam or levee failure. In these cases, flood waters may not
follow the typical floodplains mapped as the SFHA.
Overall vulnerability to flooding in dam inundation areas is increased for the Town of Windsor, where
68.0% of address points (8,818) are located within these dam inundation areas. This is a larger
percentage of structures at risk, as compared to 1.0% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
Additionally, the Town is the first jurisdiction downstream from fifteen dams. Six of these have a hazard
classification of Significant or High and associated Emergency Action Plans (EAPs). Additional information
pertaining to dams can be referenced at the State's Dam Safety website:
https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/DamSafety/Dams .
The Town's overall vulnerability to flooding in areas protected by known levees is significantly different
from the rest of the County. Windsor has no address points located in these levee protected areas,
compared to 1.6% of Countywide addresses located in these areas.
It is important to note that this analysis is only as good as best available data allows. Current
floodplains, dam inundation areas, and areas protected by levees may not currently map all hazard areas.
Additionally, mapped hazard areas may be dated and in need of updated mapping and analysis.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.20.2.4 Hazmat Release
Vulnerability to hazmat release is increased, mainly due to railroads spanning across the Town of
Windsor which present their own increased risk for hazmat release. As is true for the entire County,
the presence of any businesses that store hazardous materials also increases the risk for these types of
events.
Based on data supplied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA)
Incident Reports Database there have been seven events that have occurred within Windsor between
1991 and 2019. These events were due to improper handling and preparation for transport.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.20.2.5 Public Health Hazards
Vulnerability to public health hazards is not expected to be noticeably different from the rest of the
County. Individuals at a higher risk to this hazard include the aging adult population, those with a
chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, coronary heart disease, and those who are obese or
overweight. Other populations at risk include children, those in poverty and those with a disability. This
data is collected at census tract level by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and is unavailable at a
municipality level. The data by census tract can be found in the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment Open Data database here.
I Appendix B - 150
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. There are no previous events to
document specific to Windsor. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment of this Plan for additional details,
including a summary of the higher risk population demographics for Weld County and the State.
7.20.2.6 Severe Storms (including Hail, Lightning, & Winter Storm)
Vulnerability to severe storm, which includes hail, lightning, and winter storm, is not noticeably different
from the rest of the County. The Town of Windsor's more densely developed areas experience the
greatest risk. Any structures not constructed to meet recent building codes experience the greatest
risk from structural damages.
According to the NOAA's Storm Events Database, between 2015 and 2020, the Town of Windsor has
had ten severe storm events. All of these events resulted in reports of hail, which ranged in size from
.88 inch to 2inches. None of these events resulted in damage to property or crops and no injuries or
deaths.
No other events for severe storm, specific to Windsor, were recorded over this time period.
Future occurrences are expected to mirror that of the County. Refer to Chapter 5 — Risk Assessment
of this Plan for additional details.
7.20.3 Capabilities Assessment
The capability assessment examines the ability of the Town of Windsor to implement and manage the
comprehensive mitigation strategy laid out in this Plan. The strengths, weaknesses, and resources of the
community are identified here as a means for evaluating and maintaining effective and appropriate
management of the Town's hazard mitigation program.
Planning and regulatory capabilities are powerful tools for implementing hazard mitigation. The Town
currently utilizes or has implemented many of these capabilities shown in Table 221. It is important for
all municipalities to regularly review each of these tools, to identify opportunities for further risk
reduction efforts.
Table 221. Planning & Regulatory Capabilities
1 1-' 1r L 1 11 1 2, 1 111 .n
Comprehensive, Master, or General
Plan
H-`7117� i�1 /
Yes
. �111 1 11 11 '�
Capital Improvement Program or
Plan (CIP)
Yes
Floodplain Management Plan
Yes
Stormwater Program / Plan
Yes
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP)
No
Erosion / Sediment Control
Program
No
Economic Development Plan
Yes
Other:
No
Building Codes (Year)
Yes
2018
Site Plan Review Requirements
Yes
Other:
Zoning Ordinance (Land Use)
Yes
I Appendix B - 151
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
ri'it i=i, „ i,i ili-
Subdivision Ordinance
H'71 1Z%
Yes
Iill ,l ,l
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Participant
Yes
Flood Insurance Study / Flood
Insurance Rate Map / DFIRM
Yes
Floodplain Ordinance
Yes
Elevation Certificates for Floodplain
Development
No
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
No
Open Space / Conservation
Program
No
Growth Management Ordinance
Yes
Stormwater Ordinance
Yes
Other Hazard Ordinance (steep
slope, wildfire, snow loads, etc.)
No
Other:
No
Available resources including staff, municipal groups, and technology are all vital for a community to be
able to implement hazard mitigation. Windsor is fortunate to have a number of these capabilities
identified in Table 222.
Table 222. Administrative & Technical Capabilities
r 1` it i=i ,l i i i11'
Planning Commission
!H —Ili
Yes
�. ,r�,� ,�'_�
Mitigation Planning Committee
No
Maintenance Programs (tree
trimming, clearing drainage,
etc.)
Yes
Emergency Manager
Yes
Shared in house
Building Official
Yes
Contract with SAFEbuilt
Floodplain Administrator
Yes
Omar Herrera
Community Planner
Yes
Planning Department
Transportation Planner
Yes
Contract as needed
Civil Engineer
Yes
GIS Capability
Yes
Resiliency Planner
No
Other:
No
Warning Systems / Services
(flood)
No
Warning Systems / Services
(other / multi hazard)
No
Grant Writing / Management
No
Handled by department
Other:
No
I Appendix B - 152
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The ability of a community to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy is largely dependent on
available funding. These related municipal capabilities are outlined in Table 223 and show that Windsor
utilizes a broad range of financial tools that can support mitigation activities.
Table 223. Financial Capabilities
Ph1`.1r 11Ii 1 1 111'
Levy for Specific Purposes with
Voter Approval
=11i :,
Yes
IIII II II'
Utilities Fees
Yes
System Development / Impact
Development Fee
Yes
General Obligation Bonds to
Incur Debt
Yes
Special Tax Bonds to Incur
Debt
Yes
Open Space / Conservation
Fund
No
Stormwater Utility Fees
Yes
Capital Improvement Project
Funding
Yes
Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
No
Withheld spending in hazard-
prone areas
No
Other:
No
Education and outreach are important capabilities that allow a community to continue the conversation
with their public regarding hazard risk and opportunities to mitigate. Table 224 shows that Windsor
could benefit by expanding upon these capabilities.
Table 224. Education & Outreach Capabilities
Ph 1'1- , 1'1 Ii 1 1 111
Public Hazard Education /
Outreach Program
H x'111 : 1
No
�. il ril �l=�
Local Citizen Groups That
Communicate Hazard Risks
No
Firewise
No
NOAA StormReady Program
No
Other:
No
7.20.4 Mitigation Actions
The new mitigation actions identified by the Town during the Plan update are included in Table 225.
Two actions from the 2016 Plan have been carried over into the Town's updated mitigation strategy.
Table 225. 2021 Mitigation Actions
1F'/
2021-97
iiv _i i,11111H
1i
I -Windsor
Eastman Park Riverwalk Project
I Appendix B - 153
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
1F
2021-98
2021-99
2 -Windsor
3 -Windsor
Acquire Emergency Power System Transfer Switches -
Public Safety Complex
Flood Mitigation on CR 13
I Appendix B - 154
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
8 Appendix C: Earthquake Hazus Risk Report
I Appendix C -
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLQO TSUNAMI
FEMA
RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Hazus: Earthquake Global Risk Report
Region Name
Earthquake Scenario:
Print Date:
WeIdCO_Eq
Weld EQ 2,500yr Probabalistic 6.5
July 17, 2020
Disclaimer:
This version of Hazus utilizes 2010 Census Data.
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user's study region.
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology software
which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique. Therefore,
there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic losses following
a specific earthquake. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory, geotechnical, and observed ground motion data.
i-I ZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLQOQ TSUNAMI
FEMA
Table of Contents
Section
Page #
General Description of the Region
Building and Lifeline Inventory
Building Inventory
Critical Facility Inventory
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Earthquake Scenario Parameters
Direct Earthquake Damage
Buildings Damage
Essential Facilities Damage
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Induced Earthquake Damage
Fire Following Earthquake
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Casualties
Economic Loss
Building Related Losses
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
3
4
7
8
14
15
17
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 2 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
General Description of the Region
Hazus-MH is a regional earthquake loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology
and software application to develop multi -hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by
local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from multi -hazards and to prepare for emergency
response and recovery.
The earthquake loss estimates provided in this report was based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the following
state(s):
Colorado
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region.
The geographical size of the region is 4,015.73 square miles and contains 77 census tracts. There are over 89 thousand
households in the region which has a total population of 252,825 people (2010 Census Bureau data). The distribution of
population by Total Region and County is provided in Appendix B.
There are an estimated 90 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of
23,758 (millions of dollars). Approximately 92.00 % of the buildings (and 82.00% of the building value) are associated with
residential housing.
The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be 6,078 and 14,834 (millions of
dollars) , respectively.
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 3 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLQO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Building and Lifeline Inventory
Building Inventory
Hazus estimates that there are 90 thousand buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of
23,758 (millions of dollars) . Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by Total Region and County.
In terms of building construction types found in the region, wood frame construction makes up 66% of the building inventory.
The remaining percentage is distributed between the other general building types.
Critical Facility Inventory
Hazus breaks critical facilities into two (2) groups: essential facilities and high potential loss facilities (HPL). Essential
facilities include hospitals, medical clinics, schools, fire stations, police stations and emergency operations facilities. High
potential loss facilities include dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous material sites.
For essential facilities, there are 2 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 300 beds. There are 111 schools, 45 fire
stations, 22 police stations and 4 emergency operation facilities. With respect to high potential loss facilities (HPL), there
are no dams identified within the inventory. The inventory also includes 60 hazardous material sites, no military installations
and no nuclear power plants.
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Within Hazus, the lifeline inventory is divided between transportation and utility lifeline systems. There are seven (7)
transportation systems that include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry and airports. There are six (6) utility
systems that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude & refined oil, electric power and communications. The
lifeline inventory data are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
The total value of the lifeline inventory is over 20,912.00 (millions of dollars). This inventory includes over 507.04 miles of
highways, 600 bridges, 17,796.69 miles of pipes.
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 4 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Table 1: Transportation System Lifeline Inventory
System Component
Highway Bridges
Segments
Tunnels
Railways Bridges
Facilities
Segments
Tunnels
Light Rail Bridges
Facilities
Segments
Tunnels
Bus Facilities
Ferry Facilities
Port Facilities
Airport Facilities
Runways
# Locations/
# Segments
600
131
0
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total
95
0
285
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
6
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
753.3787
4185.4655
0.0000
4938.8442
418.9648
0.0000
493.9823
0.0000
912.9471
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.8225
2.8225
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
26.6373
197.0052
223.6425
6,078.30
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 5 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLQO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Table 2: Utility System Lifeline Inventory
System
Potable Water
Waste Water
Natural Gas
Oil Systems
Electrical Power
Communication
Component
Distribution Lines
Facilities
Pipelines
Distribution Lines
Facilities
Pipelines
Distribution Lines
Facilities
Pipelines
Facilities
Pipelines
Facilities
Facilities
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Total
# Locations /
Segments
NA
0
0
NA
60
0
NA
20
43
0
0
11
16
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
347.1444
0.0000
0.0000
347.1444
208.2866
7567.8281
0.0000
7776.1147
138.8577
30.8710
524.0924
693.8211
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
6016.3351
6016.3351
1.5520
1.5520
14,835.00
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 6 of 22
i-I ZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Earthquake Scenario
Hazus uses the following set of information to define the earthquake parameters used for the earthquake loss estimate
provided in this report.
Weld EQ 2,500yr Probabalistic 6.5
Scenario Name
Type of Earthquake
Fault Name
Historical Epicenter ID #
Probabilistic Return Period
Longitude of Epicenter
Latitude of Epicenter
Earthquake Magnitude
Depth (km)
Rupture Length (Km)
Rupture Orientation (degrees)
Attenuation Function
Probabilistic
NA
NA
2,500.00
NA
NA
6.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 7 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLQO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Direct Earthquake Damage
Building Damage
Hazus estimates that about 2,867 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 3.00 % of the buildings in the
region. There are an estimated 13 buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. The definition of the 'damage states' is
provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the Hazus technical manual. Table 3 below summarizes the expected damage by general
occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 4 below summarizes the expected damage by general building type.
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Damage Categories by General Occupancy Type
■
a�G��G� Z�e'
o4
G
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
•
• O
• Complete
• Extensive
Moderate
• Slight
None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%)
Agriculture 687.87 0.85 64.96 0.97 34.59 1.37 6.32 1.93 0.26 1.93
Commercial 3416.41 4.23 378.25 5.64 200.67 7.94 37.86 11.55 1.80 13.27
Education 129.41 0.16 11.73 0.17 5.90 0.23 0.92 0.28 0.04 0.33
Government 86.71 0.11 8.52 0.13 4.16 0.16 0.58 0.18 0.03 0.22
Industrial 1270.92 1.57 153.85 2.29 88.72 3.51 16.88 5.15 0.64 4.69
Other Residential 7702.04 9.54 1324.80 19.75 805.64 31.89 63.38 19.34 2.14 15.77
Religion 283.64 0.35 25.99 0.39 12.45 0.49 1.82 0.56 0.10 0.72
Single Family 67164.74 83.18 4739.68 70.66 1374.04 54.39 199.98 61.02 8.55 63.07
lTotal 80,742 6,708 2,526 328 14
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 8 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Building Type (All Design Levels)
None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%)
Wood 55227.73 68.40 3689.00 55.00 533.29 21.11 31.27 9.54 0.02 0.12
Steel 1260.54 1.56 143.82 2.14 92.43 3.66 14.69 4.48 0.78 5.72
Concrete 1030.28 1.28 116.24 1.73 52.08 2.06 5.56 1.70 0.14 1.06
Precast 1058.55 1.31 120.34 1.79 102.08 4.04 26.60 8.12 0.48 3.55
RM 14815.71 18.35 1052.24 15.69 735.24 29.10 131.80 40.21 0.63 4.65
URM 2060.26 2.55 414.49 6.18 245.59 9.72 60.58 18.48 9.62 70.94
MH 5288.65 6.55 1171.67 17.47 765.45 30.30 57.25 17.47 1.89 13.95
I Total 80,742 6,708 2,526 328 14
*Note:
RM Reinforced Masonry
URM Unreinforced Masonry
MH Manufactured Housing
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 9 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Essential Facility Damage
Before the earthquake, the region had 300 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model
estimates that only 246 hospital beds (82.00%) are available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by
the earthquake. After one week, 93.00% of the beds will be back in service. By 30 days, 99.00% will be operational.
Table 5: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
# Facilities
Classification Total At Least Moderate Complete With Functionality
Damage > 50% Damage > 50% > 50% on day 1
Hospitals 2 0 0 2
ISchools 111 0 0 111
IEOCs 4 0 0 4
IPoliceStations 22 0 0 22
IFireStations 45 0 0 45
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 10 of 22
i-I ZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLQOQ TSUNAMI
FEMA
Transportation Lifeline Damage
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 11 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLQO TSUNAMI
_7„
_1/2",„
FEMA
Table 6: Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems
System
Component Locations/ With at Least With Complete
Segments Mod. Damage Damage
Number of Locations_
Highway Segments 131
Bridges 600
Tunnels 0
Railways Segments 285
Bridges 95
Tunnels 0
Facilities 0
Light Rail Segments 0
Bridges 0
Tunnels 0
Facilities 0
Bus Facilities 2
Ferry Facilities 0
Port Facilities 0
Airport Facilities 3
Runways 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
With Functionality > 50 %
After Day 1 After Day 7
0 131 131
0 600 600
0 0 0
0 285 285
0 95 95
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 2 2
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 3 3
0 6 6
Table 6 provides damage estimates for the transportation system.
Note: Roadway segments, railroad tracks and light rail tracks are assumed to be damaged by ground failure only. If ground
failure maps are not provided, damage estimates to these components will not be computed.
Tables 7-9 provide information on the damage to the utility lifeline systems. Table 7 provides damage to the utility system
facilities. Table 8 provides estimates on the number of leaks and breaks by the pipelines of the utility systems. For electric
power and potable water, Hazus performs a simplified system performance analysis. Table 9 provides a summary of the
system performance information.
Earthquake Global Risk Report
Page 12 of 22
i-I ZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Table 7 : Expected Utility System Facility Damage
# of Locations
System Total # With at Least With Complete with Functionality > 50
Moderate Damage Damage After Day 1 After Day 7
Potable Water 0 0 0 0 0
Waste Water 60 0 0 60 60
Natural Gas 20 0 0 20 20
Oil Systems 0 0 0 0 0
Electrical Power 11 0 0 11 11
Communication 16 0 0 16 16
Table 8 : Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific)
[System
Potable Water
Waste Water
Natural Gas
Oil
Total Pipelines Number of Number of
Length (miles) Leaks Breaks
10,785 111 28
6,471 56 14 I
541 0 °I
0 0 0I
I
Potable Water
Electric Power
Table 9: Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance
Total # of
Households
89,349
Number of Households without Service
1
At Day 1 At Day 3 At Day 7 At Day 30 At Day 90 l
0 0 0 0 0I
0 0 0 0 0J
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 13 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOOD' TSUNAMI
FEMA
Induced Earthquake Damage
Fire Following Earthquake
Fires often occur after an earthquake. Because of the number of fires and the lack of water to fight the fires, they can often
burn out of control. Hazus uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the number of ignitions and the amount of burnt
area. For this scenario, the model estimates that there will be 0 ignitions that will burn about 0.00 sq. mi 0.00 % of the
region's total area.) The model also estimates that the fires will displace about 11 people and burn about 0 (millions of
dollars) of building value.
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the earthquake. The model breaks the debris into two
general categories: a) Brick/Wood and b) Reinforced Concrete/Steel. This distinction is made because of the different types
of material handling equipment required to handle the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 61,000 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Brick/Wood comprises
44.00% of the total, with the remainder being Reinforced Concrete/Steel. If the debris tonnage is converted to an estimated
number of truckloads, it will require 2,440 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated by the earthquake.
Earthquake Debris (millions of tons)
0.00 0.01
Brick/ Wood
0.03
0.02 0.03 0.04
Reinforced Concrete/Steel
0.03
0.05 0.06
Total Debris
0.06
0.07
• Total Debris
Total Debris Wood
• Total Debris Steel
Truck Load
2,440 (@25 tons/truck)
Earthquake Global Risk Report
Page 14 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLQO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Social Impact
Shelter Requirement
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the earthquake and
the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 56
households to be displaced due to the earthquake. Of these, 41 people (out of a total population of 252,825) will seek
temporary shelter in public shelters.
Displaced Households/ Persons Seeking Short Term Public Shelter
Displaced households
• as a result of the
earthquake
Person seeking
temporary public shelter
20
Displaced households
as a result of the
earthquake
0 40
50
Persons seeking
temporary public shelter
56 41
Casualties
Hazus estimates the number of people that will be injured and killed by the earthquake. The casualties are broken down into
four (4) severity levels that describe the extent of the injuries. The levels are described as follows;
• Severity Level 1:Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed.
• Severity Level 2: Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life -threatening
• Severity Level 3: Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not
promptly treated.
• Severity Level 4:Victims are killed by the earthquake.
The casualty estimates are provided for three (3) times of day: 2:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These times represent the
periods of the day that different sectors of the community are at their peak occupancy loads. The 2:00 AM estimate
considers that the residential occupancy load is maximum, the 2:00 PM estimate considers that the educational, commercial
and industrial sector loads are maximum and 5:00 PM represents peak commute time.
Table 10 provides a summary of the casualties estimated for this earthquake
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 15 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Table 10: Casualty Estimates
1
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
2 AM Commercial 0.65 0.08 0.01 0.01
Commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Educational 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 0.96 0.12 0.01 0.01
Other -Residential 9.80 1.00 0.03 0.05
Single Family 25.13 2.80 0.19 0.36
Total 37 4 0 0
2 PM Commercial 36.97 4.82 0.35 0.67
Commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Educational 8.16 1.04 0.07 0.14
Hotels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 7.05 0.86 0.05 0.10
Other -Residential 1.71 0.18 0.01 0.01
Single Family 4.45 0.51 0.04 0.07
Total 58 7 1 1
5 PM Commercial 26.82 3.52 0.26 0.49
Commuting 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00
Educational 0.69 0.08 0.01 0.01
Hotels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 4.41 0.54 0.03 0.06
Other -Residential 3.56 0.37 0.01 0.02
Single Family 9.68 1.12 0.08 0.15
Total 45 6 0 1
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 16 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the earthquake is 591.16 (millions of dollars), which includes building and lifeline
related losses based on the region's available inventory. The following three sections provide more detailed information about
these losses.
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 17 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLQOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Building -Related Losses
The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct building
losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business
interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the
earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their
homes because of the earthquake.
The total building -related losses were 225.36 (millions of dollars); 17 % of the estimated losses were related to the business
interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 67 % of
the total loss. Table 11 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage.
Earthquake Losses by Loss Type ($ millions)
• Capital -Related 2%
Content 20%
• Inventory 1%
• Non_Structural 48%
• Relocation 9%
Rental 3%
• Structural 15%
Wage 3%
Total: 100%
Earthquake Losses by Occupancy Type ($
millions)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Table 11: Building -Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Millions of dollars)
• Single
Family
Other
Residential
• Commercial
• Industrial
• Others
Category Area
Income Losses
Single Other Commercial Industrial Others Total
Family Residential
Wage 0.0000 0.2607 5.2852 0.3232
Capital -Related 0.0000 0.1108 4.4391 0.1968
Rental 3.1903 1.1996 3.0274 0.1487
Relocation 11.2207 1.8800 4.7551 0.8236
Subtotal 14.4110 3.4511 17.5068 1.4923
0.3174
0.0954
0.1182
1.2949
1.8259
6.1865
4.8421
7.6842
19.9743
38.6871
Capital Stock Losses
Structural 18.7196 3.5174 5.9484 1.9111
Non_Structural 68.5934 13.4523 14.6696 6.4049
Content 25.4993 3.2462 8.8047 4.2255
Inventory 0.0000 0.0000 0.2671 0.7912
Subtotal 112.8123 20.2159 29.6898 13.3327
Total
127.22 23.67
47.20 14.83
2.7996
4.5516
3.0627
0.2063
10.6202
32.8961
107.6718
44.8384
1.2646
186.6709
)
12.45225.36
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 18 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
For the transportation and utility lifeline systems, Hazus computes the direct repair cost for each component only. There are
no losses computed by Hazus for business interruption due to lifeline outages. Tables 12 & 13 provide a detailed breakdown
in the expected lifeline losses.
Table 12: Transportation System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
System Component
Highway Segments
Bridges
Tunnels
Subtotal
Railways Segments
Bridges
Tunnels
Facilities
Subtotal
Light Rail Segments
Bridges
Tunnels
Facilities
Subtotal
Bus Facilities
Subtotal
Ferry Facilities
Subtotal
Port Facilities
Subtotal
Airport Facilities
Runways
Subtotal
Total
Inventory Value
4185.4655
753.3787
0.0000
4938.8442
493.9823
418.9648
0.0000
0.0000
912.9471
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.8225
2.8225
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
26.6373
197.0052
223.6425
6,078.26
Economic Loss Loss Ratio (%)
0.0000
0.4211
0.0000
0.4211
0.0000
0.0031
0.0000
0.0000
0.0031
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1657
0.1657
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.9710
0.0000
1.9710
2.56
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.87
0.00
0.00
7.40
0.00
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 19 of 22
i-PAZ'S
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Table 13: Utility System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
System
Component
Potable Water Pipelines
Facilities
Distribution Line
Subtotal
Waste Water Pipelines
Facilities
Distribution Line
Subtotal
Natural Gas
Pipelines
Facilities
Distribution Line
Subtotal
Oil Systems Pipelines
Facilities
Subtotal
Electrical Power Facilities
Subtotal
Communication Facilities
Subtotal
Inventory Value Economic Loss Loss Ratio (%)
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
347.1444 0.4994
347.1444 0.4994
0.0000 0.0000
7567.8281 219.4115
208.2866 0.2508
7776.1147 219.6623
524.0924 0.0000
30.8710 0.5886
138.8577 0.0859
693.8211 0.6745
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
6016.3351 142.3586
6016.3351 142.3586
1.5520 0.0415
1.5520 0.0415
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
2.90
0.12
0.00
1.91
0.06
0.00
0.00
2.37
2.67
Total
L J
14,834.97 363.24
Earthquake Global Risk Report
Page 20 of 22
i-I ZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLQOQ TSUNAMI
FEMA
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Weld,CO
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 21 of 22
i-I ZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND • FLOO TSUNAMI
FEMA
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
State
County Name Population
Building Value (millions of dollars)
Residential Non -Residential Total
Colorado
Weld
252,825 19,447
4,310 23,758
`Total Region
252,825 19,447
4,310 23,758)
Earthquake Global Risk Report Page 22 of 22
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
9 Appendix D: Flood Hazus Risk Report
I Appendix D -
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLOb - • TSUNAMI
Hazus: Flood Global Risk Report
Region Name:
Flood Scenario:
Print Date:
WeIdFL100
100yr
Thursday, July 30, 2020
Disclaimer:
This version of Hazus utilizes 2010 Census Data.
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user's study region.
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology
software which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation
technique. Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social
and economic losses following a specific Flood. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory data and flood hazard
information.
FEMA RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLOb$ •• TSUNAMI
Table of Contents
Section
Page #
General Description of the Region
Building Inventory
General Building Stock
Essential Facility Inventory
Flood Scenario Parameters
Building Damage
General Building Stock
Essential Facilities Damage
Induced Flood Damage
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Economic Loss
Building -Related Losses
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
10
12
15
16
FEMA RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 2 of 16
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLOb - • TSUNAMI
General Description of the Region
Hazus is a regional multi -hazard loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). The primary purpose of
Hazus is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi -hazard losses at a regional scale.
These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts
to reduce risks from multi -hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery.
The flood loss estimates provided in this report were based on a region that included 1 county(ies) from the
following state(s):
_ Colorado
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region .
The geographical size of the region is approximately 4,017 square miles and contains 9,901 census blocks. The
region contains over 89 thousand households and has a total population of 252,825 people (2010 Census Bureau
data). The distribution of population by State and County for the study region is provided in Appendix B .
There are an estimated 90,317 buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of
23,758 million dollars. Approximately 92.32% of the buildings (and 81.86% of the building value) are associated
with residential housing.
FEMA RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 3 of 16
HAZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLObU TSUNAMI
Building Inventory
General Building Stock
Hazus estimates that there are 90,317 buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of
23,758 million dollars. Table 1 and Table 2 present the relative distribution of the value with respect to the general
occupancies by Study Region and Scenario respectively. Appendix B provides a general distribution of the
building value by State and County.
Table 1
Building Exposure by Occupancy Type for the Study Region
Occupancy
Exposure ($1000) Percent of Total
Residential
19,447,624 81.9%
Commercial
2,574,702
10.8%
Industrial
791,666
3.3%
Agricultural
Religion
Government
Education
378,289
235,458
72,385
257,935
1.6%
1.0%
0.3%
Total
23,758,059
100%
Building Exposure by Occupancy Type for the Study Region
($1000's)
•
▪ Residential $19,447,624
Commercial $2,574,702
▪ Industiral $791,666
▪ Agricultural $378,289
▪ Religion $235,458
Government $72,385
▪ Education $257,935
Total: $23,758,059
FEMA
RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 4 of 16
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLOb - • TSUNAMI
Table 2
Building Exposure by Occupancy Type for the Scenario
Occupancy
Exposure ($1000) Percent of Total
Residential
2,359,273 72.1%
Commercial
339,621
10.4%
Industrial
269,466
206,103
8.2%
Agricultural
6.3%
Religion
Government
Education
Total
27,009
9,262
60,607
3,271,341
0.8%
0.3%
1.9%
100%
Building Exposure by Occupancy Type for the Scenario ($1000's)
▪ Residential $2,359,273
Commercial $339,621
▪ Industrial $269,466
▪ Agricultural $206,103
▪ Religion $27,009
Government $9,262
▪ Education $60,607
Total: $3,271,341
Essential Facility Inventory
For essential facilities, there are 2 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 300 beds.
There are 111 schools, 45 fire stations, 22 police stations and 4 emergency operation centers.
FEMA RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 5 of 16
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLOb$ • TSUNAMI
Flood Scenario Parameters
Hazus used the following set of information to define the flood parameters for the flood loss estimate provided in
this report.
Study Region Name:
Scenario Name:
Return Period Analyzed:
Analysis Options Analyzed:
WeldFL100
100yr
100
No What -Ifs
Study Region Overview Map
Illustrating scenario flood extent, as well as exposed essential facilities and total exposure
FEMA
RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 6 of 16
HAZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLObU TSUNAMI
Building Damage
General Building Stock Damage
Hazus estimates that about 725 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 71% of the total
number of buildings in the scenario. There are an estimated 11 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The
definition of the 'damage states' is provided in the Hazus Flood Technical Manual. Table 3 below summarizes the
expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 4 summarizes the expected
damage by general building type.
Total Economic Loss (1 dot = $300K) Overview Map
FEMA
RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 7 of 16
HAZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLObU TSUNAMI
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
Occupancy
1-10
11-20
21-30 31-40
41-50 >50
Count (%) Count (%)
Count (%) Count (%)
Count (%) Count (%)
Agriculture 6 86 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Government 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 324 31 476 45 137 13 77 7 23 2 11 1
Total
331
477
137
77
23
11
Counts By Damage Level
▪ Damage Level 1-10 331
Damage Level 11-20 477
▪ Damage Level 21-30 137
▪ Damage Level 31-40 77
▪ Damage Level 41-50 23
Damage Level >50 11
Total: 1056
FEMA
RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 8 of 16
HAZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLObU TSUNAMI
Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Building Type
Building
Type
1-10 11-20
21-30 31-40
41-50 >50
Count (%) Count (%)
Count (%) Count (%)
Count (%) Count (%)
Concrete 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ManufHousing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100
Masonry 48 31 79 50 18 11 9 6 2 1 1 1
Steel 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wood 281 31 397 44 119 13 68 8 21 2 9 1
FEMA RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 9 of 16
HAZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLObU •TSUNAMI
Essential Facility Damage
Before the flood analyzed in this scenario, the region had 300 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the
scenario flood event, the model estimates that 300 hospital beds are available in the region.
Table 5: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
# Facilities
Classification Total
At Least At Least
Moderate Substantial
Loss of Use
Emergency Operation Centers
Fire Stations
Hospitals
Police Stations
Schools
4 0
45
2
22
111
4
0
2
4
0 0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
4
If this report displays all zeros or is blank, two possibilities can explain this.
(1) None of your facilities were flooded. This can be checked by mapping the inventory data on the depth grid.
(2) The analysis was not run. This can be tested by checking the run box on the Analysis Menu and seeing if a message
box asks you to replace the existing results.
FEMA RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 10 of 16
HAZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLObU •TSUNAMI
Induced Flood Damage
Debris Generation
Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the flood. The model breaks debris into
three general categories: 1) Finishes (dry wall, insulation, etc.), 2) Structural (wood, brick, etc.) and 3)
Foundations (concrete slab, concrete block, rebar, etc.). This distinction is made because of the different
types of material handling equipment required to handle the debris.
Analysis has not been performed for this Scenario.
FEMA RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 11 of 16
HAZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLObU •TSUNAMI
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the
flood and the associated potential evacuation. Hazus also estimates those displaced people that will
require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 2,757 households (or 8,272
of people) will be displaced due to the flood. Displacement includes households evacuated from within or
very near to the inundated area. Of these, 254 people (out of a total population of 252,825) will seek
temporary shelter in public shelters.
Displaced Population/Persons Seeking Short Term Public Shelter
8,272
0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
• Shelter
Persons Seeking
Displaced Population
FEMA
RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 12 of 16
HAZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLObU •TSUNAMI
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the flood is 456.78 million dollars, which represents 13.96 % of the total
replacement value of the scenario buildings.
Building -Related Losses
The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The
direct building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its
contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business
because of the damage sustained during the flood. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living
expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the flood.
The total building -related losses were 250.79 million dollars. 45% of the estimated losses were related to the
business interruption of the region. The residential occupancies made up 41.51% of the total loss. Table 6 below
provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage.
FEMA RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 13 of 16
HAZVS
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLObU TSUNAMI
Table 6: Building -Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Millions of dollars)
Category Area
Residential
Commercial Industrial Others Total
Building Loss
Building
Content
Inventory
Subtotal
Business Interruption
Income
Relocation
Rental Income
Wage
Subtotal
ALL Total
90.60
47.83
0.00
138.44
0.24
38.74
11.65
0.57
51.19
189.63
9.12
27.22
0.93
37.27
26.12
6.87
5.05
27.54
65.58
102.85
8.99
21.81
3.65
34.44
1.08
0.99
0.24
1.73
4.03
38.48
8.36
30.37
1.91
40.64
18.15
8.74
0.59
57.71
85.19
117.08
127.23
6.49
250.79
45.58
55.34
17.53
87.54
205.99
125.82 456.78
Losses by Occupancy Types ($M)
▪ Residential $190
Commercial $103
▪ Industrial $38
▪ Other $126
Total: $457
FEMA
RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 14 of 16
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLOb$ •• TSUNAMI
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Colorado
Weld
FEMA RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 15 of 16
EARTHQUAKE • WIND - FLOb$ •• TSUNAMI
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
Building Value (thousands of dollars)
Population
Residential Non -Residential Total
Colorado
Weld
252,825 19,447,624
4,310,435 23,758,059
Total
252,825 19,447,624
4,310,435 23,758,059
Total Study Region
252,825 19,447,624
4,310,435 23,758,059
FEMA RiskMAP
Increasing Resilience Together
Flood Global Risk Report
Page 16 of 16
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
I 0 Appendix E: Wildfire Risk Assessment Summary Report
I Appendix E -
e R1rnue+�cv � 14Ni:,F r�F vi
2017
COLORADO WILDFIRE
RISK ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY REPORT
COLORADO STATE
FOREST SERVICE
COLORADO STATE
UNIVERSITY
Report was generated using
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Report version: 1.1.0
Report generated: 2020-10-13
Table of Contents
Disclaimer 1
Introduction 2
Products 2
Wildland Urban Interface 9
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Risk Index 9
Firewise USA 13
Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) 15
Wildfire Risk 30
Burn Probability 33
Values at Risk Rating 36
Suppression Difficulty Rating 39
Fire Occurrence 42
Fire Behavior 45
Characteristic Rate of Spread 47
Characteristic Flame Length 50
Fire Intensity Scale 53
Fire Type — Extreme Weather 57
Surface Fuels 61
Vegetation 65
Drinking Water Importance Areas 70
Drinking Water Risk Index 74
Riparian Assets 77
Riparian Assets Risk Index 80
Forest Assets 83
Forest Assets Risk Index 84
References 87
Disclaimer
Colorado State Forest Service makes no warranties or guarantees, either expressed or implied as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data portrayed in this product
nor accepts any liability, arising from any incorrect, incomplete or misleading information contained therein. All information, data and databases are provided "As Is" with no
warranty, expressed or implied, including but not limited to, fitness for a particular purpose.
User should also note that property boundaries included in any product do not represent an on -the -ground survey suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. They
represent only the approximate relative locations.
Introduction
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment Report
Welcome to the Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment Summary Reporting Tool.
This tool allows users of the Risk Reduction Planner application of the Colorado Forest Atlas web portal to define a specific project area and generate information for this area. A
detailed risk summary report can be generated using a set of predefined map products developed by the Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment project which have been summarized
explicitly for the user defined project area. The report is generated in PDF format.
The report has been designed so that information from the report can be copied
and pasted into other specific plans, reports, or documents depending on user
needs. Examples include, but are not limited to, Community Wildfire Protection
Plans, Local Fire Plans, Fuels Mitigation Plans, Hazard Mitigation Plans,
Homeowner Risk Assessments, and Forest Management or Stewardship Plans.
Example templates for some of these reports are available for download on the
Colorado Forest Atlas web portal.
The Colorado WRA provides a consistent, comparable set of scientific results to
be used as a foundation for wildfire mitigation and prevention planning in
Colorado.
Results of the assessment can be used to help prioritize areas in the state where
mitigation treatments, community interaction and education, or tactical analyses
might be necessary to reduce risk from wildfires.
The Colorado WRA products included in this report are designed to provide the
information needed to support the following key priorities:
• Identify areas that are most prone to wildfire
• Plan and prioritize hazardous fuel treatment programs
• Allow agencies to work together to better define priorities and improve
emergency response, particularly across jurisdictional boundaries
• Increase communication with local residents and the public to address
community priorities and needs
Products
Each product in this report is accompanied by a general description, table, chart and/or map. A list of available Colorado WRA products in this report is provided in the following
table.
COWRA Product
Description
Wildfire Risk
Burn Probability
Fire Intensity Scale
Wildland Urban
Interface
Wildland Urban
Interface Risk
Values at Risk Rating
Suppression Difficulty
Rating
Drinking Water Risk
Index
Forest Assets Risk
Index
Riparian Assets Risk
Index
Characteristic Flame
Length
The overall composite risk occurring from a wildfire derived by combining Burn Probability and Values at
Risk Rating
Annual probability of any location burning due to wildfire
Quantifies the potential fire intensity by orders of magnitude
Housing density depicting where humans and their structures meet or intermix with wildland fuel
Annual probability of any location burning due to wildfire
A composite rating of values and assets that would be adversely impacted by a wildfire by combining
the four main risk outputs
Reflects the difficulty or relative cost to suppress a fire given the terrain and vegetation conditions that
may impact machine operability
A measure of the risk to Drinking Water Risk Index Areas (DWIA) based on the potential negative
impacts from wildfire
A measure of the risk to forested areas based on the potential negative impacts from wildfire
A measure of the risk to riparian areas based on the potential negative impacts from wildfire
A measure of the expected flame length of a potential fire
COWRA Product Description
Characteristic Rate of Spread A measure of the expected rate of spread of a potential fire
Fire Type Extreme Weather Represents the potential fire type under the extreme percentile weather category
Surface Fuels A measure of the expected rate of spread of a potential fire
Characteristic Rate of Spread Characterization of surface fuel models that contain the parameters for calculating fire behavior
outputs
Vegetation General vegetation and landcover types
Forest Assets Identifies forested land categorized by susceptibility or response to fire
Riparian Assets Forested riparian areas characterized by functions of water quantity and quality, and ecology
Drinking Water Importance A measure of quality and quantity of public surface drinking water categorized by watershed
Areas
Wildland Urban Interface
Description
Colorado is one of the fastest growing states in the Nation, with much of this growth
occurring outside urban boundaries. This increase in population across the state will
impact counties and communities that are located within the Wildland Urban
Interface (WUI). The WUI is described as the area where structures and other human
improvements meet and intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.
Population growth within the WUI substantially increases the risk from wildfire.
For the Weld HMP project area, it is estimated that 174,680 people or 59.2 %
percent of the total project area population (294,924) live within the WUI.
The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) layer reflects housing density depicting
where humans and their structures meet or intermix with wildland fuels. In the
past, conventional wildland-urban interface datasets, such as USFS SILVIS, have
been used to reflect these concerns. However, USFS SILVIS and other existing data
sources did not provide the level of detail needed by the Colorado State Forest
Service and local fire protection agencies.
The new WUI dataset is derived using advanced modeling techniques based on the
Where People Live dataset and 2016 LandScan USA population count data available
from the Department of Homeland Security, HSIP dataset. WUI is simply a subset of
the Where People Live dataset. The primary difference is populated areas surrounded
by sufficient non -burnable areas (i.e. interior urban areas) are removed from the
Where People Live dataset, as these areas are not expected to be directly impacted by
a wildfire. This accommodates WUI areas based on encroachment into urban areas
where wildland fire is likely to spread.
A more detailed description of the risk assessment
from www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org.
Data are modeled at a 30 -meter cell resolution (30
number of houses per acre. Class breaks are based
algorithms is provided in the Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment (Colorado WRA) Final Report, which can be downloaded
m2 or 900 m area per map cell), which is consistent with other Colorado WRA layers. The WUI classes are based on the
on densities understood and commonly used for fire protection planning.
Housing Density
WUI Population Percent of WUI Population WUI Acres Percent of WUI Acres
Less than 1 house/40 ac
1 house/40 ac to 1 house/20 ac
1 house/20 ac to 1 house/10 ac
1 house/10 ac to 1 house/5 ac
1 house/5 ac to 1 house/2 ac
1 house/2 ac to 3 houses/ac
More than 3 houses/ac
Total
1,568
4,230
7,172
7,949
12,303
87,152
54,306
174,680
0.9 % 36,099
2.4 % 30,511
4.1 % 25,016
4.6 % 15,642
7.0 % 13,836
49.9 % 21,974
31.1 % 3,928
100.0 % 147,007
24.6
20.8
17.0 %
10.6
9.4
14.9 %
2.7
100.0 %
VVildland Urban Interface
87 152
_- -
a•
54 306
1
12 303
1 565
7 172
4 230
7-919
42.
.� .5 {-1 L- 1 I �l f} Crl -- r' -I
I
r••1 • 1 . I I,:;
Weld HMP
36 049
34 511
I5 016
21 974
It *I
JP
15 642
13 836
}
3 928
I . . 1 1 h.-1,,•..`1'.! to 1 ! :_ �� _• - I.; 1
1410; -2 C! i,
Weld HMP
Wildiand Urban Interface
Cheyenne
r.lrl I I I1•I
Less than 1 house/40 ac
1 house/40 ac to 1 house:20 ac
1 house/20 ac to 1 house/10 ac
1 house/10 at to 1 house/5 ac
1 house/5 ac to 1 house'2 ac
1 house/2 ac to 3 houseslac
® More than 3 houses'ac
20 m 1
GI)
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Risk Index
Description
The Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Risk Index layer is a rating of the
potential impact of a wildfire on people and their homes. The key input, WUI,
reflects housing density (houses per acre) consistent with Federal Register National
standards. The location of people living in the wildland-urban interface and rural
areas is essential for defining potential wildfire impacts to people and homes.
The WUI Risk Index is derived using a response function modeling approach.
Response functions are a method of assigning a net change in the value to a resource
or asset based on susceptibility to fire at different intensity levels, such as flame
length.
To calculate the WUI Risk Index, the WUI housing density data were combined with
flame length data and response functions were defined to represent potential impacts.
The response functions were defined by a team of experts led by Colorado State
Forest
Service mitigation planning staff. By combining flame length with the WUI housing
density data, it is possible to determine where the greatest potential impact to homes
and people is likely to occur.
The range of values is from -1 to -9, with -1 representing the least negative impact
and -9 representing the most negative impact. For example, areas with high housing
density and high flame lengths are rated -9, while areas with low housing density and
low flame lengths are rated -1.
The WUI Risk Index has been calculated consistently for all areas in Colorado,
which allows for comparison and ordination of areas across the entire state. Data are
modeled at a 30 -meter cell resolution, which is consistent with other Colorado WRA
layers.
WUI Risk Class Acres Percent
- 1 (Least Negative Impact) 24,804 16.3 %
- 2 54,930 36.1 %
- 3 27,001 17.7 %
- 4 17,738 11.6
- 5 15,046 9.9
- 6 6,450 4.2
- 7 5,756 3.8
8 440 0.3 %
- 9 (Most Negative Impact) 190 0.1
Total 100 %
152,356
Weld HMP
.i�'��-:� -illif,=I f�.: Iii•:;==
54 930
27 001
24 8O4
17 738
15 046
-t (LE,, t
r)
6 454
5 756
•
S. 1
440
190
Weld HMP
Wildiand Urban Interface Risk
Laiamie
-1 (Least Negative Impact)
- z
CIi a a n n?
- 3
- 4
-5
- 6
- 8
® -9 (Most Negative Impact)
20 1711
(ND
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.erg
Firewise USA®
Description
Firewise USA® is a national recognition program that provides resources to inform communities how to adapt to living with wildfire and encourages neighbors to take action
together to reduce their wildfire risk. Colorado communities that take the following five steps can be recognized as Firewise:
1. Form a Firewise board or committee
2. Obtain a wildfire risk assessment from the CSFS or local fire department, and create an
action plan
3. Hold a Firewise event once per year
4. Invest a minimum of $24.14 per dwelling unit in local Firewise actions annually
5. Create a National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) profile and follow the
application directions located at https://portal.firewise.org/user/login
The Firewise USA® dataset defines the boundaries of the recognized communities. Mapping Firewise USA®
boundaries will generally be completed by CSFS staff.
Lid
NFPA
FIREWISE USA
Residents reducing wildfire risks
Note: These are estimated boundaries using a variety of methods with varying degrees of accuracy. These are not legal boundaries and should not be construed as such. The
boundaries may overlap with CWPP areas and are subject to change over time as the communities develop, change, and continue to implement wildfire mitigation efforts.
To learn more about the Firewise USA® recognition program or to fill out an application, visit https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/By-topic/Wildfire/Firewise-USA - OR -
https://csfs. colostate. edu/wildfire-mitigation/colorado-firewise-communities/
Weld HMP
Fire Wise Communities
Lir.mmie
Fire Wise Communities 2018
Aurora
Lit tl6lcn
.li
`•tfrliiiu
20m1 I GI)
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAdas.org
Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs)
Description
A Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is a document developed and agreed upon by a community to identify how the community will reduce its wildfire risk. CWPPs
identify areas where fuels reduction is needed to reduce wildfire threats to communities and critical infrastructure, address protection of homes and other structures, and plan for
wildfire response capability. The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) supports the development and implementation of CWPPs and provides resources, educational materials
and information to those interested in developing CWPPs.
The CWPP dataset represents the boundaries of those areas that have developed a
CWPP. Note that CWPPs can be developed by different groups at varying scales, such
as county, Fire Protection District (FPD), community/subdivision, HOA, etc., and as
such, can overlap. In addition, the CWPPs can be from different dates. Often a county
CWPP is completed first with subsequently more detailed CWPPs done for local
communities within that county or FPD. CO -WRAP provides a tool that allows the user
to select the CWPP area and retrieve the CWPP document for review (PDF).
At a minimum, a CWPP should include:
• The wildland-urban interface (WUI) boundary, defined on a map, where people,
structures and other community values are most likely to be negatively impacted
by wildfire
• The CSFS, local fire authority and local government involvement and any
additional stakeholders
• A narrative that identifies the community's values and fuel hazards
• The community's plan for when a wildfire occurs
• An implementation plan that identifies areas of high priority for fuels treatments
CWPPs are not shelf documents and should be reviewed, tracked and updated. A plan
stays alive when it is periodically updated to address the accomplishments of the
community. Community review of progress in meeting plan objectives and determining
areas of new concern where actions must be taken to reduce wildfire risk helps the
community stay current with changing environment and wildfire mitigation priorities.
Community input is the foundation of a Community Wildfire
Protection Plan that identfies community needs and garners
community support.
If your community is in an area at risk from wildfire, now is a good time to start working with neighbors on a CWPP and preparing forfuture wildfires. Contact your local CSFS
district to learn how to start this process and create a CWPP for your community: http://csfs.colostate.edu/pages/your-local-forester.html
For the Weld HMP test project area, there are 5 CWPPs areas that are totally or partially in the defined project area.
Community CWPP Name CWPP Type CSFS District Acres inside project area Total Acres
Larimer County
Logan County
Boulder County CWPP
Berthoud FPD
Poudre Fire Authority
County
County
County
FPD
FPD
Fort Collins
Fort Morgan
Boulder
Fort Collins
Fort Collins
51
62
6
20,540
5,682
1,684,188
1,180,521
473,517
63,105
150,739
Total Acres
26,341 3,552,071
Pa n
National
C,r assl antls
•
Community
FPD
County
20 mi
I CO
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Wildfire Risk
Description
Wildfire Risk is a composite risk rating obtained by combining the probability of a fire occurring with the individual values at risk layers. Risk is defined as the
possibility of loss or harm occurring from a wildfire. It identifies areas with the greatest potential impacts from a wildfire — i.e. those areas most at risk - considering all values
and assets combined together — WUI Risk, Drinking Water Risk, Forest Assets Risk and Riparian Areas Risk.
Since all areas in Colorado have risk calculated consistently, it allows for
comparison and ordination of areas across the entire state. The Values at Risk
Rating is a key component of Wildfire Risk. The Values at Risk Rating is
comprised of several inputs focusing on values and assets at risk. This includes
Wildland Urban Interface, Forest Assets, Riparian Assets and Drinking Water
Importance Areas (watersheds).
To aid in the use of Wildfire Risk for planning activities, the output values are
categorized into five (5) classes. These are given general descriptions from
Lowest to Highest Risk.
Wildfire Risk Class Acres Percent
Non -Burnable 566,788 22.1
Lowest Risk 1,296,579 50.5 %
Low Risk 409,102 15.9 %
Moderate Risk 295,735 11.5 %
High Risk 628 0.0
Highest Risk 0 0
Total 2,568,832 100 %
Weld HMP
1 296 579
409 102
295 735
c.,-;-E-Hi „1:4
628
0
Weld HMP
Wildfire Risk
Lii.imie
Cheyenne
Non -Burnable
Lowest Risk
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
r.. High Risk
El Highest Risk
20 mi
GI)
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Burn Probability
Description
Burn Probability (BP) is the annual probability of any location burning due to a wildfire. BP is calculated as the number of times that a 30 -meter cell on the landscape is
burned from millions of fire simulations. The annual BP was estimated by using a stochastic (Monte Carlo) wildfire simulation approach with Technosylva's Wildfire Analyst
software (www.WildfireAnalyst.com).
A total number of 3,200,000 fires were simulated across the state, including those fires outside the Colorado border which were used in a buffer area around the state, to compute
BP with a mean ignition density of 8.68 fires/km2. The simulation ignition points were spatially distributed evenly every 500 meters across the state. Only high and extreme
weather conditions were used to run the simulations. All fires simulations had a duration of 10 hours.
The Wildfire Analyst fire simulator considered the number of times that the simulated fires burned each
cell. After that, results were weighted by considering the historical fire occurrence of those fires that
burned in high and extreme weather conditions. The weighting was done by assessing the relationship
between the annual historical fire ignition density in Colorado and the total number of simulated fires with
varying input data in the different weather scenarios and the historical spatial distribution of the ignition
points.
The probability map is derived at a 30 -meter resolution. This scale of data was chosen to be consistent
with the accuracy of the primary surface fuels dataset used in the assessment. While not appropriate for
site specific analysis, it is appropriate for regional, county or local protection mitigation or prevention
planning.
To aid in the use of Burn Probability for planning activities, the output values are categorized into 10 (ten)
classes. These are given general descriptions from Lowest to Highest Probability.
A more detailed description of the risk assessment algorithms is provided in the Colorado WRA Final
Report, which can be downloaded from www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org.
Burn Probability
Class
Acres Percent
Non -Burnable
Very Low
Very Low -Low
Low
Low -Moderate
Moderate
Moderate -High
High
High -Very High
Very High
1,949
169,929
425,856
337,235
233,392
562,828
273,235
0.1
8.5
21.2
16.8
11.6 %
28.1
13.6
859 0.0%
0 0%
0 0%
2,005,283 100 %
Weld HMP
562 B28
425 B56
337 235 _
273 235
233 392
189 929
1 949 859
IIr:;1
.111P.
Lu ir•1 -
I ii:I I:If �r,t
I- I
0 0
I�I':1I•I.�l. , r
FII:.I I
Vhf y IJ.'.111
Weld HMP
La'Arlie
Cheyenne
Burn Probability
Non -Burnable
Very Low
Veit' Low -Low
Low
Low -Moderate
Moderate
Moderate -High
High
High -Very High
Very High
20mi
GI)
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Values at Risk Rating
Description
Represents those values or assets that would be adversely impacted by a wildfire. The Values at Risk Rating is an overall rating that combines the risk ratings for Wildland
Urban Interface (WUI), Forest Assets, Riparian Assets, and Drinking Water Importance Areas into a single measure of values -at -risk. The individual ratings for each value layer
were derived using a Response Function approach.
Response functions are a method of assigning a net change in the value to a resource or asset based on susceptibility to fire at different intensity levels. A resource or asset is any
of the Fire Effects input layers, such as WUI, Forest Assets, etc. These net changes can be adverse (negative) or positive (beneficial).
Calculating the Values at Risk Rating at a given location requires spatially defined estimates of the intensity of fire integrated with the identified resource value. This interaction
is quantified through the use of response functions that estimate expected impacts to resources or assets at the specified fire intensity levels. The measure of fire intensity level
used in the Colorado assessment is flame length for a location. Response Function outputs were derived for each input dataset and then combined to derive the Values Impacted
Rating.
Different weightings are used for each of the input layers with the highest priority placed on
protection of people and structures (i.e. WUI). The weightings represent the value associated with
those assets. Weightings were developed by a team of experts during the assessment to reflect
priorities for fire protection planning in Colorado. Refer to the Colorado WRA Final Report for
more information about the layer weightings.
Since all areas in Colorado have the Values at Risk Rating calculated consistently, it allows for
comparison and ordination of areas across the entire state. The data were derived at a 30 -meter
resolution.
Values at Risk Class
Acres Percent
-1 (Least Negative Impact) 1,431,921 70.5 %
- 2 557,868 27.5 %
- 3 34,559 1.7 %
- 4 7,016 0.3
- 5 230 0.0 %
- 6 1 0.0 %
- 7 0 0 %
- 8 0 0 %
-9 (Most Negative Impact)
0 0%
Total 2,031,596 100 %
Weld HMP
1 431 921
557 968
34 559
7 016
-4
230 1 0
0 0
Weld HMP
Values at Risk Rating
L ir.�mie .. •. •
L. •;I -.I
Cheyenne
Non -Categorized
- 1 (Least Negative Impart)
- 2
- 3
-4
5
- 5
- 7
-8
El -9 (Most Negative Impact)
20 mi I CO
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Suppression Difficulty Rating
Description
Reflects the difficulty or relative cost to suppress a fire given the terrain and vegetation conditions that may impact machine operability. This layer is an overall index
that combines the slope steepness and the vegetation/fuel type characterization to identify areas where it would be difficult or costly to suppress a fire due to the underlying
terrain and vegetation conditions that would impact machine operability (in particular Type II dozer).
The rating was calculated based on the fireline production rates for hand crews and engines with modifications for slope, as documented in the NWCG Fireline Handbook 3,
PMS 401-1.
The burnable fuel models in the Colorado WRA were grouped into ten categories: Grass, Grass/Shrub, Shrub/Regeneration, Moderate Forest, Heavy Forest, Swamp/Marsh,
Agriculture, Barren, Urban/Developed, Water/Ice.
Fireline production capability on six slope classes was used as the basic reference to obtain the suppression difficulty score. The response function category is assigned to each
combination of fuel model group and slope category.
SDR Class
Acres Percent
No Limitations 2,252,828 88.4
Slight 257,262 10.1
Slight to Moderate 19,526 0.8
Moderate 10,753 0.4
Moderate to Significant 6,522 0.3
Significant 103 0.0 %
Significant to Severe 13 0.0
Severe 360 0.0
Inoperable 99 0.0
100 %
Weld HMP
2 252 828
2S7 262
19 526
]:Irr''I' rU
TAr_Iera:F
10 753 6 522
(•ii7ri�r,.r�.
1O3 13
1
360 99
Weld HMP
Suppression Difficulty
Lai.imie
(:I- enne
No Limitations
Slight
Slight to Moderate
Moderate
Moderate to Significant
Significant
Significant to Severe
Severe
Inoperable
20 mi
CO
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Fire Occurrence
Description
Fire Occurrence is an ignition density that represents the likelihood of a wildfire starting based on historical ignition patterns. Occurrence is derived by modeling historic
wildfire ignition locations to create an ignition density map.
Historic fire report data were used to create the ignition points for all Colorado fires. The compiled fire occurrence database was cleaned to remove duplicate records and to
correct inaccurate locations. The database was then modeled to create a density map reflecting historical fire ignition rates.
Historic fire report data were used to create the ignition points for all Colorado fires. This
included both federal and non-federal fire ignition locations.
The class breaks are determined by analyzing the Fire Occurrence output values for the entire
state and determining cumulative percent of acres (i.e. Class 9 has the top 1.5% of acres with
the highest occurrence rate). Refer to the Colorado WRA Final Report for a more detailed
description of the mapping classes and the methods used to derive these.
The Fire Occurrence map is derived at a 30 -meter resolution. This scale of data was chosen to
be consistent with the accuracy of the primary surface fuels dataset used in the assessment.
While not sufficient for site specific analysis, it is appropriate for regional, county or local
protection mitigation or prevention planning.
A more detailed description of the risk assessment algorithms is provided in the Colorado
WRA Final Report, which can be downloaded from www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org.
Fire Occurrence Class Acres Percent
Non Burnable 563,253 21.9
1 (Lowest Occurrence) 1,035,937 40.3
2 336,171 13.1 %
3 89,301 3.5 %
4 98,308 3.8 %
5 101,527 4.0
6 74,469 2.9 %
7 55,846 2.2 %
8 47,039 1.8 %
9 (Highest Occurrence) 166,981 6.5
Total 2,568,832 100 %
Weld HMP
1 035 937
563 253
336 171
166 981
89_301 98 308 101 527
T4-4-6-9
55 846
47 039
_ 7 u
Weld HMP
Fire Occurrence
Non Burnable
1 (Lowest Occurrence)
2
3
4
6
7
8
4 (Highest Occurrence)
20 m
CD
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAdas.org
Fire Behavior
Description
Fire behavior is the manner in which a fire reacts to the following environmental influences:
1. Fuels
2. Weather
3. Topography
Fire behavior characteristics are attributes of wildland fire that pertain to its spread, intensity, and growth. Fire behavior characteristics
utilized in the Colorado WRA include fire type, rate of spread, flame length and fireline intensity (fire intensity scale). These metrics are
used to determine the potential fire behavior under different weather scenarios. Areas that exhibit moderate to high fire behavior potential
can be identified for mitigation treatments, especially if these areas are in close proximity to homes, business, or other assets.
Fuels
The Colorado WRA includes composition and characteristics for both surface fuels and canopy fuels. Assessing canopy fire potential and surface fire potential allows
identification of areas where significant increases in fire behavior affects the potential of a fire to transition from a surface fire to a canopy fire.
Fuel datasets required to compute both surface and canopy fire potential include:
1. Surface Fuels are typically categorized into one of four primary fuel types based on the primary carrier of the surface fire: 1) grass, 2)
shrub/brush, 3) timber litter, and 4) slash. They are generally referred to as fire behavior fuel models and provide the input parameters
needed to compute surface fire behavior. The 2017 assessment uses the latest 2017 calibrated fuels for Colorado.
2. Canopy Cover is the horizontal percentage of the ground surface that is covered by tree crowns. It is used to compute wind -reduction
factors and shading.
3. Canopy Ceiling Height/Stand Height is the height above the ground of the highest canopy layer where the density of the crown mass
within the layer is high enough to support vertical movement of a fire. A good estimate of canopy ceiling height is the average height of the
dominant and co -dominant trees in a stand. It is used to compute wind reduction to mid -flame height, and spotting distances from torching
trees.
4. Canopy Base Height is the lowest height above the ground above which sufficient canopy fuel exists to vertically propagate fire (Scott &
Reinhardt, 2001). Canopy base height is a property of a plot, stand or group of trees, not an individual tree. For fire modeling, canopy base
height is an effective value that incorporates ladder fuels, such as tall shrubs and small trees. Canopy base height is used to determine
whether a surface fire will transition to a canopy fire.
5. Canopy Bulk Density is the mass of available canopy fuel per unit canopy volume
(Scott & Reinhardt, 2001). Canopy bulk density is a bulk property of a stand, plot or
group of trees, not an individual tree. Canopy bulk density is used to predict whether an
active crown fire is possible.
Weather
Environmental weather parameters needed to compute fire behavior characteristics include 1 -hour, 10 -
hour and 100 -hour time-lag fuel moistures, herbaceous fuel moisture, woody fuel moisture and the 20 -
foot, 10 -minute average wind speed. To collect this information, Weather data (1988-2017) from NCEP
(National Center for Environmental Prediction) was used to analyse potential weather scenarios in which
assessing fire behavior and spread. In particular, the North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR)
product from NCEP was selected because of it provides high resolution weather data for all of Colorado.
The following percentiles (97th, 90th, 50th and 25th) were analysed for each variable in each 30km
NARR point to create four weather scenarios to run the fire behavior analysis: "Extreme", "High",
"Moderate" and "Low". After computing the weather percentiles of the NARR variables, an IDW
algorithm was used to derive 30m resolution data to match the surface fuels dataset.
The four percentile weather categories are intended to represent low, moderate, high and extreme fire
weather days. Fire behavior outputs are computed for each percentile weather category to determine fire
potential under different weather scenarios.
For a detailed description of the methodology, refer to the 2017 Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment Final
Report at www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org.
Topography
Topography datasets required to compute fire behavior characteristics are elevation, slope and aspect.
FIRE BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTICS
Fire behavior characteristics provided in this report include:
• Characteristic Rate of Spread
• Characteristic Flame Length
• Fire Intensity Scale
• Fire Type — Extreme Weather
Characteristic Rate of Spread
Characteristic Rate of Spread is the typical or representative rate of spread of a potential fire based on a
weighted average of four percentile weather categories. Rate of spread is the speed with which a fire moves in a
horizontal direction across the landscape, usually expressed in chains per hour (ch/hr) or feet per minute (ft/min).
For purposes of the Colorado WRA, this measurement represents the maximum rate of spread of the fire front. Rate
of Spread is used in the calculation of Wildfire Threat in the Colorado WRA.
Rate of spread is a fire behavior output, which is influenced by three environmental factors - fuels, weather, and
topography. Weather is by far the most dynamic variable as it changes frequently. To account for this variability,
four percentile weather categories were created from historical weather observations to represent low, moderate,
high, and extreme weather days for each 30 -meter cell in Colorado. Thirty (30) meter resolution is the baseline for
the Colorado WRA, matching the source surface fuels dataset.
The "characteristic" output represents the weighted average for all four weather percentiles. While not shown in this report, the individual percentile weather ROS outputs are
available in the Colorado WRA data.
Rate of Spread Acres Percent
Non -Burnable 568,590 22.1
1 Very Low 1,096 0.0 %
2 Low 10,048 0.4 %
3 Moderate 35,594 1.4 %
4 High 155,442 6.1 %
5 Very High 475,024 18.5 %
6 Extreme 1,323,038 51.5
Total 2,568,832 100 %
Weld HN/P
1 323 038
568 59-0
475-024
155 442
i.lor!-G'i I AD)1.-
1 096
I v' -fry Li:;;
10 048
L'i.,..t
35 594
-
. [o..:.li_I,uirF
5 Vei . HIV.,
I=, I:-:::i. i i.-
-1 High
Weld HMP
Characteristic Rate of Spread
J. Very Low
2 Low
3 hlodera[e
4 High
5 Very High
6 Extreme
20 m1
-a
�YJ
}GEST Sr
V IC
Colorad❑ Wildfire Risk Assessmen[
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Characteristic Flame Length
Characteristic Flame Length is the typical or representative flame length of a potential fire based on a weighted
average of four percentile weather categories. Flame Length is defined as the distance between the flame tip and the
midpoint of the flame depth at the base of the flame, which is generally the ground surface. It is an indicator of fire
intensity and is often used to estimate how much heat the fire is generating. Flame length is typically measured in feet (ft).
Flame length is the measure of fire intensity used to generate the Fire Effects outputs for the Colorado WRA.
Flame length is a fire behavior output, which is influenced by three environmental factors - fuels, weather, and topography.
Weather is by far the most dynamic variable as it changes frequently. To account for this variability, four percentile weather
categories were created from historical weather observations to represent low, moderate, high, and extreme weather days
for each 30 -meter cell in Colorado.
This output represents the weighted average for all four weather percentiles. While not shown in this report, the individual
percentile weather Flame Length outputs are available in the Colorado WRA data.
Flame Length
Acres Percent
Non -Burnable
1 Very Low (0-1 ft)
2 Low (1-4 ft)
3 Moderate (4-8 ft)
4 High (8-12 ft)
5 Very High (12-25 ft)
6 Extreme (25+ ft)
568,590
225
48,815
1,926,586
24,310
2,568,
22.1
0.0
1.9
75.0 %
0.9
98 0.0%
208 0.0%
832 100 %
Weld HMP
1 9I6 586
568 590
225
48 815
24 310
98 208
' y fl -1 r;. 1__ f+ = r. r`, r 25_ ;r1
:i� ti�.��r�••;r,l L .i-�. �v� r ._ L-Cst�t� f� -F �9 I�r T i ft) I-li��:l {r�- � i'; -- v'Fi�r N,ul�� ------ rt-.'.r��i�i-�� ,.- ,
Weld HMP
Characteristic Flame Length
Laiami•a
Cheyenne
Non -Burnable
1 Very Low (0-1 tt)
2 Low (1-4 ft)
3 Moderate (4-8 It)
4 High (8-12 ft)
IN 5 Very High (12-25 ft)
20 ni
CD
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Fire Intensity Scale
Description
Fire Intensity Scale (FIS) specifically identifies areas where significant fuel hazards and associated dangerous fire behavior potential exist. Similar to the Richter scale for
earthquakes, FIS provides a standard scale to measure potential wildfire intensity. FIS consist of five (5) classes where the order of magnitude between classes is ten -fold. The
minimum class, Class 1, represents very low wildfire intensities and the maximum class, Class 5, represents very high wildfire intensities.
1. Class 1, Lowest Intensity:
Very small, discontinuous flames, usually less than 1 foot in length; very low rate of spread; no spotting. Fires are typically easy to suppress by firefighters with basic
training and non -specialized equipment.
2. Class2, Low:
Small flames, usually less than two feet long; small amount of very short-range spotting possible. Fires are easy to suppress by trained firefighters with protective
equipment and specialized tools.
3. Class 3, Moderate:
Flames up to 8 feet in length; short-range spotting is possible. Trained firefighters will find these fires difficult to suppress without support from aircraft or engines, but
dozer and plows are generally effective. Increasing potential for harm or damage to life and property.
4. Class 4, High:
Large Flames, up to 30 feet in length; short-range spotting 1. common; medium range spotting possible. Direct attack by trained firefighters, engines, and dozers is
generally ineffective, indirect attack may be effective. Significant potential for harm or damage to life and property.
5. Class 5, Highest Intensity:
Very large flames up to 150 feet in length; profuse short-range spotting, frequent long-range spotting; strong fire -induced winds. Indirect attack marginally effective at the
head of the fire. Great potential for harm or damage to life and property.
Burn Probability and Fire Intensity Scale are designed to complement each other. The Fire Intensity Scale does not incorporate historical occurrence information. It only
evaluates the potential fire behavior for an area, regardless if any fires have occurred there in the past. This additional information allows mitigation planners to quickly identify
areas where dangerous fire behavior potential exists in relationship to nearby homes or other valued assets.
Since all areas in Colorado have fire intensity scale calculated consistently, it allows for comparison and ordination of areas across the entire state. For example, a high fire
intensity area in Eastern Colorado is equivalent to a high fire intensity area in Western Colorado.
Fire intensity scale is a fire behavior output, which is influenced by three environmental factors - fuels, weather, and topography. Weather is by far the most dynamic variable as
it changes frequently.
To account for this variability, four percentile weather categories were created from historical weather observations to represent low, moderate, high, and extreme weather days
for each 30 -meter cell in Colorado. The FIS represents the weighted average for all four weather percentiles.
The fire intensity scale map is derived at a 30 -meter resolution. This scale of data was chosen to be consistent with the accuracy of the primary surface fuels dataset used in the
assessment. While not appropriate for site specific analysis, it is appropriate for regional, county or local planning efforts.
FIS Class
Acres Percent
Non -Burnable
1 Lowest Intensity
2 Low
3 Moderate
4 Moderate to High Intensity
5 Highest Intensity
Total
563,196
0
42,404
1,937,675
25,482
2,568,8
21.9
0.0
1.7 %
75.4 %
1.0
75 0.0%
32 100 %
Weld HMP
1 937 675
563-196
-E. I. i;',I�
0
42 404
25 482
75
L• rli:�`i ;:1. IrLr i ':Iry
II-itEr-,-,.ity
Weld HMP
Fire Intensity Scale
Laiami•a
Cheyenne
Non -Burnable
1 Lowest Intensity
2 Low
3 Moderate
4 Moderate to High Intensity
5 Highest Intensity
20m1
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Fire Type - Extreme Weather
Fire Type — Extreme represents the potential fire type under the extreme percentile weather category. The extreme percentile weather category represents the average
weather based on the top three percent fire weather days in the analysis period. It is not intended to represent a worst -case scenario weather event. Accordingly, the potential fire
type is based on fuel conditions, extreme percentile weather, and topography.
Canopy fires are very dangerous, destructive and difficult to control due to their increased fire intensity. From a planning perspective, it is important to identify where these
conditions are likely to occur on the landscape so that special preparedness measure can be taken if necessary. Typically canopy fires occur in extreme weather conditions. The
Fire Type — Extreme layer shows the footprint of where these areas are most likely to occur. However, it is important to note that canopy fires are not restricted to these areas.
Under the right conditions, it can occur in other canopied areas.
There are two primary fire types — surface fire and canopy fire. Canopy fire can be further subdivided into passive canopy fire and active canopy fire. A short description of each
of these is provided below.
Surface Fire
A fire that spreads through surface fuel without consuming any overlying canopy
fuel. Surface fuels include grass, timber litter, shrub/brush, slash and other dead or
live vegetation within about 6 feet of the ground.
Passive Canopy Fire
A type of crown fire in which the crowns of individual trees or small groups of trees
burn, but solid flaming in the canopy cannot be maintained except for short periods
(Scott & Reinhardt, 2001).
Ngokar....
F;`j -i,,; f Icy
.p.
•
a. � y,
4114
Active Canopy Fire
A crown fire in which the entire fuel complex (canopy) is involved in flame, but
the crowning phase remains dependent on heat released from surface fuel for
continued spread (Scott & Reinhardt, 2001).
The Fire Type - Extreme Weather map is derived at a 30 -meter resolution. This
scale of data was chosen to be consistent with the accuracy of the primary
surface fuels dataset used in the assessment. While not appropriate for site
specific analysis, it is appropriate for regional, county or local planning efforts.
Fire Type - Extreme
Weather
Acres Percent
Surface Fire
Passive Canopy Fire
Active Canopy Fire
Total
2,005,402 100.0 %
65 0.0%
169 0.0
2,005,636 100 %
Weld HMP
2 005 402
rr:;t Iii
65
Liu:� _ ..; i ; � v F1'
169
Weld HMP
Fire Type Extreme Weather
Lii.imie
Cheyenne
fit
Surface Fire
Passive Canopy Fire
Active Canopy Fire
20 mi
GI)
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Surface Fuels
Description
Surface fuels, or fire behavior fuel models as they are technically referred to, contain the parameters required by the Rothermel (1972) surface fire spread model to compute
surface fire behavior characteristics, including rate of spread, flame length, fireline intensity and other fire behavior metrics. As the name might suggest, surface fuels account
only for surface fire potential. Canopy fire potential is computed through a separate but linked process. The Colorado WRA accounts for both surface and canopy fire potential in
the fire behavior outputs. However, only surface fuels are shown in this risk report.
Surface fuels typically are categorized into one of four primary fuel types based
on the primary carrier of the surface fire: 1) grass, 2) shrub/brush, 3) timber
litter, and 4) slash. Two standard fire behavior fuel model sets have been
published. The Fire Behavior Prediction System 1982 Fuel Model Set
(Anderson, 1982) contains 13 fuel models, and the Fire Behavior Prediction
System 2005 Fuel Model Set (Scott & Burgan, 2005) contains 40 fuel models.
The Colorado WRA uses fuel models from the 2005 Fuel Model Set.
The 2017 Colorado Surface Fuels were derived by enhancing the baseline
LANDFIRE 2014 products with modifications to reflect local conditions and
knowledge. A team of fuels and fire behavior experts, led by the CSFS,
conducted a detailed calibration of the LANDFIRE 2014 fuels datasets. This
calibration involved correcting LANDFIRE mapping zone seamlines errors;
adding recent disturbances from 2013 to 2017 for fires, insect and disease, and
treatments; correcting fuels for high elevations; adjusting fuels for oak-shrublands and pinyon -juniper areas; and modifying SH7 fuel designations. This calibration effort resulted
in an accurate and up-to-date surface fuels dataset that is the basis for the fire behavior and risk calculations in the 2017 Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment Update.
lJnrna7aRed in•csr wi1 h Ce.1n ,Ind downed trees
and urtlnuhcS
Slash on the Rro.ind innirates mat threat rna1agern nt
Ir l`d it icro:S I - woe c ut l`u'red in Ellis a(e.1
A detailed description of the fuels calibration methods and results is provided in the CSFS 2017 Fuels Calibration Final Report (July 2018).
Surface Fuels
Description Acres Percent
NB 91 Urban/Developed
NB 92 Snow/Ice
NB 93 Agriculture
NB 98 Water
NB 99 Barren
GR 1 Short, sparse, dry climate grass
87,367
0
448,174
21,337
6,187
28,826
3.4 %
0%
17.4 %
0.8 %
0.2 %
1.1 %
GR 2 Low load, dry climate grass 1,775,777 69.1 %
GR 3 Low load, very coarse, humid climate grass 0 0 %
GR 4 Moderate load, dry climate grass 24,349 0.9 %
GR 1 GT 10,000 ft elevation 0 0 %
GR 2 GT 10,000 ft elevation 0 0 %
GS 1 Low load, dry climate grass -shrub 8,004 0.3 %
GS 2 Moderate load, dry climate grass -shrub 145,716 5.7 %
GS 1 GT 10,000 ft elevation 0 0 %
SH 1 Low load, dry climate shrub 0 0.0 %
SH 2 Moderate load, dry climate shrub 6,709 0.3 %
SH 3 Moderate load, humid climate shrub 0 0 %
SH 5 High load, humid climate shrub 0 0 %
SH 7 Very high load, dry climate shrub 31 0.0 %
SH 7 Oak Shrubland without changes 82 0.0 %
TU 1 Light load, dry climate timber -grass -shrub 9,876 0.4 %
TU 2 Moderate load, humid climate timber -shrub 0 0 %
TU 5 Very high load, dry climate timber -shrub 0 0 %
TL 1 Low load, compact conifer litter 0 0 %
TL 2 Low load, broadleaf litter 4,474 0.2 %
TL 3 Moderate load, conifer litter 1,292 0.1 %
TL 4 Small downed logs 0 0 %
TL 5 High load, conifer litter 20 0.0 %
TL 6 Moderate load, broadleaf litter 481 0.0 %
TL 7 Large downed logs 0 0 %
TL 8 Long -needle litter 0 0 %
TL 9 Very high load, broadleaf litter 0
0%
Total 2,568,701 100 %
Weld HMP
1 775 777
448 174
145 716
87 367
0
k}' ..-.)••1 illf
24 349
0 0 0 8 004
O 0 6 709 0
0 31 82 9 876 0
O 0 4 4741 292 0
10' 481 0
0
0
Weld HMP
Surface Fuels
Laiami•a
Che erne
NB91 SH5
NB 92 SH7
NB 93 ® SH 7
NB 98 TU I
NB 99 TU 2
GR 1 TUS
GR2 TL 1
GR 3 TL 2
GR 4 TL 3
GR 1 TL 4
GR 2 TL 5
GS 1 TLG
GS 2 TL 7
GS 1 TL8
SH 1 TL
SH 2
SH 3
20m1
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Vegetation
Description
The Vegetation map describes the general vegetation and landcover types across the state of Colorado. In the Colorado WRA, the Vegetation dataset is used to support the
development of the Surface Fuels, Canopy Cover, Canopy Stand Height, Canopy Base Height, and Canopy Bulk Density datasets.
The LANDFIRE 2014 version of data products (Existing Vegetation Type) was used to compile the Vegetation data for the Colorado WRA. This reflects data current to 2014.
The LANDFIRE EVT data were classified to reflect general vegetation cover types for representation with CO -WRAP.
Oak shrublands are commonly found along dry foothills Pinyon tuniper woodlands are common in southern and
and lower mountain slopes, and are often situated above southwestern Colorado.
Pinyon -juniper.
Douglas -fir understory in a ponderosa pine forest.
Wlldiand fire threat increases in lodgepole pine as the Overly dense ponderosa pine, a dominant species of the
dense forests grow old. montane zone.
Grasslands occur both on Colorado's Eastern Plains and
on the Western Slope.
Vegetation Class Acres Percent
Agriculture
Grassland
Introduced Riparian
660,615
1,260,791
0
25.7 %
49.1 %
0%
Lodgepole Pine 0 0
Mixed Conifer 0 0
Oak Shrubland 744 0.0
Open Water 21,337 0.8
Pinyon -Juniper 808 0.0
Ponderosa Pine 39 0.0
Riparian 23,997 0.9
Shrubland 193,498 7.5 %
Spruce -Fir 0 0
Developed 400,653 15.6 %
Sparsely Vegetated 306 0.0
Hardwood
Conifer -Hardwood
Conifer
Barren
5,881
0 0%
0 0%
31 0.0 %
0.2 %
Total 2,568,701 100 %
Weld HMP
1 26O 741
660 515
400 653
193 498
21 337
0 0 0 744
4 ��J
l 14s
f r a j
8O8 39
23 997
0
} 3y
306 0 0 31
5 881
Weld HMP
Laiami s
Vegetation
Agriculture
Grassland
® Introduced Riparian
Lodgepole Pine
Mixed Conifer
Oak Shrubland
Open Water
Pinyon -Juniper
Ponderosa Pine
- Riparian
Shiubland
Spruce -Fir
Developed
Sparsely Vegetated
Hardwood
Conifer -Hardwood
IEVI Conifer
Barren
20m1 ]ED
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Drinking Water Importance Areas
Description
Drinking Water Importance Areas is the measure of quality and quantity of public surface drinking water categorized by watershed. This layer identifies an index of
surface drinking water importance, reflecting a measure of water quality and quantity, characterized by Hydrologic Unit Code 12 (HUC 12) watersheds. The Hydrologic Unit
system is a standardized watershed classification system developed by the USGS. Areas that are a source of drinking water are of critical importance and adverse effects from fire
are a key concern.
The U.S. Forest Service Forests to Faucets (F2F) project is the primary source of
the drinking water data set. This project used GIS modeling to develop an index
of importance for supplying drinking water using HUC 12 watersheds as the
spatial resolution. Watersheds are ranked from 1 to 100 reflecting relative level
of importance, with 100 being the most important and 1 the least important.
Several criteria were used in the F2F project to derive the importance rating
including water supply, flow analysis, and downstream drinking water demand.
The final model of surface drinking water importance used in the F2F project
combines the drinking water protection model, capturing the flow of water and
water demand, with a model of mean annual water supply.
The values generated by the drinking water protection model are simply
multiplied by the results of the model of mean annual water supply to create the
final surface drinking water importance index.
Water is critical to sustain life. Human water usage has further complicated
nature's already complex aquatic system. Plants, including trees, are essential to
the proper functioning of water movement within the environment. Forests
receive precipitation, utilize it for their sustenance and growth, and influence its
storage and/or passage to other parts of the environment.
Four major river systems — the Platte, Colorado, Arkansas and Rio Grande —
originate in the Colorado mountains and fully drain into one-third of the
landmass of the lower 48 states. Mountain snows supply 75 percent of the water
to these river systems.
Virtually ak1 of Colorado's drinking
water comes from snowmelt carried
at some point by a river.
The headwaters of the Animas River
begin near Siiverton, CO at elevations
greater than 12,000 feet.
Approximately 40 percent of the water comes from the highest 20 percent of the land, most of which lies in national forests. National forests yield large portions of the total water
in these river systems. The potential is great for forests to positively and negatively influence the transport of water over such immense distances.
Drinking Water
Class
Acres Percent
1 - Lowest
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 - Highest
Total
449,285
356,149
842,147
352,599
136,261
335,198
96,987
17.5 %
13.9
32.8
13.7 %
5.3
13.0
3.8
74 0.0%
0 0%
0 0%
2,568,701 100 %
Weld HMP
842 147
449 285
356 149
352 599
335 198
136 261
96 9117
74 tl
0
1()
Lir.imie
Ch=y=nne
Weld HMP
Drinking Water Importance Areas
1 - Lowest
2
3
4
6
7
9
® 10 - Highest
20 mi
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org tlas.org
Drinking Water Risk Index
Description
Drinking Water Risk Index is a measure of the risk to DWIAs based on the potential negative impacts from wildfire.
In areas that experience low -severity burns, fire events can serve to eliminate competition, rejuvenate growth and improve watershed conditions. But in landscapes subjected to
high, or even moderate -burn severity, the post -fire threats to public safety and natural resources can be extreme.
High -severity wildfires remove virtually all forest vegetation — from trees, shrubs and
grasses down to discarded needles, decomposed roots and other elements of ground
cover or duff that protect forest soils. A severe wildfire also can cause certain types of
soil to become hydrophobic by forming a waxy, water-repellent layer that keeps water
from penetrating the soil, dramatically amplifying the rate of runoff.
The loss of critical surface vegetation leaves forested slopes extremely vulnerable to
large-scale soil erosion and flooding during subsequent storm events. In turn, these
threats can impact the health, safety and integrity of communities and natural
resources downstream. The likelihood that such a post -fire event will occur in
Colorado is increased by the prevalence of highly erodible soils in several parts of the
state, and weather patterns that frequently bring heavy rains on the heels of fire
season.
In the aftermath of the 2002 fire season, the Colorado Department of Health estimated
that 26 municipal water storage facilities were shut down due to fire and post -fire
impacts.
The potential for severe soil erosion is a consequence of wildfire because as a fire
burns, it destroys plant material and the litter layer. Shrubs, forbs, grasses, trees and
the litter layer disperse water during severe rainstorms. Plant roots stabilize the soil,
and stems and leaves slow the water to give it time to percolate into the soil profile.
Fire can destroy this soil protection.
The range of values is from -1 to -9, with -1 representing the least negative impact
and -9 representing the most negative impact.
Class
Acres Percent
- 1 Least Negative Impact
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
941,933 47.1 %
555,845 27.8 %
427,084 21.4 %
75,077 3.8
295 0.0 %
9 0.0 %
- 7 0 0 %
8 0 0%
- 9 Most Negative Impact 0 0
Total 2,000,243 100 %
Weld HMP
941 933
SSS B45
427 484
75 077
295 9 0
'Si
0 0
Weld HMP
Drinking Water Risk Index
Ch=y=nne
- 1 Least Negative Impact
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
-9 Most Negative Impact
20 mi
CO
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Riparian Assets
Description
Riparian Assets are forested riparian areas characterized by functions of water quantity and quality, and ecology. This layer identifies riparian areas that are important as
a suite of ecosystem services, including both terrestrial and aquatic habitat, water quality, water quantity, and other ecological functions. Riparian areas are considered an
especially important element of the landscape in the west. Accordingly, riparian assets are distinguished from other forest assets so they can be evaluated separately.
The process for defining these riparian areas involved identifying the riparian footprint and then assigning a rating based upon two important riparian functions — water quantity
and quality, and ecological significance. A scientific model was developed by the West Wide Risk Assessment technical team with in -kind support from CAL FIRE state
representatives. Several input datasets were used in the model including the National Hydrography Dataset and the National Wetland Inventory.
The National Hydrography Data Set (NHD) was used to represent hydrology. A subset of streams and
water bodies, which represents perennial, intermittent, and wetlands, was created. The NHD water
bodies dataset was used to determine the location of lakes, ponds, swamps, and marshes (wetlands).
To model water quality and quantity, erosion potential (K -factor) and annual average precipitation
was used as key variables. The Riparian Assets data are an index of class values that range from 1 to 3
representing increasing importance of the riparian area as well as sensitivity to fire -related impacts on
the suite of ecosystem services.
Riparian Assets Class Acres Percent
Least Sensitive to Wildland fires
2
Most Sensitive to Wildland fires
Total
60,950 93.4
4,254 6.5 %
63 0.1%
65,267 100 %
Weld HMP
66 950
4_254
63
Tire:
riot
Weld HMP
Riparian Assets
Lir.,nie
Cheyenne
C.):.[I?
Least Sensitive to Wildland fires
2
Most Sensitive to Wi]dland fires
20m1 I GI)
COLORADO STATE
OREST SERVICE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
wstiww.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Total
Riparian Assets Risk Index
Description
Riparian Assets Risk Index is a measure of the risk to riparian areas based on the potential negative impacts from wildfire. This layer identifies those riparian areas with
the greatest potential for adverse effects from wildfire.
The range of values is from -1 to -9, with -1 representing the least negative impact and
-9 representing the most negative impact.
The risk index has been calculated by combining the Riparian Assets data with a
measure of fire intensity using a Response Function approach. Those areas with the
highest negative impact (-9) represent areas with high potential fire intensity and high
importance for ecosystem services. Those areas with the lowest negative impact (-1)
represent those areas with low potential fire intensity and a low importance for
ecosystem services.
This risk output is intended to supplement the Drinking Water Risk Index by identifying -3
wildfire risk within the more detailed riparian areas.
Riparian Assets Risk Class Acres Percent
- 1 (Least Negative Impact) 56,452 94.4 %
- 2 3,033 5.1 %
26 0.0%
- 4 284 0.5 %
- 5 3 0.0 %
- 6
7
8
- 9 (Most Negative Impact)
59,79
0
0%
1 0.0 %
0 0%
0 0%
8 100 %
Weld HMP
55 45.2
3 033
2&
284
3 0
1 0
0
!J
Weld HMP
Riparian Assets Risk Index
Lar.,nie
- 1 (Least Negative Impact)
- 2
- 3
- 4
Aurora
:.I.IiII i
Li Ill lon
st�rlii,u
t 1
5
- 6
- 7
- 8
-9 (Most Negative Impact)
20m1 I GI)
COLORADO STATE
FOREST SERVICE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
wv,,w.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Forest Assets
Description
Forest Assets are forested areas categorized by height, cover, and susceptibility/response to fire. This layer identifies forested land categorized by height, cover and
susceptibility or response to fire. Using these characteristics allows for the prioritization of landscapes reflecting forest assets that would be most adversely affected by fire. The
rating of importance or value of the forest assets is relative to each state's interpretation of those characteristics considered most important for their landscapes.
Canopy cover from LANDFIRE 2014 was re-classified into two categories, open or sparse and closed. Areas classified as open or sparse have a canopy cover less than 60%.
Areas classified as closed have a canopy cover greater than 60%.
Canopy height from LANDFIRE 2014 was re-classified into two categories, 0-10 meters and greater than 10 meters.
Response to fire was developed from the LANDFIRE 2014 existing vegetation type (EVT) dataset. There are over 1,000 existing vegetation types in the project area. Using a
crosswalk defined by project ecologists, a classification of susceptibility and response to fire was defined and documented by fire ecologists into the three fire response classes.
These three classes are sensitive, resilient and adaptive.
• Sensitive = These are tree species that are intolerant or sensitive to damage from fire with low intensity.
• Resilient = These are tree species that have characteristics that help the tree resist damage from fire and whose adult stages can survive low intensity fires.
• Adaptive = These are tree species adapted with the ability to regenerate following fire by sprouting or serotinous cones
The range of values is from -1 to -9, with -1 representing the least negative impact and -9 representing the
most negative impact.
The risk index has been calculated by combining the Forest Assets data with a measure of fire intensity using
a Response Function approach. Those areas with the highest negative impact (-9) represent areas with high
potential fire intensity and low resilience or adaptability to fire. Those areas with the lowest negative impact
(-1) represent those areas with low potential fire intensity and high resilience or adaptability to fire.
This risk output is intended to provide an overall forest index for potential impact from wildfire. This can be
applied to consider aesthetic values, ecosystem services, or economic values of forested lands.
Forest
Assets
Acres Percent
Sensitive 10,050 99.3
38 0.4%
32 0.3%
Resilient
Adaptative
Total 10,120 100 %
Weld HMP
Forest Assets
Lai.im is
Ch=Enne
Sensitive
Resilient
Adaptative
(3)
20m1
5
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
www.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
Forest Assets Risk Index
Description
Forest Assets Risk Index is a measure of the risk to forested areas based on the potential negative impacts from wildfire. This layer identifies those forested areas with the
greatest potential for adverse effects from wildfire.
The range of values is from -1 to -9, with -1 representing the least negative impact and
-9 representing the most negative impact.
The risk index has been calculated by combining the Forest Assets data with a measure
of fire intensity using a Response Function approach. Those areas with the highest
negative impact (-9) represent areas with high potential fire intensity and low resilience
or adaptability to fire. Those areas with the lowest negative impact (-1) represent those
areas with low potential fire intensity and high resilience or adaptability to fire.
This risk output is intended to provide an overall forest index for potential impact from
wildfire. This can be applied to consider aesthetic values, ecosystem services, or
economic values of forested lands.
Forest Assets Risk Class Acres Percent
- 1 (Least Negative Impact) 8,364 77.7 %
- 2 2,134 19.8 %
- 3 22 0.2%
- 4 246 2.3 %
- 5
- 6
0
0
0%
0%
7 0 0%
8 0 0%
- 9 (Most Negative Impact) 0 0
Total
10,766
Weld HMP
8 364
2 134
246
22
0 o
Weld HMP
Forest Assets Risk Index
Lar.,mie
- 1 (Least Negative Impact)
- 2
L
:•Ili •:I-1'
Clio ii lie
G reeler
CJ n1Gl,t
Pawnee
Natbnal
Grasslands
C::e liver
Littlel:•n
Aurora
C. it U•: F• :-k
cli
IF- r
- 3
- 4
5
- 6
- 8
-9 (Most Negative Impact)
20 ml CO
COLORADO STATE
Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment
wv,,w.ColoradoForestAtlas.org
References
Anderson, H. E. (1982). Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-122.
Colorado State Forest Service (November 2018). Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment Final Report. A final report developed by CSFS and Technosylva Inc. (La Jolla, CA)
documenting the technical methods and results for the Colorado wildfire risk assessment update project.
Colorado State Forest Service (July 2018). Fuels Calibration Final Report. A final report developed by CSFS and Technosylva Inc. (La Jolla, CA) documenting the technical
methods and results for the Colorado fuels calibration project.
Colorado State Forest Service (2012). Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment 2012 Final Report. A final report developed by CSFS and DTS (Fort Collins, CO) documenting the
technical methods and specifications for the Colorado WRA project.
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). (2008). Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology. Publication Management System document PMS-205.
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (2004). Fireline Handbook. NWCG Handbook 3. PMS 410-1. NFES 0065. National Interagency Fire Center. Boise, Idaho 83705.
Scott, J. H., & Burgan, R. E. (2005). Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel's Surface Fire Spread Model. Ft. Collins, CO, Rocky
Mountain Research Station: USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rpt. RMRS-GTR-153.
Scott, J. H., & Reinhardt, E. D. (2001). Assessing the Crown Fire Potential by Linking Models of Surface and Crown Fire Behavior. Ft. Collins, CO, Rocky Mountain Research
Station: USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RMRS-RP-29.
FOREST SERVICE
COLORADO STATE
UNIVERSITY
WELD COUNTY 2021 MULTI JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
I I Appendix F: FEMA Approval & Local Adoptions
I Appendix F -
Hello