Pitkin County Hazard

Mitigation Plan 2018

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

April 2, 2018

1 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 6 Chapter One: Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning ...... 9 1.1 Purpose ...... 9 1.2 Participating Jurisdictions ...... 9 1.3 Background and Scope ...... 9 1.4 Mitigation Planning Requirements ...... 10 1.5 Grant Programs Requiring Hazard Mitigation Plans...... 10 1.6 Plan Organization ...... 11 Chapter Two: Planning Process ...... 13 2.1 2017 Plan Update Process ...... 13 2.2 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation ...... 13 2.3 10-Step Planning Process ...... 15 2.4 Phase One: Organize Resources ...... 15 2.5 Phase Two: Assess Risks ...... 18 2.6 Phase Three: Develop the Mitigation Plan ...... 19 2.7 Phase Four: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress ...... 20 Chapter Three: Community Profile ...... 22 3.1 Geography ...... 23 3.2 Climate ...... 23 3.3 History ...... 23 3.4 Population ...... 24 3.5 Economy ...... 25 3.6 Government ...... 27 3.7 Fire Protection Districts (FPDs) ...... 28 Chapter Four: Risk Assessment ...... 30 4.1 Federal Disaster Declaration History for Pitkin County ...... 31 4.2 Hazard Identification ...... 32 4.3 Hazard Profile Summary ...... 34 4.4 Climate Change and Natural Hazards ...... 37 4.5 Public Health Impacts of Natural Hazards ...... 41 4.6 Hazard Profile Methodology ...... 43

2 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

4.7 Wildfires ...... 44 4.8 Geologic Hazards: Landslides, Debris Flows, Mudflows and Rockfalls...... 51 4.9 Flooding ...... 57 4.10 Winter Storm ...... 63 4.11 Avalanche ...... 66 4.12 Drought ...... 71 4.13 Lightning ...... 76 4.14 Dam Failure Flooding ...... 79 Chapter Five: Capability Assessment...... 85 5.1 Vulnerability Assessment Summary ...... 85 5.2 Community Asset Inventory ...... 87 5.3 Social Vulnerability ...... 91 5.4 Growth and Development Trends ...... 92 5.5 National Flood Insurance Program ...... 93 5.6 Capability Assessment ...... 94 Chapter Six: Mitigation Strategy ...... 100 6.1 Plan Goals ...... 100 6.2 Incorporation of 2012 Plan Elements into Other Planning Mechanisms ...... 100 6.3 Identification of Mitigation Action Alternatives ...... 101 6.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Actions ...... 102 6.5 Completed Projects and Accomplishments Since 2012 ...... 103 6.6 Status of 2012 Mitigation Actions ...... 104 6.7 2017 Mitigation Actions ...... 107 City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) ...... 109 6.8 Mitigation Funding Sources ...... 113 Chapter Seven: Plan Implementation and Maintenance ...... 115 7.1 Formal Plan Adoption ...... 115 7.2 Plan Maintenance and Evaluation ...... 115 7.3 Mitigation Actions and Other Plans and Programs ...... 116 7.4 Continued Public Involvement ...... 116 Appendices ...... 118 Appendix A: Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ...... 119 Appendix B: Acronyms ...... 121

3 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Appendix C: References and Resources ...... 123 Appendix D: Documentation of the Planning Process ...... 127 Appendix E: FEMA HAZUS Flood Maps...... 157 Appendix F: Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) Summary ...... 163 Appendix G: Formal Adoption Resolutions/Ordinances ...... 166 Appendix H: FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool ...... 167

Tables

Table 1.1 - Participating Jurisdictions ...... 9 Table 2.1 - Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ...... 14 Table 2.2 - Plan Development Methodology ...... 15 Table 2.3 - Planning Meetings and Topics ...... 16 Table 3.1 - Demographic and Social Characteristics of Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village and Town of Basalt ...... 25 Table 3.2 - Economic and Housing Characteristics of Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village and Town of Basalt ...... 26 Table 3.3 - Industry Distribution in Pitkin County ...... 26 Table 4.1 - Federal Disaster Declaration History (1965-2017) for Pitkin County ...... 31 Table 4.2 - Significant Natural Hazards Affecting Pitkin County ...... 32 Table 4.3 - Categories for Estimating Probability of Future Hazard Occurrences ...... 33 Table 4.4 - Categories for Estimating Magnitude of Future Hazard Occurrences...... 33 Table 4.5 - 2017 Composite Risk Assessment: Pitkin County and Partner Jurisdictions ...... 35 Table 4.6 - Aspen/Aspen FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude ...... 35 Table 4.7 - Basalt/Basalt & Rural FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude . 36 Table 4.8 - Pitkin County Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude ...... 36 Table 4.9 - Snowmass Village/Snowmass-Wildcat FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude ...... 37 Table 4.10 - Summary of Climate Trends Observed in and around Aspen ...... 38 Table 4.11 - Significant Geologic Hazard Events in Pitkin County, 1980-2017 ...... 53 Table 4.12 - Significant Flood/Flash Flood Events in Pitkin County, 1980-2017 ...... 59 Table 4.13 - Potential Flood Losses in Pitkin County: HAZUS-MH Estimates ...... 62 Table 4.14 - Significant Winter Storms in Pitkin County, 1980-2017 ...... 65 Table 4.15 - Pitkin County Avalanche Fatalities, 1997-98 to 2016-17 ...... 69 Table 4.16 - Historic Dry and Wet Periods in Colorado ...... 73 Table 4.17 - Colorado Deaths and Injuries due to Lightning, 2008-2016 ...... 77 Table 4.18 - Significant Lightning Events in Pitkin County, 2008-2017 ...... 77 Table 4.19 - Average Lightning Flashes in Colorado per Day by Month ...... 78 Table 4.20 - Location of Class I and Class II Dams in Pitkin County ...... 82 Table 4.21 - Status of Class I and Class II Dams in Pitkin County: EAPs, Storage Capacity and Ownership ...... 83 Table 5.1 - Priority Hazards – Key Issues ...... 85

4 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 5.2 - Rare Species in Pitkin County ...... 88 Table 5.3 - Historic Aspen Properties and Districts on National Register ...... 88 Table 5.4 - Historic Pitkin County Properties and Districts on National Register ...... 90 Table 5.5 - Top Employers in Pitkin County in 2016 ...... 91 Table 5.6 - Social Vulnerability Indicators from U.S. Census (2015) ...... 91 Table 5.7 - Population Growth in Pitkin County, 2010-2015 ...... 92 Table 5.8 - Growth in Housing Units in Pitkin County, 2010-2015 ...... 92 Table 5.9 - Projected Population Growth in Pitkin County, 2015-2050 ...... 92 Table 5.10 - NFIP Community Participation ...... 93 Table 5.11 - NFIP Policies in Force as of July 31, 2017 ...... 93 Table 5.12 - NFIP Claims, January 1, 1978 to July 31, 2017 ...... 94 Table 5.13 - Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities ...... 96 Table 5.14 - Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities ...... 97 Table 5.15 - Financial Resources ...... 98 Table 6.1 - Types of Mitigation Actions ...... 101 Table 6.2 - Status of 2012 Mitigation Actions ...... 105 Table 6.3 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Pitkin County ...... 107 Table 6.4 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: City of Aspen ...... 109 Table 6.5 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Aspen Fire Protection District ...... 110 Table 6.6 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Town of Basalt ...... 111 Table 6.7 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District ...... 111 Table 6.8 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Town of Snowmass Village ...... 112 Table 6.9 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District ...... 113

Figures

Figure 3.1 - Map of Pitkin County ...... 22 Figure 4.1 - Public Health Impacts of Climate Change ...... 42 Figure 4.2 - Historic Wildfire Occurrences in Pitkin County ...... 46 Figure 4.3 - Pitkin County Wildland-Urban Interface Hazards Map ...... 48 Figure 4.4 - Proximate Areas Deemed High/Very High Wildfire Risk (as of Q1 2017) ...... 49 Figure 4.5 - Mudflow near Redstone, July 31, 2010 ...... 52 Figure 4.6 - West Salt Creek Landslide (Mesa County) ...... 55 Figure 4.7 - U.S. Avalanche Fatalities by State ...... 67 Figure 4.8 - Colorado Avalanche Fatalities by County ...... 68 Figure 4.9 - Colorado Avalanche Zones ...... 68 Figure 4.10 - Pitkin County Dams ...... 81 Figure 5.1 - City of Aspen/Pitkin County Urban Growth Boundary ...... 95

5 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Executive Summary

Background and Purpose This five-year update of the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan is a collaborative effort of county, municipal and fire officials and a cross-section of representatives throughout the community with expertise in a range of subjects related to mitigating the impacts of natural hazards. Communities in the Roaring Fork Valley have not suffered a major disaster in modern history, due in part to good fortune relative to the random forces of nature, but also a testament to a long-standing commitment to the principles of safe growth and community resilience by residents and community leaders. The purpose of current updates to this plan is to continue that legacy by providing local officials with a tool to guide policies and actions that can be implemented to reduce risk and future losses from natural hazards. Formal approval of this plan by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also assures that participating jurisdictions in Pitkin County will remain eligible for federal grant funding under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) program to include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. Participation in the multi-hazard mitigation planning process also allows jurisdictions to earn planning credits for the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System (CRS). Nationwide, proactive mitigation planning has proven to help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to communities and property owners by protecting critical community facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community impacts and disruption. Information in this plan is intended for use by local officials to help guide mitigation activities and inform decisions on growth and land use policies as they relate to exposure to risks from natural hazards. Risk Assessment The mitigation actions recommended in this plan are based on an assessment of hazards and risks and a planning process that engaged a wide range of stakeholders, including the public. Eight natural hazards were evaluated with respect to probability (based on historical frequency) and magnitude, or the severity of consequences from actual occurrences (considering recorded incidents and estimated future losses). Some natural hazard events have a high probability of occurrence but generally limited impacts (e.g., avalanches and lightning), while others are low probability-high consequence (e.g., dam failure flooding). High-probability hazards that also present risks to people and property are generally the highest priorities for mitigation action. Based on feedback from two planning workshops and information gained from surveys and interviews, the three natural hazards considered the highest mitigation priorities by all seven participating jurisdictions in Pitkin County are: (1) wildfires, (2) geologic hazards (landslides, debris flows, mudflows and rockfalls), and (3) flooding. In Chapter Four, Risk Assessment, the hazards facing communities in Pitkin County are examined in detail.

6 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Climate Change and Natural Hazards Climate warming may have profound implications for natural hazard events, the effects of which we may already have begun to see in the U.S. with the large-scale wildfire and hurricane disasters of 2017. While climate extremes are a natural part of the climate system, current warming trends are expected to lead to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events. Although extreme weather events are caused by a variety of possible contributing factors, human-induced climate change is now considered by a large majority of the scientific community to be one of those factors. Climate change considerations are incorporated into multiple elements of this updated plan. At the recommendation of the communities participating in the planning effort, a goal statement was adopted that recognized the need to integrate climate projection data into future hazard mitigation planning activities. In Chapter Four, Risk Assessment, the potential effects of climate warming are discussed as they relate to each of the natural hazards profiled in the plan. Finally, specific hazard mitigation actions that address climate change in Pitkin County are included in Chapter Six, Mitigation Strategy, of this plan. Hazard Mitigation Goals Based on the assessment of risks to community assets and the vulnerability of people and property, the following goals were established to guide the development of the mitigation strategy: 1. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by natural hazards. 2. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by human-caused hazards. 3. Recognizing the common issues and mutual goals of hazard mitigation and climate adaptation, promote collaborative planning and identify opportunities to dovetail actions that reduce risks from both natural hazards and climate warming. 2017 Mitigation Actions The mitigation strategy for achieving these goals is highlighted by a range of distinct mitigation actions that were identified in the planning process by each participating jurisdiction to address the risks posed to their communities by high-priority natural hazards. Mitigation actions included in the updated plan are a combination of ongoing activities, new projects and actions from the previous plan that were partially completed, including:

• adoption of regulations and enforcement of local codes and standards designed to reduce losses from natural hazards; • development of stormwater management plans and implementation of stormwater drainage improvements;

7 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

• adoption of updated floodplain mapping and implementation of flood protection measures; • preparation of plans and studies related to improving public safety in areas downstream of high-hazard dams; • development of improved mapping and implementation of mitigation actions in areas prone to debris and mudflows; and • continuation of wildfire mitigation projects related to fuel reduction, defensible- spacing, right-of-way tree removal and subdivision-level planning.

The updated plan also identifies hazard mitigation actions that consider the potential effects of climate change on the future frequency and intensity of severe weather and extreme climate events. A complete list of mitigation actions and a discussion of the process used to identify and prioritize actions can be found in Chapter Six, Mitigation Strategy. Project Management Updates to this plan have been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This updated version of the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan is the second revision of a plan originally prepared as a regional document in cooperation with Eagle County (2005) and subsequently updated in 2011-2012 as a plan for Pitkin County and its local partners exclusively. This updated plan builds on previous versions, incorporating current hazard research, studies and information about natural hazards. Updates to this plan were guided by a planning team composed of representatives of each participating jurisdiction, possessing a wide variety of technical expertise and community knowledge, including public safety, public works, community development, emergency management, environmental health, floodplain management, and utilities services. Overall project management was provided by Pitkin County Emergency Management with technical planning assistance from the Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management (DHSEM) and research and plan development provided by a planning consultant. In addition to Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, Town of Basalt, Town of Snowmass Village, Aspen Fire Protection District, Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District and Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District participated in development of this updated plan. The collaborative effort further demonstrates the ongoing commitment of Pitkin County and its partners to reducing risks to people and property posed by natural hazards, in addition to maintaining eligibility for federal funding.

8 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Chapter One: Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning

1.1 Purpose This updated Pitkin Hazard Mitigation Plan provides Pitkin County and political subdivisions within the county with a comprehensive hazard mitigation strategy for reducing long-term risks to people, property and natural resources. Fortunately, communities in Pitkin County have been spared to date from broad impacts of major disasters due to natural hazard events. The purpose of this plan is to help ensure that Pitkin County remains a safe place to live and work and to provide a framework for addressing potential future hazards through hazard mitigation planning. 1.2 Participating Jurisdictions

Table 1.1 - Participating Jurisdictions 2017 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update County Municipal Special District Participants Participants Participants Pitkin County City of Aspen Aspen Fire Protection District Town of Basalt Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Town of Snowmass Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Village Protection District Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, a participant in the 2011-2012 planning effort with a district spanning multiple counties, is participating in the 2017 Garfield County Hazard Mitigation Plan update. 1.3 Background and Scope Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” Each year in the U.S., disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. While some communities are less hazard-prone than others, there are no hazard-free communities and all communities face some degree of risk from natural disasters. As the costs of recovering from natural disasters continue to rise, many communities have sharpened their interest in identifying effective ways to reduce vulnerability to hazards. In addition to creating safer communities by saving lives and preventing injuries, hazard mitigation can protect infrastructure, limit property damages, reduce public-sector losses, and minimize social and economic disruptions. Many disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated by implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation measures. Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified, likely impacts of those hazards are determined, mitigation goals are set, and appropriate strategies to lessen impacts are determined, prioritized, and implemented. Hazard mitigation plans assist communities in reducing

9 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

risk from hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction. This plan documents the local hazard mitigation planning process, identifies relevant hazards and risks, and outlines the strategies that will be used to decrease vulnerability and increase resilience and sustainability. 1.4 Mitigation Planning Requirements This plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Law 106-390, the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 and the DMA 2000 implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007. These regulations established the requirements that local hazard mitigation plans must meet in order for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93- 288), also known as the Stafford Act. Significant steps in the process of preparing this updated plan included (a) forming a local planning committee, (b) preparing a strategy for public involvement, (c) identifying and assessing natural hazards, (d) determining the vulnerability of community assets to identified natural hazards, and (e) then determining a corresponding set of measures and actions to minimize or manage those risks. 1.5 Grant Programs Requiring Hazard Mitigation Plans FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans qualify communities for the following federal mitigation grant programs:

• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) • Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) • Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) The HMGP Program provides grants to States, Tribes, and local entities to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. Projects must provide a long-term solution to a problem, for example, elevation of a home to reduce the risk of flood damages as opposed to purchasing supplies to fight the flood. In addition, a project’s potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing the project. HMGP funds may be used to protect property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. The amount of funding available for the HMGP under a disaster declaration is limited. The program may provide a state or tribe with up to 15 percent of the total disaster grants awarded by FEMA. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent non-federal. Funding from other federal sources cannot be used for the 25 percent share with one exception. Funding provided to states under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development can be used to meet the non-federal share requirement.

10 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program The PDM Program provides funds to States, Tribes, and local entities, including public universities, for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Grants are awarded on a nationally competitive basis. Like HMGP funding, a PDM project’s potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing the project. In addition, funds may be used to protect either public or private property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent non-federal. There is approximately $50 million to $150 million available each year ($90 million was allocated for FY 2016). Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant Program The goal of the FMA grant program is to reduce or eliminate flood insurance claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Particular emphasis for this program is placed on mitigating repetitive loss properties. Repetitive loss properties are properties for which two or more NFIP losses of at least $1,000 each have been paid within any 10-year period since 1978. Grant funding is available for three types of grants, including planning, project, and technical assistance. Project grants, which use the majority of the program’s total funding, are awarded to states, tribes, and local entities for planning and technical assistance and/or to apply mitigation measures to reduce flood losses to properties insured under the NFIP. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent non-federal. For FY 2016, $199 million was allocated for FMA program grants nationwide. 1.6 Plan Organization The updated 2017 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan is organized as follows:

• Executive Summary o Provides an overview of the process and findings; • Chapter One – Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning o Describes the plan’s purpose, participating jurisdictions, hazard mitigation planning requirements, and federal hazard mitigation programs; • Chapter Two – Planning Process o Describes the process used to develop the updated plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved; • Chapter Three – Community Profile o Provides a general description of Pitkin County and its local government partners, including their location, geography, climate, history, population, economy and government structures;

11 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

• Chapter Four – Risk Assessment o Identifies and profiles the hazards that could affect Pitkin County, based on probability and potential magnitude, assesses vulnerability to those hazards, and describes potential effects of climate warming for each hazard; • Chapter Five – Capability Assessment o Provides an inventory of critical facilities and other community assets, describes land-use and development trends, assesses capability related to hazard mitigation, and describes existing policies, plans and programs in the participating jurisdictions that are related to hazard mitigation; • Chapter Six – Mitigation Strategy o Identifies goals and prioritizes actions to mitigate hazards in each participating jurisdiction, based on the risk assessment, and provides a strategy for implementation; • Chapter Seven – Plan Implementation and Maintenance o Provides a formal process for monitoring, evaluating and updating the plan, identifies methods for continued public involvement, and describes how the updated plan will be incorporated into existing planning mechanisms; and • Appendices A. Plan Participants B. Acronyms C. References and Resources D. Documentation of the Planning Process E. HAZUS Flood Maps F. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) Summary G. Formal Adoption Resolutions/Ordinances H. FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool.

12 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Chapter Two: Planning Process

2.1 2017 Plan Update Process The project to update the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) was managed by the Pitkin County Emergency Manager and funded by a combination of federal grant (DR-4229-CO HMGP) and local matching funds provided through in-kind contributions. Technical planning assistance was provided by staff from the Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management. The services of a planning consultant were secured to conduct research, facilitate data collection, incorporate best available current data into revisions, and produce draft and final plan documents in accordance with DMA 2000 requirements.

Updates to this plan were based on research from a wide variety of sources, historical perspectives, and future projections of vulnerability and resource capacity. Updates were completed using the most current state and federal guidance, including FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (March 2013), to ensure that the plan met federal requirements. A concerted effort was also made to ensure that 2017 revisions were consistent with information in the Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (December 2013), including the definition and detailed description of each hazard profiled in Chapter Four, Risk Assessment.

2.2 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation

Cities, towns and special districts within Pitkin County were invited to participate in the 2017 effort to revise the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. In accordance with DMA 2000, each participating jurisdiction was involved in the planning process and agreed to formally adopt the mitigation plan (upon FEMA approval) in order to remain eligible for FEMA hazard mitigation grant funding. Other public agencies and organizations participating in the process can also receive FEMA grant funds, but only if the project is consistent with this plan and an eligible local government entity agrees to apply on their behalf. At the outset of the HMP revision process, the Pitkin County Emergency Management office informed emergency management colleagues in surrounding counties (Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison and Lake Counties) about the project and invited interested local government agencies and other stakeholders to participate in the Kickoff Meeting and Mitigation Actions Workshop. Two members of the Lake County Emergency Management office attended the Kickoff Meeting in Aspen on June 6, 2017. Although no adjacent counties participated directly in the process, the Pitkin County Emergency Manager provided updates on the project to neighboring jurisdictions at regional meetings and forums, including regular meetings of the Northwest All-Hazards Region and Basalt Emergency Management Committee (which includes Eagle County). Updates to this plan were guided by a planning team composed of representatives of each participating jurisdiction, possessing a wide variety of technical expertise and community knowledge, including public safety, public works, community development, emergency management, environmental health, floodplain management, and utilities services. The Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team (Planning Team) formed

13 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

over the course of two planning workshops and through responses to surveys and requests for information. Participants in the planning process, including their affiliations and contact information, are listed in Appendix A. The organizations represented on the Planning Team are identified in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 - Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation County Planning Team Pitkin County Administration/County Manager’s Office Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) Community Relations Department Pitkin County Emergency Management Community Development Office Animal Safety Department (PCSO) Public Works Department Human Services Department Engineering and Road & Bridge Dept. Environmental Health Department Land Use Engineering/Floodplain Mgmt. Regional Emergency Dispatch Center Long-Range Planning Solid Waste Center GIS Department Aspen/Pitkin County Airport City of Aspen City Manager’s Office Aspen Police Department Climate Action/Canary Initiative Environmental Health & Sustainability Community Development Human Resources/Risk Management Stormwater/Flood and Mudflows Utilities Town of Snowmass Village Town Manager’s Office Snowmass Village Police Department Public Works Department Town of Basalt Community Development Basalt Police Department Public Works Department Aspen Fire Protection District Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Stakeholders American Red Cross Crystal River Valley Community Aspen Valley Hospital Community of Lenado Aspen Community Health Colorado Mountain College Aspen Ambulance District Aspen Skiing Company Aspen School District Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Roaring Fork Club Holy Cross Energy Bureau of Land Management Colorado Division of Water Resources, U.S Forest Service Dam Safety, Division 5

Updates to this plan have been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This updated version of the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan is the second revision of a plan originally prepared as a regional document in cooperation with Eagle County (2005) and subsequently updated in 2011-2012 as a plan for Pitkin County and its local partners exclusively. This updated plan builds on previous versions, incorporating current hazard research, studies and information about natural hazards.

14 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

2.3 10-Step Planning Process The planning process followed for the 2017 plan updates conforms to FEMA’s four-phase DMA process and the 10-step process used for FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) programs. Table 2.2 shows how the modified 10- step process corresponds with the planning requirements of DMA 2000. Table 2.2 - Plan Development Methodology FEMA’s Four-Phase DMA Modified 10-Step CRS Process Process 1) Organize Resources 201.6(c)(1) 1) Organize the Planning Effort 201.6(b)(1) 2) Involve the Public 201.6(b)(2) and (3) 3) Coordinate w/ Other Departments/Agencies 2) Assess Risks 201.6(c)(2)(i) 4) Identify the Hazards 201.6(c)(2)(ii) 5) Assess the Risks 3) Develop the Mitigation Plan 201.6(c)(3)(i) 6) Set Goals 201.6(c)(3)(ii) 7) Review Possible Activities 201.6(c)(3)(iii) 8) Draft the Plan 4) Implement Plan/Monitor Progress 201.6(c)(5) 9) Adopt the Plan 201.6(c)(4) 10) Implement, Evaluate and Revise the Plan

2.4 Phase One: Organize Resources Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort

In conformance with the DMA 2000 planning regulations and guidance, representatives of Participating Jurisdictions participated in the planning effort in the following ways: • attending and participating in one or both planning workshops • providing available data • evaluating and rating area risks and hazards • identifying goals and objectives for the mitigation strategy • reviewing and providing comments on the plan drafts • assisting in the implementation of the public input process • identifying specific projects to be eligible for funding, and • assisting with the formal adoption of the plan by the governing board.

Two planning meetings, a Kickoff Meeting and a Mitigation Actions Workshop, were scheduled to update and obtain feedback from the Planning Team. The Kickoff Meeting was scheduled at the outset of the planning process to provide an overview of the project, evaluate risks from natural hazards in terms of probability and severity, and discuss potential mitigation actions to reduce risk from high priority hazards.

At the Kickoff Meeting, participants reviewed the 2011-2012 Risk Assessment and made the following changes and recommendations for the 2017 version: • Add debris flows and mudflows to the geologic hazards profiled in 2011- 2012 (landslide and rockfall), identify areas subject to debris flow and mudflow events, and identify historic events and related damages;

15 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

• Change probability rating for avalanche from “Likely” to “Highly Likely;” • Add dam failure flooding to the hazards profiled in the updated plan and identify “high” and “significant” hazard dams in Pitkin County; • Add ice jam flooding to the flood hazards described in the flood hazard profile; • Develop a climate change statement for each profiled natural hazard that outlines the implications of global warming and potential future impacts; and • Develop a section within the Risk Assessment chapter that outlines the public health implications of potential hazard events (e.g., air quality issues caused by large, regional wildfires).

Using a dot-poster board exercise, each participant identified the three natural hazards they considered the highest mitigation priorities. The results, across participating jurisdictions, are as follows: 1. Wildfires 2. Geologic Hazards (Landslides/Debris Flows/Mudflows/Rockfalls) 3. Flooding

Participants also rated the highest priority human-caused hazards, in this order: 1. Special Events 2. Infrastructure/Public Service Disruptions 3. Aviation Accidents

The Climate Action Manager for the City of Aspen presented an overview of climate change issues relevant to local government operations and outlined the implications of global warming for extreme natural hazard events.

At the Kickoff Meeting, participants also accomplished several other tasks, including: • reviewing the 2012 Capability Assessment matrix and making several changes; • revalidating the two 2012 goal statements and adding “critical facilities,” and recommending an additional goal related to climate change and global warming; and • reviewing the status of 2012 projects and determining which incomplete actions to retain in the updated plan.

This updated plan is a result of Planning Team input provided through a combination of technical data collection and sharing, comments on draft planning elements, and information gathered during planning workshops. The workshop schedule and topics are listed in Table 2.3 below. Meeting summaries and agendas are included in Appendix D, Documentation of the Planning Process. Table 2.3 - Planning Meetings and Topics Meeting Date and Meeting Purpose Location Pitkin County Kickoff Convene Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Meeting/Initial Workshop, Planning Team; outline Disaster Mitigation Act June 6, 2017 (Aspen, CO) of 2000 process; identify timelines; review and update previous (2012) risk assessment; discuss significant events last five years; determine status of previous (2012) mitigation actions.

16 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Mitigation Actions Report on progress to Planning Team; finalize Workshop, September 14, risk assessment; review potential effects of 2017 (Aspen, CO) climate change on local natural hazards; evaluate and prioritize 2017 mitigation actions.

Step 2: Involve the Public Pitkin County Emergency Management utilized all available local media outlets to announce the Kickoff Meeting and Mitigation Actions Workshop and invite the public to participate, including newspaper, online news, television, public radio and social media (Facebook). The public was encouraged to attend in all spots. Information about the project and workshops was also distributed to Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) and Pitkin County Caucuses. An announcement of the dates, times and locations of the workshops was scrolled on local government television (CGTV) and the hazard mitigation plan update project was discussed at two televised meetings of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. Announcements welcoming the public to attend the workshops appeared in the This Week in Pitkin County section of The Aspen Times on consecutive Mondays before the workshops and also appeared in the Aspen Daily News. The information in the Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News was also broadcast on Aspen Public Radio and posted to the Pitkin County Facebook page. Two citizens attended the Kickoff Meeting – one from the Crystal River Valley community and one from the community of Lenado. There were no members of the general public present at the Mitigation Actions Workshop. A 30-day public review and comment period provided citizens an opportunity to review the final draft of the updated plan and recommend changes or additions. The draft plan was posted for public review on the Pitkin County Connect citizen forum section of the Pitkin County government web page. Citizens were directed to the site using a variety of media, including local government television (CGTV), newspaper ads, Facebook and other social media. No citizen comments were received during the comment period. Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies Pitkin County Emergency Management invited a range of local, state, regional and federal agencies and other interested parties to participate in the plan update process and to review and comment on draft updates to the plan. Stakeholders representing the following public- and private-sector entities participated in the process by attending planning meetings, providing needed data, and/or reviewing the final document draft:

• American Red Cross • Aspen Ambulance District • Aspen Community Health • Aspen Fire Protection District • Aspen School District • Aspen Skiing Company • Aspen Valley Hospital • Bureau of Land Management

17 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

• Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District • City of Aspen • Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management • Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Div. of Water Resources, District 5 • Colorado Mountain College • Crystal River Valley Community (unincorporated Pitkin County) • Holy Cross Energy • Lenado (unincorporated Pitkin County) • Pitkin County Government • Roaring Fork Club • Roaring Fork Transportation Authority • Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District • Town of Basalt • Town of Snowmass Village • U.S. Forest Service 2.5 Phase Two: Assess Risks Step 4: Identify the Hazards For the 2017 update, the Planning Team members reviewed previous versions of the risk assessment and established new ratings and priorities. Two hazards profiled in the previous version of this plan were deleted (earthquakes and tornadoes/windstorms) and one new hazard was added in the current updates (dam failure flooding). The results of that process and hazard profiles for all significant hazards are detailed in Chapter Four, Risk Assessment. In addition to input from the Planning Team, a variety of state, federal, nonprofit and university sources were consulted to collect data required for the update of this plan, including:

• Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) • Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer • Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) • Colorado State Forest Service • Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) • History Colorado • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center) • National Weather Service (NWS) • Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association (RMIIA) • University of South Carolina (SHELDUS) • U.S. Census Bureau • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

18 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Step 5: Assess the Risks The 2017 Risk Assessment was completed based on feedback from survey respondents and participants at the planning workshops. A detailed description of the hazard assessment process and results, including a vulnerability assessment and hazard maps, are provided in Chapter Four, Risk Assessment. A profile of each identified hazard was created using available GIS data, online data sources, and existing plans and reports. The profiles included a hazard description, geographic location, past occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity (extent) for each hazard. The profiles also describe overall vulnerability of each jurisdiction to each hazard and identify structures and estimate potential losses to structures in identified hazard areas. Each profile also examines the potential effects of climate change for each hazard. An updated Capability Assessment is included in Chapter Five, Capability Assessment. The capability assessment process identified existing policies, tools, and actions in place that can reduce risk and vulnerability from natural hazards, such as comprehensive plans, building codes and floodplain management ordinances. Combining the results of the risk assessment with the capability assessment helps to inform the process of developing the goals, objectives, and proposed actions of this plan. 2.6 Phase Three: Develop the Mitigation Plan Step 6: Set Goals Based on the assessment of risks to community assets and the vulnerability of people and property, the following goals were established to guide the development of the mitigation strategy: 1. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by natural hazards. 2. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by human-caused hazards. 3. Recognizing the common issues and mutual goals of hazard mitigation and climate adaptation, promote collaborative planning and identify opportunities to dovetail actions that reduce risks from both natural hazards and climate warming. Step 7: Review Possible Activities The Mitigation Actions Workshop, the second and final planning workshop in support of the project to update the hazard mitigation plan, was held in Aspen on September 14, 2017, 9:30-2:30 at the Pitkin County Library. The workshop was well-attended by representatives of each of the participating jurisdictions, who received a report on the progress of plan updates, reviewed final risk assessment information, and evaluated proposed mitigation actions. Small group activity sessions were conducted in the

19 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

afternoon to allow each participating jurisdiction to refine and finalize mitigation actions.

Participants at the Mitigation Actions Workshop in Aspen on September 14, 2017. Group discussion (middle) is facilitated by the Pitkin County Emergency Manager (left) and the Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal for the Aspen Fire Protection District (right).

The updated plan also identifies hazard mitigation actions that consider the potential effects of climate change on the future frequency and intensity of severe weather and extreme climate events. The Planning Team discussed a wide range of possible mitigation actions and evaluated and prioritized proposed actions based on their need, viability, proposed benefits and estimated costs. A complete list of mitigation actions and a discussion of the process used to identify and prioritize actions can be found in Chapter Six, Mitigation Strategy. Step 8: Draft the Plan Based on results of the risk assessment, the goals established, and the mitigation actions identified in Planning Steps 6 and 7, a complete first draft of the plan was prepared and distributed for review and comment. Final comments from the participating jurisdictions, stakeholders and interested citizens were integrated into the final draft, which was posted on the web and social media to collect public input and comments. A final draft was produced for the Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management and FEMA Region VIII to review and approve, contingent upon final adoption by Pitkin County and the other participating jurisdictions. 2.7 Phase Four: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress Step 9: Adopt the Plan The updated plan will be officially implemented upon formal adoption by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners and the governing bodies of the other participating jurisdictions, tentatively scheduled for early 2018, following conditional approval by FEMA Region VIII.

20 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Step 10: Implement, Evaluate and Revise the Plan The primary benefit of mitigation planning is the implementation of specific mitigation projects and action items. Each mitigation action recommended in this updated plan includes a description of the problem and recommended solution, a lead/responsible agency, project priority and, when available, a cost estimate and possible funding sources. An overall implementation strategy is described in Chapter Seven, Plan Implementation and Maintenance, along with a plan update and maintenance schedule and a strategy for continued public involvement.

21 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Chapter Three: Community Profile

Pitkin County is located in the high country of west-central Colorado and is dominated by national forest land, several large mountain ranges, and many of the state’s highest mountain peaks. Located approximately 200 miles southwest of Denver, Pitkin County is the 24th largest county in the state out of 64 counties, covering approximately 975 square miles (626,832 acres). Most of the land area in Pitkin County is publicly-owned. The U.S. Forest Service/White River National Forest is the largest landowner in the county with 490,760 acres (78% of the county), followed by the Bureau of Land Management which owns 27,915 acres (4.5%), and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (800 acres or less than 1%). The total land area in the county that is privately held is 107,358 acres (17%).

Figure 3.1 - Map of Pitkin County

Pitkin County includes the City of Aspen, the Town of Snowmass Village, portions of the Town of Basalt, and the unincorporated communities of Woody Creek, Old Snowmass, Meredith, Thomasville, and Redstone. Other rural residential areas include Brush Creek Village, Aspen Village and Castle/Maroon Creek, Crystal River Valley and Lenado. Ghost towns within the county include Ashcroft and Independence. The majority of private lands and homes are located along the Roaring Fork River corridor -- the primary river valley in Pitkin County -- and in the Crystal River valley. The other significant river

22 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

drainages in the county are the Frying Pan River, Snowmass Creek, Woody Creek, Castle Creek, Conundrum Creek and East Sopris Creek.1 3.1 Geography Pitkin County is dominated by several large mountain ranges. The Elk Mountains form the western and southern sides of Pitkin County and the Continental Divide forms the eastern boundary along the crest of the Sawatch Range. The Fryingpan River is dammed to form the Ruedi Reservoir and the Roaring Fork River flows northwest from the high peaks. The Crystal River is on the western side of the county. The elevations in the county range from 6,250 feet along the Crystal River south of Carbondale to over 14,000 feet on a number of peaks in the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness Area. Most of the land area within Pitkin County consists of high elevation forests and alpine environments, with the lower valleys dominated by irrigated farmlands and urban/suburban developments. In between the high elevation forests and alpine habitats and the lower farmlands are pinion/juniper woodlands, oakbrush stands, aspen forests, lodgepole pine forests, and much of the rural population. The majority of the population and most privately-owned lands in Pitkin County are located on the valley floor.2 3.2 Climate The high-altitude climate of Pitkin County is characterized by low humidity, abundant sunshine, and annual precipitation totals that vary widely from high peaks to lower valleys. Summer weather is warm and generally dry with temperatures occasionally reaching 90˚F during the day. Brief afternoon thunderstorms are common during the summer months, with accompanying lightning strikes and locally-heavy rainfall. Overnight low temperatures in the summer can dip below 50˚F, again with high variability depending on elevation. During the winter, sunny days and clear blue skies often give way to severe winter weather conditions and significant snowfall accumulations. Communities in the Roaring Fork Valley experience relatively temperate daytime high temperatures in winter that average around 35˚F, while temperatures drop dramatically at night with overnight low temperatures that average in single digits. Recent climate records indicate that Pitkin County is currently experiencing a significant warming trend, with uncertain, but potentially serious implications for the frequency and intensity of future natural hazard events. The projected effects of climate change on natural hazards are discussed in detail in Chapter Four, Risk Assessment. 3.3 History Before the arrival of the first non-native settlers from Europe in the mid-nineteenth century and well before the height of silver mining in the early 1880s, the Ute Indians hunted, fished and gathered wild foods in the valleys of the Roaring Fork, Fryingpan and other rivers and streams of current-day Pitkin County. The Ute Indians referred to the area as “Shining Mountains.” But in 1879, the first silver miners arrived in the Roaring

1 Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (PCCWPP), June 2014, p.8. 2 Ibid.

23

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Fork Valley followed by ranchers running sheep and cattle and entrepreneurs that established commerce to support the new industries. In 1880, the small settlement known as Ute City was renamed Aspen and the town was incorporated the next year. By 1891, Aspen surpassed Leadville as the nation’s largest single silver-producing mining district and the town’s population grew to 12,000. In 1894, one of the largest nuggets of native silver ever found (2,350 pounds) was mined at the Smuggler Mine near Aspen. However, the Sherman Silver Act was repealed in 1893 and led to demonetization of silver. After the silver bust, Aspen’s population declined to 700 and the economy languished until rebounding in the 1940s when Aspen was reborn as a ski town. Today, the City of Aspen is the 53rd largest city in the state and a world- renowned winter and summer resort. Surrounded by the White River National Forest and on three sides by Aspen, Smuggler and Red Mountains, the current City of Aspen covers 3.66 square miles within its corporate limits.3 During the boom days in 1882, demand for charcoal from smelters in Aspen resulted in the construction of seven kilns near the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan Rivers. Five years later in 1887, the town of Aspen Junction was formed across the Fryingpan River from the kilns. In 1895 Aspen Junction was renamed Basalt for the basaltic rock formation of Basalt Mountain, north of the town. The Town of Basalt was officially incorporated during the summer of 1901. The Fryingpan Kilns at Arbany Park, the best-preserved regional examples of the early-industry facilities, were designated as a Local Historic Landmark in 1893.4 Before Snowmass Village became known as a world-class ski resort, ranching was the center of economic activity in the Brush Creek Valley. During the silver-boom years, a small number of ranchers raised cattle, sheep, wheat and hay and the ranching industry grew and thrived in the years that followed. Inspired by the success of the Aspen ski area during the late 1950s, a ski-area developer bought ranches at the base of Baldy and Burnt Mountains and eventually opened the Snowmass-at-Aspen ski area in 1967. Situated high in the Brush Creek Valley, the Town of Snowmass Village was incorporated in 1977 and today is a medium-density, mixed-use, transit-oriented community surrounded by suburban residential neighborhoods and open space. The 25-square-mile town maintains over 35 miles of hiking and biking trails with beautiful mountain vistas. Snowmass Village is home to the second-largest ski mountain in Colorado with the most vertical feet of terrain in the United States and over 150 miles of ski trails. 3.4 Population According to the State Demography Office, Pitkin County’s population has grown since 1990 due to a combination of natural increase (during the 2000s) and net migration (1990s). Since 2013, net migration has exceeded natural increase as population growth in the 55-65 age group has grown faster than net in-migration of 25-30-year-olds.

3 City of Aspen Web Page, www.aspenpitkin.com. 4 Town of Basalt Web Page, www.basalt.net.

24

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 3.1 - Demographic and Social Characteristics of Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village and Town of Basalt Characteristic Pitkin Aspen Snowmass Basalt County Village Population 17,420 6,740 2,865 3,791

Median Age 43.4 43.7 40.0 47.0

Population 65 Years & 2,655 1,336 294 394 Over

Female Population 8,185 3,094 1,365 1,714

Male Population 9,235 3,646 1,500 2,077

Average Household Size 2.28 2.03 2.26 2.24

Average Family Size 3.01 2.83 2.86 2.96

Percent of Total 6.3 4.9 12.8 4.2 Population with Disabilities Residents with Disabilities 173 31 110 0 less than 18 Years Residents with Disabilities 552 156 156 127 18-64 Years Residents with Disabilities 367 138 100 31 over 65 Years Residents with Health 14,889 5,560 2,440 3,401 Insurance Coverage (85.8%) (83.0%) (85.5%) (89.7%) Residents with High 95.1 96.7 100.0 93.3 School Degree (Percent) Residents with Bachelor’s 59.1 64.5 68.3 61.1 Degree (Percent) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey. 3.5 Economy Pitkin County residents have a higher median household income than the rest of the state and a higher share of residents hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. In terms of race and ethnicity, Pitkin County is less diverse than the state as a whole, but has become more diverse over time. As an example, the Hispanic population grew by 60% between 2000 and 2010, while the white population grew by just 12% during the same period.

Most of the housing units in Pitkin County are owner-occupied (62.9%). A significant portion of the housing units in Pitkin County (37.1% in 2010) is considered “vacant housing,” which does not mean abandoned housing, but instead refers to seasonal and recreational rentals (along with a small number of not-yet-sold and not-yet-rented units). The majority of vacant units are for seasonal use (79.3%).5 Select U.S. Census economic and housing characteristics for Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, and the Towns of Snowmass Village and Basalt are provided in the table below.

5 State Demography Office, https://demography.dola.colorado.gov.

25 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 3.2 - Economic and Housing Characteristics of Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village and Town of Basalt Characteristic Pitkin Aspen Snowmass Basalt County Village Median Annual Household $71,196 $67,164 $81,035 $69,583 Income Percent of Total 7.7 7.9 4.0 8.2 Population that is Unemployed Percent of Families Living 5.4 2.6 0.0 6.2 Below Poverty Level Percent of Individuals 9.9 8.8 9.7 6.4 Living Below Poverty Level Total Housing Units 13,027 5,961 2,698 1,865

Occupied Housing Units 7,570 3,269 1,261 1,691

Vacant Housing Units 5,457 2,692 1,437 174

Homeowner Vacancy Rate 3.3 2.4 5.0 3.3

Rental Vacancy Rate 22.4 25.7 32.1 3.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey.

According to the U.S. Census (2015 County Business Patterns), the total number of business establishments located in Pitkin County in the first quarter of 2015 was 1,595 and the total number of employees was 17,141 (the data does not include most government employees, railroad employees and self-employed individuals). As in other mountain resort communities, the largest industries by employment are accommodation and food services; arts, entertainment and recreation; and retail trade, followed by real estate/rental and leasing. Tourism accounts for two-thirds of the base industry employment in Pitkin County, primarily ski resorts and second-home owners.6 In 2012, the total number of businesses within the county was 4,855, with 3,033 of those businesses in Aspen, 1,083 in Basalt, and 527 in Snowmass Village.7

Table 3.3 lists the top 10 major industries in Pitkin County for the first quarter of 2015 by number of employees and number of establishments. Table 3.3 - Industry Distribution in Pitkin County Industry Employees Establishments Accommodation and Food Services 5,669 167 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 3,369 51 Retail Trade 1,482 237 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,074 226 Administrative Support/Waste Management 841 101 Health Care and Social Assistance 761 72 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 673 251 Construction 578 163

6 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 County Business Patterns. 7 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Survey of Business Owners.

26

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Management of Companies and Enterprises 381 10 Other Services (except Public Administration) 960 136 Total (including sectors not listed above) 17,141 1,595 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 County Business Patterns.

According to the State Demography Office, job growth is expected to continue to exceed population growth for the period from 2015 to 2020, after which population growth will slightly exceed job growth during the period 2020 to 2030. The transition to lower job growth is a reflection of short-term economic growth and longer-term population aging. As the population ages, labor force growth will decrease and older adults may require additional housing, more accessible housing, and community services.8 3.6 Government With the county seat in Aspen, Colorado, Pitkin County was established in 1881 and became a home-rule county in 1978, giving local elected officials the authority of self- government under the State Constitution, Colorado Revised Statutes, and the Home Rule Charter for Pitkin County. A five-member Board of County Commissioners is the decision-making body for the County. Each Commissioner is elected at large from one of five districts and serves a four-year term. The Board of County Commissioners appoints a county manager and county attorney, as well as a variety of citizen boards, such as the Planning and Zoning Commission, Open Space and Trails Board, and the Financial Advisory Board. As a home-rule county, Pitkin County provides general government, public safety, road and bridge, and health and welfare services required by state statute, as well as other services such as solid waste landfill and recycling, ambulance, library, airport, parks, and open space and trails services. The City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village are both home-rule municipalities. The Town of Basalt is a statutory municipality. All three municipalities have council- mayor-manager forms of government. An appointed city/town manager oversees each municipality’s day-to-day operations on behalf of the elected mayor and council members. All powers are vested in the councils, which enact local legislation, adopt budgets, determine policies and appoint the city/town managers. Aspen and Snowmass Village have five-member councils (including the mayor), while Basalt has a seven- member council (including the mayor). Pitkin County Emergency Management is responsible for the planning and coordination of local disaster services, including preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery from natural and human-caused emergencies and disasters. To enhance planning and coordination, the Pitkin County Public Safety Council (PSC) brings together 38 cooperating agencies, including all first response agencies (such as law enforcement and fire departments) and other supporting agencies (such as American Red Cross and Community Health) quarterly to discuss public safety issues in the Roaring Fork Valley. In 2001, the Pitkin County Emergency Medical and Trauma Advisory Council (EMTAC) was established to inspect/license ambulances, coordinate emergency medical and

8 State Demography Office, https://demography.dola.colorado.gov.

27 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

trauma services, and implement and coordinate accident prevention programs, among other responsibilities. In 2003, the Town of Basalt established an Emergency Management Committee (BEMC) to channel community input and to ensure that public safety entities are meeting the needs of citizens in the Basalt area. 3.7 Fire Protection Districts (FPDs) Aspen Fire Protection District The Aspen Fire Protection District provides 24-hour emergency response to a wide variety of critical situations, including structural, wildland, and urban interface fires, explosions, hazardous materials incidents, medical emergencies, accidents and auto extrication. Personnel are trained in swift-water rescue, as well as ice, low-angle rope, trench, and confined-space rescue. The fire department has the capability to respond to emergency medical needs, including basic life support. The Aspen Fire Protection District serves 87 square miles in Pitkin County. It encompasses the City of Aspen and several unincorporated areas, including Woody Creek, Brush Creek and Starwood. The department also manages fire prevention and emergency preparedness programs, including fire inspections, hazardous process permitting, burn permits, fire code enforcement, community education, and business emergency planning in accordance with Colorado laws. Each year the Aspen Fire Protection District spends over 4,000 hours completing hands-on training activities, which build important practical skills and provide each firefighter with the abilities needed to quickly and correctly respond to all types of emergency situations.9 Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District provides emergency and non-emergency services for the protection of life and property in portions of Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Encompassing 492 square miles, the department is one of the largest fire districts in Colorado. The department provides 24-hour emergency response to a wide variety of critical incidents and has the capability to respond to emergency medical needs, including basic life support. The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District spans Colorado 82 from mile-marker 18 to 30 and follows the Fryingpan River east to the Continental Divide. The department maintains four fire stations: Basalt, El Jebel, Meredith, and Old Snowmass. Each station is equipped with a four-wheel drive ambulance and various fire response trucks. The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District is made up of nearly 80 members including the Board of Directors, the District’s Attorney and Physician Advisor, Fire Chief, Deputy Chiefs, Fire Officers, EMS Director, EMS Shift Captains, Fire Marshal, Fleet Mechanic, Firefighters, EMS Personnel, Fire Inspector, Office Manager, Administrative Assistants, and numerous Firefighter and EMT Volunteers.10

9 Aspen Fire Protection District, aspenfire.com. 10 Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, www.basaltfire.org.

28

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District (SWFPD) serves a 24-square mile area of Pitkin County including the town of Snowmass Village. The District, established in 1971, is situated in an area known for its natural beauty at an elevation of almost 9,000 feet. SWFPD serves a growing population as well as surges due to tourists and other visitors that can swell the population to 25,000. SWFPD is also called upon often to provide resources and support through mutual aid agreements with Aspen, Basalt and Carbondale fire departments. SWFPD has 19 full-time career personnel consisting of a Fire Chief, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire Inspector, Administrative Assistant, 3 Fire Captains, 3 Engineer/Paramedics, and 9 Firefighter/Paramedics. SWFPD is supported by numerous volunteers and part-time reserve Firefighter/EMTs. The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Department operates 13 pieces of apparatus out of one station. SWFD is responsible for all Emergency Medical care as well as Fire and Technical Rescue operations in its district. The District’s yearly call volume is around 1000 calls with approximately 40% consisting of medical calls. SWFPD proudly exhibits an ISO rating of 4 for the entire district.11 The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District have reached an agreement to merge the two departments into a single district beginning in 2017.

11 Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, www.swfpd.com.

29 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Chapter Four: Risk Assessment

The natural hazards that present the greatest risks to communities in Pitkin County are profiled in this chapter, along with an assessment of the vulnerability of community assets to those hazards. The purpose of the risk assessment is to provide a better understanding of local risks and establish a framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future natural hazard events. Risk is the potential for damage, loss, or other impacts created by the interaction of natural or other types of hazards with community assets. When people, property or other community assets are exposed to hazards, incidents or extreme events can lead to catastrophic impacts. “Impacts are the consequences or effects of the hazard on the community and its assets. The type and severity of impacts are based on the extent of the hazard and the vulnerability of the asset, as well as the community’s capabilities to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from events.”12

Hazard and Risk Assessment Terminology Natural hazard – source of harm or difficulty created by a meteorological, environmental, or geological event. Community assets – the people, structures, facilities, and systems that have value to the community. Vulnerability – characteristics of community assets that make them susceptible to damage from a given hazard. Probability – the likelihood of the hazard occurring in the future, based on historical frequencies or statistical probability models. Impact – the consequences or effects of a hazard on the community and its assets. Magnitude – the scale or severity of a hazard event in terms of the impacts to public safety, critical infrastructure, private property, natural resources and other community assets. Risk – the potential for damage, loss, or other impacts created by the interaction of natural hazards with community assets. Risk assessment – product or process that collects information and assigns values to risks for the purpose of informing priorities, developing or comparing courses of action, and informing decision making. Human-caused incident – an incident caused by human action (or inaction), such as a hazardous materials accident or long-term power outage, or an intentional action of an adversary, such as a cyber event. Source: Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, FEMA (March 2013). The information provided in this risk assessment is intended as a tool to support local decision-making and a framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future hazard events. For the 2017 updates to this plan, the process that was followed is consistent with the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA)

12 Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, FEMA (March 2013), p. 5-1

30 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

process outlined and followed in the Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2013) and conforms to the methodology described in FEMA regulations and guidelines, including the publication Understanding Your Risks— Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (2002). 4.1 Federal Disaster Declaration History for Pitkin County Federal disaster declarations are granted when the magnitude and severity of impacts caused by an event surpass the ability of state and affected local governments to respond and recover. Most disaster assistance programs are supplemental and require a local cost-sharing match. When the response capacity of an affected jurisdiction is exhausted, a state disaster declaration may be issued, allowing for the provision of state assistance, usually for the purpose of covering the costs of state assets committed to response operations. Should the severity of the disaster event surpass both the local and state government response capacity, a federal emergency or disaster declaration may be issued, allowing for the provision of federal disaster assistance. Generally, the federal government issues disaster declarations through FEMA. However, federal assistance may also come from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Small Business Association (SBA), or other government programs such as the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program (FMAG). FEMA also issues emergency declarations, which are more limited in scope and without the long-term federal recovery programs of major disaster declarations. The quantity and types of damage are the determining factors. USDA disaster declarations are the most common type of federal disaster assistance and is limited to low-interest loans to farmers and ranchers to help compensate for losses due to natural hazards, including drought, freezing, hail, and insect infestations. Table 4.1 lists the federal disaster declarations for which Pitkin County was a designated county.

Table 4.1 - Federal Disaster Declaration History (1965-2017) for Pitkin County

Year Disaster Event Type Declaration Type (Number) 1977 Drought; emergency federal public Federal Emergency assistance to repair/replace disaster- (EM-3025) damaged facilities. 1984 Minor-to-moderate property damage in FEMA Disaster Basalt (flooding) and Aspen (mudslides). (DR-719) 2002 Statewide federal drought designation USDA Disaster (snowpack in Colorado on April 1 just 52% of (Number N/A) normal). 2006 Federal drought designation for Pitkin USDA Disaster County for losses due to heat, high winds (S2351) and drought. 2012 Federal designation for Pitkin County for USDA Disaster losses due to freezing conditions. (S3307) 2013 Federal designation for Pitkin County for USDA Disaster losses due to drought. (S3575)

31 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

2013 Federal designation for Pitkin County for USDA Disaster losses due to frost and freezing. (S3583) 2014 Federal designation for Pitkin County for USDA Disaster losses due to frost and freezing. (S3760) Source: Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2013); Colorado Drought Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013); FEMA, www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema. 4.2 Hazard Identification At the first workshop on June 7, 2017, participants provided input on local risks from natural hazards (in terms of probability, magnitude and priority), identified new hazards to include in the updated plan (dam failure flooding), and identified the need to address public health issues and the implications of climate change for each hazard profiled in the updated plan.

Participants also recommended adding debris flows and mudflows to the other geologic hazards included in the plan (landslides and rockfall). The table below identifies the eight natural hazards recommended for inclusion in the 2017 update of this plan. Table 4.2 - Significant Natural Hazards Affecting Pitkin County

Significant Natural Hazards Affecting Pitkin County Avalanches Dam Failure Flooding Drought Floods

Geologic Hazards (Landslides, Debris Flows, Mudflows and Rockfalls) Lightning Wildfires Winter Storms (Severe Winter Storms)

Source: Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team The Planning Team evaluated each of these natural hazards focusing on the number of previous occurrences, probability of future events, and the estimated magnitude and severity of impacts to community assets. Using the results of the previous risk assessment in the 2012 HMP as a starting point, ratings-rankings were reevaluated and modified by participants at the two planning workshops and through information gathered in surveys and interviews. Although results of the risk assessment vary slightly from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction, the consensus of the Planning Team is that the following three natural hazards pose the greatest risks to people and property throughout Pitkin County and are priorities for planning and mitigation: 1. Wildfires 2. Geologic Hazards (Landslides/Debris Flows/Mudflows/Rockfalls) 3. Flooding.

32 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Other natural hazards that are not profiled in this updated plan, due to the low probability of their occurrence or the low likelihood of serious impacts to people and property in the rare event of an occurrence, are earthquake, extreme heat, hail, subsidence, tornado/windstorm and volcano.

Although natural hazards are the focus of this hazard mitigation plan, the Planning Team also rated the highest priority human-caused hazards, in this order: 1. Special Events 2. Infrastructure/Public Service Disruptions 3. Aviation Accidents.

The results of the 2017 Risk Assessment are exhibited in the tables below, based on probability and magnitude. Probability is defined by FEMA as the likelihood of the hazard occurring in the future, based on historical frequencies or statistical probability models. Table 4.3 - Categories for Estimating Probability of Future Hazard Occurrences Probability Categories Highly Likely Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it happens every year. Likely 10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Occasional 1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or it has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. Unlikely Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence next 100 years (recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years).

Magnitude refers to the scale or severity of a hazard event in terms of the impacts to public safety, critical infrastructure, private property, natural resources and other community assets. Table 4.4 - Categories for Estimating Magnitude of Future Hazard Occurrences Magnitude Categories Catastrophic Multiple deaths; property destroyed and severely damaged; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for more than 72 hours. Critical Isolated deaths and/or multiple injuries and illnesses; major or long-term property damage; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for 24-72 hours. Limited Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours. Negligible No or few injuries or illnesses; minor quality of life loss; little or no property damage; and/or brief interruption of essential facilities and services.

33 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Natural Hazards in the Fire Protection Districts The Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) serves 87 square miles in Pitkin County and encompasses the City of Aspen and several unincorporated areas, including Woody Creek, Brush Creek and Starwood. The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District (SWFPD) serves a 21-square mile area of the county that includes the Town of Snowmass Village. Encompassing an area of 492 square miles that spans parts of Pitkin and Eagle Counties, the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District (BRFPD) is one of the largest fire districts in Colorado. The BRFPD boundaries include the Town of Basalt and span Colorado 82 from mile-marker 18 to 30, following the Fryingpan River east to the Continental Divide. A process to unify the Snowmass-Wildcat and Basalt and Rural fire protection districts began in 2017 and will be completed in January 2019. The types of natural hazards faced by the three fire protection districts participating in this HMP update are the same hazards that could potentially impact municipalities and other areas throughout the county. The evaluation of the risks posed by these hazards – in terms of probability and magnitude – was conducted collaboratively by the fire protection districts and the incorporated areas that they serve within the district. The three fire districts are all at risk to the natural hazards profiled in this plan, with the more populated areas of each fire district facing the most severe potential impacts to people, property and other community assets. All areas of Pitkin County are susceptible to wildfires, flooding and drought and High (Class I) and Significant (Class II) dams are located in each of the fire protection districts. Many hazard events, including avalanches, lightning, landslides and other geologic hazards, occur with greater frequency in remote, backcountry areas of the fire districts because of the large geographic area they cover. Impacts to people or improved property from these events; however, are generally limited. Pitkin County has been spared to date from the devastating impacts of a large wildfire, major flood or other disaster event, although more minor natural hazard events occur on a regular basis and are effectively managed by fire service and other public safety agencies. The consensus reached between representatives of the fire districts, municipalities and other stakeholders – concerning the probability and potential magnitude of each hazard – are reflected in the tables in Section 4.3, Hazard Profile Summary, of this chapter. 4.3 Hazard Profile Summary The table below provides a composite summary of hazard ratings – by probability and magnitude – across the participating jurisdictions.

34 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 4.5 - 2017 Composite Risk Assessment: Pitkin County and Partner Jurisdictions Pitkin County Composite Risk Summary All Participating Jurisdictions Hazard Probability Magnitude Wildfire Likely Catastrophic Geologic Hazards Highly Likely Critical Flood* Occasional Critical Catastrophic Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited Avalanche Likely Critical Lightning Likely Limited Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Catastrophic Drought Occasional Limited

Legend Probability Unlikely Occasional Likely Highly Likely Magnitude Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic

*Flood hazard rated potentially catastrophic by Aspen and Basalt and critical by Snowmass Village and Pitkin County

The risk probability and magnitude rankings for each of the participating jurisdictions are summarized in the tables below.

Table 4.6 - Aspen/Aspen FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude Hazard Risk Summary City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Geologic Hazards Highly Likely Critical Avalanche Highly Likely Critical Wildfire Likely Critical Flood Occasional Catastrophic Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited Lightning Likely Limited Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Catastrophic Drought Occasional Limited

Legend Probability Unlikely Occasional Likely Highly Likely Magnitude Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic

35 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 4.7 - Basalt/Basalt & Rural FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude Hazard Risk Summary Town of Basalt and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Wildfire Likely Catastrophic Flood Occasional Catastrophic Geologic Hazards Highly Likely Limited Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited Avalanche Occasional Critical Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Catastrophic Lightning Likely Limited Drought Occasional Limited

Legend Probability Unlikely Occasional Likely Highly Likely Magnitude Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic

Table 4.8 - Pitkin County Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude Hazard Risk Summary Pitkin County Hazard Probability Magnitude Wildfire Likely Catastrophic Geologic Hazards Highly Likely Critical Winter Storm Highly Likely Critical Flood Occasional Critical Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Catastrophic Lightning Likely Limited Avalanche Likely Limited Drought Occasional Limited

Legend Probability Unlikely Occasional Likely Highly Likely Magnitude Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic

36 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 4.9 - Snowmass Village/Snowmass-Wildcat FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude Hazard Risk Summary Town of Snowmass Village and Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Wildfire Likely Catastrophic Geologic Hazards Highly Likely Critical Avalanche Highly Likely Critical Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited Flood Occasional Critical Lightning Likely Limited Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Critical Drought Occasional Limited

Legend Probability Unlikely Occasional Likely Highly Likely Magnitude Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic

4.4 Climate Change and Natural Hazards Climate Trends The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997 and the Earth’s surface temperatures in 2016 were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In 2016, globally-averaged temperatures were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the mid-20th century mean, continuing a long-term warming trend and making 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures. The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2˚F (1.1˚C) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.13 Colorado’s climate has warmed 2˚F in the last 30 years and 2.5˚F over the last 50 years. According to the Colorado Climate Plan, models project the state will experience an additional 2 to 5 degrees of warming by 2050.14 Since 1940, average temperatures in Aspen have increased more than 2˚F and trends indicate longer summers as temperatures continue to rise. Since 1980, the length of the frost-free period in Aspen has increased by 23 days as minimum temperatures increase more than maximum temperatures.15

13 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, www.nasa.gov, January 18, 2017. 14 Colorado Climate Plan, State Level Policies and Strategies to Mitigate and Adapt (2015), Executive Summary. 15 Arnott, James, Elise Osenga and John Katzenberger (December 2014), Climate Change and Aspen: An Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning and Stakeholder Engagement, Aspen Global Change 37 Institute, p. 13.

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 4.10 - Summary of Climate Trends Observed in and around Aspen Observation Trend: 1940-1979 Trend: 1980-2013 Average Temperature 1.0˚F increase 1.4˚F increase

Frost Free Days 11-day increase 23-day increase

Total Precipitation 2.6-inch increase 0.6-inch decrease

Snow Water Equivalent Data not available 1.2-inch decrease (Independence Pass) Source: Climate Change and Aspen 2014 Note: Aspen’s weather station relocated in 1980 approximately 200 feet higher in elevation, which may affect the trends observed since 1940.

In the Final Draft of the Climate Science Special Report (June 28, 2017) of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the authors indicate that the most recent data “adds to the weight of evidence for rapid global-scale warming, the dominance of human causes, and the expected continuation of increasing temperatures, including more record-setting extremes,” adding: “The global, long-term, and unambiguous warming trend has continued during recent years.”16 Effects of Climate Change on Natural Hazards As the climate warms, it is expected that drought and severe weather-related hazard events, including heavy rainfall and flooding, will increase in both frequency and intensity. According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, temperatures in the U.S. will continue to rise, heat waves will become more intense, and the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events will increase. In the Southwest region that includes Colorado, less winter and summer precipitation is projected and longer-term drought events are expected to intensify, magnifying the risks and impacts of wildfires.17 The timing of peak river levels has changed since the middle of the last century in response to warming trends. Snowpack and snowmelt-fed rivers have earlier peak flow trends due to declines in spring snowpack, earlier snowmelt-fed streamflow, the effects of dust on snow, and larger percentages of precipitation falling as rain instead of snow.18 Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events Extreme weather events are caused by a variety of possible contributing factors, with human-induced climate change now considered by a large majority of the scientific community to be one of those factors. All weather events are now influenced by climate change because all weather now develops in a different environment than before. While natural variability continues to play a key role in extreme weather, climate change has shifted the

16 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, June 28, 2017, Final Draft of the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 13. 17 National Climate Assessment (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program, nca2014globalchange.gov. 18 Melillo, J.M., Terice Richmond, and Gary Yoke, Eds. (2014), Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 72. 38

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

odds and changed the natural limits, making certain types of extreme weather more frequent and more intense.19 While climate extremes are a natural part of the climate system, “changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.”20 Although the role that climate warming plays in any single extreme weather-related event cannot be measured, several unprecedented historic events have occurred in the last five years, including near disasters -- like the Oroville Dam emergency in Northern California in February 2017 -- and catastrophic disasters, most notably the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey, a storm that generated the most extreme rainfall event in U.S. history (51.9 inches). There are also examples of record-setting events that have occurred in Colorado in the last five years, including the worst wildfires in state history (Black Forest Fire in 2013 and Waldo Canyon Fire in 2012) and the worst flood in state history (Northern Front Range in 2013). In 2014, the longest landslide in the state’s history (the West Salt Lake slide at 2.8 miles) occurred in Mesa County, while other parts of the state were just recovering from an extended drought period that rivaled the Dust Bowl-era in intensity. Extreme Event Attribution The science of “event attribution” involves estimating how much climate change affects an individual event’s magnitude or probability of occurrence. Analysis of the attribution of extreme weather events to changes in the climate system can provide valuable information about future risks for land-use planners, emergency managers and policy makers. A solid understanding of extreme weather event attribution in the context of changing climate can help provide insight into and confidence in the many risk calculations that underpin much of society’s building codes; land, water, health and food management; insurance; transportation networks; and many additional aspects of daily life.21 Extreme event attribution studies attempt to determine how much of the credit or risk for an event should go to global warming and how much should go to natural weather patterns or random climate variability. Event attribution can help determine whether global warming added to the existing mix of ingredients that already make extreme weather happen, or whether global warming made an event more likely or more severe.

19 Climate Communication, climatecommunication.org. 20 IPCC, 2012: Summary for Policymakers. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, p. 7. 21 39 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2016), Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change, Committee on Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change Attribution, Board of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division of Earth and Life Studies, p. x.

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Knowing whether global warming influenced the probability or intensity of an extreme weather event can help people in affected communities develop recovery and resilience plans that match their future risk…The goal of extreme event attribution is to provide a local-scale perspective that people, communities, and businesses can use to better anticipate future changes in extremes at their specific location.22 Climate Change in Pitkin County, Colorado The report Climate Change and Aspen (2014), prepared by the Aspen Global Change Institute, describes what living with natural hazards in the age of climate change will look like in Aspen and its neighboring communities in the Roaring Fork Valley of Pitkin County. For Aspen, climate change will likely include longer summertime warm periods, earlier onset of spring snowmelt, more precipitation arriving as rain rather than snow, and longer dry periods with heavier precipitation events in between. These types of changes could exacerbate already risky wildfire conditions, place extra pressure on already stretched water providers and users, provide additional challenges to ski area operators and other winter and summer recreation providers, as well as result in other impacts to every sector important to the Aspen community.23 Precipitation and snowfall in Pitkin County have been variable over the period 1940- 2013, but as temperatures continue to rise, duration of snowpack and percent of precipitation falling as snow rather than rain may decline. Snowpack depth and duration of snow cover are closely linked to water availability, watershed functions and winter ecology.24 Like many areas of Colorado, the winter tourism-based economy in Pitkin County relies on consistent winter storm fronts and adequate snowpack, but changes have already been observed in the timing of snow-producing storms and current climate trends have raised concerns about the possible impacts of a shortened winter sports season in the future. Response to Climate Change Societal responses to climate change fall into one of two categories: (1) mitigation, which in climate change vernacular refers to measures taken to reduce future human-induced global warming, primarily by cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and (2) adaptation, or efforts to reduce the vulnerability of society to the impacts of climate change. Strategies and actions that implement both mitigation and adaptation measures are needed to effectively address future impacts. Since carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere at a rate approximately one-half of the current rate of human-caused emissions,

22 Lindsey, Rebecca, December 15, 2016, Extreme Event Attribution: The Climate Versus Weather Blame Game, NOAAClimate.gov. 23 Arnott, James, Elise Osenga and John Katzenberger (December 2014), Climate Change and Aspen: An Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning and Stakeholder Engagement, Aspen Global Change Institute, p. 10. 40 24 Ibid, p. 60.

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

mitigation measures are more challenging, but adaptation efforts will be less effective and more expensive if significant mitigation actions are not taken.25 In light of recent high-profile extreme events and the ever-rising costs of disaster recovery, the number of communities in the U.S seeking FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans has grown steadily in recent years. Hazard mitigation plans provide communities with an opportunity to simultaneously meet FEMA pre-disaster planning requirements while considering the implications of climate change for future natural hazard events. States are now required by FEMA to include projected climate warming effects in hazard mitigation plans, but the mandate has not been extended to local governments as of updates to this plan. Climate change may eventually lead to changes in the way natural hazards risks are assessed, with less emphasis on historical hazard information and greater efforts to understand the implications of climate warming for the frequency, severity and duration of future events.26 Integrating climate change and natural hazards into all community plans is an important step that local governments can take to promote resiliency and disaster prevention and encourage interagency and multi-jurisdictional coordination. Incorporating climate- related risks into local codes and standards is an effective method for protecting existing and future structures. Specific hazard mitigation actions that address climate change in Pitkin County are included in Chapter Six, Mitigation Strategy, of this plan. 4.5 Public Health Impacts of Natural Hazards The human costs of natural disasters are well documented: death, injury, disease, and behavioral health impacts are the most evident consequences of extreme weather-related events. A warming climate will change the frequency, intensity and geographic distribution of weather extremes. Widespread consensus exists in the climate-science community that the world’s climate is warming and that these changes will lead to more variable weather, heat waves, heavy precipitation events, flooding, droughts, intense storms and air pollution. Less obvious impacts of climate warming include changes in the distribution of mosquitoes, ticks and rodents that carry diseases like West Nile virus and Lyme disease. Climate change can affect public health in two main ways: (1) by changing the frequency or severity of health problems already affected by climate and weather factors, and (2) by creating new, unanticipated health risks in areas where they have not previously occurred.27 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the health effects of a changing climate include increased respiratory and cardiovascular disease, injuries and premature deaths related to extreme weather events, threats to mental health, and changes in the frequency and distribution of food- and water-borne illnesses and other infectious diseases.28

25 Melillo, Jerry, Terise Richmond, and Gary Yohe, Eds. (2014), Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Research Program, pp. 62-64. 26 Stults, M., Climate Risk Management (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.004. 27 U.S Global Change Research Program, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States, 2016, GlobalChange.com. 41 28 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects.

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Figure 4.1 - Public Health Impacts of Climate Change

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects. In Pitkin County, potential extreme events with important health impacts include flooding, droughts and wildfires.

• Flooding poses direct risks of drowning and injury and can result in mold growth, vector-borne disease transmission, and water contamination; • Drought and extreme heat can cause water shortages, disrupt food production, increase ground-level ozone, and lead to larger, more intense wildfires; • Wildfires are expected to increase in frequency, size and intensity, with increased emissions that are harmful to human health. Depending on the type of extreme event, public health impacts may include increased heart problems, increased respiratory illness (e.g., asthma attacks, pneumonia), vector- borne disease transmission (e.g., Zika and West Nile viruses), longer allergy seasons, environmental-related stress and anxiety, worsened mental health conditions (e.g., dementia, schizophrenia), and shorter life expectancies. The threat of large wildfires in and around Pitkin County poses dangerous and potentially lethal risks for individuals with chronic respiratory conditions. Smoke from burning trees and vegetation can irritate eyes and respiratory systems, with higher risks for those with chronic heart and lung diseases, and for children and the elderly. Wildfire smoke contains particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds that can drastically reduce air quality. Smoke exposure increases

42 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and the number of people requiring treatment for asthma, bronchitis, chest pain, COPD, respiratory infections and lung illnesses.29 4.6 Hazard Profile Methodology Each of the hazards identified as posing a threat in Pitkin County are profiled in subsequent sections. Each profile includes a summary of the overall risk and vulnerability for each identified hazard. The sources used to collect information for the hazard profiles include, but are not limited to the following: • State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2013); • Information on past hazard events from the Spatial Hazard Event and Loss Database; (SHELDUS), a component of the University of South Carolina Hazards Research Lab, that compiles county-level hazard data for 18 natural hazard event types; • Information on past extreme weather and climate events from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center or NCDC); • Disaster declaration history from FEMA, the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA); • State of Colorado datasets compiled by state and federal agencies; • Existing plans and reports; and • Information collected from members of the Pitkin County Planning Team and additional stakeholders.

Each hazard is profiled in the format outlined below that describes hazard characteristics, including hazard location, previous occurrences, probability, magnitude/severity, and vulnerable community assets. • Hazard Description - this subsection provides a general description of the hazard and associated problems and considers the relationship between hazards; • Geographic Location - this subsection identifies the areas within Pitkin County that are vulnerable to each hazard, or whether potential impacts could affect the entire county; • Previous Occurrences - this subsection contains an overview of information on historic incidents, including major incident impacts where known; • Probability of Future Occurrences - the probability, or chance of occurrence, was calculated based on existing data by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years and multiplying by 100, then adjusting based on the experience and expertise of members of the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team; • Magnitude/Severity - this subsection summarizes the extent or potential extent of a hazard event in terms of deaths, injuries, property damage, and interruption of essential facilities and services; • Vulnerability Assessment - this subsection describes the county’s overall vulnerability to each hazard; identifies existing and future structures, critical

29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects.

43 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

facilities, and infrastructure in identified hazard areas; and estimates potential losses to vulnerable structures, where data is available; and • Potential Effects of Climate Warming - this subsection examines each hazard with respect to possible changes in the occurrence, frequency, intensity and duration of natural hazard events due to climate change, based on the latest scientific research. 4.7 Wildfires Hazard Description According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, a wildfire is “an unplanned, unwanted wildland fire including unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires where the objective is to put the fire out. Wildfires are divided into four categories:

• Wildland fire – fuel consists mainly of natural vegetation;

• Interface or intermix fire – urban/wildland fires that consist of vegetation and manmade fuel;

• Catastrophic fire – a very intense event that makes suppression very difficult and negatively impacts human values;

• Prescribed fire – Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives.”30 Three factors that contribute to fire ignition and growth are fuel, topography, and weather. Fuel sources include dead tree needles, leaves, twigs, branches, dead standing trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses. Grasses and lighter fuels burn quickly and can spread a ground fire up through brush into trees, leading to a crown fire in the upper canopy that cannot be controlled. The topography of an area also influences wildfire behavior. Due to the convection of heat, both fire intensity and rate of fire spread increases as slope increases. Finally, weather also plays a key role in both fire starts and the ability of firefighters to control and suppress large wildfires. Wind, temperature, relative humidity and lightning are the weather factors that have the greatest effect on fire behavior. Geographic Location The wildfire risk in Pitkin County is primarily associated with wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas (areas where development occurs within or immediately adjacent to wildlands, near fire-prone trees, brush, and/or other vegetation). Persistent drought in Colorado since 2000, coupled with fire suppression, has resulted in extremely dry and volatile fuels and a corresponding threat of large, erratic wildfires. Wildfires occur both naturally (e.g., lightning strikes) and from human causes, including illegal outdoor fires, sparks from trains, discarded cigarettes, and outdoor cooking grills.

30 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (December 2013), Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, p. 3-214

44

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) conducts regular assessments to evaluate wildfire risks and hazards in the state. CSFS uses the following three GIS layers to determine fire danger: 1) Risk – probability of ignition • lightning strike intensity • existence of 100-meter road and railroad buffers 2) Hazard – vegetative and topological features affecting intensity and rate of spread • Slope • Aspect • Vegetation (fuels) 3) Values • natural or manmade components of the ecosystem on which a value can be placed (e.g., housing density).

More than half of Pitkin County is forested with much of the remaining vegetation types dominated by pinyon/juniper, alpine meadows, willows and riparian shrublands, Gambel oak, sagebrush and agricultural grasslands. The forested areas are primarily aspen stands with widespread mixed conifer stands.31

Previous Occurrences Wildland fire occurrence in Pitkin County is tracked by three agencies: (1) the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)/White River National Forest, (2) the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS). The federal agencies record fire data from federal lands and CSFS keeps records of fires on state and private lands. CSFSs statistics only reflect those wildland fires reported by local fire departments. As in other areas of Colorado, most fires in Pitkin County are started by human-caused (including equipment) ignitions and a small number of fires account for the majority of acres burned.

Historic occurrences of wildfire by county are not well documented. Although most are controlled when they are small (one acre or less), fire protection districts in Pitkin County respond to many wildfire events each year. Fortunately, Pitkin County has been spared to date from large fires like the devastating fires that impacted counties across Colorado in 2012 1nd 2013.

31 Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (June 2014), p. 11.

45 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Figure 4.2 - Historic Wildfire Occurrences in Pitkin County

Probability

The Planning Team has rated the probability of Hazard: Wildfire future wildfire events as likely, with a recurrence interval of 10 years or less (10-100% Probability chance in a given year). The frequency of large Pitkin County Likely wildfires and the total area burned have been Aspen Likely increasing in Colorado and the western U.S Basalt Likely with climate warming contributing to longer Snowmass Village Likely fire seasons, drier conditions, more fuels, and

an increased number of lightning strikes.

46 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Magnitude/Severity When conditions combine to cause a fast- Hazard: Wildfire moving wildfire, potential impacts include destruction of structures, vehicles, signage and Magnitude/Severity other property, as well as smoke damage to Pitkin County Catastrophic buildings. Wildfires can also impact utilities, Aspen Critical Basalt Catastrophic watersheds, natural and cultural resources, Snowmass Village Catastrophic range and crop lands, and local economies (e.g., fire expenditures/loss of tourism). Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard. As climate warming leads to longer, more intense periods of drought, the risks and impacts of wildfires are expected to grow, in turn leading to greater risks from landslides, mudflows and other geologic hazards during heavy rainfall events. The magnitude/severity of the wildfire hazard in Pitkin County, Basalt and Snowmass Village is rated catastrophic, while the hazard is rated critical in and around Aspen. Vulnerability Assessment The potential for wildfire-caused damage to structures in Pitkin County is increasing as wildland fuels accumulate and greater numbers of people choose to build homes in wildfire-prone areas. Wildland fuels are comprised of both live and dead vegetation that are available for combustion. The greatest concern in terms of hazard fuels are the lodgepole pine forests and mixed-conifer stands that surround the WUI and are also subject to insect infestation. Key public safety issues related to wildfire mitigation include evacuation-route planning in “one-way-out” subdivisions, fuel reduction, water storage, and emergency power for pump stations. Throughout Pitkin County, approximately 11,000 structures are located within the WUI (approximately 58% of all structures within the County), with a combined estimated actual value of nearly $14.6 billion. Most of these structures are located in areas classified as having at least a “Medium” wildfire hazard risk.32 The increased wildfire risks related to climate warming may lead to reclassification of areas from low- or medium-risk to high- or very high-risk.

32 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012).

47 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Figure 4.3 - Pitkin County Wildland-Urban Interface Hazards Map

In the Aspen area, the number of homes in proximity to the WUI is growing. The areas coded in red in the map in Figure 4.4 below are considered at “High” risk for wildfire (the mapped area extends one mile beyond the City boundaries). Approximately half of the total acreage is classified “High” or “Very High.”33

33 City of Aspen, Community Development/Buildings, No Harm Map.

48 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Figure 4.4 - Proximate Areas Deemed High/Very High Wildfire Risk (as of Q1 2017)

Source: Anchor Point NoHARM Map/Guidance Documentation on Wildfire Risk Areas (June 2017). In the Snowmass Village area, approximately 70% of the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District is at higher risk for wildfire. Most of that area is in the Wildcat Ranch area, which has low population density but very high property values. In Snowmass Village proper, about 40% of the area has a “High” wildfire risk, but the area has both high population density and high property values, so the Town is the highest risk area in the district. In addition to residential areas, Town Hall, Snowmass Village Police Department, the Town Maintenance Facility, Post Office, and Snowmass Center business district are located within the incorporated area. Brush Creek Road is the primary access to Snowmass Village and is vulnerable to both wildland fire and landslide/mudslide hazards. Owl Creek Rd, the only other access road, is also susceptible to these hazards. The Holy Cross electrical substation is in an area that has moderate wildfire threat but is constructed of materials that reduce its vulnerability. Like the other communities along the Roaring Fork River valley floor in Pitkin County, the town of Basalt has experienced residential growth on the valley edges and within the densely-forested hillsides outside of town above the valley. The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District spans parts of both Pitkin and Eagle Counties and its personnel are trained to fight structural fires in the town of Basalt, urban interface fires in surrounding areas and wildland fires in high terrain and backcountry areas. Potential Effects of Climate Warming Climate change affects multiple, critical elements of the wildland fire system: drought conditions, ignition sources, insect infestations, fire behavior, fire management, and the accumulation of woody fuels. According to the U. S. Forest Service, global warming

49 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

associated with elevated greenhouse-gas concentrations has created an atmospheric and fuel environment that is more conducive to large severe fires.34 According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, large fires burn more than twice the area they did in 1970, and the average wildfire season is 78 days longer.35 The frequency of large wildfires and the total area burned have been steadily increasing in the western United States, with global warming being a major contributing factor in the following ways:

• Longer fire seasons as spring runoff occurs earlier and warm conditions extend further into fall (snowpack is now melting one to four weeks earlier than it did 50 years ago);

• Drier conditions that increase the probability of fire occurrence;

• More fuel for forest fires due to widespread beetle and other insect infestations, resulting in vast forest areas of dead and highly combustible trees; and

• Increased frequency of lightning as thunderstorms become more severe.36 The health of forests in Pitkin County and around the state have been under long-term stress as a result of extended periods of drought and disease. Adding a warming climate to already-dangerous wildland fire conditions can only increase the risk of large catastrophic fires in and near mountain communities. As population growth occurs in the wildland-urban interface, the risk to people and property is compounded. Overlaying the climate change context on this already challenging situation adds complexity. As hotter, more damaging, more intense, and more frequent wildfires have become the norm, scientists point to the trend as indicative of a changing planet. It can be difficult to separate the many variables at play, but we know that fire is a participant in the dynamics of climate change. As temperatures increase and snow melts earlier, wildfires begin earlier in the season and have become more frequent. At the same time, those fires release CO2, contributing to the ongoing rise in global temperatures.37 A large proportion of Pitkin County’s population lives and recreates in and near forested areas and wildfires pose serious risks to residents, visitors, property and wildlife, in addition to increasing the potential for floods and debris flows in and near burn areas.38

34 McKenzie, D.; Heinsch, F.A.; Heilman, W.E. (January 2011), Wildland Fire and Climate Change. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/wildfire. 35 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, c2es.org 36 National Wildlife Federation (2008), Increased Risk of Catastrophic Wildfires: Global Warming’s Wake- Up Call for the Western United States, www.nwf.org. 37 Colorado Climate Plan, State Level Policies and Strategies to Mitigate and Adapt (2015), p. 65. 50 38 Arnott, James, Elise Osenga and John Katzenberger (December 2014), Climate Change and Aspen: An Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning and Stakeholder Engagement, Aspen Global Change Institute, p. 69.

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

4.8 Geologic Hazards: Landslides, Debris Flows, Mudflows and Rockfalls Hazard Description The 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan defines landslides as the “downward and outward movement of slopes composed of natural rock, soils, artificial fills, or combinations thereof.” Landslides can damage infrastructure, destroy or destabilize structures, and cover rail and roadways, resulting in extended closures and temporary disruptions of utility services. Damage to oil and natural gas pipelines and electrical conduits may result in an interruption of services both in the affected areas and those further down the pipelines from affected areas. Geologic hazards are most common in areas with steep slopes and grading, but may occur anywhere that natural or artificial materials may shift or slide.39 The geologic hazards profiled in this section are landslides, debris flows, mudflows and rockfalls. Although the term landslide refers to a wide range of earth and ground movements, there are important distinctions between landslides, debris flows, mudflows and rockfalls with respect to preparedness, insurance and hazard mitigation. • Landslides are masses of soil and rock that move downward and outward from a slope along a defined sliding surface. Factors that influence the occurrence of landslides include steepness of slope, soil moisture, soil thickness and vegetation. Landslides are commonly triggered by saturated soils caused by heavy rainfall and/or melting snowpack. • Debris flows are rapidly-moving masses of mud, sand, soil, rock and water that can reach speeds of 100 miles per hour. Due to their high speed and destructive forces, debris flows present a considerable threat to public safety and can destroy structures and other improvements in their path. To be considered a debris flow, more than half of the moving material must be larger than sand grains (i.e., gravel, pebble, cobble and boulders). • Mudflows, or mud flows, are masses of water and fine-grained earth materials that flow rapidly and turbulently downslope, usually in a drainageway. Mudflows commonly have the consistency of pancake batter or freshly-mixed concrete and can incorporate trees, rocks and other debris in its path, thereby increasing the erosive and destructive power of the flow. To be considered a mudflow, more than half of the particles in the mass must be sand-sized or smaller. • Rockfalls, or rock falls, are the fastest type of landslide and occur most frequently in the spring when there is high soil moisture and repeated freezing and thawing. Most rockfalls only involve the movement of one or a few rocks or boulders (sometimes referred to as rock topple). The failure of a large mass of rocks, sometimes referred to as a rockslide or rock avalanche, presents a greater potential risk to people and property that may be in the path. Indirect impacts include maintenance costs associated with clearing highways ditches in rockfall areas.40

39 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, p. 3-180. 40 Colorado Geological Survey, http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/geologic-hazards/. 51

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Geographic Location

Debris flow and mudflow hazards are closely related to flash flooding, with heavy rainfall, rapid snowmelt, or both being the common triggering event. Rapid runoff of floodwaters in the drainageway can pick up and carry soil, rocks, vegetation and other debris downstream with tremendous force. Debris flows and mudflows compound the impacts of flash flooding by increasing the destructive power of the event and by depositing large volumes of accumulated material. In the lower reaches of the channel near the valley floor, the mud and debris slow down and spread out to form a debris fan, or mud deposit. Like flash floods, debris flows and mudflows occur with little or no warning, cause extensive erosion, and can potentially pose a substantial risk to life and property.41

Figure 4.5 - Mudflow near Redstone, July 31, 2010

Source: USGS (photo by Jeff Bier).

Landslides, debris flows, mudflows and rockfalls are widespread, frequent occurrences in the Rocky Mountain West. Correlated closely with elevation change, landslides and other geologic hazards occur naturally in Pitkin County on a continuous basis and can also be triggered through human activity related to land development, mining and other disturbances. Due to its topography, most areas of Pitkin County are vulnerable to geologic hazards. Landslides and other geologic hazard events have been recorded at Aspen Mountain, Snowmass Village, Independence Pass, Redstone and other areas in the Roaring Fork, Fryingpan and Crystal River valleys.

Previous Occurrences In the 1970s and 1980s, Pitkin County experienced a spike in landslide problems in developing residential areas near ski slopes. Since then, several notable, destructive events have occurred, as indicated in the table below, but loss of life and large-scale

41 Ibid.

52 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

property damages have to date been averted, with the exception of the death of a hiker in a rockslide in 2012 near the county line between Pitkin and Gunnison Counties.

Table 4.11 - Significant Geologic Hazard Events in Pitkin County, 1980-2017 Year Location Event Description 1984 Woody Creek Mudslide washed out Woody Creek Rd. 7 miles from intersection with River Rd., causing several injuries. 1993 Castle Creek A large mudslide on Castle Creek damaged the Aspen Music School. 1994 Shale Bluffs A large mudslide occurred in the area known as Shale Bluffs, west of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, during a visit by President Clinton. 1996 Aspen Two debris flow events on the west side of Aspen Mountain Mountain in May 1996 deposited 5-ft. deep mud and debris, burying cars and damaging the Music Hall. 1997 Aspen A spring landslide in a tributary drainage of Castle Country Day Creek damaged buildings, grounds and cars and School forced relocation of classes for remainder of school year. 2010 Redstone Multiple debris flows and mudflows in July-August 2010 covered parts of Colorado 133, Redstone Blvd. and Redstone Campground ($34,000 to remove, including geotechnical studies). 2011 Independence A mudslide closed Independence Pass for 3 hours in Pass June 2011 near the ghost town of Independence, stranding motorists, but causing no injuries. 2011 Buttermilk Ski Rapid warmup after heavy snowfall in May 2011 Area caused mudflow that sent 2 feet of mud into one home ($2 million). 2012 Hagerman One hiker killed, one injured in rockslide about 11 Peak miles southeast of Aspen. Sources: Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2013), Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012), The Aspen Times (August 27, 2012), Aspen Daily News (July 8, 2015).

53 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Probability Hazard: Landslide, Debris Flow, According to the Colorado Geological Survey Mudflow and Rockfall (CGS), landslides do not present an immediate risk to populated areas, transportation systems, Probability public infrastructure or the economy. Geologic Pitkin County Highly Likely studies can determine the location of historic Aspen Highly Likely landslide paths and deposits and instruments Basalt Highly Likely can measure activity to determine whether Snowmass Village Highly Likely movement is occurring. Due to the steep terrain in most of Pitkin County, the Planning Team has rated the probability of future landslide occurrences highly likely (near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it happens every year). Magnitude/Severity Hazard: Landslide, Debris Flow, Saturated soils due to heavy precipitation or Mudflow and Rockfall melting snowpack are often the determining factors in the frequency and magnitude and Magnitude/Severity frequency of land movements. Landslides can Pitkin County Critical also be triggered by loss of vegetation after a Aspen Critical wildfire and erosion of the toe of the slope by Basalt Limited rivers, earthquakes or land development Snowmass Village Critical activities.

As noted in the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, the potential for property and infrastructure damage is considerable: “Landslides occur commonly throughout Colorado, and the annual damage is estimated to exceed $3 million dollars to buildings alone.” Transportation infrastructure is typically the most impacted infrastructure from landslides in Colorado, although residential structures have also been impacted.42 Although rare, deaths and injuries can occur from landslides. On May 25, 2014 the longest landslide in the state’s history occurred in Mesa County, six miles southeast of the town of Collbran, resulting in the deaths of three local men. The landslide was 2.8 miles long and dropped approximately 2,100 feet in elevation, moving at speeds of up to 85 miles per hour. The landslide covered almost a square mile of West Salt Creek valley, stopping just short of active gas-production wellheads and irrigation ditches and ponds used by local farmers and ranchers.43

42 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, p. 3-185. 43 Colorado Geological Survey, coloradogeologicalsurvey.org. 54

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Figure 4.6 - West Salt Creek Landslide (Mesa County)

Source: Colorado Geological Survey More typically, landslide events are gradual movements in areas of steep topography and where the soil conditions contribute to the movement of the slope. Damages are often limited to cracks in foundations and damage to roads. Individual property owners may experience more or less damage depending on site specific movement. Rockfall, on the other hand, is a sudden movement, and could potentially result in significant damages, injuries, or death. A hiker was killed August 25, 2012 in a rock slide on Hagerman Peak, about 11 miles southeast of Aspen. Two people in a party of five were reported injured, one seriously, according to the Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office. Mountain Rescue responded through a mutual-aid arrangement with Gunnison County. The rock slide occurred at nearly 13,000 feet.44 A deadly rockfall in September 2013 claimed five lives of a family following heavy rains near a popular hiking location near Buena Vista, Colorado. Rockfall events are less frequent but remain a constant threat, particularly to Colorado’s mountain roadways. Few hazards exceed the potentially devastating consequences of debris flows, fast- moving, high-density slurries of water, sediment, and vegetative debris with enormous destructive power that generally are triggered in response to periods of intense rainfall or rapid snowmelt on steep hillsides.45 The magnitude severity of landslides and other geologic hazards is rated critical in Aspen, Pitkin County and Snowmass Village and limited in and around the Town of Basalt.

44 The Aspen Times, August 27, 2012. 45 Stevens, M. R., J. L. Flynn, V. C. Stephens, and K.I. Verdin (2011), Estimated Probabilities, Volumes, and Inundation Area Depths of Potential Postwildfire Debris Flows from Carbonate, Slate, Raspberry, and Milton Creeks, near Marble, Gunnison County, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5047, 30 p. 55

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Vulnerability Assessment Geologic hazards are highly localized events and the nature and extent of risk associated with each hazard is specific to local terrain conditions such as slope stability, vegetative cover, and geologic and soil composition beneath the surface. Other factors include seasonal, climate, and weather-related phenomena (including other hazards) that can alter the local conditions that affect an area’s current risk. Geologic hazards may endanger the built environment and can damage or destroy buildings, roads, and other infrastructure when proper land use or mitigation practices are not implemented.46 The conditions resulting in a landslide are site-specific. A major landslide could potentially destroy anything in its path. The vulnerability of individual structures can be assessed through detailed studies of buildings and infrastructure located within known landslide areas. Ongoing pressures for residential and business growth in areas highly impacted by landslides will continue as available land for development decreases in mountain communities. Future development in areas where landslide potential exists should undergo geotechnical studies to determine slope stability. Potential Effects of Climate Warming Communities in the Roaring Fork Valley have enacted strict development standards for development on slopes and hillsides, but the potential for extreme precipitation events fueled by climate warming may present increased risks to people and property in or near geologically-sensitive areas. Heavy rain events reduce slope stability that can result in landslides, debris flows, mudflows, rockfall, rockslides and other types of mass movement of soil and rock. Higher streamflow during these events can transport more sediment downstream, impacting roads, highways and other infrastructure. Although uncertainty exists in the evaluation of the impacts of climate change on landslides and the stability of natural and engineered slopes, an increase in the frequency and intensity of severe rainfall events -- a primary trigger of rapid-moving landslides that can cause fatalities -- will result in more people and property exposed to landslide risk.47 According to a 2012 special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “There is high confidence that changes in heat waves, glacial retreat, and/or permafrost degradation will affect slope instabilities in high mountains, and medium confidence that temperature-related changes will influence bedrock stability. There is also high confidence that changes in heavy precipitation will affect landslides in some regions.”48

46 Planning for Hazards: Land Use Solutions for Colorado (March 2016), Colorado Department of Local Affairs, https://planningforhazards.com. 47 Gariano, Stefono and Fausto Guzzetti, Landslides in a Changing Climate, Earth-Science Reviews, November 2016, Volume 162, pp. 227-252. 48 Seneviratne et al., Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change 56 Adaptation (2012), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Communities can address changing landslide and other geologic hazard risks through targeted regulations, climate-informed design, and floodplain infrastructure aimed at mitigating anticipated impacts. 4.9 Flooding Hazard Description According to the 2013 Colorado Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, “A flood is a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: (1) the overflow of stream banks, (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source, or (3) mudflows or the sudden collapse of shoreline land. Flooding results when the flow of water is greater than the normal carrying capacity of the stream channel.”49 Flooding in Pitkin County can occur as a result of rain, melting snow, or rainfall-on-melting snow (or due to a stream ice jam or the failure of a dam). Pitkin County is at risk to riverine, stormwater, flash flood, and ice-jam flood events. Riverine flooding occurs when a stream exceeds its “bank- full” capacity and generally occurs as a result of prolonged rainfall, or rainfall that is combined with soils already saturated from previous rain events. The area adjacent to a river channel is its floodplain (i.e., the area that is inundated by the 100-year flood). Flash flooding usually occurs as a result of very heavy rains in a short period of time over a small geographic area. Flash flood events commonly trigger and accompany debris flows and mudflows, magnifying the risks to lives and property in the drainageway where a flash flood occurs. The extreme terrain in much of Pitkin County increases the potential for severe flash flood events. Stormwater refers to water that collects on the ground surface or is carried in the stormwater system when it rains. In runoff events where the amount of stormwater is too great for the system, or if the channel system is disrupted by vegetation or other debris that blocks inlets or pipes, excess water remains on the surface. This water may pond in low-lying areas, often in street intersections. Stormwater ponding, also known as localized flooding, may result in deep water and pollution. Stormwater can pick up debris, chemicals, dirt, and other pollutants from impervious surfaces. Ice-jam floods can occasionally occur when a surge of runoff breaks up river ice and forms an ice debris dam at a bridge or other channel obstruction. Upstream flooding can occur as water is held back and downstream flooding may occur when the jam finally breaks. In addition to localized flooding, ice jams can disrupt transportation, affect hydropower operations, cause riverbank erosion, and adversely impact wildlife habitat.50 The 100-year flood is the national standard to which communities regulate their floodplains through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Participation in the NFIP requires adoption of a local floodplain management ordinance and its enforcement

49 Colorado Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, Colorado Water Conservation Board, November 2013, p. 16. 50 National Weather Service, www.floodsafety.noaa.gov/hazards.

57

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

within a mapped Special Flood Hazard Area. Regulation of floodplain development by the community entitles citizens to purchase federal flood insurance. The potential for flooding is altered by land use changes that change the impervious characteristics of the land surface, and by changes in the environment brought about by other natural hazards such as drought, wildfires, and extreme weather events. In Colorado, the timing of peak river levels has changed since the middle of the last century in response to warming trends. Snowmelt-fed rivers have earlier peak flow trends due to declines in spring snowpack, the effects of dust on snow, and larger percentages of precipitation falling as rain instead of snow. Wildfires create hydrophobic soils, a hardening of the earth’s surface that prevents rainfall from being absorbed into the ground, which can increase runoff, erosion, and downstream sedimentation of channels. Geographic Location From its headwaters on Independence Pass, the Roaring Fork River runs 70 miles through Aspen, Basalt, and Carbondale until it reaches its confluence with the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs. Over that span, the water drops over 6,000 feet in elevation (more than the Mississippi River drops in its entire length). Many species of wildlife rely on the river corridor for their survival, making it a great place to view elk, bald eagles, osprey, great blue herons, moose, mule deer, and more. The Roaring Fork River offers abundant recreational opportunities including white water rafting, stand-up paddle boarding, kayaking, and fishing. Gold Medal trout waters can be found within the section between Basalt and Glenwood Springs. The Fryingpan River is a main tributary of the Roaring Fork River and flows into Ruedi Reservoir. The Fryingpan River is a renowned Gold Medal trout fishery whose designation stretches 14 miles from Ruedi Dam to its confluence with the Roaring Fork River in the town of Basalt. This river boasts healthy rainbow, brown, and cutthroat trout populations, providing year-round fishing opportunities. The Crystal River begins in the Elk Mountains of Gunnison County in Colorado and flows for 40 miles before it reaches the confluence with the Roaring Fork River in Carbondale. This scenic valley is home to bald eagles, bighorn sheep, large elk populations, Lewis’s woodpeckers, geothermal hot springs, rare orchids such as the stream orchid, and one of the few places in the state to view fireflies. The Crystal River valley is a popular kayaking and fishing location, provides drinking water to 7,000 people, and continues to support a strong ranching and agriculture industry.51 Previous Occurrences Flooding is a natural event and all streams and rivers in Pitkin County have experienced periodic flooding with associated debris and mudflows. In May 1984, Pitkin County was one of 15 Western Slope counties designated a federal disaster area by FEMA for damages from severe storms, mudslides, landslides and flooding. Runoff from an above- average snowpack resulted in floods and mudslides that damaged infrastructure in Aspen and Snowmass Village, including roads, bridges, recreational facilities and other publicly-owned property.

51 Roaring Fork Conservancy, www.roaringfork.org.

58 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

To date, Pitkin County has not experienced a catastrophic flood event that resulted in loss of life or large-scale property damages. Flash floods that produce debris flows and mudflows; however, are fairly common events and have caused significant damages in the past to homes, roads, bridges and culverts. Areas in the county that are subject to flash floods, debris flows and mudflows are generally drainages and channels that are outside of the FEMA-mapped, regulatory floodplains. The table below provides information about some of the more notable flood, flash flood and mudflow events that have occurred in Pitkin County in recent history, compiled from several sources.

Table 4.12 - Significant Flood/Flash Flood Events in Pitkin County, 1980-2017 Date Location Description May 1984 Aspen, Federally-declared disaster (FEMA-719-DR) for Public Snowmass Assistance ($172,000) due to flooding and Village, Pitkin mudslides. County July 11, Basalt 25-year flood event on Roaring Fork R. flooded a 1995 mobile home park and basements in Basalt, eroded a levee, and washed out a section of old Hwy. 82. July 22, Redstone Heavy rains triggered mudflows closing a 5-mile 1997 stretch of Hwy. 133 near Redstone with mud up to 5- ft. deep. August 4, Carbondale, Mudflows caused by heavy rain buried a 30-ft. stretch 1997 Redstone of Hwy. 133 near Carbondale with 2-4 ft. of mud and blocked a subdivision road near Redstone. July 21- Pitkin County Heavy rains resulted in flood, debris flow and 31, 1998 mudflow events at various locations, including Maroon Creek Rd., Castle Creek Rd., and along Avalanche Creek. July 28, Pitkin County Heavy rains resulted in multiple flood, debris flow and 1999 mudflow events, closing Hwy. 133 and causing $180,000 damage to roads and culverts 6 miles northeast of Redstone. August 6, Pitkin County Heavy rainfall resulted in flooding with mud and 2001 rocks covering roads in 2 locations: (1) Hwy. 133 south of Redstone and (2) Maroon Creek Rd. July 18- Pitkin County Heavy rains produced flooding and mudflows that 19, 2007 caused damages to Maroon Creek Rd., Maroon Creek Day Use Area (trailhead/parking lot), and a USFS road between Hwy. 133 and Avalanche Creek Campground. Spring Pitkin County Heavy runoff in upper Castle Creek Valley washed out 2008 Pearl Pass Rd. and a bridge below the intersection with Montezuma Rd. (bridge rebuilt in 2010). July 26, Pitkin County Heavy rains produced flooding and mudflows that 2009 covered Hwy. 133 4-ft. deep in mud. July 29, Pitkin County Heavy rains resulted in flood, debris flow and 2011 mudflow events at various locations, including the Rio Grande Trail, Stein Trail, and Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. Source: Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2013); SHELDUS; National Centers for Environmental Information; Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012).

59 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Probability Hazard: Flooding The 1% annual chance flood event is the standard national measurement for flood Probability mitigation actions and insurance. This Pitkin County Occasional recurrence level is an average and does not Aspen Occasional mean that a flood of that magnitude will occur Basalt Occasional exactly every 100 years. Likewise, a 500-year Snowmass Village Occasional flood event has a 0.2% (or 1 in 500) chance of occurring in a given year. Although serious flood events in Pitkin County are rare, severe weather and snowmelt runoff present a threat of serious flooding along rivers and creeks in the county each year. The probability of serious flooding is rated occasional across jurisdictions in Pitkin County, meaning a 1-10 percent chance of occurrence in a given year or a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. Magnitude/Severity Hazard: Flooding Major flood events present a risk to life and property, including buildings, contents, and Magnitude/Severity their use. Floods can also affect lifeline utilities Pitkin County Critical (e.g., water, sewage and power), transportation, Aspen Catastrophic the environment, jobs and the local economy. Basalt Catastrophic The extent of damage depends on the depth and Snowmass Village Critical velocity of floodwaters. Past flood events in Pitkin County have damaged roads, bridges, private property, businesses, and public facilities. Future events may result in greater damages depending on patterns of growth, land use development and climate change. The communities of Aspen and Basalt have rated the potential magnitude/severity of a major flood as catastrophic, meaning that multiple deaths, damaged and destroyed structures, and/or interruption of essential facilities and service for more than 72 hours can be expected in a major flood event. Pitkin County and the Town of Snowmass Village have rated the magnitude/severity of the flood hazard as critical, meaning that isolated deaths/injuries; major or long-term impacts to property, infrastructure and critical services; and service disruptions of 24-72 hours are possible. Vulnerability Assessment Pitkin County has experienced frequent incidents of localized flooding and mudflow events in the past 20 years. Fortunately, most of these events occur outside of developed areas and impacts have been limited to roads, bridges, culverts and recreational facilities. The City of Aspen, Town of Basalt and unincorporated areas of Pitkin County including Redstone have all experienced events that have closed roads and, in some cases, caused damage to public and private property. Historically, the town of Basalt has been one of the more flood-prone areas of the county due to its location at the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan Rivers. Likewise, the area in and around the community of Redstone, located at the confluence of Coal Creek and Crystal River, is susceptible to flood events.

60 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Like other mountainous areas in Colorado, Pitkin County is vulnerable to hazards from both (1) riverine floods, or the overbank flooding associated with basin- or watershed- wide flood events, and (2) flash floods, which occur within a channel or drainageway and frequently produce debris flow or mudflow events. Riverine flooding occurs when a watershed and downstream channels receive too much water from above-normal rainfall or snowmelt and the excess water flows over its banks and into adjacent floodplains. The velocity of moving water in a riverine flood event, measured in feet per second, is generally much slower than the velocity of a flash flood or mudflow flood event. Flash floods associated with debris flows and mudflows typically cause more damage than riverine, or “clear-water” flooding due to the combination of the debris and sediment with the force of the debris-filled water. The NFIP provides flood insurance coverage for damages caused by mudflow flooding but does not map or require floodplain management measures in these areas.52 During the previous update of this plan in 2011-2012, new digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) for Pitkin County were in development as part of FEMA’s Risk MAP and were not available for analysis. Similarly, at this update, the new maps have been developed and made available for public review, comment and appeals, but have yet to be approved by FEMA and are still unavailable for analysis. Once the new DFIRMS are approved and locally adopted, they will be the most accurate data and will become the official regulatory floodplain maps. For the purpose of updates to this hazard mitigation plan, data for riverine flooding in Pitkin County was generated using HAZUS-MH, FEMA’s software program for estimating potential losses in a flood disaster. HAZUS-MH was used to generate a map of the 100-year floodplain, or the flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (see HAZUS 100- and 500-year floodplain maps in Appendix E). Although the HAZUS-MH modeling software provides a less accurate estimate of the floodplain than DFIRMs, the information is useful for general hazard mitigation planning and for disaster planning by emergency managers. For normal local planning and development review, the most current DFIRM is the regulation standard. The HAZUS-MH flood analysis results provide the number of buildings impacted, estimates of the building repair costs, and the associated loss of building contents and business inventory. Building damage can cause additional losses to a community as a whole by restricting the building’s ability to function properly, resulting in vacant homes and businesses. Income loss data accounts for losses such as business interruption and rental income losses as well as the resources associated with damage repair and job and housing losses. These losses are calculated by HAZUS-MH using a methodology based on the building damage estimates. Flood damage is directly related to the depth of flooding. For example, a two-foot flood results in approximately 20% of the structure being damaged (or 20% of the structure’s replacement value).

52 Ibid.

61 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

HAZUS estimates for direct economic losses for buildings are shown in the table below. The results are for comparative analysis only and assume that a flood event occurred throughout the entire modeled area, rather than as localized events.

Table 4.13 - Potential Flood Losses in Pitkin County: HAZUS-MH Estimates Type of Loss Damage Estimate Damage Estimate 100-Year Flood 500-Year Flood Building Damage $24,320,000 $27,590,000 Contents Damage $45,590,000 $48,610,000 Inventory Loss $950,000 $990,000 Income Loss $290,000 $300,000 Relocation Loss $60,000 $60,000 Wage Losses $320,000 $330,000 Rental Income Loss $60,000 $60,000 Total Losses $71,590,000 $77,940,000 Source: HAZUS-MH, Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012). HAZUS-MH estimates total damages and economic losses of over $71 million for a 100- year flood event in Pitkin County. Damages and losses for a 500-year event are estimated to be nearly $78 million. Out of a total of 9,671 structures modeled by HAZUS-MH, 56 structures would be damaged in a 100-year flood event and 70 structures would be damaged in a 500-year flood event. In addition, HAZUS-MH estimates that the number of households displaced by a 100-year flood event to be 305 and the number of people requiring short-term sheltering to be 528. For a 500-year event, 331 households would be displaced and 583 people would seek short-term shelters. Potential Effects of Climate Warming To date, projections from climate models have been mixed about whether climate warming will increase or decrease precipitation in Colorado.53 However, because warmer air can hold more moisture, events producing heavy rainfall and flooding can be expected to increase as temperatures rise in the years to come. In general, heavier rains lead to a larger fraction of rainfall running off and, depending on the surface conditions, more potential for flash flooding.54 Warming is likely to directly affect flooding in many mountain settings, as catchment areas receive increasingly more precipitation as rain rather than snow, or more rain falling on existing snowpack. In some such settings, river flooding may increase as a result – even where precipitation and overall river flows decline.55

53 Saunders, Stephen and Tom Easley, Climate Change in the Headwaters: Water and Snow Impacts (2018), a report by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization to Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, p. 9. 54 National Climate Assessment (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program, nca2014globalchange.gov., p. 40. 55 National Climate Assessment (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program, nca2014globalchange.gov., 62 p. 75.

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, southwestern river basins including the Colorado River Basin will experience gradual runoff declines during this century, but flooding in the region is generally expected to increase. In Colorado; however, there are no specific projections or trends that have been noted to indicate that more substantial or more frequent flooding events can be expected to occur.56 Global warming may also lead to more ice-jam flooding along mountain streams, when heavy rainfall or upstream melting raises stream flows to the point of breaking up the ice cover, which can pile up on bridge piers or other channel obstructions and cause flooding behind the jam. Once the ice jam breaks up, downstream areas are vulnerable to flash floods. Global warming could create conditions ripe for ice-jam floods. The increasing possibility of midwinter thaws and heavy rainfall events could increase the risk of sudden ice break up. Flooding can be further exacerbated if the ground is still frozen and unable to soak up rainwater.57 Other influences on flood generation that should be considered in projections of future flood risks are land cover, flow and water-supply management, soil moisture and channel conditions. In addition to discouraging development in flood-prone areas and protecting natural systems such as wetlands, local government planners and engineers should design infrastructure with the capacity to accommodate heavy rains and manage stormwater runoff during extreme events. 4.10 Winter Storm Hazard Description Heavy snow, ice, severe winter storms, and blizzards are common occurrences in Pitkin County. “Hazardous winter weather includes events related to heavy snow, blowing snow, ice, sleet or freezing rain, and extreme cold temperatures. Blizzards are severe winter storms that pack a combination of blowing snow and wind resulting in very low visibilities. While heavy snowfalls and severe cold often accompany blizzards, they are not required. Sometimes strong winds pick up snow that has already fallen, creating a blizzard.”58 Some winter storms are accompanied by strong winds, creating blizzard conditions with blinding wind-driven snow, severe drifting, and dangerous wind chills. Extreme cold often accompanies or follows a winter storm. The National Weather Service Glossary defines common winter storm characteristics as follows:

56 Saunders, Stephen and Tom Easley, Climate Change in the Headwaters: Water and Snow Impacts (2018), a report by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization to Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, p. 16. 57 National Wildlife Federation (2009), Increased Flooding Risk: Global Warming’s Wake-Up Call for Riverfront Communities, www.nwf.org. 58 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency 63 Management, December 2013, p. 3-120.

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

• Blizzard: A blizzard means that the following conditions are expected to prevail for a period of 3 hours or longer:

 Sustained wind or frequent gusts to 35 miles an hour or greater; and

 Considerable falling and/or blowing snow (i.e., reducing visibility frequently to less than ¼ mile).

• Heavy Snow: This generally means:

 snowfall accumulating to 4" or more in depth in 12 hours or less; or

 snowfall accumulating to 6" or more in depth in 24 hours or less.

 In forecasts, snowfall amounts are expressed as a range of values, e.g., "8 to 12 inches." However, in heavy snow situations where there is considerable uncertainty concerning the range of values, more appropriate phrases are used, such as "...up to 12 inches..." or alternatively "...8 inches or more...”

• Ice Storm: An ice storm is used to describe occasions when damaging accumulations of ice are expected during freezing rain situations. Significant accumulations of ice pull down trees and utility lines resulting in loss of power and communication. These accumulations of ice make walking and driving extremely dangerous. Significant ice accumulations are usually accumulations of ¼" or greater.59 Geographic Location All of Pitkin County is subject to occasional blizzard, heavy snowfall and ice storm conditions. The size of events varies and may range from isolated (impacting only a portion of the area) to statewide. Most severe winter storms are widespread events, impacting multiple counties simultaneously and for extended time periods. Ice and snow accumulation that closes Colorado 82, the most important corridor and only route available in the winter for the transport of people and the provisions in and out of the county, presents the greatest public safety challenges during severe winter storms. Previous Occurrences According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Pitkin County experienced 47 winter storm events between 1960 and 2013, resulting in two deaths, one injury, $1o6,657 in crop damages, and approximately $1 million in property damages (for a total of $1,079,412 in damages during this period). According to the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), there have been 215 winter storm events and two blizzard events in Pitkin County from January 1, 1950 to July 31, 2017. Notable recent winter storm events are identified in the table below. Damage figures shown have been adjusted for inflation (2017).

59 National Weather Service, National Weather Service Glossary Website, w1.weather.gov/glossary/

64 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 4.14 - Significant Winter Storms in Pitkin County, 1980-2017 Date Description December 23, 1982 Blizzard two days before Christmas caused $1,949,314 in damages. November 26, 1983 Heavy snow and wind caused $18,886 in damages. February 1, 1989 Extreme cold temperatures and snow from a November cold front resulted in $153,217 in damages. February 8, 1995 Heavy snowfall resulted in damages totaling $63,294. December 8, 1998 Winter storm caused $21,811 in damages. Source: SHELDUS; National Centers for Environmental Information Pitkin County has received three USDA Secretarial Disaster Designations related to severe winter weather: 1. 2012 (S3307) due to freezing conditions; 2. 2013 (S3583) due to frost and freezing conditions; and 3. 2014 (S3760) as a contiguous county to Chaffee County, for freezing conditions.

Probability Even in a global-warming climate, the Hazard: Winter Storms atmospheric activity that produces winter weather conditions such as ice, snow, extreme Probability cold, and high winds will continue to occur on a Pitkin County Highly Likely regular basis in Pitkin County for the Aspen Highly Likely foreseeable future. Severe winter weather is a Basalt Highly Likely common, and usually welcome, occurrence in Snowmass Village Highly Likely Pitkin County, where residents are well- prepared, but newcomers and visitors are often inexperienced and unskilled to handle conditions. Severe winter storms are highly likely in Pitkin County (near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it happens every year). Magnitude/Severity Although common in Pitkin County, heavy Hazard: Winter Storms snowstorms can occasionally present major Magnitude/Severity public safety challenges for communities in the Roaring Fork Valley. Severe winter storms can Pitkin County Critical Aspen Limited immobilize transportation systems and strand Basalt Limited motorists, stop the flow of supplies, halt air Snowmass Village Limited traffic, disrupt emergency and medical services, and isolate residents and communities. Heavy accumulations of snow and ice and strong winds can collapse roofs and bring down trees, power lines, telephone poles and lines, and communication towers, causing extended communication and power disruptions. Loss of power can impact emergency and medical services without working backup generators and also affects homes, businesses, and water, sewer, and other services operated by electric pumps.

65 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Blowing snow can severely reduce visibility and create icy road conditions that lead to serious, sometimes fatal vehicle accidents. The cost of snow removal, damage repairs, and business losses can be significant. Prolonged exposure to the cold can cause frostbite or hypothermia and can become life-threatening, especially for infants and the elderly. Heavy snowstorms can also lead to more life-threatening avalanches. Each year, Colorado leads the nation in avalanche deaths and more lives are lost due to avalanches in Pitkin County than any other county in the state. Avalanches pose a serious threat to residents, road maintenance crews, and backcountry travelers. The communities of Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass Village have rated the magnitude/severity of the winter storm hazard as limited and Pitkin County rates the magnitude/severity critical. Vulnerability Assessment Winter storms will continue to occur with high frequency throughout Pitkin County and occasionally cause widespread impacts. The greatest risk is to the safety of the public, including travelers on the county’s highways and roads. Highway closures and power outages can present a need to open and manage public shelters and provide mass care services. Winter storms can occasionally lead to school and business closures, road closures, and extraordinary requirements to remove snow and maintain critical emergency services. Fortunately, structural damage from severe winter storms is typically minimal and covered by property insurance. New structures and facilities built to code should be able to withstand snow loads associated with winter storms. Future development, particularly in more isolated areas, will create emergency access issues and increase demand on road crews and emergency services. Potential Effects of Climate Warming As the atmosphere holds more moisture, winter storms may become more intense, producing heavier than normal precipitation, including heavier snowfall. But, winter has become increasingly unpredictable in recent decades due to climate change, scientists and ski industry experts say. As mid-winter temperatures increase, warmer oceans may fuel stronger winter storms, but snow cover may not stay around as long. Shorter winters are sure to have significant impacts for the local economy and snow sports industry, including resorts, hotels, restaurants and ski shops and the individuals they employ. While climate researchers cannot determine if climate change caused a specific extreme winter storm, or even a specific seasonal change, climate warming will continue to cause a decrease in annual snowfall amounts overall and a shortening of the length of the snow season. However, when severe winter storms do occur, there may be added moisture in the air to generate more intense rates of snowfall. Fortunately, communities in the Roaring Fork Valley are well accustomed and prepared to deal with extreme winter weather and provide for the safety of residents and visitors. 4.11 Avalanche Hazard Description According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, an avalanche is a mass of snow, ice, and debris flowing and sliding rapidly down a steep slope. Avalanches are

66 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

also referred to as snow slides. Snow avalanches are defined in Colorado state statutes as a geologic hazard. Deep snow deposits often become susceptible to avalanche based on the slope stability and the structure of the snow deposits through multiple storms. An avalanche occurs when the deposit reaches its breaking point, whether triggered naturally or by human intervention. Avalanches can be naturally-triggered (by wind, snow, rain, etc.) or human-triggered (skiers, snowboarders, snowmobilers, climbers, etc.). Slab avalanches are the most dangerous type of avalanche. They form when stronger snow overlies weaker snow. Often, human-triggered slab avalanches are one to two feet deep, have an area about half the size of a football field, and can reach speeds over 20 mph within seconds.60 Geographic Location There are more avalanche-related deaths in Colorado than any other state and more average annual fatalities due to avalanche in Pitkin County than any other county in the state.

Figure 4.7 - U.S. Avalanche Fatalities by State

60 Colorado Department of Transportation, www.codot.gov

67 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Figure 4.8 - Colorado Avalanche Fatalities by County

The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) and the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC) have mapped the State’s areas susceptible to avalanche activity. The CAIC forecasts backcountry avalanche and mountain weather conditions for 10 Zones in the mountains of Colorado. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has mapped avalanche corridors on the state highway system, and the approximate number of slide paths that CDOT and CAIC crews monitor and/or control on each.

Figure 4.9 - Colorado Avalanche Zones

Source: Colorado Avalanche Information Center

68 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

The Aspen and Independence Pass areas of Pitkin County are considered especially susceptible to avalanche activity. The Aspen Highlands ski area has seen a number of previous occurrences. Small avalanches and sloughs frequently cover parts of the roadways along Castle Creek Rd., Little Annie Rd., and Fryingpan Rd. Avalanche-prone areas can be determined with some accuracy, since under normal circumstances avalanches tend to run down the same paths year after year. Previous Occurrences The CAIC documented 15 avalanche fatalities between the 1997-98 winter and the winter of 2016-17, as indicated in the table below.

Table 4.15 - Pitkin County Avalanche Fatalities, 1997-98 to 2016-17 Date Location Description March 1998 Aspen Mountain 1 out-of-bounds skier caught, partially-buried and killed. January 1999 Aspen Highlands 2 out-of-area skiers caught; 1 buried and killed. January 2000 Aspen Mountain 1 backcountry skier caught on backside of Aspen Mtn., buried and killed. March 2000 Aspen Highlands 2 out-of-area skiers caught, buried and killed. February 2002 Aspen Highlands 1 skier caught, buried and killed. March 2002 Aspen Mountain 1 out-of-area skier caught, buried and killed. March 2005 Five Fingers Bowl 1 backcountry skier caught, buried (Aspen) and skilled. December Rayburn Area 1 skier caught, buried and killed. 2006 (Snowmass Ski Area) December Aspen Backcountry 1 skier caught, buried and killed. 2008 February 2011 E. Snowmass Creek 1 skier caught, buried and killed. Valley/Sand’s Chute April 2011 Highlands Ridge, 1 skier caught, buried and killed. Desolation Row (Aspen Zone) January 2012 Burnt Mtn. (near 2 out-of-area skiers caught, 1 buried Snowmass Ski Area) and killed. December Snowmass Ski Area 1 ski patroller caught, swept over cliff 2012 and killed. February 2015 Ophir Gulch (near 1 skier caught, buried and killed. Aspen Mtn.) Source: Colorado Avalanche Information Center

69 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Probability Hazard: Avalanche According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, it is difficult to Probability determine the number of persons at risk from Pitkin County Likely avalanche, but a half dozen can be expected Aspen Highly Likely every year in Colorado. “There is no way to Basalt Likely determine the number of people caught or Snowmass Village Highly Likely buried in avalanches each year, because non- fatal avalanche incidents are increasingly under reported. The American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education reports that 90 percent of avalanche victims die in slides triggered by themselves or a member of their group. Obtaining a better understanding of outdoor recreation in avalanche-prone areas may lead toward a better understanding of future probability for this hazard.”61 The likelihood of an avalanche increases with heavy accumulation of snow. The probability of future occurrence will depend on weather patterns and levels of recreational activity within known avalanche zones. The avalanche hazard is rated highly likely in Aspen and Snowmass Village and likely in Pitkin County and the Town of Basalt. Magnitude/Severity According to the CAIC, avalanches have killed Hazard: Avalanche more people in Colorado than any other natural Magnitude/Severity hazard since 1950, and Colorado accounts for Pitkin County Limited one-third of all avalanche deaths in the United Aspen Critical States. In an avalanche, the impact forces of the Basalt Critical rapidly moving snow and debris and the burial Snowmass Village Critical of areas in the run-out zone can result in the destruction of structures and anything else in its path. Avalanches causing death or injury are usually human-triggered in the backcountry and can result in isolated injuries or fatalities. On rare occasions, roads, highways and railroads may be damaged and blocked by snow and debris, resulting in travel delays and costly efforts to clear and repair transportation routes. The communities of Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass Village have rated the avalanche hazard critical and the hazard is rated limited by Pitkin County. Vulnerability Assessment Every year, snow avalanches kill and injure winter recreationists in Colorado’s high country, including cross-country skiers, downhill skiers/snowboarders, snowshoers, hikers, climbers and snowmobilers. Private property losses are rare, due to local regulation of known avalanche zones, although lack of knowledge of avalanche run-out potential (the farthest reach of snow and debris) has occasionally resulted in damages to residences and private vehicles in other parts of Colorado. In particularly heavy snow

61 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, p. 3-142

70

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

years, the avalanche risk is greater. With prime conditions of wind or snow load, avalanches can be triggered easily. According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, the avalanche hazard is localized in mountain regions: “Avalanche-prone areas are well known; avalanche chutes identify where they will likely occur again…the complex interaction of weather and terrain factors contributes to the location, size, and timing of avalanches. In the absence of detailed scientific observation, any accumulation of snow on a slope steeper than 20 degrees should be considered a potential avalanche hazard.”62 Potential Effects of Climate Warming Warmer weather can weaken a mountain's snowpack and make it more difficult for the layers of snow to stick together. Climate warming affects the quality of mountain snow cover, possibly leading to more frequent and deadly avalanches.63 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that warming temperatures have destabilized mountain climates, leading to more avalanches, melting glaciers and more intense storms.64 Less snow and thinner snowpacks may actually lead to more avalanches in years when early winter snowpack is thin and weak and fails to hold on to new snow that falls due to weak bonds between the crystals, forming a weak-base layer. Dry weather can help to form a base of what avalanche experts call “depth hoar” that can take months to stabilize. Also referred to as “sugar snow,” the snow grains resemble raw sugar and don’t bond well. Once these weak layers are buried by new snow, the weakness is preserved. New snow falling on top of weak layers can be easily dislodged by backcountry recreationists, setting off deadly slides.65 4.12 Drought Hazard Description According to the 2013 Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan, “Drought is a complex and a gradual phenomenon in Colorado. Although droughts can be characterized as emergencies, they differ from other emergency events in that most natural disasters, such as floods or forest fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts typically occur slowly, over a multi- year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and ends.”

62 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, p. 3-149 63 In 2014, an avalanche on Mount Everest killed 16 Sherpas, the deadliest disaster in Mount Everest history. In 2015, another avalanche buried Mount Everest's base camp, killing 19, including 10 Sherpas. 64 IPCC, 2014, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. 71 Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 65 Climate Central, February 24, 2012, Avalanches Taking Toll; Foreshadowing the Future?, www.climatecentral.org.

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Drought is defined as a period of time where the amount of water available is insufficient to meet the demands on that water supply. Scientists and researchers also distinguish between the different types of drought:

• Meteorological drought is usually defined by a period of below average precipitation.

• Agricultural drought occurs when there is an inadequate water supply to meet the needs of agricultural operations, based on soil moisture deficiencies relative to water demands of crops and rangeland.

• Hydrologic drought refers to deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies and is measured as streamflow, snowpack, reservoir, and groundwater levels.

• Socioeconomic drought occurs when a drought impacts health, well-being, and quality of life, or when drought effects start to have an adverse economic impact on a region.66 There are also distinctions between drought mitigation planning and water conservation planning:

• Drought mitigation planning identifies temporary responses to potential water supply shortages, such as mandatory restrictions on certain water uses, water allocation or the temporary use of an alternative water supply. These measures are intended to be temporary responses to water supply shortages

• Water conservation planning involves long-term improvements in water use efficiency, such as managing landscape irrigation, implementing conservation water rate structures, and replacing or retrofitting water fixtures. Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or wildfires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts occur slowly, over a multi-year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and ends. Geographic Location Drought is a regional phenomenon that affects all areas within the county with equal frequency and severity. Drought impacts are most severe for commercial and agricultural interests that rely on an uninterrupted supply of water. With annual precipitation in Pitkin County averaging only 11-15 inches per year, any decrease in moisture over a single year or for a multi-year period can have significant impacts on the tourism and recreation economy. Many Pitkin County residents rely on individual ground wells and constructed water retention structures for their water resources. Local ranchers depend on ponds and ditches for livestock and irrigation of crops. The U.S. Drought Monitor provides online maps of the current drought status nationwide, updated weekly.

66 Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan, Colorado Water Conservation Board, August 2013, p. 19.

72

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Previous Occurrences Colorado has experienced seven multi-year droughts since 1893, with the most devastating taking place in the 1930s and 1950s. Historic dry and wet periods are shown in the table below.

Table 4.16 - Historic Dry and Wet Periods in Colorado Date Dry Wet Duration (Years) 1893-1905 X 12 1905-1931 X 26 1931-1941 X 10 1941-1951 X 10 1951-1957 X 6 1957-1959 X 2 1963-1965 X 2 1965-1975 X 10 1975-1978 X 3 1979-1999 X 20 2000-2006 X 6 2007-2010 X 3 2010-2012 X 2 Source: 2013 Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan (Colorado Water Conservation Board) The most intense single year of drought in state history occurred in 2002, an extremely dry year imbedded in an extended dry period between 2000 and 2006. Drought conditions in 2002 resembled those of 1934, the worst of the Dust Bowl years between 1931 and 1941. The magnitude of drought conditions in 2002 was rated as “exceptional” by the U.S. Drought Monitor, making 2002 the most severe drought in the state since the 1930s.67 In Colorado, snowpack statewide on April 1, 2002 measured just 52% of normal. The lack of snow resulted in major adverse impacts to the ski industry and tourism in Pitkin County, which spilled over into the summer of 2002 with river levels too low for rafting and fishing and fire bans that kept campers and other recreationists away. Pitkin County was part of a statewide drought declaration that year, approved by USDA based on the Governor’s request, which cited an estimated $1.1 billion in losses to Colorado’s agricultural, tourism and recreational industries. Since then, Pitkin County has received two additional USDA Secretarial declarations for drought: (1) designation in 2006 for losses due to heat, high winds and drought (S2351), and (2) designation in 2013 for losses due to drought (S3575). One historic dry spell of note in Pitkin County occurred during the winter of 1976-1977, when lack of snow delayed the opening of lifts at Aspen Mountain and Buttermilk until January and, even then, conditions were very poor. That season, free soup was given out on the mall, town residents did snow dances (to no avail), and parents sent plane tickets to their ski-bum kids so they could come home.68

67 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, p. 3-22 68 Drought of 1976-77, Aspen Times, January 16, 2012. 73

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Probability

Based on historical dry periods, Colorado Hazard: Drought experiences a dry period every 15 to 20 years. As the climate warms, drought is expected to Probability persist and intensify throughout Colorado and Pitkin County Occasional across the southwestern United States and the Aspen Occasional probability of drought may increase to “likely.” Basalt Occasional Snowmass Village Occasional For this update, the probability rating drought remains occasional for all four participating jurisdictions (1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years). Magnitude/Severity

Although no injuries or property damages are Hazard: Drought typically associated with drought, the loss of farmland, diminishing domestic water supply Magnitude/Severity and tourism impacts can stress Pitkin County’s Pitkin County Limited local economy. According to the Colorado Aspen Limited Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, “Drought Basalt Limited impacts are wide reaching and may come in Snowmass Village Limited different forms, such as economic, environmental, and/or societal. The most significant impacts associated with drought in Colorado are those related to water intensive activities such as agriculture, wildfire protection, municipal usage, commerce, tourism, recreation, and wildlife preservation. A reduction of electric power generation and water quality deterioration are also potential effects. Drought conditions can also cause soil to compact, decreasing its ability to absorb water, making an area more susceptible to flash flooding and erosion.”69 Drought can also cause structural damage to dams and ditches (high sedimentation loads from pulling water from the bottom of reservoirs can damage dam works). The objective of drought mitigation planning is to identify actions for responding to a supply shortage before an actual water supply emergency occurs. The State Water Availability Task Force (WATF) monitors conditions that affect Colorado’s water supply (i.e., snowpack, precipitation, reservoir storage, streamflow and weather forecasts) and determines when there is a need to activate the Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan to address physical, social and economic impacts due to drought. The WATF is comprised of Colorado’s water supply specialists, emergency management professionals, federal land managers, scientists and experts in climatology and weather forecasting.70

69 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, p. 3-26 70 Colorado Water Conservation Board, cwcb.state.co.us/technical-resources/drought-planning-toolbox/ 74

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Vulnerability Assessment The most significant impacts from drought are related to water-intensive activities, such as agriculture (both crops and livestock), wildfire protection, municipal usage, commerce, recreation, and wildlife preservation, as well as a reduction of electric power generation and water quality deterioration. Secondary impacts of drought are wildfires, wind erosion, and soil compaction that can make an area more susceptible to flooding. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought. Drought does not usually present life safety issues or directly impact critical infrastructures such as roads, bridges, utilities, communications systems, or public safety resources. However, drought presents ongoing challenges for most Colorado communities, requiring sustained planning and conservation efforts to ensure a reliable water supply to meet current and future needs. Although communities in the Roaring Fork Valley have addressed conservation and water supply issues on a number of levels, the persistence of the hazard will require sustained mitigation efforts. Water supply planners must also be cognizant of the effects of climate change on the frequency and severity of future droughts. The City of Aspen, which relies on stream flow for its water supply rather than surface water storage, is vulnerable to a warming climate even though historic hydrology conditions indicate water supply will be sufficient to meet future demands. The drought of 2012 followed by a lower-than-normal snowpack the next winter cost the City $1.2 million in additional power purchased due to lost hydroelectric generation. As a result, the City has developed several water supply projects to prepare for an uncertain future.71 The Drought Impact Reporter documented 89 drought impacts from drought conditions in Pitkin County between March 2010 and May 2013. The highest number of impacts in Pitkin County were related to Relief, Response and Restrictions (21), but impacts were also felt in a range of sectors such as Public Health (15), Business/Industry (10), Tourism/Recreation (10), and Water Supply and Quality (8). Potential Effects of Climate Warming As temperatures have warmed over the past century, the frequency and duration of drought has increased across the western United States. While individual drought periods can be analyzed as discrete weather events, climate changes occur over much longer periods of time and can be observed as changes in the patterns of weather events. When considering the relationship of drought to climate change, it is important to make the distinction between weather and climate. Weather is a description of atmospheric conditions over a short period of time, while climate is how the atmosphere behaves over relatively long periods of time.72 Declines in spring snowpack over the past half-dozen or more decades are related to a reduction in precipitation falling as snow -- with more falling as rain -- and a shift in the

71 Extreme Weather Adaptation Aspen, CO: A Story Map, www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=23135bceee1948e7b2abb8039bf77549 72 Konstantinos and Leetenmaier. (2006), Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 33.10. 75

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

timing of snowmelt. Earlier snowmelt can lead to water supply being increasingly out of phase with water demands. Warming affects water supplies by changing the overall annual volume of precipitation and altering the balance of rain versus snowfall. Precipitation changes interacting with warming are expected to cause longer term and more frequent droughts, as well as larger and more numerous floods.73 In all likelihood, the direct impacts of climate change on water resources will be hidden beneath natural climate variability. With a warmer climate, droughts and floods could become more frequent, severe, and longer-lasting. The potential increase in these hazards is a great concern given the stresses being placed on water resources and the high costs resulting from recent hazards.74 4.13 Lightning Hazard Description Lightning is one of the more dangerous weather hazards in Colorado. Each year, lightning is responsible for deaths, injuries, and property damage, including damage to buildings, communications systems, power lines, and electrical systems. According to the National Lightning Safety Institute (NLSI), Colorado ranks third in the nation in deaths due to lightning strikes with 39 fatalities recorded between 1990 and 2003 (behind only Florida and Texas). Over the same period, Colorado also ranks third nationally in deaths per million people (behind only Utah and Wyoming). Nationwide, estimates of property damage, increased operating costs, production delays, and lost revenue from lightning and secondary effects exceed $8-10 billion per year.75 Cloud-to-ground lightning is the most damaging and dangerous type of lightning, though it is also less common. It frequently strikes away from the rain core, either ahead or behind the thunderstorm and can strike 5-10 miles from the storm in areas that most people do not consider to be a threat. According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Colorado averages 529,000 cloud-to-ground lightning strikes per year and deaths and injuries due to lightning occur on a regular basis.76 Geographic Location Lightning can occur anywhere in Pitkin County, and poses a similar risk to all areas within the county. Previous Occurrences The table below identifies the number of deaths and injuries due to lightning over the last 10 years in Colorado.

73 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (November 2014), Managing Water in the West: Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, pp. 3-5. 74 National Drought Mitigation Center, drought.unl.edu. 75 National Lightning Safety Institute web page. Available at www.lightningsafety.com 76 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and 76 Emergency Management

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 4.17 - Colorado Deaths and Injuries due to Lightning, 2008-2016 Year Deaths Injuries 2017 2 2 2016 2 2 2015 1 13 2014 2 17 2013 0 25 2012 0 2 2011 0 9 2010 1 6 2009 1 14 2008 4 10 Source: Struckbylightning.org According to data from the National Centers for Environmental Information and SHELDUS, lightning is responsible for three fatalities in Pitkin County, in addition to injuries and minor property damage. The table below describes several notable lightning events that occurred in Pitkin County in the last 20 years.

Table 4.18 - Significant Lightning Events in Pitkin County, 2008-2017 Date Location Description April 23, 1994 Capitol Peak Lightning struck 3 climbers near the summit, killing one climber and injuring the other two. July 24, 1997 Capitol Creek A man was struck by lightning and fell off a cliff (cause of death ruled lightning, not fall). July 15, 2000 Conundrum Hot A hiker was struck by lightning, shredding her Springs clothes, blowing off her boots, and causing serious bleeding and burns. July 29, 2006 Aspen Mountain Lightning struck and damaged aviation navigational equipment, resulting in cancelled flights while repairs were made (14 hours). July 6, 2008 American Lake A family of 5 was struck by lightning while Trail hiking, injuring 2 including 15-yr. old girl needing CPR to be resuscitated. Source: National Centers for Environmental Information; SHELDUS Probability Lightning can occur anywhere there is a Hazard: Lightning thunderstorm. The average number of lightning Probability flashes by month is shown in the table below. Pitkin County Likely Over 4,000 lightning flashes are expected to Aspen Likely occur on any given day during the months of Basalt Likely July and August. Most lightning strikes that Snowmass Village Likely result in casualties occur between the hours of noon and 5:00 pm, spiking between 2:00 and 4:00 pm. In all four communities, the probability of the lightning hazard is rated likely (10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less).

77 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 4.19 - Average Lightning Flashes in Colorado per Day by Month Month Number of Lightning Strikes January 1 February 4 March 39 April 225 May 1,203 June 2,621 July 4,035 August 4,215 September 1,457 October 261 November 11 December 1 Source: 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Magnitude/Severity People attending large outdoor gatherings (i.e., Hazard: Lightning sporting events, concerts, fairs, festivals, etc.) Magnitude/Severity are particularly vulnerable to death and injury Pitkin County Limited from lightning strikes. Men are notably more Aspen Limited likely to die from a lightning strike than women. Basalt Limited According to the National Weather Service, Snowmass Village Limited during the period 2006-2015, male fatalities outnumbered female fatalities 246-63. Outdoor recreationists generally face a higher risk when hiking or camping in the lightning-prone high country. Wildfires and grassfires are frequently ignited by lightning strikes. Buildings and equipment exposed to lightning strikes may be damaged and power surges can damage electronic equipment. Direct flash strikes near utility infrastructure can disrupt services. Many critical facilities are equipped with grounding systems. Most lightning events result in only personal property damage and do not significantly impact infrastructure or the delivery of critical services. Disruptions of electrical power due to lightning are generally short in duration (less than 24 hours). The severity of the lightning hazard is rated limited by all four communities, meaning that minor injuries and minor property damages are possible, with minimal disruptions to infrastructure and critical services. Vulnerability Assessment Although the frequency of lightning strikes in Pitkin County is relatively high, damages are usually limited to single buildings and in most cases, personal hazard insurance covers any losses. The greatest threat that lightning presents to community assets is the risk of death or injury. Hikers and climbers who are caught in lightning storms are extremely vulnerable. Many tourists who travel to the Roaring Fork Valley are unaware of the speed with which a thunderstorm can build in the mountains and can easily be caught in a storm while outdoors or traveling in the high country.

78 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Colorado is one of the most lightning-prone states in the nation. People attending large outdoor gatherings (i.e., sporting events, concerts, fairs, festivals, etc.) are particularly vulnerable to death and injury from lightning strikes. In light of this vulnerability, prudent mitigation measures (e.g., building standards, grounding systems, preparedness, guidelines for outdoor events, lightning detection/warning systems) should be considered. While lightning frequently accompanies thunderstorms, the occasion of a thunderstorm is not necessary for lightning to occur. Lightning may strike as far away as ten miles from any precipitation. The preparation of site-specific emergency procedures for outdoor events by event organizers, response agencies and emergency management can help mitigate the public safety risk, especially when combined with technology that provides adequate early detection, monitoring, and warning of approaching thunderstorms. Communications systems are also at risk. Structure damage is typically limited and covered by insurance. Potential Effects of Climate Warming Since the locations of lightning strikes correlate closely with locations where heavy rainfall and convective activity occur, projections about the effects of climate change on these atmospheric factors can be considered together. Climate researchers at the University of California Berkeley used the relationship of the three factors to predict changes in lightning rates due to climate change. Two central factors set the atmospheric stage for lightning: the amount of precipitation and the level of instability in the atmosphere, conditions that allow air to rise rapidly. Since both heavy precipitation and storm energy are related to the amount of water vapor available in the atmosphere, and given projections of a moister climate as temperatures rise, more vigorous thunderstorms and more lightning can be expected. The study found that lighting rates will increase 12 percent for every two degrees Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures, an estimated 50 percent increase by the end of the century.77 With more water in the atmosphere to fuel convection, thunderstorms are expected to become more explosive. Lightning is already the trigger for more than half of U.S. wildfires, fires that are often the hardest to fight. In Pitkin County, lightning is second to human-caused ignitions, but more wildfire ignitions due to lightning strikes mean greater risks to public health and safety, and more disruptions to ecosystems and the environment. 4.14 Dam Failure Flooding Hazard Description Dams are constructed for a variety of uses, including flood protection, power generation, agriculture, water supply, and recreation. Dams typically are built of earth, rock, concrete, or mine tailings. Two factors that influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam failure are the amount of water impounded and the density, type, and value of development and infrastructure located downstream. Dam failure floods result from a

77 Thompson, Andrea, Lightning may Increase with Global Warming, November 13, 2014, Scientific American.

79

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

sudden uncontrolled release, or excessive controlled release, of water from an impounding structure. The release may be caused by damage to or failure of the structure, flood conditions unrelated to failure, or any condition that may affect the safe operation of the dam. Depending on dam conditions and the location of downstream development, a dam failure flood may present a danger for human life, downstream property, or the operation of the structure.78 Dams are classified based on the potential loss of life and property to the downstream area resulting from failure of the dam or facilities, not from the condition or probability of the dam failing. Dams are categorized into four classes. The 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan defines Class I (High Hazard) dams as structures that, in the event of a failure, would be expected to cause loss of life and/or significant property damage within the floodplain areas below the dams. Class II (Significant Hazard) dams as those rated based on expected significant damage, but not loss of human life. Significant damage refers to structural damage where humans live, work, or recreate; or to public or private facilities exclusive of unpaved roads and picnic areas. Damage refers to making the structures uninhabitable or inoperable.79 Privately-owned Class I and II dams are required by Colorado regulations to have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) in place. Federally-owned Class I dams are also required to have EAPs by federal regulations. According to the 2013 State Hazard Mitigation Plan, all high-hazard dams in Colorado have EAPs in place that detail the emergency response procedures in the event of a dam emergency event. According to the Colorado Division of Water Resources, there are a total of 373 Class I dams in Colorado (federal and non- federal) and 333 Class II dams (federal and non-federal) in the state.80 Geographic Location There are five Class I dams (High Risk) and seven Class II dams (Significant Risk) in Pitkin County.

78 Federal Guidelines for Emergency Action Planning for Dams, FEMA P-64 (July 2013), Federal Emergency Management Agency (p. I-2) 79 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (December 2013), Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, p. 3-48 80 State Engineer’s 27th Annual Report on Dam Safety to the Colorado General Assembly, Colorado Division 80 of Water Resources (April 2013)

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Figure 4.10 - Pitkin County Dams

Ruedi Reservoir is the newest Class I dam in the county (1968) and by far and away the largest reservoir at over 100,000-acre feet (the next largest Class I dam is Wildcat at 1,100-acre feet). The oldest Class I dam, Lake Ann, is over 100 years old (built in 1912). The table below identifies the hazard class of each dam, the year built, stream where the

81 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

dam is located, closest downstream community, and the distance in miles to the closest downstream community.

Table 4.20 - Location and Age of Class I and Class II Dams in Pitkin County Dam Name Hazard Year Stream Downstream Miles* Class Built Community Christenson Class II 1907 Snowmass Old 5 Significant Creek Snowmass Grizzly Class I 1930 Lincoln Creek Aspen 18 High Ivanhoe Class II 1928 Ivanhoe Creek Thomasville 16 Significant Lake Ann (Dinkle Class I 1912 W. Sopris El Jebel 8 Lake) High Creek Lake Deborah Class I 1962 Brush Creek Snowmass 0.4 (Ziegler Res.) High Village Lazy O Reservoir Class II 1990 Capital Creek Snowmass 3 #2 Significant Leonard Thomas Class II 1964 Castle Creek Aspen 3 Reservoir Significant

Ruedi Reservoir Class I 1968 Fryingpan Basalt 12 High River Sheer Bliss Class II 2007 N/A Snowmass 2 Significant Village Thomas (Lewis Class II 1938 Thomas Creek Carbondale 3 Lake) Significant Valana K Reservoir Class II 1972 E. Sopris Basalt 3 #1 Significant Creek Wildcat Class I 1953 Wildcat Creek Basalt 6 High Source: Colorado Division of Water Resources  Distance to nearest downstream community

All five Class I (High Hazard) dams in Pitkin County have current EAPs. One Class II (Significant Hazard) dam – Christenson Dam – faces a zero-storage restriction by the State Engineer’s Office, until the small dam is rehabilitated or breached by the owner. The table below identifies the current date of each facility’s Emergency Action Plan (EAP) and provides information about each dam’s normal storage capacity, in acre feet, and ownership.

82 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 4.21 - Status of Class I and Class II Dams in Pitkin County: EAPs, Storage Capacity and Ownership

Dam Name EAP Storage Owner (Acre Feet) Christenson No 13 Gunther Covers Grizzly 2017 590 Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. Ivanhoe 2015 752 Pueblo Water Works Lake Ann (Dinkle Lake) 2015 460 Big 4 Ranch Lake Deborah (Ziegler 2011 248 Snowmass Village Water & Reservoir) Sanitation District Lazy O Reservoir #2 1990 16 Otis Company/Lazy O Ranch Leonard Thomas Reservoir 2016 10 City of Aspen Ruedi Reservoir 2011 102,369 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Sheer Bliss 2016 11 Aspen Skiing Company Thomas (Lewis Lake) 2012 172 Ranch Lake Valana K Reservoir #1 2014 19 Ian Willis Wildcat 2016 1,100 Wildcat Ranch Association Source: Colorado Division of Water Resources Previous Occurrences

There are no significant dam failure incidents on record for Pitkin County. Probability Dams are considered “high potential loss Hazard: Dam Failure Flooding facilities” by the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA and are also a critical part Probability of the infrastructure system. The Class I and Pitkin County Unlikely Class II dams listed in the tables above are Aspen Unlikely routinely inspected, structurally sound and have Basalt Unlikely emergency action plans in place. The only Snowmass Village Unlikely exception is Christenson dam, a small, 13-acre- feet impoundment that is under a state storage restriction. The probability of future occurrences is rated unlikely (less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in the next 100 years or it has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years).

Magnitude/Severity

Dam failure flooding, similar to the earthquake Hazard: Dam Failure Flooding hazard, is a low-risk/high-consequence hazard. Although the likelihood of a partial or complete Magnitude/Severity failure of a Class I or II dam in Pitkin County is Pitkin County Catastrophic very low, if an incident did occur, local officials Aspen Catastrophic would be faced with an immediate threat to Basalt Catastrophic lives and potentially widespread property Snowmass Village Critical damages. Given the extreme nature of the

83 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

impacts that an unlikely event would cause, the magnitude/severity of the dam failure flood hazard is rated catastrophic by Pitkin County and the communities of Aspen and Basalt, and critical by Snowmass Village. Vulnerability Assessment The State of Colorado requires Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for all Class I and Class II hazard dams due to the potential for loss of life and/or property damage in the event of a dam failure. The EAP is a formal document that outlines possible emergency conditions at a dam, sets forth actions to minimize damages and danger, and includes a plan for the dam owner to moderate or alleviate the problems at the dam. The EAP contains inundation maps to help emergency management authorities identify the critical areas for action in case of an emergency. Should an emergency arise, the dam owner should refer to preplanned EAP procedures for issuing an early warning and notifying downstream public safety authorities of the situation. Potential Effects of Climate Warming Dams represent one category of the Nation’s infrastructure that is aging, relics of an age when Western rivers were tamed by the structures in the name of water supply, flood protection and hydroelectric power production. Concerns about the effects of climate change on the safety of dam operations have less to do with structural integrity and focus more on original design standards that may not have anticipated the potential for extreme rainfall events that exists today. Weather and streamflow patterns that framed the development of water and power systems across the West are changing, placing at risk the ability of dams to fulfill their primary mission of delivering needed quantities of water and hydropower to agricultural, tribal, municipal, and industrial users, as well as water to maintain environmental flows and ecosystems. Increased intensity of droughts and floods also raise concerns about infrastructure safety, the resiliency of species and ecosystems to these changes, and the ability to maintain adequate levels of hydropower production.81 When changes in weather patterns produce a hydrograph that is different from the one used in a dam’s design, the structure may lose some of its designed margin of safety, or freeboard, requiring dam operators to release increased volumes that could potentially cause downstream flooding. Older dams may not be designed to deal with the intense rainfall patterns and heavy downpours as temperatures increase and as more moisture falls as rain instead of snow. In the future, operators of water supply and flood protection facilities that were designed based on historical hydrologic data will need to take into account changing precipitation and runoff patterns, as well as the possibilities of extreme climatic events, in dam safety plans. Leaving more space in the reservoir to accommodate flooding must be balanced with water demands, which will likely increase as temperatures continue to rise.

81 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (November 2014), Managing Water in the West: Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, p. 7.

84

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Chapter Five: Capability Assessment

5.1 Vulnerability Assessment Summary According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, “Coloradans become vulnerable to hazards when they live, work, or visit an area where these events occur. Individuals and communities that prepare for the occurrence of a hazard are less vulnerable to its consequences than those that do not. The vulnerability of Colorado’s population is rooted in a relationship between the occurrence of hazard events, the proximity of people and property to these occurrences, and the degree that a community and its members are committed and prepared to cope with these occurrences and mitigate their effects.”82

Table 5.1 - Priority Hazards – Key Issues

Key Issues Related to Priority Hazards in Pitkin County

Key Issues: Wildfires

A large proportion of Pitkin County’s population lives and recreates in and near forested areas and wildfires pose serious risks to residents, visitors, property and wildlife. The potential for wildfire-caused damage to structures in Pitkin County is increasing as wildland fuels accumulate and greater numbers of people choose to build homes in wildfire-prone areas. As climate warming leads to longer, more intense periods of drought, the risks and impacts of wildfires are expected to grow, in turn leading to greater risks from landslides, mudflows and other geologic hazards during heavy rainfall events. The potential magnitude of a large wildfire is considered by the participating jurisdictions to be critical-to-catastrophic.

Key Issues: Geologic Hazards: Landslides, Debris Flows, Mudflows and Rockfalls

In the high country, heavy rain events reduce slope stability that can result in landslides, debris flows, mudflows, rockfalls and other types of mass movement of soil and rock. While communities in the Roaring Fork Valley have enacted strict development standards for development on slopes and hillsides, the potential for extreme precipitation events fueled by climate warming may present increased risks to people and property in Pitkin County. Due to the steep terrain in most of the county, the probability of future occurrences of landslides and other geologic hazards is considered highly likely.

Key Issues: Flooding

Although serious flood events in Pitkin County are rare, severe weather and snowmelt runoff present a threat of serious flooding along rivers and creeks in the county each year. The town of Basalt has been one of the more flood-prone areas of the county due to its location at the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan Rivers. Basalt is also located downstream of one Class I (high hazard) and two Class II (significant hazard) dams. The area in and around the community of Redstone, located at the

82 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (December 2013), Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management.

85

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

confluence of Coal Creek and Crystal River, is also susceptible to flood events. Because warmer air can hold more moisture, events producing heavy rainfall can be expected to increase as temperatures rise in the years to come, which in turn will increase the potential for flash flooding.

Key Issues: Other Hazards

Although common in Pitkin County, severe winter storms can occasionally present major public safety challenges for communities in the Roaring Fork Valley. As the warming atmosphere holds more moisture, winter storms may become more intense, producing heavier snowfall. On the other hand, climate warming may result in more frequent, intense and prolonged droughts. With annual precipitation in Pitkin County averaging only 11-15 inches per year, any decrease in moisture over a single year or for a multi-year period can have significant impacts on the tourism and recreation economy. As backcountry recreation grows in popularity, the risk of death and injury due to avalanches and lightning strikes will likely grow.

The wildfire risk in Pitkin County is primarily associated with wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas (areas where development occurs within or immediately adjacent to wildlands, near fire-prone trees, brush, and/or other vegetation). Key public safety issues related to wildfire mitigation include evacuation-route planning in “one-way-out” subdivisions, fuel reduction, water storage, and emergency power for pump stations. Throughout the county, thousands of structures are located within the WUI, with a combined value in the billions of dollars. Most of these structures are in areas classified as having at least a “Medium” wildfire hazard risk. The greatest wildfire risks within the Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) are in and around the City of Aspen. In the Aspen area, the number of homes in proximity to the WUI is growing. In Aspen and an area extending one mile beyond the city limits, approximately half of the total acreage is classified “High” or “Very High” for wildfire risk. According to the Snowmass Community Wildfire Protection Plan, approximately 70% of the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District (SWFPD) is at higher risk for wildfire, including the Wildcat Ranch area, which has low population density but very high property values. In Snowmass Village proper, about 40% of the area has a “High” wildfire risk. The following areas are also at risk from wildland fires: Upper Horse Ranch Drive, Oak Ridge Road area, Upper Sinclair Road, Upper Faraway Road, Two Creeks Subdivision, The Pines Subdivision, and The Divide Subdivision. Like the other communities along the Roaring Fork River valley floor in Pitkin County, the Town of Basalt has experienced residential growth on the valley edges and within the densely-forested hillsides outside of town above the valley. According to the Eagle County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2011), areas of “elevated risk” within the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District (BRFPD) include Buck Point, Upper Missouri Heights, Lower Missouri Heights, Cedar Drive, Seven Castles/Big Hat, and Ruedi Shores.

86 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

5.2 Community Asset Inventory There is a total of 17,420 residents in Pitkin County (2015 census), most of whom live in the communities in the Roaring Fork River valley. Population growth in Pitkin County from 2010 to 2015 was mostly flat, with very slow growth in Aspen, Snowmass Village and Pitkin County as a whole, and a slight decline in population in Basalt. As a result of the tourism-based economy, especially in the communities of Aspen and Snowmass Village, the number of people in the county at any given time can surge to many times the official number of local residents. In 2016, the total assessed value of residential property in Pitkin County was more than two billion dollars ($2,046,748,130), a 1.4% increase from 2015. The value of commercial real estate in 2016 was $655,877,150, a 1.4% decline from 2015. The value of vacant land in the county was assessed in 2016 at $201,485,500 (a roughly 10% decline from 2015). HAZUS-MH was used to estimate the exposure of people and buildings in Pitkin County to a 100-year and 500-year flood event. HAZUS-MH estimates total damages and economic losses of over $71 million for a 100-year flood event in Pitkin County. Damages and losses for a 500-year event are estimated to be nearly $78 million. Out of a total of 9,671 structures modeled by HAZUS-MH, 56 structures would be damaged in a 100-year flood event and 70 structures would be damaged in a 500-year flood event. In addition, HAZUS-MH estimates that the number of households displaced by a 100-year flood event to be 305 and the number of people requiring short-term sheltering to be 528. For a 500-year event, 331 households would be displaced, and 583 people would seek short- term shelters. Critical Facilities, Infrastructure, and Other Important Community Assets Critical facilities and infrastructure are the structures and systems in the community that are integral to day-to-day functions and, if damaged, would have serious adverse impacts on disaster response and recovery operations. Infrastructure and facilities that are commonly considered critical include law enforcement facilities, fire service facilities, health care facilities, ambulance services, government facilities, emergency operations centers, public shelters, transportation systems, water supply facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, agricultural production facilities, electrical power systems and other utilities. In addition, critical facilities are those that house vulnerable populations, such as schools and assisted living or senior housing. Several critical facilities in Pitkin County have recently been remodeled and expanded or are currently under construction. A new Aspen Police Department facility (540 E. Main St.) and new Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office facility (530 E. Main St.) were under construction at the time of updates to this plan. A major renovation and expansion of Aspen Valley hospital was also recently completed. Natural, Historic and Cultural Resources Pitkin County has a wealth of natural, historic and cultural resources that are highly- valued community assets by residents and visitors alike. The protection of these types of resources is an important goal of hazard mitigation planning. Natural resources can have beneficial functions that reduce the impacts of natural hazards, such as wetlands and

87 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

riparian habitat, which help absorb and attenuate floodwaters. Wetlands also improve water quality, limit erosion, and protect wildlife. In the preparation of benefit-cost analyses for future mitigation projects, the need to protect natural, historic and cultural resources can be used to leverage additional funding for projects that contribute to other community goals. Pitkin County and its local partners enjoy an abundance of natural resources, including legendary alpine terrain, wilderness, wetlands and endangered species. An endangered species is any species of fish, plant life, or wildlife that is in danger of extinction throughout all or most of its range. A threatened species is a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. Both endangered and threatened species are protected by law and any future hazard mitigation projects are subject to these laws. Candidate species are plants and animals that have been proposed as endangered or threatened but are not currently listed. Endangered, threatened, and candidate species located in Pitkin County are listed in the table below.

Table 5.2 - Rare Species in Pitkin County Common Name Scientific Name Type of Status Species Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Mammal Threatened

Greenback cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki Fish Threatened trout stomias Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Bird Threatened

Uncompahgre fritillary Boloria acrocnema Insect Endangered butterfly Ute ladies’-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Flowering Threatened orchid Plant Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Bird Threatened

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National and state historic inventories were reviewed to identify historic and cultural assets in Pitkin County. The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The Colorado State Register of Historic Properties is a listing of the state’s significant cultural resources worthy of preservation for the future education and enjoyment of Colorado’s residents and visitors. The tables below list the properties in Pitkin County that are on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties and the National Register of Historic Places.

Table 5.3 - Historic Aspen Properties and Districts on National Register Property Location Year Listed Armory Hall/Fraternal Hall 130 S. Galena St. 1975 Aspen Community Church 200 N. Aspen St. 1975 Boat Tow 700 S. Aspen St. 1990 Bowles-Cooley House 201 W. Francis St. 1987 Matthew Callahan Log Cabin 205 S. 3rd St. 1987

88 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Collins Block-Aspen Lumber & Supply 204 S. Mill St. 1987 Dixon-Markle House 135 E. Cooper Ave. 1987 D.E. Frantz House 333 W. Bleeker St. 1987 Samuel L. Hallett House 432 W. Francis St. 1987 Holden Mining & Smelting Company 1000 W. Hwy. 82 1990 Hotel Jerome 330 E. Main St. 1986 Hyman-Brand Building 203 S. Galena St. 1985 Thomas Hynes House 303 E. Main St. 1987 La Fave Block 405 S. Hunter St. 1987 New Brick/The Brick Saloon/Red Onion 420 E. Cooper Ave. 1987 Riede’s City Bakery 413 E. Hyman Ave. 1987 Judge Shaw House/Newberry House 206 Lake Ave. 1987 Sheely Bridge Mill St. Park 1985 Shilling-Lamb House 525 N. 2nd St. 1987 Smith-Elisha House 320 W. Main St. 1989 Smuggler Mine Smuggler Mountain 1987 Ute Cemetery Ute Ave. 2002 Davis Waite House 234 W. Francis St. 1987 Henry Webber House/Pioneer Park 442 W. Bleeker St. 1987 Wheeler Opera House 330 E. Hyman Ave. 1972 Wheeler-Stallard House 620 W. Bleeker St. 1975 Source: Directory of Colorado State Register Properties

89 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 5.4 - Historic Pitkin County Properties and Districts on National Register Property Location Year Listed Ashcroft White River National Forest 1975 Independence/Independence Mill Site Independence/Hwy. 82 1973 Maroon Creek Bridge Hwy. 82/Aspen Vicinity 1985 Osgood Castle/Cleveholm Redstone Vicinity 1971 Osgood Gamekeeper’s Lodge 18679 Hwy. 133 1989 Osgood-Kuhnhausen House 642 Redstone Blvd. 1983 Pitkin County Courthouse 506 E. Main St. (Aspen) 1975 Redstone Coke Ovens Historic District Redstone Vicinity 1990 Redstone Historic District Redstone 1989 Redstone Inn 82 Redstone Blvd. 1980 Source: Directory of Colorado State Register Properties According to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), any property over 50 years of age is considered an historic resource and is potentially eligible for the National Register. As a result, alterations to listed properties must be evaluated under the guidelines set forth by NEPA. Structural mitigation projects are considered alterations for the purpose of this regulation. Economic Assets According to the State Demography Office, total employment in Pitkin County was estimated to be 20,367 in 2015, down about 1,600 jobs from the county’s 2008 employment peak of 21,937. The employment drop that occurred in 2015 was due to reclassification of temporary-help workers to surrounding counties. Two-thirds of the industries in Pitkin County employ fewer people than prior to the recession. Average weekly wages in the county increased by 18% between 2010 and 2015, compared to the state which increased by 13%. Between 2015 and 2030, the total number of jobs in Pitkin County is projected to increase from 23,541 to 26,189, an increase of 11.25%.83 In addition to direct impacts and damages to critical facilities, major disasters can result in large amounts of debris, business interruptions, increased emergency response times and costs, loss of income for businesses and residents, increased demands for health services, and the need to replace roads, bridges and public buildings. After a disaster, economic recovery is the highest recovery priority, next to public health and safety. When major employers are unable to return to normal operations, long-term impacts may be felt throughout the community. The table below lists the top employers in Pitkin County by number of employees for calendar year 2016. The total number of workers for these top employers represents 49.87% of total employment in Pitkin County.

83 State Demography Office, https://demography.dola.colorado.gov

90

2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 5.5 - Top Employers in Pitkin County in 2016 Employer Number of Employees Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Hotel 3,887 Aspen Valley Hospital 800 Little Nell Hotel 400 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 370 St. Regis Aspen Resort 325 Viceroy Snowmass Resort 300 City of Aspen 293 Pitkin County 266 Aspen School District 254 Hotel Jerome 250 Westin Snowmass Wildwood Resort Hotel 180 Ritz Carlton 176 Source: Pitkin County, Colorado Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; Year Ended December 31, 2016 5.3 Social Vulnerability Certain demographic and housing characteristics affect overall vulnerability to hazards. These characteristics, such as age, race/ethnicity, income levels, gender, building quality, public infrastructure, all contribute to social vulnerability. Factors of social vulnerability hold many implications for disaster response and recovery and are important considerations when identifying and prioritizing mitigation goals and actions. Age can affect the ability of individuals to safely evacuate away from hazardous conditions. Language and cultural barriers can affect the communication of warning information and access to post-disaster information. Low-income residents generally have fewer resources available for mitigation, preparedness, and recovery and are more likely to live in vulnerable structures. Individuals and communities with higher average incomes have more ability to absorb disaster impacts and losses, due to factors such as insurance and social safety nets. Compared to other counties in Colorado, Pitkin County’s social vulnerability is low (i.e., less socially vulnerable than most counties and most of the state’s population).

Table 5.6 - Social Vulnerability Indicators from U.S. Census (2015) Jurisdiction Total Housing Percent 17 Yrs. 65 Non- Individuals Population Units Female and Yrs. English Below Under and at Poverty Over Home Level (%) Pitkin 17,420 13,027 47.0% 16.5% 15.2% 15.2% 9.9% County Aspen 6,740 5,961 45.9% 13.4% 19.8% 17.4% 8.8%

Basalt 3,791 1,865 45.2% 15.5% 10.4% 16.5% 6.4%

Snowmass 2,865 2,698 47.6% 15.1% 10.3% 10.2% 9.7% Village Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey

91 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

5.4 Growth and Development Trends This section provides a general description of growth and development trends within the county and includes data on growth in population and housing units for each jurisdiction. Population growth in Pitkin County from 2010 to 2015 was mostly flat, with very slow growth in Aspen, Snowmass Village and Pitkin County as a whole, and a slight decline in population in Basalt.

Table 5.7 - Population Growth in Pitkin County, 2010-2015

Jurisdiction 2010 2015 Percent Change Pitkin County 17,148 17,420 1.59 Aspen 6,658 6,740 1.23 Basalt* 3,857 3,791 -1.71 Snowmass Village 2,826 2,865 1.38 Source: Department of Local Affairs, State Demography Office, www.dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog  Basalt population figures include both portions of Town in Pitkin County and Eagle County The table below shows the rate of growth in housing units for Pitkin County, Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass Village between 2010-2015. Snowmass Village experienced a healthy increase of almost 15% in the number of housing units during the period, with little or no increase in the other jurisdictions.

Table 5.8 - Growth in Housing Units in Pitkin County, 2010-2015

Jurisdiction 2010 2015 Percent Change Pitkin County 12,953 13,027 0.57 Aspen 5,929 5,961 0.54 Basalt* 1,912 1,865 -2.46 Snowmass Village 2,355 2,698 14.56 Source: Department of Local Affairs, State Demography Office, www.dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog  Basalt housing figures include both portions of Town in Pitkin County and Eagle County

According to the State Demography Office, Pitkin County is projected to grow at a slow- to-moderate rate (approximately 4.0-5.0% per 5-year period) between 2015 and 2050, with a total population increase of 36.23% over the period, as indicated in the table below. Table 5.9 - Projected Population Growth in Pitkin County, 2015-2050

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Population 17,845 18,806 19,829 20,791 21,714 22,605 23,458 24,311

Percent 5.39 5.44 4.85 4.44 4.10 3.77 3.64 Change Source: Department of Local Affairs, State Demography Office, www.dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog

92 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

According to the State Demography Office, job growth in Pitkin County is expected to continue to exceed population growth for the period from 2015 to 2020, after which population growth will slightly exceed job growth during the period 2020 to 2030. The transition to lower job growth is a reflection of short-term economic growth and longer- term population aging. As the population ages, labor force growth will decline, and older adults may require additional housing, more accessible housing, and more community services.84 5.5 National Flood Insurance Program Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, and the Towns of Basalt and Snowmass Village participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Pitkin County also participates in the Community Rating System (CRS) with a rating of 8. There is a total of 365 policies and there have been 27 total claims by the NFIP participating jurisdictions. There are no repetitive loss properties in Pitkin County.

Table 5.10 - NFIP Community Participation Community Initial Initial Current Regular FHBM FIRM Effective Map Emergency Date Date Pitkin County 10/25/1977 06/04/1987 10/19/2004 06/04/1987

City of Aspen 02/15/1974 12/24/1976 06/04/1987 12/04/1985

Town of Basalt 06/28/1974 03/18/1980 12/04/2007 03/18/1980

Town of 06/04/1987 09/30/1988 06/04/1987 Snowmass Village Source: FEMA Community Status Book Report, Colorado, September 26, 2017. Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) completed for southside Basalt in November 2016.

Table 5.11 - NFIP Policies in Force as of July 31, 2017 Community Policies Insurance Written Premiums in in Force in Force Force Pitkin County 137 $40,161,000 $158,976

City of Aspen 122 $31,967,700 $92,807

Town of Basalt 89 $27,587,300 $73,897

Town of 17 $5,161,500 $7,160 Snowmass Village Source: FEMA NFIP Policy Statistics, bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports.

84 State Demography Office, https://demography.dola.colorado.gov.

93 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 5.12 - NFIP Claims, January 1, 1978 to July 31, 2017 Community Total Closed Open CWOP Total Losses Losses Losses Losses* Payments Pitkin County 15 9 0 6 $45,990.52 City of Aspen 9 4 0 5 $168,270.56 Town of Basalt 1 1 0 0 $3,815.81 Town of 2 1 0 1 $5,717.30 Snowmass Village Source: FEMA NFIP Claims Statistics, bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports. * Closed without payment 5.6 Capability Assessment Mitigation capabilities refer to the programs and policies currently in place to reduce hazard impacts, principally through the identification and implementation of cost- effective hazard mitigation measures. Capabilities can take the form of regulatory requirements (e.g., building codes or hazard-specific zoning ordinances), plans (e.g., hazard mitigation plans or stormwater master plans), certification programs (e.g., Firewise or the Community Rating System), personnel (e.g., floodplain administrators and community planners), insurance (e.g., National Flood Insurance Program), and structural projects that protect critical facilities and other property. Hazard awareness and public education programs are also proven measures for preparing citizens to cope with hazard events that cannot be avoided. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities The political jurisdictions within Pitkin County enforce a range of regulations that support mitigation goals and principles by restricting development in areas prone to natural hazards, including stringent floodplain policies and regulations. Pitkin County participates in the NFIP’s Community Rating System program, with a class rating of 8, thereby providing a 10% discount on flood insurance policies for properties in Special Flood Hazard Areas. Applicants for new construction or redevelopment in Pitkin County must complete a Wildfire Hazard Analysis, including a wildfire hazard assessment for the property based on fuels, slope, aspect and access. Permitted construction is required to include supplemental fuels mitigation (thinning) and homes within high-hazard areas have more stringent building materials and construction requirements. Pitkin County’s Land Use and Subdivision regulations related to natural hazard mitigation include grading and filling standards, standards for development on unstable slopes, floodplain regulations, maintenance of historical flow/runoff patterns, limits on development where geologic hazards exist, and standards for development in wildfire hazard areas. In 2000, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly adopted an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) which identifies the land surrounding the City as either appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development (outside the UGB). By limiting urban sprawl, the UGB deters urban development patterns in rural

94 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

areas that are more susceptible to risks from natural hazards, such as land within the wildland-urban interface.

Figure 5.1 - City of Aspen/Pitkin County Urban Growth Boundary

Complementing the Urban Growth Boundary is Pitkin County’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, originally adopted to encourage the relocation of development from the backcountry to areas closer to existing services and infrastructure, but since expanded to encourage the protection of environmentally-sensitive areas and to discourage development in environmentally-hazardous areas. The City of Aspen’s Land Use Code requires “heightened review” of proposed development in environmentally sensitive areas, including areas subject to flooding and geologic hazards, and in Specially Planned Areas (SPAs) in order to evaluate suitability considering the potential for mudflow, rockfall, avalanche and flood hazards. The PUD section of the Land Use Code limits the density of development on steep slopes with the goal of reducing wildfire, mudslide and avalanche hazards. The Subdivision section restricts the location of subdivisions on land unsuitable for development because of flood or geologic hazards The City of Aspen’s Urban Runoff Management Plan contains the floodplain ordinance and regulations and outlines the inspection and permitting process followed by the City of Aspen Engineering Department. The plan requires that all new development occurring within the identified mudflow plain perform a mudflow analysis. Additionally, the plan

95 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

requires that all new and substantially-changed critical facilities be located outside of the 500-year floodplain and requires a mudflow analysis for development on slopes of 15% or greater or for sites in the mudflow plain. The Land Use and Subdivision regulations in the Town of Snowmass Village limit development in identified wildfire hazard areas and requires implementation of mitigation measures related to structural design, access, water supply, appropriate vegetation, and maintenance. The regulations also include storm drainage standards intended to preserve the integrity of existing and natural runoff patterns and limit flooding, erosion and pollution. The regulations restrict development in geologic hazard areas where slopes are excessively steep (greater than 30%), unstable or hazardous. The floodplain section of the regulations requires all proposed development to be located outside of the limits of the 100-year floodplain. The Town of Basalt’s Land Use and Subdivision regulations also specifically address natural hazards, including discouraging development on slopes that exceed 30% and in areas prone to subsidence, unstable soils, rockfall hazards and flooding. The regulations specify floodplain development restrictions and describe recommended mitigation techniques, including elevation, floodproofing, slope stabilization, catchment walls, diversion structures and structural reinforcement. Subdivision preliminary plat requirements include an engineering analysis and drainage plan that addresses potential flood and mudflow risks. Basalt also has specific regulations for the Reach II and Southside floodplains that require new development to prove that it does not increase the base flood elevation. The existing regulatory tools and planning mechanisms for Pitkin County and partner jurisdictions are summarized in the table below.

Table 5.13 - Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Mitigation Pitkin City of Town of Town of Capability County Aspen Snowmass Basalt Village Comprehensive or Master Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Emergency Operations Plan Yes Yes* Yes* Yes* Economic Development Plan No Yes No Yes Capital Improvements Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Community Wildfire Yes Yes** Yes** Yes** Protection Plan (2014) Building Code Year 2015 2015 2015 2015 Floodplain Ordinance Yes Yes Yes Yes Zoning Ordinance Yes Yes Yes Yes Subdivision Ordinance Yes Yes No Yes Stormwater Ordinance No Yes No Yes Growth Management Yes Yes No No Ordinance Site Plan Review Yes Yes Yes Yes Requirements Erosion/Sediment Control Yes Yes Yes Yes Program

96 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Stormwater Management No Yes Yes Yes Program Flood Insurance Rate Maps Yes*** Yes*** Yes*** Yes**** (FIRMs) National Flood Insurance Yes Yes Yes Yes Program Participant Community Rating System Yes No No No (CRS) Participant (Rating: 8) * City and Towns are signatories to county-level EOP ** City and Towns are signatories to county- and local-level CWPPs *** Approval of new Digital FIRMs in process (current FIRMs dated 1987) **** Town of Basalt amended FIRMs effective November 2017

The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (March 2011) provides a set of regional guidelines that address natural hazard mitigation in the river corridor. The watershed plan was developed to protect and restore riparian areas, ensure adequate stream setbacks, and increase awareness of the importance of riparian areas. Plan objectives include: (1) ensuring coordination of local land use actions to mitigate watershed impacts, (2) reducing the negative impacts of drought and floods, and (3) preserving and enhancing native riparian and instream flora and fauna. The City of Aspen has emerged as a leader in climate action in the U.S. and around the world. In an effort to reduce the threat of climate change, Aspen's City Council adopted the City of Aspen’s Canary Action Plan in 2007, which commits to reducing community emissions 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, below 2004 levels. A testament to Aspen’s commitment to sustainability performance is the achievement of 100% renewable energy in 2015. The City of Aspen electric utility uses 46% hydroelectric, 53% wind power, and 1% landfill gas (2015 figures). Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, and the Town of Basalt have all adopted new Climate Action Plans and the Town of Basalt has also adopted the 2015 ICC building energy code. Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities The tables below identify the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Pitkin County and the financial resources available to participating jurisdictions to implement recommended hazard mitigation activities.

Table 5.14 - Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Administrative and Pitkin City of Town of Town of Technical Resources County Aspen Snowmass Basalt Village Planner/Engineer Yes Yes Yes Yes Engineer/Professional Yes Yes Yes Yes GIS Capabilities Yes Yes Yes Yes HAZUS Analysis Yes Yes Yes Yes Full-Time Building Official Yes Yes Yes Yes Floodplain Administrator Yes Yes Yes Yes Emergency Manager Yes No No No Grant Writer No Yes Yes Yes Warning Systems/Services Yes Yes Yes Yes

97 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 5.15 - Financial Resources Financial Resources Pitkin City of Town of Town of County Aspen Snowmass Basalt Village Community Development No No No No Block Grants Capital Improvements Project Yes Yes Yes Yes Funding Authority to Levy Taxes for Yes Yes Yes Yes Specific Purposes Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or No Yes Yes Yes Electric Services Impact Fees for New Yes Yes Yes Yes Development Incur Debt through General Yes Yes Yes Yes Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special N/A Yes Yes Yes Tax Bonds

Fire Protection District Capabilities In response to the growing wildfire threat, Pitkin County and the fire protection districts (FPDs) within the county have developed a comprehensive program for reducing risks and strong capabilities for suppressing fires before they grow out of control, including:

• establishment of the Pitkin County Wildfire Council and Wildfire Planning Team; • preparation of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) for Pitkin County, Snowmass Village, Basalt (Eagle County CWPP), Conundrum, and Starwood; • completion of subdivision-level CWPPs • development of the Pitkin County Annual Operating Plan and participation in the State Emergency Fire Fund; • maintenance of mutual aid agreements with local partners and intergovernmental agreements with state and federal government agencies; and • enhanced mapping and site-specific risk assessment programs. In addition to these capabilities developed within the fire service and wildland fire communities, many of the authorities supporting the mission of the fire protection districts can be found in county, city and town land use regulations, building codes, and other local government authorities for managing growth and ensuring safe development. The fire protection districts enforce wildland fire prevention and are responsible for all wildland fire suppression activities on private and state lands within their fire districts, with support from the Colorado State Forest Service and the Pitkin County Sheriff. While the Sheriff has ultimate authority over all fires on state and private lands in the county, FPD’s typically handle routine wildfire suppression within their districts and rely on the Sheriff to summon additional assistance as needed. FPD personnel are trained to fight structural fires, urban-interface fires, and wildland fires in the backcountry. The FPDs also manage fire prevention and emergency preparedness programs, including fire inspections, hazardous process permitting, burn

98 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

permits, fire code enforcement, community education, and business emergency planning in accordance with Colorado laws. In an ongoing effort to promote defensible spacing and Firewise community standards, FPDs partner with local homeowners’ associations to complete annual wildfire mitigation projects, including right-of-way tree removal, public chipping programs, and removal of fuels. FPDs in Pitkin County have extensive wildland firefighting-related skills, equipment and incident command experience and generally conduct initial attack and extended attack actions, with support from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Access to USFS and BLM resources, including personnel, engines, interagency dispatch center and air support (helicopter/air tanker), is provided through cooperative agreements and interagency contracts between the FPDs and federal agency partners. The Aspen Fire Protection District operates from four strategically-located stations housing a total of 10 apparatus, including four structure engines, two wildfire engines, two rescue trucks, one water tender and one 104-foot ladder truck. The Snowmass- Wildcat Fire Protection District operates 13 pieces of apparatus out of one station in Snowmass Village and the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District maintains four fire stations in Snowmass, Basalt, Thomasville and El Jebel, each equipped with a four-wheel drive ambulance and various fire response trucks.

99 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Chapter Six: Mitigation Strategy

This chapter describes the mitigation strategy developed by the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team (Planning Team), based on the risk assessment that was updated at both planning workshops, survey feedback, and interviews with local officials. The Planning Team developed goals and mitigation actions according to the following definitions:

• Goals are general guidelines that explain what the plan means to achieve. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent on the means of achievement. They are meant to be achieved over the long term and typically consist of broad policy statements.

• Mitigation Actions are specific actions that implement the objective and provide clear direction towards fulfilling the goals. 6.1 Plan Goals Participants at the initial planning workshop approved the first two goal statements below and recommended drafting an additional goal related to the implications of climate change for natural hazards. 1. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by natural hazards. 2. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by human-caused hazards. 3. Recognizing the common issues and mutual goals of hazard mitigation and climate adaptation, promote collaborative planning and identify opportunities to dovetail actions that reduce risks from both natural hazards and climate warming. 6.2 Incorporation of 2012 Plan Elements into Other Planning Mechanisms The 2012 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan encouraged the incorporation of recommended mitigation actions into other local government planning mechanisms, such as master or comprehensive land-use plans, when appropriate. As described in Chapter Five, Capability Assessment, local governments and special districts in Pitkin County have strong capabilities to address and mitigate risks from local natural hazards. Pitkin County and the other jurisdictions participating in this mitigation planning effort enforce a range of regulations that support mitigation goals and principles by restricting development in areas prone to natural hazards. Mitigation concepts are built into the day-to-day operations of local governments in Pitkin County, principally the administration of land use codes, subdivision regulations, building codes and regulations related to floodplain and stormwater management.

100 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

The 2012 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan is referenced in the following documents and resources:

• 2017 Sustainability Report, City of Aspen; • Climate Change and Aspen: An Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning and Stakeholder Engagement, Arnott et al (December 2014); and • Extreme Weather Adaptation in Aspen, CO: A Story Map. The 2017 update of this plan provides additional opportunities for improving integration with other local plans and programs. Multiple disciplines are reflected in Planning Team membership, broadening opportunities for identifying and supporting meaningful mitigation actions. Outside of formal meetings, Planning Team members can promote mitigation plan goals by (1) attending other planning/program meetings, (2) participating in other planning processes, and (3) remaining cognizant of outreach opportunities to engage stakeholders. Pitkin County Emergency Management will be responsible for conducting an annual hazard mitigation plan review to assess progress and identify opportunities for implementing recommended actions. 6.3 Identification of Mitigation Action Alternatives Prior to evaluating potential mitigation for the 2017 update, the Planning Team reviewed the types and categories of mitigation actions, as identified in the table below.

Table 6.1 - Types of Mitigation Actions Mitigation Description Examples Type Local Plans These actions include ∙Comprehensive plans and government authorities, policies, ∙Land use ordinances Regulations or codes that influence the way ∙Subdivision regulations land and buildings are ∙Development review developed and built. ∙Building codes/enforcement ∙NFIP Community Rating System ∙Capital improvement programs ∙Open space preservation ∙Stormwater management plans and regulations Structure and These actions involve modifying ∙Acquisition/removal of Infrastructure existing structures and structures in hazard-prone Protection infrastructure to protect them areas from a hazard or remove them ∙Utility undergrounding from a hazard area. This could ∙Structural retrofits apply to public or private ∙Floodwalls and retaining walls structures as well as critical ∙Detention/retention facilities and infrastructure. structures This type of action also involves ∙Culverts structural projects that reduce ∙Safe rooms the impact of hazards. Natural These are actions that minimize ∙Sediment and erosion control Systems damage and losses and also ∙Stream corridor restoration Protection ∙Forest management

101 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

preserve or restore the functions ∙Conservation easements of natural systems. ∙Wetland restoration and preservation Education and These are actions to inform and ∙Radio or television spots Awareness educate citizens, elected ∙Websites with maps and Programs officials, and property owners information about hazards and potential ∙Real estate disclosure ways to mitigate them. ∙Presentations to school These actions may also include groups or neighborhood participation in national organizations programs, such as StormReady ∙Mailings to residents in or Firewise Communities. hazard-prone areas Although this type of mitigation ∙StormReady Communities reduces risk less directly ∙Firewise Communities than structural projects or regulation, it is an important foundation. A greater understanding and awareness of hazards and risk among local officials, stakeholders, and the public is more likely to lead to direct actions. Source: Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, FEMA (March 2013) 6.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Actions The Planning Team discussed a wide range of possible mitigation actions, and employed the STAPLEE methodology (see description below) to evaluate and prioritize each proposed action. For each recommended action, the Planning Team developed a project summary that included a description of the action, the department or agency responsible for implementing it, and an estimated timeframe for completion. While STAPLEE provided a template for the Planning Team to evaluate a range of specific mitigation actions and projects, the results of the risk assessment were also considered (i.e., probability and severity of impacts for each hazard). Planning Team members also weighed the pros and cons of proposed actions based on their judgement, subject matter expertise and experience with local hazards. The STAPLEE evaluation tool was used as one method for evaluating the effectiveness of each action item. STAPLEE considers social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental constraints and benefits of a proposed activity.

• Social: Does the measure treat people fairly? • Technical: Will it work? Does it solve the problem? Is it feasible? • Administrative: Is there capacity to implement and manage the project? • Political: Who are the stakeholders? Did they get to participate? Is there public support? Is political leadership willing to support the project? • Legal: Does your organization have the authority to implement? Is it legal? Are there liability implications? • Economic: Is it cost-beneficial? Is there funding? Does it contribute to the local economy or economic development? Does it reduce direct property losses or indirect economic losses?

102 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

• Environmental: Does it comply with environmental regulations or have adverse environmental impacts? 6.5 Completed Projects and Accomplishments Since 2012 Since 2012, substantial progress has been made implementing recommended actions, including a number of projects that have been completed and many others that are in process. The following mitigation actions that were identified in the 2012 plan have been completed:

• Establishment of the Pitkin County Emergency Operations Center (EOC), the Pitkin County Incident Management Team (IMT), and the Emergency Support Function (ESF) staff; • Updates to Land Use Code to incorporate new State of Colorado floodplain regulations; • Establishment of Pitkin County Mud & Flood Management Team and the Pitkin County Wildfire Planning Team, in cooperation with Aspen, Carbondale and Snowmass Village; • Completion of City of Aspen Mud-Debris Flow Study; and • Completion of stormwater drainage improvements at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport business center and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District wastewater treatment plant. A number of 2012 mitigation actions have been partially-completed, including new and updated mutual aid agreements, delivery of EOC staff training, completion of subdivision-level Community Wildfire Protection Plans, outreach and coordination with dam owners and operators, removal of beetle-killed trees in residential/public use areas, and outreach efforts to educate businesses and the public about natural hazards using multiple media, including local television, internet, safety fairs and public forums. Wildfire, the highest priority hazard for all communities in Pitkin County, has been the focus of substantial mitigation activity in the past five years, including the establishment of the Pitkin County Wildfire Council in cooperation with the municipalities and fire protection districts. The goals of the Wildfire Council are to promote wildfire education, outreach and mitigation. Pitkin County has partnered with fire districts in the county to facilitate wildfire mitigation projects, including right-of-way clearing projects and the chipping program, and has conducted wildfire risk assessments in most HOAs and subdivisions in the county in the last five years. Pitkin County facilitates activities of the Wildfire Planning Team each spring and was recently awarded a BLM wildfire mitigation grant. Annually, Pitkin County produces wildfire education and outreach material, to promote preparedness in the community, and maintains pitkinwildfire.com. The County assists facilitation of the Annual Operating Plan which brings all local, state, and federal partners together every winter to review wildfire plans and mutual aid agreements for the upcoming wildfire season. The County annually participates and pays into the State Emergency Fire Fund which can be used to offset the cost of fires that exceed local capabilities and qualify for reimbursement. The County ensures that all state and federal Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) are maintained.

103 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

In Snowmass Village, the Town continues to partner with Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District and local homeowners’ associations to complete annual wildfire mitigation projects, including right-of-way tree removal, public chipping programs, and removal of fuels. The City of Aspen Wildfire Mitigation Program includes four priority areas of focus: (1) enhanced mapping and risk assessment, (2) evacuation routes and utility infrastructure, (3) defensible spaces and fuel removal, and (4) wildfire risk communication. During 2016-2017, the City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District updated the wildfire map to identify wildland, intermix and interface areas up to one-mile beyond the city borders as low, moderate or high potential for wildfire. For new roofs, fire-resistive roof- covering and roof assemblies are required by the building code. From an environmental health perspective, the City upgraded its air quality monitoring system to include a website that can be used by the public to understand the impacts to air quality caused by wildfires or dust storms. The system provides real-time monitoring of ozone, PM2.5 and PM10 to facilitate risk communication to the public. In the spring of 2016, the U.S. Forest Service conducted a successful 900-acre prescribed fire in the Hunter Creek Valley near Aspen. The burn project was part of the Hunter- Smuggler Cooperative Plan (2014), which seeks to improve forest resiliency and recreational values in the area. Debris flow and mudflow hazards have also been the subject of considerable attention in the last five years, especially in Aspen, where events periodically result in damage to property and the environment, and in and near the Town of Basalt and the unincorporated community of Redstone. Each spring, Pitkin County convenes and facilitates the countywide Mud and Flood Planning Team. In 2017, the City of Aspen completed a Mud and Debris Flow Study that updates hazard mapping and risk assessments and identifies projects for reducing risks. The City of Aspen also maintains reports that can be used to determine vulnerability to flooding, debris flows and mudflows as they relate to capacity and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure and streets (in general, city infrastructure can carry a 10-year flood event in its stormwater network without significant flooding of streets and buildings). In addition, the Building and Engineering Departments were crafting a policy at the time of updates to this plan that enables mitigation measures to be completed on the site or on the building when necessary to ensure compliance with codes. 6.6 Status of 2012 Mitigation Actions At the initial planning workshop, participants reviewed the status of 2012 projects and determined which incomplete actions to retain in the updated plan. Table 6.2 below provides a report on the status of Mitigation Actions identified in the previous 2012 version of this plan. The Planning Team recommended organizing the 2017 Mitigation Actions matrix by jurisdiction (rather than by objectives) and including Lead or Responsible agencies and Supporting agencies in the table.

104 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 6.2 - Status of 2012 Mitigation Actions Status # Description (Completed, Partially Complete, In Process, Ongoing, Retain, Withdraw) 1.1 Continue Public Safety Council. Ongoing/Retain 1.2 Provide training and equipment to improve Ongoing/Retain interoperability. 1.3 Establish Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Complete (development of Emergency Support Function [ESF] teams ongoing) 1.4 Provide training and drills for EOC staff; Ongoing conduct annual tabletop and tri-annual airport exercises. 1.5 Maintain mutual aid agreements and establish Ongoing/Partially Complete new Law and Public Works agreements. 2.1 Designate enforcement body within policy Ongoing/In Process (reword to include and regulation. inspection) 2.2 Ensure communication between agencies on Ongoing/In Process (reword: change development applications that could be “Establish” to “Continue the practice….”) impacted by hazards. 2.3 Create/refine enforceable flood and mudslide Table and revisit/investigate further policies through permit restrictions. 2.4 Update Land Use Code to incorporate new Complete State regulations into local floodplain regulations. 2.5 Adopt new floodplain maps. Retain (new DFIRM’s in appeal process; maps to be adopted after FEMA approval) 2.6 Strengthen regulations requiring mandatory Ongoing/In Process (reword: delete clearing of flammable vegetation in key areas. “require mandatory clearing” to “promote management of” and include references to “defensible spacing” and “existing” development) 2.7 Prioritize Community Wildfire Protection Plans Ongoing/Partially Complete (reword and for subdivisions identified in 2011 Pitkin add Snowmass Village CWPP/show County CWPP. Pitkin County CWPP completed in 2014) 2.8 Continue to conduct wildfire hazard Ongoing/Retain inspections and distribute information to fire protection districts. 2.9 Develop, implement and maintain wildfire Ongoing/Retain (reword based on input codes (brush management, weed abatement, from SMEs) building code/materials). 3.1 Update/maintain annual hazard occurrences Ongoing/Retain (reword) maps and critical facilities. 3.2 Develop/maintain access to ownership and Ongoing/Retain property-value information in hazard areas. 3.3 Create a web map application with property Ongoing/Retain information, including hazards. 3.4 Acquire new floodplain mapping for entire Merge action with 2.5 County. 3.5 Create usable flood and debris flow mapping. Ongoing/Retain 3.6 Create avalanche-prone area mapping and Delete action for 2017 historical occurrences.

105 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

4.1 Continue to use/market early warnings and Ongoing/Partially Complete (add alerts using multimedia. Communications as Responsible Agency) 4.2 Identify hazard areas for each of the four Ongoing/Retain (reword to incorporate priority hazards and pre-build notification IPAWS/PSAP and Communications) lists; develop subscription groups for Pitkin Alert. 4.3 Continue to improve Mud and Flood Complete management team and involve Snowmass/Aspen/Carbondale. 4.4 Improve coordination with Bureau of Ongoing/Partially Complete (reword to Reclamation, Denver Water, other water delete BUREC/add dam owners based entities. on identified water owners; add Emergency Management as Responsible Agency) 5.1 Create multi-jurisdiction team to implement Ongoing/Retain mitigation actions and update annually. 5.2 Complete Basalt levee project. Combine 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (consult Town of Basalt on project details) 5.3 Improve levee conditions at Roaring Fork Complete – mobile home park removed Mobile Home Park and adjacent areas. so no longer a threat 5.4 Continue to pursue stormwater mitigation Combine 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (consult Town projects through Capital Improvements Plan. of Basalt on project details) 5.5 Improve drainage at Aspen Airport Business Complete Center and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District WWTP. 5.6 Identify cross-boundary fuel reduction Ongoing/Retain (reword to “continue to projects within wildland urban interface areas. identify”) 5.7 Remove/down pine-beetle-killed trees in Ongoing/Retain/Partially Complete residential/public use areas. (reword to incorporate “forest health”) 5.8 Install concrete barriers along roadways Ongoing/Retain (consult CDOT and susceptible to mud and rock slides. reword to reference CDOT schedule) 5.9 Conduct study to identify risks/potential Addressed in new Aspen Mud and damages from mudslides on Aspen Mountain. Debris Flow Study (delete for 2017) 5.10 Conduct study at base of Buttermilk ski area Combine 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 (consult to analyze drainage, mud and vegetation Aspen, County Engineering and Aspen conditions. Skiing Co. for project details) 5.11 Conduct study at base of Ajax ski area to Addressed in new Aspen Mud and analyze drainage, mud and vegetation Debris Flow Study (delete for 2017) conditions. 5.12 Improve/restore river alignment at confluence Responsibility of Roaring Fork of Coal Creek and Crystal River. Conservancy in cooperation with local officials/residents (delete for 2017) 6.1 Develop comprehensive public/business Ongoing/Partially Complete (6 out of 7 outreach program to improve awareness and sub-tasks accomplished; reword to educate public about hazards. change “develop” to “continue”) 6.2 Improve warning signage at rockfall areas, Ongoing/Retain (reword to change flood areas, and areas at risk from seasonal “improve public signage” to “utilize fires. variable message boards as needed for public safety”) 7.1 Identify secondary emergency shelter and Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and intermediate care facilities. actions 7.1-7.3 7.2 Increase security of critical infrastructure Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and (including city-county-public safety bases. actions 7.1-7.3

106 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

7.3 Conduct annual threat analysis to prioritize Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and critical infrastructure and strengthen actions 7.1-7.3 vulnerability points. 8.1 Create all-hazard team to address planning Ongoing/Retain (reword to change and recovery needs. “create” to “utilize” and add “ongoing” after “address”) 8.2 Create funding source for planning, training, Complete exercises and recovery. 8.3 Initiate/develop use of ESF-8 role (disaster Delete/Withdraw recovery/surge capacity) at local medical center level.

6.7 2017 Mitigation Actions The Planning Team ranked proposed mitigation actions high or medium, based on the risk assessment, evaluation process, and the goals that were established (actions considered low priority are not included in the update of this plan). The results of this effort are summarized in the tables below, including a description of each mitigation action, the action’s priority, and the lead agency. Pitkin County

Table 6.3 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Pitkin County 2017 Mitigation Actions – Pitkin County Action Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support # PC 1.1 Continue Public Safety Council, High Public Safety which provides multi-agency and Council, multi-jurisdictional coordination for Emergency hazard planning and incident Management management. PC 1.2 Provide training to improve Medium Pitkin County communications between different Radio agencies and remote locations and interoperability with statewide 800 MHz radio system. PC 1.3 Provide training and drills for EOC High Emergency Emergency staff and conduct, at a minimum, Management Support one annual EOC tabletop exercise Function (ESF) and tri-annual airport exercises. Teams PC 1.4 Ensure that mutual aid agreements Medium Agencies and Public Safety are current and establish new Departments Council intergovernmental agreements for Involved Law and Public Works. PC 1.5 Enforce Land Use Code regulations Medium Community Code and policies related to natural Development Enforcement, hazard mitigation. Fire Marshals PC 1.6 Continue the policy and process of Medium Community City of Aspen, inter-agency communication Development Town of regarding proposed development Snowmass that could be impacted by natural Village, Town

107 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

hazards, and inform policy- and of Basalt, decision-makers of potential risks. Pitkin County PC 1.7 Adopt new digital flood insurance High Community Engineering rate maps (DFIRMs) following Development approval by FEMA. PC 1.8 Update/maintain records on annual Medium GIS hazard occurrences and display impacts on maps. PC 1.9 Continue to maintain access to High GIS Assessor ownership and property-value information for properties in identified hazard areas. PC 1.10 Continue to enhance web map Medium GIS application with property information, including hazards. PC 1.11 Create useable flood- and debris- High GIS Engineering, flow mapping (including dry gulch Public Works, and alluvial fan). Community Development, CGS PC 1.12 Continue to use and market various High Communications Public Safety means of communicating early Council, warnings and alerts using Community multimedia. Review and improve Relations process quarterly. PC 1.13 Obtain Integrated Public Alert & High Emergency GIS Warning System (IPAWS) Wireless Management, Emergency Alert (WEA) users license Communications and pre-build notification lists and subscription groups (for priority hazards) for emergency notification on Pitkin Alert. PC 1.14 Improve coordination with owners Medium Emergency Administration and operators of High- and Management and Significant-Hazard dams within Downstream Pitkin County. Communities PC 1.15 Continue Pitkin County Wildfire High Pitkin County Council to implement physical Wildfire Council mitigation actions and review/update annually. PC 1.16 Reduce hazards and improve forest Medium- Open Space BLM, USFS health in locations where residential High areas interface with public-use areas by downing and removing trees killed by insect infestations. PC 1.17 Continue to design and install Medium Public Works CDOT mitigation measures (concrete barriers) in areas along roadways that are susceptible to mud and rock slides, in cooperation with CDOT maintenance schedules. PC 1.18 Continue to develop comprehensive, High Emergency Public Safety proactive, ongoing public and Management Council, business outreach program to

108 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

improve awareness and educate Community citizens about seasonal and other Relations natural hazards. PC 1.19 Utilize various messaging systems High Public Safety Public Works, (e.g., Pitkin Alert) as needed for Council City of Aspen, public safety, including warning Town of Basalt, information about wildfires, Town of flooding, mudflows, rock slides and Snowmass other natural hazards. Village PC 1.20 Utilize all-hazard team from Public High Emergency Public Safety Safety Council membership to Management, Council address ongoing planning and Pitkin County recovery needs. Incident Management Team (IMT) PC 1.21 Update the Pitkin County Continuity Medium Emergency Administration of Operations Plan (COOP). Management PC 1.22 Initiate planning process to develop Medium Emergency City of Aspen warning system for alerting campers Management in campgrounds and dispersed- (Planning Lead), camping areas downstream of USFS (Project Grizzly Reservoir to move to higher Lead) ground in case of dam failure or other problems at the Class I dam (incorporate signage/Pitkin Alert). PC 1.23 Implement new Addressing Program Medium GIS (Address to name roadways and assign Services) addresses to properties along such roadways to ensure that emergency services are able to locate structures and respond quickly. PC 1.24 Implement the 2017 Pitkin County Medium Community All Climate Action Plan by developing Development Departments work programs for departments within the County organization to facilitate greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD)

Table 6.4 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: City of Aspen 2017 Mitigation Actions – City of Aspen Action Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support # A 1.1 Designate office/staff to conduct High Building, AFPD, Administration, inspections and enforce regulations Engineering Community and policies related to natural hazard Development mitigation, including roof covering inspections in identified high fire hazard areas. A 1.2 Continue the policy and process of High Community Pitkin County, inter-agency communication Development Town of Basalt,

109 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

regarding proposed development Town of that could be impacted by natural Snowmass hazards, and inform policy- and Village decision-makers of potential risks. A 1.3 Implement Stormwater Capital High Engineering City of Aspen Improvement Plan (estimated cost $17 million). A 1.4 Conduct study at Buttermilk ski area Medium Engineering Aspen Skiing to analyze drainage, mud and Company, Pitkin vegetation conditions and risks and County potential damages from mudslides. Engineering A 1.5 Evaluate and identify appropriate TBD Water TBD measures for hardening the City of Aspen Water System, including steps related to water storage, groundwater well development, backup power generators, and access to hydroelectric power. A 1.6 Implement mitigation actions High Engineering/ recommended in the 2017 Mud and Stormwater Debris Flow Study. Development A 1.7 Implement recommendations of High Climate Action Aspen’s Climate Action Plan (2018- 2020)

Table 6.5 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Aspen Fire Protection District 2017 Mitigation Actions – Aspen Fire Protection District Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies AFPD Implement recommended actions High CSFS, USFS 1.1 identified in the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2014), including ongoing efforts to reduce fuel loads, coordinate open burns, and create defensible and survivable spaces. AFPD Prioritize and develop needed High City of Aspen, CSFS 1.2 Community Wildfire Protection Plans for subdivisions, as identified in the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (estimated cost: $11 million). AFPD Continue to conduct voluntary wildfire High Pitkin County Community 1.3 hazard inspections and disseminate Development, City of Aspen wildfire mitigation and preparedness information to property owners. AFPD Develop, implement and maintain High Shared with Pitkin County 1.4 wildfire codes (including brush Community Development, City management, weed abatement, of Aspen building codes, construction types). AFPD Continue to identify cross-boundary High Snowmass-Wildcat FPD, Basalt 1.5 fuel reduction projects within wildland and Rural FPD, CSFS, BLM, USFS urban interface areas, in accordance

110 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

with the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. AFPD Work with the Aspen Pitkin County High APCHA, Pitkin County 1.6 Housing Authority (APCHA) to ensure Emergency Management that owners and tenants are aware of wildfire danger and mitigation strategies.

Town of Basalt and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District (BRFPD)

Table 6.6 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Town of Basalt 2017 Mitigation Actions – Town of Basalt Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support B 1.1 Designate office/staff to conduct High Administration Building, inspections and enforce regulations Planning and policies related to natural hazard Manager mitigation. B 1.2 Continue the policy and process of High Planning Pitkin County, inter-agency communication regarding City of Aspen, proposed development that could be Town of impacted by natural hazards, and Snowmass inform policy- and decision-makers of Village potential risks. B 1.3 Monitor implementation of new High Manager, Eagle County, Southside Floodplain mapping and Planning Pitkin County determine next steps (timeframe: CDOT, HOAs 2018-2019). B 1.4 Implement flood conveyance High Public Works, improvements identified in the River Engineering Master Plan. B 1.5 Develop and implement a system for High Public Works BRFPD monitoring mudflows and mudflow- impacts to infrastructure in the Two Rivers Road area. B 1.6 In cooperation with Pitkin and Eagle High Pitkin County, Town of Counties, assess downstream impacts Eagle County Basalt of a failure of Ruedi Reservoir dam and prepare plan for warning the public.

Table 6.7 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District 2017 Mitigation Actions – Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies BRFPD Implement recommended actions High 1.1 identified in the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2014), including ongoing efforts to reduce fuel loads, coordinate open burns, and create defensible and survivable spaces. BRFPD Prioritize needed Community Wildfire High Town of Basalt, CSFS 1.2 Protection Plans for subdivisions, as

111 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

identified in the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. BRFPD Continue to conduct required and High Pitkin County Community 1.3 voluntary wildfire hazard inspections and Development disseminate wildfire mitigation and preparedness information to property owners. BRFPD Develop, implement and maintain wildfire High Pitkin County 1.4 codes (including brush management, weed Administration, Town of abatement, building codes, construction Basalt types). BRFPD Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel High Carbondale and Rural FPD, 1.5 reduction projects within wildland urban Snowmass-Wildcat FPD, interface areas, in accordance with the CSFS, BLM, USFS Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. BRFPD Work with the Aspen Pitkin County High APCHA, Pitkin County 1.6 Housing Authority (APCHA) to ensure that Emergency Management owners and tenants are aware of wildfire danger and mitigation strategies.

Town of Snowmass Village and Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District

Table 6.8 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Town of Snowmass Village 2017 Mitigation Actions – Town of Snowmass Village Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support SV 1.1 Evaluate natural hazards and High Community Public Works determine priorities for mitigation. Development SV 1.2 Continue the policy and process of High Community Pitkin County, inter-agency communication Development City of Aspen, regarding proposed development that Town of could be impacted by natural hazards, Basalt and inform policy- and decision- makers of potential risks. SV 1.3 In cooperation with Snowmass-Wildcat High Town of SWFPD, HOAs FPD and local homeowners’ Snowmass associations, complete wildfire Village mitigation projects in 2017 to include right-of-way tree removal, public chipping programs, and hazard fuel removal. SV 1.4 Develop new stormwater management High Public Works master plan to evaluate current capacity and infrastructure needs (estimated timeframe: 5 years). SV 1.5 Improve network cabling at various Medium Town of locations to connect municipal Snowmass buildings and enhance Village communication and redundancy in case of power outages (estimated timeframe: 5 years).

112 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 6.9 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District 2017 Mitigation Actions – Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies SWFPD Implement recommended actions identified in High Town of Snowmass 1.1 the Snowmass Community Wildfire Protection Village, SWIFT Plan and Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2014), including ongoing efforts to reduce fuel loads, coordinate open burns, and create defensible and survivable spaces (estimated cost: $100,000/year). SWFPD Prioritize needed Community Wildfire High Town of Snowmass 1.2 Protection Plans for subdivisions, as identified Village, CSFS in the Snowmass and Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plans. SWFPD Continue to conduct required and voluntary High Pitkin County 1.3 wildfire hazard inspections and disseminate Community wildfire mitigation and preparedness Development information to property owners. SWFPD Develop, implement and maintain wildfire High Pitkin County 1.4 codes (including brush management, weed Administration, Town abatement, building codes, construction types). of Snowmass Village SWFPD Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel High Aspen FPD, Basalt and 1.5 reduction projects within wildland urban Rural FPD, CSFS, BLM, interface areas, in accordance with the USFS Snowmass and Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plans. SWFPD Work with the Aspen Pitkin County Housing High APCHA, Pitkin County 1.6 Authority (APCHA) to ensure that owners and Emergency tenants are aware of wildfire danger and Management mitigation strategies.

6.8 Mitigation Funding Sources The Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management (CDHSEM), Mitigation and Recovery Section (MARS), is the primary state entity responsible for coordinating and facilitating technical and financial assistance in support of local hazard mitigation planning. The mission of CDHSEM-MARS is to promote community resilience and sustainability for the people of Colorado by fostering partnerships and maximizing the availability of mitigation and recovery resources. Federal Programs Federal mitigation programs serve as critical funding sources to reduce the risk of natural hazards to Colorado’s people, property, environment, and economy. Colorado and its mitigation partners attempt to maximize the application of federal funding from FEMA, USDA, USACE, HUD, SBA, and other agencies each year. Mitigation money from FEMA supports several mitigation projects each year. The State applies for federal mitigation grants through the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Program as the availability of funds is announced. The HMA Program includes the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grants, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. These grants support the development of local

113 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

hazard mitigation plans as well as the implementation of structural mitigation actions (e.g., construction of flood-control facilities) or other physical mitigation measures (e.g., elevation or removal of structures). Other types of mitigation actions that have been effectively implemented in Colorado include hazard awareness and public education projects, development of early detection and warning/notification systems, and the acquisition of generators for backup power and chippers for slash and mulch projects. Although there is strong competition among states for limited federal hazard mitigation grant dollars, the State of Colorado has been successful in obtaining a steady stream of resources to maintain programs, install/upgrade systems and support other community-level projects. State Programs The State of Colorado administers loan and grant programs for which hazard mitigation activities are eligible. Funding sources traditionally used include energy impact funds, gaming funds, general funds, and severance tax funds. Many state agencies have grant programs, including, but not limited to, DHSEM, Colorado State Forest Service and the Departments of Agriculture, Local Affairs, and Natural Resources. State agencies continually work to identify new strategies for implementing mitigation projects, including new funding sources. The DHSEM Mitigation Team works with local communities to expand the number of FEMA HMA grant programs for which communities are eligible to qualify.

114 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Chapter Seven: Plan Implementation and Maintenance

7.1 Formal Plan Adoption In accordance with protocols established by the Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management (CDHSEM), the final draft of this updated plan is submitted to CDHSEM for state-level review and recommended changes prior to FEMA review. FEMA then reviews the plan and, pending any required changes, issues a notice that the plan is Approvable Pending Adoption (APA) by the governing body of each participating jurisdiction. According to CDSHEM requirements, the plan must be formally adopted by participating jurisdictions within eight months of receiving notice of FEMA APA status. 7.2 Plan Maintenance and Evaluation Regular maintenance of this plan will help maintain a focus on hazards that pose the greatest risks and on the recommended measures for reducing future potential hazard losses. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will serve as the primary point of contact and will coordinate all local efforts to monitor, evaluate, and update this plan. Participating jurisdictions and individual departments are responsible for implementing their specific mitigation actions and reporting on the status of these actions to the Emergency Manager. Plan maintenance involves an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate the implementation of identified action items in the plan, and to update the plan as progress, opportunities, obstacles, or changing circumstances are encountered. The Planning Team will convene at least once each year to review and update the status of recommended mitigation actions. The Emergency Manager will schedule these meetings and invite members of the Planning Team to attend. At this review meeting, the Planning Team will review new hazards data or studies, discuss new capabilities or changes in capabilities, consider any input received from the public, evaluate the effectiveness of existing mitigation actions, and modify or add mitigation actions. The results of the formal review meeting will be captured by the Emergency Manager and summarized in an annual progress status report. These progress status reports will guide and inform future five-year plan updates. Throughout the year, the Emergency Manager will monitor the progress of mitigation efforts through site visits, phone calls, emails or other communication with the agencies responsible for mitigation actions. Updates to this plan will follow the most current FEMA and CDHSEM planning guidance. The Emergency Manager will initiate a five-year plan update process within the time necessary to ensure that the current plan does not expire before the updated plan is approved. The schedule should allow time for contracting of technical or professional services, state and FEMA reviews, revisions based on FEMA review comments, and the formal adoption process.

115 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

7.3 Mitigation Actions and Other Plans and Programs Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated within the day-to-day operations of land use planning, road and bridge/public works, public health and other mainstream functions of local government. Multi-objective projects that mutually benefit partners and stakeholders are usually more cost-effective and more-broadly supported. Many other local plans present opportunities to address hazard mitigation in a way that can support multiple community objectives. Ideally, identified mitigation actions should be implemented through existing plans and policies, which already have support from the community and policy makers. The incorporation of elements of this plan into existing planning mechanisms requires coordination between the Emergency Manager and the staff of each department responsible for implementing specific mitigation actions. The Emergency Manager, with support and guidance provided by the Planning Team, will work with the responsible agencies to incorporate this Plan into the following existing planning mechanisms:

• Aspen Canary Initiative/Action Plan • Aspen’s Climate Action Plan (2018-2020) • Aspen Land Use Code • Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan • Basalt Climate Action Plan • Basalt Land Use and Subdivision Regulations • Eagle County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2011, includes Town of Basalt) • Pitkin County Climate Action Plan (2017) • Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2014) • Pitkin County Emergency Operations Plan • Pitkin County Land Use and Subdivision Regulations • Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (2011) • Snowmass Village Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2012) • Snowmass Village Land Use and Subdivision Regulations • Other plans, policies, programs and regulations as appropriate, including floodplain ordinances/regulations. The Risk Assessment (Chapter Four) included in this plan provides data, analysis, and maps that can be integrated into other plans to inform policies and decision-making. Considering hazard information in land use plans, zoning and subdivision codes, and the development review process is a proven method for guiding future development away from identified hazard areas. This information can also be used to design and site future public facilities to minimize exposure to hazards. 7.4 Continued Public Involvement In order to provide an ongoing opportunity to raise community awareness of natural hazards, this plan will be posted on the Pitkin County Emergency Management web page and public comments can be addressed to the Emergency Manager at the contact

116 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

information provided. The five-year update process provides an opportunity to build public support by publicizing success stories related to implementation of mitigation actions. All stakeholders in the planning process will be invited to participate in the next five-year update of this plan and additional participation will be solicited from the public, partner agencies, new entities and community groups in the future. The plan maintenance and update process will include continued opportunities for public and stakeholder involvement and input through attendance at open public meetings, web postings, and press releases to local media. In addition, the Emergency Manager and other members of the Planning Team will identify opportunities to raise community awareness, including attendance and provision of materials at county, municipal, and school-sponsored events, activities of the fire protection districts, and through the American Red Cross and public mailings. All public comments received about the plan will be collected by the Emergency Manager, incorporated into mitigation progress status reports, and considered in future plan updates.

117 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Appendices

Appendix A: Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Appendix B: Acronyms Appendix C: References and Resources Appendix D: Documentation of the Planning Process Appendix E: HAZUS Flood Maps Appendix F: Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) Appendix G: Formal Adoption Resolutions/Ordinances Appendix H: FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool

118 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Appendix A: Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Name Position Jurisdiction/ Email Address/Phone Department Scott Arthur Captain Snowmass-Wildcat FPD, [email protected] Basalt & Rural FPD ReRe Baker Animal Safety Pitkin County Sheriff's 970-618-9835 Office (PCSO) Rick Balentine Chief Aspen Fire Protection 970-379-1758 District (FPD) Pat Bingham Community Relations PCSO [email protected] Kent Blackmer Director of Operations Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Boyd Blerbaum Public Works Director Town of Basalt [email protected] Alex Burchetta Director of Operations PCSO [email protected] Catherine Floodplain Manager Pitkin County [email protected] Christoff Melanie Crandall Trauma Program Mgr. Aspen Valley Hospital [email protected] Kurt Dahl Environmental Health Pitkin County [email protected] Courtney DeVito Risk Generalist City of Aspen [email protected] Joe DiSalvo Sheriff Pitkin County [email protected] Alex Durant GIS/Public Safety Pitkin County [email protected] Travis Elliott Assistant to the Town Town of Snowmass [email protected] Manager Village Rich Englehart COO Pitkin County [email protected] Gerald Fielding County Engineer Pitkin County 970-920-5206 John Filippone Safety Manager Roaring Fork [email protected] Transportation Authority Jessica Garrow Community Development City of Aspen [email protected] Director Patricia Gavelda State & Local Hazard CDHSEM [email protected] Mitigation Planning Program Manager Linda Giudice Management Analyst City of Aspen [email protected] David Hornbacher Utilities Director City of Aspen [email protected] John Hughes Citizen Crystal River Valley [email protected] Community 970-319-3129 Kevin Issel Deputy Chief Snowmass-Wildcat FPD Todd Jacobs Holy Cross Energy Ken Josselyn Battalion Chief Aspen FPD [email protected] Stephen Kanipe Chief Building Official City of Aspen [email protected] Peter King Aspen Mountain Mgr. Aspen Skiing Company [email protected] Greg Knott Chief Basalt Police Department 970-927-4316 Sharon Kurtz ARC Volunteer American Red Cross Mary Lackner GIS Pitkin County [email protected] Parker Lathrop Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal Aspen FPD [email protected] Lee Ledesma Utilities/Finance Manager City of Aspen 970-429-1975 (ESF #12)

119 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Mitzi Ledingham Strategic Partnership Mgr. Pitkin County Human [email protected] Services Department James Lindt Assistant Planning Town of Basalt [email protected] Director Bill Linn Assistant Chief Aspen Police Department [email protected] Brett Loeb Communications Director PCREDC-911 970-471-5237 April Long Stormwater/Flood and City of Aspen [email protected] Mudflows Valerie Emergency Manager Pitkin County [email protected] MacDonald Anne Martens Public Works Director Town of Snowmass [email protected] Village Phylis Mattice Assistant Manager Pitkin County [email protected] Scott Mattice Road and Bridge Pitkin County Public [email protected] Superintendent Works Department Karen McConnell Utilities-Water City of Aspen [email protected] Fil Meraz Acting Director of Aspen/Pitkin County [email protected] Operations Airport Dick Merritt Citizen Roaring Fork Club 970-309-2752 Jed Miller Assistant Solid Waste Pitkin County Solid Waste [email protected] Manager Center Gabriel Muething Director Aspen Ambulance [email protected] District Aaron Munch Patrol Sergeant Basalt Police Department [email protected] Denis Murray Plans Manager City of Aspen 970-429-2711 Heather Nelson Administrator PCSO [email protected] Adam Olson Maintenance Manager Colorado Mountain [email protected] College Brian Olson Chief of Police Snowmass Police Dept. [email protected] Doug Paul Fire Management USFS/BLM [email protected] Ashley Perl Climate Action Manager City of Aspen [email protected] Brian Pettet Director Pitkin County Public [email protected] Works Department Richard Pryor Chief Aspen Police Department [email protected] Angela Administrative Assistant Aspen School District 970-309-4573 Rittenhouse Ron Ryan Undersheriff PCSO [email protected] Heather Rydell Citizen Community of Lenado [email protected] Ellen Sassano Long Range Planning Pitkin County [email protected] Jason Smith Operations Supervisor Roaring Fork 970-987-4627 Transportation Authority Scott Thompson Chief Basalt & Rural FPD, 970-618-9401 Snowmass-Wildcat FPD Mike Tracey Sergeant Aspen Police Department 970-274-4107 Chuck Vale NW Regional Field Mgr. Colorado DHSEM [email protected] Jannette Environmental Health City of Aspen [email protected] Whitcomb Specialist Suzanne Wolff Assistant Director Pitkin County Community [email protected] Development

120 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Appendix B: Acronyms AFPD Aspen Fire Protection District ARC American Red Cross BFE Base Flood Elevation (The 100-year-flood, the 1% event) BRFPD Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District CDHSEM Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CGS Colorado Geological Survey CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment CMC Colorado Mountain College CRS Community Rating System CSFS Colorado State Forest Service CSP Colorado State Patrol CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map DFPC Division of Fire Protection and Control DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security DMA Disaster Mitigation Act (2000) DNR Department of Natural Resources DOLA Department of Local Affairs DWR Division of Water Resources (Colorado Department of Natural Resources) DWSA Drought & Water Supply Assessment EAP Emergency Action Plan EOC Emergency Operations Center EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHBM Flood Hazard Boundary Map FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS Flood Insurance Study FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (Program)

121 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

GIS Global Information System HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program (FEMA Umbrella Grant Program) HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program LEOP Local Emergency Operations Plan LOMR Letter of Map Revision NCEI National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center) NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NWS National Weather Service PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation (Program) RFTA Roaring Fork Transportation Authority RMIIA Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association SBA Small Business Administration SDO State Demography Office SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SWFPD Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geological Survey WUI Wildland Urban Interface

122 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Appendix C: References and Resources References

Arnott, James, Elise Osenga and John Katzenberger (December 2014), Climate Change and Aspen: An Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning and Stakeholder Engagement, Aspen Global Change Institute

Aspen Sustainability Report 2017, City of Aspen, www.aspenpitkin.com

Aspen’s Climate Action Plan (2018-2020): A Roadmap to Our Sustainable Future

Colorado Climate Plan, State Level Policies and Strategies to Mitigate and Adapt (2015)

Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan, August 2013, Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB)

Colorado Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, November 2013, CWCB

Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

Drought of 1976-77, The Aspen Times, January 16, 2012

Federal Guidelines for Emergency Action Planning for Dams, FEMA P-64, July 2013

Gariano, Stefono and Fausto Guzzetti, Landslides in a Changing Climate, Earth-Science Reviews, November 2016, Volume 162, pp. 227-252.

Highland, L.M., 2012, Landslides in Colorado, USA – Impacts and Loss Estimation for 2010, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1204, 49 p.

IPCC, 2012: Summary for Policymakers. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, Field, C.B., et al, A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press

IPCC, 2014, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland

Konstantinos and Leetenmaier. (2006), Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 33.10

Lindsey, Rebecca, December 15, 2016, Extreme Event Attribution: The Climate Versus Weather Blame Game, NOAAClimate.gov

Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, March 2013, FEMA

McKenzie, D.; Heinsch, F.A.; Heilman, W.E. (January 2011), Wildland Fire and Climate Change. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/wildfire

Melillo, J.M., Terice Richmond, and Gary Yoke, Eds. (2014), Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program Mitigation Ideas: A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards, January 2013, FEMA

123 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2016), Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change, Committee on Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change Attribution, Board of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division of Earth and Life Studies

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, June 28, 2017, Final Draft of the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), U.S. Global Change Research Program

National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Human-caused wildfires expand fire niche across the United States (Balch, Bradley, Abotzoglou, Nagy, Fusco, Mahood), February 27, 2017

National Climate Assessment (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program, nca2014globalchange.gov

National Wildlife Federation (2008), Increased Risk of Catastrophic Wildfires: Global Warming’s Wake-Up Call for the Western United States, www.nwf.org

Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (PCCWPP), June 2014

Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012)

Saunders, Stephen and Tom Easley, Climate Change in the Headwaters: Water and Snow Impacts (2018), a report by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization to Northwest Colorado Council of Governments

Seneviratne et al., Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (2012), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

State Engineer’s 27th Annual Report on Dam Safety to the Colorado General Assembly, Division of Water Resources (April 2013)

Stevens, M. R., J. L. Flynn, V. C. Stephens, and K.I. Verdin (2011), Estimated Probabilities, Volumes, and Inundation Area Depths of Potential Postwildfire Debris Flows from Carbonate, Slate, Raspberry, and Milton Creeks, near Marble, Gunnison County, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5047, 30 p.

Stults, M., Climate Risk Management (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.004

Thompson, Andrea, Lightning may Increase with Global Warming, November 13, 2014, Scientific American

Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, August 2001, FEMA

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (November 2014), Managing Water in the West: Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

U.S Global Change Research Program, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States, 2016, GlobalChange.com

Resources

Aspen Canary Initiative/Action Plan

Aspen Fire Protection District, aspenfire.com

124 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan

City of Aspen Web Page, www.aspenpitkin.com

City of Aspen, Community Development/Buildings, No Harm Map

Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, www.basaltfire.org

Town of Basalt Web Page, www.basalt.net

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, c2es.org

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects

Climate Central, February 24, 2012, Avalanches Taking Toll; Foreshadowing the Future?, www.climatecentral.org

Climate Communication, climatecommunication.org

Colorado Department of Local Affairs, www.dola.colorado.gov

Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe

Colorado Department of Transportation, www.codot.gov

Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, www.coemergency.com

Colorado Geological Survey (CGS), coloradogeologicalsurvey.org

Colorado State Demography Office, https://demography.dola.colorado.gov

Colorado State Forest Service, csfs.colostate.edu/wildfire-mitigation

Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), cwcb.state.co.us

Colorado Water Conservation Board, cwcb.state.co.us/technical-resources/drought-planning- toolbox/

Department of Homeland Security, www.ready.gov

Extreme Weather Adaptation Aspen, CO: A Story Map, www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=23135bceee1948e7b2abb8039bf77549

Federal Emergency Management Agency, www.fema.gov

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, www.nasa.gov

National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly National Climatic Data Center), www.ncdc.noaa/gov

National Drought Mitigation Center, drought.unl.edu

National Lightning Safety Institute, www.lightningsafety.com

National Institute of Building Sciences, Multihazard Mitigation Council, www.nibs.org

125 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Weather Service, www.nws.noaa.gov

Pitkin County Government – www.pitkincounty.com

Pitkin County Healthy Rivers – www.pitkincountyrivers.com

Planning for Hazards: Land Use Solutions for Colorado (March 2016), Colorado Department of Local Affairs, https://planningforhazards.com

Roaring Fork Conservancy, www.roaringfork.org

Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (2011)

Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association (RMIIA), www.rmiia.org

Town of Snowmass Village Web Page, www.tosv.com

Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, www.swfpd.com

Spatial Hazard Event and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS), University of South Carolina

The Aspen Times, August 27, 2012.

The Geological Society of America, geology/gsapubs.org

U.S. Census Bureau 2015 American Community Survey 2015 County Business Patterns 2012 Survey of Business Owners

126 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Appendix D: Documentation of the Planning Process Appendix D Contents Kickoff Meeting Summary Participating Jurisdiction Data Collection Surveys Note: Survey questionnaires were prepared to help gather information needed from each Participating Jurisdiction. The Pitkin County survey is provided in this appendix as an example. Mitigation Actions Workshop Summary Breakout Group Discussion – Mitigation Actions Workshop Note: Group activity questions and discussion topics were prepared and provided to each Participating Jurisdiction to help guide breakout group discussions at the Mitigation Actions Workshop. The City of Aspen/Aspen Fire Protection District discussion guide is provided in this appendix as an example. Public Outreach and Involvement Summary

127 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Kickoff Meeting Summary 2017 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan -- Five-Year Update Kickoff Meeting/Planning Workshop #1 June 7, 2017, 9:30 – 2:30 Aspen Fire Department, 420 E. Hopkins Ave.

Facilitators Valerie MacDonald, Pitkin County Emergency Manager Patricia Gavelda, State & Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Program Manager (CDHSEM) Bob Wold, Emergency Management Planning Consultant

Participating Jurisdictions City of Aspen Aspen Fire Protection District Town of Basalt Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Pitkin County Town of Snowmass Village Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District (Note: Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District is participating in the 2017 update of the Garfield County Hazard Mitigation Plan)

Purpose of Kickoff Meeting 1. Kick Off Five-Month Process to Update Plan 2. Review and Update 2011 Risk Assessment 3. Set 2017 Goals and Objectives 4. Review Status of 2011 Mitigation Actions

Agenda Topics Hazard Mitigation Overview Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) Local Government Planning Requirements Benefits of Hazard Mitigation/Purpose of Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan o Reduce Hazard Losses/Protect People and Property o Maintain Federal Grant Program Eligibility FEMA Hazard Mitigation Program – Available Grants o Example Hazard Mitigation Projects o Recent History of Mitigation Grants in Colorado Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Process o Project Timeline (Key Steps and Milestones) o Role of Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team o Strategy for Public Involvement o Plan Format and Content o Resources and References o Results of 2011 FEMA Crosswalk Risk Assessment Review and Discussion o Review 2011 Risk Assessment Matrix o New Hazards for 2017 Update o Climate Change and Natural Hazards

128 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

o Community Assets at Risk (People, Structures, Critical Facilities) o Assessment of Local Hazard Mitigation Capabilities o Evaluation of Identified Hazards and Risks Working Lunch Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives Status of 2011 Mitigation Actions 2017 Mitigation Actions (Preliminary Discussion)

Risk Assessment: Participants reviewed the 2011 Risk Assessment matrix and made the following changes and recommendations for the 2017 version: • Add debris flow and mudflow to the geologic hazards profiled in 2011 (landslide, rockslide and rock fall), identify areas subject to debris/mudflow events, and identify historic events/damages; • Change probability rating for avalanche from “Likely” to “Highly Likely;” • Add dam failure flooding to flood hazards profiled in 2011 and identify “high” and “significant” hazard dams in Pitkin County; • Add ice jam flooding to flood hazards profiled in 2011 and identify areas subject to ice jams; • Develop a climate change statement for each profiled natural hazard that outlines the implications of global warming and potential future impacts; and • Develop a statement for each profiled natural hazard that outlines the public health implications of potential hazard events (e.g., air quality issues caused by large, regional wildfires).

Using a dot-poster board exercise, each participant identified the three natural hazards they considered the highest mitigation priorities. The results, across participating jurisdictions, are as follows: 1. Wildfires 2. Geologic Hazards (Landslides/Rockslides/Rock Fall/Debris Flows/Mudflows) 3. Flooding

The table below provides a composite summary of hazard ratings – by probability and magnitude – across the participating jurisdictions.

Magnitude ------Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible Probability Geologic Winter Storm Highly Likely Hazards

Wildfire Avalanche Earthquake Likely Flood Lightning Windstorm/ Tornado Drought Occasional

Unlikely

129 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Participants also rated the highest priority human-caused hazards, in this order: 1. Special Events 2. Infrastructure/Public Service Disruptions 3. Aviation Accidents

Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager for the City of Aspen, presented an overview of climate change issues relevant to local government operations and outlined the implications of global warming for extreme natural hazard events.

Capability Assessment: Participants reviewed the 2011 Capability Assessment matrix and made several changes (indicated in red).

Capability Assessment – Pitkin County Pitkin City of Town of Town of Capabilities and Resources County Aspen Snowmass Basalt Village Regulatory Mitigation Capability Comprehensive or Master Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Emergency Operations Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Economic Development Plan Yes No Yes Capital Improvements Plan Yes Yes Yes Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes No Yes No Building Code Yes Yes Yes Yes Building Code Year Floodplain Ordinance Yes Yes Yes Yes Zoning Ordinance Yes Yes Yes Yes Subdivision Ordinance Yes Yes No Yes Stormwater Ordinance Yes (check) Yes No Yes Growth Management Ordinance Yes Yes No No Site Plan Review Requirements Yes Yes Yes Yes Erosion/Sediment Control Program Yes Yes Yes No Stormwater Management Program Yes Yes Yes No Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) National Flood Insurance Program Yes Yes Yes Yes Participant Community Rating System (CRS) Yes (8) No No No Participant Administrative and Technical Resources Planner/Engineer (with knowledge of Yes Yes Yes Yes land development practices) Engineer/Professional (trained in Yes Yes Yes Yes (check) construction practices related to buildings/infrastructure) Planner/Engineer/Scientist (with Yes Yes Yes Yes understanding of natural hazards) GIS Capabilities Yes Yes Yes Yes HAZUS Analysis Yes Yes Yes Yes Full-Time Building Official Yes Yes Yes Yes Floodplain Administrator Yes Yes Yes Yes Emergency Manager Yes No No No Grant Writer Yes Yes Yes Yes Warning Systems/Services Yes Yes Yes Yes

130 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Financial Resources Community Development Block No No Grants Capital Improvements Project Yes Yes Yes Funding Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Yes (Voter Yes Yes No Purposes Approval) Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Yes Yes Yes Electric Services Impact Fees for New Development Yes Yes Yes Yes Incur Debt through General Yes Yes Yes Yes Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds N/A Yes Yes Yes Withhold Spending in Hazard-Prone Areas

2017 Goals and Objectives: Participants revalidated the two 2011 goal statements and recommended adding “critical facilities” to each goal, as follows:

Goals 1. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by natural hazards. 2. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by human-caused hazards.

Participants also recommended drafting an additional goal related to climate change and global warming.

Status of 2011 Mitigation Actions: Participants reviewed the status of 2011 projects and determined which incomplete actions to retain in the updated plan. In the updated draft, the 2017 Mitigation Action matrix will be organized by jurisdiction and include Responsible and Supporting agencies.

Status # Description (Completed, Partially Complete, In Process, Ongoing, Retain, Withdraw) 1.1 Continue Public Safety Council. Ongoing/Retain 1.2 Provide training and equipment to improve Ongoing/Retain interoperability. 1.3 Establish Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Complete 1.4 Provide training and drills for EOC staff; conduct Ongoing/Partially Complete* annual tabletop and tri-annual airport exercises. 1.5 Maintain mutual aid agreements and establish Ongoing/Partially Complete* new Law and Public Works agreements. 2.1 Designate enforcement body within policy and Ongoing/In Process (reword to include regulation. inspection) 2.2 Ensure communication between agencies on Ongoing/In Process (reword: change development applications that could be impacted “Establish” to “Continue the practice….”) by hazards.

131 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

2.3 Create/refine enforceable flood and mudslide Table and revisit/investigate further policies through permit restrictions. 2.4 Update Land Use Code to incorporate new State Complete regulations into local floodplain regulations. 2.5 Adopt new floodplain maps. Retain (new DFIRM’s in appeal process; maps to be adopted after FEMA approval) 2.6 Strengthen regulations requiring mandatory Ongoing/In Process (reword: delete clearing of flammable vegetation in key areas. “require mandatory clearing” to “promote management of” and include references to “defensible spacing” and “existing” development) 2.7 Prioritize Community Wildfire Protection Plans Ongoing/Partially Complete* (reword and for subdivisions identified in 2011 Pitkin County add Snowmass Village CWPP/show Pitkin CWPP. County CWPP completed in 2014) 2.8 Continue to conduct wildfire hazard inspections Ongoing/Retain and distribute information to fire protection districts. 2.9 Develop, implement and maintain wildfire codes Ongoing/Retain (reword based on input (brush management, weed abatement, building from SMEs) code/materials). 3.1 Update/maintain annual hazard occurrences Ongoing/Retain (reword) maps and critical facilities. 3.2 Develop/maintain access to ownership and Ongoing/Retain property-value information in hazard areas. 3.3 Create a web map application with property Ongoing/Retain information, including hazards. 3.4 Acquire new floodplain mapping for entire Merge action with 2.5 County. 3.5 Create usable flood and debris flow mapping. Ongoing/Retain 3.6 Create avalanche-prone area mapping and Delete action for 2017 historical occurrences. 4.1 Continue to use/market early warnings and alerts Ongoing/Partially Complete* (add using multimedia. Communications as Responsible Agency) 4.2 Identify hazard areas for each of the four priority Ongoing/Retain (reword to incorporate hazards and pre-build notification lists; develop IPAWS/PSAP and Communications) subscription groups for Pitkin Alert. 4.3 Continue to improve Mud and Flood management Complete team and involve Snowmass/Aspen/Carbondale. 4.4 Improve coordination with Bureau of Ongoing/Partially Complete* (reword to Reclamation, Denver Water, other water entities. delete BUREC/add dam owners based on identified water owners; add Emergency Management as Responsible Agency) 5.1 Create multi-jurisdiction team to implement Ongoing/Retain mitigation actions and update annually. 5.2 Complete Basalt levee project. Combine 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (consult Town of Basalt on project details) 5.3 Improve levee conditions at Roaring Fork Mobile Combine 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (consult Town of Home Park and adjacent areas. Basalt on project details) 5.4 Continue to pursue stormwater mitigation Combine 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (consult Town of projects through Capital Improvements Plan. Basalt on project details) 5.5 Improve drainage at Aspen Airport Business Complete Center and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District WWTP.

132 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

5.6 Identify cross-boundary fuel reduction projects Ongoing/Retain (reword to “continue to within wildland urban interface areas. identify”) 5.7 Remove/down pine-beetle-killed trees in Ongoing/Retain/Partially Complete* residential/public use areas. (reword to incorporate “forest health”) 5.8 Install concrete barriers along roadways Ongoing/Retain (consult CDOT and reword susceptible to mud and rock slides. to reference CDOT schedule) 5.9 Conduct study to identify risks/potential damages Combine 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 (consult Aspen, from mudslides on Aspen Mountain. County Engineering and Aspen Skiing Co. for project details) 5.10 Conduct study at base of Buttermilk ski area to Combine 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 (consult Aspen, analyze drainage, mud and vegetation conditions. County Engineering and Aspen Skiing Co. for project details) 5.11 Conduct study at base of Ajax ski area to analyze Combine 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 (consult Aspen, drainage, mud and vegetation conditions. County Engineering and Aspen Skiing Co. for project details) 5.12 Improve/restore river alignment at confluence of Consult community officials and residents Coal Creek and Crystal River. for project details 6.1 Develop comprehensive public/business outreach Ongoing/Partially Complete* (6 out of 7 program to improve awareness and educate sub-tasks accomplished; reword to change public about hazards. “develop” to “continue”) 6.2 Improve warning signage at rock fall areas, flood Ongoing/Retain (reword to change areas, and areas at risk from seasonal fires. “improve public signage” to “utilize variable message boards as needed for public safety”) 7.1 Identify secondary emergency shelter and Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and actions intermediate care facilities. 7.1-7.3 7.2 Increase security of critical infrastructure Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and actions (including city-county-public safety bases. 7.1-7.3 7.3 Conduct annual threat analysis to prioritize Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and actions critical infrastructure and strengthen 7.1-7.3 vulnerability points. 8.1 Create all-hazard team to address planning and Ongoing/Retain (reword to change recovery needs. “create” to “utilize” and add “ongoing” after “address”) 8.2 Create funding source for planning, training, Complete exercises and recovery. 8.3 Initiate/develop use of ESF-8 role (disaster Delete/Withdraw recovery/surge capacity) at local medical center level. * Partially completed action – completed parts of project to be described in updated plan

Next Meeting (Second and Final Workshop): September 14, 2017, 9:30-2:30 Pitkin County Library Community Room 120 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado

133 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Participating Jurisdiction Data Collection Surveys

Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan – Five-Year Update Data Collection Survey Participating Jurisdiction: Pitkin County

Background

Pitkin County Emergency Management is coordinating a five-year update of the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The update of this plan is a collaborative effort between Pitkin County and its local partners, including the City of Aspen, Town of Basalt, Town of Snowmass Village, Aspen Fire Protection District, Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, and Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District. Once approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and adopted by your governing board, your participation in this process establishes your eligibility for federal hazard mitigation grants, including Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grants.

The purpose of the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan is to provide local officials with a tool to guide policies and actions that can be implemented to reduce risk and future losses from natural hazards. The updated plan will identify opportunities for implementing specific mitigation actions to reduce risks and mitigate future losses from natural hazard events. Examples of mitigation actions include building retrofits, stormwater/flood control projects, defensible spacing, changes in local ordinances, and other actions that reduce risk to existing buildings, infrastructure, and new development.

Risk Assessment

Question 1 Have there been any significant incidents in your jurisdiction in the last five years that were caused by natural hazards?

The risk assessment matrix below reflects the results of the rating-ranking exercise conducted at the initial planning workshop on June 7, 2017. The overall risk ranking considers the likelihood, potential consequences, overall planning importance and the viability of potential mitigation opportunities.

Question 2 Are there any changes that should be made to the ratings or the overall risk ranking in the matrix below?

Pitkin County Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood Occasional Critical 2

134 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Likely Critical 3 Fall/Debris Flows/Mudflows Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Highly Likely Critical Not Ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not Ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not Ranked Dam Failure Flooding Note: research on dam failure hazard currently in process Climate Change Note: research on climate change currently in process

Probability Rankings • Highly Likely o Near 100% chance of occurrence each year • Likely o 10-100% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: 10 yrs. or less) • Occasional o 1-10% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: 11-100 yrs.) • Unlikely o <1% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: >100 yrs.).

Magnitude Rankings • Catastrophic o Mass casualties; extraordinary levels of destruction and service interruptions; sustained impacts to infrastructure, government functions and the economy; local and state resources overwhelmed • Critical o Isolated deaths; multiple injuries; major property damage; impacts to critical infrastructure; and/or disruption of essential services • Limited o Minor injuries, minor property damage; and/or interruption of essential services for less than 24 hrs. • Negligible o Little or no property damage; brief disruptions of essential services.

Vulnerability Assessment

Question 3 Can you please provide a brief description of your jurisdiction’s overall vulnerability to the high-priority natural hazards identified in the risk assessment matrix?

Question 4 Are there any “key issues” related to wildfire, geologic, flood or other hazards within your jurisdiction’s borders that were not addressed in the previous version of this plan or that have emerged in the last five years?

Question 5 Since the last update of this plan in 2011, are there any new “critical facilities” that have been built or opened (e.g., public safety facilities, hospitals/clinics, government offices, schools, nursing homes) within your jurisdiction’s borders?

135 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Question 6 At the first planning workshop, participants recommended adding dam failure flooding and debris/mud flows to the list of hazards to be addressed in the updated plan (mudflows and debris flows have been added to the geologic hazards considered in the plan that includes landslides, rockslides and rock fall). Please rate the dam failure flood risk in your community: Probability: ____ Highly Likely ____ Likely ____ Occasional ____ Unlikely Magnitude: ____ Catastrophic ____ Critical ____ Limited ____ Negligible Priority (for planning and mitigation attention): ____ High ____ Medium ____ Low

Question 7 Are there any other community assets within your jurisdiction that are vulnerable to natural hazards (e.g., roads/bridges, public facilities/utilities, residential areas) or that may be located in known hazard areas or susceptible to hazards because of their construction type?

Question 8 A primary focus of this plan update is climate change and the implications of global warming for natural hazards and natural hazard events. Based on available data, are there aspects of a potentially long-term warming trend that could adversely affect critical infrastructure, public services, government functions or economic activities in your jurisdiction? Please describe.

Question 9 Are there any new (last 5 years) plans, studies, reports, or maps that have been prepared related to natural hazards in your jurisdiction?

Capability Assessment

Question 10 Can you please confirm that the information in the Capability Assessment table below is complete and correct?

Capability Assessment – Pitkin County Government Regulatory Mitigation Capability Yes No Comments Comprehensive or Master Plan √ Emergency Operations Plan √

136 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Economic Development Plan Capital Improvements Plan √ Community Wildfire Protection Plan √ 2014 Building Code Year 2015 Floodplain Ordinance √ Zoning Ordinance √ Subdivision Ordinance √ Stormwater Ordinance √ Growth Management Ordinance √ Site Plan Review Requirements √ Erosion/Sediment Control Program √ Stormwater Management Program √ Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) Approval/adoption of new digital FIRMs in process. National Flood Insurance Program Participant √ Community Rating System (CRS) Participant √ Rating: 8

Administrative and Technical Resources Yes No Comments Planner/Engineer (with knowledge of land √ development practices and natural hazards) Engineer/Professional (trained in construction √ practices related to buildings/infrastructure) GIS Capabilities √ HAZUS Analysis √ Full-Time Building Official √ Floodplain Administrator √ Emergency Manager √ Grant Writer √ Warning Systems/Services √

Financial Resources Yes No Comments Community Development Block Grants √ Capital Improvements Project Funding √ Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes √ Voter approval required. Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Services Impact Fees for New Development √ Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds √ Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds N/A Withhold Spending in Hazard-Prone Areas

New Mitigation Actions for 2017 The updated plan will identify opportunities for implementing specific mitigation actions to reduce risks and mitigate future losses from natural hazard events. At the initial planning workshop, participants reviewed mitigation actions from the previous plan and provided an update on the status of each action. The table below identifies ongoing actions and incomplete actions that should be retained in the new plan.

137 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

(Note: Mitigation actions identified in this plan are not mandatory and are non- binding, but simply represent possible solutions for identified problems that can be refined and implemented in the event resources to support specific projects become available.)

Question 11 Based on the key issues and vulnerable community assets identified above, do any of the “Mitigation Actions” identified for your jurisdiction in the updated draft need to be modified (see table below)?

Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Pitkin County Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support PC 1.1 Continue Public Safety Council, which High Public Safety provides multi-agency and multi- Council, jurisdictional coordination for hazard Emergency planning and incident management. Management PC 1.2 Provide training and equipment to High Communications improve communications between different agencies and remote locations and interoperability with statewide 800 MHz radio system. PC 1.3 Provide training and drills for EOC staff High Emergency Emergency and conduct, at a minimum, one annual Management Support EOC tabletop exercise and tri-annual Function (ESF) airport exercises. Teams PC 1.4 Ensure that mutual aid agreements are Medium Agencies and Public Safety current and establish new Departments Council intergovernmental agreements for Law Involved and Public Works. PC 1.5 Designate office/staff to conduct High Administration Community inspections and enforce regulations and Development policies related to natural hazard mitigation. PC 1.6 Continue the policy and process of inter- High Community City of Aspen, agency communication regarding Development Town of proposed development that could be Snowmass impacted by natural hazards, and inform Village, Town policy- and decision-makers of potential of Basalt, risks. Pitkin County PC 1.7 Adopt new digital flood insurance rate High Community Engineering maps (DFIRMs) following approval by Development FEMA. PC 1.8 Update/maintain records on annual High GIS hazard occurrences and display impacts on maps. PC 1.9 Develop/maintain access to ownership High GIS Assessor and property-value information for properties in identified hazard areas. PC 1.10 Create a web map application with High GIS property information, including hazards.

138 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

PC 1.11 Create useable flood- and debris-flow High GIS Engineering, mapping (including dry gulch and alluvial Public Works, fan). Community Development PC 1.12 Continue to use and market various means High Communications Public Safety of communicating early warnings and Council, alerts using multimedia. Review and Community improve process quarterly. Relations PC 1.13 Identify hazard areas for each of the four High Public Safety Community priority hazards and pre-build notification Council, Relations lists; develop subscription groups for Emergency emergency notification on Pitkin Alert, Management IPAWS and local PSAPs specific to identified hazards. PC 1.14 Improve coordination with owners and Medium Emergency Administration operators of High- and Significant Hazard Management dams within Pitkin County. PC 1.15 Create multi-jurisdictional team to High Administration implement physical mitigation actions and review/update annually. PC 1.16 Reduce hazards and improve forest health Medium- Open Space BLM, USFS in locations where residential areas High interface with public-use areas by downing and removing trees killed by Mountain Pine Beetle. PC 1.17 Design and install mitigation measures Medium Public Works CDOT, (concrete barriers) in areas along Independence roadways that are susceptible to mud and Pass rock slides, in cooperation with CDOT Foundation maintenance schedules. PC 1.18 Improve or restore river alignment at the Low Engineering CDOT, USFS confluence of Coal Creek and Crystal River; consult community officials and local residents for project details. PC 1.19 Continue to develop comprehensive, High Emergency Public Safety proactive, ongoing public and business Management Council, outreach program to improve awareness Community and educate citizens about seasonal and Relations other natural hazards. PC 1.20 Utilize variable message boards as needed High Public Safety Public Works, for public safety, including warning Council City of Aspen, information about wildfires, flooding, Town of Basalt, mudflows, rock slides and other natural Town of hazards. Snowmass Village PC 1.21 Utilize all-hazard team from Public Safety High Emergency Public Safety Council membership to address ongoing Management, Council planning and recovery needs. Pitkin County Incident Management Team (IMT)

139 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Question 12 Are there any new projects or other opportunities for reducing your community’s vulnerability to natural hazards that should be included in the list of Mitigation Actions for your jurisdiction in the current update?

Question 13 Does your jurisdiction have any projects currently in the pipeline, planned in the future, or being considered (e.g., Capital Improvement Program-funded projects) that include provisions for mitigating natural hazards?

Question 14 Has your community identified or considered any local actions to take to address the potential effects of long-term climate change (e.g., education campaign, scientific studies, regulatory measures, structural mitigation projects)?

In case there are follow-up questions, please provide the name of a local contact and email address.

Name: ______Jurisdiction/Organization: ______Position: ______Email: ______Time Spent Completing Survey (Hours): ____

Thank you for your assistance!

Next Meeting (Second and Final Workshop): September 14, 2017, 9:30-2:30 Pitkin County Library Community Room 120 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado

Contacts: Valerie MacDonald [email protected] Bob Wold [email protected]

140 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Mitigation Actions Workshop Summary 2017 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Mitigation Actions Workshop -- September 14, 2017

The Mitigation Actions Workshop, the second and final planning workshop in support of the project to update the hazard mitigation plan, was held in Aspen on September 14, 2017, 9:30-2:30 at the Pitkin County Library. The workshop was well-attended by representatives of each of the participating jurisdictions, who received a report on the progress of plan updates, reviewed final risk assessment information, and evaluated proposed mitigation actions. Small group activity sessions were conducted in the afternoon to allow each participating jurisdiction to refine and finalize mitigation actions. The results of the small group discussions are summarized in the remainder of this report. City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) The magnitude rating for the wildfire hazard was changed from Catastrophic to Critical, at the recommendation of AFPD. AFPD Deputy Chief Parker Lathrop demonstrated an alternative method for ranking natural hazards, using a basic numeric formula that estimates the probability of each hazard according to each level of magnitude (catastrophic, critical, limited, negligible). City of Aspen staff voiced a preference for migrating to this more quantitative approach for assessing risks in the future. A sample of this methodology is provided later in this report.

Aspen/AFPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible Probability Highly Likely Avalanche, Winter Storm Geohazards Likely Wildfire Lightning

Occasional Flood Drought

Unlikely Dam Failure Flooding

The description of several mitigation actions in the table below was changed and responsible agencies were corrected and updated. At least one mitigation action will be included based on the City’s new Mud and Debris Flow Study for Aspen Mountain, following formal approval of the new study by City Council. Additional mitigation actions addressing the effects of climate change will also be considered for inclusion. One recommended action, a warning system and signage for areas below Grizzly Reservoir, will be included utilizing the Pitkin Alert system with Pitkin County as lead agency supported by the City of Aspen and the U.S. Forest Service. Mitigation actions proposed for inclusion in the updated plan are outlined in the table below.

141 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – City of Aspen Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support A 1.1 Designate office/staff to conduct High Building, AFPD, Administration, inspections and enforce regulations and Engineering Community policies related to natural hazard Development mitigation, including roof covering inspections in identified high fire hazard areas. A 1.2 Continue the policy and process of inter- High Community Pitkin County, agency communication regarding proposed Development Town of Basalt, development that could be impacted by Town of natural hazards, and inform policy- and Snowmass decision-makers of potential risks. Village A 1.3 Implement Stormwater Capital High Engineering City of Aspen Improvement Plan (estimated cost $17 million). A 1.4 Conduct study at Buttermilk ski area to Medium Engineering Aspen Skiing analyze drainage, mud and vegetation Company, conditions and risks and potential Pitkin County damages from mudslides. Engineering A 1.5 Evaluate and identify appropriate TBD Water TBD measures for hardening the City of Aspen Water System, including steps related to water storage, groundwater well development, backup power generators, and access to hydroelectric power. A 1.6 Placeholder: Mitigation Action from High Stormwater TBD pending Mud and Debris Flow Study

A 1.7 Placeholder: Climate Change-related High Canary Initiative Mitigation Action Team

Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Aspen Fire Protection District Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies AFPD Implement recommended actions High CSFS, USFS 1.1 identified in the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2014), including ongoing efforts to reduce fuel loads, coordinate open burns, and create defensible and survivable spaces. AFPD Prioritize and develop needed Community High City of Aspen, CSFS, Pitkin County 1.2 Wildfire Protection Plans for subdivisions, Emergency Management as identified in the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (estimated cost: $11 million). AFPD Continue to conduct voluntary wildfire High Pitkin County Community 1.3 hazard inspections and disseminate Development, City of Aspen wildfire mitigation and preparedness information to property owners. AFPD Develop, implement and maintain wildfire High Shared with Pitkin County 1.4 codes (including brush management, weed Community Development, City of abatement, building codes, construction Aspen types).

142 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

AFPD Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel High Snowmass-Wildcat FPD, Basalt and 1.5 reduction projects within wildland urban Rural FPD, CSFS, BLM, USFS interface areas, in accordance with the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

Town of Basalt/Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District The magnitude rating for geohazards (including landslides, debris flows, mudflows, rockslides and rock fall) was changed from Critical to Limited. Basalt/BRFPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible Probability Highly Likely Avalanche Geohazards, Winter Storm Likely Wildfire Lightning

Occasional Flood Drought

Unlikely Dam Failure Flooding

Three new mitigation actions were added: implement flood conveyance improvements (B 1.4), monitor mudflow impacts on Two Rivers Rd. (B 1.5), and prepare alert plan for Ruedi Reservoir (B 1.6).

Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Town of Basalt Action Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support # B 1.1 Designate office/staff to conduct High Administration Building, inspections and enforce regulations and Planning policies related to natural hazard Manager mitigation. B 1.2 Continue the policy and process of inter- High Planning Pitkin County, agency communication regarding proposed City of Aspen, development that could be impacted by Town of natural hazards, and inform policy- and Snowmass decision-makers of potential risks. Village B 1.3 Monitor implementation of new Southside High Manager, Eagle County, Floodplain mapping and determine next Planning Pitkin County steps (timeframe: 2018-2019). CDOT, HOAs B 1.4 Implement flood conveyance improvements High Public Works, identified in the River Master Plan. Engineering B 1.5 Develop and implement a system for High Public Works BRFPD monitoring mudflows and mudflow-impacts to infrastructure in the Two Rivers Road area. B 1.6 In cooperation with Pitkin and Eagle High Pitkin County, Town of Basalt Counties, assess downstream impacts of a Eagle County failure of Ruedi Reservoir dam and prepare plan for warning the public.

143 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies BRFPD Implement recommended actions identified in High 1.1 the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2014), including ongoing efforts to reduce fuel loads, coordinate open burns, and create defensible and survivable spaces. BRFPD Prioritize needed Community Wildfire High Town of Basalt, Pitkin County 1.2 Protection Plans for subdivisions, as identified Emergency Management, CSFS in the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. BRFPD Continue to conduct required and voluntary High Pitkin County Community 1.3 wildfire hazard inspections and disseminate Development wildfire mitigation and preparedness information to property owners. BRFPD Develop, implement and maintain wildfire High Pitkin County Administration, 1.4 codes (including brush management, weed Town of Basalt abatement, building codes, construction types). BRFPD Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel High Carbondale and Rural FPD, 1.5 reduction projects within wildland urban Snowmass-Wildcat FPD, CSFS, interface areas, in accordance with the Pitkin BLM, USFS County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

Pitkin County

The magnitude rating for the winter storm hazard was changed from Limited to Critical and the rating for the avalanche hazard was changed from Critical to Limited. Pitkin County staff also voiced a preference for migrating to the more quantitative approach for assessing risks in the future (see sample later in this report).

Pitkin County Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible Probability Highly Likely Geohazards, Winter Storm Likely Wildfire Avalanche, Lightning

Occasional Flood Drought

Unlikely Dam Failure Flooding

The description of several mitigation actions in the table below was changed and responsible agencies were corrected and updated. One new mitigation action will be included based on the new Addressing Program established by ordinance in Pitkin County. A new action has also been included regarding the need to update the Pitkin County Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). Another recommended action, a warning system and signage for areas below Grizzly Reservoir, will be included utilizing the Pitkin Alert system with Pitkin County as lead agency supported by the City of Aspen and the

144 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

U.S. Forest Service. Mitigation actions proposed for inclusion in the updated plan are outlined in the table below.

Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Pitkin County Action Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support # PC 1.1 Continue Public Safety Council, which High Public Safety provides multi-agency and multi- Council, jurisdictional coordination for hazard Emergency planning and incident management. Management PC 1.2 Provide training to improve Medium Pitkin County communications between different Radio agencies and remote locations and interoperability with statewide 800 MHz radio system. PC 1.3 Provide training and drills for EOC staff High Emergency Emergency and conduct, at a minimum, one annual Management Support EOC tabletop exercise and tri-annual Function (ESF) airport exercises. Teams PC 1.4 Ensure that mutual aid agreements are Medium Agencies and Public Safety current and establish new Departments Council intergovernmental agreements for Law and Involved Public Works. PC 1.5 Enforce Land Use Code regulations and Medium Community Code policies related to natural hazard Development Enforcement, mitigation. Fire Marshals PC 1.6 Continue the policy and process of inter- Medium Community City of Aspen, agency communication regarding proposed Development Town of development that could be impacted by Snowmass natural hazards, and inform policy- and Village, Town decision-makers of potential risks. of Basalt, Pitkin County PC 1.7 Adopt new digital flood insurance rate High Community Engineering maps (DFIRMs) following approval by FEMA. Development PC 1.8 Update/maintain records on annual hazard Medium GIS occurrences and display impacts on maps. PC 1.9 Continue to maintain access to ownership High GIS Assessor and property-value information for properties in identified hazard areas. PC Continue to enhance web map application Medium GIS 1.10 with property information, including hazards. PC Create useable flood- and debris-flow High GIS Engineering, 1.11 mapping (including dry gulch and alluvial Public Works, fan). Community Development, CGS PC Continue to use and market various means High Communications Public Safety 1.12 of communicating early warnings and Council, alerts using multimedia. Review and Community improve process quarterly. Relations PC Using IPAWS, pre-build notification lists for High Emergency GIS 1.13 priority hazards and develop subscription Management, groups for emergency notification on Pitkin Communications Alert.

145 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

PC Improve coordination with owners and Medium Emergency Administration 1.14 operators of High- and Significant-Hazard Management dams within Pitkin County. PC Continue Pitkin County Wildfire Council to High Pitkin County 1.15 implement physical mitigation actions and Wildfire Council review/update annually. PC Reduce hazards and improve forest health Medium- Open Space BLM, USFS 1.16 in locations where residential areas High interface with public-use areas by downing and removing trees killed by insect infestations. PC Continue to design and install mitigation Medium Public Works CDOT 1.17 measures (concrete barriers) in areas along roadways that are susceptible to mud and rock slides, in cooperation with CDOT maintenance schedules. PC Continue to develop comprehensive, High Emergency Public Safety 1.18 proactive, ongoing public and business Management Council, outreach program to improve awareness Community and educate citizens about seasonal and Relations other natural hazards. PC Utilize various messaging systems (e.g., High Public Safety Public Works, 1.19 Pitkin Alert) as needed for public safety, Council City of Aspen, including warning information about Town of wildfires, flooding, mudflows, rock slides Basalt, Town and other natural hazards. of Snowmass Village PC Utilize all-hazard team from Public Safety High Emergency Public Safety 1.20 Council membership to address ongoing Management, Council planning and recovery needs. Pitkin County IMT PC Update the Pitkin County Continuity of Medium Emergency Administration 1.21 Operations Plan. Management PC Develop plan/alarm system for alerting Medium Emergency City of Aspen, 1.22 campers in campgrounds and dispersed- Management USFS camping areas downstream of Grizzly Reservoir to move to higher ground in case of dam failure or other problems at the dam (incorporate signage and Pitkin Alert). PC Implement new Addressing Program to Medium GIS (Address 1.23 name roadways and assign addresses to Services) properties along such roadways to ensure that emergency services are able to locate structures and respond quickly.

Town of Snowmass Village and Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District

No changes were made to the hazard ratings in the table below.

Snowmass Village/Snowmass-Wildcat FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible Probability

146 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Highly Likely Avalanche, Winter Storm Geohazards Likely Wildfire Lightning

Occasional Flood Drought

Unlikely Dam Failure Flooding

The description of several mitigation actions in the table below was changed and responsible agencies were corrected and updated. Three new mitigation actions were added: cooperative wildfire mitigation projects (SV 1.3), implementation of new stormwater management plan (SV 1.4), and improvements to communications networks in municipal buildings (SV 1.5). Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Town of Snowmass Village Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support SV 1.1 Evaluate natural hazards and determine High Community Public Works priorities for mitigation. Development SV 1.2 Continue the policy and process of inter- High Community Pitkin County, agency communication regarding Development City of Aspen, proposed development that could be Town of Basalt impacted by natural hazards, and inform policy- and decision-makers of potential risks. SV 1.3 In cooperation with Snowmass-Wildcat High Town of SWFPD, HOAs FPD and local homeowners’ associations, Snowmass complete wildfire mitigation projects in Village 2017 to include right-of-way tree removal, public chipping programs, and hazard fuel removal. SV 1.4 Develop new stormwater management High Public Works master plan to evaluate current capacity and infrastructure needs (estimated timeframe: 5 years). SV 1.5 Improve network cabling at various Medium Town of locations to connect municipal buildings Snowmass and enhance communication and Village redundancy in case of power outages (estimated timeframe: 5 years).

Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies SWFPD Implement recommended actions identified in the High Town of Snowmass 1.1 Snowmass Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Village, SWIFT Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2014), including ongoing efforts to reduce fuel loads, coordinate open burns, and create defensible and survivable spaces (estimated cost: $100,000/year). SWFPD Prioritize needed Community Wildfire Protection High Town of Snowmass 1.2 Plans for subdivisions, as identified in the Village, CSFS, Pitkin

147 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Snowmass and Pitkin County Community Wildfire County Emergency Protection Plans. Management SWFPD Continue to conduct required and voluntary High Pitkin County Community 1.3 wildfire hazard inspections and disseminate Development wildfire mitigation and preparedness information to property owners. SWFPD Develop, implement and maintain wildfire codes High Pitkin County 1.4 (including brush management, weed abatement, Administration, Town of building codes, construction types). Snowmass Village SWFPD Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel reduction High Aspen FPD, Basalt and 1.5 projects within wildland urban interface areas, in Rural FPD, CSFS, BLM, accordance with the Snowmass and Pitkin County USFS Community Wildfire Protection Plans.

Alternative Method for Assessing Local Risks

At the workshop, an alternative approach to assessing risks was discussed and demonstrated. In the approach, a numeric value is assigned to each square in the probability-magnitude matrix with values increasing as probability and magnitude become greater. Each hazard is assessed based on the estimated probability for each of the four levels of magnitude. The weighting provides for a compounded score for the growing complexity of an incident. In the Wildland Fire example below, a catastrophic fire occurs occasionally (8 points), a critical fire is likely (9 points), a fire with limited magnitude is highly likely (8 points), and a fire with negligible impacts is also highly likely (5 points). The total (30) is divided by four for a score of 7.5.

Rating/Scoring Key Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible

Probability Highly 16 12 8 5 Likely

Likely 12 9 6 4

Occasional 8 6 4 3

Unlikely 5 4 3 2

Hazard: Wildland Fire Score: 7.5 Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible

Probability Highly X X Likely

Likely X

148 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Occasional X

Unlikely

Hazard: Avalanche Score: 6.75 Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible

Probability Highly X X Likely

Likely X

Occasional

Unlikely X

Hazard: Winter Storm Score: 6.0 Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible

Probability Highly X X Likely

Likely

Occasional X

Unlikely X

Hazard: Flood Score: 5.5 Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible

Probability

Highly X Likely

X Likely

149 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

X Occasional

X Unlikely

Hazard: Lightning Score: 5.5 Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible

Probability Highly X Likely

Likely X

Occasional X

Unlikely X

Hazard: Geologic Hazards Score: 5 Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible

Probability Highly X Likely

Likely X

Occasional

Unlikely X X

Hazard: Drought Score: 4.25 Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible

Probability Highly Likely

Likely X

Occasional X

150 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Unlikely X X

Hazard: Dam Failure Flood Score: 4.0 Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible

Probability Highly Likely

Likely X

Occasional

Unlikely X X X

The alternative method demonstrated as a trial at the workshop produced slightly different results in terms of the order of the top five priority hazards. Wildfire is the number-one priority using either method, but the order was shuffled for the other hazards, as indicated in the table below. Most of the participants at the workshop indicated a preference for migrating to the more quantitative alternative approach for assessing risks in the future.

Top Five Priority Hazards in Pitkin County Using Two Different Assessment Methods

2017 Pitkin County Risk Assessment Traditional Method Alternative Method (FEMA approach, based on historical record) (More quantitative approach demonstrated at Mitigation Actions Workshop) 1. Wildfire 1. Wildfire 2. Geologic Hazards 2. Avalanche 3. Flood 3. Winter Storm 4. Avalanche 4. Flood 5. Winter Storm 5. Lightning

151 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Breakout Group Discussion – Mitigation Actions Workshop

Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan – Five-Year Update Mitigation Actions Workshop September 14, 2017 Aspen, Colorado

Group Activity Questions & Discussion Topics Jurisdiction: City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District

The two tables below summarize the hazard ratings – by probability and magnitude – for the City of Aspen and the Aspen Fire Protection District, as evaluated by participants at the initial planning workshop on June 7, 2017. The overall risk ranking in Table 2 considers the likelihood, potential consequences, overall planning importance and the viability of potential mitigation opportunities.

Table 1. Aspen/AFPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible Probability Highly Likely Avalanche, Winter Storm Geohazards

Likely Wildfire Avalanche Lightning

Occasional Flood Drought

Unlikely Dam Failure Flooding

Table 2. Aspen/AFPD Hazard Ratings and Overall Risk Ranking Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Highly Likely Critical 2 Fall/Debris Flows/Mudflows Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 2 Drought Occasional Limited 3 Flood Occasional Catastrophic 4 Avalanche Highly Likely Critical Not Ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not Ranked Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Catastrophic Not Ranked

Probability Rankings • Highly Likely: near 100% chance of occurrence each year • Likely: 10-100% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: 10 yrs. or less)

152 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

• Occasional: 1-10% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: 11-100 yrs.) • Unlikely: <1% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: >100 yrs.).

Magnitude Rankings • Catastrophic: mass casualties; extraordinary levels of destruction and service interruptions; sustained impacts to infrastructure, government functions and the economy; local and state resources overwhelmed • Critical: isolated deaths; multiple injuries; major property damage; impacts to critical infrastructure; and/or disruption of essential services • Limited: minor injuries, minor property damage; and/or interruption of essential services for less than 24 hrs. • Negligible: little or no property damage; brief disruptions of essential services.

Question #1 Are there any changes that should be made to the probability, magnitude or overall risk ratings for the natural hazards in Tables 1 and 2 above?

Question #2 The AFPD has recommended changing the rating for wildfire Magnitude from Catastrophic to Critical? Is there consensus in the group to make the recommended change?

Question #3 One comment from the survey questioned the ratings for the drought and flood hazards: “I see drought and flood as similar. Flood seems less likely and less damaging because most of our flooding is localized. A drought, especially a multi-year drought, would have cascading impacts across most sectors.” Should any changes be made to the ratings for drought and flood in the tables?

2017 Mitigation Actions

The updated plan identifies opportunities for implementing specific mitigation actions to reduce risks and mitigate future losses from natural hazard events. The information in Tables 3 and 4 was developed from input by representatives of the City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District who participated in the initial planning workshop, input from the data collection survey, or both. The workshop and subsequent survey determined which actions should be retained in the updated plan, with modifications as needed. Mitigation actions identified in this plan are not mandatory and are non- binding, but simply represent possible solutions for identified problems that can be refined and implemented in the event resources to support specific projects become available.

Question #4 One survey respondent proposed an opportunity for reducing the dam failure flood hazard below Grizzly Reservoir: an alert/alarm system “loud enough to notify campers on Lincoln Creek Road to move upland. (And signage along the camping areas for education as to such danger and alert system).” Should this potential project be included as a new mitigation action for the City of Aspen in the updated plan?

153 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Question #5 One survey respondent highlighted the Climate Change Preparedness Index, which attempts to measure and understand the effects of climate warming on local risks and identify various emergency preparedness and adaptability measures that can be taken. Should this effort be included as a new mitigation action for the City of Aspen in the updated plan?

Question #6 Another survey comment addressed action A 1.1: “Building and fire inspection may evaluate roof covering for compliance. This might also be engineering, as their regulations address mudflow.” Do the responsible agencies listed for this action in Table 3 need to be changed, or should the action be modified or possibly deleted if already accomplished?

Question #7 Another survey response cited the recently completed mud and debris flow study and indicated that there are projects/actions identified in it that could be included in the updated plan. Are there any recommended actions in the study that should also be included in the updated plan as mitigation actions for the City of Aspen?

Question #8 Are there changes that need to be made to any of the mitigation actions in Tables 3 or 4 regarding the project description, priority rating, or lead or support agencies?

Question #9 For mitigation actions listed in Tables 3 and 4, is it possible to estimate a cost and/or timeframe for completion? For those actions where the information is known, please indicate estimates in the row provided in the tables.

Question #10 Several other ideas for mitigation actions were raised by survey respondents. Are there any other hazard mitigation projects or opportunities that should be included in the list of mitigation actions for Aspen and the Aspen Fire Protection District in the updated plan (e.g., specific stormwater management projects, update of the Canary Action Plan, or hardening of the City of Aspen Water System)?

Table 3. Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – City of Aspen Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support A 1.1 Designate office/staff to conduct High Administration Community inspections and enforce regulations and Development policies related to natural hazard mitigation. Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:

154 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

A 1.2 Continue the policy and process of inter- High Community Pitkin County, agency communication regarding Development Town of Basalt, proposed development that could be Town of impacted by natural hazards, and inform Snowmass policy- and decision-makers of potential Village risks. Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost: A 1.3 Continue to pursue ongoing stormwater High Engineering Aspen mitigation projects through Capital Consolidated Improvements Plan. Sanitation District Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost: A 1.4 Conduct studies at Aspen Mountain and Medium Engineering Aspen Skiing Buttermilk ski area to analyze drainage, Company, mud and vegetation conditions and risks Pitkin County and potential damages from mudslides. Engineering Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:

Table 4. Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Aspen Fire Protection District Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies AFPD Implement recommended actions High CSFS, USFS 1.1 identified in the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2014), including ongoing efforts to reduce fuel loads, coordinate open burns, and create defensible and survivable spaces. Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost: AFPD Prioritize needed Community Wildfire High City of Aspen, CSFS, Pitkin County 1.2 Protection Plans for subdivisions, as Emergency Management identified in the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost: AFPD Continue to conduct voluntary wildfire High Pitkin County Community 1.3 hazard inspections and disseminate Development, City of Aspen wildfire mitigation and preparedness information to property owners. Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost: AFPD Develop, implement and maintain wildfire High Shared with Pitkin County 1.4 codes (including brush management, weed Community Development, City of abatement, building codes, construction Aspen types). Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost: AFPD Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel High Snowmass-Wildcat FPD, Basalt and 1.5 reduction projects within wildland urban Rural FPD, CSFS, BLM, USFS interface areas, in accordance with the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:

155 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Public Outreach and Involvement Summary

Pitkin County Emergency Management utilized multiple media to announce the Kickoff Meeting and Mitigation Actions Workshop and invite the public, including newspapers, online news, television, public radio and social media (Facebook). The public was encouraged to attend in all spots. Information about the project and planning meetings was also distributed to Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and Pitkin County Caucuses. An announcement of the date, time and location of the meetings was scrolled on local government television (CGTV) and the HMP update project was discussed at televised meetings of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners.

An announcement welcoming the public to attend the Kickoff Meeting appeared in the This Week in Pitkin County section of The Aspen Times on consecutive Mondays before the meeting (May 29, 2017 and June 5, 2017). Two citizens were in attendance.

Sample News Release The Aspen Times, June 1, 2017

Work Begins on Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

Pitkin County Emergency Management has started a five-year update of the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The update is a multi-jurisdictional effort with Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass Village, along with all public-safety agencies in the Roaring Fork Valley.

The plan is designed to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards. Among the potential hazards the plan addresses are climate change, wildfire, winter storms, land and rock slides, as well as seasonal flash-flooding, according to a statement from Pitkin County.

"We have to be prepared in the event of emergencies like these," said Valerie MacDonald, Pitkin County's emergency manager. "We try to think through every possible emergency scenario, how we'll respond to them and how we can avoid them altogether through proper risk assessment and pre-planning."

A kick-off meeting to discuss the process is set 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Wednesday, June 7, at the Aspen Fire Station. Residents are encouraged to attend and offer input and feedback throughout the updating process. A second workshop is planned for 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Sept. 14 at Pitkin County Library.

This county update is a multi-jurisdictional effort with Aspen, Basalt, and Snowmass participating. The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires Pitkin County to have a current Hazard Mitigation Plan to remain eligible for pre- and post-disaster mitigation grants.

The information in the Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News was also broadcast on Aspen Public Radio and posted to the Pitkin County Facebook page. The draft plan was posted on the Pitkin County web page and a 30-day public review and comment period ended in January with no citizen input or recommended changes to the draft plan.

156 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Appendix E: FEMA HAZUS Flood Maps HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Aspen

157 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Aspen

158 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village

159 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village

160 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Basalt

161 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Basalt

162 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Appendix F: Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) Summary Title I: Predisaster Hazard Mitigation - Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Act) to authorize the President to establish a program of technical and financial assistance to States and local governments to assist in the implementation of pre- disaster hazard mitigation measures that are cost-effective and are designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, and property damage and destruction, including damage to critical services and facilities under the jurisdiction of the States or local governments. Authorizes the President to provide technical and financial assistance from the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund (established under this Act) to each State and local government that has identified all natural disaster hazards in its jurisdiction and has demonstrated its ability to form effective public- private disaster hazard mitigation partnerships.

Directs that such assistance be used by States and local governments principally to implement pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures that are cost-effective and that are described in proposals approved by the President under this title. Authorizes such assistance to be used to: (1) support effective public-private partnerships; (2) improve the assessment of a community's natural hazards vulnerabilities; or (3) establish a community's mitigation priorities.

Requires the President, in determining whether to provide technical and financial assistance to a State or local government, to take into account: (1) the extent and nature of the hazards to be mitigated; (2) the degree of commitment of the State or local government to reduce damages from future natural disasters; (3) the degree of commitment by the State or local government to support ongoing non-Federal support for the hazard mitigation measures to be carried out using the assistance; (4) the extent to which the hazard mitigation measures carried out contribute to the mitigation goals and priorities established by the State; (5) the extent to which such assistance is consistent with other assistance provided under this Act; (6) the extent to which prioritized, cost-effective mitigation activities that produce meaningful and definable outcomes are clearly identified; (7) the extent to which the activities identified are consistent with any State or local mitigation plan submitted; (8) the opportunity to fund activities that maximize net benefits to society; (9) the extent to which assistance will fund mitigation activities in small impoverished communities; and (10) such other criteria as the President establishes in consultation with State and local governments.

Authorizes the President to establish the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund.

Requires the President to report to Congress recommending a process for transferring to capable States greater authority and responsibility over such assistance program.

(Sec. 103) Directs the President to establish an interagency task force to coordinate the implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation programs administered by the Federal Government.

(Sec. 104) Requires State, local, or tribal governments, as a condition of receipt of an increased Federal share for hazard mitigation measures, to develop and submit for approval to the President a mitigation plan that outlines processes for identifying the natural hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities of the area under government jurisdiction.

Authorizes the President to increase the Federal share of hazard mitigation measures to 20 percent if at the time of the declaration of a major disaster a State has in effect an approved mitigation plan. Directs the President, in determining whether to increase the maximum percentage, to consider whether the State has established: (1) eligibility criteria for property acquisition and other types of mitigation measures; (2) requirements for cost effectiveness that are related to the eligibility criteria; (3) a system of priorities related to the criteria; and (4) a

163 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

process by which an assessment of the effectiveness of a mitigation action may be carried out after the mitigation action is complete.

Revises provisions of the Act concerning standards for repair and construction financed with disaster loans or grants. Permits the President to require safe land use and construction practices. Directs the President to increase the maximum percentage under the Act for hazard mitigation from 15 to 20 percent for any major disaster in Minnesota for which assistance is being provided as of the date of this Act's enactment, with a cap of $6 million for additional assistance. Requires that the mitigation measures assisted be related to losses in that State from straight line winds.

Title II: Streamlining and Cost Reduction - Amends the Act to define "management cost" to include any indirect cost, administrative expense, and other expense not directly chargeable to a specific project under a major disaster, emergency, or disaster preparedness or mitigation activity or measure. Directs the President to: (1) establish management cost rates for grantees and sub- grantees that shall be used to determine contributions under the Act for management costs; and (2) review the management cost rates established within three years after the date of their establishment and periodically thereafter.

Makes the Act applicable to major disasters declared under the Act on or after the date of this Act's enactment. Grants interim authority with respect to the establishment of management cost rates.

Requires the President to provide for public notice and opportunity for comment before adopting any new or modified policy that: (1) governs implementation of the public assistance program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Act; and (2) could result in a significant reduction of assistance under the program.

(Sec. 204) Authorizes a State to apply to the President for delegation of the authority to administer the hazard mitigation grant program under the Act.

(Sec. 205) Rewrites Act provisions regarding assistance to repair, restore, reconstruct, or replace damaged facilities to place limitations on the "associated expenses" incurred by a person that owns or operates a private nonprofit facility damaged or destroyed by a major disaster for which such person may be reimbursed. Defines such term to include: (1) the costs of mobilizing and employing the National Guard for performance of eligible work; (2) the costs of using prison labor to perform eligible work; and (3) base and overtime wages for the employees and extra hires of a State, local government, or person that performs eligible work, plus certain fringe benefits.

Authorizes the President to make contributions to a private nonprofit facility only if: (1) the facility provides "critical services" in the event of a major disaster; or (2) the owner or operator of the facility has applied for a disaster loan under the Small Business Act (SBA) , and has been determined to be ineligible for such a loan or has obtained such a loan in the maximum amount for which the SBA determines the facility is eligible. Defines "critical services" to include power, water, sewer, wastewater treatment, communications, and emergency medical care.

Revises provisions regarding the minimum Federal share and regarding large in lieu contributions to limit the Federal share under specified circumstances. Directs the President, acting through the Director of FEMA, to establish an expert panel to develop recommendations concerning: (1) procedures for estimating the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility consistent with industry practices; and (2) ceiling and floor percentages of estimated costs. Requires the President to review the procedures and percentages. Requires the expert panel to report periodically to Congress.

(Sec. 206) Rewrites provisions regarding temporary housing assistance to authorize the President, in accordance with this section and in consultation with the Governor of a State, to provide financial assistance and, if necessary, direct services to individuals and households in the

164 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

State who, as a direct result of a major disaster, have necessary expenses and serious needs and are unable to meet such expenses or needs through other means.

(Sec. 207) Prohibits major disaster community loans from exceeding $5 million. Prohibits further assistance to a community that is in arrears on payments under a previous loan.

(Sec. 208) Requires: (1) the President to submit to Congress a report describing the results of the State Management of Small Disasters Initiative; and (2) the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to complete a study estimating the reduction in Federal disaster assistance that has resulted and is likely to result from the enactment of this Act.

Title III: Miscellaneous - Amends the Act to expand the definition of: (1) "local government" to include a municipality, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; and (2) "private nonprofit facility" to include private nonprofit irrigation facilities.

(Sec. 303) Authorizes the President to provide assistance to State and local governments (currently, only States) for the mitigation, management, and control of any fire (currently, fire suppression) on public or private forest land or grassland which threatens destruction that would constitute a major disaster.

(Sec. 304) Prohibits any administrative action to recover payment made to a State or local government for disaster or emergency assistance under the Act from being initiated beyond three years after the date of transmission of the final expenditure report for the disaster or emergency, except where there is evidence of fraud. Specifies that: (1) in any dispute arising beyond the three year period, there shall be a presumption that accounting records were maintained that adequately identify the source and application of funds provided for financially assisted activities; and (2) a State or local government shall not be liable for reimbursement or any other penalty for any payment made under this Act if the payment was authorized by an approved agreement specifying the costs, the costs were reasonable, and the purpose of the grant was accomplished.

(Sec. 305) Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make FEMA employees and employees of State, local, or tribal emergency management or civil defense agencies who perform official duties relating to a major disaster that are determined to be hazardous duties eligible for public safety officers' death benefits.

(Sec. 306) Prohibits funds authorized under this Act from being expended by an entity not in compliance with the Buy American Act. Provides for debarment of persons convicted of fraudulent use of "made in America" labels.

(Sec. 307) Directs that specified real property located in the Maple Terrace subdivisions of the city of Sycamore, DeKalb County, Illinois, shall not be considered to be, or to have been, located in any area having special flood hazards.

(Sec. 308) Requires the Director of FEMA to conduct a study of participation by Indian tribes in emergency management, and to report to Congress.

Source: Library of Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th- congress/house-bill/707

165 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Appendix G: Formal Adoption Resolutions/Ordinances

(Information for this appendix to be added following formal adoption of plan by the governing boards of each participating jurisdiction.)

166 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Appendix H: FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool

(Information for this appendix to be added following final FEMA approval.)

167