INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2 Participating Jurisdiction/ Special District Annexes Contents

MUNICIPAL ANNEXES ...... 1-15 Section 1. CITY OF DELTA ...... 1-1 City of Delta Adoption Records (TO BE INCLUDED AFTER FEMA APPROVAL) ...... 1-3 1.1 Purpose ...... 1-5 1.2 Introduction ...... 1-5 1.2.1 Geography and Climate ...... 1-5 1.2.2 Historical Overview ...... 1-6 1.3 Planning Methodology...... 1-7 1.4 What’s New ...... 1-7 1.4.1 Road Drainage Inspection and Maintenance (2016) ...... 1-7 1.4.2 Storm Water Capital Improvement Projects (2016 through 2018) ...... 1-8 1.4.3 Downtown Drainage Improvements ...... 1-8 1.4.4 Delta Urban Renewal Plan (Completed 2017) ...... 1-9 1.5 Risk Assessment ...... 1-9 1.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria ...... 1-10 1.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ...... 1-11 1.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk ...... 1-11 1.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory ...... 1-11 1.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory ...... 1-12 1.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory ...... 1-14 1.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory ...... 1-14 1.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards ...... 1-17 1.5.9 Dam Failure Hazard ...... 1-19 1.5.10 Drought Hazard Profile ...... 1-27 1.5.11 Flood Hazard Profile ...... 1-29 1.6 Mitigation Strategy ...... 1-39

i DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.6.1 Identifying the Problem ...... 1-39 1.6.2 Capability Assessment ...... 1-41 1.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives ...... 1-45 1.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan ...... 1-45 1.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance ...... 1-49 1.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms...... 1-49 Section 2. TOWN OF CEDAREDGE ...... 2-1 Municipal Adoption Records ...... 2-3 2.1 Purpose...... 2-1 2.2 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Geography and Climate ...... 2-1 2.2.2 Historical Overview ...... 2-2 2.3 Planning Methodology ...... 2-3 2.4 What’s New ...... 2-3 2.5 Risk Assessment ...... 2-3 2.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria ...... 2-4 2.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ...... 2-5 2.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk ...... 2-5 2.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory ...... 2-5 2.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory ...... 2-6 2.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory...... 2-8 2.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory...... 2-8 2.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards...... 2-10 2.5.9 Drought Hazard Profile ...... 2-11 2.5.10 Flood Hazard Profile ...... 2-13 2.5.11 Geohazard (Slope Failure) Profile...... 2-21 2.5.12 Severe Winter Weather Hazard Profile ...... 2-27 2.6 Mitigation Strategy ...... 2-29 2.6.1 Identifying the Problem ...... 2-29 2.6.2 Capability Assessment ...... 2-31 2.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives ...... 2-35 2.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan ...... 2-35

ii DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance...... 2-36 2.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms ...... 2-36 Section 3. TOWN OF CRAWFORD ...... 3-1 Municipal Adoption Records ...... 3-3 3.1 Purpose ...... 3-1 3.2 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Geography and Climate ...... 3-1 3.2.2 Historical Overview ...... 3-2 3.3 Planning Methodology...... 3-2 3.4 What’s New ...... 3-3 3.5 Risk Assessment ...... 3-3 3.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria ...... 3-3 3.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ...... 3-4 3.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk ...... 3-5 3.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory ...... 3-5 3.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory ...... 3-6 3.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory ...... 3-8 3.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory ...... 3-8 3.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards ...... 3-11 3.5.9 Drought Hazard Profile ...... 3-13 3.5.10 Flood Hazard Profile ...... 3-15 3.5.11 Geohazard Profile (Slope Failure) ...... 3-21 3.6 Mitigation Strategy ...... 3-27 3.6.1 Identifying the Problem ...... 3-27 3.6.2 Capability Assessment ...... 3-29 3.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives ...... 3-32 3.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan ...... 3-32 3.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance...... 3-35 3.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms ...... 3-35 Section 4. TOWN OF HOTCHKISS ...... 4-1 Municipal Adoption Records ...... 4-3 4.1 Purpose ...... 4-1

iii DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.2 Introduction ...... 4-1 4.2.1 Geography and Climate ...... 4-2 4.2.2 Historical Overview ...... 4-3 4.3 Planning Methodology ...... 4-3 4.4 What’s New ...... 4-4 4.5 Risk Assessment ...... 4-4 4.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria ...... 4-4 4.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ...... 4-5 4.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk ...... 4-6 4.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory ...... 4-6 4.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory ...... 4-7 4.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory...... 4-9 4.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory...... 4-9 4.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards...... 4-11 4.5.9 Dam Failure Hazard ...... 4-13 4.5.10 Drought Hazard Profile ...... 4-21 4.5.11 Flood Hazard Profile ...... 4-23 4.5.12 Severe Winter Weather Hazard Profile ...... 4-33 4.6 Mitigation Strategy ...... 4-35 4.6.1 Identifying the Problem ...... 4-35 4.6.2 Capability Assessment ...... 4-37 4.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives ...... 4-40 4.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan ...... 4-40 4.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance ...... 4-43 4.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms...... 4-43 Section 5. TOWN OF ORCHARD CITY ...... 5-1 Municipal Adoption Records ...... 5-3 5.1 Purpose ...... 5-1 5.2 Introduction ...... 5-1 5.2.1 Geography and Climate ...... 5-2 5.2.2 Historical Overview ...... 5-3 5.3 Planning Methodology ...... 5-3

iv DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.4 What’s New ...... 5-4 5.5 Risk Assessment ...... 5-4 5.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria ...... 5-5 5.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ...... 5-5 5.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk ...... 5-6 5.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory ...... 5-6 5.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory ...... 5-7 5.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory ...... 5-9 5.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory ...... 5-9 5.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards ...... 5-11 5.5.9 Dam Failure Hazard ...... 5-13 5.5.10 Drought Hazard Profile ...... 5-23 5.5.11 Flood Hazard Profile ...... 5-25 5.5.12 Severe Winter Weather Hazard Profile ...... 5-37 5.6 Mitigation Strategy ...... 5-39 5.6.1 Identifying the Problem ...... 5-39 5.6.2 Capability Assessment ...... 5-41 5.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives ...... 5-45 5.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan ...... 5-45 5.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance...... 5-46 5.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms ...... 5-46 Section 6. TOWN OF PAONIA ...... 6-1 Municipal Adoption Records ...... 6-3 6.1 Purpose ...... 6-1 6.2 Introduction ...... 6-1 6.2.1 Geography and Climate ...... 6-2 6.2.2 Historical Overview ...... 6-3 6.3 Planning Methodology...... 6-3 6.4 What’s New ...... 6-4 6.5 Risk Assessment ...... 6-4 6.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria ...... 6-4 6.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ...... 6-5

v DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk ...... 6-6 6.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory ...... 6-6 6.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory ...... 6-7 6.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory...... 6-9 6.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory...... 6-9 6.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards...... 6-11 6.5.9 Dam Failure Hazard ...... 6-13 6.5.10 Drought Hazard Profile ...... 6-21 6.5.11 Flood Hazard Profile ...... 6-23 6.5.12 Geohazard Profile (Slope Failure)...... 6-35 6.5.13 Severe Winter Weather Hazard Profile ...... 6-41 6.6 Mitigation Strategy ...... 6-43 6.6.1 Identifying the Problem ...... 6-43 6.6.2 Capability Assessment ...... 6-45 6.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives ...... 6-49 6.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan ...... 6-49 6.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance ...... 6-50 6.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms...... 6-50 Section 7. DELTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ...... 7-1 School District Adoption Records ...... 7-3 7.1 Purpose ...... 7-5 7.2 Introduction ...... 7-5 7.3 Planning Methodology ...... 7-6 7.4 What’s New ...... 7-7 7.5 Risk Assessment ...... 7-7 7.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria ...... 7-7 7.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking ...... 7-8 7.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk ...... 7-9 7.5.4 Building Value ...... 7-9 7.5.5 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards...... 7-11 7.5.6 Severe Winter Weather Hazard Profile ...... 7-13 7.6 Mitigation Strategy ...... 7-15

vi DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

7.6.1 Identifying the Problem ...... 7-15 7.6.2 Capability Assessment ...... 7-15 7.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives ...... 7-17 7.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan ...... 7-17 7.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance...... 7-18 FIRE PROTECTION ANNEX ...... 7-1 Section 8. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS ...... 8-1 Municipal Adoption Records ...... 8-3 8.1 Purpose ...... 8-1 8.2 Cedaredge Fire Protection District Introduction ...... 8-1 8.3 Crawford Fire Protection District Introduction ...... 8-2 8.4 Delta Fire Protection District Introduction ...... 8-2 8.5 Hotchkiss Fire Protection District Introduction ...... 8-2 8.6 Paonia Fire Protection District Introduction ...... 8-3 8.7 Planning Methodology...... 8-4 8.7.1 5 Year Mitigation Action Review and Update ...... 8-5 8.8 CWPPs and FPDs ...... 8-6 8.9 Wildfire Risk Assessment ...... 8-8 8.9.1 Population and Asset Inventory ...... 8-8 8.9.2 Fire Protection District Critical Facilities ...... 8-9 8.9.3 Parcel Value Inventory ...... 8-11 8.9.4 Wildfire Hazard ...... 8-12 8.9.5 Hazard Risk Ranking ...... 8-28 8.10 Wildfire Mitigation Strategy ...... 8-29 8.10.2 Capability Assessment ...... 8-32 8.10.3 Goals and Objectives ...... 8-35 8.10.4 Mitigation Action Plan ...... 8-35 8.11 Plan Implementation and Maintenance...... 8-36

vii DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figures

Figure 1-1: City of Delta Location ...... 1-6 Figure 1-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Input Values...... 1-15 Figure 1-3: City of Delta Population Exposure to Dam Failure ...... 1-20 Figure 1-4: City of Delta Flood Hazards ...... 1-30 Figure 0-5: City of Delta Population Exposed to Flood ...... 1-33 Figure 1-6: City of Delta Population Exposure to Flood ...... 1-34 Figure 1-7: 100-YR Building and Content Estimated Flood Loss by Occupancy Type (City of Delta) ...... 1-36 Figure 1-8: Estimated Building and Content Loss in the 500-YR floodplain by Occupancy Type ...... 1-36 Figure 2-1: Town of Cedaredge Location ...... 2-2 Figure 2-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Input Values...... 2-9 Figure 2-3: Location of Flood Hazards in Cedaredge ...... 2-14 Figure 2-4: Cedaredge Population Exposure to Flood ...... 2-17 Figure 2-5: Slope Exposure in the Town of Cedaredge ...... 2-22 Figure 3-1: Town of Crawford Location ...... 3-2 Figure 3-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Input Values...... 3-9 Figure 3-3: Crawford Flood Hazards ...... 3-16 Figure 3-4: Slope Exposure in the Town of Crawford ...... 3-22 Figure 4-1: Town of Hotchkiss Location ...... 4-2 Figure 4-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Exposure Values ...... 4-10 Figure 4-3: Town of Hotchkiss Population Exposure to Dam Failure ...... 4-14 Figure 4-4: Hotchkiss Flood Hazards ...... 4-24 Figure 4-5: Town of Hotchkiss Population Exposure to Flood ...... 4-26 Figure 4-6: 100-YR Building and Content Estimated Flood Loss by Occupancy Type (Town of Hotchkiss) ...... 4-29 Figure 4-7: Estimated Building and Content Loss in the 500-YR floodplain by Occupancy Type ...... 4-30 Figure 5-1: Town of Orchard City Location ...... 5-2 Figure 5-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Input Values...... 5-10 Figure 5-3: Town of Orchard City Population Exposure to Dam Failure ...... 5-14 Figure 5-4: Orchard City Flood Hazards ...... 5-26 Figure 5-5: Town of Orchard City Population Exposure to Flood ...... 5-29 Figure 5-6: 100-YR Building and Content Estimated Flood Loss by Occupancy Type (Town of Orchard City) ...... 5-32 Figure 5-7: Estimated Building and Content Loss in the 500-YR floodplain by Occupancy Type ...... 5-33 Figure 6-1: Town of Paonia Location ...... 6-2 Figure 6-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Input Values...... 6-10 Figure 6-3: Town of Paonia Population Exposure to Dam Failure ...... 6-14 Figure 6-4: Paonia Flood Hazards ...... 6-24 Figure 6-5: Town of Paonia Population Exposure to Flood...... 6-27 Figure 6-6: 100-YR Building and Content Estimated Flood Loss by Occupancy Type (Town of Paonia)...... 6-30 Figure 6-7: Estimated Building and Content Loss in the 500-YR floodplain by Occupancy Type ...... 6-31 Figure 6-8: Paonia High Slope Areas ...... 6-37 Figure 7-1: Delta County School District Boundaries ...... 7-6

viii DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 8-1: Area Wide Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) ...... 8-7 Figure 8-2: Cedaredge Fire Protection District Fire Intensity Scale ...... 8-14 Figure 8-3: Crawford Fire Protection District Fire Intensity Scale ...... 8-15 Figure 8-4: Delta Fire Protection District Fire Intensity Scale ...... 8-16 Figure 8-5: Hotchkiss Fire Protection District Fire Intensity Scale...... 8-17 Figure 8-6: Paonia Fire Protection District Fire Intensity Scale ...... 8-18 Figure 8-7: Delta County Fire Occurrence ...... 8-20 Figure 8-8: Population at Risk from Wildfire Hazards ...... 8-22

ix DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Tables

Table 1-1: Delta Climate Statistics ...... 1-5 Table 1-2: 2018 City of Delta Stakeholder List ...... 1-7 Table 1-3: City of Delta Document Review Crosswalk ...... 1-10 Table 1-4: City of Delta Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix ...... 1-11 Table 1-5: City of Delta - Critical Facility Counts ...... 1-13 Table 1-6: City of Delta - Linear Utilities ...... 1-14 Table 1-7: City of Delta- Parcel Counts and Value ...... 1-14 Table 1-8: City of Delta Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values ...... 1-15 Table 1-9: Dam Failure Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 1-19 Table 1-10: City of Delta Population Exposure to Dam Failure in Delta County ...... 1-20 Table 1-11: City of Delta Parcel Values at Risk from Dam Inundation...... 1-22 Table 1-12: Critical Infrastructure Points in Dam Inundation Zones ...... 1-23 Table 1-13: Miles of Critical Infrastructure (Linear) in Dam Inundation Zones ...... 1-24 Table 1-14: Flood Insurance Statistics for the City of Delta ...... 1-31 Table 1-15: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 1-33 Table 1-16: City of Delta - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones ...... 1-34 Table 1-17: 100-YR Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type (City of Delta) ...... 1-35 Table 1-18: 500-YR Flood Loss Estimation by Occupancy Type (City of Delta) ...... 1-36 Table 1-19: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain ...... 1-37 Table 1-20: Critical Facilities (Linear) in the Floodplain – City of Delta ...... 1-38 Table 1-21: Problem Statements by Hazard...... 1-39 Table 1-22: City of Delta's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities ...... 1-42 Table 1-23: City of Delta’s Administrative and Technical Ability ...... 1-43 Table 1-24: City of Delta's Financial Capabilities ...... 1-44 Table 1-25: City of Delta's Public Outreach and Education Programs ...... 1-44 Table 1-26: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker ...... 1-47 Table 2-1: Cedaredge Climate Statistics ...... 2-1 Table 2-2: 2018 Town of Cedaredge Stakeholder List ...... 2-3 Table 2-3: Town of Cedaredge Document Review Crosswalk ...... 2-4 Table 2-4: Town of Cedaredge Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix ...... 2-5 Table 2-5: Town of Cedaredge - Critical Facility Counts ...... 2-7 Table 2-6: Town of Cedaredge - Linear Utilities ...... 2-8 Table 2-7: Town of Cedaredge - Parcel Counts and Value ...... 2-8 Table 2-8: Town of Cedaredge Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values ...... 2-9 Table 2-9: Flood Insurance Statistics for the Town of Cedaredge ...... 2-15 Table 2-10: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 2-17 Table 2-11: Town of Cedaredge Population Exposure to Flood ...... 2-18 Table 2-12: Town of Cedaredge - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones ...... 2-18 Table 2-13: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain ...... 2-19

x DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 2-14: Critical Facilities (Linear) in the Floodplain – Town of Cedaredge ...... 2-20 Table 2-15: Slope Exposure Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 2-21 Table 2-16: Population Exposed to Slope ...... 2-23 Table 2-17: Improved Residential Parcel Slope Exposure ...... 2-23 Table 2-18: Critical Infrastructure with Slope Exposure ...... 2-24 Table 2-19: Transportation and Lifelines with Slope Exposure ...... 2-25 Table 2-20: Problem Statements by Hazard ...... 2-29 Table 2-21: Town of Cedaredge's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities ...... 2-32 Table 2-22: Town of Cedaredge’s Administrative and Technical Ability ...... 2-33 Table 2-23: Town of Cedaredge 's Financial Capabilities ...... 2-34 Table 2-24: Town of Cedaredge's Public Outreach and Education Programs ...... 2-34 Table 2-25: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker ...... 2-37 Table 3-1: Crawford Climate Statistics ...... 3-1 Table 3-2: 2018 Town of Crawford Stakeholder List ...... 3-3 Table 3-3: Town of Crawford Document Review Crosswalk ...... 3-4 Table 3-4: Town of Crawford Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix ...... 3-5 Table 3-5: Town of Crawford - Critical Facility Counts ...... 3-7 Table 3-6: Town of Crawford - Linear Utilities ...... 3-7 Table 3-7: Town of Crawford - Parcel Counts and Value ...... 3-8 Table 3-8: Town of Crawford Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values ...... 3-9 Table 3-9: Flood Insurance Statistics for the Town of Crawford ...... 3-17 Table 3-10: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 3-18 Table 3-11: Town of Crawford - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones ...... 3-19 Table 3-12: Slope Exposure Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 3-23 Table 3-13: Population Exposed to Slope ...... 3-23 Table 3-14: Improved Residential Parcel Exposure ...... 3-24 Table 3-15: Critical Infrastructure with Slope Exposure ...... 3-25 Table 3-16: Transportation and Lifelines with Geohazard Risk ...... 3-26 Table 3-17: Problem Statements by Hazard ...... 3-27 Table 3-18: Town of Crawford's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities ...... 3-29 Table 3-19: Town of Crawford’s Administrative and Technical Ability ...... 3-30 Table 3-20: Town of Crawford's Financial Capabilities ...... 3-31 Table 3-21: Town of Crawford's Public Outreach and Education Programs ...... 3-31 Table 3-22: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker ...... 3-33 Table 4-1: Hotchkiss Climate Statistics...... 4-3 Table 4-2: 2018 Town of Hotchkiss Stakeholder List ...... 4-3 Table 4-3: Town of Hotchkiss Document Review Crosswalk ...... 4-5 Table 4-4: Town of Hotchkiss Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix ...... 4-6 Table 4-5: Town of Hotchkiss - Critical Facility Counts ...... 4-8 Table 4-6: Town of Hotchkiss - Linear Utilities ...... 4-8 Table 4-7: Town of Hotchkiss - Parcel Counts and Value ...... 4-9 Table 4-8: Town of Hotchkiss Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values ...... 4-9

xi DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-9: Dam Failure Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 4-13 Table 4-10: Town of Hotchkiss Population Exposure to Dam Failure in Delta County ...... 4-14 Table 4-11: Town of Hotchkiss Parcel Values at Risk from Dam Inundation ...... 4-16 Table 4-12: Critical Infrastructure Points in Dam Inundation Zones ...... 4-17 Table 4-13: Miles of Critical Infrastructure (Linear) in Dam Inundation Zones ...... 4-18 Table 4-14: Flood Insurance Statistics for the Town of Hotchkiss ...... 4-25 Table 4-15: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 4-26 Table 4-16: Summary of Population Exposure to Flood ...... 4-27 Table 4-17: Town of Hotchkiss - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones ...... 4-28 Table 4-18: 100-YR Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type ...... 4-29 Table 4-19: 500-YR Flood Loss Estimation by Occupancy Type (Town of Hotchkiss)...... 4-30 Table 4-20: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain ...... 4-31 Table 4-21: Critical Facilities (Linear) in the Floodplain – Town of Hotchkiss ...... 4-32 Table 4-22: Problem Statements by Hazard...... 4-35 Table 4-23: Town of Hotchkiss 's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities ...... 4-37 Table 4-24: Town of Hotchkiss Administrative and Technical Ability ...... 4-38 Table 4-25: Town of Hotchkiss 's Financial Capabilities ...... 4-39 Table 4-26: Town of Hotchkiss 's Public Outreach and Education Programs ...... 4-39 Table 4-27: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker ...... 4-41 Table 5-1: Orchard City Climate Statistics ...... 5-3 Table 5-2: 2018 Town of Orchard City Stakeholder List ...... 5-4 Table 5-3: Town of Orchard City Document Review Crosswalk ...... 5-5 Table 5-4: Town of Orchard City Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix ...... 5-6 Table 5-5: Town of Orchard City - Critical Facility Counts ...... 5-8 Table 5-6: Town of Orchard City - Linear Utilities ...... 5-8 Table 5-7: Town of Orchard City - Parcel Counts and Value ...... 5-9 Table 5-8: Town of Orchard City Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values ...... 5-10 Table 5-9: Dam Failure Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 5-13 Table 5-10: Town of Orchard City Population Exposure to Dam Failure in Delta County ...... 5-14 Table 5-11: Town of Orchard City Parcel Values at Risk from Dam Inundation ...... 5-16 Table 5-12: Critical Infrastructure Points in Dam Inundation Zones ...... 5-17 Table 5-13: Miles of Critical Infrastructure (Linear) in Dam Inundation Zones ...... 5-19 Table 5-14: Flood Insurance Statistics for the Town of Orchard City ...... 5-27 Table 5-15: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 5-28 Table 5-16: Summary of Population Exposure to Flood ...... 5-30 Table 5-17: Town of Orchard City - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones ...... 5-30 Table 5-18: 100-YR Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type ...... 5-31 Table 5-19: 500-YR Flood Loss Estimation by Occupancy Type (Town of Orchard City) ...... 5-32 Table 5-20: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain ...... 5-33 Table 5-21: Critical Facilities (Linear) in the Floodplain – Town of Orchard City ...... 5-34 Table 5-22: Problem Statements by Hazard...... 5-39 Table 5-23: Town of Orchard City's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities ...... 5-42

xii DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 5-24: Town of Orchard City’s Administrative and Technical Ability ...... 5-43 Table 5-25: Town of Orchard City's Financial Capabilities ...... 5-44 Table 5-26: Town of Orchard City's Public Outreach and Education Programs ...... 5-44 Table 5-27: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker ...... 5-47 Table 6-1: Paonia Climate Statistics ...... 6-3 Table 6-2: 2018 Town of Paonia Stakeholder List...... 6-3 Table 6-3: Town of Paonia Document Review Crosswalk ...... 6-5 Table 6-4: Town of Paonia Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix ...... 6-6 Table 6-5: Town of Paonia - Critical Facility Counts ...... 6-8 Table 6-6: Town of Paonia - Linear Utilities ...... 6-8 Table 6-7: Town of Paonia - Parcel Counts and Value ...... 6-9 Table 6-8: Town of Paonia Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values ...... 6-9 Table 6-9: Dam Failure Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 6-13 Table 6-10: Town of Paonia Population Exposure to Dam Failure ...... 6-14 Table 6-11: Town of Paonia Parcel Values at Risk from Dam Inundation ...... 6-16 Table 6-12: Critical Infrastructure Points in Dam Inundation Zones ...... 6-17 Table 6-13: Miles of Critical Infrastructure (Linear) in Dam Inundation Zones...... 6-18 Table 6-14: Flood Insurance Statistics for the Town of Paonia ...... 6-25 Table 6-15: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 6-26 Table 6-16: Summary of Population Exposure to Flood ...... 6-28 Table 6-17: Town of Paonia - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones ...... 6-28 Table 6-18: 100-YR Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type ...... 6-29 Table 6-19: 500-YR Flood Loss Estimation by Occupancy Type (Town of Paonia) ...... 6-30 Table 6-20: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain ...... 6-32 Table 6-21: Critical Facilities (Linear) in the Floodplain – Town of Paonia ...... 6-33 Table 6-22: Slope Failure Vulnerability Snap Shot ...... 6-35 Table 6-23: Paonia Population Exposed to Slope ...... 6-36 Table 6-24: Improved Residential Parcel Exposure to Slope Failure ...... 6-38 Table 6-25: Critical Infrastructure with Slope Exposure ...... 6-39 Table 6-26: Transportation and Lifelines with Slope Exposure ...... 6-40 Table 6-27: Problem Statements by Hazard ...... 6-43 Table 6-28: Town of Paonia's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities...... 6-46 Table 6-29: Town of Paonia Administrative and Technical Ability ...... 6-47 Table 6-30: Town of Paonia's Financial Capabilities ...... 6-48 Table 6-31: Town of Paonia's Public Outreach and Education Programs ...... 6-48 Table 6-32: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker ...... 6-51 Table 7-1: 2018 Delta County School District Stakeholder List ...... 7-6 Table 7-2: City of Delta Document Review Crosswalk ...... 7-8 Table 7-3: Delta County School District Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix ...... 7-9 Table 7-4: Delta County School District Building Count and Value ...... 7-9 Table 7-5: Delta County School District Building Count and Replacement Cost ...... 7-10 Table 7-6: Problem Statements by Hazard ...... 7-15

xiii DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 7-7: Delta County School District Administrative and Technical Capabilities Summary ...... 7-16 Table 7-8: Delta County School District Fiscal Capabilities ...... 7-16 Table 7-9: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker ...... 7-19 Table 8-1: Cedaredge Fire Protection District 2018 MJHMP Update Stakeholder List ...... 8-4 Table 8-2: Delta Fire Protection District 2018 MJHMP Update Stakeholder List ...... 8-4 Table 8-3: Hotchkiss Fire Protection District 2018 MJHMP Update Stakeholder List ...... 8-5 Table 8-4: Paonia Fire Protection District 2018 MJHMP Update Stakeholder List...... 8-5 Table 8-5: MJHMP Mitigation Action Record of Revision Review ...... 8-5 Table 8-6: Populations within Fire Districts ...... 8-8 Table 8-7: Fire District Critical Facility Matrix ...... 8-10 Table 8-8: Fire Protection District Linear Utilities Matrix ...... 8-11 Table 8-9: Fire Protection Districts- Parcel Counts and Value ...... 8-11 Table 8-10: Total Area with Wildfire Risk (PER DISTRICT) ...... 8-13 Table 8-11: Wildfire Vulnerability Analysis Snap Shot –Cedaredge FPD ...... 8-21 Table 8-12: Wildfire Vulnerability Analysis Snap Shot – Crawford FPD...... 8-21 Table 8-13: Wildfire Vulnerability Analysis Snap Shot – Delta County FPD ...... 8-21 Table 8-14: Wildfire Vulnerability Analysis Snap Shot – Hotchkiss FPD ...... 8-21 Table 8-15: Wildfire Vulnerability Analysis Snap Shot – Paonia FPD ...... 8-21 Table 8-16:Population in High and Highest Wildfire Zones per Fire District ...... 8-22 Table 8-17: Cedaredge FPD Buildings and Content within Fire Intensity Zones ...... 8-23 Table 8-18: Crawford FPD Buildings and Content within Fire Intensity Zones ...... 8-23 Table 8-19: Delta County FPD Buildings and Content within Fire Intensity Zones...... 8-23 Table 8-20: Hotchkiss FPD Buildings and Content within Fire Intensity Zones ...... 8-24 Table 8-21: Paonia FPD Buildings and Content within Fire Intensity Zones ...... 8-24 Table 8-22: High and Highest Critical Facility Exposure to Wildfire...... 8-25 Table 8-23: Lifelines with Wildfire Risk ...... 8-26 Table 8-24: Fire Stations at Risk ...... 8-26 Table 8-25: Fire Protection District Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix ...... 8-28 Table 8-26: Problem Statements by Hazard...... 8-30 Table 8-27: Fire District Equipment Capabilities ...... 8-32 Table 8-28: Fire District Staff Capabilities ...... 8-33 Table 8-29: Fire District Regulatory / Planning Capabilities...... 8-34 Table 8-30: Fire District Public Outreach/ Education Capabilities ...... 8-34 Table 8-31: Fire District Funding Mechanisms/ Capabilities...... 8-35 Table 8-32: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker ...... 8-37

xiv

MUNICIPAL ANNEXES

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

Section 1. CITY OF DELTA

1-1

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

1-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

City of Delta Adoption Records (TO BE INCLUDED AFTER FEMA APPROVAL)

To comply with DMA 2000, the Delta City Council has officially adopted the 2018 Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 and the City of Delta Volume 2 Annex. The adoption of the 2018 MJHMP in its entirety recognizes the City’s commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards within the City and County. See the following record of Adoption.

1-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

1-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.1 Purpose

This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City of Delta. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document but appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the City. This Annex provides additional information specific to the City of Delta, with a focus on providing additional details on the planning process, risk assessment, and mitigation strategy for this community. Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Betsy Suerth, Public Works and Utilities Director Luke Fedler, Chief of Police 640 W 4th St 215 W 5th St Delta, CO 81416 Delta, CO 81416 Telephone: (970) 874-7566 x258 Telephone: (970) 874-7676 e-mail Address: [email protected] e-mail Address: [email protected] 1.2 Introduction

Delta’s unique geographical setting and its rich history create a strong sense of place and a special community character. Located at the confluence of the Uncompahgre and Gunnison Rivers, Delta is well situated at the crossroads of US 50 and State Highway 92. It is the gateway to the Gunnison River Valley and the rich agricultural lands located adjacent to Paonia, Hotchkiss, and the slopes of the Grand Mesa. (City of Delta Comprehensive Master Plan, 2008)

1.2.1 Geography and Climate Delta, Colorado, gets 10 inches of rain per year. The US average is 39. Snowfall is 44 inches. The average US city gets 26 inches of snow per year. The number of days with any measurable precipitation is 25. On average, there are 237 sunny days per year in Delta, Colorado. The July high is around 93 degrees. The January low is 15. (Delta, Colorado, n.d.) Table 1-1 shows Delta climate statistics.

Table 1-1: Delta Climate Statistics Description Avg. Rating Annual high temperature: 66.4°F Annual low temperature: 35°F Average temperature: 50.7°F Average annual precipitation - rainfall: 10 inches Days per year with precipitation - rainfall: - Annual hours of sunshine: - Av. annual snowfall: -

Source: www.usclimatedata.com

1-5 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 1-1: City of Delta Location

1.2.2 Historical Overview Considered the first identifiable human inhabitants of the region, the Fremont people traversed the valley during hunting and gathering trips and cultivated crops such as corn, squash and beans. After the Fremont disappeared around 1200 A.D., Ute bands, who were primarily hunters and gatherers attracted by the mild winters and proximity to abundant game, became the primary residents of the area. The Utes remained the dominant inhabitants until they were forcefully removed to Indian reservations in southwest Colorado and northeast Utah.

The Delta area was recognized by early settlers as a favorable location for fruit growing and other agriculture. A flourishing agricultural industry emerged at the east end of the valley as water was diverted from the Gunnison and Uncompahgre Rivers to fill the extensive network of ditches and canals.

Railroads were completed through Delta in 1890, providing easy access for local growers. Refrigerated railroad cars were the primary transportation method for shipping fruit until the late 1970s when truck transport became dominant.

Coal mining has played a significant role in the history of the Delta area. The Somerset mine area ships coal to the nation by rail which runs through Delta.

1-6 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.3 Planning Methodology

The City of Delta followed the planning process detailed in Volume 1, Section 3 of the base plan. In addition to providing representation on the Delta County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and Steering Committee, the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process requirements. Internal planning participants, their positions, and how they participated in the planning process are shown in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2: 2018 City of Delta Stakeholder List

Planning Committee Dept. / Members Position / Role Betsy Suerth, Public Works and Utilities Director Steering Committee Rep. Luke Fedler, Chief of Police Steering Committee Rep. Glen Black, Community Development Director Steering Committee Rep. Bill Chick, Public Works and Utilities Supervisor Steering Committee Rep. Andy Mitchell, Chief WWTP Operator Steering Committee Rep.

1.4 What’s New

The City of Delta has been making improvements toward reducing natural hazard risks to life and property within the City since the 2008 HMP was adopted. Significant risk reduction efforts have been made in the categories of drainage maintenance, stormwater capital improvement projects, and structural projects. These successful programs, projects and planning documents are summarized below.

1.4.1 Road Drainage Inspection and Maintenance (2016) in the City Limits from June 8, 2016 to July 14, 2016. The City staff evaluated 606 segments of road inspecting the following drainage elements; road crown, road shoulder, culverts, ditches, curb and gutter, inlet structures, retention ponds, detention ponds, and road ponding. Each element was rated either none, good or poor with a section for further notes. Each element was inspected for certain function:

1. Road crown - adequate slope to allow drainage flow to shoulder. 2. Road shoulder - drainage flow function. 3. Culverts - passage of flow, structure condition 4. Ditches - carrying ability (slope, vegetation interference) 5. Curb and gutter - flow function and inlet structures condition 6. Retention and detention ponds - function & capacity 7. Ponding- recorded pooling areas in roads and sidewalk areas

A drainage element that was indicated in "Poor" condition triggered a list of work orders for the Public Works Crew to address drainage issues over the winter. In-house public works crews conducted targeted street sweeping, shoulder grading, culvert cleaning and weed control to mitigate the identified drainage issues during the 2016-2017 winter season and in the spring of 2017.

1-7 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.4.2 Storm Water Capital Improvement Projects (2016 through 2018) In 2016 the City of Delta completed a major downtown Storm Water Infrastructure Improvement Project that involved installation of approximately 6,000 lineal feet of storm water pipe, 2 conflict concrete boxes, 20 manholes, and 15 inlets along 2nd Street, 5th Street and 6 blocks of Main Street Alleys. The overall project focus was on the improvement of the existing downtown storm water infrastructure and directing overland storm water flow to an underground conveyance system. The project has proven its value since then, and the City has continued with additional phases of the improvements in 2017 and 2018. The table below summarizes those projects along with other drainage improvements. The below list represents stormwater improvement capital projects from 8/1/2016 through 4/30/2018. Project Date Cost H Road Drainage Improvements 8/25/2016 $ 3,558 8/21/2017 $ 100,386 10/14/2017 $ 1,961

Howard Street Storm Pipe Replacement 12/4/2017 $ 32,940 12/16/2017 $ 11,836

1st and Grand Storm Pipe Replacement 9/14/2017 $ 42,542

2nd Street Stormwater Improvements Design Costs 7/30/2018 $ 180 6/26/2018 $ 516 5/23/2018 $ 4,131

1st and Palmer Stormwater Improvements 4/12/2018 $ 880 3/13/2018 $550

Total Drainage Improvement Capital Expenditures

$203,062 1.4.3 Downtown Drainage Improvements Localized flooding in Downtown Delta had been a reoccurring problem for residents and business on Main Street. Because the street could carry so much water and there was no system in place to convey stormwater underground, it flowed through the streets and into basements of nearby businesses. Sump pumps, located in the basements of many downtown Delta businesses, were formerly tied in to the sewer system.

The City of Delta Public Works Team began in 2008 with the development of a comprehensive stormwater master plan to fix the above-mentioned problems. The study, completed by URS, identified the downtown area as the number one priority. Projects identified by URS included new stormwater convenience measures such as new piping, re-use of detention ponds and other measures to reduce stormwater infiltration into basements and wastewater treatment system piping.

1-8 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

As a result of new construction, the stormwater conveyance system now carries water to two large detention ponds, one at 5th and Confluence Drive and the other on Kellogg Street. Detention ponds allow settling to occur, which reduces the amount of selenium, sediment loads and total dissolved solids entering rivers and streams.

The project included the installation of approximately 6,000 lineal feet of storm water pipe ranging in size from 18 to 54 inches in diameter. The project area encompassed 2nd Street from Dodge to Grand, 5th Street from Silver to Highway 50, and six blocks of alleys from 2nd to 5th on both sides of Main.

Tie-ins from sump pumps in basements have reduced the amount of water being conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant. On average, the reduction of approximately 34,000 gallons per day is saving $48.62 in treatment costs. In addition to saving the expense of treating that stormwater, many businesses no longer have to furnish electricity to sump pumps around the clock.

During the project, the city's contractor also replaced water valves, lowered water lines, replaced concrete and asphalt, upgraded ADA ramps and paved the alleys from 2nd to 5th. Road reconstruction and pavement overlays further improved street and drainage conditions in the downtown area.

The project cost was $1,561,221, which was supported with a two-thirds grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs.

1.4.4 Delta Urban Renewal Plan (Completed 2017) The Delta Urban Renewal Plan Act (DURA) allows for a wide range of activities to be used in the implementation of an urban renewal plan. In the case of this Plan, it is the Authority’s intent to undertake the Urban Renewal Project to stimulate private investment in cooperation with property owners, developers, stakeholders and other affected parties in order to prevent and eliminate blight. Public-private partnerships and other forms of cooperative development will be critical to DURA’s strategy for eliminating existing blight conditions and preventing the spread and reoccurrence of blight within the area.

The leveraging of resources is essential as no one entity, either public or private, has sufficient resources alone to sustain a long-term improvement efforts. According to DURA typical public infrastructure investments may include but are not limited to: completing utilities and improving storm water drainage capacity and flood mitigation improvements; and, creating special districts or other financing mechanisms. 1.5 Risk Assessment

The intent of this section is to profile the City of Delta’s hazards and assess the City’s vulnerability separate from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been assessed in Volume 1, Section 4 (Risk Assessment). The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the planning area and describes the hazard problem description, hazard extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard profile information specific to the City of Delta is included in this section of the Annex. This vulnerability assessment analyzes the property, population, critical facilities, and other assets at risk to hazards specific to the City of Delta. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Section 4 Risk Assessment in Volume 1.

1-9 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Each hazard vulnerability assessment for the City of Delta Annex includes a brief hazard profile for each significant hazard with the potential to affect the City. The intent of this section is to provide jurisdictional specific information on hazards and further describe how the hazards and risks differ across the planning area.

1.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria Per FEMA Guidance, the first step in developing the Risk Assessment is identifying the hazards. The City Planning Committee reviewed a number of previously prepared hazard mitigation plans and other relevant documents to determine the universe of natural hazards that have the potential to affect the City. Table 1-3 provides a crosswalk of hazards identified in the 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan- City of Delta Annex, 2008 City of Delta Comprehensive Master Plan, 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Sixteen different hazards were identified based on a thorough document review. The crosswalk was used to develop a preliminary hazards list providing a framework for the City’s Planning Team members to evaluate which hazards were truly relevant to the City and which ones are not. For example, erosion and deposition was considered to have no relevance to the City, while floods were indicated in every hazard documentation.

Table 1-3: City of Delta Document Review Crosswalk Hazards 2008 Delta County 2008 City of Delta 2008 Delta County 2013 Colorado HMP - City of Delta Comprehensive Hazard Mitigation Natural Hazards Annex Master Plan Plan Mitigation Plan ■ ■ Avalanche

Climate Change ■ ■ Dam Failure ■ ■ ■ Drought Earthquake ■ ■ Erosion and ■ Deposition Expansive Soils ■ ■ Extreme Heat ■ Flood ■ ■ ■ ■ Geologic Hazards ■ Hazardous Materials ■ ■ Landslide Severe Weather ■ ■ ■ Tornado Wildfire ■ ■ Winter Storms ■ ■

1-10 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking The City of Delta’s Planning Team used the same hazard prioritization process as the Delta County Planning Committee. This process is described in detail in Section 4.3.1 of Volume 1. Table 1-4 shows the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise. Based upon the hazard risk rating dam failure, drought and flood will be profiled as priority hazards in the City’s Annex.

Table 1-4: City of Delta Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix

Impact

Catastrophic Critical Limited Minor

Highly

Likely

Likely Drought

Possible Flood Probability

Wildfire,

Unlikely Dam Failure Geohazards, Severe Winter Weather

1.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk This section presents the vulnerability assessment for the City of Delta and identifies the City’s total assets at risk, including people, values at risk, critical facilities and infrastructure. Growth and development trends are also presented for the community. This data is not hazard specific but is representative of total assets at risk within the community. 1.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory In order to describe vulnerability for each hazard, it is important to understand the “total” population and “total” assets at risk within the City. The exposure for each hazard described in this section will refer to the percent of total population or percent of total assets similar to Volume 1. This provides the possible significance or vulnerability to people and assets for the natural hazard event and the estimated damage and losses expected during a “worst case scenario” event for each hazard. Sections below provide a description of the total population, critical facilities, and parcel exposure inputs.

1-11 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Population In order to develop hazard-specific vulnerability assessments, populations near natural hazard risks have been determined to understand the total “at risk” population. We can understand how geographically defined hazards may affect the City by analyzing the extent of the hazard in relation to the location of population. For purposes of the vulnerability assessment approximately 8,7111 (100%) of the City’s population is exposed to one or more hazards within or near the City boundaries. Each natural hazard scenario affects the City residents differently depending on the location of the hazard and the population density of where the hazard could occur. Vulnerability assessment sections presented later in this section summarize the population exposure for each natural hazard.

Vulnerable Populations The severity of a disaster depends on both the physical nature of the extreme event and the socioeconomic nature of the populations affected by the event. Important socioeconomic factors tend to influence disaster severity. A core concept in a vulnerability analysis is that different people, even within the same region, have a different vulnerability to natural hazards. Income or wealth is one of the most important factors in natural hazard vulnerability. This economic factor affects vulnerability of low income populations in several ways. Lower income populations are less able to afford housing and other infrastructure that can withstand extreme events. Low income populations are less able to purchase resources needed for disaster response and are less likely to have insurance policies that can contribute to recovery efforts. Lower income elderly populations are less likely to have access to medical care due to financial hardship. Because of these and other factors, when disaster strikes, low income residences are far more likely to be injured or left without food and shelter during and after natural disasters.

Children and the elderly tend to be more vulnerable during an extreme natural disaster. They have less physical strength to survive disasters and are often more susceptible to certain diseases. The elderly often also have declining vision and hearing and often miss reports of upcoming natural hazard events. Children, especially young children, have the inability to provide for themselves. In many cases, both children and the elderly depend on others to care for them during day to day life. Finally, both children and the elderly have fewer financial resources and are frequently dependent on others for survival. In order for these populations to remain resilient before and after a natural hazard event, it may be necessary to augment City residents with resources provided by the City, County, State and Federal emergency management agencies and organizations.

1.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory Critical facilities are of concern when conducting hazard mitigation planning. Critical facilities are defined as essential services, and if damaged, would result in severe consequences to the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

1 According to the 2016 Colorado DOLA Demography Office, the total population for the City of Delta was approx. 8,711 people.

1-12 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

An inventory of critical facilities based on data from the City of Delta, Delta County and other publicly sourced information were used to develop a comprehensive inventory of facility points and lifelines for the City. Critical facility points include fire stations, schools, transportation, utilities, and government buildings. Lifelines include communication, electric power, liquid fuel, natural gas, and transportation routes. A current representation of the critical facilities and lifelines in the City of Delta are provided in Table 1-5 and Table 1-6. The City of Delta Public Works Department and the County GIS Department manages and maintains a complete list of critical facilities.

Table 1-5: City of Delta - Critical Facility Counts

Infrastructure Type Total Feature Count

Essential Facility 15 EOC 1 Fire Station 1 Hospital 1 Police Station 3 School 9 High Potential Loss 42 Child Care Licensed 11 Essential Facility High Potential Loss Dam - Transportation and Lifeline Gas Well (Permits) - Health Facility Licensed 14 Other Government 17 Prison - Transportation and Lifeline 10 Airport - Bridge 2 County Cell Towers 5 Power Plant 1 Waste Water Facility 1 Water Utility - Water Wells 1 Grand Total 67

1-13 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 1-6: City of Delta - Linear Utilities

Infrastructure Type (Linear Mileage) Total Linear Mileage

Railroad 7.4 Irrigation 22.3 Roads 110.9 Local road 47.4 Major road 31.4 4WD trail 0.8 Alley 8.0 Driveway 0.6 Highway 22.2 Cul-de-sac 0.6 Grand Total 140.7 1.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory Total count and value of address points within the City of Delta which could be exposed to a hazard event is referred to as parcel exposure in this Annex. A standardized hazard overlay was conducted to develop hazard exposure results for improved City parcels presented later in this section. For more information on this exposure method see Volume 1, Section 4. In the event of a disaster, it is generally the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land that is of concern or at risk. Generally, the land itself is not a total loss and structures can be rebuilt. The Delta County Assessor’s data is pivotal to developing parcel values exposed to each hazard and includes assessed value at risk. City of Delta parcel information is summed and provided in Table 1-7. Both the market value and content value are the total value in the community at risk to a particular hazard.

Table 1-7: City of Delta- Parcel Counts and Value

Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Delta 3,174 $ 429,717,689 $ 293,221,284 $ 722,938,973

Total market value as provided by Delta County. Content value calculated using content multipliers per Hazus occupancy classes per county land use designation. Total value is the sum of total market value and total content value.

1.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory FEMA’s loss estimation software, Hazus-MH 4.0, was used to analyze the City’s building risk to flood hazards. A Hazus level II assessment was performed leveraging county-wide assessor’s data in lieu of default Hazus data. Hazus software operates on structure square footage, structure replacement, and content replacement costs to estimate potential losses specific to a modeled flood scenario. Table 1-8 and Figure 1-2 provide input value data for occupancy classes derived from assessor’s data to match FEMA modeling standards.

1-14 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 1-8: City of Delta Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values Building Content Value Value Proportion of Building Type Building Value ($) Content Value ($) Total Value ($) (% of grand (% of grand Value (%) total) total *) Agricultural $ 7,583,778 1.0% $ 7,583,778 1.0% $ 15,167,556 2% Commercial $ 79,767,191 11.0% $ 86,705,823 12.0% $ 166,473,014 23% Education $ 14,980,981 2.1% $ 14,980,981 2.1% $ 29,961,962 4% Governmental $ 19,142,603 2.6% $ 19,142,603 2.6% $ 38,285,206 5% Industrial $ 7,597,124 1.1% $ 11,395,685 1.6% $ 18,992,809 3% Religion $ 6,178,798 0.9% $ 6,178,798 0.9% $ 12,357,596 2% Residential $ 294,467,214 40.7% $ 147,233,616 20.4% $ 441,700,830 61% Total $ 429,717,689 59% $ 293,221,284 41% $ 722,938,973

Data Source: Delta County Assessor. Building values reflect fair market value where available. If no fair market value is available, this value reflects the assessed improvement value. Content replacement costs are calculated based on assessor's use codes translated to Hazus occupancy classes. Each HAZUS occupancy class prescribes a specific content cost multiplier used to calculate the content cost values shown above. Use codes including a "vacant" description have been removed along with agricultural use codes with no improvement value.

$- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200

Agricultural

Commercial

Education

Governmental

Industrial

Religion

Residential Millions

Building Value ($) Content Value ($)

Figure 1-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Input Values

1-15 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

1-16 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards This section provides the vulnerability assessment, including any quantifiable loss estimates, for those hazards identified as high or medium significant hazards within the City Limits. Impacts of past events and vulnerability of the City to specific hazards are further discussed below (see Section 4.6 in the base plan for more detailed information about these hazards and their impacts on the Delta County planning area).

Methodologies for calculating loss estimates are the same as those described in Section 3.4 of the base plan. An estimate of the vulnerability of the City to each identified priority hazard, in addition to the estimate of risk of future occurrence, is provided in each of the hazard-specific sections that follow.

This Annex provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the City and how hazards may affect population and property within the jurisdiction. Most importantly the mitigation strategy presented in this plan responds to the particular vulnerabilities and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest reduction of vulnerability, which results in saved lives, reduced injuries, reduced property damage, and protection for the environment in the event of a natural hazard. This City Annex provides information for the following natural hazard threats:

Dam Failure Drought Flood SECTION 1.5.9 SECTION 1.5.10 SECTION 1.5.11

1-17 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

1-18 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.5.9 Dam Failure Hazard For a general description of the dam failure hazard, refer to Section 4.7 in Volume 1.

Regulatory Oversight In addition to Federal, State and County regulatory oversight the City of Delta does not have additional regulations surrounding dams and dam safety. See Volume 1, Section 4.7.1 for more information on State and Federal Dam Safety Regulations.

Dam Failure Vulnerability Analysis This section describes vulnerabilities to dam inundation in terms of population, property and infrastructure. The primary danger associated with dam failure is the high velocity flooding downstream of the dam and limited warning times for evacuation. Vulnerability varies by community and depends on the particular dam profile and the nature and extent of the failure. Dam inundation zones provided by Delta County GIS were used to develop exposure for dam failure.

Dam Failure exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using the spatial extent of dam inundation zones and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures, such as federal and local government buildings except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 1-9 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to dam failure. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

Table 1-9: Dam Failure Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Value Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) ($) Facilities Lifeline 3,302 $ 173,463,153 $ 133,596,072 39 75.6 37.5% 40.4% 45.6% 58.2% 53.7% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

1.5.9.2.1 Population Vulnerable populations are all populations downstream from dam failures that are incapable of escaping the area within the allowable time frame. This population includes the elderly and young who may be unable to get themselves out of the inundation area. The vulnerable populations also include those who would not have adequate warning from a television, radio emergency warning system, have not registered with CODE RED, or do not have cell phones that can receive amber alerts. The potential for loss of life is affected by the capacity and number of evacuation routes available to populations living in areas of potential inundation. The entire population in a dam failure inundation zone is exposed to the risk of a dam failure. The estimated population living in the inundation area mapped for this risk assessment is summarized in Figure 1-6 and Table 1-10.

1-19 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3,500 3,302 3,000 Population Exposure 2,500 Population Count by Dam 2,000 Inundation Zone 1,500 820 952 952 1,000 565 349 349 460 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 0

Figure 1-3: City of Delta Population Exposure to Dam Failure

Table 1-10: City of Delta Population Exposure to Dam Failure in Delta County

Total Population Delta 8,813

Dam Inundation Zone Population Count % of Total Barren Dam - 0.00% Deep Slough Dam - 0.00% Donnelly 1 Dam - 0.00% Eggleston Dam - 0.00% Hotel Lake Dam - 0.00% Kennicott Slough Dam - 0.00% Kiser Slough Dam - 0.00% Overland 1 Dam 349 3.96% Overland 1 Auxillary Dam 349 3.96% Ward Creek Dam - 0.00% Ward Lake Dam - 0.00% Crawford Dam 820 9.30% Fruit Growers Dam 460 5.22% Paonia Dam 565 6.41% Silver Jack Dam 154 1.75% Blue Mesa Dam 3,302 37.46% Morrow Point Dam 952 10.80% Crystal Dam 952 10.80% Total* 3,302 37.46% *total population is not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

1-20 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.5.9.2.2 Property Vulnerable properties are those closest to the actual dam or impoundment. These properties would experience the largest, most destructive surge of water. Low-lying areas are also vulnerable since they are where the dam waters would collect. Transportation routes are vulnerable to dam inundation and have the potential to be wiped out, creating isolation issues. This includes all roads, railroads and bridges in the path of the dam inundation. Those that are most vulnerable are those that are already in poor condition and would not be able to withstand a large water surge. Utilities such as overhead power lines, cable and phone lines could also be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional isolation issues for the inundation areas.

The county Assessor’s parcel data and address points were used as the basis for the inventory of current market values and content value summaries. The address points were then overlaid with the inundation zones to determine the at-risk structures. This methodology assumed that every address with a current net value or assessed value was an improved parcel. Building exposure was calculated based on current net values or when absent, assessor’s values as provided by the assessor’s office. Building content exposure was calculated based on occupancy type multipliers and improvement value. Table 1-11 shows the count of at-risk parcels and their associated building and content exposure values to dam failure. A total of $307,059,225 worth of buildings and contents are exposed to dam failure hazards within the City Boundaries representing 42.5% of the total value in the City of Delta.

1-21 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 1-11: City of Delta Parcel Values at Risk from Dam Inundation

Total Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Parcels Delta 3,174 $ 429,717,689 $ 293,221,284 $ 722,938,973

Parcel % of Market Value Exposure Content Value Exposure % of Dam Inundation Zone Total Exposure ($) Count Total ($) ($) Total Barren Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Deep Slough Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Donnelly 1 Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Eggleston Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Hotel Lake Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Kennicott Slough Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Kiser Slough Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Overland 1 Dam 91 2.9% $ 18,326,298.00 $ 13,582,412.00 $ 31,908,710.00 4.41% Overland 1 Auxillary Dam 91 2.9% $ 18,326,298.00 $ 13,582,412.00 $ 31,908,710.00 4.41% Ward Creek Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Ward Lake Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Crawford Dam 272 8.6% $ 54,254,327.00 $ 44,326,470.00 $ 98,580,797.00 13.64% Fruit Growers Dam 139 4.4% $ 19,936,120.00 $ 13,498,835.00 $ 33,434,955.00 4.62% Paonia Dam 197 6.2% $ 44,290,858.00 $ 36,135,850.00 $ 80,426,708.00 11.12%

Silver Jack Dam 41 1.3% $ 24,847,072.00 $ 21,384,292.00 $ 46,231,364.00 6.39% Blue Mesa Dam 1,299 40.9% $ 173,463,153.00 $ 133,596,072.00 $ 307,059,225.00 42.47% Morrow Point Dam 294 9.3% $ 56,111,947.00 $ 45,651,675.00 $ 101,763,622.00 14.08% Crystal Dam 294 9.3% $ 56,111,947.00 $ 45,651,675.00 $ 101,763,622.00 14.08% Dam Inundation Area* 1,299 40.9% $ 173,463,153 $ 133,596,072 $ 307,059,225 42.5% *totals are not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

1.5.9.2.3 Critical Facilities Critical Facilities at risk to dam inundation are on file with the County and for national security purposes can only be accessed through Delta County Emergency Management. As a general note, low-lying areas are vulnerable to dam inundation, especially transportation routes. This includes all roads, railroads, and bridges in the flow path of water. The most vulnerable critical facilities are those in poor condition that would have difficulty withstanding a large surge of water. Utilities such as overhead power lines and communication lines could also be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional compounding issues for emergency management officials attempting to conduct evacuation and response actions. GIS analysis determined that 36 of the planning area’s critical facilities are in a mapped dam inundation area, as summarized in Table 1-12 and Table 1-13.

1-22 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 1-12: Critical Infrastructure Points in Dam Inundation Zones

Dam

Infrastructure Infrastructure Type TotalFeature Count BarrenDam Hazard DeepSlough HazardDam Donnelly1 Dam Hazard EgglestonDam Hazard Lake Dam Hotel Hazard Kennicott SloughDam KiserSlough HazardDam Overland1 Hazard Overland1 AuxillaryDam Hazard WardCreek HazardDam Dam WardLake Hazard CrawfordDam Hazard Growers Fruit HazardDam PaoniaDam Hazard SilverDam Jack Hazard Mesa Dam Blue Hazard MorrowPoint HazardDam Dam Crystal Hazard

Essential Facility 7 ------1 - - - 7 1 1 EOC ------Fire Station 1 ------1 - - Hospital ------Police Station 3 ------3 - - School 3 ------1 - - - 3 1 1 High Potential Loss 26 ------2 2 - - 6 3 6 - 26 6 6 Child Care Licensed 5 ------5 - - Dam ------Gas Well (Permits) ------Health Facility Licensed 6 ------2 2 2 - 6 2 2 Other Government 15 ------2 2 - - 4 1 4 - 15 4 4 Prison ------Transportation and Lifeline 6 ------2 2 - - 3 3 3 2 6 3 3 Airport ------Bridge 2 ------2 2 - - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 County Cell Towers 2 ------2 - - Power Plant ------Waste Water Facility 1 ------1 1 1 - 1 1 1 Water Utility ------Water Wells 1 ------1 - - Grand Total 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 3 3 2 16 5 5 *total count is not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

1-23 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 1-13: Miles of Critical Infrastructure (Linear) in Dam Inundation Zones

Infrastructure

Total Linear Type Mileage (Linear Mileage)

Barren Deep Slough Donnelly1 Eggleston Lake Hotel Kennicott Slough KiserSlough Overland1 Overland1 Auxillary WardCreek WardLake Crawford Fruit Growers Paonia SilverJack BlueMesa Railroad 5.2 ------0.6 0.6 - - 2.4 0.6 2.0 0.7 5.2 Irrigation 15.1 ------6.7 6.7 - - 10.2 7.3 8.5 6.4 15.1 Roads 55.2 ------7.1 7.1 - - 18.1 8.8 13.7 4.2 55.2 Local road 17.1 ------2.3 2.3 - - 5.7 2.1 3.5 1.0 17.1 Major road 15.2 ------2.5 2.5 - - 5.8 3.5 4.4 0.7 15.2 4WD trail 0.2 ------0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Alley 5.0 ------0.1 - - - 5.0 Driveway 0.2 ------0.1 - 0.0 - 0.2 Highway 17.5 ------2.3 2.3 - - 6.5 3.2 5.7 2.5 17.5 Cul-de-sac 0.0 ------0.0 Ramp ------Grand Total 75.6 ------14.4 14.4 - - 30.7 16.7 24.2 11.3 75.6

1-24 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.5.9.2.4 Future Trends in Development The City is aware that future development may occur near flood hazard/ dam failure areas. Code development is regulated by the City’s Flood Plain Management regulations which limits construction FEMA special flood hazard areas. The City’s Comprehensive Master Plan designates the entire Gunnison and Uncompahgre River (100-YR floodplain) as “open space”, recognizing the need to protect these areas from the severe flooding that Delta has experienced in the past.

1.5.9.2.5 Summary of Dam Failure Issues Important issues associated with the dam failure hazard include the following:

• There are 27 high hazard dams in Delta County. Not all dam owners have updated EAP to reflect changes in downstream development and new available elevation data.

1-25 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

1-26 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.5.10 Drought Hazard Profile For a general description of the drought hazard, see Section 4.8: Drought Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

The City of Delta has water rights for 3,700 acre feet. Current peak demand is about 1,400 acre feet. The City limits have expanded beyond the City water service area, except for a small area south of the City limits that are within the City water service area. Areas outside the City water service area (including unincorporated parts of the county within the plan area and areas within the City limits) are served by Tri County Water Conservancy District, which provides water to 315 customers within the City. The City has an ongoing agreement with Tri County concerning the boundaries of their respective service areas. The City’s water tap fee is $1,400 for a ¾ inch line plus a basic system improvement fee of $3,000.

The City appears to have enough water rights to sustain residential growth through and beyond the 2030 horizon of the Comprehensive Plan, even under the high growth alternative. (City of Delta Comprehensive Master Plan, 2008)

Regulatory Oversight For Federal and State Regulations regarding Drought, see Section 4.8.2 in Volume 1. The City of Delta does not have any local regulations pertaining to drought.

Drought Vulnerability Analysis Drought produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the economy and reaches well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to the ability to produce goods and provides services. Drought can affect a wide range of economic, environmental and social activities. The vulnerability of an activity to the effects of drought usually depends on its water demand, how the demand is met, and what water supplies are available to meet the demand.

1.5.10.2.1 Population All people, property and environments in Delta would be exposed to some degree to the impacts of moderate to extreme drought conditions. Applying the alternative average annual growth rates from the Master Plan to the City of Delta indicates a 2030 population ranging from a low of about 9,822 to a high of approximately 25,937 with a moderate rate totaling 18,544. (City of Delta Comprehensive Master Plan, 2008)

1.5.10.2.2 Property Drought normally does not directly impact structures. Although water and sewer infrastructure may be affected by drought, other critical facilities are generally not. Data are not available to identify particular hazard areas and/or estimate potential losses to structures. The greatest risk to people from drought is the loss of drinking water supply from water systems and underground aquifers. Secondary impacts from drought, such as wildfire and erosion, can have a significant impact on structures and municipal infrastructure.

1.5.10.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities, as defined for this plan, will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility elements such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning area’s critical facilities inventory

1-27 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

will be largely aesthetic. For example, when water conservation measures are in place, landscaped areas will not be watered and may die. These aesthetic impacts are not considered significant.

1.5.10.2.4 Future Trends in Development As population grows, so do the water needs for household, commercial, industrial, recreation, and agricultural uses. Vulnerability to drought will increase with these growing demands on existing water supplies. Future water use planning in Colorado is complex and has to account for increasing population size as well as the potential impacts of climate change. Urbanized areas of the County, such as the City of Delta, and the agriculture and recreation industries are most likely to experience hardships associated with reduced water supply.

1.5.10.2.5 Summary of Drought Issues Important issues associated with drought include the following:

• Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on average and impact agriculture, recreation, economy, and municipal water availability in the County. The area should expect drought years. • There is a lack of promotion of active water conservation during drought and non-drought periods.

1-28 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.5.11 Flood Hazard Profile Flash floods are caused by excessive rainfall, rapid snowmelt or sudden release of water from a blockage in the drainage system. For a general description of the flood hazard, see Section 4.9: Flood Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

Principal Flood Problems

Flooding from general rain is characterized by high peak flows and moderate duration of floodflows. Flooding from convective-type cloudburst storms is characterized by high peak flows, short duration of flow, and relatively small volumes of runoff. Because cloudburst storms are small in areal extent and short in duration, they do not constitute a flood threat on streams as large as the Gunnison, North Fork Gunnison, or Uncompahgre Rivers.

Historical references to floods on Gunnison River extend back to 1884. In that year, early high temperatures in May and June resulted in the largest known snowmelt flood on this river. At the City of Delta, Gunnison River was reported to be 10 feet above bankfull stage, with an approximate 0.75-mile width. Many wooden bridges along the river were destroyed by this flood. Larger historical floods on the Gunnison River occurred in 1884, 1917, 1920, 1921, 1928, 1929, 1933, 1941, 1942, 1944, 1952, 1957, and 1984. (Flood Insurance Study for Delta, Colorado and Incorporated Areas, 2010) Figure 1-4 shows the location of flood hazard zones in the City of Delta.

Regulatory Oversight For Federal, State and County Regulations regarding Drought, see Section 4.9.2: Flood Hazard Profile in Volume 1 of the Base Plan.

1.5.11.1.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Delta County and incorporated areas. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent annual chance flood and the 0.2-percent annual chance flood (the 500-YR flood). Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-YR floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program.

Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met:

New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 100-YR flood.

• New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties.

• New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species.

1-29 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 1-4: City of Delta Flood Hazards

1-30 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

The City of Delta entered the NFIP on May 24th, 1974. Structures permitted or built in the City before then are called “pre- FIRM” structures, and structures built afterwards are called “post-FIRM.” The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures. The effective date for the current countywide FIRM is August 19th, 2010.

The City is currently in good standing with the provisions of the NFIP. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk reduction. The City has identified initiatives to maintain their compliance and good standing. The City will continue to comply by identifying flood plains on new subdivision proposals and final plats. Building permit requirements mandate Flood Plain permits where identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Sanitation permits also require compliance with the ordinance. The City will incorporate and reference DFIRM maps in regulations as new floodplains are mapped. Audits of regulations will ensure compliance with NFIP in all program areas.

Properties constructed after a FIRM has been adopted are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to decrease vulnerability. Properties built before a FIRM is adopted are more vulnerable to flooding because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas.

Table 1-14 lists NFIP statistics for the City. The statistics show that 2 flood insurance claims have been paid as of May 31st, 2017 for a total of $5,223.

Table 1-14: Flood Insurance Statistics for the City of Delta NFIP Status & Information City of Delta

NFIP Status Participating since 5/24/74 CRS Class 8 Policies in Force 16 Policies in SFHA 9 Policies in non-SFHA 7 Total Claims Paid 2 Paid Losses $5,223 Repetitive Loss Properties 0 Severe Repetitive Loss Properties 0 Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Building 0 Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Contents 0

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a) restricts the release of certain types of data to the public. Flood insurance policy and claims data are included in the list of restricted information. FEMA can only release such data to state and local governments, and only if the data are used for floodplain management, mitigation, or research purposes. Therefore, this plan does not identify the repetitive loss properties or include claims data for any individual property.

1-31 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.5.11.1.2 Community Rating System (CRS) The City of Delta has been participating in the CRS program since October 1st, 1996. The city’s CRS status is as follows:

. NFIP Community #: 080043

. CRS Entry Date: October 1st, 1996

. Current CRS Classification: 8

. Premium Discount, SFHA/non-SFHA: 10%/5%

The City of Delta recognized that the benefits of CRS extend beyond flood insurance premium discounts. Despite having less than 20 NFIP policyholders in the entire community, the City has actively participated in the program since 1996 and is currently rated as CRS Class 8. Delta receives credit points for a number of ongoing and routine municipal activities, including significant points for open space preservation and drainage system maintenance. The City also gets credit for public outreach activities administered by its Community Development Department, such as annual mailings to local realtors and insurance companies about floodplain management, hazard disclosure, and its participation in CRS. The City has also promoted the advantages of purchasing flood insurance at public meetings, presentations to community groups, and through local newspaper articles. (Community Rating System, n.d.)

The CRS Repetitive Loss Program provides all of the different activities that FEMA tracks and credits as part of normal City planning. One of the benefits listed in obtaining a rating in the CRS Program is that every Flood Insurance Policyholder in the City then receives a discount on a portion of their annual flood insurance policy premium. This discount is 5% for every Class rating that is achieved. The City currently qualifies for a Class 8 rating which results in a 10% discount. The City has 16 flood insurance policies in effect and has had 2 total claims paid equaling $5,223. There are no repetitive loss properties.

Flood Vulnerability Analysis This section describes vulnerabilities to flooding in terms of population, property and infrastructure. The Level 2 Hazus protocol was used to assess the exposure to flooding in the planning area. The model used property value and building characteristics at the parcel/building level, FEMA floodplain data, and National Elevation Dataset topography to estimate potential flooding impacts.

Flood exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using FEMA 100-YR and 500-YR flood zones and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures, such as federal and local government buildings except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 1-15 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to flooding. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

1-32 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 1-15: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Value Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) ($) Facilities Lifeline 267 $ 11,533,923 $ 10,110,188 4 11.5 3.0% 2.7% 3.4% 6.0% 8.2% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

* numbers for 100yr and 500yr combined

1.5.11.2.1 Population

Population 300 267 Exposure *Total 100-year floodplain **Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain Population Count 250 ***Total 500-YR floodplain, includes 230100 -year floodplain in the 100-YR and 500-YR Floodplains 200 172

150

100

58 50 37

- 100-Year 100-Year, Floodway 100-Year Total* 500-Year** 500-Year Total***

*Total 100-year floodplain Figure 0-5: **IncludesCity of Delta only Population additional area Exposed outside to of Flood 100-year floodplain ***Total 500-YR floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain Population counts of those living in the floodplain were generated by analyzing County assessor and parcel data that intersect with the 100-YR and 500-YR floodplains identified on FIRMs within the City of Delta. Using GIS, Colorado DOLA Bureau information was used to intersect the FEMA identified floodplains within the City limits. An estimate of population was calculated by weighting the population within each census block. The exposure results indicate the percentage of total population living within a flood risk area. Using this approach, it was estimated that a total of 230 people are exposed to flood risk from the 100-YR floodplain (2.61% of the total City population) and 267 people are exposed to risk from the 500- YR floodplain (3.03% of the total City Population), as shown in Figure 1-6.

1-33 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 1-6: City of Delta Population Exposure to Flood

Total Population

Delta 8,813

Flood Hazard Zone Population Count % of Total

100-Year 172 1.95% 100-Year, Floodway 58 0.66% 100-Year Total* 230 2.61% 500-Year** 37 0.42% 500-Year Total*** 267 3.03%

1.5.11.2.2 Property GIS was used to determine the possible impacts of flooding within the City of Delta. The methodology described in Section 4.9.10.2 of Volume 1 was followed in determining structures and values at risk to the FEMA identified 1% (100-YR) and 0.2% (500-YR) annual chance flood event.

Table 1-16 summarizes the number of improved parcels and property value within the City of Delta’s FEMA identified floodplains. GIS models determined that there are 27 parcels within the 100-YR floodplain and 40 parcels within the 500- YR floodplain. This methodology also estimated $7,836,522 worth of building-and-contents exposure to the 100-YR flood, representing 1.1 percent of the total assessed value within the City of Delta, and $21,644,111 worth of building-and- contents exposure to the 500-YR flood, representing 3 percent of the total assessed value within the City of Delta.

Table 1-16: City of Delta - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones Total Total Market Value Total Content Total Value ($) Parcels ($) Value ($) Delta 3,174 $ 429,717,689 $ 293,221,284 $ 722,938,973

Parcel Market Value Content Value Flood Hazard Zone % of Total Total Exposure ($) % of Total Count Exposure ($) Exposure ($) 100-Year Flood 26 0.8% $ 4,395,187 $ 3,326,837 $ 7,722,024 1.1% 100-Year Flood, Floodway 1 0.0% $ 76,332 $ 38,166 $ 114,498 0.0% 100-Year Total* 27 0.9% $ 4,471,519 $ 3,365,003 $ 7,836,522 1.1% 500-Year Flood** 13 0.4% $ 7,062,404 $ 6,745,185 $ 13,807,589 1.9% 500-Year Total*** 40 1.3% $ 11,533,923 $ 10,110,188 $ 21,644,111 3.0%

*Total 100-year floodplain **Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain ***Total 500-year floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain

Note: The table above does not display loss estimation results; the table exhibits total value at risk based upon the hazard overlay and Delta County Assessor data.

1-34 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.5.11.2.3 Flood Damage Estimation FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software models the possible damage of flooding within the City of Delta. The methodology described in Volume 1, Section 4.9.10.3 was followed in determining potential damage associates with the 1% (100-YR) and 0.2% (500-YR) annual chance flood event.

The HAZUS-MH software calculates losses to structures from flooding by analyzing the depth of flooding and type of structure. Using historical flood insurance claim data, HAZUS-MH software estimates the percentage of damage to structures and their contents by applying established damage functions to an inventory. For this analysis, all non-vacant parcels with current market values were used instead of the default inventory data provided with HAZUS-MH software. The analysis for the City of Delta is summarized in Table 1-17 and Figure 1-7 for the 100-YR flood event and Table 1-18 and Figure 1-8 for the 500-YR flood event. Hazus results for the 500-YR flood event resulted in a minimal increased damage over the 100-YR event. It is estimated that there “could” be up to $392,878 of flood damage loss from a 100-YR event and $5,663,665 from a 500-YR flood event in the City of Delta. This modeled loss is assuming all tributaries in the region collect 100-YR and 500-YR event precipitation levels respectively in the watershed. The estimated loss for 100-YR flood event represents 3.5%2 of the total assessed value within the City of Delta. The estimated flood loss for 500-YR event represents 46% of the total assessed value within the City of Delta.

Table 1-17: 100-YR Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type (City of Delta) Building Content Damage Content Damage Proportion of Building Type Building Damage ($) Total Damage ($) (% of grand Damage ($) (% of grand Loss (%) total) total) Agricultural $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Commercial $ 49,145 0.9% $ 125,240 2.2% $ 174,385 44% Education $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Governmental $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Industrial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Religion $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Residential $ 146,424 2.6% $ 72,069 1.3% $ 218,493 56% Total $ 195,569 3.5% $ 197,309 3.5% $ 392,878

2 Note: Total Inventory Values 1 - Building Replacement Costs = $429,717,689.00 2 - Content Replacement Costs = $293,221,284.00 3 - Total Value = $722,938,973.00

1-35 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 1-7: 100-YR Building and Content Estimated Flood Loss by Occupancy Type (City of Delta)

Thousands $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160

Agricultural Commercial Education Governmental Industrial Religion Residential

Building Damage ($) Content Damage ($)

Table 1-18: 500-YR Flood Loss Estimation by Occupancy Type (City of Delta) Building Content Building Damage Damage Content Damage Damage Total Damage Proportion of Loss Building Type ($) (% of grand ($) (% of grand ($) (%) total) total) Agricultural $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Commercial $ 49,212 9.8% $ 125,374 25.1% $ 174,586 35% Education $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Governmental $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Industrial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Religion $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Residential $ 225,998 45.2% $ 99,181 19.8% $ 325,179 65% Total $ 275,210 55% $ 224,555 45% $ 499,764 Note: Total 500-year floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain

Thousands $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 Agricultural Commercial Education Governmental Industrial Religion Residential

Building Damage ($) Content Damage ($)

Figure 1-8: Estimated Building and Content Loss in the 500-YR floodplain by Occupancy Type

1-36 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.5.11.2.4 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure It is important to determine who may be at risk if infrastructure is damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are flooded or damaged can isolate residents and can restrict access throughout the City, including emergency service providers needing to get to vulnerable populations or to make repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by floods or debris also can cause isolation. Water and sewer systems can be flooded or backed up, causing health problems. Underground utilities can be damaged. The following sections describe specific types of critical infrastructure. Table 1-19 summarizes the critical facilities and infrastructure at risk to the 100-YR Flood Zone, 100-YR Floodway and 500-YR Flood Zone within the City of Delta. Details are provided in the following sections.

Table 1-19: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain

500 Year, 100 Year 100 Year 500 Year Infrastructure Type Floodway Outside 100 Flood Zone Total Total Year

Essential Facility - - - - - EOC - - - - - Fire Station - - - - - Hospital - - - - - Police Station - - - - - School - - - - - High Potential Loss 2 - 2 - 2 Child Care Licensed - - - - - Dam - - - - - Gas Well (Permits) - - - - - Health Facility Licensed - - - - - Other Government 2 - 2 - 2 Prison - - - - - Transportation and Lifeline - - - 2 2 Airport - - - - - Bridge - - - 2 2 County Cell Towers - - - - - Power Plant - - - - - Waste Water Facility - - - - - Water Utility - - - - - Water Wells - - - - - Grand Total 2 - 2 2 4

1-37 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Linear Utilities

It is important to determine who may be at risk if infrastructure is damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can isolate residents and can restrict access throughout the City. Table 1-20 shows the linear critical facilities in the floodplain.

Table 1-20: Critical Facilities (Linear) in the Floodplain – City of Delta

500 Year, Infrastructure Type 100 Year Floodway 100 Year Total Outside 100 500 Year Total (Linear Mileage) Flood Zone Year Railroad 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.8 Irrigation 2.2 5.2 7.3 0.4 7.7 Roads 2.4 0.2 2.6 0.5 3.0 Local road 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.3 2.1 Major road 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.6 4WD trail 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 Alley - - - - - Driveway - - - - - Highway 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 Cul-de-sac - - - - - Ramp - - - - - Grand Total 5.12 5.38 10.50 1.01 11.51

1.5.11.2.5 Future Trends in Development The City is aware that future development may occur near flood hazard areas. Building Codes and land use regulations regulate development in areas with known flood risk. Flood Plain Management regulations which limits construction in FEMA special flood hazard areas is a primary tool for the City to protect residents from constructing within high risk flood areas. In addition to flood plain management regulations, the City’s Comprehensive Master Plan designates the entire Gunnison and Uncompahgre River (100-YR floodplain) as “open space”, recognizing the need to protect these areas from the severe flooding that Delta has experienced in the past.

1.5.11.2.6 Summary of Flood Issues Important issues associated with floods include the following:

• Groundwater / Flood Issues at Wastewater Treatment Plant. • Storm water runoff issues within many different municipalities within Delta County. • Potential flood damage to Four Seasons Motel and RV Park. • Crawford Avenue is vulnerable to failure from adjacent return irrigation ditch. • Bill Heddles Recreation Center and other City facilities are located within the FEMA 100-YR floodplain. • City of Delta JD Lift Station in floodplain.

1-38 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.6 Mitigation Strategy

The City of Delta used the same mitigation strategy as Delta County. This is described in detail in Section 5 of Volume 1.

1.6.1 Identifying the Problem As part of the mitigation actions identification process, the City of Delta Planning Committee identified issues and/or weaknesses as a result of the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis. By combining common issues and weaknesses developed by the Planning Committee, the realm of resources needed for mitigating each can be understood. Community issues and weaknesses are presented by individual hazard in Table 1-21. Primary (P) and Secondary (S) jurisdictions are identified for each problem statement. Projects or actions have been developed to mitigate each problem identified. To the degree possible the City of Delta will support County Wide Initiatives. See Volume 1 for related County Wide mitigation actions.

Table 1-21: Problem Statements by Hazard

Problem Mitigation Mitigation Delta Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide City of All Hazard AH-02 No identified shelters have back-up ES DC-01-2018 generators. This includes shelters identified P S within each Municipality. All Hazard AH-03 Many communities in Delta County have PE&A DC-04-2008 particularly high Renter Rates. Most communities are above 30% renter rates. This is an issue as it will be hard to motivate P S absentee owners to mitigate risk on rental units. Town of Hotchkiss has a 56.6% rental rate. All Hazard AH-04 Lack of communication and data transmission ES, PE&A DC-05-2008 lines could affect communications during a natural hazard event including 800 MHz P S transmission towers. Lack of domestic demand for communications inhibits communications providers to provide service in remote areas. All Hazard AH-06 Large percentages of population that do not PE&A CoD-01-2018 speak English in the homes within the City of Delta, outreach to non-English speaking P populations should be focused in the City of Delta.

1-39 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Problem Mitigation Mitigation Delta Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide City of All Hazard AH-07 Hard to find information on spatial hazards and PE&A DC-11-2008, where they are located in the county. The DC-04-2008 County GIS viewer does not show any hazards P S layers or any other information besides base mapping. Dam DF-01 There are 27 high hazard dams in Delta PPRO DC-06-2008 Failure County. Not all dam owners have updated EAP P S to reflect changes in downstream development and new available elevation data. Dam DF-05 3,302 people (37% of the City's population) PRV CoD-11-2018 P Failure could be exposed to a dam failure event. Drought DR-02 Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on PRV, DC-03-2018, average and impact agriculture, recreation, PE&A, DC-02-2018 economy, and municipal water availability in NRP P S the County. The area should expect drought years. Drought DR-03 There is a lack of promotion of active water PE&A, DC-04-2018, conservation during drought and non-drought PRV DC-02-2018 P S periods. Drought DR-07 Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on PE&A CoD-12-2018 average and impact agriculture, recreation and P the economy. The City should expect drought years. Flood FL-01 Flood Risk beyond municipal boundaries or PRV DC-07-2008, flood risk not identified by FEMA floodplains. DC-09-2008, P P DC-08-2008, DC-15-2018 Flood FL-02 Groundwater / Flood Issues at Wastewater SP CoD-02-2018 P Treatment Plant. Flood FL-03 Storm water runoff issues within many SP DC-02-2008 P S different municipalities within Delta County. Flood FL-05 Potential flood damage to Four Seasons Motel SP CoD-02-2008, and RV Park. CoD-08-2018, P DC-09-2008, CoD-01-2008 Flood FL-10 Crawford Avenue is vulnerable to failure from SP CoD-01-2008, P adjacent return irrigation ditch. CoD-04-2018 Flood FL-11 Bill Heddles Recreation Center and other City SP CoD-03-2018 facilities are located within the FEMA 100-YR P floodplain. Flood FL-12 City of Delta JD Lift Station in floodplain. SP CoD-05-2018 P

1-40 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Problem Mitigation Mitigation Delta Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide City of Flood FL-17 Flooding occurs in the pedestrian underpass of SP CoD-10-2018 the Alternate Truck Route (bypass) during minor and major storm events. P Geohazard GH-01 Expansive soils are widespread across the PE&A, DC-03-2008, county, including in areas of new PRV DC-02-2008 P S development, and can affect building foundations, roads, driveways, and etc. Severe SW-01 The City of Delta Municipal Power Supply has ES CoD-06-2018 Weather inadequate back-up for major substation P failure. Severe SW-02 City of Delta powerlines can be damaged by ES CoD-07-2018 P Weather falling tree branches. Severe SW-03 Risk of power supply interruption due to ES DC-16-2018 P S Weather severe storms. Severe SW-04 Vulnerable populations can be isolated by PE&A, ES DC-18-2018, Weather severe storm events especially those with DC-17-2018 functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, P S car dependent etc.…) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages. Wildfire WF-10 10 Cell Phone Towers within the County are PPRO DC-09-2018 located within a "Very High Wildfire Threat P S area.

1.6.2 Capability Assessment The City of Delta identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The mitigation strategy includes an assessment of the City’s planning and regulatory, administrative and technical, financial, and education and outreach capabilities to augment known issues and weaknesses from identified natural hazards.

Planning and Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities The legal and regulatory capabilities of local, state, and federal jurisdictions are shown in Table 1-22, which presents existing ordinances and codes that can regulate the physical or built environment of the City. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordnances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans. The City’s Comprehensive Plan is the constitution guiding new development.

1-41 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 1-22: City of Delta's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities

Plan/ Program/ Regulation Yes or No

Building Codes Yes

Building Codes Year 2003

BCEGS Rating Unknown

Public Protection (ISO Class) See fire district

Capital Improvements Program (CIP) or Plan Yes

Community Rating System (CRS) No

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) See fire district

Comprehensive, Master, or General Plan Yes

Economic Development Plan No

Elevation Certificates Yes

Erosion/Sediment Control Program Yes

Floodplain Management Plan Yes

Flood Insurance Study Yes

Growth Management Ordinance Yes

Hazard-Specific Ordinance or Plan (Floodplain, Steep Slope, Wildfire) Flood damage prevention

NFIP Yes

Site Plan Review Requirements Yes

Stormwater Program, Plan or Ordinance Yes

Zoning Ordinance Yes

1-42 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Administrative and Technical Capabilities Table 1-23 lists the City’s administrative and technical abilities.

Table 1-23: City of Delta’s Administrative and Technical Ability

Administrative/ Technical Resource Yes or No

Emergency Manager County EM

Floodplain Administrator Yes

Community Planning:

- Planner/Engineer (Land Development) Yes

- Planner/Engineer/Scientist (Natural Hazards) No

- Engineer/Professional (Construction) No

- Resiliency Planner No

- Transportation Planner Yes

Full-Time Building Official No

GIS Specialist and Capability Yes

Grant Manager, Writer, or Specialist No

Warning Systems/Services:

- General No

- Flood No

- Wildfire No

- Geological Hazards No

1-43 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Financial Capabilities Table 1-24 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to the City such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard-prone areas.

Table 1-24: City of Delta's Financial Capabilities

Financial Resource

Has community used any of the following to fund mitigation activities:

- Levy for Specific Purposes with Voter Approval No

- Utilities Fees No

- System Development Feed Yes, System Improvement Fee

- General Obligation Bonds to Incur Debt No

- Special Tax Bonds to Incur Debt No

- Withheld Spending in Hazard-Prone Areas No

- Stormwater Service Fees No

- Capital Improvement Project Funding Yes

- Community Development Block Grants No

Education and Outreach Table 1-25 summarizes community outreach and education programs that could be used in conjunction with mitigation planning efforts.

Table 1-25: City of Delta's Public Outreach and Education Programs

Education/ Outreach Resource

Local Citizen Groups That Communicate Hazard Risks:

- Firewise No

- StormReady No

- Other none

1-44 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). Together with the County Planning Committee, the steering committee established a guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable objectives for this plan, based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and the results of the public involvement strategy. This information is located in Section 5.4 of Volume 1.

1.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan Based upon the City’s planning committee priorities, risk assessment results, and mitigation alternatives, mitigation actions were developed. Most importantly, the newly developed mitigation actions acknowledge updated risk assessment information outlined in Section 1.5. Mitigation actions presented in Table 1-26 establish 9 possible mitigation actions for problem statements that the City is the Primary lead on. For Countywide mitigation actions that the City will support, see the mitigation action workbook in Annex A. Some mitigation actions support ongoing City activities, while other actions are intended to be completed when funding is available. Regardless, mitigation actions will be part of an annual review.

Benefit/ Cost Review The City of Delta Planning Team used the same benefit/cost parameters as described in Section 5.5.1.1 of Volume 1. Cost ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).

• Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years.

• Low—The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program.

Benefit ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.

• Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.

• Low—Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.

Mitigation Actions Plan The City of Delta Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Section 5.5.1 of Volume 1. Based upon the City of Delta Planning Committee consensus, Table 1-26 lists each priority mitigation action. Priority mitigation action implementation plans are made available in Annex A. Implementation plans in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need to implementation. The detail in the Action Planners meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

1-45 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

1-46 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 1-26: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker Action No. Hazard Type Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation Responsible Party Potential Funding Source Time Frame* Benefit Cost Implementation Alternatives Rating Plan / Priority

CoD-01-2008 Flood Implement stormwater infrastructure improvements identified in the Stormwater Master Planning Project SP Public Works General Funds, FMA Short Term High/ Medium currently being completed. Reinforce river banks and consider flood protection in the Vine Street area. Continue 2nd/5th Street stormwater improvements plan. Implement stormwater improvements at Eaton & Dodge Streets CoD-01-2018 All Hazard Distribute public education materials relating to natural hazards as well as emergency notifications in both english PE&A City of Delta General Funds, PDM Short Term Low/ Low and spanish.

CoD-02-2008 Flood Mitigate potential flood damage to private and public facilities at Confluence Park, including the Four Seasons SP Public Works FMA Mid Term High/ High Motel and RV Park

CoD-03-2018 Flood Construct flood control structures along the Gunnison River to protect City properties near riverine banks. i.e, Bill SP Public Works FMA Mid Term High/ High Heddles Recreation Center.

CoD-04-2018 Flood Stabilize road embankment along Crawford Avenue with shotcrete. SP Public Works HMGP, General Funds Short Term Medium/ High

CoD-05-2018 Flood Construct flood protection around the City of Delta JD Lift Station. SP Public Works General Funds, HMGP Short Term High/ High

CoD-06-2018 Severe Weather Construct redundant power supplies for City of Delta Municipal Power Supply sub-stations. ES Public Works General Funds Long Term High/ Low

CoD-08-2018 Flood Reinforce river banks and consider flood protection in the Vine Street area. Continue 2nd/5th Street stormwater SP Public Works FMA, General Funds Mid Term High/ Medium improvements plan. Implement stormwater improvements at Eaton & Dodge Streets.

CoD-10-2018 Flood Mitigate flooding in pedestrian underpass of Alternate Truck Route (bypass) during minor and major storm events. SP Public Works General Funds Mid Term High/ Low

CoD-11-2018 Dam Failure Assist dam owners in updating their Emergency Action Plans PRV Emergency HMGP Long Term Medium/ Low Management

CoD-12-2018 Drought Develop a public education campaign (in English and Spanish) that encourages water conservation during PE&A Environmental PDM, General Fund Short Term Low/ Low both drought and non-drought years. Encourage businesses to build financial reserves as part of economic Health development. Create a water conservation plan. *Note: Short Term= 1-3 yrs, Mid Term= 3-5 yrs, Long Term= 5 yrs or more

As a living document, project descriptions and actions in the tables above will be modified to reflect current conditions over time

1-47 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

1-48 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

1.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance

The City of Delta Planning Team will follow the same implementation and maintenance strategy as Delta County. This strategy is described in detail in Section 6 of Volume 1. City of Delta Mitigation Action Trackers in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need for implementation and maintenance. The detail in the Action Trackers meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000 for priority mitigation actions. Mitigation Action Trackers will be used to report, track and implement mitigation actions over the next five-year update cycle.

1.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms An important implementation mechanism is to incorporate the recommendations and underlying principles of the MJHMP into community planning and development such as capital improvement budgeting, building and zoning codes, general plans and regional plans. Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated within the day-to-day functions and priorities of the jurisdiction attempting to implement risk reducing actions. The integration of a variety of City departments on the MJHMP Planning Committee provides an opportunity for constant and pervasive efforts to network, identify, and highlight mitigation activities and opportunities at all levels of government. This collaborative effort is also important to monitor funding opportunities which can be leveraged to implement the mitigation actions.

The City of Delta incorporated data, information, and hazard mitigation goals and actions from the 2008 HMP into:

• Storm Water Capital Improvements Project prioritization • Downtown Drainage Improvements prioritization • Delta Urban Renewal Plan • City of Delta, Colorado Comprehensive Plan Update

Information from this 2018 MJHMP can be incorporated into:

• City of Delta Comprehensive Plan Update: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into the Land Use and Growth Management Section during the next comprehensive plan update. Specific risk and vulnerability information from the Delta County MJHMP and City of Delta Annex will assist to identify areas where development may be at risk to potential hazards. • City Building / Development Codes and Zoning Ordinances: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information to enable the City to make decisions on appropriate building/development codes and ordinances. Appropriate building codes and ordinances can increase the City’s resilience against natural disasters. • Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP): The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into CWPP updates for areas within or near the City of Delta.

1-49 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

1-50

Section 2. TOWN OF CEDAREDGE

2-1

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

2-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Municipal Adoption Records

To comply with DMA 2000, the Town of Cedaredge Board of Trustees has officially adopted the 2018 Delta County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 and the Town of Cedaredge Volume 2 Annex. The adoption of the 2018 MJHMP in its entirety recognizes the Town’s commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards within the Town and County. See the following record of Adoption.

2-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

2-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.1 Purpose

This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Town of Cedaredge. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Town. This Annex provides additional information specific to the Town of Cedaredge, with a focus on providing additional details on the planning process, risk assessment, and mitigation strategy for this community.

Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Greg Brinck, Town Administrator Bruce Stanley, Building Inspector 235 W. Main Street 235 W. Main Street Cedaredge, CO 81413 Cedaredge, CO 81413 Telephone: (970) 856-3123 x 113 Telephone: (970) 856-3123 x 106 e-mail Address: [email protected] e-mail Address: [email protected] 2.2 Introduction

Cedaredge, Colorado is a Home Rule town with a population of approximately 2,300 perched on the southern slope of the Grand Mesa, straddling the mighty Surface Creek at the edge of the cedars. Cedaredge is one of the most distinctive communities in Delta County. (The Town of Cedaredge Colorado, n.d.)

2.2.1 Geography and Climate Cedaredge is located approximately between mile marker 9 and 12 of the Grand Mesa National and Historic Byway. Cedaredge enjoys four moderate sunny seasons. The annual rainfall is usually five to eight inches; winters may bring fifteen to thirty inches of snow. Individual snows seldom exceed four to six inches in Cedaredge. As you go north from town, the snow becomes noticeably deeper each mile. (The Town of Cedaredge Colorado, n.d.)

Table 2-1 shows Cedaredge climate statistics.

Table 2-1: Cedaredge Climate Statistics Description Avg. Rating Annual high temperature: 65.3°F Annual low temperature: 32.8°F Average temperature: 49.05°F Average annual precipitation - rainfall: 14.76 inch Days per year with precipitation - rainfall: - Annual hours of sunshine: - Av. annual snowfall: 62 inch

Source: www.usclimatedata.com

2-1 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 2-1: Town of Cedaredge Location

2.2.2 Historical Overview "Cedar Edge" was the name Sophie Kohler, wife of the ranch foreman of the Bar I Cattle Ranch, named the community. On December 5, 1894, a Post Office was named Cedaredge by combining the words Cedar and Edge. According to a newspaper report from August 19, 1904, a land development company provided a Town Park and built a hotel and intended to make Cedaredge "one of the prettiest towns in this part of Colorado." On February 24, 1905 town site lots were laid out to prepare for a bank, a store and to provide proper layout of streets. On March 25, 1907 the town officially incorporated an area known as the Bar I Cattle Ranch approximately 370 acres. Prior to 1913 each family depended on a well for water. That summer the Cedaredge water works consisted of a system one mile north of town where the water was piped to the residents. Individual septic systems were replaced with sewage collection and treatment by 1980 to serve a town that more than doubled in size since 1907. An eighteen-hole golf course was completed with the front nine in 1992, and back nine in 1995, expanding the town from 800 acres and 1200 people to almost 1300 acres and 1800 people by the year 2000. (The Town of Cedaredge Colorado, n.d.)

2-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.3 Planning Methodology

The Town of Cedaredge followed the planning process detailed in Volume 1, Section 3 of Volume 1. In addition to providing representation on the Delta County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and Steering Committee, the Town formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process requirements. Internal planning participants, their positions, and how they participated in the planning process are shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: 2018 Town of Cedaredge Stakeholder List

Planning Committee Dept. / Members Position / Role Greg Brinck, Interim Town Manager Steering Committee Rep. Dan Sanders, Police Chief Steering Committee Rep. Bruce Stanley, Building Inspector Steering Committee Rep. Dan Scott, Building Official Steering Committee Rep. 2.4 What’s New

This 2018 MJHMP Update is the Town of Cedaredge’s first hazard mitigation plan and is a record of the Town’s improvements toward reducing natural hazard risks to life and property within the Town. During the next update cycle, this section will be updated to reflect progress made on 2018 mitigation actions and other efforts to reduce the effects of natural hazards. See Volume 1 for updates regarding County Wide efforts and progress on mitigation actions. The following mitigation actions have been completed or initiated by the Town as part of normal risk reduction activities:

• 2013 - Main Street Streetscape project included the start of a storm water drainage system. • 2017 - Jay Avenue bridge replacement • 2018- Main Street and Hwy 65 enhancement included improved drainage • 2 clean up days for citizens to bring yard and household waste to dumpsters at public works on a yearly basis. • 1 Yard waste only cleanup day for debris removal / vegetative fuel removal 2.5 Risk Assessment

The intent of this section is to profile the Town of Cedaredge’s hazards and assess the Town’s vulnerability separate from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been assessed in Volume 1, Section 4 (Risk Assessment). The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the planning area and describes the hazard problem description, hazard extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard profile information specific to the Town of Cedaredge is included in this section of the Annex. This vulnerability assessment analyzes the property, population, critical facilities, and other assets at risk to hazards specific to the Town of Cedaredge. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Section 4 Risk Assessment in Volume 1.

2-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Each hazard vulnerability assessment for the Town of Cedaredge Annex includes a brief hazard profile for each medium or high significant hazard with the potential to affect the Town. The intent of this section is to provide jurisdictional specific information on hazards and further describe how the hazards and risks differ across the planning area.

2.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria Per FEMA Guidance, the first step in developing the Risk Assessment is identifying the hazards. The Town Planning Committee reviewed a number of previously prepared hazard mitigation plans and other relevant documents to determine the universe of natural hazards that have the potential to affect the Town. Table 2-3 provides a crosswalk of hazards identified in the 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Sixteen different hazards were identified based on a thorough document review. The crosswalk was used to develop a preliminary hazards list providing a framework for the Town’s Planning Team members to evaluate which hazards were truly relevant to the City and which ones are not. For example, erosion and deposition was considered to have no relevance to the Town, while wildfire was indicated in every hazard documentation.

Table 2-3: Town of Cedaredge Document Review Crosswalk Hazards 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan ■ ■ Avalanche Climate Change Dam Failure ■ Drought ■ ■ Earthquake ■ ■ Erosion and Deposition ■ Expansive Soils ■ ■ Extreme Heat ■ Flood ■ ■ Geologic Hazards Hazardous Materials ■ Landslide ■ ■ Severe Weather ■ ■ Tornado ■ Wildfire ■ ■ Winter Storms ■ ■

2-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking The Town of Cedaredge’s Planning Team used the same hazard prioritization process as the Delta County Planning Committee. This process is described in detail in Section 4.3.1 of Volume 1. Table 3-4 shows the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise. Based upon the hazard risk rating drought, flood, geohazard and severe winter weather will be profiled as priority hazards in the Town’s Annex. The Town decided not to profile dam failure as there are no dam inundation zones in the Town. After reviewing the Town’s capabilities, the Planning Committee decided not to complete a full hazard profile for wildfire, but rather to refer the reader to the Fire District Annex, Cedaredge Fire Protection District hazard profile and vulnerability assessment in Section 8 of this Volume.

Table 2-4: Town of Cedaredge Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix

Impact

Catastrophic Critical Limited Minor

Highly

Likely

Drought, Likely Wildfire

Severe Winter Probability Possible Geohazards Weather

Unlikely Dam Failure Flood

2.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk This section presents the vulnerability assessment for the Town of Cedaredge and identifies the Town’s total assets at risk, including people, values at risk, critical facilities and infrastructure. Growth and development trends are also presented for the community. This data is not hazard specific but is representative of total assets at risk within the community. 2.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory In order to describe vulnerability for each hazard, it is important to understand the “total” population and “total” assets at risk within the Town. The exposure for each hazard described in this section will refer to the percent of total population or percent of total assets similar to Volume 1. This provides the possible significance or vulnerability to people and assets for the natural hazard event and the estimated damage and losses expected during a “worst case scenario” event for each hazard. Sections below provide a description of the total population, critical facilities, and parcel exposure inputs.

2-5 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Population In order to develop hazard-specific vulnerability assessments, populations near natural hazard risks have been determined to understand the total “at risk” population. We can understand how geographically defined hazards may affect the Town by analyzing the extent of the hazard in relation to the location of population. For purposes of the vulnerability assessment approximately 2,2213 (100%) of the Town’s population is exposed to one or more hazards within or near the Town boundaries. Each natural hazard scenario affects the Town residents differently depending on the location of the hazard and the population density of where the hazard could occur. Vulnerability assessment sections presented later in this section summarize the population exposure for each natural hazard.

Vulnerable Populations The severity of a disaster depends on both the physical nature of the extreme event and the socioeconomic nature of the populations affected by the event. Important socioeconomic factors tend to influence disaster severity. A core concept in a vulnerability analysis is that different people, even within the same region, have a different vulnerability to natural hazards.

Income or wealth is one of the most important factors in natural hazard vulnerability. This economic factor affects vulnerability of low income populations in several ways. Lower income populations are less able to afford housing and other infrastructure that can withstand extreme events. Low income populations are less able to purchase resources needed for disaster response and are less likely to have insurance policies that can contribute to recovery efforts. Lower income elderly populations are less likely to have access to medical care due to financial hardship. Because of these and other factors, when disaster strikes, low income residences are far more likely to be injured or left without food and shelter during and after natural disasters.

Children and the elderly tend to be more vulnerable during an extreme natural disaster. They have less physical strength to survive disasters and are often more susceptible to certain diseases. The elderly often also have declining vision and hearing and often miss reports of upcoming natural hazard events. Children, especially young children, have the inability to provide for themselves. In many cases, both children and the elderly depend on others to care for them during day to day life. Finally, both children and the elderly have fewer financial resources and are frequently dependent on others for survival. In order for these populations to remain resilient before and after a natural hazard event, it may be necessary to augment Town residents with resources provided by the Town, County, State and Federal emergency management agencies and organizations.

2.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory Critical facilities are of concern when conducting hazard mitigation planning. Critical facilities are defined as essential services, and if damaged, would result in severe consequences to the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

An inventory of critical facilities based on data from the Town of Cedaredge, Delta County and other publicly sourced information were used to develop a comprehensive inventory of facility points and lifelines for the Town. Critical facility points include fire stations, schools, transportation, utilities, and government buildings. Lifelines include communication,

3 According to the 2016 Colorado DOLA Demography Office, the total population for the Town of Cedaredge was approx. 2,221 people.

2-6 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

electric power, liquid fuel, natural gas, and transportation routes. A current representation of the critical facilities and lifelines in the Town of Cedaredge are provided in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6. The Town of Cedaredge Public Works Department and the County GIS Department manages and maintains a complete list of critical facilities.

Table 2-5: Town of Cedaredge - Critical Facility Counts

Infrastructure Type Total Feature Count

Essential Facility 8 EOC - Fire Station 1 Hospital - Police Station 1 School 6 Essential Facility High Potential Loss High Potential Loss 6 Transportation and Lifeline Child Care Licensed 1 Dam - Gas Well (Permits) - Health Facility Licensed 1 Other Government 4 Prison - Transportation and Lifeline - Airport - Bridge - County Cell Towers - 3 Power Plant - Located in Waste Water Facility County Located in Water Utility County Water Wells - Grand Total 14

2-7 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 2-6: Town of Cedaredge - Linear Utilities

Infrastructure Type Total Linear Mileage (Linear Mileage) Railroad - Irrigation 1.7 Roads 21.6 Local road 9.2 Major road 9.2 4WD trail 0.0 Alley 0.6 Driveway - Highway 2.1 Cul-de-sac 0.4 Ramp - Grand Total 23.2 2.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory Total count and value of address points within the Town of Cedaredge which could be exposed to a hazard event is referred to as parcel exposure in this Annex. A standardized hazard overlay was conducted to develop hazard exposure results for improved City parcels presented later in this section. For more information on this exposure method see Volume 1, Section 4. In the event of a disaster, it is generally the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land that is of concern or at risk. Generally, the land itself is not a total loss and structures can be rebuilt. The Delta County Assessor’s data is pivotal to developing parcel values exposed to each hazard and includes assessed value at risk. Town of Cedaredge parcel information is summed and provided in Table 3-7. Both the market value and content value are the total value in the community at risk to a particular hazard.

Table 2-7: Town of Cedaredge - Parcel Counts and Value

Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Cedaredge 1,010 $ 131,893,159 $ 77,491,342 $ 209,384,501

Total market value as provided by Delta County. Content value calculated using content multipliers per Hazus occupancy classes per county land use designation. Total value is the sum of total market value and total content value.

2.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory FEMA’s loss estimation software, Hazus-MH 4.0, was used to analyze the Town’s building risk to flood hazards. A Hazus level II assessment was performed leveraging county-wide assessor’s data in lieu of default Hazus data. Hazus software operates on structure square footage, structure replacement, and content replacement costs to estimate potential losses specific to a modeled flood scenario. Table 3-8 and Figure 3-2 provide input value data for occupancy classes derived from assessor’s data to match FEMA modeling standards.

2-8 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 2-8: Town of Cedaredge Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values Building Content Value Proportion Value Building Type Building Value ($) Content Value ($) (% of grand Total Value ($) of Value (% of grand total *) (%) total) Agricultural $ 744,384 0.4% $ 744,384 0.4% $ 1,488,768 1% Commercial $ 11,800,974 5.6% $ 11,800,974 5.6% $ 23,601,948 11% Education $ 6,110,855 2.9% $ 6,110,855 2.9% $ 12,221,710 6% Governmental $ 1,966,475 0.9% $ 1,966,475 0.9% $ 3,932,950 2% Industrial $ 129,510 0.1% $ 129,510 0.1% $ 259,020 0% Religion $ 2,337,337 1.1% $ 2,337,337 1.1% $ 4,674,674 2% Residential $ 108,803,624 52.0% $ 54,401,807 26.0% $ 163,205,431 78% Total $ 131,893,159 63% $ 77,491,342 37% $ 209,384,501

Data Source: Delta County Assessor. Building values reflect fair market value where available. If no fair market value is available, this value reflects the assessed improvement value. Content replacement costs are calculated based on assessor's use codes translated to Hazus occupancy classes. Each HAZUS occupancy class prescribes a specific content cost multiplier used to calculate the content cost values shown above. Use codes including a "vacant" description have been removed along with agricultural use codes with no improvement value.

Millions $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120

Agricultural

Commercial

Education

Governmental

Industrial

Religion

Residential

Building Value ($) Content Value ($)

Figure 2-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Input Values

2-9 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards This section provides the vulnerability assessment, including any quantifiable loss estimates, for those hazards identified as high or medium significant hazards within the Town Limits. Impacts of past events and vulnerability of the Town to specific hazards are further discussed below (see Section 4.6 in Volume 1 for more detailed information about these hazards and their impacts on the Delta County planning area).

Methodologies for calculating loss estimates are the same as those described in Section 3.4 of the base plan. An estimate of the vulnerability of the Town to each identified priority hazard, in addition to the estimate of risk of future occurrence, is provided in each of the hazard-specific sections that follow.

This Annex provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the Town and how hazards may affect population and property within the jurisdiction. Most importantly the mitigation strategy presented in this plan responds to the particular vulnerabilities and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest reduction of vulnerability, which results in saved lives, reduced injuries, reduced property damage, and protection for the environment in the event of a natural hazard. This Town Annex provides information for the following natural hazard threats:

Drought Flood Geohazard SECTION 2.5.9 SECTION 2.5.10 SECTION 2.5.11

Severe Winter Weather Wildfire* SECTION 2.5.12 See Section 8

*Important to Note: The Town Planning Committee decided not to profile wildfire in the Town’s annex. For wildfire information relevant to the Town, refer to the Cedaredge Fire Protection District wildfire hazard information throughout the Fire Protection District Annex in Section 8 of this Volume. The Town of Cedaredge will support the Cedaredge Fire Protection District with every resource and capability possible to assist with wildfire mitigation activities outlined in the Fire Protection District Annex.

2-10 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.5.9 Drought Hazard Profile For a general description of the drought hazard, see Section 4.8: Drought Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

Regulatory Oversight For Federal and State Regulations regarding Drought, see Section 4.8.2 in Volume 1. The City of Delta does not have any local regulations pertaining to drought.

Drought Vulnerability Analysis Drought produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the economy and reaches well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to the ability to produce goods and provides services. Drought can affect a wide range of economic, environmental and social activities. The vulnerability of an activity to the effects of drought usually depends on its water demand, how the demand is met, and what water supplies are available to meet the demand.

2.5.9.2.1 Population All people, property and environments in Cedaredge would be exposed to some degree to the impacts of moderate to extreme drought conditions.

2.5.9.2.2 Property Drought normally does not directly impact structures. Although water and sewer infrastructure may be affected by drought, other critical facilities are generally not. Data are not available to identify particular hazard areas and/or estimate potential losses to structures. The greatest risk to people from drought is the loss of drinking water supply from water systems and underground aquifers. Secondary impacts from drought, such as wildfire and erosion, can have a significant impact on structures and municipal infrastructure.

2.5.9.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities, as defined for this plan, will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility elements such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning area’s critical facilities inventory will be largely aesthetic. For example, when water conservation measures are in place, landscaped areas will not be watered and may die. These aesthetic impacts are not considered significant.

2.5.9.2.4 Future Trends in Development As population grows, so do the water needs for household, commercial, industrial, recreation, and agricultural uses. Vulnerability to drought will increase with these growing demands on existing water supplies. Future water use planning in Colorado is complex and has to account for increasing population size as well as the potential impacts of climate change. Urbanized areas of the County and the agriculture and recreation industries are most likely to experience hardships associated with reduced water supply.

2-11 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.5.9.2.5 Summary of Drought Issues Important issues associated with the drought hazard include the following:

• Future growth and climate conditions in Delta County could impact available water supply specifically for residents on water wells or smaller water districts dependent on well water. • Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on average and impact agriculture, recreation, economy, and municipal water availability in the County. The area should expect drought years. • There is a lack of promotion of active water conservation during drought and non-drought periods.

2-12 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.5.10 Flood Hazard Profile Flash floods are caused by excessive rainfall, rapid snowmelt or sudden release of water from a blockage in the drainage system. For a general description of the flood hazard, see Section 4.9: Flood Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

Principal Flood Problems

Figure 2-3 shows the location of flood hazards in Cedaredge. The principal cause of flooding on Surface and Tongue Creeks is the rapid melting of heavy snowpack which occurs during May, June, and July. Rainfall on melting snow may hasten the melting process and increase floodflows.

The largest flow of record on Surface Creek occurred at Cedaredge on May 13, 1941. The flow was 1,190 cfs and is estimated to have been a 1-percent annual chance flood event. Other notable historical floods on Surface Creek occurred in 1920, 1922, 1929, 1932, 1937, and 1944.

Regulatory Oversight For Federal, State and County Regulations regarding Drought, see Section 4.9.2 in Volume 1.

2.5.10.1.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Delta County and incorporated areas. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent annual chance flood and the 0.2-percent annual chance flood (the 500-YR flood). Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-YR floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program.

Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met:

New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 100-YR flood.

• New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties.

• New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species.

2-13 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 2-3: Location of Flood Hazards in Cedaredge

2-14 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

The Town of Cedaredge entered the NFIP on May 17th, 1974. Structures permitted or built in the Town before then are called “pre-FIRM” structures, and structures built afterwards are called “post-FIRM.” The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures. The effective date for the current countywide FIRM is August 19th, 2010.

The Town is currently in good standing with the provisions of the NFIP. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk reduction. The Town has identified initiatives to maintain their compliance and good standing. The Town will continue to comply by identifying flood plains on new subdivision proposals and final plats. Building permit requirements mandate Flood Plain permits where identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Sanitation permits also require compliance with the ordinance. The Town will incorporate and reference DFIRM maps in regulations as new floodplains are mapped. Audits of regulations will ensure compliance with NFIP in all program areas.

Properties constructed after a FIRM has been adopted are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to decrease vulnerability. Properties built before a FIRM is adopted are more vulnerable to flooding because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas.

Table 2-9 lists NFIP statistics for the Town. The statistics show that no flood insurance claims have been paid as of May 31st, 2017.

Table 2-9: Flood Insurance Statistics for the Town of Cedaredge NFIP Status & Information Town of Cedaredge

NFIP Status Participating since 5/17/74 CRS Class n/a Policies in Force 3 Policies in SFHA Policies in non-SFHA Total Claims Paid 0 Paid Losses $0 Repetitive Loss Properties Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Building Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Contents

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a) restricts the release of certain types of data to the public. Flood insurance policy and claims data are included in the list of restricted information. FEMA can only release such data to state and local governments, and only if the data are used for floodplain management, mitigation, or research purposes. Therefore, this plan does not identify the repetitive loss properties or include claims data for any individual property.

2-15 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.5.10.1.2 CWCB Adopted Floodplain Rules and Regulations The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) has promulgated new floodplain rules and regulations that became effective on January 14, 2011. The rules provide for increased public safety and reduced flood losses across the state.

The purpose of these Rules is to provide uniform standards for regulatory floodplains (or floodplains) in Colorado, to provide standards for activities that may impact regulatory floodplains in Colorado, and to stipulate the process by which floodplains will be designated and approved by the CWCB. Rules for Regulatory Floodplains are of statewide concern to the State of Colorado and the Colorado Water Conservation Board in order to prevent flooding and the negative impacts of floods, as well as to assure public health, safety, welfare and property by limiting development in floodplains. These Rules will also assist the CWCB and communities in Colorado to develop sound floodplain management practices and implement the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The floodplain rules and regulations can be read at the CWCB website here: http://cwcb.state.co.us/Documents/FloodplainRulesRegsUpdate/CWCB_Adptd_FP_Rules_BasisPurp_%2011172010.pdf

2.5.10.1.3 Title 16 Land Use and Development The Town of Cedaredge Municipal Code Title 16 requires site grading in order to mitigate remaining stormwater flows so that water does not leave the site to neighboring properties or rights-of-way in amounts in excess of historic rates, or in an amount that erodes or floods these areas. It also requires a preliminary drainage report including a sketch of the proposed subdivision showing the consequent changes in the drainage patterns, concentration points, and flooding limits with estimates of acreage, runoff coefficients, and peak flow for the areas to be developed, both now and in the future, within each basin, and showing the limits of flooding and peak flow of runoff from off-site basins.

Flood Vulnerability Analysis This section describes vulnerabilities to flooding in terms of population, property and infrastructure. The Level 2 Hazus protocol was used to assess the exposure to flooding in the planning area. The model used property value and building characteristics at the parcel/building level, FEMA floodplain data, and National Elevation Dataset topography to estimate potential flooding impacts.

Flood exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using FEMA 100-YR and 500-YR flood zones and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures, such as federal and local government buildings except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 2-10 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to flooding. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

2-16 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 2-10: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Value Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) ($) Facilities Lifeline 2 $ - $ - 0 0.0 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

* numbers for 100yr and 500yr combined 2.5.10.2.1 Population

2 2 2 2 Population 2 Exposure 1 1 Population Count 1 in the 100-YR and 1 500-YR Floodplains 1 0 0 - - - 100-Year 100-Year, 100-Year Total* 500-Year** 500-Year Total*** Floodway

*Total 100-year floodplain **Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain ***Total 500-YR floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain Figure 2-4: Cedaredge Population Exposure to Flood

Population counts of those living in the floodplain were generated by analyzing County assessor and parcel data that intersect with the 100-YR and 500-YR floodplains identified on FIRMs within the Town of Cedaredge. Using GIS, Colorado DOLA Bureau information was used to intersect the FEMA identified floodplains within the Town limits. An estimate of population was calculated by weighting the population within each census block. The exposure results indicate the percentage of total population living within a flood risk area. Using this approach, it was estimated that a total of 2 people are exposed to flood risk from the 100-YR floodplain (.07% of the total Town population) and 2 people are exposed to risk from the 500-YR floodplain (.07% of the total Town Population), as shown in Figure 2-4 and Table 2-11.

2-17 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 2-11: Town of Cedaredge Population Exposure to Flood

Total Population Cedaredge 2,223

Flood Hazard Zone Population Count % of Total

100-Year 2 0.07% 100-Year, Floodway - 0.00% 100-Year Total* 2 0.07% 500-Year** - 0.00% 500-Year Total*** 2 0.07%

2.5.10.2.2 Property GIS was used to determine the possible impacts of flooding within the Town of Cedaredge. The methodology described in Section 4.9.10.2 of Volume 1 was followed in determining structures and values at risk to the FEMA identified 1% (100-YR) and 0.2% (500-YR) annual chance flood event.

Table 2-12 summarizes the number of improved parcels and property value within the Town of Cedaredge’s FEMA identified floodplains. GIS models determined that there are no improved parcels within the 100-YR or 500-YR floodplain.

Table 2-12: Town of Cedaredge - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones

Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Cedaredge 1,010 $ 131,893,159 $ 77,491,342 $ 209,384,501

% of Market Value Exposure Content Value Exposure % of Flood Hazard Zone Parcel Count Total Exposure ($) Total ($) ($) Total 100-Year Flood - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 100-Year Flood, Floodway - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 100-Year Total* - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 500-Year Flood** - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 500-Year Total*** - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%

* Total 100-year floodplain ** Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain *** Total 500-year floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain

Note: The table above does not display loss estimation results; the table exhibits total value at risk based upon the hazard overlay and Delta County Assessor data.

2.5.10.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Table 2-13 and Table 2-14 shows that there are no critical facilities or infrastructure at risk to the 100-YR Flood Zone, 100- YR Floodway and 500-YR Flood Zone within the Town of Cedaredge.

2-18 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 2-13: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain

500 Year, 100 Year 100 Year 500 Year Infrastructure Type Floodway Outside 100 Flood Zone Total Total Year

Essential Facility - - - - - Fire Station - - - - - Hospital - - - - - Police Station - - - - - school - - - - - High Potential Loss - - - - - Other Government - - - - - Child Care Licensed - - - - - Health Facility Licensed - - - - - Dam USACE NID - - - - - Prison - - - - - gas well permits - - - - - Bottomhole - - - - - Transportation and Lifeline - - - - - Water Wells - - - - - Airport - - - - - Waste Water Facility - - - - - Power Plant - - - - - Bridge NBI - - - - - Water Utility - - - - - County Cell Towers - - - - - Grand Total - - - - -

2-19 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 2-14: Critical Facilities (Linear) in the Floodplain – Town of Cedaredge

500 Year, Infrastructure Type 100 Year Floodway 100 Year Total Outside 100 500 Year Total (Linear Mileage) Flood Zone Year Railroad - - - - - Irrigation - - - - - Roads 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 Local road 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 Major road - - - - - 4WD trail - - - - - Alley - - - - - Driveway - - - - - Highway - - - - - Cul-de-sac - - - - - Ramp - - - - - Grand Total 0.01 - 0.01 - 0.01

2.5.10.2.4 Future Trends in Development The Town is aware that future development may occur near flood hazard areas. Code development is regulated by the Town of Cedaredge Municipal Code Title 16. Title 16 requires site grading in order to mitigate remaining stormwater flows so that water does not leave the site to neighboring properties or rights-of-way in amounts in excess of historic rates, or in an amount that erodes or floods these areas. It also requires a preliminary drainage report including a sketch of the proposed subdivision showing the consequent changes in the drainage patterns, concentration points, and flooding limits with estimates of acreage, runoff coefficients, and peak flow for the areas to be developed, both now and in the future, within each basin, and showing the limits of flooding and peak flow of runoff from off-site basins.

2.5.10.2.5 Summary of Flood Issues Important issues associated with floods include the following:

• Storm water runoff issues within many different municipalities within Delta County. • Surface Creek Not Mapped by FEMA for flood hazard but there are flooding issues.

2-20 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.5.11 Geohazard (Slope Failure) Profile Limited geohazard data is available for Delta County. To augment, the planning team conducted a slope analysis to provide data on potential issues with slope failure. Areas with steeper slopes, in combination with other factors such as rockfalls, mudflow or debris flow, swelling soils, collapsible soils, corrosive soils and earthquakes and faults, are more susceptible to slope failure than areas on shallow slopes.

Slope failure near Cedaredge could occur when the force pulling the material on the slope in a downward direction under gravitational influence exceeds the strength of the earth materials that compose the slope (USGS, 2004). These materials may move by falling, toppling, sliding, spreading, and/or flowing. Strength of rock and soil, steepness of slope, and weight of the hillside material all play an important role in the stability of hillside areas. Weathering and absorption of water can weaken slopes, while the added weight of saturated materials or overlying construction can increase the chances of slope failure. Sudden failure can be triggered by excavation of weak slopes, and heavy rainfall in the Cedaredge Area. Areas of high slope near the Town of Cedaredge can be found in Figure 2-5.

Regulatory Oversight

2.5.11.1.1 2006 International Building Code The Town of Cedaredge has adopted the International Building Code, 2006 Edition, including Appendix Chapters E, F, G, and I, as published by the International Code Council.

Geohazard (Slope) Vulnerability Analysis This section describes basic vulnerabilities to topographic slope conditions. The slope classes presented represent various ranges of slope percentage calculated from USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) 10m topography data. The slope classes included are minimal (0-5%), some (6-10%), high (11-20%) and very high (>20%).

Topographic slope exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using the slope class ranges listed above and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 2-15 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to very high and high slope classes. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

Table 2-15: Slope Exposure Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Value Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) ($) Facilities Lifeline 3 $ - $ - 0 0 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

* numbers for high and very high

2-21 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 2-5: Slope Exposure in the Town of Cedaredge

2-22 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.5.11.2.1 Population Table 2-16 shows the population exposure for slope in Cedaredge. Figure 2-5 shows the minimal, some, high and very high slope areas.

Table 2-16: Population Exposed to Slope

Cedaredge - Population Exposed to Slope Slope Exposure Population Count % of Total Minimal (0-5%) 2,172 97.74% Some (6-10%) 48 2.15% High (11-20%) 3 0.12% Very High (>20%) 0 0.00% Total 2,222 100.00%

2.5.11.2.2 Property The County’s address points layer was used as the basis for the inventory of improved residential parcels. Only improved parcels were analyzed. The impact of slope failure to the Town of Cedaredge is minimal. Table 2-17Table 6-24 exhibits the improved parcels within Cedaredge that have significant assets at risk to minimal, some, high or very high sloped areas.

Table 2-17: Improved Residential Parcel Slope Exposure Total Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Parcels Cedaredge 1,010 $ 131,893,159 $ 77,491,342 $ 209,384,501

Parcel % of Market Value Exposure Content Value Exposure % of Slope Exposure Total Exposure ($) Count Total ($) ($) Total Minimal (0-5%) 998 98.8% $ 129,313,241.00 $ 76,201,382.00 $ 205,514,623 98.2% Some (6-10%) 12 1.2% $ 2,579,918.00 $ 1,289,960.00 $ 3,869,878 1.8% High (11-20%) - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Very High (>20%) - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Total* 1,010 100% 131,893,159 77,491,342 $ 209,384,501 100.0%

2.5.11.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities data was overlaid with slope categories to determine the type and number of facilities within each slope exposure. The Town of Cedaredge has 12 critical facilities with exposure to the minimal slope category. There are no facilities in the some, high or very high slope categories. Table 2-18 lists the critical infrastructure with slope exposure.

In addition, the Town of Cedaredge has 0.6 linear miles of critical facilities exposed to some slope and 22.6 linear miles exposed to minimal slope. Table 2-19 lists the transportation and lifelines exposed to sloped areas.

2-23 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 2-18: Critical Infrastructure with Slope Exposure

Cedaredge - Critical Facility Slope Exposure

Minimal Some High Very High Infrastructure Type 0-5% 6-10% 11-20% >20% Essential Facility 2 - - - EOC - - - - Fire Station 1 - - - Hospital - - - - Police Station 1 - - - High Potential Loss 6 - - - Licensed Child Care 1 - - - Licensed Health Facility 1 - - - Other Government 4 - - - Dam - - - - Prison - - - - Gas Well - - - - Bottomhole - - - - Transportation and Lifeline - - - - Airport - - - - Bridge - - - - Power Plant - - - - Waste Water Facility - - - - Water Utility - - - - Water Wells - - - - County Cell Towers - - - - Grand Total* 8 - - - *Delta County School District facilities not included in separate slope analysis. Exposure to high and very high slope not present.

2-24 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 2-19: Transportation and Lifelines with Slope Exposure

Cedaredge - Critical Infrastructure Slope Exposure

Infrastructure Type Minimal Some High Very High (Linear Mileage) 0-5% 6-10% 11-20% >20%

Irrigation 1.49 0.15 0.03 - Railroad - - - - Roads 21.08 0.47 - - Local road 9.10 0.10 - - Major road 8.90 0.29 - - 4WD trail 0.03 - - - Alley 0.59 - - - Driveway - - - - Highway 2.04 0.08 - - Cul-de-sac 0.42 - - - Ramp - - - - Grand Total 22.6 0.6 0.0 -

Future Trends in Development If Cedaredge grows in the future, we may start to see new impacts to property. The Town may need specific mitigation techniques to address slope failure. The Colorado Geological Survey outlined the following considerations that should be addressed in the Land Use Department:

• All slopes underlain by Mancos Shale along the should be considered potentially unstable • Off property water usage can directly impact slope stability

Summary of Geohazard Issues Important issues associated with geohazards include the following:

• Expansive soils are widespread across the county, including in areas of new development, and can affect building foundations, roads, driveways, and etc.

2-25 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANKPAGE

2-26 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.5.12 Severe Winter Weather Hazard Profile As expected, winter storms can and do occur frequently, and they can vary significantly in size, strength, intensity, duration, and impact. Strong winds create snowdrifts that block roads, create dangerous wind chill factors and sometimes lead to life-threatening power outages. The National Weather Service issues a wind chill advisory when wind and temperature combine to produce wind chill values of 20 to 35 degrees below zero, significantly raising the potential for hypothermia and frostbite affecting health and safety. Hypothermia is the most common winter weather killer in Colorado. Ice accumulation becomes a hazard by creating dangerous travel conditions, and impacting safety for vulnerable elements of the population such as the elderly and physically impaired.

High winds and ice accumulation often accompany winter storms. These winds can produce sizable snowdrifts that can cause residents and travelers to be stranded for hours, potentially causing life threatening conditions. Hypothermia and carbon monoxide poisoning can become a clear threat to many.

Regulatory Oversight In addition to Federal, State and County regulatory oversight the Town of Cedaredge Municipal Code Title 15 establishes climatic and geographic design criteria for roof snow load (40#).

Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability

2.5.12.2.1 Population It can be assumed that the entire planning area is exposed to some extent to winter storms. Vulnerable populations include the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Power outages can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Isolation of these populations is a significant concern.

2.5.12.2.2 Property Winter storms affect the entire planning area, including all above-ground structures and infrastructure. Although losses to structures are typically minimal and covered by insurance, there can be other costs associated with lost time, maintenance costs, and contents within structures.

2.5.12.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Winter weather conditions are a threat to public safety on major roads and highways. Additionally, power outages caused by snow, ice, and wind accompanied by cold temperatures can create great additional need for shelter. Other issues caused by winter storms can be related to school closures, business closures, road closures, snow removal, and maintaining critical services like emergency services, food providers, and banks.

2-27 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.5.12.2.4 Future Trends in Development All future development will be affected by severe storms. The ability to withstand impacts lies in sound land use practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction. The International Building Code, which has been adopted by the Town, is equipped to deal with the impacts of severe weather events. Land use and development ordinances also address flooding, which can be a secondary impact of severe weather. With these tools, the Town is well equipped to deal with future growth and the associated impacts of severe weather.

2.5.12.2.5 Summary of Severe Winter Weather Issues Important issues associated with severe winter weather include the following:

• Vulnerable populations can be isolated by severe storm events especially those with functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, car dependent etc.) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages.

2-28 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.6 Mitigation Strategy

The Town of Cedaredge used the same mitigation strategy as Delta County. This is described in detail in Section 5 of Volume 1.

2.6.1 Identifying the Problem As part of the mitigation actions identification process, the Town of Cedaredge Planning Committee identified issues and/or weaknesses as a result of the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis. By combining common issues and weaknesses developed by the Planning Committee, the realm of resources needed for mitigating each can be understood. Community issues and weaknesses are presented by individual hazard in Table 2-20. Primary (P) and Secondary (S) jurisdictions are identified for each problem statement. Projects or actions have been developed to mitigate each problem identified. To the degree possible the Town of Cedaredge will support County Wide Initiatives. See Volume 1 for related County Wide mitigation actions.

Table 2-20: Problem Statements by Hazard

edaredge Problem Mitigation Mitigation Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of C All Hazard AH-01 Many communities in Delta County, PE&A, ES DC-01-2018, particularly Cedaredge and Paonia, have DC-04-2008, significant populations over the age of 65 DC-18-2018 P S which could be exposed to natural hzards. Town of Cedaredge - 18.6% Town of Paonia - 17.7% All Hazard AH-02 No identified shelters have back-up ES DC-01-2018 generators. This includes shelters identified P S within each Municipality. All Hazard AH-03 Many communities in Delta County have PE&A DC-04-2008 particularly high Renter Rates. Most communities are above 30% . This is an issue P S as it will be hard to motivate absentee owners to mitigate risk on rental units. Town of Hotchkiss has a 56.6% rental rate. All Hazard AH-04 Lack of communication and data transmission ES, PE&A DC-05-2008 lines could affect communications during a natural hazard event including 800 MHz P S transmission towers. Lack of domestic demand for communications inhibits communications providers to provide service in remote areas.

2-29 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

edaredge Problem Mitigation Mitigation Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of C All Hazard AH-05 Many communities in Delta County, PE&A, ES DC-04-2008 particularly Crawford, Cedaredge, and Orchard City, have significantly high poverty rates. P S Town of Cedaredge - 28.1% Town of Crawford - 29.4% Town of Orchard City - 19.3% All Hazard AH-07 Hard to find information on spatial hazards and PE&A DC-11-2008, where they are located in the county. The DC-04-2008 County GIS viewer does not show any hazards P S layers or any other information besides base mapping. Drought DR-01 Future growth and climate conditions in Delta NRP, PRV, DC-02-2018 County could impact available water supply PE&A specifically for residents on water wells or P S smaller water districts dependent on well water. Drought DR-02 Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on PRV, DC-03-2018, average and impact agriculture, recreation, PE&A, DC-02-2018 economy, and municipal water availability in NRP P S the County. The area should expect drought years. Drought DR-03 There is a lack of promotion of active water PE&A, DC-04-2018, conservation during drought and non-drought PRV DC-02-2018 P S periods. Drought DR-06 Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on PE&A CE-03-2018 average and could impact agriculture, recreation, economy, and municipal water P P availability in the Cedaredge. The area should expect drought years. Flood FL-03 Storm water runoff issues within many SP DC-02-2008 P S different municipalities within Delta County. Flood FL-07 Surface Creek Not Mapped by FEMA for flood PRV DC-15-2018, hazard but there are flooding issues. CE-01-2018, P DC-07-2008, DC-09-2008 Geohazard GH-01 Expansive soils are widespread across the PE&A, DC-03-2008, county, including in areas of new PRV DC-02-2008 P S development, and can affect building foundations, roads, driveways, and etc.

2-30 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

edaredge Problem Mitigation Mitigation Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of C Geohazard GH-03 The southern portion of the Town is exposed PE&A CE-04-2018 to some (6-10% slope) and high (11-20% slope) slope exposure. P Severe SW-04 Vulnerable populations can be isolated by PE&A, ES DC-18-2018, Weather severe storm events especially those with DC-17-2018 functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, P S car dependent etc.…) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages. Severe SW-06 There are a large number of people (199 or PE&A CE-05-2018 Weather 18.6% of the population) over the age of 65 and living alone in the Town of Cedaredge. Vulnerable populations can be isolated by P severe storm events especially those with functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, car dependent etc.) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages. Wildfire WF-08 Camp Cedaredge is in a Very High Wildfire Risk PPRO CE-02-2018 P P Area Wildfire WF-11 Many County residents live within high wildfire PPRO DC-03-2008, risk areas including low income, elderly and DC-02-2008 other vulnerable populations. Approx. 40%- S 50% of the total population live within some wildfire risk areas.

2.6.2 Capability Assessment The Town of Cedaredge identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The mitigation strategy includes an assessment of the Town’s planning and regulatory, administrative and technical, financial, and education and outreach capabilities to augment known issues and weaknesses from identified natural hazards.

2-31 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Planning and Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities The legal and regulatory capabilities of local, state, and federal jurisdictions are shown in Table 2-21, which presents existing ordinances and codes that can regulate the physical or built environment of the Town. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordnances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans.

Table 2-21: Town of Cedaredge's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities

Plan/ Program/ Regulation Yes or No

Building Codes Yes

Building Codes Year UBC 2006

BCEGS Rating No

Public Protection (ISO Class) No

Capital Improvements Program (CIP) or Plan Yes

Community Rating System (CRS) No

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) No

Comprehensive, Master, or General Plan Yes

Economic Development Plan Yes

Elevation Certificates No

Erosion/Sediment Control Program No

Floodplain Management Plan Yes

Flood Insurance Study No

Growth Management Ordinance No

Hazard-Specific Ordinance or Plan (Floodplain, Steep Slope, Wildfire) No

NFIP No

Site Plan Review Requirements Yes

Stormwater Program, Plan or Ordinance Recently completed Drainage Master Plan

Zoning Ordinance Yes

2-32 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Administrative and Technical Capabilities Table 1-23 lists the Town’s administrative and technical abilities.

Table 2-22: Town of Cedaredge’s Administrative and Technical Ability

Administrative/ Technical Resource Yes or No

Emergency Manager No

Floodplain Administrator No

Community Planning:

- Planner/Engineer (Land Development) No

- Planner/Engineer/Scientist (Natural Hazards) No

- Engineer/Professional (Construction) No

- Resiliency Planner No

- Transportation Planner No

Full-Time Building Official No

GIS Specialist and Capability No

Grant Manager, Writer, or Specialist No

Warning Systems/Services:

- General No

- Flood No

- Wildfire No

- Geological Hazards No

2-33 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Financial Capabilities Table 2-23 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to the Town such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard-prone areas.

Table 2-23: Town of Cedaredge 's Financial Capabilities

Financial Resource

Has community used any of the following to fund mitigation activities:

- Levy for Specific Purposes with Voter Approval No

- Utilities Fees Yes

- System Development Feed No

- General Obligation Bonds to Incur Debt Yes, Part of the 2013 Main Street project was storm water drainage. It was a bond issue.

- Special Tax Bonds to Incur Debt No

- Withheld Spending in Hazard-Prone Areas No

- Stormwater Service Fees No

- Capital Improvement Project Funding Yes

- Community Development Block Grants No

Education and Outreach Table 2-24 summarizes community outreach and education programs that could be used in conjunction with mitigation planning efforts.

Table 2-24: Town of Cedaredge's Public Outreach and Education Programs

Education/ Outreach Resource

Local Citizen Groups That Communicate Hazard Risks:

- Firewise No

- StormReady No

- Other

2-34 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). Together with the County Planning Committee, the steering committee established a guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable objectives for this plan, based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and the results of the public involvement strategy. This information is located in Section 5.4 of Volume 1. 2.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan Based upon the Town’s planning committee priorities, risk assessment results, and mitigation alternatives, mitigation actions were developed. Most importantly, the newly developed mitigation actions acknowledge updated risk assessment information outlined in Section 2.5. Mitigation actions presented in Table 2-25 establish 2 possible mitigation actions for problem statements that the Town is the Primary lead on. For Countywide mitigation actions that the Town will support, see Annex A. Some mitigation actions support ongoing Town activities, while other actions are intended to be completed when funding is available. Regardless, mitigation actions will be part of an annual review.

Benefit/ Cost Review The Town of Cedaredge Planning Team used the same benefit/cost parameters as described in Section 5.5.1.1 of Volume 1. Cost ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).

• Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years.

• Low—The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program.

Benefit ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.

• Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.

• Low—Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.

Mitigation Actions Plan The Town of Cedaredge Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Section 5.5.1 of Volume 1. Based upon the Town of Cedaredge Planning Committee consensus, Table 2-25 lists each priority mitigation action. Priority mitigation action Implementation plans are made available in Annex A. Implementation plans in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need to implementation. The detail in the Action Planners meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

2-35 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

2.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance

The Town of Cedaredge Planning Team will follow the same implementation and maintenance strategy as Delta County. This strategy is described in detail in Section 6 of Volume 1. Town of Cedaredge Mitigation Action Trackers in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need for implementation and maintenance. The detail in the Action Trackers meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000 for priority mitigation actions. Mitigation Action Trackers will be used to report, track and implement mitigation actions over the next five-year update cycle.

2.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms An important implementation mechanism is to incorporate the recommendations and underlying principles of the MJHMP into community planning and development such as capital improvement budgeting, building and zoning codes, general plans and regional plans. Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated within the day-to-day functions and priorities of the jurisdiction attempting to implement risk reducing actions. The integration of a variety of Town departments on the MJHMP Planning Committee provides an opportunity for constant and pervasive efforts to network, identify, and highlight mitigation activities and opportunities at all levels of government. This collaborative effort is also important to monitor funding opportunities which can be leveraged to implement the mitigation actions.

Information from this 2018 MJHMP can be incorporated into:

• Town of Cedaredge Master Plan Update: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into the Land Use, Growth Management and Open Space/ Recreation elements during the next master plan update. Specific risk and vulnerability information from the Delta County MJHMP and Town of Cedaredge Annex will assist to identify areas where development may be at risk to potential hazards. • Town Building / Development Codes and Zoning Ordinances: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information to enable the Town to make decisions on appropriate building/development codes and ordinances. Appropriate building codes and ordinances can increase the Town’s resilience against natural disasters. • Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP): The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into CWPP updates for areas within or near the Town of Cedaredge.

2-36 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 2-25: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker Action No. Hazard Type Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation Responsible Party Potential Funding Source Time Frame* Benefit Cost Rating Implementation Plan Alternatives / Priority

CE-01-2018 Flood Install flow meters for Surface Creek at bridges in Cedaredge. SP Public Works FMA Short Term High/Low Yes

CE-02-2018 Wildfire Work with the West Region Wildfire Council to educate PE&A Town of Cedaredge PDM, General Funds Short Term Low/ Medium Yes homeowners in the Cedaredge Camp community on reducing the risk of wildfire on their property, including understanding their wildfire risk, free site visits, cost-share program and community chipping program. CE-03-2018 Drought Develop a public education campaign encouraging PE&A Town of Cedaredge General Funds Short Term Low/ Low Yes residents to conserve water during both drought and non- drought years. Examples may include offering incentives for the installation of low-flow toilets and shower heads and establishing a watering scheduling for lawns. CE-04-2018 Geohazard Limit new development in the hilly area south/ southwest PRV Town of Cedaredge General Funds Short Term Low/ Medium Yes of SE Deer Creek Dr.

CE-05-2018 Severe Winter Organize outreach to vulnerable populations, including PE&A Town of Cedaredge General Funds Short Term Low/ Low Yes Weather establishing and promoting accessible heating centers in the community. *Note: Short Term= 1-3 yrs, Mid Term= 3-5 yrs, Long Term= 5 yrs or more

As a living document, project descriptions and actions in the tables above will be modified to reflect current conditions over time

2-37 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

2-38

Section 3. TOWN OF CRAWFORD

3-1

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

3-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Municipal Adoption Records

To comply with DMA 2000, the Crawford Town Council has officially adopted the 2018 Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 and the Town of Crawford Volume 2 Annex. The adoption of the 2018 MJHMP in its entirety recognizes the Town’s commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards within the Town and County. See the following record of Adoption.

3-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

3-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3.1 Purpose

This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Town of Crawford. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Town. This Annex provides additional information specific to the Town of Crawford, with a focus on providing additional details on the planning process, risk assessment, and mitigation strategy for this community.

Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Cally Gallegos, Town Clerk Wanda Goforth, Mayor 425 Hwy 92 425 Hwy 92 Crawford, CO 81415 Crawford, CO 81415 Telephone: (970) 921-4725 Telephone: (970) 921-4725 e-mail Address: [email protected] e-mail Address: [email protected] 3.2 Introduction

Crawford is a town in Delta County, Colorado. Crawford is a quaint cow town. Our traffic jams consist of cattle being herded through Town when moving cows from one pasture to another. Crawford Reservoir and the Black Canyon are to the south. Needlerock and the West Elk Mountains are to the east. Outdoor adventures are waiting in every direction. (Town of Crawford,

3.2.1 Geography and Climate The latitude of Crawford is 38.703N. The longitude is -107.608W. It is in the Mountain Standard time zone. Elevation is 6,558 feet. Crawford sits amid expansive mesas, deep canyons and breathtaking mountains. (Town of Crawford, n.d.)

Table 3-1 shows Crawford climate statistics.

Table 3-1: Crawford Climate Statistics Description Avg. Rating Annual high temperature: 88.2°F Annual low temperature: 15.4°F Average temperature: - Average annual precipitation - rainfall: - Days per year with precipitation - rainfall: 47.8 Annual hours of sunshine: - Av. annual snowfall: 47 inch

3-1 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 3-1: Town of Crawford Location

3.2.2 Historical Overview The community was named for George A. Crawford, editor and gubernatorial candidate. The Old West is very much alive here — genuine cowboys run cattle drives right through the middle of this small town. Elizabeth Ong was the original owner of present day location of the town site of Crawford. Ms. Ong was the land donor, for the cemetery and church. The first church was established in 1900. The first school was built in 1906. The school burned in 1912 and was rebuilt in 1913. The Town of Crawford was officially established in 1911. (Town of Crawford, n.d.) 3.3 Planning Methodology

The Town of Crawford followed the planning process detailed in Volume 1, Section 3 of Volume 1. In addition to providing representation on the Delta County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and Steering Committee, the Town formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process requirements. Internal planning participants, their positions, and how they participated in the planning process are shown in Table 3-2.

3-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 3-2: 2018 Town of Crawford Stakeholder List

Planning Committee Dept. / Members Position / Role Cally Gallegos, Town Clerk Steering Committee Rep. Wanda Goforth, Mayor Steering Committee Rep. Blake Kinser, EMT and EMT instructor Steering Committee Rep. 3.4 What’s New

This 2018 MJHMP Update is the Town of Crawford’s first hazard mitigation plan and is a record of the Town’s improvements toward reducing natural hazard risks to life and property within the Town. During the next update cycle, this section will be updated to reflect progress made on 2018 mitigation actions and other efforts to reduce the effects of natural hazards. See Volume 1 for updates regarding County Wide efforts and progress on mitigation actions. 3.5 Risk Assessment

The intent of this section is to profile the Town of Crawford’s hazards and assess the Town’s vulnerability separate from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been assessed in Volume 1, Section 4 (Risk Assessment). The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the planning area and describes the hazard problem description, hazard extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard profile information specific to the Town of Crawford is included in this section of the Annex. This vulnerability assessment analyzes the property, population, critical facilities, and other assets at risk to hazards specific to the Town of Crawford. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Section 4 Risk Assessment in Volume 1.

Each hazard vulnerability assessment for the Town of Crawford Annex includes a brief hazard profile for each medium or high significant hazard with the potential to affect the Town. The intent of this section is to provide jurisdictional specific information on hazards and further describe how the hazards and risks differ across the planning area.

3.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria Per FEMA Guidance, the first step in developing the Risk Assessment is identifying the hazards. The Town Planning Committee reviewed a number of previously prepared hazard mitigation plans and other relevant documents to determine the universe of natural hazards that have the potential to affect the Town. Table 3-3 provides a crosswalk of hazards identified in the 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Sixteen different hazards were identified based on a thorough document review. The crosswalk was used to develop a preliminary hazards list providing a framework for the Town’s Planning Team members to evaluate which hazards were truly relevant to the City and which ones are not. For example, erosion and deposition was considered to have no relevance to the Town, while wildfire was indicated in every hazard documentation.

3-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 3-3: Town of Crawford Document Review Crosswalk Hazards 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan ■ ■ Avalanche Climate Change Dam Failure ■ Drought ■ ■ Earthquake ■ ■ Erosion and Deposition ■ Expansive Soils ■ ■ Extreme Heat ■ Flood ■ ■ Geologic Hazards Hazardous Materials ■ Landslide ■ ■ Severe Weather ■ ■ Tornado ■ Wildfire ■ ■ Winter Storms ■ ■ 3.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking The Town of Crawford’s Planning Team used the same hazard prioritization process as the Delta County Planning Committee. This process is described in detail in Section 4.3.1 of Volume 1. Table 3-4 shows the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise. Based upon the hazard risk rating drought, flood and geohazard will be profiled as priority hazards in the Town’s Annex. After reviewing the Town’s capabilities, the Planning Committee decided not to complete a full hazard profile for wildfire, but rather to refer the reader to the Fire District Annex, Crawford Fire Protection District hazard profile and vulnerability assessment in Section 8 of this Volume.

3-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 3-4: Town of Crawford Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix

Impact

Catastrophic Critical Limited Minor

Highly

Likely

Wildfire, Likely Drought Flood

Probability Possible

Unlikely Geohazard

3.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk This section presents the vulnerability assessment for the Town of Crawford and identifies the Town’s total assets at risk, including people, values at risk, critical facilities and infrastructure. Growth and development trends are also presented for the community. This data is not hazard specific but is representative of total assets at risk within the community.

3.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory In order to describe vulnerability for each hazard, it is important to understand the “total” population and “total” assets at risk within the Town. The exposure for each hazard described in this section will refer to the percent of total population or percent of total assets similar to Volume 1. This provides the possible significance or vulnerability to people and assets for the natural hazard event and the estimated damage and losses expected during a “worst case scenario” event for each hazard. Sections below provide a description of the total population, critical facilities, and parcel exposure inputs.

Population In order to develop hazard-specific vulnerability assessments, populations near natural hazard risks have been determined to understand the total “at risk” population. We can understand how geographically defined hazards may affect the Town by analyzing the extent of the hazard in relation to the location of population. For purposes of the vulnerability assessment

3-5 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

approximately 4194 (100%) of the Town’s population is exposed to one or more hazards within or near the Town boundaries. Each natural hazard scenario affects the Town residents differently depending on the location of the hazard and the population density of where the hazard could occur. Vulnerability assessment sections presented later in this section summarize the population exposure for each natural hazard.

Vulnerable Populations The severity of a disaster depends on both the physical nature of the extreme event and the socioeconomic nature of the populations affected by the event. Important socioeconomic factors tend to influence disaster severity. A core concept in a vulnerability analysis is that different people, even within the same region, have a different vulnerability to natural hazards.

Income or wealth is one of the most important factors in natural hazard vulnerability. This economic factor affects vulnerability of low income populations in several ways. Lower income populations are less able to afford housing and other infrastructure that can withstand extreme events. Low income populations are less able to purchase resources needed for disaster response and are less likely to have insurance policies that can contribute to recovery efforts. Lower income elderly populations are less likely to have access to medical care due to financial hardship. Because of these and other factors, when disaster strikes, low income residences are far more likely to be injured or left without food and shelter during and after natural disasters.

Children and the elderly tend to be more vulnerable during an extreme natural disaster. They have less physical strength to survive disasters and are often more susceptible to certain diseases. The elderly often also have declining vision and hearing and often miss reports of upcoming natural hazard events. Children, especially young children, have the inability to provide for themselves. In many cases, both children and the elderly depend on others to care for them during day to day life. Finally, both children and the elderly have fewer financial resources and are frequently dependent on others for survival. In order for these populations to remain resilient before and after a natural hazard event, it may be necessary to augment Town residents with resources provided by the Town, County, State and Federal emergency management agencies and organizations.

3.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory Critical facilities are of concern when conducting hazard mitigation planning. Critical facilities are defined as essential services, and if damaged, would result in severe consequences to the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

An inventory of critical facilities based on data from the Town of Crawford, Delta County and other publicly sourced information were used to develop a comprehensive inventory of facility points and lifelines for the Town. Critical facility points include fire stations, schools, transportation, utilities, and government buildings. Lifelines include communication, electric power, liquid fuel, natural gas, and transportation routes. A current representation of the critical facilities and lifelines in the Town of Crawford are provided in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6.

4 According to the 2016 Colorado DOLA Demography Office, the total population for the Town of Crawford was approx. 419 people.

3-6 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 3-5: Town of Crawford - Critical Facility Counts

Infrastructure Type Total Feature Count

Essential Facility 1 EOC - Fire Station - Hospital - Police Station - Essential Facility School 1 High Potential Loss High Potential Loss 3 Child Care Licensed 1 Transportation and Lifeline Dam - Gas Well (Permits) - Health Facility Licensed - Other Government 2 Prison - Transportation and Lifeline 2 Airport - Bridge - County Cell Towers 2 Power Plant - Waste Water Facility - Water Utility - Water Wells - Grand Total 6 Table 3-6: Town of Crawford - Linear Utilities

Infrastructure Type (Linear Mileage) Total Linear Mileage Railroad - Irrigation 0.6 Roads 5.7 Local road 1.9 Major road 2.5 4WD trail 0.0 Alley 0.4 Driveway - Highway 0.9 Cul-de-sac - Ramp - Grand Total 6.3

3-7 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory Total count and value of address points within the Town of Crawford which could be exposed to a hazard event is referred to as parcel exposure in this Annex. A standardized hazard overlay was conducted to develop hazard exposure results for improved City parcels presented later in this section. For more information on this exposure method see Volume 1, Section 4. In the event of a disaster, it is generally the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land that is of concern or at risk. Generally, the land itself is not a total loss and structures can be rebuilt. The Delta County Assessor’s data is pivotal to developing parcel values exposed to each hazard and includes assessed value at risk. Town of Crawford parcel information is summed and provided in Table 3-7. Both the market value and content value are the total value in the community at risk to a particular hazard.

Table 3-7: Town of Crawford - Parcel Counts and Value

Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($)

Crawford 153 $ 13,720,206 $ 8,306,854 $ 22,027,060

Total market value as provided by Delta County. Content value calculated using content multipliers per Hazus occupancy classes per county land use designation. Total value is the sum of total market value and total content value.

3.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory FEMA’s loss estimation software, Hazus-MH 4.0, was used to analyze the Town’s building risk to flood hazards. A Hazus level II assessment was performed leveraging county-wide assessor’s data in lieu of default Hazus data. Hazus software operates on structure square footage, structure replacement, and content replacement costs to estimate potential losses specific to a modeled flood scenario. Table 3-8 and Figure 3-2 provide input value data for occupancy classes derived from assessor’s data to match FEMA modeling standards.

3-8 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 3-8: Town of Crawford Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values

Building Value Content Value Proportion Building Value ($) Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Building Type (% of grand total) (% of grand total *) of Value (%)

Agricultural $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Commercial $ 1,376,342 6.2% $ 1,391,952 6.3% $ 2,768,294 13% Education $ 683,889 3.1% $ 683,889 3.1% $ 1,367,778 6% Governmental $ 480,579 2.2% $ 480,579 2.2% $ 961,158 4% Industrial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Religion $ 321,465 1.5% $ 321,465 1.5% $ 642,930 3% Residential $ 10,857,931 49.3% $ 5,428,969 24.6% $ 16,286,900 74%

Total $ 13,720,206 62% $ 8,306,854 38% $ 22,027,060

Data Source: Delta County Assessor. Building values reflect fair market value where available. If no fair market value is available, this value reflects the assessed improvement value. Content replacement costs are calculated based on assessor's use codes translated to Hazus occupancy classes. Each HAZUS occupancy class prescribes a specific content cost multiplier used to calculate the content cost values shown above. Use codes including a "vacant" description have been removed along with agricultural use codes with no improvement value.

Millions $- $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30

Agricultural

Commercial

Education

Governmental

Industrial

Religion

Residential

Building Value ($) Content Value ($)

Figure 3-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Input Values

3-9 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

3-10 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards This section provides the vulnerability assessment, including any quantifiable loss estimates, for those hazards identified as high or medium significant hazards within the Town Limits. Impacts of past events and vulnerability of the Town to specific hazards are further discussed below (see Section 4.6 Hazard Identification in the base plan for more detailed information about these hazards and their impacts on the Delta County planning area).

Methodologies for calculating loss estimates are the same as those described in Section 3.4 of the base plan. An estimate of the vulnerability of the Town to each identified priority hazard, in addition to the estimate of risk of future occurrence, is provided in each of the hazard-specific sections that follow.

This Annex provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the Town and how hazards may affect population and property within the jurisdiction. Most importantly the mitigation strategy presented in this plan responds to the particular vulnerabilities and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest reduction of vulnerability, which results in saved lives, reduced injuries, reduced property damage, and protection for the environment in the event of a natural hazard. This Town Annex provides information for the following natural hazard threats:

Drought Flood Geohazard SECTION 3.5.9 SECTION 3.5.10 SECTION 3.5.11

Wildfire* SEE SECTION 8

*Important to Note: The Town Planning Committee decided not to profile wildfire in the Town’s annex. For wildfire information relevant to the Town, refer to the Crawford Fire Protection District wildfire hazard information throughout the Fire Protection District Annex in Section 8 of this Volume. The Town of Crawford will support the Crawford Fire Protection District with every resource and capability possible to assist with wildfire mitigation activities outlined in the Fire Protection District Annex.

3-11 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

3-12 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3.5.9 Drought Hazard Profile For a general description of the drought hazard, see Section 4.8: Drought Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

Regulatory Oversight For Federal and State Regulations regarding Drought, see Section 4.8.2 in Volume 1. The Town of Crawford does not have any local regulations pertaining to drought.

Drought Vulnerability Analysis Drought produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the economy and reaches well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to the ability to produce goods and provides services. Drought can affect a wide range of economic, environmental and social activities. The vulnerability of an activity to the effects of drought usually depends on its water demand, how the demand is met, and what water supplies are available to meet the demand.

3.5.9.2.1 Population All people, property and environments in Crawford would be exposed to some degree to the impacts of moderate to extreme drought conditions.

3.5.9.2.2 Property Drought normally does not directly impact structures. Although water and sewer infrastructure may be affected by drought, other critical facilities are generally not. Data are not available to identify particular hazard areas and/or estimate potential losses to structures. The greatest risk to people from drought is the loss of drinking water supply from water systems and underground aquifers. Secondary impacts from drought, such as wildfire and erosion, can have a significant impact on structures and municipal infrastructure.

3.5.9.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities, as defined for this plan, will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility elements such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning area’s critical facilities inventory will be largely aesthetic. For example, when water conservation measures are in place, landscaped areas will not be watered and may die. These aesthetic impacts are not considered significant.

3.5.9.2.4 Future Trends in Development As population grows, so do the water needs for household, commercial, industrial, recreation, and agricultural uses. Vulnerability to drought will increase with these growing demands on existing water supplies. Future water use planning in Colorado is complex and has to account for increasing population size as well as the potential impacts of climate change. Urbanized areas of the County and the agriculture and recreation industries are most likely to experience hardships associated with reduced water supply.

3-13 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3.5.9.2.5 Summary of Drought Issues Important issues associated with drought include the following:

• Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on average and impact agriculture, recreation, economy, and municipal water availability in the County. The area should expect drought years. • There is a lack of promotion of active water conservation during drought and non-drought periods.

3-14 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3.5.10 Flood Hazard Profile Flash floods are caused by excessive rainfall, rapid snowmelt or sudden release of water from a blockage in the drainage system. For a general description of the flood hazard, see Section 4.9: Flood Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

Principal Flood Problems

The Town of Crawford has no Special Flood Hazard Areas identified but sometimes experiences localized flooding events due to inadequate drainage. (Flood Insurance Study for Delta, Colorado and Incorporated Areas, 2010). Figure 3-3 shows the locations of flood hazard areas near Crawford.

Regulatory Oversight For Federal, State and County Regulations regarding Drought, see Section 4.8.2 in Volume 1.

3.5.10.1.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Delta County and incorporated areas. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent annual chance flood and the 0.2-percent annual chance flood (the 500-YR flood). Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-YR floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program.

Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met:

New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 100-YR flood.

• New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties.

• New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species.

The Town of Crawford entered the NFIP on August 19th, 2010. Structures permitted or built in the Town before then are called “pre-FIRM” structures, and structures built afterwards are called “post-FIRM.” The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures. The effective date for the current countywide FIRM is August 19th, 2010.

The Town is currently in good standing with the provisions of the NFIP. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk reduction. The Town has identified initiatives to maintain their compliance and good standing. The Town will continue to comply by identifying flood plains on new subdivision proposals and final plats. Building permit requirements mandate Flood Plain permits where identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Sanitation permits also require compliance

3-15 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 3-3: Crawford Flood Hazards

3-16 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

with the ordinance. The Town will incorporate and reference DFIRM maps in regulations as new floodplains are mapped. Audits of regulations will ensure compliance with NFIP in all program areas.

Properties constructed after a FIRM has been adopted are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to decrease vulnerability. Properties built before a FIRM is adopted are more vulnerable to flooding because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas.

Table 3-9 lists NFIP statistics for the Town. The statistics show that no flood insurance claims have been paid as of May 31st, 2017.

Table 3-9: Flood Insurance Statistics for the Town of Crawford NFIP Status & Information Town of Crawford

NFIP Status Participating since 8/9/10 CRS Class n/a Policies in Force 0 Policies in SFHA Policies in non-SFHA Total Claims Paid 0 Paid Losses $0 Repetitive Loss Properties Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Building Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Contents

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a) restricts the release of certain types of data to the public. Flood insurance policy and claims data are included in the list of restricted information. FEMA can only release such data to state and local governments, and only if the data are used for floodplain management, mitigation, or research purposes. Therefore, this plan does not identify the repetitive loss properties or include claims data for any individual property.

Flood Vulnerability Analysis This section describes vulnerabilities to flooding in terms of population, property and infrastructure. The Level 2 Hazus protocol was used to assess the exposure to flooding in the planning area. The model used property value and building characteristics at the parcel/building level, FEMA floodplain data, and National Elevation Dataset topography to estimate potential flooding impacts.

Flood exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using FEMA 100-YR and 500-YR flood zones and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division

3-17 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures, such as federal and local government buildings except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 3-10 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to flooding. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

Table 3-10: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Value Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) ($) Facilities Lifeline 0 $ - $ - 0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

* numbers for 100yr and 500yr combined

3.5.10.2.1 Population Population counts of those living in the floodplain were generated by analyzing County assessor and parcel data that intersect with the 100-YR and 500-YR floodplains identified on FIRMs within the Town of Crawford. Using GIS, Colorado DOLA Bureau information was used to intersect the FEMA identified floodplains within the Town limits. An estimate of population was calculated by weighting the population within each census block. The exposure results indicate the percentage of total population living within a flood risk area. Using this approach, it was estimated that there are no people living in a floodplain.

3.5.10.2.2 Property GIS was used to determine the possible impacts of flooding within the Town of Crawford. The methodology described in Section 4.9.10.2 of Volume 1 was followed in determining structures and values at risk to the FEMA identified 1% (100-YR) and 0.2% (500-YR) annual chance flood event.

Table 3-11 summarizes the number of improved parcels and property value within the Town of Crawford. GIS models determined that there are no improved parcels in the floodplain.

3-18 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 3-11: Town of Crawford - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones Total Total Market Value Total Content Total Value ($) Parcels ($) Value ($) Crawford 153 $ 13,720,206 $ 8,306,854 $ 22,027,060

Parcel Market Value Content Value Flood Hazard Zone % of Total Total Exposure ($) % of Total Count Exposure ($) Exposure ($) 100-Year Flood - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 100-Year Flood, Floodway - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 100-Year Total* - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 500-Year Flood** - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 500-Year Total*** - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

*Total 100-year floodplain **Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain ***Total 500-year floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain

Note: The table above does not display loss estimation results; the table exhibits total value at risk based upon the hazard overlay and Delta County Assessor data.

3.5.10.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure There are no critical facilities in the floodplain.

3.5.10.2.4 Future Trends in Development Future development within the Town would not increase or decrease vulnerabilities to flooding in the community. Future development would take place by obtaining individual permits for buildings based on individual locations near tributaries or high hazard flood areas. High risk flood areas have not been recognized by FEMA or other regulatory agencies in the Town of Crawford. The NFIP upholds minimum standards for development in or near floodplains.

3.5.10.2.5 Summary of Flood Issues Important issues associated with the flood hazard include the following:

• Storm water runoff issues within many different municipalities within Delta County.

3-19 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

3-20 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3.5.11 Geohazard Profile (Slope Failure) Limited geohazard data is available for Delta County. To augment, the planning team conducted a slope analysis to provide data on potential issues with slope failure. Areas with steeper slopes, in combination with other factors such as rockfalls, mudflow or debris flow, swelling soils, collapsible soils, corrosive soils and earthquakes and faults, are more susceptible to slope failure than areas on shallow slopes.

Slope failure near Crawford could occur when the force pulling the material on the slope in a downward direction under gravitational influence exceeds the strength of the earth materials that compose the slope (USGS, 2004). These materials may move by falling, toppling, sliding, spreading, and/or flowing. Strength of rock and soil, steepness of slope, and weight of the hillside material all play an important role in the stability of hillside areas. Weathering and absorption of water can weaken slopes, while the added weight of saturated materials or overlying construction can increase the chances of slope failure. Sudden failure can be triggered by excavation of weak slopes, and heavy rainfall in the Crawford area. Areas of high slope near the Town of Crawford can be found in Figure 3-4.

Regulatory Oversight

3.5.11.1.1 2015 International Building Code The Town of Crawford has adopted the 2015 International Building Code.

3-21 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 3-4: Slope Exposure in the Town of Crawford

3-22 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Geohazard (Slope Failure) Vulnerability Analysis This section describes basic vulnerabilities to topographic slope conditions. The slope classes presented represent various ranges of slope percentage calculated from USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) 10m topography data. The slope classes included are minimal (0-5%), some (6-10%), high (11-20%) and very high (>20%).

Topographic slope exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using the slope class ranges listed above and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 3-12 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to very high and high slope classes. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

Table 3-12: Slope Exposure Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Value Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) ($) Facilities Lifeline 5 $ 191,924 $ 95,962 0 0 1.3% 1.4% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

* numbers for high and very high 3.5.11.2.1 Population Table 3-13 shows the population exposure to minimal, some, high and very slopes in the Town of Crawford.

Table 3-13: Population Exposed to Slope

Crawford - Population Exposed to Slope

Slope Exposure Population Count % of Total Minimal (0-5%) 303 72.82% Some (6-10%) 108 25.91% High (11-20%) 5 1.27% Very High (>20%) 0 0.00% Total 416 100.00%

3-23 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 3-14: Improved Residential Parcel Exposure Total Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Parcels Crawford 153 $ 13,720,206 $ 8,306,854 $ 22,027,060

Parcel % of Market Value Exposure Content Value Exposure % of Slope Exposure Total Exposure ($) Count Total ($) ($) Total Minimal (0-5%) 129 84.3% $ 11,397,770.00 $ 7,145,634.00 $ 18,543,404 84.2% Some (6-10%) 22 14.4% $ 2,130,512.00 $ 1,065,258.00 $ 3,195,770 14.5% High (11-20%) 2 1.3% $ 191,924.00 $ 95,962.00 $ 287,886 1.3% Very High (>20%) - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Total* 153 100% 13,720,206 8,306,854 $ 22,027,060 100.0%

3.5.11.2.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities data was overlain with slope categories to determine the type and number of facilities within each slope exposure. The Town of Crawford has 6 critical facilities with exposure to minimal slope. Table 3-15 lists the critical infrastructure with slope exposure.

In addition, the Town of Crawford has .1 linear miles of transportation and lifelines with high slope exposure, 1.1 linear miles with some slope exposure and 5.1 linear miles with minimal slope exposure.

Table 3-16 lists the transportation and lifelines exposed to minimal, some, high and very high sloped areas.

3-24 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 3-15: Critical Infrastructure with Slope Exposure

Crawford - Critical Facility Slope Exposure

Minimal Some High Very High Infrastructure Type 0-5% 6-10% 11-20% >20% Essential Facility 0 - - - EOC - - - - Fire Station - - - - Hospital - - - - Police Station - - - - High Potential Loss 3 - - - Licensed Child Care 1 - - - Licensed Health Facility - - - - Other Government 2 - - - Dam - - - - Prison - - - - Gas Well - - - - Bottomhole - - - - Transportation and Lifeline 2 - - - Airport - - - - Bridge - - - - Power Plant - - - - Waste Water Facility - - - - Water Utility - - - - Water Wells - - - - County Cell Towers 2 - - - Grand Total* 5 - - - *Delta County School District facilities not included in separate slope analysis. Exposure to high and very high slope not present.

3-25 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 3-16: Transportation and Lifelines with Geohazard Risk

Crawford - Critical Infrastructure Slope Exposure

Infrastructure Type Minimal Some High Very High (Linear Mileage) 0-5% 6-10% 11-20% >20%

Irrigation 0.36 0.22 0.01 - Railroad - - - - Roads 4.72 0.86 0.08 - Local road 1.51 0.34 0.01 - Major road 2.01 0.44 0.06 - 4WD trail 0.00 0.00 - - Alley 0.36 - - - Driveway - - - - Highway 0.83 0.07 0.00 - Cul-de-sac - - - - Ramp - - - - Grand Total 5.1 1.1 0.1 -

Future Trends in Development If Crawford grows in the future we may start to see new impacts to property. The Town may need specific mitigation techniques to address slope failure. The Colorado Geological Survey outlined the following considerations that should be addressed in the Land Use Department:

• All slopes underlain by Mancos Shale along the should be considered potentially unstable • Off property water usage can directly impact slope stability

Summary of Geohazard Issues Important issues associated with geohazards include the following:

• Expansive soils are widespread across the county, including in areas of new development, and can affect building foundations, roads, driveways, and etc.

3-26 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3.6 Mitigation Strategy

The Town of Crawford used the same mitigation strategy as Delta County. This is described in detail in Section 5 of Volume 1.

3.6.1 Identifying the Problem As part of the mitigation actions identification process, the Town of Crawford Planning Committee identified issues and/or weaknesses as a result of the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis. By combining common issues and weaknesses developed by the Planning Committee, the realm of resources needed for mitigating each can be understood. Community issues and weaknesses are presented by individual hazard in Table 3-17. Primary (P) and Secondary (S) jurisdictions are identified for each problem statement. Projects or actions have been developed to mitigate each problem identified. To the degree possible the Town of Crawford will support County Wide Initiatives. See Volume 1 for related County Wide mitigation actions.

Table 3-17: Problem Statements by Hazard

Problem Mitigation Mitigation Crawford Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of All Hazard AH-02 No identified shelters have back-up ES DC-01-2018 generators. This includes shelters identified P S within each Municipality. All Hazard AH-04 Lack of communication and data transmission ES, PE&A DC-05-2008 lines could affect communications during a natural hazard event including 800 MHz P S transmission towers. Lack of domestic demand for communications inhibits communications providers to provide service in remote areas. All Hazard AH-07 Hard to find information on spatial hazards and PE&A DC-11-2008, where they are located in the county. The DC-04-2008 County GIS viewer does not show any hazards P S layers or any other information besides base mapping. Drought DR-01 Future growth and climate conditions in Delta NRP, PRV, DC-02-2018 County could impact available water supply PE&A specifically for residents on water wells or P S smaller water districts dependent on well water. Drought DR-02 Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on PRV, DC-03-2018, average and impact agriculture, recreation, PE&A, DC-02-2018 economy, and municipal water availability in NRP P S the County. The area should expect drought years.

3-27 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Problem Mitigation Mitigation Crawford Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of Drought DR-03 There is a lack of promotion of active water PE&A, DC-04-2018, conservation during drought and non-drought PRV DC-02-2018 P S periods. Drought DR-08 Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on CR-08-2018 average and impact agriculture, recreation, economy, and municipal water availability in P the Town. The town should expect drought years. Flood FL-03 Storm water runoff issues within many SP DC-02-2008 P S different municipalities within Delta County. Flood FL-08 Town of Crawford will have inadequate SP CR-01-2018 stormwater drainage after Clipper Ditch is P piped through Crawford. Flood FL-09 Drainage issues from SH92 causing localized SP CR-03-2018 flooding. CDOT issue with assistance from P Crawford. Geohazard GH-01 Expansive soils are widespread across the PE&A, DC-03-2008, county, including in areas of new PRV DC-02-2008 P S development, and can affect building foundations, roads, driveways, and etc. Geohazard GH-07 Slope Stability issues exist on slope sides north SP CR-02-2018 of Crawford. Water storages tanks is located P within this area. Severe SW-03 Risk of power supply interruption due to ES DC-16-2018 P S Weather severe storms. Severe SW-04 Vulnerable populations can be isolated by PE&A, ES DC-18-2018, Weather severe storm events especially those with DC-17-2018 functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, P S car dependent etc.…) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages. Wildfire WF-10 10 Cell Phone Towers within the County are PPRO DC-09-2018 located within a "Very High Wildfire Threat P S area. Wildfire WF-11 Many County residents live within high wildfire PPRO DC-03-2008, risk areas including low income, elderly and DC-02-2008 other vulnerable populations. Approx. 40%- P S 50% of the total population live within some wildfire risk areas.

3-28 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3.6.2 Capability Assessment The Town of Crawford identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The mitigation strategy includes an assessment of the Town’s planning and regulatory, administrative and technical, financial, and education and outreach capabilities to augment known issues and weaknesses from identified natural hazards. Planning and Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities The legal and regulatory capabilities of local, state, and federal jurisdictions are shown in Table 3-18, which presents existing ordinances and codes that can regulate the physical or built environment of the Town. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordnances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans.

Table 3-18: Town of Crawford's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities

Plan/ Program/ Regulation Yes or No Building Codes Yes Building Codes Year

BCEGS Rating Public Protection (ISO Class) Yes

Capital Improvements Program (CIP) or Plan Yes

Community Rating System (CRS) No Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)

Comprehensive, Master, or General Plan In progress Economic Development Plan

Elevation Certificates

Erosion/Sediment Control Program Floodplain Management Plan

Flood Insurance Study Growth Management Ordinance

Hazard-Specific Ordinance or Plan (Floodplain, Steep Slope, Wildfire) NFIP

Site Plan Review Requirements

Stormwater Program, Plan or Ordinance

Zoning Ordinance

3-29 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Administrative and Technical Capabilities Table 3-19 lists the Town’s administrative and technical abilities.

Table 3-19: Town of Crawford’s Administrative and Technical Ability

Administrative/ Technical Resource Yes or No

Emergency Manager Yes

Floodplain Administrator

Community Planning: No

- Planner/Engineer (Land Development) No

- Planner/Engineer/Scientist (Natural Hazards) No

- Engineer/Professional (Construction) No

- Resiliency Planner No

- Transportation Planner No

Full-Time Building Official No

GIS Specialist and Capability No

Grant Manager, Writer, or Specialist No

Warning Systems/Services: No

- General No

- Flood No

- Wildfire No

- Geological Hazards No

3-30 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Financial Capabilities Table 3-20 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to the Town such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard-prone areas.

Table 3-20: Town of Crawford's Financial Capabilities

Financial Resource

Has community used any of the following to fund mitigation activities:

- Levy for Specific Purposes with Voter Approval No

- Utilities Fees

- System Development Feed

- General Obligation Bonds to Incur Debt

- Special Tax Bonds to Incur Debt

- Withheld Spending in Hazard-Prone Areas

- Stormwater Service Fees

- Capital Improvement Project Funding

- Community Development Block Grants

Education and Outreach Table 3-21 summarizes community outreach and education programs that could be used in conjunction with mitigation planning efforts.

Table 3-21: Town of Crawford's Public Outreach and Education Programs

Education/ Outreach Resource

Local Citizen Groups That Communicate Hazard Risks:

- Firewise Yes

- StormReady

- Other

3-31 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). Together with the County Planning Committee, the steering committee established a guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable objectives for this plan, based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and the results of the public involvement strategy. This information is located in Section 5.4 of Volume 1.

3.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan Based upon the Town’s planning committee priorities, risk assessment results, and mitigation alternatives, mitigation actions were developed. Most importantly, the newly developed mitigation actions acknowledge updated risk assessment information outlined in Section 3.5. Mitigation actions presented in Table 3-22 establish 3 possible mitigation actions for problem statements that the Town is the Primary lead on. For Countywide mitigation actions that the Town will support, see the mitigation action workbook in Annex A. Some mitigation actions support ongoing Town activities, while other actions are intended to be completed when funding is available. Regardless, mitigation actions will be part of an annual review.

Benefit/ Cost Review The Town of Crawford Planning Team used the same benefit/cost parameters as described in Section 5.5.1.1 of Volume 1. Cost ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).

• Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. • Low—The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program. Benefit ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property. • Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.

• Low—Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.

Mitigation Actions Plan The Town of Crawford Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Section 5.5.1 of Volume 1. Based upon the Town of Crawford Planning Committee consensus, Table 3-22 lists each priority mitigation action. Priority mitigation action Implementation plans are made available in Annex A. Implementation plans in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need to implementation. The detail in the Action Planners meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

3-32 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 3-22: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker Action No. Hazard Type Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation Responsible Party Potential Funding Source Time Frame* Benefit Cost Rating Implementation Plan Alternatives / Priority

CR-01-2018 Flood Increase/ improve water drainage after Clipper ditch is piped. SP Public Works HMGP Short Term Medium/ Medium Yes

CR-02-2018 Geohazard Construct Slope Stabilization near water tank. SP Public Works HMGP Mid Term High/ Medium Yes

CR-03-2018 Flood Assist CDOT to perform a hydrology study, design system and construct SP Public Works General Funds Long Term High/ Medium Yes drainage improvements on HWY 92.

CR-04-2018 Drought Establish an irrigation time/scheduling program or process so that all NRP, PRV Town of Crawford General Funds Short Term Low/ Medium Yes agricultural land gets the required amount of water. Through incremental timing, each area is irrigated at different times so that all water is not consumed at the same time. Spacing usage may also help with recharge of groundwater. *Note: Short Term= 1-3 yrs, Mid Term= 3-5 yrs, Long Term= 5 yrs or more

As a living document, project descriptions and actions in the tables above will be modified to reflect current conditions over time

3-33 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

3-34 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

3.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance

The Town of Crawford Planning Team will follow the same implementation and maintenance strategy as Delta County. This strategy is described in detail in Section 6 of Volume 1. Town of Crawford Mitigation Action Trackers in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need for implementation and maintenance. The detail in the Action Trackers meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000 for priority mitigation actions. Mitigation Action Trackers will be used to report, track and implement mitigation actions over the next five-year update cycle.

3.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms An important implementation mechanism is to incorporate the recommendations and underlying principles of the MJHMP into community planning and development such as capital improvement budgeting, building and zoning codes, general plans and regional plans. Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated within the day-to-day functions and priorities of the jurisdiction attempting to implement risk reducing actions. The integration of a variety of Town departments on the MJHMP Planning Committee provides an opportunity for constant and pervasive efforts to network, identify, and highlight mitigation activities and opportunities at all levels of government. This collaborative effort is also important to monitor funding opportunities which can be leveraged to implement the mitigation actions.

Information from this 2018 MJHMP can be incorporated into:

• Town of Crawford General Plan: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into a General Plan should the Town decide to adopt one in the future. Specific risk and vulnerability information from the Delta County MJHMP and Town of Crawford Annex would assist to identify areas where development may be at risk to potential hazards. • Town Building / Development Codes and Zoning Ordinances: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information to enable the Town to make decisions on appropriate building/development codes and ordinances. Appropriate building codes and ordinances can increase the Town’s resilience against natural disasters. • Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP): The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into CWPP updates for areas within or near the Town of Crawford.

3-35 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

3-36

Section 4. TOWN OF HOTCHKISS

4-1

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

4-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Municipal Adoption Records

To comply with DMA 2000, the Hotchkiss Town Council has officially adopted the 2018 Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 and the Town of Hotchkiss Volume 2 Annex. The adoption of the 2018 MJHMP in its entirety recognizes the Town’s commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards within the Town and County. See the following record of Adoption.

4-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

4-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.1 Purpose

This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Town of Hotchkiss. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Town. This Annex provides additional information specific to the Town of Hotchkiss, with a focus on providing additional details on the planning process, risk assessment, and mitigation strategy for this community.

Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Daniel Miller, Marshal Mike Owens, Public Works Director 276 E Main St PO Box 369 Hotchkiss, CO 81419 Hotchkiss, CO 81419 Telephone: (970) 872-3848 Telephone: (970) 872-3663 e-mail Address: [email protected] e-mail Address: [email protected] 4.2 Introduction

Hotchkiss offers a place for folks to come and meet from all over the County, at Memorial Hall and the County Fairgrounds. As every year passes, the Town becomes more and more of a location where people travel to hunt, fish and take in the local atmosphere. Fresh fruits from our local orchards, tasty wines from our local vineyards and fresh vegetables from our local farmers offers some of the most sought after flavors not found anywhere else other than the North Fork Valley.

Our small Town of a 1000 populace, has become the home of the Hotchkiss Sheep Camp Stock Dog Trials, the Delta County Fair, and some of the best Champion Fly Fishing on the nearby Gunnison River. Hotchkiss is nestled in one of the most beautiful, breathtaking environments, having so much to offer for those looking for a getaway, getting back to nature, or just experiencing some of the most delicious tastes in Wine and Food. (Town of Hotchkiss, n.d.)

4-1 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 4-1: Town of Hotchkiss Location

4.2.1 Geography and Climate The Town of Hotchkiss is located at the bottom of a bowl and is surrounded by hills on three sides. It comprises approximately 497 acres of land and consists of three generally distinct areas:

• The original and expanded Town is on the north side of the North Fork of the Gunnison River and bounded by railroad crossings and a steep rise in the terrain to the east (Hanson Mesa) and to the west (Rogers Mesa). Also, at the west edge of Town is a gulch containing Leroux Creek, which flows into the river. To the north, the land rises sharply to lower Barrow Mesa, which includes Duke Hill and Knob Hill. • Willow Heights/Lower Barrow Mesa is located directly to the north and on a bench of land above the original Town and comprises gently sloping and rolling terrain. • A third area consists of Highway 92 on the south side of the river extending to and including the North Fork Pool and Sports Complex and the Hotchkiss High School. This begins at the level of the river and rises up a gentle hill. (Delta County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2008)

Table 4-1 shows climate data for the Town.

4-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-1: Hotchkiss Climate Statistics Description Avg. Rating Annual high temperature: 92°F Annual low temperature: 17°F Average temperature: - Average annual precipitation - rainfall: 13 in Days per year with precipitation - rainfall: 47.8 Annual hours of sunshine: - Av. annual snowfall: 45 in Source: www.bestplaces.net

4.2.2 Historical Overview The first settlers to the Hotchkiss area arrived in the fall of 1881 following the removal of the native Ute Indians. For the first 20 years, the local economy was mainly based on agriculture and land development along with commercial in-town businesses serving the local population. The Town of Hotchkiss was officially incorporated in 1990. It was named after the leader of the first settlers, Enos Throop Hotchkiss.

In 1902, the arrival of the Denver and Rio Grand Western railroad spur line into the North Fork gave a huge boost to the fruit industry and especially to what would become the economic engine of the valley—the new coal mines. The Rogers Mesa area, located to the west of town was, and still is, the major fruit growing center of the Hotchkiss area.

The Town’s first domestic water system was completed in 1903 and its first sewer collection system serving the central section of Hotchkiss was completed in 1911. Both systems were made somewhat more necessary due to the fact that the original core of the Town was constructed in the floodplain of the North Fork of the Gunnison River with its accompanying high water table. (Delta County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2008) 4.3 Planning Methodology

The Town of Hotchkiss followed the planning process detailed in Volume 1, Section 3 of the base plan. In addition to providing representation on the Delta County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and Steering Committee, the Town formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process requirements. Internal planning participants, their positions, and how they participated in the planning process are shown in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2: 2018 Town of Hotchkiss Stakeholder List

Planning Committee Dept. / Members Position / Role Daniel Miller, Marshal Steering Committee Rep. Mike Owens, Public Works Director Steering Committee Rep

4-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.4 What’s New The Town of Hotchkiss had one mitigation action in the 2008 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. This action (provide back-up power generation to critical facilities) was completed over the past 10 years. 4.5 Risk Assessment The intent of this section is to profile the Town of Hotchkiss’s hazards and assess the Town’s vulnerability separate from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been assessed in Volume 1, Section 4 (Risk Assessment). The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the planning area and describes the hazard problem description, hazard extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard profile information specific to the Town of Hotchkiss is included in this section of the Annex. This vulnerability assessment analyzes the property, population, critical facilities, and other assets at risk to hazards specific to the Town of Hotchkiss. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Section 4 Risk Assessment in Volume 1. Each hazard vulnerability assessment for the Town of Hotchkiss Annex includes a brief hazard profile for each medium or high significant hazard with the potential to affect the Town. The intent of this section is to provide jurisdictional specific information on hazards and further describe how the hazards and risks differ across the planning area.

4.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria Per FEMA Guidance, the first step in developing the Risk Assessment is identifying the hazards. The Town Planning Committee reviewed a number of previously prepared hazard mitigation plans and other relevant documents to determine the universe of natural hazards that have the potential to affect the Town. Table 4-3 provides a crosswalk of hazards identified in the 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan- Town of Hotchkiss Annex, 2006 Town of Hotchkiss Community Master Plan, 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Sixteen different hazards were identified based on a thorough document review. The crosswalk was used to develop a preliminary hazards list providing a framework for the Town’s Planning Team members to evaluate which hazards were truly relevant to the Town and which ones are not. For example, erosion and deposition was considered to have no relevance to the Town, while flood and wildfire were indicated in every hazard documentation.

4-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-3: Town of Hotchkiss Document Review Crosswalk Hazards 2008 Delta County 2006 Town of 2008 Delta County 2013 Colorado HMP – Town of Hotchkiss Community Hazard Mitigation Natural Hazards Hotchkiss Annex Master Plan Plan Mitigation Plan ■ ■ Avalanche

Climate Change ■ ■ Dam Failure ■ ■ ■ Drought Earthquake ■ ■ Erosion and ■ Deposition Expansive Soils ■ ■ Extreme Heat ■ Flood ■ ■ ■ ■ Geologic Hazards ■ Hazardous Materials ■ ■ Landslide Severe Weather ■ ■ Tornado ■ Wildfire ■ ■ ■ ■ Winter Storms ■ ■

4.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking The Town of Hotchkiss’s Planning Team used the same hazard prioritization process as the Delta County Planning Committee. This process is described in detail in Section 4.3 of Volume 1. Table 4-4 shows the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise. Based upon the hazard risk rating wildfire, flood, drought, dam failure and severe winter weather will be profiled as priority hazards in the Town’s Annex. After reviewing the Town’s capabilities, the Planning Committee decided not to complete a full hazard profile for wildfire, but rather to refer the reader to the Fire District Annex, Hotchkiss Fire Protection District hazard profile and vulnerability assessment in Section 8 of this Volume.

4-5 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-4: Town of Hotchkiss Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix

Impact

Catastrophic Critical Limited Minor

Highly

Likely Wildfire Flood

Likely Drought

Dam Failure, Probability Possible Severe Winter Weather

Unlikely Geohazards

4.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk This section presents the vulnerability assessment for the Town of Hotchkiss and identifies the Town’s total assets at risk, including people, values at risk, critical facilities and infrastructure. Growth and development trends are also presented for the community. This data is not hazard specific but is representative of total assets at risk within the community.

4.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory In order to describe vulnerability for each hazard, it is important to understand the “total” population and “total” assets at risk within the Town. The exposure for each hazard described in this section will refer to the percent of total population or percent of total assets similar to Volume 1. This provides the possible significance or vulnerability to people and assets for the natural hazard event and the estimated damage and losses expected during a “worst case scenario” event for each hazard. Sections below provide a description of the total population, critical facilities, and parcel exposure inputs.

Population In order to develop hazard-specific vulnerability assessments, populations near natural hazard risks have been determined to understand the total “at risk” population. We can understand how geographically defined hazards may affect the Town by analyzing the extent of the hazard in relation to the location of population. For purposes of the vulnerability assessment

4-6 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

approximately 9235 (100%) of the Town’s population is exposed to one or more hazards within or near the Town boundaries. Each natural hazard scenario affects the Town residents differently depending on the location of the hazard and the population density of where the hazard could occur. Vulnerability assessment sections presented later in this section summarize the population exposure for each natural hazard.

4.5.4.1.1 Vulnerable Populations The severity of a disaster depends on both the physical nature of the extreme event and the socioeconomic nature of the populations affected by the event. Important socioeconomic factors tend to influence disaster severity. A core concept in a vulnerability analysis is that different people, even within the same region, have a different vulnerability to natural hazards.

4.5.4.1.2 At-Risk Individuals At-risk individuals are people with access and functional needs that may interfere with their ability to access or receive medical care before, during, or after a disaster or emergency. Irrespective of specific diagnosis, status, or label, the term “access and functional needs” is a broad set of common and cross-cutting access and function-based needs. (At-Risk Individuals, 2016) For more information on planning for individuals with access and functional needs, refer to Section 4.5.6.1.4 of Volume 1.

4.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory Critical facilities are of concern when conducting hazard mitigation planning. Critical facilities are defined as essential services, and if damaged, would result in severe consequences to the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

An inventory of critical facilities based on data from the Town of Hotchkiss, Delta County and other publicly sourced information were used to develop a comprehensive inventory of facility points and lifelines for the Town. Critical facility points include fire stations, schools, transportation, utilities, and government buildings. Lifelines include communication, electric power, liquid fuel, natural gas, and transportation routes. A current representation of the critical facilities and lifelines in the Town of Hotchkiss are provided in Table 4-5 and Table 4-6. The County GIS Department manages and maintains a complete list of critical facilities.

5 According to the 2016 Colorado DOLA Demography Office, the total population for the Town of Hotchkiss was approx. 923 people.

4-7 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-5: Town of Hotchkiss - Critical Facility Counts

Infrastructure Type Total Feature Count

Essential Facility 5 EOC - Fire Station 1 Hospital - Police Station 1 School 3 Essential Facility High Potential Loss 7 Child Care Licensed 1 High Potential Loss Dam - Transportation and Lifeline Gas Well (Permits) - Health Facility Licensed - Other Government 6 Prison - Transportation and Lifeline 3 Airport - Bridge 1 County Cell Towers 2 Power Plant - Waste Water Facility - Water Utility - Water Wells - Grand Total 15

Table 4-6: Town of Hotchkiss - Linear Utilities

Infrastructure Type (Linear Mileage) Total Linear Mileage Railroad 0.9 Irrigation 0.7 Roads 13.2 Local road 1.3 Major road 8.1 4WD trail 0.4 Alley 1.0 Driveway - Highway 2.5 Cul-de-sac - Ramp - Grand Total 14.7

4-8 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory Total count and value of address points within the Town of Hotchkiss which could be exposed to a hazard event is referred to as parcel exposure in this Annex. A standardized hazard overlay was conducted to develop hazard exposure results for improved City parcels presented later in this section. For more information on this exposure method see Volume 1, Section 4. In the event of a disaster, it is generally the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land that is of concern or at risk. Generally, the land itself is not a total loss and structures can be rebuilt. The Delta County Assessor’s data is pivotal to developing parcel values exposed to each hazard and includes assessed value at risk. Town of Hotchkiss parcel information is summed and provided in Table 4-7. Both the market value and content value are the total value in the community at risk to a particular hazard.

Table 4-7: Town of Hotchkiss - Parcel Counts and Value

Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Hotchkiss 394 $ 41,922,379 $ 28,815,085 $ 70,737,464

4.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory FEMA’s loss estimation software, Hazus-MH 4.0, was used to analyze the Town’s building risk to flood hazards. A Hazus level II assessment was performed leveraging county-wide assessor’s data in lieu of default Hazus data. Hazus software operates on structure square footage, structure replacement, and content replacement costs to estimate potential losses specific to a modeled flood scenario. Table 4-8 and Figure 4-2 provide input value data for occupancy classes derived from assessor’s data to match FEMA modeling standards.

Table 4-8: Town of Hotchkiss Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values Building Content Value Proportion Value Building Type Building Value ($) Content Value ($) (% of grand Total Value ($) of Value (% of grand total *) (%) total) Agricultural $ 520,531 0.7% $ 520,531 0.7% $ 1,041,062 1% Commercial $ 11,418,209 16.1% $ 11,418,209 16.1% $ 22,836,418 32% Education $ 1,123,417 1.6% $ 1,123,417 1.6% $ 2,246,834 3% Governmental $ 1,006,037 1.4% $ 1,006,037 1.4% $ 2,012,074 3% Industrial $ 498,826 0.7% $ 748,239 1.1% $ 1,247,065 2% Religion $ 641,937 0.9% $ 641,937 0.9% $ 1,283,874 2% Residential $ 26,713,422 37.8% $ 13,356,715 18.9% $ 40,070,137 57% Total $ 41,922,379 59% $ 28,815,085 41% $ 70,737,464

Data Source: Delta County Assessor. Building values reflect fair market value where available. If no fair market value is available, this value reflects the assessed improvement value. Content replacement costs are calculated based on assessor's use codes translated to Hazus occupancy classes. Each HAZUS occupancy class prescribes a specific content cost multiplier used to calculate the content cost values shown above. Use codes including a "vacant" description have been removed along with agricultural use codes with no improvement value.

4-9 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 4-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Exposure Values

Millions $- $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30

Agricultural

Commercial

Education

Governmental

Industrial

Religion

Residential

Building Value ($) Content Value ($)

4-10 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards This section provides the vulnerability assessment, including any quantifiable loss estimates, for those hazards identified as high or medium significant hazards within the Town Limits. Impacts of past events and vulnerability of the Town to specific hazards are further discussed below (see Section 4.6 Hazard Identification in the base plan for more detailed information about these hazards and their impacts on the Delta County planning area).

Methodologies for calculating loss estimates are the same as those described in Section 3.4 of the base plan. An estimate of the vulnerability of the Town to each identified priority hazard, in addition to the estimate of risk of future occurrence, is provided in each of the hazard-specific sections that follow.

This Annex provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the Town and how hazards may affect population and property within the jurisdiction. Most importantly the mitigation strategy presented in this plan responds to the particular vulnerabilities and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest reduction of vulnerability, which results in saved lives, reduced injuries, reduced property damage, and protection for the environment in the event of a natural hazard. This Town Annex provides information for the following natural hazard threats:

Dam Failure Drought Flood SECTION 4.5.9 SECTION 4.5.10 SECTION 4.5.11

Severe Winter Weather Wildfire* SECTION 4.5.12 SEE SECTION 8

*Important to Note: The Town Planning Committee decided not to profile wildfire in the Town’s annex. For wildfire information relevant to the Town, refer to the Hotchkiss Fire Protection District wildfire hazard information throughout the Fire Protection District Annex in Section 8 of this Volume. The Town of Hotchkiss will support the Hotchkiss Fire Protection District with every resource and capability possible to assist with wildfire mitigation activities outlined in the Fire Protection District Annex.

4-11 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

4-12 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.5.9 Dam Failure Hazard For a general description of the dam failure hazard, refer to Section 4.7 in the Base Plan.

One notable flood event occurred near the Town of Hotchkiss in May 1998 when the Carl Smith Dam at Patterson Reservoir #3 failed. This sent a wall of water down Leroux Creek. The earthen dam break was 200 feet wide and 45 feet high. The wall of water was up to 10 feet high and averaged 100 feet in width. Many bridges and irrigation structures were damaged or washed out. Many farm and ranch buildings were destroyed or washed away. (Flood Insurance Study for Delta, Colorado and Incorporated Areas, 2010) Regulatory Oversight In addition to Federal, State and County regulatory oversight the Town of Hotchkiss does not have additional regulations surrounding dams and dam safety. See Volume 1, Section 4.7.1 for more information on State and Federal Dam Safety Regulations. Dam Failure Vulnerability Analysis This section describes vulnerabilities to dam inundation in terms of population, property and infrastructure. The primary danger associated with dam failure is the high velocity flooding downstream of the dam and limited warning times for evacuation. Vulnerability varies by community and depends on the particular dam profile and the nature and extent of the failure. Dam inundation zones provided by Delta County GIS were used to develop exposure for dam failure.

Dam Failure exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using the spatial extent of dam inundation zones and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures, such as federal and local government buildings except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 4-9 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to dam failure. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

Table 4-9: Dam Failure Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) Value ($) Facilities Lifeline 386 $ 19,203,120 $ 15,646,531 7 5.8 42.6% 45.8% 54.3% 46.7% 39.7% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

4.5.9.2.1 Population Vulnerable populations are all populations downstream from dam failures that are incapable of escaping the area within the allowable time frame. This population includes the elderly and young who may be unable to get themselves out of the inundation area. Vulnerable populations also include those who would not have adequate warning from a television, radio emergency warning system, have not registered with CODE RED, or do not have cell phones that can receive amber alerts.

4-13 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

The potential for loss of life is affected by the capacity and number of evacuation routes available to populations living in areas of potential inundation. The entire population in a dam failure inundation zone is exposed to the risk of a dam failure. The estimated population living in the inundation area mapped for this risk assessment is summarized in Figure 4-4 and Table 4-10: Town of Hotchkiss Population Exposure to Dam Failure in Delta County.

500 386 400 Population Exposure 300 Population Count by Dam 200 100 0Inundation0 Zone0 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 4-3: Town of Hotchkiss Population Exposure to Dam Failure Table 4-10: Town of Hotchkiss Population Exposure to Dam Failure in Delta County

Total Population Hotchkiss 908

Dam Inundation Zone Population Count % of Total Barren Dam - 0.00% Deep Slough Dam - 0.00% Donnelly 1 Dam - 0.00% Eggleston Dam - 0.00% Hotel Lake Dam - 0.00% Kennicott Slough Dam - 0.00% Kiser Slough Dam - 0.00% Overland 1 Dam 15 1.65% Overland 1 Auxillary Dam 15 1.65% Ward Creek Dam - 0.00% Ward Lake Dam - 0.00% Crawford Dam - 0.00% Fruit Growers Dam - 0.00% Paonia Dam 386 42.56% Silver Jack Dam - 0.00% Blue Mesa Dam - 0.00% Morrow Point Dam - 0.00% Crystal Dam - 0.00% Total* 386 42.56% *total population is not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

4-14 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.5.9.2.2 Property Vulnerable properties are those closest to the actual dam or impoundment. These properties would experience the largest, most destructive surge of water. Low-lying areas are also vulnerable since they are where the dam waters would collect. Transportation routes are vulnerable to dam inundation and have the potential to be wiped out, creating isolation issues. This includes all roads, railroads and bridges in the path of the dam inundation. Those that are most vulnerable are those that are already in poor condition and would not be able to withstand a large water surge. Utilities such as overhead power lines, cable and phone lines could also be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional isolation issues for the inundation areas.

The county Assessor’s address point data was used as the basis for the inventory of current market values and content value summaries. The address points were overlaid with the inundation zones in a GIS to determine the at-risk structures. Building exposure was calculated based on current net values or when absent, assessor’s values as provided by the assessor’s office. Building content exposure was calculated based on occupancy type multipliers and improvement value. Table 4-11 shows the count of at-risk parcels and their associated building and content exposure values to dam failure. A total of $34,849,651 worth of buildings and contents are exposed to dam failure hazards within the Town Boundaries representing 49.3% of the total value in the Town of Hotchkiss.

4-15 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-11: Town of Hotchkiss Parcel Values at Risk from Dam Inundation

Total Total Market Value Total Content Total Value ($) Parcels ($) Value ($) Hotchkiss 394 $ 41,922,379 $ 28,815,085 $ 70,737,464

Parcel Market Value Content Value % of Dam Inundation Zone % of Total Total Exposure ($) Count Exposure ($) Exposure ($) Total Barren Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Deep Slough Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Donnelly 1 Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Eggleston Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Hotel Lake Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Kennicott Slough Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Kiser Slough Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Overland 1 Dam 3 0.8% $ 189,214.00 $ 94,606.00 $ 283,820.00 0.40% Overland 1 Auxillary Dam 3 0.8% $ 189,214.00 $ 94,606.00 $ 283,820.00 0.40% Ward Creek Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Ward Lake Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Crawford Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Fruit Growers Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Paonia Dam 179 45.4% $ 19,203,120.00 $ 15,646,531.00 $ 34,849,651.00 49.27% Silver Jack Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Blue Mesa Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Morrow Point Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Crystal Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Dam Inundation Area* 179 45.4% $ 19,203,120 $ 15,646,531 $ 34,849,651 49.3% *totals are not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

4.5.9.2.3 Critical Facilities Critical Facilities at risk to dam inundation are on file with the County for national security purposes. As a general note, low-lying areas are vulnerable to dam inundation, especially transportation routes. This includes all roads, railroads, and bridges in the flow path of water. The most vulnerable critical facilities are those in poor condition that would have difficulty withstanding a large surge of water. Utilities such as overhead power lines and communication lines could also be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional compounding issues for emergency management officials attempting to conduct evacuation and response actions. GIS analysis determined that 7 of the planning area’s critical facilities and 5.8 linear miles of infrastructure are in a mapped dam inundation area, as summarized in Table 4-12 and Table 4-13.

4-16 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-12: Critical Infrastructure Points in Dam Inundation Zones

Hazard Hazard pSlough HazardDam Infrastructure Type Infrastructure BarrenHazardDam TotalFeature Count CrystalHazardDam PaoniaHazardDam CrawfordHazardDam KennicottSlough Dam EgglestonHazardDam Silver Jack Dam SilverHazard Jack Ward Lake Dam HazardDam WardLake Donnelly 1 HazardDonnelly Dam LakeHazard Dam Hotel Mesa HazardDam Blue Overland1 HazardDam Ward Creek Dam HazardDam Ward Creek Overland1 Auxillary Dam KiserSlough HazardDam Dee Fruit Growers Dam Hazard Dam Growers Fruit MorrowPoint HazardDam

Essential Facility 1 ------1 - - - - EOC ------Fire Station 1 ------1 - - - - Hospital ------Police Station ------School ------High Potential Loss 5 ------5 - - - - Child Care Licensed ------Dam ------Gas Well (Permits) ------Health Facility Licensed ------Other Government 5 ------5 - - - - Prison ------Transportation and Lifeline 1 ------1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - Airport ------Bridge 1 ------1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - County Cell Towers ------Power Plant ------Waste Water Facility ------Water Utility ------Water Wells ------Grand Total 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 0 *total count is not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

4-17 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-13: Miles of Critical Infrastructure (Linear) in Dam Inundation Zones

Infrastructure Total Type Linear Fruit Fruit Kiser Kiser (Linear Deep Barren Slough Slough Slough Paonia Growers Auxillary Crawford

Mileage Kennicott Eggleston SilverJack Hotel Lake Hotel WardLake BlueMesa Donnelly1 Overland1 Overland1 Mileage) WardCreek

Railroad ------Irrigation 0.0 ------0.0 0.0 - - - - 0.0 - - Roads 5.8 ------0.4 0.4 - - - - 5.8 - - Local road 0.4 ------0.4 - - Major road 3.0 ------0.3 0.3 - - - - 3.0 - - 4WD trail ------Alley 0.9 ------0.9 - - Driveway ------Highway 1.5 ------0.2 0.2 - - - - 1.5 - - Cul-de-sac ------Ramp ------Grand Total 5.8 ------0.5 0.5 - - - - 5.8 - -

4-18 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.5.9.2.4 Future Trends in Development The Town is aware that future development may occur near flood hazard/ dam failure areas. Code development is regulated by Hotchkiss’s zoning ordinance, which does not allow for portions of parcels that are located in an area with a high flood hazard and is in a “floodway” as defined by FEMA to be developed.

4.5.9.2.5 Summary of Dam Failure Issues Important issues associated with the dam failure hazard include the following:

• There are 27 high hazard dams in Delta County. Not all dam owners have updated EAP to reflect changes in downstream development and new available elevation data.

4-19 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

4-20 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.5.10 Drought Hazard Profile For a general description of the drought hazard, see Section 4.8: Drought Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

The Town of Hotchkiss’s present domestic water source is surface water from Leroux Creek. The water in the creek is supplemented by water stored in about 28 separate small reservoirs owned by the Leroux Creek Water Users Association in which the Town owns shares. The Town owns a Number One decree right to .50 cfs (cubic foot per second) in Leroux Creek. In short water years, the Town can call upon lesser decreed users to relinquish the water to the Town first. The Town also owns additional shares of Leroux Creek Water Users water, Overland Ditch water, Highline Ditch water and Fire Mountain Canal water. In 2006, 1 cfs of water from a senior 1907 decree from the North Fork of the Gunnison River was purchased. (Town of Hotchkiss Community Master Plan, 2012)

Regulatory Oversight For Federal and State Regulations regarding Drought, see Section 4.8.2 in Volume 1.

4.5.10.1.1 Town of Hotchkiss Community Master Plan The 2006 Town of Hotchkiss Community Master Plan establishes the following policies for water conservation:

• The Town will continue to quantify and review periodically the legal status of current water supplies and develop a plan of placing future supplies into domestic system as they are needed. • The Town will continue to review future domestic water needs as related to the capacities of the current (2010) water treatment plant. • The Town will create a domestic water treatment system improvement plan including upgrading of existing lines including the looping of all lines. Review yearly after adoption. (prior to budget)

Drought Vulnerability Analysis Drought produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the economy and reaches well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to the ability to produce goods and provides services. Drought can affect a wide range of economic, environmental and social activities. The vulnerability of an activity to the effects of drought usually depends on its water demand, how the demand is met, and what water supplies are available to meet the demand.

4.5.10.2.1 Population All people, property and environments in Hotchkiss would be exposed to some degree to the impacts of moderate to extreme drought conditions.

4.5.10.2.2 Property Drought normally does not directly impact structures. Although water and sewer infrastructure may be affected by drought, other critical facilities are generally not. Data are not available to identify particular hazard areas and/or estimate potential losses to structures. The greatest risk to people from drought is the loss of drinking water supply from water

4-21 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

systems and underground aquifers. Secondary impacts from drought, such as wildfire and erosion, can have a significant impact on structures and municipal infrastructure.

4.5.10.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities, as defined for this plan, will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility elements such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning area’s critical facilities inventory will be largely aesthetic. For example, when water conservation measures are in place, landscaped areas will not be watered and may die. These aesthetic impacts are not considered significant.

4.5.10.2.4 Future Trends in Development As population grows, so do the water needs for household, commercial, industrial, recreation, and agricultural uses. Vulnerability to drought will increase with these growing demands on existing water supplies. Future water use planning in Colorado is complex and has to account for increasing population size as well as the potential impacts of climate change. Urbanized areas of the County and the agriculture and recreation industries are most likely to experience hardships associated with reduced water supply.

4.5.10.2.5 Summary of Drought Issues Important issues associated with drought include the following:

• Future growth and climate conditions in Delta County could impact available water supply specifically for residents on water wells or smaller water districts dependent on well water. • Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on average and impact agriculture, recreation, economy, and municipal water availability in the County. The area should expect drought years. • There is a lack of promotion of active water conservation during drought and non-drought periods.

4-22 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.5.11 Flood Hazard Profile Flash floods are caused by excessive rainfall, rapid snowmelt or sudden release of water from a blockage in the drainage system. For a general description of the flood hazard, see Section 4.9: Flood Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

Principal Flood Problems

There is a significant flood hazard area along the Short Draw to the east of Coal Road and south to where it enters the Town at Lorah Avenue at the K-8 School and then down 4th Street, crossing at an angle Main and Bridge Streets and on to the river. There have been flood incidents in the past particularly along Fourth St. caused by two separate factors. 1. Heavy rain on the steep foothills to the north of the Fire Mountain Canal. 2. The rupturing of the Fire Mountain Canal itself.

According to the Hotchkiss Fire Department, if a wildfire, removing groundcover, were to occur in the area north of the canal followed by a heavy rainfall, this could result in severe flooding from the Short Draw. (Town of Hotchkiss Community Master Plan, 2012)Figure 4-4 shows the flood hazards for the Town of Hotchkiss.

Regulatory Oversight For Federal, State and County Regulations regarding flood, see Section 4.9.2: Flood Hazard Profile in Volume 1 of the Base Plan.

4.5.11.1.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Delta County and incorporated areas. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent annual chance flood and the 0.2-percent annual chance flood (the 500-YR flood). Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-YR floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program.

Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met:

• New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 100-YR flood.

• New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties.

• New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species.

4-23 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 4-4: Hotchkiss Flood Hazards

4-24 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

The Town of Hotchkiss entered the NFIP on June 21st, 1974. Structures permitted or built in the Town before then are called “pre-FIRM” structures, and structures built afterwards are called “post-FIRM.” The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures. The effective date for the current countywide FIRM is August 19th, 2010.

The Town is currently in good standing with the provisions of the NFIP. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk reduction. The Town has identified initiatives to maintain their compliance and good standing. The Town will continue to comply by identifying flood plains on new subdivision proposals and final plats. Building permit requirements mandate Flood Plain permits where identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Sanitation permits also require compliance with the ordinance. The Town will incorporate and reference DFIRM maps in regulations as new floodplains are mapped. Audits of regulations will ensure compliance with NFIP in all program areas.

Properties constructed after a FIRM has been adopted are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to decrease vulnerability. Properties built before a FIRM is adopted are more vulnerable to flooding because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas. Table 4-14 lists NFIP statistics for the Town. The statistics show that 1 flood insurance claim has been paid as of May 31st, 2017 for a total of $1,566.

Table 4-14: Flood Insurance Statistics for the Town of Hotchkiss NFIP Status & Information Town of Hotchkiss NFIP Status Participating since 6/21/74 CRS Class n/a Policies in Force 0 Policies in SFHA Policies in non-SFHA Total Claims Paid 1 Paid Losses $1,566 Repetitive Loss Properties Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Building Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Contents The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a) restricts the release of certain types of data to the public. Flood insurance policy and claims data are included in the list of restricted information. FEMA can only release such data to state and local governments, and only if the data are used for floodplain management, mitigation, or research purposes. Therefore, this plan does not identify the repetitive loss properties or include claims data for any individual property.

4.5.11.1.2 Town of Hotchkiss Zoning Ordinance The Town’s zoning ordinance does not allow for portions of parcels that are located in an area with a high flood hazard and is in a “floodway” as defined by FEMA to be developed.

4-25 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Flood Vulnerability Analysis This section describes vulnerabilities to flooding in terms of population, property and infrastructure. The Level 2 Hazus protocol was used to assess the exposure to flooding in the planning area. The model used property value and building characteristics at the parcel/building level, FEMA floodplain data, and National Elevation Dataset topography to estimate potential flooding impacts.

Flood exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using FEMA 100-YR and 500-YR flood zones and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures, such as federal and local government buildings except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 4-15 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to flooding. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

Table 4-15: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Value Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) ($) Facilities Lifeline 8 $ - $ - 1 0.3 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 1.7% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

* numbers for 100yr and 500yr combined

4.5.11.2.1 Population Population counts of those living in the floodplain were generated by analyzing County assessor and parcel data that intersect with the 100-YR and 500-YR floodplains identified on FIRMs within the Town of Hotchkiss. Using GIS, Colorado DOLA Bureau information was used to intersect the FEMA identified floodplains within the Town limits. An estimate of population was calculated by weighting the population within each census block. The exposure results indicate the percentage of total population living within a flood risk area. Using this approach, it was estimated that a total of 7 people are exposed to flood risk from the 100-YR floodplain (.8% of the total Town population) and 7 people are exposed to risk from the 500-YR floodplain (.8% of the total Town Population), as shown in Figure 1-6.

Figure 4-5: Town of Hotchkiss Population Exposure to Flood

4-26 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Population 8 8 8 7 Exposure Population Count 7 in the 100-YR and 500-YR Floodplains 6

5

4

3

2

1 0 0 - 100-Year 100-Year, Floodway 100-Year Total* 500-Year** 500-Year Total***

*Total 100-year floodplain **Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain ***Total 500-YR floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain

Table 4-16: Summary of Population Exposure to Flood

Total Population

Hotchkiss 908

Flood Hazard Zone Population Count % of Total

100-Year 7 0.81% 100-Year, Floodway 0 0.03% 100-Year Total* 8 0.83% 500-Year** 0 0.00% 500-Year Total*** 8 0.84%

*Total 100-year floodplain **Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain ***Total 500-YR floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain

4-27 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.5.11.2.2 Property GIS was used to determine the possible impacts of flooding within the Town of Hotchkiss. The methodology described in Section 4.9.10.2 of Volume 1 was followed in determining structures and values at risk to the FEMA identified 1% (100-YR) and 0.2% (500-YR) annual chance flood event.

Table 4-17 summarizes the number of improved parcels and property value within the Town of Hotchkiss’s FEMA identified floodplains. GIS models determined that there are no improved parcels within the 100-YR floodplain or 500-YR floodplain.

Table 4-17: Town of Hotchkiss - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones Total Total Market Value Total Content Total Value ($) Parcels ($) Value ($) Hotchkiss 394 $ 41,922,379 $ 28,815,085 $ 70,737,464

Parcel Market Value Content Value Flood Hazard Zone % of Total Total Exposure ($) % of Total Count Exposure ($) Exposure ($) 100-Year Flood - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 100-Year Flood, Floodway - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 100-Year Total* - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 500-Year Flood** - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 500-Year Total*** - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0%

*Total 100-year floodplain **Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain ***Total 500-year floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain

4.5.11.2.3 Flood Damage Estimation FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software models the possible damage of flooding within the Town of Hotchkiss. The methodology described in Volume 1, Section 4.9.10.3 was followed in determining potential damage associates with the 1% (100-YR) and 0.2% (500-YR) annual chance flood event.

The HAZUS-MH software calculates losses to structures from flooding by analyzing the depth of flooding and type of structure. Using historical flood insurance claim data, HAZUS-MH software estimates the percentage of damage to structures and their contents by applying established damage functions to an inventory. For this analysis, all non-vacant parcels with current market values were used instead of the default inventory data provided with HAZUS-MH software. The analysis for the Town of Hotchkiss is summarized in Table 4-18and Figure 4-6 for the 100-YR flood event and Table 4-19 and Figure 4-7 for the 500-YR flood event. Hazus results for the 500-YR flood event resulted in a minimal increased damage over the 100-YR event. It is estimated that there “could” be up to $12,607 of flood damage loss from a 100-YR event and $12,607 500-YR flood event in the Town of Hotchkiss. This modeled loss is assuming all tributaries in the region collect 100-YR and 500-YR event precipitation levels respectively in the watershed. The estimated loss for 100-YR flood

4-28 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

event represents 26%6 of the total Town of Hotchkiss building stock. The estimated flood loss for 500-YR event represents 26 % of the total Town of Hotchkiss’s building stock.

Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7 provide damage estimates by occupancy type. As seen on the graphics, residential properties have the highest damage potential from a major flood event within the Town.

Table 4-18: 100-YR Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type Building Content Damage Content Damage Damage Proportion Building Type Building Damage ($) Total Damage ($) (% of grand ($) (% of grand of Loss (%) total) total) Agricultural $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Commercial $ 34 0.3% $ 69 0.5% $ 103 1% Education $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Governmental $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Industrial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Religion $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Residential $ 9,348 74.2% $ 3,155 25.0% $ 12,503 99% Total $ 9,383 74% $ 3,224 26% $ 12,607

Thousands $- $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10

Agricultural Commercial Education Governmental Industrial Religion Residential

Building Damage ($) Content Damage ($)

Figure 4-6: 100-YR Building and Content Estimated Flood Loss by Occupancy Type (Town of Hotchkiss)

Note: Total Inventory Values 1 - Building Replacement Costs = $41,922,379 2 - Content Replacement Costs = $28,815,085 3 - Total Value = $70,737,464

4-29 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-19: 500-YR Flood Loss Estimation by Occupancy Type (Town of Hotchkiss) Building Content Damage Content Damage Damage Proportion Building Type Building Damage ($) Total Damage ($) (% of grand ($) (% of grand of Loss (%) total) total) Agricultural $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Commercial $ 34 0.3% $ 69 0.5% $ 103 1% Education $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Governmental $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Industrial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Religion $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Residential $ 9,348 74.2% $ 3,155 25.0% $ 12,503 99% Total $ 9,383 74% $ 3,224 26% $ 12,607

Note: Total 500-year floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain damage estimates

Thousands $- $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10

Agricultural Commercial Education Governmental Industrial Religion Residential

Building Damage ($) Content Damage ($)

Figure 4-7: Estimated Building and Content Loss in the 500-YR floodplain by Occupancy Type

4.5.11.2.4 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure It is important to determine who may be at risk if infrastructure is damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are flooded or damaged can isolate residents and can restrict access throughout the Town, including emergency service providers needing to get to vulnerable populations or to make repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by floods or debris also can cause isolation. Water and sewer systems can be flooded or backed up, causing health problems. Underground utilities can be damaged. The following sections describe specific types of critical infrastructure. Table 4-20 summarizes the critical facilities and infrastructure at risk to the 100-YR Flood Zone, 100-YR Floodway and 500-YR Flood Zone within the Town of Hotchkiss. Details are provided in the following sections.

4-30 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-20: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain

500 Year, 100 Year 100 Year 500 Year Infrastructure Type Floodway Outside 100 Flood Zone Total Total Year

Essential Facility - - - - - Fire Station - - - - - Hospital - - - - - Police Station - - - - - school - - - - - High Potential Loss - - - - - Other Government - - - - - Child Care Licensed - - - - - Health Facility Licensed - - - - - Dam USACE NID - - - - - Prison - - - - - gas well permits - - - - - Bottomhole - - - - - Transportation and Lifeline - 1 1 - 1 Water Wells - - - - - Airport - - - - - Waste Water Facility - - - - - Power Plant - - - - - Bridge NBI - 1 1 - 1 Water Utility - - - - - County Cell Towers - - - - - Grand Total - 1 1 - 1

Linear Utilities

It is important to determine who may be at risk if infrastructure is damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can isolate residents and can restrict access throughout the Town. Table 4-21 shows the linear critical facilities in the floodplain.

4-31 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-21: Critical Facilities (Linear) in the Floodplain – Town of Hotchkiss

500 Year, Infrastructure Type 100 Year Floodway 100 Year Total Outside 100 500 Year Total (Linear Mileage) Flood Zone Year Railroad 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 Irrigation - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 Roads 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 Local road - - - - - Major road 0.1 - 0.1 0.0 0.1 4WD trail - - - - - Alley 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 Driveway - - - - - Highway 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Cul-de-sac - - - - - Ramp - - - - - Grand Total 0.15 0.09 0.24 0.01 0.26

Future Trends in Development The Town is aware that future development may occur near flood hazard areas. The zoning ordinance restricts development in areas of high flood hazard to minimize risk.

Summary of Flood Issues Important issues associated with flooding include the following:

• Storm water runoff issues within many different municipalities within Delta County.

4-32 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.5.12 Severe Winter Weather Hazard Profile As expected, winter storms can and do occur frequently, and they can vary significantly in size, strength, intensity, duration, and impact. Strong winds create snowdrifts that block roads, create dangerous wind chill factors and sometimes lead to life-threatening power outages. The National Weather Service issues a wind chill advisory when wind and temperature combine to produce wind chill values of 20 to 35 degrees below zero, significantly raising the potential for hypothermia and frostbite affecting health and safety. Hypothermia is the most common winter weather killer in Colorado. Ice accumulation becomes a hazard by creating dangerous travel conditions, and impacting safety for vulnerable elements of the population such as the elderly and physically impaired.

High winds and ice accumulation often accompany winter storms. These winds can produce sizable snowdrifts that can cause residents and travelers to be stranded for hours, potentially causing life threatening conditions. Hypothermia and carbon monoxide poisoning can become a clear threat to many.

Regulatory Oversight In addition to Federal, State and County regulatory oversight the Town of Cedaredge Municipal Code Title 15 establishes climatic and geographic design criteria for roof snow load (40#).

Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability

4.5.12.2.1 Population It can be assumed that the entire planning area is exposed to some extent to winter storms. Vulnerable populations include the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Power outages can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Isolation of these populations is a significant concern.

4.5.12.2.2 Property Winter storms affect the entire planning area, including all above-ground structures and infrastructure. Although losses to structures are typically minimal and covered by insurance, there can be other costs associated with lost time, maintenance costs, and contents within structures.

4.5.12.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Winter weather conditions are a threat to public safety on major roads and highways. Additionally, power outages caused by snow, ice, and wind accompanied by cold temperatures can create great additional need for shelter. Other issues caused by winter storms can be related to school closures, business closures, road closures, snow removal, and maintaining critical services like emergency services, food providers, and banks.

4-33 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.5.12.2.4 Future Trends in Development All future development will be affected by severe storms. The ability to withstand impacts lies in sound land use practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction. The International Building Code, which has been adopted by the Town, is equipped to deal with the impacts of severe weather events. Land use and development ordinances also address flooding, which can be a secondary impact of severe weather. With these tools, the Town is well equipped to deal with future growth and the associated impacts of severe weather.

4.5.12.2.5 Summary of Severe Winter Weather Issues Important issues associated with severe winter weather include the following:

• Vulnerable populations can be isolated by severe storm events especially those with functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, car dependent etc.) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages.

4-34 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.6 Mitigation Strategy The Town of Hotchkiss used the same mitigation strategy as Delta County. This is described in detail in Section 5 of Volume 1. 4.6.1 Identifying the Problem As part of the mitigation actions identification process, the Town of Hotchkiss Planning Committee identified issues and/or weaknesses as a result of the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis. By combining common issues and weaknesses developed by the Planning Committee, the realm of resources needed for mitigating each can be understood. Community issues and weaknesses are presented by individual hazard in Table 4-22. Primary (P) and Secondary (S) jurisdictions are identified for each problem statement. Projects or actions have been developed to mitigate each problem identified. To the degree possible the Town of Hotchkiss will support County Wide Initiatives. See Volume 1 for related County Wide mitigation actions.

Table 4-22: Problem Statements by Hazard

Problem Mitigation Mitigation Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of Hotchkiss All Hazard AH-02 No identified shelters have back-up ES DC-01-2018 generators. This includes shelters identified P S within each Municipality. All Hazard AH-03 Many communities in Delta County have PE&A DC-04-2008 particularly high Renter Rates. Most communities are above 30% . This is an issue P S as it will be hard to motivate absentee owners to mitigate risk on rental units. Town of Hotchkiss has a 56.6% rental rate. All Hazard AH-04 Lack of communication and data transmission ES, PE&A DC-05-2008 lines could affect communications during a natural hazard event including 800 MHz P S transmission towers. Lack of domestic demand for communications inhibits communications providers to provide service in remote areas. All Hazard AH-07 Hard to find information on spatial hazards and PE&A DC-11-2008, where they are located in the county. The DC-04-2008 County GIS viewer does not show any hazards P S layers or any other information besides base mapping. Dam DF-01 There are 27 high hazard dams in Delta PPRO DC-06-2008 Failure County. Not all dam owners have updated EAP P S to reflect changes in downstream development and new available elevation data. Dam DF-06 386 people are exposed to dam failure PE&A HK-01-2018 Failure within the Town of Hotchkiss. P

4-35 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Problem Mitigation Mitigation Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of Hotchkiss Drought DR-01 Future growth and climate conditions in Delta NRP, PRV, DC-02-2018 County could impact available water supply PE&A specifically for residents on water wells or P S smaller water districts dependent on well water. Drought DR-02 Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on PRV, DC-03-2018, average and impact agriculture, recreation, PE&A, DC-02-2018 economy, and municipal water availability in NRP P S the County. The area should expect drought years. Drought DR-03 There is a lack of promotion of active water PE&A, DC-04-2018, conservation during drought and non-drought PRV DC-02-2018 P S periods. Drought DR-09 Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on PE&A HK-02-2018 average and impact agriculture, recreation, economy, and municipal water availability in P the County. The Town should expect drought years. Flood FL-03 Storm water runoff issues within many SP DC-02-2008 P S different municipalities within Delta County. Flood FL-06 LeRoux Creek and Smith Fork are high risk PRV DC-05-2018 P S tributaries with flood issues Flood FL-14 Short Draw (natural drainage), corner of 4th SP and Orchard Street (southeast corner), private P property has flooded. Geohazard GH-01 Expansive soils are widespread across the PE&A, DC-03-2008, county, including in areas of new PRV DC-02-2008 P S development, and can affect building foundations, roads, driveways, and etc. Severe SW-03 Risk of power supply interruption due to ES DC-16-2018 P S Weather severe storms. Severe SW-04 Vulnerable populations can be isolated by PE&A, ES DC-18-2018, Weather severe storm events especially those with DC-17-2018 functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, P S car dependent etc.…) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages. Severe SW-05 Town of Hotchkiss powerlines can be damaged ES HK-01-2008, P Weather by falling tree branches and high wind. HK-04-2018 Wildfire WF-11 Many County residents live within high wildfire PPRO DC-03-2008, risk areas including low income, elderly and DC-02-2008 other vulnerable populations. Approx. 40%- P S 50% of the total population live within some wildfire risk areas.

4-36 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.6.2 Capability Assessment The Town of Hotchkiss identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The mitigation strategy includes an assessment of the Town’s planning and regulatory, administrative and technical, financial, and education and outreach capabilities to augment known issues and weaknesses from identified natural hazards.

Planning and Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities The legal and regulatory capabilities of local, state, and federal jurisdictions are shown in Table 4-25, which presents existing ordinances and codes that can regulate the physical or built environment of the Town. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordnances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans.

Table 4-23: Town of Hotchkiss 's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities

Plan/ Program/ Regulation Yes or No Building Codes Yes Building Codes Year 2006 BCEGS Rating Public Protection (ISO Class) Yes Capital Improvements Program (CIP) or Plan Yes Community Rating System (CRS) No Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Not zoned for wildfire Comprehensive, Master, or General Plan Yes Economic Development Plan Yes Elevation Certificates No Erosion/Sediment Control Program No Floodplain Management Plan No Flood Insurance Study Yes Growth Management Ordinance No Hazard-Specific Ordinance or Plan (Floodplain, Steep Slope, Wildfire) No NFIP Yes Site Plan Review Requirements No Stormwater Program, Plan or Ordinance No Zoning Ordinance Yes

4-37 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Administrative and Technical Capabilities Table 4-24 lists the Town’s administrative and technical abilities.

Table 4-24: Town of Hotchkiss Administrative and Technical Ability

Administrative/ Technical Resource Yes or No

Emergency Manager No

Floodplain Administrator No

Community Planning:

- Planner/Engineer (Land Development) No

- Planner/Engineer/Scientist (Natural Hazards) No

- Engineer/Professional (Construction) Yes

- Resiliency Planner No

- Transportation Planner No

Full-Time Building Official No

GIS Specialist and Capability No

Grant Manager, Writer, or Specialist Yes

Warning Systems/Services:

- General No

- Flood No

- Wildfire No

- Geological Hazards No

4-38 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Financial Capabilities Table 4-25 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to the Town such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard-prone areas.

Table 4-25: Town of Hotchkiss 's Financial Capabilities

Financial Resource

Has community used any of the following to fund mitigation activities:

- Levy for Specific Purposes with Voter Approval No

- Utilities Fees No

- System Development Feed No

- General Obligation Bonds to Incur Debt No

- Special Tax Bonds to Incur Debt No

- Withheld Spending in Hazard-Prone Areas No

- Stormwater Service Fees No

- Capital Improvement Project Funding No

- Community Development Block Grants No

Education and Outreach Table 4-26 summarizes community outreach and education programs that could be used in conjunction with mitigation planning efforts.

Table 4-26: Town of Hotchkiss 's Public Outreach and Education Programs

Education/ Outreach Resource

Local Citizen Groups That Communicate Hazard Risks:

- Firewise No

- StormReady No

- Other

4-39 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). Together with the County Planning Committee, the steering committee established a guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable objectives for this plan, based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and the results of the public involvement strategy. This information is located in Section 5.4 of Volume 1. 4.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan Based upon the Town’s planning committee priorities, risk assessment results, and mitigation alternatives, mitigation actions were developed. Most importantly, the newly developed mitigation actions acknowledge updated risk assessment information outlined in Section 4.5. Mitigation actions presented in Table 4-27 establish 5 possible mitigation actions. Some mitigation actions support ongoing Town activities, while other actions are intended to be completed when funding is available. Regardless, mitigation actions will be part of an annual review.

Benefit/ Cost Review The Town of Hotchkiss Planning Team used the same benefit/cost parameters as described in Section 5.5.1.1 of Volume 1. Cost ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).

• Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years.

• Low—The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program.

Benefit ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.

• Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.

• Low—Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.

Mitigation Action Plans The Town of Hotchkiss Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Section 5.5.1 of Volume 1. Based upon the Town of Hotchkiss Planning Committee consensus, Table 4-27 lists each priority mitigation action. Priority mitigation action Implementation plans are made available in Annex A. Implementation plans in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need to implementation. The detail in the Action Planners meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

4-40 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 4-27: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker Action No. Hazard Type Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation Responsible Party Potential Funding Source Time Frame* Benefit Cost Rating Implementation Plan Alternatives / Priority

HK-01-2018 Dam Failure Develop a dam failure study and emergency action plan for PRV Town of Hotchkiss HMGP Mid Term Medium/ Medium Yes the Paonia Dam (high hazard) in coordination with Gunnison County. HK-02-2018 Drought Establish an irrigation time/scheduling program or process NRP, PRV Town of Hotchkiss General Funds Short Term Low/ Medium Yes so that all agricultural land gets the required amount of water. Through incremental timing, each area is irrigated at different times so that all water is not consumed at the same time. Spacing usage may also help with recharge of groundwater. HK-03-2018 Flood Perform upgrades to the Short Draw (natural drainage) to PPRO, SP Public Works HMGP Short Term Medium/ Medium Yes prevent the flooding of private property.

HK-04-2018 Severe Winter Establish standards for all utilities regarding tree pruning PRV Town of Hotchkiss General Funds Short Term Low/ High Yes Weather around lines.

*Note: Short Term= 1-3 yrs, Mid Term= 3-5 yrs, Long Term= 5 yrs or more

As a living document, project descriptions and actions in the tables above will be modified to reflect current conditions over time.

4-41 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

4-42 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

4.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance

The Town of Hotchkiss Planning Team will follow the same implementation and maintenance strategy as Delta County. This strategy is described in detail in Section 6 of Volume 1. Town of Hotchkiss Mitigation Action Trackers in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need for implementation and maintenance. The detail in the Action Trackers meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000 for priority mitigation actions. Mitigation Action Trackers will be used to report, track and implement mitigation actions over the next five-year update cycle.

4.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms An important implementation mechanism is to incorporate the recommendations and underlying principles of the MJHMP into community planning and development such as capital improvement budgeting, building and zoning codes, general plans and regional plans. Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated within the day-to-day functions and priorities of the jurisdiction attempting to implement risk reducing actions. The integration of a variety of Town departments on the MJHMP Planning Committee provides an opportunity for constant and pervasive efforts to network, identify, and highlight mitigation activities and opportunities at all levels of government. This collaborative effort is also important to monitor funding opportunities which can be leveraged to implement the mitigation actions.

The Town of Hotchkiss did not incorporate data, information, or hazard mitigation goals and actions from the 2008 HMP into any planning mechanisms because no plan updates or ordinances were updated or created over the last 10 years. Information from this 2018 MJHMP can be incorporated into:

• Town of Crawford General Plan: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into the Land Use, Growth Management and Open Space/ Recreation elements during the next master plan update. Specific risk and vulnerability information from the Delta County MJHMP and Town of Cedaredge Annex will assist to identify areas where development may be at risk to potential hazards. • Town Building / Development Codes and Zoning Ordinances: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information to enable the Town to make decisions on appropriate building/development codes and ordinances. Appropriate building codes and ordinances can increase the Town’s resilience against natural disasters. • Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP): The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into CWPP updates for areas within or near the Town of Cedaredge.

4-43 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

4-44

Section 5. TOWN OF ORCHARD CITY

5-1

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

5-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Municipal Adoption Records

To comply with DMA 2000, the Town of Orchard City Board of Trustees has officially adopted the 2018 Delta County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 and the Town of Orchard City Volume 2 Annex. The adoption of the 2018 MJHMP in its entirety recognizes the Town’s commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards within the Town and County. See the following record of Adoption.

5-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

5-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.1 Purpose

This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Town of Orchard City. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Town. This Annex provides additional information specific to the Town of Orchard City, with a focus on providing additional details on the planning process, risk assessment, and mitigation strategy for this community.

Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Melissa Oelke, Town Manager Craig Fuller, Mayor Pro-Tem 9661 2100 Road 9661 2100 Road Austin, CO 81410 Austin, CO 81410 Telephone: (970) 835-3337 Telephone: (970) 835-8688 e-mail Address: [email protected] e-mail Address: [email protected] 5.2 Introduction

Orchard City is a unique rural Western Slope community that desires to preserve its open agricultural character by directing residential development to large lot (1-plus acre parcels) single-family configurations. Development should be adequately buffered from adjoining agricultural lands to minimize development impacts on the existing farming community. Orchard City residents view the role of municipal government as one of providing the basic services of cost-effective and safe municipal water and a rural municipal road system that is adequate to serve the 11.45 square mile community. It is the resident's desire to avoid establishing a property tax by keeping local government small and offering only the most basic services. Orchard City has adopted a land-use philosophy of "live and let live" that does not include zoning regulations. It is recognized that this philosophy can and sometimes does result in conflicting adjoining land uses. However, Orchard City residents are willing to tolerate land-use conflicts in order to minimize local government intrusion on the community's lifestyle. The Town has adopted the 2006 International Residential and Building Codes, subdivision requirements and mobile home regulations to address basic health, safety and welfare issues relating to construction, roads, sewage disposal and environmental hazard areas (floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, rock fall hazard areas etc.). Orchard City inhabitants recognize that there are, and will continue to be, growth pressures on the community that are driven by factors beyond their control. (Town of Orchard City Community Master Plan, 2016)

5-1 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 5-1: Town of Orchard City Location 5.2.1 Geography and Climate The Town of Orchard City is located approximately six miles east of Delta, Colorado, north of Highway 133, and east of Highway 65. It comprises 11.45 squares miles and ranges from 5,000 feet above sea level in the south to 6,000 feet above sea level in the north. The Town lies on a south sloping plateau that extends from the lower slopes of the Grand Mesa south to the bluffs above the Gunnison River. This relatively flat elevated bench is bounded on the west by Tongue Creek and on the east by Harts Basin and Dry Creek (a.k.a. Current Creek). The major topographic features within the Town limits include a cluster of adobe hills in the south known as “The Mounds,” the steep slopes bordering the westerly edge of Harts Basin (northeast of Eckert), and the bluffs that lie north of the Gunnison River and east of Tongue Creek. The topography and climate of Orchard City is ideally suited for agriculture, particularly fruit orchards. The elevated setting allows for air drainage off the plateau to the east and west thereby reducing the incidence of frosts in the critical early growing season. The south facing aspect of Orchard City allows for early-season warming that is beneficial for fruit crops and other agricultural crops. Natural topography has shaped the physical arrangement of the Town. For the most part, the municipal boundaries follow the edges of the terrain giving Orchard City a narrow east-west and long north south axis. This configuration follows the orientation of the Town’s water system with sources on Grand Mesa. Highway 65 is the primary arterial through the community. (Delta County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2008)

5-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Orchard City enjoys a relatively mild climate that is typical of many lower elevation Western Slope communities. Winters are not oppressively cold or long and summers are pleasantly warm. This agreeable climate has been a valuable asset for the community's long-term agricultural operations and serves as a draw for new residents. Most annual precipitation occurs during the summer months with a peak in August from monsoonal thundershowers. A second moisture peak occurs in the months of March, April, and May when springtime moisture spreads into western Colorado. Although snow periodically blankets Orchard City in winter, the Town enjoys relatively small snowfall accumulations. (Delta County Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2008)

Table 5-1 shows Orchard City climate statistics.

Table 5-1: Orchard City Climate Statistics Description Avg. Rating Annual high temperature: 91°F Annual low temperature: 16°F Average temperature: - Average annual precipitation - rainfall: 11 inch Days per year with precipitation - rainfall: 41 Annual hours of sunshine: - Av. annual snowfall: 53 inch

Source: www.bestplaces.net

5.2.2 Historical Overview Orchard City comprises three communities: Austin, Eckert, and Cory. In the early 1900s, Austin was the economic center of the Orchard City area. Served by a branch of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, Austin had access to markets for locally produced fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural products.

In 1910, the area was struck by an epidemic of diphtheria, which was spread by water in open ditches. Area farmers organized to construct a municipal water system to control the outbreak, the funding of which required municipal incorporation. Thus, Orchard City was incorporated in 1913, and shortly thereafter Austin, Eckert, and Cory were annexed to the new town to gain access to the clean water.

After World War I, a series of annexations further increased the geographic area of Orchard City. Soldiers returning from the war needed places to live, and landowners on the town boundaries requested annexation to take advantage of Town services. This annexation activity continued until the mid-1920s. (Delta County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2008) 5.3 Planning Methodology

The Town of Orchard City followed the planning process detailed in Volume 1, Section 3 of the base plan. In addition to providing representation on the Delta County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and Steering Committee, the Town formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process requirements. Internal planning participants, their positions, and how they participated in the planning process are shown in Table 4-1.

5-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 5-2: 2018 Town of Orchard City Stakeholder List

Planning Committee Dept. / Members Position / Role Melissa Oelke, Town Manager Steering Committee Rep. Bo Eckels, Mayor Pro-Tem Steering Committee Rep.

5.4 What’s New

The Town of Orchard City has been making improvements toward reducing natural hazard risks to life and property within the Town since the 2008 HMP was adopted. Significant risk reduction efforts have been made in improving domestic water infrastructure. In addition, in June 2018 the Town passed a resolution calling for mandatory measures to enforce water use restrictions by establishing billing tiers that increase rates as customer water use increases. It also established watering times and notified the public that no new water taps will be authorized until the current crisis ends. 5.5 Risk Assessment

The intent of this section is to profile the Town of Orchard City’s hazards and assess the Town’s vulnerability separate from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been assessed in Volume 1, Section 4 (Risk Assessment). The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the planning area and describes the hazard problem description, hazard extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard profile information specific to the Town of Orchard City is included in this section of the Annex. This vulnerability assessment analyzes the property, population, critical facilities, and other assets at risk to hazards specific to the Town of Orchard City. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Section 4 Risk Assessment in Volume 1.

Each hazard vulnerability assessment for the Town of Orchard City Annex includes a brief hazard profile for each medium or high significant hazard with the potential to affect the Town. The intent of this section is to provide jurisdictional specific information on hazards and further describe how the hazards and risks differ across the planning area.

5-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria Per FEMA Guidance, the first step in developing the Risk Assessment is identifying the hazards. The Town Planning Committee reviewed a number of previously prepared hazard mitigation plans and other relevant documents to determine the universe of natural hazards that have the potential to affect the Town. Table 5-4 provides a crosswalk of hazards identified in the 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan- Town of Orchard City Annex, 2016 Town of Orchard City Community Master Plan, 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Sixteen different hazards were identified based on a thorough document review. The crosswalk was used to develop a preliminary hazards list providing a framework for the Town’s Planning Team members to evaluate which hazards were truly relevant to the Town and which ones are not. For example, erosion and deposition was considered to have no relevance to the Town, while flood and wildfire were indicated in nearly every hazard documentation.

Table 5-3: Town of Orchard City Document Review Crosswalk Hazards 2008 Delta County 2016 Town of Orchard 2008 Delta County 2013 Colorado HMP – Town of City Community Hazard Mitigation Natural Hazards Orchard City Annex Master Plan Plan Mitigation Plan ■ ■ Avalanche

Climate Change ■ ■ Dam Failure ■ ■ ■ Drought Earthquake ■ ■ Erosion and ■ Deposition Expansive Soils ■ ■ ■ Extreme Heat Flood ■ ■ ■ Geologic Hazards ■ ■ Hazardous Materials ■ ■ Landslide Severe Weather ■ ■ ■ Tornado Wildfire ■ ■ ■ Winter Storms ■ ■

5.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking The Town of Orchard City’s Planning Team used the same hazard prioritization process as the Delta County Planning Committee. This process is described in detail in Section 4.3 of Volume 1. Table 5-4 shows the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise. Based upon the hazard risk rating wildfire, drought, flood, severe winter weather and dam failure will be profiled as priority hazards in the Town’s Annex. After reviewing the Town’s capabilities, the Planning Committee decided not to complete a full hazard profile for wildfire, but rather to refer the reader to the Fire District Annex, Cedaredge Fire Protection District hazard profile and vulnerability assessment in Section 8 of this Volume.

5-5 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 5-4: Town of Orchard City Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix

Impact

Catastrophic Critical Limited Minor

Highly

Likely

Likely Wildfire Drought

Flood, Probability Possible Severe Winter Weather

Unlikely Dam Failure Geohazards

5.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk This section presents the vulnerability assessment for the Town of Orchard City and identifies the Town’s total assets at risk, including people, values at risk, critical facilities and infrastructure. Growth and development trends are also presented for the community. This data is not hazard specific but is representative of total assets at risk within the community.

5.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory In order to describe vulnerability for each hazard, it is important to understand the “total” population and “total” assets at risk within the Town. The exposure for each hazard described in this section will refer to the percent of total population or percent of total assets similar to Volume 1. This provides the possible significance or vulnerability to people and assets for the natural hazard event and the estimated damage and losses expected during a “worst case scenario” event for each hazard. Sections below provide a description of the total population, critical facilities, and parcel exposure inputs.

Population In order to develop hazard-specific vulnerability assessments, populations near natural hazard risks have been determined to understand the total “at risk” population. We can understand how geographically defined hazards may affect the Town by analyzing the extent of the hazard in relation to the location of population. For purposes of the vulnerability assessment

5-6 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

approximately 3,0857 (100%) of the Town’s population is exposed to one or more hazards within or near the Town boundaries. Each natural hazard scenario affects the Town residents differently depending on the location of the hazard and the population density of where the hazard could occur. Vulnerability assessment sections presented later in this section summarize the population exposure for each natural hazard.

5.5.4.1.1 Vulnerable Populations The severity of a disaster depends on both the physical nature of the extreme event and the socioeconomic nature of the populations affected by the event. Important socioeconomic factors tend to influence disaster severity. A core concept in a vulnerability analysis is that different people, even within the same region, have a different vulnerability to natural hazards.

5.5.4.1.2 At-Risk Individuals At-risk individuals are people with access and functional needs that may interfere with their ability to access or receive medical care before, during, or after a disaster or emergency. Irrespective of specific diagnosis, status, or label, the term “access and functional needs” is a broad set of common and cross-cutting access and function-based needs. (At-Risk Individuals, 2016) For more information on planning for individuals with access and functional needs, refer to Section 4.5.6.1.4 of Volume 1.

5.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory Critical facilities are of concern when conducting hazard mitigation planning. Critical facilities are defined as essential services, and if damaged, would result in severe consequences to the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

An inventory of critical facilities based on data from the Town of Orchard City, Delta County and other publicly sourced information were used to develop a comprehensive inventory of facility points and lifelines for the Town. Critical facility points include fire stations, schools, transportation, utilities, and government buildings. Lifelines include communication, electric power, liquid fuel, natural gas, and transportation routes. A current representation of the critical facilities and lifelines in the Town of Orchard City are provided in Table 5-5 and Table 5-6. The Delta County GIS Department maintains a complete list of critical facilities.

7 According to the 2016 Colorado DOLA Demography Office, the total population for the Town of Orchard City was approx. 3,085 people.

5-7 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 5-5: Town of Orchard City - Critical Facility Counts

Infrastructure Type Total Feature Count

Essential Facility - EOC - Fire Station - Hospital - Police Station - School - High Potential Loss 10 Essential Facility Child Care Licensed 3 High Potential Loss Dam - Transportation and Lifeline Gas Well (Permits) - Health Facility Licensed 2 Other Government 5 Prison - Transportation and Lifeline 5 Airport - Bridge 4 County Cell Towers 1 Power Plant - Waste Water Facility - Water Utility - Water Wells - Grand Total 15

Table 5-6: Town of Orchard City - Linear Utilities

Infrastructure Type (Linear Mileage) Total Linear Mileage

Railroad 0.8 Irrigation 3.9 Roads 58.3 Local road 15.5 Major road 32.8 4WD trail 2.5 Alley 0.1 Driveway 0.2 Highway 6.9 Cul-de-sac 0.3 Ramp - Grand Total 63.0

5-8 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory Total count and value of address points within the Town of Orchard City which could be exposed to a hazard event is referred to as parcel exposure in this Annex. A standardized hazard overlay was conducted to develop hazard exposure results for improved City parcels presented later in this section. For more information on this exposure method see Volume 1, Section 4. In the event of a disaster, it is generally the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land that is of concern or at risk. Generally, the land itself is not a total loss and structures can be rebuilt. The Delta County Assessor’s data is pivotal to developing parcel values exposed to each hazard and includes assessed value at risk. Town of Orchard City parcel information is summed and provided in Table 5-7. Both the market value and content value are the total value in the community at risk to a particular hazard.

Table 5-7: Town of Orchard City - Parcel Counts and Value

Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Orchard City 1,151 $ 139,148,928 $ 81,859,968 $ 221,008,896

Total market value as provided by Delta County. Content value calculated using content multipliers per Hazus occupancy classes per county land use designation. Total value is the sum of total market value and total content value.

5.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory FEMA’s loss estimation software, Hazus-MH 4.0, was used to analyze the Town’s building risk to flood hazards. A Hazus level II assessment was performed leveraging county-wide assessor’s data in lieu of default Hazus data. Hazus software operates on structure square footage, structure replacement, and content replacement costs to estimate potential losses specific to a modeled flood scenario. Table 5-8 and Figure 5-2 provide input value data for occupancy classes derived from assessor’s data to match FEMA modeling standards.

5-9 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 5-8: Town of Orchard City Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values Building Content Value Proportion Value Building Type Building Value ($) Content Value ($) (% of grand Total Value ($) of Value (% of grand total *) (%) total) Agricultural $ 17,987,170 8.1% $ 17,987,170 8.1% $ 35,974,340 16% Commercial $ 3,875,796 1.8% $ 3,875,796 1.8% $ 7,751,592 4% Education $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Governmental $ 837,546 0.4% $ 837,546 0.4% $ 1,675,092 1% Industrial $ 957,869 0.4% $ 1,196,750 0.5% $ 2,154,619 1% Religion $ 434,874 0.2% $ 434,874 0.2% $ 869,748 0% Residential $ 115,055,673 52.1% $ 57,527,832 26.0% $ 172,583,505 78% Total $ 139,148,928 63% $ 81,859,968 37% $ 221,008,896

Data Source: Delta County Assessor. Building values reflect fair market value where available. If no fair market value is available, this value reflects the assessed improvement value. Content replacement costs are calculated based on assessor's use codes translated to Hazus occupancy classes. Each HAZUS occupancy class prescribes a specific content cost multiplier used to calculate the content cost values shown above. Use codes including a "vacant" description have been removed along with agricultural use codes with no improvement value.

Millions $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70

Agricultural

Commercial

Education

Governmental

Industrial

Religion

Residential

Building Value ($) Content Value ($)

Figure 5-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Input Values

5-10 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards This section provides the vulnerability assessment, including any quantifiable loss estimates, for those hazards identified as high or medium significant hazards within the Town Limits. Impacts of past events and vulnerability of the Town to specific hazards are further discussed below (see Section 4.6 Hazard Identification in the base plan for more detailed information about these hazards and their impacts on the Delta County planning area).

Methodologies for calculating loss estimates are the same as those described in Section 3.4 of the base plan. An estimate of the vulnerability of the Town to each identified priority hazard, in addition to the estimate of risk of future occurrence, is provided in each of the hazard-specific sections that follow.

This Annex provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the Town and how hazards may affect population and property within the jurisdiction. Most importantly the mitigation strategy presented in this plan responds to the particular vulnerabilities and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest reduction of vulnerability, which results in saved lives, reduced injuries, reduced property damage, and protection for the environment in the event of a natural hazard. This Town Annex provides information for the following natural hazard threats:

Dam Failure Drought Flood SECTION 5.5.9 SECTION 5.5.10 SECTION 5.5.11

Severe Winter Weather Wildfire* SECTION 5.5.12 SEE Vol. 2 Section 8Error! Reference source not found.

*Important to Note: The Town Planning Committee decided not to profile wildfire in the Town’s annex. For wildfire information relevant to the Town, refer to the Cedaredge Fire Protection District wildfire hazard information throughout the Fire Protection District Annex in Section 8 of this Volume. The Town of Orchard City will support the Cedaredge Fire Protection District with every resource and capability possible to assist with wildfire mitigation activities outlined in the Fire Protection District Annex.

5-11 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

5-12 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.9 Dam Failure Hazard For a general description of the dam failure hazard, refer to Section 4.7 in the Base Plan.

Regulatory Oversight In addition to Federal, State and County regulatory oversight the Town of Orchard City does not have additional regulations surrounding dams and dam safety. See Volume 1, Section 4.7.1 for more information on State and Federal Dam Safety Regulations.

Dam Failure Vulnerability Analysis This section describes vulnerabilities to dam inundation in terms of population, property and infrastructure. The primary danger associated with dam failure is the high velocity flooding downstream of the dam and limited warning times for evacuation. Vulnerability varies by community and depends on the particular dam profile and the nature and extent of the failure. Dam inundation zones provided by Delta County GIS were used to develop exposure for dam failure.

Dam Failure exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using the spatial extent of dam inundation zones and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures, such as federal and local government buildings except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 5-9 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to dam failure. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

Table 5-9: Dam Failure Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) Value ($) Facilities Lifeline 204 $ 5,396,033 $ 3,354,440 2 9.1 6.6% 3.9% 4.1% 13.3% 14.5% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

5.5.9.2.1 Population Vulnerable populations are all populations downstream from dam failures that are incapable of escaping the area within the allowable time frame. This population includes the elderly and young who may be unable to get themselves out of the inundation area. Vulnerable populations also includes those who would not have adequate warning from a television, radio emergency warning system, have not registered with CODE RED, or do not have cell phones that can receive amber alerts. The potential for loss of life is affected by the capacity and number of evacuation routes available to populations living in areas of potential inundation. The entire population in a dam failure inundation zone is exposed to the risk of a dam failure. The estimated population living in the inundation area mapped for this risk assessment is summarized in Figure 5-3 and Table 5-10.

5-13 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

120 109 100 Population Exposure 80 Population Count by Dam 60 Inundation Zone 33 33 40 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 5-3: Town of Orchard City Population Exposure to Dam Failure

Table 5-10: Town of Orchard City Population Exposure to Dam Failure in Delta County

Total Population Orchard City 3,085

Dam Inundation Zone Population Count % of Total Barren Dam 1 0.05% Deep Slough Dam 11 0.35% Donnelly 1 Dam - 0.00% Eggleston Dam 1 0.05% Hotel Lake Dam 11 0.35% Kennicott Slough Dam 1 0.05% Kiser Slough Dam 1 0.05% Overland 1 Dam 0 0.00% Overland 1 Auxillary Dam 0 0.00% Ward Creek Dam 4 0.14% Ward Lake Dam 11 0.35% Crawford Dam 57 1.86% Fruit Growers Dam 180 5.82% Paonia Dam 7 0.24% Silver Jack Dam 0 0.00% Blue Mesa Dam 94 3.04% Morrow Point Dam 39 1.26% Crystal Dam 39 1.26% Total* 204 6.60% *total population is not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

5-14 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.9.2.2 Property Vulnerable properties are those closest to the actual dam or impoundment. These properties would experience the largest, most destructive surge of water. Low-lying areas are also vulnerable since they are where the dam waters would collect. Transportation routes are vulnerable to dam inundation and have the potential to be wiped out, creating isolation issues. This includes all roads, railroads and bridges in the path of the dam inundation. Austin was a major rail center for fruits, cattle, and sugar beet distribution until it was destroyed in the 1937 failure of the Fruit Growers Reservoir dam which caused flooding on Alfalfa Run. (Flood Insurance Study for Delta, Colorado and Incorporated Areas, 2010) Infrastructure that are most vulnerable are those that are already in poor condition and would not be able to withstand a large water surge. Utilities such as overhead power lines, cable and phone lines could also be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional isolation issues for the inundation areas.

The county Assessor’s address point data was used as the basis for the inventory of current market values and content value summaries. The address points were then overlaid with the inundation zones in a GIS to determine the at-risk structures. Building exposure was calculated based on current net values or when absent, assessor’s values as provided by the assessor’s office. Building content exposure was calculated based on occupancy type multipliers and improvement value. Table 5-11 shows the count of at-risk parcels and their associated building and content exposure values to dam failure. A total of $8,750,473 worth of buildings and contents are exposed to dam failure hazards within the Town Boundaries representing 4% of the total value in the Town of Orchard City.

5-15 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 5-11: Town of Orchard City Parcel Values at Risk from Dam Inundation

Total Total Content Value Total Market Value ($) Total Value ($) Parcels ($) Orchard City 1,151 $ 139,148,928 $ 81,859,968 $ 221,008,896

Parcel Market Value Exposure Content Value % of Dam Inundation Zone % of Total Total Exposure ($) Count ($) Exposure ($) Total Barren Dam 1 0.1% $ 58,135.00 $ 58,135.00 $ 116,270.00 0.05% Deep Slough Dam 1 0.1% $ 58,135.00 $ 58,135.00 $ 116,270.00 0.05% Donnelly 1 Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Eggleston Dam 1 0.1% $ 58,135.00 $ 58,135.00 $ 116,270.00 0.05% Hotel Lake Dam 1 0.1% $ 58,135.00 $ 58,135.00 $ 116,270.00 0.05% Kennicott Slough Dam 1 0.1% $ 58,135.00 $ 58,135.00 $ 116,270.00 0.05% Kiser Slough Dam 1 0.1% $ 58,135.00 $ 58,135.00 $ 116,270.00 0.05% Overland 1 Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Overland 1 Auxillary Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Ward Creek Dam 1 0.1% $ 58,135.00 $ 58,135.00 $ 116,270.00 0.05% Ward Lake Dam 1 0.1% $ 58,135.00 $ 58,135.00 $ 116,270.00 0.05% Crawford Dam 18 1.6% $ 1,225,046.00 $ 784,767.00 $ 2,009,813.00 0.91% Fruit Growers Dam 80 7.0% $ 5,214,642.00 $ 3,173,049.00 $ 8,387,691.00 3.80% Paonia Dam 1 0.1% $ 196,845.00 $ 196,845.00 $ 393,690.00 0.18% Silver Jack Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Blue Mesa Dam 46 4.0% $ 2,388,607.00 $ 1,591,380.00 $ 3,979,987.00 1.80% Morrow Point Dam 12 1.0% $ 932,408.00 $ 585,261.00 $ 1,517,669.00 0.69% Crystal Dam 12 1.0% $ 932,408.00 $ 585,261.00 $ 1,517,669.00 0.69% Dam Inundation Area* 82 7.1% $ 5,396,033 $ 3,354,440 $ 8,750,473 4.0% *totals are not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

5.5.9.2.3 Critical Facilities Critical Facilities at risk to dam inundation are on file with the County for national security purposes. As a general note, low-lying areas are vulnerable to dam inundation, especially transportation routes. This includes all roads, railroads, and bridges in the flow path of water. The most vulnerable critical facilities are those in poor condition that would have difficulty withstanding a large surge of water. Utilities such as overhead power lines and communication lines could also be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional compounding issues for emergency management officials attempting to conduct evacuation and response actions. GIS analysis determined that 2 of the planning area’s critical facilities are in a mapped dam inundation area, as summarized in Table 5-12 and Table 5-13.

5-16 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 5-12: Critical Infrastructure Points in Dam Inundation Zones

azard Dam HazardDam

Infrastructure Type Infrastructure BarrenHazardDam TotalFeature Count CrystalHazardDam PaoniaHazardDam CrawfordHazardDam EgglestonHazardDam Silver Jack Dam SilverHazard Jack Ward Lake Dam HazardDam WardLake Donnelly 1 HazardDonnelly Dam LakeHazard Dam Hotel Mesa HazardDam Blue Overland1 HazardDam Ward Creek Dam HazardDam Ward Creek KiserSlough HazardDam Deep Slough H Dam Deep Fruit Growers Growers Fruit MorrowPoint HazardDam KennicottSlough HazardDam Overland1 Auxillary HazardDam

Essential Facility ------EOC ------Fire Station ------Hospital ------Police Station ------School ------High Potential Loss 1 ------1 - - 1 - - Child Care Licensed ------Dam ------Gas Well (Permits) ------Health Facility Licensed ------Other Government 1 ------1 - - 1 - - Prison ------Transportation and Lifeline 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 ------Airport ------Bridge 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 ------County Cell Towers ------Power Plant ------

5-17 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

azard Dam HazardDam

Infrastructure Type Infrastructure BarrenHazardDam TotalFeature Count CrystalHazardDam PaoniaHazardDam CrawfordHazardDam EgglestonHazardDam Silver Jack Dam SilverHazard Jack Ward Lake Dam HazardDam WardLake Donnelly 1 HazardDonnelly Dam LakeHazard Dam Hotel Mesa HazardDam Blue Overland1 HazardDam Ward Creek Dam HazardDam Ward Creek KiserSlough HazardDam Deep Slough H Dam Deep Fruit Growers Growers Fruit MorrowPoint HazardDam KennicottSlough HazardDam Overland1 Auxillary HazardDam

Waste Water Facility ------Water Utility ------Water Wells ------Grand Total 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 *total count is not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

5-18 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 5-13: Miles of Critical Infrastructure (Linear) in Dam Inundation Zones

Infrastructure Type Total Linear Slough (Linear Mileage Barren Paonia Crawford Eggleston WardLake Jack Silver Hotel Lake Hotel Blue Mesa Donnelly 1 Donnelly Overland 1 Overland Ward Creek Kiser Slough

Mileage) Slough Deep Fruit Growers Kennicott Kennicott Overland 1 Auxillary 1 Overland

Railroad 0.7 ------0.0 0.0 - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.7

Irrigation 2.4 0.3 0.4 - 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.6 0.7 1.2 0.0 2.1

Roads 6.1 0.7 2.0 - 0.7 2.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.0 0.7 3.9 0.2 0.1 1.6

Local road 0.6 ------0.4 0.5 0.0 - 0.6

Major road 4.4 0.2 1.2 - 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 - - 0.8 1.2 0.1 3.2 - - 0.7

4WD trail 0.9 0.5 0.8 - 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.5 - - 0.8 0.8 0.1 - 0.1 - 0.1

Alley 0.1 ------0.1 - - 0.1

Driveway ------

Highway 0.1 ------0.0 0.0 - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Cul-de-sac ------

Ramp ------Grand Total 9.1 1.1 2.4 - 1.1 2.4 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 1.9 2.4 2.6 4.8 1.7 0.1 4.4

5-19 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

5-20 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.9.2.4 Future Trends in Development The Town is aware that future development may occur near flood hazard/ dam failure areas. Code development is regulated by the Orchard City Floodplain Regulations which contain provisions for flood hazard reduction including standards for anchoring, construction materials and methods, utilities and subdivision proposals.

5.5.9.2.5 Summary of Dam Failure Issues Important issues associated with the dam failure hazard include the following:

• The Austin area of Town would be directly impacted if the Fruitgrowers Reservoir failed. • There are 27 high hazard dams in Delta County. Not all dam owners have updated EAP to reflect changes in downstream development and new available elevation data.

5-21 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

5-22 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.10 Drought Hazard Profile For a general description of the drought hazard, see Section 4.8: Drought Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

The Orchard City water system has a daily treatment capacity of 2 million gallons and a maximum storage of 3.5 million gallons. The alignment of the water mains and distribution lines has a major influence on the patterns of development in the community. The water system provides treated potable water for domestic use. In 2009 Orchard City revised both user and tap fees to maintain the strong financial condition of this enterprise fund. Water rates are based upon metered use and incorporate an increasing block rate structure in which the cost per gallon of water increases as larger amounts of water are used. This rate structure creates an incentive for water users to conserve and to stay within the more affordable initial water rate block. The water system, an enterprise fund, is operated on a business basis. Enterprise funds should not be subsidized by other revenue sources and rates should be adjusted regularly based upon the water system operating costs. (Town of Orchard City Community Master Plan, 2016)

Regulatory Oversight For Federal and State Regulations regarding Drought, see Section 4.8.2 in Volume 1.

5.5.10.1.1 Resolution No. 2018-06 In May of 2018 a call for voluntary conservation resulted in even higher than normal usages Orchard City residents. As a result, the Orchard City Board voted unanimously to implement mandatory water restrictions. In an effort to "stretch" the current water supply, Resolution No. 2018-06 provides strong restrictions to water uses, new connections and total number of gallons allowed for total usage. New water rates and penalties are intended to regulate water use and to promote the conservation of Town's water resources, prevent waste, ensure adequate and consistent supplies of water for human consumption and fire suppression. ALL users of the Town of Orchard City water were put on notice that even stronger restrictions may be put into effect if these measures prove insufficient. Full Ordinance can be viewed here: https://www.orchardcityco.org/DocumentCenter/View/1953/Res-2018-06-Drought-Declaration_?bidId=

5.5.10.1.2 2018 Drought Plan A Drought Task Force has been created and is currently working on a draft Drought Plan for the Town of Orchard City.

Drought Vulnerability Analysis Drought produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the economy and reaches well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to the ability to produce goods and provides services. Drought can affect a wide range of economic, environmental and social activities. The vulnerability of an activity to the effects of drought usually depends on its water demand, how the demand is met, and what water supplies are available to meet the demand.

5-23 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.10.2.1 Population All people, property and environments in Orchard City would be exposed to some degree to the impacts of moderate to extreme drought conditions. The continued population growth trend will place additional demands on the water system. (Town of Orchard City Community Master Plan, 2016)

5.5.10.2.2 Property Drought normally does not directly impact structures. Although water and sewer infrastructure may be affected by drought, other critical facilities are generally not. Data are not available to identify particular hazard areas and/or estimate potential losses to structures. The greatest risk to people from drought is the loss of drinking water supply from water systems and underground aquifers. Secondary impacts from drought, such as wildfire and erosion, can have a significant impact on structures and municipal infrastructure.

5.5.10.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities, as defined for this plan, will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility elements such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning area’s critical facilities inventory will be largely aesthetic. For example, when water conservation measures are in place, landscaped areas will not be watered and may die. These aesthetic impacts are not considered significant.

5.5.10.2.4 Future Trends in Development The Gunnison River Basin is not listed as a critical water supply shortage area under the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI). The SWSI was drafted by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in 2010 to provide a comprehensive picture of Colorado’s water needs now, and in the future. Once completed, the 2018 Drought Plan will provide guidance on mitigating the effects of drought as future development occurs.

5.5.10.2.5 Summary of Drought Issues Important issues associated with drought include the following:

• Future growth and climate conditions in Delta County could impact available water supply specifically for residents on water wells or smaller water districts dependent on well water. • Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on average and impact agriculture, recreation, economy, and municipal water availability in the County. The area should expect drought years. • There is a lack of promotion of active water conservation during drought and non-drought periods.

5-24 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.11 Flood Hazard Profile Flash floods are caused by excessive rainfall, rapid snowmelt or sudden release of water from a blockage in the drainage system. For a general description of the flood hazard, see Section 4.9: Flood Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

Principal Flood Problems

Figure 5-4 shows the 500-YR, 100-YR and 110-YR, floodway zones in the Town of Orchard City. Principal flooding in Orchard City occurs on Surface and Tongue Creeks due to rapid melting of heavy snowpack, which occurs during May, June, and July. Rainfall on melting snow may increase flood flows. On Cedar Run, the principal cause of flooding is thunderstorms, because the drainage area is at a lower elevation and is not subject to heavy snows. (Delta County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2008)

The largest flow on record was in nearby Cedaredge and occurred on May 13, 1941, on Surface Creek with a flow of 1,190 cubic feet per second and is estimated to have been a 100-year flood event. (Flood Insurance Study for Delta, Colorado and Incorporated Areas, 2010)

Regulatory Oversight For Federal, State and County Regulations regarding flood, see Section 4.9.2 in Volume 1.

5.5.11.1.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Delta County and incorporated areas. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent annual chance flood and the 0.2-percent annual chance flood (the 500-YR flood). Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-YR floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program.

Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met:

• New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 100-YR flood.

• New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties.

• New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species.

5-25 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 5-4: Orchard City Flood Hazards

5-26 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

The Town of Orchard City entered the NFIP on May 31st, 1977. Structures permitted or built in the Town before then are called “pre-FIRM” structures, and structures built afterwards are called “post-FIRM.” The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures. The effective date for the current countywide FIRM is August 19th, 2010.

The Town is currently not in compliance with State of Colorado higher floodplain regulations. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Properties constructed after a FIRM has been adopted are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to decrease vulnerability. Properties built before a FIRM is adopted are more vulnerable to flooding because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas. Table 5-14 lists NFIP statistics for the Town. The statistics show that there have not been any flood insurance claims paid as of May 31st, 2017.

Table 5-14: Flood Insurance Statistics for the Town of Orchard City NFIP Status & Information Town of Orchard City NFIP Status Participating since 5/31/77 CRS Class n/a Policies in Force 5 Policies in SFHA Policies in non-SFHA Total Claims Paid 0 Paid Losses $0 Repetitive Loss Properties Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Building Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Contents The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a) restricts the release of certain types of data to the public. Flood insurance policy and claims data are included in the list of restricted information. FEMA can only release such data to state and local governments, and only if the data are used for floodplain management, mitigation, or research purposes. Therefore, this plan does not identify the repetitive loss properties or include claims data for any individual property.

5.5.11.1.2 Orchard City Floodplain Regulations Chapter 6.04 of the Orchard City Municipal Code contains provisions for flood hazard reduction including standards for anchoring, construction materials and methods, utilities and subdivision proposals. The regulations may be read in full at: https://www.orchardcityco.org/DocumentCenter/View/515/Title6?bidId=

Flood Vulnerability Analysis This section describes vulnerabilities to flooding in terms of population, property and infrastructure. The Level 2 Hazus protocol was used to assess the exposure to flooding in the planning area. The model used property value and building

5-27 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

characteristics at the parcel/building level, FEMA floodplain data, and National Elevation Dataset topography to estimate potential flooding impacts.

Flood exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using FEMA 100-YR and 500-YR flood zones and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures, such as federal and local government buildings except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 5-15 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to flooding. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

Table 5-15: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Value Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) ($) Facilities Lifeline 97 $ 1,232,051 $ 665,464 3 2.4 3.1% 0.9% 0.8% 20.0% 3.8% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

* numbers for 100yr and 500yr combined 5.5.11.2.1 Population Population counts of those living in the floodplain were generated by analyzing County assessor and parcel data that intersect with the 100-YR and 500-YR floodplains identified on FIRMs within the Town of Orchard City. Using GIS, Colorado DOLA Bureau information was used to intersect the FEMA identified floodplains within the Town limits. An estimate of population was calculated by weighting the population within each census block. The exposure results indicate the percentage of total population living within a flood risk area. Using this approach, it was estimated that a total of 49 people are exposed to flood risk from the 100-YR floodplain (2.54% of the total Town population) and 71 people are exposed to risk from the 500-YR floodplain (3.15% of the total Town Population), as shown in Figure 5-5.

5-28 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 5-5: Town of Orchard City Population Exposure to Flood

Population 80 Exposure 71 Population Count 70 in the 100-YR and 500-YR Floodplains 60

49 50

40

30 28

21 22 20

10

- 100-Year 100-Year, Floodway 100-Year Total* 500-Year** 500-Year Total***

*Total 100-year floodplain **Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain ***Total 500-YR floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain

5-29 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 5-16: Summary of Population Exposure to Flood

Total Population

Orchard City 3,085

Flood Hazard Zone Population Count % of Total

100-Year 44 1.43% 100-Year, Floodway 34 1.11% 100-Year Total* 78 2.54% 500-Year** 19 0.61% 500-Year Total*** 97 3.15%

*Total 100-year floodplain **Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain ***Total 500-YR floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain

5.5.11.2.2 Property GIS was used to determine the possible impacts of flooding within the Town of Orchard City. The methodology described in Section 4.9.10.2 of Volume 1 was followed in determining structures and values at risk to the FEMA identified 1% (100- YR) and 0.2% (500-YR) annual chance flood event.

Table 5-17 summarizes the number of improved parcels and property value within the Town of Orchard City’s FEMA identified floodplains. GIS models determined that there are 11 parcels within the 100-YR floodplain and 15 parcels within the 500-YR floodplain. This methodology also estimated $1,156,165 worth of building-and-contents exposure to the 100- YR flood, representing .5 percent of the total assessed value within the Town of Orchard City, and $1,897,515 worth of building-and-contents exposure to the 500-YR flood, representing .9 percent of the total assessed value within the Town of Orchard City.

Table 5-17: Town of Orchard City - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones Total Total Market Value Total Content Total Value ($) Parcels ($) Value ($) Orchard City 1,151 $ 139,148,928 $ 81,859,968 $ 221,008,896

Parcel Market Value Content Value Flood Hazard Zone % of Total Total Exposure ($) % of Total Count Exposure ($) Exposure ($) 100-Year Flood 11 1.0% $ 737,818 $ 418,347 $ 1,156,165 0.5% 100-Year Flood, Floodway - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 100-Year Total* 11 1.0% $ 737,818 $ 418,347 $ 1,156,165 0.5% 500-Year Flood** 4 0.3% $ 494,233 $ 247,117 $ 741,350 0.3% 500-Year Total*** 15 1.3% $ 1,232,051 $ 665,464 $ 1,897,515 0.9% Note: The table above does not display loss estimation results; the table exhibits total value at risk based upon the hazard overlay and Delta County Assessor data.

5-30 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.11.2.3 Flood Damage Estimation FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software models the possible damage of flooding within the Town of Orchard City. The methodology described in Volume 1, Section 4.9.10.3 was followed in determining potential damage associates with the 1% (100-YR) and 0.2% (500-YR) annual chance flood event.

The HAZUS-MH software calculates losses to structures from flooding by analyzing the depth of flooding and type of structure. Using historical flood insurance claim data, HAZUS-MH software estimates the percentage of damage to structures and their contents by applying established damage functions to an inventory. For this analysis, all non-vacant parcels with current market values were used instead of the default inventory data provided with HAZUS-MH software. The analysis for the Town of Orchard City is summarized in Table 5-18 and Figure 5-6 for the 100-YR flood event and Table 5-19 and Figure 5-7 for the 500-YR flood event. Hazus results for the 500-YR flood event resulted in a minimal increased damage over the 100-YR event. It is estimated that there “could” be up to $113,858 of flood damage loss from a 100-YR event and $151,872 500-YR flood event in the Town of Orchard City. This modeled loss is assuming all tributaries in the region collect 100-YR and 500-YR event precipitation levels respectively in the watershed. The estimated loss for 100-YR flood event represents 36%8 of the total Town of Orchard City building stock. The estimated flood loss for 500-YR event represents 33 % of the total Town of Orchard City’s building stock.

Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7 provide damage estimates by occupancy type. As seen on the graphics, residential properties have the highest damage potential from a major flood event within the Town.

Table 5-18: 100-YR Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type Building Content Damage Content Damage Damage Proportion Building Type Building Damage ($) Total Damage ($) (% of grand ($) (% of grand of Loss (%) total) total) Agricultural $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Commercial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Education $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Governmental $ 3,009 2.0% $ 18,055 11.9% $ 21,064 19% Industrial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Religion $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Residential $ 69,822 46.0% $ 22,972 15.1% $ 92,794 81% Total $ 72,831 64% $ 41,027 36% $ 113,858

8 Input Values: 1 - Building Replacement Costs = $41,922,379.00 2 - Content Replacement Costs = $28,815,085.00 3 - Total Value = $70,737,464.00"

5-31 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Thousands $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

Agricultural Commercial Education Governmental Industrial Religion Residential

Building Damage ($) Content Damage ($)

Figure 5-6: 100-YR Building and Content Estimated Flood Loss by Occupancy Type (Town of Orchard City)

Table 5-19: 500-YR Flood Loss Estimation by Occupancy Type (Town of Orchard City) Building Content Damage Content Damage Damage Proportion Building Type Building Damage ($) Total Damage ($) (% of grand ($) (% of grand of Loss (%) total) total) Agricultural $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Commercial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Education $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Governmental $ 3,009 2.0% $ 18,055 11.9% $ 21,064 14% Industrial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Religion $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Residential $ 98,163 64.6% $ 32,645 21.5% $ 130,807 86% Total $ 101,172 67% $ 50,700 33% $ 151,872 Note: Total 500-year floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain damage estimates

5-32 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Thousands $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120

Agricultural Commercial Education Governmental Industrial Religion Residential

Building Damage ($) Content Damage ($)

Figure 5-7: Estimated Building and Content Loss in the 500-YR floodplain by Occupancy Type

5.5.11.2.4 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure It is important to determine who may be at risk if infrastructure is damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are flooded or damaged can isolate residents and can restrict access throughout the Town, including emergency service providers needing to get to vulnerable populations or to make repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by floods or debris also can cause isolation. Water and sewer systems can be flooded or backed up, causing health problems. Underground utilities can be damaged. The following sections describe specific types of critical infrastructure. Table 5-20 summarizes the critical facilities and infrastructure at risk to the 100-YR Flood Zone, 100-YR Floodway and 500-YR Flood Zone within the Town of Orchard City. Details are provided in the following sections.

Table 5-20: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain

500 Year, 100 Year 100 Year 500 Year Infrastructure Type Floodway Outside 100 Flood Zone Total Total Year

Essential Facility - - - - - EOC - - - - - Fire Station - - - - - Hospital - - - - - Police Station - - - - - School - - - - - High Potential Loss - - - - - Child Care Licensed - - - - - Dam - - - - - Gas Well (Permits) - - - - - Health Facility Licensed - - - - - Other Government - - - - -

5-33 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

500 Year, 100 Year 100 Year 500 Year Infrastructure Type Floodway Outside 100 Flood Zone Total Total Year

Prison - - - - - Transportation and Lifeline 1 2 3 - 3 Airport - - - - - Bridge 1 2 3 - 3 County Cell Towers - - - - - Power Plant - - - - - Waste Water Facility - - - - - Water Utility - - - - - Water Wells - - - - - Grand Total 1 2 3 - 3

Linear Utilities

It is important to determine who may be at risk if infrastructure is damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can isolate residents and can restrict access throughout the Town. Table 5-21 shows the linear critical facilities in the floodplain.

Table 5-21: Critical Facilities (Linear) in the Floodplain – Town of Orchard City

Infrastructure Type 100 Year 500 Year, Floodway 100 Year Total 500 Year Total (Linear Mileage) Flood Zone Outside 100 Year

Railroad 0.1 0.0 0.1 - 0.1 Irrigation 0.4 0.1 0.4 - 0.4 Roads 1.4 0.2 1.7 0.3 1.9 Local road 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 Major road 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.2 4WD trail 0.4 - 0.4 - 0.4 Alley - - - - - Driveway - - - - - Highway - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 Cul-de-sac - - - - - Ramp - - - - - Grand Total 1.84 0.29 2.12 0.30 2.42

5-34 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Future Trends in Development The Town is aware that future development may occur near flood hazard areas. By code development is regulated by the Town’s floodplain regulations which limit construction FEMA special flood hazard areas.

Summary of Flood Issues Important issues associated with flood hazards include the following:

• Storm water runoff issues within many different municipalities within Delta County. • LeRoux Creek and Smith Fork are high risk tributaries with flood issues.

5-35 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

5-36 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.12 Severe Winter Weather Hazard Profile As expected, winter storms can and do occur frequently, and they can vary significantly in size, strength, intensity, duration, and impact. Strong winds create snowdrifts that block roads, create dangerous wind chill factors and sometimes lead to life-threatening power outages. The National Weather Service issues a wind chill advisory when wind and temperature combine to produce wind chill values of 20 to 35 degrees below zero, significantly raising the potential for hypothermia and frostbite affecting health and safety. Hypothermia is the most common winter weather killer in Colorado. Ice accumulation becomes a hazard by creating dangerous travel conditions, and impacting safety for vulnerable elements of the population such as the elderly and physically impaired.

High winds and ice accumulation often accompany winter storms. These winds can produce sizable snowdrifts that can cause residents and travelers to be stranded for hours, potentially causing life threatening conditions. Hypothermia and carbon monoxide poisoning can become a clear threat to many.

Regulatory Oversight In addition to Federal, State and County regulatory oversight the Town of Orchard City does not have any additional regulations regarding severe winter weather.

Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability

5.5.12.2.1 Population It can be assumed that the entire planning area is exposed to some extent to winter storms. Vulnerable populations include the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Power outages can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Isolation of these populations is a significant concern.

5.5.12.2.2 Property Winter storms affect the entire planning area, including all above-ground structures and infrastructure. Although losses to structures are typically minimal and covered by insurance, there can be other costs associated with lost time, maintenance costs, and contents within structures.

5.5.12.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Winter weather conditions are a threat to public safety on major roads and highways. Additionally, power outages caused by snow, ice, and wind accompanied by cold temperatures can create great additional need for shelter. Other issues caused by winter storms can be related to school closures, business closures, road closures, snow removal, and maintaining critical services like emergency services, food providers, and banks.

5-37 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.5.12.2.4 Future Trends in Development All future development will be affected by severe storms. The ability to withstand impacts lies in sound land use practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction. The International Building Code, which has been adopted by the Town, is equipped to deal with the impacts of severe weather events. Floodplain regulations also address flooding, which can be a secondary impact of severe weather. With these tools, the Town is well equipped to deal with future growth and the associated impacts of severe weather.

5.5.12.2.5 Summary of Severe Winter Weather Issues Important issues associated with severe winter weather include the following:

• Vulnerable populations can be isolated by severe storm events especially those with functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, car dependent etc.…) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages.

5-38 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.6 Mitigation Strategy

The Town of Orchard City used the same mitigation strategy as Delta County. This is described in detail in Section 5 of Volume 1.

5.6.1 Identifying the Problem As part of the mitigation actions identification process, the Town of Orchard City Planning Committee identified issues and/or weaknesses as a result of the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis. By combining common issues and weaknesses developed by the Planning Committee, the realm of resources needed for mitigating each can be understood. Community issues and weaknesses are presented by individual hazard in Table 4-15. Primary (P) and Secondary (S) jurisdictions are identified for each problem statement. Projects or actions have been developed to mitigate each problem identified. To the degree possible the Town of Orchard City will support County Wide Initiatives. See Volume 1 for related County Wide mitigation actions.

Table 5-22: Problem Statements by Hazard

rchard City rchard Problem Mitigation Mitigation O Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of All Hazard AH-02 No identified shelters have back-up ES DC-01-2018 generators. This includes shelters identified P S within each Municipality. All Hazard AH-03 Many communities in Delta County have PE&A DC-04-2008 particularly high Renter Rates. Most communities are above 30% . This is an issue P S as it will be hard to motivate absentee owners to mitigate risk on rental units. Town of Hotchkiss has a 56.6% rental rate. All Hazard AH-04 Lack of communication and data transmission ES, PE&A DC-05-2008 lines could affect communications during a natural hazard event including 800 MHz P S transmission towers. Lack of domestic demand for communications inhibits communications providers to provide service in remote areas. All Hazard AH-07 Hard to find information on spatial hazards and PE&A DC-11-2008, where they are located in the county. The DC-04-2008 County GIS viewer does not show any hazards P S layers or any other information besides base mapping.

5-39 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

rchard City rchard Problem Mitigation Mitigation O Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of Dam DF-01 There are 27 high hazard dams in Delta PPRO DC-06-2008 Failure County. Not all dam owners have updated EAP P S to reflect changes in downstream development and new available elevation data. Dam DF-04 The Austin area of Town would be directly PPRO OC-05-2018 P Failure impacted if the Fruitgrowers Reservoir failed. Drought DR-01 Future growth and climate conditions in Delta NRP, PRV, DC-02-2018 County could impact available water supply PE&A specifically for residents on water wells or P S smaller water districts dependent on well water. Drought DR-02 Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on PRV, DC-03-2018, average and impact agriculture, recreation, PE&A, DC-02-2018 economy, and municipal water availability in NRP P S the County. The area should expect drought years. Drought DR-03 There is a lack of promotion of active water PE&A, DC-04-2018, conservation during drought and non-drought PRV DC-02-2018 P S periods. Drought DR-04 Drought would affect the local agricultural NRP OC-03-2018 industry. Example, three large commercial P orchards could be economically impacted. Drought DR-05 Drought would also affect the Town’s Water NRP OC-04-2018 P Supply for domestic purposes. Flood FL-03 Storm water runoff issues within many SP DC-02-2008 P S different municipalities within Delta County. Flood FL-13 There are 6 bridges owned by the Town of SP OC-01-2018 Orchard City that are in flood zones. If one P bridge should fail upstream, it could compound the issues further downstream. Flood FL-15 The Transfer Ditch Culvert and two culverts SP OC-02-2018 located at Austin Road and Lobdell Road could P potentially be impacted during floods. Geohazard GH-01 Expansive soils are widespread across the PE&A, DC-03-2008, county, including in areas of new PRV DC-02-2008 P S development, and can affect building foundations, roads, driveways, and etc.

5-40 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

rchard City rchard Problem Mitigation Mitigation O Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of Severe SW-04 Vulnerable populations can be isolated by PE&A, ES DC-18-2018, Weather severe storm events especially those with DC-17-2018 functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, P S car dependent etc.…) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages. Severe SW-08 There are a large number of people (193 or PE&A OC-06-2018 Weather 14.8% of the population) over the age of 65 and living alone in the Town of Orchard City. Vulnerable populations can be isolated by P severe storm events especially those with functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, car dependent etc.) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages. Wildfire WF-11 Many County residents live within high wildfire PPRO DC-03-2008, risk areas including low income, elderly and DC-02-2008 other vulnerable populations. Approx. 40%- P S 50% of the total population live within some wildfire risk areas. Wildfire WF-19 Water main issues may still be present from SP OC-01-2008 P Eckert tanks to water treatement plan.

5.6.2 Capability Assessment The Town of Orchard City identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The mitigation strategy includes an assessment of the Town’s planning and regulatory, administrative and technical, financial, and education and outreach capabilities to augment known issues and weaknesses from identified natural hazards.

5-41 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Planning and Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities The legal and regulatory capabilities of local, state, and federal jurisdictions are shown in Table 5-23, which presents existing ordinances and codes that can regulate the physical or built environment of the Town. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordnances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans.

Table 5-23: Town of Orchard City's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities

Plan/ Program/ Regulation Yes or No

Building Codes Yes

Building Codes Year 2006

BCEGS Rating

Public Protection (ISO Class)

Capital Improvements Program (CIP) or Plan Yes

Community Rating System (CRS) No

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) No

Comprehensive, Master, or General Plan Yes

Economic Development Plan No

Elevation Certificates Yes, will be required if structure is built in the floodplain

Erosion/Sediment Control Program No

Floodplain Management Plan Yes

Flood Insurance Study No

Growth Management Ordinance No

Hazard-Specific Ordinance or Plan (Floodplain, Steep Slope, Wildfire) Yes, floodplain

NFIP Yes

Site Plan Review Requirements Yes

Stormwater Program, Plan or Ordinance No

Zoning Ordinance No

5-42 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Administrative and Technical Capabilities Table 5-24 lists the Town’s administrative and technical abilities.

Table 5-24: Town of Orchard City’s Administrative and Technical Ability

Administrative/ Technical Resource Yes or No

Emergency Manager

Floodplain Administrator Yes

Community Planning:

- Planner/Engineer (Land Development)

- Planner/Engineer/Scientist (Natural Hazards)

- Engineer/Professional (Construction)

- Resiliency Planner

- Transportation Planner

Full-Time Building Official

GIS Specialist and Capability

Grant Manager, Writer, or Specialist

Warning Systems/Services:

- General

- Flood

- Wildfire

- Geological Hazards

5-43 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Financial Capabilities Table 5-25 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to the Town such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard-prone areas.

Table 5-25: Town of Orchard City's Financial Capabilities

Financial Resource

Has community used any of the following to fund mitigation activities:

- Levy for Specific Purposes with Voter Approval

- Utilities Fees Yes

- System Development Feed

- General Obligation Bonds to Incur Debt

- Special Tax Bonds to Incur Debt

- Withheld Spending in Hazard-Prone Areas

- Stormwater Service Fees

- Capital Improvement Project Funding

- Community Development Block Grants

Education and Outreach Table 5-26 summarizes community outreach and education programs that could be used in conjunction with mitigation planning efforts.

Table 5-26: Town of Orchard City's Public Outreach and Education Programs

Education/ Outreach Resource

Local Citizen Groups That Communicate Hazard Risks:

- Firewise Yes

- StormReady

- Other

5-44 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). Together with the County Planning Committee, the steering committee established a guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable objectives for this plan, based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and the results of the public involvement strategy. This information is located in Section 5.4 of Volume 1.

5.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan Based upon the Town’s planning committee priorities, risk assessment results, and mitigation alternatives, mitigation actions were developed. Most importantly, the newly developed mitigation actions acknowledge updated risk assessment information outlined in Section 5.5. Mitigation actions presented in Table 5-27 establish 6 possible mitigation actions. Some mitigation actions support ongoing Town activities, while other actions are intended to be completed when funding is available. Regardless, mitigation actions will be part of an annual review.

Benefit/ Cost Review The Town of Orchard City Planning Team used the same benefit/cost parameters as described in Section 5.5.1.1 of Volume 1. Cost ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).

• Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years.

• Low—The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program.

Benefit ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.

• Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.

• Low—Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.

Mitigation Action Plan The Town of Orchard City Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Section 5.5.1 of Volume 1. Based upon the Town of Orchard City Planning Committee consensus, Table 5-27 lists each priority mitigation action. Priority mitigation action Implementation plans are made available in Annex A. Implementation plans in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need to implementation. The detail in the Action Planners meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

5-45 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

5.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance

The Town of Orchard City Planning Team will follow the same implementation and maintenance strategy as Delta County. This strategy is described in detail in Section 6 of Volume 1. Town of Orchard City Mitigation Action Trackers in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need for implementation and maintenance. The detail in the Action Trackers meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000 for priority mitigation actions. Mitigation Action Trackers will be used to report, track and implement mitigation actions over the next five-year update cycle.

5.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms An important implementation mechanism is to incorporate the recommendations and underlying principles of the MJHMP into community planning and development such as capital improvement budgeting, building and zoning codes, general plans and regional plans. Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated within the day-to-day functions and priorities of the jurisdiction attempting to implement risk reducing actions. The integration of a variety of Town departments on the MJHMP Planning Committee provides an opportunity for constant and pervasive efforts to network, identify, and highlight mitigation activities and opportunities at all levels of government. This collaborative effort is also important to monitor funding opportunities which can be leveraged to implement the mitigation actions.

The Town of Orchard City incorporated data, information, and hazard mitigation goals and actions from the 2008 HMP into:

• Prioritization of domestic water infrastructure improvements • The enforcement of mandatory water use restrictions • 2016 Town of Orchard City Community Master Plan

Information from this 2018 MJHMP can be incorporated into:

• Town of Orchard City Community Master Plan: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into the Land Use and Parks, Open Space and Trails elements during the next master plan update. Specific risk and vulnerability information from the Delta County MJHMP and Town of Orchard City Annex will assist to identify areas where development may be at risk to potential hazards. • Town Building / Development Codes and Zoning Ordinances: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information to enable the Town to make decisions on appropriate building/development codes and ordinances. Appropriate building codes and ordinances can increase the Town’s resilience against natural disasters. • Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP): The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into CWPP updates for areas within or near the Town of Orchard City.

5-46 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 5-27: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker Action No. Hazard Type Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation Responsible Party Potential Funding Source Time Frame* Benefit Cost Rating Implementation Plan Alternatives / Priority

OC-01-2018 Flood Assess bridges for flow and capacity within the City. SP Public Works General Funds Short Term Low/ Low Yes

OC-02-2018 Flood Assess the capacity of the Transfer Ditch Culvert and two culverts located at Austin Road and SP Public Works General Funds Short Term Low/ Low Yes Lobdell Road to determine if they could withstand flood events.

OC-03-2018 Drought During periods of drought, establish an irrigation time/scheduling program or process so that NRP Town of Orchard City General Funds Short Term Low/ Medium Yes all agricultural land gets the required amount of water. Through incremental timing, each area is irrigated at different times so that all water is not consumed at the same time. Spacing usage may also help with recharge of groundwater. OC-04-2018 Drought Monitor the water supply and its functions to save water in the long run. Regularly check NRP Public Works General Funds Short Term Low/ Medium Yes for leaks to minimize water supply losses. Improve water supply monitoring.

OC-05-2018 Dam Failure Create a public education campaign for residents of Austin on the dangers associated PE&A Town of Orchard City General Funds, PDM Short Term Low/ low Yes with dam failure, who should be contacted in case of an emergency and what actions should be taken in the event of a failure. OC-06-2018 Severe Procure a backup generator for Town Hall in the event that it will be used as an ES Town of Orchard City HMGP, 5 Percent Initiative Short Term High/ Low Yes Winter Emergency Command Center. Perform regular maintenance on the generator at the Weather Water Treatment Plant. *Note: Short Term= 1-3 yrs, Mid Term= 3-5 yrs, Long Term= 5 yrs or more

As a living document, project descriptions and actions in the tables above will be modified to reflect current conditions over time

5-47 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

5-48

Section 6. TOWN OF PAONIA

6-1

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

6-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Municipal Adoption Records

To comply with DMA 2000, the Town of Paonia Board of Trustees has officially adopted the 2018 Delta County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 and the Town of Paonia Volume 2 Annex. The adoption of the 2018 MJHMP in its entirety recognizes the Town’s commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards within the Town and County. See the following record of Adoption.

6-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

6-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.1 Purpose

This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Town of Paonia. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Town. This Annex provides additional information specific to the Town of Paonia, with a focus on providing additional details on the planning process, risk assessment, and mitigation strategy for this community.

Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Neil Ferguson, Chief of Police Blake Kinser, Paonia Fire 214 Grand Ave 1214 Rio Grande Ave Paonia, CO 81428 Paonia, CO 81428 Telephone: (970) 527-4822 Telephone: (970) 201-1815 e-mail Address: [email protected] e-mail Address: [email protected] 6.2 Introduction

Paonia is a unique town, settled by farmers, ranchers and miners, now home to artists and outdoor lovers as well. It consistently ranks as one of the “coolest” Colorado mountain towns, and that’s saying something!

Paonia is naturally air conditioned by warm air flowing up the valley at night and cool air from the mountains during the day resulting in optimal conditions for growing cherries, apricots, grapes, peaches, plums, pears, nectarines and apples. The oldest continuous outdoor community celebration in Colorado is Paonia Cherry Days held over the Fourth of July holiday. Paonia is a real hotbed of organic farming, sustainably raised meats, value added products, organic hops and a truly remarkable wine industry. You will eat some of the highest quality, cleanest food in the world when you visit this Valley.

Paonia is a focal point of back roads and trails leading into the forest, attracting hunters, hikers, bicyclists and cross-country skiers. Hunters outfit themselves in Paonia before setting out to get their elk, deer, and bear. Few places offer such a wonderful combination of climate, scenery, lifestyle and recreation.

The art scene is alive and well in Paonia. The North Fork Valley is a “Certified Colorado Creative District,” and home to many creatives, including painters, jewelers, dancers, actors, musicians and other artisans. You can enjoy the creativity at places like the Paradise Theatre, Blue Sage Center for the Arts, and Glennie Coombe Gallery. (Town of Paonia, n.d.)

6-1 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 6-1: Town of Paonia Location

6.2.1 Geography and Climate Paonia is located in eastern Delta County on the North Fork Gunnison River, about 10 miles (16 km) northeast of (upstream from) neighboring Hotchkiss. It lies near the head of the North Fork Valley, an area about 150 miles (240 km) by air southwest of Denver. The valley lies at the foot of 11,396-foot (3,474 m) Mount Lamborn to the southeast and the Grand Mesa to the northwest.

Colorado State Highway 133 touches the northwest boundary of Paonia as the highway runs up the North Fork Valley; it leads southwest 9 miles (14 km) to Hotchkiss and northeast 58 miles (93 km) over McClure Pass to Carbondale. According to the United States Census Bureau, the town of Paonia has a total area of 0.85 square miles (2.2 km2), all of it land.

Table 6-1 shows climate data for the Town.

6-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 6-1: Paonia Climate Statistics Description Avg. Rating Annual high temperature: 64.1°F Annual low temperature: 36.6°F Average temperature: 50.35°F Average annual precipitation - rainfall: 15.07 in Days per year with precipitation - rainfall: - Annual hours of sunshine: - Av. annual snowfall: 44 in Source: www.usclimatedata.com

6.2.2 Historical Overview The area was first explored in 1853 by Captain John W. Gunnison of the United States Army. Gunnison was on an expedition to locate a suitable pass through the Rocky Mountains for the Topographical Engineers. The Valley was inhabited by Ute Indians until 1880, when the Ute Indian Reservation was closed by the federal government.

Following the closure of the reservation, the site itself was settled in 1880 by Samuel Wade and William Clark, who had accompanied Enos Hotchkiss to the area from Ohio. The town was officially incorporated in 1902 and had its first election in July of that year. The peony roots that Samuel Wade brought with him to Colorado in 1881 inspired him to submit the Latin name for peony, “Paeonia” as a town name. The post office wouldn’t allow the extra vowel, so Paeonia became Paonia. Significant industries include ranching, mining and orchard farming.

Cattle came first, but in 1893, sheep were introduced to the valley. Cowboys organized a secret society called the Cattle Growers Protective Association. When sheep appeared on a cattle range, if legal persuasion failed, sheep were stampeded over bluffs or massacred. Vast reserves of coal lay buried in the area. The advent of the railroad made the shipping of coal economical and today, coal mining is our major industry. (Town of Paonia, n.d.) 6.3 Planning Methodology The Town of Paonia followed the planning process detailed in Volume 1, Section 3 of the base plan. In addition to providing representation on the Delta County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and Steering Committee, the Town formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process requirements. Internal planning participants, their positions, and how they participated in the planning process are shown in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2: 2018 Town of Paonia Stakeholder List

Planning Committee Dept. / Members Position / Role Mayor Charles Stewart, Mayor Steering Committee Rep. Neil Ferguson, Chief of Police Steering Committee Rep. Bill Bear, Board Committee Steering Committee Rep. Blake Kinser, Paonia Fire Steering Committee Rep.

6-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.4 What’s New

This 2018 MJHMP Update is the Town of Paonia’s first hazard mitigation plan and is a record of the Town’s improvements toward reducing natural hazard risks to life and property within the Town. During the next update cycle, this section will be updated to reflect progress made on 2018 mitigation actions and other efforts to reduce the effects of natural hazards. See Volume 1 for updates regarding County Wide efforts and progress on mitigation actions. 6.5 Risk Assessment

The intent of this section is to profile the Town of Paonia’s hazards and assess the Town’s vulnerability separate from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been assessed in Volume 1, Section 4 (Risk Assessment). The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the planning area and describes the hazard problem description, hazard extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard profile information specific to the Town of Paonia is included in this section of the Annex. This vulnerability assessment analyzes the property, population, critical facilities, and other assets at risk to hazards specific to the Town of Paonia. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Section 4 Risk Assessment in Volume 1.

Each hazard vulnerability assessment for the Town of Paonia Annex includes a brief hazard profile for each medium or high significant hazard with the potential to affect the Town. The intent of this section is to provide jurisdictional specific information on hazards and further describe how the hazards and risks differ across the planning area.

6.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria Per FEMA Guidance, the first step in developing the Risk Assessment is identifying the hazards. The Town Planning Committee reviewed a number of previously prepared hazard mitigation plans and other relevant documents to determine the universe of natural hazards that have the potential to affect the Town. Table 2-2 provides a crosswalk of hazards identified in the 1996 Town of Paonia Comprehensive Plan, 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Sixteen different hazards were identified based on a thorough document review. The crosswalk was used to develop a preliminary hazards list providing a framework for the Town’s Planning Team members to evaluate which hazards were truly relevant to the City and which ones are not.

6-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 6-3: Town of Paonia Document Review Crosswalk Hazards 1996 Town of Paonia 2008 Delta County Hazard 2013 Colorado Natural Comprehensive Plan Mitigation Plan Hazards Mitigation Plan ■ ■ Avalanche

Climate Change Dam Failure ■ Drought ■ ■ Earthquake ■ ■ Erosion and ■ Deposition Expansive Soils ■ ■ Extreme Heat ■ Flood ■ ■ ■ Geologic Hazards Hazardous ■ Materials Landslide ■ ■ Severe Weather ■ ■ Tornado ■ Wildfire ■ ■ Winter Storms ■ ■ 6.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking The Town of Paonia’s Planning Team used the same hazard prioritization process as the Delta County Planning Committee. This process is described in detail in Section 4.3 of Volume 1. Table 6-4 shows the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise. Based upon the hazard risk rating wildfire, drought, flood, severe winter weather, dam failure and geohazards will be profiled as priority hazards in the Town’s Annex. After reviewing the Town’s capabilities, the Planning Committee decided not to complete a full hazard profile for wildfire, but rather to refer the reader to the Fire District Annex, Paonia Fire Protection District hazard profile and vulnerability assessment in Section 8 of this Volume.

6-5 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 6-4: Town of Paonia Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix

Impact

Catastrophic Critical Limited Minor

Highly

Likely Wildfire Drought

Likely

Probability Severe Winter Possible Flood Weather

Unlikely Dam Failure Geohazards

6.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk This section presents the vulnerability assessment for the Town of Paonia and identifies the Town’s total assets at risk, including people, values at risk, critical facilities and infrastructure. Growth and development trends are also presented for the community. This data is not hazard specific but is representative of total assets at risk within the community.

6.5.4 Population and Asset Inventory In order to describe vulnerability for each hazard, it is important to understand the “total” population and “total” assets at risk within the Town. The exposure for each hazard described in this section will refer to the percent of total population or percent of total assets similar to Volume 1. This provides the possible significance or vulnerability to people and assets for the natural hazard event and the estimated damage and losses expected during a “worst case scenario” event for each hazard. Sections below provide a description of the total population, critical facilities, and parcel exposure inputs.

Population In order to develop hazard-specific vulnerability assessments, populations near natural hazard risks have been determined to understand the total “at risk” population. We can understand how geographically defined hazards may affect the Town by analyzing the extent of the hazard in relation to the location of population. For purposes of the vulnerability assessment

6-6 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

approximately 1,6939 (100%) of the Town’s population is exposed to one or more hazards within or near the Town boundaries. Each natural hazard scenario affects the Town residents differently depending on the location of the hazard and the population density of where the hazard could occur. Vulnerability assessment sections presented later in this section summarize the population exposure for each natural hazard.

6.5.4.1.1 Vulnerable Populations The severity of a disaster depends on both the physical nature of the extreme event and the socioeconomic nature of the populations affected by the event. Important socioeconomic factors tend to influence disaster severity. A core concept in a vulnerability analysis is that different people, even within the same region, have a different vulnerability to natural hazards.

6.5.4.1.2 At-Risk Individuals At-risk individuals are people with access and functional needs that may interfere with their ability to access or receive medical care before, during, or after a disaster or emergency. Irrespective of specific diagnosis, status, or label, the term “access and functional needs” is a broad set of common and cross-cutting access and function-based needs. (At-Risk Individuals, 2016) For more information on planning for individuals with access and functional needs, refer to Section 4.5.6.1.4 of Volume 1.

6.5.5 Critical Facilities Inventory Critical facilities are of concern when conducting hazard mitigation planning. Critical facilities are defined as essential services, and if damaged, would result in severe consequences to the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

An inventory of critical facilities based on data from the Town of Paonia, Delta County and other publicly sourced information were used to develop a comprehensive inventory of facility points and lifelines for the Town. Critical facility points include fire stations, schools, transportation, utilities, and government buildings. Lifelines include communication, electric power, liquid fuel, natural gas, and transportation routes. A current representation of the critical facilities and lifelines in the Town of Paonia are provided in and Table 6-6. The County GIS Department manages and maintains a complete list of critical facilities.

9 According to the 2016 Colorado DOLA Demography Office, the total population for the Town of Paonia was approx. 1,693 people.

6-7 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 6-5: Town of Paonia - Critical Facility Counts

Infrastructure Type Total Feature Count

Essential Facility 6 EOC - Fire Station 1 Hospital - Police Station 1 School 4 High Potential Loss 7 Child Care Licensed 1 Essential Facility High Potential Loss Dam - Gas Well (Permits) - Transportation and Lifeline Health Facility Licensed 2 Other Government 4 Prison - Transportation and Lifeline 3 Airport - Bridge 1 County Cell Towers 1 Power Plant - Waste Water Facility 1 Water Utility - Water Wells - Grand Total 16

Table 6-6: Town of Paonia - Linear Utilities

Infrastructure Type Total Linear (Linear Mileage) Mileage Railroad 1.2 Irrigation 1.9 Roads 15.4 Local road 6.0 Major road 4.4 4WD trail 0.0 Alley 3.3 Driveway 0.1 Highway 1.5 Cul-de-sac - Ramp - Grand Total 18.4

6-8 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.6 Parcel Value Inventory Total count and value of address points within the Town of Paonia which could be exposed to a hazard event is referred to as parcel exposure in this Annex. A standardized hazard overlay was conducted to develop hazard exposure results for improved Town parcels presented later in this section. For more information on this exposure method see Volume 1, Section 4. In the event of a disaster, it is generally the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land that is of concern or at risk. Generally, the land itself is not a total loss and structures can be rebuilt. The Delta County Assessor’s data is pivotal to developing parcel values exposed to each hazard and includes current assessed value of assets at risk. Town of Paonia parcel information is summed and provided in Table 6-7. Both the market value and content value are the total value in the community at risk to a particular hazard.

Table 6-7: Town of Paonia - Parcel Counts and Value

Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Paonia 727 $ 78,680,040 $ 48,202,628 $ 126,882,668

Total market value as provided by Delta County. Content value calculated using content multipliers per Hazus occupancy classes per county land use designation. Total value is the sum of total market value and total content value.

6.5.7 Hazus Structure and Content Value Inventory FEMA’s loss estimation software, Hazus-MH 4.0, was used to analyze the Town’s building risk to flood hazards. A Hazus level II assessment was performed leveraging county-wide assessor’s data in lieu of default Hazus data. Hazus software operates on structure square footage, structure replacement, and content replacement costs to estimate potential losses specific to a modeled flood scenario. Table 6-8 and Figure 6-2 provide input value data for occupancy classes derived from assessor’s data to match FEMA modeling standards.

Table 6-8: Town of Paonia Parcel-Based Hazus Input Values Building Content Value Proportion Value Building Type Building Value ($) Content Value ($) (% of grand Total Value ($) of Value (% of grand total *) (%) total) Agricultural $ 514,492 0.4% $ 514,492 0.4% $ 1,028,984 1% Commercial $ 7,492,512 5.9% $ 7,572,212 6.0% $ 15,064,724 12% Education $ 4,574,784 3.6% $ 4,574,784 3.6% $ 9,149,568 7% Governmental $ 2,304,111 1.8% $ 2,304,111 1.8% $ 4,608,222 4% Industrial $ 759,544 0.6% $ 942,055 0.7% $ 1,701,599 1% Religion $ 1,555,318 1.2% $ 1,555,318 1.2% $ 3,110,636 2% Residential $ 61,479,279 48.5% $ 30,739,656 24.2% $ 92,218,935 73% Total $ 78,680,040 62% $ 48,202,628 38% $ 126,882,668 Data Source: Delta County Assessor. Building values reflect fair market value where available. If no fair market value is available, this value reflects the assessed improvement value. Content replacement costs are calculated based on assessor's use codes translated to Hazus occupancy classes. Each HAZUS occupancy class prescribes a specific content cost multiplier used to calculate the content cost values shown above. Use codes including a "vacant" description have been removed along with agricultural use codes with no improvement value.

6-9 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Millions $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70

Agricultural

Commercial

Education

Governmental

Industrial

Religion

Residential

Building Value ($) Content Value ($)

Figure 6-2: Hazus Inventory (Parcel-based) Building and Content Input Values

6-10 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.8 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards This section provides the vulnerability assessment, including any quantifiable loss estimates, for those hazards identified as high or medium significant hazards within the Town Limits. Impacts of past events and vulnerability of the Town to specific hazards are further discussed below (see Section 4.6 Hazard Identification in the base plan for more detailed information about these hazards and their impacts on the Delta County planning area).

Methodologies for calculating loss estimates are the same as those described in Section 3.4 of the base plan. An estimate of the vulnerability of the Town to each identified priority hazard, in addition to the estimate of risk of future occurrence, is provided in each of the hazard-specific sections that follow.

This Annex provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the Town and how hazards may affect population and property within the jurisdiction. Most importantly the mitigation strategy presented in this plan responds to the particular vulnerabilities and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest reduction of vulnerability, which results in saved lives, reduced injuries, reduced property damage, and protection for the environment in the event of a natural hazard. This Town Annex provides information for the following natural hazard threats:

Dam Failure Drought Flood SECTION 6.5.9 SECTION 6.5.10 SECTION 6.5.11

Geohazards Severe Winter Weather Wildfire* SECTION 6.5.12 SECTION 6.5.13 SEE SECTION 8

*Important to Note: The Town Planning Committee decided not to profile wildfire in the Town’s annex. For wildfire information relevant to the Town, refer to the Paonia Fire Protection District wildfire hazard information throughout the Fire Protection District Annex in Section 8 of this Volume. The Town of Paonia will support the Paonia Fire Protection District with every resource and capability possible to assist with wildfire mitigation activities outlined in the Fire Protection District Annex.

6-11 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

6-12 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.9 Dam Failure Hazard For a general description of the dam failure hazard, refer to Section 4.7 in Volume 1.

Regulatory Oversight In addition to Federal, State and County regulatory oversight the Town of Paonia does not have additional regulations surrounding dams and dam safety. See Volume 1, Section 4.7.1 for more information on State and Federal Dam Safety Regulations.

Dam Failure Vulnerability Analysis This section describes vulnerabilities to dam inundation in terms of population, property and infrastructure. The primary danger associated with dam failure is the high velocity flooding downstream of the dam and limited warning times for evacuation. Vulnerability varies by community and depends on the particular dam profile and the nature and extent of the failure. Dam inundation zones provided by Delta County GIS were used to develop exposure for dam failure.

Dam Failure exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using the spatial extent of dam inundation zones and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures, such as federal and local government buildings except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 6-9 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to dam failure. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

Table 6-9: Dam Failure Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) Value ($) Facilities Lifeline 109 $ 4,409,075 $ 2,364,021 3 1.9 7.7% 5.6% 4.9% 18.8% 10.3% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

6.5.9.2.1 Population Vulnerable populations are all populations downstream from dam failures that are incapable of escaping the area within the allowable time frame. This population includes the elderly and young who may be unable to get themselves out of the inundation area. Vulnerable populations also include those who would not have adequate warning from a television, radio emergency warning system, have not registered with CODE RED, or do not have cell phones that can receive amber alerts. The potential for loss of life is affected by the capacity and number of evacuation routes available to populations living in areas of potential inundation. The entire population in a dam failure inundation zone is exposed to the risk of a dam failure. The estimated population living in the inundation area mapped for this risk assessment is summarized in Figure 6-3 and Table 6-10.

6-13 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

120 Population Exposure 109 100 Population Count by Dam 80 Inundation Zone 60 33 33 40 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 6-3: Town of Paonia Population Exposure to Dam Failure

Table 6-10: Town of Paonia Population Exposure to Dam Failure

Total Population Paonia 1,412

Dam Inundation Zone Population Count % of Total Barren Dam - 0.00% Deep Slough Dam - 0.00% Donnelly 1 Dam - 0.00% Eggleston Dam - 0.00% Hotel Lake Dam - 0.00% Kennicott Slough Dam - 0.00% Kiser Slough Dam - 0.00% Overland 1 Dam 33 2.30% Overland 1 Auxillary Dam 33 2.30% Ward Creek Dam - 0.00% Ward Lake Dam - 0.00% Crawford Dam - 0.00% Fruit Growers Dam - 0.00% Paonia Dam 109 7.70% Silver Jack Dam - 0.00% Blue Mesa Dam - 0.00% Morrow Point Dam - 0.00% Crystal Dam - 0.00% Total* 109 7.70% *total population is not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

6-14 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.9.2.2 Property Vulnerable properties are those closest to the actual dam or impoundment. These properties would experience the largest, most destructive surge of water. Low-lying areas are also vulnerable since they are where the dam waters would collect. Transportation routes are vulnerable to dam inundation and have the potential to be wiped out, creating isolation issues. This includes all roads, railroads and bridges in the path of the dam inundation. Those that are most vulnerable are those that are already in poor condition and would not be able to withstand a large water surge. Utilities such as overhead power lines, cable and phone lines could also be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional isolation issues for the inundation areas.

The county Assessor’s address point data was used as the basis for the inventory of current market values and content value summaries. The address points were then overlaid with the inundation zones in a GIS to determine the at-risk structures. Building exposure was calculated based on current net values or when absent, assessor’s values as provided by the assessor’s office. Building content exposure was calculated based on occupancy type multipliers and improvement value. Table 6-11 shows the count of at-risk parcels and their associated building and content exposure values to dam failure. A total of $6,773,096 worth of buildings and contents are exposed to dam failure hazards within the Town boundaries representing 5.3% of the total value in Paonia.

6-15 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 6-11: Town of Paonia Parcel Values at Risk from Dam Inundation

Total Total Content Value Total Market Value ($) Total Value ($) Parcels ($) Paonia 727 $ 78,680,040 $ 48,202,628 $ 126,882,668

Parcel Market Value Exposure Content Value % of Dam Inundation Zone % of Total Total Exposure ($) Count ($) Exposure ($) Total Barren Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Deep Slough Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Donnelly 1 Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Eggleston Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Hotel Lake Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Kennicott Slough Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Kiser Slough Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Overland 1 Dam 11 1.5% $ 1,108,777.00 $ 554,388.00 $ 1,663,165.00 1.31% Overland 1 Auxillary Dam 11 1.5% $ 1,108,777.00 $ 554,388.00 $ 1,663,165.00 1.31% Ward Creek Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Ward Lake Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Crawford Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Fruit Growers Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00%

Paonia Dam 55 7.6% $ 4,409,075.00 $ 2,364,021.00 $ 6,773,096.00 5.34%

Silver Jack Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Blue Mesa Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Morrow Point Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Crystal Dam - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% Dam Inundation Area* 55 7.6% $ 4,409,075 $ 2,364,021 $ 6,773,096 5.3% *totals are not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

6.5.9.2.3 Critical Facilities Critical Facilities at risk to dam inundation are on file with the County for national security purposes. As a general note, low-lying areas are vulnerable to dam inundation, especially transportation routes. This includes all roads, railroads, and bridges in the flow path of water. The most vulnerable critical facilities are those in poor condition that would have difficulty withstanding a large surge of water. Utilities such as overhead power lines and communication lines could also be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional compounding issues for emergency management officials attempting to conduct evacuation and response actions. GIS analysis determined that 3 of the planning area’s critical facilities are in a mapped dam inundation area, as summarized in Table 6-12 and Table 6-13.

6-16 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 6-12: Critical Infrastructure Points in Dam Inundation Zones

azard Dam HazardDam

Hazard Infrastructure Type Infrastructure BarrenHazardDam TotalFeature Count CrystalHazardDam PaoniaHazardDam CrawfordHazardDam EgglestonHazardDam Silver Jack Dam SilverHazard Jack Ward Lake Dam HazardDam WardLake Donnelly 1 HazardDonnelly Dam LakeHazard Dam Hotel Mesa HazardDam Blue Overland1 HazardDam Ward Creek Dam HazardDam Ward Creek Overland1 Auxillary Dam KiserSlough HazardDam Deep Slough H Dam Deep Fruit Growers Growers Fruit MorrowPoint HazardDam KennicottSlough HazardDam Essential Facility ------EOC ------Fire Station ------Hospital ------Police Station ------School ------High Potential Loss 1 ------1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - Child Care Licensed ------Dam ------Gas Well (Permits) ------Health Facility Licensed ------Other Government 1 ------1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - Prison ------Transportation and Lifeline 2 ------2 2 - - - - 2 - - - - Airport ------Bridge 1 ------1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - County Cell Towers ------Power Plant ------Waste Water Facility 1 ------1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - Water Utility ------Water Wells ------Grand Total 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 0 *total count is not equal to sum of all dam inundation zones due to dissolved overlapping inundation areas.

6-17 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 6-13: Miles of Critical Infrastructure (Linear) in Dam Inundation Zones

Infrastructure Type Total Linear Mileage (Linear Mileage)

Railroad - Irrigation 0.5 Roads 1.4 Local road 0.3 Major road 0.6 4WD trail - Alley - Driveway - Highway 0.5 Cul-de-sac - Ramp - Grand Total 1.9

6-18 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.9.2.4 Future Trends in Development The Town of Paonia recognizes that future development should be limited in areas that may be affected by dam inundation. Article 9- Flood Damage Prevention of the Town’s municipal code sets general provisions to protect human life and health from the impacts of flooding.

6.5.9.2.5 Summary of Dam Failure Issues Important issues associated with the dam failure hazard include the following:

• There are 27 high hazard dams in Delta County. Not all dam owners have updated EAP to reflect changes in downstream development and new available elevation data. • The Town of Paonia is concerned about restricting access to areas that may be affected by dam inundation.

6-19 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

6-20 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.10 Drought Hazard Profile For a general description of the drought hazard, see Section 4.8: Drought Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

Paonia’s water resources and systems include natural springs, raw and treated water transmission lines, treatment plants, treated water reservoir, and a distribution system. Facilities were upgraded in 1979 and 1980. (Town of Paonia Comprehensive Plan, 1996) The Paonia Project included Paonia Dam and Reservoir and enlargement and extension of Fire Mountain Canal. Paonia Dam controls and regulates the runoff of Muddy Creek, a tributary of the North Fork of the Gunnison River. No new irrigation laterals have been provided by the project. The Paonia Project provides full and supplemental irrigation water supplies for 15,300 acres of land in the vicinity of Paonia and Hotchkiss. The Paonia Project has matured into a reliable high-elevation reclamation project, which, perhaps because of the "Million Dollar Wind" that continues to travel up the North Fork Valley warming crops and keeping them frost-free, is often held up as the successful model of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) participating projects. (Latousek, 1995)

Regulatory Oversight The Town of Paonia has not yet adopted a drought plan. For Federal and State Regulations regarding Drought, see Section 4.8.2 in Volume 1.

Drought Vulnerability Analysis Drought produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the economy and reaches well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to the ability to produce goods and provides services. Drought can affect a wide range of economic, environmental and social activities. The vulnerability of an activity to the effects of drought usually depends on its water demand, how the demand is met, and what water supplies are available to meet the demand.

6.5.10.2.1 Population All people, property and environments in Hotchkiss would be exposed to some degree to the impacts of moderate to extreme drought conditions. Should an emergency be declared, the likely first step would be to request users to take voluntary conservation measures and cut back on use. (Meck, 2018)

6.5.10.2.2 Property Drought normally does not directly impact structures. Although water and sewer infrastructure may be affected by drought, other critical facilities are generally not. Data are not available to identify particular hazard areas and/or estimate potential losses to structures. The greatest risk to people from drought is the loss of drinking water supply from water systems and underground aquifers. Secondary impacts from drought, such as wildfire and erosion, can have a significant impact on structures and municipal infrastructure.

6-21 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.10.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities, as defined for this plan, will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility elements such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning area’s critical facilities inventory will be largely aesthetic. For example, when water conservation measures are in place, landscaped areas will not be watered and may die. These aesthetic impacts are not considered significant.

6.5.10.2.4 Future Trends in Development It is widely thought that water and sewer facilities to serve the existing needs of the town and areas immediately surrounding it are severely constrained and that future growth will depend, in part, on the Town’s ability to address and solve these issues. (Town of Paonia Comprehensive Plan, 1996) The Town’s Comprehensive Plan will offer guidance to mitigate the effects of drought as future development occurs within the Town.

6.5.10.2.5 Summary of Drought Issues Important issues associated with the drought hazard include the following:

• Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on average and impact agriculture, recreation, economy, and municipal water availability in the County. The area should expect drought years. • There is a lack of promotion of active water conservation during drought and non-drought periods.

6-22 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.11 Flood Hazard Profile Flash floods are caused by excessive rainfall, rapid snowmelt or sudden release of water from a blockage in the drainage system. For a general description of the flood hazard, see Section 4.9: Flood Hazard Profile in Volume 1.

Principal Flood Problems

On Minnesota Creek, the flood of record, as measured at U.S. Geological Survey stream gage No. 1340 located approximately 4.5 miles upstream of Paonia, occurred on July 10, 1936, with a peak flow of 356 cfs. Based on the results of this study, the 1936 flood was approximately the 20-percent annual chance flood event at the gage site. Other larger historical floods on Minnesota Creek occurred in 1938, 1942, and 1945. (Flood Insurance Study for Delta, Colorado and Incorporated Areas, 2010) Figure 6-4 shows the 100-YR and 500-YR floodplains and 100-YR floodway for the Town of Paonia.

Regulatory Oversight For Federal, State and County Regulations regarding flood, see Section 4.9.2 in Volume 1 of the Base Plan.

6.5.11.1.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Delta County and incorporated areas. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent annual chance flood and the 0.2-percent annual chance flood (the 500-YR flood). Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-YR floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program.

Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met:

• New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 100-YR flood. • New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties. • New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species. The Town of Paonia entered the NFIP on May 24th, 1974. Structures permitted or built in the Town before then are called “pre-FIRM” structures, and structures built afterwards are called “post-FIRM.” The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures. The effective date for the current countywide FIRM is August 19th, 2010.

6-23 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 6-4: Paonia Flood Hazards

6-24 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

The Town is currently in good standing with the provisions of the NFIP. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk reduction. The Town has identified initiatives to maintain their compliance and good standing. The Town will continue to comply by identifying flood plains on new subdivision proposals and final plats. Building permit requirements mandate Flood Plain permits where identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Sanitation permits also require compliance with the ordinance. The Town will incorporate and reference DFIRM maps in regulations as new floodplains are mapped. Audits of regulations will ensure compliance with NFIP in all program areas.

Properties constructed after a FIRM has been adopted are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to decrease vulnerability. Properties built before a FIRM is adopted are more vulnerable to flooding because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas. Table 6-14 lists NFIP statistics for the Town. The statistics show that 5 flood insurance claim has been paid as of May 31st, 2017 for a total of $51,261.

Table 6-14: Flood Insurance Statistics for the Town of Paonia NFIP Status & Information Town of Paonia NFIP Status Participating since 5/24/74 CRS Class n/a Policies in Force 4 Policies in SFHA Policies in non-SFHA Total Claims Paid 5 Paid Losses $51,261 Repetitive Loss Properties Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Building Repetitive Loss Payment by NFIP on Contents The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a) restricts the release of certain types of data to the public. Flood insurance policy and claims data are included in the list of restricted information. FEMA can only release such data to state and local governments, and only if the data are used for floodplain management, mitigation, or research purposes. Therefore, this plan does not identify the repetitive loss properties or include claims data for any individual property.

6.5.11.1.2 Flood Damage Prevention Article 9 of the Paonia Municipal Code identifies the following methods for reducing flood loss:

• Restrict or prohibit uses that are dangerous to health, safety or property in times of flood, or cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities; • Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities that serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;

6-25 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

• Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels and natural protective barriers, which are involved in the accommodation of floodwaters; • Control filling, grading, dredging and other development which may increase flood damage; and • Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards to other lands. (Ord. No. 2013-01, 2-12-2013; Ord. No. 2014-04, § 1, 1-13-2015)

Flood Vulnerability Analysis This section describes vulnerabilities to flooding in terms of population, property and infrastructure. The Level 2 Hazus protocol was used to assess the exposure to flooding in the planning area. The model used property value and building characteristics at the parcel/building level, FEMA floodplain data, and National Elevation Dataset topography to estimate potential flooding impacts.

Flood exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using FEMA 100-YR and 500-YR flood zones and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures, such as federal and local government buildings except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 6-15 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to flooding. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

Table 6-15: Flood Hazard Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Value Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) ($) Facilities Lifeline 71 $ 2,160,617 $ 1,153,836 1 1.1 5.0% 2.7% 2.4% 6.3% 5.9% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

* numbers for 100yr and 500yr combined 6.5.11.2.1 Population Population counts of those living in the floodplain were generated by analyzing County assessor and parcel data that intersect with the 100-YR and 500-YR floodplains identified on FIRMs within the Town of Paonia. Using GIS, Colorado DOLA Bureau information was used to intersect the FEMA identified floodplains within the Town limits. An estimate of population was calculated by weighting the population within each census block. The exposure results indicate the percentage of total population living within a flood risk area. Using this approach, it was estimated that a total of 49 people are exposed to flood risk from the 100-YR floodplain (3.48% of the total Town population) and 71 people are exposed to risk from the 500- YR floodplain (5.05% of the total Town Population), as shown in Figure 6-5 and Table 6-16.

6-26 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 6-5: Town of Paonia Population Exposure to Flood

Population 80 Exposure 71 70 Population Count in the 100-YR and 500-YR Floodplains 60

49 50

40

30 28

21 22 20

10

- 100-Year 100-Year, Floodway 100-Year Total* 500-Year** 500-Year Total*** *Total 100-year floodplain **Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain ***Total 500-YR floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain

6-27 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 6-16: Summary of Population Exposure to Flood

Total Population Paonia 1,412

Flood Hazard Zone Population Count % of Total 100-Year 28 2.00% 100-Year, Floodway 21 1.48% 100-Year Total* 49 3.48% 500-Year** 22 1.57% 500-Year Total*** 71 5.05%

*Total 100-year floodplain **Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain ***Total 500-YR floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain 6.5.11.2.2 Property GIS was used to determine the possible impacts of flooding within the Town of Paonia. The methodology described in Section 4.9.10.2 of Volume 1 was followed in determining structures and values at risk to the FEMA identified 1% (100-YR) and 0.2% (500-YR) annual chance flood event. Table 6-17 summarizes the number of improved parcels and property value within the Town of Paonia’s FEMA identified floodplains. GIS models determined that there are 13 parcels within the 100-YR floodplain and 27 parcels within the 500- YR floodplain. This methodology also estimated $1,132,181 worth of building-and-contents exposure to the 100-YR flood, representing 1.8 percent of the total assessed value within the Town of Paonia, and $2,160,617 worth of building-and- contents exposure to the 500-YR flood, representing 3.7 percent of the total assessed value within the Town of Paonia.

Table 6-17: Town of Paonia - Parcels Exposed to NFIP Flood Zones

Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($) Paonia 727 $ 78,680,040 $ 48,202,628 $ 126,882,668

% of Market Value Exposure Content Value Exposure % of Flood Hazard Zone Parcel Count Total Exposure ($) Total ($) ($) Total 100-Year Flood 13 1.8% $ 1,132,181 $ 566,091 $ 1,698,272 1.3% 100-Year Flood, Floodway - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 100-Year Total* 13 1.8% $ 1,132,181 $ 566,091 $ 1,698,272 1.3% 500-Year Flood** 14 1.9% $ 1,028,436 $ 587,745 $ 1,616,181 1.3% 500-Year Total*** 27 3.7% $ 2,160,617 $ 1,153,836 $ 3,314,453 2.6%

* Total 100-year floodplain ** Includes only additional area outside of 100-year floodplain *** Total 500-year floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain

Note: The table above does not display loss estimation results; the table exhibits total value at risk based upon the hazard overlay and Delta County Assessor data.

6-28 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.11.2.3 Flood Damage Estimation FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software models the possible damage of flooding within the Town of Hotchkiss. The methodology described in Volume 1, Section 4.9.10.3 was followed in determining potential damage associates with the 1% (100-YR) and 0.2% (500-YR) annual chance flood event.

The HAZUS-MH software calculates losses to structures from flooding by analyzing the depth of flooding and type of structure. Using historical flood insurance claim data, HAZUS-MH software estimates the percentage of damage to structures and their contents by applying established damage functions to an inventory. For this analysis, all non-vacant parcels with current market values were used instead of the default inventory data provided with HAZUS-MH software. The analysis for the Town of Paonia is summarized in Table 6-18 and Figure 6-6 for the 100-YR flood event and Table 6-19 and Figure 6-7 for the 500-YR flood event. Hazus results for the 500-YR flood event resulted in a minimal increased damage over the 100-YR event. It is estimated that there “could” be up to $505,855 of flood damage loss from a 100-YR event and $634,225 500-YR flood event in the Town of Paonia. This modeled loss is assuming all tributaries in the region collect 100- YR and 500-YR event precipitation levels respectively in the watershed. The estimated loss for 100-YR flood event represents 21%10 of the total Town of Paonia building stock. The estimated flood loss for 500-YR event represents 22 % of the total Town of Paonia’s building stock.

Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 provide damage estimates by occupancy type. As seen on the graphics, residential properties have the highest damage potential from a major flood event within the Town.

Table 6-18: 100-YR Flood Loss Estimation (Based on Depth) in NFIP Flood Zones by Occupancy Type Building Content Damage Damage Proportion Content Damage Building Type Building Damage ($) (% of (% of Total Damage ($) of Loss ($) grand grand (%) total) total) Agricultural $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Commercial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Education $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Governmental $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Industrial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Religion $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Residential $ 397,961 62.7% $ 107,894 17.0% $ 505,855 100% Total $ 397,961 79% $ 107,894 21% $ 505,855

10 Note: Total Inventory Values 1 - Building Replacement Costs = $78,680,040.00 2 - Content Replacement Costs = $48,202,628.00 3 - Total Value = $126,882,668.00"

6-29 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Thousands $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450

Agricultural Commercial Education Governmental Industrial Religion Residential

Building Damage ($) Content Damage ($)

Figure 6-6: 100-YR Building and Content Estimated Flood Loss by Occupancy Type (Town of Paonia)

Table 6-19: 500-YR Flood Loss Estimation by Occupancy Type (Town of Paonia) Building Content Damage Content Damage Damage Proportion Building Type Building Damage ($) Total Damage ($) (% of grand ($) (% of grand of Loss (%) total) total) Agricultural $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Commercial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Education $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Governmental $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Industrial $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Religion $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0% Residential $ 494,190 77.9% $ 140,035 22.1% $ 634,225 100% Total $ 494,190 78% $ 140,035 22% $ 634,225 Note: Total 500-year floodplain, includes 100-year floodplain damage estimates

6-30 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Thousands $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600

Agricultural Commercial Education Governmental Industrial Religion Residential

Building Damage ($) Content Damage ($)

Figure 6-7: Estimated Building and Content Loss in the 500-YR floodplain by Occupancy Type

6-31 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.11.2.4 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure It is important to determine who may be at risk if infrastructure is damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are flooded or damaged can isolate residents and can restrict access throughout the Town, including emergency service providers needing to get to vulnerable populations or to make repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by floods or debris also can cause isolation. Water and sewer systems can be flooded or backed up, causing health problems. Underground utilities can be damaged. The following sections describe specific types of critical infrastructure. Table 6-20 summarizes the critical facilities and infrastructure at risk to the 100-YR Flood Zone, 100-YR Floodway and 500-YR Flood Zone within the Town of Paonia. Details are provided in the following sections.

Table 6-20: Critical Facility Points in the Floodplain

500 Year, 100 Year 100 Year 500 Year Infrastructure Type Floodway Outside 100 Flood Zone Total Total Year

Essential Facility - - - - - EOC - - - - - Fire Station - - - - - Hospital - - - - - Police Station - - - - - School - - - - - High Potential Loss 1 - 1 - 1 Child Care Licensed - - - - - Dam - - - - - Gas Well (Permits) - - - - - Health Facility Licensed - - - - - Other Government 1 - 1 - 1 Prison - - - - - Transportation and Lifeline - - - - - Airport - - - - - Bridge - - - - - County Cell Towers - - - - - Power Plant - - - - - Waste Water Facility - - - - - Water Utility - - - - - Water Wells - - - - - Grand Total 1 - 1 - 1

6-32 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Linear Utilities

It is important to determine who may be at risk if infrastructure is damaged by flooding. Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can isolate residents and can restrict access throughout the Town. Table 6-21 shows the linear critical facilities in the floodplain.

Table 6-21: Critical Facilities (Linear) in the Floodplain – Town of Paonia

500 Year, Infrastructure Type 100 Year Floodway 100 Year Total Outside 100 500 Year Total (Linear Mileage) Flood Zone Year Railroad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Irrigation 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 Roads 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 Local road 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 Major road 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 4WD trail - - - - - Alley - - - - - Driveway - - - 0.0 0.0 Highway - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 Cul-de-sac - - - - - Ramp - - - - - Grand Total 0.24 0.45 0.69 0.39 1.08

6.5.11.2.5 Future Trends in Development The Town is aware that future development may occur near flood hazard areas. Portions of the Apple Valley and Meadow Brook Subdivisions are within the A6 area. Densities of future developments should be consistent with that which is currently there. In some sectors, land form modification might be required to take areas out of the 100 and 500-year flood plain of the North Fork of the Gunnison River. (Town of Paonia Comprehensive Plan, 1996)

6.5.11.2.6 Summary of Flood Issues Important issues associated with the flood hazard include the following:

• Storm water runoff issues within many different municipalities within Delta County.

6-33 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

6-34 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.12 Geohazard Profile (Slope Failure) Limited geohazard data is available for Delta County. To augment, the planning team conducted a slope analysis to provide data on potential issues with slope failure. Areas with steeper slopes, in combination with other factors such as rockfalls, mudflow or debris flow, swelling soils, collapsible soils, corrosive soils and earthquakes and faults, are more susceptible to slope failure than areas on shallow slopes.

Slope failure near Paonia could occur when the force pulling the material on the slope in a downward direction under gravitational influence exceeds the strength of the earth materials that compose the slope (USGS, 2004). These materials may move by falling, toppling, sliding, spreading, and/or flowing. Strength of rock and soil, steepness of slope, and weight of the hillside material all play an important role in the stability of hillside areas. Weathering and absorption of water can weaken slopes, while the added weight of saturated materials or overlying construction can increase the chances of slope failure. Sudden failure can be triggered by excavation of weak slopes, and heavy rainfall. Areas of high slope near the Town of Paonia can be found in Figure 6-8.

Regulatory Oversight

6.5.12.1.1 2003 International Building Codes The Town of Paonia has adopted the 2003 International Building Code, the International Residential Code (IRC),2003 edition; and Guidelines for Manufactured Housing Installations, 1991 Edition.

Geohazard (Slope Failure) Vulnerability Analysis This section describes basic vulnerabilities to topographic slope conditions. The slope classes presented represent various ranges of slope percentage calculated from USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) 10m topography data. The slope classes included are minimal (0-5%), some (6-10%), high (11-20%) and very high (>20%). Topographic slope exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using the slope class ranges listed above and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 4‑30 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to very high and high slope classes. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section. Table 6-22: Slope Failure Vulnerability Snap Shot

Exposed Market Value Exposed Content Value Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of Exposed Population ($) ($) Facilities Lifeline 7 $ - $ - 0 0 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage

* numbers for high and very high

6-35 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Population Table 6-23 shows the population exposure for slope in Paonia. Figure 3-2 shows the minimal, some, high and very high slope areas in Paonia.

Table 6-23: Paonia Population Exposed to Slope

Paonia - Population Exposed to Slope

Slope Exposure Population Count % of Total

Minimal (0-5%) 1,375 97.37% Some (6-10%) 31 2.16% High (11-20%) 6 0.46% Very High (>20%) 0 0.01% Total 1,413 100.00%

6-36 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 6-8: Paonia High Slope Areas

6-37 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Property The County’s address points layer was used as the basis for the inventory of improved residential parcels. Only improved parcels were analyzed. The impact of slope failure to the Town of Paonia is minimal. Table 6-24 exhibits the improved parcels within Paonia that have significant assets at risk to minimal, some, high or very high sloped areas.

Table 6-24: Improved Residential Parcel Exposure to Slope Failure

Total Parcels Total Market Value ($) Total Content Value ($) Total Value ($)

Paonia 727 $ 78,680,040 $ 48,202,628 $ 126,882,668

% of Market Value Exposure Content Value Exposure % of Slope Exposure Parcel Count Total Exposure ($) Total ($) ($) Total Minimal (0-5%) 718 98.8% $ 77,814,141.00 $ 47,769,677.00 $ 125,583,818 99.0% Some (6-10%) 9 1.2% $ 865,899.00 $ 432,951.00 $ 1,298,850 1.0% High (11-20%) - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Very High (>20%) - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% 100.0 Total* 727 100% 78,680,040 48,202,628 $ 126,882,668 %

Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities data was overlain with slope categories to determine the type and number of facilities within each slope exposure. The Town of Paonia has 16 critical facilities with exposure to the minimal slope category. There are no facilities in the some, high or very high slope categories. Table 6-25 lists the critical infrastructure with slope exposure.

In addition, the Town of Paonia has .3 linear miles of transportation and lifelines exposed to high sloped areas, .9 linear miles exposed to some slope and 17.2 linear miles exposed to minimal slope. Table 6-26 lists the transportation and lifelines exposed to sloped areas. Black River Road in particular is susceptible to slope failure impacts.

6-38 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 6-25: Critical Infrastructure with Slope Exposure

Paonia - Critical Facility Slope Exposure

Minimal Some High Very High Infrastructure Type 0-5% 6-10% 11-20% >20%

Essential Facility 2 - - - EOC - - - - Fire Station 1 - - - Hospital - - - - Police Station 1 - - - High Potential Loss 7 - - - Licensed Child Care 1 - - - Licensed Health Facility 2 - - - Other Government 4 - - - Dam - - - - Prison - - - - Gas Well - - - - Bottomhole - - - - Transportation and Lifeline 3 - - - Airport - - - - Bridge 1 - - - Power Plant - - - - Waste Water Facility 1 - - - Water Utility - - - - Water Wells - - - - County Cell Towers 1 - - - Grand Total* 12 - - - *Delta County School District facilities not included in separate slope analysis. Exposure to high and very high slope not present.

6-39 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 6-26: Transportation and Lifelines with Slope Exposure

Paonia - Critical Infrastructure Slope Exposure

Infrastructure Type Minimal Some High Very High (Linear Mileage) 0-5% 6-10% 11-20% >20%

Irrigation 1.09 0.52 0.31 - Railroad 1.12 0.01 0.02 - Roads 15.01 0.36 0.00 - Local road 5.89 0.14 0.00 - Major road 4.24 0.14 - - 4WD trail 0.00 0.04 - - Alley 3.31 - - - Driveway 0.07 - - - Highway 1.49 0.03 - - Cul-de-sac - - - - Ramp - - - - Grand Total 17.2 0.9 0.3 -

6.5.12.5.1 Future Trends in Development If Paonia grows in the future, development may occur on hilly terrain to the south or northeast of the Town. We may start to see new impacts to property if this occurs. The Town may need specific mitigation techniques to address slope failure. The Colorado Geological Survey outlined the following considerations that should be addressed in the Land Use Department:

• All slopes underlain by Mancos Shale along the should be considered potentially unstable • Off property water usage can directly impact slope stability

6.5.12.5.2 Summary of Geohazard (Slope Failure) Issues Important issues associated with geohazards (slope failure) include the following:

• Expansive soils are widespread across the county, including in areas of new development, and can affect building foundations, roads, driveways, and etc. • Back River Road is susceptible to slope failure / geohazards

6-40 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.13 Severe Winter Weather Hazard Profile As expected, winter storms can and do occur frequently, and they can vary significantly in size, strength, intensity, duration, and impact. Strong winds create snowdrifts that block roads, create dangerous wind chill factors and sometimes lead to life-threatening power outages. The National Weather Service issues a wind chill advisory when wind and temperature combine to produce wind chill values of 20 to 35 degrees below zero, significantly raising the potential for hypothermia and frostbite affecting health and safety. Hypothermia is the most common winter weather killer in Colorado. Ice accumulation becomes a hazard by creating dangerous travel conditions, and impacting safety for vulnerable elements of the population such as the elderly and physically impaired.

High winds and ice accumulation often accompany winter storms. These winds can produce sizable snowdrifts that can cause residents and travelers to be stranded for hours, potentially causing life threatening conditions. Hypothermia and carbon monoxide poisoning can become a clear threat to many.

Regulatory Oversight In addition to Federal, State and County regulatory oversight the Town of Paonia Municipal Code Section 16-8-360 establishes climatic and geographic design criteria for roof snow load (30 p.s.f.), wind load (15 p.s.f) and frost depth (30 inches).

Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability

6.5.13.2.1 Population It can be assumed that the entire planning area is exposed to some extent to winter storms. Vulnerable populations include the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Power outages can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Isolation of these populations is a significant concern.

6.5.13.2.2 Property Winter storms affect the entire planning area, including all above-ground structures and infrastructure. Although losses to structures are typically minimal and covered by insurance, there can be other costs associated with lost time, maintenance costs, and contents within structures.

6.5.13.2.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Winter weather conditions are a threat to public safety on major roads and highways. Additionally, power outages caused by snow, ice, and wind accompanied by cold temperatures can create great additional need for shelter. Other issues caused by winter storms can be related to school closures, business closures, road closures, snow removal, and maintaining critical services like emergency services, food providers, and banks.

6-41 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.5.13.2.4 Future Trends in Development All future development will be affected by severe storms. The ability to withstand impacts lies in sound land use practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction. The International Building Code, which has been adopted by the Town, is equipped to deal with the impacts of severe weather events. Flood damage prevention regulations also address flooding, which can be a secondary impact of severe weather. With these tools, the Town is well equipped to deal with future growth and the associated impacts of severe weather.

6.5.13.2.5 Summary of Severe Winter Weather Issues Important issues associated with the flood hazard include the following:

• Vulnerable populations can be isolated by severe storm events especially those with functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, car dependent etc.) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages.

6-42 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.6 Mitigation Strategy

The Town of Paonia used the same mitigation strategy as Delta County. This is described in detail in Section 5 of Volume 1.

6.6.1 Identifying the Problem As part of the mitigation actions identification process, the Town of Paonia Planning Committee identified issues and/or weaknesses as a result of the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis. By combining common issues and weaknesses developed by the Planning Committee, the realm of resources needed for mitigating each can be understood. Community issues and weaknesses are presented by individual hazard in Table 6-27. Primary (P) and Secondary (S) jurisdictions are identified for each problem statement. Projects or actions have been developed to mitigate each problem identified. To the degree possible the Town of Paonia will support County Wide Initiatives. See Volume 1 for related County Wide mitigation actions.

Table 6-27: Problem Statements by Hazard

Problem Mitigation Mitigation Paonia Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of All Hazard AH-01 Many communities in Delta County, PE&A, ES DC-01-2018, particularly Cedaredge and Paonia, have DC-04-2008, significant populations over the age of 65 DC-18-2018 P S which could be exposed to natural hzards. Town of Cedaredge - 18.6% Town of Paonia - 17.7% All Hazard AH-02 No identified shelters have back-up ES DC-01-2018 generators. This includes shelters identified P S within each Municipality. All Hazard AH-03 Many communities in Delta County have PE&A DC-04-2008 particularly high Renter Rates. Most communities are above 30% . This is an issue P S as it will be hard to motivate absentee owners to mitigate risk on rental units. Town of Hotchkiss has a 56.6% rental rate. All Hazard AH-04 Lack of communication and data transmission ES, PE&A DC-05-2008 lines could affect communications during a natural hazard event including 800 MHz P S transmission towers. Lack of domestic demand for communications inhibits communications providers to provide service in remote areas.

6-43 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Problem Mitigation Mitigation Paonia Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of All Hazard AH-05 Many communities in Delta County, PE&A, ES DC-04-2008 particularly Crawford, Cedaredge, and Orchard City, have significantly high poverty rates. P S Town of Cedaredge - 28.1% Town of Crawford - 29.4% Town of Orchard City - 19.3% All Hazard AH-07 Hard to find information on spatial hazards and PE&A DC-11-2008, where they are located in the county. The DC-04-2008 County GIS viewer does not show any hazards P S layers or any other information besides base mapping. Dam DF-01 There are 27 high hazard dams in Delta PPRO DC-06-2008 Failure County. Not all dam owners have updated EAP P S to reflect changes in downstream development and new available elevation data. Dam DF-02 The Town of Paonia is concerned about PRV PA-01-2018 Failure restricting access to areas that may be affected P by dam inundation. Drought DR-02 Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on PRV, DC-03-2018, average and impact agriculture, recreation, PE&A, DC-02-2018 economy, and municipal water availability in NRP P S the County. The area should expect drought years. Drought DR-03 There is a lack of promotion of active water PE&A, DC-04-2018, conservation during drought and non-drought PRV DC-02-2018 P S periods. Drought DR-10 There is a lack of promotion of active water PA-03-2018 conservation during drought and non-drought P periods in the Town. Flood FL-03 Storm water runoff issues within many SP DC-02-2008 P S different municipalities within Delta County. Flood FL-16 Forty nine people are exposed to the 100-YR PE&A PA-04-2018 floodplain and seventy one to the 500-YR floodplain. There are only four flood insurance policies in force within the Town of Paonia. P Geohazard GH-01 Expansive soils are widespread across the PE&A, DC-03-2008, county, including in areas of new PRV DC-02-2008 P S development, and can affect building foundations, roads, driveways, and etc. Geohazard GH-04 Back River Road is susceptible to slope failure / SP PA-02-2018 P geohazards

6-44 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Problem Mitigation Mitigation Paonia Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Town of Severe SW-04 Vulnerable populations can be isolated by PE&A, ES DC-18-2018, Weather severe storm events especially those with DC-17-2018 functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, P S car dependent etc.…) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages. Severe SW-07 There are a large number of people (116 or PE&A PA-05-2018 Weather 17.7% of the population) over the age of 65 and living alone in the Town of Paonia. Vulnerable populations can be isolated by P severe storm events especially those with functional needs (oxygen / power dependent, car dependent etc.) in heavy snow storms or cold snaps / winter power outages. Wildfire WF-11 Many County residents live within high wildfire PPRO DC-03-2008, risk areas including low income, elderly and DC-02-2008 other vulnerable populations. Approx. 40%- P S 50% of the total population live within some wildfire risk areas.

6.6.2 Capability Assessment The Town of Paonia identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The mitigation strategy includes an assessment of the Town’s planning and regulatory, administrative and technical, financial, and education and outreach capabilities to augment known issues and weaknesses from identified natural hazards.

6-45 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Planning and Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities The legal and regulatory capabilities of local, state, and federal jurisdictions are shown in Table 6-28, which presents existing ordinances and codes that can regulate the physical or built environment of the Town. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include: building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordnances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans.

Table 6-28: Town of Paonia's Planning and Regulatory Capabilities

Plan/ Program/ Regulation Yes or No

Building Codes Yes

Building Codes Year 2003

BCEGS Rating No

Public Protection (ISO Class) No

Capital Improvements Program (CIP) or Plan Yes

Community Rating System (CRS) No

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) No

Comprehensive, Master, or General Plan Yes

Economic Development Plan Yes

Elevation Certificates Yes

Erosion/Sediment Control Program Yes

Floodplain Management Plan Yes

Flood Insurance Study Yes

Growth Management Ordinance Yes

Hazard-Specific Ordinance or Plan (Floodplain, Steep Slope, Wildfire) Yes

NFIP Yes

Site Plan Review Requirements Yes

Stormwater Program, Plan or Ordinance Yes

Zoning Ordinance Yes

6-46 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Administrative and Technical Capabilities Table 6-29 lists the Town’s administrative and technical abilities.

Table 6-29: Town of Paonia Administrative and Technical Ability

Administrative/ Technical Resource Yes or No

Emergency Manager Yes

Floodplain Administrator Yes

Community Planning:

- Planner/Engineer (Land Development) Yes

- Planner/Engineer/Scientist (Natural Hazards) No

- Engineer/Professional (Construction) Yes

- Resiliency Planner No

- Transportation Planner Yes

Full-Time Building Official No

GIS Specialist and Capability No

Grant Manager, Writer, or Specialist Yes

Warning Systems/Services:

- General Yes

- Flood Yes

- Wildfire Yes

- Geological Hazards Yes

6-47 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Financial Capabilities Table 6-30 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to the Town such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; impact fees for homebuyers or developers for new development; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard-prone areas.

Table 6-30: Town of Paonia's Financial Capabilities

Financial Resource

Has community used any of the following to fund mitigation activities:

- Levy for Specific Purposes with Voter Approval Yes

- Utilities Fees Yes

- System Development Feed No

- General Obligation Bonds to Incur Debt No

- Special Tax Bonds to Incur Debt No

- Withheld Spending in Hazard-Prone Areas No

- Stormwater Service Fees No

- Capital Improvement Project Funding Yes

- Community Development Block Grants No

Education and Outreach Table 6-31 summarizes community outreach and education programs that could be used in conjunction with mitigation planning efforts.

Table 6-31: Town of Paonia's Public Outreach and Education Programs

Education/ Outreach Resource

Local Citizen Groups That Communicate Hazard Risks:

- Firewise No

- StormReady No

- Other No

6-48 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). Together with the County Planning Committee, the steering committee established a guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable objectives for this plan, based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and the results of the public involvement strategy. This information is located in Section 5.4 of Volume 1.

6.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan Based upon the Town’s planning committee priorities, risk assessment results, and mitigation alternatives, mitigation actions were developed. Most importantly, the newly developed mitigation actions acknowledge updated risk assessment information outlined in Section 6.5. Mitigation actions presented in Table 6-32establish 5 possible mitigation actions. Some mitigation actions support ongoing Town activities, while other actions are intended to be completed when funding is available. Regardless, mitigation actions will be part of an annual review.

Benefit/ Cost Review The Town of Paonia Planning Team used the same benefit/cost parameters as described in Section 5.5.1.1 of Volume 1. Cost ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).

• Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years.

• Low—The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program.

Benefit ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.

• Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.

• Low—Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.

Mitigation Actions Plan The Town of Paonia Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Section 5.5.1 of Volume 1. Based upon the Town of Paonia Planning Committee consensus, Table 6-32 lists each priority mitigation action. Priority mitigation action Implementation plans are made available in Annex A. Implementation plans in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need to implementation. The detail in the Action Planners meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

6-49 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

6.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance

The Town of Paonia Planning Team will follow the same implementation and maintenance strategy as Delta County. This strategy is described in detail in Section 6 of Volume 1. Town of Paonia Mitigation Action Trackers in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need for implementation and maintenance. The detail in the Action Trackers meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000 for priority mitigation actions. Mitigation Action Trackers will be used to report, track and implement mitigation actions over the next five-year update cycle.

6.7.1 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms An important implementation mechanism is to incorporate the recommendations and underlying principles of the MJHMP into community planning and development such as capital improvement budgeting, building and zoning codes, general plans and regional plans. Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated within the day-to-day functions and priorities of the jurisdiction attempting to implement risk reducing actions. The integration of a variety of Town departments on the MJHMP Planning Committee provides an opportunity for constant and pervasive efforts to network, identify, and highlight mitigation activities and opportunities at all levels of government. This collaborative effort is also important to monitor funding opportunities which can be leveraged to implement the mitigation actions.

Information from this 2018 MJHMP can be incorporated into:

• Town of Paonia Comprehensive Plan: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into the Land Use and Development element during the next master plan update. Specific risk and vulnerability information from the Delta County MJHMP and Town of Paonia Annex will assist to identify areas where development may be at risk to potential hazards. • Town Building / Development Codes and Zoning Ordinances: The 2018 MJHMP will provide information to enable the Town to make decisions on appropriate building/development codes and ordinances. Appropriate building codes and ordinances can increase the Town’s resilience against natural disasters. • Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP): The 2018 MJHMP will provide information that can be incorporated into CWPP updates for areas within or near the Town of Paonia.

6-50 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 6-32: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker Action No. Hazard Type Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation Alternatives Responsible Party Potential Funding Source Time Frame* Benefit Cost Implementation Rating Plan / Priority

PA-01-2018 Dam Failure Restrict new development in dam inundation zones along the western border of Paonia. PRV Town Administrator General Funds Short Term Low/ High Yes

PA-02-2018 Geohazard Perform slope stabilization along Black River Road. SP Public Works HMGP Short Term High/ High Yes

PA-03-2018 Drought Create a public education campaign encouraging residents to conserve water during PE&A Town of Paonia PDM, General Funds Short Term Low/ Medium Yes both drought and non-drought years.

PA-04-2018 Flood Encourage residents living in the floodplain to purchase flood insurance. PE&A Town of Paonia FMA, General Funds Short Term Low/ Low Yes

PA-05-2018 Severe Winter Organize outreach to vulnerable populations, including establishing and promoting PE&A Town of Paonia General Funds Short Term Low/ Low Yes Weather accessible heating centers in the community.

*Note: Short Term= 1-3 yrs, Mid Term= 3-5 yrs, Long Term= 5 yrs or more

As a living document, project descriptions and actions in the tables above will be modified to reflect current conditions over time.

6-51 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

6-52

Section 7. DELTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

7-1

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

7-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

School District Adoption Records

To comply with DMA 2000, the Delta County School District has officially adopted the 2018 Delta County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 and the Delta County School District Section. The adoption of the 2018 MJHMP in its entirety recognizes the School District’s commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards within the District and County. See the following record of Adoption.

7-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTNETIONAL BLANK PAGE

7-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

7.1 Purpose

This annex section details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Delta County School District. This is not a standalone document but appends to and supplements the information contained in Vol. 1 Base Plan. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the District. This annex section provides additional information specific to the Delta County School District, with a focus on providing additional details on the planning process, risk assessment, and mitigation strategy for this community.

Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Jim Ventrello, Business Manager Caryn Gibson, Superintendent 7655 2075 Rd 7655 2075 Rd Delta, CO 81416 Delta, CO 81416 Telephone: (970) 874-4438 Telephone: (970) 874-4438 e-mail Address: [email protected] e-mail Address: [email protected] 7.2 Introduction

Delta County School District will be a district of excellence provided through rigor, relevance, relationships, responsibility, and results. Delta County School District will be responsible to all stakeholders ensuring all graduates of Delta County School District possess 21st century skills in a global society.

The Delta County School District shall provide a safe and caring environment for all students and staff, meaningful opportunities and innovative educational programs that challenge all students so that they continue learning, including the attainment of content standards, through partnerships between home, school, and the community. (Delta County School District, n.d.).

The Delta County School District boundaries encompasses the entire area of Delta County and extends into portions of Pitkin, Gunnison, and Montrose County. See Figure 7-1 for School District boundaries.

7-5 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 7-1: Delta County School District Boundaries

7.3 Planning Methodology

The Delta County School District followed the planning process detailed in Volume 1, Section 3 of the base plan. In addition to providing representation on the Delta County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and Steering Committee, the District formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process requirements. Internal planning participants, their positions, and how they participated in the planning process are shown in Table 8-1.

Table 7-1: 2018 Delta County School District Stakeholder List

Planning Committee Dept. / Members Position / Role Jim Ventrello, Business Manager Steering Committee Rep. Caryn Gibson, Superintendent Steering Committee Rep. Kurt Clay, Assistant Superintendent/ Public Relations Steering Committee Rep. John McHugh, Buildings and Grounds Supervisor Steering Committee Rep.

7-6 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

7.4 What’s New

This 2018 MJHMP Update is the Delta County School District’s first instance of formally participating in a Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and is a record of the District’s improvements toward reducing natural hazard risks to District students, staff and District owned property. During the next update cycle, this section will be updated to reflect progress made on 2018 mitigation actions and other efforts to reduce the effects of natural hazards. See Volume 1 for updates regarding County Wide efforts and progress on mitigation actions. . The following mitigation actions have been completed or initiated by the Town as part of normal risk reduction activities:

. Several years ago, administrators made sure schools have weather radios and weather alert radio training. . After a heavy snow event in North Fork the school district revised hazardous weather procedures based upon localized conditions. One delayed start in 2017 due to weather related issues tested this plan.

7.5 Risk Assessment

The intent of this section is to profile the Delta County School District’s hazards and assess the District’s vulnerability distinct from that of the planning area assessed in Volume 1, Section 4 (Risk Assessment). The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the planning area and describes the hazard problem description, hazard extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard profile information specific to the District is included in this section of the Annex. This vulnerability assessment analyzes the property, population, critical facilities, and other assets at risk to hazards specific to the District. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Section 4 Risk Assessment in Volume 1.

Each hazard vulnerability assessment for the District includes a brief hazard profile for each medium or high significant hazard with the potential to affect the District. The intent of this section is to provide jurisdictional specific information on hazards and further describe how the hazards and risks differ across the planning area.

7.5.1 Hazard Screening Criteria Per FEMA Guidance, the first step in developing the Risk Assessment is identifying the hazards. The District Planning Committee reviewed a number of previously prepared hazard mitigation plans and other relevant documents to determine the universe of natural hazards that have the potential to affect the District. Table 7-2 provides a crosswalk of hazards identified in the 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Sixteen different hazards were identified based on a thorough document review. The crosswalk was used to develop a preliminary hazards list providing a framework for the District’s Planning Team members to evaluate which hazards were truly relevant to the District and which ones are not. For example, erosion and deposition was considered to have no relevance to the District, while floods were indicated in every hazard documentation.

7-7 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 7-2: City of Delta Document Review Crosswalk Hazards 2008 Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan ■ ■ Avalanche Climate Change Dam Failure ■ Drought ■ ■ Earthquake ■ ■ Erosion and Deposition ■ Expansive Soils ■ ■ Extreme Heat ■ Flood ■ ■ Geologic Hazards Hazardous Materials ■ Landslide ■ ■ Severe Weather ■ ■ Tornado ■ Wildfire ■ ■ Winter Storms ■ ■

7.5.2 Hazard Risk Ranking The Delta County School District’s Planning Team used the same hazard prioritization process as the Delta County Planning Committee. This process is described in detail in Section 4.3 of Volume 1. Table 7-3 shows the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise. Based upon the hazard risk rating and the District’s mitigation capabilities, severe winter weather will be profiled as the priority hazard in the District’s section. While the District recognizes other hazards effect the County Planning Area, severe weather events has the most likely impact on district owned facilities.

7-8 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 7-3: Delta County School District Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix

Impact

Catastrophic Critical Limited Minor

Highly

Likely

Severe Winter Likely Weather

Probability Possible

Unlikely

7.5.3 Vulnerability Assessment and Total Assets at Risk This section presents the vulnerability assessment for the Delta County School District and identifies the District’s total assets at risk, including building values.

7.5.4 Building Value Building locations and values for the School District were derived from an insured properties schedule including structure and content values. A standardized hazard overlay was conducted to develop hazard exposure results for District buildings. For more information on this exposure method see Volume 1, Section 4. In the event of a disaster, it is generally the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land that is of concern or at risk. Generally, the land itself is not a total loss and structures can be rebuilt. Delta County School District building information is summed and provided in Table 7-4. Table 7-5 shows the detailed Building Count and Replacement Cost for the District.

Table 7-4: Delta County School District Building Count and Value

Total Building Count Total Value ($) School District Buildings 144 $ 149,087,345

7-9 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 7-5: Delta County School District Building Count and Replacement Cost

Delta County School District - Building Count and Replacement Cost

Campus Name Buildings per Campus Replacement Cost per Campus

Bus Maintenance Shop 6 $237,777 Cedaredge Bus Barn 2 $130,555 Cedaredge Elementary School 12 $16,940,783 Cedaredge High School 10 $9,179,079 Cedaredge Middle School 3 $6,037,547 Crawford Elementary 4 $4,094,822 Delta County School Storage Old Admin 18 $1,556,571 Delta High School 11 $15,496,964 Delta Middle School 15 $19,638,029 Energy Technical School 4 $4,107,783 Garnet Elementary School 4 $11,522,941 Hotchkiss Bus Barn 2 $493,472 Hotchkiss High School 7 $10,137,889 Hotchkiss Middle & Elementary 3 $9,512,612 Lincoln Elementary School 6 $7,741,308 New District Office 2 $988,000 Paonia Bus Barn 2 $566,666 Paonia Elementary School 2 $6,408,942 Paonia High School 2 $12,288,422 Special Services Building 2 $854,564 Storage Warehouse 1 $961,748 Technical College of the Rockies 20 $7,279,654 Vision Charter Academy 4 $1,243,889 Vision Home & Community Program 2 $1,667,328 Grand Total 144 $149,087,345

7-10 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

7.5.5 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards This section provides the vulnerability assessment, including any quantifiable loss estimates, for those hazards identified as high or medium significant hazards within the District Limits. Impacts of past events and vulnerability of the District to specific hazards are further discussed below (see Section 4 in the base plan for more detailed information about these hazards and their impacts on the Delta County planning area).

This Annex provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the District and how hazards may affect buildings within the district. Most importantly the mitigation strategy presented in this plan responds to the particular vulnerabilities and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest reduction of vulnerability, which results in reduced property damage in the event of a natural disaster. This District Section provides information for the following natural hazard threats:

Severe Winter Weather SECTION 7.5.6

7-11 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

7-12 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

7.5.6 Severe Winter Weather Hazard Profile As expected, winter storms can and do occur frequently, and they can vary significantly in size, strength, intensity, duration, and impact. Strong winds create snowdrifts that block roads and cancel school days, create dangerous wind chill factors and sometimes lead to life-threatening power outages. The National Weather Service issues a wind chill advisory when wind and temperature combine to produce wind chill values of 20 to 35 degrees below zero, significantly raising the potential for hypothermia and frostbite affecting health and safety. Hypothermia is the most common winter weather killer in Colorado. Ice accumulation becomes a hazard by creating dangerous commuting conditions, and impacting safety for staff and students.

In a regional storm event the District may have to provide regional sheltering for residents of Delta County. As such, school facilities will need back up to power supply to house regional victims of severe storm events or other regional disaster events.

Severe Winter Weather Vulnerability

7.5.6.1.1 Population It can be assumed that all staff and students are exposed to some extent to winter storms. Staff and students living in areas that are isolated from major roads are particularly vulnerable.

7.5.6.1.2 Property Winter storms affect the entire District, including all above-ground structures and infrastructure. Although losses to structures are typically minimal and covered by insurance, there can be other costs associated with lost time (school days), maintenance costs, and contents within structures.

7-13 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

7.5.6.1.3 Future Trends in Development All future development within the District will be affected by severe storms. The ability to withstand impacts lies in following the Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control’s Statute and Regulations for Public School Construction. All projects shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the codes and regulations as currently adopted by the Colorado Division of Fire Prevention & Control in 8 CCR 1507-30, which incorporates current building, fire, existing building, mechanical, and energy conservation codes. The Department of Education Division of Public School Capital Construction Assistance also establishes public school facility construction guidelines including severe weather preparedness, standards for roofs, electrical systems (power distribution and utilization) and fire protection systems. With these codes in place, the School District will be well equipped to withstand severe weather events in future construction of schools.

Historic school construction may not meet current day construction standards, such as electrical systems (power distribution and utilization). Depending on year designed or built, construction standards have changed over historic years. Mitigation for severe weather events such as power outages may be required on early constructed buildings. The school district will consult with the Department of Education Division of Public School on previous construction methods and benchmark years for code improvements pertaining to public schools.

7.5.6.1.4 Summary of Severe Winter Weather Issues Important issues associated with severe winter weather include the following:

• Not all schools may have sufficient back up power generators for common operating or sheltering. • Heavy snow may cause roofs to collapse.

7-14 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

7.6 Mitigation Strategy

The Delta County School District used the same mitigation strategy as Delta County. This is described in detail in Section 5 of Volume 1.

7.6.1 Identifying the Problem As part of the mitigation actions identification process, the Delta County School District Planning Committee identified issues and/or weaknesses as a result of the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis. By combining common issues and weaknesses developed by the Planning Committee, the realm of resources needed for mitigating each can be understood. Community issues and weaknesses are presented by individual hazard in Table 8-4. Primary (P) and Secondary (S) jurisdictions are identified for each problem statement. Projects or actions have been developed to mitigate each problem identified. To the degree possible the Delta County School District will support County Wide Initiatives. See Volume 1 for related County Wide mitigation actions.

Table 7-6: Problem Statements by Hazard

Problem Mitigation Mitigation Hazard No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. County Wide Delta County School District Severe SW-09 Not all schools may have sufficient back up ES DCSD-01-2018 Winter power generators for common operating or P Weather sheltering. Severe SW-10 Heavy snow may cause roofs to collapse. SP DCSD-02-2018 Winter P Weather

7.6.2 Capability Assessment The Delta County School District identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The mitigation strategy includes an assessment of the District’s administrative and technical and financial capabilities to augment known issues and weaknesses from identified natural hazards.

Administrative and Technical Capabilities Table 7-7 is a summary of existing positions within the Delta County School District and their responsibilities related to hazard mitigation planning and implementation.

7-15 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 7-7: Delta County School District Administrative and Technical Capabilities Summary Position Office/ Division/ Department

Emergency Response Technicians

Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure

Planners with an understanding of natural and/or human caused hazards Staff with education or expertise to assess the schools’ vulnerability to hazards

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS Transportation Bus Garage Emergency Manager Grant writers Financial Officer

Financial Capabilities Table 2-23 shows specific financial and budgetary tools that the District could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities. These include authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; capital project fund and debt service fund.

Table 7-8: Delta County School District Fiscal Capabilities Financial Resources Yes/ No

Authority to levy taxes Authority to issue bonds General Fund Yes Capital Project Fund Yes Debt Service Fund Transportation Fund Building Fund Yes Bond Fund Yes Grants Fund Yes Federal Funding Colorado Pre-School Fund Yes Other State (includes Unrestricted and Restricted Sources) Other Local (includes Unrestricted and Restricted Sources)

7-16 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

7.6.3 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). Together with the County Planning Committee, the steering committee established a guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable objectives for this plan, based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and the results of the public involvement strategy. This information is located in Section 5.4 of Volume 1. 7.6.4 Mitigation Action Plan Based upon the District’s planning committee priorities, risk assessment results, and mitigation alternatives, mitigation actions were developed. Most importantly, the newly developed mitigation actions acknowledge updated risk assessment information outlined in Section 7.5. Mitigation actions presented in Table 8-7 establish 2 possible mitigation actions for problem statements that the District is the Primary lead on. For Countywide mitigation actions that the District will support, see Annex A. Some mitigation actions support ongoing District activities, while other actions are intended to be completed when funding is available. Regardless, mitigation actions will be part of an annual review.

Benefit/ Cost Review The Delta County School District Planning Team used the same benefit/cost parameters as described in Section 5.5.1.1 of Volume 1. Cost ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).

• Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years.

• Low—The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program.

Benefit ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.

• Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.

• Low—Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.

Mitigation Actions Plan The Delta County School District Planning Team used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Section 5.5.1 of Volume 1. Based upon the Delta County School District Planning Committee consensus, Table 7-9 lists each priority mitigation action. Priority mitigation action Implementation plans are made available in Annex A. Implementation plans in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need to implementation. The detail in the Action Planners meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000.

7-17 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

7.7 Plan Implementation and Maintenance

The Delta County School District Planning Team will follow the same implementation and maintenance strategy as Delta County. This strategy is described in detail in Section 6 of Volume 1. Delta County School District Mitigation Action Trackers in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need for implementation and maintenance. The detail in the Action Trackers meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000 for priority mitigation actions. Mitigation Action Trackers will be used to report, track and implement mitigation actions over the next five-year update cycle.

7-18 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 7-9: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker Action No. Hazard Type Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation Responsible Party Potential Funding Source Time Frame* Benefit Cost Rating Implementation Plan Alternatives / Priority

DCSD-01-2018 Severe Winter Weather Identify schools that have been designated as emergency ES Delta County School District HMGP Short Term High/Low Yes shelters by the Red Cross and ensure they have sufficient back up power generators. DCSD-02-2018 Severe Winter Weather Retrofit existing buildings to withstand snow loads and SP Delta County School District HMGP Long Term High/Medium Yes prevent roof collapse.

*Note: Short Term= 1-3 yrs, Mid Term= 3-5 yrs, Long Term= 5 yrs or more

As a living document, project descriptions and actions in the tables above will be modified to reflect current conditions over time

7-19 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

7-20

FIRE PROTECTION ANNEX

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

Section 8. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS

8-1

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

8-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Municipal Adoption Records

To comply with DMA 2000, the participating fire districts listed in this annex have officially adopted the 2018 Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 1 and the Fire Protection District Volume 2 Annex. The adoption of the 2018 MJHMP in its entirety recognizes the Fire Protection Districts’ commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards within the Districts and County. See the following record of Adoption.

8-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTNETIONAL BLANK PAGE

8-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

8.1 Purpose

This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to participating fire protection districts participating in the Delta County Hazard Mitigation Plan update process. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Fire Protection Districts. This Annex provides additional information specific to the Cedaredge Fire Protection District, Crawford Fire Protection District, Delta Fire District, Hotchkiss Fire Protection District and Paonia Fire Protection District with a focus on providing additional details on the planning process, risk assessment, and mitigation strategy for these districts. 8.2 Cedaredge Fire Protection District Introduction

Cedaredge Volunteer Fire Department (CVFD) was founded in 1913. The Department serves the Surface Creek Valley from the Gunnison River to the top of Grand Mesa, covering land at elevations from 4,100 feet to 10,200 feet. The Department has two stations. Station 1# is located in Cedaredge and is the main station, while Station #2 is located in Orchard City. Station #1 is equipped with three brush trucks, one structure pumper, one rescue pumper, two tenders and one support truck. Station #2 is equipped with one brush truck, one brush rescue, and one rescue pumper. The department has approximately 25 full time volunteers and 4 cadets. The Department is commanded by one Chief, one Assistant Chief, one Captain and one Lieutenant. The Department is governed by the District #3 Board of Directors. The Delta County Sheriff is the acting Fire Marshal. The Department responds to all structure fires, wildfires, auto accidents, gas leaks, as well as swift water and rescue needs within the district. CVFD regularly enters into mutual aid agreements with surrounding departments as well as the Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service. All investigations are handled by the Sheriff’s Office.

Critical Infrastructure threatened by wildfire in district include four water treatment plants, Cedaredge, Orchard City and Upper Surface Creek water and Colby water, six water storage tanks and many historical homesteads, main power supply lines, and a high pressure natural gas line. Also protected by Cedaredge Fire is the Grand Mesa Resort Company, a private inholding within the Grand Mesa National Forest, with historical lodges and cabins. (Cedaredge Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2015)

Cedaredge Fire Protection District Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact: Primary Point of Contact Steve Hanson, Chief PO Box 804 Cedaredge, CO 81413 Telephone: (970) 586-6561 e-mail Address: [email protected]

8-1 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

8.3 Crawford Fire Protection District Introduction

The Crawford Protection District is composed of six to seven active members. The department actively trains twice monthly. The Crawford Fire Protection District has a station located in the town of Crawford off of Dogwood Avenue. (Crawford Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2015)

Crawford Fire Protection District Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact: Primary Point of Contact Steve Schroder, Assistant Fire Chief 61 Dogwood Ave Crawford, CO 81415 Telephone: (970) 921-5571 e-mail Address: [email protected]

8.4 Delta Fire Protection District Introduction

The Delta Fire Protection District #1 and its Volunteer Members are committed to providing the residents and visitors of its district a safe and secure community. We are dedicated to the preservation of life, the protection of property and the safety of fellow firefighters. Our mission is to provide the highest quality of fire prevention, fire suppression, rescue and public education to assure a superior quality of life. We pursue our mission with determination and resolve. (Delta Volunteer Fire Department, n.d.)

Delta Fire Protection District Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact: Primary Point of Contact Shannon Crespin, District Manager 285 E. 5th Street Delta, CO 81416 Telephone: (970) 874-9655 e-mail Address: [email protected]

8.5 Hotchkiss Fire Protection District Introduction

There has been a Hotchkiss Fire Department since the early 1900’s, however, the Hotchkiss Fire District was formed in 1956 to include the surrounding rural areas. Now comprising 120 square miles of territory, protected by two stations, the District serves about 5,000 citizens and fully encompasses the 81419 zip code, plus a little more. Included in this area are Federal and State lands, notably extensive BLM parcels and the National Fish Hatchery near Lazear.

8-2 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Two Fire Stations protect the District. The Hotchkiss Fire Station, built in 2007, houses five Engines, two rescue boats, as well as other equipment. The Station has a large solar power array, as well as solar heating for uninterrupted operations in times of utility failures, and features extensive communication equipment capable of assisting local and regional management of emergencies. The Redlands Mesa Substation, built in 1980 and added onto in 2003, is located at the Redlands Mesa Grange. This building houses two engines, and an ATV, and has solar heat panels on the roof.

Hotchkiss Fire District has been fortunate to have a number of citizen volunteers serving as Firefighters and Board Members. Current members have committed themselves to extensive training, and hold state and national certifications in a variety of disciplines, including: Incident Management, Hazardous Materials, Wildland Firefighting, Emergency Medical, and Swiftwater Rescue.

Our most important objective is to safeguard the lives of our citizens and firefighters from the dangers a large wildfire would present. We will continue our efforts to educate and inform our public through our very successful Facebook page and Twitter account, as well as on local radio and newspapers. Our emphasis has been, and will continue to be based on the NFPA’s Ready, Set, Go program. (Hotchkiss Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2015)

Hotchkiss Fire Protection District Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact: Primary Point of Contact Doug Fritz, Fire Chief 196 W Hotchkiss Ave Hotchkiss, CO 81419 Telephone: (970) 872-3311 e-mail Address: [email protected]

8.6 Paonia Fire Protection District Introduction

The Paonia Fire Department was started in and had a rural department and a city department until the two became one fire department also known as, Delta County Fire Protection District #2. The immediate coverage of the district is 50 square miles and also covers another 169 square miles of Ragged Mountain Fire Protection District, which belongs to Gunnison County. The District has a 5 member board and also work with Delta County Sheriff Department.

The District is run by an all-volunteer department which has 28 firefighters and 3 cadets for a total of 31 members. There is one Chief and Assistant Chief, one Captain and two Lieutenants. All members carry a pager for responding.

The Paonia Volunteer Fire Department houses it’s apparatus and equipment in a 12,000 sq ft fire house along with three of Ragged Mountain Fire Protection District’s trucks.

The Paonia Volunteer Fire Department is equipped to fight fire in the wildland urban interface as well as structure fires. Beside providing fire suppression for wildfires and structure fires we provide rescue services for automobile accidents and have also preformed many search and rescues.

8-3 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

The Paonia Volunteer Fire Department also has several mutual aid agreements with neighboring communities such as, Crawford, Hotchkiss, Cedaredge, Olathe and Delta. Living in such rural areas each member is equipped with structural and wildland firefighting gear.

The District has training every second and fourth Wednesday of every month and occasional Saturday trainings. Firefighters also have the option of attending training events that come up throughout the year. (Paonia Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2015)

Paonia Fire Protection District Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact: Primary Point of Contact Mike Byers, Chief 729 Second Street Paonia, CO 81428 Telephone: (970) 527-5874 e-mail Address: [email protected]

8.7 Planning Methodology

The participating Fire Protection Districts (FPDs) listed in this Annex followed the planning process detailed in Section 3 of the base plan. In addition to providing representation on the Delta County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) and Steering Committee, the FPDs formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process requirements. Internal planning participants, their positions, and how they participated in the planning process are shown in Table 8-1 through Table 8-4.

Table 8-1: Cedaredge Fire Protection District 2018 MJHMP Update Stakeholder List

Planning Committee Dept. / Members Position / Role Steve Hanson Planning Lead, Steering Committee Rep. Jamie Gomez Mitigation Specialist / Assistant Director (West Region Fie Council)

Table 8-2: Delta Fire Protection District 2018 MJHMP Update Stakeholder List

Planning Committee Dept. / Members Position / Role Shannon Crespin Planning Lead, Steering Committee Rep. Bryce Atchley Delta FPD, Chief Jamie Gomez Mitigation Specialist / Assistant Director (West Region Fie Council)

Daniel Cano, Former Fire Chief Steering Committee Rep. Other District fire officers Steering Committee Rep.

8-4 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 8-3: Hotchkiss Fire Protection District 2018 MJHMP Update Stakeholder List

Planning Committee Dept. / Members Position / Role Doug Fritz Planning Lead, Steering Committee Rep.

Jamie Gomez Mitigation Specialist / Assistant Director (West Region Fie Council)

Table 8-4: Paonia Fire Protection District 2018 MJHMP Update Stakeholder List

Planning Committee Dept. / Members Position / Role Mike Byers Planning Lead, Steering Committee Rep. Jamie Gomez Mitigation Specialist / Assistant Director (West Region Fie Council)

8.7.1 5 Year Mitigation Action Review and Update Table 8-5 lists each 2008 mitigation action for the Hotchkiss Fire Protection District and identifies if each action was completed, deleted, or deferred. It is important to note that this is the first hazard mitigation plan for the other participating fire protection districts.

Table 8-5: MJHMP Mitigation Action Record of Revision Review Fire Protection Districts 2008 Mitigation Action Tracker

Action No. Hazard Initiative Completed, Explanation Addressed Deleted or Deferred

HF-01-2008 Wildfire Update and distribute wildfire risk Deleted This is a County mitigation mapping for Delta County action.

HF-02-2008 Wildfire Coordinate Town of Hotchkiss Spring Ongoing This is an ongoing event from Clean-Up Day for fire safety 2008.

HF-03-2008 Wildfire Implement fuel reduction projects in Ongoing This is an ongoing event from the Hotchkiss Fire District 2008.

8-5 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

8.8 CWPPs and FPDs

The Delta County CWPP is the result of a community-wide planning effort that included extensive field data gathering, compilation of existing documents and Geographic Information System (GIS) data, and scientifically-based analyses and recommendations designed to reduce the threat of wildfire-related damages to values at risk. The CWPP identifies high risk neighborhoods in the Cedaredge Fire Protection District, Crawford Fire Protection District, Hotchkiss Fire Protection District and Paonia Fire Protection District. Recommendations are also given for areas of special interest which include Cedar Hill Communications Tower, Water Treatments Plants, Crawford State Park, Gunnison River Corridor and Grand Mesa Christian Association. In addition, Cedaredge Fire Protection District, Crawford Fire Protection District, Hotchkiss Fire Protection District and Paonia Fire Protection District each have standalone CWPPs. These CWPPs are all shown by rating in Figure 8-1.

8-6 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 8-1: Area Wide Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs)

8-7 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

8.9 Wildfire Risk Assessment The intent of this section is to profile Fire Districts’ wildfire hazards and assess their vulnerability separate from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been assessed in Section 4 (Risk Assessment) Volume 1. The hazard profiles in Volume 1 discuss overall impacts to the planning area and describes the hazard problem description, hazard extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences of hazard events and the likelihood of future occurrences. Hazard profile information specific to the Fire Districts are included in this section of the Annex. This vulnerability assessment analyzes the property, population, critical facilities, and other assets at risk to wildfire in each fire district. After an analysis of the fire districts’ capabilities were examined, the Planning Committee has chosen to only profile the wildfire hazard for each participating fire district. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Section 4 Risk Assessment in Volume 1. The hazard vulnerability assessment for the Fire District Annex includes a hazard profile/problem description as to how wildfire affects the districts and includes information on past hazard occurrences. The intent of this section is to provide district specific information on hazards and further describe how the hazards and risks differ across the planning area. This section presents the vulnerability assessment for the Fire Districts and identifies the Fire Districts’ total assets at risk, including people, values at risk, critical facilities and infrastructure. Growth and development trends are also presented for the communities in which they serve. This data is not hazard specific, but is representative of total assets at risk within the community. 8.9.1 Population and Asset Inventory In order to describe vulnerability for each hazard, it is important to understand the “total” population and “total” assets at risk within the fire districts. The exposure for each hazard described in this section will refer to the percent of total population or percent of total assets similar to Volume 1. This provides the possible significance or vulnerability to people and assets for the natural hazard event and the estimated damage and losses expected during a “worst case scenario” event. Sections below provide a description of the total population, critical facilities, and parcel exposure inputs. Fire Protection districts within Delta County protect approximately 30,046 people. See Table 8-6 for populations within individual districts.

Table 8-6: Populations within Fire Districts

Jurisdiction Population

Delta Unincorporated 12,423 Crawford 416 Hotchkiss 908 Cedaredge 2,223 Orchard City 3,085 Paonia 1,412 Delta Co 8,813 Federal/State Land 766 Total 30,046

Note: Populations within the table above include populations within municipal boundaries.

8-8 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Vulnerable Population Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard, especially for sensitive populations, including children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Smoke generated by wildfire consists of visible and invisible emissions that contain particulate matter (soot, tar, water vapor, and minerals), gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides), and toxics (formaldehyde, benzene). Emissions from wildfires depend on the type of fuel, the moisture content of the fuel, the efficiency (or temperature) of combustion, and the weather. Public health impacts associated with wildfire include difficulty in breathing, odor, and reduction in visibility.

Wildfire may also threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires. First responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and after-effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke.

8.9.1.1.1 Income and Housing Condition Income or wealth is one of the most important factors in natural hazard vulnerability. This economic factor affects vulnerability of low income populations in several ways. Lower income populations are less able to afford housing and other infrastructure that can withstand extreme events. Low income populations are less able to purchase resources needed for disaster response and are less likely to have insurance policies that can contribute to recovery efforts. Lower income elderly populations are less likely to have access to medical care due to financial hardship. Because of these and other factors, when disaster strikes, low income residences are far more likely to be injured or left without food and shelter during and after natural disasters.

8.9.1.1.2 Age Children and the elderly tend to be more vulnerable during an extreme natural disaster. They have less physical strength to survive disasters and are often more susceptible to certain diseases. The elderly often also have declining vision and hearing and often miss reports of upcoming natural hazard events. Children, especially young children, have the inability to provide for themselves. In many cases, both children and the elderly depend on others to care for them during day to day life.

Finally, both children and the elderly have fewer financial resources and are frequently dependent on others for survival. In order for these populations to remain resilient before and after a natural hazard event, it may be necessary to augment residents with resources provided by the City, State and Federal emergency management agencies and organizations.

8.9.2 Fire Protection District Critical Facilities Critical facilities are of concern when conducting hazard mitigation planning. Critical facilities are defined as essential services, and if damaged, would result in severe consequences to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. While the fire protection districts are not responsible to mitigate wildfire risk at schools, transportation, utilities, and government buildings district staff can provide technical support.

An inventory of critical facilities based on data from Delta County and other publicly sourced information were used to develop a comprehensive inventory of facility points and lifelines for each participating fire district. This listing includes facilities within Municipalities. Critical facility points include fire stations, schools, transportation, utilities, and government buildings. Lifelines include communication, electric power, liquid fuel, natural gas, and transportation routes. A current representation of the critical facilities and lifelines in each fire district are provided in Table 8-7 and Table 8-8.

8-9 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 8-7: Fire District Critical Facility Matrix

Infrastructure Type Cedaredge FPD Crawford FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD

Essential Facility 8 2 17 5 6 EOC - - 1 - - Fire Station 1 1 1 1 1 Hospital - - 1 - - Police Station 1 - 3 1 1 School 6 1 11 3 4 High Potential Loss 78 5 53 19 15 Child Care Licensed 6 1 12 3 2 Dam 57 1 8 7 2 Gas Well (Permits) - - - 1 - Health Facility Licensed 3 - 14 - 2 Other Government 11 3 18 8 9 Prison - - 1 - - Transportation and Lifeline 49 9 46 37 30 Airport - - 5 - 1 Bridge 12 4 20 6 13 County Cell Towers 9 3 14 4 7 Power Plant - - 1 - - Waste Water Facility 1 - 1 2 2 Water Utility 2 - 1 1 1 Water Wells 25 2 4 24 6 Grand Total 135 16 116 61 51

8-10 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 8-8: Fire Protection District Linear Utilities Matrix

Infrastructure Type Cedaredge FPD Crawford FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD Railroad 7.5 - 41.9 13.4 14.7 Irrigation 111.0 70.5 251.1 87.5 85.5 Roads 450.9 169.5 511.8 273.1 157.6 Local road 115.9 29.3 154.5 69.9 43.7 Major road 203.4 74.8 182.1 103.1 72.9 4WD trail 93.3 55.9 87.7 78.9 19.4 Alley 0.7 0.4 8.0 1.0 3.3 Driveway 1.3 0.1 0.9 4.2 1.7 Highway 34.4 9.0 77.0 15.6 16.2 Cul-de-sac 1.8 0.1 1.6 0.4 0.3 Ramp 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.1 Grand Total 569.4 240.0 804.8 374.0 257.9

8.9.3 Parcel Value Inventory Total count and value of address points within the fire districts which could be exposed to a hazard event is referred to as parcel exposure in this Annex. A standardized hazard overlay was conducted to develop hazard exposure results for improved parcels presented later in this section. For more information on this exposure method see Volume 1, Section 4. In the event of a disaster, it is generally the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land that is of concern or at risk. Generally, the land itself is not a total loss and structures can be rebuilt. The Delta County Assessor’s data is pivotal to developing parcel values exposed to each hazard and includes current fair market value of assets at risk. Each fire district’s parcel information is summed and provided in Table 8-9. Both the market value and content value are the total value in the community at risk to a particular hazard.

Table 8-9: Fire Protection Districts- Parcel Counts and Value

Total Market Value Total Content Value Total Parcels Total Value ($) ($) ($) Cedaredge FPD 3,815 $ 516,066,558 $ 318,890,650 $ 834,957,208 Crawford FPD 556 $ 98,012,732 $ 77,835,988 $ 175,848,720 Delta County FPD 4,469 $ 627,390,183 $ 433,165,082 $ 1,060,555,265 Hotchkiss FPD 1,318 $ 191,164,608 $ 145,045,188 $ 336,209,796 Paonia FPD 1,715 $ 239,933,689 $ 164,365,570 $ 404,299,259

Total market value as provided by Delta County. Content value calculated using content multipliers per Hazus occupancy classes per county land use designation. Total value is the sum of total market value and total content value.

8-11 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

8.9.4 Wildfire Hazard This section provides the risk assessment for wildfire only. Impacts of past events and vulnerability of the districts are further discussed below (see Section 4.6 in Volume 1 for generalized information about wildfire hazards and the impacts on the Delta County planning area).

This section provides an explanation of wildfire hazards within the Fire Districts and how hazards may affect population and property within each. Most importantly the mitigation strategy presented in this plan responds to the particular vulnerabilities of each District and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest reduction of vulnerability, which results in saved lives, reduced injuries, reduced property damage, and protection for the environment in the event of a wildfire.

Regulatory Oversight For Federal, State and County Regulations regarding Pandemic Disease, see Section 4.11.3 in Volume 1.

8.9.4.1.1 Town of Cedaredge Ordinances The Town of Cedaredge Municipal Code Title 8 Health and Safety includes regulations for open burns, fire protection systems for marijuana cultivation, litter and junk and weeds and brush. The regulations can be read at: cedaredgecolorado.com/DocumentCenter/View/57

8.9.4.1.2 Town of Crawford The Town of Crawford does not have any regulations pertaining to wildfires.

8.9.4.1.3 City of Delta Fire Safety Regulations The City of Delta Municipal Code Title 15 Land Use, Building, and Construction Chapter 15.06 includes Fire Safety Regulations for Delta. The chapter can be read at: cityofdelta.net/documents/municipal%20code/chapter%2015%20total.pdf

8.9.4.1.4 Town of Hotchkiss The Town of Hotchkiss does not have any regulations pertaining to wildfires.

8.9.4.1.5 Town of Paonia The Town of Paonia Municipal Code Chapter 17 Subdivisions and Chapter 18 Building Regulations establishes standards for reducing fire risk within the corporate limits of the Town. The regulations can be read at: library.municode.com/search?stateId=6&clientId=19052&searchText=fire&contentTypeId=CODES

8-12 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Location

To identify the location of wildfire threat in the fire protection districts, COWRAP fire intensity scale (FIS) data was used to demonstrate potential locations of fire intensities across the county. The FIS describes areas of risk associated with fuel hazards and the potential for dangerous fire propagation or behavior. There are five classes with sequential classes representing an order of magnitude of ten-fold. Class 1 is representative of very low fire intensities and Class 5 represents very high wildfire intensity. Table 8-10 shows the sum of acres and square miles of each wildfire hazard severity zone per fire district. Figure 8-2 through Figure 8-6 show the COWRAP Fire Intensity Scale for each fire protection district.

Table 8-10: Total Area with Wildfire Risk (PER DISTRICT)

Cedaredge FPD Crawford FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD Wildfire Hazard Type Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Highest Intensity 18,908 8,656 4,175 14,109 4,216 High Intensity 30,614 12,489 22,616 13,871 5,874 Moderate Intensity 38,255 13,428 85,998 28,525 9,368 Low Intensity 25,647 3,094 2,098 5,917 1,600 Lowest Intensity 1,394 353 126 251 113 Total 114,819 38,020 115,013 62,673 21,171

Note: Area totals above include municipal areas.

8-13 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 8-2: Cedaredge Fire Protection District Fire Intensity Scale

8-14 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 8-3: Crawford Fire Protection District Fire Intensity Scale

8-15 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 8-4: Delta Fire Protection District Fire Intensity Scale

8-16 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 8-5: Hotchkiss Fire Protection District Fire Intensity Scale

8-17 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 8-6: Paonia Fire Protection District Fire Intensity Scale

8-18 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Frequency Warm winters, hot, dry summers, severe drought, insect and disease infestations, years of fire suppression, and growth in the WUI continue to increase wildfire risk and the potential for catastrophic wildland fires in Colorado. (Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, 2013) Topography, weather, and vegetation provide the ingredients for destructive wildfires that can spread rapidly throughout the County. Human access to wildland areas, such as large extents of forestland, increases the risk of fire due to a greater chance for human carelessness and historical fire management practices. It is highly likely that fires will occur every year in Delta County. (Delta County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2008)Wildfire events are unwanted wildland fires, including unauthorized human caused fires, escaped debris burns, and other ignition sources that lead to fire over wildland areas.

An analysis of past wildfire ignitions was performed during the development of the 2011 Delta County CWPP. Between 1999 and 2008, a total of 141 ignitions were reported in Delta County. In total, 117 of the ignitions were caused by lightning. (Delta County, Colorado Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011) As seen in Figure 8-7 fires occurrences have been fairly widespread throughout the County. The majority of fires have occurred on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands.

8.9.4.3.1 Severity Most fires in Delta County are small (less than 100 acres) and never make it onto the lists of large fires. However, small fires can present a threat to life, safety, and property. This is based on the availability of fuel, both vegetative and man- made; the direct Wildland Urban Interface of subdivisions bordering fuel beds; as well as community infrastructure, including access/egress routes. (Delta County, Colorado Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011)

Wildfire risk to humans and structures is greatly increased by the intermixing of homes and natural habitat in the wildland urban interface. Drought and the decline of trees from beetles and disease could keep the risk of wildfire high in the County.

Wildfire Hazard Vulnerability This section describes vulnerabilities to wildfire in terms of population, property and infrastructure. Fire Intensity Scale (FIS) data from the Colorado Forest Service was used as the spatial basis in the vulnerability analysis. FIS specifically identifies areas where significant fuel hazards and associated dangerous fire behavior potential exist. FIS provides a standard scale to measure potential wildfire intensity. FIS consist of five (5) classes where the order of magnitude between classes is ten-fold. The minimum class, Class 1, represents very low wildfire intensities and the maximum class, Class 5, represents very high wildfire intensities.

Wildfire exposure snapshot results for the County were generated using COWRAP FIS Very High & High Intensities (Class 4-5) data and the following data sources: Population: CO DOLA State Demography Office (2016); Parcel Value: Delta County Assessor, Delta County GIS; Critical Infrastructure: Delta County GIS, Colorado Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, US Department of Transportation National Bridge Inventory, FEMA, USACE. County assessor data does not include tax exempt structures except where market values were provided for such holdings. Table 8-11 through Table 8-15 provides a snap shot of vulnerability data to wildfire. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Details for each snap shot can be found in this section.

8-19 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Figure 8-7: Delta County Fire Occurrence

8-20 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 8-11: Wildfire Vulnerability Analysis Snap Shot –Cedaredge FPD

Exposed Exposed Market Exposed Content Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of

Population Value ($) Value ($) Facilities Lifeline 1,268 $ 110,336,653 $ 65,599,534 35 149.3 14.9% 21.4% 20.6% 7.8% 26.2% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage * numbers for highest and high

Table 8-12: Wildfire Vulnerability Analysis Snap Shot – Crawford FPD

Exposed Exposed Market Exposed Content Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of

Crawford Population Value ($) Value ($) Facilities Lifeline FPD 353 $ 22,258,648 $ 16,400,540 1 81.6 26.2% 22.7% 21.1% 0.2% 34.0% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage * numbers for highest and high

Table 8-13: Wildfire Vulnerability Analysis Snap Shot – Delta County FPD

Exposed Exposed Market Exposed Content Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of

Population Value ($) Value ($) Facilities Lifeline 336 $ 10,463,058 $ 7,847,059 9 83.2 2.5% 1.7% 1.8% 2.0% 10.3% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage * numbers for highest and high

Table 8-14: Wildfire Vulnerability Analysis Snap Shot – Hotchkiss FPD

Exposed Exposed Market Exposed Content Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of

Population Value ($) Value ($) Facilities Lifeline 453 $ 22,451,429 $ 15,401,947 10 107.6 13.3% 11.7% 10.6% 2.2% 28.8% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage * numbers for highest and high

Table 8-15: Wildfire Vulnerability Analysis Snap Shot – Paonia FPD

Exposed Exposed Market Exposed Content Exposed Critical Exposed Miles of

Population Value ($) Value ($) Facilities Lifeline 488 $ 30,399,619 $ 18,307,117 10 71.8 13.6% 12.7% 11.1% 2.2% 27.9% total pop. total value total value total count total mileage * numbers for highest and high

8-21 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

8.9.4.4.1 Population Wildfire is of greatest concern to populations residing in the Moderate, High and Highest Intensity zones identified by COWRAP. U.S. Census Bureau block data was used to estimate populations within the within the High and Highest Intensity Zones. Figure 8-8 and Table 8-16 show the population exposure for each fire district.

Figure 8-8: Population at Risk from Wildfire Hazards

1,400 30% 1,268 26% 1,200 25%

1,000 20%

800 15% 13% 14% 15% 600 488 453 10% 400 353 336

5% 200 3%

0 0% Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Cedaredge FPD Crawford FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD

Table 8-16:Population in High and Highest Wildfire Zones per Fire District

Cedaredge FPD Crawford FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD Total Population 8,494 1,346 13,214 3,399 3,593 Wildfire Hazard Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Zone

Highest & High 1,268 14.9% 353 26.2% 336 2.5% 453 13.3% 488 13.6%

8.9.4.4.2 Property The County’s parcel layer was used as the basis for the inventory of improved residential parcels for each fire district. GIS was used to create centroids, or points, to represent the center of each parcel polygon – this is assumed to be the location of the structure for analysis purposes. The centroids were then overlaid with the fire intensity zones from COWRAP to determine the anticipated fire intensity for each structure. The fire intensity zone in which the centroid was located was assigned to the entire parcel. This methodology assumed that every parcel with a square footage value greater than zero was developed in some way. Only improved parcels were analyzed.

8-22 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 8-17 through Table 8-20 displays the number of parcels in the lowest, low, moderate, high and highest intensity wildfire hazard zones within each fire district’s boundaries and values for each. Table 8-17: Cedaredge FPD Buildings and Content within Fire Intensity Zones Total Market Value Total Content Value Total Parcels Total Value ($) ($) ($) Cedaredge FPD 3,815 $ 516,066,558 $ 318,890,650 $ 834,957,208

Fire Hazard Severity Market Value Content Value % of Parcel Count % of Total Total Exposure ($) Hazard Zone Exposure ($) Exposure ($) Total Highest Intensity 305 8.0% $ 53,430,820 $ 32,422,188 $ 85,853,008 10.3% High Intensity 404 10.6% $ 56,905,833 $ 33,177,346 $ 90,083,179 10.8% Moderate Intensity 1,396 36.6% $ 194,674,073 $ 119,390,871 $ 314,064,944 37.6% Low Intensity 275 7.2% $ 33,279,380 $ 20,044,470 $ 53,323,850 6.4% Lowest Intensity 4 0.1% $ 860,400 $ 559,536 $ 1,419,936 0.2% Total 2,384 62% $ 339,150,506 $ 205,594,411 $ 544,744,917 65.2%

Table 8-18: Crawford FPD Buildings and Content within Fire Intensity Zones Total Market Value Total Content Value Total Parcels Total Value ($) ($) ($) Crawford FPD 556 $ 98,012,732 $ 77,835,988 $ 175,848,720

Fire Hazard Severity Market Value Content Value % of Parcel Count % of Total Total Exposure ($) Hazard Zone Exposure ($) Exposure ($) Total Highest Intensity 55 9.9% $ 9,707,716 $ 7,315,168 $ 17,022,884 9.7% High Intensity 76 13.7% $ 12,550,932 $ 9,085,372 $ 21,636,304 12.3% Moderate Intensity 185 33.3% $ 32,425,724 $ 25,299,241 $ 57,724,965 32.8% Low Intensity 34 6.1% $ 4,981,657 $ 3,416,618 $ 8,398,275 4.8% Lowest Intensity - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Total 350 63% $ 59,666,029 $ 45,116,399 $ 104,782,428 59.6%

Table 8-19: Delta County FPD Buildings and Content within Fire Intensity Zones Total Market Value Total Content Value Total Parcels Total Value ($) ($) ($) Delta County FPD 4,469 $ 627,390,183 $ 433,165,082 $ 1,060,555,265

Fire Hazard Severity Market Value Content Value % of Parcel Count % of Total Total Exposure ($) Hazard Zone Exposure ($) Exposure ($) Total Highest Intensity 28 0.6% $ 5,505,497 $ 4,384,835 $ 9,890,332 0.9% High Intensity 34 0.8% $ 4,957,561 $ 3,462,224 $ 8,419,785 0.8% Moderate Intensity 1,225 27.4% $ 167,702,771 $ 104,295,108 $ 271,997,879 25.6% Low Intensity 79 1.8% $ 13,874,554 $ 7,105,826 $ 20,980,380 2.0% Lowest Intensity 2 0.0% $ 277,898 $ 138,949 $ 416,847 0.0% Total 1,368 31% $ 192,318,281 $ 119,386,942 $ 311,705,223 29.4%

8-23 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 8-20: Hotchkiss FPD Buildings and Content within Fire Intensity Zones Total Market Value Total Content Value Total Parcels Total Value ($) ($) ($) Hotchkiss FPD 1,318 $ 191,164,608 $ 145,045,188 $ 336,209,796

Fire Hazard Severity Market Value Content Value % of Parcel Count % of Total Total Exposure ($) Hazard Zone Exposure ($) Exposure ($) Total Highest Intensity 54 4.1% $ 8,564,801 $ 6,567,314 $ 15,132,115 4.5% High Intensity 80 6.1% $ 13,886,628 $ 8,834,633 $ 22,721,261 6.8% Moderate Intensity 513 38.9% $ 79,849,240 $ 60,030,221 $ 139,879,461 41.6% Low Intensity 26 2.0% $ 2,816,023 $ 2,113,090 $ 4,929,113 1.5% Lowest Intensity 2 0.2% $ 301,001 $ 301,001 $ 602,002 0.2% Total 675 51% $ 105,417,693 $ 77,846,259 $ 183,263,952 54.5%

Table 8-21: Paonia FPD Buildings and Content within Fire Intensity Zones Total Market Value Total Content Value Total Parcels Total Value ($) ($) ($) Paonia FPD 1,715 $ 239,933,689 $ 164,365,570 $ 404,299,259

Fire Hazard Severity Market Value Content Value % of Parcel Count % of Total Total Exposure ($) Hazard Zone Exposure ($) Exposure ($) Total Highest Intensity 86 5.0% $ 14,275,312 $ 8,948,450 $ 23,223,762 5.7% High Intensity 93 5.4% $ 16,124,307 $ 9,358,667 $ 25,482,974 6.3% Moderate Intensity 550 32.1% $ 79,475,568 $ 53,291,418 $ 132,766,986 32.8% Low Intensity 74 4.3% $ 8,798,091 $ 4,843,186 $ 13,641,277 3.4% Lowest Intensity 2 0.1% $ 359,019 $ 179,509 $ 538,528 0.1% Total 805 47% $ 119,032,297 $ 76,621,230 $ 195,653,527 48.4%

8.9.4.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities data was intersected or superimposed with fire intensity zone data to determine the type and number of facilities within each risk classification. Table 8-22 and Table 8-23 list the critical facilities in the high and highest wildfire hazard zones for each fire district. In order to help mitigate the risk of wildfire at high potential loss facilities such as health and child care facilities, local fire districts can provide technical assistance for mitigation. This may include defensible space guidance or aiding in fuels reduction activities.

8-24 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 8-22: High and Highest Critical Facility Exposure to Wildfire

Cedaredge FPD Crawford FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD

Infrastructure Type Highest High Highest High Highest High Highest High Highest High

Essential Facility ------1 - EOC ------Fire Station ------Hospital ------Police Station ------School ------1 - High Potential Loss 2 14 - - 1 2 1 4 - 1 Child Care Licensed - 1 ------Dam 2 13 - - 1 2 1 3 - 1 Gas Well (Permits) ------Health Facility Licensed ------Other Government ------1 - - Prison ------Transportation and Lifeline 6 13 - 1 1 5 1 4 3 5 Airport - - - - - 1 - - - 1 Bridge - 1 - - 1 3 - 1 1 3 County Cell Towers - 3 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 Power Plant ------Waste Water Facility ------Water Utility ------Water Wells 6 9 - - - - 1 2 2 - Grand Total 8 27 - 1 2 7 2 8 4 6

8-25 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 8-23: Lifelines with Wildfire Risk

Cedaredge Crawford Delta County Hotchkiss Paonia FPD FPD FPD FPD FPD Infrastructure Type Highest & High Highest & High Highest & High Highest & High Highest & High Railroad 1 - 7 2 4 Irrigation 34 34 26 35 35 Roads 114 48 50 70 33 Local road 33 9 20 24 10 Major road 44 17 15 15 13 4WD trail 34 22 14 31 6 Alley 0 - - - - Driveway 0 - 0 1 0 Highway 2 0 1 0 3 Cul-de-sac 0 - 0 0 0 Ramp 0 - - - 0 Grand Total 149.3 81.6 83.2 107.6 71.8

*Highest and High

8.9.4.4.4 District Facilities Analysis Table 8-24 lists the fire district infrastructure (fire stations) and their exposure to hazards that have geographical boundaries, if any. Refer to the fire district problem statements in Section 8.10.1 for other district infrastructure with other known hazards on site. Full hazard profiles, vulnerability analyses and County-wide mitigation actions can be found in the Base Plan.

Table 8-24: Fire Stations at Risk

Flood Zone Wildfire Infrastructure Type Dam Inundation Geohazard (100-YR) (Highest Intensity)

Crawford Fire Dept Delta Fire Dept X Hotchkiss Fire Dept X Paonia Fire Dept Cedaredge Fire Dept Grand Total 2 - - -

8-26 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Fire Stations and Dam Failure There are two fire stations in dam inundation zones. Floodproofing can be performed around these stations. For more information on dam failure hazards, see Section 4.7 in Volume 1.

8.9.4.4.5 Future Development Trends with FPDs Urbanized areas such as the City of Delta have little or no wildfire risk exposure. Urbanization tends to alter the natural fire regime and can create the potential for the expansion of urbanized areas into wildland areas. As more people recreate or move into the WUI, the risk of human caused wildfires increases. The expansion of the WUI can be managed with strong land use and building codes. Continued public education regarding fire danger and fire mitigation around the home can also decrease the risk of wildfire in these areas.

8.9.4.4.6 Wildfire and Future Climate Conditions A prolonged lack of precipitation dries out vegetation, which becomes increasingly susceptible to ignition as the duration of the drought extends. Drought also places additional stress on trees, making them more vulnerable to bark beetle attacks. This can cause large outbreaks of beetles, killing trees and creating more fuel for wildfires.

Important to Note: The County’s Drought Hazard Profile and Vulnerability Assessment can be found in Section 4.5 of the Base Plan.

8-27 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

8.9.5 Hazard Risk Ranking Each fire district’s Planning Team used the same hazard prioritization process as the Delta County Planning Committee. This process is described in detail in Section 4.3.1 of Volume 1. Table 8-25 shows the results of the hazard risk ranking exercise. As mentioned previously, while there is the potential for other hazards (such as dam inundation) to affect the fire districts, the planning committees used their capability assessments to decide to only profile wildfire.

Table 8-25: Fire Protection District Prioritized Hazard Assessment Matrix

Impact

Catastrophic Critical Limited Minor

Highly

Likely

Likely Crawford FPD Probability

Possible

Unlikely

8-28 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

8.10 Wildfire Mitigation Strategy

The intent of the mitigation strategy is to provide the fire districts with a guidebook to future hazard mitigation administration. The mitigation strategy is intended to reduce vulnerabilities outlined in the previous section with a prescription of policies and physical projects. This will assist fire district staff to achieve compatibility with existing planning mechanisms and ensures that mitigation activities provide specific roles and resources for implementation success.

The mitigation strategy represents the key outcomes of the MJHMP planning process. The hazard mitigation planning process conducted by the Planning Committee is a typical problem-solving methodology:

. Estimate the impacts (See Sections Vulnerability Assessment); . Describe the problem (See Section Problem Statements); . Assess what resources exist to lessen impacts and problem (See Capability Assessment,); . Develop Goals and Objectives to address the problems (See Goals and Objectives) . Determine what can be done and develop actions that are appropriate for the community (See Mitigation Action Matrix).

Identifying the Problem As part of the mitigation actions identification process, the fire districts’ Planning Committees identified issues and/or weaknesses as a result of the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis. By combining common issues and weaknesses developed by the Planning Committee, the realm of resources needed for mitigating each can be understood. Fire District issues and weaknesses are presented by individual hazard in Table 8-26. Primary (P) and Secondary (S) districts are identified for each problem statement. Projects or actions have been developed to mitigate each problem identified. To the degree possible the fire districts will support County Wide Initiatives. See Volume 1 for related County Wide mitigation actions.

8-29 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Table 8-26: Problem Statements by Hazard

Proble Mitigation Mitigation Hazard m No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. Delta County FPD Cedaredge FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD Crawford FPD All AH-01 Many communities in Delta County, PE&A, ES DC-01-2018, Hazard particularly Cedaredge and Paonia, DC-04-2008, have significant populations over the DC-18-2018 age of 65 which could be exposed to P S natural hazards. Town of Cedaredge - 18.6% Town of Paonia - 17.7% All AH-04 Lack of communication and data ES, PE&A DC-05-2008 Hazard transmission lines could affect communications during a natural hazard event including 800 MHz P S S transmission towers. Lack of domestic demand for communications inhibits communications providers to provide service in remote areas. All AH-05 Many communities in Delta County, PE&A, ES DC-04-2008 Hazard particularly Crawford, Cedaredge, and Orchard City, have significantly high poverty rates. P S S Town of Cedaredge - 28.1% Town of Crawford - 29.4% Town of Orchard City - 19.3% Flood FL-03 Storm water runoff issues within many SP DC-02-2008 different municipalities within Delta P S S S S County. Wildfire WF-02 (35) homes had a "very high" risk rating PPRO CRF-01- and (16) homes were assessed to have 2018, CRF- an "extreme" risk to wildfire within the 02-2018, DC- P Crawford Fire Protection District. 03-2008, DC- 02-2008 Wildfire WF-03 (55) homes had a very high risk rating PPRO HF-01-2008, and 22 homes were assessed to have HF-01-2018, an "extreme" risk to wildfire within the HF-02-2008, P Hotchkiss Fire Protection District. HF-03-2008, DC-03-2008, DC-02-2008

8-30 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Proble Mitigation Mitigation Hazard m No. Problem Description Alternative Action No. Delta County FPD Cedaredge FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD Crawford FPD Wildfire WF-04 (113) homes had a "very high" risk PPRO CF-02-2018, rating and (52) homes were assessed to DC-03-2008, have an "extreme" risk to wildfire DC-02-2008 P within the Cedaredge Fire Protection District. Wildfire WF-05 (78) homes had a very high risk rating PPRO PF-02-2018, and (43) homes were assessed to have DC-03-2008, P an "extreme" risk to wildfire within the DC-02-2008 Paonia Fire Protection District. Wildfire WF-11 Many County residents live within high PPRO DC-03-2008, wildfire risk areas including low DC-02-2008 income, elderly and other vulnerable P S S populations. Approx. 40%- 50% of the total population live within some wildfire risk areas. Wildfire WF-13 Community ingress/ egress is an issue, ES PF-01-2018 especially in high risk areas such as Fire P Mountain and Hidden Valley. Wildfire WF-14 Ingress/ egress standards need to be PRV, ES established for future development P taking place in Cedaredge. Wildfire WF-15 Wildfire mitigation involving PPRO, DC-11-2018 homeowners often does not get PE&A completed due to the lack of a P S "mitigation champion" to carry out these projects. Wildfire WF-16 There is currently a lack of resources PE&A DC-12-2018 easily accessible to homeowners (ex. P S CWPP document links, information on home mitigation projects) Wildfire WF-17 Fire stations do not have back up ES DC-13-2018 power generators. P S P Wildfire WF-21 Brush fires can get out of control in PPRO DF-01-2018 open spaces near irrigation ditches. P P

8-31 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

8.10.2 Capability Assessment Each of the fire districts identified current capabilities available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment portion of the hazard mitigation plan identifies equipment, staff, regulatory/ planning, public outreach/ education and funding capabilities.

Equipment Capabilities Table 8-27 lists each fire district’s equipment capabilities.

Table 8-27: Fire District Equipment Capabilities

Cedaredge FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD

Personal Protective Yes 30 100% + Spares Yes Equipment (PPE) Line Gear/ packs, shelters, Yes 30 Nomex’s 100% + Spares Yes nomex, fusee Interoperable Radios (Local, Yes 8- 800’s, 26- VHF 100% Yes Digital State, Fed) Digital or Analog Fire Supply Cisterns / No None N/A No Remote Tanks in Wildland Area Line tools for fire Yes 6- Bladder Bags, 6- 100% + Spares Yes suppression EX: pulaski, Forestry Rakes McLeod, bladder bags Engines/What Type? Type 6 3 Type 1, 2 Type 3, 3- Type 6 1 Type 6, 1 Type 4, 1 Type3-2 Type6-3 Type 3 3 Type 4 Type 3 CAFS, 1 Type 1x, Pump And Roll, 2 Wildland Utvs, With Pumps, 100 Gal Tanks, Foam.

Water Tenders 2- 2000 gallon 3 -Tenders 1 Type 2 Tactical, 1-4000gal, 1- tankers/ 1 4700 and 3 Type 3 and 2000gal 1-1200gal gallon tanker Type 4 Units Can Act 1-1000gal as Tactical Tenders.

Chippers No None No No

Brush Hog No None No No

Chain Saws Yes 4 12 11

8-32 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Cedaredge FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD

Other 4 Floating Hi Pressure Pumps, 2 Floating High- Volume Pumps, 2 Very Large Sprinkler Kits, 5 Drop Tanks, GPS Radios, 170 Gal Foam Supply

Staff Capabilities Table 8-28 list each fire district’s staff capabilities.

Table 8-28: Fire District Staff Capabilities

Cedaredge FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD

Number of Paid Staff 0 1 1 None

Number of Volunteer Staff 27 27 28 23

Number of Grant Writing 0 1 1 None Staff Number of Staff with Red 1 0 24 One Card Qualifications Firefighter Quals/ Type I 1 0 14 FF1, 9 FF2, 1 3 Type II TFL, 4 Engb (Several Hold Multiple Certs)

Wildland Division/ Program None 0 Yes None

Hand Crew/Type I-Type None 0 No None

S-212 Certs/Chain Saw Certs None 0 3

8-33 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Regulatory / Planning Capabilities Table 8-29 lists each fire district’s regulatory/ planning capabilities.

Table 8-29: Fire District Regulatory / Planning Capabilities

Cedaredge FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD

ISO Rating 6/9 5 In the City, 10 In The 6 6/9 County Community Wildfire Yes Yes Yes Yes Protection Plans (CWPP)? Annual Fire Prevention Yes No No CWPP Plan? FireWise Communities Yes None No None within District? Signed Mutual Aid Yes Yes Yes Yes , County Agreements? Communities Strategies and Tactics Yes No Yes Yes Defined? Wildfire Threat Maps? No Y, Including Avenza Yes Pro Licenses and GIS Capacity

Public Outreach/ Education Capabilities Table 8-30 lists each fire district’s public outreach/ education capabilities.

Table 8-30: Fire District Public Outreach/ Education Capabilities

Cedaredge FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD

FireWise / Non-profit No. When Yes Yes Not Really advocacy requested Community- Based No No No No Programs Defensible Space When requested No No On Request Inspections Wildfire Risk Property When requested No Past 18 Years, Not On Request Assessments Presently Chipping Program No No No No

8-34 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Funding Mechanisms/ Capabilities Table 8-31 lists each fire district’s funding mechanisms/ capabilities.

Table 8-31: Fire District Funding Mechanisms/ Capabilities

Cedaredge FPD Delta County FPD Hotchkiss FPD Paonia FPD

Taxes 100% Yes Yes 100% Development Impact and No No N/A No User Fees Fines, Forfeitures and No No N/A No Penalties Enterprise Funds and Utility No No N/A No Rates Sale of Assets and Services No No Yes No Borrowing Capability No No Yes, Initial and No Long-Term. 8.10.3 Goals and Objectives Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long-term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). Together with the County Planning Committee, the steering committee established a guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable objectives for this plan, based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and the results of the public involvement strategy. This information is located in Section 5.4 of Volume One.

8.10.4 Mitigation Action Plan Based upon the Fire Districts’ planning committee priorities, risk assessment results, and mitigation alternatives, mitigation actions were developed. Most importantly, the newly developed mitigation actions acknowledge updated risk assessment information outlined in Section 8.9. Mitigation actions for each Fire District are listed in Table 8-32. Some mitigation actions support ongoing jurisdictional/ county activities, while other actions are intended to be completed when funding is available. Regardless, mitigation actions will be part of an annual review.

Benefit/ Cost Review Each of the fire districts’ Planning Teams used the same benefit/cost parameters as described in Section 5.5.1.1, Volume 1. Cost ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).

• Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years.

• Low—The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program.

8-35 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

Benefit ratings were defined as follows:

• High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.

• Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.

• Low—Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.

Mitigation Action Plan The fire districts’ Planning Teams used the same mitigation action prioritization method as described in Section 5.5.1 of the Base Plan Volume 1. Based upon the fire districts’ Planning Committee consensuses, Table 8-32 lists each priority mitigation action. For Priority mitigation actions, implementation plans are made available in the Action Planner Annex. Implementation plans in the Action Planner Annex identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need to implementation. The detail in the Action Planners meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000. 8.11 Plan Implementation and Maintenance

The fire districts’ Planning Teams will follow the same implementation and maintenance strategy as Delta County. This strategy is described in detail in Section 6 of Volume 1. Fire Protection District Mitigation Action Trackers in Annex A identify the responsible party, time frame, potential funding source, implementation steps and resources need for implementation and maintenance. The detail in the Action Trackers meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA and DMA 2000 for priority mitigation actions. Mitigation Action Trackers will be used to report, track and implement mitigation actions over the next five-year update cycle.

8-36 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) Table 8-32: Mitigation Action Priority Tracker Action No. Hazard Type Specific Mitigation Action Mitigation Responsible Party Potential Funding Time Frame* Benefit Cost Implementation Alternatives Source Rating Plan / Priority

DF-01-2018 Wildfire Perform brush clearing in open spaces near irrigation ditches and along the Gunnison PPRO Delta Fire Protection District HMGP Short Term Low/ High Yes River. Perform maintenance including fuel management techniques such as pruning and clearing dead vegetation, selective logging, cutting high grass, planting fire-resistant vegetation, and creating fuel/fire breaks (i.e., areas where the spread of wildfires will be slowed or stopped by the removal of fuels). CF-01-2018 Wildfire Establish ingress/ egress standards for future development taking place in Cedaredge. PRV Cedaredge Fire Protection General Funds Short Term Low/ Low Yes District

CF-02-2018 Wildfire Work with the West Region Wildfire Council to implement cost-share program and PPRO Cedaredge Fire Protection General Funds, PDM Short Term Low/ High Yes community chipping program for high risk properties identified in the Cedaredge Fire District Protection District CWPP. HF-01-2008 Wildfire Update and distribute wildfire risk mapping. PRV GIS Department, Emergency General Funds Short Term Medium/ Yes Management Low

HF-01-2018 Wildfire Work with the West Region Wildfire Council to implement cost-share program and PPRO Hotchkiss FPD General Funds Short Term Low/ High Yes community chipping program for high risk properties identified in the Hotchkiss Fire Protection District CWPP. HF-02-2008 Wildfire Coordinate Town of Hotchkiss Spring Clean-Up Day for fire safety PPRO Hotchkiss FPD General Funds, PDM Short Term Medium/ Yes High

HF-03-2008 Wildfire Implement fuel reduction projects in the Hotchkiss Fire District PPRO Hotchkiss FPD General Funds Short Term Medium/ Yes High

PF-01-2018 Wildfire Work with the West Region Wildfire Council to educate homeowners in the Fire Mountain PE&A Paonia FPD PDM, General Funds Short Term Low/ Yes and Hidden Valley communities on reducing the risk of wildfire on their property, including Medium understanding their wildfire risk, free site visits, cost-share program and community chipping program. PF-02-2018 Wildfire Work with the West Region Wildfire Council to implement cost-share program and PPRO Paonia FPD PDM, General Funds Short Term Medium/ Yes community chipping program for high risk properties identified in the Paonia Fire High Protection District CWPP. CRF-01-2018 Wildfire Assist homeowners (technical, physical or financial assistance) in "extreme" and "very PPRO Crawford Fire Protection HMGP, PDM Short Term Medium/ Yes high" wildfire risk zones to create defensible space around their home and perform District High fuels reduction projects. Collaborate with the West Region Wildfire Council. CRF-02-2018 Wildfire Work with the West Region Wildfire Council to implement cost-share program and PPRO Cedaredge Fire Protection General Funds, PDM Short Term Low/ High Yes community chipping program for high risk properties identified in the Crawford Fire District Protection District CWPP. *Note: Short Term= 1-3 yrs, Mid Term= 3-5 yrs, Long Term= 5 yrs or more

As a living document, project descriptions and actions in the tables above will be modified to reflect current conditions over time.

8-37 DELTA COUNTY COLORADO

Delta County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP)

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE

8-38