Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final Draft November 7, 2008

2008

Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan

January 6, 2009

Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Preface The Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed in late fall of 2006 through the early summer of 2008. It contains information relative to the hazards and vulnerabilities facing Custer County. The jurisdictions participating in this Plan include Custer County and the cities of Challis, Mackay, and Stanley. The City of Clayton will be requested to endorse this Plan and participate in its implementation. This Plan is designed to interface with the State of Idaho Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan published in November 2004 and revised in November 2007.

1 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This Page Intentionally Blank

2 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

3 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

4 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This

Page

Intentionally

Blank

5 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

6 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This

Page

Intentionally

Blank

7 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

8 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This

Page

Intentionally

Blank

9 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

10 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This

Page

Intentionally

Blank

11 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This Page Intentionally Blank

12 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This

Page

Intentionally Blank

13 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Table of Contents Preface ……………………………………………………………. 1 Promulgation of Adoption ……………………………………….. 3 Letters of Endorsement …………………………………………… 5 Section 1 Planning Process ……………………………………….. 15 Section 2 Community Description………………………………... 29 Section 3 Public Involvement …………………………………….. 47 Section 4 Risk Assessment ……………………………………….. 53 Section 4.1Weather Hazards ……………………………… 54 Section 4.2 Flooding ……………………………………… 78 Section 4.3 Geological Hazards ……………….………….. 94 Section 4.4 Other Natural Hazards ……………………….. 110 Section 4.5 Technological (Manmade) Hazards …..……… 125 Section 4.6 Vulnerabilities ……………………………….. 143 Section 4.7 Risk Summary ……………………………….. 164 Section 5 Land Use Planning/Disaster Mitigation Integration …… 171 Section 6 Mitigation Projects and Implementation Roadmap ……. 173

Attachments ………………………………………………………. 205

Attachment 1 Meeting Minutes Attachment 2 Custer County Questionnaire Results

14 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This

Page

Intentionally

Blank

15 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 1 Planning Process

Introduction Custer County and the incorporated Cities that lie within the County boundaries are vulnerable to natural, technological, and man-made hazards that have the possibility of causing serious threats to the health, welfare, and security of its residents. The cost of response to and recovery from the potential disasters, in terms of potential loss of life or property, can be lessened when attention is turned to mitigating their impacts and effects before they occur or re-occur. This Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan seeks to identify the County‟s and Cities‟ hazards and understand their impact on vulnerable populations and infrastructure. With that understanding the Plan sets forth solutions that if implemented, have the potential to significantly reduce threat to life and property. The Plan is based on the premise that hazard mitigation works! With increased attention to managing natural hazards, communities can reduce the threats to citizens and through proper land use and emergency planning to avoid creating new problems in the future. Many solutions can be implemented at minimal cost and social impact. This is not an emergency response or management plan. Certainly, the Plan can be used to identify weaknesses and refocus emergency response planning. Enhanced emergency response planning is an important mitigation strategy. However, the focus of this Plan is to support better decision making directed toward avoidance of future risk, and the implementation of activities or projects that will eliminate or reduce the risk for those that may already have exposure to a natural hazard threat. Plan Organization Section 1 of the Plan provides a general overview of the process, the scope, purpose, and overall goals of the plan. Section 2 of the Plan gives a general background or description of the County‟s demographic, economic, cultural, and physiographic characteristics. Section 3 summarizes the public involvement component of the Plan. Section 4, the Risk Assessment section, provides a brief profile for each natural hazard. All hazards identified as affecting the County will be analyzed at the County and incorporated City level and then summarized. Section 5 provides a review of the County Land Use Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan and provides suggestions for integration between the AHMP and the Land Use Planning efforts in the County. Section 6 presents Mitigation Goals and Objectives along with selected Mitigation Alternatives with supporting project descriptions and a “roadmap” to implementation for the highest priority projects.

16 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Plan Use The Plan should be used to help County and participating City officials plan, design, and implement programs and projects that will help reduce the jurisdictions vulnerability to natural, technological, and man-made hazards. The Plan should also be used to facilitate inter- jurisdiction coordination and collaboration related to all hazard mitigation planning and implementation within the County and at the Regional level. Lastly, the Plan should be used to develop or provide guidance for local emergency response planning. If adopted, this Plan will achieve compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Hazard Mitigation Hazard mitigation is defined as any cost-effective action(s) that has the effect of reducing, limiting, or preventing vulnerability of people, culture, property, and the environment to potentially damaging, harmful, or costly hazards. Hazard mitigation measures which can be used to eliminate or minimize the risk to life, culture and property, fall into three categories: 1) Keep the hazard away from people, property, and structures. 2) Keep people, property, or structures away from the hazard. 3) Reduce the impact of the hazard on victims, i.e., insurance. Hazard mitigation measures must be practical, cost effective, and culturally, environmentally, and politically acceptable. Actions taken to limit the vulnerability of society to hazards must not in themselves be more costly than the anticipated damages. The primary focus of hazard mitigation planning must be at the point at which capital investment and land use decisions are made, based on vulnerability. Capital investments, whether for homes, roads, public utilities, pipelines, power plants, or public works, determine to a large extent the nature and degree of hazard vulnerability of a community. Once a capital facility is in place, very few opportunities will present themselves over the useful life of the facility to correct any errors in location or construction with respect to the hazard vulnerability. It is for this reason that zoning and other ordinances, which manage development in high vulnerability areas, and building codes, which insure that new buildings are built to withstand the damaging forces of the hazards, is often the most useful tool in mitigation that a jurisdiction can implement. Since the priority to implement mitigation activities is usually very low in comparison to the perceived threat, some important mitigation measures take time to implement. Mitigation success can be achieved, however, if accurate information is portrayed through complete hazard identification and impact studies, followed by effective mitigation management. The Federal Disaster Services Agency has identified hazards to be analyzed by each jurisdiction, completing an all hazard mitigation plan as part of the process. The hazards analyzed include the following:

Natural Hazards Weather: Drought Extreme Heat Extreme Cold Severe Winter Storm Lightning

17 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Hail Tornado Straight Line Wind Flooding: Flash Flood River Flooding Dam Failure Geologic: Earthquake Landslide/Mudslide Other: Wildfire Biological Pandemic/Epidemic Bird Flu SARs West Nile Technological (Manmade) Hazards Structural Fire Nuclear Event Hazardous Material Event Riot/Demonstration/Civil Disorder Terrorism

Purpose The purposes of this plan are: Fulfill Federal and local mitigation planning responsibilities; Promote pre- and post-disaster mitigation measures with short/long range strategies to minimize suffering, loss of life, impact on traditional culture, and damage to property and the environment; Eliminate or minimize conditions that would have an undesirable impact on the people, culture, economy, environment, and well being of the County at large. Enhance elected officials‟, departments‟, and the public‟s awareness of the threats to the community‟s way of life, and of what can be done to prevent or reduce the vulnerability and risk. Scope This Multi-Jurisdiction Plan covers the areas within Custer County Idaho including the incorporated cities of Challis, Mackay, and Stanley. The City of Clayton will be requested to endorse and participate in the implementation of the Plan. Mission Statement The Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazards Mitigation Plan sets forth public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities, infrastructure, private and public property, the local economy, and the environment from risks associated with natural and manmade hazards.

18 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Goals AHMP Goals describe the broad direction that Custer County and participating incorporated city agencies, organizations, and citizens will take to select mitigating projects which are designed specifically to address risks posed by natural and manmade hazards. The goals are stepping- stones between the mission statement and the specific objectives developed for the individual mitigation projects. Custer County Goals Severe Weather Custer County will develop methods to mitigate the losses due to severe weather in the County. Flooding Custer County will continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and develop actions that will reduce the damage to County infrastructure due to flash and stream flooding and dam failure. Geological Custer County will reduce potential damage to County infrastructure and structures through implementation of earthquake mitigation techniques. Custer County will reduce the potential damage to property from Landslides by adopting codes and standards for construction in landslide prone areas. Wildfire Custer County will reduce the losses caused by wildfire by continuing the Wildland Urban Interface Mitigation Program. Biological Custer County will seek to reduce the exposure of humans and animals to the West Nile Virus. Structural Fire Custer County will seek to reduce losses from Structure fires through working with private property owners. Nuclear Event Custer County will examine the risks posed to the County from Nuclear Facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory. Hazardous Material Event Custer County will seek to identify hazardous material flow through the County. Riot/Demonstration/Civil Disorder Custer County will develop methods to identify and report Civil Disobedience activities.

19 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Terrorism Custer County will identify measure to protect critical County infrastructure and facilities from potential terror incidents.

Participating Jurisdictions Goals City of Challis Goals Severe Weather o The City of Challis will develop methods to protect the life safety of its citizens from harm due to severe weather events. Geological o The City of Challis will reduce potential damage to City infrastructure and structures through implementation of earthquake mitigation techniques. Structural Fire o The City of Challis will seek to reduce losses from Structure fires through working with private property owners to ensure that smoke alarms and fire extinguishers are located in each residence. City of Mackay Severe Weather o The City of Mackay will develop methods to protect the life safety of its citizens from harm due to severe weather events. Flooding o The City of Mackay will continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and develop actions that will reduce the damage to City property and infrastructure due to flooding on Big Lost River. o The City of Mackay will work with Custer County to develop an emergency dam failure warning system for citizens downstream of the Mackay Reservoir Dam. Geological o The City of Mackay will reduce potential damage to City infrastructure and structures through implementation of earthquake mitigation techniques. Structural Fire o The City of Mackay will seek to reduce losses from Structure fires through working with private property owners to ensure that smoke alarms and fire extinguishers are located in each residence.

20 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 City of Stanley Severe Weather o The City of Stanley will develop methods to protect the life safety of its citizens from harm due to severe weather events. Flooding o The City of Stanley will begin to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and develop actions that will reduce the damage to City property and infrastructure due to flooding. Geological o The City of Stanley will reduce potential damage to City infrastructure and structures through implementation of earthquake mitigation techniques. Wildfire o The City of Stanley will reduce the losses caused by wildfire by continuing the Wildland Urban Interface Mitigation Program. Structural Fire o The City of Stanley will seek to reduce losses from Structure fires through working with private property owners to ensure that smoke alarms and fire extinguishers are located in each residence.

21 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer All Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee

The Custer All Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee was formed on February 7, 2007. Committee membership is comprised of representatives from the Custer County Local Emergency Planning Committee, Custer County Department heads, representatives from the incorporated cities, representatives from the major utility providers, interested media, and members of the public. Minutes of the committee meetings are provided in Attachment 1.

The Committee Roster is provided below:

Agency Representative Position CCO Disaster Service Doug Hammond Coordinator Custer County Commission Wayne Butts Commissioner City of Challis Don Varney Maintenance City of Challis Jay Cook Mayor City of Mackay Ken Day City of Stanley Pete Isner Police Officer Custer County Search and Levi Maydole Commander Rescue Challis Search & Rescue Don Varney Commander Mackay/South Custer Fire and Randy Ivie Fire Chief Ambulance Sawtooth Valley Rural Fire Andy Gunderson Chief Challis/North Custer Fire Launna Gunderson Chief Custer County Haz Mat Bert Doughti Coordinator Coordinator Thompson Creek Mining Co Patrick Gannon Engineer Eastern Idaho Public Health Troy Nelson Planner District Bureau of Land Management Leigh Redick Hydrologist Forest Service John Fowler Fuels Specialist Salmon River Electric Ken Dizes General Manager

22 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Planning Process

Planning Process Description The planning process was initiated with the organization of the Custer County Hazard Mitigation Committee, established under the direction of the Custer County Coordinator of Disaster Services. The Fifteen Step Planning Process that was used in the development of the Custer County AHMP is diagrammed in Figure 1.1 and each step is outlined below.

Figure 1.1 AHMP Planning Process

Step 1 Identify Hazards Custer County hazards were identified and their frequency of occurrence evaluated using a number of resources including:

Hazard planning documents developed by State, Federal and private agencies, National Weather Service weather data from the past 50 years, Data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Idaho State Geological Survey (ISGS), and

23 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 100 year historical analysis of hazardous event occurrences published local newspapers (archived on microfilm at Idaho State University). Step 2 Public Involvement A community survey was mailed to 100 residents of Custer County. A copy of the Survey and its results are in Attachment 2 and its results are discussed in some detail in Section 3. In addition, members of the AHMP Committee were asked to provide, through a short worksheet instrument, their opinions as private citizens regarding the risks threatening the County. This was done at the first three AHMP Committee meetings. Additional public involvement steps were taken as the Plan was reviewed. Stakeholders will be requested to participate in a local mitigation workshop to review the Plan. A copy of the Plan was also placed on the Whisper Mountain website for public review throughout the process and comments were received and incorporated as appropriate. Step 3 Identify Vulnerabilities The Committee examined the potential effects on the County of the listed raw hazards by identifying vulnerable populations, infrastructure, critical services, facilities, and the environment. Vulnerabilities were geographically identified using Geographical Information System (GIS) technology and then linked to a GIS database describing the vulnerable target including potential damage and estimates of losses. Step 4 Develop Goals and Objectives As required by FEMA, the planning effort was centered on community-supported hazard reduction goals to be implemented and evaluated based on measurable objectives. Mitigation projects are to be assessed against the established goals and objectives to ensure that the selected projects reduce risk as desired. Step 5 Write Plan The Plan outline meets and, in some instances, exceeds the requirements set forth by FEMA in the FEMA PDM Criteria Crosswalk. Plan drafts were presented in hard and electronic copy as requested by the Committee. The finished Plan includes information on Plan adoption including a Promulgation page for the County and an Agreement to Participate page for each incorporated City. Step 6 Hazard Mapping As described in Steps 1 and 4, hazard maps are extremely important in illustrating hazard and vulnerability locations. Information used to conduct the risk assessment and to make loss estimates was linked electronically to the maps using GIS technology. Electronic versions of these maps were provided to the Committee and other reviewing agencies. Step 7 Risk Analysis A risk analysis was conducted using the information gathered in steps 1-4 and 6. For each hazard, two kinds of information are required in order to assess risk; information concerning the potential amount of damage a hazard event can cause (hazard magnitude), and that pertaining to how frequently such events are likely to occur (hazard frequency). To the extent that such data can be obtained quantitatively, risk may then be determined as the product of the hazard‟s

24 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 magnitude and its frequency. In practice, precise quantitative data of both kinds is often difficult or impossible to obtain. Frequency of occurrence for a given hazard may be estimated using historical records. The value of frequency estimates obtained in this way is subject to the existence of such records, their availability, and their accuracy. Even with good historical records, however, projections of future frequency may not be valid because of changing conditions. Long- and short-term climate cycles (among other factors) affect weather events, economic conditions and technical advances affect man-made hazards, land use and the passage of time affect geological hazards, etc. For this reason, scientific projections, when available, are also used to modify, enhance or replace those made from historical data. For any given location, however, historical records are often scarce and/or unreliable, and scientific projections methods either do not exist or require data that has not been, or cannot be gathered. Thus, a third source of frequency data is utilized in this Plan; the subjective judgments of the location‟s inhabitants. While semi-quantitative at best, and subject to biases, data of this sort may well be as reliable as any other. It reflects, in any event, the perceived needs of those for whom the planning is being done. Frequency projection data from all three sources was used, as appropriate in this plan. Because all are subject to considerable uncertainty, the composite data was examined and assigned a relative level based on the criteria shown in Table 1.1, Frequency Level Criteria.

Frequency Ranking Description HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened

Table 1.1 Frequency Level Criteria

Repetitive Loss designations are used to eliminate or reduce the damage to property and the disruption of life caused by repeated damage, such as flooding, of the same properties. The criteria to determine repetitive loss includes the following: Four or more losses of more than $1,000 each in a 5 year period; or Two losses within a 10-year period that, in the aggregate, equal or exceed the current value of the insured property; or Three or more paid losses that, in the aggregate, equal or exceed the current value of the insured property. Hazard magnitude estimates, too, must rely on data gathered from a number of sources, none of which may be precise. Historical data, scientific projections, and inhabitants‟ subjective judgments are, again, used for this purpose. Magnitude estimates are generally based on the severity of potential impact on three critical vulnerabilities: human life, property, and the environment. FEMA has, however, recognized that there are other issues tied to community support of risk mitigation including social, cultural, and economical issues. Composite data from all sources including the vulnerabilities identified in Section 4.7 has been utilized to assign a

25 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 quantitative magnitude for each hazard, for the County and for each local jurisdiction, based on the following criteria:

Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

A hazard‟s total magnitude is the sum of the values for each of the six categories. Thus, a hazard event that is expected to require Reconstruction Assistance from the State government (Value = 4), affect an area consisting of Multiple Sections (Value = 4), cause Little to no Injury and No Deaths (Value = 1), Require Little Sheltering (Shelter = 2) or cause Some Economic Loss (Value = 2), and have a Warning Lead Time of Hours (Value = 4), would be assigned a magnitude value of 15 (4+4+1+2+2+4=17). Risk assessment methods included the use of FEMA‟s HAZUS Risk Assessment software. Risk assessment activities also included the mapping of hazard occurrences, at-risk structures including critical facilities, and repetitive flood loss structures, land use, and populations. Step 8 Quantify Risk Once a hazard‟s magnitude and its frequency have been evaluated, a picture of the over-all risk severity associated with that hazard emerges. Because the values are necessarily imprecise and subjective, the risk is visualized by plotting them as shown in Figure 1.2. Here, the frequency is plotted on the vertical axis (Low at the top to High at the bottom), and magnitude in on the horizontal axis (Low = 5 to 14, Medium = 15 to 20, and High = 21 to 40) Hazards with the most severe associated risk, therefore, appear toward the lower right while lowest severity risk hazards appear near the upper left.

26 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Magnitude (Low) (Medium) (High)

1 2 3 (Low) 1

(Medium) 2 Frequency

(High) 3

Figure 1.2 Risk Ranking Plot

Step 9 Rank Severity To assist in prioritizing mitigation activities, the severities of all hazards considered in the Plan are ranked relative to one another using the above plotting scheme. Prioritization is also based on goals and objectives developed and approved by the Custer County Board of County Commissioners. Step 10 Laws and Ordinances Review The Custer County Comprehensive Plan and other applicable codes, standards, ordinances, and laws were reviewed against the list of ranked hazards to determine if there were any restrictions to, or enabling powers that impact possible hazard mitigation alternatives. A report of this action is provided in Section 5, Land Use Planning. Step 11 Develop Mitigation Alternatives Potential projects to address identified risks are developed and listed in Section 6. The project descriptions and associated roadmap address approximate costs, possible returns on investments, environmental and socio-economic benefits. Engineering cost estimates based on the conceptual design will be included if provided by the County. Step 12 Develop Implementation Roadmap Roadmapping is essentially a development of a high level project schedule. The Mitigation Roadmap in Section 6 of the Plan will provide necessary steps to be taken and the order in which they should occur to ensure project implementation. The Implementation Roadmap will address the four highest priority mitigation projects identified during the planning effort including possible funding options. All other possible mitigation projects were identified in list form

27 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 linking them to the Plan Goals and Objectives, desired outcome, and assigned agency or department. Step 13 Plan Review The initial plan review was conducted by the Committee during Plan development. The Committee assessed the Plan using the most current FEMA Multi-Jurisdiction PDM Cross Walk. Once the Plan was completed, it was submitted, along with the completed Cross Walk, to the Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security‟s Hazard Mitigation Officer, and then to FEMA Region 10‟s Hazard Mitigation Officer for review. The Custer County Board of County Commissioners also reviewed the Plan in a parallel time frame. Step 14 Plan Adoption The Custer Mitigation Committee made a formal public presentation to the Custer County Board of County Commissioners seeking their approval of the Plan. A Letter of Promulgation is provided in the Plan. Additionally, each participating jurisdiction will be requested to adopt the Plan by resolution with the respective mayors signing the appropriate multi-jurisdiction participation document. Step 15 Implement As this process is followed, the Custer Mitigation Committee and partnering stakeholders will be able to present to the County Board of Commissioners an implementable All Hazard Mitigation Plan. Plan Maintenance The Custer County AHMP maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the programmatic outcomes established in the Plan annually and producing a Plan revision every five years. Formal Review Process The Plan will be evaluated on an annual basis to determine the effectiveness of programs and to reflect changes that may affect mitigation priorities. The evaluation process includes an annual schedule and timeline and identifies the local agencies and organizations participating in Plan evaluation. The Coordinator of Disaster Services or designee will be responsible for contacting the Mitigation Committee members and organizing the annual review. Committee members will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the progress of the mitigation strategies in the Plan. The Committee will review the goals and action items to determine their relevance to changing situations in the County, as well as changes in Federal policy, and to ensure they are addressing current and expected conditions. The Committee will also review the risk assessment portion of the Plan to determine if this information should be updated or modified, given any new available data. The coordinating organizations responsible for the various action items will report on the status of their projects, the success of various implementation processes, difficulties encountered, success of coordination efforts, and which strategies should be revised or removed. The Coordinator will be responsible to ensure the update of the Plan within three months. The Coordinator will also notify all holders of the County AHMP and affected stakeholders when changes have been made. Every five years the updated plan will be submitted to the State of

28 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security‟s Mitigation Program and the Federal Disaster Services Agency for review. Continued Public Involvement Custer County Disaster Services is dedicated to involving the public directly in the review and updates of the Plan. The Coordinator is responsible for the annual review and update of the Plan. The public will also have the opportunity to provide input into Plan revisions and updates. Copies of the Plan will be catalogued and kept at all of the appropriate County departments and outside agencies. The existence and location of these copies will be publicized in the local newspaper following each annual review and update. A public meeting will be held after each annual evaluation or when deemed necessary by the Coordinator. The meetings will provide the public a forum where they can express concerns, opinions, or new alternatives that can then be included in the Plan. The Board of County Commissioners will be responsible for using County resources to publicize the annual public meetings and maintain public involvement

29 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 2 Community Description

Custer County ranks 37th among Idaho counties in population and 3rd in area. It is located in central Idaho and relies on ranching, mining, and tourism as its main economic resources. The County includes most of the Salmon/Challis National Forest and part of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness as well as the famous Salmon River also known as “The River of No Return”. The Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Redfish Lake, the Yankee Fork Gold Dredge, the historic ghost town of Custer, and Borah Peak (the highest point in Idaho at an elevation of 12,662 feet) are all attractions. Incorporated cites include: Challis, Clayton, Mackay and Stanley. Other populated places include: Chilly, Barton Flat, Ellis, Leslie, Obsidian and Sunbeam. Challis is the County seat. Location Custer County is located in central Idaho and includes part of the Salmon/Challis National Forest and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. It is bordered on the north by Lemhi County, on the west by Valley, Boise and Elmore Counties, on the south by Blaine County and on the east Butte County. Portions of the Boise National Forest are located in western Custer County. Topography and Geography Custer County contains 3,189,120 acres or 4,938 square miles. Its landscape consists of arid desert, flat green valleys, and rugged rocky peaks and contains the highest mountain in Idaho, Mount Borah at 12,662 ft in the Lost River Range. The Lost River Mountain Range which includes the Pahsimeroi Mountains is in Eastern Custer County and spans for 75 miles from Challis to Arco and the Snake River Plain in Butte County. To the west of this range are the valleys of the Salmon and the Big Lost Rivers and to the east are the valleys of the Little Lost and Pahsimeroi Rivers. The Donkey Hills are east of the Lost River Range and the Pahsimeroi River. The White Knob Mountains are west of the Lost River Range. The Salmon River Mountains are in Northern Custer County and are encircled by the Salmon River. The peaks range in elevation from 10,313 at Bald Mountain to 9,857 at Mt. Greylock. The Sawtooth Mountain Range is at the western border of Custer County with peaks over 10,000 feet. The Sawtooth Valley lies to the east of these mountains. The White Cloud Peaks, the Boulder Mountains, and the Pioneer Mountains are all along the southern border of the County. Castle Peak in the White Cloud Peaks has an elevation of 11,820. These peaks lie just southeast of the Sawtooth Mountains. The Boulder Mountains are southeast of the White Could Peaks and the two areas together make up a portion of the Sawtooth National Recreation area and the White Cloud/Boulder roadless area. Glaciers carved the peaks and steep canyons in the White Clouds and also left basins with over 100 lakes scattered throughout the range. The Pioneer Mountains lie southeast of the Boulder Mountains. The highest peak in the Pioneers is 12,009 foot Hyndman Peak. There are many other summits well over 11,000

30 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 2.1 Custer County Topography

Figure 2.1 Custer County Topography Map

31 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 feet in elevation. The Pioneer Mountain foothills rise directly out of the vast basalt-covered Snake River Plain to the south. The Pioneers lie between the Big Wood River Valley to their west (Hailey, Ketchum), the headwaters of the Big Lost River on their east, and Summit Creek/Trail Creek on their north. The map is Figure 2.1 illustrates the topography of Custer County. Of the populated areas in Custer County, Challis has the lowest elevation at 5,288 feet, and Obsidian, at 6,620 feet, has the highest elevation. Geology Custer County lies in the heart of Idaho, and contains a diverge geology. The County is mainly rugged mountains, with flat habitable terrine only in the Lost River, Pahsimeroi, Round and Sawtooth Valleys1 The middle of the County is mostly felsic pyroclastic mixed with some carbonate in a portion of the Salmon River Mountains. The Sawtooth Mountains are comprised of calc-alkaline intrusive rock. The Lost River Range and Pahsimeroi Valley in the Eastern Custer County are a mix of Alluvium, felsic pyroclastic, sandstone as well as carbonate. Mixed miogeosynclinal and granite are found in the south and west areas of the County in small segregated sections. Figure 2.2 illustrates the geology of Custer County. Custer County has several hot springs due to the abundant geothermal activity in the area. Custer County has had a great deal of seismic activity and faults are found throughout the County. Climate Custer County has a relatively cool climate with temperatures that can fluctuate daily up to 40 degrees. Challis has a high average maximum daily temperature of 86.6 degrees F which occurs in July and a low average minimum daily temperature of 10.4 F which occurs in January. Average annual precipitation for Challis is 6.93 inches with 16.9 inches of snow annually. The coldest and wettest month in Challis is January; the hottest and driest month is July. Stanley, which sits at 6,260 feet, is the highest incorporated city in Custer County. It has a high average maximum temperature of 84.9 which occurs in July and a low average minimum temperature of 8.3 which occurs in January. Average annual precipitation is 16.20 inches and 78.2 inches of snowfall annually. The coldest month in Stanley is January, the hottest is July, the wettest is June and the driest is February. Table 2.1 shows the average maximum monthly temperatures recorded at Challis, Idaho. Table 2.2 shows the average maximum monthly temperature recorded at Stanley, Idaho.

1 Link, 2002

32 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 2.2 Custer County Geology

33 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Average Maximum Temperature (F) Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual 30.3 37.8 47.4 58.0 67.6 75.7 85.5 83.8 74.0 61.5 43.5 32.1 58.1

Table 2.1 Average Maximum Temperature at Challis, Idaho Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmid.html

Average Maximum Temperature (F) Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual 26.8 33.5 42.5 50.3 60.1 68.7 78.9 78.4 68.6 56.6 38.0 25.8 52.4

Table 2.2 Average Maximum Temperature at Stanley, Idaho Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmid.html

Table 2.3 shows the average minimum temperature recorded at Challis, Idaho. Table 2.4 shows the average minimum temperature recorded at Stanley, Idaho.

Average Minimum Temperature (F) Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual 9.4 15.3 22.9 30.6 38.6 45.4 51.0 48.9 40.8 31.9 21.1 12.0 30.7

Table 2.3 Average Minimum Temperature at Challis, Idaho Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmid.html

Average Minimum Temperature (F) Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual -0.7 0.3 9.8 20.3 28.2 33.8 36.1 33.9 27.1 20.6 12.0 -0.8 18.4

Table 2.4 Average Minimum Temperature at Stanley, Idaho Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmid.html

The map in Figure 2.3 shows the average annual precipitation in Custer County. The area of least rainfall is in the Pahsimeroi, Lost River and Salmon River Valleys.

34 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 2.3 Custer County Precipitation Map

35 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Land Ownership There are 3,152,384 land acres in Custer County. The Federal government owns 93% of those acres (see Figure 2.4). The USFS owns 2,123,710 acres and the BLM owns 813,965. State land makes up only 1.7% of the County‟s acres. There are 52,626 Endowment land acres, 1,253 Fish and Game acres and 22 Park and Recreation acres. City and County lands make up less than 1% of the land. County lands make up 2,300 acres and City lands only 5 acres. Figure 2.4 Land Ownership in Custer County Private land is 5% of the total at 158,503 acres. The map in Figure 2.5 shows the distribution of land ownership in Custer County. Most of the Forest Service land is located in the south and west areas of the County. The Bureau of Land Management has most of its land in the Pahsimeroi, Little Lost River, the Salmon, and Big Lost River Valleys. State of Idaho Lands is scattered throughout BLM land. Private land is concentrated around each Land Use Type in Custer County town and along major roadways. Acres Percent of Total Land Use and Natural Urban 5 0.0% Resources Agricultural 116,600 3.7% Rangeland and Forest make Rangeland 1,455,700 46.0% up most of the land use type Forest 1,473,800 46.6% in Custer County. Table 2.5 Water 4,500 0.1% below outlines the land use 111,000 3.5% type in Custer County. Wetland Rangeland makes up 46% and Forest makes up 46.6%. Table 2.5 Land Use Type in Custer County Agricultural is third, but only Source: Idaho Department of Labor makes up 3.7% of the total acres. Water and wetland together make up 3.6% of total acres. Ranching, mining and tourism are Custer County‟s main resources. Rangeland and agriculture together make up the biggest land use in Custer County. Between 1987 and 1997 total number of farms increased by 7 (261 to 268) and total acres in farms increased by more than 10,000 acres to a total of 147,913 acres in farms. However, total farms in crops did not increase nor decrease and total acres in crops decreased by 556 acres to

36 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 2.5 Custer County Landownership Map

37 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 67,915 acres in crops (61,933 of which are irrigated acres). In 1997 the average farm consisted of 552 acres. During the same time period cattle and calve inventory increased from 39,959 to 42,004. Mining is an important natural resource for Custer County and has traditionally been the base for Custer County‟s economy. There are 841 mines and prospects listed with the Idaho Geological Survey Mines and Prospects Database. Currently there are no active underground mines. There are four active surface mines including: Thompson Creek Molybdenum Mine, Three Rives Stone Quarry, Bayhorse Quarries and Persistence Zeolite Mine. There is on-going exploration at the IMA mine by Gentor Resources and in the Stanley Basin Creek Uranium District by Magnum Minerals. Silver, Molybdenum and Copper have all been mined in Custer County. Tourism is also an important resource and a growing land use in Custer County. History Established January 8, 1881 with its county seat at Challis, Custer County was named for the General Custer mine, which was named in honor of General George Custer who died at the Battle of Little Bighorn. The County was created from Alturas and Lemhi Counties. Its history begins with fur traders and pathfinders as early as 1824; later in the 1860s and 1870s prospectors and miners came. The late 1800‟s saw a flurry of mining in the vicinity of the White Knob Mountains. Early mining settlements in the area were Cliff City, Alder and later White Knob. The settlement of White Knob and Mackay both coincided with the coming of the Oregon Short Line railroad from Blackfoot in 1901. The rail ran from Blackfoot all the way to the mines in Mackay (IMNH, 2007). The White Knob Mine was opened in 1878 by a B.F. Brown and a Mr. Custer. John W. Mackay, one of the big four of Comstock fame, purchased the mine from Custer and Brown for a New York Company. Supplies were purchased in Corrine, Utah and freighted through Malad, Fort Hall and Eagle Rock (now Idaho Falls), to Birch Creek and then into the Lost River Valley. Houston was the name of a stage stop along this route and was an enterprising four-block metropolis until the railroad arrived at Mackay in September of 1901. Not long after that, the buildings were moved to present day Mackay. Mackay was named for Clarence Mackay, a postal telegraph operator and stockholder in the White Knob Mine. The town site was surveyed in 1899 and lots were sold in 19002. A.P. Challis, an Englishman, founded the town of Challis in 1876 and furnished miners with supplies. George L. Shoup had a store in Challis as well as one in Salmon. Custer was laid out in 1878 and a road was completed from Challis to Custer in 18803. The first white man in the Stanley Basin and Sawtooth Valley was Alexander Ross, a 28 year old Scot who worked with John Jacob Astor‟s Pacific Fur Company. In the spring

2 Idaho Poets and Writer Guild, 1968 3 Idaho Poets and Writers Guild

38 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 2.6 Idaho Geological Survey Mining Claims

39 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 of 1824, with a mixed party of Indians and Canadians, he traveled over Lost Trail Pass into Idaho where Salmon is now located. He named the junction of the Lemhi and Salmon Rivers “Canoe Point”. From there he went on to explore the Lost River Drainage working his way toward Big Wood River area. Near the headwaters of the Big Wood River, he was awed by the Sawtooth Mountains and made his way over Galena Summit (which he called Simpson Mountain) on September 18, 1824 and entered the Sawtooth Valley. In the 1870‟s gold was found on the Yankee Fork, just downstream from the Basin rim. However, migration into the area was slow until a toll road was built from Challis into the areas of Bonanza City and Custer on the Yankee Fork. Now people were coming from Galena Summit as well as from the Yankee Fork area into the Sawtooth Valley. By 1882, the mining camp of Vienna on Smiley Creek at the foot of the Sawtooth Mountains had grown to a population of 800 persons. The camp boasted three general stores, two meat markets, livery and feed stable, restaurants, laundries, and five saloons. That year the town was awarded a post office with William Caston as postmaster. Sawtooth City in Beaver Canyon was also an early mining camp with a population of 600 in 1882. The town boasted stores, restaurants, laundry, blacksmith, livery stable, tailor shop and several others. It was awarded a post office in 1882 with George Belden as post master. Mining in this area began to decline shortly after. The winter of 1885 turned extremely bitter cold and stayed there for days on end; roads remained closed well into July. Supplies ran short and both mining towns suffered. Slumps in the Silver market caused closure of the mills making ghost towns of Vienna and Sawtooth City. The Stanley Basin also had mining prospects during this time, but most only stayed there during the summer months. In the 1880‟s the mining communities of Seafoam and Greyhound were established. In 1890, the town of Stanley was established. The miners packed their ore to Stanley where it was picked up by wagons going over Galena Summit to the smelter in Ketchum. Stanley also provided supplies to the miners in Greyhound and Seafoam as well as several other mining camps that sprang up throughout the region4. See the present day mines in Custer County on Figure 2.7. In 1906, the Custer, Sawtooth and Salmon River Reserves of the National Forest were created. The first ranger station in the Stanley Basin was built on Valley Creek and in the Sawtooth Valley it was the Pole Creek Ranger Station. Many residents of the Stanley Basin and Sawtooth Valley worked for the Forest Service. In the early 1960‟s a visitor‟s center was built on Red Fish Lake and in 1972, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area was created5.

4 Yarber, 1976 5 Yarber, 1976

40 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 2.7 Mines in Custer County

41 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Demographics The population in Custer County in 2006 was 4,180 with .9 persons per square mile. From 1970 to 2004 population grew by 1,188 people, a 40% increase in population. At an annual rate, this represents an increase of 0.9%6. The early 1980‟s saw the most rapid growth with a peak of 5,522 people in 1983 after which it declined until the early 1990‟s and has fluctuated slightly since then. The chart in Figure 2.8 shows the population growth for Custer County between 1970 and 2005. According to the 2000 census, the expected growth rate is a -2%, however, this does not take into account the increased seasonal usage of the public land in Custer County or the increased summer home construction underway within the Stanley Basin Figure 2.8 and Sawtooth Valley. Population growth for Custer County Source: http://www.bea.gov

1990 2000 2005 Percent change Percent change 1990-2000 200-2005 County 4,133 4,342 4,077 5.1% (6.1)% Challis 1,073 909 844 (15.3)% (7.2)% Clayton 26 27 26 3.8% (3.8)% Mackay 574 566 529 (1.4)% (6.5)% Stanley 71 100 96 40.9% (4.0)% Rest of County 2,389 2,740 2,582 14.7% (5.8)%

Table 2.6 Population Trends for Custer County Source: Idaho Dept of Commerce and Labor

Table 2.6 below shows the population trends for the County and as well as each incorporated area in the County. Between 1990 and 2000, Custer County grew at 5.1%. Challis saw the most negative growth at -15.3% while Stanley saw the most positive growth at 40.9%. Other areas that grew were Clayton and unincorporated Custer County (shown as “Rest of County”). Between 2000 and 2005 the County saw a negative growth of -6.1%. The area with the most negative growth was Challis. All other areas had a negative growth as well.

6 .Rasker et al, 2006

42 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Table 2.7 shows the racial and ethnic distribution for Custer County in 2005. The majority of the population is White and not of Hispanic origin.

Racial and Ethnic Distribution for Custer County White persons 98.7% Black persons 0.0% American Indian and Alaska Native 0.7% Asian persons 0.0% Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander 0.0% Persons reporting 2 or more races 0.6% Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin 5.3% White persons, not Hispanic 93.6%

Table 2.7 Racial and Ethnic Distribution for Custer County Source: US Census Bureau

The population is aging. In 1990 the median age was 34.7 and by 2000 and risen to 41.27 . The chart in Figure 2.9 shows the age distribution for Custer County and how that has changed between 1980 and 2000. The “under 18” group has declined while the “18-64” group and “65 and over” group have both increased.

Total housing units in Figure 2.9 2000 were 2,983. Of that Age Distribution for Custer County number, 40.7% were Source: Idaho Department of Labor vacant, 27.6 % were mobile homes and 4.7% were multi-unit structures. Of the unoccupied housing units, 747 of them are designated as seasonal or for recreation use. Of the 1,770 occupied units, 75% were owner occupied and 25% were renter occupied. There were 1,770 households with 2.41persons per household which has declined in the past few decades. Only 59 housing units were added between 2000 and 20058. The housing stock is aging. Of the 3,042 housing units in 2005, 55.9% were built before 1980 and 32% were built before 1970.

7 Commerce and Labor, 2007 8 Commerce and Labor, 2007; US Census, 2007

43 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Economic Profile The economy of Custer County has traditionally been dependent on mining. Although Hecla Mining closed, Thompson Creek Mining, considered one of the largest employers in the County, is booming. The County has been concentrating on developing economic diversity by attracting new businesses and working with existing business to slow down future decline. Job growth in Custer County has fluctuated since 1980, but ultimately increased by 923 jobs by 2004. The chart in figure shows job growth between1980 and 2004. The early 1980‟s shows a spike in number of jobs and then a decline which roughly follows the population trends for that decade (see Figure 2.10). Over the last 34 years job growth in Custer County has been slower than the state and faster than the nation9. Average wage per job in Custer County has steadily increased. The chart in Figure 2.10 below shows the growth in average wage per job between 1980 and 2004. In unadjusted dollars, average wage per job Figure 2.10 has tripled. However, Job Growth for Custer County when Rasker et al. Source http://www.bea.gov (2006) adjusted for inflation they found that average wage per job had actually fallen from $25,341 in 1970 to $25,198 in 2004.

9 Rasker et al, 2006

44 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 2.11 Average wage per job for Custer County Source: http://www.bea.gov

In 2004, Average earnings per job in Custer County ($25,198) were lower than the state ($33,810) and the nation ($44,503)10.

Custer County recorded a higher unemployment rate than either the state or the nation throughout the decade until the past three years when it began to follow the national rate. The unemployment rate is the lowest it‟s been for the whole decade. The civilian labor force decreased between 1995 and 1999 before increasing by 700 workers during 2000 and 2001; however in 2002 the labor force lost 400 workers and has tried to recover since then. From 2002 and 2005, the labor force increased by 340. The County‟s labor force and unemployment rate has been affected by forest fires and mine closures throughout the decade. The chart in Figure 2.12 shows the unemployment rate between Figure 2.12 Unemployment rate in Custer County 1995 and 2005. Source: Idaho Dept of Labor

10 Rasker et al., 2006

45 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 The graph in Figure 2.13 show how different industries contribute to the economy and how that has changed in the last decade. In 1995, government was the largest contributor of employment with mining close behind. The trade, utilities and transportation industries along with leisure and hospitality industries were also major contributors to employment. However, average wages were spread more evenly among the different industries. Mining and construction had the largest

Figure 2.13 Average Wages and employment for 1995 and 2005 Source: Idaho Department of Labor average wage. Government only contributed 8% of the total of average wages. In 2005, government contributed only slightly more of the total employment and average wage than in 1995. However, mining has a lesser share of employment, but a much larger share of average wages. Information also grew in average wage in 2005. In 2004 Custer had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of $23,757. This PCPI ranked 21st in the State and was 88 percent of the State average, $26,877, and 72 percent of the national average, $33,050. In 1994 the PCPI of Custer was $18,213 and ranked 10th in the state. The 1994-2004 average annual growth rate of PCPI was 2.7 percent. The average annual growth rate for the state was 3.7 percent and for the nation was 4.1 percent11. The chart in Figure 2.14 shows the growth in PCPI between 1980 and 2004.

11 http://www.bea.gov

46 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 In 2004 Custer had a total personal income (TPI) of $97,830,000. This TPI ranked 38th in the state and accounted for 0.3 percent of the state total. In 1994 the TPI of Custer was $74,072,000 and ranked 36th in the state. The 1994-2004 average annual growth rate of TPI was 2.8 percent. The average annual growth rate for the state was 5.8 percent and for the nation was 5.2 percent12. The chart in Figure 2.15 shows the growth in personal income between 1980 and 2004.

A portion of TPI is non-labor income. Non-labor income is made up of income from sources other than salary or wages. In 2004, 47.6% of total personal income was from non-labor Figure 2.14 sources. The largest components Per Capita Personal Income Growth for Custer County Source: http://www.bea.gov of Non-Labor Income in Custer County are from Dividends, Interest & Rent13. In 2003, 12% of the population was living below poverty14. Another measure of poverty is Food Stamp and Medicaid cases. In 1992 there were 54 Food Stamp cases and 153 Medicaid cases, in 2001 Food Stamp cases had decreased to 41 and Medicaid cases had increased to 217. Median housing value in 1990 was $49,800 and rose to $90,400 in 2000. Median rent was $219 in 1990 and rose 15 Figure 2.15 to $378 in 2000 . Total Personal Income for Custer County Source: http://www.bea.gov

12 http://www.bea.gov 13 Rasker et al., 2006 14 US Census, 2007 15 Idaho Commerce and Labor, 2007

47 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Section 3 Public Participation

Public Involvement Public Involvement in the All Hazard Mitigation Process is used for three distinct reasons. The first is risk perception. Risk perception is used to develop a subjective measure of how the public believes the risks impact their community. The second is development of the requirements for risk reduction projects. The third is to solicit support to the elected and appointed officials as they seek to implement the mitigation actions identified in the AHMP. Risk Perception: Risk perception is the subjective judgment that people make about the characteristics and severity of a risk. The phrase is most commonly used in reference to natural hazards and threats to the environment or health, such as nuclear power. Several theories have been proposed to explain why different people make different estimates of the dangerousness of risks. Risk Perception is a significant part of the Public Involvement Section of the Custer County All Hazard Mitigation Planning Process. Two distinct tools were used to gather public input and to measure, at least subjectively, the public attitudes towards the risk posed by the hazards in Custer County. Committee Perception Tool Members of the All Hazard Mitigation Committee in reality play two important roles; first they represent the agency from which their What is the probability (%) that What would be the impact or assignment was the hazard event will occur in the County Consequence if the hazard event did in the next ten years? Occur? derived. That (Mark 1 for each hazard) (Mark 1 for each hazard) representation brings with it certain roles, ensuring the interests of the agency are expressed and included in the planning process, acting as a subject matter expert on issues and matters managed by the agency, and in identifying methods to reduce or mitigate the risk. Second, each individual on the committee brings to the table certain expertise, but also certain attitudes, knowledge, and bias. These attributes, brought into the process also qualifies them as excellent “expressers” of public perception.

48 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 A Risk Perception Tool was used in the first three committee meetings to measure their perceptions, as individuals, of the hazards posed and their perception of the severity of the impact from those hazards upon their personal life situations. An example of the Perception Tool is illustrated above. The results from the three applications of this tool are in Attachment 1 Meeting Minutes. The Committee‟s perceptions of the hazards were expressed as follows:

The Committee also experienced some change in the perception relative to how the hazards would impact the community. Note that none of the perceived hazards are listed as the top five based on the levels of impact. The Committee‟s results were expressed as follows:

Probability of Occurrence in Level of Impact if Event Occurred Hazard Type Next 10 Years By Percentage Low Medium – High Biological Low-Medium Medium – High Dam Failure High Medium – High Droughts High Medium Earthquakes Medium Low – Medium Extreme Heat High Medium – High Fire (Structure) Medium Medium Floods Medium Medium Hazardous Materials Events Medium – High Low – Medium Landslides/Mudslides Low Low Nuclear Accidents Low Low – Medium Rioting or Large Demonstrations High Medium Severe Winter storm High Medium Snow Avalanches Low Medium Terrorism Thunderstorms, Hailstorms, High Medium – High Lightening, High winds, Tornadoes Low Low – Medium Volcanoes High Medium - High Wildland Fires

49 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Probability of Occurrence 1. Wildfire 2. Thunderstorms, Hailstorms, Lightning, High Winds, Tornado 3. Drought 4. Snow Avalanche 5. Severe Winter Storm Level of Impact 1. Dam Failure 2. Biological 3. Thunderstorms, Hailstorms, Lightning, High Winds, Tornado 4. Extreme Heat 5. Drought The Committee ranked the impacts of Wildfire the highest (1st) from a probability of occurring and 7th in the level of impact.

50 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Public Questionnaire

A public questionnaire was provided to one hundred (100) residents of the County. Of the one hundred mailed, thirty-one (31) were returned for a return rate of thirty-one percent (31%). The key result from the survey was the perception of the public and their ranking of the five highest hazard facing Custer County. The complete text of the questionnaire and the results are provided in Attachment 2.

Please select the five highest hazards facing your neighborhood?

The results from this survey listed the five highest hazards facing the community as: 1. Wildland Fires 2. Earthquake 3. Structural Fires 4. Drought 5. Blizzards

51 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Public Meetings

Whisper Mountain Custer County Commissioners hosted a local community hazard Professional Services, Inc mitigation workshop on April 17, 2008 at 6:00 pm at the City of Challis‟s Council Chambers. The workshops were the culminating Custer County Holds event of the County‟s Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Planning Local Community Project which began in the fall of 2006. Invited to the workshop Hazard Mitigation included the Commissioners, Mayors and City Council members from Workshop all the incorporated cities. The public was also invited as were members of the City and County Planning and Zoning and Public Works Departments. Press Release Whisper Mountain Professional Services, Inc., the County‟s Disaster The Custer County Commissioners will Services Consultant, facilitated the workshop. Whisper Mountain be hosting a local community hazard mitigation workshop on April 17, 2008 presented the hazard profiles completed for the County along with at 6:00 pm at the City of Challis potential impacts to County, city, and private property. Each Council Chambers. The workshop, as jurisdiction was then asked to identify goals and objectives to lessen scheduled, will be the culminating event of the County‟s Multi-jurisdiction impacts on the community from the risks posed by the hazards. All Hazard Mitigation Planning Project Participants were reminded that the overall goal of hazard mitigation is which began in the fall of 2006. to save lives and reduce property damage. Hazards identified in the Expected attendees at the workshop include the commissioners, City County, such as earthquake, flood, and wildfire were examined and Council members from Challis, goals established that, when implemented, will reduce the risk to the Mackay, Clayton, and Stanley, the Custer County communities. Mayors of all of these Cities, , and representatives from County and City Planning and Zoning, Road & Bridge, A draft of the Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Highway Districts, Public Works, and Plan was posted on the Whisper Mountain website at Community Development departments. The public is also invited to attend. http://www.whispermountain.net/CusterCountyAHMPDraft.pdf for community review. Comments were provided and incorporated. Whisper Mountain Professional Services, Inc., the County‟s Disaster Services Consultant, will be facilitating the workshop. Whisper Mountain will present the hazard profiles completed for the County along with potential impacts to county, city, and private property. Each jurisdiction will then be requested to identify goals and objectives to lessen impacts on the community from the risks posed by the hazards. The overall goal of hazard mitigation is to save lives and reduce property damage. Hazards identified in the County, such as earthquake, flood, and wildfire will be examined and goals established which when implemented will reduce the risk to the greater Custer County communities.

A draft of the Custer County Multi- jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan can be found on the Whisper Mountain website at: http://www.whispermountain.net/Custer CountyAHMPDraft.pdf. 52

Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This Page Intentionally Blank

53 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 4 Risk Assessment

Hazard Definitions Hazards that pose a threat to human life, health, and well-being are myriad and no attempt is made here to compile an exhaustive list. Those that are addressed in disaster planning are generally categorized as “natural” or “technological” (sometimes “manmade”). The FEMA website16 contains a thorough discussion of hazards in the section entitled “FEMA's Multi- Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (MHIRA)”. Some hazards are a threat to all geographic areas while others (e.g. Tsunami in coastal regions) are more limited in their extent. Studies were conducted to determine which hazards are of concern in Custer County. Hazards that have been identified as significant in this County and that will be considered in this plan are Natural Hazards Weather: Drought Extreme Heat Extreme Cold Severe Winter Storm Lightning Hail Tornado Straight Line Wind Flooding Flash Flooding River Flooding Dam Failure Geologic: Earthquake Landslide/Mudslide Snow Avalanche Other: Wildfire Noxious Weeds Wildlife Biological Epidemic/Pandemic Bird Flu SRS West Nile Technological (Manmade) Hazards Structural Fire Nuclear Event Hazardous Material Event Riot/Demonstration/Civil Disorder Terrorism

16 http://www.fema.gov/index.shtm

54 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 4.1 Weather Hazards

The impact of weather hazards may be widespread (drought) or more localized (lightning) but all have the potential to be severe and directly life-threatening. Historical weather data is generally available in good detail over long time periods, allowing for reasonably accurate risk assessment for planning purposes. What effect the current trend toward global warming may have on the predictive value of these records is not known but should be considered. Drought Description Drought is an expected phase in the climactic cycle of almost any geographical region. Certainly that is the case in the State of Idaho. Objective, quantitative definitions for drought exist but most authorities agree that, because of the many factors contributing to it and because its onset and relief are slow and indistinct, none is entirely satisfactory. According to the National Drought Mitigation Center, drought “originates from a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or more. This deficiency results in a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental sector.” What is clear is that a condition perceived as “drought” in a given location is the result of a significant decrease in water supply relative to what is “normal” in that area. It should be noted that water supply is not only controlled by precipitation (amount, frequency, and intensity), but also by other factors including evaporation (which is increased by higher than normal heat and winds), transpiration, and human use. According to the NOAA National Climactic Data Center, much of the State of Idaho most recently experienced moderate to extreme drought conditions from the years 2000 through 2005. Drought Emergency Declarations were issued for various counties by the Idaho Department of Water Resources in the years 2002 through 2005. Idaho‟s only Federal Drought Emergency Declaration was issued in 1977.

Figure 4.1.1 illustrates the precipitation conditions for Custer County using the Palmer Modified Drought Index. The data depicted is from the National Weather Service (NWS) and covers the years 1970 to the present. The Figure 4.1.1 Palmer Modified Palmer Modified Drought Index Drought Index

55 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 (PMDI) is a means of quantifying drought in terms of moisture demands versus moisture supply. Moisture demands include plant requirements and water needed for recharge of soil moisture supplies. An allowance is also included for runoff amounts necessary for recharging both ground water and surface water supplies such as rivers, lakes, aquifers and reservoirs. The PMDI balances the moisture demands against the moisture supply available.

The PMDI expresses this comparison of moisture demand to moisture supply on a numerical scale that usually ranges from positive six to negative six. Positive values reflect excess moisture supplies while negative values indicate moisture demands in excess of supplies.

Approximate Cumulative Category PDMI Range Frequency % > 96 Extreme Wetness > 3.50 90-95 Severe Wetness 2.50 – 3.49 73 – 89 Mild to Moderate Wetness 1.00 – 2.49 28 – 72 Near Normal -1.24 - .099 11 -27 Mild to Moderate Drought -1.25 - -1.99 5 – 10 Severe Drought -2.00 – 2.74 1 – < 4 Extreme Drought < -2.75

Historical Frequencies The Idaho Department of Water Resources reports that meteorological drought conditions (a period of low precipitation) existed in the state approximately 30% of the time during the period 1931-1982. Principal drought in Idaho, indicated by stream flow records, occurred during 1929- 41, 1944-45, 1959-61, 1977, and 1987-92. The most prolonged drought in Idaho was during the 1930s. For most of the state, that drought lasted for 11 years (1929-41) despite greater than average stream flows in 1932 and 1938. In 1977, the worst single year on record, a severe water shortage occurred throughout Idaho and the West. Stream flows were below normal from 1979 to 1981. A Federal Declaration was issued in 1977 for the State of Idaho and counties neighboring Custer County (Idaho State Hazard Mitigation Plan 200417. According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) National Climactic Data Center, much of the State of Idaho most recently experienced moderate to extreme drought conditions from the years 2000 through 2005. Seventy-four Drought Emergency Declarations were issued for various counties by the Idaho Department of Water Resources in the years 2002 through 2005. And while no declarations were issued in 2006, as of October, 2007, drought emergency declarations have been issued for twenty-one Idaho counties. Drought Emergency Declarations were issued for Custer County in the following years:

o 2001 o 2002 o 2004 o 2005 o 2007

17 http://www.bhs.idaho.gov/bhslibrary/SHMP2004.pdf

56 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Impacts Drought is agriculture‟s most expensive, frequent, and widespread form of natural disaster. The current drought in the interior West is part of a multi-year drought that began in 1999, worsened in 2000, and has continued, with some interruptions thus far into 2004. As a result, the drought in the West was slow to develop, and likewise, will be slow to recede. 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 our ability to produce goods and provide services. Impacts are commonly referred to as direct or indirect. Reduced crop, rangeland, and forest productivity; increased fire hazard; reduced water levels; increased livestock and wildlife mortality rates; and damage to wildlife and fish habitat are a few examples of direct impacts. The consequences of these impacts illustrate indirect impacts. For example, a reduction in crop, rangeland, and forest productivity may result in reduced income for farmers and agribusiness, increased prices for food and timber, unemployment, reduced tax revenues because of reduced expenditures, increased crime, foreclosures on bank loans to farmers and businesses, migration, and disaster relief programs. Direct or primary impacts are usually biophysical. Conceptually speaking, the more removed the impact from the cause, the more complex the link to the cause. In fact, the web of impacts becomes so diffuse that it is very difficult to come up with financial estimates of damages. The impacts of drought can be categorized as economic, environmental, or social. Many economic impacts occur in agricultural and related sectors because of the reliance of these sectors on surface and subsurface water supplies. In addition to obvious losses in yields in crop and livestock production, drought is associated with increases in insect infestations, plant disease, and wind erosion. Droughts also bring increased problems with insects and diseases to forests and reduce growth. The incidence of forest and range fires increases substantially during extended droughts, which in turn places both human and wildlife populations at higher levels of risk. Loss Estimates Income loss is another indicator used in assessing the impacts of drought because so many sectors are affected. Reduced income for farmers has a ripple effect. Retailers and others who provide goods and services to farmers face reduced business. This leads to unemployment, increased credit risk for financial institutions, capital shortfalls, and loss of tax revenue for local, State, and Federal government. Less discretionary income affects the recreation and tourism industries. Prices for food, energy, and other products increase as supplies are reduced. In some cases, local shortages of certain goods result in the need to import these goods from outside the stricken region. Reduced water supply impairs the navigability of rivers and affects the outfitter and river guide industry in Custer County. Hydropower production may also be curtailed significantly.

57 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 The figures below show net farm income for Custer County including Corporate Farms. It illustrates a drop in income in the late 1970‟s when a drought hit Idaho and again in the early to late 1980‟s during a 6 year drought. More recently there was a significant drop in income just

Figure 4.1.2 Figure 4.1.3 Total Net Farm Proprietors‟ Income Total Net Farm Income Including Corporate Farms Source: http://www.bea.gov Source: http://www.bea.gov following 1999 and 2000 when Custer County experienced a serious of drought declarations. See Figure 4.1.1 for the agricultural lands affected by Drought in Custer County.

Hazard Evaluation Drought risk is based on a combination of the frequency, severity, and spatial extent of the drought (the physical nature of drought) and the degree to which a population or activity is vulnerable to the effects of drought. The degree of a region‟s vulnerability depends on the environmental and social characteristics of the region and is measured by their ability to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from drought. Society‟s vulnerability to drought is determined by a wide range of factors, both physical and social, such as demographic trends and geographic characteristics. Repetitive Loss – Repetitive Losses from drought in Custer are common. The losses not only are linked to loss of crop production but also include the loss of grazing capacity on Public Lands.

58 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Drought has a magnitude score of 13. Frequency Ranking Description HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened By its nature, drought develops slowly (Warning Lead Times = 1), and affects wide geographical areas (Geography Affected = 4) but is the direct cause of little or no death or injury (Bodily Harm = 1). Because agriculture is a large component of Custer County‟s economy economic loss could be sustained (Economic Loss = 2). In practice, drought recovery is generally managed at the State level (Reconstruction Assistance = 4). There is no need for sheltering or relocation of individuals (Sheltering = 1). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, thirteen (13) which, for Custer County, is in the “Medium” range. Historical records for drought are available and reliable, indicating that drought occurs in the five to twenty-five year range in Custer County (Frequency = Medium).

59 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Figure 4.1.4 Custer County Agricultural Lands

60 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Extreme Heat Description The term “extreme heat,” sometimes called “heat wave,” is to some extent a relative one describing a period when weather conditions include temperatures and humidity significantly higher than those usual for a particular geographic area. The National Weather Service (NWS) issues alerts to the public based on its Heat Index which takes both temperature and humidity into account (see Figure 4.1.5). The NWS will initiate alert procedures when the HI is expected to exceed 105°- 110°F (depending on local climate) for at least two consecutive days. The effects NOAA's National Weather Service Heat Index

Figure 4.1.5 - National Weather Service Heat Index Chart (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/heat/index.shtml) of extreme heat are often exacerbated in large urban areas due to the heat island effect and because stagnant atmospheric conditions may trap pollutants. Extreme heat conditions are not common to Idaho where, in general, humidity is low and weather patterns variable. Historical Extreme Heat Events There have been no recorded extreme heat events in Custer County.

61 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Figure 4.1.6 illustrates the maximum temperatures recorded at Challis, Idaho. In July and August the temperature has reached as high as 103 degrees F in Challis, 96 degrees F in Mackay, and 98 degrees F in Stanley.

Figure 4.1.6 Extreme Maximum and Minimum Temperatures for Challis Idaho Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmid.html

Impacts The primary impact of extreme heat is on human health causing such disorders as sunstroke, heat exhaustion, and heat cramps. Particularly susceptible are the elderly, small children, and persons with chronic illnesses. There are also undoubtedly indirect and chronic health effects from extreme heat the magnitude of which are difficult or impossible to estimate. Environmental effects can include loss of wildlife and vegetation and increased probability of wildfires. Loss Estimates Extreme heat places high demands on electrical power supplies that can lead to blackouts or brownouts. Economic impacts result from such factors as increased energy prices, loss of business as people avoid leaving their homes to avoid the heat, and agricultural losses. The magnitude of these and other, more indirect impacts is, again, difficult to assess but for severe heat waves have been estimated to be in the billions to hundreds of billions of dollars.

62 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Extreme Heat has a magnitude score of 11. Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale Frequency Ranking Description Warning times for extreme heat are subject to HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years the limitations of short-term weather MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years forecasting (Warning Lead Times = 2). The LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened geographical areas affected are somewhat limited (Geography Affected = 4) and while injuries may occur, deaths are not expected in Custer County (Bodily Harm = 1). Because the duration of extreme heat events is usually only a few days, agriculture is seldom significantly affected and economic loss is usually small (Economic Loss = 1). Because extreme heat usually affects a few, scattered individuals, assistance is seldom required or available from governmental entities however, relocation of individuals who are affected by the heat may be required (Reconstruction Assistance = 1, Sheltering = 2). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, eleven (11) which, for Custer County, is in the “Low” range. Historical records for extreme heat are available and reliable, indicating that no extreme heat event has occurred in Custer County (Frequency = Low).

63 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Extreme Cold Description “Extreme cold” is another of the terms describing hazards that must be defined relative to what is considered normal in a given locale. What might be considered extreme cold varies considerably in the State of Idaho where normal winter temperatures in the southwest are appreciably more moderate than those in the northwest and far north. Very cold temperatures become a particular hazard when accompanied by winds of 10 mph or greater. The NWS has developed a formula for calculating “wind chill” based on temperature and wind speed (see Figure 4.1.3) and in this region issues wind chill advisories when the wind chill temperature are predicted to be -10oF or less with winds of 10 mph or higher for one hour or more. Wind chill warnings are issued when wind chill temperature will be -20oF or less with winds of 10 mph or higher for one hour or more. As with extreme heat, extreme cold is of greatest concern when the condition persists for an extended period of time.

Figure 4.1.7 National Weather Service Windchill Chart http://www.weather.gov/om/windchill/index.shtml

64 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Historical Extreme Cold Events Figure 4.1.6 shows the extreme minimum temperature for Stanley, Idaho. The record low temperature for Stanley is -54 degrees F, in Mackay -31 degrees F, and in Challis – 34 degrees F.

Figure 4.1.8 Extreme Maximum and Minimum Temperatures for Stanley, Idaho Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmid.html

Impacts Health effects of exposure to extreme cold include hypothermia and frostbite, both of which can be life-threatening. Infants and the elderly are most susceptible. In the United States, nearly 700 deaths are directly attributed to hypothermia annually. Loss Estimates Extreme cold may cause loss of wildlife and vegetation and kill livestock and other domestic animals. Economic loss may result from flooding due to burst pipes, large demands on energy resources, and diminished business activity. River flooding may take place as a result of the formation of ice jams.

65 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Hazard Evaluation Extreme Cold is the most serious hazard facing Custer County. Extreme Cold, coupled with either a severe straight line wind or winter storm event, occurs frequently in the County. Extreme cold affects the individual, families, cities, and the County. Economic impacts are difficult to estimate however, the economy comes to a standstill during extreme cold events. Damage typically occurs to individual properties; however, city water systems are usually vulnerable to extreme cold. Repairs to water line freeze ups and breaks typically require the roadways to be excavated necessitating additional maintenance and repairs during the warmer months. Extreme Cold can cause death and injury especially to those working or stranded outside for prolonged periods. Economic loss is related to private individuals, businesses, and government agencies in heating of homes and facilities. Additional losses can be expected to the livestock industry. During extreme cold periods the schools are closed to protect children traveling to and from school. During the spring, summer and fall, temperatures can drop low enough to produce frost. While such temperatures are not low enough to damage infrastructure or require extra heating costs, it can be devastating to crops. Figure 4.1.8 shows extreme minimum temperatures recorded at Stanley, Idaho. Extreme minimum temperatures can fall below freezing much of the spring, summer and fall. Warning lead times in Custer County usually are a day or two based on forecasts made by the National Weather Service in Pocatello. Repetitive Loss – Extreme Cold causes some repetitive loss in Custer County especially linked to ice jam flooding on the Salmon River. Other issues related to extreme cold are the loss of power throughout the County. Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

66 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Extreme Cold has a magnitude score of 20. Frequency Ranking Description Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Warning times for extreme cold are subject to LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened the limitations of short-range weather forecasting (Warning Lead Times = 2). The geographical areas affected is usually the entire County (Geography Affected = 8). Because very cold weather is common during the winter in Custer County, citizens are prepared however, there is a potential for injuries and deaths of visitors due to extreme cold are improbable (Bodily Harm = 2). The duration of extreme cold events is generally a few days, but the County reports that coupled with other severe weather events the economic effect could be devastating. (Economic Loss = 4). The extent and severity of extreme cold is generally quite limited, but may require some relocation or sheltering from outside the County (Sheltering = 4). Damage due to extreme cold is typically by the community at large. (Reconstruction Assistance = 2). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, twenty (20) which, for Custer County, is in the “High” range. Historical records for extreme cold are available and reliable, and indicate that extreme cold events have occur frequently in Custer County (Frequency = High). Winter Storms Description The NWS describes “Winter Storm” as weather conditions that produce heavy snow or significant ice accumulations. For purposes of this analysis Severe Winter Storm is defined as any winter condition where the potential exists for a blizzard (winds >= 35mph and falling/drifting snow frequently reduce visibility < ¼ mile, for 2 hrs or more) heavy snowfall (valleys 6 inches or more snowfall in 24 hrs mountains 9 inches or more snowfall in 24 hrs), ice storm, and/or strong winds. Historical Frequencies The following tables list heavy snow events (6 inches or more in a 24 hour period) for two weather stations in Custer County; one at Challis and one at Stanley

Heavy Snowfall at Challis, Idaho Date Snowfall (inches)

January 20, 1962 7 January 24, 1965 7 April 1, 1963 8.5 November 8, 1985 11 November 21, 1946 7 December 26, 1971 7

Table 4.1.8 Heavy Snowfall Events at Challis, Idaho Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsid.html

67 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Heavy Snowfall at Stanley, Idaho Date Snowfall Date Snowfall (inches) (inches) March 12, 1964 10 March 31, 1989 6 November 26, 1964 10 March 3, 1991 6 December 26, 1964 7 January 22, 1993 14 December 5, 1968 6 February 10, 1993 12 January 17, 1970 6 February 21, 1993 9 January 23, 1972 10 January 11, 1998 13 March 17, 1973 7 January 13, 1998 6 October 30, 1977 7 November 21, 1998 6 January 9, 1980 14 November 22, 1998 6 April 9, 1980 8 January 16, 1999 7 November 16, 1981 8 January 12, 2000 12 April 1, 1982 8 February 24, 2000 6 April 3, 1982 7 December 3, 2001 13.4 April 15, 1982 6 December 6, 2001 10 November 28, 1982 10 December 14, 2001 11 December 23, 1982 6 January 21, 2002 8 February 9, 1983 8 January 27, 2002 8 November 20, 1983 7 December 25, 2003 6 December 30, 1983 8 December 28, 2003 10 November 29, 1984 7 December 29, 2003 10 February 8, 1985 10 January 31, 2004 6.5 February 13, 1986 7 December 8, 2004 8 February 16, 1986 6 December 2, 2005 10 February 17, 1986 8 January 18, 2006 10 February 18, 1986 20 January 29, 2006 6.5 January 10, 1989 8 January 4, 2007 6 March 19, 1989 6

Table 4.1.9 Heavy Snowfall Events at Stanley, Idaho Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsid.html

The historical analysis on heavy snowfall events shows that weather varies from one part of the county to the other. Heavy snowfall in Challis is infrequent with only 6 occurrences between 1931 and the present of over 6” in one 24 hour period, while Stanley had over 50 occurrences in the same time period. Impacts The impacts of the very cold temperatures that may accompany a severe winter storm are discussed above. Other life threatening impacts are numerous. Motorists may be stranded by road closures or may be trapped in their automobiles in heavy snow and/or low visibility conditions. Bad road conditions cause automobiles to go out of control. People can be trapped in homes or buildings for long periods of time without food, heat and utilities. Those who are ill may be deprived of medical care by being stranded or through loss of utilities and lack of personnel at care facilities. Use of heaters in automobiles and buildings by those who are stranded may result in fires or carbon monoxide poisoning. Fires during winter storm conditions

68 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 are a particular hazard because fire service response is hindered or prevented by road conditions and because water supplies may be frozen. Disaster Services may also not be available if telephone service is lost. People who attempt to walk to safety through winter storm conditions often become disoriented and lost. Downed power lines not only deprive the community of electricity for heat and light, but pose an electrocution hazard. Death and injury may also occur if heavy snow accumulation causes roofs to collapse. Fatalities in Idaho due to winter storms are somewhat unusual with ten being reported during the ten year period from 1995 through 2004. Loss Estimates Economic impacts arise from numerous sources including: hindered transportation of goods and services, flooding due to burst water pipes, forced closing of businesses, inability of employees to reach the workplace, damage to homes and structures, automobiles and other belongings by downed trees and branches, loss of livestock and vegetation and many others. Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Severe Winter Storms have a magnitude Frequency score of 20. Ranking Description HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened Conditions leading winter storms are usually forecast at least 24 hours in advance. (Warning Lead Times =2). In Custer County, the entire County is vulnerable to winter storms however, the weather in Challis can frequently be very different than the rest of the County (Geography

69 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Affected = 8) and deaths and major injuries are possible (Bodily Harm = 2). The duration of a winter storm is generally a few days or less and, while Custer County generally takes harsh winter conditions into account in agricultural practices, losses and business interruptions are possible (Economic Loss = 2). With the closure of major roadways during severe winter storms there is some likelihood of the need to shelter stranded individuals (Sheltering = 2). Winter storms can, in some cases, require somewhat extensive recovery and reconstruction requiring State resources (Reconstruction Assistance = 2). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, twenty (20) which, for Custer County, is in the “High” range. Historical records for winter storms are available and reliable, indicating that they occur frequently in Custer County (Frequency = High).

Lightning Description Lightning is defined by the NWS as, “A visible electrical discharge produced by a thunderstorm. The discharge may occur within or between clouds, between the cloud and air, between a cloud and the ground or between the ground and a cloud.” A lightning discharge may be over five miles in length, generate temperatures upwards of 50,000oF, and carry 50,000 volts of electrical potential. Lightning is most often associated with thunderstorm clouds but lightning can strike as far as five to ten miles from a storm. Thunder is caused by the rapid expansion of air heated by a lightning strike. Cloud-to-ground lightning strikes occur with much less frequency in the northwestern U.S. than in other parts of the country. Historical Frequencies

Place Date Time Event Magnitude/details Lightning Lightning struck house injuring 2 people Mackay 7/23/1932 and burning the house to the ground 7/8/1938 Lightning Lightning struck house causing minor Mackey damage 7/20/1938 Lightning Lightning struck lookout tower on Pinyon Challis Peak, damage to equipmnet 6/4/1941 Lightning Lightning struck a building at the CCC Challis camp burning it to the ground 7/6/1949 Lightning Lightning struck and killed one man, Challis injured one 6/13/1955 8:30 PM Lightning Lightning struck house causing some Mackay damage

Table 4.1.10 Custer County Lightning Events

Lightning started 604 of fires in Custer County between 1983 and 2002

Impacts Lightning is the second most deadly weather phenomenon in the U.S., being second only to floods. On average, sixty to seventy deaths per year are attributed to lightning nationally and in

70 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Idaho the average is less than one per year. Despite the enormous energy carried by lightning, only about 10% of strikes are fatal. Injuries include central nervous system damage, burns, cardiac effects, hearing loss, and trauma. The effects of central nervous system injures tend to be long-lasting and severe, leading to such disorders as depression, alcoholism, and chronic fatigue and in some cases to suicide. Lightning also strikes structures causing fires and damaging electrical equipment. Wildland fires are often initiated by lightning strikes as are petroleum storage tank fires. About one third of all power outages are lightning-related. Loss Estimates The magnitude of economic losses is difficult to estimate. Government figures suggest annual national costs at around $30 million but some researchers find evidence that losses may be in the billions of dollars. Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Lightning has a magnitude score of 10. Frequency Ranking Description HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Conditions leading lightning may arise LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened quickly and unpredictably but the NWS usually predicts the occurrence with hours (Warning Lead Times =4). Lightning strikes are highly localized in Custer County (Geography Affected = 1) and fatalities and injuries are rare (Bodily Harm = 1). Economic loss due to lightning is usually limited to a single structure (Economic Loss = 1). There is no need for public sheltering

71 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 (Shelter = 1) and government resources are not available for reconstruction (Reconstruction Assistance = 1). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, ten (10) which, for Custer County, is in the “Low” range. Historical records for lightning strikes are available and reliable, indicating that lightning events occur relatively frequently in Custer County (Frequency = High).

Hail Description The NWS definition of “hail” is: Showery precipitation in the form of irregular pellets or balls of ice more than 5 mm in diameter, falling from a cumulonimbus cloud. Its size can vary from the defined minimum, a little over a quarter of an inch, up to 4.5 inches or larger. “Severe hail” is defined as being 0.75 inches or more in diameter. The largest hailstones are formed in supercell thunderstorms because of their sustained updrafts and long duration. Hail and severe hail are relatively uncommon in Idaho. In the ten year period from 1986 to 1995 the national weather service recorded severe hail in Idaho on 113 occasions while in the same time period severe hail was recorded in Colorado nearly 1,400 times. Historical Frequencies

Place Date Time Event Magnitude Reported Damage Challis 7/14/1926 Hail Damaged crops Challis 7/26/1941 Hail unk Mackay 8/10/1951 Hail unk $19,000 to crops Custer 8/24/1984 1:00 PM Hail 1.75 inches Custer 8/24/1984 3:35 PM Hail 1/75 inches Antelope Creek 7/16/1996 11:15 AM Tstm/Wind/Hail 5/31/1997 2:00 PM Hail .75 inches/ accumulated Dickey three inches on ground Mackay 8/7/1997 4:18 PM Hail 1 inch Dickey 8/13/1999 9:55 AM Hail 1 inch Leslie 7/17/2000 2:30 PM 1 inch $2000

Table 4.1.11 Custer County Hail Events

72 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

73 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Impacts Deaths and injuries due to hail have occurred but are rare. Loss Estimates Economic loss can be extensive, especially to agricultural based economies. Hail is very damaging to crops. Severe hail may cause extensive property damage including damage to vehicle paint and bodywork, glass, shingles and roofs, plastic surfaces, etc. Hail loss nationally is estimated at over one billion dollars annually. Historical losses from damaging hail in Custer Hazard Evaluation Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Hail has a magnitude score of 11.

Frequency Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale Ranking Description Conditions leading hail may arise quickly HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years however the NWS usually predicts these LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened types of storms and gives warning within hours (Warning Lead Times =4). Hail events are relatively localized (Geography Affected = 2) and when they occur fatalities very rare and injuries uncommon (Bodily Harm = 1). Economic loss due to hail has not been extensive in Custer County (Economic Loss = 2), and reconstruction resources are generally left to individuals and families (Reconstruction Assistance = 1). There is no need for public sheltering (Shelter = 1). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, eleven (11) which, for Custer County, is in

74 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 the “Low” range. Historical records for hail storms are available and reliable, indicating that such events occur relatively frequently in Custer County (Frequency = High Tornado Tornado is not considered a hazard in Custer County and therefore was not analyzed.

Straight Line Wind Description The term “straight line wind” is used to describe any wind not associated with rotation, particularly tornadoes. Of concern is “high wind,” defined by the NWS as, “Sustained wind speeds of 40 mph or greater lasting for 1 hour or longer, or winds of 58 mph or greater for any duration.” Like tornadoes, strong, straight line winds are generated by thunderstorms and they can cause similar damage. Straight line wind speeds can approach 150 mph, equivalent to those in an F3 tornado. Historical Frequencies

Place Date Time Event Magnitude Reported Damage 6/26/1962 3:30 PM Thunderstorm Custer wind 7/10/1988 5:00 PM Thunderstorm Custer wind 7/28/1995 8:28 PM Thunderstorm Unknown Downed trees and Challis winds power lines 7/29/1995 10:00 AM Thunderstorm Unknown $5,000 Challis winds 7/9/1996 9:00 PM High Wind Unknown Forced shed off the Challis ground, lifted a roof off a barn Antelope Creek 7/16/1996 11:15 AM Tstm Wind/hail 50 kts Stanley 5/31/1997 2:40 PM Tstm Wind/hail 50 kts 7/22/2001 5:04 PM Thunderstorm 54kts Challis wind 7/14/2002 6:30 PM Thunderstorm 90kts Stanley wind 8/22/2003 6:40 PM Thunderstorm 55kts Power outages Stanley wind 7/14/2004 1:09 PM Thunderstorm 63kts Challis wind 9/1/2004 5:00 PM Thunderstorm 70kts $8,000, downed 13 Stanley/ Mormon wind large trees, damaged Bend Campground 5th wheel and tents 8/4/2007 12:05 PM Thunderstorm $1,000, power lines Mackay wind down

Table 4.1.12 Historical Wind Events for Custer County

75 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Impacts The impacts of straight line winds are virtually the same as those from tornadoes with similar wind speeds. The damage is distinguishable from that of a tornado only in that the debris generally deposited in nearly parallel rows. Downbursts are particularly hazardous to aircraft in flight.

Loss Estimates Since 1962 there has been $13,000 worth of damage reported due to straight line wind in Custer County. That figure is believed to be significant low based on observed damage by the members of the Custer County AHMP Committee.

76 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.1.11 Custer County High Wind Events Map

77 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Straight Line wind has a magnitude score of 11. Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale Frequency Ranking Description Conditions leading straight line winds HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years typically with days of warning (Warning MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Lead Times = 2). As with other LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened thunderstorm-related events geographical area affected somewhat limited (Geography Affected = 4). Death or injury is rare in Custer County (Bodily Harm = 1) but some economic loss due to structure damages can occur (Economic Loss = 2). Reconstruction from such damage is left to the individual or family (Reconstruction Assistance = 1). There would be no need for public sheltering (Shelter = 1). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, eleven (11) which, for Custer County, is in the “Low” range. Historical records for straight line winds are available and reliable, indicating that they occur yearly to several times a year in Custer County (Frequency = High).

78 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 4.2 Flooding Description Flooding is defined by NWS as “the inundation of normally dry areas as a result of increased water levels in an established water course.” River flooding, the condition where the river rises to overflow its natural banks, may occur due to a number of causes including prolonged, general rainfall, locally intense thunderstorms (see Flash Flood above), snowmelt, and ice jams. In addition to these natural events, there are a number of factors controlled by human activity that may cause or contribute to flooding. These include dam failure (discussed below), levee failure, and activities that increase the rate and amount of runoff such as paving, reducing ground cover, and clearing forested areas. Flooding is a periodic event along most rivers with the frequency depending on local conditions and controls such as dams and levees. The land along rivers that is identified as being susceptible to flooding is called the floodplain. The Federal standard for floodplain management under the National Flood Insurance Plan (NIFP) is the “100-year floodplain.” This area is chosen using historical data such that in any given year there is a one percent chance of a “Base Flood” (also known as “100-year Flood” or “Regulatory Flood”). A Base Flood is one that covers or exceeds the 100-year floodplain. In Idaho, flooding most commonly occurs in the spring of the year and is caused by snowmelt. Floods occur in Idaho every one to two years and are considered the most serious and costly natural hazard affecting the State. In the twenty-five years from 1976 to 2000 there were five Federal and twenty-eight State disaster declarations due to flooding. The amount of damage caused by a flood is influenced by the speed and volume of the water flow, the length of time the impacted area is inundated, the amount of sediment and debris carried and deposited, and the amount of erosion that may take place. Flooding is a dynamic natural process. Along rivers, streams and coastal bluffs a cycle of erosion and deposition is continuously rearranging and rejuvenating the aquatic and terrestrial systems. Although many plants, animals and insects have evolved to accommodate and take advantage of these ever-changing environments, property and infrastructure damage often occurs when people develop coastal areas and floodplains and natural processes are altered or ignored. Flooding can also threaten life, safety and health and often results in substantial damage to infrastructure, homes, and other property. The extent of damage caused by a flood depends on the topography, soils and vegetation in an area, the depth and duration of flooding, velocity of flow, rate of rise, and the amount and type of development in the floodplain. Flood Terminology A number of flood-related terms are frequently used in this plan and are defined below. Flood Insurance Study (FIS): A Flood Insurance Study is the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration, which provides flood profiles, the flood boundary-floodway map, and the water surface elevation of the estimated 100-year base flood. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) are the official maps on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. 100-year Base Flood: Base Flood means the flood having a 1% chance of being equaled Designation on the floodplain (FIRM) maps always includes the letters A or V.

79 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Floodplain: A floodplain is land adjacent to a lake, river, stream, estuary or other water body that is subject to flooding. If left undisturbed, the floodplain serves to store and discharge excess floodwater. In riverine systems, the floodplain includes the floodway. Floodway: “Floodway” means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Types of Flooding Flooding can occur in a number of ways, and many times are not independent of each other and can occur simultaneously during a flood event: The Types of Flooding considered for this Plan include: heavy rainfall; urban storm water overflow; rapid snowmelt; rising ground-water (generally in conjunction with heavy prolonged rainfall and saturated conditions); riverine ice jams; flash floods; fluctuating lake levels; alluvial fan flooding

Floodplain Management Custer County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program as well as the City of Challis and the City of Mackay. Custer County has two communities within the 100 year flood plain hazard areas that are not participating in the NFIP Clayton and Stanley. The Custer County Floodplain Administrator will work with these two Cities and encourage their participation. Custer County has no communities under suspension or revocation of participation in the NFIP18. An important part of being an NFIP community is the availability of low cost flood insurance for those homes and business within designated floodplains, or in areas that are subject to flooding, but that are not designated as Special Flood Hazard Areas. There are areas where there is a high potential for Flash Floods, as discussed in the next section that are not participating in the NFIP. As evidenced in the Community Questionnaire, overall participation by individuals and business in the NFIP appears to be low. Potential reasons for continuing low participation in the program are: Current cost of insurance is prohibitive. A lack of knowledge about the existence of the availability of low cost flood insurance. Home and business owners unaware of their vulnerability to flood events.

The last two reasons can be addressed through public education. The first could be addressed by all communities in the county taking advantage of the Community Rating System (CRS). To

18 IDWR 2004

80 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 encourage communities to go beyond the minimum requirements and further prevent and protect against flood damage, the NFIP established the CRS. To qualify for CRS, communities can do things like make building codes more rigorous, maintain drainage systems, and inform residents of flood risk. In exchange for becoming more flood ready, the CRS community's residents are offered discounted premium rates. Based on the community's CRS ratings, they can qualify for up to a 45% discount of annual flood insurance premiums. Neither the County, nor any of the incorporated cities participate in the Community Rating System.

81 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.2.1 100 Year Flood

82 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Flash Flood Description Flash flood is defined by NWS as, “A rapid and extreme flow of high water into a normally dry area, or a rapid water level rise in a stream or creek above a predetermined flood level, beginning within six hours of the causative event (e.g., intense rainfall, dam failure, ice jam). However, the actual time threshold may vary in different parts of the country. Ongoing flooding can intensify to flash flooding in cases where intense rainfall results in a rapid surge of rising flood waters.” Flash floods differ from floods (discussed below under River Flooding) in the rapidity with which they develop. Floods generally develop over a period of several days, providing more warning time and time for preparation and evacuation. Flash floods occur with little or no warning. They may occur during thunderstorms due to rapid runoff from steep terrain, from areas where the soil is already saturated, or in urban areas where vegetation has been removed and pavement has replaced exposed soil. Flash floods may also arise as the result of dam failure (discussed below) or the breakup of ice jams. Historical Frequencies Place Date Time Event Magnitude Reported Damage 7/8/1938 Flash Flood Main street flooded Mackay during thunderstorm 9/18/1940 Flash Flood Cloudburst caused Washed out section of Challis flooding Highway 93 9/25/1940 Flash Flood Cloudburst caused Damaged three ponds at flooding the Mackay Fish Mackay Hatchery, over 300,000 trout were washed out and killed 7/26/1941 Flash Flood Cloudburst caused Washed out irrigation Challis flooding ditches, outbuildings 8/20/1941 Flash Flood Cloudburst caused Highways and irrigation Challis flooding ditches washed out 6/3/1986 Flash Flood Washed out bridge $ 150,000 + Mackay/ Big Lost abutment and portions River of US 93, other roads closed 8/3/1995 Flash Flood Heavy rains caused Six inches of water Mackay flooding flowing on highway 93 Clayton 9/6/1998 2:05 PM Flash Flood Road washed out 7/6/2006 4:10 PM Flash Flood .42 inches of rain in 20 Sunbeam minutes 7/17/2007 3:45 PM Flash Flood Over 1” of rain in one Challis hour Figure 4.2.1 Historical Flash Flood Events for Custer County

Impacts Because flash floods develop so rapidly, people on foot or in automobiles may be stranded or may be swept away and injured or drowned. They are characterized by high velocity water flow and large amounts of debris, both of which cause damage to or destroy structures and other objects in their path. Other impacts are discussed below under River Flooding.

83 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Loss Estimates Custer County has recorded significant losses due to flash flooding. The largest single event happened in 1986 where > $150,000 was lost in Mackay along the Big Lost River due to flash flooding. Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Flash Flood has a magnitude of 17. Frequency Ranking Description Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Conditions leading to flash flooding may LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened arise quickly, but conditions are forecasted by the NWS usually within hours of the event. (Warning Lead Times = 4). The vulnerability to flash flooding in Custer County is considerable (Geography Affected = 4). Fatalities and injuries are improbable, (Bodily Harm = 1) but significant economic loss due to damage to highways and structures is possible (Economic Loss = 4) and may be extensive enough to require county resources for reconstruction (Reconstruction Assistance = 2). Depending on the location and amount of damage associated with the event public sheltering may be required (Shelter = 2). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, seventeen (17) which, for Custer County, is in the “Medium” range. Historical records for flash flooding are available and reliable, indicating that flash floods occur frequently in Custer County (Frequency = High).

84 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 River or Stream Flooding Description River flooding, the condition where the river rises to overflow its natural banks, may occur due to a number of causes including prolonged, general rainfall, locally intense thunderstorms, snowmelt, and ice jams. Historical Frequencies

Place Date Event Details Reported Damage Challis 1/6/1938 Flood Salmon River floods Water covers highway 27 below Challis Mackay 6/10/1938 Flood Lowlands below Mackay under water, several homes evacuated. Challis 1/31/1940 Flood Ice jam caused flooding Water washed out Highway 27 Challis/ 3/31/1943 Flood Raped snow melt caused State Hwy 27 closed, Makcay flooding other roads washed out including main street in Challis Lone Pine 4/21/1943 Flood Heavy runoff caused Washed out highway Creek flooding 93 Challis 1/15/1974 Flood 2 bridges and 8 basements flooded Custer 3/1997 -7/1997 Flood Rapid snow melt caused $231,720 flooding, Federal disaster declared for Custer and other counties Big Lost 6/30/1967 Flood Raped snowmelt caused 5,000 acres of land River area flooding under water

The year 1997 was probably the worst year flood year on record. Rapid melt of a record snowmelt led to flooded rivers throughout southern Idaho. The Snake River Basin received significant snowfall during the winter of 1996-97, and in higher elevations the snow pack exceeded 250% of normal, causing above normal runoff during the spring melt. Reservoir flows were increased to allow storage capacity, producing the highest flows on the Snake River in 70 years. During June, the spring snowmelt caused extensive flooding along 225 miles of the Snake River and many of its tributaries, from Roberts to Blackfoot. In places, floodwaters ran as far as a mile away from the river and 5' deep. Damage was extensive to numerous roads, canals, farmland and over 300 homes. A Federal Disaster was declared on July 7, 1997, for seven counties in SE Idaho: Bingham, Bonneville, Fremont, Jefferson, Madison, Butte and Custer. Approximately 500 people were evacuated in Jefferson and Bingham counties; more than 50,000 acres of agricultural land was flooded; and over nearly $1.3 million in grants and loans had been distributed19.

19 http://www.bhs.idaho.gov/local/counties/custer.htm

85 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Impacts Human death and injury are sometimes occur as a result of river flooding but are not common. Human hazards during flooding include drowning, electrocution due to downed power lines, leaking gas lines, fires and explosions, hazardous chemicals and displaced wildlife. Economic loss and disruption of social systems are often enormous. Floods may destroy or damage structures, furnishings, business assets including records, crops, livestock, roads and highways, and railways. They often deprive large areas of electric service, potable water supplies, wastewater treatment, communications, and many other community services including medical care, and may do so for long periods of time. Loss Estimates Economic losses in the State of Idaho from 1955 through 2003 have been estimated20 at nearly $1 billion (adjusted for inflation). Using Custer County‟s GIS Parcel Data and FEMA‟s HAZUS 100 Year Flood Plain model (see Figure 4.2.2) the following losses estimates were developed. Total Number of Private Property Parcels in the Flood Plain – 1,918 Total Value of Private Property in the Flood Plain - $96,369, 135 Maximum Value of an individual parcel in the Flood Plain - $1,628,210 Expected Loss based on a 1 foot flood depth using FEMA‟s Loss Estimate Guidance in the How to Mitigation Guidance Document21. Structure Loss - $14,455,370 Content Loss - $21,683,055 Total Loss - $36,138,425 Function Down Time for Businesses – 23 Days Displacement Time for Business – 134 Days

20 http://www.flooddamagedata.org/index.html 21 State and Local Mitigation Planning how-to-guide Understanding Your Risks, Version 1, August 2001

86 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.2.2 HAZUS 100 Year Flood Plain

87 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

River/Stream Flooding has a magnitude score of 25.

Frequency Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale Ranking Description HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years Conditions leading to river/stream flooding MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years usually develop over a period of days LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened (Warning Lead Times = 2). In Custer County, such flooding affects multiple sections (Geography Affected = 4) but is expected to be the direct cause of little or no death or injury (Bodily Harm = 1). Major business interruption and major economic loss may be expected from river/stream flooding (Economic Loss = 8) and recovery is managed at the Federal level (Reconstruction Assistance = 8). Some public sheltering would be required (Shelter = 2). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, twenty-five (25) which, for Custer County, is in the “High” range. Historical records for river/stream flooding are available and reliable, indicating that flooding occurs in the five to twenty-five year time frame within Custer County (Frequency = Medium).

88 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Dam Failure Description Dam failure is the unintended release of impounded waters. Dams can fail for one or a combination of the following reasons: Overtopping caused by floods that exceed the capacity of the dam. Deliberate acts of sabotage. Structural failure of materials used in dam construction. Poor design and/or construction methods. Movement and/or failure of the foundation supporting the dam. Settlement and cracking of concrete or embankment dams. Piping and internal erosion of soil in embankment dams. Inadequate maintenance and upkeep.

Failures may be categorized into two types; component failure of a structure that does not result in a significant reservoir release, and uncontrolled breach failure that leads to a significant release. . With an uncontrolled breach failure of a manmade dam there is a sudden release of the impounded water, sometimes with little warning. The ensuing flood wave and flooding have enormous destructive power. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) is responsible for dam safety in this State22. Dams 10 feet or higher or which store more than 50 acre feet of water are regulated by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (as are mine tailings impoundment structures). Idaho currently has 546 water storage dams and 21 mine tailings structures that are regulated by IDWR for safety. The Dam Safety Section inspects these dams or tailings structures every other year unless one has a particular problem. Copies of all inspection reports for each of the dams and tailing structures are available at the IDWR State Office in Boise. Inspection reports are also available at the four IDWR Regional Offices for dams and tailing structures located in their specific regions. Dam Classifications Each dam inspected by Idaho Water Resources given both a size and risk classification. Size Classification Small – 3: Twenty (20) feet high or less and a storage capacity of less than one hundred (100) acre feet of water. Intermediate – 2: More than twenty (20) but less than forty (40) feet high or with a storage capacity of one hundred (100) to four thousand (4,000) acre feet of water. Large – 1: Forty (40) feet high or more or with a storage capacity of more than four thousand (4,000) acre feet of water

22 http://www.idwr.state.id.us/water/stream_dam/dams/dams.htm

89 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Risk Classification This classification is used by IDWR to classify potential losses and damages anticipated in down-stream areas that could be attributable to failure of a dam during typical flow conditions. Low Risk – 3: No permanent structures for human habitation; Minor damage to land, crops, agricultural, commercial or industrial facilities, transportation, utilities or other public facilities or values. Significant Risk – 2: No concentrated urban development, one (1) or more permanent structures for human habitation which are potentially inundated with flood water at a depth of two (2) ft. or less or at a velocity of two (2) ft. per second or less. Significant damage to land, crops, agricultural, commercial or industrial facilities, loss of use and/or damage to transportation, utilities or other public facilities or values. High Risk – 1: Urban development, or any permanent structure for human habitation which are potentially inundated with flood water at a depth of more than two (2) ft. or at a velocity of more than two (2) ft. per second. Major damage to land, crops, agricultural, commercial or industrial facilities, loss of use and/or damage to transportation, utilities or other public facilities or values. Purposes Categories N-Industrial, B-Mining, O-Other, C-Commercial, P-Power, D-Domestic, Q-Fire Protection, E- Erosion Control, F-Flood Control, S-Stockwater, G-Wildlife Protection, T-Mine Tailings, H-Fish Propagation, I-Irrigation, J-Stockwater and Irrigation, K-Domestic, Stock and Irrigation, L- Domestic and Irrigation, M-Municipal Supply Dam Type Earth- Earth Fill, Rock- Rock Filled, CNGRV- Concrete Gravity, CNAR-Concrete Arch, MCNAR-Multiple Concrete Arch, TMCRB-Timber Crib, SLBT-lab and Buttress, RKMAS- Rock Masonry, Metal-Metal Sheet Pile, AUXDAM-Auxillary Dam

Storage Risk Size Height Name Stream Purpose Type Capacity Category Category (Ft.) (Acre Ft.) Summit Pass Creek I 3 2 Earth 600 15 Big Lost Mackay J 1 1 Earth 45,000 67 River Leham Creek Lehman I 2 3 Earth 54 19 Upper Creek Leham Creek Leham Creek R 3 3 Earth 60 17 Lower Challis Lake Challis Creek L 3 2 Earth 200 16

Mosquito Flat Challis Creek L 2 1 Earth 793 51 Warm Bar D Springs I 2 2 Earth 200 19.4 Creek Bruno Creek Bruno Creek T 1 1 Earth 89,500 740

90 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Storage Risk Size Height Name Stream Purpose Type Capacity Category Category (Ft.) (Acre Ft.) Bruno Creek Seepage Bruno Creek B 3 1 Earth 75 72 Return Grouse Creek Pinyon Creek T 1 1 Earth 6428 300 South Grouse Creek Pinyon Creek AUXDAM 1 1 Earth 0 110 North Bradshaw Bradshaw F 3 1 Earth 120 44 Detention #4 Gulch Bradshaw TR-Bradshaw F 3 2 Earth 21 28 Detention #3 Gulch South Fork Bradshaw F 3 2 Earth 23 27 Detention Gulch Horseshoe TR-Bradshaw F 3 2 Earth 16 21 Detention Gulch Buckskin Buckskin B 3 1 Earth 22 61 Creek Creek Pat Hughes Pat Hughes B 3 1 Earth 20 64 Creek Creek Cyprus Bruno Bruno Creek B 3 3 Earth 8 18 Creek Deer and Diamond D Loon Creek PR 2 3 Earth 25 19.3 (OS)

Table 4.2.3 Dams in Custer County Source: http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/water/stream_dam/dams/Dams.pdf

There are four (4) dams in Custer County in the high risk category.

The failure of the Mackay Dam would have devastating effects on the City of Mackay and population centers downstream into Butte County including Leslie, Darlington, Moore, and Arco. Figure 4.2.3 provides a graphic illustration of the Mackay Dam failure inundation zone. Other risk category 1 dams are tailings dams at Mining Sites. Failure of these dams would have significant environmental impacts, but would not generally be considered a threat to lives or property.

91 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.2.3 Mackay Dam Inundation Zone

92 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Historical Frequencies A significant dam failure in Custer County has never been reported. Impacts Failure of the Mackay Reservoir Dam would have devastating effects on the City of Mackay as illustrated in the Figure 4.2.3. The Dam has a level indictor on it however, it is not monitored 24 hours a day and notification of a failure is not expected to occur in sufficient time to evacuate downstream residents in Mackay. There is an Evacuation Plan established in Mackay however, the Plan as developed cannot be initiated in sufficient time. Loss Estimates Using the Custer County GIS Parcel data and the FEMA Mitigation Loss Estimate Guidance23 the following loss estimates are provided. Total Parcels in the Inundation Zone – 1,568 Total Property Value in the Inundation Zone - $18, 341, 363 Maximum Value of an individual Parcel in the Inundation Zone - $375,640 Expected Loss assuming an average depth of 5 feet: Structures - $6,052,530 Contents - $9,078,795 Total Loss – $15,131,352 Functional Down Time for Businesses – 30 Days Functional Displacement Time for Businesses – 365 Days

23 State and Local Mitigation Planning how-to-guide Understanding Your Risks, Version 1, August 2001

93 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Dam Failure has a magnitude score of 40. Frequency Ranking Description Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Warning time for a dam failure would be LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened relatively short, in the case of an Mackay Dam Failure it would be within minutes (Warning Lead Times = 8) and a relatively large portion of the County would be vulnerable (Geography Affected = 4). Because of this vulnerability, deaths and serious injuries would be expected (Bodily Harm = 4) along with extensive economic loss (Economic Loss = 8). Federal level reconstruction assistance would be required (Reconstruction Assistance = 8). Relocation of major populations may be required at least during the rebuilding phase of the recovery (Shelter = 8). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, forty (40) which, for Custer County, is in the “High” range. Historical records for dam failure are available and reliable, indicating that events have occurred in the County but significant failures are very infrequent (Frequency = Low).

94 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 4.3 Geologic Hazards

Geologic hazards are adverse conditions capable of causing loss of life and damage to property that involve the movement of geologic features or elements of the surface of the earth. There are a wide variety of such hazards that may be categorized as either sudden or slow phenomena. Slowly developing geologic hazards include soil erosion, sinkholes and other ground subsidence, and migrating sand dunes. Only sudden geologic hazards will be considered in this planning and will be limited to: earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide/mudslide, and snow avalanche. Earthquake Description The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines earthquake as: “Ground shaking caused by the sudden release of accumulated strain by an abrupt shift of rock along a fracture in the Earth or by volcanic or magmatic activity, or other sudden stress changes in the Earth.” The hazards associated with earthquake are essentially secondary to ground shaking (also called seismic waves) which may cause buildings to collapse, displacement or cracking of the earth‟s surface, flooding as a result of damage to dams or levees, and fires from ruptured gas lines, downed power lines and other sources. Earthquakes cause both vertical and horizontal ground shaking Figure 4.3.1 which varies both in amplitude Idaho Faults Map (the amount of displacement of the seismic waves) and frequency (the number of seismic waves per unit time), usually lasting less than thirty seconds. Earthquakes are measured both in terms of their inherent “magnitude” and in terms of their local “intensity.” The magnitude of an earthquake is essentially a relative estimate of the total amount of seismic energy released and may be expressed using the familiar “Richter Scale” or using the “moment magnitude scale” now favored by most technical authorities. Both the Richter Scale and the moment magnitude scale are based on logarithmic formulae meaning that a difference of one unit on the scales represents about a thirty-fold difference in amount of energy released (and, therefore, potential to do damage). On either scale, significant damage can be expected from earthquakes with a magnitude of about 5.0 or higher. What determines the amount of damage

95 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 that might occur in any given location, however, is not the magnitude of the earthquake but the intensity at that particular place. Earthquake intensity decreases with distance from the earthquake‟s “epicenter” (its focal point) but also depends on local geologic features such as depth of sediment and bedrock layers. Intensity is most commonly expressed using the “Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.” This measure describes earthquake intensity on an arbitrary, descriptive, twelve degree scale (expressed as Roman numerals from I to XII) with significant damage beginning at around level VII. Mercalli intensity is assigned based on eyewitness accounts. More quantitatively, intensity may be measured in terms of “peak ground acceleration” (PGA) expressed relative to the acceleration of gravity (g) and determined by seismographic instruments. While Mercalli and PGA intensities are arrived at differently, they correlate reasonably well. While the locations most susceptible to earthquakes are known, there is little ability to predict an earthquake in the short term. Historical Frequencies From 1963- 2007, Custer County had approximately 1,532 recorded earthquakes. The following table lists earthquakes in Custer County with a magnitude of 4.5 or greater. Place Date Time Event Magnitude Custer County 09/11/1963 2:08 AM Earthquake 4.90 Custer County 10/16/1963 3:36 PM Earthquake 5.90 Custer County 10/17/1963 1:22 AM Earthquake 4.70 Custer County 12/23/1963 12:15 AM Earthquake 5.10 Custer County 01/06/1964 7:35 PM Earthquake 4.70 Custer County 01/09/1964 3:10 AM Earthquake 4.50 Custer County 10/28/1983 Earthquake 6.9 Custer County 10/28/1983 2:06 PM Earthquake 6.20 Custer County 10/28/1983 3:14 PM Earthquake 4.60 Custer County 10/28/1983 7:51 PM Earthquake 5.40 Custer County 10/29/1983 11:29 PM Earthquake 5.40 Custer County 10/29/1983 11:39 PM Earthquake 5.50 Custer County 10/30/1983 1:24 AM Earthquake 4.80 Custer County 10/30/1983 1:59 AM Earthquake 4.70 Custer County 11/06/1983 9:04 PM Earthquake 4.60 Custer County 12/12/1983 4:55 AM Earthquake 4.50 Custer County 01/24/1984 9:07 PM Earthquake 4.50 Custer County 03/02/1984 12:29 AM Earthquake 4.50 Custer County 08/22/1984 9:46 AM Earthquake 5.00 Custer County 09/08/1084 6:16 AM Earthquake 5.00 Custer County 02/06/1985 7:34 PM Earthquake 4.80 Custer County 03/17/1985 6:56 AM Earthquake 4.70 Custer County 09/26/1986 10:48 PM Earthquake 4.60

96 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Place Date Time Event Magnitude Custer County 07/14/1988 5:31 PM Earthquake 4.90 Custer County 12/28/1991 7:00 AM Earthquake 4.50 Custer County 05/04/1992 9:14 AM Earthquake 4.70 Custer County 11/10/1993 2:54 PM Earthquake 4.60 Custer County 06/07/1994 1:30 PM Earthquake 5.10 Custer County 06/07/1994 6:36 PM Earthquake 4.60 Custer County 01/28/1995 6:26 AM Earthquake 4.70

Table 4.3.1 Custer County Earthquake Events

97 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.3.2 Major Faults in Custer County

98 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.3.3 Historic Earthquakes in Custer County

99 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 The Figure 4.3.3 shows the relative location of historic earthquakes in Custer County. Figure 4.3.2 shows known active faults. Borah Peak The Borah Peak earthquake (October 28, 1983) was the largest ever recorded in Idaho, both in Magnitude and in the amount of property damage, ($26,569,487 in 2007 dollars). With a magnitude of 6.9, it was among the largest earthquakes to hit the State since the 1959 Hebgen Lake event. The epicenter was in the Barton Flats area, approximately ten miles northwest of Mackay and thirty miles southeast of Challis. There have been a number of California earthquakes larger than this: 1999 Hector Mine (7.1), 1992 Landers (7.3), 1992 Cape Mendocino (7.2), 1989 Loma Prieta (6.9), and 1980 Humboldt (7.2).24 The maximum observed Intensity was IX (based on surface faulting), and the earthquake was felt in an area over 330,000 square miles. Four aftershocks of Magnitude 5.5 or greater were recorded within 1 year and numerous more have occurred to date. The event caused two deaths in Challis (both school age children) and several minor injuries. There was an estimated $12.5 million in damage in the Challis-Mackay area, affecting sewer and water systems, roads, other public facilities, and personal property. The facilities of an irrigation company and a fish hatchery also experienced extensive damage. Although damage occurred as far away as Boise, the most severe property damage occurred in the towns of Challis and Mackay. Eleven commercial buildings, thirty-nine private houses, and one school sustained major damage. Two hundred houses sustained minor to moderate damage. Most of the damaged commercial buildings were of masonry construction, including brick, concrete block, or stone. The majority of the residential chimneys were cracked, twisted, or collapsed. Significant ground displacement produced a twenty mile long zone of fresh scarps and ground breakage in the Lost River Range. Displacement along the fault ranged from less than 1.5 feet to 9 feet. Other geologic effects included landslides and rockfalls, flow changes in springs, and fluctuations in water levels. A temporary lake was formed by the rising water table south of Dickey and widespread flooding occurred in the Warm Springs Creek area.

24 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/States/historical.php

100 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 The event resulted in State and Federal Disaster declarations (designated DR-697). The declaration provided Public Assistance and Individual Assistance for Custer County, Individual Assistance for Butte County, and aid to schools in Butte and Gooding counties. Impacts History has demonstrated that Custer County has high seismic potential. Figure 4.3.4 provides the seismic ratings for the entire County. Earthquakes have occurred and should be expected to continue. Earthquakes are capable of catastrophic consequences, especially in urban areas. Worldwide, earthquakes have been known to cost thousands of lives and enormous economic and social losses. In minor earthquakes, damage may be done only to household goods, merchandise, and other building contents and people are occasionally injured or killed by falling objects. More violent earthquakes may cause the full or partial collapse of buildings, bridges and overpasses, and other structures. Fires due to broken gas lines, downed power lines, and other sources are common following an earthquake and often account for much of the damage. Economic losses arise from destruction of structures and infrastructure, interruption of business activity, and innumerable other sources. Utilities may be lost for long periods of time and all modes of transportation may be disrupted. Disaster Services including medical may be both disabled and overwhelmed. In addition to broken gas lines, other hazardous materials may be released.

101 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.3.4 Seismic Potential

102 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Loss Estimates The Borah Peak earthquake resulted in State and Federal Disaster declarations. The loss from this event was $12.5 Million 1983 dollars. The loss escalated to 2007 dollars would be $26,569,487.

Using FEMA”s HAZUS Geological Loss Estimating tool the following loss estimate was developed for Custer County using a 7.0 Magnitude Earthquake scenario. The estimates are based on extrapolated data from the 2000 US Census as appear to be very low considering the experience in the County with losses following the Borah Peak event in 1983. HAZUS estimates the total building inventory in Custer County as $318,000,000. Total value of the Transportation and Utility infrastructure within the County is $1,752,000,000. Building Damage Expected:

Damage Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Single Family 84 38 6 1 Other Residential 34 28 3

Table 4.3.2 Building Damage

Schools in the County are expected to have functionality >50% 1 day after the event. The Custer County Sheriff‟s Office is expected to have functionality >50% 1 day after the event. Expected Damage to Utility Systems:

Damage Potable Water Waste Water Propane

Leaks 120 95 101 Breaks 30 24 25

Table 4.3.3 Utility System Damage Total Building Losses were estimated as $1,730,000 Single Family - $920,000 Other Residential - $320,000 Commercial - $340,000 Industrial - $80,000 Other – $80,000

Total Infrastructure Losses were estimated as $4,000,000 Total Losses all sources $5,730,000 (2000 Dollars)

103 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Earthquake has a magnitude score of 36. Frequency Ranking Description Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale HIGH MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Predictive methodology for earthquakes is LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened not capable of providing warning for specific events which usually occur suddenly, with no warning (Warning Lead Times = 8). Earthquakes affect wide areas (Geography Affected = 8). In Custer County, such an event is expected to cause some injuries and deaths (Bodily Harm = 2). Major structural and infrastructure damage is possible in the event of a strong earthquake, interrupting business activities and requiring reconstruction (Economic Loss = 8). Some sheltering assistance from neighboring Counties could be required (Shelter = 2). Recovery assistance at the Federal level would be required (Reconstruction Assistance = 8). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, thirty-six (36) which, for Custer County, is in the “High” range. Historical records for earthquake are available and reliable, indicating that earthquakes occur in the five to twenty-five year range in Custer County (Frequency = Medium).

104 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Landslide/Mudslide Description The term “landslide” encompasses several types of occurrence (including mudslides) in which slope-forming materials such as rock and soil move downward under the influence of gravity. Such downward movement may occur as the result of an increase in the weight of slope-forming materials, an increase in the gradient (angle) of the slope, a decrease in the forces resisting downward motion (friction or material strength) or a combination of these factors. Factors that may trigger a landslide include: weather related events such as heavy rainfall (one of the most common contributors), erosion, and freeze-thaw weakening of geologic structures, human causes such as excavation and mining, deforestation, and vibration from explosions or other sources, and such geologic causes as earthquake, volcanic activity, and shearing or fissuring. The speed of descent ranges from sudden and rapid to an almost imperceptibly slow creep where effects are only observable over a period of months or years.

Historical Frequencies Based on the landslide potential map in Figure 4.3.5 above there is at least of medium risk of a landslide occurring throughout most of the County.

Place Date Time Event Details Reported Damage Between East Landslide Landslide caused by spring Blocked over a mile of Fork and 5/16/1928 melt highway Challis Challis 8/13/1930 Landslide Cloudburst caused Mud covered roadway landslide and washed debris into Salmon River below Challis Sunbeam 7/6/2006 4:10 PM Mudflow Heavy rain caused mud flows in a burned over area

Table 4.3.2 Custer County Landslide Events

Landslides in Custer County are not uncommon, especially where a wildfire as burned leaving the soil exposed and unstable. Landslides are frequent along the Salmon River corridor between Stanley and Challis. Impacts Landslides cause 25 to 50 deaths yearly in the U.S. and cost more than $3.5 billion in direct losses due to damages. Some of the many direct and indirect impacts of landslides are: Human and animal deaths and injuries and resulting productivity losses Damage or destruction of structures Destruction or blockage of roadways and resulting transportation interruption Loss of, or reduced land usage Loss of industrial, agricultural and forest productivity Reduced property values in areas threatened by landslide

105 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

106 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Loss of tourist revenues and recreational opportunities Damage or destroyed infrastructure and utilities Damming or alteration of the course of streams and resulting flooding Reduced water quality Loss Estimates Losses due to landslides are experienced in two ways. Cleanup and repair to damaged facilities. For the purpose of this analysis the exposure to the County is expressed as miles of County owned roadway exposed to landslide potential. There are a total of 379 miles of County owned roads in landslide potential areas. Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss – There is repetitive damage and cleanup along State Highway 75 between Stanley and Challis and between Challis and Salmon due to frequent landslides. The slides also flow into the Salmon River causing damage to the stream beds and the fishery. Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Landslide/mudslide has a magnitude score Frequency of 17. Ranking Description Figure 4.3.3 Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years Fremont County Landslide Potential Map Conditions leading to landslide/mudslide MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years may develop quickly, providing little LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened warning time (Warning Lead Times = 4). Vulnerable areas in Custer County are quite large (Geography Affected = 2) however, there is

107 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 little potential for death or injury (Bodily Harm = 1). Economic loss could be significant to highways and other infrastructure (Economic Loss = 4). Because of impacts to State Highways necessary recovery would be managed at the State level (Reconstruction Assistance = 4). There may be some limited need for public sheltering if roads were closed (Shelter = 2). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, seventeen (17) which, for Custer County, is in the “Medium” range. Historical records for landslide/mudslide are available and reliable, indicating that events occur frequently in Custer County (Frequency = High). Snow Avalanche Description Snow avalanches are common in mountainous terrain where heavy snowfall accumulates on steep slopes. Avalanches generally occur on slopes between 30 and 45 degrees with 38 degrees being the “ideal” slope for development of avalanche conditions. They are often categorized as either “loose snow” or “slab” types. While the exact moment of an avalanche cannot be predicted, avalanche conditions are readily recognizable and avalanches tend to recur on the same slopes year after year. Historical Frequencies Place Date Time Event Details Reported Damage Mackay 4/22/1927 Avalanche Avalanche occurred at the One man killed, Kay Development Co. demolished the bunk house, the boarding ho use and the compressor building Mill Creek 6/17/1938 Avalanche Avalanche carried a cabin One man killed 350-500 yards Squaw Creek 5/16/1951 10:00 PM Avalanche Snow came down canyon Demolished hen house, on Squaw Creek taking and tore down fences, everything in its path killed chickens and one horse Copper 12/14/2002 Avalanche Triggered by skier Skier killed Mountain Castle Peak 7/2/2005 Avalanche Triggered by snowboarder Snowboarder killed

Table 4.3.3 Custer County Avalanche Events

Impacts It is common for avalanche impacts to be somewhat limited. Because avalanches usually occur in remote areas, the most frequent victims are recreational users of the slopes on which they occur. Of those who die in avalanches, approximately one third of the deaths are as a result of trauma while the remaining two thirds are from suffocation. Trauma may be the result of being carried into obstructions such as boulders and trees or over cliffs, or from rocks, trees or large chunks of snow being carried downward at high speed. Avalanches may also damage or destroy structures, break power lines, block roadways and railroads, and damage trees and vegetation.

108 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Loss Estimates Losses due to snow avalanches are similar to losses due to landslides and are experienced in two ways. Cleanup and repair to damaged facilities. For the purpose of this analysis the exposure to the County is expressed as miles of County owned roadway exposed to snow avalanche potential. There are a total of 379 miles of County owned roads in snow avalanche potential areas. Hazard Evaluation The Salmon River corridor between Stanley and Challis has the highest avalanche risk in the County. This area also attracts many recreationists in the winter. Repetitive Loss – There is frequent snow slides between Stanley and Challis and repetitive loss due to the cost of clean up on Highway 75 as well as the economic loss that is linked to business closures. Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Snow Avalanche has a magnitude score of Frequency 15. Ranking Description Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years While individual avalanche events occur with LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened little or no warning but in Custer County vulnerable areas are limited and conditions in those areas are monitored (Warning Lead Times = 2). Large areas in Custer County are subject to avalanches (Geography Affected = 4) offering potential for injuries or deaths (Bodily Harm = 2). Avalanches occur in remote areas and cause little economic loss (Economic Loss = 2) with recovery, where required, managed at the State level (Reconstruction Assistance = 4). There is

109 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 no need for public sheltering (Shelter = 1). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, fifteen (15) which, for Custer County, is in the “Medium range. Historical records for avalanche show that events have occurred at least every five years. (Frequency = High).

110 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 4.4 Other Natural Hazards

Wildfire Description Wildfire is defined by the USDA Forest service as, “A fire, naturally caused or caused by humans, that is not meeting land management objectives.”25. It is generally thought of as an uncontrolled fire involving vegetative fuels occurring in wildland areas. Such fires are classified for hazard analysis purposes as either “Wildland” or “Wildland Urban Interface” fires. Wildland fires occur in areas that are undeveloped except for the presence of roads, railroads and power lines while Wildland Urban Interface fires occur where structures or other human development meets or is intermingled with the wildland or vegetative fuels. Wildland fire is currently considered a natural and necessary component of wildland ecology and, as such, is most often allowed to progress to the extent that it does not threaten inhabited areas or human interests and well-being. At the urban-wildland interface, vigorous attempts are made to control fires but this becomes an increasingly difficult challenge as more and more development for recreational and living purposes takes place in wildland areas. Most wildland fires in Custer County are ignited naturally (almost exclusively by lightning) while some ignitions are a result of human activities, either careless or intentional. The rapidity with which a wildland fire spreads and the intensity with which it burns is controlled by a number of factors including: Weather - wind speed and direction, temperature, precipitation Terrain – fires burn most rapidly upslope Type of vegetation Condition of vegetation - dryness Fuel load – the amount and density of vegetation Human attempts to suppress

In Idaho, fire was once an integral function of the majority of ecosystems. The seasonal cycling of fire across the landscape was as regular as the July, August and September lightning storms plying across the canyons and mountains. Depending on the plant community composition, structural configuration, and buildup of plant biomass, fire resulted from ignitions with varying intensities and extent across the landscape. Shorter return intervals between fire events often resulted in less dramatic changes in plant composition26 . The fires burned from 1 to 47 years apart, with most at 5- to 20-year intervals27. With infrequent return intervals, plant communities tended to burn more severely and be replaced by vegetation different in composition, structure, and age28. Native plant communities in this region developed under the influence of fire, and adaptations to fire are evident at the species, community, and ecosystem levels. Fire history data (from fire scars and charcoal deposits) suggest fire has played an important role in shaping the vegetation in the Columbia Basin for thousands of years29.

25 http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fireuse/education/terms/fire_terms_pg5.html 26 Johnson 1998 27 Barrett 1979 28 Johnson et al. 1994 29 Steele et al. 1986, Agee 1993, Custer County WUI Plan, Page 37

111 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Although many very large fires, growing to over 250,000 acres have burned throughout southern Idaho, the vast majority of fires in Custer County have been limited to much smaller areas. This is largely due to the aggressive and professional manner in which the wildland and rural fire districts cooperate to control these blazes. Custer County Fire Districts desire to be actively involved in fire mitigation techniques reducing the fuel loading in key areas and re-planting burned areas following fire events. In addition, there is a strong BLM and USFS presence in Custer County and an excellent code or work ethic to meet the needs of the County. These departments all share a jurisdictional responsibility within the region. Rapid deployment of resources is a key advantage to the County in the protection of life, property and the environment30.

Figure 4.4.1 illustrates the relative risks for wildfire in Custer County based on fuel type.

Custer County has developed a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Zone as part of their WUI Mitigation Planning Program. This zone is based on a ½ mile buffer on either side of the private/public property line and as illustrated in Figure 4.4.2. The purpose of the zone is to develop methods of protection for facilities, structures, and other infrastructure from wildfires.

30 Custer County WUI Plan

112 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.4.1 Relative Fire Risk

113 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.4.2 Custer County Wildland Urban Interface Zone

114 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.4.3 Historic Wildfires

115 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Historical Frequencies A breakdown of the sizes of these fires is given in Table 4.3.1 and Table 4.3.2 lists the eight largest fires in this period.

Number of Approximate Fires Acres Burned 1025 < 100 13 100-499 6 500-999 10 1000< Year Acres Burned Table 4.4.1 1985 3500.00 Size of Custer County Wildfires 1994 7848.00 Since 1983 1998 3900.00 1999 2925.00 1999 2500.00 1999 2228.00 2000 6710.00 2001 1650.00 Table 4.4.2 Largest Custer County Wildfires Since 1983

Impacts

Custer County has an extreme probability of at least one major wildfire a year within the County boundaries. Figure 4.4.4 provides a ranking for areas where wildfires from natural causes are expected based on a fuel type, slope, and aspect. The mean fire return does not take into account human caused wildfires.

Wildland fires threaten the lives of anyone in their path including hikers, campers and other recreational users and, where suppression efforts are made, firefighters. Enormous volumes of smoke and airborne particulate materials are produced that can affect the health of persons for many miles downwind. Nearer to the fire, smoke reduces visibility, disrupting traffic and increasing the likelihood of highway accidents. As a result of wildland fire there may be changes in water quality in the area and erosion rates may increase along with increased rainfall runoff and flash flood threat, and decreased rainfall interception and infiltration. Indirect impacts include losses to tourism, recreational and timber interests and loss of wildlife habitat. Wildland Urban Interface fires have most or all of the above impacts as well as those of structural fires including injury and loss of life, loss of structures and contents. Agricultural losses may also be sustained including livestock, crops, fencing and equipment.

Loss Estimates Loss estimates for Wildland Fire were developed by examining the County GIS Parcel data. The value within the WUI Zone as defined above is as follows:

Total Number of Parcels – 8,066 Total Value of Parcels in the WUI - $322, 082,265 Maximum Value of an Individual Parcel in the WUI - $1,628,210

116 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.4.4 Mean Fire Return Interval

117 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Wildfires have a magnitude score of 20. Frequency Ranking Description Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Even with rapidly developing wildfire there LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened is usually an hour or more to warn affected residents (Warning Lead Times = 4). Typically large areas in Custer County are vulnerable to wildfire (Geography Affected = 4) but because these areas are remote, minimal deaths or and injuries are expected (Bodily Harm = 2). Custer County experiences significant economic loss due to wildfire (Economic Loss =4) and State recovery assistance might be required (Reconstruction Assistance = 4). Some public sheltering would be required (Shelter = 2). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, twenty (20) which, for Custer County, is in the “High” range. Historical records are available and reliable, indicating that while wildfires occur relatively frequently in the County (Frequency = High).

118 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Other Hazards: Noxious Weeds Description Noxious weeds are spreading at an alarming rate across the Western United States. Each year approximately $23 billion is lost nationwide due to invasive plant impacts to agriculture, industry, recreation, and the environment. In addition, invasive plants are invading about 4,600 acres of land daily with over 8 million acres of Idaho lands severely infested by one of the 35 state-designated noxious weeds. These noxious weeds create soil erosion in certain areas. They undermine the productivity of crops grown in Idaho. They destroy and damage the Idaho economy by about $300 million dollars a year. To understand the impact of noxious weeds on Idaho wildlife, Roger Batt, Idaho Noxious Weed Awareness Campaign coordinator, says to picture a hungry elk or deer walking for days without finding its food source because of an infestation of noxious weeds in the area. After a few weeks of starvation, the animal becomes weak and this once majestic creature is now food for predators. "Now just image that the starving animal decides to eat the noxious weed yellow star thistle out of hunger and then later finds out that this toxic plant has caused “chewing disease” leading to a painful death. This is the reality of noxious weeds and Idaho wildlife," Batt said. Four-thousand exotic plants are recognized by the U.S. government as unwanted species. Weed officials say at least 36 of those varieties have already gained a foothold in the Gem state. In Idaho, officials estimate that about 14 percent of Idaho's lands – or approximately 12,000 square miles – has been taken over by noxious weeds, causing more than $300 million in direct financial losses to the state's economy, agriculture and wildlife lands. Noxious weeds infest approximately 100 million acres of North America31 Wildlife Description More than 90 percent of animal-vehicle collisions in the United States involve deer, researchers have found. In 1995, the annual number of these collisions was estimated at more than 1 million, causing 211 human fatalities, 29,000 injuries and more than $1 billion in property damage32.

31 http://www.itd.idaho.gov/Transporter/2003/092503_Trans/092503_Weeds.html 32 http://itd.idaho.gov/Transporter/2004/050704_Trans/050704_Wildlife.html

119 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Biological Epidemic/Pandemic Description Epidemic/Pandemic is defined as a disease that appears as new cases in the human population at a rate, during a given time period and location, that substantially exceeds the number expected. It is, thus, a relative term and there is no quantitative criterion for designating a health crisis as an epidemic. In addition to its application to infectious diseases, the term is sometimes used to describe outbreaks of other adverse health effects including those stemming from chemical exposure, sociological problems, and psychological disorders. A “pandemic” is a worldwide epidemic while the term “outbreak” may be applied to more geographically limited medical problem as, for instance, in a single community rather than statewide or nationwide. The term “cluster” is often used with reference to noncommunicable diseases. Health agencies closely monitor for diseases with the potential to cause an epidemic and seek to develop immunizations and eliminate vectors. While this effort has been remarkably successful, there are many diseases of concern and the HIV/AIDS pandemic is still not controlled despite more than 25 years of effort since recognition of the disease in 1981. Pandemic influenza versus regular influenza season A flu pandemic has little or nothing in common with the annual flu season. A pandemic flu would be a new strain and a much more serious and contagious flu virus. Humans would have no natural resistance to a new strain of influenza. Also, there is a vaccine for seasonal flu, but there is no vaccine available at this time for a pandemic flu. If a new, highly contagious strain of influenza begins to infect humans, it would likely cause widespread illness and death within a matter of months, and could last up to two years. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) predict that as much as 25% to 30% of the U.S. population could be sick, hospitalized, and many may die as a result of severe illness. District 7 Health Department is currently working on a plan to limit the spread of a pandemic influenza and to maintain essential health care and community services if an outbreak should occur. In fact, governments all around the world are preparing for the possibility of a pandemic outbreak. Although the Federal government is stockpiling large quantities of medical supplies and antiviral drugs, no country in the world has enough anti-virals to protect their citizens. There currently is no vaccine to protect humans against a pandemic influenza virus; however, vaccine development efforts are under way to protect humans against the current H5N1 bird flu virus. Pandemic Flu H5N1 “Bird Flu” The danger is that the bird flu virus may mutate into a new form of human flu that would be easily spread person to person. Some migratory waterfowl carry the H5N1 virus, with no apparent harm, but transmit the virus to susceptible domestic poultry. The highly lethal H5N1 outbreak among domestic poultry is widespread and uncontrolled and has directly infected a small number of humans. People who have close contact with infected birds or surfaces that

120 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 have been contaminated with droppings from infected birds are at risk of becoming infected themselves. A history of poultry consumption in an infected country is not a risk factor, provided the food was thoroughly cooked and the person was not involved in food preparation. Simply traveling to a country with ongoing outbreaks in poultry or sporadic human cases does not place a traveler at increased risk of infection, provided the person does not visit live poultry markets, farms or other environments where exposure to diseased birds may occur. More than 200 million birds in affected countries have either died from the disease or were killed in order to try to control the outbreak. Many Asian countries are currently dealing with bird flu outbreaks - Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam. Bird flu continues to spread geographically from its original focus in Asia. Further spread of the virus along migratory routes of wild water fowl is anticipated. So far, there has been no sustained person-to-person spread of the disease. However, a few isolated cases of human-to-human spread between family members are currently under investigation.

The reported symptoms of bird flu in humans range from typical influenza-like symptoms (e.g., fever, cough, sore throat, and muscle aches), to eye infections (conjunctivitis), pneumonia, acute respiratory distress, viral pneumonia, and other severe and life threatening complications. Diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, chest pain, and Figure 4.4.x bleeding from the nose Bird Flu Outbreaks Worldwide and gums have also been reported as early symptoms in some cases. In many cases, health deteriorates rapidly leading to a high percentage of death in those infected. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory illness caused by a coronavirus, called SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV). SARS was first reported in Asia in February 2003. Over the next few months, the illness spread to more than two dozen countries in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia before the SARS global outbreak of 2003 was contained.

121 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a total of 8,098 people worldwide became sick with SARS during the 2003 outbreak. Of these, 774 died. In the United States, only eight people had laboratory evidence of SARS-CoV infection. All of these people had traveled to other parts of the world with SARS. SARS did not spread more widely in the community in the United States. In general, SARS begins with a high fever (temperature greater than 100.4°F [>38.0°C]). Other symptoms may include headache, an overall feeling of discomfort, and body aches. Some people also have mild respiratory symptoms at the outset. About 10 percent to 20 percent of patients have diarrhea. After 2 to 7 days, SARS patients may develop a dry cough. Most patients develop pneumonia. The main way that SARS seems to spread is by close person-to-person contact. The virus that causes SARS is thought to be transmitted most readily by respiratory droplets (droplet spread) produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Droplet spread can happen when droplets from the cough or sneeze of an infected person are propelled a short distance (generally up to 3 feet) through the air and deposited on the mucous membranes of the mouth, nose, or eyes of persons who are nearby. The virus also can spread when a person touches a surface or object contaminated with infectious droplets and then touches his or her mouth, nose, or eye(s). In addition, it is possible that the SARS virus might spread more broadly through the air (airborne spread) or by other ways that are not now known. Historic Epidemic/Pandemic Events The 1918 -1920 Spanish Flu: The first cases were reported in Canyon County (northwest of Boise) on September 30th. Within three weeks, the disease was raging all across the State. Asian Flu 1957 -1958: First identified in China, this virus caused roughly 70,000 deaths in the United States during the 1957-58 seasons. Because this strain has not circulated in humans since 1968, no one under 30 years old has immunity to this strain. Hong Kong Flu 1968-1969: First detected in Hong Kong in the early 1968 and spread to the United States later that year. The Hong Kong Flu killed about 34,000 people in the United States and one million people worldwide. Impacts The following are potential impacts from a worldwide pandemic event. The impacts in Custer County would be similar on a local level. Rapid Worldwide Spread Health Care Systems Overloaded Medical Supplies Inadequate Economic and Social Disruption

122 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Loss Estimates Historically, epidemics have claimed far more lives than any other type of disaster. While modern epidemiology and medical advances make the decimation of populations much less likely, new forms of disease continue to appear. The potential, therefore, exists for epidemic to cause widespread loss of life and disability, overwhelm medical resources and have tremendous economic impacts. Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Epidemic/Pandemic has a magnitude score of 19. Frequency Ranking Description Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Pandemic and epidemics develop relatively slowly, LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened usually providing at least weeks of warning (Warning Lead Times = 2). When pandemic/epidemic does occur, wide geographical areas are affected (Geography Affected = 8) and deaths and injuries are likely to occur (Bodily Harm = 4). Business interruption and some economic loss are likely (Economic Loss = 2) but recovery is left to individuals and families (Reconstruction Assistance = 1). Some public relocation of individuals to protect them from the virus may be required (Shelter = 2).The total Magnitude score is, therefore, nineteen (19) which, for Custer County, is in the “Medium” range. Historical records for pandemic/epidemic are available and reliable, indicating that such events are rare (Frequency = Low).

123 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 West Nile Virus West Nile virus (WNV) is transmitted to people, birds and other animals by the bite of an infected mosquito. This virus can cause serious illness in people of any age, but especially in people over the age of 50 or those with other underlying medical conditions. The best form of protection is by avoiding mosquito bites. West Nile virus infections occur in the summer and fall in Idaho, when mosquitoes are active. WNV does not occur in northern states when it is too cool for mosquitoes to survive. In southern states with warmer climates and mosquitoes present year-round, the risk of infection may still be present in the winter months. Historical Frequencies of West Nile Virus Locally-acquired mosquito-borne human infections were first recorded in Idaho in 2004. In 2006, Idaho led the nation in reports of human illness associated with WNV with 996 cases being reported to the State Health Department. In addition to people, WNV was also detected in 338 horses, 127 birds and numerous mosquitoes.

Date Human Horse/other Bird Mosquitoes mammal 2006 4 12 3 Not Tested 2007 4 1 0 Not Tested

Table 4.4.3 Reported Cases of WNV in Custer County Source - http://www.healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/site/4278/default.aspx

Impacts West Nile fever may include a fever, headache, body aches, a rash and swollen glands. The symptoms of West Nile fever may last for days or linger for weeks to months. Serious illness infecting the brain or spinal cord can occur in some individuals, and although anyone can experience the more severe form of the disease, it tends to occur in people over the age of 50 or those with other underlying medical conditions or weakened immune systems. The severe symptoms may include high fever, headache, neck stiffness, stupor, disorientation, coma, tremors, convulsions, muscle weakness, vision loss, numbness and paralysis. These symptoms may last several weeks or more, and neurological effects may be permanent. Usually, symptoms occur from 5 to 15 days after the bite of an infected mosquito. There is no specific treatment for infection, but hospitalization and treatment of symptoms may improve the chances of recovery for severe infections. There is no vaccine available for humans. Loss Estimates Losses brought about by the effects of West Nile virus are centered on loss of income for those affected by the virus as well as a loss of productivity by businesses. Death has occurred in Idaho from the West Nile virus both in humans and animals.

124 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

West Nile Virus has a magnitude score of 9. Frequency Ranking Description Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Outbreaks of West Nile Virus, like other LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened epidemics, develop relatively slowly, usually providing months of warning (Warning Lead Times = 1). When an outbreak does occur, wide geographical areas can be affected but may be much more isolated in Custer County because of sparse population density (Geography Affected = 1). Major medical care is required with the potential for death. (Bodily Harm = 4). Little or no economic loss is likely (Economic Loss = 1) and recovery is left to individuals and families (Reconstruction Assistance = 1). Public Sheltering would not be required (Shelter = 1). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, nine (9) which, for Custer County, is in the “Low” range. Historical records are available and reliable, indicating that instances of West Nile Virus occur yearly (Frequency = High).

125 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 4.5 Technological (Manmade) Hazards

Structural Fire Description Structural fires produce high heat, toxic gases, and particulate material as smoke and soot. The heat produced or burning debris can, in turn, cause additional fires. Toxic gases and smoke are extreme hazards in the interior of burning structures and may also be a threat downwind of the structure. Where the building contents include toxic materials, the downwind threat can extend a mile or more. Burning structures may collapse injuring persons inside or nearby and floors or roofs may give way beneath those walking on them. Burning structures present electrical, explosion and flashover hazards, and partially burned structures may, themselves, be physical hazards even after the fire is extinguished. Historical Frequencies

Structure fires are extremely common in Custer County as they are across the nation. Table 4.4.1 is provided as an example of the number of structure fires that occur and their frequency. Note that not all the Fire Departments in the County reported.

Structure Fire History For Custer Fire Departments 2006 Department Name Fire Calls Total Calls Loss Challis VFD 1 1 None Reported Clayton FD 0 0 None Reported North Custer FD 7 48 None Reported Mackay FD 15 22 None Reported South Custer RFD 12 18 $12,000 Sawtooth Valley RFD 0 0 None Reported

Table 4.5.1 Custer County Structure Fire History

Impacts Indirect dollar losses, as is often the case, may be much larger than direct losses. Costs also include those for development and enforcement of fire codes and maintaining fire response capabilities. Firefighters are, additionally, at risk from such hazards as physical exhaustion and cardiac stresses, heat exhaustion or heat stroke, acute and chronic health effects from toxic exposures, hearing damage, and injuries from many sources. Loss Estimates Losses due to Structure Fires have not been historically tracked by Custer County Fire Response agencies for the most part. The total number of structure fire calls in the year 2006 was 35. Losses vary based on the type of structure and the extent of the fire involvement.

126 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Structural Fire has a magnitude score of 14. Frequency Ranking Description Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Structural fires develop rapidly with little or LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened no warning (Warning Lead Times = 8). Structural fire almost invariable affects only one or a very few structures (Geography Affected = 1) but limited death and injury does occur (Bodily Harm = 2). Some economic loss occurs (Economic Loss = 2) but recovery is left to individuals and families (Reconstruction Assistance = 1). Sheltering of the residents may be required (Shelter = 2). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, fourteen (14) which, for Custer County, is in the “Medium” range. Historical records for are available and reliable, indicating that structural fires are relatively frequent (Frequency = High).

Nuclear Event Description A “nuclear event” is defined as an incident involving a nuclear reaction; nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. Such an incident must involve “fissionable” materials, defined as materials containing isotopes with nuclei capable of splitting. Further, the most probable incidents involve “fissile” materials, defined as materials containing isotopes capable of sustaining a nuclear fission chain reaction. Such reactions release heat, radiation, and radioactive contamination in extremely large quantities relative to the amount of material reacting.

127 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Examples of nuclear events include nuclear weapons detonations, nuclear reactor incidents, and nuclear (fissile) material production, handling or transportation incidents. A nuclear detonation as a part of an attack scenario is, perhaps, the ultimate technological disaster. The hazards are well-known and vividly described in FEMA publications33. They include shock wave, enormous heat, and the spread of fallout (radioactive contamination). Other nuclear events would not involve a nuclear blast, but still have the potential to produce widespread and long- term consequences as exemplified by the 1986 Chernobyl accident34. Of primary concern is the release of radioactive contamination in the form of airborne gases and particulate material. This radioactive material has the potential to travel great distances and particulate material eventually is deposited in the environment and incorporated into the food chain. Such contamination may remain hazardous for many years. Direct radiation exposure is also a hazard in relatively close proximity to a nuclear event as is exposure to high thermal energy. Nuclear events are virtually always caused by intentional or unintentional human actions. The Idaho National Laboratory poses a credible hazard to the southeastern parts of Custer County. The locations of the INL and of the RTC facility within the Site boundary are shown in Figure 4.5.1. Table 4.5.4, provides the Protective Action Distance for a radiological release from the RTC facility is given as 115 km (approximately 69 miles). This indicates a threat to crops and grazing lands in southeastern portions of Custer County.

33 http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/nuclear_blast.shtm 34 http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/index.html

128 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

129 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

INL Hazards Assessment Maximum Protective Action Distances (PAD)

Facility Non-Rad PAD Rad PAD Research Center (IRC) 0.1 km None Radioactive Waste Management None 15 km Complex (RWMC) Reactor Technology Complex (RTC) 7.8 km 115 km Idaho Nuclear Technology and 1.6 km 16 km Engineering Center (INTEC) Central Facilities Area (CFA) 0.5 km None Transportation * * MATERIALS AND FUELS 1.7 km 4.5 km COMPLEX (MFC) AREA NORTH (TAN) ** 0.03 km * INL asserts that associated transportation activity is within “normal” limits for highway traffic and uses the DOT ERG for its planning basis. ** Unclear but well within INL Site boundary

Table 4.5.4 INL Hazards Assessment Maximum Protective Action Distances Source – U. S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office

130 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Historical Frequencies There are no recorded nuclear events in Custer County Impacts The ingestion pathway planning zone is the area within a 69-mile radius of Reactor Technology Complex that includes all food production, processing and marketing facilities.

There are two types of responses meant to prevent or limit public exposure through the ingestion pathway:35

1. Preventive protective action - Actions taken by farmers to prevent contamination of milk, water and food products (i.e., shelter dairy animals and put on stored feed and covered water).

2. Emergency protective actions – Actions taken by public officials to address contaminated milk, water and food products, and divert such products from animal and human consumption (i.e., embargoes). The routes of ingestion are not as direct as those of the plume pathway. Ingestion exposure remains a longer-term problem because vegetables, fruit, trees, and grains may take up radionuclides from the soil. They may also be ingested by wild game and fish that may in turn, be eaten by humans.

Loss Estimates Indirect costs in such a situation would almost certainly exceed those of clean-up. In addition, because the stigma carried by radiation and radioactive with the general public, affected areas and persons may be shunned out of proportion with the actual hazard. In fact, the social and political impacts of a nuclear event may well greatly exceed any justifiable limits.

35 http://www.hsem.state.mn.us/uploadedfile/dir_hand/EMDH_C- 13_RadiologicalEmergencyPreparednessProgram.pdf

131 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none

Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No 1 Family Parcel $1000s No Sheltering Months Injury / No Death Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Nuclear has a magnitude score of 21.

Frequency Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale Ranking Description HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years Nuclear events might arise under a number of MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years scenarios providing different lead times but LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened the most likely would provide at a day of warning (Warning Lead Times = 2). Large areas of Custer County could be affected by a nuclear event at the INL (Geography Affected = 2) and deaths and injuries highly unlikely (Bodily Harm = 1). Business interruption and agricultural economic loss are would occur within the ingestion pathway (Economic Loss = 4) and recovery assistance would be provided by the Federal Government (Reconstruction Assistance = 8). Sheltering of livestock may be required in the ingestion pathway (Shelter = 2). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, twenty-one (21) which, for Custer County, is in the “High” range. No nuclear event has occurred in Custer County and the likelihood of an occurrence is very low (Frequency = Low).

132 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Hazardous Material Event Description Substances that, because of their chemical or physical characteristics, are hazardous to humans and living organisms, property, and the environment, are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and, when transported in commerce, by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). EPA regulations address “hazardous substances” and “extremely hazardous substances”.

EPA chooses to specifically list hazardous substances and extremely hazardous substances rather than providing objective definitions. Hazardous substances, as listed, are generally materials that, if released into the environment, tend to persist for long periods and pose long-term health hazards for living organisms. They are primarily chronic, rather than acute health hazards. Regulations require that spills of these materials into the environment in amounts at or above their individual “reportable quantities” must be reported to the EPA. Extremely hazardous substances, on the other hand, while also generally toxic materials, are acute health hazards that, when released, are immediately dangerous to the life of humans and animals as well as causing serious damage to the environment. There are currently 355 specifically listed extremely hazardous substances listed along with their individual “threshold planning quantities” (TPQ). When facilities have these materials in quantities at or above the TPQ, they must submit “Tier II” information to appropriate state and/or local agencies to facilitate emergency planning.

DOT regulations provide the following definition for the term “hazardous material”:

Hazardous material means a substance or material that the Secretary of Transportation has determined is capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce, and has designated as hazardous under section 5103 of Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5103). The term includes hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials designated as hazardous in the Hazardous Materials Table (see 49 CFR 172.101), and materials that meet the defining criteria for hazard classes and divisions in part 173 of subchapter C of this chapter.

When a substance meets the DOT definition of a hazardous material, it must be transported under safety regulations providing for appropriate packaging, communication of hazards, and proper shipping controls.

In addition to EPA and DOT regulations, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) develops codes and standards for the safe storage and use of hazardous materials. These codes and standards are generally adopted locally and include the use of the NFPA 704 standard for communication of chemical hazards in terms of health, fire, instability (previously called “reactivity”), and other special hazards (such as water reactivity and oxidizer characteristics). Diamond-shaped NFPA 704 signs ranking the health, fire and instability hazards on a numerical scale from zero (least) to four (greatest) along with any special hazards, are usually required to be posted on chemical storage buildings, tanks, and other facilities. Similar NFPA 704 labels may also be required on individual containers stored and/or used inside facilities.

133 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

While somewhat differently defined by the above organizations, the term “hazardous material” may be generally understood to encompass substances that have the capability to harm humans and other living organisms, property, and/or the environment. There is also no universally accepted, objective definition of the term “hazardous material event.” A useful working definition, however, might be framed as: Any actual or threatened uncontrolled release of a hazardous material, its hazardous reaction products, or the energy released by its reactions that poses a significant risk to human life and health, property and/or the environment.

There are six (6) facilities in Custer County that submitted Tier II information. Figure 4.5.2 shows these Tier II facilities along with their Protective Action Distances (PAD). These PADs are based on hypothetical worst-case scenarios where the total quantity of the material explodes or is released directly into the air. Hazardous materials are also very commonly stocked and used by businesses in smaller quantities than those required to submit Tier II reports, as well as by private individuals. Thus, it is reasonably safe to consider the entire County and its inhabitants to be exposed to risk from hazardous materials. In spite of their widespread use, however, hazardous materials events are relatively rare and even more rarely cause death, injury or large-scale property damage. To some extent this is due to the fact that such hazards are very effectively addressed by inspections, regulations, codes and safety procedures, as well as by specialized emergency response training. The focus of this profile is, therefore, on those situations where there is the risk of a large scale incident that would threaten many lives. Such incidents are generally limited to those involving a large amount of material capable either of exploding or producing a toxic cloud and call for, in the worst-case scenario, for a PAD of one mile or more. The following table lists each Tier II facilities and their respective PADs.

Facility Address City/Zip Product PAD (feet) Challis Stinker Station 88 Highway 93 South Challis, 83226 Diesel Fuel 2,640 ITD 2005-7c- Challis US 93 Challis, 83226 Diesel Fuel 5,280 Salmon River 1257 E. Valley Propane Street Challis, 83226 Liquefied Petroleum Gas 5,280 Thompson Creek Clayton, Liquid Hydrocarbon (Diesel Mine PO Box 62 83227 Fuel) 5,280 ITD 2005-7c- Mackay, Mackay 62101 US 93 83251 Diesel Fuel 2,640 Idaho Mile Post 127.85 Transportation E/B, State Department Dist. 4 Highway 21 Stanley, 83278 Gasoline 2,640

Table 4.5.2 Custer County Tier II Locations

134 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.5.2 Hazardous Materials Protective Action Distances

135 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Historical Frequencies

The following table lists hazardous material events in Custer County responded to by the Eastern Idaho Regional Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Team for the year 2007.

Place Date Chemical Classification Custer 2/27/2007 Unknown Level III Custer 12/10/2007 Explosive Material Level II

Table 4.5.3 Custer County Hazardous Material Events 2007

Impacts The specific impacts posed by a hazardous material event are usefully summarized by reference to the NFPA 704 scheme. *State of Idaho Hazardous Materials Response Classification Levels – Flammability hazards Level I – An incident involving any response, public or private to an incident Ignite spontaneously and burn rapidly or explosively on contact involving hazardous materials that can with air be contained, extinguished, and/or abated using resources immediately Explode or burn readily and rapidly when mixed with air and available to the responders having provided with an ignition source jurisdiction. Ignite and/or react explosively in contact with water Level II – An incident involving Emit toxic combustion products hazardous materials that is beyond the capabilities of the first responders on the Emit high heat capable of igniting other combustible materials scene, and may be beyond the capabilities of the public sector response Flammable liquids compose, by volume, more than half of the hazardous agency having jurisdiction. Level II incidents may require the services of the materials shipped, stored and used in the United States. State of Idaho Regional Response Team, or other State/Federal Assistance. Health hazards Level III – An incident involving Toxic (poison) – when in the body, interferes with biochemical weapons of mass destruction/hazardous processes, damages organs or tissues, or otherwise causes injury to materials that will require multiple State of Idaho Regional Response Teams or health resources that do not exist within the Asphyxiant – dilutes or removes respired oxygen or otherwise State of Idaho. These incidents may prevents oxygen from reaching organs or satisfying metabolic needs require resources from State and Federal agencies and/or private industry. Damages genetic material – carcinogens and mutagens

Instability hazards Self-reactive (e.g. explosives, organic peroxides, certain monomers) React violently or explosively with water Decompose violently (usually on heating) Sensitive to thermal or mechanical shock

Special hazards – oxidizer (OX) Cause spontaneous ignition on contact with combustibles

136 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Cause combustibles to burn extremely rapidly or explosively

Special hazards – water reactive (W) Ignite spontaneously or explode on contact with water Emit flammable gas on contact with water Emit toxic gas on contact with water In terms of physical form, gaseous materials are particularly hazardous because they may travel freely and engulf exposures. When stored and transported, they are commonly contained under high pressure or liquefied at very low temperature. When released, all but oxygen and air itself are asphyxiation hazards in addition to any other chemical or toxic characteristics. Loss Estimates Losses due to a hazardous materials release in Custer County would be related to response activities, including evacuation-related business interruption, and clean-up costs. Custer County has had significant hazardous materials incidents. Clean up of these releases is the responsibility of the spiller. The cost of response to releases is reimbursed to the responding jurisdiction by the Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security Hazardous Materials Division. Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Hazardous Materials has a magnitude score of 20.

137 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale Frequency of Hazardous Materials Hazard Hazardous materials events often occur Ranking Description suddenly and with little or no warning HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years (Warning Lead Times = 8). Such events MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years usually affect a relatively limited area LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened (Geography Affected = 2) and injuries but minimal deaths may occur (Bodily Harm = 2). Business interruption and economic losses are limited (Economic Loss = 2) and recovery assistance is provided locally by the State of Idaho Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team from Idaho Falls (Reconstruction Assistance = 4). Some sheltering of the general public may be required (Shelter = 2). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, twenty (20) which, for Custer County, is in the “High” range. Historical records for hazardous material events are available and reliable, indicating that significant hazardous materials events occur annually (Frequency = High).

Riot/Demonstration/Civil Disorder Definition/Description: State of Idaho statutes define “riot” as follows (Idaho Statute 18-6401 – RIOT DEFINED): Any action, use of force or violence, or threat thereof, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use such force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two (2) or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, which results in: (a) physical injury to any person; or (b) damage or destruction to public or private property; or (c) a disturbance of the public peace; is a riot. Also defined in the statutes (Idaho Statute 18-8102 – DEFINITIONS) is “civil disorder”: "Civil disorder" means any public disturbance involving acts of violence by an assemblage of two (2) or more persons which acts cause an immediate danger of or result in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual. The term “demonstration” is not defined in this context in the Idaho statutes but the following is given for “unlawful assembly” (Idaho Statute 18-6404 - UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY DEFINED): Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, and separate without doing or advancing toward it, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly. Riots are generally thought of as being spontaneous, violent events whereas demonstrations are usually planned events and are usually intended to be non-violent. Riots seem often to be motivated by frustration and anger, usually over some real or perceived unfair treatment of some group. There are instances, however, where riots have begun during celebrations and other events where the only initiating factor seems to have been the gathering of a crowd of people. The potential for rioting, then, exists any time people gather but a number of factors are associated with the increased probability one will occur including:

138 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Drug and alcohol use Youth of crowd members Low socio-economic status of members High level of emotions A history of rioting on the same or similar previous occasions Initiating event, person, or persons

Once violent or illegal activity is initiated, it escalates, possibly at least partly because of the perception that, because all are acting together, there is little probability that any given individual will be arrested or otherwise suffer consequences. Riots may range in scope from a very few people in a small area to thousands over an entire city. Once initiated, large riots are very difficult to suppress, particularly in the United States where law enforcement is constrained by constitutional guarantees as well as personnel limits. Early and decisive action by law enforcement may be effective in suppressing a riot, but police actions may also lead to further escalation. Historical Frequencies There are no recorded riot events in Custer County. Impacts Riots may result in loss of life, injury and permanent disability (participants, bystanders, and law enforcement personnel) as well as looting, vandalism, setting of fires and other property destruction. Law enforcement, emergency medical services and medical facilities and personnel, firefighting and other community resources may be overwhelmed and unavailable to the community at large. Transportation routes may be closed, infrastructure and utilities damaged or destroyed, and public buildings attacked, damaged or destroyed. Social and psychological effects may also cause great impacts. Lingering fear and resentment can be long- lasting and can greatly impair the ability of a community to function politically, socially and economically. Loss Estimates Losses from Riot/Demonstration/Civil Disobedience comes primarily damage to community and private property. It is difficult to estimate specific losses but losses would be consistent with those due to structure fires and similar incidents.

139 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Riot/Demonstration/Civil Disobedience has a magnitude score of 11.

Frequency Magnitude/Frequency Scoring Rationale Ranking Description Riot/Demonstration/Civil Disorder events HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years usually provide less than a day of warning MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years (Warning Lead Times = 4). Very limited LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened geographical areas would be affected (Geography Affected = 2) and no deaths and injuries would be expected (Bodily Harm = 1). Business interruption and economic loss are likely to be quite limited (Economic Loss = 1) and any recovery assistance would be provided at the local level (Reconstruction Assistance = 2). No public sheltering would be expected (Shelter = 1). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, eleven (11) which, for Custer County, is in the “Low” range. Historical records available and reliable, indicating that such events have never occurred in Custer County (Frequency = Low).

140 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Terrorism Description Terrorism is an unlawful act under both Federal and State of Idaho statutes. Definitions are as follows: U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2331. Definitions (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that - (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Idaho Statute 18-8102 – DEFINITIONS (5) "Terrorism" means activities that: (a) Are a violation of Idaho criminal law; and (b) Involve acts dangerous to human life that are intended to: (i) Intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) Affect the conduct of a government by the use of weapons of mass destruction, as defined in section 18-3322, Idaho Code. The Federal Disaster Services Agency gives the following as general information on terrorism (http://www.fema.gov/hazard/terrorism/info.shtm): “Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom. Terrorists often use threats to: Create fear among the public. Try to convince citizens that their government is powerless to prevent terrorism. Get immediate publicity for their causes. Acts of terrorism include threats of terrorism; assassinations; kidnappings; hijackings; bomb scares and bombings; cyber attacks (computer-based); and the use of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons. High-risk targets for acts of terrorism include military and civilian government facilities, international airports, large cities, and high-profile landmarks. Terrorists might also target large public gatherings, water and food supplies, utilities, and corporate centers. Further, terrorists are capable of spreading fear by sending explosives or chemical and biological agents through the mail.” Acts of terrorism, then, are essentially the intentional initiation of the sorts of hazard events that have been discussed in previous sections.

141 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Historical Frequencies There are no recorded terrorism events in Custer County. Impacts Since the events of September 11, 2001, no citizen of the United States is unaware of the enormous potential impacts of terrorist acts. The emotional impacts; fear, dread, anger, outrage, etc., serve to compound the enormous physical, economic, and social damage. The continuing terrorist threat itself has a profound impact on many aspects of everyday life in this country and on the U.S. economy. Loss Estimates Specific loss estimates are not provided due to security policies. Hazard Evaluation Repetitive Loss - none Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Terrorism has a magnitude score of 24. Frequency Ranking Description Magnitude//Frequency Scoring Rationale HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years Terrorism events may occur with little or no LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened warning (Warning Lead Times = 8). Numerous scenarios are possible, many of which could affect a moderately large area (Geography Affected = 2) but most of which would cause injuries but few deaths (Bodily Harm = 2). Business interruption and economic loss, under most scenarios, are likely to be moderate (Economic Loss

142 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 = 2) but Federal recovery assistance would probably be available (Reconstruction Assistance = 8). Some sheltering of those in the immediate area may be required (Shelter = 2). The total Magnitude score is, therefore, twenty-four (24) which, for Custer County, is in the “High” range. Historical records available and reliable, indicating that such events have never occurred in Custer County and the likelihood is considered to be low (Frequency = Low).

143 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 4.6 Vulnerabilities

Critical Infrastructure County Facilities Custer County Courthouse is located at 801 Main Street in Challis. It houses the Assessor, Clerk, Sherriff, Commissioners, Prosecutor, Extension, Planning and Zoning and Department of Noxious Weeds. The County also owns a courthouse in Mackay. The County jail is located in Challis and includes three buildings and an exercise yard.

City Description Total Value

Mackay Ambulance Shed $80,000

Courthouse $20,000 Fair Animal Shed $20,000 Fair Animal Shed $20,000

Fair Building $105,000 Fair Hog Barn $15,000 Fair Horse Shed $10,000 Total Value $270,000 Challis Courthouse $1,044,808 Shop $55,000 Storage Shed $25,000 Storage Shed $35,000 Storage Shed $15,000 Vault $30,000 Jail $85,000 Jail $45,000 Jail Exercise Yard $12,000 Rodeo Grounds $65,000 Shop $65,000 Total Value $1,476,808 Stanley Office $40,000 Total Value $40,000 Total Value $1,786,808

Table 4.6.1 Custer County Facilities

144 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Address Building Value 211 Main Street City Hall $117,214 523 Main Street Library $160,216 Park on East Highway 93 Concession Stand Restroom $37,513 Park Shelter $21,765 Band Shell $7,047 Storage Bldg $31,527 Parks Yard Construction $154,447 1220 Main Street Museum $87,467 Clinic Road Maintenance Shop $90,448 Maintenance Shop $0 West Main & Garden Creek Road Community Stage (Challis Golf Course) $57,000 Cart Maintenance Bldg $74,909 Club House $174,400 East 9th Street Fire Station $349,657 Challis Airport Airport lights $7,188 Southwest of Town Water Storage $112,462 Water House $53,779 West of Town West Well #1 $10,788 West Well #2 $10,788 East of Town East Well #1 $15,063 Pump house $5,144 Challis Disinfection $16,464 Chlorine Bldg $5,638 Inlet Bldg $4,631 Sewer Equipment $12,920 Total Value $1,618,475

Table 4.6.2 City of Challis Facilities

145 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Address Description Value 203 S. Main City Hall $250,000 102 S. Main Fire Station $90,000 Park St Restroom $22,000 Mt. Mccaleb Restroom $22,000 Tourist Park BBQ Storage $7,500 Restroom $22,000 Centennial Rest Area Restroom $38,000 Rodeo Grounds Rodeo Building $15,000 Bleachers $80,000 Restroom $22,000 Whitekno b St Sewer Lift Station $15,000 Hwy 93 Storage Building $45,000 Smelter Road Water Treatment Plant $20,000 Storage Reserve Tank $500,000 #1 Airport Rd Business Incubation Center $500,000 #2 Airport Rd Business Incubation Center $500,000 Total Value $1,898,500

Table 4.6.3 City of Mackay Facilities

Description Value City Hall/Fire Station $939,797 Shaw Cabin $26,095 Waldorf Cabin $14,881 Warming Shed/Shop $33,775 Groomer Storage Bldg $67,102 Park Shelter $28,922 Restroom #1 $6,645 Restroom #2 $6,645 Total Value $1,123,862

Table 4.6.4 City of Stanley Facilities

146 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Fairgrounds The Custer County Fairgrounds are located in Mackay Idaho and include a fair building, two animal sheds, a hog barn and a horse shed. The Rodeo Grounds are located in Challis Libraries Public Libraries are located in Challis, Mackay, and Stanley. Senior Citizens Centers Centers are located in Challis and Mackay Public Services and Facilities Water Supply Public water systems are supplied in the cities of Challis and Mackay. Individual private wells supply water to the residences in small cities such as Stanley. All other private residential water supplies are primarily from wells and some from natural springs. All water supplies in the County, public and private, are required to comply with all State and Federal regulations and requirements that are applicable. The City of Challis drinking water system consists of one surface water intake structure along Garden Creek and four ground water sources. It serves approximately 1,073 people through 521 connections36. The City of Mackay drinking water system consists of two well sources and a spring source. It serves approximately 650 people through 370 connections. The wells are located in the center of town near Highway 93; the spring is located approximately one-half mile southwest of the city limits between Taylor Canyon and Rio Grande Canyon37. There are 61 public/private water systems throughout Custer County consisting mostly by wells and serving small businesses, churches, federal government sites as well as city buildings in Clayton and Stanley. The City of Clayton is working to install a central water system and has applied to DEQ and IDWR for permits. Sewer Systems Most of the cities in Custer County have public sewage systems. The city of Stanley has a sewer organization called the Stanley Sewer Association and is not affiliated with the city. Rural residences have individual septic systems that are regulated by the State Health Department. The County requires all sewage systems to comply with all State and Federal regulations that are applicable

36 IDEQ, 2001 37 IDEQ, 20043

147 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Waste Management County residents may haul or have a private solid waste company haul their waste to one of the various dumpster stations. Solid waste from manned transfer stations is hauled to the Custer County site located in Salmon by a private company. Fire Protection There are three fire protection districts in Custer County; North Custer, South Custer and Sawtooth Valley. The North Custer/Challis Fire District serves Challis and Clayton areas as well as North Custer County and is combined with the Challis volunteer fire department to form a municipal and fire protection district. The Challis fire department has 30 volunteer fire fighters. The North Custer Fire District also has departments based in the towns of Clayton with 11 volunteers, May with 13 volunteers and a rural station located in Round Valley. Topography in the district is a combination of flat farming, ranching, some mining ground and mountains with steep slopes along with rivers and streams. The Main Salmon Rivers runs through the District response area and includes agricultural, rangelands, forest, wildland/urban interface, residential, business, and mining areas. Although sparsely populated, because of the high recreational interests of the area, the population swells during the hunting, fishing and camping seasons. The South Custer Fire District serves the town of Mackay and surrounding area in south Custer County. It is combined with the Mackay Fire Department to from a municipal and fire protection district. Mackay fire department has 18 volunteer fire fighters. Topography in the district is varied from flat grasslands to mountainous areas and includes Mackay Reservoir. The fire protection area includes agricultural, rangelands, forest, wildland urban interface, residential, and business. The response area includes two square miles of city area and 1,700 miles of district area. The Sawtooth Valley Fire District serves the Stanley area with a volunteer fire department. The surrounding terrain is rugged and mountainous with several large lakes and includes agriculture, rangelands, forest, wildland/urban interface, residential and business. The response area includes 76 square miles. Public Safety The Custer County Sheriff‟s Department has headquarters in Challis with officers in Challis, Stanley and Mackay. From time to time the cities of Challis, Mackay and Stanley have proved law enforcement to patrol within their cities. The City of Stanley currently has one (1) full time officer and two (2) reserve officers. Custer County also has officers from the Idaho State Police, Idaho Fish and Game, Idaho State Brand Inspector, BLM, and USFS that coordinate with the Custer County Sheriff‟s Department Challis, Stanley, and surrounding area 911 calls are routed to the Custer County Sheriff dispatch. Mackay and surrounding area 911 calls are routed to the Butte County Sheriff dispatch. Enhanced 911 services are not presently available in the County. Search and Rescue service is provided by a volunteer system with unties based in Challis, Mackay and Stanley.

148 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Health Care There is no hospital in Custer County. The closest hospitals are Steele Memorial in Salmon, Idaho, St Luke Medical Center in Hailey, Idaho, Lost Rivers Medical Center in Arco, Idaho and Eastern Idaho Regional medical Center in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Challis, Mackay and Stanley each have one general clinic, Challis Area Health Center, Mackay Medical Clinic and Salmon River Clinic respectively. Ambulance service is available in the County through volunteer ambulance services in Challis, Mackay and Stanley. Disaster Services The Custer County Department of Disaster Services coordinates resources in the time of a disaster or incident for the four (4) cities in Custer County. The Department follows the Emergency Operations Plan, which is mirrored after the National Response Plan through the Office of Domestic Preparedness. This plan allows those city, government and first responding agencies to protect and support the welfare of the citizens, and draw upon those directives listed in the EOP to handle incidents that affect Custer County, in a coordinated manner. The continued commitment by the Department of Emergency Services with assistance from the Federal and State Bureau of Homeland Security Offices is to attain a higher level of excellence in preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation when dealing with an All Hazards or Weapons of Mass Destruction Incident in Custer County. Public Utilities Lost River Electric Cooperative serves southern Custer County including Mackay and the surrounding areas and north to the top of Willow Creek Summit. Salmon River Electric, supplies the rest of the County where it is feasible including Stanley and the Stanley Basin. Those areas within the county that are not served by Lost River Electric or Salmon River Electric have a choice of solar generation or generation produced by fuel cells or an internal combustion engine. Small low-head hydropower generation facilities exist in the County at the present time. Maps showing the power supplies in Custer County are included below as Figure 4.6.1, 4.6.2, and 4.6.3. Figure 4.6.2 shows the electric power supply to Butte and Custer Counties from the Goshen Substation across the INL. Natural Gas is not currently available in Custer County. Propane is available from multiple providers. Telecommunication Two independent companies and one locally owned cooperative provide telecommunications service. Mackay and the surrounding area are served by ATC Communications headquartered in Albion, Idaho. Custer Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (CTCI) serves Challis and the surrounding area. The Stanley area is served by Midvale Telephone Exchanges, Inc., headquartered in Midvale, Idaho.

149 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.6.1 Main Electrical Power Supply Lines

150 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Figure 4.6.2 Power Supply to Custer County from Goshen Substation across INL

151 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Water Resources Surface Water There are several rivers in Custer County including the Salmon River, the Middle Fork of the Salmon River, the East Fork of the Salmon River, the Pahsimeroi River and the Big Lost River. The Salmon River has its headwaters are in the Sawtooth Mountains in Blaine County and flows for 425 miles through central Idaho. It enters Custer County from the south near the County border and State route 75. From there is flows north to Stanley, then east through Sunbeam and Clayton, then north again to Lemhi County. The Middle Fork Salmon River has headwaters in the Sawtooth Mountains in Valley County and flows for 107 miles to the Salmon River through the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area. It drains approximately 2,830 square miles of central Idaho. The topography in the Middle Fork Salmon River drainage is extremely rugged and remote and road access is limited. The principal means of access are aircraft, boat, and trail. It is protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (IMNH, 2007). The river flows along most of the western border. The East Fork Salmon River flows 33 miles from its headwaters in southern Custer County to the Salmon River just downstream from the town of Clayton. The drainage area is 540 square miles and includes the White Cloud Peaks to the west and the Boulder Mountains to the south. In the lower drainage area, the river bisects a zone of volcanic soils which are highly erosive. The Pahsimeroi River flows between the Lemhi and Lost River ranges with headwaters in the Lost River Range. It flows for 49 miles to the Salmon River and drains approximately 845 squares miles. Together with its tributary Big Creek it makes up a portion of the northern border of the County. The Big Lost River has headwaters that drain the Boulder Mountains and Copper Basin. From there it flows north towards US Highway 93 where it turns and flows southeast toward the town of Mackay and Leslie and into Butte County. This river is part of the Sinks Drainages that sink into the upper Snake River Plain aquifer. The Big lost River Basin is approximately 1,400 square miles. It„s flow below Mackay Reservoir is limited due to irrigation withdrawals and the general sinking nature of the river. Other creeks and small streams include Loon Creek and Warm Spring Creek as well as several streams that drain the mountain ranges found in the County. There are over 175 lakes and reservoirs in Custer County. The largest of these is Mackay Reservoir located on the Big Lost River near the town of Mackay. There are numerous lakes in the White Cloud Peaks and Sawtooth Mountains including Soldier Lakes, Stanley Lake, Sawtooth Lake, Redfish Lake, Yellow Belly Lake, Hell Roaring Lake and Jimmy Smith Lake. Irrigation Custer County has a total of 54,699 irrigated acres. Irrigation water is provided through an irrigation company or private well. The following table outlines the three irrigation companies in Custer County.

152 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Company Name Source Total Irrigated Acres Big Lost River Irrigation District Big Lost River/Antelope Creek 32,000 Challis Irrigation Company Salmon River 4,417.9 Gini Ditch Company Inc. Salmon River 2,440

Table 4.6.2 Custer County Irrigation Companies Groundwater Ground water in Custer County is monitored by the USGS through approx 13 wells throughout the County. During the year 2006, groundwater was found between 6-70 feet below the land surface. Although the Snake River Aquifer does not lie under Custer County, it is influenced by surface water in the County. Both the Big and Little Lost Rivers which have headwaters in Custer County sink into the Snake River Plain Aquifer west of Mackay. Transportation Roadways Major highways through the County are US Highway 93 and State Routes 75 and 21. US Highway 93 runs northwest and southeast from Butte County through Leslie and Mackay along the Lost River Range to Challis where it junctions with State Route 75 and turns towards Salmon in Custer County. State Route 75 travels north from Sun Valley in Blaine County to Stanley where it turns east towards Clayton and Challis then junctions with US Highway 93. State route 21 travels east and west. It enters the County at Banner Summit in the Sawtooth Mountains and travels southeast to Stanley where it ends at the junction with State Route 75. There are several improved and unimproved county roads throughout the County. One road connects Sunbeam and Challis through the Salmon River Mountains. Another travels up the East Fork Salmon River from State Route 75. Another connects Sun Valley in Blaine County with US Highway 93 between Mackay and Challis. One more connects US Highway 93 with the Pahsimeroi Valley and travels along the County border near May and Patterson in Custer County. There is also one that leaves Mackay and travels east into Butte County and the Hawley Mountains. There are two highway districts in Custer County, Custer County Road and Bridge and Lost River Highway District. The following table outlines the miles of roadways in each jurisdiction as well as city roads.

153 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Jurisdiction Improved and Improved Gravel Graded and Drained Total Paved (miles) (miles) (miles) Custer County 81.6 140.38 90.94 312.92 Road and Bridge Lost River 31.05 242.90 26.25 300.2 Highway District City of Challis 14.46 0 1.02 15.48 City of Mackay 8.54 .20 0 8.74 City of Stanley 0 1.76 .07 1.83

Table 4.6.3 Custer County Roads Bridges The two highway districts in Custer County have a total of 28 bridges in their jurisdictions that span greater than 20 feet. The following table outlines each bridge in the County, the jurisdictions it falls under and the route it‟s carried on. Of the County and City owned bridges, two (2) bridges are rated as critical, seven (7) are eligible for replacement and seven (7) are eligible for rehabilitation based on sufficiency ratings given by the Idaho Department of Transportation.

Year Owner Route Total Value Constructed

City of Mackay Capital Avenue 1940 $827,820.00 Total Value $827,820.00 Custer County R&B STC 6870 1978 $4,305,636.00 CO.RD;PLNG#084A 1930 $4,145,904.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0083 1970 $4,219,614.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0064 1930 $3,193,992.00 ROBINSON BAR 1940 $2,541,456.00 COUNTY ROAD 1930 $5,041,764.00 COUNTY ROAD 1960 $721,386.00 COUNTY ROAD 1960 $1,005,210.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0105 1977 $1,651,104.00 COUNTY ROAD 1960 $1,046,520.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0101 1970 $1,868,508.00 COUNTY ROAD 1960 $1,046,520.00 COUNTY ROAD 1997 $1,190,214.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0101 1972 $2,306,070.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0048 1956 $709,560.00 Total Value $34,993,458.00 Lost River Hwy District COUNTY ROAD 1978 $2,918,916.00

154 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Year Owner Route Total Value Constructed

BARTLETT ROAD 1996 $3,830,166.00 HUSTON ROAD 1973 $2,332,800.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0145 1926 $1,023,840.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0179 1977 $2,967,516.00 SMELTER ROAD 1974 $3,045,600.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0144 1920 $1,683,990.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0146 1915 $1,741,824.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0145 1918 $1,958,580.00 CO.RD;PLNG#0140 1992 $1,448,280.00 STC 6869 1984 $824,904.00 STC 6869 1918 $2,306,556.00 IDFG ACCESS ROAD 1989 $5,627,880.00 Total Value $31,710,852.00 Idaho DOT SH 21 1964 $5,345,028.00 SH 21 1964 $5,155,650.00 SH 21 1966 $4,483,188.00 SH 21 1968 $1,264,896.00 SH 75 1985 $6,205,896.00 SH 75 1974 $1,612,548.00

SH 75 1974 $1,612,548.00 SH 75 1985 $9,269,316.00 SH 75 1960 $6,286,896.00 SH 75 1977 $6,680,232.00 SH 75 1934 $911,736.00 SH 75 1934 $8,202,060.00 SH 75 1934 $12,712,788.00 SH 75 1936 $10,007,712.00 SH 75 1938 $9,521,712.00 SH 75 1938 $6,744,546.00 SH 75 1988 $2,722,896.00 SH 75 1988 $2,539,674.00 SH 75 1954 $15,479,100.00 SH 75 1988 $2,654,208.00 US 93 1941 $1,486,998.00 US 93 1991 $1,960,200.00 US 93 1937 $10,740,600.00 US 93 1938 $5,238,432.00 US 93 1987 $3,913,272.00 US 93 1949 $1,168,020.00

155 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Year Owner Route Total Value Constructed

US 93 1995 $19,346,688.00 Total Value $163,266,840.00 US Forest Service FDR 1956 $884,520.00 FDR 1991 $1,419,120.00 CUSTER MOTORWAY 1961 $1,069,200.00 CUSTER MOTORWAY 1992 $810,810.00 CUSTER MOTORWAY 1962 $592,920.00 CUSTER MOTORWAY 1962 $651,240.00 CUSTER MOTORWAY 1962 $884,520.00 CUSTER MOTORWAY 1962 $651,240.00 CUSTER MOTORWAY 1962 $553,554.00 CUSTER MOTORWAY 1969 $677,484.00 CUSTER MOTORWAY 1973 $709,560.00 Total Value $8,904,168.00 Total Value $239,703,138.00

Table 4.6.4 Custer County Bridges

Airports Custer County has several airports and airstrips in and near the County. Challis airport is a general aviation airport with local charter service available. It has a 4600 foot asphalt runway, communication and navigation equipment as well as a beacon light and fuel services. It is manned from 0700-1900 hours and has helicopter operations adjacent at the southeast end of the airport. There are no scheduled passenger flights. Mackay airport is a community airport with a 4400 foot asphalt runway. It has no communication equipment, navigation equipment, or lights. It is not attended and has no charter service. There are 3 state owned airports in Custer County and one on the border of Custer and Valley County. They all have communication capabilities, but no navigation equipment, lights or other services. They are not attended and have no winter maintenance. Copper Basin airport is located 12 miles southwest of Mackay at 7920 feet elevation. The runway is turf and 4,700 feet long. It is located in a high mountain valley and has livestock in the vicinity and may have rodent damage on the runway. Twin Bridges Airport is located on the Big Lost River 22 miles northeast of Ketchum in Blain County at 6,893 feet. The runway is turf and 4,450 feet long. This airport is also in a high mountain valley and is subject to damage by livestock, ground vehicles and rodents. Stanley Airport is located 1 mile southeast of Stanley at 6,403 feet. It has numerous air taxi operations during the summer months and snowmobile activity on the ground during the

156 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 winter months. There are considerable air taxi operations in the summer and mountain flying proficiency is strongly recommended38. There are 4 backcountry airstrips in Custer County which are managed by the Middle Fork Ranger District in Challis. They are all located at the very western edge of the County (three are actually in or on the border of adjacent counties) next to ranger stations. They are Indian Creek, Mahoney Creek, Bernard Creek and Upper Loon Creek. Mountain flying proficiency is recommended for these air strips. They have no services and no winter maintenance with turf or gravel runways with lengths that vary from 1900 feet at Bernard Creek to 4650 feet at Indian Creek. Railroads There is no railway serving the County. Economics Thompson Creek Mine The Thompson Creek Mine (TCM) is located 35 miles southwest of Challis, in Custer County Idaho. The operation is scheduled to process 32,000 tons of ore each day to recover approximately 20 million pounds (lbs) of Molybdenum annually for the next ten years. TCM consumes over 25 megawatts of power at a time, and employees 350 people directly not including a significant number of contractor and service labor. A majority of the 20 million lbs produced are shipped by truck to the company‟s refining facility in Langeloth, Pennsylvania for further processing. Economically in “base” dollars the price of Molybdenum has exceeded $30 dollars a pound the last two years, looking forward if TCM realizes only $25 dollars a pound, at a production rate of 20 million pounds a year, it equates to $500 million dollars a year for the next 10 years of known/scheduled production ($5 Billion). Realizing TCM is a 24/7 operation, for arguments sake, any lost production time, cannot be made up until the end of mine life. You cannot do tomorrows work until today‟s work is finished, if it doesn‟t get done today, everything backs up until it is done. . .everything pushes back, which equates to “lost” production, it is lost until the end of mine life (+/- ten years). Doing the math based on the annual production above at a realized market price of $25 per pound, just on the “base” dollar value of the processed metal itself, to calculate potential losses, at 365 days a year, each down day results in a loss of $1.37 million, the cost of one lost hour of production exceeds $57,000 each hour. The economic valve of the Thompson Creek Mine is directly affected by the Molybdenum metal price, however; perhaps even a more significant factor is how many times these “base” dollars are circulated around the county, state, and country between the different customers and suppliers relating to this business. Historic estimates have ranged between 3 and 6 times the base value, which means the economic impact of TCM going forward for the next 10 years conservatively, will be very significant to Custer County, the State of Idaho, and even the United States as a whole.

38 ITD, 2007

157 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Significant items of concern directly impacting the TCM operation would be any loss of power, or any access to and from the Mine site. As mentioned above TCM is a 24/7 operation consuming 25 megawatts of power and several thousand gallons of fuel and numerous other supplies every day. Currently scheduled to operate at least ten more years, Three Rivers Stone The Three Rivers Stone Quarry is operated by L&W Stone Corporation, a privately owned stone retailer with corporate offices in Orland, California, and is mined for flagstone rock. The quarry is located near the town of Clayton in Custer County, Idaho, just north of the confluence of the East Fork Salmon and Salmon rivers and lies entirely on lands administered by the BLM Challis Field Office. Mining at the Three Rivers Stone Quarry has occurred since the 1970s. Mining activities could occur 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 12 months per year. The delivery of the quarried flagstone from the quarry to wholesale and retail markets occurs by commercial trucks hauling on county, state, and Federal roads and highways. Approximately 100 employees (61 year-round and 39 seasonal) would be required at the peak of mine production. Seasonal workers would typically work from April through December of each year. Currently L&W Stone Corporation currently employs about 75 workers at the Three Rivers Stone Quarry. Approximately 36 of these employees work seasonally, generally April through December of each year. Wages at L&W Stone are among the highest of all employers in the Challis area and Custer County. The majority of seasonal employees are paid by the weight and quality of flagstone produced daily, with wages paid dependent on experience and job description. The quarry provides a variety of jobs including laborers, trucking, equipment operators, management, and rock splitters and handlers. Housing Housing in Custer County has traditionally been farm and ranch homes on agricultural parcels. Higher density housing developments have mainly taken place within the city limits or community centers of the county. The table below shows the housing unit variations in Challis, Mackay, Stanley, and the County:

Area 1990 2000 Change Percent Challis 408 525 117 +28.6 Mackay 342 353 11 + 3.2 Stanley 77 City Total 750 955 129 +17.1 County 2437 2983 546 +22.4 Percent Outside Incorporated Cities 30.7 32.0

Table 4.6.5 Custer County Housing Units

158 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Housing values in Custer County have risen in the past decade. Conservative estimates by local realtors put market values at 50% to 200% above 1990 values. The most significant increases have occurred in the conversion of purely agricultural land to „recreational properties‟, particularly along the Big Lost and Salmon Rivers, especially in the Stanley Basin. Statewide, average assessed valuation on residential property increased 20% between 1990 and 2000. According to the US Census Bureau, Custer County has experienced a 5% growth in population from 1990 to 2000. This compares to a 22.1% increase for the previous decade. Influencing factors include the growth and decline of the mining industry. Educational Facilities Custer County has two school districts within its boundaries: Challis School District #181, Custer and Lemhi Counties, and Mackay School District #182, Custer and Butte Counties. The Challis School District reaches from Willow Creek Summit in the south to Ellis in the North, Stanley in the west and Goldburg in the east. The Challis District includes Elementary schools at Challis, Clayton, Patterson, and Stanley, and a High School at Challis. The Mackay School District covers the area from Antelope Creek in the south to Willow Creek Summit in the north and the ranches to the west along Trail Creek Road. The Mackay District includes Elementary and High Schools at Mackay. The County currently has two private schools and some students are being home schooled. Several small private daycare and pre-school services are available in the County.

Address Name Total Value 950 Bluff Ave Challis Jr./Sr. High School $7,050,940 Vo -Ag Shop Building $1,036,620 Challis Elementary/Admin Office $3,566,800 Bus Garage $260,250 Pump House $10,080 Concession/Announcers Booth $39,400 Trailer Storage Bldg $8,000 Total Value $11,972,090 800 Main St Challis Middle School $2,628,720 Gym/Quonset $1,402,600 Storage Shed $54,000 Total Value $4,085,320 13 Patterson Rd Patterson Elementary School $320,000 Storage Shed $2,500 Total Value $322,500 Airport Road Stanley Elementary/ J.H. School $556,300 Modular Storage $4,650 Storage Shed $7,935 Modular Classroom $72,450 Total Value $641,335

159 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Address Name Total Value HC 67 Box 586 Clayton Primary School $348,300 Bus Barn $50,000 Total Value $398,300 Total $17,419,545

Table 4.6.6 Challis School District Facilities

Address Description Value 400 East Spruce Street Mackay Junior Senior High School $5,050,000 Shop $450,000 Greenhouse $45,000 Box Car #1 $1,500 Red Box Car $1,500 Announcer‟s Booth $45,000 Hydroponic Greenhouse $75,000 Total Value $5,668,000 530 E. Spruce Street Mackay Elementary School $3,000,000 Admin Building (Modular) $350,000 Maintenance $2,500 Total Value $3,352,500 Total $9,020,500

Table 4.6.7 Mackay School District Facilities

Recreation Areas With the abundance of public land in Custer County, recreation opportunities exist throughout the County. The Forest Service land offers hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, etc. Mountain climbing is especially popular in Custer County with its many high peaks, including Borah Peak, the highest in Idaho. There is also a variety of hot springs located in the County. There are three commercial hot springs in the County; Challis Hot Springs near Challis and Mountain Village Hot Springs and the Idaho Rocky Mountain Ranch both near Stanley. Custer County also has world class white water rafting available on its many rivers. Custer County draws hundreds of visitors and tourists each year to its mountains, rivers and lakes. Cultural and Historical Sites From one end to the other, all of Custer County is special: From the tallest peak in Idaho, to the earthquake site, from the mighty Salmon River to the beautiful Lost River which sinks and runs underground, from the majestic Sawtooths to fascinating ghost towns like Custer and Bayhorse,

160 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 from picturesque rural mountain towns and ranches to abundant wildlife and wilderness, special sites abound. The people of Custer County know that the whole County is a special area with values ranging from historical, architectural, and archeological to natural and scenic significance. These remarkable natural and historical areas and sites are not always maintained on private and public land through the preservation of historic buildings, trails and roads, as well as rural landscapes and culture. The principle is that future generations can appreciate the uniqueness of their county and understand the continuity of history from prehistoric times through trapping, mining, ranching, and recreation. According to the Idaho State Preservation Office there are 1,957 pre-historic/archaeological sites and 494 architectural sites in Custer County. These are sites that have historical value, but may not be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Sites listed with the National register of historic places in Custer County include:

Bayhorse (added 1976 - Building - #76000671) S of Challis off U.S. 93, Challis Board-and-Batten Commercial Building (added 1980 - Building - #80001300) Main Ave., Challis Bonanza Historic District (added 1984 - District - #84004120) Unknown, Bonanza Building at 247 Pleasant Avenue (added 1980 - Building - #80001301) 247 Pleasant Ave., Challis Buster Meat Market (added 1980 - Building - #80004551) Main Ave., Challis Bux's Place (added 1980 - Building - #80001302) 321 Main Ave., Challis Challis Archeological Spring District (added 1981 - District - #81000206) Address Restricted, Challis Challis Bison Jump Site (added 1975 - Site - #75000628) Address Restricted, Challis Challis Brewery Historic District (added 1980 - District - #80001303) Also known as Klug Brewery Challis Creek Rd., Challis Challis Cold Storage (added 1980 - Building - #80001304) Main Ave., Challis Chivers, Bill, House (added 1980 - Building - #80001306) 3rd St., Challis Chivers, Thomas, Cellar (added 1980 - Building - #80001307) Challis Creek Rd., Challis Chivers, Thomas, House (added 1980 - Building - #80001308) Challis Creek Rd., Challis Custer County Jail (added 1980 - Building - #80001309) Main Ave., Challis

161 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Custer Historic District (added 1981 - District - #81000207) Address Restricted, Custer Day, Ivan W., House (added 1986 - Building - #86000754) Also known as Doc Day Cabin Boise Meridian, Stanley East Fork Lookout (added 1976 - Site - #76000672) Also known as Machu Picchu II Address Restricted, Clayton False-Front Commercial Building (added 1980 - Building - #80001310) Main Ave., Challis Hosford, Emmett, House (added 1980 - Building - #80001311) 3rd St., Challis I.O.O.F. Hall (added 1980 - Building - #80001312) Main Ave., Challis Idaho Rocky Mountain Club (added 1994 - District - #94001451) Also known as Idaho Rocky Mountain Ranch ID 75 S of Stanley, Stanley Mackay Episcopal Church (added 1982 - Building - #82000336) Park Ave. and College, Mackay Mackay Methodist Episcopal Church (added 1984 - Building - #84001118) Also known as Mackay Community Custer St. and Park Ave., Mackay McKendrick House (added 1980 - Building - #80001313) 4th St., Challis Niece Brothers' Store (added 1995 - Building - #95000667) Also known as McCoy's Tackle and Gift Shop Ace of Diamonds St., Stanley Old Challis Historic District (added 1980 - District - #80001314) Bounded by Valley and Pleasant Aves., 2nd and 3rd Sts., Challis Peck, Bill, House (added 1980 - Building - #80001315) 16 Main Ave., Challis Penwell House (added 1980 - Building - #80001316) North Ave., Challis Redfish Archeological District (added 1983 - District - #83003574) Address Restricted, Stanley Rowles, Donaldson, House (added 1980 - Building - #80001317) North Ave., Challis Smith, Henry, House (added 1980 - Building - #80001318) 5th St., Challis Stanley Ranger Station (added 1982 - Building - #82001885) S of Stanley on US 93, Stanley Stone Building (added 1980 - Building - #80001319) 3rd St., Challis

162 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Stone and Log Building (added 1980 - Building - #80001320) Pleasant Ave., Challis Twin Peaks Sports (added 1980 - Building - #80001321) Main Ave., Challis Wilkinson, Clyde, House (added 1980 - Building - #80001322) 9th St., Challis

163 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County Asset Inventory Summary

Asset Type Asset Quantity Geographical Area 4,937 square miles Households (2006 est.) 1705 General Population (2006 est.) 4,180 Housing Units (2006 est.) 3,041 Total Valuation of County/City Owned Structures $6,428,000 Hospitals 0 SchoolsStructures 8 Essential Valuation of Schools $26,441,000 Facilities Fire Stations 7 Police Stations 1 Emergency Operations Facility 1 Dams 19 High Potential Hazardous Materials Sites 6 Loss Facilities Military Installations 0 Nuclear Power Plants 0 County Roadways 639 miles Railways 0 Transportation County Bridges 28 Lifeline Systems Bus Lines 1 Airports 3 Potable Water 61 County Roadways 639 miles Wastewater 3 Railways 0 Transportation Utility Lifeline Natural Gas 0 County Bridges 28 Lifeline Systems Systems4 Crude and Refined Oil 0 Bus Lines 1 Electric Power 2 Suppliers Airports 3

Communications

164 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 4.7 Risk Assessment

The Hazard Assessment Process conducted in sections 4.1 – 4.6 was used to establish a basis for determining the cost effectiveness and priority of implementing mitigation strategies. To this end, the following steps were carried out:

1. A list of hazards to be considered was developed. 2. Each hazard was profiled. Profiles include: a. A description of the hazard and, where possible, objective definitions including levels of severity, b. A description of the possible impacts of the hazard, c. A County profile and/or profiles of individual locations where the hazard event may occur, including levels of severity and probabilities of occurrence. 3. For each location, vulnerabilities that may be affected by a hazard event were identified. These vulnerabilities include but are not necessarily limited to: a. Human population b. Structures c. Structure contents d. Crops and livestock e. Other property f. Critical Infrastructure g. Economic assets and business activities h. Social systems i. Others 4. Possible losses due to a hazard event at each location and at the various levels of severity were estimated.

To complete the process of establishing the level of risk severity associated with a hazard, each hazard was assessed based on estimated losses and the likelihood of a hazard event using the information gathered in steps 1-4 above. The risks associated with each hazard were based on historical occurrences and scientific projections. Hazard assessment activities included the use of FEMA‟s HAZUS but because of limitations with FEMA‟s HAZUS data, Custer County‟s own current GIS property valuation data was primarily used to generate loss estimates. Hazard assessment activities also include the mapping of hazards, at-risk structures including critical facilities, and repetitive flood loss structures, the location of at-risk structures, land use, and populations. These mapping activities were completed as part of a hazard assessment and linked to appropriate mitigation strategies which Frequency address requirements derived during the assessment process with the specific goal of Ranking Description reducing the risk. HIGH Multiple Times a Year to 5 Years Risk was determined in part by the frequency MEDIUM 5 to 25 Years of a given hazards event as determined by LOW 25 Years to Hasn‟t Happened looking at historical and scientific data and then balanced against the perception of the AHMP Committee and scored using the criteria below.

165 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Quantification of the risk was based on the three critical issues: life safety, property damage, and environmental insult. In addition other issues tied to community support of risk mitigation including social, cultural, and economical issues were included.

Magnitude of Natural Disasters Geography Population Warning Reconstruction Expected Bodily Loss Estimate Value (Area) Sheltering Lead Assistance From Harm Range Affected Required Times Little to No No 1 Family Parcel $1000s Months Injury / No Death Sheltering Multiple Injuries Block or with Little to No Little 2 City Group of $10,000s Weeks Medical Care / Sheltering Parcels No Death Sheltering Section or Major Medical Requiring 2 County Numerous Care Required / $100,000s Neighboring Days Parcels Minimal Death Counties Help Major Injuries / Requires Help Long Term Multiple 4 State from Outside $1,000,000s Sheltering Hours Sections County / A Few Effort Deaths Massive County Relocation 8 Federal Casualties / $10,000,000s Minutes Wide Required Catastrophic

Table 4.7.1 Magnitude of National Disasters

Severity Ranking was then completed based on derived criteria compiled by the AHMP Committee from technical experts and the identified stakeholders. The severity ranking includes the determination of magnitude using the criteria in Table 4.7.1 versus the frequency score discussed above. Risk Severity Ranking

Each hazard was scored as to magnitude and frequency of occurrence. Table 4.7.1 provides an overall ranking of the hazards by magnitude. Boxes highlighted in Red indicate the highest magnitude; boxes highlighted in yellow indicate the medium magnitude with green boxes signifying the lowest magnitude. Table 4.7.2 illustrates the severity ranking for the hazards facing Custer County when magnitude is compared to frequency. For those hazards with a high magnitude score and a loss estimate greater than $100,000,000 the frequency score is replaced with an Ex or an extreme loss. Those with extreme loss potential are ranked has the highest hazards. The remaining risk rankings, as described in Section 1, are based on frequency and magnitude. Priorities for risk reduction activities are based on the overall risks rankings which

166 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 are determined using process described above. The hazards are placed in the risk ranking Table 4.7.2 on a comparative scale which is used to determine the priorities for risk reduction.

The highest score would be a high frequency and a high magnitude as depicted in the lower right hand box of each ranking table.

Hazard Magnitude Frequency Dam Failure 40 Ex

Earthquake 36 M River/Stream Flooding 25 M

Terrorism 24 L

Extreme Cold 20 H Hazardous Materials 20 H Winter Storm 20 H Wildfire 20 H

Nuclear 21 L Epidemic 19 L Landslide 17 H Flash Flood 17 H

Structure Fire 14 H

Drought 13 M Snow Avalanche 15 H Hail 11 H Extreme Heat 11 L

Straight Line Wind 11 H

Riot/Civil Disobedience 11 L

Lightning 10 H

West Nile Virus 9 H

Ranges Frequency 48-20 High Extreme – $100,000,000 in loss or greater 19-13 Medium High – Yearly to Five Years 12-0 Low Medium – Five Years to 25 Years Low 25 Years to Never Happened

167 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final Draft November 7, 2008

Magnitude (Low) (Medium) (High)

1 2 3

(Low) 1 Extreme Heat Riot/Demonstration/Civil Disobedience Epidemic Terrorism

Nuclear

Drought Earthquake (Medium) River/Stream Flooding

2

Frequency Snow Avalanche Wildfire Landslide Hail Dam Failure Flash Flood (High) 3 Lightning Winter Storm Structure Fire Straight Line Wind Extreme Cold

West Nile Virus Hazardous Materials

Figure 4.7.1 Hazard Ranking Custer County

Repetitive Loss Summary Repetitive Loss in Custer County is focused along State Highway 75 between Stanley and Salmon. The area is extremely susceptible to both landslides and snow slides. ITD has keeps plows on the front of the trucks all year to remove snow, mud, and rocks from the Highway. Losses are linked primarily to clean up and repair of the roadways and guard rails. There is also some loss to the fishery on the Salmon River due to mudslides during the summer months. There is not repetitive loss to structures due to flooding in Custer County. Individual Jurisdictional Risk Rankings The Custer County All Hazard Mitigation Plan has been developed as a multi- jurisdictional plan therefore each jurisdiction risk must be ranking independently from the County and the other jurisdictions. The tables below provide a summary of the ranking for each jurisdiction. The Custer County All Hazard Mitigation Plan has been developed as a multi- jurisdictional plan therefore each jurisdiction risk must be ranking independently from the County and the other jurisdictions. The tables below provide a summary of the ranking for each jurisdiction.

Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

City of Challis

Magnitude (Low) (Medium) (High)

1 2 3 Extreme Heat Riot/Demonstration/Civil Dam Failure (Low) 1 Nuclear Disobedience Terrorism Epidemic Snow Avalanche

Drought Earthquake (Medium) Winter Storm River/Stream Flooding

2

Frequency Landslide Hail Flash Flood Wildfire (High) 3 Lightning Structure Fire Extreme Cold Straight Line Wind Hazardous Materials West Nile Virus

Figure 4.7.2 Hazard Ranking City of Challis

City of Clayton

Magnitude (Low) (Medium) (High)

1 2 3 Extreme Heat Dam Failure (Low) 1 Riot/Demonstration/Civil Nuclear Terrorism Disobedience Epidemic

(Medium) Drought Earthquake River/Stream Flooding 2 Snow Avalanche Frequency Landslide Winter Storm Hail Flash Flood Wildfire (High) 3 Lightning Structure Fire Extreme Cold Straight Line Wind Hazardous Materials West Nile Virus

Figure 4.7.3 Hazard Ranking City of Clayton

169 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 City of Mackay

Magnitude (Low) (Medium) (High)

1 2 3 Extreme Heat Nuclear (Low) 1 Riot/Demonstration/Civil Disobedience Epidemic Terrorism Landslide

Snow Avalanche

Earthquake Drought (Medium) River/Stream Straight Line Wind Flooding 2

Wildfire Frequency Hail Flash Flood Dam Failure (High) 3 Lightning Structure Fire Winter Storm West Nile Virus Extreme Cold Hazardous Materials

Figure 4.7.4 Hazard Ranking City of Mackay

City of Stanley

Magnitude (Low) (Medium) (High)

1 2 3 Extreme Heat Riot/Demonstration/Civil Disobedience (Low) 1 Nuclear Snow Avalanche Terrorism Epidemic Landslide

Dam Failure Drought Earthquake (Medium) Straight Line Wind River/Stream

2 Flooding

Frequency Wildfire Hail Flash Flood Structure Winter Storm Lightning (High) 3 Fire Extreme Cold Straight Line Wind Hazardous West Nile Virus Materials

Figure 4.7.5 Hazard Ranking City of Stanley

170 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This Page Intentionally Blank

171 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 5 Land Use Planning/Disaster Mitigation Integration

This section of the Custer County All Hazard Mitigation Plan examines the relationship between the County‟s Comprehensive Plan, Land Use or Zoning Ordinances, and the AHMP. Incorporating hazard mitigation practices into land use planning is extremely important as future developments are planned and constructed. Through proper planning within the individual jurisdictions risk to property owners can be reduced and future disaster related economic losses avoided. Land Use and Mitigation Planning Integration are seen as critical components of the mitigation program in Custer County. Custer County officially adopted their first County Comprehensive Plan on February 25, 2004 and updated it on December 11, 2006. The Plan, as adopted, supports the tenants and goals of the County‟s AHMP. The Land Use Goal specifically seeks to provide a variety of land uses that meet the needs of the residents of Custer County, maintain the rural nature of the area, manage growth, and preserve private property rights. Other related goals support the desire to maintain the rural life style and to protect the property rights of the individual land owners. The County desires to increase population around current population centers while limiting growth in the agricultural areas. One significant important policy is the creation of an agriculture residential transition zone which allows for the rural life style in close proximity to the population centers of Challis, Mackay, Stanley, and Clayton.

The Hazardous Area section of the Plan sets forth the goal of carefully inventorying and assessing the hazards in the County and then to examine them in relationship to development decisions in the County. The Plan also states that it is the policy of the County to develop appropriate ordinances to address the hazards. With that goal in mind the existing ordinances were reviewed and juxtaposed against the hazardous areas identified in Section 4. The following recommendations are made to revise, improve or develop new ordinances as follows:

1. Develop and adopt a Wildland Urban Interface Ordinance. 2. Standardize roadway/street widths for improved access in hazardous areas. 3. Develop a Flood prone area ordinance. 4. Examine the buildings on hillsides and areas of known landslides. 5. Examine the need for dual access in subdivisions. 6. Develop the requirement for water supplies in rural subdivisions. 7. Change references to the Uniform Building Code to the International Building Code. 8. Adopt the International Building Code County wide, including all incorporated cities.

The County recently updated and adopted new land use ordinances they appear to do an exceptional job protecting the community from Hazards Materials and Storm Water. The

172 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Comprehensive Plan is well structured and sets forth an excellent strategy for long term management of the County. Suggested updates to the Comprehensive Plan include:

1. Designate Wildland Urban Interface areas as a special land use category. 2. Revise Geology section to address earthquake, 3. Update Hazards to reflect the ranking of hazards from the AHMP. 4. Specifically add hazardous weather as a hazard in the Comprehensive Plan.

The AHMP was developed using much of the material found in the Custer County Comprehensive Plan specifically using community descriptions and county infrastructure information to build the County Vulnerability Section found in Section 4.6. Section 2 of the AHMP, County Description, reflects and is cited as a source of information presented in the section.

Individual Jurisdiction Land Use Planning

Land Use Planning in Custer County is just beginning as detailed above. The individual Cities control land use issues through the building permit process. Specific ordinances designed to control land use are yet to be developed for Mackay, Challis, and Stanley. There are no City Comprehensive Plans. There has been discussion in all of the Cities regarding the creation of Planning and Zoning Commissions and the development of Planning and Zoning ordinances however none have completely been implemented at this time. A recent effort to repeal the County‟s Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinances was recently ruled against by the District Judge. This effort supports the notion that Land Use Planning, though appropriate, in not support by some residents of the County.

It is there for recommended that the Cities work together to adopt the County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Planning Ordinances to provide a basis for implementation of land use planning practices that protect the citizens from the hazards described in this document.

173 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Section 6 Implementation Roadmap

Hazard mitigation is defined as any cost-effective action(s) that has the effect of reducing, limiting, or preventing vulnerability of people, culture, property, and the environment to potentially damaging, harmful, or costly hazards. Hazard mitigation measures which can be used to eliminate or minimize the risk to life, culture and property, fall into three categories: 1) Keep the hazard away from people, property, and structures. 2) Keep people, property, or structures away from the hazard. 3) Reduce the impact of the hazard on victims, i.e., insurance. This mitigation plan has identified key strategies that fall into all three categories. Hazard mitigation measures must be practical, cost effective, and culturally, environmentally, and politically acceptable. Actions taken to limit the vulnerability of society to hazards must not in themselves be more costly than the anticipated damages. The primary focus of the Custer Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan has been to identify the point at which capital investment and land use decisions are made, based on vulnerability, or in other words where capital investments can be made to reduce the risk posed to the County from hazardous events. Capital investments for mitigation projects, whether for homes, roads, public utilities, pipelines, power plants, or public works, determine to a large extent the nature and degree of hazard vulnerability reduction in a community. Previously, mitigation measures have been the most neglected programs within Disaster Services. Since the priority to implement mitigation activities is usually very low in comparison to the perceived threat, some important mitigation measures take time to implement. Mitigation success can be achieved, however, if accurate information is portrayed through complete hazard identification and impact studies, such as those presented in the previous sections are followed by effective mitigation management. Hazard mitigation is the key to eliminating long term risk to people, cultures, and property. Prioritization Process Initial prioritization of the Mitigation Projects will occurred at the Local Mitigation Workshop where representatives from the Counties and the participating Cities came together to approve the risks severity ranking, the goals, and associated projects. (See Attachment 1 for meeting minutes). The projects were selected based on the goals and related objectives of the Plan. The basic tenants of the process, as discussed in the scope and mission statement of this Plan, was life safety first, protection of critical infrastructure second, and reduction of repetitive loss third. Those projects that were selected and listed and then roadmapped as the four highest priority projects were selected based on the following criteria: Hazard Magnitude/Frequency Potential for repetitive loss reduction

174 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Benefit / Cost Vulnerability to the Community Population Benefit Property Benefit Economic Benefit Project Feasibility (environmentally, politically, socially) Potential project effectiveness and sustainability Potential to mitigate hazards to future development The County Commissioner who participated in the Workshop was given the final voice in the approval process for County Projects. Ongoing Prioritization Process Differing prioritization processes will occur within the County and the participating Cities after the Plan is adopted and then becomes a living document with annual evaluation and updating. The prioritization process will continue to be based on the three basic tenants of Mitigation Planning; 1) Save lives, 2) Protect critical infrastructure, and 3) Eliminate repetitive loss. The process will reflect that a key component in funding decision is a determination that the project will provide an equivalent or more in benefits over the life of the project when compared with the costs. Projects will be administered by county and local jurisdictions with overall coordination provided by the County Disaster Services Coordinator. County Commissioners and the elected officials of all jurisdictions may evaluate opportunities and establish their own unique priorities to accomplish mitigation activities where existing funds and resources are available and there is community interest in implementing mitigation measures. If no Federal funding is used in these situations, the prioritization process may be less formal. Often the types of projects that the County can afford to do on their own are in relation to improved codes and standards, department planning and preparedness, and education. These types of projects may not meet the traditional project model, selection criteria, and benefit-cost model. The County will consider all pre-disaster mitigation proposals brought before the County Commissioners by department heads, city officials, fire districts and local civic groups. When Federal or State funding is available for hazard mitigation the requirements that establish a rigorous benefit-cost analysis as a guiding criterion in establishing project priorities will be followed. The County will understand the basic Federal grant program criteria which will drive the identification, selection, and funding of the most competitive and worthy mitigation projects. Prioritization Scheme The following numerical scoring system developed by Northwest Laboratories39 may be helpful and used to prioritize projects. The system was modified slightly to represent the basic mitigation tenants chosen by Custer County. This prioritization serves as a guide

39 Valley County, Idaho, All Hazards Mitigation Plan, pages 123-127

175 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 for the County when developing mitigation activities. This project prioritization scheme has been used in other Counties with the State of Idaho and is designed to rank projects on a case by case basis. The County mitigation program does not want to restrict funding to only those projects that meet the high priorities because what may be a high priority for a specific community may not be a high priority at the County level. Regardless, the project may be just what the community needs to mitigate disaster. The flexibility to fund a variety of diverse projects based on varying reasons and criteria is a necessity for a functional mitigation program at the County and community level. To implement this case by case concept, a more detailed process for evaluating and prioritizing projects has been detailed below. Any type of project, whether County or City specific, will be prioritized in this more formal manner. To prioritize projects, a general scoring system has been developed. This prioritization scheme has been used in Statewide all hazard mitigations plans. These factors range from cost-benefit ratios, to details on the hazard being mitigated, to environmental impacts. The factors for the non-planning projects include: Hazard Magnitude/Frequency Potential for repetitive loss reduction Benefit / Cost Vulnerability to the Community Population Benefit Property Benefit Economic Benefit Project Feasibility (environmentally, politically, socially) Potential project effectiveness and sustainability Potential to mitigate hazards to future development Since some factors are considered more critical than others, two ranking scales have been developed. A scale of 1-10, 10 being the best, has been used for hazard magnitude/frequency, potential for repetitive loss reduction, cost, vulnerability to the community, population benefit and property benefit. Economic benefit, project feasibility, potential to mitigate hazards to future development, and potential project effectiveness and sustainability are all rated on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being the best. The highest possible is 65. The guidelines for each category are as follows: Hazard Magnitude/Frequency The Hazard Magnitude/Frequency rating is a combination of the recurrence period and magnitude of a hazard. The severity of the hazard being mitigated and the frequency of that event must both be considered. For example, a project mitigating a 10-year event that causes significant damage would receive a higher rating than one that mitigates a 500- year event that causes minimal damage. For a ranking of 10, the project mitigates a high frequency, high magnitude event. A 1 ranking is for a low frequency, low magnitude event. Note that only the damages being mitigated should be considered here, not the entire losses from that event.

176 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Potential for repetitive loss reduction Those projects that mitigate repetitive losses receive priority consideration here. Common sense dictates that losses that occur frequently will continue to do so until the hazard is mitigated. Projects that will reduce losses that have occurred more than three times receive a rating of 10. Those that do not address repetitive losses receive a rating of 1. Benefit / Cost The analysis process will include summaries as appropriate for each project, but will include benefit / cost analysis results. Projects with a negative benefit / cost analysis result will be ranked as a 0. Projects with a positive Benefit / Cost analysis will receive a score equal to the projects Benefit / Cost Analysis results divided by 10. Therefore a project with a BC ratio of 50:1 would receive 5 points; a project with a BC ratio of 100:1 (or higher) would receive the maximum points of 10. Vulnerability of the Community A community that has a high vulnerability with respect to other jurisdictions to the hazard or hazards being studied or planned for will receive a higher score. To promote participation by the smaller or less vulnerable communities in the County, the score will be based on the relationship to other communities being considered. A community that is the most vulnerable will receive a score of 10, and one that is the least, a score of 1. Population Benefit Population Benefit relates to the ability of the project to prevent the loss of life or injuries. A ranking of 10 has the potential to impact 90% or more of the people in the municipality (county, city, or district). A ranking of 5 has the potential to impact 50% of the people, and a ranking of 1 will not impact the population. The calculated score will be the percent of the population impacted positively multiplied by 10. In some cases, a project may not directly provide population benefits, but may lead to actions that do, such as in the case of a study. Those projects will not receive as high of a rating as one that directly effects the population, but should not be considered to have no population benefit. Property Benefit Property Benefit relates to the prevention of physical losses to structures, infrastructure, and personal property. These losses can be attributed to potential dollar losses. Similar to cost, a ranking of 10 has the potential to save $1,000,000 or more in losses. Property benefit of less than $1,000,000 will receive a score of the benefit divided by $1,000,000 (a ratio below $1 million). Therefore, a property benefit of $300,000 would receive a score of 3. In some cases, a project may not directly provide property benefits, but may lead to actions that do, such as in the case of a study. Those projects will not receive as high of a rating as one that directly effects property, but should not be considered to have no property benefit. Economic Benefit Economic Benefit is related to the savings from mitigation to the economy. This benefit includes reduction of losses in revenues, jobs, and facility shut downs. Since this benefit

177 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 can be difficult to evaluate, a ranking of 5 would prevent a total economic collapse, a ranking of 3 could prevent losses to about half the economy, and a ranking of 1 would not prevent any economic losses. In some cases, a project may not directly provide economic benefits, but may lead to actions that do, such as in the case of a study. Those projects will not receive as high of a rating as one that directly affects the economy, but should not be considered to have no economic benefit. Project Feasibility (Environmentally, Politically & Socially) Project Feasibility relates to the likelihood that such a project could be completed. Projects with low feasibility would include projects with significant environmental concerns or public opposition. A project with high feasibility has public and political support without environmental concerns. Those projects with very high feasibility would receive a ranking of 5 and those with very low would receive a ranking of 1. Potential to mitigate hazards to future development Proposed actions that can have a direct impact on the vulnerability of future development are given additional consideration. If hazards can be mitigated on the onset of the development, the County will be less vulnerable in the future. Projects that will have a significant effect on all future development receive a rating of 5. Those that do not affect development should receive a rating of 1. Potential project effectiveness and sustainability Two important aspects of all projects are effectiveness and sustainability. For a project to be worthwhile, it needs to be effective and actually mitigate the hazard. A project that is questionable in its effectiveness will score lower in this category. Sustainability is the ability for the project to be maintained. Can the project sustain itself after grant funding is spent? Is maintenance required? If so, are or will the resources be in place to maintain the project. An action that is highly effective and sustainable will receive a ranking of 5. A project with effectiveness that is highly questionable and not easily sustained should receive a ranking of 1. Final ranking Upon ranking a project in each of these categories, a total score can be derived by adding together each of the scores. The project can then be ranking high, medium, or low based on the non-planning project thresholds of: Project Ranking Priority Score • High 40-65 • Medium 25-39 • Low 9-2440 Mitigation Projects Listed below are the goals and objectives developed by the AHMP and the priority projects that were developed to address the risks posed. Included in the list are a cost

40 Valley County, Idaho, All Hazards Mitigation Plan, pages 123-127

178 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 estimate where established or a rough order of magnitude cost and an anticipated period for further investigation, project development and implementation. The top four (4) projects will be described and a high level implementation schedule or roadmap will follow. Note that there are several funding sources for mitigation projects. The appropriate funding source should be used and oftentimes the project could qualify under several funding sources. For a complete listing of possible funding sources see the State of Idaho 2007 Hazard Mitigation Plan, page 208.

Severe Weather Denotes High Priority Project Goal Objective Project Responsibility Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Custer County Improve the Reinforce or Road and Bridge ROM $300,000 will develop Safety of replace bridges that 2009 – Place Bridges on Capital methods to County Roads have fallen below Projects List for the County. mitigate the and Brides code (Chilly 2010 – Seek Funding to Replace losses due to Bridge and Pence Bridges through LHTAC severe weather in Bridge) 2011 – Replace Bridges the County. Place Seasonal Disaster ROM - $15,000 Road Signage Services/Road and 2009 – Place Signs Bridge

Develop Plant Living Private Property ROM - $8/FT Methods to Windbreaks/Snow Owners 2009 – Identify at-risk Areas Reduce Fences 2010 – Develop Agreements Straight Line with Landowners Wind Damage 2011 – Seek Funding and Plant Fences

Develop warning Disaster Services ROM - $100,000 devices for high 2009 – Determine Locations of winds Devices 2010 – Seek Funding 2011- Install Devices

Develop warning Disaster Services ROM - $75,000 devices for icy working with ITD 2009 – Begin Discussion with conditions at ITD Grandview Canyon 2010 – Seek Funding in ITD and “Ice Corner” Budget 2012 – Install Warning Device

Custer County, Expand the single Salmon River ROM - $10,000,000 working with loop power supply Electric Coop 2009 – Work with Salmon River Salmon River in to connect with Electric and Idaho Power to gain Electric, will power supply in agreement improve Blaine County. 2010 – Seek Funding electrical 2011 – Begin Construction of supply system. Power Lines

179 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Goal Objective Project Responsibility Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Identify and move Salmon River ROM - $30,000 per pole power poles in high Electric Coop 2009 – Define at risk poles, risk areas. develop engineered cost estimate and conduct BCA 2010 – Submit a HMA Grant jointly with Salmon River Electric Cooperative

Flooding Goal Objective Project Responsibility Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Custer County Protect the Update floodplain P & Z No Cost will continue to communities information Administrator 2010 – Request FEMA To participate in the from flash and Update FIRM Maps, Map National Flood stream Updates dependent of FEMA Insurance flooding Schedule. Program and develop actions that will reduce the damage to County infrastructure due to flash and stream flooding.

Work with the P & Z ROM - $5,000 Cities of Clayton Administrator 2011 – Host Public Meetings and Stanley to gain and provide education for those their participation in Flood Prone Areas. in the NFIP.

Reduce losses Develop a Culvert Road and ROM - $150,000 plus annual and repetitive Maintenance Bridge/Lost River maintenance cost. damages for Program Highway District 2010 – Develop a LHTAC Grant annual severe to evaluate all culverts in the weather County. Determine Priority events. Replacement. 2011 – Ongoing, Repair or Replace Damaged Culverts

Improve the Canal Canal Company ROM - $100,000 bank three miles 2009 – Define Exact Location, south on Highway Conduct Engineering Cost 75 that breaks Estimate almost annually 2010 – Fund through Irrigation and causes Company repetitive flooding.

180 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Goal Objective Project Responsibility Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Protect the Fall dead trees near Sawthooth ROM - $150,000 water ways stream beds and National 2009 – Meet with SNRA and and adjacent dams, especially Recreation Area gain approval. dams from near the Sunbeam and 2010 – Apply for BLM/USFS fallen trees area Salmon/Challis Grant that increase National Forest 2011 – Fall Trees the risk of flooding

Protect Install warning Disaster ROM - $250,000 downstream system on Mackay Services/Lost 2009 – Request Lost Rivers populations Dam River Irrigation Irrigation District to provide District warning system. 2010 – Install System

Institute a public Disaster ROM - $12,000 warning system Services/Sheriff‟s 2009 – Seek Regional Partners using reverse Office to Implement Swift Reach of calling similar program and seek methodology funding with County 911 Budget. 2010 – Implement System.

Identify Evacuation Disaster Services ROM - $15,000 Routes and 2009 – Use 2008 SHSP Funds to relocation centers complete project

Geological Goal Objective Project Responsibility Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Custer County Ensure Adopt the P & Z ROM - $10,000 will reduce enforcement of International Administrator/C 2009 – Amend Comprehensive potential damage seismic Building Code ounty Plan and Adopt Ordinance to County building code County wide Commissioners infrastructure and provisions in structures the through International implementation Building Code of earthquake as adopted. mitigation techniques.

Priority should Develop a listing of Disaster ROM - $50,000 be given to schools and public Services 2009 – Seek Funding to evaluate schools, public buildings that need structures. buildings, to seismically 2010 – Develop prioritize list of community retrofitted buildings to be retrofitted. evacuation and assessable sites.

181 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Goal Objective Project Responsibility Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Earthquake ROM - $250,000 Protection or 2009- Seek Funding to conduct Hardening of conceptual hardening designs. Custer County 2010 – Conduct Designs and government Benefit Cost Analysis. Apply buildings for HMA Funding 2011 – Protect Buildings as designed and funded.

Construct a new Sheriff/Disaster ROM - $1,000,000 911 Dispatch Services 2009 – Begin Design, Cost Center that meets Estimate seismic standards 2010 – Hold General Obligation Bond Election 2011 – Issue Contract and Begin Construction

Harden Radio Disaster Services ROM - $50,000 Communication 2009 – Define Hardening Repeater Sites Requirements, Design System, starting with the Develop Cost Estimate, Conduct Pottoman Site BCA, Apply for HMA Grant 2010 – Harden System

Develop and The media can Publish a special Disaster Services No Cost implement raise awareness section in 2009 – Obtain Information from education and about newspapers with BHS Mitigation Officer outreach earthquakes by emergency programs to providing information on increase public important earthquakes. awareness of the information to risks associated the community. with natural and manmade hazards.

Custer County Protect private Develop an P & Z ROM - $5000 will reduce the property from ordinance that Administrator 2009 – Revise Comprehensive potential damage landslides restricts building Plan and Subdivision Ordinances to property from on landslide prone Landslides by areas adopting codes and standards for construction in landslide prone areas.

182 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Goal Objective Project Responsibility Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Develop warning Disaster ROM - $25,000 system for rock and Services/ITD 2009 – Begin Discussion with avalanche threat at ITD milepost 206 on 2010 – Seek Funding in ITD Highway 75 Budget 2011 – Install Warning Device

Construct Thompson Creek ROM - $750,000/mile additional entrance Mine/County 2009 – Define Alternate Route into Thompson Road and Bridge 2010 – Seek Funding Creek Mine 2011 – Construct Road

Wildfire Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Custer Adopt and Develop a Fire Districts/ ROM - $5,000 County will enforce Wildland Fire P & Z 2009 – Write Ordinance and reduce the applicable Ordinance which Administrator Adopt losses caused components of establishes the by wildfire NFPA Code road widths, by 1144 that access, water continuing addresses the supply, and the Wildland unique needs of building Urban Custer County regulations Interface suitable to ensure Mitigation new structures can Program. be protected.

Improve access Develop a listing Road and ROM - $150,000 plus annual to areas prone to of roads, bridges, Bridge/Lost maintenance cost. Wildland Fire cattle guards, River Highway 2012 – Develop a LHTAC Grant culverts, and other District/Fire to evaluate all roadways in the limiting Districts County. Determine Priority conditions and actions. incorporate 2013 – Ongoing: Repair or improvements Replace damaged culverts, into the Highway bridges etc. District Transportation Plans

Improve Hazard Use GIS Disaster ROM - $15000 Communications Technology to Services/Fire 2009 – Seek Funding from BLM Tools Link Red Zone Districts to integrate Red Zone data. Data to 2010 – Integrate Data Landowner Parcel Maps

183 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Conduct Develop a Fire No Cost Roadside standard practice Districts/Road 2009 – Develop standard as part Vegetation for roadside and Bridge/Lost of WUI Planning ongoing effort. Treatments to vegetation River Highway reduce management District flammable fuels wildland urban immediately interface areas. adjacent to roads in high risk areas.

Conduct Fuel Develop a fire Fire Districts ROM - $25,000/City Reduction break around 2010 – Define Areas for each Projects incorporated cities City 2011- Seek Funding through BLM/USFS 2012 – Install Fire Breaks

Develop wildfire Fire Districts Insufficient data to develop fuel breaks around ROM CRP Land 2009 – Determine location of CRP Lands, prioritize list of lands 2010 – Develop Cost Estimate and BCA 2011 – Develop funding requests for individual projects

Ensure Organize a group Fire Districts No Cost coordination of to jointly apply 2009 – Develop protocols as part WUI Fire for grants and of WUI Planning ongoing effort Mitigation other funding Projects avenues to implement WUI Fire Mitigation Actions.

Develop Develop an Fire Districts/ ROM - $5000 Additional agreement with P & Z 2009 – Seek Funding from BHS Water Supplies developers and Administrator SHSP and develop standard for Fire private agreement and requirements. Protection landowners for 2010 – Execute Agreements. access to and use of water sources for fire protection.

Update and Install road signs P & Z ROM - $50,000 improve road as prescribed by Administrator/ 2010 – Seek BLM or LTHAC signing and rural NFPA Standards Fire Districts Grant to purchase signs. addressing 2011 – Install Signs

184 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Encourage Protect Urban Fuel Reduction Challis/Salmon Cost and Schedule Under and support areas and Projects at Garden National Forest Control of USFS – Project actions by municipal Creek, White Already Funded the Forest watersheds from Know, Capehorn Service and large landscape Road and Morgan Bureau of type wildfires Creek, Custer Land Townsite, Lo- Management elly/Thatcher, to reduce Bonanza, North wildfire risk Fork of the Big to life, Lost property, and municipal. Encourage Protect and “Red Tree‟ Challis/Salmon Cost and Schedule Under and support maintain healthy projects around National Forest Control of USFS – Project actions by ecosystems Stanley, Already Funded the Forest across the Capehorn, Service and landscape, Sawtooth Valley, Bureau of especially where and downriver to Land bugs and disease Clayton Management are killing trees to reduce over large areas wildfire risk to the environment “Red Tree” Challis/Salmon Cost and Schedule Under projects along National Forest Control of USFS – Project Trail Creek, Already Funded Sawmill Canyon and Squaw Creek

Upper Yankee Challis/Salmon Cost and Schedule Under Fork National Forest Control of USFS – Project Prescribed Burn Already Funded Salvage beetle killed tress between Sunbeam and Stanley

Forest Service Wildfire Projects in Process Name Description Responsible Entity Basin Creek Prescribed Continue treating the landscape with prescribed fire Challis/Salmon National Burn from Basin Creek to Basin Butte Lookout including Forest Sunday, Copper and Elkhorn Creeks just down river from Lower Stanley to reduce ground and ladder fuels.

185 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Name Description Responsible Entity NE Stanley Interface As requested by the County, continue treating bug Challis/Salmon National infested timber stands northeast of Lower Stanley by Forest salvaging dead trees and prescribe burning between cut stands to create fuels reduction areas capable of lessening chance of a crown fire moving towards Stanley.

Eddy Basin Prescribed Continue reintroducing fire under management Challis/Salmon National Burn conditions to a fire dependent landscape in the Eddy Forest Creek drainage.

Herd Creek Prescribed Continue prescribed burns in the upper reaches of Challis/Salmon National Burn Taylor, McDonald and East Pass Creek in the East Fork Forest of the Salmon River.

Harden Loop Salvage An ongoing project to continue addressing the dead and Challis/Salmon National dying insect and disease infested vegetated stands Forest between the Yankee Fork of the Salmon River drainage and Banner Summit. The project will remove by mechanical means, dead, dying and vulnerable trees and treat the slash created.

Biological Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Planning Entity Horizon Custer County Build Maintain an active Health No Cost seeks to reduce knowledge of “fight the bite” District/Disaster 2008- Continue Program the exposure of West Nile public education Services humans and Virus in the program. animals to the general public.

West Nile Virus by maintain an active “fight the bit” public education program. Custer County Provide safe Construct deer and Disaster ROM - $300,000 will seek to highway elk crossing tunnels Services/ITD 2009 – Begin Interface with ITD, reduce the crossing for near Challis Hot IF&G and County, Design Crossing number of wildlife, Springs and the Tunnels wildlife/vehicle especially deer dump 2010 – Seek ITD and IF&G Funding collisions and elk 2011 – Construct Tunnels

186 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Structural Fire Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Custer County Improve Adopt Fire Districts/ ROM - $10,000 will seek to Structure International Fire P & Z 2009 – Amend Comprehensive reduce losses Construction Code Administrator Plan and Adopt Ordinance from Structure Standards fires by encouraging private property owners to install and maintain smoke detectors on all levels of the residences and to place detectors in all bedrooms.

Ensure that all Encouraging Fire ROM - $100,000 structures have private property Districts/Disaster 2010 – Seek Funding for the minimum owners to install Services Assistance to Fire Fighters Safety detection and and maintain Grant Program protection smoke detectors 2011 – Distribute Detectors devices on all levels of the residences and to place detectors in all bedrooms

Develop Develop an Fire Districts ROM - $5000 Cost Estimate Additional agreement with 2008 – Seek Funding from BHS Water developers and SHSP and develop standard Supplies for private agreement and requirements. Fire Protection landowners for 2010 – Execute Agreements. access to and use of water sources for fire protection.

Include P & Z ROM - $5000 requirements in Administrator 2009 – Amend Ordinances the County Subdivision Ordinance that provides for access to and use of water sources for fire protection.

Install dry Fire Districts ROM - $15,000/ea hydrants for fire 2010 – Apply for Assistance to fighting Fire Fighter Grant 2011- Install Systems

187 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Upgrade Fire Districts ROM - $50,000 equipment, 2009 – Use remain SHSP Funds apparatus and to complete Hazmat training.

Build a certified Fire Districts ROM - $500,000 training facility 2010 – Design Facility, Develop for structure fire Cost Estimate fighting 2011 – Seek Funding through Steele Reese or Murdoch Foundation Grant

Nuclear Event Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Custer County Develop Conduct a Public Disaster No Cost will continue to Understanding Education Services/INL 2009 – Invite INL Safety Liaison work with the of the INL Program on the Public Safety and INL Oversight Public INL to develop Ingestion effects of a Information Officer to LEPC an ingestion Pathway radiological Meetings to provide education. pathway release from the protection INL in the program southeastern portion of the County.

Hazardous Material Event Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Custer County Protect citizens Conduct a Disaster Services Cost Estimate - $8000 will seek to from releases of hazardous 2010 – Apply for an HMEP identify hazardous materials flow Grant and Conduct Study. hazardous materials in study for the State material flow transportation Highways running through the through the County. County.

188 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Riot/Demonstration/Civil Disorder Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Custer County Educate the Custer County will Sheriff‟s Office ROM - $10,000 will conduct a Public on Civil conduct a public 2009 – Apply for a Law public education Disobedience education program Enforcement Grant to Conduct program to Reporting to assist the citizens Public Education. assist the of the County in 2010 – Conduct Program. citizens of the recognizing and County in reporting civil recognizing and disobedience events reporting civil to County Law disobedience Enforcement. events to County Law Enforcement.

Terrorism Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Custer County Identify and Conduct a County Disaster Services ROM - $5000 will identify protect Terrorism 2009 – Work with LEPC to measure to potential assessment. conduct assessment. protect critical terrorism County targets. infrastructure and facilities from potential terror incidents. Protect Critical Disaster Services Insufficient Data to estimate Infrastructure based cost. on the assessment. 2009 – Develop a listing of critical infrastructure to be protected. 2010 – Seek Funding to design and engineer protection alternatives. 2011 – Conduct Engineering 2012 – Seek Funding to Implement Solutions. 2013 – Begin Implementation

189 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Other Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Add repeaters in Disaster Services ROM - $150,000/ea Custer County backcountry for 2009 – Conduct Radio Study will provide increased 2010 – Design Repeater Sites better communication and 2011 – Seek Funding communication identify vulnerable 2011 – Begin Installation of Sites throughout the existing repeaters County and harden them

Protect the Identify Evacuation Disaster Services ROM - $15,000 Improve Public during Routes and 2009 – Use 2008 SHSP Funds to Evacuation emergency relocation centers Complete this task. Planning relocations Protect the Compile list of Disaster ROM - $10,000 public and the active, dormant and Services/Bureau 2010 – Seek BLM Funding environment historical mines of Land 2011 – Conduct Listing and from Management Assessment abandoned mines

Provide web Provide hazard Deploy the AHMP Disaster ROM - $12,000/yr based information to Hazard Mapping Services/ 2009 – Enter into agreement with information the public and Tools Assessor‟s Assessor‟s Office and GIS tools which are decision Office Provider, Link Hazard Mapping accessible to the makers to County Website public in such a manner that they can make informed decisions regarding protective mitigation opportunities and actions Update County Incorporate the P & Z ROM - $5000 Comprehensive hazard and risk Administrator 2010 – Update Comprehensive Plan information Plan presented in the AHMP

190 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 City of Challis Mitigation Projects Severe Weather Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon The City of Protect Identify Evacuation Disaster Services No Cost Challis will isolated Shelters Equip with 2009 – Work with City Council, develop individuals Storms and Extreme Churches, and volunteer methods to from Severe Cold Emergency organizations protect the life Winter. Generators. safety of its citizens from harm due to severe weather events.

Geological Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon The City of Protect Library Place restraining City Librarian ROM - $10,000 Challis will Patrons from hardware on the 2009 – Seek funding in City reduce potential tipping shelves City Library budget and install hardware. damage to City and falling Shelves. Place infrastructure books. retraining bars or and structures trim along the front through to the book shelves. implementation of earthquake mitigation techniques. Protect Harden city water Mayor ROM - $500,000 Infrastructure supply against 2010 – Complete Design, damage from Develop Cost Estimate and Earthquakes. Conduct BCA 2011 – Apply for HMA Grant

Harden city sewer Mayor ROM - $500,000 system against 2012 – Complete Design, damage from Develop Cost Estimate and earthquakes. Conduct BCA 2013 – Apply for HMA Grant

Protect City Harden the City City Clerk ROM - $50,000 Building and computer equipment 2009 – Complete Design, Records and records storage. Develop Cost Estimate, and Conduct BCA 2010 – Apply for HMA Grant

191 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Structural Fire Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon The City of Ensure that Encouraging private Fire District ROM - $35,000 Challis will seek all structures property owners to 2010 – Seek Funding for the to reduce losses have install and maintain Assistance to Fire Fighters from Structure minimum smoke detectors on Safety Grant Program fires through detection and all levels of the 2011 – Distribute Detectors working with protection residences and to private property devices place detectors in all owners to ensure bedrooms that smoke alarms and fire extinguishers are located in each residence.

Increase Fire Develop an Fire District ROM - $5000 Water agreement with 2009 – Seek Funding from BHS Supplies developers and SHSP and develop standard private landowners agreement and requirements. for access to and use 2010 – Execute Agreements. of water sources for fire protection.

City of Mackay Severe Weather Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon The City of Protect Identify Evacuation Disaster Services No Cost Mackay will isolated Shelters Equip with 2009 – Work with City develop methods individuals Emergency Council, Churches, and to protect the life from Severe Generators. volunteer organizations safety of its Winter Storms citizens from and Extreme harm due to Cold. severe weather events.

192 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Flooding Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon The City of Protect Install an evacuation Mayor/Public ROM - $15000 Mackay will citizens and siren in the City of Works 2009 – Purchase and Install Siren continue to city owned Mackay participate in infrastructure the National from the Flood Insurance effects of a Program and Mackay Dam develop actions Failure. that will reduce the damage to City property and infrastructure due to flooding on the Big Lost River. Develop a City wide Mayor/Disaster ROM - $5,000 evacuation system Services 2009 – Complete Task with 2008 based on a failure of SHSP Funding the Mackay Dam.

Geological Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon The City of Protect Library Place restraining City Librarian ROM - $10,000 Mackay will Patrons from hardware on the 2009 – Seek funding in City reduce potential tipping shelves City Library budget and install hardware. damage to City and falling Shelves. Place infrastructure books. retraining bars or and structures trim along the front through to the book shelves. implementation of earthquake mitigation techniques.

Protect Harden city water Mayor/Public ROM - $500,000 Infrastructure supply against Works 2010 – Complete Design, damage from Develop Cost Estimate and Earthquakes. Conduct BCA 2011 – Apply for HMA Grant

193 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Harden city sewer Mayor/Public ROM - $500,000 system against Works 2012 – Complete Design, damage from Develop Cost Estimate and earthquakes. Conduct BCA 2013 – Apply for HMA Grant

Protect City Harden the City City Clerk ROM - $50,000 Building and computer equipment 2009 – Complete Design, Records and records storage. Develop Cost Estimate, and Conduct BCA 2010 – Apply for HMA Grant

Structural Fire Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon The City of Ensure that all Encouraging private Fire District ROM - $35,000 Mackay will structures have property owners to 2010 – Seek Funding for the seek to reduce minimum install and maintain Assistance to Fire Fighters losses from detection and smoke detectors on Safety Grant Program Structure fires protection all levels of the 2011 – Distribute Detectors through devices residences and to working with place detectors in all private property bedrooms owners to ensure that smoke alarms and fire extinguishers are located in each residence. Increase Fire Develop an Fire District ROM - $5000 Water Supplies agreement with 2009 – Seek Funding from developers and BHS SHSP and develop private landowners standard agreement and for access to and use requirements. of water sources for 2010 – Execute Agreements. fire protection.

194 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 City of Stanley Severe Weather Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon The City of Protect Identify Evacuation Mayor/Disaster ROM - $5000 Stanley will isolated Shelters Equip with Services 2009 – Purchase Generator for develop individuals Emergency Community Center and Install methods to from Severe Generators at protect the life Winter Storms Community Center safety of its and Extreme citizens from Cold. harm due to severe weather events. Pre-install Mayor/Disaster ROM - $1000 emergency Services 2009 – Install Connection generator connections to Community Center

Install Radio for Mayor/Disaster ROM - $3000 communications Services 2009 – Purchase Radio Using during isolated SHSP Equipment Funds and periods Install

Develop a capability Mayor/Disaster ROM - $1000 to purify and test Services 2009 – Purchase Test Kit water during periods of isolation.

Establish a Develop Protocols Mayor/ Disaster No Cost Food Supply to Purchase Food Services 2009 – Work with City Council, for Shelters during Sheltering Churches, and volunteer Events organizations

Provide a local Develop a CERT Mayor/Disaster ROM - $2500 support Program in Stanley Services 2009 – Begin CERT Training function to 2010 – Complete CERT Training assist during periods of isolation.

195 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Flooding Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon The City of Promoting Establish a National Mayor/P & Z No Cost Stanley will insurance Flood Insurance Administrator 2009 – Invite IDWR to assist in adopt the coverage for Program for areas assessment, Adopt NFIP. National Flood severe weather prone to flooding. Insurance events. Program and develop actions that will reduce the damage to City property and infrastructure due to flooding.

Geological Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon The City of Protect City Harden the City City Clerk ROM - $20,000 Stanley will Building and computer equipment 2009 – Complete Design, reduce potential Records and records storage. Develop Cost Estimate, and damage to City Conduct BCA infrastructure 2010 – Apply for HMA Grant and structures through implementation of earthquake mitigation techniques.

Wildfire Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Entity Cost & Planning Horizon The City of Balance Develop a standard Wildfire Working No Cost Stanley will watershed practice for roadside Group/Disaster 2009 – Develop standard as reduce the planning, natural vegetation Services part of WUI Planning losses caused by resource management in the ongoing effort. wildfire by management, City of Island Park. continuing the and land use Wildland Urban planning with Interface natural hazard Mitigation mitigation to Program. protect life, property, and the

environment.

196 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Entity Cost & Planning Horizon The City of Designate Wildland P & Z ROM - $15,000 Stanley will Urban Interface Administrator 2009 – Seek City Funding to work with areas as a special Develop a Comprehensive Custer County land use category in Plan to improve the City communications Comprehensive Plan and coordinator for response to wildfire events. Conduct Fuel Wildfire Working Insufficient Data to Identify Reduction Projects Group/Disaster Cost and Schedule Services

Develop Develop an Disaster ROM - $5000 Additional Water agreement with Services/Fire 2009 – Seek Funding from Supplies for Fire developers and District BHS SHSP and develop Protection private landowners standard agreement and for access to and use requirements. of water sources for 2010 – Execute Agreements. fire protection.

Enhance Construct an Disaster ROM - $75,000 Communications Emergency Services/Fire 2009 – Design Space and and Coordination Operations Center District Identify Necessary during Equipment, Apply for Steele Responses Reese Grant to Fund Finishes for EOC. 2010 – Use SHSP Funds for Equipment

Structural Fire Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon The City of Ensure that all Encouraging private Fire District ROM - $15,000 Stanley will structures have property owners to 2010 – Seek Funding for the seek to reduce minimum install and maintain Assistance to Fire Fighters losses from detection and smoke detectors on Safety Grant Program Structure fires protection devices all levels of the 2011 – Distribute Detectors through residences and to working with place detectors in all private property bedrooms owners to ensure that smoke alarms and fire extinguishers are located in each residence.

197 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Goal Objective Project Responsible Order of Magnitude Cost & Entity Planning Horizon Increase Fire Develop an Fire District ROM - $5000 Cost Estimate Water Supplies agreement with 2008 – Seek Funding from developers and BHS SHSP and develop private landowners standard agreement and for access to and use requirements. of water sources for 2010 – Execute Agreements fire protection.

198 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County Priority Mitigation Projects: Custer County Mackay Dam Failure Notification System Project Description Install a Dam Failure Warning System on the Mackay Reservoir Dam Purpose & Need The Mackay Dam is owned by the Lost River Irrigation District. It is upstream of the City of Mackay by approximately 4 miles. A catastrophic failure of the dam would not allow sufficient time to evacuate downstream populations in Mackay. The dam is un- manned however, there is an electronic level indicator that is monitored daily that might be the beginning of an electronic warning system. Project Description The following are suggested Dam Failure Warning System Components: (1) A method for detecting flood events. (2) A decision-making process. (3) A means of communicating warnings between operating personnel and local public safety officials. (4) A means for local public safety officials to effectively communicate the warnings to the public and carry out a successful evacuation of the threatened PAR. All of these components must be in place to have a successful EWS. An effective evacuation requires that public safety officials downstream of the dam be notified by the dam owner of specific areas to be evacuated. The public warning and evacuation process is the role of the emergency response officials located downstream of the dam 41 Although ensuring public safety in the event of dam failure is the goal of this program, an EWS must be designed to provide warning as needed during large operational discharges as well. Most hydrologically induced dam failures will involve life-threatening discharges early in the event. If the EWS is not used on a regular basis for floods, it will most likely not function effectively when needed for a major overtopping event which may cause a dam failure. The development of decision criteria must take into account both the notification for potential frequent flood events as well as rare extreme flood events, which may pose a threat to the safety of the dam.42 The range of hardware includes reservoir elevation monitoring systems to full basin rainfall monitoring systems with real-time rainfall-runoff modeling. The types of data communication systems in use include manual observation by a dam tender, GOES satellite telemetry, UHF/VHF polling radio systems, and ALERT format radio systems. Other ideas that may be added to the system include downstream flow monitors, webcam examination of the dam and river flows, and reservoir level indicators.

41 http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/infrastructure/inspection/waterbulletin/195mar2001.pdf 42 http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/infrastructure/inspection/waterbulletin/195mar2001.pdf

199 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Cost Estimate The rough order of magnitude cost estimate for this project is $250,000. Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Cost Benefit Analysis is not necessary for this project as funded would have to come through the Lost River Irrigation District. Funding Option Suggested funding options include a combination of local irrigation company funds, NRCS funding, and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant funding.

Custer County Dispatch Center Upgrade/Replacement Project Description Upgrade or Replace the Custer County Dispatch Center in Challis Purpose & Need The Custer County Dispatch Center is located in a modular building directly behind the Custer County Court House. It is believed that the Center could not structurally withstand another 7.0 Scale Earthquake. The equipment in the Center has not been sufficiently reinforced to withstand shaking. There is a need to upgrade the facility to minimum seismic standards or replace the facility and construct a new one that meets seismic standards. Project Description The Dispatch Center should be evaluated by a licensed engineer and a design to strengthen or replace it should be developed along with an engineering cost estimate to harden communications systems. The Center currently only supports the Challis and Stanley areas. The Mackay area is dispatched from the Butte County Dispatch Center itself suspected to not be seismically protected. Cost Estimate The rough order of magnitude cost estimate for this project is $1,000,000. Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Cost Benefit Analysis is not necessary for this project. Funding Option The construction of a new facility would most likely require some significant funding from County Funds. A general obligation bond could be used as security for a USDA Rural Development Community Facility Loan.

200 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County Electrical Supply Protection Project Description Protect the Electrical Power Distribution System in the Custer County between the Chilly area and Stanley. Purpose & Need Electrical Power is supplied to Custer County via a single loop transmission system that begins at the Goshen Substation in Bingham County, proceeds through Bonneville County, across the INL, through Butte County, and then into Custer County. (See Section 4.6 Vulnerabilities) The system is prone to outages due to Wildfires on the INL. There is a need to evaluate that risk and mitigate it. This action will be taken in the Bonneville and Butte County AHMPs. Custer County also has a significant vulnerability to outages due to wildfires along the transmission line between the Chilly area and Stanley. Salmon River Electric, a rural electrical cooperative, operates the transmission system in Custer County. Project Description SREC desires to upgrade the system to protect it from Wildfires by replaced wood pecker damaged wooden poles, with steel poles. The cost of replacement for each pole is estimated at $30,000. Besides the loss of electrical power to individual property owners in the area power would also be lost at the Thompson Creek Mine. The Mine, the largest employer in the area, loses approximately $52,000 an hour during a power outage. The payback to replace the wooden poles is considered significant. Based solely on the Thompson Creek loss for each hour of outage 1.7 poles could be replaced. For every three hours of outage 5 poles could be replaced. Cost Estimate The rough order of magnitude cost estimate for this project is $30,000 per pole replaced. Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Cost Benefit Analysis is necessary for this project if HMA Funds are requested Funding Options This project would qualify for funding under the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program because the power system is operated by a rural electrical cooperative.

201 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County Communication Repeater Protection Project Description Harden the Radio Communication Repeaters in Custer County beginning with the repeater at Pottoman Peak. Purpose & Need Custer County has the highest vulnerability to earthquakes of any of Idaho‟s Counties. The epicenter of Idaho‟s most recent significant earthquake was located in Custer County. The radio communications systems have not been installed to withstand a significant earthquake and therefore should be evaluated and upgraded to current seismic design standards. The County has several repeater locations that should be evaluated and upgraded however; the AHMP Committee chose the Pottoman Peak repeater as the most critical repeater to the Custer County Emergency Communications. Project Description A list of critical repeaters to be seismically hardened should be established using the Custer County Interoperability Plan listing of communication repeaters. An engineering evaluation for each repeater should be conducted to determine the approach to protection against seismic hazards. Retrofitting or hardening will then be conducted based on the priority and available funding. Cost Estimate The rough order of magnitude cost estimate for this project is $50,000. Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Cost Benefit Analysis is necessary for this project if HMA Funds are requested Funding Options This project qualifies for Pre-Disaster Mitigation Funding. Engineering studies might qualify under the 2007 SHSP communication funds from the Bureau of Homeland Security.

202 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This Page Intentionally Blank

203 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Attachment 1 Meeting Minutes

204 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This Page Intentionally Blank

205 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan AHMP Committee Meeting Minutes May 8, 2007

The first meeting of the Custer County All Hazards Mitigation Plan (AHMP)Committee was held at the Challis EMT building on May 8, 2007 at 6:00pm under the direction of Doug Hammond, coordinator, Custer County Disaster Services. Doug welcomed those in attendance, went over the calendar of up-coming events, and then turned the time to Rick Fawcett, Whisper Mountain Professional Services, Inc. Rick has been contracted by the County to write the AHMP.

Rick displayed three maps of the County: Wildland Fuels and Land Ownership, Earthquake Hazards, and Landslides Occurrence and Severity. He stated that these maps illustrated three obvious hazards in Custer County.

Rick discussed the purpose and benefit of having a County AHMP through a power point presentation and what steps would be taken to complete the process of writing the plan. He stressed the purpose of the plan is to save lives and reduce property damage. He handed out a copy of the survey that would be mailed to a random selection of the public, a rough draft of the plan to date (following a period of research of the historical County hazards), a copy of HazUs Earthquake report, and a risk assessment survey tool. The discussion solidified the threat of earthquake in the County. Rick asked the committee to take the risk assessment as a beginning task to ranking the hazards.

Some problems additionally identified in the discussion are: 1. Possible Radon Gas 2. Ice Jam Flooding on Salmon River 3. Landslide (debris blocking water channels) 4. No wildland ordinance in place in Stanley 5. Pesticide storage in Mackay for mosquito abatement 6. Road wash-out from flash flooding (one by Sam Houston‟s place )

There have been some mitigation projects in the County, one being to check the water flow at the bridge through a square culvert to be able to handle the overflow. The need to do a WUI was also discussed.

Rick thanked everyone for their attendance and participation. Doug added his thanks and scheduled the next committee meeting for November 27, 2007 at 6:00pm.

206 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County AHMP Committee Members Attendance Roster May 8, 2007

Agency Representative Position Email

City of Challis Fire Dept Don Varney S & R [email protected] Search and Rescue Commander North Custer Fire Launna Gunderson Fire Chief [email protected]

Stanley Police Department Pete Isner Officer [email protected]

Custer County Disaster Services Doug Hammond Coordinator [email protected]

US Forest Service John Fowler Fuels Specialist [email protected]

Challis Ambulance Vicki Armbruster EMS [email protected] Coordinator Mackay Fire Ken Day Assistant Chief [email protected]

Thompson Creek Mine Patrick Gannon Staff Engineer [email protected]

BLM Leigh Redick [email protected]

Mackay Fire Randy Ivie Fire Chief [email protected] Mackay S & R Mackay Ambulance BLM, Challis Field Office Patty Jones Safety/HazMat/ [email protected] Hydrologist Eastern Idaho Public Health Troy Nelson Planner [email protected] District

207 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan AHMP Committee Meeting Minutes November 27, 2007

The second meeting of the Custer County All Hazards Mitigation Committee was held on November 27, 2007 at 6:00 pm in the Challis Fire Station. The purpose of the meeting was to brief the committee on the status of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rick Fawcett of Whisper Mountain Professional Services, Inc. presented a power-point presentation reviewing the purpose of the Plan and the progress made. The goal of the plan is to save lives and reduce property damage through the process of pre-disaster mitigation. Rick informed the committee that the County Emergency Operations Plan, the Wild Land Interface Plan, and the Interoperability Communications Plan have been developed, and this plan ties in to them in such a way as to provide further protection and means of mitigation for the County.

The road map was reviewed showing the steps that have been, and will be taken for completion. The introduction of the plan has been drafted. The Community description has been drafted. A community questionnaire has been mailed to 120 Custer County citizens with about a 20% return asking the citizens what they feel are the hazards and potential hazards in the County. Those survey results have been recorded and drafted into the plan. A study of the County‟s historical recorded hazardous events from the past 100 years has been completed and those hazards have been defined, identified, and mapped. Vulnerabilities have been identified from that study.

The drafted plan was reviewed and comments added. The definition of risk was established as: Risk=Frequency X Magnitude

During the meeting the following were identified as some of the hazards in Custer County:

1. Half of the population in Custer County has a wood burning stove, and half do not. 2. Back-up generators in the County don‟t work or don‟t have fuel in most cases. 3. Power and communications would definitely be hampered in the event of an earthquake. 4. There is a single feeder line power supply from Arco to Challis. 5. Stanley is not in the National Flood Insurance Program. Stanley does not participate in the National Flood Control Program. 6. Valley Creek and the Salmon River corridor are in the flood plain. 7. Garden Creek is an example of a “flood-prone” area. 8. Water Supply - Challis is a creek with wells, Mackay is a spring with wells & Stanley is wells.

208 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

The next meeting is scheduled for January 17, 2008, Thursday, at the Mackay Fire Station at 6:00 pm. Rick will send out a copy of the draft prior to that date as a PDF for review. The purpose of the meeting will be to identify the top 4-6 projects so the engineering and cost estimates can be completed.

209 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County AHMP Committee Members Attendance Roster November 27, 2007

Agency Representative Position Email

Sawtooth Valley Rural Fire Andy Gunderson Fire Chief [email protected]

North Custer Fire Launna Gunderson Fire Chief [email protected]

Stanley Police Department Pete Isner Officer [email protected]

Custer County Disaster Services Doug Hammond Coordinator [email protected]

US Forest Service John Fowler Fuels Specialist [email protected]

Challis Ambulance Vicki Armbruster EMS [email protected] Coordinator Mackay Fire Ken Day Assistant Chief [email protected]

Thompson Creek Mine Patrick Gannon Staff Engineer [email protected]

BLM Leigh Redick [email protected]

210 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan AHMP Committee Meeting Minutes 1-17-08

The Custer County All Hazard Mitigation Committee met at the Mackay Fire Station on January 17, 2008 at 6:00pm to work on the plan as a committee. Custer County‟s Disaster Services Coordinator, Doug Hammond, welcomed the committee and then turned the time over to Rick Fawcett, Whisper Mountain Professional Services, to conduct the discussion.

Rick provided a draft copy of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan for the members to review a week ago. The first item of business was to make the changes and additions to the plan as the comments were received from the committee. The comments showed the committee had done a thorough review of the plan. Their comments were appreciated and will be incorporated into the plan. There were several areas that require further research. Those areas will be completed for the next draft review to be sent out on February 11, 2008.

The next item of business was to discuss the actual risks and their assessed ratings. The following are some areas the committee felt were worth addressing in the plan and some of these will be identified for mitigation:

1. Mines- there are many active, dormant, and historical mines in Custer County. Each of these has a risk potential in one way or another. BLM and the Forest Service will be contacted for an actual list and location of these mines. This list will be beneficial to neighboring Lemhi County also. 2. The flood plain needs to be updated. The Walla Walla Corp of Engineers recently updated the area along Warm Springs and that information will be used along with other to better define areas of flood potential. 3. The South Custer Fire Department provided a listing, “Fire In Idaho”, of structure fires in the County for the past 2 years. 4. Wind data seemed to be inconsistent. Significant winds of greater than 50 mph are a threat to the County. The committee knew of occurrence greater that once every five years. They felt these winds were an annual occurrence. Further research will be done on wind frequency. 5. Deer and elk crossing the highways cause several accidents and some deaths each year. The area by Challis Hot Springs and one by the dump were recognized as particularly repeated accident areas. The actual numbers of accidents will be obtained from the Highway District and Law Enforcement Agencies. The committee felt an underground tunnel would be a good way to mitigate this problem as has been done in the Malad area. 6. The Grandview Canyon and “Ice Corner” are areas of the highway where it ices over every year when temperatures are at freezing and there is any moisture on the roads. These areas do not benefit from any sunshine and stay icy. The roads can be bare and dry and then instantly icy without warning. The committee would

211 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 like to place electronic digital signing prior to these sites that can be activated when there is ice and a threat to the public. 7. Highway 75, at milepost 206, has constant rock-fall and avalanche threat. Both warning and preventive mitigation is in need here. 8. The single loop power supply is a large area of concern and would warrant a regional project to mitigate. The 3-phase power line dead ends at Smiley Creek, only lacking ½ mile to connect in Custer County. The power poles coming across the desert from INL also need to be protected against fire destruction. Any poles that are in river beds or other threatened areas need to be identified for mitigation. 9. There is a need for improvement of the rural water supplies and access for fire- fighting purposes. There are dry hydrant issues. 10. Communication is a large area of concern, especially in the back country areas of the mountains. More repeaters are needed. 11. The dispatch center is threatened from an earthquake perspective, as are the jail and the Challis Fire Station and the elementary school. The committee feels like money could best be spent by combining the EMS services (fire, EMS, dispatch, jail, etc.) into one new reinforced building in Challis. The school needs to be retrofitted for earthquake. Equipment, apparatus, and Hazmat training are in need of upgrading and improvement. EMS manpower is becoming an issue in Custer County and others as volunteer numbers continue to decline and need continues to incline. Public safety impact fees may need to be assessed to pay for these services. A certified training building for structure fire-fighting is needed, and there is land adjacent to the Mackay Fire Station to build one. There is no way to train currently unless someone in the community offers an old building they wish to burn down, but there are litigation issues with these types of buildings. The structure fire statistics will support this need. 12. The International Building Codes need to be adopted in Custer County to protect fire fighters and provide other safety issues, such as fire water sources. Planned Urban Development ordinances need to be reviewed, adopted, and implemented. 13. There are many beetle-killed trees in the County. Many of these are along the Sunbeam Dam road area. If these trees fall into the river, the dam may be compromised. Riverbanks need to be mitigated to protect the dam. Trees need to be pushed over away from the river. 14. There is no warning system on the Mackay Dam. Public warning is lacking in all of the communities in Custer County. 15. Repeaters need hardened. Doug will provide a map of the repeaters and identify those at high risk. One readily identified was Pottoman‟s repeater. 16. The Squaw Creek Bridge is below code and needs to be replaced. Randy Ivie will provide a list of bridges from the Highway District so they may be looked at from a risk perspective. 17. There is only one way in to and out of the Thompson Mine. 18. There is a canal three miles south on Highway 75 that breaks almost annually and causes repetitive flooding.

Rick expressed gratitude for the committee‟s involvement and input in identifying these hazards, and felt like a lot of worthwhile projects could come out of this project. He

212 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 turned the time back to Doug. Doug and the committee chose to meet again on February 26th at 6:00 pm in the Challis Fire Station.

213 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County AHMP Committee Members Attendance Roster January 17, 2008

Agency Representative Position Email

Sawtooth Valley Rural Fire Andy Gunderson Fire Chief [email protected]

North Custer Fire Launna Gunderson Fire Chief [email protected]

Stanley Police Department Pete Isner Officer [email protected]

Custer County Disaster Services Doug Hammond Coordinator [email protected]

US Forest Service John Fowler Fuels Specialist [email protected]

Mackay Fire Randy Ivie Fire Chief [email protected] South Custer Ambulance South Custer Fire Mackay Fire Ken Day Assistant Chief [email protected]

Thompson Creek Mine Patrick Gannon Staff Engineer [email protected]

Custer County Commissioner Wayne F Butts Commissioner [email protected]

214 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County All Hazards Mitigation Plan AHMP Committee Meeting Minutes 2-26-08

The fourth meeting of the AHMP Committee was held at the Challis Fire Station at 6:00 pm on February 26, 2008. Custer County Disaster Services Coordinator, Doug Hammond, conducted the meeting. Rick Fawcett, Whisper Mountain Professional Services, Inc. facilitated the meeting.

The purpose of this meeting was to further identify existing and possible risks and hazards in the County. Previous issues were discussed and the following areas were added to the list of possible needs for mitigation:

1. Nuclear Ingestion Pathway from the INEEL 2. Land Use Planning Ordinances needed 3. Pandemic threat-need to cover this in one page in the plan (Avian Flu and West Nile Virus) 4. Power projects currently identified by Salmon River Electric; need GIS files to locate specific areas identified 5. Need to contact the Mackay School District for data on areas of historical road closures from drifting snow and flash flooding

The Challis Field Office Hazardous Fuels Projects submitted: “Morgan Creek Hazardous fuels reduction. NEPA has been completed. Ongoing project. Includes mechanical as well as prescribed fire treatments.

Weed treatment and Site Rehabilitation – includes treating noxious weeds and cheatgrass and reseeding the sites afterward. This will reduce the amount of cheatgrass (flammable materials) and probability of increased fire frequency. This is occurring across the Challis Field Office. NEPA has been completed. Ongoing project.

Squaw Creek/Kinnickinic Hazardous fuels reduction/aspen restoration. Currently being scoped. Planned mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. Implenentation planned to begin in 2008.

SREC transmission line clearing. Continuing project partnership between BLM and SREC.

Poverty Flats fuels reduction and whitebark pine improvement.”

A public workshop mid-April is needed to satisfy the public involvement element of the plan. This workshop notice needs to be published in the local paper and advertised on the radio. Whisper Mountain will provide a summary of the committee planning and purpose of the workshop meeting to Doug for advertisement. Possible dates for the meeting will

215 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 also be submitted for choice and approval of one. Rick thanked everyone for their valuable contributions to the plan.

216 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County AHMP Committee Members Attendance Roster February 26, 2008

Agency Representative Position Email

Sawtooth Valley Rural Fire Andy Gunderson Fire Chief [email protected]

North Custer Fire Launna Gunderson Fire Chief [email protected]

Salmon/Challis National Forest Bill Blount [email protected]

Custer County Disaster Services Doug Hammond Coordinator [email protected]

City of Challis Don Varney [email protected]

Salmon River Electric Rick Leuzinger [email protected]

Stanley Ambulance Sanda Willizla [email protected]

Thompson Creek Mine Patrick Gannon Staff Engineer [email protected]

Custer County Commissioner Wayne F Butts Commissioner [email protected]

217 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County All Hazards Mitigation Plan AHMP Workshop Minutes 04-17-08

The Custer County All Hazards Mitigation Plan public workshop was held at the Challis Community Building at 6:00 pm. Doug Hammond, Custer County Disaster Services Coordinator, conducted the meeting. He welcomed all those in attendance and explained the purpose of the meeting. He then turned the time to Rick Fawcett, Whisper Mountain Professional Services, Inc. to facilitate the meeting.

Through a power-point presentation, Rick reviewed the process of planning that had been taken to this point. He emphasized again the reason for this plan is to save lives and protect property. He gave a brief overview of the hazards in Custer County and their historical occurrence. He then explained how the hazards are ranked:

Risk=Frequency X Magnitude

Those in attendance were invited to comment on how the risks should be ranked and why. Custer County has several risks that are high magnitude and high frequency, such as severe weather and earthquake. These risks then affect other things causing them to become risks, such as landslides and power outages.

The major projects chosen for mitigation were:

1. 1.Protecting Power Lines- The single loop power supply is a large area of concern and would warrant a regional project to mitigate. The 3-phase power line dead ends at Smiley Creek, only lacking ½ mile to connect in Custer County. The power poles coming across the desert from INL also need to be protected against fire destruction. Any poles that are in river beds or other threatened areas need to be identified for mitigation. 2. Mackay Dam Alarm- Install a warning system on the unmanned Mackay Dam to warn of dam failure. 3. Red Tree Reduction- The Stanley area stands at great risk for wildland fire due to the high numbers of red trees. Controlled burn or logging should be considered. 4. Harden Dispatch Center- The existing dispatch center is in the courthouse which is an old bricks and mortar building built before Idaho Code reinforcements were required. The dispatch center and the equipment in it need to be hardened against shaking, or a new center should be constructed.

Four smaller projects chosen for mitigation were:

1.The water supply is unprotected. A fence needs to be built around the supply to protect it from animals, snow machine enthusiasts, and other threats.

218 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 2. Digital sign needed prior to icy corner-The Grandview Canyon and “Ice Corner” are areas of the highway where it ices over every year when temperatures are at freezing and there is any moisture on the roads. These areas do not benefit from any sunshine and stay icy. The roads can be bare and dry and then instantly icy without warning. The committee would like to place electronic digital signing prior to these sites that can be activated when there is ice and a threat to the public. Highway 75, at milepost 206, has constant rock-fall and avalanche threat. Both warning and preventive mitigation is in need here. 3. Smoke detectors and fire extinguishers should be placed appropriately in every home in the County. 4. An emergency alert system is needed. Reverse 911 is an option, but very costly.

Engineering for cost estimate needs to be done on these projects before submitting the plan to FEMA for review. At that point they would then be ready to mitigate.

Doug and Rick thanked everyone in attendance for their valuable contributions and the support they have been in the planning process. The changes and additions will be made to the plan and it will then be submitted for review by the State. Their recommendations for change will be implemented and then the plan will go to the County Commissioners for approval.

219 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Custer County AHMP Committee Members Attendance Roster April 17, 2008

Agency Representative Position Email

Stanley Police Department Pete Isner Chief [email protected]

North Custer Fire Launna Gunderson Fire Chief [email protected]

City of Mackay and Mackay Ken Day Public Works [email protected] Fire Asst. Chief Custer County Disaster Services Doug Hammond Coordinator [email protected]

Salmon River Electric Ken Dizes General Manager [email protected]

Thompson Creek Mine Patrick Gannon Staff Engineer [email protected]

Custer County Commissioner Wayne F Butts Commissioner [email protected]

City of Challis Jay Cook Mayor

City of Challis Public Works Don Varney Water Operator [email protected]

220 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

221 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

222 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

223 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Attachment 2 Custer County Questionnaire Results

224 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

This Page Intentionally Blank

225 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Custer County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan

Public Participation Questionnaire

June 2007 Dear Custer County Resident, We need your help! Custer County is embarking on an initiative to assist communities in reducing risk from natural and man-made hazards. This questionnaire is designed to help us understand your perceptions of those hazards. We are developing a strategic plan to prioritize activities designed to assist Custer County communities and residents to reduce their risk from natural and man-made disasters. The information you provide will help improve coordination of risk reduction activities within the County. Your returned survey indicates your willingness to take part in the study. Your participation in this study is voluntary. All individual survey responses are strictly confidential, and are for research purposes only. Your opinions are important to us. Please return your completed survey no later than June 20, 2007 to our technical consultant on this project Whisper Mountain Professional Services, Inc. at 1455 E. Cedar, Pocatello, Idaho, 83201 in the stamped, addressed, return envelope provided. If you have questions regarding the survey, feel free to contact Whisper Mountain Professional Service, Inc. at (208) 478-7982. Thank you for your participation! Sincerely, Doug Hammond, Coordinator, Custer County Disaster Services

1. What town do you live in or near? ______

2. Have you ever experienced or been impacted by a disaster (a sudden event bringing severe damage, loss, or destruction)?  Yes (please explain):______ No

3. How concerned are you about the possibility of our community being impacted by a disaster?  Extremely concerned  Somewhat concerned  Not concerned

226 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 4. Please select the five (5) highest hazards facing your neighborhood.

 Blizzards/Ices Storms/Winter Storms  Hail  Storm Water Erosion  Hazardous Materials  Dam Failure  Land Subsidence (e.g. sinkhole)  Drought  Landslide/Mudslide  Earthquake  Lightening  Expansive Soils  Nuclear  Extreme Cold  Terrorism (bombs/biological/chemical)  Extreme Heat  Tornadoes  Fires  Volcanoes  Air Quality  Flooding – Canal  Flooding – Flash (Ravine)  Wildland Fires  Insect Infestations  High Wind / Wind Storms  Other (please explain):

5. Is there a hazard not listed in this survey that you think is a wide-scale threat to your neighborhood?  Yes (please explain):______ No

Note: Please read before answering questions 6 and 7.

A “flood” as defined by the National Flood Insurance Program is “a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of two of more acres of normally dry land area or two or more properties”. Flood zones are geographic areas that the Federal Disaster Services Agency (FEMA) has defined according to varying levels of flood risk. These zones are depicted on a community’s Flood Hazard Boundary Map or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). It's important to know that if you have a Federally backed mortgage on a home located in a high-risk area, Federal law requires you to purchase flood insurance. Also, if you've received a Federal grant for previous flood losses, you must have a flood insurance policy to qualify for future aid.

6. Is your home located in a floodplain as defined under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)?  I don‟t know  Yes  No

227 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

7. Do you have flood insurance, if required, through a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Carrier?  I don‟t know  Yes  No

If “No”, why not?  Not located in a floodplain  Too expensive  Not necessary because it never floods  Not necessary because I‟m elevated or otherwise protected  Never really considered it  Other (please explain):

8. Have you taken any actions to make your home or neighborhood more resistant to hazards?  Yes  No If “Yes”, please explain: ______

9. Are you interested in making your home or neighborhood more resistant to hazards?  Yes  No

10. What is the most effective way for you to receive information about how to make your home and neighborhood more resistant to hazards?

 Newspaper  Television  Radio  Internet  Mail  Public Workshops/meeting  Other (please explain):

11. In your opinion, what are some steps your county or city governments could take to reduce or eliminate risk of future hazard damages in your neighborhood? ______

12. Are there any other issues regarding the reduction of risk and loss associated with hazards or disasters in the community that you think are important? ______

228 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 13. A number of community-wide activities can reduce our risk from hazards. In general, these activities fall into one of the following six broad categories. Please tell us how important you think each one is for your community to consider pursuing. (See next page)

1. Prevention Administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and buildings are built. Examples include planning and zoning, building codes, open space preservation, and floodplain regulations.  Very Important  Somewhat Important  Not Important

2. Property Protection Actions involve the modification of existing buildings to protect them from a hazard or removal from the hazard area. Examples include acquisition, relocation, elevation, structural retrofits, and storm shutters.  Very Important  Somewhat Important  Not Important

3. Natural Resource Protection Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Examples include: floodplain protection, habitat preservation, slope stabilization, riparian buffers, and forest management.  Very Important  Somewhat Important  Not Important

4. Structural Projects Actions intended to lessen the impact of a hazard by modifying the natural progression of the hazard. Examples include dams, levees, canals, detention/retention basins, channel modification, retaining walls and storm sewers.  Very Important  Somewhat Important  Not Important

5. Emergency Services Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event; examples include warning systems, evacuation planning, emergency response training, and protection of critical emergency facilities or systems.  Very Important  Somewhat Important  Not Important

6. Public Education and Awareness Actions to inform citizens about hazards and the techniques they can use to protect themselves and their property. Examples include outreach projects, school education programs, library materials and demonstration events.  Very Important  Somewhat Important  Not Important

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION

229 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Questionnaire Results

Question 1: What town do you live in or near?

The results of the survey show that the majority of the respondents, at thirty-eight (38) %, live in or near Challis with thirty-five (35) % living in or near Stanley.

Figure 3.1 Place of Residence

Question 3: How concerned are you about the possibility of our community being impacted by a disaster?

Just over half the respondents are only somewhat concerned about a disaster while sixteen (16) % were extremely concerned.

Figure 3.2 How concerned are you about disaster?

The next question, what are the five highest hazards facing your community very closely resembles the results of the perception tool used in the AHMP Committee.

230 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Question 4: Please select the five highest hazards facing your neighborhood?

The results from this survey listed the five highest hazards facing the community as: 6. Wildland Fires 7. Earthquake 8. Structural Fires 9. Drought 10. Blizzards

With the immense tracts of public forested land, wildland fires are a real concern in Custer County.

The five highest hazards listed by the AHMP Committee were interestingly very close to the general public. They were:

1. Wildland Fires 2. Earthquake 3. Structure Fire Figure 3.3 4. Blizzards Hazard Facing Custer County 5. Drought

231 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Question 6: Is your home located in a flood plain?

Number of Percent responses Yes 3 9.7% No 21 67.7% Don't Know 7 22.6% Total 31 100%

Figure 3.4 Is your home located in a flood plain?

Question 7: Do you have flood insurance?

Number of Percent Responses Yes 2 6.7% No 24 80.0% Don't Know 4 13.3% Total 30 100%

Figure 3. 5 Do you have flood insurance? If “no” why not?

Number of Responses Percent Not located in a floodplain 14 56.0% Not necessary because it never floods 2 8.0% Not necessary because I'm elevated or otherwise protected 4 16.0% Never really considered it 3 12.0% Other 2 8.0% Total 25 100%

Table 3.1 - Reasons for not carrying flood insurance

232 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Although only a very small portion of Custer County is in the FEMA designated flood plain 10% of the respondents indicated that they live in a flood plain and 7% of respondents indicated they have flood insurance.

Question 8: Have you taken any actions to make our home or neighborhood more resistant to hazards?

Number Percent Yes 20 64.5% No 11 35.5% Total 31 100%

Figure 3.6 Have you taken actions to make your home more resistant to hazards?

If “yes” explain

Well over half of respondents have taken actions to make their home more resistant to hazards. Actions listed most frequently were those that reinforce or protect the home itself such as creating a green zone around the home.

Figure 3.7 What actions have you taken to make your home more resistant?

233 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Question 9: Are you interested in making your home or neighborhood more resistant to hazards?

Number of Percent Responses Yes 22 73.3% No 8 26.7% Total 30 100%

Figure 3.8 Are you interested in making your home more resistant to hazards?

This particular question is very important because many of the mitigation actions that might be taken by the County may require individual property owners to take individual actions and in some cases bear the cost of the mitigation.

Question 10: What is the most effective way for you to receive information about how to make your home and neighborhood more resistant to hazards?

Number of Responses Newspaper 7 Television 3 Radio 1

Internet 13 Table 3.2 Mail 19 What is the most effective way for you to Public Meeting 7 receive information? Other 3 Previous research done by Dr. Hank Jenkins-Smith, the Coordinator of the University of New Mexico‟s Risk Perception Center as well as Dr. Paul Solvic43 and others indicated that the public receives 72% of their information regarding risk through television yet the respondents in the County indicated that they would rather have information provided to them either through the mail or through the internet with only three respondents indicating television. This is a very important finding.

43 Gregory, Robin, James Flynn, Paul Slovic, Technological Stigma, Risk, Media, and Stigma, Understanding the Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology, Edited by James Flynn, Paul Slovic, and Howard Kunreuther, Earthscan, 1995, reprinted 2001, pages 3-8

234 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009

Question 11: In your opinion, what are some steps our county or city government could take to reduce or eliminate risk of future hazard damages in your neighborhood?

Reducing fuels in the forest (including allowing logging) is viewed as the most important step government can take to reduce future hazard damages. Having a plan is also viewed as an important step the government can take.

Related information on this and other questions can be found in Attachment 2 Public Questionnaire Results.

Figure 3.9 Steps government can take to reduce hazard damages

235 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Question 14: A number of community-wide activities can reduce our risk from hazards. In general, these activities fall into one of the following six broad categories. Please tell us how important you think each one is for your community to consider pursuing.

The final question in the survey provides the basis for understanding the perception of the public. As indicated in earlier questions over 70% of the public indicated that they would like to make their community more resistant to disaster. It is interesting to note that here Property Protection is perceived to be the least important and Public Education more important, however, in an earlier question respondents indicated that they have taken steps to protect and Figure 3.10 reinforce their property. Community-wide activities that can reduce our risk from hazards In a separate question they indicated that public education was not the most important step government can take. The general perception here appears to be that the public believes that mitigation can be done through provision of emergency services and public education and awareness. While both of these preparedness activities are critical to the overall Disaster Services program, mitigation actions require the public to understand the concepts of prevention and protection. Custer County residents may feel that on the individual level, prevention and protection is important, but on the community level, public education is more important.

236 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 Open-ended questions

Question 8: Have you taken any actions to make your home or neighborhood more resistant to hazards? 1. Propane fireplace not dependant on electricity supplemental heating 2. Have reduced dry grass junk away from buildings 3. Green zone around house 4. Clear area around home, tree removal 5. put in a diversion for extra spring water runoff. 2x6 construction on back wall for wind shear 6. Reduced tree cover to reduce wildfire risk Wood stove/monarch stove/generator for power outages 6000 gallons of H20, pump, 600‟ hose for wildfire protection 7. Timber & fuel clearing 8. Clear brush 9. Clear brush, trim trees from ground to 8‟, rake up pine needles, cut dead trees 10. I took down some dead trees 11. Storm windows? 12. Widened canel 13. Place rip rap and bank protection on Salmon River 14. cut dead trees and trimmed old trees @ a cost of over $2,000 15. safe building materials/methods for fire protection clearing around house for fire 16. Reduced vegetation near structure 17. Have cleared defensible space, cut trees & low branches close to house, installed sprinkler system and a pond & dry hydrant to protect against forest fires. Have installed a generator to deal with power outages due to ice storms. Have sprayed tress for years to reduce insect infestation 18. Cleared to protect from forest fires 19. Water for fires Metal roof for fires Rip rap creek – floods

Question 11: In your opinion, what are some steps your county or city government could take to reduce or eliminate risk of future hazard damages in your neighborhood? 1. Put pressure on Federal Government and State Government and Fish and Game to reduce and control wolf population 2. I have attached a copy of an analysis I conducted of the irrigation districts response plan, as compared against the Natl. Dam Safety Program Act in 2000. No action was taken. You might find this paper of value as you prepare you mitigation plan. It can be applied to all hazards 3. Knowledge 4. Better weed control 5. Have a good emergency response program – organized & determined before event 6. Forest Service should allow logging to keep forest healthy

237 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 wolves should be removed consult God 7. Electric utility needs a backup generator (like 40-60 ku) @ Stanley to use if power supply goes down in extreme cold. Need H20 sources, storage to fight wildland fire Need backup medical, food, rescue etc in event of a major earthquake 8. Get forest service to allow more logging 9. Already have – improved fire protection 10. National government Iraq- either fight a are & get something done or get out 11. Clean up areas where logging has occurred. Some loggers in our area did not do an adequate job of cleaning up. This could be a fire hazard 12. Shelters? Reducing hazards on private property (fires) 13. Put a colvert in the canal to prevent West Nile Virus exposure in the so subdivision area 14. water master can ensure that individuals are using water appropriately in the amounts that are designated by each water right. The community can support prescribed burns to reduce forest fuel to mitigate fires 15. be proactive and prioritize the hazards. Develop a plan to make necessary repairs to take the risk down 16. Not much – our neighborhood is in a fairly safe are. Perhaps a reliable radio system 17. Examine Mackay Dam by qualified individual(s) often 18. fire mitigation plans, removal of dead trees 19. Allow more firewood cutting/reduction of fuels 20. Establish permanent infrastructures (phones, power connections) for FS Fire camp; establish back up power source for the city of Stanley; provide incentives for homeowners to make their homes defensible against wildfires; create a telephone network system (i.e. neighbors designated to call neighbors & be called by city/county gov‟t) in case of major hazard. 21. Better placement of fire units 22. Harvest forests - fires Bank up stream flows Education on germ war far & nuclear

Question 12: Are there any other issues regarding the reduction of risk and loss associated with hazards or disasters in the community that you think are important? 1. public notification & participation 2. Elect new County commissioners that care about private property rights and uphold the constitution of the United States also, who actually represent the people who elected them 3. Back up generators or and pump @ both gas stations to access gasoline/diesel during a disaster Back up generator @ medical clinic (fire dept has one) Bedding, food, drinks for up to 100 people for 2 weeks 4. Flood plain control. We are stupidly building in our flood plain!

238 Custer County Multi-Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan Final January 6, 2009 5. I‟m not to worryed about a man made disaster as Mackay is pretty small, & I don‟t think there is much man come do about the acts of God. 6. Fire is our most important consideration. A method of early warning would be helpful, & a plan of evacuation 7. Need weekend opinion in the medical clinic for emergencies 8. Very concerned about inadequate planning regarding individuals with weapons injuring students or worse. Is there a disaster plan at the high school for such an incident? The Sheriff‟s dept.? The town police? This should be addressed, as it can happen here. 9. Fire protection – wild fires 10. community evacuation/hazard planning disaster planning/education 11. Yes! We are taxed for fire protection but none are available because we are outside of the immediate Stanley area

239